A Multipath Development Framework for Inter-Organizational Relationships: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies

Abstract

Purpose This review paper identifies and compares models of inter-organizational relationship development that have evolved in qualitative studies and then proposes an original, situational framework for the evolution of inter-organizational relationships over time. Design/methodology/approach Methodologically, this paper follows a systematic approach and uses metasynthesis of prior qualitative research as a reviewing technique. Findings The analysis of prior qualitative investigations reveals the lack of consistency among authors referring to the number and specificity of phases, with no agreement about the trajectory of relationship development (its linearity, looping of phases, dynamics, start and end points). Originality/value As its main theoretical contribution, this paper offers a multipath framework covering four phases of relationship development: (1) initiation and initial development, (2) development, (3) maintenance, and (4) dissolution, with three possible subphases to each of them (active, passive, and re-activated). From the managerial perspective, the developed framework may broaden managers' understanding and awareness of the different approaches to modeling the trajectory of the inter-organizational relationship life cycle and configuration of its particular phases.

The configuration of inter-organizational relationship features in the life cycle perspective

“…Second, we asked the respondents to identify in what phase of the life cycle is currently the chosen IOR. Particular phases of the IOR life cycle: Initial (I), Development (D), Maintenance (M), Dormant/End (D/E), and Reactivation (R) were described following Klimas et al. (in press).…”

“…Ford, 1980; Dwyer et al. , 1987; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994) and can be summed up in a five-phase approach covering the following phases (Klimas et al. , in press): initial, development, maintenance, dormant/end, and reactivation.…”

The role of third actors in the dyadic business relationship initiation: an empirical perspective of sommelier in the wine context

“…Trust could also be defined as the belief and confidence in the potential business partner's reliability and integrity (Zafari et economic and social aspects (Abosag and Lee, 2013;Hastings et al, 2016). During this phase, actors experience uncertainty; therefore, business actors engage in an important communication process to build preliminary organisational and individual trust (Lasrado et al, 2023;Mandj ak et al, 2015), define mutual goals and relationship boundaries (Hastings et al, 2016;Klimas et al, 2023). This process requires adaptation to the counterpart's needs, making this phase full of objective and subjective evaluations (Hingley et al, 2008;Mandj ak et al, 2015;Valtakoski, 2015).…”

“…In a nutshell, the rationale for the study recognises that: (1) in BSRI, there is a need for more empirical studies (Klimas et al, 2023); (2) to the best of our knowledge, empirical contributions to the understanding of the role of third actors in BSRI are scarce (Aarikka-Stenroos et al, 2018), and (3) no empirical studies have highlighted the role of sommeliers in the BSRI between small wineries and starred restaurants yet (Alonso, 2011;Velikova et al, 2019). Therefore, this study develops a field study to unfold theoretical and managerial contributions to the abovementioned literature streams.…”

“…turbulent business landscape, Wadell and Bengtson, 2023;Zafari et al, 2023), the BSRI literature appears fragmented (Valtakoski, 2015): there is no shared consensus about the nomenclature of the phases involved and their progression (for a detailed overview see Table 1). Even though every BSRI path is peculiar and context-specific, it is possible to observe some minor patterns or regularities allowing to systematise the process (Klimas et al, 2023;Sabatini et al, 2021).…”