Effects of Alternative Types of Influence Strategies under Different Channel Dependence Structures

Abstract

Scenarios were used in a factorial design to analyze how a broker's dependence on a principal interacts with the principal's use of influence strategies to affect the broker's behavior. Results indicate that the broker's readiness to respond to the principal's requests was determined primarily by the broker's dependence. The broker's attitudes were affected by dependence and the principal's influence strategies.

Effects of Dependence and Trust on Channel Satisfaction, Commitment and Cooperation

“…However, not many of them studied the effects of dependence and trust separately (Kale, 1986;Keith et al, 1990) perhaps because of the implicit, but erroneous, assumption that dependence relations are characterized by trusting relations. Despite lack of trust, parties involved in a dependence relationship may continue the relationship because of the benefits it provides to both the parties (Arrow, 1974).…”

Toward an encompassing theory of business marketing relationships (BMRS) and interpersonal commercial relationships (ICRS): An empirical generalization

“…In turn, greater balance in power structures has positive impacts on trust (Anderson and Weitz, 1989;Kumar, et al, 1995a;Moorman, et al, 1993;Scheer and Stern, 1992), the absence of conflict (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Frazier and Rody, 1991;Kumar, et al, 1995a), commitment (Anderson and Weitz, 1989;Gundlach, et al, 1995;Kumar, et al, 1995a), and positive performance outcomes (Buchanan, 1992;Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993;Keith, et al, 1990;Mohr, et al, 1996;Rinehart and Page, 1992;Scheer and Stern, 1992). Interdependence also contributes to balanced power (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Buchanan, 1992;Gundlach and Cadotte, 1994;Rinehart and Page, 1992).…”

“…Successful relational outcomes are enhanced by an absence of conflict (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993;Mohr, et al, 1996), the presence of trust (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Doney and Cannon, 1997), communication (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Mohr, et al, 1996), interdependence (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Buchanan, 1992;Keith, et al, 1990;Lusch and Brown, 1996), a symmetric balance of power between the partners (Buchanan, 1992;Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993;Keith, et al, 1990;Mohr, et al, 1996;Rinehart and Page, 1992;Scheer and Stern, 1992), and a long-term relationship orientation (Anderson and Weitz, 1989;Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993;Doney and Cannon, 1997;Ganesan, 1993;Kalwani and Narayandas, 1995;Lusch and Brown, 1996). Giving mutual goals a high priority also contributes to their success (Buchanan, 1992;Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993;Heide and John, 1990).…”

“…Boyle, Dwyer, Robicheaux, and Simpson, 1992;Keith, et al, 1990;Scheer and Stern, 1992). These attempts at influence are of interest because balanced, symmetric power structures are thought to be more conducive to mutual, long-lasting relationships (Buchanan, 1992).…”

“…The former state is desirable for effective relationships, the latter begins to resemble undesirable unbalanced power structures. The more interdependent are two business partners, the closer their relationship, nearly by definition: the more they communicate (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Lusch and Brown, 1996), the more balanced their power (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Buchanan, 1992;Gundlach and Cadotte, 1994;Rinehart and Page, 1992), the greater their adaptability or flexibility (Hallen, et al, 1991;Heide, 1994;Lusch and Brown, 1996), the greater the likelihood of maintaining their long-term relationship (Ganesan, 1994;Lusch and Brown, 1996), and the better their performance outcomes (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Buchanan, 1992;Keith, et al, 1990;Lusch and Brown, 1996).…”