Estimating Firm-Specific and Relational Properties in Interorganizational Relationships in Marketing

Editorial: Survey Research Design in Supply Chain Management: The Need for Evolution in Our Expectations

“…However, data on what they called sentiments variables were not comparable; there were real differences in perceptions across the dyad, which they attributed to key informants' inability to make the complex social judgments needed to estimate attitudinal scores at the organization level. Anderson et al (2016) reported similar findings, noting significant agreement across dyads about structural relationship properties, such as formalization and centralization of decision-making, but lack of agreement on scores for dyadic sentiments, including domain consensus and accomplishments from the relationship. Based on their empirical findings in a similar study, Roh et al (2013) recommended that research that uses a single source must either be positioned so that the research question is targeted at only one side of a relationship or provide an explicit theoretical, practical, and empirical rationale for the validity of using this design to explain a polyadic construct.…”

“…Anderson et al. () reported similar findings, noting significant agreement across dyads about structural relationship properties, such as formalization and centralization of decision‐making, but lack of agreement on scores for dyadic sentiments, including domain consensus and accomplishments from the relationship. Based on their empirical findings in a similar study, Roh et al.…”

“…The other source of observed score contamination is systematic error, which affects the measurement of different variables in a similar way (Roh et al, 2013;Van Bruggen et al, 2002). It is the stable variance component of a score, due to the idiosyncratic perspective of individual respondents (Anderson, Zerrillo & Wang, 2016). For example, a respondent who is fundamentally optimistic about the future may consistently select higher scores across variables than one who is fundamentally pessimistic.…”

“…'s commentary () likens using a single respondent to study supply chain relationships to a marriage counselor asking questions about a marriage to only one spouse. Asking purchasing managers how decisions are made in the operations function or a buying firm about its supplier's perceptions and how they affect outcomes is incomplete and provides a distorted view of the relationship (Anderson et al., ). “Presuming that one party mirrors the other is potentially erroneous” (Roh et al., , p. 713).…”

Franchise Partnership and International Expansion: A Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions

“…However, to measure firm-specific properties, either side of the dyad likely can provide adequate information as long as there is no key informant bias (i.e., the position of the person surveyed cannot influence his or her perspective) and the impact of measure specificity (i.e., variance due to stable measurement properties, such as wording) is reduced through careful selection of the key informants and questionnaire construction (Anderson, Zerrillo, & Wang, 2006). Because EO and dependence are both firm-level constructs and can be measured as firm-level properties, either side of the partnership can support data collection.…”