Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This article examines the relationship between two causes of conflict: domain dissensus
andperceptual incongruity, and the levels of conflict and cooperation within a marketing
channel dyad. Utilizing a national sample of food broker-food wholesaler dyads, four
hypotheses were tested-two
relating domain dissensus and two relating perceptual
incongruity to conflictlcooperation.
Results indicated no significant relationship
between either perceptual incongruities or domain dissensus and the level of conflict
found in the dyad, while a significant negative relationship was found between both
perceptual incongruities and domain dissensus and the level of cooperation in the dyad.
0148-2963/82/020237-14$2.75
Wichita
237
238
Marketing
Channel
239
240
Rohert
F. Lusch
Marketing Channel
241
would be rating only their business relationship with the oposite member
of their dyad. They were then mailed a questionnaire. As an incentive,
all participants were promised a copy of a managerial summary. After
one followup there were 54 usable responses. The data are unique in
terms of channels research since 1) both sides of a specific dyad are
surveyed, and 2) the 54 percent response rate indicates a high interest
level among participating subject in the results of the research.
Measurement
Channel Conflict and Cooperation.
Rosenberg and
Stem [21] used as a measure of conflict the absolute difference between
channel members evaluation of the performance of the dyad on conflictrelated issues. This approach fails to distinguish between a cause of
conflict and conflict itself, as no measure of actual conflict was
performed. Lusch [lo] operationalized the measure of conflict in the
marketing channel as the frequency of intramember disagreements.
Although frequency of disagreement was measured, the intensity of the
disagreements was not measured.
Pearson [ 151 measured the conflictual and cooperative orientation in
the channel by generating a list of 30 adjectives, 15 having content
validity in the measurement of conflict and 15 having content validity in
the measurement of cooperation. Each adjective was accompanied by a
Stapel scale ranging from + 5 to + 1 and from - 1 to -5. Respondents
assigned a positive number to those adjectives that were good descriptors
of the situation in their channel, and a negative number to those that were
poor descriptors, with the magnitude of goodness or poorness reflected
in the absolute size of the assigned number. The extent to which the
conflictually based adjectives were deemed to be good descriptors
indicated the level of conflict in the channel, while the extent to which
the cooperatively
based adjectives were deemed good descriptors
indicated the level of cooperation in the channel. This measure
corresponds to Pondys felt conflict stage. It is in this stage that
conflict affects the way in which the parties involved in a conflict episode
feel about each other, and therefore might be expected to color their
working relationship.
Pearson tested this procedure on two channel segments, one known to
be conflictual, the other cooperative. Through discriminant analysis 10
of the 30 adjectives were found to be statistically significant in their
predictive power regarding membership in cooperative or conflictual
dyads. This set of ten adjectives had criterion validity. This list of
adjectives consisted of five that were cooperative (coordination, coalition of interests, respectfulness, mutual confidence, companionship)
and five that were conflictual (unreasonable demands, crossness,
inconsistency, emotional outbursts, dissension).
242
Robert
F Lusch
In the study at hand, these ten adjectives, with a lo-point Stapel scale,
were used to measure the level of felt channel conflict and cooperation.
A major concern with this methodology is that channel members might
resist making responses that would indicate the presence of conflict out
of fear of damaging their business relationships with the opposite
member of the dyad. To overcome this concern, respondents were
assured both during the original telephone contact and in writing on the
questionnaire as to the confidentiality of their response.
Domain Dissensus.
Domain dissensus in a channel dyad refers to the
absence of agreement between members of the dyad regarding their
respective performance of functions, activities, or decision makingspecifically, whose domain these functions, activities, or decision fall
within. After consulting with food brokers and food wholesalers and
reviewing the trade literature, a list of ten activities or functions
involving wholesalers marketing policies was developed. These policy
areas related to wholesalers of product line, pricing policies, inventory
levels, sales promotion policies, product mix, addition of new products,
in-bound transportation decisions, product deletion, order size, and
overall operation. For each of these areas, the food broker and food
wholesaler may not reach a consensus regarding who should have
primary influence, both feeling that their position or expertise should
allow them to influence the policy.
To assess whether dissensus was present in these areas, dyad members
responded to a 5-point rating scale regarding their relative influence in
each area. A Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Test allowed an evaluation of
differences between the broker and wholesalers position, and indicated
in which of the ten policy areas significant differences existed between
brokers and wholesalers. At the .05 significance level, dissensus was
found in the following areas: pricing policies, product mix, order size,
product deletion, and overall operations. In each case brokers felt they
should have more influence than wholesalers were willing to grant.
Domain dissensus scale scores were constructed by summing together
the absolute values of the differences in these five areas for each dyad.
Thus in a particular wholesaler-broker dyad, a higher domain dissensus
score would result if there is considerable disagreement as to who has the
major influence on each of the five domain dissensus areas.
The domain dissensus scale has content validity since the domain
areas were obtained through field discussions with wholesalers and
brokers and from the trade literature. Additionally, the scale was limited
to areas in which there was consensus between the members of the dyad.
Criterion validity was assessed by testing hypotheses one and three in
which the domain dissensus scale was correlated with the conflict and the
cooperation scales. Although no relationship was found between domain
Marketing
Channel
243
Nofe:
level.
Conflict
Variables
dissensus
scale
incongruity
76 = 0.05
Q! = 0.30
76 = 0.01
01 = 0.45
scale
~b refers to Kendalls
Scale
tau measure
of correlation
and
Variables
Cooperation
Scale
TV= -0.26
01 = 0.007
7* = -0.25
01 = 0.007
and o refers to the significance
244
Robert
F. Lusch
discussions with food brokers and food wholesalers. The final set of 24
assistances is provided in the Appendix.
Both wholesalers and brokers rated the importance of these assistances to the wholesalers on a 9-point scale. A nonapplicable category
was provided to allow respondents to indicate assistances that were not
provided. Each party was told to evaluate only the other member of his or
her dyad. A Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Test was performed on
wholesalers and brokers responses to each of the 24 assistances. The
results, at the .05 level, showed significant differences in importance
ratings on five of the asistances: 1) describing requirements necessary for
payments of advertising, display, or trade allowance; 2) describing
advertising ideas successfully used elsewhere; 3) arranging for disposition of damaged merchandise; 4) resetting sections within retail
outlets; and 5) providing coordination with transportation or warehousing intermediaries.
To construct the perceptual incongruities scale, the absolute values of
the difference scores for each of these five assistances were summed for
each dyad. As an example, in a specific dyad, if the wholesaler rates an
assistance of low importance but the broker rates it high, this dyad would
be characterized by a high score on the perceptual incongruities scale.
The perceptual incongruities scale has content validity since it was
drawn from discussions with industry representatives and a trade journal
study. The final scale included only the five assistances on which brokers
and wholesalers had incongruent perceptions. The criterion validity of
the scale was assessed through testing hypotheses two and four, thus
revealing that the perceptual incongruities scale correlates with the
cooperation but not the conflict scale. As was true of the domain
dissensus scale, the perceptual incongruities scale has control validity.
There exists a direct empirical referent for the scale in terms of the broker
assistances. If there are perceptual incongruities regarding the importance of these assistances, the broker and wholesaler can in principle
rectify the situation and thus control the degree of perceptual incongruity.
Finally, the perceptual incongruity scale is reliable as
evidenced by the computed coefficient alpha of .78.
Results
Table I provides a summary of the results of testing hypotheses 1 through
4.
To test hypothesis one, that the greater the domain dissensus, the
greater the level of felt conflict, r, was computed between the domain
dissensus and conflict scales. The obtained r6 of .05 was not statistically
significant at the .05 level. Although no relationship can be dem-
Marketing
Channel
245
246
study had been dealing with each other for 20 years and domain
dissensus and perceptual incongruity should have already surfaced.
Third, response bias may have been operative, in that only the more
cooperative dyads may have completed their questionnaires. Although
the response rate is high enough to minimize this concern, if more
conflicting dyads had been included as respondents, it might have been
possible to demonstrate a more significant relationship between conflict
and perceptual incongruities and/or domain dissensus.
Fourth, domain dissensus and perceptual incongruity may have been
perceived but had not resulted in any feelings of stress, tension, or
hostility (i.e., felt conflict). We believe this fourth possible explanation
to be the most likely one. Significant dissensus was found in only five of
the ten domain areas investigated. Similarly, 24 areas were investigated
for perceptual incongruity and in only 5 were perceptions significantly
different between broker and wholesaler. A rather cooperative set of
brokers and wholesalers was selected, which is somewhat surprising
since exploratory interviews with brokers and wholesalers in Kansas and
Oklahoma indicated that the potential for considerable domain dissensus
and perceptual incongruity existed.
Surprisingly, although not found to be related to conflict, domain
dissensus and perceptual incongruity were related to cooperation.
Domain dissensus and perceptual incongruity could have been expected
to be related to conflict and nor cooperation, since the conflict literature
identifies them as causes of conflict, while the cooperation literature
does not directly identify them as causes of cooperation.
A possile explanation of this finding is that by reducing domain
dissensus and perceptual incongruity, cooperation in the channel can be
fostered because members of the channel become more able to
coordinate
their activities when they agree on domains and the
importance of assistances. But the opposite does not necessarily hold.
When they do not agree on domains or the importance of assistances,
they may not feel conflict or behave in a conflictual way because they
may not get frustrated. They may view some (probably low) level of
domain dissensus and perceptual incongruity as healthy since their
diversity of opinion may help the dyad make better channel decisions.
This could be especially true in this research setting since relatively little
domain dissensus and perceptual incongruity was present in the broker
and wholesaler dyad.
Conclusions
The results of this study seem to provide support for Schermerhoms [24]
observation that conflict and cooperation have common roots, with the
Marketing Channel
247
248
Robert
F. I,usch
1.
Alderson,
2.
3.
Bonoma,
Thomas V., Conflict,
Cooperation
Brhav. Sci. 21 (November
1976): 497-514.
4.
Cadotte,
Ernest R., and Stern, Louis W., A Process Model of interorganizational
working paper, Graduate
School of ManageRelations
in Marketing
Channels,
ment, Northwestern
University,
1977.
5.
and Trust
III., 1965.
in Distributive
in Three
Power
Contlict
Systems,
Distributor
Brands and Conflicts in DibChannels: Behavioral Dimensions. Louis
1969, 188-194.
Marketing
Channel
249
Hum. Rel. 2 (1949):
6.
Deutsch,
129-152.
Morton,
I.
Deutsch,
1973.
Morton,
8.
9.
ATheory
ofCooperation
The Resolufion
and Competition,
of Conflict.
Yale University
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Padberg, Daniel I., Todays Food BrokerChain Store Age Books, New York, 1971.
15.
16.
Pearson, Michael M., and Monoky, John F., The Role of Conflict and Cooperation in Channel Performance,
in Marketing: 1776-I 976 and Beyond. Kenneth L.
Bernhardt,
ed., American Marketing Association,
Chicago, 1976, 240-244.
17.
Pondy, Louis
12 (September
18.
Progressive
19.
Reve, Torger,
Channels,Acad.
20.
Robicheaux,
ing Channel
21.
Rosenberg,
Larry J., and Stern, Louis W., Conflict Measurement
tion Channel, J. Marketing Res. 8 (November
1971): 437442.
22.
Rosenberg,
Larry J., and Stern, Louis W., Toward the Analysis of Conflict in Distribution Channels: A Descriptive Model, J. Murketing 34 (October
1970): 40-46.
23.
Rosenbloom,
the Decision
and Cooperation
L. George Smith,
R., Organizational
1967): 296-320.
Grocers
Salesman
Conflict:
Study,
Operating
on Intrachannel
PerformConflict,
J.
Concepts
Cycle.
Results Associated
unpublished
Ph.D.
and Satisfaction
Ph.D. disserta-
1973):
Relations,
62-l
lo.
in Marketing
A., and El-Ansary, Adel I., A General Model for UnderstandBehavior, J. Retailing 52 (Winter 1976): 13-30, 93-94.
in the Distribu-
Models for
Robert
250
R., Determinants
1975): 846-856.
of Interorganizational
F. Lusch
Schermerhorn,
John
Mgt. J. 18 (December
2.5.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Zaltman,
Gerald, Pinson, R. A., and Angelmar,
Reinhart, Metatheory
sumer Research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1973.
Investigation
dissertation,
Cooperation,
Acud.
24.
of Conflict
Department
and Power in
of Marketing,
and Con-