Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Interorganizational Relations in
Marketing Channels
James R. Brown, D.B.A.
State University of New York at Buffalo
and
Sherman A. Timmins, Ph.D.
University of Toledo
INTRODUCTION
Marrett (1971), Aldrich (1972, 1979) and Van de Ven, Emmett, and
Koenig (1975) have identified four types or dimensions of relational
properties pertaining to inteorganizational networks. First, the de-
gree of formalization refers to the extent to which the transactions or
interdependencies among organizations are officially sanctioned by
those organizations. Moreover, the extent to which a coordinating
agency, such as the United Way, operates between them also affects
the degree of formalization among organizations.
A second dimension of interorganizational relations is the degreeof
intensity or the degree of involvement required of the various or-
ganizations in the network. Two indicators of intensity are the size
of the resource investment and the frequency with which the or-
ganizations interact (Marrett 1971; Aldrich 1972, 1979). A third mea-
sure of this dimension is the scope of the relationship, the number of
tasks or issues about which the organizations interact (Reve 1978).
The degree of reciprocity is the third dimension of interorganiza-
tional relations. Reciprocity is the extent to which some organiza-
tions are more influential than others in matters pertaining to the
relationship. "In this discussion, resource reciprocity refers to the
extent to which elements [i.e., resources] are mutually exchanged"
(Marrett 1971:93). Definitional reciprocity is the degree of mutuality
achieved in setting the terms of the relationship. Finally, the degree
of interdependency indicates the extent to which the organizations
are mutually dependent upon each other for scarce resources.
The fourth dimension of interorganizational relations is the degree
of standardization of the units and procedures of exchange. Unit
standardization refers to " . . . t h e extent of similarity between indi-
vidual units of the resources in a transaction" (Aldrich 1979:277)
while procedural standardization is fixedness of the procedures for
exchange.
The indicants of these four dimensions of interorganizational
relations may also be categorized according to whether they are
substructural or superstructural elements of interorganizational
networks (Benson 1975). Superstructural elements are the senti-
ments and behavior of the interacting organizations while sub-
structural elements refer to the power/dependence basis (Benson
1975) or the exchange basis (Levine and White 1961) of the relation-
ship. The frequency of interaction among organizations is classified
BROWNANDTIMMINS 165
SOME HYPOTHESES
Intensity
The more resources an organization invests in a channel relation-
ship, the more formalized it expects that relationship to be (Marrett
1971). In franchised channels, for example, the franchisee must
invest large sums of money to gain the right to market a particular
product or service. On the other hand, the franchisor has usually
developed a heavily demanded product or service whose favorable
market image he strives to maintain. Because both organizations
have such large investments in each other, franchise contracts are
used to formalize their interdpendencies (Stephenson and House
1971).
When channel members align in more formalized channel
arrangements, the resources required to insure proper coordination
of their activities are greater than in less formalized channel
structures. Thus, increased formalization may lead to greater re-
source investments in the interorganizational relationship (Marrett
1971). This discussion suggests the following hypothesis:
HI: Increases in the degree of formalization in marketing chan-
nel interactions are associated with increases in the size of
investment each channel member must make in that
relationship.
Reciprocity
For channel relationships to exist, each channel member must
perceive that resources are being mutually exchanged. If a channel
m e m b e r believes that the benefits of belonging to the channel are
not commensurate with the resources required, the channel
member either will try to alter this "inducement/contributions"
balance or will withdraw from the channel relationship. No matter
h o w the marketing channel is coordinated, a certain degree of
resource reciprocity is necessary for that channel to exist. Although
this level of reciprocity may vary according to the basis of coordina-
tion, the differences are very slight. Accordingly, the third
hypothesis is as follows:
H3: No significant differences exist in the degree of resource
reciprocity across the various degrees of formalization in
marketing channel relationships.
Standardization
Standardization of the units and procedures of exchange enables
interacting organizations to operate more efficiently by reducing the
transaction costs per unit of effort (Litwak and Hylton 1962, Aldrich
1979). Marketing channels often utilize inteorganizational data
networks to increase transactional efficiency (Stern and Craig 1971,
Reve 1978). For such networks to be effective, however, central
coordination is necessary to insure that all channel members ac-
tively participate in them. Moreover, Etgar (1976) found that chan-
nel members in centrally-controlled marketing systems in the insur-
ance industry tended to have more standardized recordkeeping
practices than those in market-controlled systems. Thus, the final
hypothesis states that:
H6: More standardized relations among channel members are
found in more formalized marketing channels.
170 SUBSTRUCTURALDIMENSIONSOF INTERORGANIZAT|ONAL
RELATIONSIN MARKETINGCHANNELS
TABLE i
Substructural
Dimension of Type of Marketin$ Channel
Interorganizational
Relations Conventional Administered Contractual Corporate
Degree of
Formalization Low < > High
Degree of
Intensity
Size of
Resource
Low High
Investment
Scope of
Interaction Low < > High
Degree of
Reciprocity
Resource
No Significant Differences
Reciprocity
Definitional
High -> Low
Reciprocity
CONCLUSIONS
NOTE
1
Corporate channels are not interorganizational networks in their strictest sense.
However, because the various distributive functions are performed by distinct sub-
units, these subunits are considered to be quasi-independent and, thus, comprise the
most formalized of the four types of marketing channels.
REFERENCES
Institutional Perspective: 11-37. Kent, Oh.: Kent State University Center for Busi-
ness and Economic Research.
9 1979. Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall.
Benson, J. Kenneth 1975. "The InterorganizationalNetwork as a Political Economy."
Administrative Science Quarterly, 20: 229-249.
Davidson, William R. 1970. "Changes in Distributive Institutions." Journal of Market-
ing, 34:7-10.
Dill, William R. 1958. "Environment a~ an Influence on Managerial Autonomy."
Administrative Science Quarterly, 2:409-443.
Etgar, Michael 1976. "Effects of Administrative Control on Efficiency of Vertical
Marketing Systems." Journal of Marketing Research, 13:12-24.
Guetzkow, Harold 1966. "Relations Among Organizations." In Raymond V. Bowers
(ed.), Studies on Behavior in Organizations: A Research Symposium: 13-44. Athens, Ga.:
University of Georgia Press9
Hunt, Shelby D. 1972. "The Socioeconomic Consequences of the Franchised System
of Distribution." Journal of Marketing, 36:32-38.
Levine, Sol and Paul E. White 1961. "Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the
Study of InterorganizationalRelationships." Administrative Science Quarterly 5:583-
601.
Litwak, Eugene and Lydia F. Hylton 1962. "|nterorganizational Analysis: A
Hypothesis on Co-ordinating Agencies." Adminsitrative Science Quarterly, 6:395-
420.
Marrett, Cora Bagley 1971. "On the Specification of Interorganizational
Dimensions." Sociology and Social Research, 56:83-99.
McCammon, Bert C., Jr. 1970. "Perspectives for Distribution Programming." In
Louis P. Bucklin (ed.), Vertical Marketing Systems: 32-51. Glenview, Ill.: Scott,
Foresman.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R. Salancik 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A
Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Reve, Torger 1978. "[nterorganizational Relations in Distribution Channels." Pro-
ceedings, 8th Annual Albert Haring Doctoral Symposium: 31-55. Bloomington, In.:
Graduate School of Business, Indiana University.
Reve, Torger and Louis W. Stem 1979. "Interorganizational Relations in Marketing
Channels." Academy of Management Revicu~, 4:405-416.
Stephenson, P9 Ronald and Robert G. House 1971. "A Perspective on Franchising:
The Design of an Effective Relationship." Business Horisons, 14:35-42.
Stem, Louis W. 1977. "Distribution Channels as Political Economies: A Framework
for Comparative Analysis.'" Working Paper #77-41, Graduate School of Manage-
ment, Northwestern University.
Stem, Louis W. and C. Samuel Craig 1971. "lnterorganizational Data Systems: The
Computer and Distribution." Journal of Retailing, 47:73-86, 91.
Stem, Louis W. and Adel I. El-Ansary 1977. Marketing Channels. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
Terreberry, Shirley 1968. "The Evolution of Organizational Environments."
Administrative Science Quarterly, 2:590-613.
BROWN AND TIMMINS 173
Business Horizons,