The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.

htm

Exploring relational asymmetry in supply chains: the retailers perspective

Rodney W. Thomas
Department of Management, Marketing, and Logistics, College of Business Administration, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA, and

Relational asymmetry

475
Received February 2009 Revised April 2010 Accepted April 2010

Terry L. Esper
Department of Marketing and Logistics, College of Business Administration, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the phenomenon of asymmetric supply chain relationships and investigate how rms manage these relationships. Design/methodology/approach Using grounded theory methodology, qualitative data was accumulated from experienced supply chain managers. Depth interviews were utilized in order to gain a deeper understanding of asymmetric supply chain relationships. Findings Prior research has conceptualized asymmetry as a lack of dyadic balance in a core relationship attribute and has focused on causal effects of asymmetry in relationships. However, this study nds asymmetry is a more complex issue and that there are three distinguishable types of relationship asymmetry. Research limitations/implications The types of asymmetry that emerged in this exploratory research potentially have different impacts on supply chain relationships. Therefore, the strong negative connotation associated with existing asymmetry literature may well be because the type of asymmetry that primarily triggers negative relationship impacts were being investigated. However, this paper suggests that some types of asymmetry have positive relational outcomes. Practical implications This exploratory paper provides managers with additional insight into a common type of supply chain relationship and suggests that asymmetric relationships should be segmented in order to more effectively manage transaction costs. Originality/value The notion that asymmetry is a simple, unidimensional construct is now called into question. According to the ndings of this paper, asymmetry is a complex issue and managers employ different strategies to address the potential supply chain relationship performance implications with each type of asymmetry. Keywords Supply chain management, Retailers Paper type Research paper

At the most fundamental level, a supply chain is composed of a series of relationships among multiple rms (Cooper et al., 1997; Phillips and Liu, 1998). Competitive pressures, environmental uncertainties, and increasing consumer demands have led rms to increasingly seek highly developed cooperative supply chain relationships in order to remain competitive (Carr and Pearson, 2002; Mentzer et al., 2000; Prahinski and Fan, 2007; Rogers and Leuschner, 2004). Developing such successful cooperative relationships is one of the most durable competitive advantages because high performing relationships are difcult for competitors to duplicate or displace (Day, 2000)

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management Vol. 40 No. 6, 2010 pp. 475-494 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0960-0035 DOI 10.1108/09600031011062209

IJPDLM 40,6

476

and numerous performance benets are often associated with cooperative relationships (Morash and Clinton, 1998; Rinehart et al., 2004; Turner et al., 2000). Supply chain initiatives such as collaborative planning forecasting and replenishment (CPFR), collaborative transportation management (CTM), and vendor managed inventory (VMI) have illustrated the potential power of cooperative supply chain relationships (Esper and Williams, 2003; Sherman, 1998; Waller et al., 1999). Owing to the importance of supply chain relationships, a vast literature base exists that has enumerated the requisite elements needed for relationship success. For example, attributes like trust, commitment, and dependence are commonly identied as the foundation of any successful relationship (Golicic et al., 2003; Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Rinehart et al., 2004). Collaborative behaviors like information sharing, idiosyncratic investments, and effective governance are often cited as relational sources of competitive advantage (Brown et al., 2009; Cannon and Perreault, 1999; Dyer and Singh, 1998; Stank et al., 1996). Research is also widely available on the various links between relationship attributes and behaviors (Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Ganesan, 1994; Gundlach et al., 1995; Heide and John, 1988). The primary commonality across the existing relationship literature is the vast majority of research has focused on three general areas: the existence of relational attributes and behaviors, the causal relationships between attributes and behaviors, and the impact of cooperative relationships on performance. A few researchers have also observed that beyond the mere existence of relational attributes or behaviors, it is important to consider the relative levels of these elements in exchange relationships. If the relative levels of these elements vary, the relationship is often described as asymmetric. In this study, relationship asymmetry refers to a lack of perceived dyadic balance or proportionality of relationship attributes and/or behaviors. Hence, an asymmetric supply chain relationship would be one, for example, where relationship partners exhibit differing levels of information sharing or have differing levels of commitment to the exchange. The concept of asymmetry is important to understanding supply chain relationships because it can signicantly impact the behaviors, communications, perceptions, and feelings of relationship partners (Gundlach and Cadotte, 1994). Moreover, asymmetric relationships are considered inherently unstable and likely to dissolve (Kumar et al., 1995). When juxtaposing the importance of effective supply chain relationships with the notion that asymmetry can cause signicant instability in exchange, the concept of asymmetry emerges as an important area of research investigation. Research has been offered that only partially addresses the potential issues associated with relationship asymmetry, leaving knowledge gaps in the area of understanding the complexities of managing effective supply chain relationships. To date, the existing literature has primarily established the importance of asymmetry by highlighting that it does have differential impacts on supply chain relationship structures and performance. In most cases, asymmetry is portrayed as having a negative impact on a relationship by inuencing areas such as opportunistic behavior (Williamson, 1985), relationship dissatisfaction (Anderson and Weitz, 1992), negative performance evaluations (Gundlach and Cadotte, 1994), negative sales performance (Buchanan, 1992), threats of opportunism (Heide and John, 1990), and relationship instability (Kumar et al., 1995). In other cases, though not as prevalent, asymmetry

is suggested to be positive because it stabilizes a relationship due to the clear dominance of one party over another (Lawler et al., 1988; Rubin and Brown, 1975). Although the existing literature has established its importance, the foundational issue of understanding asymmetry and how rms manage the existence of asymmetry has not been addressed. The vast majority of literature in this area has seemingly accepted the notion that asymmetry is often a threat to relationships, without giving much attention to the essence of asymmetry, the active management of asymmetric supply chain relationships, or the managerial strategies to alleviate and/or eradicate asymmetry. Owing to the performance implications of supply chain relationships, it is unlikely that managers would idly sit by and allow an asymmetric relationship to jeopardize rm performance. When considered through a transaction cost economics (TCE) lens, it is likely that rms will seek to align and mange interrm governance structures in order to minimize overall costs, thus enhancing rm performance (Williamson, 1985). In essence, it is likely that rms actively manage asymmetric relationships in order to prevent their demise and obtain optimal performance benets from more effective supply chain exchange. However, research that addresses the specic managerial processes used to effectively deal with asymmetric supply chain relationships is lacking. This exploratory qualitative study will attempt to address this gap in the literature. The goal of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of asymmetry in supply chain relationships and the processes managers use to address perceived asymmetry. Because research in this area is sparse and qualitative methods are considered most appropriate to research phenomena about which little is known (Stern, 1980; Strauss and Corbin, 1998), the grounded theory qualitative method was utilized. According to the grounded theory research tradition, theoretical frameworks are developed from qualitative eld data without being biased by previous literature or preconceived notions. Once a model that it grounded in the data is developed, it is then validated by an integration with existing literature and theory to determine the potential contribution of the exploratory theoretical framework (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Given this sequence of exploratory qualitative research, the following section provides a review of the grounded theory methodology with an emphasis on the data collection techniques employed and the steps taken to assess and ensure research trustworthiness. The qualitative data ndings are then presented to show a proposed theoretical framework of asymmetry management that emerged from the data. Consistent with the grounded theory research approach that uses literature in a post hoc manner, applicable discussion and literature integration of the theoretical model is then presented along with managerial implications and potential future research directions. Methodology Data collection In order to learn more about the phenomenon of managing asymmetric supply chain relationships, discovery oriented depth interviews (McCracken, 1988) were conducted with corporate level managers in large domestic retailers. Depth interviews are a powerful and revealing method for gaining a deeper understanding of a participants experience with a phenomenon. The depth interviews were initiated with a grand tour technique (McCracken, 1988; Spradley, 1979) and designed to be open-ended. Managers were simply asked to describe their experiences with unbalanced relationships.

Relational asymmetry

477

IJPDLM 40,6

They were given freedom to openly discuss topics and take the interviews in any reasonable direction. In order to truly discover concepts in an unbiased manner, participants were simply asked to describe their experiences in order to avoid leading questions. Interviews lasted between 30 and 90 min and were audio-taped. The interviews were then transcribed verbatim. Data analysis Interview transcripts were analyzed using grounded theory procedures (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Paragraphs and sentences were coded for conceptual content; approximately 150 open codes were initially generated from the data. These open codes were not predetermined; they were developed from interpretation of the interview transcripts. Utilizing the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1998), the researchers moved back and forth between transcripts and within transcripts to compare and contrast conceptual codes. Through multiple iterations of this process, more abstract categories began to emerge from the data and integrate into a core phenomenon. As additional interview data became available, utilizing the constant comparative method also helped clarify any coding issues. Qualitative research computer software (Atlas.ti) was used to organize and link conceptual codes, transcript passages, and theoretical insights. Sampling Asymmetric supply chain relationships were studied in the context of the retailing industry. Retailers represent a signicant portion of large American companies; in 2006 there were 98 retailers listed in the Fortune 500 rankings. Retailers also source products from thousands of vendors throughout the world. Therefore, due to the size of the industry, the extremely large vendor base, and the wide range of retail consumer products, vendor-retailer relationships represent a substantial portion of supply chain relationships. Consistent with grounded theory research techniques (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1998) a purposive and theoretical sampling plan was used in this study. Purposive sampling is the deliberate selection of specic settings, people, or events in order to collect pertinent eld data that cannot be obtained from other participants (Maxwell, 1996). Initially, two merchandising managers were selected based on the a priori assessment that these managers were involved in actively managing asymmetric relationships. These initial managers can be considered a convenience sample. Additional interview participants were selected based on theoretical sampling guidelines (Belk, 1989; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Theoretical sampling seeks to expand on and provisionally test emergent concepts and relationships as the theory develops (Flint et al., 2005, p. 124). Therefore, as links between concepts began to emerge, other participants were included in the sample to provisionally test aspects of the developing theory. For example, the research team questioned if early ndings were limited to merchandising managers in a single company who were responsible for purchasing nished goods. In order to provisionally test the emerging concepts in other contexts, the research team explored the phenomenon in other functional areas of logistics and other retail companies.

478

Sampling continued in the study until conceptual redundancy emerged from the data, theoretical saturation was reached, and incremental interviews provided no additional information. Flint et al. (2002) suggest data collection cease once redundant information is obtained and conceptual complexity is understood. The nal sample consisted of eight corporate ofce supply chain professionals from three different retailers. These managers all had direct input or decision-making authority into the process of selecting, retaining, or deleting vendors in the supply base. Table I depicts details about each participant. The sample in this study reects substantial experience with the phenomenon since the cumulative career experiences of the participants represents over 800 unique vendor-retailer relationships at varying levels of asymmetry and $9.2 billion of annual nancial responsibility. Moreover, diversity in functional areas, job titles, and nancial responsibilities were present in the sample. In quantitative studies, a sample size of eight would be considered completely inadequate. However, in qualitative research traditions, it is common to rely on the deep understanding of eight or less key informants in order to achieve saturation (McCracken, 1988; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Recent grounded theory studies in supply chain management research show acceptance for these qualitative sampling guidelines (Flint and Golicic, 2009; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008; Mollenkopf et al., 2007; Thomas, 2008). Therefore, the sample in this study is consistent with established qualitative research traditions as well as grounded theory standards in contemporary supply chain management research. Research trustworthiness The trustworthiness of this study was assessed by applying interpretive research criteria focused on credibility, transferability, dependability, and conrmability (Hirschman, 1986). Flint et al. (2002) succinctly dene each element of the interpretive research criteria as: . Credibility is the extent to which results appear to be acceptable representations of the data. . Transferability is the extent to which ndings from one context apply to another context. . Dependability is the extent to which ndings are unique to time and place; the stability or consistency of explanations. . Conrmability is the extent to which interpretations are the result of the participants and the phenomenon as opposed to researcher biases.
Years of experience 17 4 9 7 10 8 5 6 Financial responsibility ($) 1.2B 500M 900M 1.5B 1.9B 1.8B 800M 600M Suppliers managed 150 100 100 75 150 100 75 100

Relational asymmetry

479

Pseudonym Bryan Shannon Jack Christopher Jim Pat Kendall Jody

Job title Inventory Manager Merchandise Manager Merchandise Manager Logistics Manager Purchasing Manager Purchasing Manager Logistics Manager Merchandise Manager

Age 42 30 31 33 34 35 29 28

Table I. Participant sample

IJPDLM 40,6

480

In order to establish credibility, participants were provided with initial interpretations of their interviews and feedback was solicited. Based on participant feedback, emerging theoretical models were modied until participants accepted the research interpretations as credible. Transferability was established through the theoretical sampling process that expanded the participant sample to include different functional areas, product categories, and company types. Support for conceptual links and the emerging theory was found in all participant interview transcripts. Dependability was established based on the consistency of participant experiences regardless of varying time periods for the occurrence of referenced events. Some participants talked about current vendor relationships while others shared past interrm relationship experiences. Conrmability was established through the use of an independent auditor and a separate peer review process. The auditor had previous graduate training in qualitative marketing research methodology and corporate ofce retail experience. The auditor reviewed the supportive evidence and preliminary ndings to conrm that conclusions were unbiased. Expert peer reviews were also solicited from two experienced qualitative researchers to review the methodology and assess the ndings. The manuscript peer reviews conrmed the methodological rigor and qualitative ndings of the study. Findings Model overview Participants in the study were very familiar with the phenomenon of managing asymmetric supply chain relationships from both sides of the asymmetry issue. In fact, managers indicated that most of their experiences with supply chain relationships were asymmetric. When asked to describe a specic unbalanced relationship, one manager replied, Wow, there are so many to choose from. In another interview, a participant was asked how common it was for him to experience an unbalanced relationship and he replied, Far more common than the other. And I think you would see it in our overall business. There are frankly only a few that are truly balanced. Owing to their familiarity with asymmetric supply chain relationships, participants were able to describe how they approached and managed these relationships. Based on these participant accounts, a process was revealed and a core phenomenon emerged through grounded theory analysis (Figure 1). In short, managers were actively seeking satisfactory alignment in their asymmetric relationships. In this paper, satisfactory alignment refers to an acceptable range of congruence between the desired level of relationship symmetry and the perceived actual level of relationship symmetry. Whereas seeking satisfactory alignment refers to the process by which managers attempt to change or replace unsatisfactory asymmetric relationships and obtain satisfactory relationship structures. This phenomenon permeated throughout all participant experiences. For example, one manager alludes to seeking satisfactory alignment as he summarizes his objective for managing asymmetric relationships, Ultimately, I guess the biggest thing, just to kind of reiterate, is that our goal is to get to a more balanced relationship. It is important to note that managers were not necessarily seeking exact symmetry, but instead some form of satisfactory alignment or approximate symmetry in the relationship. Another manager explicitly illustrates this subtle distinction as he talks about his approach

Satisfactory asymmetric relationship Assessing

Relational asymmetry

Unsatisfactory asymmetric relationship

481
Tolerant, constructive strategy for seeking satisfactory alignment Intolerant, deconstructive strategy for seeking satisfactory alignment

Clarifying Evaluating Demonstrating Determining tolerance

Threatening

Acting

Figure 1. Process of seeking satisfactory alignment

to asymmetric relationship management, Though perfect balance is probably unachievable, moving in that direction is always the goal. As the process model in Figure 1 illustrates, a set of management behaviors emerged through the grounded theory analysis of qualitative eld data. In particular, the ndings suggest that managers employ six key behavioral strategies (summarized in Table II) when seeking satisfactory alignment: assessing, evaluating, clarifying, demonstrating, threatening, and acting. Beyond the identication and thick description of these behaviors in the process of seeking satisfactory alignment, two other key ndings emerged. First, there is a distinction between different types of asymmetry. Second, the process model highlighted in Figure 1 is employed by managers in addressing asymmetry reconciliation. In particular, the ndings suggest that managers focus on
Name Assessing Denition

Managers seek to dene their own expectations of a relationship and make a preliminary determination of potential t with a partner Clarifying Managers seek to clearly communicate expectation to partners and explain their goals for the relationship Demonstrating Managers seek to model desired relationship behaviors and reinforce positive partner behaviors Evaluating Managers critically analyze the total costs and benets associated with the relationship, allocate resources, and make process decisions Threatening Managers pressure partners to make requested changes and warn of consequences for a lack of compliance Acting Managers take steps to limit their exposure to a relationship or completely terminate the relationship

Table II. Category denitions

IJPDLM 40,6

482

two primary decisions when managing this process: whether or not the current level of asymmetry is satisfactory and whether or not any unsatisfactory asymmetry is tolerable. Hence, the ndings suggest three distinguishable levels of asymmetry: satisfactory asymmetry; unsatisfactory but tolerable asymmetry and unsatisfactory but intolerable asymmetry. Moreover, the behavioral strategies are employed to allow for a series of iterative relationship assessments, which determine the type of asymmetry that exists within the relationship and the necessary actions to achieve more satisfactory alignment. Assessing initiates the process of seeking satisfactory alignment. During this initial phase, managers compare their desired level of relationship symmetry with the perceived actual level of relationship symmetry. This comparison involves a manager addressing the rst primary asymmetry decision whether the difference between the ideal and actual levels of symmetry is satisfactory. If it is determined that the relationship is asymmetric, yet satisfactory, the process essentially ends with assessing. The manager concludes that the asymmetry is at a level that is desirable and, therefore, requires no current strategic management to change the relationship structure. Such an assessment occurs in situations where asymmetry is deemed advantageous to the manager (i.e. power or information asymmetry). If, however, the manager determines that the relationship is asymmetric, and that the degree of asymmetry is unsatisfactory, and is therefore not within a satisfactory range of congruence with the desired level of symmetry, then the evaluation decision begins. It is during this phase that the next key asymmetry decision is addressed whether the unsatisfactory asymmetry is tolerable. Evaluating is at the heart of the asymmetry management process and inuences the sequence and duration of other process elements. While the assessing decision brings awareness that unsatisfactory asymmetry may be present within the relationship, evaluating is where the manager determines the most effective means of reconciling the unsatisfactory nature of the asymmetric exchange. Fundamental to this decision is the degree of tolerance the manager has for the unsatisfactory asymmetry. Tolerance or intolerance of unsatisfactory asymmetry is determined by a managers constant evaluation of the costs and benets of a relationship and the ongoing struggle with the is this worth all the hassle question. Hence, a primary outcome of the evaluation decision is a managers willingness to remain in the focal exchange relationship (tolerance) or unwillingness to remain in the current relationship (intolerance). This decision outcome, in turn, drives the actions employed to manage the asymmetry in the relationship. If the potential benets of a relationship continue to outweigh the costs, a manager is considered tolerant of the unsatisfactory asymmetric relationship and implements the constructive strategies of clarifying and demonstrating. The intent of these strategies is to shape the current relationship into a satisfactory form. Tolerant managers implement positive strategies of coaching, teaching, and reinforcing satisfactory partner behaviors. Results of these constructive actions are then re-examined in the evaluating and assessing decisions. Several iterations of this back and forth interplay between constructive strategies, critical evaluation, and reassessment can occur. Over time, either the relationship will shift into a more satisfactory form or a manager becomes intolerant of the unsatisfactory asymmetric relationship. Intolerance exists when the costs of a relationship start to outweigh the potential benets. In this case, managers employ partner retribution as a means of managing

asymmetry and, therefore, implement the deconstructive strategies of threatening and acting. The intent of these strategies is to prepare to replace the current relationship with a more satisfactory form. Intolerant managers implement negative strategies that are punitive, dictatorial, and offensive. A few iterations of a back and forth interplay between deconstructive actions, critical evaluation, and reassessment may occur. However, if such harsh actions do not lead to acceptable changes in the relationship, then the unsatisfactory asymmetric relationship may be severely diminished or completely terminated. As depicted in the process model in Figure 1, a managers tolerance or intolerance of unsatisfactory asymmetry is a powerful determining factor in the relationship management strategy. Simply put, tolerant managers pursue constructive strategies and intolerant managers pursue deconstructive strategies to deal with asymmetry tensions. Although a managers tolerance or intolerance of a specic unsatisfactory asymmetric relationship may shift as the relationship evolves, the strategies used to manage the relationship remain consistent with the process of seeking satisfactory alignment. Process decisions/behavioral categories Now that the process model that emerged from the qualitative analysis has been overviewed, a more detailed discussion of the decisions and behavioral strategies in the model is presented to provide descriptive details of the process elements. Assessing. In the assessment decision, managers seek to dene their own expectations of a relationship and make a preliminary determination of potential t with a relationship partner. They assess their individual preferences for a relationship structure and decide if a partner might be able to work within their desired relationship structure. In the passage below, one manager describes how she reects on a particular asymmetric relationship in order to gain clearer denition of her relationship needs:
The rst strategy for me is I have to step back and analyze the relationship and see whats in this relationship for me and how do I want this relationship. If I dont dene how I want the relationship to be for myself, then Im not really going to know how I want the partnership or what relationship I want back from them.

Relational asymmetry

483

Such an assessment was not unique among participants. In fact, each manager seemed to be aware of their ideal, end-state relationship for a specic partner. It is important to reiterate that many managers viewed a realistic ideal state as having some degree of asymmetry which explains why the assessment decision may result in the conclusion that the asymmetry structure is satisfactory. However, if a managers assessment of an asymmetric relationship indicates a lack of t between their ideal and the current relationship structure, then the asymmetry is considered unsatisfactory. Therefore, a critical output of the assessment decision is an awareness of the satisfactory or unsatisfactory degree of asymmetry in the relationship. Evaluating. In the evaluating decision, managers critically analyze the total costs and benets associated with an asymmetric relationship, allocate resources, and make process decisions. Evaluation is at the heart of the seeking satisfactory alignment process due to its overlap and interaction with every phase in the process. It can be characterized by a questioning attitude, In the back of your mind, there is probably always in some ways (pause) was this worth going through all this hassle to get to the end result. There is also an acute awareness of time and resource constraints as well as a pervasive

IJPDLM 40,6

allocation mentality. Managers seemed to compare and contrast their vendor relationships in the evaluation phase. During interviews, participants displayed a quantiable whats in it for me mentality when evaluating. One manager illustrates evaluation below:
In many ways there is a time and resource constraint. Were not a training ground, were not a training facility. Our job is (pause) it cannot be all about teaching a vendor how to do business with us that is balanced in the way were talking about. So we cant physically and possibly train every single one. I think you do two things. One is keep the competitive environment alive within the business. Allow the strong to survive and the weak to fall away. Those that can learn this do and they succeed when they do it. And those that cant, quickly it shows and they do not succeed at all. So I think thats one part of how you allow that to happen. And then again, the other part is you train the ones that can be trained.

484

Notice the sharp contrast from an initial assessing decision that is focused on ideal relationship expectations. Rather than talking about balanced collaboration, the above manager is referring to a survival of the ttest vendor management approach to his time and resource constraints. Through such a Darwinian lter, he objectively focused his resources. Other managers based their evaluations on nancial analysis and aligning percentages of key variables. One managers mode of evaluation consisted of the following:
If you have a vendor thats contributing maybe, you know, to 1 percent of your sales but 45 percent of your time during your week, its a huge imbalance because you really have to spend the time on the programs that are making the sales dollars, that are productive, that are growing the comps.

During the evaluation decision, many managers experience negative emotional responses towards their asymmetric relationships. Participants express feelings of resentment, frustration, aggravation, and fear. The feelings result from the inability to effectively change an unsatisfactory asymmetric relationship and achieve satisfactory alignment. In the following example, a manager is disappointed because his multiple attempts at demonstrating collaborative behaviors have not been reciprocated:
We spend a lot of time giving (supplier name) information, sharing forecasts, spending time setting up meetings, monthly conference calls, supply chain initiative meetings with this vendor, but yet, we get nothing back from them except, were going to do better, that type of response and its not really a vendor that we can do without, so its very frustrating.

Another manager also experiences the negative emotional consequences as she describes a misaligned vendor relationship:
You build up some resentment against them and it negatively impacts how you feel about the relationship with them because theyre taking up a larger percentage of your time than what you want. If you translate their sales dollars into the percentage of your time that they were wanting, it was not equal. That starts to personally weigh on you when you are having to constantly say I cant talk to you right now or I dont have time to go through this right now and that negatively affects how you feel about that partnership.

Vendor claims are also heavily scrutinized in the evaluating decision. Managers critically judge their vendors, look for inconsistencies in their statements, and often doubt what they are told. The example below shows a skeptical attitude as another common element of the evaluating phase:

In my back pocket I have ve other vendors that are handing me product lines that would meet and exceed my turn and margin goals for the year. So I knew it wasnt an impossibility and they always acted like anything I asked was above and beyond what was possible when I know that other people can do it. Then thats when I realized this isnt going to work.

Relational asymmetry

Notice the last sentence in the above quote; it demonstrates a critical element of evaluation. The outcome of the evaluation decision is an awareness, realization, or judgment about the asymmetric relationship. Based on their evaluation, managers begin to assess a level of tolerance or intolerance towards an unsatisfactory asymmetric relationship. This important outcome drives the sequence and integration of other elements in the process of seeking satisfactory alignment. Clarifying. In the clarication strategy, managers seek to clearly communicate expectations to partners. They are focused on explaining what they want from the relationship and how they want to achieve their goals. Although the tone of communication can vary from blunt directions to polite requests, the objective remains the same. Managers are attempting to train their partners and shape their supply chain relationships. They are also trying to prevent misunderstandings that result from ambiguous direction. One manager illustrates the clarifying strategy as follows:
All you can do is lay out there as clearly as possible these are our expectations, this is what were working towards, these are the goals that we have been given and that were working towards and frankly, heres how we would like to get there in terms of collaboration [. . .] so thats the kind of process and thats what weve been doing in every meeting [. . .] explaining that to this vendor and saying this is how you guys can get on board and this is how you can grow your business.

485

Notice the mention of collaboration and potential business growth. This managers clarifying strategy expresses a positive tone. However, another example conveys a slightly different tone of clarifying:
One of the best examples is I think I mentioned earlier that we did annual product line reviews and I had told both of those vendors basically given them the same speech on this is kind of what Im looking for in the upcoming line review. This is what I need. This is kind of the outcome I want and I challenged both of them [. . .]

In the example above, delivery of the message seems to be directed towards telling and challenging vendors through speeches rather than collaborating. Although different from the prior managers delivery, the desired result is the same. When seeking satisfactory alignment, managers often strive to give clear direction and communicate their intended goals. Demonstrating. In the demonstrating strategy, managers seek to demonstrate desired relationship behaviors and reinforce positive partner behaviors. They move beyond simply telling partners what is expected in a relationship and actively model appropriate behaviors. Although the method varies from the clarifying strategy, the objective in demonstrating remains the same. Managers are attempting to shape the relationship in order to achieve satisfactory alignment. They assume responsibility to show a sense of reciprocity as not only a reinforcing reward, but also as a way to achieve better results. In the passage below, consider the talk about demonstrating:
[ I ] continue to try to show from our side that the balance is obviously a two way street, that were gonna do the right things in the relationship ourselves. So whether that be holding to

IJPDLM 40,6

our word when we say were gonna buy something then we buy it. When the guy who had the job before me said he was going to buy something, I stick to it. I do it anyway, whether its a good idea or not. When there is confusion on something, I come halfway you come halfway and we come to some agreement even though there was some mistake made. We do those things on our side to try to maintain the balance. And show some reciprocity for the vendor doing the right thing on their side. So I think those are two key components.

486

While this manager views his reciprocity as a reward for a vendor doing the right thing, a different manager speaks of a more concrete type of nancial reward that was commonly referenced among participants:
The smaller vendor just did everything they could. They listened to me. They implemented everything that I asked for. They came up with some great ideas and went all out to try to improve and the result was that they gained some more business.

Although one manager focused on the modeling aspects of demonstrating and another manager focused on specic vendor rewards, the common goal of exhibiting behaviors that reinforce and maintain positive exchange in the supply chain relationship was key. Demonstrating, therefore, focuses on keeping relationships in-tact through positive feedback and exploiting growth opportunities. Threatening. In the threatening strategy, managers pressure partners to make requested changes and warn of consequences for a lack of compliance. Communication in this phase is more hostile and the relationship becomes more adversarial. Unlike the win-win relationship building focus in the demonstrating strategy, threatening turns an asymmetric relationship into a win-lose situation. The mentality shifts from were in this together to its us versus them. One manager passionately described the threatening strategy in the following passage:
Basically they were told up front, that, youve got a lot of business to lose and unless we make some major changes were gonna have to add somebody else. You know, worse case scenario, you lose the business completely.

Some managers displayed regret over employing the threatening strategy. They know it is not the best option for developing a relationship, but they feel compelled to threaten in order to seek satisfactory alignment. Other strategies did not result in satisfactory changes to the asymmetric relationship so managers view threatening as the last resort. Notice this managers initial apologetic tone when describing a threatening situation and then the nal threat of penalties:
You know I talked about bending. Lets say that we cant bend to a level thats acceptable for either of us. Then the next option, which is not the right thing to do and Ive kind of threatened, which I shouldnt do, but we dont need to talk at all if you guys think you can manage it based on the information you have and then were just going to order what we need when we think we need it without having these meetings and if you cant ship this stuff there will be penalties.

Acting. In the acting strategy, managers take steps to limit their exposure to a relationship or completely terminate the relationship. Some participants described defensive tactics to protect themselves while others simply followed through on previous threats. In the passage below, a manager describes his willingness to slowly dissolve a relationship based on ineffective results from his clarifying and demonstrating strategies:

Frankly, I think you get to a point where you train and retrain, and retrain again, and then there comes a day where you shake the dust off your feet and just try to minimize their business. If theyre not going to get in line with our strategic objectives, then, though we need them to have a presence, we just mitigate that every chance possible and reduce that to the point where it doesnt have a material impact on our business at all.

Relational asymmetry

In the process of seeking satisfactory alignment, managers attempt to constructively shape an unsatisfactory asymmetric relationship into a viable form or they simply replace an unsatisfactory asymmetric relationship with a more feasible option. One manager describes aggressive deconstructive steps and provides insight into the justication for taking relationship ending actions:
I was trying to give them information to help improve our sales, to help improve our product performance, and they werent using that information for any benet, which to me, left me no choice but to move business elsewhere, which obviously was not favorable in their opinion and but its what I had to do, I had to nd somebody that was willing to have a relationship that would work with me and they really werent. They were forced to buyback a signicant dollar amount of inventory [. . .] in order to just get some kind of lift and improvement on their product or else they were basically going to lose all of the business immediately. I also started bringing in business from two other vendors and took away three distribution center areas worth of stores from their business.

487

It is important to note that the acting strategy is not a quick, emotionally charged, irrational decision. Although frustration is often apparent, managers who take deconstructive actions are also analytical and objective. As the above manager continues below, she has thought through the implications of destroying an existing asymmetric relationship:
I set up that down the road they would be working themselves out of business, but we did not have another vendor that could service all of our stores immediately with those products so we had to start building up some sales with some other vendors and getting them up and running before we could completely go elsewhere.

Discussion According to the extant literature that has investigated issues associated with relationship asymmetry, researchers agree that asymmetry is an important structural element that can signicantly impact relationship success. The manner in which asymmetry impacts relationships, however, has traditionally not been the object of complete agreement in the literature. Likewise, there is not consistent empirical support in current asymmetric supply chain relationship management research. For example, some asymmetric vendor retailer relationships endure and ourish while others eventually dissolve. Such conceptual and empirical disagreement could very well be the result of a lack of in-depth investigation to explore the potential multi-dimensional and complex nature of asymmetry. This research, in the quest of addressing this gap in an exploratory fashion, has uncovered some interesting ndings relative to the nature and management of relationship asymmetry. Perhaps the most signicant of these ndings is the notion that there is more than one type of relationship asymmetry. According to this qualitative investigation there are three distinguishable types of asymmetry: satisfactory asymmetry, unsatisfactory tolerable asymmetry and unsatisfactory intolerable asymmetry. Each of these types of asymmetry potentially has distinctly different impacts on supply chain relationships

IJPDLM 40,6

488

and is therefore managed differently. As such, the opposing results and strong negative connotation associated with existing asymmetry literature may well be because either different types of asymmetry, or the type that primarily triggers negative relationship impacts, were being investigated. For example, satisfactory asymmetry is not inherently negative. The fact that some organizations may be more or less trusting, committed or dependent is okay if both parties agree that such a structure is satisfactory. A classic case of this would be large retail chain vendors, who are often faced with asymmetry issues. Many small vendors accept the differences in the levels of commitment between themselves and a large retail chain. As such, managing these relationships is not necessarily focused on changing the asymmetry structure, but accepting it as it is and maintaining the status quo. Unsatisfactory asymmetry may yield either positive or negative impacts on supply chain relationships depending on the tolerance associated with it. In the services marketing literature, the concept of a Zone of Tolerance (ZOT) has been used to explain satisfaction and service quality (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991; Johnston, 1995). The ZOT is dened as a range of service performance that a customer considers satisfactory. Service performance below the ZOT leads to customer frustration and service performance above the ZOT leads to customer loyalty. The ZOT can vary from customer to customer and from situation to situation, and is unique to an individual. According to the asymmetry management model presented above, the tolerance or intolerance of unsatisfactory asymmetric relationships inuences the behavioral strategies employed to seek more satisfactory symmetry conditions. Participants in the study displayed a range of unique tolerances for unsatisfactory asymmetric conditions, but their responses were consistent with the original ZOT concept. For example, when supply chain relationships were inside a managers zone of asymmetric relationship tolerance, the manager remained committed to the partner and engaged in the more positive behaviors of demonstrating and clarifying. Such a response suggests a reliance on the Norm of Reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). The Norm of Reciprocity proposes that people usually help those that help them; that is, they mirror the actions of others in exchange relationships. Reciprocity evokes obligations to others based on past behavioral interactions. In essence, to transform an unsatisfactory but tolerable asymmetric relationship into a more satisfactory form, managers rely on communicating and demonstrating actions that are more indicative of the satisfactory structure intending to invoke a reciprocal response. Thus, behaviors are used as a form of tacit negotiation (Schelling, 1956). However, when a supply chain relationship was outside of a managers zone of unsatisfactory asymmetric relationship tolerance, the manager expressed frustration by engaging in threatening and acting. Such a response is consistent with the Exit-Voice Theory of consumer reaction to dissatisfaction (Hirschman, 1970). This theory states that consumers react to dissatisfying experiences in one of two ways. They can exit a market by terminating usage, substituting alternatives, or nding other sources. They can also voice dissatisfaction by complaining to management or a third party. Likewise, when managers are outside their zone of unsatisfactory asymmetric relationship tolerance, they pursue deconstructive exit and voice strategies through acting and threatening processes. Such a case may ultimately involve either transforming an intolerable unsatisfactory asymmetry condition to a more satisfactory state via voice or replacing the intolerable relationship with a more satisfactory one by exiting.

Overall, the notion that asymmetry is a unidimensional construct is now called into question. According to the ndings of the current research, asymmetry is a complex issue and managers employ different strategies to address the potential supply chain relationship performance implications of each. Additionally, the ndings suggest that asymmetry may not be a static issue, but one that has a temporal element. Although structural asymmetry may be constant, the degree of satisfaction and/or tolerance associated with it may evolve over time. It is possible that what today is satisfactory asymmetry may be unsatisfactory tolerable asymmetry later, which in turn could develop into unsatisfactory intolerable asymmetry even later on. Hence, as the process model presented in Figure 1 suggests, managers often engage in iterative cycles of assessing and evaluating to deal with the issues of whether the current state of asymmetry is satisfactory, and if not, determining whether the unsatisfactory state is tolerable. This temporal element hinges on the theoretical underpinnings of TCE (Williamson, 1979, 1981, 1985; Williamson et al., 1975). As aforementioned, the outcome of TCE, appropriate alignment of governance structures that drive performance, is very similar to the goal of the process of seeking satisfactory alignment. In fact, the core phenomenon in this study can be viewed as a specic application of TCE in a retail-vendor relationship context. In essence, managers often reconsider the transaction costs associated with asymmetric relationships in order to determine if any changes to their satisfaction and/or tolerance of the relationship have developed over time and to determine the appropriate management strategies to employ in pursuit of more satisfactory structures and minimal transaction costs. The ndings also suggest that perceived asymmetry is what primarily matters in supply chain relationships. In this research, actual asymmetry was not measured or evaluated as has been done in previous studies (Buchanan, 1992; Gundlach and Cadotte, 1994; Ross et al., 1997). However, perceived asymmetry proved to be robust enough to impact managerial behaviors that impact relationship structures. Hence, the mere perception that asymmetry exists, regardless of the degree of actual asymmetry, could potentially impact supply chain relationship exchange. Future research and implications The primary research implication associated with this investigation is that it provides greater understanding of a neglected area of relationship research. Although some level of asymmetry is common in most supply chain relationships, a theoretical framework that addresses how managers approach these unbalanced relationships has been lacking. Therefore, the process of seeking satisfactory alignment begins to ll this gap in the literature. The rich qualitative data also provides thick descriptions of contextual situations that add to the depth of understanding, extends the scope of several theories, and offers additional support to existing theories. This study also prompts additional questions that can lead to new research. For example, further exploration of the zone of tolerance concept in asymmetric relationships is warranted. Although this study proposes the concept of a zone of tolerance as an element of the process of seeking satisfactory alignment, more detailed examination is needed to assess how and why the zone of tolerance varies among individual managers. Future research that determines the drivers of tolerance for asymmetry can potentially contribute to understanding of why asymmetric supply chain relationships succeed or fail.

Relational asymmetry

489

IJPDLM 40,6

490

Supply chain relationships have been typically categorized simply by the presence or absence of key attributes and behaviors with limited reference to symmetry. However, due to the common occurrence of asymmetric relationships, a new form of relationship categorization may be explored to include aspects of perceived asymmetry and a managers satisfaction and tolerance of asymmetry. For example, relationships could be classied as symmetric or asymmetric, then asymmetric relationships could be grouped into satisfactory or unsatisfactory categories, and unsatisfactory asymmetric relationships could be further divided into tolerant or intolerant groups. By incorporating issues of symmetry into relationship classication schemes, greater insight into the drivers of successful relationships may be achieved. As previously highlighted, most prior research proposes asymmetry in a relationship is generally thought to have negative consequences. The theoretical framework presented in the process of seeking satisfactory alignment offers qualitative data that both supports and rejects this traditional claim. Over extended periods of time, asymmetric relationships do appear to be unstable and prone to failure, as shown in the deconstructive processes of threatening and acting. However, initial short-term asymmetry seems to provide some opportunities to enhance a supply chain relationship in the constructive processes of clarifying and demonstrating. This contradictory nding indicates a temporal aspect to asymmetric relationship management. Perhaps the consequences of relationship asymmetry need to be evaluated in conjunction with an element of time progression. This critical insight may help increase understanding of why asymmetric supply chain relationships succeed or fail. All research methods are awed and scholars make choices regarding the unavoidable trade-offs between generalizability, precision, and realism (McGrath, 1982). Qualitative methods rely on the direct experiences of informants who provide thick, rich, context-dependent, descriptions of phenomenon. By interviewing managers who were willing and able to share their experiences, this grounded theory study achieved the goal of realism in research. However, like other qualitative methods, grounded theory is inherently weak in the research goals of generalizability and precision. In order to achieve these goals, future quantitative studies should also be pursued. This qualitative study should serve as an initial step in a program of research that seeks to achieve generalizability, precision, and realism in the study of asymmetric supply chain relationships. For example, in order to fully test the asymmetry concept, future quantitative research could utilize matched-pair survey instruments to tap into the asymmetry perceptions of both sides of an exchange relationship in order to more fully explore the impacts of perceptions of asymmetry on supply chains. The asymmetric relationship literature is still incomplete. In prior research, the structural importance of asymmetry was established. For example, Gundlach and Cadotte (1994) found that the actual level of dependence asymmetry had statistically signicant impacts on a relationship. In this current research, the management of asymmetric relationships was explored with qualitative methods and a management process was revealed. However, a gap still remains in the asymmetry literature. Future research may consider the evolution of asymmetric relationships. Although the body of knowledge now has some understanding of the impacts and management of asymmetry, opportunities still exist for exploring where asymmetric relationships come from and how they develop. Such understanding may provide valuable insight into the effective development and management of supply chain relationships.

The process of seeking satisfactory alignment has several implications for managers as well. The model presented in Figure 1 provides additional insight into the processes and behaviors associated with managing a common type of supply chain relationship. Managers can use this enhanced process knowledge to more effectively approach their asymmetric supply chain relationships. Although there is no intent to make this study prescriptive and describe what managers should do, participants did describe a management process that enabled them to successfully manage asymmetric supply chain relationships. Therefore, managers may glean additional insights into how others have successfully managed asymmetry. Managers can apply the concepts of asymmetry, satisfaction, and tolerance to segment their various interrm relationships. A relationship segmentation process based on asymmetry, satisfaction, and tolerance can help managers more effectively focus and customize their resources. For example, organizations could classify unsatisfactory asymmetric partner relationships as either x or re and allocate resources appropriately. Managers who possess strong teaching and coaching skills could be assigned to x type partner relationships. Whereas, managers with strong justication and termination skills could be assigned to re type partner relationships. This customized type of relationship management could be more efcient and ultimately lower transaction costs. The concepts of satisfaction and tolerance in asymmetric relationships highlight the importance of how a rm is perceived by its relationship partners. The model illustrates the potential negative consequences of prolonged perceived asymmetric relationships. Managers may consider proactively addressing perceived asymmetries before they reach unsatisfactory or intolerable levels and potential relationship degradation. If vendors sense their retail partner moving from tolerant to intolerant strategies, they can develop tactics to save the relationship or prepare for its potential termination. Such actions could enhance customer service or reduce transition costs. Finally, managers can use initial perceived asymmetry as an opportunity to grow together and exploit the initial clarifying and demonstrating behaviors in the process of seeking satisfactory alignment. This could be a strategy for developing a real mutual partnership. For example, a vendor could create or identify unsatisfactory relationship asymmetries in order to initiate the clarifying and demonstrating processes in the overall process of seeking satisfactory alignment. The increased communication opportunities within these initial processes could be used to develop the foundation of a high performing strategic partnership and maximize customer service to a retail partner.
References Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1992), The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 18-34. Belk, R.W. (1989), Extended self and extending paradigmatic perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 129-33. Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality, The Free Press, New York, NY. Brown, J.R., Crosno, J.L. and Dev, C.S. (2009), The effects of transaction-specic investments in marketing channels: the moderating role of relational norms, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 317-33.

Relational asymmetry

491

IJPDLM 40,6

492

Buchanan, L. (1992), Vertical trade relationships: the role of dependence and symmetry in attaining organizational goals, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 65-75. Cannon, J.P. and Perreault, W.D. Jr (1999), Buyer-seller relationships in business markets, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 439-60. Carr, A.S. and Pearson, J.N. (2002), The impact of purchasing and supplier involvement on strategic purchasing and its impact on rm performance, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 1032-53. Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997), Supply chain management: more than a new name for logistics, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Day, G.S. (2000), Managing market relationships, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, Vol. 28, pp. 24-30. Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998), The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 660-79. Esper, T.L. and Williams, L.R. (2003), The value of collaborative transportation management (CTM): its relationship to CPFR and information technology, Transportation Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 55-65. Flint, D.J. and Golicic, S.L. (2009), Searching for competitive advantage through sustainability: a qualitative study in the New Zealand wine industry, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 841-60. Flint, D.J., Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (2002), Exploring the phenomenon of customers desired value change in a business-to-business context, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, pp. 102-17. Flint, D.J., Larsson, E., Gammelgaad, B. and Mentzer, J.T. (2005), Logistics innovation: a customer value oriented social process, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 113-47. Ganesan, S. (1994), Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 1-19. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago, IL. Golicic, S.L., Foggin, J.H. and Mentzer, J.T. (2003), Relationship magnitude and its role in interorganizational relationship structure, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 57-75. Gouldner, A.W. (1960), The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-78. Gundlach, G.T. and Cadotte, E.R. (1994), Exchange interdependence and interrm interaction: research in a simulated channel setting, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 516-32. Gundlach, G.T., Achrol, R.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1995), The structure of commitment in exchange, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 78-92. Heide, J.B. and John, G. (1988), The role of dependence balancing in safeguarding transaction-specic assets in conventional channels, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 20-35. Heide, J.B. and John, G. (1990), Alliances in industrial purchasing: the determinants of joint action in buyer-supplier relationships, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 24-36. Hirschman, A.O. (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Hirschman, E.C. (1986), Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method, and criteria, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, pp. 237-49. Johnston, R. (1995), The zone of tolerance, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 46-61. Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K. and Steenkamp, J.-B. (1995), The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 348-57. Lawler, E.J., Ford, R.S. and Blegen, M.A. (1988), Coercive capability in conict: a test of bilateral deterrence versus conict spiral theory, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 93-107. McCracken, G. (1988), The Long Interview, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. McGrath, J.E. (1982), Dilemmatics: the study of research choices and dilemmas, in McGrath, J.E., Martin, J. and Kula, R.A. (Eds), Judgement Calls in Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008), Global supply chain risk management strategies, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 192-223. Maxwell, J.A. (1996), Qualitative Research Design: An Iterative Approach, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Mentzer, J.T., Min, S. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2000), The nature of interrm partnering in supply chain management, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 4, p. 549. Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conict resolution techniques, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-52. Mollenkopf, D., Russo, I. and Frankel, R. (2007), The returns management process in supply chain strategy, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 568-92. Morash, E.A. and Clinton, S.R. (1998), Supply chain integration: customer value through collaborative closeness versus operational excellence, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 104-21. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, p. 20. Phillips, J.M. and Liu, B.S. (1998), A balance theory on triadic supply chain relationships, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 78-94. Prahinski, C. and Fan, Y. (2007), Supplier evaluations: the role of communication quality, Journal of Supply Chain Management: A Global Review of Purchasing and Supply, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 16-28. Rinehart, L.M., Eckert, J.A., Handeld, R.B., Page, T.J. Jr and Atkin, T. (2004), An assessment of supplier-customer relationships, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 25-62. Rogers, D.S. and Leuschner, R. (2004), Supply chain management: retrospective and prospective, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 60-5. Ross, W.T., Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1997), Performance in principal-agent dyads: the causes and consequences of perceived asymmetry of commitment to the relationship, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 680-740. Rubin, J.Z. and Brown, B.R. (1975), The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation, Academic Press, New York, NY. Schelling, T.C. (1956), An essay on bargaining, American Economic Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 281-306.

Relational asymmetry

493

IJPDLM 40,6

494

Sherman, R.J. (1998), Collaborative planning, forecasting, and replenishment (CPFR): realizing the promise of efcient consumer response through collaborative technology, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 6-9. Spradley, J.P. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, NY. Stank, T.P., Emmelhainz, M.A. and Daugherty, P.J. (1996), The impact of information on supplier performance, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 94-106. Stern, P.N. (1980), Grounded theory methodology:its uses and processes, Image, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-3. Strauss, A.L. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Thomas, R.W. (2008), Exploring relational aspects of time-based competition, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 540-50. Turner, G.B., Hartley, M., LeMay, S.A. and Wood, C.M. (2000), Interdependence and cooperation in industrial buyer-supplier relationships, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 16-25. Waller, M., Johnson, M.E. and Davis, T. (1999), Vendor-managed inventory in the retail supply chain, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 183-203. Williamson, O.E. (1979), Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 233-61. Williamson, O.E. (1981), The modern corporation: origins, evolution, attributes, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 1537-68. Williamson, O.E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, The Free Press, New York, NY. Williamson, O.E., Wachter, M.L. and Harris, J.E. (1975), Understanding the employment relation: the analysis of idiosyncratic exchange, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 250-78. About the authors Rodney W. Thomas is an Assistant Professor at Georgia Southern University in the Department of Management, Marketing, and Logistics. His research interests focus on the strategic role, characteristics, and effectiveness of interrm supply chain relationships. His research has been published or accepted in the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Journal of Relationship Marketing, and multiple conference proceedings. Prior to returning to graduate school, he held a number of positions with Lowes Home Improvement Company including Merchandise Buyer and Director of Logistics. Rodney W. Thomas is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: rodthomas@georgiasouthern.edu Terry L. Esper is an Associate Professor in the Marketing and Logistics Department at the University of Tennessee. Terrys research interests include supply chain collaboration, boundary spanner role perceptions and behavior, supply chain learning and relationship management. His research has appeared in the Journal of Business Logistics, the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Transportation Journal and several conference proceedings. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints