Key account relationships: An exploratory inquiry of customer-based evaluations

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

IMM-06953; No of Pages 17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Key account relationships: An exploratory inquiry of customer-based evaluations

Scott B. Friend a,⁎,1, Jeff S. Johnson b,1,2

a University of Nebraska–Lincoln, College of Business Administration, Department of Marketing, 512 N. 12th Street, Lincoln, NE 68588, United Statesb University of Missouri–Kansas City, HenryW. Bloch School of Management, Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, 5110 Cherry Street, Kansas City, MO 64110, United States

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 402 472 0660; fax: +E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.B. Friend), john

1 Both authors contributed equally.2 Tel.: +1 816 235 2896; fax: +1 816 235 6560.

0019-8501/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inchttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.009

Please cite this article as: Friend, S.B., & JohnsMarketing Management (2013), http://dx.do

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 13 December 2011Received in revised form 22 July 2013Accepted 12 October 2013Available online xxxx

Keywords:Key accountsCustomer retentionRelationship marketingQualitative

The management and retention of key accounts is imperative in facilitating a firm's long-term viability. Previousexaminations of key account relationships have revealed valuable insights into the factors facilitating key accountmanagement and driving relationship strength. However, account managers often fail to recognize weaknesseswithin their existing key accounts and the sources of their relationship vulnerabilities. Utilizing an exploratoryinquiry of in-depth interviewswith 99 executive decisionmakers across 52 key accounts cases, the authors assesscustomer relationship evaluations prior to contract expirations for account retention opportunities valued at over$1.3 billion. Unique positive and negative drivers of key account relationship evaluations are identified in athematic categorization, along with a subsequent content analysis highlighting their patterned associationswith positive and negative relationship evaluations, future business intentions, and business referral behaviors.These patterned associations reveal that positive and negative perceptions of relational drivers often affectoutcomes in a differential manner, resulting in a classification of conventional constructs, prevention constructs,and promotion constructs. The results indicate that the desire of a supplier to maximize positive relationaloutcomes or minimize negative relational outcomes is driven by distinct underlying associations and allow forinsights into resource allocation strategies within key account relationships.

Published by Elsevier Inc.

1. Introduction

Customer lifetime value and retention are focal points of relationshipmarketing because of the benefits offered by loyal customers, such asenhanced revenues (e.g., Reichheld & Teal, 1996), decreased costs(e.g., Page, Pitt, Berthon, & Money, 1996), and sustainable competitiveadvantages (e.g., Johnson, Barksdale, & Boles, 2001). However, relationalstrategies, which emphasize a focus on customer loyalty, should be selec-tive because of the associated costs and risks (Day, 2000; Reinartz &Kumar, 2000; Sheth & Shah, 2003) and are thus most appropriate withinkey account contexts (Guenzi, Pardo, & Georges, 2007). Managers mustconsider their strategic goals and available resources in order to knowwhich aspects of relationships to emphasize with key account customers.

In addition to suppliers embracing relationship marketing and anincreasing emphasis on the customer (Homburg, Workman, & Jensen,2000; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), a relational orientation to business isalso driven by customers placing increasing demands on suppliers(Homburg et al., 2000). Customers stand to see returns on long-term re-lationships in the form of problem resolution, special accommodations,and reduced stress as relationships become increasingly predictable(Bitner, 1995). However, given the many benefits of relationships,

1 402 472 [email protected] (J.S. Johnson).

.

on, J.S., Key account relationsi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.20

Bitner (1995) questions whether there are underlying events whichcause customers, satisfied and dissatisfied alike, to maintain or termi-nate relationships. The purpose of this research is to provide a betterunderstanding of resource allocation strategies in existing key accountrelationships by conducting a comprehensive examination of customerrelationship evaluations and their association with positive andnegative relational outcomes (Table 1).

Research often examines the conceptualization of positive relationalattributes which drive positive relational outcomes but generally fails toalso take into consideration the negative relational attributes customersperceive when evaluating their existing relationships. Correspondinglines of research argue that knowledge about relationships is problemat-ically unilateral and overly focused on the positive aspects of relationships(e.g., Cannon & Perreault, 1999; Hibbard, Brunel, Dant, & Iacobucci, 2001;Mitręga & Zolkiewski, 2012). In line with this assessment, the authorsutilize an exploratory approach and in-depth interviews to contribute tothe understanding of both the positive and negative drivers of existingkey account customers' evaluations of suppliers prior to major contractexpirations. Findings show that positive and negative relationshipoutcomes are uniquely associated with a varied pattern of the positiveand negative dimensions, indicating that the desire by suppliers tomaximize positive outcomes or minimize negative outcomes is basedon distinct underlying relationships.

The findings are important because managers struggle to find usefulways to assess their relationships in order to predict how customerswillbehave, and therefore, how successful their businesses will be in the

hips: An exploratory inquiry of customer-based evaluations, Industrial13.11.009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.009

mailto:[email protected]


Unlabelled image


Unlabelled image

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00198501


Table 1Thematic drivers of key account relationship evaluations.

Relational constructs Dimension valence Dimensions Representative quotation

Commitment Positive • High level of responsiveness a

• Proactive approach to the relationship• Involvement by senior management

They assessed and analyzed the supply inventory and figured out that theyhad toomuch paper products of a certain kind. As a result, they sent it back tothe distributor and got us a credit.We nowhave a credit of over $10,000withthem and can purchase goods that wemight be short on. But alone that theythink: “hey, this season is slow, let's do something that will help them”

instead of just sitting around. That was great. (VP, Operations — Case 18)Negative • Reactive

• Lack of senior level involvement• Apathetic/unresponsive to account concerns• No dedicated resources allocated b

The one area I think could definitely be improved would be the relationshipwith the offsite managers. I have to say that I have only met the districtrepresentative from (the supplier) one time in the six months that I havebeen working with the facilities group …. The follow-up from the larger or-ganization is probably a bit lacking. (VP, Clinical & Support Services —Case 8)

Trust Positive • Delivering as promised/forthrightness• Positive brand reputation b

• Honesty/truthful information

There is an atmosphere of openness and trust that prevails in all ourcollaborations. Everybody speaks very candidly about issues and sharesinformation that most companies would not feel comfortable talking about.(VP, Distribution — Case 41)

Negative • Opportunism b

• Blatant dishonesty• Failure to deliver as promised/settingunreasonable expectations

I have to rely on what other people say. The haulers are there every day. Ifthey are picking up empty containers — obviously they want to get theirmoney so they are not going to tell us. They should tell us. It is almostdeception in someway…. Again, they are the experts and they should knowwhat kind of services they can provide. (Facility Administrator — Case 49)

Adaptation Positive • Supplier flexibility/enabled for change• Providing customized solutions

My perceptions of (the supplier) in general are that they are a class player….(The supplier) has obviously been a huge player in our overall transportationprocess. We've grown so fast and we are so inconsistent that my feelings arethat (the supplier's) flexibility is one thing that has made us successful. (SVPSupply Chain — Case 34)

Negative • Supplier inflexibility• Non-customized solutions

We've been offered ‘best in class,’ but we have recognized that it is not anoption for us. What we need is the support from (the supplier's) leadershipteam to help us do what is fiscally responsible and ultimately good for ourpatients. They have fallen short on that relationship. (COO — Case 30)

Customer Orientation Positive • Differentiated treatment of account b

• Alignment of organizational goals b

• Facilitating ease of doing business

Realistically, I don't think there is any other company that we could partnerwith on that level. We are getting red carpet treatment from (the supplier).(COO — Case 41)

Negative • Difficulty in doing business

2S.B.Friend,J.S.Johnson

/IndustrialMarketing

Managem

entxxx(2013)

xxx–xxx

Pleasecite

thisarticle

as:Friend,S.B.,&Johnson,J.S.,K

eyaccountrelationships:A

nexploratory

inquiryofcustom

er-basedevaluations,Industrial

Marketing

Managem

ent(2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarm

an.2013.11.009


• Sales orientation b

• Arrogance/assumption of needs bWhenwe get the invoices from (the supplier) they sometimes contain errorsthat our accountant identifies. We can have issues with the timeliness ofreceiving the invoice or in getting things resolved…The accuracy and thetimeliness are the two big issues. (CFO — Case 19)

Communication Positive • Robust content/knowledge sharing b

• Frequent contact/communication• Formality/structured contact b Service level reports, account reports, pivot tables — they give you as much

data as you could ever want. They are very, very good about this. If you needmore, just ask and theywill put it together for you. (Sr. CorporateManager—Case 45)Negative • Lack of benchmarkingb

• Infrequent contact/communication• Inappropriate modalityb

I know that he is doing a good job, it is just that I don't knowwhat he is doing.(He) is issuing no communications. I don't get any information from himunless I ask for it…. I am completely out of the loop and I have no idea whathe is doing …. He needs to keep me posted and give me updates. (Exec. Di-rector, Facility & Support — Case 23)

Partnership Positive • Close collaboration/embeddedness• Strong account rep. relationship• Lengthy duration of relationship b

My main contact with (the supplier) is through (him). When I think of (thesupplier) I think in terms of (him). I would give him very high marks forcustomer service…. If there is anything that can be done (he) will bend overbackwards to try and get it done. (CFO — Case 19)

Negative • Poor account rep. relationship/turnover• Arm's length collaboration

I understand that when you have good people they rise up the ranks. Fine.That said … it impacts the quality, but also the security. (ContractCoordinator, Food & Clinical — Case 16)

Value Positive • Cost efficiencies• Cost takeouts

When you are handling things in-house all the issues are on you. That is thehiring, firing, and management of the staff…Food service is not what theschool district is in the business to do …. Since they are in the business tomake money, they have to focus on efficiency. (CFO — Case 19)

Negative • No cost takeouts• Cost inefficiencies

I see billing that says ‘no haul’ so why would you go out to a location if thereis nothing there? Why would you charge me if you didn't pick anything up?Why would you go two days in a row? The business is not being managedand the pickups are not being managed well. (Assistant Buyer — Case 48)

a All dimensions organized from highest frequency to lowest frequency within their respective construct valence.b Indicates that dimension does not possess positive/negative inverse dimension.

3S.B.Friend,J.S.Johnson

/IndustrialMarketing

Managem

entxxx(2013)

xxx–xxx

Pleasecite

thisarticle

as:Friend,S.B.,&Johnson,J.S.,K

eyaccountrelationships:A

nexploratory

inquiryofcustom

er-basedevaluations,Industrial

Marketing

Managem

ent(2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarm

an.2013.11.009


4 S.B. Friend, J.S. Johnson / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

future (Hogan, 2001; Keiningham, Aksoy, Cooil, & Andreassen, 2008). Aportion of this difficulty is potentially based on suppliers overlooking, orinaccurately explaining, their own adverse contributions to the rela-tionship (i.e., attribution biases). Research has, in-turn, shown valuein studying customer–supplier relationships from the customer'sperspective (e.g., Tuli, Kohli, & Bharadwaj, 2007), particularly asthis perspective relates to studying the darker side of relationships,such as negative consequences (e.g., Mitręga & Zolkiewski, 2012;Tähtinen & Blois, 2011). Researchers have called for examinationsproviding a greater emphasis on understanding the customer deci-sion process, particularly across multiple customer and supplier or-ganizations (Johnson et al., 2001). Most empirical examinations ofkey account relationships capture data within a single supplier firmand attempt to explain variance across customers (Sengupta,Krapfel, & Pusateri, 2000). The present examination, however, cap-tures relationship data from multiple decision makers within 52 dif-ferent customer organizations, each case in reference to an existingsupplier, representing over $1.3 billion in account retentionopportunities.

Researchers are also calling for a greater understanding of customervalue determination and the resulting impact on customer decisions(Flint, 2002). Hibbard et al. (2001) indicate the need for better assess-ments of relationship performance in order to gauge whether investingin relationship marketing activities is worthwhile. The current researchseeks to address these calls by exploring the patterns of positive andnegative relational dimensions with positively and negatively valencedoutcomes. The findings allowmanagers to create efficiencies by allocat-ing resources to specific relational drivers which have a desired impact,while diverting resources away from relational drivers with minimalimpact. The strategies are thus developed around clusters of positiveand negative constructs with specifically-patterned associations, hereinreferred to as conventional constructs, prevention constructs, and pro-motion constructs. The findings show that while some constructs areconsistent with the expected paradigm of positively valenced dimen-sions associated with positive relationship outcomes and negativelyvalenced dimensions associated with negative outcomes (i.e., conven-tional constructs), others show patterns in which the positive relationaldimensions are associated with positive outcomes, but negativelyvalenced dimensions are not associated with negative relationship out-comes (i.e., promotion constructs), or vice versa (i.e., preventionconstructs).

The paper is structured as follows. First, the literature review focuseson key account relationships and provides a framework for the explor-atory inquiry. This is followed by a description of the research method,sample, data collection, and reliability and validity of the analysis. Fol-lowing this, research findings are presented, highlighting the relationaldimensions which do not possess a positive or negative inverse repre-sentation, as well as the patterned associations with relational out-comes. Finally, theoretical and managerial implications are discussedas they pertain to resource allocation strategies and avenues for futureresearch are advanced.

2. Literature review

2.1. Key account relationships

Relationshipmarketing directs the attention ofmarketing to existingcustomers in order to increase retention through value-added benefits(Frankwick, Porter, & Crosby, 2001). Relational approaches are a prima-ry driver of customer retention and have seen an increase in attentionand adoption (Day, 2000; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Morgan & Hunt,1994). Collaborative relationships are particularly vital at the key ac-count level, as customers representing a high share of sales or profitsshould be given preferential attention in comparison to less impactfulcustomers (Guenzi et al., 2007). Many suppliers therefore implement

Please cite this article as: Friend, S.B., & Johnson, J.S., Key account relationsMarketing Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.20

a relationship marketing strategy with key account customers (Ivens& Pardo, 2007).

Within a business-to-business context, customer–supplier relation-ship research has found value in utilizing employee turnover models tocreate extensions into customer retention models (e.g., Friend, Hamwi,& Rutherford, 2011; Johnson et al., 2001). One of the most influentialvariables related to employee turnover is employee satisfaction(Ragin, 1987; Rihoux & Ragin, 2008). However, theory substantiatesthat satisfaction is not a continuum of satisfaction and dissatisfactionat inverse ends of the spectrum, but rather that satisfaction and dissat-isfaction are on separate, but parallel, continua (Herzberg, 1965, 1974).Thus, satisfaction and dissatisfaction should be studied independentlyand understanding the unique conceptualization of each constructis important. There is value in extending this phenomenon from theemployee turnover context to the customer retention context (e.g.,Johnson et al., 2001) as variables associated with customer retentionand defection are likely also uniquely conceptualized on separate con-tinua as opposed to being thought of as pure inverses.

The relationship marketing literature recognizes numerous driversof relationship performance: commitment (Morgan & Hunt, 1994),trust (Morgan & Hunt, 1994), adaptability (Plouffe, Hulland, &Wachner, 2009), customer orientation (Jaramillo, Ladik, Marshall, &Mulki, 2007), communication (Richard, Thirkell, & Huff, 2007), partner-ship (Palmatier, Dant, & Grewal, 2007), and value (Kalwani &Narayandas, 1995). However, these constructs are generally conceptu-alized and operationalized based on dimensions which make thempresent within a relationship, which can be incomplete because deci-sion makers likely take into consideration bundled assessments of pos-itive and negative characteristics. These full assessments of ongoingrelationships, particularly the negative attributes, extend knowledgein the relationship marketing literature.

RQ1: Are the constructs associated with positive and negative evalu-ations of key account relationships conceptually the same or com-posed of unique dimensions?

In addition to shifting the focus of marketers toward existing cus-tomers, the theory of relationship marketing also conceptualizespositive effects on the nature and anticipation of continuous futureinteractions (Williams & Attaway, 1996). These future interactionsassociated with retention are important and are suggested to beamong the most critical components that influence customer life-time value (Reichheld & Teal, 1996). However, research has shownthat purely looking at relationship strength or longevitymay not pro-vide a complete and accurate assessment of the full value of customers(e.g., Reinartz & Kumar, 2000). Long-term customers are also posed toprovide benefits in the form of business expansion opportunities(Gupta et al., 2006) and positive word of mouth (WOM) (Kumar,Petersen, & Leone, 2010). The current study thereforemoves beyond re-lationship classification as the final outcome by also capturing futurebusiness intentions and business referral behaviors.

The perception of the status of a relationship from the perspective ofthe key account customer is a fundamental concern of suppliers. Theperceived positive relationship status insulates the supplier from ad-verse occurrences that may occur in the future (Ganesan, Brown,Mariadoss, & Ho, 2010). Accordingly, as a dichotomy, relationships arecoded in the current research as strong or vulnerable. The dimensionsof relationship evaluations also have the potential to impact future busi-ness. Existing customers represent an opportunity for suppliers to cross-sell and up-sell, therefore expanding the current relational exchange(Payne & Frow, 2005). Alternatively, customers often have alternatesources of supply or operate under a multi-source strategy, enablingthem to reduce the existing relationship (Friend et al., 2011). Further-more, many customers are in a state of maintenance, with no indicationof further opportunities for suppliers to take advantage of or intentionsto lower their demand. Future business intentions are coded in the



5S.B. Friend, J.S. Johnson / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

qualitative inquiry as expansion, maintenance, or reduction. Finally, theextant literature extols the benefits of positive customer referrals forsuppliers. Several studies have linked customer satisfaction to WOMacross a variety of contexts (e.g., Anderson, 1998; Sharma, Niedrich, &Dobbins, 1999). Business referral behaviors are coded based on thecustomer's intention to provide a positive referral or negative/no referral.

These outcome variables and their associated relationships are alsogenerally conceptualized within a positive framework examining theassociations between positive relational dimensions and positiveoutcomes. Given that negative relational dimensions and outcomesregularly occur, this positive framework can be an incomplete perspec-tive of the customer's evaluation (Mitręga & Zolkiewski, 2012). Forexample, findings show that intention to stay and intention to leaveare unique outcomes driven by unique dimensions of satisfaction anddissatisfaction independently (Maimon & Ronen, 1978). A greaterunderstanding of the negative behaviors associated with relationshipclassification (e.g., relationship vulnerability), future business inten-tions (e.g., relationship reduction), and/or business referral behaviors(e.g., negative/no WOM) is needed.

RQ2: Are the patterns of positive and negative key account relation-ship dimensions equally associated with (a) positive relationshipoutcomes (e.g., positive relationship, relationship expansion, posi-tive referral) and (b) negative relationship outcomes (e.g., negativerelationship, relationship reduction, negative/no referral), or dounique patterns of results exist (e.g., conventional constructs, pre-vention constructs, and promotion constructs)?

2.2. Theoretical framework

Two theoretical frameworks are utilized to position the researchwithin the extant literature: attribution andmotivation. Attribution the-ory (Mizerski, Golden, & Kernan, 1979) is utilized in sales research torepresent the relationships between sales force expectancy perceptionsand performance. Teas and McElroy (1986) introduce this theoreticalframework to sales research by integrating models of sales forcemotivation (Walker, Churchill, & Ford, 1977) and employee attributionprocesses (Weiner, 1972). The attribution process is influenced by themotivation perspective; meaning the attribution process is elicited if asalesperson fails to perform a well-defined task satisfactorily (Teas &McElroy, 1986).

Motivation is driven by expectancies — the perceived linkagebetween expending more effort on particular tasks and achievingimproved performance (Johnston & Marshall, 2011). Thus, the more

Relationship ActivitiesRelationship Dimensions (+/-)

ExpPerceived relaincreased (dec

relational activ(decreased

Fig. 1. Theoretical framework for explorator


accurate the understanding of the relationship activities which driveperformance, the more the supplier is able to work smarter as opposedto harder (Smith, Jones, & Blair, 2000; Sujan, 1986; Weitz, Sujan, &Sujan, 1986). However, loss drives attributions (Mallin & Mayo, 2006),and inaccurate explanations of losswill increase the likelihood of subse-quent ineffective account management efforts (Dixon, Spiro, & Jamil,2001; Weiner, 1985). Attribution bias may thus cause salespeople tooverestimate their contribution to the positive aspects of their key ac-count relationships and underestimate or overlook their contributionto the negative aspects of their relationships (Ingram, Schwepker, &Hutson, 1992).

When salespeople misjudge the true relationship between theirrelational activities and resulting performance, they are likely to misal-locate efforts and spend too much time and energy on activities thathave relatively little impact on performance and not enough on activi-ties with greater impact (Johnston & Marshall, 2011). The currentresearch collects data from the customer's perspective in order to min-imize the attribution biases which may be present when evaluatingboth positive and negative aspects of existing relationships, thereforeincreasing the supplier's expectancy regarding the association betweenrelational activities and relationship performance. Fig. 1 provides anintegrated attribution and motivation framework which positions thecurrent exploratory inquiry.

3. Method

As the purpose of this project is to examine positive and negativerelational factors independently rather than as opposite ends of aspectrum, an exploratorymethodologywas employed as this techniqueconcentrates on the perceptions of decision makers and uncoversemergent themes and ideas (Stake, 2010). Qualitative examinationsare useful in describing phenomena, such as key account relationships,because they utilize the voices of the informants to further developexisting models (Creswell, 2007).

Informant interviews and a subsequent content analysis were usedto gain insight into the positive and negative relational aspects attendedto by customers and their accompanying attitudes toward relationaloutcome variables. Incorporating the views of a multitude of heteroge-neous informants representing different companies and industriesprovides a better grounding of the phenomenon and enhances thegeneralizability of the findings (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Theinclusion of a content analysis is useful in identifying patterns thatmay exist between the variables of interest in the study.

Relationship PerformanceRelationship Classification (+/-)Future Business Intentions (+/-)Business Referral Behavior (+/-)

ectancytionship between reased) effort on

ities and increased ) performance

y inquiry of key account relationships.


image of Fig.�1



3.1. Sample and data collection

Sampling is a common challengewhen using a qualitative approach.The cases selectedmust be representative of the population to allow forgeneralization, as well as involve informants who are knowledgeableand possess different perspectives on the topic of interest (Creswell,2007). In this pursuit, key account cases were selected through a theo-retical sampling plan, consisting of cases from multiple industries inorder to enhance the robustness of the results (Creswell, 2007). Theo-retical sampling is useful in qualitative examinations as informantswith extensive knowledge relating to the research questions areselected (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This technique is widely usedin a variety of marketing contexts (e.g., Beverland, Ewing, &Jekanyika Matanda, 2006; Malshe & Sohi, 2009).

Three large business-to-business service suppliers representingthree focal industries were examined in this study. The first industryrepresented is facilities management. The outsourcing of facilitiesmanagement activities include building maintenance, cleaning,food service, and uniform service. The second industry is shippingand logistics. The procurement of logistic services includes inboundand outbound logistics, ground and air shipping, and customer man-agement. The third industry represented is waste management.Waste management suppliers provide trash and recycling services.All three suppliers represented in the study are among the largestorganizations in their respective industries and each maintains asubstantial market share.

The three suppliers provided a list of key account customers sixmonths to one year away from contract expiration, along with thedecision maker(s) within each customer organization for the specifiedcontract. All customers interviewed were identified as key accounts bythe respective supplier. The resulting sample consisted of interviewswith 99 executives from 52 separate key account cases. The averagecontract value was $26.1 million, with a median value of $5.1 million.The addition of new cases was stopped after theoretical saturationwas reached (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The size of this sample,magnitude of the contracts, and proximity to a critical event in theexchange relationshipmake this an ideal context to examine the associ-ation between key account relationship determinants and outcomes(see Appendix A for detailed sample characteristics of each interviewcase).

An aim of the interviewswas to understand the customer's completeevaluation of the existing relationship and attitudes regarding fu-ture relationship intentions. Interviews were conducted betweena professional consultative research firm and executive decisionmakers interacting with the supplying firm for the specified con-tract. Data collection by outside parties is accepted within qualita-tive research with the recognition of the technique's advantages(e.g., objectivity) and disadvantages (e.g., control) (e.g., Beverlandet al., 2006; Mitręga & Zolkiewski, 2012; Pullins, 2001; Tuten &Urban, 2001). To ensure quality control, each interview followeda standardized, semi-structured interview guide to uncover thekey elements of the relationship evaluation process and ensuingoutcomes.

The semi-structured interview guide of 23 questions was dividedinto five broad categories: (1) account team effectiveness— interactionwith decision makers, (2) needs and expectations — client's require-ments, supplier's understanding of client's emerging needs, andsupplier's perceived capabilities, (3) competitor insight— actions com-petitors are undertaking to acquire account/gain share, (4) value prop-osition — increased revenues, reduced costs, and increased value,and (5) communications tools — effective tools and perceived areasfor improvement. The interviewers also probed each informant be-yond the semi-structured interview guide in order to better under-stand the underlying drivers of the relationship evaluation andconsiderations for future business (Deeter-Schmelz & Kennedy,2002). The interviewers were expert investigators in helping


suppliers identify areas of strength and vulnerability with existingaccounts. This expertise is aligned with the relationship manage-ment research stream and the aim of the interviews, enabling the in-terviewers to utilize probing techniques to further support the depthof knowledge necessary to understand the customer's complete sup-plier evaluation and intentions. All the interviews were conductedby the same research team of two interviewers via telephone andwere all recorded and transcribed verbatim. The same principal in-terviewer led each inquiry. The sample contained 313 pages ofsingle-spaced transcripts across the 52 key account cases.

3.2. Reliability, validity, and analysis

The qualitative analysis followed several stages to maximize thevalidity and interpretability of the data. First, QSR NVivo 9 qualita-tive software was utilized to rigorously structure and documentthe process, providing comprehensive data treatment by examiningall facets of the raw data and coding prior to making final conclu-sions (Silverman & Marvasti, 2008). Quotations from the casesaffecting the relationship were identified and coded by the re-searchers. The quotations selected were those indicating positiveor negative associations with the relationship. Analysis of the datayielded a total of 226 quotations deemed impactful on the key ac-count relationship. The researchers then proceeded to open and ax-ially code these quotations (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In open coding,the quotations provided by informants were classified into first-order categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Categories were then or-ganized by axially coding them into higher-order themes. In axialcoding, the first-order codes were examined to identify consistentthemes by which to group like codes. This process resulted in theformation of seven constructs with a total of 38 dimensions (19 pos-itively valenced and 19 negatively valenced). Refutability was en-sured by looking for contexts where relationships may have beeninconsistent (e.g., supplier industries, customer industries, decisionmaking levels) (Silverman & Marvasti, 2008). No systematic differ-ences were found.

Next, definitions were created to code accounts by current rela-tionship classification (strong–vulnerable), future business inten-tions (expand–maintain–reduce), and business referral behavior(positive reference–negative/no reference). All the cases were readin their entirety and were then independently classified by theresearchers based on the category definitions. Subsequently, inter-rater reliability calculations were performed for each of the threecategories. As multiple informants from the same key account wererepresented to provide a complete understanding of relevant rela-tional factors at different hierarchies or roles, the classification wasaggregated at the account-level for each case. Though the relationaldimensions identified by different informants from the samecustomer were sometimes divergent, the aggregate evaluationswere consistent, enabling the account-level classification. The useof multiple informants from the same customer is an importantway to reduce the risk that the views expressed are a function ofthe key informant rather than the organization (Bruggen, Lilien, &Kacker, 2002). All three categorical classifications exceeded thelower-bound threshold level of agreement (.70) in exploratoryinterjudge applications (Perreault & Leigh, 1989), with businessreferral behavior the highest at 1.00, relationship classification at.98, and future business intention at .92.

A content analysis was subsequently performed to interpret the rel-ative impact of the relational dimensions on relationship classification,future business intentions, and business referral behavior. To classifythe quotations for the content analysis, two independent judges experi-enced in qualitative research were trained on the project and classifica-tion categories. The judges were provided with a codebook containingdefinitions for each of the 38 open codes identified in the initial qualita-tive examination and follow-up was provided to answer any clarifying




questions. The judges classified each of the 226 quotations into one ofthe 38 dimensions. Due to the large number of coding categories,inter-rater reliability was assessed by Perreault and Leigh's (1989)interjudge reliability coefficient. Inter-rater agreement was sufficientat .74. Disputed quotations were resolved by ascertaining if one of thetwo judges matched the a priori classification of the researchers. Cases

Table 2Content analysis results.

Themes/subthemes Relationship classification F

Strong Vulnerable E

CommitmentNegative 4 22 3

Lack sr. management involvement 2 6 0No dedicated resources 0 3 0Reactive 1 9 1Apathetic/unresponsive 1 6 2

Positive 23 7 9Proactive 11 1 5Responsive 9 4 4Sr. management involvement 3 2 0

TrustNegative 1 9 1

Dishonest 0 3 0Does not deliver as promised 0 2 1Opportunism 1 4 0

Positive 18 1 1Delivers as promised 11 0 7Honest 2 0 2Positive brand image 5 1 3

AdaptationNegative 3 8 1

Non-customized solutions 1 1 0Supplier inflexibility 2 7 1

Positive 7 3 2Providing customized solutions 1 2 1Supplier flexibility 6 1 1

Customer orientationNegative 5 3 2

Arrogant attitude 1 0 1Difficult to do business 3 3 0Sales orientation 1 0 1

Positive 4 2 3Company alignment 2 0 1Differential treatment 2 1 2Ease of doing business 0 1 0

CommunicationNegative 8 6 6

Inappropriate mode communication 1 1 1Infrequent communication 2 3 2

No benchmarking 5 2 3Positive 7 2 5

Formality of communication 1 1 1Frequency of communication 1 1 1Robust content of communication 5 0 3

PartnershipNegative 4 7 4

Arm's length collaboration 1 0 0Representative turnover/dislike 3 5 4

Positive 23 6 1Close collaboration/embedded 8 3 4Long-term relationship 8 0 6Strong account rep. relationship 7 3 5

ValueNegative 1 4 1

Cost inefficiencies 1 1 0Does not provide cost takeouts 0 3 1

Positive 7 1 1Cost efficiencies 6 0 1Provides cost takeouts 1 1 0

Total 115 81 6


meeting this criterion were assigned the majority consensus and thosethat did not were excluded from further analysis. This analysis waspaired with the three outcome classifications to provide a content-analytic assessment of the dimensions' impact on the outcomes. Intotal, 196of the 226quotationswere classified into oneof the 38 dimen-sions and used in the content analysis (see Table 2).

uture business intentions Business referral behavior

xpand Maintain Reduce Positive Negative/no

16 7 13 138 0 5 31 2 1 25 4 3 72 3 4 318 3 28 26 1 11 18 1 13 04 1 4 1

5 4 6 42 1 2 10 1 1 13 2 3 2

2 7 0 19 04 0 11 00 0 2 03 0 6 0

2 8 3 81 1 1 11 7 2 76 2 8 21 1 2 15 1 6 1

3 3 5 30 0 1 03 3 3 30 0 1 01 2 5 11 0 2 00 1 2 10 1 1 0

4 4 11 30 1 1 11 2 4 13 1 6 12 2 8 10 1 2 00 1 1 12 0 5 0

4 3 8 31 0 1 03 1 7 1

5 13 1 27 26 1 9 22 0 8 05 0 10 0

1 3 2 31 1 1 10 2 1 26 1 7 15 0 6 01 1 1 1

5 88 43 150 46




4. Findings

4.1. Constructs and dimensions

The thematic constructs that characterize key account relation-ships are comprised of a broad set of contributing factors. In total,seven primary constructs emerged from the customer's perspective:commitment, trust, adaptation, customer orientation, communica-tion, partnership, and value. The assessment of the relationship is afunction of a multi-attribute bundle of positive and negative dimen-sions. A total of 19 positive and 19 negative dimensions are identifiedwithin the qualitative data set, each of which are categorized underone of the seven constructs in order to conceptualize these multi-attribute relational drivers. The positive and negative elements arenot simply the obverse of each other, but in many cases are uniqueand distinctly different.

4.1.1. CommitmentWithin the bundled assessment of relationship status, the positive di-

mensions of commitment include responsiveness, senior managementinvolvement, and proactivity, while negative dimensions include apathytoward account concerns/unresponsiveness, low senior management in-volvement, reactive problem resolution, and lack of dedicated resources.

One dimension contributing to the perception of supplier commit-ment is responsiveness. Key accounts perceive the supplier as commit-ted to the relationship when they feel that the supplier makes theirissues a priority and promptly takes action to rectify concerns. Involve-ment by seniormanagement is also seen by key accounts as a sign of thesupplier's commitment to their business. The visibility of seniormanagement indicates to customers that the supplier understandstheir needs and is invested in continued relations. Finally, key accountdecision makers are consistently positive with regard to suppliers thatare proactive. These customers value suppliers that actively managetheir account and address potential problems before they become anissue. By taking a proactive approach to the relationship, suppliers areseen as visionary and invested partners.

They solve some problems and answer some questions before whatwe need comes up. (He) makes things work. (He) often figures outsolutions to things before there’s a problem. (Director, Transportation& Logistics – Case 39)

A pattern of negatively valenced responses within the commitmentconstruct is due to apparent apathy or unresponsiveness to the keyaccount's business concerns. Some suppliers are ambivalent and slow torespond to problems in the key account interface and the decisionmakersperceive no benefit in expressing their issues to the supplier. Next, a lackof involvement by seniormanagement is interpreted by the customer as anegative contributor to the relationship within the commitment con-struct. Executive contact is a signal sent by the supplier, and its omissionis perceived as disinterest towards the relationship within a key accountcontext. Another negative dimension within the commitment constructis a pattern of negatively valenced responses due to a reactive approachto the business relationship. Key accounts provide suppliers significantbusiness and expect them to learn and anticipate needs rather than as-sume a passive, reactionary role. Finally, key account customers view in-stances where they are not allocated dedicated resources as a sign ofweak commitment. The lack of status differentiation and the absence ofdedicated resources undermine the customer's perception of the supplier.For example, key account customers desire interactionwith a represen-tative assigned to their account rather than a generic call center. Genericcall centers lack the customer-specific knowledge necessary for efficientproblem resolution and are perceived as being less accountable than adedicated representative. This dimension did not have a positive com-mitment counterpart. As such, the presence of a dedicated resourcedoes not necessarily create perceptions of positive commitment for


key accounts; however, the absence appears to create perceptions ofweak commitment.

The set-up at the national accounts desk seems to be ‘everybodyis responsible,’ but the result is nobody is responsible. If there isnot dedicated responsibility and somebody to hold accountable,then nobody is responsible and the service suffers. (Special ProjectsAnalyst — Case 50)

4.1.2. TrustThe analysis of the data in a key account context provides unique

dimensions to the extant literature on trust. Honesty, delivering aspromised, and positive brand image are indicative of positive trustwithin the bundled assessment of key account relationships, while dis-honesty, failure to deliver as promised, and opportunism are indicativeof negatively valenced trust.

The perception of honesty is a key facet representative of the con-struct of trust. Informants look for suppliers to provide themwith truth-ful information and share intimate knowledge. Delivering as promisedis also a key contributor to the trust construct. Following through oncommitments facilitates the building of credibility in the supplier. Theimage of the supplier's brand has a novel effect of engendering credibil-ity and trust. In numerous cases, the supplier has either a direct or an in-direct interfacewith the end-user, in which case the key account valuesthe surety of the brand and what the brand represents. Customers alsovalue this because they believe that the end-users see the supplier'sbrand as an investment and a sign of caring for their business.

Perception is the key here. If I tell a client we’re shipping somethingby (the supplier) and it doesn’t get there, it’s okay, because (thesupplier) provides the best service. If I tell that same client we’reshipping something by (a competitor) and it doesn’t get there, it’s(the competitor’s) fault simply because it’s (the competitor) we’redealing with. Brand name recognition is what it’s all about. (SeniorDirector – Case 43)

Among the negative dimensions, supplier behaviors identified bythe customer as dishonest are met with intense negative reactions.While other trust-depleting behaviors have strong negative impactson the relationship, blatant dishonesty appears to receive the mostemotionally charged negative response. Failure to deliver as promisedalso negatively impacts trust on the part of the key account. Whilenot seen as intrinsically malevolent as dishonesty, not delivering aspromised nonetheless compromises the credibility of the supplier.Opportunism by the supplier is primarily characterized by omissionof relevant information, including instances where the supplierdoes not adequately explain contractual provisions or imposes sur-charges deemed unnecessary. Interestingly, even though the suppli-er may technically be in the right on some issues, the seeminglyintentional nature of their actions erodes trust and strains the rela-tionship status.

(The school board) thought that they could do away with the con-tract at any time and they hadn’t been careful in realizing the provi-sionary contract only lasted two years and from then on it wasautomatically renewed for the next four years. That created distrustand stress and all kinds of reactions on the part of the school board.(Superintendent – Case 29)

4.1.3. AdaptationAdaptation is one of only two constructs with only symmetric

dimensions. Customized solutions and flexibility are contributors toperceived adaptation, while a lack of customized solutions and systeminflexibility are negatively perceived.




Central elements of pertinence to adaptation are supplier flexibilityand ability to change. Relationships are dynamic and often require partiesto adapt to external or internal fluctuations. Informants confirm thesesentiments, indicating supplier flexibility has a positive impact on rela-tionship status through adaptation. A related component of a customer'sview of adaptation is their perception of the supplier's solutions. Findingcustomized solutions specific to the key account's needs is a common at-tribute positively linked to adaptation by the supplier. As indicated, cus-tomized solutions often result in enhanced performance for the customer.

One issue in the high schools is that the students on free and reducedmeal plans can feel isolated because they have to go through one hotfood line. (The supplier) has come up with enough variety that wehave three different food lines and a free and reducedmeal plan stu-dent can go through any one of those food lines and get a reimburs-ablemealwithout anybody knowing.We nowhavemore kids eatingeverywhere because the options are there. (Assistant Superinten-dent for Business & Operations – Case 29)

On the negative side, some customer–supplier relationships areinhibited by onerous and inflexible operating systems. Such inflexibilitymakes requisite additional effort from the key account to fit with thesupplier's system. As key accounts have high expectations for suppliersto show flexibility in conducting their business, this is detrimental totheir ideal perception. A perceived lack of customization is a second im-pediment to the supplier's perceived adaptation. Key account cus-tomers expect targeted efforts from their suppliers, and when this isnot met, the customer may question the value. Customers thus feelthat the supplier should provide tailor-made solutions to meet theirneeds and perceive solutions poorlywhen they fall short of those needs.

In this ideal world (the supplier) would be more willing to be flexi-ble on their systematic constraints. (They) tell us that we need to fitinto their box. If we can do that then they can do things for us. I don’tknow if tailor-made solutions are in their vocabulary or not. I haven’tseen them (Director, Transportation – Case 34).

4.1.4. Customer orientationPositive dimensions of customer orientation emerging from the qual-

itative inquiry include perceived ease of business, company alignment,and differential treatment,whereas a perceived sales orientation, burden-some business interactions, and arrogance contribute negatively to thebundled assessment of customer orientation. Four of the six customerorientation dimensions do not have inverse representation.

Suppliers directly impact their perceived level of customer orienta-tion by facilitating ease of doing business. Purchasing executives andoperations managers are inundated with myriad organizational issuesin a given day, and the easier a supplier makes conducting business,the more they can focus on other issues. Also positively associatedwith customer orientation is alignment with customer objectives.Strong alignment with customer objectives indicates the supplier is intune with and integrated within the key account across multiple levelsof the organization. When customers feel that the supplier is alignedeffectively to their strategic goals, issues or inconsistencies, whichmay have resulted in adverse outcomes, are diminished.

I think the program is verywell aligned andwe are very close. I thinkthat is indicative of our long-term relationship and having a goodunderstanding of what we need and what we've got. (Director,Support Services – Case 20)

The final dimension positively associated with customer orientationis the differential treatment the customer receives due to their keyaccount status. Whether obtained through their interactions with


other vendors, discussions with competitors, or previous experiencewith the supplier, key accounts know if they are being treated inalignment to their elite level of business. This first-rate treatment isindicative of a high level of customer orientation.

I think they have shown us that this account is very important tothem. They obviously have many accounts, but with us they meetand exceed expectations consistently. (Vice President, Operations –Case 18)

On the negative side, key accounts' perceptions of the supplier areimpacted by recurrent issues thatmake doing business with the suppli-er difficult. Poor processes affecting the accuracy and timeliness of cus-tomer concerns, such as rating, billing, and surcharge application are abane to customers. Further contributing to negative customer orienta-tion evaluations, instances where key account suppliers project a salesorientation, rather than a customer orientation, exist. The customerviews this orientation as a transactional way of conducting business.

He always tries to get (the supplier’s) share up by pitching volumediscounts. ‘You can save so much if you use (us) exclusively’. Andhe’s right, based on (their) pricing, but he iswrong on the bottom line,as I would spend more money overall. (Vice President, Operations –Case 40)

Finally, displaying an arrogant attitude is cited as an annoyanceand detractor from the perceived customer orientation. Instanceswhere the key account customers addressed an arrogant orientation,but were blatantly ignored, have deleterious consequences.

Even when you bring him into the office and shut the door and tellhim that he is being perceived as being rude, I don’t know that heunderstands that he is coming across as being rude. Everybody elsein the room knows it. (Chief Nursing Officer – Case 3)

4.1.5. CommunicationCommon communication facets appear in the qualitative findings,

such as frequency, formality, and robust content, with positive implica-tions to key account communication. Inappropriate modality, infre-quent contact, and a lack of communicated benchmarking havenegative impacts on perceived key account communication. Like cus-tomer orientation, communication also has four of the six dimensionswith no inverse representation.

Within a key account context, frequent communication is preferredto infrequent communication. More frequent communication is associ-ated with a higher level of integration and focus on the relationship.Additionally, informants indicate preference for formal communication.Customers' value structured interactions in which they can discussperformance and evolving business objectives.

I like the weekly budget updates, the monthly joint reviews, andespecially the seasonal project schedule. I think all that keeps every-body on task. (Vice President, Operations – Case 18)

The content of the communication is also a key component ofcommunication quality. Customers appreciate suppliers that providerobust, information pertinent to their operation, which allows thecustomer to identify focal points of improvement.

The entire reporting area was so exciting to us, you won’t believe it.Especially the service index that gives you recommendations ofwhere to improve and how to improve. We were so impressed thatwe hired them to create and implement (our) service index here in-house for us. (Chief Operating Officer – Case 41)




Conversely, key account customers perceive several communicativepractices by suppliers as impediments to communication quality.Infrequent communication elicits a pattern of negative effects fromthe customer's perspective. Modality is an issue when an inappropriateinterface is used by the supplier. The most common manifestationoccurs when suppliers rely on indirect modes (e.g., internet) insteadof direct contact (e.g., face-to-face) that key accounts desire. Keyaccounts resent the indirect communication and perceive the mode asa lack of consideration.

(The supplier) doesn’t understand their audience. If I want a re-port they will direct me to (their website) and tell me to log in.Theywon’t come out and showme how to do it. I will get frustrat-ed after 10 clicks of not finding what I want. On the other hand,the rep could come out and sit down and help find what I amlooking for. ... We want the rep to sit down and show us. (Director,Transportation – Case 34)

Finally, informants indicate that a flaw in key account communi-cation is not providing benchmarking information. Beyond the abil-ity to infer best practices and refine internal goals, customers oftenview the lack of benchmarking with suspicion, specifically indicat-ing they believe that the supplier would share the benchmarkinginformation with them were the news favorable. The impact ofthe lack of benchmarking information in key account contexts isilluminating.

This is also an area we lack a comparison to. We don’t really knowwhat the other hospitals are doing ....It would help to have bench-marks. (The supplier) has benchmarks internally, but I am referringto external benchmarks. It would be great to see how (the supplier’s)services with this hospital compare with other children’s hospitals.(Vice President, Clinical & Support Services – Case 8)

4.1.6. PartnershipElements contributing to key accounts' positive perception of

partnership are relationship duration, strong account representativeinteraction, and close collaboration with the key account. Those withnegative contributions are poor account representatives/high turnoverand arm's-length collaboration.

A sense of partnership is enhanced by how closely companiescollaborate. Indicative of the definition of partnership, both parties pro-pose solutions for the two companies tomaximize outcomes through be-coming embedded within one another's organization. The relationshipwith the account representative is also a principle facilitator in fosteringa sense of partnership between firms. As the account representative isthe face of the organization, filling this positionwith competent, amicableindividuals is central to the success of suppliers in partnerships with theirkey accounts. The duration of the relationship at both the account repre-sentative and firm level contribute to the sense of partnership. Customersplace value on the continuity benefits they receive from a longstandingrelationship with the supplier. Familiarity on both operational and inter-personal levels is perceived as an asset of the supplier.

The most effective thingwith (the supplier) is familiarity. They havebeenwith us for a long time including our transition to a new facility.They know how we operate and they know our personalities. Theyknow who gets what done. (Sheriff – Case 31)

Arm's-length collaboration serves to erode perceptions of partner-ship. In arm's length collaboration, suppliers are distant and do nottake an active part in leadership and decisions impacting the operationof the key account. The most consistent determinant of a negative part-nership is a poor relationship at the account representative level. Poor


interactions at this level make the exchange difficult for customers tosee the value in the supplier. One component of this limited relationshipis when the account representatives turn over on a regular basis andthus key accounts have a difficult time maintaining a sense of partner-ship with the supplier.

The turnoverwas at the staff level, onsite directors, and districtman-agers. I havemetmore regional VPs than I care to recall. It has almostbecome a little bit of a joke. When they call me to tell me that theywant me to meet someone new I think ‘Who am I meeting thisweek?’ There have been a lot of vice presidents in the area. (SeniorDirector, Food & Clinical – Case 15)

4.1.7. ValueMost customers approach exchange relationships with concerns

broader than simply the lowest initial selling price. Suppliers are able toincrease their perceived value in ways other than lowest initial price,such as by providing cost efficiencies and cost takeouts. Inefficienciesand the absence of shared cost reductions reflect negatively on value.Value is the second of two constructs with only symmetric dimensions.

Suppliers increase value by providing cost efficiencies the key accountis unable to replicate. Customers note that when the supplier is an expertin a particular domain, they are non-imitable because of the efficiencydemonstrated versus bringing the task in-house. Suppliers who providethese efficiencies positively contribute to the value construct. Anotherform of value sought by key accounts is the sharing of cost takeouts bythe supplier because many key accounts expect the supplier to provideshared savings through efficiencies gained in operation on a continualbasis. As indicated, suppliers optimize the customer's performance inorder to justify the relationship through the savings incurred.

I think they have been fairly effective in identifying cost savings op-portunities which is very critical to the management of our logistics.It is something that we hold (the supplier) accountable for. We put alot of emphasis on cost savings across our entire logistics operationandwe expect (the supplier) to come upwith at least a 1% every yearof their spend with us. It usually comes down to load optimization.(Assistant Purchasing Manager – Case 38)

Instances where the supplier negatively impacts the key account'sefficiency result in a decrease in value. Key accounts often do not budgetfor inconsistencies, so when a supplier does not perform as required,this discrepancy can equate to additional costs which negatively affectprofitability. The absence of cost takeouts is also noted as a negativecontributor to value by key accounts. Some key accounts believe thatsuppliers should share cost takeouts as a rule. In smaller accounts, costtakeouts may be seen as a windfall; however, key accounts view thisas a condition for handling their business. Failure to do so can result ina negative value perception.

I don’t see a bonus or incentive working for us. We never do sharedsavings. We view that as part of the business. To keep the businessyou need to be doing it. (Assistant Vice President – Case 48)

4.2. Content analysis

The qualitative findings provide key insights into the underlying con-structs and dimensions inherent to key account relationships. In additionto uncovering newandnon-inversed dimensions germane to key accountrelationships, differential effects of positive and negative dimensions onrelational outcome variables were also assessed. The content analysis al-lows for an examination of the relative association of positive andnegative dimensions with positive and negative outcomes. The resultsof the content analysis should not be construed as empirical support,but rather as a means of identifying patterns, consistent with exploratory




methodological techniques (Carlson, 2008). This research seeks to extendthe impact of the identified dimensions by assessing their derived impacton three important outcome variables for suppliers: relationship classifi-cation, future business intentions, and business referral behavior.

In the pursuit of answering RQ2, we reference techniques such asqualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to quantify the data (Ragin,1987; Rihoux & Ragin, 2008). We first identified a given outcome ofinterest and identified cases typifying positive and negative examplesof these outcomes. We then sought to determine the causal recipe forthese outcomes based on the positive or negative valences of the con-structs identified. This allowed us to gain a nuanced understanding ofthe data and identify instances where positively valenced dimensionsresulted in positive outcomes and negatively valenced dimensionsresulted in negative outcomes (conventional constructs), positivelyvalenced dimensions were non-impactful on positive outcomes, butnegatively valenced dimensions affected negative outcomes (preven-tion constructs), and positively valenced dimensions affected positiveoutcomes, but negatively valenced dimensions had little impact onnegative outcomes (promotion constructs).

4.2.1. Relationship classificationTrust and value are two conventional constructs with positively

valenced dimensions associated with positive outcomes and negativelyvalenced dimensions associated with negative outcomes. For example,95% of the quotations pertaining to positive trust are from cases classi-fied as strong relationships, while 90% of negative trust quotations arefrom cases classified as vulnerable relationships. In contrast, some con-structs do not share the same expected associations. In communication,while 78% of positive quotations come from cases classified as strongrelationships, only 43% of negative quotations are associated withvulnerable relationships. Thus, 57% of the quotations representing thenegative communication dimensions are pairedwith strong relationshipsand as such, communication is a promotion construct. The customerorientation construct also provides an example of these mismatching,promotion associations. In customer orientation, the ratio of negativecomments associated with strong relationships (63%) is almost aslarge as for that of positive comments associated with strong relation-ships (67%).

4.2.2. Future business intentionsThe construct of trust is again a conventional construct in regard to

future business intentions. On the other hand, several constructs areshown to drive business expansion (reduction) if positively (negatively)valenced, but are not expected to have the same reciprocal impact. Forexample, there is a strong pattern key accounts perceiving suppliers aslacking adaptability within cases classified as intending to reduce theexisting business relationship (73%), but not for positive perceptionsincreasing business (20%). Accordingly, adaptability is a preventionconstruct.

Perceptions of partnership have an opposite relationship. Negativedimensions of supplier partnership are not strongly associated withcases classified as business reduction intentions. Specifically, quotationsindicating perceived negative dimensions of partnership are fairlyequally represented across cases classified as business reduction(27%), maintenance (36%), and expansion (36%) intentions. However,positive dimensions of partnerships are strongly associated with casesclassified as business expansion intentions. Over half (52%) of the posi-tive partnership quotations are associatedwith expansion. On the otherhand, only three percent of the positive partnership quotations are as-sociated with business reduction intentions (45% maintenance). Thus,when present, supplier partnership is holistically positively viewedand opens the door for new opportunities. However, unlike adaptation,negative perceptions of a supplier partnership do not appear to havestrong associations with future business reductions consistent with apromotion construct.


4.2.3. Business referral behaviorsAdaptation is a conventional construct in relation to business refer-

ral behaviors. Seventy-three percent of the negatively valenced adapta-tion quotations are in cases which indicate negative/no referralbehavior intentions, while 80% of the positively valenced adaptabilityquotations are in caseswhich indicate positive referral behavior dimen-sions. These types of results might be expected based on assumptionsregarding identical dimensions of the positive and negative conceptual-izations of constructs' relationship with positive and negativeoutcomes; however, the results of the content analysis indicate thatthese types of associations are the exception to more complex concep-tualizations and associations with business referrals.

Less than half (44%) of the quotations representative of negativerelational dimensions are associated with cases classified as negativereferral/no referral behaviors; leaving over half (56%) of thesenegative di-mensions associatedwith positive referral behaviors. The content analysiswas examined for specific themes that may deviate from this overall pat-tern. Overall, all constructs, with the exception of adaptation and value,have a high propensity to provide positive referrals, even when largelycomprised of negative dimensions. For example, negative evaluations ofcommunication are fundamentally non-impactful on referral behavior.Contrary to the overall average, 79% of the quotations classified as nega-tive communication are within cases classified as still willing to providea positive referral for the supplier. Partnership shares a similar relation-ship. Seventy-three percent of quotations classified as a negative partner-ship dimension are associated with positive referral behaviors.

Within this paradox, positive relational dimensions within thepromotion constructs of communication, customer orientation, part-nership, and trust constructs show highly-consistent associations withthe expected positive referral behavior outcome. Specifically, 100% ofthe positive trust dimension quotations are identified in cases classifiedas likely to engage in positive referral behaviors. This pattern is similarlyobserved among the partnership dimension quotations (93%), commu-nication quotations (89%), and customer orientation quotations (83%).

Themodels presented in Fig. 2 provide a visual summary of the find-ings. Fig. 2a provides an inclusivemodel, including the dimensions, con-structs, and outcomes identifiedwithin the qualitative discovery. In linewith qualitative techniques which attempt to represent the strength ofthe nuanced associations represented in qualitative data (e.g., Guenzi &Troilo, 2006), Fig. 2b–d provide a more detailed representation of theassociation between the positive and negative dimensions and specificoutcome variables. Within these figures, the weights of the linesrepresent the relative strength of the patterned association. Utilizing in-formation derived from the content analysis, lineweightswere calculat-ed based on the number of comments from a given construct whichwere represented within a specific outcome classification. These calcu-lations represent a function of the number of positive (negative) quoteswhich match a positive (negative) outcome, minus the number of neg-ative (positive) quotes also represented within the specified classifica-tion. The lines were then scaled to size based on these scores. In mostcases, the difference score was positive (represented by a solid line).In specific instances, however, the difference score was negative, mean-ing for example that there were more negative construct commentsthan positive oneswithin a positive outcome classification (representedby a dashed line), or the difference score was zero, meaning there werean equal number of positive and negative quotationswithin a classifica-tion (represented by no line).

5. Discussion

The results effectively advance the current body of knowledge withregard to key account relationship management. The findings provideinsights into the diagnostic evaluation of these relationships fromcustomers' perspectives. In line with the total quality management(TQM) philosophy, which suggests that relationship improvement canbe driven not only by maximizing the positive elements of the




relationship evaluation, but also byminimizing thenegative elements ofthe relationship (Jolson, 1999), two research questions are addressedwithin the exploratory study to ultimately provide relationship resourceallocation strategies.

5.1. Research contributions

Within the emergent thematic relational constructs (commitment,trust, adaptation, customer orientation, communication, partnership,and value), the first research question identifies whether or not thedimensions are conceptually the same or are uniquely composed. Thefindings clearly indicate that all constructs, with the exception ofadaptation and value, possess at least one dimension with no identifiedinverse. These results contribute to research suggesting that knowledge

Fig. 2. a. Key account relationship model. b. Key account relationship model — weighted dimdimensions and future business intentions. d. Key account relationship model — weighted dim


about relationships is one-sided and typically focuses on only thepositive aspects of relationships (e.g., Cannon & Perreault, 1999;Hibbard et al., 2001; Mitręga & Zolkiewski, 2012). Specifically, the qual-itative analysis reveals 12 positive (negative) dimensions possessing nonegative (positive) counterparts: no dedicated resources allocated(commitment), positive brand reputation (trust), opportunism (trust),alignment of organizational goals (customer orientation), differentiatedtreatment of account (customer orientation), sales orientation(customer orientation), arrogance (customer orientation), robustcontent/knowledge sharing (communication), formality/structuredcontact (communication), inappropriate modality (communication),lack of benchmarking (communication), lengthy duration of relation-ship (partnership). These findings are helpful in advancing customer–supplier relationship knowledge given the unique perspective offered

ensions and relationship classifications. c. Key account relationship model — weightedensions and business referral behavior.


image of Fig.�2


Fig. 2. (continued).


by studying the phenomena from the customer's perspective (Mitręga& Zolkiewski, 2012; Tähtinen & Blois, 2011; Tuli et al., 2007) andacross multiple customer and supplier organizations (Johnson et al.,2001). Further, these findings should motivate researchers tospecify their research interests around either the positive or negativeconceptualization of a given construct and not assume that they arepure inverses of one another.

The second research question goes beyond thematic categorizationsand utilizes content-analytic procedures in order to identify the positiveand negative dimensions' patterned associations with positive andnegative outcomes. The outcome variables are coded evaluations of thestrength of the customer–supplier relationship (strong-vulnerable),intentions to engage in future business (expansion–maintenance–reduction), and intentions to provide a business-to-business reference(positive–negative/none). The results of the content analysis lead tointerpretations regarding the relative importance of the constructsand dimensions as they relate to each relational outcome. These in-sights are useful advancements to research calling for a more nuancedunderstanding of customer value determination and relationshipassessment, as well as the impact on customer decisions and futurebusiness success (e.g., Flint, 2002; Hogan, 2001; Keiningham et al.,2008). Further, the results show that the positive and negative outcomesare uniquely associated with a varied pattern of positive and negative di-mensions, indicating that the desire by suppliers to maximize positive


outcomes orminimize negative outcomes is driven by distinct underlyingrelationships. Thus, outcomes which appear to be polar dichotomies(e.g., relationship expansion–relationship reduction) should best beviewed as two separate and parallel continua, not the obverse of oneanother. The specific insights of these patterned associations provideanswers to Bitner's (1995) question of what causes satisfied and dis-satisfied customers to terminate relationships, along with uniquemanagerial implications and motivations for future research.

5.2. Managerial implications

Key account relationships are crucial for organizations involvedin business-to-business sales. The current business environment con-tinues to trend towards larger customers utilizing fewer suppliers(Homburg, Workman, & Jensen, 2002). As such, managers must knowhow to cultivate effective relationships with existing key accountsbased on their customer-specific goals. As managers begin to pinpointspecific strategic initiatives, the findings from this study provide in-sights which allow them to understand how their actions are perceivedby their customers. These perceptions are accompanied by insightsfrom the patterned associations between the positive and negativerelationship dimensions with the positive and negative relationshipoutcomes. These insights are important within the attribution and mo-tivation frameworks because sales managers are presumed to have


image of Fig.�2



greater knowledge and expertise, thus more accurately able to perceivethe linkages between effort and performance. Managers should incor-porate the findings within their sales training programs, day-to-day su-pervision of the sales force, and periodic reviews of each salesperson'stime and efforts in order to improve the accuracy of their sale force'sexpectancy estimates (Johnston & Marshall, 2011).

Managers also need to differentiate relationships that need buildingversus those that need maintenance in order to provide more efficientallocations of resources (Hibbard et al., 2001). This strategy is highlyrelevant given that resource allocation decisions must be made in con-sideration of their associated cost and benefits (Day, 2000; Reinartz &Kumar, 2000; Sheth & Shah, 2003). Therefore, managers often need tomake trade-offs with regard to where they will invest their resourcesto drive desired outcomes, as well aswhere theywill adopt aminimaliststrategy and limit their resource investments in areaswhich have less ofa detrimental impact. Within the theoretical research framework anddesire to increase expectancies, these are referred to as conventional,prevention, and promotion constructs.

Conventional constructs perform as would be expected; when pres-ent facilitating positive outcomes and when absent or negativeresulting in negative outcomes. Prevention constructs are the dimen-sions which if not present (or present with a negative valence) withinthe relationship drive negative outcomes, however if present withinthe relationship are not strongly associated with positive outcomes.While these constructs are necessary to prevent negative outcomes,they are not sufficient to ensure positive outcomes. Promotion con-structs are dimensions which if present and positive within the rela-tionship are strongly associated with positive outcomes, however ifnot present within the relationship are not strongly associated withnegative outcomes. As shown in the analysis, contingent on the out-come of concern for key account managers, specific dimensions shouldbe prevented or promoted. Investing in increasing perceptions relatingto promotion constructs on accounts forwhich the objective is simply toavoid negative outcomes would be ineffective and a poor use of re-sources. Increasing the levels of promotion constructs in accounts forwhich the objective is to facilitate positive behaviors (e.g. businessexpansion) on the other hand will pay dividends to the organization.

Based on insights from the content analysis, specific examples ofhowmanagers can enact prevention or promotion behaviors contingenton their desired outcome are provided. Sales managers should viewcommunication as a promotion construct within the relationship classi-fication outcome. When negative dimensions of communication arepresent in relationship evaluations, these evaluations prove to have lit-tle impact on the vulnerability classification. However, when positivedimensions of communication are present, the vast preponderance ofthe evaluations are associated with strong relationship classifications.Accordingly, sales managers should encourage frequent, detailed, andformally structured communication with customers with whom theywish to increase relational strength. On the other hand, abating commu-nication deficiencies is less impactful in avoiding negative relationalstrength perceptions. Customer orientation is structured in much thesame manner. Therefore, communication and customer orientationshould not be stressed in a prevention strategy, rather only in a promo-tion situation. For example, if management uncovers issues related totheir sales force not communicating benchmarking data to their key ac-count customers, an organization with minimal available resourceswould not overly jeopardize their relationship strength if they did nottake corrective action to improve these sales activities.

Continuing within the relationship classification outcome, the con-structs of trust and value perform as conventional constructs. Withinthese constructs, managersmaywant to be especially aware of the indi-vidual dimensions which appear to have an association with their ex-pected positive and negative outcomes. Not providing cost takeouts isa reflection of negative value, while making an effort to be perceivedas efficient and delivering as promised is a reflection of positive valueand trust, respectively.


With regard to positive and negative outcomes associated with fu-ture business intentions, the trust construct again performed in the con-ventional manner. The patterns identified within the content analysisalso imply that sales managers should perceive investments in adapta-tion and value as prevention constructs, while investments into devel-oping a perceived partnership as a promotion construct. Therefore, ifmanagers are employing a strategy to minimize negative outcomes(i.e., prevention constructs), they should invest in focused efforts toeliminate perceptions of inflexibility, and/or a lack of shared savings.Amongst key accounts, sales managers may wish to set up formalizedcost-takeout goals and tracking to promote performance and visibilityon this important factor. To maximize positive outcomes (i.e., promo-tion constructs), however, sales managers should focus on hiring top-quality account representatives and maintaining their assignment tothe key account for an extended period of time. Setting minimum jobtenures for key accounts may help abate intra-organizational shufflingand thus promote continuity with the key account.

Finally, with regard to the positive and negative business referral be-haviors, the patterns identified within the content analysis imply thatcommunication and partnership are perceived as promotion constructs.Accordingly, committing resources to prevent negative referrals by en-hancing perceptions of communication and partnership is inefficient.Committing resources to facilitate these perceptions to generate posi-tive referral behavior, however, is a resourceful promotion strategy.The only construct that exhibits the expected pattern of negative(positive) relationship dimensions with negative (positive) businessreferral behaviors is adaptation.

No constructs fit the prevention definition for the business referralbehavior outcome. This is surprising given that referral behaviors tendto be stronger with regard to negative associations. In fact, numerousnegatively valenced quotations are within cases classified as intendingto engage in positive referral behaviors for the supplier. This potentiallyindicates that customer referral behaviors are impacted at a more holis-tic level and the results may be a function of the type of outcome vari-able of interest. In other words, relationship evaluations and futurebusiness intentions are focal to the customer protecting their own orga-nization from damaged supplier relationships or leveraging the benefitsof strong relationships, whereas business referral behavior is in regardsto influencing other customer organizations to make appropriate sup-plier relationship decisions. Thus, a potentially lower level of concernfor other parties compared to their own relationshipsmay be represent-ed within the associations with business referrals.

5.3. Limitations and future research

Though this research endeavored to provide a large sample and con-siderable data collection and analysis efforts, the findings may not begeneralizable to all key account contexts per the limitations of interpre-tive analyses. While the exploratory and content analytic approachesallow for the identification of asymmetries among the determinants,the results may benefit from a survey-based approach to examine therelative path weights of the contributing factors of what leads to key ac-count relationship classification, future business intentions, and/or busi-ness referral behaviors. However, while existing research has largelydeveloped scales with soundmethodologies, they tend to be heavily fo-cused on the positive dimensions of relational constructs and outcomesand need to be tested for content, reliability, and validity within nega-tive contexts. Finally, froma follow-up perspective, longitudinal and dy-adic data collections may prove illuminating. Longitudinal data mayprovide insights into the development of the customer evaluation pro-cess and its outcomes at different phases of the customer–supplier rela-tionship, such as the process of relationship ending, while dyadic datamay provide the opportunity to integrate the effects of other actorsand relationships into this research stream (Hibbard et al., 2001;Tähtinen & Blois, 2011).



Case Supplierindustry

Customerindustry

Informant(s) Sales volume &contract length

Relationshipclassification

Future businessintentions

Business referralbehavior

1 Facilities management Education Exec. dir. facilities $1 M; evergreen Strong Maintain Positive2 Facilities management Education Superintendent $22 M;

5 yearsStrong Maintain Positive

3 Facilities management Medical — Hospital CFO; CNO; COO $3.1 M Strong Expand Positive4 Facilities management Medical — hospital CNO $10 M;

5 yearsStrong Expand Positive

5 Facilities management Education CFO $6 M;3 years

Strong Maintain Positive

6 Facilities management Education Exec. dir. admin. & finance $10 M;5 years


7 Facilities management Medical — hospital VP support services $17.5 M;7 years

Strong Expand Positive

8 Facilities management Medical — hospital VP clinical & support services; COO $3 M;evergreen

Vulnerable Maintain No

9 Facilities management Education Asst. superintendent $10.5 M;3 years


10 Facilities management Medical — hospital CNO; CFO $8 M;5 years


11 Facilities management Medical — hospital COO $11 M;5 years


12 Facilities management Municipal Captain; sergeant $22.5 M;5 years


13 Facilities management Medical — hospital VP support services; CEO $3 M;5 years


14 Facilities management Municipal Dir. food services; exec. dir. $168 M;6 years

Vulnerable Expand Positive

15 Facilities management Medical — hospital Sr. dir. food & clinical $2.1 M;evergreen


16 Facilities management Municipal Contract coord. food & clinical $3.5 M Vulnerable Maintain Positive17 Facilities management Municipal Undersheriff; chief deputy; captain $15 M;


18 Facilities management Hospitality EVP & GM; VP operations $3 M Strong Expand Positive19 Facilities management Education CFO; superintendent $4 M;


20 Facilities management Medical — hospital Dir. support services $1.2 M;8 months


21 Facilities management Hospitality VP operations $1.8 M Vulnerable Maintain Positive22 Facilities management Medical — hospital VP HR & administration $3.6 M;

evergreenStrong Maintain Positive

23 Facilities management Medical — hospital Exec. dir. facility & support; CFO $5.1 M Vulnerable Reduce Positive24 Facilities management Medical — hospital COO; CNO $3.75 M;


25 Facilities management Municipal Undersheriff; lieutenant 1; lieutenant 2;lieutenant 3

$5.5 M;5 years

Vulnerable Maintain No

26 Facilities management Medical — hospital Admin. dir. support service; SVP operations $1.2 M Vulnerable Maintain No27 Facilities management Medical — hospital CFO; CNO; COO $4.7 M Strong Expand Positive28 Facilities management Medical — hospital VP support services; CNO $2.6 M Strong Expand Positive29 Facilities management Education Asst. superintendent for business & operations;

superintendent$6 M;5 years

Vulnerable Maintain Negative

30 Facilities management Medical — hospital COO; VP operations $5.8 M; evergreen Vulnerable Maintain Negative31 Facilities management Municipal Major; sheriff $4.5 M;


32 Facilities management Education Exec. dir. facilities services $5 M;5 years


33 Facilities management Medical — hospital VP environmental $1.25 M Strong Expand Positive34 Shipping & logistics Retail VP dist.; VP Loss prevent.; dir. imports; VP store

operations; SVP supply chain; sr. dir. supplychain finance; dir. transportation

$150 M;3 years

Vulnerable Reduce No

35 Shipping & logistics Electronics Mgr. traffic & shipping; dir. operations $19.5 M;3 years


36 Shipping & logistics Consumer products VP world supply chain mgmt.; VP warehouse $30 M;evergreen

Vulnerable Maintain Positive

37 Shipping & logistics Consumer products Dir. logistics; sr. finance mgr. $8 M; evergreen Vulnerable Maintain Negative38 Shipping & logistics Automotive Asst. purchasing mgr. $450 M;


39 Shipping & logistics Food products Mgr. customer service; dir. transport & logistics $5 M;evergreen


40 Shipping & logistics Retail Ops. mgr; VP ops. $144 M;18 years


41 Shipping & logistics Retail VP cust. sat.; COO; sr. mgr. cust. service; VP dist.;dir. logistics; VP marketing

$80 M Strong Expand Positive

Appendix A. Sample, sales proposal, and customer characteristics

(continued on next page)


Please cite this article as: Friend, S.B., & Johnson, J.S., Key account relationships: An exploratory inquiry of customer-based evaluations, IndustrialMarketing Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.009


(continued)

Case Supplierindustry

Customerindustry

Informant(s) Sales volume &contract length

Relationshipclassification

Future businessintentions

Business referralbehavior

42 Shipping & logistics Financial services VP $36 M;3 years


43 Shipping & logistics Financial services Sr. dir.; dir. $12 M;3 years

Vulnerable Expand Positive

44 Shipping & logistics Pharma. Improvement mgr. $5 M Strong Maintain Positive45 Shipping & logistics Retail Mail mgr.; sr. corp. mgr. $18 M;


46 Shipping & logistics Medical — manufacture MD supply chain; supply chain mgr. $10 M;evergreen


47 Shipping & logistics Apparel Dir. logistics $7 M; evergreen Vulnerable Reduce Positive48 Waste management Retail Asst. VP; asst. buyer $3 M;

evergreenVulnerable Reduce No

49 Waste management Retail Fac. admin.; fac. admin. $1.6 M;evergreen

Vulnerable Maintain Negative

50 Waste management Petro— chemical Special projects analyst $1.1 M;evergreen

Vulnerable Reduce No

51 Waste management Rentals Mgr.; strategic sourcing $1 M;evergreen


52 Waste management Retail Dir. store ops; dir. purchase. $2.7 M;evergreen


Appendix A. (continued)


References

Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of ServiceResearch, 1(1), 5–17.

Beverland, M. B., Ewing, M. T., & Jekanyika Matanda, M. (2006). Driving-market ormarket-driven? A case study analysis of the new product development practices ofChinese business-to-business firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(3),383–393.

Bitner, M. J. (1995). Building service relationships: It's all about promises. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 246–251.

Bruggen, G. H. V., Lilien, G. L., & Kacker, M. (2002). Informants in organizational marketingresearch: why use multiple informants and how to aggregate responses. Journal ofMarketing Research, 39(4), 469–478.

Cannon, J. P., & Perreault, W. D. (1999). Buyer–seller relationships in business markets.Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 439–460.

Carlson, L. (2008). Use, misuse, and abuse of content analysis for research on the consum-er interest. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(1), 100–105.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among fiveapproaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Day, G. S. (2000). Managing market relationships. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 28(1), 24–30.

Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., & Kennedy, K. N. (2002). An exploratory study of the internet as anindustrial communication tool: Examining buyers' perceptions. Industrial MarketingManagement, 31(2), 145–154.

Dixon, A. L., Spiro, R. L., & Jamil, M. (2001). Successful and unsuccessful sales calls:Measuring salesperson attributions and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing,65(3), 64–78.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunitiesand challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

Flint, D. J. (2002). Compressing new product success-to-success cycle time: Deep custom-er value understanding and idea generation. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(4),305–315.

Frankwick, G. L., Porter, S. S., & Crosby, L. A. (2001). Dynamics of relationship selling: Alongitudinal examination of changes in salesperson–customer relationship status.Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 21(2), 135.

Friend, S. B., Hamwi, G. A., & Rutherford, B. N. (2011). Buyer–seller relationships within amulti-source context: understanding customer defection and available alternatives.Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31(4), 383–395.

Ganesan, S., Brown, S. P., Mariadoss, B. J., & Ho, H. D. (2010). Buffering and amplifyingeffects of relationship commitment in business-to-business relationships. Journal ofMarketing Research, 47(2), 361–373.

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, andcommitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.

Guenzi, P., Pardo, C., & Georges, L. (2007). Relational selling strategy and key accountmanagers' relational behaviors: An exploratory study. Industrial MarketingManagement, 36(1), 121–133.

Guenzi, P., & Troilo, G. (2006). Developing marketing capabilities for customer valuecreation through marketing-sales integrations. Industrial Marketing Management,35(8), 974–988.

Gupta, S., Hanssens, D., Hardie, B., Kahn, W., Kumar, V., Lin, N., et al. (2006). Modelingcustomer lifetime value. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 139–155.

Herzberg, F. (1965). The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. PersonnelPsychology, 18(4), 393–402.

Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-hygiene profiles: Pinpointing what ails the organization.Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 18–29.


Hibbard, J.D., Brunel, F. F., Dant, R. P., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Does relationship marketingage well? Business Strategy Review, 12(4), 29–35.

Hogan, J. E. (2001). Expected relationship value: A construct, a methodology formeasurement, and a modeling technique. Industrial Marketing Management,30(4), 339–351.

Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., & Jensen, O. (2000). Fundamental changes in marketing or-ganization: the movement toward a customer-focused organizational structure.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(4), 459–478.

Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., & Jensen, O. (2002). A configurational perspective on key ac-count management. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 38–60.

Ingram, T. N., Schwepker, C. H., & Hutson, D. (1992). Why salespeople fail. IndustrialMarketing Management, 21(3), 225–230.

Ivens, B.S., & Pardo, C. (2007). Are key account relationships different? Empirical resultson supplier strategies and customer reactions. Industrial Marketing Management,36(4), 470–482.

Jaramillo, F., Ladik, D.M., Marshall, G. W., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). A meta-analysis of the re-lationship between sales orientation–customer orientation (SOCO) and salespersonjob performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22(4/5), 302–310.

Johnson, J. T., Barksdale, H. C., & Boles, J. S. (2001). The strategic role of the salesperson inreducing customer defection in business relationships. Journal of Personal Selling &Sales Management, 21(2), 123–134.

Johnston, M. W., & Marshall, G. W. (2011). Sales force management (10th ed.)New York:McGraw-Hill.

Jolson, M.A. (1999). When salespeople fail: Assessing blame. Industrial MarketingManagement, 28(1), 19–26.

Kalwani, M. U., & Narayandas, N. (1995). Long-termmanufacturer–supplier relationships:do they pay off for supplier firms? Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 1–16.

Keiningham, T. L., Aksoy, K., Cooil, B., & Andreassen, T. W. (2008). Linking customer loy-alty to growth. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(4), 51–57.

Kumar, V., Petersen, J. A., & Leone, R. P. (2010). Driving profitability by encouraging cus-tomer referrals: Who, when, and how. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 1–17.

Maimon, Z., & Ronen, S. (1978). Measures of job facets satisfaction as predictors of thetendency to leave or the tendency to stay with an organization. Human Relations,31(12), 1019–1030.

Mallin, M. L., & Mayo, M. (2006). Why did I lose? A conservation of resources view ofsalesperson failure attributions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,26(4), 345–357.

Malshe, A., & Sohi, R. S. (2009). What makes strategy making across the sales-marketinginterface more successful? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(4),400–421.

Mitręga, M., & Zolkiewski, J. (2012). Negative consequences of deep relationships withsuppliers: An exploratory study in Poland. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(5),886–894.

Mizerski, R., Golden, L. L., & Kernan, J. B. (1979). The attribution process in consumer de-cision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(2), 123–140.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship market-ing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

Page, M., Pitt, L., Berthon, P., & Money, A. (1996). Analysing customer defections and theireffects on corporate performance: The case of Indco. Journal of MarketingManagement, 12(7), 617–627.

Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2007). A comparative longitudinal analysis oftheoretical perspectives of interorganizational relationship performance. Journal ofMarketing, 71(4), 172–194.

Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2005). A strategic framework for customer relationship manage-ment. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 167–176.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0019-8501(13)00219-8/rf0005














































































































Perreault, W. D., & Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitativejudgements. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 135–148.

Plouffe, C. R., Hulland, J., & Wachner, T. (2009). Customer-directed selling behaviors andperformance: A comparison of existing perspectives. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 37(4), 422–439.

Pullins, E. B. (2001). An exploratory investigation of the relationship of sales force com-pensation and intrinsic motivation. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(5),403–413.

Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitativestrategies. Berkeley: University of California.

Reichheld, F. F., & Teal, T. (1996). The loyalty effect. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Reinartz,W. J., & Kumar, V. (2000). On the profitability of long-life customers in a noncon-

tractual setting: An empirical investigation and implications for marketing. Journal ofMarketing, 64(4), 17–35.

Richard, J. E., Thirkell, P. C., & Huff, S. L. (2007). An examination of customer relationshipmanagement (CRM) technology adoption and its impact on business-to-businesscustomer relationships. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(8),927–945.

Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2008). Configural comparative methods: Qualitative comparativeanalysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Sengupta, S., Krapfel, R. E., & Pusateri, M.A. (2000). An empirical investigation of key ac-count salesperson effectiveness. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,20(4), 253–261.

Sharma, S., Niedrich, R. W., & Dobbins, G. (1999). A framework for monitoring customersatisfaction: An empirical illustration. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(3),231–243.

Sheth, J. N., & Shah, R. H. (2003). Till death do us part . but not always: Six antecedents to acustomer's relational preference in buyer–seller exchanges. Industrial MarketingManagement, 32(8), 627–631.

Silverman, D., & Marvasti, A. (2008). Doing qualitative research: A comprehensive guide(2nd ed.)Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Smith, K., Jones, E., & Blair, E. (2000). Managing salesperson motivation in a territoryrealignment. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20(4), 215–226.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work.New York: The GuilfordPress.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proce-dures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.


Sujan, H. (1986). Smarter versus harder: An exploratory attributional analysis ofsalespeople's motivation. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(1), 41–49.

Tähtinen, J., & Blois, K. (2011). The involvement and influence of emotions inproblematic business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6),907–918.

Teas, R. K., & McElroy, J. C. (1986). Causal attributions and expectancy estimates: A frame-work for understanding the dynamics of salesforce motivation. Journal of Marketing,50(1), 75–86.

Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: Fromproduct bundles to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1–17.

Tuten, T. L., & Urban, D. J. (2001). An expandedmodel of business-to-business partnershipformation and success. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(2), 149–164.

Walker, O. C., Churchill, G. A., & Ford, N. M. (1977). Motivation and performance in indus-trial selling: Present knowledge and needed research. Journal of Marketing Research,14(2), 156–168.

Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago: Markham.Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.Weitz, B.A., Sujan, H., & Sujan, M. (1986). Knowledge, motivation, and adaptive behavior:

A framework for improving selling effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 50(4),174–191.

Williams, M. R., & Attaway, J. S. (1996). Exploring salespersons' customer orientation as amediator of organizational culture's influence on buyer–seller relationships. Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management, 16(4), 33–52.

Dr. Scott B. Friend (Ph.D., Georgia State University) is an assistant professor of marketingat the University of Nebraska-Lincoln ([email protected]). Dr. Friend's research interestsare in sales and sales forcemanagement. More specifically, this includes buyer–seller rela-tionships, intra-organizational relationships, sales performance and sales failure, and salesresearch methodology.

Dr. Jeff S. Johnson (Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is an assistant professor ofmar-keting at the University of Missouri-Kansas City ([email protected]). Dr. Johnson's re-search interests are in personal selling and sales management. More specifically, thisincludes the salesperson's role in marketing strategy, the marketing-sales interface, salesmanager–salesperson interaction, and sales research methodology.


































































Key account relationships: An exploratory inquiry of customer-based evaluations

Documents

Transcript of Key account relationships: An exploratory inquiry of customer-based evaluations