pete naudé, manchester business school paper for imp seminar in st. petersburg, 5 th october 2007...

Pete Naudé, Manchester Business School

Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007

Measuring Relationship Quality:some international comparisons

Pete Naudé, Manchester Business Schooland a whole lot of good friends:



Pete Naudé, Manchester Business Schooland a whole lot of good friends:

Francis Buttle in AustraliaMaria Smirnova and Sergei Kouchtch in St. Petersburg

And a lot of others!



It all dates back to the IMP Conference in Dublin, 1999

Francis and I thought that we would look at relationship quality


Relationship quality:

* it’s certainly important

* it’s certainly a multidimensional construct

* it has largely tended to focus on data from developed economies Leonidou and Kaleka 1998; Buttery and Wong 1999;Ambler and Styles 2000

* there have been a number of different views on how to study itGummesson, 1987; Grönroos 1984; Grönroos 1990Crosby et al., 1990Mohr and Spekman, 1994Storbacka et al., 1994Wilson and Jantrania, 1996.


Some of the constructs used

Trust

Satisfaction

Commitment

Coordination

Communication

Joint Problem Solving

Bonds between us

Goal Congruence

Investments

Power

Profit

Cosby Mohr & Storbacka Wilson & et al Spekman et al Jantrania

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√


The research methodology used

40 Students on the Executive MBA Programme


The research methodology used

40 Students on the Executive MBA Programme

Trust

Satisfaction

Coordination

Power

Profit


The constructs used

Trust

Satisfaction

Commitment

Coordination

Communication

Joint Problem Solving

Bonds between us

Goal Congruence

Investments

Power

Profit

Cosby Mohr & Storbacka Wilson & Our et al Spekman et al Jantrania research

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007

The approach we used was conjoint analysis

It comes from considering things jointly

also called trade-off analysis

Green and Wind (HBR, August 1974)


How does it work? – Let’s consider a completely inappropriate example



PA – very, very rich

PB – is not



PA – very, very pretty

PB – is not



PB – very, very pretty

PA – is not

PA – very, very rich

PB – is not


The Overall UK Results Showing Attribute Scores and Part-Worths

Trust Needs Integration Power Profit

Importance 29.64 20.14 12.79 11.97 25.46

Utilities:

better 2.37 1.67 0.72 -0.03 2.30

the same 0.78 0.45 0.23 0.02 -0.15

worse -3.15 -2.11 -0.95 0.01 -2.16


Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25 Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

23 -+-+ 40 -+ I 21 ---+---+ 15 ---+ +-+ 2 -------+ +-+ 33 -----+---+ I 34 -----+ I 29 -+-+ I 32 -+ +-+ I 24 ---+ +-+ +---+ 1 -----+ +---+ I 16 -------+ I +---+ 22 -----------+ I I 10 ---------+-----+ +---+ 20 ---------+ I I 4 -------------------+ +-------+ 6 -----------+-+ I I 37 -----------+ +---+ I I 3 -------------+ +-----+ +-------+ 19 -----------------+ I I 12 ---------------------+---+ I I 38 ---------------------+ +-----+ I 28 -------------------------+ I 8 ---+---+ I 14 ---+ +---------+ +---------+ 17 -------+ I I I 7 ---+-------+ +---------+ I I 11 ---+ +-+ I I I I 31 ---+-+ I I I I I I 35 ---+ +-----+ +---+ +---+ I I 27 -----+ I I I I I 9 -----------+-+ I +-------+ I 13 -----------+ I I I 18 ---------------------------+ I I 26 -------------------------------+ I 5 ---------+-------+ I 39 ---------+ +-------+ I 25 -----------------+ +-------------+ I 36 -------------------------+ +---------+ 30 ---------------------------------------+

The Conjoint Analysis Results for each Cluster


Overall (n=40) 29.64 20.14 12.79 11.97 25.46

Cluster 1 (23) 38.00 25.25 9.98 8.89 17.88

Cluster 2 (11) 17.28 12.31 10.51 13.91 46.00

Cluster 3 (4) 22.75 15.79 35.99 15.76 9.70

Cluster 4 (1) 13.33 14.07 11.85 44.44 16.30


So, what might we know about UK Managers?


C1 23

C2 11

C3 4

C4 1

1 2 4 5 3

2 4 5 3 1

2 3 1 3 5 4 3 5 1 2


The Overall Russian Results


Importance(%) 13.04 14.41 10.45 10.82 51.58

Utilities:

Better 0.70 0.93 0.32 0.26 4.60

The same 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.63 -0.40

Worse -1.00 -1.24 -0.85 -0.89 -4.20


Conjoint Analysis per Cluster, Russia

Cluster No.

No. of Members


1 10 23.36 14.08 11.33 11.50 39.73

2 5 6.72 18.09 15.75 20.76 38.68

3 6 5.27 17.26 4.64 8.87 63.97

4 16 11.48 11.71 10.42 8.02 58.38


0 5 10 15 20 25 +----+----+----+----+----+

Trust Needs Integ. Power Profit Cluster No.

23.78 12.43 10.75 14.34 38.71 31 23.54 12.41 10.66 15.22 38.17 35 18.42 17.38 15.06 11.59 37.54 32 21.78 14.82 13.68 12.54 37.17 36

20 11.86 17.67 9.53 40.93 15 29.1 16.4 11.55 9.24 33.72 29 28.64 16.9 9.39 9.39 35.68 33 24.28 20.23 9.25 11.56 34.68 30 24.79 9.92 4.96 9.09 51.24 7 19.22 8.47 10.35 12.5 49.46

1

34 8.9 6.18 7.39 25.64 51.89 9 8.21 14.76 12.38 23.69 40.95 14 7.59 27.16 19.68 14.96 30.61 10 3.13 28.13 10 17.5 41.25 11 5.79 14.24 29.28 21.99 28.7

2 17

3.47 17.01 1.74 12.15 65.63 21 1.73 17.79 1.38 13.82 65.28 22 6.69 16.24 1.91 12.74 62.42 20 6.55 17.73 10.22 3.83 61.66 24 6.77 16.67 8.91 3.96 63.7 25 6.38 18.12 3.69 6.71 65.1

3 18

17.61 12.89 1.26 6.6 61.64 13 15.09 13.61 5.62 7.69 57.99 23 6.58 8.03 7.38 16.05 61.96 26 6.69 8.16 9.14 13.05 62.97 28 13.09 4.73 9.94 11.04 61.2 16 12.04 10.67 6.25 16.77 54.27 8 9.46 12.62 5.36 13.25 59.31 37 6.18 18.21 5.37 14.63 55.61 19 9.02 11.48 14.75 2.46 62.3 5 9.84 11.48 16.39 0 62.3 6 14.2 10.49 15.43 3.09 56.79 1 13.98 8.81 15.2 6.08 55.93 4 13.99 8.02 14.15 4.72 59.12 3 10.43 14.11 15.34 3.07 57.06 2 13.57 13.42 10.56 4.52 57.92 27 11.84 20.61 14.62 5.26 47.66

4

12

Dendrogram, Indicating Relative Importance for Russian Managers


So, what might we know about Russian Managers?


C1 23

C2 11

C3 4

C4 1

2 3 5 4 1

5 3 4 2 1

4 2 5 3 1 2 2 4 5 1


So, where does this leave us today?


pete naudé, manchester business school paper for imp seminar in st. petersburg, 5 th october 2007...

Documents

imp seminar

jantrania paper

imp conference

relationship quality

inappropriate example

jantrania research paper

executive mba programme

inappropriate example