Management and Marketing Sciences’ Reaction to the Networked World
Tahsin Perçin BATUM
12649009832
Pazarlama Teorisi Dersi
Doktora Final Ödevi
Prof. Dr. B. Zafer ERDOĞAN
Eskişehir
Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Ocak, 2015
MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING SCIENCES’ REACTION TO THE
NETWORKED WORLD
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to compare the perspectives of management and marketing
sciences on networks and reveal out why and how firms become connected and interdependent,
and how the relationships affect their ability to compete according to these perspectives. For
this purpose, network theory has been taken as a common ground. The management theories
which form the network theory and relationship marketing have been discussed. The ARA
Model of network theory has been used as a base for reflecting the differences.
1. Introduction
The world is globalizing day by day. Therefore, inter-organizational global networks
between firms emerge. The competition has been transferred into brand networks. It is obvious
that every relationship is desired to be long term – particularly in B2B environment. Any firm
wish to develop good relationships with their customers, suppliers and subsidiaries so that they
can operate by more stable and beneficiary activities.
The term network is not new neither for management and marketing. But how they
perceive a network differs. It is well known that strategic management theory has inspired
industrial network thinking. But this journey did not end there. Network theory gave its roots
to relationship marketing, which lead to a paradigm shift in marketing.
This study consists of a comparison of the point where network theory comes from and
where it comes to. In this way, we aim to show how a notion can transform into a reverse
thought and wish to give proof for evolution.
2. The Network Approach
Hakansson and Ford (2002) have simply defined a network as a structure where a
number of nodes are related to each other by specific treads. A business market is a complex
structure and a firm within the market cannot be considered isolated from its environment.
Generally, multidimensional interactions are required even for a simple transaction. Hence,
every firm is bound together with other market units in a variety of different ways through
relationships.
The network approach has emerged over the last four decades as a distinct body of
knowledge, especially in the field of B2B marketing and purchasing. By the studies of Industrial
Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) group, interaction and network approaches have been
developed respectively (IMP1 and IMP2). While the interaction model (IMP1) focuses on the
elements of the dyadic inter-firm relationship, the network model (IMP2) conceptualizes the
industrial systems as connected networks (Brennan, 2006).
The industrial network model which is the basic of network approach consists of three
basic group of variables which are actors, activities and resources (Hakansson & Snehota, 1995;
Tikkanen, 1998; Gadde et al., 2003; Brennan, 2006). The model developed upon these variables
is called as ARA Model.
i) It is individuals who give life and constitute the organic part of the business networks.
What happens in a network stems from the behavior of individuals who bring into the
relationships between companies their intentions and interpretations upon which they act
(Hakansson & Snehota, 1995). Actors are firms, individuals, or small groups who control
resources and create value through transforming them. Actor bonds connect actors and
influence how the actors perceive each other from their identities in the networks. Hartmann &
Herb (2014) have also stated that actor bonds between two actors are influenced by other
relationships in the surrounding network.
Medlin & Quester (1999) have described three layers of actor bonds. In the first layer,
the bond between actors which have been created by interactions influence the nature of activity
links and resource ties. The second layer, developed actor bonds make it possible to change the
links and ties with acceptable responses. The third and final layer exceeds economic benefits
and assign a different meaning to actor bonds in terms of social and symbolic values. The ones
are the actor bonds which influence the views of interaction and formation of relationships. The
quality of bonds also has a direct bearing on an actor’s possibilities because network actors
control activities and resources.
ii) The activity dimension of network model includes activities as product development,
information production and processing, purchasing and selling (Hakansson & Snehota, 1995).
Activity links include technical, administrative, commercial and other activities of an
organization that can be connected in different ways to those of other organizations (Tikkanen,
1998).
Activities of a firm are not isolated and are a part of a larger entity and interdependent
with the activities of other firms within the business network. Developing activity links in a
relationship means that activities performed by a company become connected to the activities
of others (Hakansson & Snehota, 1995). According to network approach, a company can utilize
the interdependencies that exist among the activities of the different actors by relating its own
activities to the activities of the counterparts (Gadde et al., 2003). Such activity links can be
connected in different ways between companies as a relationship develops.
The activity links have two kinds of effect on a company; structural (efficiency) and
dynamic (development). Every link has both structural and dynamic consequences. The
company is affected directly in terms of efficiency as cooperation increases for opportunities
and against problems. On the other hand, adaptations for various existing activities and external
factors may be required which result in minor and major changes and developments within the
company (Hakansson & Snehota, 1995).
iii) In resource dimension of network theory, even the relationships themselves are
regarded as a kind of resource and companies are tied to each other in terms of their resources.
Resource ties connect various resource elements of the companies (Tikkanen, 1998). Every
company is a part of a larger collective entity which they collaborate and add value through
their resources and activities (Gadde et al., 2003).
As Hakansson & Snehota (1995) implies; in network theory, the subject of business
relationships is not about acquiring resources. Contrarily, it is about the connection of provision
and use of resources to constitute a bigger picture.
These three elements of variables are strongly interdependent and should be considered
as a whole. A relationship between two companies in a network has a profile in terms of these
activity links, resource ties and actor bonds (Hakansson & Snehota, 1995). The model has been
visualized in Figure 1:
Actor
Exchange Relation
Actor
Control
Activities/Resources
Control
Activity/Resource
Interdependence
Activities/Resources
Figure 1. The ARA Model
Source: Skaates, 2000.
As seen in the model, the nature of activity links and resource ties is influenced by
interactions between the relationship and the firm and between the relationship and the network.
By the way, the nature of the actor bonds has an important effect on how these interactions are
viewed. In addition, the nature of actor bonds has important effects in providing acceptable
responses to changes in activity links and resource ties (Medlin & Quester, 1999).
In an industrial system, firms are engaged to each other in production, distribution, using
goods and services and so on. Such a relationship among firms make them dependent to each
other (Johanson & Matsson, 1987). From the authors’ statement to our day, this fact has
included B2C markets either. Such a network has been visualized in Figure 2:
E2
E4
E1
E5
E3
M1
M8
R1
RM1
M2
M5
M9
R2
RM2
M3
M6
RM3
M10
M4
M7
RM: Raw material
R3
M: Manufacturing
M11
E: External Environment
R4
R: Retailer
Figure 2: An Example of a Network System
As seen on Figure 2, there are many players for a single product in a market. From raw
material suppliers to retailers, there is a web of interaction even between competitors. Raw
material units provide the initiator resources for production, manufacturers add value to the
product separately and retailers bring the product together with the final customer. By the way,
all these units are affected by external environment elements. For this study, it is planned to
describe all activities within a network from the circled line of interactions in which the
activities are held by RM3, M4, M7, M11, and R4 respectively.
If we take a look upon theoretical background; as stated earlier, the network theory is a
developed and more complex form of interaction theory. Besides, relationship marketing
paradigm is considered as the extension of interaction and network theories (Grönroos, 1994;
Gummesson, 1997). When we shed light to the roots of the approach, Erdogan et al. (2011)
have stated that IMP1 has been influenced by resource dependence and social exchange
theories. On the other hand, Brennan & Turnbull (1998) indicate that interaction model (IMP1)
has emerged from new institutional economies and inter-organizational theory. Möller &
Halinen (2000) verify that IMP1 has initially been influenced by resource dependency and
social exchange theories, and later by institutional theory, which belong to management
discipline, not marketing. The evolution of the relational paradigm has been schematized below:
Relationship Marketing
Interaction Approach (IMP1)
The Network Approach (IMP2)
Institutional Theory
Resource dependence
Social exchange
Management theories
Figure 3. The Evolution of Relationship Marketing From the Roots of Managerial Theories
Möller & Halinen (2000) have mentioned some problems arise from the fragmented
structure of the theory. As a theoretical evolution with managerial roots and marketing
destination, there exist a variety of partial descriptions and theories focusing on relationship
marketing instead of a unique relation marketing theory. This situation causes researchers to
approach to the subject from different theoretical bases and employ different conceptual frames
of reference.
In line with this opinion, Katz et al. (2004) say that there are several influential network
perspectives. One of these perspectives bring management theories into the forefront and one
another relies on theories of mutual interest and collective action which describes relationship
marketing. Within the many, these two are the ones that apart from each other despite so much
convergence. So, what are the attitudes of management and marketing thought for network
relations? How the two embedded but different sighted science branches consider the
networked world? It will be discussed in the following titles following the brief explanations of
these theories.
3. Managerial Theories Underlying Network Theory
As mentioned earlier, strategic management theories were the ones that lead the way to
focus on relations for revealing the way to make business. Taking roots from resource
dependence and social exchange theories initially, interaction and network approaches have
been affected by institutional theory afterwards. Thus, it is necessary to interpret and consider
the basic mottos of these theories in order to propound their perspectives for business
relationships.
i) Resource dependency is a theory with roots from open systems framework, which
argues that organizations must engage in exchanges with their environment to obtain resources
necessary for survival or prosper (Barringer & Harrison, 2000).
According to the theory, an organization’s behavior is significantly shaped by its
resource dependencies (Machedo & Pinho, 2006). The need to acquire resources creates
dependencies between organizations and external units (such as suppliers, competitors,
creditors, governmental agencies) to successfully manage these dependencies, the organization
must acquire control over critical resources so that external dependency may decrease, and
acquire control over resources that increase the dependencies of other organizations of the
organization (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Briefly, the organization tries to gain power or
decrease self-vulnerabilities through resources which lead to competitive advantage. On the
other hand, a competition already exists for the resources.
ii) Based on the initial studies of Homans, social exchange theory is considered as one
of the most influential conceptual paradigms for understanding workplace behavior. Social
exchange involves a series of interactions that generate obligations (Wikhamn & Hall, 2012).
Exchange theory is based on the premise that the social interaction is an exchange of activity,
generally culminating in tangible and/or intangible rewards and costs (Zafirovski, 2005).
In social exchange theory, it is assumed that units engage in social exchange only in
order to maximize their outcomes and the relationships are interdependent (Holthausen, 2013).
Cropanzano & Mitchell (2005) state that these interdependent transactions may lead to good
relationships, but only under circumstances of continuous and bilateral rewarding reactions of
each other.
In many perspectives of this paradigm, social transactions and economic transactions
are separated from each other and while social transactions lead to social relationships,
economic transactions lead to economic relationships. An economic exchange leading to a
social relationship carries risks and dangers, and considered as a sheered interaction.
iii) The structures and processes of organizations take shape in consequence of their
adaptation to the environment they live in (Meyer & Rowan, 2006). Institutional theory
suggests that institutional environments impose pressure on organizations to appear legitimate
and conform to prevailing social norms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
The adaptation required for firms are not limited to governmental institutions. Firms
also face with social, environmental, cultural, perceptual (Gulati, 1998), and technological
pressures (Palmer & Biggart, 2002). Institutional pressures motivate firms to participate in
inter-organizational relationships for obtaining legitimacy, acceptance, and survival (Barringer
& Harrison, 2000). Companies may obey to change under obligation, normatively, or by
mimicking. For any reason whatever, organizations have to adapt to environment in one way to
another to survive. Effectiveness and efficiency are not enough for a business to be regarded
acceptable.
The problem with the management theories constituting network theory and indirectly
relationship marketing is the lack of holistic understanding; each explain the relationship from
a single and narrow point of view (Barringer & Harrison, 2000). Therefore, an explanation of
networks through an integrated view of these theories are prone to conflicts and dilemmas in
some cases. Actually, this may be the main reason that relationship marketing arose as an
umbrella concept as a paradigm to evaluate relations among parties.
4. Consequence of Network Theory in Marketing: Relationship Marketing
As it is now accepted that there has been a paradigm shift in marketing from the
functionalist view of marketing mix understanding to the strategic role of marketing, aspects of
service marketing, political dimensions of channel management, and interactions in industrial
networks which all together form the relationship marketing for all market types (Grönroos,
1994).
The difference between service and physical goods industries have get blurred as most
industries have become service industries and firms felt the necessity to be closer to the
customer in order to gain competitive advantage (Aijo, 1996). This situation prompted
relationship marketing as the dominant marketing perspective.
Relationship marketing is defined as to establish, maintain, and enhance relationships
with customers and other partners, at a profit, so that the objectives of the parties involved are
met. This is achieved by mutual exchange and fulfilment of promises (Grönroos, 1994).
In accordance with the new marketing thought and parallel to Grönroos’ definition,
Erdoğan (2009) has defined marketing as an applied science which aims for constituting,
sustaining and developing exchange relationship networks that create value for all parties.
If we delve into relationship marketing definition, we come across three main
components; value co-creation, value exchange, and parties involved in the relationship. The
term value mean a lot for relationship marketing. Ravald & Grönroos (1996) formulate
perceived value of a product as perceived benefits divided by perceived sacrifice. In relationship
marketing, all members of a network try to increase perceived benefits or decrease perceived
sacrifices in order to co-create value.
Relationship marketing focus on individual customer instead of standard customer, is
armed with customized production, individualized promotion and distribution as strategic tools
and expects customer loyalty, increased customer lifetime value and wide customer portfolio
for the outcome of managing the relationships (Brito, 2011). Also loyalty (Hennig-Thurau et
al., 2002), commitment and trust (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) are considered as significant
outcomes of successful inter-organizational relations.
Relationship marketing attempts to involve and integrate customers, suppliers, and other
infrastructural partners into a firm’s development and marketing activities. Such involvement
results in close relationships with the partners of the firm (Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1995). In this
statement, the term partner is important because other parties are not considered as just units of
transaction. Instead, all interacted units are considered as partners that endeavor together for
the same universal purpose; to sustain.
As Gummesson (1991) says, marketing mix manipulation has become relationship
marketing and marketing management has been replaced by marketing oriented company
management. Besides, in relationship marketing view, marketing activities are not limited with
the marketing and/or sales department only; all activities are carried out by all employees and
others who influence an organization’s customer relations directly or indirectly in any case,
which has been defined by Gummesson as part-time marketers. Porter (1998) also has stated
that every firm is a collection of primary and supportive activities which are performed to create
value at the end of the processes and all the performers of these activities are a part of this value
chain.
Briefly, relationship marketing is the incubator of all networks and interactive
relationships, and all units of the firm are responsible for developing and maintaining these
relationships. As mentioned earlier, that collective responsibility principle attributed to internal
environment of a business is as viable as for the external environment and all the partners among
the network. Relationship between parties should not be obligatory, hard to break up, and only
bilateral; instead it should be like a preferred friendship. Both parties should be willing to invest
more time and effort voluntarily, and multilateral (Szmigin & Bourne, 1998). Otherwise,
relationship between parties depending on purely self-interests would have weak bonds.
5. Conjunction of Sciences: Influence Cycle and the Median
As indicated before, the network theory can be perceived as midpoint or transitional
stage in between; i) managerial explanation of interactions between parties from the point of
intra-organization in terms of self-benefits and ii) explaining the whole picture of these
interactions web leading to long term relationships which transforms transactions into common
concern of partners for co-creation of value in order to obtain total benefit. On the other hand,
these perspectives are not sequential and all these theories are still valid. A company’s vision
determines the preferred side. Besides, whole approaches are being influenced by each other
continuously as seen on Figure 4:
Network
Approach
N1. Resource ties
N2. Activity links
N3. Actor bonds
Management
Theories
Relationship
Marketing
M1. Resource dependency
M2. Social exchange
M3. Institutional theory
R1. Object of exchange (value)
R2. Value co-creation
R3. Parties of relationship
Figure 4: Influence Chart of Theories on Networks
There is actually one more thing that Figure 4 tells. When we take a deep look at the
management theories used for explaining networks, we may conclude that these three theories
constitute the factors of ARA Model of network theory. Resource dependence theory deals
with the resource ties within the networks, social exchange theory underlies the activity links
and institutional theory comprises a basis for actor bonds. And as stated before, basic
components of relationship marketing are value co-creation, value exchange, and parties
involved in the relationship. The possibility to match these components with the elements of
ARA Model is not just a coincidence; it is the evolution of the perspective which briefly means
a perspective shift on networks as:
i) M1→N1→R1;
ii) M2→N2→R2;
iii) M3→N3→R3.
In other words, different management theories have basically molded different and
certain factors of ARA model and provided a basis for the core components of relationship
marketing separately.
6. Clash of Sciences: Management vs. Marketing on Networks
The coalition of management theories, the network theory, and relationship marketing
are each like a foot of a tripod with some similarities and big differences indeed. These
differences will be evaluated under this title in terms of the factors of ARA model by explaining
on a section of the given network example in Figure 2, which can also be seen below in Figure
5:
Figure 5. A Section of a Network System (Chain X)
6.1. Attitude towards Actor Bonds: “I want to” Versus “I need to”: The distinction
between managerial and marketing perspective on actor bonds can be understood by examining
the attitude towards the purpose and nature of the relationship established. In business life, it is
obvious that all interactions and relationships start with necessity; the difference is the intention
in the ongoing process.
According to management, a firm is like a countryman in a metropolis who is trying to
be accepted by the environment. He is an ordinary man has nothing special to offer. The best
he can do is to adapt to environment and act like the others. In this context, what a firm should
do is to be like the others in order to be a part of a business network. Briefly, management
perspective focuses on adaptation for establishing network connections. On the other hand,
marketing perspective focuses on the intention of creating value in harmony with external
limitations and regulations. Adaptation is not well enough to be an indispensable part of a
network, the firm should have a specific added value beyond economic benefits to offer.
According to management perspective and therefore institutional theory, the bond
between actors continues as long as dependency remains. The relationship has an obligatory
structure. On the other hand in relationship marketing, it depends on the parties to continue the
relationship once established. Parties are volunteer for maintaining and developing strong and
long term bonds with each other loyally. It possible to say that while managerial perspective
represents the first layer of Medlin & Quester’s actor bonds, marketing perspective represents
the third layer.
As Hakansson & Snehota (1995) indicated; the process of building trust and identity in
relationships affect the identities of companies. Establishing the actor bonds with a managerial
attitude will probably result in negative impressions and lack of trust. So, an unhealthy
relationship within network may occur. But with a marketing point of view, a relationship chain
within network which depends on loyalty will make good impressions for members, build up
trust, deepen commitment, and increase the desire for cooperation.
In the B2C context of actor bonds it can be said that managerial approach considers final
customer as a rational creature who picks up the one with the most tangible/functional value.
However, it is well known that consumers do not establish relationship with brands not only
because they offer functional benefits. Consumers tend to establish relationships with brands
both rationally and emotionally. If they are enthusiastic, they wish to enter in long time
relationships with increasing value and significance over time (Brito, 2011). Therefore, as
Gummesson (2008) indicated, every supplier has a relationship to the customer’s customer and
a collaborative branding strategy for increasing the value of umbrella brand will be more proper
instead of self-branding of network members.
6.2. Attitude towards Resource Ties: Despotism Versus Collectivism: The main
difference between the sciences’ approach on resource ties is about the treatment of the concept
once again. Barringer & Harrison (2000) state that resource dependency theory and
management approach indeed consider inter-organizational relationships from an economic
point of view and anything else is ignored. On the other hand in marketing, even a firm’s
network is seen as an inimitable resource (Gulati et al., 2000). It means that marketing has a
much broader understanding on resources.
Brethertorn & Chaston (2005) have exposed that having a clear strategic intent with
adequate capital allows ownership and control of key resources and capabilities. So, all
companies would have a possession instinct for resources. Resources can be considered key if
they are rare, valuable in the market, imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable and they are
the ones that can lead to competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). The difference between
sciences’ point of view lays on the planning of what to do with that superiority hold.
With a self-focused way of thinking as in management, a firm would prefer to acquire
control over critical resources in an effort to decrease dependence on other organizations and
acquire control over resources that increase the dependence of other organizations on them
(Barringer & Harrison, 2000). In marketing on the other hand, resources are seen as components
of value creation and pooled by partners in the network for attaining the highest value. Please
check Figure 6.
Let’s turn back to Chain X. Assume that network member M7 hold a key resource unit
which is vital for the process. With a strategic management way of thinking, what M7 should
do is to make benefit of this strength and establish rules for the network. In this situation, other
members have to put extra effort for accommodating to M7 and shift their focus from value
creation process to adaptation. Such ever-growing dependence will threaten and exploit other
members which will sooner or later have them to finish the relationship with M7.
However in a network which all members consider each other as partners, the existence
of such a strength at one of the members’ hand will encourage and motivate the network for
giving their best and contributing the existing strength with their competences. Such a synergy
will lead to a shift in created value.
Flow of process
GAIN POWER
MAN:
RM3
M4
M7
M11
R4
Low
value
M11
R4
High
value
Adaptation to power
MARK:
RM3
M4
M7
Synergy
Figure 6. Comparison on Benefiting from Strength between Management and Marketing
As understood, while strategic management divert firms to gain competitive advantage
within network, marketing motivates networks for higher value co-creation and gaining
competitive advantage among other competitor networks. In such a way a strength in terms of
resources is perceived as a thread by other members in management. But it is embraced as an
opportunity by the whole network in marketing view.
6.3. Attitude towards Activity Links: Me Versus We: Gadde et al. (2003) state that
strategic management approach has a pure competitive focus on relationship. But relationship
based network understanding provides balance between competition and cooperation which
lead to value co-creation. Besides, as in social exchange theory, the company take place in the
network with the idea of winning and maximizing self-benefit in management approach. But in
relationship marketing, all parties consider themselves as a team and collaborate for
maximizing the total benefit, profit, value, etc. of the network and share the outcome of the
synergy equally. In other terms, while management defends the opinion of competition within
the network, marketing relies on competition for the favor of the network. As Gummesson
(2008) explained, it is a plus sum game rather than a zero sum game. Please check Figure 7.
Let’s take M7 as example. With a managerial approach on actor bonds, company M7
competes against the other channel members and does its best in order to maximize its profit
zone by hiking P3 or pulling down P2 with power. An increase on M7’s benefit will result in a
decrease on benefits of M11 and/or M4. However, with a relationship marketing focus, what
M7 and the other members altogether should do is to collaborate for increasing the final value;
either increasing the benefit gained (upwarding P5) or decreasing the total cost (P0) by sharing
information, knowledge, process, technology, etc. and finally split the profit/benefit gained
equally. This is the only way for a real change in the created value or for co-creation of a totally
new value.
Value/Price
Selling Price to customer
Retailer's Gross Margin
(Benefit of R4)
Manufacturers'
total added
value
Value Added by M11
(Profit of M11)
Value Added by M7
(Profit of M7)
Value Added by M4
(Profit of M4)
Raw Material Cost
(Benefit of RM3)
Man.
Mark.
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
P0
Figure 7. Difference of Focus on Benefit
As understood, in managerial approach all parties compete for gaining power in order
to make other parties dependent in network system. And what relationship marketing approach
defends is to take part in the network as a team member and dedicate themselves for the same
common goal. The basis of social theory depends on the opinion that individuals expect and
prefer relationships with high outcome in exchange for a lower payoff. In such a case, it is not
possible to develop sustainable relationships.
The quantity of the activity links between members is as important as the quality of
these links. It is not possible to collaborate for the same goal by linking up limited activities.
Even there are much more; let’s assume that two companies can interact with each other and
establish a relationship via 4 different activities; economic transactions, branding, process
development, and distribution. With a pure management and self-focused view of interaction,
there would be a high competition among network members and all parties would make efforts
for maximizing their self-benefit. Under these circumstances, all parties would try to gain power
and keep their key strengths to themselves which lead them to limited contact points, maybe
economic transactions only. But in marketing understanding, parties act as one and share their
capabilities and assets within network for the final shared purpose; constituting a value chain.
And even one member hesitates to act this way, the value chain is damaged. Check Figure 8:
As all geometrical figures represent a firm, there exist three types of firm behavior. The
black dots represent the number of activity links. Diamond firms are the ones which avoid
linking up their activities and interact only for economic transactions within the network, the
triangle ones are the partial collaborators, and the rectangles are full partners.
Flow of process
i)
RM3
M4
M7
M11
R4
RM3
M4
M7
M11
R4
iii)
RM3
M4
M7
M11
R4
iv)
RM3
M4
M7
M11
R4
ii)
Figure 8. Different Levels of Linking Activities
The first line illustrates the pure management perspective. Companies only interact for
economic transactions and have buyer/seller behavior. On the other hand as seen in the second
line, self-activities of firms can be added to one another only if all types of activities are linked
with each other within the whole network system. Thus companies coordinate and work in
harmony. Otherwise, the collaboration line will be broken somewhere in the chain and make it
impossible to maximize the co-created value (Last two lines).
7. Afterword
In this paper, the difference between the perception of management and marketing
sciences on networks have been expressed in terms of the components of ARA Model. It is
possible to notice that some issues have been reverted under different components. This is
because as Holmen & Pedersen (1998) said there is no clear boundary between activity,
resource, and actor dimensions of ARA Model and they’re all embedded into each other. On
the other hand, the sciences and the theories belong are influenced by each other a mentioned
before.
The purpose of this paper is not to defend one perspective to another. It is aimed to put
emphasize on that the two arm in arm sciences are in the opposite edges and explain why. As
mentioned earlier, it is not possible to say that one of these perspectives is suitable for all
conditions. And also we cannot say that each science consider networks purely as expressed in
the text. The boundary between marketing and management is blurred as well.
With this paper, we tried to present the attitude of two different sciences on networks
through a model which explains the network theory. It is hoped that this paper helps decision
takers to be enlighten if they act as a manager or marketer.
Ghocam bu çalışma Zafer Hoca’ya final ödevi kapsamında sunduğum çalışma. Ben bu
çalışmayı bir şekilde değerlendirmek istiyorum ama Zafer hoca ile birlikte birşey yapmak da
çok istemiyorum. Zaten üzerinden bir yıl geçti Zafer hocanın da çok umursadığını
düşünmüyorum. Bununla ilgili bir fikir alışverişi yapmamız mümkün mü?
REFERENCES
Aijo, T. S. (1996). The theoretical underpinnings of relationship marketing: environmental
factors behind the changing marketing paradigm. European Journal of Marketing, 5 (5),
5-20.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17 (1), 99-120.
Barringer, B. R. & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: creating value through
interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 367-403.
Brennan, R. (2006). Evolutionary economics and the markets-as-networks approach. Industrial
Marketing Management 35 (2006), 829-838.
Brennan, R. & Turnbull, P. (1998). Adaptations in buyer-seller relationships. Network
Dynamics in International Marketing, 26-42.
Bretherton, P. & Chaston, I. (2005). Resource dependency and SME strategy: an empirical
study. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12 (2), 274-289.
Brito, C. (2011). Relationship marketing: old wine in a new bottle? Innovative Marketing, 7
(1), 66-77.
Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 2005 (31), 874-900.
DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociology Revies, 48 (2), 147160).
Erdoğan, B. Z. (2009). Marketing: convict or savior of global crisis. Tüketici ve Tüketim
Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1 (1), 41-51. (In Turkish)
Erdoğan, B. Z.; Tiltay, M. A.; Kimzan, H. S. (2011). Philosophical foundations of marketing
theory: is it an exchange or relationship? Tüketici ve Tüketim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3
(1), 1-28. (In Turkish)
Gadde, L. E., Huemer, L., Hakansson, H. (2003). Strategizing in industrial networks. Industrial
Marketing Management 32 (2003), 357-364.
Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift
in marketing. Management Decision, 32 (2), 4-20.
Gummesson, E. (1991). Marketing-orientation revisited: the crucial role of the part-time
marketer. European Journal of Marketing, 25 (2), 60-75.
Gummesson,E. (1997). Relationship marketing as a paradigm shift: some conclusions from the
30R approach. Management Decision, 35 (4), 272-297.
Gummesson, E. (2008). Total relationship marketing: marketing management, relationship
strategy, CRM, and a new dominant logic for the value-creating network economy. (3rd
Edition). USA: Elsevier Ltd.
Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (1998), 293317.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal,
21 (2000), 203-215.
Hakansson, H. & Johanson, J. (1993). The network as a governance structure: interfirm
cooperation beyond markets and hierarchies. The Embedded Firm. (Ed: G. Grabher).
London: Routledge, 35-49.
Hakansson, H. & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing Relationships in business networks. London:
Routledge.
Hakansson, H. & Ford, D. How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of
Business Research, 55 (2002), 133-19.
Hartmann, E. & Herb, S. (2014). Interconnectedness of actor bonds in service triads – a social
capital
perspective.
Industrial
Marketing
Management.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.10.012
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Gremler, D. D. (2002). Understanding relationship
marketing outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 4 (3), 230-247.
Holmen, E. & Pedersen, A. C. (1998). Activity links versus resource ties and efficiency versus
effectiveness in the industrial network approach. 14th Annual IMP Conference Vol. 1:
Competitive Papers, 311-331.
Holthausen, J. (2013). Scientific review of the social exchange theory and its contributions to
solving purchasers’ decision making issues. 1st IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference,
Enschede: Netherlands.
Johanson, J. & Mattsson, L. G. (1987). Interorganizational relations in industrial systems: a
network approach compared with the transaction-cost approach. International Studies
of Management & Organization, 17 (1), 34-48.
Katz, N., Lazer, D., Arrow, H., Contractor, N. (2004). Network theory and small groups. Small
Group Research, 35 (3), 307-332.
Machedo, I. M. & Pinho J. C. (2006). The relationship between resource dependence and
market orientation: the specific case of non-profit organisations. European Journal of
Marketing, 40 (5/6), 533-553.
Medlin, C. & Quester, P. G. (1999). Actor bonds and relational norms in networks. Proceedings
of the 15th Annual IMP Conference. Dublin: University College.
Meyer, H. D. & Rowan, B. (2006). The new institutionalism in education. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory in relationship marketing.
The Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20-38.
Möller K. & Halinen, A. (2000). Relationship marketing theory: its roots and direction. Journal
of Marketing Management, 16 (1-3), 29-54.
Palmer, D. A. & Biggart, N. W. (2002). Organizational institutions. (Ed: J. A. C. Baum). The
Blackwell companion to organizations. Oxford: Blackwell, 259-280.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper
& Row.
Porter, M. E. (1998). Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance –
with a new introduction. New York: The Free Press.
Ravald, A. & Grönroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European
Journal of Marketing, 30 (2), 19-30.
Sheth, J. N. & Parvatiyar, A. (1995). The evolution of relationship marketing. International
Business Review, 4 (4), 397-418.
Skaates, M. A. (2000). Actor bonds in situations of discontinuous business activities.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual IMP Conference. Bath: UK.
Szmigin, I. & Bourne, H. Consumer equity in relationship marketing. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 15 (6), 544-557.
Tikkanen, H. (1998). The network approach in analyzing international marketing and
purchasing operations: a case study of a European SME’s focal ne 1992-95. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, 13 (2), 109-131.
Wilkhamn, W. & Hall, A. T. (2012). Social exchange in a Swedish work environment. Social
exchange in a Swedish work environment. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 3 (23), 56-64.
Zafirovski, M. (2005). Social exchange theoru under scrutiny: a positive critique of its
economic-behaviorist formulations. Electronic Journal of Sociology.
Bu çalışmada network theory’e ilişkin akademik literatürü biraz daha derinleştirmek gerekir.
Ayrıca network theory ile interaction theory arasında ilişki kurularak günümüzdeki connected
customer sonucuna ulaşılabilir mi.. figure ve çıkarımlar çok iyi olmuş ama daha iyiaçıklanması
ve üzerinde durulması gerek .. özellikle giriş kısmında bu çalışmanın neden yapıldığı ve
başlangıç noktası ve ulaşılmya çalışılan hedefler konusu üzerinde durlursa çalışma daha iyi hale
gelebilir.. ELLERİNE SAĞLIK