Relational exchange in US‐Japanese marketing strategic alliances

Abstract

Purpose To develop and test a new model of relational exchange in marketing‐oriented non‐equity international strategic alliances. Design/methodology/approach The model is tested using a sample of 97 matched dyads of US and Japanese firms in the electronics industry. The model was tested using three stage least squares. Findings The data generally support the proposed model for both nations/cultures. The results suggest that the benevolence dimension of trust is a more important determinant of managerially assessed alliance marketing performance for the Japanese firms relative to their US partners. Research limitations/implications While strong inferences are inhibited by the nature of our data set, our research implies that cultural sensitivity is an important determinant of the credibility and benevolence dimensions of trust and quality information exchange. Also, exchanging quality information is a strong mediator of the trust‐performance relationship. Practical implications International marketing managers should be focused on the process of developing high levels of alliance marketing performance. Our results suggest that this performance can be linked, at least in part, to the exchange of relevant, timely, important information. Information exchange in turn depends on the development of trust and cultural sensitivity in the relationship. Originality/value This paper integrates the cultural sensitivity construct into a relational exchange model of international alliances, demonstrating the importance of being open to, and understanding of, culturally driven operational differences. The important behavioral construct we call quality information exchange is a mediator in the relational exchange model, an improvement over models that include only relational constructs such as trust and commitment.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 77 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.