Ijlm 07 2012 0067

The International Journal of Logistics Management
The role of personal relationships in supply chains: An exploration of buyers and

suppliers of logistics services
David M. Gligor Mary Holcomb
Article information:
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)
To cite this document:

David M. Gligor Mary Holcomb , (2013),"The role of personal relationships in supply chains", The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp. 328 - 355
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-07-2012-0067
Downloaded on: 28 September 2014, At: 05:00 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 86 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 632 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Sally Atkinson, (2004),"Senior management relationships and trust: an exploratory study", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 Iss 6 pp. 571-587
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 546149 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm
IJLM
24,3
328
The role of personal relationships

in supply chains
An exploration of buyers and suppliers of
logistics services
David M. Gligor
Received 23 July 2012

Revised 15 November 2012
1 March 2013
Accepted 14 April 2013
Global Supply Chain and Logistics Excellence Network,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA, and
Mary Holcomb
Marketing & Logistics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how personal relationships influence behavior
within a supply-chain context.
Design/methodology/approach This research employs a qualitative methodology that allows for
a rich assessment of how buyers and suppliers of logistics services interact within the context of
personal relationships (e.g. friendships), that are themselves embedded within interfirm relationships.
Based on a grounded theory approach, a model is developed describing how and why personal
relationships are important for supply-chain managers to consider when cultivating interfirm
connections.
Findings The findings reveal how managers act/interact within the context of personal relationships,
as well as the outcomes/benefits associated with the development of personal relationships.
Research limitations/implications This study uses qualitative interviews to generate theory.
The generalizability of the findings will have to be empirically examined in future research.
Practical implications Managers can use the findings to understand explicitly what types of
benefits personal relationships can yield. Further, this study presents to managers the specific actions
that buyers and suppliers of logistics services engage in, when developing a personal relationship, in
order to facilitate the generation of positive business outcomes.
Originality/value A notable weakness in the supply-chain relationship literature is the unfulfilled
need for research examining interfirm relationships at a micro/individual level, rather than the
traditionally adopted firm-to-firm view, in order to account for the social/relational elements of
firm-level relationships. This paper addresses that gap by exploring personal relationships within
supply chains.
Keywords Supply-chain management, Partnership
Paper type Research paper
The International Journal of Logistics

Management
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2013
pp. 328-355
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-4093
DOI 10.1108/IJLM-07-2012-0067
1. Introduction
The need for firms to develop closer relationships with suppliers is well recognized in
the logistics and supply-chain management literatures (Murphy and Poist, 2000; van
Laarhoven et al., 2000; Golicic and Mentzer, 2006), and a variety of benefits have been
associated with firms cultivating close relationships, such as higher levels of partner
trust and commitment (Autry and Golicic, 2010; Golicic and Mentzer, 2006), higher
levels of customer retention, increased customer referrals (Knemeyer et al., 2003),
and improved operational and market performance (Stank et al., 2003; Sinkovics and
Roath, 2004; Panayides and So, 2005).
Although it has long been recognized that business relationships ultimately

progress due to individuals within firms interacting over time (Hakansson, 1982),
most buyer-supplier relationship models tend to focus on the more macro, firm-to-firmlevel relationships. As managers of firms directly connected within a supply chain
develop personal relationships, existing research offers numerous theoretical reasons
to believe that interorganizational dynamics will be impacted. The failure of supplychain research to account for the role of personal relationships limits the
understanding of why managers behave a certain way. For instance, Wilson (1999)
argued that individual-level decisions can be adequately understood only if the
ongoing personal relationships within which the decisions are embedded are accounted
for. Anecdotal evidence also indicates supports for this point. According to John
Browne, CEO of British Petroleum, You never build a relationship between your
organization and a company [y] You build it between individuals (Adobor, 2006,
p. 474). Consequently, a notable weakness in the buyer-supplier relationship literature
is related to the need for more research to examine interfirm relationships at a more
micro, individual level in order to account for the social elements of the relationship
(Celuch et al., 2006).
The supply-chain literature on buyer-supplier relationships is no exception to
this dilemma. While research has addressed firm-to-firm linkages (i.e. Autry and
Griffis, 2008; Golicic and Mentzer, 2006), it has not yet specifically addressed the role
and impact of managers across firms developing personal relationships. Marasco
(2007) specified a need for this type of research, calling explicitly for studies that would
lead to a deeper understanding of the behavioral complexities that emerge through
the interaction between the buyer(s) and provider(s) of logistics services (p. 141). This
paper addresses that gap. It does so by building theory that describes how buyers
and suppliers of logistics services interact within the context of personal relationships
that are themselves embedded within interfirm relationships. One of the main
contributions of this paper is the illustration of the specific behavioral processes that
take place within such a complex context.
In order to execute the current research, it is necessary to distinguish between the
notions of individual-level business relationships and individual-level personal
relationships. By personal relationships we refer to the individual-level relationships
that develop between persons who happen to do business, and these are considered
separately from those relationships that exist at the individual-level but are only
business-specific (Grayson, 2007). In the current research, we focus on the former. Our
research objective is to understand how personal relationships influence behavior
within a supply-chain context. Specifically, how do buyers of logistics services interact
with suppliers of logistics services when a personal relationship is present?
The paper is organized as follows. First, a brief review of previous research
related to interfirm relationships is presented. Buyer-supplier relationships have been
studied at length in various disciplines such as operations ( Johnston et al., 2004),
marketing (Celuch et al., 2006), and strategic management (Ring and van de Ven, 1994).
Of particular interest to this research is the marketing literature concerning
buyer-supplier relationships where a personal relationship focus is taken.
A comprehensive review of this literature facilitates the development of a number
of specific findings that contribute to the evolution and design of this qualitative
study. A description of grounded theory methodology that is used to conduct primary
data collection and analysis is also provided. We describe in detail the steps taken to
locate key respondents, collect qualitative data, build theory, and validate our findings.
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
329
IJLM
24,3
330
From this research, it was possible to construct a number of postulates regarding

the various roles of personal interaction on supply-chain connections. The paper
concludes by providing a number of managerial and research implications, along with
suggestions for future research.
2. Unraveling personal and business relationships
Though the study of personal relationships within business disciplines is not new, their
application to supply-chain settings has been relatively infrequent. Much of the
existing individual-level relationship literature has emerged in the field of marketing,
where a few studies have recognized the key role that personal relationships play in the
purchasing process. For example, Haytko (2004) argued that it is difficult for personal
relationship participants to think about their interfirm affiliations without first
considering the nature and quality of associated personal relationships, because
boundary spanners day-to-day experience involves working closely with other
individuals. In their research, Lian and Laing (2007) emphasized that acknowledging
the central role of relationships in the management of the purchasing process,
examining the manner in which relationships, in particular personal relationships, are
built and managed is invaluable in understanding the processes underpinning the
purchasing (of) professional business services (p. 710). Thus, firm-level relationship
formation is postulated to be anchored by the series of personal relationships
that manifest between individuals in their respective firms in the supply chain ( Javalgi
et al., 1995; Gedeon et al., 2009).
Within these boundaries, it is important to acknowledge the various types of
relationships that individuals can develop and distinguish between a business
relationship and a personal relationship. Berscheid and Peplau (1983) propose that
a relationship exists when two actors have impact on each other, or if they are
interdependent. Other research shows that six characteristics distinguish a personal
relationship from a business relationship. First, personal relationships are usually
expressive (emotion based, intrinsic) vs instrumental (substantive, task) (Fournier
et al., 1998; Grayson, 2007). Second, a personal relationship is based on voluntary
interaction as opposed to non-voluntary for business relationships (Allan, 1989;
Fischer, 1982). Third, the roles played by individuals within personal relationships
are expected to be informal vs the formal roles that are expected in business
relationships (Price and Arnould, 1999). Fourth, personal relationships are motivated
by a communal orientation (giving without the expectation of repayment) vs a
reciprocal orientation found in business relationships (Clark, 1984). Fifth, business
relationships are noted for arms-length connections as opposed to personal
relationships which usually develop intimate connections (Hornstein and Truesdell,
1988; Wright, 1985). Lastly, in a business relationship one of the parties involved can
be replaced and the activity can continue without a disruption. In a personal
relationship the parties are not substitutable (Silver, 1990). These dimensions are
representative of the personal analysis within the current study; that is, we suggest
that individual-level personal relationships can be distinguished from individual-level
business relationships based on these characteristics. Table I summarizes the
differences between pure personal relationships and pure business relationships.
However, the two types of relationships can coalesce.
A number of marketing and sociology studies have examined the results of
combining personal relationships with business relations, with many of them
suggesting that positive outcomes should accrue (Haytko, 2004; Johnson and Selnes,
2004; Lian and Laing, 2007). In a variety of industries personal relationships were
found to be critical to building and enhancing interorganizational relationships
(Mavondo and Rodriogo, 2001). Additionally, recent supply-chain management
research suggests that failure to use close personal relationships to deliver commercial
benefits leaves suppliers vulnerable (Gedeon et al., 2009). In the strategic management
realm, Hutt et al. (2000) observed that a failure to nurture personal relationships
often has negative consequences on the firm-to-firm relationship. Moreover, based on
findings from marketing, constituents of a personal relationship are also considered to
be more trustworthy, loyal, and committed business partners (Price and Arnould, 1999;
Johnson and Selnes, 2004; Adobor, 2006), which can positively impact the business
relationship. However, while personal relationships have been shown to have a positive
effect on business outcomes, the conflict between the personal relationship role
expectations and the business role expectations can diminish these benefits (Grayson,
2007). Other research has shown that, when combined, personal relationships and
business relationships can create conflict (Heide and Wathne, 2006; Price and Arnould,
1999). In the current study, we maintain a distinction between personal relationship
and business relationships between individuals; personal relationships are grounded
in the unique and irreplaceable qualities of partners, defined and valued independently
of their place in public systems of kinship, power, utility, and esteem, and of any
publicly defined status in contrast to business relationships in which the substitution
of persons is inconsequential for its constitutive features (Silver, 1990, pp. 1476-1477).
The exchange of logistics services takes place within the context of both
organizational and personal relationships. It is therefore important to understand
the role of personal relationships embedded within supply-chain settings, and
how individuals within supply-chain firms seek to make use of them to achieve
firm-level outcomes.
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
331
3. Methodology
Because there is limited knowledge about the role of personal relationships embedded
within a supply-chain context a main objective of this paper is theory building. A
grounded theory approach is used to investigate the phenomena of interest (Glaser and
Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). A grounded theory approach is
recommended for generating depth and understanding when little is known about a
topic (Celsi et al., 1993; Schouten, 1991). This approach is adopted to examine the
research question for a number of reasons. First, the supply-chain relationship
literature is quite rich with studies focussing on firm-to-firm-level relationships (Hofer
et al., 2009; Golicic and Mentzer, 2006). However, few studies address the individuallevel relationships that interfirm relationships subsume, and those that do, do so by
examining the relationship-specific elements (trust, commitment, dependence, etc.)
Personal relationships
Business relationships
Expressive (emotion based, intrinsic)

Voluntary interaction
Informal roles
Communal orientation
Intimate connections
Parties are not substitutable
Instrumental (substantive, task)

Non-voluntary interaction
Formal roles
Reciprocal orientation
Table I.
Comparison of personal
Arms-length connections
and business relationships
Parties are substitutable
IJLM
24,3
332
of individual-level business relationships (Rinehart et al., 2004) while generally

overlooking the existence and role of an additional type of relationships: personal
relationships.
The choice of method should flow from the statement of the phenomenon to be
studied; the research question of interest in this study deals with dynamic human
behavior, a perspective that lends itself to grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
Additionally, grounded theory is a recommended methodology for building theory on
problematic, dynamic social processes (Flint et al., 2005). The methodological approach
also responds to a call for increased used of grounded theory within the logistics
discipline when studying phenomena with complex behavioral dimensions (Mello and
Flint, 2009) such as the supply-chain processes that exhibit a high degree of complexity
(Bolumole et al., 2007).
Logistics researchers have long recognized the crucial role that individuals play in
the logistics outsourcing process (Rinehart and Closs, 1991; Bolumole, 2001), however,
research has yet to provide an understanding of how relationships developed at
the manager-level impact the interaction between buyers and suppliers of logistics
services. Therefore, the context chosen for this study is that of the logistics outsourcing
relationship; specifically, the relationships that exist between a member of the supply
chain and its external logistics service provider that assumes some of the focal
firms logistics responsibilities. While Mentzer et al. (2001) defined supply chains as
consisting of three or more companies, a buyer-supplier dyad is a component of that
larger supply chain that is useful for an introductory level investigation of relational
phenomena. Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is a dyadic relationship. It is
common in the operations research/management and logistics literature to capture
supply-chain relationships by studying dyadic relationships; dyadic relationships
are considered reflective of supply chains (Sahin and Robinson, 2002). Further, as
decisions within these dyadic relationships are made by individual managers, studying
relationships at a more micro-individual level is firmly rooted within the domain of
supply-chain management.
3.1 The grounded theory process
The Straussian model for conducting grounded theory was followed in this study.
Strauss and Corbin (1990) proposed a coding paradigm to help researchers develop
their interpretations of an interview transcript. The proposed coding paradigm
instructs the researcher to identify a core category (core phenomenon) and its causal
conditions, interactions, strategies, and consequences. A detailed explanation of this
process is provided in Section 3.3.
3.2 Sampling and data collection
In the grounded theory process, it is important to use a data collection procedure
known as theoretical sampling. In theoretical sampling the data collection process is
determined by the emergent theory. Theoretical sampling played a key role in this
study, whereby the researchers collected, coded, and analyzed the interview data, and
then progressively decided which participants to interview next in order to develop
the theory as it emerged (Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Mello and Flint, 2009). Data
collection stopped when a preponderance of redundant information suggested that the
full complexity of the concepts had been captured (Flint et al., 2002). This identification
was essential as it served to facilitate construct comprehensiveness and theory
development (Maxwell, 1996).
In this study, only managers who had developed personal relationships within the
context of buying and selling logistics services were sampled. Participants were senior
managers directly involved in the process of buying or selling logistics services.
In order to gain a dyadic perspective on the relationships, a modified snowball
technique meant to elicit a dyadic relationship was also employed. Specifically,
in selecting who to interview the following process was used: the first buyer and the
first supplier were selected using purposive sampling. At the end of the interviews,
these respondents were asked to facilitate contact with the managers they described as
having a personal relationship with. Once the initial dyads were constructed,
theoretical sampling was used to identify who to interview next. This iterative process
resulted in a final sample consisting of 26 participants from nine different companies
(12 buyers and 14 suppliers). The 26 interviews were paired, and yielded a total of
16 usable dyads (six actors were involved in multiple dyads within the study). At the
end of the 26 interviews theoretical saturation was attained in that each incremental
interview yielded no additional information. Based on this fact, and in consideration
of standards set forth in previous research, 26 interviews were deemed sufficient for
the current purposes (it is common to interview eight or fewer informants to reach
saturation; McCracken, 1988). Table II depicts the study participants and their
relational ties.
The final sample included managers from multiple industries to facilitate
theory building. The buyers of logistics services interviewed in this study belonged
to the following organizations: a global steamship line, an international manufacturer
of pet products, a global manufacturer of paper products, and a global manufacturer
of contact lenses. The suppliers of logistics services interviewed in this study
belonged to the following organizations: a global steamship line, two trucking
companies, two logistics brokers, and a freight forwarder. Because the steamship
line was both a buyer and supplier of logistics services, different managers
within this company were interviewed when constructing relationship dyads for
analysis.
Notes: aB1 is both a buyer and supplier of logistics services. bThe first number in parenthesis on each
connecting line indicates the length of relationship in years between the respective buyer and supplier.
The second number indicates how many years the dyad members worked together until they
considered the relationship to be more than a business relationship (i.e. personal relationship). For
example, 1 represents 12 months, 1/2 represents six months, 1/4 represents three months, etc. The
second number was computed as the average of the values indicated by each dyad member
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
333
Table II.
Study sample
IJLM
24,3
334
Following the McCracken (1988) guidelines for in-depth interviews, we relied on

the perspectives of the sampled logistics managers to investigate and analyze the
phenomenon. The interviews were conducted in the respondents offices (21) and over
the phone (five). While most of the managers were located in the southeast USA,
a number of them were located on the West Coast (five) which led to phone interviews
in those instances. The interviews were open-ended and discovery oriented and
typically lasted about one hour. An example of the interview guide is provided in
Appendix A. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Analyses were done after each interview to facilitate theoretical sampling and as
new categories and insights emerged we moved back and forth between open, axial,
and selective coding.
3.3 Data coding and analysis
Analyses were conducted after each interview to facilitate theoretical sampling using
grounded theory procedures (Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Three different
types of coding are suggested in Strauss coding paradigm and used in this study: open
coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The interview transcripts were analyzed on
a sentence-by-sentence basis and coded for conceptual content by each analyst. To
ensure an unbiased perspective and objectivity, two external analysts (not involved in
the data collection process or the study design) were also asked to assist with the
coding and analysis of the field data. In total, four analysts examined the data.
Initially, during open coding, the analysts independently broke down the data into
discrete incidents, ideas, events, and acts, and assigned a name/code to represent these.
Once each analyst independently coded the interview transcripts available at the time,
the analysts met to compare codes. To facilitate this task of achieving inter-coder
reliability, qualitative research computer software (QDA Miner) was used. This
software allowed the analysts to independently code transcripts and, when finished,
merge the files into one document to compare codes. QDA Miner overlaps the analysts
codes and allows for easy comparison of inter-coder reliability. Where the codes were
different, the analysts reviewed the specific sections to determine the causes of
discrepancy and seek consensus. In order to facilitate inter-coder reliability each
analyst kept detailed theoretical memos (the researchers record of analysis, thoughts,
interpretations, questions, and directions for future data collection). When coding
discrepancies existed, the analysts read each others theoretical memos for
explanations of why certain concepts were coded and interpreted a certain way.
This not only assured that the coding process was consistent across analysts, but also
verified that the resultant interpretations of the analysts emerged from logical and
unbiased thought processes. This iterative process of individually coding transcripts
followed by working together to assure coding and interpretation consistency was
followed as additional interviews were conducted and transcripts became available.
Face-to-face meetings between analysts were employed to address coding
discrepancies. The coding process was not considered complete until the analysts
reached consensus on each code. The process resulted in 100 percent inter-coder
reliability between analysts and also provided a check on each analysts individual
biases. Following the described process 172 open codes were generated.
As data analysis continued, whenever another object, event, act, or happening that
was identified as sharing some common characteristics with an object or a happening,
it was placed under the same code. Concomitantly, comparative analysis was
employed; this is an essential feature of the grounded theory methodology (Strauss and
Corbin, 1990). In this process, each incident was compared to other incidents at the
property (general or specific characteristic of a category which allows a category to be
defined and given meaning) or dimensional (range along which properties of a
category vary; used to provide parameters for the purpose of comparison between
categories) level for similarities and differences and placed into a category. Following
this dynamic reiterative process concepts were grouped into categories (e.g. enhanced
communication, enhanced trust) for content analysis.
Once categories emerged through open coding, intense content analysis was done
around each category, one at a time. This is known as axial coding. The purpose of
axial coding is to begin the process of reassembling data that were fractured during
open coding. During this stage categories were related to each other to form more
precise and complete explanations about phenomena focussing on how categories
crosscut and link. Data were linked at the property and dimensional levels in order to
form dense, well-developed, and related categories. In axial coding, as in open coding,
we continued to make constant and theoretical comparisons and make use of the
analytic tools described previously. It is important to specify that while axial coding
differs in purpose from open coding, these are not necessarily sequential analytical
steps. Therefore, the analysts iterated between open and axial coding.
As the final type of coding performed, selective coding is the process of integrating
and refining revealed categories. This was performed in order to delimit coding to only
those variables that relate to the core variables of interest that have emerged from the
study. In summary, during open coding the analysts were concerned with generating
categories and their properties and sought to determine how these concepts vary
dimensionally. In the axial coding phase, categories were systematically developed and
linked, and finally, during the selective coding stage the process of integrating core
categories took place.
3.4 Analysis of research trustworthiness
For a research study to make a contribution to the body of knowledge it must be
rigorous, and qualitative studies are no exception (Pratt, 2008, 2009). As suggested by
Flint et al. (2002) trustworthiness of the research in interpretive studies should be
assessed by applying two overlapping sets of criteria (Appendix B). Earlier social
sciences research focussed primarily in marketing recommends that credibility,
transferability, dependability, confirmability, and integrity should be the first area of
focus (e.g. Hirschman, 1986; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Wallendorf and Belk, 1989).
These criteria were evaluated holistically and thoroughly. To be specific, first, a
summary of initial interpretations was provided to participants for feedback
(credibility); second, theoretical sampling was used (transferability); third, the
guidelines for data collection and interpretation were strictly followed (dependability);
fourth, an auditor was used to confirm interpretations prior to journal submission
(confirmability); and fifth, participants were assured of anonymity (integrity).
Second, the criteria of generality, understanding, control, and fit emerged from the
grounded theory literature itself (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). These criteria were
assessed as follows: interviews were lengthy to allow for different aspects of the
phenomenon to emerge (generality); executive summaries were provided to
participants and asked if it reflected their stories (understanding); participants did
have some control over certain variables (control); and lastly, the criteria of fit was
addressed through the methods mentioned earlier to control for credibility,
dependability, and confirmability.
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
335
IJLM
24,3
336
4. Results
4.1 Overall findings
The grounded theory analysis of the interviews revealed that, in the process of
developing and maintaining personal relationships, managers engaged in a series of
actions/interactions that resulted in enhanced trust, enhanced communication,
enhanced personal and business understanding, and increased business volume.
These four themes permeated throughout all participant experiences. As illustrated
in Figure 1, the supporting-specific actions/interactions that lead to the conceptualization
of these themes also emerged from the data. Each of these actions/interactions is
discussed below in the context of the specific theme they support.
Theme I: enhanced trust. At a firm level, trust has been identified by prior research
as an antecedent to partnering behavior in the context of logistics outsourcing
relationships (Hofer et al., 2009). Throughout their stories respondents emphasized the
importance of trust within logistics outsourcing relationships, and revealed how
personal relationships facilitated the development of trust: I cant stress enough
the trust factor. Its just critical that you have these personal relationships with
these customers so they know youre telling the truth and youre not lying to them
(Rob/supplier), Friendships do greatly impact the business relationships because it
helps build trust (Glenda/buyer), When you get to know somebody at that deeper
level as a friend you inherently learn to trust that person (Travis/supplier).
The social network and social capital theories provide theoretical support for this
interpretation. Social capital theory argues that actors (individuals, teams, groups)
willing to invest in relationships with other actors will enjoy positive economic and
psychic returns through their capability to leverage the relationship to gain access to
needed resources (Lin, 2001). Social capital has been defined as the benefits that actors
derive from their social relationships (Coleman, 1988, 1990). The formation of personal
relationships leads to the creation of social capital through relational embeddedness.
*Relating/Bonding
*Disclosing Personal
Information
*Being Honest
Personal
Relationships
*Increasing Ease of
Communication
*Increasing Sensitivity
of Information
Exchanged
*Assessing PersonalRelated
Characteristics
*Assessing BusinessRelated
Characteristics
Figure 1.
The role of personal
relationships
*Cultivating Loyalty
*Cultivating
Reciprocity
Enhanced Trust
Enhanced
Communication
Enhanced
Personal and
Business
Understanding
Increased
Business Volume
The actions/interactions of relating/bonding, disclosing personal information, and

being honest were identified as the mechanisms through which actors embedded in
a personal relationship build social capital. Each of these actions/interactions was
consistently used by respondents to develop and maintain personal relationships.
In turn, these actions resulted in enhanced levels of trust (social capital).
Action 1: relating/bonding. The first category of actions that emerged as salient to
the development of personal relationships was relating/bonding. Extensive and
repeated contact between the concerned parties, combined with elements of affect
and personal liking leads to personal bonds (Granovetter, 1973). Bonds can be formed
through a process of social integration wherein individuals become psychologically
linked to each other in the pursuit of common goals (Harrison et al., 1998). Scholars
also argue that close personal relationships and bonds among individuals are
responsible for establishing norms of trust and reciprocity in economic exchange
(Granovetter, 1973; Gulati, 1995). This provides support for the findings of this study.
In the process of developing personal relationships participants consistently
looked for ways to relate to each other, which in turn made them feel better about the
relationship overall. Having things in common and being able to relate to each other
made it easier to trust the other party:
Jeff/supplier: When you get to know people on a personal level you understand their values.
If their values are similar to yours, then you eventually have more respect for that person. You
can relate to that person. I mean youve got to understand: when I know someone has the
same values as I have I feel a lot more comfortable with that person because Im able to
establish a little more trust. I mean the whole thing is all about trust. However many ways we
talk about it its all going back to trust. Friendships allow you to develop that trust.
Other respondents had similar stories on how bonds can be developed through
personal relationships: Im a big fisherman [y] I love to fish and I love cooking. If one
of these managers who is visiting is involved in that as well, thats something we can
bond over. I go, hey I love fishing, this guy loves fishing, I can understand what hes
talking about, that hes passionate about this as well. I can relate to that. As a result you
can almost get off on a totally different tangent just talking about that. It somehow
makes it easier to trust that person (Phillip/buyer).
In summary, relating/bonding was identified as one of the main behaviors managers
engaged in to facilitate the development of personal relationships. As a result of this
behavior respondents consistently reported increased levels of mutual trust.
Action 2: disclosing personal information. During their interviews, respondents
consistently reported disclosing personal information as a way to develop personal
relationships, and consequently build trust. While some individuals could be different and
not necessarily have things in common (making it harder to relate to each other), the
disclosure of personal information allows managers to better gauge each others characters
and determine how much they could trust the other person. Consider Dwights story:
Dwight/supplier: We developed a friendship. In the process I learned personal things about
him and he learned personal things about me. We were very different, he was from a big city,
and I grew up in a small place. However, we still developed a friendship. He could gauge the
type of person I was, that I didnt accept failure, that I was tenacious [y] from a conversation
about football! I think it initially established a trust level easier. You can get things done
easier because you developed a small personal relationship.
The dyadic interviews allowed the exploration of both perspectives on the relationship.
Dwights counterpart, Kenji, offered a similar outlook providing support for Dwights
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
337
IJLM
24,3
338
point of view. In his interview Kenji emphasized that he was initially reluctant to
entrust Dwight with his business, but in the process of developing a personal
relationship he learned to trust him:
Kenji/buyer: Dwights company is rather small so at first I was a little bit reluctant about
entrusting him with part of our business. We did develop a personal relationship, and in the
process I learned a lot about him as a person. Hes a very thorough, reliable individual. That
definitely increased the trust level. Right now hes one of our top carriers- very reliable.
Alison and Karina reported similar experiences as well: disclosing personal

information makes the business better because it helps build trust (Alison/supplier),
I think you build trust, they confide in you and you confide in them. It boils down to
trust (Karina/buyer).
Action 3: being honest. Throughout the interviews being honest emerged as an
essential condition for building trust, and personal relationships provided the
foundation for honesty. Respondents described how because of the personal
relationships they felt like they could be honest and tell the complete truth without
being fearful of potential repercussions. The personal relationships put all parties at
ease. Richards account reveals how because of the personal relationships he developed
with some of his customers, when service failures took place he felt comfortable telling
those customers exactly what happened and did not try to paint a different picture:
Richard/supplier: Its very important for us to have personal relationships with some of our
customers. In this business nothings perfect. Youre going to have missed appointments so
I think when you have a personal relationship with them its easier to tell them hey, we
messed up, we missed this one, well get it scheduled, instead of telling them the chassis had
a flat tire [laughs]- the same old nonsense that theyve heard a million times before. So, I think
you can be honest with people, they dont expect you to be perfect, were not perfect, theyre
not perfect, so the friendship really helps.
Richards counterpart Sean revealed a similar story, which further confirms Richards
perspective. Sean highlighted how, because of the personal relationship they shared,
Richard was comfortable telling him the truth when a service failure occurred:
Sean/buyer: He called me one day saying that he had to send back some of the deliveries
already dispatched to him because he didnt have enough capacity. He said his drivers are
lazy and theyre all on vacation [laughs]. Now, theres no way he would have told me that if it
wasnt for our personal relationship. But that honesty actually increased the trust level.
It made me realize he would always tell me the truth.
Barbara (supplier) had a similar narrative: I can be honest, I can tell this customer
exactly whats going to happen if it does work or whats going to happen if it doesnt
work. I dont have to be politically correct. I can just be very honest. While Barbaras
story revealed how the personal relationship allowed her to be honest, Rob had a
similar story when he spoke about the roles of personal relationships and revealed
how because of the personal relationship he felt compelled to tell the truth regardless
of the potential consequences: Ive always been honest with him no matter how bad it
hurt. Thats the only way to maintain that friendship. It takes only one lie for the
friendship and trust to vanish (Rob/supplier).
Table III summarizes the findings for this initial theme, and presents additional
quotes, along with supporting statistics for our interpretation.
Theme II: enhanced communication. Throughout all the interviews enhanced
communication emerged as a key theme, being described by respondents as essential
to establishing partnerships and conducting business. At a firm level, communication
Action/interaction
Relating/bonding
Number/percentage of
participants discussing
the action/interaction
Participants: 22
Percentage: 85
Disclosing personal
information
Participants: 19
Percentage: 73
Being honest
Participants: 24
Percentage: 92
Additional sample quotes

You develop the friendship by findings things
you have in common. Were both big country
music fans. It creates somewhat of a bond, and
slowly you start trusting that person a little bit
more. (Barbara/supplier)
Ive learned he was a very religious as well
person, so we established a connection over that.
As a result there was more mutual trust
(Glenda/buyer)
He shared personal things with me that he
would not share with anyone else. This takes the
personal relationship to the next level and it
creates trust. (Brian/supplier)
Our friendship allows us to talk about personal
problems [y] this enhances the level of trust in
the relationship (Karina/buyer)
My experience has been that the friendship
allows you to be honest. You dont have to sugarcoat your story. Now youll probably trust me
more because I always tell you about the bad stuff
as well, I dont hide it (Wayne/supplier)
The friendship compels you to tell the complete
truth [y] and you expect the same. You cant
build a friendship on lies, everybody knows that.
As a result the mutual trust increases (Kenji/
buyer)
has been recognized as an important element in logistics alliances (Sink and Langley,
1997; Moore and Cunningham, 1999; Knemeyer and Murphy, 2004). For instance,
Bowersox (1990) argued that complete and open exchange of operating and strategic
information is the glue that holds logistics alliances together. Communication between
buyers and suppliers is considered a sine qua non condition for the success of a
business relationship and the achievement of the desired level of business performance
(Logan, 2000; Randall et al., 2011).
Respondents consistently reported using personal relationships to improve the
communication process suggesting that they enhanced communication by making
it open, good, easier, and better. The social network theory also helps
support this interpretation. According to Walter et al. (2007) densely embedded
networks with strong and cohesive social ties facilitate the exchange of information.
Within the confines of personal relationships, managers reported engaging in a couple
of actions leading to enhanced communication. These actions are described in
detail below.
Action 1: increasing ease of communication. Ease of communication is
conceptualized, consistent with the qualitative interviews, as a measure of how
comfortable the managers are to openly exchange information. Respondents stories
revealed that managers were a lot more comfortable communicating with someone
they had a personal relationship with as opposed to someone with whom they did not
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
339
Table III.
Enhanced trust theme
IJLM
24,3
340
share a personal relationship. Managers consistently emphasized that a personal

relationship increased the ease of communication. As Blake (buyer) described it, the
personal relationship allows for completely uncensored communication. Managers
also reported being more likely to exchange business ideas when a personal
relationship is present, and attributed the generation of many business ideas to casual
conversations. Consider what Blakes counterpart, Travis, had to say when contrasting
a business relationship where elements of a personal relationship were present within
a business relationship when the elements of a personal relationship were completely
absent:
Travis/supplier: I have business relationships right now that dont even scratch the surface of
a personal relationship. Im thinking of one individual in a different company that Im dealing
with. This fellow has a concrete wall around him, always strictly business, never personal
[y] and its really uncomfortable. Theres not a casual conversation taking place where ideas
can be openly shared back and forth, so for that reason theres a ton of lost opportunity. To be
quite honest with you, I dont want to jeopardize any business relationships but [y] there
might be times when I have a great idea and I just dont share it with him because I know hes
not going to listen to it. I know hes not going to put in the time to even have a conversation
about it. Its so uncomfortable to even talk to these people sometimes that [y] you sort of
want to jump on and off the phone. You want to deal with what has to be dealt with, and if its
not absolute required communication we dont communicate; and, all those non required
communication opportunities have been responsible for a lot of new ideas and brainstorming
sessions.
Travis quote illustrates that, as it relates to the communication process, personal

relationships can be more than a social element needed for the completion of the
transaction, they can actually provide the platform for a brainstorming session and
therefore generate new business ideas.
Action 2: increasing sensitivity of business information exchanged. Sensitivity is
defined here, based on the qualitative interviews, as a measure of the confidentiality of
the information exchanged. Throughout the interviews managers described how,
within the confines of the personal relationship, they were exchanging business
information that they would normally not share with people they did not have a
personal relationship with. The information exchanged also has the potential to benefit
both parties. Consider Robs story:
Rob/supplier: [y] with Phillip on the other hand, we trust each other. He might be able to tell
me something about his business thats not even for public consumption yet so that I can start
digesting that information behind the scenes and already be thinking and planning with him.
Because he trusts me to share that information it gets us off the starting block a lot sooner
than we would otherwise. He doesnt have to wait until its ready for public consumption to
share it with me. He can share it with me in advance and trust that its safe with me, and we
can work on our plan so that when its time to go were ready, were not starting to plan at
that point.
The dyadic interview with Phillip supported Robs perspective. Sean confirmed that he
felt comfortable sharing information with Richard that he would not share with other
vendors:
Phillip/buyer: I can share information with him (e.g. Rob) that I dont feel comfortable sharing
with other vendors. Its just because of the nature of the relationship we developed over time.
Other managers revealed similar accounts. For instance, Karina described how due
to their personal relationship one of her vendors felt comfortable sharing with her
information that could be considered confidential, therefore providing another

illustration of how within the confines of the personal relationships managers can
increase the sensitivity of information exchanged:
Karina/buyer: [y] shed say (paraphrasing the customer), Im going to tell you something
I dont tell all my other customers. Were having cutbacks and its going to affect this and that
and our cost will go up. Shed let me know things they wouldnt dare tell other customers. Im
the first one to know a lot of things, inside sales and things like that. It is from developing that
personal relationship with her.
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
341
Table IV summarizes the findings for this theme, and presents additional quotes, along
with supporting statistics for our interpretation.
Theme III: enhanced personal and business understanding. The third theme that
emerged as important in explaining how personal relationships impact relationships
between buyers and suppliers of logistics services was labeled enhanced business and
personal understanding. Marketing researchers have long recognized the importance
of a mutual understanding of organizational and personal factors as business
relationships progress through various cycles ( Frazier, 1983, p. 70). Throughout the
interviews, managers reported using personal relationships as a means to better
understand the other party, both on a personal and professional level. They
consistently reported applying the understanding of the other party to better address
work-related issues as well as personal issues and therefore perform better. Each type
of action employed by managers to develop a better understanding of the other party is
described below. At the firm-level, an accurate understanding of the buyer-firms needs
has been recognized as a key enabler of supplier performance (Sanders et al., 2011).
In fact, such understanding is critical for the buyer-supplier co-creation of customer
value ( Whipple and Roh, 2010).
Action/Interaction
Increasing ease of
communication
Participants: 24
Percentage: 92
Increasing
sensitivity of
business information
exchanged
Participants: 11
Percentage: 42

The friendship we have allows for easier
communication. It really helps when dealing with
problems or delicate issues (Paul/buyer)
Good communication is essential for success in
this business. Our friendship helps us constantly
improve the communication process-it allows us
to exchange business information in a casual
way. You cut through all the red tape (John/
supplier)
With Wayne for instance [y] a few months ago
he told me that his company was in the process of
being sold. He explained to me the how that
would affect business and everything. Now,
theres no way he would have shared that with me
if it wasnt for our friendship. That was
confidential information (Brian B/buyer)
Because of our friendship Kenji shared his cost
structure with me. This allowed us to agree on
rates that benefit both of us. Its a win-win
(Dwight/supplier)
Table IV.
Enhanced
communication theme
IJLM
24,3
342
Action 1: assessing personal-related characteristics. Assessing personal-related

characteristics refers to the process of seeking to evaluate and assess the other
individuals personality, background, hobbies, and other personal characteristics. This
conceptualization emerged from the qualitative data. Consistently throughout the
interviews respondents described how within the confines of the personal relationship
they would actively seek to develop a better understanding of the other partys
personal characteristics. Furthermore, managers reported using the deeper insight
into the personal side to better approach business-related issues. Consider
Charles story:
Charles/buyer: Having a better, closer, personal relationship is a plus [y] I definitely think its
beneficial because it helps you understand where a person is coming from, his beliefs and
his personality. Then, when you are dealing with that person in a work situation, youre able
to better cater to him and present a situation a little bit more appropriately.
Charles relationship counterpart, Selena, shared his perspective:

Selena/supplier: I can tell by the tone of his voice when I first call in the morning whether
I should bring up any annoying operational issues, or wait until later in the day. I learned that
through the personal relationships.
The following excerpts from respondents interviews support this interpretation as

well: you get to know their personality, their humor, their wit and youre less likely to
take something said in a business conversation in a negative way (Barbara/supplier),
When you developed a friendship theres no disguise in feelings, you know exactly
how someone is. Its just like the relationship with your wife, you know when she
says no, Im not upset, you know exactly whether she is upset or not. It has nothing to
do with the words they say, its how they act [y] and you find out through that
personal relationship. You understand when something is wrong, you can tell sorrow,
you can tell when something got screwed up or missed. The personal relationship
allows you to do that, and you can use that knowledge when conducting business
(Ron/buyer).
Action 2: assessing business-related characteristics. Assessing business-related
characteristics refers to the process of seeking to evaluate and assess the other partys
business needs. This definition is based on managers interviews. Respondents
involved in a personal relationship consistently reported using personal relationships
as a platform to look into and better gauge the other partys business needs. Dwight
illustrates how his personal relationship with Kenji helped him better understand
Kenjis business needs:
Dwight/supplier: Anytime you have a customer youve got to determine their business goals,
their needs. I think thats very important [y] what does he need? Does he need somebody to
stand by 24/7? Find out what your customers need. The personal relationship makes it easier
to find those needs, and then meet those needs. My friendship with Kenji allows me to better
do that. Its just much easier.
The following quotes also supports this interpretation: Just by knowing Tony on a
personal level I know what he expects from a logistics company, and I can better assess
his business needs. The friendship that we share allows for the kind of interaction that
helps me better gauge his business requirements and expectations (Alison/supplier),
Knowing Ron on a personal level makes it easier to understand what his company
expects now and in the future. The relationship we share allows me to gain a deeper
knowledge of his firms business needs and therefore perform better ( John/supplier).
Table V summarizes the findings for this theme, and presents additional quotes,
along with supporting statistics for our interpretation.
Theme IV: increased business volume. Throughout their stories both buyers and
suppliers of logistics services reported using personal relationships as a means to
cultivate loyalty and reciprocity and, as a result, increase the business volume with the
specific vendor/customer. At a firm-to-firm level, marketing researchers have long
emphasized the importance of developing and maintaining relationships with
customers (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In fact, there is an assumption that developing
relationships with customers leads to long-term customer retention (Daugherty et al.,
1997; Davis and Mentzer, 2006).
It is important to emphasize that respondents did not report using personal
relationships as a means to an end. Rather they simply revealed the benefits associated
with developing personal relationships. Consider Richards story when asked to
describe the role of personal relationships: I think personal relationships in this
business are vital [y] youve got to pick up the phone and talk to people, get to know
them, get to know what theyre all about, their families, what their interests are.
If you can do that the customer will be very loyal to you in the long run. As a result
youll see increased business volumes (Richard/supplier).
Within the confines of personal relationships, managers reported engaging in
a couple of actions leading to increased business volume for the parties involved.
These actions are described in detail below.
Action 1: cultivating loyalty. Throughout their interviews managers consistently
described how through the process of developing personal relationships they also
cultivated mutual loyalty. Robs story is a good example. He described how he
Action/interaction
Assessing personalrelated
characteristics
Participants: 25
Percentage: 96
Assessing businessrelated
characteristics
Participants: 22
Percentage: 85
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
343

Getting to know each others personalities is
huge, and personal relationships facilitate that.
You can use that knowledge in a business
setting (Sean/buyer)
Through the personal relationship Ive become
very familiar with Charles personality. Ive
learned how to approach him with specific
business related issues. This is very important in
sales or any other aspect of conducting business
(Selena/supplier)
We both like fishing, so every other weekend we
fish together. Most of the time we talk business as
well. Its a very laid back setting and weve got a
lot of time to talk, so that allows me to learn
details about his business that otherwise I might
not get exposed to (Richard/supplier)
We developed a closed friendship. This allows
me to provide Rob with a better service. The
relationship provides a platform for me to
develop a better perspective on what his firms
needs are. I think its an advantage. It works both
ways (Brad/buyer)
Table V.
Enhanced personal and
business understanding
theme
IJLM
24,3
developed a personal relationship with Brad, and believed that as a result of the
personal relationship Brad was more loyal to him:
Rob/supplier: I think personal relationships are very important in this business. Theres
camaraderie between Brad and I. Ultimately, this is the only way I can protect my business
long-term. You can always have somebody offer a lower price for the same service.
344
The dyadic interview with Brad supported Robs perspective. Brad confirmed that if
Rob were to leave S2 and go work for a competitor he would continue to support Rob
by awarding him the business that he had when he was employed by S2. It is important
to emphasize that his loyalty was to Rob and not S2:
Brad/buyer: For instance, if Rob was to leave S2 and go over to company X that would
probably make a big impact on how the southeast region looked like completely. Ill be like,
well Robs over there now and he took care of us in the past with this company so I know hell
continue to do that with this new company.
The field data were permeated with additional examples linking personal relationships
to the development of loyalty, and ultimately increased business volume for the parties
involved. A representative sample of these quotes is provided in Table VI. The findings
are consistent with prior firm-level research linking loyalty to increased business
performance for the members of the buyer-seller dyad (Daugherty et al., 2003).
Action 2: cultivating reciprocity. Managers narratives further revealed that in the
process of developing personal relationships they were also invariably cultivating
reciprocity. Defined as a mutually contingent exchange of benefits between two or more
units, the important role of reciprocity within relationships has long been explored by
sociologists (Gouldner, 1960, p. 164). In fact, Simmel (1950, p. 387) suggests that social
Action/interaction
Table VI.
Increased business
volume theme
Cultivating loyalty
Participants: 23
Percentage: 89
Being Honest
Cultivating
reciprocity
Participants: 19
Percentage: 73

My experience has been that when developing a
friendship you also build a sense of loyalty. Some
of my long-term vendors are also my best
friends (Tony/buyer)
I didnt try to become Rons friend hoping for
any business related benefits. However, I believe
that because of our friendship hes been a loyal
customer- our volumes have increased since I
took over his account. Good service and good
rates have to be there, but the personal
relationship definitely helps differentiate you
from the competition ( John/supplier)
I might need his help today and he might need
mine tomorrow. It happens all the time! Our
personal relationship allows us to help each other
that way. (Brian B/buyer)
I get the first shot at all his import containers.
In return if he calls with a hot load Ill drop
somebody elses container and put the driver on
his load. As a result our businesses have grown
together (Alison/supplier)
equilibrium and cohesion would not be possible in the absence of reciprocity as all
contacts among men rest on the schema of giving and returning the equivalence.
Respondents emphasized that within the confines of the personal relationship managers
will at various times exchange favors or go the extra mile for each other. Managers are
in a position to help each other at various times, and personal relationships were
identified as the foundation on which reciprocity could be cultivated. While nothing is
expected in return, these actions do create an environment where managers can create
goodwill. For instance, Brian described his personal relationship with Wayne and
emphasized how relationship building is very important in reaching the stage in the
business relationship where favors can be traded:
Brian/buyer: I think in business as a whole reciprocity is a very, very big and crucial part of
having any follow up business because when you have a customer you want to be able to help
them out and at the same time have them show the same loyalty back to you. So relationship
building does become a very intrinsical part of conducting business. My friendship with
Wayne allows us to do that, and it benefits both of us.
Waynes interview provided support for Brians perspective:

Wayne/supplier: I built a very good personal relationship with Brian, so if any new business
comes up Im probably the first person he calls. Theres a mutual commitment and weve
gotten a lot of business because of that. Any new business its mine to lose in a way.
Our company has gone from having a pretty small stake with his company to finally
being their number one carrier and I believe that has a lot to do with the friendship
we share.
Other managers shared similar experiences. Consider Selenas story. Her description
for reciprocity is you scratch my back, Ill scratch your back, and she associates the
existence of reciprocity with the friendship she developed with her customer: I deal
with this gentleman at B1 and he and I have built a very good relationship over the
years. When you build this kind of relationship theyre more willing to help you in
a situation where they wouldnt help someone else that they didnt have the
relationship with [y] its like you scratch my back Ill scratch your back type thing.
The friendship does help (Selena/supplier). The positive impact of personal
relationships is highlighted by supply-chain management literature which emphasizes
that managers within the buyer-supplier dyad must act in a selfless manner to
prevent relationship failure (Logan, 2000). Therefore, by going the extra mile to help
each other, managers can ensure business relationship continuity.
Table VI summarizes the findings for this final theme, and presents additional
quotes, along with supporting statistics for our interpretation.
5. Research contributions
While previous supply-chain studies have addressed the role and impact of
firms developing closer relationships with suppliers of logistics services, these
relationships have largely been assessed at an organizational level. This study
explores the role and impact of firm managers (buyers) developing personal
relationships with their LSPs managers (suppliers). Specifically, it investigates
how buyers of logistics services interact with suppliers of logistics services when
a personal relationship is present. Considering that academic business literature
permeates with evidence that business decisions cannot be fully explained unless
the ongoing personal relationships within which the individuals are engaged are
accounted for (Wilson, 1999; Celuch et al., 2006; Grayson, 2007), it is important that
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
345
IJLM
24,3
346
a more in-depth understanding of this phenomenon be gained within a supply-chain

context. Therefore, an important contribution of this study to supply-chain management
literature is the introduction of a new research area that focusses on the individual
manager as the unit of analysis. This stream of research addresses the need for
a deeper understanding of the behavioral complexities within the buyer-supplier
dyad as suggested by previous research (Marasco, 2007). One of the main theoretical
contributions of this study is the identification of the specific actions/interactions that
logistics managers engage in while in the process of developing and maintaining
personal relationships with other managers. By providing a detailed description of the
dynamic process of how logistics managers interact within such a context this study
makes an important contribution to the current knowledge base. While studies in other
disciplines have suggested the possibility of using close personal relationships as
a way to deliver commercial benefits (Gedeon et al., 2009), they do not describe how
these benefits are actually generated or conveyed. This study expands on existing
literature by identifying the mechanisms (actions/interactions) managers use to deliver
such benefits. For instance, studies by Child (2005) and Adobor (2006) argue that
interorganizational relationships may benefit from personal relationships in the
areas of trust and information transfer but do not identify the mechanisms
responsible for the increased level in trust and information transfer previous studies
simply imply an association between these variables. Another theoretical contribution
of this study is the identification of the specific outcomes/benefits associated
with the actions/interactions identified in this study. The study confirms that
some of the benefits associated with personal benefits do indeed transfer to a
supply-chain context (e.g. trust and communication), and also identifies additional
benefits associated with such relationships (e.g. enhanced personal and business
understanding).
Specifically, the grounded theory analysis of the field data revealed that in the
process of developing and maintaining personal relationships managers engaged
in four distinct categories of actions/interactions leading to four specific outcomes.
First, managers reported relating/bonding, disclosing personal information, and being
honest, as actions that they associated with enhanced trust within the relationship.
Second, managers reported actions related to increasing ease of communication,
and increasing sensitivity of business information exchanged, actions which they
further associated with enhanced communication. Third, managers reported assessing
personal-related characteristics and assessing business-related characteristics, as
actions related to enhanced personal and business understanding. Fourth, managers
reported cultivating loyalty and cultivating reciprocity, as actions they further
associated with increased business volume.
The findings from this research expand on current supply-chain management
interorganizational relationship literature. For example, at the organizational level
Golicic and Mentzer (2006) emphasize the critical role that trust and commitment
play in the creation of relationship value. This study provides insight into how
managers across firms interact to create trust and cultivate commitment. Existing
supply-chain management research also recognizes the critical role of communication
in the success of the buyer-supplier relationship (Logan, 2000; Randall et al., 2011;
Sanders et al., 2011). Our study expands on this body of literature by offering a better
understanding of how communication can be improved across firms by revealing
the important role of personal relationships developed between buyer- and supplier
managers.
Further, the current study also makes a significant contribution to the supply-chain
management loyalty research. Davis and Mentzer (2006) describe how loyalty can be
created between buyers and suppliers. These authors suggest that the loyalty in a
buyer-supplier relationship is driven more by relationship factors (i.e. handling
problems and communication) than operational factors (i.e. fill rates and on-time
delivery). We expand on their research by identifying additional factors/processes that
contribute to the creation of loyalty within the dyad. In addition, our study highlights
the importance of considering the individual manager as the unit of analysis when
investigating loyalty-related phenomena within the supply chain.
The findings of this study have direct managerial implications as well. They
highlight that personal relationships are more than just a simple social lubricant
needed for the completion of the business interaction within the supply chain. Personal
relationships that facilitate a set of behaviors can impact multiple aspects of the
business relationship.
As some of the respondents disclosed, sometimes personal relationships are
frowned upon by upper management as some managers perceive them as time
consuming, or unproductive activity. However, this study revealed a wealth of
benefits that can result from the actions/interactions that managers engage in while
forming or maintaining personal relationships. As illustrated in this study, even casual
conversations that on the surface might appear as an unproductive activity, can serve
as a platform for business brainstorming sessions.
Managers can also use the findings to understand explicitly what types of benefits
personal relationships can yield (e.g. enhanced trust, enhanced communication,
enhanced personal and business understanding, and increased business volume).
Further, this study presents to managers the specific actions that buyers and suppliers
of logistics services engage in, when developing a personal relationship, in order to
facilitate the generation of positive business outcomes. The study results do not
suggest that managers should develop personal relationships for instrumental
purposes. Rather it provides behavioral guidelines to managers on how to increase the
positive outcomes of such relationships.
Managers can also use these findings to reevaluate the quality of their personal
relationships with managers across firms. Perhaps some managers solely approach
clients from a business perspective to gain/keep/increase a new account and neglect
the personal aspect. The findings reveal that managers should coach their employees
on the importance of personal relationship building in the process of developing closer
business relationships. This coaching should also be done to establish specific
guidelines needed to protect against agency problems and potential suboptimal
decisions. When managers interact on a daily basis they will develop some sort of
relationship, as a buyer of logistics services described it, when youre doing business
it kind of opens up other things. If youre dealing with them every day you do follow
in the lines where you actually do get to meet up and sometimes develop
friendships (Phillip). Whether it is acknowledged or not by the firm, managers will
develop a relationship. Therefore coaching on specific behavioral guidelines/norms
is important.
As it relates to points of managerial interest, it is also important to emphasize that
respondents consistently suggested that the absence of personal relationships can
actually have a negative business impact. As one of the managers noted, if youre not
at least [y] a little personable youre going to cost yourself business because people
will do business with people they like and sometimes that matters more than the price
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
347
IJLM
24,3
(Brad). The impact of personal relationships was emphasized by both suppliers and
buyers of logistics services. Consider Robs statement:
Rob (supplier): Its all about relationships with people. Ive found that if people like you, theyll
find a way to do business with you. We develop friendships with people we like, so the
personal and business elements go hand in hand. Its hard to separate them. Were humans
and most of us like to socialize.
348
Robs perspective was also shared by the buyers interviewed for this study. Consider
Glendas interview excerpt as an example:
Glenda (buyer): [y] when I have a vendor that I really like, Ill give him more business if I
have more of a personal relationship with him. The reality is that, if circumstances allow it,
we all want to do business with people we enjoy interacting with.
The development of personal relationships can be equally important for buyers and
suppliers of logistics services. In the trucking industry, reduced capacity and an
anticipated driver shortage implies that it is going to be all about relationships and
carriers having the luxury of choosing who they do business with (Council of Supply
Chain Management Professionals, 2011, p. 12). The shift in power will increase the
need for buyers of logistics services to pursue the development of close relationships
with logistics service providers in order to ensure business continuity.
6. Research limitations
While the findings from this qualitative research contribute to the understanding
of how buyers and sellers of logistics services interact when a personal relationship
is present, the results are based on the perceptions and opinions of a limited number
of participants. This is a limitation of qualitative studies. Although the inductive
method leads to theory development, it is not generalizable to a broader population.
Also, cross-sectional research design limits the extent to which cause-effect relations
can be inferred. Future research using longitudinal data could help address
this limitation.
7. Future research
Moving forward there are additional opportunities for future research. One direction
consists of empirically testing the generalizability of the findings proposed in this
study. It would be interesting for future research to investigate the tensions that
buyers and suppliers of logistics services experience as a result of each group
being given conflicting directions from their upper management: suppliers typically
being encouraged to develop personal relationships, and buyers typically being
discouraged out of fear of favoritism. This study revealed the positive aspects of
allowing buyers and suppliers of logistics services to develop personal relationships.
Similarly, it would be interesting to understand what sorts of conflict could emerge
between buyers/suppliers and their employers due to personal relationships in the
supply chain is there a point when the personal relationship becomes dangerous
to the firm?
Future research could also explore how evolving technology impacts the way
managers across companies interact, specifically through the use of social media.
A large number of respondents reported using social media to develop personal
relationships with managers across companies. Considering that respondents
consistently suggested that the absence of personal relationships can actually have
a negative business impact, future research should also explore the negative aspects
associated with the lack of personal relationships in the buyer-supplier relationship.

Such research is needed to offer a balanced perspective on the role of personal
relationships.
Another important avenue for future research relates to the negative aspects of
strong personal relationships (i.e. the dark side of personal relationships). Research
should explore how personal relationships can lead to negative outcomes and how
managers can establish policies and/or provide guidance to employees to encourage
positive relationships and outcomes and discourage negative ones.
Finally, the nature of personal relationships and their role in business can be culture
laden. While this does not negate the insights that can be drawn from a US sample,
future research should explore the questions addressed in this study using samples
drawn from other cultures. Based on cultural differences among nations, one might
expect different behaviors and outcomes.
Bromberger and Hoover (2003) suggest that the management of personal
relationships is the most tenuous aspect of supply-chain management and one that
is least understood. This research is intended to be a starting point in developing
a deeper understanding of the behavioral complexities that emerge in the process of
buying and selling of logistics services. Additional research is needed to gain a better
understanding of these and other related issues.
References
Adobor, H. (2006), The role of personal relationships in inter-firm alliances: benefits,
dysfunctions, and some suggestions, Business Horizons, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 473-486.
Allan, G.A. (1989), Friendship: Developing a Sociological Perspective, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
Autry, C.W. and Golicic, S.L. (2010), Evaluating buyer-supplier relationship spiral: a longitudinal
study, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 87-100.
Autry, C.W. and Griffis, S.E. (2008), Supply chain capital: the impact of structural and relational
linkages in firm execution and innovation, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 157-173.
Berscheid, E.G. and Peplau, L.A. (1983), The Emerging Science of Relationships, W.H. Freeman,
New York, NY.
Bolumole, Y.M. (2001), The supply chain role of third-party logistics providers, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 87-102.
Bolumole, Y.A., Frankel, R. and Naslund, D. (2007), Developing a theoretical framework for
logistics outsourcing, Transportation Journal, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 35-54.
Bowersox, D.J. (1990), The strategic benefits of logistics alliances, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 36-45.
Bromberger, S. and Hoover, S. (2003), Supply chain challengers: building relationships,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 64-73.
Child, J. (2005), Organization: Contemporary Principles and Practice, Blackwell Publishing, Malden.
Celsi, R.L., Rose, R.L. and Leigh, T.W. (1993), An exploration of high leisure consumption
through skydiving, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Celuch, K.G., Bantham, J. and Kasouf, C. (2006), An extension of the marriage metaphor in
buyer-seller relationships: an exploration of individual level process dynamics, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 573-581.
Clark, M.S. (1984), Record keeping in two types of relationships, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 549-557.
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
349
IJLM
24,3
350
Coleman, J.S. (1988), Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 95-120.
Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Belknap Press, Cambridge.
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (2011), 22nd annual state of logistics
report, available at: http://cscmp.org/securedownloads/filedownload.aspx?fnmemberonly/
22sol-report.pdf (accessed July 29, 2012).
Daugherty, P.J., Ellinger, A.E. and Plair, Q.J. (1997), Using service to create loyalty with key
accounts, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 83-91.
Daugherty, P.J., Richey, R.G., Hudgens, B.J. and Autry, C.W. (2003), Reverse logistics in the
automobile aftermarket industry, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 49-62.
Davis, B.R. and Mentzer, J.T. (2006), Logistics service driven loyalty: an exploratory study,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 53-73.
Fischer, C.S. (1982), What do we mean by friend? An introductive study, Social Networks,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 287-306.
Flint, D., Larsson, E., Gammelgaard, B. and Mentzer, J.T. (2005), Logistics innovation: a customer
value-oriented social process, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 113-147.
Flint, D.J., Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (2002), Exploring the phenomenon of customers
desired value change in a business-to-business context, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66
No. 4, pp. 102-117.
Fournier, S., Dobscha, S. and Mick, D.G. (1998), Preventing the premature death of relationship
marketing, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Frazier, G.L. (1983), Interorganizational exchange behavior in marketing channels: a broadened
perspective, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 68-78.
Gedeon, I.M., Fearne, A. and Poole, N. (2009), The role of inter-personal relationships in the
dissolution of business relationships, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 218-226.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Golicic, S.L. and Mentzer, J.T. (2006), An empirical examination of relationship magnitude,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 81-108.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Granovetter, M. (1973), The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78,
pp. 1360-1380.
Grayson, K. (2007), Friendship versus business in marketing relationships, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 121-139.
Gulati, R. (1995), Does familiarity breed trust? The implication of repeated ties for contractual
choice in alliances, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 85-112.
Hakansson, H. (1982), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), Beyond relational demography: time and the
effects of surface and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 95-107.
Haytko, D.L. (2004), Firm-to-firm and interpersonal relationships: perspectives from advertising
agency account managers, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 312-328.
Heide, J.B. and Wathne, K.H. (2006), Friends, businesspeople, and relationship roles: a conceptual
framework and a research agenda, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 90-103.
Hirschman, E.C. (1986), Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method, and
criteria, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 237-249.
Hofer, A.R., Knemeyer, M.A. and Dresner, M.E. (2009), Antecedents and dimensions of customer
partnering behavior in logistics outsourcing relationships, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 141-159.
Hornstein, G.A. and Truesdell, S.E. (1988), Development of intimate conversation in close
relationships, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 49-64.
Hutt, M.D., Stafford, E., Walker, B. and Reingen, P. (2000), Defining the social network of a
strategic alliance, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 51-62.
Javalgi, R.G., Joseph, B.W. and Gombeski, W.R. (1995), Positioning your service to target key
buying influences: the case of referring physicians and hospitals, Journal of Services
Johnson, M.D. and Selnes, F. (2004), Customer portfolio management: toward a dynamic theory
of exchange relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Johnston, D.A., McCutcheon, D.M., Stuart, F.I. and Kerwood, H. (2004), Effects of supplier trust
on performance of cooperative supplier relationships, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 23-38.
Knemeyer, A.M. and Murphy, P.R. (2004), Evaluating the performance of third-party logistics
arrangements: a relationship marketing perspective, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 35-51.
Knemeyer, A.M., Corsi, T.M. and Murphy, P.R. (2003), Logistics outsourcing relationships:
customer perspectives, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 77-109.
Lian, P.C.S. and Laing, A.W. (2007), Relationships in the purchasing of business to business
professional services: the role of personal relationships, Industrial Marketing
Lin, N. (2001), Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action, Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY.
Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills, CA.
Logan, M.S. (2000), Using agency theory to design successful outsourcing relationships,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 21-32.
McCracken, G. (1988), The Long Interview, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Marasco, A. (2007), Third-party logistics: a literature review, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 127-147.
Mavondo, F.T. and Rodriogo, E.M. (2001), The effect of relationship dimensions on interpersonal
and interorganizational commitment in organizations conducting business between
Australia and China, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 111-121.
Maxwell, D.B. (1996), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Sage Publications
Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J., Min, S., Nix, N., Smith, C. and Zach, Z. (2001),
Defining supply chain management, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 1-25.
Mello, J. and Flint, D.J. (2009), A refined view of grounded theory and its application to logistics
research, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 107-125.
Moore, K.R. and Cunningham, W. (1999), Social exchange behavior in logistics relationships:
a shipper perspective, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
351
IJLM
24,3
Morgan, R. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Murphy, P.R. and Poist, R.F. (2000), Third-party logistics: some user versus provider
perspectives, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 121-133.
Panayides, P.M. and So, M. (2005), Logistics service provider-client relationships,
Transportation Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 179-200.
352
Pratt, M.G. (2008), Fitting oval pegs into round holes: tensions in evaluating and publishing
qualitative research in top-tier North American journals, Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 481-509.
Pratt, M.G. (2009), From the editors: for the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up
(and reviewing) qualitative research, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 5,
pp. 856-862.
Price, L.L. and Arnould, E.J. (1999), Commercial friendships: service provider-client
relationships in context, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 38-56.
Randall, W.S., Nowicki, D.R. and Hawkins, T.G. (2011), Explaining the effectiveness of
performance-based logistics: a quantitative examination, International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 324-348.
Rinehart, L.M. and Closs, D.J. (1991), Implications of organizational relationships, negotiator
personalities, and conflict issues on outcomes in logistics negotiations, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 123-144.
Rinehart, L.M., Eckert, J.A., Handfield, R.B., Thomas, J.P. and Atkin, T. (2004), An assessment
of supplier-customer relationships, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 25-62.
Ring, P.S. and van de Ven, A.H. (1994), Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational
relationships, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 90-118.
Sanders, N.R., Autry, C.W. and Gligor, D.M. (2011), The impact of buyer firm information
connectivity enablers on supplier firm performance-a relational view, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
Sahin, F. and Robinson, E.P. (2002), Flow coordination and information sharing in supply chains:
review, implications, and direction for future research, Decision Sciences, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 505-536.
Schouten, J.W. (1991), Selves in transition: symbolic consumption in personal rites of
passage and identity reconstruction, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 412-425.
Silver, A. (1990), Friendship in commercial society: eighteenth-century social theory and modern
sociology, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1474-1504.
Simmel, G. (1950), The Sociology of Geog Simmel (Trans and edited by W. Kurt), Free Press,
Glencoe, IL.
Sink, H.L. and Langley, J.C. (1997), A managerial framework for the acquisition of third-party
logistics services, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 163-189.
Sinkovics, R.R. and Roath, A.S. (2004), Strategic orientation, capabilities, and performance
on manufacturer-3PL relationships, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 43-64.
Stank, T.P., Goldsby, T.J., Vickery, S.K. and Savitskie, K. (2003), Logistics service performance:
estimating its influence on market share, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 27-55.
Strauss, A.L. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Van Laarhoven, P., Magnus, B. and Oeters, M. (2000), Third-party logistics in Europe-five years
later, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp. 425-443.
Wallendorf, M. and Belk, R.W. (1989), Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic consumer
research, in Elizabeth, C.H. (Ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research, Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 69-84.
Walter, J., Lechner, C. and Kellermanns, F.W. (2007), Knowledge transfer between alliance
partners: private versus collective benefits of social capital, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 698-710.
Wilson, D. (1999), Organizational Marketing, 1st ed., International Thomson Business Press, London.
Whipple, J.M. and Roh, J. (2010), Agency theory and quality fade in buyer-supplier
relationships, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 338-352.
Wright, P.H. (1985), The acquaintance description form, in Duck, D. and Perlman, D. (Eds),
Understanding Personal Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Sage Publications,
London, pp. 39-62.
Further reading
Granovetter, M. (1985), Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510.
Lovelock, C.H. (1983), Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights, Journal of
Suddaby, R. (2006), From the editors: what grounded theory is not, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 461-487.
Turnbull, P.W. (1979), The role of personal contacts in industrial export marketing,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 325-337.
Wackman, D.B., Salmon, C.T. and Salmon, C. (1986), Developing an advertising agency-client
relationship, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 21-28.
Appendix 1. Interview protocol
Opening
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me. I would like to take a few
minutes to explain the research project to you.
I am from The University of XXXXX trying to understand how logistics managers work and
interact with managers from companies who provide their logistics services. I would like to
interview yon because I feel I can learn a lot from your perspective.
I would like for our interview today to be very open, informal, and conversational. There are
no right and wrong answers, you are the expert and Im here to learn from you. Our interview is
confidential. In order to keep the conversation flowing I would like with you permission to record
our conversation.
Interview Questions
(1)
Could you please tell me about your position here at (name firm) and what your
responsibilities include? (Probe as needed to fully understand the persons role,
background and orientation).
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
353
IJLM
24,3
(2)
Can yon think of one or more specific logistics service providers? (assuming yes) Please
place your interactions with them clearly in your mind first.
(3)
Now, what is it like to work with them?
(4)
Can yon think of any in particular where you developed a personal relationship with any
of the managers with whom you interact?
(if yes) Please tell me about one of those relationships:
354
How did it begin to develop?
What does that relationship mean to you?
What, if any, impact does it have on your business relationship? (if no) do you have
any ideas on personal relationships within business relationships?
(5)
Think of your best relationship with a manager from a logistics service provider.
(6)
Now describe what makes that relationship good for you.
(7)
Think of your worst relationship with a manager from a logistics service provider.
(8)
Can yon tell me about that relationship?
Floating Prompts
.
Can you tell me more about that?
Can you explain that in more detail?
Thats interesting. Please go on
Can you give me an example?
What do you mean by that?
What happened next?
How did yon deal with that?
Wrap up
Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me. Yon have been
very helpful. You will receive a copy of our report when were done collecting and analyzing the
data. This should be toward the end of this year. Where would you like this report sent? If you
have any questions, or if you can think of anything else youd like to share with us, please feel
free to contact me.
Appendix 2
Interpretive criteria
Grounded theory criteria
Credibility
Extent to which the results seem to be acceptable
representations of the data
Transferability
Extent to which the findings in a context have
applicability in other contexts
Dependability
The extent to which the findings be the same if
the study was repeated with similar subjects and
context
Confirmability
The extent to which the findings are determined
by the subjects and context and not by the
researchers bias and motives
Integrity
Extent to which the findings are influenced by
participant misinformation
Fit
Extent to which findings fit with the substantive
area under investigation
Understanding
Extent to which participants believe the results to
be representations of their worlds
Generality
Extent to which findings discover multiple
aspects of the phenomenon
Personal
relationships in
supply chains
355
Control
Extent to which organizations can influence
aspects of the theory
Source: Criteria adapted from Flint et al. (2002)
Corresponding author
Dr David M. Gligor can be contacted at: gligordavid7@gmail.com
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Table AI.
Trustworthiness of the
study and findings

Ijlm 07 2012 0067

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ijlm 07 2012 0067

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijlm 07 2012 0067

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Logistics Management

The role of personal relationships in supply chains: An exploration of buyers and

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

To cite this document:

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

The role of personal relationships

Received 23 July 2012

Global Supply Chain and Logistics Excellence Network,

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

The International Journal of Logistics

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Although it has long been recognized that business relationships ultimately

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

From this research, it was possible to construct a number of postulates regarding

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Expressive (emotion based, intrinsic)

Instrumental (substantive, task)

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

of individual-level business relationships (Rinehart et al., 2004) while generally

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Following the McCracken (1988) guidelines for in-depth interviews, we relied on

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

The actions/interactions of relating/bonding, disclosing personal information, and

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Alison and Karina reported similar experiences as well: disclosing personal

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Additional sample quotes

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

share a personal relationship. Managers consistently emphasized that a personal

Travis quote illustrates that, as it relates to the communication process, personal

information that could be considered confidential, therefore providing another

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Additional sample quotes

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Action 1: assessing personal-related characteristics. Assessing personal-related

Charles relationship counterpart, Selena, shared his perspective:

The following excerpts from respondents interviews support this interpretation as

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Additional sample quotes

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Additional sample quotes

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Waynes interview provided support for Brians perspective:

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

a more in-depth understanding of this phenomenon be gained within a supply-chain

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

associated with the lack of personal relationships in the buyer-supplier relationship.

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)

Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 05:00 28 September 2014 (PT)