Linking key account management practices to performance outcomes

13 Pages·2015·0.477 MB·English

by  Nektarios Tzempelikos, Spiros Gounaris

IndustrialMarketingManagement45(2015)22–34
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Industrial Marketing Management
Linking key account management practices to performance outcomes
NektariosTzempelikosa,⁎,SpirosGounarisb,1
aAngliaRuskinUniversity,LordAshcroftInternationalBusinessSchool,EastRoad,CambridgeCB11PT,UnitedKingdom
bUniversityofStrathclydeBusinessSchool,DepartmentofMarketing,SirWilliamDunkanBuilding,130Rottenrow,GlasgowG40GE,UnitedKingdom
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Articlehistory: Manysupplierspracticerelationalstrategiesthataimtoachievecompetitiveadvantagethroughacollaborative
Received14August2013 businessrelationshipwiththeircustomers.Keyaccountmanagement(KAM)isonesuchrelationalstrategythat
Receivedinrevisedform16May2014 suppliersrelyupontomanagetheirrelationshipswithstrategicallyimportantcustomers.Yetsuppliersstill
Accepted10June2014
struggletoputsuchprogramsintopracticeeffectively,mostlikelybecauseacademicinvestigationhasyetto
Availableonline4March2015 reportonwhatactionsexplaintheperformanceofKAMinitiatives.Aimingtofillthisgap,wefirstidentifya
setofkeyKAMpracticesatthestrategic,organizational,tacticalandcontrollevelsofmanagement.Next,we
Keywords:
examinehowthesepracticesexplaintheperformanceofKAMthroughthemediatingeffectofthesupplier's
Keyaccountmanagement
Practices relationalcapabilitiesandtherelationaloutputsthatsuchcapabilitiesproduce.Theresultsprovidesupportfor
Relationshipmarketing mostofthehypothesizedrelationships,showingthattheidentifiedpracticespositivelyaffectperformanceand
Empiricalresearch dyadicoutcomesthroughthemediationcomingfromthevariablesexamined.Fromatheoreticalperspective,
thestudyaddstoourunderstandingofthefactorsunderlyingeffectiveKAMpractices.Fromamanagerial
perspective, the results provide insights into how suppliers can achieve KAM effectiveness through
relationship-orientedactivities,skillsandoutcomes.
©2015ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
1.Introduction Toachievethisshift,though,certainsignificantchangesarenec-
essarythatwillaffectnotonlyproceduresbutalsothepracticaland
Literature widely recognizes the importance of a relationship organizationalconfigurationofthesupplier(Homburg,Workman,&
marketingapproachinmanagingcustomerrelationships(Morgan& Jensen,2000).Whilepreviousstudiesreportonthesignificanteffect
Hunt,1994),particularlyinthebusiness-to-business(B2B)markets thatthetransitiontomorecustomer-centricorganizationhason
wherecustomersarefewerandmorepowerful,marketsarerather company performance (Homburg, Workman, & Jensen, 2002;
stableandbuyer–sellerrelationshipsarecomplexandinterdependent Workman,Homburg,&Jensen,2003),theimplementationprocess
(Heide & John, 1992). This shift from transactional to relationship remainssurprisinglyoverlooked(Davies&Ryals,2009;Wengler,
marketingsparkedanewphilosophyin managingtherelationship Ehret,&Saab,2006).
with certain strategically important accounts (Millman & Wilson, Hence,tofillthisgap,thisstudyseekstodiscussandempirically
1995):“KeyAccountManagement”(KAM)(Abratt&Kelly,2002).A examine a model of performance outcomes in relation to specific
keyaccount(KA)isacustomeridentifiedbythesupplierasbeingof aspectsofKAMpractices.Drawingonasystematicreviewoftheextant
strategic importance (Millman & Wilson, 1995). In essence, KAM literature, we identify four pertinent dimensions of KAM practices
involvescustomizationofproductsandservicestomeettheneedsof (Strategic,Organizational,TacticalandEvaluative)thatcapturekey
the KA, while customers not classified as KA receive little, if any, aspectsofeveryKAMinitiative.Wethenexaminetheirimpactonthe
customization(Salojärvi,Sainio,&Tarkiainen,2010).Assuch,KAMis performance of the KAM program through the mediating effect of
theimplementationofrelationshipmarketinginbusinessmarkets(cf. specificrelationalcapabilitiesandoutcomes.Indoingsoweexamine
Guenzi,Pardo,&Georges,2007;Ivens&Pardo,2007)allowingashift boththefinancialandthedyadicfacetsofKAMperformance.
fromshort-term,transactionalorientationtomorelong-term,strategic, Thisstudyseekstocontributetotheextantliteraturebyidentifying
mutuallybeneficialandcollaborativerelationships(Ryals&Humphries, anempiricallyderivedsetofspecificsalientKAMpracticesthatexplain
2007). thesupplier'sperformanceinpracticingKAM.Asecondcontribution
comes from the investigation of the mediating role that relational
capabilitiesandoutcomeshaveinexplainingtherelationshipbetween
KAM practices and KAM performance. As a result, it is possible to
⁎ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:[phone].
produceacomprehensiveframeworktodescribeinaholisticmanner
E-mailaddresses:[email protected](N.Tzempelikos),
theantecedentsoftwosignificantaspects(financialanddyadic)of
[email protected](S.Gounaris).
1 Tel.:[phone]. KAMperformance.Thisisthethirdcontributionthatthismanuscript
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.018
0019-8501/©2015ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
N.Tzempelikos,S.Gounaris/IndustrialMarketingManagement45(2015)22–34 23
seeks to make. In addition,thesetheoretical contributionsare also thattheprogramincludes(Davies&Ryals,2009).Tothisend,thefirst
relevantforpractitionersasdemonstratinghowspecificdimensionsof stepisensuringthenecessarycross-functionalawarenessandunder-
KAM implementation relate to the success of KAM can inform the standingofthesignificancethatKAshaveforthesupplierinattaining
implementationoftheKAMinitiatives. specificstrategicgoals,whilegeneratingtherequiredinterdepartmen-
Therestofthemanuscriptisorganizedasfollows:First,wereview talcooperationandcommitmentinservingtheirneeds(Workman
the extant literature to develop pertinent hypotheses to lead the et al., 2003; Zupancic, 2008). Establishing a “KAM esprit de corps”,
examinationoftheresearchmodelunderlyingthisinvestigation.Next, defined as the effort to get people (from different departments)
themethodologyandtheresultsfromthedataanalysisfollow.The involvedin(respondingto)themanagementoftheKAandfeeling
discussionandimplicationsandthenthelimitationsanddirectionsfor obligatedtothecommongoalsandtoeachother(Workmanetal.,
futureresearchconcludethismanuscript. 2003, p. 10), is a necessary quality of the supplier's organizational
configuration.AstrongsenseofKAMespritdecorpsthusreflectsthe
2.Literaturereview,researchmodelandhypotheses actionstakenattheorganizationalleveltoensurethatmanagersand
employees are willing to cooperate in serving the KA beyond the
2.1. Carrying through the KAM initiatives across different levels of boundariesofdepartmentalresponsibilityordepartmentaltribalism
implementation (Guesalaga&Johnston,2010;Salojärvi&Saarenketo,2013).
However,inadditiontotheespritdecorps,organizingthemonitor-
The configuration of a KAM program depends on internal ingoftheKAMprogramandthesupplier'sreactionaroundinterdepart-
practices (Storbacka, 2012), which, like any other managerial mentalteamsisanadditionalorganizationalprerequisiteforaligning
practice,extendatfourlevels:strategyformation,organizational thesupplier'sofferingwiththeneedsoftheKA.AsingleKAmanager
structuring, tactical implementation, and evaluation and control isunlikelytoholdthenecessaryexpertiseandcapacitytomanagethe
(Davies&Ryals,2009). KAalone(Salojärvietal.,2010).Incontrast,ateamallowsthesupplier
Onthestrategyformationlevel,acrucialparameteroftheKAM to draw upon aset of diverseskills (Salojärvi &Saarenketo, 2013)
programisaccountplanningandselection,whichcanbeconsidered whileatthesametimeenablingthecoordinationofacomplexvalue-
equivalenttothe“segmentationandtargeting”processbutappliedat generationprocessthatcutsacrossthesupplier'sdifferentproduct
theindividualaccountlevel.WhiletheconceptofKAMhasemerged categories andfunctionalunits(Moon &Armstrong,1994). Conse-
fromthatof“NationalAccountManagement”(cf.Shapiro&Moriarty, quently,aconsistentcustomerexperiencecanbedelivered(Harvey,
1984),usingtheactualorpotentialsizeofordersthatanaccountcan Novisevic,Hench,&Myers,2003).
generateisnolongerconsideredtobeanappropriatewaytoidentify Thenextleveltoconsideristhetacticalone.KAMinitiativesare
aKA.Planningaheadforthefutureanddecidingontheuseofthe designednotonlytomanagestrategicaccountsbut,moreimpor-
limitedresourcesavailabletothesupplierrequiresidentificationof tantly,toincreasethevaluethattheKAderivesfromtherelationship
theKAonthegroundsoftheirabilitytofacilitatethesupplier'seffort withthesupplier(Pardo,Henneberg,Mouzas,&Naudè,2006).KAM
toattainspecificstrategicgoalsandobjectives,whichunderliethepro- requiresstrongrelationalcapabilitiesandallocationofresourcesto
cessofKAidentificationandtargeting(Woodburn&McDonald,2011). themoststrategicallyimportantcustomers(Storbacka,2012).As
Based on a specific setof accountselection criteria that reflectthe such, KAM is a way to implement the principles of relationship
supplier'sstrategicobjectives(cf.Ryals&McDonald,2008),thesupplier marketing, of which the most important is customization (Aijo,
willneedtoassessthe(strategic)attractivenessofdifferentaccounts 1996)intheB2Bcontext(Guenzietal.,2007;Ivens&Pardo,2007).
andensureabalancebetweentheresourcesavailabletothefirmand Consequently,thekeyfacetofKAMimplementationatthetactical
thenumberofKAsthatthesuppliercansustainablymaintaininthe levelisthesupplier'swillingnessandabilitytoproduceanoffering
longrun. fortheKAthatistailoredtotheindividualneedsofthisspecific
Inadditiontoappropriateaccountplanning,theimplementationofa account(Wengleretal.,2006).
KAMinitiativeatthestrategiclevelrequiresincreasedinvolvementof Finally,theevaluationandcontrollevelcapturestheformalmoni-
thetopmanagementsincetheirinterventionindecisionmakingis toringoftheKAMinitiativesandassesseswhethertherelationship
criticalfortheperformanceofthefirm(Workmanetal.,2003).Through withtheKAservesboththefinancialandthestrategicobjectivesof
thisintervention,thetopmanagementhelpstoimprovethecompany's thesupplier.Whileformalityingeneralhasbeenacknowledgedto
alignmentwiththeenvironmentingeneral(Carpenter,Geletkanycz,& reduceflexibilityandtimeofreaction(Jaworski&Kohli,1993),when
Sanders,2004).Whenitcomestothecompany'srelationshipwiththe itcomestomonitoringandcontrol,formaltrackingsystemsallowthe
KA,topmanagementwillgetinvolvedtoprovidedirection,ensure managementaregularandconsistentpictureofcompanyperformance
commitment across the organization and align the organization's (Kirca,Jayachandran,&Bearden,2005).Hence,aformalperformance
innovativenesswiththeneedsoftheKA(Millman&Wilson,1999). monitoringsystemimprovesthecompany'sreactiontimewhenperfor-
TheKAMprogramalsobenefitsfromtheinvolvementofthetop mancedeviatesfromobjectives.Thisisparticularlyimportantforboth
managementatthestrategiclevelbecausethroughtheirinterven- thefinancialandtherelationalperformanceobjectivesoftheKAM
tionresourcesneededtomeettheneedsoftheKAbecomeavailable programattheaccountlevelsince,whilethelatterareclearlyimportant
andareallocatedamongdifferentKAsaccordingtothestrategic fromtherelationshipmarketingperspective,theformerareequally
relevance of the account (Gounaris & Tzempelikos, 2013). Not crucialifKAsaretobeheldfinanciallyresponsible,astheyoughttobe
surprisingly,recentempiricalresearchdemonstratesthebenefitof (Woodburn&McDonald,2011).
havingthetopmanagementinvolvedwiththeKAMprogramatthe
strategiclevel(Guesalaga,2014)as,inadditiontoalltheabove,KA
managersveryoftenlackauthorityovertheotherdepartmentsofthe 2.2.Relationalcapabilities
firm(Homburgetal.,2002).Hencethemorethetopmanagement
getsinvolvedatthishigher,strategicleveltheeasieritbecomesto Whilethepracticesdiscussedintheprevioussectionofthemanu-
achievecross-functionalcoordination(Salojärvi&Saarenketo,2013). scriptmaywellhaveanimpactontheoutcomeoftheKAMprogram,
Moreover,becausecoordinationacrossthedifferentdepartmentsis a resource-basedview of the firm (Wernerfelt,1984) provides the
suchanimportantissue,theimplementationoftheKAMprogramalso theoreticalbackgroundtounderstandmorepreciselyhowsuchprac-
requiresactionattheorganizationallevel.Suchactionensuresthat ticesgeneratevaluefortheKAand,consequently,translateintospecific
theconfigurationofthesupplier'sorganizationfacilitatestheresponse performance benefits for the supplier (Barney, Wright, & Ketchen,
totheneedsoftheKAandtheimplementationofthevariousinitiatives 2001).AlthoughanycompanyormanagercantrytoadoptsuchKAM
24 N.Tzempelikos,S.Gounaris/IndustrialMarketingManagement45(2015)22–34
practices,unlesscertaincapabilitiesarepresenttheeffectonperfor- 2007;Richards&Jones,2009),especiallysinceservingcertainKAscan
mancewillbelessthanexpected. beunprofitableforthesupplier,whothenrecoversthelossindirectly
GiventherelationalnatureoftheKAMinitiatives,thesupplierneeds (Ryals&Holt,2007).Thus,weapproachtheeffectivenessofKAMon
todevelopcertainrelationalcapabilities(Srivastava,Shervani,& thebasisofbothrelational(dyadic)andfinancialoutcomes,relyingon
Fahey, 1998) before any initiative can be successful (Cannon & theworkofPalmatier,Dant,Grewal,andEvans(2006)tocapturethere-
Perreault,1999).Tocapturethisperspective,wefocusoninforma- lational(dyadic)dimensionofeffectivenessasreflectedinthedegreeof
tionsharingandconflictresolution,whichspantheboundariesof cooperationbetweenthesupplierandtheKA.
thefirmandhencearecriticalforthesuccessoftheKAMprogram Nevertheless,therelationshipbetweentheimplementationofthe
(Millman & Wilson, 1999; Richards & Jones, 2009; Ryals & KAMprogramandtheoutcomesoftheprogramisnotdirect.Rather,a
Humphries,2007). numberofrelationaloutcomes,whichintheextantliteraturehave
Morespecifically,informationsharingcapturestheextenttowhich beensuggestedtocapturedifferentfacetsofwhathasbeentermed“re-
the two organizations exchange relevant and often “confidential” lationshipquality”(Crosby,Evans,&Cowles,1990),mediatethisrela-
informationthathelpsbothpartiestounderstandeachother'sposition tionship(Palmatieretal.,2006).Whiletheliteratureisinconclusive,
withintherelationship(Cannon&Homburg,2001).Theopenandfre- researcherstendtoagreethatsatisfaction,trustandcommitmentare
quentflowofinformation,especiallyofaproprietarynature,reflects key relational outcomes mediating the effect of KAM practices on
thewillingnessofbothpartiestosharesuchinformation(Cannon& KAMperformance(Alejandroetal.,2011;Homburgetal.,2002;Ivens
Perreault,1999),indicatingthustheirjointcommitmenttotherelation- &Pardo,2007;Richards&Jones,2009).Morespecifically,satisfaction
shipandthetrusteachparthasfortheother,whileallowingacompre- definesthe(positive)affectivestateresultingfromtheappraisalofall
hensive, accurate and timely understanding of each other's needs aspectsofanexchangerelationship(Geyskens,Steenkamp,&Kumar,
(Moorman,Zaltman,&Deshpandé,1992). 1999).Trustisdescribedastheperceivedcredibilityandbenevolence
Conflictresolution,ontheotherhand,isdefinedasthedegreeto ofthesupplier(Doney&Cannon,1997).Commitmentisthedesireto
whichdisagreementsareresolvedproductively,clearingtheairoften- continuetherelationshipinthefutureandthewillingnesstoworkto
sionandillwill(Anderson&Narus,1990).Conflictsoftenoccurin maintainit(Anderson&Weitz,1992).Hence,tomeettheobjectives
buyer/sellerrelationshipsduetotheinherentinterdependenciesbe- ofthisinvestigationwefocusonthesethreerelationaloutcomes.
tweentheparties(Mohr&Spekman,1994).Suppliersimplementing
KAM effectively have developed well the mechanisms that enable
2.4.Researchframeworkandhypotheses
themtoresolveconflictsthatoccurinrelationshipsinahighlyflexible
manner(Millman&Wilson,1999;Richards&Jones,2009).
Followingonfromtheprecedentreviewofthepertinentliterature,
Fig.1depictstheresearchframeworkunderlyingthisstudywithKAM
practicesasantecedentsoftheKAMoutcomes.Inaddition,thepotential
2.3.KAMperformance
mediatingroleofrelationalcapabilitiesisexamined.Inthenextpara-
graphswedevelopresearchhypothesestoguideourstudy.
Asnotedalready,inadditiontofinancialobjectivesKAMaimsto
buildmutuallybeneficiallong-termrelationshipswiththeKA.Conse-
quently, the benefits of KAM are not just financial (Ivens & Pardo, 2.4.1. The effect of KAM practices at the strategic level on relational
2007).Furthertothefinancialaspectofeffectiveness,previousresearch outcomes
hasidentifiedarelational/dyadicdimensionofeffectivenessforsuccess- Accountplanningandselectionrelatestocorporatestrategyasiten-
fulKAMprograms(Guenzi,Georges,&Pardo,2009;Ivens&Pardo, surescommitmentfromcompanymanagementtoassigntherequired
Fig.1.Conceptualmodel.
N.Tzempelikos,S.Gounaris/IndustrialMarketingManagement45(2015)22–34 25
resources to developtheaccountin such a way that the identified relational outcomes from the relationship (Workman et al., 2003).
potentialscanberealized(Storbacka,2012).Accountplanningand Thus,wehypothesizethat:
selectioncanencompassarangeofactivitiesfromthecollectionand
systematicanalysisofmarketinformation(Millman&Wilson,1995)
andananalysisoftherelationship(customer'svalue-creatingprocess, H3a. KAMespritdecorpsispositivelyrelatedtosatisfaction.
valuecapture,futurebusinesspotential)(Storbacka,2012)toanaction
H3b. KAMespritdecorpsispositivelyrelatedtotrust.
plan(Ryals&McDonald,2008).Traditionally,KAmanagershadlittle
interestinformalaccountplanning(Davies&Ryals,2013).However, H3c. KAMespritdecorpsispositivelyrelatedtocommitment.
theincreasingrecognitionoftheroleofaccountplanningintheinter-
Consistently,previousresearchsuggeststhattheuseofteamscan
organizationalalignment(Storbacka,2012)andadeeperknowledge
improvebuyer–sellerrelationships.First,theestablishmentofteams
ofcustomeroperations(Davies&Ryals,2013)indicatethataccount
facilitatesthedevelopmentofcustomer-specificknowledge(Salojärvi
planningcancontributetotheachievementofcollaborativerelation-
etal.,2010)anditsflowthroughouttheorganization(Nätti,Halinen,
ships.Thus:
&Hanttu,2006).Thisnewcustomerknowledgecanbeutilizedinthe
H1a. Account planning and selection is positively related to developmentofnewproducts,servicesandprocessesandcanfurther
satisfaction. result in improving customer relationships (Harvey et al., 2003).
Second, establishing KAM teams signals to the customers that the
H1b. Accountplanningandselectionispositivelyrelatedtotrust. supplierclassifiesthemascustomersofspecialstatus(Ivens&Pardo,
2008). As customers feel important they are likely to enhance the
H1c. Account planning and selection is positively related to
relationship into a more collaborative and strategic partnership
commitment.
(Salojärvi&Saarenketo,2013).Consistently,Arnett,Macy,andWilcox
Topmanagementinvolvementalsocontributestotheachieve- (2005) found that the use of teams increases collaboration and
mentofrelationshipoutcomes(Workmanetal.,2003).Specifically, relationshipcommitmentinKAMrelationships.Onthesegrounds,we
initiativesoftopmanagementsuchasmeetingwiththecustomer's hypothesizethat:
peoplearehighlyappreciatedbyKAsastheygetthefeelingthat
theyareimportanttothesupplier(Gounaris&Tzempelikos,2013).
Thisshowscommitmentintheeyesofthecustomers(Millman& H4a. Useofteamsispositivelyrelatedtosatisfaction.
Wilson, 1999), which may lead to greater involvement of the
H4b. Useofteamsispositivelyrelatedtotrust.
customer'stopmanagementandadeepeningoftheoverallrelation-
ship(Workmanetal.,2003).Inasimilarvein,Salojärvietal.(2010) H4c. Useofteamsispositivelyrelatedtocommitment.
foundthattopmanagementinvolvementispositivelyrelatedtocus-
tomer knowledge utilization, which contributes to effective re-
sponsestotheneedsofKA.Furthermore,topmanagementisfound
2.4.3.TheeffectofKAMactivities(tacticallevel)onrelationaloutcomes
toaffectKAMeffectivenessthroughtheimprovedperformanceof KAMactivitiesalsoprovideanumberofbenefitstotheKA.First,
KAmanagers.Inparticular,HomburgandStock(2004)showthat
customerscanonlyidentifyandevaluateasupplier'scommitmentto
customercontactbytopmanagementisperceivedbyKAmanagers
therelationshipbasedonwhattheyseeandobserve,thatis,concrete
as a support to their job and a source of motivation, which can
actions.Hence,KAMactivitiessignalsuppliercommitment,whichcan
boost their effort and eventually improve customer satisfaction.
deepenthetrustwiththeaccount(Workmanetal.,2003).Second,
However,itislikelythattopmanagementinvolvementinKAMcan
KAM activities (e.g., product/service adaptations or taking over a
alsobedetrimental,mainlybecauseKAmanagersmayperceivetop
customer's workload) contribute to customer competitiveness by
managementinvolvementasanattempttounderminetheirroleas
providinguniqueproductsandfeaturesthatallowthecustomerto
theprimary contact(Guesalaga &Johnston,2010). Thisrequires
differentiatefromcompetitioneitheronthebasisofqualityorofcost
topmanagerstoactivelyparticipateinKAMrelationshipsbutina (Day,2000).Overall,providinga“redcarpet”treatmentthroughspecific
waythatdoesnotconflictoroverlapwiththeroleofKAmanagers. KAMactivitiesprovidesbenefitstotheKAthatcanleadtoadesireto
Thiswillleadtobetterintra-firmcoordinationandeventuallyto
strengthentherelationship.Thus,wehypothesizethat:
moreeffectiveresponsestoKA.Thus,wehypothesizethat:
H5a. KAMactivitiesarepositivelyrelatedtosatisfaction.
H2a. Topmanagementinvolvementispositivelyrelatedtosatisfaction.
H5b. KAMactivitiesarepositivelyrelatedtotrust.
H2b. Topmanagementinvolvementispositivelyrelatedtotrust.
H5c. KAMactivitiesarepositivelyrelatedtocommitment.
H2c. Top management involvement is positively related to
commitment.
2.4.4.TheeffectofKAMprogramevaluationonrelationaloutcomes
2.4.2.TheeffectofKAMpracticesattheorganizationallevelonrelational Afinalstepintheimplementationprocessistheevaluationofthe
outcomes KAMprogram.KAMrelationshipscanhaveanumberofrelationalout-
Developingstrongbondswithcustomersrequirestheparticipation comessuchastrustandcommitmentwhich,inturn,leadtoimproved
of people throughout the organization (Homburg et al., 2000). performanceinthemarketsuchasrevenuegrowthandmarketshare
Establishingespritdecorpsisimportantinthisrespect.Inparticular, (Workmanetal.,2003).Thisrequiresafrequentandsystematicprocess
espritdecorpsfosterstheexchangeofmarketandcustomerinformation ofevaluatingthepotentialoutcomes,bothfinancialandrelational,ofa
acrossthefirm(Fisher,Maltz,&Jaworski,1997).Moreover,espritde KAMprogramtoidentifyanyareaswherefurtherimprovementisneed-
corps is likely to increase cohesion and a feeling of togetherness ed(Ojasalo,2001)and,consequently,enhancestheoverallvaluetothe
amongpeopleinthefirm(Geiger&Turley,2005).Assuch,establishing customer(Storbacka,2012).Inaddition,KAMevaluationwillallowa
espritdecorpssupportsthebuildingofacross-functionalexpertise better and more balanced allocation of resources in the customer
relatedtosales,productionandtechnicalneedsoftheKA(Salojärvi& portfolio,whichwillenablethesupplierfirmtoconcentrateandfurther
Saarenketo, 2013) and thereby contributes to the achievement of investresourcesincollaborativerelationshipswithaccountsofhigher
26 N.Tzempelikos,S.Gounaris/IndustrialMarketingManagement45(2015)22–34
valuetothefirm(Storbacka&Nenonen,2009).Onthesegrounds,we Thepreviouslydevelopedhypotheseshaveportrayedthepositive
proposethefollowinghypotheses: anddirecteffectsthatKAMpracticesmighthaveonrelationaloutcomes
andhowthese,inturn,mightinfluenceperformance.However,re-
H6a. KAMevaluationispositivelyrelatedtosatisfaction.
searchershavesuggestedthattheconstructsofinformationsharing
andconflictresolutionshouldlinkthedesignoftheKAMprogramand
H6b. KAMevaluationispositivelyrelatedtotrust.
KAMeffectiveness(Millman&Wilson,1999;Richards&Jones,2009;
H6c. KAMevaluationispositivelyrelatedtocommitment. Ryals&Humphries,2007).Unfortunately,theseinterveninglinkshave
notbeenempiricallyexamined.Inattemptingtorectifythissituation,
wepositalinkagebetweenKAMpracticesandrelationaloutcomes
2.4.5.Relationaloutcomesandfinancialperformance throughthedevelopmentofinformationsharingandconflictresolu-
PreviousresearchprovidesevidenceforthelinkbetweenKAperfor- tion.Thisisclearlyanareathatrequiresempiricalinvestigationbecause,
manceandtherelationaloutcomesthataredevelopedintherelation- byexaminingthepotentialmediatingeffectofrelationalcapabilities,
shipbetweensuppliersandKA(Alejandroetal.,2011;Jones,Richards, thefindingscanaddtoourunderstandingofthefactorsthatexplain
Halstead,&Fu,2009;Richards&Jones,2009;Workmanetal.,2003). successfulKAMrelationships.Thus:
Specifically,ifsatisfactionwith,trustinandcommitmenttoasupplier
increase,thesupplier'srevenuesandprofitsfromthecustomercan H10a. TheeffectofKAMpracticesonrelationaloutcomesismediated
alsoincrease(Jonesetal.,2009).Moreover,acustomer'sloyaltycan byinformationsharing.
alsoleadtoprofitabilityduetodecreasingoperatingcosts(Reichheld,
H10b. TheeffectofKAMpracticesonrelationaloutcomesismediated
1996).Thus,wehypothesizethat:
byconflictresolution.
H7a. SatisfactionispositivelyrelatedtothesalesfromtheKA.
H7b. TrustispositivelyrelatedtothesalesfromtheKA. 3.Method
H7c. CommitmentispositivelyrelatedtothesalesfromtheKA. 3.1.Sampleanddatacollection
H8a. SatisfactionispositivelyrelatedtotheprofitsfromtheKA
Datawerecollectedbymeansofastructuredquestionnaireamong
H8b. TrustispositivelyrelatedtotheprofitsfromtheKA. suppliersinGreece.ThedirectoryofICAP(aleadingbusinessconsultant
inGreece)servedasasamplingframeforourstudy.ICAPpublishesthe
H8c. CommitmentispositivelyrelatedtotheprofitsfromtheKA mostcomprehensivecatalogueofGreekcompaniesacrossalleconomic
sectors(N=7385withtotalsalesrevenueinexcessof€5m2attheyear
ofinvestigation).Withtheinitialsampledefined,wehavesetthefol-
2.4.6.Relationaloutcomesanddyadicperformance lowingeligibilitycriteria:thefirmhadtohavelaunchedaformalKAM
Cooperationreflectsthesimilarorcomplementaryactionstakenby
programnolessthan24monthspriortothetimeoftheinvestigation
exchangepartiesinaninterdependentrelationshipderivedtoachieve and,atthesametime,scorethreeorbetterinafive-point“agree/dis-
mutualorsingularoutcomes(Anderson&Narus,1990).Cooperation agree”scalemeasuringthecompany'sagreementtothefollowingstate-
impliesthatbothpartiesunderstandthattheymustworktogetherto ment:“KAMisthesystematicprocessthroughwhich,inthiscompany,
besuccessful(Anderson &Narus,1990; Cannon &Perreault,1999;
weseektomanageourbusinessrelationswithcustomerswhoareof
Morgan&Hunt,1994).However,closerelationshipsarenotalwayssyn- strategicimportancetous.”Bothcriteriawereassessedthroughemail
onymouswithgoodrelationships(Anderson&Jap,2005).Excessiveco-
contactwiththemarketing/salesmanager(dependingonthestructure
operationmayleadtotensionsand/orcompetitionbetweenthetwo
each of the sample units employed). The choice to use the mean
parties(Fang,Chang,&Peng,2011).Thekeytomaintainingeffectiveco- (“three”)ofthescalewasdrivenbytheneedtoallowsufficientvariance
operationisforbothpartiestoexertamoderateforcetoaccomplish intheresponsesofthefirmswhowouldqualifytoparticipateinthe
commongoals(Fangetal.,2011).However,giventhatonepartyoften maininvestigationsincemanycompaniesemploytheterm“keyac-
receives its portion of thevalueearlier, the other party must have countmanager”forsalesrepresentativescallingon“KAs”(Wengler
enoughtrustintherelationshiptowaitforitsfuturereciprocation
etal.,2006).Thus,byincreasingthevarianceintheresponsesitbe-
(Palmatieret al.,2006).Consistently,previousstudies haveshown
comespossibletoproduceamorerealisticassessmentofthestrength
thatsatisfaction,trustandcommitmentimprovethecooperationbe-
oftherelationshipsbetweenthevariablesunderinvestigation.
tween the two parties (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Morgan & Hunt,
Atthesametime,thisprocesscomplementedtheexistingdatabase
1994;Palmatieretal.,2006).Thus,wehypothesizethat:
withupdatedinformationonthepersonalcontactdetailsofthepartic-
ipants,helpingtoimprovetheresponserateinthemajorstudy.Consis-
H9a. Satisfactionispositivelyrelatedtocooperation.
tentwithpreviousstudies(e.g.,Homburgetal.,2002),wefocusedon
H9b. Trustispositivelyrelatedtocooperation. higher-levelmanagersasthemostsuitableinformants(indicatively,de-
pendingontheorganizationalarrangements,thetitlesoftherespon-
H9c. Commitmentispositivelyrelatedtocooperation.
dentsincludekeyaccountmanagementdirector,keyaccountmanager
Mediatingeffectsofinformationsharingandconflictresolution marketingdirectorandsalesdirector)astheyaremorelikelytohave
Theaforementionedliteraturespeaksmoretotheimplementation a more holistic comprehension of the KAM program. At the same
ofKAMfromthesupplierperspective.However,literaturesuggests time,they aremostlikely tohaveafairly pragmaticpictureof the
thattheKAparticipatesinthevalue-creation process(Anderson & customer's attitudes toward their company as reflected in the
Dubinsky,2004)and,assuch,therelationshipbetweenthetwoparties company'sownmanagementinformationsystemrecords(Crittenden
should be considered as a critical aspect of KAM implementation &Crittenden,1995).Atotalof2402companiesreplied.
(Storbacka,2012).Fromamoretacticalperspective,theestablishment
ofrelationalcapabilitiesisanecessarypre-conditionsothatKAMcan
beeffectivelyimplemented(Millman&Wilson,1999).Implementing
KAM,therefore,requiresthedevelopmentofrelationalcapabilitiesin
2 Athresholdoftotalsalesrevenueof€5mwasemployedtoeliminatefromthepopu-
order to manage the interactions and/or tensions that take place lationsmallerfirmsthatwouldbeunlikelytohaveneithertheknowledgenortheskillsor
betweenthetwoparties. resourcestoimplementaKAMprogram.
N.Tzempelikos,S.Gounaris/IndustrialMarketingManagement45(2015)22–34 27
Table1 overlapwiththeremainingfouritemsanditwasremoved.Forthe
Sampledescription. measurementofthedyadicoutcomeofcooperationweadaptedthe
Total(n=304) scaleofCannonandPerreault(1999).Again,aslightmodificationwas
madeaccordingtothepre-teststofitthecurrentresearchcontext.
Industry Foodandpackagedgoods 33.9%
Specifically,theitem“Wemustworktogethertobesuccessful”was
Computerandelectronics 14.1%
Chemicalandpharmaceuticalproducts 10.9% removed as it was considered rather inapplicable to every KAM
Furniture 7.9% relationship.Theremainingfiveitemsinthisscalerefertothedegree
Banksandinsurance 6.6% ofcooperationbetweensuppliersandKAand,thus,tapthefacetsof
Metals 8.6%
theconstruct.Finally,theassessmentofKAperformancereliedonthe
Professionalservices 6.3%
Medicalequipment 4.6% self-evaluationofsalesandprofits.
Telecommunications 5.3% Apre-testingofthequestionnairewasconductedintwodifferent
Otherindustrialproducts 2.0% phases.First,tenexperts(fiveacademicsandfivepractitioners)were
Annualrevenues b6million 14.9%
askedtoidentifyproblemswiththewordingofthequestionnaireand
6.1million–10million 11.9%
10.1million–15million 11.3% tocheckthefacevalidityofthemeasures.Thenthequestionnairewas
15.1million–20million 7.3% testedwiththreeacademicsandtenpractitionersfromthepopulation
20.1million–30million 7.3% underinvestigationinordertoincreasecontentvalidityandclarityof
30.1million–50million 12.6% the measures. Based on the feedback, some items were revised in
N50million 34.8%
ordertoimprovetheirprecisionandclarity.Alltheitemsweremea-
suredusingaseven-pointscale;thescaleitemsaredisplayedinthe
Appendix.
4.Results
Ofthe2402companiesinitiallyincludedinthesample,800qualified
toparticipateandfromthese304actuallyagreedtodoso.Forthese304 4.1.Measuresevaluation
companiesthatagreedtoparticipate(effectiveresponserate38%),an
appointmentatthefirm'spremiseswasmade.Aneffectivesample Following standard procedures (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988;
consistsofcompaniesfromdifferentsectors—includingfast-moving Nunnally, 1978), the reliability and validity of the measures were
consumergoods;chemicalandpharmaceuticalproducts;computers assessed.ThescalepropertiesareprovidedinTable2,andthemeans,
andelectronics;banksandinsurance;telecommunications;metals; standarddeviationsandcorrelationsamongtheconstructsareshown
furniture;medicalequipment;andprofessionalservices—giventhat in Table 3. First, we examined the items by item-total correlations
cross-sectionalsamplesarelikelytoenhancethegeneralizabilityof andexploratoryfactoranalysis.Itemsthatexhibitedlowitem-total
thefindings(Geyskens,Steenkamp,Scheer,&Kumar,1996).Table1 correlation (b0.30) and low loadings on intended factors (b0.50)
presentsthedescriptionofoursample.Threeweeksaftertheinitial wereremoved.
contact,atelephonefollow-upwasruntonon-respondents.Earlyand First,compositereliabilityforallmeasuresexceededthethreshold
late respondents were compared to assess non-response bias valueof0.6(Bagozzi&Yi,1988).Furthermore,foralloftheconstructs,
(Armstrong&Overton,1977).At-testofdifferenceinmeansonall Cronbach'salphasexceededthe0.7threshold(Nunnally,1978),thusin-
theconstructsofthestudyshowednosignificantdifferenceinmeans dicatingthatthemeasuresexhibitedgoodinternalconsistency.Second,
between early and late respondents, suggesting thus that non- weconductedprincipalcomponentanalysisoneachconstructtocheck
responsebiaswasnotaprobleminourstudy. for unidimensionality. The results reported high loadings on the
intendedfactors,providingsupportfortheunidimensionalityofthe
3.2.Measures measures(seeTable2).
ConstructvaliditywasassessedbymeansofFornellandLarcker's
Themeasuresusedinthestudywereadoptedoradaptedwhere (1981)criteria.Inparticular,averagevarianceextracted(AVE)inall
appropriate from existingliterature,withthe exception of account themeasuresexceeds0.50,providingevidenceofconvergentvalidity.
planning and KAM evaluation where we developed new measures Additionally,theAVEforeachconstructishigherthanthesquared
basedonliteraturereview.Wefollowedtheguidelinessuggestedby correlation between that construct and any other construct in the
Churchill (1979) and the developed items were submitted to five model.Hence,discriminantvalidityholdsforallconstructsusedinthe
academicsandfivemanagersresponsibleformanagingKA.Thepartic- study.
ipantswereaskedtochecktheclarityofeachitemandwhetherit Moreover, as our study followed a single-informant approach,
reflectstheunderlyingconstruct.Basedonthefeedback,someitems severalproceduralremedieswereemployedagainstpotentialproblems
wererevisedinordertoimprovetheirprecisionandclarityandthe associatedwithcommon-methodbias(Podsakoff,MacKenzie,Lee,&
resulting items were included in the survey. Concerning the other Podsakoff,2003).Common-methodbiasinvolvesabiasintheresponses
KAMpractices,KAMespritdecorpsanduseofteamsweremeasured duetosomethingexternaltothemeasures.First,respondentswere
usingthescalesofWorkmanetal.(2003).Thescalesoftopmanage- guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality of the data to reduce
mentinvolvementandKAMactivitieswereadoptedfromGounaris evaluationapprehension.Second,clarityofthemeasurementitems
andTzempelikos(2013).Informationsharingandconflictresolution was achieved using pre-validated scales and by pre-testing the
weremeasuredusingthescalesadoptedbyHeideandJohn(1992) questionnaire. In addition, we used Harman's single-factor test
andAndersonandNarus(1990),respectively.Theoperationalization (Podsakoffetal.,2003).Thefirstfactoraccountedfor31%ofthevariance
of relational outcomes was based on the constructs of satisfaction, and no common factor underlying the data was found. To test the
trustandcommitmentandfortheirmeasurementwereliedonthe robustnessofthisassertion,wealsousedconfirmatoryfactoranalysis
scalesofCannonandPerreault(1999),DoneyandCannon(1997)and asanadditional,morestringenttesttoHarman'ssingle-factortest.We
Morgan and Hunt (1994), respectively. A slight modification was loadedallitemsintooneconfirmatoryfactorwithverypoorfitstatistics
madeaccordingtothepre-testsinthecaseofsatisfaction.Specifically, (χ2(379)=2783.6,CFI=0.48,NNFI=0.47,GFI=0.44,RMSEA=
thefirstfouritemsintendedtomeasurethecustomer'slevelofsatisfac- 0.15).Therefore,wecanconcludethatonelatentfactordoesnotac-
tionandhappinesswiththesupplierwhiletheitem“Thecustomersare countforallmarkedvariablessuggesting,thus,thatcommon-method
verypleasedwithwhatthesupplierdoesforthem”wasconsideredto biasappearsnottobeaprobleminthisstudy(Podsakoffetal.,2003).
28 N.Tzempelikos,S.Gounaris/IndustrialMarketingManagement45(2015)22–34
Table2
Measuresproperties.
Construct(numberofitems)a Mean Standard Cronbach's Item-total Standardized Composite Averagevariance Squared
deviation alphab correlation factorloading reliabilityc extractedd correlation
KAMpractices Accountplanningandselection(4) 4.38 1.25 0.80 .61–.72 .73–.81 0.82 0.54 .012–.435
KAMespritdecorps(4) 5.12 1.17 0.88 .63–.78 .74–.89 0.90 0.65 .018–.498
Useofteams(3) 4.99 1.46 0.84 .67–.74 .85–.89 0.87 0.64 .014–.313
Topmanagementinvolvement(5) 5.36 0.87 0.84 .58–.71 .73–.83 0.87 0.52 .017–.465
KAMactivities(6) 5.40 0.79 0.75 .45–.57 .65–.77 0.76 0.51 .024–.416
KAMevaluation(3) 5.21 1.04 0.79 .53–.72 .75–.83 0.80 0.56 .016–.353
Relationalcapabilities Informationsharing(4) 4.78 1.18 0.85 .67–.72 .82–.86 0.86 0.59 .020–.180
Conflictresolution(4) 5.32 0.95 0.75 .48–.60 .69–.80 0.76 0.52 .019–.430
Relationaloutcomes Satisfaction(4) 5.57 0.77 0.83 .60–.73 .81–.89 0.86 0.63 .018–.506
Trust(5) 5.89 0.73 0.86 .63–.75 .77–.85 0.88 0.54 .012–.506
Commitment(5) 5.28 0.90 0.88 .67–.81 .81–.91 0.92 0.66 .014–.425
Dyadicperformance Cooperation(5) 4.75 0.97 0.73 .46–.60 .68–.80 0.75 0.51 .022–.430
Financialperformance Sales(1) 5.54 1.01
Profits(1) 5.29 1.16
a Itemswithitem-totalcorrelationslessthan.30andfactorloadingslessthan.50havebeenomitted.
b Reportscoefficientalpha(ifmorethanoneitem).
c Reportscompositereliability(ifmorethantwoitems).
d AVEisreportedwhentherearemorethantwoitems.
Insummary,allmeasureshadsatisfactorypsychometricpropertiesand KA.Thus,H7,H8aandH8baresupportedwhilewefailtofindsupport
suggestedthatitwasappropriatetoproceedwiththetestingofthe forH8c.
hypotheses. Finally,trustandcommitmentarealsofoundtopositivelyinfluence
cooperation(β=0.17,pb0.05andβ=0.24,pb0.01,respectively)
supporting, thus, H9b and H9c. Interestingly enough, satisfaction
4.2.Resultsanddiscussion appearstobeinsignificantofcooperation,thusfailingtosupportH9a.
This is possibly explained by the fact that firms often perceive the
WeusedstructuralequationmodelingbymeansofAmostotestour needtomaintainarelationshipandcooperatewiththeexchangepart-
hypotheses.WereporttheresultsofthehypothesistestinginTable4. nerbecauseoftheanticipatedterminationorswitchingcostsassociated
Initially,thedirect(non-mediated)influenceonrelationaloutcomes withleaving(Geyskensetal.,1996).
wasassessedbyconstrainingthestructuralcoefficientsofthemediation Next, a rival model excluding information sharing and conflict
pathtozero.Theoverall-fitmeasuresprovideagoodfitforthedata resolution was tested. The rival model evidenced a rather poor fit
(χ2(364)=914.8,CFI=0.96,NNFI=0.95,GFI=0.94,RMSEA= (χ2(362)=1202.8,CFI=0.91,NNFI=0.90,GFI=0.90,RMSEA=
0.05).Turningtotheresultsconcerningthespecifichypotheses,we 0.07).Finally,theconceptualizedmodelincludingtheinformationshar-
found that all KAM practices are positively related to relational ingandconflictresolutioninthemediationpathwastested.Themodel
outcomes with the exception of the KAM evaluation that was fitwasmuchbetter(χ2(360)=902.4,CFI=0.96,NNFI=0.95,GFI=
insignificanttosatisfaction.Thus,H1,H2,H3,H4,H5andH6are 0.95,RMSEA=0.05).Furthermore,therewasanincreaseinthechi-
supported. squarevaluesfromthedirectmodel(Δχ2(4)=12,pb0.05).These
Theresultsshowthatrelationaloutcomespositivelyaffectsalesand findingsprovideevidenceforthehypothesizedmodelsupportingmedi-
profitsfromKA.Theonlyexceptionistherelationshipbetweencom- ationhypothesesH10aandH10b.Ashypothesized,theKAMpractices
mitmentandprofits,whichappearstobeinsignificant.Thisindicates affecttherelationaloutcomesthroughthedevelopmentofrelational
that a collaborative relationship may not be financially successful, capabilities. This finding is consistent with much of the broader
probablyduetothehighcostsassociatedwiththemanagementofthe relationshipmarketingliteraturethatsuggeststhatinformationsharing
Table3
Means,standarddeviationsandcorrelations.
Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Accountplanningandselection(1) 4.38 1.25 1
⁎⁎
KAMespritdecorps(2) 5.12 1.17 .51 1
⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
Useofteams(3) 4.99 1.46 .41 .42 1
⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
Topmanagementinvolvement(4) 5.36 0.87 .47 .53 .50 1
⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
KAMactivities(5) 5.40 0.79 .48 .57 .46 .64 1
⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
KAMevaluation(6) 5.21 1.04 .55 .39 38 .53 .51 1
⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
Informationsharing(7) 4.78 1.18 .18 .16 .25 .31 .29 .21 1
Conflictresolution(8) 5.32 0.95 .29⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ 38⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ 1
⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
Satisfaction(9) 5.57 0.77 .32 .41 .33 .52 51 .36 .28 .52 1
⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
Trust(10) 5.89 0.73 .36 .39 .36 .46 48 .33 .32 .53 .71 1
⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
Commitment(11) 5.28 0.90 .37 .34 .36 .45 41 .35 .30 .48 .61 .65 1
⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
Sales(12) 5.54 1.01 .32 .28 .26 .31 27 .29 .16 .17 .35 .31 .27 1
Profits(13) 5.29 1.16 .21⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .16⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ 21⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ .12⁎ .10 .30⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ .69⁎⁎ 1
⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
Cooperation(14) 4.75 0.97 .22 .31 .33 .48 43 .38 .43 .66 .49 .49 .48 .15 .17 1
⁎ pb0.05.
⁎⁎ pb0.01.
N.Tzempelikos,S.Gounaris/IndustrialMarketingManagement45(2015)22–34 29
Table4
Estimationofresults.
Stnd t-Test Hypothesis
regression
weights
Paths
Effectsofaccountplanningandselection→Relationaloutcomes
Accountplanningandselection→Satisfaction .21 3.37⁎⁎ H1a
Accountplanningandselection→Trust .16 2.52⁎⁎ H1b
Accountplanningandselection→Commitment .18 3.13⁎⁎ H1c
Effectsoftopmngtinvolvement→Relationaloutcomes
Topmanagementinvolvement→Satisfaction .33 6.33⁎⁎ H2a
Topmanagementinvolvement→Trust .31 5.13⁎⁎ H2b
Topmanagementinvolvement→Commitment .29 4.86⁎⁎ H2c
EffectsofKAMespritdecorps→Relationaloutcomes
KAMespritdecorps→Satisfaction .20 3.22⁎⁎ H3a
KAMespritdecorps→Trust .25 3.92⁎⁎ H3b
KAMespritdecorps→Commitment .29 4.81⁎⁎ H3c
Effectsofuseofteams→Relationaloutcomes
Useofteams→Satisfaction .12 2.17⁎ H4a
Useofteams→Trust .20 3.17⁎⁎ H4b
Useofteams→Commitment .16 2.41⁎⁎ H4c
EffectsofKAMactivities→Relationaloutcomes
KAMactivities→Satisfaction .34 6.76⁎⁎ H5a
KAMactivities→Trust .30 5.08⁎⁎ H5b
KAMactivities→Commitment .32 5.22⁎⁎ H5c
EffectsofKAMevaluation→Relationaloutcomes
KAMevaluation→Satisfaction .13 2.38⁎ H6a
KAMevaluation→Trust .17 3.16⁎⁎ H6b
KAMevaluation→Commitment .19 3.32⁎⁎ H6c
Effectsofrelationaloutcomes→Financialperformance
Satisfaction→Sales .25 3.56⁎⁎ H7a
Trust→Sales .15 2.25⁎ H7b
Commitment→Sales .13 2.11⁎⁎ H7c
Satisfaction→Profits .21 3.28⁎⁎ H8a
Trust→Profits .14 2.23⁎ H8b
Commitment→Profits .07 0.92 H8c
Effectsofrelationaloutcomes→Dyadicperformance
Satisfaction→Cooperation .08 1.21 H9a
Trust→Cooperation .17 2.23⁎ H9b
Commitment→Cooperation .24 3.57⁎⁎ H9c
R2
R2(satisfaction) .38 R2(sales) .19
R2(trust) .35 R2(profits) .15
R2(commitment) .33 R2(cooperation) .21
Notes:Reportedvaluesarestandardizedcoefficients(betas);R2:explainedvarianceinendogenousconstruct.
⁎ pb0.05.
⁎⁎ pb0.01.
andconflictresolutionfacilitatetheimplementationofrelationalstrat- usuallytakesconsiderabletime(Palmatieretal.,2006).Thus,the
egieseitherbecausetheyresultinaconstructiveresolutionofconflicts identification of this link helps to confirm but more importantly
(Mohr&Spekman,1994)orbecausetheyhelpthecustomertolower explain why previous empirical research has suggested that the
operationalcosts(Cannon&Homburg,2001). successful implementation of KAM is indeed a lengthy process
(Davies&Ryals,2009).
5.Implications Another, and probably the most notable, contribution for
academicscomesfromthesystematizationofthepracticalfacets
Theresultsofthestudymakeseveralcontributionstotheexisting thatdrivetheimplementationofKAM.Basedontheresultsofthe
KAMliterature.Onecontributionforacademicsanswersthequestions dataanalysis,weidentifyandreportsixpracticesofKAMthatwe
of“how”shouldpractitionersexpecttobenefitfromKAM.Fromthe findrelatetoKAMsuccess,namely(1)accountplanningandselec-
hypothesestested,thedataclearlydemonstratethat,inadditionto tion, (2) top management involvement, (3) KAM esprit de corps,
theimpactthatKAMhasonsalesandprofits,therelationshipbe- (4)useofteams,(5)KAMactivitiesand(6)KAMevaluation.Our
tweenthesupplierandtheKA(dyadicperformance)alsobenefits findingsandthederivedsystematizationoftheKAMpracticesdiffer
fromhigherlevelsofcooperation.However,thepositiveimpactof frompastresearchinthatweexaminethepracticesinrelationtothe
KAMonperformanceisnotdirectasthecoreelementsofwhathas relationalcapabilitiesofinformationsharingandconflictresolution.
beentermed“relationaloutcomes”(satisfaction,trustandcommit- Wepositthatitisthemediationofrelationalcapabilitiesthatactual-
ment)mediatetherelationshipbetweenKAMpracticesandperfor- lyenablesKAMpracticestodriveKAMeffectiveness.Basedonour
mance outcomes. Enhancing relational outcomes is, however, a findings,itisclearthattoimplementKAMsuccessfully,inaddition
time-consumingprocessas,forinstance,gainingthetrustofthe totheorganizationalfine-tuningthatisrequired,itisalsonecessary
customeraswellasthecustomer'scommitmentintherelationship to recognize that customers play a critical role in successfully
30 N.Tzempelikos,S.Gounaris/IndustrialMarketingManagement45(2015)22–34
defining,formingand,possibly,deliveringthe“productsolution” attain“win–win”goals(Mohr&Spekman,1994).Normsforjoint
thattheyexpectfromtheirsuppliers(Anderson&Dubinsky,2004). decisionmakingandgoalsettingbasedonopenlycommunicated
However,astheKAbecomesincreasinglyinvolvedinthedevelop- factsaboutissuessuchasmonetarycosts,timeand/ortechnology
mentofthesupplier'soffering,agreaterdegreeofcomplexityis and capacity constraints can thus prove invaluable assets that
introduced in the supplier's systems and organization (Vargo & suppliersshouldreadilyuseinresolvingconflictsthatmayarise
Lusch,2004).Infact,onegoodreasonwhyorganizationalchanges with a KA. Having said this, suppliers need to be mindful of the
arerequiredinthefirstplaceistocopewiththiscomplexityand high risk associated with conflict-resolution mechanisms of an
facilitate the supplier's responsiveness to the KA requirements. integrative nature (Koza & Dant, 2007) and use them cautiously
Havingsaidthis,asKAmanagersspantheboundariesbetweenthe andprogressivelyastherelationshipwiththeKAmatures.
supplierandthecustomer,an essential task thatthey have isto
smooththeinteractionofthetwoorganizationsthroughthesharing 6.Limitationsandfutureresearch
ofinformationthatimproveseachparty'sunderstandingoftheother
sideandtoresolveconflictseffectively,ifandwhentheyemerge.At Notwithstandingthecontributionthatthisstudymakes,certain
the same time, KA managers need to coordinate the supplier's limitationsareworthnoting,especiallyasatthesametimethey
responsetotheKA'srequirementsforcustomizedsolutionsinatimely openveryinterestingdirectionsforfutureresearch.Forinstance,
fashion. thelistofKAMpracticesisnotexhaustiveandthecontextofthe
Stemmingfromthelatter,thisstudyhassignificantimplicationsfor KAMinitiativehasalsonotbeenaddressedinitsentirety.Competi-
the implementation of KAM, and consequently for practitioners. tiveintensityandtheidiosyncraticcharacteristicsofthecustomer
Accordingtotheresults,accountplanningandselection,KAMactivities, are some of the variables that this study has not considered.
theuseofteams,KAMevaluation,KAMespritdecorpsandthegreater Likewise,theglobalizationofeconomicactivityisresultinginhigher
involvementoftopmanagementareallpracticesthatinfluencethe trade concentration with suppliers serving international KAs. To
outcomeoftheKAMprogramthroughcustomersatisfaction,trustand addresssuchissueswouldincreasethecomplexityoftheresearch
commitmenttothesupplier. design.Inthelackofrelevantempiricalresearch,thechoicefora
However,bylookingcloselyattheregressionweightspresented simpler design that would allow an initial mapping of the KAM
inTable4,itbecomesevidentthatKAMactivitiestowardcustomiza- actions leading to superior performance prevailed. Nonetheless,
tionandtopmanagementinvolvementarethetwomostpowerful with this objective achieved, future research can now attempt
driversoftherelationaloutcomes.So,ensuringthatthesupplier more complex designs that will address such issues and will
eitherreactivelyorproactivelytailorsitsofferingtomeettheKA's completefurtherscholarlyunderstandingofpracticesexplaining
uniquerequirementsisonekeyfacetofasuccessfulKAMprogram. KAM performance under different contextual conditions. At the
Indoingso,althoughmonitoringthecostsassociatedwithcustomi- same time, future research can and should look at the actual
zationiscommonsense,thiscostshouldnotimpedesuppliersfrom implementationofthepracticesidentifiedinthisstudy.Forinstance,
tailoringtheirproducttotheKA'sneedsascustomizationgearsthe what actions are more effective in developing a strong esprit
successoftheKAMprogram.Likewise,topmanagementneedsto de corps? What information is most appropriate when planning
getactivelyinvolvedwithdecisionmaking(atastrategiclevel)and forKAs?WhatarethemostimportantKPIstotrackwhenmonitoring
providetheKAmanagerswiththenecessaryauthority,resources theimplementationofaKAMinitiative?Answeringsuchquestions
andcoachingtoenablethemtoproducecustomizedsolutionsfor will provide an invaluable insight for practitioners, allowing
theKA. scholars to provide truly useful guides for effectively managing
Developingacompany-wideespritdecorpsaroundthesignifi- the relationship with KAs on the actual implementation level.
canceoftheKAMprogramisalsohelpful(thethirdmostimportant Case-study research would be most appropriate for this kind of
driver),especiallyastherelationshipbetweenthetwocompanies investigation.
progresses into higher levels of collaboration (Woodburn & Asecondlimitationinvolvesthekeyinformanttechniquefromthe
McDonald,2011)whereopencommunicationchannelsbetweena supplier'sside.Althoughcommon-methodbiaswasnotdiagnosed,
larger number of managers from both organizations allow even theriskremainsasthetechniquerepresentsabarriertothecompre-
quickerresponsetotheneedsofthecustomer.Atthesestagesof hensiveevaluationofrelationaloutcomes(satisfaction,trust,commit-
therelationshipitisessentialthateverycontactemployeeormanag- ment)anddyadicperformance(cooperation).Althoughchoosingthe
er of the supplier demonstrates the necessary awareness of and appropriatekeyinformantcanhelpimprovetheaccuracyofthedata,
attentivenesstotherequirementsoftheKA'spersonneleverytime relationalvariablesrepresent,bydefinition,bothsidesofthebuyer/sell-
theyareincontact(Guesalaga&Johnston,2010).Albeitnotwithin erdyad.Therefore,relyingonthesupplier'ssidealonecannotcapture
thescopeofthepresentstudy,astrongespritdecorpsmayalsobe suchconstructsinfull.Again,amorecomplexresearchdesignentailing
particularlyusefulforlargesupplierswhoservemultinationalKAs multipleinformantswouldallownotonlyfordatacross-validationbut,
throughblanketcontracts.Insuchsituationsthecriticalnessofthe moreimportantly,couldofferamorecomprehensiveviewenablingthe
KAmaynotbeequallyperceivedacrossallthedifferentofficesor identificationofpotentialperceptivegapsbetweenthesupplierandthe
servicepointsofthesupplier. KA.Suchdesignscanconfidentlyrelyuponthefindingsofthepresent
Asfarastherelationalcapabilitiesareconcerned,whileinforma- investigationandproducevaluableempiricalinsightsinthefuture.In
tionsharingisimportanttogeneratetrustandthusneedstobeen- addition,thestudyfocusesontheportfolioofKA.Adyadanalysiswill
couragedandfacilitatedbythesupplier'ssystemsandmanagers' offertheopportunitytoexamineindividualrelationships,providing
conduct,resolvingconflictseffectivelyisthecrucialcharacteristic thusdeeperinsightsintheunderstandingofKAMrelationships.
ofsuccessfulKAMpractice.Theco-creativenatureofthevaluethat Finally, this study focuses on KAM effectiveness at the account
theKAMprogramproducesfortheKA(Storbacka,2012)frequently level.AlthoughKAMaffectsperformanceattheorganizationallevel
feedstherelationshipbetweenthetwocompanieswithreasonsfor (Homburgetal.,2002;Workmanetal.,2003),otherfactors,suchas
tension and often conflict. Our findings clearly demonstrate the superiorproductsand/orservices,emergingcustomers'needsoreven
significanceofdevelopingandsustainingconflict-resolutionmecha- smaller,onaverage,customers,canalsoaffectorganizationalperfor-
nismscapableofhandlingdifferenttypesofconflictthatmayarise mance(Homburgetal.,2002).Hence,futureresearchattemptingto
betweenthetwoorganizations.Information-sharingpracticescan examine KAM with regard to other drivers of performance at the
actuallyprovetobeveryhelpfulinthisrespectbyallowingintegra- companylevelwilladdtoourunderstandingoftheantecedentsto
tivemechanismstoconflictresolutionandtoreachjointbenefitsand performanceinbusinessmarkets.
Appendix.Measures
Construct Items M/SD Itemloading
KAMpractices
KAMplanningandselectiona Theattractivenessofdifferentaccountsisassessedagainstthespecificcriteriathatreflectourstrategicgoals. 4.55/1.19 0.81 N
WWeecscarrueftuinlliyzepmlanarokuertiKnAteMllipgreongcreamandtoinentesrunraelarebcaolradnscetobaestsweessenhoawvaislpaebcleifircesaoccuorcuenstsanfidtwthiethnouumrboewrnofsktreayteagciccooubnjtescwtiveecsa.nrealisticallytarget. 44..3359//11..3262 00..7769 .Tzem
p
Topmanagementinvolvementa WTohpemnawneagdeemsiegnntaanldlolcaautenschthaenrienqiutiiarteidverefosoruarKceAsw(meoanlweya,ytsimplea,npaehrseoandnaenl)dfcoorntshiedeKrAtMhefiumnpctliiocant.ionsforourcompanyinthelongrun. 54..1244//11..0291 00..7753 eliko
TopmanagementsystematicallymonitorstheKAMfunctionwithinthecompany. 5.72/1.05 0.77 s,S
Topmanagementintervenes,whennecessary,inordertofindsolutionstoproblemsthatourKAsface. 5.46/1.09 0.83 .Go
TopmanagementactivelyparticipatesinthedesigningofactivitiesregardingourKAs. 5.59/1.07 0.82 un
a
Topmanagementcompensates/rewardstheactionsandinitiativesthatleadtothedevelopmentoftherelationshipswithourKAs. 4.88/1.28 0.73 ris
KAMespritdecorpsa “Peopleinvolvedinthemanagementofakeyaccount…” /In
aregenuinelyconcernedabouttheneedsandproblemsofeachother. 5.21/1.13 0.87 du
hfeaevleliaketetahmeysaprieritpathrtatofpaerbviagdfeasmailllyr.anksinvolved. 55..3184//11..1119 00..8895 strial
M
(viewthemselvesasindependentindividualswhohavetotolerateothersaroundthem).(R) 4.76/1.26 0.74 a
Useofteamsa WhenthereisaproblemrelatedtoourKArelationships,agroupisbroughtintosolveit. 5.20/1.37 0.87 rke
KA-relateddecisionsaremadebyteams. 5.04/1.47 0.89 tin
g
WehaveteamsthatplanandcoordinateactivitiesforKAs. 4.73/1.54 0.85 M
KAMactivitiesa Weadaptourproducts/servicesaccordingtoourKAs'needs. 4.92/1.33 0.66 an
a
WerespondimmediatelytoourKAs'problems. 5.78/0.99 0.77 gem
WeadaptthelevelofourservicequalityaccordingtoourKAs'needs. 5.35/1.05 0.77 e
n
(WeadaptourpricingpolicytoourKAs.) 4.95/1.87 0.41 t
4
WeadaptourinternalprocessesinordertomeetourKAs'needs. 4.87/1.26 0.73 5
WefrequentandinformallycommunicatewithourKAs. 6.09/0.91 0.65 (20
KAMevaluationa WesystematicallyassessthefinancialoutcomesofourKAMrelationships. 5.32/0.86 0.83 15)
WesystematicallyassesstherelationaloutcomesofourKAMrelationships. 5.06/1.18 0.75 22
–
WefrequentlyassesstheeffectivenessofourKAMrelationships. 5.26/1.09 0.82 3
4
Relationalcapabilities
Informationsharinga Inthisrelationship,itisexpectedthatanyinformationthatmighthelptheotherpartywillbeprovidedtothem. 4.88/1.40 0.84
Exchangeofinformationinthisrelationshiptakesplacefrequently. 4.84/1.41 0.86
Itisexpectedthatthepartieswillprovideproprietaryinformationifitcanhelptheotherparty. 4.36/1.55 0.82
Itisexpectedthatwekeepeachotherinformedabouteventsorchangesthatmayaffecttheotherparty. 5.03/1.31 0.82
(continuedonnextpage)
3
1