跨组织视角下的营销渠道治理：制度环境的影响.doc

跨组织视角下的营销渠道治理：制度环境的影响
跨组织视角下的营销渠道治理：制度环境的影响
跨组织视角下的营销渠道治理：制度环境的影响

　　［Abstract］Researches on marketing channels constitute an important part of marketing research.With the change of the competitive situations in the markets and the development of the marketing theories，the focus of the marketing channels research changed from emphasizing on efficiency and benefits to power and conflicts，and then to relationship and alliance as well as networking.Most of the previous marketing channel studies have applied an efficiency-based task environment perspective and largely overlooked a legitimacy-based institutional environment approach in studying the process of channel governance.In the paper，I propose that marketing channel is a kind of institutional arrangement and inter-organizational relationship in the nature.So companies must pay attention to the degree of acceptance and agreement of their decisions and behaviors when they are governing marketing channels.The paper first reviews previous theories and studies on marketing channel governance and inter-organizational relationships.The author absorbs valuable ideas from them and proposes a theoretical framework and some propositions，and explains and tests the framework and the propositions through two case studies.

　　［摘要］营销渠道研究是营销研究的一个重要组成部分。随着市场中竞争性环境的变化以与营销理论的发展，营销渠道研究的关注点从强调效率和利益转向强调权力和冲突，进而转向联网以与关系和联盟。在研究渠道治理过程方面，以往的营销渠道研究大多采用以效率为基础的任务环境视角，而在很大程度上忽视了以合理性为基础的制度环境方法。本文提出，营销渠道从本质上说是一种制度安排和跨组织关系。因此，企业在治理营销渠道时，必须关注其决策和行为的接受度与认可度。本文先是回顾了营销渠道治理和跨组织关系方面的理论与研究，进而从中吸收有价值的观点，提出了理论框架和一些命题，并通过两则案例研究进行解释和检验。
　　［Key words］Marketing Channels ;Inter-Organizational Power；The In stitutional Environment
　　［关键词］营销渠道；跨组织能力；制度环境
　　［中图分类号］F712［文献标识码］A［文章编号］1005-6432（2014）5-0008-10
　　1INTRODUCTION
　　Wilkinson(2001)divides studies about marketing channels into three stages：channel structures，channel behaviors，and channel relationships.In the first stage，researchers tried to find out ways of optimizing the efficiencies and benefits of managing marketing channels.In the second stage，researchers tried to unveil the power and conflict between channel members.In the third stage，researchers tried to find out ways of reducing or eliminating opportunistic behaviors through mutual commitment and honest.Actually，some scholars had begun to study marketing channels from the perspective of network governance.
　　In most of these studies，many scholars have used the political economy framework(Achrol，Reve and Stern，1983；Frazier，1999；Hutt，Mokwa and Shapiro，1986，Stern and Reve，1980).Scholars implicitly have ascribed active choice behavior to channel members while stressing efficiency in governing channel relationships.They have considered the implications of environmental uncertainty or dependence on environmental resources for dyadic channel relationships(such as conflicts and cooperation，Dwyer，Schurr and Oh，1987)，power balances(such as power-dependence relationships，Frazier，1983)，and relationships with entities outside the dyads(such as regulators and other actors，Dutta，Heide and Bergen，1999)from traditional economic efficiency perspectives.In the process，scholars have largely overlooked the ubiquitous influences of the institutional environments and how inter-organizational relationships such as marketing channels are embedded in the larger social context(Granovetter，1985；Grewal & Dharwadkar，2002).Recent advances in organization theory suggest that organizations strive for both economic fitness，which emphasizes the competition for scarce resources and underscores the importance of the task environment，and social fitness，which stresses the pursuit of legitimacy in the eyes of important societal stakeholders and pinpoint the significance of the institutional environment. 　　The term governance has been broadly defined as a “mode of organizing transactions”(Williamson and Ouchi，1981).A more precise delineation was offered by Palay(1984)，who defines it as “a shorthand expression of the institutional framework in which contracts are initiated，negotiated，monitored，modified and terminated.” Heide(1994)states that governance is a multidimensional phenomenon that encompasses the initiation，termination and ongoing relationship maintenance between a set of parties.
　　In this paper，the authors propose that marketing channels are inter-organizational relationships in the nature.When companies are governing marketing channels，they are actually governing inter-organizational relationships.This is an institutional process.The primary measuring standard of the governing effects is legitimacy，but not the traditional efficiency.
　　2THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS AND MODELInstitutional theory holds that a companys institutional environment is made up of the norms and values of its stakeholders，which include customers，investors，guilds，trustee councils，governments，and partners.According to institutional theory，a company adopts some structure，behavior or process to satisfy other stakeholders.This behavior of seeking external recognition is the result of the institutional environments influence.Therefore，legitimacy becomes a key concept in institutional theory.
　　Suchman(1995)“a generalized assumption or perception of the actions of an entity are desirable，proper，and appropriate within some socially constructed norms，values，beliefs and definitions.” Legitimacy requires companies behaviors to be consistent with public cognition and emotional expectations.That is，companies will adopt those structures，behaviors，and processes that are considered as effective，appropriate，and popular.Accordingly，companies are not rationally pursuing efficiency but conforming to external rules and norms，so as to make their behaviors be accepted，understood，and recognized by other stakeholders.Therefore，gaining legitimacy is of great importance to companies that operate within the institutional environment.In order to gain legitimacy，many aspects of organizational structures and behaviors are designed and performed to be accepted by the institutional environment but not to pursue efficiency.
　　Marketing channels governance is a part of a companys operations.The decisions，behaviors，and processes of governing channels must be consistent with the companys strategy.They all have to be accepted，understood，and recognized by other stakeholders.This is an institutionalized process.Therefore，gaining legitimacy of their channel-governing decisions，behaviors，and processes is also of great importance.Market channel wont be one of the sources of sustained competitive advantages if the decisions，behaviors，and process are not legitimate. 　　2.1Inter-Organizational Studies
　　Inter-Organizational institutions
　　Institutional theory insists that we should study organizations environments so as to better study and understand companies behaviors and explain organizational phenomena(Meyer & Rowen，1977).Institutional theory divides environments into institutional environments and task environment，which have different influence on organizations.Organizations should take into account the task environment and the institutional environment as well，since organizations are always influenced by the institutional environments and they are institutionalized organizations.Institutional theory stresses that organizations are able to take initiatives to change their environments so as to better survive and develop.According to institutional theory，a company is operating within a social framework of norms and values.Their economic behaviors are constrained by technology，information，income，and social constructs as well.Being consistent with social expectations is beneficial to their survival and successes(Baum and Oliver，1991；Carroll and Hannan，1989；DiMaggio and Powell，1983；Oliver，1991).Organizations improve their legitimacy，resources，and surviving capabilities through following up so as to gain benefits.
　　2.2Inter-Organizational Imitations
　　Inter-organizational imitation of practices and structures plays a central role in several theories of organizational actions(Haunschild，1993).For example，theories of organizational learning argue that organizations copy other organizations，letting others absorb the costs of experimentation or discovery(Dutton & Freedman，1985；Levitt & March，1988；Lant & Mezias，1990).Strategic choice theories suggest that imitation can be a strategic response to competitor activities，so second-movers take the advantages of the fact that the risks associated with product development have been absorbed by first-movers(Lieberman & Montgomery，1988).Institutionalization theory argues that organizations copy practices that adopted by others in an effort to gain legitimacy(DiMaggio & Powell，1983).
　　It is self-evident that inter-organizational imitations are of great importance.But how do organizations imitate？ Haunschild & Miner(1997)indicate three modes of inter-organizational imitation，including frequency-based imitation，trait-based imitation，and outcome-based imitation.With frequency-based imitation，organizations tend to imitate actions that have been taken by large numbers of other organizations.Several theoretical rationales have been marshaled to support frequency imitation，and considerable empirical evidence documents its occurrence.According to early institutionalresearch，firms adopt practices and structures that many other firms have adopted because when many firms adopt a practice，the legitimacy of that practice is enhanced(Tolbert and Zucker，1983；DiMaggio and Powell，1983).This effect can occur because the desire for legitimacy leads firms to adopt legitimate practices(Meyer and Rowan，1977).In trait-based imitation，organizations may also selectively imitate practices that have been used by some subset of other organizations.Arguments for trail imitation have generally emphasized the importance of social processes.Early institutional theorists(e.g.，DiMaggio and Powell，1983)suggested that firms adopt the practices of “legitimate” organizations and that legitimacy is inferred from traits like large size and success.Organizations may also seek to acquire status by imitating higher-status organizations(Fombrun and Shanley，1990)，which are usually large and successful.With outcome-based imitation，organizations use the outcomes that occur after other organizations use a practice or structure to determine whether they should adopt.Thus，neither the number nor the characteristics of others doing practice “A” is important.Instead，it is the apparent outcomes that occur after other organizations do “A” that determines whether “A” will be imitated.Practices or structures that produced positive outcomes for others will be imitated；those that produced negative outcomes will be avoided.Selective imitation does not arise from features of other users but from perceived consequences of the practice.Companies are not limited to only one of the three modes.During the competition，the imitation mode they will apply varies with their competitors and decisions. 　　2.3Inter-Organizational Power and Dependence
　　The most comprehensive theoretical statement on inter-organizational power and dependence was a 1978 book by Pfeffer and Salancik，which presented a detailed theoretical discussion as well as the results of a number of the authors earlier empirical works.Pfeffer and Salancik began with four key premises：organizations are first and foremost concerned with survival；in order to survive they require resources which they cannot generate internally；as a consequence，organizations must interact with elements in the environment on which they are depend，which often include other organizations；survival is therefore based on an organizations manage its relations with other organizations.Because organizations depend on elements in their environment for resources，those groups can make claims on them，and organizations may find themselves attempting to satisfy the concerns of these environmental constituencies.According to Pfeffer and Salancik，there are three crucial factors that determine to which one organization depends on another：the importance of the resource to the organizations survival，the extent to which a particular group inside or outside the organization has access to or discretion over use of the resource，and the extent to which alternative sources of the resource exist.
　　One important feature of Pfeffer and Salanciks discussion is their point that dependence can be mutual.Just as one organization can depend on another，two organizations can simultaneously depend on each other.Power becomes unequal when one organizations dependence exceeds the others.
　　3CONCLUSION
　　In order to survive organizations should first be recognized by other organizations or stakeholders.That means they should acquire legitimacy first.Only after acquiring legitimacy can organizations create efficiency through operating resources they obtained from their interaction with the task environment and facilitate organizations sustained development.Therefore，organizations should first consider the legitimacy of their decisions，behaviors，and processes in their operations，and then pursue efficiency.In this way，organizations can survive and develop in the long run.
　　Since late 1990s，some scholars have begun to elaborate and argue the institutional environments influences(Handelman and Arnold，1999；Homburg，Workman，and Krohmer，1999；McFarland，Bloodgood，and Payan，2004).Grewal and Dharwadkar(2002)indicate that the institutional environment influences the channel attitudes，behaviors，processes，and structures.They proposed a theoretical framework and logic for studying the institutional environments influence on dyadic channel relationships.They developed three institutional processes(regulating，validating，and habitualizing)and their underlying mechanisms according to the various attributes of the institutions and legitimacies，and elaborate on how these processes might influence channel relatio

8 / 8