1251512

Purchasing Agents' Perceptions of Industrial Buying Center Influence: A Situational ApproachAuthor(s): Donald W. Jackson, Jr., Janet E. Keith, Richard K. BurdickSource: The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 75-83Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251512 .Accessed: 07/03/2011 00:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheJournal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

Donald W. Jackson, Jr., Janet E. Keith, & Richard K. Burdick

Industrial purchasing decisions typically are influ- enced by several organizational members referred to as the buying center. Although there has been some research into the center's composition and its relative influence, little is known of how the relative influence of participants changes across purchases of different products, buy classes, and pro- curement decisions. Findings from this study indicate that the relative influence of buying center members is constant across different buy classes, but changes across product types and decision types.

EVERAL studies support the existence of multiple buying influences in the industrial buying

process. Thus, a key question in industrial marketing is the relative power of participants in the purchase decision (Webster and Wind 1972). Typically, however, the study of influence structure has been con- fined to one product type and/or one type of buying situation. This paper considers the perceived influence of participants in the purchase decision across a variety of situations. Changes in influence structure across different purchase situations should suggest appropriate changes in industrial marketing strategies.

Background The concept of the buying center refers to all those organizational members who become involved in the decision-making process for a particular purchase de-

Donald W. Jackson, Jr. is Professor of Marketing, Arizona State Uni- versity; Janet E. Keith is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Virginia Poly- technic Institute and State University; and Richard K. Burdick is Asso- ciate Professor of Business Statistics, Arizona State University. The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable suggestions offered by anonymous reviewers of earlier drafts of this article.

Purchasing Agents' Perceptions of Industrial Buying Center Influence: A Situational Approach cision (Robinson, Faris, and Wind 1967). A number of studies have verified the concept of the buying center and variations in the relative influence of buying center participants in the purchase decision process (Bellizzi 1981, Duncan 1965, Meier 1972, Wind 1978). However, the influence structure of the buying center is likely to vary across a number of factors that characterize the purchase situation, such as buy class, type of product, and type of decision.

Robinson, Farris, and Wind (1967) identified three types of buy classes-new buy, modified rebuy, and straight rebuy-which were assumed to explain some of the variation in the purchase process, including the influence structure of the buying center. Support for this assumption was shown in a few studies. Spekman and Ster (1979) found that purchasing agents were perceived as more influential when the level of environmental uncertainty was high than when environmental uncertainty was low. The results of two other studies indicated that the relative influence of buying center members varied across buy class. Pingry (1974) and Naumann (1981) found that purchasing agents were more influential in modified rebuy and straight rebuy situations, while other members of the buying center were relied upon more heavily in new buy situations.

Journal of Marketing Vol. 48 (Fall 1984), 75-83. Purchasing Agents' Perceptions / 75

Other studies recognized the importance of buy class on the influence of buying center members in the purchase decision, but focused on new buy situations (Patchen 1974) or modified rebuy situations (Cooley 1976, Weigand 1966).

Bellizzi and McVey (1978) failed to find a significant relationship between influence and purchase experience. On the other hand, the influence of members of the buying center was significantly related to the product type under consideration. Significant differences in the relative influence of buying center members across different product types were also present in a later study conducted by Bellizzi (1979).

Finally, still other research analyzed the relative influence of buying center members in different types of decisions. Cooley, Jackson, and Ostrom (1977) found that engineering dominated the product selection decision, and purchasing dominated the supplier selection decision. Buckner (1967) found that for different types of decisions, different groups of special- ists were involved with the specific task. A study conducted by Scientific American (1969) concluded that participation of engineers, researchers, and purchasing agents varied with the decision to initiate a project leading to a purchase, determination of kind of product to be purchased, and selection of brand or supplier. A replication of this study by Erickson and Gross (1980) yielded similar results in the chemical and paper industries.

Thus, the above literature suggests that the relative influence of buying center members varies with individual factors that characterize the purchase situation. However, no research has been conducted which systematically examined the influence structure of the buying center across different types of purchasing situations. The studies cited above did not indicate how the influence structure of the buying center is likely to change as a result of the interaction of buy class, product type, and decision type. Furthermore, although previous research may have suggested how the degree of influence of a particular individual will change across buy class, product type, or decision type, these studies did not address the issue of relative influence within a particular purchase situation. Yet relative influence is of particular importance to industrial marketers, as they must target communications to the appropriate person(s).

Research Design A study was undertaken to examine the effect of situational variables on the relative influence of members of the buying center. Its objective was to systematically explore buying participant influence across different products, buy classes, and purchasing decisions.

The study examined purchasing agents' perceptions of the relative influence of four different buying center members across five different product types, three different types of buy classes, and two different decision types. The five product types examined included major capital, minor capital, materials, components, and supplies. These product types are com- mon industrial goods classifications and were chosen after extensive pre-test interviews with industrial purchasing managers. A definition of each of the product types is given below:

* Major Capital items are goods that have a useful life of more than one year, do not become part of the firm's final product, and cost more than $10,000 per unit. Capital items such as typewriters or small machinery would not be included in this category.

* Minor Capital items have a useful life of more than one year, do not become part of the firm's final product, and cost between $1,000 and $10,000 per unit. Minor capital items are not the most expensive capital equipment nor do they have the longest life. Items such as typewriters, small machinery, and office furniture would be minor capital items. Major capital items such as large computers or forklift trucks would not be included in this category.

* Materials are items which become part of the final product. They have previously undergone some processing but need further processing before they enter the final product. Examples include wire, glass, steel, and sand for glass.

* Component Parts are goods which become part of the final product but need no further processing before that stage. Examples include an electric motor for a refrigerator or transistors for a radio.

* Supplies are goods which do not become part of the final product but rather are used for main- tenance, repairs, or operations. Examples include light bulbs, oil, and paper clips that do not become part of the final product.

The three types of buy classes included new buys, modified rebuys, and straight rebuys. The definition of each of these types of buy classes is as follows:

* A New Buy situation occurs when the need for the product type has not risen before, there is no past buying experience with this product type, a great deal of information is required, and alternative products and alternative suppliers are considered.

* A Modified Rebuy situation occurs when the re- quirement for the product is continuing and the

76 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1984

buying alternatives are known but have changed, due to events such as a change in supplier prices, a new product introduction by a vendor, a need for cost reductions, or engineering modifica- tions. Additional information is needed before a decision can be made.

* A Straight Rebuy situation occurs when the re- quirement for the product type is continuing, the buying alternatives are known, and no new suppliers are to be considered. A great deal of buying experience for the product type exists, and little new information is needed.

Fifteen grouping combinations were formed by crossing the product type and buy class classifications. In addition, each subject within each grouping classification recorded the relative influence of four buying center participants for two types of decisions: determination of the product to buy, and selection of a supplier from whom to buy. The decision of what product to buy included determining the product spec- ifications, determining the quantity to buy, and evaluating the products. The decision of what supplier to select included determining what suppliers to contact, evaluating suppliers on all factors other than the actual product, and selecting the supplier. Selection of these decision types was based on their relevance to most purchase situations and previous research (Cooley, Jackson, and Ostrom 1977; Duncan 1965; Erickson and Gross 1980; Scientific American 1969).

The four buying center members rated by respondents were purchasing, manufacturing, engineering, and top management. Previous research has indicated that these are appropriate functional areas to include as members of the buying center (Cooley, Jackson, and Ostrom 1977; Erickson and Gross 1980; Naumann 1981; Scientific American 1969; Wind 1978). Areas not contained in this group, but thought to have some influence in the decision making were included in a fifth category (Other) in which subjects were in- structed to fill in the appropriate member.

Sample The sample consisted of purchasing agents employed by 25 large industrial manufacturing firms selected from major metropolitan areas of Arizona, California, and Michigan. Since many of the firms were divisions of large conglomerates, divisions were the unit of analysis unless corporate purchasing was centralized. Large manufacturing firms were chosen because they are more likely to have purchasing agents who specialize in the purchase of one or more product types, and, hence, can serve as subjects in one of the product treatments. Furthermore, manufacturing firms were chosen rather than distributors or retailers, since they would pur-

chase all product types examined. Purchasing managers in the 25 participating firms

identified purchasing agents who bought each of the five product types. From the list of purchasing agents identified, subjects were randomly assigned to a buy class conditional on the type of product they actually bought. No more than two purchasing agents from any one firm were assigned to any one cell to increase the representativeness of firms and industries within any treatment cell.

This sampling procedure was utilized to increase the validity of subject responses. Subjects were asked to indicate their perceptions of the influence structure of the buying center in a particular purchase situation. Therefore, it was essential that the sampling procedure ensured that subjects had experience purchasing the product described in the questionnaire to which they responded, and, hence, had a valid basis for pre- dicting influence structure (Carlsmith, Ellsworth, and Aronson 1976; Geller 1978; Hansen 1972).

Despite several methodological problems in the measurement of influence in organization buying (Silk and Kalwani 1982), cost and efficiency considerations dictated that purchasing agents only be surveyed. However, previous research has suggested that purchasing agents are an important member of the buying center (Cooley 1976; Cooley, Jackson, and Ostrom 1977; Naumann 1981; Pingry 1974). This study sought the opinion of this important buying center member. Furthermore, results of Silk and Kalwani (1982) suggest that purchasing agents should be able to discrim- inate among different roles with respect to their degree of influence.

A total of 254 subjects from the 25 companies was surveyed. A profile of the industries represented in the sample is shown in Table 1. The average sales of the

TABLE 1 Profile of Industries Used in Sample

Number of Number of Industry Firms Sample Responses Electronics 9 79 Aerospace 6 62 Computers 3 23 Transportation 2 16 Energy productions 1 35 Pharmaceuticals 1 15 Consumer products 1 10 Paper 1 8 Communications 1 6

25 254 Average sales per division: $495,560,000 Average number of employees per division: 5,927 Average value of products purchased: $194,760,000

Purchasing Agents' Perceptions / 77

divisions included in the sample was $495,560,000. The average division employed 5,927 employees and had purchased $194,760,000 of products in the previous year.

Data Collection Subjects were presented a role-playing scenario in which they were to imagine themselves in a given treatment condition. Each subject was exposed to a vignette describing a particular product and a particular buy class situation, using the definitions provided earlier. The realism of the purchasing situation was checked by asking respondents to rate the realism of the described situation on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very realistic, 7 = not very realistic). The mean re- sponse was 2.8, suggesting the scenario had some degree of external validity.

Geller (1978) distinguished this passive role playing, in which subjects indicate how they would react to a situation, from active role playing in which subjects actually enact the scenario described. Hansen (1972) contended that role playing, active or passive, is justified for situations which cannot be replicated easily in an experiment, such as purchases involving an extensive decision-making process and expensive products and purchases which are relatively infre- quent.

The questionnaire asked each subject to indicate the relative influence of the buying center members for the purchasing situation described in the scenario. Relative influence was measured with the method of attributed influence (March 1955). This method has been used in previous industrial buyer behavior research (Cooley, Jackson, and Ostrom 1977), and asks subjects to allocate a fixed total of 100 points among members that participate in the decision-making process for the buying center.

Analysis of Data The design used to analyze the data was a repeated measures design with allocated observations (Shaffer 1981). The factors product type (P) and buy class (B) were grouping factors. The repeated factors were decision type (D) and member (M). The factor decision type had two levels: product to buy and supplier to select. The factor member had five levels: purchasing, manufacturing, engineering, top management, and other. The two repeated factors were crossed with one another and also with the two grouping factors.

Recall that for each decision type, the sum of the points allocated by a subject must equal 100. Such a constraint implies that the only testable hypotheses are those concerning the main effect for the allocation factor (member in this case) and its interactions with the other

factors (Shaffer 1981). In this situation, the usual pro- cedures used to analyze the repeated measures design are appropriate to test these hypotheses. In this study, the multivariate approach for repeated measures was used, since the assumptions of this approach are less restrictive than those required in the univariate approach (Timm 1980). Computations were performed using program P4V of the Biomedical Computer Pro- grams (Dixon 1981).1 The results are presented in Ta- ble 2.

As indicated by the p-values shown in Table 2, MPBD, MBD, MPB, and MB were all nonsignificant. This indicated that buy class did not appear to affect purchasing agents' perceptions of the relative influence of the buying center members. Additional analyses using firm size and industry type as grouping factors also failed to show any significant buy class effect on purchasing agents' perceptions of the influence structure. Since these additional analyses also showed the results in Table 2 to be consistent across finm size and industry type, they are not reported. Given its apparent unimportance, the buy class factor is, therefore, ignored in the remainder of the analysis.

The significance of MPD implied that purchasing agents' perceptions of the relative importance of the buying center members changed across the various combinations of product type and decision type. Table 3 reports the average points allocated to each member for the 10 product type/decision type treatment combinations.

In order to investigate differences among treatment averages, multiple comparisons were conducted. The significant MPD interaction indicated that three types of comparisons were of interest: (1) changes in perceptions of the relative importance of buying cen-

'The experimental design was unbalanced in that there were an un- equal number of subjects for each product type-buy class combination. The reported analysis tested each source of variation adjusted for all other sources of variation in the model. Equal weights were assumed for all treatment means.

TABLE 2 Repeated Measures Analysis of Data

Wilk's Criterion S.V. d.f. MANOVA F P-Value M 4 231.12

TABLE 3 Cell Means for Relative Influence Allocations

Major Minor Component Capital Capital Materials Parts Supplies

% Purchasing 30.33 34.44 23.63 27.21 32.69 Product % Manufacturing 20.11 20.27 20.48 15.82 19.04 to % Engineering 35.44 28.06 40.77 45.98 22.59 Buy % Management 11.33 8.47 6.65 6.72 5.13

% Other 2.78 8.75 8.46 4.26 20.56 % Purchasing 50.22 60.69 70.06 64.61 63.48

Supplier % Manufacturing 13.78 11.64 7.02 5.43 11.17 to % Engineering 26.22 18.61 17.42 24.02 12.69 Select % Management 7.78 6.69 3.38 3.98 4.24

% Other 2.00 2.36 2.12 1.97 8.43

ter members across products for each decision, (2) changes in perceptions of the relative importance of buying center members across decisions for each product, and (3) differences in perceptions of the relative importance of buying center members within each product/decision combination. The Bonferroni multiple comparisons procedure was used, and a level of significance of 5% for the entire set of comparisons was selected (Miller 1981). All conclusions stated in this paper were statistically significant with regard to this criterion.2 These conclusions are summarized in Table 4.3

Comparisons of Relative Influence The present study confirmed previous evidence that perceptions of relative influence of buying center members changed across product types. Furthermore, it demonstrated that changes in these perceptions across product type depended upon whether the decision was supplier to select or product to buy. When the decision was product to buy, engineering was perceived as more influential when buying either materials or component parts than when buying supplies. When concern was supplier from which to buy, purchasing was perceived to have greater influence in materials decisions than in major capital decisions. The perceived influence of manufacturing and top management remained constant across product type for both

2A total of 225 multiple comparisons was required to address the questions of interest. Thus, using the Bonferroni inequality, any sin- gle comparison was deemed to be significant if its reported two-tailed p-value was less than .05/225 = .0002.

3When the decision involved the product category Supplies, the members represented in the category Other were ranked third in importance. Observation of the questionnaires indicated that the Other category in this situation generally involved users of the supplies. However, since this was the only case where this category appeared to be of much importance, only comparisons among purchasing, manufacturing, engineering, and top management were considered.

the product and supplier decisions. The present study also showed that purchasing

agents' perceptions of the influence of a buying center member depended upon the specific decision type. Purchasing was perceived to exert a greater influence in the supplier selection decision than in the product selection decision, and this was true for all five product types. Manufacturing's perceived relative influence increased when making product decisions related to the purchase of minor capital, supplies, materials, and component parts. Engineering's perceived relative influence increased when making product decisions for the purchase of materials and component parts. Top management's degree of perceived influence remained constant across decision type, regardless of the type of product being purchased.

Finally, the present study indicated purchasing agents' perceptions of the relative influence of buying center members in product and supplier decisions related to the purchase of a particular product. Results indicated that, in general, engineering, purchasing, and, to a lesser extent, manufacturing, were perceived as the more influential members of the buying center. In all cases, top management was perceived as the least influential member of the buying center. However, the specific influence structure depended upon the decision type and product type. For product decisions related to the purchase of major capital, engineering and purchasing were perceived as more influential than top management. For the purchase of minor capital and supplies, purchasing, engineering, and manufacturing were all perceived as more influential than top management. Engineering was perceived as more influential than any other member when purchasing component parts, and was also perceived as more influential than both manufacturing and top management when purchasing materials.

When the decision was which supplier to use, purchasing was always perceived as the most influential


TABLE 4 Summary of Significant Differences

Across Product Type Decision was which product to buy:

Relative influence of engineering was greater when buying materials or component parts than when buying supplies.

Decision was supplier from which to buy: Relative influence of purchasing was greater when buying materials than when buying major capital.

Across Decision Type Relative influence of purchasing was greater in the supplier decision than in the product decision for all product types.

Product type was either minor capital or supplies: Relative influence of manufacturing was greater in the product decision than in the supplier decision.

Product type was either materials or component parts: Relative influence of manufacturing and engineering was greater in the product decision than in the supplier decision.

Among Buying Center Members Decision was product to buy:

Relative influence of purchasing and engineering was greater than relative influence of top management for all product types. Relative influence of engineering was greater than relative influence of manufacturing for materials. Relative influence of engineering was greater than relative influence of all other members for component parts. Relative influence of manufacturing was greater than relative influence of top management for minor capital, materials, component parts, and supplies.

Decision was supplier from which to buy: Relative influence of purchasing was greater than relative influence of all other members for all products. Relative influence of engineering was greater than relative influence of top management for major capital, materials, and component parts. Relative influence of engineering was greater than relative influence of manufacturing for component parts.

member of the buying center. Engineering became relatively more influential in the supplier selection decision for the purchase of major capital, materials, and component parts. However, in general, buying center members other than purchasing were perceived as more influential in product selection decisions than in supplier selection decisions.

Discussion This paper confirms the complex nature of buying center influence. The evidence suggested that the purchasing agents perceived themselves to be one of the most influential members of the buying center, par- ticularly for supplier selection decisions. These results were consistent with the findings of Cooley, Jackson, and Ostrom (1977), Scientific American (1969), and Erickson and Gross (1980). However, the perceived importance of engineering was evident also, particu- larly in decisions related to major capital, materials, and component parts. Top management had relatively little perceived influence in all product and supplier decisions.

Contrary to prevailing thought, however, buy class did not appear to have a significant impact on purchasing agents' perceptions of the relative influence

of buying center participants. This finding is significant in that it contradicts the conventional wisdom of industrial marketers as well as earlier empirical research, which reported changes in buying center member influences across buy class (Naumann 1981, Pingry 1974). The apparent contradiction could be due to two factors. First, earlier work may have been af- fected by confounding influences of product type or decision type. Product type and decision type may be the most important determinants of influence structure in the buying center. Once these effects are elimi- nated, buy class may not affect influence structure. Bellizzi and McVey (1978) controlled for confounding influences due to product type and also failed to find any effect on influence structure due to buy class. Thus, the nonsignificant results with respect to buy class may be due to the absence of a "true" relationship between buy class and buying center influence.

Similarly, the significant relationship between purchasing agents' influence and environmental uncertainty observed by Spekman and Ster (1979) may be explained by a closer examination of the determinants of environmental uncertainty. Intuitively, environmental uncertainty may be considered a function of buy class. However, factors used to measure environmental uncertainty can be considered measures


of risk. Since the present research did not include risk as a variable, it is unknown if risk is a function of the product being purchased and/or the buy class. While the present study suggests that, in the situation inves- tigated, risk was perceived as a function of product type (explaining the relationship between perceived influence and product type), and not of buy class (explaining the lack of a relationship between perceived influence and buy class), future research should address the issue of the determinants of risk and its effect on the influence structure of the buying center.

Second, the insignificant impact of buy class on perceptions of the relative influence of buying center members could have been due to a weak manipulation of the buy class treatment. Although pilot subjects indicated they recognized differences among the three buy classes, this recognition may not have occurred among sample respondents. On the other hand, additional data gathered by the authors, using the same manipulation of buy class and reported elsewhere, re- vealed a significant relationship between buy class and the relative importance of marketing mix components to industrial purchasers (Jackson, Keith, and Burdick 1983). This evidence seems to suggest that the buy class manipulation was effective.

The present research indicated only that buy class had no effect on purchasing agents' perceptions of the influence structure of the buying center. Previous research has indicated that the structure of the buying center does vary with buy class (Doyle, Woodside, and Michell 1979). Additionally, the definitions of buy class suggest that the amount and type of information required in a purchase decision may vary across buy class. Finally, to the extent that buy class correlates with environmental uncertainty, results of Spekman and Ster (1979) suggest that the purchasing process (i.e., division of labor and participation in decision making) may vary across buy class.

Results of the study indicated that purchasing agents' perceptions of the influence structure of the buying center will change, depending upon the product being purchased and on the decision being made. The present research assumed, however, that the two decisions under study-product to buy and supplier from which to buy-are independent. Experience indicates that there are situations in which the two decisions are made simultaneously. For example, in the first-time purchase of a major capital good where suppliers' individual offerings are not substitutable, the choice of a product is, in effect, the choice of a supplier. Alternatively, in the purchase of supplies where suppliers' individual offerings are homogeneous, the choice of a supplier may dominate the choice of the product. Future research may want to determine which purchase situations are more likely to involve a se- quence of independent decisions, which are more likely

to involve decisions made simultaneously, and how influence structures vary across these purchase pro- cesses.

It is useful to recognize that the perceived influence structure of the buying center varies across relatively easily identifiable factors, such as product and decision type. However, the results fail to suggest why the observed relationships occurred. Equating the purchase process with a joint decision-making process may provide insights into the causal factors of the influence structure. In this process, individuals in the buying center can be conceived as attempting to affect the opinions of each other. Further research may want to utilize French and Raven's (1959) bases of power as a framework for examining how one buying center member can affect the opinion of another buying center member of a particular decision. The inclusion of type of power should clarify the nature of the influence relationships that exist among buying center members. For example, if influence is related to risk reduction, results of Spekman and Ster (1979) suggest that the person who is able to reduce risk will emerge as the most influential member of the buying center. Thus, the person with a strong information or expert base of power may be the most effective in reducing risk and may emerge as the most influential member of the buying center.

In addition to adding to our understanding of organizational buying behavior, the present findings have significant managerial implications for industrial marketers. In particular, results suggest the following:

* The target audience of marketing efforts will depend upon who the more important individuals of the buying center are. Findings suggest that the purchasing agent should be called on regardless of product type, but that engineering and/or manufacturing may also be important target audiences. For example, when selling component parts, marketing efforts should be directed toward engineering.

* Marketing efforts will depend upon which individuals of the buying center are more influential for a given decision. Since engineering and manufacturing are more influential in product selection decisions, they may have to be sold on product characteristics. On the other hand, since purchasing is most influential in supplier selection decisions, they may have to be sold on company characteristics.

* Given that various buying center members have different relative levels of influence, perhaps product development should incorporate features that will enhance the attractiveness of the product to the more influential individuals in the buying center. For example, engineering per-


sonnel in customers' firms may provide significant insights into product features most desired in component parts.

The present study found that top management was not perceived as a very influential member in purchase decisions. Because this result contradicts previous research (Bellizzi and McVey 1978) and prevailing thought on influence structures in organizational buying behavior, it deserves some comment. While purchasing agents may not perceive top management as influencing the decision of which product to buy or which supplier to select, top management may have considerable influence in the decision to buy or com- mit funds to a purchase. Top management may provide ultimate approval for some purchases, especially those related to the purchase of expensive major capital. Thus, it may be important to provide top management with product material. Additionally, the low level of perceived influence of top management may be due to the ambiguity of the concept influence. Some individuals may perceive ultimate approval for the purchase of a product to be indicative of a great deal of influence. Others may perceive that top management has little influence in the total purchase process except for this one aspect. Since purchasing agents are more likely to be involved in and, hence, aware of the total purchase process, they may be more likely to take the latter perspective.

Although the current study found significant differences in relative influence, caution should be ex- ercised when interpreting the results, since the re-

spondents were generated from a convenience sample, and since several other competing hypotheses may exist (i.e., risk and environmental uncertainty). Fur- thermore, the study focused on purchasing agents' self- reported perceptions of relative influence. Future research may want to examine the perceptions of various buying center participants of relative influence structures.

Conclusions Marketers must be aware of differences in the relative influence of buying center participants when devel- oping communications strategies. According to Zalt- man and Bonoma (1977), "It appears from limited research that much industrial advertising is being misdirected" (p. 57). The same could be said of personal selling, where identification of the buying center and calling on the right people are issues of critical concern. The relative influence within the buying center is dynamic rather than static in nature. Results of this study indicate that the relative influence of buying center members changes, depending upon the product being purchased and on the decision being made. Thus, previous research which has explored relative influence should be generalized only to those products or decisions which they examined. Likewise, future research should incorporate product type and decision type as variables in order to analyze the influence structure of the buying center across these dimen- sions.

REFERENCES Bellizzi, Joseph A. (1979), "Product Type and the Relative

Influence of Buyers in Commercial Construction," Indus- trial Marketing Management, 8 (June), 213-220.

(1981), "Organizational Size and Buying Influ- ences," Industrial Marketing Management, 10 (February), 17-21.

and Phillip McVey (1978), "Buy Class vs. Product Type as Predictive of Industrial Behavior," in Proceedings, Southern Marketing Association, Robert S. Franz, Robert M. Hopkins, and Al Toma, eds., Atlanta: Southern Mar- keting Association.

Buckner, Hugh (1967), How British Industries Buy, London: Hutchinson and Company.

Carlsmith, J. Merrill, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, and Elliot Aron- son (1976), Research in Social Psychology, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cooley, James R. (1976), "An Analysis of Relative Power Among Participants in the Purchase of Industrial Compo- nents," D.B.A. dissertation, Arizona State University.

, Donald W. Jackson, Jr., and Lonnie L. Ostrom (1977), "Analyzing the Relative Power of Participants in Industrial Buying Decisions," in Contemporary Marketing Thought, Barnett A. Greenberg and Danny N. Bellinger,

eds., Chicago: American Marketing. Dixon, W. J., ed. (1981), BMDP Statistical Software 1981,

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Doyle, Peter, Arch Woodside, and Paul Michell (1979), "Or-

ganizations Buying in New Task and Rebuy Situations," Industrial Marketing Management, 8 (February), 7-11.

Duncan, Delbert (1965), "Some Basic Determinants of Be- havior in Industrial Purchasing," Pacific Purchasor, 47 (May), 17-22.

Erickson, Robert A. and Andrew C. Gross (1980), "Gener- alizing Industrial Buying: A Longitudinal Study," Indus- trial Marketing Management, 9 (July), 253-265.

French, John R. P., Jr. and Bertram Raven (1959), "The Bases of Social Power," in Studies in Social Behavior, D. Cart- wright, ed., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Geller, Daniel M. (1978), "Involvement in Role-Playing Sim- ulations: A Demonstration with Studies on Obedience," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (March), 219-235.

Hansen, Flemming (1972), Consumer Choice Behavior: A Cognitive Theory, New York: Free Press.

Jackson, Donald W., Jr., Janet E. Keith, and Richard K. Bur- dick (1983), "Purchasing Agents' Perceived Importance of


Marketing Mix Components in Different Industrial Pur- chase Situations," unpublished working paper, Tempe, AZ: College of Business, Arizona State University.

March, James G. (1955), "An Introduction to the Theory and Measurement of Influence," American Political Review, 69 (June), 445-451.

Meier, Robert E. (1972), "A Factor Analytic Investigation of the Industrial Purchasing Manager Position," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.

Miller, Rupert G., Jr. (1981), Simultaneous Statistical Infer- ence, 2nd ed., New York: Springer-Verlag.

Naumann, Earl (1981), "The Impact of Purchase Situation and Purchase Phase on Amount and Bases of Influence in Or- ganizational Purchasing: An Empirical Investigation," D.B.A. dissertation, Arizona State University.

Patchen, Martin (1974), "The Focus and Basis of Influence on Organizational Decisions," Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 11 (April), 195-221.

Pingry, Jack R. (1974), "The Engineer and Purchasing Agent Compared," Journal of Purchasing, 10 (November), 33- 45.

Robinson, Patrick J., Charles W. Faris, and Yoram Wind (1967), Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Scientific American, Inc. (1969), How Industry Buys, New York: Scientific American.

Shaffer, Juliet Popper (1981), "The Analysis of Variance Mixed Model with Allocated Observations: Application to Re- peated Measurement Designs," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76 (September), 607-611.

Silk, Alvin J. and Manohar U. Kalwani (1982), "Measuring Influence in Organizational Purchase Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (May), 165-181.

Spekman, Robert E. and Louis W. Stem (1979), "Environ- mental Uncertainty and Buying Group Structure: An Em- pirical Investigation," Journal of Marketing, 43 (Spring), 54-64.

Timm, Neil H. (1980), "Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Repeated Measurements," in Handbook of Statistics, Vol. 1, P. R. Krishnaiah, ed., New York: Elsevier North-Hol- land.

Webster, F. E., Jr. and Yoram Wind (1972), Organizational Buying Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Weigand, Robert E. (1966), "Identifying Industrial Buying Responsibility," Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (Feb- ruary), 81-84.

Wind, Yoram (1978), "The Boundaries of Buying Decision Centers," Journal of Purchasing and Materials Manage- ment, 14 (Summer), 23-29.

Zaltman, Gerald and Thomas V. Bonoma (1977), "Organi- zational Buying Behavior: Hypotheses and Directions," In- dustrial Marketing Management, 6, 53-60.

F aVY Industrial Marketing Management A Strategic View of Business Markets Second Edition

Michael Hutt Arizona State University

Thomas Speh Miami University

A complete and current industrial marketing management text that presents a more comprehensive treatment of: o Organizational buying behavior o Market-forecasting techniques o Industrial marketing channels and

logistics

New To This Edition o 11 new cases o New chapter on Industrial Marketing

Intelligence (Ch. 5) o Profiles that highlight marketing strategy

differences between industrial and consumer-products firms (Chs. 1 and 9)

o New information on trends in buyer- seller relationships (Chs. 3, 9, and 17)

o A new emphasis on the importance of competitive analysis in industrial marketing management throughout (see Chs. 1,6, 10, and 17)

Some Highlights o Real-world illustrations are included to

capture student interest and provide a base for class discussions

o A well-balanced selection of cases combined with engaging end-of-chapter questions

o Built-in learning aids that stimulate interest in each chapter through adroit use of objectives, summaries, illustrations, exhibits

o A comprehensive Instructor's Manual that includes case analysis, transparency masters, multiple-choice questions, and more!

Available Fall 1984 720 pages (approx.) hardcover ISBN 0-03-069307-1

Instructor's Manual with Transparency Masters ISBN 0-03-069308-X

For examination copies, please contact your local Dryden Press representative or write on your college letterhead to: Marie A. Schappert The Dryden Press P.O. Box 36 Lavallette, NJ 08735


Ila -- = a I

Article Contentsp. 75p. 76p. 77p. 78p. 79p. 80p. 81p. 82p. 83

Issue Table of ContentsThe Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 1-132Volume Information [pp. 123 - 129]Front Matter [pp. 1 - 8]From the Editor [pp. 5 - 6]A Role Stress Model of the Performance and Satisfaction of Industrial Salespersons [pp. 9 - 21]A Script-Theoretic Analysis of Industrial Purchasing Behavior [pp. 22 - 32]The Relationship of Satisfaction and Performance to Salesforce Turnover [pp. 33 - 40]Industrial Salesperson Development: A Career Stages Perspective [pp. 41 - 52]The Marketing Strategy Center: Diagnosing the Industrial Marketer's Interdisciplinary Role [pp. 53 - 61]A Model of the Distributor's Perspective of Distributor-Manufacturer Working Relationships [pp. 62 - 74]Purchasing Agents' Perceptions of Industrial Buying Center Influence: A Situational Approach [pp. 75 - 83]Timing of Market Research in New Industrial Product Situations [pp. 84 - 94]Volatility of Derived Demand in Industrial Markets and Its Management Implications [pp. 95 - 103]The Advertising Budgeting Practices of Industrial Marketers [pp. 104 - 110]Legal Developments in Marketing [pp. 111 - 116]Marketing Abstracts [pp. 117 - 122]Back Matter [pp. 130 - 132]

1251512

Documents

Transcript of 1251512