Inter-organizational relationship (IOR) development is suited to the relational view of strategic management (Holm et al., 1999), explaining sustainable competitive advantage through cooperation, coopetition, and networking (Dyer & Singh, 1998). Inter-organizational relationships (IOR) are defined as contractual, long-term, relevant, and usually complex (Czakon, 2009) relationships between or among inter-independent organizations (Baptista 2013) engaged in mutual interactions addressing shared, strategic goals (Holm et al., 1999; Mandják et al., 2015). It is acknowledged that organizations with the capabilities to manage inter-organizational relationship development turn out to be better prepared to sustain relationship-related competitive advantage (Mitręga & Pfajfar, 2015). Importantly, even though there is increasing interest in IOR, this phenomenon still calls for deeper understanding (Alimadadi et al., 2019; Batonda & Perry, 2003; Gelei & Dobos, 2014; Jap & Anderson, 2007; Klimas et al., 2022).
Relationships are not static phenomena. Instead, they evolve dynamically throughout the relationship life cycle (Kusari et al., 2013) and the change in IOR is typical (Palmatier et al., 2013). Nonetheless, as claimed by Ferreira et al. (2017), the question still unanswered is how relationships do develop over time. This would appear to be crucial (Jap & Anderson, 2007), as awareness, evaluation, and handling the relationship development path are important for gaining optimum benefits from relationship maintenance (Davis & Love, 2011; Harmeling & Palmatier, 2019).
The literature still identifies a relevant deficit of knowledge on the course and specificity of the development path of IOR, as well as pointing at the fragmented state of the findings to date (Akrout, 2014; Batonda & Perry, 2003; Ferreira et al., 2017; Hastings et al., 2016). Indeed, although interest in the life cycles of relationships has been observed for decades (Ford, 1980; Dwyer et al., 1987; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994; Wilson, 1995) our knowledge remains mainly conceptual or – at the most – results from explorative and contextually limited empirical investigations. So far, the exploration of long-term business relationships has been given considerable interest, especially in the field of relationship marketing (Batonda & Perry, 2003; Akrout, 2014). Most scholars focus their attention on the buyer-supplier perspective (characterized by exchange: product–money), including the benefits gained from developing relationships with customers and suppliers (Dwyer et al., 1987; Meng, 2010; Lee & Johnsen, 2012). At the same time less attention has been given to the evolution of IOR relationships in dyads, networks, or ecosystems considered from a strategic management perspective, e.g., both cooperative and coopetitive relationships linking heterogenous partners. This constitutes an interesting and important research gap.
In particular, the existing knowledge does not adopt a holistic view (Bell et al., 2005), as the majority of prior research findings (Batonda & Perry, 2003) refers to selectively chosen, single phases of IOR development (Jap & Anderson, 2007) and focuses on single countries (e.g., Australia – Heffernan & Poole, 2004; Davis & Love, 2011; Hastings et al., 2016; China – Duanmu & Fai, 2007; the UK – Meng, 2010; Taiwan – Lee & Johnsen, 2012; Portugal – Baptista, 2013; France – Akrout, 2014; Hungary – Mandják et al., 2015; India – Panda and Dash, 2016; Brazil – de Almeida Moraes et al., 2017). Given the state of the art, there is a need for cumulative development of the comprehensive knowledge about the trajectory of IOR development. What is more, the existing stock of knowledge, and the existing pool of empirical studies in particular, build on seminal concepts which are not necessarily valid and appropriate nowadays. It is worth noting that the vast majority of prior works referring to life cycles of inter-organizational relationships (Batonda & Perry, 2003) adopt models based on stage theory (e.g., Ford, 1980; Dwyer et al., 1987; Wilson, 1995). Those models, however, assume that every relationship development occurs in a sequential, incremental, predictable, and irreversible set of stages. This in our opinion does not describe modern, highly dynamic, and networked reality. Indeed, the surrounding business environment is multidimensionally different from this 1980 picture. It is thus desirable to consider if any prior conceptual assumptions should be sustained, and if so, how to do so. We do agree with Ferreira et al. (2017), who claim that the question is how relationships develop over time in such a renewed dynamic context.
In this paper we address the following cognitive gaps: the scarcity of empirical findings on inter-organizational relationships (Jap & Ganesan, 2000), which makes it difficult (although possible) to run comparable studies and develop knowledge; then the deficit of knowledge on the course and specificity of the relationship life cycle (Hastings et al., 2016; Ferreira et al., 2017; Meng, 2010). Further gaps are found around the following: the issue of relationship renewal versus definitive termination (Ferreira et al., 2017), intense focus on only one specific phase of relationship life cycles, a concentration on a single industry or country, the adoption of a static view using only one functional background (Ford, 1980; Dwyer et al., 1987; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994; Wilson, 1995), and the lack of comprehensive studies on cooperative relationships.
Therefore this paper aims at the identification and comparison of conceptual models of IOR development across qualitative studies. To do so it uses the results of systematic (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009), integrative (Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2020), and qualitative metasynthesis (Erwin et al., 2011) of the literature on inter-organizational relationship life cycles (including also works on their dynamics, development (stages, phase, states, steps), evolution, etc.). As a result this study develops an original, multipath, situational framework for the development of inter-organizational relationships over time. We claim that as the developed framework integrates exploratory and contextually different qualitative outputs (Andriopoulos & Slater, 2013) it allows us to make more general (Durach et al., 2017; Okoli, 2015) and comprehensive conclusions (Finfgeld-Connett, 2010) than contextually limited qualitative studies available in the existing literature. As metasynthesis focuses on evidence from the field research (e.g., here the evidence from different case studies) the conclusions drawn as well as the developed multipath model should be seen as practice-based (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Erwin et al., 2011), but still prone to subjectivity bias (Lachal et al., 2017).
Our desk research aims also to present the original, situational, multipath development framework for the inter-organizational relationship. The developed framework covering 4 phases and 11 sub-phases builds on 18 previous qualitative studies on IOR life cycle; thus, it should be seen as integrating dispersed and so far not generalizable qualitative findings into a context-free approach (Erwin et al. 2011; Garip & Kamal, 2019; Melendez-Torres et al., 2015; Sandelowski et al., 1997; Zimmer, 2006). In this paper we point to gaps in the field of knowledge deficit of development paths of long-term IOR: (1) the course and specificity of relationship life cycle; (2) number of phases of business relationships; (3) relationships development over time.
In our reviewing process, we followed a systematic approach to the literature review and used a metasynthesis approach being relatively new in management sciences Zhao et al., 2021).1 Our review shows that prior qualitative findings focused on IOR
All of that makes it impossible to conduct coherent research, and thus to draw general conclusions, provide (even contextually) generalizable results (Finfgeld-Connett, 2010), and finally to cumulatively develop knowledge (Durach et al., 2017). Therefore, we used metasynthesis, in line with the cumulative approach to knowledge creation (Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2020). Furthermore, we saw the metasynthesis technique often overlooked when discussing and using rigorous reviewing methods in social science (Post et al., 2020). Finally, we found it suitable, as there are some qualitative findings while quantitative results are deficient.
Our analytical attention is paid to understanding and comparing the development paths of long-term IOR by identification, interpretive analysis, and comparison of various multi-phase life cycle models. Both the synthesis of prior qualitative evidence, as well as the development of an integrative framework for the non-definitive development path of IOR, contribute to the existing literature since our approach meets the requirements of both cumulative knowledge creation (Bell et al., 2005; Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2020), and advancement of theory (Post et al., 2020).
Our literature review follows a systematic (Okoli, 2015), integrative (Snyder, 2019), and metasynthesis-based (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018) approach. The application of metasynthesis was considered reasonable as prior studies in the field, even though focused on similar topics and compatible research questions, were usually conducted on selectively chosen phases of the IOR development path, and used relationship life cycle (RLC) phases as a context and not as target phenomena, run in different industry and country contexts. Furthermore, all of them were based on case study analyses, being important in terms of the methodological compatibility requirement. Furthermore, metasynthesis helped us to identify knowledge gaps, reveal limitations, and allowed us to deal with knowledge redundancy (Erwin et al., 2011).
In this paper, using typical qualitative concept-centric synthesis (Kraus et al., 2020), we sum up the existing knowledge on the development path of inter-organizational relationships through the determination of the characteristics of RLC models and identification of their typical phases, breaking events, and the conditions underlying their trajectories. Through the above, this paper aims to demonstrate the multipath framework for the development of inter-organizational relationships. As we used metasynthesis, we integrate prior qualitative findings (Erwin et al., 2011; Finfgeld-Connett, 2018) in a way that results in the cumulative (Melendez-Torres et al., 2015) and context-free, thus more generalizable (Finfgeld-Connett, 2010) original framework.
Basically, in our paper we focus on answering two specific research questions:
To find relevant answers (i.e., meeting criteria of replicability, exclusivity, aggregability, and algorithmic character – Denyer & Tranfield, 2009), we carried out SLR using a predetermined protocol consisting of 5 typical phases (Okoli, 2015): (1) setting up the research questions, (2) literature collection, (3) literature screening and selection, (4) content analysis aimed at literature integration, synthesis, and interpretation, and (5) reporting (see Table 1).
The process of SLR
10 pairs of search terms linking “interfirm” AND: “relation* life”, “relation* cycle”, “relation* phase”, “relation* stage”, “relation* process”, “relation* development”, “relation* features”, “relation* characteristics”, “relation* dynamics”, “relation* evolution” 10 pairs of searching terms linking “interorganizational*” AND: “relation* life”, “relation* cycle”, “relation* phase”, “relation* stage”, “relation* process”, “relation* development”, “relation* features”, “relation* characteristics”, “relation* dynamics”, “relation* evolution” |
||||
Search in: title OR abstract OR keywords Publication date: 1998 or later* Publication type: articles published in scientific journals Reviewing procedure: peer reviewed or double peer reviewed Language: English Research areas: Business /Economics /Management |
Exclude conference papers, proceedings, book chapters, scientific announcements, etc. Exclude works not available in full text format. |
|||
Database obtained using searching criteria | 6070 | 35 | 4892 | |
Database obtained using both inclusion and exclusion criteria | 467 | 6 | 156 | |
Identified works in three academic databases | 629 | |||
Duplicated works | 82 | |||
Selection of works was conducted by reading the titles, abstracts, key words (if available), and conclusion part of the papers gathered in the initial database. | ||||
Selected articles – directly referring to our research aim or research questions, the work focuses on B2B relationships and adopts a management perspective. Inspiring articles – indirectly referring to our research aim or research questions, the work focuses on B2C relationships and adopts an interesting perspective on the considered issues (e.g., unknown or unusual for management studies). Not relevant articles – not referring to our research aim or research questions, the work considers issues outside our scope of interest (i.e., random terminology convergence). |
||||
Works marked as selected | 35 | 34 | 32 | 101 |
Works marked as inspiring | 16 | 42 | 30 | 88 |
Works marked as not relevant | 126 | 9 | 115 | 340 |
Duplicated works | 6 | 8 | 4 | 18 |
Added seminal papers *** | 7 | |||
Conceptual aspects analyzed | Definitions adopted, reference theories, main gaps filled, newly identified gaps, and future research directions. |
|||
Methodological aspects analyzed | Research methods and techniques, sample size, study context. |
|||
Criteria of comparative analysis | Number and specificity of phases of RLC, linearity of RLC, renewal (regression) of phases, inclusion of pre-relationship phase(-s), consideration of post-relationship phase(-s), time dependency, breaking/change events for phases and IOR, sources of heterogeneity of IOR, features of RLC. |
|||
Approach to data analysis | Qualitative, concept centric thematic synthesis. |
|||
Dissemination of findings | Dissemination of results. |
* We take the year 1998 as the threshold as it is acknowledged as the year of the birth of the relational approach in strategic management due to a seminal publication by Dyer and Singh (1998) in AoM (cited 15,096 times as of March 2, 2020 in GoogleScholar.com).
** The analysis covered the title (T), abstract (A), and conclusions (C) of every work from our initial database.
*** Following additional SLR methodological assumptions and the specific requirements of the snowball technique, we decided to supplement the final database with the most acknowledged works in a given knowledge area (Akrout & Diallo, 2017; Batonda & Perry, 2003; Dwyer et al., 1987; Ford, 1980; Hagen-Zanker & Mallett, 2013; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994; Waddington et al., 2018; Wilson, 1995).
**** As required in the case of metasynthesis: Sandelowski et al., 1997; Zimmer, 2006; Erwin et al. 2011; Melendez-Torres et al., 2015; Garip & Kamal, 2019; Lachal et al., 2017; Finfgeld-Connett, 2010; Dekker & Bekkers, 2015.
Source: Author’s own work based on Klimas et al., 2020.
The reviewing process started with posing research questions. Those questions resulted from a brainstorming session of our research team and underlined the literature searching process.
When gathering literature, we used 20 pairs of key search words linking
By application of eligibility criteria (i.e., screening criteria – Okoli, 2015) we limited the search results to 101 works. This set of literature has been supplemented by 7 seminal papers from the explored research field. That is how we obtained the screened database covering 108 papers either (mainly) conceptual or empirical. In these articles, only 18 papers presented findings from qualitative studies. As metasynthesis was used as a reviewing technique these were extracted from the screened database to the final database and analyzed in detail. Following methodological requirements and practical guidelines of metasynthesis (Erwin et al., 2011; Melendez-Torres et al., 2015) the analysis of collected qualitative works was focused on integration (i.e., summary, multidimensional comparisons) and interpretation of different multi-phase life cycle models. The collected papers were analyzed using qualitative, thematic, and concept-centric synthesis (Kraus et al., 2020) remaining in line with the qualitative approach to metasynthesis (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018).
The analysis was conducted by considering: the number and iterative character of the phases covered by the life cycle model, the linearity and dynamics of the relationship development path, the subordination of relationship development to passing time (i.e., time dependence), and the approach to breaking events triggering changes of phases. The analysis of prior works was carried out using a qualitative approach with the general aim of deeper understanding of IOR development (Zimmer, 2006). Finally, it meets the criteria of methodological rigor imposed on reviews using systematic approach (Erwin et al., 2011; Garip & Kamal, 2019) and metasynthesis technique (Sandelowski et al., 1997; Melendez-Torres et al., 2015).2
According to the principles of metasynthesis (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018) the selected 18 works published between 2003 and 2019 in 13 different journals were comparatively analyzed (see Table A presented in Appendix I).
The very first conclusion was that the majority of scholars (14 articles) have not investigated the life cycle of inter-organizational relationships per se, but different issues shaping its trajectory, the key features of relationships across relationship development, the changes among those features, factors leading to those changes, success factors, etc. Indeed, in most cases, the development path has been used only as a research context in studies on the changeability, dynamics, importance, and intensity of different relational attributes. In addition, most of the analyzed works (15 out of 18) use just some components from the conceptual ideas presented by Ford (1980), Dwyer et al. (1987), or Ring & Van de Ven (1994). Thus the picture of the IOR development path lacks comprehensiveness and completeness.
Next, the adopted models of the RLC are perceived through either the stages or states theory. Followers of the stages theory (Ford, 1980; Dwyer et al., 1987; Wilson, 1995) note that relationships develop over time in a structured, linear, and predictable manner. On the contrary, supporters of the states theory (Batonda & Perry, 2003; Hastings et al., 2016; Plewa et al., 2013) assume that relationship development is an evolution of unpredictable states as the development path is complex, highly dynamic, iterative, and nonlinear. Furthermore, as relationships develop at qualitatively different speeds and patterns (Plewa et al., 2013), the IOR life cycle is not sequential or definitive (Ferreira et al., 2017). There is a lack of strong (if any) argumentation relying on particular models (not necessarily verified or suitable to present reality) available in the existing literature. Researchers are not consistent in adopting one commonly acknowledged approach, nor in using appropriate terminology remaining in line with the approach adopted.
In the literature we can find the models covering a different number of phases ranging from 2 to 7, or under specific conditions even to 10 (Appendix I). Regardless of the number of the considered phases and the detail in which they are treated, three approaches can be identified: (1) focus on the general evolution of IOR over time (one work: Baptista, 2013), (2) exploration of one intentionally selected phase of RLC (two works: Mandják et al., 2015, and Hastings et al., 2016 – note that both papers focus on relationship birth acknowledged as a preliminary phase of RLC), (3) adoption of a multiphase approach with a stronger or weaker focus on the heterogeneity or changeability of phases (15 works).
Following metasynthesis assumptions, the collected papers were analyzed in terms of general similarities (Appendix I) in IOR development trajectory. Scholars do agree on one point that IOR develops over time across subsequent phases. Any other issues (e.g., the number, the scope, the range, and the changeability those phases) are all perceived differently.
Some of the analyzed models start with a
The first phase of the RLC can be labeled in many different ways, including
It starts with the formal foundation of the relationship. This usually involves testing and ensuring the compatibility of partners in order to ensure that partners will be able to jointly create value (Ferreira et al., 2017). Therefore, in this phase mutual goals are determined, communication processes are developed, and team-building processes are designed and initiated (Hastings et al., 2016). As the organizations are usually unknown to each other, this phase is characterized by high uncertainty and distance but with rapid adaptation (Lau & Goh, 2005). Given intensive intra- and inter-organizational team working processes, this phase is highly personalized, emotionally intensive (Ferreira et al., 2017), and full of fast trust-building processes (Meng, 2010).
The next phase is variably called
After development there is
Next, there is a
Finally, some of the most recent findings (Restuccia & Legoux, 2019) show that advanced relationships, communication, and exchange between actors continues even when formal interactions and agreement finish. These models assume there is no general end to a relationship as some (even incidental) interactions appear and some types of individual bonds remain unbroken. Indeed, as suggested by Hastings et al. (2016) and Ferreira et al. (2017), the life cycle of a relationship does not necessarily end. The majority of analyzed models (11 works) ends with phases referring to ongoing maintenance (e.g., Plewa et al., 2013) or long-term exploitation of relationships (e.g., Akrout, 2014; Baptista, 2013; Lee & Johnsen, 2012).
All in all, relationships are shown as never-ending but replicable (Hastings et al., 2016) and renewable (Batonda & Perry, 2003) as they can switch from a latent or passive form to being actively exploited again (Abosag & Lee, 2013). Interestingly, all of the non-linear models (see Table 2) consider the possibility of relationship renewal (e.g., Ferreira et al., 2017; Hastings et al., 2016). Moreover, some researchers not only assert the importance of a relationship remaining but also consider relationship renewal after a certain period in an inactive state. More specifically, these authors indicate the existence of an additional phase, namely the dormant (Batonda & Perry, 2003) or latent (Plewa et al., 2013) phase, which may lead to re-activation of a relationship (then re-activation, re-born phase can be considered as well) that has remained inactive for some time. A relationship in a dormant state does not mean that the relationship is terminated (finished). Moreover, depending on the particular circumstances, the latent phase can also occur after all of the other phases, including the pre-relationship one (Plewa et al., 2013).
Thus, we claim RLC can develop through ongoing, dynamic, even overlapping or dormant patterns over time (see Table 2). Furthermore, when considering claims about the endless nature of inter-organizational relationships, it is important to point to studies providing evidence that besides continuously maintained non-formal inter-organizational and individual interlinks, formal bonds and exchanges do also occur. In such a vein de Almeida Moraes et al. (2017) explore a post-relationship development path that leads to internationalization, whereas Restuccia and Legoux (2019) investigate post-deployment in relationships aimed at the preservation of warranty promises and ongoing delivery of help-desk services.
In sum, there is no one single, objectively determined, pervasive relationship life cycle model with a commonly acknowledged and comprehensively defined number of phases. Although it should not be surprising given the pluralistic nature of management sciences, the lack of a comprehensive and internally consistent – but not necessarily absolute – view may obstruct relational decision-making processes and thus limit relational capability (Mitręga & Pfajfar, 2015) and the relational rent (Dyer & Singh, 1998). This points to the need for a holistic and coherent view, which may be situational, on IOR development, one which covers a wide range of possible scenarios rather than one universal solution. Indeed, the existing stock of differentiated qualitative findings proves that the relational development path can go in many different directions.
We see the inter-organizational relationship as developing across paths including four distinguishable although not necessarily subsequent and constitutive phases, namely3: (1) initiation and initial development, (2) development, (3) maintenance, and (4) dissolution.
The distinct phases may be consecutive, but there may also be recurrences of previous phases. Furthermore, those phases usually appear on the relationship development path, whereas a particular relationship may bypass certain phases in its development. As actors’ engagement may vary in terms of general interest in a relationship, the individual phases can take three different forms: active (i.e., the typical form of a particular phase in which actors behave actively), passive (i.e., typical activities that are dormant/frozen at least by one actor), or re-activated (i.e., typical activities that are renewed after previously being dormant/frozen) (Table 2).
In its simplest form, the path of relationship development takes the form of a long-term relationship maintenance process (Davis & Love, 2011). It starts with formal relationship establishment (Heffernan & Poole, 2004) and covers longitudinal (or even endless) relationship extension and expansion (Ming-Huei & Wen-Chiung, 2011). Unlike the vast majority of RLC models, the framework of the relationship development path is seen as non-linear, “
The proposed situational approach shows that the IOR development path is highly conditioned by a wide range of issues.
One of the much discussed facets of the uniqueness of relationship development paths refers to the high contextuality of relationship development (Abosag & Lee, 2013; Akrout, 2014; de Almeida Moraes et al., 2017; Batonda & Perry, 2003; Davis & Love, 2011; Duanmu & Fai, 2007; Heffernan & Poole, 2004; Lau & Goh, 2005; Meng, 2010; Panda & Dash, 2016; Plewa et al., 2013; Restuccia & Legoux, 2019). Furthermore, relationships per se are contextual on several levels (Baptista, 2013). First, the macro level covers the country (Hastings et al., 2016; Heffernan & Poole, 2004; Lau & Goh, 2005; Panda & Dash, 2016; Plewa et al., 2013) or national culture (Abosag & Lee, 2013; Akrout, 2014; Batonda & Perry, 2003; Davis & Love, 2011; Duanmu & Fai, 2007; Heffernan & Poole, 2004; Lau & Goh, 2005; Lee & Johnsen, 2012; Meng, 2010). Then, there is the business environment/industry level (Baptista, 2013; Hastings et al., 2016; Panda & Dash, 2016). Next, there are contexts considered in the meso (organizational) level referring to inter-organizational similarity or distance in terms of organizational culture (Lau & Goh, 2005), as well as different proximity dimensions such as cognitive, geographical (Heffernan & Poole, 2004), technological, and social (Lau & Goh, 2005). Last, the firm level, including firm size (Lau & Goh, 2005) and past experience in cooperation (Duanmu & Fai, 2007), as well as the role performed in the relationship (Hastings et al., 2016). Importantly, scholars recommend considering these varied forms of contextualization when investigating IOR (e.g., Akrout, 2014), as the selective consideration of contextualization creates a risk of biased, incomplete, and non-generalizable findings.
The next dimension of the uniqueness of IOR path development is linked to the passing of time and the Overall longevity of relationships (in 8 out of 18 time-dependency is considered). Overall, time is regarded as an essential differentiation aspect to RLC, and the length of phases may vary at particular points of relationship development (Akrout, 2014; Batonda & Perry 2003; Lee & Johnsen, 2012). Furthermore, the general time-span of the entire RLC, including the length of particular phases, may depend on the partners’ types progressing together through the relationship path (Abosag & Lee, 2013; Lau & Goh, 2005). Regarding the above-mentioned contextuality, the time-dependency IOR development path is also considered slightly differently in various cultural contexts, in different geographical scopes (Ferreira et al., 2017), and in various industries (Akrout, 2014) ranging from those that are extremely technologically advanced (Lee & Johnsen, 2012), to those based on traditional and craft skills (Hastings et al., 2016).
Another factor creating uniqueness is differing relationship development dynamics (Baptista, 2013; de Almeida Moraes et al., 2017; Plewa et al., 2013). Relationships (their specific type, role, importance, features, etc.) change significantly over time (Abosag & Lee, 2013; Bell et al., 2005), reflecting both continuous and discontinuous changes in level, intensity, and significance for long-term relationship outcomes (Harmeling & Palmatier, 2019). As argued by Baptista (2013), the dynamics of relationship development are highly conditioned by the shape, scope, and intensity of cooperation as well as the interactions exploited in prior phases of relationship development. Furthermore, the dynamics of development at any given time are also a function of dynamics at an earlier time (see also seminal studies by Dwyer et al., 1987; Jap & Anderson, 2007). At the meso level, the dynamics depend on inter-organizational phenomena. At this level, the dynamics of relationship development can take on different degrees of intensity as they are conditioned by reciprocal and individual expectations (Lee & Johnsen, 2012) as well as by increasing interactions and trust-building processes that develop together with relationship development (Mandják et al., 2015). And at the macro level, the dynamics depend on the general context and environment in which the relationship is utilized (Panda & Dash, 2016).
The fourth aspect relevant when discussing the non-definitive nature of relationship development paths refers to the evolutionary nature of IOR. There is inter-organizational evolution resulting from mutual (formal and informal) adaptation processes, growing engagement, and expanding multidimensional bonds (Baptista, 2013). These outputs lead to a reduction in uncertainty (Hastings et al., 2016), therefore it is claimed that this evolution reflects the flexibility of relationships, which do not always “
Next, relationships are acknowledged as complex (Ferreira et al., 2017; Lee & Johnsen, 2012), but also multidimensional and highly intricate (Ming-Huei & Wen-Chiung, 2011). On the one hand, every relationship is shaped individually as it links at least two interdependent actors, thus it is not entirely controllable. Furthermore, IORs are complex, as they are simultaneously exploited at an individual and an organizational level (Mandják et al., 2015). This means that IORs always link organizations through individual relationships between individuals. Indeed, besides the formal organizational connections, there are always personal relationships (Mitręga & Pfajfar, 2015), thus investigation of any IOR should be supported by social network analysis (de Almeida Moraes et al., 2017). On the other hand, every relationship development pattern is complex as it can cover a wide range of phases that are not mutually exclusive and which can impact one another and be linked in many different ways (Batonda & Perry, 2003; Heffernan & Poole, 2004).
Among other aspects related to the iterative nature of the IOR development path is the linearity issue. Researchers more often underline the non-linear character of their models (e.g., Batonda & Perry, 2003; Ferreira et al., 2017; Plewa et al., 2013) than a linear one (e.g., Akrout, 2014), whereas most often (in 11 of the 18 papers) studies do not specify whether the model is a linear one or not. We claim, however, that the relationship development path is non-linear, as some phases can appear simultaneously while others may not appear at all (de Almeida Moraes et al., 2017). At the same time other phases, like reactivation, regression (Batonda & Perry, 2003), or even the end of the relationship (Hastings et al., 2016), can appear at any time, no matter where on the development path the relationship is. Indeed, a particular development path can be full of many “
A situational and non-definitive approach to the IOR development path finds additional, multilevel support depending on the unit of relationships analysis.
At the individual level, the IOR development path can be shaped by personal relationships (de Almeida Moraes et al., 2017; Quinton & Wilson, 2016) or even bonds (Plewa et al., 2013) existing before IOR and strengthening when IOR is established (Meng, 2010).
At the organizational level, the internal issues (e.g., past experience in cooperation, relational capability) can shape the relationship development as well as the long-term relational performance (Akrout, 2014).
At the inter-organizational level the development path of relationships appears as dependent on the inter-strategic fit of partners (Baptista, 2013; Meng, 2010), but also other dimensions of proximity (e.g., cultural, institutional, geographical, cognitive, technological, and social – Baptista, 2013; Heffernan & Poole, 2004; Lau & Goh, 2005) and ongoing activities such like effective communication (Heffernan & Poole, 2004), mutual risk allocation, teamwork, and joint problem solving (Meng, 2010).
Summing up, we find that every single relationship development path seems to be unique. In our situational approach, we support prior arguments that relationships seldom go through a linear, sequential, and definite step-by-step development process (Batonda & Perry, 2003). We claim it is not possible to model the life cycle of any relationship, as relationship development is by definition attributed to such characteristics as uniqueness, exceptionality, time-dependency, non-linearity, and non-repeatability. It is argued, therefore, that the pattern of relationship development can follow different trajectories.
The aim of this paper was to identify IOR development path conceptual models across qualitative studies and to develop – using those models – an integrated and comprehensive framework for the development of inter-organizational relationships. The outcomes of our review directly targeted the identified gaps. Our study confirms prior claims about no common approach to the development of IOR (Jap & Ganesan, 2000; Hastings et al., 2016; Ferreira et al., 2017; Meng, 2010) as well as knowledge deficit on the course and specificity of the relationship life cycle (Hastings et al., 2016; Ferreira et al., 2017; Meng, 2010) especially on dynamics of IOR collaboration in temporary contexts (van Marrewijk et al., 2016) and the questionable issue of relationship renewal (Ferreira et al., 2017). Our study supports prior claims that the relational development path can go in many different directions. Every single relationship development path seems to be unique; however, some minor patterns or regularities are visible (as shown in Table 2). Our review shows that relationships – explored so far in different cognitive, industry, and country contexts as shown in Table A – seldom go through a linear, sequential, and definite step-by-step development process. Indeed, the development of every IOR is framed by a specific context (Baptista, 2013; de Almeida Moraes et al., 2017) therefore there is no one generic, pervasive model of RLC that always displays identifiable stages or states (Batonda & Perry, 2003). Nonetheless, even though there is no absolute model, the existing qualitative studies when integrated show IOR as developing across a path including four distinguishable, although not necessarily subsequent and constitutive, phases (initiation and initial development, development, maintenance, dissolution). Those phases are not constitutive, as there is always a threat of IOR termination as well as the opportunity for IOR renewal (as suggested for instance by Ferreira et al., 2017; Hastings et al., 2016). The metasynthesis of the existing, qualitatively developed knowledge has shown the development path of IORs as highly contextual, complex, and not self-determined, thus rather emerging than pre-determined, possibly rather non-replicable than repetitive. Indeed, our findings show the life-cycle rather as a metaphor that was useful in the early days of IOR research (the 1980s and 1990s), but which did not hold up later when confronted with the results of qualitative empirical research. This may have been due to the dramatically increasing turbulence of the environment, or perhaps because of the emergence of new evidence in the field, or triggered by a significant development of the relational approach. Whatever the reasons, today the lifecycle appears to be inadequate to IOR dynamics.
Given the terminological perspective, we claim to use the term
We argue that the adopted methodological approach and the identified significant differences between particular relationship development paths (Appendix I) together allow us to draw conclusions on a general but not absolutely universal, generic, fully-defined, or constitutive framework for the IOR dynamics. As shown in Table 2, the relationship development path should be thought of as ranging from relationship establishment (i.e., initiation and early development) to relationship dissolution, considered either as an unending continuation (i.e., without formal cooperation on given goals but with informal bonds) or as a complete ending (i.e., without either formal cooperation or informal bonds).
The proposed multipath framework adopts a situational approach. Thus the IOR development path can take different shapes (i.e., in terms of the content of the relationship and its specific features, and the order and number of phases as these are not constitutive), may take different trajectories (i.e., go through different forms of particular phases, namely active, passive, or re-activated), and may be unique and inimitable due to being highly conditioned by time, different external contexts, and the different characteristics of both relationship development and relationships per se.
Such a multidirectional development pattern of IORs supports prior claims made by Havila and Wilkinson (2002) pointing at three possible, alternative scenarios for the development of the phase of the relationship aftermath (i.e., decreased trust, vanished, and sleeping) determined for instance by the industry type or by the features of IOR. All in all, we argue that it is hard (if even possible) to design an unambiguous development path as relationships develop in an unpredictable, dynamic, and flexible way. Thus every relationship can be seen as unique, unrepeatable, and inimitable.
Our reviewing study addresses two research questions.
RQ1 :
RQ2
This study adds to the popularization of the adoption of metasynthesis in social sciences (Dekker & Bekkers, 2015) which is gaining recently increasing popularity (e.g., organizational psychology – Bazzoli & Probst, 2022; management – Habersang et al., 2019; entrepreneurship – Rauch et al., 2014) but remains quite often overlooked when discussing rigorous reviewing methods in the field of management (Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2020; Post et al., 2020; Snyder, 2019). By using metasynthesis our study focuses mostly on the interpretation of a reviewed, integrated, and summarized stock of knowledge (Erwin et al., 2011) and may be a preliminary step to applying quantitative research that will provide “the big picture” of the IOR life cycle. The analyzed qualitative studies include narrow scopes and restricted research contexts, as the investigations were usually limited to one country, one industry, or one organization. As a result, in the literature, there are a great many “>little islands of knowledge< separated from each other and doomed ultimately never to be visited” (Sandelowski et al., 1997: 367). We hope that by using metasynthesis we were able to offer solutions which remove these limitations (Garip & Kamal, 2019), thus add to cumulative knowledge creation (Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2020) and theory advancement (Post et al., 2020). Moreover, as metasynthesis is claimed to allow researchers to make cross-case generalizations (Sandelowski et al., 1997), our findings can be seen as offering moderatum generalization (Finfgeld-Connett, 2010).
Summing up, the application of metasynthesis allowed us to integrate the fragmented and diverse (or even contradictory, as visible in Appendix I) views on the IOR life cycle and thus to offer – based on their critical and in-depth analysis and synthesis – a multidirectional trajectory of IOR development. Taking into account the methodological advantages of metasynthesis, the proposed framework can be seen as valuable because it is a single, coherent, cumulative proposal developed on the basis of results obtained from desk research of past studies.
Additionally, our research provides a theoretical contribution to the relational view of a firm’s competitive advantage in several ways. We compare and integrate qualitatively explored models of the RLC and we provide definitive evidence for the managerial futility of modeling the life cycle of relationships. As our analyses follow a systematic approach to reviewing the literature, we provide a more in-depth, extensive, and comprehensive summary and comparison of prior works dealing with RLC. In particular, we do not describe and compare the classical approaches (e.g., Ford, 1980; Dwyer et al., 1987; Wilson, 1995) as they are described, compared, and commented on in-depth by Batonda and Perry (2003) and by Mandják et al. (2015). Instead, we show much more specific differences and similarities between prior models than simply the number of phases, theoretical approach, and industry context (Abosag & Lee, 2013; Davis & Love, 2011; Hastings et al., 2016). Indeed, we emphasize the rich description of the IOR development path through presentation and comparisons of different meanings, interpretations, and contexts for what is claimed as required in any kind of qualitative, scientific investigations (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Moreover, as we use a study-based (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018) and integrative (Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2020) approach, we see the proposed multipath framework for the development of inter-organizational relationships as comprehensive and context-free, thus much more general (Finfgeld-Connett, 2010) and applicable in practice. Indeed, the existing (more or less holistic) frameworks resulted from qualitative investigations should be seen usually as highly “
Next to the theoretical and methodological contributions, this paper offers managerial contributions as well. Providing a synthesis of prior findings develops managers’ understanding and awareness of the different approaches to modeling the IOR life cycle. We see this contribution to be crucial, as leveraging such awareness is shown to be important in improving the inter-organizational process by building more effective relational activities (Harmeling & Palmatier, 2019; Hastings et al., 2016; Quinton & Wilson, 2016) leading to higher exchange performance (Shen et al., 2020). Using our findings (Table 2) managers can identify the phase of the particular business relationship, recognize possible options for its further development, and navigate to the best one. Moreover, it should be noted that increasing managers’ awareness increases protection from managerial myopia (including strategic myopia in particular) and thus favors more effective managerial decision-making processes. Moreover, the leveraged understanding and awareness seem to be relevant managerial implications,
Besides the above contributions, we do notice some limitations to our work. First, we should consider a wide range of limitations resulting from the adoption of a systematic approach to literature reviewing (Okoli, 2015). For instance, given our study, we should note that when analyzing the papers we noticed that additional search criteria could have been used, namely “