What is dark about the dark-side of business relationships?

Abstract

Over the last decade or so, the term ‘dark-side’ in referring to business relationships has been increasingly used in academic discourse. Despite such a growth in the number of studies, relatively little critique has been offered among scholars. The fact that effectively managing the dark side of business relationships has potentially greater influence of contributing to inter-organizational success beyond more focus on the positive side necessitates an urgent critique surrounding ‘what is dark about the dark side of business relationships?’ Thus, we aim to provide an overview relating to the ‘dark side’ of business relationships in a quest to generate greater debate on the subject.

Full text

What is Dark about the Dark-Side of Business Relationships?
Ibrahim Abosag
SOAS, University of London
Email: Ibrahim.abosag@soas.ac.uk
Dorothy A. Yen
Brunel University London
Email: Dorothy.yen@brunel.ac.uk
Bradley R. Barnes
Sheffield Business School
Email: b.r.barnes@shu.ac.uk
Abosag, I., Yen, D. and Barnes, B. (2016), “What is Dark about the Dark Side of
Business Relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management, (In Press).
What is Dark about the Dark-Side of Business Relationships?
Over the last decade or so, the term ‘dark-side’ in referring to business relationships has
been increasingly used in academic discourse. Despite such a growth in the number of
studies, relatively little critique has been offered among scholars. The fact that effectively
managing the dark side of business relationships has potentially greater influence of
contributing to inter-organizational success beyond more focus on the positive side
necessitates an urgent critique surrounding ‘what is dark about the dark side of business
relationships?’ Thus, we aim to provide an overview relating to the ‘dark side’ of business
relationships in a quest to generate greater debate on the subject.

1. Introduction
Businesses spend significant amounts of time to build and maintain a host of
relationships with their key stakeholders. Such efforts usually result in positive impact
through increased trust, greater commitment and further relationship cooperation. These
in turn often encourage parties to develop reciprocal norms that enhance value creation
through continuous learning, interaction, as well as promoting psychological closeness
and reciprocity (De Wulf et al., 2001; Palmatier et al., 2009). Thus, it is not surprising to
see that much of the business-to-business literature has been devoted to enabling
relational parties to invest in activities and strategies aimed at building positive
relationships. However, in order to ensure overall success, investing in positive elements
of relationships alone is not enough, as business partners must protect against detrimental
perceptions, actions and behaviours (e.g. Gaski, 1984; John, 1984; Moorman, Zaltman &
Deshpande, 1992; Blois, 1997; Grayson and Ambler, 1999; Hibbard et al. 2001; Barnes,
2005; Anderson & Jap, 2005; Villena, Revilla & Choi, 2011; Fang et al., 2011).
In fact, research from behavioral science suggests that reducing the negative
impacts of the dark-side within the relationship has greater influence on the success of
business relationships than investing purely on the development of positive relationships
(Baumeister et al., 2001). Such the prominent role of the negative elements of business
relationships has encouraged researchers over the past two decades to focus on this area.
While most have only partially examined such negative elements, a few studies have
been purely devoted to this subject (e.g. Gaski, 1984; John, 1984; Mooi & Frambach,
2012; Mysen et al., 2011).
Increased attention on the dark-side of relationships has helped to provide a
greater understanding of the nature of business relations, which often require careful
management. Knowing how negative relational elements impact on relationships is likely
to prove useful for both academic and practitioners. With this aim, this introductory
overview provides a critical discussion of ‘dark-side’ relationships and attempts to answer
the question of what is dark about the dark-side? The introduction proceeds by a
discussion of tolerable, irritating and intolerable dark-side relationships and some
suggestions for future research are provided.

2. What is dark?
Despite the recent widespread use of the term ‘dark-side’ in business relationships, very
little critique of the literature and this subject has been offered. The notion of a ‘dark side’
suggests ‘problems’, ‘challenges’, ‘difficulties’, and ‘drawbacks’ related to structural
issues that exist in business relationships, such as size differences, or the imbalance of
power; processes within business relationships, including creativity issues, capability
development, changes in market dynamics; and outputs, for example performance,
competitiveness and satisfaction.
The term ‘dark-side’ first emerged in the business-to-business literature in the mid
to late 1990s and further work has continued around this theme well into the new century
(Hakansson & Snehota, 1995; Grayson & Ambler, 1999; Barnes, 2005; Anderson & Jap,
2005). Earlier studies did not use this term, but generally referred to a ‘negative side’ that
focused on related constructs (e.g. Gaski, 1984; John, 1984; Moorman, Zaltman &
Deshpande, 1992). Other studies have referred to it as ‘relationship unrest’ (Good &
Evans, 2001), ‘relationship burdens’ (Hakansson & Snehota, 1998), ‘relationship stress’
(Holmlund-Rytkönen & Strandvik, 2005), ‘the adverse sides’ of business relationships
(Strandvik & Holmlund, 2008), ‘relational misconduct’ (Hawkins et al., 2008; Jensen,
2010), and ‘detrimental intentions’ (Pressey, Tzokas & Winklhofer, 2007; Liu et al.,
2014). Anderson and Jap (2005) argued that most relationships that appear strong are
often vulnerable to forces that are quietly going on beneath the surface. Although the
degree of ‘darkness’ can vary in business relationships, in terms of impact and
consequence, the dark-side has a contradictory effect on typically good-functioning
relationships (Burt, 1999).
Often business relationships are neither bright nor dark, but rather represent a
combination of the two. It has long been recognized in the literature that the dark-side is
inspirable from the very meaning of relationships (Hakansson & Snehota, 1998).
According to Hakansson & Snehota (1995) relationships that are valuable in certain ways
may also have some aspects of negativity. Similarly, Grayson & Ambler (1999) pointed
out that relationships can have specific benefits, yet also have their inherent drawbacks.
Furthermore, Samaha, Palmatier & Dant (2011) explain that over time relationships
invariably are damaged and understanding this is critical for long-term success. The dark-

side represents a natural component of business relationships and is unavoidable, but it
can be successfully managed and reduced. Such dark-side effects have also been found to
exist in medium-term (Barnes, 2005), long-term (Grayson & Ambler, 1999), and in close
business relationships (Noordhoff, Kyriakopoulos, Moorman, Pauwels & Dellaert, 2011).
According to Hakansson & Snehota (1998) the risk of such dark-side effects can never be
ruled out, as they are the systematic consequence in terms of the development of such
relationships.
Despite researchers overwhelming recognition of the important of understanding the
dark-side in business relationship (e.g. Hakansson & Snehota, 1995; Grayson & Ambler,
1999; Fang, Chang & Peng, 2011), the degree of darkness can be outlined along a
spectrum of increased darkness. Figure 1 shows the increased spectrum of darkness in
business relationships, by specifically addressing tolerable dark-side and intolerable dark-
side. Immediately above the spectrum are the notions that reflect different degrees of
darkness. Below the spectrum are reactive behavioral traits to the increased darkness.
Figure 1: The Spectrum of Increased Darkness.
Unfairness
Increased
Darkness
Low Uncertainty High Uncertainty
Learning Expected/routine
Conflict
Tension Severe Conflict Opportunistic
Behavior
Relationship
Termination
Adaptation Increased
Distance
Worries of
Misbehavior
Accelerating
Deterioration
Tolerable Dark-Side Intolerable & irritating dark-side
3. The tolerable dark-side
In our view, business relationships are not inherently good or bad but rather, relationships
can produce both simultaneous bright and dark-side effects. Such dark-side effects in
their early appearance may be useful if businesses are capable of effective learning.
However, failure to learn and adapt within business relationships can allow for early
conflict to appear (Ford, 1980). Being tolerable to such dark-side effects may therefore be
essential for managers to realize in order for them to acquire realistic relationship
expectations (Hakansson & Snehota, 1995). Awareness of the sources that can contribute
to the dark-side can help to play a significant role in dealing with their effects on the
relationship. The dark-side can stem from different sources including moderate levels of

moral hazards (Wuyts & Geyskens, 2005), the adverse selection of a partner (Swink &
Zsidisin, 2006), close interpersonal ties (Noordhoff et al., 2011), and imprecise
contractual agreements (Dewatripont & Sekkat, 1991).
However, once the dark-side appears in a relationship, uncertainty immediately
emerges too. The negative impact of environmental uncertainty has been well
documented in the literature (e.g. Geyskens et al., 1998). Relationship uncertainty can be
the outcome of negative interactions, engagement and communications. Uncertainty is
defined as the extent to which a partner has sufficient information to foresee the
consequences of their decisions and enable them to make key decisions with confidence
(Achrol & Stern, 1988). Initial appearance of a dark-side in business relationships leads
to low levels of uncertainty. Thus, through the effective sharing of information and
flexibility in terms of adaptation, levels of uncertainty can be reduced. Failure to
exchange information and an unwillingness to adapt allows uncertainty to increase and
prevents businesses from seeing unanticipated changes in circumstances around the
relationship (Noordeweir et al., 1990). This can often make it more challenging for
predicting partners’ demands and behaviours (Kohli, 1989).
The dark-side frequently results in conflicting views around issues relating to the
relationship. Conflict is a disagreement between partners (Dwyer et al., 1987), yet it can
be resolved as part of on-going business (Anderson & Narus, 1990). Therefore, although
routine and expected conflict can exist in most relationships, it may be useful for helping
business partners to correct, modify and change their ways to enhance value (Wang et al.,
2008). Conflict may arise from differing goals, expectations, or the clashing of cultural
norms (Araujo & Mouzas, 1997). The effective handling of conflict can lead to increased
productivity (Anderson & Narus, 1990), improved creativity (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000;
Gadde & Hakansson, 2010), further relationship benefits (Vaaland & Hakansson, 2003),
and greater value creation (Möller & Törrönen, 2003; Mele, 2011). However, what tends
to matter when trying to resolve conflict is the parties’ attitudes. While positive attitudes
toward conflict enable managers to see its usefulness and long-term benefits for the
relationship (Jehn & Mannix, 2001), negative attitudes increase uncertainty and tension
(Tjosvold et al., 2003). Rose & Shoham (2004) argue that international partners can be
particularly prone to such negative conflict. Meanwhile unresolved conflict can disrupt

learning and impede on the sharing of information (Chang & Gotcher, 2010), which in
turn increases the emotional distance and tension between relational partners.
The impact of the dark-side will increase in relationships when expected and
routine conflicts are not dealt with swiftly or successfully. Tension causes stress and
discomfort (Proenca & de Castro, 2005), provokes unrest (Good & Evans, 2001), and
weakens relationship quality (Dwyer et al., 1987). Dark-side relationships occur when
tensions emerge (Fang, Chang & Peng, 2011). Tension singles the end of two important
factors in relationships. Firstly, it signals the end of harmonization within relationships
that typically involve enhancing trust and future commitment. Secondly, tension can
initiate the weakening of previously strong relationships. The danger of tension within
relationships is that it can serve as a motive for punishing non-cooperative behavior,
adding further costs, wasting opportunities and it has the potential to cause severe and
unrepairable conflict. Studies in sociology have demonstrated a link between tension and
increased conflict (Jensen, 2010). In studying tension, Fang et al. (2011) argued that it
occurs as a result of contradictory goals, resulting in tension imbalance. While this is
helpful for learning more and understanding the role of tension in relationships, there is
an apparent absence of studies focusing on tension in relationships, especially in terms of
its possible effects on dangerous levels of conflict and misbehavior.
4. Intolerable and irritating dark-side relations
Dark-side relationships are characterized by negative attitudes to conflict, high tension,
severe conflict, and the deterioration of trust, commitment and cooperation. Severe
conflict is a clear manifestation of dark-side relationships that are irritating, often costly,
and cause increasing worries of opportunism. Within this literature, high levels of conflict
can be detrimental, leading to reduced productivity, cooperation and performance
(Skarmeas, 2006; Massey & Dawes, 2007; Finch, Zhang & Geiger, 2013). It can also
serve to destroy any value co-creation (Zhou, Zhuang & Yip, 2007; Meunier-Fitz Hug,
Massey & Piercy, 2011; Mele, 2011). High levels of conflict often result in unhealthy
behavior such as hostility, distortion, distrust and withholding of information to the
detriment of the relationship partner (Menon et al. 1996; Grayson and Ambler, 1999;
Selnes & Sallis, 2003; Anderson & Jap, 2005). According to Yang et al. (2012) severe

conflict can have a more negative effect in relationships with high levels of trust than in
relationships with lower levels of trust. Severe levels of conflict reduce loyalty (Plank &
Newell, 2007) and result in less joint decision-making and high uncertainty (Leonidou et
al., 2006). High levels of conflict can encourage greater opportunism leading to a real
chance of relationship dissolution (Halinen & Tahtinen, 2002; Wang et al., 2010; Yang et
al., 2012).
Severe conflict in relationships significantly increases such dark-side effects,
including worries regarding opportunism and an increasing likelihood of misbehavior.
Opportunism is motivated by the desire to independently exploit a relationship for self-
interest or gain and tends to lead to short-term exploitation (Das & Rahman, 2010),
particularly dark behavior so much as it violates existing agreements (Liu et al., 2014).
Weak levels of trust and commitment increase the threat that one of the relational partners
will engage in opportunistic behavior (Caniëls et al., 2010), which in turn can encourage
retaliation and the use of power (Maloni & Benton, 2000).
Many studies have found that opportunism is a true dark force that negatively
influences relationships (e.g. Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Joshi & Stump, 1999; Nunlee, 2005;
Crosno & Dahlstrom, 2008; Yang & Wang, 2013). However, Hawkins et al. (2008, 2013)
argued that opportunism in relationships should be both expected and accepted. There
may also be a need to differentiate between weak and strong forms of opportunism (Luo,
2006), as well as combining moral intensity and ethics. Strong forms of opportunism
violate contractual norms and weak forms violate relational norms (Luo, 2006). Recently,
Jap et al. (2013) questioned whether opportunism causes relationship instability. While
these recent claims require further empirical examination and greater context
specification, overall opportunism is motivated by and leads to greater use of power
(Ireland & Webb, 2007). Power not only leads to opportunism, but it can also destroy
strong collaborative relationships (Maloni & Benton, 2000; Zhuang, Xi, & Tsang, 2010).
Although severe conflict and opportunism can truly drag relationships to the dark-
side which may seriously lead to their termination, another significant negative effect that
can occur at this stage, is perceived unfairness. Samaha et al. (2011, p. 99) claimed that
“perceived unfairness acts as ‘relationship poison’ by directly damaging channel
relationships, aggravating the negative effects of both conflict and opportunism”.

Perceived unfairness motivates actors to take revenge and punishing actions. Fehr &
Gachter (2000) suggest that individuals may go out of their way to revenge against unfair
behavior. Crosno & Dahlstrom (2008) argued that the effects of conflict and opportunism
are contingent on the levels of unfairness, and these were all discussed by Samaha et al.
(2011) as potential ‘relationship-destroying factors’.
The combined effects from these factors can therefore damage and lead to
termination of previously strong and collaborative relationships. While the literature
provides us with a great deal of understanding on how to manage conflict, research on
how to suppress and respond to opportunistic behavior is scant. Similarly, there is an
apparent lack of studies on how to manage perceptions of unfairness and deal with
emotionally charged partners who seek to punish unfair partners.
5. Contributions to this Special Issue
The special issue consists of nine empirical papers from diverse business-to-business
areas. Each paper provides fresh insights and adds new understandings to this area on
dark-side relationships. With the aim to answer whether the dark personality trait, desire
for control, manifests itself through control mechanisms in a manner detrimental to
alliance performance; Musarra, Robson & Katsikeas (2016 – this issue) demonstrate that
a focal firm’s desire for control is positively associated with process monitoring as well
as output monitoring.
Building on theoretical perspectives of organizational capability, organizational
networking and social capital theories, Chung, Wang, Huang & Yang (2016 – this issue)
investigate the boundary conditions of personalized business-to-business relationships
(managerial ties) on business performance. The findings demonstrate the dark side of
political and business ties. Meanwhile Heirati, O’Cass, Schoefer & Siahtiri (2016 – this
issue) examined the conditions under which bright-side benefits of professional service
firms’ interfirm collaboration turn into dark-side drawbacks. The researchers found that
increasing levels of competitive intensity and environmental turbulence encountered by a
professional service firm can diminish the capacity of customer and supplier
collaboration to drive service performance.
In exploring the dark-side of institutionalized creativity within the context of

client-agency relationships, Vafeas & Hughes (2016 – this issue) identify factors that
might suppress the dark-side of such relationships. Using a grounded theory approach to
investigate the dark-side within a logistics outsourcing relationship, Schmitz, Schweiger
& Daft (2016 – this issue) identify four interrelated mechanisms (convincing, tying,
complementing and lock-in) that explain dependence and lock-in from a buyer’s
perspective. In examining dark network tension and specifically the nature of
opportunism in price-fixing cartels, Pressey & Vanharanta (2016 – this issue) found that
network tension is made significantly worse by the illicit nature of cartels and their
opportunistic behaviour.
Meanwhile, in studying the dark side of using reseller networks for providing
after-sales service, Gupta, Väätänen & Khaneja (2016 – this issue) found that the dark
side of network interdependence negatively affects the shared brand-reseller goal of value
co-creation. Moreover, in further researching the dark side effects of value co-creation in
business-to-business service networks, Chowdhury, Gruber & Zolkiewski (2016 – this
issue) discovered that there are negative aspects associated with value co-creation in
advertising service networks. The authors identified role conflict and ambiguity,
opportunism and power as key attributes that influence on the dark side in such value co-
creation activities.
Finally Tangpong, Li & Hung (2016 – this issue) investigated the impact of
reciprocity norms on ethical compromise. Their study revealed that environmental
uncertainty, exchange partner’s retaliatory power status, trust and perceived future gain
opportunity in relationships serve as potential mediating mechanisms on the reciprocity
norm-ethical compromise relationship. Overall, we hope that you will enjoy reading this
Special Issue on the dark-side of business relationships and such studies will encourage
further research in this field for years to come.

6. References:
Achrol, R. & Stern, L. (1988). “Environmental determinants of decision-making
uncertainty in marketing channels”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, No.
1, pp. 36-50.
Anderson, E. & Jap, S. D. (2005).“The dark side of close relationships,” MIT Sloan
Management Review, 46(3), 75-82.
Anderson, J. & Narus J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm
working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-58.
Barnes, B. R. (2005). Is the seven-year hitch premature in industrial markets. European
Journal of Marketing, 39(5/6), 560-581.
Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. & Voks, K. (2001). Bad is stronger than
good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.
Bengtsson, M. & Kock, S. (2000). Coopetition in business networks: to cooperate and
compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29 (5) 411-426.
Blois, K. (2010). The legitimacy of power in business-to-business relationships.
Marketing Theory, 10, 161-172.
Burt, R. S. (1999). Entrepreneurs, distrust, and third parties: A strategic look at the dark
side of dense networks. Shared cognition in organizations, The Management of
Knowledge, 213-243.
Caniëls, M., Gelderman, C. & Ulijn, J. (2010). Buyer-supplier relationship development:
an empirical study among Dutch purchasing professionals. Journal of
Enterprising Culture, 18(2), 107–37.
Chang, K. & Gotcher, D. (2007). Safeguarding investments and creation of transaction
value in asymmetric international subcontracting relationships: the role of

relationship learning and relational capital. Journal of World Business, 42(4), 477-
88.
Crosno, J. L. & Dahlstrom, R. (2008). A meta-analytic review of opportunism in
exchange relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (2),
191–201.
Das, T. K. & Rahman, N. (2010). Determinants of partner opportunism in strategic
alliances: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1),
55-74
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G. & Iacobucci, D. (2001. Investments in consumer
relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of
Marketing, 65, 33-50.
Dewatripont, M. & Sekkat, K. (1991). Producer opportunism in retailing contracts. The
Journal of Industrial Economics, 39(5), 595-620.
Dwyer, F. Schurr, P. & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationship. Journal of
Marketing, 51(2), 11-27.
Fang, S., Chang, Y., & Peng, Y. (2011). Dark side of relationships: A tensions-based view.
Industrial Marketing Management, 40(5), 774-784.
Fehr, E. & Gächter,S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity,
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159–81.
Finch, J., Zhang, S. & Geiger, S. (2013). Managing in conflict: how actors distribute
conflict in an industrial network. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(7)1063-
1073.
Ford, D. (1980). The Development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial markets.
European Journal of Marketing, 14(5/6), 339-353.
Gadde, L-E. & Håkansson, H., (2010). Supply Network Strategies. Chichester: John
Wiley.
Gaski, J. (1984). The theory of power and conflict in channels of distribution. Journal of
Marketing, 48(3), 9-29.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. & Kumar, N. (1998). Generalizations about trust in
marketing channel relationships ssing meta-analysis. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 15, 223–248.

Good, D. J. & Evans, K. R. (2001). Relationship unrest-a strategic perspective for
business-to-business marketers. European Journal of Marketing, 35(5/6), 549-
565.
Grayson, K. & Ambler, T. (1999). The Dark side of long-term telationships in marketing
services.Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 132-141.
Gu, F. F., Hung, K., & Tse, D. K. (2008). When does Guanxi matter? Issues of
capitalization and its dark sides. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 12-28.
Hakansson, H. & Snehota, I. (1995). The burden of relationships or who’s next. IMP 11th
International Conference, Manchester (UK), September 7th-9th, pp. 522-536.
Hakansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1998). The burden of relationships or who's next?, in
Naude P, Turnbull PW, (Eds.), Network Dynamics in International Marketing,
Pergamon, Oxford, 16–25.
Halinen, A. & Tahtinen, J. (2002). A process theory of relationship ending. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(2), 163-180.
Hawkins, T., Pohlen, T. & Prybutok, V. R. (2013). Buyer opportunism in business-to-
business exchange. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(8), 1266-1278.
Hawkins, T. G., Wittman, C. M., & Beyerlein, M. M. (2008). Antecedents and
consequences of opportunism in buyer-supplier relations: Research synthesis and
new frontiers. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(8), 895-909.
Hibbard, J., Kumar, N. & Stern, L. (2001). Examining the impact of destructive acts in
marketing channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 20-65.
Holmlund-Rytkönen, M. & Strandvik, T. (2005). Stress in business relationships. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(1), 12-22.
Ireland, R. & Webb, J. W. (2007). A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in
strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 482-497.
Jap S. D., Robertson, D. C., Rindfleisch, A. & Hamilton, R. (2013). Low-stakes
opportunism. Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 216-227.
Jehn, K. & Mannix, E. (2001).The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal,
44(2), 238-251.
Jensen, (2010). Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation. Philosophical

Transitions of the Royal Society, 365, 2635–2650.
John, G. (1984). An empirical investigation of some antecedents of opportunism in a
marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(3), 278-289.
Joshi, A. & Stump, R. (1999). Determinants of commitment and opportunism:
integrating and extending insights from transaction cost analysis and relational
exchange theory. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 16(4), 334-352.
Kohli, A. (1988). Determinants of influence in organizational buying: a contingency
approach, Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 50-65.
Leonidou, L., Barnes, B. & Talias, M. (2006). Exporter-importer relationship quality: the
inhibiting role of uncertainty, distance, and conflict. Industrial Marketing
Management, 35(5), 576-588.
Liu, Y., Liu, T., & Li, Y. (2014). How to inhibit a partner's strong and weak forms of
opportunism: Impacts of network embeddedness and bilateral TSIs. Industrial
Marketing Management, 43(2), 280-292.
Luo, Y. (2006). Opportunism in inter-firm exchanges in emerging markets. Management
and Organization Review, 2 (1), 121-147.
Maloni, M. & Benton, W. (2000). Power influences in the supply chain. Journal of
Business Logistics, 21(1), 49-73.
Massey, G. & Dawes, P. (2007). The antecedents and consequence of functional and
dysfunctional conflict between marketing managers and sales managers.
Industrial Marketing Management, 36(8), 1118-1128.
Mele, C. (2011). Conflict and value co-creation in project networks. Industrial Marketing
Management, 40(8), 1377-1385.
Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. & Howell, R. (1996). The quality and effectiveness of
marketing strategy: Effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict in
intraorganizational relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
24(4), 299-313.
Meunier-Fitz Hug, K., Massey, G. & Piercy, N. (2011).The impact of aligned rewards and
senior manager attitudes on conflict and collaboration between sales and
marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1161-1171.
Möller, Kristian & Pekka Törrönen (2003). Business suppliers’ value creation potential. A

capability-based analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 32 (2), 109-118.
Mooi, E. A., & Frambach, R. T. (2012). Encouraging innovation in business
relationships-A research note. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1025-1030.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and
users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations.
Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314-328.
Morgan, R. & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Mysen, T., Svensson, G., & Payan, J. M. (2011). The key role of opportunism in business
relationships. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 29(4), 436-449.
Noordeweir, T., John, G. & Nevin, J. (1990). Performance outcomes of purchasing
arrangements in marketing channels: a theoretical perspective. Journal of
Marketing, 54(October), 80-93.
Noordhoff, C. S., Kyriakopoulos, K., Moorman, C., Pauwels, P., & Dellaert, B. G. (2011).
The bright side and dark side of embedded ties in business-to-business innovation.
Journal of Marketing, 75(5), 34-52.
Nunlee, M. P. (2005). The control of intra-channel opportunism through the use of inter-
channel communication. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(5), 515–525.
Palmatier, R., Jarvis, C., Bechkoff, J. & Kardes, F. (2009). The role of customer gratitude
in relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 1-18.
Plank, R. & Newell, S. (2007). The effect of social conflict on relationship loyalty in
business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(1), 59-67.
Pressey, A., Tzokas, N., & Winklhofer, H. (2007). Strategic purchasing and the evaluation
of “problem” key supply relationships: what do key suppliers need to know?
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22(5), 282-294.
Proença, J. & de Castro, L. (2005). ‘Stress’ in business relationships: a study on corporate
bank services. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 23(7), 527-541.
Rose & Shoham (2004). Interorganizational task and emotional conflict with international
channels of distribution. Journal of Business Research, 57(9), 942-950.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C.& Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-
performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61-72.

Samaha, S. A., Palmatier, R. & Dant R. P. (2011). Poisoning relationships: Perceived
unfairness in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 75(May), 99-117.
Selnes, F. & Sallis, J. (2003). Promoting relationship learning. Journal of Marketing,
67(3), 80-95.
Skarmeas, D. (2006). The role of functional conflict in international buyer–seller
relationships: Implications for industrial exporters. Industrial Marketing
Management, 35(5), 567-575.
Strandvik, T., & Holmlund, M. (2008). How to diagnose business-to-business
relationships by mapping negative incidents. Journal of Marketing Management,
24(3-4), 361-381.
Swink, M. & Zsidisin, G. (2006). On the benefits and risks of focused commitment to
suppliers. International Journal of Production Research, 44(20), 4223-4240.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., Ding, D. & Hu, J. (2003). Conflict values and team relationships:
conflict's contribution to team effectiveness and citizenship in China. Journal of
Organizational Behavior. 24(1), 69-88.
Vaaland, T. & Håkansson, H. (2003). Exploring interorganizational conflict in complex
projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 32 (2), 127-138.
Villena, V. and Revilla, E. & Choi, T. (2011). The dark side of buyer-supplier
relationships: a social capital perspective. Journal of Operations Management,
29(6), 561-576.
Wang, Q., Kayande, U., & Jap, S. (2010). The seeds of dissolution: Discrepancy and
incoherence in buyer-supplier exchange. Marketing Science, 29(6), 1109-1124.
Wang, C. L., Siu, N. Y. & Barnes, B. (2008). The significance of trust and renqing in the
long-term orientation of Chinese business-to-business relationships. Industrial Marketing
Management, 37 (7), 819–824.
Wuyts, S. & Geyskens, I. (2005). The formation of buyer-supplier relationships: detailed
contract drafting and close partner selection. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 103-
117.
Yang, D., Sivadas, E., Kang, B., & Oh, S. (2012). Dissolution intention in channel
relationships: An examination of contributing factors. Industrial Marketing
Management¸ 41(7), 1106-1113.

Yang, X., & Wang, Z. (2013). Inter-firm opportunism: A meta-analytic review and
assessment of its antecedents and effect on performance. The Journal of Business
and Industrial Marketing, 28(2), 137–146.
Zhou, N., Zhuang, G. and Yip, L. (2007). Perceptual difference of dependence and its
impact on conflict in marketing channels in China: An empirical study with two-
sided data. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(3), 309-321.
Zhuang, G., Xi, Y., & Tsang, A. (2010). Power, conflict, and cooperation: The impact of
guanxi in Chinese marketing channels. Industrial Marketing Management¸ 39(1),
137-149.