Culture Impact on Perceptions of Communication Effectiveness

Abstract

Early research on relationship marketing highlights the role of communication in shaping trusted and committed business partnerships. Various studies validate communication as one of the strongest determinants of relationship commitment, loyalty, trust and satisfaction. But, few have studied the predictors of communication effectiveness, especially in a global context. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of cooperation, quality communication, conflict handling and two-way communication as predictors of communication effectiveness. The perception of their impact on increasing communication effectiveness is tested in the context of buyer-supplier relationship in one high-context/relationship-based country (Brazil) and one low-context/rule-based country (U.S.). Structural equation modeling is used to test the relationships in the model. Results suggest that suppliers focus more on fostering cooperation when dealing with buyers from low-context countries and on conflict avoidance when dealing with buyers of high-context countries. Across both contexts, results further indicate that buyers are universally influenced by the quality of communication exchanged with their buyers.

Full text

International Business Research; Vol. 10, No. 1; 2017
ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
116
Culture Impact on Perceptions of Communication Effectiveness
Sandra S. Graca1, James M. Barry2
1Assistant Professor of International Business, Collegium of Comparative Cultures, Eckerd College, St.
Petersburg, United States
2Associate Professor of Marketing, Huizenga College of Business, Nova Southeastern University, Fort
Lauderdale, United States
Correspondence: Sandra S. Graca, Assistant Professor of International Business, Collegium of Comparative
Cultures, Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, United States. E-mail: gracass@eckerd.edu
Received: November 7, 2016 Accepted: December 14, 2016 Online Published: December 16, 2016
doi:10.5539/ibr.v10n1p116 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v10n1p116
Abstract
Early research on relationship marketing highlights the role of communication in shaping trusted and committed
business partnerships. Various studies validate communication as one of the strongest determinants of
relationship commitment, loyalty, trust and satisfaction. But, few have studied the predictors of communication
effectiveness, especially in a global context. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of cooperation,
quality communication, conflict handling and two-way communication as predictors of communication
effectiveness. The perception of their impact on increasing communication effectiveness is tested in the context
of buyer-supplier relationship in one high-context/relationship-based country (Brazil) and one
low-context/rule-based country (U.S.). Structural equation modeling is used to test the relationships in the model.
Results suggest that suppliers focus more on fostering cooperation when dealing with buyers from low-context
countries and on conflict avoidance when dealing with buyers of high-context countries. Across both contexts,
results further indicate that buyers are universally influenced by the quality of communication exchanged with
their buyers.
Keywords: communication effectiveness, culture, cooperation, conflict-handling, communication quality
1. Introduction
A wide body of research acknowledges the essential role of communication in building trusted and committed
partnerships. Yet despite its vital function in shaping lasting relationships, very little is known about the complex
interaction of relational behaviors that drive communication effectiveness. Moreover, these interactions are
rarely examined across nations of disparate economies and cultures. This is surprising given the growing
research interest in global contexts as well as evidence suggesting that communication is rooted in culture (Hall,
1976; Hofstede, 2001; Nes, Solberg, & Silkoset, 2007).
1.1 Research Objectives and Questions
To this end, this study examines the impact of relational management behaviors like cooperation, quality
communication, conflict handling and two-way communication as predictors of communication effectiveness in
a cross-cultural setting. Specifically, the impact of these relational behaviors on communication effectiveness is
examined and compared across buyer-supplier relationships in an emerging economy (Brazil) and a developed
nation (U.S.). As explained further, the former provides an examination of communication expectations
characteristic of high-context, relational-based cultures in emerging economies, while the latter permits a
low-context, rule-based perspective that is characteristic of relationships in developed nations. In so doing, this
research attempts to address the following questions:
1. What constitutes communication effectiveness in global settings?
2. How does the culture characteristic of developed and emerging economies impact the influence that
supplier relational behaviors have on buyer perceptions of communication effectiveness?
2. Literature Review
A growing interest in emerging economies such as those found in the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and
China) has led researchers to examine how developed nation firms can penetrate these markets. At stake are the

http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 10, No. 1; 2017
117
investments made in foreign talent, supply chain resources and infrastructure to sustain a profitable relationship.
But, beyond just entry mode challenges, these firms face a myriad of cultural and institutional impediments to
their expansion strategies when attempting to sustain relationships. Confronted with language barriers, high
public mistrust (Li, 2009) and disparate communication styles (Hall, 1976), suppliers of developed nations can
easily underestimate the ongoing relational exercises required to bolster their buyer’s trust. Communication
competence in cross-border partnerships is key for suppliers to successfully increase buyer’s trust in both the
seller and the company.
A great deal of research has been devoted to the study of interpersonal relationship building between partners
spanning developed and emerging nations (Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, 1998). Much relates to the role of
relationship behaviors or the establishment of an exchange climate conducive to successful partnerships (Graça,
Barry, & Doney, 2015). Exchange theory suggests that a healthy exchange climate “removes barriers of risk and
uncertainty while signaling commitment to making a relationship work” (Smith, 1998a, p. 79). But missing in
the research is an in-depth examination of how a healthy exchange climate ensures communication effectiveness,
as the tie that binds relationships (Duncan & Moriarty, 1998; Styles, Patterson, & Ahmed, 2008).
First, the literature review on communication effectiveness is presented, followed by a discussion regarding
relationship behavior, exchange climate and relationship norms. The main predictors of communication
effectiveness, namely cooperation, quality communication, conflict handling and two-way communication are
presented along with their corresponding hypotheses. Finally, the role of culture in communication competency
and effectiveness is examined accompanied by the remaining hypotheses.
2.1 Communication Effectiveness
Sharma and Patterson (1999) describe communication effectiveness as “the formal as well as informal sharing of
meaningful and timely information” (p. 158) with the purpose to inform and educate in an empathetic manner.
They find that communication effectiveness positively impacts the perceived quality delivered by the supplier
and to influence relationship commitment and trust.
Several empirical studies confirm that communication effectiveness accounts for much of the explained variation
in relationship outcomes like commitment (Sharma & Patterson, 1999; Styles et al., 2008) and trust (J. C.
Anderson & Narus, 1990; Z. X. Chen, Shi, & Dong, 2008; Styles et al., 2008). In essence, communication
effectiveness is dependent upon the buyer’s perception of how much the supplier keeps the buyer informed
regarding their orders and explains concepts and recommendations in a meaningful way. We contend that buyer’s
perception is a function of his or her culture and country’s institution orientation. We also contend that what
shapes perception of communication effectiveness is a combination of supplier’s cooperation, quality of
communication, conflict-handling ability and two-way communication.
2.2 Relationship Behaviors, Exchange Climates and Relationship Norms
Aspects of communication quality, conflict resolution and cooperation have been collectively examined as
precursors to successful partnerships in studies of relationship behaviors (Crosby, Evans, & Cowles, 1990; Mohr
& Nevin, 1990; Mohr & Spekman, 1994; Smith, 1998b; Tuten & Urban, 2001) and exchange climate (Graça et
al., 2015; Park, Vertinsky, & Lee, 2012; Robson, Skarmeas, & Spyropoulou, 2006). Characteristics of
communication quality, conflict resolution and cooperation, in these studies, are referred as core attributes of
partnerships well suited for task efficiency, trust building and transfer of tacit knowledge among partners (Park et
al., 2012). Others refer to a communication competence manifested in relationship norms. In this case, two-way
communication and cooperation are two of the social and behavioral factors that govern a buyer-supplier
relationship (Heide & John, 1992; Ketkar, Kock, Parente, & Verville, 2012).
2.2.1 Cooperation
Cooperation denotes a voluntary coordinated action intended to achieve reciprocated outcomes. J. C. Anderson
and Narus (1990) define it as “similar or complementary coordinated actions taken by firms in interdependent
relationships to achieve mutual outcomes or singular outcomes with expected reciprocation over time” (p. 45).
This is a measure of not just how much the supplier helps the buyer, but also the extent to which the buyer’s
company helps the supplier. Cooperation’s main assumption is that mutual outcomes are better achieved as a
joint effort. Although cooperation has not been found to be a direct driver of outcomes such as performance
satisfaction, cooperation is found to be an important factor in the exchange climate of U.S. business partnerships
(Graça, Barry, & Doney, "in press").
From transaction cost perspective, cooperative relationships are seen as economically efficient. Partners can be
expected to achieve channel efficiencies that pave the way for achieving mutual goals through more effective

http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 10, No. 1; 2017
118
communication. A number of studies have found a positive relationship between cooperation and communication
effectiveness both in the U.S. (J. C. Anderson & Narus, 1990; García Rodríguez, José Sanzo Pérez, &
Trespalacios Gutiérrez, 2007) and Brazil (Vieira, Monteiro, & Veiga, 2011). Consistent with their findings, we
posit that:
H1: Greater Cooperation will increase buyer’s perception of supplier’s Communication Effectiveness.
2.2.2 Quality of Communication
Quality of communication demonstrates the supplier’s expertise and competence. It relates to the accuracy,
timeliness and completeness of the information provided to buyers (Mohr & Spekman, 1994). Quality of
communication has been found to improve the quality of relationship between business partners (Graça et al.,
2015). Thus, we posit that:
H2: Greater Quality of Communication will increase buyer’s perception of supplier’s Communication
Effectiveness.
2.2.3 Conflict Handling
“Conflict handling refers to the supplier’s ability to minimize the negative consequences of manifest and
potential conflicts” (Ndubisi, 2007, p. 133). Thus, the supplier’s ability to avoid problems or resolve an issue that
may become a problem is the core of conflict handling. Communication is focused on problem-solving and the
open discussion of solutions to possible problems that may arise. Maditinos, Chatzoudes, and Tsairidis (2011)
found a positive relationship between conflict resolution and communication effectiveness. Consistent with their
findings, we posit that:
H3: Conflicting Handling will increase buyer’s perception of supplier’s Communication Effectiveness
2.2.4 Two-way Communication
Two-way communication relates to the supplier and buyer ability to maintain each other well informed regarding
relevant activities. (E. Anderson & Weitz, 1992; Mohr & Spekman, 1994). Despite mixed findings regarding
two-way communication’s impact on relationship quality, increasing sharing of pertinent information between
business partners contributes to a positive atmosphere, thus we posit that:
H4: Greater Two-Way Communication will increase buyer’s perception of supplier’s Communication
Effectiveness
2.3 The Role of Culture in Communication Competency
Although these proposed relationships between relational behaviors and communications effectiveness are well
founded, their manifestation varies widely across cultures. Indeed ‘‘culture and communication are so intricately
intertwined that they are, essentially synonymous’’ (Deresky, 2008; Ketkar et al., 2012, p. 782). This would
imply that the exchange climate is heavily influenced by culture or the “the collective programming of the mind
distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 5). A number
of studies have in fact demonstrated how cultural distance and cultural sensitivity impacts the flow of
communication leading to trustworthy relationships (LaBahn & Harich, 1997; Nes et al., 2007).
But an understanding of the communication style adaptations required to suit different cultures is sorely lacking
due to the underexplored mechanisms in inter-organizational relations (Nes et al., 2007) as well as the many
cultural intricacies used to distinguish nations in the context of communication behaviors. According to (Griffith
& Harvey, 2001), ‘‘the lack of research on intercultural communications’ role in influencing global relationships
development within an inter-organizational network is surprising given the importance of relationships
development in the global marketplace and the underlying role of communication in facilitating development’’
(p. 88).
In the specific case of comparing relationship success between partners of developed nations with BRIC nations,
the literature suggests the following conceptual abstractions when examining inherent cultural differences:
1. Institutionalism – the extant of rule-based (developed nations) vs. relationship-based governance (BRIC
nations) stemming from a society’s informal institutions (Li, 2009).
2. Context – the degree to which communication is high-context (BRIC nations) or low-context
(developed nations) in its relationship building (Hall, 1976).
3. Collectivism/individualism – the degree to which the society is characterized as collectivist (BRIC
nations) or individualistic (developed nations) in its approach to relationship building (Hofstede, 2001).

http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 10, No. 1; 2017
119
4. Power distance – the degree to which societies are characterized as hierarchical (BRIC nations) or
distributed equally (developed nations) as perceived by lower level members (Hofstede, 2001).
As described further, each explanation for inherent cultural distinction characterizes BRIC nations as being
inherently more relational and developed nations as being more task oriented. Consequently, the distinct motives
for creating exchange climates conducive to communication effectiveness may result in widely different
expectations for relationship management behaviors. BRIC nations will likely see communications as an
indication of their partner’s trustworthiness; an interpersonal perspective. Firms from developed nations, on the
other hand, will likely appreciate how effective communication contributes to operational efficiencies (Graça et
al., "in press"). Shown in Table 1 is a summary of the distinctions inherent in cross-cultural partnerships between
firms of developed and BRIC nations.
Table 1. Cultural Distinctions Between Develop and BRIC Nations
Cultural Dimension
Relationship Marketing Impact Source(s)
Developed Nation BRIC Nations
INDIVIDUALISM COLLECTIVISM
Relational Motivation
Task prevails over relationship;
transaction oriented (i.e., focus on
results)
Relationship prevails over task (e.g.,
focus on process)
(Hofstede, 2011; Kawar,
2012)
Knowledge Interests Explicit attributes of knowledge
(concerned with rationality)
Tacit knowledge (e.g., history, norms
& embedded knowledge interpreted
through cultural context)
(Möller & Svahn, 2004)
Preferred Governance Governance through economic
instruments (e.g., legal contracts)
Governance through personal ties,
relationship norms & involvement
(Ketkar et al., 2012; Li, 2009;
Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990)
Trust Formation
Trust is a calculative process
(individualists make a cost-benefit
analysis of working with other party;
based on evidence of competence)
Trust is a predictive process
(members seek behavioral
conformity; based on evidence of
benevolence)
(Doney et al., 1998)
Preferred Mode of
Communication
Low levels of social interactions (e.g.,
written, digital communications) Extensive face-to-face interaction
(Erez & Earley, 1993; Ketkar
et al., 2012; Li, 2009; Möller
& Svahn, 2004; H. Triandis,
1995)
Scope of Interaction Interaction restricted to
economic-driven matters
Regularly engage in in-group
activities
(Gregory & Munch, 1997;
Hui & Triandis, 1986; Ketkar
et al., 2012)
Partnering Motivation Reduce threat of opportunism and
transaction costs
Desire for close ties & formation of
in-groups
(Steensma, Marino, Weaver,
& Dickson, 2000)
Achievement Inherently competitive, restrained,
decision driven Inherently collaborative, cooperative
(C. C. Chen, Chen, &
Meindl, 1998; Hewett &
Bearden, 2001; Kawar, 2012)
LOW POWER DISTANCE HIGH POWER DISTANCE
Communication
channel barriers
Few barriers to knowledge sharing &
information processing Restricted to hierarchical lines
(Möller & Svahn, 2004; H.
C. Triandis, Bontempo, &
Villareal, 1988)
Information disclosure Voluntary (e.g., freedom to choose what
is disclosed)
Expected to be open (e.g., more
secret-sharing) (Ndubisi, 2011)
Conflict resolution style Collaborating or compromising style Contending, accommodating,
avoiding style
(Posthuma, White III,
Dworkin, Yánez, & Stella
Swift, 2006)
LOW CONTEXT HIGH CONTEXT
Frankness Direct, explicit Indirect, circuitous (e.g., protection of
face) (Kawar, 2012)
Message context Emphasis on content (e.g., facts,
numbers, ratios, statistics)
Emphasis on context (e.g.,
experience, intuition, the
relationship)
(Kawar, 2012)
RULE-BASED RELATION-BASED
Dealing with
uncertainty Laws Personalism & connections (Möller & Svahn, 2004)
Cooperation motive Seek economic rewards & reciprocation Internalize the value of cooperation
(e.g., feel morally rewarded) (Li, 2009)
Public information trust High reliability of publicly disclosed
information
Low trust in publicly disclosed
information (Li, 2009)
Conflict resolution
Reliance on public enforcement (e.g.,
contracts & fair judges) to resolve
disputes
Reliance on private enforcement to
resolve disputes (Li, 2009)

http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 10, No. 1; 2017
120
2.3.1 Relation-based versus Rule-based Behaviors
Researchers in international business strategy argue that economic development and business activities in
emerging markets stall when foreign entrants from developed nation firms underestimate the complex interaction
of the political, legal and economic institutions in a society. In effect, the stall can be attributed to the inability of
developed nation firms to appreciate the larger context of competitive forces stemming from a society’s
institutional environment. According to Li (2009), “governance mechanism chosen by a firm is not entirely up to
the firm; it is primarily determined by the dominant environment of the society in which they conduct business”
(p. 4). Consequently, institutions are often assumed as background factors in developed nations where firms
operating out of stable, market-based institutional environments can easily dismiss society effects when plotting
their IB strategy.
But how different countries conduct their exchanges goes beyond a mere appreciation of the formal institutional
factors. Culture, in particular, is viewed “as a part of the informal institutions in the environment that underpin
formal institutions” (Peng, Wang, & Jiang, 2008, p. 922). According to Li (2009), culture interacts with the
political, legal and economic institutions in a society and affects both economic development and business
activities collectively in that society. Consequently, advocates of the institutional view of IB strategy would
argue that a sensitivity towards and facilitation of this complex interplay of culture and formal institutional
environments can help developed nation partners of emerging nation firms improve partnership growth while
stimulating the economic growth of the society in the process.
The key to grasping this complex interplay of institutional environments on internationalization is an
appreciation of the rule-based, relation-based or family-based governance mechanisms that guide a firm’s
business activities. As explained further, developed nations operating under rule-based governance will revert to
many traditional strategy mechanisms that create efficiencies at the exchange level. Emerging nations operating
under relation-based or family-based environments, on the other hand, will seek interpersonal relationships from
their exchange partners that offset the general mistrust in people stemming from deficiencies in rule-base
governance (Graça, Barry, & Doney, 2016),
As summarized in Table 1, these varying levels of public mistrust among firms of developed and BRIC nations
suggests that their motives for and approaches to working together are quite difference. Emerging nation firms
will develop healthy exchange climates to shore up a trust deficiency while building a network of personal
relationships to secure reliable information and help resolve conflicts. Developed nation firms will build healthy
exchange climates to gain operational efficiencies (Graça et al., "in press").
2.3.2 Collectivist versus Individualistic Behaviors
A common characteristic of emerging nations is their collectivist culture. Hofstede (1983) found a negative
correlation between a nation’s GDP per capita and its collective orientation suggesting that undeveloped and
developing nations have a greater cohesion to their social groups as their survival depends on it. In fact, all BRIC
nations score high in collectivism. Developed nations like the U.S. on the other hand score high on
individualism.
As demonstrated in Table 1, the high self-orientation of firms operating out of individualistic nations results in
their having a greater task orientation than their collectivist counterparts. Individualists are driven more by cost
benefit calculations in their cooperative pursuits with partners. Communication in partnership setting is
perceived as a necessity for ensuring adequate information transfer and the reduction in transaction costs.
Similarly, tight cooperation among partners is seen as permitting more efficient sharing of information. This
penchant for efficiency often trumps concerns for interpersonal ties. Collectivists, on the other hand, see
communications as a way to gauge the trustworthiness of their partners. Stressing the priority of group goals
over their own, they are more willing to cooperate, avoid conflict, and emphasize harmony (Rego & Cunha,
2009).
2.3.3 High versus Low Power Distance
Another dimension of Hofstede (2001) used to demonstrate distinctions in communicative behaviors is that of
power distance. This dimension describes how individuals of a certain cultural class view power relationships
(e.g., between superiors and subordinates). Those buyers in nations of high power distance accept that power is
spread unequally. Consequently, as demonstrated in Table 1, communications and cooperation can be rather
restrictive. As explicit direction is normally taken from superiors, these firms restrict their flow of information to
select in-groups. Buyers from developed nations characterized by low power distance feel less restricted to share
information horizontally. Their individualistic natures, on the other hand, suggest that such a free flow of sharing

http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 10, No. 1; 2017
121
is often explicit in nature and is conducted for expectations of reciprocal gains.
2.3.4 High-context versus Low-context Communication
One way to study the role of communication within cultural contexts is to view cultures on a continuum from
low to high context. Hall (1976) defines two distinct cultures in the world in terms of how they communicate and
interact in relationships. Essentially, he proposes that culture affects every aspect of communication mechanisms,
categorizing countries as belonging to either high-context or low-context cultures (Graça et al., "in press").
In high-context cultures, the message is implicit and individuals rely more heavily on the circumstances
surrounding the situation to convey and derive meaning. Social cues and body language are used as part of the
message; thus how the message is said is more important than what is said. Because meaning is often implicit,
lengthy and literal explanations as well as detailed contracts are not desired and for the sake of harmony, ‘no’
often means ‘maybe’(Hall, 1976).
In low-context cultures, the message is explicit and emphasis is placed on the literal meaning of the word.
Communication is direct and to the point. Individuals in low-context cultures are often described as logical,
factual and direct, placing much emphasis on the accuracy of written and spoken language (Hall, 1976). In
low-context societies, “discussion is a means to an end: the deal” (Hall & Whyte, 1960) and meetings serve as a
place for negotiating the terms of the contract. Therefore, cooperation is vital in low-context cultures where
participants express their opinions openly and objectively in order to arrive at a decision (Hooker, 2012).
Research suggests that the importance placed on cooperation as a precursor to communication effectiveness
should be influenced by the culture of a buyer’s nation of operation. According to (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, &
Neale, 1998), cooperation emphasizes group accomplishments; so it is generally considered to be a collectivistic
trait. But Leonard, Cosans, Pakdil, and Collaborator (2012) study of cooperation across 16 cultures; however,
failed to show that cooperation is more valued in some cultures than others.
To effectively understand how culture impacts the influence that cooperation has on communication
effectiveness requires a more in-depth understanding of buyer motives to cooperate. Being more economically
motivated, buyers of developed nations likely see the benefits of cooperation from a task and transaction cost
perspective. This motive is supported by Western research proposing that a reduction in communication barriers
during cooperation reduces overall organizational costs (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Leonard et al., 2012).
When cooperation is viewed as a means to accomplish individual interests and goals, further gains will likely be
made in communication effectiveness as suppliers do their part in creating efficiencies. This perspective requires
that buyers convince their supplier counterparts that working together is required to accomplish a specific task.
Since emerging nation buyers have a more in-group and interdependent view of their working relationships, they
likely view cooperation as a means of creating harmony. But the high context nature of their communications
suggests that proactive efforts to cooperate may only add to tacit knowledge and trust building. And because of
the culture characterized as having high power distance, buyers of emerging nations may not feel compelled to
participate in the open sharing of information across horizontal boundaries. Their cooperation is often restricted
to in-group members and superiors. In their study of collaborative behaviors across cultures, Song, Xie, and
Dyer (2000) demonstrated that “the positive effect of participative management on the use of collaborative
behaviors is stronger in the U.S. and U.K. firms than in Japanese and Chinese (Hong Kong) firms” (p. 62).
Consistent with these findings, we expect that:
H5: Cooperation’s positive impact on Communication Effectiveness will be greater in the U.S.
H6: Quality Communication’s positive impact on Communication Effectiveness will be greater in the U.S.
The concept of ‘saving face’ is widely practiced by emerging nation firms, especially in business settings and
negotiations. According to Li (2009), conflicts in relational societies are not protected by laws and information.
Consequently, individuals in high-context nations avoid at any cost saying anything that might offend a business
counterpart, especially when decisions are discussed, conflicts must be resolved in an amicable manner (Hooker,
2012). In addition, Stone, Levy, and Paredes (1996) point out that conflict resolution, uncertainty and frequent
renegotiation increase the transaction cost of doing business in Brazil.
Firms from developed nations, on the other hand, have less of a conflict avoidance and more of a collaborative
conflict resolution style as demonstrated by Posthuma et al. (2006). Guarded by the objective standards outlined
in their legally binding contracts, buyers of developed nation firms are not always concerned with avoiding
conflict. Coupled with the aggressive and competitive nature rooted in their individualism, they are less
compelled to save face. Much of this apparent insensitivity towards harmonizing stems from having more of a

http://ibr.cc
task and l
e
p
rocess al
m
frank in t
h
resolved
b
Therefore
,
H
7
: Confl
i
H
8
: Two-
W
3. Metho
d
Data were
chamber
o
data was
a
b
ias and
d
not find s
t
and 110 B
r
Tab l e 2 . S
a
The origi
n
assure co
n
meaning
o
Measures
reliability
scores we
r
& Anders
o
than corre
l
Tab l e 3 su
senet.org
e
ss of a relati
o
m
ost excludes
h
eir conflict
d
b
y what are re
g
,
we expect th
e
i
ct Handling’s
W
ay Communi
d
olo
gy
and R
e
collected via
o
f commerce i
n
a
lso collected
d
ifferences bet
w
t
atistically sig
n
r
azilian respo
n
a
mple Compo
Le
n
US
B
R
Re
s
US
B
R
M
a
US
B
R
n
al survey wa
s
n
sistency in m
e
o
f the survey i
t
were adapte
d
and validity
f
r
e greater tha
n
o
n, 2010). Di
s
l
ations betwe
e
u
mmarizes the
o
nal orientatio
n
partner empa
t
d
ealings. Part
i
g
arded as obje
c
e
following:
positive impa
c
cation’s positi
e
sults
electronic sur
v
n
the U.S. an
d
via paper que
w
een the mea
n
n
ificant differ
e
n
dents. Sampl
e
sition
n
gth of Relatio
n
A Samp le
R
AZIL Sample
s
ponsible for P
A Samp le
R
AZIL Sample
a
in Offering
A Samp le
R
AZIL Sample
s
administered
e
aning when a
t
ems and teste
d
from semin
a
f
ollowing J.
C
n
0.70 for eac
h
s
criminant val
i
e
n distinct var
i
reliability and
Internati
o
n
. And as sho
w
t
hy from the
e
i
es who disa
g
c
tive standard
s
c
t on Commu
n
ve impact on
C
Figure 1
.
v
ey from buy
e
d
one chambe
r
stionnaire du
e
n
s of early an
d
e
nces (Armst
r
e
composition
n
ship with Su
p
urchase
in the USA i
n
dministered i
n
e
d the instrum
e
al studies in
C
. Anderson a
n
h
scale indicat
i
i
dity is demo
n
i
ables. The re
s
validity tests
o
nal Business
R
122
wn in Table 1
e
quation. Inste
g
ree state thei
r
s
.
n
ication Effec
t
C
ommunicati
o
. Hypothesize
d
e
rs, managers
a
r
of commerc
e
e
to the low r
e
d
late as well
r
ong & Overt
o
is summarize
d
p
plier 1
–
5
Y
39.05
%
47.27
%
Buyer
82.80
%
80.00
%
Produ
c
40.80
%
61.80
%
n
English and
t
n
Brazil. We al
e
nt in both co
u
the fields of
n
d Gerbing (1
i
ng internal c
o
n
strated as cor
r
s
ulting survey
for the final s
c
R
esearch
, the calculati
v
ad, developed
r
views open
l
t
iveness will b
e
o
n Effectivene
s
d
Model
a
nd business o
w
e
in Brazil vi
a
e
sponse rate o
n
as electronic
v
o
n, 1977). Th
e
d
in Table 2:
Y
rs 6
–
10 Yr
s
%
37.87%
%
31.82%
Non-buy
e
%
17.20%
%
20.00%
c
tService
%
66.90%
%
55.50%
t
ranslated and
l
so sought the
a
u
ntries (Malh
o
f
communicat
i
988) two-ste
p
o
nsistency of t
h
r
elations betw
e
scales and ori
g
c
ales in the st
u
v
e nature of t
h
nation firms
a
l
y, because t
h
e
greater in B
r
s
s will be gre
a
wners who w
e
a
three separat
e
n
line. We test
e
v
ersus paper r
e
e
final sample
s
11 > Yrs
23.08%
20.91%
e
r
Both
24.85%
17.27%
bac
k
-translat
e
a
dvice of exp
e
o
tra, Agarwal,
i
on and they
p
approach. C
o
h
e measures (
H
e
en the same
v
g
ins are inclu
d
u
dy.
Vol. 10, No. 1;
h
eir trust for
m
a
re often dire
c
h
eir difference
r
azil.
a
ter in Brazil.
e
re members o
e
emails. In B
e
d for nonres
p
e
spondents an
included 169
e
d to Portugu
e
e
rts in Brazil
o
& Petersen, 1
were assesse
d
o
mposite relia
b
H
air, Black,
B
v
ariables are
l
d
ed in Appen
d
2017
ation
t and
s
are
f one
r
azil,
p
onse
d
did
U.S.
e
se to
n the
9
96).
d
for
b
ility
abin,
arger
ix A.

http://ibr.cc
Tab l e 3 . C
Conflict R
e
Quality of
Two -wa y
C
Cooperati
o
Communi
c
The relati
o
measure
m
4 summar
i
Tab l e 4 .
R
Theoretic
a
H
1 & 5
: Co
o
H
2 & 6
: Co
n
H
3 & 7
: Qu
a
H
4 & 8
: Tw
o
M
odel Stati
s
R
2
for
C
Notes: ***
p
Model Fit:
χ
Shown in
results in
difference
s
Two-way
from the
supplier’s
communi
c
effectiven
e
4. Mana
ge
Results in
d
effectiven
e
communi
c
healthy as
p
senet.org
ross-cultural
S
S
cale Na
m
e
solution
Communicatio
n
C
ommunication
o
n
c
ation Effective
n
o
nships in th
e
m
ent models d
e
i
zes the result
s
R
esults of the
m
a
l Variables
o
peration
n
flict Resolution
a
lity of Commu
n
o
-Way Commun
s
tics
C
ommunication
p
< 0.01; ** p <
χ
2 (279) = 72.11
Figure 2 are
Brazil. All
v
s
(p < .10) bet
w
communicati
o
model. Resul
t
communicati
o
c
ation effecti
v
e
ss as its imp
a
e
rial Discussi
o
dicate that m
a
e
ss in emerg
i
c
ation effectiv
e
p
ect of busin
e
S
ample Statist
i
m
e
n
n
ess
e
model were
e
monstrate ad
e
s
.
m
ulti-group an
a
n
ication
ication
Effectiveness
.05; * p < 0.10;
, p<.01; CFI = .
the model re
s
v
alues are sig
n
w
een the two
c
o
n was not fo
u
t
s show that
o
n effectivene
s
v
eness in Bra
z
a
ct is not signi
f
o
n
a
nagers shoul
d
i
ng versus d
e
e
ness in the
U
e
ss negotiatio
n
Internati
o
i
cs for Measu
r
Mean
5.49
5.66
5.08
5.00
5.49
tested simult
a
e
quate fit to th
e
a
lysis and pai
r
→ Co
m
Ef
f
→ Co
m
Ef
f
→ Co
m
Ef
f
→ Co
m
Ef
f
.96
β = standardiz
e
98; IFI = .98; T
L
s
ults. The firs
t
n
ificant unles
s
c
ountry group
s
Figure
2
u
nd to be a pr
e
cooperation
b
s
s greater in t
h
z
il. Quality
C
f
icantly differ
e
d
be cognizan
t
e
veloped mar
k
U
.S. more tha
n
n
and are mor
e
o
nal Business
R
123
r
es
United States
S
.D. CR
1.04 0.8
9
1.41 0.9
5
1.01 0.9
1
1.32 0.9
1
1.22 0.8
9
aneously usi
n
e
data exhibi
t
i
r
wise compari
s
m
munication
f
ectiveness
m
munication
f
ectiveness
m
munication
f
ectiveness
m
munication
f
ectiveness
US
.77
e
d parameter es
t
L
I = .97; RMS
E
t
numbers rep
r
s
otherwise
n
s
.
2
. Model Res
u
e
cursor to co
m
b
etween buye
r
h
e U.S. Also,
C
ommunicatio
n
e
nt between th
e
t
of the differ
e
k
ets. Cooper
a
n
in Brazil. B
u
e
used to dire
c
R
esearch
AVE
9
0.732
5
0.822
1
0.719
1
0.835
9
0.797
n
g structural e
i
ng convergen
t
s
on tests
β
U
.45
.27
.38
n
Brazil
t
imates; Z = crit
E
A = .05 1
r
esent U.S. r
e
n
oted. Parame
t
u
l
t
s
m
munication
e
r
and supplie
r
conflict hand
l
n
is a univer
e
two groups.
e
nces in perc
e
a
tion is foun
d
u
yers in devel
o
c
t communicat
B
Mean
S
.D.
5.42 .92
5.55 1.21
5.06 1.06
4.60 1.55
5.64 1.25
quation mode
t
validity for
b
β
.S.
β
Bra
z
*** .1
8
*** .57*
*** .26*
n
/s n/s
ical ratio score
s
e
sults while t
h
t
ers in bold
i
e
ffectiveness
a
r
increase bu
y
l
ing is the gre
a
sal predictor
e
ptions regard
i
d
to increase
o
ped countrie
s
ion. However
,
Vol. 10, No. 1;
B
razil
CR
A
0.787 0
0.899 0
0.809 0
0.874 0
0.833 0
ling software
.
b
oth samples.
T
z
il
Z
Score
s
8
-2.466
*
* 1.949
*
* -0.57
0
s
h
e second rep
r
i
ndicate signi
f
a
nd it was re
m
y
er’s percepti
o
a
ter determin
a
of communi
c
i
ng communi
c
the percepti
o
s
view conflic
t
,
cooperation
i
2017
A
VE
.558
.691
.523
.778
.725
The
T
able
s
*
*
*
0
e
sent
f
icant
m
oved
o
n of
a
nt of
ation
ation
o
n of
t
as a
i
s not

http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 10, No. 1; 2017
124
always present and is regarded very highly by U.S. buyers. Cooperation is a more effective technique to increase
communication effectiveness and manager are recommended to help buyers with anything they may request.
On the other hand, direct communication is often construed as ‘conflict’ in high-context cultures, thus
conflict-handling is regarded as the most important aspect of communication in Brazil. ‘Saving-face’ is widely
practiced and suppliers are advised to avoid controversies and find solutions to issues before they become
problems.
Universally, managers and suppliers should pay great attention to the quality of communication provided to
buyers. Both U.S. and Brazilian buyer’s perception of communication effectiveness is positively influenced by
the accuracy, timeliness and completeness of information being exchanged.
5. Limitations and Future Research
Although the insights revealed in this study are promising, a number of limitations restrict its generalizability
and relational outcome scope. The derivation of this study’s comparative results from a sample of only two
countries limits its extendibility to all developed and developing nation dyads. Opportunities for future research
include testing the model in other BRIC countries such as China, India and Russia and developed countries such
as Canada and the U.K. Future studies of communication effectiveness outcomes are also encouraged. An
extension of the model to constructs like trust, commitment and satisfaction, for example, could shed light on
how communication effectiveness contributes to lasting partnerships.
References
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. A. (1992). The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution
channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172490
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships.
Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-58. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252172
Armstrong, S. J., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing
Research, 14(3), 396-402. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150783
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 71.
Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: The
influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 749-780. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393615
Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of
individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2),
285-304.
Chen, Z. X., Shi, Y., & Dong, D. H. (2008). An empirical study of relationship quality in a service setting: A
chinese case. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(1), 11-25.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500810847129
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services selling: An interpersonal
influence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 68-81. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251817
Deresky, H. (2008). International management: A cross managing borders and cultures (6th ed.). USA: Pearson.
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the
development of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 601-620.
Duncan, T., & Moriarty, S. E. (1998). A communication-based marketing model for managing relationships.
Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252157
Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work: Oxford University Press on Demand.
García, R. N., José, S. P. M., & Trespalacios, G. J. A. (2007). Interfunctional trust as a determining factor of a
new product performance. European Journal of Marketing, 41(5/6), 678-702.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710737688
Graça, S., Barry, J., & Doney, P. (2015). Performance outcomes of behavioral attributes in buyer-supplier
relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(7), 805-816.

http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 10, No. 1; 2017
125
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-04-2014-0072
Graça, S., Barry, J., & Doney, P. (2016). B2b commitment building in emerging markets: The case of Brazil.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 36(2), 105-125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2016.1188708
Graça, S., Barry, J., & Doney, P. ("in press"). An institutional view of the communication flows between
relation-based and rule-based countries. International Journal of Emerging Markets, Forthcoming.
Gregory, G. D., & Munch, J. M. (1997). Cultural values in international advertising: An examination of familial
norms and roles in Mexico. Psychology & Marketing, 14(2), 99-119.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199703)14:2<99::AID-MAR1>3.0.CO;2-I
Griffith, D. A., & Harvey, M. G. (2001). A resource perspective of global dynamic capabilities. Journal of
International Business Studies, 32(3), 597-606. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490987
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New Jersey:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Hall, E. T., & Whyte, W. F. (1960). Intercultural communication: A guide to men of action. The International
Executive, 2(4), 14-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.5060020407
Heide, H. B., & John, G. (1992). Do norms matter inmarketing relationships? Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 32-44.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1252040
Hewett, K., & Bearden, W. O. (2001). Dependence, trust, and relational behavior on the part of foreign
subsidiary marketing operations: Implications for managing global marketing operations. Journal of
Marketing, 65(4), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.4.51.18380
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International
Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490867
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology
and culture, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hooker, J. (2012). 19 cultural differences in business communication. The handbook of intercultural discourse
and communication, 29, 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118247273.ch19
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism a study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of
cross-cultural psychology, 17(2), 225-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002186017002006
Kawar, T. I. (2012). Cross-cultural differences in management. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 3(6), 105-111.
Ketkar, S., Kock, N., Parente, R., & Verville, J. (2012). The impact of individualism on buyer–supplier
relationship norms, trust and market performance: An analysis of data from brazil and the USA.
International Business Review, 21(5), 782-793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.09.003
LaBahn, D. W., & Harich, K. R. (1997). Sensitivity to national business culture: Effects on u.S.-mexican channel
relationship performance. Journal of International Marketing, 5(4), 29-51.
Leonard, K. M., Cosans, C., Pakdil, F., & Collaborator, C. (2012). Cooperation across cultures: An examination
of the concept in 16 countries. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(2), 238-247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.006
Li, S. (2009). Managing international business in relation-based versus rule-based countries. New York, NY:
Business Expert Press. https://doi.org/10.4128/9781606490853
Maditinos, D., Chatzoudes, D., & Tsairidis, C. (2011). Factors affecting erp system implementation effectiveness.
Journal of Enterprise information management, 25(1), 60-78. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410391211192161
Malhotra, N. K., Agarwal, J., & Petersen, M. (1996). Methodological issues in cross-cultural marketing research:
A state-of-the-art review. Industrial Marketing Review, 13(5), 7-43.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02651339610131379
Mohr, J., & Nevin, J. R. (1990). Communication strategies in marketing channels: A theoretical perspective.

http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 10, No. 1; 2017
126
Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 36-51. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251758
Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication
behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135-153.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150205
Möller, K., & Svahn, S. (2004). Crossing east-west boundaries: Knowledge sharing in intercultural business
networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3), 219-228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.10.011
Ndubisi, N. (2007). Relationship quality antecedents: The malysian retail banking perspective. International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 24(8), 131-141.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710710817117
Ndubisi, N. (2011). Conflict handling, trust and commitment in outsourcing relationship: A chinese and indian
study. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(1), 109-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.09.015
Nes, E. B., Solberg, C. A., & Silkoset, R. (2007). The impact of national culture and communication on
exporter–distributor relations and on export performance. International Business Review, 16(4), 405-424.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2007.01.008
Park, C., Vertinsky, I., & Lee, C. (2012). Korean international joint ventures: How the exchange climate affects
tacit knowledge transfer from foreign parents. International Marketing Review, 29(2), 151-174.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331211216961
Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: A
focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 920-936.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400377
Posthuma, R. A., White III, G. O., Dworkin, J. B., Yánez, O., & Stella, S. M. (2006). Conflict resolution styles
between co-workers in us and mexican cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17(3),
242-260. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060610742344
Rego, A., & Cunha, M. P. (2009). How individualism–collectivism orientations predict happiness in a
collectivistic context. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(1), 19-35.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9059-0
Robson, J. M., Skarmeas, D., & Spyropoulou, S. (2006). Behavioral attributes and performance in international
strategic alliances. International Marketing Review, 23(6), 585-609.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330610712120
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values:
Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878-891.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.878
Sharma, N., & Patterson, P. G. (1999). The impact of communication effectiveness and service quality on
relationship commitment in consumer, professional services. Journal of service Marketing, 13(2), 151-170.
https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049910266059
Smith, B. (1998a). Buyer-seller relationships: Bonds, relationship management, and sex-type. Revue Canadienne
des Sciences de L'Administration, 15(1), 76-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.1998.tb00153.x
Smith, B. (1998b). Buyer-seller relationships: Similarity, relationship management, and quality. Psychology &
Marketing, 15(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199801)15:1<3::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-I
Song, X. M., Xie, J., & Dyer, B. (2000). Antecedents and consequences of marketing managers’
conflict-handling behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 50-66.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.1.50.17989
Steensma, H. K., Marino, L., Weaver, K. M., & Dickson, P. H. (2000). The influence of national culture on the
formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms. Academy of management journal, 43(5),
951-973. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556421
Stone, A., Levy, B., & Paredes, R. (1996). Public institutions and private transactions: A comparative analysis
of the legal and regulatory environment for business transactions in Brazil and Chile. In L. Alston, T.
Eggertsson & D. North (Eds.), Empirical studies in institutional change (pp. 95-128). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174633.010

http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 10, No. 1; 2017
127
Styles, C., Patterson, P. G., & Ahmed, F. (2008). A relational model of export performance. Journal of
International Business Studies, 39(5), 880-900. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400385
Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism & collectivism: Westview press.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., & Villareal, M. J. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural
perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323
Tuten, T. L., & Urban, D. J. (2001). An expanded model of business-to-business partnership formation and
success. Industrial marketing management, 30(2), 149-164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00140-1
Vieira, V. A., Monteiro, P. R., & Veiga, R. T. (2011). Relationship marketing in supply chain: An empirical
analysis in the brazilian service sector. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 26(7), 524-531.
https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621111162325

http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 10, No. 1; 2017
128
Appendix A: Original Scales
Items and Original Author(s)
Communication Effectiveness - Sharma and Patterson, 1999
This supplier keeps us very well informed about what is going on with our orders
This supplier explains concepts and recommendations in a meaningful way
Cooperation - Anderson and Narus, 1990
Our company helps this supplier in whatever ways they ask
This supplier helps our company out in whatever ways we ask
Quality - Mohr & Spekman, 1994
This supplier provides us with accurate information
This supplier communicates information to us on a timely manner
This supplier provides us with complete information
Conflict Handling - Ndubisi, 2007
This supplier tries to solve manifest conflicts before they create problems
This supplier has the ability to openly discuss solutions when problems arise
Two-Way - Mohr & Spekman, 1994 and Anderson & Weitz, 1992
We keep this supplier well informed about what is going on in our company
We seek the advice of this supplier when planning our operations
We set goals together with this supplier
We listen and incorporate suggestions given by this supplier
Scales have been adapted to fit the context of this study
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).