View in relationship development and initiation literature on the starting situation and when adaptations are argued to appear
| Author/model | View of the “starting situation” | Quotes that describe the view of the “starting situation” | When adaptations are argued to arise |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stage models | |||
| Ford (1980)/buyer–seller development | Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts in the “pre-relationship stage” with evaluation and reduction of distance | “At this early stage in their relationship, both buyer and seller are likely to have little experience of each other” (p. 343) | Adaptations appear in “the long-term stage”, the fourth of five stages |
| Dwyer et al. (1987)/ seller–buyer development | Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts in the “awareness stage” with a company starting to pay by “check” (p. 12) and abandons discrete transactions for relational exchange | “minimal investment and interdependence make for simple termination” (p. 16) | Adaptations (transaction-specific investments) appear in the “commitment” stage that is the fourth stage before dissolution (p. 22) |
| Mandják et al. (2015)/business relationship initiation | The model begins with the “starting situation” in which actors do not know each other, but where there might exist personal/company reputations and personal relationships | “The starting point [situation] for the birth, the process of emergence, is the simple co-existence of the actors in space and time. At this moment actors are not conscious of the existence of one another” (p. 36) | Adaptations are not mentioned as this model only deals with how relationships are “born”. Thus, adaptations are implicitly viewed as developing in later stages of relationships |
| States | |||
| Batonda and Perry (2003)/ inter-firm network relationship development | Not explicitly mentioned. The model begins with the “relationship searching process” in which there are no commitments between the actors | “No commitments at this stage” (p. 1464) | Adaptations appear in the maintenance state, which is the fourth of the five states |
| Status models | |||
| Larson (1992)/development/formation of entrepreneurial network dyads | Not explicitly mentioned. Relationships start in “Phase 1” with preconditions for exchange, in terms of prior personal/firm reputations, and personal relationships but with no ties between companies | “Each [dyad) began as a relatively arm’s length relation, in that no formal transactions had occurred…” (p. 87) | Adaptations between actors start to appear in Phase 2 of the three phases in the model |
| Edvardsson et al. (2008)/buyer–seller initiation | The model starts with an “unrecognized status” in which the buyer does not recognise the seller | “We define the unrecognized status as the situation when the parties do not know each other, or most importantly, the buyer does not recognize the seller” (p. 343) | Adaptations are not mentioned, as this model only deals with how relationships are initiated. Thus, adaptations are implicitly viewed as developing in later stages of relationships |
| Polonsky et al. (2010)/ buyer–seller development | Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts with “exploration” (potential relationship/discovery phase) in which the actors initially are unaware of each other | “Firms in the discovery phase lack a common relationship history” (p. 265) | Adaptations start to appear in the “actualization phase” that is the second of three phases in the model |
| Aaboen and Aarikka-Stenroos (2017) Start-up initiation | Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts with identification of a need and recognition of an opportunity for mutual business | “[Actors’] lack of mutual understanding or deep familiarity with one another, however makes, the initiation fragile… the initiation can easily be terminated” (p. 235) | Adaptations are implicitly viewed as developing in later stages of relationships. However, there must be a “technical fit” between actors for the relationship to be initiated |
| Other models | |||
| Ring and Van de Ven (1994), inter-organisational relationship (IOR) development | Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts with the emergence of a new relationship | “Cooperative IORs emerge when managers bargain over either the production or the transfer of property rights among legally equal and autonomous parties” (p. 92) | Adaptations (transaction-specific investments) emerge as the relationship develops over time |
| Wilson (1995)/buyer–seller development | Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts in search and selection, with finding a partner being a “critical step” (p. 340) | “The partner is an untested commodity” (p. 340) | Adaptations appear in the third and fourth of five stages in the model |
| Valtakoski (2015)/buyer–seller initiation | Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts with “initiation”, with the parties having no previous experience of collaboration at all | …“investments, adaptations or commitments cannot influence relationship initiation” (p. 109) | Builds on Wilson (1995) and argues that investments and adaptations emerge later in relationships as they develop |
| View of the “starting situation” | Quotes that describe the view of the “starting situation” | When adaptations are argued to arise | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts in the “pre-relationship stage” with evaluation and reduction of distance | “At this early stage in their relationship, both buyer and seller are likely to have little experience of each other” (p. 343) | Adaptations appear in “the long-term stage”, the fourth of five stages | |
| Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts in the “awareness stage” with a company starting to pay by “check” (p. 12) and abandons discrete transactions for relational exchange | “minimal investment and interdependence make for simple termination” (p. 16) | Adaptations (transaction-specific investments) appear in the “commitment” stage that is the fourth stage before dissolution (p. 22) | |
| The model begins with the “starting situation” in which actors do not know each other, but where there might exist personal/company reputations and personal relationships | “The starting point [situation] for the birth, the process of emergence, is the simple co-existence of the actors in space and time. At this moment actors are not conscious of the existence of one another” (p. 36) | Adaptations are not mentioned as this model only deals with how relationships are “born”. Thus, adaptations are implicitly viewed as developing in later stages of relationships | |
| Not explicitly mentioned. The model begins with the “relationship searching process” in which there are no commitments between the actors | “No commitments at this stage” (p. 1464) | Adaptations appear in the maintenance state, which is the fourth of the five states | |
| Not explicitly mentioned. Relationships start in “Phase 1” with preconditions for exchange, in terms of prior personal/firm reputations, and personal relationships but with no ties between companies | “Each [dyad) began as a relatively arm’s length relation, in that no formal transactions had occurred…” (p. 87) | Adaptations between actors start to appear in Phase 2 of the three phases in the model | |
| The model starts with an “unrecognized status” in which the buyer does not recognise the seller | “We define the unrecognized status as the situation when the parties do not know each other, or most importantly, the buyer does not recognize the seller” (p. 343) | Adaptations are not mentioned, as this model only deals with how relationships are initiated. Thus, adaptations are implicitly viewed as developing in later stages of relationships | |
| Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts with “exploration” (potential relationship/discovery phase) in which the actors initially are unaware of each other | “Firms in the discovery phase lack a common relationship history” (p. 265) | Adaptations start to appear in the “actualization phase” that is the second of three phases in the model | |
| Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts with identification of a need and recognition of an opportunity for mutual business | “[Actors’] lack of mutual understanding or deep familiarity with one another, however makes, the initiation fragile… the initiation can easily be terminated” (p. 235) | Adaptations are implicitly viewed as developing in later stages of relationships. However, there must be a “technical fit” between actors for the relationship to be initiated | |
| Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts with the emergence of a new relationship | “Cooperative IORs emerge when managers bargain over either the production or the transfer of property rights among legally equal and autonomous parties” (p. 92) | Adaptations (transaction-specific investments) emerge as the relationship develops over time | |
| Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts in search and selection, with finding a partner being a “critical step” (p. 340) | Adaptations appear in the third and fourth of five stages in the model | ||
| Not explicitly mentioned. The model starts with “initiation”, with the parties having no previous experience of collaboration at all | …“investments, adaptations or commitments cannot influence relationship initiation” (p. 109) | Builds on | |
Source:
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.