Essays on supplier responsiveness and buyer firm value - Nyenrode ...

comprehensive agreement on each other’s requirements. Hence, strategic supplier
responses should generate buyer satisfaction across The Netherlands and United
States. Therefore:
H2: Supplier responsiveness positively influences buyer satisfaction, both in
USA and The Netherlands.
In the extant marketing literature, the hypothesized relationship between
satisfaction and firm performance has focused on firm performance. Various
measures such as loyalty, increased product usage levels, secure future revenues, and
increased customer perceptions of quality are positively related to customer
satisfaction. However, this is evidence from a B2C setting and the role of customer
satisfaction in B2B relationships is disputed. In B2C contexts, an individual’s
satisfaction reflects their own experience with the product and will likely influence
their future purchase intentions. In a B2B setting, the purchase center does not
directly have any experience with the product and may have a number of indicators to
consider besides satisfaction reports while making the purchase decision (Kotler,
Armstrong, Saunders, & Wong 2008, p.292). Another contrast with the B2C
satisfaction measurement is that in large buying centers, often the purchasers even
lack direct consumption experience (Kotler et al., 2008, p.292).
Because of differences like these, Narayandas (2005) is of the opinion that
satisfaction does not have the same influence on firm profitability or customer loyalty
in B2B markets as it does in B2C markets. However, from a cultural perspective,
satisfaction may have a different importance in different societies. Consider the
example of The Netherlands and the United States. The position of The Netherlands
on the Hofstede index is similar to that of the United States, except on their cultural
dimension of masculinity. The US represents a masculine society, where there is less
emphasis upon caring for others as compared with more feminine countries such as
The Netherlands. It then could be argued that intangible indicators such as satisfaction
would have more influence in feminine societies than in masculine ones, because in
such cultures soft or feminine indicators and behaviors matter more (Hofstede, 1998,
pp.4-27). At the macro level this difference between masculine and feminine societies
can also be observed by the amount of money they give to charity. Feminine societies
give more than masculine societies, and this reflects their compassion for humanity
(Hofstede, 1998, pp.4-27). Furthermore, masculine countries are more monetary
oriented than feminine ones. In masculine countries, employees generally would opt
for higher salaries compared to shorter working hours, whereas in feminine countries
the opposite holds true (Hofstede, 1998, pp.4-27). Hence, we would expect that within
organizations in feminine countries like The Netherlands relational indicators such as
satisfaction would matter more than in masculine countries like the United States.
Another reason could be the homogeneity in society. Since the US is a heterogeneous
society, the emphasis of a soft metric such as satisfaction on the overall purchase
decision could be less direct, resulting in diverse expectations. Hence, in the United
States, focusing on performance-based measures could possibly provide clarity to
channel partners about customer expectations when compared with relational
performance factors. The Netherlands, more cultural homogeneity could imply that
soft cultural factors such as satisfaction would have on the firm level performance.
Hence, we expect the following hypotheses across countries:
81