| Abstract: | ABSTRACT Purpose. The purpose of this paper is to report empirical research that examined the impact of conflict in two different buyer-seller situations, an ongoing relationship and a choice situation where the buyer had to choose between two or more alternative suppliers. Conflict was defined as social conflict and has two distinct types, affective and cognitive. Methodology/Approach. The methodology used was two mail surveys to a random sample of purchasing association members who had buying responsibilities in their firms. In one survey respondents were asked to self-select a current buyer-seller relationship they had for a period of at least one year and to indicate the degree of perceived conflict they had with the key supplier representative as well as the amount of relationship loyalty they perceived they had with that supplier. The second survey randomly assigned respondents to evaluate either a supplier whom they gave business to in a choice situation or one they did not, thus establishing as the dependent variable the actual choice of whom they gave business to. Findings. The findings are clear for affective types of conflict. When affective conflict is perceived as higher the chance of getting an order in a choice situation as well as the magnitude of the relationship loyalty perception is negatively related. Cognitive conflict is not as clear. In choice situations conflict was negatively related to choice, whereas in on going relationships there was no impact. There was no indication of cognitive conflict having a positive relationship. Originality/Value/Contribution of the paper. This study is the first to examine perceptions of conflict with a significant other in a buyer-seller relationship to try to determine how those perceptions might relate to either buyer choice or loyalty. While the findings support the expected relationship between affective conflict and outcomes, the findings with regards to cognitive conflict suggest that this may be more complex then originally thought and further points out the difficulty in managing conflict across organizational boundaries. |
