• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.110-122
• /
• 2010

The emergence of the field of organizational buying behavior in the mid-1960’s with the publication of Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing (1967) set the stage for a new paradigm of thinking about how business was conducted in markets other than those serving ultimate consumers. Whether it is "industrial marketing" or "business-to-business marketing" (B-to-B), organizational buying behavior remains the core differentiating characteristic of this domain of marketing. This paper explores the impact of several dynamic factors that have influenced how organizations relate to one another in a rapidly increasing interdependence, which in turn can impact organizational buying behavior. The paper also raises the question of whether or not the major conceptual models of organizational buying behavior in an interdependent world are still relevant to guide research and managerial thinking, in this dynamic business environment. The paper is structured to explore three questions related to organizational interdependencies: 1. What are the factors and trends driving the emergence of organizational interdependencies? 2. Will the major conceptual models of organizational buying behavior that have developed over the past half century be applicable in a world of interdependent organizations? 3. What are the implications of organizational interdependencies on the research and practice of organizational buying behavior? Consideration of the factors and trends driving organizational interdependencies revealed five critical drivers in the relationships among organizations that can impact their purchasing behavior: Accelerating Globalization, Flattening Networks of Organizations, Disrupting Value Chains, Intensifying Government Involvement, and Continuously Fragmenting Customer Needs. These five interlinked drivers of interdependency and their underlying technological advances can alter the relationships within and among organizations that buy products and services to remain competitive in their markets. Viewed in the context of a customer driven marketing strategy, these forces affect three levels of strategy development: (1) evolving customer needs, (2) the resulting product/service/solution offerings to meet these needs, and (3) the organization competencies and processes required to develop and implement the offerings to meet needs. The five drivers of interdependency among organizations do not necessarily operate independently in their impact on how organizations buy. They can interact with each other and become even more potent in their impact on organizational buying behavior. For example, accelerating globalization may influence the emergence of additional networks that further disrupt traditional value chain relationships, thereby changing how organizations purchase products and services. Increased government involvement in business operations in one country may increase costs of doing business and therefore drive firms to seek low cost sources in emerging markets in other countries. This can reduce employment opportunitiesn one country and increase them in another, further accelerating the pace of globalization. The second major question in the paper is what impact these drivers of interdependencies have had on the core conceptual models of organizational buying behavior. Consider the three enduring conceptual models developed in the Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing and Organizational Buying Behavior books: the organizational buying process, the buying center, and the buying situation. A review of these core models of organizational buying behavior, as originally conceptualized, shows they are still valid and not likely to change with the increasingly intense drivers of interdependency among organizations. What will change however is the way in which buyers and sellers interact under conditions of interdependency. For example, increased interdependencies can lead to increased opportunities for collaboration as well as conflict between buying and selling organizations, thereby changing aspects of the buying process. In addition, the importance of communication processes between and among organizations will increase as the role of trust becomes an important criterion for a successful buying relationship. The third question in the paper explored consequences and implications of these interdependencies on organizational buying behavior for practice and research. The following are considered in the paper: the need to increase understanding of network influences on organizational buying behavior, the need to increase understanding of the role of trust and value among organizational participants, the need to improve understanding of how to manage organizational buying in networked environments, the need to increase understanding of customer needs in the value network, and the need to increase understanding of the impact of emerging new business models on organizational buying behavior. In many ways, these needs deriving from increased organizational interdependencies are an extension of the conceptual tradition in organizational buying behavior. In 1977, Nicosia and Wind suggested a focus on inter-organizational over intra-organizational perspectives, a trend that has received considerable momentum since the 1990's. Likewise for managers to survive in an increasingly interdependent world, they will need to better understand the complexities of how organizations relate to one another. The transition from an inter-organizational to an interdependent perspective has begun, and must continue so as to develop an improved understanding of these important relationships. A shift to such an interdependent network perspective may require many academicians and practitioners to fundamentally challenge and change the mental models underlying their business and organizational buying behavior models. The focus can no longer be only on the dyadic relations of the buying organization and the selling organization but should involve all the related members of the network, including the network of customers, developers, and other suppliers and intermediaries. Consider for example the numerous partner networks initiated by SAP which involves over 9000 companies and over a million participants. This evolving, complex, and uncertain reality of interdependencies and dynamic networks requires reconsideration of how purchase decisions are made; as a result they should be the focus of the next phase of research and theory building among academics and the focus of practical models and experiments undertaken by practitioners. The hope is that such research will take place, not in the isolation of the ivory tower, nor in the confines of the business world, but rather, by increased collaboration of academics and practitioners. In conclusion, the consideration of increased interdependence among organizations revealed the continued relevance of the fundamental models of organizational buying behavior. However to increase the value of these models in an interdependent world, academics and practitioners should improve their understanding of (1) network influences, (2) how to better manage these influences, (3) the role of trust and value among organizational participants, (4) the evolution of customer needs in the value network, and (5) the impact of emerging new business models on organizational buying behavior. To accomplish this, greater collaboration between industry and academia is needed to advance our understanding of organizational buying behavior in an interdependent world.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.67-75
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The study is to check the specialty of radiotherapists working in the department of radiation oncology and find job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job commitment having an effect on professional parts. After making analysis of the mutual relation, it is to provide radiotechnologists with making progress in the future. Materials and Methods: From March 2 to March 30, we had carried out a survey with email. It is possible to have 272 questionnaires answered in the survey. We make use of SPSS 13.0 for Windows to analyze the data collected for study. Frequency and a percentage are meant to show general characteristics, and t-test and ANOVA to do the difference between general properties and professionalism. Pearson's correlation coefficient also is meant to do the correlation of professionalism, organizational job commitment and job satisfaction, and multiple regression analysis to do the factor for a relevant variable to affect professionalism. Results: There are subdivisions in the professionalism informing us of the self-regulation $17.74{\pm}2.32/3.55{\pm}.46$, a sense of calling $17.58{\pm}2.63/3.52{\pm}.53$, reference of the professional $17.14{\pm}2.39/3.43{\pm}.48$, service to the public $15.97{\pm}2.48/3.19{\pm}50$, and autonomy $15.68{\pm}2.28/3.14{\pm}46$. Grand mean turns out to be $83.89{\pm}7.63$(Summation of items)/$3.37{\pm}0.49$ (Numbers of items). When it comes to a statistical relation between general characteristics and professionalism, the statistics have it that these come within age (P<.001), period of employment (P<.001), education status (P<.05), a monthly income (P<.001), radiotherapists who get a special license (P<.001), the position (P<.001), and an opportunity for developing (P<.001). As a result of organizational commitment, job commitment, and job satisfaction, grand mean in organizational commitment proves to be $80.10{\pm}8.15/3.34{\pm}.34$. There are subvisions showing affective commitment $28.64{\pm}4.61$/3.58, continuance commitment $27.54{\pm}4.22/3.44{\pm}.53$, and normative commitment $23.95{\pm}2.94/2.99{\pm}.37$ in order of precedence. The average grade in job commitment is $32.47{\pm}5.77/3.30{\pm}.60$ and that in job satisfaction is $63.39{\pm}10.16/3.17{\pm}.51$, respectively. We find the positive relationship between professionalism and organizational commitment (r=.522, P<.05), between professionalism and job commitment (r=.444, P<.05), and between professionalism and job satisfaction (r=.507, P<.05). And we also get the positive relationship between organizational commitment and job commitment (r=.549, P<.05), between organizational commitment and job satisfaction (r=.433, P<.05), and between job commitment and job satisfaction (r=.462, P<.05). To catch the factors influencing the professionalism of radiotherapists, we used multiple regression analysis. According to the final model, it appears affective commitment (B=.755, P<.05), normative commitment (B=.305, P<.05), job satisfaction (B=.092, P<.05), an opportunity for developing (B=-1.505, P<.05), and the position (B=-1.155, P<.05) in order of precedence. It seems that explaining influece on $R^2$ is 0.504. Conclusion: The results of the factors that influence professionalism working as radiotherapists in the department of radiation oncology have it that the more affective commitment, normative commitment, and job satisfaction we feel, the more professionalism we recognize. We think that the focus of professionalism is increased if getting the chances for radiotherapists to have little to do with developing opportunities given.