We were not the first authors to investigate marketing exchanges from a relationship perspective. Under the rubric of "relationship marketing," the works of several scholars paved the way for our contribution to the marketing literature. However, this paper differed from its precursors by proposing a theoretical foundation—including a framework of the types of relationships a firm might have—that showed how two variables, namely, commitment and trust, that are common to all healthy human relationships are also essential for successful business relationships. Successful business relationships require effective cooperation; commitment and trust promote cooperation (and other desirable outcomes).

Commitment and trust, rather than (or at least in addition to) power and dependence, are now central to discussions of business relationships. Researchers and practitioners have come to view most interactions between business parties as events that occur over the course of a relationship between two or more partners.

As other researchers applied this theory to other types of business and marketing relationships and other contexts, they began to find support for our contention that commitment and trust are central to successful relationships. Studies in supply chain management, business-consumer relationships, joint venture relationships, and other areas continue to find support for commitment and trust serving as key mediating variables in business relationships.

Furthermore, beyond the theory and empirical findings stimulating further academic research, the theory made a lot of sense to practitioners and public policy makers as well. We frequently hear from colleagues and contacts in industry that the paper and/or its principles were mentioned in a business meeting or policy conference they attended. Because the theory has been helpful not just to academics, but also to practitioners and policy makers, it has been cited frequently.

  What are the circumstances that led you to your work?

In 1989 Rob Morgan was a doctoral student working under the advisement of Shelby Hunt. In the process of developing and evaluating ideas for dissertation research, we became convinced that existing theory in channels of distribution, which focused on power, dependence, and conflict, did not sufficiently explain the relationships between buyers and sellers in the channel. Quite frankly, existing theory seemed to focus on dysfunctional channel relationships, not successful ones.

Some work that had been done by Bob Dwyer, Paul Schurr, and Sejo Oh on "relational exchange" appeared to offer an alternative to existing theory. Their work prompted us to begin thinking about attempting to reframe the channels-of-distribution discussion. Specifically, we began looking at the literature on relationships in other disciplines, such as sociology and marriage. Our review of these literatures suggested to us that the principles that explained healthy relationships in other types of human interaction would also apply to most successful marketing relationships.

  Would you describe the significance of this work for your field?

Along with the works of other scholars in relationship marketing, our work has contributed to a major shift in the way that academics and practitioners view relationships in marketing, business, buying, joint ventures, and antitrust policy. Commitment and trust, rather than (or at least in addition to) power and dependence, are now central to discussions of business relationships. Researchers and practitioners have come to view most interactions between business parties as events that occur over the course of a relationship between two or more partners. The research has offered a more complete explanation for how successful businesses and individuals behave. Furthermore, and not inconsequentially, it offers a more positive, ethical view of business relationships. It has long been acknowledged that being trustworthy has desirable economic consequences; our research explains why.

The theory has been applied to several other partnering contexts, and work has been done, and will continue to progress, to establish a better framework of the drivers and outcomes of strong, cooperative relationships. Both of us are researching and writing about the strategic role of relationships, and how they can contribute to building and maintaining competitive advantages. Much of this research draws on and contributes to our "resource-advantage" theory of competition.

Also, we both continue to work with doctoral students and colleagues to expand relationship marketing theory based on commitment and trust. As firms continue to grow ever more dependent on sales people, call-center employees, customer service representatives, and other frontline employees to promote relationships with customers and others, we see work continuing to explore the role of the organization’s employees in fostering the development, maintenance, and growth of relationships with the firm’s outside partners.

Electronic commerce has added a whole new dimension to discussions of business relationships. Are relationships established in the bricks-and-mortar world transferable to the firm’s newly established Web presence? How do relationships develop, and how can they be nurtured, in a high-tech/low-touch business environment? How do firms develop a reputation for trust among customers whom they never see in person?

In the manager’s world, there has been a move toward developing metrics of loyalty—which we see as another label for commitment—and trust, to supplement or replace the traditional satisfaction metrics. Interpreting these findings, merging them with segmentation efforts and various "customer relationship management" processes, will be a challenge for the next decade.

  What lessons would you draw from your work to share with the next generation
of researchers?

Like many other high-impact papers, an early version of this paper was rejected at another journal. Though the paper that was eventually published in The Journal of Marketing was clearly a better paper as a result of previous reviews, the process had its discouraging moments. The lessons we would like to share with the next generation of researchers are to believe in your ideas, don’t give up, but, at the same time, listen to your critics. Often, you can learn more from those who disagree with you than from those who share your views. If your work has truth-content and is, therefore, worth publishing, make a good-faith effort to revise your manuscript in response to critics’ comments.

Robert M. Morgan, Ph.D.
Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL, USA