Origin of Relationship Marketing
The
almost inevitable result is the obvious lack of established common ground which
leads to conflict over fundamentals such as the ‘basic’ meaning of relationship
marketing. In fact, much controversy reigns
over the definition of the term relationship marketing, its process, and its
operational mode. The concept is not clear in literature (Brodie et al.,
1997; Zineldin, 2000). It remains unclear and vague and is used and abused by many.
Harker (1999), in a content analysis of 117 articles, identifies 26 different
definitions. Despite the lack of consensus on exactly what relationship
marketing is, most observers conceptualized relationship marketing as a core
business philosophy which is fundamentally about adding value to a relationship
through mutually rewarding cooperation (Han, Wilson and Dant, 1993) to the
point where relational exchange is characterized by stable, friendly
relationships based on reciprocated trust and commitment involving both
cognitive and emotional components.
Adopting
a relationship marketing approach involves changing the traditional ways of
managing marketing at the strategic and tactical level (Gronröos, 1996). Three
important strategic issues in the relationship marketing approach can be
distinguished:
The past two decades have brought
dramatic changes in the marketing environment leading to a rethinking of the
marketing discipline. As markets mature and customers become scarce resources,
the concept of relationship marketing has emerged as a big new idea and has
become increasingly important for many Western companies. Today, relational, as
opposed to transactional exchange, is the norm in the more affluent
industrialized economies.
At the center of this contemporary
philosophy is the notion that making the most out of existing clients is
essential for long-term profitability. Retaining clients by developing
relationships with them is crucial to establishing and maintaining a
competitive advantage in the market. Numerous companies use structures (for
instance, key account management) and instruments (databases, direct marketing,
efficient consumer response, and customer relationship management) developed by
relationship marketing. Certain companies implement individual or dyadic
relationship marketing based on the
personalization of the offer and interpersonal interaction while certain other
companies prefer a community or associative relationship marketing where
emphasis is on the collective behavior of clients (feeling of belonging, level
of participation, etc.). But, perceptions on what exactly constitutes
relationship marketing may differ in various cultural settings. As a result, an
exchange method which has worked well at home may fail in a culture with
different values. Failure to adapt methods of exchange may bring about a
marketing failure. This leads us to question whether the concept of
relationship marketing can be transferred, especially to new markets such as
emerging markets, which offer amazing opportunities to the firms.
Therefore, in spite of the
considerable attention devoted to relationship marketing in the practical and
academic world, far less research has been carried out in the sensitive
adaptation of this concept to meet the needs of emerging economies. A search of
refereed articles that combine emerging economies and marketing shows that
since 1986, only 50 articles have responded to these key words (Pels and Brodie,
2003).
While being very heterogeneous,
these markets are full of pitfalls even for the very experienced and successful
global companies because there are specific conditions unique to emerging
economies.1 Therefore, an understanding of the concept of relationship
marketing in emerging economies needs to be advanced. This study attempts to
improve such an understanding.
Even if the concept of relationship
marketing is rather recent within the science of marketing, we must admit that
the values it represents are far from new. Relationship marketing seems to be
the theorization and modernization of a latent secular process present in the
industrialized world. In fact, marketing has always been and still remains a
science of exchange which aims to analyze and understand the relationship
between supply (seller) and demand (buyer). The meeting of supply and demand of
products and services involves a rather complex subject often called
‘business’— an umbrella term which covers all major areas of management such as
marketing, finance, production, accounting, information systems, organizational
structures, and even human resources. Creating ‘relationships’ within business
is one of the oldest jobs in the world which always required exchanges.
For instance, in the pre-industrial
era, relationship development between producer and consumer was relatively easy
to achieve in economies which were in an early stage of development due to
small-scale production processes and relatively local markets. Buyers were able
to learn through the personal experience of the abilities, consistency, and
reliability of a supplier while suppliers were able to adapt simple production
methods to the needs of individual customers who were known personally.
Preference was judged on the basis of face-to-face contact and, from this,
trust was developed; through personal
knowledge and trust, a supplier was also able to judge the creditworthiness of
each customer (Palmer, 1995).
With the development of mass
production methods, producers were able to achieve economies of scale in
production and, through price advantage, encroach on the traditional markets of
smaller, less efficient producers. Relationship building based on personal
knowledge and liking based on face-to-face contact became more difficult.
Consumers shifted their liking from the personal characteristics of the
producer to the abstract concept of the brand. Branding emerged as a means of
providing reassurance of consistent quality to spatially dispersed customers
who, because of the use of intermediaries, had no direct relationship with the
manufacturers of their products. In effect, brand became a substitute for
personal relationship (Palmer, 1997).
But, globalization of markets,
competitive pressure, brand multiplication and, above all, the ever-changing
lifestyles and consumer behavior have forced companies to develop strategies to
keep their clients and create consumer loyalty programmes and thus carry out relationship marketing. One
of the earliest notions of relationship marketing in the academic sphere can be
traced to Levy and Zaltman’s (1975) statement that to maximize the value of
exchanges, people or groups need to develop ‘patterned relationships with one
another.’
But, although the origins of
relationship marketing were initially in the industrial context (with the
network approach as designed by the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP)
Group, e.g., Häkansson and Snehota, 1995), the service industry has
increasingly become focused on maintaining and enhancing customer
relationships.
Most sources credit Berry (1983)
with originating the term relationship marketing. Houston and Gassenheimer
(1987) argued that if attention is limited to the study of single, isolated
exchanges, then the heart of marketing is ignored. Other scholars state that
developing relationships has now become the focal point for marketing attention
replacing earlier preoccupations with service and product development
(Christopher, Payne and Ballantyne, 1991). Webster (1992) argued that the
relationship marketing paradigm promises to redefine marketing practice and the
role of marketing in the firm.
But, if the implementation of
relationship marketing at a distance is destined to dominate, it is due to the
increasing power of communication and information technologies which confer on
the relational view a new force and breadth. These increasingly affordable
technologies integrate powerful processing capacities (data warehouses) with
omnipresent means of communication (internet, call centers, and interactive
terminals). Using these new capabilities, firms can treat customers as ‘scarce
resources’ and optimize their customer equity through long-term relationships
(Figure 1).
Figure 1: Evolution of the Marketing Concept in the 20th
Century
Relationship
marketing appears clearly as a ‘new-old’ concept (Berry, 1995) for the simple
reason that concern for relationship development is as old as the nature of
business itself. However, even if relational exchange is not new in Western
economies and has been successfully practiced by smaller firms for several
hundreds of years, its present form differs from that which existed in an era
of relatively simple economic development. While companies seek to exploit
information technology to develop relationships with their customers, the types
of relationships now enjoyed are very different compared with those that
existed between customers and small-scale, local producers.
Strategic issues.
Unquestionably,
relationship marketing is a subject which
has attracted the most interest, given rise to considerable debates and
investments in the marketing discipline
over the last decade, and still allures the university community as well as the
experts. As such, it has led to many contributions, the concept being used as a
base for reflection on different themes or perspectives.
- redefining the business as a service business and the key competitive element as service competition
- looking at the organization from a process management perspective and not from a functional perspective
- establishing partnerships and a network to be able to handle the whole service process.
•
seeking direct contact with
customers and other stakeholders
•
building a database covering
necessary information about customers and others
•
developing a customer-oriented service system.
Relationship marketing
stresses on the building and management of relationships in a social context
(Grönroos, 1994). It means
a change in focus from products and firms as units of analysis to people and
organizations (Webster, 1992).
The
results of this extensive work allow us to confirm that relationship marketing
can be positioned as a double innovation (Flambard-Ruaud, 2004): firstly as a conceptual
innovation (it has evolved into an entirely new and separate concept) and secondly
as an organizational innovation (it imposes transformation on the organization
that is not limited to the marketing function but require the participation of
all components of the firm so as to propel the customer into the heart of the firm).
The
discussion so far has shown the overall importance of the relationship
marketing paradigm for Western academics. However, despite its growing
importance in both theory and practice, there has been little published
research on the extent to which relationship marketing concepts have been if used in emerging economies.
Business and Cultural values
From
the Westerner’s point of view, a market is a market. But, the formulations of
relationship marketing based on contemporary Western norms of behavior may not function
well when transplanted into emerging countries where the economic, social, and
cultural environments differ significantly from the country for which a relationship
marketing policy was originally formulated.
Using
an inter-cultural approach to explain marketing and general business practice
has been supported by academics such as Hofstede (1991) who emphasized that
cultural differences have a vital impact on the results of all aspects in
business such as marketing management, leadership, decision-making, etc. As a
result, it was felt that, in order to understand the contextual background of
generating relationships with customers, cultural factors should be included
(Gilbert and Tsao, 2000).
Though
there are various definitions of culture, a more agreed upon definition seems
to be that of Hofstede (1980): “culture is the collective programming of the mind.”
In other words, culture can be defined as the deep-seated, unwritten system of
shared values and norms within an organization (Peck et al., 1999).
People from different cultures behave and interact differently because their
minds are programmed differently.
Thus, when
relationships cross national borders, any cultural differences that exist will
impact the nature of relationships, what flows through them, and how successful
they are (Ambler and Styles, 2000). Consequently, there are subtle differences
between the Western and the Eastern ways of doing things (Buttery and Wong,
1999).
In Western
societies, the analysis of relationships has come from transaction cost theory,
social exchange theory, and interaction theory. Transaction cost theory takes
the view that transaction costs are associated with exchange such as research,
information, and the cost of monitoring contractual performance. Such costs are
generated by the exchange process and are in addition to the market price of
goods and services. Transaction cost analysis has been applied to explain the behavior
of a wide range of organizational activities including bureaucracy (Williamson,
1979), vertical integration of production (Williamson, 1971; Klein, Crawford
and Alchian, 1978), clan-like relations among firms (Ouchi, 1980), and
organizational culture. Social exchange theory is a framework for
analysing different social interactions which are defined as a process in which
two parties areengaged in activities directed towards one another with the
expectation of the exchange of valuable resources(Dwyer, Schurr and Oh, 1987).
The social exchange theory (Blau, 1964, Emmerson, 1962, and Schurr and Ozanne 1985)
explains, for example, the importance of inter-firm adaptation and trust. The
limitations of both the approaches
— economic and social theories — lie
in their static nature when, in fact, relationship building is dynamic, and in
the assumption of rational behaviour by those involved in the process of
negotiation and this too does not always apply. Interaction theory has
brought in a dynamic element into the analysis such as the mutual influence of,
and communication in, the transactions process (Kutschler, 1985). Similarly,
Häkansson (1982) and Cunningham (1980) have captured the factors leading to
close relationships and exchange episodes over time in a framework in which
actors adapt to one another.
This approach has also been the focus
of the work of the European IMP Group (as previously mentioned). Also, such
writers as Grönroos (1994) and Gummesson (1994) consider the study of
relationships so important that they have called for a new theory of marketing
based on relationships rather than exchange.
In contrast the relationship dimension of business has always been integrated in
the Asian and the African cultures. In these societies, it is often the success
of established relationships that condition successful business transactions.
The relationship is built before transactions take place and is closer to a
client-seeking strategy. For example, the Chinese prefer to deal with people they
know and trust. On the surface, this does not seem to be much different from
doing business in the Western world. But, in reality, the heavy reliance on
relationship means that Western companies would have to make themselves known
to the Chinese before any business can take place. Furthermore, this
relationship is not simply between companies but also between individuals at a
personal level. The relationship is not just before the sales start taking
place but is an ongoing process. The company has to maintain the relationship
if it wants to do more business with the Chinese. In other words, in the
strongly capitalist economies (Western society, for example), transaction
creates and develops the relationship (transaction is the centre of the
exchange) whereas in the less capitalist economies (Asia, Africa, Middle-
East), relationship creates and
develops the transaction (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Two Universe, Two vision of business
Based on
the work of Tsapi (1999), the comparison of the terms individualism and community
enables us to
of the collective
conscience, i.e., “all beliefs and feelings common to members of a same
society.”
In
slightly capitalist societies (i.e., traditional and less individualistic), the
individuals prefer to work in teams and interdependence is a basic fact. The
collective conscience is, thus, maximized and the individual conscience practically
does not exist. The success of the group is more important than that of the
individual and, as a result, the individual gives great importance to how his/her
actions will affect the other members of the group. Conversely, the
‘individualists’ define themselves as being autonomous compared to a group,
give priority to personal objectives, behave mainly according to their
attitudes, and pay
attention in priority to their own needs. For Durkheim (1973), these societies
are characterized by a form of organic solidarity which essentially is
based on the division of labour which makes persons economically dependent on
one another.
In
strongly capitalist societies (modern and, therefore, highly individualistic),
recognition and self- fulfillment give great satisfaction and there is
competition between individuals to achieve these goals. Social functions are
totally distinct and inequalities appear more difficult than in traditional
societies. In these rather competitive societies, the psychological structures
and the politico- economic systems reward individual contributions and
encourage competition between individuals. This distinction is relevant because
it is linked to the distinction made today in marketing, i.e., between
‘relational’ which
is close to the community (traditional) society and to ‘transactional’ which
is close to an individualistic (modern) society. In this logic, a system with low
individualism requires greater connections in the process of exchange and the
members involved respond favourably according to the degree of interpersonal dynamism.
The concept of GUANXI
While
marketing theory has advised Western firms to choose rationally between a
relationship marketing approach for key
customers and a transitional approach for the majority of less important
customers, Eastern firms tend to prefer long-term personalized relationships and
mutual cooperation as the basis for most of their business dealings
(Hamzah-Sendut, Madsen and Thong, 1990).
As
emerging economies are not homogenous or clearly identifiable and recognizable
groups, we look at Asia, more particularly, China which is now the biggest emerging
economy. Indeed, China has recently experienced a rapidly growing economy with
huge market potential and is already the second largest foreign direct investment
recipient in the world (Luo, 1997b). However, China’s economy is characterized
by a lack of coherent business laws and strong governmental control over
limited resources (Xin and Pearce, 1996). These characteristics of China’s
economy demonstrate the difficulties of entering this massive market. Many
studies have argued that developing close relationships is
a necessary step to
succeed in China (Ambler, 1994; Hall and Hall, 1987; Johansson, 1995; Luo,
1997b). By developing personal relationships, firms can enhance their marketing
effectiveness and efficiency (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995).
In
fact, Chinese business persons prefer to work with others with whom they have
empathy, trust, and share a process that
produces mutual benefits (Chen, 1996; Luo, 1997a). This special kind of
relationship is called guanxi (it can be translated as ‘relationship’ or
‘connections’ or ‘networking’ or even ‘entering through the back door’) and it
has been identified as a key feature of doing business in China (Abramson and
Ai, 1994; Chen, 1995; Davies, 1995; Buttery and Wong, 1999).
However,
only limited research is available on this complex notion of guanxi.
Misunderstandings and misconceptions concerning this significant topic persist.
We make an attempt here to explore the concept of guanxi, discuss its
origin and ethics, and analyse its major benefits, risks, and implications for
management.
In
the Chinese culture, much emphasis has been placed on the teaching of Confucius
and the impact it has had on the Chinese population in the past and in current
times. According to this philosophy, all relationships are dictated by five
major wu-lun or relationships: emperor-subject, father-son,
husband-wife, elder younger brothers, and friend-friend (Ordonez de Pablos, 2002).
To ensure social harmony, order, and stability, appropriate behaviors are
needed. In business practice, the word used to refer to the latter is guanxi.
However,
because guanxi refers to a cultural phenomenon, it is not a precise term
of art and, as such, it carries several different connotations. In the most general
sense, guanxi simply means relationship. The second usage refers to a
sub-set of relationships that work according to norms of reciprocity. A third
usage exhibits a negative connotation related to bribery and corruption: the
usage of someone’s authority to obtain political or economic benefits by
unethical person(s); guanxi or guanxixue represents a way to
bypass regulations, laws or norms through personal connections with people who
control limited resources.
In this
paper, we focus on the first and the second usage of the term guanxi which
essentially refers to emotional bonds, trust, and friendship that originated from
previous satisfactory experiences of dealing with each other and frequent
contacts.
The
foundation of the process of guanxi is conceptualized as having four
dimensions (Abramson and Ai, 1997). Trust was viewed as the basis for shared
goals which were the basis of cooperation driven by self-interest. Under
conditions of trust, one would expect disagreements to be handled using
collaboration or compromise-based methods. Guanxi also seems to require extensive
networking efforts. The four dimensions were combined into a single guanxi construct
in an attempt to test an authentic construct. This was done despite Thompson’s
(1996) concerns related to the use of multi-causal variables.
Because guanxi
and relationship exchange in the West have several similarities — exchange
partners have long-term perspectives; they focus on the relationship itself
rather than on a single transaction, make efforts to preserve the relationship,
try to resolve conflicts in harmonious ways, and engage in multi-dimensional
roles rather than simple buying and
selling (Alston, 1989; Xin and Pearce, 1996; Gomez Arias, 1998) — some authors (Bjorkman
and Kock, 1995; Wong and Chan, 1999, imply
this in the title, if not the
discussion) have identified guanxi with a traditional form of
relationship marketing.
However, guanxi
has its own unique characteristics distinguishable from relational exchange
in the West (Lee, Pae and Wong, 2001). For instance, although often criticized
as favouritism in Western society (Anderson, 1995), the reciprocal exchange of
due favors is widely accepted and used in Chinese business (Luo, 1997b; Xin and
Pearce, 1996). Exchange partners in guanxi have affective and personal
involvement in the relationship resulting in affective commitment (Geyskens et
al., 1996). In contrast, relational exchange partners in the West tend to
have economic and impersonal involvement which leads to calculative commitment
(e.g., commitment based on cost and benefits). Besides, partners in
guanxi tend to
have implicit role expectations which often go beyond the existing role
expectations. That is, expectations in a guanxi relationship often go
beyond the existing roles to include reciprocal exchange of personal favors,
mutual protection, and enhancement of social status. The guiding principles of
relational behaviors in guanxi are morality and social norms (Gomez
Arias, 1998) and the underlying motive for reciprocal behaviors is face-saving.
In other words, guanxi is an informal relationship based on personal
affiliations (Alston, 1989; Hwang, 1987). Exchange partners in a Western-style close
relationship will have more explicit role expectations. The guiding principles
of a relational exchange in the West are legality and rules. One of the main
motives for reciprocal behaviors is mutuality in the relationship.
Several
empirical researchers have examined the outcomes of guanxi. Most studies
focus only on the positive outcomes of developing guanxi. For example, the
empirical study conducted by Davies (1995) suggests three major benefits that
arise from the establishment of guanxi: key sources of information,
sources of resources, and other areas (smoothing transport arrangements, smoothing
collection of payments, and building up the firm’s reputation and image).
However,
in a recent survey of Chinese managers (Guthrie, 1998, mentioned in Dunfee and
Warren, 2001), we noticed that some perceptions about the practice of guanxi
are increasing in importance while others believe that it is of less or
even no importance in the emerging Chinese legal framework. Guthrie summarized
the views by stating that guanxi, while still an important institutional
system, is diminishing in importance due to both increasing competition and
legalism. Managerial perceptions of guanxi’s importance varied according
to the firm’s position in the industrial hierarchy of the former command
economy. Specifically, Guthrie found that managers in the higher
institutions of the Chinese industrial hierarchy
perceive guanxi as less important than managers in institutions that
hold lower positions in the industrial hierarchy. He interprets the difference
as a reflection of the manager’s ability to access high-level officials. Those
managers in higher institutions already have access to the bureaucrats who
facilitate business transactions and, therefore, do not need to rely on guanxi as much as those managers
in lower institutions.
In
short, China is enjoying rapidly increasing foreign investment while, at the
same time, it must cope with local changes influenced by Western forms and concepts.
This evolution of the Chinese market is bringing about the need for a
relationship marketing approach to serve more sophisticated consumers who demand
better products and services. Understanding the role guanxi plays in the
Chinese society and business is part of the process of learning about the
Chinese market that Western companies need to be aware of and provides one of
the most dramatic examples of an entrenched cultural norm under pressure from
international business trends.
Besides,
the practice of guanxi is not unique to China; it occurs in many
societies (Li and Wright, 1999 in Wright, Szeto and Cheng, 2002). It also
pervades other business cultures such as Japan (called Kankei or Toyama
or Kusuri), Korea (known as Kwankye), India, Russia (called Svyazi),
and other managed economies where intimacy with those in authority, be they
political, military or bureaucratic,
is important (Lehtinen,
1996; Robins, 1996).
Comparison of Asian VS Western management
An
in-depth examination of Asian culture reveals the advantages of certain
practices. One of the most striking characteristics of Asian societies is the
remarkable stability of their civilizations. More precisely, Cova and Pras
(1995) have identified four major permanent features to differentiate Asian
management from Western management:
•
the family rather than the firm as
basic economic actor
•
a long-term horizon rather than a
short-term horizon
•
a consensus approach to
decision-making rather than a conflictual approach
•
a risk reduction approach rather
than a risk-creation approach.
Two hypotheses can be put
forward to explain the existence of these permanent features:
Hypothesis
1 :
The traditionalist
hypothesis which insists on the duration of traditional customs
and habits in Asia
contrary to modern (or post-modern) Western societies which continually try to
rid themselves of the matrix of traditional bonds and archaic beliefs.
Hypothesis
2 :
The cultural hypothesis
which evokes the existence of the same basic culture made up of contextual
specificities (values, nature of social relations, …) as opposed to the Western
society which is fragmented and pluralist.
However,
even if one succeeds in identifying common Asian features and finding an
ethical grounding, following the image of management in Western countries, it
is still possible to highlight numerous features specific to a local managerial
approach (Dubinsky et al., 1991) such as:
•
the rhythm and process of economic
development of each country
•
the role played by the state in
each country
•
the political orientations of each
country
•
the structural differences of a
socio-economic issue
•
the strategic choices of companies
•
the societal context in which the
economic activity is embedded (language, writing system, social system, etc.).
An
analysis of the environmental and cultural constraints of Western countries
combined with the previous reflection on the local Asia specificities enables us
to draw the following conclusions:
Western
societies are more differentiated and pluralist than Asian societies. A
majority of the Western societies have developed other centers of authority and
power than that of the family and the state. In the same way, CEOs are
generally less dependent on political power than in Asia, relationships between
business leaders and politicians being closer in the West. Relationships with
authority are not influenced by the omnipresence of the state but by the
development of legal and institutional systems which have given a legal base
common or close to most Western societies.
The
greater importance of the individual and the legislature in the West has led to
more formalized procedures centered on individual performances within the
structure and to a high level of confidence for formal contracts. The
development of law in the West has reduced the authority of the business leader
of the firm compared to that of Asian leaders. In the same way, the importance of
the contract has reduced flexibility, given less weight to confidence in one’s
partners’ word, and made easier the development of imposing hierarchical
structures and impersonal networks.
Conclusions
Theory
transgresses economies whether they are emerging or not. Marketing has always
studied relationships between institutions (B2B) and relationships between institutions
and customers. The basic rules of marketing, therefore, remain the same
whatever the economy. What changes is the context.
In
Western economies, fundamental changes in the market environment have forced
marketers to reconsider marketing strategies. A transaction-oriented marketing strategy
encounters more and more difficulties in finding an appropriate answer to
challenges such as increasing numbers of product varieties, shortening of product
life cycles, and higher customer expectations. These developments require firms
to become more customer-oriented. As technological developments in data
collection and data processing as well as in communicating and interacting with
customers provide opportunities to meet these requirements, companies are
increasingly shifting their focus from transaction-oriented to
relationship-oriented strategy so as to build a competitive edge.
The
recognition of the importance of establishing and maintaining long-term
relationships has led both marketing theorists and practitioners to focus on an
emerging framework termed relationship marketing. However, relationship
marketing cannot be a universal paradigm capable of having uniform global
application. The environment is and remains multi-cultural. In that sense, the
dangers of ethnocentrism must be avoided and, on the contrary, the phenomena of
acculturation and local appropriation need to be taken into consideration.
As
seen previously, in the Chinese society, guanxi, which is based upon
social activities and business activities, is significant as a basis of
conducting business. As such, it is not a simple matter to transpose
relationship marketing, which is based upon a different set of cultural values,
into a Chinese-dominated culture.
Relationships
are built on a cultural platform which means that the route to developing a
good relationship can be very different in the Western and the Eastern cultures.
Not only are the methods for building relationship different, but also the
relative importance of the attributes which make up the relationship are valued
differently in different parts of the world. In other words, cultural factors
play an important role in the development of relationship marketing. It is,
therefore, suggested that more cultural studies need to be carried out in order
to understand what kind of cultural elements can have a positive or magnified
impact on relationship marketing applications in a business context.
In
essence, this exploratory study has taken a step forward towards a better
understanding of the ways in which relationship marketing has emerged in the
Western economy and suggests a few rules which need to be observed in order to
apply it efficiently in emerging countries. It also shows how the management of
guanxi can help in enhancement of sustained competitive advantage taking
into consideration the idiosyncrasies of the Eastern and the Western national
and organizational cultures
