Purchasing Agents' Perceptions of Industrial Buying Center Influence: A Situational Approach

Author(s): Donald W. Jackson, Jr., Janet E. Keith, Richard K. Burdick

Source: The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 75-83
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251512 .
Accessed: 07/03/2011 00:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Marketing.
http://www.jstor.org
Donald W.
Jackson, Jr.,
Janet E.
Keith,
& Richard K. Burdick
Industrial
purchasing
decisions
typically
are influ-
enced
by
several
organizational
members referred
to as the
buying
center.
Although
there has been
some research into the center's
composition
and
its relative
influence,
little is known of how the rel-
ative influence of
participants changes
across
pur-
chases of different
products, buy classes,
and
pro-
curement decisions.
Findings
from this
study
indicate that the relative influence of
buying
cen-
ter members is constant across different
buy
classes,
but
changes
across
product types
and de-
cision
types.
EVERAL studies
support
the existence of mul-
tiple buying
influences in the industrial
buying
process. Thus,
a
key question
in industrial
marketing
is the relative
power
of
participants
in the
purchase
decision
(Webster
and Wind
1972). Typically,
how-
ever,
the
study
of influence structure has been con-
fined to one
product type and/or
one
type
of
buying
situation. This
paper
considers the
perceived
influ-
ence of
participants
in the
purchase
decision across a
variety
of situations.
Changes
in influence structure
across different
purchase
situations should
suggest ap-
propriate changes
in industrial
marketing strategies.
Background
The
concept
of the
buying
center refers to all those
organizational
members who become involved in the
decision-making process
for a
particular purchase
de-
Donald W. Jackson,
Jr. is Professor of
Marketing,
Arizona State Uni-
versity;
Janet E. Keith is Assistant Professor of
Marketing, Virginia Poly-
technic Institute and State
University;
and Richard K. Burdick is Asso-
ciate Professor of Business Statistics, Arizona State
University.
The
authors would like to
acknowledge
the valuable
suggestions
offered
by
anonymous
reviewers of earlier drafts of this article.
Purchasing
Agents'
Perceptions
of
Industrial
Buying
Center
Influence: A
Situational
Approach
cision (Robinson, Faris, and Wind 1967). A number
of studies have verified the
concept
of the
buying
cen-
ter and variations in the relative influence of
buying
center
participants
in the
purchase
decision
process
(Bellizzi 1981,
Duncan
1965,
Meier
1972,
Wind
1978).
However,
the influence structure of the
buying
center
is
likely
to
vary
across a number of factors that char-
acterize the
purchase
situation,
such as
buy class, type
of
product,
and
type
of decision.
Robinson, Farris,
and Wind
(1967)
identified three
types
of
buy
classes-new
buy,
modified
rebuy,
and
straight rebuy-which
were assumed to
explain
some
of the variation in the
purchase process, including
the
influence structure of the
buying
center.
Support
for
this
assumption
was shown in a few studies.
Spekman
and Ster
(1979)
found that
purchasing agents
were
perceived
as more influential when the level of en-
vironmental
uncertainty
was
high
than when environ-
mental
uncertainty
was low. The results of two other
studies indicated that the relative influence of
buying
center members varied across
buy
class.
Pingry (1974)
and Naumann
(1981)
found that
purchasing agents
were
more influential in modified
rebuy
and
straight rebuy
situations,
while other members of the
buying
center
were relied
upon
more
heavily
in new
buy
situations.
Journal of
Marketing
Vol. 48 (Fall 1984), 75-83. Purchasing Agents' Perceptions /
75
Other studies
recognized
the
importance
of
buy
class
on the influence of
buying
center members in the
pur-
chase
decision,
but focused on new
buy
situations
(Patchen 1974)
or modified
rebuy
situations
(Cooley
1976, Weigand 1966).
Bellizzi and
McVey (1978)
failed to find a
sig-
nificant
relationship
between influence and
purchase
experience.
On the other
hand,
the influence of mem-
bers of the
buying
center was
significantly
related to
the
product type
under consideration.
Significant
dif-
ferences in the relative influence of
buying
center
members across different
product types
were also
present
in a later
study
conducted
by
Bellizzi
(1979).
Finally,
still other research
analyzed
the relative
influence of
buying
center members in different
types
of decisions.
Cooley, Jackson,
and Ostrom
(1977)
found that
engineering
dominated the
product
selec-
tion
decision,
and
purchasing
dominated the
supplier
selection decision. Buckner
(1967)
found that for dif-
ferent
types
of
decisions,
different
groups
of
special-
ists were involved with the
specific
task. A
study
con-
ducted
by Scientific
American
(1969)
concluded that
participation
of
engineers,
researchers,
and
purchas-
ing agents
varied with the decision to initiate a
project
leading
to a
purchase,
determination of kind of
prod-
uct to be
purchased,
and selection of brand or
sup-
plier.
A
replication
of this
study by
Erickson and Gross
(1980) yielded
similar results in the chemical and
pa-
per
industries.
Thus,
the above literature
suggests
that the relative
influence of
buying
center members varies with in-
dividual factors that characterize the
purchase
situa-
tion.
However,
no research has been conducted which
systematically
examined the influence structure of the
buying
center across different
types
of
purchasing
sit-
uations. The studies cited above did not indicate how
the influence structure of the
buying
center is
likely
to
change
as a result of the interaction of
buy
class,
product type,
and decision
type.
Furthermore,
al-
though previous
research
may
have
suggested
how the
degree
of influence of a
particular
individual will
change
across
buy
class,
product type,
or decision
type,
these
studies did not address the issue of relative influence
within a
particular purchase
situation. Yet relative in-
fluence is of
particular importance
to industrial mar-
keters,
as
they
must
target
communications to the
ap-
propriate person(s).
Research
Design
A
study
was undertaken to examine the effect of sit-
uational variables on the relative influence of mem-
bers of the
buying
center. Its
objective
was to
system-
atically explore buying participant
influence across
different
products, buy
classes,
and
purchasing
deci-
sions.
The
study
examined
purchasing agents' percep-
tions of the relative influence of four different
buying
center members across five different
product types,
three different
types
of
buy classes,
and two different
decision
types.
The five
product types
examined in-
cluded
major capital,
minor
capital, materials,
com-
ponents,
and
supplies.
These
product types
are com-
mon industrial
goods
classifications and were chosen
after extensive
pre-test
interviews with industrial
pur-
chasing managers.
A definition of each of the
product
types
is
given
below:
*
Major Capital
items are
goods
that have a use-
ful life of more than one
year,
do not become
part
of the firm's final
product,
and cost more
than
$10,000 per
unit.
Capital
items such as
typewriters
or small
machinery
would not be in-
cluded in this
category.
* Minor
Capital
items have a useful life of more
than one
year,
do not become
part
of the firm's
final
product,
and cost between
$1,000
and
$10,000 per
unit. Minor
capital
items are not
the most
expensive capital equipment
nor do
they
have the
longest
life. Items such as
typewriters,
small
machinery,
and office furniture would be
minor
capital
items.
Major capital
items such
as
large computers
or forklift trucks would not
be included in this
category.
* Materials are items which become
part
of the
final
product. They
have
previously undergone
some
processing
but need further
processing
be-
fore
they
enter the final
product. Examples
in-
clude
wire, glass,
steel,
and sand for
glass.
*
Component
Parts are
goods
which become
part
of the final
product
but need no further
pro-
cessing
before that
stage. Examples
include an
electric motor for a
refrigerator
or transistors for
a radio.
*
Supplies
are
goods
which do not become
part
of the final
product
but rather are used for main-
tenance, repairs,
or
operations. Examples
in-
clude
light
bulbs, oil,
and
paper clips
that do
not become
part
of the final
product.
The three
types
of
buy
classes included new
buys,
modified
rebuys,
and
straight rebuys.
The definition
of each of these
types
of
buy
classes is as follows:
* A New
Buy
situation occurs when the need for
the
product type
has not risen before,
there is
no
past buying experience
with this
product type,
a
great
deal of information is
required,
and al-
ternative
products
and alternative
suppliers
are
considered.
* A
Modified Rebuy
situation occurs when the re-
quirement
for the
product
is
continuing
and the
76
/
Journal of
Marketing,
Fall 1984
buying
alternatives are known but have
changed,
due to events such as a
change
in
supplier prices,
a new
product
introduction
by
a
vendor,
a need
for cost
reductions,
or
engineering
modifica-
tions. Additional information is needed before
a decision can be made.
* A
Straight Rebuy
situation occurs when the re-
quirement
for the
product type
is
continuing,
the
buying
alternatives are
known,
and no new
suppliers
are to be considered. A
great
deal of
buying experience
for the
product type exists,
and little new information is needed.
Fifteen
grouping
combinations were formed
by
crossing
the
product type
and
buy
class classifica-
tions. In
addition,
each
subject
within each
grouping
classification recorded the relative influence of four
buying
center
participants
for two
types
of decisions:
determination of the
product
to
buy,
and selection of
a
supplier
from whom to
buy.
The decision of what
product
to
buy
included
determining
the
product spec-
ifications, determining
the
quantity
to
buy,
and eval-
uating
the
products.
The decision of what
supplier
to
select included
determining
what
suppliers
to
contact,
evaluating suppliers
on all factors other than the actual
product,
and
selecting
the
supplier.
Selection of these
decision
types
was based on their relevance to most
purchase
situations and
previous
research
(Cooley,
Jackson,
and Ostrom
1977;
Duncan
1965;
Erickson
and Gross
1980; Scientific
American
1969).
The four
buying
center members rated
by respond-
ents were
purchasing, manufacturing, engineering,
and
top management.
Previous research has indicated that
these are
appropriate
functional areas to include as
members of the
buying
center
(Cooley, Jackson,
and
Ostrom
1977;
Erickson and Gross
1980;
Naumann
1981; Scientific
American
1969;
Wind
1978).
Areas
not contained in this
group,
but
thought
to have some
influence in the decision
making
were included in a
fifth
category (Other)
in which
subjects
were in-
structed to fill in the
appropriate
member.
Sample
The
sample
consisted of
purchasing agents employed
by
25
large
industrial
manufacturing
firms selected from
major metropolitan
areas of Arizona, California,
and
Michigan.
Since
many
of the firms were divisions of
large conglomerates,
divisions were the unit of anal-
ysis
unless
corporate purchasing
was centralized.
Large
manufacturing
firms were chosen because
they
are more
likely
to have
purchasing agents
who
specialize
in the
purchase
of one or more
product types,
and, hence,
can serve as
subjects
in one of the
product
treatments.
Furthermore, manufacturing
firms were chosen rather
than distributors or retailers, since they
would
pur-
chase all
product types
examined.
Purchasing managers
in the 25
participating
firms
identified
purchasing agents
who
bought
each of the
five
product types.
From the list of
purchasing agents
identified, subjects
were
randomly assigned
to a
buy
class conditional on the
type
of
product they actually
bought.
No more than two
purchasing agents
from
any
one firm were
assigned
to
any
one cell to increase the
representativeness
of firms and industries within
any
treatment cell.
This
sampling procedure
was utilized to increase
the
validity
of
subject responses. Subjects
were asked
to indicate their
perceptions
of the influence structure
of the
buying
center in a
particular purchase
situation.
Therefore,
it was essential that the
sampling proce-
dure ensured that
subjects
had
experience purchasing
the
product
described in the
questionnaire
to which
they responded, and, hence,
had a valid basis for
pre-
dicting
influence structure
(Carlsmith, Ellsworth,
and
Aronson
1976;
Geller
1978;
Hansen
1972).
Despite
several
methodological problems
in the
measurement of influence in
organization buying (Silk
and Kalwani
1982),
cost and
efficiency
considerations
dictated that
purchasing agents only
be
surveyed.
However, previous
research has
suggested
that
pur-
chasing agents
are an
important
member of the
buying
center
(Cooley 1976; Cooley,
Jackson,
and Ostrom
1977;
Naumann
1981; Pingry 1974).
This
study sought
the
opinion
of this
important buying
center member.
Furthermore,
results of Silk and Kalwani
(1982) sug-
gest
that
purchasing agents
should be able to discrim-
inate
among
different roles with
respect
to their de-
gree
of influence.
A total of 254
subjects
from the 25
companies
was
surveyed.
A
profile
of the industries
represented
in the
sample
is shown in Table 1. The
average
sales of the
TABLE 1
Profile of Industries Used in
Sample
Number of Number of
Industry
Firms
Sample Responses
Electronics 9 79
Aerospace
6 62
Computers
3 23
Transportation
2 16
Energy productions
1 35
Pharmaceuticals
1 15
Consumer
products
1 10
Paper
1 8
Communications 1
6
25 254
Average
sales
per
division: $495,560,000
Average
number of
employees per
division: 5,927
Average
value of
products purchased:
$194,760,000
Purchasing Agents' Perceptions /
77
divisions included in the
sample
was
$495,560,000.
The
average
division
employed 5,927 employees
and
had
purchased $194,760,000
of
products
in the
pre-
vious
year.
Data Collection
Subjects
were
presented
a
role-playing
scenario in
which
they
were to
imagine
themselves in a
given
treatment condition. Each
subject
was
exposed
to a
vignette describing
a
particular product
and a
partic-
ular
buy
class
situation, using
the definitions
provided
earlier. The realism of the
purchasing
situation was
checked
by asking respondents
to rate the realism of
the described situation on a
7-point
Likert scale
(1
=
very realistic,
7 = not
very realistic).
The mean re-
sponse
was
2.8, suggesting
the scenario had some de-
gree
of external
validity.
Geller
(1978) distinguished
this
passive
role
play-
ing,
in which
subjects
indicate how
they
would react
to a
situation,
from active role
playing
in which sub-
jects actually
enact the scenario described. Hansen
(1972)
contended that role
playing,
active or
passive,
is
justified
for situations which cannot be
replicated
easily
in an
experiment,
such as
purchases involving
an extensive
decision-making process
and
expensive
products
and
purchases
which are
relatively
infre-
quent.
The
questionnaire
asked each
subject
to indicate
the relative influence of the
buying
center members
for the
purchasing
situation described in the scenario.
Relative influence was measured with the method of
attributed influence
(March 1955).
This method has
been used in
previous
industrial
buyer
behavior re-
search
(Cooley,
Jackson,
and Ostrom
1977),
and asks
subjects
to allocate a fixed total of 100
points among
members that
participate
in the
decision-making pro-
cess for the
buying
center.
Analysis
of Data
The
design
used to
analyze
the data was a
repeated
measures
design
with allocated observations
(Shaffer
1981).
The factors
product type (P)
and
buy
class
(B)
were
grouping
factors. The
repeated
factors were de-
cision
type (D)
and member
(M).
The factor decision
type
had two levels:
product
to
buy
and
supplier
to
select. The factor member had five levels:
purchasing,
manufacturing, engineering, top management,
and
other. The two
repeated
factors were crossed with one
another and also with the two
grouping
factors.
Recall that for each decision
type,
the sum of the
points
allocated
by
a
subject
must
equal
100. Such a
constraint
implies
that the
only
testable
hypotheses
are
those
concerning
the main effect for the allocation factor
(member
in this
case)
and its interactions with the other
factors
(Shaffer 1981).
In this
situation,
the usual
pro-
cedures used to
analyze
the
repeated
measures
design
are
appropriate
to test these
hypotheses.
In this
study,
the multivariate
approach
for
repeated
measures was
used,
since the
assumptions
of this
approach
are less
restrictive than those
required
in the univariate
ap-
proach (Timm 1980). Computations
were
performed
using program
P4V of the Biomedical
Computer
Pro-
grams (Dixon 1981).1
The results are
presented
in Ta-
ble 2.
As indicated
by
the
p-values
shown in Table
2,
MPBD, MBD, MPB,
and MB were all
nonsignifi-
cant. This indicated that
buy
class did not
appear
to
affect
purchasing agents' perceptions
of the relative
influence of the
buying
center members. Additional
analyses using
firm size and
industry type
as
grouping
factors also failed to show
any significant buy
class
effect on
purchasing agents' perceptions
of the influ-
ence structure. Since these additional
analyses
also
showed the results in Table 2 to be consistent across
finm size and
industry type, they
are not
reported.
Given
its
apparent unimportance,
the
buy
class factor
is,
therefore, ignored
in the remainder of the
analysis.
The
significance
of MPD
implied
that
purchasing
agents' perceptions
of the relative
importance
of the
buying
center members
changed
across the various
combinations of
product type
and decision
type.
Table
3
reports
the
average points
allocated to each member
for the 10
product type/decision type
treatment com-
binations.
In order to
investigate
differences
among
treat-
ment
averages, multiple comparisons
were conducted.
The
significant
MPD interaction indicated that three
types
of
comparisons
were of interest:
(1) changes
in
perceptions
of the relative
importance
of
buying
cen-
'The
experimental design
was unbalanced in that there were an un-
equal
number of
subjects
for each
product type-buy
class combina-
tion. The
reported analysis
tested each source of variation
adjusted
for all other sources of variation in the model.
Equal weights
were
assumed for all treatment means.
TABLE 2
Repeated
Measures
Analysis
of Data
Wilk's Criterion
S.V. d.f. MANOVA F P-Value
M 4 231.12 <.0001
MP 16 3.27 <.0001
MB 8 1.49 .1581
MPB 32 .99 .4775
MD 4 99.26 <.0001
MPD 16 3.24 <.0001
MBD 8 1.26 .2604
MPBD 32 .94 .5631
78
/
Journal of
Marketing,
Fall 1984
TABLE 3
Cell Means for Relative Influence Allocations
Major
Minor
Component
Capital Capital
Materials Parts
Supplies
%
Purchasing
30.33 34.44 23.63 27.21 32.69
Product %
Manufacturing
20.11 20.27 20.48 15.82 19.04
to %
Engineering
35.44 28.06 40.77 45.98 22.59
Buy
%
Management
11.33 8.47 6.65 6.72 5.13
% Other 2.78 8.75 8.46 4.26 20.56
%
Purchasing
50.22 60.69 70.06 64.61 63.48
Supplier
%
Manufacturing
13.78 11.64 7.02 5.43 11.17
to %
Engineering
26.22 18.61 17.42 24.02 12.69
Select %
Management
7.78 6.69 3.38 3.98 4.24
% Other 2.00 2.36 2.12 1.97 8.43
ter members across
products
for each
decision, (2)
changes
in
perceptions
of the relative
importance
of
buying
center members across decisions for each
product,
and
(3)
differences in
perceptions
of the rel-
ative
importance
of
buying
center members within each
product/decision
combination. The Bonferroni mul-
tiple comparisons procedure
was
used,
and a level of
significance
of 5% for the entire set of
comparisons
was selected
(Miller 1981).
All conclusions stated in
this
paper
were
statistically significant
with
regard
to
this criterion.2 These conclusions are summarized in
Table 4.3
Comparisons
of Relative Influence
The
present study
confirmed
previous
evidence that
perceptions
of relative influence of
buying
center
members
changed
across
product types.
Furthermore,
it demonstrated that
changes
in these
perceptions
across
product type depended upon
whether the decision was
supplier
to select or
product
to
buy.
When the deci-
sion was
product
to
buy, engineering
was
perceived
as more influential when
buying
either materials or
component parts
than when
buying supplies.
When
concern was
supplier
from which to
buy, purchasing
was
perceived
to have
greater
influence in materials
decisions than in
major capital
decisions. The
per-
ceived influence of
manufacturing
and
top manage-
ment remained constant across
product type
for both
2A total of 225
multiple comparisons
was
required
to address the
questions
of interest. Thus, using
the Bonferroni
inequality, any
sin-
gle comparison
was deemed to be
significant
if its
reported
two-tailed
p-value
was less than
.05/225
= .0002.
3When the decision involved the
product category Supplies,
the
members
represented
in the
category
Other were ranked third in im-
portance.
Observation of the
questionnaires
indicated that the Other
category
in this situation
generally
involved users of the
supplies.
However, since this was the
only
case where this
category appeared
to be of much
importance, only comparisons among purchasing,
man-
ufacturing, engineering,
and
top management
were considered.
the
product
and
supplier
decisions.
The
present study
also showed that
purchasing
agents' perceptions
of the influence of a
buying
center
member
depended upon
the
specific
decision
type.
Purchasing
was
perceived
to exert a
greater
influence
in the
supplier
selection decision than in the
product
selection
decision,
and this was true for all five
prod-
uct
types. Manufacturing's perceived
relative influ-
ence increased when
making product
decisions related
to the
purchase
of minor
capital, supplies,
materials,
and
component parts. Engineering's perceived
rela-
tive influence increased when
making product
deci-
sions for the
purchase
of materials and
component parts.
Top management's degree
of
perceived
influence re-
mained constant across decision
type, regardless
of
the
type
of
product being purchased.
Finally,
the
present study
indicated
purchasing
agents' perceptions
of the relative influence of
buying
center members in
product
and
supplier
decisions re-
lated to the
purchase
of a
particular product.
Results
indicated
that,
in
general, engineering, purchasing,
and,
to a lesser
extent, manufacturing,
were
perceived
as
the more influential members of the
buying
center. In
all
cases, top management
was
perceived
as the least
influential member of the
buying
center. However,
the
specific
influence structure
depended upon
the deci-
sion
type
and
product type.
For
product
decisions re-
lated to the
purchase
of
major capital, engineering
and
purchasing
were
perceived
as more influential than
top
management.
For the
purchase
of minor
capital
and
supplies, purchasing, engineering,
and
manufacturing
were all
perceived
as more influential than
top
man-
agement. Engineering
was
perceived
as more influ-
ential than
any
other member when
purchasing
com-
ponent parts,
and was also
perceived
as more influential
than both
manufacturing
and
top management
when
purchasing
materials.
When the decision was which
supplier
to
use, pur-
chasing
was
always perceived
as the most influential
Purchasing Agents' Perceptions /
79
TABLE 4
Summary
of
Significant
Differences
Across Product
Type
Decision was which
product
to
buy:
Relative influence of
engineering
was
greater
when
buying
materials or
component parts
than when
buying sup-
plies.
Decision was
supplier
from which to
buy:
Relative influence of
purchasing
was
greater
when
buying
materials than when
buying major capital.
Across Decision
Type
Relative influence of
purchasing
was
greater
in the
supplier
decision than in the
product
decision for all
product
types.
Product
type
was either minor
capital
or
supplies:
Relative influence of
manufacturing
was
greater
in the
product
decision than in the
supplier
decision.
Product
type
was either materials or
component parts:
Relative influence of
manufacturing
and
engineering
was
greater
in the
product
decision than in the
supplier
de-
cision.
Among Buying
Center Members
Decision was
product
to
buy:
Relative influence of
purchasing
and
engineering
was
greater
than relative influence of
top management
for all
product types.
Relative influence of
engineering
was
greater
than relative influence of
manufacturing
for materials.
Relative influence of
engineering
was
greater
than relative influence of all other members for
component parts.
Relative influence of
manufacturing
was
greater
than relative influence of
top management
for minor
capital,
ma-
terials, component parts,
and
supplies.
Decision was
supplier
from which to
buy:
Relative influence of
purchasing
was
greater
than relative influence of all other members for all
products.
Relative influence of
engineering
was
greater
than relative influence of
top management
for
major capital,
ma-
terials, and
component parts.
Relative influence of
engineering
was
greater
than relative influence of
manufacturing
for
component parts.
member of the
buying
center.
Engineering
became
relatively
more influential in the
supplier
selection de-
cision for the
purchase
of
major capital, materials,
and
component parts.
However,
in
general, buying
center
members other than
purchasing
were
perceived
as more
influential in
product
selection decisions than in
sup-
plier
selection decisions.
Discussion
This
paper
confirms the
complex
nature of
buying
center influence. The evidence
suggested
that the
pur-
chasing agents perceived
themselves to be one of the
most influential members of the
buying
center, par-
ticularly
for
supplier
selection decisions. These results
were consistent with the
findings
of
Cooley,
Jackson,
and Ostrom
(1977), Scientific
American
(1969),
and
Erickson and Gross
(1980). However,
the
perceived
importance
of
engineering
was evident
also, particu-
larly
in decisions related to
major capital,
materials,
and
component parts. Top management
had
relatively
little
perceived
influence in all
product
and
supplier
decisions.
Contrary
to
prevailing thought,
however, buy
class
did not
appear
to have a
significant impact
on
pur-
chasing agents' perceptions
of the relative influence
of
buying
center
participants.
This
finding
is
signifi-
cant in that it contradicts the conventional wisdom of
industrial marketers as well as earlier
empirical
re-
search,
which
reported changes
in
buying
center
member influences across
buy
class
(Naumann 1981,
Pingry 1974).
The
apparent
contradiction could be due
to two factors.
First,
earlier work
may
have been af-
fected
by confounding
influences of
product type
or
decision
type.
Product
type
and decision
type may
be
the most
important
determinants of influence structure
in the
buying
center. Once these effects are elimi-
nated, buy
class
may
not affect influence structure.
Bellizzi and
McVey (1978)
controlled for confound-
ing
influences due to
product type
and also failed to
find
any
effect on influence structure due to
buy
class.
Thus,
the
nonsignificant
results with
respect
to
buy
class
may
be due to the absence of a "true" relation-
ship
between
buy
class and
buying
center influence.
Similarly,
the
significant relationship
between
purchasing agents'
influence and environmental un-
certainty
observed
by Spekman
and Ster (1979) may
be
explained by
a closer examination of the deter-
minants of environmental
uncertainty. Intuitively,
en-
vironmental
uncertainty may
be considered a function
of
buy
class. However,
factors used to measure en-
vironmental
uncertainty
can be considered measures
80
/
Journal of
Marketing,
Fall 1984
of risk. Since the
present
research did not include risk
as a
variable,
it is unknown if risk is a function of the
product being purchased and/or
the
buy
class. While
the
present study suggests that,
in the situation inves-
tigated,
risk was
perceived
as a function of
product
type (explaining
the
relationship
between
perceived
influence and
product type),
and not of
buy
class
(ex-
plaining
the lack of a
relationship
between
perceived
influence and
buy class),
future research should ad-
dress the issue of the determinants of risk and its ef-
fect on the influence structure of the
buying
center.
Second,
the
insignificant impact
of
buy
class on
perceptions
of the relative influence of
buying
center
members could have been due to a weak
manipulation
of the
buy
class treatment.
Although pilot
subjects
in-
dicated
they recognized
differences
among
the three
buy classes,
this
recognition may
not have occurred
among sample respondents.
On the other
hand,
ad-
ditional data
gathered by
the
authors, using
the same
manipulation
of
buy
class and
reported
elsewhere,
re-
vealed a
significant relationship
between
buy
class and
the relative
importance
of
marketing
mix
components
to industrial
purchasers (Jackson, Keith,
and Burdick
1983).
This evidence seems to
suggest
that the
buy
class
manipulation
was effective.
The
present
research indicated
only
that
buy
class
had no effect on
purchasing agents' perceptions
of the
influence structure of the
buying
center. Previous re-
search has indicated that the structure of the
buying
center does
vary
with
buy
class
(Doyle,
Woodside,
and Michell
1979). Additionally,
the definitions of
buy
class
suggest
that the amount and
type
of information
required
in a
purchase
decision
may vary
across
buy
class.
Finally,
to the extent that
buy
class correlates
with environmental
uncertainty,
results of
Spekman
and Ster
(1979) suggest
that the
purchasing process
(i.e.,
division of labor and
participation
in decision
making) may vary
across
buy
class.
Results of the
study
indicated that
purchasing
agents' perceptions
of the influence structure of the
buying
center will
change, depending upon
the
prod-
uct
being purchased
and on the decision
being
made.
The
present
research assumed, however,
that the two
decisions under
study-product
to
buy
and
supplier
from which to
buy-are independent. Experience
in-
dicates that there are situations in which the two de-
cisions are made
simultaneously.
For
example,
in the
first-time
purchase
of a
major capital good
where
sup-
pliers'
individual
offerings
are not substitutable,
the
choice of a
product
is,
in
effect,
the choice of a
sup-
plier. Alternatively,
in the
purchase
of
supplies
where
suppliers'
individual
offerings
are
homogeneous,
the
choice of a
supplier may
dominate the choice of the
product.
Future research
may
want to determine which
purchase
situations are more
likely
to involve a se-
quence
of
independent decisions,
which are more
likely
to involve decisions made
simultaneously,
and how
influence structures
vary
across these
purchase pro-
cesses.
It is useful to
recognize
that the
perceived
influ-
ence structure of the
buying
center varies across rel-
atively easily
identifiable
factors,
such as
product
and
decision
type. However,
the results fail to
suggest why
the observed
relationships
occurred.
Equating
the
pur-
chase
process
with a
joint decision-making process may
provide insights
into the causal factors of the influ-
ence structure. In this
process,
individuals in the
buy-
ing
center can be conceived as
attempting
to affect the
opinions
of each other. Further research
may
want to
utilize French and Raven's
(1959)
bases of
power
as
a framework for
examining
how one
buying
center
member can affect the
opinion
of another
buying
cen-
ter member of a
particular
decision. The inclusion of
type
of
power
should
clarify
the nature of the influ-
ence
relationships
that exist
among buying
center
members. For
example,
if influence is related to risk
reduction,
results of
Spekman
and Ster
(1979) sug-
gest
that the
person
who is able to reduce risk will
emerge
as the most influential member of the
buying
center.
Thus,
the
person
with a
strong
information or
expert
base of
power may
be the most effective in
reducing
risk and
may emerge
as the most influential
member of the
buying
center.
In addition to
adding
to our
understanding
of or-
ganizational buying
behavior,
the
present findings
have
significant managerial implications
for industrial mar-
keters. In
particular,
results
suggest
the
following:
* The
target
audience of
marketing
efforts will
depend upon
who the more
important
individ-
uals of the
buying
center are.
Findings suggest
that the
purchasing agent
should be called on
regardless
of
product type,
but that
engineering
and/or manufacturing may
also be
important
target
audiences. For
example,
when
selling
component parts, marketing
efforts should be
directed toward
engineering.
*
Marketing
efforts will
depend upon
which in-
dividuals of the
buying
center are more influ-
ential for a
given
decision. Since
engineering
and
manufacturing
are more influential in
prod-
uct selection decisions, they may
have to be sold
on
product
characteristics. On the other
hand,
since
purchasing
is most influential in
supplier
selection decisions, they may
have to be sold
on
company
characteristics.
* Given that various
buying
center members have
different relative levels of
influence, perhaps
product development
should
incorporate
fea-
tures that will enhance the attractiveness of the
product
to the more influential individuals in the
buying
center. For example, engineering per-
Purchasing Agents' Perceptions /
81
sonnel in customers' firms
may provide signif-
icant
insights
into
product
features most desired
in
component parts.
The
present study
found that
top management
was
not
perceived
as a
very
influential member in
pur-
chase decisions. Because this result contradicts
pre-
vious research
(Bellizzi
and
McVey 1978)
and
pre-
vailing thought
on influence structures in
organizational
buying behavior,
it deserves some comment. While
purchasing agents may
not
perceive top management
as
influencing
the decision of which
product
to
buy
or which
supplier
to
select, top management may
have
considerable influence in the decision to
buy
or com-
mit funds to a
purchase. Top management may pro-
vide ultimate
approval
for some
purchases, especially
those related to the
purchase
of
expensive major cap-
ital.
Thus,
it
may
be
important
to
provide top
man-
agement
with
product
material.
Additionally,
the low
level of
perceived
influence of
top management may
be due to the
ambiguity
of the
concept influence.
Some
individuals
may perceive
ultimate
approval
for the
purchase
of a
product
to be indicative of a
great
deal
of influence. Others
may perceive
that
top manage-
ment has little influence in the total
purchase process
except
for this one
aspect.
Since
purchasing agents
are
more
likely
to be involved in
and, hence,
aware of
the total
purchase process, they may
be more
likely
to take the latter
perspective.
Although
the current
study
found
significant
dif-
ferences in relative
influence,
caution should be ex-
ercised when
interpreting
the
results,
since the re-
spondents
were
generated
from a convenience
sample,
and since several other
competing hypotheses may
ex-
ist
(i.e.,
risk and environmental
uncertainty).
Fur-
thermore,
the
study
focused on
purchasing agents'
self-
reported perceptions
of relative influence. Future re-
search
may
want to examine the
perceptions
of var-
ious
buying
center
participants
of relative influence
structures.
Conclusions
Marketers must be aware of differences in the relative
influence of
buying
center
participants
when devel-
oping
communications
strategies. According
to Zalt-
man and Bonoma
(1977),
"It
appears
from limited re-
search that much industrial
advertising
is
being
misdirected"
(p. 57).
The same could be said of
per-
sonal
selling,
where identification of the
buying
cen-
ter and
calling
on the
right people
are issues of critical
concern. The relative influence within the
buying
cen-
ter is
dynamic
rather than static in nature. Results of
this
study
indicate that the relative influence of
buying
center members
changes, depending upon
the
product
being purchased
and on the decision
being
made.
Thus,
previous
research which has
explored
relative influ-
ence should be
generalized only
to those
products
or
decisions which
they
examined. Likewise,
future re-
search should
incorporate product type
and decision
type
as variables in order to
analyze
the influence
structure of the
buying
center across these dimen-
sions.
REFERENCES
Bellizzi, Joseph
A.
(1979),
"Product
Type
and the Relative
Influence of
Buyers
in Commercial Construction,"
Indus-
trial
Marketing Management,
8
(June),
213-220.
(1981), "Organizational
Size and
Buying
Influ-
ences,"
Industrial
Marketing Management,
10
(February),
17-21.
and
Phillip McVey (1978), "Buy
Class vs. Product
Type
as Predictive of Industrial Behavior,"
in
Proceedings,
Southern
Marketing
Association, Robert S.
Franz,
Robert
M.
Hopkins,
and Al
Toma, eds.,
Atlanta: Southern Mar-
keting
Association.
Buckner, Hugh (1967),
How British Industries
Buy,
London:
Hutchinson and
Company.
Carlsmith,
J. Merrill,
Phoebe C. Ellsworth,
and Elliot Aron-
son
(1976),
Research in Social
Psychology, Reading,
MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Cooley,
James R.
(1976),
"An
Analysis
of Relative Power
Among Participants
in the Purchase of Industrial
Compo-
nents,"
D.B.A. dissertation,
Arizona State
University.
,
Donald W.
Jackson, Jr.,
and Lonnie L. Ostrom
(1977), "Analyzing
the Relative Power of
Participants
in
Industrial
Buying
Decisions,"
in
Contemporary Marketing
Thought,
Barnett A.
Greenberg
and
Danny
N.
Bellinger,
eds., Chicago:
American
Marketing.
Dixon,
W.
J.,
ed.
(1981),
BMDP Statistical
Software
1981,
Berkeley,
CA:
University
of California Press.
Doyle, Peter,
Arch Woodside,
and Paul Michell
(1979),
"Or-
ganizations Buying
in New Task and
Rebuy Situations,"
Industrial
Marketing Management,
8
(February),
7-11.
Duncan,
Delbert
(1965),
"Some Basic Determinants of Be-
havior in Industrial
Purchasing," Pacific
Purchasor,
47
(May),
17-22.
Erickson,
Robert A. and Andrew C. Gross
(1980),
"Gener-
alizing
Industrial
Buying:
A
Longitudinal Study,"
Indus-
trial
Marketing Management,
9
(July),
253-265.
French,
John R.
P.,
Jr. and Bertram Raven
(1959),
"The Bases
of Social Power,"
in Studies in Social Behavior, D. Cart-
wright, ed.,
Ann Arbor:
University
of
Michigan
Press.
Geller,
Daniel M.
(1978),
"Involvement in
Role-Playing
Sim-
ulations: A Demonstration with Studies on Obedience,"
Journal
of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
36
(March),
219-235.
Hansen, Flemming (1972),
Consumer Choice Behavior: A
Cognitive Theory,
New York: Free Press.
Jackson,
Donald W., Jr.,
Janet E.
Keith,
and Richard K. Bur-
dick
(1983), "Purchasing Agents'
Perceived
Importance
of
82
/
Journal of
Marketing,
Fall 1984
Marketing
Mix
Components
in Different Industrial Pur-
chase
Situations," unpublished working paper, Tempe,
AZ:
College
of
Business,
Arizona State
University.
March,
James G.
(1955),
"An Introduction to the
Theory
and
Measurement of
Influence,"
American Political Review, 69
(June),
445-451.
Meier,
Robert E.
(1972),
"A Factor
Analytic Investigation
of
the Industrial
Purchasing Manager Position,"
Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University
of Illinois.
Miller, Rupert G.,
Jr.
(1981),
Simultaneous Statistical
Infer-
ence, 2nd ed., New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Naumann,
Earl
(1981),
"The
Impact
of Purchase Situation and
Purchase Phase on Amount and Bases of Influence in Or-
ganizational Purchasing:
An
Empirical Investigation,"
D.B.A.
dissertation,
Arizona State
University.
Patchen,
Martin
(1974),
"The Focus and Basis of Influence
on
Organizational Decisions," Organizational
Behaviour
and Human
Performance,
11
(April),
195-221.
Pingry,
Jack R.
(1974),
"The
Engineer
and
Purchasing Agent
Compared,"
Journal
of Purchasing,
10
(November),
33-
45.
Robinson,
Patrick
J.,
Charles W.
Faris,
and Yoram Wind
(1967),
Industrial
Buying
and Creative
Marketing,
Boston:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Scientific American, Inc.
(1969),
How
Industry Buys,
New York:
Scientific American.
Shaffer,
Juliet
Popper (1981),
"The
Analysis
of Variance Mixed
Model with Allocated Observations:
Application
to Re-
peated
Measurement
Designs,"
Journal
of
the American
Statistical Association, 76
(September),
607-611.
Silk,
Alvin J. and Manohar U. Kalwani
(1982), "Measuring
Influence in
Organizational
Purchase
Decisions,"
Journal
of Marketing Research, 19
(May),
165-181.
Spekman,
Robert E. and Louis W. Stem
(1979),
"Environ-
mental
Uncertainty
and
Buying Group
Structure: An Em-
pirical Investigation,"
Journal
of Marketing,
43
(Spring),
54-64.
Timm,
Neil H.
(1980),
"Multivariate
Analysis
of Variance of
Repeated Measurements,"
in Handbook of Statistics, Vol.
1,
P. R.
Krishnaiah, ed., New York: Elsevier North-Hol-
land.
Webster,
F.
E.,
Jr. and Yoram Wind
(1972), Organizational
Buying Behavior, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Weigand,
Robert E.
(1966), "Identifying
Industrial
Buying
Responsibility,"
Journal
of Marketing Research, 3
(Feb-
ruary),
81-84.
Wind,
Yoram
(1978),
"The Boundaries of
Buying
Decision
Centers,"
Journal
of Purchasing
and Materials
Manage-
ment,
14
(Summer),
23-29.
Zaltman,
Gerald and Thomas V. Bonoma
(1977), "Organi-
zational
Buying
Behavior:
Hypotheses
and
Directions,"
In-
dustrial
Marketing Management, 6,
53-60.
F aVY
Industrial
Marketing Management
A
Strategic
View of Business Markets
Second Edition
Michael Hutt
Arizona State
University
Thomas
Speh
Miami
University
A
complete
and current industrial
marketing management
text that
presents
a more
comprehensive
treatment of:
o
Organizational buying
behavior
o
Market-forecasting techniques
o Industrial
marketing
channels and
logistics
New To This Edition
o 11 new cases
o New
chapter
on Industrial
Marketing
Intelligence (Ch. 5)
o Profiles that
highlight marketing strategy
differences between industrial and
consumer-products
firms
(Chs.
1 and
9)
o New information on trends in
buyer-
seller
relationships (Chs. 3, 9, and 17)
o A new
emphasis
on the
importance
of
competitive analysis
in industrial
marketing management throughout
(see
Chs. 1,6, 10, and
17)
Some
Highlights
o Real-world illustrations are included to
capture
student interest and
provide
a
base for class discussions
o A well-balanced selection of cases
combined with
engaging end-of-chapter
questions
o Built-in
learning
aids that stimulate
interest in each
chapter through
adroit
use of
objectives, summaries,
illustrations, exhibits
o A
comprehensive
Instructor's
Manual that includes case
analysis,
transparency masters, multiple-choice
questions,
and more!
Available Fall 1984 720
pages (approx.)
hardcover ISBN 0-03-069307-1
Instructor's Manual with
Transparency
Masters ISBN 0-03-069308-X
For examination
copies, please
contact
your
local
Dryden
Press
representative
or
write on
your college
letterhead to:
Marie A.
Schappert
The
Dryden
Press
P.O. Box 36
Lavallette, NJ 08735
Purchasing Agents' Perceptions /
83
Ila -- = a
I