Studietaak 5.12 Op de stoel van reviewer
In deze opdracht wordt iedere alinea van de theoretical implications beoordeeld. Als laatst
worden er drie punten genoemd waarop de tekst in zijn geheel verbeterd kan worden.
Alinea 1:
‘Empirical research has demonstrated deleterious effects of coercive strategies (e.g.,
Kumar, 2005). This study explored the conditions favouring coercive strategies and their
actual use by dominant suppliers. The study shows that most coercive strategies resulted in
buyer compliance. The observed compliance can be explained by the ability of buyers to
pass on most of their costs and problems to their customers. Buyers believe that the
dominancy of the supplier will remain, and consequently they will show compliance as long
as their long-term goals can be achieved.’
De introductie van de discussie bevat een aantal sterke punten. Allereerst wordt de context
(‘de grand puzzle’) direct aangegeven met een bron. Met de bron geeft de onderzoeker
gelijk het belang van het onderzoek weer, hierdoor wordt het onderzoek in een bredere
context geplaatst. De bevindingen worden kort en bondig beschreven, de toegevoegde
waarde van het onderzoek is hiermee gelijk duidelijk. Daarentegen wordt er in bovenstaande
alinea veel informatie herhaald, dit hoort niet thuis in dit onderdeel ‘theoretical implications’.
Het doel van theoretical implications is om eigen bevindingen kort te herhalen en deze te
vergelijken met de theorie.
Alinea 2:
‘It is generally suggested that parties recognize that certain coercive influence strategies
have large negative effects on their relationships (Frazier and Rody, 1991). This study in the
Dutch gas and electricity industry shows that dominant suppliers do use coercive influence
strategies in case of strong asymmetric relationships. Contrary to literature in which
retaliation is feared (Stern and Gorman,1969; Kotter,1977), dominant suppliers do not
expect retaliation from coercive strategies. The resulting buyers’ compliance explains the
relatively frequent use of coercive influence strategies by dominant suppliers. Dominant
suppliers considered especially hard coercive strategies to be very effective. Bacharach and
Lawler (1980) and others believe that the threat strategy is to be used as a last resort. From
this study, it appears that threats are frequently used, especially when full compliance from
all buyers is needed. Payan and McFarland (2005) suggested that legalistic pleas are rarely
used in practice. However, in this study, we found that legalistic pleas were frequently used
and were considered to be part of normal business practice. Our study confirmed the
conclusion of Lonsdale (2001), who posited that in supplier dominated markets buyers sign
1
In deze opdracht wordt iedere alinea van de theoretical implications beoordeeld. Als laatst
worden er drie punten genoemd waarop de tekst in zijn geheel verbeterd kan worden.
Alinea 1:
‘Empirical research has demonstrated deleterious effects of coercive strategies (e.g.,
Kumar, 2005). This study explored the conditions favouring coercive strategies and their
actual use by dominant suppliers. The study shows that most coercive strategies resulted in
buyer compliance. The observed compliance can be explained by the ability of buyers to
pass on most of their costs and problems to their customers. Buyers believe that the
dominancy of the supplier will remain, and consequently they will show compliance as long
as their long-term goals can be achieved.’
De introductie van de discussie bevat een aantal sterke punten. Allereerst wordt de context
(‘de grand puzzle’) direct aangegeven met een bron. Met de bron geeft de onderzoeker
gelijk het belang van het onderzoek weer, hierdoor wordt het onderzoek in een bredere
context geplaatst. De bevindingen worden kort en bondig beschreven, de toegevoegde
waarde van het onderzoek is hiermee gelijk duidelijk. Daarentegen wordt er in bovenstaande
alinea veel informatie herhaald, dit hoort niet thuis in dit onderdeel ‘theoretical implications’.
Het doel van theoretical implications is om eigen bevindingen kort te herhalen en deze te
vergelijken met de theorie.
Alinea 2:
‘It is generally suggested that parties recognize that certain coercive influence strategies
have large negative effects on their relationships (Frazier and Rody, 1991). This study in the
Dutch gas and electricity industry shows that dominant suppliers do use coercive influence
strategies in case of strong asymmetric relationships. Contrary to literature in which
retaliation is feared (Stern and Gorman,1969; Kotter,1977), dominant suppliers do not
expect retaliation from coercive strategies. The resulting buyers’ compliance explains the
relatively frequent use of coercive influence strategies by dominant suppliers. Dominant
suppliers considered especially hard coercive strategies to be very effective. Bacharach and
Lawler (1980) and others believe that the threat strategy is to be used as a last resort. From
this study, it appears that threats are frequently used, especially when full compliance from
all buyers is needed. Payan and McFarland (2005) suggested that legalistic pleas are rarely
used in practice. However, in this study, we found that legalistic pleas were frequently used
and were considered to be part of normal business practice. Our study confirmed the
conclusion of Lonsdale (2001), who posited that in supplier dominated markets buyers sign
1
