The purpose of this
article is to describe a model of industrial (organizational) buyer behavior.
Considerable knowledge on organizational buyer behavior already exists1 and can be classified into
three categories. The first category includes a considerable amount of
systematic empirical research on the buying policies and practices of
purchasing agents and other organizational buyers. 2 The second includes
industry reports and observations of industrial buyers. 3 Finally, the third category
consists of books, monographs, and articles which analyze, theorize, model, and
sometimes report on industrial buying activities. 4 What is now needed is a
reconciliation and integration of existing knowledge into a realistic and
comprehensive model of organizational buyer behavior.
It
is hoped that the model described in this article will be useful in the
following ways: first, to broaden the vision of research on organizational
buyer behavior so that it includes the most salient elements and their
interactions; second, to act as a catalyst for building marketing information
systems from the viewpoint of the industrial buyer; and, third, to generate new
hypotheses for future research on fundamental processes underlying
organizational buyer behavior
A Description of Industrial Buyer
Behavior
The model of industrial buyer behavior is
summarized in Figure 1. Although this illustrative presentation looks complex
due to the large number of variables and complicated relationships among them,
this is because it is a generic model which attempts to describe and explain
all types of industrial buying decisions. One can, however, simplify the actual
application of the model in a specific study in at least two ways. First,
several variables are included as conditions to hold constant differences among
types of products to be purchased (product-specific factors) and differences
among types of purchasing organizations. These exogenous factors will not be
necessary if the objective of a study is to describe the process of buying behavior
for a specific product or service. Second, some of the decision-process
variables can also be ignored if the interest is strictly to conduct a survey
of static measurement of the psychology of the organizational buyers. For
example, perceptual bias and active search variables may be eliminated if the
interest is not in the process of communication to the organizational buyers.
This model is similar to the Howard-Sheth model of
buyer behavior in format and classification of variables. 5 However,
there are several significant differences. First, while the Howard-Sheth model
is more general and probably more useful in consumer behavior, the model described
in this article is limited to organizational buying alone. Second, the
Howard-Sheth model is limited to the individual decision-making process,
whereas this model explicitly describes the joint decision-making process.
Finally, there are fewer variables in this model than in the Howard-Sheth model
of buyer behavior.
Organizational buyer behavior consists of three
distinct aspects. The first aspect is the psychological world of the
individuals involved in organizational buying decisions. The second aspect
relates to the conditions which precipitate joint decisions among these
individuals. The final aspect is the process of joint decision making with the
inevitable conflict among the decision makers and its resolution by resorting
to a variety of tactics.
Psychological World of the
Decision Makers
Contrary to popular belief, many industrial buying
decisions are not solely in the hands of purchasing agents. 6
Typically in an industrial setting, one finds that there are at least three
departments whose members are continuously involved in different phases of the
buying process. The most common are the personnel from the purchasing, quality
control, and manufacturing departments. These individuals are identified in the
model as purchasing agents, engineers, and users, respectively. Several other
individuals in the organization may be, but are typically not, involved in the
buying process (for example, the president of the firm or the comptroller).
There is considerable interaction among the individuals in the three
departments continuously involved in the buying process and often they are
asked to decide jointly. It is, therefore, critical to examine the similarities
and differences in the psychological worlds of these individuals.
Based on research in consumer and social
psychology, several different aspects of the psychology of the decision makers
are included in the model. Primary among these are the expectations of the
decision makers about suppliers and brands [(1) in Figure 1]. The present model
specifies five different processes which create differential expectations among
the individuals involved in the purchasing process: (1a) the background of the
individuals, (1b) information sources, (1c) active search, (1d) perceptual
distortion, and (1e) satisfaction with past purchases. These variables must be
explained and operationally defined if they are to fully represent the
psychological world of the organizational buyers.
Expectations
Expectations refer to the perceived potential of
alternative suppliers and brands to satisfy a number of explicit and implicit
objectives in any particular buying decision. The most common explicit
objectives include, in order of relative importance, product quality, delivery
time, quantity of supply, after-sale service where appropriate, and price. 7 However,
a number of studies have pointed out the critical role of several imp licit
criteria such as reputation, size, location and reciprocity relationship with
the supplier; and personality, technical expertise, salesmanship, and even life
style of the sales representative. 8 In fact,
with the standardized marketing mix among the suppliers in oligopolistic
markets, the implicit criteria are becoming marginally more and more
significant in the industrial buyer’s decisions.
Expectations can be measured by obtaining a profile
of each supplier or brand as to how satisfactory it is perceived to be in
enabling the decision maker to achieve his explicit and implicit objectives.
Almost all studies from past research indicate that expectations will
substantially differ among the purchasing agents, engineers, and product users
because each considers different criteria to be salient in judging the supplier
or the brand. In general, it is found that product users look for prompt
delivery, proper installation, and efficient serviceability; purchasing agents
look for maximum price advantage and economy in shipping and forwarding; and
engineers look for excellence in quality, standardization of the product, and
engineering pretesting of the product. These differences in objectives and,
consequently, expectations are often the root causes for constant conflict
among these three types of individuals. 9
Why are there substantial differences in
expectations? While there is considerable speculation among researchers and
observers of industrial buyer behavior on the number and nature of
explanations, there is relatively little consensus. The five most salient
processes which determine differential expectations, as specified in the model,
are discussed below.
Background of Individuals
The first, and probably most significant, factor is
the background and task orientation of each of the individuals involved in the
buying process. The different educational backgrounds of the purchasing agents,
engineers, and plant managers often generate substantially different
professional goals and values. In addition, the task expectations also generate
conflicting perceptions of one another’s role in the organization. Finally, the
personal life styles of individual decision makers play an important role in
developing differential expectations. 10
It is relatively easy to gather information on this
background factor. The educational and task differences are comparable to
demographics in consumer behavior, and life style differences can be assessed
by psychographic scales on the individual’s interests, activities, and values
as a professional.
Information Sources and Active
Search
The second and third factors in creating
differential expectations are the source and type of information each of the
decision makers is exposed to and his participation in the active search.
Purchasing agents receive disproportionately greater exposure to commercial
sources, and the information is often partial and biased toward the supplier or
the brand. In some companies, it is even a common practice to discourage sales
representatives from talking directly to the engineering or production
personnel. The engineering and production personnel, therefore, typically have
less information and what they have is obtained primarily from professional
meetings, trade reports, and even word-of- mouth. In addition, the active
search for information is often relegated to the purchasing agents because it
is presumed to be their job responsibility.
It is not too difficult to assess differences among
the three types of individuals in their exposure to various sources and types
of information by standard survey research methods.
Perceptual Distortion
A fourth factor is the selective distortion and
retention of available information. Each individual strives to make the
objective information consistent with his own prior knowledge and expectations
by systematically distorting it. For example, since there are substantial
differences in the goals and values of purchasing agents, engineers, and
production personnel, one should expect different interpretations of the same
information among them. Although no specific research has been done on this
tendency to perceptually distort information in the area of industrial buyer
behavior, a large body of research does exist on cognitive consistency to
explain its presence as a natural human tendency. 11
Perceptual distortion is probably the most
difficult variable to quantify by standard survey research methods. One
possible approach is experimentation, but this is costly. A more realistic
alternative is to utilize perceptual mapping techniques such as
multidimensional scaling or fact or analysis and compare differences in the
judgments of the purchasing agents, engineers, and production personnel to a
common list of suppliers or brands.
Satisfaction with Past Purchases
The fifth factor which creates differential
expectations among the various individuals involved in the purchasing process
is the satisfaction with past buying experiences with a supplier or brand,
Often it is not possible for a supplier or brand to provide equal satisfaction
to the three parties because each one has different goals or criteria. For
example, a supplier may be lower in price but his delivery schedule may not be
satisfactory. Similarly, a product’s quality may be excellent but its price may
be higher than others. The organization typically rewards each individual for
excellent performance in his specialized skills, so the purchasing agent is
rewarded for economy, the engineer for quality control, and the product ion
personnel for efficient scheduling. This often results in a different level of
satisfaction for each of the parties involved even though the chosen supplier
or brand may be the best feasible alternative in terms of overall corporate
goals.
Past experiences with a supplier or brand,
summarized in the satisfaction variable, directly influence the person’s
expectations toward that supplier or brand. It is relatively easy to measure
the satisfaction variable by obtaining information on how the supplier or brand
is perceived by each of the three parties.
Determinants of Joint vs.
Autonomous Decisions
Not all industrial buying decisions are made
jointly by the various individuals involved in the purchasing process.
Sometimes the buying decisions are delegated to one party, which is not
necessarily the purchasing agent. It is, therefore, important for the supplier
to know whether a buying decision is joint or autonomous and, if it is the
latter, to which party it is delegated. There are six primary factors which
determine whether a specific buying decision will be joint or autonomous. Three
of these factors are related to the characteristics of the product or service
(2a) and the other three are related to the characteristics of the buyer company
(2b).
Product-Specific Factors
The first product-specific variable is what Bauer
calls perceived risk in buying decisions. 12
Perceived risk refers to the magnitude of adverse consequences felt by the
decision maker if he makes a wrong choice, and the uncertainty under which he
must decide. The greater the uncertainty in a buying situation, the greater the
perceived risk. Although there is very little direct evidence, it is logical to
hypothesize that the greater the perceived risk in a specific buying decision,
the more likely it is that the purchase will be decided jointly by all parties
concerned. The second product-specific factor is type of purchase. If it is the
first purchase or a once-in- a-lifetime capital expenditure, one would expect
greater joint decision making. On the other hand, if the purchase decision is
repetitive and routine or is limited to maintenance products or services, the
buying decision is likely to be delegated to one party. The third factor is
time pressure. If the buying decision has to be made under a great deal of time
pressure or on an emergency basis, it is likely to be delegated to one party
rather than decided jointly.
Company-Specific Factors
The three organization-specific factors are company
orientation, company size, and degree of centralization. If the company is
technology oriented, it is likely to be dominated by the engineering people and
the buying decisions will, in essence, be made by them. Similarly, if the
company is production oriented, the buying decisions will be made by the
production personnel. 13 Second,
if the company is a large corporation, decision making will tend to be joint.
Finally, the greater the degree of centralization, the less likely it is that
the decisions will be joint. Thus, a privately-owned small company with
technology or production orientation will tend toward autonomous decision
making and a large-scale public corporation with considerable decentralization
will tend to have greater joint decision making.
Even though there is considerable research evidence
in organization behavior in general to supp ort these six factors, empirical
evidence in industrial buying decisions in particular is sketchy on them.
Perhaps with more research it will be possible to verify the generalizations
and deductive logic utilized in this aspect of the model.
Process of Joint Decision Making
The major thrust of the present model of industrial
buying decisions is to investigate the process of joint decision making. This
includes initiation of the decision to buy, gathering of information, evaluating
alternative suppliers, and resolving conflict among the parties who must
jointly decide.
The decision to buy is usually initiated by a continued need of supply or is
the outcome of long-range planning. The formal initiation in the first case is
typically from the production personnel by way of a requisition slip. The
latter usually is a formal recommendation from the planning unit to an ad hoc
committee consisting of the purchasing agent, the engineer, and the plant
manager. The information-gathering function is typically relegated to the
purchasing agent. If the purchase is a repetitive decision for standard items,
there is very little information gathering. Usually the purchasing agent
contacts the preferred supplier and orders the items on the requisition slip.
However, considerable active search effort is manifested for capital
expenditure items, especially those which are entirely new purchase experiences
for the organization. 14
The most important aspect of the joint decision-making process, however, is the
assimilation of information, deliberations on it, and the consequent conflict
which most joint decisions entail. According to March and Simon, conflict is
present when there is a need to decide jointly among a group of people who
have, at the same time, different goals and perceptions. 15 In view
of the fact that the latter is invariably present among the various parties to
industrial buying decisions, conflict becomes a common consequence of the joint
decision-making process; the buying motives and expectations about brands and
suppliers are considerably different for the engineer, the user, and the
purchasing agent, partly due to different educational backgrounds and partly
due to company policy of reward for specialized skills and viewpoints.
Interdepartmental conflict in itself is not
necessarily bad. What matters most from the organization’s viewpoint is how the
conflict is resolved (3). If it is resolved in a rational manner, one very much
hopes that the final joint decision will also tend to be rational. If, on the
other hand, conflict resolution degenerates to what Strauss calls “tactics of
lateral relationship,” 16 the
organization will suffer from inefficiency and the joint decisions may be
reduced to bargaining and politicking among the parties involved. Not only will
the decision be based on irrational criteria, but the choice of a supplier may
be to the detriment of the buying organization.
What types of conflict can be expected in
industrial buying decisions? How are they likely to be resolved? These are some
of the key quest ions in an understanding of industrial buyer behavior. If the
inter-party conflict is largely due to disagreements on expectations about the
suppliers or their brands, it is likely that the conflict will be resolved in
the problem-solving manner. The immediate consequence of this type of conflict
is to actively search for more information, deliberate more on available
information, and often to seek out other suppliers not seriously considered
before. The additional information is then presented in a problem-solving
fashion so that conflict tends to be minimized.
If the conflict among the parties is primarily due
to disagreement on some specific criteria with which to evaluate suppliers—although
there is an agreement on the buying goals or objectives at a more fundamental
level—it is likely to be resolved by persuasion. An attempt is made, under this
type of resolution, to persuade the dissenting member by pointing out the
importance of overall corporate objectives and how his criterion is not likely
to attain these objectives. There is no attempt to gather more information.
However, there results greater interaction and communication among the parties,
and sometimes an outsider is brought in to reconcile the differences.
Both problem solving and persuasion are useful and
rational methods of conflict resolution. The resulting joint decisions,
therefore, also tend to be more rational. Thus, conflicts produced due to
disagreements on expectations about the suppliers or on a specific criterion
are healthy from the organization’s viewpoint even though they may be time
consuming. One is likely to find, however, that a more typical situation in
which conflict arises is due to fundamental differences in buying goals or
objectives among the various parties. This is especially true with respect to
unique or new buying decisions related to capital expenditure items. The
conflict is resolved not by changing the differences in relative importance of
the buying goals or objectives of the individuals involved, but by the process
of bargaining. The fundamental differences among the parties are implicitly
conceded by all the members and the concept of distributive justice (tit for
tat) is invoked as a part of bargaining. The most common outcome is to allow a
single party to decide autonomously in this specific situation in return for
some favor or promise of reciprocity in future decisions.
Finally, if the disagreement is not simply with
respect to buying goals or objectives but also with respect to style of
decision making, the conflict tends to be grave and borders on the mutual
dislike of personalities among the individual decision makers. The resolution
of this type of conflict is usually by politicking and back-stabbing tactics.
Such methods of conflict resolution are common in industrial buying decisions.
The reader is referred to the sobering research of Strauss for further
discussion. 17
Both bargaining and politicking are nonrational and
inefficient methods of conflict resolution; the buying organization suffers
from these conflicts. Furthermore, the decision makers find themselves sinking
below their professional, managerial role. The decisions are not only delayed
but tend to be governed by factors other than achievement of corporate
objectives.
Critical Role of Situational
Factors
The model described so far presumes that the choice
of a supplier or brand is the outcome of a systematic decision-making process
in the organizational setting. However, there is ample empirical evidence in
the literature to suggest that at least some of the industrial buying decisions
are determined by ad hoc situational factors (4) and not by any systematic
decision-making process. In other words, similar to consumer behavior, the
industrial buyers often decide on factors other than rational or realistic
criteria.
It is difficult to prepare a list of ad hoc
conditions which determine industrial buyer behavior without decision making.
However, a number of situational factors which often intervene between the
actual choice and any prior decision-making process can be isolated. These
include: temporary economic conditions such as price controls, recession, or
foreign trade; internal strikes, walkouts, machine breakdowns, and other
production-related events; organizational changes such as merger or
acquisition; and ad hoc changes in the market place, such as promotional efforts,
new product introduction, price changes, and so on, in the supplier industries.
Implications for Industrial
Marketing Research
The model of industrial buyer behavior described
above suggests the following implications for marketing research.
First, in order to explain and predict supplier or
brand choice in industrial buyer behavior, it is necessary to conduct research
on the psychology of other individuals in the organization in addition to the
purchasing agents. It is, perhaps, the unique nature of organizational
structure and behavior which leads to a distinct separation of the consumer,
the buyer, and the procurement agent, as well as others possibly involved in
the decision-making process. In fact, it may not be an exaggeration to suggest
that the purchasing agent is often a less critical member of the
decision-making process in industrial buyer behavior.
Second, it is possible to operationalize and
quantify most of the variables included as part of the model. While some are
more difficult and indirect, sufficient psychometric skill in marketing
research is currently available to quantify the psychology of the individuals.
Third, although considerable research has been done on the demographics of
organizations in industrial market research—for example, on the turnover and
size of the company, workflows, standard industrial classification, and profit
ratios—demographic and life-style information on the individuals involved in
industrial buying decisions is also needed.
Fourth, a systematic examination of the power
positions of various individuals involved in industrial buying decisions is a
necessary condition of the model. The sufficient condition is to examine
trade-offs among various objectives, both explicit and implicit, in order to
create a satisfied customer.
Fifth, it is essential in building any market research information system for
industrial goods and services that the process of conflict resolution among the
parties and its impact on supplier or brand choice behavior is carefully
included and simulated.
Finally, it is important to realize that not all
industrial decisions are the outcomes of a systematic decision-making process.
There are some industrial buying decisions which are based strictly on a set of
situational factors for which theorizing or model building will not be relevant
or useful. What is needed in these cases is a checklist of empirical
observations of the ad hoc events which vitiate the neat relationship between
the theory or the model and a specific buying decision.