How do the various components of interaction orientation affect export performance?

Abstract

Interaction orientation is a key element in modern marketing practices because it emphasizes focusing on individual customers as opposed to emphasizing customer segments. However, the majority of the literature has examined its use only in a B2C context rather than in a B2B context. Interaction orientation is comprised of several components: customer concept, interaction response capacity and customer empowerment. To help improve our understanding of interaction orientation in a B2B context, we decompose the components and utilize PLS-SEM analysis to identify how each component influences satisfaction with export performance. We also investigate how the degree to which the exporter and importer have complementary capabilities influences the firm’s customer concept. Finally, we examine the moderating effect of exporter intensity on the relationship between the customer concept and satisfaction with export performance. Using a novel dataset based on a survey of 92 export managers in an emerging market, Romania, we find that the decomposed interaction orientation components have distinct effects on satisfaction with export performance. Specifically, we find that interaction response capacity positively influences customer empowerment, which in turn positively influences the customer concept. Moreover, the customer concept positively influences complementarity of capabilities, which is positively related to satisfaction with export performance. Our results further show that exporter intensity has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between the customer concept and satisfaction with export intensity. The theoretical and managerial implications of our findings are also discussed.

Keywords:

• Interaction orientation
• export performance
• PLS-SEM
• complementarity of capabilities
• Romania

Notes

1 Despite this component’s conceptual import, it was not measured in the current study owing to the results of a pretest. The pretest revealed that the pragmatic understanding of the survey questions were not understood by the respondents. Thus, we decided not to include this measure in our survey instrument.