Individualism (collectivism)

Overall centrality has a positive impact on reciprocity towards the company was for collectivists but not for individualists. This further supports the idea that collectivists tend to be more influenced by the group and that individualists are not influenced by social cues to the same extent. It would be of interest, though not possible with the present sample due to size, to assess the interaction effect between individualism and gender on reciprocomp.

The effect of reciprosociety effect on reciprocust is greater for collectivists than for individualists. Accordingly, it appears that the link between society and the self is greater for collectivists. This is in line with previous research that shows that there is

998

more of a “we” than “I” perceptions for collectivists. Therefore, for collectivist society is likely to be viewed more as an extension of the self thus leading to reciprocity towards the “we” having a greater impact on perceptions of reciprocity towards the “I”.

Another effect worth discussing though not formally hypothesized is the difference in the impact of directionality on reciprocity towards the customer. The latter was greater for the individualists than it was for the collectivists. It seems that to some extent, the relevance of the proposition to the self leads to greater perceived reciprocust for individualists. This effect is in line with the idea that individualists value the self more, hence only when the proposition is relevant to them as a person do they pay attention to other aspects of the relationship (here company superior processes as embodied by reciprocust) while for collectivists the relevance of the value proposition to the self was less significant in shaping their reciprocust perceptions.

Finally, the analysis also further supports the idea that cultural differences (collectivism vs. individualism) do not only pertain to characteristics at the international level but also within nations. Surprisingly most of the participants displayed a high level of collectivism, though the data was collected in North America. Concordia University has a very diverse student body and this is likely a reflection of such a phenomenon.

This chapter covered a discussion of the hypothesis results for the main Customer-Company Network Strength Model dimensions and will now conclude with a general overview of the findings.

999

7.6 General Discussion

In this chapter, we discussed the main findings resulting from various interactions between the dimensions that make-up the Customer-Company Network and determine its strength as expressed by low or high reciprocity towards the company. We have shown that directionality is positively linked to all other dimensions of the Customer-Company Network Strength but does not have a direct-significant effect on outcomes valued by companies. This means that relevance of the value proposition and mere interaction devoid of meaning in the larger network does not lead to a strong relationship but merely sets the stage for other potential interactions.

On the one hand, we showed that the dimension that most determines reciprocity towards the company is reciprocity towards the customer as assessed by a company’s superior processes. Therefore despite the presence of ethical norms and the growing importance of CSR issues; reciprocity towards society, as measured in the model, only has a positive effect on reciprocity towards the company through reciprocity towards the customer. We argue that this effect may be due to individuals perceiving reciprocity towards society as an extension of the self and not as a separate entity.

On the other hand, overall centrality as measured by in-degree and in-group centrality is significantly related to reciprocity towards the company and shows that companies that benefit from such central position reap the benefits in terms of enhanced reciprocity towards the company. It is hence critical for companies to create bridges between their customers through communities to enhance the perceived connectedness with actors in the company’s network as well as emphasise the company’s presence in the

99:

customer’s networks. For example, companies who ask customers to “like” their page on Facebook that is then displayed on one’s friend Facebook page are in fact reinforcing perception of in-degree centrality in the Customer-Company network.

Finally, overall centrality is revealed to interact differently for females than it does for males in support of the existing literature. The effect of overall centrality is not significant for males and it is possibly linked to the lower effect of in-degree centrality on overall centrality. It is interesting to note that despite the fact that the sample for this thesis was predominantly made up of millennial participants, the effect was still in line with research conducted on previous generational groups hence showing the persistence of certain mechanisms despite the evolution of gender roles. Moreover, as expected the effect of overall centrality is supported for collectivists but that effect for individualists is not significant. This is again in line with previous research which shows that collectivists are more influenced by the “we” mentality and accordingly the centrality of the company in the network is extremely important in determining the reciprocity behavior towards the company for that group.

Before concluding this manuscript, we review some of the managerial and theoretical implications of the findings, their limitation and the identification of avenues for future research.

99;

Chapter 8

:

onclusion, Limitations and Future

Research

This final chapter summarizes some of the theoretical and managerial insights derived from the findings presented in previous chapters. It concludes with a discussion of the present research limitations and future research avenues.