ABSTRACT
Despite the substantial number of theoretical and empirical contributions in the area of business-to-business (B2B) relationships, most studies have largely focused on the positive aspects of relationships that enable business relationships to grow and generate greater value for stakeholders (e.g. Dwyer et al., 1987; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995). Existing knowledge and understanding of the dark side of business relationships tend to be too narrow and only focused on one or a few components – e.g. opportunism, uncertainty and conflict. They offer limited reflection on the wider issues surrounding inter-organisational and interpersonal interactions as well as on the process of relationship development. The studies of business relationships that explore the dark side tend to investigate
all the relevant issues from two different perspectives. The first group of studies examines the dark side throughout the process of business relationship development (e.g. Moorman et al., 1992; Barnes, 2005), with the aim of understanding where in the development process of relationships the dark side occurs and also its consequences on the development of business relationships. For example, some studies have argued that the dark side of business relationships is more likely to occur in relationships characterised by long-term development (e.g. Grayson and Ambler, 1999), whereas others found that the dark side is likely to occur earlier in the development process (Barnes, 2005). The second group of studies tends to focus on the role of certain constructs that
can cause negative interaction within the relationship and/or undermine the relationship to varying degrees (e.g. Gaski, 1984; John, 1984). These include conflict, uncertainty, tension and opportunism. They can influence business relationships either positively or negatively at both inter-organisational and interpersonal levels. These two schools of thought are not completely separate from each other; the
difference between the two exists in their focus. Having said this, the second school of thought has received significantly greater research attention than the first, for two reasons. First, theories and models of relationship development have faced serious criticism due to their weak explanatory power and lack of ability to predict relationship development. Second, the dynamic development of relationships within different contexts has proven difficult to capture in an accurate manner.
