Trust, Commitment, Social Conflict, and Satisfaction on the Loyalty

Relationships

Helisia Margahana

Department of Management, Sekolah Tinggi IlmuEkonomi Trisna Negara, Sumatera Selatan

Keywords: Relationship, Commitment, Trust, Conflict, And Satisfaction

Abstract: This study examines the loyalty of partners in the cycle of the chicken supply chain. Loyalty in this study is

influenced by company commitment, trust, conflict, and satisfaction. Relationship loyalty describes a

customer commitment to do business with suppliers, by buying goods and services repeatedly, and

recommending services and products to friends and groups. This research is based on theory relationship

marketing to analyze the effect of commitment, trust, conflict, and satisfaction on loyalty. The research was

conducted on the partnership relationship between partners and their parent company. The research location

in the South Sumatera. The research was conducted in the form of a survey, explaining the causal relationship

between variables through hypothesis testing. The population in this study was all partners of SMEs, which

consisted of 150 SME partners who were in South Sumatera. The entire population data was used in the study.

The instruments used to measure commitment men, trust, conflict, satisfaction, and loyalty are based on a 5-

point Likert scale rating system. The method of testing hypotheses and analyzing data is by using Multiple

Linear Regression. The results of the data analysis show that commitment, trust, social conflict, and

satisfaction have a significant effect on loyalty. The matching test or goodness of fit test is indicated by the

value of R2, indicating that goodness of fit is good. F test results show the regression equation used in this

test is a regression that has a perfectly linear regression line.

1 INTRODUCTION

This study examines the loyalty of existing

relationships in the cycle of the chicken supply chain.

Loyalty in this study is influenced by company

commitment, trust, conflict, and satisfaction with

SMEs. SMEs are a company engaged in partnerships.

Research is SMEs that have a nationwide network

and is based in South Sumatera based on the concept

of relationship marketing. The concept of relationship

marketing is the main key in the company's current

business activities. The concept developed from a

traditional view that focused on transactional

marketing. The focus of relationship marketing is to

get and keep consumers. Long-term relationship

means loyal customers where their needs and desires

are satisfied. Increased customer relationships mean

treating them well, improving the core services-

company through adding value, and, most

importantly, providing services that are needed by

each individual (McIlroy and Barnett, 2000).

Customers become the core of relationship

marketing. Marketers need to know more information

about customers who are they? What are they doing?

And what do they want? Customer database and

customer segmentation are needed in implementing

relationship marketing strategies to get more

information about their customers (Chan, 2003). An

important concept that also needs to be considered

when developing a loyalty program is customer

satisfaction. However, customer satisfaction is not an

accurate indicator of loyal customers. Satisfaction is

needed, but not as sufficient conditions for customer

loyalty. Satisfaction can be had without loyalty, and

it is difficult to have loyalty without satisfaction

(Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999). Customer loyalty can

also be influenced by other variables, such as value

attainment and positive mood (Ruyter and Bloemer,

1999). A basic assumption states that customer

satisfaction leads to profitability (Grönroos, 1990).

This assumption is based on the idea that the quality

of service providers’ increases, customer satisfaction

will increase. Satisfied customers will create a strong

relationship with service providers, which leads to

relationship longevity. Another thing that companies

need to understand in developing relationship

marketing is customer retention. Providing quality

customer service is the beginning of retaining

Margahana, H.

Trust, Commitment, Social Conﬂict, and Satisfaction on the Loyalty Relationships.

DOI: 10.5220/0009964806770685

In Proceedings of the International Conference of Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management (ICBEEM 2019), pages 677-685

ISBN: 978-989-758-471-8

677

customers. Quality service must be able to give an

impression on emotions and give value to customers.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Relationship Marketing is an effort to attract

customers and improve relationships with customers,

so it can be said that Relationship Marketing is an

effort to get to know consumers better so that

companies can meet the needs and desires of their

customers. Gronroos (1990) views Relationship

Marketing as an effort to develop, maintain, improve,

and commercialize customer relations in order to

realize the goals of all parties involved. There are

several definitions put forward by a number of

experts. Shani and Chalasani (1993) define

Relationship Marketing as an effort to develop

ongoing relationships with customers in relation to a

series of related products and services.

2.1 Company Commitment and

Relationship Loyalty

Commitment is a belief between related parties who

want a continuous relationship and is considered

important in order to maintain the relationship.

Company commitment is the core of relationship

marketing. The company's commitment can be

obtained by the company making customers a top

priority, long-term, and based on a mutually

beneficial relationship. Company commitment can

also be interpreted as a promise or pledge of the

company to maintain relationships that have been

well established because these relationships have

important meaning (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). The

ability of employees to interact with customers will

increase customer commitment to the company

(Hennig-Thurauet al., 2002). Ndubisi (2007) states

that corporate commitment can be aimed at

continuously learning to provide customer needs and

service quality will increase customer satisfaction,

which in turn will lead companies to create close

relationships with their customers. Based on

empirical findings and theories about the above

commitments formulated the following hypotheses:

H1: Commitment to affect the loyalty

relationship.

2.2 Trust and Loyalty Relationships

Trust and loyalty relationships are seen as one of the

fundamental and important things in the business

world. Morgan and Hunt (1994) define trust as

entrusting someone or something to safeguard their

interests, trust here relies on someone or something

that is believed to have consequences in the

relationship between the trustor and the trustee. In

building these relationships, there are consequences

and implications. Basically, consumers have the

sovereignty to decide which products to buy without

coercion or guidance from external parties (Gronow

and Warde, 2001). Morgan and Hunt (1994) define

trust as a condition when one party involved in the

exchange process believes in the reliability and

integrity of the other party. Trust is a willingness or

willingness to rely on colleagues involved in

exchanges that are believed. Willingness is the result

of a belief that the parties involved in the exchange

will provide consistent quality, honesty,

responsibility, light-heartedness, and good heart. This

belief will create a close relationship between the

parties involved in the exchange. In Costabile (1998)

research trust is defined as the perception of

reliability from a consumer's perspective based on

experience, or more on transaction sequences or

interactions characterized by meeting expectations

for product performance and satisfaction. The main

characteristic of the formation of trust is a positive

perception that is formed from experience. Some

research has found that the relationship of trust

between consumers and brands influences consumer

purchasing decisions. Store brands and private brands

are becoming increasingly popular because

consumers more trust that products with these brands

are of higher quality (Miguel et al., 2002).

Furthermore, Delgado et al. (2000) indicate that

consumer confidence influences loyalty. The

existence of trust will create a sense of security and

credibility and reduce consumers' perception of risk

in exchange. According to Luarn and Lin (2003) trust

is a number of specific beliefs about integrity

(honesty of trusted parties and the ability to keep

promises), benevolence (attention and motivation that

is believed to act in accordance with the interests of

those who trust them), competency (ability of trusted

parties to carry out trustworthiness) and predictability

(the consistency of the behavior of trusted parties).

Based on empirical findings and theories about the

trust the above formulated the following hypotheses:

H2: Faith affects the loyalty relationship.

2.3 Social Conflict and Loyalty

Conflict is a natural part of social behavior. Social

conflicts are disputes overvalues or claims regarding

the status, power, and sources of wealth that are in

limited supply. Social conflict is a condition that

occurs when two or more parties perceive that there

are differences in 'positions' that are not aligned,

insufficient resources, and/or the actions of one party

to obstruct, interfere or in some cases, make the other

party's goals less successful. The parties in dispute not

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

678

only intend to obtain the desired sources but also to

corner, harm, or destroy their opponents. Conflicts

can occur between countries, conflicts between ideas,

conflicts between organizations, and conflicts

between individuals. In particular, social conflict is

very interesting to analyze because it focuses on

individuals as a unit of analysis (Thomas, 1992).

Basically, conflict consists of affective conflict

(personality) and cognitive-based conflict (ideas).

Conflict, mostly considered as something that must

be avoided in a relationship. Specifically, the results

of the study of Amason and Sapienza (1997) show

that shows that conflict has a negative impact on

partnership relationships, which has a positive effect

on relationship loyalty. Locke, Smith, Erez, Chah,

and Schaffer (1994) add that this can occur when

buyers and sellers have significantly different goals

that they want to achieve in a relationship.

Destination conflicts can have negative consequences

(Shaw, Shaw, and Enke, 2003). While in a buyer-

seller relationship, it may be more likely to have

conflicting goals and, therefore, will bring cognitive

conflict and/or affective conflict. The partnership

theory notes that for the good of the relationship, all

parties must consider and fulfill the goals of the

others. As a result, even though it is not possible for

buyers and sellers to be perfect in aligning goals, one

would expect that both parties would tend to work to

get out of the difference to achieve the desired results

together, assuming one goal could be harmonized.

Conflicts that occur between consumers and

companies can be an opportunity to prove the

consistency of promises given to customers through

its resolution, as well as information obtained from

the willingness to discuss the reasons for the

occurrence. Conflict management is the company's

ability to avoid potential conflicts or resolve conflicts

before problems are created and openly discuss

solutions when problems arise (Dweyeret al., 1987).

Every customer-oriented organization needs to

regularly provide broad opportunities for its

customers to submit suggestions, opinions, and

complaints. Conflict, however, defined, is a natural

part of social behavior. Much work in this area is

related to the process of resolving conflicts (Thomas,

1992) and has been studied in terms of conflicts

between nations, conflicts between ideas, conflicts

between organizations, and conflicts between

individuals. In particular, areas of social conflict are

very interesting because they focus on individuals as

the unit of analysis. Guetzkow and Gyr (1954) were

the first researchers to investigate the conflict in

organizations. Jehn&Mannix (2001), describe

affective-based conflicts (personality) and cognitive-

based conflicts (ideas). Conflict, mostly considered as

something that must be avoided in a relationship.

Some research seems to support this assumption. The

results show modifications that benefit both buyers

and sellers and can have a positive effect on

relationship loyalty (Jehn, 1995; Jehn and Mannix,

2001). Another area of conflict that has been studied

extensively is a conflict that arises because of

concerns (Locke, Smith, Erez, Chah, and Schaffer,

1994). This can happen when buyers and sellers have

significantly different goals that they want to achieve

in a relationship. Destination conflicts can have

negative consequences (Shaw, Shaw, and Enke,

2003). While conflicts occur between individuals (or

individual teams) within the same company, buyer-

seller relationships may be more likely to have

conflicting goals and hence, cognitive and or

affective conflicts. The partnership theory notes that

for the good of the relationship, parties must consider

and fulfill the goals of the others. As a result, although

buyers and sellers may not have perfect alignment of

goals, one would expect that both parties would tend

to work out differences to achieve the desired general

results, assuming one could be found. Duartedan

Davies (2003) has examined conflicts in business

relations. Emiliani (2003) provides some interesting

findings and informative conceptual observations

about potential sources of conflict and shows that

most conflicts ultimately focus on financial issues

related to increasing shareholder value. The ability to

handle conflict refers to the company's ability to

prevent or minimize the impact of things that could

potentially lead to conflict, and the ability to resolve

real conflicts that have already occurred (Dwyer et

al., 1987). Conflict can be a serious problem within a

company and may potentially reduce performance if

the conflict is allowed to drag on without resolution.

Conflict handling is a special action when interacting

with customers (Ball et al., 2004). The ability of the

company to handle conflicts properly will give

satisfaction to customers and cause customers to

become loyal (Ndubisi, 2009). Based on empirical

findings and theories about conflict above the

following hypothesis is formulated:

H3: Social conflict influences relationship

loyalty.

2.4 Relationship Satisfaction and

Loyalty

Relationship loyalty illustrates a customer's

commitment to doing business with an organization,

by buying goods and services repeatedly and

recommending its services and products to friends

and groups (McIlroy and Barnett, 2000). In the era of

conventional marketing, many marketers believed

that relationship loyalty is basically formed because

of the contribution of values (value) and brand

(brand). Marketers recognize that relationship loyalty

Trust, Commitment, Social Conﬂict, and Satisfaction on the Loyalty Relationships

679

is a very important impetus for creating sales. From

the point of view of customers, companies that

perform well are customers who are willing to make

a purchase first and then wish to make subsequent

purchases over and over (Chan, 2003). In the era of

conventional marketing, value, and brand are the two

main factors that stimulate the initial purchase and

then drive the repetition purchase. According to

Julanderet al. (1997), as quoted by Sugandini (2002),

there are two dimensions of customer loyalty,

behavioral and attitudinal. Behavioral dimension with

regard to customer behavior towards repeat purchases

that indicate a preference for a brand or service. The

attitudinal dimension refers to the intention of the

customer to repurchase and recommend a brand or

service to others. Customers who have the intention

to repurchase and recommend products and services

to others are most likely to be loyal customers.

Gremler and Brown (1997), Cronin and Taylor

(1992), as quoted by Sugandini (2002), stated that

customer satisfaction and service quality are

prerequisites of customer loyalty. In the context of

relationship marketing, maintaining and building

mutually beneficial customer relationships, image

company, and satisfaction are two important things

that marketers need to understand in keeping

customers loyal. With regard to relational exchange,

Gronroos (1994) argues that the goal of relationship

marketing is to build, maintain, and improve

relationships results at a profit. Relationship

satisfaction is the accumulation of all transactions (as

opposed to the experience of satisfaction in certain

transactions), viewed from the buyer's point of view

(Jap, 2001). Relationship satisfaction measures are

similar to customers for relationships. The

satisfaction barometer for the relationship used by

Fornell (1992) in that case is measured from the

perspective of the customer or the perspective of the

buyer and in this case, refers to the accumulation of

satisfaction. Specific relationship satisfaction for the

transaction, in that case, is an overall evaluation based

on previous purchases and experience in doing

business with suppliers from time to time (Anderson

et al., 1994). Based on empirical findings and theories

about the satisfaction of the above relation formulated

the following hypotheses:

H4: Satisfaction with the relationship affects

loyalty.

3 FRAMEWORK

Mind based on the theoretical study and empirical

review described above, the research model proposed

in this study is as follows:

Figure 1:Research Model

4 RESEARCH METHOD

4.1 Population and Sample

The population in this study were all partners of

SMEs, which consisted of 150 SME partners in South

Sumatera. The number of samples in this study was

150 SME partners domiciled in South Sumatera. The

technique used was a census because the entire

population will be used as a sample. The number of

samples was 150 respondents.

4.2 Test Validity and Reliability

The test results of all the instruments validated both

because of the value of the loading factor ≥ 0.5. In this

study, the reliability test used Cronbach Alpha. The

instrument reliability test results show good results

because the coefficient Cronbach's Alpha obtained

meets rules of thumb the required that is ≥ 0.6

(Sekaran, 2006).

4.3 Data Analysis Method

The data Obtained will be used to test the hypothesis.

The method of testing hypotheses and analyzing data

is by using Multiple Linear Regression. The reason

for using this method is because the results of this

multiple linear analysis are able to identify and

explain some significant independent variables to the

dependent variable, and are able to explain the linear

relationship that may exist between the dependent

variables with more than one independent variable.

4.4 Hypothesis Testing

The testing F test is used to test whether the loyalty

model is influenced by commitment, trust, conflict,

and relationship satisfaction is significant or

acceptable (Ghozali, 2002). The F test can be

Company

Commitment

Relationship

satisfaction

Conflict

Trust Relationship

loyalty

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

680

observed from the significance value F. The t-test

shows how far the influence of one independent

variable individually in explaining independent

variation (Ghozali, 2002). This significance test can

be observed from the significance value of each

variable. Significance value < 0.5 indicates that the

effect of variable X on Y is significant.

5 RESULTS

5.1 The Goodness of Fit Test(R

)

Test harmony or test goodness of fit indicated by the

value of R

(coefficient of determination) The results

of data analysis showed that the value of R

is equal

to R0.420. The test result indicates that the goodness

of fit well because it approaches the value of 1. This

shows that the regression model is able to explain the

existing data (Gujarati, 1995). The test results of R

can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1: Test results determine as a coefficient (R

)

Model Summary

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. The

error of the

Estimate

1 .778a .605 .551 0.035

a. Predictors: (Constant), commitment, trust, social

conflict, satisfaction.

5.2 Regression Variance Test or F

Regression Test or Multiple

Regression Test

Diversity test to determine the best regression line is

often called the F-test. The F test is seen from the

significance value F obtained from processing the

regression data. A good F test is characterized by a

sig F value of ≤ 0.05. The results of the F test are

shown in table 2.

Table.2.ANOVA

Model Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Regression 51 358 4 12 840 6 148 .001b

Residua

71 001 34 2,088

Total 122 359 38

a. Dependent Variable: Loyalty

b. Predictors: (Constant), commitment, trust, social conflict,

satisfaction

F test results show that the value of sig = 0.001 or

≤ 0.05 so that it can be concluded that the regression

equation used in this test is a regression that has a

perfect linear regression line.

5.3 Significance of the Regression

Equation

The results of the regression equation test show that

company commitment, trust, conflict, and satisfaction

have a significant effect on loyalty. This result is

indicated by the significance value of ≤ 0.05. The

regression equation obtained is as follows:

Y = 0.814 +X 0.2021 + 0.541Xto 20.131X3+

0.142X4

Regression analysis can be seen in table 3.

Table 3. Results of linear regression analysis coefficients

Model Unstandardize

d Coefficients

Coefficients

Standardized

t sig.

b Std.

error

beta

(constant) 0814 0.020 3347 .002

conflict

-.131 -.009 -.125 -

414

.004

trust

.441 .033 .460 4,08

satisfaction

.242

.012.

276 5,26

.011

commitmen

.202 .038 .254 3,85

.032

a. dependent variable:loyalty

6 DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study is to analyze and test the

influence of conflict, trust, company commitment,

and satisfaction within the partnership relationship

between SMEs and its partners. The results of the data

analysis show that conflict, trust, company

commitment, and satisfaction have a significant effect

on loyalty. The results of this study are as follows:

6.1 Commitment and Relationship

Loyalty

The results of the data analysis show that the effect of

company commitment on loyalty is significant. This

means that the higher the commitment of the

company, the higher the loyalty of partners. This

Trust, Commitment, Social Conﬂict, and Satisfaction on the Loyalty Relationships

681

result is indicated by the significance value of 0.04.

The effect of company commitment on loyalty is

20.2%. The results of this study support research

conducted by Ndubisi (2007), which states that

corporate commitment can be aimed at continuously

learning to provide customer needs and quality of

service will increase customer satisfaction, which in

turn will lead companies to create close relationships

with their customers. Commitments given by SMEs

include a commitment not to look for other partners,

commitment to keep doing business regularly with

SMEs, and SMEs' commitment to resolving partner

problems. The results of the descriptive analysis show

that all SMEs partners have partnered for more than

one year, and in one year doing business transactions

with SMEs. The average commitment of SMEs,

which is perceived by breeders as partners, is 4.1218.

This shows that SMEs' partners feel the commitment

made by SMEs is relatively high in their partners.

This high commitment makes SMEs' partners loyal to

SMEs.

6.2 Trust and Loyalty Relationships

The results of the data analysis show that the

influence of trust on loyalty is significant. This means

that the higher the trust, the partner's loyalty will also

be higher. This result is indicated by the significance

value of 0.00. The effect of company trust on loyalty

is 44.1%. The results of this study support the

research of Bennet and Gabriel, 2001 which

concluded that companies need to create conditions

that are more stable, more easily predict partner

behavior so that consumers become reluctant to

switch product providers. The results of this study

Costabile research (1998) which states that trust is

defined as the perception of reliability from the point

of view of consumers based on experience, or more

on the order of transactions or interactions

characterized by fulfilling expectations of product

performance and satisfaction has an influence on

loyalty. The existence of trust will create a sense of

security and credibility and reduce consumers'

perception of risk in exchange (Bennet and Gabriel,

2003). The trust given by SMEs to its partners

includes SMEs 's promise to maintain the business

success of partners, SMEs gives positive promises to

partners, SMEs thinks of partner's well-being, the

belief that SMEs continues to have good intentions

with partners, partners feel no need to be careful with

SMEs. The average value of respondents' answers to

trust in SMEs amounted to 4.3994. The average

respondent's answers to trust in SMEs that were

relatively high was able to increase the loyalty of

these partners to SMEs. With this relatively high

average trust value, it turned out to be able to make

trust as the most dominant variable influences loyalty.

6.3 Conflict and Relationship Loyalty

The results of the data analysis show that the

influence of conflict on loyalty is significant. This

means that the smaller the conflict, the higher the

loyalty of partners. This result is indicated by the

significance value of -0.004. The effect of conflict on

loyalty is 13.1%. The results of this study support

research conducted by Amason and Sapienza (1997),

showing that shows that conflict has an impact on

partnership relationships that have a positive effect on

relationship loyalty. Locke, Smith, Erez, Chah, and

Schaffer (1994) add that this can occur when buyers

and sellers have significantly different goals that they

want to achieve in a relationship. Destination

conflicts can have negative consequences (Shaw,

Shaw & Enke, 2003). While in a buyer-seller

relationship, it may be more likely to have conflicting

goals and, therefore, will bring cognitive conflict

and/or affective conflict. The results of the research

of Jehn and Mannix, (2001), show modifications that

benefit both buyers and sellers and can have a positive

effect on relationship loyalty. Conflicting goals can

lead to consequences (Shaw, Shaw & Enke, 2003).

Emiliani (2003) provides some interesting findings

and observations conceptual about potential sources

of conflict and shows that most conflicts ultimately

focus on financial issues related to increasing

shareholding values. Duarte and Davies (2003)

present an empirical study of conflict relations and

performance in the context of distribution. The results

of his research show the relationship between conflict

and partnership performance is an arc, not the

traditional linear relationship that is usually found.

The ability of the company to handle conflicts

properly will give satisfaction to customers and cause

customers to become loyal (Ndubisi, 2009). Conflicts

felt by partners are usually related to partnership

decisions that are different from SMEs, differences in

the application of the contents of negotiation

decisions by SMEs, and differences of opinion with

SMEs. The results showed that the average value of

conflicts perceived by SMEs' partners was relatively

low, which was 2.8352 so that with low conflict

perceptions, the partner's loyalty to SMEs was high.

6.4 Satisfaction and Relationship

Loyalty

The results of data analysis showed that the effect of

satisfaction on loyalty was significant. This means

that the higher the satisfaction, the loyalty of partners

will also be higher. This result is indicated by a

significance value of 0.021. The influence of

company trust on loyalty is 24.2%. The results of this

study support the opinion of McIlroy and Barnett,

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

682

(2000) which states that in a business context,

relationship loyalty illustrates a customer's

commitment to do business with an organization, by

buying goods and services repeatedly, and

recommending its services and products to friends

and groups (In the era of conventional marketing,

many marketers believe that relationship loyalty is

basically formed because of the contribution of values

and brands. The results of this study also support the

findings of Gremler and Brown (1997), Cronin and

Taylor (1992), as quoted by Kandampully and

Suhartanto (2000) state that customer satisfaction and

service quality are prerequisites of customer loyalty.

Groroos (1994) argues that the goal of relationship

marketing is to build, maintain, and improve the

results of the relationship on profit. Certain), from the

buyer's point of view (Jap, 2001). The satisfaction of

specific relationships over transactions, in that case,

is an overall evaluation based on previous purchases

and experience in doing business with suppliers from

time to time (Anderson et al., 1994).

The results of the descriptive analysis showed that all

SMEs partners felt satisfied partnering with SMEs.

Satisfaction felt by partners includes satisfaction with

income during partnering with SMEs, satisfaction

with profit margins, decision on SMEs products that

provide good growth, satisfaction with SMEs

products is better than other company products,

satisfaction with good growth, satisfaction with

handling SMES’s representative, satisfaction over the

handling of partners personally, and satisfaction with

risk management from SMEs’s representative. The

average response of respondents' satisfaction is

3.9231. This shows that SMEs' partners feel satisfied

with SMEs. This satisfaction felt by SMEs' partners

also caused SMEs' partners to be loyal to SMEs.

7 CONCLUSIONS

This study aims to analyze and test the effect of

commitment, trust, social conflict, and satisfaction on

the loyalty of SMEs' partners. The results of the data

analysis show that commitment, trust, social conflict,

and satisfaction have a significant effect on loyalty.

Test harmony or goodness of fit test indicated by the

value of R2indicate that the goodness of fit is good. F

test results show the regression equation used in this

test is a regression that has a perfectly linear

regression line. For more details, the results of this

study can be detailed as follows: company

commitment significantly positive effect on the

loyalty of SME partners. Partner trust in SMEs has a

significant positive effect on SMEs' partner loyalty.

The conflict has a significant negative effect on the

loyalty of SMEs' partners. Partner satisfaction has a

significant positive effect on SMEs' partner loyalty.

Judging from the beta coefficient, trust has the

greatest influence on SMEs' partner loyalty, which is

44.1%.

8 SUGGESTIONS

The results of this study provide direction for SMEs'

leadership in maintaining the loyalty of its partners.

The results of this study indicate that the most

dominant trust affects the loyalty of SMEs' partners.

In maintaining customer loyalty, some important

things to note are as follows: The company must be

concerned with the success of its partners, the

company must always keep its promises to partners,

the company SMEs still prioritizes the welfare of its

partners when they have to make important decisions,

the company is able to guarantee its partners that

partnering with SMEs will not disappoint and is the

best decision. Besides that, SMEs also must prioritize

satisfaction, reduce conflict with its partners, and

increase its commitment to continue together with

partners. It is hoped that the loyalty of SMEs' partners

will be increased.

REFERENCES

Allen, NJ and Meyer, JP (1990), "The measurement and

antecedents of affective, continuance and normative

commitment to the organization", Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 63, pp.1-18

Amason, AC, and Sapienza, HJ (1997), "The effects of top

management team size and interaction norms on

cognitive and affective conflict", Journal of

Management, 23(4), 495–516

Anderson, EW and Weitz, B. (1992), “The Use of Pledges

to Build and sustain Commitment in Distribution

Channels”, Journal of Marketing Research, 29,

(February), pp.18-34

Anderson, JC and Narus, JA (1990), “A Model of

Distributor Firm andManufacturer Firm working

partnerships”, Journal of Marketing, 54,(1), pp.42-58

Anderson, Eugene W., ClaesFornell, and Donald R.

Lehmann. (1994). “Customer Satisfaction, Market

Share, and Profitability: Findings from

Sweden.”Journal of Marketing, 58 (July): 53-66.

Ball.D, Pedro S. Coelho and Manuel J. Vilares, (2004),

“Service Personalization and Loyalty”, Marketing

Department Faculty Publications Marketing

Department (CBA).

Bennet, Roger and Gabriel, Helen (2001), ”Reputation,

Trust and Supplier Commitment The Case Old

Shipping Company/Seaport Relations,” Journal of

Business and IndustrialMarketing, Vol. 16 p.424-438.

Trust, Commitment, Social Conﬂict, and Satisfaction on the Loyalty Relationships

683

Bhote, KR（1996), “Beyond Customer Satisfaction to

Customer Loyalty – The Key to Greater Profitability”,

American Management Association, New York, p.31.

Chan, S. (2003), “Relationship Marketing:

InovasiPemasaran yang

MembuatPelangganBertekukLutut”, Jakarta: Penerbit

PT GramediaPustakaUtama.

Costabile, M (1998), “A Dynamic Model of Customer

Loyalty”, Working Paper

Delgado-Ballester, Ellena, Josse-Luis MunueraAllmeman

and Guelen,MJ Y, (2003), “Development and

Validation of Brand Trust Scale,” International Journal

of Market Research, Vol 45, p. 35-53.

Dowling, GR and M. Uncles, (1997), “Do Customer

Loyalty Programs Really Work?”,Sloan Management

Review, 38 (No. 4, Summer), 71-82.

Duarte, M., and Davies, G. (2003), “Testing the conflict–

performance assumption in business-to-business

relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management,

32(2), 91–99.

Dwyer, FR, Schurr, PH and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing

Buyer-Seller Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, 51,

(April), pp.11-27. Dwyer et al., 1987

Emiliani, ML (2003), “The inevitability of conflict between

buyers and sellers”, Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal, 8(2),107– 115.

Fornell, C., and Larcker, DF (1981), “Evaluating structural

equation models with unobservable variables and

measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research,

18(1), 39– 50.

Ghozali, Imam (2002), AplikasiAnalisis Multivariate

Dengan Program SPSS(EdisiKedua),

BadanPenerbitUniversitasDiponegoro, Semarang.

Gundlach, GT and PE Murphy (1993), “Ethical and legal

foundations of relational marketing exchanges”,

Journal of Marketing, vol. 57.

Griffin, J. (2005). Customer Loyalty:

menumbuhkandanmempertahankankesetiaanpelangga

n (Terjemahan). Jakarta: Erlangga

Gronow, Jukkadan Allan Warde, (2001), Ordinary

Consumption , London.

Gronroos, Christian, (1991),”From Marketing Mix to

Relationship Marketing: Toward a Paradigm Shift in

Marketing”, Journal of Management Decision, vol. 32,

no. 2, p. 4-20.

Hennig,T, Thurau Kevin P. Gwinner and Dwayne D.

Gremler Bowling (2002), “Understanding Relationship

Marketing Outcomes an Integration of Relational

Benefits and Relationship Quality”, Journal of Service

Research, Volume 4, No. 3, 230-247.

Hoffman, KD and Bateson, JEG (1997).Essentials of

Services Marketing Fort Worth, TX. The Dryden Press.

Jap, SD (2001), “Perspectives on joint competitive

advantages in buyer-supplier relationships”,

International Journal of Research in Marketing,18, (1-

2), pp.19-35.

Jehn, KA, and Mannix, EA (2001), "The dynamic nature of

conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and

group performance", Academy of Management

Journal, 44(2), 238– 251.

Kandampully, J. and Suhartanto, D. (2000), “Customer

Loyalty in the Hotel Industry: the Role of Customer

Satisfaction and Image,” International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol 12, No 6,

pp.346-351.

Locke, EA, Smith, KG, Erez, M., Chah, DO, and Schaffer,

A. (1994), “The effects of intraindividual goal conflict

on performance”, Journal of Management, 20(1), 67–

91.

Learn, Pin dan Lin, Hsin-Hui (2003), “A Customer Loyalty

Model For E-Service Context,” Journal of Electronic

Commerce Research, Vol. 4, no. 4, p. 156-167.

McIlroy, A and S. Barnett (2000), “Building Customer

Relationships: Do Discount Cards Work?,” Managing

Service Quality, Vol 10, No 6, pp. 347-355.

Meyer, JP, and Allen, NJ (1991), “A three-component

conceptualization of organizational commitment”,

Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89

Miguel Hernández-Espallardo, Augusto Rodríguez-

Orejuela, Manuel Sánchez-Pérez, (2010), “Inter-

organizational governance, learning and performance

in supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss: 2, pp.101 – 114.

Morgan, RM dan Hunt, S. D (1994), “The Commitment–

Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 58, p. 20-38.

Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993),

“Factors affecting trust in market research

relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January,

pp.81-101

Morris, MH, and Homan, JL (1988), “Source loyalty in

organizational markets — A dyadic perspective”,

Journal of Business Research, 16(2),117–131.

Naude, P., and Buttle, F. (2000), “Assessing relationship

quality”, Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 351–

361.

Gronow, Jukkadan Allan Warde, (2001), Ordinary

Consumption, London.

Kotler, Phillip (2002), “Marketing Management, An Asian

Perspective”, (3th Edition), Prentice-Hall, Pearson

Education Asia Pte. Ltd., Singapore.

Ndubisi, NO (2007), “Relationship marketing and customer

loyalty”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol 25,

No. 1, pp. 98-106.

Locke, EA, Smith, KG, Erez, M., Chah, D-OK, & Schaffer,

A. (1994), “The effects of intra-individual goal conflict

on performance”, Journal of Management, 20, 67-91.

Palmatier, Robert W., Rajiv P. Dant, Dhruv Grewal, and

Kenneth R. Evans (2006), “Factors Influencing the

Effectiveness of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-

Analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp.

136-153.

Parsons, A. (2002), “What determines buyer-seller

relationship quality? An investigation from the buyer's

perspective", Journal of Supply Chain Management,

38(2), 4 –12.

Plank Richard and Stephen J. Newell (2005), “The effect of

social conflict on relationship loyalty in business

markets”, Industrial Marketing Management, 36 (2007)

59 – 67.

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

684

Reichheld, FF (1993), “Loyalty-based management”,

Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 64– 73.

Ruyter, KO and JoséeBloemer, (1999), “Customer loyalty

in extended service settings: The interaction between

satisfaction, value attainment and positive mood”,

InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management,

Vol. 10 Iss: 3, pp.320 – 336

Sekaran, Uma (2000), Research Methods for Business, A

Akill-Building Approach. America: Thirt Edition, John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Shani, David and SujanaChalasani, (1993), “Exploiting

Niches Using Relationship Marketing”, Journal of

Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 8 Iss: 4, pp.58 –

66.

Shaw, V., Shaw, CT, and Enke, M. (2003), “Conflict

between engineers and marketers: The experience of

German engineers”, Industrial Marketing Management,

32(6), 489– 499.

Shoemaker, S. and Lewis, RC (1999), "Customer loyalty:

The future of hospitality marketing", Hospitality

Management, 18,345–370.

Thomas, KW (1992), “Conflict and negotiation processes

in organizations. In M. Dunnette& L. Hough (Eds.)”,

Handbooks of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology (pp. 651–718). Palo Alto, CA' Consulting

Psychologists Press

Trust, Commitment, Social Conﬂict, and Satisfaction on the Loyalty Relationships

685