Proposal for an Extended CS-L Model Mamadou Salla Gueye 1 1 Senior
Lecturer, École Polytechnique, Tronc Commun, Thies, Senegal
1. INTRODUCTION This paper is a small Model proposal that addresses the need for simultaneous cooperation between the Consumer (Consu) and the Producer through their mutual behavior. More specifically, the Model highlights the combination of the link and the ‘Consu-Producer’ relationships in the market. To do this, it specifically uses the trilogy: Trust, Satisfaction and Loyalty (TS-L, or CS-L), which are still current and form the pivots of the Model (see Figure 3). Extensive reflections and debates in the economic, managerial and research results field in Relational Marketing have fed into it. The combination of the ‘relationship’ between the Consu and the Producer distinguishes this modeling experiment from purely psychosociological classical models based essentially on the Consu’s imagination and decision-making process. The starting point of this link-report is the emergence of the Need of Consu. It is based on economic reasoning, the knowledge of the Producer’s management practices and the reality of the market, which are essential to the smooth running of the Model. Thus, there is constant consultation and negotiation between the two parties in order to minimize any form of market-related opportunism until the need of the Consu is satisfied. This articulation allows a clear and easy understanding of the TS-L Model. This Model opposes the traditional conception of the economy that puts the Producer before the Consu by reversing the link and the reports hence his marketing approach. The “Project” design is taken into account insofar as the Model starts from the deciphering and refinement of the Consu’s initial idea in direct interaction with the Producer to the final Product adapted to the needs issued and with regard to environmental conditions. 2. HUMAN NEEDS, HIERARCHY, EVOLUTION AND MODELS NOTION OF NEED The notion of human need Alderfer (1969) or necessity or utility is very widely studied, especially in psycho- sociology, but also in economics, management, etc. It is remembered that the individual is inexorably driven by needs throughout his life. Thus, Needs are important and deserve to be reviewed in their evolution which is linked to the context in which each individual is situated. Thus, the Need is considered as “a feeling of lack, deprivation, deficiency” .... This lack is concomitant and parallel to the Desire... The individual then seeks to satisfy the need aroused by the consumption of a Product (Good or Service) in a collective or purely personal context. 3. REQUIREMENT HIERARCHY There are many proposals for a hierarchy of needs. Here, the proposal selected is as follows (see Figure 1 below). There are Basic Needs which are essential to sustaining life and Non-Basic Needs. The former is also called 'Lower Needs' (LN) and the latter: 'Higher Needs' (HN). In addition, each of these two groups is subdivided into two subgroups of Needs. Among the ‘Lower Needs (BInf), the first sub-group includes: the ‘Lower-Lower Needs’ denoted ‘LLN’. They are also called physiological needs. The second sub-group is made up of ‘Lower-Upper Needs’: ‘LUN’. This rule of subdivision is also valid for the Superior Needs (SN). Thus, on the ‘Higher-Lower Needs’ (‘HLN’), on the one hand, and on the other hand: the ‘Higher-Higher Needs’ (‘HHN’). Overall, our proposal for categorization of needs is as follows (see Figure 1 or Figure 1): Figure 1
This very simple hierarchy takes into account all types of current and future needs according to their very essential characteristics: Basic needs (LLN), and not essential: the others that can be of any other nature. Other classifications exist. That of Maslow (1943) is one of the most appreciated in the context of pedagogy and research. 4. Evolution of needs and Basic model The evolution of Consu’s behavior has always been guided by diverse and varied transformations. These transformations are ecological, environmental, technological, etc. They can be combined with societal changes over time. Intrinsically, Consu's behavior remains the same in terms of meeting its basic needs. Clearly, purely physiological needs do not change. But for Higher Needs, they may have high variability and change over time. The fact that the Needs are always created in every individual in his environment has allowed us to design and propose the starting model represented by Figure 2 below. Figure 2
Comment: The working principle of this Model is as follows. Since the Consu, in society, is immersed in an environment, there are inevitably contingencies or Haphazard events which are factors of various origins and nature. These factors are either internal/subjective (natural/artificial) or external/objective. When they occur, there is an emergence of a Feeling of Need or Deprivation of something that breaks the Consu's initial equilibrium (E.I.S.). Thus, the result is a situation or a state of Imbalance (I.S.T.) that the individual seeks, by all means, to overcome in order to return to I.E., as shown in Figure 2 above. 5. PROPOSED CS-L EXTENDED MODEL To regain its initial balance, the Consu must consume a Product capable of meeting the perceived need. This Need is expressed by the perception of the Lack coupled with the Desire that derives from it. Thus, Need is a two-pronged reality of the Lack-Desire couple. The catalyst for the process is the feeling of Lack. Desire translates into a force-envy that pushes the Consu to act to satisfy the Proven Need. Acting involves an Action or Movement that Consu must lead. Thus, two optional situations may arise. Either, the Consu falls back to the market by purchasing the Product that suits its Needs directly (the do-it-yourself), or, it makes its own Product (the do-it-yourself). In an organizational context, the first situation is often referred to as outsourcing and the second situation as internalization. Generally, Consu - in view of the urgency of the Need - chooses the former option on the basis of the principle of limited rationality. In micro-traditional analysis, the individual knows all the consequences of his or her possible choices. It therefore makes its decisions based on these consequences (substantive rationality). On the other hand, Simon (1955) considers that rationality is necessarily limited: the Consu does not have the possibility of knowing and counting all the possible actions and of studying the consequences thereof. In this case, he should contact a Capable Producer. In short, this Producer must be able to provide him with the satisfactory product, that is to say the best quality/price ratio. If so. The Producer must therefore be aware of the opportunity available to him. He must make a strategic choice and evaluate the means at his disposal to design, produce, deliver the Product, etc. He therefore reflects in depth on the opportunity thus offered due to the emergence of the Need of the Consu. A cognitive process begins. This process is at the root of a question that must be very relevant. The Producer evaluates ex ante and ex post the feasibility of the production project of the Product suitable for the Satisfaction of the Need of the Consu having freely chosen this Producer. Thus, to deserve this deliberate choice, this Producer should think carefully about all the alternatives: what he must do, when to do it, how to do it, on what condition to do it, with whom to do it ... especially so as not to disappoint this Consu. It should also anticipate the atmosphere in which it will be. He must also consider the means necessary to start the eventual Activity. If necessary, it should set an objective to be achieved... All this reflection leads to a technical combination to be made following its strategic choice and the means available. Otherwise, it would be the second option: to make your own product. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter which alternative is chosen to satisfy the Consu’s Need. The key is that he is Satisfied in order to regain his balance. Suppose that Consu chooses market “coordination,” that is, the first option. This choice is reflected in the definite decision of the Producer to act. This decision implies an explicit response to the Consu ‘specifications’. It is complemented by a self-assessment of the level of the Producer's abilities/skills: knowledge, know-how, know-how, etc. In the event of a positive response: acceptance of the Consu “specifications”, then the Production Action begins. This Action indicates that this Producer has mastered the Capacities certain to respond correctly to the Consu's Need. It is very important for the producer to know that acceptance is therefore a promise: a debt or credit to Consu. In practice, these capacities are assimilated first of all to the “confidence” that the Producer must have of himself and then of his environment. This trust is fundamental to the ‘benefits and threats’ of this sometimes unstable or unpredictable environment. It is with this self-confidence that the Producer carries out the Producer project. The Product obtained is the result of the Action process until the fulfilment of the Need, in the end, the Satisfaction. As a last resort, this Satisfaction restores the Consu to its original state. This state was the equilibrium in which it was before the emergence of any Need (see Figure 3). However, this initial equilibrium is of a transitory nature because a new aggression is still quickly caused by a new Contingency or Environmental Hazard. De facto, the transition from the initial equilibrium to the unbalanced state shows an uninterrupted and therefore dynamic closed circuit; hence the idea of naming Scheme 2 of the Wheel of Needs of the Consu. In sum, two key concepts emerge from the observation and analysis of: Figure 2 and Figure 3. From the initial equilibrium situation, broken by Contingencies or Hazards: state of imbalance, to its recovery: initial equilibrium. It is noted that the circuit closes thanks to Confidence and then to Satisfaction. Thus, the dynamism of this circuit depends on the prevalence of these two concepts to induce a certain determined behavior of the Consu and the Producer. By focusing on the first, then, explicitly, or implicitly, the analyst-observer of the situation presented above must, logically, formulate a series of fundamental questions to predict Consu’s behavior with respect to these two concepts: What ‘Reaction: Observation or remark’ should occur at the Consu following its perceived Confidence of the Producer who has trusted himself by responding to the ‘specifications’ of this Consu and producing a Satisfactory Product? What should be the “Reaction: remark or observation” of this same Consu following his own Satisfaction after a first consumption of the Product? What should be, finally, the “Behavior, that is to say the sum of the Reactions” of this same Consu following its own experiences of consumption which each time resulted in a Satisfaction after consumption of the Product or confirmation of the perception of Confidence? Etc. Answering these questions may normally involve questioning and answering: What is the Consu's assessment of the product consumed? If the assessment is positive, it is bluntly said that Consu is satisfied. So, what should be, in principle, this Consu’s new ‘Reaction’ in the event of a replica or resurgence of the same Need? Probably, this Consu should, again, address this same Producer to meet his new Need. If so, it is said to be a Repurchase or New Order. This choice is easier for the Consu, which is rationally limited. What if there is another resurgence of this Need in Consu? Certainly again, -because of the previous positive experience-, Consu will eventually be led to make a new Purchase of the Product. And if still, the Consu is newly satisfied following this new Repurchase or Order. So, it is easy to conceive and admit that - whenever necessary - a new Purchase or Order will be made to this Producer, and so on, for any new resurgence of this Need in the Consu. And if always this Consu remains Satisfied after its series of consumption of the Product. Therefore, the ‘Satisfaction’ that results from its experience of consumption of this Product is a necessary condition for the Repurchase/Order for any renewal of this Need. And in which case - following the repeated satisfaction of the Consu... What should this Consu naturally think or say about this Producer? In other words: how should this Consu consider this Producer? Logically, in the spirit of the Consu, since every time “I address this Producer”, the Product put at my disposal satisfies me correctly. So, this Producer deserves to be trusted: ‘because my consumption experience proves to me that he seems worthy of trust’. And this, in addition, because the Consu felt totally in Confidence. How then should this Consu ‘be’ or ‘behave’ vis-à-vis this Producer? Most likely, this Consu would still have to refer to the same Producer each time this Need reappears, since he relies on him. Moreover, Consu behaves in this way on the basis of the principle of limited rationality. After the succession of all these steps of obtaining or attaining: of repeated Confidence and Satisfaction..., then: How can we, finally, qualify this Consu in relation to the Producer? In plain language: how can we call the regularity of the Consu’s ‘Behavior (sum of Reactions)’; with regard to the repetition of his Redemptions each time Satisfactory and which also put him in confidence vis-à-vis the Producer? In this specific case - because of the repeated and satisfactory Redemptions in addition to the perceived Confidence of the Consu - it is said that this Consu is Faithful thanks to the regularity of its Redemption Behavior towards the Producer. Thus, from this question-and- answer, in order to solve the problem of predicting Consu’s behavior, follows a way of being probable from Consu. Firstly, the Confidence, intrinsic to the Producer, and perceived by the Consu vis-à-vis that Producer, then the ‘Satisfaction’ of that same Consu is added to it. Therefore, it is possible to say that the Producer’s Confidence, perceived by the Consu, associated with the Satisfaction of this Consu after consumption/use of the Product results from a behavior of acceptance or rejection. In the event of Consu Satisfaction - and thus of acceptance- then there is very likely a Re-use of this Product by this Consu in the event of a resurgence of the same Need. The positive assessment, therefore ‘Satisfactory’ Product consumed, indicates the degree of Confidence of the Producer through his Abilities and the level of Confidence that Consu perceives and places in this Producer. So, this Consu must normally have a certain Behavior following the virtuous circle of its recovered equilibrium. This Behavior is the result of the product’s experience of consumption and use, that is, the perceived degree of satisfaction and confidence of the Consu. The Confidence perceived by Cons and the Satisfaction he experiences during the consumption experience of the Product made available to him are triggers of his Reaction. The cumulative repetition of these observations (Reactions) implies his behavior. This behavior ultimately depends on the degree of satisfaction of the Consu. However, it necessarily depends on the Producer’s confidence and also on that perceived by the Consu in respect of that Producer. The Consu regains its initial state thanks to the Satisfaction of its Need, post evaluation. This process derives from the bias of the Producer's Confidence having designed, manufactured, and delivered the Final Product to the Perfect Desire of Consu. The latter thus has confidence in his Producer. So, he is ... ‘Faithful’ Hetzel (2004). Thus, the combination of Perceived Confidence and Satisfaction, thanks above all to the experience of Repeated Consumption of the Product, has enabled the Consu Satisfied to return to its initial equilibrium. Therefore, Satisfaction and Confidence are positively linked and involve Consu's Loyalty. This reasoning also applies to the Producer Montoussé and Waquet (2006). It is clear that his behavior is also determined by the same concepts. This Model is doubly about ‘Trust’ and Satisfaction [5, op.cit.]. This Satisfaction is the engine that drives the Producer’s activity. This Model is qualitative. It integrates two very close environments: the economic and managerial environments which are interconnected and in constant osmosis with multiple rounds of return. These two states have contributed significantly to the determination of Consu's Loyalty Behavior (see Figure 3). This interconnection is underpinned by a procedural logic with regard to the reasoning carried out, articulated, tested and illustrated in turn by Figure 2 and Figure 3. These schematic reasoning, under the principle of Consu’s limited rationality, addressed questions and questions that produced answers throughout the observation, analysis, and construction of the Model. The resulting Model is called the "CS-L" Model [1 op. cit.]. It uses the concepts of our earlier Model (see: https://www.sumerianz.com [1 op. cit.]). This new Model involves economic principles, especially from the micro point of view, and qualitative and quantitative aspects of Management Kuo et al. (2013). From Consu, in a state of equilibrium, to the Capable Producer, countless economic flows and various managerial practices have taken place Rougès et al. (2017) . It's a complex ecosystem. It is more global because of market intervention Benoit (2015). It is an improvement of the basic model proposal that is smaller and where the overall economic and managerial aspects are not developed. The Complex Model is intended to be Universal Sarraj et al. (2014) . However, the necessary condition for its universality is that it applies to a cultural environment characterized by strong individual assurance and firmness where the actors are trustworthy for the aspiration to a greater satisfaction of the actors. Clearly, in the world of application of this Model, there must prevail a culture nourished by great rigor. Lack of rigor may render the Model inoperative. Indeed, an unsatisfied Consu who loses Confidence can neither be Faithful nor easy to regain. Figure 3
6. CONCEPTUAL OPERATIONALIZATION Details on the basic design of the CS-L Extended Model can be found in the references. In particular, there are references to recent publications that have dealt extensively with Trust, Satisfaction, Loyalty and their interdependencies in this part. Trust: [3, op. cit.] International Journal of Education, Business and Economics Research (IJEBER) ISSN: 2583-3006 Vol. 2, Issue.5, Sep - Oct 2022, pp. 223-239; Link https://ijeber.com/volume-2-issue-5-2022/). Essentially, Consu’s behavior depends on its perceived Confidence in the Producer. This perceived trust follows consumption and the experience of Consu. This consumption-experience facilitates the assessment of the Consu as to the relational competence and loyalty of the Producer. Satisfaction: [2, op. cit.] SSN: 2456-7760 www.ijebmr.com; International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 4, No. 12; 2020 ISSN: 2456-7760. Numerous studies have shown that a high level of Satisfaction can influence the behavior of the Consu. Satisfaction would appear as a mediator of the behavior after consumption. This is what the next point will show. Loyalty: In the context of our research, Loyalty is
a dependent variable. It is either addicted to Confidence or to Satisfaction.
One or the other of these two concepts is then its explanatory variable. In our extended model test ‘CS-L’, Loyalty is dependent on both these explanatory variables. For further details, see the points above: ‘Satisfaction-Loyalty’, ‘Confidence-Loyalty’ and ‘Confidence-Satisfaction-Loyalty’. Satisfaction-Loyalty: [4, op. cit.] Available online at: International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research ISSN: 2455-8834 Volume: 05, Issue: 12 "December 2020"; DOI: 10.46609/IJSSER. 2020.v05i12.011 URL: https://doi.org/10.46609/IJSSER.2020.v05i12.011. This ‘Satisfaction-Loyalty’ analysis model incorporates the particularity of the context of the Consu study. It studies the perception of Satisfaction and its link with Loyalty. It shows the real existence of a link between Satisfaction and Consu's loyalty from a behavioral point of view. The link that emerges is that of a dependency on Loyalty to Satisfaction. Better yet, Satisfaction is positively linked to Consu's Loyalty and is expressed in: “Benevolence and Benefits Granted by the Producer”. This link indicates the existence of a structural causal relationship between Satisfaction and Loyalty. However, this Satisfaction-Behavior relationship is not systematic. Trust-Loyalty: Available online at http://www.journalcra.com [5, op. cit.]. ‘Trust-Loyalty’ is a proposal for a Model for the Analysis of Trust Perception and its Effect on Loyalty. This Model shows that Confidence is an essential condition and positively linked to the Loyalty of the Consu in its “Behavioral” dimension within the “Consu-Producer” relationships. It attenuates the design that emphasized Intent before Buying Behavior, known as the ‘attitudinal approach’. Therefore, Trust is a source of Loyalty. This Loyalty can be explained by Consu’s favorable attitudes towards the Product, but more often than not, as a result of its consumption experience. This experience can then result in a high level of Loyalty and vice versa. Confidence-Satisfaction-Loyalty: [1, op. cit.]: Sumerianz Journal of Business Management and Marketing, 2020, Vol. 3, No. 9, pp. 124-132 ISSN (e): 2617-0175, ISSN (p): 2617-1724. Website: https://www.sumerianz.com © Sumerianz Publ The idea was to design, model and propose a global but just composite Model of the "Trust-Satisfaction-Loyalty" triad. This Enhanced Market Model, if properly understood and appropriate, can help any professional to better develop his business within any socio-economic entity. Indeed, the major conclusions obtained from several research studies prove that the 'Confidence-Satisfaction' pair is purely qualitative. But, this couple has a notorious influence on Fidelity that is exclusively behavioural. In short, through this “CS-L Model”, we remember, among other things, that there are strong ties within the triptych: Trust, Satisfaction and Loyalty. Thus, these links-reports can contribute significantly to the loyalty of the Consu thanks to the orientation, the choices of economic, managerial strategies-practices and especially the marketing mix for the benefit of the Producer. However, the Art and Competence of the ‘Professional-Manager’, in all circumstances, must be to understand that this is a reflection that greatly simplifies a very complex reality. An environment of non-Confidence where there is distrust of the Consu Unsatisfied is an arena of protest. Conflicts may be the rule. Transactions are always occasional and minimal. Such an environment cannot ensure Progress and Prosperity, for economic agents are necessarily in a dog's breakfast. Eventually, that economy will collapse in stagflation and recession. From the author.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS None. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS None. REFERENCES Alderfer, C. (1969). An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2),142-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90004-X Benoit, M., Cloutier, C., Olivier, L., and Loubier, J. (2015). Holistic Modelling, Simulation and Visualization of Demand and Supply Chains, International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 7(1),53-73. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPSCM.2015.068133 Gueye, M. S. (2022). The Influence of the Local Context on the Measurement of Customer Confidence in the Insurance Market, International Journal of Education, Business and Economics Research (IJEBER),2(5), 223-239. Gueye, M. S., Fall, M.F.M., Sarr, N., and Ly, I. (2020). Analysis of the Interdependence Trust- Satisfaction- Loyalty of Customer in Client-Seller Relationships in the Insurance Market in Senegal. Sumerianz Journal of Business Management and Marketing, 3(9), 124-132. Gueye, M. S., Sarr, N., Ly, M.B., Badji, M., and Ly, I. (2020). Study of the Influence of the Local Senegalese Context on the Perception of Customer Satisfaction in the Auto Insurance Market, International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research, 4(12). Gueye, M., B. Ly, M., Sarr, N., Badji, M., & Ly, I. (2020). Study of the Perception of Satisfaction on Behavior of Auto-Accident Insurance Customers in Dakar, Senegal. International Journal of Social Science & Economic Research, 5(12), 3878-3895. https://doi.org/10.46609/IJSSER.2020.v05i12.011 Hetzel, P. (2004). Le marketing Relationnel, Presses Universitaires de France - PUF. Kuo, N.-T., Chang, K.-C., Cheng, Y.-S. & Lai, C.-H. (2013). ‘How Service Quality Affects Customer Loyalty in the Travel Agency: The Effects of Customer Satisfaction, Service Recovery, and Perceived Value’, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18 (7) , 803-822. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2012.708352 Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 Montoussé, M., and Waquet I. (2006). Introduction à la Microéconomie. Rougès, J.-F., Poulin, D., and Benoit, M. (2017). Comment Trois Organisations ont géré l’Innovation de leur modèle d’Affaires Autour de la mobilité et du e-commerce, Logistique & Management, 24(3-4), 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/12507970.2016.1271610 Sarraj, R., Ballot E., Pan S., and Benoit, M. (2014). Analogies Between Internet Networks and Logistics Service Networks : Challenges Involved in the Interconnection, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 25(6), 1207 – 1219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-012-0697-7 Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
This work is licensed under a: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License © IJETMR 2014-2023. All Rights Reserved. |