El Rol de La Comunicacion en Las Relaciones Empresariales

7/28/2019 El Rol de La Comunicacion en Las Relaciones Empresariales

1/7

The role of communication in business relationships

and networks

Rami Olkkonen

Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Turku, Finland

Henrikki Tikkanen

University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

Kimmo Alajoutsijarvi

University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

Introduction

In the context of the social organization

within which all communication takes place,

current research in marketing can to a great

extent be located in the field of mass

communication. Owing to the strong position

of traditional marketing communications

(especially advertising) research and

consumer marketing related theories in the

general field of marketing, the concepts of

communication can be labeled as ``mass

communicative'' in current marketing

discourse as a whole. Concentrating on the

traditional one-way view of communication

seems to be prevalent in most currentmarketing research. However, it is obvious

that members of the target audience

influence each other. The traditional one-way

communication process is therefore enriched

by interpretations of and interactions

between audience members in interpersonal

networks (see Delozier, 1976; Fill, 1995;

McQuail, 1994).

Since the late 1970s the traditional

marketing mix based view of marketing has

been increasingly questioned among

researchers interested in the relational

aspects of marketing (see Arndt, 1979;Ha kansson, 1982; Gummesson, 1987;

Gro nroos, 1989). This growing criticism

toward the so-called transaction marketing

concept came primarily from three sources.

These included certain North American

academicians in services and industrial

marketing, North-European researchers in

services marketing and interaction/network

researchers related to the IMP group

(Gro nroos 1990). The IMP International/

Industrial Marketing and Purchasing group

consists of researchers from Sweden,

Finland, France, Germany, the UK, Italy, theUSA, and Australia.

The interest in business relationships and

networks in marketing has also grown out of

the pronounced trend in business practicetowards ``non-traditional'' organization

forms. As opposed to hierarchical

organizations controlling all facets of a

business, both scholars and popular press

have been drawn to the phenomenon of firms

forming loose alliances to supply each other

with required productive functions

(Erickson and Kushner, 1999). Along with the

rise of the relational approaches in

marketing, the focus of marketing research

seems to shift from products and firms as a

unit of analysis to people, organizations and

the social processes that bind actors togetherin ongoing relationships (Webster, 1992).

Consequently, also the role of

communication has to and will be somewhat

different in the research of business

relationships and networks from that of

traditional consumer marketing.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on

the role of communication within business

relationships and networks. The IMP group-

related interaction and network approach

(see Ford, 1997) to interorganizational

marketing is briefly introduced in the

following section to facilitate this discussion.

Furthermore, a conceptual framework on the

role of communication in business

relationships and networks is proposed.

Finally, some managerial implications are

presented.

IMP-related interaction/networkapproach: general principles

A large amount of research has been

conducted on business relationships and

networks. The earliest studies concentrated

mostly on understanding the nature of dyadic

relationships based on the seminal

observation that both customer and supplier

are active, hence the name ``interaction

approach'' (e.g. Ha kansson, 1982; Turnbull

and Valla, 1987). In the next phase, the focus

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emerald-library.com

[ 403]

Management Decision38/6 [2000] 403409

# MCB University Press[ISSN 0025-1747]

Keywords

Internal communications,

Interpersonal communications,Corporate communications,

Networks

Abstract

Owing to the strong position of

traditional marketing

communications (especially

advertising) research and

consumer marketing related

theories in the general field of

marketing, the prevailing

concepts of communication can

be labeled as ``mass

communicative'' in current

marketing discourse as a whole.

However, along with the rise of

various ``relational approaches'' in

marketing, the focus of marketing

research seems to shift from

products and firms as a central

unit of analysis to people,

organizations and the social

processes that bind actors

together in ongoing relationships.

In these interactive relationship/

network contexts, the nature of

communication is hardly mass

communicative. This article aims

at presenting a theoretical

framework on the role of

communication in business

relationships and networks. The

interaction/network approach tomarketing means moving from the

current perspective of marketing's

mass-communicative effects and

consequent communicative

behaviors of organizations to the

``lower level'' of interpersonal

communication processes

occurring within business

relationships and networks.


2/7

changed towards understanding the dynamic

development of dyadic relationships (e.g.

Dwyer et al., 1987; Ford et al., 1986). One of the

main conclusions of the Europe-based IMPGroup studies was that a dyadic relationship

has to be seen in the context of a larger set of

interfirm relationships forming the business

context of the focal dyad. The underlying

rationale was to understand the actions of the

buyer and seller and the longitudinal

development of their relationship. This

``network approach'' has recently attracted

considerable interest among business

marketing researchers (e.g. Ha kansson and

Snehota, 1989, 1995; Webster, 1992). As can be

seen below, the interaction and network

approaches are very close to each other differences being found mainly in the levels

and units of analysis.

The interaction approachThe primary research interest in the

interaction approach lies in studying dyadic

long-term exchange relationships between

economic actors. This interest can be dated

back to the late 1960s when exchange was

defined as one of the core concepts of

marketing (Kotler and Levy, 1969). The

concept of an exchange relationship gained

prominence during the latter half of the 1970s

on a general theoretical level in marketing(e.g. Bagozzi, 1975; Arndt, 1979), in industrial

marketing (e.g. Ha kansson, 1982), as well as

in channels research (e.g. Frazier, 1983).

Generally, the term interaction approach is

adopted to refer to studies that focus on

exchange processes and relationship

formation between organizations. It aims at a

more thorough understanding of interaction,

and its forms and development processes

over time (e.g. Mo ller, 1994). It is not only

goods, but also other kinds of resources that

are exchanged through interactive

relationships. The interaction approachconcerns issues such as interaction

processes, adaptation within and

investments into relationships, different

kinds of bonds between actors,

developmental phases of relationships and

relationship outcomes (see Mo ller and

Halinen-Kaila, 1998).

The network approachAs a theoretical extension of the interaction

approach, the network approach aims at

making sense of what happens in

complicated business markets in which

organizations are engaged in complex

business relationships. The ``markets-as-

networks'' perspective on

interorganizational exchange refers to a

description of markets as associated or

bonded structures which comprise not only

buyers and sellers, but also other relevant

organizations such as consultants and

governmental institutions (Easton, 1992).The network approach aims to provide

understanding and descriptions of industrial

markets as complex networks of

interorganizational relationships. Mo ller

(1992) characterizes its aims as

understanding systems of relationships from

a positional perspective on the one hand

obtaining a particular focal firm's viewpoint;

and from a network perspective on the other

viewing networks from an aggregate,

holistic perspective. The role of marketing is,

to a great extent, in the establishment,

development, defence and maintenance ofnetwork positions. This is done by

developing multiple relationships in the focal

net, i.e. in the relevant network in which the

firm is active by relating externally and

adapting internally (Ha kansson and Snehota,

1989). Within the network approach, a broad

conceptual model has been developed

according to which interorganizational

markets consist of three basic groups of

variables or layers of substance: activities,

resources and actors (e.g. Ha kansson and

Snehota, 1995). The aim of the model of

industrial networks is to make possible an

integrated analysis of stability and

development in an industry. It provides a

basis for studying the roles of actors and sets

of actors in interorganizational development

processes (e.g. Ha kansson and Johanson,

1992).

Communication aspects ofbusiness relationships andnetworks: a conceptual framework

As stated earlier, most current marketing

research can be more or less directly linkedto mass-communication theory. However, the

interaction/network approach, i.e.

researching the development of a buyer-

seller dyad, or of interorganizational

networks, means that complex interaction

phenomena occurring in both need to be

addressed on organizational, departmental

and personal levels (cf. Mo ller and Wilson,

1988). Although actors at different levels of

aggregation may be identified, individuals

are inevitably the basic interactants in all

possible collective actor configurations. In

other words, aspects of interpersonal

communication must be taken into

consideration in researching exchange

processes from an interaction/network

perspective (see also Alajoutsija rvi and

Eriksson, 1998).

[ 404]

Rami Olkkonen,Henrikki Tikkanen andKimmo AlajoutsijarviThe role of communication inbusiness relationships andnetworks



3/7

Quite obviously, relational issues cannot

be separated from communicational

occurrences. According to Duck (1976, 1998),

relationships are a substantial part ofstructuring, evaluating and understanding

messages in interpersonal settings. For

example, business relationships (dyads) or

sets of relationships (networks) are assumed

to evolve as a result of interpersonal

communication which occurs situationally

in communicative and cognitive processes

between interactants within various

collective actor structures.

When it comes to long-term relationships,

one can draw a parallel between the concepts

``communication'' and ``social exchange

episodes'' which are intertwined with othertypes of exchange episodes (economic, legal,

information), and also with ongoing

adaptations and coordination processes.

Interlinked exchange episodes of various

types, together with adaptations and

coordination, form the interaction process

between the parties (Ha kansson, 1982).

Consequently, interpersonal

communication is a substantial part of the

interaction process and can therefore be

regarded as a processual element of

relationships and networks. In other words,

relationships and networks are essentially

formed by interpersonal communicationprocesses which, in turn, are affected by

their contextual and structural factors. On

the other hand, communication processes

may cause changes in the contextual and

structural characteristics of the relationship

or the network (Giddens, 1984). Relationships

and networks, therefore, cannot be

understood without having knowledge of the

communication processes occurring within

them, and communication processes can be

understood only if the situational factors

(contextual and structural characteristics)

are considered.Consequently, aspects of interpersonal

communication are important in attempting

to understand issues such as long-term

bonding, various forms of adaptation and the

development of trust and mutuality in

interorganizational relationships and

networks. However, although interaction/

network researchers embrace the idea of

voluntarism on the part of managers, they

have not incorporated individual intentions

into their analyses to any notable degree

(Mo ller, 1994). Thus, the role of

communication between individuals could be

brought forward more explicitly in research

on business relationships and networks. This

could be done by drawing more extensively

from many areas of interpersonal

communication research, including social

psychology and speech communication. The

important question is how relationships/

networks start, develop and decline as a

result of ``strings of interaction'', and of thechanging beliefs the interactants form about

them (Duck and Perlman, 1985).

The conceptual framework presented in

Figure 1 includes a synthesis of a framework

focusing on the relevant levels in

interorganizational relationships on the one

hand and the types of interpersonal

communication on the other.

The upper part of the Figure indicates that

in order to study the dynamics of business

relationships they are conceptualized

through inter-linked acts and episodes

(Ha kansson, 1982; Holmlund, 1997; Leminen,1999). An interorganizational relationship is

also embedded in the context of a connected

network and a macro environment which

must be taken into account in empirical

research.

In the lower part of our framework we have

outlined three basic groups of concepts

which are essential in understanding the

development of business relationships/

networks (Mo ller and Wilson, 1988; Ford,

1980). Context factors include the

characteristics of the outer context (the

connected network and the macro

environment) and characteristics of theinner context (supplier and buyer

characteristics). Content factors refer to

three basic processes of exchange, adaptation

and coordination (Mo ller and Wilson, 1988)

embedded into acts and episodes highlighted

in the upper part of the figure.

Furthermore, the exchange process can be

divided into the exchange of resources on the

one hand and social exchange on the other.

Social exchange refers to human

communication through which meanings are

communicated and values potentially

interpreted and learned. Althoughconceptually distinguished, resources and

social exchange are in practice interrelated.

In addition to reconstructing the

development of relationship by focusing on

mere acts and episodes of resource exchange

between the interacting organizations, we

think it is necessary to complement the

analysis by studying interpersonal

communication patterns between actor-

interactants at various organizational levels.

Furthermore, a business relationship also

involves processes of adaptation and

coordination. Adaptation processes refer to

the modification of resources or of the ways

of operating in order to benefit more from the

relationship. Coordination refers to the

development and the use of mechanisms that

facilitate the control of interorganizational

[ 405]




4/7

exchange processes (Mo ller and Wilson, 1988,

1995). Finally, outcome factors constitute the

third group of concepts in our framework.

The outcomes of interaction can include

structural states or phases of a relationship

in terms of perceived performance, bonds

and atmosphere. Among other outcomes,

trust in a business relationship is a very

important issue greatly dependent on

communication.

We see the above-mentioned content

factors as inherently processual in nature

whereas the context and outcome factors are

primarily structural. However, it should be

noted that structural does not mean static;

context and outcome factors are also

dynamic, and their nature may change as a

result of interaction processes. In other

words, business relationships and networks

are essentially formed by process factors

(interaction processes) which, in turn, are

affected by their structural properties

(context and outcome factors). On the other

hand, interaction processes may cause

changes in the structural characteristics of

the relationship. As Giddens (1984, pp. 16-34)

puts it in the context of his widely-referenced

structuration theory, analysing the

structuration of social systems (such as

business relationships in the relevant

Figure 1

A conceptual framework for understanding the role of communication in business relationships and networks

[ 406]




5/7

context of a business network) means

studying the modes in which such systems

are produced and reproduced in interaction.

Interpersonal communication can bestudied on many arenas within the

framework of a business relationship/

network. For example, access to formal

business negotiations (see Nyberg and

Strandvik, 1999), telephone discussions

(Nyberg, 1997; Nyberg and Haglund, 1991),

different kind of conversations and e-mail or

fax correspondence could enable an analysis

of interpersonal communication acts and

episodes in a business relationship/network

under scrutiny. In this case, this would allow

us to make interpretations on how

interactants make meaning of theirinteraction processes through language and

discourse (Alajoutsija rvi and Eriksson, 1998).

In other words, our conceptual framework

presupposes the following research

procedure. First, by analyzing ``observable''

acts and episodes a researcher reconstructs

``the social reality'' of the business

relationship/network studied. Second, by

studying interpersonal communication acts

and episodes, a researcher focuses on how

the interactants make meaning of their

interaction processes and how these

meanings are attached to the development of

business relationship under investigation

(Alajoutsija rvi and Eriksson, 1998; Tikkanen,

2000). It can be expected that by analyzing the

interaction process and the related

communication patterns, language and

discourse, our understanding on the

dynamics of business relationships and

networks can be increased.

Managerial implications

Interorganizational relationships and

networks cannot be examined in a vacuum:events and activities can only be understood

in their social, cultural and historical

contexts (Pettigrew, 1987, 1997). Following

Berger and Luckmann (1966), we see all

broader managerial phenomena, including

marketing, as socially constructed from

processes of negotiation in particular

contexts between individuals and collectives.

Such interactive processes result in the

collective enactment of reality, and in the

enactment of knowledge of reality, i.e. what

is believed to be ``real'' (also Weick, 1969).

Thus, interorganizational relationships

and networks involve at least five different

``levels of aggregation'' on which relevant

actors can be found, ranging from the

influential individuals through formal

intraorganizational bodies and whole formal

organizations to formal or informal

collectives (see the Mo ller and Wilson buyer-

seller interaction model (1988)). It should also

be noted that the four higher levels, rangingfrom informal groups or company

departments to large multinational

corporations or informal alliances, pose a

slight practical problem in terms of the

identification of relevant actors, e.g. within

an interorganizational relationship.

The fact that individuals are inevitably the

basic interactants in all collective actor

configurations is thus somewhat

paradoxical. Regardless of whether a

relevant actor is identified in an informal

group, a company department or a whole

organization, it is the individual actor-interactants within them who, through

every-day social interaction, construct the

reality or realities encountered in various

marketing situations (Berger and Luckmann,

1966). Moreover, there is an inherent duality

between the individual-level interaction

process on the one hand, and the social

structures forming a collective actor on the

other.

In order properly to understand

communication in building and maintaining

business relationships and networks, various

acts of communication should be approached

from the viewpoint of interactantconsciousness. In practice, this will lead to a

situation in which several different versions

of the actions, events and interpersonal

encounters and their roles in the

development of relationships and networks

are possible. Not only do different

interactants create different interpretations,

but the same individual can interpret and

reinterpret his/her actions from different

points of view. This means that we cannot

find any ultimate explanations for what

``genuinely'' happens in dynamic

interorganizational relationships andnetworks. Thus, there is no ultimate

scientific explanation that would

comprehensively cover the phenomena

involved (Puro, 1996).

Managerial implications generated by the

increased understanding of the role of

communication in business relationships

and networks are ``hidden'' in the sense that

our rather ``philosophical'' approach has no

prescriptive and normative elements. The

role of our framework is to sensitize

managers to think about the role of

communication as a part of relationship and

network management. By emphasizing the

division between observable acts and

episodes (objective facts; what really

happened in our business relationships) on

one hand and the process of meaning giving

[ 407]




6/7

(actors' meanings and interpretations

attached to the development of the

relationship/network under scrutiny) on the

other, our framework aims at deepeningpractitioners' overall understanding of the

dynamics of business relationships and

networks.

References

Alajoutsija rvi, K. and Eriksson, P. (1998), ``Paper

life. Making sense of a forest sector triad in its

contexts'', in Tikkanen, H. (Ed.), Marketing

and International Business Essays in Honor

of Professor Karin Holstius on her 65th

Birthday, Publications of the Turku School of

Economics and Business Administration,

Turku, Series A-2.

Arndt, J. (1979), ``Toward a concept of

domesticated markets'', Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 42, January, pp. 101-3.

Bagozzi, R.P. (1975), ``Marketing as exchange'',

Journal of Marketing, Vol 39, October,

pp. 32-9.

Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966), The Social

Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the

Sociology of Knowledge, Allen Lane, London.

Delozier, M. (1976), The Marketing

Communication Process, McGraw-Hill, New

York, NY.

Duck, S. (1976), `Ìnterpersonal communication in

developing acquaintance'', in Miller, G. (Ed.),

Explorations in Interpersonal

Communication, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Duck, S. (1998), Human Relationships, Sage,

London.

Duck, S. and Perlman, D. (1985), ``The thousand

islands of personal relationships: a

prescriptive analysis for future explorations'',

in Duck, S. and Perlman, D. (Eds),

Understanding Personal Relationships, Sage

Publications, London.

Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987),

``Developing buyer-seller relationships'',

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 11-27.

Easton, G. (1992), `Ìndustrial networks: a review'',

in Axelsson, B. and Easton, G. (Eds),

Industrial Networks A New View of Reality,

Routledge, London.

Erickson, G.S. and Kushner, R.J. (1999), ``Public

event networks: an application of marketing

theory to sporting events'', European Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3/4, pp. 348-64.

Fill, C. (1995), Marketing Communications,

Prentice-Hall, London.

Ford, D. (1980), ``The development of buyer-seller

relationships in industrial markets'',

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14

No. 5/6, pp. 339-54.

Ford, D. (Ed.) (1997), Understanding Business

Markets, The Dryden Press, London.

Ford, D., Ha kansson, H. and Johanson, J. (1986),

``How do companies interact?'', Industrial

Marketing and Purchasing, Vol. 1 No. 1,

pp. 26-41.

Frazier, G.L. (1983), `Ìnterorganizational

exchange behavior in marketing channels: a

broadened perspective'', Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 52-67.Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society,

Polity Press, Cambridge.

Gro nroos, C. (1989), A Relationship Approach to

Marketing: The Need for a New Paradigm,

Publications of the Swedish School of

Economics and Business Administration.

Working Papers 190, Helsinki.

Gro nroos, C. (1990), The Marketing Strategy

Continuum: Toward a Marketing Concept for

the 1990s, Publications of the Swedish School

of Economics, Working Papers 201, Helsinki.

Gummesson, E. (1987), ``The new marketing

developing long-term interactive

relationships'', Long Range Planning,Vol. 20/4 No. 104, August, pp. 10-20.

Ha kansson, H. (Ed.) (1982), International

Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial

Goods. An Interaction Approach, John Wiley

& Sons, Chichester.

Ha kansson, H. and Johanson, J. (1992), `À model

of industrial networks'', in Axelsson, B. and

Easton, G. (Eds), Industrial Networks A New

View of Reality, Routledge, London.

Ha kansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1989), ``No

business is an island: the network concept of

business strategy'', Scandinavian Journal of

Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 187-200.

Ha kansson, H. and Snehota, I. (Eds) (1995),

Developing Relationships in Business

Networks, Routledge, London.

Holmlund, M. (1997),Perceived Quality in Business

Relationships, a Doctoral Dissertation No. 66,

Publications of the Swedish School of

Economics, Helsinki.

Kotler, P. and Levy, S.J. (1969), ``Broadening the

concept of marketing'', Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 33, January, pp. 10-15.

Leminen, S. (1999), Gaps in Buyer-Seller

Relationships. Case Studies in the

Telecommunication Industry, a Doctoral

Dissertation No. 77, Publications of Swedish

School of Economics, Helsinki.

McQuail, D. (1994), Mass Communication Theory,

Sage, London.

Mo ller, K. (1992), Research Traditions in

Marketing: Theoretical Notes, Working

Papers, W-23, Publications of the Helsinki

School of Economics and Business

Administration, Helsinki.

Mo ller, K. (1994), `Ìnterorganizational marketing

exchange: metatheoretical analysis of current

research approaches'', in Laurent, G. et al.

(Eds), Research Traditions in Marketing,

Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.

Mo ller, K. and Halinen-Kaila, A. (1998),

``Relationship marketing: its disciplinary

roots and future directions'', in Tikkanen, H.

(Ed.), Marketing and International Business

Essays in Honor of Professor Karin Holstius on

her 65th Birthday, Publications of the Turku

[ 408]




7/7


Administration, Turku, Series A-2, pp. 171-98.

Mo ller, K. and Wilson, D. (1988), Interaction

Perspective in Business Marketing: AnExploratory Contingency Framework,

F-233, Publications of The Helsinki School of

Economics and Business Administration,

Helsinki.

Mo ller, K. and Wilson, D. (Eds) (1995), Business

Marketing: An Interaction and Network

Perspective, Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Boston, MA.

Nyberg, K. (1997), Interaktion i Dyader en studie

av affa rssamtal inom europeisk

tra varuhandel, Forskningsrapport 97:13,

Ho gskolan i Karlstad, Karlstad.

Nyberg, K. and Haglund, L. (1991), An Interaction

Appoach to the Study of Face-to-Face BusinessCommunication, Research Report 91:11,

University of Karlstad, Karlstad.

Nyberg, K. and Strandvik, T. (1999), ``Business

discussions in business dyads'', Conference

Proceeding (CD-ROM) of the 15th NFEK

Conference on Interorganizational Relations,

Swedish School of Economics, Helsinki.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1987), ``Introduction: researching

strategic change'', in Pettigrew, A.M. (Ed.),

The Management of Strategic Change, Basil

Blackwell, Oxford.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1997), ``What is a processual

analysis?'', Scandinavian Journal of

Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 337-48.

Puro, J.P. (1996), Towards a PhenomenologicalTheory of Interpersonal Communication,

Studies in Communication 6, Publications of

the University of Jyva skyla , Jyva skyla .

Tikkanen, H. (2000), ``On a mission from Gad:

Hans-Georg Gadamer's philosophical

hermeneutics and interorganization

research'', in Reponen, T. (Ed.), Management

Expertise for the New Millennium. In

Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the

Turku School of Economics and Business

Administration, Publications of the Turku


Administration A-1:2000, Turku, pp. 305-15.Turnbull, P and Valla, J.P. (1987) ``Strategic

planning in international marketing: an

interaction approach'', European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 5-20.

Webster, F.E. (1992), ``The changing role of

marketing in the corporation'', Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 56, October, pp. 1-17.

Weick, K.E. (1969), The Social Psychology of

Organizing, Addison-Wesley Publishing

Company, Reading, MA.

Application questions

1 Has your company intentionally aimed at

analyzing the content, nature and

outcomes of your key network

relationships (to customer, suppliers,

horizontal organizations) to a notable

degree? If yes, what kind of concepts andframeworks have been applied? Do they

take into account the existing

communications patterns in the

relationships under scrutiny?

2 How can the conceptual framework

depicted in Figure 1 help you to analyze

the role of communication in your key

network relationships as far as, for

instance, key interactants and the `strings

of interaction'' between them areconcerned?

[ 409]



El Rol de La Comunicacion en Las Relaciones Empresariales

Documents

Transcript of El Rol de La Comunicacion en Las Relaciones Empresariales