Why Don’t Small Business Owners Take Professional Advice? A Dyadic Study From a Client and Adviser Perspective.

Considerable evidence shows that small businesses who take professional advice reduce risk and increase growth and success (Lussier & Pfeiffer, 2002; Berry et al., 2006). Despite this, small business owners (SBOs) take professional advice less readily than larger, well-resourced organisations, and have a greater tendency to reject advice received (Mole, 2016). Demonstrating importance, small businesses contribute to the economic success of many countries (OECD, 2019), and in Australia and New Zealand, represent more than 95% of businesses and provide employment to almost half and one-third of the respective population (ASBFEO, 2022; OECD, 2019). However, despite significance, the majority of small businesses fail within five years (ASIC, 2019), and a key reason for their failure is not taking professional advice (Waters, 2013). Further, most professional service advisers (PSAs) perceive the rejection of advice as a negative indicator of their skills and abilities (Belkin et al., 2018), so not taking professional advice has ramifications for both SBOs and PSAs. Accordingly, the implications of not taking professional advice are significant, and understanding the reasons why this occurs and what advisers can do about it, is of value to contemporary marketing literature and managerial practice. Accordingly, this study aims to answer the following research questions: (RQ1) Why don´t SBOs take professional advice, and (RQ2), What strategies are used by PSAs to mitigate advice rejection and facilitate advice uptake by SBOs. Current B2B and services marketing literature agrees that professional advice is particularly important in contexts that involve complex and service-intensive offerings such as solutions (Tuli et al., 2007), hybrid offerings (Ulaga & Reinartz, 2011), and knowledge intensive business services (Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakkola, 2012). This is because clients often lack sufficient knowledge and skills to diagnose their own problems and requirements, and prescribe optimal solutions (Tuli et al., 2007; Aarikka-Stenroos and Jaakkola, 2012). However, extant research tends to look at successful cases of advice taking where it is often assumed advice is taken, and most focus on large organisational clients who are expected to behave rationally. Accordingly, current literature offers very little insights on cases where and reasons why professional advice is not taken, especially in the context of SBOs, who might behave differently to large organisations. From a PSA perspective, extant literature recommends suppliers go beyond articulated customer needs and diagnose broader problems (Tuli et al., 2007; Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakkola, 2012). While this approach addresses potential rejection reasons that relate to rational business problems (Terho et al., 2012), it does not take into account more social or psychological reasons that may relate to the rejection of professional advice in the SBO-PSA dyad. In addition, wat is currently known about taking and not taking professional advice focuses mostly on factors that influence decision-making, and there are almost no theories that address or explain the reasons for the phenomenon (Bonaccio and Dalal, 2006). That is, government reports, statistics, and academic literature demonstrate the existence of a practitioner-based problem, the phenomenon of advice rejection is under-explored in academic literature, and what is known about how advisers manage it is limited. By answering the research questions, this study will fill a gap in the literature and contribute new knowledge to a practitioner-based problem. To ensure the most suitable methodology for answering research questions was applied, a detailed evaluation of research design options was conducted. Given advice rejection in client-adviser relationships is an under-explored topic, we applied an inductive grounded theory approach, which focused on developing novel theoretical insights from empirical observations (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). To capture the lived experiences of individuals, we conducted interviews with 32 SBOs and 20 PSAs, which collectively provided insights into more than 175 different client-adviser relationships. A dyadic approach to data collection enabled us to capture rich and complementary insights into the rejection reasons and advice facilitation strategies from both a client and adviser perspective. We analysed data using a systematic grounded theory coding approach, which included open, axial, and selective coding stages, and four levels of conceptual analysis to bring the emerging findings to life (codes, themes, categories and dimensions). To increase the credibility and validity of emerging findings, we used theoretical saturation, member checking, and multiple forms of triangulation (Farquhar et al., 2020). Findings revealed six key reasons why SBOs do not take professional advice, six matching strategies that are used by PSAs to mitigate those reasons and facilitate advice uptake, and three dyadic tensions that exist between SBOs and PSAs. Analysis highlighted a dimension that is dyadically shared between client and adviser, namely that the reasons given, strategies used, and tensions experienced are categorically client-related, adviser-related or engagement-related. More specifically, our data revealed six reasons that relate to (i) belief prioritisation; (ii) emotional paralysis; (iii) adviser (un)suitability; (iv) advice (un)suitability; (v) lack of empathy; and (vi) missing personal landscape. Findings showed client’s often act upon their beliefs and transient emotions, measure adviser and advice suitability through fit and expectations, want their needs to be understood and met empathetically, and for personal implications to be recognised. Further, our data uncovered six matching strategies that are used by PSAs use to mitigate SBOs advice rejection and facilitate uptake, which relate to (i) contextual framing; (ii) disarming emotion; (iii) demonstrating relatability; (iv) customising advice; (v) showing empathy; and (vi) recognising the landscape holistically. Findings showed strategies are used to frame advice around client beliefs and intercept negative emotion, demonstrate personal and professional relatability to convey suitability, and express empathy and recognition by showing concern and evaluating their landscape holistically. In addition, our data revealed three dyadic tensions that exist between SBOs and PSAs which relate to (i) emotionalising vs rationalising; (ii) casualising vs professionalising; and (iii) personalising vs commercialising. Shedding light on the research questions, tensions explained how reasons manifest in the first place and why strategies used to mitigate those reasons are effective (because they reduce tension felt by SBOs). This study contributes to contemporary B2B and services marketing literature by developing an empirically grounded dyadic framework that identifies the key reasons why SBOs do not take professional advice, the matching strategies used by PSAs to mitigate advice rejection and facilitate advice uptake, and the dyadic tensions that exist between SBOs and PSAs. Extant literature has focused mostly on successful cases of advice taking and large organisational clients (Tuli et al., 2007; Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakkola, 2012); strategies that facilitate customer participation and educate clients on advice-taking benefits (Chan, 2010; Ulaga and Reinartz, 2011); and how tensions impact organisations and can be alleviated to improve profit and performance-driven outcomes (Toth et al., 2018; Mundy, 2010). In contrast, findings provide new insights that explain why unsuccessful cases of advice taking occur and how advice and advisers are perceived by smaller organisational clients; how strategies that mitigate and manage emotion and personal needs are necessary beyond consumer decision-making and required in a B2B context; and how tensions in client-adviser relationships impact individuals personally and professionally. Contributing to managerial practice, the strategies, reasons, and tensions identified provide lessons learnt from a wide range of business types and professions, and insights that are useful to both SBOs and PSAs.