Original Articles
“While negotiation within ongoing buyer–supplier relationships is a key element in supply chain management, the emphasis in the literature has been on one-time, isolated event negotiations. This research, through three scenario-based experiments with supply chain managers, considers how buyers’ perceptions of past negotiation strategies help to develop future negotiation strategy expectations of their suppliers. If the buyers’ strategy expectations are not met (violated) by the suppliers, these buyers will seek to understand why. Using the combination of expectancy violation theory and attribution theory, this research examines the relational impact of a negotiation strategy expectation violation and the role of extra-relational factors. The results suggest that relationship history does influence how buyers respond to negotiation strategy expectation violations and that the relational impact of a negative violation is tempered by the history as opposed to a single event reaction. While the findings support that extra-relational factors can also have a relational impact, buyers perceive differences based on the type of extra-relational factor (organizational or external) and the type of relational outcome (commitment and relationship value). The results of the interaction of the strategy expectation violation and extra-relational factor may stretch the boundary conditions of attribution theory. The findings suggest that suppliers should consider how their buying partners may perceive their negotiation behavior and determine the potential relational ramifications of behavior outside of the buyers’ expectations based on previous exchanges.”
This research has been featured in our Spotlight series, details can be found here: https://www.journalofsupplychainmanagement.com/new-blog/2020/12/11/spotlight-i-wasnt-expecting-that-the-relational-impact-of-negotiation-strategy-expectation-violations
The full article can be found here:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12252
https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12252
“The interplay between informal and formal mechanisms has frequently been analyzed in the general management and supply chain management disciplines. The same is true for linkages between past and present events. However, the extant supply management literature largely conceptualizes formal cross-functional sourcing collaborations as free from influences emanating from prior encounters. This compartmentalization is in sharp contrast to sociology and social psychology research, which demonstrates that overlooking previous interactions limits our understanding of team dynamics. Boundary-spanning supply managers continually engage in formal and informal interactions with colleagues from other functions both before and during formal collaborations in sourcing teams. Our research focuses on the effects of informal exchanges that have taken place prior to the formal establishment of the sourcing team. We investigate how a colleague from another function reacts to a supply manager’s rejection of informal advice, and how the supply manager can mitigate the potential negative effects of this reaction on future formal sourcing collaborations. We use social exchange theory and impression management theory to derive hypotheses, a scenario-based experiment to test the hypotheses, and a sequential explanatory strategy based on interviews to delve more deeply into the experimental findings. The results suggest that previous informal advice-rejection reduces both an advisor’s willingness to provide formal advice to the advice-receiving supply manager in an ensuing cross-functional sourcing team and the expected cohesion of such a team, as compared to when the advice was heeded. We differentiate between five types of advisees’ mitigation strategies and find that the negative implications can be mitigated but that the degree of mitigation effectiveness partly depends on the advisor’s expertise level.”
This research has been featured in our Spotlight series, details can be found here: https://www.journalofsupplychainmanagement.com/new-blog/2020/8/21/spotlighthow-informal-exchanges-impact-formal-sourcing-collaboration-and-what-supply-managers-can-do-about-it
The full article can be found here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12241
https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12241
“Reverse supply chain (RSC) operations have emerged as a critical component of overall supply chain management in manufacturing industries. Yet, relatively little is known about how companies define their approach to managing outsourced RSC operations and how outcomes vary across different approaches. This paper responds to numerous calls in the literature for research that delves deeply into the “how” and “when” (mechanisms and contexts) of RSC operations. Based on within- and cross-case analysis of four manufacturer–3PL dyads, this paper develops a framework and detailed middle-range theory that explains and predicts the way in which different approaches to managing outsourced RSC operations yield different results. By exploring the approach used in each dyad, this research offers managers a rich description of some of the ways that forward thinking on RSC operations can open the door to different potential benefits. The research also contributes to the development of a theory of outsourced RSC operations. Theoretical arguments combined with research propositions provide a wealth of opportunity for future researchers to engage in this topic area.”
This research has been featured in our Spotlight series, details can be found here: https://www.journalofsupplychainmanagement.com/new-blog/2020/10/9/spotlight-managing-outsourced-reverse-supply-chain-operations-middlerange-theory-development
The full article can be found here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12244
https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12244
“Scholars have called attention to the dark side of collaborative buyer–supplier relationships (BSRs). For instance, the loss of objectivity, relational inertia, and redundant knowledge bases emerging from too much collaboration may result in declining performance. We extend this line of research by investigating the feasibility of potential mitigating mechanisms. Drawing from the literature on governance in inter-organizational relationships and the interviews with practitioners that have experienced the dark side, we have identified three mechanisms: challenging goals, contractual explicitness, and expectation of continuity. We examine these mechanisms empirically through two consecutive studies. The first study collected data on 132 buying firms and 28 matched suppliers from two sources (survey and archival database). The results provide support for challenging goals and contractual explicitness but offer mixed results for expectation of continuity. The data also allow us to identify buyers suffering from excessive collaboration with their suppliers. In the second study, we gathered qualitative data on five pairs of such buyers and their matched suppliers. Different pairs show different behaviors. Some buyer and supplier firms seem unaware of their predicament, while others are grappling with fighting back the dark side. This qualitative study also offers additional manifestations of the dark side and mechanisms beyond the ones examined in our first study and explains why expectation of continuity received mixed results. This research advances the BSR literature by demonstrating that it is possible to mitigate the dysfunctionalities emerging from too much collaboration and by providing some evidence for its subtle manifestations. It also reveals the managerial complexity surrounding the dark side and provides future research directions for this important topic.”
The full article can be found here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12239
https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12239
“Social sustainability has emerged as a key determinant in supplier selection. However, firms may approach social sustainability in varying ways such as investments in employee welfare or philanthropy. Little is known about how supply chain managers consider these individual dimensions when making sourcing decisions. Therefore, this research decomposes social sustainability into dimensions of employee welfare and philanthropy to determine their effects on supplier selection. Vignette-based experiments in a transportation context test a priori hypotheses derived from signaling theory, and post hoc qualitative insights reveal deeper understanding. Results show buyers have significant preferences to select, trust, and collaborate with suppliers who have desirable levels of employee welfare, philanthropy, and pricing. However, these findings are tempered by differential effect sizes and suggest that the practical significance of hypothesized relationships vary. These findings help refine our understanding of social sustainability conceptualizations and evolving supplier selection criteria, as well as offer timely insights for suppliers, buyers, and policymakers amidst surging demand for social sustainability.”
The full article can be found here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12247
https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12247