Mitigating Mechanisms for the Dark Side of Collaborative Buyer–Supplier Relationships: A Mixed-Method Study

IF 10.2 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Supply Chain Management Pub Date : 2020-07-24 DOI:10.1111/jscm.12239
Verónica H. Villena, Thomas Y. Choi, Elena Revilla
{"title":"Mitigating Mechanisms for the Dark Side of Collaborative Buyer–Supplier Relationships: A Mixed-Method Study","authors":"Verónica H. Villena,&nbsp;Thomas Y. Choi,&nbsp;Elena Revilla","doi":"10.1111/jscm.12239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51392,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supply Chain Management","volume":"57 4","pages":"86-116"},"PeriodicalIF":10.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jscm.12239","citationCount":"29","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Supply Chain Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12239","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
协同采购-供应商关系阴暗面的缓解机制:一种混合方法研究
学者们已经开始关注合作采购-供应商关系(BSRs)的阴暗面。例如,客观性的丧失、关系的惯性,以及由于过多的协作而产生的冗余知识库,都可能导致性能下降。我们通过调查潜在缓解机制的可行性来扩展这条研究线。从关于组织间关系中的治理的文献和对经历过黑暗面的实践者的采访中,我们确定了三种机制:挑战性目标、契约的明确性和对连续性的期望。我们通过两个连续的研究对这些机制进行了实证检验。第一项研究从两个来源(调查和档案数据库)收集了132家采购公司和28家匹配供应商的数据。结果为具有挑战性的目标和合同明确性提供了支持,但为连续性的期望提供了混合结果。这些数据还使我们能够识别出与供应商过度合作的买家。在第二项研究中,我们收集了五对这样的买家和他们匹配的供应商的定性数据。不同的配对表现出不同的行为。一些买方和供应商公司似乎没有意识到他们的困境,而其他公司则在努力反击黑暗面。这项定性研究还提供了黑暗面和机制的其他表现,超出了我们在第一项研究中所检查的,并解释了为什么对连续性的期望得到了不同的结果。本研究通过证明有可能减轻因过多合作而出现的功能失调,并为其微妙表现提供了一些证据,从而推进了BSR文献。这也揭示了管理的复杂性围绕着黑暗面,并为这一重要课题提供了未来的研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
6.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: ournal of Supply Chain Management Mission: The mission of the Journal of Supply Chain Management (JSCM) is to be the premier choice among supply chain management scholars from various disciplines. It aims to attract high-quality, impactful behavioral research that focuses on theory building and employs rigorous empirical methodologies. Article Requirements: An article published in JSCM must make a significant contribution to supply chain management theory. This contribution can be achieved through either an inductive, theory-building process or a deductive, theory-testing approach. This contribution may manifest in various ways, such as falsification of conventional understanding, theory-building through conceptual development, inductive or qualitative research, initial empirical testing of a theory, theoretically-based meta-analysis, or constructive replication that clarifies the boundaries or range of a theory. Theoretical Contribution: Manuscripts should explicitly convey the theoretical contribution relative to the existing supply chain management literature, and when appropriate, to the literature outside of supply chain management (e.g., management theory, psychology, economics). Empirical Contribution: Manuscripts published in JSCM must also provide strong empirical contributions. While conceptual manuscripts are welcomed, they must significantly advance theory in the field of supply chain management and be firmly grounded in existing theory and relevant literature. For empirical manuscripts, authors must adequately assess validity, which is essential for empirical research, whether quantitative or qualitative.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Process Research Methods for Studying Supply Chains and Their Management Rethinking Supply Chain Management in a Post-Growth Era Unraveling the Urban Ecosystem: An Ethnographic Study of Logistics Service Providers “I Am Because We Are”: The Role of Sub-Saharan Africa's Collectivist Culture in Achieving Traceability and Global Supply Chain Resilience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1