{"title":"陷入未知?解释供应基地中断后管理层未作出反应的原因","authors":"Jiachun Lu, Tingting Yan, Tyson R. Browning","doi":"10.1002/joom.1287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The world is witnessing more supply-base disruptions, where multiple suppliers of a buying firm simultaneously experience disturbed operations. Compared to single-supplier disruptions, supply-base disruptions create a more uncertain situation for a purchasing manager, yet they can also reveal improvement opportunities. Hence, it is theoretically and practically valuable to understand why a purchasing manager might not be willing to explore these opportunities. Adopting a sensemaking perspective, we investigate how two dimensions of supply-base disruption severity, breadth and depth, influence managers' perception of disruption severity and post-recovery action (i.e., suggesting supply-base restructuring ideas). We conducted multiple scenario-based experiments with practitioners and triangulated the experimental results with interviews, finding that both breadth and depth have diminishing, positive effects on perceived severity. Interestingly, depth is less influential than breadth. These findings reveal the circumstances under which the severity of a complex, disruptive situation could be misestimated. Our results also show that supply-base structural complexity (a cue of the task environment) amplifies the positive effect of perceived severity on a manager's inclination to walk into the unknown to propose supply-base restructuring ideas. These findings provide an explanation for management nonresponse after a supply-base disruption.","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Into the unknown? Explaining management nonresponse after a supply-base disruption\",\"authors\":\"Jiachun Lu, Tingting Yan, Tyson R. Browning\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/joom.1287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The world is witnessing more supply-base disruptions, where multiple suppliers of a buying firm simultaneously experience disturbed operations. Compared to single-supplier disruptions, supply-base disruptions create a more uncertain situation for a purchasing manager, yet they can also reveal improvement opportunities. Hence, it is theoretically and practically valuable to understand why a purchasing manager might not be willing to explore these opportunities. Adopting a sensemaking perspective, we investigate how two dimensions of supply-base disruption severity, breadth and depth, influence managers' perception of disruption severity and post-recovery action (i.e., suggesting supply-base restructuring ideas). We conducted multiple scenario-based experiments with practitioners and triangulated the experimental results with interviews, finding that both breadth and depth have diminishing, positive effects on perceived severity. Interestingly, depth is less influential than breadth. These findings reveal the circumstances under which the severity of a complex, disruptive situation could be misestimated. Our results also show that supply-base structural complexity (a cue of the task environment) amplifies the positive effect of perceived severity on a manager's inclination to walk into the unknown to propose supply-base restructuring ideas. These findings provide an explanation for management nonresponse after a supply-base disruption.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51097,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Operations Management\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Operations Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1287\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Operations Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1287","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Into the unknown? Explaining management nonresponse after a supply-base disruption
The world is witnessing more supply-base disruptions, where multiple suppliers of a buying firm simultaneously experience disturbed operations. Compared to single-supplier disruptions, supply-base disruptions create a more uncertain situation for a purchasing manager, yet they can also reveal improvement opportunities. Hence, it is theoretically and practically valuable to understand why a purchasing manager might not be willing to explore these opportunities. Adopting a sensemaking perspective, we investigate how two dimensions of supply-base disruption severity, breadth and depth, influence managers' perception of disruption severity and post-recovery action (i.e., suggesting supply-base restructuring ideas). We conducted multiple scenario-based experiments with practitioners and triangulated the experimental results with interviews, finding that both breadth and depth have diminishing, positive effects on perceived severity. Interestingly, depth is less influential than breadth. These findings reveal the circumstances under which the severity of a complex, disruptive situation could be misestimated. Our results also show that supply-base structural complexity (a cue of the task environment) amplifies the positive effect of perceived severity on a manager's inclination to walk into the unknown to propose supply-base restructuring ideas. These findings provide an explanation for management nonresponse after a supply-base disruption.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Operations Management (JOM) is a leading academic publication dedicated to advancing the field of operations management (OM) through rigorous and original research. The journal's primary audience is the academic community, although it also values contributions that attract the interest of practitioners. However, it does not publish articles that are primarily aimed at practitioners, as academic relevance is a fundamental requirement.
JOM focuses on the management aspects of various types of operations, including manufacturing, service, and supply chain operations. The journal's scope is broad, covering both profit-oriented and non-profit organizations. The core criterion for publication is that the research question must be centered around operations management, rather than merely using operations as a context. For instance, a study on charismatic leadership in a manufacturing setting would only be within JOM's scope if it directly relates to the management of operations; the mere setting of the study is not enough.
Published papers in JOM are expected to address real-world operational questions and challenges. While not all research must be driven by practical concerns, there must be a credible link to practice that is considered from the outset of the research, not as an afterthought. Authors are cautioned against assuming that academic knowledge can be easily translated into practical applications without proper justification.
JOM's articles are abstracted and indexed by several prestigious databases and services, including Engineering Information, Inc.; Executive Sciences Institute; INSPEC; International Abstracts in Operations Research; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; SciSearch/Science Citation Index; CompuMath Citation Index; Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology; Information Access Company; and Social Sciences Citation Index. This ensures that the journal's research is widely accessible and recognized within the academic and professional communities.