我没想到!谈判策略期望违背的关系影响

IF 10.2 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Supply Chain Management Pub Date : 2020-11-29 DOI:10.1111/jscm.12252
Stephanie P. Thomas, Monique L. Ueltschy Murfield, Jacqueline K. Eastman
{"title":"我没想到!谈判策略期望违背的关系影响","authors":"Stephanie P. Thomas,&nbsp;Monique L. Ueltschy Murfield,&nbsp;Jacqueline K. Eastman","doi":"10.1111/jscm.12252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51392,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supply Chain Management","volume":"57 4","pages":"3-25"},"PeriodicalIF":10.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jscm.12252","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"I Wasn’t Expecting That! The Relational Impact of Negotiation Strategy Expectation Violations\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie P. Thomas,&nbsp;Monique L. Ueltschy Murfield,&nbsp;Jacqueline K. Eastman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jscm.12252\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Supply Chain Management\",\"volume\":\"57 4\",\"pages\":\"3-25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jscm.12252\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Supply Chain Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12252\",\"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 Supply Chain Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12252","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: 5

摘要

虽然持续的买方-供应商关系中的谈判是供应链管理中的关键因素,但文献中的重点一直是一次性的,孤立事件的谈判。本研究通过三个基于场景的供应链管理实验,考虑了买家对过去谈判策略的感知如何帮助他们发展对供应商未来谈判策略的期望。如果供应商没有满足(违反)买方的战略期望,这些买方将寻求理解原因。本研究结合期望违反理论和归因理论,探讨了谈判策略期望违反的关系影响以及关系外因素的作用。结果表明,关系历史确实会影响购买者对谈判策略预期违反的反应,并且消极违反的关系影响会受到历史的缓和,而不是单一事件反应。虽然研究结果支持关系外因素也会对关系产生影响,但购买者根据关系外因素的类型(组织或外部)和关系结果的类型(承诺和关系价值)来感知差异。策略期望违背与非相关因素相互作用的结果可能会扩展归因理论的边界条件。研究结果表明,供应商应该考虑他们的购买伙伴如何看待他们的谈判行为,并根据之前的交流确定超出买家预期的行为的潜在关系后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
I Wasn’t Expecting That! The Relational Impact of Negotiation Strategy Expectation Violations

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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