The effect of cultural value orientations on responses to supply-side disruption

PurposePast research has shown that culture has significant effects on people's evaluation of and responses to risk. Despite this important role, the supply chain risk literature has been silent on this matter. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of cultural value orientations on managerial perception of and responses to a supply disruption risk.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conduct a scenario-based experiment to investigate the effect of cultural value orientations – i.e. individualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance – on individuals' perception of risk and supplier switching intention in the face of a supply disruption.FindingsThe findings highlight the negative effect of individualism-collectivism on disruption risk perception and switching intention in high uncertain circumstances. However, these relationships are non-significant in relatively less uncertain situations. Moreover, the findings show that the impact of uncertainty avoidance on risk perception and supplier switching is positive and significant in both low and high uncertain circumstances.Originality/valueExtant research has traditionally assumed that when confronted with disruption risks, managers make decisions using an economic utility model, to best serve the long-term objectives of the firm. This paper draws from advances of behavioural research to show that cultural value orientations influence such decisions through a mediating mechanism of subjective risk perception

Knowledge sharing in project-based supply networks

Purpose: Project-based supply networks are an emerging form of organizing used to meet a buying organization's operational and innovation goals. Knowledge sharing among suppliers in the network plays a key role in successful project delivery but is challenging to achieve in practice. The authors draw on self-determination theory (SDT) to examine the interactive effect of incentive provisions (penalties and bonuses) and network governance (lead or shared) on knowledge sharing motivation by individual boundary-spanners within project-based supply networks. Design/methodology/approach: A scenario-based behavioral experiment of 217 professionals within the UK using the online platform, Prolific, was conducted. A Hayes Macro PROCESS model was used to analyze the data. The authors pilot-tested the scenario with project management experts, senior managers, and directors. Findings: The findings highlighted that the effectiveness of incentive provisions on knowledge sharing may be dependent on the mode of network governance. Where suppliers have shared responsibility for managing the network (shared governance), bonuses were more effective than penalties in motivating knowledge sharing through support of boundary-spanners’ autonomy needs. However, where the buying organization has transferred responsibility for managing the network to an external third-party organization (lead governance), the authors found no significant difference between the effectiveness of penalty versus bonus provisions in motivating knowledge sharing. Originality/value: Prior research in operations and supply chain management (OSCM) has shown the positive effect of incentive provisions on knowledge sharing motivation, but largely overlooked the effectiveness of such incentives when nested within broader governance mechanisms used in projects and their networks. Moreover, while scholars have started to highlight the importance of governance mechanisms in knowledge sharing at the dyadic level, the authors know very little about the impact of network governance

Conflict and contract use in cross-cultural buyer-supplier relationships: the role of cultural context

Conflict is common within global supply chains, especially where the buyer and supplier span different cultures. In such settings, formal contracts assume an important role in providing a common language that specifies each party’s roles, responsibilities, and liabilities. However, the primacy, use, and interpretation of contracts is subject to the cultural norms of the two parties involved. We adopt a multi- method research design to understand how cultural context affects how suppliers interpret and respond to different contract functions (control vs. coordination) adopted by a buyer firm during conflict episodes. Study 1 involves multiple, in-depth case studies of conflict between three Indian suppliers and six of their international buyers from China, Germany, and the USA. Our findings highlight how the use of contractual control or coordination is interpreted differently depending on the supplier’s cultural context. In particular, a mismatch in contract function use and the supplier’s culturally derived expectations can lead to strong negative emotions and damage to the relationship. In Study 2, we propose and test a set of hypotheses via a scenario-based experiment of German and Chinese managers. We find support for our hypothesized conditional effects, showing that for suppliers from high-context cultures, the buyer’s use of contractual control to address conflict has a significant negative, indirect effect on relationship commitment (via the emotion of anger). We conclude with a discussion of the implications of using contracts to manage conflict in cross-cultural supply chain relationships

The effect of cultural value orientations on responses to supply-side disruption

PurposePast research has shown that culture has significant effects on people's evaluation of and responses to risk. Despite this important role, the supply chain risk literature has been silent on this matter. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of cultural value orientations on managerial perception of and responses to a supply disruption risk.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conduct a scenario-based experiment to investigate the effect of cultural value orientations – i.e. individualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance – on individuals' perception of risk and supplier switching intention in the face of a supply disruption.FindingsThe findings highlight the negative effect of individualism-collectivism on disruption risk perception and switching intention in high uncertain circumstances. However, these relationships are non-significant in relatively less uncertain situations. Moreover, the findings show that the impact of uncertainty avoidance on risk perception and supplier switching is positive and significant in both low and high uncertain circumstances.Originality/valueExtant research has traditionally assumed that when confronted with disruption risks, managers make decisions using an economic utility model, to best serve the long-term objectives of the firm. This paper draws from advances of behavioural research to show that cultural value orientations influence such decisions through a mediating mechanism of subjective risk perception

Knowledge sharing in project-based supply networks

PurposeProject-based supply networks are an emerging form of organizing used to meet a buying organization's operational and innovation goals. Knowledge sharing among suppliers in the network plays a key role in successful project delivery but is challenging to achieve in practice. The authors draw on self-determination theory (SDT) to examine the interactive effect of incentive provisions (penalties and bonuses) and network governance (lead or shared) on knowledge sharing motivation by individual boundary-spanners within project-based supply networks.Design/methodology/approachA scenario-based behavioral experiment of 217 professionals within the UK using the online platform, Prolific, was conducted. A Hayes Macro PROCESS model was used to analyze the data. The authors pilot-tested the scenario with project management experts, senior managers, and directors.FindingsThe findings highlighted that the effectiveness of incentive provisions on knowledge sharing may be dependent on the mode of network governance. Where suppliers have shared responsibility for managing the network (shared governance), bonuses were more effective than penalties in motivating knowledge sharing through support of boundary-spanners’ autonomy needs. However, where the buying organization has transferred responsibility for managing the network to an external third-party organization (lead governance), the authors found no significant difference between the effectiveness of penalty versus bonus provisions in motivating knowledge sharing.Originality/valuePrior research in operations and supply chain management (OSCM) has shown the positive effect of incentive provisions on knowledge sharing motivation, but largely overlooked the effectiveness of such incentives when nested within broader governance mechanisms used in projects and their networks. Moreover, while scholars have started to highlight the importance of governance mechanisms in knowledge sharing at the dyadic level, the authors know very little about the impact of network governance.<br/

Gatekeepers and knowledge sharing in inter-organizational project networks

Sharing knowledge among multiple organizations is key to addressing adaptation challenges and unforeseen issues involved in the delivery of inter-firm projects. While much research has focused on governance and institutional factors within these projects, less attention has been paid to individual boundary spanners, who act as gatekeepers for the transfer of knowledge to other organizations. We draw on self-determination theory to examine how the mode of governance (shared versus lead) and motivational climate (mastery and performance) affects psychological needs satisfaction, and ultimately, boundary spanners’ knowledge sharing motivation