非正式交换如何影响正式采购合作(以及供应经理可以做些什么)

IF 10.2 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Jiachun Lu, Lutz Kaufmann, Craig R. Carter
{"title":"非正式交换如何影响正式采购合作(以及供应经理可以做些什么)","authors":"Jiachun Lu,&nbsp;Lutz Kaufmann,&nbsp;Craig R. Carter","doi":"10.1111/jscm.12241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 <i>informal</i> exchanges that have taken place <i>prior to</i> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51392,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supply Chain Management","volume":"57 4","pages":"26-62"},"PeriodicalIF":10.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jscm.12241","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Informal Exchanges Impact Formal Sourcing Collaboration (and What Supply Managers Can Do about It)\",\"authors\":\"Jiachun Lu,&nbsp;Lutz Kaufmann,&nbsp;Craig R. Carter\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jscm.12241\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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 <i>informal</i> exchanges that have taken place <i>prior to</i> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Supply Chain Management\",\"volume\":\"57 4\",\"pages\":\"26-62\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jscm.12241\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Supply Chain Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12241\",\"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.12241","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: 3

摘要

在一般管理和供应链管理学科中,非正式机制和正式机制之间的相互作用经常被分析。过去和现在事件之间的联系也是如此。然而,现有的供应管理文献在很大程度上将正式的跨职能采购合作概念化为不受先前接触的影响。这种划分与社会学和社会心理学研究形成鲜明对比,后者表明,忽略之前的互动会限制我们对团队动态的理解。在采购团队正式合作之前和期间,跨界供应经理不断地与其他职能部门的同事进行正式和非正式的互动。我们的研究重点是在正式建立采购团队之前进行的非正式交流的影响。我们调查了来自其他职能部门的同事对供应经理拒绝非正式建议的反应,以及供应经理如何减轻这种反应对未来正式采购合作的潜在负面影响。我们使用社会交换理论和印象管理理论来推导假设,基于场景的实验来验证假设,并基于访谈的顺序解释策略来更深入地研究实验结果。结果表明,与听取建议时相比,先前非正式的拒绝建议降低了顾问向随后的跨职能采购团队中接受建议的供应经理提供正式建议的意愿,也降低了该团队的预期凝聚力。我们对五种类型的顾问缓解战略进行了区分,发现可以减轻负面影响,但缓解效果的程度部分取决于顾问的专业知识水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Informal Exchanges Impact Formal Sourcing Collaboration (and What Supply Managers Can Do about It)

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.

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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信