Search results
1 – 10 of 173Stanley E. Fawcett, Yao Henry Jin, Amydee M. Fawcett and Gregory Magnan
Trust has long been viewed as a potential governance mechanism. However, recent research discloses substantive incongruities in trust conceptualization and operationalization …
Abstract
Purpose
Trust has long been viewed as a potential governance mechanism. However, recent research discloses substantive incongruities in trust conceptualization and operationalization – especially in the supply chain buyer/supplier context. The purpose of this paper is to develop an empirically grounded conceptualization of trust and to explore the trust-construction process.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors used the communications rationality approach to elaborate a three-stage qualitative study of supply chain trust. The authors first monologically examine trust by interviewing managers from over 50 companies (as described). The list of trust behaviors are then dialogically refined through 11 focus studies comprised of over 250 managers into different trust dimensions (as agreed upon). Finally, the authors used two in-depth, dyadic case studies to examine the dynamic trust construction process (as witnessed).
Findings
The authors find divergence in the way academics define trust and the way companies operationalize trust. Missing in action is the notion of benevolence. In the supply chain setting, managers describe trust as consisting of credibility and relationship commitment. Companies use an iterative approach to signal trustworthiness. However, ambiguity increases the costs and decreases the effectiveness of proactive trust construction as a form of supply chain governance.
Originality/value
The authors specify and evaluate novel constructs used to signal trustworthiness and document why and how companies struggle to use the signaling process efficiently and effectively. For some, this is an issue of managerial commitment. For others, this represents a lack of understanding of trustworthiness signals and the trust-construction process. Ultimately, the authors develop a more robust conceptualization of inter-organizational trust and present a roadmap for proactive trust construction.
Details
Keywords
Clinton Amos, Sebastian Brockhaus, Amydee M. Fawcett, Stanley E. Fawcett and A. Michael Knemeyer
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate how service perceptions influence customer views of the authenticity of corporate sustainability claims. The goal of this paper is to help…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate how service perceptions influence customer views of the authenticity of corporate sustainability claims. The goal of this paper is to help supply chain decision-makers better understand boundary conditions in order to design more enduring and impactful sustainability programs.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors employ behavioral experiments, subjecting two theoretically derived hypotheses to verification across five diverse industries and two distinct sustainability vignettes.
Findings
Customer service perceptions emerge as a significant boundary condition to the perceived authenticity of sustainability efforts. Subjects attributed significantly higher authenticity toward sustainability efforts in above average vs below average service quality contexts. Further, respondents attributed deceptive motivations to sustainability efforts at companies with below average service.
Research limitations/implications
The authors confirm the underlying tenet of social judgment theory, which suggests that a priori perceptions create a zone of acceptability or rejection. Ultimately, investing in sustainability can lead to counterproductive cynicism.
Practical implications
The authors infer that customers’ willingness to give companies credit for sustainability initiatives extends beyond service issues to any practice that influences a priori perceptions. Supply chain managers must rethink their role in designing both customer service and sustainability systems to achieve positive returns from sustainability investments.
Originality/value
The authors challenge the assumption that customers universally positively view sustainability efforts. If customers hold a priori negative service perceptions, otherwise well-designed sustainability programs may invoke cynical reactions. Thus, sustainability programs may not inoculate firm reputations from adverse incidents. Given they touch both service and sustainability systems, supply chain managers are positioned to holistically influence their design for competitive advantage.
Details
Keywords
Stanley E. Fawcett, Amydee M. Fawcett, August Michael Knemeyer, Sebastian Brockhaus and G. Scott Webb
Despite over 30 years of focus on supply chain collaboration, companies continue to struggle to achieve collaborative advantage. To better understand why some companies are able…
Abstract
Purpose
Despite over 30 years of focus on supply chain collaboration, companies continue to struggle to achieve collaborative advantage. To better understand why some companies are able to collaborate for competitive advantage and others can't, the authors explore how managerial commitment enables collaborative capabilities.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors employed a longitudinal inductive study, interviewing companies with reputations for intense supply chain collaboration at four different times over 20 years.
Findings
The authors identified managerial commitment as a super-ordinate enabler. They describe the dynamics of commitment development and explore three types of commitment: instrumental, normative and transformative. The authors document key antecedents and outcomes of each type of commitment.
Research limitations/implications
Theory regarding the antecedents to commitment to collaborative capability is underdeveloped. The authors elaborate these antecedents and the dynamics that enable or undermine the commitment necessary to build effective collaboration capabilities.
Practical implications
The authors provide insight (i.e. a practical and actionable roadmap) into the process companies use to cultivate commitment to collaboration and value co-creation.
Originality/value
Collaboration is critical to value co-creation, including effective supply chain risk mitigation and lasting sustainability efforts. The authors elaborate a theory of commitment dynamics that explains why most companies never go beyond basic levels of collaboration. At the same time, the authors provide a roadmap for deep, transformative collaboration.
Details
Keywords
David Swanson, Yao Henry Jin, Amydee M. Fawcett and Stanley E. Fawcett
Over the past two decades, technological advances have spurred companies to design collaborative processes. Yet most such efforts are difficult to implement, with only a few…
Abstract
Purpose
Over the past two decades, technological advances have spurred companies to design collaborative processes. Yet most such efforts are difficult to implement, with only a few resulting in sustained competitive advantages. The purpose of this paper is to leverage the tenets of socio-technical theory to examine how collaborative process design may lead to improved collaborative performance.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors employ a multi-method – survey and interview – approach to examine the roles of technical and social initiatives in mitigating resistors to collaborative performance, and identify both the short-term appeals of technology investments and long-term social resistors that inhibit additional performance gains.
Findings
While initial investments in information technology yield alluring gains, performance benefits diminish as social resistors create limiting conditions. The dynamic capability for firms to recognize and respond to the dual and integrative nature of technical and social systems is required for firms to overcome powerful limiting conditions and change resistors through collaborative process design in order to cultivate new value-creation processes.
Originality/value
This study is the first in the discipline to utilize socio-technical systems theory to examine an issue in supply chain process redesign. The multi-method approach elaborates the difficulty inherent in cultivating new value-creation processes. The results collectively illustrate a need for recognizing the influence of both the reinforcing and limiting processes. Whereas, technical initiatives enable new capabilities, social initiatives remove fear, create vision, and inculcate skills, enabling technology adoption and process change.
Details
Keywords
Sebastian Brockhaus, Stanley E. Fawcett, Sammuel Hobbs and Adoley Simone Schwarze
Supplier codes of conduct (CoC) are the primary mechanism companies use to drive corporate social responsibility (CSR) upstream in their supply chains. Companies have…
Abstract
Purpose
Supplier codes of conduct (CoC) are the primary mechanism companies use to drive corporate social responsibility (CSR) upstream in their supply chains. Companies have traditionally used CoC to tackle systemic social issues (e.g. forced labor, wages and working conditions). More recently, CoC have included environmental concerns (e.g. waste treatment, toxic chemicals and pollution). The purpose of this paper is to analyze how companies have evolved their CoC across four points in time between 1999 and 2017. By evaluating changes in the scope, depth and possible regime of sanctions included in CoC, the authors consider whether companies use CoC as either a leveling or a differentiating mechanism.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors employ a competing-theories approach to examine how companies have employed CoC. Specifically, the authors examine the content of CoC between four data points: 1999, 2005, 2010 and 2017 to determine whether CoC are used to maintain comparative parity (institutional theory) or to achieve a distinctive market presence (awareness–motivation–capability (AMC) framework). The sample includes 36 transnational companies. To enable replication, the authors maintained consistent sampling and coding procedures across the four time periods.
Findings
The authors find a significant harmonization and standardization of CoC over time. Alignment occurs at the lower end of acceptable norms – i.e. a lowest-common-denominator approach. Companies have not chosen to take a more aspirational approach that involves raising the bar on social and environmental performance. That is, companies have not attempted to use CoC to differentiate themselves as CSR standard bearers. Provision specificity dropped for the 2010 sample before rebounding in 2017.
Originality/value
The authors juxtapose the findings with a theoretical framework based on the tenets of institutional theory and the AMC framework. The authors conclude that changes in CoC are largely driven by coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism as opposed to attempts to leverage CoC to create a distinctive image that could be used for competitive advantage. This finding provides context for how the public, investors and managers should view these documents.
Details
Keywords
Aysu Göçer, Sebastian Brockhaus, Stanley E. Fawcett, Ceren Altuntas Vural and A. Michael Knemeyer
Sustainability continues to be put forth as a strategic priority. However, sustainability efforts are often deemphasized for short-term profitability. This study explores the…
Abstract
Purpose
Sustainability continues to be put forth as a strategic priority. However, sustainability efforts are often deemphasized for short-term profitability. This study explores the nuances in managerial decision-making related to adopting sustainability initiatives within food supply chains in an emerging economy. We identify a complex interaction between sustainability efforts and risk mitigation. We derive a model to explain conflicting company goals, managerial decisions and system design.
Design/methodology/approach
We followed an exploratory research design with an inductive approach. We analyzed data from semi-structured interviews with 29 companies representing different tiers in Turkish food supply chains. We refined and validated the interview findings through a focus group with nine senior managers. We conducted open, focused and theoretical coding in an iterative and reflective manner to analyze the data and derive our results.
Findings
From the data, three themes emerged, indicating that managers are pursuing different, often conflicting, goals concerning value creation, risk management and sustainability performance. Managers identified and commented on new risks brought on by sustainability initiatives. These sustainability-induced risks were seen as a threat to operational performance, a driver of increased costs and a negative impact on product quality and delivery performance. Trade-offs across operating, sustainability and risk management systems create transformational tension that confounds the sustainability adoption decision-making process.
Originality/value
The data from the study was contrasted with a theoretical framework derived from systems theory, goal-setting theory of motivation and the theory of planned behavior. We identified four distinct decision paths that managers pursue. Increased awareness of transformational tension and how it influences managerial decision-making can enhance strategic sustainability system design and initiative success.
Details
Keywords
Stanley E. Fawcett, Matthew A. Waller and Amydee M. Fawcett
The purpose of this paper is to provide a holistic paradigmatic lens through which the supply chain collaboration phenomena – including collaborative inventory management – can be…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide a holistic paradigmatic lens through which the supply chain collaboration phenomena – including collaborative inventory management – can be understood and explained.
Design/methodology/approach
As theory‐building research, the paper explores the environmental conditions and managerial processes that promote or hinder supply chain collaboration from a variety of theoretical lenses including contingency theory, the resource‐based view of the firm, the relational view of the firm, force field analysis, constituency based theory, social dilemma theory, and resource‐advantage theory.
Findings
To demonstrate how an integrated theoretical framework can help us understand the dynamics of supply chain collaboration, the paper uses the framework to explicate the evolution and state of collaborative inventory management.
Practical implications
The framework can accurately depict and explain highly publicized collaborative failures and successes. It is also possible to draw from the model's core propositions to design prescriptive remedies for the challenges managers encounter as they seek to build collaborative inventory management capabilities.
Originality/value
Supply chain collaboration is a complex and dynamic phenomenon; however, existing management theories only describe locally observed phenomenon. As a result, it is a struggle to both explain existing “collaborative” behavior and provide prescriptions for leveraging collaboration to achieve differential supply chain performance. This holistic, integrative model delineates the path to collaborative success by exploring the connections among motivations, goals, mechanisms, resistors, and learning loops.
Details
Keywords
Benjamin T. Hazen, Stanley E. Fawcett, Jeffrey A. Ogden, Chad W. Autry, R. Glenn Richey and Alexander E. Ellinger
The purpose of this paper is to bring awareness to the logistics and supply chain management (L/SCM) community’s broken review process.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to bring awareness to the logistics and supply chain management (L/SCM) community’s broken review process.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors diagnose some of the core problems that limit the L/SCM community from disseminating high-quality research in a timely manner.
Findings
Problems attributable to authors, reviewers, and editors are described, and recommendations for each review process participant are provided.
Originality/value
This editorial provides a call for further discussion and action in terms of how the community can improve the contribution to knowledge and society.
Details
Keywords
Yao “Henry” Jin, Amydee M. Fawcett and Stanley E. Fawcett
Given the tension between the rationale for and resistance to supply chain integration (SCI), the authors aim to provide an update on the rhetoric and reality of SCI and extend…
Abstract
Purpose
Given the tension between the rationale for and resistance to supply chain integration (SCI), the authors aim to provide an update on the rhetoric and reality of SCI and extend theory related to adoption and efficacy of integration strategies.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors employ a multi‐method – survey and interview – replication approach to gauge the extent to which companies are increasing their engagement in SCI and assess integration's influence on firm performance.
Findings
Despite managerial awareness of SCI's potential benefits, levels of integration have remained relatively unchanged over time. Integration is positively related to operational performance and firm performance – primarily through its influence on productivity and customer service. The interviews indicate some firms are beginning to manage value co‐creation initiatives across multiple tiers of the supply chain. They also reveal awareness of integration's competitive potential is insufficient to mobilize resources and mitigate resistance to collaboration. Commitment is a superordinate enabler.
Originality/value
Multi‐method, replication research is rare, but it is necessary to understand collaboration dynamics. The authors' approach enables them to delve into the paradox between the positive performance impact and the lack of progress toward greater integration. Theoretically, they link commitment and capability. Managerially, they propose a maturity framework that managers can use to benchmark their own SCI initiative.
Details
Keywords
Stanley E. Fawcett, Matthew W. McCarter, Amydee M Fawcett, G Scott Webb and Gregory M Magnan
The purpose of this study is to elaborate theory regarding the reasons why collaboration strategies fail. The relational view posits that supply chain integration can be a source…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to elaborate theory regarding the reasons why collaboration strategies fail. The relational view posits that supply chain integration can be a source of competitive advantage. Few firms, however, successfully co-create value to attain supernormal relational rents.
Design/methodology/approach
This study uses a quasi-longitudinal, multi-case interview methodology to explore the reasons why collaboration strategies fail to deliver intended results. The authors interviewed managers at 49 companies in Period 1 and managers at 57 companies in Period 2. In all, 15 companies participated in both rounds of interviews.
Findings
This study builds and describes a taxonomy of relational resistors. The authors then explore how sociological and structural resistors reinforce each other to undermine collaborative behavior. Specifically, the interplay among resistors: obscures the true sources of resistance; exacerbates a sense of vulnerability to non-collaborative behavior that reduces the willingness to invest in relational architecture; and inhibits the development of essential relational skills and organizational routines.
Originality/value
This research identifies and describes the behaviors and processes that impede successful supply chain alliances. By delving into the interplay among relational resistors, the research explains the detail and nuance of inter-firm rivalry and supply chain complexity. Ultimately, it is the re-enforcing nature of various resistors that make it so difficult for firms to realize relational rents.
Details