بررسی عدالت در روابط زنجیره تامین و تاثیر عملکرد آنها
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|21261||2013||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Operations Management, Volume 31, Issue 5, July 2013, Pages 236–247
Justice is important in improving performance of supply chain relationships. However, the role of justice in improving performance in supply chain relationships is an under-investigated subject in the literature. In studying the joint impact of justice dimensions, the traditional assumption is that the three forms of justice interact with each other in a multiplicative manner. However, this assumption creates a managerial problem as discussed in this paper. We outline a different view of how the justice dimensions interact with one another utilizing the constraining factor model (CFM). We show that the CFM resolves some of the problems arising from the choice of multiplicative interaction of justice measures on performance. Specifically, we demonstrate that an increase in procedural, distributive or interactional justice results in a significant and positive improvement in performance only if the specific justice dimension is the constraining factor in the relationship. Overall, our analysis suggests that all three dimensions are important and a high level of one of the justice elements will not compensate for a low level of another, a view that is put forward by a number of past research studies in justice. We discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of our findings.
Managing supplier resources effectively is an important aspect of a firm's ability to compete in the marketplace (Carr and Pearson, 1999, Choi and Hartley, 1996 and Griffith et al., 2006). To leverage partner's capabilities, firms must establish a strong relationship, characterized by commitment, cooperation, and trust (e.g., Cannon et al., 2000 and McIvor, 2009). Underlying these behaviors is the recognition that buyer–supplier relationships involve both economic and social interactions (Griffith et al., 2006). Supply chain relationships as social transactions require partners to behave in a just manner to be beneficial. Principles of justice (also referred to as fairness) are central in social exchange theory (SET). SET embeds the notion that the transacting parties in a relationship interact with each other based on expectations of rewards and avoidance of punishment ( Emerson, 1976). SET is applicable to both material and non-material exchanges ( Bottom et al., 2006). The concept of justice has importance in a buyer–supplier relationship due to its economic and relational connotations. Several research studies have suggested that justice practices in dealings with suppliers are important in enhancing buyer–supplier relationship performance ( Choi and Wu, 2009 and Kumar et al., 1995). Studies have shown that unfair dealings with suppliers can result in poor relationship performance due to potential supplier opportunism ( Anderson and Jap, 2005 and Rossetti and Choi, 2005). Despite the relevance of justice in supply chain relationships, investigation of its role in enhancing performance in buyer–supplier relationships is still nascent (e.g., Griffith et al., 2006 and Narasimhan et al., 2009). While a number of studies have examined justice at the individual level (See for example Cropanzano et al., 2005 and Loch and Wu, 2008), few have investigated the role of justice in a supply chain relationship (Griffith et al., 2006, Liu et al., 2012 and Narasimhan et al., 2009). Griffith et al. (2006) note the lack of research on justice in the context of supply chain as surprising, given its importance in buyer–supplier contexts. Current literature on justice (at both individual and organizational levels) has examined justice via three dimensions; procedural justice (PJ), distributive justice (DJ) and interactional justice (IJ) (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2001, Cropanzano et al., 2007 and Luo, 2007). PJ refers to fairness of the decision process; DJ refers to the equity of rewards commensurate with effort expended; and IJ focuses on aspects of the communication process that refer to the degree to which the partners perceive the exchange of information within the relationship as fair. Literature notes that all three dimensions of justice are important in realizing superior performance (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2001, Cropanzano et al., 2007 and Luo, 2007). Our interactions with practitioners to assess the importance of justice dimensions in achieving superior performance in buyer–supplier relationships also suggested that all three dimensions were important. Of particular interest was that the executives considered all justice dimensions to be “equally” important. A senior executive from a major automotive firm, in emphasizing the equal importance of all three dimensions noted that: PJ was “important to sustainable interaction and mutual development, growth and benefit”; DJ was important because “receiving appropriate reward is key for continuation of unconstrained, future effort”; and IJ was important since “communication provided both parties the opportunity to gain appropriate insight into each other's organizations and the individuals who were responsible for conducting business.” Another senior procurement executive from a leading producer of petroleum products noted that “all three are important in achieving a fair working relationship.” In focusing on all three justice dimensions, an important question that arises is the nature of interactions among justice dimensions and how they affect performance. The dominant paradigm in current literature is that the three justice elements have a multiplicative influence on performance (Cropanzano et al., 2005 and Luo, 2007). However, studies examining the multiplicative influence of the justice dimensions on performance have reached conflicting conclusions. For example, Luo (2007) finds that PJ and IJ interact positively, i.e., complement one another. In contrast, Ellis et al. (2009) finds that PJ and IJ interact negatively, i.e., compensate for one another. The multiplicative view creates theoretical inconsistencies at extreme levels of one of the justice dimensions. When the interaction between justice dimensions is compensatory, it would mean that focusing on developing high levels of one justice dimension might mitigate the effect of not focusing on a different dimension. Thus, one justice element can be favored at the expense of the other. When the interaction between justice dimensions is synergistic, it might mean that the presence of one justice dimension enhances the performance gains from the other, irrespective of the levels of other justice dimensions. Given these arguments, the question is which justice dimension should managers focus on? Both complementary and synergistic views appear to contradict the need to emphasize all three dimensions. Further, the multiplicative view of the interactions might not be consistent with real-life situations where focus is on all three justice dimensions. As another senior procurement executive from a leading furniture manufacturing firm noted (regarding the justice dimensions) during our interviews that: “all three being important aspects, any of the three could be considered most important depending on the relationship.” These arguments lead to important questions: (a) what is the nature of the interplay between the justice dimensions in enhancing performance in a buyer–supplier relationship? and (b) which justice dimension is the most important in a given situation? Accordingly, we focus on understanding how the justice dimensions in a buyer–supplier relationship interact and impact relationship performance. In investigating this issue, the paper makes the following contributions. First, we articulate the constraining factor model (CFM) or “extreme complementarity” among the justice dimensions (cf., Siemsen et al., 2008), rather than the multiplicative view or “moderate complementarity.” Second, the CFM empirically demonstrates the importance of all three justice dimensions in realizing superior relationship performance. The CFM demonstrates that when one of the justice dimensions is poor relative to the others, working on the other two dimensions will not yield desired performance impact. From a theoretical perspective, the CFM suggests that buyer–supplier relationships can elicit maximum performance gain by focusing on the justice dimension that is the weakest (or the constraining factor) and not any, or all, dimensions as suggested by the traditional multiplicative model of interaction. Third, we resolve the confusion surrounding the justice dimensions in the literature and the inconsistencies regarding their interaction effects. Thus, we offer CFM as an important empirical approach to studying the impact of justice dimensions on buyer–supplier relationship performance. In Section 2, we develop the theory and hypotheses. In Section 3, we describe our research methods. In Section 4 we describe our results. In Section 5 we discuss the implications of the results.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Our study contributes to both the supply chain literature and the broader literature on justice. Justice has been recognized to be an important aspect of both inter- and intra-organizational relationships (e.g., Kim and Mauborgne, 1991, Kim and Mauborgne, 1998 and Luo, 2007). Historically, while justice has been extensively examined in intra-organizational relationships (e.g., Cropanzano et al., 2007 and Skarlicki and Folger, 1997), it is finding increasing relevance in inter-organizational supply chain relationships as well (e.g., Griffith et al., 2006, Liu et al., 2012 and Narasimhan et al., 2009). However, few studies in the context of supply chain relationships have provided an exposition of the interplay among the justice dimensions and their impact on relationship performance. Such an understanding is needed both from a theoretical and managerial perspectives. In an era of increasing reliance on suppliers, sound theoretical understanding must inform managerial practice. Our study makes an important contribution to the literature by delineating how justice dimensions, independently and interactively, lead to superior performance in buyer–supplier relationships in an outsourcing context. As discussed previously, the multiplicative view of interactions among the justice elements presents problems of interpretation and practical implementation. When the interaction among justice dimensions is substitutive, it allows for the weakness in a specific justice element to be compensated by strength in another justice dimension. This can potentially result in ignoring one or more justice dimensions in buyer–supplier relationships. In contrast, when the multiplicative interactions are presumed to be synergistic, it suggests that, focusing on any of the justice dimensions might leverage another justice dimension, a distinctly different view. These conflicting views stemming from the multiplicative model lead to theoretical confusion and inconsistencies, which render its practical use problematic. The multiplicative model also does not appear to conform to practitioner views on justice dimensions. The CFM resolves the theoretical and practical difficulties, and suggests that it is important to focus on the constraining justice dimension. Specifically, the results suggest that when managers focus on factors that are not constraining, the resource investments in those activities might not increase relationship performance. This is in contrast to the multiplicative model which suggests that investment in improving any particular justice dimensions can yield performance benefits. Thus, the CFM may provide insights on not just when, but also which dimension of justice should a manager focus on. This insight on the impact of justice dimensions on relationship performance is an important contribution to the literature, hitherto unrecognized in organizational justice literature. Our results also contribute to theory development in the broader literature on organizational justice. Literature in organizational justice has recognized the value of process (PJ), outcome (DJ) and engagement (IJ) related fairness dimensions (e.g., Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001 and Colquitt et al., 2001). Cropanzano et al. (2007, p. 36) note “Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice tend to be correlated. They can be meaningfully treated as three components of overall fairness, and the three components can work together.” Despite the recognition that justice dimensions are unique and work together, studies that have modeled the interplay between the different justice dimensions using the multiplicative approaches have found inconsistent results. The following studies illustrate the confusion surrounding the justice dimensions in organizational justice research. Ellis et al. (2009), in studying mergers and alliances conclude that the interaction between PJ and IJ was negative and significantly related to financial performance. In contrast, Luo (2007) found that IJ and PJ have a positive interaction on asset turnover in inter-organizational alliances. At the intra-organizational level, McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) found that PJ and DJ had opposite interaction effects on organizational outcomes such as commitment, and personal outcomes such as pay and satisfaction. CFM can offer an alternative perspective for organizational justice research in assessing the interactive impact of justice dimensions on performance.