قفل موقعیت در زنجیره تامین: مطالعه تئوری تبادل اجتماعی تمهیدات تامین منابع در روابط خریدار تامین کننده

Social exchange theory is used to gain a better understanding of the relationship between a buyer and a supplier that is characterized by lock-in situations. We begin by reviewing the theoretical foundations of social exchange theory. Next, we use an illustrative multinational business example from a Danish Business Group to demonstrate the complexities of the lock-in situation. Conjectures related to lock-in behaviors are initially developed and then examined by means of a game-theoretic model. The analysis provides a basis for the development of propositions which are examined employing a behavioral experiment. The results indicate that the optimal pricing strategy of the supplier is to lower the price with increasing demand and the optimal investment intensity of the buyer decreases with increasing demand. The paper concludes by presenting directions for future research.

The need to increase our theoretical understanding of the complex inter-relationships within supply chains has stimulated a great deal of research (e.g., Smith et al., 1995, Zaheer and Venkatraman, 1995, Lassar and Kerr, 1996, Carr and Pearson, 1999, Curkovic et al., 2000, Shin et al., 2000, Primo and Amundson, 2002, Rodriguez and Wilson, 2002, Griffith et al., 2006 and Li et al., 2008). The emphasis on supply chain management strategies aimed at fostering the development of supply chain partnerships (i.e., an integrated effort to identify, maintain, and build a network for the mutual benefit of supply chain members and to reduce the dysfunctional aspects of exchange transactions) has as a basic tenet, that building cooperation and coordination over time increases the efficiency and effectiveness of the relationship (Choi and Hartley, 1996, Lassar and Kerr, 1996, Carr and Pearson, 1999, Curkovic et al., 2000, Shin et al., 2000, Stuart, 2000, Primo and Amundson, 2002 and Li et al., 2008). Despite the growing academic and practitioner interest in the management of supply chain relationships, a review of the literature reveals several shortcomings that have limited our understanding. First, while a number of theoretical approaches have been advanced within the literature (e.g., resource based view, transaction cost theory and agency theory), only recently have supply chain researchers begun to employ the holistic, theoretic approach of social exchange theory to the study of supply chain relationships (e.g., Griffith et al., 2006 and Li et al., 2008). The lack of research employing social exchange theory within supply chain management is surprising given not only its ability to add depth of understanding to inter-organizational relations (e.g., Emerson, 1976), but more importantly due to the widespread use of elements of it in existing models of supply chain relationships (cf., Griffith et al., 2006). As such, one contribution of this manuscript is to advance the theoretical discourse on social exchange theory's ability to enhance our understanding of issues in supply chain management (e.g., buyer–supplier dyadic relationship under lock-in situations where lock-in is conceptualized as instances where for all intent and purposes, one party is heavily dependent upon the other party (cf., Arthur, 1989 and Lonsdale, 2001)). Second, most organizational theories applied within the context of supply chain management implicitly address time sensitive issues, where actions taken at one point in time (t) result in specific outcomes in a different time period (t + i). For example, researchers contend that specific managerial actions, such as the development of trust enhance later coordination within the relationship that ultimately influences performance (e.g., Rodriguez and Wilson, 2002 and Johnston et al., 2004). However, while these organizational theories imply a conceptualized time continuum, most of these studies explore the issues under study by relying on the analysis of cross-sectional data (e.g., Griffith et al., 2006 and Li et al., 2008), thus presenting a limited examination of the extant theory. By using a dynamic model and linking the insights obtained from the model with the precepts of social exchange theory, we are able to overcome this limitation, therefore providing a fuller examination of organizational theories applied within the context of supply chain management. Third, although researchers have begun to explore supply chain management issues through the application of social exchange theory (e.g., Griffith et al., 2006 and Li et al., 2008), researchers have favored justice policies over the issue of power. This limitation is important given “that the two most prominent research topics in social exchange theory are power and justice” (Emerson, 1976, p. 339). More importantly, as power is a fundamental issue in supply chain management, its incorporation within the broader context of social exchange theory could provide substantial insights for understanding supply chain activities such as investments in innovation and other assets, relationships and outcomes. Specifically, we believe that the examination of lock-in situations between a manufacturer and its supplier, i.e., instances where for all intent and purposes, one party is heavily dependent upon the other party, with few alternatives, under social exchange theory, can provide new insights into controlled self-interest behaviors (e.g., strategies) in on-going supply chain relationships. To address these issues we make use of a multi-method approach to investigation, as promoted by recent editorial discussions (Boyer and Swink, 2008). We begin by reviewing the theoretical foundations of social exchange theory, inclusive of power, dependence and justice. Next, we use an illustrative example of a Danish Business Group to demonstrate the external validity of the theoretical issues related to lock-in dependence in a buyer–supplier dyadic relationship within a supply chain and its theoretical influence on buyer and supplier strategies under social exchange theory. We then employ an analytical model to analyze the situation of lock-in dependence within a supply chain relationship to derive the equilibrium strategies related to the buyer's investment intensity in developing a substitute product component and the supplier's pricing. A behavioral experiment is then used to examine the model developed. This is followed by a discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications of the results. We conclude the paper by offering several directions for future research.

In this study, the underlying theme was to gain greater insights into social exchange theory's applicability to supply chain relationships for describing, explaining and predicting supply chain activities and outcomes. Our intention was to contribute to the literature in four key areas: (1) advance understanding of supply chain relationships through the employment of the specific tenets of social exchange theory; (2) understand the longitudinal nature of strategies adopted by a buyer and a supplier in a supply chain relationship; (3) more fully explore the issue of power, and power differentials, and justice within the context of supply chain management; and (4) present a multi-method perspective to investigate important relational issues in supply chain management. Through the employment of social exchange theory, economic modeling and behavioral experiments we were able to overcome the longitudinal shortcomings of SET for the exposition of strategic policy formation while simultaneously overcoming the organizational theoretical foundation shortcomings of economic modeling. We find analytical solutions consistent with the underlying precepts set forth in social exchange theory. The results obtained from the behavioral experiments support our analytical results. Further, we were able to gain more detailed insights into the fundamental behavioral strategies engaged in by supply chain members and provide a strong foundation for managerial issues related to pricing, and buyer–supplier collaboration. Although this study provides a variety of new insights, it is not without its limitations. In the present study a narrow focus was taken, i.e., lock-in situation. This perspective was selected to closely examine the issue of opportunism and consequent strategies. However, although lock-in situations are common in practice they represent but one form of supply chain situation (e.g., Arthur, 1989 and Lonsdale, 2001). Clearly, other situations are indeed encountered and as such should serve as a basis for future work. Further, in this study we assume a one-to-one correspondence between the end product sold by the buyer and the component sourced by the buyer from the supplier. Alternative relationships between component sourced from a supplier and the end product made by the buyer, such as many-to-one or one-to-many, exist. Further, the buyer is assumed to sell at a constant margin by appropriately marking up the price according to the price charged by the supplier. Clearly, a buyer could be engaged in variable margin to manage the end-customer demand better. The examination of these conditions in future studies could substantially enhance our understanding of supply chain management. Further, along with relaxing the assumptions listed earlier, several extensions to this research are possible to better analyze such co-operative relationships between collaborating firms. Information about the cost structures of the collaborating partners and their relative utility from the exchange relationship is critical to an understanding of power in exchange relationship. Hence, one of the extensions of the problem is to consider aspects of information asymmetry. Issues related to detailed price comparison between the supplier, its competitors and the range of substitutes are different means by which a buyer can streamline collaborative strategies. Investigation of these issues and validation of the findings in this study will enrich our understanding regarding long-term buyer supplier relationship in the presence of lock-in conditions. In conclusion, the results of this study demonstrate the enhanced understanding possible through the employment of holistic theories, such as social exchange theory, jointly with multiple methods such economic models and behavioral experiments which help to overcome implicit time dimensions in inter-organization research. As such, we hope that this paper can serve as a call to other supply chain management researchers, in both theory and modeling areas, of the value of joint approaches to understanding the complex phenomena embedded in supply chain management, thus bridging different perspectives for the benefit of greater understanding.