Applying concepts from the behavioral complexity literature (Ashby, 1952 and Denison et al., 1995) we examine if supply managers' multiple roles (behavioral repertoire) and the ability to shift among these roles (behavioral differentiation) are related to their interpersonal relationships with account executives of key suppliers. A series of interviews identified four roles that are enacted when managing supplier relationships: negotiator, facilitator, supplier's advocate, and educator. Survey data were gathered from 70 matched pairs of supply managers and key suppliers' account executives. Results show that a broader behavioral repertoire is positively related to interpersonal relationship quality but behavioral differentiation is negatively related to interpersonal relationship quality.
Effectively managing supplier relationships is essential to achieving seamless and responsive supply chain operations. Maintaining cooperative relationships with key suppliers improves a buying organization's performance (e.g., Gao et al., 2005 and Mukherji and Francis, 2008). Many studies have explored firm-level buyer–supplier relationships (cf. Cai et al., 2009, Kozan et al., 2006 and Wagner, 2006) but interpersonal relationships across organizational boundaries are largely overlooked. Researchers observed that firm-level relationships depend upon individuals who cultivate and maintain individual-level relationships across organizations (Tanner, 1999). For example, adversarial interpersonal relationships between supply managers and their supplier counterparts can undermine well-intended strategic alliances (Wu and Choi, 2005). A recent survey of senior procurement officers of Fortune-100 companies echoes this sentiment, listing supply managers' relational skills as one of their organizations' most critical assets ( Giunipero et al., 2006).
Scholars have called for integrated investigation of individual behavior and organizational processes (cf. Lian and Laing, 2007 and Perrone et al., 2003). A few researchers began to explore supply manager's relational skills. Specifically, general roles that supply managers enact were described (Hallenbeck et al., 1999 and Knight and Harland, 2005). Only one study (Perrone et al., 2003) relates aspects of supply manager's roles, such as job autonomy, to changes in a relationship, such as trust between a supplier representative and supply manager. There is a lack of systematic understanding of the roles of supply managers. Moreover, little is known about how supply managers manage different roles, and how these roles may influence supplier relationships.
Supply management as a profession has experienced rapid changes over the past two decades. Supply managers have evolved from tactical buyers to strategic supply chain managers. They are at the forefront of significant developments in supply management practices such as total quality management, lean manufacturing and global outsourcing. As supply management becomes strategically important, understanding the effective interpersonal skills becomes more important in recruiting, mentoring, and training supply managers. Supply managers are gatekeepers shaping strategic buyer–supplier relationships, providing services to internal customers and suppliers and coordinating material and knowledge flows in supply chains.
In this research, through a series of interviews we explicitly identify the roles that supply managers perform in managing relationships across organizational boundaries. Then, we empirically test the theoretical relationship between supply managers' role management skills and their interpersonal relationships with suppliers. To do so, we draw upon the concept of behavioral complexity from role management literature (Denison et al., 1995, Hooijberg, 1996 and Hooijberg et al., 1997).
In the following sections, we review studies on supply managers' roles, role management and behavioral complexity. Then we offer hypotheses, followed by a description of our empirical research method and results. We also discuss the implications for managers, limitations and opportunities for future research.
