Hybrid and alternate modes of governance: implications for relational embeddedness in the three-tier supply chains

Świerczek, Artur

doi:10.17270/J.LOG.2020.479

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Hybrid and alternate modes of governance: implications for relational embeddedness in the three-tier supply chains

Autorzy

Świerczek Artur

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17270/J.LOG.2020.479

Warianty tytułu

Hybrydowe i alternatywne mechanizmy koordynacji działań wielopodmiotowych: implikacje dla zakorzenienia relacyjnego w triadycznych łańcuchach dostaw

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Background: Leveraging the relational embeddedness perspective, we empirically investigate whether hybrid governance (perceived as a combination of market and hierarchy), and the alternate modes of governance (non-market and non-hierarchal) are capable of providing the social layer to governance within the three-tier supply chain framework. Methods: The study covers two research stages. In the first stage, the variables that demonstrate two modes of formal governance (both market and hierarchy) are reduced through the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to highlight the main underlying multi-item factors. In the second stage of our research, the cluster analysis is conducted to compare different clusters in terms of relational embeddedness. As our research is exploratory in nature, we used non-parametric tests to evaluate the significance of results. Results: The results evidence that that along with the pure mechanisms of supply chain governance (market and hierarchy), one may also identify both the hybrid and alternate modes. It corresponds to four clusters embracing three-tier supply chains with different governance mechanisms: the alternate mode, market, hybrid and hierarchy. Likewise, the study shows that both market and hybrid governance demonstrate the strongest relational embeddedness of both dyads. On the other hand, though the alternate mode of governance, perceived as neither market nor hierarchy, demonstrates stronger relational embeddedness than pure hierarchy, nevertheless the strength of its relational embeddedness is significantly lower as compared to market governance. Conclusions: The study shows that it is difficult to reveal clearly delineated tendencies regarding both the hybrid and alternate modes of governance in terms of relational embeddedness. In fact, the hybrid mode of governance should be rather linked to market as they both are very similar, while the alternate mode of governance demonstrates a moderate strength of relational embeddedness. On the other hand, the lowest strength of relational embeddedness is still reported by hierarchy.

Wstęp: Artykuł podejmuje próbę zbadania czy hybrydowe (postrzegane jako kombinacja rynku i hierarchii) oraz alternatywne (nierynkowe i niehierarchiczne) mechanizmy koordynacji umożliwiają wyłonienie aspektu społecznego, wzbogacającego proces regulacji działań wielopodmiotowych w triadycznych łańcuchach dostaw. Metody: W warstwie empirycznej badania obejmują dwa etapy. W pierwszym etapie dokonano redukcji zmiennych manifestujących dwa formalne mechanizmy koordynacji działań wielopodmiotowych (rynek i hierarchię) za pomocą analizy głównych składowych. W kolejnym etapie badania przeprowadzono analizę skupień w celu porównania zróżnicowanych grup łańcuchów dostaw ze względu na zakorzenienie relacyjne. W celu identyfikacji poziomu istotności w artykule wykorzystano nieparametryczne testy statystyczne. Wyniki: Badanie pokazało, że obok stricto rynkowych i hierarchicznych mechanizmów koordynacji działań w badanych łańcuchach dostaw występują również mechanizmy hybrydowe i alternatywne. Korespondują one ze zidentyfikowanymi czterema grupami łańcuchów dostaw. Ponadto, rynkowy, jak i hybrydowy mechanizm koordynacji wyróżnia najwyższy stopień zakorzenienia relacyjnego obu diad w badanych strukturach triadycznych. Z drugiej strony, mimo że alternatywny mechanizm koordynacji, postrzegany jako nierynkowy i niehierarchiczny, wskazuje wyższy stopień zakorzenienia relacyjnego w stosunku do mechanizmu hierarchicznego, to jednak siła jego zakorzenienia relacyjnego jest istotnie niższa w stosunku do zakorzeniania relacyjnego wskazywanego przez mechanizm rynkowy. Podsumowanie: Przeprowadzone badania pokazują, że trudno jest praktycznie wskazać określone tendencje dotyczące zarówno hybrydowego, jak i alternatywnego mechanizmu koordynacji działań wielopodmiotowych w kontekście zakorzenienia relacyjnego diad w strukturach triadycznych. Niemniej, hybrydowy mechanizm koordynacji powinien być raczej łączony z mechanizmem rynkowym, z kolei, alternatywny mechanizm koordynacji pokazuje umiarkowaną, a mechanizm hierarchiczny najniższą siłę zakorzenienia relacyjnego.

Słowa kluczowe

governance relational embeddedness triadic supply chain

koordynacja zakorzenienie relacyjne triadyczny łańcuch dostaw

Wydawca

Wyższa Szkoła Logistyki

Czasopismo

LogForum

Rocznik

2020

Tom

Vol. 16, no. 3

Strony

347--361

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 58 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Świerczek Artur

artur.swierczek@uekat.pl

Department of Business Logistics, University of Economics in Katowice, 1 Maja 50, 40-287 Katowice, Poland

Bibliografia

1. Alvarez G., Pilbeam C., Wilding R., 2010. Nestle Nespresso AAA sustainable quality program: An investigation into the governance dynamics in a multi-stakeholder supply chain network. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15, 2, 165-182. http://doi.org/10.1108/13598541011028769
2. Barnett M., Duvall R., 2005. Power in global governance, Cambridge University Press.
3. Bensaou M., 1999. Portfolios of buyer-supplier relationships, Sloan Management Review, 40, 4, 35-44.
4. Blome C., Schoenherr T., Kaesser M, 2013. Ambidextrous governance in supply chains: The impact on innovation and cost performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49, 4, 59-80. http://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12033
5. Bradach J. L., Eccles R. G., 1989. Price, authority, and trust: From ideal types to plural forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 97-118.
6. Bradach J., Eccles R., 1991. Price, Authority and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms in G. Thompson, J. Frances, R. Levacic and J. Mitchell (eds.) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: The Coordination of Social Life, London: Sage Publications.
7. Brass D.J., Galaskiewicz J., Greve H. R., Tsai W., 2004. Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 6, 795-817.
8. Chelariu C., Asare A. K., Brashear-Alejandro T., 2014. A Rose, by any other name"...: Relationship typology and performance measurement in supply chains. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 29, 4, 332-343.
9. Choi T.Y., Wu Z., 2009. Triads in supply networks: theorizing buyer-supplier-supplier relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45, 1, 8-25. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03151.x
10. Christopher M., 1996. Networks and logistics: managing supply chain relationships. Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, 4, 1, 19-24.
11. Cousins P., Lamming R., Lawson B., Squire B., 2008. Strategic Supply Management: Principle, Theories and Practice, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
12. Crisan E., 2016. A separation between supply chain management and supply chain governance. Revista De Management Comparat International, 17, 3, 240-249.
13. Dolci P., Maçada A., Paiva E., 2017. Models for understanding the influence of Supply Chain Governance on Supply Chain Performance, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 22, 5, 424-441. http://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-07-2016-0260
14. Dubois A., 2009. Comment on „Taking the leap from dyads to triads: Buyer-supplier relationships in supply networks” by Choi and Wu- To leap or not to leap: Triads as arbitrary subsets of networks of connected dyads. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 15, 267-268. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2009.08.002
15. Foerstl K., Kirchoff J. F., Bals L., 2016. Reshoring and Insourcing: Drivers and Future Research Directions. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46, 5, 492-515. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2015-0045
16. Foss N. J., 1999. Networks, capabilities, and competitive advantage, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 15, 1-15.
17. Gereffi G., Humphrey J., Sturgeon T., 2005. The governance of global value chains, Review of International Political Economy, 12, 1, 78-104.
18. Gereffi G., Lee J., 2012. Why the World Suddenly Cares About Global Supply Chains. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48, 24-32. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2012.03271.x
19. Granovetter M. S., 1973, The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 6, 1360-1380.
20. Gulati R., Sytch M., 2007. Dependence Asymmetry and Joint Dependence in Interorganizational Relationships: Effects of Embeddedness on a Manufacturer's Performance in Procurement Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 32-69. http://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.32
21. Heide J.B., 1994. Interorganizational Governance in Marketing Channels. Journal of Marketing, 58, 1, 71-85.
22. Hernández‐Espallardo M., Rodríguez‐ Orejuela A., Sánchez‐Pérez M., 2010, Inter‐organizational governance, learning and performance in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15, 2, 101-114. http://doi.org/10.1108/13598541011028714
23. Huang M. C., Cheng H. L., Tseng C. Y., 2014. Re-examining the direct and interactive effects of governance mechanisms upon buyer-supplier cooperative performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 4, 704-716. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.02.001
24. Huxham C., Vangen S., 2005. Managing to Collaborate. Routledge, London.
25. Ireland D., Webb J. W., 2007. A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 482-497. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.004
26. Jones C., Hesterly W., Borgatti S., 1997. A General Theory of Network Governance: Exchange Conditions and Social Mechanisms, Academy of Management Review, 22, 4, 911-945. http://doi.org/10.2307/259249
27. Ketchen D. J., Shook Ch. L., 1996. The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: an analysis and critique, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 6, 441-458. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199606)17:6<441::AID-SMJ819>3.0.CO;2-G
28. Kline P., 1994. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, TJ Press, Padstow.
29. Krieger A. M., Green P. E., 1999. A generalized rand-index method for consensus clustering of separate partitions of the same data base. Journal of Classification, 16, 1, 63-89. http://doi.org/10.1007/s003579900043.
30. Lambert D. M., García‐Dastugue S. J., Croxton K. L., 2005. An evaluation of process‐oriented supply chain management frameworks. Journal of Business Logistics, 26, 25-51. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2005.tb00193.x
31. Larson A., 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 1, 76-104.
32. Leuschner R., Carter C. R., Goldsby T. J., Rogers Z. S., 2014. Third‐Party Logistics: A Meta‐Analytic Review and Investigation of its Impact on Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50, 1, 21-43. http://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12046
33. Lewis I., 2001. Logistics and electronic commerce: An interorganizational systems perspective. Transportation Journal, 40, 4, 5-13.
34. Li D., Yang J., 2017 The effect of dual relational embeddedness and trust on alliance governance, International Journal of Business in Society, 17, 5, 913-926. http://doi.org/10.1108/cg-10-2016-0193
35. Li. M.,.Choi.T. Y.,.2009.Triads.in.Services.Outsourcing: Bridge, Bridge Decay and Bridge Transfer Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45, 3, 27-39. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03169.x
36. Liker J., 2004. The Toyota Way. Mcgraw-Hill Education Ltd.
37. Luthra S., Mangla S. K., 2018. Evaluating challenges to Industry 4.0 initiatives for supply chain sustainability in emerging economies, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 117, 168-179. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.04.018
38. Malhotra D., Lumineau F., 2011. Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: The effects of contract structure. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 981-998. http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0683
39. Meinlschmidt J., Schleper M. C, Foerstl K., 2018. Tackling the sustainability iceberg: a transaction cost economics approach to lower tier sustainability management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38, 10, 1888-1914. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2017-0141
40. Mena C., Humphries A., Wilding R., 2009, A comparison of inter‐ and intra‐organizational relationships: Two case studies from UK food and drink industry, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39, 9, 762-784. http://doi.org/10.1108/09600030911008193
41. Mentzer J., Stank T. P., Myers M. B., 2007. Why Global Supply Chain Management? SAGE Publications, Inc.
42. Mirkovski K., Lowry P. B., Feng B., 2016. Factors that influence interorganizational use of information and communications technology in relationship-based supply chains: evidence from the Macedonian and American wine industries, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 21, 3, 334-351. http://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2015-0343.
43. Montalbano P., Nenci S., 2014. The Trade Competitiveness of Southern Emerging Economies: A Multidimensional Approach Through Cluster Analysis. World Economy, 37, 6, 783-810. http://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12195.
44. Ouchi W., 1991. Markets, Bureaucracies and Clans, in G. Thompson, J. Frances, R. Levacic, J. Mitchell (eds), Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: The Coordination of Social Life, Sage, London.
45. Poppo L., Zenger T., 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23, 707-725.
46. Powell W. M., 1990. Neither Market nor Hierarchy; Network Forms of Organization. In B. M. Staw, L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
47. Reimann F., Kosmol T., Kaufmann L., 2017. Responses to Supplier‐Induced Disruptions: A Fuzzy‐Set Analysis. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53, 4, 37-66. http://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12141.
48. Ritter T., Wilkinson I. F., Johnston W.J., 2004. Managing in complex business networks, Industrial Marketing Management, 33, 3, 175-183. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.10.016.
49. Skjoett-Larsen T., 2000. Third party Logistics- from an interorganizational point of view. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 30, 2, 112-27. http://doi.org/10.1108/09600030010318838
50. Tachizawa E. M., Wong C. Y., 2015. The performance of green supply chain management governance mechanisms: a supply network and complexity perspective, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51, 3, 18-32. http://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12072
51. Thompson G.F., 2003. Between Hierarchies and Markets: The Logic and Limits of Network Forms of Organization, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
52. Wallenburg C. M., Schäffler T., 2014. The Interplay of Relational Governance and Formal Control in Horizontal Alliances: A Social Contract Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50, 2, 41-58. http://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12041
53. Watson G., 2001. Subregimes of power and integrated supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 37, 1, 36-41. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2001.tb00098.x
54. Williamson O. E., 2008. Outsourcing: transaction cost economics and supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44, 5-16. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2008.00051.x
55. Williamson O. E., 1981. The modern corporation: origins, evolution, attributes. Journal of Economic Literature, 19, 1537-1568.
56. Williamson O. E., 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, Free Press, New York, NY.
57. Wuyst S., Stremersch S., Van Den Bulte C., Franses, P. H., 2004, Vertical marketing systems for complex products: A triadic perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 4, 479-487. http://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.4.479.47015
58. Yang H., Sun S. L., Lin Z., Peng M. W., 2011. Behind M&As in China and the United States: Networks, learning, and institutions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28, 2, 239-255. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-009-9188-6

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-eb40159a-944c-42f2-a9c1-08fdc6302c35