Information leakages—the unauthorized sharing of an organization's information with another organization—are a growing concern in today's supply chains, but remain relatively underexplored. Drawing on attribution theory and observational learning, our research investigates inter‐organizational information leakages from a network perspective. We assess the spillover effects of opportunistic and inadvertent information leakages between an OFFENDER organization and a VICTIM organization on the relationship between the OFFENDER and a nonpartisan OBSERVER. We consider the roles of integrity‐ and ability‐based trust, as well as operational similarity between the organizations. We conducted scenario‐based experiments with 181 sales practitioners recruited via MTurk and supplemented those results with post hoc interviews. Our results show clear spillover effects: The OBSERVER's willingness to share information with the OFFENDER decreases significantly after any type of information leakage between the OFFENDER and the VICTIM, but more so for opportunistic leakages. Integrity‐based trust mediates the relationship between intentionality and information sharing willingness. We also find indications of an unexpected collateral damage effect in that to some extent, both trust dimensions decrease in both forms of information leakage. Further, for opportunistic information leakages, the OBSERVER's willingness to share information with the OFFENDER decreases more when OBSERVER and VICTIM are operationally similar.

In introducing the 2020 Emerging Discourse Incubator, Flynn et al. (2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12227) urged supply chain scholars to leverage fresh approaches in order to develop supply chain‐specific theory, including approaches that are underutilized within the discipline. In response, we explain how more examination of configurations—meaningful sets of observations within a sample—can enhance theory development and, in particular, fuel the construction of supply chain‐specific theory. First, we describe the value of configurational theorizing while contrasting it with two more popular approaches: one that centers on linear relationships and one that spotlights the unique features of individual observations. Second, we explain the main configurational approaches available to scholars. Here, we pay special attention to qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)—an approach to configurational theorizing that is relatively new to organizational research. Third, we offer examples of how configurational theorizing via the use of QCA can be used to develop supply chain management theory. Although QCA is employed regularly in neighboring fields, QCA remains something of a conceptual curiosity within supply chain management research. This state of affairs represents an important opportunity because QCA's emphasis on causal complexity fits well with the fact that supply chain outcomes usually arise from an array of variables—often at different levels of analysis—and the interplay among them. Thus, better leveraging configurational theory development can facilitate the creation of novel conceptualizations and useful advice for practice.

No abstract

No abstract

Buyer–supplier engagement leads to numerous opportunities for unexpected positive benefits to occur. How these events come about and are managed (i.e., what entities are responsible for the outcomes and how the benefits are shared) remains an under‐investigated phenomenon in the supply chain literature. This research uses attribution theory and a systems thinking perspective to investigate a supplier's experience of psychological contract over‐fulfillment followed by a buyer claim. We hypothesize that a supplier's reaction to a buyer's claim depends on whether the type of claim (economic versus social) fits with the locus of causality the over‐fulfillment is attributed to: (1) the buying organization (buyer‐only attributions), (2) the buyer and the supplier jointly (dyad attributions), or (3) a third party in the buyer's innovation network (buyer‐network attributions). Results from a multi‐stage scenario‐based experiment suggest that following the supplier's experience of psychological contract over‐fulfillment, the supplier's trust toward the buyer is highest for dyad attributions, while the supplier's appreciation for the buyer's network is highest with dyad and buyer‐network attributions. Once the buyer claims value, however, the influence of attributions diminishes. While social reward claims had almost no impact on relational outcomes, economic reward claims significantly harm the supplier's perceptions of the buyer. Regardless of the type of claim, the locus of causality was largely irrelevant for the supplier's reaction to the buyer's reward claim. Our study contributes to the supply chain psychological contract literature by investigating positive over‐fulfillments of the psychological contract, as opposed to previous literature that has focused on negative breaches. We also extend attribution theory by introducing a novel supply chain‐specific attribution for the locus of causality, and we establish boundary conditions of attribution theory in the face of supply chain‐typical claiming mechanisms. For managers, locus of causality for a positive event seems to be irrelevant once claiming sets in.