Non-linear effects of relational capital on supply-side resilience

Abstract

Purpose Prior studies have largely overlooked the potentially negative consequences of a buyer’s relational capital (RC) with a supplier for supply-side resilience, assuming a positive linear relationship between the constructs. Meanwhile, the focus of research has been at an organisational level without incorporating the role of boundary spanning individuals at the interface between buyer and supplier. Drawing on social capital and boundary spanning theory, the purpose of this paper is to: re-examine the relationship between RC and supply-side resilience, challenging the linear assumption; and investigate how both the strength and diversity of a boundary spanner’s ties moderate this relationship. Design/methodology/approach Survey data are collected from 248 firms and validated using a subset of 57 attentive secondary respondents and archival data. The latent moderated structural equation method is applied to analyse the data. Findings An inverted U-shaped relationship between RC and supply-side resilience is identified. Tie strength in particular has a positive moderating effect on the relationship. More specifically, the downward RC–supply-side resilience relationship flips into an upward curvilinear relationship when boundary spanning individuals develop stronger ties with supplier personnel. Research limitations/implications A deeper insight into the RC–supply-side resilience relationship is provided. Findings are based on Chinese manufacturing firms and cross-sectional data meaning further research is needed to determine their generalisability. Practical implications In evaluating how to enhance supply-side resilience, buying firms must decide whether the associated collaborative benefits of developing RC outweigh the potential costs. Managers also need to be concerned with the impact of developing RC between organisations and enhancing the tie strength of individuals simultaneously. Originality/value The paper goes beyond the linear relationship between RC and supply-side resilience. Incorporating the moderating role of boundary spanners identifies a novel phenomenon whereby the RC–resilience relationship flips from an inverted to a U-shaped curve.

Exploring the antecedents of organizational resilience practices – A transactive memory systems approach

“…Finally, our findings complement recent research on the role of social capital in resilient performance (Durach and Machuca, 2018; Fan and Stevenson, 2019; Polyviou et al , 2019). In particular, we offer quantitative empirical evidence that managerial social capital enhances individual engagement in organizational resilience practices.…”

“…In this regard, our paper contributes to a growing stream of literature that investigates the influence of interpersonal relationships and interactions on resilience practices and capabilities (Ambulkar et al , 2016; Durach and Machuca, 2018; Polyviou et al , 2019). It also contributes to our understanding of the role of social capital in resilient performance (Durach and Machuca, 2018; Fan and Stevenson, 2019; Polyviou et al , 2019) by evidencing that the level of manufacturing managers’ social capital influences individual engagement in organizational resilience practices. Finally, from a practical standpoint, our paper suggests which characteristics of manufacturing managers’ firms should foster to support the deployment organizational resilience practices and under which organizational-level conditions are these characteristics effective.…”

The role of collaborative interorganizational relationships in supply chain risks: a systematic review using a social capital perspective

“…Second, the relational capital of CIRs seems to influence positively and negatively SCRs. Relationship closeness (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2015), trust (Fan and Stevenson, 2018), and reciprocity mitigate SCRs, but can also exacerbate them (Fan and Stevenson, 2019). Third, cognitive…”

“…Second, the relational capital of CIRs seems to influence positively and negatively SCRs. Relationship closeness (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2015), trust (Fan and Stevenson, 2018) and reciprocity (Liu et al , 2018) mitigate SCRs, but can also exacerbate them (Fan and Stevenson, 2019). Third, cognitive capital, with shared codes, languages and narratives, appears to help in the mitigation of SCRs (Johnson et al , 2013).…”

“…The interaction between relational closeness and SCRs is complex. Indeed, relationship capital appears to have an inverted U-shaped relationship with supply-side resilience, where the switch into the upward curvilinear relationship occurs when buyers develop relationship closeness with their suppliers (Fan and Stevenson, 2019). Building or improving relationships is one of the most preferred strategies to mitigate all SCRs (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2015; Daultani et al , 2015; Govindan and Chaudhuri, 2016; Lam and Bai, 2016; Yang and Hsu, 2018).…”