Reducing Behavioral Constraints to Supplier Integration: A Socio‐Technical Systems Perspective

Abstract

Despite the benefits of supplier integration (SI), research suggests such collaborative initiatives are inhibited by behavioral constraints. While studies tend to advance technical reasons that hinder SI, we draw from socio-technical system (STS) theory to suggest that the interaction among social, technical, and environmental features can give rise to behaviors that constrain SI. We conceptualize buying and supplying firms as two distinct social-technical systems and SI as a merging of technical systems across firms. We posit that behavioral constraints, which limit the realization of SI goals, arise when technical integration commences without appropriate a priori consideration for the social or environmental implications of technical changes. Our conceptual development not only proposes specific social processes that increase the likelihood of behavioral constraints during SI, but also suggests technical approaches to prevent them. Further, we identify salient environmental contingencies affecting the emergence of behavioral constraints. By extending STS theory to the interorganizational context, we contribute to SI research by offering a holistic view of SI and proposing ways managers can address the challenges that exist.Keywords: behavioral supply management; supplier management; human judgment and decision making; technology management; conceptual theory building Volume 49, Number 1 1 Some theorists incorporate organizational structure as a fourth subsystem (Seiler, 1967), but the broad definition of technology would include organizational structure (a.k.a. organizational design) because designs are for organizational purposes.

Cross‐Functional Integration: Concept Clarification and Scale Development

“…The effects of organizational design on CFI are therefore best understood in terms of an interaction between social–psychological and technical factors (Kull et al. ).…”

“…However, organizational design features may also frustrate SCM professionals' earnest attempts at CFI by limiting the extent to which they are able to influence the process (Mollenkopf et al 2000;Ramdas and Spekman 2000;Pagell 2004;Fugate et al 2009;Oliva and Watson 2011). The effects of organizational design on CFI are therefore best understood in terms of an interaction between social-psychological and technical factors (Kull et al 2013).…”

Acting as Expected: Global Leadership Preferences and the Pursuit of an Integrated Supply Chain

“…As shown in Table Model 2, when we entered INT , the influence is positive and significant ( = 0.488, p < .001) and the level‐1 MSE reduction is substantial at 32.1%. While these results are promising, it is theoretically possible that BSI simultaneously influences INT (Kull et al, ). As such, we conducted a Durbin–Wu–Hausman test (Davidson & MacKinnon, ) to assess for the endogeneity of INT through use of six instrumental variables that substantially predict INT (i.e., R 2 sufficient for a F ‐ratio exceeding 10) but do not correlate with in ().…”

“…Regarding internal SCI programs between sales and purchasing departments, because extant literature indicates that a collaborative approach is integral to effective integration when organizational members exist in a society preferring a collaborative approach to leadership, internal SCI programs will be more likely to exist. Employees and managers within a firm that prefer participative and team‐oriented leadership styles will be less likely to resist an internal integration initiative, avoiding what has been referred to as behavioral constraints to integration (Kull, Ellis, & Narasimhan, ). We argue that choosing the internal SCI path (i.e., between sales and purchasing departments) as a means to lead an organization to success is less constrained and more facilitated when collaborative leadership preferences exist.

H1(A, B): The presence of internal integration programs between sales and purchasing is positively associated with preferences for collaborative‐type leadership styles as represented by (A) team‐oriented and (B) participative leadership styles.

…”

Radical technology innovation resource, capability and performance: A perspective of supply chain

“…Radical innovation requires a lot of heterogeneous knowledge and resources, these can't be acquired completely through the enterprise internal. Recording to resource-based view and social network theory, through external way to acquire knowledge and resources can not only solve the problem of resource constraints, but also can avoid the knowledge source of radical innovation ability caused by rigid problem behavior [11].…”