Supply Chain Contagion

Abstract

Supply Chain ContagionDrawing on research from the interfirm relationship, marketing channels, operations management, and network theory literature and on the basis of qualitative depth interviews, the authors identify a new phenomenon they call "supply chain contagion." Supply chain contagion is the propagation of interfirm behaviors from one dyadic relationship to an adjacent dyadic relationship within the supply chain. Contagion can occur inadvertently and with or without the knowledge of the affected parties. Using institutional theory, the authors develop a conceptual model that predicts the conditions under which contagion is likely to occur. Although contagion may take the form of any number of interfirm behaviors, operationally, the authors focus on whether the downstream influence strategies that manufacturers use with their dealers are imitated by these same dealers with end customers. They conduct conclusive research using a sample of 151 vertically linked manufacturer-dealer-customer supply chain triads and explain a large variance (R 2 = .30) in the use of downstream influence strategies in terms of supply chain contagion. Given extensive prior empirical support for alternative antecedents to influence strategy usage, the explanatory power of supply chain contagion is impressive and suggests that how intermediaries treat end customers is explained, to a large degree, as the intermediaries simply imitating how their suppliers treated them. In addition to the identification of a new theoretical concept, the study provides empirical support for the effects of both macroand microinstitutional factors on interfirm behavior. Specific factors that are positively related to the level of manifest contagion are environmental uncertainty and the perceived similarity and frequency of contact between boundary personnel; dependence asymmetry has a negative effect on manifest contagion. Managers and boundary-spanning personnel who are aware of supply chain contagion effects should be better able to influence strategically the behavior of channel partners and may be better inoculated against their own unintended imitation of other organizations within their supply chain. for their help. They are also grateful to the anonymous JM reviewers for their helpful guidance and insights. This article was published while the first author was on sabbatical leave and a visiting professor at Yonsei University in Seoul, Korea.

The Impact of Institutional Pressures on Green Supply Chain Management and Firm Performance: Top Management Roles and Social Capital

“…Due to social legitimacy, each firm is expected to consider or follow standards, norms, and expectations of its external stakeholders [35,36]. In general cases, demand from customers shapes a core normative pressure [12,37].…”

“…Since organizations are instilled in social networks [35], firms in these networks tend to imitate the behaviors of other network members [39]. In particular, when the organization lacks clarity in establishing its organizational goal or in understanding the technology, there is a higher chance of imitating other firms [33,40].…”

A Generalizable Scale of Propensity to Plan: The Long and the Short of Planning for Time and for Money

“…Numerous measurement scholars suggest that short, highly internally consistent scales are preferred (Clark and Watson 1995;Epstein et al 1996;McFarland, Bloodgood, and Payan 2008;Netemeyer et al 2002;Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003;Richins 2004;Stanton et al 2002). They argue that short scales are (1) easier to embed in a nomological network with a number of other constructs; (2) easier to intersperse with items tapping other constructs, reducing demand artifacts; and (3) are more likely to demonstrate unidimensionality.…”

A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating E Government Systems Success: A Service Ecosystem Approach

“…Plausibly, services will likely differ in each context. It is easy to see how service exchanges amongst parties within a particular context are likely to "influence indirect exchanges beyond that particular context" [49].…”