Search results

This paper examines the competition between buying firms for the supplier’s competitive resources. The purpose of this paper is to examine how indirect capabilities – the ability to access external resources – can help in obtaining preferential resource allocation from suppliers.

Partial least squares structural equation modeling is used to analyze data of 163 buying firms that assess preferential resource allocation from suppliers.

Two indirect capabilities (a buying firm’s selection capability and relational capability) positively influence the firm’s competitive advantage. These relations are significantly mediated by preferential resource allocation of suppliers. The impact of preferential resource allocation appeared stronger for manufacturing firms than for service firms.

This study’s data set represents the buyer’s assessment of suppliers’ resource allocation. Future research should aim for dyadic data for further validation. In addition, due to sample size limitations, this study’s data does not allow sector segmentation. A larger study that provides insights into segmentation is suggested for future research.

The results inform managers about the relevance of the competition for supplier resources with rival firms that share suppliers, and the influence of this competition on firm competitiveness. Managers should not only focus on the supplier itself, but also on the capabilities of the supply chain management (SCM) function to recognize and integrate the supplier resources.

This study adds to the extended resource-based view literature by integrating the notion of supplier resource competition. In addition, the study shows the importance of indirect capabilities for obtaining preferential resource allocation from suppliers. Finally, the authors show the importance of separating between service and manufacturing when examining SCM practices.

This study aims to propose and evaluate a novel framework of strategic adaptability in dyadic negotiations. The authors define strategic adaptability as a reaction to a cue that leads to shifts between integrative and distributive strategies. Based on the literature on turning points, phase models and strategic negotiations, the authors developed an initial framework identifying five distinct strategic adaptations.

To verify the framework, the authors analyzed two negotiation simulations with a diverse set of negotiation students. Negotiations were content-coded, and adaptations were labeled.

The authors found a consistent pattern across two studies. Overall, 12% (study 1) and 18% (study 2) of all speaking turns were identified as strategic adaptations. The findings empirically confirmed four of their strategic adaptation types: adapt to deadlock, follow adaptation by opponent, adapt to priority of issue under discussion and adapt to new information on issue. Moreover, findings of this study revealed two new types of strategic adaptability: delayed adaptation to opponent and adapt to understand opponent. Study 2 additionally revealed that strategies vary with the negotiation phase, and negotiation outcome seems to benefit more from the constellation rather than the frequency of adaptations. Furthermore, lower-scoring negotiators tended to adapt to the opponent’s strategy instead of initiating a change in strategy.

The findings of this study provide preliminary insights into how strategic adaptations unfold. These findings present future research opportunities to further test the framework's robustness, increase the knowledge of individual and cultural factors, explore the relationship with negotiation outcomes and develop educational interventions to enhance strategic adaptability.