Supplier Role Conflict: An Investigation of Its Relational Implications and Impact on Supplier Accommodation
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12123 |
Date | 01 June 2016 |
Published date | 01 June 2016 |
Supplier Role Conflict: An Investigation of Its Relational
Implications and Impact on Supplier Accommodation
Monique L. Ueltschy Murfield
1
, Terry L. Esper
2
, Wendy L. Tate
3
, and Kenneth J. Petersen
4
1
Miami University
2
Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas
3
University of Tennessee
4
Boise State University
Existing research on supply chain relationships suggests that one of the underlying tensions between supply chain partners is that of
opposing perspectives and goals in the customersupplier relationship. In today’s business world with requirements in constant flux, suppli-
ers are often asked to accommodate “special”requests made by their customers, not part of the contractual agreement. Suppliers frequently fill
requests to protect the relationship with the customer, even if they fall outside of what they consider their role as a supplier. Issues of supplier role
conflict emerge when customers and suppliers have different views of what the supplier’s role should entail. There is little research examining the
potential for supplier role conflict in supply chains. Specifically, this research draws on literature from multiple disciplines to consider supplier
role conflict that may stem from accommodation and the impact of this role conflict and supplier accommodation on the supply chain relationship
and future accommodation behavior. Hypotheses are tested using two scenario-based experiments. Results suggest that supplier adaptation and
flexibility both have positive relational effects. If suppliers perceive accommodation requests as outside of their contracted role, supplier role
conflict can have detrimental effects on the supplier’s relationship perceptions and their willingness for future accommodation.
Keywords: role conflict; supplier accommodation; supply chain relationships; experimental design
INTRODUCTION
Opposing perspectives and goals are inherent in customer
supplier relationships (Ellram and Hendrick 1995; Nyaga et al.
2010). For example, in 2003 when Wal-Mart wanted to facilitate
more efficient facility operations and streamline service from
suppliers, its top 100 suppliers were asked to adopt radio fre-
quency identification technology. The suppliers’responses var-
ied; many noted that accommodating even this very important
customer request was beyond their role and therefore outside of
their investment responsibilities (RFID Gazette 2007). Pearson’s
2014 survey reveals a recent example of conflicting goals. While
35% of surveyed companies are implementing sustainability pro-
grams, only 5% of their suppliers are following suit. Many of
these customers are having difficulty gaining acceptance and
convincing their suppliers of the importance of implementing
sustainability efforts within the supplier organization to help
facilitate their strategic goals (Pearson 2014). Like sustainability,
divergent goals across the customersupplier dyad can impede
the success of a supply chain strategy.
Literature streams in the areas of opportunism, conflict, and
negotiation have all established that customers and suppliers fre-
quently have different viewpoints on relationship-specific issues
(Gundlach and Cadotte 1994; Rinehart et al. 2008). Supply chain
researchers have not adequately delved into the underlying
causes or relational impacts of these potential differences and
may be missing a considerable opportunity to address
relationship issues by viewing them through a role theoretic lens.
Beyond the generally accepted notion that suppliers and
customers often have countering objectives, insights from Role
Theory (RT) suggest that relational tension can be created by the
“role conflict”associated with the opposing perspectives of
exchange partners (Kahn et al. 1964; Biddle 1979).
Suppliers may perceive customer requirements and expectations
as conflicting with their defined role and responsibility (Betten-
court and Brown 2003). This relational condition, referred to as
“supplier role conflict,”becomes particularly salient in the context
of supplier accommodation requests where customers want suppli-
ers to make changes so that the customer can better address emerg-
ing and unplanned needs associated with volatility in the market.
This supplier accommodation of the customer’s request (SAC) is
conceptualized as having two influential dimensions—supplier
flexibility and supplier adaptation (Cannon and Homburg 2001;
Hsieh et al. 2008). Supplier flexibility is defined as a supplier’s
ability to accept and respond to a customer’s changing needs
(Noordewier et al. 1990; Avittathur and Swamidass 2007; Oh and
Rhee 2008). Supplier adaptation is defined as the degree to which
suppliers respond to a specific customer’s needs with changes and
investments in equipment, processes, technology, products, and/or
other assets (Cannon and Homburg 2001; Hsieh et al. 2008).
Each party in a customersupplier relationship has contractu-
ally driven obligations, yet many customer requests go beyond the
contractual obligations. These may be as insignificant as preparing
and sending an additional report or as significant as making an
unscheduled change to the production process. Many accommoda-
tion requests result from the natural development of the cus-
tomersupplier relationship. The conflict arises when the SAC
requests are beyond a supplier’s current capabilities or outside the
supplier’s explicit role. These types of requests could ultimately
result in the deterioration of supply stability and relational perfor-
mance for customers (Kahn et al. 1964; Biddle 1979).
Corresponding author:
Monique L. Ueltschy Murfield, PhD, Assistant Professor, Depart-
ment of Management, Farmer School of Business, Miami University,
800 E. High Street, Oxford, OH 45056, USA; E-mail: murfieml@
miamioh.edu
Journal of Business Logistics, 2016, 37(2): 168–184 doi: 10.1111/jbl.12123
© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals
Supplier role conflict is inherently a supplier issue. However,
understanding how role conflict influences both the customer and
supplier would help to better understand how accommodation
requests can impact customersupplier relationships. Previous
investigation of supplier accommodation has been almost exclu-
sively from the customer’s perspective with a focus on eco-
nomic, not relational, outcomes (i.e., Hallen et al. 1991; Cannon
and Homburg 2001; Avittathur and Swamidass 2007; Hsieh
et al. 2008). Taking a singularly focused economic perspective is
not sufficient to inform dynamic, behavioral relationships
(Homans 1961; Blau 1964). Three elements are noticeably miss-
ing in the scholarly and applied discourse: (1) how suppliers per-
ceive accommodation requests; (2) how these perceptions
manifest in role conflict and introduce relational issues between
the customer and supplier; and (3) how role conflict and rela-
tional issues ultimately impact customer performance. These
research gaps are the focus of this article, which addresses the
following questions:
1 How does perceived supplier role conflict impact both supplier
and customer perceptions of relationships?
2 How might current perceived supplier role conflict impact sup-
pliers’willingness to accommodate customers’future accom-
modation requests?
3 How might current perceived supplier role conflict impact cus-
tomers’expectations of future supplier accommodations?
4 How might these current and future impacts of perceived sup-
plier role conflict change when considering prior supplier
investments in flexibility and adaptation?
To answer those questions, frameworks from multiple disci-
plines (e.g., Supply Chain Management, Operations, Organiza-
tional Behavior, Sociology, and Marketing) are synthesized to
explore how perceived role conflict, in the context of customer
requests for supplier accommodation, impacts behavior, and rela-
tionships. Insights from RT (Kahn et al. 1964; Katz and Kahn
1966; Biddle 1979) are used to develop scenario-based experi-
ments (Walker and Willer 2007; Thomas et al. 2014) that inves-
tigate these accommodation-related issues. Furthermore, the
hypothesized relationships are tested across both customer and
supplier perspectives to provide a more comprehensive under-
standing of perceived supplier role conflict. The subsequent sec-
tions discuss the literature foundations, research methodology,
findings, and implications.
LITERATURE REVIEW
To investigate how supplier role conflict impacts relational out-
comes and future accommodation behavior, numerous research
streams were reviewed. This section reviews the literature on sup-
plier role conflict and RT and then discusses supplier accommoda-
tion in order to provide a foundation for hypothesis development.
Supplier role conflict
RT was originally proposed to better explain individual interac-
tions (Kahn et al. 1964), subsequently extended to an
interorganizational context by Gill and Stern (1969), and further
developed by Frazier (1983) into a framework of interorganiza-
tional exchange and negotiations. Role conflict, a key concept in
RT, manifests as a degree of incongruence or incompatibility of
expectations associated with a specific role (Kahn et al. 1964;
Rizzo et al. 1970; Biddle 1979). It stems from differing defini-
tions of in-role and extra-role behavior when parties are engaged
in role negotiations (Katz and Kahn 1966). In-role behavior is
ongoing role performance that is expected, the absence of which
can lead to negative consequences (i.e., penalties, lost business)
(Katz 1964). In contrast, extra-role behavior is discretionary, not
contractual, or even recognized by formal reward systems (Van
Dyne and LePine 1998).
Supplier role conflict exists when suppliers and customers
have differing role prescriptions relative to the supplier’s
expected in-role behavior. High supplier role conflict refers to a
significant lack of synergy in expectations of the supplier’s role,
whereas low role conflict refers to insignificant differences. Role
conflict is commonly associated with negative performance and
relationship deterioration (Nygaard and Dahlstrom 2002) due, in
part, to the psychological withdrawal and reduction in customer-
oriented behaviors that suppliers exhibit when perceiving role
conflict (Bettencourt and Brown 2003). Thus, by causing a
reduction in relational connection, commitment, and service by
suppliers (Biddle and Thomas 1966; Bettencourt and Brown
2003), supplier role conflict impacts both suppliers and cus-
tomers.
The impact of supplier role conflict in interorganizational rela-
tionships becomes paradoxical when considered in the context of
accommodation. Supplier accommodation is often vital in long-
term collaborative relationships (Hsieh et al. 2008; Liao et al.
2010). Yet, those accommodation requests that push the bound-
aries of the supplier’s perceived role and therefore cause supplier
role conflict, can engender relationship disengagement from sup-
pliers (Biddle 1979). This paradoxical scenario, where a key
aspect of collaborative supply chain relationships can indirectly
cause negative impacts, suggests the need for more direct investi-
gation of SAC requests.
Supplier accommodation
Supplier accommodation was initially introduced in the market-
ing literature to investigate how suppliers contribute to customer
cost reductions and performance stability (Cannon and Homburg
2001; Hsieh et al. 2008). Accommodation is conceptualized pri-
marily as having two components—flexibility and relationship-
specific adaptation. Both of these concepts are significantly
grounded in the marketing channels, manufacturing, and opera-
tions literature (e.g., Noordewier et al. 1990; Avittathur and
Swamidass 2007; Schmidt et al. 2007), and they have recently
been introduced in a broader supply chain context (e.g.,
Mukherji and Francis 2008; Oh and Rhee 2008). However, the
existing supply chain research on accommodation provides a
broad-based perspective and does not look at relationship-specific
issues.
Literature on both flexibility and adaptation has focused pri-
marily on antecedents (e.g., Brennan et al. 2003; Hsieh et al.
2008; Liao et al. 2010). Hence, existing knowledge provides
Supplier Role Conflict and Accommodation 169
To continue reading
Request your trial