Presenter: Dr. Walid Belassi
Associate Professor, Management Science
Athabasca University, Canada
1.
Introduction & Literature review
2.
Organizational culture
3.
Research Question
4.
Empirical results
Advantages of cooperative buyer-supplier
relationships

1.
2.
3.
4.
Quality
Cost/financial performance
Delivery
Speed
(Stanley and Wisner 2002; Tan 2002; Dong et al., 2001; Elmuti 2002;
Huit et al., 2002 and 2005; Fredendal et al., 2005; Petersen et al.,
2005; Cole and Yakushiji, 1984; Lyons et al, 1990)

Buyer’s Practices
Ex. efforts by DaimlerChrysler, Toyota and Nissan, B/S in Taiwan
(Lyons et al., 1990; Dale, 1991; Richeson, 1995; Green, 200; Dawson
2001; Stundza 2001; Hung-Yi et al.)

B/S in the light of other theories
◦ Transaction cost economics
Kauffman et al., 2000)
(Dyer, 1997; Krause 1999;
◦ Agency Theory
(Lassar & Kerr, 1996)
◦ Conflict theory
(Kale et al., 2000)
◦ Exchange theory
◦ Game theory
(Holme et al., 1999)
(Cool and Henderson, 1998)

Determinants of successful buyer-supplier
relationships
◦ Inter-organizational communication (Paulraj et al. 2008)
◦ Contractual clauses including supplier certification,
supplier training, and visits to the suppliers (Forker et
al., 1999; Germain et al., 1999; Kannan and Handfield, 1998)
◦ Trust: buyer-supplier relationships follows an
evolutionary path that entails a trust building
process. (Zaheer et al., 1998; Ellram and Edis, 1996; Shaohan
and Zhilin, 2008)
◦ Commitment (Moore 1998),
◦ expectation of continuity (Krause et al. 1998)
◦ cooperation (Ellram and Edis 1996)

Studies opposing cooperative B/S relationships
◦ In some cases, such closely knit relationships lead to
violations of the autonomy of one or both
partners…affecting corporate autonomy (Rolof and
Aßla¨nder, 2010)
◦ While some companies have been able to develop
supply chain management strategies, this does
not mean that everyone else can do so. (Cox, 2004)

Studies opposing cooperative B/S relationships
◦ Progress toward strategic collaboration within
supply chain relationships has proven difficult for
many companies, particularly if it requires changes
to organizational culture and structure.
“Game changing Trends in Supply Chain: Part III: Adversarial
to Collaborative Relationships, Tate and Autry, Supply Chain
Management Review, March 2013”
Numerous definitions of organizational culture
have been suggested in the literature:
 Schein (2010 and 2004) defines organizational
culture as a pattern of shared basic
assumptions that was learned by a group as it
solved its problems of external adaptation and
internal integration that has worked well
enough to be considered valid and, therefore,
to be taught to new members as the correct
way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to
those problems.



Sathe (1985) defines it as the set of important
assumptions, often unstated, that members of
a community share in common
Drennan (1990) defines organizational culture
as how things are done in an organization
It guides and shapes behaviors and attitudes of
all employees (Hofstede, 1980; Handy, 1985;
Schein, 1985; O'Reilly and Chatman, 1996;
Burnes et al., 2003)
Does organizational culture affect
buyer-supplier relationship?
1.
Process oriented vs. result oriented cultures
2.
Employee oriented vs. job oriented cultures
3.
Parochial vs. professional cultures
4.
Open systems vs. closed systems cultures
5.
Loose control vs. tight control cultures
6.
Normative vs. pragmatic cultures
1.
Power distance
2.
Uncertainty avoidance
3.
Collectivism vs. individualism
4.
Femininity/masculinity
5.
Long term orientation
Strodtbeck (1961)
Kluckhohn and
Result Oriented
Job Oriented
Open Culture
Tight Control
Power Distance
Normative Culture
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Collectivism
Long Term
Orientation
Cooperative
Buyer-Supplier
Relationship



The population of this study includes all
organizations that develop new products
A sample of organizations is selected and
studied using direct mail collection procedure
Questionnaire was mailed to upper level
managers responsible for (or involved in)
developing new products in 800 organizations
located in the U.S. and Canada


Organizations were selected from the Mergent
Online database and the Fortune 500 list
Managers were asked to inform us about the
culture of their organization and their common
practices in developing and implementing
NPDs


The questionnaire was designed and tested
using an iterative process including expert
validation and pretest using a small number of
business executives not included in the sample
frame
Out of the 800 questionnaires sent out 195
questionnaires returned (190 were usable),
resulting in a response rate of 23.75 percent
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Significance F
Intercept
Job Oriented
Open Culture
Result Oriented
Tight Control
Power Distance
Normative
Uncertainty Avoidance
Collectivism
0.131576
0.129
0.034**
Coefficients
7.8223
0.7422
0.8501
1.3924
-0.0174
0.1101
0.0363
1.4815
0.5556
P-value
0.000
0.196
0.0285**
0.0021***
0.974
0.577
0.893
0.0084***
0.474
Organizations are able to leverage
further their cooperative behavior
“with their suppliers” by improving a
limited set of cultural dimensions


It has been reported that as many as three-quarters
of reengineering, total quality management,
strategic planning, and downsizing efforts have
failed entirely or have created problems serious
enough that the survival of the organization was
threatened (Cameron, 1997)
Several studies reported that the most frequently
cited reason was the neglect of the organization’s
culture. In other words, failure to change the
organization’s culture doomed the other kinds of
organizational changes that were initiated (Schein,
2010; Caldwell, 1994; Pascale and Athos, 1993;
Kotter and Heskett, 1992)


By checking the literature review in these slides it
shows that the focus is not on strategic B/S
relationship. It is more tactical and on a deal by
deal bases. What we is discussing is strategically
why organizations are more inclined to deal with
supplier (play with the S) in a more collaborative
(rather than rivalry) manner.
Cooperative B?S leads to lost autonomy:
perception of autonomy and cultural differences
between organizations that felt so and others
that felt the other way around