Supplier non‐retention post disruption: What role does anger play?

Abstract

Abstract We analyze the direct and indirect effects of two critical‐component supply‐disruption attributes (CONTROLLABILITYandRESPONSIBILITY) on supplier non‐retention post disruption. Using a scenario‐based role‐playing experiment with 253 purchasing professionals, we find that the likelihood that a recovery lead (i.e., the individual assigned to the disruption‐recovery task) recommends non‐retention of an incumbent critical‐component supplier post disruption is higher when the recovery lead perceives that the supplier, rather than nature, had control over the supply disruption. Moreover, this direct effect is partially explained by the amount ofANGERthat the recovery lead feels due to the supply disruption. Neither the direct nor the indirect effect ofRESPONSIBILITYon supplier non‐retention post disruption is, however, detected. This paper is among the first to offer theoretical and empirical evidence that supplier non‐retention in a supply‐disruption context is a function of who had control over the supply disruption. Furthermore, this paper considers the effects of emotions and illustrates that supply‐management decisions are not based solely on rational (i.e., cognitive) processes but also on emotional processes. Finally, this paper challenges conceptual arguments about the association between supplier selection and retention, at least in the supply‐disruption context and with regard to the individual participating in both tasks. Our findings also have several managerial implications for supplying and buying firms.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 79 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.