This paper reviews studies of buyer–supplier relationships published in four prominent U.S.‐based academic journals between 1986 and 2005. Our review revealed that the focus of academic researchers on types of value being extracted from buyer–supplier relationships changed between 1986 and 2005, as did their interest in the buyer mechanisms implemented to create value in these relationships. Although emphasis has changed over time, we found that scholars have primarily investigated four types of value derived from buyer–suppler relationships: operational performance improvements, integration‐based improvements, supplier capability‐based improvements and financial performance outcomes. The review also noted that researchers considered more buyer–supplier mutual efforts since 1996 than the earlier decade, but the number of studies investigating buyer practices has declined as a percentage of total publications. We conclude with a discussion of the review's implications for future research and practice.

This paper examines the intersecting effects of power, trust and supplier network size on five dimensions of supplier performance (delivery, quality, cost, innovation and flexibility). When assessing main effects, coercive power shows a negative relationship with supplier quality and innovation, referent power shows a positive relationship with all dimensions of supplier performance and legitimate power shows a positive relationship with supplier delivery, cost and flexibility. The supplier\u27s trust in the buyer also shows a positive relationship to all five supplier performance dimensions. While exhibiting no main effects, supplier network size moderates these power–performance relationships. Increasing supplier network size appears to attenuate the impacts of coercive and referent power upon supplier performance, while strengthening this connection in the case of legitimate power. Contrary to our hypotheses, expert power use exhibits a negative relationship with supplier delivery performance, an effect which is exacerbated with increasing supplier network size. Overall, this study suggests that while not as independently important as perhaps thought, selecting the right number of suppliers may have considerable contextual influence on the interplay between power, trust and performance in buyer-supplier relationships

In this study, we use the lens of social exchange theory to investigate the influence of incentives on supplier performance under various conditions of buyer–supplier dependence. We propose that incentives generally fall into two main categories: competitive, market-based incentives that reward suppliers based on how well they perform relative to other suppliers, and cooperative incentives, where both buyer and supplier share benefits based on their joint performance. Using empirical data collected from 230 buyers in a sample of U.S. industrial firms, we measure the effects of these two types of incentives on various measures of performance, as well as the moderating effects of buyer–supplier dependence. Our results suggest that competitive incentives can be an effective approach to improving delivery, quality, innovation and flexibility, for purchases where the buyer–supplier relationship is characterized by balanced and moderate amounts of mutual dependence. However, competitive incentives are ineffective at generating improved cost performance. Cooperation appears to be the only way to improve cost but is only fruitful under conditions of high mutual dependence. In general, we find that high mutual dependence provides a good basis for cooperative incentives to successfully improve each of the types of performance included in our study. Finally, we find evidence that cooperation and competition can coexist without significant risk of decreased performance

Faculty and students are increasingly faced with the opportunity to use electronic versions of textbooks (e-texts). Despite the advantages of e-texts and recent advances in technology, evidence suggests that students are still reluctant to adopt and use e-texts. This situation leads us to investigate two research questions: What factors contribute to students’ acceptance of e-texts? Are there differences between hardcopy texts and e-texts when it comes to course grade? We draw on a variety of perspectives (i.e., psychology, management information systems, economics, environmental studies) to build a framework that allows us to determine the motivations of students for adopting e-texts, and the learning outcomes of e-text adoption. Data was collected via a survey administered in the business school of a metropolitan university with approximately 20,000 students, located in the western United States. Results suggest that perceived ease-of-use and the price of e-texts relative to hardcopy texts are two key motivators in e-text adoption, while perceived usefulness, Internet self-efficacy and environmental concerns are not significant motivators. However, there was no significant difference in the grades of e-text adopters compared to hardcopy adopters. We conclude this paper by discussing the implications of our findings for educators

In this paper, we investigate how industrial buyers align their relationships with suppliers to the contextual characteristics of the purchase. We propose that patterns of purchasing strategy are evidenced, in part, by the alignment of three fundamental domains: the firm's strategic intent for a given purchase, the environment in which a purchase is made, and the type of relationship adopted by industrial buying firms with their selected suppliers. Using a cluster analysis on data collected from 226 buyers in a sample of U.S. industrial firms, we identified four primary types of purchases. Our results provide a partial empirical validation of the purchasing types presented in purchasing portfolio models. However, we identify a fourth type, the adversarial purchase, which cannot be mapped to existing portfolio models. We also found evidence that the dimensions of portfolio models may not be as independent as commonly assumed. We discuss the implications of our findings for practitioners and for research.