Absorptive and desorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: An inverted U-shaped relationship

Abstract

The extant literature has highlighted the importance of knowledge transfer between a buyer and its supply network for strengthening supply chain competence. This is a bi-directional exchange where the buyer and supply network each act as the sender and receiver of knowledge. Prior research has however largely focused on the knowledge recipient only. We consider both sender and recipient using two key dynamic capabilities related to knowledge transfer: (i) desorptive capacity, which enables the safe transfer of knowledge from the sender; and, (ii) absorptive capacity, which enables the acquisition and assimilation of external knowledge by the recipient. Using the concept of 'fit', we investigate whether organizations strengthen supply chain competence when their desorptive capacity exceeds that of their supply network´s (positive misfit) and consider the moderating role of the organization's and supply network's absorptive capacity. Multiple regression analysis of survey data from 250 firms identifies an inverted U-shaped relationship between positive desorptive capacity misfit and supply chain competence. Further, this relationship is shown to be moderated by the supply network's absorptive capacity level. The paper furthers our understanding of supply chain knowledge management enabling buyers and their supply networks to achieve more successful knowledge transfer outcomes.

Towards an increased understanding of learning: a case study of a collaborative relationship between a retailer and a logistics service provider

“…Despite the potential for desorptive capacity to enhance supply chain performance, little research has been dedicated to the concept (Meinlschmidt et al, 2016;Ziegler et al, 2013). As outlined by Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler (2009), desorptive capacity is concerned with an organisation's ability to identify knowledge-transfer opportunities, as well as the effective transfer and application of knowledge at the receiving company (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2009;Rold an Bravo et al, 2020;Ziegler et al, 2013). More specifically, this ability can be divided into two sequential subprocesses (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2009):…”

Exploring organizational learning and experimental logistics development at the global fashion retailer H&M

“…Organizational learning is increasingly considered a result of inter‐organizational, often mutual, knowledge exchanges (Yang, 2016), collaborative information sharing activities (Yuan et al., 2018), and mutual training and support for the common purpose of improved performance in the supply chain (Kashyap & Lakhanpal, 2019). For instance, recent research has discussed the absorptive capacity at a knowledge receiving company in conjunction with the desorptive capacity at a knowledge submitting company (Meinlschmidt et al., 2016; Roldán Bravo et al., 2020). Learning and knowledge exchange becomes particularly valid in a logistics environment due to its boundary‐spanning nature (Esper et al., 2007).…”

Technical innovation: trigger or threat for organizational learning? A curvilinear relationship revisited

“…Studying the role of specific mechanisms or working conditions such as leadership style, absence of abusive supervision or firm’s tendency to open innovation (Westerlund and Rajala, 2010; Cheng and Chen, 2013; Roldán Bravo et al , 2017) could be valuable to inhibit the negative impact of positive technical innovation misfit on organizational learning. In addition, other organizational capabilities such as the organization’s absorptive or desorption capacity (Roldán Bravo et al , 2016, 2020) should be considered. Finally, future studies could perform mediating analysis to extend our findings (i.e.…”