An attention-based view of supply disruption risk management: balancing biased attentional processing for improved resilience in the COVID-19 context

Abstract

PurposeIn the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study investigates a variety of approaches to supply disruption risk management for achieving effective responses for resilience at the supply management subunit level (e.g. category of items). Drawing on the attention-based view of the firm, the authors model the attentional antecedents of supply resilience as (1) attentional perspectives and (2) attentional selection. Attentional perspectives focus on either supply risk sources or supply network recoverability, and both are hypothesised to have a direct positive association with supply resilience. Attentional selection is top down or bottom up when it comes to disruption detection, and these are hypothesised to moderate the association between disruption risk management perspectives and resilience.Design/methodology/approachConducted at the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study employs a hierarchical regression analysis on a multicountry survey of 190 procurement professionals, each responding from the perspective of their own subunit area of supply responsibility.FindingsBoth attentional disruption risk management perspectives are needed to achieve supply resilience, and neither is superior in terms of achieving supply resilience. Both the efficiency of the top down and exposure to the unexpected with the bottom up are needed – to a balanced degree – for improved supply resilience.Practical implicationsThe results encourage firms to purposefully develop their supply risk management practices, first, to include both perspectives and, second, to avoid biases in attentional selection for disruption detection. Ensuring a more balanced approach may allow firms to improve their supply resilience.Originality/valueThe results contribute to the understanding of the microfoundations that underpin firms' operational capabilities for supply risk and disruption management and possible attentional biases.

Supply chains' sustainability trajectories and resilience: a learning perspective in turbulent environments

“…Fourth, similar to other studies before, we see our results potentially limited due to the fact that the investigated phenomenon is dynamic and still ongoing (Lorentz et al. , 2021).…”

“…Consequently, future research could broaden the investigation by adopting further concepts on SCRes and enabling capabilities or developing updated frameworks on the issue. Fourth, similar to other studies before, we see our results potentially limited due to the fact that the investigated phenomenon is dynamic and still ongoing (Lorentz et al, 2021). Despite many expectations, also during the interviews, new waves of the pandemic keep hitting globally and thus also influence the chosen European context.…”

“…However, despite the growing number of studies connecting for example COVID-19 and SCs (e.g. Finkenstadt and Handfield, 2021; Lorentz et al. , 2021; Xiong et al.…”

“…However, despite the growing number of studies connecting for example COVID-19 and SCs (e.g. Finkenstadt and Handfield, 2021;Lorentz et al, 2021;Xiong et al, 2021;Nikookar and Yanadori, 2022), only a small fraction of prior studies investigates how SC sustainability actions were affected by turbulent events, such as the pandemic (see Chowdhury et al, 2021 for a detailed overview). This gap in the literature is surprising as at least three reasons can be found to extend the existing debates.…”

Guest Editorial: A purchasing and supply management view of supply resilience for better crisis response

“…3 ). These aspects include factors that positively and negatively impact SR ( Lorentz et al, 2021 ; Sturm et al, 2021 ; Taghizadeh et al 202; Giannoccaro and Iftikhar, 2022 ; Verghese et al, 2022 ), innovative supply risk management practices ( Choksy et al, 2022 ; Meyer et al, 2022 ; Raj et al, 2022 ), and the role of PSM organizations ( Kaur and Singh, 2022 ). However, two themes were particularly emphasized by the SR literature since COVID-19: The idea of SR as a dynamic capability that continuously evolves according to the characteristics and complexity of the supply network ( Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020 ; Azadegan and Dooley, 2021 ; Feizabadi et al, 2021 ; Wiedmer et al, 2021 ; Choksy et al, 2022 ; Wissuwa et al, 2022 ) The idea that SR is a capability that can be built by selecting the most suitable suppliers and including “supplier resilience” criteria in supplier selection models ( Mohammed et al, 2021 ; Taghizadeh et al, 2021 ; Shishodia et al, 2022 ; Wissuwa et al, 2022 ) …”