Dependence Asymmetry and Joint Dependence in Interorganizational Relationships: Effects of Embeddedness on a Manufacturer's Performance in Procurement Relationships

Abstract

This study of the procurement relationships of two major U.S. auto manufacturers examines the effects of two dimensions of organizational interdependence on the performance of those relationships for the manufacturer: dependence asymmetry, the difference in actors' dependencies on each other in a dyadic exchange relationship, and joint dependence, the sum of dependence between actors in the relationship. Rather than focusing solely on dependence advantage and the concomitant logic of power, we focus on joint dependence, which operates through a logic of embeddedness. We examine how the effect of joint dependence on performance is mediated by specific elements of embeddedness: joint action, trust, and the quality and scope of information exchange. Results show that joint dependence enhances the performance of procurement relationships for manufacturers and that this effect is partially mediated by the level of joint action and the quality of information exchange between the partners. Decomposing dependence asymmetry into the conditions of a manufacturer's and a supplier's dependence advantage, we also find that while the manufacturer's dependence advantage diminishes its performance, the supplier's dependence advantage has a null effect. We discuss the implications of these findings for studies of interorganizational interdependence.

Entrepreneurial pursuits of self‐ and collective interests

“…This proposition is consistent with the theoretical arguments and empirical results of Gulati and Stych (2007), who distinguish between asymmetric dependence (the degree of difference in dependence) and joint dependence (the sum of total dependence) between two parties. This distinction between asymmetric and joint dependence is useful to elaborate a theory of entrepreneurial resource mobilization because it captures the difference between unilateral and individual versus mutual and collective dependencies and power in an interorganizational relationship (Villanueva, Van de Ven, and Sapienza, 2007).…”

The Impact of Clusterization on the Development of Small and Medium‐sized Enterprise (Sme) Sector

“…Companies that participate in this agreement have to make strategic decisions about their obligations and rights, the division of possible revenues obtained from their cooperation, and other important issues (Gundlach et al 1995;Gulati and Sytch 2007). Strategic alliances have various peculiarities in comparison with partnerships:…”

“…The concept of clusters (clusterization), as well as the role of interorganizational relations have been analysed in various scientifi c studies, including Gundlach et al (1995), Ylinenpää (1997), Dacin et al (1997), Wildeman (1998), Mavondo and Rodrigo (2001), Varamäki (2001), Reuber and Fisher (2001), Park et al (2002), Ekelund (2002), Rodriguez and Wilson (2002), Jones and Tilley (2003), Parrilli (2007), Pesämaa and Hair (2007), Wang and Meng (2007), Gulati and Sytch (2007), Sheedy (2007); Oliveira (2008), Damaskopoulos et al (2008), Banytė, Salickaitė (2008), Aydogan (2009). However, most of…”

Imersão Social Na Cadeia De Suprimentos E Seu Efeito Paradoxal No Desempenho Operacional

“…No caso do presente estudo, esse agente materializa-se na figura do intermediário de vendas. Ele impede que a firma tenha relacionamento direto com clientes, minando todo o potencial que a imersão nessa relação poderia trazer para a firma (Gulati & Sytch, 2007 …”