The effect of cultural value orientations on responses to supply-side disruption

Abstract

PurposePast research has shown that culture has significant effects on people's evaluation of and responses to risk. Despite this important role, the supply chain risk literature has been silent on this matter. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of cultural value orientations on managerial perception of and responses to a supply disruption risk.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conduct a scenario-based experiment to investigate the effect of cultural value orientations – i.e. individualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance – on individuals' perception of risk and supplier switching intention in the face of a supply disruption.FindingsThe findings highlight the negative effect of individualism-collectivism on disruption risk perception and switching intention in high uncertain circumstances. However, these relationships are non-significant in relatively less uncertain situations. Moreover, the findings show that the impact of uncertainty avoidance on risk perception and supplier switching is positive and significant in both low and high uncertain circumstances.Originality/valueExtant research has traditionally assumed that when confronted with disruption risks, managers make decisions using an economic utility model, to best serve the long-term objectives of the firm. This paper draws from advances of behavioural research to show that cultural value orientations influence such decisions through a mediating mechanism of subjective risk perception.

The effects of tie strength and data integration with supply base on supply disruption ambiguity and its impact on inventory turnover

“…Lastly, our paper contributes to the supply disruption management literature that offers empirical evidence of the consequences of supply disruptions Singhal, 2003, 2005;Zsidisin et al, 2016;Hendricks et al, 2020;Sarafan et al, 2020;Son et al, 2020). Prior studies have identified operational (Hendricks and Singhal, 2005) and economic impacts of disruptions (Hendricks and Singhal, 2003;Zsidisin et al, 2016).…”

“…A third theme focuses on identifying the economic and non-economic consequences of supply disruptions (cf. Singhal, 2003, 2005;Zsidisin et al, 2016;Polyviou et al, 2018;Chen et al, 2019;Hendricks et al, 2020;Sarafan et al, 2020;Son et al, 2020). Hendricks and Singhal (2003), for example, reported that firms announcing supply disruptions experience an average decline of 11% in their stock price.…”

“…Research to date has focused predominantly on the "recovery" stage (e.g. Tomlin, 2006;Tang and Tomlin, 2008;Bode et al, 2011;Talluri et al, 2013;Sarafan et al, 2020), including what has been published regarding supply chain resilience (e.g. Blackhurst et al, 2011;Ambulkar et al, 2015;Novak et al, 2021;Wieland and Durach, 2021;Nikookar and Yanadori, 2022).…”

Project managers' reactions to project disruption: sponsor actions versus environmental uncertainty

“…In general, scenario-based experiments are an established technique for OM studies grounded in social psychology (see for example Ried et al. , 2021; Sarafan et al. , 2020).…”

“…Scenario-based experiments can reduce the influence of possible desirability bias (Rungtusanatham et al, 2011). In general, scenario-based experiments are an established technique for OM studies grounded in social psychology (see for example Ried et al, 2021;Sarafan et al, 2020).…”