Twofold relationship dynamics of supplier’s knowledge sharing

Abstract

Purpose Assuming that supplier knowledge can either strengthen the partnership by nurturing the commitment and trust between partners or allow the buyer to be more calculative, this study aims to propose two types of knowledge sharing in supplier relationship – a type benefiting the partnership and another privately benefiting only one partner. Design/methodology/approach Using structural equation modeling and a surveyed dataset from 352 buyer–supplier partnerships, this study tested the research model of dual mechanism, where two types of knowledge sharing co-exist and have opposite effects on partnership longevity. Findings This study found that the two types of knowledge sharing create divergent effects on partnership continuation. For a buyer firm developing supplier knowledge, its supplier firm reciprocates by sharing knowledge with the buyer. While relation-specific knowledge promotes partnership longevity through developing trust, institutionalized knowledge hampers partnership longevity. Research limitations/implications Findings overall indicate that knowledge plays a more instrumental role in sharing knowledge in a buyer–supplier relationship, and alternative forces simultaneously work in the partnership. Although this study explicates two mediating mechanisms for the effect of supplier knowledge, there remain many unknown aspects of the effect. Practical implications From the buyer’s perspective, it is possible its institutionalized knowledge can facilitate its relationship with a current supply chain partner so that it can gain more benefits from the relationship. From the supplier’s perspective, caution should be exercised in selecting the type of knowledge to share. Social implications This study may have a broad impact on public policy by theorizing and testing why some partnerships last longer/shorter than others in association with the dynamics of the relationship initiated by one’s relational knowledge and the other’s knowledge sharing. Originality/value What this study contributes to involves the theorizing and testing the effects of the dual mechanism of knowledge sharing on partnership longevity. This study provides an example of a private investment in knowledge that is reciprocated with each type of knowledge – benefiting the partner and also benefiting the focal buyer firm.

The impact of supply chain relationship quality on knowledge sharing and innovation performance: evidence from Chinese manufacturing industry

“…Because of high product substitution and fierce market competition, firms need to grasp the innovation trend of other partners in supply chain through knowledge sharing (Wang and Hu, 2020). By carefully managing the relationship with collaborative partners, firms can obtain the matching knowledge with supply chain members (Suh et al, 2019), and thus can improve their performance in process and product innovation (Nguyen et al, 2019). Although the above literature has highlighted the separate significance of relationship quality and knowledge sharing for increasing firms' innovation performance in supply chain collaborative innovation (Iyer, 2014;Nguyen et al, 2019;Suh et al, 2019;Wang and Hu, 2020), much less attention has been paid to exploring the effects of relationship quality and knowledge sharing from a holistic perspective.…”

“…Firms participating in supply chain collaborative innovation projects hope to discover new opportunities and acquire new knowledge by interacting with partners (Wang and Hu, 2020). However, knowledge is often owned by individual enterprises and not easily shared by supply chain members (Suh et al, 2019;Whitehead et al, 2019). Squire et al (2009) investigate 104 UK manufacturing firms to find that the relationship factors are positively related to knowledge transfer between buyer and supplier.…”

The role of brand representatives in predicting trust in early buyer–supplier relationships

“…Relative to TCE, organization theorists also argue that SET provides greater power to theoretically explain interfirm relationships that are predicated on trust, and trust's development (Young-Ybarra and Wiersema, 1999). Overall, while TCE has a role to play in the discussion of buyer-supplier relationships, SET has been used more widely in studies as a theoretical lens to capture trust, collaboration and reciprocity in B2B relationships (Chang et al, 2015;Suh et al, 2019).…”

Resale pricing as part of franchisor know-how

“…According to the Resource-Based View (RBV) (Barney, 2002;Newbert, 2008;Wernerfelt, 1984), a competitive advantage stems from internal resources and capabilities of the company rather than from the external forces of the market (Suh et al, 2019). These internal resources usually refer to tangible and intangible (knowledge-based) assets that comprise a set of know-how in the particular context of franchising.…”

“…Indeed, sometimes, they are developed by the franchisor investing in different marketing activities and learning from experience for a long period (Bordonaba-Juste et al, 2011;Michael, 1999). Instead, practices and reputation must be built over time with effort and iterations of learning (Dierickx and Cool, 1989;Michael, 1999;Suh et al, 2019).…”