Ashwin Joshi

Prior supplier-buyer relationship research has identified supplier customer orientation as a driver of buyer loyalty. In this research, we address how and when this effect occurs. Based on self-determination theory, we identify three buyer psychological states—buyer autonomy, buyer competence, and buyer relatedness—that mediate the impact of supplier customer orientation on buyer loyalty. Drawing from prior supplier-buyer relationship scholarship, we identify three contingencies—buyer asset specificity, buyer environmental uncertainty, and buyer reciprocal interdependence—that, respectively, moderate the mediating effects of the three buyer psychological states. Results from a survey of 171 supplier-buyer matched dyads show that the three buyer psychological states are positive mediators of the impact of supplier customer orientation on buyer loyalty. Results also show that while the positive mediating effects of buyer autonomy and buyer competence are respectively strengthened by buyer asset specificity and buyer environmental uncertainty, the positive mediating effect of buyer relatedness is weakened by buyer reciprocal interdependence. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Manufacturing firms implement two actions to foster component innovation by suppliers: (i) providing the supplier with incentives for component innovation and/or (ii) initiating a collaborative relationship with the supplier for this purpose. In this research, we draw from social exchange theory to investigate how and when each action fosters supplier component innovation. Regarding how innovation is fostered, we argue that by motivating supplier component innovation through both economic and non-economic rewards, incentives and collaboration, respectively, encourage this outcome. As for when such innovation is fostered, we argue that the supplier’s relative economic outcome is a key boundary condition determining the impact strength of manufacturer actions on supplier component innovation. The positive impact of incentives is strengthened when supplier relative economic outcome is high, while the positive impact of collaboration is strengthened when supplier relative non-economic outcome is high. Results from a survey of 188 supplier–manufacturer matched dyads support our hypotheses.

Manufacturing firms deploy two actions to enhance supplier performance: (i) they provide rewards, i.e., incentives, and (ii) they provide resources, i.e., investment. In this study, we ask why each of these actions is effective and when it is more (or less) effective. Drawing from expectancy theory, we argue that incentives are effective in enhancing supplier performance because they increase supplier instrumentality, while investment is effective in enhancing supplier performance because it increases supplier expectancy. Having identified two types of technological change—dynamism and diversity—we draw from contingency theory to argue that incentives are less effective when technological dynamism is high, and that they are more effective when technological diversity is high. Conversely, we argue that investment is more effective when technological dynamism is high, and that it is less effective when technological diversity is high. We develop a moderated mediation model in which supplier instrumentality and supplier expectancy mediate the impacts of incentives and investment, respectively, on supplier performance, with technological dynamism and technological diversity serving as moderators of these mediated pathways. The results from a matched dyadic survey of 202 supplier–manufacturer relationships provide support for our moderated mediation model.

For suppliers to secure a positive return on their investment in the creation of component innovations, they must ensure that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) implement these component innovations. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify the activities that suppliers undertake to foster innovation implementation, (2) articulate the theoretical mechanisms that mediate the impact of these activities on innovation implementation, and (3) establish the inter-related effects of these mediating theoretical mechanisms on innovation implementation. The results from a survey of 173 supplier–OEM dyads reveal that functional advantage is the theoretical mechanism that mediates the impact of two supplier actions—knowledge acquisition and installation support—on innovation implementation. The results also show that reputational advantage mediates the effect of innovative OEM endorsement and that relational advantage mediates the effects of supplier asset specificity and supplier innovativeness on innovation implementation. In terms of the inter-related effects of the mediating mechanisms on innovation implementation, the results indicate that relational advantage complements the positive impact of functional advantage on innovation implementation. In addition, the results reveal that innovation implementation has a positive impact on the financial performance of component innovations.

Prior marketing literature offers a compelling theoretical rationale in support of two contradictory propositions, namely, that customer orientation is negatively related to (i.e., hinders) radical product innovation and that customer orientation is positively related to (i.e., helps) radical product innovation. In this research, the contextual conditions that determine the validity of these contradictory propositions are identified. Drawing from the literature on organizational rewards, two types of organizational rewards—outcome based and strategy based—are identified as being the key contextual conditions. It is hypothesized that when outcome‐based rewards are in effect, customer orientation is negatively related to radical positive innovation and, that when strategy‐based rewards are in effect, customer orientation is positively related to radical product innovation. Results from a survey of 156 manufacturing firms, and from a survey of 97 of their customers, provide support for these hypotheses. While prior research has attempted to explain the contradictory nature of the relationship between customer orientation and radical product innovation using typology‐based and mediator‐based approaches, the contextual condition‐based approach has not been well developed. This gap is addressed by the present research. From a practitioner perspective, the research is important because it identifies a concrete mechanism that new product development managers can deploy, in tandem with customer orientation, if they intend to generate radical product innovations. Given the potential gains that flow from radical product innovation, the research findings are expected to be of considerable interest to managers of new product development projects.

Institutional theory argues that conformity to institutional pressure enhances the survival probability of organizations. Two key limitations of institutional theory have been proposed in recent literature: one, that it ignores the role of top management, and two, that it focuses only on survival as a benefit to the exclusion of more strategic benefits such as growth and profitability. In this research, we build a conceptual model that addresses both of these limitations in the context of institutional pressure on organizations to behave more responsibly vis‐à‐vis the natural environment. Results from a survey of 199 manufacturing firms show that the relationship between institutional pressure and corporate responsiveness to the pressure (i.e. corporate environmental responsiveness) is enhanced when top management commitment to the environment is high. Moreover, results show that organizational conformity to institutional pressure enhances the strategic benefits that organizations receive.