Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose We apply expectancy theory to advance a conceptual framework which identifies factors that motivate and affect the adoption of supplier development activities. Design/methodology/approach We conduct a comprehensive literature review to identify salient contributions and conceptual gaps within prior supplier development studies. These conceptual gaps motivate our use of expectancy theory and the broader management literature to develop a conceptual framework of supplier development adoption. Findings Our study results in the development of a two-stage conceptual framework in which two behavioral constructs – supplier development expectancy and valence – play an important role in mediating the effects of activity-, firm-, interfirm-, and environment-level factors on the adoption of supplier development activities. Accordingly, we advance eleven testable propositions that underlie the logical development of our framework. Research limitations/implications Our application of expectancy theory facilitates the integration of constructs culled from disparate theories into a cohesive conceptual framework. Highlighting the central role of motivational force, our conceptual development provides a behavioral explanation for the indirect effects of activity-, firm-, interfirm-, and environment-level factors on supplier development adoption. Practical implications We advance a set of factors associated with three successive stages of the supplier development planning process – partner selection, activity selection, and scope selection – that managers should consider when adopting a supplier development activity. Originality/value In contrast to prior research, which largely draws from economic or strategic theories, we employ a behavioral approach to advance a novel set of factors that influence supplier development adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: