MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072035884 · doi:10.1108/01443570810895294

The climate for co‐operation: buyer‐supplier beliefs and behavior

2008· article· en· W2072035884 on OpenAlexaff
David Johnston, Mehmet Murat Kristal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Operations & Production Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessRespondentContext (archaeology)MarketingStructural equation modelingFlexibility (engineering)Industrial organizationSupplier relationship managementDysfunctional familySupply chainSupply chain managementPsychologyEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the climate for co‐operation, from both the supplier and buyer perspectives, for its impact on co‐operative activities. Climate encompasses the constructs of cross functional barriers, participation by the respondent in strategic customer/supply decisions and expectation of the continuity of the relationship, competitive pressure and institutionalized beliefs about co‐operation in the firm's industry. Design/methodology/approach The design of the study is based on a cross‐sectional mail‐based survey of 89 buyer and supplier dyads, involving 178 manufacturing companies. First, the psychometric properties of the proposed constructs were assessed. Then the relationships among the proposed constructs were tested by structural equation modeling for the supplier and then the buyer samples. Findings Both parties' co‐operative behaviors were strongly influenced by the expected continuity of the relationship. Suppliers differed from buyers in that they were influenced by institutional beliefs about co‐operation. Involvement in decision making positively affected shared planning activities for the suppliers whereas it affected relationship flexibility for the buyers. Lastly, buyers in contrast to suppliers were influenced by competitive pressure. Research limitations/implications As a cross‐sectional study about complex inter‐firm relationships, the research does not directly capture relationship effects over time. The paper also does not address how climate affects the formulation and implementation of dysfunctional buyer‐supplier relationships. Practical implications Buyers and suppliers should be aware that there are significant similarities and differences in how their partners respond to the context in which they operate. This knowledge is important in understanding what drives the other party's behavior in the formal and informal negotiations and problem solving that characterize an ongoing relationship. Originality/value The research uses dyadic data to understand both sides of the buyer supplier relationship. It introduces constructs such as institutional belief and cross‐functional barriers and functional involvement in strategic planning as components of a new concept called co‐operative climate. This concept is found to be relevant to both buyer and supplier perspectives.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Operations & Production ManagementSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207