MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107981733 · doi:10.1080/1051712x.2020.1831210

An Exploration of Decision-Making under Threat

2020· article· en· W3107981733 on OpenAlexaff
Benoit Bourguignon, Harold Boeck, Irvine Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business-to-Business Marketing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessProcess (computing)CategorizationRisk analysis (engineering)InterviewNegotiationMarketingPaymentProcess managementComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The use of threats to force supplier compliance is a common practice in current business affairs. Unfortunately, little is known regarding the supplier’s decision process to comply to or resist such a coercive strategy. The paper aims to develop a more comprehensive view of the decision process used by suppliers when threatened by their customers, as well as discover new phenomena regarding supplier Decision-Making Under Threat (DUT). More specifically, it aims at (1) gaining a better understanding of threats by looking at their patterns and commonalities and (2) identifying which consideration factors are relevant when suppliers evaluate threats.Method To identify which consideration factors are relevant to suppliers when deciding how to react to threats, the study employed an exploratory approach by interviewing 17 marketing practitioners with experiences in DUT. The in-depth interviews lasted between thirty-five and sixty-five minutes and were transcribed. Descriptive coding and template analysis generated thirty-nine descriptors and nine categories that are deemed important when considering DUT. The authors also evaluated the intensity of each of the consideration factors present in the decision process.Findings The results reveal that it is possible to categorize threats into three components: Objectives, Penalties and Manifestations. Objectives are what the customer is trying to achieve by using the threat, namely demanding price reductions, appropriating intellectual property, procuring financial statements, receiving a bribe, increasing technical requirements, accessing a cost breakdown, modifying delivery terms, and modifying payment terms. The penalty is what the supplier can expect to happen when refusing to comply, such as losing the customer’s sales. Finally, manifestations describe how the threat is presented by the customer. Study results show that these manifestations may be categorized according to their level of ambiguity, predictability, and candor. The results also reveal that at least five cognitive decision criteria are typically considered during the decision process although at different intensity levels from each participant. These criteria include: Dependence, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Relationship Quality, Relational Norm Violations, and Mimetic Isomorphism. Several interesting discoveries were made. For example, Dependence is both the consideration factor for which most people emphasized its influence on their decision and for which most people said that it had no influence at all. Relational norm violations is unique by being the only criterion for which no participant mentioned that it does not influence their decision. The overwhelming majority of study participants considered more than three criteria during the DUT process. Finally, participants said that they experienced negative emotions such as anger and frustration when exposed to threats albeit most did not recognize that it played a role in their decision. These emotions are however believed to be a factor in reducing the supplier’s willingness to comply. Overall, the study finds that DUT is a complex decision process regarding supplier adaptation, and can be a highly emotional experience with long-lasting effects.Research implications The face-to-face interviews used to collect narratives of participants being exposed to customer threats is deemed an appropriate and highly recommendable methodological approach. When collecting data on reactions to threats and their accompanying emotional reaction several non-verbal signs that the participants physically demonstrated were an essential component in fully interpreting the data. As such, future research on the topic could include video recordings of the interviews. The narratives were also very efficient in recalling the emotions associated with the coercive event though the interviews sometimes occurred several years afterward.The participants’ opinions are consistent with academia’s view regarding the ambiguous role of emotions during decision-making. On the one hand, emotions are recognized to play an important role, they should be acknowledged and understood, while on the other hand, many believe that emotions should not contaminate the decision process. By combining five cognitive criteria with emotions in a DUT framework, the paper incorporates knowledge from the field of psychology into the business-to-business marketing literature. The article highlights the fact that the study of both threats in a business setting and the role of emotions in decision-making are neglected topics that deserve more academic attention.Practical implications From the customer’s perspective an improved understanding of the supplier’s DUT may help customers limit the damage to relationships when using coercive influence strategies such as threats. From the supplier’s perspective, the results emphasize the importance to decompose their customer’s threat in order to better respond to its use. By also taking into account all consideration factors suppliers can take better quality decisions. The results provide several recommendations such as to include intangibles in the cost-benefit analysis instead of solely focusing on the short-term financial impact. Emotional control has been stressed by the participants as a key managerial ability to master when faced with threats.Originality/value/contribution By merging the influence strategy research stream and the supplier adaptation research stream together, the study generates a few original and noteworthy contributions. A better understanding of threats is garnered by breaking them down into three components, which consequently extends our understanding of influence strategies. The study also contributes to a deeper understanding of the supplier’s DUT, a new concept described in the paper, by identifying how decision makers include multiple criteria in their decision process.Very few academic papers have specifically looked into threats as a coercive strategy despite its prevalent use in business environments. Those that did focused on a limited set of criteria when analyzing the decision to adapt. The article expands on these previous studies by proposing five decision criteria, which are often considered collectively by participants when examining adaptation under threat, and emphasizes a factor neglected in previous research, namely the role of emotions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business-to-Business MarketingSame topicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207