Investigating the Influence of Power Dynamics on Supply Chain Decision-Making Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigates the influence of power dynamics on supply chain decision-making processes through a qualitative lens, aiming to understand how various forms of power impact interactions, relationships, and strategic outcomes within supply chains. Using semi-structured interviews with supply chain managers and executives from diverse industries, the research explores the multifaceted nature of power, identifying key sources such as economic leverage, expertise, resource control, and network centrality. Findings reveal that power dynamics significantly shape decision-making by determining negotiation outcomes, governance structures, and operational efficiencies. Economic power, often exercised by larger firms, enables them to dominate negotiations and impose favorable terms, creating pressures on smaller partners and potentially leading to conflicts. Expertise and resource control allow firms with specialized knowledge or unique inputs to influence product development and process innovation, further dictating supply chain configurations. The study differentiates between coercive and non-coercive power strategies, showing that while coercive power enforces compliance, it can erode trust and collaboration. Non-coercive power, on the other hand, promotes positive relationships through incentives and collaborative approaches, fostering trust and alignment of supply chain objectives. Governance structures imposed by dominant firms often reflect their strategic priorities but can burden less powerful partners, highlighting the need for balanced oversight. Power also plays a crucial role in risk management, resilience, sustainability, and innovation within supply chains, with digitalization introducing new dimensions of influence. The research underscores the importance of balanced and equitable power dynamics to enhance cooperation, resilience, and innovation in supply chains. These insights provide valuable implications for practitioners and scholars in developing more effective and adaptive supply chain strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".