The dyadic structure of exchange partners' governing-agency social capital and opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships

Abstract Extant literature on opportunism examines its antecedents in dyadic relationships in business networks. With firms also developing relationships with government agencies, these connections can influence firms' propensity for opportunism in business exchanges. This study investigates how the governing-agency social capital on both sides of the buyer–supplier relationship affects firms' opportunism tendency toward their counterparts. In particular, we divide the governing-agency social capital of both parties into two dimensions: the asymmetry of governing-agency social capital and joint governing-agency social capital. We postulate that both the asymmetry of governing-agency social capital and joint governing-agency social capital promote the focal firm's propensity for opportunism through dyadic power and network power, respectively. Moreover, we propose that both dimensions interact to magnify each other's impact on the focal firm's propensity for opportunism. We test the hypotheses using 322 matched data of buyer–supplier dyads in China. Empirical results provide support for the research hypotheses.

[1]  P. Shrout,et al.  Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[2]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice , 2000, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Mike W. Peng,et al.  Managerial Ties and Firm Performance in a Transition Economy: The Nature of a Micro-Macro Link , 2000 .

[4]  Amy J. Hillman,et al.  FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AS OUTSIDE DIRECTORS: THE ROLE OF HUMAN AND SOCIAL CAPITAL , 2008 .

[5]  Peter S. Fader,et al.  Power and Goal Setting in Channel Negotiations , 1986 .

[6]  A. Hillman,et al.  International Variation in the Business-Government Interface: Institutional and Organizational Considerations , 1995 .

[7]  Mara Faccio,et al.  Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts , 2005 .

[8]  R. Dahl.  The concept of power , 2007 .

[9]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[10]  Jie Wu,et al.  Do different guanxi types affect capability building differently? A contingency view , 2011 .

[11]  C. Fombrun,et al.  Social Network Analysis For Organizations , 1979 .

[12]  Wenyu Dou,et al.  Interpersonal influence as an alternative channel communication behavior in emerging markets: The case of China , 2009 .

[13]  J. F. Gaski.  The Theory of Power and Conflict in Channels of Distribution , 1984 .

[14]  Yadong Luo,et al.  Guanxi and organizational dynamics: organizational networking in Chinese firms , 2001 .

[15]  M. Boisot,et al.  From Fiefs to Clans and Network Capitalism: Explaining China's Emerging Economic Order , 1996 .

[16]  O. Williamson,et al.  Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. , 1977 .

[17]  Mara Faccio,et al.  Politically Connected Firms , 2004 .

[18]  M. Joseph Sirgy,et al.  Is Guanxi Orientation Bad, Ethically Speaking? A Study of Chinese Enterprises , 2003 .

[19]  J. Steenkamp,et al.  The Effects of Supplier Fairness on Vulnerable Resellers , 1995 .

[20]  Maggie Chuoyan Dong,et al.  Opportunism in Distribution Networks: The Role of Network Embeddedness and Dependence , 2015 .

[21]  Jan B. Heide,et al.  Interfirm Monitoring, Social Contracts, and Relationship Outcomes , 2007 .

[22]  Larry G. Gresham,et al.  Power, conflict, control, and the application of contingency theory in marketing channels , 1985 .

[23]  Amy J. Hillman,et al.  The Attractiveness of Political Markets: Implications for Firm Strategy , 2005 .

[24]  W. G. Astley,et al.  Beyond Dyadic Exchange: Functional Interdependence and Sub-unit Power , 1990 .

[25]  Maggie Chuoyan Dong,et al.  The Use of Accommodation in Buyer–Seller Relationships: Encouraging or Controlling Opportunism in Business Markets Middle-grounds , 2016 .

[26]  Justin Tan,et al.  Environment-Strategy Relationship and its Performance Implications: An Empirical Study of Chinese Electronics Industry , 1994 .

[27]  A. Hillman,et al.  Corporate political strategies and firm performance: indications of firm‐specific benefits from personal service in the U.S. government , 1999 .

[28]  Robert J. Litschert,et al.  Environment-strategy relationship and its performance implications: An empirical study of the , 1994 .

[29]  Michael J. Cooper,et al.  Corporate Political Contributions and Stock Returns , 2008 .

[30]  Jedrzej George Frynas,et al.  First mover advantages in international business and firm‐specific political resources , 2006 .

[31]  Jule B. Gassenheimer,et al.  Cooperative arrangements among entrepreneurs: An analysis of opportunism and communication in franchise structures , 1996 .

[32]  K. Zhou,et al.  Exchange hazards, relational reliability, and contracts in China: The contingent role of legal enforceability , 2010 .

[33]  R. Frank Falk,et al.  A Primer for Soft Modeling , 1992 .

[34]  Kevin Zheng Zhou,et al.  The Effects of business and Political Ties on Firm Performance: Evidence from China. , 2011 .

[35]  Alexander Hars,et al.  Web Based Knowledge Infrastructures for the Sciences: An Adaptive Document , 2000, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[36]  Ronald K. Mitchell,et al.  Enabling Guanxi Management in China: A Hierarchical Stakeholder Model of Effective Guanxi , 2007 .

[37]  Yadong Luo,et al.  Are joint venture partners more opportunistic in a more volatile environment , 2007 .

[38]  Akbar Zaheer,et al.  Free to Be Trusted? Organizational Constraints on Trust in Boundary Spanners , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[39]  Mike W. Peng.  Institutional Transitions and Strategic Choices , 2003 .

[40]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[41]  David W. Gerbing,et al.  An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment , 1988 .

[42]  Devi R. Gnyawali,et al.  Cooperative Networks and Competitive Dynamics: a Structural Embeddedness Perspective , 2001 .

[43]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage , 1998 .

[44]  R. Emerson.  Power-Dependence Relations , 1962, Power in Modern Societies.

[45]  Jan B. Heide,et al.  The Role of Dependence Balancing in Safeguarding Transaction-Specific Assets in Conventional Channels , 1988 .

[46]  Richard A. Gooner,et al.  Focal supplier opportunism in supermarket retailer category management , 2007 .

[47]  R. Burt.  The contingent value of social capital. , 1997 .

[48]  Sandy D. Jap,et al.  Safeguarding Interorganizational Performance and Continuity Under Ex Post Opportunism , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[49]  P. Adler,et al.  Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept , 2002 .

[50]  Ernest R. Cadotte,et al.  Exchange Interdependence and Interfirm Interaction: Research in a Simulated Channel Setting , 1994 .

[51]  John Hulland,et al.  Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies , 1999 .

[52]  I. Geyskens,et al.  The Formation of Buyer–Supplier Relationships: Detailed Contract Drafting and Close Partner Selection , 2005 .

[53]  Rudolf R. Sinkovics,et al.  The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing , 2009 .

[54]  G. John.  An Empirical Investigation of Some Antecedents of Opportunism in a Marketing Channel , 1984 .

[55]  M. Wright,et al.  The Contingent Value of Corporate Political Ties , 2012 .

[56]  K. Cook,et al.  Power, Equity and Commitment in Exchange Networks , 1978 .

[57]  Maggie Chuoyan Dong,et al.  Understanding distributor opportunism in a horizontal network , 2013 .

[58]  Guijun Zhuang,et al.  The relationship between power and dependence in marketing channels , 2004 .

[59]  Ming-Jer Chen,et al.  Nonresponse and Delayed Response to Competitive Moves: The Roles of Competitor Dependence and Action Irreversibility , 1992 .

[60]  Jan B. Heide,et al.  Opportunism in Interfirm Relationships: Forms, Outcomes, and Solutions , 2000 .