디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제12권4호
  • /
  • Pages.103-113
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

공급망 내 교섭지위와 기업 간 거래관계에 관한 실증연구

An Empirical Study on Bargaining Positions and Exchange Relationship in Supply Chain Network

  • Cho, Namhyung (SKK Business School, SungKyunKwan University) ;
  • Kim, TaeUng (SKK Business School, SungKyunKwan University) ;
  • Ryu, Sungmin (SKK Business School, SungKyunKwan University)
  • 투고 : 2014.01.03
  • 심사 : 2014.04.20
  • 발행 : 2014.04.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

공급망 내에서의 교섭지위와 신뢰는 전략적으로 매우 중요한 이슈임에도 불구하고 교섭지위가 신뢰에 미치는 영향에 대해서는 논란이 많다. 본 연구는 교섭지위 및 신뢰에 관한 이론적 배경을 토대로 연구가설을 설정하고 공급망 참여기업에 대한 설문조사를 통해 타당성을 평가하는데 목적이 있다. 특히 교섭지위의 다양한 위상이 신뢰에 미치는 영향을 비선형함수로 설정하고 이를 반응곡선모형을 통해 분석해 본다는 데에 방법론적 차별성이 있다. 127개 기업의 설문조사 데이터를 통계적으로 분석한 결과, 구매기업이 인식하는 교섭지위는 공급자에 대한 신뢰요인에 대해 비선형적 영향을 미친다는 결과를 도출할 수 있었다. 본 연구는 공급망 내에서의 신뢰와 거래관계에 대한 통합적 시각을 제시했다는 측면에서 의의가 있을 것이다.

Bargain position and trust are core issues in supply chain management, yet the effect of bargain position on trust remains to be undetermined. The purpose of this research is to present theoretical and methodological hurdles for the relationship among various bargain positions and trust, and develops a set of hypotheses about the asymmetric effect of bargain position on trust in supply chain network. An analytical tool to analyze nonlinear effects on a response surface is introduced. Based on the data collected through a survey of firms participating in Project Supply chain, a set of hypotheses is tested. The analysis results support the prediction that the bargain position perceived by the buyers have asymmetric effects on trust toward supplies, and provide more fine-grained accounts on the relationships among bargain power, bargain position and trust in a supply chain network.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Heung Gyo Cheong, Seong-Taek Park, Tae Ung Kim, Concept and Issues in Supply Chain Management for Plant Engineering Project, The Journal of Digital Policy and Management, Vol. 10, No. 9, pp. 213-224, 2012.
  2. Burt, Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
  3. M. S. Granovetter, Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, No. 3, pp. 481-510, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311
  4. B. Uzzi, Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 35-67, 1997. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393808
  5. S. Tallman, M. Jenkins, N. Henry, and S. Pinch, Knowledge, Clusters, and Competitive Advantage, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 258-271, 2004.
  6. R. M. Morgan and S. D. Hunt, The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 20-38, 1994.
  7. R. W. Palmatier, R. P. Dant, D. Grewal, and K. R. Evans, Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 136-153, 2006.
  8. J. D. Hibbard, N. Kumar, and L. W. Stern, Examining the impact of destructive acts in marketing channel relationships, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 45-61, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.1.45.18831
  9. N. Kumar, L. K. Scheer, and J. E. M. Steenkamp, The Effects of Perceived Interdependence on Dealer Attitudes, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 348-356, 1995. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151986
  10. R. M. Emerson, Power-Dependence Relations, American Sociological Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 31-41, 1962. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089716
  11. Thibaut and Kelley, The social psychology of groups. NY: John Wiley, 1959.
  12. F. R. Dwyer, P. H. Schurr, and S. Oh, Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 11-27, 1987. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251126
  13. P. H. Schurr and J. L. Ozanne, Influences on Exchange Processes: Buyers' Preconceptions of a Seller's Trustworthiness and Bargaining Toughness, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 939-953, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1086/209028
  14. D. M. Rousseau, S. B. Sitkin, R. S. Burt, and C. Camerer, Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 393-404, 1998. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617
  15. E. M. Whitener, S. E. Brodt, M. A. Korsgaard, and Jon M. Werner, Managers as Initiators of Trust: An Exchange Relationship Framework for Understanding Managerial Trustworthy Behavior, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 513-530, 1998.
  16. J. J. Reuer, M. Zollo, and H. Singh, Post-Formation Dynamics in Strategic Alliances, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 135-146, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.214
  17. S. Keysuk Kim and P. Hsieh, Connecting power with locus of control in marketing channel relationships: a response surface approach, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 13-29, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.01.003
  18. W. W. Powell, Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 295-315, 1990.
  19. Pfeffer and Salancik, The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row, 1978.
  20. J. H. Dyer and H. Singh, The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 660-679, 1998.
  21. B. Uzzi, The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect, American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 674-698, 1996. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096399
  22. F. L. Jeffries and R. Reed, Trust and Adaptation in Relational Contracting, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 873-882, 2000.
  23. C. P. Puto, W. E. Patton Ill, and R. H. King, Risk Handling Strategies in Industrial Vendor Selection Decisions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 89-98, 1985. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251179