Coordinating supplier-induced disruptions via governance mechanisms: Aligning coordination activities with coordinating requirements

An emerging body of literature has pinpointed to the importance of governance mechanisms - the formal and informal rules of exchange - to control and coordinate inter-organizational relationships (IORs) during disruptions. While recent evidence suggests that governance mechanisms are important to the outcomes of disruptions, research has not yet investigated the use of contractual and relational coordination mechanisms nor the resulting trajectories over time to manage IORs across three distinct, yet inter-connected, disruption phases (i.e., detect, respond, recover). We combined exploratory interviews and an in-depth case study to explore strategic IORs in the energy industry. We found that managers actively coordinate IORs to address disruptions using specific contractual and relational coordination activities depending on the coordination requirement of the disruption phase. Relational coordination is used in the detect phase due to relationship history. However, in the subsequent respond and recover phases, managers choose relational coordination if the supplier signals willingness to cooperate, or contractual coordination if the supplier signals unwillingness. We contribute to the disruption management and governance mechanisms literature by adding to nascent knowledge on managing the respond and recover phases of disruptions via contractual and relational coordination under situational factors (i.e., operational disruptions), and we establish distinct coordination trajectories for strategic IORs experiencing disruptions. • Examining the use of coordination to manage supplier-induced disruptions. • We know little about coordination dynamics across disruption phases. • While detecting requires information sharing, responding and recovering necessitate relational and contractual coordination. • Historical factor of the prior dyad relationship determines the use of relational coordination in the detect phase. • Suppliers’ uncooperative (cooperative) behavior determines buyers’ use of contractual (relational) coordination.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
Published
2025-02-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2025.100996
Primary Topic
Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Coordinating supplier-induced disruptions via governance mechanisms: Aligning coordination activities with coordinating requirements

Jens K. Roehrich, Juliette Engelhart, Brian Squire
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
article

Coordinating supplier-induced disruptions via governance mechanisms: Aligning coordination activities with coordinating requirements

Jens K. Roehrich, Juliette Engelhart, Brian Squire
article en

Abstract

An emerging body of literature has pinpointed to the importance of governance mechanisms - the formal and informal rules of exchange - to control and coordinate inter-organizational relationships (IORs) during disruptions. While recent evidence suggests that governance mechanisms are important to the outcomes of disruptions, research has not yet investigated the use of contractual and relational coordination mechanisms nor the resulting trajectories over time to manage IORs across three distinct, yet inter-connected, disruption phases (i.e., detect, respond, recover). We combined exploratory interviews and an in-depth case study to explore strategic IORs in the energy industry. We found that managers actively coordinate IORs to address disruptions using specific contractual and relational coordination activities depending on the coordination requirement of the disruption phase. Relational coordination is used in the detect phase due to relationship history. However, in the subsequent respond and recover phases, managers choose relational coordination if the supplier signals willingness to cooperate, or contractual coordination if the supplier signals unwillingness. We contribute to the disruption management and governance mechanisms literature by adding to nascent knowledge on managing the respond and recover phases of disruptions via contractual and relational coordination under situational factors (i.e., operational disruptions), and we establish distinct coordination trajectories for strategic IORs experiencing disruptions. • Examining the use of coordination to manage supplier-induced disruptions. • We know little about coordination dynamics across disruption phases. • While detecting requires information sharing, responding and recovering necessitate relational and contractual coordination. • Historical factor of the prior dyad relationship determines the use of relational coordination in the detect phase. • Suppliers’ uncooperative (cooperative) behavior determines buyers’ use of contractual (relational) coordination.

Journal of Purchasing and Supply ManagementVol. 31(3)
Openalex Percentile: Top 96%
Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Coordinating supplier-induced disruptions via governance mechanisms: Aligning coordination activities with coordinating requirements — Jens K. Roehrich, Juliette Engelhart, et al. · Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS