Revista
de
Administração
http://rausp.usp.br/ RevistadeAdministração51(2016)386–396
Technology
management
An
analysis
of
the
relationship
between
embedded
ties
and
supplier
innovation
in
the
cooperative
sector
Uma
análise
da
rela¸cão
entre
la¸cos
imersos
e
inova¸cão
do
fornecedor
no
setor
de
cooperativismo
Un
análisis
de
la
relación
entre
vínculos
enraizados
e
innovación
del
proveedor
en
el
sector
de
cooperativismo
Valter
Afonso
Vieira
∗,
Winsley
Bonifácio-da-Silva
UniversidadeEstadualdeMaringá,ProgramadePós-Gradua¸cãoemAdministra¸cão(PPA/UEM),Maringá,PR,Brazil
Received8August2013;accepted14March2014
Abstract
Whatarethemainpredictorsofthedevelopmentofembeddedties?Whataretheimpactsofsupplier-knowledge,client-knowledge,and embedded-tievariablesonthedevelopmentofsupplierinnovationinthecooperativesector?Whatisthemoderatingroleofembeddedtiesinthedevelopment ofsupplierinnovation?Thisstudybringstogether126responsesfromsuppliersofalargeagro-industrialcooperative.Theresultsshowthat embeddedtieshaveapositiveimpactonthedevelopmentofinnovationandknowledgeforinnovation.Furthermore,asignificantassociation betweensupplierknowledgeandinnovationwasfound,whichismoderatedbyembeddedties.Datashowthatembeddedtiesamplifytheability todevelopinnovationinindustrialrelationships.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords: Embeddedties;Innovation;Suppliers;Knowledge Resumo
Quaissãoosprincipaispreditoresdodesenvolvimentodoslac¸osimersos?Qualéoimpactodasvariáveisconhecimentodofornecedor,conhecimento doclienteelac¸osimersosnodesenvolvimentodeinovac¸õesnofornecedornosegmentodecooperativismo?Qualéopapelmoderadordoslac¸os imersosnodesenvolvimentodeinovac¸õesnofornecedor?Esteestudoreúne126respostasdosfornecedoresdeumagrandecooperativaagrícola. Osresultadosevidenciaramqueháimpactopositivodoslac¸osimersosnodesenvolvimentodainovac¸ãoenoconhecimentodainovac¸ão.Ademais, apesquisamostrouqueháassociac¸ãosignificativaentreoconhecimentodosfornecedoreseainovac¸ão,aqualémoderadapelolac¸oimerso.Isto evidenciaqueolac¸oimersoamplificaacapacidadededesenvolverinovac¸ão.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Este ´eumartigoOpenAccesssobumalicenc¸aCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palavras-chave: Lac¸os;Imersos;Inovac¸ão;Fornecedores;Conhecimento Resumen
¿Cuálessonlosprincipalesdeterminantesdeldesarrollodelosvínculosenraizados?¿Cuáleselimpactodelasvariablesconocimientodelproveedor, conocimientodelclienteyvínculosenraizadoseneldesarrollodeinnovacionesdelproveedorenelsectordecooperativismo?¿Cuáleselpapel
∗Correspondingauthor.
E-mails:valterafonsovieira@gmail.com(V.A.Vieira),winsleybonifacio@hotmail.com(W.Bonifácio-da-Silva).
PeerReviewundertheresponsibilityofDepartamentodeAdministrac¸ão,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸ãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeSão Paulo–FEA/USP.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.07.003
moderadordelosvínculosenraizadoseneldesarrollodeinnovacionesdelproveedor?Esteestudioreúne126respuestasdeproveedoresdeuna grancooperativaagrícola.Losresultadosmuestranqueexisteunainfluenciapositivadelosvínculosenraizadoseneldesarrolloyelconocimiento delainnovación.Además,secompruebaquehayunarelaciónsignificativaentreelconocimientodelosproveedoresylainnovación,lacuales moderadaporlosvínculosenraizados.Así,elvínculoenraizadoincrementalacapacidaddedesarrollarinnovaciones.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palabrasclave: Vínculosenraizados;Innovación;Proveedores;Conocimiento
Introduction
Embeddedtiesareatypeofrelationshipwheresocial rela-tionsarereciprocalbetweenthosepartnersinvolved(Baldi & Vieira,2006).Strongembeddedtiesaremorecharacterizedby theinfluenceofanestablishedsocialstructure,theexchangeof insiderinformation,andthemutualcooperationtoresolve prob-lemsthanbytheproximityandfrequencyofactors’interaction (Uzzi,1996).DyerandSingh(1998)demonstratedthatapair oforganizations(dyads)oranetworkofcompaniescandevelop relationshipsthatmutuallycollaboratewitheachother,resulting inperformancedifferentials,aswellastheintegrationand devel-opmentofknowledge,whichprovidescompetitiveadvantages suchasinnovation.
Authorsdisagreeabouttheeffectsofembeddedtiesonthe developmentof innovation.Specifically, Anderson andWeitz (1989),Day(1994),Rowley,Behrens,andKrackhardt(2000), andRindfleischandMoorman(2001)arguethatembeddedties favorthedevelopmentof innovation inrelationshipsbetween organizations becausethere is greater trustbetweenpartners. In this sense, collaboration between partners creates mutual support (Narayanan, Narasimhan, & Schoenherr, 2015) and innovationisencouraged.Moreover,thereistransferof knowl-edgeandeffortincollaborationwithapartnerthatcanovercome difficultsituations(Figueiredo,Andrade,&Brito,2010).
However, Anderson and Jap (2005), Granovetter (1985, 2005),Moorman,Zaltman,andDeshpandé(1992),andSelnes and Sallis (2003) point out that embedded ties can provoke associate accommodation, which maintains the status quo in arelationshipbetweenpartners,decreasinginnovation.Inthis context,theremay be asofteninginthe exchange of knowl-edgebetweenagentstothepointthatthereisnosignificantnew informationtoshare,harmingthedevelopmentofnewproduct strategies.Argumentsfromthosewhobelievethatembeddedties favortheabilitytodevelopinnovationandthosewhobelievethat embeddedtiesdiminishitweretheinsightstobeadvancedin thisresearch.Therefore,thisinvestigationstudiestheembedded tiesof suppliersof alargeagro-industrialcooperativeandthe consequentdevelopmentofinnovationsinasupplierdyad.This researchnotonlyempiricallyteststheantecedentsofembedded tiesandinnovationwithsuppliersfromthiscooperative,butalso analyzesthemoderatingandmediatingroleofembeddedties, contributinginfourdifferentways.
First,thispaper encountersevidence of thepositive effect of embedded tiesin the development of supplier innovation, consistentwith the aspects discussed by Granovetter (1985),
Moormanetal.(1992),andSelnesandSallis(2003).Second, theresultshowsthatrelationsbetweensupplierknowledgeand
innovation as well as between client knowledge and innova-tionaremoderatedbyembeddedties,alteringthemagnitudeof theeffects(Rindfleisch&Moorman,2001;Rowley,Behrens,& Krackhardt,2000).Specifically,whenembeddedtiesarepresent andstrong,therelationshipbetweenknowledgeandinnovation development becomes amplified, increasing the direct effect. Third,thisresearchshowsthatclientflexibility(basedonMoura, Botter,&daSilva,2010),supplierflexibility,andclient invest-ment in the supplier explain variations in the creation and maintenanceofembeddedties.Suchconditionsofflexibilityare relevantandmeaningfulasbeingtheantecedentsforthelevelof anembeddedtie.Fourth,thisstudydemonstratesthatclientand supplierflexibilityandinvestmentshaveindirecteffectson inno-vationviaembeddedties,supportingthemediatingconditionof theembeddedtie.
Afterthisintroduction,thearticlepresentsthehypothesesof theresearchandthetheoreticalmodel.Subsequently,thesurvey research method with cooperative suppliers is explained and analysis,discussionofthefindings,andgeneralconsiderations arepresented.
Researchhypotheses
Directeffects
Thefirsthypothesisindicatestherelationshipofembedded tiesbetweenthesupplierandclientandthedevelopmentof sup-plier innovation.Thisassociation isbasedonsocialnetworks literature (Granovetter, 1985) andbasically has two different linesofargument.Thefirstlinestatesthatembeddedtiesallow forthedevelopmentofinnovationsbetweenpartnersofa rela-tionship(Anderson&Weitz,1989;Day,1994;Rindfleisch& Moorman,2001;Rowley,Behrens,&Krackhardt,2000),which is calledthe“bright side”of embedded ties. Thesecond line ofargumentholdsthatembeddedtiesweakenthedevelopment potentialofinnovationbetweenassociates(Granovetter,1973; Moorman,Zaltman,&Deshpande,1992;Selnes&Sallis,2003), whichisreferredtoasthe“darkside”.
(Barden&Mitchell,2007)andmarket knowledgeinorderto developinnovationsthatmeetclientneeds.Third,a character-isticofembeddedtiesisthepresenceoftrustinapartnership (Buchan,Crosson,&Dawes,2002),whichcanpositively influ-ence the development of supplier innovation. For Dyer and Nobeoka(2000),trustisnecessaryforthesharingofconfidential andcomplexbusinessinformation(e.g.,expansionplans, pro-fits,andstrategies),whichisimportantforthedevelopmentof innovationandtechnology(Noordhoffetal.,2011;Rindfleisch &Moorman,2001).Sinceembeddedtiestendtoincrease knowl-edge,motivation(Barden&Mitchell,2007),andtrust(Uzzi& Lancaster,2003),it isbelievedtobeatriggerforinnovation. Therefore:
H1. Embeddedtiesbetweenthesupplierandtheclient
posi-tivelyinfluencethedevelopmentofsupplierinnovation.
Thenexthypothesisisaboutthenegativeinfluenceofclient opportunismonembeddedties(Antiqueira,Saes,&Lazzarini, 2007;Gulati,1995).ForNoordhoffetal.(2011),inrelationships withembeddedties,therearegreaterrisksofclientsimproperly appropriatingsupplierinformationandthengoingontocompete withthem.Thisrisktendstoincreaseassocialembeddedness oftherelationshipintensifies,resultinginpossibleopportunistic behaviorbyaclient(Wathne&Heide,2000).Client appropria-tionofknow-howwithmalicetothesupplierisnegativetothe relationshipandalsotothedevelopmentofsupplierinnovation, becauseopportunisticbehaviortendstostopthesupplierfrom sharingconfidentialandstrategicinformationthatcouldaddto the clientexperience through the developmentofinnovations (Provan,1993).
ResultsfromSaxenian(1996)illustratehowpreoccupations withopportunismcanunderminetheimplementationof innova-tionsinrelationshipsbetweenorganizations,suchastheexample ofHewlettPackardhavinginthe1980sand1990sanincreased abilitytoidentifymarkettrends,becauseofstrongintegration ofembeddedtieswithsupplierscomparedwithcompanieslike D.E.C.andApolloComputer.Saxenian(1996)commentedthat theembedded tiesbetweenHewlettPackardandits suppliers helped the companyto develop more innovations and better position itselfagainst competitors, whichmeant that Hewlett Packardcould enjoysupplier expertiseandavoid opportunis-tic behavior. Based on the arguments (Antiqueira, Saes, & Lazzarini,2007;Gulati,1995;Noordhoffetal.,2011;Saxenian, 1996) andthe possibility of increasing risk andundermining trust (Vieira, Monteiro, & Veiga, 2011), it is reasonable to assume that the presence of opportunismnegatively impacts embedded-tierelationships.Followingfromthis:
H2. Thepresenceofopportunismintherelationshipbetween
supplierandclientexertsnegativeinfluenceonembeddedties.
Thenexthypothesesdealwithinvestments.Investmentsfrom aclient inasupplier aredefined as resources investedinthe supplierequipment,humanresources,andinformationsystems (Williamson,1975,1983).AccordingtoNoordhoffetal.(2011), clientinvestmentsinasupplierreducesthepossibilityof oppor-tunisticbehaviorbecause“theseinvestmentsserveashostages and customers are unlikely to threaten those investments by
behaving opportunistically.Likewise,theseinvestmentssignal customercommitment,whichshouldreducethesupplier’s wor-riesaboutcustomeropportunism”(p.39).Inaddition,Noordhoff etal.(2011,p.39)commentthat“investmentsmayalsoimprove the qualityof customerinsights,therebyreducing knowledge redundancy”,creatingmorehelpfulinsightstotheinnovation. Theliteratureshowsevidenceoftheassociationbetweenclient investmentandsupplierinnovationfromtheperspectiveofjoint collaboration (Narayanan, Narasimhan, & Schoenherr, 2015; Saxenian, 1996; Williamson, 1983, 1991), suggesting a pos-itive association. Given these reasons, this research assumes that the investments made by a client in a supplier result in increased knowledge forsupplier innovation (dueto commit-mentandimprovedquality)andresultinembeddedties(given mutualcollaboration).Inlightofthis:
H3. Clientinvestmentintheir supplier positivelyinfluences
supplierknowledge.
H4. Clientinvestmentintheir supplier positivelyinfluences
embeddedties.
ForSivadasandDwyer(2000),formalizationisthedegreeto whichpartnershaveexplicitrulesforrelationshipmanagement, withsuchruleshavinganimpactonembeddedties. Formaliza-tioncanreduceconcernsaboutopportunismbetweenpartners (Holloway&Parmigiani,2014),becauseformalizationdevelops relationships by instilling alevel of transparency to informa-tion exchanges. For Sivadas and Dwyer (2000), the process of formalizingindustrialrelationshipsisanindicationof will-ingness in partnerships that signalsa partner’s acceptanceto fulfill contractual requirements,whichreducesthe possibility offutureopportunismandhasapositiveimpactonembedded ties. Noordhoffetal.(2011) arguethat formalizationhas the advantage ofreducing thesense of redundancyof knowledge (seealsoCavusgil,Calantone,&Zhao,2003),because commu-nicationbecomesmorestructured,logical,specific,andrefined. Therefore,sincethereisadifferencebetweennon-formaland formalrelationships – withthe latterhavingaless repeatable andmoreorganizedflowofinformation,webelievedthat:
H5. The formalizationof relationships positively influences
embeddedties.
– ifused inthe rightmeasure– hasa positiveimpactonthe developmentofembeddedties.Therefore:
H6a. Clientflexibilityinsupplierrelationshipspositively
influ-encesembeddedties.
H6b. Supplierflexibilityinclientrelationshipspositively
influ-encesembeddedties.
Themoderatingeffectofembeddedties
Next, we assume that embedded ties moderate the effect of client andsupplier innovation knowledge because it helps to effectively develop knowledge-sharing capabilities. Effec-tiveknowledge-sharingcapabilitiesarecriticaltoanumberof organizationalprocesses,includingtheuseofbestmanagement practices and the development of new products (Reagans & McEvily,2003).The congruenceof managementpractices in arelationshipcanfacilitatethetransferofknowledge(Reagans &McEvily,2003)andincreasesupplierinnovationknowledge. AccordingtoDay(1994),embeddedtieswithclients collabo-ratewiththeabilityofthesuppliertoemployknowledgeinthe developmentandimplementationof innovations,generatinga complementaryeffectininnovation.So,embeddedtiesshould amplify the effectof supplier innovation knowledge.Rowley etal.(2000)argue that embedded tieswithclients amplify a supplier’smotivationtouseexperienceandmarketknowledge todevelopinnovationsthatmeetclientneeds.Basedonresearch byDay(1994),ReagansandMcEvily(2003),andRowleyetal. (2000),itisassumedthatembeddedtiesamplifythecapabilityof thesuppliertodevelopinnovationsfromtheirownknowledge. Therefore:
H7a. Embeddedtiesmoderatetheassociationbetweensupplier
innovationknowledgeandsupplierinnovation.
Thishypothesisalsodealswithembeddedtieshavinga mod-erating effecton knowledge fromthe client. The qualityand diversityofknowledgesharedwithpartnerscandeterminehow impactfultheresultinginnovationfromthisknowledgewillbe. According to Granovetter (1973) and Reagans and McEvily (2003),themorehomogeneousassociates’knowledgeistheless impactfulitwillbeinproducinginnovation(e.g.,incremental innovation),andthemoreheterogeneousassociates’knowledge isthemoreeffectivethedevelopmentofinnovationwillbe(e.g., radicalinnovation).
Specifically,theriskofthepartnerappropriatinginformation withmaliciousintentions(Noordhoffetal.,2011)inhibitsthe exchangeofconfidentialandstrategicinformation,whichis use-fulforthedevelopmentofinnovation.Thisriskisgreaterasthe embeddednessoftiesincreases(Granovetter,1985).Knowledge isassociatedwithinnovation–basedontheargumentthattacit andexplicitknowledge are predictorsof performance – with innovationbeingatypeofresult(Dhanaraj,Lyles,Steensma,& Tihanyi,2004).Embeddedtiesfavorthedevelopmentofsupplier innovation,whichincreasestheimpactofknowledge.Here,the effectisamplifiedbythesharingofinformationwiththeclient, creatingmorecapabilitytoimplementinnovations.Withthisin mind:
H7b. Embeddedtiesmoderatetheassociationbetweenclient
innovationknowledgeandsupplierinnovation
Fig.1featurestheconceptualmodelproposedbythiswork, whichshows the direct effects. Themodel wasexamined by analyzingtheserouteswithmultipleregressions(similartothat employedbyAhearne,Rapp,Hughes,&Jindal,2010)andusing asampleofsuppliersfromalargeagro-industrialcooperative. Thedottedarrowsrepresentthemoderatingeffects.Covariates soughttocontrolthelevelsofvariationoftheembeddedties.
Researchmethods
Procedures
The chosen researchmethod wasacross-sectional survey, investigating several suppliers of an agro-industrial coopera-tive.Suppliershadpreviouslybeenwarnedabouttheresearch through emails sent by the cooperative. The agro-industrial cooperativeclosed2014withaturnoverofmorethanR$2800 billion,hasmorethan1000employees,andapproximately9800 registered suppliers.Data collectionwithsuppliers employed structuredquestions withaLikert-typescale,andhad obliga-toryanswersforallquestions.Theoptionforhavingmandatory responseseliminatedthepossibilityofmissingvaluesinthe sur-veys.Thesampleofrespondentsofthisstudyconsistsofagroup consideredashavingembedded-tierelationshipcharacteristics, thatis,thesupplierswiththemostfrequentrelationshipsinthe lastsemester.
Datacollection
Tocollectdatafromthesuppliers,afilterwasappliedthat selectedthe mainsuppliersregisteredwiththeagro-industrial cooperativethathadthehighestfrequencyandmostrecent deal-ings (Ring &Van de Ven,1994).In the lastsix months, the chosensuppliershadanaveragemonthlyrateofmorethanseven deliveries.Thisprocessreturned277answers(3.4%).Later,the cooperativesentanemailtosuppliersthatwarnedthemaboutthe researchandinvitedthemtoaccessalinktothequestionnaire. Aftersendingthenotice,42suppliersvoluntarilyrespondedto it.Subsequently,remainingsupplierswerecontacteddirectlyby theresearchers.Thisincludedatotalof168callsandgenerated 84additionalinterviews.
Therewerenosignificantdifferencesinresponsesfrom inter-viewsbyphoneandvoluntaryresponsescarriedoutdirectlyby suppliers in electronic form.This bias was measured to cre-atetwodifferentlinkswiththesameform–oneforvoluntary responsesandanotherfortelephoneinterviews.Afterdata col-lection,nosignificantdeviationswerefound,andtheresponses weregatheredinthesamedatabaseforanalysis.Thefinalsample afterpurificationcontained126suppliers.
Definitionofvariables
Customer flexibility
Covariates: Supplier Lifespan, Time in Partnership, & Competitiveness
Supplier innovation Supplier flexibility
Investment
Opportunism
Formalization relationship
Supplier Inov. knowledge Client Inov. knowledge Embedded ties
Fig.1.Proposedconceptualmodeloftheantecedentsofembeddedtiesandsupplierinnovation.
innovationisassociatedwithunderstoodorganizational strate-gies – planned actions of oneor moreassociated companies for example – which has the potential to create and deliver innovation to the market. The supplier-innovation variable was operationalizedthrough the affirmative: “Thecompany’s relationshipwiththecooperativehashelpeddevelopnew prod-ucts/servicesand/orimprovementsinitswayofworking,”which was adapted from Kyriakopoulos and Moorman (2004).The scale rangedfrom “strongly disagree” to“totally agree.”All scaleshad10points.
Supplier knowledge for innovation is knowledge, beliefs, behavioralroutines,orphysicalartifactsthatrangeincontent, levelof dispersion,andaccessibility(Noordhoffetal.,2011). Theitemusedtomeasurethisvariablewas:“Thecompanyis engagedinresearchanddevelopmenttopromotesolutionsthat meettheirownneedsandtheneedsoftheirclients,”whichwas adapted from Von-Hippel (1986). The indicator ranged from “stronglydisagree”to“totallyagree.”
Clientknowledgeforinnovationisasetofbeliefs,behavioral routines,orphysicalartifactsthatrangeincontent,levelof dis-persion,andaccessibility(Noordhoffetal.,2011)fromthepoint ofviewofthecustomer.Clientknowledgewasoperationalized throughthefollowingstatement:“Thecooperativeisan inno-vativecompanyandconductsresearchtodevelopnewproducts andnewalternatives.”Theindicatorvariesfrom“strongly dis-agree”to“totallyagree,”whichwasadaptedfromVon-Hippel andKatz(2002).
Embedded ties are a type of association between busi-nessescharacterizedbyarelationshipofreciprocity,closeness, and consistency (Noordhoff et al., 2011). The variable was operationalized through the following statement: “The com-panyconsiderstherelationshipwiththecooperativeasmutually rewarding,”whichrangedfrom“notrewarding”to“very reward-ing”andwasadaptedfromRindfleischandMoorman(2001).
Williamson (1975, p. 255) defines client opportunism as “partner behavior that is guided by the pursuit of their own interests in an unfair way or in any way that is detrimental to their partner.” The variable was operationalized through the statement“The cooperativeissometimes opportunisticin relationtoourcompanyinordertomeettheirownobjectives.”
The indicator was adapted from Jap(1999) andrangedfrom “stronglydisagree”to“totallyagree”.
Supplierflexibilityistheeffortmadebythepartnertorespond adequatelytochangesofplanorhowwillingthepartneristo makeadjustmentstohelptheirassociatewhenfacedwith spe-cialproblemsorcircumstances(Kaufmann&Dant,1992).The statement was:“Thecompanyiswilling tomake adjustments inthe wayofworking, orput asidecontractualterms tohelp thecooperativeifitgetsintodifficulties.”Theitemwasadapted from Kaufmann and Dant (1992)and rangedfrom “strongly disagree”to“totallyagree”.
Clientflexibilityistheeffortmadebythepartnertorespond appropriately tochanges of plansor how willing the partner is tomakeadjustments tohelptheir partnerwhen facedwith specialproblemsorcircumstances(Kaufmann&Dant,1992). Theindicatorwas:“Thecompanybelievesthatthecooperative would bewillingtoputasidecontractualtermsor changethe wayofworkinginordertohelpourcompanyormakethe part-nershipwiththecompanymoreeffective.”Thereferenceforthe indicatoristhearticlebyKaufmannandDant(1992),andthe responsesrangedfrom“stronglydisagree”to“totallyagree.”
Formalizationisrelatedtothedegreetowhichthe relation-shipisguidedbycontractualrulesandpoliciesforthecontrol of day-to-day operations involvingassociation with apartner (Sivadas&Dwyer,2000).Thestatementwas:“Howmuchdoes the company dependon contractual rules tocontrol the rela-tionshipwiththecooperative?”Thequestionwasadaptedfrom
SivadasandDwyer(2000)andrangedfrom“notdependentat all”to“highlydependent.”
Clientinvestmentcoversresourcesprovidedtothesupplier andincludesequipment,personnelmanagement,and informa-tionsystems(Williamson,1983).Analysiswasoperationalized throughthestatement:“Thecooperativecarriesoutadjustments inprocessesand/orinvestsinpreparingpeopleinorderforthem tocopemoreeffectivelyintherelationshipwiththecompany”. The indicator was adapted from Rokkan,Heide, andWathne (2003)andrangedfrom“stronglydisagree”to“totallyagree.”
hasthe companybeenworkinginpartnership withthe coop-erative?” Thesupplier-lifespan variable(inyears)is the time sincetheorganizationwasfounded,whichwasoperationalized throughthequestion:“Howlonghasyourcompanyexistedfor?” Competitivenessinthesuppliers’sectorwasmeasuredwiththe followingquestion:“Howcompetitiveisthesectorthatthe com-panyoperatesin?”Thescalerangedfrom“notcompetitive”to “highlycompetitive.”
Thisworkchosetousesimpleindicatorsthatwerenot multi-ple.Firstly,thisoptionranintothedifficultyoftryingtocollect databytelephonefromthesuppliers.Manyorganizations ques-tionedthesizeaswellasthetimetoanswerthesurvey.Secondly, theneedtousemultipleindicatorstomeasureaconstructhas beendebatedinresearchonmarketing(Bergkvist&Rossiter, 2007),whereitisshownthatmeasurementusingmultiple indi-catorsgenerateshighercorrelationsthanmeasurementwithonly oneindicator in each relationshipconstruct.This is not sup-portedbyclassicargumentsofpsychometrics(Churchill,1979) thatstatethatmultiple-indicatormeasurements aremorevalid thanthosebasedonjustone.
Analysisoftheresults
Thevariablerelatedtothelevelofcompetitioninthe suppli-ers’sectorallowedmorethanoneresponse.Giventhisfindings, thecombinationof thesectors inwhichthesuppliersoperate inshowedaslightlyhigherpercentageofoccurrencesintrade (n=66,54%),intheindustry(n=30,24%),andaremainderin others.Supplierflexibilityhadameanresponse(M)of8.49and astandarddeviation(SD)of1.95.Embeddedtieshadamean responseof8.49andstandarddeviationof1.54.Formalization, M=4.52 (SD=3.88), and client investments in the supplier, M=5.81(SD=3.47),bothhadlowerresponseaverages.Table1
summarizestheaverageresponsesandstandarddeviationofthe observedvariablesinthestudy.Timeinpartnershiprangedfrom 0to40years,modevalue=10,andthelifespanofthesupplier rangedfrom0to86years,withamodevalue=20;sample=126 companies.
Table1
Descriptionofdata.
Variables Mean Standarddeviation
Supplierlifespan 22.63 18.08 Timeinpartnership 9.93 7.95 Competitivenessinsuppliersector 8.51 1.91 Supplierflexibility 8.49 1.95 RelationshipFormalization 4.52 3.88
Embeddedties 8.49 1.54
Supplierinnovationknowledge 8.02 2.19 Clientinnovationknowledge 7.75 2.59 Supplierinnovation 6.66 3.23
Clientflexibility 6.24 3.20
Clientinvestmentinsupplier 5.81 3.47
Clientopportunism 1.48 2.18
Table2showsthecorrelationsamongthevariables.Thefact thatmanyvariableshaveacorrelationwithsupplierinnovation andembeddedtiesishighlighted.
Table 3 presents an analysis of the regressions and the hypotheses’examinationofthemodel’svariables. Theresults were madethrough regression analysisusing structural equa-tion modeling.To examine theregression variables,variables were transformed into z-scores, standardizingthe data in the samewayasAhearneetal.(2010).Az-scoregenerateszerofor averageandoneforstandarddeviation,reducingtheeffectsof multicollinearityinregressionanalysis (Ahearne,Mathieu,& Rapp,2005).Threemodelswereanalyzed:(1)completemodel withoutmoderationeffects;(2)completemodelwith modera-tioneffects;and(3)are-specifiedmodelwiththeexclusionof twocovariatesthathadnosignificanteffect.
Examinationofhypotheses
The adjustments of the structural model (model 1) were χ2/d.f.=1.85; goodness-of-fit index (GFI)=0.91; adjusted-goodness-of-fitindex(AGFI)=0.85;therootmeansquareerror of approximation (RMSEA)=0.08, and Akaike information criterion=149.21.The resultsshow asignificantandpositive
Table2
Correlationmatrixofvariables.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1:Supplierinnovation 1
2:Knowledgeforsupplierinnovation 0.359** 1
3:Innovationknowledgefromclient 0.242** 0.337** 1
4:Supplierflexibility 0.226* 0.168 0.049 1
5:Customerflexibility 0.320** 0.171 0.215* 0.535** 1
6:Relationshipformalization 0.120 0.065 −0.080 0.015 −0.055 1
7:Clientinvestmentinsupplier 0.371** 0.222* 0.431** 0.289** 0.553** 0.074 1
8:Clientopportunism 0.036 −0.054 −0.032 −0.021 0.064 0.116 −0.015 1 9:Embeddedties 0.310** 0.080 0.166 0.362** 0.363**
−0.019 0.272** 0.014 1 10:Timeinpartnership 0.040 0.027 −0.168 −0.069 −0.097 −0.023 −0.088 −0.005 −0.130 1
11:Supplierlifespan 0.028 0.109 −0.126 −0.052 −0.002 0.015 −0.029 −0.122 −0.230** 0.322** 1 12.Competitioninsuppliersector 0.011 0.127 0.070 0.059 −0.080 −0.093 −0.047 −0.148 0.123 0.042 −0.134
Table3
Analysisresultsofregressionsandexaminationofhypotheses.
Hyp. Independentvariable Dependentvariable 1 2 3
Directeffects
H1 Embeddedties → Supplierinnovation 0.27*** −0.15* −0.15*
H2 Clientopportunism → Embeddedties −0.02 −0.02 −0.01
H3 Clientinvestmentinsupplier → Supplierknowledgeinnovation 0.09 0.09 0.22**
H4 Clientinvestmentinsupplier → Embeddedties 0.10 0.10 0.10
H5 Relationshipformalization → Embeddedties −0.01 −0.01 −0.01
H6a Clientflexibility → Embeddedties 0.19† 0.19† 0.19†
H6b Supplierflexibility → Embeddedties 0.21** 0.21** 0.22**
Clientinnovationknowledge → Supplierinnovation 0.09 0.17* 0.17* Innovationknowledgeforsupplier → Supplierinnovation 0.31*** −0.47** −0.47***
Covariates
Timeinpartnership → Embeddedties 0.00 0.00
Supplierlifespan → Embeddedties −0.21** −0.21** −0.21**
Competitivenesslevel → Embeddedties 0.04 0.04
Moderation
H7a Supplierinnovationknowledge×Embeddedties → Supplierinnovation 0.04*** 0.04*** H7b Clientinnovationknowledge×Embeddedties → Supplierinnovation 0.00 0.00
Explainedvariance
R2 Embeddedties 0.20 0.21 0.09
R2 Supplierinnovation 0.20 0.60 0.10
R2 Innovationknowledgeforsupplier 0.01 0.01
−0.01
Note:N=126.
* p<0.05. **p<0.01. ***p<0.001.
†p<0.10.
relationship between embedded ties and supplier innovation (β=0.27; p<0.01). Such evidence supports hypothesis H1.
Given thisvalue,the association between embedded tiesand developmentofsupplierinnovation wassupported,indicating thatthestrongertheembeddedties,thegreaterthedevelopment ofinnovations forthesuppliers.Thesefindings areconsistent withDay(1994)andNoordhoffetal.(2011),whoforesawthe associationbetweenembeddedtiesandinnovation.Theresultis alsoconsistentwiththeresearchofAndersonandWeitz(1989),
RindfleischandMoorman(2001),ReagansandMcEvily(2003), andUzziandLancaster(2003).Onepossibleexplanationforthis findingisthatmoreinvolvedpartnerswithstrongerembedded tiestendtowanttoexchangemoreknowledgeandprivate infor-mationinordertogeneratenewsolutionsintheformofproducts andprocesses.
HypothesisH2wasrejectedbecausetherewasno
relation-shipbetweenclientopportunismandembeddedties(β=−0.02;
p=NS).Analyzingthebivariatecorrelationmatrix,therewas alsonoassociationbetweenclientopportunismandembedded ties(r=0.01;p=NS).Infact,theresultemphasizesthatthere isnoimpactof unilateralissuesinvolvingopportunisminthe relationshipbetweentheagents(Holloway&Parmigiani,2014). Thenexttwoassumptionsdealwiththeeffectsofinvestment in the dyad.First, hypothesis H3 was not supported because
therewasnosignificantimpactfrominvestmentsmadebythe clientinthesupplierandsupplierknowledge(β=0.09;p=NS). Thisindicatesthattheinvestmentsthattheclientmakesintheir supplierdonotinfluencethesupplier’sknowledgefor innova-tion.ThisfindingrejectsthethesisofNoordhoffetal.(2011),
whichsuggeststhatclientinvestmentinsuppliersaresostrong andpertinentthattheseattenuatethenegativeeffectsof embed-dedtiesintherelationship,withtheconsequentfavoringofthe clientsharinginformationwiththesupplier.Itisworthnoting thathypothesisH3wassupportedinmodel3,wherethe
mod-eration ofembeddedtiesintheequationwasfound(β=0.22;
p<0.01).Twoelucidationsaremadefromthefind.
First, the rejection of theexplanationlies inthe structural model thatsimultaneouslyemploysmultipleregressions, gen-erating statistical interference inordertofind the result. The bivariatecorrelationmatrixshowsthatthereisapositiveimpact frominvestmentsmadebytheclientinthesupplierandsupplier knowledge (r=0.22; p<0.01), supportingthe hypothesisand beingconsistentwiththeargumentsofWilliamson(1983,1991). However, multiple equations could be generating a negative effectbecauseof colinearity.Second,theassociationbetween thesevariablescanalsobe seenthrough aquadraticequation (βquadratic=0.21;p<0.14),whichbetterexplainsthedependent
variablethanalinearequationwould.Therefore,theresultofthe quadraticequationispositiveandconsistentwiththehypothesis. The relationshipbetweeninvestmentmadebytheclientin thesupplierandembeddedtieswasnotaccepted,whichrejects hypothesisH4(β=0.10;p=NS).Thisfindingiscontrarytothe
assumptions of Anderson andWeitz (1989),Noordhoffet al. (2011),WathneandHeide(2000),andWilliamson(1983).
Hypothesis H5 was rejectedbecause no significantimpact
betweenthe formalizationof relationshipsandembeddedties was encountered (β=−0.01; p=NS).It is worthnoting that
Innovation
6.1
5.8
6.3
8.1
4.5
8.7
4.5
7.5
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Alto Baixo
Behavior Outcome
Innovation knowledge of the client Innovation knowledge of the supplier
Low embedded ties High embedded ties
Fig.2.Moderatingeffectofembeddedtiesoninnovationfromclientknowledge.
discoveredhereisthereforedivergentfromthatofSivadasand Dwyer(2000).Consideringthisdivergence,futureworkcould producestudiesalongthisline.
Itwasnotedthatclientflexibilitypositivelyeffectsembedded ties(β=0.19;p<0.07).Thisfindingsupportstheassumptionof
SivadasandDwyer(2000)andconfirmsH6a.Clientflexibilityis
theeffortmadebyapartnertorespondappropriatelytochanges ofplanorhowwillingthepartneristomakeadjustmentstohelp theirpartnerwhenfacedwithspecialproblemsorcircumstances (Kaufmann&Dant,1992).
The relationshipin hypothesisH6b was found,supporting
theassociationbetweensupplierflexibilityandembedded ties (β=0.21;p=0.01).ForSivadasandDwyer(2000),rigid rela-tionshipformalization– contrary toflexibility– has negative effectsfortheassociationbecause,inexcess,formalization lim-itsflexibilityinrelationships.
Hypothesis H7b examines the moderating role of
embed-ded ties in the relationship between knowledge from the client and innovation. It is believed that embedded ties with clients boost the capability of client expertise in the use of information for the development and implementation of innovations(Rindfleisch&Moorman,2001).Themoderating effect of embedded ties in the association between knowl-edge for innovation andeffective developmentof innovation has a theoretical base on the work of Rowley et al. (2000)
and Day (1994). The findings showed that the moderating relationshiphasnoeffectwhencomparedtothedirectand sim-pleassociation (βclientknowledge×embeddedties=0.00; p=NSvs.
βdirecteffect=0.17;p<0.01).Therefore,thecoefficientisnot
sig-nificantandcannotsupporttheamplifierroleofembeddedties fromtheknowledge.Fig.2(ontheright)showsnosignificant effectofembeddedties.
Hypothesis H7a examines the moderating role of
embed-dedties inrelation toinnovation knowledge for the supplier andinnovation.Themoderatingroleoftheembeddedtieswas suggestedbyNoordhoffetal.(2011),althoughtheyhada nega-tiveeffect.Inthiswork,themoderatingeffectwaspositiveand maintainstheassumptionofenhancingresults.Initially,a sig-nificantassociationbetweeninnovationknowledgeforsupplier andinnovationwasfound(β=−0.47;p<0.01).Subsequently,
whentestingthemoderatingeffectofembeddedtiesinrelation torelationships,theresultsshowanamplificationoftheresult
(β=0.04;p<0.001),whichhadthestrongestimpact.Therefore, theassociationismoreintense,increasingtheexplanatorypower ofthesupplier-innovationvariable.HypothesisH7aistherefore
confirmed. The findings of Rindfleisch andMoorman (2001)
andDay(1994)alsodemonstratethatembeddedtiespositively influenceinformationsharingbetween thecustomerand sup-plier,resultingininnovation.Fig.2(left)showsthemagnified effectofembeddedties.
Perspectivesonthemediatingeffectofembeddedties
Thetheoreticalmodelshowsthatembeddedtiesinindustrial relationshipsinterfereinrelationsexercisedontwoknowledge levels(e.g.,supplierandclient)inthedevelopmentof innova-tion,causingamoderating effect.Thefindingssupportedone ofthehypothesisfromthetwotested.Infact,Noordhoffetal. (2011) pointout that under certainconditions embedded ties favorthedevelopmentofinnovation,butinothersitcausesharm. Nevertheless, proposals that suggest amediating effectof embeddedtiesinassociationsthatexplainthedevelopmentof innovationwerefoundintheliterature.Therefore,itisnotknown ifembeddedtieshavesuchasignificanteffectonthe develop-mentofinnovationinthedyadorwhethertheyblocktheeffects oftheexistingvariablesofflexibility,investments,knowledge, formalization,andopportunism.Ifthemediatingeffectis sig-nificant,it is inferred that embedded tiesbecome so relevant that theytendtoblock(i.e.,fullmediation)ortendtoreduce (i.e.,partialmediation)(Baron&Kenny,1982)alreadyknown variables’impactsonindustrialrelationsthatfavorinnovation development.
Aimingtoexaminethemediatingroleofembedded tiesin relationssuggestedinthetheoreticalmodel,varioustestswere usedaccordingtothatadvocatedbyBaronandKenny(1986)and
Sobel(1982).Moreover,mediationtestshavebeendoneusing thefourmodelssuggestedbyHayes(2013)withthreecovariates being controlled. The results presented in Table 4 show that therewasasignificantmediatingeffectofembeddedtiesinthe relationshipbetweenclientflexibilityandinnovation(z=2.22;
Table4
Mediationanalysisofembeddedties.
Variables Sobel’sZtest p-Value Directeffect Indirecteffect
Customerflexibility 2.22 0.026* 0.33 0.24
Supplierflexibility 2.43 0.015* 0.28 0.21
Customerinvestmentinsupplier 2.04 0.040* 0.36 0.29
Customeropportunism −0.16 0.860 0.05 0.06
Formalization −0.18 0.85 0.10 0.10
Innovationknowledgeforsupplier 1.08 0.27 0.53 0.49
Clientinnovationknowledge 1.34 0.17 0.32 0.27
* p<0.05.
embeddedties–supportingitsmediatingroleintheconceptual model.
Finalconsiderations
Conclusions
First,itwasdiscoveredthat thepresenceofembedded ties positivelyinfluencestheinnovationoftheagro-industrial coop-erative’ssuppliers.Suchaconclusionisgivenbytheinfluence ofembeddedtiesbothdirectlyoninnovationandindirectly,as itenhancesknowledgecapabilitiesandthenturnsintosupplier innovation. This initial finding is consistent with other stud-iesthathaveshownthebenefitsofembeddedtiesincreatinga mutual-assistancenetwork(Borgatti&Foster,2003),and indi-catesthathighlyembeddednetworksprovidethecapabilityfor incrementalinnovation(Chen&Chang,2004).
Second,thepresenceofembeddedtiesnegativelyinfluences innovationforthecooperativesupplierswhentheirmoderating effectisaccountedfor.Theinteractionofembeddedtieswith knowledgefor supplierinnovationandinnovationfromclient knowledge generateda negativeresult,which isendorsed by
AndersonandJap(2005),Granovetter(1985,2005),Moorman, Zaltman,andDeshpande(1992),andSelnesandSallis(2003). Theseinvestigationsdemonstratethatembeddedtiescancause partneraccommodationthatmaintainsthestatusquoinassociate relationships,whichreducesinnovation.
Third,itwasnotedthatclientflexibilityandsupplier flexibil-ityleverageembeddedties.Theflexibilityprocesstendstobe productiveforthedyad,positiveforthegenerationof innova-tion,anddynamicforradialandincrementalinnovation,which areabletoimproveembeddedties.Supplierflexibilityimproves thequalityoftiesandcapabilityforenhancingtheinnovation process,afindingthatisconsistentwithCastroandBaldi(2010). Fourth, client investment in suppliers generates the high-estscore for supplier knowledge. Thisresult is congruent to thatsuggestedbyNoordhoffetal.(2011)andSaxenian(1996). Thus,investmenttendstoenhancecapabilitybuildingfor know-howandnewinformationforproductdevelopmentprocessesby strengtheningtherelationshipwiththedyad.
Fifth, the positive effects of client flexibility, supplier flexibility,andclientinvestmentonsupplierinnovationarefelt viaembeddedties.Theseindirectresultsshowthatembedded ties have a mediating role in the relationship between these variables.Theindirecteffectsof flexibilityandinvestmenton
innovation show that the orientationprocess is by proximity created through embedded ties and shows a new way of understandingthedevelopmentofinnovation.
Researchlimitations
First, consideringthat the respondents are part of the top management of the supplier companies,the need for brevity indata collectionwasimperative. Tomeet thisbrevityinthe questionnaire,justonequestionforeachvariablewasemployed. Therefore, thereisalimitation of usingvariableswithsingle indicators(Bergkvist&Rossiter,2007).
Second,respondentswereinformedabouttheanonymityand confidentiality of responses. Approximately one third of the interviews(33%) wereobtainedvoluntarilyandanonymously inelectronicform,andtherewasnosignificantdifferencewith theseandresponsescollectedviatelephone.However,a possi-blebiasintheresponsesduetorespondentembarrassmentabout beingaskedquestionsonclientopportunismshouldnotberuled out.Inthissense,othermeasuresforopportunismcouldbe sug-gested,whichwouldmeasurethrough thecompanyinsteadof thesupplier.
Third, the survey interviewed suppliers that supplied the highestaveragequantityofgoodspermonthintermsof trans-actions (e.g., sales) for thelast six months(from the timeof research).Highertransactionfrequencytendstosignal suppli-erswithstrongerembedded-tierelationships.Alimitationofthe researchistheuseofthehighestfrequencyandmostrecent sup-plierspermonthintermsoftransactions(e.g.sales)inthelast sixmonths(asselectionprocess),asotherwaysofmakingthe samplecouldhavebeenused.Thus,certainsupplierscouldhave beenleftoutofthesample.Theexistenceofaservicecontract withdifferentsupplyaverages,aswellasindicatingthepresence ofembeddedties,wouldallowinferencesaboutother character-isticsrelevanttothestudyoftheassociation,suchastheclients’ dependenceonsuppliersandrelationshipformalization.
Suggestionsforfuturestudies
Thisoccursbecausethegovernancemechanismof anex-ante
contract, if poorly designed, can influence the main agent’s requirementofhowtoproceedintermsofex-postmonitoring.
Second,finding the negativerole of embedded ties inthe associationbetween suppliersandpartnerscan beapotential fieldofstudy. Inrelationtolongpartnerships,embedded ties canhaveanegativeeffectontheresultsoforganizations, gen-eratingagentopportunism.Noordhoffetal.(2011)showedthat embeddedtieshaveadark-sideeffectintherelationshipbetween consumerknowledgeforinnovationandsupplierinnovation,but thattimeintherelationship,relationshipformation,andspecific investmentscanturnthisnegativeintoapositiveeffect.Future workcouldstudyotherelementsthatcouldsoftenthenegative roleofembeddedties.
Third,theformofinnovationdevelopmentcouldbekeyto improvingbusiness performance.Specifically, analysisof co-productionintherelationshipbetweenthesupplierandpartners canbeapossibleareaofinvestigation.Co-productionisajoint productionofsolutions,services,andproductsthathelp organi-zationsgaincompetitiveness,differentiation,andperformance. Therefore,co-productioncouldbeapredictorofinnovation.
Fourth,although the possibilityof mediationhas notbeen elaboratedon,themediatingroleofembeddedtiesin relation-shipssuggestedintheoreticalmodelwasproven.Futureresearch couldbetter understandthe mechanismbehindthe effectthat embedded tieshave onindependent variableswitha viewof reducing theirimpacts. Mediation means that when thereare embeddedtiesdefinedinthedyad,themagnitudeandeffects ofrelationships onsupplierinnovation arereduced,giventhe blockingeffectofmediation.
Conflictsofinterest
Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.
Acknowledgements
TheauthorswouldliketothankYedaMariaPereiraPavão (UNESPAR),JoséLuizParré(UEM)andJoséPaulodeSouza (UEM)fortheircomments.
References
Ahearne,M.,Mathieu,J.,&Rapp,A.(2005).Toempowerornottoempower yoursales force? Anempirical examination ofthe influenceof leader behaviorempowermentoncustomersatisfactionandperformance. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945–955. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.90.5.945
Ahearne,M.,Rapp,A.,Hughes,D.E.,&Jindal,R.(2010).Managingsales forceproductperceptionsandcontrolsystemsinthesuccessofnew prod-uctintroductions.JournalofMarketingResearch,XLVII(August),764–776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.4.764
Anderson,E.,&Jap,S.D.(2005).Thedarksideofcloserelationships.MIT SloanManagementReview,46(3),75–82.
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in con-ventional industrial channel dyads. Marketing Science, 8(3), 310–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.8.4.310
Antiqueira,J.R.M.,Saes,M.S.M.,&Lazzarini,S.G.(2007). Comporta-mentooportunistaemnegociac¸õesenvolvendoinvestimentosespecíficos:
umestudocommetodologiaexperimental.RevistadeAdministra¸cão,42(4), 393–404.http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0080-21072007000400001
Baldi,M.,&Vieira,M.M.F.(2006).Calc¸adodoVale:imersãosocialeredes interorganizacionais.RevistadeAdministra¸cãodeEmpresas,46(3),16–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902006000300003
Barden,J.Q.,&Mitchell,W.(2007).Disentanglingtheinfluencesof lead-ers’relational embeddednessoninterorganizational exchange.Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1440–1461. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ AMJ.2007.28225983
Baron, R. M.,& Kenny,D. A. (1982). The moderator mediator variable distinctioninsocialpsychologicalresearch:Conceptual,strategicand sta-tisticalconsiderations.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,51(6), 1173–1182.
Baron, R. M.,& Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinctioninsocialpsychologicalresearch:Conceptual,strategic,and sta-tisticalconsiderations.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,51(6), 1173–1182.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bergkvist,L.,&Rossiter,J.R.(2007).Thepredictivevalidityofmultiple-item versussingle-itemmeasuresofthesameconstructs.JournalofMarketing Research,44(2),175–184.http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175 Borgatti,S.P.,&Foster,P.C.(2003).Thenetworkparadigminorganizational
research:Areviewandtypology.JournalofManagement,29(6),991–1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-20630300087-4
Buchan,N.,Crosson,R. T.A.,& Dawes, A.(2002).Swiftneighborsand strangerspersistent:Thecross-culturalinvestigationoftrustandreciprocity insocialexchange.AmericanJournalofSociology,108(1),168–206. Castro,R.B.,&Baldi,M.(2010).Ainovac¸ãonoPóloJoalheirodeBelém:
uma análise a partir do mecanismo de imersão estrutural [Innovation in Pole JewelerBethlehem: Ananalysisfrom thestructural immersion mechanism]. Cadernos Ebape,8(3), 492–513.http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/ S1679-39512010000300008
Cavusgil,S.T.,Calantone,R.J.,&Zhao,Y.(2003).Tacitknowledgetransfer andfirminnovationcapability.JournalofBusiness&IndustrialMarketing, 18(1),6–21.
Chen,C.J.,&Chang,L.S.(2004).Dynamicsofbusinessnetwork embedded-ness.JournalofAmericanAcademyofBusiness,5(1/2),237–241. Churchill,G.A.(1979).Aparadigmfordevelopingbettermeasuresofmarketing
constructs.JournalofMarketingResearch,16(2),64–73.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/3150876
Day,G.S.(1994).Thecapabilitiesofmarket-drivenorganizations.Journalof Marketing,58(3),37–52.
Dhanaraj,C.,Lyles,M.A.,Steensma,H.K.,&Tihanyi,L.(2004).Managing tacitandexplicitknowledgetransferinIJVs:Theroleofrelational embed-dednessandtheimpactonperformance.JournalofInternationalBusiness Studies,35(2),428–442.http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400098 Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing the
high-performanceknowledge-sharing network:TheToyota case. Strate-gic Management Journal, 21(3), 345–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<34
Dyer, H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strat-egy andsourcesof interorganizationalcompetitiveadvantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ AMR.1998.1255632
Figueiredo,P.N.,deAndrade,R.F.,&Brito,K.N.(2010).Aprendizagem tec-nológicaeacumulac¸ãodecapacidadesdeinovac¸ão:evidênciasdecontract manufacturersnoBrasil.RevistadeAdministra¸cão,45(2),156–171. Granovetter,M.(1973).Thestrengthofweakties.AmericanJournalof
Sociol-ogy,78(6),1360–1380.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2776392
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The prob-lemofembeddedness.American Journalof Sociology,91(3),481–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228311
Granovetter,M.(2005).Theimpactofsocialstructureoneconomicoutcomes. JournalofEconomicPerspectives,19(1),33–50.
Gulati,A.(1995).Doesfamiliaritybreedtrust?Theimplicationsofrepeatedties forcontractualchoiceinalliances.AcademyofManagementJournal,38(1), 85–112.
Henard,D.H.,& Szymanski, M.D.(2001). Whysome newproducts are moresuccessfulthanothers.JournalofMarketingResearch,38(August (3)),362–375.http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.3.362.18861
Holloway,S.,&Parmigiani,A.(2014).Friendsandprofitsdonotmix:The performanceimplicationsofrepeatedpartnerships.AcademyofManagement Journal,20(1)http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0581
Jap, S. D. (1999). Pie-expansion efforts: Collaboration processes in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 461–475.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3152000
Johnson, J. L., & Sohi, R. S. (2001). The influence of firm pre-dispositions on interfirm relationship formation in business markets.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 18(4), 299–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(01)00042-8
Kaufmann,P.J.,&Dant,R.P.(1992).Thedimensionsofcommercialexchange. MarketingLetters,3(2),171–185.
Kyriakopoulos,K.,&Moorman,C.(2004).Tradeoffsinmarketingexploitation and exploration strategies: The overlooked role of market orienta-tion. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 219–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.01.001
Moorman,C.,Zaltman,G.,&Deshpande,R.(1992).Relationshipsbetween providersandusersofmarketresearch:Thedynamicsoftrustwithinand betweenorganizations.JournalofMarketingResearch,29(3),314–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3172742
Moura,D.A.,Botter,R.C.,&daSilva,A.F.(2010).Importânciadasdimensões custo,qualidade,flexibilidade,inovac¸ão,tempoeconfiabilidadeparaa com-petitividadedaatualindústriamarítimabrasileira.RevistadeAdministra¸cão, 45(1),18–29.
Narayanan,S.,Narasimhan,R.,&Schoenherr,T.(2015).Assessingthe con-tingenteffectsofcollaborationonagilityperformanceinbuyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Operations Management, 33–34(1), 140–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.11.004
Noordhoff,C. S.,Kyriakopoulos,K.,Moorman, C.,&Pauwels,P. (2011). The bright side and dark side of embedded ties in business-to-businessinnovation.JournalofMarketing,75(3),34–52.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1509/jmkg.75.5.34
Provan,K.G.(1993).Embeddedness,interdependence,andopportunismin organizationalsupplier–buyer networks.Journalof Management, 19(4), 841–856.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(93)90030-Q
Reagans,R.,&Mcevily,B.(2003).Networkstructureandknowledge trans-fer.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,48(2), 130–141.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/3556658
Rindfleisch,A.,&Moorman,C.(2001).Theacquisitionandutilizationof infor-mationinnewproductalliances:Thestrength-of-tiesperspective.Journal ofMarketing,65(2),1–18.http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.1.18253 Ring,P.S.,&VandeVen,A.H.(1994).Developmentalprocessofcooperative
interorganizationalrelationships.AcademyofManagementReview,19(1), 90–118.
Rokkan, A. I., Heide, J. B., & Wathne, K. H. (2003). Specific invest-ments in marketing relationships: Expropriation and bonding effects.
JournalofMarketingResearch,40(2),210–224.http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/ jmkr.40.2.210.19223
Rowley,T.,Behrens,D.,&Krackhardt,D.(2000).Redundantgovernance struc-tures:Ananalysisofstructuralandrelationalembeddednessinthesteeland semiconductorindustries.StrategicManagementJournal,21(3),369–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)
Saxenian,A.L.(1996).Insideout:Regionalnetworksandindustrial adap-tation insiliconvalleyandroute128.Cityscape:TheJournalofPolicy DevelopmentandResearch,2(2),41–60.
Selnes,F.,&Sallis,J.(2003).Promotinglearningrelationship.Journalof Mar-keting,67(3),80–95.http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.3.80.18656 Sivadas, E., & Dwyer, F. R. (2000). An examination of organizational
factors influencing new productsuccess in internaland alliance-based processes.JournalofMarketing,64(1),31–49.http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/ jmkg.64.1.31.17985
Sobel,M.E.(1982).Asymptoticconfidenceintervalsforindirecteffectsin structuralequationmodels.InS.Leinhardt(Ed.),Sociologicalmethodology (pp.290–312).Washington,DC:AmericanSociologicalAssociation. Uzzi, B. (1996). Thesources and consequences of embeddedness forthe
economic performance of organizations: Thenetwork effect. American SociologicalReview,61(4),674–698.
Uzzi,B.,&Lancaster,R.(2003).Relationalembeddednessandlearning:The caseofbankloanmanagersandtheirclients.ManagementScience,49(4), 383–399.
Vieira,V.A.,Monteiro,P.R.R.,&Veiga,R.T.(2011).Relationship mar-keting in supply chain: Anempirical analysis in theBrazilian service sector. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 26(7), 524–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621111162325
Von-Hippel,E.(1986).Leadusers:Thesourceofnovelproductconcepts. Man-agementScience,32(7),791–805.
Von-Hippel, E., & Katz, A. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits.ManagementScience,48(7),821–833.http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ mnsc.48.7.821.2817
Wathne, K. H.,& Heide,J.B. (2000).Opportunism in interfirm relation-ships:Forms,outcomes,andsolutions.JournalofMarketing,64(3),36–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.4.36.18070
Williamson,O.E.(1991).Comparativeeconomicorganization:Theanalysis ofdiscretestructuralalternatives.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,36(2), 269–296.
Williamson,O.E.(1975).Marketsandhierarchies.NewYork:FreePress. Williamson,O.E.(1983).Crediblecommitments:Usinghostagestosupport
