Patterns of interaction between individual agents representing buyers and suppliers are vital for value co-creation in inter-organizational relationships. However, the micro-level relational dynamics driving operational performance remain underexplored.
Objective
We examine why and how respectful engagement by a buyer’s agent toward a supplier’s agent enhances supplier operational performance, through the cultivation of relationship commitment and the moderating effect of industry knowledge intensity.
Methods
We tested a moderated mediation model using time-lagged data from 156 manufacturing dyads, analyzing the influence of respectful engagement on supplier performance (on-time delivery and quality), through commitment to the working relationship, as well as the moderating role industry knowledge intensity.
Results
A buyer, by engaging respectfully, fosters the development of a supplier's commitment to the working relationship, which in turn improves supplier on-time delivery and quality. Contrary to expectations, however, this indirect effect is consistent across industries regardless of knowledge intensity.
Conclusions
The paper highlights the transformative potential of positive interpersonal interactions in buyer-supplier working relationships, contributing to behavioral operations management by demonstrating how micro-relational mechanisms underpin operational outcomes across diverse industry contexts.
FurlanAGrandinettiR. Size, relationships and capabilities: a new approach to the growth of the firm. Hum Syst Manag2012; 30(4): 195–213.
2.
LumineauFOliveiraN. A pluralistic perspective to overcome major blind spots in research on interorganizational relationships. Acad Manag Ann2018; 12(1): 440–465.
3.
RingPSVan de VenAH. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad Manag Rev1994; 19(1): 90–118.
4.
CarmeliAZivanIGomesEMarkmanGD. Underlining micro socio-psychological mechanisms of buyer-supplier relationships: implications for inter-organizational learning agility. Hum Resour Manag Rev2021; 31(3): 1–14.
5.
BruellerRBruellerNBruellerDCarmeliA. The design of early stage buyer-supplier relationships and its implications for formalized cooperative understanding: a process model. J Organ Dysfunct2025; 14(2): 83–106.
6.
BensaouM. Portfolios of buyer-supplier relationships. MIT Sloan Manag Rev1999; 40(4): 35–44.
7.
JohnstonDAMcCutcheonDMStuartFIKerwoodH. Effects of supplier trust on performance of cooperative supplier relationships. J Oper Manag2004; 22(1): 23–38.
8.
MesquitaLFBrushTH. Untangling safeguard and production coordination effects in long-term buyer-supplier relationships. Acad Manag J2008; 51(4): 785–807.
9.
OberoiJSKhambaJS. Strategically managed buyer-supplier relationships across supply chain: an exploratory study. Hum Syst Manag2005; 24(4): 275–283.
10.
BaiCKusi-SarpongSKhanSAVazquez-BrustD. Sustainable buyer-supplier relationship capability development: a relational framework and visualization methodology. Ann Oper Res2021; 304(1): 1–34.
11.
ChenDQPrestonDSXiaW. Enhancing hospital supply chain performance: a relational view and empirical test. J Oper Manag2013; 31(6): 391–408.
12.
MacneilIR. Power, contract, and the economic model. J Econ Issues1980; 14(4): 909–923.
13.
ChoiTYWuZEllramLKokaBR. Supplier-supplier relationships and their implications for buyer-supplier relationships. IEEE Trans Eng Manag2002; 49(2): 119–130.
14.
WuZChoiTY. Supplier-supplier relationships in the buyer-supplier triad: building theories from eight case studies. J Oper Manag2005; 24(1): 27–52.
15.
IslamN. Crossing the valley of death—an integrated framework and a value chain for emerging technologies. IEEE Trans Eng Manag2017; 64(3): 389–399.
16.
CrosonRSchultzKSiemsenEYeoML. Behavioral operations: the state of the field. J Oper Manag2013; 31(1-2): 1–5.
17.
GinoFPisanoG. Toward a theory of behavioral operations. Manuf Serv Oper Manag2008; 10(4): 676–691.
18.
RoscoeSCousinsPDHandfieldR. The microfoundations of an operational capability in digital manufacturing. J Oper Manag2019; 65(8): 774–793.
19.
CarmeliADuttonJEHardinAE. Respect as an engine for new ideas: linking respectful engagement, relational information processing and creativity among employees and teams. Hum Relat2015; 68(6): 1021–1047.
20.
DuttonJE. Energize your workplace: how to create and sustain high-quality connections at work. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
21.
RogersKMAshforthBE. Respect in organizations: feeling valued as “we” and “me”. J Manag2017; 43(5): 1578–1608.
22.
HonnethA. Integrity and disrespect: principles of a conception of morality based on the theory of recognition. Polit Theor1992; 20(2): 187–201.
23.
LalljeeMLahamSMTamT. Unconditional respect for persons: a social psychological analysis. Gruppendynamik Organ2007; 38: 451–464.
24.
FriedmanACarmeliADuttonJE. When does respectful engagement with one's supervisor foster help-seeking behaviors and performance?J Vocat Behav2018; 104: 184–198.
25.
DyerJHSinghH. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Manag Rev1998; 23(4): 660–679.
26.
LiuYHuangYLuoYZhaoY. How does justice matter in achieving buyer-supplier relationship performance?J Oper Manag2012; 30(5): 355–367.
27.
NyagaGNWhippleJMLynchDF. Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?J Oper Manag2010; 28(2): 101–114.
28.
DuttonJE. Breathing life into organizational studies. J Manag Inq2003; 12(1): 5–19.
29.
FelinTFossNJ. Strategic organization: a field in search of micro-foundations. Strateg Organ2005; 3(4): 441–445.
30.
FossNJ. Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and what they may look like. J Manag2011; 37(5): 1413–1428.
31.
GavettiG. Cognition and hierarchy: rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities' development. Organ Sci2005; 16: 599–617.
32.
DuttonJEHeaphyED. The power of high-quality connections. In: CameronKSDuttonJEQuinnRE (eds). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2003, pp. 263–278.
33.
HeaphyEDDuttonJE. Positive social interactions and the human body at work: linking organizations and physiology. Acad Manag Rev2008; 33(1): 137–162.
CarlsenADuttonJE (eds). Research alive: exploring generative moments in doing qualitative research. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, 2011, vol 27.
LiedtkaJOgilvieT. Designing for growth: a design thinking tool kit for managers. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
42.
De LeeuwSVan Den BergJP. Improving operational performance by influencing shopfloor behavior via performance management practices. J Oper Manag2011; 29(3): 224–235.
43.
ChoiSMessingerPR. The role of fairness in competitive supply chain relationships: an experimental study. Eur J Oper Res2016; 251(3): 798–813.
44.
SrourYSheferNCarmeliA. Positive Chair-CEO work relationships: micro-relational foundations of organizational capabilities. Long Range Plan2022; 55(3): 102124.
45.
GoffmanWNewillVA. Communication and epidemic processes. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci1967; 298(1454): 316–334.
46.
LysovaEIFletcherLEl BaroudiS. What enables us to better experience our work as meaningful? The importance of awareness and the social context. Hum Relat2023; 76(8): 1226–1255.
47.
RogersCRFarsonRE. Active listening. Chicago: Industrial Relations Center of the University of Chicago, 1957.
48.
Glińska-NeweśABarabaszAEscherIFuY. Defence mechanisms as predictors of trust and positive relationships in top management teams. Hum Syst Manag2022; 41(5): 567–581.
49.
DoneyPMCannonJP. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. J Mark1997; 61(2): 35–51.
50.
RogersCR. The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. J Consult Psychol1957; 21: 95–103.
51.
TjosvoldDJohnsonDWLernerJ. Effects of affirmation and acceptance on incorporation of opposing information in problem-solving. J Soc Psychol1981; 114(1): 103–110.
52.
FredricksonB. Love 2.0: how our supreme emotion affects everything we feel, think, do, and become. New York: Avery, 2013.
53.
MillerJBStiverI. The healing connection: how women form relationships in therapy and in life. Boston: Beacon Press, 2015.
54.
StephensJPHeaphyEDCarmeliASpreitzerGMDuttonJE. Relationship quality and virtuousness: emotional carrying capacity as a source of individual and team resilience. J Appl Behav Sci2013; 49(1): 13–41.
GundlachGTAchrolRSMentzerJT. The structure of commitment in exchange. J Mark1995; 59(1): 78–92.
57.
ZhaoXHuoBSelenWYeungJHY. The impact of internal integration and relationship commitment on external integration. J Oper Manag2011; 29(1-2): 17–32.
58.
GhijsenPWTSemeijnJErnstsonS. Supplier satisfaction and commitment: the role of influence strategies and supplier development. J Purch Supply Manag2010; 16(1): 17–26.
59.
BethSBurtDNCopacinoWGopalCLeeHLLynchRP, et al.Supply chain challenges. Building relationships. Harv Bus Rev2003; 81(7): 64–73.
60.
ChenIJPaulrajA. Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements. J Oper Manag2004; 22(2): 119–150.
61.
SáenzJAramburuNRiveraO. Knowledge sharing and innovation performance: a comparison between high-tech and low-tech companies. J Intellect Cap2009; 10(1): 22–36.
62.
GiuniperoLC. Motivating and monitoring JIT supplier performance. J Purch Mater Manag1990; 26(3): 19–24.
BrislinRW. Applied cross-cultural psychology: an introduction. In: BrislinRW (ed). Applied cross-cultural psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990, pp. 9–33.
67.
ZhaoXHuoBFlynnBBYeungJHY. The impact of power and relationship commitment on the integration between manufacturers and customers in a supply chain. J Oper Manag2008; 26(3): 368–388.
68.
BrownJRLuschRFNicholsonCY. Power and relationship commitment: their impact on marketing channel member performance. J Retailing1995; 71(4): 363–392.
69.
HuanSHSheoranSKWangG. A review and analysis of supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Supply Chain Manag2004; 9(1): 23–29.
ForslundHJonssonP. Integrating the performance management process of on-time delivery with suppliers. Int J Logist Res Appl2010; 13(3): 225–241.
72.
De ToniANassimbeniGTonchiaS. An instrument for quality performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ1995; 38(2-3): 199–207.
73.
WolfMTerrellD. The high-tech industry, what is it and why it matters to our economic future. Beyond Numb: Emp Unemp2016; 5(8), US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
FasbenderUBurmeisterAWangM. Motivated to be socially mindful: explaining age differences in the effect of employees’ contact quality with coworkers on their coworker support. Pers Psychol2020; 73(3): 407–430.
76.
MacKinnonDPLockwoodCMHoffmanJMWestSGSheetsV. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychol Methods2002; 7(1): 83–104.
77.
HayesAF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications, 2017.
CohenJ. The concepts of power analysis BT—statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Rev ed.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
80.
ShroutPEBolgerN. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods2002; 7(4): 422–445.
81.
BliesePD. mult.icc 25. R Package ‘Multilevel’2022; 25.
82.
ShapiroA. Towards a unified theory of inequality constrained testing in multivariate analysis. Int Stat Rev1988; 56(1): 49–62.
83.
MuscaSCKamiejskiRNugierAMéotAEr-RafiyABrauerM. Data with hierarchical structure: impact of intraclass correlation and sample size on Type-I error. Front Psychol2011; 2: 1–6.
84.
MuthénBOSatorraA. Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociol Methodol1995; 25: 267–316.
85.
SommetNMorselliD. Keep calm and learn multilevel linear modeling: a three-step procedure using SPSS, Stata, R, and Mplus. Int Rev Soc Psychol2021; 34(1): 24.
86.
BliesePD. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: KleinKJKozlowskiSWJ (eds). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000, pp. 349–381.
WentzelKRMuenksKMcNeishDRussellS. Peer and teacher supports in relation to motivation and effort: a multi-level study. Contemp Educ Psychol2017; 49: 32–45.
89.
LaiMHKwokOM. Examining the rule of thumb of not using multilevel modeling: the “design effect smaller than two” rule. J Exp Educ2015; 83(3): 423–438.
90.
AndersonJCGerbingDW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull1988; 103(3): 411–423.
91.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBPodsakoffNP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol2012; 63: 539–569.
92.
WilliamsLJCoteJABuckleyMR. Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact?J Appl Psychol1989; 74(3): 462–468.
93.
HongGChoYFroeseFJShinM. The effect of leadership styles, rank, and seniority on affective organizational commitment: a comparative study of US and Korean employees. Cross Cult Strateg Manag2016; 23(2): 340–362.
94.
MaslowskyJJagerJHemkenD. Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: a tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. Int J Behav Dev2015; 39(1): 87–96.
95.
GerhardCKleinAGSchermelleh-EngelKMoosbruggerHGädeJBrandtH. On the performance of likelihood-based difference tests in nonlinear structural equation models. Struct Equ Model2015; 22(2): 276–287.
96.
KrauseDR. Supplier development: current practices and outcomes. Int J Purch Mater Manag1997; 33(1): 12–19.
97.
BhardwajAKetokiviM. Bilateral dependency and supplier performance ambiguity in supply chain contracting: evidence from the railroad industry. J Oper Manag2021; 67(1): 49–70.
98.
CohenJCohenPWestSGAikenLS. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.
99.
ChavezRGimenezCFynesBWiengartenFYuW. Internal lean practices and operational performance: the contingency perspective of industry clockspeed. Int J Oper Prod Manag2013; 33(5): 562–588.
100.
GimenezCVan Der VaartTVan DonkDP. Supply chain integration and performance: the moderating effect of supply complexity. Int J Oper Prod Manag2012; 32(5): 583–610.
101.
HarrisonANewC. The role of coherent supply chain strategy and performance management in achieving competitive advantage: an international survey. J Oper Res Soc2002; 53(3): 263–271.
102.
LockamyAMcCormackK. Linking SCOR planning practices to supply chain performance: an exploratory study. Int J Oper Prod Manag2004; 24(12): 1192–1218.
103.
RaginsBRDuttonJE. Positive relationships at work: an introduction and invitation. In: DuttonJRaginsBR (eds). Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007, pp. 3–25.
104.
LascellesDMDaleBG. The buyer‐supplier relationship in total quality management. J Purch Mater Manag1989; 25(2): 10–19.
105.
BarbourJBTreemJWKolarB. Analytics and expert collaboration: how individuals navigate relationships when working with organizational data. Hum Relat2018; 71(2): 256–284.
106.
JohnstonDAKristalMM. The climate for co-operation: buyer-supplier relationships in a lean environment. Int J Oper Prod Manag2008; 28(9): 875–898.
107.
EllemersNSleebosEStamDGilderD. Feeling included and valued: how perceived respect affects positive team identity and willingness to invest in the team. Br J Manag2013; 24(1): 21–37.
108.
LikerJKChoiTY. Building deep supplier relationships. Harv Bus Rev2004; 82(12): 104–113.
109.
WaltherJB. Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In: KnappMLDalyJA (eds). The handbook of interpersonal communication. 4th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011, pp. 443–479.
Wallin BlairCRungtusanathamMRabinovichEHwangYMoneyRB. Managing critical spare parts within a buyer-supplier dyad: buyer preferences for ownership and placement. J Bus Logist2020; 41(2): 111–128.
112.
DormannCGriffinMA. Optimal time lags in panel studies. Psychol Methods2015; 20(4): 489–505. DOI: 10.1037/met0000041.
