Conflict management strategies and their relationships with exchange performance in supply chains

Developing appropriate conflict management strategies (CMSs) is important for a firm to achieve better relationships with its supply chain partners. However, the literature has rarely considered how firms may simultaneously adopt various CMSs to address interfirm conflicts. Accordingly, this study aims to identify manufacturers' CMS archetypes with their main suppliers based on interfirm interdependence structure, further examining the relationship between various CMS archetypes and exchange performance.

First, the authors theoretically propose a manufacturer's CMS archetypes configured with Rahim's five CMSs based on interfirm interdependence structure. Second, cluster analysis with data from 200 Chinese manufacturers is used to generate a manufacturer's actual CMS archetypes. Third, the authors analyze the relationship between interfirm interdependence structure and Rahim's five CMSs as well as that with the new configured CMS archetypes. Finally, the authors use Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to compare exchange performance disparities among manufacturers using different CMS archetypes.

First, cluster analysis results show that three archetypes – cooperative, competitive and cooperative-competitive CMS – emerge during interfirm conflict management. Second, regression analysis shows how interfirm interdependence structure can affect manufacturers' choice of different CMSs and CMS archetypes. Third, ANOVA results indicate that when addressing interfirm conflicts, the strong cooperative, strong competitive and strong cooperative-competitive CMS archetypes can help manufacturers get good relationship satisfaction with main suppliers. Regarding supplier opportunism, while both strong cooperative and strong competitive CMS archetypes are effective at restraining opportunism, the cooperative-competitive CMS archetype may trigger higher levels of supplier opportunism.

This study enriches the interfirm relationship management literature and provides insights for manufacturers to better address interfirm conflicts.