Supply disruptions and protection motivation: Why some managers act proactively (and others don't)

被引:6
|
作者
Bode, Christoph [1 ]
Macdonald, John R. [2 ]
Merath, Maximilian [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Mannheim, Business Sch, Area Operat Management, Mannheim, Germany
[2] Colorado State Univ, Dept Management, Ft Collins, CO 80523 USA
关键词
discrete choice analysis; experiment; proactive action; protection motivation theory; supply disruption management; supply risk management; DISCRETE-CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; SAMPLE-SIZE REQUIREMENTS; CHAIN RISK; FEAR APPEALS; HEALTH-CARE; UNITED-STATES; JOB KNOWLEDGE; BEHAVIOR; INTENTIONS; DESIGN;
D O I
10.1111/jbl.12293
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Supply (chain) disruptions present considerable managerial challenges with potentially severe consequences. To protect their firms, managers often must decide whether or not to take proactive measures. Protection motivation theory suggests that individuals' intention to respond to a threat proactively results from their cognitive appraisal (situational interpretation) processes. These processes evaluate the characteristics of potential coping responses (e.g., its effectiveness in averting the threat) and the threat itself (e.g., its severity). Building on this framework, this study presents an analysis of what drives managers to, or deters them from, proactively responding to the threat of a disruption. The results from a discrete choice experiment suggest that decision makers have a strong subconscious focus on cost-related aspects of a specific proactive action, all the while consciously prioritizing the efficacy (effectiveness) of the action over its costs. Moreover, decision makers' perceptions of the relative importance of proactive action attributes deviate considerably from their actual choice behavior. This study investigates additional behavioral aspects of supply chain risk management such as a proactive personality, risk attitude, control appraisal, and experience, many of which have significant effects on the relative importance of certain proactive action attributes. The improved understanding has three relevant messages for managerial practice, which are related to the perception-action gap, the importance of self-assessment and self-awareness, and training.
引用
收藏
页码:92 / 115
页数:24
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Why some behaviors spread while others don't: A laboratory simulation of dialect contact
    Sneller, Betsy
    Roberts, Gareth
    COGNITION, 2018, 170 : 298 - 311
  • [22] Hot Spots: Why Some Companies Buzz with Energy and Innovation - and Others Don't.
    Hennessy, Mellor
    R & D MANAGEMENT, 2010, 40 (01) : 107 - 108
  • [23] How Change Happens: Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don't
    Cole, David
    NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, 2019, 66 (02) : 21 - 22
  • [24] Patent protection for medical technologies: why some and not others?
    Melzer, D
    LANCET, 1998, 351 (9101): : 518 - 519
  • [25] Why people (don't) use password managers effectively
    Pearman, Sarah
    Zhang, Shikun Aerin
    Bauer, Lujo
    Christin, Nicolas
    Cranor, Lorrie Faith
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTEENTH SYMPOSIUM ON USABLE PRIVACY AND SECURITY (SOUPS 2019), 2019, : 319 - 338
  • [26] Why Older Adults (Don't) Use Password Managers
    Ray, Hirak
    Wolf, Flynn
    Kuber, Ravi
    Aviv, Adam J.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 30TH USENIX SECURITY SYMPOSIUM, 2021, : 73 - 90
  • [27] Where some things change, others don't
    Bakker, Jan
    JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, 2018, 44 : III - III
  • [28] Some neural networks compute, others don't
    Piccinini, Gualtiero
    NEURAL NETWORKS, 2008, 21 (2-3) : 311 - 321
  • [30] Why some products compete and others don't: A competitive attribution model from customer perspective
    Qian, Yang
    Jiang, Yuanchun
    Shang, Jennifer
    Chai, Yidong
    Liu, Yezheng
    DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, 2023, 169