The Effects of Justice and Top Management Beliefs and Participation: An Exploratory Study in the Context of Digital Supply Chain Management
- 207 Downloads
Drawing on justice theory and upper echelons perspective, this study develops and tests an integrative model linking justice to the implementation of IT-enabled supply chain information integration (IeSCII) through the top management. Specifically, the study investigates the effects of the three facets of justice—distributive, procedural, and interactional justice—on the two dimensions of IeSCII (information sharing and collaborative planning), and examines the mediating influences of top management beliefs (TMB) and top management participation (TMP) in these relationships. Using structural equation modeling to analyze data collected from 190 firms in China, the study documents that interactional justice positively affects both TMB and TMP, while procedural justice positively affects TMB (but not TMP) in the IeSCII implementation process. In contrast, distributive justice is not significantly related to either TMB or TMP, but is positively associated with information sharing. The results also show that procedural justice positively affects TMB, which then positively affects TMP in IeSCII. Furthermore, the study finds significant mediating effects of TMB and TMP in the relationship between interactional justice and IeSCII. The theoretical and managerial implications of this study are discussed.
KeywordsIT-enabled supply chain information integration Justice Upper echelons theory Top management
IT-enabled supply chain information integration
Supply chain management
Top management beliefs
Top management participation
Confirmative factor analysis
This study was funded by the Grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC: 71701194, 71731010, 71622009 and 71571169) and Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation (1808085QG226). It was also supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (WK2040160030) and Singapore Ministry of Education Grant (WBS R-253-000-133-112).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the authors’ institution and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 267–299.Google Scholar
- Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chin, W. W. (2003). A permutation procedure for multi-group comparison of PLS models. In PLS and related methods—proceedings of the international symposium PLS03, Lisbon, Portugal, 2003 (pp. 33–43).Google Scholar
- Chiu, C.-M., Lin, H.-Y., Sun, S.-Y., & Hsu, M.-H. (2009). Understanding customers’ loyalty intentions towards online shopping: an integration of technology acceptance model and fairness theory. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(4), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290801892492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2015). Measuring justice and fairness. In Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace (pp. 187–202) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1993). Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. Oxford: OUP Catalogue.Google Scholar
- Greene, W. (2003). Econometric Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Liu, H. F., Huang, Q., Wei, S. B., & Huang, L. Q. (2015). The impacts of IT capability on internet-enabled supply and demand process integration, and firm performance in manufacturing and services. International Journal of Logistics Management, 26(1), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/Ijlm-11-2013-0132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Liu, H. F., Wei, S. B., Ke, W. L., Wei, K. K., & Hua, Z. S. (2016). The configuration between supply chain integration and information technology competency: A resource orchestration perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 44, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2016.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stoverink, A. C., Umphress, E. E., Gardner, R. G., & Miner, K. N. (2014). Misery loves company: Team dissonance and the influence of supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate on team cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1059–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Villena, V. H., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Revilla, E. (2009). The decision of the supply chain executive to support or impede supply chain integration: A multidisciplinary behavioral agency perspective. Decision Sciences, 40(4), 635–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2009.00245.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Whitman, D. S., Caleo, S., Carpenter, N. C., Horner, M. T., & Bernerth, J. B. (2012). Fairness at the collective level: a meta-analytic examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 776–791. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar