Purpose
Power use widely exists in buyer–supplier relationships (BSRs). Different directions of power use (i.e. buyer's power use and supplier's power use) intertwining with different types of power (i.e. coercive and noncoercive power) make it insufficient to regard power use as a single construct when examining its effect on a firm's following response. Besides, interdependence structure characterized by joint dependence and dependence asymmetry may influence the effect of a specific power use by shaping the firm's interpretation and cognition toward the relationship. Specifically, this study examines how four types of power use a buyer facing and an interdependence structure with its supplier affect its specific investments to the supplier.
Design/methodology/approach
This study tests the proposed relationships using regression analysis, based on data from 240 manufacturing firms in China on their perceived relationships with their major suppliers.
Findings
Results show that buyer's coercive power use (BCP) negatively affects buyer's specific investments while noncoercive power use (BNP) does not play a significant role. Both supplier's coercive power use (SCP) and noncoercive power use (SNP) are positively related to buyer's specific investments. Joint dependence positively moderates the effect of BNP and dependence asymmetry negatively moderates the effects of BCP and SNP on buyer's specific investments.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the literature on power use by identifying different types of power use and their different roles in influencing buyer's specific investments. The study also contributes to the literature on interdependence structure by demonstrating the different roles of joint dependence and dependence asymmetry.
