1
MSc. Thesis
Jan Dirk Annevelink[V: Final Draft CC] 28-1-2019
Is it a Match?
-
Linking distinct Purchasing Objectives to Purchasers’
Personal Characteristics: Actions directed towards Success
University of Groningen
–Faculty of Economics and Business
Master Thesis: Supply Chain Management, MSc
Jan Dirk Annevelink
Student number: 2212897
E-mail: j.d.annevelink@student.rug.nl
Word count: 12372
January 28
th, 2019
2
Acknowledgements:
Firstly, I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to my supervisor prof. dr. Scholten, who with strategic guidance and extensive feedback, motivated – and supported me to finalize this project. I would also like to thank my 2nd corrector Hendryk Dittfeld for his sheer optimism trust and helpful feedback.
In particular, I would also like thank our company contact person who helped to arrange all interviews, and subsequently all industry experts, who invested time in providing the opportunity to collect data.
To my parents and Fleur, thanks for continuously encouraging me throughout the process, with love and support.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my research peers Luuk and Jelle, who helped to collect data, and with who I shared many enjoyable moments throughout our project.
Abstract:
Purpose: This paper addresses the unexplored gap that exits between how personality characteristics
of individual purchasers create a fit in successfully executing 4 distinctive purchasing objectives: Cost, Quality, Innovation and Delivery Performance.
Method/Design: Explorative Case Study: The form of an explorative case study was chosen to
in-depth investigate ‘how’ underlying personality characteristics, were linked towards a successful completion of a given a distinctive objective as main driver of a purchase. Personality is primarily expressed through behavioral mechanisms. The study was conducted in the setting of two industrial firms active in the chemical processing -and technical installations industry respectively. Results are based on 10 interviews, in which 2 purchasing objectives were discussed per interview.
Findings: Results aggregate behavioral mechanisms into per-objective dimensions. As a common set
of suitable traits per distinctive objective is extracted, this conglomerated outcome indicates ‘how’ to create a fit between objectives and individual purchasers that possess those traits. As the findings are explorative, it must be seen in the context of a ‘first indication’ of how personality characteristics fit distinctive objectives.
Implications / Value: Results extend on the research in the field of behavioral operations
management and purchasing, by revealing core mechanisms and dimensions that connect to the likelihood of success that different individuals might achieve, in dealing with different objectives at hand. This can be used effectively to make distinctions in a managerial setting by planning the right allocation of people, potentially reaching higher levels of operational performance.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Literature Review ... 6
2.1 Personal Characteristics & the Big-5 ... 6
2.2 Is the Big-5 model Adequate? ... 7
2.3 The Big-5 Traits ... 7
Extraversion ... 7
Openness ... 8
Agreeableness ... 8
Neuroticism ... 8
Conscientiousness ... 8
2.4 Indicative Behavior relating to Objectives ... 9
2.5 Functional evolution of Purchasing ... 10
2.6 Exploring distinctive purchasing Objectives ... 10
Cost Objective ... 11
Quality Objective ... 11
Innovation Objective ... 12
Delivery Performance Objective ... 12
2.7 Competitiveness and trade-offs ... 13
2.8 Conceptual Model ... 14 3. Methodology ... 16 3.1 Research Design ... 16 3.2 Research Context ... 16 3.3 Case Selection ... 17 3.4 Data Collection ... 18 3.5 Data Analysis ... 18 4. Results ... 20
4.1 The Cost Objective ... 21
4.2 The Quality Objective ... 24
4.3 The Innovation Objective ... 27
4.4 The Delivery Performance Objective ... 31
5. Discussion ... 35
5.1 Fitting a Cost Objective ... 35
5.2 Fitting a Quality Objective ... 36
5.3 Fitting an Innovation Objective ... 37
5.4 Fitting the Delivery Perf. Objective ... 37
6. Conclusion ... 40
4
Appendix ... 45
A: Interview Guide ( Introduction, Questions asked )... 45
B: Interview scheme ... 47
C: Consent Form ... 50
5
1. Introduction
Recently, Apple Inc. became the highest valued public company of all modern times, with a market capitalization reaching more than 1 trillion USD (CNBC, 2018). This success largely originates from their global value chain practice: Apple nowadays no longer builds but buys, most of their inputs (Timmer, Erumban, Los, Stehrer, & de Vries, 2014). Although Apple serves an ‘extreme example’, many other producing firms too – are increasingly reliant on their purchasing function. Today, the differentiation between: essential functions for production, – and inputs produced cheaper and better by third-parties, is a key pivot in purchasing decisions (Hallikas & Lintukangas, 2016). Simultaneously, objectives for each input are distinctive and serve as guide for purchasing behavior. Apple’s sourcing of ‘simple’ glass screens; (abundantly supplied by many parties), requires though ‘personal’ negotiations with a cost-focus in mind. This vastly differs from how their purchasers are buying complex chipsets that are only produced by a limited number of suppliers. Those situations require close –and continuous innovative cooperation between the buying focal firm and supplier. In finding recommended strategies, purchasers often rely on tools and models. Still, to this very moment, all tools and models have not considered that it is a human executing these strategies. As such, they have failed to incorporate the unique role that different individuals can play for different situations.
Aforementioned supports the notion that within SCM literature, behavior is often not ‘stated explicitly enough’ (Schorsch, Wallenburg, & Wieland, 2017). Given that individuals differ from one another, someone’s personality traits directly reflect a predictive effect on one’s behavior (Lauriola & Levin, 2001). The Big5-model distinguishes ‘traits’ in Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness. Herein, individual personality ‘configurations’ depict, to a certain extent, their coping with challenging situations such as negotiations with different effective outcomes (Elfenbein, 2015). As personality ‘predicts’ behavior from one side, – distinctive purchasing objectives such as, cost-control, quality adherence, innovation and delivery-performance ‘demand’ specific behavior in return. Learning ‘how’ both concepts are bridged, empirically, e.g. via behavior, could be valuable in understanding how to create a personal fit. Hence, the purpose of this research is to explore this gap, with the individual purchaser as the pivotal intersection.
6 on one side the traditional approach wherein purchasing objectives translate into recommendations by tools. While on the other side, the role that personal characteristics are playing in successfully executing the goals of the objective. Therefore, this research aims to explore the following research question:
RQ. How to create a fit between the objective of a purchase and a purchaser’s personality?
Added value:
From an academic point of view, it broadens and connects both the fields of purchasing and behavioral operations. It gives an initial exploration of ‘how’ the relationship between purchasing objectives and personality connects. Therefore this study is expanding the knowledge base of purchasing performance and is steering towards theory building. From a management perspective, when this relationship is better understood, businesses and other organizations could profit from this. Results provide an improved indication of whom; based on their personality traits will most likely be suitable to perform the execution of a certain objective. Approaching objectives with a ‘one-size-fits-all’ purchasing approach then becomes obsolete.
2. Literature Review
The literature review is divided into three parts: First, an explanation of the personality traits theory. Second: the developments within the purchasing function, given its differentiation and modern contingencies –and implied actions. Last, an elaboration on the four distinctive purchasing objectives.
2.1 Personal Characteristics & the Big-5
On a broad level, humans can be understood as combinations of: temperaments, traits and dimensions (Friedman & Schustack, 1999). In finding consensus about the logic behind personality, many researchers aimed to make distinctions among the different categorizations of dimensional aspects into frameworks (Goldberg, 1993). The work of Carl Jung (1924), initially distinguished between ‘introversion’ and ‘extroversion’, where later on, the statistical work of Thurstone (1934) and Cattell (1943), Christal (1958) & Tupes (1961) in combined form, extracted ‘five personality traits’ into a systematic and simplified structure. This today is known as: the ‘Big Five’: Extraversion, Openness,
Agreeableness, Neuroticism & Conscientiousness. These dimensions “represent personality at the
7 Presnall, 2013). The key strength of the model is that its constitution is research driven. It presents an adequate and systematically tested technique to assess personality characteristics of individuals in a
simple way. This is useful because it provides researchers to make a quick estimation, including five
different dimensions only (Friedman & Schustack, 1999). How people score on these traits, relates to the prediction of their performance in the professional setting (Heineck & Anger, 2010). It is found that in situations where someone has limited structure and high decisive freedom (such as in the case of an individual purchaser) the outcome of personality traits becomes especially expressive (Judge & Zapata, 2015). Essentially, Big-5 contain a basic-scale of distinction allowing to make combination that uniquely depict individuals, while simultaneously enables for comparison between different people too.
2.2 Is the Big-5 model Adequate?
As only five factors puts a limitation on the broad complexity of human personality analysis, there has been debate on ‘how’ to measure and ‘what’ is actually measured (Goldberg, 1993; Zillig, Hemenover, & Dienstbier, 2002). In addition, personality could be measured on more than the big five factors alone, as prior research pointed towards even more narrowed down dimensions (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). This indicates the drawback of the model; overlooking personality, trying to capture the full personality only in 5 traits. The risk involved is over-assessing the capturing of personality, such that the traits are the only depicting factors. Thereby the assessment is ignoring influential factors like culture and other biases, pervious experience and other influences such as gender (Friedrich & Schustack, 1999). Nevertheless, Cobb-Clark & Schurer (2012) inferred that people’s personality is something that has important indication for how behavior will be expressed, even though it is ‘not learned’. This is in line with cognitive functions like memory or logic reasoning. In addition, they infer; although there are some changes, most of the personality traits are not subject to much variation for professionals. Hahn, Gottschling, & Spinath (2012) found that short scales measuring big-5 traits, are reflecting neuroticism, extraversion and conscientiousness to pretty acceptable levels whereas
openness and agreeableness are sometimes less accurately reflected. This is because on the surface
they appear to say more about how gentle or forgiving someone is. Although the critical disadvantages are known and discussed, the big-5 still enables ‘short studies’ to extensively compare different persons. Those measurements are based on simplistic scores of ´high’ (on the trait) – or ‘low’ (on the
trait’s antonym) on ranges of 5-10 items. This still produces viable results (Gosling, Rentfrow, &
Swann, 2003).
2.3 The Big-5 Traits
Extraversion – This trait refers to the extent people are energetic, sociable, also expressed in being
8 Simultaneously extraversion is also reflecting the extent to which individuals are seeking for achievement or behavioral dominance (Goldberg 1992, in Zillig, Hemenover, & Dienstbier, 2002). If someone scores high on extraversion, it is often a good indication of how well they will do in jobs requiring many ‘social skills’ (Judge & Zapata, 2015). One would expect that the trait plays a role in cooperative settings, where innovation and quality emerge. New ideas require energy and devotion, while simultaneously the need clear and interactive communication. Side note: Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness and Neuroticism cover the personality aspects of individuals who are inclined to
socialize, and participate actively among each other in a ‘pleasant way’, whereas Openness and
Extraversion link more to someone’s desire to advance and do well (Hogan & Holland, 2003).
Openness – Relates to individual levels of curiosity, having a vivid imagination, or artistic-outlook
(Friedman & Schustack, 1999). Yet, it also concerns cognitive intellect, or ones ‘absorption’-ability (Zillig et al., 2002). Research found that individuals who are high scoring on ‘openness’ fit well in to creative settings, where they can experience different things and act autonomously (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae, 1996, IN: Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011). Literature indicates that openness was more firmly linked to performance in jobs with strong innovative requirements (Judge & Zapata, 2015). It is expected that individuals who score high on this trait are more suitable in situations that require constant adaptations and flexibility, while maintaining their open outlook on the future.
Agreeableness – Depicts friendliness and willingness to cooperate with others and trusting them. This
also is opposed to being reserved or detached (Friedman & Schustack, 1999). When someone scores high on agreeableness, this often depicts an inverse indication of achievement, when the situation requires people to be ‘opposing’ or ‘competing’ (Judge & Zapata, 2015). Therefore, one could argue both low – and high scores are useful, based on contextual requirements. Being highly agreeable serves in a contexts that demands consensus, (e.g. reaching mutual performance goals). However the opposite holds when it is vital to be strict and though (e.g. situations where constraints must be adhered to), then scoring low could be more advantageous.
Neuroticism – Essentially provides a reflection of one’s emotional stability and resilience to stress
factors (Friedman & Schustack, 1999). One might expect individuals who score low on neuroticism to handle their emotions better, consequently they deal better with situations subject to extreme stressors. As a result they are for example less subject to time constraints, or maintaining predetermined standards. Arguably, calm and stable persons tend to execute tasks better, keeping their focus.
Conscientiousness – Extent to which individuals are well-organized, task-result driven, and able to
9 individuals that are ‘dependable’ or ‘dutiful’ and those who possess high levels of ‘self-control’ (Chiaburu et al., 2011). As highly conscientiousness people are focused on structure and regulations, combined with cognitive abilities, this trait plays a decisive role on job-performance (Heineck & Anger, 2010). In essence tasks demanding incorruptibility, strictness and carefulness.
Table 1 –the ‘Big Five Traits’ Taxonomy Model:
Trait Trait Description: [ High – Low ] Scoring:
1. Extraversion (versus)
Introversion (low)
Sociability and levels of Assertiveness ; seeking out for social stimulation
High: Talkative, Assertive, Active, Outspoken, Dominant
Low: Quiet, Reserved, Shy, Silent, Withdrawn
2. Openness (versus)
Closedness to experience (low)
Inventive and curious versus Consistent or cautious personalities
High: Wide interests, Imaginative, Intelligent, Original, Insightful, Curious, Sophisticated
Low: Commonplace, Narrow Interests, Simple, Shallow, Unintelligent. 3. Agreeableness (versus) Antagonism (low) Friendliness and Compassionate versus challenging situations and being detached
High: Sympathetic, Kind, Appreciative, Affectionate, Softhearted, Warm, Generous, Trusting, Helpful, Forgiving, Pleasant, Friendly, Cooperative. Low: Fault-finding, Cold, Unfriendly, Quarrelsome, Hard-hearted 4. Neuroticism (versus) Emotional Stability (low) Extent of someone’s
emotional stability, confidence level and stress resilience.
High: Tense, Anxious, Nervous, Moody, Worrying, Touchy, Fearful
Low: Stable, Calm,
5. Conscientiousness (versus)
Lack of direction (low)
The desire to perform a task well, efficient and planned, careful, vigilant
High: Organized, Thorough, Planful Efficient, Responsible, Reliable, Dependable, Conscientious, Precise, Practical
Low: Careless, Disorderly, Frivolous, Irresponsible.
Adaptation of the original work by: (John & Srivastava, 1999, p.113; IN Pervin & John 1999).
2.4 Indicative Behavior relating to Objectives
10 positive outcomes, but are more inclined to make risky decisions facing losses. The opposite holds when time is an element of ‘pressure’ (Saqib & Chan, 2015). In line with this, the process of challenging decision-making, particularly in relation to achieving (multiple) objectives is subject to pressure; e.g. getting a proper cost/quality ratio, heavily relies on human behavior too. However, decisive behavior cannot be seen separate from one’s personality traits. An illustrative example of this is found when individuals ‘who score high on neuroticism’ tend to be obstructed in their mind when things get too demanding and therefore make abrupt decisions. This is contrary to those who score low (Byrne, Silasi-Mansat, & Worthy, 2015). This depicts a supporting link: that ‘how’ individuals are scoring on personality, actually determines how they perform decisive actions. Respectively, it is expected that this link upholds in the decision-intense context of a purchasing objective too.
2.5 Functional evolution of Purchasing
When organized correctly, the purchasing function significantly impacts the business performance of a firm (Van Weele, 2014). Yet, a recent industry survey-report indicates that ‘cost-reduction’ remains the key point of focus among purchasing executives, in their quest for better gross margins (Deloitte, 2018). Dealing with cost reduction and diminishing influences of risk, has led to differentiation of both functions (Cousins, Lawson, & Squire, 2006), and attainment of performance goals (Hallikas & Lintukangas, 2016; Paulraj, Chen, & Flynn, 2006). Performance cannot be viewed separately from how the purchasing function is calibrated and adjusted to the general goals and strategies of the overall firm (González-Benito, 2010). Moreover, differentiation within purchasing reflects how the overall set of different suppliers are interconnected to the focal firm and to each other respectively (Ateş, Wynstra, & van Raaij, 2015). Hence, besides cost-reduction alone, the importance of ‘strategic purchasing’ increased significantly too.
2.6 Exploring distinctive purchasing Objectives
Often emphasis is put on ‘KPI’s’; those are reflecting the attainment of the basic objectives: Cost,
Quality, Time as initial approach (Caniato, Luzzini, & Ronchi, 2014). Additionally, a deeper
11 essential in order to maintain their core competitive advantage of ‘high-end’ electronics producer. So implicitly, objectives outline how purchasers should undertake, focus and direct their behavior, to attain the desired result per input successfully. Akın Ateş et al. (2018) further argue that behavior between buyers and suppliers also relates extensively to cooperation, as it forms a crucial element in (technological) innovation and product development. This matters particularly in reaching reliable and durable inputs together, but also maintaining flexibility (Drake, Myung Lee, & Hussain, 2013). From a flexibility standpoint, behavior is now also found important in getting inputs within time. This requires precision and balanced cooperation too (Luzzini, Caniato, Ronchi, & Spina, 2012). Hence, there appears to be an overlap. In this study the purchasing objectives are distinguished in four distinctive propositions, also evident in table 2.
Cost Objective
The cost objective essentially concerns the minimization of cost prices of inputs (per units/services). Purchasers actively control this objective by performing strict and thorough negotiations with suppliers (Luzzini et al., 2012). Primarily, purchasers are expected to stick within the constraints of a given budget. Furthermore, it accounts for the total cost of ownership: taking accountability for all costs ‘associated’ with purchasing the input too. Purchasers also focus on ‘process cost’ reduction, by using smarter and leaner (e- procurement), tools or systems (Ateş, 2014; Caniato et al., 2014). Moreover, it concerns minimizing asset utilization. Important herein is a focus on lean buying, controlled ordering, within available capacity in warehouses, transportation or machinery, while actively balancing expenses with compliance to reliability, innovative quality and durability (Akın Ateş et al., 2018; Drake et al., 2013). Arguably this is the most challenging, yet most substantial objective (Deloitte, 2018).
Quality Objective
12
Innovation Objective
The innovation objective is various. Purchasers aim for better time-to-market with suppliers (Ateş, 2014). Similar to quality, innovation also requires buyers to have close relationship interaction with suppliers to cover advanced introduction rates of new and, or improved products and services or technologies (Akın Ateş et al., 2018). This works best if both the buying and supplying party actively cooperate and behave with an open understanding of each other’s situation. Moreover, attaining to the innovation objective is found in realizing improvements on conformance-quality, specifications and functionality of purchased inputs (Ateş, 2014). This too requires active involvement with suppliers, intended at gaining more innovative components, or production/process technologies, while on a deeper level, this requires purchasers steering towards integration with aims of shared NPD (Akın Ateş et al., 2018; Drake et al., 2013)
Delivery Performance Objective
Today’s fast-moving world puts pressure on the objective of delivery performance, as make – or breaker of production capability. Producing in-time requires that inputs must quickly be delivered, thus purchasers must focus on improving supplier lead times (Ateş, 2014). Additionally relevant is improving supplier precision in delivery dates and quantities (Ateş, 2014). Realizing closer involvement with suppliers, or literally finding closer suppliers (geographically) and calibrating and incentivizing schedules and dates through communication is required.
Table 2 – Distinctive Purchasing Objectives
Purchasing Objective
Classification Implied Mindset
Cost Control Reduction of product / service per unit prices (Ateş, 2014)
Total cost of ownership reduction of purchased inputs (Ateş, 2014)
Reduction of (internal) purchasing process costs (e.g. e-procurement) (Ateş, 2014) and (Luzzini et al., 2012)
Reduction of Asset utilization (e.g. headcount inventory) (Ateş, 2014) and (Luzzini et al., 2012)
Adhering to reliability, innovative quality and durability (Drake et al., 2013)
Thorough, rigid and disciplined such that no costs constraints get crossed.
Strict budget controlling & accountability for expenses.
Analyzing options, picking the cheapest sufficient option. E.g. [Cost / Quality]
Toughness, not giving in nor giving up
Quality Improving (or adhering to) conformance quality of purchased inputs (Luzzini et al., 2012)
Availability, volume flexibility ability to
Attention to detail
13 make modifications and technological
capability (Drake et al., 2013)
Sustainability; Reduction of ecological impact (Ateş, 2014)
Improving compliance with social and ethical guidelines (Luzzini et al., 2012)
Knowing what is needed when, and in which situation
Understanding functionality durability of inputs.
Acknowledging a sustainable outlook
Focus on doing business in an ethical way
Knowing that the purchase made, is done sustainably Innovation Improving the time-to-market with suppliers
(Ateş, 2014)
Improving introduction rates of new or improved products and services (Ateş, 2014)
Improvement on conformance quality, specifications and functionality of purchased inputs (Ateş, 2014)
Active involvement with suppliers with the goal of gaining more innovative
components, production/process technologies (Akın Ateş et al., 2018) Supplier integration with aims of NPD (new product design) (Akın Ateş et al., 2018)
Active and open towards suppliers and towards the process within the own firm Understand that the products
and processes of the future, are connected with the purchasing function of today
Focus on collaboration achieving better products and services in the long run
Delivery -Performance
Improving supplier lead-time (Ateş, 2014) Improving supplier accuracy in delivery dates and quantities (Ateş, 2014) Improving supplier accuracy in delivery times and dates (Luzzini et al., 2012)
Thorough understanding of the implications of having certain lead times and finding optimizations possible Driving towards consolidation Understand incentives for
getting lead times right Communicative focus
2.7 Competitiveness and trade-offs
14 applicable in one situation. Interestingly, on occasion those objectives cause ‘trade off’ situations. Acting on purchasing objectives can be seen as a ‘trade off’ situation when specific purchasing decisions are under the influence of two or more seemingly incompatible objectives e.g. both a focus on cost-control and high quality adherence (Gao & Tang, 2003). This creates a dilemma, because within each distinct situation – purchasers must prioritize, differentiate – and execute objectives respectively. In overcoming such challenges, the link between personality and behavior regarding objectives is considered important, because it reflects ‘how’ or ‘why’ actions are performed (Pagell, Wu, & Wasserman, 2010)
2.8 Conceptual Model
When investigating the theoretical backgrounds of ‘purchasing objectives’ and ‘personality-characteristics’ – on the surface, both concepts do not appear to have a clear relationship. Still, the underlying dimensions present findings with indicative elements that suggest there are substantial links between the two concepts. Already understood is that the advises depicted by theoretical models are detached – and inconsiderate in reflecting the reality of required human behavior (Bendoly et al., 2006). At the same time, performance in SCM and purchasing is acknowledged to be inherently linked with human behavior (Schorsch, Wallenburg, & Wieland, 2017). In performing negotiations, behavior and personality influences become directly noticeable. Research suggest that personality configurations act decisively in negotiation dyads (1-1), as ‘success indicators’ of – both completion-time and beneficial mutual acts of behavior. This indicates that selecting the right compatible personalities is vital (Wilson, DeRue, Matta, Howe, & Conlon, 2016). Aforementioned emphasizes the need gain answers on: How to create a fit between the objective of a purchase, and a purchaser’s
personality?
15
16
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
The aim of this research is to understand the relationship between purchasing objectives and an individual’s personality. Still, the boundaries between the contexts and the research phenomenon are not evident, as humans are involved. Therefore, at this moment the inner-dynamics of this relation remain relatively unknown. Nonetheless, the studied concepts actually take place within a modern ‘real-life’ context, namely every business or organization that needs purchased inputs. At the same time these contextual factors are always not-evident. Hence, a holistic approach seems a fitting approach; therefore case methodology appears suitable (Yin, 2009). This research has a qualitative-nature and exploratory approach – aiming to contribute in gaining a broader understanding and support or steer towards theory-building (Voss et al. 2002, IN: Karlsson, 2016).
3.2 Research Context
The research-setting took place within the context of two firms. The first firm operates in the chemical industry and the second firm in electrical-engineering and installations. The first firm also has a scope of global operations; with worldwide-production, requiring global sourcing & risk mitigation-practices (Fosfuri, 2004). The chemical processing industry is characterized by significant expenses on bought inputs, largely influencing their earnings (Pitchipoo, Venkumar, & Rajakarunakaran, 2012). This requires the firm to precisely select suppliers. To some extent, this applies to the second firm too, that relies primarily on gaining profit-margins from (sub) contracting. The chemical-firm possesses 3 purchasing-categories: (1) ‘CAPEX’: all machinery, technological inputs; in low volumes, with high variation, and range. (2) ’ENERGY` high-energy production consumption: low in variation; long-term contracts are drawn. (3) ´RAW´ responsible for acquiring various basic inputs; often on short-term contracts. The second firm possesses a less categorical purchasing-differentiation, which is primarily centered on maintenance or (large) installation ‘projects’. All bought products, are driven by Cost,
Quality, Innovation or Delivery-Performance objectives – or combinations hereof. Product variety requires different approaches by different people; therefore, this complexity serves as adequate
17
3.3 Case Selection
In revealing information about different personality aspects amidst people, ‘given various objectives’: the data-gathering originates from more than 1 case. This relates to the research design of a ‘multiple case study’ (Voss et al. 2002 IN; Karlsson, 2016). The use of multiple case study applies because, when having more than one case study, the extracted theoretical findings from observation are known to reflect a higher quality in terms of ‘truly reflecting’ the underlying concepts. This provides stronger theoretical foundations overall (Eisenhardt, 1989). To connect purchasing objectives to personality, the unit of analysis is the individual purchaser. Based on various informal meetings with a category manager from the chemical firm, cases are thoughtfully provided and cooperatively assigned within both firms – enabling to cover all purchasing objectives. Eventually, 10 ‘exemplary’ cases are investigated, reflecting all objectives in equal numbers allowing satisfactory in-depth comparability (Eisenhardt, 1989). Cases are reflective and representative for typical professional buyers, as all interviewees are expected to possess competent skills – and experience, given their in-company function. The equal span of different objectives: (5 of each in total) across cases can be seen in the light of theoretical replication logic: most-similar cases, different variables in terms of personality. One reason for this is, that outcomes are expected to be different in nature, but for predicted logical reasons (Yin, 2009).
Table 3 – Case Characteristics Case
#
FIRM Educational
Background Cat. - Function Bought Cat.
Objective Purchase (1) Objective Purchase (2) Interview Duration
1 A Vocational Raw Product COST DEL. PERF. 1:02:00
2 A Vocational Raw Product/Service COST DEL. PERF. 1:16:10
3 A Academic Raw Product COST QUALITY 1:23:19
4 B HBO Maintenance C. Product/Service COST INNOVATION 1:36:00
5 B Vocational Senior Buyer
PRJ. Product INNOVATION COST.
1:13:56
6 A Academic Utilities / Energy Product INNOVATION DEL. PERF. 1:05:00
7 B Vocational Buyer PRJ Product QUALITY DEL.PERF. 59:00
8 A Academic CAPEX Product QUALITY INNOVATION 1:11:00
9 B Vocational Buyer PRJ Product/Service QUALITY DEL. PERF. 1:04:55
18
3.4 Data Collection
Before each interview, an explanation of research purposes was given. This is in conformance with the ethical principle of ‘informed consent’ (Voss et al. 2002 IN; Karlsson, 2016) via an ‘interview guide’ (APPENDIX:A,C). The total number of semi-structured interviews resulted in 14. Interview-conduction was performed from the end of November up until the first week of December 2018. The preferred data-collection approach was to conduct interviews at the firm’s office locations, aiming to get more personal interaction. This resulted in a ‘richer’ response in data, hence, a better grasp of reality (Yin, 2009). Sometimes – given the geographical-distance and/or personal schedule-constraints, video-calls were used instead. Two communicatively-skilled researchers with sufficient background knowledge about purchasing conducted the interview on a face-to-face basis.
The length-of the interviews was 1 – 1, 5 hours, exploring 2 different purchases and objectives. The fixed interview protocol, including a standardized set of general-questions (APPENDIX:B), contained relevant questions about the decision making, considerations –and applied behavior. Additional organic – and deepening questions allowed more extensive elaboration. After conducting the interviews, all were translated and transcribed from audio.
Subsequently, transcripts were corresponded back to interviewees. This allowed them to check for inconsistencies, and potential firm-sensitive information. Besides the interviews, one ‘in-house training day’ took place on the 4th
of December 2018 at the chemical firm, which contained a large, independent scenario, representing a role-played, purchasing situation.
3.5 Data Analysis
19
Table 4- Coding tree excerpt *Quality*
Quality Objective related to the trait : Extroversion
Deductive code – Second order mechanism
First order codes: - Representative Quotes
Efficient communication
Directness
“I have no problem with that, it is ... I indicate what I think. Some projects I indicate where I want to go. I ask other projects where the supplier can work towards” (Case 7)
“[…] Family business, so you can work well towards a personal relationship. But then you have to take the steps yourself. The most important component in this process was that I wanted to know more than [just] where to send the purchase order to.” (Case 8)
“I needed to stay in constant contact with the supplier, checking out what was happening at their end. I could then directly give feedback about this to my internal customer” (Case 10) In-person contact
Continuous communicating
Social Leverage
Supplier convincing / persuading
“Sometimes we wanted something more than they [supplier] wanted in principle. [...] We were able to convince them of this [to do so], a bit insistent: "If you already supply 'all these' things in the installation, you just have to make sure that they are tied together" (Case 9)
“But I think it would have been good, for example, to get back to them afterwards [to the supplier], or to send a letter, or to also express our appreciation to the production staff in one way or another, as in: “This is just a fantastic job you did”. (Case 8) “As a bycatch due to this incident we were able to immediately approve [doing business with] two Asian suppliers, of which we now simply know that we can also use their raw materials in the future” (Case 3)
Showing appreciation
When facing problems, resourceful acting
Network Utilization
Relationship managing
“[…] Then it's just a matter of making sure you maintain a good relationship with your supplier and trying to get out of it. These are perhaps the challenges that are most important[…]” (Case 9)
“[…] because we've already done several [jobs]. There's just some mutual trust between us and that supplier, because we've already done several projects. Because of this there was [with them] also more willingness to do this little bit extra.” (Case 9) Built(up) relational reliance
Own interest guaranteeing
Position protecting
[...] I want to have a ‘decent’ open relationship with the supplier. Also, not to the fullest extent that I say, “look here are all my cards, look in these and you know exactly what my negotiation strategy is”, that would of course be stupid.” (Case 3)
[…] “I also went to the factory, we looked at their quality systems, went through the production process, to show from our side how important that relationship was to us”(Case 8) (Own) firm positive
20
4. Results
In exploring and unraveling more about the relationship between personality-characteristics and distinct purchasing objectives, 10 cases have been analyzed accordingly. These cases reflect various personalities– whom all had to deal with a specific purchase objective for a product respectively. The aim herein was to expose, on a deeper-level the relationship in ‘how’ there expresses to be a fit between the objective of a purchase and the personality of individual purchasers, differentiated through the Big5 model. Core-findings indicate individual differences between the expressions of behavioral mechanisms and approaches for each distinctive objective. Examples hereof include: how a relation is managed, or how a crisis is resolved. One’s personality, (either consciously or unconsciously) depicts required behavior – given their interpretation of achieving the objective. This goes along with additional contextual influence-factors, of which all purchasers are confronted with. Comparing those mechanisms indicates ‘how’ there appears a link between the different traits in the big5, and the objective, which indirectly points towards the possibility to infer a (generalizable) fit. This aggregated into similar overarching important dimensions per Big5-personality trait for all objectives. The table below reflects all the aggregated dimensions, per objective, given each personality trait. TRAIT O B J COST Case: (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5) QUALITY Case: (C3, C7, C8, C9, C10) INNOVATION Case: (C4, C5, C6,C8, C10) DELIVERY PERFORMANCE Case: (C1, C2, C6, C7, C9) C O N S C IEN TI O U S N ES S
Budget conscientiousness N / A Budget conscientiousness Budget conscientiousness
Market awareness Market awareness Market awareness Market awareness
Protecting internal interests Protecting internal interests Protecting internal interests Protecting internal interests
Supplier Performance Supplier Performance Supplier Performance Supplier Performance
EX TR O V ER S IO
N Efficient communication Efficient communication Efficient communication Efficient communication
Social Leverage Social Leverage Social Leverage Social Leverage
Network utilization Network utilization N / A Network utilization
N / A Own interest guaranteeing Own interest guaranteeing Own interest guaranteeing
A G R EEA B L E N ESS
Uncompromising Uncompromising Uncompromising Uncompromising
Opposing/Contending N / A Opposing/Contending Opposing/Contending
Trust Trust Trust Trust
N EU R O TI S IC M
Stress / Emotion control Stress / Emotion control Stress / Emotion control Stress / Emotion control
Having (Self) confidence Having (Self) confidence Having (Self) confidence Having (Self) confidence
N / A Crisis context Crisis context Crisis context
O
P
EN
N
ESS
Involved / Broad Minded Involved / Broad minded Involved / Broad minded Involved / Broad minded
Transparency Transparency Transparency Transparency
21
Table 5 – Overview of findings across cases with main behavioral aggregated dimensions
4.1 The Cost Objective
The aggregated analysis of the data concerning those purchasers dealing with the cost objective shows that context of the cost objective centers around ‘mapping’ of – and adhering to constraints. Findings include: seeking for a minimization of cost factors through tight budget control, while balancing quality and capabilities of suppliers against them. Yet creative solutions are applied as well in order to achieve results. This mainly derives from using – and exploiting the social interaction with suppliers. For instance finding room for (negotiation) – leverage, but also sharing ‘mutually valuable’ information, and re-designing suppliers’ incentives. Purchasers apply different behavioral mechanisms, in dealing with the objective cost objective based on their personality composition. A purchaser’s personality, for the cost-objective is reflected in the following aggregated dimensions:
Tr
ai t OBJ:
COST
Aggregated
dimension Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Co n sc ienti o u snes
s Budget Conscientiousness Cost/Quality ratio
assessing
Cost/Quality ratio assessing
Price bargaining
Middle-man reducing Budget controlling
Market Awareness Market investigation Anticipated order planning Market investigation Anticipated order planning
Protecting Internal Interests Production-continuity protecting Production-continuity protecting
Supplier Performance Consensus reaching Consensus reaching
Ex tr o v er sio n
Efficient Communication Fact-based Supportive
communication (Own) Cultural understanding Social Leverage Soft-Power (leverage) applying Soft-Power (leverage) applying Supplier comforting Soft-Power (leverage) applying Network Utilization
Relationship managing Relationship managing
Relationship investing Built-(up) relational reliance Ag re ea b lenes s Uncompromising
Price Ranging Tenacity, persisting Price Ranging
S-monitoring
Price Ranging
S-monitoring
Weak spot finding
Opposing / Contending Power play leveraging Power play leveraging S-sanctioning Power play leveraging
Trust B/S needs balancing S-responsibility trusting Int. Flexibility ranging B/S needs balancing
Ne u ro tic ism
Stress / Emotion Control Market Trusting Consideration; time taking Consideration; time
taking
Having (Self) Confidence Int. trusting Experience relying Radio Silence
O p en n ess
Involved / Broad Minded S-Idea interchanging S-Idea interchanging S-feedback Getting to know S (also culturally) S-Idea interchanging Int. Feedback reception
Transparency Firm Growth projecting Mutual ‘Valuable ’info sharing
Creativity S-incentive reconfiguring S-incentive reconfiguring
Table 6 – Aggregated dimensions & mechanisms (Cost)
Concerning Conscientiousness
, It was found that Budget conscientiousness was expresseddifferently by different purchasers dependent on the approach either via explicit price bargaining
(C2), assessing the cost–quality ratio (C1,2) or tight budget-controlling (C5), of which a noticeable
22 materials] “I then approached the same director for operations with the idea to skip the trader, I said:
"just say it, it's your money!" […] We can buy through a trader, – or we buy directly, and it will give
you more than a hundred thousand net profit extra” – (C3). This person explicitly, conscientiously abided the budget goals, beyond expectations. Market awareness is only reflected by (C1,5), through
market investigation, and aiming for anticipated order planning “[…] I thought in advance: ‘I have to
arrive at ‘this’ total, bottom line!”– (C1) indicating his distinct devotion to secure upfront
knowledge diligently. Purchasers (C4,5) took special care of protecting internal interests, by focusing on production continuity protecting: “Not so much to reduce those costs (alone) but much more to reduce the security of supply (risk), [s.t.] the factory could run at 100%” – (C3) hence seeing the cost objective in a broader scope. Purchasers (C4, C5), resolved supplier performance: via consensus
reaching with suppliers “[…] ultimately, we have to show black figures together(!)” – (C5). This
example illustrates the dedication to reach a mutually-beneficial financial outcome, above everything else.
In terms of Extroversion:
Purchasers applied efficient communication, in having anappropriate cultural understanding (C3) of suppliers. Differently expressed by means of fact-based, supportive communication (C1). In creating persuasion, social leverage, is applied via supplier
comforting by (C4) making the other party feel ‘contractually’ at ease. Creating leverage through Soft-power applying is done by (C1,4 & 5) “Sometimes it's all friendly chatter, [...] you have to complete
the deal with each other: syrup is a better lubricant than pitch, [while remaining commercially-oriented]”– (C5). This is demonstrating that positive social communication is (more) effective in reaching the cost objective. Network utilization is used too. Prior social contacts are protected in the first place via relationship investing (C4) & relationship managing (C1,4): “I just try to have and keep a very good relationship with all parties (visiting and receiving them) […] I’m trying to (socially)
invest a bit from both sides”– (C4). The purchaser hereby socially aggregates goodwill, resulting in:
built (up) relational reliance, that can be used in resolving issues, and getting a better price. Purchaser
(C4) distinguishes himself from the others by working sociably remarkable effective, depicting a
highly extroversive personality.
Regarding Agreeableness, The cost objective required all purchasers, except (C2) to be
uncompromising, which was found in not agreeing easily, through explicitly stating boundaries. It was done via Price ranging (C1,4 and 5) “But I do indicate a bandwidth, in which the price should be approximately” – (C1). Not ‘giving-in’ in price-negotiations was specifically expressed through
tenacity & persisting; by (C3) as he was not willing move, unless the other party does first. Purchasers
(C4&5) used supplier monitoring when they doubted trustworthiness, to track supplier’s performance.
23
weak spot finding: “You'll check whether you can still take advantage of something somewhere.
[…] have to look for the supplier's [financial] breaking point”– (C5) illustrating his persistence to
not agree, until the absolute cost limit was reached. On a similar note, low agreeableness was revealed through supplier sanctioning by (C4), expressing low trust in their supplier’s capabilities. However, in a more ‘agreeing’, positive sense, having and building Trust is found to be a functional tool, and/or
pre-condition supported by considerate buyer/supplier-needs-balancing throughout the whole
purchasing process (C1,5). Noteworthy: contrary to other purchasers, (C2) embodied high agreeableness via supplier responsibility trusting, and from an internal perspective: flexibility ranging “…you (just) have to make good agreements!” – (C2).
As to Neuroticism: In handling the cost-objective, purchasers tend to respond calmly via Stress
& Emotions control, whereas (C1) was relying on market-trusting, (C2,5) remained especially calm through: Consideration time-taking “[just] put in a moment of pause, you (create) moreuncertainty (at the supplier), they were like: should we do something extra?”– (C2). Through
remaining this calm, the purchaser created more value, for the same costs. Moreover, staying calm by means of having confidence was demonstrated by (C3), through trusting of colleagues internally. Another form of confidence was depicted in experience relying by (C5) knowing their own capabilities, and trusting previously experienced radio silence: “if things go well you often don't hear anything.”– (C5). Peculiarly (C4) did not express any behavioral mechanisms related to neuroticism and cost.
In connection to Openness,
All purchasers demonstrated an involved/broad minded approach to achieving the cost-objective. Purchaser (C2) did this through cooperative behavior supported with supplier feedback. Furthermore, openness to cost-elements was weighted with responses from colleagues through internal feedback reception by (C5). Purchaser (C3) demonstrated his openness in the need to know the supplier (also culturally). Thereby acknowledging his own cultural shortcomings, that he thought could hinder successful contract-negotiations. Purchasers(C1,2,4) illustrated openness via Supplier idea-interchanging “[return to] supplier, and say: “We want to realize this within one year, can we do that? […] you actually co–develop further with such a supplier”– (C2). Purchaser (C1) used openness as an instrument through Transparency via Growth
projecting “[...] also often bring up... that in the coming years we will […] expand our production
capacity […] leaving room for more usage [in the future]” – (C1), using supplier-outlook steering towards better cost-conditions. On a similar note via mutual-valuable information sharing creates a bond between Buyer and Supplier by (C2). Ultimately (C4,5) used creativity intelligently, in achieving the cost-objective, through supplier – incentive – reconfiguring: “ I just said: it can
probably be 'different' - for less money, – that together you will see how it can be optimized.” –
24
4.2 The Quality Objective
When purchasers are faced with the quality objective, their main concern is: making the right decision in terms of supplier selection. Essentially this concerned whether the purchaser can adhere to the required conditions. Quality is often pre-determined by industry – or derived from internal-standards. Furthermore it was found to originate from interaction with internal experts. Occasionally, quality was externally influenced, beyond the scope of influence. Purchasers in this study, specifically desire to be sure about all levels of quality, which they aim to test on multiple levels. Sometimes with the help of experts and site-visits. Moreover, they desire to ensure, and maintain, good contact with suppliers. This is done specifically to avoid risks and problems and resolve existing issues. It appears that a purchaser’s personality is reflected in the following aggregated dimensions:
Tr
ai
t
Quality Aggregated
dimension Case 3 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10
Market Awareness
Considered decision-making Considered
decision-making
Market investigation
Considered
decision-making
Market investigation
Protecting Internal Interests Int. involving Specifications Verifying Specifications Verifying Testing & Approving Specifications Verifying
Supplier Performance In-time del. assessing In-time del. assessing In-time del. assessing Supplier capability analyzing
Ex tr o v er sio n Efficient Communication Directness In-person contact Directness In-person contact In-person contact Continuous communicating
Social Leverage When facing problem,
resourceful acting
Showing appreciation S-convincing/persuading
Network Utilization
Relationship managing
Built-(up) relational
reliance Own Interest Guaranteeing
Position protecting
Own firm) positive
representing
Own firm) positive
representing Ag r ee a b lene ss
Uncompromising Price Ranging Price Ranging Non-compromising Price Ranging Non-compromising
Trust First impressions inferring Real-life S checking Real-life S checking
Ne
u
ro
ticism
Stress / Emotion Control Temper controlling S-behavior anticipating Risk B/S allocation
Having (Self) Confidence Knowledgeable, Self-relying Real-life S checking Multiple-angle considering Int. team capabilities relying
Crisis Context
Contract-conditions
changing
In-time S Securing External influences
handling O p en n ess
Involved / Broad Minded
S-failure learning (from) Quality ‘reason’
understanding
Int. expert consulting
S-failure learning (from)
Transparency B/S transparent communicating
S-production facility checking
B/S transparent
communicating B/S transparent communicating
B/S risk discussing
Table 7 – Aggregated dimensions & mechanisms (Quality)
25 colleagues: “First we clearly indicated what we wanted and put this on paper.”–(C9). Moreover
(C8) illustrated the urgency of: “acting on important criteria for yourself, getting the right products.”. Subsequently, protecting internal interests is conscientiously manifested by (C3,7,8)
through specifications verifying. Examples are checking product certifications by (C3) and carefully assessing “all the characteristics (boundaries) that the product must meet (are) [exactly] written
down on one or two A4 sheets.” by (C8). Moreover, purchaser (C8) also wants to assure quality
standards by testing & approving “ […] install those in a trial period [then reaching] proven quality, of which we say: “It is no longer under discussion”– (C8). Contrary to product-specifications alone, supplier performance is conscientiously assessed too. Purchaser (C10) performed supplier capability
analyzing: “can handle this job, […] the capacity?” Additionally, (C7,8,9) assessed the in-time delivery of the bought product.
In terms of Extroversion,
Purchasers (C7,8 &10) illustrate the use of clear and efficient communication, thereby preventing any quality ambiguity via directness (C7,8), “I communicate like this […] They know when I ask [them], then I really need it” – (C7). Ideally communications is:in-person for (C7, 8 & 10) “in-personal contact allows you to better coordinate the process from both
sides.”– (C8). Whereas purchaser (C10) went further, with continuous communicating: “I needed to stay in constant contact with the supplier, checking out what was happening at their end.” In securing (future)-quality, social leverage is expressed via convincing & persuasion of suppliers by purchaser (C9) and showing appreciation by (C8). When facing problematic (supplier-securing) situations, (socially) resourceful acting was used: “[…] were able to immediately approve two new
Asian suppliers, […] we now simply know we can [qualitatively] rely on them”– (C3) thereupon
exploiting inter-personal skills advantageously. Quality assurance by means of network utilization was primarily realized via relationship managing “[resolve differences] make sure that you come to an
agreement together. It's like a marriage, ha-ha!”– (C9), which can lead to build-(up) relational
reliance. Ultimately, guaranteed their own interests by positively representing own firm (C3,8) and
protecting their focal position (C3).
Regarding Agreeableness,
Quality specifications are strictly confined by purchasers. Hence all of them except for (C8) go through uncompromising acts of behavior of which price ranging(C3,7,9) for quality is meaningful: “[…] you know what the market price is, if suppliers are far above that, I don't even have the need to do a test, because in the end we will never do business with them”– (C3). Yet, non-compromising behavior is found in the inflexibility of specifications: “we
do stick to our own goal, […] indicate that an improvement really needs to be made and that otherwise we will also draw consequences – (C7). Moreover expressed by purchaser (C9): “[fixed points] 'this'
we want and that is no different. At those points you are rigid”– (C9). Also, trust is found to be
26 suppliers of which I say "I want to visit", then they say: “we do not appreciate that” - Then we
are already done… [from my side]”– (C7). The absence of (C8)’s statements on agreeableness can
arguably be seen as a result of prior conscientious checking and verifying of quality conditions.
As to Neuroticism: Quality adherence is found to provide stressful issues occasionally. This
calls for forms of stress / emotion control, predominantly via temper controlling: “[not gettingemotional] … I do stay correct (as it remains a business relationship)” – (C3). Also calculating
some slack with supplier-behavior anticipating (C8) in situations with expected delays, – cools the nerves. Some situations require the need for (a-priori) risk buyer/supplier allocation; a coping-mechanism applied by (C9). In assuring (Self)-confidence, Real-life supplier-checking is done by
(C7), whereas (C9) uses internal-team capabilities to stay calm. Noticeably, (C3) reflected to be very
knowledgeable and self-relying in dealing with quality: “I am an expert […] I know the
[specific-product] market best within my organization, […] I can parry most of the questions [giving] me a confident position”– (C3). Purchaser (C8) also indicated stressors such as multiple-angle
consideration; what quality factors to include to (or) not, as difficult as contract conditions are changing. Person (C9) found in-time supplier securing ‘his biggest challenge’ – as it appeared
problematic to find a supplier that also was qualitatively capable. Related to this, it was found that sometimes in crisis-context things happen outside their influence-sphere: dealing with external
influences “ [unfortunately] dependent on a party on which you do not have much influence [permit
from local government]…you have to make sure to clarify and communicate [with] your
supplier”– (C10) in order to remain calm and still get the quality.
In connection to Openness
, It was found one needs to be involved / broad minded, wherepurchaser (C8) illustrated in-depth quality ‘reason’ understanding in buying: “The replacement costs
[…] are actually (!)Much higher(!) than the initial purchase price. [Hence] quality (fulfillment) is
very important (!)” and subsequently consulted internal-experts for support. Purchasers (C3, & 9) were open in learning from supplier failures: "[Explaining supplier -and safety-stock issues] there is
certainly a learning effect and we can use [that] to our advantage if [problems in supplier
factories] it happens again in the future [lower impact]” – (C3). Transparency is found to important. Yet, transparency just as well from the buyers perspective: “Make it clear in the question what your wishes [desires] are, […] they don't face any surprises”- (C9). Some extensive buyer/supplier risk
discussing was applied by (C9), and buyer/supplier transparent communicating was applied by (C7,
C8, C9). Notably (C7) set-up a meeting: “(the supplier) … (he) told an honest and open story about
[issues & time needed to resolve] in open and honest communication to each other, (!) Then (!), you
can continue to look each other in the eye and do business with each other”. Additionally by
checking supplier-factory conditions: “[…] "how is it organized? […] When I see a chaos in the
27
4.3 The Innovation Objective
The innovation objective is found to be overall quite broad. This is expressed in the variety of approaches products, ideas and implementations. The re-occurring theme is ‘newness’ which often leads to unconventional situations. Purchasers indicate that in the first place, they consider and anticipate the risk and costs of decisions and approaches. This covers the verification of specifications, or finding solutions to (emerging) problems. Innovativeness requires pursuance of both internal-stakeholders - and the supplier. Open – and constructive expressions of behavior are deemed fundamental to achieve success, as depicted in the table below:
Table 8 – Aggregated dimensions & mechanisms (Innovation)
Tr
ai
t OBJ:
INNOV.
Aggregated
dimension Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 8 Case 10
Co n sc ienti o u snes s
Budget Conscientiousness (Cost: Options) Assessing TCO analyzing
Market Awareness
Investment anticipating Risk anticipating Risk anticipating Risk anticipating
Protecting Internal Interests
Int. demand specs
verifying
Int. demand specs
verifying
Int. demand specs
verifying
Secondary conditions
covering Supplier Performance
Specifications verifying Pragmatic problem-solving Consensus reaching
Specifications verifying Pragmatic
problem-solving Lead-time assessing Ex tr o v er sio n Efficient Communication
Int. involved communicating Communicative clarifying Communicative clarifying
Int. involved
communicating Social Leverage
Int. potential ‘Convincing S-involvement convincing
Patience, ‘People-knowledge’
exploiting
Int. potential ‘Convincing S-involvement convincing
Own Interest Guaranteeing Corporate image showcasing Trust & sincerity displaying
Ag re ea b l en ess
Uncompromising Price ranging Neg. position protecting
Opposing / Contending Information withholding Information withholding S-monitoring/pushing S-monitoring/pushing
Trust Breeding-ground offering S-capability trusting B/S value-sharing Real-life supplier checking
Ne
u
ro
ticism
Stress / Emotion Control Market-trusting Influence-sphere
acknowledging Having (Self) Confidence
Int .team capabilities relying
Experience relying Basic trust Basic trust Crisis Context Int.Ext. pressure controlling Complexity resolving O p en n ess
Involved / Broad Minded Progressive thinking S-Mutual achieving Self-developing/learning S-idea interchanging
Transparency ‘Potential ‘envisioning’ Potential (new) business indicating
