The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0957-4093.htm
Coping in supply chains:
a conceptual framework for
disruption management
Nezih Altay
Coping in
supply chains
261
Driehaus College of Business, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA, and
Raktim Pal
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA
Received 30 May 2021
Revised 26 November 2021
25 January 2022
Accepted 28 January 2022
Abstract
Purpose – The Covid-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of global supply chains. Attempts to deepen our
understanding of the effects of the pandemic on global supply chains mostly offer anecdotal evidences and lack
theory grounded research. The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework to help explain
supply chain disruption management.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper and uses a theory building approach. It
develops a conceptual framework adapted from coping theory in psychology to explain supply chain
disruption management. To refine the framework, the authors independently reviewed extant supply chain
disruption management literature. The authors then studied the frameworks on stress theory in psychology.
Following the review of both streams of literatures, the authors developed an initial draft of the conceptual
model. This draft was then iteratively refined through extensive discussions among the authors.
Findings – Coping theory can help revise supply chain disruption management with an alternative lens that
has not been applied before in this domain. The proposed conceptual framework is generic and can be applied
to disruption management strategies for any organization in any industry.
Originality/value – The conceptual framework proposed in this paper offers a new theoretical lens to supply
chain disruption management discourse. It contributes to the operational understanding of supply chain
disruption management.
Keywords Supply chain, Disruptions, Resilience, Coping
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic reminded us that we live in a vulnerable, uncertain, complex and
ambiguous (VUCA) world. Organizations need to enhance their capabilities to deal with the
pandemic’s associated challenges. Attempts on deepening our understanding of the effects of
the pandemic on global supply chains mostly offer anecdotal evidences and lack theory
grounded research (Ivanov, 2020; Choi, 2020).
Even before the pandemic, supply chain disruption and resilience have been very active
topics of research (Blackhurst et al., 2011; Ambulkar et al., 2015; Pettit et al., 2019; Sodhi and
Tang, 2021). Some of the major topics covered in this stream of research and practical
innovations include flexibility, redundancy, risk pooling, capability building, etc. Yet those
topics do not comprehensively answer the differential outcomes arising from the same set of
externalities faced by the organizations. One may suggest organizations may have different
levels of capabilities (agility, adaptability, etc.) resulting in diverse outcomes. However, in
order to recover effectively from disruptions, organizations will need to harness their
capabilities effectively. In order to prevent major disruptions supply chain managers may
need to figure out appropriate inventory policies to deal with several uncertain conditions
(Shahed et al., 2021). For example, some of the organizations had to handle abnormal demand
triggered by panic buying and subsequently fomented by unfiltered information diffusion in
social media (Zheng et al., 2021). Even the value of information on the duration of supply chain
The International Journal of
Logistics Management
Vol. 34 No. 2, 2023
pp. 261-279
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-4093
DOI 10.1108/IJLM-05-2021-0305
IJLM
34,2
262
disruptions may vary widely depending on characteristics of components used in a product
and supply chain managers may need to identify those critical components for which impact
is more sensitive to varying levels of disruption duration information, particularly observed
during the COVID-19 pandemic (Mehrotra and Schmidt, 2021). In order to recover from largescale disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic, some organizations will need to consider
changing the original product type in a cost-effective way (Chen et al., 2021). Demand and
supply disruptions have significant negative impact on supply chain performance (Wagner
and Bode, 2008) even though supply chain disruptions may have different effects on supply
chain performance and firm performance. Furthermore, the negative impact may be more
profound in the upstream side of the supply chain compared to the downstream side (Parast
and Subramanian, 2021). Thus, we argue that organizations need to 1) assess the situation or
context, 2) assess their capabilities and 3) take relevant actions to recover from disruptions
based on these two assessments. There may be multiple ways to handle the situation.
During COVID-19 companies took different approaches to manage the disruptions with
different outcomes. For example, some businesses thrived during the pandemic. Zoom, Slack
and Netflix increased their revenues and profits as more people worked from home (i.e. sell to
more customers with exiting distribution channel). Others had to pivot: when the pandemic
drastically reduced the numbers of air travelers, in order to stay afloat XpresSpa Group, a
leading retailer of spa services at airports, created XpresTest a wholly owned subsidiary to
add COVID-19 testing and screening services to their portfolio and partnered with major
airports to deliver these services to airport employees (i.e. sell new product with new partner
to new customer). Once leisure travelers are back to airports, the company is likely to have a
bigger portfolio of services to offer their customers. Some lost access to their customers: many
gyms lost their customers and had to close their doors. These are just few illustrative
examples showing responses and outcomes varied widely across different businesses. How
to explain such variations in approach and outcomes? We did not find any existing theories
that would provide adequate justification. Using coping, a theory adapted from psychology,
we attempt to explain how the decision-making process for managing disruptions works.
Inspired by various company responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, grounded in coping
theory and extending our existing knowledge in contingency theory, we develop a conceptual
framework for survival mechanisms in supply chain disruption management (SCDM).
In Psychology, coping refers to how a person responds to stressful events to prevent,
avoid or control emotional suffering (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978). The coping processes are
the efforts to manage stress and they may 1) change over time and 2) in accordance with
situational context (Lazarus, 1993). We argue that organizations also undertake such
adaptive strategies when faced with uncertainty. Organizations learn from past experiences
of managing individual disruptions. Over time they learn to retain some actions that work,
discard some that do not work and develop new capabilities. Eventually, they can become
more capable to deal with any potential stress and recover well from mishaps, and become
more resilient. Thus, the coping theory explains how an organization can become more
effective in managing disruptions.
In SCDM, risk management and resilience literature there are many discussions
prescribing various ways to manage disruptions and attain resilience. For example, Sheffi
and Rice (2005) argued in favor of flexibility over adding redundancy and identify five facets
of flexibility including supply, conversion, distribution and customer facing activities, control
systems and corporate culture. Chopra and Sodhi (2014) discussed how segmenting and
regionalizing the supply chain may reduce its fragility and discussed ways to reduce risk
while limiting the impact on cost efficiency. Fiskel et al. (2015) argued for achieving resilience
in a way that finds balance between capabilities and vulnerabilities. A number of notable
empirical works (e.g. Craighead et al., 2007; Blackhurst et al., 2011; Ambulkar et al., 2015) have
shed lights on factors leading to higher resilience. Interested readers may refer to literature
reviews on supply chain resilience such as Hohenstein et al. (2015), Gligor et al. (2019) and
Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009).
Recently, Sodhi and Tang (2021a) suggested to rethink supply chain management (SCM)
research and practice to deal with extreme conditions for now as well as future. Depending on
varying level/extent of shock in supply or demand or both, they define the scopes of (1) SCM
to deal with regular variations, (2) supply chain supply chain risk management (SCRM) to
handle moderate to large variations and lastly (3) extreme supply chain management
(extreme SCM) to take up challenges of extreme mismatches of demand and supply caused by
once in lifetime events like the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to mitigate supply chain risk by
enabling smoother flow of materials, information and fund, Chopra et al. (2021) proposed
“commons” or sets of resources pooled at three different levels: 1) within an organization
across product lines, 2) across multiple organizations within an industry and 3) across
multiple industries. These three levels of “commons” match three levels of variations
mentioned in Sodhi and Tang (2021a). In a related work in preparing for future pandemics
Sodhi and Tang (2021b) proposed a three-tier approach using inventory, backup capacity and
standby capability to deal with three levels of crises and avoid high cost of inventory.
Ripple effect or disruption propagation in supply chain is a major research steam
(Dolgui et al., 2018). A recent literature review (Ivanoiv and Dolgui, 2021) categorizes the
Operations Research (OR) based contributions in this area into three levels: network,
process and control. The network level models take macro-view of structural property of
supply chain disruptions and do not consider the operational parameters, which are under
the purview of process level. The control level models work at a more granular level
dealing with inventory control, production planning, routing, etc. Similar multi-level
analyses have been considered earlier. For example, using network theory and complex
systems perspectives. Peck (2005) developed a conceptual model of a supply chain as an
adaptive system based on empirical research and analyzed drivers of supply chain
vulnerabilities. The study recommended that dynamic nature of the problem should be
considered from several perspectives and analyzed at four levels: value stream/product or
process, asset and infrastructure dependencies, organizations and inter-organizational
networks, and social and natural environment.
A number of empirical studies investigated supply chain resilience. Some of the notable
illustrative examples from recent literature are provided here. Based on data from 213
manufacturing firms, Dubey et al. (2021) analyzed how data analytics capability and
organizational flexibility might influence supply chain resilience. Using case studies, Messina
et al. (2020) investigated how information is gathered, processed and used while dealing with
supply chain disruptions. Dubey et al. (2017) conceptualized the implications of supply chain
visibility, cooperation, trust and behavioral uncertainty for supply chain resilience using
resource-based view (RBV) and relational view and tested several hypotheses using data
collected from 250 firms. Altay et al. (2018) used dynamic capability view (DCV) to
conceptualize supply chain agility and resilience and investigated their impacts on pre- and
post-disaster performances using 335 responses gathered. Juan et al. (2022) analyzed the
relationships among the five components of supply chain resilience: visibility, velocity,
flexibility, robustness and collaboration and their impacts on the supply chain performance
under disruption using data from 113 manufacturing firms.
While the above-mentioned conceptual frameworks, empirical studies, as well as
prescriptive and predictive analyses are extremely valuable, we are not aware of any theory
that comprehensively explains the ongoing journey for managing disruptions. The
organizational resilience literature (e.g. van Der Vegt et al., 2015) mentions about
abundance of valuable case studies on resilience and points to “a clear need to use these
observations to build more general theories” (p. 974). Sousa and Voss (2008) also suggested
that operations management research could benefit from increased use of methodologies
Coping in
supply chains
263
IJLM
34,2
264
focused toward theory building. We argue that the coping theory can fill these gaps in extant
literature and provide a sound theoretical support to explain disruption management.
The remainder of the manuscript is organized as follows. Section 2 explains our
methodological approach. Section 3 provides a detailed review of coping theory in
psychology. Section 4 sets the boundaries of the proposed theory and explains how it is
different than other theoretical frameworks proposed for supply chain disruption
management. This is followed by a discussion of theoretical and practical implications of
the proposed conceptual framework. Section 6 concludes the paper and lists future research
avenues.
2. Methodology
This conceptual paper contributes new knowledge in the domain of SCDM and serves the
need to better understand managing large-scale supply chain disruptions. It presents the
initial phase of our current research to develop a theory that explains and helps analyze
SCDM. Although there is a healthy literature on SCDM with a lot of prescriptive research and
several attempts to build theory around it, we argue that the conceptual framework we
present in this paper contributes to supply chain literature with a revision of current
knowledge in the domain of SCDM as it takes “a novel perspective on something that has
already been identified” (MacInnis, 2011, p. 143).
Meredith (1993) argues that use of conceptual research methods building on description
and explanation lead to theory-building and hypothesis-testing research. Conceptual
frameworks are also useful tools to increase the understanding of disruption management
among practitioners, hence increasing the external validity of SCM scholarship (Corley and
Gioia, 2011). Our approach is based on Wacker’s (1998) general procedure for theory building
where we define definitions of variables, draw the boundaries of the domain, describe the
relationships between constructs and make propositions (predictions). We also review
relevant literature with the notion of advancing theory and follow relevant guidelines
mentioned in Post et al. (2020) and Breslin and Gatrell (2020). We attempt to combine both
integrative and generative approaches (Post et al., 2020). While we analyze and synthesize
current research covering the integrative aspect, we also attempt to generate new ideas to
provide an appropriate platform for future research.
We review literature in psychology and attempt to bring a theory from psychology to
explain phenomena in SCM along with theorizing boundary conditions across these two
disciplines. One can argue this to be a “metatheory” form of synthesis as discussed in Torraco
(2016). Applying a theory from one to another domain (Nadkarni et al., 2018), also known as
transferring theories across domains (Breslin and Gatrell, 2020), is a common approach for
theorizing through literature review. This requires shifting boundary conditions or scope of
the propositions generated from a theoretical model in search for a new solution and/or
explanation of phenomena. We take an inductive approach, develop conceptual framework
and set research agendas as they emerge from literature review. This is a well-established
avenue for developing and/or advancing theory via literature review (Post et al., 2020).
As opposed to empirical, qualitative or quantitative approaches we use a conceptual
approach because of several reasons. First, theory building using conceptual models is a wellestablished legitimate approach, and many well-cited theory-building papers (e.g. Meredith,
1993; Wacker, 1998) have championed this approach. Second, we perform extensive literature
review and adapt a deep-rooted theory from another area (i.e. psychology) to develop the
conceptual model. This “metatheory” form of synthesis is a commonly used approach to
advance theoretical boundaries through literature review in cases such as ours (Torraco,
2016; Breslin and Gatrell, 2020). Lastly, this work is the first one on the theme of using coping
in the context of supply chain disruptions. Once we develop the conceptual model, we will test
the model extensively in our follow-up studies. Hence, the conceptual approach was a logical
choice to start building the foundation of this research stream.
We adapt coping theory from psychology to SCDM. Buffa (1980) and later Ketchen and
Hult (2007) urged operations management researchers to go beyond traditional operation
management subject areas. Taylor and Taylor (2009) and more recently Halldorsson et al.
(2015) have endorsed researchers to use alternative theories and methods to explore new
phenomena in SCM. SCM literature is not unfamiliar with such “borrowing” of theories form
other domains of scholarship and the advantages of doing that have been well established
(Defee et al., 2010; Halldorsson et al., 2015; Gunasekaran et al., 2018). Coping theory helps to
revise SCDM knowledge with an alternative, not previously applied, frame of reference in this
domain (MacInnis, 2011). In psychology the unit of analysis is the individual. Consequently,
the theory that focuses on how an individual copes with stressful situations needs to be
adapted to an organization’s behavior when faced with disruptions. The influence of
psychological theories and cognitive perspectives to organizational behavior began in 1960s
(Clegg et al., 1999). When adapting concepts from cognitive theories, organizations are seen as
enacting bodies (Pfeffer, 1982) and parallels are drawn between concepts and strategies
(Weick, 1979). For example, in a call for research on managing risk and resilience, the then
editors of the Academy of Management Journal discuss that the roots of the resilience concept
lies in the field of child behavior science within psychology, where it is defined as the ability to
withstand stress and bounce back from traumatic events (van Der Vegt et al., 2015). We argue
that one can make a similar argument for coping theory.
To refine the framework, the authors independently reviewed existing supply chain
disruption management literature focused on content related to supply side, demand side,
operational disruptions and the strategies companies implement to mitigate their effects.
This review provided details about mitigation and response strategies that organizations
implement and showed where existing research falls short to explain SCDM. The authors
then studied frameworks on stress theory developed by Lazarus and colleagues (Lazarus and
Folkman, 1984). Following the review of both streams of literatures, the authors together
developed the initial draft of the conceptual model. This draft was then iteratively refined
through extensive discussions among the authors as described by Meredith (1993). The
discussions and revisions of the conceptual model continued until neither of the authors
questioned any of the content in the framework. The authors also sought feedback from
practitioners and researchers in this area and their suggestions were incorporated. This was
an informal validation step similar to the one mentioned in Palsson and Sandberg (2020). In
the future, we will undertake a follow-up study to formally validate and test the conceptual
model by analyzing data collected through extensive interviews and surveys and secondary
information from published reports.
3. Coping theory in psychology
In psychology, coping refers to a person’s response to stressful life events to prevent, avoid or
control emotional suffering (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978). Folkman and Lazarus (1980) define
the process of coping as ongoing cognitive and behavioral efforts to master, tolerate or reduce
specific external and/or internal demands that are viewed as exhausting or exceeding the
resources of the person. Basically, the coping process refers to the efforts to manage stress.
Different stressful situations call for different coping strategies (Mattlin et al., 1990), which
resembles contingency theory in management. Accordingly, Lazarus (1993) argues that
“coping changes over time and in accordance with the situational contexts in which it occurs”
(p. 235). Lazarus and Folkman (1987) add that “coping as a process can be studied only if we
can compare what happened at one moment, or in one context, with another” (p. 143). Thus,
coping strategies are context specific and dynamic.
Coping in
supply chains
265
IJLM
34,2
266
This means, coping is about adaptation. It is multidimensional and is achieved by a
plethora of behaviors, cognitions and perceptions (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978). People coping
with a particular stressful situation try to improve their adaptational outcome (e.g. improved
morale, physical health and social functioning). This outcome can be viewed as successful or
unsuccessful by them depending on who is coping, when, under which environmental and
intrapsychic circumstances, and with respect to which types of adaptational outcomes
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1987). The goal is to achieve a stable way of coping under a variety of
circumstances without being overwhelmed by them (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978).
According to Lazarus (1993) coping process (e.g. thoughts and actions) and outcomes
should be measured independently in order to determine a degree of success in adaptation.
Whether a coping process leads to adaptation “depends on the particular person, the specific
type of encounter, in the short or long run, and the outcome modality being studied
(e.g. morale, social functioning, or somatic health)” (Lazarus, 1993, p. 235). Table 1
summarizes the principles of the coping process.
The psychology literature on coping is vast. A simple search of scientific journal articles
on PsycINFO (the largest database on psychology research), published in the last 20 years,
using “coping” as a keyword in the document title generated more than 12,000 documents,
130 of which are review articles focusing on coping with specific stressors. For well-rounded
review articles on coping theory we refer the reader to Folkman and Moskowitz (2004) which
covers the history of coping research and identifies research gaps, and to Skinner et al. (2003)
which reviews category systems for classifying different coping mechanisms.
Coping researchers identify three types of stress: harm, threat and challenge. Harm refers
to psychological damage or loss. Threat is the anticipation of harm. And emotional strains
that a person feels confident about tackling are called challenges (Lazarus and Folkman,
1984). Individuals can protect themselves from stressful experiences in three ways: 1) by
eliminating or modifying the conditions that are causing stress, 2) by changing their
perception of an experience to neutralize its problematic character and 3) by keeping the
emotional consequences of problems within manageable levels. This third approach of
coping is more about the management of the stressful experiences than their elimination.
There are two approaches to coping: trait-oriented (i.e. treats coping as a personality trait)
and process-oriented (i.e. treats coping as a process). The former leads to emotion-focused and
the latter to problem-focused coping strategies. The most important factors with respect to
trait-oriented coping are motivational dispositions, goals, values and general beliefs (the
parallel for organizations would be organizational culture and structure) (Lazarus, 1966).
Process-oriented coping focuses on temporal and contextual inputs and takes a problemsolving approach. Research on process-oriented coping generally is interested in coping
efficiency and the relationships between various coping strategies and their adaptational
outcomes (Krohne, 2002). Lazarus (1993) argues that to study the differences between traitoriented and process-oriented coping empirically, one should observe the coping strategies
employed by the same persons over time or across various stressful encounters.
1.
2.
3.
Table 1.
Principles of the coping
process in psychology
(Lazarus, 1993)
4.
5.
The coping effort is independent of the outcome
The coping process and its outcomes must be measured separately in order to understand the extent of
adaptation
The process of coping employed for different threats varies with the significance and requirements of
these threats
The personality vs process characteristics of coping can only be studied empirically by observing the
same persons over time or across stressful encounters
The function of problem-focused coping is to manage the stressful encounter by changing the
environment or oneself
Figure 1 presents the theoretical framework for coping with stress in psychology. How a
person copes with stress depends on social and cultural environmental factors (i.e. situational
factors) as well as their personal and psychological traits (i.e. personal factors). Some of the
most important personal factors are a person’s motivations and cognitive capacity. People’s
motivations are a function of their goals and goal hierarchies and their cognition is based on
their beliefs and ways of thinking about what is happening around them (Lazarus and
Folkman, 1987). People feel the need for coping when their personal attributes (motivational
and/or cognitive) leave them vulnerable to certain stressors or when an external condition
creates a potential obstacle that would prevent them from achieving their goals (e.g. an exam,
tenure decision, etc.).
Once a stressful situation presents itself, the individual appraises the situation. Appraisal
in psychological stress theory refers to “an individual’s evaluation of the significance of what
is happening or their well-being” (Krohne, 2002, p. 3). How we respond to a stressful situation
is a result of what we think its implications will be on our well-being (i.e. appraisal) based on
how we interpret the information we have about the situation. The information we process is
sourced from the environment as well as within us (i.e. our personal worldviews). Depending
on the situation, the weight of importance we put on these two sources changes (e.g. daily
hassles vs a major disaster). For example, Green (1986) showed that for survivors of major
disasters, objective characteristics of the event (e.g. loss of friends and loved ones) were better
predictors of stress response than were subjective appraisals of the event.
According to Lazarus and Folkman (1987), there are two kinds of appraisal: primary and
secondary appraisals. Primary appraisal checks whether the situation we are experiencing
has potential to impact our well-being. It is as check if any of the three types of stress (i.e.
harm, threat or challenge) presents itself. If the stressful situation is relevant to one’s personal
goals, the depth and breadth of the coping response will depend on what is at stake. Here,
Lazarus and Folkman (1987) define a person’s goal hierarchies and other personality traits as
an antecedent, while what is at stake is considered a transactional variable, which forms
based on the relationship between the personality trait and environmental context. For
example, they found that people with high self-confidence are more likely to appraise
stressful encounters as a challenge rather than a threat. Once the antecedents and
transactional variables are set, a person engages secondary appraisal in which one evaluates
how much control one has over outcomes and what action to take (e.g. coping options), if at all
(i.e. taking no action is an action).
The appraisal process is followed by the choice of coping strategies. Here, one looks at the
catalogue of coping resources they have, which include social and psychological resources as
well as specific coping responses (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978).
Psychology literature on the coping process suggests that some coping strategies are more
consistent than others and “there may be no universally good or bad coping processes,
Coping in
supply chains
267
Figure 1.
Theoretical framework
of stress and coping
IJLM
34,2
268
though some might more often be better or worse than others” (Lazarus, 1993, p. 235).
The process changes according to the changes in temporal and contextual variables. Krohne
(2002) adds that coping strategies also change based on predictability, controllability and
imminence of a potentially stressful event.
The theory of coping as a process emphasizes two distinct coping strategies: problemfocused and emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping strategies aim to change the
environment or oneself to remove the stressful condition, whereas emotion-focused strategies
try to change the way we view the stressful situation rather than attacking the cause of the
stressor (Folkman and Lazarus, 1990). Psychology research suggests that problem-focused
strategies are effective on contextual factors while some emotion-focused strategies are
heavily influenced by personality factors (Lazarus and Folkman, 1987). Suls and Fletcher
(1985) proposed a third coping strategy, namely avoidance-oriented coping where one avoids
the sources of stress.
Coping research in psychology focuses on two questions: (1) which variables influence the
choice of coping strategies and (2) what are the effects of these strategies on adaptational
outcomes? The efficacy of coping depends on “the quality of fit between the coping strategy,
its execution, and the adaptational requirements of the encounter” (Lazarus, 1993, p. 240).
This fit depends on the person’s appraisal of what is happening and what is actually
happening as well as the inventory of viable coping options available to the individual
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).
In summary, coping literature in psychology explains coping as a complex and changing
process that is closely connected with contextual and temporal factors. Psychology research
identifies two cognitive appraisal factors: primary appraisal of stakes and secondary
appraisal of coping options. Appraisal responds to contextual conditions and helps explain
changes or variations in coping. For example, younger and older persons differ in their coping
patterns. Some of these differences are developmental and age-related and others are related
to the differing sources of stress based on age. There is also evidence in the psychology
literature that coping, specifically problem-focused strategies, lead to resilience (Leipold and
Greve, 2009; Mayordomo et al., 2016).
4. Coping in supply chain disruption management research
4.1 Concepts seemingly related with coping and boundaries of coping
While discussing coping it may be worthwhile to touch upon few concepts/ideas that may
appear connected to coping. First, we will talk about agility, adaptability and alignment
components of triple-A supply chain (Lee, 2004). Agility refers to ability to respond quickly to
sudden change in demand and/or supply caused by unexpected disruptions. Loosely
speaking, flexibility and responsive also refer to the same ability. Adaptability is ability to
evolve over time and adjust according to the market changes. Alignment is establishment of
incentives for partners across the supply chain to improve performance of the chain. While
adaptability has a longer-term focus compared to agility, both are capabilities. Alignment is
more of an action to achieve desirable outcome(s). The coping mechanisms evaluate
capabilities and contextual situations to decide course of actions, which may change over
time. Thus, the coping theory covers the three pillars of triple-A supply chain.
The main focus of supply chain risk management is assessing risk and developing
mitigation strategies (Sodhi et al., 2012; Ho et al., 2015). In addition to assessment and
preparedness, coping also covers the response part. Thus, while coping covers risk
management, risk management is not coping. In order to manage disruptions organizations
need to be agile and/or adaptive depending on the nature of the disruption and coping theory
vindicates both the capabilities. Also, over time organizations learn from previous
experiences and evolve to become more effective to deal with disruptions in the future.
The psychology literature mentions that coping leads to higher resilience (Leipold and Greve,
2009; Mayordomo et al., 2016) and thus coping theory has potential to explain the journey to
supply chain resilience.
4.2 Coping in OM literature
To the best of our knowledge, the concept of coping has been utilized in the OM literature very
sparingly. Previously, the concept of coping has been used in peak capacity management in
service operations (Amistad and Clark, 1994). While the focus of coping is much narrower
here, it is argued that coping capacity strategy can augment existing capacity management
practices and provide means for better service recovery. Johnston and Pongatichat (2008)
discussed about a situation where the managers did not adjust the performance measures to
align with the strategic intent of their organization but used ad-hoc coping strategies to
defuse tension caused by this misalignment. Anand and Ward (2004) mentioned about coping
mechanisms in the context of manufacturing flexibility. Gunessee and Subramanian (2020)
focus on ambiguity as a root cause of coping and coping mechanisms (i.e. sense-making, (in)
tolerance, assessment, and heuristics) in supply chains. They argue that organizations use
mitigation and preparedness as coping strategies to deal with ambiguity. They utilize
behavioral decision theory to explain the coping behavior of individual decision makers but
the link to organizational coping is missing.
These papers do not look into the theory of coping, they primarily treat coping as ad-hoc
strategy to deal with the situation, have rather narrower scope, and do not establish the
connection of coping in psychology, and do not discuss the larger umbrella of coping as we
proposed in the manuscript.
Coping in
supply chains
269
4.3 Conceptual framework for coping to explain disruption management
A conceptual framework of disruption management was developed by analyzing SCDM
through the lens of coping theory. A review of SCDM, supply chain risk management and
supply chain resilience strategies helped to illustrate how organizations cope with disruptive
events. The framework describes the thought process on how organizations cope with
disruptions and Figure 2 illustrates this process.
In the SCM context the stressor is a disruption. The process described in Figure 2 does not
differentiate between impact (e.g. routine disruptions like a delayed supply delivery vs large
disruptive events like a fire in supplier’s manufacturing plant), duration (e.g. container ship
stuck in Suez canal vs the COVID-19 pandemic), nature (e.g. natural disaster vs worker strike)
or the source (e.g. internal operational failure vs external stimulus) of a disruption. The coping
Figure 2.
A conceptual
framework for coping
in disruption
management
IJLM
34,2
270
process is agnostic to these variables but clearly, the response will change according to which
variables are at play.
When a disruption happens, the organization will assess the situation. Coping theory calls
this step appraisal. The purpose of a primary appraisal is to understand the essence of the
disruptive event (i.e. impact, duration, nature and source) and whether it presents a harm,
threat or a challenge to the organization. Once a decision is made, a secondary appraisal
evaluates the resources and capabilities available in the organization’s arsenal that could be
used to respond to the disruption. Each option is evaluated against the organizations goal
hierarchy and a coping strategy is selected that is expected to be most effective in that
particular scenario the organization is facing. These resources and capabilities are dynamic
and thus coping changes in time and based on the characteristics of the disruption.
Organizations acquire or develop resources and capabilities based on their past experience
with disruptions and their risk mitigation strategies.
If the organization decides to “fight” then a problem-focused coping strategy is deployed
using the resources and capabilities selected as a result of the secondary appraisal. Problemfocused coping strategies aim to change the environmental conditions that allow the event in
question to disrupt the operations of the focal organization and/or change the nature of the
disruption to mitigate its potential damage on the organization. Emotion-focused coping
strategies refer to situations where the organization chooses not to engage and either
complain to a governing authority (e.g. industry organization or local/regional/national
government), plead for assistance or simply ignore the disruptive situation. Psychology
literature shows that emotion-focused strategies are generally not productive. We expect a
somewhat similar result for business organizations.
Coping efforts of an organization will eventually lead to an outcome. In the short-term the
preferred outcome is clearly that the organization manages the disruption without any
damage to their operations, market share, financial health as well as morale of personnel. The
information flow from outcomes back toward the appraisal process indicates feedback. As
the organization learns from its experiences in managing disruptions, it becomes more
resilient as a long-term outcome.
The disruption-appraisal-coping-outcome sequence of decisions are all affected by
external and internal factors throughout the coping process. In the context of SCDM, internal
factors relate to the personality traits in stress theory form psychology. An organizations
“personality” could be described by its leadership, organizational size, structure and culture.
These factors will impact how an organization perceives a disruptive situation, assesses the
risks associated with it, responds to it and evaluates the outcome. The external factors refer to
relevant social, political, industrial and technological variables that impact the essence of the
disruption, appraisal and response, as well as the evaluation of the short- and long-term
outcomes. The dynamism of external factors also apply to internal factors as organizations
change leadership, grow/shrink and change their culture in time.
Based on the arguments above as well as discussions on the conceptual framework and
detailed literature review, we provide with the following propositions that can be tested in
future studies.
Proposition 1. Coping enables adaptive response and can explain differential outcomes
under similar conditions.
Proposition 2a. The influence of appraisal, external factors and internal factors on choice
of coping strategy (problem-focused or emotional) may be different.
Proposition 2b. Even within more systematic (problem-focused) coping strategies,
different variations may be observed based on various factors.
Proposition 3. Effective coping may increase resilience of organization and viability of
supply chain.
Coping in
supply chains
The primary goal of disruption management is to effectively deal with the adverse impacts
arising out of disruptions. Often decision makers are forced to explore in uncharted or
uncertain territories and organizations may need to adapt to the situation. The coping theory
explains the basic adaptation process to deal with stress and thus can help managers come up
with better strategies to pivot as needed in managing disruptions.
271
4.4 Comparing coping with other theories used to explain disruption management
In this section, we discuss other theories that have been used to have a better understanding
of disruption management and compare them with the coping theory. Ellis et al. (2011) used
enactment theory to integrate different elements of supply disruption risk literature.
The enactment theory provides rich contextual understanding of buyer perceptions risk
arising out of supply disruption (de Olivieira and Handfield, 2017). It focuses on “sensemaking” (Weick, 2001; Weick et al., 2005) to resolve equivocality or multiple meanings linked
with a situation (Weick, 1969). Sense-making is a “closed-loop process comprised of
enactment (actions based on previous understanding), selection (interpretation of events) and
retention (causal maps) that enable individuals to resolve equivocality” (Ellis et al., 2011; de
Oliveira and Handfield, 2017). This aspect is covered by “appraisal” in the coping theory.
The “interaction” component of enactment theory, as discussed in Ellis et al. (2011), primarily
refers to collective joint effort in an organizational setting. But Ellis et al. (2011) does not
explicitly discuss the mechanism or process of how an individual/organization deals with a
specific situation. Another criticism to the sense-making theory that it ignores the adaptation
process over time (Miles, 2012).
Craighead et al. (2020) propose ten organizational theories that could help scholars build
knowledge about the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on supply chains. One of these ten
theories is the Awareness-Motivation-Capability (AMC) framework developed by Chen (1996)
for competitor analysis and extended by Shi et al. (2020) to respond to implicit threats and by
Chen et al. (2007) to external threats. Craighead et al. (2020) argue that the AMC framework
can be used to explain how companies respond to external threats like the pandemic. AMC
posits that three antecedents – awareness, motivation and capability drive the response of a
firm to a threat. Awareness is central to understanding an organization’s actions. It refers to
how cognizant an organization is to a developing situation that is potentially disruptive. In a
sense, awareness in the AMC framework is parallel to appraisal in coping. When decision
makers in an organization become aware of a threat they take action attempting to eliminate
the threat or mitigate its effects on the organization (Shi et al., 2020). When an organization
becomes aware of a threat whether they respond to it or not and how depends on their
motivation and capabilities. Motivation is related to the organizations goal hierarchies and
values. Capabilities of an organization to respond are based on the resource-based view (RBV)
and are a function of the resources they can access. The AMC framework explains the drivers
for a response but does not go into adaptation of the organization to the threatening situation.
It also does not consider the external factors as it was originally developed for competitive
analysis using an attacker-defender mental model.
Kovacs and Tatham (2009) compared resource configurations of military and
humanitarian organizations in their dormant state (while not in action) to understand
which capabilities are needed to effectively respond to disruptions. Using the lens of RBV
they argued that an organization’s resource configuration impact its effectiveness and
efficiency. While asset-heavy military organizations can rely more on its internal resources,
the humanitarian organizations with lighter assets need to rely more on external resources
and focus on the capabilities to manage relationships with donors, partners, suppliers and
IJLM
34,2
272
logistics providers more closely to deal with disruptions. Finally, they argued that both type
of organizations can benefit if positive aspects of their approaches to the common challenge of
disruption are combined and they identified five aspects to consider: 1) timely funding, 2)
appropriate metrics to justify funding, 3) co-ordination, 4) pooled resources and 5)
organizational learning. Table 2 presents a comparison of these three frameworks in terms
of their coverage of different elements of SCDM.
In a recent editorial, Dolgui and Ivanov (2021) argued in favor of adaptable redundancy
that allows for situational reconfiguration in response to external changes and reduces the
need for certainty, as discussed in Low-Certainty-Need (LCN) framework in Ivanov and
Dolgui (2019). Dolgui and Ivanov (2021) further observed that redundant assets such as
backup inventory, capacity and supply and transportation infrastructure did not help the
firms much during 2020 supply chain disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather
agile capacity and data-driven real-time visibility provided more positive experience. The
concept of Viable Supply Chain (VSC) model, championed by Ivanov (2020) integrates agility,
resilience and sustainability and discusses importance of adaptable supply chain structures
and mechanism for transitioning to different supply chain designs. The technical aspect of
VSC model is explained through the lens of dynamic systems theory. The coping theory
draws a close parallel to adaptable redundancy as well as VSC model regarding its adaptation
theme but in addition coping explains the internal dynamics of enabling the adaptation
process. The viability concept in VSC incorporates 1) evolution and adaptation of the supply
chain structures and processes, 2) three different types of feedback cycles depending on
different situations (i.e. le-agile state, disrupted state, survival stats) and 3) survivability over
time. We argue while VSC is a novel conceptualization to provide holistic view of supply
chain integrating different frameworks (e.g. agile, lean, sustainable, resilient and digital
supply chain), coping theory explains its central theme – viability. The very notion of
viability is the primal driver or the focal outcome for which different entities tend to put out
coping efforts in response to a stimulus.
5. Discussion
We adapted coping from stress theory in psychology to supply chain disruption management
in order to develop a conceptual framework to explain how organizations manage major
disruptions in their supply chains, like the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposed conceptual
framework is generic and can be applied to disruption management strategies for any
organization in any industry. We first start our discussion with explaining the theoretical
implications of our research and then move into implications for practitioners.
Elements of
disruption
management
Table 2.
Comparison of
disruption
management
frameworks
External factors
Internal factors
Assessment
Resources
Capabilities
Adaptive response
Short-term
orientation
Long-term
orientation
Enactment theory
(Ellis et al., 2011)
AMC framework
(Chen, 1996)
Configuration & capability
(Kovacs and Tatham, 2009)
Coping
theory
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5.1 Theoretical implications
SCDM literature has been primarily focusing on prescriptive research identifying sources
and drivers of disruption risk and actions organizations can take to mitigate the risk of
disruptions. However, once their supply chain is disrupted, how organizations respond and
recover appears only as case studies that showcase successful practices (Ivanov et al., 2017).
Very little research describes the thought process organizations go through when managing
disruptions. We discuss the theoretical implications of our research on three levels. First, we
touch on the high-level implications of this research. Second, we focus on the application of
the conceptual framework in SCDM research. Lastly, we explain ways to tackle or manage
large supply chain disruptions.
The conceptual framework proposed in this paper offers a new theoretical lens to SCDM
discourse. It contributes to the operational understanding of SCDM. It includes intra- as well
as inter-organizational perspectives related to SCDM. It contains elements of contingency
theory as interactions between an organization and disruptive events are not static and
change during and across encounters. Thus, generalizing coping behavior of organizations
over time and across encounters will diminish the granularity needed to understand what
triggers organizations to cope, under which conditions; and how they cope, using which
resources, capabilities and strategies (Lazarus and Folkman, 1987).
The second-level implications concern the application of the coping framework in SCDM
scholarship. The proposed conceptual framework creates new avenues of research to expand
our understanding of SCDM. For example, SCDM research so far has been mostly focusing on
“mechanical” issues such as facility fortification, buffer stock, supply chain visibility, etc. The
organizational aspect of disruption management has been largely ignored. The coping theory
opens the door for research on leadership, culture, organizational structure and size as
contingency factors within the SCDM context. Similarly, a firm’s position (e.g. upstream vs
downstream, existence of number of competitors in the same echelon, etc.) in the supply chain is
another external factor that should be considered in coping studies. This implies that coping
may be affected by the structure of the supply chain and the firm’s position in it. However, any
study of coping in the supply chain first needs to have a way to evaluate the short- and longterm outcomes. Evaluation systems need to take into account the gaps between the actual
situation and the organization’s assessment on it (similar to the difference between reality and
perception), as well as the gaps between what the organization would like to do vs what they
can do which is a function of resources and capabilities available to the organization. Such a
holistic approach may complement the viable supply chain (VSC) concept discussed earlier.
The third level of implications refers to the ways to tackle or manage large supply chain
disruptions. Providing an inventory of resources and capabilities along with different coping
mechanisms is not in the scope of this paper. However, the proposed conceptual framework
provides the approach to identify which coping strategies could be feasible under which
conditions for which type of organizations. Traditionally, in the SCDM literature the process
starts with sense-making. However, our framework suggests that the coping process starts
with the disruption itself. In the literature, disruptions have a negative connotation. They are
viewed as either threats (risk management) or harm (response and recovery). Our proposed
framework views disruption as a stimulus rather than an incident. We consider the “nature”
of the stimulus and extending it by to including “challenge” as a potential stimulus. The
coping theory also extends the idea of “sense-making” into a two-stage appraisal process in
which not only the stimulus is assessed but also the resources and capabilities that the
organization possesses to identify the best match for the stimulus.
5.2 Implications for practitioners
Understanding the natural process of how people deal with stress via coping is a building
block for collective action to deal with disruption in an organizational setting. Ultimately,
Coping in
supply chains
273
IJLM
34,2
274
organization’s executives need to manage people and such understanding may help to work
with the employees better at time of distress. They need to realize that an organization’s
coping strategy depends on motivation (organization’s goal hierarchy and culture),
cognition (sense-making or assessment of situation), environmental conditions, nature of
stimulus and particular traits of the organization (resources, capabilities and
vulnerabilities). Focusing only on the disruptive event or observing competitors to gauge
the situation and develop a coping strategy would most likely lead to failure. The proposed
conceptual framework helps decision makers see the bigger picture in order to manage
disruptions effectively.
The organizational culture and leadership style of decision makers impacts an
organization’s coping strategy leading to desirable outcomes. Thus, decision makers may
need to consider developing leadership skills that are effective in crisis situations and
promoting organizational culture conducive to achieving those outcomes.
6. Conclusions and future research
The Covid-19 pandemic perturbed global supply chains exposing their fragility. How supply
chains can cope with such large disruptive events that bring volatility, uncertainty,
complexity and ambiguity to markets is of great concern for supply chain scholars. But most
of the literature on disruption management offer anecdotal evidence and lack theory
grounded research. In this conceptual paper, we adapt coping from stress theory in
psychology to supply chain disruption management and propose coping theory as a new lens
to study supply chain disruption management.
Adapting theoretical frameworks from outside of the field is not new for SCM. Buffa (1980)
first suggested that operations management scholars should borrow theories from other
fields of study. Others followed suit (Ketchen and Hult, 2007; Halldorsson et al., 2015). In
psychology coping refers to how a person responds to stress. Coping theory can help review
and revise supply chain disruption management with an alternative lens that has not been
applied before in this domain (MacInnis, 2011).
Of course, our research has its limitations. The proposed conceptual framework is based
on cognitive processes of individuals, not organizations. Hence, we draw parallels assuming
organizations can act as independent bodies (Pfeffer, 1982). In addition, the coping framework
proposed in this paper explains disruption management but does not make a direct link to
resilience. Although psychology literature shows that coping leads to resilience, how one goes
from coping to resilience is not clear. On a positive note, this limitation of our work also leads
to interesting future research directions.
We expect that our proposed conceptual framework will catalyze new research in SCDM.
For example, one natural and important extension of our research is how coping may be (un)
related with various organizational theories. We are currently working on this extension as a
follow-up paper. Furthermore, the proposed framework needs to be tested and challenged
with case studies and survey research. For surveys, scales to measure coping efficacy need to
be developed.
The application of coping theory to supply chain disruption literature will lead to
numerous interesting research questions. Coping theory can be used as lens to investigate
how and why some coping strategies and resources are more effective than others? Under
which conditions? How does the effectiveness of specific coping strategies compare with that
of organizational culture, position in the supply chain, social and financial capital, and other
resources? Are organizations that have larger repertoire of coping resources and capabilities
more effective in coping? What kind of organizational structures lend themselves better to
which coping strategies with what sort of outcomes? What is the role of organizational
culture in coping?
The proposed framework also sees the disruptive stimulus as part of the coping process.
Lazarus (1993) questions to what extent the choice of coping strategies are impacted by the
nature of the disruptive stimulus (e.g. threat, harm vs challenge, what is at stake, expected
duration of disruption, etc.). Our framework also suggests that there is feedback between
each step of the coping process. How do coping strategies change based on the feedback
received at each stage? And finally, the journey from disruption management to resilience
begs to be explored.
References
Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2018), “Agility and resilience as antecedents of
supply chain performance under moderating effects of organizational culture within the
humanitarian setting: a dynamic capability view”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29
No. 14, pp. 1158-1174.
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J. and Grawe, S. (2015), “Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: scale
development and empirical examination”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 33, pp. 111-122.
Anand, G. and Ward, P.T. (2004), “Fit, flexibility and performance in manufacturing: coping with
dynamic environments”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 369-385.
Armistead, C. and Clark, G. (1994), “The ‘coping’ capacity management strategy in services and the
influence on quality performance”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 5-22.
Blackhurst, J., Dunn, K.S. and Craighead, C.W. (2011), “An empirically derived framework of global
supply resiliency”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 374-391.
Breslin, D. and Gatrell, C. (2020), “Theorizing through literature reviews: the miner-prospector
continuum”, Organizational Research Methods, pp. 1-29, doi: 10.1177/1094428120943288.
Buffa, E.S. (1980), “Research in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Chen, M.J. (1996), “Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: toward a theoretical integration”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 100-134.
Chen, M.J., Su, K.H. and Tsai, W. (2007), “Competitive tension: the awareness-motivation-capability
perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 101-118.
Chen, J., Wang, H. and Zhong, R.Y. (2021), “A supply chain disruption recovery strategy considering
product change under COVID-19”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 60, pp. 920-927.
Choi, T.M. (2020), “Innovative bring-service-near-your-home operations under Corona-virus
(COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) outbreak: can logistics become the messiah?”, Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 140, doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.101961.
Chopra, S. and Sodhi, M.S. (2014), “Reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 73-80.
Chopra, S., Sodhi, M. and L€
ucker, F. (2021), “Achieving supply chain efficiency and resilience by using
multi-level commons”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 817-832.
Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds) (1999), in , Managing Organizations: Current Issues, Sage,
London.
Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2011), “Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a
theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 12-32.
Craighead, C.W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M.J. and Handfield, R.B. (2007), “The severity of
supply chain disruptions: design characteristics and mitigation capabilities”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 131-156.
Craighead, C.W., Ketchen, D.J., Jr and Darby, J.L. (2020), “Pandemics and supply chain management
research: toward a theoretical toolbox”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 838-866.
Coping in
supply chains
275
IJLM
34,2
de Oliveira, M.P.V. and Handfield, R. (2017), “An enactment theory model of supplier financial
disruption risk mitigation”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 442-457.
Defee, C.C., Williams, B., Randall, W.S. and Thomas, R. (2010), “An inventory of theory in logistics and
SCM research”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 404-489.
276
Dolgui, A. and Ivanov, D. (2021), “Ripple effect and supply chain disruption management: new trends
and research directions”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 102-109.
Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D. and Sokolov, B. (2018), “Ripple effect in the supply chain: an analysis and recent
literature”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 Nos 1-2, pp. 414-430.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Blome, C. and Luo, Z. (2017), “Antecedents
of resilient supply chains: an empirical study”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 8-19.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D. and Foropon, C. (2021),
“Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational flexibility as
complements to supply chain resilience”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 110-128.
Ellis, S.C., Shockley, J. and Henry, R.M. (2011), “Making sense of supply disruption risk research: a
conceptual framework grounded in enactment theory”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 65-96.
Fiskel, J., Polyviou, M., Croxton, K.L. and Pettit, T.J. (2015), “From risk to resilience: learning to deal
with disruption”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 78-86.
Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R.S. (1980), “An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample”,
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 219-239.
Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R.S. (1990), “Coping and emotion”, in Stein, N., Leventhal, B. and Trabasso,
T. (Eds), Psychological and Biological Approaches to Emotion, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 313-332.
Folkman, S. and Moskowitz, J.T. (2004), “Coping: pitfalls and promise”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 55, pp. 745-774.
Gligor, D., Gligor, N., Holcomb, M. and Bozkurt, S. (2019), “Distinguishing between the concepts of
supply chain agility and resilience: a multidisciplinary literature review”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 467-487.
Green, B.L. (1986), “On the confounding of ‘hassles’ stress and outcome”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 714-715.
Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., Fosso Wamba, S., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B.T. and Ngai, E.W. (2018),
“Bridging humanitarian operations management and organisational theory”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 21, pp. 6735-6740.
Gunessee, S. and Subramanian, N. (2020), “Ambiguity and its coping mechanisms in supply chains:
lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and natural disasters”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 1201-1223.
Hsuan, J. and Kotzab, H. (2015), “Complementary theories to supply chain
Halldorsson, A.,
management revisited – from borrowing theories to theorizing”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 574-586.
Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yildiz, H. and Talluri, S. (2015), “Supply chain risk management: a literature
review”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 16, pp. 5031-5069.
Hohenstein, N.O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E. and Giunipero, L. (2015), “Research on the phenomenon of
supply chain resilience: a systematic review and paths for further investigation”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 45 Nos 1-2, pp. 90-117.
Ivanov, D. (2020), “Viable supply chain model: integrating agility, resilience and sustainability
perspectives - lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic”, Annals of
Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6.
Ivanov, D. and Dolgui, A. (2019), “Low-Certainty-Need (LCN) supply chains: a new perspective in
managing disruption risks and resilience”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57
Nos 15-16, pp. 5119-5136.
Coping in
supply chains
Ivanov, D. and Dolgui, A. (2021), “OR-methods for coping with the ripple effect in supply chains
during COVID-19 pandemic: managerial insights and research implications”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 232, 10792.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B. and Ivanova, M. (2017), “Literature review on disruption recovery in
the supply chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 20, pp. 6158-6174.
Johnston, R. and Pongatichat, P. (2008), “Managing the tension between performance measurement
and strategy: coping strategies”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 941-967.
Juan, S.J., Li, E.Y. and Hung, W.H. (2022), “An integrated model of supply chain resilience and its
impact on supply chain performance under disruption”, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 339-364, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-03-2021-0174.
Ketchen, D.J., Jr. and Hult, T.M. (2007), “Bridging organization theory and supply chain management:
the case of best value supply chains”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 573-580.
Kovacs, G. and Tatham, P. (2009), “Responding to disruptions in the supply network-from dormant to
action”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 215-229.
Krohne, H.W. (2002), “Stress and coping theories”, International Encyclopedia of the Social Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 22, pp. 15163-15170.
Lazarus, R.S. (1966), Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Lazarus, R.S. (1993), “Coping theory and research: past, present, and future”, Psychosomatic Medicine,
Vol. 55, pp. 234-247.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York, NY.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1987), “Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping”,
European Journal of Personality, Vol. 1, pp. 141-169.
Lee, H.L. (2004), “The triple-A supply chain”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10, pp. 102-113.
Leipold, B. and Greve, W. (2009), “Resilience: a conceptual bridge between coping and development”,
European Psychologist, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 40-50.
MacInnis, D.J. (2011), “A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 136-154.
Mattlin, J.A., Wethington, E. and Kessler, R.C. (1990), “Situational determinants of coping and coping
effectiveness”, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 103-122.
Mayordomo, T., Viguer, P., Sales, A., Satorres, E. and Melendez, J.C. (2016), “Resilience and coping as
predictors of well-being in adults”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 150 No. 7, pp. 809-821.
Mehrotra, M. and Schmidt, W. (2021), “The value of supply chain disruption duration information”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 3015-3035.
Meredith, J. (1993), “Theory building through conceptual methods”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 3-11.
Messina, D., Barros, A.C., Soares, A.L. and Matopoulos, A. (2020), “An information management
approach for supply chain disruption recovery”, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 489-519.
Miles, J.A. (2012), Management and Organization Theory: A Jossey-Bass Reader, John Wiley & Sons,
San Francisco, Vol. 9.
Nadkarni, S., Gruber, M., DeCelles, K., Connelly, B. and Baer, M. (2018), “New ways of seeing: radical
theorizing”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 371-377.
277
IJLM
34,2
278
P
alsson, H. and Sandberg, E. (2020), “Paradoxes in supply chains: a conceptual framework for packed
products”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 423-442.
Parast, M.M. and Subramanian, N. (2021), “An examination of the effect of supply chain disruption
risk drivers on organizational performance: evidence from Chinese supply chains”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 548-562.
Pearlin, L.I. and Schooler, C. (1978), “The structure of coping”, Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 2-21.
Peck, H. (2005), “Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: an integrated framework”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 210-232.
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K.L. and Fiksel, J. (2019), “The evolution of resilience in supply chain
management: a retrospective on ensuring supply chain resilience”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 56-65.
Pfeffer, J. (1982), Organizations and Organizational Theory, Pittman Publishing, Boston.
Ponomarov, S.Y. and Holcomb, M.C. (2009), “Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience”,
The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 124-143.
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C. and Prescott, J.E. (2020), “Advancing theory with review articles”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 351-376.
Shahed, K.S., Azeem, A., Ali, S.M. and Moktadir, M.A. (2021), “A supply chain disruption risk
mitigation model to manage COVID-19 pandemic risk”, Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, pp. 1-16.
Sheffi, Y. and Rice, J.B., Jr (2005), “A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 41-48.
Shi, W., Connelly, B.L., Hoskisson, R.E. and Ketchen, D.J., Jr (2020), “Portfolio spillover of institutional
investor activism: an awareness–motivation–capability perspective”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 1865-1892.
Skinner, E.A., Edge, K., Altman, J. and Sherwood, H. (2003), “Searching for the structure of coping: a
review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 129 No. 2, p. 216.
Sodhi, M.S. and Tang, C.S. (2021a), “Supply chain management for extreme conditions: research
opportunities”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 7-16.
Sodhi, M.S. and Tang, C. (2021b), “Rethinking industry’s role in a national emergency”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 74-78.
Sodhi, M.S., Son, B.G. and Tang, C.S. (2012), “Researchers’ perspectives on supply chain risk
management”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Sousa, R. and Voss, C.A. (2008), “Contingency research in operations management practices”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 697-713.
Suls, J. and Fletcher, B. (1985), “The relative efficacy of avoidant and nonavoidant coping strategies: a
meta-analysis”, Health Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 249-288.
Taylor, A. and Taylor, M. (2009), “Operations management research: contemporary themes, trends
and potential future directions”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 1316-1340.
Torraco, R.J. (2016), “Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past to explore the future”,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 15, pp. 404-428.
van Der Vegt, G.S., Essens, P., Wahlstr€om, M. and George, G. (2015), “Managing risk and resilience”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 971-980.
Wacker, J.G. (1998), “A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research
methods in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 361-385.
Wagner, S.M. and Bode, C. (2008), “An empirical examination of supply chain performance along
several dimension of risk”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 307-325.
Weick, K.E. (1969), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,
Reading, MA.
Coping in
supply chains
Weick, K.E. (1979), “Cognitive processes in organizations”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 41-74.
Weick, K.E. (2001), Making Sense of the Organization, Blackwell Publishers Inc., Malden, MA.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005), “Organizing and the process of sensemaking”,
Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 409-421.
Zheng, R., Shou, B. and Yang, J. (2021). “Supply disruption management under consumer panic
buying and social learning effects”, Omega, Vol. 101, p. 102238, doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2020.
102238.
Corresponding author
Nezih Altay can be contacted at: naltay@depaul.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
279