Exploring the Complex Social Processes of Organizational Change: Supply Chain Orientation From a Manager’s Perspective

Exploring the Complex Social Processes of Organizational Change:

Supply Chain Orientation From a Manager’s PerspectiveAyman Omar1, Beth Davis-Sramek2, Brian S. Fugate3, and John T. Mentzer4

1American University2University of Louisville3Colorado State University4The University of Tennessee

Effective supply chain management strategies can lead to substantial improvements in customer value and reductions in system widecosts for each participant. Implementing supply chain management strategies, however, is not possible without embracing supply

chain orientation (SCO) as a managerial philosophy. Organizational theorists have argued that organizations change only when thepeople in them change, yet we know little about the complex social processes occurring in the minds of the individuals involved increating an SCO. The current literature lacks research that describes the transition to an SCO from a supply chain manager’s perspec-tive. Our objective is to fill this gap by delving into the minds of operations managers, who must carry out an interpretation process toset goals, process information, perceive their environment, and actively solve problems when confronted with the organization’s deci-sion to implement supply chain initiatives. We adopt an interpretivist ontology through utilizing grounded theory to provide an in-depth analysis of interviews from seven manufacturing organizations and 121 supply chain managers to provide a rich description ofthose managers’ perceptions and challenges throughout the transition. Managerial and research implications as well as future researchopportunities are provided.

Keywords: supply chain management; organizational change; grounded theory; organizational behavior; interpretivist research

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the essence of the supply chain managementphenomenon is daunting because the explosion of researchcomes from a number of fields including purchasing and sup-ply management, logistics and transportation, operationsmanagement, marketing, organizational theory, managementinformation systems, and strategic management (Chen andPaulraj 2004). Although multiple methods have been utilized,the overall body of knowledge has approached supply chainresearch from an ontologically positivist perspective.Recently, there was a call for the field to embrace multipleapproaches to unearth a more holistic understanding of thesocial and behavioral elements involved in the supply chainphenomenon (Boyer and Swink 2008; Mello and Flint 2009).

Regardless of the underlying ontology or research methodemployed, it is widely accepted across disciplines that supplychain management involves integrating corporate functionsusing business processes within and across companies (Lam-bert et al. 2005). In addition, organizations are called toadopt the mindset that cooperation, mutual dependence,trust, and shared goals between supply chain partners shouldpositively impact performance. In recognition of this mind-set, more recent research has added supply chain orientation(SCO) to the body of supply chain research to emphasize afirm’s disposition to view the supply chain as an integratedentity (Mello and Stank 2005; Hult et al. 2008). SCO is the

recognition of top management to the strategic and tacticalimplications of managing the upstream and downstream flowof products, services, finances, and information across theirsuppliers and customers (Mentzer et al. 2001; Min et al.2007; Esper et al. 2010). Supply chain management is theimplementation of SCO across suppliers and customers(Mentzer et al. 2001). While the majority of SCO researchfocuses on the firm’s disposition, thereby creating researchoccurring at the ‘‘firm’’ or more rarely, the ‘‘supply chain’’level of analysis, evidence suggests that it is the individualsinside the organization who must change and adopt themindset and implement the supply chain initiatives (Daviset al. 2005).

Organizational theorists have argued that organizationschange only when the people in them change (Shapiro 2003;Greer and Ford 2009), yet we know little about the complexsocial processes occurring in the minds of the individualsinvolved in creating an SCO. Our objective is to fill this gapby delving into the minds of supply chain managers, whomust carry out an interpretation process to set goals, processinformation, perceive their environment, and actively solveproblems (Daft and Weick 1984) when confronted with theorganization’s decision to implement supply chain initiatives.To fully explore this missing component of SCO research,we utilize the organizational change literature and make anontological shift to the interpretivist research paradigm tounderstand how meanings are produced, and how ‘‘reality’’is created and enacted inside organizations from theindividuals’ frame of reference.

The overarching question driving this research is ‘‘How dosupply chain managers actively perceive, interpret, and reactto the environment to engage in decision making and

Corresponding author:Beth Davis-Sramek, Assistant Professor, Department of Market-ing, University of Louisville, College of Business, Louisville, KY40292, USA; E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Business Logistics, 2012, 33(1): 4–19� Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

problem solving during the organizational transition fromthe ‘traditional’ supply chain mindset to creating a supplychain orientation?’’ The current state of supply chainresearch does not address this transition from the minds ofthe managers, nor does it address the anger, frustration,exhaustion, cynicism, and anxiety that can erupt duringtimes of change (Johnson and Stewart 2008). While we agreethat building theory to address the firm’s assumptions, val-ues, norms, and actions is critical in explaining SCO, we alsocontend that identifying those interrelationships may be diffi-cult to capture without understanding the organizationalmembers’ individual viewpoints. Recognizing the value ofeveryday life experiences to achieve more understanding ofdeveloping an SCO in organizations led us to utilizegrounded theory (GT), an interpretivist research method thatseeks to comprehend complex social phenomena that areproblematic for the people involved (Mello and Flint 2009).Our purpose is to offer theory about the dynamic nature ofthe change process in firms through the eyes of supply chainmanagers, and the internal and external contextual condi-tions that can either inhibit or accelerate those changes.

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

The complexity of supply chain management has led to dis-tinctions made in the literature to manage the confusionassociated with supply chain phenomena. For instance, thereis a difference between supply chains that ‘‘exist’’ as a seriesof firms that transform raw materials into finished products(Hult et al. 2004), which is characteristic of the traditionalsupply chain perspective, from those that are overtly man-aged to affect overall supply chain performance (Cooperet al. 1997; Mentzer et al. 2001). ‘‘Managed’’ supply chainsare therefore not simply functions or processes, but key ele-ments of strategy (Ketchen and Hult 2007b) that must beviewed as a managerial philosophy (SCO) to enable organi-zational members to see the implications and importance ofan integrated systems approach (Mentzer et al. 2001; Hultet al. 2008). Then the philosophy must be operationalizedthrough the activities and processes that will enhance supplychain performance. In sum, implementing supply chain man-agement entails extending the behavioral guidelines of inter-nal firm SCO externally to key firms in the supply chain toimprove the competitiveness of each firm and the supplychain as a whole (Mello and Stank 2005).

Despite its potential to create competitive advantage, how-ever, effective management of the supply chain does notappear to have been realized (Li et al. 2005). McCarter andNorthcraft (2007) speculate that the lack of success isbecause participation in a managed supply chain represents a‘‘social dilemma’’ stemming from interfirm rivalry. In a sup-ply chain context, it represents a firm choosing a cooperativeor noncooperative course of action. Interfirm rivalry leads tomisalignments in cooperative efforts, an unwillingness toshare information, and the likelihood of opportunisticbehavior (McCarter and Northcraft 2007). An effective sup-ply chain strategy would include segmenting supply chain

members into strategic partners and nonstrategic supplychain members (Mentzer et al. 2001; Hult et al. 2008).Accordingly, even a firm with a strong SCO may take a lesscooperative course of action with some of its supply chainmembers (i.e., nonstrategic). However, a firm that does notrecognize the opportunities resulting from cooperation withits strategic supply chain members indicates that an SCOinside the firm is either not being implemented or not beingaligned with the operational supply chain activities.

To provide more insight into the need for a change to anSCO inside the firm (or to understand why it may not beoccurring because of this social dilemma), the organizationalchange literature offers a plausible theoretical foundation.The change literature has only recently been applied in thesupply chain context. A recent study by Greer and Ford(2009) emphasizes the need to improve our understanding ofthe change processes necessary to successfully implementsupply chain initiatives. This study focused on understandingthe differences between supply chain changes and other typesof organizational change. The authors found that managersused less management control activities during the refreezingphase of change when implementing supply chain initiatives,which led to lower levels of implementation success thannonsupply chain changes. They further maintain that thefindings point to the complexity of supply chain initiativesand the difficulties that managers have when implementingchange in general. We extend this research by focusing onthe difficulties and issues that managers encounter as theyare directed to implement the change.

Organizational change occurs when an organization setsout to establish conditions that are different from the currentconditions (Ford and Ford 1995), and is triggered by theenvironment, performance, characteristics of top managers,structure, and strategy (Glick et al. 1990). The SCO philoso-phy initially requires intentional change—firms must deliber-ately and consciously set out to establish conditions andcircumstances that are different from what they are now(Ford and Ford 1995). In other words, everyone in the orga-nization must ‘‘switch gears’’ and understand, for instance,that instead of choosing between the organization’s owninterest versus the supply chain’s interest, there should be afocus on supply chain alignment to create synergies thatenable the interests of all supply chain participants to coin-cide (Ketchen and Hult 2007b).

The organizational change literature recognizes the distinc-tion between change that is (1) episodic, discontinuous, andintermittent and change that is (2) continuous, evolving, andincremental (Weick and Quinn 1999; Plowman et al. 2007).While adaptability and agility are SCO characteristics thatrequire continuous and incremental change (Ketchen andHult 2007b; Pettit et al. 2010), moving from the traditionalview of a supply chain to an SCO requires ‘‘episodicchange.’’ Episodic change is infrequent, more disruptive,slower because of its wide scope, more strategic in its con-tent, more deliberate and formal than emergent change, andinitiated at higher levels in the organization (Mintzberg andWestley 1992). It occurs when shifts are precipitated byexternal events and organizations are moving away fromtheir equilibrium conditions (e.g., competition now between

Exploring the Complex Social Processes of Organizational Change 5

supply chains vs. firms), and when there is misalignmentbetween an inertial deep structure and perceived environmen-tal demands (e.g., recognizing the need for an SCO) (Weickand Quinn 1999).

In creating the philosophical underpinnings required foran SCO, it is therefore imperative that supply chain manag-ers, defined broadly to include purchasing, production, andlogistics managers involved in supply chain activities,undergo an alteration in their cognitive thinking that facili-tates and supports the need to change, the process of chang-ing, and the maintenance of what has been changed (Isabella1990). The supply chain managers are the ‘‘lynchpins’’ oforganizational change, acting as intermediaries between topmanagement and the front line (Huy 2002). Many supplychain failures may occur if top management does not under-stand the challenge involved as supply chain managers try tograsp a change they did not design and to coordinate thedetails with others equally removed from the strategic deci-sion making (Balogun and Johnson 2004).

Organizations are vast, fragmented, and multidimensional,and therefore among the most complex systems that exist,and interpretation is a critical element that distinguisheshuman organizations from lower level systems (Daft andWeick 1984). Historically, however, empirical research hasbeen focused on the factors that shape managers’ responsesto change (Piderit 2000) or how managerial tactics influencebehavior (Furst and Cable 2008). The prevalent research par-adigm assumes that people are reactionary, thereby focusingon antecedents and providing explanations for phenomena interms of relationships among dependent and independentvariables (e.g., more of X and more of Y produce more ofZ) (Langley 1999). While this kind of research does offer the-oretical insights, this philosophy of human behavior alonedoes not capture the complexity involved in understandinghow tactics are interpreted (Furst and Cable 2008), nor doesit offer insight into how managers interpret change or howinterpretive frameworks develop and change (Balogun andJohnson 2004).

A supply chain manager’s commitment to support thetransition to an SCO is not just a function of the changeitself or how it is managed, but rather a far more complexcalculus that includes aspects of the setting surrounding thechange, individual differences, and the interactions (Heroldet al. 2007). Managerial responsibilities are more interpreta-tional than operational (Daft and Weick 1984), and in manycases, managers do not want to hold onto what they have,but rather they are simply questioning what the change willmean to them (Isabella 1990). To appreciate the complexityinvolved in how supply chain managers change their mental-ity to accommodate an SCO, research must also focus onthe individual frame of reference and embrace another onto-logical set of assumptions.

The interpretivist philosophy rests on the contrastingbelief that knowledge is not discovered, rather constructedand transmitted through social situations. Human beingscreate mental constructions whereby meaning is assignedthrough interaction and interpretation, leading to theassumption that many possible realities exist, each ofwhich is relative to a specific context or frame of reference

(Hudson and Ozanne 1988). These realities must be com-prehended holistically, and if they are separated or frag-mented, then the meanings change. Because phenomenaare engaged in a process of continuous creation, untan-gling ‘‘cause’’ from ‘‘effect’’ becomes impossible to discern.Understanding patterns in events through temporal order-ing and probabilistic interaction between entities becomesthe goal (Mohr 1982). ‘‘Theory,’’ then, is not about pre-diction, but rather abstraction from description to catego-ries and concepts in an attempt to explain ⁄understandhow categories relate to one another. While theory build-ing has been advancing in the supply chain discipline, theinterpretivist research paradigm has largely been missingfrom supply chain research (Mello and Flint 2009).Because of the focus on collaborative relationships and ele-ments of trust, commitment, cooperation, etc. necessaryfor SCO, we contend that the use of GT can lead to valu-able insights as it has complex social elements inherent inits very nature.

GT as described most recently by Corbin and Strauss(2008) incorporates a series of highly structured steps. Itinvolves the systematic comparison of incidents (small unitsof data) and the gradual construction of a system of ‘‘cate-gories’’ that describe the phenomena being observed. Thecategories may have associated ‘‘dimensions’’ and ‘‘proper-ties,’’ which are gradually refined as specific incidents andare systematically examined, coded, and compared. Theanalysis eventually results in the identification of a smallnumber of ‘‘core categories,’’ which serve to tightly integrateall the theoretical concepts into a coherent whole firmlyrooted (grounded) in the original data (Langley 1999). Whilethe systematic coding process has been used in other formsof qualitative research (e.g., case studies), we stress that‘‘pure’’ GT research recognizes the value of everyday lifeexperiences and seeks to understand how human beings inter-pret interactions to actively construct reality through theoret-ical explanatory schemes, not causal models (Suddaby2006), and thus should not be equated to case studies orconducting interviews during the research process. It isthrough this interpretivist lens that we apply GT to the sup-ply chain context.

RESEARCH METHOD

The impetus of this research was to gain insights into supplychain operational practices both inside and across firms (bestand worst performing, operational challenges, etc.), but whatemerged from the data was the importance of the transitionto an SCO. The research was conducted iteratively, byreviewing existing literature and collecting and analyzingdata simultaneously. Our introduction and literature reviewemployed the theoretical concepts that actually emergedfrom our research analysis (Suddaby 2006). Through theoret-ical sampling and constant comparison throughout theresearch process, the results were continually contrasted withthe literature to discover differences and similarities betweenexisting research and the phenomenon (Corbin and Strauss2008).

6 A. Omar et al.

Sampling

Interview participants were chosen based on theoretical sam-pling guidelines, whereby the researcher jointly collects,codes, and analyzes the data to develop the theory as itemerges (Belk 1989). Data collection ceases when redundantinformation suggests that the full complexity of the conceptshave been captured (Suddaby 2006). The selection of initialinterview participants was directed by our original researchobjective, and subsequent interview participants were selectedbased on analysis and emerging concepts from the initialinterviews, and by identifying confirming, disconfirming,and ⁄or exceptional or discrepant samples of representativeparticipants. The final pool of participants consisted of 121supply chain personnel involved in supply chain operations.These participants were personnel working within organiza-tions that explicitly sought out help in achieving supplychain management success, and thus has a least some levelof recognizing the strategic and tactical implication of man-aging supply chain flows (SCO). This involved seven differ-ent manufacturing organizations across multiple locationswithin each organization, and also their customers and sup-pliers. The participants reflected diversity along severaldimensions, such as tenure on the job (4–33 years), title(manager—senior vice president), firm size and annual sales($250 million–$7 billion), and products and industry (e.g.,auto, cosmetics, health care, and industrial products).

Data collection

Interviews were conducted on-site and lasted approximately60 min. The grand touring technique was used during theinterviews with the managers, where the participants wereasked to recall memories of personal experiences related totheir involvement in supply chain operations and would beprompted to explain further when necessary (Spradley 1979).The interviews were transcribed during the interview to pro-vide data quality ⁄ reliability in the analysis. Additional noteswere taken during and immediately after the interview througha debrief meeting. We also obtained and reviewed companydocuments from interview participants when possible.

Analysis

Unlike positivist approaches, GT does not ‘‘test’’ hypothesesabout reality, but rather its focus is on internal and subjectivevariables to develop theory about how social actors (i.e., sup-ply chain managers) interpret reality. Interest is in similaritiesand differences among interview respondents’ perceptions,thoughts, attitudes, and emotions about a particular phenom-enon (i.e., transition to SCO) (Meredith 1998). Consequently,data analysis was conducted using open, axial, and selectivecoding procedures (to review these procedures, see Corbinand Strauss 2008). This approach consisted of each authorindependently following the coding techniques, which wasfacilitated by the QDA Miner software package (ProvalisResearch, Montreal, Canada) (in a general sense: scanningthe thousands of passages, returning to focus on words,phrases, sentences, sections, etc., listing hundreds of possible

codes, returning to the transcripts again searching for similar-ities and differences to discover variation, and searching foropposites or extremes to bring out significant properties ofeach code). This involved comparing, analyzing in detail, andcombining themes into categories. The results were then com-pared across coders to watch for the intrusion of bias.

The purpose of these coding techniques is to identify ‘‘aslightly higher level of abstraction-higher than the dataitself’’ (Martin and Turner 1986, 147). This was achievedthrough the constant comparative method, which is the con-tinuous interplay between sampling, data collection, andanalysis (Glaser and Strauss 1967). In this sense, we focusedon creativity in applying analytical ability, theoretical sensi-tivity, and sensitivity to the subtleties of the actions andinteractions. During this process, as is common with theincremental, iterative process of collecting and analyzingdata in GT, the data collection and analysis constantlyevolved over time and the themes were modified accordingly.This resulted in ‘‘lifting’’ the participant’s responses tothemes, categories, and their properties and dimensionalranges into an overall theoretical explanatory scheme show-ing their relationships and interactions (Suddaby 2006).

Research trustworthiness

The objectives of this study called for evaluating criteriaappropriate for qualitative exploratory research (Hirschman1986). These include the following trustworthiness criteria:credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability,integrity, fit, understanding, and generality (Lincoln andGuba 1985; Hirschman 1986; Belk 1989; Flint et al. 2002).A complete list of these criteria and how they were assessedis shown in Table 1. These criteria are comparable to inter-nal validity, external validity, and reliability (Lincoln andGuba 1985; Hirschman 1986) used in theory-testing research.

RESULTS

What emerged from the data were individual meanings andinterpretations that evolved as supply chain managers transi-tioned to an SCO. Three different themes related to the phe-nomenon surfaced—prospecting change, implementingchange, and responding to change. The emergent themeswere described by the participants within internal and exter-nal contextual conditions, illustrated in Figure 1. Consistentwith reporting qualitative research (Smith 2002), we providequotes (words, phrases, paragraphs) from participants toserve as exemplars from the findings across all the data.

A consistent finding emerging from the incidents was thattransitioning to an SCO mandated a multi-organization effort.This extends organizational change research that largelyfocuses on change that is driven and influenced by internalconstituents (e.g., top-down or bottom-up within the organi-zation), and upon identifying strengths and weaknesses of theorganization and ⁄or opportunities and threats of the environ-ment. In contrast, our research uncovered the transition to anSCO as involving customers, suppliers, and ⁄or third parties.As reflected in discussions of the emergent (prospecting,


implementing, and responding to change) themes from ourresearch, the transition to an SCO within the focal organiza-tion was either driven or influenced by supply chain members,and ⁄or the focal organization drove or influenced one ormore of its supply chain members’ transition to an SCO. Inthis sense, it required both inside-out and outside-in changeefforts. Another important aspect to note is that the findingsreflected transitioning to SCO as a continuous process ratherthan an episodic event. Respondents described the transition

as an ongoing process that evolves throughout the threethemes and the contextual conditions. One of the intriguingfindings is that respondents always associated different aspectsof supply chain management (implementation of the philoso-phy) when describing the SCO transitioning process. Despitethe fact that the definition of SCO may not necessarily implysupply chain management taking place, discussions withrespondents revealed that they constantly connected both themindset and the implementation aspects in their stories.

Table 1: Data trustworthiness interpretive and grounded theory

Trustworthiness criteria Method of addressing criteria in this study

CredibilityExtent to which the results appearto be acceptable representationsof the data

Regular on-site team interaction and debriefingCodes and text were analyzed by independent codersIndependent researchers reviewed interpretations52 weeks conducting interviewsInterviews allowed participants to respond to interviewee’s initial interpretationsResult: Emergent models were altered

TransferabilityExtent to which the findings fromone study in one context willapply to other contexts

Triangulation of interview sites within and across participating organizationsTheoretical samplingResult: Data from all participants were represented by the theoretical concepts

DependabilityExtent to which the findings areunique to time and place; thestability or consistency ofexplanations

Many experiences covering recent and past events were reflected on by the participantsResult: Regardless of position in firm and when the story took place, foundconsistency across participants’ stories across different organizations

ConfirmabilityExtent to which interpretations arethe result of the participants andthe phenomenon as opposed toresearcher biases

Interpretations, documents, and summary of preliminary findings were independentlyreviewed by at least three researchersResult: Interpretations were broadened and refined

IntegrityExtent to which interpretations areinfluenced by misinformation orevasions by participants

Interviews were of a nonthreatening nature, confidential, and professionalResult: Researchers never believed that participants were trying to evade the issuesbeing discussed

FitExtent to which findings fit withthe substantive area underinvestigation

Addressed through the methods used to address credibility, dependability, andconfirmabilityResult: Concepts were more deeply described, and the theoretical integration was mademore fluid and less linear, capturing the complexities of social interaction discoveredin the data

UnderstandingExtent to which participants buyinto results as possiblerepresentations of their worlds

Participants were asked during the interviews to confirm if researcher’s initialinterpretations were accurateResult: Interviewees and participants bought into the findings

GeneralityExtent to which findings discovermultiple aspects of thephenomenon

Interviews were of sufficient length and openness to elicit many complex facets of thephenomenon and related conceptsResult: Captured multiple aspects of the phenomenon

ControlExtent to which organizations caninfluence aspects of the theory

Participants can control almost all theory variablesResult: Participants can influence SCO

Notes: Adapted from Flint et al. (2002).

8 A. Omar et al.

Prospecting change

Prospecting change occurs when supply chain managers arecontemplating the changes required to adopt an SCO. Thistheme has two main properties: scope of change and urgefor change. Those properties and dimensional ranges areshown in Table 2.

Scope of change represents the level or nature of changethat supply chain managers are considering. This is consis-tent with the discussion in some research streams such as thenew product development and project management literaturewhere project scope is typically at the top of the ‘‘to-do list’’before proceeding with any implementation (e.g., Clark1989; O’Connor 1994; Griffin 2002). One dimensional rangefor this property was whether this change was internal withinthe firm or external with suppliers and ⁄or customers. Theimportance of internal and external integration is well sup-ported in supply chain research (Rodrigues et al. 2004;Green and Inman 2005). Some of the participants focusedon issues internal to the firm impeding a successful SCOimplementation. This included the need for higher levels ofinterfunctional integration and collaboration within the firm:

Our sourcing decisions and how people communicateinternally is what I’d change. Communication is a realbig problem. Information doesn’t transfer across different

departments. Information gets stuck and does not flowacross the organization.

Another internal issue is the lack of accountability for cer-tain departments or functional areas which have a directimpact on the operational and overall firm performance. Theneed to hold every department accountable for their actionsarose because those actions affected the performance of theentire organization and the supply chain. For example,changes by one department not being held accountable tothose changes had a direct impact on this supply chain man-ager’s ability to lower operating costs and meet deadlines:

Marketing and senior management think marketing peo-ple are gods. Airfreight doesn’t go against them eventhough their artwork was late. Make them truly account-able. They generate variances and they don’t see them orhave to explain them. They get a bonus and look likeheroes when they actually cause the problems.

There is also an external aspect when transitioning to anSCO that emerged from supply chain managers’ experiences,and this is consistent with the contention that supply chain ini-tiatives cannot be implemented without the involvement ofexternal parties. Some of the participants voiced concernsabout external changes that needed to be implemented withsuppliers and customers; for example, dissatisfaction with theperformance of the organization’s current supply base. Supplychain managers sometimes did not perceive the current supplybase as appropriate given the demands of their organization.In some cases, suppliers were holding the organization backfrom successfully pursuing an SCO and hampering the abilityto fulfill customers’ needs and improve performance:

I would change the majority of our suppliers. I think alot of our suppliers are not equipped to supply our

Figure 1. Supply chain orientation (SCO) transition.

Table 2: Prospecting change to SCO (properties and dimen-sional ranges)

Properties Dimensional ranges

Scope Within firm—with suppliers and ⁄or customersStrategic—operational

Urgency Necessary—desirableSkeptical—determined


business. We are very unique. Our demands are changingconstantly. We need suppliers that can keep up with us.We are publicly traded company that is run like a familybusiness; a lot of emotions. Get a supply base that ismore geared and ready for us and has more capacity toaccommodate our demand requirements.

Another dimensional range involved whether the scopewas strategic versus operational in nature. Supply chainmanagers explained that changes needed to be approachedstrategically through implementing a concise and coherentstrategy across the organization:

We don’t have a coherent, concise strategy. We havemetrics that we strive for. We have had focused facto-ries, which was a core part of it and now it is beinglooked at. Within Europe, we have tried to centralizedistribution and use risk pooling in Belgium and replen-ish affiliate distribution centers. We do not have a con-sistent strategy – if there is one to start with. We needto have a strategy for all departments to follow….

Others were not satisfied with the strategy in place andconsidered it an obstacle because they were developed andexecuted to optimize certain functions without consideringthe overall impact on other functional areas, a critical issuein transition to an SCO (Esper et al. 2010). This wasarticulated by one supply chain manager who criticized theshift in the procurement strategy to focus on the lowest costitems or products. He described the strategy situation asfollows:

We sometimes nickel and dime our suppliers. We’ve gotto consider service as well as best price. One supplierwas very responsive (in region) but then we moved toa supplier in China to get a better price, but it added6–8 weeks of transit time for changes and we often air-freight. I wonder if we ever saved anything. The longerlead-times have cost us. People are hesitant to say it,but we don’t save a thing…we might be losing more.

These sentiments relate to an important aspect of SCO:recognition and understanding of the implications that afirm’s strategy has on all areas within the firm. Supply sidecosts minimization through lower cost suppliers can result inpoor product quality, longer lead times, additional supplychains costs, and dissatisfied customers. This concept hasbeen discussed in the procurement and purchasing literature,for example, through the Total Cost of Ownership frame-work (Ellram and Siferd 1998; Degraeve et al. 2000; Ferrinand Plank 2002). Supply chain managers experiencing thetransition to an SCO realized the importance of understand-ing the impact of implementing initiatives on areas outsidethe boundary of the organization such as supplierperformance and customer satisfaction.

Supply chain managers could also be more focused onwhat needs to be changed at an operational level, with afocus on issues related to their daily or weekly operationsthat were often not aligned with their goals and objectives:

One of the things that we should change is moving froma focused factory production to a network of regionalproduction – this would be more in-line with our strat-egy; we should produce the items at sites that have thebest expertise. Currently our operations planning areflawed. Regional manufacturing makes more sense thanwhat we do…

This is consistent with similar discussions in the strategicmanagement literature. Aligning operational aspects with theoverall firm strategy is the basis for the strategy-structure-performance (SSP) paradigm, and the fit between the strat-egy chosen by a firm and its operating structure is a baselinefor its performance (Galbraith and Nathanson 1978; Milesand Snow 1978). Supply chain managers’ experiences high-lighted the need for implementing operational changes toachieve better alignment with the overall firm strategy as arequirement for a successful transition to an SCO, and thelack of alignment often hampered the implementation. Thislack of alignment stemmed from supply chain networkdesign, supply chain incentives, and metrics between the firmand its suppliers and customers. Although the notion ofaligning operational interfaces and structures with corporatestrategy has been addressed in the management and strategyliterature, our analysis revealed how this concept is closelytied to creating an SCO and how supply chain managers per-ceived trying to create such a change.

Urgency, or need for change (see Table 2), was anotherproperty that emerged from prospecting change, varyingalong the dimensional ranges of desirable-to-necessary andskeptical-to-committed. Sometimes changes are perceived asan immediate priority to avoid poor operational and finan-cial performance, and under other conditions, the need forchange is considered useful over the long term but not neces-sarily an immediate priority. For example, one of the issuesthat consistently came up throughout different interviewswas the need to quickly establish good and effective measure-ment processes in place both upstream and downstream inthe supply chain. One supply chain manager described hisreaction to the urgency of implementing such a change asfollows:

I feel that that supply chain here is an open loop and itneeds to be closed right away. We need to fix processesto reduce lead time from our suppliers and customersand reduce our overall inventory. Long upstream anddownstream lead times and the exponential growth ininventory are both killing us. We need better measure-ment systems in place ‘‘yesterday’’ if we want to remainin the market.

Alternately, supply chain managers discussed potentialfavorable changes, but the tone of urgency was not the same.These changes amount to things that were more desirable asopposed to necessary:

One of the things that we can consider evaluating in thefuture is our capacity with regional manufacturing. Wehave to look at the overall capacity with the regional

10 A. Omar et al.

manufacturing. Things are OK now but we need to see ifthere are any opportunities in that area.

Supply chain managers also had varying levels of commit-ment and skepticism about changes. Some expressed thatthey were positive and confident about the change. Forinstance, one stated that the change has ‘‘a level of commit-ment that we haven’t had in a while.’’ In contrast, otherswere more cynical about transition to an SCO: ‘‘We’ll trythis and then it fizzles out, and then we’ll try [anotherchange] and it will fizzle out too’’ and ‘‘This will not be suc-cessful any more than it was when we tried it before. Ourstrategy is to ‘save ourselves to wonderment.’ The organiza-tional change literature suggests that one reason for unsuc-cessful projects stems from managers’ inability to cope withshifting organizational expectations (Huy 2002). Perhapssuch skepticism is a result of managers interpreting an SCOas a ‘‘fad’’ that soon will pass.

Implementing change to SCO

Implementing change describes the actual execution ofchange actions while in the process of adopting an SCO.Two main properties of implementing this change emerged:rate of change and perceived extensiveness of employing thechange (see Table 3).

Rate refers to the speed at which supply chain managersperceive the process of adopting an SCO. Not surprisingly,given the organizational-wide cultural aspect of an SCO andconsistent with previous organizational culture research(Gordon 1991), quite often this implementation was gradual.For example, a participant described one of their supplychain oriented processes as a gradual progression: ‘‘…imple-mentation will take time and it is still maturing.’’ Anotherstated, ‘‘Change is usually rough and we need to give it moretime in order for the change to be effective for us and forour supply chain partners.’’ Echoing the episodic nature ofimplementing SCO (Mintzberg and Westley 1992), othersdiscussed the rate of implementation as crawling along andnot just gradual, but very slow. As reflected by the followingrepresentative comment, some even expressed their frustra-tion with the lengthy process of implementing supply chainprocesses:

Where are we falling short? I’ll give you my opinion. Thereare few inhibitors. We have some behaviors…acceptanceof slow progress…a direly slow progress.

Another participant described the speed of transition asbeing very slow and attributed this to the unwillingness ofother departments to participate in the process:

We’ve been trying to do this (transition to SCO) butthings have been moving at a very slow pace…we cannotdo this by ourselves, others have to join and contributein the process but they are very reluctant to join and noone is holding them accountable…

The second property, perceived extensiveness, refers towhether the supply chain managers sense that they are alonein the implementation, whether the change is being executedwith others in the organization, or whether they are manag-ing the change with the help of customers, suppliers, or thirdparties. Sometimes interpretations are that they are alonemaking the change, serving as the sole agent in implementingthe change (Huy 2002). For example, one stated in referenceto needing participation from others during this change,‘‘My perspective isn’t broad enough and I’m not smartenough to offer good input here.’’ Managers often get frus-trated when they are left alone to ‘‘guess’’ what the rightdecisions are, and performance and frustration worsen (We-ick and Quinn 1999). Others recognize the implementationas involving a larger group within their organization (e.g.,‘‘the whole group’’ and ‘‘amongst ourselves’’). This varied toconsisting only of supply chain related functions (e.g., manu-facturing, logistics, purchasing) to also including other func-tions (e.g., marketing and finance). As highlighted in theorganizational culture aspect of SCO (Mello and Stank2005), the presence of a shared set of values and beliefs ofSCO may influence supply chain management behaviors(through the development of norms) in the organization. Thefindings extend previous change implementation research(Luscher and Lewis 2008) which suggests that individualchange agents must come to a shared agreement for thechange to ever be fully implemented. Accordingly, supplychain managers attempting to transition to an SCO in weaksupply chain oriented cultures (Mello and Stank 2005) mustact as change agents in order for SCO to become shared andextended throughout the organization and supply chain. Asone of the supply chain managers described the functionalsilo mentality cannot exist if such a change were to happen:

everyone (other departments) should be a part of thistransition that we are going through…no longer can weoperate as functional silos but we should move aheadwas one cohesive unit including our external partners(suppliers ⁄ customers)

Importantly to implementing an SCO, many alsodescribed the process as involving those outside the organiza-tion (customers, distributors, suppliers, and even third partylogistics providers).

Responding to the change to SCO

Consistent with GT, we looked for variation in responseswhen managers were in the process of adopting an SCO.

Table 3: Implementing change to SCO (properties anddimensional ranges)


Rate Slow—very slowPerceivedextensiveness

Individual—organization—supply chain members


Autobiographical memories involving processes in organiza-tions often contain emotions (Flint et al. 2002), revealed inevaluative judgments based on actual experiences with prod-ucts, services, decision making, and processes (Oliver 1997).We found that supply chain managers’ stories of their experi-ences were saturated with emotion, particularly when dis-cussing the experience of responding to the transition to anSCO. Individuals are galvanized to change at an emotionallevel, and the motivation for change is visceral rather thancerebral (Johnson and Stewart 2008). The most prevalentproperties of emotional responses to the transition to SCOthat emerged were: confusion, stress, apathy, and satisfac-tion. These emotional responses may be described in termsof the properties and dimensional ranges given in Table 4.

Confusion refers to the perceived level of comprehensionor interpretation of the current supply chain transition.Comprehension (i.e., lack of confusion) was represented bycomments such as ‘‘It’s a structured process… [These SCprocess changes] can’t be much more exacting (i.e., clear)than what it is now.’’ High levels of confusion were repre-sented by comments such as ‘‘We do know much about[these supply chain process changes],’’ ‘‘good question, Idon’t know yet,’’ ‘‘I do not know what [these changes are allabout],’’ and descriptions of the changes as being ‘‘a mess’’and ‘‘screwed up.’’ Apathy refers to variation in the supplychain managers’ level of perceived interest in being a part ofthe change. Some participants expressed feelings of beingaloof about the supply chain changes (e.g., ‘‘I do not care’’).On the other end of the spectrum, some described their pas-sion for the changes (e.g., ‘‘[I have a] can-do attitude’’). Forexample, when asked about the changes, one supply chainmanager excitedly responded, ‘‘I’m so glad you asked,’’ andproceeded to tell us what she had done, the progress made,and the potential of more supply chain changes in thefuture.

Stress was another prominent emotion expressed whichcan sometimes constrain cognition and performance (Weickand Quinn 1999). It refers to supply chain managers’ experi-ences of anxiety, pressure, and tension. One dimension onwhich stressed varied was in terms of whether the participantperceived relatively weak levels of stress (e.g., ‘‘we areafraid,’’ ‘‘struggle,’’ and ‘‘being pushed’’) or high levels ofstress (e.g., ‘‘we are panicking,’’ ‘‘our supplier strategy is kill-ing us,’’ and ‘‘death by a thousand cuts’’). It also varied interms of whether the interviewee perceived the stress as lim-ited to himself or herself (e.g., ‘‘I feel frustrated’’) or extend-

ing to other people (e.g., ‘‘we are overwhelmed’’).Contentment refers to how strongly the supply chain manag-ers feel that undergoing the change is satisfying, rewarding,or fulfilling. Some participants described being satisfied withthe changes, for example, ‘‘Currently we are better than whatthings have been…,’’ ‘‘it seems to be working right now,’’and ‘‘Why in the world did we not do this stuff before?’’Others expressed that they felt that nothing positive hadresulted, and some even described having to ‘‘suffer’’ throughthe process changes. Consistent with the literature, managersare sometimes unable to see the big picture, and often lookat it as a punishment (Johnson and Stewart 2008).

After interviewing some of the customers and suppliers oforganizations undergoing the transition to SCO, we foundthat these emotions extended beyond the organization. Forexample, one of the supply chain managers (at a distributor)conveyed stories that the SCO process changes have made it‘‘easier’’ and ‘‘less frustrating’’ for them to successfully worktogether. The focal firm in the supply chain asked the dis-tributors meet with them on an annual basis and developinnovative operational solutions. He described the results ofthis new process as ‘‘hitting on all 8 cylinders now’’ and‘‘great strides in having a quality process.’’ A supply chainmanager at another distributor, however, felt their seller’ssupply chain changes made it more difficult for them. Afterseeing the initial results of the changes, this distributor feltcommunication and relationships were hurt, and ‘‘the lead-time is getting worse, not better’’ and now ‘‘they can’t meetthe delivery that we require, and they don’t meet the deliverythat they promise.’’ He then described this resulting in muchconfusion, dissatisfaction, and stress. For instance:

I just don’t know how much we tell them…I’ve beencommunicating to [them] because the frustration is sohigh. They refuse to believe [us]. I don’t know if theyjust don’t listen. But when frustration continues to rise, Ijust keep elevating it…They haven’t explained to mewhat I should do in order for me to put a lot of time intoit. We just know they could be so much better…‘‘We’renot sure if we want that program to succeed.’’

Such comments from customers, suppliers, and third par-ties reflect the unique, cross-organizational impact of changemanagement when transitioning to an SCO. Affect andemotions have been important variables (e.g., urge, stress,apathy, and satisfaction) researched in disciplines such aspsychology, organizational behavior, and consumer behavior(e.g., Kammeyer-Mueller et al. 2009; Kluemper et al. 2009).Beyond research in quality management (e.g., Pei andReneau 1990; Robinson and Robinson 1994), supply chainresearch has largely ignored the role of these importantemotional behaviors in operations. Transitioning to an SCOcreates pervasive emotional responses by members fromwithin the focal organization and other supply chainmembers. While previous organizational change research hasexplored similar emotional responses to organizationalchanges (Furst and Cable 2008), results from the customerand supplier interviews suggests that the change can beparticularly taxing.

Table 4: Responding to change to SCO (properties anddimensional ranges)


Confusion Comprehend—confusedApathy Aloof—passionateStress High degree—low degree

One individual—multiple peopleContentment Satisfaction—dissatisfaction

12 A. Omar et al.

Contextual conditions of change to SCO

The literature suggests that additional external forces shapetransitioning to an SCO (e.g., Ford and Ford 1995; Mentzeret al. 2001; Esper et al. 2010). As Figure 1 illustrates, thereare contextual conditions which we categorized into internaland external contextual conditions. Internal contextual con-ditions were internal to the firm and external contextual con-ditions extended to external entities such as suppliers,customers or other drivers in the macro environment, andboth were tied to prospecting-implementing-responding to anSCO.

Internal contextual conditionsOur analysis revealed that one of the internal contextualconditions was corporate culture, which is consistent withanecdotal evidence (e.g., Davis et al. 2005). Corporateculture involves shared beliefs and norms throughout anorganization (Mello and Stank 2005). Stories describingdifferent aspects of the process of changing to SCO wereoften accompanied by references to some unique aspectsabout the corporate culture of each firm. Supply chain man-agers in one firm voiced clear skepticism to the benefits oftransitioning to an SCO. They explained that this skepticismstemmed from their firm’s lack of follow-through on newinitiatives that were often introduced. New initiatives werelabeled as the ‘‘flavor of the month.’’ This created a degreeof frustration and confusion not only inside the organiza-tion, but also for suppliers and customers:

The program of the month mentality that we have hereconfuses everyone including our suppliers and custom-ers…we never follow through on these programs andthere is absolutely no accountability for the failure ofthese programs.

Corporate culture is a critical factor when transitioning toan SCO because of the boundary spanning nature of thischange. Changes may be directed and championed from topmanagement, but with a skeptical and nontrusting corporateculture, those changes are going to be met with frustration,resistance, and lack of support (Mello and Stank 2005).More importantly, without a strong corporate culture sup-porting this transition, most of the interorganizational initia-tives directed toward integration and collaboration withsuppliers or customers did not come to fruition and eventu-ally failed.

Another internal condition that was dominant throughoutinterviews was the lack of internal communication within thefirm. Supply chain managers expressed that there was lack ofcommunication regarding the strategic direction of the firm.Several mentioned that they were not fully aware of theirfirm’s supply chain strategy. When asked about the supplychain strategy, one of the interviewees said, ‘‘there is no sup-ply chain strategy here, and if there is one I’m not aware ofit.’’ Another from another organization said, ‘‘…it is hard tosay what the supply chain strategy is…there is a strategy butit is unclear to most people.’’ Some supply chain managersindicated that the strategy in place was constantly changing,

which added to the frustration when trying to implement theproposed change to an SCO. Others acknowledged that theircompany desperately needed a solid and well communicatedsupply chain strategy that everybody could support, and onethat would serve as an umbrella under which decisionswould be made. As reflected in literature on the SSP para-digm (Galbraith and Nathanson 1978; Miles and Snow1978):

There needs to be an alignment between strategy andexecution, overall in the company, strategy and execu-tion seem to be irrelevant to one another…in order tobetter manage our suppliers and satisfy our customerswe need to be able to understand the strategy that weare trying to implement.

External contextual conditionsExternal contextual conditions were more evident through-out the incidents and strongly influenced many of the inter-actions between the core categories (see Figure 1). This isparticularly relevant given that implementing SCO practicesinvolves activities that span multiple organizations (Minet al. 2007). Understanding how firms transition to an SCOmust include issues that result from dealings with suppliersand customers as well as other external parties. One of theexternal conditions emerging from the data involved the nat-ure of the relationship across supply chain members. Thenecessity to strengthen external relationships across multipleorganizations was welcomed and viewed as a necessarychange by many supply chain managers. They understoodthat some of their underlying operational problems werecaused by the lack of external integration with their key sup-pliers and saw this change as an opportunity to turn thingsaround:

We currently do not manage the relationship with thesuppliers very well and they are a KEY part of our busi-ness. We want to focus on building strong lasting rela-tionship with our key suppliers and investigate areas ofmutual benefit such as co-locating, partnering, collabora-tion.

Other supply chain managers wanted to reconsider andpossibly terminate relationships specifically with certain sup-pliers who were perceived to have a poor performance trackrecord. They explained that the environment was becomingvery competitive and their customers on the other end werenot as lenient with them as they were with their suppliers.One of the interviewees explained this by saying:

We’re not tough enough with our vendors, we nevercharge back penalties like we get charged back by ourcustomers…there is a need to get tougher and hold theirfeet to the fire.

Others were more understanding when the suppliers werenot living up to the expectations. Those supply chain manag-ers explained that suppliers were underperforming because of


how their own company was managing that relationship.One of them explained:

Suppliers take a bad reputation although it’s us (partici-pant’s company) who needs to better manage this rela-tionship. Suppliers get blamed for things they don’tcause. They don’t get info when they need it; artwork,specs, etc. E.g.: The supplier may not know what thepackaging looks like. We look for commitment datesfrom the supplier even though they don’t know the finalproduct. We put all the responsibility on the supplier.The suppliers take on all the work. We don’t give themenough time to react. We don’t partner with them (keysuppliers) as well as we should.

Those findings are consistent with previous literature dis-cussing the importance of interorganizational relationships insupply chain management (Lawson et al. 2008; Mitra andSinghal 2008; Paulraj et al. 2008; Sanders 2008; Song andBenedetto 2008) and manufacturer–supplier integration (Daset al. 2006; Swink et al. 2007). The findings here expand thisknowledge base by focusing on how those external relation-ships were perceived by individual supply chain managersthrough the process of transitioning to an SCO, revealingthe criticality of a different, more collaborative mindset, andhow those perceptions influenced different aspects or proper-ties of change. In some cases those relationships were strongbetween the focal firm and its supplier or customer, and thathelped accelerate the transition. In other instances when therelationship was not strong or dysfunctional, transitioning toan SCO was not as smooth and seemed impossible at times.

Another external contextual condition was the dynamicnature of the macro environment, such as the changes inlaws and regulations, globalization trends, or the nature ofthe competitive environment. Increasing customer expecta-tions and desired values coupled with a higher competitiveenvironment are pressuring firms to reduce supplier leadtimes and overall product-to-market cycle times (Clark 1989;O’Connor 1994; Flint et al. 2002; Griffin 2002). Some of thesupply chain managers were hopeful that an SCO wouldachieve this:

We need to reduce supplier lead times and the variabilityfor those lead times…currently we have a five monthorder lead time, which is much longer than the majorityof our competitors. Others are at three months. We needto reduce this lead time because this is a competitive dis-advantage.

We found that supply chain managers did not considertheir environments in isolation, but rather discussedprospecting, implementing, and responding to the transitionto SCO in the context of internal and external situationalconditions. Most often, participants associated the struggleswith the transition to SCO when they felt that either theirorganization or their supply chain members did not have aclearly communicated the supply chain strategy and did nothave a collaborative culture. These findings solidify the inter-pretivist belief that meanings and interpretations must be

comprehended as gestalts because phenomena are engaged incontinuous creation and interaction.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study contribute to the growing body ofliterature focusing on SCO. While existing research has iden-tified the indicators of SCO (e.g., commitment, credibility,benevolence, top management support) (Min et al. 2007) andits performance outcomes (e.g., customer, financial, internalprocesses, innovation) (Hult et al. 2008), we know very littleabout how it develops (Greer and Ford 2009). As firms arechallenged with moving from ‘‘traditional’’ supply chains tocreating ‘‘best’’ supply chains (Ketchen and Hult 2007a),managers involved in supply chain operations must (1)evolve their thinking from a myopic firm-centric to a holisticsupply chain view, and (2) execute coinciding, synergisticinterfirm interests through collaboration (from either ⁄ or toand ⁄ both mentality) (Ketchen and Hult 2007a). As SCOimplies, the firm’s disposition must change to accommodatethe integration required for success. With this line ofthought, researchers must be careful not to assume that thehuman beings charged with creating this mindset will alwaysbehave in a sane, reasonable, and rational way, nor should itbe taken for granted that developing the mindset is simple.Extending Greer and Ford (2009), we found evidence thatSCO is a complex, socially intertwined process involvingpeople who experience strong mental and emotionallyembedded interpretations, thoughts, and responses.

The goal of this research was to create theory from theindividual unit of analysis, to explain the transition to SCOthrough interrelated concepts and categories, and emphasiz-ing the underlying characteristics and dimensions. Figure 1was developed to elicit understanding about how supplychain managers produce meaning arising out of individualexperiences and interactions, and how those meanings arethen modified through an interpretive process (Glaser andStrauss 1967; Vivek et al. 2008) as they prospect, implement,and respond to the change when confronted with the supplychain business model. The dimensional ranges and variations(Tables 2–4) emerged as relevant to the core issues describedin the model. For example, supply chain managers who viewthe change to SCO as necessary and are highly determined(prospecting change) about making the change often experi-ence high levels of stress and frustration (responding tochange) when they are not able to achieve the change as fastas they desire (implementing change). Supply chain managersthat lack a collaborative culture and ⁄or poor communicationof the supply chain strategy (internal contextual conditions)often respond to the change with confusion and ⁄or apathy(responding to change). Further, those who view their supplychain members as open to new ideas and collaborative(external conditions) are often more likely to perceive thescope of the change (prospecting change) as extendingacross, sometimes even initiated by, customers and suppliers.

Our results also further demonstrate the connectionbetween SCO and the organizational change literature (Greerand Ford 2009). The change literature contends that managers

14 A. Omar et al.

charged with interpreting, communicating, and implementingchange often struggle for meaning (Luscher and Lewis 2008),yet supply chain research offers little insight into how supplychain managers process and interpret these changes (Balogunand Johnson 2004). We hope that this research providesanother step in moving supply chain research to utilize thisrich theory base, while also extending organization change lit-erature to a multiorganizational level. Though SCO occursthrough individuals within a focal firm, the transition requiresthe involvement of personnel from the customers, suppliers,and third parties, exacerbating the complexity of the tradi-tional organizational change model (Plowman et al. 2007),which is largely influenced by internal constituents (e.g., top-down or bottom-up within the organization). In contrast, sup-ply chain managers described the transition to an SCO aseither driven or influenced by supply chain members, and ⁄orthe focal organization drove or influenced one or more of itssupply chain members’ transition to an SCO. In this sense, itrequires both inside-out and outside-in change efforts. Thesefindings suggest new insights into a more expansive, networkdependent concept of organizational change as today’s orga-nizations are reliant on supply chain members to compete(Ketchen and Guinipero 2004).

Finally, the research also illustrates that there are indeedother avenues of inquiry to examine supply chain phenom-ena. The vast majority of supply chain research utilizingqualitative methods and relying on interviews, case studies,and observation approach supply chain research from anontologically positivist perspective. That is, when ‘‘fieldresearch’’ leads to frameworks, drivers, constructs, and test-able propositions, the underlying ontology rests on theassumption that there are ‘‘variables’’ that exist outside ofthe individual that are concrete, objective, and measurable(Burrell and Morgan 1979; Hirschman 1986). Recognition ofthe value of everyday life experiences in understandingbehavior in organizations from the individual unit of analy-sis drives the interpretivist philosophy. Additionally, thecomplexity of supply chain phenomena suggests the presenceof multilayered and changing contexts, multidirectional cau-salities, and feedback loops, which often disturb the steady,linear progression toward ‘‘equilibrium’’ (Langley 1999). Forthese reasons, we utilized GT because it (1) allows a deeperunderstanding of meanings and interactions as people goabout solving their daily problems, (2) affords significantfreedom because it is not limited to a predetermined theoreti-cal model, and (3) offers a careful, systematic approach byproviding guidelines for conducting systematic data analysis,including specific analytic procedures and research strategies(Goulding 1998).

Further research

Limitations to the study should be noted. First, the dataweighted heavily toward participant interviews over observa-tion and documents. Deeper insights would have been likelyif we had the opportunity to observe behavior over anextended time period and to study many documents. Second,as is typical for interpretivist research, including GT, werelied on interviews from a relatively few number of manu-

facturing organizations (i.e., seven). This limits the generaliz-ability of the interpretations. Additionally, we followed theincremental, iterative process prescribed by GT. However,the data collection involved starting with a few firms, fol-lowed by generating initial impressions, and implementing‘‘lifting’’ to apply it to different firms near the end of theoverall data collection process. This creates a potential limi-tation in that the type of firm ⁄ industry may have varied inthe early stages compared to those interviewed in the laterstages of data collection. Despite the limitations, this studyhas supply chain implications for theory and practice, and itoffers a springboard to multiple avenues of further research.

We believe there is ripe opportunity to utilize the interpre-tivist philosophy to explore supply chain phenomena. Its useis appropriate when a researcher is seeking to understandcomplex social phenomena that are problematic for the peo-ple involved. While multiple, complementary methods doensure that the weaknesses of any one are offset by the useof others (Carter et al. 2008), triangulation also includesinvestigating a phenomenon through an alternate ontologicaland epistemological lens. For this reason, we advocate thatfurther qualitative research articulate a specific tradition andphilosophical perspective within which the studies are con-ducted (Mello and Flint 2009). To this point, we also cau-tion against the use of the generic ‘‘grounded theory’’ term.While GT does establish relationships from raw data, itsoriginators did not develop it to be a set of procedures or a‘‘recipe’’ for analysis, but rather a way of thinking aboutand viewing the world (Corbin and Strauss 2008). If oneapplies GT from the interpretivist paradigm, it would beinappropriate to utilize it solely to develop a positivist pre-dictive model (Suddaby 2006).

Other supply chain phenomena that could benefit from theinterpretivist perspective would include any situations involv-ing supply chain personnel who engage in decision makingor in social processes. Supply chain areas such as outsourc-ing, information sharing, technology implementation, pur-chasing, manufacturing, logistics processes, and qualitymanagement would benefit from the individual level of anal-ysis to explore interrelated variables, understand behavior,or explain the how decisions are made. For example,research involving interfirm integration ⁄ collaboration ⁄ rela-tionship issues might ask questions such as: What are theappropriate conditions for close ⁄ collaborative relationshipsbetween firms? What role do supply chain managers have ininterfirm relations? What variables are most critical to coor-dinating supply chain activities between firms? What is therelationship between the firm’s information sharing capabili-ties and the likelihood to outsource supply chain activities?

Findings from interpretivitist research are derived fromattitudes, perceptions, and experiences of a limited numberof informants. While it should be noted that the interpretiveresearch paradigm contends that generalizability is not theobjective and empirically driven causal models are not neces-sary, research could build on our research from the positivistperspective (Suddaby 2006). Our theoretical model (Figure 1)could be extended to a traditional predictive model throughadditional inductive and deductive research. While this wasnot our end goal, future research should attempt to create


and empirically verify a predictive model of this phenome-non through larger samples and longitudinal studies. Positiv-ist supply chain research possibilities also include thenuances, facilitators, hindrances, and outcomes of an SCO.

Implications

Organizational change is often assumed to be driven byinternal constituents. Our findings, however, suggest thatmanagers need to consider supply chain organizationalchange more broadly than the traditional top-down or bot-tom-up approach. In supply chain practice, change requiresthe involvement of external supply chain members. The orga-nizational change agents may be a group of customer andsupplier boundary spanners. Managers looking to transitionto an SCO may need to look outside the organization to cre-ate ‘‘buy-in’’ from supply chain members very early on inthe process to create change inside the organization.

Supply chain managers often described negative emotions.To move from ‘‘traditional’’ to ‘‘best’’ supply chain manage-ment (Ketchen and Hult 2007a), firms must recognize andmanage the social resistance from those individuals withinand across organizations. Our findings suggest that managersneed to consider the potential confusion, apathy, stress, andother social and emotional behaviors resulting from the tran-sition to an SCO with all of the internal and external factorsthat may be involved in that process, and look for better ave-nues of communication to ensure a consistent understandingof the changes and initiatives. For instance, the executives,managers, and front-line workers must have shared mentalmodel of the concept of an SCO, which is difficult becausemany struggle with what can be included in the orbit of sup-ply chain management (Chen and Paulraj 2004). The supplychain managers often described the disparate views of whatsupply chain management is and is not as an important con-tributor to limiting the scope and perceived extensiveness,reducing the urgency, and increasing the level of confusion intransition to an SCO. Further, providing a clearer messageabout the organization’s specific supply chain strategy andcorresponding execution tactics could motivate them to takea more proactive role in transitioning the organization to anSCO. This should ultimately result in a better alignment ofthe organization’s supply chain strategy, structure, and per-formance (Galbraith and Nathanson 1978).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The first three authors dedicate this research to their latecoauthor, Dr. John T. (Tom) Mentzer. The authorsacknowledge The University of Tennessee’s Supply ChainForum for supporting this research.

REFERENCES

Balogun, J., and Johnson, G. 2004. ‘‘Organizational Restruc-turing and Middle Manager Sensemaking.’’ Academy ofManagement Journal 47(4):523–49.

Belk, R.W. 1989. ‘‘Extended Self and Extending Paradig-matic Perspective.’’ Journal of Consumer Research16(1):129–32.

Boyer, K.K., and Swink, M.L. 2008. ‘‘Empirical Ele-phants—Why Multiple Methods Are Essential to QualityResearch in Operations and Supply Chain Management:From John Godfrey Saxe’s Poem in Linton, WilliamJames, (1878), Poetry of America: Selections From OneHundred American Poets.’’ Journal of Operations Man-agement 26(3):338–44.

Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigmsand Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology ofCorporate Life. London: Heinemann.

Carter, C.R., Sanders, N.R., and Dong, Y. 2008. ‘‘Para-digms, Revolutions, and Tipping Points: The Need forUsing Multiple Methodologies Within the Field of SupplyChain Management.’’ Journal of Operations Management26(6):693–96.

Charmaz, K. 1998. ‘‘Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Con-structivist Methods.’’ In Handbook of QualitativeResearch, edited by Norman K.D. and Yvonna S.L.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chen, I.J., and Paulraj, A. 2004. ‘‘Towards a Theoryof Supply Chain Management: The Constructs andMeasurements.’’ Journal of Operations Management 22(2):119–50.

Clark, K.B. 1989. ‘‘Project Scope and Project Performance:The Effect of Parts Strategy and Supplier Involvement onProduct Development.’’ Management Science 35(10):1247–63.

Cooper, M.C., Ellram, L.M., Gardner, J.T., and Hanks,A.M. 1997. ‘‘Meshing Multiple Alliances.’’ Journal ofBusiness Logistics 18(1):67–89.

Corbin, J.M., and Strauss, A.L. 2008. Basics of QualitativeResearch: Techniques and Procedures for DevelopingGrounded Theory. 3rd Rev ed. UK: Sage Publications.

Daft, R.L., and Weick, K.E. 1984. ‘‘Toward a Model ofOrganizations as Interpretation Systems.’’ Academy ofManagement Review 9(2):284–95.

Das, A., Narasimhan, R., and Talluri, S. 2006. ‘‘SupplierIntegration-Finding an Optimal Configuration.’’ Journalof Operations Management 24(5):563–82.

Davis, D., Jim, B., Adam, M., and Kinzler, D. 2005. ‘‘Inven-tory Transformation Revlon Style.’’ Supply Chain Man-agement Review 9(5):53–59.

Degraeve, Z., Labro, E., and Roodhooft, F. 2000. ‘‘An Eval-uation of Vendor Selection Models From a Total Cost ofOwnership Perspective.’’ European Journal of OperationsResearch 125(1):34–58.

Ellram, L.M., and Siferd, S.P. 1998. ‘‘Total Cost ofOwnership: A Key Concept in Strategic Cost Manage-ment Decisions.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 19(1):55–84.

Esper, T.L., Defee, C.C., and Mentzer, J.T. 2010. ‘‘A Frame-work of Supply Chain Orientation.’’ Journal of BusinessLogistics 21(2):161–79.

Ferrin, B.G., and Plank, R.E. 2002. ‘‘Total Cost of Owner-ship Models: An Exploratory Study.’’ Journal of SupplyChain Management 38(3):18–29.

16 A. Omar et al.

Flint, D.J., Woodruff, R.B., and Gardial, S.F. 2002.‘‘Exploring the Phenomenon of Customer’s Desired ValueChange in a Business-to-Business Context.’’ Journal ofMarketing 66(4):102–17.

Ford, J.D., and Ford, L.W. 1995. ‘‘Role of Conversations inProducing Intentional Change in Organizations.’’ Acad-emy of Management Review 20(3):541–70.

Furst, S.A., and Cable, D.M. 2008. ‘‘Employee Resistance toOrganizational Change: Managerial Influence Tactics andLeader–Member Exchange.’’ Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy 93(2):453–62.

Galbraith, J.R., and Nathanson, D.A. 1978. Strategy Imple-mentation: The Role of Structure and Process. St. Paul,MN: West Pub Co.

Glaser, B.G., and Strauss, A.L. 1967. The Discovery ofGrounded Theory. New York: Aldine.

Glick, W.H., Huber, G.P., Miller, C.C., Doty, D.H., andSutcliffe, K.M. 1990. ‘‘Studying Changes in Organiza-tional Design and Effectiveness: Retrospective Event His-tories and Periodic Assessments.’’ Organization Science1(3):293–312.

Gordon, G.G. 1991. ‘‘Industry Determinants of Organiza-tional Culture.’’ Academy of Management Review16(2):396–415.

Goulding, C. 1998. ‘‘Grounded Theory: The Missing Meth-odology on the Interpretivist Agenda.’’ Qualitative Mar-keting Research: An International Journal 1(1):50–57.

Green, K.W., and Inman, R.A. 2005. ‘‘Using a Just-in-TimeSelling Strategy to Strengthen Supply Chain Linkages.’’International Journal of Production Research 43(16):3437–53.

Greer, B.M., and Ford, M.W. 2009. ‘‘Managing Change inSupply Chains: A Process Comparison.’’ Journal of Busi-ness Logistics 30(2):47–63.

Griffin, A. 2002. ‘‘Product Development Cycle Time forBusiness-to-Business Products.’’ Industrial MarketingManagement 31(4):291–304.

Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., and Caldwell, S.D. 2007.‘‘Beyond Change Management: A Multilevel Investigationof Contextual and Personal Influences on Employees’Commitment to Change.’’ Journal of Applied Psychology92(4):942–51.

Hirschman, E.C. 1986. ‘‘Humanistic Inquiry in MarketingResearch: Philosophy Method, and Criteria.’’ Journal ofMarketing Research 23(3):237–49.

Hudson, L.A., and Ozanne, J.L. 1988. ‘‘Alternative Ways ofSeeking Knowledge in Consumer Research.’’ Journal ofConsumer Research 14(4):508–21.

Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., and Slater, S.F. 2004. ‘‘Infor-mation Processing, Knowledge Development, and Strate-gic Supply Chain Performance.’’ Academy of ManagementJournal 47(2):241–53.

Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., Jr., Adams, G.L., and Mena,J.A. 2008. ‘‘Supply Chain Orientation and BalancedScorecard Performance.’’ Journal of Managerial Issues20(4):526–44.

Huy, Q.N. 2002. ‘‘Emotional Balancing of OrganizationalContinuity and Radical Change: The Contribution of

Middle Managers.’’ Administrative Science Quarterly47(1):31–69.

Isabella, L.A. 1990. ‘‘Evolving Interpretations as ChangeUnfolds: How Managers Construe Key OrganizationalEvents.’’ Academy of Management Journal 33(1):7–41.

Johnson, B.C., and Stewart, E.E. 2008. ‘‘The Key to Imple-menting Change in Your Practice.’’ Family Practice Man-agement 15(8):A5–A8.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., Judge, T.A., and Scott, B.A. 2009.‘‘The Role of Core Self-Evaluations in the Coping Pro-cess.’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 94(1):177–95.

Ketchen, D.J., Jr., and Guinipero, L.C. 2004. ‘‘The Intersec-tion of Strategic Management and Supply Chain Manage-ment.’’ Industrial Marketing Management 33(1):51–56.

Ketchen, D.J., Jr., and Hult, G.T.M. 2007a. ‘‘Bridging Orga-nization Theory and Supply Chain Management: TheCase of Best Value Supply Chains.’’ Journal of OperationsManagement 25(2):573–80.

Ketchen, D.J., Jr., and Hult, G.T.M. 2007b. ‘‘TowardGreater Integration of Insights From Organization The-ory and Supply Chain Management.’’ Journal of Opera-tions Management 25(2):455–58.

Kluemper, D.H., Little, L.M., and Groot, T.D. 2009. ‘‘Stateor Trait: Effects of State Optimism on Job-Related Out-comes.’’ Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(2):209–31.

Lambert, D.M., Garcia-Dastugue, S.J., and Croxton, K.L.2005. ‘‘The Role of Logistics Managers in the Cross-Functional Implementation of Supply Chain Manage-ment.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 29(1):113–32.

Langley, A. 1999. ‘‘Strategies for Theorizing From ProcessData.’’ Academy of Management Review 24(4):691–710.

Lawson, B., Tyler, B.B., and Cousins, P.D. 2008. ‘‘Anteced-ents and Consequences of Social Capital on Buyer Perfor-mance Improvement.’’ Journal of Operations Management26(3):446–60.

Li, S., Rao, S.S., Ragu-Nathan, T.S., and Ragu-Nathan, B.2005. ‘‘Development and Validation of a MeasurementInstrument for Studying Supply Chain ManagementPractices.’’ Journal of Operations Management 23(6):618–41.

Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 289–331.

Luscher, L.S., and Lewis, M.W. 2008. ‘‘OrganizationalChange and Managerial Sensemaking: WorkingThrough Paradox.’’ Academy of Management Journal51(2):221–40.

Martin, P.Y., and Turner, B.A. 1986. ‘‘Grounded Theoryand Organizational Research.’’ Journal of Applied Behav-ioral Science 22(2):141–57.

McCarter, M.W., and Northcraft, G.B. 2007. ‘‘HappyTogether? Insights and Implications of Viewing ManagedSupply Chains as a Social Dilemma.’’ Journal ofOperations Management 25(2):498–511.

Mello, J.E., and Flint, D.J. 2009. ‘‘A Refined View ofGrounded Theory and Its Application to LogisticsResearch.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 30(1):107–25.

Mello, J.E., and Stank, T.P. 2005. ‘‘Linking Firm Cultureand Orientation to Supply Chain Success.’’ International


Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management35(7 ⁄ 8):542–54.

Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Soonhoong, M.,Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., and Zacharia, Z.G. 2001.‘‘Defining Supply Chain Management.’’ Journal of Busi-ness Logistics 22(2):1–25.

Meredith, J. 1998. ‘‘Building Operations Management The-ory Through Case and Field Research.’’ Journal of Opera-tions Management 16(4):441–54.

Miles, R.E., and Snow, C.C. 1978. Organizational Strategy:Structure and Process. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Min, S., Mentzer, J.T., and Ladd, R.T. 2007. ‘‘A MarketOrientation in Supply Chain Management.’’ Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science 35(4):502–22.

Mintzberg, H., and Westley, F. 1992. ‘‘Cycles of Organiza-tional Change.’’ Strategic Management Journal 13(SpecialIssue):39–59.

Mitra, S., and Singhal, V. 2008. ‘‘Supply Chain Integrationand Shareholder Value: Evidence From ConsortiumBased Industry Exchanges.’’ Journal of Operations Man-agement 26(1):96–114.

Mohr, L.B. 1982. Explaining Organizational Behavior. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

O’Connor, P. 1994. ‘‘Implementing a Stage Gate Process: AMulti-Company Perspective.’’ Journal of Product Innova-tion Management 11(3):183–200.

Oliver, R.L. 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective onthe Consumer. New York: McGraw Hill.

Paulraj, A., Lado, A.A., and Chen, I.J. 2008. ‘‘Inter-Organi-zational Communication as a Relational Competency:Antecedents and Performance Outcomes in CollaborativeBuyer Supplier Relationships.’’ Journal of OperationsManagement 26(1):45–64.

Pei, B.K.W., and Reneau, J.H. 1990. ‘‘The Effects of Mem-ory Structure on Using Rule-Based Expert Systems forTraining: A Framework and an Empirical Test.’’ DecisionSciences 21(1):263–86.

Pettit, T.J, Fiksel, J., and Croxton, K.L. 2009. ‘‘EnsuringSupply Chain Resilience: Development of a ConceptualFramework.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 31(1):1–21.

Piderit, S.K. 2000. ‘‘Rethinking Resistance and RecognizingAmbivalence: A Multidimensional View of AttitudesToward an Organizational Change.’’ Academy of Manage-ment Review 25(4):783–94.

Plowman, D.A., Baker, L.T., Kulkarni, M., Solanksy, S.T.,and Travis, D.V. 2007. ‘‘Radical Change Accidentally:The Emergence and Amplification of Small Change.’’Academy of Management Journal 50(3):515–43.

Robinson, A.G., and Robinson, M.M. 1994. ‘‘On the Table-top Improvement Experiments of Japan.’’ Production andOperations Management 3(3):201–16.

Rodrigues, A.M., Stank, T.P., and Lynch, D.F. 2004. ‘‘Link-ing Strategy, Structure, Process and Performance in Inte-grated Logistics.’’ Journal of Business Logistics 25(1):65–94.

Sanders, N.R. 2008. ‘‘Pattern of Information TechnologyUse: The Impact on Buyer Supplier Coordination andPerformance.’’ Journal of Operations Management26(3):349–67.

Shapiro, A. 2003. Creating Contagious Commitment: Apply-ing the Tipping Point to Organizational Change. Hillsbor-ough, NC: Strategy Perspective.

Smith, A.D. 2002. ‘‘From Process Data to Publication: APersonal Sensemaking.’’ Journal of Management Inquiry11(4):383–406.

Song, M., and Benedetto, C.A.D. 2008. ‘‘Supplier’s Involve-ment and Success of Radical New Product Developmentin New Ventures.’’ Journal of Operations Management26(1):1–22.

Spradley, J.P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Suddaby, R. 2006. ‘‘From the Editors: What Grounded The-ory is Not.’’ Academy of Management Journal 49(4):633–42.

Swink, M., Narasimhan, R., and Wang, C. 2007. ‘‘ManagingBeyond the Factory Walls: Effects of Four Types of Stra-tegic Integration on Manufacturing Plant Performance.’’Journal of Operations Management 25(1):148–64.

Vivek, S.D., Banwet, D.K., and Shankar, R. 2008. ‘‘Analysisof Interactions Among Core, Transaction and Relation-ship-Specific Investments: The Case of Offshoring.’’ Jour-nal of Operations Management 26(2):180–97.

Weick, K.E., and Quinn, R.E. 1999. ‘‘Organizational Changeand Development.’’ Annual Review of Psychology50(1):361–86.

SHORT BIOGRAPHIES

Ayman Omar (PhD, University of Tennessee) is an Assis-tant Professor and Marvin Fair Faculty Fellow at the KogodSchool of Business at American University. His researchinterests target different aspects of global supply chain man-agement. Primarily, his focus is on drivers and outcomes ofglobal supply chain integration with an emphasis on supplychain flexibility. In addition, Dr. Omar’s research interestsinclude global supply chain sustainability, and global supplychain risk management. He holds a PhD in Logistics andSupply Chain Management, a Masters in Business Adminis-tration (MBA) from the University of Texas at San Antonio,and a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering fromThe American University in Cairo. He has worked for sev-eral years in the oil industry in Europe and Northern Africaand has consulted for numerous multinational, public, andprivate corporations.

Beth Davis-Sramek (PhD, University of Tennessee) is anAssistant Professor in the Department of Marketing at theUniversity of Louisville. Her research interests include therole of logistics in supply chain management, the impact oflogistics service in developing customer loyalty, and the stra-tegic role of logistics in creating competitive advantage. Shehas published articles appearing in the Journal of the Acad-emy of Marketing Science, Journal of Operations Manage-ment, Journal of Business Logistics, International Journal ofPhysical Distribution and Logistics Management, and Interna-tional Journal of Logistics Management. She previouslyworked in the services industry in both product developmentand service operations.

18 A. Omar et al.

Brian S. Fugate (PhD, University of Tennessee) is on thefaculty in the Department of Management at Colorado StateUniversity. Brian’s research interests include managing infor-mation and knowledge flows, strategy, and sustainability inthe supply chain. His research has appeared in the SupplyChain Management Review, Journal of Business Logistics,Journal of Supply Chain Management, Journal of Operations

Management, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Interna-tional Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Manage-ment, and International Journal of Logistics Management.Prior to pursuing the PhD, Brian worked in supply chainmanagement and industrial engineering at John Deere, AlliedSignal, and Delta Airlines.


Documents

Exploring the Complex Social Processes of Organizational Change: Supply Chain Orientation From a Manager’s Perspective