Dj Sbu Leadership 2020 Pdf Download

With conceptual foundations taken from leadership theory and the resource-based view (RBV), this study examines the influence of transactional and transformational leadership on the relationship between the value of the corporate buying center and performance in supply chains. The sample consists of 58 directly linked and matched supply chains, each composed of one user (internal customer), one corporate buyer, and one external supplier. The results indicate that transformational leadership has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between the value of the corporate buying center and performance, while transactional leadership negatively moderates this relationship. Two "localness" dimensions (formalization and centralization) and two "openness" dimensions (participative and reflective) were included as controls in the analysis.

Figures - uploaded by Brian Chabowski

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Brian Chabowski

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

• 20+ million members
• 135+ million publications
• 700k+ research projects

Join for free

Leadership, the buying center, and supply chain performance:

A study of linked users, buyers, and suppliers

G. Tomas M. Hult

a,

⁎, David J. Ketchen Jr.

b,1

, Brian R. Chabowski

c,2

a

Marketing and Supply Chain Management, International Business Center (MSU-CIBER), Eli Broad Graduate School of Management,

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1121, United States

b

College of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, United States

c

Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University,

East Lansing, MI 48824-1122, United States

Received 29 March 2005; received in revised form 2 October 2005; accepted 5 December 2005

Available online 31 January 2006

Abstract

With conceptual foundations taken from leadership theory and the resource-based view (RBV), this study examines the influence of

transactional and transformational leadership on the relationship between the value of the corporate buying center and performance in supply

chains. The sample consists of 58 directly linked and matched supply chains, each composed of one user (internal customer), one corporate buyer,

and one external supplier. The results indicate that transformational leadership has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between the

value of the corporate buying center and performance, while transactional leadership negatively moderates this relationship. Two " localness"

dimensions (formalization and centralization) and two "openness " dimensions (participative and reflective) were included as controls in the

analysis.

© 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Leadership; Buying center; Supply chains; Performance

1. Introduction

The last decade has seen an increased focus on supply chains

as an operational phenomenon that can be leveraged to achieve

superior organizational performance (e.g., Hult, Ketchen, &

Slater, 2004). A supply chain is defined as the " network of

facilities and activities that performs the functions of product

development, procurement of material from suppliers, the

movement of materials between facilities, the manufacturing of

products, the distribution of finished goods to customers, and

after-market support for sustainment" ( Mabert & Venkatarama-

nan, 1998, p. 538). The management of these functions may be

conducted within a single organization's borders while others

cross these borders of traditional organizations (Levy, 1994;

Mentzer et al., 2001). Given the trans-organizational nature of

supply chains, they are not organizations according to

conventional definitions (cf. Scott, 1998 ), but they do exhibit

many of the same features, such as a social structure,

participants, goals, and technology (Ketchen & Guinipero,

2004; Leavitt, 1965). In this regard, a supply chain represents an

organization of linked suppliers and customers, with every

customer being a supplier to the next downstream organization

until a finished product reaches the ultimate end-user (Handfield

& Nichols, 2003).

While an increasing number of firms are interested in supply

chains, some have considered the literature to date descriptive

and anecdotal (e.g., Handfield & Nichols, 2003; Moore, 1999).

In fact, traditional empirical research on supply chains generally

offers a narrow depiction of the chain by providing data from

only one chain participant (e.g., Monczka, Petersen, Handfield,

& Ragatz, 1998; Narasimhan & Jayaram, 1998), buyer–seller

pairs (e.g., Deshpandé, Farley, & Webster, 1993), or multiple

Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2007) 393 –403

⁎Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 517 353 4336; fax: +1 517 432 1009.

Email addresses: hult@msu.edu (G.T.M. Hult), dketchen@earthlink.net

(D.J. Ketchen), chabowski@bus.msu.edu (B.R. Chabowski).

1

Tel.: +1 334 844 4071; fax: +1 334 844 5159.

2

Tel.: +1 517 353 6381; fax: +1 517 432 1009.

0019-8501/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.12.002

chain participants that are not directly linked (e.g., Hult, Hurley,

Giunipero, & Nichols, 2000).

However, in attempts to remedy the shortcomings of such

research concerning supply chains, more recent work has

identified such emerging themes as value networks (e.g., Ehret,

2004), learning within these networks (e.g., Håkansson, Havila,

& Pedersen, 1999), and conceptualizing industrial marketing

networks as a series of resources, activities, and actors (Gadde,

Huemer, & Håkansson, 2003). In addition, even influence on

strategies employed in buyer behaviors and seller responses

have been found important in industrial buying situations

(Leonidou, 2005 ). By focusing on marketing networks as an

interactive whole rather than firms and participants as individual

entities, scholars have indicated that the dynamic and

unpredictable environment inherent in supply chain networks

require flexibility and agility (Christopher, 2000; Fürst &

Schmidt, 2001).

Even so, a number of critical gaps exist in our understanding

of supply chains. This study focuses on a very specific aspect of

these gaps — the role played by the corporate buying center and

its leadership in achieving superior performance in a multi-node

supply chain system. Specifically, a conceptual framework is

developed and empirical results are presented in this study that

address the moderating effects of leadership (transactional and

transformational) on the relationship between the value of the

corporate buying center and performance in supply chains. The

focus is on directly linked users, buyers, and suppliers in the

inbound portion of the supply chain (with a focus on the order

fulfillment process). In adopting this focus, our study adds to

the limited but critically important area of supply chain research

which has studied interconnected nodes in the chain, but has not

focused substantial attention on the influence of particular

leadership behaviors. The next section discusses the develop-

ment of hypotheses, which is subsequently followed by the

methods, results, a discussion of the implications of the study,

limitations, and directions for future research.

2. Hypotheses development

As originally outlined in the resource-based view (RBV)

literature (Barney, 1991; Penrose, 1959; Wernerfelt, 1984), the

underlying premise of the RBV is that resources are valuable,

heterogeneously distributed within firms, unevenly distributed

among firms, and may be considered relatively immobile. When

used uniquely vis-à-vis competitors, these resources bring

increased performance. While some utilize transaction cost

theories to explain occurrences in the supply chain (e.g.,

Rindfleisch & Heide, 1997), the applicability of the RBV has

been recently discussed by Ketchen and Guinipero (2004) .In

fact, evidence has led researchers to conclude that individuals

and entities in the supply chain assess more than prices and

specifications, but also the value created and delivered (Flint,

2004; Stremersch, Wuyts, & Frambach, 2001; Walter, Ritter, &

Gemünden, 2001). Therefore, these recent developments in

supply chain research provide a backdrop to the present study of

pursuing specific supply chain practices and characteristics that

link the value of the buying center to performance.

The relevance of the buying center in the marketing channel

was discussed in detail by Dawes, Lee, and Dowling (1998) .By

analyzing the antecedents of information flow control in the

buying center, their findings indicated that factors related to

individuals in the buying center were the most important in

explaining influence in decisions. With the focus of this study

on the particular practices and characteristics associated with

transactional and transformational leadership, we develop a set

of hypotheses that relate to factors influencing individuals and

decisions in the buying center and, thus, link the inherent value

of the buying center with supply chain performance.

A supply chain traces the production process from

procurement of materials from suppliers through delivery of a

finished product or service to the end-customer (Mabert &

Venkataramanan, 1998). Within this framework, three impor-

tant nodes in the supply chain are examined: users (i.e., internal

customers), corporate buyers, and external suppliers. Such a

wide conceptualization of supply chain management was

furthered in that it is " [a] systemic [and] strategic coordination

of … traditional business functions and … tactics across …

business functions within a particular company and across

businesses within the supply chain" ( Mentzer et al., 2001 ,p.

18). Thus, while external suppliers provide the materials

required, the corporate buyers link them to the users who

have the task to develop a product or service. The result

becomes a series of independent entities which are aligned from

initial suppliers in the supply chain to the end-user for the

development of a product or service for introduction in the

marketplace.

As a precursor to asserting that these internal and external

nodes share commonalities that can be affected by the buying

center and its leadership, an important theoretical consideration

should to be addressed regarding the extent to which supply

chains mirror central attributes of organizations. Without

reasonable parallels, the argument that supply chains can

develop integrated " organizational" operations would perhaps

be tenuous. In this vein, Ketchen and Guinipero (2004)

provided a rationale and discussion of the notion that supply

chains overlap the four basic features of organizations—

participants, social structure, goals, and technology (cf. Leavitt,

1965).

First, like conventional organizations, supply chains involve

a variety of participants who hope to prosper based on their

contribution to chain operations. Second, a social structure—

the patterned elements of the relationships among organiza-

tional participants— often arises as chain participants share

information, coordinate activities, and work together. Third, as

in organizations, supply chain participants are brought together

in the pursuit of goals (although the goals in supply chains are

often narrower in scope than in conventional organizations).

Fourth, in Leavitt's (1965) terminology, technology refers to the

process through which organizations accomplish key tasks, a

notion which is directly related to supply chains since they are

created for purposes of being task-oriented in facilitating

production and distribution.

Similar to the logic presented by Ketchen and Guinipero

(2004), Dunning (1995, p. 470) highlights: " Of course interfirm

394 G.T.M. Hult et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2007) 393–403

cooperation is not a new phenomenon. What is perhaps new is

its significance as an organizational form." A form distin-

guished by " the range, depth, and closeness of the interaction"

between participants. Hence, managers act as brokers to build

business networks, but also facilitate communication and

relationship development (Anderson, Håkansson, & Johanson,

1994). Consequently, building on the frameworks of supply

chains (e.g., Mabert & Venkataramanan, 1998, p. 538) and

organizations (Leavitt, 1965 ), Ketchen and Guinipero (2004,

p. 55) define " a supply chain organization as a relatively

enduring interfirm cooperative that uses resources from

participants to accomplish shared and independent goals of

its members."

Within these interfirm cooperatives, one particular supply

chain entity— the corporate buying center —is critical to the

success of the overall chain (e.g., Barclay, 1991; Dawes et al.,

1998). The buying center is defined as the decision-making unit

of a buying (purchasing) organization; it is composed of

individuals and groups who participate in the purchasing

decision-making (cf. Krapfel, 1985; Venkatesh, Kohli, &

Zaltman, 1995). The buying center's role in providing value

in the supply chain and to its participants has assumed an

increasing level of importance given the strategic significance

of supply chains to organizational success (e.g., Hult, Ketchen,

& Nichols, 2002; Hult et al., 2004). The value that the buying

center offers to the organization, including its leadership (e.g.,

Hult, Ferrell, & Schul, 1998), has been argued to have a

considerable effect on outcomes (e.g., Krapfel, 1985; Wilson,

Lilien, & Wilson, 1991). Well-operating buying centers with

appropriate leadership can be a great strategic resource for

organizations while dysfunctional buying centers and leaders

hinder the effectiveness and efficiency that can be gained from

supply chain practices (e.g., Venkatesh et al., 1995).

2.1. Leadership theory

Leadership theory typically involves three assumptions: (1)

identifiable leadership events exist empirically, (2) leadership is

a significant variable affecting organizational effectiveness, and

(3) theory and research are needed to explain and predict

leadership roles (Davis & Luthans, 1979 ). In this study, we draw

on leadership theory (e.g., Davis & Luthans, 1979; McElroy,

1982) coupled with research on corporate buying centers (e.g.,

Barclay, 1991; Dawes et al., 1998; Venkatesh et al., 1995)to

study the influence of transactional and transformational

leadership on the relationship between the value of the buying

center and performance in supply chains.

At the broadest level, Burns (1978) was the first to

distinguish between transactional leaders who attempt to

satisfy the current needs of their followers by focusing attention

on exchanges and transformational leaders who try to raise the

needs of followers and promote dramatic (positive) changes in

individuals and organizations. Studies advancing these funda-

mental tenets in leadership theory find considerable support that

transformational leadership generally has a stronger influence in

organizations than transactional leadership (Bass, Jung, Avolio,

& Berson, 2003; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001). Thus,

we distinguish between the reactive behaviors associated with

transactional leadership and the proactive nature of transforma-

tional leadership to develop our hypotheses for empirical

examination.

2.1.1. Transactional leadership

Transactional leadership represents those exchanges in

which both the leader and the subordinate influence each

other reciprocally so that each derives something of value

(Hemphill, 1950 ). One of the most common forms of

transactional leadership is labeled " initiation of structure"

(Fleishman, 1973 ), a leadership form which is manifested in

task-oriented behaviors (Yukl, 1981). Initiation of structure

includes such leadership behaviors as insisting on maintaining

standards and meeting deadlines, and deciding in detail what

will be done and how it should be done (Hampton, Dubinsky, &

Skinner, 1986). Clear channels of communication and clear

patterns of work organization are established and orientation is

toward the task (Teas & Horrell, 1981).

Particularly important is defining and structuring the leader's

own role and those of the subordinates toward attaining

predetermined goals (Bass, 1990 ). The result of a negotiated

level of performance between the manager and subordinates

(Bass, 1985 ) is that managers exhibiting transactional leader-

ship behaviors provide positive feedback for acceptable

performance and negative feedback for unacceptable results

(MacKenzie et al., 2001 ). Such leadership characteristics have

been noted to be particularly useful in stable organizational

contexts (Bass, 1985; Bass et al., 2003).

Based on these underpinnings, transactional leadership has

been posited to be associated with firms possessing a more

closed organizational culture, rigid operating system and

procedures, defensive business strategies, and generally satis-

factory performance (Vera & Crossan, 2004). Given the

turbulence exemplified in supply chains with multiple nodes

such reactive leadership strategies can be detrimental to the

value offered by the buying center (e.g., Christopher, 2000;

Fürst & Schmidt, 2001). Therefore, the following hypothesis is

tested (as depicted in Fig. 1):

H1. Transactional leadership has a negative moderating effect

on the relationship between the value of the buying center and

performance in supply chains.

2.1.2. Transformational leadership

Transformational leaders "… attempt and succeed in raising

colleagues, subordinates, followers, clients, or constituencies

to a greater awareness about issues of consequence …this

heightening of awareness requires a leader with vision, self

confidence, and inner strength to argue successfully for what

he [sic] sees is right or good, not for what is popular or is

acceptable according to established wisdom of time" ( Bass,

1985, p. 17). As such, transformational leadership is designed

to raise the awareness of the importance and value of

desired outcomes, get supply chain participants to transcend

their own self-interests, and alter or expand the personal

abilities and needs of individuals (e.g., Seltzer & Bass, 1990).

395 G.T.M. Hult et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2007) 393–403

Transformational leaders go beyond stressing teamwork over

self-interests— these leaders motivate subordinates to be

energized about teamwork as being in their self-interests.

Typically, transformational leaders exemplify leadership qual-

ities that result in outcomes being achieved beyond that which

can be accomplished by transactional leaders (e.g., Bass, 1985 ).

Tending to stimulate a shared vision, but also display and

motivate others to display innovative team actions, transforma-

tional leaders enable the organization to achieve its goals

(Howell & Frost, 1987 ). Results from military settings indicate

that transformational leadership promotes extra effort and a

group-focused orientation among subordinates (Dvir, Eden,

Avolio, & Shamir, 2002). While marginal support was found in

the banking industry (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003 ), transfor-

mational leadership has also been tested in a variety of business

settings with supporting results. For instance, transformational

leadership positively influenced organizational citizenship

behavior and, subsequently, task performance in a sample

from mainland China (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen,

2005). In general support for the underlying premise of

leadership theory, transformational leadership was also found

to consistently influence follower creativity and intrinsic

motivation in Korean organizations (Shin & Zhou, 2003).

Noted particularly among firms with an open culture, an

organic structure, and flexible systems and procedures, trans-

formational leadership has been set forth as best suited to

organizations in turbulent environments (Vera & Crossan,

2004). Given the potential uncertainty represented in supply

chains with many different entities (Christopher, 2000; Fürst &

Schmidt, 2001), transformational leadership behaviors are

applicable particularly in the study of the buying center's impact

on supply chain performance. Therefore, given the nature of the

buying center, its centrality in the overall supply chain, and the

"organizational "nature of supply chains in contemporary

business operations, the following hypothesis is tested:

H2. Transformational leadership has a positive moderating

effect on the relationship between the value of the buying center

and performance in supply chains.

3. Methods

Data were gathered concerning the value of the buyer center,

leadership behaviors, and performance in the supply chains of a

Fortune 500 transportation company with locations in more

than 200 countries to test the hypotheses. We selected this firm

because of the number of organizations located in its supply

chains and because it provided a sample of sufficient size while

at the same time controlling for variation in industry

contingencies.

3.1. Data collection

Three matched and directly linked supply chain samples

were collected as a part of this study, including internal users

(n = 141), corporate buyers (n= 115), and external suppliers

(n = 58). These three samples provided 58 independent supply

chain organizations (SCOs) that were each composed of one

user, one corporate buyer, and one external supplier. Specifi-

cally, the focus of the study was on the diverse set of supply

chains of a Fortune 500 transportation company.

Prior to collecting the data, two measures were taken to

assure the quality of the research design. Initially, a pretest

involving eight academics and seven supply chain executives

was conducted to assess the face validity of the scale items.

Next, a pilot study including 36 supply chain executives was

conducted to assess the general quality of the research design.

As a part of the pilot study, the executives were also asked to

provide qualitative comments regarding their supply chain

practices. Following the pretest and pilot study, the full survey

was administered to users, buyers, and suppliers involved in the

supply chains of the transportation company.

To test the model, each respondent was instructed to focus on

the last order fulfillment process within the supply chain in

which they had been involved with one of the targeted entities to

obtain matched and directly linked samples of users, corporate

buyers, and external suppliers. However, company records

served as the main verification of the direct links between the

three entities. Additionally, each survey respondent was asked

H1 (-)

H2 (+)

OPENNESS

Transactional

Leadership

Transformational

Leadership

Value of the

Buying Center Performance

Participative

Openness

Reflective

Openness

Formalization Centralization

Hypothesized Relationship

Control Relationship

LOCALNESS

Fig. 1. Leadership, value of the buying center, and performance in supply chains (composed of directly linked users, buyers, and suppliers).

396 G.T.M. Hult et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2007) 393–403

to identify their corresponding supply chain participants (i.e.,

the user identified the buyer and supplier, and so on).

The users included the internal " customers" of the

transportation company's strategic business units (SBU).

Three hundred forty-six SBUs were targeted with 141

responding, representing a 40.8% response rate. These 141

SBU respondents had an average tenure in the organization of

13.4 years and had participated in 12.9 supply chain requests

per month in the year prior to the study.

The buyers represented corporate buyers of the transporta-

tion company. These buyers were a part of the firm's "strategic

sourcing and supply unit" (SS&S). SS&S is structured as the

buying center in the firm with responsibility to facilitate

relationships between suppliers and users. Surveys were sent to

the unit's 338 individuals; 115 responded for a response rate of

34.0%. The buyer's average length of tenure in the corporation

was 10.0 years, and they facilitated, on average, 34.8 purchase

requests from users per month.

The suppliers consisted of the transportation company's 235

major external suppliers that had been involved with the

organization for several years. Fifty-eight external suppliers

passed the qualifying questions that assessed the degree of

understanding of the transportation firm's supply chains and its

buying center and responded to the survey (58 / 235= 24.7%).

These suppliers had been with their current organizations an

average of 11.8 years, with their organizations having, on

average, 19,181 employees and 40.7 years of business

experience.

3.2. Measures

Established scales were used to measure the constructs of

transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and per-

formance. The measurement of transactional leadership cen-

tered on the dimension of initiation of structure, although other

dimensions also could have been included (Stogdill, 1963;

Stogdill & Coons, 1957). Transformational leadership included

one item each for the five elements of attributed charisma,

inspirational leadership, individualized consideration, inspira-

tional leadership, and idealized influence (Bass & Avolio,

1991). Performance focused on two elements: (1) overall

performance of the SCO (composed of a user, buyer, and

supplier) and (2) performance of the SCO relative to other chain

organizations they had taken part in during the last year (cf.

Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). The scale used to measure the value of

the buying center was new (motivated by the work by Dawes et

al., 1998).

In addition to the constructs in the hypothesized linkages,

two additional constructs were included as control variables.

These include two dimensions of " localness" (formal structure

and centralized structure; Hage & Aiken, 1967 ) and two

dimensions of " openness" (participative openness— Jaworski &

Kohli, 1993; and, reflective openness— new scale developed

based on Senge, 1990 ). All scales and sources are included in

the Appendix. Localness and openness are two " prototypes"of

the " learning organization" ( Senge, 1990 ) that appear directly

related to leadership behaviors (e.g., Hult et al., 2000 ). As such,

they are used as controls in theregressionequationto

understand fully the effects of the leadership attributes in the

hypothesized model.

To establish the measures and constructs used for empirically

testing the hypothesized model, measurement analysis was

performed in the form of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

The results of the measurement analysis are presented in Tables

1 and 2.Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations,

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, correlations, and shared variances (n = 58)

a

Mean S.D. FORM CENT PO RO TRANSF TRANSAC VALUE PERF

Formalization 2.61 .58 – .03 .00 .03 .02 .02 .03 .07

Centralization 5.01 .52 .16 – .02 .04 .07 .08 .09 .01

Part openness 5.01 .85 − .03 .14 – .66 .44 .35 .38 .01

Ref openness 4.95 .82 − .18 .21 .81 – .48 .35 .46 .03

Transf leadership 5.05 .69 − .15 .27 .66 .69 – .59 .49 .06

Transac leadership 5.27 .72 − .14 .28 .59 .59 .77 – .45 .11

Value-buying cntr 5.20 .87 − .16 .30 .62 .68 .70 .67 –.23

Performance 5.38 .76 − .26 .12 .11 .16 .24 .33 .48 –

a

The correlations are included in the lower triangle of the matrix. All correlations above .30 are significant at the pb .05 level. Shared variances are included in the

upper triangle of the matrix. The correlations are based on the averaged responses of the matched and directly linked users, buyers, and suppliers.

Table 2

Summary statistics of the confirmatory factor analysis (n = 174)

Construct Average variance

extracted

Composite

reliability

Range of

loadings

Formalization 62.40 .89 .68–.88

Centralization 63.80 .90 .59–.93

Participative

openness

71.20 .92 .77–.89

Reflective

openness

71.25 .91 .68–.93

Transformational

leadership

76.40 .94 .83–.89

Transactional

leadership

69.20 .92 .52–.92

Value of the

buying center

86.20 .97 .88–.96

Performance 85.50 .92 .86–.98

χ

2

=1283.55

df =566

DELTA2= .96

RNI = .96

CFI = .96

TLI = .96

RMSEA = .08

397 G.T.M. Hult et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2007) 393–403

correlations, and shared variances of the study's constructs.

Table 2 summarizes the average variances extracted, construct

reliabilities, factor loadings, and fit indices. The measures are

included in the Appendix.

After the data were collected, the measures were subjected to

a rigorous testing process involving a series of dimensionality,

reliability, and validity assessments based on the responses from

the 174 supply chain units that later formed the directly linked

58 supply chains in the hypothesis testing. The psychometric

properties of the eight latent constructs involving 36 items were

evaluated via CFA using LISREL 8.72 (Jöreskog, Sörbom, Du

Toit, & Du Toit, 2000). The model fits were evaluated using a

series of indices. The DELTA2 index, the relative noncentrality

index (RNI), and the comparative fit index (CFI) were shown to

provide stable fit indices by Gerbing and Anderson (1992) . Hu

and Bentler (1999) suggested that the Tucker– Lewis index

(TLI) and the root mean square error of approximation index

(RMSEA) be added in evaluating CFA and SEM analyses.

Using these indices, the CFA models resulted in an excellent fit

to the data with DELTA2, RNI, CFI, and TLI all being .96, and

RMSEA = .08.

Within the CFA setting, composite reliability was calculated

using the procedures outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981)

based on the work of Werts, Linn, and Jöreskog (1974) . The

parameter estimates and their associated t -values were also

examined along with the average variance extracted for each

construct (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988 ). The composite

reliabilities for the eight scales ranged from .89 to .97 (Table

2). The factor loadings ranged from .59 to .96 (pb .01), and the

average variances extracted ranged from 62.40% to 86.20%

(Table 2 ). The 36 items were also found to be reliable and valid

when evaluated based on each item's error variance, modifica-

tion index, and residual covariation. Additionally, the skewness

and kurtosis results of each item indicated that the data were

normally distributed.

To be rigorous, discriminant validity was established by two

independent methods. First, we calculated the shared variance

between pairs of constructs and verified that it was lower than

the average variances extracted for the individual constructs

(Fornell & Larcker, 1981 ). As noted above, the average

variance extracted for each construct was above 50%, which

is the recommended cutoff by Fornell and Larcker (1981) . The

shared variances between pairs of all possible scale combina-

tions indicated that the average variances extracted (Table 1)

were higher than the associated shared variance in all cases

(Table 1 ). Second, we performed the " pairwise" test of scales

suggested by Anderson (1987) and Bagozzi and Phillips (1982).

This test entailed analyzing all possible pairs of constructs in a

series of two-factor CFA models using LISREL. Each model

was run twice— once constraining the ϕ coefficient to unity and

once freeing this parameter. A χ

2

-difference indicated that the

χ

2

values were significantly lower for the unconstrained

models. The critical value (Δ χ

(1)

2

N3.84) was exceeded in all

cases. Thus, the eight measures and their 36 indicators were

found to be reliable and valid in the context of this study.

Prior to hypothesis testing, we conducted one final test to

ensure that the data used were of high quality. Specifically,

cross-sectional survey data is prone to common method

variance (CMV) that may affect the results. As such, we tested

the potential of CMV by using Harmon's one-factor test within

a CFA setting (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). The rationale for

this test is that if CMV poses a serious threat, a single latent

factor— a" same-source"factor— would account for all mani-

fest variables (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986 ). A worse fit for the

one-factor model would suggest that CMV does not pose a

serious threat (Sanchez, Korbin, & Viscarra, 1995 ). The one-

factor test yielded a χ

2

= 3.927.72 with 594 degrees of freedom

(versus a χ

2

= 1476.46 and df = 566 for the measurement model).

As such, the fit is considerably worse for the unidimensional

model, suggesting that CMV is not a serious threat in the

analysis of the relationships in Fig. 1.

3.3. Analysis

The testing of the two hypotheses was accomplished via

the estimation of one hierarchical regression model. Because

two interaction terms were included in the analysis, the

variables were mean-centered (standardized) to reduce the

potential effects of multicollinearity. The technique of least

squares was used with the control variables entered as a block

in step 1 (formalization, centralization, participative openness,

and reflective openness), followed by the direct effects in step

2 (transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and

the value of the buying center), and the two moderators

representing H1 and H2 in step 3. Regression was chosen for

the hypothesis testing due to sample size limitations (n =58

supply chain " organizations," each composed of one user,

one buyer, and one supplier). In this respect, importantly, the

unit of analysis for the hypothesis testing was the " supply

chain organization" (or, SCO). Each subjective scale was

created as a summated index of the items that constitute the

scale.

To test the relationships involving the hypothesized variables

and the controls, the following regression equation was

analyzed in three hierarchical steps:

Y1 ¼a þY1 ¼a þbX1 þbX2 þbX3 þbX4 þb X5 þ b X 6

þbX7 þbX5 X7 þbX6X7 þe;

where Y

1

= performance (PERF), α = intercept, X

1

=

formalization (FORM), X

2

= centralization (CENT), X

3

=

participative openness (PO), X

4

= reflective openness (RO),

X

5

= transactional leadership (TRANSAC), X

6

= transforma-

tional leadership (TRANSF), X

7

= value of the buying function

(VALUE), and ε = random disturbance terms.

4. Results

The results of the hypothesis testing are summarized in

Table 3, including both un-standardized and standardized

values. Focusing on the standardized coefficients, the results

from the hierarchical regression show that FORM (b

1

= .34, t-

value = 2.37, pb .05), VALUE (b

7

= .59, t-value = 2.45, pb .05),

and the two moderators of TRANSAC * VALUE (b

8

=− .49, t-

398 G.T.M. Hult et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2007) 393–403

value = |2.13|, pb .05) and TRANSF * VALUE (b

9

= .43, t-

value = 2.03, pb .05) had a significant association with

performance. CENT (b

2

=.11, t -value= .73), PO (b

3

=− .14,

t-value = |.58|), RO (b

4

=− .29, t -value = |1.09|), TRANSAC

(b

5

= .09 t -value = .39), and TRANSF (b

6

= .05, t -value = .22)

were not statistically associated with performance. The fully

specified model, after inclusion of all the variables (i.e., steps

1, 2, and 3), resulted in R

2

=.45 ( F-value = 3.00, pb .01).

The inclusion of TRANSACT, TRANSF, and VALUE in

step 2 of the hierarchical model explained significant variance

in performance beyond that explained by the four control

variables in step 1 (Δ R

2

= .22, pb .05). Likewise, the inclusion

of the two moderators (TRANSAC * VALUE and TRANS-

F * VALUE) in step 3 explained additional variance (Δ R

2

= .08,

pb.10) above the seven variables already entered into the

equation in steps 1 and 2. Given that neither TRANSAC nor

TRANSF had a direct relationship with performance, we found

that TRANSAC (negative) and TRANSF (positive) are pure

moderators of the VALUE → PERF relationship (Sharma,

Durand, & Gur-Arie, 1981). For all constructs in the model, the

Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) were lower than 4.12,

indicating that multicollinearity does not affect the weights of

the control variables or the hypothesized variables in the model

(Mason & Perreault, 1991 ). As such, H1 and H2 were both

supported.

5. Discussion

Research on supply chains have begun to emphasize that

the value created, offered, and delivered is increasingly

important (Flint, 2004; Stremersch et al., 2001; Walter et al.,

2001). As the model shows, the interorganizational partici-

pation of the users, buyers, and suppliers in a supply chain is

critical to not only the assessment of the buying center's

value, but also the performance of the supply chain in general

(Handfield & Nichols, 2004). More importantly, however, is

the influence of the leadership strategies employed in

assessing the value the buying center brings to the supply

chain.

Our findings indicate that the unstable nature of supply

chains has an influence on which leadership type is successful

(Christopher, 2000; Fürst & Schmidt, 2001 ). More importantly,

by analyzing the influence of both transactional and transfor-

mational leadership within the interconnectedness of supply

chains, our findings support the notion that transformational

leadership has a stronger relationship than transactional

leadership on outcomes (Bass et al., 2003; MacKenzie et al.,

2001). Given the turbulent environment of supply chains, we

Table 3

Three-step hierarchical regression results with performance as the criterion

variable

Predictor variables β b Std.

error

t-value Sign Result

Step 1: Control variables

Formalization

(FORM)

.44 .33 .21 2.13 pb .05

Centralization

(CENT)

−.14 −.09 .23 −.60 p =.56

Participative openness

(PO)

.06 .06 .24 .24 p = .81

Reflective openness

(RO)

.08 .09 .26 .32 p = .75

R

2

= .15

Adjusted R

2

=.06

F-value= 1.66

(p = .18)

Step 2: Direct effects

Formalization

(FORM)

.34 .26 .19 1.81 pb .10

Centralization

(CENT)

.03 .02 .22 .13 p = .90

Participative openness

(PO)

−.14 −.16 .23 −.62 p =.54

Reflective openness

(RO)

−.25 −.26 .26 −.97 p =.34

Transformational

leadership

(TRANSF)

−.06 −.05 .28 −.23 p =.82

Transactional

leadership

(TRANSAC)

.22 .21 .26 .85 p = .40

Value of the buying

center (VALUE)

.53 .63 .20 2.61 pb .05

R

2

= .37

Adjusted R

2

=.24

F-value= 2.91

(pb .05)

Step 1 to Step 2:

ΔR

2

= .22 (pb .05)

Step 3: Moderators

Formalization

(FORM)

.45 .34 .19 2.37 pb .05

Centralization

(CENT)

.17 .11 .23 .73 p =.47

Participative

openness (PO)

−.13 −.14 .22 −.58 p =.57

Reflective

openness (RO)

−.27 −.27 .25 −1.09 p =.28

Transformational

leadership

(TRANSF)

.06 .05 .27 .22 p = .83

Transactional

leadership

(TRANSAC)

.10 .09 .26 .39 p = .70

Value of the buying

center (VALUE)

.10 .59 .20 2.45 pb .05

TRANSAC * VALUE .53 .43 .26 2.03 pb .05 H1 supported

TRANSF * VALUE − .55 − .49 .26 − .2.13 pb .05 H2 supported

R

2

= .45

Adjusted R

2

=.30

(continued on next page)

Table 3 (continued)

Predictor variables β b Std.

error

t-value Sign Result

F-value = 3.00

(pb .01)

Step2toStep3:

ΔR

2

=.08 (pb .10)

n=58

399 G.T.M. Hult et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2007) 393–403

discover support for our hypotheses that transactional leader-

ship has a decidedly negative moderating influence on the

relationship between a buying center's value and supply chain

performance while transformational leadership positively

moderates the relationship. Thus, the ability of leaders to

energize subordinates is paramount to achieve greater goals

through teamwork rather than relying on individual self-

interests.

As such, these results contribute to the literature in at least

three ways. First, our findings extend academic research on

supply chains by analyzing cases beyond a simply dyadic

relationship or individual participants (Deshpandé et al., 1993;

Hult et al., 2000; Monczka et al., 1998; Narasimhan & Jayaram,

1998). Instead, our findings are based on the notion that the

user, buyer, and supplier act as an organization somewhat akin

to a network (Ehret, 2004; Gadde et al., 2003; Håkansson et al.,

1999) and evaluate the contribution of the buying center on the

overall supply chain's performance. Second, this study adds to

work concerning resources by focusing on the supply chain

rather than on individual entities (Barney, 1991; Ketchen &

Guinipero, 2004; Venkatesh et al., 1995; Wernerfelt, 1984). In

fact, our results imply that, depending on the appropriateness of

the context, leadership can either properly or improperly

manage the resources embedded in the buying center for

performance of the overall supply chain. And, third, these

findings broaden the literature's emphasis on leadership by

extending the roles of transactional and transformational

leadership beyond its focus internal to a distinct firm, business

unit, or group (Bass et al., 2003; Dvir et al., 2002 ). With our

focus on the SCO (i.e., the inbound portion of the chain), the

literature benefits from the applicability of leadership across

multiple business entities.

6. Conclusion

Recognizing how and when leadership can facilitate the

value of a buying center to the benefit of the supply chain is an

important issue for any firm, either supplying or purchasing a

product or service. For managers in particular, knowing which

occasions necessitate transactional and transformational lead-

ership within this context is essential. With a focus on task-

oriented behaviors, maintaining standards, and meeting dead-

lines, this study finds that transactional leadership damages the

value a buying center offers to inherently turbulent supply

chains. Contrary to this, transformational leadership, which is

characterized by raising awareness of others and energizing

subordinates to achieve goals beyond simple self-interest, was

found to accentuate the influence of the buying center's value

on the supply chain's performance.

Thus, managers can derive from this study that certain

leadership traits are required for particular supply chain

circumstances. Though transformational leadership may be

most conducive to turbulent environments, transactional

leadership may be considered more favorable in stable business

settings in which the status quo must be maintained for success.

Misalignment of leadership strategies (e.g., transactional

leadership in turbulent environments or transformational

leadership in stable settings) may render either the organization

or leadership style dysfunctional— perhaps both. As such, as

supply chain management continues to grow in importance,

appropriate leadership is critical to achieving success. Only the

leader can commit the organization to facing reality head on. As

such, within the structure of supply chains, leaders in the

corporate buying center represent the " human resource"perhaps

best positioned to articulate the performance gap between what

the SCO is currently doing and what it needs to accomplish in

the future. In addition, these buying-center-leaders are the most

likely candidates to " energize" the supply chain participants,

lead through the complex and (often) sequential steps of the

chains, and facilitate the supply chain activities that need to be

accomplished. In this study, we found that transformational

leadership has a positive influence on the relationship between

the corporate buying center's value and performance of the

SCO, while transactional leadership had a negative effect on

this relationship.

This is an important finding because most supply chains (and

order fulfillment processes within supply chains) are structured

around centralized and formalized operations (included as

controls in this study) and guided by transactional leaders.

However, based on the results of this study, only formalization

through set procedures and practices seems to achieve success

in the supply chain. Given that supply chains are becoming

more turbulent (Christopher, 2000; Fürst & Schmidt, 2001 ), the

ability to centralize operations may be either less of a priority

among managers or more difficult to accomplish.

In addition, indications are that effective supply chains result

from the value generated by the organization's buying center

and the influence that transformational leadership has on the

system overall. It may be that the " old school" of transaction

cost theory in marketing channels (cf. Rindfleisch & Heide,

1997) is now exemplified by establishing formal operating

structures and procedures for the supply chain but that superior

performance in the chain is closer aligned with elements

exemplified by tenets of the RBV (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt,

1984), organizational learning ( Senge, 1990), and transforma-

tional leadership (Burns, 1978).

In particular, transactional leaders (who attempt to satisfy the

current needs of their followers by focusing attention on mainly

concrete exchanges) may not be the appropriate leaders for

SCOs which can focus on relational exchanges involving trust

and commitment (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Instead, transforma-

tional leaders (who try to raise the needs of followers and

promote dramatic positive changes in individuals, groups, and

organizations) appear to be the form of leadership influencing

the SCO system positively. Transformational leaders are also

likely to be the most appropriate leadership type that can be

used to guide endeavors in the overall supply chain, beyond

simple dyadic relationships.

6.1. Limitations and future research

The findings of this study should be assessed in light of its

limitations. Each limitation represents an avenue for future

research. First, we had to point the respondents to a particular

400 G.T.M. Hult et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2007) 393–403

order-fulfillment-episode to make sure that we could connect a

specific user, specific buyer, and specific supplier into one

inbound supply chain. While managers may cognitively include

multiple instances from their experiences to respond to surveys,

the answers provided by practitioners are often determined by

the ability of the researcher to frame the question appropriately

for the context of the study. Since there is a cognitive inclination

to respond and provide information based on an occurrence

transpiring very recently, this study aims to draw out details

about the last order fulfillment process rather than struggle to

remember exact information from multiple interactions. Given

our study on relationships, this method decision is a limitation

that needs to be noted.

Second, our model evaluated the influence of transactional

and transformational leadership as distinct management styles

in the overall supply chain. However, there may be some

unstable supply chain environments where transactional

leadership may be required, particularly when rapid employee

turnover renders transformational leadership unproductive

(Bass et al., 2003 ). Also, some research suggests that there

may be a positive relationship between transformational

leadership and elements of transactional leadership (Judge &

Piccolo, 2004). A strong argument is that transformational

leadership augments the positive effect of transactional

leadership on some outcomes. Therefore, in particularly

complex leadership situations in the supply chain (e.g., matrix

structures), elements of both leadership behaviors are likely to

be required for effective management.

Third, the nature of the product or service provided by a

supply chain may alter the influence of transactional and

transformational leadership (Vera & Crossan, 2004). For

instance, given the unstable nature of products and services in

the birth, decline, or revival stages, transformational leader-

ship has been posited as important. Meanwhile, products or

services in the growth and maturing stages may benefit from

transactional leadership in a supply chain. As such, future

research may aim to pursue this topic to understand the role

of leadership as a product or service evolves through its life

cycle.

Fourth, while the measures used to evaluate performance in

this model were subjective, objective measures may provide

more insights to industrial marketing researchers. However,

subjective assessment of performance has appeared and been

used effectively in the industrial marketing literature. In an

evaluation of proactive behavior in industrial sales forces,

subjective evaluation by line managers of sales force perfor-

mance was found relevant (Pitt, Ewing, & Berth, 2002 ). Also, a

study on the determinants of relational governance and

performance used a six-item scale to measure perceived

satisfaction of business relationships (Claro, Hagelaar, &

Omta, 2003). At times, subjective measures of performance in

supply chain contexts can lead to insights that otherwise may

not be distinguished from objectively measured data concerning

performance (Hult et al., 2004 ). Regardless, while much of the

leadership literature has used subjective assessments of

performance, measuring performance with multiple subjective

and objective indicators is considered a requirement to

understand the relationship of performance with other con-

structs (Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986). Therefore, inclu-

sion of objective measures of performance in models evaluating

the influence of leadership in supply chains would provide

added value to future research.

Despite these limitations and avenues for future research, we

developed a model that explained substantial variance in

performance across the 58 strategic supply chains examined

(while accounting for possible common method variance). We

drew on leadership theory and work on corporate buying centers

along with a foundation in the resource-based view for the

theoretical foundation for the model. Given its theoretical

foundation and methodological rigor, our study helps close the

gap between what we know about shaping supply chain

performance and what scholars and managers need to know.

More broadly, our findings demonstrate the value of juxtapos-

ing the three literature streams of leadership, buying centers,

and the resource-based view. For managers, in short, our study

highlights the potential value of emphasizing transformational

leadership over transaction leadership in the supply chain

context.

Appendix A. Measurement scales

The respondents were asked to relate their answers to the

order fulfillment process of the supply chain, with a focus on the

link between the end-users, corporate buyers, and externals

suppliers of the transportation firm. " We " refers to the group of

one user, one buyer, and one supplier in a supply chain

organization. Each item was phrased to apply to the particular

respondent (i.e., users, buyers, or suppliers)— the items in the

Appendix are based on the supplier version of the survey. Five-

point Likert-type scales were used for participative and

reflective openness, and seven-point scales were used for all

other constructs, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly

agree. SS&S refers to the XYZ firm's corporate buying center.

Formalization (adapted from Hage & Aiken, 1967)

•We feel that the XYZ firm's users are in charge of most of the XYZ firm's

supply chain matters. bRN

•We feel that the XYZ firm's users can make supply chain decisions without

checking with SS&S. bRN

•How things are done in the supply chain is left up to the XYZ firm's users.

bRN

•The XYZ firm's users are allowed to do almost as they please in the supply

chain. b R N

•The XYZ firm's users make their own rules in the supply chain. bRN

Centralization (adapted from Hage & Aiken, 1967)

•There can be little supply chain action until the XYZ firm's SS&S approves

a decision.

•If the XYZ firm's users wanted to make a decision they would be quickly

discouraged by SS&S.

•Even small matters have to be referred to the XYZ firm's SS&S for a final

answer.

•We have to ask the XYZ firm's SS&S before we do almost anything.

•Any decision we make has to be approved by the XYZ firm's SS&S.

Participative openness (adapted from Jaworski & Kohli, 1993)

•It is easy to talk to our contact in SS&S, regardless of their rank and

position.

•There is ample opportunity for informal "hall talk "in the supply chain.

401 G.T.M. Hult et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2007) 393–403

•We feel comfortable calling our contact person in SS&S when the need

arises.

•Our contact person in SS&S is quite accessible.

•We can easily schedule meetings with our contact person in SS&S.

Reflective openness (new scale based on Senge, 1990)

•We are susceptible to influencing each other's ideas.

•We are committed to sharing our views about the supply chain.

•We are continuously willing to challenge each other's thinking.

•We continually judge the quality of our supply chain decisions over time.

Transactional leadership (adapted from Stogdill, 1963; Stogdill & Coons, 1957)

Our contact person in SS&S:

•Let us know what is expected of us in the supply chain.

•Encourages the use of uniform procedures in the supply chain.

•Decides what shall be done and how it will be done in the supply chain.

•Maintains definite standards of performance in the supply chain.

•Asks that we follow established supply chain rules and procedures.

Transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1991)

Our contact person in SS&S:

•Goes beyond his/her own self-interest for the good of the supply chain.

•Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished in the supply

chain.

•Spends time teaching and coaching us about the supply chain.

•Seeks different perspectives when solving supply chain problems.

•Clarifies the central purpose underlying our supply chain actions.

Value of the buying center (new scale motivated by Dawes et al., 1998)

•The service provided by the XYZ firm's SS&S in the supply chain is

valuable.

•The resource provided by the XYZ firm's SS&S in the supply chain is

valuable.

•The assistance provided by the XYZ firm's SS&S in the supply chain is

valuable.

•The information provided by the XYZ firm's SS&S in the supply chain is

valuable.

•The knowledge provided by the XYZ firm's SS&S in the supply chain is

valuable.

Performance (adapted from Jaworski & Kohli, 1993)

•The overall performance of our supply chain organization last year was

good.

•The overall performance relative to other supply chain organizations last

year was very good (i.e., relative to other supply chain organizations that we

have taken part in during the last year).

References

Anderson, J. C. (1987, April). An approach for confirmatory measurement and

structural equation modeling of organizational properties. Management

Science,33, 525−541.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in

practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological

Bulletin,103(3), 411−423.

Anderson, J. C., Håkansson, H., & Johanson, J. (1994, October). Dyadic

business relationships within a business network context. Journal of

Marketing,58,1 −15.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982, September). Representing and testing

organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science

Quarterly,27, 459−489.

Barclay, D. W. (1991, May). Interdepartmental conflict in organizational buying:

The impact of the organizational context. Journal of Marketing Research,

28, 145−159.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal

of Management, 17(1), 99 −120.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New

York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory,

research, and managerial implications. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1991). The multifactor leadership questionnaire.

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit

performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207 −218.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper.

Christopher, M. (2000). The agile supply chain: Competing in volatile markets.

Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 37−44.

Claro, D. P., Hagelaar, G., & Omta, O. (2003). The determinants of relational

governance and performance: How to manage business relationships?

Industrial Marketing Management, 32(8), 703−716.

Davis, T. R., & Luthans, F. (1979). Leadership reexamined: A behavioral

approach. Academy of Management Review , 4 (2), 237−248.

Dawes, P. L., Lee, D. Y., & Dowling, G. R. (1998). Information control and

influence in emergent buying centers. Journal of Marketing , 62 (3),

55−68.

Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E. (1993, January). Corporate

culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A

quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing , 57 ,23 −27.

Dunning, J. H. (1995). Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in an age of alliance

capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies , 26 (3), 461−492.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational

leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.

Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735−744.

Ehret, M. (2004). Managing the trade-off between relationships and value

networks: Towards a value-based approach of customer relationship

management in business-to-business markets. Industrial Marketing Man-

agement,33(6), 465 −473.

Fleishman, E. A. (1973). Twenty years of consideration and structure. In E. A.

Fleischman, & J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of

leadership Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Flint, D. J. (2004). Strategic marketing in global supply chains: Four challenges.

Industrial Marketing Management, 33(1), 45−50.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F (1981, February). Evaluating structural equation

models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of

Marketing Research, 18,39 −50.

Fürst, K., & Schmidt, T. (2001). Turbulent markets need flexible supply chain

communication. Production Planning and Control , 12 (5), 525−533.

Gadde, L., Huemer, L., & Håkansson, H. (2003). Strategizing in industrial

networks. Industrial Marketing Management , 32 (5), 357−364.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness

of fit indices for structural equation models. Sociological Methods and

Research,21(2), 132 −160.

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967, June). Relationship of centralization to other

structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly , 12 ,72 −92.

Hampton, R., Dubinsky, A. J., & Skinner, S. J. (1986, Fall). A model

of sales supervisor leadership behavior and retail salespeople's job-

related outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 14,

33−43.

Handfield, R. B., & Nichols Jr., E. L. (2003). Supply chain redesign:

Transforming supply chains into integrated value systems. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc..

Handfield, R. B., & Nichols Jr., E. L. (2004). Key issues in global supply base

management. Industrial Marketing Management , 33 (1), 29−35.

Håkansson, H., Havila, V., & Pedersen, A. (1999). Learning in networks.

Industrial Marketing Management, 28(5), 443−452.

Hemphill, J. K. (1950). Leader behavior description. Columbus, OH: Ohio State

University, Bureau of Educational Research.

Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1987). A laboratory study of charismatic

leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 43(2),

243−269.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance

structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural

Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1−55.

Hult, G. T. M., Ferrell, O. C., & Schul, P. L. (1998). The effect of global

leadership on purchasing process outcomes. European Journal of

Marketing,32(11/12), 1029−1051.

Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., Giunipero, L. C., & Nichols Jr., E. L. (2000).

Organizational learning in global purchasing: A model and test of internal

users and corporate buyers. Decision Sciences , 31 (2), 293−325.

402 G.T.M. Hult et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2007) 393–403

Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen Jr., D. J., & Nichols Jr., E. L. (2002). An examination of

cultural competitiveness and order fulfillment cycle time within supply

chains. Academy of Management Journal , 45 (3), 577−586.

Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen Jr., D. J., & Slater, S. F. (2004). Information processing,

knowledge development, and strategic supply chain performance. Academy

of Management Journal, 47(2), 241 −253.

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993, July). Market orientation: Antecedents

and consequences. Journal of Marketing , 57 ,53 −70.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied

Psychology,89(5), 755 −768.

Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D., Du Toit, S., & Du Toit, M. (2000). LISREL 8: New

statistical features, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software Interna-

tional Inc..

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational

leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology ,

88(2), 246−255.

Ketchen Jr., D. J., & Guinipero, L. C. (2004). The intersection of strategic

management and supply chain management. Industrial Marketing Manage-

ment,33(1), 51−56.

Krapfel Jr., R. E. (1985). An advocacy behavior model of organizational buyers'

vendor choice. Journal of Marketing , 49 (4), 51−59.

Leavitt, H. J. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry: Structural,

technological and humanistic approaches. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of

organization (pp. 1144− 1170). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Leonidou, L. C. (2005). Industrial buyers' influence strategies: Buying situation

differences. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing , 20 (1), 33−42.

Levy, D. (1994, Summer). Chaos theory and strategy: Theory, application, and

managerial implications. Strategic Management Journal , 15 , 167−178.

Mabert, V. A., & Venkataramanan, M. A. (1998). Special research focus on

supply chain linkages: Challenges for design and management in the 21st

century. Decision Sciences , 29 (3), 537−552.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and

transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 115−134.

Mason, C. H., & Perreault Jr., W. D. (1991). Collinearity, power, and

interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing

Research,28(3), 268−280.

McElroy, J. C. (1982). A typology of attribution leadership research. Academy of

Management Review, 7(3), 413−417.

McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as

predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes.

Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 626−637.

Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D., et al.

(2001). Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics,

22(2), 1−25.

Monczka, R. M., Petersen, K. J., Handfield, R. B., & Ragatz, G. L. (1998).

Success factors in strategic supplier alliances: The buying company

perspective. Decision Sciences , 29 (3), 553−578.

Moore, J. W. (1999). A supply chain model of the future. Supply Chain

Management Review (special global supplement), 3 (3), 12−16.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment– trust theory of

relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing , 58 (3), 20−38.

Narasimhan, R., & Jayaram, J. (1998). Causal linkages in supply chain

management: An exploratory study of North American manufacturing firms.

Decision Sciences, 29(3), 579 −606.

Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York, NY: Wiley.

Pitt, L. F., Ewing, M. T., & Berthon, P. R. (2002). Proactive behavior and

industrial salesforce performance. Industrial Marketing Management , 31(8),

639−644.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational

research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management , 12 (4), 531−544.

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present,

and future applications. Journal of Marketing , 61 (4), 30−54.

Sanchez, J. I., Korbin, W. P., & Viscarra, D. M. (1995). Corporate support in the

aftermath of a natural disaster: Effects on employee strains. Academy of

Management Journal, 38(2), 504−521.

Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems, 4th

edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning

organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation

and consideration. Journal of Management , 16 (4), 693−703.

Sharma, S., Durand, R. M., & Gur-Arie, O. (1981). Identification and analysis of

moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research , 18 (3), 291−300.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and

creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal , 46(6),

703−714.

Stogdill, R. H. (1963). Manual for leadership behavior and description:

Questionnaire form XII. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Bureau

of Business Research.

Stogdill, R. H., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and

measurement. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Bureau of

Business Research.

Stremersch, S., Wuyts, S., & Frambach, R. T. (2001). The purchasing of full-

service contracts: An exploratory study within the industrial maintenance

market. Industrial Marketing Management , 30 (1), 1−12.

Teas, R. K., & Horrell, J. F. (1981, February). Salespeople's satisfaction and

performance feedback. Industrial Marketing Management , 10 ,49 −57.

Venkatesh, R., Kohli, A. K., & Zaltman, G. (1995, October). Influence in buying

centers. Journal of Marketing , 59 ,71 −82.

Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business

performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy

of Management Review, 1(4), 801−814.

Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational

learning. Academy of Management Review , 29 (2), 222−240.

Walter, A., Ritter, T., & Gemünden, H. G. (2001). Value creation in buyer–seller

relationships: Theoretical considerations and empirical results from a

supplier's perspective. Industrial Marketing Management , 30 (4), 365−377.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader–

member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transforma-

tional leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship

behavior. Academy of Management Journal , 48 (3), 420−432.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management

Journal, 5 (2), 171 −180.

Werts, C. E., Linn, R. I., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1974). Interclass reliability

estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological

Measurement,34,25 −33.

Wilson, E. J., Lilien, G. L., & Wilson, D. T. (1991). Developing and testing a

contingency paradigm of group choice in organizational buying. Journal of

Marketing Research, 28(4), 452−466.

Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

G. Tomas M. Hult is Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Management

and Director of the Center for International Business Education and Research

at Michigan State University as well as Executive Director of the Academy of

International Business. He has published on strategy and supply chain

management topics in Journal of Marketing , Academy of Management

Journal, Strategic Management Journal, Decision Sciences, and Journal of

Operations Management, among others.

David J. Ketchen, Jr. is Carl DeSantis Professor of Management and Director

of the Human Resources Center at Florida State University. He has published

on strategy and supply chain management topics in Academy of Management

Journal, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management, and Journal

of Operations Management, among others.

Brian Chabowski is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Marketing and

Supply Chain Management in the Eli Broad Graduate School of Management

at Michigan State University. His research interests are in marketing and

international business.

403 G.T.M. Hult et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2007) 393–403

... Sustainable leaders have the potential to deliver long term value for both employees and society. Transformational leadership behaviors are of critical importance in affecting participative and formalization relationship [Hult et al., 2007]. There is still a limited understanding of how leadership styles in the supply chain are playing a role in the translation of the process [Blome et al., 2017]. ...

... Second, our results contribute to sustainable leadership literature Tideman et al. [2013], by suggesting that SL may inspire and supports actions that go beyond self-interest and enthusiastically support sustainability initiatives towards a great world for today and future generations. Our results consistent with the findings of [Hult et al., 2007], the leadership style can appropriately manage the resources embedded with the partners for the social performance overall. Our study also contributes to the development of social performance, while previous research has shown that corporate social responsibility strategy is positively associated with social performance [Orazalin and Baydauletov, 2020]. ...

... A word of warning: Avoid confirmation bias at every level of the buying center. High-functioning customer organizations are represented by members who search for contrary evidence and a decider who counterargues well (Hult et al., 2007). ...

• Ronald Jelinek

While business sellers frequently enjoy long-term relationships with their buyers, not every extended association is based on a genuine sense of customer loyalty. Many organizations remain in relationships with providers for too long; while the seller has stopped providing value, the buyer sticks to the routine. Building from empirical research and theory on buyer-seller relationships, this research extends our understanding of customer complacency and seller entrenchment and introduces the concept of customer lethargy. Synthesizing theory from multiple domains with exploratory interviews conducted with business customers, this article offers insight into the functioning of organizational buying centers, the evolution of business exchanges over time, and how some exchanges can be undermined by various forms of relational dysfunction. I define customer lethargy, explore its root causes and offer business buyers a strategy which aims to help them self-audit their loyalty, avoid complacency and lethargy, and keep sellers committed, not entrenched.

... To the best of our knowledge, scholarly research has not yet applied socio-technical systems theory and Leavitt's model, in combination, to either the B2B or sales context. However, scholarly research has identified either socio-technical systems theory or Leavitt's model as highly relevant to the study of various topics of interest to B2B practitioners and scholars including buyer customer behavior (Webster & Wind, 1972), business analytics (Vidgen, Shaw, & Grant, 2017), supply chain performance (Hult, Ketchen, & Chabowski, 2007), demand chain management (Jüttner, Christopher, & Baker, 2007), and information technology usage and employee roles (Haines & Lafleur, 2008), among many others. Moreover, scholarly research in other domains illustrates socio-technical systems theory and Leavitt's model, in combination, to be highly relevant and useful to uncovering insights regarding organizational change. ...

• Nathaniel N. Hartmann
• Bruno Lussier

The COVID-19 pandemic is bringing about immediate, wide-ranging, and severe challenges for many B2B sales forces. Such challenges call attention to the importance of frameworks that can be applied to aid sales managers in understanding the impact of and responses to COVID-19. Leavitt's model of organizational change, and socio-technical systems theory, point to the importance of considering four inter-related social (i.e., human and structure) and technical (i.e., task and technology) variables when examining organizational change, and recognizing that change to one variable can be predicated upon and/or bring about change to other variables. We tailor Leavitt's model to the B2B sales context and recognize the potential for exogenous shocks such as COVID-19 to impact each variable. In doing so, we conduct a review of practitioner-oriented articles, interviews with key informants working for B2B organizations, and a webinar with sales professionals. These efforts lead to a rich discussion and set of considerations that can help B2B sales forces better understand and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to draw on resource orchestration theory (ROT) and resource advantage theory (RAT) to develop a measurement scale for supply chain competitive advantage (SCCA) as a second-order construct with the dimensions of agility, adaptability and alignment (triple-A). Design/methodology/approach A survey research design is adopted to collect primary and secondary data from 182 international firms. The paper utilizes a scale development procedure to develop a measurement instrument and assess its psychometric properties. The scale's predictive validity is tested using both subjective and objective data. Additionally, the simultaneous effect of triple-A is tested using latent congruent modeling. Findings Drawing upon ROT and RAT, this study introduces SCCA as a second-order construct composed of SC agility, adaptability and alignment. In addition, the findings show that an SCCA has a direct and positive impact on firms' financial and market performance. Originality/value Existing literature indicates that competition has shifted from inter-firm to inter-SC. To account for this change in competition level, past studies have suggested various capabilities that SCs must possess to offer a competitive advantage, such as triple-As. However, drawing upon RAT and ROT, the authors argue that the SCCA construct accounts for sources of advantage in both the resource side and the demand side. The authors further assert that possessing supply chain resources (i.e. agility, adaptability, alignment as disparate resources) is not sufficient to create advantage but the resources must be orchestrated to create SCCA (i.e. the combination of agility, adaptability and alignment).

For leadership, responding to supply chain disruptions can be paradoxical. Supply chain disruptions can rattle the stability and operational norms of a company and its stakeholders. Without an unwavering effort to contain the damage, such disruptions can easily propagate and become even more damaging. This assertion suggests that decisive leadership is fit for the purpose. However, supply chain disruptions often sever multiple value-generating streams, creating a ripple effect across organizations. Re-establishing production links in a web of inter-organizational exchanges requires careful examination of what is at stake by purchasing and supply managers. This alternative assertion suggests that an adaptive leader is fit for the purpose. The concurrent need for decisiveness in leadership and adaptiveness in leadership can be paradoxical. In this study, we explore this issue by assessing how leader's adaptive decision-making (ADM) affects the extent of operational performance damage caused by different forms of supply chain disruptions. Using paradox and leadership theories, we offer hypotheses related to unexpected, complicated and enduring supply chain disruptions. We empirically test our hypotheses using secondary (financial) and primary (managerial assessment) data from a cross-section of 251 manufacturing firms. Results show a concave curvilinear relationship between leader's ADM and operational damage from supply chain disruptions, suggesting that moderate levels of ADM are optimal. Higher ADM is particularly effective to diminish ripple effects in the face of rare disruptions. Instead, low ADM is more effective in the face of unexpected and complicated disruptions.

The main purpose of this study is to improve the understanding and comprehension of the supply chain leadership concept. To this aim, the paper systematically reviews and synthesises the current academic literature in this emerging field, unveiling research gaps and discussing a future research agenda. The review was performed by selecting papers from leading journals in the operations and supply chain management field (using the Scopus and Web of Science academic search engines). Overall, 51 relevant papers were identified through the review process. After providing an overview of classical leadership theories, the paper introduces a definition for the supply chain leadership concept. The theoretical characterisation of such concept is then investigated, through the identification of dominant leadership theories employed to explain and characterise supply chain leadership. Also, the study provides a thematic analysis of supply chain leadership styles and their influence on supply chain practices. Employed research methodologies, along with geographical specificities and supply chain orientations of previous studies, are also scrutinised. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to provide a holistic systematic literature review in the supply chain leadership domain. Therefore, this contribution is an important first step in order to establish robust theoretical frameworks involving the constructs of supply chain leadership and to provide a foundation for further studies in this field.

Recently, a growing interest has been devoted to the role of buying firms in promoting sustainability across supply chains. However, relatively little attention has been given to how the behaviour of a buying firm affects the performance of reverse supply chains. Within this context, this paper investigates the role of Supply Chain Leadership styles on suppliers' performance dimensions related to reverse product flows. Furthermore, the mediating role of two governance mechanisms (namely trust and legal-legitimate power) on this relationship is examined. This study employs structural equation modelling to analyse data collected from 190 manufacturing companies in Malaysia. The paper concludes that transformational and transactional leaderships are significant and positive contributors to suppliers' reverse supply chain performance; trust and power significantly mediate these relationships.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the topic of customer integration into supply chains. Particular attention is focused on literature concerning customer-driven and customer-centric supply chains. The aim is to provide a deeper understanding of these two approaches, clarify the differences, compare them and provide a conceptual model and research propositions, leading to theoretical and managerial implications. Design/methodology/approach The paper presents a systematic literature review conducted using a consolidated methodology. The protocol used allows for the identification, analysis, synthesis, reporting and discussion of the results stemming from the literature on customer integration into the supply chain. This analysis enables us to summarize the results in a conceptual framework and introduce new research propositions. Findings Using the results of the literature review, the authors first systematized the literature on customer-driven supply chain and on customer-centric supply chain in the conceptual framework. For each of the two sets of studies, the authors highlighted three main streams of research concerning customer integration into the supply chain. The authors analyzed three different topics: why customer integration is needed, how customer integration takes place and which intra-organizational issues are necessary to implement customer integration into the supply chain. Second, the authors developed a conceptual framework to confront customer-driven and customer-centric approaches to supply chain management in an evolutionary perspective. The authors thus formulated research propositions aimed at entering in greater depth the management of the shift from the customer-driven to customer-centric supply chain. Research limitations/implications The systematic literature analysis developed in the paper contributed to more integrated and comprehensive knowledge of customer integration into the supply chain. The paper identifies and describes the characteristics of different supply chain approaches through the organization and interpretation of academics' contributions. The paper suggests the need for further research in at least three areas: the study of variables supporting customer-driven or customer-centric approaches, the relevant intra-organizational issues underscoring the customer-centric supply chain and the impact of digitalization on supply chain processes. Practical implications The paper outlines the main structural elements that compose the customer-driven and customer-centric supply chains. The results of the systematic analysis of the literature can be used to inform managers about the different levels and approaches for achieving customer integration. These diverse configurations of customer integration imply administrative and organizational considerations. Major issues to be considered when managers want to integrate the customer into the supply chain are identified. In addition, conditions underscoring different options – namely, customer-driven and customer-centric supply chains – are provided. Originality/value The originality of this work lies in the systematic review of literature examining customer integration into supply chains, which highlights two main levels of customer integration: customer-driven and customer-centric. The main contribution is the formulation of a conceptual framework and new research propositions from the comparison and merger of these two configurations. The information presented in this paper enhances the literature on recent developments in customer integration, thereby enabling managers to select the most suitable configuration for the supply chain structure.

Adopting the strategic leadership perspective, we develop a theoretical model of the impact of CEO and top manager leadership styles and practices on organizational learning. We take a fine-grained look at the processes and levels of organizational learning to describe how strategic leaders influence each element of the learning system. Researchers have implicitly assumed transformational leadership approaches to organizational learning. We challenge this conventional wisdom by highlighting the value of transactional leadership as well.

• John H. Dunning

This article discusses the implications of the advent of alliance capitalism for our theorizing about the determinants of MNE activity. In particular, it argues that, due to the increasing porosity of the boundaries of firms, countries and markets, the eclectic, or OLI, paradigm of international production needs to consider more explicitly the competitive advantages arising from the way firms organize their inter-firm transactions, the growing interdependencies of many intermediate product markets, and the widening of the portfolio of the assets of districts, regions and countries to embrace the external economies of interdependent activities.

• Claes Fornell
• David F. Larcker

The statistical tests used in the analysis of structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error are examined. A drawback of the commonly applied chi square test, in addition to the known problems related to sample size and power, is that it may indicate an increasing correspondence between the hypothesized model and the observed data as both the measurement properties and the relationship between constructs decline. Further, and contrary to common assertion, the risk of making a Type II error can be substantial even when the sample size is large. Moreover, the present testing methods are unable to assess a model's explanatory power. To overcome these problems, the authors develop and apply a testing system based on measures of shared variance within the structural model, measurement model, and overall model.

• Rody Rodriguez

This chapter focuses on the most widely used and known leadership instrument: The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). The LBDQ, and its sibling the LBDQ-XII, have been around for more than 50 years and are still being used today. As a result, the purpose of this chapter is to examine the instrument by summarizing its background, and giving a perspective on the instrument's reliability and validity. This was accomplished by looking at the LBDQ and LBDQ-XII's long history, how it has been applied over the years, while focusing on the scales main factors of Consideration and Initiation of Structure. Additionally, many analyses of the instruments (LBDQ and LBDQ-XII) were reviewed to support the instruments robust reliability and validity. Lastly, the location and cost of the instruments were revealed in order for the reader to utilize the instrument under study.

• Jay B. Barney

Understanding sources of sustained competitive advantage has become a major area of research in strategic management. Building on the assumptions that strategic resources are heterogeneously distributed across firms and that these differences are stable over time, this article examines the link between firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Four empirical indicators of the potential of firm resources to generate sustained competitive advantage-value, rareness, imitability, and substitutability are discussed. The model is applied by analyzing the potential of several firm resources for generating sustained competitive advantages. The article concludes by examining implications of this firm resource model of sustained competitive advantage for other business disciplines.

Posted by: dierdredierdregattse0269575.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238291015_Leadership_the_buying_center_and_supply_chain_performance_A_study_of_linked_users_buyers_and_suppliers