See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229977453

Managing Change in Supply Chains: A Process Comparison

Article  in  Journal of Business Logistics · August 2009

DOI: 10.1002/j.2158-1592.2009.tb00111.x

CITATIONS READS
29 4,904

2 authors:

Bertie M. Greer Matthew W. Ford

Northern Kentucky University Northern Kentucky University
13 PUBLICATIONS   377 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   542 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew W. Ford on 07 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2009 47

MANAGING CHANGE IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A PROCESS COMPARISON

by

Bertie M. Greer
Northern Kentucky University

and

Matthew W. Ford
Northern Kentucky University

INTRODUCTION

Research is necessary to improve our understanding of change processes necessary to successfully implement
SCM. One aspect of such inquiry should seek to improve our grasp of how SCM change differs from other types of
change. The complex, multifunctional nature of supply chains suggests that processes used to implement SCM
changes may differ from those employed for implementing non-supply chain management (NSCM) changes
(Lambert, Cooper, and Pagh 1998). Because broader change initiatives are often more difficult to implement (Nadler
and Tushman 1989), degree of success realized from implementing SCM changes might differ as well.

Understanding the process for implementing SCM is critical because its success drives organizational
performance, efficiency and competitive position (Chen and Paulraj 2004). Such an understanding can be found in
the change management literature. Research on strategy implementation suggests that it is inextricably connected to
change management (Pryor et al. 2007). Successful change embraces both the inner shift in the individual’s values,
aspirations and behaviors and the outer shift in process, strategy, practices and systems (Karp 2005). Change
management provides insight on changing the organizational structure and staffing to address new changes and
insight on adjustment to the administrative system, such as revising systems for planning, performance
measurement, and incentive compensation to aid the organization in achieving its strategic goal (Bourgeois and
Brodwin 1983). Recent research has indicated relationships between various change process activities and change
achievement (Ford and Greer 2005).

This study explores differences between SCM and NSCM change using an empirical approach. We seek to
determine if there are differences in the change process when organizations implement SCM change as oppose to
NSCM change. We define SCM change as planned change that is SCM related. Subsequently, NSCM change is
planned change that is not SCM related. Planned changes are premeditated, agent-facilitated interventions that are
intended to improve the function of the organization (Lippit, Watson, and Westley 1958).

Using concepts from the literature, we first hypothesize about differences in change processes used to
implement SCM and NSCM change, and about differences in implementation success realized from them. We then
test the hypotheses using data from a sample of managers involved in change implementation. The results and
knowledge generated from this study can assist managers with understanding the process for SCM change
implementation and what process factors are necessary for SCM change achievement.
48 GREER AND FORD

LITERATURE REVIEW

Supply Chain Management and Planned Change

Because there are many different viewpoints and definitions for SCM (Larson, Poist, and Halldorsson 2007), it
is important to identify the definition that we are using in this study. SCM is defined as the systematic, strategic
coordination of the traditional business functions within a particular company and across businesses within the
supply chain, for the purposes of improving the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply
chain as a whole (Mentzer et al. 2001, p. 18). This definition permits consideration of a broad range of changes
enacted across all relevant business functions as organizations manage upstream and downstream flows of products,
services, capital, and information. Moreover, this perspective helps capture a range of behavior that promotes
effective SCM such as mutual information sharing; mutual risk sharing, aligned customer focus, process integration,
and long-term relationship building. (Chen and Paulraj 2004; Lambert, Cooper, and Pagh 1998). This definition is
also consistent with the missions and definitions established by both the Council of Supply Chain Management
Professionals (CSCMP, formerly CLM-Council of Logistics Management) and the Institute of Supply Management
(ISM). This is important since these organizations are a major and primary source of knowledge for supply chain
professionals (Larson, Poist, and Halldorsson 2007).

SCM change can be categorized as planned or unplanned. Planned changes are premeditated, agent-facilitated
interventions intended to modify organizational functioning towards a more favorable outcome (Lippit, Watson, and
Westley 1958). Examples of planned changes include lean management and quality initiatives such as “Six Sigma.”
Planned change is proactive and provides the organization with ample time to prepare resources. Unplanned changes
are not premeditated and often driven by forces in the external environment (Alchian 1950; Aldrich 1979).
Examples of unplanned changes are initiatives stimulated by regulation changes, forces of nature, or geopolitical
events. Such changes often begin shortly after the stimulus and are generally reactive in nature. Because of the
prominence of intentional, teleological change in organizational functioning (Huy 2001; Van de Ven and Poole
1995), this study focuses on planned SCM and NSCM change.

Change Processes

Planned changes are often conceptualized as processes (Garvin 1998). Change processes are sequences of
individual and collective events, actions, and activities unfolding over time that describe or account for how
organizations develop or change (Pettigrew, Woodman, and Cameron 2001, p. 700). While many change process
models have been proposed, perhaps none has generated broader awareness than Lewin’s (1947) framework.
According to Lewin, planned change proceeds through three phases. The first phase, unfreezing, is initiated by
actions that destabilize existing organizational equilibrium in order to reshape behavior. The second phase,
movement, constitutes the modification of behavior and emergence of fresh work patterns. The final phase,
refreezing, institutionalizes newly formed behavior and attitudes in order to sustain the organization at improved
levels of performance.

To better understand Lewin’s (1947) model in the context of supply chain management, consider the
implementation of a supplier evaluation system. Persistent quality problems with incoming raw materials might spur
recognition among managers that existing supply management practices must be revised, and that a formal vendor
evaluation system is necessary to improve organization performance (unfreezing). Subsequently, a new supply
coordinator position is created, and personnel, both inside the organization and at supplier facilities, develop skills
for evaluating and communicating supply quality levels (movement). Monthly meetings are held with senior
management to communicate progress as the new program is implemented and to ensure that the program is
achieving supplier performance targets (refreezing). While these activities represent only a subset of those that
would occur as the initiative progresses, they demonstrate how Lewin’s change process model applies to SCM
change.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2009 49

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF CHANGE PROCESS THEORETICAL MODELS AND CHANGE PROCESS

VARIABLE COVERAGE

Nadler & Tushman

Scope of Model (1980) Tichy (1983) Kotter (1995, 1996) Burke & Litwin (1992)
Unit of analysis Organization Organization The specific change event Organization

Inputtransformation 9 organizational change 8 steps to managing 12 organizational

processoutput design. “levers.” change. variables.
Organizational variables Evaluating each lever Based on Lewin’s (1958) Closely tied to research on
Contribution should be in using technical, cultural, notion of unfreezing- climate and culture in the
“congruence” depending and political perspective moving-refreezing the organization.
on the situation. of change. organization.

Variables:

Problem *L M H M
Analysis **(environment, (mission, strategy, interest (developing vision and (mission and strategy)
strategy) group management) strategy)

Action H H M H
Planning (resources, formal (prescribed networks, (empowering action, (structure, systems)
organization) organizational processes) consolidating gains,
institutionalizing change)

Skill H H M H
Development (work and people) (tasks, people) (empowering action, (task requirements and
consolidating gains, individual
institutionalizing change) skills/capabilities)

Behavior M M M M
Management (formal organization) (organizational processes) (consolidating gains and (motivation, culture)
producing more change,
institutionalizing change)
Management L M L M
Control (formal organization) (institutionalizing change) (systems)

Implementation H M M H
Success (multi-level (output) (output) (individual and
organizational output) organizational
performance)

Additional variables History and resources as Relating the change to Establishing a coalition The variables of
discussed but not key organizational political and cultural team to manage change. environment, leadership,
included in our study inputs. perspectives. culture, climate.
Organizational variable The variable of “emergent
of informal networks”, or informal
organization. organization that evolves
over time.

*Indicates amount of coverage in model related to the change process construct

H = High amount of coverage
M = Medium amount of coverage
L = Low amount of coverage

**Indicates factors that influence change process construct

50 GREER AND FORD

Factors that Operationalize Change Process Models

While Lewin’s (1947) three-phase model provides a useful framework for conceptualizing planned change, a
more specific representation is necessary in order to operationalize the concepts for empirical study. As such, the
change models developed by Nadler and Tushman (1980), Tichy (1983), Burke and Litwin (1992), and Kotter
(1996) were studied to distill a common set of behaviorally-based factors that could be linked to Lewin’s three
phases. These four models were selected because of their reflection of the teleological change theory category
proposed by Van de Ven and Poole (1995), because of their wide citation in the literature, and because of their
established prominence as contemporary change management frameworks. Moreover, a review of the four models
provides a more comprehensive understanding of the change process. Table 1 provides a summary of these models
and the change process variables used in our study. The table describes each model’s basic contribution and
indicates the amount of coverage that each of the change process variables received in our study. The associated
weights (low, medium and high) were assigned based on the amount of coverage.

Scrutiny of the four models revealed two behavioral factors, problem analysis and action planning, linked to
Lewin’s (1947) unfreezing stage. Problem analysis reflects the extent to which an organization uses information to
understand gaps between existing and desired performance. Identifying such a variance destabilizes old patterns of
behavior and motivates change as the organization perceives incongruence with its environment (Nadler and
Tushman 1980; Tichy 1983). Action planning converts a desired future state into a set of goals, objectives, and
proposed behavior that provides a target for change (Burke and Litwin 1992; Kotter 1996).

Skill development constitutes the consistent behavioral factor linked to Lewin’s (1947) movement stage. The
models of Nadler and Tushman (1980), Tichy (1983), Burke and Litwin (1992), and Kotter (1996) all imply that
altering behavior is central to change. Behavior change requires new skills. New skills can be developed through a
variety of mechanisms including training (Goldstein 1993) or by purchasing new skills from the market (Kogut and
Zander 1992).

Two factors linked to Lewin’s (1947) refreezing stage, behavior management and management control, were
distilled from the study of the four models. Behavior management consists of activities that provide feedback on
individual performance and incentives for acting in a manner that promotes and reinforces desired behavior during
change implementation (Burke and Litwin 1992; Nadler and Tushman 1980; Tichy 1983). Management control
structure is also necessary to monitor implementation progress (Burke and Litwin 1992; Kotter 1996). The
components of work should be diagnosed for their continued suitability as the change is implemented, and modified
if tasks are no longer in alignment with organizational goals (Burke and Litwin 1992; Nadler and Tushman 1980).

A final common factor is related to implementation success. Each of the change models specified a relationship
between behavioral change process factors and outcomes. Assessing the success of change implementation likely
requires a multidimensional approach using a combination of organization and individual level measures (Burke and
Litwin 1992; Nadler and Tushman 1980; Tichy 1983). Figure 1 situates each of these factors relative to Lewin’s
(1947) three-phase model.

FIGURE 1

LEWIN'S THREE PHASE CHANGE AND PROCESS FACTORS

Unfreezing Movement Refreezing

Process Factors Process Factors Process Factors Implementation

Success
Problem Analysis Skill Development Behavior Management
Action Planning Management Control
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2009 51

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Using Lewin’s (1947) three phases as anchor points, we can employ these concepts to hypothesize how SCM
change processes compare to NSCM change processes. During the unfreezing phase, organizations must destabilize
behaviors that are likely to act as forces that will resist the proposed change (Lewin 1947). By disconfirming
existing expectations and redefining cognitive boundaries of an organization’s environment, destabilization
processes motivate change (Schein 1996). Planned changes are commonly driven by a dominant coalition with
enough power and influence to convince organizational members that change is needed (Cyert and March 1963). In
the interorganizational context of supply chains, power can be viewed as the ability of a “source” organization to
influence the intentions and actions of one or more “target” organizations (Maloni and Benton 2000). Activities
associated with unfreezing, such as needs assessment, action planning, and communication are driven by the
dominant coalition and necessary for change implementation success. In NSCM change, this coalition commonly
consists of an organization’s managers; in SCM change, the coalition is likely populated predominately by
managerial representatives of the source.

Because of the complex nature of SCM change, the dominant coalition would seemingly need to “push” harder
in order to effectively destabilize multiple target organizations associated with the change during the unfreezing
phase. However, because SCM change often transfers responsibilities from source to target (Burt, Dobler, and
Starling 2003), targets are likely to resist the change (Jermier, Knights, and Nord 1994). Target resistance may be
active (e.g., voicing disagreement) or passive (e.g., withholding information). Sensing this pushback, the dominant
coalition might settle for a less intense unfreezing campaign if it perceives relatively little influence over the
interorganizational field. As such, use of unfreezing activities is likely to be attenuated during SCM changes, as the
source coalition copes with external sources of resistance that are less controllable than those associated with typical
NSCM change. During NSCM change, the dominant coalition will have more power, control and influence of
resources, which is likely to result in the need for less unfreezing activities such as problem analysis or action
planning. Stated in terms of the previously derived change process factors linked to unfreezing, we therefore posit
that:

H1a: Use of problem analysis during the unfreezing stage will be significantly lower for SCM
change than for NSCM change

H1b: Use of action planning during the unfreezing stage will be significantly lower for SCM
change than for NSCM change

Movement and refreezing are action-oriented phases that require organizations to replace old patterns of
behavior and structural factors with new and improved ones. Processes that help organizations develop new skill and
behavior patterns and control their implementation are linked to the domains of movement and refreezing. Because
coordinating behavioral changes and exerting control in complex structure is difficult (Fredrickson 1986),
movement and refreezing should be more difficult to execute when implementing SCM change. The numerous
boundaries that span organizations in supply chain relationships (Watson 2001) make it difficult to develop and
transfer the proper behaviors necessary for effective change. Obtaining and transmitting information is also more
complex, which hinders monitoring and control by the dominant coalition. Moreover, given the path dependence
between Lewin’s (1947) phases (Zand and Sorenson 1975), if appropriate intensity is lacking during the unfreezing
phase of SCM change, then the interorganizational field will not be sufficiently destabilized for movement and
refreezing to effectively occur.

Resistance to change exacerbates the implementation difficulties caused by the complex structural arrangement
in SCM change. Because source organizations seek to control implementation in their favor (Cox 1999), target
organizations will respond to the exertion of power by resisting (Casciaro and Piskorski 2005). For example, targets
have been found to ignore calls for modified behavior by the dominant coalition and to refuse to share information
necessary for effective monitoring and control (Cousins and Meguc 2006). Indeed, the more target organizations
perceive loss of control as a consequence of an SCM change, the more targets might undermine the effort (Dunford
1987).

By contrast, NSCM changes tend to be implemented in environments unencumbered by complex

interorganizational boundary arrangements. Because simpler structure facilitates the implementation and control of
52 GREER AND FORD

change (Fredrickson 1986), movement and refreezing should proceed more readily. Moreover, conditions should
reduce the need to resort to extreme use of power and control. Consequentially, there should be less resistance to
hinder NSCM change and intense use of movement and refreezing activities such as skill development, behavior
management and management control as implementation progresses. Stated in terms of the previously derived
change process factors related to movement and refreezing, it follows that:

H2a: Use of skill development during the movement phase will be significantly lower for SCM
change than for NSCM change.

H2b: Use of behavior management during the refreezing phase will be significantly lower for SCM
change than for NSCM change.

H2c: Use of management control during the refreezing phase will be significantly lower for SCM
change than for NSCM change.

A significant body of anecdotal evidence suggests that issues related to refreezing, such as poorly designed
reward systems and failure of managers to monitor and follow-up, often impede effective change (Bossidy and
Charan 2002; Charan and Colvin 1999). Change scholars have occasionally observed relationships between
refreezing activities such as monitoring-based control and change achievement (Ford and Greer 2005; Kotter and
Schleisinger 1979). In their study of Lewin’s (1947) model, Zand and Sorenson (1975) found a strong relationship
between refreezing and implementation success. Refreezing’s position at the end of the change process represents a
bridge of sorts to implementation outcomes. An otherwise well crafted change initiative should generate low levels
of implementation success if refreezing factors are poorly structured and executed. We have posited that complex
structural conditions and resistance by target organizations hinder effective execution of refreezing when
implementing SCM. As such, achieving positive implementation outcomes should be more difficult when
implementing SCM change than when implementing NSCM change because the structural conditions aren’t as
complex and there is likely to be less resistance. Stated formally:

H3: Implementation success will be significantly lower for SCM change than for NSCM change.

METHODOLOGY

Sample

Data for this study were obtained from managers participating in change management seminars sponsored by a
large industrial coalition. As part of the seminar, respondents completed a questionnaire that included the change
process and contextual items used in this study. When completing the questionnaire, managers were asked to record
a change initiative that their organizations were implementing or had recently implemented, and then address items
on the questionnaire with this reference change in mind. No supply chain-related definitions were provided, since
respondents were not asked to differentiate between SCM and NSCM change.

Using a modified Delphi technique (Goldfisher 1992), the changes described by the respondents were
distributed to an expert panel consisting of five professors (one full, one associate and three assistant) from four
major universities in the Midwest. Each professor was selected because they had both taught and researched in the
area of supply chain management. The group of professors’ professional work experience ranged from 5 to 15 years.
In addition, each had at least 6 years experience as a professor. The panel of experts was instructed electronically to
only use their expertise and the provided Mentzer et al.’s (2001) definition of supply chain management adapted for
this study. The experts were instructed to mark each change as SCM or NSCM. Any change that could not be
categorized by those means was to be left blank or marked with a question mark. This constraint modified the
experts’ opinions. In fact, one expert wrote, “at first glance, I would not categorized so many as SCM
changes,…however, after reading your definition, it seems like most activities qualify….Without your definition, I
would tend to label SCM change as those impacting organizational interfaces, productivity and quality.”
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2009 53

Using one round, the panel of experts independently and anonymously categorized each change as either being
SCM, NSCM or questionable. The responses were then analyzed by the researchers and categorized. First, similar
changes categorized by all reviewers were retained. Second, majority rules were applied and changes were
categorized. Finally, all changes left uncategorized, marked with question mark or ties, were reviewed
independently by the researchers, discussed, and an agreement was reached (Aladwani and Palvia 2002). The
primary determinant in keeping and categorizing the unlabeled changes were based on the original intent of the
respondents. For example, one change that was confusing for the panel of experts and resulted in a tie (one labeled it
with a question mark) was “implement a company-wide commitment to quality and continuous improvement.” The
independent analysis by the researchers also resulted in a tie; however, after reviewing the informant’s responses
and their original explanation for the change, it was categorized as NSCM. The overall process yielded 92 useable
responses. Thirty-three respondents noted reference changes that were categorized as SCM; 59 were categorized as
NSCM. Examples of these changes appear in Table 2.

TABLE 2

EXAMPLES OF REFFERENCE CHANGES INCLUDED IN THE INVESTIGATION

Supply-Chain Related Non-Supply Chain Related

Customer feedback system Improve internal accounts payable system

Market segment loyalty teams
Supplier rating and evaluation system
Cost estimating for clients
Supply chain management info system
Outsourcing of assembly process
Improve on-time delivery from vendors
Supplier data base development
E-commerce system development
JIT implementation
Supplier partnering initiative
Guaranteed customer service initiative
Develop new market channel
Centralize part distribution
Rollout of new product line
Integrated applications training
Reduce % of purchased production deliveries
New Product design team
Faster product development process
Implement Guaranteed Maintenance
Structured problem solving
Quality improvement program
New job scheduling process
Strategic planning process development
Strategic monitoring structure
New safety program
Reorganization of marketing department
New project management system
Activity-based cost accounting
Corporate restructuring
Predictive maintenance system
Statistical process control
Improve employee training program
Communication of corporate vision/mission
Corporate merger
Pay for knowledge program
Implementation of product creation teams

Demographic information suggested a sample that was well suited for the purposes of this study. The sample
was balanced between service and manufacturing organizations (53 % service, 47 % manufacturing), and included
reasonable representation of various ownership structures (60 % privately owned/for-profit, 19 % publicly
owned/for-profit, 13 % from non-profit/government agencies). Nearly 95 % of respondents came from organizations
of more than 50 employees; approximately 25 % of respondents were from organizations of greater than 1000
employees. Over 90 % of respondents were at least middle-level managers; more than half were upper-level
managers. The management perspective helped limit variability that might have been incurred by a less homogenous
respondent group. It also provided perspective from the dominant coalition involved in structuring most
organizational changes.

Respondents were also asked about the progress and scope of the changes they were evaluating. About half of
the reference changes were estimated to be at least fifty percent completed at the time of the evaluation.
Respondents forecast that, once implemented, nearly half of the reference changes would impact at least 60 % of the
organization’s employees, suggesting that the majority of changes evaluated in this study were strategic, second
order changes rather than incremental, first order changes (Bartunek 1984; Nadler and Tushman 1989). These
54 GREER AND FORD

characteristics were also desirable for the purposes of our analysis, as they indicated a sample that included a range
of changes well distributed across both the progress and scope spectrums.

Measures

Main Study Variables

Unfreezing Phase: Problem Analysis and Action Planning. A three-item scale represented problem analysis. For
example, one item read, “Was the gap between ‘where we are’ and ‘where we want to be’ determined?” A second
factor related to action planning. A two-item scale reflected intensity of action planning activities. One item read,
“Was an action plan developed for making the change?” During the change management seminars in which
managers completed the research instrument, respondents were instructed to rate the activity framed in each
question according to intensity of use. Responses were assigned using a Likert-like scale where “1” represented
infrequent use of activity (low usage intensity) and “5” represented systematic use of activity (high usage intensity).
A similar response scale was employed for subsequent items. The items for this scale and for the other scales in this
study can be found in the Appendix.

Movement Phase: Skill Development. Skill development was measured using a three-item scale. One item read,
“Did organization leaders identify important skills and capabilities needed to make the change?”

Refreezing Phase: Behavior Management and Management Control. Behavior management was measured
using a five-item scale. One item read, “Were employees rewarded for working to support the change effort?” A
second factor, management control was measured using a three item scale. One item read, “Was information about
the progress of the change obtained?”

Implementation Success. Implementation success was measured using a four-item scale meant to reflect
completion, achievement, and acceptability dimensions similar to Miller (1997). One item read, “To what extent has
the change resulted in expected behaviors?” Responses were assigned using a Likert-like scale where a “1”
represented little or no results to speak of and a “5” represented highly effective results.

When measures related to two or more constructs are rated by a single individual (Avolio, Yammarino, and
Bass 1991), concern about common methods variance arises. Factor analysis can be used for assessing the extent of
common methods variance among self-reported measures (Podsakoff and Organ 1986). Factor analysis using
principle components extraction with Varimax rotation was conducted on the 20 items representing the change
process and outcomes measures described above. The rotated solution (Table 3) produced six factors, with all items
loading on the appropriate factor as hypothesized. Cumulative variance extracted was 73.1 %. Using guidelines
suggested by Stevens (2002), for N = 92 only factor loadings greater than 0.536 should be viewed as significant. No
items significantly cross-loaded on other factors. Two items loaded marginally on the implementation success
factor. Given the consistency of each items’ content with the conceptual domain of the implementation success
construct, we decided to keep them as originally as proposed. Because six factors emerged from the factor analysis,
all 20 items loaded on their proposed factors, and a large amount of cumulative variance was extracted from the
factor structure, we concluded that common methods variance was not present to a degree significant enough to
influence the validity of the primary constructs employed in this investigation. Values of the internal reliability
coefficients for each of the six factors provided further evidence of convergent validity since all met the commonly
cited .70 benchmark (see Appendix).

Confirmatory factor analysis (Gerbing and Anderson 1988) was conducted on the six latent factor, 20-indicator
measurement model using LISREL 8 (Joreskog and Sorbom 2001). Significant path coefficients (t values of 4.9 or
higher) between each of the six latent factors and their corresponding items were observed. Goodness of fit statistics
included:
2 = 202.53; df = 155; p = .006; RMSEA = .058; GFI = .82; NNFI = .90.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2009 55

TABLE 3

FACTOR ANALYSIS

Extracted
Communality 1 2 3 4 5 6
Analysis1 .803 .060 -.081 .219 .804 .198 -.244
Analysis2 .735 .165 -.074 .333 .767 -0.049 -.022
Analysis3 .773 .029 .141 -.132 .836 .139 .125
Plan1 .737 .099 .144 .122 -.264 .248 .748
Plan2 .761 -.037 .102 .080 .074 .046 .858
SkillDev1 .802 .201 .797 .053 .189 .265 .131
SkillDev2 .811 .127 .828 .278 -.065 .142 .091
SkillDev3 .759 .185 .822 .182 -.109 -.005 .069
BehavMgt1 .701 .774 .246 -.019 -.027 -.008 -.202
BehavMgt2 .634 .599 .270 .257 .085 .356 .046
BehavMgt3 .790 .800 .200 .134 .135 .084 .258
BehavMgt4 .758 .798 .112 .046 .166 .031 .281
BehavMgt5 .613 .731 -.052 .074 -.020 .200 -.173
MgtControl1 .751 .203 -.045 .060 .162 .814 .123
MgtControl2 .737 .026 .428 .168 .192 .698 .028
MgtControl3 .699 .140 .206 .290 -.046 .725 .158
ImpSuccess1 .592 .310 .045 .528 .275 .339 .156
ImpSuccess2 .599 .401 -.029 .480 .185 .180 .374
ImpSuccess3 .826 .078 .233 .848 .120 .182 .000
ImpSuccess4 .744 .011 .312 .788 .042 .100 .115

Cumulative Variance Extracted = 73.1%

Discriminant validity refers to the degree to which measures for different latent variables are distinct from each
other. Discriminant validity was assessed using the average variance extracted method (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
Using the standardized item loadings and measurement errors, variance extracted measures (Hair et al. 1998) were
determined for each construct (Table 4). Variance extracted measures for the six study constructs of problem
analysis, action planning, skill development, behavior management, management control, and implementation
success were 0.602, 0.544, 0.630, 0.513, 0.572, and 0.574 respectively. We then checked whether the average
variance extracted for each pair of constructs was greater than their squared correlation. Table 4 indicates that all
squared correlations between construct pairs were less than .4. As such, all constructs passed this test. In aggregate,
results suggest a measurement model with acceptable unidimensionality and discriminant validity.

Context and Control Variables

In order to improve the generalization of our study, we utilized the following context and control variables.
These variables have also been identified as significant to implementation success.

Percent Completion. To capture and control for the temporal nature of change process, we employed a self-
rated measure of the extent to which the reference change had been implemented similar to those used by Miller
(1997) and others. The respondents were asked to estimate the reference change’s percentage towards completion (1
= implementation not yet begun; 5 = 75-100 % implemented).
56 GREER AND FORD

TABLE 4

DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY ANALYSIS DATA

Squared Correlations
Item Average
Standardized Measurement Variance
Construct Item Item Loading Error Extracted 1 2 3 4 5

1 Analyze Analysis1 .83 .30 .602

Analysis2 .80 .37
Analysis3 .69 .52

2 ActPlan Plan1 .78 .40 .504 .022

Plan2 .70 .52

3 Skill Dev SkillDev1 .77 .41 .630 .040 .084

SkillDev2 .93 .13
SkillDev3 .66 .57

4 BehaviorMgt BehavMgt1 .50 .75 .513 .130 .130 .250

BehavMgt2 .69 .52
BehavMgt3 .90 .18
BehavMgt4 .81 .34
BehavMgt5 .60 .63

5 Mgt Control MgtControl1 .68 .54 .572 .160 .152 .230 .240
MgtControl2 .91 .18
MgtControl3 .66 .57

6 Imp Success ImpSuccess1 .84 .29 .574 .221 .185 .270 .348 .397
ImpSuccess2 .70 .51
ImpSuccess3 .81 .34
ImpSuccess4 .66 .56

Change Impact. Scope of a change might also influence the choice of a particular change process factor as well
as the potential impact on organizational outcomes. For instance, changes with a broader, strategic scope might be
more difficult to implement or have a more significant effect on organizational outcomes than smaller, more
incremental changes (Burke and Litwin 1992; Nadler and Tushman 1989). Therefore, respondents were asked to
estimate the percentage of the organization that would be impacted once the change was implemented (1 = 0-20%; 5
= 80-100%).
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2009 57

Organization Size. The systematic use of change processes might be linked to hierarchical structure found in
larger organizations (Ouchi 1980; Williamson 1991). Therefore, size of the organization was estimated by the
respondents (1 = 0 to 50 employees; 5 = more than 1000). Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for all
variables used in this study appear in Table 5.

TABLE 5

BIVARIATE CORRELATIONS

Mean SDev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 % Complete 3.33 1.196

2 Impact 3.14 1.419 .12

3 Size 3.75 .921 .03 -.01

4 Analyze 2.53 .792 .22* .06 -.02

5 ActPlan 2.54 .904 .19† .01 .03 .15

6 Skill Dev 2.78 .914 .11 -.09 .13 .20† .29**

7 Behavior Mgt 2.34 .797 .21* .13 .02 .36*** .36*** .50***

8 Mgt Control 2.61 .912 .22* .11 .17 .40*** .39*** .48*** .49***

9 Imp Success 2.26 .947 .34** -.08 .11 .47*** .43*** .52*** .59*** .63***

*** p
.001
** p
.01
* p
.05
† p
.10

RESULTS

First, we review simple relationships between the studies variables as expressed by the bivariate correlations in
Table 5. Note the strong positive relationships between change process factors related to skill development, behavior
management, management control, and implementation success. There are also a number of positive significant
relationships between percent completion and most of the change process factors. No significant relationships were
observed between change impact, organization size, and the change process factors. Analysis of the correlation
matrix suggests that, prior to separating the data by SCM or NSCM change categories, significant relationships exist
between percent completion and most change process factors.

To evaluate general differences between change processes employed for implementing SCM change and NSCM
change, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using the study’s six change process factors as
dependent variables, and a categorical variable separating SCM change from NSCM change as a fixed factor
independent variable. A general assumption in analysis of variance is homogeneity of variance among populations
of comparison groups—an assumption that is robust if the ratio of largest to smallest sample size is less than 1.5
(Stevens 2002). However, the NSCM to SCM sample size ratio in our investigation was nearly 1.8. Therefore, we
tested for equality of variance and the resulting Levine’s statistic was non significant, suggesting that the
homogeneity of variance assumption was reasonably upheld during the analysis. MANOVA results indicated a
58 GREER AND FORD

significant overall difference between SCM and NSCM change process measures (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.864, F =
2.238, p = 0.047). Univariate ANOVA results in Table 6 suggested that, only the lower levels of management
control and implementation success for SCM change were found to be significantly different (p < 0.01).

To summarize, based on the MANOVA results, we found statistical support for two of the study’s hypotheses.
Significant differences between SCM and NSCM change were detected in the refreezing-related process factor of
management control, and in the outcomes measure of implementation success. Results suggest that change processes
associated with SCM change employ less management control, and realize lower levels of implementation success,
than change processes associated with NSCM change.

TABLE 6

MEANS AND MAIN EFFECTS OF CHANGE TYPE

a
SCM Change NonSCM Change Diff F p-value

N 33 59

Problem analysis 2.44 2.59 -.15 .739 .392

Action planning 2.39 2.63 -.24 1.415 .237
Skill development 2.61 2.87 -.26 1.712 .194
Behavior mgt 2.17 2.44 -.27 2.427 .123
Mgt control 2.25 2.82 -.57 9.082 .003

Implementation success 1.85 2.48 -.63 10.411 .002

% complete 3.18 3.41 -.23 .746 .390

Impact 3.25 3.08 .17 .279 .599
Organization size 3.54 3.86 -.32 2.580 .112

a
One Way ANOVA

DISCUSSION

This study’s findings suggest that there are differences between the change processes used to implement SCM
and NSCM change in activities during Lewin’s (1947) refreezing stage, in particular those related to management
control. Numerous conceptual and observational studies have proposed the importance of management control
systems in achieving effective change (Kotter and Schleisinger 1979; Simons 1995). Our study indicates that
managers indeed used less management control activities during the refreezing phase when implementing SCM
change. This could translate into less implementation success as several studies have determined that management
control activities during the refreezing phase have a direct relationship to favorable implementation outcomes (Ford
and Greer 2005; Zand and Sorenson 1975). Thereby, increased research in management control activities are needed
to assist managers with SCM change implementation difficulties. For example, more research could be developed on
providing managers with information on how to develop information systems that permit routine monitoring of
implementation progress, and information on how to take corrective action when significant gaps are detected
between target and actual performance in order to close the loop and to help keep SCM changes on track.

We also found that SCM change realized lower levels of implementation success, than NSCM change. Such a
finding may point to the complexity of SCM and the difficulties that managers have when implementing change in
general. Broad change scopes that cross organizational boundaries coupled with forces of interorganizational power
and influence provide a difficult context for executing change.

Findings of this study are also interesting for what they didn’t show. Contrary to several of our hypotheses, we
did not find significant differences in usage of change process factors related to problem analysis, action planning,
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2009 59

skill development and behavior management when implementing SCM and NSCM change. Zand and Sorenson
(1975) argued that, inside each of Lewin’s (1947) phases, favorability for change is the net effect of a tug-of-war
between driving forces and resisting forces. In this study, we essentially hypothesized that resisting forces, such as
those emanating from target pushback, counter driving forces in a manner that reduces the favorability for change in
SCM change processes relative to NSCM change processes. Perhaps the resistance expressed in SCM change
processes is less than proposed, thereby reducing the favorability gap with NSCM change to something
insignificant.

Further research in this area could benefit from work that employs a larger sample of organizations and
changes. This would more stringently test this study’s hypotheses and improve generalizability of the findings.
Future research could also better account for the position of respondents in the SCM change process and the
influence of this position on response. This study’s sample included managers from organizations that were sources
and targets of SCM change. Because source organizations seek to control implementation in their favor (Cox 1999),
it is possible that managers from source organizations were prone to view the changes that they were evaluating
more favorably than managers from target organizations. Conversely, respondents from target organizations may
negatively view changes that were forced on them by source organizations. This introduces possibility for attribution
error. Attribution error can bias self-reported data when individuals claim excessive credit for positive outcomes and
overall success for successes, or disproportionately blame failures on situational causes or others (Myers and Bach
1976). Because there is no reason to believe that our sample of SCM changed respondents was skewed towards
either source or target firms, the effect of attribution bias on the mean results of this study is likely to be small.
Nonetheless, future work that more carefully accounts for the source or target position of respondents should prove
insightful.

CONCLUSION

Advancing our understanding of change processes, those sequences of individual and collective events, actions,
and activities unfolding over time that describe how organizations develop or change, is central to improving change
management capacity (Pettigrew, Woodman, and Cameron 2001). The complex, multifunctional nature of supply
chains will force managers to be more knowledgeable about successful implementation of change. Our study
suggests that those engaged in implementing SCM changes use less management control activities during the
implementation process of SCM change than when implementing NSCM change during the refreezing phase.
Moreover, a lower level of success was shown to be realized when implementing SCM changes than when
implementing NSCM changes. Given such, more research will be needed on change processes and implementation
to increase the knowledge base that managers will need to achieve their desired goals. This study offers initial
evidence in support of the differences between implementing NSCM changes and SCM changes. We hope that it
motivates additional inquiry into the understanding of change processes in supply chains.

APPENDIX

MEASUREMENT SCALES

Change Process Variables (alpha)

Problem Analysis* (.81)

Was fact-based data used to identify the need for change?
Did organizational leaders evaluate the current condition (financial, competition, labor, etc.) prior to setting goals for
the change?
Was the gap between “where we are” and “where we want to be” determined?
*For each item, 1 = infrequent use of organized activities; 5 = systematic use of organized activities.

Action Planning* (.70)

Was an action plan developed for making the change?
Was a timeline for successful completion established?
*For each item, 1 = infrequent use of organized activities; 5 = systematic use of organized activities.
60 GREER AND FORD

APPENDIX (cont.)

Skill Development* (.82)

Did organization leaders identify important skills and capabilities needed to make the change?
Did the organization develop necessary skills and capabilities through training, mentoring, outside acquisition or
other means?
Did the organization make sure that needed skills and capabilities were in place in time to complete the changes?
*For each item, 1 = infrequent use of organized activities; 5 = systematic use of organized activities.

Behavior Management* (.83)

Was the need for this change widely communicated throughout the company?
Were employees kept informed about the ongoing status of the change process?
How well were successes of the change effort communicated?
Were successful change results shared in a timely fashion?
Were employees rewarded for working to support the change effort?
*For each item, 1 = infrequent use of organized activities; 5 = systematic use of organized activities.

Management Control (.75)

Was information about the progress of the change obtained?
Was information effectively used to enable corrective action when necessary?
How effective were the actions taken to correct the progress of the change?
*For each item, 1 = infrequent use of organized activities; 5 = systematic use of organized activities.

Outcomesa(.85)
Did the change have a positive impact on business results?
To what extent has the change resulted in expected behaviors?
Overall, how satisfied were you with the changes?
Overall, how satisfied were you with how implementation was done?
a
For each item, 1 = little or no results to speak of; 5 = highly effective results

Background & Context Variables

% Complete
Overall, how far along is the change towards completion?
(1 – implementation has not begun; 2 = 0-25%; 3 = 25-50%; 4 = 50-75%; 5 = 75-100% implemented

Change Impact
When the change is fully implemented, how much of the organization will be significantly impacted by the change?
(1 = 0-20%; 2 = 20-40%; 3 = 40-60%; 4 = 60-80%; 5 = 80-100%)

Organization Size
Approximately how many employees does your organization employ?
(1 = 0-50; 2 = 50-100; 3 = 100-500; 4 = 500-100; 5 = More than 1000)

Respondent’s Position in Organization

Which of the following best describes your position in the organization?
(1 = senior level manager; 2 = middle level manager; 3 = lower level manager; 4 = hourly worker; 5 = other)

NOTES
Aladwani, Adel, M. and Prashant C. Palvia (2002), “Developing and Validating an Instrument for Measuring User-
Perceived Web Quality,” Information & Management, Vol. 39, pp. 467-476.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2009 61

Alchian, Armen A. (1950), “Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 58,
No. 2, pp. 211-221.

Aldrich, Howard.E. (1979), Organizations and Environments, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Avolio, Bruce J., Francis J. Yammarino, and Bernard M. Bass (1991), “Identifying Common Methods Variance with
Data Collected from a Single Source: An Unresolved Sticky Issue,” Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 571-587.

Bartunek, Jean (1984), “Changing Interpretive Schemes and Organizational Restructuring: The Example of a
Religious Order,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 355-373.

Bossidy, Larry and Ram Charan (2002), Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done, New York: Crown
Business Books.

Bourgeois III, Jay and David R. Brodwin (1983), “Putting Your Strategy into Action,” Strategic Management
Planning, March-May, pp. 297-301.

Burke, Warner W. and George H. Litwin (1992), “A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change,”
Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 523-545.

Burt, David, Donald Dobler, and Stephen Starling (2003), World Class Supply Management: The Key to Supply
Chain Management, 7th ed., Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Casciaro, Tiziana and Mikolaj J. Piskorski (2005), “Power Imbalance, Mutual Dependence, and Constraint
Absorption: A Closer Look at Resource Dependence Theory,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50, pp. 167-
199.

Charan, R. and G. Colvin (1999), “Why CEOs Fail,” Fortune, Vol. 139, No. 2, pp. 68-78.

Chen, Injazz J. and Antonym Paulraj (2004), “Towards a Theory of Supply Chain Management: The Constructs and
Measurements,” Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, No., pp. 119-150.

Cousins, Paul, D. and Bulent Menguc (2006), “The Implications of Socialization and Integration in Supply Chain
Management,” Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24, pp. 604-620.

Cox, Andrew (1999), “Power, Value, and Supply Chain Management,” Supply Chain Management, Vol. 4, No. 4,
pp. 167-175.

Cyert, Richard M. and James G. March (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Dunford, Richard (1987), “The Suppression of Technology as a Strategy for Controlling Resource Dependence,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 512-525.

Ford, Matthew W. and Bertie M. Greer (2005), “The Relationship between Management Control System Usage and
Planned Change Achievement: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 29-46.

Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Models with Unobservable Variables with
Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.

Fredrickson, James W. (1986), ‘The Strategic Decision Process and Organizational Structure,” Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 280-297.

Garvin, David A. (1998), “The Processes of Organization and Management,” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39,
No. 4, pp. 33-50.
62 GREER AND FORD

Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), “An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating
Unidimensionality and its Assessment,” Journal of Marketing Research Vol. 25, pp. 186-192.

Goldfisher, Ken, (1992), “Modified Delphi: A Concept for New Product Forecasting,” Journal of Business
Forecasting, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 10-11.

Goldstein, Irwin L. (1993), Training in Organizations: Needs Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, 3rd ed.,
Pacific Grove, GA: Brooks/Cole.

Hair, Joseph.E., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C. Black (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Huy, Q. N. (2001), “Time, Temporal Capability, and Planned Change,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26,
pp. 601-623.

Jermier, John M., David Knights, and Walter R. Nord (1994), Resistance and Power in Organizations, London:
Routledge.

Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom (2001), LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific
Software International.

Karp, Tom (2005), “Unpacking the Mysteries of Change: Mental Modeling,” Journal of Change Management, Vol.
5, No. 1, pp. 87-97.

Kogut, Bruce and Udo Zander (1992), “Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative, Capabilities and the Replication of
Technology,” Organization Science, Vol. 3, pp. 383-397.

Kotter, John P. (1996), Leading Change, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, John P. and Leonard A. Schleisinger (1979), “Choosing Strategies for Change,” Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 106-114.

Lambert, Douglas M., Martha C. Cooper, and Janus Pagh (1998), “Supply Chain Management: Implementation
Issues and Research Opportunities,” The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998.

Larson, Paul D., Richard F. Poist, and Arni Halldorsson (2007), “Perspectives on Logistics vs. SCM: A Survey of
SCM Professionals,” Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2007.

Lewin, Kurt (1947), “Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concepts, Method and Reality in Social Sciences, Social
Equilibria and Social Change,” Human Relations, Vol. 1, pp. 5-42.

Lippit, Ronald, Jeanne Watson, and Bruce Westley (1958), The Dynamics of Planned Change, New York: Harcourt
Brace.

Maloni, Michael and W. C. Benton (2000), “Power Influences in a Supply Chain,” Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 49-73.

Mentzer, John T., William Dewitt, James S. Keebler, Soonhoong Min, Nancy W. Nix, Carlo D. Smith, and Zach G.
Zacharia (2001), “Defining Supply Chain Management,” Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.1-25.

Miller, Stanley (1997), “Implementing Strategic Decisions: Four Key Success Factors,” Organization Studies, Vol.
18, pp. 577-602.

Myers, David G. and Paul J. Bach (1976), “Group Discussion Effects on Conflict Behavior and Self-Justification,”
Psychological Reports, Vol. 38, pp. 135-140.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2009 63

Nadler, David A. and Michael Tushman (1980), “A Model for Diagnosing Organizational Behavior: Applying the
Congruence Perspective,” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 35-51.

Nadler, David A. and Michael Tushman (1989), “Organizational Frame Bending: Principles for Managing
Reorientation,” Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 194-204.

Ouchi, William G. (1980), “Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp.
125-160.

Pettigrew, A. M., R. W. Woodman, and K. S. Cameron (2001), “Studying Organizational Change and Development:
Challenges for Future Research,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 697-713.

Podsakoff, Philip M. and Dennis W. Organ (1986) “Self Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and
Prospects,” Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 531-544.

Pryor, Mildred Golden, Donna Anderson, Leslie A. Toombs, and John H. Humphreys (2007), “Strategic
Implementation as a Core Competency: The 5P’s Model,” Journal of Management Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-
17.

Schein, Edgar H. (1996), “Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory in the Field and in The Classroom: Notes towards a Model
of Management Learning,” Systems Practice, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 27-47.

Simons, Robert (1995), Levers of Control, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Stevens, James P. (2002), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 4th ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Tichy, Noel M. (1983), Managing Strategic Change, New York: John Wiley.

Van de Ven, Andrew H. and Marshall S. Poole (1995), “Explaining Development and Change in Organizations,”
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 510-540.

Watson, Glynn (2001), “Subregimes of Power and Integrated Supply Chain Management,” Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 36-41.

Williamson, Oliver E. (1991), “Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural
Alternatives,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 269-296.

Zand, Dale E. and Richard E. Sorenson (1975), “Theory of Change and the Effective use of Management Science,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 532-545.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Bertie M. Greer (Ph.D. Kent State University) is currently associate professor of management at Northern
Kentucky University. Her research interests are in the areas of supply chain management, project management,
quality management and the implementation of change.

Matthew W. Ford (Ph.D. University of Cincinnati) is associate professor of management at Northern

Kentucky University. His research interests include quality management, financial market awareness and decision-
making, and implementation and control of change.

Contact author: Bertie M Greer; E-mail: greerb@nku.edu

View publication stats