Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Entrepreneurial Leadership, Supply Chain Innovation, and Adaptability: A Cross-national Investigation

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Operations Research Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of entrepreneurial leadership on supply chain innovation and supply chain adaptability. Based on theoretical foundations of the upper echelon theory and the dynamic capability theory, it also assesses the mediating role played by supply chain innovation in the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and supply chain adaptability. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was performed on survey data collected from 139 firms in Sudan, Japan, and China. The results reveal that entrepreneurial leadership had positive effects on supply chain innovation and supply chain adaptability despite varying business environments. The results also provided interesting findings regarding the moderating role of supply chain innovation as a mediator of the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and supply chain adaptability. The findings of the study stress the importance of entrepreneurial leadership for firms’ adaptability across nations. Although the number of countries included in this study was limited, these countries exhibit different cultural and structural settings. These findings suggest the possibility of the generalizability of the results. The findings also imply that firms should place greater emphasis on improving their supply chain processes and upgrading relevant technologies in order to facilitate the development of adaptable supply chains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Arvis J-F et al (2018) Connecting to compete 2018: trade logistics in the global economy. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/29971

  2. Renko M, El Tarabishy A, Carsrud AL, Brännback M (2015) Understanding and measuring entrepreneurial leadership style. J Small Bus Manage 53(1):54–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee HL (2004) The triple-A supply chain. Harv Bus Rev 82(10):102–113

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shih WC (2020) Global supply chains in a post-pandemic world. Harv Bus Rev 98(5):82–89

    Google Scholar 

  5. Scala B, Lindsay CF (2021) Supply chain resilience during pandemic disruption: evidence from healthcare. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 26(6):672–688. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2020-0434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernshteyn R (2021) Today’s businesses need to be agile and flexible, starting with supply chains. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/sponsored/2021/08/todays-businesses-need-to-be-agile-and-flexible-starting-with-supply-chains. Accessed 27 Jan 2022

  7. Eckstein D, Goellner M, Blome C, Henke M (2015) The performance impact of supply chain agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity. Int J Prod Res 53(10):3028–3046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Handfield RB, Cousins PD, Lawson B, Petersen KJ (2015) How can supply management really improve performance? A knowledge-based model of alignment capabilities. J Supply Chain Manag 51(3):3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Defee CC, Fugate BS (2010) Changing perspective of capabilities in the dynamic supply chain era. Int J Logist Manag 21(2):180–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tidd J, Bessant JR (2018) Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change, 6th edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  11. Thong JY, Yap C-S (1995) CEO characteristics, organizational characteristics and information technology adoption in small businesses. Omega 23(4):429–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Drucker PF (1985) Entrepreneurial strategies. Calif Manage Rev 27(2):9–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manag Rev 9(2):193–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3c509::AID-SMJ882%3e3.0.CO;2-Z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vecchio RP (2003) Entrepreneurship and leadership: common trends and common threads. Hum Resour Manag Rev 13(2):303–327

    Google Scholar 

  16. Surie G, Ashley A (2008) Integrating pragmatism and ethics in entrepreneurial leadership for sustainable value creation. J Bus Ethics 81(1):235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gupta V, MacMillan IC, Surie G (2004) Entrepreneurial leadership: developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. J Bus Ventur 19(2):241–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00040-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Koryak O, Mole KF, Lockett A, Hayton JC, Ucbasaran D, Hodgkinson GP (2015) Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth. Int Small Bus J 33(1):89–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Middlebrooks A (2015) Introduction—entrepreneurial leadership across contexts. J Leadersh Stud 8(4):27–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Augier M, Teece DJ (2009) Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy and economic performance. Organ Sci 20(2):410–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Caniato F, Moretto A, Caridi M (2013) Dynamic capabilities for fashion-luxury supply chain innovation. Intl J of Retail & Distrib Mgt 41(11/12):940–960. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-01-2013-0009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Simchi-Levi D, Kaminsky P, Simchi-Levi E (1999) Designing and managing the supply chain: concepts, strategies, and case studies, Book plus CD-Rom edition. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  23. Child J (1997) Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organizations and environment: retrospect and prospect. Organ Stud 18(1):43–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Birkinshaw J, Gibson C (2004) Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 45(4):47–55

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stevenson M, Spring M (2007) Flexibility from a supply chain perspective: definition and review. Int J Oper Prod Manag 27(7):685–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dubey R, Singh T, Gupta OK (2015) Impact of agility, adaptability and alignment on humanitarian logistics performance: mediating effect of leadership. Glob Bus Rev 16(5):812–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Porter ME (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Arlbjørn JS, de Haas H, Munksgaard KB (2011) Exploring supply chain innovation. Logist Res 1(3):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hyll W, Pippel G (2016) Types of cooperation partners as determinants of innovation failures. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 28(4):462–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bello DC, Lohtia R, Sangtani V (2004) An institutional analysis of supply chain innovations in global marketing channels. Ind Mark Manag 8

  31. Stentoft J, Rajkumar C (2018) Does supply chain innovation pay off? In: Moreira AC, Ferreira LMDF, Zimmermann RA (eds) Innovation and Supply Chain Management. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74304-2_11

  32. Reeves M, Deimler M (2011) Adaptability: the new competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2011/07/adaptability-the-new-competitive-advantage. Accessed 27 Jan 2022

  33. Tuominen M, Rajala A, Möller K (2004) How does adaptability drive firm innovativeness?. J Bus Res 57(5):495–506

  34. Uhl-Bien M, Arena M (2018) Leadership for organizational adaptability: a theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. Leadersh Q 29(1):89–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Margolis JA, Ziegert JC (2016) Vertical flow of collectivistic leadership: an examination of the cascade of visionary leadership across levels. Leadersh Q 27(2):334–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28(13):1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mokhber M, Tan GG, Vakilbashi A, Zamil NAM, Basiruddin R (2016) Impact of entrepreneurial leadership on organization demand for innovation: moderating role of employees’ innovative self-efficacy. Int Rev Manag Mark 6(3):415–421

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fontana A, Musa S (2017) The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation management and its measurement validation. Int J Innov Sci 9(1):2–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Oke A, Munshi N, Walumbwa FO (2009) The influence of leadership on innovation processes and activities. Organ Dyn 38(1):64–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Makri M, Scandura TA (2010) Exploring the effects of creative CEO leadership on innovation in high-technology firms. Leadersh Q 21(1):75–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kidd PT (2000) Two definitions of agility. https://www.cheshirehenbury.com/agility/two-definitions-of-agility.html. Accessed 04 Feb 2021

  42. Ketchen DJ, Hult GTM (2007) Toward greater integration of insights from organization theory and supply chain management. J Oper Manag 25(2):455–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Swafford PM, Ghosh S, Murthy N (2006) The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm: scale development and model testing. J Oper Manag 24(2):170–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yoon SN, Lee D, Schniederjans M (2016) Effects of innovation leadership and supply chain innovation on supply chain efficiency: focusing on hospital size. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 113(PB):412–421

  45. Jonsson P, Kjellsdotter L, Rudberg M (2007) Applying advanced planning systems for supply chain planning: three case studies. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 37(10):816–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hofstede G (1984) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Sage

  47. Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M (2010) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

  48. van Everdingen YM, Waarts E (2003) The effect of national culture on the adoption of innovations. Mark Lett 14(3):217–232. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027452919403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Png IPL, Tan BCY, Wee K-L (2001) Dimensions of national culture and corporate adoption of IT infrastructure. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 48(1):36–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.913164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mansour IHF, Diab DME, Shibeika AM, Mohamed HE (2019) Investigating dimensions of Sudanese national culture: a comparative outlook. Int J Recent Acad Res 1(8):445–452

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hofstede Insights (2020) Country comparison. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/. Accessed 04 Feb 2021

  52. IMF (2020) World economic outlook: the great lockdown. International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2020/04/14/weo-april-2020. Accessed 04 Feb 2021

  53. UNDP (2019) Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: inequalities in human development in the 21st century. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2019. Accessed 04 Feb 2021

  54. Kim D, Cavusgil ST, Calantone RJ (2006) Information system innovations and supply chain management: channel relationships and firm performance. J Acad Mark Sci 34(1):40–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305281619

  55. Kwak D-W, Seo Y-J, Mason R (2018) Investigating the relationship between supply chain innovation, risk management capabilities and competitive advantage in global supply chains. IJOPM 38(1):2–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2015-0390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pu X, Wang Z, Chan FTS (2020) Leveraging open e-logistic standards to achieve ambidexterity in supply chain. J Comput Inf Syst 60(4):347–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2018.1488543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J 47(2):209–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Im G, Rai A (2008) Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Manage Sci 54(7):1281–1296. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Gefen D, Straub DW, Rigdon EE (2011) An update and extension to SEM guidelines for admnistrative and social science research. Manag Inf Syst Q 35(2):iii–xiv

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Team R (2020) RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. https://www.R-project.org/

  61. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG (2014) Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. Eur Bus Rev 26(2):106–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA (2012) An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J of the Acad Mark Sci 40(3):414–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43(1):115–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kock N (2015) Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach. IJeC 11(4):1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Hamilton BH, Nickerson JA (2003) Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strateg Organ 1(1):51–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Park S, Gupta S (2012) Handling endogenous regressors by joint estimation using copulas. Mark Sci 31(4):567–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Hult GTM, Hair JF Jr, Proksch D, Sarstedt M, Pinkwart A, Ringle CM (2018) Addressing endogeneity in international marketing applications of partial least squares structural equation modeling. J Int Mark 26(3):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sarstedt M, Mooi E (2014) A concise guide to market research: the process, data, and methods using IBM SPSS statistics. Springer

  70. Canty A, Ripley B (2017) Boot: bootstrap R (S-Plus) function (version R package version 1.3–20.)

  71. Ray S, Danks N, Velasquez Estrada JM (2019) Seminr: domain-specific language for building PLS structural equation models. R package version 0.7. 0. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/seminr/index.html. Accessed 14 Mar 2019

  72. Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Smith D, Reams R, Hair JF Jr (2014) Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for family business researchers. J Fam Bus Strat 5(1):105–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. EBR 31(1):2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract 19(2):139–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Moore DS, Notz W, Fligner MA (2013) The basic practice of statistics, vol 32. Wh Freeman New York

  76. Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(6):1173

  77. Christopher M, Holweg M (2011) Supply Chain 2.0: managing supply chains in the era of turbulence. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 41(1):63–82

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Soumya Ray and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and suggestions. The authors would also like to thank the colleagues who provided their assistance in the process of questionnaire translation and data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University, 560-0043 Machikaneyama 1-7, Toyonaka, Osaka, Japan

    Sara S. A. Abdalla & Koichi Nakagawa

Authors
  1. Sara S. A. Abdalla
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Koichi Nakagawa
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara S. A. Abdalla.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix Questionnaire

Supply Chain Adaptability

Based on your personal judgment, please indicate your performance compared to your closest competitor(s) in the following during the past 3 years.

  1. 1.

    Ability to adapt existing supply chain relationships to respond quickly to changes in our market.

  2. 2.

    Ability to adapt existing supply chain processes to rapidly respond to shifts in our business priorities.

  3. 3.

    Ability to facilitate reconfiguration of supply chain activities to respond to changes in the external environment.

Entrepreneurial Leadership

Please indicate your level of agreement with these statements over the past 3 years.

  1. 1.

    Our top management often comes up with radical improvement ideas for the products/services we are selling.

  2. 2.

    Our top management often comes up with ideas of completely new products/services that we could sell.

  3. 3.

    Our top management takes risks.

  4. 4.

    Our top management has creative solutions to problems.

  5. 5.

    Our top management demonstrates passion for work.

  6. 6.

    Our top management has a vision of the future of our business.

  7. 7.

    Our top management challenges and pushes me to act in a more innovative way.

  8. 8.

    Our top management wants me to challenge the current ways we do business.

Supply Chain Innovation

Please indicate your level of agreement with these statements over the past 3 years.

  1. 1.

    We use the most advanced Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems for managing our core SC processes.

  2. 2.

    We use the most advanced Information Technology systems (other than Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) for managing our core SC processes.

  3. 3.

    We adopt technology for real-time tracking.

  4. 4.

    State-of-the-art technology is incorporated into our SC processes (e.g., Internet of Things or Artificial Intelligence).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdalla, S.S.A., Nakagawa, K. Entrepreneurial Leadership, Supply Chain Innovation, and Adaptability: A Cross-national Investigation. Oper. Res. Forum 3, 23 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-022-00135-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-022-00135-x

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Profiles

  1. Sara S. A. Abdalla View author profile