master thesis supply chain management- research proposal
TRANSCRIPT
Master Thesis Supply Chain Management-
Research proposal
University of Groningen
The influence of organizational culture on supply chain
resilience - an organizational view
Maarten Jan Mesu - s2730278
Paterswoldseweg 288-52, 9727 BW Groningen
+31629404875
Supervisor University of Groningen: Dr. K. Scholten
Co-assessor University of Groningen: prof. dr. ir. J.C. H.
Wortmann
January 28, 2019
Word count: 1183
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank dr. Kirstin Scholten for providing the useful
feedback and comments on my thesis which gave me new insights and direction to
finalize my research proposal. On top of that I want to thank her for the time and effort
she putted into my thesis. As last I want to thank W. van der Meulen, from the
company of my internship which I followed, who gave me useful insights, feedback,
brainstorming and corrections on my thesis project.
2
Abstract
Today’s turbulent environment and increased complexity of supply chains makes that
companies are more vulnerable to supply chain disruptions than ever before. By enhancing
supply chain resilience companies will be able to prepare for, respond to and recover from
disruptions within their supply chain. Theory has highlighted the importance of an
appropriate culture to enhance resilience. However, it is still not clear how organizational
culture can influence resilience. By means of exploratory research this paper explores the
relationship between culture and resilience. Concluding, cultural dimensions such as
involvement, consistency, adaptability and mission either directly or indirectly influence
resilience via several mechanisms. Mechanisms such as risk awareness and knowledge,
internal integration and commitment were shown to increase flexibility, velocity, visibility and
collaboration. Therefore, an appropriate organizational culture can help to enhance
resilience within supply chains.
3
Contents Abstract 2
1. Introduction 4
2. Theoretical background 5
2.1 Introducing supply chain resilience (SCRES) ................................................................................5
2.2 Flexibility .......................................................................................................................................6
2.3 Velocity ..........................................................................................................................................7
2.4 Visibility .........................................................................................................................................7
2.5 Collaboration ..................................................................................................................................8
3. Organizational culture (OC) 9
3.1 Introducing organizational culture .................................................................................................9
3.2 Involvement ............................................................................................................................14
3.3 Consistency ............................................................................................................................15
3.4 Adaptability ............................................................................................................................16
3.5 Mission ...................................................................................................................................16
4. Conceptual model 17
5. Methodology 18
5.1 Research design ............................................................................................................................18
5.2 Setting ...........................................................................................................................................18
5.3 Data collection ..............................................................................................................................19
5.6 Data analysis.................................................................................................................................21
6. Findings 24
6.1 Descriptive findings .....................................................................................................................24
6.2 How organizational culture influences supply chain resilience ...................................................26
6.2.1 Flexiblity 28
6.2.2 Velocity 31
6.2.3 Visibility 34
7. Discussion 35
7.1 How organizational culture influences supply chain resilience ...................................................36
8. Conclusion 40
8.1 Managerial implications ...............................................................................................................40
8.2 Limitations and future ..................................................................................................................41
Reference list 41
Appendix A: Interview protocol 47
4
1. Introduction
In today’s turbulent environment, evident in daily-news about cyber-attacks and natural disasters,
companies are more exposed to risks in supply chains than ever before (Knemeyer et al., 2009). In
2017, 65% of companies faced significant disruptions in their supply chain, which ultimately had
an economic impact of over €1 million euros in 23% of the cases (Business Continuity Institute,
2017). Because it is clear that supply chain disruptions can have severe negative performance
consequences (Hendricks & Singhal, 2005), both literature and practice have highlighted the
importance of supply chain resilience (SCRES) for organizations (Ambulkar et al., 2015). SCRES
namely aims to develop ‘’the adaptive capability to prepare for, respond to and recover from
disruptions’’ (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009, p. 131). In order to develop this adaptive capability,
organizations should embrace a supply chain risk management culture (Christopher & Peck, 2004).
This culture can make the difference between success and failure in dealing with disruptions
(Sheffi, 2005) and is therefore very important (Business Continuity Institute, 2017). Yet, insights
in the dynamics and development of a supply chain risk management culture to enhance resilience
remain scarce (Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016).
Organizational culture (OC) already has been shown as an important concept in other
management practices (e.g. Hofstede, 1981; Schein, 1984) and effective supply chain management
organizational culture (Braunscheidel et al., 2010). Yet, no consensus about a comprehensive
definition exists within literature (Jarnagin & Slocum, 2007). However, organizational culture
often relates to ‘‘basic assumptions, values and artifacts an organization has developed to cope
with problems regarding external and internal integration’’ (Schein, 1984, p.3). An appropriate
organizational culture can increase effectiveness of firms on several performance aspects (e.g.
sales growth) (Denison et al., 2006). More specifically, the following aspects are found to
influence organizational effectiveness: involvement (i.e. autonomy of - and well-developed
employees), consistency (i.e. well-accepted shared values and good coordination/integration
between departments), adaptability (i.e. appropriately deal with the environment) and mission (i.e.
shared definition of the firm’s purpose) (Denison et al., 2006).
Within a resilience context also several aspects of OC are shown to influence supply chain
resilience. For instance, empowering front-line employees and let them take initiative and action
in case they identify disruptions can help to enhance resilience (Sheffi & Rice, 2005). On top of
that, organizations should recognize the importance of training and education about supply chain
5
risks (Blackhurst et al., 2011). However, literature does not provide a comprehensive view on the
cultural aspects that an organizational culture should consist of, to enhance SCRES. On top of that,
no in-depth empirical evidence in the dynamics and development of organizational culture have
been provided; it remains unclear how organizations should shape their organizational culture to
create resilience within their supply chains. To give substance to these theoretical and managerial
gaps the aim of this research is to explore how organizational culture influences supply chain
resilience.
By investigating this research question via multiple exploratory interviews at supply chain
firms this study makes several contributions. First, while many authors have developed conceptual
models regarding SCRES, empirical evidence around the topic remains scarce (Scholten &
Schilder, 2015). This study is the first to provide understanding, to both theory and practice. about
a comprehensive and holistic view on the topic of organizational culture within a resilience
context. Hereby, this study provides details on the new elements in this relationship. Moreover,
the relationship between culture and the resilience constructs will be explained to explain the
phenomenon of organizational culture within a resilience context. Ultimately, the found cultural
activities and the interaction between these aspects adds important insights for both future research
and managers, as it creates understanding about how firms could manage their resilience culture.
The paper is structured as follows. First, literature regarding the concept of SCRES
resilience and organizational culture will be reviewed. Subsequently, the research design will be
explained: which is followed by the findings and a discussion of them regarding literature to date.
The paper will end with a conclusion, implications for theory and practice and suggestions for
future research.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Introducing supply chain resilience (SCRES)
Supply chain disruptions are events a firm did not anticipate on – e.g. a major fire at a production
plant – which ultimately results in disturbances in the flow of goods, materials and services
(Craighead et al., 2007). These disruptions can create severe negative consequences, such as lost
revenues highly increased costs (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009). Therefore, theory and practice
have highlighted the importance of supply chain resilience to manage such disruptions (Ambulkar
et al., 2015). Supply chain resilience is based on the premise that risks are not avoidable (Jüttner
& Maklan, 2011), but it has been shown that organizations will be able to reduce the impact and
6
manage the threat of such a disruption by building SCRES within their supply chains (Ambulkar
et al., 2015; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Although the importance of resilience is clear, extensive
literature reviews (Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015; Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016) show a lack of
consensus about a definition of resilience (e.g. Christopher & Peck, 2004). Regarding this research,
a commonly cited (Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016) and comprehensive (Tukamuhabwa, et al., 2015)
definition within literature followed:
‘’Supply chain resilience is the adaptive capability of companies to reduce the impact of such
negative consequences by designing supply chains to incorporate event readiness, provide an
efficient and effective response, and be capable of recovering to their original state’’ (Ponomarov
& Holcomb, 2009). From this definition becomes clear that resilience includes the capacity of
organizations to be proactive (i.e. anticipate on disruptions), responsive (i.e. respond quickly) and
reactive (i.e. recover to original state) (Lenginck-Hall & Beck, 2005; Sheffi & Rice, 2005).
Even though SCRES has been clearly defined, the underlying constructs of supply chain resilience
differ within theory (Scholten et al., 2014). Theory namely derived the constructs from different
research levels, such as a detailed resource level (Sheffi, 2005) or a system-wide level (Christopher
& Peck, 2004). However, from abovementioned definition of SCRES the adaptive capability
perspective comes forward. In line with this perspective the generally accepted (Johnson et al.,
2013) framework of Jüttner & Maklan (2011) is followed. This framework was derived from
extensive literature research and capture supply chain resilience as ‘flexibility, velocity, visibility
and collaboration’ (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). More interestingly, the framework is derived from
a capability perspective, which is especially important for future supply chains because this is
based on integrating and coordinating resources among functional areas (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011).
The paper will follow by discussing the constructs of supply chain resilience more detailed.
2.2 Flexibility
Flexibility can be defined as ‘the ability of firms to adapt to environmental changes with as less
time and effort as possible’ (Pettit et al., 2010; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2017). It allows firms to
absorb changes within their chain through effective responses (Skipper & Hanna, 2009).
Organizations should therefore incorporate flexibility within their organizational structure (Jüttner
& Maklan, 2011), which helps them to coordinate (inter-)organizational process and ultimately
deal with uncertainty in their supply chain (Manuj & Mentzer, 2008). Besides this, organizations
can use flexible delivery schedules, multifunctional manufacturing plants and a multi-skilled
7
workforce (Johnson et al., 2013) to increase flexibility. Literature highlights redundancy – i.e. ‘a
duplication of capacity to continue business after a disruption’ – as a separate enabler of SCRES
(e.g. Sheffi & Rice, 2005). However, this research follows Jüttner & Maklan (2011) that
redundancy rather contributes to flexibility than seeing it as a separate resilience capability. To
summarize, flexibility can help to anticipate on disruptions (e.g. delivery schedules to minimize
the risk of shortages (Urciuoli et al., 2014)), appropriately react to strategies (i.e. deal with change)
and recover from disruptions (i.e. redundant capacity (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011)).
2.3 Velocity
Velocity can be defined as ‘distance over time’ (Christopher & Peck, 2004) or ‘the pace of flexible
adaptation to determine the recovery speed from disruptions’ (Carvalho et al., 2012). Hence, it
allows firms to respond quickly to supply chain disruptions (Scholten & Schilder, 2015). More
specifically, velocity contributes to resilience by providing indications about how often risk events
due to disruptions happen, how fast the disruption is discovered and subsequently how fast the
organization recovers from this disruption (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). Within literature velocity is
also seen as an antecedent of flexibility, because flexibility is also concerned with solving supply
chain disruptions with minimum time (e.g. Christopher et al., 2005). However, within this research
velocity is seen as construct that helps with an efficient (Stevenson & Spring, 2007) rather than an
effective response and recovery (i.e. flexibility) to disruptions (Skipper & Hanna, 2009). More
specifically, velocity focuses on the pace of flexible adaptations, while flexibility focuses on the
reconfigurations of possible supply chain states (Carvalho et al., 2012). To summarize, velocity
can help firms to reduce: the occurrence of disruptions (i.e. anticipation), the amount and severance
of losses (i.e. reaction) (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011) and the time it takes to discover and recover from
disruptions (Manuj & Mentzer, 2008).
2.4 Visibility
Visibility is ‘the ability of organizations to screen their supply chains from initial supplier to end
customer’ (Christopher & Peck, 2004). As such, visibility enables organizations to see all nodes
and links within their supply chain and thus can help to identify potential threats (Pettit et al.,
2010). For instance, visibility can help to deal with the well-known Bullwhip effect (i.e. a small
change in demand will magnify moving back up the supply chain) (Christopher & Peck, 2004). To
increase visibility, organizations can focus on collaborative planning, open communication with
their partners (Christopher & Peck, 2004) and a well-integrated information technology
(Tukamuhabwa et al., 2017). Within literature visibility is, together with flexibility and velocity,
8
captured as ‘agility’ (e.g. Faisal et al., 2006) or seen as antecedent of SCRES (Brandon-Jones et
al., 2014) or agility (Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016). However, this research follows Jüttner &
Maklan (2011) who view visibility separately to explore the relationship on a more detailed level.
To summarize, visibility helps to identify potential threats (i.e. anticipate) and is a needed
condition to respond and recover from disruptions (Wieland & Wallenberg, 2013).
2.5 Collaboration
Collaboration is the ‘capability of two or more firms to work effectively together and form long-
term relationships towards common goals’ (Cao et al., 2010). Because supply chain resilience is a
network-wide concept (Scholten & Schilder, 2015), organizations need to collaborate with supply
chain partners to adopt flexibility, velocity and visibility (Juttner & Maklan, 2011). Namely,
supply chain collaboration is evident in more information sharing, reduced cycle times, open
communication (Daugerthy et al., 2006) and joint investments (Scholten & Schilder, 2015). In line
with this, the findings of Scholten & Schilder (2015) are followed, who suggested that
collaboration is an antecedent of the other supply chain constructs. To summarize, collaboration
will help to develop joint capabilities, a consecutive planning and more real-time information
exchange (Whipple & Russell, 2007) and thus helps to prepare for, respond to and recover from
disruptions (Scholten & Schilder, 2015).
Each of the resilience constructs and their corresponding definition are summarized in table 2.1.
9
Whereas current literature has highlighted the importance of the four abovementioned resilience
constructs, organizations should not underestimate the importance of an appropriate
organizational culture to enhance resilience (Sheffi & Rice, 2005) and increase effectiveness at
supply chain management (Braunscheidel et al., 2010). Namely, an appropriate culture shapes the
attitude of employees regarding information sharing (i.e. visibility/collaboration) and risk-taking
(Mandal, 2017). Additionally, it improves trust and commitment among employees and towards
supply chain partners (Schilke & Cook, 2014). Also, within a resilience context authors have
mentioned cultural related aspects such as empowering employees to identify potential disruptions
(creating visibility) and subsequently act upon this disruption (enhance velocity) (Sheffi, 2005) to
be important for resilience. Hence, organizational culture is mostly seen as a separate construct or
capability to enhance resilience (Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016). However, a holistic view of all
important cultural aspects which an organizations could possess to enhance resilience is not
available. On top of that, literature does not provide any empirical in-depth insight in the elements
and relationship between organizational culture and SCRES. For instance, Kamalahmadi & Parast
(2016) argued that a lack of insight in the dynamics and development of organizational culture in
a resilience context exists. To fill these theoretical and managerial gaps this paper will follow by
exploring the concept of organizational culture and make possible linkages with the concept of
resilience.
3. Organizational culture (OC)
3.1 Introducing organizational culture
Since the 1970s organizational culture raised increased attention within theory and practice with
the work of Hofstede (1981), Schein (1984) and others. As such, organizational culture became
quickly one of the most important concepts in both management theory and practice (Jamagin &
Slocum, 2007). Namely, organizational culture provides employees with guidance and direction
in their work (Mandal, 2017). Moreover, an appropriate culture can improve internal trust and
interdepartmental cooperation (Schilke & Cook, 2014). Although organizational culture is one of
the most influential management concepts, there is no consensus within literature about a
definition of the concept (Ashkanasy et al., 2000). While some authors define culture as rituals,
behavioral norms and rules (e.g. Trice & Beyer, 1984), others included artifacts (Hedberg, 1981)
and values (Hofstede, 1980). Rather than finding a consensus about a definition of organizational
culture, this research follows the most frequently cited (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010) and
10
overarching (Adler & Jelinek, 1986) definition of Schein (1984, p.3): ‘’the pattern of basic
assumptions, values and artifacts that a given group has invented, discovered or developed in
learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which have
worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the
correct way to perceived, think and feel in relation to those problems’’. From this definition
becomes clear that organizational culture can help to deal with environmental changes (i.e. external
adaptation) such as the bankruptcy of a supplier or natural disasters (i.e. supply chain disruptions).
This makes the definition especially appropriate for research within a resilience context.
Although the definition of organizational culture is applicable within a resilience context,
it remains difficult to conceptualize and subsequently empirical investigate the concept. Within
literature a conceptualization of OC also lacks consensus (Ashkanasy et al., 2000; Mandal, 2017).
Because the purpose of this study is not to solve this consensus, it rather follows the
conceptualization of Denison and colleagues (i.e. Denison & Mishra, 1995; Denison et al., 2006).
This conceptualization is most appropriate for the purpose of this study for several reasons. First,
the model is distracted from research on the influence of culture on an organizations’ effectiveness
on several performance aspects (e.g. Denison et al., 2004). Hence, this model can create
understanding about how differences on the cultural aspects in the model might influence the
organizations’ effectiveness at SCRES. Additionally, the model lays emphasis on contradictions
organizations might face when they try to deal with problems regarding external adaptation
(Denison et al., 2004). In line with the aim of this research the model therefore can give insights
in the dynamics and development of an appropriate supply chain risk management culture to
influence resilience. While the applicability of the model is clear, further explanation of the model
is needed.
The model consists of four cultural aspects: involvement, consistency, adaptability and mission
(Denison et al., 2006). These cultural aspects are summarized in table 3.1, from which becomes
clear that each cultural traits consists of a few underlying components. One of these components
needs clarification. More specifically, in the original model one component of adaptability is
customer focus (Denison et al., 2006). However, this research is conducted in a network-wide
concept (i.e. resilience) (Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Therefore, organizations should not only
focus on customers but on all supply chain partners. In line with this is chosen to use external focus
(Costanza et al., 2015) instead of customer focus as a component of adaptability. Furthermore, all
11
cultural aspects with corresponding definition can be seen on the left side of the table. The
corresponding underlying components of each of these cultural aspects and possible linkages are
shown in table 3.1. This section will follow with a discussion about these cultural aspects. Within
this section the cultural aspects (see left column table 3.1) are made bold and the underlying
components italic¸ to increase the readability and view difference between the two.
12
Cultural traits
(derived from:
Denison and
colleagues (i.a.
Denison &
Mishra, 1995;
Denison et al.,
2006)
Definition
(source: Zheng
et al., 2010, p.
765)
Underlying component: definition (source: Denison et al., 2006, p.
6-9, but adapted for the purpose of this study)
Possible linkages with SCRES (derived from: literature
research within the area of SCRES)
Involvement ‘The level of
participation
by an
organization’s
members in
decision
making’
Empowerment: ‘Individuals have the authority, initiative, and
ability to manage their own work. This creates a sense of ownership
and responsibility toward the organization’
- Empower front-line employees in case of disruption
(Rice & Caniato, 2003; Sheffi, 2005)
Team orientation: ‘Value is placed on working cooperatively
toward common goals for which all employees feel mutually
accountable’
- Joint efforts by all employees (Mandal, 2017)
Capability development: ‘The organization continually invests in
the development of employees’ skills in order to deal with
environmental changes (Costanza et al., 2015)
- Education & training about risks (Rice & Caniato, 2003;
Sheffi, 2005; Sheffi & Rice, 2005; Blackhurst et al.,
2011);
- Cross-training to enhance workforce flexibility (Pettit et
al., 2010)
- Scenario exercise (Seville et al., 2006).
Consistency ‘The extent to
which beliefs,
values and
expectations
are held
consistently by
members’
Core values: ‘Members of the organization share a set of values
which create a sense of identity and a clear set of expectations’
- Make risk the concern for everyone in organization
(Christopher & Peck, 2004)
- Shared set and beliefs about SCRES (Rice & Caniato,
2003);
- Make risk assessment part of the formal decision making
process (Christopher & Peck, 2004).
Agreement: ‘Members of the organization are able to reach
agreement on critical issues. This includes both the underlying level
of agreement and the ability to reconcile differences when they
occur’
- N.A.
Coordination & integration: ‘Different functions and units of the
organization are able to work together well to achieve common
goals. Organizational boundaries do not interfere with getting work
done.’
- Collaborative action planning (Costanza et al., 2015);
-
13
Table 3.1: Conceptualization of organizational culture, definitions and possible linkages with supply chain resilience
Adaptability ‘The degree to
which an
organization
has the ability
to alter
behaviour,
structures and
systems in
order to deal
with
environmental
changes’
Creating change: ‘The extent to which an organization is able to:
meet environmental changes, appropriately read this environment
and react on current trends or anticipate on future trends’.
- Innovation (Dobni, 2008; Golgeci & Ponomarov, 2013)
External focus (composed from: Costanza et al., 2015, p. 365): ‘The
organization pays attention to the external environment and
appropriately values signals from this environment. On top of that,
the organization proactively seeks for internal and external problems
and anticipate on these.’
- Risk assessment (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Scholten et
al., 2014);
- Risk mitigation plans/business continuity plans (Seville
et al., 2006; Blackhurst et al., 2011; Mandal, 2017)
Organizational learning: ‘The organization receives, translates and
interprets signals from the environment into opportunities for
encouraging innovation, gaining knowledge, and developing
capabilities.
Learning/benchmarking (Ponomarov & Holcomb,
2009; Scholten et al., 2014)
Mission ‘The existence
of a shared
definition of
the
organization’s
purpose’
Goals & objectives: ‘A clear set of goals and objectives can be
linked to the mission, vision, and strategy, and provide everyone with
a clear direction in their work’
-
Strategic direction and intent: ‘Clear strategic intentions convey
the organization’s purpose and make it clear how everyone can
contribute and make their mark on the industry’
- Leaders to review company policies/strategies to
determine impact on risk profile (Wilding, 2013)
Vision: ‘The organization has a shared view of a desired future state.
It embodies core values and captures the hearts and minds of the
organization’s people, while providing guidance and direction’
- Strong vision from top management about cultural
change (Christopher & Peck, 2004);
- Set of shared beliefs and understanding about innovation
to consequently build SCRES (Sharifirad & Ataei, 2012).
14
3.2 Involvement
Involvement refers to ‘the degree of participation of employees in decision-making’ (Zheng et
al., 2010). In table 3.2 can be seen that in cultures where organizations focus on the cultural
aspect involvement the following components are evident: empowering employees, establish
organizations around teams (i.e. human orientation) and continually invest in employees’ skills
(i.e. capability development) (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). The definitions of each of these
underlying components are shown in table 3.2. Involvement allows firms to increase employee
commitment, give them a feeling that they can participate in decision-making (Denison et al.,
2006) and increase employee satisfaction and quality of work (Zamanou & Glaser, 1994). To
contribute to involvement, organizations can empower employees to create a sense of
responsibility and authority among them towards the organizations (Denison et al., 2006).
Moreover, it creates a culture in which organizational members feel that their ideas and
suggestions are valued (Zamanou & Glaser, 1994). Taking into account the resilience context,
empowering front-lines employees might help to take action and initiative based on facts on the
ground (Sheffi & Rice, 2005) and thus deal with disruptions faster. However, organizations
should balance empowerment with accountability (Pettit et al., 2010), because employees seem
to be highly reliant on their managers when they need to make decisions (Forrester, 2000).
Besides empowerment, organizations should place value on human orientation to contribute to
involvement (Denison et al., 2006). This teamwork is essential for success of joint efforts
between all departments (Mandal, 2017). More specifically, human orientation creates a culture
in which communication increases among all functions and organizational levels (Zamanou &
Glaser, 1994). This communication let organizations to function effectively together, give
employees a feeling that they belong to an organization (Zamanou & Glaser, 1994), increase
the speed of decision-making (Xie et al., 2013) and increase transparency, trust and
commitment alongside all departments (Mandal, 2017). However, involvement also requires
that organizations invest in the skills of employees at all organizational levels (Denison et al.,
2006). Such investments can create the capability of organizations to change to their
environment (Kotrba et al., 2012) and to employees to make good decisions. To summarize,
high involvement makes organizations able to rely on informal control systems and a ‘flat
structure’ than formal, bureaucratic control systems and a ‘hierarchical structure’ (Denison et
al., 2006).
15
3.3 Consistency
Consistency refers to ‘the extent to which beliefs, values and expectations remain consistent
among all employees of an organization’ (Zheng et al., 2010). In table 3.2 can be seen that in a
culture where organizations focus on consistency the following components are evident: core
values, agreement on issues within the organization and different departments to work
effectively together (Denison et al., 2006). Consistency is mainly important to provide
employees with guidance and direction in their work and make decisions based on consensual
support rather than on explicit rules and regulation (Denison et al., 2006). To contribute to
consistency, organizations can have a set of core values in place to shape expectations among
employees (Treacy & Wiersma, 1995). To shape these expectations, organizations could
communicate the values via their leaders (Pettit et al., 2010). Moreover, core values such as
openness, loyalty, honesty, participation or learning (Van Marrewijk & Werre, 2003) can
influence the behavior of employees within the organization. Taking into account a resilience
context, such a core value might be making risk assessment part of the formal decision making
process (Christopher & Peck, 2004). However, while core values might provide internal
stability, it might also conflicts with quick and flexible decisions needed during a supply chain
disruption (Seville et al., 2016). While core values might provide direction, still differences in
point of view might exist between employees. Therefore, organizations should be able to find
agreement on critical issues to create consistency. As such, organizations are able to find
consensual support on issues, rather than relying on explicit rules and regulations (Denison et
al., 2016). In addition to agreement, organizations need to integrate different departments
within their organization to increase consistency (Denison et al., 2006). This coordination &
integration can create a culture where employees trust each other and work effectively together
towards common goals. Moreover, it can create an open culture in which communication,
experiences and skills are shared among all functions and synchronizations among all
departmental levels (Mandal, 2017). Taking into account a resilience context, this might help
to overcome negative consequences of for instance the Bullwhip effect. On the contrary, within
literature more formalized procedures and decision making mechanisms might help to make
quicker decisions (Mandal, 2017). This might help in very complex and uncertain situations,
such as disruptions. Therefore, organizations might need to find a balance between informal
and formal internal integration.
16
3.4 Adaptability
Adaptability refers to ‘the degree to which organizations have the ability to alter behaviour,
structures and systems in order to deal with environmental changes’ (Zheng et al., 2010). From
table 3.1 becomes clear that creating change, external focus and organizational learning can
help to create this ability. While the latter shows consistency to create advantages, it might also
negatively influence the adaptability of an organization (Denison et al., 2006). This
adaptability is, however, very important for organizations to translate environmental changes
into valuable action (Denison et al., 2006) and thus might especially be important to deal with
disruptions. Organizations can contribute to adaptability by creating change ways. These ways
are, for instance, allowing employees to explore creative solutions to problems (Dr Dreu &
West, 2001) and stimulate employees to think in different ways (Sutton, 2002). Regarding the
resilience context, this might result in innovation to meet customer demands (Dobni, 2008).
However, organizations should not only create ways to make the organization: rather they
should also pay attention to their environment (i.e. external focus). As earlier explained, this
research focus on external focus (Costanza et al., 2015) rather than on customer focus from the
original model.External focus will help firms to read and interpret signals from their
environment and take action on internal and external problems (Costanza et al., 2015). More
specifically, this external focus creates a culture in which organizations place value on
anticipative thinking (Costanza et al., 2015). Literature to date has shown that such anticipative
thinking create success because they are able to anticipate on environmental change (Fey &
Denison, 2003). On the contrary, reactive thinking leads to a non-adaptive culture and thus less
effectiveness on performance. Taking into account the resilience context, anticipative thinking
might help to reduce the impact of disruptions in advance. The last contributor to adaptability
is organizational learning (Denison et al., 2006). Adaptable organizations namely learn from
their mistakes, but also use signals from their environment to develop capabilities and increase
knowledge (Denison et al., 2006). This adaptability creates a culture in which employees
create knowledge and share this among each other with can create new valuable opportunities
for the future. In a resilience context, this might be reflected in benchmarking and learning from
past disruptions (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009) which can create experience and knowledge
to prepare better for future events.
3.5 Mission
Mission refers to ‘the existence of a shared definition of the organization’s purpose’ (Zheng et
al., 2010). Organizations can contribute to a mission via vision, strategic direction & intent and
goals & objectives (Denison et al., 2006). A mission is important to provide clear direction and
17
action points to employees and give the organizations a social role within their environment
(Denison et al., 2006). As such, this mission makes an organizations able to create short- and
long-term commitment among employees (Denison et al., 2006). To create this mission,
organizations should firstly define a vision about a desired future state (Mintzberg, 1989). With
this vision organizations can be able to shape current behavior to create this future state
(Denison et al., 2006). Regarding resilience, literature does not show insight in a particular
vision. While vision is reflected in a desired future state, strategic direction & intent refers to
the actions to achieve this future state (Denison et al., 2006). For example, if organizations want
to be the most innovative company within their industry (i.e. vision), their strategy might be
focused on many R&D investments or an extensive focus on their environment. Regarding
resilience, creating a fully resilient supply chain might be the vision of a company. To create
this resilient supply chain, a strategic direction might be to focus on more than one supplier.
On a lower organizational level goals & objectives might be important, which contribute to the
strategy and vision (Denison et al., 2006). Examples are a certain rate of innovation or produced
products that should be achieved by employees. To summarize, a mission provides direction in
how an organization acts, makes choices and decisions and how employees should carry out
their jobs (Denison et al., 2006). More interestingly, a mission might therefore by reflected in
the degree of involvement or coordination & integration. For instance, when organizations
place value on innovation, they probably also let employees come up with new ideas (i.e.
involvement) and decentralize decision-making (i.e. coordination & integration).
4. Conceptual model
It has become clear that organizational culture is important to increase performance within firms
(Denison et al., 2006). Also within a resilience context the importance of an appropriate culture
has been highlighted (Christopher & Peck, 2004), yet there is a lack of empirical research on
the concept. Theory does not provide empirical evidence about how organizations can shape a
culture to influence the constructs of SCRES. However, the model of Denison et al. (2006)
creates insights in the fact that the cultural aspects involvement, consistency, adaptability and
mission all can influence effectiveness of organizations on several aspects. In line with this is
the model appropriate to get insights in how an organizational culture can influence the
performance of firms on building the resilient supply chain. Moreover, the model can give
insights in the dynamics and development of an appropriate culture to enhance resilience. This
is very important because research has shown that most issues regarding SCRES have to do
with softer, less tangible aspects of an organizations (i.e. organizational culture) (Seville et al.,
18
2006). Even though, how these issues regarding culture can be solved remains still unclear.
This research fill these managerial and theoretical gaps by identifying new elements and
relationships between organizational culture (here as per: Denison et al., 2006) and SCRES
(here as per: Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). By conducting exploratory interviews it will be
investigated how organizational culture influences supply chain resilience, which is depicted
in figure 4.1 below.
5. Methodology
5.1 Research design
The aim of this research is to explore how organizational culture influences supply chain
resilience: hence, a qualitative research approach was used. This research approach is especially
appropriate for the purpose of this study, because a lack of insights in the dynamics and
development of an appropriate risk management culture exists (Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016).
Namely, qualitative research can help to understand a phenomenon it’s real-life setting (Yin,
2015) and thus creates the possibility to develop theory by identifying new elements and
relationships between culture and resilience (Ridder, 2017). More specifically, exploratory
interviews have been conducted. Hereby, the ability is created to generate insights in little-
understood phenomena (i.e. culture in a resilience context) and discover important categories
of meaning (Marshall, 2014). Hence, this study will be able to identify patterns and important
categories of organizational culture to influence resilience. Accordingly, the unit of analysis is
the culture of an organization during a disruption.
5.2 Setting
The study was conducted at four companies in the food processing and one company in the
critical infrastructure industry. The second industry was added because of interview
cancellations and time restrictions. However, this industry might be especially interesting as
disruptions within this industry can have such a huge impact that their culture should be as
Organizational culture:
Involvement
Consistency
Adaptability
Mission
Supply chain resilience:
Collaboration
Flexibility
Velocity
Visibility
Figure 3.1: Conceptual model
19
optimal as possible. Following, both industries are chosen because it is expected that the
companies are highly vulnerable to disruptions and that they therefore actively pay attention to
cultural aspects to deal with these disruptions. In advance to the study, all organizations
confirmed the importance of soft processes (i.e. cultural aspects) to successfully deal with
disruptions. Moreover, companies with different sizes, missions and role within their sector
were chosen. This is purposefully done, because it is expected that these factors might create
differences in the cultural aspects and therefore help to understand the influence of these aspects
on resilience with more in-depth insights. For instance, the firm size might influence the
organizational structures within an organization (i.e. flat or hierarchical) and performance
(Dalton et al., 1980) on enhancing supply chain resilience.
5.3 Data collection
To gain insights into how organizational culture influences resilience, eight employees from
abovementioned companies were selected. Selection was based on the personal network of the
researcher and the company’s websites. The selected employees were mainly managers, as it
was expected that they have affinity with all cultural aspect. Moreover, the selected managers
all deployed a function related to supply chain management and had experience with
disruptions. However, to overcome informant bias (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007) also some
lower placed employees were interviewed, because it is expected that they might have a
different interpretation of culture than their managers. Within table 5.1 an overview is given
about the information regarding the interviews. Because company B cancelled the appointment
twice, company D was added. Sadly enough, the interviewee of this company was sick on the
day of the interviews.
20
Before conducting the interviews all informants were personally informed about the purpose of
the research via a consent form (i.e. interview procedures), interview guide and interview
protocol, which were sent by e-mail. These documents can be found in appendix A and help to
ensure reliability (Ellram, 1995). The interview protocol was composed based on literature
research and started with some general questions regarding the company and the informants’
role. Subsequently the informants were asked to recall two supply chain disruptions and
describe these events in detail. Subsequently was asked how the company anticipated,
responded and recovered from this disruption. Additionally, questions grounded in theory
related to cultural aspects were asked to get insights in the researched phenomenon. All
questions were open-ended and during the interview the researcher used probing to get more
in-depth insights in the dynamics and development of culture.
Ultimately eight semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted, held between
November and December, 2018. All, but one, interviews were recorded and transcribed within
the 24-hour rule to improve reliability (Eisenhardt, 1989). During the remaining interview as
much notes as possible were taken. Afterwards all informants were asked for feedback,
clarification if needed and if they agree upon all given answers (Yin, 2009). After transcribing
the interviews were sent back to the informants to ask form permission, which increases
reliability and validity of the gathered data (Ellram, 1996). Moreover, additional data was
gathered via small conversations, observations, websites and internal documentation to achieve
internal triangulation (Voss et al., 2002). An overview of this secondary data can be seen in
table 5.2 below.
21
5.6 Data analysis
To analyse the data all interviews were transcribed. Subsequently the data was analysed
following the three reduction steps of Miles & Huberman (1994): reducing, displaying and
concluding. The first step was to reduce all transcribed data to quotes or sentences that are
important to answer the research question (first order codes). Subsequently these first order
quotes were analysed from an organizational culture and resilience capability perspective. More
specifically, the quotes which were derived by reducing the data were sorted into (sub-)
categories (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These (sub-) categories were deductively derived from
the descriptions of organizational culture and SCRES as mentioned in the theoretical
background (see table 2.1 and 3.1). Subsequently the first-order codes were assigned to
descriptive second-order categories such as ‘front-line employee participation’, ‘scenario
exercises’, ‘screening environment’ and ‘internal communication’. With these descriptive
categories it was made possible to get insights in the specific activities organizations conduct
to contribute to the cultural components from the model of Denison et al., 2006). After the
sentences were assigned to these second-order categories, the data has been explored regarding
SCRES. This actually means that a link with the different resilience constructs was made via
several deductively descriptive of the constructs. For flexibility this was reflected in terms such
as ‘alternative locations’ or ‘adjust the planning system’, for velocity these terms were ‘quick
solutions’ and ‘time losses’. Regarding visibility ‘information availability’ and ‘quality checks’
came forward and collaboration was reflected in ‘good relationships’, ‘joint understanding’ and
‘joint investments’. However, because this research approaches collaboration as an antecedent
of the other three constructs a link between these elements was also made.
After coding the data, two separate analyses were conducted regarding organizational culture
and the resilience constructs to look how the cultural activities influence the resilience
constructs. Hereby it was possible to determine third-order codes, which can be identified as
the mechanism underlying the relation between organizational culture and resilience (see table
5.3 for the coding tree). The analysis was in the beginning concentrated at the individual
companies, because this made it possible to get familiar with the overall cultural aspects of each
company (Eisenhardt, 1989) that might influence the relationship between culture and
resilience. Subsequently, the different companies were compared to look for similarities and
differences between the companies and how these cultural aspects influence the resilience
constructs. This relative comparison made it possible to identify the mechanisms that create
differences in how organizations are able to build resilience within their supply chains. Within
22
table 5.3 an in-depth insight is created on how this study progressed from reducing the data to
second-order quotes and subsequently to mechanisms.
Table 5.3: Excerpt of coding tree
Link to
resilience
construct
Data reduction (first-order quotes) Second order codes Third order codes
(mechanism)
Flexibility
‘We stimulate participative-thinking. This creates a
culture in which employees come up with own ideas
for improvement. For instance, recently we bought a
back-up production line because an employee said
we had big problems with our first line.’ (A2)
Empowerment
Risk awareness
Out of the box
thinking
‘You need to invest in employees who have a lack of
knowledge about risks.’ (A1)
Capability
development Risk knowledge
‘We focus on openness, trust and honesty in our
organization to find an alternative option’ (E1). We
focus on an open working climate in which
information is shared rapidly to find the best
solution’ (A1)
Core values
No direct link (via
empowerment)
‘The planning system makes it able to communicate
Among departments. As such we can share
experience and find a good alternative’ (E1),
‘Internal cooperation & communication is very
important to find the best option’ (C1)
Coordination &
integration
Information
availability
Our products have a very short shelf life. Therefore
we can only deliver these products in Europe, but our
logistics is very good planned. However, we also
have some products which can be frozen, these are
delivered to Asia.’ (B)
Creating change Creativity
‘We screen weather influences to anticipate on bad
weather and prevent quality issues’ (C2), ‘We
continuously screen the weather forecast. This focus
guides me in my work: I am more aware of possible
risks. As such, when we expect bad weather we are
able to make planning adjustment and pick up
harmed areas first to prevent quality issues in
supply’ (C2)
External focus Proactive attitude
Risk awareness
‘Because we noted that we made many human faults
which caused quality issues, we build our production
lines very automated, which makes us able to deliver
the products very fast. This prevents the shifting of
our production to production locations around the
world and in case of a disruption such you have
everything nearby’ (B)
Organizational
learning Improvement
attitude
‘Our employees are the key to success’ (A1),
‘Employee commitment is key to solve the disruption
and find the best option’ (D)
Strategic direction &
intent
No direct link (via
empowerment)
23
‘To get where we want all employees are needed’
(C), ‘To keep our whole supply chain safe our
employees are the key’ (E1)
Vision
No direct link (via
capability
development)
(Via
collaboration)
‘Our employees are assigned to a specific area and
maintain a good relationship. As such we jointly find
a good alternative’ (E1)
Empowerment
Openness towards
partners
Velocity
‘We assign some employees get a task during the
disruption, this increases efficiency’ (A2) ‘Our
employees worked day and night to solve it’ (C2)
Empowerment
Risk awareness
Commitment
‘With our training we inform our employees about
possible internal and external risks, makes that they
are better aware of what might happen within the
process and subsequently act upon those risks’ (C1)
Capability
development
Risk knowledge
‘In this way you create commitment among involved
people, which will increase performance in dealing
with the disruption.’ (C1)
‘We place high emphasis on openness within our
organization: all employees should be open towards
each other. As such, in case of a disruption you are
able to share information and experiences better’
(E1)
Core values
No direct link (via
coordination &
integration)
Commitment (via
empowerment)
Information
availability
‘Internally we are able to share information very
fast. If we face a disruption in our environment, this
makes us able to assess the risk and find an
alternative solution faster’. (E2)
Coordination &
integration
Information
availability
We saw that we might could face problems with ice
on the rivers: no boat could sail. Therefore we
already searched for an external party with an ice
breaker: this will spare time in case it actually
happens’ (C1)
External focus
Proactive attitude
By visiting these suppliers we are able to see what is
going on and share information with these parties.
Sometimes we find valuable insights in how other
organizations deal with disruptions: this can we use
ourselves to make our process more efficient.’ (A2)
Organizational
learning Improvement
attitude
‘I think the most essential part in this is that you
show your customer that you do everything you have
in power that you are willing to solve the problem
and give them the feeling that they are king. This will
result in understanding among the customers and
will give you more time to solve the problem.’ (A1)
Strategic direction &
intent (via core
values ->
empowerment)
Openness towards
partners
‘To achieve our goals in security, participative
thinking and input from our employees is very
important’ (E1)
Vision No direct link (via
empowerment)
(Via
collaboration)
‘We conduct scenario exercises with supply chain
partners to create understanding among employees
in each other’s way of working. When a real
Capability
development Joint understanding
24
6. Findings
The data analysis provides valuate insights in how the cultural aspects (i.e. involvement,
consistency, adaptability and mission) influence the SCRES constructs. By conducting
exploratory interviews, specific details on how organizational culture influences supply chain
resilience were found. However, before explaining these details into depth, an explanation
about the descriptive findings is needed to create understanding about the further findings.
6.1 Descriptive findings
This section first will explain the descriptive findings regarding the overall culture of the
company in relation to the cultural aspects. To get an overview, these overall cultural aspects
are summarized in table 6.1 below.
disruption occurs, we are thus able to anticipate
better on each other and don’t loss time.’ (C1)
Visibility
‘Quality checks make that we are able to screen
quality and quantity of products in all steps of the
chain’ (C2)
Empowerment Direct link
‘All our departments are able to collaborate and
share information in a good way. This made that our
departments are very well-integrated. This makes
that all departments have a good understanding and
overview about everything that happens within our
chain’ (C1)
Coordination &
integration Information
availability
‘We have a team of employees which continuously
screens our environment, in our sector you need to
be prepared for all possible scenarios’ (E2)
External focus Proactive risk
attitude
(Via
collaboration)
‘For our company our supply chain partners are very
important to add value to our supply chain.
Therefore we focus on a trustworthiness, honesty and
loyalty in our contact with them. This is for instance
translated in the intensive contact our field
employees maintain with these partners. Ultimately
this leads to more information sharing and a better
quality of information’ (C2)
Empowerment Openness towards
partners
25
Table 6.1: Overview descriptive findings
Company No. of
employees
Total
employees
Decision
making
Integration
between
departments
Attitude
regarding
risks
Important notes
A 150 13.000 Decentralized High Proactive Part of multinational company
B 25 350 Centralized Medium Reactive Specialized/stand-alone unit
within organization
C 10-15 600 Decentralized High Proactive Headquarter of company
D 200 >5000 Centralized Low Reactive Part of bigger company
E 20 1400 Decentralized N.A. Proactive Specialized/stand-alone unit
within organization
Table 6.1 shows some overall cultural aspects of the company regarding involvement,
consistency, adaptability and mission. These aspects will be explained into depth below,
because they were found to create differences in the findings.
From table 6.1 differences can be seen in decision-making. Decision-making is at company
A/C/E decentralized, while this is at company B and D more centralized. This influences the
degree of involvement. The data shows that company A/C/E let their employees take
initiative, stimulate participative thinking and let them come up with own ideas regarding
supply chain risks. The culture within this organization is therefore characterized by more
informal control systems instead of particular rules and regulations to provide employees with
guidance in their work. On the other hand, company B and D show more hierarchy within
their organization to provide employees with guidance in their work. Therefore they have
more formal routines and procedures in place.
The culture is also reflected in the consistency of the organization. While organizations A//C/E
place emphasis on core values such as job ownership, meaningful jobs and commitment,
company B/D focuses more on high productivity, hard work and good performance. This type
of culture might be explained by the type of workforce: company B/D mainly works with
employees from a deployment agency, while the other companies have employees with long-
term contracts. However, all companies highlighted the importance of core values such as trust,
openness, loyalty and honesty within their organizations as well as regarding their supply chain
partners. The last contributor to consistency, coordination & integration also shows differences
at the organizations. Organizations A/B/C/E are namely characterized with a culture in which
different departments are well-integrated and therefore collaborate and communicate
intensively with each other. On the other hand, both company B/D is not that well-integrated.
They mainly communicate between different departments via their information technology
systems and formalized meetings.
26
Within table 6.2 also the cultural aspect attitude regarding risks is shown. While company A/C
and E actively seek for problems within and outside their organizations to prepare for
disruptions, company B and D are more reactive because ‘disruptions will happen anyway’.
This thinking creates a difference in how organizations approach risks. More specifically,
company A heavily invests in skills of employees and a continuity plan, while company D only
finds the most appropriate solution when a disruption actually happens.
Now the differences between the companies in their overall culture are clear, the next section
will explore the identified elements and mechanisms in the relation between organizational
culture and SCRES.
6.2 How organizational culture influences supply chain resilience
Table 6.2 show how the cultural dimensions (i.e. involvement, consistency, adaptability and
mission) (left column), via several mechanisms (boxes), influence the constructs of supply chain
resilience (top row). More interestingly, the data shows direct and indirect linkages between the
cultural aspects and the supply chain resilience constructs. Moreover, as earlier explained,
collaboration is seen as an antecedent of the other constructs. This is also made visible within
table 6.2.
27
Cultural
aspects
Underlying
components
cultural traits
Flexibility (6.2.1) Velocity (6.2.2) Visibility (6.2.3)
Invo
lvemen
t
Empowerment
Risk awareness (A/B/C);
‘Out-of-the-box thinking’ (A/C/E)
(Via collaboration):
Openness towards partners (B/C/E)
Risk awareness (A/C/D/E);
Employee commitment (A, B, C, E);
‘Out-of-the-box thinking’ (A/C/E)
(Also via collaboration):
Openness towards partners (C/E)
Capability
development
Risk awareness (A/C/E);
Risk knowledge (A/C//E)
Risk awareness (A/C/E);
Employee commitment (A, B, C, E);
Risk knowledge (all organizations)
(Via collaboration):
Joint understanding (A/C/E)
Con
sistency
Core values
Indirect:
Risk awareness (via empowerment)
Employee commitment (via empowerment)
Internal integration (via coordination &
integration)
Indirect:
Risk awareness (via empowerment/cap.
development);
Employee commitment (via empowerment/cap.
development)
Information availability (via coordination &
integration)
Indirect:
Openness towards partners (C/E)
Internal integration (via coordination &
integration) (C/E)
Coordination
& integration Information availability (all organizations) Information availability (all organizations) (Also via collaboration):
Information availability (A/B/C/E)
Adapta
bility
Creating
change Creativity (B)
External
focus
Risk awareness (A/B/C/E);
(Proactive/reactive) risk attitude (all
organizations)
Risk awareness (A/B/C/E);
(Proactive/reactive) risk attitude (all
organizations)
Risk awareness (A/B/C/E)
Organization
al learning
Improvement attitude (A/C/E) Improvement attitude (A/C/E)
Missio
n
Vision
Indirect:
Risk awareness (via core values ->
empowerment/capability development)
Information availability (via core values->
coordination & integration) (A/C/E)
Indirect:
Risk awareness (via core values ->
empowerment/capability development) (A/C/E)
Information availability (via core values->
coordination & integration) (A/C/E)
Indirect:
Openness towards partners (via core
values -> empowerment)
Information availability (via core values->
coordination & integration) (A/C/E)
Strategic
direction &
intent
Table 6.2: Overview of the findings on the relationship between organizational culture
and supply chain resilience
28
6.2.1 Flexiblity
Table 6.2 shows the cultural aspects found to influence flexibility. As can be seen in table 6.2,
both indirect and direct linkages between the cultural aspects and flexibility have been found.
Before explaining the findings into more detail a short introduction about the findings will be
given. Firstly, in table 6.2 can be seen that cultures in which a strong mission and core values
are present, organizations involve people via empowerment and capability development. This
involvement of employees creates risk awareness, out-of-the box thinking and risk knowledge
among employees, which makes organizations able to increase flexibility. Moreover, core
values were shown to influence coordination & integration and subsequently consistency
within their organizations. This consistency is shown to influence flexibility via information
availability. In table 6.2 can also be seen that adaptability, enabled by creating change,
external focus and organizational learning, results in creativity, risk awareness,
proactive/reactive attitude and an improvement attitude. It is shown that all these mechanisms
can help organizations to influence flexibility. Following, above-mentioned relationships
between respectively involvement, consistency, adaptability and flexibility, will be explained
alongside the cultural aspects into detail below.
The findings show organizations A/C/E to have a mission, enabled by strategic direction and
intent and vision, in which employees play a key role in the organization. Company C stated:
‘our employees are key to successes, therefore we give them the chance to improve themselves
and involve them in the decisions made’ and A mentioned: ‘to achieve our goals, participative
thinking and input from our employees is very important’. This shared definition (i.e. mission)
creates guidance in the culture of the companies. It is namely shown that the emphasis on
employees (from the mission) creates a culture in which core values such as ‘openness, trust
and honesty towards colleagues’, ‘passion and commitment for the job’ and ‘independency’ are
of big importance (A/C/E). Following these values company E states: ‘we have a very open
culture, which means that we place high emphasis on input and participation of all our
employees. On top of that we invest heavily in the employees’ skills’. Hence in such cultures
companies empower employees and develop the capabilities of these employees.
To empower employees company A explains: ‘we stimulate participative thinking,
employees input via new ideas, involve employees in decision-making and give them a specific
task or job in the prevention and solvation of disruptions’. This makes the organizations able
to create risk awareness and out-of-the box thinking among employees and subsequently
29
increase flexibility (A/C/E). ‘We let employees come up with new ideas and involve them
regarding supply chain risks. Therefore they are more aware of risks: recently we faced quality
issues at a few suppliers of us. Our field employees identified these issues at an early stage and
therefore we were able to effectively adjust the planning system to balance supply and demand
(C).’ Moreover, company A explains: ‘by involving our employees we give them space to come
up with own ideas or improvement points in our process. Therefore they think ‘further’ than
their normal jobs or task. For instance, a few years ago an employee mentioned that one
machine broke-down quite often and thus we invest in a back-up production line’. These
effective planning adjustments and back-up production lines make the firm better able to adapt
to environmental changes and thus increase flexibility.
Moreover, in cultures were employees are involved the companies also focused on the
development of employees capabilities, evident in ‘unannounced exercises and internal/external
training programs’, regarding supply chain risks (A/C/E). These investments in the skills of
employees create risk awareness and risk knowledge among the workforce. Hereby the
organizations were shown to increase flexibility: ‘With our in-take training programs we create
a multi-skilled workforce which makes us able to shift employees in case of a disruption to
another function. Moreover, it provides our employees with knowledge and experience
regarding disruptions, creating the skills to analyse a disruption and find an alternative
(company E)’. On the other hand, company B and D have cultures in which they less focus on
involvement via empowerment and capability development. This might be explained by the
type of workforce, because both companies ‘mainly work with employees from a deployment
agency’. Therefore these companies mentioned a big turnover in personnel in which they are
‘not willing to invest’. However, the data does not give indications about a difference in
flexibility in comparison to company A/C/E.
More interestingly, it is shown that cultures in which organizations focus on involvement can
influence collaboration and subsequently flexibility. ‘We use certain employees to maintain a
good relationship with our partners via intensive contact. This creates an open character
among partners about our organization. As such, we have good relationships with partners
(company C).’ This relationship has led to the investment in a planning system in which all
partners are integrated. This makes the organization able to adjust the planning in case of
significant changes in supply and demand and thus increased flexibility.
30
Besides involvement, table 6.2 shows the relation between consistency and flexibility. It was
earlier explained that core values such as ‘openness, honesty and trust’ result in an open
working climate: ‘we place high value on openness, trust and honesty in internal collaboration
and cooperation (E)’. This open culture leads to increased information availability: ‘our
working climate is very open. This creates a culture in which our different departments easily
communicate and collaborate together via for instance small talks or informal meetings (C)’
and subsequently flexibility: ‘when a disruption occurs which matters our whole supply chain,
the inter-departmental communication and collaboration makes that we have more information
about the disruption available. With this information we are able to assess the risk better and
thus we know which alternative solution fits best.’ The better information availability makes
that the organization is able to find a better alternative and increase flexibility. On the other
hand, the culture at company B and D is less open, but more characterized by formalization: ‘to
work effectively we have created formalized procedures and routines to make collaboration
and communication between departments more efficient. For instance, we invested in a very-
well integrated planning system (company D)’. This difference in culture might be explained
by the size of the company, which needs more formalization. However, it is shown that such a
culture also can increase flexibility: ‘we plan moments in the week in which we discuss
everything, as such we are able to change our planning system if we see quality or quantity
issues at suppliers. The planning system is build such that every user, from office to transport,
can see all made changes and therefore we are able to anticipate and respond to such issues
(company D).’ To summarize, both informal and formal cultures are able to influence
coordination & integration and subsequently increase flexibility.
Additionally, next to involvement and consistency table 6.2 shows adaptability, enabled by
creating change, external focus and organizational learning, to influence flexibility. One
manager (company B) explains: ‘we have created a culture in which we continuously improve
our products and look for alternative markets. This creativity among our employees have
recently created a new market with less strict demands. As such, if we face quality issues, we
are able to continue delivering by shifting to this market.’ This alternative market gives
company B alternative options and thus increases flexibility. This product or market
differentiation was not found at other companies, which might be explained by the fact that the
other companies mainly deliver bulk products or have so much market power that they do not
need to differentiate. Next to that, in a culture where organizations pay intensive attention to
their environment and internal/external problems – i.e. external focus – create risk awareness
31
and a proactive attitude on an organizational level. For instance, manager one from company C
explains: ‘we continuously focus on the environment, such as the weather. This focus guides
employees in their work: they are aware of possible risks. When we expect bad weather, we are
therefore able to make planning adjustments and harvest harmed areas first to prevent quality
issues in supply’. Such environmental focus is highlighted by all companies to be important to
influence flexibility. Moreover, the findings show that a culture in which employees seek for
internal and external problems – i.e. external focus – a proactive attitude is created within the
organization. This mechanism is evident in ‘internal risk assessment’ (A/C) and ‘worst-case
scenario thinking’ (A/E): ‘we continuously look for internal and external problems within our
supply chain (company E)’. As such, these organizations were able to increase flexibility: ‘we
want to prevent future disruptions and therefore we already invested in back-up machines
(company E)’. On the other hand, company B and D have a culture in which risks are seen as
‘inevitable events which you cannot prevent for’. It has been shown that this difference leads to
less flexibility, because these organizations did not have any alternative locations or options
available and recently faced big supply disruptions which costed a lot of money.
Finally, cultures in which organizations put focus on organizational learning were shown to
influence flexibility, because they created an attitude of learning. Key informant one from
company A explains: ‘because we visit network meetings, other locations within and outside
our sector and exchange information with other production locations we are able to learn from
them. As such, we are able to identify possible improvement points regarding risks. For
instance, a competitor of us recently faced an electricity break-down and lost revenues.
Therefore we bought a back-up generator.’ More interestingly, all organizations highlighted
the importance of learning from past disruptions. Such past disruptions made that the
organizations invested in ‘back-up production lines (A/C)’ and ‘back-up machines (E)’, so that
they were able to increase flexibility and continue delivering.
6.2.2 Velocity
Table 6.2 shows that the findings regarding velocity have similarities with flexibility. First, the
relationships will be introduced to give an overview. As explained, the mission and core values
influence the degree of involvement and consistency (i.e. coordination & integration) within
an organization. The findings show that in a culture were organizations focus on involvement,
enabled by empowerment and capability development, mechanisms such as risk awareness and
knowledge and employee commitment are present. These mechanisms were found to influence
the degree of velocity. More interestingly, some forms of training (i.e. capability development)
32
were shown to influence collaboration and subsequently velocity via joint understanding. Table
6.2 also shows that consistency, enabled by coordination & integration, influences (via
collaboration) velocity via information availability As last, adaptability, enabled by external
focus and organizational learning, create a culture with mechanisms such as risk awareness, a
proactive attitude and an improvement attitude. This has been shown to influence flexibility.
Now an overview is given, the above-mentioned relationship will be explained in the same
order more detailed.
Table 6.2 shows that in a culture where organizations focus on involvement they are able to
create risk awareness, risk knowledge and employee commitment within their workforce. One
manager (E) explains: ‘our employees work very independently. This job ownership makes that
they can make quick decisions when they identify potential risk. As such we are able to respond
quickly’. Such empowerment to create risk awareness is confirmed by both companies A and
C to increase velocity. On the contrary, company D states: ‘decision-making is mainly
centralized. I have to admit that we lose time in case of a disruption, because employees are
not aware of the risks and need to ask permission at a higher organizational layer.’ Hence, in
cultures where organizations focus less on empowerment velocity might decrease.
This increased risk awareness is also shown to be created in cultures where
organizations focus on ‘scenario exercises’ (A/C/E) or ‘internal, external or in-take training (all
organizations’ (i.e. capability development). For instance, manager one from company A states:
‘with our training we inform our employees about possible internal and external risks, this
makes that they are better aware of what might happen within the process and subsequently act
upon those risks’. By providing this investments organizations were able to develop a culture
in which employees have ‘experience with risks (C)’ and ‘information availability’ (A/C/E) and
thus are aware of risks. As explained this leads to faster decision-making after risks are
identified and thus higher velocity.
On top of that, the latter mentioned forms of capability development are shown to create
another mechanism: ‘with our training we provide our employees with all possible information
about possible quality instances. Because they have this knowledge they are able to identify
quality issues and have a quick response directly available (company C).’ In cultures where
organizations create risk knowledge among their workforce, the organizations were able to
increase the speed of decision-making and find an alternative solution (i.e. increased velocity).
On the other hand, company B and D do not do such investments which results in time losses.
At these companies lower placed employees cannot find a solution, which means that managers
33
first need to put everything on hold, assess the risk and the impact and subsequently look for a
solution: velocity decreases.
More interestingly, in cultures where organizations focus on involvement commitment
is created: ‘the authority among our employees creates very committed employees; last week a
disruption happened during mid-night and employees who lived close to the place where it
occurred did not hesitate and immediately solved the problem (E).’ This commitment was at
all companies shown to be important to solve the disruption as soon as possible: employees
made for instance extra hours, which increased velocity.
Additionally, table 6.2 shows that in a culture where organizations are willing to invest
in skills of employees (i.e. capability development) they are able to influence collaboration.
Companies A/C/E explained that they ‘do scenario exercises with supply chain partners’. This
creates ‘understanding in each other’s way of working’ (A/E). By creating such understanding
both organizations stated that their efficiency (in terms of time) in dealing with a disruption
increased.
It can also be seen in table 6.2 that a culture, in which organizations are able to let
different departments or functions work together (i.e. coordination & integration), can
influence velocity via information availability. More specifically, company B explains:
‘internally we are able to share information easily. If we face a disruption, this makes us able
to assess the risk and find an alternative solution quicker’. This open working climate, which
was applicable for cases A/C/E, makes that a greater base of data and experience can be
combined to find an appropriate solution. On the other hand, in cultures where decision-making
was more centralized (B/D) they had well-integrated information technology available: ‘we
have a planning system which is available for all our departments and functions. As such we
are able to assess risks faster and solve a disruption (D)’. Hence, no differences in velocity
were found.
The last cultural aspect, adaptability¸ is shown to influence velocity via risk awareness
and a proactive/learning attitude. Company A explains: ‘we anticipate on problems that might
happen during a disruption via a business continuity plan. All needed information, such as
auxiliary agencies and necessary phone numbers, are incorporated within this plan. As such
we do not lose time on searching all these things when a disruption happens.’ These ‘worst-
case scenarios’ are also shown by C and E to create risk awareness within the organization to
prevent time losses. Moreover, visiting other organizations (A), network or information
meetings (C/E) and learn from past disruptions (all organizations) give organizations useful
insights. For instance, it helps with preparation to things you might not think of or having
34
information and experience ready (A/C/E) to find or create an appropriate solution to
disruptions in a shorter timeframe.
6.2.3 Visibility
Table 6.2 shows that involvement (enabled by empowerment), consistency (enabled by
coordination & integration) both influence visibility via openness towards partners and internal
integration. More interestingly, the role of collaboration to enhance visibility is also shown via
this openness towards partners and information availability.
It already has been highlighted that companies A/C/E have created a culture in which
employees are the key to success (i.e. mission) and as such: ‘we place emphasis on an open
working climate in which open communication, informal talks, honesty and trust are important.
This creates a culture which is very open (company C).’ The data shows that this openess can
contribute to a culture in which employees ‘have authority’ (E) and ‘responsibility over their
own jobs’ (A). Company C explains: ‘the job portfolio of our front-line employees consist of
conducting quality checks and maintaining intensive contact with our supply chain partners.
This makes us able to get insights in quality and quantity of our product in all stages of the
chain.’ As such, empowering employees can help to enhance visibility.
More interestingly, company C explains: ‘our supply chain partners are very important to add
value to our chain. Therefore we focus on a trustworthiness, honesty and loyalty in our contact
with them. This is translated in the intensive contact our field employees maintain with these
partners. Ultimately this leads to more information sharing and a better quality of information.’
From this example comes forward that organizations which have a culture in which they show
openness towards partners are able to create better collaboration via quality of information and
more information sharing: this increases visibility. On the contrary, it is interesting to see the
difference with D. Company D only maintains such contact with their ‘most important supply
chain partners (e.g. biggest customers/suppliers)’. This might be explained by their market
power: while organizations B/C/E are dependent on their partners to maintain business,
company D can easily find other supply chain partners because they have the capital to do so:
‘if an supplier does not deliver, we give them another chance. However, when this happens a
few times we break the contracts and search for another supplier’. It is shown that this more
superficial relationship with suppliers also leads to lower visibility: ‘the intensive contacts with
suppliers makes us able to screen our chain. However, I know that bigger companies do not
have this contact and thus they are less able to have such information available (company B).’
35
Therefore this leads to less information about what is going on at suppliers and decreased
visibility.
The last mechanism is created in a culture in which different departments and functions
are well-integrated: ‘all our departments are able to collaborate and share information in a
good way. This made that our departments are very well-integrated. This makes that all
departments have a good understanding and overview about everything that happens within
our chain (C).’ Such inter-departmental integration thus leads to more information available
about the disruption within an organization and therefore increases visibility: ‘we share
information among departments, as such demand and supply are very well-balanced. When we
face quality issues at supply, all other departments (production, sales) are directly informed
and thus we know everything that happens (company C).’
7. Discussion
Supply chains are the backbone of the economy (Van der Vegt et al., 2015), but in their current
environment companies are highly vulnerable to supply chain disruptions (Christopher & Peck,
2004; Pettit et al., 2013). Organization should therefore capture an adaptive capacity within
their supply chain, via flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration (Juttner & Maklan,
2011), to be able to deal with such disruptions. However, the importance of an appropriate
organizational culture to create this resilient supply chain should not be underestimated
(Christopher & Peck, 2004; Sheffi & Rice, 2005). Even though, how organizational culture
exactly contributes to the resilience constructs is still not clear.
This paper contributes to current research on the topic of supply chain resilience by providing
valuable in-depth empirical evidence on the role of organizational culture to enhance SCRES.
By conducting exploratory interviews it was made possible to create insight in the dynamics
and development of an appropriate organizational culture within a resilience context, which is
lacking in literature (Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016). The findings regarding the influence of
organizational on the supply chain resilience constructs add on current literature by introducing
a holistic view on organizational culture (i.e. the model of Denison et al., 2006) to the concept
of SCRES. Moreover, it is shown that the cultural aspects involvement, consistency,
adaptability and mission, either directly or indirectly, can influence SCRES. Namely, these
cultural aspects contribute to a culture in which mechanisms are created that influence supply
chain resilience. Following, the findings regarding this influence of organizational culture on
supply chain resilience will be discussed into more detail.
36
7.1 How organizational culture influences supply chain resilience
To influence organizational effectiveness, literature has shown four cultural aspects:
involvement, consistency, adaptability and mission (Denison et al., 2006). However, SCRES
literature has not highlighted how these cultural aspect influence organizational performance in
enhancing SCRES. Even though, some authors already have highlighted the importance of
cultural related aspects to enhance resilience. These findings will be discussed within this
section.
Firstly, this study confirms the findings of Sheffi & Rice (2005) that empowering front-
line employees and distribute decision-making throughout the company makes organizations
able to act quickly based on the identification of potential risks in the process. However, the
findings show more specific detail in how to empower employees: this can be done via
stimulating participative thinking regarding risks, let employees come up with own ideas about
improvement points to reduce risks and providing them job ownership. These activities create
a culture in which employees are aware of risks and show more commitment towards the
organization (Rice & Caniato, 2003). Even though, this study also found that cultures that
empower employees create ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking and openness towards supply chain
partners. While it is known that these mechanisms enhances resilience (Rice & Caniato, 2003;
Sheffi & Rice, 2005), this study adds more detail because it was found that such empowerment
increases (via collaboration) flexibility and visibility and (directly) velocity via the
abovementioned mechanisms. An interesting finding was that empowering employees can help
to maintain a good relationship with suppliers via openness towards partners. This might be of
particular interest, as literature to date has not linked empowerment to enable collaborative
activities such as joint investments and more information sharing. This increases flexibility,
while organizations that did not focus on empowerment were found to need more time to assess
risks and having more superficial relationships with supply chain partners. This has led to
decreased velocity and (via collaboration) flexibility and visibility.
Secondly, our study confirms that cultures where organizations focus on (cross-)
training (Blackhurst et al., 2005; Pettit et al., 2010) and scenario exercises (Seville et al., 2006)
regarding risks they are able to enhance resilience. However, the findings showed more detail
on the different training forms. Moreover, the findings confirm that scenario exercises are
indeed important (Seville et al., 2006), but adds that unannounced exercises based on the worst-
case scenario might be even better to increase risk knowledge. While literature shows that
abovementioned forms of investments in employees skills can enhance resilience (Sheffi &
Rice, 2005) it was not clear how. This study shows that these investments lead to risk
37
knowledge, risk awareness and employee commitment. In a culture where organizations are
able to create these mechanisms risks will be identified at an earlier stage and employees will
be able to find a better alternative solution (i.e. increased flexibility). Additionally, the findings
show that these mechanisms leads to faster decision-making about what to do and more
employee capacity (because of the commitment) in case of disruptions. As such, the
organizations where shown to handle quicker during a disruption. More interestingly, the earlier
mentioned exercises could be performed with supply chain partners to increase collaboration
via joint understanding. This is shown to increase efficiency in solving a disruption.
Based on abovementioned discussion is therefore proposed that:
P1: In cultures where organizations focus on involvement they are able to enhance supply
chain resilience.
P1a: In cultures where organizations focus on the empowerment of employees
they are able to increase velocity and (also via collaboration) flexibility and
visibility.
P1b: In cultures where organizations focus on the development of employees
capabilities they are able to increase flexibility and (also via collaboration)
velocity
Linking to the second cultural aspect, consistency, it was found that this leads to increase
organizational performance (Denison et al., 2006). Our findings show that this is partly true
within a resilience context. Rather than seeing core values as a contributor to consistency
(Denison et al., 2006), this study provides insights that core values (such as openness, honesty
and trust) increase involvement and coordination & integration. As such, in cultures where
organizations have core values in place that stimulate involvement (e.g. openness) they were
able to increase flexibility, velocity and visibility (see P1a/b). Furthermore, Mandal (2017)
showed that inter-departmental communication and cooperation (i.e. coordination &
integration) creates cultures in which experiences and skills are shared among all functions and
departments. This is confirmed by the findings in our study, where coordination & integration
leads to greater information availability (in experience, skills and knowledge) and subsequently
resilience. Going more into depth, in cultures where organizations let different departments
work effectively together the greater information availability led to increased collaboration,
flexibility, velocity and visibility. Namely, this information availability creates a culture in
which organizations are able to find the best alternative solution (i.e. flexibility) and assess risks
and solutions more quickly (i.e. velocity). On top of that, the information availability creates a
culture in which information is shared appropriately and thus a better view on the supply chain
38
is created (i.e. visibility). More interestingly, internal information sharing was found to
influence the collaboration between supply chain partners because the organizations were able
to provide partners with better information and help them in case they had trouble during a
disruption. Based on this is therefore proposed that:
P2: In cultures where organizations focus on consistency they are able to enhance supply
chain resilience.
P2a: In cultures where organizations focus on core values they are able to increase
involvement and subsequently (via collaboration) flexibility, velocity and visibility.
P2b: In cultures where organizations focus on coordination & integration between
different departments they are able to increase flexibility and (also via collaboration)
velocity and visibility.
Thirdly, adaptability, enabled by creating change, external focus and organizational
learning, is shown influences an organizations’ performance (Denison et al., 2006). Our
findings confirm this and adds that adaptability increases flexibility and velocity. As stated
before by Golgeci & Ponomarov (2013), the findings show market differentiation (i.e.
innovativeness) to enhance resilience, because it makes you able to meet changing customer
demands. Case B created a culture in which they continuously seek for new markets and
product variations (i.e. creativity). This made them possible to shift products with quality
issues to lower segment market and thus increases flexibility.
Furthermore, organizations should pay attention to their environment and think
proactive regarding risks to enhance resilience, which also indicated by Ambulkar et al.
(2015). The findings show more detail by stating that ‘information technology, business
continuity plans, internal and external risk assessment and worst-case scenario thinking’
create a culture in which organizations are more aware of and form a proactive attitude
towards risks. This is in line with literature to date, where a proactive attitude regarding risks
is in many papers highlighted to enhance resilience (e.g. Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009). Even
though, our findings show more in-depth empirical evidence. For instance, in cultures where
organizations create such a proactive attitude they were shown to have more alternative
options already available (i.e. increased flexibility) and be able to anticipate and respond more
quickly to disruptions (i.e. velocity). On the other hand, organizations with a more reactive
attitude were shown to have decreased flexibility and velocity, because they did not have any
alternative options available and still needed to seek an alternative option which led to time
losses.
39
As last, organizational learning contributes to adaptability and as such organizations are able
to meet environmental changes (Denison et al., 2006). This study confirm this finding and
adds specific details in a resilience context. More specifically, the findings showed that the
capacity to learn from past disruption is an essential property to enhance resilience as it
develops the capability of firms to be better prepared for future events (Ponomarov &
Holcomb, 2009). Adding to this, the findings show that in a culture where organizations focus
on this learning they are able to create an improvement attitude. For instance, benchmarking
(Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009), evaluating the process about how to deal with disruptions
and go to network meetings were specific highlighted activities companies conducted to have
this improvement attitude available. While literature to date is not clear about the specific
influence of this on the resilience constructs, this research provides empirical evidence of
investments in alternative options for production and storage and a quicker solvation of
disruptions. Therefore is proposed that, via several mechanisms:
P3: In cultures where organizations focus on adaptability they are able to increase supply
chain resilience.
P3a: In cultures where organizations focus on creating change they are able to
increase flexibility.
P3b: In cultures where organizations focus on external focus they are able to increase
flexibility and velocity.
P3c: In cultures where organizations focus on organizational learning they are able to
increase flexibility and velocity.
The last cultural aspect, mission¸ is shown to provide employees with guidance and direction
in their work and as such increase organizational performance (Denison et al., 2006). This study
confirm this statement partly. Rather than that a mission directly influences performance of
firms on resilience, the findings show that it can influence the core values a firm follows and
subsequently the other cultural aspect involvement (see P2a). For instance, companies that find
their’ employees very important also lay emphasis on core values such as openness and thus
involvement is increased. Moreover, Denison et al. (2006) showed that vision, strategic
direction & intent and goals & objectives, all contributed to a mission. This study, however,
does not show insights in the importance of goals & objectives to enhance resilience. Besides,
a distinction between a vision and strategic direction did not became clear from the findings. In
line with this was found that a mission is rather a combination of both and as such can influence
core values and subsequently the other cultural aspects. It is shown in the previous propositions
that these cultural aspects influence the resilience constructs (see P1 t/m P3):
40
P4: In cultures where organizations focus on a mission they are able to enhance supply chain
resilience via core values and involvement.
To summarize, the findings show insights in the underlying components of adaptability,
consistency, involvement and mission to influence the constructs on supply chain resilience.
Hereby both mission and core values only indirectly influence resilience via the other cultural
aspects. The findings show interesting findings in how the cultural aspects create mechanisms
such as risk awareness and information availability.
8. Conclusion
This study shows interesting results regarding the role of organizational culture to enhance
supply chain resilience. While literature to date has highlighted the importance of culture and
several cultural aspects in a resilience context, yet no empirical evidence on the influence of
organizational culture on resilience exist. Moreover, a lack of insights in the dynamics and
development of such a culture exists (Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016). By conducting
exploratory interviews this research has been able to provide a holistic view on the concept of
organizational culture within a resilience context. Moreover, new mechanisms and relationships
were identified between organizational culture and supply chain resilience. It was found that in
cultures where organizations focus on the cultural aspects involvement, consistency,
adaptability and mission they were able to increase collaboration, flexibility, velocity and
visibility via mechanisms such as risk awareness, a proactive risk attitude and information
availability. On top of that was shown that some components of these cultural aspects (e.g. core
values) might influence each other. Hereby, insight in the dynamics of organizational culture
in a resilience context is provided (see figure 6.1). Therefore, the results of this study provide a
holistic view on organizational culture in a supply chain resilience context. As such, it gives
other research the opportunity to conduct more research on the topic of culture via some
interesting propositions.
8.1 Managerial implications
Besides above explained theoretical contribution, this study also provides some contribution
for practice. As this study shows, an appropriate organizational culture is essential to enhance
resilience. Companies should therefore understand this and try to create a culture in which they
take into account these aspects. For instance, organizations should create systems that support
the communication and collaboration between different departments to make it possible to
create better information availability in case of a disruption. This will help them to find the best
alternative solution and do this more quickly, hereby improving flexibility and velocity. Next
41
to that, this study shows specific cultural related activities that might help to influence
resilience. For example, organizations should empower employees via participative thinking
and giving them authority and invest the skills of their employees regarding risks via various
forms of training and scenario exercises. On top of that, a proactive attitude towards risks helps
organizations to reduce the impact of supply chain disruptions.
Finally, an appropriate culture seems to be initiated by a mission and core values which
are followed by the organization. This definition of the organization’s purpose is important to
influence the other cultural aspects. It is therefore important for companies to incorporate a
policy regarding supply chain resilience.
8.2 Limitations and future
During the research the researcher did his best to provide a reliable study, even though there
are some limitations to this study. Due to time limitations only 5 organizations and in total 8
interviews were conducted. This limits the generalizability of the results, therefore a
suggestion might be to conduct more quantitative research (e.g. survey research). Another
limitation to this research is the used model: organizational culture is a very complex concept
and many conceptualization exist within literature to date. While the used model provides
insights in the organization’s performance on resilience a comparison with other models to
look for patterns or differences might be useful. Furthermore, literature already has
highlighted the importance of leadership commitment to create a risk management culture
(Christopher & Peck, 2004). However, the used model within this research did not
incorporated leadership. Future research might extend on this by providing more empirical
evidence on how leadership actually support a risk management culture. As last, as supply
chain resilience is mainly a network-wide concept it might be interesting to look how focal
companies can create a culture together with their partners to enhance supply chain resilience.
\
Reference list
1. Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. 2015. Firm's resilience to supply chain
disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. Journal of operations
management, 33: 111-122.
42
2. Adler, N. J., & Jelinek, M. 1986. Is “organization culture” culture bound? Human
Resource Management, 25(1), 73-90.
3. Ashkanasy, N.M., Broadfoot, L.E. and Falkus, S. 2000. Questionnaire measures of
organizational culture. in Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderoom, C.M. and Peterson, M.F.
(Eds). Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate, 131-145, Sage: Thousand
Oaks, CA. 4. Ates, A. and Bititci, U. 2011. Change process: a key enabler for building resilient
SMEs. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18): 5601-5618.
5. Briano, E., Caballini, C. and Revetria, R. 2009. Literature review about supply chain
vulnerability and resiliency. Proceedings of the 8th WSEAS international conference
on System science and simulation in engineering: 191-197. Genova: World Scientific
and Engineering Acadamy and Society (WSEAS).
6. Blackhurst, J., Dunn, K. S. and Craighead, C. W. 2011. An empirically derived
framework of global supply resiliency. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(4): 374-391. 7. Brandon‐Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C. W., & Petersen, K. J. 2014. A contingent
resource‐based perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 50(3), 55-73. 8. Braunscheidel, M. J., Suresh, N. C. and Boisnier, A. D., 2010. Investigating the impact
of organizational culture on supply chain integration. Human Resource Management,
49(5): 883-911. 9. Buckingham, M. and Coffman, C. 1999. First, break all the rules: What the world's
greatest managers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster. 10. Business Continuity Institute. 2016. Supply Chain Resilience 2016 8th Annual Survey,
https://www.thebci.org/resource/supply-chain-resilience-report-2016.html, November,
2018.
11. Business Continuity Institute. 2017. Supply Chain Resilience 2017 9th Annual Survey,
https://www.thebci.org/resource/supply-chain-resilience-report-2017.html, November
2018.
12. Cao, M., Vonderembse, M., Zheng, Q. and Ragu-Nathan, T. S. 2010. Supply chain
collaboration: conceptualisation and instrument development, International Journal of
Production Research, 48(22): 6613-6635.
13. Carvalho, H., Barroso, A. P., Machado, V. H., Azevedo, S. and Cruz-Machado, V.
2012. Supply chain redesign for resilience using simulation. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 62(1): 329-341. 14. Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. 1998. Being different yet
feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture
on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4): 749–780 15. Christopher, M., & Lee, H. 2004. Mitigating supply chain risk through improved
confidence. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
34(5): 388–396. 16. Christopher, M. and Peck, H. 2004. Building the Resilient Supply Chain. The
International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2): 1-14.
43
17. Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H.
2016. The effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 31(3): 361-381.
18. Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B., 2007.
The severity of supply chain disruptions: design characteristics and mitigation
capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38(1), 131-156. 19. Cranfield School of Management. 2003. Creating Resilient Supply Chains: A Practical
Guide. Department of Transport, Cranfield School of Management: Cranfield.
20. Dalton, D., W. Todor, M. Spendolini, G. Fielding, & L. Porter 1980. Organization
Structure and Performance: A Critical Review. Academy of Management Review, 5:
49-64.
21. Daugherty, P. J., Richey, R. G., Roath, A. S., Min, S., Chen, H., Arndt, A. D. and
Genchev, S. E. 2006. Is collaboration paying off for firms? Business Horizons, 49(1):
61-70.
22. De Dreu, C. K., & West, M. A. 2001. Minority dissent and team innovation: The
importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6):
1191.
23. Denison, D. R. 1990. Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New
York, NY: Wiley. 24. Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. 1995. Toward a theory of organizational culture and
effectiveness. Organization science, 6(2), 204-223.
25. Denison, D., Lief, C., & Ward, J. L. 2004. Culture in family-owned enterprises:
Recognizing and leveraging unique strengths. Family Business Review, 17(1), 61-70. 26. Denison, D. R., Janovics, J., Young, J., & Cho, H. J., 2006. Diagnosing organizational
cultures: Validating a model and method. Documento de trabajo. Denison Consulting
Group. 27. Dobni, C. B. 2008. Measuring innovation culture in organizations: The development of
a generalized innovation culture construct using exploratory factor analysis. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 11(4): 539-559. 28. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of
Managment Journal, Academy of Management, 14(4): 532-550. 29. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Graebner, M. E., 2007. Theory building from cases:
opportunities and challenges. The Academy of Managment Journal, Academy of
Management, 50(1): 25-32. 30. Ellram, L. M. 1996. The use of the case study method in logistics research. Journal of
Business Logistics, 17(2): 93–138 31. Faisal, M. N., Banwet, D. K., & Shankar, R. 2006. Supply chain risk mitigation:
modeling the enablers. Business Process Management Journal, 12(4): 535-552. 32. Fey, C. F., & Denison, D. R. 2003. Organizational culture and effectiveness: can
American theory be applied in Russia? Organization science, 14(6), 686-706. 33. Forrester, R. 2000. Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. Academy of
Management Executive, 14(3): 67-80.
44
34. Golgeci, I. and Ponomarov, S. 2013. Does firm innovativeness enable effective
responses to supply chain disruptions? An empirical study. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 18(6): 604-617. 35. Hedberg, B. 1981. How organizations learn and unlearn. Handbook of Organizational
Design, (1), 3-27. 36. Hendricks, K. B. and Singhal, V. R. 2005. An empirical analysis of the effect of supply
chain disruptions on long‐run stock price performance and equity risk of the
firm, Production and Operations management, 14(1): 35-52. 37. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture Consequences: International Differences in Work-
Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 38. Hohenstein, N. O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., and Giunipero, L. 2015. Research on the
phenomenon of supply chain resilience: a systematic review and paths for further
investigation. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 45(1/2): 90-117. 39. Jain, V., Kumar, S., Soni, U. and Chandra, C. 2017. Supply chain resilience: model
development and empirical analysis. International Journal of Production Research,
55(22): 6779-6800.
40. Jamagin, C. and Slocum, J.W. Jr., 2007. Creating corporate cultures through
mythopoetic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3): 288-302.
41. Johnson, N., Elliott, D., and Drake, P. 2013. Exploring the role of social capital in
facilitating supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 18(3): 324-336.
42. Jüttner, U. and Maklan, S. 2011. Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis:
an empirical study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(4):
246-259. 43. Kamalahmadi, M. and Parast, M. M. 2016. A review of the literature on the principles
of enterprise and supply chain resilience: Major findings and directions for future
research. International Journal of Production Economics, 171: 116-133. 44. Kleindorfer, P. R. and Saad, G. H., 2005. Managing disruption risks in supply
chains. Production and operations management, 14(1): 53-68. 45. Knemeyer, A. M., Zinn, W. and Eroglu, C., 2009. Proactive planning for catastrophic
events in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 27(1): 141-153. 46. Kotrba, L. M., Gillespie, M. A., Schmidt, A. M., Smerek, R. E., Ritchie, S. A., &
Denison, D. R. 2012. Do consistent corporate cultures have better business
performance? Exploring the interaction effects. Human Relations, 65: 241–262. 47. Lengnick-Hall, C. A. and Beck, T. E. 2005. Adaptive fit versus robust transformation:
How organizations respond to environmental change. Journal of Management, 31(5):
738-757. 48. Linnenluecke, M. K., Russell, S. V., & Griffiths, A. 2009. Subcultures and
sustainability practices: The impact on understanding corporate
sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(7), 432-452.
49. Linnenluecke, M. K. and Griffiths, A. 2010. Corporate sustainability and
organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(4): 357-366.
45
50. Mandal, S. 2017. The influence of organizational culture on healthcare supply chain
resilience: moderating role of technology orientation. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 32(8): 1021-1037.
51. Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J. T. 2008. Global supply chain risk management strategies.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3), 192-
223. 52. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. 2014. Designing qualitative research. Sage
publications.
53. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M. A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage
Publications. 54. Mintzberg, H., 1989. Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of
organizations. NY: Simon and Schuster. 55. Pereira, R. C., Christopher, M. and Lago Da Silva, A., 2014. Achieving supply chain
resilience: the role of procurement. Supply Chain Management: an international
journal, 19(5/6): 626-642. 56. Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L. and Fiksel, J., 2013. Ensuring supply chain resilience:
development and implementation of an assessment tool. Journal of business
logistics, 34(1): 46-76. 57. Pettit, T. J., Fiksel J. and Croxton, K.L. 2010. Ensuring supply chain resilience:
development of a conceptual framework. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(1): 1-21. 58. Ponis, S. T. and Koronis, E., 2012. Supply Chain Resilience? Definition of concept and
its formative elements. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 28(5): 921-935. 59. Ponomarov, S. Y. and Holcomb, M. C. 2009. Understanding the concept of supply
chain resilience. The international journal of logistics management, 20(1): 124-143. 60. Rice, Jr., J. & Caniato, F. 2003. Building a secure and resilient supply network. Supply
Chain Management Review, 7: 22-30.
61. Ridder, H. G., Hoon, C., & McCandless, A. 2009. The theoretical contribution of case
study research to the field of strategy and management. In Research methodology in
strategy and management: 137-175. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 62. Schein, E. H. 1984. Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan
management review, 25(2): 3-16. 63. Schilke, O. and Cook, K. S. 2014. Sources of alliance partner trustworthiness:
integrating calculative and relational perspectives, Strategic Management Journal, 28
(4), doi: 10.1002/smj.2208. 64. Scholten, K., & Schilder, S. 2015. The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(4): 471-484. 65. Scholten, K., Sharkey Scott, P. and Fynes, B. 2014. Mitigation processes–antecedents
for building supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 19(2): 211-228.
66. Schwartz, H. and Davis, S. M. 1981. Matching corporate culture and business strategy.
Organizational dynamics, 10(1): 30-48. 67. Seville, E., Brunsdon, D., Dantas, A., Le Masurier, J., Wilkinson, S., & Vargo, J. 2008.
Organisational resilience: Researching the reality of New Zealand
organisations. Journal of business continuity & emergency planning, 2(3): 258-266.
46
68. Sharifirad, M. S., & Ataei, V. 2012. Organizational culture and innovation culture:
exploring the relationships between constructs. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 33(5): 494-517. 69. Sheffi, Y., 2005. The resilient enterprise: overcoming vulnerability for competitive
advantage. MIT Press Books, 1. 70. Sheffi, Y. and Rice Jr, J. B. 2005. A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT
Sloan management review, 47(1): 41. 71. Skipper, J. B., & Hanna, J. B. 2009. Minimizing supply chain disruption risk through
enhanced flexibility. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 39(5): 404-427.
72. Smith, R. 2004.Operational capabilities for the resilient supply chain. Supply Chain
Practice, 6(2): 24-35.
73. Stevenson, M. and Spring, M. 2007. Flexibility from a supply chain perspective:
definition and review. International journal of operations & production
management, 27(7): 685-713. 74. Sutton, R. I. 200). Weird ideas that work: 11 1/2 practices for promoting, managing,
and sustaining innovation. New York: Simon and Schuster. 75. Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. 2007. The discipline of market leaders: Choose your
customers, narrow your focus, dominate your market. Basic Books. 76. Trice, H. M. and Beyer, J. M. 1984. Studying organizational cultures through rites and
ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9(4): 653-669. 77. Tukamuhabwa, B. R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., & Zorzini, M. 2015. Supply chain
resilience: Definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study.
International Journal of Production Research, 53(18): 5592–5623.
78. Urciuoli, L., Mohanty, S., Hintsa, J., & Gerine Boekesteijn, E. 2014. The resilience of
energy supply chains: a multiple case study approach on oil and gas supply chains to
Europe. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(1): 46-63. 79. Van Marrewijk, M., & Werre, M. 2003. Multiple levels of corporate
sustainability. Journal of Business ethics, 44(2-3), 107-119.
80. Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. 2002. Case research in operations
management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2):
195-219. 81. Whipple, J. M. and Russell, D. 2007. Building supply chain collaboration: a typology
of collaborative approaches. The International Journal of Logistics Management,
18(2): 174-196. 82. Wieland, A., & Marcus Wallenburg, C. 2013. The influence of relational competencies
on supply chain resilience: a relational view. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(4): 300-320. 83. Wilding, R. 2013. Supply chain temple of resilience. Logistic and Transport Focus,
15(11): 54–59.
84. Xie, S., Helfert, M., Lugmayr, A., Heimgärtner, R. and Holzinger, A. 2013. Influence
of organizational culture and communication on the successful implementation of
information technology in hospitals. International Conference on Cross-Cultural
Design, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg: 165-174.
47
85. Yin, R.K. 2009. Case study research: design and methods, Essential Guide to
Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Londen: Sage Publications.
86. Zamanou, S. and Glaser, S.R. 1994. Moving toward participation and involvement.
Group & Organization Management, 19: 475-502.
87. Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. 2010. Linking organizational culture, structure,
strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge
management. Journal of Business research, 63(7): 763-771.
Appendix A: Interview protocol
Introduction
The thesis project is written on behalf of the study Supply Chan Management at the University
of Groningen. The subject of the thesis is supply chain resilience. Since disruptions (e.g. a fire
at a production plant or the loss of a supplier) are inevitable in today’s turbulent environment,
resilience has gained greater attention. Supply chain resilience can help firms to deal with such
48
disruptions by creating an ability within the chain to anticipate, respond and recover from these
disruptions. However, it is not clear what the influence of organizational cultural factors are on
this, while it might influence the success or failure of a company regarding the prevention and
dealing with risks. That makes me interested in how the organizational culture within your
company is and looks like and what the influence of this on the resilience within your company
is. I would like to ask you for your help in answering some questions during an interview. This
interview will take approximately 45 to 60 minutes of your time. In return I will hand over a
management report with the most important findings of my research.
Interview procedure
For the purpose of this research I would invite you to think about two disruptions your company
(most recently) faced in the past and how you ultimately dealt with it. These questions can be
found on the following pages. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact me! With
your permission, I would like to record the interview for transcription purposes. These audio
files will be available for myself only and will thus not be distributed. More notes about the
procedure can be found in the consent form on the next page. If you have any questions about
that, please contact me too.
Who am I?
I am Maarten Mesu, 23 years old and Supply
Chain Management masterstudent at the
university of Groningen. To finalize this Master
I am conducting this research and write a thesis
report. Thank you in advance for your
participation and if you have any questions left,
please contact me.
Consent form interviews
Researchers name:
Maarten Mesu
Faculty/school department: Faculty of economics and business, University of Groningen
Field of study: Research project on the effect of organizational culture on supply chain resilience
Location of interview:
Company name/function:
Contact details
Researcher Supervisor
Maarten Mesu Kirstin Scholten
[email protected] [email protected]
06-29404875 +31 50 363 3786
49
(Optional) name of interviewee:
Date/time:
Further information: The purpose of this study is to look at the role of organizational culture on supply chain
resilience. To find out the relationship between these concepts I would like to interview
you via a semi-structured interview. For reliability and safety purposes some questions
should be answered, which are below:
1.1 Have enough information been provided about this study?
1.2 Where you able to ask questions and give feedback for the purpose of this study?
1.3 Are you satisfied with all answers you gave within this interview?
1.4 Is it clear for you that you can stop this interview at any time?
Without the need to give a reason why to stop;
Without affecting a possible future relationship with this institute.
1.5 Is it clear to you that the information will be confidential to the researcher only?
1.6 Is it okay that the interview will be recorded for transcription purposes?
1.7 Is it okay for you that the company’s name/your name will be used anonymously within
the main text?
1.8 Is it okay for you that you and your company take part of this study, which means that
the results might be published internally? (Please note: no information can/will be traced
back to you)
1.9 If you have any other questions, preferences or restrictions regarding this interview and
which we should agree upon, please write them down below (this field can be left open
when no other things are important).
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
Signature interviewee: DATE:
Name interviewee:
Signature researcher: DATE:
Interview questions
1. General questions (approximately 5 minutes)
● Can you give a short introduction about your company?
○ Industry, employees, goals, mission/vision, organization structure
● What is your function in the organization?
○ Role, responsibilities, experience, department
● What is your role regarding cultural change?
○ Which activities are you involved to create this change?
50
○ How does the company concern about a culture to enhance resilience?
2. Cultural change/Organizational Culture (OG) (approx. 5 minutes)
● How would you describe the organizational culture within your organization?
○ Horizontal/vertical integration/structures/policies etc.
○ Open/friendly or closed etc.?
○ Relate to risk assessing (absorptive capacity), developing capabilities, change
ability and humanistic orientation?
● Are there any organizational change programs within the organization?
○ How is this facilitated? <relate to leadership, training, information-sharing>
3. Past disruption (approx. 20 minutes)
● Can you recall a certain disruption that your company faced in the past? Which
disrupted the supply chain for a while?
○ E.g. fire at manufacturing plant
● How did the disruption happen and with what effects?
● Did you notice any indications about the disruption before it happened?
○ Who saw the disruption?
○ How did your organization notice the disruption?
● How did your organization deal with the effect?
○ What role played leaders/front line employees in this?
● How does your company gather information about the environment, learn this to
employees and how is this information used? (absorptive capacity)
○ How do you react/anticipate on this information?
● Is there any risk related training provided?
○ If yes, in what way?
○ How does this training contribute to resilience?
● Is any benchmarking/evaluation done about the environment?
● How would you describe the change ability of your company?
○ Flexbile or not? Commitment from the leaders of the company?
○ Confidence how to change?
○ Willing to take risks?
○ Autonomy of employees?
● Did your organization in some way invest in development to make these change
capabilities?
○ Innovation/R&D
● Which human related factors are important?
○ Collaboration/attitudes/participation in decision-making?
○ How do you care for culture?
○ Communication; integration; cooperation; hierarchy; autonomy;
○ Creativity; leadership;
● How did you change the culture after the disruption?
○ In what way?
51
● How would you describe the relation between these cultural traits (absorptive
capacity, development of capabilities etc.) you recently mentioned to the resilience of
your supply chain?
○ Flexibility? -> able to adapt quickly to market changes/disruptions
○ Velocity? -> faster and better response and recovery around disruption?
○ Visibility? -> better sight over supply chain to earlier see when a disruption is
coming
○ Collaboration? -> better inter- and intra organizational collaboration to
enhance above mentioned pillars.
4. Scenario-thinking (approx. 20 minutes)
● Imagine that your company is facing a heavy supply chain disruption (< make
specific for company setting >). E.g. production is not available for a while/fire at
manufacturing plant/problems with delivery from supplier/changing customer
needs/market shifts. How does the organization respond on this and why does the
organization it this way?
● How does the company screen the environment to see such changes?
○ How is this information processed along the organization?
○ How do employees/does the organization think in advance about such
disruptions?
○ How does the organization use external examples?
● How does your organization facilitate learning about risks?
○ Training/education provided? About what?
○ In what way?
● How does the organization create sustainable environment?
○ Innovation/R&D?
● Could you explain how the organization thinks about changing?
○ Risk taking/confidence/vision
● How was the change to these environmental disruption initiated?
○ Frontline employee/leadership
● Which human related factors were important in this change?
○ Collaboration
○ Participation in decision making etc.
● In general, could you relate the above mentioned aspects to each of the SCRES
aspects?
○ Flexibility? -> able to adapt quickly to market changes/disruptions
○ Velocity? -> faster and better response and recovery around disruption?
○ Visibility? -> better sight over supply chain to earlier see when a disruption is
coming
○ Collaboration? -> better inter- and intra organizational collaboration to
enhance above mentioned pillars.
5. Concluding (approx. 5 min)
52
● What cultural aspects are, according to your opinion, essential in enhancing
resilience? Could you try to relate them to flexibility, velocity, visibility and
collaboration?