The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.

htm

Performance implications of transformational supply chain leadership and followership

C. Clifford Defee
Department of Aviation and Supply Chain Management, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA

Transformational SCL and SCF

763
Received March 2009 Revised June 2010 Accepted July 2010

Theodore P. (Ted) Stank

College of Business Administration, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA, and

Terry Esper
Department of Marketing and Logistics, Stokely Management Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop the concepts of supply chain leadership (SCL) and supply chain followership (SCF) from the literature, and propose a theory of leadership in supply chains using a strategy-structure-performance theory framework. Design/methodology/approach Constructs are dened and valid and reliable scales are developed for SCL, SCF, and three structural elements (information availability, communication, and rewards). Proposed SCL and SCF theoretical relationships are tested using data collected from an interactive simulation and analyzed using structural equation modeling. Findings Transformational SCL and SCF are inter-related constructs that can be linked to the creation of the three forms of supply chain structure examined in this research to varying degrees. A nding of signicance is that supply chain follower organizations may actually have greater inuence over operational performance than the supply chain leader. Research limitations/implications This research presents an initial test of supply chain-related constructs not tested in previous research. These represent signicant organizational constructs that may benet future supply chain research efforts. Practical implications Transformational supply chain behaviors of leaders and followers can be perceived and measured. Managers may utilize this knowledge to better understand the type of supply chain relationships their organization should most effectively pursue. Originality/value The paper introduces the concepts of SCL and SCF and empirically tests these concepts and the structural constructs of information availability, communication, and rewards. Keywords Supply chain management, Leadership Paper type Research paper

Introduction The integrated supply chain concept, and the challenges it presents for logistics and supply chain decision makers, has grown in importance over the last 20 years. As such, many rms have placed a signicant emphasis on key elements of supply chain integration, such as sharing information, risks, rewards and joint problem solving (Kahn and Mentzer, 1996, 1998) within and across organizations involved in supply chain exchange. This growth has been accompanied by an increasing focus in the logistics

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management Vol. 40 No. 10, 2010 pp. 763-791 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0960-0035 DOI 10.1108/09600031011093205

IJPDLM 40,10

764

and related supply chain literatures on concepts and processes associated with more effective integration in the supply chain (Goldsby et al., 2006; Markley and Davis, 2007; Stank et al., 2005). Being that a supply chain involves three or more companies directly linked by one or more of the upstream and downstream ows of products, services, nances, and information from a source to a customer (Mentzer, 2001, p. 5), the focus on integration in the literature raises an interesting, yet often unanswered question. Who is responsible for ensuring that integration within the supply chain is effectively implemented and managed? Articles in the academic and trade press often espouse the benets of supply chain integration, primarily emphasizing the operational enhancement and performance optimization opportunities associated with engaging in more integrated exchange with other supply chain entities (Fabbe-Costes and Jahre, 2007; Richey et al., 2009). Such literature is often based on the overarching assumption that integration will emerge organically. While this could be the case, another potential rationale for the adoption and management of integrated supply chains could lie in a largely ignored area the domain of leadership. According to Lambert et al. (1998a, b), supply chains risk devolving into a state of chaos unless one organization steps forward to assume responsibility for strategic supply chain decisions by taking on the leadership role. This perspective suggests that supply chain integration may be partly due to the active leadership and inuence of one organization within the supply chain. Interestingly, however, no theory currently exists that explains how a rm becomes the supply chain leader and maintains that role over time. Moreover, the role and impact of the other follower organizations within the supply chain has been virtually ignored in the context of their alignment and support of the supply chain leader. The notion of an organization becoming the supply chain leader has its roots in behavioral concepts stemming from research in marketing channels (Etgar, 1977). Unfortunately, the term suffers from inconsistent use and lacks a precise denition. The term supply chain leader has been used to describe a rm that outperforms industry competitors (Harrison and New, 2002), a source of industry best practices (Byrne, 2004), and individual thought leaders (Fawcett and Magnan, 2004). A typical description of supply chain leadership (SCL) equates the leaders role with the most powerful, dominant rm in a supply chain (Maloni and Benton, 2000); however, insights from contemporary theories in the leadership literature suggest the domain of leadership is much broader and behavior based, while purely power-based conceptualizations are outdated (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hogg et al., 2003; Hollander, 2009). The purpose of this research, therefore, is to develop and introduce the behavioral concept of SCL to facilitate a better understanding of the organizing mechanisms found among integrated supply chain rms. By leveraging existing theory from outside the discipline (Stock, 1997), conceptual denitions of SCL and supply chain followership (SCF) are presented based on a review of key themes from contemporary theories in the leadership literature. We apply these theories of leadership, originally created at the individual/manager level, at the company level in a supply chain context. More specically, we focus on the concepts of transformational SCL (Bass, 1985) and SCF (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 2004), and investigate their relationship to integrated supply chain structures and supply chain performance (Defee and Stank, 2005). Two research questions guide this inquiry:

RQ1. Does a transformational style of leadership exhibited by a supply chain organization result in the creation of specic structural outcomes in supply chains? RQ2. Do the structural elements found in supply chains led by a transformational supply chain leader result in higher performance? We test these notions using a combined methodological approach of experimental design via a simulated supply chain environment and survey data collected from 253 managers. The manuscript will proceed as follows. First, we briey review the leadership literature and use insights gained to explain the concepts of SCL and SCF. Second, we introduce the conceptual model to be tested in this research and dene each of the concepts found in the model. Transformational leadership theory is used to develop the key concepts of transformational SCL and transformational SCF. Three structural concepts (information availability, communication, and rewards) and two dimensions of supply chain performance (efciency and effectiveness) are also developed in this section along with hypotheses of the relationships between the model variables. Third, the combined simulation and survey methodology used is explained. Next, results of the hypothesis tests are summarized. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of key ndings and comment on signicant implications of the research. Conceptual development Supply chain leadership Leadership has been routinely found to be an important contributor to organizational success and competitive advantage (Bass, 1990; Waldman et al., 2001), with as much as 45 per cent of rm performance attributed to leadership (Day and Lord, 1988). The earliest theories of leadership tended to be leader-centric, emphasizing the special qualities or traits distinguishing leaders from non-leaders (Hunt, 1999). More recently, leadership theories have taken an increasingly holistic, relationship-oriented view that reects the perspective of both the leader and the follower (House and Aditya, 1997), and acknowledge that followers may inuence leader decision making (Kouzes and Posner, 2004). A review of more contemporary leadership literature suggests a number of conceptual themes associated with the dening characteristics of leadership. Leadership is a process of inuencing individuals or groups to achieve group goals (Hoyt and Blascovich, 2003). It involves a group of followers (Hollander, 1993) with whom the leader should form co-inuencing relationships (Kouzes and Posner, 2004), yet the leader is identiable and readily distinguished from those followers on the basis of the behaviors they project (Shamir, 1999). Moreover, leaders form and articulate a vision of the future (Richards and Engle, 1986), often highlighting the need for signicant change to occur (Schein, 1992) when targeting a set of shared goals (Hogg et al., 2003). Summarizing these conceptual themes yields the leadership denition used in this research:
Leadership is a relational concept involving the leader and one or more followers who interact in a dynamic, co-inuencing process. Leaders strive to understand the needs and goals of followers, form and effectively communicate a vision of the future, and project behaviors consistent with achieving the long-term objectives of the organization. Each of these actions reinforces and motivates followers.

Transformational SCL and SCF

765

IJPDLM 40,10

766

The many theories of leadership proposed in the leadership literature have been based on the role of the individual as leader in society or the organization (Bass, 1990; Hollander, 2009; House and Aditya, 1997; Yukl, 2001). Leadership is also found in the macro context of inter-organizational supply chain relationships. This form of leadership found at the rm level is necessary to coordinate the efforts of multiple supply chain organizations (Bowersox and Closs, 1996; Lambert et al., 1998a, b). This research applies leadership theory and concepts originally developed at the individual/manager level to organizations in the supply chain environment. The leadership and followership literature streams provide the conceptual lens to frame the under-researched concept of SCL (Defee et al., 2009). The concept of SCL proposed in this research is based on the four elements of leadership presented previously. First, the essence of leadership in a supply chain is found in the ability of one organization to inuence the actions of another organization. Second, the behaviors projected by the supply chain leader may be seen through its stated policies, and the actions of boundary-spanning personnel. These behaviors allow the supply chain leader to be identied and distinguished from follower organizations. Third, the supply chain leader is the organization that identies the need for change and creates a vision of a better future for the supply chain. Fourth, SCL places the supply chain leader and supply chain followers in a relationship with each organization having the ability to inuence the other (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Grundstien-Amado, 1999; Kouzes and Posner, 2004). Thus, by denition, we propose that SCL is:
[. . .] a relational concept involving the supply chain leader and one or more supply chain follower organizations that interact in a dynamic, co-inuencing process. The supply chain leader is characterized as the organization that demonstrates higher levels of the four elements of leadership in relation to other member organizations (i.e. the organization capable of greater inuence, readily identiable by its behaviors, creator of the vision, and that establishes a relationship with other supply chain organizations).

Supply chain followership Contrasted with the extensive leadership literature, the study of followership has been meager (Chaleff, 2003; Dixon and Westbrook, 2003). But, leadership cannot exist without a willing group of followers (Hollander, 1993) and any description of leadership is incomplete without the complementary concept of followership (Dvir et al., 2002; Kelley, 2004). As with the theories of leadership described in the literature, the concept of followership has been developed and described at the individual level in the literature. This section briey reviews key concepts of individual followership and elevates these to the organization level to establish the denition of SCF. Leadership is important, but the majority of work performed in organizations is a direct result of the contributions of followers (Kelley, 2004). Although the term follower generally carries a negative connotation as a weak, conforming individual who must be told what to do (Banutu-Gomez, 2004), relationship-oriented theories of leadership position followers as critical contributors to the success of the organization (Kouzes and Posner, 2004). Followership in this context identies volitional, value-added behaviors that differentiate proactive high contributors from passive low contributors (Potter et al., 2001). Effective followers have been characterized as acting with integrity based on their own set of beliefs (Lundin and Lancaster, 1990), partnering with leaders to attain shared

goals (Potter et al., 2001), and willingly challenging inappropriate leader behavior that strays from mutually held goals established between leaders and followers (Chaleff, 2003). The value-adding follower is actively engaged and interested in expanding their relationship with leaders, and able to demonstrate critical thinking skills that may lead to the creation of novel solutions (Kelley, 2004; Potter et al., 2001). Considering this denitional dialogue of the followership concept, we propose the following denition of SCF used in this research:
SCF is a relational concept between leader and follower supply chain organizations in which the follower organization exhibits behaviors intended to help the leader organization and the supply chain achieve goals so long as they are aligned with the follower organizations own goals, and the overall vision and long-term objectives of the supply chain.

Transformational SCL and SCF

767

A conceptual model of transformational SCL and SCF Having established the importance of SCL and SCF, and their conceptualization in existing leadership literature, this section presents a conceptual model based upon the widely researched theory of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). The model proposes the relationships between transformational SCL and SCF, supply chain structure and supply chain performance. The theory of transformational SCL is shown as a structural model in Figure 1. Transformational SCL Transformational leadership has been the focus of a signicant research stream in the eld of leadership (a summary of this research may be found in Bass (1999), Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008) and Rowold and Heinitz (2007)). The essence of transformational leadership is found in the leaders ability to transform the hearts and minds of followers to higher levels of motivation and performance than would be expected without the leaders inuence (Bass, 1985; Jung and Avolio, 2000). Transactional leaders are contrasted with transactional leaders. Transactional leaders do not develop long-term relationships and seek to control followers behavior through the use of contingent rewards targeting desired performance outcomes (Avolio et al., 1988; Bass, 1985).

H2a SC leadership H4a H3a

Information availability

H5a H5b SC efficiency

H6a H1 H2b SC followership H3b H4b Rewards H7a H7b Communications H6b

SC effectivenes

Figure 1. Structural model of SCL

IJPDLM 40,10

768

Transformational leaders may be viewed as being positioned opposite transactional leaders on a continuum, with the behaviors exhibited by the leader determining whether the leaders style is more transformational or transactional (Burns, 1978). Three behaviors are most often associated with transformational leaders (Avolio et al., 1999; Hater and Bass, 1988; Howell and Avolio, 1993). Inspiration is the leaders ability to dene a clear sense of purpose through the articulated vision of a desirable future, dening a path for achieving the vision, and setting high performance expectations. Intellectual stimulation is dened as the leader helping followers become more creative and innovative by getting them to question accepted methods of solving problems. Individualized consideration occurs when the leader pays attention to the unique developmental needs of each follower, assists in the learning process, and utilizes special follower skills. Organizations headed by leaders exhibiting such transformational behaviors have consistently been found to be more effective than transactionally led organizations along multiple performance dimensions including overall organization performance (Zeffane, 1994), quality of output (Hoyt and Blascovich, 2003), bottom-line nancial performance (Perry and Proctor, 2000), and follower satisfaction and motivation (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Masi and Cooke, 2000). Hence, supply chain leader organizations that make the strategic choice to adopt the transformational leadership style should behave similarly and yield similar results. We propose, therefore, that transformational supply chain leader organizations provide inspiration by clarifying the purpose and mission of the entire supply chain and encouraging members to buy-in to the leaders direction (Bennis, 1983). This sense of purpose may be based solely on supply chain leader values deemed acceptable by followers, or through a shared set of values established between multiple members. For example, Wal-Marts rapid response in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina may have inspired many of its suppliers to support the ongoing relief effort (Horwitz, 2008). Articulating a vision of an improved future supply chain environment is another important inspirational behavior (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Transformational supply chain leaders provide intellectual stimulation by soliciting new ideas and challenging members to develop creative solutions to supply chain issues (Kouzes and Posner, 2004). An example is Dells brainstorming sessions with suppliers to get new ideas for packaging and recyclability of its products (Hannon, 2010). Supply chain leaders understand that supply chain followers possess distinctive skills and have differing organizational goals. Approaching each relationship independently forms the foundation for individualized consideration behaviors (Sashkin and Burke, 1990). Transformational supply chain leaders know that some follower organizations require coaching to develop required capabilities, while other supply chain followers are already quite capable and want to take on new challenges (Avolio et al., 1999). An example is a sophisticated supplier development program that identies the capabilities and needs of each supplier separately. Transformational SCF Using the denition of SCF presented earlier, it is proposed that supply chain followers can also make the strategic choice to adopt a transformational style. The followership literature suggests four key behaviors that describe the domain of transformational followership; critical thinking, assuming responsibility, collaboration, and commitment

to organizational success (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 2004; Potter et al., 2001). These four behaviors are used to develop the concept of transformational SCF. Transformational supply chain follower organizations think critically about supply chain activities (Kelley, 2004). This may occur as followers champion change initiatives and look for better ways to accomplish inter-organizational processes. Transformational supply chain follower organizations assume responsibility for their own contribution without direction from the supply chain leader (Potter et al., 2001). This includes making consistently sound decisions, executing tasks accurately and on-time, and seeking opportunities to take on additional responsibilities that benet the wider supply chain (Chaleff, 2003; Podsakoff et al., 2000). They develop strong relationships with the supply chain leader and other members. The value placed on collaboration may inuence followers to support the direction and goals established by the leader (Kelley, 2004). Last, the transformational supply chain follower organization demonstrates a commitment to overall supply chain success (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Kouzes and Posner, 1987). Holistic supply chain goals should be aligned with the shared purpose established through the supply chain leaders vision (Chaleff, 2003). Transformational supply chains Supply chains considered in this research include multiple organizations: a supply chain leader and several supply chain follower organizations. Transformational supply chains exist when these organizations exhibit the transformational style of SCL and SCF. Other forms of supply chain, though beyond the scope of this research, include transactional supply chains and mismatched supply chains (e.g. a supply chain consisting of a transformational leader and transactional followers). These supply chains are characterized by all, or some, of the organizations in the supply chain exhibiting transactional leadership and/or followership styles. Translating the view that leadership should be viewed as a co-inuencing process between leader and followers into a supply chain context, the values, goals and rewards shared by a supply chain leader and supply chain followers reinforce supply chain relationships. When supply chain leaders and followers share a common (transformational) style, the co-inuencing relationship between them should be at its strongest (Hogg et al., 2003). Thus: H1. Transformational supply chain leader organizations will be positively correlated with transformational supply chain follower organizations. Supply chain structural outcomes Strategy-structure-performance (SSP) theory suggests an organizations performance can be predicted from the relative alignment of its strategy and the structural elements developed to support the strategy (Galbraith and Kazanjian, 1986; Rumelt, 1974). Several authors have argued that the t between strategy and structure provides an appropriate lens for examining networks of rms such as those found in a supply chain (Chow et al., 1995; Cooper et al., 1997; Stock et al., 1999). Numerous elements of supply chain structure have been described along dimensions such as formalization of norms and rules, centralization of authority, degree of vertical integration, and logistics capabilities (Chow et al., 1995; Stank et al., 2005; Stock et al., 1999). Defee and Stank (2005) reviewed the supply chain SSP literature and summarized structure into ve elements (of which, the latter three are investigated in the current analysis):

Transformational SCL and SCF

769

IJPDLM 40,10

770

standardization, decision making, information integration, communications, and rewards. Standardization and decision making are not considered in this research because these elements were not as clearly developed in the context of the simulation. In line with SSP, we propose that once a rm has made the strategic choice to pursue transformational leadership or followership, the supply chain will develop specic structural outcomes for each of these elements. Information is a critical integrating mechanism in supply chains (Kent and Mentzer, 2003). Information availability is the capability to exchange information with internal and external supply chain members in a timely, responsive and useable format (Defee and Stank, 2005). Transformational supply chain leaders encourage supply chain followers to be innovative and develop improved processes that benet the entire supply chain (Avolio et al., 1999; Bass, 1985). Sharing information across members facilitates this objective (Mentzer, 2004). Transformational supply chain followers take on the responsibility for continuous improvement and utilize critical thinking to create supply chain improvements that benet members (Kelley, 2004). These factors suggest supply chains providing greater information availability, where most, or all, supply chain members have access to supply chain volume and variability information, should be more transformational: H2a. Transformational SCL is positively related to information availability across the supply chain. H2b. Transformational SCF is positively related to information availability across the supply chain. Communication is the glue that holds a supply chain together (Mohr and Nevin, 1990). Trust and relationship closeness is created by consistent communication among supply chain partners (Chu and Fang, 2006; Hutt et al., 2000). Member satisfaction increases with improved quality of communication (Mohr and Spekman, 1994), relationship performance improves with communication frequency (Morris et al., 1998) and integration improves when communication is more informal (Pagell, 2004). Transformational supply chain leaders strive to establish aligned goals to motivate followers and reinforce commitment to supply chain objectives through consistent, informal means of communication ( Johnson et al., 1994; Tickle et al., 2005). Similarly, transformational supply chain leaders routinely seek feedback from followers to ensure leader-follower alignment (Humphreys and Einstein, 2003; Ring and Van De Ven, 1994). Likewise, transformational supply chain followers desire to collaborate should encourage additional informal communication (Kelley, 2004): H3a. Transformational SCL is positively related to greater use of informal communication across the supply chain. H3b. Transformational SCF is positively related to greater use of informal communication across the supply chain. The literature has consistently concluded that supply chain rewards should target holistic performance as opposed to individual rm performance when improvement of overall supply chain performance is the goal (Bowersox et al., 2002; Holmberg, 2000; Lambert and Pohlen, 2001; Mentzer, 2004). Holistic supply chain rewards provide compensation to all members based on overall supply chain performance results rather

than individual organization results. Such reward structures may require managers to sub-optimize their own organizations performance for the good of the supply chain (Bowersox et al., 1999; Cooper et al., 1997), which may explain why few supply chains have instituted such a system and rely instead on rm-specic performance to determine rewards (Brewer and Speh, 2000). Replacing rm-specic goals with supply chain-wide goals requires members to look beyond the needs of their own organization, making the establishment of holistic goals and rewards an expected outcome of supply chains where transformational behaviors predominate. Both transformational supply chain leaders and followers should strive to develop and agree upon holistic rewards that tie back to the vision and mutually held goal structure (Bass, 1985; Kelley, 2004): H4a. Transformational SCL is positively related to the use of holistic reward structures across the supply chain. H4b. Transformational SCF is positively related to the use of holistic reward structures across the supply chain. Supply chain performance An important issue in measuring supply chain performance is the lack of holistic measures spanning all members (Holmberg, 2000), although end-to-end performance improvement is a primary rationale for implementing SCM processes (Bowersox et al., 2002; Lambert et al., 1998a, b; Mentzer, 2004). The present manuscript utilizes holistic measures of supply chain performance along the dimensions of efciency and effectiveness (Mentzer and Konrad, 1991). Supply chain efciency is dened as the measure of how well the resources expended are utilized (Mentzer and Konrad, 1991) and may be equated with the ability of the supply chain to provide the required level of service at the lowest cost (Mentzer, 2004). Supply chain effectiveness is the extent to which goals are accomplished (Mentzer and Konrad, 1991). Transformational supply chain leaders and followers should create structures that produce highly efcient and effective supply chain performance (Hoyt and Blascovich, 2003), primarily through the information sharing, informal communication, and holistic reward structures that are characteristics of transformational supply chain networks (Defee and Stank, 2005). When information is shared across multiple supply chain members, rms have the data necessary to proactively address demand variability and supply constraints (Kaipia and Hartiala, 2006), therefore minimizing safety stock requirements. This leads to more efcient operations for each rm. Greater availability of information allows rms to be prepared and staffed adequately to deal with changing customer demand patterns and service requirements (Emerson et al., 2009). This produces more effective, service-oriented performance: H5a. The greater the information availability exhibited in the supply chain the greater the efcient performance of the overall supply chain. H5b. The greater the information availability exhibited in the supply chain the greater the effective performance of the overall supply chain. The supply chain leader and followers are expected to develop closer, more collaborative relationships when informal communication is present ( Johnson et al., 1994). Informal communication promotes tighter inter-organizational integration (Pagell, 2004) and should result in more efcient and effective supply chain performance:

Transformational SCL and SCF

771

IJPDLM 40,10

H6a. The greater the use of informal communications exhibited in the supply chain the greater the efcient performance of the overall supply chain. H6b. The greater the use of informal communications exhibited in the supply chain the greater the effective performance of the overall supply chain.

772

Because processes are evaluated holistically in transformational supply chains (rather than as a series of dyadic exchanges), greater visibility to overall inefciencies is provided (Brewer and Speh, 2000). The emphasis on holistic goals and rewards motivates transformational supply chain leaders and followers to work collaboratively to create innovative process improvements (Hater and Bass, 1988). A collective improvement approach should result in more effective processes because the best thinking of multiple organizations is part of the design: H7a. The greater the holistic rewards established in the supply chain the greater the efcient performance of the overall supply chain. H7b. The greater the holistic rewards established in the supply chain the greater the effective performance of the overall supply chain. Research methodology As supply chains are complex, dynamic environments, the results of any supply chain research risks being confounded by extraneous factors. To address the concern over extraneous factors, interactive simulation was chosen as the appropriate research method to afford the greatest precision of results for the SCL, SCF, structure and performance phenomena being studied (Kerlinger and Lee, 2000). Simulation is an appropriate research method when precision is a more important criterion than generalizability or realism to the objectives of the research (McGrath et al., 1982). The supply chain value game (Stank, 2003), an interactive participant simulation used in executive education courses at several US universities, was used in this research to provide a controlled supply chain environment. Simulation outcomes are determined by participants interactions within the context of the game environment. In the game, each participant is assigned a role in one of several organizations in a supply chain. Each organization is responsible for a supply chain function such as raw materials supplier, inbound logistics, manufacturing, warehousing, outbound logistics, or end customer. The structure of the game and participant roles are shown in Figure 2. A typical simulation involves three suppliers (red, yellow, blue), up to seven transportation companies (T1-T7), one manufacturer, one distributor, and three end customers (A, B, C). The simulation includes seven decision periods, each three minutes in length. During the game participants attempt to optimize performance based on the conditions presented within the scenario. Customers place large or small orders based upon random selection criteria (i.e. cards with differing order values are shufed prior to beginning the simulation and drawn throughout the game by customer participants). Customer orders are placed once per decision period, and all supply chain entities must react within the specied time frame. The arbitrary ordering patterns drive production, shipment expediting, and inventory level decisions across each of the upstream organizations as order quantities are passed from customers to

Suppliers

Inbound transportation

Outbound transportation

Customers

Transformational SCL and SCF

Red T1 Mfg Distributor T5

773
Yellow T2 Plant DC T6 B

T3 Blue

T4

T7 C

Figure 2. Supply chain value game structure

the distribution center, and forecasted quantities drive manufacturing, materials management and procurement activities. Two runs of the simulation were conducted with each group of participants. In the rst run of the game, participants were instructed to focus on their own activities, thus limiting their interaction with upstream and downstream participants. The rst run served to acclimate participants to the simulation environment and the instructions were intended to encourage the creation of a transactional supply chain environment. The second run of the game was administered in a way that would facilitate and induce the creation of a transformational supply chain environment. Specically, during a 60-minute break between the two runs participants were given the opportunity to design improved processes and identify ways to share information across rms. This manipulation of both runs of the simulation experience was pre-tested, and was found to adequately support the exhibition of transactional leadership and followership behaviors in run 1 and transformational leadership and followership behaviors in run 2. The effectiveness of the manipulation was conrmed by the signicant difference found between the two runs for both the SCL and SCF constructs ( p # .001). Table I summarizes the results of these tests. At the conclusion of each run of the simulation, participants completed a survey asking them to respond to questions related to their experience in the simulation.

Mean SCL test of signicance Transactional group (run 1) Transformational group (run 2) Difference SCF test of signicance Transactional group (run 1) Transformational group (run 2) Difference 2.23 3.70 1.47 2.79 3.99 1.20

SD 1.08 0.90 1.10 0.82

Condence interval Upper Lower t-value 2.09 3.59 2.65 3.89 2.36 3.82 16.072 2.93 4.10 13.461

p-value

# 0.001 Table I. Tests of mean differences (run 1 vs run 2)

# 0.001

IJPDLM 40,10

774

In particular, the survey was designed to capture the characteristics of the exchange environment as a means of validating the efcacy of the transformational environment manipulation and testing the proposed hypotheses. In addition, the concept of SCL was claried as the company in the simulation that most inuenced the actions of other companies in the game prior to administering the survey. This was emphasized to clarify to participants that identication of the supply chain leader was based on their own experience in the simulation and the behaviors they saw take place in the context of the exchange. For each participant, the organizations not identied as the supply chain leader were considered supply chain followers. Data collection The sample consisted of 253 executives, managers and senior analysts, most having several years of supply chain experience[1]. These participants were generated from 12 separate simulation applications conducted during executive education sessions offered through a major state university in the USA. Experience in the supply chain environment was believed to be valuable because it ensured participants had a frame of reference useful for making supply chain decisions in the game. However, participant responses were based solely on their experience in the simulation rather than any previous work experiences. Immediately prior to administering the survey participants were verbally instructed to answer survey questions based solely on their experience in the simulation run they had just completed. These instructions were reiterated on the cover sheet of the survey itself. As questions arose from participants while the survey was being completed the lead researcher directed the participant to base their answers on their experience in the just-completed simulation run. Responses to individual questions were announced to the entire participant group. This process ensured that participants were guided to answer the survey based on their simulation experience. Experienced supply chain executives and managers accounted for 72 per cent of the sample with the remaining 28 per cent occupying analyst roles. About 58 per cent of participants had held supply chain positions for at least six years, with another 24 per cent working in supply chain roles for two to six years. Participants represented all supply chain echelons, with retailer (45 per cent), distributor (26 percent) and transportation company (10 per cent) most frequently reported; others included suppliers (6 per cent), manufacturers (5 per cent), and 3PLs (4 per cent). Study participants worked for companies of varying sizes, with 60 per cent of the sample representing rms with revenue of $5.0-$9.9 billion. A total of 249 post-simulation surveys were collected. Non-response bias was not considered an issue since over 98 per cent of participants completed the survey. Participants were asked to skip questions concerning behaviors they did not observe in the simulation. This instruction reduced the problem of forcing responses where no basis for answering existed, but probably resulted in an increase in missing data, with 6.8 per cent of the total possible data points left unanswered. The majority of missing data were contained in 15 surveys with more than 25 per cent of the items left unanswered. These cases were dropped, leaving a dataset for analysis containing 234 cases. Missing data accounted for 1.4 per cent of possible responses in the reduced dataset. The expectation-maximization algorithm in SPSS 15.0.1 was used to estimate and replace missing values (Dempster et al., 1977). Comparison of means between the original and reduced datasets showed no signicant differences.

Scale development Measurement scales were developed following the process outlined by Churchill (1979), Dunn et al. (1994) and Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Each scale included a combination of items from existing scales (reworded to facilitate the shift in focus to the organization) and newly developed items created to ensure full coverage of the construct domains. Scale items are shown in Table II. A ve-point Likert scale was used and participants were instructed to answer each item based on the frequency they observed actions taking place in the simulation experience ranging from Not at all (1) to Frequently, (5). A high average score on an item translates to a hypothesized transformational outcome, while a low score represents a more transactional result. Transformational SCL. SCL occurs within a co-inuencing relationship between a supply chain leader and one or more supply chain follower organizations. SCL accrues to the organization able to exert the greater inuence over other supply chain members in order to increase follower compliance with and commitment to the leaders vision for the entire supply chain. The domain of SCL includes the dimensions of inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. SCL is operationalized as supply chain manager perceptions of the supply chain leader organizations degree of inuence as a result of the transformational behaviors of inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. The rened seven-item SCL scale was created from a combination of items developed by the authors and items adapted from the multifactor leadership questionnaire (Avolio and Bass, 2004). Transformational SCF. SCF is found in organizations capable of less inuence than the supply chain leader, in which the supply chain follower exhibits proactive inter-organizational behaviors intended to help the extended supply chain achieve its goals. The domain of SCF includes the dimensions of critical thinking, assuming responsibility, collaboration, and commitment to supply chain success. SCF is operationalized as supply chain manager perceptions of the supply chain follower organizations ability to demonstrate transformational followership through the behaviors of critical thinking, assuming responsibility, collaboration, and commitment to supply chain success. The rened ten-item SCF scale was created from a combination of items developed by the authors and items adapted from the followership style questionnaire (Kelley, 1992). Information availability. INF is dened as the degree to which information is available to effectively support supply chain activities. It is operationalized as supply chain manager perceptions of the amount of information available to multiple organizations in the supply chain. High scores on the scale represent greater information availability throughout the supply chain; lower scores represent less information being made available to organizations in the supply chain. The rened four-item INF scale was created from a combination of items developed by the authors and items adapted from the logistics quality and logistics exibility scales (Fawcett et al., 1997). Communication. COM is the degree to which formal versus informal communications mechanisms are used to send and receive information between supply chain members. It is operationalized as supply chain manager perceptions of the supply chain leaders use of formal versus informal communication methods. High scores on the scale represent a greater use of informal communication; low scores represent a greater use of formal communication with only limited informal communication being present. The rened four-item COM scale was created from a combination of items developed by the

Transformational SCL and SCF

775

776

IJPDLM 40,10

Construct Item 0.92 0.70 0.80 0.78 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.81 0.70 0.71 0.83 0.82 0.85 0.85 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.83 0.49 0.50 0.69 0.67 0.71 0.72 0.63 0.68 0.70 0.69 0.66 0.95 0.95 65 0.61 0.63 0.64 0.61 0.64 0.49 0.92 61

SCL

SCF

Table II. Measurement scales and construct validity Std item loading Sq. mult. corr. Construct reliab. Coeff. Alpha AVE (%) Highest shared variance (%) 47 47 (continued)

My supply chain leader[. . .] Articulates a compelling vision of the supply chains future Claries the central purpose underlying actions of all supply chain members Seeks differing perspectives from my company when solving problems Gets my company to look at problems from many different angles Asks my company to contribute ideas for improving supply chain problems Helps my company develop supply chain execution strengths Encourages my company to continually improve its supply chain skills My company[. . .] Independently thinks up new ideas that contribute to supply chain goals Champions the need for change in the supply chain Builds a record of success in tasks important to the supply chain leader Seeks out and completes assignments that go above and beyond whats required Makes sound decisions that benet the entire supply chain Works hard to support the supply chain leaders goals Develops a network of relationships with other supply chain members Strives to accomplish goals that have been mutually dened with the supply chain leader Demonstrates commitment to overall supply chain success Contributes at a high level when not in a leadership position

Construct Item 0.93 0.84 0.87 0.91 0.86 0.88 0.79 0.82 0.87 0.73 0.80 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.86 0.91 0.94 0.89 0.62 0.66 0.69 0.94 0.74 0.82 0.89 0.80 0.94 81 7 0.64 0.54 0.88 0.88 65 52 0.76 0.66 0.62 0.87 65 0.75 52 0.83 0.76 0.71 0.92 76 47

Std item loading

Sq. mult. corr.

Construct reliab.

Coeff. Alpha

AVE (%)

Highest shared variance (%)

INF

COM

REW

OPP

In this supply chain[. . .] My company possesses the information needed to minimize customer complaints My company possesses the information needed to handle unexpected events My company possesses the information needed to effectively plan supply chain tasks My company possesses the information needed to accurately fulll customer orders In this supply chain[. . .] The supply chain leader communicates with my company on a predetermined schedule My company must report status to the supply chain leader each period The supply chain leader requires my company to comply with their reporting schedule My company frequently discusses issues informally with the supply chain leader In this supply chain[. . .] All supply chain members are rewarded for working together to meet customers needs Performance evaluation is partly based on end-customer feedback Rewards are based in part on integration of objectives across all supply chain member rms My company is compensated based on how well it meets overall supply chain goals In this supply chain[. . .] Other rms alter the facts to get what they want Other rms exaggerate their needs to get what they want Other rms breech agreements to their own benet Other rms are not always sincere

777

Transformational SCL and SCF

Table II.

IJPDLM 40,10

778

authors and items adapted from several previously published communication formality scales (Li and Dant, 1997; Menon et al., 1997; Mohr et al., 1996). Rewards. REW is the degree to which compensation is distributed to supply chain members based upon rm-centric versus holistic supply chain goals and performance. It is operationalized as supply chain manager perceptions of performance goals and associated rewards as primarily rm-centric or holistic. Higher scores on the scale represent a greater use of holistic rewards used throughout the supply chain; lower scores represent greater use of rm-specic rewards. The rened four-item REW scale was created from a combination of items developed by the authors and items adapted from the rewards systems scale (Mollenkopf et al., 2000). The initial pool of 139 items developed across all scales was reduced in two steps to form the nal survey instrument. Initially, 12-subject matter experts reviewed the items in terms of item specicity, representativeness, readability and face validity (Mentzer and Flint, 1997). This was an iterative process resulting in the re-wording of six items and elimination of 20 items. The resulting 119-item survey was then pilot tested with 25 simulation participants, who were not part of the nal sample. Pilot test results were examined for inter-item reliability using coefcient alpha. Elimination of the poorest performing items produced the 86-item survey used for nal data collection. All scales exceeded the recommended 0.70 cutoff value for alpha (Churchill, 1979). Results Evaluation of measures AMOS 7 was the structural equation modeling (SEM) software used for data analysis. The two-step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was followed by initially evaluating the measurement model then estimating the a priori structural model. Conrmatory factory analysis (CFA) was used to determine construct validity, including testing for unidimensionality, reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity (Garver and Mentzer, 1999). Because of the large number of items used in the survey, a CFA was rst performed on each scale independently to facilitate scale purication. Later CFA models combined scales until the complete measurement model containing all constructs was examined. The structural model was considered only after the measurement model demonstrated good t. Scales were evaluated for item loadings of the expected direction, statistical signicance (a # 0.05), with standardized parameter estimates of at least 0.70 to ensure unidimensionality and convergent validity (Hulland et al., 1996). Standardized residuals greater than 2.00 and modication indices larger than ten were used to identify candidate items for deletion (Medsker et al., 1994; Steenkamp and van Trijp, 1991). Using these criteria, 29 items were retained, including a seven-item SCL scale, ten-item SCF scale and four-item scales for INF, COM, and REW. Scale reliability was conrmed with coefcient alpha greater than 0.87, SEM construct reliability greater than 0.88, and average variance extracted (AVE) greater than 61 per cent for each construct in both participant groups (Garver and Mentzer, 1999). Overall, t of the measurement model was good (x 2 1,235.59 at 758 degrees of freedom, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.04, comparative t index (CFI) 0.96, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) 0.95). Discriminant validity was assessed three ways. First, MacKenzie et al. (2005) recommend intercorrelations among the constructs be less than 0.70. All pairs of constructs met this cut-off, except for the intercorrelation between COM and REW (0.72).

Second, a series of nested models were specied constraining the covariance between each pair of constructs to one (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). All x 2 difference tests were signicant ( p # 0.05) indicating the distinct theoretical constructs provided better t. Third, Fornell and Larcker (1981) advocate comparing the AVE for each construct to the shared variance between all possible pairs of constructs. AVE exceeded shared variance in each case. These tests provide overall support for discriminant validity among the constructs. Table II provides a summary of the construct validity analysis. Common method bias may confound results when measures are obtained from the same source (Campbell and Fiske, 1959). A construct not theoretically related to any other constructs in the research was included to test for common method bias (Lindell and Whitney, 2001). The marker variable selected was Opportunism (OPP) and was adapted from the scale used by Moore and Cunningham (1999). OPP measures the extent to which supply chain members take advantage of a relationship for their own benet. The OPP construct demonstrated convergent validity, discriminant validity and reliability, with all item loadings in the expected direction, above 0.70, and statistically signicant (a # 0.05). Construct reliability and coefcient alpha were greater than 0.94. AVE was 81 per cent and exceeded shared variance. Common method bias was assessed by comparing a model allowing all ve substantive constructs to load onto one second-order factor to a similar model that also included OPP loading onto the second-order factor. The model excluding OPP demonstrated better t, and in the alternate model all paths, except the path to OPP, were signicant ( p # 0.001). The results support a conclusion that common method bias did not exist in this research.

Transformational SCL and SCF

779

Overall, structural model t Figure 3 shows a summary of the maximum likelihood estimates and tests of signicance for the hypothesized relationships. The structural model demonstrated good overall t (x 2 1,545.85 at 870 degrees of freedom, RMSEA 0.04, CFI 0.94, TLI 0.93). All of the path weights between SCL, SCF and the structural constructs (INF, COM, REW) were signicant ( p # 0.001).

0.07 SCL 0.32 *** 0.68 *** 0.65 *** SCF 0.31 *** 0.41 ***

INF 0.04 0.03 COM 0.07

0.25 *** Efficient

Effective 0.22 ** 0.00 REW

0.48 ***

Note: Statistically significance at: * = 0.05 level, ** = 0.01 level and *** = 0.001, levels

Figure 3. Standardized path weights for transformational group

IJPDLM 40,10

780

Hypothesis testing Results of the measurement model indicated that the behaviors associated with transformational supply chain leaders (inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) signicantly described the domain of transformational SCL. The measurement model resulted in the creation of a valid and reliable seven-item scale that distinguished among SCL styles on the basis of the presence (transformational SCL) or absence (transactional SCL) of these behaviors. The measurement model results also conrmed that the behaviors associated with transformational supply chain followers (critical thinking, assumption of responsibility, collaboration, and commitment to supply chain success) described the domain of SCF. The measurement model resulted in the creation of a valid and reliable ten-item scale that distinguished among SCF styles via the presence of the transformational SCF behaviors. H1 through H7 were tested using the structural model in Figure 1. H1 was supported ( p # 0.001). The covariance weight (0.68) is signicant, conrming that SCL and SCF are highly inter-related in the transformational network environment. The results for H2a and H2b contained an interesting result. The path strength for H2a was not signicant while the path for H2b was signicant ( p # 0.001), suggesting SCF was the primary driver of information availability. H3a and H3b were both supported as expected ( p # 0.001). SCL and SCF both contributed to more informal communications between members in the transformational supply chain environment. Likewise, H4a and H4b were both supported ( p # 0.001), thus linking transformational SCL and SCF with holistic rewards. Among the most surprising results were the performance-related outcomes. Performance was determined by capturing objective data produced from the simulation. Efcient performance was determined by calculating the percentage of total shipments requiring expediting across all supply chain entities. Effective performance was measured by calculating the percentage of perfect orders. H5a, H6a and H7a tested the paths from the three structural elements to efcient performance. H5b, H6b and H7b tested the paths from the three structural elements to effective performance. Efcient performance had signicant paths from information availability (H5a, p # 0.001) and rewards (H7a, p # 0.01). Since SCL did not signicantly inuence information availability, and the SCL to reward (0.32) path weight showed a much lower value than the SCF to reward path weight (0.48), the results indicated that SCF is the greater contributor to efcient performance in the transformational supply chain environment. The paths leading to effective performance were all insignicant. The unexpected performance outcomes found in this research may stem from multiple causes. First, it is possible that mixing the measures of data collection may inuence the relationships being tested (i.e. the use of perceptual scales of SCL, SCF, INF, COM, and REW based upon survey data combined with objective measures for effective performance and efcient performance based upon simulation outcomes). Second, the majority of past supply chain studies investigating performance have utilized rm-specic performance rather than supply chain-wide performance (Brewer and Speh, 2000; Lambert and Pohlen, 2001). Firm-specic performance was not captured in this research, so it is not known whether performance at the rm level may have been more conclusively linked to information availability, rewards, and communication. Third, the limited duration of the simulation may have prevented the creation of processes that are signicantly more effective. Finally, the choice of performance

metrics may have inuenced the insignicant results in this part of the model. For example, perfect order is a widely used metric (Lapide, 2007), but the use of this metric may have contributed to the insignicant result in unexpected ways. Discussion and implications This research provides a starting point for understanding the concepts of SCL and SCF and their impact on supply chain structural and performance outcomes. The theory outlined is distinct from previous descriptions of SCL because it looks at the leaders role holistically by incorporating the behaviors and inuence of all supply chain members. It must be pointed out that the conclusions described in this section should not be broadly generalized. This research is necessarily exploratory and the method used (simulation) does not lend itself to drawing generalizable conclusions. The implications described are intended to highlight our view of the most interesting and important results. We suggest these represent logical areas for future research. Managerial implications Although leadership has been presumed to be a signicant contributing factor to performance (Bass, 1990), an important nding of this investigation is that followers may have the potential to signicantly inuence supply chain outcomes, and in a transformational network SCF may be the primary factor. This is supported by the lack of a signicant result for SCL on information availability, and the positive results of SCF to all structural outcomes. In transformational networks, supply chain follower organizations may be more willing to take a larger role. Thus, managers in supply chain leader organizations that recognize the presence of transformational behaviors across the supply chain may want to provide supply chain follower organizations the opportunity to contribute ideas and make decisions that have an effect on structural development (e.g. process change) and/or are provided with holistic performance reward criteria. This appears to be especially true when greater information sharing is desired to facilitate activities across multiple organizations. Followers contribution to supply chain performance may be underappreciated despite taking on and accomplishing the majority of supply chain tasks due to their greater numbers (Dixon and Westbrook, 2003). Managers wanting to attain supply chain-wide performance goals, while using transformational behaviors, may want to emphasize the role of follower organizations. Supply chain leaders may nd improved efciency when followers share information and help establish holistic rewards. Implications for researchers Theories of business, and specically theories in the supply chain realm, often have their roots in other disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, or sociology (Stock, 1997, 1996). The theory of SCL examined in this research is founded principally on theories developed in the leadership eld. A contribution of SCL theory is that it is based on the ndings of dozens of studies into the behavior of leaders in a social or organizational context. These individual behaviors have been elevated and applied at the organization level in this research. There is an ongoing need for new theory to explain supply chain relationships and predict supply chain outcomes, and researchers interested in understanding complex, inter-organizational behavior may benet from borrowing theory originally applied to individuals.

Transformational SCL and SCF

781

IJPDLM 40,10

782

The results of our research determined that SCL should be viewed as a reective construct, i.e. an intransient concept that is innate in an organization and reected by the dimensions of its domain, namely the degree to which it exercises inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. The same logic applies to our ndings regarding SCF. The implication is that SCL and SCF are fundamental concepts themselves and the behaviors that exist in a supply chain reect the underlying leadership and followership styles of the organizations. Future research using the SCL and SCF scales is needed to conrm our conclusion that SCL and SCF are basic to the DNA of each organization and as such cannot be easily altered. Defee and Stank (2005) portrayed ve elements of supply chain structure culled from previous SSP literature. Although extensively described, empirical research into supply chain structure is minimal. The ndings of this research demonstrate structural elements can be perceived by participants and measured effectively. Past SSP research has consistently shown the causal connection between structure and performance. The mixed ndings of this research indicate supply chain researchers should continue to investigate the SSP linkage in the complex supply chain environment. Interactive simulations have not been used often in supply chain research. This type of simulation, such as the supply chain value game used in this research, may offer a fresh source for data collection when traditional survey research methods are not appropriate (Bendoly et al., 2006). Real-world supply chains are very complex and the potential for confounding interactions increases when compared to typical single rm, or even dyadic, research. A simulation provides control over the complexities found in the real world (McGrath, 1982), allowing the researcher to focus on the constructs of interest. As stated previously, precision was a more important criterion than generalizability or realism to the objectives of this research. When precision is a primary goal of research, managers and researchers should not generalize the ndings beyond the boundary of the study (McGrath et al., 1982). Additional research, using other methods and seeking other goals, is necessary to extend the ndings and draw broader conclusions. Expanding the survey beyond the simulation to the real-world experiences of supply chain managers should allow for greater generalizability of future ndings. A rst step is to administer the survey to managers from multiple companies in a single supply chain, or across multiple supply chains. This approach may be best facilitated in supply chains with an inuential supply chain leader able to convince supply chain partners to participate. Under this approach the ndings may serve as a diagnostic tool for the supply chain leader and interested supply chain followers to assess the network style present in the supply chain. Comparing ndings across several supply chain environments may identify network style variations beyond the purely transformational or transactional styles considered in the simulation.
Note 1. The sample described is for the second run of the simulation (i.e. the transformational environment). References Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review of the two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.

Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (2004), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Manual and Sampler Set, 3rd ed., Mindgarden, Palo Alto, CA. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-62. Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A. and Einstein, W.O. (1988), Transformational leadership in a management game simulation, Group and Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 59-80. Banutu-Gomez, M. (2004), Great leaders teach exemplary followership and serve as servant leaders, The Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 143-51. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdills Handbook of Leadership, The Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1999), Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-26. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Bendoly, E., Donohue, K. and Schultz, K.L. (2006), Behavior in operations management: assessing recent ndings and revisiting old assumptions, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 737-52. Bennis, W. (1983), Transformative leadership, Harvard University Newsletter, April 7. Bowersox, D.J. and Closs, D.J. (1996), Logistical Management: The Integrated Supply Chain Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Cooper, M.B. (2002), Supply Chain Logistics Management, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Stank, T.P. (1999), 21st Century Logistics: Making Supply Chain Integration a Reality, The Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL. Brewer, P.C. and Speh, T.W. (2000), Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain performance, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 75-95. Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Byrne, P.M. (2004), Closing the gap between strategy and results, Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 27-8. Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959), Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56, pp. 81-105. Chaleff, I. (2003), The Courageous Follower, 2nd ed., Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Chow, G., Henrikssen, L.E. and Heaver, T.D. (1995), Strategy, structure and performance: a framework for logistics research, Logistics & Transportation Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 285-99. Chu, S.-Y. and Fang, W.-C. (2006), Exploring the relationships of trust and commitment in supply chain management, Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 224-8. Churchill, G.A. (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73. Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997), Supply chain management: more than a new name for logistics, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Day, D.V. and Lord, R.G. (1988), Executive leadership and organizational performance: suggestions for a new theory and methodology, Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 453-64.

Transformational SCL and SCF

783

IJPDLM 40,10

784

Defee, C.C. and Stank, T.P. (2005), Applying the strategy-structure-performance paradigm to the supply chain environment, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 28-50. Defee, C.C., Stank, T.P., Esper, T.L. and Mentzer, J.T. (2009), The role of followers in supply chains, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 65-84. Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M. and Rubin, D.B. (1977), Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-38. Dixon, G. and Westbrook, J. (2003), Followers revealed, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 19-25. Dunn, S.C., Seaker, R.F. and Waller, M.A. (1994), Latent variables in business logistics research: scale development and validation, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 145-72. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a eld experiment, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 735-44. Emerson, D., Zhou, W. and Piramuthu, S. (2009), Goodwill, inventory penalty, and adaptive supply chain management, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 199 No. 1, pp. 130-8. Etgar, M. (1977), Channel environment and channel leadership, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-76. Fabbe-Costes, N. and Jahre, M. (2007), Supply chain integration improves performance: the emperors new suit?, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 835-55. Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2004), Ten guiding principles for high-impact SCM, Business Horizons, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 67-74. Fawcett, S.E., Stanley, L.L. and Smith, S.R. (1997), Developing a logistics capability to improve the performance of international operations, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 101-27. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50. Galbraith, J.R. and Kazanjian, R.K. (1986), Strategy Implementation: Structure, Systems, and Process, West Publishing Company, St Paul, MN. Garver, M.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1999), Logistics research methods: employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 33-53. Goldsby, T.J., Grifs, S.E. and Roath, A.S. (2006), Modeling lean, agile, and leagile supply chain strategies, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-80. Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-47. Grundstien-Amado, R. (1999), Bilateral transformational leadership: an approach to fostering ethical conduct in public service organizations, Administration and Society, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 247-60. Hannon, D. (2010), Dell leverages supplier expertise for green packaging solution, Purchasing, Vol. 139 No. 1, pp. 12-13. Harrison, A. and New, C. (2002), The role of coherent supply chain strategy and performance management in achieving competitive advantage: an international survey, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 263-71.

Hater, J.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), Supervisors evaluations and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 695-702. Hinkin, T.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (2008), A theoretical and empirical examination of the transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ), Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 501-13. Hogg, M.A., Martin, R. and Weeden, K. (2003), Leader-member relations and social identity, in van Knippenberg, D. and Hogg, M.A. (Eds), Leadership and Power, Sage, London. Hollander, E.P. (1993), Legitimacy, power and inuence: a perspective on relational features of leadership, in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Hollander, E.P. (2009), Inclusive Leadership: The Essential Leader-Follower Relationship, Routledge, New York, NY. Holmberg, S. (2000), A systems perspective on supply chain measurements, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 847-68. Horwitz, S. (2008), Making hurricane response more effective: lessons from the private sector and the coast guard during Katrina, Mercatus Policy Series (Policy Comment No. 17), The Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Washington, DC. House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. (1997), The social scientic study of leadership: Quo vadis?, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 409-73. Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 891-902. Hoyt, C.L. and Blascovich, J. (2003), Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual and physical environments, Small Group Research, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 678-715. Hulland, J., Chow, J.Y.H. and Lam, S. (1996), Use of causal models in marketing research: a review, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 181-97. Humphreys, J.H. and Einstein, W.O. (2003), Nothing new under the sun: transformational leadership from a historical perspective, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 85-95. Hunt, J.G. (1999), Transformational/charismatic leaderships transformation of the eld: an historical essay, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 129-44. Hutt, M.D., Stafford, E.R., Walker, B.A. and Reingen, P.H. (2000), Dening the social network of a strategic alliance, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41. Johnson, J.D., Donohue, W.A., Atkin, C.K. and Johnson, S. (1994), Differences between formal and informal communication channels, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 111-22. Jung, D.I. and Avolio, B.J. (2000), Opening the black box: an experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 949-64. Kahn, K.B. and Mentzer, J.T. (1996), Logistics and interdepartmental integration, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 6-14. Kahn, K.B. and Mentzer, J.T. (1998), Marketings integration with other departments, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 53-62. Kaipia, R. and Hartiala, H. (2006), Information sharing in supply chains: ve proposals on how to proceed, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 377-93. Kelley, R.E. (1992), The Power of Followership, Doubleday-Currency, New York, NY.

Transformational SCL and SCF

785

IJPDLM 40,10

786

Kelley, R.E. (2004), Followership, in Goethals, G.R., Sorensen, G. and Burns, J.M. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Kent, J.L. and Mentzer, J.T. (2003), The effect of investment in interorganizational information technology in a retail supply chain, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 155-75. Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000), Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th ed., Harcourt College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX. Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B. (1987), The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B. (2004), A prescription for leading in cynical times, Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 20 No. 11, pp. 1-7. Lambert, D.M. and Pohlen, T.L. (2001), Supply chain metrics, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-19. Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998a), Supply chain management: implementation issues and research opportunities, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-19. Lambert, D.M., Stock, J.R. and Ellram, L.M. (1998b), Fundamentals of Logistics Management, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. Lapide, L. (2007), Not so perfect order, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 7-8. Li, Z.G. and Dant, R.P. (1997), An exploratory study of exclusive dealing in channel relationships, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 201-13. Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-21. Lundin, S.C. and Lancaster, L.C. (1990), The importance of followership, The Futurist, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 18-22. McGrath, J.E. (1982), Dilemmatics: the study of research choices and dilemmas, in McGrath, J.E., Martin, J. and Kula, R.A. (Eds), Judgment Calls in Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. McGrath, J.E., Martin, J. and Kula, R.A. (1982), Some quasi-rules for making judgment calls in research, in McGrath, J.E., Martin, J. and Kula, R.A. (Eds), Judgment Calls in Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Jarvis, C.B. (2005), The problem of measurement model misspecication in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 710-30. Maloni, M. and Benton, W.C. (2000), Power inuences in the supply chain, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 49-73. Markley, M.J. and Davis, L. (2007), Exploring future competitive advantage through sustainable supply chains, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 763-74. Masi, R.J. and Cooke, R.A. (2000), Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate motivation. Empowering norms, and organizational productivity, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 16-47. Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. and Holahan, P.J. (1994), A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research, Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 439-64. Menon, A., Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1997), Product quality: impact of interdepartmental interactions, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 187-200. Mentzer, J.T. (Ed.) (2001), Supply Chain Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Mentzer, J.T. (2004), Fundamentals of Supply Chain Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Mentzer, J.T. and Flint, D.J. (1997), Validity in logistics research, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 199-216. Mentzer, J.T. and Konrad, B.P. (1991), An efciency/effectiveness approach to logistics performance analysis, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 33-63. Mohr, J. and Nevin, J.R. (1990), Communication strategies in marketing channels: a theoretical perspective, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 36-51. Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conict resolution techniques, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-52. Mohr, J.J., Fisher, R.J. and Nevin, J.R. (1996), Collaborative communication in interrm relationships: moderating effects of integration and control, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 103-15. Mollenkopf, D., Gibson, A. and Ozanne, L. (2000), The integration of marketing and logistics functions: an empirical examination of New Zealand rms, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 89-112. Moore, K.R. and Cunningham, W.A. (1999), Social exchange behavior in logistics relationships: a shipper perspective, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 103-21. Morris, M.H., Brunyee, J. and Page, M. (1998), Relationship marketing in practice, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 359-71. Pagell, M. (2004), Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations, purchasing and logistics, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 459-87. Perry, K.W. and Proctor, S.B. (2000), The New Zealand Leadership Survey, Centre for the Study of Leadership, Victoria University, Wellington. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKinsie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-42. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-63. Potter, E.H., Rosenbach, W.E. and Pittman, T.S. (2001), Followers for the times, in Rosenbach, W.E. and Taylor, R.L. (Eds), Contemporary Issues in Leadership, 5th ed., Westview Press, Cambridge, MA. Richards, D. and Engle, S. (1986), After the vision: suggestions to corporate visionaries and vision champions, in Adams, J.D. (Ed.), Transforming Leadership, Miles River Press, Alexandria, VA. Richey, R.G., Chen, H., Upreti, R., Fawcett, S.E. and Adams, F.G. (2009), The moderating role of barriers on the relationship between drivers to supply chain integration and rm performance, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 826-40. Ring, P.S. and Van De Ven, A.H. (1994), Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 90-118. Rowold, J. and Heinitz, K. (2007), Transformational and charismatic leadership: assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 121-33. Rumelt, R.P. (1974), Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Transformational SCL and SCF

787

IJPDLM 40,10

788

Sashkin, M. and Burke, W.W. (1990), Understanding and assessing organizational leadership, in Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds), Measures in Leadership, Center for Creative Leadership, West Orange, NJ. Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Shamir, B. (1999), Leadership in boundaryless organizations: disposable or indispensable?, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 49-71. Stank, T.P. (2003), Value chain game facilitator manual, Knoxville, TN: Self-published. Stank, T.P., Davis, B.R. and Fugate, B.S. (2005), A strategic framework for supply chain oriented logistics, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 27-45. Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and van Trijp, H.C.M. (1991), The use of Lisrel in validating marketing constructs, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 283-99. Stock, J.R. (1996), The social sciences and logistics: some suggestions for future exploration, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 1-26. Stock, J.R. (1997), Applying theories from other disciplines to logistics, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Nos 9/10, pp. 515-39. Stock, G.N., Greis, N.P. and Kasarda, J.D. (1999), Logistics, strategy and structure, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 29 Nos 3/4, pp. 37-52. Tickle, E.L., Brownlee, J. and Nailon, D. (2005), Personal epistemological beliefs and transformational leadership behaviors, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 706-19. Waldman, D.A., Ramirez, G.G., House, R.J. and Puranam, P. (2001), Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and protability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 134-43. Yukl, G.A. (2001), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Zeffane, R.M. (1994), Correlates of job satisfaction and their implications for work redesign a focus on the Australian telecommunications industry, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 23, pp. 61-76.

Appendix

Mean 3.83 3.60 3.62 3.63 3.72 3.75 3.76 3.95 3.81 3.91 3.96 3.95 4.06 4.06 3.97 4.21 4.02 4.09 4.05 4.12 4.20 3.66 3.46 3.54 3.77 3.92 3.89 3.81 3.85 1.03 1.04 1.10 1.11 1.21 1.16 1.09 1.03 1.06 1.03 0.94 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.94 0.93 1.03 0.99 0.93 0.96 0.94 1.23 1.33 1.25 1.12 1.05 1.14 1.17 1.18

SD

Q5 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q13 Q17 Q20 Q37 Q41 Q43 Q45 Q47 Q50 Q51 Q54 Q56 Q59 Q62 Q63 Q64 Q65 Q68 Q69 Q70 Q71 Q77 Q79 Q80 Q82

789

Transformational SCL and SCF

Table AI. Item descriptive statistics

790

IJPDLM 40,10

Q5 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q13 Q17 Q20 Q37 Q41 Q43 Q45 Q47 Q50 Q51 Q54 Q56 Q59 Q62 Q63 Q64 Q65 Q68 Q69 Q70 Q71 Q77 Q79 Q80 Q82 0.64 0.65 0.40 0.45 0.44 0.37 0.41 0.41 0.45 0.36 0.47 0.38 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.33 0.34 0.38 0.42 0.33 0.41 0.42 0.65 0.42 0.45 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.47 0.42 0.48 0.47 0.45 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.32 0.41 0.39 0.40 0.45 0.48 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.36 0.49 0.50 0.43 0.54 0.51 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.48 0.44 0.38 0.41 0.36 0.39 0.38 0.44 0.45 0.56 0.43 0.47 0.51 0.61 0.60 0.58 0.60 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.55 0.58 0.46 0.51 0.55 0.50 0.30 0.28 0.23 0.39 0.40 0.29 0.33 0.27 0.64 0.65 0.63 0.57 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.41 0.43 0.46 0.39 0.31 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.33 0.38 0.37 0.74 0.70 0.71 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.66 0.46 0.54 0.57 0.56 0.42 0.37 0.37 0.48 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.73 0.67 0.60 0.66 0.65 0.70 0.36 0.45 0.46 0.40 0.40 0.36 0.35 0.42 0.48 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.71 0.68 0.69 0.71 0.69 0.50 0.52 0.56 0.49 0.38 0.34 0.39 0.45 0.53 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.72 0.73 0.68 0.71 0.43 0.42 0.49 0.49 0.41 0.39 0.37 0.44 0.48 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.61 0.63 0.71 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.38 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.48 0.39 0.47 0.41 0.69 0.64 0.42 0.43 0.48 0.52 0.47 0.43 0.37 0.40 0.51 0.48 0.48 0.44 0.72 0.48 0.49 0.53 0.55 0.32 0.26 0.38 0.42 0.51 0.47 0.45 0.52 0.47 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.44 0.49 0.44 0.49 0.45 0.71 0.75 0.76 0.40 0.35 0.33 0.35 0.55 0.38 0.45 0.52 0.81 0.72 0.44 0.37 0.37 0.44 0.59 0.44 0.43 0.51 0.78 0.47 0.35 0.39 0.45 0.59 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.43 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.53 0.43 0.46 0.47 0.70 0.68 0.54 0.46 0.43 0.50 0.45 0.74 0.48 0.40 0.45 0.48 0.45

Table AII. Item correlations

0.63 0.46 0.49 0.59 0.50 0.48 0.50 0.57 0.48 0.64 0.66 0.44 0.66 0.68 0.68

Q5

Q9

Q10 Q11 Q13 Q17 Q20 Q37 Q41 Q43 Q45 Q47 Q50 Q51 Q54 Q56 Q59 Q62 Q63 Q64 Q65 Q68 Q69 Q70 Q71 Q77 Q79 Q80 Q82

0.59 0.54 0.54 0.55 0.53 0.64 0.28 0.35 0.40 0.34 0.41 0.38 0.32 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.37 0.36 0.40 0.46 0.44 0.30 0.38 0.38

0.67 0.66 0.62 0.64 0.60 0.40 0.39 0.46 0.41 0.48 0.44 0.40 0.44 0.46 0.43 0.36 0.40 0.39 0.36 0.41 0.39 0.41 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.45 0.37

0.66 0.64 0.56 0.61 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.50 0.40 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.33 0.40 0.35 0.31 0.35 0.40 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.35 0.41 0.35

0.68 0.57 0.60 0.41 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.48 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.32 0.35 0.33 0.26 0.34 0.41 0.35 0.39 0.35 0.30 0.37 0.30

Transformational SCL and SCF

Mean SCL SCF INF COM REW 3.70 3.99 4.11 3.61 3.87 SD 0.90 0.82 0.86 1.05 0.98

791
Table AIII. Construct descriptive statistics

SCL SCL SCF INF COM REW 0.637 0.454 0.559 0.567

SCF

INF

COM

REW

0.642 0.535 0.616

0.498 0.618

0.646

Table AIV. Construct correlations

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints