How Supply Chain Managers Develop Agile Capability Strategies in the Workforce
MGMT 7073 - Human Resource Management
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Adapting effectively to change remains a primary area of concern in organizations
that operate in environments of rapid change (Gigliotti et al., 2019). Managing change is
no longer a matter of planning around discrete, linear steps to create and implement new
processes (Lawrence, 2015). Rapid advances in technology, transportation,
communication, and shifting consumer patterns have resulted in more significant
variability in marketplace demands (Harsch & Festing, 2020). As such, change
management is evolving due to the complexities of managing through the considerable
ambiguity that results from disruptive, transformational change (Braun et al., 2017).
Supply chain managers must develop coherent change management strategies to account
for this increase in complexity affecting change management functions in organizations.
Responsibilities for managing change are functions of both human resource management
practices (Harsch & Festing, 2020; Raeder & Bokova, 2019) and leadership practices
(Hartge et al., 2019; Nold & Michel, 2016; Yue et al., 2019). As the role of managing
change shifts from structured, linear planning to adapting to rapid, disruptive changes,
understanding how human resource management practices are shifting and how
leadership practices are shifting may inform how improvements can be made in change
management practices.
One contributor to the struggles in adapting effectively to rapid market and
technology changes is a lack of an agile workforce (Qin & Nembhard, 2015). Therefore,
one strategy for building capabilities around managing change may be found in building
agile capabilities in the organization (Nagel & Dove, 1991; Raeisi & Amirnejad, 2017).
Both human resource management practices (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2017; Ghasemi et al.,
2016) and leadership practices (Muduli, 2017) impact agile capabilities in the workforce.
Building an understanding of the roles of human resource management and leadership
practices in developing agile capabilities in the workforce may improve change
management capabilities in organizations that operate in complex change environments.
Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of my research, an introduction to critical
concepts in the study, and the research problems, and then describes the general and
specific management problems and research purpose. Chapter 1 continues with the
research question, the conceptual framework, and a section dedicated to the nature of the
study. The remainder of Chapter 1 covers definitions, assumptions, the scope and
delimitations, the limitations, the significance, and a summary.
Background of the Study
Business leaders must anticipate, strategically plan for, and respond to accelerated
competition, rapidly changing customer demands, and technological advances (Marques,
2015). These changes in intensity and scope of competition, rates of change, and
continuous threats of marketplace disruptors contribute to an intensifying need to lead
change more effectively. Marques (2015) posited that as market pressures have increased
rapidly, expectations of organizational leaders have shifted dramatically. A new capability
expected in leadership is positioning organizations to adapt effectively to complex change
(Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). The cost of not adapting effectively to change is high, with at
least half of change initiatives failing to achieve identified initiative goals and timelines
(Marques, 2015; Rogiest et al., 2015).
One area where the pressures of complex change are evident in the 21st Century is
the supply chain (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2017). Supply chain leaders are under pressure to
engage in complex change initiatives due to constant advances in technology,
communication, transportation, and globalization (Sambartolo, 2015). As external
pressures force supply chain leaders to grapple with managing rapid, complex change, the
roles of human resource management (Teimouri et al., 2017) and leadership (Marques,
2015) are evolving rapidly within organizations. More than half of leaders surveyed in
2016 indicated they could not adapt to shifting strategies and goals within their
organization (Braun et al., 2017). The role of leadership in managing change has focused
on leaders’ abilities to build readiness for change in followers and commitment to change
in followers (Raeder & Bokova, 2019). While building readiness for change and
commitment to change were identified as essential leadership skills in planned, managed
change situations, research has not identified how leaders can effectively influence
followers during complex change initiatives.
One way to adapt to continuous, complex change is by building agile capabilities
(Brusset, 2016). Developing better organizational agile capabilities may position
organizations to capitalize quickly on emerging market opportunities (Uhl-Bien & Arena,
2018). Building agile capabilities within the organizational structure may also position
organizational leaders to successfully manage complex change (Nold & Michel, 2016).
Organizational agility can be achieved by building agile capabilities within the
workforce (Braun et al., 2017; Sherehiy & Karwowski, 2014). Workforce agility
contributes to profitability, market share, productivity, innovation, and competitiveness in
uncertain environments (Al-kasasbeh et al., 2016; Muduli, 2017). Workforce agility has
been defined as the ability of workers to use their skills, experience, and intelligence to
respond effectively to internal and external changes affecting the organization
(Alkasasbeh et al., 2016). Many researchers have investigated factors contributing to
agile capabilities in the workplace (Ghasemi et al., 2016; Muduli, 2017; Sherehiy &
Karwowski, 2014).
While building agile capabilities leads to competitive advantages, it comes at a
cost that organizations must consider (Teece et al., 2016). Supply chain managers must
determine how organizational resources will be directed toward building agile
capabilities. Advancing research into how effective strategies can be designed for
implementing agile capabilities in the workforce may support supply chain managers in
managing costs associated with agile capability development. Supply chain managers that
devise cost-effective strategies for building agile capabilities in their workforce may build
competitive advantages for their organization through the elevation of the human capital
capabilities in the organization.
Muduli (2017) posited that organizational practices, including learning, training,
compensation, involvement, teamwork, and information systems, account for significant
variance in workforce agility within organizations. These practices fall under the duties of
both leaders and human resource management practitioners (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2017;
Ghasemi et al., 2016; Muduli, 2017). Human resource management practices that support
learning, training, employee involvement, and teamwork can impact the development of
agility in the workforce (Muduli, 2017). While human resource management practitioners
are responsible for the processes in organizations related to capabilities development
through learning and training functions, research has not clarified how leaders contribute
to the development of agile capabilities in the workforce (Alavi et al., 2014). Supply
chain managers may respond effectively to complex change by identifying practical ways
to leverage human resource management practices and leadership practices in supply
chain operations that support agile capabilities in the workforce.
Leroy et al. (2018) asserted that more qualitative research is needed to explore
how leadership and human resource management practices function together in
organizations. Research had not yet identified how supply chain managers build agile
capabilities in the workforce. I investigated how supply chain managers develop
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. My aim was to identify any
considerations for the role of human resource management practices, change leadership
practices, or change management practices in how supply chain managers develop
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Exploring the considerations given
to human resource management practices, change leadership practices, and change
management practices related to building agile capabilities in the workforce may improve
how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Problem Statement
A study conducted at MIT found that organizations with strong agile capabilities
increased revenue 37% faster and achieved 30% higher profits than non-agile
organizations (Dattero et al., 2017). Benefits of agile workforce capabilities in
organizations include improved profitability, market share, productivity, innovation, and
competitiveness in uncertain environments (Al-kasasbeh et al., 2016; Muduli, 2017). The
general management problem is that organizational executives are experiencing
increasingly complex challenges to manage change through the development of agile
capabilities (Brusset, 2016; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). The specific management problem
is that supply chain managers do not have coherent strategies to develop agile capabilities
in the workforce (Cai et al., 2018; Muduli, 2017).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative, exploratory multiple case study was to explore
how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Agile capabilities in the workforce are those things that position the workforce to adapt
and respond effectively to continuous or complex change (Breu et al., 2001). Al-kasasbeh
et al. (2016) described workforce agility as the ability of workers to use their skills,
experience, and intelligence to respond to internal and external changes that affect the
organization.
I expanded research on how supply chain managers develop strategies to advance
agile capabilities in the workforce through this research study. Understanding how supply
chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce may help
practitioners in continuous and complex change environments formulate cohesive
strategies to build agile capabilities. The value of the information I gathered in my
investigation into how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce provides insights into how supply chain managers can
advance human capital capabilities in their organization.
Research Question
How do supply chain managers develop strategies for building agile capabilities in
the workforce?
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework that grounded this study included resource-based view
theory and leader-member exchange theory. Resource-based view theory asserts that
competitive advantages can be built by creating resources that are inimitable, valuable,
un-substitutable, and rare (Wright & McMahan, 1992). These resources may include
systems, processes, technology, human capital, or other resources. Investments into
organizational resources that strategically build capabilities can be made to tailor an
organization’s abilities, leading to desired outputs. In this study, I focused on human
capital resources in creating rare, inimitable, un-substitutable, and valuable resources.
Leader-member exchange theory in this study informed how operational leaders who
execute strategic change initiatives influence capability development in the workforce
(Tariq et al., 2014).
The primary concepts of this research study were agile workforce capabilities,
change leadership, human resource management, and supply chain. These concepts were
examined in the context of managing change within an environment of complex and
continuous change. The gap in literature I explored was how supply chain managers
develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Factors examined that may
influence the level of agile capabilities in the workforce included human resource
management and change leadership. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework
involved in the literature gap I explored in this study.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework of Workforce Agility
Note. Conceptual framework examining concepts linked to agile capabilities at the
individual level identified in prior research. Framework is based on research of Alavi et
al. (2014), Muduli, (2017), Qin and Nembhard, (2015), and Sherehiy and Karwowski
(2014).
Change Management
Change in organizations may occur through extensive planning, implementation,
and systems of controls, or change may occur through rapid responses to disruptors,
pressures, or unexpected opportunities. Models of planned change include Lewin’s model
of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing (Lewin, 1946), Kotter’s 8-step model (Kotter,
1995), and Hiatt’s (2006) ADKAR model. The task of change management is evolving
due to the complexities of managing through significant ambiguity during change (Braun
et al., 2017). In complex or continuous change environments, these static models of
change management may not suffice in achieving desired outcomes (Appelbaum et al.,
2017). I aimed to understand the role change management models may play in how
supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Agile Workforce Capabilities
Qin and Nembhard (2015) posited that developing agile capabilities in the
workforce may be a way to achieve desired outcomes in environments of complex or
continuous change. I explored how supply chain managers develop strategies to build
agile capabilities in the workforce. Alavi et al. (2014) defined agile workforce capabilities
as the way employees manage and react to change through adaptive behaviors to changes
(p. 6264). Both Alavi et al. (2014) and Sherehiy and Karwowski (2014) presented a
model of agile workforce capabilities in which agile workforce capabilities is comprised
of proactivity, adaptability, and resilience. This model of workforce agility informed the
research design of this study. Flexibility (Muduli, 2017) and responsiveness (Qin &
Nembhard, 2015) are also components of workforce agility that inform this research
study. The connections among the concepts contributing to workforce agility are seen in
Figure 1. Data collection and analysis were informed by the components of workforce
agility in this model.
Change Leadership
Workforce agility is examined in consideration of the role of leadership in change
management. Leadership is viewed as a tool in change management in this study,
specifically as a factor influencing how workforce agility is developed as an
organizational capability. Raeisi and Amirnejad (2017) identified leadership as “the
ability to influence others to achieve organizational goals” (p. 1162). Organizations are
experiencing rapid change and thus need to develop agile capabilities to keep pace with
the rapidly changing environment. Alavi et al. (2014) identified leadership support as an
antecedent to organizational agility. Abrell-Vogel and Rowold (2014) found that leader
attitudes toward change and leader behaviors during change influence employees’
attitudes toward change.
Leader-Member Exchange Theory
Leader-member exchange theory takes the influence of the relationship between
leader and follower one step further, asserting that the attitude and behavior of the leader
influence the attitude and the behavior of the follower. Leader-member exchange theory
also posits a relationship between leader-employee interaction and performance (Arif et
al., 2017). I anticipated both the attitude and the behavior of the change leader would
influence the attitude and the behavior of the follower, in line with Abrell-Vogel and
Rowold’s (2014) research findings and with leader-member exchange theory. Therefore,
the collection and analysis of data in this study were informed by leader-member
exchange theory.
Human Resource Management
Human resource management practices is another factor that may influence the
degree to which workforce agility is developed as an organizational capability. I explored
human resource management through human capital theory and resource-based view
theory. Research has found that human resource management practices have a role in
agile capabilities in the workforce (Muduli, 2017). Supply chain managers informed data
collection and analysis to human resource management practices in developing strategies
to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Organizational Agility
Organizational agility has been identified as an ability to respond effectively to
lasting change (Nold & Michel, 2016) impacting organizational performance (Baninam &
Amirnejad, 2017). The adaptive capacity of organizations’ teams, systems, and processes
determines how much change a system or organization can process (Bushe, 2017).
Building agile capabilities within the workforce is one way that supply chain managers
may expand the amount of complex change their business system can adapt to in
continuous or complex change environments. Braun et al. (2017) identified an agile
workforce as an important component of an organization. The concepts of workforce
agility, change management, change leadership, and human resource management within
an environment of complex and continuous change are explored further in Chapter 2. The
specific environment of difficult and constant change for this study was the supply chain
industry.
Nature of the Study
I used a qualitative exploratory, multiple case study research design to examine
how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Three study methods are available in academic research: qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed-methods designs (Frankfort-Nachmias et al., 2016). Qualitative research is an
appropriate method when exploring phenomena through the participants’ perspective
(Marshall & Rossman, 2016). This type of research is used when exploring how
phenomena emerge and take shape. Quantitative research is appropriate when the
research aimed to generate and analyze empirical data regarding relationships among or
within phenomenon to explore cause and effect relationships (Barnham, 2015). Mixed
methods research is used when the aim of the researcher is both to explore phenomenon
as it occurs and to generate empirical data related to the research phenomenon.
For this study, qualitative research aligned with my investigation into how the
phenomenon of workforce agility emerges and takes shape within organizations.
Qualitative research allowed me to explore how supply chain managers develop strategies
to build agile capabilities in the workforce. The research aimed to understand how supply
chain managers develop strategies to achieve agile capability outcomes in continuous or
complex change environments.
Case study design is appropriate in qualitative research when studying a
phenomenon within a specific context (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Yin (2018) asserted
a multiple case study design is suitable when individual cases will be analyzed to identify
points of intersection in the research findings and conclusions. A multiple case study
design allowed for exploring how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile
workforce capabilities in continuous or complex change environments.
I collected data using semistructured interviews of supply chain managers in
industries experiencing complex or continuous change. I used semistructured interviews
to explore how supply chain managers develop strategies to develop agile capabilities in
the workforce. Interview questions centered around how supply chain managers include
tools, systems, and human capital resources in the development of strategies to build agile
capabilities within the workforce, how supply chain managers perceive their
contributions to building agile capabilities in the workforce, and additional factors that
play a role in how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in
the workforce. The strategies I used to collect data were completed in a manner that
complied with the ethical expectations outlined in available directives that have been
created to support proper research methods involving human participants.
Definitions
Terms important to this study include adaptability, agility, flexibility, human
resource management, leadership, organizational agility, proactivity, resilience,
responsiveness, supply chain agility, supply chain, and workforce agility.
Adaptability: making adjustments to oneself or to one’s behaviors to align with
changes in the environment (Braun et al., 2017, p. 705).
Agility: The ability to engage in effective action within complex change
(WziątekStaśko & Chabińska-Rossakowska, 2015). The ability to identify opportunities
and initiate actions that position one to capitalize on identified opportunities, leveraging
cognitive re-framing to think about obstacles and problem solve in new ways (Braun et
al., 2017, p. 707).
Change Leadership: Change leadership for the purposes of this study is defined as
the attitudes, skills, and behaviors of leaders responsible for leading and managing
complex or continuous change in the workforce.
Change Management: “the process of continually renewing an organization's
direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and
internal customers,” (Moran & Brightman, 2000, p 66).
Flexibility: Strategies developed to implement in the event of alternative,
projected outcomes (Qin & Nembhard, 2015).
Human Resource Management: The policies, systems, and management actions
that produce human capital value through activities of recruiting, staffing, talent
development, performance appraisal, compensation and incentives, training, and
workplace culture development (Teimouri et al., 2017).
Leadership: The act of influencing, guiding, and directing followers to
collaboratively achieve specific objectives (Gandolfi & Stone, 2016).
Organizational agility: The creation of competitive advantages through the
establishment of collaborative, strategic organizational procedures that involve
continuously creating and adapting practices in close alignment with the changing
business environment (Brusset, 2016).
Proactivity: positive initiative within an environment experiencing change to
successfully manage the change (Braun et al., 2017, p. 705).
Resilience: Organizational level: The ability of systems to maneuver through
disruptions while preserving routines and processes that support continual adaptation to
changes, uncertainty, and disruptors (van der Vegt et al., 2015).
Resilience: Individual level: transitioning emotionally and psychologically in
stressful situations, including change (Braun et al., 2017, p. 707).
Responsiveness: identifying and planning for external changes, then reshaping
strategy and taking swift action (Muduli, 2017, p. 50).
Supply Chain Agility: The ability to sense change, respond quickly, and respond
flexibly (Eckstein et al., 2015).
Supply Chain: the process of moving a product through its lifecycle, from
production to consumption (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2017, citing Blanchard, 2010).
Workforce Agility/Agile Workforce Capabilities: The ability of workers to use their
skills, experience, and intelligence to appropriately respond to internal and external
changes affecting the organization (Al-kasasbeh et al., 2016). An early definition in
research literature identified workforce agility as responsiveness in environments that are
turbulent and dynamic (Breu et al., 2001).
Assumptions
Assumptions are the things a researcher assumes to be true in order for the
researcher to investigate the research problem identified (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019). The
assumptions include those things which the researcher may not be able to substantiate but
are such fundamental factors that they can safely be assumed. Leedy and Ormrod (2019)
explained that the assumptions identified should be those factors that contribute to the
importance of the study.
For this qualitative multiple case study, I assumed organizational executives have
a structured method for assigning responsibilities to supply chain manager for developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. I also assumed supply chain
managers have the needed resources to develop strategies to build agile capabilities
within the workforce. Further, I assumed some supply chain managers might consider
change management practices, human resource management practices, and leadership
practices when developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. The
assumption that some supply chain managers might consider human resource
management practices in developing strategies to build agile capabilities was informed by
resource-based view theory. Resource-based view theory identifies human capital as a
critical resource to developing competitive advantages (Wright & McMahan, 1992).
The assumption that some supply chain managers might consider leadership
practices in developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce was based
on leader-member exchange theory. Leader-member exchange theory posits that the
interaction between change leaders and followers influences change outcomes (Arif et al.,
2017). I assumed that organizations are motivated to build competitive advantages
through supply chain change initiatives. These assumptions were reasonable as they were
grounded in research and necessary to further build on research and extend knowledge to
inform future practices related to building agile capabilities in the workforce.
Additionally, I assumed participants would be truthful and open in the
semistructured interviews. I assumed I would have access to approximately six supply
chain managers with experience developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the
workforce. I also assumed participants would understand and respond to interview
questions, for example, describing how they consider the role of human resource
management practices in building agile capabilities in the workforce.
Scope and Delimitations
Scope describes the concepts and ideas explored in the research study (Leedy &
Ormrod, 2019). Leedy and Ormrod (2019) noted that delimitations refer to the things not
included within the scope of the research study. The scope and delimitations are linked to
the general and specific management problems of this study.
The scope of this study was to explore how supply chain managers develop
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. The scope included considerations
related to connections between change leadership and the development of agile
capabilities in the workforce and between human resource management practices and the
development of agile capabilities. To investigate connections among human resource
management practices, leadership practices, and agile capabilities in the workforce within
complex or continuous change environments, I explored these connections in an industry
experiencing significant change: the supply chain industry.
Delimitations are the boundaries a researcher sets for a research study. A
delimitation I set for this study was examining continuous or complex change initiatives.
The scope of this investigation centered on managing change by building agile
capabilities in the workforce in environments of continuous or complex change.
Situations of limited, short-term change were not included in this research study to keep
the study’s boundaries within environments of constant or difficult change.
Participants selected for this study were limited to management responsibilities
that include developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. All
participants included in this study were 18 years or older. To capture the complexity of
change, participants selected for this study were limited to individuals who have been
responsible individually or as part of a team for developing agile capabilities in the
workforce at least once. Participants selected for this study were also limited to
individuals engaged in strategy development within the previous 3 years.
With this study, I aimed to explore the practices associated with developing
strategies to build agile capabilities described by supply chain managers. I did not intend
to capture managers’ perspectives outside of the supply chain involved in any processes
related to building agile capabilities in the workforce. This focus on the described
practices of supply chain managers implies only one perspective has been captured
through this research. Additional research would need to be conducted to capture the
described practices of managers outside of the supply chain in developing strategies to
build agile capabilities in the workforce in environments of continuous or complex
change. The transferability of the results of this study were impacted by how well rich
details of supply chain managers were captured in my documentation.
Limitations
While delimitations note what is not covered within the scope of a research study
due to researcher decisions, limitations are those things a researcher cannot mitigate but
may impact the quality of the research study results (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019). A
limitation of this study was the bias I brought through my personal experiences working
in supply chain environments and any beliefs regarding the research concepts that shaped
how I formulated my research questions, interpreted answers, or drew conclusions related
to the research results. Hein and Austin (2001) shared that researchers are responsible for
separating their prior knowledge, assumptions, and biases related to the research
phenomenon from the study data. Hein and Austin asserted that this process starts by
reflecting on the researcher’s natural attitude about the world (pg. 6).
I bracketed my personal experiences and beliefs to identify the perspective I
looked at the research through. Journaling potential biases helped me maintain awareness
of and mitigate assumptions or biases that may impact how I applied meaning to the
research data. This study was also limited by the lack of verification of the scope of
strategy development experience of each participant related to the strategic development
incidents each participant will draw from to answer the interview questions. I relied on
each participant to accurately relay from memory the details of the strategic initiatives
they were involved in and the processes they followed to develop strategies for building
agile capabilities in the workforce (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019).
Another limitation of this study was the lack of transferability to the general
population through the case study design. In multiple case study research, participants are
recruited through purposeful sampling (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019) rather than through
random sampling. Case study investigation explores a unit of inquiry for a specific
population that is expected to be experiencing the phenomenon being investigated, so
individuals with that specific life experience are sought. Inquiry through purposeful
sampling is limited to those believed to be experiencing the phenomenon of interest;
therefore, the research results are not generalizable to the larger population (Palinkas et
al., 2015). Additionally, limitations of this study included a small sample size. A small
sample size also impacts the generalizability of the research presented. However, the
sample size was appropriate for the research methodology and design.
Significance of the Study
Supply chain performance within the organization may significantly impact
overall organizational performance (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2017). Accelerated
competition, rapidly changing customer demands, and technological advaces are pushing
supply chain leaders to anticipate, strategically plan for, and respond to complex change
through agile practices (Brusset, 2016). Daryanto and Krämer (2016) identified the
components of supply chain agility as responsiveness, competency, flexibility and
adaptability, and quickness and speed. This study contributed to the current literature on
supply chain agility by capturing how supply chain managers described developing
strategies for building agility in the workforce, shedding light on if and how supply chain
managers described using human resource management practices to support their efforts
to develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
The findings of this study create awareness regarding the role human resource
management practices, change leadership practices, and change management practices
hold in aiding supply chain managers in developing strategies to build agile capabilities
in the workforce. Understanding how supply chain managers involve considerations of
human resource management practices to develop strategies to build agile capabilities in
the workforce may improve how organizations design human resource management
practices to support change management efforts. Understanding how supply chain
managers involve considerations of change leadership practices to develop strategies to
build agile capabilities in the workforce may improve how organizations design change
leadership practices to support change management efforts. Understanding how supply
chain managers involve considerations of change management practices to develop
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce may improve how organizations
design change management practices to support change management efforts.
Significance to Practice
The findings from this study have provided an understanding of how supply chain
managers may leverage human resource management practices in the development of
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. These insights can shed light on the
effectiveness of supply chain management collaboration with human resource
management. Understanding supply chain change management practices may inform how
organizations in supply chain environments can strengthen collaboration between supply
chain managers and human resource managers to facilitate the development of agile
capabilities in the workforce. In turn, this information may strengthen the support
provided to change leaders in operations, which may improve the work experience for
employees. Smollan (2017) noted the positive impact of leadership support when
followers are in stressful situations. Because situations of complex or continuous change
can be linked with increased stress (Braun et al., 2017), a better understanding of how to
support the front-line change leaders in leading change may have a positive impact on
available coping strategies for employees during times of stress.
Flöthmann et al. (2017) and John (2015) have indicated there is a shortage of
leadership talent in supply chain. As the role of change leaders is rapidly evolving
(Marques, 2015), finding insights into how managers include considerations of the role of
change leaders in developing strategies to build workforce agility may have an impact on
the work experience of operational leaders in supply chain. Findings may influence
organizational practices that impact the work experience of operational leaders working
in environments of complex or continuous change. Being able to leverage the right tools
and resources to build efficacy in leadership roles may have a positive impact on the
change leader work experience, helping to keep change leaders in their roles as a way of
addressing the shortage of leadership talent in supply chain.
Having the right tools and resources may also help human resource managers in
the recruitment of change leadership talent. Supporting current change leaders more
effectively and recruiting quality talent can help human resource managers address the
leadership talent shortage in supply chains while also helping the organization to build
workforce agility capabilities. Building agile capabilities in the workforce will contribute
to overall organizational agility (Al-kasasbeh et al., 2016; Braun et al., 2017) and may
have a positive impact on business outcomes (Dattero et al., 2017).
Significance to Theory
A theory of organizational agility has not been developed. While organizational
agility theory has not been developed, the benefits of building organizational agility as a
capability have been highlighted in research (Baninam & Amirnejad, 2017;
Ravichandran, 2018). Models of organizational agility approach the concept of
organizational agility through perspectives of strategy, technology, operations, marketing,
human resources, leadership, or other approaches (Brusset, 2016). Because the range of
approaches to organizational agility is so broad, theoretical development on the concept
of organizational agility is not in place. This study may shed light on the role of
operations in the development of agile capabilities within the organization, which may
then shed light on factors that contribute to the development of theory related to
organizational agility.
Workforce agility theory has not been developed (Gligor et al., 2016). Different
research studies construct workforce agility in different ways (Braun et al., 2017; Liu, et
al., 2015; Tessarini & Saltorato, 2021). Some models of workforce agility include only
proactivity, adaptability, and resilience (Cai et al., 2018). Other models of workforce
agility include flexibility (Muduli, 2017) or responsiveness (Qin & Nembhard, 2015).
With no singular model of workforce agility, a theory of workforce agility by the results
of this study, helping to close a gap in this area of research. Insights into the lived
experience of supply chain leaders may contribute to the formulation of theory in this
area.
Significance to Social Change
Future supply chain leaders, as well as researchers in this area, may develop
initiatives that result in effective strategies to deal with complex and continuous change
based on the findings of this study. Improving organizational outcomes can stabilize the
organization’s position in the competitive marketplace, thereby creating job security for
the workforce in turbulent industries. The results of this research may also contribute to
social change through benefits that may be experienced by the change managers in
operational environments that are responsible for implementing strategies devised by
supply chain managers to build agile capabilities in the workforce. This is important with
concerns reported of change leadership talent shortages. The results of this research may
also contribute to social change through benefits that may be experienced by the
workforce tasked with continually changing how they work. Significant change in the
workplace can contribute to workplace stress that impacts the well-being of employees
(Braun et al., 2017). Facilitating resilience as part of workforce agility may help the
workforce build skills associated with reducing stress in high-change environments.
Reducing workplace stress may help organizations provide an environment that supports
employee wellbeing and minimizes costs associated with workplace stress, such as
workplace accidents, absenteeism, and increased turnover (Braun et al., 2017).
Summary and Transition
In the first chapter, I included a background on the role of change management
and workforce agility in organizational agility and the changing nature of the role of
leaders in organizations operating in high-change environments. Chapter 1 is also where
the purpose of this study, the problem statement, research question, conceptual
framework, nature of the study, study definitions, assumptions, the scope, delimitations,
the limitations, and the significance of this study are located. I expand on the background
of this study and the concepts that make up the framework of this study in Chapter 2.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The specific management problem investigated through this research study was
that supply chain managers do not have coherent strategies for the development of agile
capabilities in the workforce (Cai et al., 2018; Muduli, 2017). The purpose of this
qualitative, exploratory multiple case study was to investigate how supply chain
managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Workforce agility
has been identified as an important factor in overall organizational agility (Alkasasbeh et
al., 2016; Braun et al., 2017; Muduli, 2016). Organizational agility is a competency that
may position managers to achieve better performance results for organizations (Dattero et
al., 2017), especially in industries experiencing exponential rates of change (Raeisi &
Amirnejad, 2017). Change leaders carry primary responsibilities related to managing
change (Dumas & Beinecke, 2018). This responsibility includes helping lead the
workforce through change (Stilwell et al., 2016).
One way the workforce may work through change effectively is by developing
skills in resiliency, proactivity, adaptability (Alavi et al., 2014; Sherehiy & Karwowski,
2014), flexibility (Muduli, 2017), and responsiveness (Qin & Nembhard, 2015). These
skills have been linked to workforce agility. This framework for workforce agility is seen
in Figure 1. Both human resource management systems and leaders have functions
related to talent development (Leroy et al., 2018). What was not clearly understood and is
a gap in research is how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce. The purpose of this qualitative exploratory, multiple case
study was to explore how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce. This was explored through the descriptions provided by
supply chain managers with responsibility for developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in supply chain organizations.
In Chapter 2, I lay out the foundation of research upon which this study has been
designed. I include the literature research strategy used to find articles this study extends
from that provides merit for investigating the gaps in research noted in Chapter 1. I then
present the conceptual framework that identifies the core concepts related to the research
conducted. I close out Chapter 2 with a full literature review. This review of pertinent
research includes seminal articles and research from the previous 5 years in the topics of
organizational agility, change management, workforce agility, change leadership, human
resource management, and supply chain.
Literature Search Strategy
I used several different search strategies to identify recent research on the core
concepts of my research study. I linked Google Scholar to my Walden University library
account for most research searches. Key search terms used include change management,
supply chain leadership, workforce agility, organizational agility, change leadership,
human resource management, talent development, and leadership. I limited my searches
to peer-reviewed publications from 2015-2020. With this strategy, I was able to find
sources from databases including EBSCO, SAGE full text, Business Source Complete,
ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest Central, Deepdyve, and Emerald Management.
Additionally, I searched articles on the primary site of some journals, including
the Journal of Change Management at Taylor & Francis Online and the Journal of
Organizational Change Management at Emerald Insight’s website. Once I had primary
sources related to my research topic, I continued my literature search by looking for
articles by authors who had recent publications on my research topics. I also reviewed the
references section of my primary articles and found related literature by topic and
authors.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study sets the boundaries and context of the
research conducted. Leedy and Ormrod (2019) noted that the conceptual framework is a
model of how concepts within a study are linked. The links among the concepts of this
study are identified in Figure 2. I explored the described experience of supply chain
managers developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce within the
framework of change management, workforce agility, change leadership, human resource
management, and supply chain. However, the relationships among these concepts are
complex, with additional relevant concepts within each that may further explain the
nature of the links between these concepts. I expand upon each concept and the links
among them in the literature review further in this chapter.
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework of Considerations for Developing Strategies to Build Agile
Capabilities in the Workforce
Note. Conceptual framework of gap in literature exploring relationships among human
resource management and change leadership in the development of strategies to build
workforce agility capabilities, viewed within Resource-Based View theory in
environments of complex, continuous change.
In industries experiencing complex change or continuous change, the practice of
change management is a complex undertaking. Traditional models of change
management involve strategic planning, collaboration, plan implementation, and
establishing controls. Lewin’s model of change management includes three phases:
unfreezing current processes, implementing new processing, and refreezing to solidify the
new process in place (Lewin, 1946). Kotter (1995) developed a more complex model of
change that addresses the social dynamics that impact change implementation and
management. This eight-step model was also designed for use within situations where
change involves linear steps that build upon one another, and where top-down controls
can be developed and maintained. Hiatt (2006) built a change management model known
as ADKAR. ADKAR stands for awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement.
Despite the development of multiple models of change management,
organizational outcomes have often indicated target outcomes were not frequently
obtained (Rogiest et al., 2015). It is unclear what aspects of change management models
may be effective in environments of complex change (Pollack & Pollack, 2015). New
considerations are needed for managing change in environments where change may be
non-linear, complex, or has limited controls. One way of managing change in
environments of complex change is through the development of agile capabilities in the
organization.
Organizational agility is a desired capability, as it influences performance
outcomes (Baninam & Amirnejad, 2017; Pulakos et al., 2019). Teece et al. (2016)
described organizational agility as shaping the flow of value in organizations through the
continuous redirecting of resources to quickly capture potential emerging marketplace
value, while also engaging in activities that generate higher value throughout the
organization. It is through this directing of the flow of value that organizations may
influence performance outcomes. Achieving organizational agility is not a simple process.
Brusset (2016) identified organizational agility as the creation of competitive advantages
through the establishment of collaborative, strategic organizational procedures that
involve continuously creating and adapting practices in close alignment with the
changing business environment. Although organizational agility may be a desired
capability, organizations must be able to identify a path to achieving it.
Organizational agility encompasses the structure, procedures, culture, and
processes of the organization. The structure, procedures, culture, and processes in an
organization are affected by change leadership, human resource management, and
workforce agility. The degree to which change leadership and human resource
management structures, processes, and practices are agile influence the level of agility
within the workforce (Ghasemi et al., 2016; Raeisi & Amirnejad, 2017), and in turn, the
level of agility in the organization (Braun et al., (2017).
Teimouri et al. (2017) described a specific model of organizational agility that is
comprised of accountability, proactivity, competency, flexibility, speed, participation, and
focus on customers. Fayezi et al. (2017) listed quickness, proactiveness, responsiveness,
adaptiveness, cooperation, flexibility, and information systems/technology as the
components of organizational agility. Integrating agile concepts of flexibility, speed,
proactivity, adaptability, and resiliency into the structure, procedures, culture, and
processes of an organization may influence the degree to which that organization
possesses agile capabilities. One specific component to organizational agility that is a
focus of this study is workforce agility.
Workforce agility centers on the behaviors within the workforce that drive
proactivity, resilience, and adaptability (Cai et al., 2018). The level of agility within the
workforce may influence to what degree organizational agility is developed as a
capability (Braun et al., 2017). Muduli (2016) noted an opportunity for more research into
how organizations can facilitate the development of agility skills in employees. While
there are multiple models of workforce agility, one model identified key behaviors in
employees as proactivity, adaptivity, and resilience (Al-kasasbeh et al., 2016; Cai et al.,
2018). Antecedents of agile workforce behaviors include collaboration, cooperation,
positive work relationships, openness to new experiences, and resiliency (Braun et al.,
2017). Employees who demonstrate collaborative, cooperative, resilient behaviors may
engage more readily in processes that require greater agility. Employees who are open to
new experiences and have built positive working relationships may also engage more
readily in agile work processes.
Like the antecedents of agile workforce described by Braun et al. (2017), Qin and
Nembhard (2015) asserted that attributes of workforce agility include responsiveness,
quickness, competence, adaptability, and cooperativeness. These attributes of workforce
agility are similar to the descriptions provided of organizational agility. The similarity in
attributes of workforce agility and organizational agility shows how building workforce
agility as a capability contributes to overall organizational agility. The responsiveness and
adaptability in workforce agility described by Qin and Nembhard align with the
responsiveness and adaptability in organizational agility, as described by Fayezi et al.
(2017). Although there are similarities between the attributes of workforce agility and the
attributes of organizational agility, a question remains regarding how the development of
agile workforce capabilities is facilitated within the organization. Muduli (2016) found a
strong relationship between agile workforce capabilities in organizations and core human
resource functions. This relationship may shed light on how organizations can facilitate
the development of agile workforce capabilities.
Human capital can be a significant investment for organizations. Maximizing
returns on the investment in the workforce is something organizations should be
concerned with. One way to improve returns on workforce investments is by building
employees’ capabilities (Flöthmann et al., 2017). How organizations build employee
capabilities is related to the structure of human resource management systems within the
organization (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2017; Ghasemi et al., 2016; Teimouri et al., 2017).
Employees’ capabilities can be built through human resource functions such as
development, training, and performance management. Efforts from human resource
management systems to build employee capabilities may contribute to how the
organization attains competitive advantages in the marketplace (Teimouri et al., 2017).
Building competitive advantages through the workforce is how the organization can
maximize the returns on their human capital investments.
In the case of this study, I am specifically concerned with how supply chain
managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Multiple
researchers have asserted that how organizations build agility as a capability is related to
the structure of human resource management systems within the organization
(GarciaAlcaraz et al., 2017; Ghasemi et al., 2016; Teimouri et al., 2017). Muduli (2016)
listed organizational learning and training, reward system, involvement, teamwork, and
information systems as primary tools of human resource management systems that may
be leveraged in building agility in the workforce. Al-kasasbeh et al. (2016) identified
human resource management systems as recruitment, selection, compensation, training,
performance appraisal, and communication.
Leaders are often the catalyst between the human resource management activities
of training, rewards, and teamwork and the workforce. Černe et al. (2018) noted that
researchers have yet to identify how leadership and human resources interact.
Understanding how supply chain managers do or do not take human resource
management practices into consideration in developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce may help bring coherence to how these strategies are
developed.
Stilwell et al. (2016) identified leadership as a contributor to change initiative
outcomes. How leadership behaviors, styles, and characteristics contribute to change
initiative success has been researched extensively (Chai et al., 2017; Dumas & Beinecke,
2018; Neil et al., 2016). Chai et al. (2017) asserted that employee behaviors are changed
through the influence of leadership. Understanding that there is a connection between
leadership and change initiative outcomes does not provide enough information to guide
organizational practices toward improved change initiative results. Leader-member
exchange theory provides a framework for understanding the nature of how leaders
influence employee behaviors.
Leader-member exchange theory posits a positive relationship between the leader
and follower is correlated with the organizational commitment, work efforts, and
empowerment of followers (Arif et al., 2017). The central premise of this theory is the
attitudes and behaviors of leaders can impact the attitudes and behaviors of followers.
The process of facilitating agile workforce capabilities in followers is conceptualized as
change leadership behaviors. Understanding how supply chain managers do or do not
take change leadership practices into consideration in developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce may help bring coherence to how these strategies are
developed.
The concepts described above are explored within the realm of supply chain.
Supply chains in volatile marketplaces are experiencing complex, continuous change
(Christopher, 2000). This has led to a shift in focus from short-term, short-range,
controlled change strategies to a need to secure long-term capabilities for successfully
operating in environments of high uncertainty and volatility (Christopher, 2000; Eckstein
et al., 2015). Brusset (2016) and Villena et al. (2018) noted this had led supply chain to
take a more prominent role in overall organizational strategy. The retail sector is one
example where supply chain has experienced significant change. Volatility within the
marketplace has led to multiple major retailers in the United States closing their doors or
restructuring their business model under bankruptcy filings. Retailers that have closed
since 2015 include Herberger’s, Toys R Us, and Creative Kids Stuff. Supply chain sets
the final boundary of this study as it represents the environment of complex, continuous
change under which I explored the lived experience of supply chain managers facilitating
the development of workforce agility capabilities in followers.
Literature Review
Organizational agility, workforce agility, change leadership practices, human
resource management practices, and change management practices are discussed in depth
in the literature review.
Organizational Agility
Agility in organizations is a concept that first arose in Holstein and Berry’s (1972)
research into flexible workforce structuring in manufacturing to improve workflow and
efficiencies in work processes. Initial research related to organizational agility focused on
the manufacturing sector (Christopher, 2000). The aim of agility, as described by Nagel
and Dove (1991), was to build rapid response processes that positioned manufactures to
manage through continuous change. While lean processes were researched heavily to help
manufacturing organizations build competitive advantages through efficiency processes,
agility research was conducted to identify how organizations could build competitive
advantages through nimble practices (Christopher, 2000). The concept of building agility
capabilities to manage change spread from the manufacturing industry into many
industries (Breu et al., 2001).
Research into managing change focused on building processes to tackle change in
a methodical, linear manner (Braun et al., 2017). Typical models of change management
did not help organizations address disruptors or unexpected challenges as they arose
when implementing change. Braun et al. (2017) asserted that organizations need to move
beyond linear models of change management and need to focus on achieving agility to
establish effective capabilities in responding to rapid change. Pursuing organizational
agility to build capabilities to adapt closely to the changing environment provided a
different way to approach change. Felipe et al. (2016) explained that organizational
agility involves both the reactive process of adaption and the proactive abilities associated
with flexibility. Baninam and Amirnejad (2017) asserted that the specific competitive
advantages in agility capabilities are quickness, flexibility, innovation, quality, and
profitability.
Organizational agility began to be considered a necessary capability in the face of
globalization due to its link to capabilities that lead to better performance outcomes
(Baninam & Amirnejad, 2017). In an empirical examination of the variance between IT
capabilities and organizational agility and between innovation capabilities and
organizational agility, Ravichandran (2018) found a link between agility in organizations
and performance outcomes related to market share, cost, productivity, profitability, and
overall financial performance. Baninam and Amirnejad conducted an empirical
investigation of 260 bank employees in Iran and found that organizational agility was
positively related to employee performance outcomes from the Organizational
Performance Questionnaire of Hersey and Goldsmith (1980). Braun et al. (2017) posited
that traditional change management models that address linear, discrete change initiatives
have not been as effective in navigating the increasing complexity of the business
environment in industries experiencing transformative or continuous change. Building
organizational agility has become a way to address complex change for improved
performance outcomes where traditional change management models fall short (Braun et
al., 2017). Baškarada and Koronios (2018) asserted that while research is uncovering a
relationship between organizational agility and performance outcomes, what is unclear is
how organizational agility is operationalized as processes within work settings.
Baninam and Amirnejad (2017) asserted that agile organizations achieve their
advantages through a strong understanding of principles of competition, effective
utilization of resources, and astute responsiveness to changing consumer patterns and
interests. Pulakos et al. (2019) found that organizations that have elevated agility and
resiliency perform 150% to 500% better than organizations with low-level organizational
agility and resiliency. Concepts associated with organizational agility include
accountability, proactivity, competency, flexibility, speed, participation, quickness,
responsiveness, adaptiveness, cooperation, and customer-focus (Fayezi, et al., 2017;
Teimouri et al., 2017). Several studies have established that two important contributors to
organizational agility are leadership (Raeisi & Amirnejad, 2017) and human resources
(Ghasemi et al., 2016).
Organizational Agility and Leadership
Raeisi and Amirnejad (2017) investigated the relationship between organizational
leadership and organizational agility through an empirical analysis of data from 100
senior executives from multiple Iranian drilling firms. Raeisi and Amirnejad found that
organizational leadership has a positive impact on organizational agility. Raeisi and
Amirnejad used a model of organizational agility developed by Zhang and Sharifi (2000),
which is comprised of accountability, competence, flexibility, and speed. Accountability
related to high awareness of change and timely responses to change. Competence related
to how well the organization achieved its goals and objectives. Flexibility referred to how
well the organization was able to execute multiple processes simultaneously to achieve its
goals. And speed related to timeliness of completing core work functions. The authors
operationalized organizational leadership as a measure of task-oriented leadership scores
and relationship-oriented leadership scores on a survey administered to participants.
Statistical analysis was conducted, and the authors concluded that a strong positive
relationship exists between organizational leadership and organizational agility when
organizational agility is operationalized as accountability, competence, flexibility, and
speed.
A limitation of the findings in Raeisi and Amirnejad’s (2017) study is that
measures of accountability, competence, flexibility, and speed in the organization are
limited to employee perceptions as recorded from the questionnaire on organizational
agility used in the study. Additionally, the researchers do not provide information on the
survey used or how the instrument has been tested and verified as a qualified determinant
of organizational agility. This makes it difficult to clarify if the perceptions of the
participants actually measure aspects of organizational agility that may be measured and
verified through other research methodology or instrumentation.
Organizational Agility and Human Resource Management
Ghasemi et al. (2016) also used Zhang and Sharifi’s (2000) model of
organizational agility in empirical research. This study of 217 staff in a Social Security
organization in Iran explored the relationship between staff empowerment as a function of
human resource management and organizational agility. Ghasemi et al. found that the
empowerment of staff and building a sense of competence were linked to measures of
organizational agility. Ghasemi et al. identified organizational agility as flexibility within
organizational structures and a workforce able to leverage multiple skills in their work.
The aim of building workforce agility within an organization’s supply chain is to elevate
organizational agility (Al-kasasbeh et al., 2016).
Change Management
As organizations face unprecedented rates of change, devising strategies to
manage change as proactively as possible is important to achieving organizational goals.
Three models of change management that may be used for planned, proactive, controlled
changes include Lewin’s model of change management (Lewin, 1946), Kotter’s (1995)
eight-step model of change that addresses the social dynamics that impact change
implementation and management, and Hiatt’s (2006) ADKAR model of change
management.
Lewin’s model of change breaks the change process into three stages (Lewin,
1946). In the first stage, things operating in the status quo are challenged and opened up
to new paradigms of possibility. This phase is identified as unfreezing. In the second
stage, identified changes needed are implemented, learning processes create new ways of
operating as transformation occurs, and the old way of operating is left behind. This stage
is identified as change. In the final stage, the changes are solidified. This stage is
identified as refreezing.
Kotter’s (1995) model of change involves eight steps Kotter developed in
response to common barriers identified as organizations struggled to implement changes.
The eight steps in Kotter’s model are to create a sense of urgency, build a guiding
coalition, form strategic vision and initiatives, enlist a volunteer army, remove barriers to
enable action, generate short-term wins, sustain acceleration, and institute the change
(Kotter, 1995). These steps follow a sequence meant to address each barrier from
planning to implementation to solidification of each stage of managing change and have a
top-down structure in managing change. Pollack and Pollack (2015) conducted a case
study analysis of Kotter’s 8-step model and found that it did not fully account for the
complexities of a major organizational change. Pollack and Pollack asserted that while
this model of change management requires more research analysis, it remains a
wellknown model of change management. Exploring how this model or aspects of the
change management model may be used by supply chain managers developing strategies
for building agile capabilities in the workforce informs the framework of this study.
ADKAR is an acronym for awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and
reinforcement, a change management model developed by Hiatt (2006). Awareness
relates to making stakeholders aware of the change needed and why the change is needed.
Desire relates to the degree to which stakeholders support and are willing to work toward
the change. Knowledge refers to stakeholders having the right information at the right
time to execute their role in the change. Ability relates to the capabilities present for
stakeholders to carry out their functions in the change. And reinforcement relates to
efforts to ensure the change is sustained. In this change management model, vital
considerations are present of the social impact key stakeholders have in the success of the
change efforts. Hiatt (2006) posits that strategic planning for change requires reviewing
the psychology that underlies leading people through change. In this sense, strategic
planning is only as effective as the considerations made toward how the plan will be
implemented and received by stakeholders involved in and impacted by the change.
Change Leadership
Leaders are considered an integral part of an organization’s competitive
differentiation in the marketplace (Neil et al., 2016). Leaders have a primary
responsibility of directing and influencing employees to contribute to and align with
organizational goals. Leadership has been studied through the lens of social sciences,
education, theology, economics, and other academic fields (Gandolfi & Stone, 2016).
Leadership has been studied as the characteristics, skills, and traits of leaders, as the
behaviors of leaders, and as a set of functions executed in organizations to manage
people. Although leadership is a topic of significant research, Gandolfi and Stone
postulated that a single definition of leadership may be challenging to develop, as
leadership is a phenomenon not well understood despite extensive research on this topic.
Changing Leadership Expectations
Leaders’ expectations have changed as organizations’ needs have shifted due to
the changing demands of a global economy (Braun et al., 2017; Gandolfi & Stone, 2016;
Shou & Wang, 2015). As leaders’ expectations shift, organizations should provide the
structure and support that position leaders to thrive. Leaders operating in an everchanging
global economy are expected to be able to lead change (Dumas & Beinecke, 2018),
influence followers (Castelli, 2016), and build talent assets (Marques, 2015), while still
driving bottom-line results.
Leaders have indicated they are experiencing struggles in adapting to new
leadership challenges. Braun et al. (2017) shared the results of a survey from over 300
companies that showed only one-third of the thousands of leaders surveyed indicated they
could adapt effectively to changes in their strategy and business goals. The increase in
demands and the rapid pace of change may overwhelm leaders and reduce leadership
effectiveness. This risk of disruption to effective leadership in complex or continuous
change requires a better understanding of what effective change leaders do and how they
do the key tasks that position them to lead their team through change successfully.
Leadership and Change Management
A critical way that leadership has transformed expectations is in leadership
responsibilities related to leading change. In a review of change management of literature
from 1990 to 1998, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) asserted that research demonstrates
that employees contribute heavily to change initiatives. This assertion has highlighted the
importance of understanding how leaders can successfully manage change through their
influence on followers. Northouse (2016) posited that leadership is a central factor in
changing employee behaviors.
How leaders influence their teams is an area where organizations may experience
competitive advantages. The competitive advantages gained through leader influence on
followers may include higher success rates in change implementation (Stilwell et al.,
2016), faster implementation of change initiatives, reduced time to target goal realization,
and reduced cost (Sirén et al., 2016). Sirén, Patel, and Wincent explored relationships
among change-oriented leadership in CEOs, the passion of CEOs, and firm performance
operationalized as sales and profit growth. Study results indicated change-oriented
leadership has a positive relationship with firm performance, with the harmonious passion
of leaders enhancing that relationship. Understanding how leaders shape employee
behavior is essential in this study as it may shed light on how leaders may build agile
workforce capabilities in their followers.
Leader-Member Exchange Theory
Leader-member exchange theory provides a framework for understanding the
relationship between leaders and followers. Leader-member exchange theory was
introduced to capture differences in the quality of relationships between leaders and their
followers (Dansereau et al., 1975). Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) shared that leadermember
exchange theory focuses on the quality of the relationship between leaders and followers.
Arif et al. (2017) stated that leader-member exchange theory provides the framework for
understanding the link between the leader and follower interactions and performance.
Factors such as the degree to which leaders give followers autonomy in their work, create
an environment of resource-sharing, and implement strong communication may influence
follower commitment, effort, and empowerment (Arif et
al., 2017).
The level of follower commitment, effort, and empowerment contributes to
performance outcomes, including successes or failures tied to change. Graen and UhlBien
(1995) asserted that the relationship-based approach of leader-member exchange theory
applies in circumstances of continuous improvement. This framework fits the boundaries
of this study, which includes investigating how leaders facilitate the development of agile
workforce capabilities in followers in environments of constant change. Leader-member
exchange theory shifts the focus from leadership style and characteristics to leadership
behaviors that facilitate quality relationships between leaders and followers.
Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) described the shift in approach from leadership style
to leadership behaviors, focusing on developing a partnership between leader and each of
their followers. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) asserted that with a high-quality partnership,
the quality of the relationship is improved for both leader and follower, as both parties
contribute to the betterment of the other. The shift for leaders to create high-quality
partnership across their full team creates greater equity as leadership resources are made
available to all followers. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) asserted that the expansion of
quality relationships to all followers and the partnership structure of the relationships lead
to higher-quality interactions between leaders and followers. Stronger quality interactions
between leaders and their followers result in higher commitment and greater effort from
followers.
This shift in commitment and effort from followers is linked to stronger
performance outcomes (Arif et al., 2017). Arif et al. (2017) asserted that followers in low-
quality leader-member relationships are less engaged, operate with lower trustlevels,
experience lower job satisfaction, and are more prone to leave their job. The impact of
low-quality leader-member relationships can hinder a leader’s ability to influence
followers during critical change initiatives. The quality of the leader-follower relationship
may significantly impact a change leader’s ability to facilitate the development of agile
capabilities in followers.
Transformational Leadership Theory
The relationship between leader and follower has also been examined in research
through transformational leadership theory. Transformational leadership theory explains
the leader’s influence on followers as either commitment-based through transformational
leadership or compliance-based through transactional leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns,
1978). In transactional leadership, the leader seeks out exchanges with followers such as
providing rewards for specific outcomes (Burns, 1978). In transformational leadership,
the relationship between leader and follower is more symbiotic, with the leader inspiring
and motivating followers through mutually beneficial relationships that positively impact
followers’ commitment to and engagement with the organization. Podsakoff et al. (1990)
asserted that there are six tenants of transformational leadership; articulating a vision,
acting as a role model, driving inclusivity, setting high standards of performance,
supporting teams at the individual level, and engaging followers to think actively and
innovatively on solving business problems. Leader-member exchange theory
encompasses transactional leadership and transformational leadership (Graen & UhlBien,
1995).
Transformational leadership style has become a heavily researched leadership
style (Gandolfi & Stone, 2016). The relationship between leader and follower in change
management situations has been measured and analyzed through followers’ commitment
to change (Shin et al., 2015) and through employee engagement levels (Wziątek-Staśko
& Chabińska-Rossakowska, 2015). Leaders influence employees’ ability to adapt to
change by building commitment to change in followers.
Morin et al. (2016) noted that a leader’s ability to influence commitment to
change in others contributes to employees’ readiness for change. This readiness for
change may be an important part of preparing the workforce for building agile
capabilities in continuous change environments. Abrell-Vogel and Rowold (2014)
investigated the relationship between transformational leadership style and followers’
commitment to change. Abrell-Vogel and Rowold (2014) found that leaders’ commitment
to change was an important factor in followers’ commitment to change. Abrell-Vogel and
Rowold asserted that leaders modeling the change behaviors desired, demonstrating their
own commitment to change, influenced followers’ commitment to change. The
individualized support leaders provided followers was also found to influence followers’
commitment to change (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014). Based on the research findings
of Abrell-Vogel and Rowold (2014) and Morin et al. (2016), understanding how leaders
model change behaviors and how leaders provide individualized support to followers
shaped the inquiry of this study. I utilized this information to shape specific questions
used in the semi-structured interviews I conducted to explore how supply chain managers
develop agile capabilities in the workforce.
Wziątek-Staśko and Chabińska-Rossakowska (2015) noted that leadership is
believed to play a role in influencing employee engagement. Popli and Rizvi (2016)
explained that employee engagement is one of the most important indicators of
organizational effectiveness. Popli and Rizvi posited that employee engagement had been
linked to better financial, safety, quality, and retention outcomes, as well as lower
absenteeism among employees. The engagement of employees during change initiatives
is critical to the success of the change. Understanding how employee engagement is
influenced by leadership style may inform the questions asked during the semi-structured
interviews and how meaning is constructed from the descriptions provided by
participants.
While organizational commitment and employee engagement are important
components of organizational effectiveness (Popli & Rizvi, 2016), the investigation into
the link between transformational leadership and performance has had mixed results. Neil
et al. (2016) conducted a three-part study involving a government agency experiencing
significant downsizing in the United Kingdom experiencing. The three-part study began
with investigating relationships among transformational leadership behaviors, emotional
intelligence, team cohesion, and team performance. The results of their quantitative
investigation indicated positive relationships between transformational leadership and
emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and team cohesion. No significant
relationship was found between transformational leadership and team performance during
change. Neil et al. then conducted semi-structured interviews with eight different team
leaders to explore their lived experience and perceptions of best practices they engaged in
during the change initiative of the first study. The sample was categorized by those whose
team results during study one achieved performance targets, did not achieve performance
targets, and exceeded performance targets. Results of the qualitative
analysis contradicted the results of the quantitative analysis in the first study. Leaders’
descriptions of transformational leadership behaviors were identified as the primary best
practice in leading change.
Change Leadership Behaviors
In industries operating with continuous or complex change, change leadership
skills are tantamount (Dumas & Beinecke, 2018). Change leadership skills are built
through the experiences and behaviors of change leaders. A comprehensive discussion of
change leadership behaviors first appeared in literature when Yukl et al. (2002) completed
a taxonomy of leadership behaviors based on literature published up until that time.
While change leadership has emerged in literature terminology, a definition of change
leadership is lacking. Without a clear definition of change leadership, a description of
what change leaders do can frame what is intended by the terminology. Without a clear
definition of change leadership, a description of characteristics that change leaders
possess may also clarify what this terminology intends.
Dumas and Beinecke (2018) described change leaders as resilient, carrying
foresight, providing support, and positively approaching change. Stilwell et al. (2016)
described research that indicated successful change leaders influence followers by
shaping behaviors, framing change, and creating capacity. They do this through coaching,
rewarding, and motivating followers through communication, team building, and
engagement strategies. Giauque (2015) found that leaders influence follower behaviors in
change through their behaviors and attitudes toward change.
Change Leadership and Workforce Agility
Another leadership style that has emerged in research that may be relevant to
building an agile workforce is complexity leadership. Uhl-Bien and Arena (2017)
described complexity leadership as an adaptive leadership style in which leaders
transition between entrepreneurial, enabling, and operational leadership approaches to
drive productive outcomes in situations where new ways of thinking and operating are
needed to adapt to a complex environment. An entrepreneurial approach in complexity
leadership involves bringing innovation into the workspace to facilitate an environment
of collaboration and ideation (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017). An enabling approach involves
actions that bridge the tension between the entrepreneurial activities and the formal
structure within operations (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017). An operational approach involves
how leadership engages organizational structures to drive efficiencies, while also
identifying ways emerging ideas from entrepreneurial activities may be brought into the
current operating structure (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017). According to Uhl-Bien and Arena
(2017) entrepreneurial leadership, enabling leadership, and operational leadership
together provide a description of how leaders operating in high-change environments may
thrive amid the challenge of continuous uncertainty and change. Uhl-Bien and Arena
posited that this transition between entrepreneurial, enabling, and operational leadership
approaches creates organizational agility.
Change Leadership and Human Resources
Understanding the interplay between human resource management systems and
change leaders can help identify to what degree each contributes to the development of an
agile workforce. Černe, et al. (2018) asserted that the interaction between leadership and
human resources had not been a focus of research to-date. Leadership and human
resource management functions within organizations have a shared goal of influencing
workforce behaviors to achieve organizational goals.
Human resource management supports organizational goals by influencing the
workforce through processes, policies, and systems (Leroy et al., 2018). Leadership
contributes to organizational goals through management practices that implement these
processes, policies, and systems designed by human resources. Leaders also contribute to
organizational goals by directing tactical and operational processes through the workforce
to facilitate the delivery of a service or good to consumers. Leroy et al. asserted that
research should focus on understanding what effect this intersection of leadership and
human resource management has on organizational performance. This is the secondary
gap in research I explore in this study.
Gandolfi and Stone (2016) asserted that elucidating what effective leadership
methods are is a pressing priority. Many studies have investigated the skills,
competencies, and characteristics in leaders that are linked to more successful
performance outcomes during change. Ready and Mulally (2017) asserted that change
leadership requires skills in motivating through storytelling, build a culture of
crossfunctional resource-sharing, facilitate innovation, reinforce attainment of specific
goals, and are heavily involved in building a pipeline of talent to support the
organization’s future needs. While it is beneficial to know what change leaders need to
do, additional understanding of what constitutes effective change leadership can be found
by investigating how leaders build the competencies that help them achieve success.
Gaining clarity from leaders directly on how they facilitate and develop workforce agility
skills may provide insights to organizations on how to assist leaders in developing change
leadership capabilities. As leaders support followers in managing through change
effectively, the findings of such research can inform organizations on how to support
leaders in obtaining the specific change leadership abilities needed to facilitate and build
and agile workforce in their teams.
Human Resource Management
Human resource management involves the policies, systems, and management
actions that produce human capital value through activities of recruiting, staffing, talent
development, performance appraisal, compensation, and incentives, learning and training,
and workplace culture development (Teimouri et al., 2017). Teimouri et al. noted that
traditionally, human resources focused on administrative tasks related to these activities.
This focus has shifted and is seen in efforts to closely align human resource management
activities to the overall organizational strategy. Organizations must leverage human
capital to achieve organizational goals and build competitive advantages to thrive in
markets of intense competition. Giauque (2015) asserted that the main function of human
resource management practices is to empower the workforce to engage in behaviors that
help the organization achieve its goals. Giauque’s assertion is reflective of this shift in
focus on the role of human resources in organizations.
Human resource management contributes to the creation of competitive
advantages through work to develop and implement systems, policies, and procedures
that position organizations to capitalize on the organization’s investment in human
capital. A primary way for organizations to achieve a return on human capital investment
is to leverage human capital efficiently and effectively. This study is grounded in the
resource-based view theory of human resource management. The resource-based view
(RBV) of human resource management provides a theoretical framework in which
competitive value is created by generating inimitable resources within the organization
(Barney, 1991; Wright & McMahan, 1992). Barney (1991) noted that the resource-based
view theory is concerned with the relationship between organizational strategy and how
key resources are capitalized on. The framework focuses on the degree to which
organizational outputs are rare, are valuable, can be imitated, and can be substituted with
a similar product or service (Barney, 1991). When organizations align resource use with
deriving outputs that are rare, hold value, cannot be imitated, and cannot be easily
substituted, the organization is generating competitive advantages.
One of the resources organizations have that cannot be directly duplicated by
competitors is their human capital. Organizations can develop strategies related to how
their human capital is used to achieve strategic goals and to create value. Rather than
seeing human capital as a line-item expense to minimize, with the resource-based view,
the organization views human capital as an asset to be invested in to build value. As the
abilities of the human capital held by an organization cannot be directly duplicated by
competitors, growing the abilities of the human capital held by the organization may
build competitive advantages. Human resource management plays a central role in how
human capital resources are developed and utilized within the organization (Teimouri et
al., 2017).
This view aligns with the shift in the human resources function from the execution
of remedial personnel tasks into higher-level partnership in the strategic direction of the
organization (Teimouri et al., 2017). Leroy et al. (2018) noted that the processes and
structure designed by human resources aim to support the achievement of organizational
goals. This shift means human resource management must be strategic in what resources
are available within the organization and how those resources are delivered and used.
Resources available within human resource management to build up human capital
capabilities may include tools, training, systems, incentives, and talent development
support (Teimouri et al., 2017).
Teimouri et al. (2017) investigated the relationships between human resource
management effectiveness and organizational agility in multiple human resource
management functions. These human resource management functions included
performance evaluation, compensation, selection, and recruitment. Teimouri et al.
indicated that the effectiveness of training systems and performance evaluations were
linked to organizational agility. The same link was found for selection and recruitment
systems and for compensation systems in relation to organizational agility. Teimouri et
al.’s research indicated an important connection between human resource management
and organizational agility. This link is identified in Figure 1.
Human Resource Management and Workforce Agility
Organizational structure may contribute to building agile capabilities in the
workforce in multiple ways. One important contributor to building an agile workforce is
human resources (Ghasemi et al., 2016). In researching organizational characteristics
conducive to agility, Muduli (2016) posited that organizational practices related to
functions of human resource management were critical to building an agile workforce.
Maximizing the role of human resources has become tantamount for organizations
striving to attain a level of agile workforce that could lead to competitive advantages and
expedites achieving organizational performance goals.
Muduli (2016) asserted that human resources can support the development of an
agile workforce through human resource management’s primary functions. Muduli
identified these human resource management functions as learning and training, rewards
and recognition, and performance. Human resource management can align training and
learning programs, incentive programs, and performance programs to build capabilities
that support future strategic initiatives. Cai et al. (2018) echoed Muduli’s assertion on the
role of learning, noting that agile employees leverage an orientation toward continuous
learning in their work. Muduli’s research highlights the impact and importance of the
approach human resources takes in aligning key functions toward building agile
workforce.
Ghasemi et al. (2016) found that leveraging human resource tools to empower
employees also contributes to workforce agility. In another study, Muduli (2017) asserted
that agile thinking and agile behaviors are influenced by an employee’s empowerment
specific to their intrinsic motivation and to their sense of competence. Muduli asserted
that proactivity behaviors, flexibility behaviors, and resiliency behaviors are shaped by an
employee’s level of empowerment. One way of achieving empowerment is by giving
employees autonomy in decision-making and through power-sharing practices. Muduli
found that the organizational practices including learning and training, compensation,
involvement, teamwork, and information systems accounted for 38% of the variance in
workforce agility in a study of 524 executives and non-executives working the public and
the private manufacturing sector in India.
As it is common for leadership to be involved in the implementation of the
systems and processes developed by human resources (Leroy et al., 2018), research on
the relationship between workforce agility and human resource functions informs the
conceptual framework of this study. Muduli’s (2016) mixed-methods study on workforce
agility found that 38% of the variance in workforce agility was tied to organizational
human resource practices including organizational learning, training, and reward systems.
Muduli’s (2017) quantitative research on the relationship between psychological
empowerment and workforce agility and between organizational practices and workforce
agility highlights the importance of the interaction between human resources and
leadership. Muduli (2017) designed research involving 534 employees in the
manufacturing sector in India and found the human resource functions of organizational
learning and reward systems had a positive relationship with workforce agility. Muduli
also found that teamwork, empowerment, and impact were managerial practices that had
a statistically significant relationship with workforce agility.
The approach leadership takes in this relationship exchange can reinforce or
undermine the alignment needed to leverage human resource management tools, systems,
and resources in the development of workforce agility. Human resource management and
leadership can align to design programs that incentivize the development of agility skills.
Human resource management and leadership can align to create and implement
performance management systems geared toward building an agile workforce. And
human resource management and leadership can align to build and implement learning
and training programs that facilitate the development of an agile workforce. Through this
alignment between human resource management and leadership, organizations can
leverage human resource functions, together with leadership, to build human capital
capabilities and effectiveness.
Human Resource Management in Supply Chain
The relationship between human resources effectiveness and supply chain agility
can be explored through an investigation into how supply chain leaders leverage
resources from human resource management systems to build an agile workforce. Gligor
et al. (2016) asserted that the resource-based view theory indicates that inimitable
resources can also be garnered through the integration of different organizational
resources to achieve business goals. Resource-based view theory provides insight into
how the integration of human resource management resources and leadership resources in
supply chain may generate inimitable competitive advantages for retails. Performance
outcomes may be impacted by the integration of change leader practices and human
resource management systems.
Workforce Agility
One way that organizations may invest in human capital is by building agile
capabilities within their workforce. Agile workforce capabilities may be one of the
inimitable resources Barney (1991) described as important to building competitive
advantages. Alavi et al. (2014) defined workforce agility as the way employees manage
and react to change through adaptive behaviors to changes (p. 6264). Qin and Nembhard
(2015) asserted that attributes of workforce agility include responsiveness, quickness,
competence, adaptability, and cooperativeness. Al-kasasbeh et al. (2016) and Cai et al.
(2018) each conducted research using Sherehiy et al.’s (2007) model of agile workforce
capabilities that is comprised of proactivity, adaptability, and resilience.
Cai et al. (2018) noted that proactivity involves acting in anticipation of
environmental changes to move through change in a positive manner. Proactive behaviors
specific to workforce agility identified in research include anticipating roadblocks before
changes occur, taking steps to work around those roadblocks, and engaging in behaviors
that will contribute to continuous improvements (Muduli, 2017). Proactivity can position
organizations to avoid unnecessary costs and can reduce the likelihood of change
initiatives being delayed or derailing.
Adaptability is the second component of Sherehiy et al.’s (2007) model of
workforce capabilities. Cai et al. (2018) noted that adaptability is related to changing
one’s own actions to align more closely with the changing needs driven by environmental
changes. Adaptive behaviors specific to workforce agility include being able to assume
multiple responsibilities, transitioning among roles, and participating in cross-functional
teamwork (Muduli, 2017). Adaptability can position organizations to generate greater
efficiencies in their workforce.
Cai et al. (2018) noted that resilience centers on behaviors that position one to
remain effective in situations of stress. Sherehiy et al. (2007) posited that resiliency is a
characteristic of workforce agility where employees generate effective behaviors within
stressful conditions associated with environments of continuous change. Resiliency
behaviors specific to an agile workforce include demonstrating positivity in situations of
innovation or change, the ability to handle high levels of ambiguity in work processes or
situations, openness to differences in thinking, perspective, or ideas from others, and the
ability to work effectively in high-stress conditions (Muduli, 2017).
Resiliency in the workforce can help organizations move through changes and
generate greater returns on investments in human capital. Al-kasasbeh et al. (2016) noted
that resilient employees handle ambiguity well. Ambiguity is a common factor associated
with change, so navigating ambiguity well can aid employees in managing stress
effectively. Al-kasasbeh et al. (2016) also asserted that carrying a positive attitude
towards change, generating novel ideas, and being able to work effectively while holding
differing opinions or engaging in different work methods describe resilient employees.
If the workforce can act in anticipation of change (proactivity), adjust behaviors as
change occurs (adaptability), and remain effective in work tasks in situations of stress
(resilience), the workforce is engaging in agile skills. A workforce that can demonstrate
proactivity, adaptability, and resiliency may have competitive advantages over
organizations lacking those skills in their workforce in conditions where continuous or
disruptive change is common. This elevation in human capital effectiveness, in turn,
contributes to the level of organizational agility contributing to the organization’s
operational performance (Baninam & Amirnejad., 2017).
Braun et al. (2017) created and tested an instrument to measure employee agility
and employee resilience. The premise of Braun et al.’s research was that changes in the
marketplace have made models of planned change ineffective for the key needs of
organizations. The authors wanted to better understand the roles of agility, resilience, and
stress in high-change environments. Braun et al. designed a measurement scale based on
antecedents and correlates of agile workforce capabilities. In their research, Braun et al.
found that employee agility can increase stress, but employee resilience can help
employees work effectively through the stressors that may come with change. While the
results demonstrate value to employee agility and employee resilience skills in change,
the authors assert that additional research is needed to understand how to develop
employee resilience.
Qin and Nembhard (2015) reviewed research to identify employee behaviors
linked to agile workforce capabilities. The attributes identified related to agile workforce
capabilities were responsiveness, quickness, competence, adaptability, and
cooperativeness. Responsiveness in Qin and Nembhard’s model of workforce agility
related to carrying positivity into situations of unexpected change, having a strategic
orientation toward the future, and possessing an ability to remain prepared for change.
Quickness was described in literature as having less time to completion and reduced
recovery time. Competence was identified as delivering cost-effective solutions to work
problems and elevated capabilities resulting in greater productivity. Adaptability was
noted as being able to produce greater variety, bringing more flexibility into work
situations, and being able to tolerate ambiguity. Finally, cooperativeness was identified as
openness in collaborative efforts, demonstrating cooperation, and being efficient and
effective when collaborating. Pulling together the research on workforce agility informs
our descriptive view of what workforce agility should look like in the organization. This
still leaves the question of how leaders facilitate these specific behaviors to elevate agility
in the workforce.
Qin and Nembhard (2015) propose a multi-tiered approach to achieving greater
agility in the workforce. The model presented has key roles that fall within the role of
human resource management and within the realm of leadership. The responsibilities of
human resource management include workforce selection, building capabilities, training,
and incentivizing performance outcomes. The recommendations that fall within the
responsibility of leadership include workload assignments, facilitating team collaboration,
supporting cross-training, empowering followers, decentralizing decisionmaking, and
building dynamic teams. Together, human resources and leadership can build teams with
aggregate capabilities that elevate workforce agility, contributing to organizational agility
and building competitive advantages for the organization.
Supply Chain
Core functions in supply chain have shifted in response to shifts in consumer
spending patterns over the previous three decades. Carter et al. (2015) defined a supply
chain as a network of operations that process and move product, information, and
resources across stakeholders in any given industry. The four primary functions of a
supply chain are product development, procurement, manufacturing, and logistics
(Daryanto & Krämer, 2016). Garcia-Alcaraz et al. (2017) posited that the role of supply
chain in organizations is to follow the lifecycle of products from inception to design to
production to consumer acquisition. Many aspects of supply chain within organizations
have been impacted by globalization. Christopher (2000) attributed advances in
technology, communication, and transportation to the shift in complexity in supply chain
management. Christopher posited that these advances in technology, communication, and
transportation capabilities have shifted the focus from managing inventory to managing
responsiveness to marketplace demands. As organizations shift focus their focus from the
simpler task of managing inventory to the more complex activities related to responding
to marketplace demands, consumer patterns are shaping supply chain rather than
inventory availability dictating what consumer options are.
Supply Chain History
One of the first shifts in supply chain during the last 30 years was an effort to
break down silos across stakeholders operating within a supply chain. Brusset (2016)
noted that the focus of the supply chain industry in the 1990s was to drive efficiencies
and synergy by aligning interests and expanding communication of key stakeholders
across the supply chain. At that time, supply chain was a simple process of making what
was possible and presenting it to the marketplace. Consumers evaluated what was
available, then made purchasing decisions based on what had been manufactured
(Christopher, 2000). Stevens and Johnson (2016) noted that the focus in supply chain
management during the 1980s and 1990s was to control internal processes, such as
building better inventory management capabilities and finding better ways to manage
production planning. Supply chain leaders focused on efficiency methodologies such total
quality management (TQM) and Six Sigma to achieve goals of improved inventory
management capabilities and production management planning.
As efficiencies were being driven in supply chain, a shift in how consumers
purchased goods arose. Advances in technology, communication, and transportation
positioned consumers to have greater influence over what should be made available in the
marketplace and the timeframe it should be available within. Market competition
intensified in line with changing consumer power, forcing supply chain managers to look
for more than just alignment across stakeholders to generate the needed competitive
advantages. Stevens and Johnson (2016) noted that supply chain managers moved from
making independent efforts to adjust and respond to changes in consumer influence to
collaborating along the supply chain. The pressures and risks within supply chain could
not be managed effectively with independent efforts.
Complexity in Supply Chain
Multiple factors may contribute to the increasing complexity supply chain
managers are facing (Ekinci & Baykasoğlu, 2019). Daryanto and Krämer (2016)
identified key challenges in supply chain as shortened product lifecycles, global
economic pressures, volatile markets, and increased uncertainty. Globalization has
expanded platforms for information sharing, while creating advances in technology,
transportation, and communication that supply chains must keep pace with. These rapid
advances from globalization have contributed to the increasing complexity experienced
within supply chain activities (Daryanto & Krämer, 2016; Eckstein et al., 2015). Specific
challenges for supply chain managers to address include rapid swings in consumer
demand, reduced reliability of supplier performance, and overall increased uncertainty
throughout the supply chain (Sauer & Seuring, 2018). While there are multiple factors
contributing to complexity in supply chain, there is no clear direction for how supply
chain leaders may effectively manage the increasing complexity in supply chain.
With the increase in complexity comes greater risk of failure, as seen with
retailers that have closed or restructured under bankruptcy proceedings, including Toys R
Us, Kmart, Sears, and Herberger’s. Supply chain management strategies must be
developed to build competitive advantages that address the risks that arise from
increasing complexity and support management efforts to change the organizational
design in response to the new risks and opportunities (Roh et al., 2017). After a strong
focus on lean strategies and operational efficiencies, supply chain strategy shifted to
building agility capabilities and greater customization into the supply chain network to
address the rapid advancement of complexity issues (Christopher & Towill, 2000).
Agility in Supply Chain
Elevating the importance of supply chain within the organization is an imperative
response to the increasing complexities in supply chain management. Villena et al. (2018)
noted that the position of supply chain within the organization has been elevated and
integrated into the overall corporate strategy. A key capability needed to support a more
long-term strategy for operating in environments of complex, continuous change is agility
(Brusset, 2016). As organizations work to generate competitive advantages, building
agility into the supply chain may help establish those competitive advantages. However,
research has not established a clear direction that outlines how organizations may identify
the supply chain capabilities that drive the competitive advantages specifically related to
supply chain agility (Gligor et al., 2016). This shift in focus to building agile practices
and capabilities into the supply chain represents a paradigm shift from making business
decisions based on short-term impact to incorporating supply chain into long-term
organizational strategy (Eckstein et al., 2015). Greater alignment between corporate
strategy and supply chain strategy could aid in facilitating the creation of agile
capabilities in supply chain to support the long-term organizational strategy.
The expansion of agility in supply chain may come through operations, strategic
positioning, technology, information management, marketing, or human resources.
Brusset (2016) asserted that the central components to agility in supply chain are market
sensitivity, information sharing across stakeholders, flexibility in using strengths across
the supply chain, and synergy across stakeholders’ processes. Eckstein et al. (2015)
posited that the key to building agility into the supply chain is to manage all the areas of
operations, strategic positioning, technology, information management, marketing, and
human resources in a way that expedites the flow of product from production to
consumption and in a way that exceeds the speed and cost capabilities of competitors.
The challenge for organizations is determining how to manage operations,
strategic planning, technology, information, marketing, and human resources in a manner
that helps to build and sustain the central components of supply chain agility. Expediting
the flow of products from production to consumption more quickly and efficiently than
competitors requires new supply chain management capabilities to overcome the
challenges of increasing complexity. Supply chain leaders must determine how resources
are used within a more dynamic, complex business environment to influence the
operational capabilities of the organization (Brusset, 2016). It is important to understand
the responsibilities and roles of supply chain leaders in building agile capabilities within
operations, strategic planning, technology, information, marketing, and human resources.
This study explores the challenges that supply chain leaders face within operations
management.
Supply Chain Leadership
Supply chain leaders play a crucial role in the integration of supply chain
operations with the rest of the organization to support the development of agility. Supply
chain leaders are responsible for overcoming key strategic and operational challenges
while capitalizing on market opportunities (Roh et al., 2017). To overcome key strategic
and operational challenges, supply chain leaders must build an environment conducive to
facilitating workforce agility. Garcia-Alcaraz et al. (2017) asserted that human resource
management has a significant role in facilitating supply chain agility. What is not known
is what role supply chain leaders have in bringing human resource management functions
into the operational environment. Understanding how supply chain leaders leverage
human resource management resources and tools in building workforce agility may shed
light on how supply chain leaders are building agility in the workforce to over key
strategic and operational challenges in environments of continuous or complex change.
Benefits of Agile Capabilities in Supply Chain
The steps supply chain leaders take to build agile capabilities into the supply chain
may result in multiple benefits for the organization. Eckstein et al. (2015) identified the
benefits of building agile capabilities in the supply chain as cost-effectiveness, accuracy
of service, lead times, and customer service. Eckstein et al. also examined the concept of
supply chain adaptability and concluded that, together, supply chain agility and
adaptability position organizations to fluidly reorganize supply chain resources in
response to changing market demands. The ability to quickly reconfigure resources may
generate competitive advantages in industries with rapidly changing product lifecycles,
swings in consumer needs, or other factors that create an environment of continuous
change.
The improved capabilities associated with an agile supply chain may help
organizations with financial performance. Garcia-Alcaraz et al. (2017) surveyed 64
managers in winery supply chain to investigate relationships among human resource
skills, agility, flexibility, and the economic performance of supply chains. The researchers
found that supply chain agility in a winery supply chain has a positive impact on supply
chain economic performance. The concept of supply chain agility was operationalized as
response time to customers and the level of product customization.
Supply chain economic performance was measured as increases in sales and cash flow
(Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2017). The higher the product customization and the tighter the
response time to customers, the greater the increase in sales and the better the cash flow
of the organization. These variables are outcomes to adjustments the workforce must
make to external pressures on the organization. Leaders in organizations can build strong
internal capabilities by improving responsiveness to consumer behaviors, thereby creating
competitive advantages in the marketplace that lead to better financial performance.
Agility might play an important role in achieving these outcomes of increased
responsiveness and improved financial performance.
Garcia-Alcaraz et al. (2017) did not include measures of supply chain agility
acknowledged in other research studies. In Garcia et al.’s study, flexibility and adaptation
measures were linked to supply chain flexibility as a concept separate from supply chain
agility. If the boundaries of supply chain agility include the factors of flexibility and
adaptation as incorporated into other models of agility, the positive impact might be even
more extensive than what is captured in Garcia-Alcaraz et al.’s research.
While building agile capabilities into the supply chain can provide benefits to the
organization, Eckstein et al. (2015) cautioned that supply chain leaders must clearly
understand the impact of internal and environmental factors and the substantial
investment of resources that go into building such capabilities. Teece et al. (2016)
asserted that organizations must consider the opportunity costs associated with investing
resources into building agile capabilities rather than investing those resources into other
capabilities. Ultimately, organizations are striving to manage through higher levels of
uncertainty and complexity as advances in technology, communication, and transportation
continue. Organizations must make strategic decisions within their financial capabilities,
managing through uncertainty and risk as they do so.
While organizations must respond to higher levels of uncertainty and complexity,
it is important to respond with strategic decisions that are within the financial capabilities
of the organization. A fiscally appropriate response to uncertainty and complexity may
include making active decisions about how to invest in building agile capabilities, how
much to invest in building agile capabilities, and how long to invest in building agile
capabilities. The more that becomes known about how to effectively build agile
capabilities in the workforce within supply chain, the greater the likelihood that
organizations can identify fiscally responsible ways for undertaking such an endeavor.
This study directly addressed the gap in research related to how agility capabilities are
built in the workforce through an exploration of how supply change managers develop
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Summary and Conclusions
Chapter 2 described methods for identifying relevant seminal and current
literature on the key concepts of this study. I have presented an in-depth conceptual
framework of the study concepts of change management, change leadership, agile
workforce capabilities, human resource management, and supply chain. I then presented a
full literature review of the key concepts related to this study, identifying connection
points across each of the study concepts. Relationships across the key concepts of the
study were provided in alignment with the conceptual framework model presented in
Figure 2.
The in-depth analysis of change management, organizational agility, change
leadership, agile workforce capabilities, human resource management, and supply chain
in Chapter 2 clarified that research has identified agile workforce capabilities as an
important contributor to organizational agility. The research has shown that organizational
agility, in turn, contributes to important competitive advantages in turbulent markets. I
have presented a summary of research that provides a descriptive overview of the
contributors to and importance of agile workforce capabilities in organizations operating
in continuous or complex change environments, including in supply chain.
The primary gap in literature relating to how supply chain managers develop
strategies to build agile workforce capabilities has been discussed. I have also discussed
the secondary gap of considerations supply chain managers make regarding the use of
human resource management practices, change leadership practices, and change
management practices in developing strategies build agile capabilities in the workforce.
My research was a multiple, exploratory case study exploring how supply chain managers
develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. This research was
conducted to add knowledge in both the primary and secondary gaps in literature. Chapter
3, details plan for how these gaps in literature can be investigated in the current study,
including details the study methodology, design, the role of the researcher, the data
analysis plan, and how I addressed issues of trustworthiness.
Chapter 3: Research Method
The purpose of this qualitative, exploratory multiple case study was to explore
how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Supply chain managers may use human resource management practices to facilitate the
development of agile workforce capabilities (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2017; Ghasemi et al.,
2016; Teimouri et al., 2017). The described practices of supply chain managers using
human resource management practices, change leadership practices, and change
management practices to develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce
has not been explored in previous research.
In Chapter 3, I explain the research design used and my rationale for the research
design selected. I explain the role I play as the researcher and describe the methodology
of this study. The methodology I discuss includes participant selection, instrumentation,
recruitment strategies, plans for data collection, and my plan for data analysis. I close
Chapter 3 with a discussion on issues of trustworthiness, reviewing how I built
credibility, dependability, transferability, confirmability, and ethical practices into the
design of this study.
Research Design and Rationale
The research design of this qualitative study is an exploratory, multiple case study.
A qualitative research method is employed when a researcher aims to explore universal
human experiences. This is different from quantitative research design which seeks to
identify the presence or absence of links between research variables through empirical
analysis (Frankfort-Nachmias et al., 2016). While quantitative research seeks out
empirical knowledge related to the world around us, qualitative research aims to establish
what is true about a phenomenon through the lens of those experiencing the phenomenon
being studied (Maxwell, 2013). One way to look at the phenomenon of something
examined through the lens of those experiencing it is through case study research design.
Researchers can investigate a phenomenon in the totality of influencing factors to
see it through multiple perspectives while it is occurring through a case study research
methodology (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The various viewpoints are captured through each
unit of study in the case study design. I designed this study to capture and communicate
the strategies supply chain managers described when developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce. I investigated supply chain managers’ descriptions of how
they develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce to manage change in
complex or continuous change environments successfully.
Yin (2018) opined that case study methodology is appropriate when research is
focused on “how” or “why” questions about real-life events. The case study design
intends to examine a phenomenon such as an experience, event, organization, or role in
depth. The qualitative investigation case study method explores how phenomena occur
within a specific space and time (Frankfort-Nachmias et al., 2016).
Baxter and Jack (2008) posited that the researcher must identify a single case in
the research design based upon the research question and bounded context of the case
study. The inquiry of this study is an inquiry into of how supply chain managers develop
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. I used the multiple-case study
approach to capture descriptive information, with each participant representing a single
case exploring how supply chain managers are advancing human capital capabilities in
their organization by developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
This inquiry process was bounded by strategy development activities occurring in supply
chain environments of continuous or complex change within the previous 3 years that
supply chain managers were responsible for developing agile capability strategies (from
February of 2018 to March of 2021). Because the focus of inquiry was on supply chain
managers and was not bounded by industry or organization, partner organizations were
not sought for this inquiry.
Yin (2018) posited that a multiple-case study design might be selected when the
evaluation of cases treats each case as its own “experiment” (p. 55). A multiple-case study
design was employed to establish that each participant interview was not being treated as
an additional instance of data within a single, aggregate analysis of the phenomenon of
study, such as may occur with a survey design. Each participant represented one complete
case in this study, as each participant represented one
“experiment” within the study, providing one comprehensive set of complete data on
research phenomenon.
A multiple case study structure is used in qualitative research design when the
researcher wants to examine various layers of a single phenomenon or find contrast and
similarities between multiple instances of a phenomenon (Yin, 2018). To explore this
study’s research question, finding differences and similarities between multiple examples
of the phenomenon of developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce in
the supply chain was sought. Each case for this study was examined in contrast to the
other cases of this study to identify differences and similarities across cases. This
supported using an exploratory, multiple case study research design for this study.
Because supply chain is an organizational process within many industries,
completing a single case study would limit data collection to participant experiences
within a single industry. Conducting a single case study would prevent gaining
knowledge on any similarities or contrasts of supply chain planning processes across
industries. I used a multiple case study methodology. Each participant represented a
single case study to allow the opportunity to reach participants in supply chains across
sectors experiencing continuous or complex change. This allowed for the emergence of
data across industries to develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Frankfort-Nachmias et al. (2016) asserted that an essential distinction in case
study research is grounding the study in clear boundaries of space and time. This case
study was bound by requiring participants to describe their experiences of developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce where strategy development has
occurred within the previous 3 years. This case study is also bound by time in that the
period of this case study began with the first participant’s interview and was completed
with the final follow-up interview. This case study was bound in space through the
designation of participants having recent or current experience developing strategies to
build agile capabilities in the workforce within the supply chain division of their
organization. These boundaries identify how this study design addresses the study’s
research question and differentiates this study from other research designs.
Data triangulation was achieved by seeking information and case study interviews
to find relevant information that corroborated or challenged data from participant
interviews. Archival data for organizations participants have been or are affiliated with
was investigated following each interview. Data was sought to corroborate instances of
continuous or complex change described, such as mergers, acquisitions, or geographic
expansions or reductions, to support discussions around building agile capabilities as a
change management strategy. Triangulation also occurred through requests for
participants to provide internal documentation relevant to the interview topic of
developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Candidates were
notified of meeting eligibility criteria after review of credentials. This notification
included a request to provide any nonproprietary, nonconfidential documentation that
would support their responses to the interview questions as part of their participation.
Suggested materials included training documentation, workforce development protocol,
or other documentation that identified how the participant develops strategies to build
agile capabilities in the workforce.
Triangulation occurred in each separate case by reviewing available archival data
related to their affiliated organization and available internal documentation provided by
the participant to the researcher right before or directly following each interview. Data
were reviewed about human resource practices, leadership practices, and change
management practices in developing human capital capabilities. Data were examined to
identify organizational changes occurring during periods described by participants. This
information was also analyzed in connection with themes and trends that emerged during
coding, synthesizing, and thematic analysis of the interview data for each participant,
with each case study being treated as a unique study.
Research Question
How do supply chain managers develop strategies for building agile capabilities in
the workforce?
Central concepts in this study were change management, leadership, agile
workforce capabilities, human resource management, and supply chain. Change
management is how organizational leaders plan, implement, and control change
initiatives within the organization. Change leadership was examined as the attitudes,
skills, and behaviors of leaders responsible for leading and managing change in the
workforce. Agile workforce capability is the ability of a workforce to respond with
flexibility, adaptability, proactivity, and resiliency in situations of continuous or complex
change. Human resource management is the combination of policies, procedures, and
systems designed to organize how human capital is used effectively to achieve
organizational goals (Teimouri et al., 2017). Human resource management activities
include talent acquisition, talent development, and talent management. The supply chain
involves product movement activities from product development through product
consumption (Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2017, citing Blanchard, 2010).
Other Qualitative Research Methods
Other qualitative research methods include ethnography, grounded theory, and
phenomenology. Ethnography is a research method for observing and interacting with
participants within a social construct in which the phenomenon of interest occurs (Ross et
al., 2016). Things explored through ethnography include cultural norms and social norms
within small or large systems. Ross et al. explained that researchers attempt to immerse
themselves into the setting of a phenomenon naturally to observe participants first-hand,
without disrupting or influencing what is occurring for participants within the setting. As
I aimed to explore how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce through the verbalization of their experience, observing
participants in the setting of a continuous change or complex change environment was
outside the scope of my research. Because the scope of this study did not include
observation of the phenomenon, ethnography as a methodology was not appropriate.
Grounded theory research is a qualitative method that aims to generate theory
from data obtained in academic research (Noble & Mitchell, 2016). Researchers using
grounded theory expand upon what is understood about social phenomenon by “working
backward… from data into theory” (Marshall & Rossman, 2016, pg. 18). Marshall and
Rossman explain that constructivist grounded theory is a process in which the researcher
constructs theory through the interaction with and interpretation of the topic of the study.
The intent of this study did not include involvement of the researcher in the process of
developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce or analyzing data to
generate theories. Grounded theory is a methodology that was excluded from the design
of this study.
A final option for the methodology of this research study is phenomenology. The
phenomenology research design involves exploring how a population ascribes meaning to
a phenomenon. Reiners (2012) explained that phenomenology takes an inductive
approach in research, focusing on capturing qualitative information on a phenomenon that
positions a researcher to explore the lived experience of participants in qualitative
research. Phenomenology explores how meaning is ascribed through perceptions,
experiences, and judgments of individuals experiencing a specific phenomenon (Starks &
Brown Trinidad, 2007). Starks and Brown Trinidad explained that this close inspection of
an individual experience can capture the essence of an experience or event. As this study
aimed to understand how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce, phenomenology was not an appropriate design for this
study.
Role of the Researcher
My role as the researcher was to be the primary instrument of the research. I acted
as the primary instrument of the study by conducting semi-structured, one-on-one
interviews with participants who had volunteered to participate in this study. I was not a
participant in this study. I did have more than 15 years of experience working in logistics
and retail supply chains. I did not have professional experience developing strategies to
build agile capabilities in the workforce. While my professional profile was available to
participants through LinkedIn, I did not share my specific experiences about management
work in the supply chain with research participants; I wanted to ensure I was not
influencing anything a participant might be comfortable sharing during interviews. As the
researcher, I collected and transcribed the data. I analyzed the data and reported the
findings of the data analysis.
I had no current or previous working relationships with any participants in this
study. This study was not conducted within my workplace, so no conflicts of interest or
power differentials were present between myself and any study participants. My role was
to act as an observer of participants during their semi-structured interviews. My
observations entailed making written notes in a journal on the non-verbal behaviors of the
study participants during each interview. Making written notes on non-verbal behaviors
added richness to the data collected, as non-verbal communication may clarify the
intended meaning of what a participant has stated. Audio-recorded interviews were
transcribed and provided to participants following the interview to confirm the intended
responses provided and explain any perceived discrepancies between what was recorded
and what the participant intended to convey.
I may have some biases that can influence how I interact with a study participant
because I have worked as a supply chain leader for more than 15 years. To prepare for the
interviewing stage of this research study, I recorded my pre-existing expectations
surrounding the research concepts as a method to bracket any assumptions or biases I
have related to the research phenomenon. To address my familiarity with the research
concepts through my own life experiences, I made journal entries in a separate journal to
capture my reactions during the interview to review those reactions after each interview
to look for any possible biases. My journal entries helped me identify how I am
interpreting what is communicated to me and use this awareness to guide any follow-up
communication with participants when the interview transcript was sent to each
participant.
Methodology
Qualitative research aims to explore phenomenon in-depth, grounded in a
conceptual or theoretical framework that guides and informs the methodology of data
collection and analysis (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Participant sampling strategy,
participant sample size, recruitment strategy, instrumentation, data collection strategy,
data analysis planning, and data triangulation are all essential considerations for
developing research methodology. Methodology must align with the nature of the
research and the research purpose (Marshall & Rossman, 2016).
Participant Selection Logic
When investigating a specific phenomenon in qualitative research, an important
step is to define the population relevant to the investigation (Frankfort-Nachmias et al.,
2016). The population identified from which participants were drawn should correspond
to the research problem, purpose, and questions. Therefore, this study focused on how
supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Supply chain managers with experience developing strategies to build agile capabilities in
the workforce in complex or continuous change environments were the subjects of this
research study. Purposeful sampling was used to identify managers who fit this
description. Purposeful sampling is used when the importance of having samples
representative of the phenomenon investigated outweighs the importance of achieving
generalizability in a study (Palinkas et al., 2015). Purposeful sampling is different from
probability sampling.
Probability Sampling
Probability sampling is a technique used where anyone in the general population
has an equal likelihood of being selected as a participant in the study (Maxwell, 2013).
Maxwell noted that probability sampling is appropriate in research design when the intent
was to investigate phenomena to capture what is happening with those phenomena in the
general population. Generalizability is considered an essential tenant of quality in
research design. Probability sampling is typical in quantitative research design.
Maxwell (2013) stated that probability sampling creates a greater likelihood of
random variability that is not ideal for research design that includes a small sample size.
In the case of this study, random sampling may have led to a participant pool that does
not include individuals with experience working as supply chain managers. This study
would not have been designed to explore the research question if the participant pool did
not include individuals with experience working in the supply chain with responsibilities
for developing agile capabilities in the workforce. This led to the conclusion that
probability sampling did not fit the design of this study. Therefore, purposeful sampling
was the sampling strategy used for this study.
Another sampling method that was considered for this study is snowball sampling.
Snowball sampling may be used if attempts at securing an adequate number of study
participants do not result in the needed participants. Using snowball sampling to have
participants identify additional candidates for the study can assist a researcher in
achieving the desired number of appropriate participants for case study research (Patton,
2015).
The specific criterion for study participants included management work
experience in the supply chain. The management work experience required included
experience developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce in a
continuous or complex change environment within the previous 3 years. I verified the
prior professional experience of participants through requested resumes or a review of
professional profiles on social media sites such as LinkedIn.
Participant Sample Size
An essential goal in qualitative research is gathering a rich description of a
phenomenon through the in-depth collection of data (O’Reilly & Parker, 2013). Gaining
an exhaustive description of the experience participants attribute to a phenomenon is not
guaranteed by a specific sample size (O’Reilly & Parker, 2013). The purpose and context
informed the sample size for this study. The purpose of this qualitative, exploratory
multiple case study was to investigate how supply chain managers develop strategies to
build agile capabilities in the workforce. The context of this study included the roles of
human resource management practices, change management practices, and leadership
practices in developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Therefore,
the participant sample size was dictated by the need to obtain rich data of how supply
chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Yin (2018) asserted that an essential consideration for sample size with case study
design is to avoid attempting to use replication logic such as would be used in surveys or
design structured to capture the totality of an experience. The intent of this study design
was not to capture a broad spectrum of understanding related to the study purpose, but
rather an in-depth analysis. Yin (2018) suggested that a researcher use discretionary
judgment in identifying the appropriate sample size for a study. To assist in using
reasonable judgment regarding sample size, I reviewed other multiple case studies that
used sampling logic aimed at a rich, in-depth exploration of their research phenomenon.
Löfgren et al. (2018) conducted a multiple case study with six participants selected from
three urban regional areas of Sweden and three rural regional areas of Sweden. The
central focus of the study was on strategic planning in developing transportation
infrastructure in Sweden. Vedel et al. (2020) conducted a multiple case study with six
participants selected from health-services non-profit organizations to investigate how
healthy living is promoted through social media channels by non-profits. Using these
studies as a guide, I aimed to secure a sample size of six cases for this multiple case
study. The final number of participants secured was guided by the purpose of securing a
detailed description of how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce.
Instrumentation
As the researcher in this case study, I was the primary instrumentation of this
study. I collected data in semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with open-ended
questions. I collected data on observation sheets and through audio recordings of the
interviews conducted. My primary data collection tools were my research questions, my
ears that captured what I was hearing, and my eyes that captured what I was seeing
(Maxwell, 2013). I also collected data through searches on archival data on organizations
and industries participants were from and through the collection of supporting documents
provided by participants. The initial interview questions were open-ended to support open
communication and reflection for study participants as they described the considerations
involved as they develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. The
interview questions and probing questions are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Participant Interview Questions
Question number Interview Question
IQ1
IQ2
IQ3
IQ4
IQ5
Can you briefly describe your work experience related to change management in
the previous 3 years? (warmup question)
Can you describe the processes involved in developing strategies for building agile
capabilities in your workforce?
• Who is involved in strategy development?
• What timeframes are typical in the development of agile capabilities
strategies?
What resources do you consider as you develop strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce?
• What resources do you feel have been most effective in developing
strategies for building agile capabilities in the workforce? What
challenges have you faced when developing strategies for building agile
capabilities in your workforce?
• How frequently have you experienced these challenges?
• How have you responded to these challenges?
What role do human resource practices play in developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce?
• How frequently are human resources practices considered in strategy
development ?
IQ6
What role do leadership practices play in developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce?
• How frequently are leadership practices considered in strategy
development?
IQ7
IQ8
IQ9
What role do change management practices in the organization play in developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce?
• How frequently are change management practices considered in strategy
development?
How do you measure the success of strategies developed to build agile
capabilities in the workforce?
• How are agile capabilities in the workforce measured?
In what ways have you contributed to the development of agile capabilities for
organizations where you have worked?
• What benefits have your organization and your workforce experienced
through strategies you developed to build agile capabilities?
Member checking was conducted following the online or telephone interviews.
Member checking allowed participants to confirm that my interpretations of what was
communicated in the initial interview aligned with the intended meaning the participant
attended to convey (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Approximately one to three days
following each interview, I sent each participant a copy of their interview questions and
responses for them to review. Participants were invited to email me any follow-up
questions, responses they would like to alter, or additional information they would like to
share within 72 hours. I reached out to any participant who has not responded to my
member checking efforts within 72 hours after my initial communication. I again
attempted to determine if each participant had any follow-up questions, responses they
would like to alter, or additional information they would like to share. Member-checking
aided in verifying that the meaning I was interpreting from participant responses aligned
with what each participant intended to communicate.
Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection
I recruited participants through seven professional networking supply chain groups on
LinkedIn. I networked through the LinkedIn professional groups Supply Chain
Management Group, Inbound Logistics, Distribution and Logistics Professionals, and
Operations/Distribution Manager group. I first reached out to the Owner for each
LinkedIn professional group to request the Group Owner’s permission to post a request
for study participants on their group page. Once permission was obtained from each
Group Owner, I posted a request for study participation on their group page. The
recruiting post included a link to a website I created that described my research study,
http://bethanygraceresearch.com. The website I created replicated all information from
the participant consent form, including the research purpose, voluntary nature of
participation, some interview questions, and how to contact the researcher. I
communicated with participant candidates through email, social media messaging, or
telephone, depending on the contact preferences identified by participant candidates who
reached out to me.
I did not reach out directly to any organizations related to supply chain, as supply
chain functions happen in many organizations across a multitude of industries, including
transportation, energy, retail, healthcare, agriculture, telecommunications, et cetera.
Reaching out to a single organization may have introduced bias into the study due to
being unable to reach out to all organizations with supply chain functions. Limiting my
initial recruiting to social media channels defined my potential participant pool to supply
chain managers currently active on professional social media channels. To restrict the
inherent bias this recruiting strategy presented, I allowed potential participants to
recommend others within their network who may be interested in participating in this
research. Obtaining referrals of potential participants may help expand my reach beyond
only those active on professional social media sites.
I collected data through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with participants.
Interviews were structured with open-ended questions developed to capture supply chain
leaders’ behaviors, feelings, perceptions, values, and opinions. (Rosenthal, 2016). Each
interview was conducted online or by phone, based on the preferences of each participant.
Each interview was scheduled to be one hour in duration at a time selected by the
participant. Data were collected through written notes and an audio recording of the
interview that was used for post-interview transcription. Each interview was followed by
an opportunity for participants to clarify what they have communicated during their
initial interview. Follow-up email recaps were sent to each participant within 72 hours of
their interview.
I sent each participant a written recap of their interview questions and responses
approximately three days following their initial interview. This gave the participant time
to reflect on the interview. Following interviews, I coded the data, pull themes, and put
the experience into the sociological framework of the participant. I am the only person
who completed the transcription of interviews for participant confidentiality.
If I could not recruit the number of participants I wanted for this study, interviews
were planned to proceed with the participants available. Purposeful sampling was
supplemented with a snowballing recruitment technique. Rosenthal (2016) shared that
snowballing recruitment is a strategy of asking participants for candidates they may be
aware of who meet the participant requirements. Each candidate who reached out
regarding my study was asked to share my study information with any professional
colleagues they thought might be interested in participating in my study. Snowballing did
not result in any additional participants in my research.
The debriefing process involved member-checking with each participant to verify
the data I collected represents their behaviors, feelings, perceptions, values, and opinions
as described in my notes and the audio recording transcripts from their in-depth interview.
Participants were notified that participation in the follow-up member-checking was
voluntary. Participants received a copy of their responses to the interview questions
within two days following their initial interview via email. Participants were asked to
respond within approximately 72 hours with any clarifying questions, alterations, or
additional details they would like included. I reached out to participants in the manner
they preferred, by phone or email, for the follow-up details they wanted to share. I closed
out the member-checking process thanking each participant for their voluntary
participation in this research. After the study, participants will receive a study summary
and can obtain a copy of the final dissertation.
To obtain data for appropriate triangulation, I searched public information on any
organizations identified by participants related to their shared lived experiences
developing agile strategies for their workforce. I collected data on the industry the
organization was operating in, any changes the organization has been through such as
restructuring, mergers, or acquisitions, the geographic footprint of the organization, and
other data to validate that these organizations have experienced continuous or complex
change. I also requested supporting documentation from participants that could
substantiate their work on change initiatives related to developing agile capabilities in the
workforce for their organization. Additional information on the process for data collection
and analysis of internal documents is provided in the data analysis plan section.
Data Analysis Plan
My plan for data analysis for the initial interviews was to read my observation
notes, listen to audio recordings, and transcribe audio recordings verbatim through
MAXQDA software. The interview questions initially organized the data. After reviewing
the raw data, I categorized observation notes and transcripts through coding, synthesizing,
and grouping by themes. Saldaña (2016) defined coding as assigning a word of concise
phrase to summarily represent a unit of meaning for data collected through surveys,
journals, interviews, or other research methods. Saldaña made a distinction between
decoding and encoding in data analysis, noting that decoding detects the true meaning of
what has been communicated, while encoding is when that meaning has been assigned to
a code determined by the researcher. Decoding was guided by the conceptual framework
and the information outlined in the literature review of Chapter 2.
Castleberry and Nolen (2018) suggested that coding planning can occur before
coding data collected if the planning is grounded in concepts or theory identified in the
literature review. Castleberry and Nolen provide questions that can be asked to help
establish possible coding strategies. These questions are outlined in Table 2.
Table 2
Coding Strategy Questions
Coding Questions
Category
1 What is happening in the text?
Actions
2 Who are the actors and what are their roles?
Roles
3 When is it happening? (before, during, after, event, etc.)
Timing
4 Where is it happening?
Place
5 What are the explicit and implicit reasons why it is happening?
Attributed Meaning
6 How is it happening? (process or strategy)
Process
Note. Adapted from Castleberry and Nolen (2018)
The questions in Table 2 helped guide me to examining what stands out about the way
supply chain managers assign meaning to or understand their experiences related to
facilitating the development of agile capabilities in the workforce in continuous or
complex change environments. This coding framework gave me a starting pointing to
identify a coding strategy appropriate to my research.
I used MAXQDA coding software to assist with my data analysis. MAXQDA
software has capabilities for transcribing and storing data, indexing information, sorting
data in multiple ways, and coding data. I leveraged MAXQDA for all these functions.
Once I established codes using my analysis, I analyzed the coding for themes related to
the interview and research question. I reviewed transcripts and coding information across
interviews for similarities, differences, frequency, and sequence patterns. I then identified
ways to group, organize, and connect the data. I tied the information I had organized back
to the research question. Saldaña (2016) noted that coding occurs through multiple phases
of analysis. I interacted multiple times with the transcripts, the coding groups, the
subcoding groups, and the categories to see what stood out until I had all themes present
from the interviews. I then tied the final themes back to the research questions.
Discrepant data was included in the data analysis and noted in the study results.
An essential step in coding was to account for possible points of researcher bias in
assigning meaning to the data. I reviewed my reflexive journal entries during coding and
thematic analysis that I completed following each semi-structured interview. I examined
my writing to ensure I was bracketing any biases out of my analysis. Saldaña (2016)
asserted that it is important to ask reflective questions throughout coding cycles to
identify how a researcher’s beliefs, values, and expectations create a lens to the data
analysis process. Saldaña recommended reflective questions about what the research
found surprising, intriguing, or disturbing in the data being coded. I asked myself these
reflective questions and recorded them in my reflective journal to bracket out my own
beliefs, values, and expectations during the data analysis process.
Data Triangulation
Yin (2018) described triangulation of data as a “convergence of evidence,” (pg.
129). The quality of a study is strengthened when multiple sources of evidence are sought
to explore and understand a phenomenon. While interviews may provide a rich source of
data, additional relevant data may support the findings of a study. Other sources of data
for this study included archival data and internal documentation provided by participants.
Archival data was in the form of public records about organizations or industries that
participants have been involved in developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the
workforce. This included public information released by the organization related to
strategic plans, organizational restructuring, and other general information. This archival
data helped establish the organization’s change environment each participant had been
involved in. Archival data that supports whether the environment has been continuous or
complex change helped to triangulate the data obtained from interviews.
Internal documentation provided by participants or representatives of their
organization included information on professional development initiatives, training plans,
and agile models and change management models that participants used to develop agile
capabilities in the workforce. Internal documentation obtained was subject to the strictest
confidentiality, with no identifying information specific to any organizations being
included in this dissertation’s data analysis process or publication. Any internal
documentation included in the study was information that is not proprietary or
confidential to the organization. I requested internal documentation from study
participants in the consent form, noting that information shared should include items that
are not proprietary or confidential. Internal documentation of organizations that
participants are affiliated with also helped to triangulate the data obtained through
participant interviews.
The triangulation process occurred by first gathering the sources of the internal
information at the interview from the participant and, following the interview, gathering
archival data on the organization or organizations the participant identified working for
when developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. I repeated this
process for each case in this multiple case study. Once I gathered the internal and archival
data, I analyzed that data for information regarding the roles of human resource practices,
leadership practices, and change management practices related to building agile
capabilities in the workforce and information about the organization experiencing
continuous or complex change. I analyzed the themes and trends that emerged from the
interview data to develop a comprehensive data set within each case in this multiple case
study.
Issues of Trustworthiness
Marshall and Rossman (2016) asserted that qualitative research must address
issues of trustworthiness and ethics, including credibility, dependability, and
transferability. Confirmability and ethical procedures are also discussed in this section.
Credibility
Establishing credibility involves implementing measures that help establish how
the concept investigated has been captured by the instrument used to collect data in a
research study (Frankfort-Nachmias et al., 2016). Frankfort-Nachmias et al. noted that if
the instrumentation accurately captures data of the concept investigated, analysis of the
data will link to the study’s research questions. As I was the primary instrument used to
collect data in this study, I structured my data collection to best ensure the data I collected
captured the concepts I was investigating. I had multiple sources of data captured through
multiple semi-structured interviews. I used a reflective journal to capture my initial
reactions after each interview. I then reviewed these entries to identify any possible biases
that may have detracted from capturing credible data.
Transferability
Transferability in qualitative research concerns how a study is valuable to others
in comparable circumstances or others who want to research issues related to the current
study’s issues (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). The transferability of this research was
established through procedures of participant selection described here. The participant
pool was established through professional supply chain leadership associations. An
overview of the study was provided to recruit participants. The participant pool was then
evaluated to identify candidates that meet the study requirements.
Participants were selected based on strategy development responsibilities within a
continuous change environment or during complex change initiatives. Participants were
selected based on having direct responsibilities for developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce. Participants were selected based on having direct
responsibilities for developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce in a
continuous change or complex change environment within the previous 3 years. In
addition, participants had to be comfortable communicating in English during the
interviews, as a translator was not present during interviews. Participants were also
required to be 18 years old or older.
In addition to providing clear information on the population, Marshall and
Rossman (2016) asserted that clear information should be provided on the research
setting and how the research is conducted. The setting of each interview conducted for
this research was at the discretion of each participant. All interviews were conducted via
telephone or online conference call. The participant selected the date and time of the
interview based on their availability. I was in a private office free of background noise or
disturbances for each interview. I did not enable video capabilities for interviews
conducted via online conference call through applications including Zoom, Skype, and
Microsoft Office Teams. The research was conducted through interviews, with questions
outlined in Table 1 that future researchers may reference for transferability.
Marshall and Rossman (2016) posited that the researcher must consider how the
sample of the study reflects variations of the phenomenon and those involved in the
phenomenon in the general population. Because supply chain functions in organizations
can be global in scope, I aimed to secure a sample with a broad geographic region, not
limited to small geographic area. Because supply chain functions experience continuous
or complex change in a range of industries, I aimed to secure a sample with a broad range
of industries. This strategy allowed for the collection of rich descriptions of experiences
that may better represent the possible populations involved in the phenomenon than
limiting the sample to a single geographic area or industry.
Dependability
Dependability measures how accurate the instrument is that is generating data for
the study (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019). As the primary instrumentation of the study,
dependability was a result of how thorough and accurate I was in investigating the
described strategies of supply chain managers striving to build agile capabilities in the
workforce. Marshall and Rossman (2016) asserted that research intentions must include
possible changes as the research occurs due to the researcher expanding their
understanding of the phenomenon investigated or the phenomenon itself not being in a
static state. Dependability in this study was a product of my consistency, transparency,
clear documentation, and auditing of my work throughout the process of preparing to
conduct research, conducting the research, analyzing the data, and reporting out the study
results.
Consistency was achieved through clear organization of research methods,
including the use of study instruments, data collection, conducting semi-structured
interviews, communication with participants, and documentation of the research process.
Leedy and Ormrod (2019) noted that consistency must be achieved by conducting each
interview with the same structure for every participant. I implemented a structured
outline, following each question in the same order for each participant. The only
variability across the interviews was the use of probing questions generated within each
interview based on participant responses and any possible differences in the dynamic
between me and each participant.
Transparency was achieved by documenting researcher biases, experiences with
the phenomenon in the study, and assumptions held by the researcher. Transparency also
occurred through clear documentation of the study design, methodology, data collection
strategies, and data analysis process. Auditing established generalizability as it is a
verification process that research steps were completed accurately, and that researcher
biases and assumptions were bracketed appropriately not to influence the study outcomes.
In addition to the steps outlined for consistency, transparency, documentation, and
auditing, I recorded all interviews and transcribed them word for word, I aligned the
semi-structured interview questions with the research questions and conceptual
frameworks, and I validated the meaning of participant transcripts through
memberchecking following interviews.
Confirmability
Confirmability was established in this study through member-checking following
the initial interviews. After transcribing the initial interview, I followed up with each
participant by email to confirm the meaning I was drawing from their interview responses
aligns with the meaning they intended to convey. Member-checking helped clarify any
miscommunication and remove any research bias. I also established confirmability using
reflexive journaling through the interviewing process. Marshall and Rossman (2016)
noted it is important to establish objectivity within the study. Reflexive journaling helped
facilitate recognition of any unintended biases I may have included as I gave meaning to
the participants’ responses during interviews. This allowed me to maintain objectivity in
analyzing the data.
Ethical Procedures
It is essential to design research to prevent harm to participants (Leedy & Ormrod,
2019). Participants of this study were not expected to be more vulnerable to harm than the
general population. Active participation in this study was not expected to create a risk of
physical, emotional, psychological, or other harm different from normal daily living
activities. Participants were not expected to incur any financial costs. Participants did not
include minors. I made every attempt to keep participants free from harm in the research
process. Through networking in supply chain professional associations, recruitment
occurred, including electronic communication, messaging on professional social media,
and email messaging. No potential participants were pressured or coerced into
participation.
All communication with any potential participants was transparent, with no
misrepresentation of the intent of the recruitment or the study. Recruiting did not occur
within my place of employment, or with current or previous co-workers, to prevent any
possible conflicts of interest. Potential participants were notified that there is no
compensation for participating in this study. Standard methods to keep participants free
from harm were followed in communicating and interacting with participants and
following the close of the research study. This study did not explore participants’ the
psychological or health conditions of participants, so no conditions were created that may
create psychological or physical coercion for participants. Participants were treated with
civility and respect. Participants were not recruited until IRB approval was attained. The
IRB approval number for this study is 10-23-20-0433702.
Leedy and Ormrod (2019) asserted that ethical standards in research include
taking measures to ensure participants involved in a research study are aware that their
participation is voluntary and can act on this at any point in the study. All participants
were informed that their participation was voluntary. All participants were made aware
that they could withdraw from the study at any point, with no negative consequences or
pressure to continue. Any participants that chose to leave the study early were able to do
so with no adverse effects. Participants were informed that their participation involves an
interview where they would be asked open-ended questions related to leadership during
change initiatives. I disclosed the purpose and significance of the study to the
participants.
I provided a notice of complete confidentiality listed in Appendix A to participants
to be aware their participation was confidential. What they shared would be described in a
manner that does not reveal their identity. Leedy and Ormrod (2019) posited that
researchers should take specific steps to secure the privacy of each participant. I informed
each participant of the steps I took to ensure their privacy.
The first step I took to ensure participant privacy was that each participant was
given an identifying number used in all documentation. Only I, the research committee,
and the IRB had access to the key that notes which participant correlates to each
participant number. This information is stored electronically only, in a locked computer
that only I have access to and is password protected. The second step I took to ensure
participant privacy is that the names of any organizations or specific geographic areas are
not disclosed in the study. I also notified each participant of my contact information if
they had questions or wished to discuss anything pertinent to their participation in the
study.
Data was confidential and protected. Participants were identified through a
numbering system, with actual names not being used in transcribing interviews.
Participants were identified as “Participant 1,” “Participant 2,” and so on. Electronic data
is stored in secured cloud storage, Dropbox, that only I, the researcher, can access. Hard
data is stored in a locked fire-proof cabinet in my home. Data should be stored according
to the requirements of the publishing institution (O’Keeffe et al., 2016). Data will be
destroyed per Walden University’s Internal Review Board requirement of 5 years. Finally,
this study was submitted to the Institutional Review Board for a full review before any
steps were taken to contact potential participants or start collecting of data. I included
actual study documents in the Institutional Review Board (IRB) application.
Summary
Chapter 3 provided an overview of the study design, methodology, and
trustworthiness issues important in qualitative research studies. I made a case for
selecting a case study design to explore the strategies supply chain managers use in
facilitating the development of agile capabilities in the workforce over other qualitative
research methods. The case study design aligns with the research question in addressing
the research gap of understanding how supply chain leaders approach facilitating the
development of agile capabilities in the workforce in environments of complex change.
I served as the primary research instrument through data collection with
semistructured interviews. Interview questions and probing sub-questions were identified
in Table 1 in alignment with their corresponding research question. Issues of
trustworthiness discussed include credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability,
and ethical procedures. Detailed study design and methodology information have been
provided so results can be understood within the context of the research setting and the
study can be replicated for multiple case study research utilizing purposeful sampling as
the primary recruitment strategy. This study has been designed to comply with all Walden
University and IRB requirements to protect participants from harm, maintaining
confidentiality, voluntary participation, and data storage. Chapter 4 provides information
on the research setting, data collection, and an analysis of the data collected, including
coding and theme details.
Chapter 4: Results
The purpose of this qualitative, exploratory, multiple case study was to investigate
how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
The purpose of Chapter 4 is to present the data results of the interviews completed. In
Chapter 4, I review the analysis of the support documents provided by study participants
for triangulation of the data created through participant interviews. Chapter 4 includes the
research question, research settings, participant demographics, data collection procedure,
data analysis, evidence of trustworthiness, and final study results for the research question
from the analysis completed.
Research Question
The research question for this study was: How do supply chain managers develop
strategies for building agile capabilities in the workforce?
Research Setting
The setting for the participants in this research study was each participant’s
location of choice for participating in a one-on-one, audio-recorded interview.
Participants communicated via phone, Skype, or Zoom during their scheduled interviews
to address differences in the geographic location of the interviewer and participant.
Participants selected meeting times for interviews to accommodate their specific needs
for time-zone differences. Audio-recorded interviews were conducted with supply chain
managers from North America, Central America, Africa, and Asia. Participants worked
for various industries in the supply chain, including transportation, food manufacturing,
technology, and third-party logistics.
Demographics
Participants’ demographic information was not collected for this study to ensure
confidentiality. Participants worked in roles including vice president of supply chain,
director of operations, international business and product development director, senior
supply chain manager, and strategic development manager. One participant had the job
title business development executive and described their position as a dynamic role in a
start-up organization, with responsibilities including change management and developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Three managers held
responsibilities within a district or region of a single country. Two managers were
responsible for supply chain activities within a full country. One manager was responsible
for operations in multiple countries. Five participants were affiliated with organizations
with many years of experiences. One participant was affiliated with a startup
organization.
Data Collection
Nine candidates for participation responded to recruitment efforts. Three
candidates then chose not to participate in the study. Six participants completed
audiorecorded, one-on-one interviews for this research study. Recruitment and interviews
were completed over 3 months. Each participant participated in one audio interview via
phone,
Skype, or Zoom, which lasted approximately 1 hour. An audio recording device with a
USB port was used to record each interview, then the audio file was transferred to
MAXQDA software on my computer. The audio recording device is kept in a locked,
fire-proof safe in my home. The audio recordings of interviews were transcribed in
MAXQDA software within 48 hours of the interview. Transcripts were sent to each
participant within 72 hours of their audio interview for member-checking. All participants
responded to confirm receipt of their transcript and responded regarding any changes or
updates to make to their interview transcript before coding and analysis began.
Each participant was also allowed to provide any supporting documentation that
would shed additional insights into what was discussed their audio interview. Four of six
participants provided supporting documentation. The remaining two participants provided
only the organization’s name, citing concerns of not sharing proprietary information.
Supporting documentation included links to websites, diagrams of change management
models, diagrams of strategic planning models, and commentary reinforcing certain
aspects of their interview comments.
Data Analysis
Nine interview questions were used to answer the research question: How do
supply chain managers develop strategies for building agile capabilities in the workforce?
Six case studies were conducted with supply chain managers responsible for developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Transcripts of audio-recorded
interviews were created in MAXQDA. Once transcription was complete,
memberchecking was completed with each study participant to verify intended meaning
was captured in the transcript. Once member-checking was complete, the transcript was
reviewed. Each case study was examined independently for categories and themes.
I followed the initial six questions regarding coding listed in Table 2, Coding
Strategy Questions from Castleberry and Nolen (2018). I maintained a neutral position
during the data analysis phase by objective evaluation of the text, and asked myself: who
is involved, how are they involved, when things are happening, how things are
happening, and identified the explicit and implicit reasons provided for why it is
happening. Then, I began to look for repeated commentary. When reviewing repeated
comments in transcripts, I created initial codes that included leadership practices, human
resource management practices, and change management practices.
I reviewed each transcript again, looking for terms or concepts that emerged that
did not directly lead-in from the interview questions. New codes began to emerge. These
codes included talent capabilities, collaboration, integration, emotional intelligence, and
buy-in. As new codes appeared in a case study, previously coded case studies were
examined again to see if the same codes were present in the transcript but not coded on
the initial review. This iterative review of the transcripts allowed coding across cases. All
cases had three or more full reviews.
I then organized codes into emerging categories. Key categories from the analysis
of interview transcripts included leadership practices, integration, talent capabilities,
human resources practices, and change management practices. Table 3 provides a sample
of information that emerged during reviews of the interview transcripts.
Table 3
Aggregate Categories Across Case Studies
Categories
Participant quote
Leadership
Leadership was identified as
a high priority to
achieving agility in
multiple studies.
"What I mean by that, at least in my personal view. everything
revolves around leadership. In order to have an agile
environment, agile culture, agile, ah, execution, you need agile
leadership. You need leadership that revolves around agile
leadership principles.” (Participant 4)
"The processes start with leadership… The leadership system, it
determines how you set your goals, how you deploy it, how
you measure it, how you recognize your system, and then how
do you learn and how do you share.” (Participant 2)
Talent capabilities
Multiple managers
described a need to have
the right talent through
recruiting or through
ongoing development.
"You need to teach people in order to be great competitors…
Developing new skillsets, always making sure that you give
your people and the leaders the best tools to work with is
always going to be a success for the company.” (Participant 1)
Integration
Integration was raised in
multiple studies,
referring to internal
integration across teams,
as well integration
within
"That doesn’t become our problem if you don’t have trailers… We
have to work together about, what do we do about this thing?
What alternatives do we have? In the past it was just kind of
throw it over the wall and let somebody else pick up the
mess.” (Participant 6)
supply chain.
Resources
Multiple studies raised the
issue of time, financial,
and talent resources.
“And, of course, skills. Skills of those pulling the jobs off, the
operations personnel. How, agile, how, how efficient, and
effective are they at pulling something off. I mean, like, to
successfully create a job. All those things determine how we
are able progress.” (Participant 3)
Change management
practices
How change is managed was
identified as playing a
role in building agile
capabilities in multiple
studies.
" So, to set up for future change, I want to make sure that the
processes we are putting in place are well-documented, and
they are as simple and straight forward as they can be. And
that allows us to, when we need to make changes later,
understand what it is we are changing and anticipate the
downstream effects of the changes.” (Participant 5)
Within the category of leadership, multiple themes emerged. Leadership themes
that emerged during the analysis of interview transcripts included leadership culture,
leadership alignment, and leadership capabilities. These themes and supporting quotes
can be seen in Table 4. A leadership culture was discussed as the example leaders set, the
role leaders have in building culture, and leaders creating a culture of teamwork and
engagement. Leadership alignment was discussed as alignment across leadership teams to
streamline efforts and resources toward agility goals. Leadership capabilities covered a
range of specific skills and abilities, which may reflect the range of industries participants
were from and the range of positions they occupied. Looking past specific skills,
participants brought up the importance of the effectiveness of leaders in their roles,
including having the right talent in the right places.
Table 4
Leadership Categories
Leadership culture
Within discussions on the role
of leadership in building
agile capabilities,
participants
independently raise the
role leadership plays in
building culture.
"Working together to develop a culture where people are engaged... I am
going back to my opening statement about building a foundation. A
foundation where people are respected, supported, rewarded, given
opportunity for their individualized contribution. They are
developed. And then, introducing, you know, for instance,
crosstraining. Cross-training is one of the key pillars in the operation
for
agility." (Participant 4)
"So, leadership is, is a lot. It is actually service. It is not just occupying a
position. It means, you have much to do, because you have to be
exemplary... You can’t afford to not be putting your best forward
and expect others to do likewise. So first it is being exemplary, it
is motivating team members, it is looking out for one another. You
know, it is getting to know those you work with. And those you
work for." (Participant 3)
Leadership alignment
Participan
t quote
Leadership Themes: Rich Descriptive Analysis
Within discussions on the role
of leadership in building
agile capabilities,
participants
independently raise the
role of alignment within
leadership.
"Leadership drives everything ... If the leader or leaders are not sold
into, how can you, if you have a good idea or a good innovation or
very agile robust processes, if your leaders are not even sold to it, I
can’t imagine how that will happen. That is not going to
happen. So, leadership, the leader must be the number one
innovator. And he drives everything. Like my former boss, he would
push me so I
could push my people down the line to be more agile." (Participant
2)
"And so, you end up with resource-constraints because people are
working on XYZ, when I thought organizationally, we suggested
that ABC were the things that we were going to work on. So, I think
that is one of the key places in terms of trying to develop that
strategy and achieve that alignment." (Participant 6)
Leadership capabilities
Within discussions on the
role of leadership in
building agile
capabilities, participants
independently raise the
role of capabilities
within leadership.
"Well, leadership capabilities I think in every mode of transportation in
the supply chain, um, has to be from the top-down and it has to be
consistent… Leadership plays a tremendous role in developing the
talent… I believe mentoring is something that is kind of a lost art.
When you are a leader, you need to be a good mentor." (Participant 1)
Individual Case Studies
Case Study 1, Participant 1. Case study 1 was completed with a manager with
multiple decades of experience in supply chain and change management in North
America and Central America. Participant 1’s background including career progression of
leading small teams to leading teams of over 5,000, across an entire country. Participant 1
raised topics of bringing on the right talent, training, leadership mentoring, change
management strategy, and integration between departments when discussing their efforts
to develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. “You can’t sell what you
don’t know what your operations are, and you can’t operate well what you know you are
not selling, so there has to be a true buy in from both sides and excellent communication
as to what types of accounts you want to try and hit.” (Participant 1) Case Study 2,
Participant 2. Case study 2 involved a manager with multiple decades of experience in
supply chain and change management in Asia. Participant 2 raised topics that included
models of excellence (Malcom Bridge Criteria for Performance Excellence, Kaizen),
leadership alignment, emerging technologies, employee involvement in change, clear
vision, mission, and goals, and integration of leadership processes and human resources
processes. “Number one is that you have to have a leader and a leadership team and
leadership process. Very important. And that leadership process must be tied into your HR
process. It is almost the same.” (Participant 2)
Case Study 3, Participant 3. Case study 3 included a manager in a business development
role in a small Third-Party Logistics (3PL) company in Africa. Participant 3 raised topics
that included the critical role of supply chain in multiple industries, the role of resources
in determining how agile capabilities can be developed, with resources including time,
finances, and talent capabilities, on-going development and training, fostering
innovation, and building flexibility and adaptability skills at the individual level. “So,
one should be able to, should be flexible. Flexibility is key. Flexibility is key.
Adaptability is also key. Being able to adapt to, to changes, to positive changes. And
being able to discern what changes should be brought into your organization.”
(Participant 3)
Case Study 4, Participant 4. Case study 4 involved a manager responsible for
supporting supply chain operations in Canada and United States. Participant 4 raised
topics of emotional intelligence and changing mindsets toward embracing change,
decentralized and centralized leadership structure, integration, SWOT analysis, and
relentlessly sharing the vision with the workforce. Participant 4 asserted that to secure an
agile culture, an agile environment, and agile execution capabilities, leadership revolve
around agile leadership principles. Leadership revolving around agile leadership
principles was described as “being a servant leader, developing a network, having
participative management, distributive leadership. If you don’t have these, any initiative
to have an agile environment will not set its roots.” (Participant 4). Case Study 5,
Participant 5. Case study 5 included a manager in an IT management role in the supply
chain in North America, leading projects with international scope, including in Southeast
Asia. Participant 5 raised topics that included being savvy to the skillsets you need to
hire for diversity in capabilities, understanding the process to building buy-in when
leading change, keeping processes simple to facilitate knowledge sharing, alignment
between leadership and human resources, and being aware of resource constraints such
as funding and technical capabilities. Case Study 6, Participant 6. Case study 6
involved a manager in the food supply chain in North America. Participant 6 raised
topics that included working across functional boundaries throughout the supply chain
through integration, engaging employees in the purpose, the process, and the payoff of
changes to strengthen change management capabilities, keeping a clear vision and
attainable goals in front of the team, establishing feedback channels for employee input,
engaging the workforce continually, and constantly measuring how swiftly you can
move, your costs and output, and employee engagement.
Supporting Documentation Analysis
A range of supporting documentation was provided, with one participant
including resources for successful talent recruitment, documentation on change
management models, leadership models, and quality models utilized to develop agile
capabilities in the organization. One participant included the job description and
Curriculum Vitae to support documentation of their work in developing agile strategies to
build agile capabilities in the workforce. Another participant provided an overview of an
organizational model they developed to restructure divisions within their organization.
One participant provided supporting documentation on human resources practices,
leadership practices, and SWOT analysis models. Two participants did not provide
supporting documentation outside of their LinkedIn profile that identified their position
and companies they worked for currently or previously. Supporting documentation
provided by participants substantiated their positions within their organizations, which
showed alignment with requirements to participate in this research study. Participants’
additional documentation provided substantiated familiarity with the change management
practices, human resource management practices, and leadership practices participants
described as necessary to the development of strategies to build agile capabilities in the
workforce.
Table 5
Conceptual Framework Connection Su pporting Documents
Conceptual Framework Component
Supporting Document Connection
Leadership Practices
Case Study 1
Guidance on leadership development, the role of
emotional intelligence in leadership, prioritizing
creating a growth mindset, and working
successfully in uncertaint y.
Case Study 3
Leadership Excellence Model, Integration of
Human and Leadership Workforce Systems Model,
understanding and building
Leadership Brand
Case Study 4
Collaborative Leadership
Human Resources Practices
Case Study 1
Guidance on recruitment strategies, how to
interview effectively, and training.
Case Study 3
Align employees with Vision, Mission, and Values
of organization, recognize and reward, and unique
diversity.
Case Study 4
Functional people and process development,
organization-wide learning, and growth.
Change Management Practices
Case Study 1
SWOT Analysis model and cross-training strategy.
Case Study 3
Strategic Planning System Model, Malcolm
Baldwin Criteria for Performance Excellence,
Measurement and Management System Alignment
Model, internal Agility Model
Case Study 4
Blended Centralized and Decentralized Models
Case Study Differences
A unique factor in case study 3 was that the participant’s organization was very
new within the supply chain industry. Participant 3 noted a specific challenge from being
a new organization in the industry was how resources were used and how agile strategies
were developed. Participant 3 indicated a priority for the organization was establishing
credibility across the supply chain while working to build the client base. This stands in
contrast to experiences described by participants in the other five case studies where the
focus and priorities around upstream and downstream stakeholder concerns centered on
the integration of priorities, goals, and capabilities rather than establishing credibility.
This focus of the discrepant case study may indicate factors a very new organization
experiences lead to different focus areas, priorities, and abilities for building agile
capabilities in the workforce. As this study is purely qualitative, no quantitative measures
were analyzed for differences between organizations.
Evidence of Trustworthiness
This section has addressed key issues of trustworthiness and ethical procedures for
this study. Yin (2016) asserted that establishing trustworthiness in a study occurs through
the methods used to generate data. In this section, I review how I built credibility,
transferability, dependability, and confirmability in my research to establish
trustworthiness in the data.
Credibility
Steps I took to establish credibility in the data collected included consistent
structure for interviews, consistent opportunity for participants to review their interview
transcript, and consistent opportunity to provide supporting documentation regarding
participants’ work experiences. I structured my data collection to ensure the data I
collected captured the concepts I was investigating. Multiple sources of data were
generated by having each semi-structured interview represent one case study. After each
interview, I conducted member-checking, emailing a transcript of each participants’
interview within 72 hours. All participants confirmed that their perspective was
accurately represented in their interview transcript. Member-checking established that
data collected through interviews was representative of participants’ perspectives on how
they develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Transferability
The transferability of this research was planned through structured procedures of
participant selection. The participant pool was established through the initial plan of
networking efforts within professional supply chain leadership associations on social
media. There was not a need to expand recruiting toward human resource management
professional associations or professional leadership associations. I evaluated the
participant pool to identify candidates that meet the study requirements. One participant
candidate never responded to initial communication. A second candidate declined to
answer questions regarding participation eligibility and opted out of the study. A third
candidate’s relevant experience had not occurred within the previous 3 years. Six of nine
candidates were identified as meeting the study eligibility requirements after answering
the eligibility questions via written communication with me. I then verified eligibility by
reviewing candidates’ professional work profiles on the social media site LinkedIn.
Dependability
As the primary instrumentation of the study, dependability for this study was a
result of how thorough and accurate I was in investigating the described strategies of
supply chain managers striving to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Marshall and
Rossman (2016) asserted that research intentions must include possible changes as the
research occurs due to the researcher expanding their understanding of the phenomenon
investigated or the phenomenon itself not being in a static state. I did not experience any
changes in my understanding of the phenomenon being investigated in this study during
the data collection or data analysis phase of the research. Dependability in this study was
a product of my consistency, transparency, clear documentation, member-checking with
participants, and auditing of my work throughout preparing to conduct research,
conducting the research, analyzing the data, and reporting out the study results.
Consistency was achieved through clear organization of research design, including
instruments, data collection, communication with participants, and documentation. Leedy
and Ormrod (2019) noted that consistency must be achieved by conducting each
interview with the same structure for every participant. I implemented a structured
outline, following each question in the same order for each participant. The only
variability across the interviews was the probing questions generated within each
interview based on participant responses and any possible differences in the dynamic
between me and each participant. One interview experienced technological barriers
during the semi-structured interview due to the interviewer and participant being on
different continents. The call dropped and had to be re-connected to continue the
interview. During another interview, the participant was contacted by their manager
halfway through the interview. The interviewer then continued the interview after the
exchange with their manager. Four of the six interviews did not experience any
disruptions.
Transparency was established with documentation of researcher biases,
experiences with the phenomenon in the study, and assumptions held by the researcher.
Transparency was also achieved by documenting the study design, methodology, data
collection strategies, and data analysis process. Auditing was completed to establish the
completeness of the research steps. Auditing was also done to review researcher biases
and assumptions. Auditing further mitigated for research biases to ensure they did not
influence how data was analyzed. In addition to the steps outlined for consistency,
transparency, documentation, and auditing, I recorded all interviews and transcribed them
word for word. The semi-structured interview questions were closely aligned with the
research question and conceptual framework for this study. Finally, transparency was
attained by confirming the meaning of participant transcripts through member-checking
following interviews.
Confirmability
Confirmability was established in this study through member-checking. After
transcribing each interview, I followed up with each participant by email to confirm the
meaning I was drawing from their interview responses aligned with the meaning they
intended to convey. Each participant received a transcript of their interview via email
within 72 hours of their interview. Member-checking helped clarify any
miscommunication and remove any research bias. Reflexive journaling during and
directly following each interview also helped establish confirmability of this study.
Reflexive journaling helped facilitate recognizing any unintended biases I had included as
I gave meaning to participants’ responses during interviews. Reviewing my reflexive
journal created a process for me to maintain objectivity in analyzing the data.
Study Results
The first research question in this study was a warm-up question asking each
participant to review their recent work history and work experience. This allowed me to
get a sense of the participants’ experience in the supply chain industry and their
experience leading change and addressing needs for agile capabilities within their
workforce. Research questions two through nine explored the research question of this
study within the conceptual framework that informs this study. A rich description of all
participant responses to each research question is provided here.
Interview Question 1
Can you briefly describe your work experience related to change management in the
previous 3 years? Participant 2 described various roles, including Change
Management Assistant Vice President. Participant 3 discussed working in a dynamic role
with many responsibilities as a part of a start-up organization in supply chain aiming to
carve out a space in a marketplace with room for expansion and growth. Participant 4
shared experiences implementing agile, lean, and total quality management projects in
supply chain. Participant 4 described themselves as a servant leader with a participative
management style and distributive leadership style. Participant 4 has been with their
current organization for more than 3 years and when they joined their organization,
annual revenues were approximately $250 million. Participant 5 described working in
operational planning and operations management roles in North America and Southeast
Asia in the supply chain within the IT industry. Participant 6 discussed their work in the
supply chain in a food production organization.
Interview Question 2
Can you describe the processes involved in developing strategies for building
agile capabilities in your workforce? Participant 1 discussed using a Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) framework to understand your industry and
your business to inform how strategies will develop needed agile capabilities. Key areas
of focus included understanding the competition’s capabilities, understanding your niche
in the marketplace, and building strong alignment between different sectors of the
organization, including strong alignment between operations and sales. “You can’t sell
what you don’t know your operations are capable of … so there has to be a true buy-in
from both sides and excellent communication as to what types of accounts you want to
try and hit. (Interview transcript Participant 1)
Participant 2 led with the role of leadership, examining leadership systems, and
building a model of leadership excellence that was used in efforts to build agile
capabilities in the workforce. “The leadership system, it determines how you set your
goals, how you deploy it, how you measure it, how you recognize your system, and then
how you do you learn and how do you share.” (Interview transcript Participant 2).
Participant 2 explained that the leadership system was used to drive leadership excellence
and expanded on this by explaining the use of the Malcom Bridge Criteria for
Performance Excellence.
121
Participant
3 described using many strategies as part of their dynamic as a newer
organization within their geographic area. Strategies to build agile capabilities for their
organization include pricing, sales strategies, and brand development. Participant 3
described actively using SCRUM, an important framework for building an agile mindset
in their business activities. “SCRUM, it is not something in the clouds. It is something we
actually practice.” (Interview transcript Participant 3).
Participant 4 discussed using an entrepreneurial approach that centers more on
vision and purpose rather than having a formal strategic process for developing strategies
to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Participant 4 shared that they use planning
tool as needed, including Porter’s Five Forces analysis and an organizational maturity
model. The discussion also included how Participant 4 leverages a SWOT analysis
framework, similar to the description provided by Participant 1.
Participant 5 discussed the process of developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce in terms of change management practices. References were
made to keep change management strategies simple, keep stakeholders informed, and
plan how changes beyond the current strategy will be impacted by what is currently being
done. Participant 5 indicated that all senior managers are responsible for developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce, but that support is available through
a central program management office. Proactive planning was emphasized, with
Participant 5 sharing that senior managers “are always looking at the strategies to take
account of what is happening in the future and be ready for it,” (Interview transcript
122
Participant
Participant 5).
6 discussed the process of solving recent challenges in transportation
when asked to describe the process involved in developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce. Participant 5 discussed how one bottleneck point in the
supply chain process has ripple effects to production workers who may be moved into
work stoppages. Staying closely connected to all areas that may negatively impact
operations was identified as important to building agile capabilities in the workforce
moving forward. Preventing workflow disruptions was also recognized as necessary to
keeping efforts to build agile capabilities in the workforce moving forward.
Interview Question 3
What resources do you consider as you develop strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce? Participant 1 first discussed the role of talent capabilities as
a resource needed to attain needed agility. The topic of talent capabilities was expanded
on, with Participant 1 discussing influencing the level of talent capabilities through
recruitment strategies to secure needed capabilities and training strategies to build upon
capabilities present in the current workforce. Participant 2 led with a different response.
“Well, I will say the most important element is your leader and your leadership team.
That is the most important element. Because it is the leadership team that drives
everything.” (Interview transcript Participant 2). Participant 2 then went on to echo a
similar sentiment to what Participant 1 had presented, noting that people with the right
capabilities was needed to deliver results. Participant 2 also identified technology as a
123
Participant
critical resource to consider when developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the
workforce in the supply chain.
3 described the importance of understanding what capacity was
available within the available workforce as well as understanding the financial constraints
to what could be done and understanding the resource of time and time constraints toward
generating returns on efforts. Participant 4 shared that they saw the first priority in
resources as “creating an environment where human resources can thrive and profoundly
affect the organization within that agile environment,” (Interview transcript Participant
4). Participant 4 elaborated on setting up the workforce for success through
communication structure, leadership practices, collaboration and information sharing
culture.
Participant 5 discussed the importance of IT resources to maximize access to
information. The discussion then focused on the importance of having a diverse
workforce with needed skillsets to support building agile capabilities in the workforce.
“And so, when you have that diversity, you can align your workforce and be able to
adapt,” (Interview transcript Participant 5).
Participant 6 shared “I think collectively about what type of people-power do I
need to have, what type of capital might I need to have. So, if you are going to try to
build some level of a strategy, you need to make sure, do we have the people that are
ready for this… change?” (Interview transcript Participant 6) Participant 6 also discussed
capital funding for projects and maintaining flexibility points across the workforce for
124
Participant
production flow throughout production and distribution of product as important resource
considerations.
125
Interview Question 4
What challenges have you faced when developing strategies for building agile
capabilities in your workforce? Participant 1 discussed the impact of a strong hierarchical
structure, where driving alignment between top management and operators in the field
can be a challenge. The ability to bridge the gap between conceptual ideas developed in
high-level strategy and how strategies are implemented in the field an important skill for
senior managers. “You have to pull executive management in in order for them to
visualize, to see what you are telling them, so they can go out and get you the resources
you are going to need for everybody to hit the benchmark.” (Interview transcript
Participant 1).
Participant 2 indicated that challenges are largely company-specific in general, but
the Covid-19 global pandemic was one challenge organizations are all facing that requires
rapid adaptions. Participant 2 went on to assert that overcoming challenges requires first,
rallying all employees around the organization’s mission and vision, especially regarding
what you want to do and how agile you want to be. And second, overcoming challenges
requires training and involvement at all levels. “I have seen very agile companies, when
the workers themselves are involved, directly involved in improving their jobs, there are a
lot of outstanding results. (Interview transcript
Participant 2).
Participant 3 discussed the challenges of their lack of brand recognition as a
startup organization and the efforts that earn trust in the marketplace. Additionally,
126
financial challenges were raised in response to the challenges faced when developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. In reference to financial constraints,
Participant
3 referenced the impact of the Covid-19 global pandemic, stating “We are talking about
supply chain management. Costs have sky-rocketed.” (Interview transcript Participant 3).
Participant 4 described academic achievement among the leadership as a
challenge to building agile capabilities in the workforce. “We have very few with
bachelor’s degrees or master’s degrees or any professional designations. And I am not
saying this to downplay their competencies and capabilities. I just refer to that as, you
don't know what you don't know,” (Interview Participant 4). Participant 4 also identified
alignment on responsibilities across leaders as an area of opportunity, noting that the
vision of clear designation between operational duties and sales and customer service
responsibilities requires effort to secure buy-in from their leaders throughout North
America.
Participant 5 identified overcoming the status quo as a challenge to developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Funding for strategic initiatives was
also cited as a concern. Participant 5 discussed being very clear with what problems you
are solving with stakeholders to generate support for moving away from the status quo
and for gaining support on funding initiatives to implement needed changes.
Participant 6 discussed alignment on the vision and goals of the organization as a
challenge to developing strategies to build agile capabilities. “[Y]ou start to take a look at
127
what the strategy is, where are we going to head, what are some things we are working
towards? Unfortunately, that list gets so big and so long, um, I have found that in all
cases that I can think of, we have always over-stated where we think we can go
(Interview transcript Participant 6).
Interview Question 5
What role do human resource practices play in developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce? Participant 1 described human resources as a “vital
function” (Participant 1). Participant 1 explained the importance of integration between
human resources and operational leaders, describing a two-way relationship in which
both sides must reach out to the other to build understanding of the needs and priorities of
each other. Participant 2 described human resources practices as “very, very important.”
(Interview transcript Participant 2). Participant 2 elaborated on critical functions of
human resources practices including hiring, training, and rewards for building agile
capabilities in the workforce. Participant 3 also discussed the role of training in human
resources practices.
Participant 4 spoke on multiple roles human resources play in their organization
since first becoming part of the organization in the last 2 years. The roles include building
culture, performance management, leadership capabilities development, and training.
“Cross-training is one of the key pillars in the operation for agility,” (Interview transcript
Participant 4). Participant 4 also discussed the important role human resources plays “in
recruiting and building an on-call labor pool so that we can flex labor in accordance with
128
operational needs and business demand without having to resort fully to full-time,
employee-based, and high-costs related to that level of employee base,” (Interview
transcript Participant 4).
Participant 5 was brief in discussing the role of human resources in developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. The discussion centered on
limitations present when human resources are not aligned with operations on staffing
needs. Participating 5 did not elaborate on gaps within recruiting, development,
performance management, or any other staffing responsibilities human resources might
have. Participant 6 discussed the importance of the right players in the right roles,
examining things through diverse perspectives, having an entrepreneurial spirit, and
understanding what skillsets you need for what you are trying to accomplish.
Interview Question 6
What role do leadership practices play in developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce? Participant 1 discussed the importance of having good
leaders throughout the organization and having consistency across levels of leadership.
For specific leadership practices, Participant 1 emphasized hiring high-potential
candidates, mentoring, continually developing your and your team’s leadership skillset,
and providing the best available tools to the team.
Participant 2 asserted that leadership buy-in is necessary to have agile processes.
“If the leader isn’t sold on the idea of agility, the company is not going to be sustainable.”
(Interview transcript Participant 2). Participant 2 also asserted that innovation starts with
129
leadership and plays a role in developing agile capabilities. Participant 3 described the
role of leadership practices pertaining to agility as being exemplary in every way.
“Leadership, it is continuous self-development, motivating the team, it is providing
resources. You know, providing direction for the rest of the team, providing resources to
make sure that you are able to achieve the long-term goals and objectives of the
company.” (Interview transcript Participant 3).
Participant 4 asserted that leadership plays the most critical role in developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. “Everything starts with leadership. I
don't want to repeat myself, but that was my opening statement. To have agility in the
organization, you need engagement. You need culture. And leaders develop the culture,”
(Interview transcript Participant 4). Participant 4 provided a full description of how they
see leadership shaping and building an agile culture. The description referenced servant
leadership, leading without authority, taking on the leadership role as an enabler of others’
abilities, deploying emotional intelligence, and providing resources necessary before
bringing up the need to be agile. “So, ah, you need to be that servant leader who worries
more about developing other people, giving them the opportunity to thrive, to be engaged,
to enjoy what they do, to grow, to be looked after, not just related to business,” (Interview
transcript Participant 4).
Participant 5 stated that the role of leadership practices in developing strategies to
build agile capabilities is tremendous. Participant 5 focused on the importance effective
communication, elaborating with an example from a recent meeting for senior managers
130
where the message from the Vice President focused on effective communication, starting
with seeking to understand the problem before attempting to solve it entirely. “You know,
one of the biggest obstacles to making progress in an organization is you get in a meeting
where everybody tries to go straight to the solution. You might not always understand the
problem,” (Interview transcript Participant 5). Participant 6 described leadership practices
as important in building agile capabilities in the workforce. Practices brought up by
Participant 6 included bringing a clear vision, helping others understand their role in the
vision, open communication, and driving engagement and collaboration throughout the
team.
Interview Question 7
What role do change management practices in the organization play in developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce? Participant 1 discussed developing
common goals across segments of the organization that may have differing goals, such as
sales and operations. Participant 1 described establishing common goals to work toward
to engage employees throughout the organization in understanding how and where they
add value to the processes they affect. Participant 2 discussed the Malcom Bridge
Performance Criteria of Excellence, quality controls, and Kaizen processes as important
change management practices that support efforts to build agile capabilities in the
workforce. The discussion included assertions on the importance of aligning with mission
and vision across the supply chain, including with suppliers and customers, to achieve an
integrated system.
131
Participant 3 described change management considerations as necessary to how
the organization makes effective decisions to avoid changes that will be too costly for the
organization. “Being able to discern what changes should be brought into your
organization…What effect will it have in the long run? What will it be? Is it going to eat
deeper into the company’s pockets? Or is it going to give us a higher ROI in the long
run?” (Interview transcript Participant 3). Change management practices that build
flexibility and adaptability were described as key in change management’s role in
developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Participant 4 discussed the importance of having a mindset that the constant that
changes within the supply chain provide the ability to seize new opportunities. “So, the
most critical aspect is to develop that mindset where people embrace change. Not as an
enemy of your condition but an enabler of your growth and success. (Interview transcript
Participant 4). Participant 4 also referenced leveraging a change management model,
Kotter’s 8-Step Change Management Model, similar to other participants. Participant 4
noted that “to be successful in change management, you have to have a certain
methodology. And not necessarily to follow it rigidly, but more to remind yourself, am I
hitting all these aspects in the methodology?” (Interview transcript Participant 4).
Participant 5 discussed the need for change management practices that include
execution of changes and creating a positive response to the change. “If you are trying to
come up with new ways of doing things, people have to see the need for it and then
embrace it and say ok, maybe the solution being proposed isn’t what I would do, but it is
132
better than what we are doing, right?” (Interview transcript Participant 5). Participant 6
also addressed the need for support to implement and manage change successfully. You
are going to find a minority that are stuck in their old ways, right, and there is nothing
that is going to change them. But I do believe that others are willing to change, if they
understand the purpose, process, payoff. Right? What is the purpose of what we are
doing? What is the process we are going to go through?
And what is the payoff we are going to give organizationally to this change? Why
are we making this change? All too often we hear folks that don’t know what is
going on or why. And I don’t believe that that fosters an engaged workforce. So, I
think change management is critically important. (Interview transcript Participant
6)
Interview Question 8
How do you measure the success of strategies developed to build agile
capabilities in the workforce? Participant 1 discussed revenue, cost controls, marketplace
growth, and net profit as measures of agility for the organization. Participant 2 shared that
there are many ways to measure success in terms of agile capabilities specific to the
organization and specific to projects and initiatives. Participant 2 asserted that measures
could be reduced to the effectiveness and to the efficiency of inputs and to the
effectiveness and the efficiency of outputs in any given system. Participant 3 described
software that captures data specific to employee work tasks and organizational
performance. Participant 2 also raised customer feedback obtained through feedback
channels to measure success for strategies developed to build agile capabilities in the
133
workforce. “We allow them to drop opinions or suggestions; or ask open-ended questions
to know how we can perform better, what area needs to be fine-tuned to enable us to
grow.” (Interview transcript Participant 3).
Participant 4 referenced leveraging quantitative and qualitative measures to
evaluate the success of strategies developed to build agile capabilities in the workforce. In
reference to quantitative metrics, Participant 4 described general business outputs as
indicators of success. “If you create an agile environment, ideally you will execute with
success. If you execute with success, that will show in your performance. You know,
whether that is financial metrics or simple production metrics,” (Interview transcript
Participant 4). Participant 4 went on to express a stronger inclination toward qualitative
measures of success. “But what I like the most and what I focus on is the qualitative
aspect. It is actually seeing the effects of your coaching, your mentoring, your leadership
style in how people actually demonstrate agility,” (Interview transcript Participant 4).
Participant 5 did not identify how success is measured for agile strategies
developed to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Participant 5 did bring up
identifying when you are not successful, describing the challenges the organization faced
with staffing shortages during the Covid-19 pandemic. Participant 5 attributed this to
human resources practices not keeping pacing with changing conditions in the workforce
market, noting “they just kept doing the same hiring practices they have always done.
Have a job fair, people show up, you hire them, right? Well, that doesn’t work in that
type of situation. You have to be able to change,” (Interview transcript Participant 5).
134
Participant 6 discussed costs, outputs, and overall performance to measure the
success of efforts to build agile capabilities into the workforce. Metrics discussed
included measures of safety, productivity, quality, customer feedback, and employee
engagement. Participant 6 also discussed examining metrics on a micro-and macro-basis,
with some metrics being reviewed daily and weekly, and at the same time examining on a
broader scope, quarterly or annually, to examine if the results align with the strategy.
Interview Question 9
In what ways have you contributed to the development of agile capabilities for
organizations where you have worked? Prior to question 9, Participant 1 shared, “I’ve had
many people be promoted over me that are in the industry today that work for the
competition, that are key stakeholders and in vice president roles globally, so I am pretty
proud of that.” (Interview transcript Participant 1). Participant 1 referenced the above
statement they made earlier when asked about their contributions to the development of
agile capabilities. In addition to talent contributions to the organization, Participant 1
described the experience of reporting to a senior vice president of the organization’s
International Division and being given the responsibility of leading change in a country
that was turning seven-figure losses annually. Participant 1 was able to generate a
ninefigure gain for the organization and identified that as another important contribution
they made to building agile capabilities within the organization.
Participant 2 described revising the supply chain strategy of land and water
transportation across an island country through the use of technology advances that
135
transformed how product movement was tracked, how measures of success were
evaluated, and what the organization could deliver for their customers that brought
greater agile capabilities to their customers. Participant 3 responded to the question
regarding their contributions to the organization’s agile capabilities, describing their
efforts to elevate their own capabilities for the organization continually. Participant 3
then discussed contributions to marketplace expansion in a small start-up organization
and to contributions to work as a team player to improve the financial well-being of
the organization and support efforts for positive returns on investments being made.
Participant 4 discussed the impact of restructuring the organization from a very
decentralized structure to a modified structure with aspects that remained decentralized,
but also included a centralized structure that aligned capabilities and responsibilities as a
key contribution that have made to building agile capabilities within their organization.
Participant 4 identified this structure as opening up collaboration, information sharing,
and decision-making, resulting in an engaging, agile environment where diverse
operational capabilities could be developed.
Participant 5 reviewed the delivery of a new customer-centered, capacity planning
process they developed for their organization when asked in what ways they had
contributed to the development of agile capabilities in their organization. “[B]efore I
came here it was just kind of a guess. I think we need X capacity, because that is what we
usually need,” (Interview transcript Participant 5.) With the capacity planning process
Participant 5 developed, better forecasting of volumes can result in more accurate staffing
136
planning. Participant 5 explained the impact of the capacity planning process “that will
allow us to be more adaptable to changes in demand. We have some seasonality and
service events. We think we can get ahead of that seasonality a little bit better with this
process,” (Interview transcript Participant 5). Participant 6 described contributions made
through communication and building engagement across the workforce.
Summary
Responses to each interview question shed light on the research question: How do
supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce?
While a single, unified strategy across case studies did not emerge, participants responded
readily to at least some aspects of the conceptual framework that informed the developed
interview questions. When examining all six case studies together, the rich description of
how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce
that emerged aligned with the conceptual framework that included change management
practices, human resource management practices, and leadership practices. Responses to
interview questions did not elaborate on considerations made to build agile capability
skills at the individual employee level.
Chapter 4 provided information on the research setting, demographics, and data
collection methods. I covered how data was analyzed in the qualitative case study,
summarized the results in relation to the research questions, and established evidence of
trustworthiness in my research procedures. I then summarized findings from the case
137
studies. Chapter 5 will provide interpretation of this study’s findings, limitations,
recommendations for future research, the implications, and concluding thoughts.
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to investigate how supply chain managers develop
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. The conceptual framework guiding
this study was an exploration of the relationships among human resource management
practices, change leadership practices, and change management practices involved in
developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. An exploratory, multiple
case study was conducted to explore the roles change management practices, leadership
practices, and human resource management practices have in strategy build agile
capabilities in the workforce.
Six individual case studies were conducted, each with a single participant in this
multiple case study. All participants were allowed to discuss the roles change
management practices, human resource management practices, and leadership practices
play in participant’s efforts to develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the
workforce. While participants discussed these practices in different ways, participants
readily discussed the roles change management practices, leadership practices, or human
resource management practices have in how they each develop strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce. Each case study presented unique results, but an
examination of all case studies together revealed some similarities in priority
138
considerations when supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities
in the workforce.
Interpretation of Findings
A review of the data collected in this multiple case study confirmed that managing
change effectively through the development of agile capabilities in the workforce is a
crucial concern in supply chain operations. Findings also confirmed prior research’s
findings that change management practices are shifting from static, controloriented
practices to more fluid practices (Appelbaum et al., 2017; Braun et al., 2017). Prior
research findings regarding the importance of human resource practices in developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce were also confirmed (Muduli, 2016,
2017). Lastly, a review of the data aligned with prior research findings regarding the
importance of leadership practices in developing strategies to build agile capabilities in
the workforce (Dumas & Beinecke, 2018; Stilwell et al., 2016).
Change Management Practices
As the supply chain industry experiences rapid and continuous change, rigid
models of change management may not provide the needed flexibility or speed
organizations require to effectively respond to change and capitalize on opportunities in
the marketplace (Appelbaum et al., 2017; Tarafdar & Qrunfleh, 2017). Pollack and
Pollack (2015) posited that more understanding is needed of how change management
models apply in instances of complex or continuous change. In this study, I explored how
supply chain managers leverage change management practices to develop strategies to
139
build agile capabilities in the workforce. When discussing how change management
practices contribute to developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce,
multiple participants reported leveraging structured change management models as
guides to tracking progress, engaging stakeholders, or maintaining awareness of change
initiatives in the organization. There was no singular model identified across case studies
and no singular way change management models were used to develop strategies to build
agile capabilities in the workforce. Participant 2, Participant 4, Participant 5, and
Participant 6 indicated that change management practices are important in developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Some participants referenced
specific management models, including Kotter’s 8-step change management model.
Participant 3 discussed the importance of flexibility and adaptability as strategies
for working through change. This reference supports Braun et al.’s (2017) assertion that
change management practices must evolve away from static models attempting to closely
control all aspects of change in distinct phases. In other words, flexibility and adaptability
in change management practices supports the shift toward fluid practices that enable
movement through the increased complexity and ambiguity in the supply chain industry
at the time of this study.
Human Resource Management Practices
Data collected through semistructured interviews in this case study included
specific human resource management practices. Participants raised practices including
recruitment, training and development, incentives, and performance management.
140
Participants’ emphasis on the importance of human resource management practices in
developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce aligned with findings
presented by Muduli (2016). Participant 1, Participant 2, Participant 5, and Participant 6
identified the role of human resources in recruiting the right talent as important to
building agile capabilities within the organization. Participant 6 explained, “it’s
partnering up with human resources to make sure you understand what skillsets you need
to have to be successful.” What was not clear in this commentary is whether it is
operations informing human resources of what skill sets are needed, human resources
informing operations what skill sets are needed, or a two-way conversation on what skill
sets are needed. Participant 1 and Participant 5 discussed challenges when human
resource practices do not align with strategies supply chain managers are trying to
develop to build agile capabilities in the workforce. “[HR managers] also have their set
ways of looking at staff and they will have their set ways of looking at that and that is not
always what an agile team needs. And I think the HR profession could grow in that in
general” (Participant 5). This insight highlights that what human resources does can be as
important as what human resources does not do.
Leadership Practices
How leaders move the workforce successfully through change initiatives has been
examined in recent research. Dumas and Beinecke (2018) asserted that leadership
behaviors could significantly guide employees successfully through change initiatives.
The relationship between leader behaviors and follower behaviors informed how I
141
derived meaning from the descriptions provided by participants. Leaders may influence
bringing teams successfully through a change in four keyways: modeling change
behaviors, providing individualized support, influencing employee engagement, and
building readiness for change (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014; Morin et al., 2016). How
these four leadership practices emerged in case study discussions is discussed.
Modeling Change Behaviors
Participant 1 discussed the leadership behavior of handling stress well in an
environment of constant adaptions to change. If leaders are handling the stress of
continual change appropriately, these stress-management behaviors may model how to
move forward effectively in situations of complex or continuous change. Participant 3
asserted that leaders must be “exemplary in every way” to avoid holding a lower standard
for your performance than you have for your team. Participant 4 described how leaders
carry themselves as an important leadership practice consideration in developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Providing Individualize Support
Participant 1 raised the idea of leaders providing the right tools for their team as
an important leadership practice for building agile capabilities in the workforce.
Participant 3 discussed providing resources and providing direction to give proper
support to followers. Providing the right tools, resources, and direction are examples of
providing individualized support as part of building agile capabilities in the workforce.
142
Employee Engagement
Participant 2 discussed the importance of aligning the workforce to the vision and
mission of the organization as part of how leadership practices contribute to the
development of agile capabilities in the workforce. Participant 4 posited that driving
engagement builds agility. Participant 6 asserted that leaders must provide a clear vision,
have open and honest communication, listen actively, and gather meaningful input.
Readiness for Change
Participant 2 described the importance of leaders building agile mindsets in the
workforce to maintain needed levels of responsiveness to achieve needed outcomes in
change initiatives, supporting Raeder and Bokova’s (2019) assertion regarding building
readiness for change. Participant 3 raised the importance of leaders’ ability to influence
followers. “Basically, leadership is to motivate, to motivate the people that work with
you, to bring them up.” Participant 5 described securing follower buy-in as essential to
successful change outcomes, supporting Raeder and Bokova’s (2019) assertion on the
role of commitment to change in successful change outcomes and Arif et al.’s (2017)
assertion that leader-follower relationships are pertinent to operational outcomes.
Participants’ responses demonstrated an awareness of the influential relationship between
leaders and followers. These findings confirm leadership practices play an important role
in developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
143
Unanticipated Findings
Topics that arose in interviews that were not specific to the interview questions
included Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI), emotional intelligence, flexible staffing
strategies, the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of human resource management
practices and leadership practices in shaping culture. While these topics were outside the
scope of this research, they do warrant discussion. How these topics arose and in what
way there were presented in the case studies may shed light on emerging factors of
importance in developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce is supply
chain.
Diversity
Participant 3 raised the issue of workforce diversity when discussing the role of
change management and leadership practices in developing strategies to build agile
capabilities in the workforce. “What role does leadership play, like I said, is to be able to
collect those, to keep pace with, with, um, diversity,” (Participant 3). Participants 5 and 6
also raised the topic of diversity during their interviews. Participant 2 provided
supporting documentation of a model of Leadership Excellence that includes diversity
and agility as factors of successful leadership practices.
Individual Agile Capabilities
One unexpected finding of the study was the very minimal discussion of agile
capabilities at the individual level. Flöthmann et al. (2017) asserted that building
employees’ capabilities is a workforce investment that contributes to improved
144
performance for organizations. Considerations of agile workforce capabilities at the
individual level include adaptability, flexibility, resilience (Muduli, 2016). Participants in
this multiple case study did not explicitly raise the consideration of agile capabilities at
the personal level to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
Participant 4 did raise the importance of agile capabilities at an individual level,
specifically when discussing leaders. Participant 4 stated, “I think when it comes to
operations, the level of complexity, the number of variables, no two days are alike. And
the best way to tackle that is, you know, having people that have the agile mindset and
having the agile structure to operate within.” Participant 4 specified what the agile
mindset at the individual level for leaders was, asserting “folks need to have the ability to
pivot, to respond, to challenge opportunities on a regular basis.” Muduli and Pandya
(2018) described individual capabilities to learn, comfortability with change and new
technologies, and capabilities in innovation as part of the personal characteristics
necessary for workforce agility. Participant 4’s commentary on having individuals with an
agile mindset was a close as any interview responses came to Muduli and Pandya’s
description of workforce agility at the level of individual employees.
Participant 3 raised the importance of employees building general skills that
position them for success in their roles to advance the organization’s capabilities. This
topic of building skills at an individual was raised when discussing the part of human
resource practices in developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce.
145
Developing skills at the individual level was discussed in a general manner and not
explicitly focused on agile capabilities.
Limitations of the Study
The first limitation in this qualitative multiple case study is the biases I hold as the
researcher in this study. I journaled my perspectives and expectations to help mitigate my
biases through my experience in supply chain roles. This helped me avoid making
interpretations beyond the scope of the actual data.
A second limitation of this study is the impact of data available being dependent
upon participants’ ability to recall specific details of their work on developing strategies
to build agile capabilities in the workforce during our semi-structured interviews. The
scope of this research did not include direct observations, so only the participants’
perceptions were available as data to analyze. Analysis of support documentation and
review of archival data on organizations that participants were affiliated helped ensure
cohesion between what participants shared and documentation of challenges
organizations faced.
A third limitation of this study is the lack of generalizability or transferability to
the general population. The small sample size of six participants may not represent the
full experiences or perspectives of all supply chain managers responsible for developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce. Yin (2016) asserted that qualitative
research focuses on the particular aspects of a phenomenon, seeking out understanding
within specific contexts, rather than seeking out general transferability for study data. In
146
the case of this study, I sought out particular data, the work experiences of supply chain
managers responsible for developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the
workforce, in a specific context, continuous or complex change environments in supply
chain. To secure participants with that specific lived experience, I leverage a purposeful
sampling strategy over a probability sampling strategy. The purposeful sampling strategy
of recruiting participants for this multiple case study also precludes the general
transferability of study findings.
A fourth limitation of this study is the disruptions to two of the case studies
conducted. Participant 3’s data was gathered through a semi-structured interview that
experienced a technology disruption due to the interviewer and participant being on two
different continents during the interview. The technology disruption may have disrupted
Participant 3’s initial train of thought when responding to interview questions. For Case
Study 5, Participant 5 was interrupted by their manager halfway through the interview
and then had a time limit put on the rest of the time available to the participant to
complete their interview. Participant 5 opted to continue the interview, but the
imposition of a time restriction on the remainder of the interview may have impacted
how they responded to the rest of the interview questions.
Recommendations
Findings from this study confirmed that aspects of the conceptual model
informing this study were identified as important considerations for supply chain
managers responsible for developing strategies to build agile capabilities in the
147
workforce. Future research can build on this study by expanding the scope beyond the
small participant size of this study. Increasing the number of managers engaged regarding
how strategies are developed to build agile capabilities in the workforce will provide
more data to substantiate findings, identify discrepancies in results, and uncover emerging
concepts that may not have been identified yet in research. This expanded focus could be
structured to cross different supply chain sectors, as was done in this study. Future
research should expand the scope of the study to include more participants to provide
deeper insights and focus on industry-specific areas of the supply chain such as specific
retail sectors, agriculture, or information technology. This recommended expansion of
research would generate data for analysis to determine the applicability of the conceptual
model in particular supply chain functions.
Future research may also be conducted outside of the supply chain in industries
experiencing complex or continuous change. The supply chain is not the only industry
impacted by globalization and advances in telecommunications, transportation, and
information technology that require agile capabilities for organizational success.
Understanding how managers develop strategies to build agile workforce capabilities
in other industries may further solidify best practices that can bring cohesive strategies
to organizations striving to develop agile capabilities.
Future research may focus on specific geographic regions. This study gave limited
insights into the strategies of supply chain managers working in North America, Central
America, Africa, and Asia. Focusing on a larger sample size within specific geographic
148
regions and expanding beyond these geographic regions may better inform the validity of
the conceptual framework that informed this research study.
Future research may look closely at how building agile capabilities at the
individual level. This study did not uncover insights into how supply chain managers
develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce through considerations of
influencing agile capabilities at the individual level. Park and Park (2020) asserted that
organizations are responsible for supporting employees in developing agile capabilities.
Munteanu et al. (2020) contended that organizations need to support the development of
agile capabilities in the workforce. As this study did not find specific efforts by supply
chain managers to consider capabilities at the individual level as part of developing
strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce, more information is needed. Future
research may build on this study by designing research that probes specifically for
information on how capabilities associated with agility such as adaptability, flexibility,
and resilience are developed at the individual level.
This study examined the role of human resource practices in developing strategies
to build agile capabilities in the workforce through the perspective of managers in
operational roles. The future inquiry could include senior human resource managers.
Expanding the scope of participants to include senior human resources managers may
assist in identifying similarities and differences in how the role of human resource
practices is perceived in efforts in the organization to build agile capabilities in the
workforce. With the integration between human resource practices and operations being
149
identified as important to developing strategies to build agile capabilities in multiple
studies, further investigation here may inform how that integration can be achieved.
Another approach that can be taken in future qualitative research is to collect data
through direct observation and collect data through semi-structured interviews of supply
chain managers. Direct observations of strategy development as it occurs may provide
additional data not available through semi-structured interviews in which available data is
limited to what a participant may be able to recall. Direct observations would also allow
for data to be collect3ed that is not limited by the time constraints experienced in
semistructured interviews.
Implications
This study is vital to supply chain organizations operating in complex or
continuous change environments. This study provides information organizations can take
under consideration when developing comprehensive strategies to build agile capabilities
in the workforce as part of change management strategy. An agile workforce that can
work effectively through complex or continuous change may improve outcomes on
change initiatives and overall organizational performance. Identifying change
management practices, leadership practices, and human resource management practices
as necessary to develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the workforce gives
researchers and practitioners areas of focus to explore this conceptual framework further.
Braun et al. (2017) asserted that substantial change in the workplace can
contribute to workplace stress that impacts the wellbeing of employees. Advancing how
150
supply chain managers develop comprehensive strategies to build agile capabilities in the
workforce may simplify how organizations respond to and manage through complex
change. This in turn may help organizations provide work experiences with lower levels
of stress for employees.
Another way this research might contribute to positive social change is through
the positive benefits in organizational outcomes when elevated agile capabilities result in
successful change initiatives and contribute to key performance indicators. The supply
chain industry is positioned to continue to face complex, disruptive, and continuous
change. Practitioners can leverage the information from this study to examine current
practices within their organization and identify areas where improvements or adjustments
may be beneficial to make.
Conclusions
Leading through complex change and building agile capabilities in the workforce
are at the forefront of supply chain managers’ focus on advancing their organization’s
capabilities. The purpose of this qualitative, exploratory multiple case study was to
explore how supply chain managers develop strategies to build agile capabilities in the
workforce. The specific management problem addressed in this research is that supply
chain managers do not have coherent strategies to develop agile capabilities in the
workforce. The research question asked how supply chain managers develop strategies
for building agile capabilities in the workforce.
151
Building agile capabilities in the workforces was described as a change
management strategy by multiple participants. The global COVID-19 pandemic was
raised in multiple case studies as an example of how important it is for organizations to
have capabilities for managing complex, disruptive change and building agile
capabilities. Multiple participants in this study readily identified leadership practices and
human resource management practices as critical factors when developing strategies to
build agile capabilities in the workforce.
The strong message of leadership practices as a top focus area of study
participants aligns with recent research that thousands of leaders indicated that adapting
to the challenges of leading complex change is a significant challenge (Braun et al.,
2017). Key practices identified by participants as important to developing strategies to
build agile capabilities in the workforce include modeling change behaviors, providing
individualized support, influencing employee engagement, and building readiness for
change. Although there was no unified approach for how leadership practices were
incorporated into strategic planning for building agile capabilities in the workforce,
leadership practices were seen as integral to achieving agile capability outcomes.
Human resource management practices were also identified as important in
considerations for developing strategies to build agile workforce capabilities. Specific
aspects of human resource management practices discussed in multiple case studies
include recruitment, talent capabilities development, and training. A topic also raised
in numerous case studies when discussing the role of human resource management
152
practices was the importance of alignment between human resources and operations.
This study’s results might improve how supply chain managers develop cohesive
strategies to build
agile capabilities in the workforce.
