Leadership in Risky Supply Chains

  • Christopher R. PaparoneEmail author
  • George L. TopicJr.
Part of the Springer Series in Supply Chain Management book series (SSSCM, volume 7)


Two logisticians from the Department of Defense offer ideas that may apply to either military and commercial supply chains or combinations thereof. A stable supply chain is where operations are routinized across smooth inter-organizational relationships. When faced with familiar situations, supply chain partners can rely on past experience which has become the basis for routine work; that is, partners employ the reliable frames of reference imbedded in their standard operating procedures. However, unusual situations present emergent, unpredictable risk and require management that is qualitatively different from that in standardized practice. In the face of risky supply chains, adaptive leaders exercise “creative deviance,” and seek to influence others in the chain to diverge from their habitualized frames of reference through divergence and value patterning. While adaptive leadership becomes a mitigation strategy for confusingly novel situations, there are also social risks for supply chain innovators.



The views expressed are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the US Department of Defense or the US Government.


  1. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Clarke-Hill, C., Li, H., & Davies, B. (2003). The paradox of co-operation and competition in strategic alliances: Towards a multi-paradigm approach. Management Research News, 26(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on “What theory is not”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Heifetz, R. A., & Linksy, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  6. Maslow, A. H. (1966). The psychology of science: A reconnaissance. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  7. McChrystal, G. S., Tantum, C., Silverman, D., & Fussell, C. (2015). Team of teams: New rules of engagement for a complex world. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  8. Paparone, C. R. (2008). A values-based critique of lean and six sigma as a management ideology. Army Logistician, 40(1), 34–40.Google Scholar
  9. Roth, V. (2013). Divergent trilogy. UK: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  10. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Schön, D. A. (1995). Educating the reflective legal practitioner. Clinical Law Review, 2, 231–250.Google Scholar
  12. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basics Books.Google Scholar
  13. UFMCS (2017). University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies information. Retrieved August 25, 2017, from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eisenhower School of National Security and Resource StrategyNational Defense University, Fort McNairWashington, D.C.USA
  2. 2.Center for Joint and Strategic Logistics at Fort McNairWashington, D.C.USA

Personalised recommendations