An exploration into reductionistic and holistic perspectives of supply chain practitioners using systems thinking: a mixed-methods study

A supply chain practitioner ^[1] (SCp) is concerned with realising inter-firm imperatives, including commercial, environmental and societal aspects (Håkansson and Persson, 2004), alongside protecting their firm from disruptions (Ivanov et al., 2017). The SCp depends on external organisations, namely other firms, who comprise the supply chain (SC). SCs consist of organisations connected through commercial and operational interests (Harland, 1996). However, they have evolved to serve broader collective interests, such as societal (Yawar and Seuring, 2018).

Against the backdrop of these challenges, this paper seeks to understand practitioners' perspectives on Reductionism and Holism. As indicated by the literature, a SCp operating under a Reductionist approach is concerned with managing and optimising its part of the SC, which extends beyond its firm. The Reductionist SCp seeks to simplify interactions across the SC. This starts with the dyadic relationship, aiming to control outcomes and realise its business objectives, e.g. delivery, lead time, unit cost and contractual terms. In contrast, a Holistic SCp is concerned with both its own part and the interdependent, interrelated and interconnected parts of the SC. They consider that which comprises the whole SC, albeit the SCp can only “see” the SC that is visible to them. Thus, the Holistic SCp appreciates that there are nodes that they cannot see, let alone affect. They are cognisant of their actions and their ramifications for others, and their actions underscore the premise that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Ponte et al. (2016) argue that pursuing Holistic ideals confers economic benefits, and Holman et al. (2018) provide clear empirical evidence indicating the advantages of Holistic practices over those rooted in Reductionism.

The SCp's approach to managing the SC is guided by their mental models, which draw upon their orientations and pre-existing dispositions (Choi et al., 2001). Senge (1990) defines mental models as “ … deeply ingrained assumptions, generalisations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action. Very often, we are not consciously aware of our mental models or the effects they have on our behaviour” (Senge, 1990, p. 8).

Taking a developmental and exploratory approach, this paper examines the factors that influence SCp, specifically the perspective they adopt when managing the SC. We posit that influencing the SCp's mental models is the knowledge they engage with, residing in a paradigm, which is defined as “ … universally recognised scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners” (Kuhn, 1970, p. 10).

We use the term “Paradigmatic Perspective” (PP) to refer to the paradigms a practitioner employs when forming a mental model for managing the SC (Schön, 1990; Argyris and Schön, 1997). We posit that a practitioner's PP is influenced by both their cognitive disposition and organisational elements, e.g. cost minimisation over the propagation of strategic relationships (Preuss and Fearne, 2022).

The paradoxical challenges that an SCp faces arise not only from isolated dichotomies but also from a broader collection of interrelated tensions. Dichotomies such as the efficiency–effectiveness friction (Pålsson and Sandberg, 2020) illustrate only one facet of this landscape. At the business level, SCps must also navigate competing strategic choices, such as prioritising lean efficiency or agile responsiveness (Stratton and Warburton, 2003). This balancing of business-level decisions involves weighing trade-offs between minimising environmental impacts and minimising costs (Esfahbodi et al., 2016). These tensions are inherently pluralistic, rather than dualistic. Their interpretation signifies the SCps weltanschauung, or worldview, as outlined by Checkland and Poulter (2020), which, in turn, shapes their PP (Yolles, 2001).

This paper seeks to advance the assertions made by Mears-Young and Jackson (1997), positing that logistics, as a discipline, resides within Functionalism and framing this perspective in terms of the paradigms of social theory, outlined in Burrell and Morgan (1979). They argue that a transition to interpretivism is necessary for logistics to further develop as a discipline. Mears-Young and Jackson posit that this could be enabled by engaging in systems thinking, specifically the Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland, 1989). They emphasise the necessity for the logistician to be more cognisant of systems knowledge that can transcend the paradigm.

The structure of this paper is as follows: a literature review of previous PP studies is conducted, specifically focusing on Reductionism and Holism. A research gap is identified, which informs the construction of a conceptual framework to explore whether a SCp is more Reductionist, or Holistic, or somewhere in between. Three research questions are established to explore how the construct may be used to appreciate the perspectives a practitioner adopts. The exploratory research then draws on insights from fifteen SCps using mixed-methods approaches, with a focus on interpreting results and reconciling quantitative and qualitative findings. Finally, a series of propositions and research approaches is presented to progress the research insights and findings identified through this paper.

A review of the existing literature reveals the absence of a framework for discerning where a practitioner's PP resides on a spectrum from Reductionism to Holism. One of the few scholars to explore an array of positions is Nilsson (2019). Nilsson utilises Boulding's work on General Systems Theory (Boulding, 1956) to contrast knowledge and complexity in logistics management. Nilsson provides a means of appreciating positions, from simple to complex, established at the meta-level of analysis. This is achieved by presenting knowledge along the x-axis, ranging from stable and deterministic to emergent and transformational. On the corresponding y-axis, Boulding's hierarchy of complexity is used, wherein levels 1–8, from simplicity to complexity. We interpret Nilsson's work to appreciate the meta-level assumptions embedded in the phenomena of logistics. The construct provides a way to explore the ontological question of the nature of logistics systems, with these systems themselves embodying varying degrees of complexity. From an epistemological perspective, we consider Nilsson's approach to understanding logistics systems through paradigmatic assumptions, thereby mapping their epistemic properties, as reflected by system-level complexity.

This paper draws inspiration from Nilsson's work and builds on the paradigmatic concerns identified. However, we make a distinction between the ontological slant of this paper, which concerns how practitioners frame and interpret phenomena, and that of Nilsson's work. Specifically, this paper seeks to understand the paradigmatic positions held by practitioners, that is, the practitioner's sensemaking from the Reductionist to the Holistic.

This paper seeks to advance the theoretical positions articulated in Nilsson and to explore, through an interpretive lens, how SCps orient themselves across a spectrum of positions, ranging from more Reductionist to more Holistic. To develop this insight, an exploration of Reductionism and Holism is required, as detailed in the following sections.

Flood regards that, “Reductionism generates knowledge and understanding of phenomena by breaking them down into constituent parts and then studying these simple elements in terms of cause and effect” (Flood, 2010, p. 269). Supplementing this is the position promulgated by Lundstedt (1972), who declares that, “… the so-called law of parsimony explains Reductionism. It states that simpler explanations are always preferred to more complicated ones” (Lundstedt, 1972, p. 328). The law of parsimony, also known as Occam's Razor, is interpreted as “… the simplest explanation is said to be the best” (Den Berg and Hugo, 2018, p. 261), a philosophical principle that underpins Reductionism. We posit that Checkland (1980) may explain why Reductionism has dominated the management landscape: “The most important single characteristic of the paradigm of natural science is its Reductionism” (Checkland, 1980, p. 317), a phenomenon more closely linked to the natural sciences than that of management science (Federoff and Gostin, 2009; Fang and Casadevall, 2011).

The SC and logistics literature includes narratives regarding the relationship between the philosophy of Reductionism and practitioners' management of their SCs. Nilsson (2004) notes that Reductionism is a continuing phenomenon, as managers and researchers alike seek to break problems down into solvable parts. This approach solves a problem in one part of the SC, while exacerbating problems for another organisation elsewhere. Nilsson argues that adopting a Reductionist approach is ultimately constrained by the complexity managers must contend with (Nilsson, 2006). This vertical form of Reductionism is in addition to the horizontal approaches employed, which seek to simplify the inter-organisational relationships (Fawcett and Magnan, 2004). Whilst focusing on a narrow quantifiable outcome, identified with simplistic metrics, it is considered that these metrics neglect the broader efficacy of the SC (Hausman, 2004; Holweg and Pil, 2008).

Despite the enduring complexity that challenges the SCp, there is evidence that Reductionism continues to dominate the practice of managing SCs, as detailed by Ponte et al. (2016). They note that when the SCp faces a metaphorical fork in the road, they often choose to maximise individual performance rather than consider the wider SC's greater good. Nilsson and Christopher (2018) reiterate this finding, who explore the paradoxes in logistics, specifically the tension between efficiency and effectiveness. The literature suggests that, given the choice, practitioners tend to adopt a Reductionist mindset when faced with a paradox rather than a Holistic one.

Ponte et al. (2016) postulate that once practitioners become aware of the benefits of Holism, they strive to move beyond Reductionism. However, Ponte et al. (2017) show that shifting to a Holistic approach is one of the more significant challenges that a SCp faces. However, Holistic ideals often do not permeate practitioners, which arguably constitutes a failure of Holism in the context of SC management, despite the clear economic benefits, as argued by Ponte et al. (2017). A review of the existing literature could not identify a comprehensive position on Reductionism in the context of SC management. Table 1 presents a consolidated position based on several components in the literature.

Available literature suggests a simplified version of Reductionism, such as breaking down the parts. However, we contend that a broader understanding is required, given the influence of Reductionism in the management of the SC. Consequently, reflecting the more dominant positions in the literature, we proffer that the paradigms of: decomposition, simplification and optimisation are essential when considering reductionism in the context of the SC.

Holism is a widely held philosophical position, with ardent proponents arguing for its superiority over Reductionism in the context of SC management (Wilding, 1998). Jackson (2002) defines Holism as “…the study of wholes before that of the parts. It does not try to break down organisations into parts to understand and intervene in them. It concentrates its attention instead at the organisational level and on ensuring that the parts are functioning and related properly together to serve the purposes of the whole” (Jackson, 2002, p. 15). Verschuren (2001) posits a more cautionary position towards Holism: “…Human sensory observation is Reductionistic by definition … The observer focuses on one or some aspects or particles of an object at a time. So, in a sense, almost every observation, more or less, is Reductionistic in nature. For that reason, different from its use in philosophy and other contemplating disciplines, in empirical research, we need to define Holism as a gradual phenomenon … I refer to ‘Holistic’ I mean less Reductionistic” (Verschuren, 2001, p. 393).

This paper focuses on managing the SC, which is classified as a social system (Gong et al., 2023). We posit that sociological paradigms, as espoused in Burrell and Morgan (1979), are appropriate for consideration from a SC perspective. However, it is Jackson's work (Jackson, 1991, 2000, 2002, 2019) that has predominantly informed our thinking as we approach the Systems Sciences. This paper will explore the paradigms posited by Jackson (2000): functionalist, interpretivist, emancipatory and post-modernist. As detailed in Table 2, we have synthesised the critical elements from Jackson that we consider pertinent to this research. We use these paradigms to develop an exploratory instrument to assess practitioners' relative levels of PP.

The extant literature indicates that the discipline must still transcend Functionalism (Gregory et al., 2025), as contemporary SCs represent an enduring state of global interdependence, nonlinearity and volatility. It is argued that the limitations of command-and-control mechanisms, reflecting a Reductionistic approach that aims to achieve a simplified mode of operation, are no longer congruent with the enduring complexity that SCs must contend with (Naim and Gosling, 2022). No longer are simple control solutions, such as centralised demand forecasting policies (Spiegler et al., 2016), adequate to keep pace with the undulating landscape a SCp must contend with. Accordingly, this paper argues for examining the perspective of practitioners managing the SC in light of the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA) conditions a SCp must navigate (Wilden, 2025).

Complexity in the SC is not a recent phenomenon; Choi et al. (2001) emphasised the importance of emergence rather than control. However, there is a lack of empirical positions examining a transition beyond Functionalism. Nilsson (2006) explores the role complexity plays in the life of a logistics practitioner and the resultant paradoxical challenges they face, in particular, the recognised need for Holistic perspectives. Nilsson argues that practitioners seek simple models and solutions driven by a desire to control the SC. An important finding in Nilsson (2006) is that identifying the efficiency/effectiveness paradox is critical when considering a practitioner's paradigm.

Nilsson and Gammelgaard (2012) examine practitioners' paradigmatic approaches, exploring systems approaches, complex adaptive systems and complexity theory. Their findings are consistent with emerging positions in the literature that recognise the limitations of systems approaches, given that these approaches reside within the positivist frame of reference, which leads practitioners towards Reductionism. Conversely, complexity theories aim to expose practitioners to anti-positivist knowledge that may seem foreign to them, as they are aligned with the concept of “going with the flow.” This notion stems from their position that the system cannot be controlled by direct action, leading to paradoxical juxtapositions: Complexity dominates the SC, yet practitioners adopt a command-and-control perspective.

A critical review of the literature indicates that whilst theoretical positions call for advancements beyond Functionalism, others are more critical, decreeing the need to go beyond more Reductionist behaviour. These positions are accompanied by a small set of examples that provide conceptual guidance for appreciating a broader Holistic perspective, e.g. complexity. However, this research has identified a lack of diagnostic instruments to consider whether a practitioner's perspective is more Reductionistic or more Holistic.

Whilst systems thinking, through the likes of Jackson's Systems of Systems Methodologies (SoSM), or Nilsson's exploration of complexity theory, enables appreciation of perspectives that could be considered more Holistic, we assert that a SCp is not always Holistic. Similarly, there are positions in the literature citing clear Reductionist behaviour. However, we posit that a SCp is not always Reductionistic. Rather, we postulate that an SCp can be both Reductionist and Holistic, and that this extends to the team of SCps within an organisation. Then consider the multitude of SCps across several firms that comprise the SC, each with its own perspective. As such, we reason that we need to explore both Reductionistic and Holistic perspectives, and that an instrument is required to assist in developing such a comprehension. The following section reviews the extant literature that informs the development of a novel framework, culminating in a diagnostic instrument for sensemaking.

A review of the extant literature reveals an absence of studies that explore both the Reductionist and Holistic perspectives. As identified, some positions outline approaches to explore more Holistic aspects; however, instruments are absent for a spectrum-wide diagnosis. Given this research opportunity, we introduce a novel construct, termed the Spectrum of the Whole (SotW), illustrated in Figure 1.

Jackson's SoSM (Jackson, 2019) directly informs the formation of the SotW. SoSM, as a means of interpreting problem context, laid the intellectual foundation for the SotW. Jackson's SoSM framework has evolved across several iterations (Jackson and Keys, 1984; Jackson, 1990, 2002, 2019), with the most recent version utilised in this research. Jackson provides an understanding of both the paradigms and the methodologies that comprise the SoSM. However, at this stage of the research, we are limiting our work to the paradigms that SCps orient towards.

To appreciate the broader array of positions this research suggests exists, we determined it necessary to extend the SoSM. Thus, this research presents an expanded version of the SoSM to include the Reductionist positions, as derived from the literature, namely Nilsson (2004), Ponte et al. (2016, 2017), Nilsson and Christopher (2018) and Nilsson (2019).

We present the SotW as a developmental sensemaking framework for exploring PP(s). The intent is to surface practitioners' perspectives at a given point in time, rather than across a continuum. The aim is to explore whether practitioners are more Reductionistic or more Holistic, or occupy several positions that straddle both Reductionist and Holistic elements. This position is interpreted through their orientations towards stakeholders and across the array of systems and by reflecting on emergent perspectives. For instance, if the SC department were oriented to the Reductionist paradigm of simplification, even though they recognise that they operate primarily in the systems domain of complicated to complex, with diverse to coercive stakeholders, this would stimulate discourse on the interpretive inference of this insight.

The SotW comprises two axes: Stakeholders (y-axis) and Systems (x-axis), with the paradigms overlaying these relative positions. The paradigms of functionalism, interpretivism, emancipatory and post-modern are drawn from the SoSM. In contrast, the optimisation, simplification and decomposition paradigms are derived from positions in the literature that detail the Reductionist elements. These elements are assessed as the most common positions in the literature and, as such, are considered the most appropriate to include when establishing the SotW.

Deconstructing the stakeholder perspective reveals that the unitary classification refers to those who share a common purpose and have similar values, beliefs and interests. Whilst those who would be classified as pluralist are compatible in terms of fundamental interests and approaches, they differ in their values and beliefs. In our interpretation, this difference means that problem-solving under pluralist conditions is less efficient than in unitary contexts. We assert that this is, in part, due to the time required for debate, disagreement and, in some instances, for resolving conflict. Despite this, participants will determine how to make it more equitable for those involved. In comparison, those in coercive relationships often have conflicting values and principles, exhibiting little in common. In these contexts, some participants may be unable to express their true intentions because they lack power or status and are likely to suffer at the hands of those with greater control and influence.

The Systems axis classifies operating contexts according to their degree of structure and control, comprising: simple, complicated and complex, alongside the Reductionist extensions: basic, uncomplicated and uncomplex.

Simple systems consist of a few subsystems, with highly structured, controlled interactions that change only slightly over time. An automotive assembly plant may be considered a simple system. Complicated systems encompass a broader range of subsystems operating across divergent situations that often involve competing interests. Consequently, these systems are more challenging to manage than simple systems, yet remain largely structured and defined. Whilst stable, these systems verge on instability yet hold together. Consider a local SC to an automotive plant, comprising Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers, as a complicated system.

In contrast, complex systems have many subsystems with structured interactions and indeterminate outcomes due to uncertainty about actions. These complex systems adapt and evolve in response to the impact of turbulent environments. The international SC, with suppliers from different geographies and subject to varying political or ecological fluctuations, would be considered a complex system. Parts of the complex system may be unstable at times, leading to changes in SC performance. For example, the delivery performance of a complex SC may be less than that of a complicated SC. This difference reflects the greater structural stability typically found in a complicated system. While these examples are designed to provide context, we posit that not all international SCs are complex; given the relative stability of the SC, complicated may be more appropriate to their situation.

To establish the more Reductionistic elements of the SotW, we drew upon the underpinning elements of Jackson's SoSM. We extended it to include basic, uncomplicated and uncomplex systems. We note, however, that this extension is conceptual and not empirically grounded.

Through this exploratory research, we seek to understand the relative utility of this conceptual framework. The basic system is similar to the simple system. However, we posit that whilst there are a few tightly controlled components, they are even more structured and defined. An internal delivery process, e.g. unloading from a truck to a production line, could be considered a basic system.

An uncomplicated system has precise specifications for the activities that must be completed. If a process is not followed in accordance with the system's rules, e.g. timing or quality, a primary diagnosis will reveal the issue. An operator assembling a kit of parts with an interdependent stakeholder in the specified sequence and within the time constraints would be considered an uncomplicated system. An uncomplex system is clearly defined and controlled so that, should an issue occur, problem diagnosis and correction are immediate. An operator picking a part from a box containing many parts and then placing it into a smaller box for use in assembling the car would represent a uncomplex system.

The SotW framework is defined by its axes, which delineate positions ranging from Reductionism to Holism. While the framework groups related paradigms, these groupings are intentionally loose and context-dependent. Accordingly, overlaps and moves across positions are inferred and not treated in isolation.

However, the SoSM framework provides a grounded basis for exploring where an SCp may reside within its respective paradigm. Nonetheless, we have departed from Jackson's construction of the SoSM by extending the respective axis. We identified that the framework proposed by Nilsson (2019) provided a more straightforward explanation. We have applied it within our framework to more effectively explain the differing positions, e.g. from bottom-left to top-right, while remaining grounded in Jackson's approach.

Critically, we posit that the SotW is not introduced to supplant the SoSM. Instead, the SotW resides at the paradigmatic level, as at this stage of the research, being exploratory, we do not examine the application of the methodology, which we posit would require further empirical research. Therefore, this research begins at the philosophical level as a starting point to develop the notion of the PP.

Several positions in the literature explore the virtues and intent of the approach (Jackson, 1993; Schecter, 1993), and while others challenge the construction of the SoSM (Mingers, 1993). Notwithstanding some who provide a broader philosophical critique of the approach (Ulrich, 2003). We recognise the potential limitations of “boxing in” to a specific reference. Moreover, it is considered that the SoSM may presuppose a perfect-world condition. Instead, we see the construction providing a basis for assisting in paradigmatic reflexivity, with a recognition of the fuzziness that exists, hence the watercolour shading. Jackson's perspective on complexity has its critics, such as Stacey (2003), as well as others who offer differing positions, including Mingers and White (2010) and Snowden and Rancati (2021). We recognise the theoretical limitation this presents, especially with respect to the treatment of complexity. Future research, therefore, may need to augment the SotW to accommodate alternate positions in the literature, such as those associated with chaos (Mingers and White, 2010).

When considering how to position Reductionism on this spectrum, we found that the related paradigms were reasonably considered unitary, as it was not plausible to place them elsewhere, e.g. in the pluralistic category. Other criticisms of the SoSM relate to the underrepresentation of positions associated with emancipatory or post-modern paradigms. We note that they are less well developed than functionalism and interpretivism. Significantly, from a practitioner's perspective, outside a meta-level, we struggle to fully articulate the instructional method for operating within a post-modernistic paradigm. However, given the lack of literature spanning the end-to-end spectrum, we emphasise the need to articulate the range of positions across it.

Rather than demarcating whether a position is uniquely Reductionistic or Holistic, this research adopts the philosophical approach of “in medio stat virtus”, embracing the concept of the golden mean (Aristotle et al., 2009). Consequently, this research does not posit a Holistic approach over a Reductionistic one. Instead, we deem it necessary to explore the spectrum of positions that inform the PP of the SCp, as articulated in the literature. Hence, the overarching approach towards the SotW denotes positions that are more Reductionistic or more Holistic, not one or the other. Whilst we align with the positions in the literature on the virtues of Holism, it is, in our estimation, critical to appreciate the whole prior to demarcating one position from another.

This research aims to address three questions:

Given the advent of the novel SotW, we seek to examine how this framework can surface a practitioner's PP. Using quantitative data from the questionnaire and explored within the semi-structured interviews, RQ2 aims to offer empirical insight into the profile of participants across the SotW. This approach will provide an empirical grounding that has not been derived from SCp's insights to date. RQ3 examines the influences that inform practitioners' PP. Drawing on insights from the interviews, this question seeks to understand the factors that guide practitioners' approach to SC management, specifically, what influences their tendency towards Reductionism or Holism. We concede this research may not yield a definitive outcome. Instead, by addressing these research questions, we aim to build a more informed understanding of the topic. The intent is to assemble an appreciation of the role that systems thinking can play in managing the SC.

Given the novelty of this study, a developmental and exploratory research approach is adopted. The SotW construct is positioned as a sensemaking framework that reflects a perspective at a point in time; the aim is to explore perspectives and surface insights, rather than to conduct positivist research to validate the empirical findings. This interpretivist approach is consistent with that adopted by others who have conducted this form of research, as shown in Sweeney et al. (2018) and Tu (2018). Consequently, a mixed-methods approach was employed, with a preliminary questionnaire administered to the interviewees to provide context for the subsequent semi-structured interviews (Ivankova et al., 2006), as adopted by others who have conducted this form of research, e.g. Goffnett et al. (2012). The survey questions enabled participants to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. They provide a basis for a more informed interview, rather than introducing concepts the interviewee may not be familiar with.

Given Stockemer and Bordeleau (2023), we conclude that it is not yet appropriate to fully engage with positivist research at this point, as the quantitative results, for example, derived from a questionnaire, would be drawn from a framework still in an exploratory stage. Applying the interpretive approach, through the interviews, per Brinkmann (2014) and drawing on detailed insights from Kallio et al. (2016) provides a solid foundation for conducting the interviews effectively. The strategy of conducting semi-structured interviews aligned directly with the research questions: the first portion of the interview was centred on collecting insights related to question one (i.e. the exploration of the sensemaking framework), followed by a series of questions related to RQ2 and RQ3.

To operationalise the SotW conceptual framework, questions were developed for quantitative analysis and representation of practitioners' positions along the spectrum.

The questions were derived from the positions in the literature, as detailed earlier in this paper. The framework comprises three sections (Stakeholders, Systems and Paradigms) and sixteen sub-sections, as detailed in Appendix 1. The established sections and sub-sections are informed by the positions in the literature that guided the construction of the SotW. For example, the questions related to Functionalism, as derived from Jackson's SoSM, are based on Jackson's definition of Functionalism. These definitions, grounded in the literature, were then interpreted, formulated into questions and repurposed within the context of the SCp to answer them. This repurposing exercise involved taking all positions that comprise the SotW and devising questions that SCps can answer to articulate each position, which can then be mapped across the SotW.

The topic's novelty to the SCp, as informed by insights from the research's pilot phases, suggested that practitioners needed additional reference materials to understand the phenomenon better. Thus, the questionnaire contained definitions, metaphors and contextualised SC-related explanations. This additional information was to assist the SCp in understanding the questions they were being asked, thereby supporting the interview phase of the research.

The questions are presented in a matrix format, in which each question has seven ratings, ranging from a perspective held towards their “team” to views towards the suppliers' supplier, resulting in 91 data points (as illustrated in Appendix 2). Given the exploratory nature of the research, an overall understanding of the practitioner's perspective was sought rather than a single perspective on the question; that is, the aim was to identify an aggregated perspective, informed by an array of positions.

To capture the data, a 5-point unipolar Likert scale was employed, in which participants rated the extent to which they perceived subjective fit. The scale ranged from the least to the most accurate. This reflects the approach used in other studies to determine perspectives and positions (Sandberg, 2007; Shin et al., 2018). To surface an aggregated orientation, the SCps' indicative position(s) are averaged from the collected data, i.e. from the seven data points that underpin the one question. To visualise the data, aggregated positions per subsection were interpreted and illustrated on the SotW, noting that the data presented and mapped onto the SotW is the average of all positions derived from participants' responses. This means calculating an average across all participants in a subsection and then plotting it on the SotW. For instance, an average was computed for Functionalism, with the illustrated position depicting the combined perspective of all participants. The aim was to establish an aggregated position that considers a range of data points to avoid skewing the data towards a narrower position.

With the positions plotted on the SotW, it is possible to discern patterns that indicate whether there is consistency between the interpreted outputs and the theoretical arguments that would inform the degree of theoretical resonance. We do not posit that this sensemaking and exploration will provide a clear-cut classification of SCps as functionalist or post-modernist; rather, we expect an array of positions to be considered. However, across the identified positions, we seek to explore the more prevalent aspects. We posit that the stances illustrated on the SotW assist researchers in giving interpretive consideration to whether the SCps PP aligns with the theoretical propositions. Alternatively, we seek to understand whether there is an incongruence between the identified positions, which would lead to exploring the impacts of this incompatibility.

The sensemaking framework served as the central basis for the research, with the results explored in the interviews, as outlined in the following section on data collection.

The data source for this research was fifteen SCps, who completed the pre-interview questionnaire and participated in the interviews. The questionnaires and interviews were conducted from November 2024 to June 2025, with participants residing in Australia and working for for-profit firms. The majority (n = 13) of particaipantswere classified as representing medium to large organisations, across a variety of different industries. Participants had an average of 10–15 years of experience and were responsible for 1 to 2 departments. They primarily held SC and procurement roles, followed by logistics roles. No dominant industry was represented; the Medical sector had the most representation. Participants were recruited via LinkedIn by searching for practitioners who met the research criteria. A total of n = 80 SCp were invited to participate in the study; n = 15 completed it in full, yielding a response rate of 18.7%. Table 3 details the characteristics of the participants who took part in the study.

When exploring the reasons for the level of interest in participating in the research, it was identified that the topic of systems thinking is not well understood and that the demands of a SCp’s work are significant. We found that practitioners showed greater interest in contemporary and relatable issues, such as the impact of disruptions on the SC (Shi et al., 2023), as well as in topics such as the circular economy and digitisation in the SC (Shrivastava, 2023). The feedback from participants indicates that these topics are more appealing to practitioners, given their awareness and the direct relevance to their roles. The foreignness of the topic (systems thinking) was identified during the pilot stages, leading to greater reliance on definitions and metaphors. Critically, it was determined not to dilute the concepts further, given the concern that this would diminish the rigour of the results (Ciubotariu and Bosch, 2022).

The questionnaire was hosted on cloud-based survey platform Qualtrics, which participants accessed via anonymous hyperlinks, and interviews were conducted online via MS Teams. The MS Teams-generated transcripts and video recordings were analysed using NVivo to identify themes related to the research questions and any emergent themes.

Given the novelty of this research, several considerations were made when selecting participants for this study, e.g. experience (being a subject matter expert); seniority (those who have affected some level of change); and willingness to participate in the two phases of the research project, i.e. requiring approximately 2 h of the participants' time. The data were collected via Qualtrics, downloaded and analysed using Excel to construct an aggregated position. The profile was shared with participants before the interviews to familiarise themselves with the topic and reflect the positions that had been surfaced.

The semi-structured interviews, which aimed to explore the paper's research questions, were designed for specifically exploring the SotW as a framework and understanding the PPs. An abridged version of the interview questions is provided in Appendix 3. The interviews comprised two distinct phases, with the first part exploring the positions the participant had nominated within the questionnaire. This involved a review of the profile and feedback on the validity of the results in keeping with their expectations. In this latter aspect, the interview was more inductive, with the questions serving as a starting point for the participant to elaborate on their thoughts. Not all participants expanded upon these points equally, with some exploring certain positions in more detail than others, as reflected in the coding outcomes.

Visualising the results was challenging, given the presence of multiple variables across the various positions within the organisation and the broader SC. Whilst conventional approaches were considered (Mellinger and Hanson, 2017), we could not identify a similar study that visualised data across the elements. Hence, Appendix 4 was developed by the authors to assist in presenting the data. This visualisation of the results allowed for positions to be illustrated, which informed a SCp's perspective on the element under question. We refer to this aspect of the research as descriptive (Jones and Goldring, 2022), necessitating the following phase to underpin and adopt a more interpretive approach (Darby et al., 2019). The second aspect of the research was qualitative data analysis, which involved examining transcripts alongside video recordings. In the first instance, the coding structure was driven by the research questions (Skjott Linneberg and Korsgaard, 2019), with provision for codes to encompass results beyond the questions and to identify emergent aspects that enhanced the research findings (Charmaz, 2008).

This research found that 39% of all participants had no prior awareness of systems thinking. In comparison, the remaining 61% indicated that had some level of awareness of systems thinking, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Participants in the study acknowledged that they were not experts in systems thinking. However, the sentiment towards the concept was not negative. The overwhelming sentiment was neutral, indicating that participants were “on the fence” towards the trans-disciplinary concepts, suggesting they were neither convinced nor dismissive of the elements that comprised the research. These positions of familiarity and sentiment were derived from an NVivo analysis of the identified codes and frequencies.

This research has gone to lengths to provide a foundation for practitioners to appreciate the transdisciplinary nature of systems thinking, acknowledging the challenges of interdisciplinary research (Wear, 1999). However, given the importance of interdisciplinary research in SC management (Sanders et al., 2013), practitioners with limited knowledge of an interdisciplinary field are commonplace, providing an opportunity to gain novel insights through unfamiliarity (Morss et al., 2021).

One of the main objectives of the research was to examine the extent to which the data captured by the questionnaire was consistent with that gathered during the interviews. This reconciliation was realised by sharing the practitioner profile, per the format illustrated in Appendix 4, asking whether they believed the position was accurate, and seeking insights for each element. Beyond this cursory level of validation, a more structured reconciliation (Appendix 5) was undertaken between the questionnaire (quantitative) and interviews (qualitative) to indicate consistency in the positions returned, which would inform whether the SotW, as a diagnostic instrument, could surface a reasoned approximation of a practitioner's PP.

Overall, there were convergent patterns between the positions reported in the questionnaire and those elaborated in the interviews, although some variations were identified. For instance, in the Stakeholder element, participants provided more detailed examples of coercive stakeholders, as evidenced by representative quotes, resulting in the most significant adjustment to the elements: a shift of coercive stakeholders from the least to the most identified. It is posited that this divergence reflects the fact that quantitative insights normalise relationship types by encouraging generic rather than contextualised responses. The questions, as presented, are theoretically framed in an abstract way, limiting the depth or perceived impact of a coercive stakeholder, as the survey does not allow participants to emphasise their responses. In contrast, the qualitative interviews liberated the SCp to reflect the “real-world” condition, that is, the lived experience and actual impact of a coercive stakeholder. This divergence warrants more explicit consideration of underlying coercion, e.g. by placing greater interpretive emphasis on the stakeholder section when mapping positions across the SotW, as quantitative ratings alone appear to understate actual levels of coercion.

Considering the systems aspect, across the more Reductionistic elements, although the results were consistent, participants tended to provide more examples understood as basic rather than uncomplicated. Whereas, for the more Holistic aspects, the interview results showed that participants primarily provided examples classified as complex or complicated, with the interviews ranking the systems regard higher as complex. We estimated that a divergence in positions occurred because SCps freely expressed their perspectives, shifting the discourse towards the complex. As with stakeholders, it can be established that the perceived impact of operating in a complex system is greater than that of an uncomplicated one, i.e. it requires more resources and cognition to maintain SC stability. Thus, using interviews as a filter allows the questionnaire's normalisations to be contextualised within real-world conditions. We conclude that the survey adopts a simplified approach to eliciting practitioner views of dynamic system behaviour. It is considered that the survey may lead the SCp to represent what they think the system ought to be, rather than what it is. The interview provides a means to appreciate the characteristics that comprise the system, allowing variables to emerge that exert greater influence on it. The SCp may use the abstract categories to assemble a position on what should be, rather than what is. As a result, interpretive synthesis enabled an account for the System's dynamic properties. These findings suggest that considering the “whole” is an inherent requirement when establishing positions across the SotW. This challenge reflects the dynamic and unsolidified nature of the systems in which SCps operate, shaped by a vast array of interacting variables.

Turning to the paradigms, the consistency of Functionalism across the questionnaire and interviews is unsurprising. We posit that this is due to the centrality of efficiency to the SCp and its alignment with the fundamental indicators of cost minimisation, which are considered paramount in the typical SCp. Whereas simplification and optimisation (being more Reductionistic) are reinforced as consistent across both positions, with distinct references in the interviews to seeking simple solutions and to prioritising optimisation. We argue that functionalism, simplification and optimisation are more relatable, easier to grasp, and, to this point, more expected than the interpretivist paradigm, as they are considered intrinsic to the SCp.

The interviews identified interpretivism as ranking higher than in the earlier questionnaire. The questions likely normalised how the SC should be managed and what the organisation expects of the SCp. This notion of representing an ideal type was reduced during the interviews. The SCp was able to represent the condition of what is. It was found that the SCp associates with the Interpretive paradigm, a dimension that the questionnaire failed to capture. However, it is considered that interpretivist actions are undertaken, even if not self-declared or overtly classified as such. Therefore, to provide an intellectual positioning for interpretivism, the SotW systematises interpretive positions and provides a means for SCp to connect with the paradigm. It is conceivable that the interpretive aspects are underreported because the measurement is quantitative, whereas qualitative methods yield higher prevalence estimates. Therefore, the diagnostic should recognise the dominant positions rather than establish them as permanent, and rigid fixtures that comprise the SotW.

Whilst there are some variances between the categories, the SotW, as a diagnostic tool, can assist practitioners and researchers alike in beginning to appreciate the elements that comprise the SotW. We posit that further developments can ensue given the interpretive findings of the research, as remarked by a participant: P4: “ … when the Supply Chain shifts from being complicated to complexity, we need to change our approach; however, the business thinks we can get the same result as if we are in a Simple System.” Therefore, while the approach continues to be refined, we posit that it represents a starting point for exploring the SotW.

The purpose of visualising the positions across the SotW, as shown in Figure 3, is to surface how SCps position themselves across the elements of stakeholders and systems, with the paradigms overlaid. The SotW, as a diagnostic instrument, is a means to assist the SCp in understanding their current perspective. The positions mapped across the SotW do not imply a right or wrong outcome; rather, they serve as a starting point to explore why they may have been established in the first place.

By establishing a baseline position, an SCp can understand their own approach and consider whether it is conducive to the real-world conditions they face in their roles as practitioners. For instance, a practitioner may conceptually identify a misalignment, i.e. they recognise the SC complexity, but are limited to simplistic solutions due to constraints, e.g. time, cost or organisational norms. By establishing an understanding, i.e. through the SotW, they may be better equipped to reconcile this paradigmatic misalignment.

The outcomes from both the questionnaire and the interviews have been mapped across the SotW, representing an array of aggregated results. The purpose of this mapping is to illustrate positions across the stakeholders (y-axis) and systems (x-axis) categories, supported by definitions that aid interpretation of the findings across the SotW. The positions presented represent a static snapshot and should not be inferred to represent continuous movement. By applying the SotW as a diagnostic instrument, the aim is to examine multiple elements individually and then reflect on their meaning when considered as a whole, that is, how these real positions align with the theoretical underpinnings that inform the construction of the instrument.

Interpreting the SotW begins with the systems axis, which depicts a progression from the highly ordered, tightly controlled and limited variability to the less ordered, with lesser levels of control and a greater array of variability. The stakeholder axis reflects an increasing diversity of competing interests and an expansion of power dynamics.

Movement over the SotW is posited as relative and conceptual, rather than quantitatively affirmed. The positions represented on the SotW reflect upward stakeholder movement, with increased stakeholder plurality and coercion. Rightward movement reflects a shift towards more complex and dynamic systems conditions, with positions allocated across the SotW based on data aggregation. The aim of this visualisation is not to prescribe an absolute position; rather, it is intended to be interpretive and appreciative of the array of elements that comprise a SCps perspective.

The mapping shows that SCps span a variety of positions and do not neatly fall into a single dominant position. This result implies the dynamism of the SCp, which traverses a range of contexts and needs to operate across a range of positions on the SotW. The differences between the questionnaire and the interviews are important to highlight. We posit that these differences reflect the diversity of positions in the questionnaire, which can be regarded as normalising the findings, e.g. the ideal of the SC. Whereas the interviews reveal the nuances and insights that have real-world impact on the SCp, providing insight into what is experienced in practice.

A paradigmatic misalignment is suggested, as the aggregated positions group stakeholders (pluralistic and coercive) and systems (complicated and complex), with the paradigms of functionalism and simplification being more associated with both the interviews and the questionnaire. The clustering of stakeholders and systems relative to the paradigms suggests a gap that leads to misalignment.

The mapping allows identification of where paradigmatic alignments and mismatches occur. We posit that there is no absolute position of incompatibility rendering the SCp ineffectual; however, on balance, practitioners adopt a PP that we argue is most suited to stakeholders identified as unitary. Whilst not rendering the SCp ineffective in tackling complex problems across pluralistic and coercive stakeholders, we postulate that the SCp is not as effective as it could be, given the continued necessity to operate in complicated and complex systems. The SotW provides a basis for interpreting the SCps perspective, and the suggested paradigmatic misalignments we posit warrant exploration in subsequent research.

During the interviews, several themes emerged regarding factors that influence practitioners' PP, as illustrated in Figure 4. Whilst an array of themes emerged, five were selected: shift, disposition, approaches, change and detection, as these were more prevalent than others. The prevalence of each theme, i.e. the number of references related to the theme and the percentage of all themes under study, is shown in Figure 4.

While the elements influencing the PP provided insight into the contributing factors, a deeper analysis was required. Thus, the more dominant themes, i.e. those comprising over 80% of these, were selected for more detailed exploration, as illustrated in Appendix 6. Within the theme of “shift,” the sub-theme of “organisational factors” is interpreted to refer to the role of non-SC actors, i.e. those outside the SC department. This role can be an established position in which the organisation shows little regard for the discipline of SC management, preferring a more transactional approach. Alternatively, the organisation may face customer pressure, leading to a short-term focus on optimising transactions with suppliers, i.e. cost minimisation. However, this transactional view overlooks the broader strategic picture, e.g. how to manage the SC when it has been forced into a state of complexity. There is a place for the SC type, in which factors must be complied with, i.e. regulations, which impact the perspective a practitioner adopts. The research suggests that some SCs require elevated levels of control and regulation, such as in the healthcare industry.

Thus, it could prove challenging to operate within a post-modern paradigm when simplification or functionalism is more appropriate. That said, unless the practitioner can control 100% of the SC, then there is a risk they will adopt an approach that may work in most instances, i.e. for those aspects under their direct control. However, it is recognised as an opportunity for incongruence when they encounter aspects beyond their direct realm of control.

The sub-themes of disposition were more clearly identifiable with practitioners' providing examples that could be categorised as static or dynamic. The static disposition can be either that adopted by the practitioner or the stakeholders with whom they interface, or it may depend on which they prefer, e.g. an existing way of working. Those with a more dynamic disposition are far more active, with a perspective that seeks solutions that may fall outside existing ways of working. They are more inclined to adopt an outward-facing view and appear more adept at handling scenarios in which the simple becomes complicated or escalates into complexity, as evidenced by the examples provided by the research participants.

The approaches' theme, like disposition, was equally identifiable as practitioners referred to approaches that would later be categorised as hard or soft. Practitioners clearly described the processes and technologies they use to manage the SC. Whilst not consistent across all cases, participants tend to orient towards hard approaches, with less mention of soft approaches; these participants are more Reductionistic than Holistic. Whereas practitioners who provided examples and insight, classified as soft approaches, e.g. emphasising the importance of managing and developing relationships with suppliers and stakeholders, were found to be more Holistic.

Whilst establishing an absolute position on what specifically influences a practitioner's PP is challenging, the research has revealed several themes. By identifying some of the more prevalent influences, future work can appreciate the multifaceted nature of the SC, e.g. the elements that comprise it, and the multidimensional nature, e.g. the conflicting priorities between customers and suppliers, which shape a practitioner's approach to managing the SC.

This research sought to answer three overarching questions: to estimate the utility of the SotW, alongside establishing a practitioner's PP from those who participated in the study; and to ascertain the factors that influence the practitioner when applying their PP in the management of the SC.

Across the aggregated positions that comprise this research, SCps have a limited understanding of systems thinking, let alone the broader field of systems sciences, as posited by Flood and Carson (2013). Although once deconstructed, SCp’s have the propensity to understand the concept, as the systems view is, in our estimation, intrinsically appealing to the SCp, as postulated in Wilden et al. (2024). This claim is grounded in the practitioner's willingness, once understanding of the topic, to have SCp’s participate in the research. The SCp must straddle various positions; they work across internal and external stakeholders with differing PP. Noting that practitioners do not fit “nicely” into one PP over another.

This research postulates that SCp’s tend to orient more towards Reductionistic paradigms, albeit primarily in working with complex and complicated systems. Applying a theoretical lens, we deduce that practitioners are likely to encounter incompatibility. The SCp is more likely to pursue initiatives to simplify the SC to gain a deeper understanding of what is occurring. In this research, SCp’s do not suggest that they seek to control the entire SC. Instead, they aim to make “processes” as simple as possible and to optimise accordingly, with a distinct emphasis on maintaining an efficient and stable SC, thereby balancing simplification and optimisation. This yearning for simplicity is to gain an immediate understanding of the SCs condition. The SCp's nightmare occurs when there is a SC disequilibrium (Hobbs, 2021), leading to a scramble to assess the situation, followed by rapid deployment of actions to restore equilibrium. Alas, the pursuit of SC stability in the face of continuing disruptions (Katsaliaki et al., 2022).

As we have found, SCp's identify the need to go beyond simplification and optimisation, given the emergence of ecological and societal imperatives, such as modern slavery (Simpson et al., 2021), transparency (Mollenkopf et al., 2022) and sustainability (Linton et al., 2007). We argue that these challenges arise from the domains of complication and complexity; thus, when a practitioner adopts a more Reductionistic approach, incompatibility ensues. We posit that the positions across the SotW can provide informed awareness for SCp's making sense of their tendency towards more Reductionism, and when to operate with a more Holistic PP.

In summary, this research establishes the utility of the SotW construct for estimating the PP(s) a SCp adopts. However, this position is made in the context that while practitioners may be oriented towards one paradigm over another, they may at times need to operate across multiple paradigms; this direction is typically identified as a regression to Reductionism during times of crisis. In times of relative calm, practitioners seek to address overarching problems, such as modern slavery, and attempt to move up the SotW.

Derived from sensemaking theory (Weick, 1995; Maitlis and Christianson, 2014) and utilising insights from the SC literature (Darby et al., 2019; Towers et al., 2020; Preuss et al., 2024), this paper is classified as distinctly interpretive and exploratory, with no claims of empirical validation. In the initial questionnaire, used as a screening mechanism, and in the subsequent interviews, a sensemaking logic was employed rather than a positivist validation framework. The intent was not to verify the accuracy of the response or seek a convergence between the data sources. Rather, the intent was to examine how SCps established their positions across the SotW, and what influenced these perspectives. The research continued until it was determined that a series of patterns had emerged; that is, it was found that SCps identified they operated in a complicated or complex system, with pluralistic, or coercive stakeholders, albeit the Reductionist paradigm of simplification was preferred over what is considered as more Holistic paradigms, i.e. interpretive.

The participants in this study had only a cursory understanding of systems thinking, which is a limitation. The primary determinant in selecting research participants was their experience and responsibilities as SCps, not as Systems Thinkers; as such, if this determinant were reversed, i.e. prioritising those well-versed in systems thinking, we argue that this would not be representative of the SCp population. To mitigate the lack of systems thinking knowledge, this research went to lengths to assist participants, e.g. by providing reference videos, definitions and contextualised examples, leveraging insights from Guest et al. (2006) and Dillman et al. (2014).

To synthesise the insights from this research, Figure 5 illustrates the SotW's positioning in relation to the occurrence of a problem. One approach is to continue with the typical response, classified as an unexamined PP. By chance, the adopted PP may yield a superficial or systemic resolution, for example, if the SCp confronts a problem that functionalism can address.

However, where an unknown incompatibility exists, this may result in a superficial resolution. To minimise the risk, we propose examining the PP through the SotW construct. We speculate that, by making inferences, practitioners can influence the systemic resolution of a problem at either the firm or SC level, depending on the extent to which their interventions are implemented.

The following outlines how future research, in the form of propositions, can support the suggested uplifts by considering the effects of SC problems, pursued through a variety of research approaches.

This research has found that SCps consistently adjust to ensure their organisation and the connected SC remain stable, thereby meeting customer requirements. As identified in this study, SCps can maintain the viability of the SC given these decisions, and it is recognised that SCps continually engage in sensemaking. However, as we have found through the application of the SotW diagnosis, there are degrees of incongruence, e.g. between the systems they operate in and the extant PP of the SCp. Therefore, we argue that, for the quality of a SCps sensemaking to be enhanced, they can apply the SotW instrument, thereby becoming more aware of the conditions that comprise the systems that operate across, and the stakeholders they interact with or are dependent upon.

We are not suggesting, especially at this exploratory stage, that simply applying the SotW is a panacea for achieving sensemaking perfection. Instead, by having awareness, e.g. that simplification should be preferred as a PP, and operating in a system regarded as complicated or complex, the SCp will be informed of this potential incongruence. Given the awareness that arises from applying the SotW, we anticipate that this may lead the SCp to question the role that this paradigmatic misalignment plays in addressing systemic issues.

To build a more in-depth understanding of the role the SotW can play in sensemaking, we contend that action research through a case study is an important pursuit. Research that encompasses multiple firms in a SC, including the focal firm, suppliers, supplier suppliers and customers, is advocated. We posit that case research would empirically assess the utility of the SotW as an instrument and consider the real-world implications of identifying misalignment across the organisations participating in the study. We advocate that this foundational research is the antecedent to exploring whether, upon awareness of a dominant PP, the organisations that comprise the SC can respond.

This proposition aims to leverage the awareness advocated in Proposition 1. We argue that awareness enables the realisation of compatibility among the PP, the systems and the stakeholder positions. We contend that if the SCp can recognise the systems and stakeholder positions and reflect on the more prevalent PP, they can consciously explore whether there is incongruence. Critically, as this research finds, SCps do not occupy a single dominant position. Instead, they straddle an array, albeit oriented towards a more dominant PP. Therefore, this proposition contends that when the SCp can shift their PP closer to the reality they identify with, there will be greater alignment in their sensemaking.

We posit that part of the challenge in addressing systemic issues lies in the position from which they are explored. Should SCps establish that this problem resides in a complicated systems domain with pluralistic stakeholders, then it is reasonable to conclude that the problem will at least be framed correctly. This follows the PP, which, in this example, resides in the interpretivist level, where strategies should focus more on the people aspect than on the process. However, as with proposition 1, this proposition requires awareness of the SotW and the ability to connect with transdisciplinary systems thinking knowledge.

Accordingly, we posit that undertaking action research, via longitudinal study upon firms in the case research, as presented in proposition 1, is an effective means to explore the impact of surfacing the reality of perspectives, as identified through the SotW. Revisiting the firms over time will provide a reference point to assess whether understanding their position on the SotW triggered action that increased alignment within the system, or whether it revealed the impact of inaction. Critically, the passage of time, alongside the impact of shifting external conditions, will help build an understanding of the utility of the SotW for the firms that elected to examine the PP of their firm and for other firms that comprise the broader SC.

Proposition 3 builds on the propositions of awareness and compatibility, advocating diagnostic clarity. It is distinctly reasonable, and given the learnings from this research, that SCps will misdiagnose their absolute position upon the SotW. We advocate for expanding the data points that comprise a position on the SotW. While the SotW can be applied to a single SCp, we advocate that the diagnosis can extend to the wider SC team and to firms across the SC.

The SotW's prima facie objective is to promote alignment. However, the positions across the spectrum are subjective at this point. Thus, we posit that by expanding the points of data to include more people, e.g. across the team of SCp, or into firms at the dyadic or triadic level, then we posit the opportunity for mis-alignment will reduce, albeit not be eradicated, as, at this point, this is still an interpretive endeavour.

One outcome that could be realised, enabled by the collection of multiple data points (e.g. from SC team members), is the profiling of SCps. It is plausible that there may be SCps better aligned with the distinct roles in the SC team. For example, one SCp may be well-suited to complex SCs, given its PP. Whereas another may be better suited to implementing optimisation strategies more appropriate for a simple system?

Whilst this identified the incongruence between the Reductionist paradigms and the complicated and complex systems, we posit the reverse could also be true, i.e. that the problem resides in a simple or uncomplicated system and ought to be handled as such, avoiding over-treatment of the problem at hand. We see a need for future research to examine the notion of misalignment, given the prevalence of the complexity literature in the SC discipline. Whilst it is indeed acknowledged that SCs are complex, they can also be uncomplex, simple or complicated, and thus, given the insights of this research, we posit a need to consider the array of systems that comprise a SC.

Building on the case research, we envisage the SotW as a diagnostic instrument that will require empirical validation through quantitative research. Shifting from qualitative research, which we argue will yield insights into how to use the instrument, we see positivist research as well-suited for seeking empirical validation. Critically, we note that quantitative research, e.g. in the form of a survey, ought to be undertaken only after the qualitative insights have been reflected in the instrument. We deem this earlier exploratory work necessary to surface critical insights, avoid the normalisation of results and treat all elements that comprise the SotW as unilaterally equal.

Given awareness of the benefits of compatibility and the implications of misalignment, we advocate mobility to adjust the SCps PP. We acknowledge that, as a matter of course, SCps traverse multiple domains, e.g. from the simple to the complex, given the different structural arrangements of a SC. However, we posit that this occurs more implicitly, rather than with an overt understanding of the systems across which an SCp operates or of the types of stakeholders with whom it interacts. Thus, by using a spectrum-wide diagnostic, such as the SotW, this approach facilitates the development of a broader body of knowledge regarding the presence of multiple system domains, thereby promoting the ability to traverse these domains intellectually. We suggest that paradigmatic mobility can be triggered when practitioners identify that their dominant PP is misaligned with the systems domain or with the stakeholders' position, thereby providing a basis for a shift towards a more appropriate paradigm.

Therefore, to manifest these research outcomes, we suggest conducting comparative case studies to identify conditions that promote or inhibit mobility. Critically, whilst the utility of the SotW may be established, at least in the aggregate, we contend that further research is needed to explore whether there are context or industry-specific conditions that need to be considered. We posit that it would be naïve to assume that the SotW could be applied unilaterally or that it would not uncover the instrument's limitations as presented. For example, are there systems beyond complex, e.g. the Chaotic, that need to be factored?

As identified in this research, the simplification, functionalism and optimisation paradigms predominate among the SotW. However, given the identification of complexity and complication, the evidence suggests the need to establish a means to achieve a greater orientation towards the paradigms of the interpretive and emancipatory approaches. We argue that advancing proposition 4 is a prerequisite for transcending functionalism.

We take guidance from Jackson's critical systems practice approach (Jackson, 2024), and as deconstructed in (Wilden et al., 2025), to focus upon the systemic perspective of the cultural and draw attention to the role that purposeful systems methodologies (Ackoff and Emery, 2005), specifically the application of the Soft Systems methodologies (Checkland and Poulter, 2020). We denote the use of Checkland's rich pictures' to bring the actors together, as undertaken in Gencoglu et al. (2002), with the approach augmented to include the central task of examining where the SC firm(s) most orientated to on the SotW, and sought collective interventions to contemplate what it would take for the firm, and their interconnected suppliers to make a conscious shift towards interpretivism.

Given this, we posit that future work could centre on the application of purposeful systems methodologies to provide structured means for dialogue, reflection and the exploration of differing worldviews, thereby assisting in advancing higher-order PPs. We envisage this occurring following the identification that the firm, and ideally their suppliers and customers, have come together to explore the implications of their positions across the SotW. A likely scenario is that their orientation towards Functionalism will be a consistent factor, albeit one of incongruence, as they acknowledge that they operate in complicated and complex systems. Thus, one avenue would be to explore how, through a purposeful methodology, e.g. Soft Systems Methodology, the differing perspectives can be surfaced, and how a collective could aspire to operate, at times, in the Interpretivist paradigm. Critically, we note that it is not a default position to ascend to the Interpretivist paradigm. Rather, future work is required to estimate what could be realised if there were a collective adoption of Interpretivism, or if operating at a higher-order paradigm were indeed possible.

Using the outcomes from applying the SotW diagnostic instrument is an effective way to bring firms in the SC together to discuss the perspectives that have surfaced. Bringing a collective consciousness of the limitations and possibilities of understanding where these firms reside on the SotW provides an opportunity to foster greater awareness. This collective awareness could assist the firms in the SC as they navigate the ongoing VUCA, which will continue to challenge them.

This study provides a compelling addition to the growing narrative about the role that an interdisciplinary approach, in this instance – systems thinking, can play in advancing SC management. The postulated construct, Figure 3, the SotW, is introduced as a means by which the SCp can foster an intellectual connection with what is regarded, in the main, as a foreign discipline.

The insights from the SotW can be used to draw inferences as to the level of compatibility between the theoretical position identified in the literature and that established through this study of practitioners. The second aspect of this research explored the perspectives held by SCp's and where they mostly orient themselves. The research outcome found that participants involved in this study are more Reductionistic than Holistic. Through a detailed thematic analysis, organisational factors, SC type, and disposition and approaches, when considered together, play an influential role in shaping the practitioner's PP.

The outcomes of this investigation led to a series of research propositions, which are reflected in a causal diagram (Figure 5) that centres on the element of compatibility, i.e. how compatible the SCp's PP is with the type of problem they face. Adopting an incompatible perspective may lead to a superficial resolution. It is noted that the implemented solution may yield a systemic resolution of the issue. However, this is more a matter of happenstance than a deliberate strategy. Thus, this research invites engagement with the SotW, in which practitioners can explore their intra- and inter-firm perspectives, reflecting a deliberate attempt to understand the PP. We posit that with a greater understanding of their firm and its suppliers, SCp's will be better placed to implement systemic solutions, rather than superficial panaceas that lead to further distractions and call into question the strategic viability of their firm and the wider SC. From a theoretical perspective, this study extends Jackson's SoSM by postulating the SotW as an augmentation that directly incorporates Reductionist paradigms.

This research highlights the importance of re-evaluating the paradigms that comprise SC management and advocating a shift beyond traditional functionalist approaches. As a result of this research, we suggest that the Interpretive paradigm is the next frontier for a SCp to connect with, especially as they will continue to manage complex, multi-stakeholder networks, both internal and external to the firm. Future research should explore the application of the SotW framework in case study research comprising multiple stakeholder organisations up and down the SC to reveal further insights and plausible interventions, e.g. by critically examining those rooted in purposeful Systems methodologies.

This initial exploratory work upon the conceptual SotW framework paves the way for future research that will eventually lead to validation. We posit that an antecedent to empirical validation via positivist approaches is the need to better interpret results across the SotW. We have found that if the SotW is applied solely through quantitative means, the findings will be normalised, with the ideal condition represented. Whereas interpretation is needed to grasp context, leading to insight into why the positions were established. Therefore, future research needs to incorporate this into the SotW as a diagnostic instrument to effectively consider interpretive aspects based on the insights this research gained from the interviews.

This research maps out five propositions, ranging from a diagnosis of the firm to SC partners, and revisits them through longitudinal research. The earlier propositions, i.e. 1 and 2, are designed to gain insight from the qualitative research. Proposition 3 shifts to a positivist research approach, aiming to provide empirical validation of the SotW as a diagnostic instrument. Proposition 4 centres on comparative case studies to cogitate whether there are further factors to consider, e.g. across differing industries and contexts. Proposition 5 explores the task of higher-order paradigmatic development. It is expected that there will be a shift towards more evolved paradigms of Interpretivist and Emancipatory, which, according to the literature, can be sought through purposeful systems methodologies, e.g. Soft Systems Methodologies. This research approach maps a considered path, grounded in thoroughly understanding how to use the SotW as a diagnostic instrument and in gaining insights from the formative research stages, i.e. the qualitative research.

We seek to offer knowledge that enables SCp’s to consider their paradigmatic orientation and to challenge whether their extant perspective is compatible with the ongoing complications and complexities that will continue to dominate global SCs. We hope to provide SCps with an intellectual bridge that enables them to strategically use the SotW framework to assess their PP. We see this as a tool that SC departments can use to identify interventions to enhance their systems thinking capabilities. Given the probable continuation of SC disruptions stemming from complexity, firms will be strategically advantaged if they can implement mechanisms to avoid or mitigate a default to Reductionist thinking once they have realised strategies grounded in Holism.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.