Impact pathways: on the role and function of supply chain and operations management executives (SCOMEs) Open Access

The number of supply chain and operations management executives (SCOMEs) amongst the top management team (TMT) has risen substantially, see Figure 1. As more and more firms place individuals responsible for functions such as logistics, procurement or manufacturing in their C-suite, these new executives typically become responsible for overseeing at least 50% of their organization’s annual spend and for managing roughly two-thirds of its employees. In response to this increase, emerging literature in supply chain management has begun to examine the effect(s) of the appointment or of the characteristics of SCOMEs (e.g. Wagner and Kemmerling, 2014; Roh et al., 2016; Sihvonen and Kauppi, 2025) on different supply chain outcomes. However, SCOMES’ actual role (i.e. what their formal positions are supposed to achieve within the hierarchy, Stryker, 2007) and actual function (i.e. what tasks and activities they are made responsible for, Samimi et al., 2022) have so far remained unexamined (cf. Ma et al., 2022).

There is a strong need to enrich our knowledge of what SCOMEs actually do to carry out interpersonal, informational, and decisional work in the supply chains they manage—three categories of managerial work long highlighted in classical management literature (Mintzberg, 1973; Korica et al., 2017; Nath and Bharadwaj, 2020). Emergent research provides evidence that having individuals with SCOME titles on the TMT correlates with improved operational outcomes (Körber and Cotta, 2021; Kroes et al., 2022), even if their impact on financial performance remains unclear (Roh et al., 2016; Wagner and Kemmerling, 2014). Notably, these studies rely on vague and unsubstantiated assumptions about SCOMEs’ work — describing them merely as “active participants in the TMT” (Roh et al., 2016, p. 50) or “coordinators of firm-wide activities” (Nath and Bharadwaj, 2020, p. 673) — to argue for their performance impact.

These broad-stroke definitions of the role and function of SCOMEs lack systematic empirical underpinning and insight. In our view, without an empirically grounded description of the set of behaviors organizations expect from them and of the set of tasks they are mandated with, the distant link between SCOMES and performance will remain inscrutable (Ma et al., 2022; Wieland et al., 2016).

With this impact pathway, we report an empirical study on the role and function of SCOMEs to develop an impactful research agenda. This research aim has implications for SCOMEs research across a variety of domains: academically, to conceptualize their role and function in order to enable further theorization, practically, to pick and train executives in accordance with a substantiated understanding of their role and function (Flöthmann and Hoberg, 2017; Von Eben-Worlée et al., 2025), and institutionally, to derive responsibilities for SCOM that inform policymaking about corporate governance (Kolev and Neligan, 2022). We assert that we need to map and understand what SCOMEs do, why they do it and how they do it, in order to properly theorize the effects of their appointment or characteristics. In the absence of such advancement, this knowledge gap will be seemingly filled by management consultants (Palamariu and Alicke, 2022), risking inflated expectations based on the titles of these executives rather than the substance of their work.

Since Wagner and Kemmerling (2014) observed that the number of SCOMEs was rising fast, a limited but growing stream of scholarship turned its attention to the performance implications of having SCOMEs in TMTs. Grounded in upper echelons theory and strategic leadership—positing that executives’ characteristics strongly influence firm outcomes (Hambrick, 2007)—these studies find that financial markets reward firms for appointing SCOMEs (Hendricks et al., 2015) and that their presence in TMTs is associated with higher operational performance (Kroes et al., 2022; Körber and Cotta, 2021; Paraskevas et al., 2023; Sihvonen and Kauppi, 2025). Findings regarding financial performance are inconsistent though, while Roh et al. (2016) detect a positive relationship with Return on Assets for leveraged, internationalized and diversified firms, Wagner and Kemmerling (2014) and Nath and Bharadwaj (2020) report a negative effect on profit margin and Tobin’s Q, respectively. Regrettably, these studies infer such performance impacts without empirically investigating the underlying managerial work that could explain such outcomes. At the very least, further investigation into the role and function of SCOMEs might enlighten and possibly resolve some of the mixed findings in this literature.

Regarding the role and function of executives in the supply chain domain, the literature paints a blurred picture along two dimensions. On the one hand, studies describe the responsibility of these executives as being “an active participant within the TMT” or as “reporting directly to the CEO” (Johnson et al., 2014; Roh et al., 2016). Yet, the TMT remains a contentious description of the highest management layer within a company, not least because it is notoriously difficult to circumscribe the “team” and to properly account for hierarchical differences within it. Hence, actual job titles of cases included in empirical research on SCOMEs vary among “chiefs”, “executives”, and senior or global “vice-presidents” (cf. Hendricks et al., 2015; Roh et al., 2016).

On the other hand, SCOMEs’ specific managerial work is described as “overseeing all SC[O]M functions” or as responsible for the “end-to-end supply chain” (Roh et al., 2016; Kroes et al., 2022; Sihvonen and Kauppi, 2025). However, to quote Wagner and Kemmerling (2014, p. 157): “Although this definition might seem self-explanatory, there is no consensus on what comprises SC[O]M”, which leads to both narrow and wider interpretations (e.g. including logistics or procurement).

While the literature on managerial work (Mintzberg, 1973; Korica et al., 2017) sheds light on the roles and functions of executives in general, it does not offer a granular understanding of the ways in which SCOMEs shape organizational processes. It does suggest, however, that we can uncover the mechanisms behind the impact of SCOMEs” work by examining the activities they engage in (what they do), the motivations or mandates they receive (why they do it), and the means that they utilize (how they do it). Hence, the aims of our study relate not to further understanding of the effects of SCOMEs on multi-level outcomes (which is being addressed in emerging literature), but rather to what, how and why they (attempt) to achieve them.

Over the course of three years, we conducted 29 interviews with top level managers across North-West Europe from organizations that produce physical goods. These executives carry varying titles (e.g. Chief Supply Chain Officers, EVP Global Logistics) and operate in different types and sizes of firms (e.g. chemical to medical technology; 250–100,000) – see Supplementary Materials 1. Common to all interviewees is first-hand insight into SCOMEs’ mandates and managerial work.

To develop an empirically grounded theorizing of SCOMEs’ work, we conducted interviews with the aim of illuminating their role and function. Therefore, all interviews started with the same simple question: “What is your role and what are your responsibilities in the company?” Over the course of different interviews, some subsequently and iteratively focused more on executive leadership, or on roles and functions specifically related to supply chain agility, risk and resilience, or supply chain due diligence, in light of the sub-themes explored in different research projects. Interviews lasted between 35 and 90 min. All interviews were recorded and shortly thereafter transcribed–and, if needed, translated into English.

Our analysis of the transcripts followed a grounded theory approach with initial and focused coding following a Gioia template (Gioia et al., 2013) by two independent coders. Over the course of various iterations between data and analysis, we arrived at a conceptualization of the “what”, “why” and “how” of SCOMEs’ role and function, consistent with the managerial work literature described before. We employ a three-level classification with quotes related to categories, and then categories to emerging dimensions of our scholarly theorization—see Supplementary Materials 2. Our analytical findings are systematically described in Table 1, highlighting three key dimensions that lead to a variation of impact pathways for future research in Table 2.

Our exploration of the first question elucidates six general categories of activity SCOMEs engage with in the course of their executive work: external integration, internal integration, operational performance management, talent management, exception management and managing change projects, as reported in Table 1. From these work categories and how they emerge from the data, we derive a set of three pathways to impact based on “what” SCOMEs do, as reported in Table 2.

Our first pathway to impact stems from an emerging motif across the six categories, namely SCOMEs navigation of the tension between global and local considerations. Concerns were often espoused about optimizing firm-level decisions, such as inventory policies or supply base rationalization, while addressing local market needs. This pathway asks about the specific strategies that SCOMEs use to balance global synergies with local responsiveness. Paradox theory says such tensions must be managed not resolved (Smith and Lewis, 2011), yet we do not know what activities constitute that management. Likewise, resource orchestration theory suggests that resources must be structured, bundled and leveraged for competitive advantage (Sirmon et al., 2011), but does not specify what executives do to achieve it. Specifically, studies should explore what frameworks SCOMEs employ to weigh trade-offs between centralization and localization and what decision-support tools help them to strategically decide on which supply chain functions should be standardized globally and which are better tailored to local requirements. Equally important would be to investigate the organizational structures (i.e. decision-making hierarchies, teams, workflows, etc.) that SCOMEs implement to align the dual objectives. In this way, scholars could uncover evidence-based insights on the boundary-spanning managerial actions that enable the alignment between global possibilities and local constraints, an issue that has vexed international business scholars for over 3 decades (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1991).

Because each of the six categories ultimately foregrounds cross-functional challenges, our evidence directs attention to a second pathway interrogating the specific activities SCOMEs execute to integrate goals, processes and information across different internal departments. While internal integration is widely recognized as essential, both as a driver of performance and of integration with customers and suppliers, our findings highlight that our understanding of SCOMEs’ role in achieving it is still rudimentary. We propose opening the much maligned black-box of integration (e.g. Frankel and Mollenkopf, 2015) by employing a SCOMEs-focused microfoundations approach. Studies should aim to unpack the specific practices they implement to align incentives and foster cross-functional cooperation. Research should explore how SCOMES match integration requirements (why integration is needed) with integration mechanisms (how is integration achieved). For instance, it would be insightful to shed light on how SCOMES prioritize among different requirements and how they adapt the mechanisms used in response to dynamic conditions. It would also be pertinent to explore how they combine digital technologies and organizational design tools to actually meet requisite levels of internal integration. This could refine our internal integration frameworks to include the specific bridging role and functions of SCOMEs.

Lastly, it is important to note that all of our findings stem from the information conveyed by the executives themselves during in-depth interviews, not from direct observation. In light of the limitations of exploring executive work activities from self-reporting retrospective accounts, the third research pathway we suggest is methodological, namely the study of the “what they do” question using more immersive data collection methods. We contend that methods such as (auto)ethnography can offer valuable contributions to the examination of the dynamic reality of how SCOMEs are spending their time at work. They can offer insight into SCOMEs’ behaviors, interactions and decision-making. Furthermore, they would enable us to observe their time allocation to different activities and to capture their perceptions, thought processes and emotions regarding their work. Thus, we could shed more light on the microfoundations of SCOMEs’ influence on organizations and their supply chains.

Besides exploring what SCOMEs actually do, our inquiry needed to investigate the reasons behind these executives’ work activities, to shed light on what mandates they receive from their organization and their roles within the TMT. Our findings point to four key themes: reach corporate-level targets, shape expectations, control end-to-end supply chain and claim role in TMT, as reported in Table 1.

Taken together, the four themes spotlight outward-facing requirements and inward-facing demands, which the two following pathways described in Table 2 address in turn. First, it is important to investigate shareholders’ influence on the SCOME mandate. While our initial findings pointed to the particular role of organizational and peer expectations, shareholder value maximization and short-term orientation remain the dominant rationale for contemporary corporations. In this sense, we need a pathway to investigate how the generic mandate to increase shareholder wealth shapes the motivations and directives of SCOMEs, especially since supply chain management is increasingly expected to achieve longer-term goals such as sustainability and resilience. Lack of insight into how shareholders influence SCOMEs’ work will prevent scholars from developing predictive theories that connect governance structures to supply chain outcomes and leave practitioners without evidence-based guidance on how to reconcile quarterly earnings pressure with long-term supply chain goals (Desjardine et al., 2023).

A second pathway should centre on questions about the configuration of the hierarchy among different supply chain leaders within the same organization, both functionally and in interaction (Gligor et al., 2024; Kroes et al., 2025). In our sample, we encountered multiple different arrangements regarding the number of SCOME positions, the labels of such positions (e.g. Chief Supply Chain Officer, Executive VP Demand Planning, Corporate VP for manufacturing) and executive report. We need to boost our understanding of how these different arrangements correspond to different requirements for SCOMEs’ work in order to study not just executives’ “individual impact”, but moreover “the relevance and complementarity of all [SCOME] TMT roles as a bundle” (Ma et al., 2022, p. 3). Directly emanating from this pathway, we suggest that interactions among SCOMEs within TMTs become a particular focus of scholarly attention.

The last element of our findings entails the how’s of SCOMEs work. Our findings reveal that in order to turn their mandates into actual managerial actions, SCOMEs need to construe mental models to carry out their work (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2015). Findings point to three interpretative domains related to their SCOM organization and to the context in which it is operating: making sense of the environment, making sense of SCOM and making sense of KPIs, as in Table 1.

The need to generate mental models that condense the complexity of the task environment and that provide order to equivocal elements of SCOMEs’ work leads us to suggest a specific pathway that advances the use of a sensemaking lens (Weick, 1993), see Table 2 for detailed suggestions on research questions and approaches. Such a theoretical lens would offer a conceptual framework to investigate the search for and enactment of meaning in the face of uncertainty and ambiguity regarding supply chain management, performance indicators and the operating environment. This pathway could invigorate research on the reconciliation of conflicting objectives and diverse stakeholder expectations, thus uncovering cognitive underpinnings of the management of complex supply chains. As current behavioral supply chain models lack cognitive microfoundations (Fahimnia et al., 2019), this research is needed to help us understand how SCOMEs frame events into actionable decisions that impact supply chain outcomes.

Because our data reveals that making sense of the environment, making sense of SCOM and making sense of KPIs are specific to each organizational unit’s context and each industry’s regulatory and competitive constraints, a second pathway must generate specific insights into how executives construe managing supply chain performance within their particular environment. Since supply chain performance has a multidimensional meaning, SCOMEs need to interpret it against the competitive and regulatory features of their context. Without a solid grasp on how SCOMEs generate mental models about what a contextually embedded practice of supply chain management is, we risk committing attribution errors about their impact in shaping strategic choices. This weakens our ability to conceive and test theoretical relationships in our field (Martinko, 2006).

Our interview data also suggested variation in how executives from different functional backgrounds interpreted identical situations, opening a final pathway that explores the influence of background characteristics on SCOMEs sensemaking process. For example, executives with strong procurement backgrounds may overemphasize cost-containment metrics, whereas those with logistics or manufacturing experience may focus on speed or flexibility. We propose that background characteristics (e.g. demographics, education, functional experience) could shape the mental models that they construe, so as to enable different behaviors (e.g. leadership styles, vision, communication preferences) when faced with similar decisions regarding, for instances, supply chain strategies, inter-departmental negotiations or external partnerships (cf. Upper Echelons Theory, Hambrick, 2007; see also Tuncdogan et al., 2017).

Gone are the days when operational careers “reduced one’s chances of ever reaching the top” (Skinner, 1969, p. 137). With the rapid proliferation of SCOME roles, it is imperative that we deepen our scholarly understanding of how these executives shape firm behavior and performance. Otherwise, we risk perpetuating Skinner’s caution that operational matters remain “taught in the wrong way in the business schools” (p. 137) and, by extension, be relegated to the margins of executive education programs. Such considerations have implications beyond academia, including in the (expected) training or educational programmes for executives. Following Flöthmann and Hoberg (2017), we similarly observe that many executives in SCOM take on a variety of functional roles (e.g. related to procurement, logistics, and manufacturing) before reaching the top (cf. von Eben-Worlée et al., 2025). More generally, we suggest that training of executives should be related to the coverage of the domain’s “how’s”, namely, sensemaking related to the environment, SCOM and KPIs.

By presenting the first empirical, descriptive account of what SCOMEs do, why they do it, and how they do it, this study addresses that gap head-on. Nevertheless, we encourage our community to stay vigilant about the evolving nature of these roles, ensuring their institutional development does not outpace our empirical insights. We strongly believe that this is an area that deserves further attention (cf. Helper et al., 2021), also from the perspectives of corporate governance. Much like the mandatory introduction of the Chief Risk Officer following the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (Li et al., 2022) has influenced the management of risks (but not only positively), the (mandatory) introduction of Chief Supply Chain Officers could urge firms to promote further supply chain orientation amongst the TMT, or to concentrate experience and responsibility in only one individual executive, thereby potentially undermining the “spirit of the law”, for instance when it comes to supply chain due diligence legislation. While this cannot be considered an immediate result or impact pathway from our paper, we hope to inspire future research that can inform public policy and corporate governance of the supply chain more effectively.

Ultimately, we hope to galvanize interest in and focus on the emergent domain of strategic supply chain leadership. Strengthening our understanding of SCOMEs’ work activities—and integrating these insights into theoretical frameworks, curricula and corporate governance regulations—is a collective endeavor, and we invite scholars from across the discipline to join us in this pursuit.

The authors thank Philip Benthin, Sebastian Hoffmann, Andrejs Jenaki and Laura Mennens for support in data collection. The authors also gratefully acknowledge constructive feedback from the reviewers and editors and from participants at IPSERA 2023 and EUROMA 2024.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.