Jscm12208 Sup 0001 Supinfo

Acting as Expected:
Global Leadership Preferences and the Pursuit of an Integrated Supply Chain
Supplemental Document
This document gives many of the descriptive statistics for the study. Multiple tables are given. First, we
show the means and standard deviations in Table S1, the country-specific mean in Table S2, the
correlations among variables in Table S3, and the sample sizes by country-industry combinations in
Table S4. Finally, we give the detailed account of the robustness check on the IMSS-V data that is
summarized in the manuscript.
Table S1: Variable Means and Standard Deviations

Mean Std.Dev.
Size (S) 3317.9 13471.3
Competitive Rivalry (R) 3.861 0.921
Lean Methods (L) 3.251 1.040
Product Complexity (C) 3.388 1.133
Production Resp (P) 4.391 0.711
Supplier Power (W) 3.077 0.874
Domestic Sourcing (D) 57.859 31.870
Intra-firm Inputs (I) 27.127 22.733
Int. Integ. Prog. (INT) 3.488 0.860
B-S Integ. Prog (BSI) 3.077 0.828
PPP per cap (G) 10.327 0.496
LP: Team Oriented 5.727 0.148
LP: Participative 5.429 0.376
LP: Charismatic 5.798 0.211
LP: Humane Oriented 4.775 0.332
LP: Autonomous 3.795 0.310
LP: Self Protective 3.286 0.417
S1
Table S2: Country Specific Means
Netherlands
Switzerland
Germany
Denmark
Malaysia
Romania
Portugal
Hungary
Slovenia
Belgium
Sweden
Norway
Canada
Finland
Taiwan
Japan
China
Spain
Italy
USA
Sample Size (N) 30 30 130 39 34 24 57 53 83 17 49 29 34 40 17 30 32 30 28 48
Size (S) 5425 3558 3812 1337 743 14538 802 1868 3218 2948 1741 350 6163 146 257 1358 6287 944 7447 6663
Comp. Rivalry (R) 3.47 3.85 3.96 3.59 3.71 3.96 3.98 3.92 3.65 4.18 3.67 3.41 4.44 3.83 4.12 3.93 3.91 3.80 3.96 4.04
Lean Methods (L) 2.99 3.23 3.41 3.46 3.03 3.15 2.98 3.15 2.87 3.65 3.02 3.64 3.47 3.29 3.35 3.34 3.56 3.06 3.71 3.34
Prod. Complexity (C) 3.33 2.93 3.31 3.22 3.26 3.33 3.26 3.56 3.13 3.94 3.33 3.31 3.35 3.19 3.82 4.01 3.57 3.10 3.86 3.91
Production Resp (P) 4.78 4.69 4.12 4.68 4.47 4.67 4.59 4.57 3.67 4.30 4.70 4.11 4.74 4.07 4.66 4.53 4.72 4.75 4.17 4.47
Supplier Power (W) 2.99 3.27 3.09 2.79 3.09 2.58 3.12 2.92 3.12 3.32 2.96 2.70 3.24 3.48 3.47 3.20 3.07 2.80 3.61 2.96
Dom. Sourcing (D) 26.36 48.14 86.58 39.66 58.50 57.56 43.45 55.83 74.77 61.60 46.28 46.88 42.09 56.45 36.29 51.43 39.31 38.04 61.09 74.41
Intra-firm Inputs (I) 23.55 19.26 27.80 29.17 28.17 24.82 17.35 20.02 41.17 35.18 22.62 31.94 18.32 32.11 23.12 25.24 19.98 18.77 38.44 33.29
Int. Integ. Prog. (INT) 3.33 3.30 3.76 3.21 3.14 3.30 3.75 3.27 3.33 3.60 3.18 3.53 3.60 3.71 3.94 3.49 3.44 3.01 4.10 3.53
B-S Integ. Prog (BSI) 2.93 2.87 3.25 2.91 2.81 3.00 3.16 2.98 2.99 3.24 2.69 3.31 3.04 3.21 3.46 2.88 3.16 2.87 3.98 2.99
Ln(PPP) per cap (G) 10.61 10.67 9.38 10.66 10.55 10.68 10.01 10.44 10.50 10.06 10.68 11.09 10.16 9.83 10.24 10.38 10.68 10.89 10.61 10.88
LP: Team Oriented 5.43 5.84 5.57 5.70 5.85 5.50 5.91 5.87 5.56 5.80 5.75 5.72 5.92 5.88 5.91 5.93 5.75 5.61 5.69 5.80
LP: Participative 5.83 6.09 5.04 5.80 5.91 5.79 5.22 5.47 5.07 5.12 5.75 5.67 5.48 5.08 5.42 5.11 5.54 5.94 4.73 5.93
LP: Charismatic 5.45 6.15 5.56 6.00 5.94 5.86 5.91 5.98 5.49 5.89 5.98 5.92 5.75 5.74 5.69 5.90 5.84 5.93 5.58 6.12
LP: Humane Oriented 4.32 5.20 5.19 4.23 4.30 4.52 4.73 4.38 4.68 5.24 4.82 4.48 4.62 4.76 4.44 4.66 4.73 4.76 5.35 5.21
LP: Autonomous 3.43 3.65 4.07 3.79 4.08 4.32 3.23 3.62 3.67 4.03 3.53 3.88 3.19 4.20 4.28 3.54 3.97 4.13 4.01 3.75
LP: Self Protective 2.84 2.96 3.80 2.81 2.55 3.14 3.24 3.25 3.60 3.49 2.87 2.81 3.10 3.68 3.61 3.38 2.81 2.92 4.28 3.15
S2
Table S3: Correlations of Variables 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1 Size (S) 1
2 Competitive Rivalry (R) .076* 1
3 Lean Methods (L) .034 .035 1
4 Product Complexity (C) -.005 .016 .071* 1
5 Production Resp (P) .090** .106** .082* .043 1
6 Supplier Power (W) .001 .116** .043 .124** -.017 1
** ** **
7 Domestic Sourcing (D) -.099 -.033 -.110 -.039 -.263 -.003 1
8 Intra-firm Inputs (I) .064 -.061 .013 -.001 -.158** -.028 .152** 1
** ** ** * **
9 Int. Integ. Prog. (INT) .014 .116 .165 .157 .068 .122 -.012 -.044 1
** ** ** ** ** ** **
10 B-S Integ. Prog (BSI) .150 .125 .322 .168 .038 .119 -.109 -.018 .539 1
11 PPP per cap (G) .021 -.098** .028 .030 .159** -.094** -.306** .014 -.187** -.106** 1
12 LP: Team Oriented -.084* .097** .098** .077* .191** .080* -.211** -.128** .027 -.023 .123** 1
13 LP: Participative .014 -.057 .042 -.026 .321** -.140** -.288** -.126** -.208** -.189** .673** .136** 1
14 LP: Charismatic -.032 .018 .077* .047 .303** -.081* -.232** -.140** -.120** -.127** .521** .648** .696** 1
15 LP: Humane Oriented .058 .098** .004 .046 -.139** .097** .334** .066 .168** .129** -.417** -.156** -.359** -.146** 1
16 LP: Autonomous .031 -.012 .036 .008 -.129** .008 .209** .100** .044 .103** -.200** -.340** -.110** -.182** .234** 1
17 LP: Self Protective .027 .079* -.034 .039 -.314** .143** .367** .146** .222** .207** -.646** -.242** -.879** -.642** .593** .292** 1
1Variables 1 – 10 are from IMSS data, variable 11 is from World Bank data, and variables 12 – 17 are leadership preferences (LP) from GLOBE data.
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed), **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
S3
Table S4: Sample Size of Country-Industry Combinations
Fabricated Computer, Motor

metal products, electronics vehicles,
except and Machinery trailers, Other
machinery and optical Electrical and other semi- transport
Country equipment products equipment equipment trailers equipment
Belgium 7 2 2 9 9 1
Canada 18 2 3 6 1
China 24 29 16 33 21 7
Denmark 7 7 3 22
Finland 10 1 5 15 3
Germany 12 1 8 3
Hungary 22 2 13 13 6 1
Italy 17 2 8 21 2 3
Japan 17 8 33 8 7 10
Malaysia 6 3 4 2 1 1
Netherlands 22 5 4 13 2 3
Norway 19 1 8 1
Portugal 17 3 3 7 3 1
Romania 21 2 11 4 2
Slovenia 7 2 4 4
Spain 15 2 4 6 2 1
Sweden 6 2 1 12 8 3
Switzerland 5 2 7 14 2
Taiwan 7 11 4 3 2 1
USA 17 5 3 11 4 8
TOTAL 276 91 129 219 78 41
S4
Robustness check: Replicate analysis with earlier 2009 data: IMSS-V
In order to verify the robustness of our IMSS-VI results, we perform a similar analysis with IMSS-V data
from 2009. This required not only creating new MDM files for HLM analysis, but also updating both
level-two data sets to accommodate differing country-level data and industries. Also, almost all control
variables are available in the 2009 data except for ‘internal inputs’ from sister plants, which wasn’t
significant anyway from 2014. While we rationalized some of the steps in order to conduct the post-hoc
analysis efficiently, we followed similar statistical examinations. This is particularly true since we also
had to form factor scores for INT and BSI (i.e., internal and external integration, respectively).
Because the INT and BSI items were pre-designed theoretically, we check first the 2-factor solution for
viability, finding a general pattern as expected.
Rotated Component
Matrixa
Component
1 2
PD2a .086 .592
PD2b .106 .640
PD2c .132 .623
PD2d .075 .712
PD2e .057 .503
PD2f .174 .658
PD2g .284 .488
PD2h .154 .580
PD2i .145 .683
SC7aa .705 .154
SC7ba .632 .153
SC7ca .465 .278
SC7da .534 .174
SC7ea .649 .152
SC7fa .705 .157
SC7ga .696 .297
SC7ha .674 .172
SC7ia .649 .073
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with
Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3
iterations.
S5
We next show an unrestricted PCA analysis of all integration items, looking for major divergences from
the 2-factor structure and cross-loadings. All BSI items discriminate well from INT. Two INT items have
issues – PD2e,f, which relate to informal discussion and cross-functional teams. Rather than risk
artificially inducing correlation due to a potential 3rd variable like socialization or organizational culture,
we form factor scores by averaging PD2a,b,c,d,g,h,I and SC7a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,I, ignoring PD2e,f.
Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4
PD2a .088 .750 .050 .106
PD2b .103 .797 .122 .107
PD2c .208 .713 .214 -.009
PD2d .075 .434 .571 .163
PD2e -.156 .287 .338 .491
PD2f .042 .421 .434 .388
PD2g .370 .049 .736 -.090
PD2h .153 .043 .784 .082

PD2i .020 .335 .604 .295
SC7aa .628 .053 .020 .432
SC7ba .495 .104 -.056 .575
SC7ca .287 .070 .183 .591
SC7da .321 .036 .042 .680
SC7ea .617 .090 .077 .311
SC7fa .727 .175 .051 .125
SC7ga .677 .205 .129 .312
SC7ha .722 .117 .146 .101
SC7ia .760 -.058 .259 -.086
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 20 iterations.
This is how INT and BSI eventually break out by country and industry
ANOVA - country
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
INT Between Groups 75.375 20 3.769 7.662 .000
Within Groups 337.421 686 .492
Total 412.796 706
EXT Between Groups 76.788 20 3.839 6.741 .000
S6
Total 449.270 674
ANOVA - industry
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
INT Between Groups 16.455 7 2.351 4.193 .000
Total 395.448 683
EXT Between Groups 19.690 7 2.813 4.433 .000
Total 428.956 652
S7
Now we move these into HLM, creating a MDM file. We do this and these are the descriptive statistics.
We note some data is missing, so future analyses with more detailed purposes should conduct missing
value analyses and expectation maximization imputations (if warranted).
LEVEL-1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
VARIABLE NAME N MEAN SD MINIMUM MAXIMUM
O3A 445 510.73 1787.14 0.00 24000.00
A2E 445 4.05 0.93 1.00 5.00
S2C 445 6.50 12.45 0.00 100.00
B2C 445 3.72 1.30 1.00 5.00
PC4C 445 3.14 1.22 1.00 5.00
SC2C 445 32.11 27.06 0.00 125.00
G1AA 445 57.37 32.85 0.00 100.00
INT 445 3.07 0.74 1.00 5.00
EXT 445 2.92 0.79 1.00 5.00
S8
ROW LEVEL DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
CHARISMA 21 5.83 0.22 5.45 6.15
TEAM_ORI 21 5.75 0.18 5.43 6.17
SELF_PRO 21 3.30 0.39 2.81 4.28
PARTICIP 21 5.45 0.44 4.64 6.09
HUMANE_O 21 4.76 0.32 4.19 5.35
AUTONOMO 21 3.75 0.47 2.27 4.36
PPP 21 30736.44 14413.28 8220.00 69672.00
LNPPP 21 10.12 0.69 8.27 11.15
COLUMN LEVEL DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
HIGHT 8 0.38 0.52 0.00 1.00
MDM template: C:\Users\tkull\Documents\rp191\rp191-imss5.mdmt
MDM file name: rp191-imss5
Date: May 19, 2018
Time: 09:20:51
First we examine the EMPTY MODEL FOR INT, which shows that country has higher variance than
industry – twice the standard deviation.
Final estimation of fixed effects:
Standard Approx.
Fixed Effect Coefficient t-ratio p-value
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 3.163994 0.085407 37.046 416 <0.001
S9
Final estimation of row and level-1 variance components:
Standard Variance
Random Effect d.f. χ2 p-value
Deviation Component
INTRCPT1/ ICPTROW,b00j 0.28264 0.07989 20 109.49493 <0.001
level-1, e 0.66712 0.44504
Final estimation of column level variance components:
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
INTRCPT1/ ICPTCOL,c00k 0.11381 0.01295 7 20.43479 0.005
Statistics for the current model
The below shows the control variables. We find a similar pattern, with PPP (the natural log is used like
with the 2014 data) being significantly negative and Lean methods (pull production) and product (BOM)
complexity being significant. Production responsibility and competitive rivalry are not significant,
perhaps showing the differing motivations from 2009 to 2014.
Standard Approx.
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 4.158108 0.928732 4.477 416 <0.001
LNPPP, γ01 -0.186261 0.088857 -2.096 19 0.050
For O3A, π1
INTERCEPT,θ1 0.000013 0.000018 0.735 416 0.463
For A2E, π2
INTERCEPT,θ2 0.039547 0.034528 1.145 416 0.253
For S2C, π3
INTERCEPT,θ3 0.001215 0.002553 0.476 416 0.634
For B2C, π4
INTERCEPT,θ4 0.064478 0.025618 2.517 416 0.012
For PC4C, π5
INTERCEPT,θ5 0.143511 0.026631 5.389 416 <0.001
S10
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
level-1, e 0.63851 0.40769
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
Deviance = 891.167136
Number of estimated parameters = 10
We enter the Leadership variables next, but will have to backwards remove per Snidjers and
Bosker (1999) as the significant inter-correlations and limited level-2 data cell may induce high
standard errors. All are in a similar direction, but some differences are significant. Charisma is
significant-negative (same as 2014), team-oriented is sig-positive (same), self-protect is nonsig-
positive (same sign only), participative is sig-positive (previous was not significant – i.e., n.s.),
humane is marginally sign (same), autonomous was sig-positve (previous was n.s.).
S11
Standard Approx.
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 -5.779733 2.903139 -1.991 416 0.047
CHARISMA, γ01 -2.188225 0.545432 -4.012 19 <0.001
TEAM_ORI, γ02 2.378820 0.657922 3.616 19 0.002
SELF_PRO, γ03 0.091243 0.241859 0.377 19 0.710
PARTICIP, γ04 0.715822 0.175727 4.073 19 <0.001
HUMANE_O, γ05 0.233643 0.167229 1.397 19 0.178
AUTONOMO, γ06 0.598801 0.157719 3.797 19 0.001
LNPPP, γ07 -0.042343 0.078293 -0.541 19 0.595
For O3A, π1
INTERCEPT,θ1 0.000013 0.000018 0.742 416 0.458
For A2E, π2
INTERCEPT,θ2 0.040852 0.034431 1.187 416 0.236
For S2C, π3
INTERCEPT,θ3 0.000640 0.002549 0.251 416 0.802
For B2C, π4
INTERCEPT,θ4 0.061342 0.025492 2.406 416 0.017
For PC4C, π5
INTERCEPT,θ5 0.149194 0.026361 5.660 416 <0.001
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
INTRCPT1/ ICPTROW,b00j 0.07385 0.00545 13 27.62880 0.010
level-1, e 0.64082 0.41065
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
INTRCPT1/ ICPTCOL,c00k 0.08285 0.00686 too few df to compute
S12
Deviance = 876.208550
Removing SELF-PROTECTIVE shows all rest significant and in similar directions as 2014 data.
The value of the log-likelihood function at iteration 32 = -4.381735E+002
Standard Approx.
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 -5.710087 2.863284 -1.994 416 0.047
CHARISMA, γ01 -2.305387 0.454368 -5.074 19 <0.001
TEAM_ORI, γ02 2.505445 0.570207 4.394 19 <0.001
PARTICIP, γ03 0.698095 0.165120 4.228 19 <0.001
HUMANE_O, γ04 0.279721 0.118205 2.366 19 0.029
AUTONOMO, γ05 0.618568 0.149178 4.147 19 <0.001
LNPPP, γ06 -0.043852 0.077648 -0.565 19 0.579
For O3A, π1
INTERCEPT,θ1 0.000014 0.000018 0.803 416 0.422
For A2E, π2
INTERCEPT,θ2 0.040959 0.034436 1.189 416 0.235
For S2C, π3
INTERCEPT,θ3 0.000745 0.002532 0.294 416 0.769
For B2C, π4
INTERCEPT,θ4 0.061676 0.025488 2.420 416 0.016
For PC4C, π5
INTERCEPT,θ5 0.150278 0.026228 5.730 416 <0.001
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
level-1, e 0.64117 0.41110
S13
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
INTRCPT1/ ICPTCOL,c00k 0.08352 0.00698 1 16.03965 <0.001
Deviance = 876.347027
We next show the results with BSI as dependent variable. First with empty model, then with controls,
then with INT, then with leadership direct, then with leadership moderation.
Below is empty model, similarly, industry is half the standard deviation of country.
Standard Approx.
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 2.984342 0.103817 28.746 416 <0.001
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
level-1, e 0.71913 0.51715
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
Now entering control variables, similarly, size and PPP are significant; domestic sourcing is not.
S14
Standard Approx.
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 6.429227 1.028489 6.251 416 <0.001
LNPPP, γ01 -0.344258 0.100061 -3.440 19 0.003
For O3A, π1
INTERCEPT,θ1 0.000049 0.000020 2.453 416 0.015
For SC2C, π2
INTERCEPT,θ2 0.001918 0.001346 1.424 416 0.155
For G1AA, π3
INTERCEPT,θ3 -0.000878 0.001158 -0.759 416 0.449
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
level-1, e 0.71392 0.50969
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
Deviance = 992.532699
Now we enter INT. Note that we do NOT cell-center it (we didn’t for 2014 either), but we future
research can do this as it may be of interest, particularly when stronger theory is established for the
effects of leadership preference. INT is significant and improves the model substantially at level-1.
S15
Standard Approx.
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 3.723695 0.919262 4.051 416 <0.001
LNPPP, γ01 -0.228646 0.086099 -2.656 19 0.016
For O3A, π1
INTERCEPT,θ1 0.000038 0.000018 2.109 416 0.036
For SC2C, π2
INTERCEPT,θ2 0.001798 0.001218 1.476 416 0.141
For G1AA, π3
INTERCEPT,θ3 0.000683 0.001054 0.648 416 0.517
For INT, π4
INTERCEPT,θ4 0.461348 0.046290 9.966 416 <0.001
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
level-1, e 0.64839 0.42041
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
Deviance = 903.080307
Now we enter country direct effects only, similarly, none of the cooperative leadership styles
are significant, but similarly, self-protective is. Autonomous is not, nor is anything else. Note
that level-2 RSQ improves substantially. See below where we remove backwards to get to a
result of significant leadership traits.
S16
Standard Approx.
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 0.514213 3.046014 0.169 416 0.866
CHARISMA, γ01 0.507190 0.573408 0.885 19 0.387
TEAM_ORI, γ02 -0.494671 0.688421 -0.719 19 0.481
SELF_PRO, γ03 0.515844 0.257572 2.003 19 0.060
PARTICIP, γ04 -0.063573 0.187986 -0.338 19 0.739
HUMANE_O, γ05 0.167808 0.173723 0.966 19 0.346
AUTONOMO, γ06 -0.009619 0.165644 -0.058 19 0.954
LNPPP, γ07 -0.119858 0.080938 -1.481 19 0.155
For O3A, π1
INTERCEPT,θ1 0.000026 0.000018 1.409 416 0.160
For SC2C, π2
INTERCEPT,θ2 0.001825 0.001194 1.529 416 0.127
For G1AA, π3
INTERCEPT,θ3 -0.000369 0.001063 -0.347 416 0.729
For INT, π4
INTERCEPT,θ4 0.437931 0.046267 9.465 416 <0.001
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
level-1, e 0.64612 0.41747
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
INTRCPT1/ ICPTCOL,c00k 0.13837 0.01915 too few df to compute
Deviance = 888.627947
After backward deletion, we achieve the below results, with self-protective and charismatic leadership
being positive and team-based leadership being negative. While not exactly similar, the implications are
S17
similar! Collaborative leadership styles do not associate positively with buyer-supplier (external)
integration. Next we will enter the moderation effects to check for differences.
Standard Approx.
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 0.142399 1.935000 0.074 416 0.941
CHARISMA, γ01 0.670555 0.338177 1.983 19 0.062
TEAM_ORI, γ02 -0.608480 0.338890 -1.796 19 0.088
SELF_PRO, γ03 0.680293 0.162258 4.193 19 <0.001
LNPPP, γ04 -0.125149 0.079906 -1.566 19 0.134
For O3A, π1
INTERCEPT,θ1 0.000027 0.000018 1.472 416 0.142
For SC2C, π2
INTERCEPT,θ2 0.001806 0.001196 1.511 416 0.132
For G1AA, π3
INTERCEPT,θ3 -0.000375 0.001062 -0.353 416 0.724
For INT, π4
INTERCEPT,θ4 0.437968 0.045430 9.640 416 <0.001
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
level-1, e 0.64595 0.41725
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
Deviance = 889.665014
These results show the random coefficients setting with respect to the influence of INT on BSI. Notice
that INT influence error STDEV is .13, similar to industry variance direct error STDEV.
S18
Standard Approx.
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 -0.026909 1.841137 -0.015 395 0.988
CHARISMA, γ01 0.655130 0.330565 1.982 18 0.063
TEAM_ORI, γ02 -0.611890 0.323549 -1.891 18 0.075
SELF_PRO, γ03 0.679278 0.156837 4.331 18 <0.001
LNPPP, γ04 -0.098838 0.075695 -1.306 18 0.208
For O3A, π1
INTERCEPT,θ1 0.000025 0.000018 1.376 395 0.170
For SC2C, π2
INTERCEPT,θ2 0.001779 0.001184 1.502 395 0.134
For G1AA, π3
INTERCEPT,θ3 -0.000390 0.001052 -0.371 395 0.711
For INT, π4
INTERCEPT,θ4 0.440381 0.055906 7.877 395 <0.001
Final estimation of row and level-1 variance components (country):
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
INT/ ICPTROW,b40j 0.13965 0.01950 20 25.83656 0.171
level-1, e 0.63937 0.40879
Final estimation of column level variance components (industry):
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
Deviance = 887.073428
Now we enter the leadership variables and observe results – similarly, the direct effects go
insignificant and, as expected at first, all leadership effects are not significant. Yet, this is before
we backwards fit the model (show further below)!
S19
Standard Approx.
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 -6.253993 7.077771 -0.884 389 0.377
CHARISMA, γ01 0.947636 1.434676 0.661 18 0.517
TEAM_ORI, γ02 0.306244 1.359637 0.225 18 0.824
SELF_PRO, γ03 0.379382 0.649270 0.584 18 0.566
LNPPP, γ04 -0.076763 0.083582 -0.918 18 0.371
For O3A, π1
INTERCEPT,θ1 0.000024 0.000018 1.346 389 0.179
For SC2C, π2
INTERCEPT,θ2 0.001768 0.001188 1.487 389 0.138
For G1AA, π3
INTERCEPT,θ3 -0.000311 0.001059 -0.294 389 0.769
For INT, π4
INTERCEPT,θ4 1.554448 2.141373 0.726 389 0.468
CHARISMA, γ41 -0.288584 0.455684 -0.633 389 0.527
TEAM_ORI, γ42 -0.032038 0.425055 -0.075 389 0.940
SELF_PRO, γ43 0.030510 0.208136 0.147 389 0.884
PARTICIP, γ44 0.030134 0.060074 0.502 389 0.616
HUMANE_O, γ45 0.055453 0.059738 0.928 389 0.354
AUTONOMO, γ46 0.060308 0.047241 1.277 389 0.203
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
INT/ ICPTROW,b40j 0.08462 0.00716 14 20.00974 0.130
level-1, e 0.63817 0.40726
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
Deviance = 883.718270
S20
AFTER deleting all non-significant leadership preferences, we find that Charismatic is the last
and very marginally significant. Essentially, all leadership preferences have no moderation
influence. Therefore, the same general conclusion can be drawn: that collaborative leadership is
not a facilitator of INT to BSI. Why do leadership preferences have a direct effect on BSI in
2009, but not in 2014. It is perhaps because companies have realized that through INT does only
BSI work. When in 2009, BSI was perhaps a program designed for self-protection directly, now
it is only through INT that self-protection helps facilitate BSI. We reserve such speculations for
future research.
Standard Approx.
error d.f.
For INTRCPT1, π0
INTERCEPT,θ0 -6.264703 5.309822 -1.180 394 0.239
CHARISMA, γ01 1.695272 0.867968 1.953 18 0.067
TEAM_ORI, γ02 -0.574496 0.336961 -1.705 18 0.105
SELF_PRO, γ03 0.660403 0.161876 4.080 18 <0.001
LNPPP, γ04 -0.098918 0.077941 -1.269 18 0.221
For O3A, π1
INTERCEPT,θ1 0.000024 0.000018 1.303 394 0.193
For SC2C, π2
INTERCEPT,θ2 0.001776 0.001186 1.497 394 0.135
For G1AA, π3
INTERCEPT,θ3 -0.000305 0.001054 -0.290 394 0.772
For INT, π4
INTERCEPT,θ4 2.388877 1.507774 1.584 394 0.114
CHARISMA, γ41 -0.333384 0.257988 -1.292 394 0.197
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
INT/ ICPTROW,b40j 0.11984 0.01436 19 22.25835 0.271
level-1, e 0.63879 0.40805
Standard Variance
Deviation Component
S21
Deviance = 885.556757
S22

Jscm12208 Sup 0001 Supinfo

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Jscm12208 Sup 0001 Supinfo

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Acting as Expected:

Global Leadership Preferences and the Pursuit of an Integrated Supply Chain

Table S1: Variable Means and Standard Deviations

Fabricated Computer, Motor

Rotated Component Matrixa

PD2h .153 .043 .784 .082

LEVEL-1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

VARIABLE NAME N MEAN SD MINIMUM MAXIMUM

O3A 445 510.73 1787.14 0.00 24000.00

A2E 445 4.05 0.93 1.00 5.00

S2C 445 6.50 12.45 0.00 100.00

B2C 445 3.72 1.30 1.00 5.00

PC4C 445 3.14 1.22 1.00 5.00

SC2C 445 32.11 27.06 0.00 125.00

G1AA 445 57.37 32.85 0.00 100.00

INT 445 3.07 0.74 1.00 5.00

EXT 445 2.92 0.79 1.00 5.00

VARIABLE NAME N MEAN SD MINIMUM MAXIMUM

CHARISMA 21 5.83 0.22 5.45 6.15

TEAM_ORI 21 5.75 0.18 5.43 6.17

SELF_PRO 21 3.30 0.39 2.81 4.28

PARTICIP 21 5.45 0.44 4.64 6.09

HUMANE_O 21 4.76 0.32 4.19 5.35

AUTONOMO 21 3.75 0.47 2.27 4.36

PPP 21 30736.44 14413.28 8220.00 69672.00

LNPPP 21 10.12 0.69 8.27 11.15

COLUMN LEVEL DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

VARIABLE NAME N MEAN SD MINIMUM MAXIMUM

HIGHT 8 0.38 0.52 0.00 1.00

MDM template: C:\Users\tkull\Documents\rp191\rp191-imss5.mdmt

MDM file name: rp191-imss5

Date: May 19, 2018

Final estimation of fixed effects:

Final estimation of column level variance components:

Statistics for the current model

Final estimation of fixed effects:

Final estimation of column level variance components:

Statistics for the current model

Final estimation of row and level-1 variance components:

Final estimation of column level variance components:

The value of the log-likelihood function at iteration 32 = -4.381735E+002

Final estimation of fixed effects:

Final estimation of row and level-1 variance components:

Statistics for the current model

Final estimation of fixed effects:

Final estimation of row and level-1 variance components:

Final estimation of column level variance components:

Final estimation of row and level-1 variance components:

Final estimation of column level variance components:

Statistics for the current model

Final estimation of row and level-1 variance components:

Final estimation of column level variance components:

Statistics for the current model

Final estimation of row and level-1 variance components:

Final estimation of column level variance components:

Statistics for the current model

Final estimation of fixed effects:

Final estimation of row and level-1 variance components:

Final estimation of column level variance components:

Statistics for the current model

Final estimation of row and level-1 variance components (country):

Final estimation of column level variance components (industry):

Statistics for the current model

Final estimation of row and level-1 variance components: