Purpose The purpose of this paper is to extend the understanding of supply chain management (SCM) competencies by splitting them into individual and organizational components and measuring their impact on SCM performance. Design/methodology/approach Hypothesized relationships are tested using structural equation modeling and bootstrapping mediation analysis based on a multi-national survey with 273 managers while drawing on the theory of knowledge management and literature streams of individual competencies in the fields of SCM and human resource management (HRM), respectively. Findings The analysis reveals that individual SCM competencies and organizational SCM knowledge positively influence SCM performance to a similar magnitude. Moreover, organizational learning enhances individual competencies and organizational knowledge significantly and equally while corporate training programs fall surprisingly short of expectations. The disentanglement of SCM competencies renders HRM’s contribution to SCM visible by revealing the impact of HRM and learning practices on competencies, knowledge, and performance. Research limitations/implications To validate the findings, future research could apply different research methods such as case studies and focus on more countries to reduce potential methodological and regional biases. Practical implications The results suggest that corporate training programs need further development. Organizational learning’s strong direct and indirect effects have two main implications: first, it should serve as motivation for organizations to constantly improve their learning capabilities. Second, these only tap its true potential for enhancing SCM performance if they first elevate individual competencies and organizational knowledge. Originality/value This is the first paper to distinguish between individual competencies and organizational knowledge on finely nuanced levels. While the organizational knowledge level effect on performance has been studied before, this paper extends this effect to also hold true for the individual level.

World Bank Studies are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development community with the least possible delay. The manuscript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formally edited texts. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved.

T his exploratory study analyzes the careers of 307 supply chain executives (SCEs). Motivated by career theory, our findings create new knowledge about the educational backgrounds and career paths that lead to SCE positions. Based on an optimal matching analysis, we are able to distinguish among six career patterns for SCEs. They differ in terms of the individuals' previous professional experience, educational background, and the time they needed to arrive in an executive position. By characterizing the backgrounds and career paths of SCEs, we show that supply chain management (SCM) is truly a cross-functional profession. Our findings suggest that previous staff responsibility appears to be a more important hiring criterion than extensive SCM experience. While 56% of the executives had prior staff responsibility, only 12% of the cumulated careers were actually spent inside the SCM function.

* This version of the article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the publisher's final version AKA Version of Record.