Strategy Implementation
- LAST REVIEWED: 12 January 2021
- LAST MODIFIED: 12 January 2021
- DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199846740-0200
- LAST REVIEWED: 12 January 2021
- LAST MODIFIED: 12 January 2021
- DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199846740-0200
Introduction
Research on strategy implementation seeks to understand what activities organizations and their constituents engage in to put a formulated strategy into practice, what prompts a particular set and sequence of implementation activities, and what effect they have on the realization of a strategy and on organizational outcomes. Strategy scholars generally agree that deliberate and coordinated efforts to guide the translation of strategy from abstract plan and policy to organizational and behavioral reality are an integral aspect of strategic management and crucial for a strategy to improve an organization’s performance. Many also recognize that implementation is a dynamic and complex process that requires a degree of flexibility and iterative adjustment to respond to feedback or pushback from internal and external stakeholders. The strategy implementation literature is loosely held together by a shared phenomenological interest, and it has attracted an eclectic set of contributions from or made reference to diverse management subdisciplines beyond strategy, including organization studies, human resource management, operations management, accounting, and project management. Overall, theoretical advancement has been slow, and many of the frameworks and guidelines for implementation that are common in the practitioner literature have limited empirical evidence to support them. Likewise, many of the conceptual ambiguities, such as the demarcation between strategy formulation and implementation, and methodological challenges, such as the measurement of implementation outcomes, have not prompted systematic agendas or programs of research. This is a research area that offers plenty of opportunity for scholarly contributions. Please note that for a select few management techniques (e.g., total quality management, lean management, kaizen) and strategic vehicles (e.g., strategic alliances, mergers and acquisitions) specialized implementation research has accumulated. However, this article focuses on the nonspecialized domain, that is, on research that aims to develop a general body of knowledge related to implementation that is applicable for a wide range of strategies. Research from specialized domains is only selectively cited.
General Overviews
Since the strategy implementation research domain is eclectic and dispersed, general overviews provide a highly useful starting point to assemble an impression of recurrent themes and to identify the variety of applied theories and the diversity of methodologies used to explore the topic. Literature reviews from different decades reveal that, by and large, relatively little systematic conceptual or empirical progress has been made. Textbooks and monographs frequently take a practical approach, with limited references to implementation research, but that make an effort to translate complex implementation issues and considerations into actionable insights and guidelines.
Literature Reviews
Few dedicated reviews of strategy implementation are available (Noble 1999; Yang, et al. 2010). More commonly, research on implementation is included in reviews of strategic planning or strategy process research (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2006; Wolf and Floyd 2013; White, et al. 2016; Burgelman, et al. 2018). Common across these two groups is the conclusion that research on implementation is sparse relative to research on strategy formulation and is characterized by less theoretical focus and less systematic conceptual or empirical progress (e.g., Hitt, et al. 2017).
Burgelman, Robert A., Steven W. Floyd, Tomi Laamanen, Saku Mantere, Eero Vaara, and Richard Whittington. “Strategy Processes and Practices: Dialogues and Intersections.” Strategic Management Journal 39.3 (2018): 531–558.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Develops an integrative model of Strategy as Process and Practice (SAPP); connects actors, practices, and process issues in “strategizing episodes”; and encourages process and practice scholars to pursue opportunities for joint research in six topic domains ranging from temporality to materiality and tools. The study is highly useful for the connections it establishes to studies that do not explicitly examine implementation but are relevant for implementation-related phenomena.
Find this resource:
Hitt, Michael A., Susan E. Jackson, Salvador Carmona, Leonard Bierman, Christina E. Shalley, and Mike Wright, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Strategy Implementation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Sets out to enhance the understanding of three dimensions of strategy implementation: resources and governance, managing human capital, and accounting-based control systems. The handbook’s editorial material and the chapters provide some uncommon, novel academic perspectives, but they do not fully engage with existing implementation research. The final chapter provides useful suggestions for future implementation research to focus on the influence of external contingencies and governance, and on “special actions” that are needed for particular strategies (e.g., differentiation, innovation).
Find this resource:
Hutzschenreuter, Thomas, and Ingo Kleindienst. “Strategy-Process Research: What Have We Learned and What Is Still to Be Explored.” Journal of Management 32.5 (2006): 673–720.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The systematic literature review of 227 articles examines strategy process studies, paying attention to antecedents, facets of the process itself, and outcomes. It concludes that little attention has focused on implementation. Suggests numerous opportunities for implementation research, including the influence of contextual changes on implementation activities.
Find this resource:
Noble, Charles H. “The Eclectic Roots of Strategy Implementation Research.” Journal of Business Research 45.2 (1999): 119–134.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Highly cited review that distinguishes between structural (hard) and interpersonal (soft) perspectives on implementation. It is notable for its effort to integrate relevant research from marketing into the implementation knowledge base.
Find this resource:
White, George O., Orhun Guldiken, Thomas A. Hemphill, Wu He, and Mehdi S. Khoobdeh. “Trends in International Strategic Management Research from 2000 to 2013: Text Mining and Bibliometric Analyses.” Management International Review 56.1 (2016): 35–65.
DOI: 10.1007/s11575-015-0260-9Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Reviews corporate and business strategy implementation as subfields within the international strategic management research area and highlights issues of fit between strategy and their internal processes, the establishment of organizational units in foreign markets, and international knowledge transfer as prominent research phenomena.
Find this resource:
Wolf, Carola, and Steven W. Floyd. “Strategic Planning Research: Toward a Theory-Driven Agenda.” Journal of Management 43.6 (2013): 1754–1788.
DOI: 10.1177/0149206313478185Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Systematic review of 117 articles on strategy formulation, implementation, and control from the period 1980 to 2011. Provides a useful mapping of the literature based on the practitioners-practices-praxis distinction from the strategy-as-practice literature, and an identification of proximate and distal outcomes of strategic planning. Encourages more focus on the context of strategic planning and on configurations of practitioners, practices, and praxis in future research.
Find this resource:
Yang, Li, Guo-hui Sun, and Martin J. Eppler. “Making Strategy Work: A Literature Review on the Factors Influencing Strategy Implementation.” In Handbook of Research on Strategy Process. Edited by Pietro Mazzola and Franz W. Kellermanns, 165–183. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2010.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A review of academic research, identifying nine thematic foci (including people, communication, consensus, commitment, organizational structure and systems), and cataloguing research methods used in implementation studies.
Find this resource:
Textbooks and Monographs
Implementation issues are typically covered in strategy textbooks in a separate section after a more expansive treatment of strategy formulation—a template set by Andrews 1971. Implementation chapters in textbooks often cover issues of organization design, capabilities and processes, human resource management, and leadership and change management (e.g., Ansoff 1984; Thompson, et al. 2020; Rothaermel 2021). Mintzberg, et al. 2009 deviates from this approach, eschews the formulation-implementation separation, and, instead, articulates different perspectives on strategy making. Academic texts focusing exclusively on implementation tend to articulate a more coherent and complex process perspective for implementation (Hrebiniak 2013, Verweire 2014). Practitioner treatments of the topic often elevate implementation to an essential quality of effective organizations (e.g., Bossidy and Charan 2002).
Andrews, Kenneth R. The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1971.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
One of the earliest texts to articulate a systemic, deliberate model for strategic management. Provides a framework of corporate strategy that distinguishes activities for strategy formulation and strategy implementation, the latter including considerations for structure, processes, and leadership.
Find this resource:
Ansoff, H. Igor. Implanting Strategic Management. Prentice Hall, 1984.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Notable for its incorporation of realistic behavioral assumptions for key stakeholders (e.g., strategic myopia and resistance to change) in its depiction of and recommendations for strategic management.
Find this resource:
Bossidy, Larry, and Ram Charan. Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. New York: Random House, 2002.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A by-practitioners-for-practitioners prescriptive manual for implementation and not limited to strategy per se. It proposes three “building blocks” (leadership, culture change, and people placement) and three “core processes” (strategy, operations, people) as foundations for effective implementation, advocates a deep involvement of senior executives in matters of implementation, and highlights the importance of social processes that enable “robust dialogue.”
Find this resource:
Hrebiniak, Lawrence G. Making Strategy Work: Leading Effective Execution and Change. 2d ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2013.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A comprehensive, practitioner-oriented monograph that addresses issues such as structure, communication, culture, change management, and leadership, and incorporates some academic research. The second edition adds project management to its organizing framework, and adds an application section that covers unique aspects of implementation for mergers and acquisitions, global contexts, and service organizations.
Find this resource:
Mintzberg, Henry, Bruce W. Ahlstrand, and Joseph Lampel. Strategy Safari: The Complete Guide through the Wilds of Strategic Management. 2d ed. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall, 2009.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Distinguishes and conceptually elaborates ten schools of “strategy formation.” While Mintzberg avoids the formulation-implementation dichotomy, his accounts of the planning, learning, power, and the cultural and configurational schools all speak to key concerns of strategy implementation research.
Find this resource:
Rothaermel, Frank T. Strategic Management. 5th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Education, 2021.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Notable for its inclusion of current strategy research, this well-regarded text also demonstrates that an emphasis of issues of analysis and formulation (ten chapters) over implementation (two chapters) remains common even in leading textbooks.
Find this resource:
Thompson, Arthur A., Margaret Peteraf, John E. Gamble, and Alonzo J. Strickland. Crafting & Executing Strategy: The Quest for Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases. 22d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2020.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Long-running strategy text that represents the common formulation-execution-cases structure of many textbooks in the field (formulation is relabeled here as “crafting”).
Find this resource:
Verweire, Kurt. Strategy Implementation. London: Routledge, 2014.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Verweire delineates five sets of implementation processes (including goal-setting, operational, and control processes) and articulates four capability maturity levels for these sets of processes. This conceptual framework is subsequently applied to organizations with three different strategic foci (product leadership, operations excellence, customer intimacy), and illustrated with case studies.
Find this resource:
Organization Design
Since the classic studies Chandler 2013 (originally published 1962) and Rumelt 1974 on the relationship among strategy, structure, and performance, strategy scholars have regarded formal structures and systems as a predominant mechanism for formally instituting strategy in an organization. The strategy-structure-performance relationship stands at the heart of structural contingency theory (see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Management article “Structural Contingency Theory/Information Processing Theory”), which is highly relevant for implementation research (Galbraith and Kazanjian 1986). Central to this line of work is the notion of “fit” or “congruence” between strategy and structure and between the elements of organization design (Hill, et al. 1992; Burton, et al. 2002; Gulati and Puranam 2009; Puranam 2018). However, some scholars have contested the implicit notion of formal structure and systems as mutable elements that serve to implement strategy, suggesting instead that structure shapes strategy formulation (Hall and Saias 1980, Joseph and Ocasio 2012, Raveendran 2020).
Burton, Richard M., Jørgen Lauridsen, and Børge Obel. “Return on Assets Loss from Situational and Contingency Misfits.” Management Science 48.11 (2002): 1461–1485.
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.48.11.1461.262Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Based on data from Danish SMEs, this study finds empirical support for the performance penalty of two types of misfits: a misfit between situational variables (external environment, strategy, technology, firm size, management style, and organizational climate), and between a firm’s organization design (functional or divisional structure, centralization, formalization, and organizational complexity) and the situational variables. Interestingly, the study does not find that the performance penalties of misfits accumulate as the number of misfits increases.
Find this resource:
Chandler, Alfred D., Jr. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino, 2013.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Originally published 1962. This classic text analyzes the development of DuPont, General Motors, Sears, and Standard Oil and argues that changes in strategy (diversification) require subsequent changes in structure (divisionalization). Structural change is regarded mainly as a top-down implementation mechanism, as it formalizes a reallocation of resources (such as funds and personnel) in alignment with strategic priorities. Chandler’s famous dictum “unless structure follows strategy, inefficiency results” has had a substantial influence on strategic management and organization design research.
Find this resource:
Galbraith, Jay R., and Robert K. Kazanjian. “Organizing to Implement Strategies of Diversity and Globalization: The Role of Matrix Designs.” Human Resource Management (1986–1998) 25.1 (1986): 37–54.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Using Galbraith’s well-known star model of five organization design elements to articulate the connection among strategy, design, and performance, the authors emphasize the need for “internally consistent design,” and they discuss the application of matrix and network forms of organization to implement diversification and globalization strategies. The article provides a preview of the ideas elaborated in a book published by the authors in the same year.
Find this resource:
Gulati, Ranjay, and Phanish Puranam. “Renewal through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies between Formal and Informal Organization.” Organization Science 20.2 (2009): 422–440.
DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0421Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Advances notions of congruence among organization design elements by distinguishing between supplementary fit (elements reinforce the same behaviors) and compensatory fit (elements reinforce different behaviors). The authors develop a formal model and propositions that explain why and when compensatory fit between inconsistent formal and informal organization elements introduced by a reorganization enhances organizational performance. This suggests that strategy implementation may employ a significantly more diverse set of formal and informal design parameter combinations to achieve intended behaviors and outcomes.
Find this resource:
Hall, David J., and Maurice A. Saias. “Strategy Follows Structure!” Strategic Management Journal 1.2 (1980): 149–163.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Contrary to the common treatment for organizational structure as determined after strategy is formulated, the authors explore how structure influences strategy formulation. The authors suggest a cognitive mechanism to account for this influence, and explain how this affects decisions regarding business portfolio management, growth strategies, and make-or-buy decisions.
Find this resource:
Hill, Charles W., Michael A. Hitt, and Robert E. Hoskisson. “Cooperative versus Competitive Structures in Related and Unrelated Diversified Firms.” Organization Science 3.4 (1992): 501–521.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This study contributed to the strategy-structure-performance paradigm by examining not just the performance consequences of structural archetypes (e.g., functional multidivisional) but also specific design parameters (centralization, integration, performance measurement criteria, and incentive schemes). This points to a broader set of design levers that affects the implementation success of different types of diversification strategies.
Find this resource:
Joseph, John, and William Ocasio. “Architecture, Attention, and Adaptation in the Multibusiness Firm: General Electric from 1951 to 2001.” Strategic Management Journal 33.6 (2012): 633–660.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.1971Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This longitudinal case study of General Electric’s evolving configuration of communication and decision-making channels examines their effect on the firm’s attention to strategic opportunities and threats. The analysis reveals the importance of structural mechanisms that support interactions between the corporate center and business units, and between specialized decision-making groups for strategic adaptation.
Find this resource:
Puranam, Phanish. The Microstructure of Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Puranam offers four “universal problems of organizing” (task division and allocation as well as provision of rewards and information) that exist at any scale (from teams to interorganizational networks) as a focus of research on organization design. Particularly useful for understanding the function of organization design in strategy implementation are remarks on behavior assumptions of design interventions (chapter 2) and the interaction between formal and informal organization (chapter 7), and the differentiation of levels of reorganization based on the number of universal problems of organizing that are addressed with new solutions (chapter 6).
Find this resource:
Raveendran, Marlo. “Seeds of Change: How Current Structure Shapes the Type and Timing of Reorganizations.” Strategic Management Journal 41.1 (2020): 27–54.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.3084Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A longitudinal quantitative investigation of reorganizations in the mobile phone industry finds that a firm’s existing organization design predicts the type and timing of a reorganization, controlling for other common triggers of reorganization. Hence, the motivation to overcome operational limitations of a given organization design fuels this strategy-follows-structure pattern.
Find this resource:
Rumelt, Richard. Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance. Boston: Harvard University Graduate School of business Administration, 1974.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Building on Chandler’s arguments regarding the relationship between strategy and structure, Rumelt examines 246 large US industrial firms and finds that related diversification with divisional structures outperform all other strategy-structure combinations. Rumelt’s behavioral interpretation that multidivisional structures encourage broader search for and investment in business opportunities and thus facilitate diversification has been critically examined in subsequent studies.
Find this resource:
Resources and Capabilities
Adding nuance to the contrasting views of organizational structures and systems as either hard constraints or easily rearranged boxes on the organization chart, scholars have explored how differences of a wide variety of resources and capabilities affect the process and outcomes of strategy implementation. This includes organizational member’s knowledge and skills and an organization’s human resource management practices; the topography and quality of social relationships among organizational members; and norms, values, and other aspects of organizational culture. The sprawling research domain of (dynamic) capabilities often incorporates a number of these diverse organizational characteristics as it seeks to explain the ability of organizations to change and renew the foundations of competitive advantage.
Human Capital and HRM
Where the organization design perspective on implementation emphasizes the importance of structure to ensure alignment and disciplined pursuit of plans, the human capital perspective foregrounds the crucial element of human knowledge, skill, and motivation for successful implementation. The latter perspective illuminates the capacity of the workforce, across hierarchical levels, to do the implementation work (Lenz 1980) as well as deliberate efforts to support and develop the workforce (Becker 1964, Miles and Snow 1984, Pfeffer 1994). These studies outline a set of implementation-relevant people management issues broader than crafting role descriptions and incentives—the predominant focus in organization design-oriented studies. Recent conceptions of human capital and managerial capability emphasize the role of interpersonal ties and unique patterns of social interaction for enabling strategic action (Ployhart and Moliterno 2011, Helfat and Martin 2014)—thus providing a point of connection with social network research (see Social Networks and Social Capital). Considerable research efforts have been undertaken to develop empirically supported multistage models that connect strategically aligned human resource management (HRM) practices to organization performance, especially in research on high-performance work systems (e.g., Messersmith, et al. 2011) and employee involvement and engagement practices (see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Management article “State of the Field of Strategic Human Resource Management”). However, the evidence base for a causal link among HRM, strategy, and performance has been criticized as weak (Jackson, et al. 2014), in part because HRM policies and systems that are intended to support strategy implementation themselves often face implementation challenges (Truss 2001).
Becker, G. S. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This classic study, which pioneered the notion that investment in individuals’ education and training is similar to investments in equipment, serves as a common foundation for much of the subsequent work on the mediating role of the workforce in the strategy-performance relationship.
Find this resource:
Helfat, Constance E., and Jeffrey A. Martin. “Dynamic Managerial Capabilities: Review and Assessment of Managerial Impact on Strategic Change.” Journal of Management 41.5 (2014): 1281–1312.
DOI: 10.1177/0149206314561301Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Reviews and synthesizes research on managerial cognition, knowledge, skills, and social capital to explain the micro-foundations for the ability of organizations to create, modify, or recombine resources and to enact strategic change.
Find this resource:
Jackson, Susan E., Randall S. Schuler, and Kaifeng Jiang. “An Aspirational Framework for Strategic Human Resource Management.” Academy of Management Annals 8.1 (2014): 1–56.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Reviews three decades of strategic HRM research guided by an expansive and dynamic conception of a strategic HRM system that incorporates a wide variety of elements, mechanisms, contingencies, and outcomes. Concludes that there is too little evidence to conclude how HRM and strategy function together.
Find this resource:
Lenz, R. T. “Strategic Capability: A Concept and Framework for Analysis.” Academy of Management Review 5.2 (1980): 225–234.
DOI: 10.2307/257432Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This conceptual article suggests “managerial knowledge and skills” as one of six organizational properties that predict a firm’s capability to successfully overcome barriers to strategy implementation.
Find this resource:
Messersmith, Jake G., Pankaj C. Patel, David P. Lepak, and Julian S. Gould-Williams. “Unlocking the Black Box: Exploring the Link between High-Performance Work Systems and Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 96.6 (2011): 1105–1118.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Based on a survey data from the Welsh public service, the study finds that high-performance work systems (HPWS) improve employee attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and psychological empowerment), which lead to an improvement in organizational citizenship behaviors and, ultimately, better departmental performance. It suggests HPWS as a potential lever for positive attitudinal change and employee engagement in implementation efforts.
Find this resource:
Miles, Raymond E., and Charles C. Snow. “Designing Strategic Human Resources Systems.” Organizational Dynamics 13.1 (1984): 36–52.
DOI: 10.1016/0090-2616(84)90030-5Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Articulates the important function of human resource management systems for supporting a firm’s competitive position in a challenging global business environment, and elaborates how HR practices must be tailored to the differential demands of “defender, ““prospector,” and “analyzer” strategies.
Find this resource:
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work Force. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Written during a period of rising concerns in the United States about slowing productivity growth and a widening skills gap in the labor market, Pfeffer’s book argues that a skilled and committed workforce is an increasingly important and hard to imitate source of competitive advantage, and he credits the workforce and workforce management of firms like Walmart and Southwest Airlines for their strategic success despite the challenging industry conditions in which they have operated. The book reviews high-performance HR practices and examines why US firms frequently do not invest in these practices.
Find this resource:
Ployhart, Robert E., and Thomas P. Moliterno. “Emergence of the Human Capital Resource: A Multilevel Model.” Academy of Management Review 36.1 (2011): 127–150.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Connects theories of human capital and organizational structures by conceptualizing human capital as a unique, unit-level construct that is based on individuals’ knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics such as personality, values, and interests (KSAOs) that are amplified and transformed by interactions within the unit’s idiosyncratic task environment.
Find this resource:
Truss, Catherine. “Complexities and Controversies in Linking HRM with Organizational Outcomes.” Journal of Management Studies 38.8 (2001): 1121–1149.
DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00275Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Longitudinal case study of Hewlett-Packard that finds discrepancies between formally specified and implemented HR practices and, as a result, cautions against attempts to establish an empirical connection between HRM at the level of the formal system and organizational performance.
Find this resource:
Social Networks and Social Capital
Strategy implementation generally requires cooperation across organizational units and levels of hierarchy. Organizational hierarchies often struggle to adequately facilitate it. During the 1990s team-based structures became widely regarded as a potential solution (Cleland 1996). Scholarly interest in nonhierarchical solutions to coordination challenges evolved beyond team affiliations to examine a broader set of interpersonal networks and networking behaviors and revealed ways through which employees direct implementation efforts (Kleinbaum and Stuart 2014; Ahearne, et al. 2014) and make sense of strategic change (Lockett, et al. 2014) that had frequently been overlooked.
Ahearne, Michael, Son K. Lam, and Florian Kraus. “Performance Impact of Middle Managers’ Adaptive Strategy Implementation: The Role of Social Capital.” Strategic Management Journal 35.1 (2014): 68–87.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.2086Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Empirically differentiates between reputational and informational social capital to explain what enables middle managers to successfully exert upward and downward influence to propose, accommodate, and embrace adjustments of planned strategies and what performance contribution these adjustments have made.
Find this resource:
Cleland, David I. Strategic management of teams. New York: Wiley, 1996.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Project management expert Cleland argues that the traditional organizational forms and design levers, and their central role in strategy implementation, are replaced by designs centered around cross-functional teams. He discusses how to prepare organizations and their members for team-based structures and how to use different types of teams for various aspects of strategy work (e.g., reengineering, benchmarking, operations).
Find this resource:
Kleinbaum, Adam M., and Toby E. Stuart. “Inside the Black Box of the Corporate Staff: Social Networks and the Implementation of Corporate Strategy.” Strategic Management Journal 35.1 (2014): 24–47.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.2090Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The study employs analysis of a firm’s email data to examine the ego-network characteristics of employees who move into and out of corporate staff roles, and the matchmaking activities of corporate staff, that is, their facilitation of interactions between alters from two different organizational units. While the study does not empirically examine concrete implementation efforts, it provides micro-level insights into how corporate headquarters perform their coordination function during implementation.
Find this resource:
Lockett, Andy, Graeme Currie, Rachael Finn, Graham Martin, and Justin Waring. “The Influence of Social Position on Sensemaking about Organizational Change.” Academy of Management Journal 57.4 (2014): 1102–1129.
DOI: 10.5465/amj.2011.0055Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
In-depth case study of how three actors with different social positions in the National Health Service in the united Kingdom respond to the implementation of new service and conceptually connects networks and culture. It explains how actors’ social context determines their access to social, cultural, and economic capital, which provides their “raw material” for making sense of the change effort.
Find this resource:
Organizational Culture and Identity
Similar to the conceptual treat of formal structure and systems, organizational culture has been regarded as both a potential lever for strategy implementation and a constraint to implementing strategic change (see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Management article “Organization Culture”). Schein 1985 emphasizes that culture is difficult to change, and multiple studies have suggested that strategy implementation efforts need to be culturally congruent (Green 1988, Pant and Lachman 1998) or rely on a preexisting strong and compatible culture (Bates, et al. 1995) to be effective. More recent scholarship provides a more complex view of the culture-implementation relationship, e.g., by considering interactions of different subcultures (Morgan and Ogbonna 2008) and the efforts by actors to reconcile cultural incompatibility by modifying the strategic initiative and/or the organization’s culture (Bate, et al. 2000; Canato, et al. 2013; Bertels, et al. 2016).
Bate, Paul, Raza Khan, and Annie Pye. “Towards a Culturally Sensitive Approach to Organization Structuring: Where Organization Design Meets Organization Development.” Organization Science 11.2 (2000): 197–211.
DOI: 10.1287/orsc.11.2.197.12509Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Based on an action research project with a UK hospital attempting structural and cultural change, the study suggests that culture and structure are “both catalysts and residues,” are highly interdependent, and should be co-produced. The authors conclude that cultural issues require attending throughout the change process, and they note the importance of “retrospecting,” that is, collective reflection and reexamination of initial assumptions, expectations, and beliefs that had driven the change process. The findings echo other studies that emphasize the importance of robust discussion for successful implementation (see, e.g., Argyris 1989, cited under Learning and Adaptation; Simons 2010, cited under Consensus, Commitment, and Conflict).
Find this resource:
Bates, Kimberly A., Susan D. Amundson, Roger G. Schroeder, and William T. Morris. “The Crucial Interrelationship between Manufacturing Strategy and Organizational Culture.” Management Science 41.10 (1995): 1565–1580.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Empirically examines and discusses the correlation between successful implementation of manufacturing strategy and clan-based organizational culture. Notes that the causal effect of implementing manufacturing strategy on culture, or an existing culture’s constraining effect on implementation, requires further research.
Find this resource:
Bertels, Stephanie, Jennifer Howard-Grenville, and Simon Pek. “Cultural Molding, Shielding, and Shoring at Oilco: The Role of Culture in the Integration of Routines.” Organization Science 27.3 (2016): 573–593.
DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2016.1052Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Elaborates multiple processes of cultural work in which employees engage as they enact compliance with a newly mandated routine. This includes devising noncompliant workarounds for aspects of the routine, hiding workarounds from scrutiny, and engaging in additional efforts to compensate for noncompliant actions of others to demonstrate formal (if not substantive) adherence to the mandate.
Find this resource:
Canato, Anna, Davide Ravasi, and Nelson Phillips. “Coerced Practice Implementation in Cases of Low Cultural Fit: Cultural Change and Practice Adaptation during the Implementation of Six Sigma at 3M.” Academy of Management Journal 56.6 (2013): 1724–1753.
DOI: 10.5465/amj.2011.0093Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This longitudinal study of the implementation of culturally incompatible practices finds such practices are not rejected; rather, they are partially modified and also result in a change of the organization’s cultural repertoire.
Find this resource:
Green, Sebastian. “Strategy, Organizational Culture and Symbolism.” Long Range Planning 21.4 (1988): 121–129.
DOI: 10.1016/0024-6301(88)90016-7Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Green proposes a symbolic management view on strategy, where strategy is an integral part of culture, encapsulates the purpose of the organization, and gives meaning to the organization’s environment and to planned initiatives. Suggests that managers have the challenging task of legitimizing strategy to organizational members with culturally congruent message framing.
Find this resource:
Morgan, Philip I., and Emmanuel Ogbonna. “Subcultural Dynamics in Transformation: A Multi-perspective Study of Healthcare Professionals.” Human Relations 61.1 (2008): 39–65.
DOI: 10.1177/0018726707085945Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Empirically explores the relationship between organizational subcultures in two UK hospitals by examining values, norms, and assumptions that are shared, differ, or are ambiguous within and across subcultures. The study suggests that these relationships among subcultures account for when consensus emerges among organizational members for select aspects of a change initiative and when disagreements among cultures impede implementation.
Find this resource:
Pant, P. Narayan, and Ran Lachman. “Value Incongruity and Strategic Choice.” Journal of Management Studies 35.2 (1998): 195–212.
DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00090Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Conceptually differentiates between core and peripheral values based on the relative strength of social control they exert and discusses how the (mis)alignments between the values held by organizational members and those inherent in strategies affect the likelihood of successful implementation.
Find this resource:
Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Schein, often referred to as the father of organizational culture, conceives of culture as shared mental models that often operate outside the awareness of organizational members, as hidden, taken-for-granted assumptions inform decision making and behavior unnoticed. Schein cautions that espousing new principles and values, e.g., as part of a strategic implementation effort, generally does not affect cultural change. He emphasizes the importance of shared experiences of success as a mechanism for cultural change.
Find this resource:
Organizational Capabilities
The expansive literature on organizational capabilities and dynamic capabilities is concerned with how organizations sustain and refresh the foundations of their success. While not always referring to strategy implementation explicitly, the perspective examines properties that allow organizations to leverage and/or reconfigure their resources to create value—thus explaining how organizations put a strategy into action. The properties of (dynamic) capabilities that are examined are diverse and they include, for example, relational practices (Prahalad 1983), organizational culture (Leonard-Barton 1992), and process management (Sirmon, et al. 2007). Capabilities may take different forms depending on market dynamism (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000). Some authors view strategy implementation as an ordinary capability (Parmigiani and Holloway 2011), while others provide conceptualizations that support a more dynamic view (Teece 2014).
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Jeffrey A. Martin. “Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They?” Strategic Management Journal 21.10–11 (2000): 1105–1121.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Argues that dynamic capabilities take on different characteristics depending on market dynamism: in moderately dynamic markets they are stable, detailed, analytic routines based on existing knowledge that call for disciplined execution to produce reliable outcomes; in highly dynamic markets they are unstable, simple rules that facilitate experimentation, knowledge creation, and iterative execution. The study discusses how dynamic capabilities evolve in these two different market environments.
Find this resource:
Leonard-Barton, Dorothy. “Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities—A Paradox in Managing New Product Development.” Strategic Management Journal 13 (1992): 111–125.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250131009Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This influential study suggests that a firm’s technical and managerial systems are rooted in organizational values and can become a source of rigidity and inhibit innovation. It offers illustrative evidence from twenty new product development projects.
Find this resource:
Parmigiani, Anne, and Samuel S. Holloway. “Actions Speak Louder Than Modes: Antecedents and Implications of Parent Implementation Capabilities on Business Unit Performance.” Strategic Management Journal 32.5 (2011): 457–485.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.920Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
An empirical study of the performance benefits of implementation capabilities in the casual dining restaurants industry. It conceptualizes implementation capabilities as fungible, ordinary capabilities of a corporate parent derived from its cumulated experience and its coordination-facilitating co-location with business units. Finds that general experience and co-location yield some performance benefits across different governance modes (in-house or franchise units).
Find this resource:
Prahalad, C. K. “Developing Strategic Capability: An Agenda for Top Management.” Human Resource Management 22.3 (1983): 237–254.
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.3930220304Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Seven years prior to popularizing the concept of “core competences,” Prahalad argues that the changing nature of global competition renders conventional wisdom in strategic management (focus on competitive rivalry, long-term planning, top-down decision making) obsolete and requires top managers to cultivate different capabilities in their organizations, namely flexibility, cooperation with external stakeholders, and an analytics-based decision-making culture that legitimizes dissent.
Find this resource:
Sirmon, David G., Michael A. Hitt, and R. Duane Ireland. “Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box.” Academy of Management Review 32.1 (2007): 273–292.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Proposes a conceptual model of three resource management processes (structuring, bundling, and leveraging), each with three subprocesses, and explains how managers shape these processes to create value for a firm’s customers and owners. The subprocesses of “resource leveraging,” namely mobilizing, coordinating, and deploying, characterize implementation as an ordinary capability.
Find this resource:
Teece, David J. “The Foundations of Enterprise Performance: Dynamic and Ordinary Capabilities in an (Economic) Theory of Firms.” Academy of Management Perspectives 28.4 (2014): 328–352.
DOI: 10.5465/amp.2013.0116Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The article provides an accessible distillation of two decades of Teece’s writing on dynamic capabilities. The latter two of the suggested three “primary clusters” of sensing, seizing, and transforming that make up dynamic capabilities, and the emphasis on leadership and entrepreneurial action to conceptually differentiate dynamic capabilities from ordinary capabilities, imply a dynamic conception of strategy implementation.
Find this resource:
External Environment
The nature and direction of influence between organizations and their external environments is a major focus for strategy formulation research (see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Management article “Strategy”). Some studies have extended this view to strategy implementation, in particular to how national (Yukl, et al. 2003; Wulf, et al. 2020), industry, or professional (Bondy 2008) culture and institutions shape implementation. In addition, an organization’s relationships to business partners, competitors, and other constituencies are a key feature of an organization’s task environments and can exert an enabling or constraining effect on strategy implementation (Pfeffer and Salancik 2003; Gaertner, et al. 1984; Hrebiniak and Joyce 1985; Uzzi 1997; Durand and Jacqueminet 2015; Irwin, et al. 2018).
Bondy, Krista. “The Paradox of Power in CSR: A Case Study on Implementation.” Journal of Business Ethics 82.2 (2008): 307–323.
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-9889-7Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Findings from a case study of CSR implementation in a multinational tourism company suggest when prevailing societal institutions imbue a particular organizational function with status and power they may trigger an intra-organizational struggle for control over that function and lead to opportunistic behavior that impedes the function’s effective execution of strategies.
Find this resource:
Durand, Rodolphe, and Anne Jacqueminet. “Peer Conformity, Attention, and Heterogeneous Implementation of Practices in MNEs.” Journal of International Business Studies 46.8 (2015): 917–937.
DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2015.21Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Based on a qualitative study of a gas and electricity multinational’s heterogenous implementation of CSR practices across international subsidiaries, the authors show that implementation varies as a result of how subsidiaries pay attention to the demands of headquarters as well as intra-firm peers’ and national competitors’ practice implementation.
Find this resource:
Gaertner, Gregory H., Karen N. Gaertner, and David M. Akinnusi. “Environment, Strategy, and the Implementation of Administrative Change: The Case of Civil Service Reform.” Academy of Management Journal 27.3 (1984): 525–543.
DOI: 10.2307/256043Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This qualitative study of two US federal agencies’ contrasting responses to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 provides an inductive account of how the two organizations’ different levels of public engagement and support and levels of issue competition from other agencies shape their “strategic position” (entrepreneurial-generalist versus efficiency-oriented specialist) and internal structures and, in turn, their interpretation of the reform and their implementation choices.
Find this resource:
Hrebiniak, Lawrence G., and William F. Joyce. “Organizational Adaptation: Strategic Choice and Environmental Determinism.” Administrative Science Quarterly 30.3 (1985): 336–349.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The study develops a typology of the adaptation processes of firms based on differences in their degree of strategic choice and the environmental determinism they face. The authors discuss implications of these determinants for firms’ intra- and interorganizational political behavior, search, and decision-making processes.
Find this resource:
Irwin, Jennifer, Brooke Lahneman, and Anne Parmigiani. “Nested Identities as Cognitive Drivers of Strategy.” Strategic Management Journal 39.2 (2018): 269–294.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The qualitative study of firms in the US recreational vehicle industry finds that firms’ strategic group identity (i.e., their understanding of the central, enduring, and distinctive characteristics of a group of organizations that pursue similar strategies within an industry) influences how they interpret industry and organizational identity and take key implementation actions, such as firm boundary decisions, the configuration of interfirm relationships, and product offerings, to both conform to industry norms and differentiate from peers.
Find this resource:
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald Salancik. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books, 2003.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Originally published 1978. A classic study on how power-dependence relations among organizations shape their strategic and structural choices. Noteworthy are the theory’s multi-level implications: organizational members who can secure access to critical external resources gain power and influence within the organization, and thus become arbiters of commitment or resistance during strategy implementation.
Find this resource:
Uzzi, Brian. “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42.1 (1997): 35–67.
DOI: 10.2307/2393808Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A keystone study in economic sociology, this ethnography examines twenty-three women’s better-dress firms in the New York City apparel industry and their embeddedness in industry networks. It explains how embedded network ties enable interorganizational trust, fine-grained information exchange, and joint problem-solving, and thus allow firms to swiftly respond to market needs by reconfiguring an external pool of resources and partners. The study also points out that too much embeddedness can reduce an organization’s ability to adapt.
Find this resource:
Wulf, Torsten, Sophie Florian, and Philip Meissner. “Differences in Strategic Issue Interpretation across Cultures: A Socio-cognitive Perspective.” European Management Review 17.1 (2020): 197–208.
DOI: 10.1111/emre.12361Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This experimental study investigates whether German and Chinese managers respond differently to a strategy implementation scenario given their respective countries’ distinctive cultural tendencies regarding overconfidence and risk aversion. Finds that German managers interpret the scenario more negatively than Chinese managers when it is framed as a threat, but finds no cross-cultural differences when it is framed as an opportunity.
Find this resource:
Yukl, Gary, Fu Ping, and Robert McDonald. “Cross-cultural Differences in Perceived Effectiveness of Influence Tactics for Initiating or Resisting Change.” Applied Psychology 52.1 (2003): 68–82.
DOI: 10.1111/1464–0597.00124Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Two experimental studies involving American, Chinese, Hong Kong Chinese and Swiss managers responding to scenarios for change initiation and change resistance find differences between western and non-western managers’ evaluation of the effectiveness of various influence tactics. This suggests national cultural contingencies may influence the choice and effectiveness of implementation activities.
Find this resource:
Process Management
Strategy implementation is a complex endeavor, and many studies have sought to develop process models that offer a systematic, stepwise approach to organizing implementation. Some of these models aim for a universally applicable sequence of actions, a template that would require only minor case-specific deviations/adjustments (Alexander 1985, Noble 1999). One of the most widely known of these universal templates is Kotter’s eight-stage model (Kotter 1995). Others adopt a contingent approach, where the practices and their sequencing differ substantively depending on strategy content or organizational or environmental characteristics (Bourgeois and Brodwin 1984, Gray and Ariss 1985, Chakravarthy, 1987, Govindarajan 1988, Nutt 1989, Lorange 1998, Mintzberg 2007). Within this general domain of scholarship, four foci are particularly noticeable: the interdependent relationship between strategy formulation and implementation; the adoption of a project management lens for strategy implementation; the importance of learning and adaptation during the implementation process; and issues of consensus, commitment, and conflict that arise during implementation.
Alexander, Larry D. “Successfully Implementing Strategic Decisions.” Long Range Planning 18.3 (1985): 91–97.
DOI: 10.1016/0024-6301(85)90161-XSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Survey and interview data from ninety-three US firms documents the implementation success of specific strategic initiatives (e.g., new product launch, market entry, or acquisition) and catalogues the most frequently cited implementation problems and practitioners’ advice for implementation success. The author draws attention to the discrepancy between implementation issues traditionally highlighted as important in strategy research (e.g., structural change and incentives) and the issues foregrounded by the interviewed practitioners.
Find this resource:
Bourgeois, L. J., and David R. Brodwin. “Strategic Implementation: Five Approaches to an Elusive Phenomenon.” Strategic Management Journal 5.3 (1984): 241–264.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250050305Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The study conceptualizes five different modes of strategy implementation, which differ with regard to the timing, intensity, and nature of CEO involvement, and important supporting roles and capabilities in the organization. It also details organizational and external environmental variables that affect the viability of each mode and articulates the normative claim that the “crescive model,” which seeks to harness and direct strategic initiatives that emerge bottom up, is best suited for large divisional firms in highly competitive markets.
Find this resource:
Chakravarthy, Balaji S. “On Tailoring a Strategic Planning System to Its Context: Some Empirical Evidence.” Strategic Management Journal 8.6 (1987): 517–534.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250080603Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Results from a survey of senior managers from the financial services industry suggest that a strategic planning system’s fit with organization’s specific internal and external context, generally considered important by strategy research, is not consequential for evaluation of the system by managers. Instead, a system’s novelty and its emphasis on integrative control is found to positively influence rating by managers.
Find this resource:
Govindarajan, Vijay. “A Contingency Approach to Strategy Implementation at the Business-Unit Level: Integrating Administrative Mechanisms with Strategy.” Academy of Management Journal 31.4 (1988): 828–853.
DOI: 10.2307/256341Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Empirically tests the performance effect of strict budgetary controls, centralization of decision making, and top management locus of control attitudes contingent on a business unit’s strategic focus (low cost or a differentiation strategy). In addition to establishing a link between strategy content and implementation process choices, the study also promotes a configurations approach for assessing the effectiveness of implementation levers. This is the most highly cited empirical implementation article.
Find this resource:
Gray, Barbara, and Sonny S. Ariss. “Politics and Strategic Change across Organizational Life Cycles.” Academy of Management Review 10.4 (1985): 707–723.
DOI: 10.2307/258040Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Suggests that a firm’s life-cycle stage (birth and early growth, maturity, and decline or redevelopment) necessitates that different political tactics are necessary to mobilize for strategic change and overcome inertia.
Find this resource:
Kotter, John P. “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.” Harvard Business Review 73.2 (1995): 59–67.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Kotter outlines a sequence of eight steps that firms must complete to successfully mobilize for, implement, and retain strategic change. The famous “stick-to-the-template” assertion that “skipping steps creates only an illusion of speed and never produces a satisfying result” underlines that assumption that strategic change follows a universal pattern.
Find this resource:
Lorange, Peter. “Strategy Implementation: The New Realities.” Long Range Planning 31.1 (1998): 18–29.
DOI: 10.1016/s0024-6301(97)00087-3Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Distinguishes three strategic growth patterns (pioneer, rapid expansion, domination) and suggests that each pattern requires different staffing, learning modes, and control approaches during strategy implementation.
Find this resource:
Mintzberg, Henry. Tracking Strategies: Toward a General Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This monograph revisits Mintzberg’s “five Ps” conception of strategy (plan, ploy, pattern, position, and perspective) in presenting ten case studies of long-term strategy evolution, and in the final chapter the author aims at integrating insights from these cases into a “general theory.” This theory matches four types of strategy formation processes (planning, venturing, visioning, learning) with four organizational archetypes from Mintzberg’s “structures in fives” typology of organization designs (machine, professional, entrepreneurial, adhocracy) and articulates characteristic issues and challenges for each along the initiation, development, renewal stages of the strategy process.
Find this resource:
Noble, Charles H. “Building the Strategy Implementation Network.” Business Horizons 42.6 (1999): 19–28.
DOI: 10.1016/S0007-6813(99)80034-2Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Based on research with five companies from a variety of industries, the paper explores the role of managerial levers (e.g., structure, leadership, incentives) across four stages of a change management process (from pre-implementation to organizing implementation, managing the implementation process and resistance issues, and maximizing cross-functional performance) to manage the dynamics of cross-functional interactions.
Find this resource:
Nutt, Paul C. “Selecting Tactics to Implement Strategic Plans.” Strategic Management Journal 10.2 (1989): 145–161.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250100205Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Nutt proposes a prescriptive decision tree framework that guides managers via eight binary questions to the appropriate implementation approach (the four “tactics” that he has examined in a variety of other publications: participation, persuasion, edict, intervention). The study validates the framework using data from interviews with implementation managers and stakeholders involved in fifty implementation episodes.
Find this resource:
Relationship between Formulation and Implementation
Since Andrews 1971 (cited under Textbooks and Monographs) the distinction between formulation and implementation has shaped strategy research and teaching, and frequently the two topics are treated separately. However, Mintzberg 1990 and Martin 2010, among other works, have criticized this separation and drawn attention to problems that arise when the two are treated separately in practice. Ansoff 1991 defends the separation by asserting that the formulation-implementation dichotomy simply reflects a rational, scientific model of learning, where premises and hypotheses inherent in a formulated strategy are subsequently tested through disciplined implementation. For such testing to work, however, strategy formulation needs to be “well conceived” with consideration of likely implementation challenges (Hambrick and Cannella 1989, Rumelt 2011), and may require collaboration between planners and implementors (Hrebiniak 2006). Additional interdependencies between formulation and implementation have been considered, e.g., how strategy content (Walderseel and Sheather 1996) and artifacts created to support implementation (Leonardi 2015) shape the implementation actions of managers.
Ansoff, H. Igor. “Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s ‘The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management.’” Strategic Management Journal 12.6 (1991): 449–461.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
In his response, to Mintzberg 1990, Ansoff lists numerous conceptual advances in strategic management research to contradict Mintzberg’s assertion that the design school has “refused itself the chance to adapt” over time. He also defends the formulation-implementation sequence as the rational model of learning and the standard model of the natural sciences.
Find this resource:
Hambrick, Donald C., and Albert A. Cannella Jr. “Strategy Implementation as Substance and Selling.” Academy of Management Perspectives 3.4 (1989): 278–285.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Argues that the ability to implement is a key quality of a “well-conceived strategy,” and thus requires careful consideration of implementation issues during the formulation process, not as an afterthought to it.
Find this resource:
Hrebiniak, Lawrence G. “Obstacles to Effective Strategy Implementation.” Organizational Dynamics 35.1 (2006): 12–31.
DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.12.001Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Partly informed by surveys with executives conducted by Wharton, the article documents frequent disconnects between formulation and implementation, and elaborates on common bad practices in the resourcing of implementation activities. It advocates a conception of formulation and implementation as interdependent and as requiring cooperation of both “planners” and “doers” to anticipate challenges and enable flexible adaption during implementation.
Find this resource:
Leonardi, Paul M. “Materializing Strategy: The Blurry Line between Strategy Formulation and Strategy Implementation.” In Special Issue: Materializing Strategy and Strategizing Materials. Edited by Stéphanie Dameron, Jane K. Lê, and Curtis LeBaron. British Journal of Management 26.S1 (2015): S17–S21.
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12077Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Adopts a materiality lens from sociology to argue that scholarly attention to the technologies developed and used for strategy formulation and implementation (such as manuals; systems for data collection, analysis, and reporting) promises rich insights into the interconnectedness between different activities in the strategy process.
Find this resource:
Martin, Roger L. “The Execution Trap.” Harvard Business Review 88.7–8 (2010): 64–71.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A modern, practitioner-oriented reincarnation of Mintzberg’s arguments regarding the disadvantages of separating strategy formulation from implementation, emphasizing, in particular, the disempowering and disengaging effects of relegating subordinates to be “choice-less doers.” Martin proposes an alternative model of strategy as a hierarchical “choice-cascade” with ongoing feedback and adjustment.
Find this resource:
Mintzberg, Henry. “The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management.” Strategic Management Journal 11.3 (1990): 171–195.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The study’s discussion of seven premises of the design school of strategic management and its comprehensive criticisms of the school—represented in Andrews 1971 (cited under Textbooks and Monographs)—includes multiple specific concerns regarding traditional conceptions of strategy implementation, e.g., the problematic assumption that once a strategy is fully formulated every aspect of an organization should be considered as a new “tabula rasa,” or the risk of detaching thinking from acting by enforcing a separation of formation and implementation.
Find this resource:
Rumelt, Richard P. Good strategy, Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters. New York: Random House, 2011.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
In this searing criticism of bad strategy practice, Rumelt proposes an expansive definition of strategy, where strategy includes not just a high-level conceit or intent about competition and value creation, but also policies and actions to support it. He argues that “bad strategy,” which often takes the form of a “laundry list” of conflicting goals, objectives, and values, generally leads to a substantial implementation gap and/or high probability of failure because it lacks a coherent plan of action.
Find this resource:
Walderseel, Robert, and Simon Sheather. “The Effects of Strategy Type on Strategy Implementation Actions.” Human Relations 49.1 (1996): 105–122.
DOI: 10.1177/001872679604900105Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Employing a scenario-based experimental design, this empirical study finds that decision makers tend to choose implementation tactics for entrepreneurial strategies different from those for conservative strategies.
Find this resource:
Project Management
Since the 1990s strategy implementation scholarship has imported concepts and empirical findings from project research. Projects thus become a key vehicle for translating high-level strategy to operational reality (Pellegrinelli and Bowman 1994; Morgan, et al. 2007), and project management principles and practices give definition to the implementation process (Cleland and Ireland 2006; ul-Musawir, et al. 2020). This perspective highlights the considerable managerial capabilities required to see implementation initiatives through to fruition (Lord 1993).
Cleland, David J., and Lewis Ireland. Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Positions projects as a key mechanism through which organizational resources are orchestrated and transformed to achieve strategic objectives and plans. Details the role of organizational design in enabling project management, highlights the importance of stakeholder management, elaborates practices for project-level planning, and discusses leadership and cultural issues.
Find this resource:
Lord, M. Alexander. “Implementing Strategy through Project-Management.” Long Range Planning 26.1 (1993): 76–85.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Informed by a qualitative investigation of twenty UK engineering firms, the article discusses how project organization facilitates resource allocation, collaboration with internal and external stakeholders, experimentation in new business areas, progress monitoring, and development of management capabilities. It also replaces the image of implementors as plan-bound bureaucrats with that of skilled project managers who nimbly coordinate, negotiate, and delegate across organizational boundaries.
Find this resource:
Morgan, Mark, Raymond E. Levitt, and William A. Malek. Executing Your Strategy: How to Break It Down and Get It Done. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2007.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This monograph integrates practitioner and academic insights on managing strategy through projects and highlights the importance of project portfolio management, translation of strategy terminology into “project parlance,” and the critical “transition phase” of strategy implementation during which projects are transferred to ongoing operations.
Find this resource:
ul-Musawir, Ata, Saipol B. Abd-Karim, and Mohd S. Mohd-Danuri. “Project Governance and Its Role in Enabling Organizational Strategy Implementation: A Systematic Literature Review.” International Journal of Project Management 38.1 (2020): 1–16.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.09.007Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Based on a systematic literature review, the authors articulate key aspects of project governance for effective implementation, including portfolio management of strategic initiatives, translation of strategic objectives to lower-order objectives, determining structure and autonomy for initiatives, and monitoring of alignment and outcomes.
Find this resource:
Pellegrinelli, Sergio, and Cliff Bowman. “Implementing Strategy through Projects.” Long Range Planning 27.4 (1994): 125–132.
DOI: 10.1016/0024-6301(94)90062-0Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Starting with the premise that strategies often get distorted when they are implemented via existing structures, processes, and culture, the authors contend that project management offers a more effective vehicle for implementing “revolutionary change” in organizations.
Find this resource:
Learning and Adaptation
While many studies make some reference to learning and adaptation during strategy implementation (see, e.g., Mintzberg 1990 and Martin 2010, both cited under Relationship between Formulation and Implementation), some scholars focus conceptually or empirically on specific learning and adaptation issues. The examination of “defensive routines” in Argyris 1989 is instructive not just for identifying enablers and impediments to learning during implementation, but also for tracing the seeds of defensive responses back to initial planning discussions. Like Argyris 1989, Beer, et al. 2005 focuses on interaction patterns among internal stakeholders to explain adaptation and learning. Other works empirically focus on emerging market signals (Noda and Bower 1996), or decision makers’ evolving perceptions of uncertainties (Klingebiel and De Meyer 2013) as triggers for adaptation. How much flexibility and deviation from a set plan should occur during implementation is debated: Moorman and Miner 1998 identifies some benefits of flexibility, while Lee and Puranam 2016 extolls the advantages of “precise” implementation of a given strategy. Increasingly, scholars have applied the notion of methodically controlled business experiments to the implementation problem (Cosenz and Noto 2018; Pillai, et al. 2020; Thomke 2020).
Argyris, Chris. “Strategy Implementation: An Experience in Learning.” Organizational Dynamics 18.2 (1989): 5–15.
DOI: 10.1016/0090-2616(89)90039-9Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Argyris, who has written extensively about organizational learning and defensive routines that impede learning, relates experiences from a strategy-focused organizational development intervention, highlighting, in particular, how managers attempt to identify and defuse defensive routines to enable identification and robust discussion of likely implementation issues during the planning stage.
Find this resource:
Beer, Michael, Sven C. Voelpel, Marius Leibold, and Eden B. Tekie. “Strategic Management as Organizational Learning: Developing Fit and Alignment through a Disciplined Process.” Long Range Planning 38.5 (2005): 445–465.
DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2005.04.008Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Based on research with twenty-three organization, the authors propose a “strategic fitness process” as a method to support organizational learning during implementation. Specifically, the authors emphasize the importance of honest dialogue between frontline and top management to diagnose barriers to implementation. The utility of the method is illustrated with an application at a Hewlett Packard business unit.
Find this resource:
Cosenz, Federico, and Guido Noto. “A Dynamic Business Modelling Approach to Design and Experiment New Business Venture Strategies.” Long Range Planning 51.1 (2018): 127–140.
DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.001Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Proposes the use of system dynamics modeling and simulation to aid business model experimentation and organizational learning. The inclusion of a wide range of system elements allows firms to anticipate implementation challenges that result from complex interdependences, feedbacks, time delays, etc. The formalized conceptual representation of the business model also provides that basis for empirical data collection to verify assumed causal links.
Find this resource:
Klingebiel, Ronald, and Arnoud De Meyer. “Becoming Aware of the Unknown: Decision Making during the Implementation of a Strategic Initiative.” Organization Science 24.1 (2013): 133–153.
DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0726Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A detailed analysis of a strategic initiative implemented by a joint venture, based on observation data from 121 decision-making episodes reveals how managers switch between decision-making styles over the course of an implementation process, prompted by their emergent perceptions of certain or uncertain future events.
Find this resource:
Lee, Eveman, and Phanish Puranam. “The Implementation Imperative: Why One Should Implement Even Imperfect Strategies Perfectly.” Strategic Management Journal 37.8 (2016): 1529–1546.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.2414Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The study presents a multi-agent computation model of an organization adapting its strategy in response to performance feedback that shows that precise implementation of a strategy (without bottom-up changes) may lead to better performance even if the quality of the implemented strategy is unknown ex-ante. The authors articular three mechanisms by which “relentless execution” can help prevent communication and learning impediments that occur among multiple actors involved in implementation.
Find this resource:
Moorman, Christine, and Anne S. Miner. “The Convergence of Planning and Execution: Improvisation in New Product Development.” Journal of Marketing 62.3 (1998): 1–20.
DOI: 10.2307/1251740Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Miner has authored, with a variety of collaborators, a series of studies about the role of organizational improvisation, which she defines as the convergence of planning and execution. This study examines improvisation (mutually adaptive interactions that appear unguided by or deviating from plans and routines) and its mixed effect on outcomes in the new product development teams of two US midsize firms. The findings point toward organizational memory and efficient information flow as determinants of whether firms reap benefits from improvisation.
Find this resource:
Noda, Tomo, and Joseph L. Bower. “Strategy Making as Iterated Processes of Resource Allocation.” Strategic Management Journal 17.S1 (1996): 159–192.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250171011Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The study applies the Bower-Burgelman evolutionary model of strategy to a comparative case study of how two telecom firms deal with new business opportunities. The findings highlight that senior managers learn based on the early results of strategic initiatives, and they subsequently and iteratively (de)escalate resource allocation to the initiatives even before they take public positions or explicitly express a change in strategic direction.
Find this resource:
Pillai, Sandeep D., Brent Goldfarb, and David A. Kirsch. “The Origins of Firm Strategy: Learning by Economic Experimentation and Strategic Pivots in the Early Automobile Industry.” Strategic Management Journal 41.3 (2020): 369–399.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.3102Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Connects the well-established notion of organizational learning through implementation with the concept of economic experiments. Concretely, the study conceptualizes unique car models introduced by automotive firms as manifestations of strategic pivots, that is, economic experiments that allow firms to learn through interaction with the market, that require irreversible and substantial resource commitments, and that involve a combination of technological, organizational, and market change. The authors empirically find that such pivots are associated with firm success.
Find this resource:
Thomke, Stefan H. Experimentation Works: The Surprising Power of Business Experiments. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2020.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Thomke, who has studied experimentation with a focus on new product development for three decades, here promotes rigorous business experiments as a means to tackle a broader range of strategic challenges. The monograph details best practice for designing, implementing, and learning from experiments as well as managing cultural hurdles for experimentation in firms.
Find this resource:
Consensus, Commitment, and Conflict
Given the large and diverse set of actors that is typically involved in implementation efforts, their behaviors and attitudes that emerge in response to strategic plans and from interactions with each other are a major influence on implementation outcomes. Crucially, scholars who take this multi-actor view of strategy implementation seriously consider the role of conflict and politics and the difficult work of reaching consensus and building commitment around key strategic issues. One area of focus of this research is the use and effectiveness of different influence tactics (Yukl and Tracey 1992, Furst and Cable 2008) and other leadership behaviors (van Riel, et al. 2009) to kindle support for implementation efforts. Research on consensus usually is sited at the interface of strategy formulation and implementation, as it refers to a level of agreement with a strategic decision that subsequently affects implementation and performance (Dooley, et al. 2000; Simons 2010). While empirical evidence leans toward consensus as beneficial for implementation outcomes (Kellermanns, et al. 2011), some scholars draw attention to the benefits of conflict that allows actors to trouble-shoot implementation (Lê and Jarzabkowski 2015). Kim and Mauborgne 1991 broadens the perspective beyond (dis)agreement over decision outcomes to considerations of procedural justice.
Dooley, Robert S., Gerald E. Fryxell, and William Q. Judge. “Belaboring the Not-So-Obvious: Consensus, Commitment, and Strategy Implementation Speed and Success.” Journal of Management 26.6 (2000): 1237–1257.
DOI: 10.1177/014920630002600609Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This empirical investigation of sixty-eight hospital strategy teams finds that decision-making consensus predicts decision commitment, and that committed teams report both slower implementation speed (contrary to expectations) and higher implementation success. The authors encourage future research to investigate the relationships between implementation speed and success.
Find this resource:
Furst, Stacie A., and Daniel M. Cable. “Employee Resistance to Organizational Change: Managerial Influence Tactics and Leader-Member Exchange.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93.2 (2008): 453–462.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This study surveyed the employees of two companies who were involved in organizational change initiatives, and finds that employee reaction to different types of influence tactics used by their managers depends on the quality of their relationship with the managers. The authors employ attribution theory to explain the empirical results. Generally, this relational perspective aligns with implementation studies that foreground the influence of social ties on implementation dynamics (see, e.g., Ahearne, et al. 2014, cited under Social Networks and Social Capital).
Find this resource:
Kellermanns, Franz W., Jorge Walter, Steven W. Floyd, Christoph Lechner, and John C. Shaw. “To Agree or Not to Agree? A Meta-analytical Review of Strategic Consensus and Organizational Performance.” Journal of Business Research 64.2 (2011): 126–133.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.02.004Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Results from the meta-analysis show performance benefits of strategic consensus, subject to numerous moderators. One notable moderator is the hierarchical level of study participants: consensus at the middle management level appears to be more strongly associated with performance benefits.
Find this resource:
Kim, W. Chan, and Renée A. Mauborgne. “Implementing Global Strategies: The Role of Procedural Justice.” Strategic Management Journal 12 (1991):125–143.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250120910Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A survey of top subsidiary managers shows that higher levels of perceived procedural justice of the annual global strategy-making process improve the managers’ organizational commitment and related attitudes of managers and “inflate” their perceptions of the fairness and favorability of decision outcomes.
Find this resource:
Lê, Jane K., and Paula A. Jarzabkowski. “The Role of Task and Process Conflict in Strategizing.” British Journal of Management 26.3 (2015): 439–462.
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12076Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The study explores the functional side of conflict in strategy-making and suggests that process and task conflict help surface implementation problems and strategy content problems, respectively.
Find this resource:
Simons, Robert L. Seven Strategy Questions: A Simple Approach for Better Execution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2010.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Simons suggests that strategy implementation emerges from ongoing interactions and debates that can be guided by seven basic questions about the organization’s foundations of success, focus, facilitating processes, and view of the future. Supported by illustrative examples, the account implies that robust discussion of these questions and ultimate consensus about the answers is required for successful implementation.
Find this resource:
van Riel, Cees B. M., Guido Berens, and Majorie Dijkstra. “Stimulating Strategically Aligned Behaviour among Employees.” Journal of Management Studies 46.7 (2009): 1197–1226.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467–6486.2009.00837.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This study examines how the efforts of top managers to stimulate motivation and capability development, and to inform about the strategy, influence the degree to which middle managers display “strategically aligned behavior,” that is, their efforts to implement the strategy. Using survey data from three companies from different industries, the authors find that supervisors who explicate a rationale for the strategy and stimulate open and candid communication serves as a particularly potent stimulus for aligned behavior by middle managers.
Find this resource:
Yukl, Gary, and J. Bruce Tracey. “Consequences of Influence Tactics Used with Subordinates, Peers, and the Boss.” Journal of Applied Psychology 77.4 (1992): 525–535.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Numerous implementation studies have examined the contingent effects of different influence tactics (see, e.g., Gray and Ariss 1985 and Nutt 1989, cited under Process Management). Yukl’s Influence Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ), which distinguishes nine influence tactics, can usefully inform such efforts. The present study investigates the contingent effects of tactics depending on whether the direction of influence is downward, upward, or lateral. Empirical results from a survey of managers (and their subordinates and bosses) from five companies in different industries suggest that some tactics are perceived as leading to task commitment and as indicators of managerial effectiveness regardless of influence direction.
Find this resource:
Actors and Stakeholders
While much of strategy implementation research focuses on organizational systems and parameters, some scholars have focused their attention on how specific actors and stakeholders shape implementation processes. This body of work typically emphasizes human agency and the complicated socio-psychological phenomena related to change and resistance. Crucially, it regards people involved in implementation not simply as human capital, that is, a pool of skills and knowledge, but as individuals with specific characteristics, interests, and attitudes. Studies in this vein can be differentiated into those that consider exclusively Top Management actors—a focus that is common in strategy research generally—and those that consider Middle Managers and Frontline Staff and their interaction with top managers.
Top Management
Traditionally, top managers and executives make strategic decisions, organize, set priorities, specify tasks allocation, and oversee resource activities. Within the broader area of strategy, “upper echelon” research has over three decades accumulated empirical evidence over the course of three decades that the demographic characteristics, cognitive styles, and leadership of top managers predict key strategic decisions and organizational outcomes (see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Management article “Strategic Leadership”). Within implementation research, a similar perspective examines the correlations between the characteristics and implementation choices and outcomes of top managers (Lohrke, et al. 2004). The characteristics examined include top managers’ personality (Herrmann and Nadkarni 2014) and information processing style (Håkonsson, et al. 2012). Some studies emphasize that top managers’ characteristics need to be considered within their specific organizational context (Gupta and Govindarajan 1984, Jarzabkowski and Wilson 2002).
Gupta, Anil K., and V. Govindarajan. “Business Unit Strategy, Managerial Characteristics, and Business Unit Effectiveness at Strategy Implementation.” Academy of Management Journal 27.1 (1984): 25–41.
DOI: 10.2307/255955Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This highly cited study empirically tests at the business unit level the normative claim that top managers’ characteristics and capabilities need to match the organization’s strategy. Based on self-reported measures from fifty-eight business unit general managers from eight diversified firms, it finds that general managers with greater marketing and sales experience and greater tolerance for risk and ambiguity are associated with high strategy implementation effectiveness in business units with a “build” strategy, but with lower implementation effectiveness in business units with “harvest” strategies.
Find this resource:
Håkonsson, Dorthe D., Richard M. Burton, Børge Obel, and Jørgen T. Lauridsen. “Strategy Implementation Requires the Right Executive Style: Evidence from Danish SMEs.” Long Range Planning 45.2–3 (2012): 182–208.
DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2012.02.004Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Examines how executives’ information-processing style supports or hinders implementation of different types of strategies. The study uses survey data from 407 small and medium-sized (SMEs) Danish manufacturing firms, and the authors note the significance of executive style for strategy implementation at SMEs in particular, since SME executives tend to be highly involved in implementation activities and have high levels of discretion. While the study does not measure implementation directly, empirical analyses show that alignment between executive styles (maestro, manager, leader, producer) and strategy types (reactor, defender, prospector, analyzer) is generally associated with higher performance outcomes and misalignments with lower performance outcomes.
Find this resource:
Herrmann, Pol, and Sucheta Nadkarni. “Managing Strategic Change: The Duality of CEO Personality.” Strategic Management Journal 35.9 (2014): 1318–1342.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.2156Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Based on survey data from the CEOs of 120 small to medium-sized enterprises in Ecuador, the study examines how the “big five” personality traits of CEOs predict initiation and successful implementation of strategic change. While implementation is not measured directly, the study articulates psychological mechanisms that can inform research on the influence of top managers on implementation processes.
Find this resource:
Jarzabkowski, Paula, and David C. Wilson. “Top Teams and Strategy in a UK University.” Journal of Management Studies 39.3 (2002): 355–381.
DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00296Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A longitudinal case study of a top management team at Warwick University and its organizational context finds that the interplay between TMT characteristics and the organizational context (structure, history, culture, routines) shapes strategy implementation practices and processes.
Find this resource:
Lohrke, Franz T., Arthur G. Bedeian, and Timothy B. Palmer. “The Role of Top Management Teams in Formulating and Implementing Turnaround Strategies: A Review and Research Agenda.” International Journal of Management Reviews 5–6.2 (2004): 63–90.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00097.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This narrative review synthesizes the demographics and crisis response patterns (rigidity or innovation) of top management teams (TMT), which are the main domains of research, and then proceeds to suggest a substantially expanded research agenda that applies concepts from the broader field of TMT research (e.g., TMT consensus, power, cognition, etc.) to the decline and/or turnaround context.
Find this resource:
Middle Managers and Frontline Staff
Middle managers are traditionally seen as responsible for implementing top management’s plans and ensuring junior staff fulfil their roles in alignment with the plans. Their intermediate position often has made them the target of blame when implementation fails. But some implementation scholars have carved out a more complex role for middle managers and frontline staff, drawing attention to the power they exercise during strategy implementation (Mechanic 1962; Guth and Macmillan 1986; Wooldridge, et al. 2008; Ateş, et al. 2020) and their unique contributions to the implementation process (Huy 2002). Multiple studies have examined the relationship between top and middle management (Balogun 2003; Mantere 2008; Heyden, et al. 2017).
Ateş, Nüfer Y., Murat Tarakci, Jeanine P. Porck, Daan van Knippenberg, and Patrick J. Groenen. “The Dark Side of Visionary Leadership in Strategy Implementation: Strategic Alignment, Strategic Consensus, and Commitment.” Journal of Management 46.5 (2020): 637–665.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The multi-method study explores the joint effect of a manager’s leadership style and their strategic alignment with the CEO on consensus and commitment of their team.
Find this resource:
Balogun, Julia. “From Blaming the Middle to Harnessing Its potential: Creating Change Intermediaries.” British Journal of Management 14.1 (2003): 69–83.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Using data from a longitudinal case study at a utility company, the author identifies four roles middle managers perform during implementation (including managing themselves through change and performing social sense-making tasks and administrative coordination tasks). The article discusses how the lack of appreciation by senior managers of middle managers’ roles and the time required to perform them hinders effective implementation, and it proposes this misunderstanding as a possible trigger for prioritization by middle managers of highly visible administrative implementation tasks over important, but less visible, social and sense-making tasks.
Find this resource:
Guth, William D., and Ian C. Macmillan. “Strategy Implementation versus Middle Management Self-Interest.” Strategic Management Journal 7.4 (1986): 313–327.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250070403Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The study empirically examines the decision of middle managers to intervene and resist organizational decisions after they have been made based on self-reports of such interventions by ninety middle managers. The authors interpret the data for the context of strategy implementation; note how “counter efforts” of middle managers can redirect, delay, compromise, or sabotage a strategy’s implementation; and propose that top managers need to correctly identify and respond to three underlying causes for resistance to successfully implement strategy.
Find this resource:
Heyden, Mariano L., Sebastian P. Fourné, Bastiaan A. Koene, Renate Werkman, and Shahzad Ansari. “Rethinking ‘Top‐Down’ and ‘Bottom‐Up’ Roles of Top and Middle Managers in Organizational Change: Implications for Employee Support.” Journal of Management Studies 54.7 (2017): 961–985.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The study examines the different strengths and limitations top managers and middle managers bring to change initiation and change execution roles, and the authors propose four role configurations for top and middle managers. A broad survey involving 468 firms finds particularly positive attitudes for the configuration of middle managers initiating and top managers executing change.
Find this resource:
Huy, Quy N. “Emotional Balancing of Organizational Continuity and Radical Change: The Contribution of Middle Managers.” Administrative Science Quarterly 47.1 (2002): 31–69.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Huy has published a number of papers on the emotional dynamics of strategic change based on a longitudinal case study of a large information technology firm. This paper examines how middle managers’ balancing of emotional commitment to change projects (sustained experience and display of pleasant, high-activation emotional states despite setbacks) and attention to change recipients’ emotions (e.g., by encouraging organizational members to express personal and work-related emotions) contributes to positive implementation outcomes.
Find this resource:
Mantere, Saku. “Role Expectations and Middle Manager Strategic Agency.” Journal of Management Studies 45.2 (2008): 294–316.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00744.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Mantere uses data from 262 interviews with middle managers from twelve European firms to derive eight enabling conditions (narration, contextualization, resource allocation, respect, trust, responsiveness, inclusion, and refereeing) for strategic agency from the perspective of middle managers. The author outlines a “reciprocal view” of the strategy process in which the actions of top and middle managers are interdependent and affect issues such as legitimacy and flexible adaptation.
Find this resource:
Mechanic, David. “Sources of Power of Lower Participants in Complex Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 7.3 (1962): 349–364.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This early paper draws attention to commonly overlooked actors in organizations: those without formal authority but substantial informal power. While not explicitly mentioning strategy implementation, the author discusses how informal power explains incongruences among formal plans, goals, and procedures and actual organizational practices and outcomes.
Find this resource:
Wooldridge, Bill, Torsten Schmid, and Steven W. Floyd. “The Middle Management Perspective on Strategy Process: Contributions, Synthesis, and Future Research.” Journal of Management 34.6 (2008): 1190–1221.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
In the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s Floyd and Wooldridge published a series of well-cited studies and a monograph on the role of middle management influence in the strategy process. This review paper takes stock of their cumulative insights on the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of middle manager involvement in strategy making, and it provides a useful overview of the theoretical lenses and methodological approaches employed in the research. The authors call for research to develop a more integrative role concept for middle managers, to connect managerial cognition to action and action to organizational outcomes, and to pursue multilevel theory building.
Find this resource:
Measurement and Control
Approaches to measure and control strategy implementation are occasionally included in reviews and textbooks (e.g., Hitt, et al. 2017, cited under Literature Reviews, includes a section on accounting controls; Verweire 2014, cited under Textbooks and Monographs, mentions control as one of five core implementation processes). Control systems are also sometimes considered by organization design-focused studies of implementation (see. e.g., Galbraith and Kazanjian 1986, cited under Organization Design). In addition, many of the studies in this article implicitly highlight facets of the implementation process and implementation outcomes that are worth measuring to enable monitoring and control during strategy implementation. Some studies focus explicitly on the role of controls systems in implementation. Some early work articulates a distinctive system of “strategic control” (Horovitz 1979, Schreyögg and Steinmann 1987), and multiple studies have sought to document the variety of control mechanisms in use and their interactive effects (Daft and Macintosh 1984; Simons 1994; Kreutzer, et al. 2015). Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard, arguably one of the most widely adopted strategic control systems, has been popularized in a slew of publications (Kaplan and Norton 1996). However, as Langfield-Smith 1997 notes, empirical evidence for the effectiveness of particular configurations of controls for different firms, strategies, or environments is scarce. Given the advancement of data analytics technologies and practices within firms in recent years, substantial opportunities exist for innovative approaches to implementation measurement and control (Levenson 2018) (see the section on strategy in the separate Oxford Bibliographies in Management article “People Analytics”).
Daft, Richard L., and Norman B. Macintosh. “The Nature and Use of Formal Control Systems for Management Control and Strategy Implementation.” Journal of Management 10.1 (1984): 43–66.
DOI: 10.1177/014920638401000105Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This qualitative study based on data from twenty-nine US firms identifies four control mechanisms (budget, policies, performance appraisal, reports) commonly used to support strategy implementation, and details their complementary functions (e.g., planning ahead, coordinating with other departments, etc.) and focus (input, process, outcomes). The authors conclude with a conceptual model that emphasizes the connections among control systems elements.
Find this resource:
Horovitz, J. H. “Strategic Control: A New Task for Top Management.” Long Range Planning 12.3 (1979): 2–7.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A survey of fifty-two British, French, and German firms reveals that despite the widespread adoption of long-term strategic planning, control systems remain focused on short-term objectives. The authors suggest that strategic control could focus on monitoring strategic assumptions, areas of competence, and key results.
Find this resource:
Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton. “Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System.” Harvard Business Review 74.1 (1996): 75–85.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Like in Daft and Macintosh 1984, the balanced scorecard model proposes a control system with a set of complementary input, process, and outcome metrics. Specifically, the scorecard comprises four perspectives related to learning and knowledge processes, internal process efficiency, customer outcomes, and financial outcomes.
Find this resource:
Kreutzer, Markus, Jorge Walter, and Laura B. Cardinal. “Organizational Control as Antidote to Politics in the Pursuit of Strategic Initiatives.” Strategic Management Journal 36.9 (2015): 1317–1337.
DOI: 10.1002/smj.2306Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
Insights from a multi-industry and multi-country sample of 184 strategic implementation teams support the view that behavioral and formal controls have a complementary relationship, and finds that their combined use is particularly beneficial for implementation performance in contexts where managers pursue individual interests at the expense of organizational goals. The study provides a thought-provoking theorization of the social benefits and discontents of behavior and outcome controls.
Find this resource:
Langfield-Smith, Kim. “Management Control Systems and Strategy: A Critical Review.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 22.2 (1997): 207–232.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This overview of studies at the intersection of strategy and management control systems notes the paucity of empirical evidence to support the normative claims from practitioners-oriented studies for optimal focus, balance, detail, and consistency of controls to support successful strategy implementation. It highlights early research insights regarding the dynamic interactive relationship between strategy and controls systems, and it urges more research on control types for and control use by frontline managers.
Find this resource:
Levenson, Alec. “Using Workforce Analytics to Improve Strategy Execution.” Human Resource Management 57.3 (2018): 685–700.
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21850Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
The study provides a critical look at current practices with analytics in human resources and their potential use for supporting strategy implementation. It laments the dearth of detailed analytics for team- and organization-level processes and outcomes in many organizations and the lack of alignment of analytics initiatives with strategic priorities. The author suggests a top-down model for improved alignment and provides an illustrative case example.
Find this resource:
Schreyögg, Georg, and Horst Steinmann. “Strategic Control: A New Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 12.1 (1987): 91–103.
DOI: 10.2307/257996Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
This conceptual paper proposes implementation control, premise control, and strategic surveillance (that is, expansive internal and external issue monitoring) as three elements of ongoing strategic control. The authors eschew the traditional performance feedback logic of much of the management control literature; rather, they propose a feedforward approach in which the control system counterbalances the filtering and selectivity inherent in strategic planning.
Find this resource:
Simons, Robert. “How New Top Managers Use Control Systems as Levers of Strategic Renewal.” Strategic Management Journal 15.3 (1994): 169–189.
Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »
A longitudinal study of ten newly appointed senior managers in various industries who implement evolutionary or revolutionary strategic change. The empirical results are focused on how the managers use four different types of control systems (including rules, values, feedback systems, and direct intervention) to overcome inertia, build credibility for the new strategy, structure implementation activities, and focus attention and organizational learning.
Find this resource:
Article
- Abusive Supervision
- Adverse Impact and Equal Employment Opportunity Analytics
- Alliance Portfolios
- Alternative Work Arrangements
- Applied Political Risk Analysis
- Approaches to Social Responsibility
- Assessment Centers: Theory, Practice and Research
- Attitudes
- Attributions
- Authentic Leadership
- Automation
- Bayesian Statistics
- Behavior, Organizational
- Behavioral Approach to Leadership
- Behavioral Theory of the Firm
- Benefits
- Between Organizations, Social Networks in and
- Brokerage in Networks
- Business and Human Rights
- Business Ethics
- Career Studies
- Career Transitions and Job Mobility
- Certified B Corporations and Benefit Corporations
- Charismatic and Innovative Team Leadership By and For Mill...
- Charismatic and Transformational Leadership
- Compensation, Rewards, Remuneration
- Competitive Dynamics
- Competitive Heterogeneity
- Competitive Intensity
- Computational Modeling
- Conditional Reasoning
- Conflict Management
- Considerate Leadership
- Cooperation-Competition (Coopetition)
- Corporate Philanthropy
- Corporate Social Performance
- Corporate Venture Capital
- Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB)
- Creativity
- Cross-Cultural Communication
- Cross-Cultural Management
- Cultural Intelligence
- Culture, Organization
- Data Analytic Methods
- Decision Making
- Diversity
- Diversity and Firm Performance
- Diversity and Inclusion, Global Perspective on
- Dynamic Capabilities
- Emotional Labor
- Employee Aging
- Employee Engagement
- Employee Ownership
- Employee Voice
- Empowerment, Psychological
- Entrepreneurial Firms
- Entrepreneurial Orientation
- Entrepreneurship
- Entrepreneurship, Corporate
- Entrepreneurship, Women’s
- Equal Employment Opportunity
- Ethics
- Executive Succession
- Faking in Personnel Selection
- Family Business, Managing
- Feedback
- Financial Markets in Organization Theory and Economic Soci...
- Findings, Reporting Research
- Firm Bribery
- First-Mover Advantage
- Fit, Person-Environment
- Forecasting
- Founding Teams
- Global Leadership
- Global Talent Management
- Goal Setting
- Grounded Theory
- Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions
- Human Capital Resource Pipelines
- Human Resource Management
- Human Resource Management, Strategic
- Human Resources, Global
- Human Rights
- Humanitarian Work Psychology
- Humility in Management
- Impression Management at Work
- Imprinting
- Influence Strategies/Tactics in the Workplace
- Information Economics
- Innovative Behavior
- Intelligence, Emotional
- International Economic Development and SMEs
- International Economic Systems
- International Strategic Alliances
- Job Analysis and Competency Modeling
- Job Crafting
- Job Design
- Job Satisfaction
- Judgment and Decision Making in Teams
- Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration within and across Firm...
- Leader-Member Exchange
- Leadership Development
- Leadership Development and Organizational Change, Coaching...
- Leadership, Ethical
- Leadership, Global and Comparative
- Leadership, Strategic
- Learning by Doing in Organizational Activities
- Licensing
- Management History
- Management In Antiquity
- Managerial and Organizational Cognition
- Managerial Discretion
- Meaningful Work
- Mentoring
- Multinational Corporations and Emerging Markets
- Multiteam Systems
- Neo-institutional Theory
- Neuroscience, Organizational
- New Ventures
- Organization Design, Global
- Organization Development and Change
- Organization Research, Ethnography in
- Organization Theory
- Organizational Adaptation
- Organizational Ambidexterity
- Organizational Behavior, Emotions in
- Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs)
- Organizational Climate
- Organizational Control
- Organizational Corruption
- Organizational Hybridity
- Organizational Identity
- Organizational Justice
- Organizational Legitimacy
- Organizational Networks
- Organizational Paradox
- Organizational Performance, Personality Theory and
- Organizational Responsibility
- Organizational Surveys, Driving Change Through
- Organizations, Big Data in
- Organizations, Gender in
- Organizations, Identity Work in
- Organizations, Political Ideology in
- Organizations, Social Identity Processes in
- Overqualification
- Passion
- Paternalistic Leadership
- Pay for Skills, Knowledge, and Competencies
- People Analytics
- Performance Appraisal
- Performance Feedback Theory
- Planning And Goal Setting
- Proactive Work Behavior
- Psychological Contracts
- Psychological Safety
- Real Options Theory
- Recruitment
- Regional Entrepreneurship
- Reputation, Organizational Image and
- Research, Ethics in
- Research, Longitudinal
- Research Methods
- Research Methods, Qualitative
- Resource Redeployment
- Resource-Dependence Theory
- Resources
- Response Surface Analysis, Polynomial Regression and
- Role of Time in Organizational Studies
- Safety, Work Place
- Selection
- Selection, Applicant Reactions to
- Self-Determination Theory for Work Motivation
- Self-Efficacy
- Self-Fulfilling Prophecy In Management
- Self-Management and Personal Agency
- Sensemaking in and around Organizations
- Service Management
- Shared Team Leadership
- Social Cognitive Theory
- Social Evaluation: Status and Reputation
- Social Movement Theory
- Social Ties and Network Structure
- Socialization
- Spin-Outs
- Sports Settings in Management Research
- Stakeholders
- Status in Organizations
- Strategic Alliances
- Strategic Human Capital
- Strategy
- Strategy and Cognition
- Strategy Implementation
- Stress
- Structural Contingency Theory/Information Processing Theor...
- Team Composition
- Team Conflict
- Team Design Characteristics
- Team Learning
- Team Mental Models
- Team Newcomers
- Team Performance
- Team Processes
- Teams, Global
- Technology and Innovation Management
- Technology, Organizational Assessment and
- the Workplace, Millennials in
- Theory X and Theory Y
- Time and Motion Studies
- Training and Development
- Training Evaluation
- Trust in Organizational Contexts
- Turnover
- Unobtrusive Measures
- Validity
- Virtual Teams
- Whistle-Blowing
- Work and Family: An Organizational Science Overview
- Work Contexts, Nonverbal Communication in
- Work, Mindfulness at
- Workplace Aggression and Violence
- Workplace Coaching
- Workplace Commitment
- Workplace Gossip
- Workplace Meetings
- Workplace, Spiritual Leadership in the
- World War II, Management Research during
