implementing strategy? don't forget the middle managers1115229/fulltext01.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Implementing strategy? Don't forget the
middle managersStrategy implementation from a middle management perspective
Emily Johansson
Johanna Svensson
Företagsekonomi, master
2017
Luleå tekniska universitet
Institutionen för ekonomi, teknik och samhälle
i
Acknowledgments
This master thesis has been carried out as a degree project for a Masters degree in Business
Administration, specialisation in International Business, at Luleå University of Technology.
The work began in January 2017 and was finished in June 2017. During the course of the
work for this thesis we have learned a lot about strategy implementation and middle
management and hope that the results will be of interest to the reader and provide new insight
to strategy implementation from a middle management perspective.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved in making
this thesis possible. A special thank you is devoted to our supervisor Mana Farshid for her
help and guidance.
We would also like to extend our gratitude towards the middle managers who shared their
expertise, thoughts and opinions. Their insight and experience made this thesis possible.
June 2017
Emily Johansson Johanna Svensson
ii
Abstract
Business strategy in itself is a well-known concept in today’s academic literature and
extensive research on strategy formulation can easily be found. Strategy implementation on
the other hand has not been researched to the same extent. This seems to be contradictory
when one takes into consideration that effective and efficient strategy implementation has
been proven to have an incredibly large impact on the success of any firm, company or
organisation. Furthermore, no strategy will be beneficial for a company if it cannot be
implemented. Adding to the complexity of this situation, middle management has long been
disregarded concerning the strategy process or even thought to be detrimental. However, in
recent years there has been a shift and research has started to recognise the importance of
middle managers. The thesis aims to provide a deeper understanding of how middle
management actively operates when implementing strategy. By doing so the thesis may be of
value for middle managers and companies working with strategy, by increasing awareness
about middle management’s influence on the strategy implementation process.
This thesis is partially exploratory and partially descriptive with a qualitative and deductive
nature. In order to answer the purpose, a research strategy of case studies was used where
empirical data was collected from interviews held with six different middle managers.
An implementation process model that described the different phases of strategy execution
and supporting activities surrounding implementation was created. The developed
implementation framework had its foundation in previous research concerning strategy
implementation from an organisational perspective. The data that was collected from the
middle managers was then analysed and compared to the model. By modifying the
implementation process model using the information received from the middle managers a
verified implementation process model was created which takes into account the middle
management perspective.
The most important findings suggest that middle managers are important for the
implementation process. An implementation process model from a middle management
perspective has been developed which presents the phases of execution and what impact
middle managers have during the course of the implementation. The findings further suggest
that middle management can increase the successfulness of a strategy if allowed influence
from start to finish.
iii
Sammanfattning
Strategier i sig självt är ett välkänt område i dagens akademiska litteratur och man kan enkelt
hitta utförlig forskning om strategi formulering. Implementeringen av strategier är däremot
inte ett lika populärt forskningsområde. Detta är något motsägelsefullt när man tar hänsyn till
att en effektiv implementering av strategi har visat sig ha en väldigt stor påverkan på företags
framgång. Dessutom kan ingen strategi vara fördelaktig för ett företag om strategin ej kan
implementeras. För att öka komplexiteten av detta har mellanchefer länge blivit förbisedda
eller till och med ansetts vara skadliga för strategi processen. Dock håller detta på att ändras
och mellanchefer börjar mer och mer anses som viktiga. Denna uppsats försöker skapa en
djupare förståelse för hur mellanchefer aktivt arbetar när implementering av strategier sker.
Genom detta kan uppsatsen vara av värde för mellanchefer och företag som arbetar med
strategier genom att bidra med en ökad medvetenhet om mellanchefers påverkan på
implementeringsprocessen.
Uppsatsen var delvis explorativ och delvis deskriptiv med ett kvalitativ och deduktiv
tillvägagångssätt. Fallstudier användes där data samlades in via intervjuer med sex olika
mellanchefer.
En modell som beskriver implementeringsprocessens olika faser och stödjande faktor
skapades. Modellen var baserad på tidigare forskning om implementering av strategier från
ett företagsperspektiv. Data som samlades in från mellancheferna var sedan analyserad och
jämnförd med modellen. Genom att anpassa modellen med informationen från
mellancheferna en verifierad implementeringsprocess utifrån ett mellanchefsperspektiv
skapades.
Det viktigaste resultatet antyder att mellanchefer är viktiga för implementering av strategier.
Implementeringsmodellen ur ett mellanchefsperspektiv presenterar faser av utförandet av
strategi och effekten mellanchefer har under implementeringsprocessen. Resultaten antyder
även att mellanchefer kan öka strategiers sannolikhet för framgång om de har möjlighet att
bidra från stat till slut.
iv
Table of contents 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem discussion ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Purpose and research questions ..................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Outline of the thesis ...................................................................................................................... 5
2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Strategy implementation ............................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 CEO influence on strategy implementation ........................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Organisational structure influences on strategy implementation ........................................... 9
2.1.3 Organisational climate influence on strategy implementation ............................................. 12
2.2 Implementation factors ............................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Integrated factors for successful implementation ................................................................ 14
2.2.2 Levers of implementation .................................................................................................... 15
2.2.3 Implementation factor comparison ...................................................................................... 16
2.3 Implementation obstacles ............................................................................................................ 19
2.3.1 Implementation barriers ....................................................................................................... 21
2.4 Implementation process .............................................................................................................. 23
2.4.1 Five dimension process to strategy implementation ............................................................ 23
2.4.2 Implementation barrier process ............................................................................................ 25
2.4.3 Importance of commitment and involvement ...................................................................... 29
2.5 Middle management and strategy implementation ..................................................................... 30
2.5.1 The different portrayals of the middle manager ................................................................... 32
2.6 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 33
2.7 Conceptualisation ........................................................................................................................ 34
2.7.1 Conceptualisation of research question one ......................................................................... 34
2.7.2 Conceptualisation of research question two ......................................................................... 37
2.7.3 Conceptualisation of research question three ....................................................................... 38
2.8 Emerged framework regarding research question one ................................................................ 39
3. Research methodology .................................................................................................................... 45
3.1 Research purpose ........................................................................................................................ 45
3.2 Research approach ...................................................................................................................... 45
3.3 Research strategy ........................................................................................................................ 46
3.3.1 Case studies .......................................................................................................................... 47
3.3.2 Unit of analysis .................................................................................................................... 47
3.4 Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 47
3.5 Sample selection ......................................................................................................................... 48
v
3.6 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................... 50
3.7 Validity and reliability ................................................................................................................ 51
3.7.1 Construct validity ................................................................................................................. 52
3.7.2 Internal validity .................................................................................................................... 52
3.7.3 External validity ................................................................................................................... 52
3.7.4 Reliability ............................................................................................................................. 52
3.8 Summary of methodology ........................................................................................................... 54
4. Data Presentation ............................................................................................................................ 55
4.1 Respondents ................................................................................................................................ 55
4.1.1 ICA Maxi Botkyrka ............................................................................................................. 55
4.1.2 SSAB.................................................................................................................................... 56
4.2 Strategy formulation ................................................................................................................... 56
4.3 Systematic execution .................................................................................................................. 57
4.4 Control and follow up ................................................................................................................. 58
4.5 Communication ........................................................................................................................... 60
4.6 Support and commitment ............................................................................................................ 61
4.7 Leadership and quality of implementation .................................................................................. 63
4.8 Culture......................................................................................................................................... 65
5. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 67
5.1 Analysis of the implementation process ..................................................................................... 67
5.1.1 Strategy formulation ............................................................................................................ 67
5.1.2 Systematic execution............................................................................................................ 69
5.1.3 Control and follow up .......................................................................................................... 71
5.1.4 Leadership ............................................................................................................................ 73
5.1.5 Support and commitment ..................................................................................................... 75
5.1.6 Quality of implementation ................................................................................................... 77
5.1.7 Vertical communication ....................................................................................................... 78
5.1.8 Culture .................................................................................................................................. 80
5.2 Analysis of middle management opportunities ........................................................................... 81
5.3 Analysis of middle management challenges ............................................................................... 84
5.4 International analysis .................................................................................................................. 87
6. Findings and conclusions ................................................................................................................ 88
6.1 How can the strategy implementation process for middle managers be described? ................... 88
6.2 What are the opportunities that middle managers create when implementing strategies? .......... 90
6.3 What are the challenges that middle managers face when implementing strategies? ................. 92
6.4 Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 93
6.5 Theoretical implications .............................................................................................................. 93
vi
6.6 Implications for practitioners ...................................................................................................... 94
6.7 International implications ........................................................................................................... 95
6.8 Implications for further research ................................................................................................. 95
List of references ................................................................................................................................. 96
Appendices Appendix A
Appendix B
List of figures Figure 1: Thesis outline Source: Authors own construct ........................................................................ 6
Figure 2: Implementing model: key decisions and actions ................................................................... 14
Figure 3: Strategy implementation dimensions .................................................................................... 23
Figure 4: Interaction of the six silent killers ......................................................................................... 26
Figure 5: Structural model for commitment and involvement .............................................................. 29
Figure 6: Strategy implementation dimensions .................................................................................... 35
Figure 7: The interaction of the six silent killers .................................................................................. 36
Figure 8: Emerged framework .............................................................................................................. 40
Figure 9: Summary of methodology ..................................................................................................... 54
Figure 10: The strategy implementation process from a middle management perspective .................. 88
List of tables Table 1: Summarisation of strategy implementation definitions and perspectives ................................. 7
Table 2: Summary of the five model approach ....................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Characteristics of archetypes .................................................................................................. 10
Table 4: Appropriate match between archetype and strategy ............................................................... 11
Table 5: Eight implementation levers ................................................................................................... 15
Table 6: Five levels of leadership ......................................................................................................... 16
Table 7: Six barriers to strategy implementation .................................................................................. 22
Table 8: Actions to prevent the implementation barriers ...................................................................... 27
Table 9: Middle management opportunities ......................................................................................... 38
Table 10: Middle management challenges ............................................................................................ 39
Table 11: Relevant situations for different research strategies ............................................................. 46
Table 12: Interviewee requirements ...................................................................................................... 49
Table 13: Background information of the interview respondents ......................................................... 50
Table 14: Validity and reliability techniques in order to reduce methodology problems ..................... 51
Table 15: Respondents according to industry ....................................................................................... 55
Table 16: Traits of the middle manager ................................................................................................ 63
Table 17: Traits of CEO and top management team ............................................................................. 64
Table 18: Strategy formulation compared to theory ............................................................................. 69
Table 19: Strategy formulation aspects solely supported by empirical data ......................................... 69
Table 20: Systematic execution compared to theory ............................................................................ 70
Table 21: Systematic execution aspect supported solely by empirical data ......................................... 71
Table 22: Control and follow up compared to theory ........................................................................... 72
Table 23: Control and follow up aspect supported solely by empirical data ........................................ 73
Table 24: Leadership dimension compared to theory ........................................................................... 75
Table 25: Leadership aspects supported solely by empirical data ........................................................ 75
Table 26: Support and commitment dimension compared to theory .................................................... 76
Table 27: Commitment aspects supported solely by empirical data ..................................................... 76
Table 28: Quality of implementation dimension compared to theory .................................................. 78
vii
Table 29: Communication dimension compared to theory ................................................................... 79
Table 30: Vertical communication aspects supported solely by empirical data ................................... 79
Table 31: Cultural foundation compared to theory ............................................................................... 81
Table 32: Summarisation of opportunities compared to theory ............................................................ 82
Table 33: Additional opportunities that middle management create supported solely by data ............ 84
Table 34: Summarisation of challenges compared to theory ................................................................ 85
Table 35: Additional challenges that middle management may face supported solely by data ............ 86
Table 36: Suggested opportunities created by middle management ..................................................... 92
Table 37: Suggested challenges that middle management face ............................................................ 93
1
1. Introduction
This chapter presents the background of the chosen research area as an introduction to the
thesis. Thereafter a problem discussion about strategy implementation and middle
managements role in connection to strategy implementation is provided in order to
familiarise the reader with the problem area. Furthermore the overall purpose of the thesis
and the associated research questions are presented. Lastly an outline of the structure of this
thesis is presented.
1.1 Background
“A strategy, even a great one, doesn’t implement itself”
- (Jeroen De Flander, 2017)
The success or failure of a firm can often be the result of the firm’s strategy (Porter, 1991).
However a good strategy does not ensure a company’s success because the situation
regarding the implementation and execution of strategy is complicated. If a strategy is not
effectively implemented no business strategy will be successful, but where the development
and formulation of strategy is difficult, the implementation and execution of strategy is even
more so. Despite this, managerial focus is often on the development of strategies and not their
execution. (Hrebiniak, 2006)
The essence of strategy can be narrowed down to the activities of a company that
differentiate the company from its competitors. It is about creating a fit among a company’s
activities. (Porter, 1996) There is no general definition of what strategy actually consists of
since strategy itself is multidimensional and situational and will therefore vary by industry
and circumstance. However in general terms, strategy can be said to be the activities and
processes conducted within a firm in order to take an organisation from point A to point B.
(Chaffee, 1985) Dobni (2003) concludes that strategy has two main objectives. The first
objective of strategy should be to position the company in order to compete and the second
objective of strategy is to create a climate to support implementation (Dobni, 2003).
Strategy implementation as a concept has been defined from several different perspectives
and depending on the authors’ approach strategy implementation is viewed differently
(Noble, 1999; Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004). For example Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984
cited in Noble, 1999) view strategy implementation as an act of control and measure, while
other researchers view strategy implementation with emphasis on interpersonal and behaviour
elements (Workman, 1993 cited in Noble, 1999). Miller et al. (2004) view implementation as
all the processes and outcomes that becomes a strategic decision after that decision has been
set by authority to go ahead and put that decision into practice. However the most common
view of strategy implementation is that it is an operationalisation of a strategic plan (Noble,
1999).
2
The strategy implementation process should be conducted side-by-side with the strategy
formulation process. This in turn will lead to plans that make up financially, socially and
ethically responsible strategies for a company. Successful implementation of a well
developed strategy further creates long term benefits for a company since it should lead to the
improvement of the organisation over time, enabling it to achieve its long term vision,
mission and corporate success. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008) However, well formulated
strategies will only result in superior performance for a company if the strategy is
successfully implemented (Noble, 1999).
Past research concerning strategy implementation has largely focused on top management
and how their actions and involvement can affect the implementation process (Lohrke,
Bedeian, & Palmer, 2004; Shimizu, 2017; Judge Jr & Stahl, 1995; Bourgeois & Brodwin,
1984). Top management play an important part in setting the organisational conditions for
effective implementation. It is the top managers that communicate the vision and direction of
the company. Further they are also responsible for encouraging members of the organisation
to be responsive and provide ideas and feedback to higher management. (Shimizu, 2017)
However research has found that strategy implementation is seldom consistent with strategy
development, indicating an implementation gap between the top management and the lower
levels of an organisation (Floyd & Woolridge, 1992; Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004).
Furthermore, Lohrke, Bedeian, and Palmer (2004) identified the need for further research in
the area of strategy implementation, outside that of the top management perspective.
Even though top management play an important role in the strategy implementation process,
there is a gap in top managements’ communication efforts and the effect this has on the
members of the firm. The gap is largely due to top management’s overestimation of the
quality of their communication down to the employees. (Shimizu, 2017) Researchers are
more and more starting to realise the importance of the employees outside the top
management and are starting to respond to the need for further research on the subject (Huy,
2001; Dobni, 2003; Guth & Macmillan, 1986; Noble, 1999; Alamsjah, 2011).
Middle management has had a bad reputation for a long time as far as strategy
implementation is concerned (Huy, 2001). The general picture of the middle manager is
depicted as the person whom, due to self-interest, will make or break the top management
formulated strategy (Guth & Macmillan, 1986). However, this portrayal is changing since
more and more research is showing the importance of the often neglected (Huy, 2001) middle
managers (Alamsjah, 2011; Huy, 2001). Middle managers make important contributions to
the implementation of strategy, but are often unnoticed by senior management (Huy, 2001).
The middle managers are the ones executing the strategy as well as the contributors to the
strategy implementation corporate culture (Alamsjah, 2011) and environment (Dobni, 2003).
It has even been suggested that maximum efforts of middle management is of utmost
importance when implementing new strategies (Judge Jr & Stahl, 1995).
3
1.2 Problem discussion
Previous research has illustrated that while the strategy formulation process is very important,
strategy implementation is equally important. Neglected or a poorly understood and realised
strategy implementation will not only lead to current poor performance but will also affect
future strategy formulation process. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008) A strategy that is
impeccable in its formulation has little to no value unless it is effectively implemented
(Noble, 1999).
This is especially important when one takes into consideration that 66% of corporate strategy
is actually never even executed (Johnson, 2004) or that 70% of strategic plans and strategies
are never successfully implemented (Sterling, 2003). In addition to this a study of a 1000
different organisations illustrated that 60% of employees think that their organisation is weak
in strategy execution and that only 37% of an organisations employees have a clear
understanding of what the organisation is trying to achieve and why. (Shimizu, 2017)
Another study conducted by Kaplan and Norton (2005) found that 95 % of a company’s
employees either do not understand or are unaware of the company’s strategy. This implies
that a gap occurs between the formulation and the implementation of a strategy, a gulf
between the strategies conceived at top management levels and awareness at lower levels.
This phenomenon has been called the implementation gap and research has shown that this
gap is widening. (Floyd & Woolridge, 1992; Noble, 1999)
A strategy with a successful implementation can prove to be largely beneficial to a company.
Effective implementation of strategy is even more crucial in a situation where a firm faces
declining performance. During declining circumstances a company’s management team
needs to take action and quickly formulate and then successfully implement strategies in
order to turn the situation around and save the company from failure. (Lohrke, Bedeian, &
Palmer, 2004) A well implemented strategy can in addition to saving a company in decline
from total bankruptcy (Ibid.) also create superior performance, give the company a
competitive advantage as well as give the company a stronger position than its competitors
(Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005). Furthermore a more recent study has found that the
effectiveness of strategy implementation is positively related to a company’s market
performance (Slater, Hult, & Olson, 2010).
For management, the current challenge lies in implementing strategy and not so much in
formulating it (Dobni, 2003). As stated in the background, previous research has emphasised
the CEO and top management team in strategic decisions however the importance of middle-
level management during the implementation of new strategic decisions has had a growing
recognition. (Judge Jr & Stahl, 1995; Wooldridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008) Previous research
has operated under the conception that middle managers are inconsequential or even worse as
detrimental (Huy, 2001) and a reason for why strategy execution failed (Floyd & Woolridge,
1992). Achieving a middle management perspective on strategy implementation is further
complicated by the fact that middle managers’ focus on processes makes identifying and
understanding outcomes relevant to middle management more difficult than outcomes
relevant to top management. Since top management research focuses solely on effects
4
affecting the company as a whole compared to middle management research who in addition
to outcomes affecting the whole company also researches the intermediate outcomes. This
has led to the middle management strategy research becoming rather fragmented.
(Wooldridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008) However recent literature is increasingly operating
under the view that middle management is highly valuable for strategy implementation.
(Thomas & Ambrosini, 2015)
There is no comprehensive and accepted definition of a middle manager (Ouakouak,
Ouedraogo, & Mbengue, 2014). However, one definition of middle managers is that they are
two levels below the CEO and one level above first-line supervisors. Middle managers hold
a particular and important position in regards to implementing change in a business. (Huy,
2001) The challenge for businesses is to motivate the senior marketing executive team to
recognise the need, value and importance of middle manager’s expertise (Thorpe & Morgan,
2007) If middle level management is involved in the strategic implementation planning the
commitment to the implementation process will increase. The earlier middle managers are
allowed to contribute to both plan and process the workability of a specific action plan will
improve. (Larry, 1985) It is through utilising middle managers that a company can gain
implementation allies (Thorpe & Morgan, 2007).
Middle management is an important aspect to strategy development and execution, middle
managers think and act strategically and should therefore be included in a company’s
decision making process (Pappas, Flaherty, & Wooldridge, 2003). Strategic consensus can be
defined as the shared understanding and commitment to a strategic directive between
individuals in an organisation. The higher degree of strategic consensus that can be found
within a company the higher possibility of implementation success. If strategic consensus
does not occur within a company, members of the company will not be operating under the
same goals and objectives. Consensus becomes important, especially if one regards
implementation through a trickle down perspective, where senior management creates and
initiates strategies which are then communicated through middle management to the
employees. (Noble, 1999) If senior management from the start clearly communicate the
strategy to middle managers the probability of a successful implementation increases (Kaplan
& Norton, 2000).
Current strategy implementation approaches fail to provide sufficient operational interface.
The inability to move the top management planned strategy in to action results in a
perplexing outcome of eminently defined strategy followed by poor or completely absent
implementation plans. (Dobni, 2003) If strategy is implemented in an organisation it will not
succeed or lead to great performance if it is solely ordered top to bottom. Instead the strategy
needs to be explained and understood by the people throughout the whole organisation since
it is the actual employees who will perform the strategy. This is where the importance of
middle level managers comes in. Middle managers fully understand competencies and core
values of an organisation and it is the middle managers who know how to convey this to the
employees in order to implement strategy. (Huy, 2001) Due to their unique position within
the company (Wooldridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008; Huy, 2001; Ahearne, Lam, & Kraus,
5
2014) middle management possesses the knowledge of how to get thing done, how to
motivate the workforce and how to avoid confusion and discord when implementing change
and strategy. (Huy, 2001)
Implementation of strategy and execution research has been facing a number of challenges
for a long time (Chebat, 1999). This area is in need of further research (Sarin, Challagalla, &
Kohli, 2012; Thomas & Ambrosini, 2015; Salih & Doll, 2013) since at present there is a lack
of literature regarding strategy implementation even though companies fail more often due to
implementation reasons and not due to strategy formulation reasons (Thomas & Ambrosini,
2015). This makes developing new research efforts more complicated. (Noble, 1999) The
how in strategy thinking is at least as important as the what. Strategies in general need to be
formulated realistically so they can be implemented adequately. However, the
implementation part does not attract as much interest as the formulation part of strategy.
While strategy formulation is viewed as romantic, the strategy implementation is viewed as
mechanistic at its best. Previous research is also currently lacking a more cohesive body of
previous literature concerning strategy implementation. (Chebat, 1999) The gap in literature
(Judge Jr & Stahl, 1995; Thorpe & Morgan, 2007) shows that middle managers are not fully
used (Thorpe & Morgan, 2007; Huy, 2001) nor does a conceptual model regarding strategy
implementation concerning middle management involvement exist. Managers want and need
a logical model to guide execution decisions and actions. (Hrebiniak, 2006)
1.3 Purpose and research questions
Based on the above mentioned background and problem discussion, the overall purpose of
this thesis is to provide a deeper understanding of how middle management actively operates
when implementing strategy. In order to answer the overall purpose, three different research
questions have been developed. They are stated as following:
RQ1: How can the strategy implementation process for middle managers be
described?
RQ2: What are the opportunities that middle managers create when implementing
strategies?
RQ3: What are the challenges that middle managers face when implementing
strategies?
1.4 Outline of the thesis
This thesis will in total consist of six different chapters; introduction, literature review,
methodology, empirical data, data analysis and findings and conclusions. Chapter two, the
literature review will present and describe relevant theories that are connected to the research
area. This chapter will also illustrate the developed frame of reference. The methodology
chapter is the third chapter which will describe how the thesis and research was conducted.
Thereafter the empirical data will be presented in the next chapter. The fifth chapter is the
6
data analysis. This chapter will connect, compare and evaluate the gathered empirical data
with the frame of reference which was created from past literature and presented in the
second chapter. The final chapter, findings and conclusions, will answer the thesis research
questions. In addition possible implications for further research and practitioners will be
presented. The outline of the thesis is illustrated in figure one below.
Figure 1: Thesis outline
Source: Authors own construct
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Literature
Review
Chapter 3 - Research
Methodology
Chapter 4 - Empirical
Data
Chapter 5 - Data Analysis
Chapter 6 - Findings and Conclusions
7
2. Literature Review This chapter presents previous research and theories that are relevant to the area of research
and the research questions. This chapter also presents the conceptualisation of the literature
and the emerged framework which serves as the foundation for the rest of the thesis.
2.1 Strategy implementation
As mentioned in the previous chapter, a general and unambiguous definition of what strategy
implementation entails does not exist (Noble & Mokwa, 1999; Noble, 1999). Strategy
implementation is often said to be the execution of the strategic plan (Floyd & Woolridge,
1992; Kotler, 1985 cited in Noble, 1999) though it has been argued that this view is too
limited since it does not take into consideration that initial plans often have to undergo
changes due to changing organisational or environmental conditions (Noble, 1999). Other
authors argue the control and monitoring aspect of implementation (Hrebniak & Joyce, 1984
cited in Noble, 1999) while others highlight planning and allocating of resources and
operational issues (Laffan, 1983; Cespedes, 1991 cited in Noble, 1999). Noble and Mokwa
(1999) combined several aspects of strategy implementation and state that implementation
can be regarded as consisting of the communication, interpretation, adoption, and enactment
of a strategy or a strategic initiative. This is in line with the most common interpretation of
strategy implementation which states that strategy implementation is the operationalisation of
a strategic plan (Noble, 1999). Strategy implementation is all the activities and choices made
in execution of a strategic plan (Wheelen & Hunger, 2012, p. 272; Favaro, 2015). Noble,
(1999) summarised the most prominent strategy implementation definitions and perspectives
as illustrated in table one below.
Table 1: Summarisation of strategy implementation definitions and perspectives
Definition Author(s)
Implementation is a series of interventions concerning organizational
structures, key personnel actions, and control systems designed to
control performance with respect to desired ends.
Hrebiniak and
Joyce, 1984
The implementation stage involves converting strategic alternatives into
an operating plan.
Aaker, 1988
Implementation is the managerial interventions that align organizational
action with strategic intention.
Floyd and
Woolridge, 1992
Implementation is the process that turns plans into action assignments
and ensures that such assignments are executed in a manner that
accomplishes the plan’s stated objectives.
Kotler, 1984
Implementation is turning drawing board strategy into marketplace
reality.
Bonoma, 1984
Implementation refers to the “how-to-do-it” aspects of marketing.
Implementation deals with organizational issues, with the development
of specific marketing programs, and with the execution of programs in
the field
Cespedes, 1991
During the implementation phase, a policy decision must be spelled out
in operational detail and resources allocated among programs.
Laffan, 1983
Source: Noble (1999) p. 120
8
Favaro (2015) also argues that a distinction between implementation and execution can be
made. If implementation is viewed as the decisions and activities undertaken to turn strategy
into reality, execution is the activities and decisions that turn the implemented strategy into a
commercial success. (Favaro, 2015) Though this distinction is not made by many researchers
and instead they treat implementation and execution as synonymous terms (Hrebiniak, 2006;
Lowey, 2015). Therefore this thesis will tackle strategy implementation and execution as
interchangeable.
2.1.1 CEO influence on strategy implementation
In an often cited paper by Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984) (Noble & Mokwa, 1999; Thorpe &
Morgan, 2007; Huy, 2011; Westley, 1990; Ahearne, Lam, & Kraus, 2014; Noble, 1999) the
authors review five different process approaches to implementing strategy. The processes
have their foundation in that the organisation’s CEO has to take on different roles and ask
different strategic questions depending on the desired result or outcome. This implies that
depending on what strategy has been developed the CEO of the organisation has to act
differently in order to achieve successful implementation. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984) The
table below illustrates the different roles of the CEO.
Table 2: Summary of the five model approach
Model Role of the CEO
Commander Rational actor
Change Architect
Collaborative Co-ordinator
Cultural Coach
Crescive Premise-setter and judge Source: Adapted from Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984)
The first model is called the commander model. In the commander model the CEO takes on
the role of a rational actor and focuses on the question: “How do I formulate the optimum
strategy?”. This process approach focuses only on the strategic position and guides the CEO
to map out the organisation’s future. The model is based around economic and competitive
analyses in order to plan resource allocations. Additionally, the model has an inbuilt bias
toward centralised direction and decision making. The model requires the CEO to hold a lot
of power and information, it does not consider the implementation part of strategic decisions
as an aspect that requires planning, resources, time and money. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)
The second model is labelled the change model and it starts where the commander model left
off, with the implementation aspect of strategy. The CEO takes on the role of an architect and
asks the question: “I have a strategy in mind: now how do I implement it?”. The model
handles the implementation aspect of strategy and emphasises how organisational structure,
incentives, control systems and the like can be used to facilitate the enforcement of the
strategy. In the model the CEO is the architect whose role is to design administrative systems
and apply behavioural techniques to manoeuvre the organisation towards the strategic plan in
order to achieve the predetermined goals of the strategy. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)
9
In the third model, which is called the collaborative model, the CEO takes on the role of a co-
ordinator and operates from the perspective of the question: “How do I involve top
management to get commitment to strategies from the start?”. The model focuses on group
decision-making and involves the top management in the strategy formulation process in
order to secure commitment to said strategy. In the model, the CEO uses group decision
making techniques such as brainstorming to get managers with different viewpoints to add to
the strategy formulation process. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)
In the cultural model the CEO takes on the role of a coach and works from the question:
“How do I involve the whole organization in implementation?”. In the model, strategy
implementation is enabled through the corporate culture that exists throughout the
organisation. The CEO guides the organisation by communicating the vision and mission of
the organisation and then letting the individuals throughout the organisation to take part in the
shaping of the firm’s future. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)
The final model is called the crescive model and it examines issues regarding strategy from a
principal/agent model, where the CEO takes on the role as premise-setter and judge and
works from the question: “How do I encourage managers to come forward as champions of
sound strategies?”. The model works from the perspective that managers have a tendency to
want to develop fresh opportunities when they arise in the day to day work. In this model the
strategy comes from the line workers and makes it ways to the top management rather than
the other way around. The CEO, as the premise-setter and judge, works a fine balancing act
when they need to define the organisations purpose broad enough to encourage innovation
and then rationally select among the strategy projects that reach the CEO’s attention.
(Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)
Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984) express their belief that these models are not mutually
exclusive but rather function together, where the CEO of an organisation takes on a different
role, with a different emphasise continuously during their period as chief executive,
depending on the situation. The models presented illustrate the complexity of tools that the
CEO might consider when leading an organisations strategy. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)
2.1.2 Organisational structure influences on strategy implementation
Miller, Wilson and Hickson (2004) state that under the right conditions, strategic planning
may improve organisational performance. In addition to managements capabilities the
outcome of implementing strategic decision is affected by the kind of organisation and its
structure. The organisation itself should possess a structure and culture of overall “readiness”
for strategic implementation and change, as well as in-house knowledge and experience. The
managers, or at least the management team, should possess a sensitivity to human issues,
capability of planning and have an insightful organisational knowledge in order to
successfully implement strategy. The overall successfulness of achieving set strategic
decisions depends on how versatile and flexible the responses are at both the organisational
and managerial levels. It does not depend as much on directives that are rule-bound and strict.
(Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004)
10
In a study of more than 200 businesses, Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) found evidence that the
way that a firm is structured and which behaviours are nurtured will strongly influence the
performance of the firm. The authors conducted the study by identifying a taxonomy of four
different types of structure and behaviour of a firm, which they refer to as organisational
archetypes. Furthermore, Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) matched the archetype to a specific
business strategy in order to determine which combination that best facilitates the
implementation of a specific strategy. Each of the four archetypes possesses different levels
of organisational structure and strategic behaviour as presented in table two below. (Olson,
Slater, & Hult, 2005)
Table 3: Characteristics of archetypes
Formalization Centralization Specialisation Customer
orientation
Competitor
orientation
Innovation
orientation
Internal/cost
orientation
Management
dominant
High High Low Low Low Low Low
Customer-
centric
innovators
Low Low High High Moderate High Moderate
Competitor-
centric cost
controllers
Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate High
Middle
ground
Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Source: Olson, Slater & Hult (2005)
The Management dominant firms have in comparison to the other archetypes a great
confidence in senior managers. The decision making is almost exclusively done by senior
managers and the authority and influence is moved high up the ranks. The second archetype,
labelled the Customer-centric innovators, are firms that have a high number of specialists
who understand the customers’ needs and innovate accordingly, all in an informal setting.
The Competitor-centric cost controllers are the archetype that consists of firms that put a
high focus on monitoring the competitors. In regards to decision making the firms have a
balanced approach between senior and middle managers. The fourth and last archetype is
called Middle ground and unlike the other archetypes, it has no distinctive characteristics.
The firms belonging to the middle ground category show no tendency to focus on any special
behavioural norms, nor do any of the structural elements get more attention than the other.
(Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005)
To know how well a firm’s strategy is matched to its behavioural structure and organizational
standard there is a need to know what the strategy consists of. Four different market strategies
have been identified. These four different strategies have been labelled Prospectors,
Analysers, Low cost defenders and Differentiated defenders. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005)
These strategies share some similarities to the classic Ansoff matrix (Ansoff, 1957). Firms
that adopt a prospector strategy face the challenge of identifying and exploiting new products
11
and opportunities that arise with new markets. The focus of this strategy is innovation and to
develop markets and products. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005) Much like the Ansoff matrix’s
market development and product development strategies, where focus lies on either
developing new products or exploring new market segments (Ansoff, 1957).
The analysers strategy plan is to in detail analyse the market, the products and its competitors
in order to identify gaps or contra-actions that they can exploit. The focus is to further
improve or reduce costs to already successful products, often started by prospectors, or
markets. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005)
Low cost defenders focus on establishing their products in stable markets. The firms
practicing the low cost defender strategy usually put attention on standardised practices that
enhance the efficiency rather than effectiveness that originates from flexibility. (Olson,
Slater, & Hult, 2005) This strategy is similar to the Ansoff Matrix’s market penetration,
where the focus also lies in trying to increase shares in already existing markets. Usually
there is an emphasis on competitive pricing. (Ansoff, 1957)
The last strategy that Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) identified is called Differentiated
defender. This strategy focuses on providing extraordinary products with high quality or
maintaining a desirable image. Much like the low cost defenders strategy, this strategy also
offers their products throughout the whole market with the difference that the prices are
higher. Even though the four strategies are different, there are possibilities to combine
strategies and be successful. With the different strategy approaches in mind, the authors
found that an appropriate match between strategy and archetype leads to higher performance
for the firm. The matches between archetype and strategy are shown in table three below.
(Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005)
Table 4: Appropriate match between archetype and strategy
Management
dominant
Customer-centric
innovators
Competitor-centric
cost controllers
Middle
ground
Prospectors Low High Low Low
Analysers Low High High Low
Low-cost
defenders
Low Low High Low
Differentiated
defenders
Low High High Low
Source: Olson, Slater & Hult (2005)
Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) found that the prospector firms that had the highest overall
performance were customer centric innovators. It is the fit between the prospector strategy,
which strives to find new products and markets, and the behaviours and norms of the
archetype Customer-centric innovators, which have a high number of specialists whom
innovates after the customer’s needs, which result in these firms excellent performance. For
12
firms that are adapting the Analysers strategy, the most successful way to implement such a
strategy is to have the archetype of either Competitor-centric cost controllers or Customer-
centric innovators. This is because Analysers focus on products and markets that already are
successful, which makes analysers fall into one of the two archetypes depending on flexibility
and if the mentality of the firm is to cut costs or improve upon products. As can be imagined,
the most successful archetype for Low-cost defenders is competitor-centric cost controllers.
This match is successful since the firms focus on understanding market prices, competitors
and its customers that are price sensitive. The Differentiated defenders that performed the
best were, like the Analysers, either Customer centric innovators or Competitor- centric cost
controllers. It is no surprise that there is compatibility between this strategy and the archetype
Customer-centric innovators. The focus lies in innovation and differentiation through
excellent products. What is surprising though, according to Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) is
“that Differentiated defenders that adopted the Competitor-centric cost control focus
performed almost as well.” (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005, p. 53)
2.1.3 Organisational climate influence on strategy implementation
Research suggests that one of the reasons why strategies are difficult to implement may not
lie so much in the type of strategy but rather in which context the implementation is applied
in. The context in this case refers to the organisational environment and culture that either
facilitates change or repels it. (Dobni, 2003) This is further strengthened by Alamsjah (2011)
who states that corporate culture has a significant impact on successful strategy
implementation and that especially middle level managers can more successfully accomplish
strategy implementation if they are aided by a supportive corporate culture (Alamsjah, 2011).
A firm’s structure and how that firm emphasise behaviour from their employees will strongly
influence the firm’s performance. It is beneficial if the organisational structure matches the
behavioural norms of the employees. The better the match the more successful the firm will
be in its performance. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005)
According to Dobni (2003) the most important action that a manager can do is to create an
environment that helps facilitate change. Dobni continues to describe a six aspect taxonomy
that a manager should follow in order to create a strategy implementation friendly
environment. The aspects are culture, coalignment, core competencies, connection, customer
value and communication. (Dobni, 2003)
Culture is the aspect that drives strategy. Culture is one of the internal variables that the firm
can somewhat control. In essence, a firm’s culture represents the aggregated opinions and
attitudes the members of the firm have about themselves, the company and the management.
So in order to create a change, implement strategy, the best way is to have a proactive and
encouraging culture that facilitates change in combination with managers that have
knowledge about the firm’s culture and how it operates. It should be known that national
culture influences corporate culture and especially managers’ decision making process.
Corporate culture can be viewed as a representation of the managers’ cultural backgrounds.
(Albaum & Herche, 1999) While corporate culture and national culture can be argued to be
different, both cultural aspects are interrelated as the national culture affects the employees
13
within the organisation and in turn the organisational culture. (Hofstede & Fink, 2007) Dobni
(2003) further states that an issue that might occur in regards to the firms culture and the
implementation of strategy is that the implementation efforts is only as strong as the lowest
common trait of the opinion and attitudes that exists within the culture. Dysfunctional
departments and employees as well as careless actions and practices might undermine the
culture that is being strived for. (Dobni, 2003)
Another aspect is coalignment which involves the fit between the culture and the strategy. In
order to yield the benefits that can occur if coalignment is achieved, managers need to
consider if the culture of the firm is in line with the competitive context. If the competitive
environment changes, so should also the culture of the firm, in order to maximize the firm’s
performance. The coalignment implies that it is important for the firm to have people,
processes and a culture that are flexible according to the changing environment. (Dobni,
2003)
Core competencies are the aspects in the taxonomy that are related to the strategy
implementation being moulded around the core competencies that the firm possesses. The
employees need to understand the core competencies of the firm and how they can contribute
to, and develop them. For management, it is important to be aware of the employee’s unique
capabilities and if the firm is promoting them in an efficient way. If there are capabilities
amongst the employees, the managers should utilise that employee accordingly since this can
benefit the firms’ implementation culture. (Dobni, 2003)
The fourth aspect in the taxonomy is connection and it addresses the question whether the
employees are connected to the values and vision of the firm. To create an implementation
friendly environment, it is of importance that the members of the organisation are connected
to the organisation’s vision. It is through this connection that the employees feel comfortable
and empowered enough to take value adding actions. If employees are not connected, it can
strangle innovation and the willingness for employees to do anything above their initial work
assignments. (Dobni, 2003)
The fifth aspect in the taxonomy is customer value, which for many firms is essential for their
continued existence and prosperity. Accordingly, it is important for a firm to support
objectives and behaviour that brings advantages to the customer value. For management, by
not neglecting customer value and truly understand what the companies specific customers
truly value, they can help create an essential foundation for strategy implementation. (Dobni,
2003)
Communication is the last aspect in the taxonomy. A lot of strategy implementation issues
can be directly traced back to poor communication. Inefficient communication leads to a lack
of trust for the management, the strategy, mission or vision of the firm, which in turn
undermines any implementation efforts. (Dobni, 2003) Having good communication in the
company can improve relationships which in turn will help with the effectiveness of strategy
implementation (Chimhanzi & Morgan, 2005). Management should identify the
14
communication barriers and remove them and work actively to improve communication
practices in the firm to create an environment that nurtures strategy implementation. (Dobni,
2003)
2.2 Implementation factors Previous research has identified several underlying dimensions that according to the middle
managers were crucial for successful strategy execution. Not only are these dimensions
important in the middle manager’s eyes, but seven out of the original 11 identified dimension
actually show to have a positive correlation to or a significant positive impact on successful
strategy implementation. The dimensions are: corporate culture, clear strategy,
communication, execution plan, people competencies, documentation and performance
management. The four dimensions that are left proved to be substantially less significant for
successful strategy implementation. These are: managing change, the CEO’s involvement,
organisational structure and uncertain environment. However, it should be said that the
reason for the dimension to be more or less significant may depend on if the middle managers
operates in well-established and -managed firms. (Alamsjah, 2011)
2.2.1 Integrated factors for successful implementation
Hrebiniak (2006) found that for organisations to successfully implement their strategies
managers require guidelines. Implementation needs to be regarded as a well-structured well
informed process therefore directions need to be made so as to lead and support the process
of implementation. (Hrebiniak, 2006)
Figure 2: Implementing model: key decisions and actions
Source: Adapted from Hrebiniak (2006)
Hrebiniaks (2006) model above is based on the author’s research regarding obstacles to
strategy implementation and is constructed from the most important findings. The first
conclusion that was possible to discern is that the implementation process should be
conducted with a logical flow, execution and decision should be done in a logical manner.
15
The model illustrates the logical order to execute decisions with its arrows, which presents
which decisions should be made before others. As the model describes, strategy
implementation is not a unilateral, down-ward only flow of communication. There are also
feedback loops in the form of control. These are necessary since an implementation process
should be a dynamic and adaptive process and if changes are occurring feedback about
performance against strategic short term objectives are necessary. (Hrebiniak, 2006)
2.2.2 Levers of implementation
Successful strategy implementation can also be achieved through structure and managerial
skills. Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) view strategy implementation as a vital element
when building an organisation and with the use of some appropriate “levers” of
implementation will help further the organisation. Through their research the authors
managed to identify eight such levers with structural and managerial implications for
organisations. The identified levers were divided so as four levers had structural implication
whilst the other four levers concerned managerial skills. The identified levers are described in
the table below.
Table 5: Eight implementation levers
Structural levers Managerial levers
Actions
Cross-functional integration and
company collaboration – who, what
and when.
Interacting Utilisation of strategic
leadership.
Programs Concerning organisational learning and
continuous improvement practices.
Allocating When and where to
allocate resources.
Systems Strategic support systems. Monitoring Rewards to achievements.
Policies Strategy supportive policies. Organising Strategic shaping of
organisational structure. Source: Adapted from Crittenden & Crittenden (2008)
As the table indicates strategy implementation can be divided into two different variables,
structures and managerial skills. The structural variables are levers that provide the
framework or configuration in which companies operate effectively while the managerial
variables concern the behavioural activities that managers use in the structures developed by
the organisation. Furthermore the structural variables can be said to be the toolkit that
organisations can use in order to identify key levers that influecnces the formulation to
implementation process. Managerial skills on the other hand are of a more subjective nature
and will therefore vary depening on the manager in question’s perception and behviour.
Together these levers should be able to facilitate strategy implementation, though all eight
levers might not be necessary in order to sucessfully implement strategy, the identification of
the different levers will indicate strong and weak aspects of an organisation that could have
an impact on strategy implementation. Strategy is executed through the structure with the
management skills as important indicators of whether the implemetation effort has been
succesful or not. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)
16
2.2.3 Implementation factor comparison
In order for a company to achieve a successful implementation, strategic leadership is
imperative. This implies that the first managerial variable interacting, or the exercising of
strategic leadership, is needed. This lever defined that a main responsibility of a leader was
direction, protection, orientation, managing conflicts and shaping norms. (Crittenden &
Crittenden, 2008) Five levels of leadership were identified and a hierarchy was constructed
(Collins, 2001). This is pictured in the table below.
Table 6: Five levels of leadership
Level 1 Highly capable individual Talent, knowledge, skills and work habits are
contributions.
Level 2 Contributing team member Works efficiently in groups and contributes group
objectives.
Level 3 Competent manager Organises both people and resources.
Level 4 Effective leader Develops visions and high performance
standards.
Level 5 Executive Enduring greatness through personal humility and
professional will. Source: Adapted from Crittenden & Crittenden (2008)
Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) found that all five levels of leadership were found in the
companies that they based their research on. Interesting to note is that while it is not
necessary for members of top management to move sequentially through the hierarchy they
must possess characteristics of all levels. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)
Hrebiniak (2006) stated that the first decision that needs to be taken into consideration for
successful implementation is corporate strategy. The corporate role is both strategic and
financial. Corporate strategy is all encompassing and focuses on all aspects of an
organisation. Such areas can be portfolio management, diversification and allocation of
resources. (Hrebiniak, 2006) This thought is strengthened by the second managerial lever,
resource allocation, from Crittenden and Crittenden (2008). Resource allocation includes the
usage of important resources such as money, people and capabilities. Moreover, physical,
human and organisational capital can also be regarded as resources that fall under this
variable where the managerial skill is to understand when and where to allocate resources.
(Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)
Corporate strategy is a key decision maker for the choice of corporate structure. Corporate
structure can also be expressed as a vital part of strategy implementation. The relationship
between organisational structure and implementation is a balance between centralised and
decentralised. Businesses have to be independent enough to respond to market changes,
competitor’s actions and customer needs in a timely manner. But at the same time different
businesses cannot be so decentralised that unnecessary duplication of resources occurs and
destroy all chances for synergies or scale economies across businesses. In order to execute
and achieve strategic goals corporations need to create the correct balance of centralisation
and decentralisation. (Hrebiniak, 2006) This is thought can be found in the last structural
17
lever identified by Crittenden and Crittenden (2008). This lever concerns a strategy
supporting policy that tackles day to day decisions and actions. The lever states that guidance
should be found top-down throughout the organisation and also consistency throughout
geographically dispersed units. These policies should be established through patterns and not
be based on individual incidents. This ensures that the policies support the organisations
overall mission and objectives. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)
The strategy supporting policy lever and Crittenden and Crittenden’s (2008) first structural
lever, actions, can also be discerned in one of Hrebiniaks (2006) success factors, namely the
need for integration concerning corporate structure. This refers to the actions taken in order
to achieve cooperation across the units that make up the organisation. Coordination and
integration is a necessity for the efficiency goals of an organisation and the effectiveness of
decentralised units. Hrebiniak (2006) further states that the choice of structure creates an
interdependence among differentiated units that places a premium on integration efforts.
(Hrebiniak, 2006) For an organisation to achieve successful implementation all players at all
levels of the organisation have to cooperate. This is independent on the strategy level,
regardless if it is corproate, business or functional strategy. Therefore the structural lever
actions can be defined as the actions that occur in an organisation in order to foster cross-
functional integration and collaboration. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)
The next step in Hrebiniak’s (2006) implementation model concerns business strategy, which
is focused on products, services and how to compete in the industry. Business strategy is
important for the implementation of corporate strategy. Though business strategy is important
in order to gain competitive advantage it is also important for the execution of corporate
strategy. An aspect, according to Hrebiniak (2006), which is often overlooked. Corporate
strategy and business strategy are interdependent, one will affect the other. Corporate
planning is responsible for assigning roles and goals for business units where the result or
performance of the business unit will in turn affect the execution of corporate strategy. If the
strategic performance at the business level is poor it will detract from the corporates ability to
reach its goals. Business strategy also creates demands that have to be met in order for
successful implementation. Functional skills, capabilities and competencies that make
implementation possible have to be created at a business level. Failure to respond to these
demands will lead to poor implementation. (Hrebiniak, 2006)
Business strategy has to be translated into short term operating objectives. This leads to
another decision in the implementation model, integrating strategy and short term objectives.
In order to achieve strategic objectives the objectives have to be converted to measurable
short term objectives. These short term objectives have to be in line with the business strategy
and how the business plans on competing. This translation process is an important and
integral part of strategy execution. (Hrebiniak, 2006) When translating the original top
management made strategy, into a more understandable and doable procedure, middle
managers play a key part in making this happen (Browne, Sharkey-Scott, Mangematin,
Lawlor, & Cuddihy, 2014).
18
Business structure is an important aspect for strategy implementation according to Hrebiniak
(2006). Even if businesses belong to the same organisation they may have different structure
or design depending on the competitive market they are in. Therefore imposing the same
structure on all businesses may not be ideal. Corporate should avoid this execution error at all
costs. Business structure should be determined by the nature of business strategy in order to
implement that strategy successfully. Important for strategy execution is also lateral
communication and managing across organisational functions. In order to achieve strategic
success coordination across business units has to be achieved. (Hrebiniak, 2006) This
perspective is found once again in the structural lever action which tries to foster cross-
functional integration and collaboration (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008). Furthermore
knowledge and information sharing and integration methods can increase a business’s
flexibility and therefore the organisation ability to respond to implementation challenges.
(Hrebiniak, 2006) This is illustrated in the structural lever strategic support systems.
Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) found that companies that are able to manage their
information technology investments have proven to have up to 40% higher returns than their
competitors. Strategic support systems facilitate companies with both qualitative and
quantitative information about customers, HR, revenues and costs, and inventory or order
fulfilment. Furthermore this structural lever can for example help facilitate other levers such
as making complicated cross-functional issues easier to understand. (Crittenden & Crittenden,
2008)
Incentives and control is the last aspect of Hrebiniak’s (2006) implementation model. In order
for implementation efforts to be successful some methods of acquiring individual and
organisational goal congruence is required. Execution according to Hrebiniak (2006) will fail
if no one has “a stake in the game”. Performance feedback is also important in order to
evaluate whether the right actions and decisions are being made. (Hrebiniak, 2006)
Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) also view this as important and regard monitoring as a
managerial lever that is needed in order to achieve successful implementation. Monitoring as
a strategy lever concerns tying rewards to achievements, good work should be rewarded and
recognised. Reward systems are often divided into two different groups, monetary and non-
monetary incentives. Salary increases, bonuses, stock options, promotions and retirement
packages fall under the monetary category while praise, constructive criticism, visible
recognition, interesting assignments and job security and are incentives that are non-
monetary. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)
An aspect that is needed for successful implementation of strategy to occur that Crittenden
and Crittenden (2008) discuss that Hrebiniak (2006) does not mention is creative capital - i.e.
the creative thinking in a company. This is regarded is one of the most important assets of a
company by Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) Creative capital in an organisation should be
planned with implementation in mind since this will in the end determine strategy
formulation and which strategies are executed. However, research has proven that simply
hiring creative thinkers is insufficient. Acquiring creative capital is the first step, though an
environment must then be built that will foster this. This leads to the structural variable;
19
programs which foster organisational learning and continuous improvement practices. These
programs should also incorporate innovation into this lever. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)
Culture has been found to have a strong relationship to strategy implementation (Crittenden
& Crittenden, 2008; Dobni, 2003). While each organisational culture is different and unique
to each company, organisational culture can be divided into three different parts. Internal
culture which is based on operational success, engineering culture drives core technology and
executive culture that engages the top management and its closest subordinates. Culture,
though unique to its company, is a powerful implementation tool for managers and should
therefore be reflected in managerial decision making. Therefore a managerial lever is
organising so as strategic shaping of culture occurs. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)
2.3 Implementation obstacles Miller, Wilson and Hickson (2004) research discusses apects to what contributes to poor
perfomance for an organisation. The authors argue that failure to achive strategic goals can be
a result of decisions which are either permanent, even when they go wrong, too unsure in
relative to the organisational scope, or do not consider the social and politial context of
implementation. (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004)
According to Hrebiniak (2006) the main obstacle regarding strategy implementation is the
lack of actual knowledge about strategy implementation. Much more is known about strategy
formulation and planning than the actual implementation. An often held view by managers is
that marketing strategy, financial strategy, human resource strategy, competitive strategy and
any other aspect of strategy that can be found within an organisation is the only “right”
approach is detrimental to the implementation. This is due to the execution of a strategy
requires an integrative view over the business. If the implementation is not able to be
coordinated across different functions the success rate of the implementation will be reduced
and the rate for problems to arise will increase. (Hrebiniak, 2006)
Another obstacle that can affect implementation success is the discord between top level
management and lower level employees. This implies that top management either disregards
their role in implementation or is unaware of it. Hrebiniak’s (2006) study found that top
managmet often had an attitude towards implementation where they believed their role was to
plan the strategy while the lower level employees carried out the demands and
implementation requirements. Therefore if the strategy failed the fault would not lie with the
managers but instead with the employees who were not succesfull in implemeting an
otherwise viable and sound plan. Though all organisation have a slight separation between
plan and execution, if this separation becomes dysfunctional, implementation difficulties and
problems will arise. For implementation to be succesfull Hrebniak (2006) states that
implementation demands ownership across all levels of management. Commitment from the
top all the way down is required. Implementation should be regarded as a key function and
responsibility of managers. (Hrebiniak, 2006)
20
Though it is possibe to clearly separate formulation and implementation of strategy into two
distinct parts of managerial process it is important to remember that they are also
interdependent. Often formulation or planning is distinguished from implementation where
implementation follows strategy planning. This is a logical assumption since executing
something that does not exist is not possible. But it is important to keep in mind that planning
affects execution and execution in turn will affect changes to strategy and long term planning.
This implies that the strategy implementation with most success will be when the employees
responsible for execution are also part of the planning process. The probabilty for success
increases if interaction between execution and formulation overlap. Furthermore it is possible
to discern that strategic success is dependent on planning and implementation processes are
able to be viewed simultainously. While planning the strategy managers need to think about
execution. Issues with the strategy execution need to be thought about and anticipated during
the formulation process. This integrated view is important but difficult to achieve and
therefore presents as an obstecle to strategy implementation. (Hrebiniak, 2006)
The long term aspect of strategy implementation may also present as an obstacle. Since the
implementation of a strategy may take several years it can make it more difficult for
managers to focus and control the execution process. (Hrebiniak, 2006) Some middle
managers find it more valuable if issues with the strategy are brought up as soon as possible.
Even though it may be time consuming and a hindrance for immediate implementation in the
short run, it can help reduce bigger issues with the strategy implementation in the long term
aspect (Browne et al, 2014). To further complicate this, the outcome of changes in strategy
and its execution is not always easy to determine due to “noise” or uncontrolled events. A
way to manage long term aspect of implementation is to translate long term needs into short
term objectives. Controls should also be set up in order to provide managers with feedback,
the implementation process itself should also be adaptive and dynamic so as to respond to
unanticipated events and compensate for them. (Hrebiniak, 2006)
One challenge when implementing strategy is the large number of individuals that must be
involved. The larger the number of people that are involved the greater the challenge for
successful implementation. This means that communication issues can arise top down or
across functions. Managers have to make sure that incentives throughout the organisation
support the execution efforts. Strategic objectives have to be linked to day to day objectives
at all levels and locations of the organisation which can prove to be problematic. (Hrebiniak,
2006) According to Dobni (2003) a primary reason why organisations find it difficult to
implement strategy is because of the implementation linkage. The difficulties occur because
the organisations focus on the link between positioning and performance instead on the link
between positioning and employee behaviour. In other words, just stating a desired position
for the company will mean nothing if the employees do not understand and actively work
towards that position. (Dobni, 2003)
Ineffective management of change has proven to be an obstacle to strategy implementation.
The purpose of strategies is to achieve competitive advantage and is often linked to the
businesses vision. This in turn implies that implementing new strategies often necessitate
21
change. Change to a company’s processes, systems, structures and/or culture. Implementing
strategies means inevitable change. However change can be difficult. Consequences of the
change are difficult to estimate even though risks are evaluated. Therefore the change
processes needs to be managed though this can also prove to be difficult. An aspect of change
is its interconnectedness, events may occur that affect both the strategy and the employees of
the organisation. In order to manage the change process it requires managers to have a
general awareness of the strategic direction and knowledge of operational activities at the
individual level. (Salih & Doll, 2013)
Poor communication can also present as an obstacle to strategy implementation. Poor
communication can lead to misinterpretation and loss of meaning. It can even undermine
implementation efforts. This may occur if information is inaccurate, poorly stated, sent to the
wrong person or otherwise problematic. (Salih & Doll, 2013)
Another obstacle found by Salih and Doll (2013) is the needed discipline to support strategy
implementation. The absence of a supportive discipline has proved to be a pressing problem.
An unsupportive discipline may include reactionary management style, being to tactical and
less strategic, conflicting perspectives, focus on day-to-day urgent matters and performance
driven culture. These impede strategic thinking, reflection, creativity and innovation. (Salih
& Doll, 2013)
2.3.1 Implementation barriers
When organisations seek to gain competitive advantages or to change the first step is
developing a strategy and thereafter implementing the strategy. The process of
implementation is however rather complicated. It requires realigning structures, systems,
leadership behaviour, HR policies, culture, values and management processes and between
the ideal strategic alignment and implementation lies several opportunities for problems.
Especially when companies often face barriers that block strategy implementation and
organisational learning. To further complicate matters these barriers can often be unseen,
meaning that they are difficult for companies to identify. These barriers, or silent killers as
they were named by Beer and Eisenstat (2000), do not mean immediate failure for the
strategy implementation process as long as businesses are aware of them and leaders within
the organisation actively engage people throughout and communicate about the barriers and
their underlying causes. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
Identified problems concern structure, systems, management processes and human resource
policies but there are six main “silent killers” that are common and often found to be a
hindrance to strategy implementation. These barriers are presented in the table seven below.
(Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
22
Table 7: Six barriers to strategy implementation
Strategy implementation barriers
1 Top-down or laissez-faire senior management style
2 Unclear strategy or conflicting priorities
3 An ineffective senior management team
4 Poor vertical communication
5 Poor coordination across functions, businesses or borders
6 Inadequate down-the-line leadership skills and development Source: Adapted from Beer & Eisenstat (2000)
These six barriers were labled silent killers since they are very seldom acknowledged or
explicitly addressed in organisations. To further complicate matters some barriers may
actually cause hinderence to address other barries. An example of this is the barrier poor
vertical ommunication. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
The first barrier to strategy implementation identified by Beer and Eisenstat (2000) is the top-
down or laissez-faire senior management style. This aspect includes conflict avoidance or
discomfort, often absent management during acquisitions and the top team is used for
administrative tasks rather than strategic discussions. Furthermore this variable identified that
decisions were often made by top management without fully considering input from
functioning managers. This makes the necessary coordination to implement strategies to
suffer which affects the development of lower level-managers. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
The two silent killers conflicting priorities and poor coordination are strongly linked to each
other. If an organisation has competing strategies, or aspects of strategies that conflict they
may start battling each other for resources. This in turn can lead to an internal competition
between factions around the two strategies, which if not handled correctly can lead to the
organisation tearing itself apart from within. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
The ineffective senior management team barrier to strategy implementation also has a link to
previous mentioned barriers. It concerns the decision making and the operation of the top
team in an organisation. A common occurrence is that the top team operate in silos which
imply that they work very independently. This can result in skewed perceptions and
inefficient cooperation. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
The poor vertical communication barrier occurs when a gap in communication between
employees of an organisation and it managers occurs. If employees suspect that management
chose to avoid potentially threatening or embarrassing issues, and that lower levels should
keep observations to themselves communication issues may arise. Employees can often
recognize problems but if management is not open for discussion the problems cannot be
solved. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
Inadequate down-the-line leadership is the last barrier. If lower level management are not
afforded the opportunities to lead or change, supported through training, coaching or
23
leadership themselves, lower management will not develop the necessary skills. This barrier
requires open engagement with root causes. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
2.4 Implementation process Implementation should be regarded as a process that requires a great deal of attention in order
to make it work. The execution of a strategy cannot be comprised to just a single decision or
action instead it is the result of a series of integrated decisions and actions over time. If
companies try to find quick solutions to their execution problems the probability of them
failing is very high. Successful integration takes time and attention. This can present as a
challenge for managers and increases the difficulty of achieving a successful strategy
implementation. (Hrebiniak, 2006)
2.4.1 Five dimension process to strategy implementation
Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) identified a five dimensional process from a Latin
American perspective, that has an impact on the implementation of business strategy. The
authors assert that if a firm correctly develops these dimensions it can improve their chances
on successfully implementing strategy and therefore also improve the chances of being
successful in the market, i.e. gaining competitive advantage. Strategy formulation, systematic
execution and strategy control and follow up are the dimensions that can be regarded as a
series of independent decisions that allows the firm to define assumptions of underlying
strategy and move those now defined assumptions into the instruments of feedback plan and
performance. The two facilitating dimensions are the dimensions that are necessary as
supportive dimensions in order to make the processes of the first three effective. (Brenes,
Mena, & Molina, 2008) The relationship between the dimensions are illustrated in the figure
below.
Figure 3: Strategy implementation dimensions
Source: Adapted from Brenes, Mena & Molina (2008)
24
The strategy formulation dimension is the aspect that helps the firm identify implementation
barriers. It is also the dimension that helps set the foundation of the mission and vision for the
firm as well as it helps set priorities. Strategy formulation deals with all the parts that a
company uses when formulating strategy. First of all, consideration must be given to all
relevant aspects concerning the firm, such as the environment, industry and competition,
these and the process of formulation itself should then be surveyed in an extensive and
analytical way. Another component is the internal partner’s involvement since they all
contribute and it is of essence that they are committed to the strategy. The long term vision is
a component that assures that the chosen strategy is the one best suited for the firm. The
external advisors presence is the ones that activate the strategy formulation process. (Brenes,
Mena, & Molina, 2008)
The systematic execution dimension relates to all the actions taken by the firm while
implementing strategy. One of the components of systematic execution is that the
organisation should establish a priority system for each action that should be implemented.
Another component considers the firms structure and culture, they should be aligned to the
new strategy and may need adjustments. The final component in this dimension is the
delegation for decision making which makes sure that the decision making effectively goes to
the right individuals who are responsible for implementing parts of the strategic actions.
(Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)
The last one of the three dimensions is strategy control & follow up which relates to the way
that the company evaluates and controls the strategy implementation progress. The first
component is that the firm needs to establish some form of control systems that best work for
the specific firm. Feedback is another component that is important as to assess how the work
is going, by constantly providing feedback on how the execution and implementation of
strategy is going. The last component is monitoring, measure and adjustment. This
component occurs when the firm constantly monitors the business environment in order to
forecast trends and/or strategy adjustment that are required, instead of just reacting to threats
and opportunities. By having control and follow up it is possible for the firm to measure the
strategic progress and maintain the course of the strategy. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)
The supporting process dimension CEO's leadership and suitable, motivated management
and employees is essential in order to attain success. It is complicated to implement strategy
in the absence of CEO commitment and leadership, however it is the managers and
employees that are ultimately responsible for the implementation of strategy. Still, without
efficient communication from the CEO, explaining and motivating the employees, it will
most likely lead to a poorly executed strategy. Another component is that the top
management is responsible for the recruitment and development of talented employees that
are fully aligned with the company’s strategy and culture. This is related to the last
component which is to add a clear understanding of the firm’s goals, objectives and priorities.
Accordingly, if this is done effectively, it should result in a firm that is able to perform in a
competitive environment. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) The need for top managements
support and engagement is also strengthened by Ramaseshan, Ishak and Kingshott (2013)
25
who argues that by showing commitment and support towards middle marketing managers it
facilitates their decision making as well as creates larger commitment to the strategy being
implemented.
The last supporting dimension is called corporate governance leading the change. The first
component of this dimension is that there must exist commitment at all levels to the strategic
change, of the corporate governance system, to a point of leading it. Commitment is also
important amongst the stockholders, since strategical actions do require investment. The last
component is commitment and agreement amongst the concerned stakeholders. In other
words, it is necessary to achieve a level of commitment and agreement amongst all those
parties that are in some way involved in the firm. This agreement and commitment involves
parties from management and stockholders down to the employees and is concerned with all
from the strategy, the long-term results to the financial support. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina,
2008)
2.4.2 Implementation barrier process
The six barriers to implementation, which were mentioned in the implementation obstacles
section, can be troublesome for organisations individually but if they occur together it can be
even more worrying for businesses. Together these barriers create a vicious circle from which
it can be very difficult to escape. These six barriers can be divided into three different
categories; quality of direction, quality of learning and quality of implementation. Though
separate these three different categories all interconnect and influence each other. It is
difficult to achieve successful implementation if the first step, i.e. quality of direction is poor.
(Beer & Eisenstat, 2000) The figure below illustrates the six strategy implementation barriers,
grouped into the three different categories and how the interaction between them occurs.
26
Figure 4: Interaction of the six silent killers
Source: Adapted from Beer & Eisenstat (2000)
During their research Beer and Eisenstat (2000) found that businesses often had three distinct
responses towards the six strategy implementation barriers – avoidance, managerial
replacement and engagement. The three responses, at least to some part, proved to be
successful however the engagement response has the best chance of building long term
competitive capabilities. The authors established actions for each barrier that directly
addresses the problem of that barrier. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000) The actions corresponding to
each implementation barrier are presented in the table below.
27
Table 8: Actions to prevent the implementation barriers
Barrier to implementation Preventative actions
Top-down or laissez-faire senior
management style.
Create partnership built around the
development of a business direction,
enabling organisational context and the
delegation of authority to accountable
individuals and teams.
Unclear strategy and conflicting priorities. A statement of strategy is created by the top
team as a group and priorities are developed
which the members are willing to back.
An ineffective senior management team. Top team as a group is involved in all
aspects of the change process so that its
effectiveness is tested and developed.
Poor vertical communication. Honest communication based on facts should
be established with lower management
Poor communication across functions,
businesses and borders.
Define business wide initiatives, new
organisational roles and capabilities to
facilitate implementation.
Inadequate down-the-line leadership skills
and development.
Lower-level management develops skills by
leading change and driving key business
initiatives. By supporting, coaching, training
and recruitment should ensure success. Source: Adapted from Beer & Eisenstat (2000)
Quality of direction is the first step in the model created by Beer and Eisenstat (2000) and
concerns the barriers regarding management and strategy. Ineffective, top-down, laissez-faire
senior management and unclear strategies are closely related barriers. The senior
management approaches lead to ineffective teams if the CEO sidesteps the senior
management when making decisions, the teams potential may suffer through laissez-fire
approach to management since discussions are avoided that may cause conflict and if
management is done on a one-to-one basis it may cause limitations to group discussions. This
implies that strategically important issues may not be discussed in-depth in the group and in
order to avoid unsolvable conflicts the CEO may work in a one-on-one setting. This kind of
pattern then results in reduced trusts, less effective strategy formulation and then poor
business performance due to poor implementation efforts. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
In order to tackle the first implementation barrier, top-down or laissez-faire senior
management style, a business requires an engaged leadership approach. Employees should
not be viewed as barriers concerning strategic change and execution. If they are properly
engaged, employees become true partners to a business. By engaging the top management
team with lower level employees businesses are able to evaluate and develop alternatives that
are viable for the company. This should result in an improved strategic plan and execution
process that has the commitment of both top management and lower levels tasked with
execution. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
28
Unclear strategies or conflicting priorities is classified as the second barrier. In order to solve
this obstacle it is recommended to create a clear business direction. This can be done by the
top team as a group. By developing the strategy statement in a group it will ensure that the
top management and the business teams tasked with enacting it share the same views.
Feedback is an important step here since it allows those tasked with developing the strategy
to clarify and redefine strategy when needed. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
Effective senior management is the preventative action corresponding to the third barrier –
ineffective senior management. This action implies that senior management should work as a
group and be highly involved in the change process. If the top team is involved in almost
every aspect – strategy development, organisational diagnosis, action planning,
communicating the change and monitoring – the team must work cohesively. Otherwise
unknown internal competition or hindrances may occur. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
The next cogwheel in the model is the quality of organisational learning which implies the
vertical communication in an organisation. Vertical communication has a large impact on a
business strategy implementation and its ability to refine its strategy. If a strategy is not able
to be communicated downwards, why new ways of working are demanded or the employees
do not receive guidelines, employees will not know what day-to-day activities they should
undertake. Furthermore poor upwards communication can affect the business. If employees
do not know the direction of the business they will not know how to get it there nor can
employees inform higher levels of potential problems. Poor vertical communication will
affect implementation if those tasked with the execution cannot communicate with senior
management about problems. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
If vertical communication is available within a business it can provide several positive
effects. For example, open fact based communication often results in trust and commitment.
If higher management is open to communication and feedback it can show that they care
about the employees. So not only will feedback about issues and how to solve them be
received but also show that management is serious and takes thoughts and opinions of
employees into consideration. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
Quality of implementation is the last process in the model. If the barriers regarding
management practices hinder lower level coordination the needed down-the-line leadership
skills and capabilities will not be developed. Middle managers will not be able to collaborate
effectively across functions, businesses and countries if they are pushed in different
competing directions from higher management. Furthermore understanding the strategic
direction will facilitate perspectives with the result of lower level management capable of
independently judging and taking actions. If only the CEO has the understanding of the
whole picture all major decisions are required to be made at the top. A direct result of this is
the sixth implementation barrier, inadequate leadership development down the line. Top-
down management is not capable of providing leadership development. A dilemma here
found by Beer and Eisenstat (2000) is that top management has difficulties in finding people
to run cross functional programs. This is due to, according to the authors research, “Senior
29
managers point to the paucity of management talent and conclude that lower-level managers
can’t handle increased responsibility” (ibid. p.34). This is a vicious cycle illustrating how the
six barriers are connected. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
If teamwork can be created – through role realignment, responsibilities and accountability –
business should be able to tackle the barrier poor coordination across functions, businesses
and borders. Businesses should try to avoid silos and instead aim for cross-functional
business teams. This should enable the teams to understand the direction of the company and
facilitate the alignment of different parts of the organisation. This will also highlight who is
responsible for what and a measure of accountability for decisions to be made. (Beer &
Eisenstat, 2000)
By creating strong leadership with a general management perspective a business should be
able to prevent inadequate down-the-line leadership skills. Research has found that strategy
implementation requires lower level management that are able to coordinate strategic
initiatives across functions, business units and borders. With increased confidence in lower
level management senior management will be able to delegate authority to them as members
of the business team. This should be effective in general terms since the lower level managers
are aware of day-to-day practices in the business. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
2.4.3 Importance of commitment and involvement
For all concerning stakeholders of the firm, including middle level managers (Brenes, Mena,
& Molina, 2008), it is important to have a level of commitment to the implementation process
(Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008; Ramaseshan, Ishak, & Rabbanee, 2013). The authors
Ramaseshan, Ishak and Rabbane (2013) developed a structural model illustrating different
organisational factors where commitment and involvement from the managerial perspective
is needed, which will have a positive impact on organisational performance. See figure
below.
Figure 5: Structural model for commitment and involvement
Source: Adapted from Ramaseshan, Ishak, & Rabbanee (2013)
30
The authors found that innovative culture, top management support and autonomy have a
notable positive effect on commitment. Innovative culture refers to the total atmosphere,
behaviours and attitudes existing in the organisational context, which in this case is
specifically related to promoting innovation and willingness to take changes. The
organisational factor that refers to the top management support is related to which extent the
managers feel that the top managers’ value and support the strategy that is being formulated
and later implemented. The last organisational factor called autonomy refers to the extent of
which the managers have freedom to make decisions as well as act independently when
needed. (Ramaseshan, Ishak, & Rabbanee, 2013)
The involvement refers to how much managers are involved in formulating and creating
strategy. (Ramaseshan, Ishak, & Rabbanee, 2013) Managers that are more involved in
strategy tend to see and act towards the implementation process in a more favourable and
effective way (Collier, Fishwick, & Floyd, 2004). Middle managers that are excluded from
the strategic process feel dissatisfaction which in turn could lead to inefficiency and added
costs to the firm (Westley, 1990). According to the study done by Collier, Fishwick and
Floyd (2004) managers that show a higher level of involvement in strategy process have a
different viewpoint and attitude than those managers that are not as involved. Involved
managers are more likely to see the strategy implementation process as less top-down, as less
constrained by external aspects and that the strategy better incorporates a stronger vision and
greater adaptiveness. Managers act on perception, this means that even if the perception does
not correspond to reality, the managers are presumably going to act as if it did. This further
means that managers that are involved in the strategy process not only causes them to set a
more desirable set of impressions but also causes a more desirable set of behaviours. I.e. The
more managers see the process as positive, they become more likely to change their
behaviour into one that better matches with effective strategy development which in turn
means that they are increasing their involvement which may lead to a “…positive self-
reinforcing cycle of perceptions and behaviour.” (Collier, Fishwick, & Floyd, 2004, p. 76)
2.5 Middle management and strategy implementation In the past 25 years more and more research has started to focus on strategy implementation
and general organisational change through the perspective of middle managers (Wooldridge,
Schmid, & Floyd, 2008). The authors’ refer to this body of work as the “middle management
perspective”. The middle management point of view is important when one wants to get a
deeper understanding of the organisational process when building and renewing new
competences. (Wooldridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008) The middle manager perspective also
unlocks the possibilities to make further theoretical contributions to a number of research
streams that are not yet looked into, as example in an international business perspective.
Middle managers are of great usefulness since their relative success can be connected to the
success of their subsidiary unit. (O'Brien, Scott, & Gibbons, 2013)
Strategizing, i.e. formulating and implementing strategy, has a large social practice aspect to
it (Thomas & Ambrosini, 2015). If the social aspects are lacking, for example the support
from top managers and lack of trust amongst middle managers, it can create organisational
31
change cynicism. If cynicism has already become a part of the organisation, then inviting
middle managers to participate is not enough to change the situation. Even though middle
managers are more likely to be psychologically engaged to the results of the strategy
implementation process if they had the possibility to be a part of the process and express their
opinions, more is needed to change cynicism. Nevertheless, inviting middle management into
the process will not alone change already established organisational change cynicism, it is
beneficial for the firm in the long-run. (Barton & Ambrosini, 2013) Middle manager’s social
capital and social networks, as well as their skill to cultivate those relationships, have an
impact on their performance of influencing upwards and downwards in the organisation
(Ahearne, Lam, & Kraus, 2014). According to Furnham (2002) the social skills that middle
managers possess, in the form of courage, communication, feedback and sensitivity can be
seen as one of the firm’s core competencies. If these social skills are not present it would lead
to a firm with underperforming employees, lack of innovation and a corporate culture that is
harmful not only for the employees but for the company’s performance. (Furnham, 2002)
Middle management’s commitment to strategy implementation is critical for the execution to
be successful since they are a valuable source of knowledge and information that is required
in the implementation process. Middle management contributes to strategy implementation
by translating organisational strategies into everyday operational actions through monitoring
individual performance, developing methods to achieve a strategy and ensure alignment
between strategy and expected behaviour. (Salih & Doll, 2013) Strategy may fail because of
lack of commitment from middle managers (Salih & Doll, 2013) but it may also happen due
to more complex reasons that are connected to the middle managers sudden change in
organisational vision (Pors, 2016). This interruption in strategy implementation may occur
when middle managers suddenly become more aware of the non-linear existence of the
corporate strategy. As a result, they begin to wonder about the bigger picture, the social and
political aspects of their operation and often request time to reflect, think and connect the
proposed strategy to their own values as individuals before they act to implement the
strategy, therefore causing the interruption in strategy implementation. (Pors, 2016)
Middle management holds a unique position in a business in regards to strategy
implementation. Due to middle managers knowledge of day-to-day operations, familiarity
with operations and organisational processes, middle management occupy a place in an
organisation where they can advise higher level management about strategic direction and
potential obstacles to strategy implementation. Therefore the structural position of middle
managers becomes important to strategy implementation. The strategic direction can be
evaluated through middle managers since they are aware of the day-to-day work conducted
by employees, the skill sets of the employees and market dynamics. This implies that they are
able to assess if the strategic direction is in alignment with market trends and the internal
capabilities. This also means that middle managers can indicate risks or trade-offs that may
be necessary if the strategy is pursued. The structural position of middle management also
allows them to advise senior management about resource requirements for successful
execution. (Salih & Doll, 2013)
32
Middle management also holds the role as communicator for strategy implementation. They
act as translators for the strategic intentions developed by top management. Middle
management holds the best position in the company for strategy implementation execution.
They translate and convey on behalf of the top management, they facilitate with downward
flow of information and alignment between functional areas of a business. (Salih & Doll,
2013) It is the middle managers whom, through their awareness of the business and their
boldness to challenge the top managers’ decisions and knowledge, decipher the formal
strategy and make it applicable in everyday operations. This enables the top management’s
vision to be implemented but done so in a more efficient way through the appropriate
medium and communication throughout the organisation. In other word, the middle managers
adapt and translate the formal strategy into something much more comprehensible for
everyone that actually is responsible for implementing the strategy. (Browne et al., 2014)
2.5.1 The different portrayals of the middle manager
Middle managers do not deserve (Huy, 2001) the bad reputation as the ones who sabotages
strategical change in an organisation (Guth & Macmillan, 1986). Rather they are valuable to
the strategy implementation process (Furnham, 2002) as they work as a contributor to the
realisation of strategy in four major areas: as an entrepreneur, as a communicator, as a
therapist and lastly as the person who delicately balances the progression and stagnation
within the firm. (Huy, 2001)
Middle managers are entrepreneurs in the way that they are able to see new possibilities for
both organisational growth and problem solving. This is because, as a group they are more
diverse than the top management team as well as they are close to the everyday operations.
This means that they know and understand the dynamics and problems that can occur, and yet
are positioned far away enough to see the entire perspective of the firm. Therefore, when the
time comes to implement strategical change, middle managers unique position in the
organisation enables them to envision and implement the change. This position also allows
them to come up with creative ideas and innovation to further strengthen the company’s
position in the market. (Huy, 2001)
Due to middle manager’s unique position in the company they are well suited to
communicate change throughout the company (Huy, 2001). This unique position for the
middle managers is also referred to as “boundary spanners”. The middle managers boundary
spanner role has the result, that with their ideal position which allows middle managers to
detect environmental changes and judge their involvement in to the organisations strategies,
that the strategies are always up to date with the current situation. (Ramaseshan, Ishak, &
Rabbanee, 2013)
Change in a company in the form of strategy has two stages to it; formulation and
implementation, and it is well known that failure to succeed more often than not occurs in the
implementation stage. It is therefore of utmost importance that the strategy is clearly
communicated. Middle managers unique position gives them the opportunity to communicate
many parts of the organisation since they often have a large social network within the
organisation. If the middle manager has credibility and an extensive network and indeed
33
understands and appreciates the proposed strategy, the middle manager is more likely to sell
it to the rest of the firm in an easy, subtle and calm way. (Huy, 2001)
Middle managers act as the therapist when strategical change is being implemented. The
change can result in emotional turbulence and concern amongst the employees. This
uncertainty and fear amongst the employees can in worst case result in a complete halt in the
intellectual part of the firm. People stop learning, stop adapting and are not motivated, they
are inclined to leave the firm or are afraid to act in the firm. The top management teams are
too far away to address this problem since the communication will be in obscure corporate
speech, top-down. The middle managers however, are in the ultimate position to address the
employee’s wellbeing. Middle managers can create a psychologically safe work environment
by communicating on a personal and individual level with the employees. (Huy, 2001)
Middle managers keep the work going, they are problem solvers and as established, they
possess a unique position in the firm. Middle managers are thought to act as the ones
performing the balancing act between making changes happen and not making changes
happen too fast, especially when change is being implemented in the firm. If change were to
occur too fast it would result in complete chaos but on the same note if change were to
happen too slowly it would result in organisational stagnation. Due to the mentality of middle
managers as a group as well as their once again unique positon in the organisation, they
surprisingly often perform this balancing act considerably well. (Huy, 2001)
2.6 Discussion Literature suggests that the view of middle management has recently undergone a change.
While middle managers are of great importance to the strategy implementation process
(Alamsjah, 2011; Huy, 2001; Dobni, 2003; Judge Jr & Stahl, 1995) they are not the exclusive
reason why strategy implementation will fail or succeed (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004;
Dobni, 2003; Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984). Strategy implementation’s success or failure is
also largely due to what kind of organisation is in question and that organisations particular
structure (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004). Implementation is also dependent on how well
the business strategy matches the multiple levels of organisational structure and strategic
behaviour (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005), the overall corporate culture (Alamsjah, 2011), in
which direction the CEO is working (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984), if there is an overall
organisational and systematically agreement amongst all concerning stakeholders (Brenes,
Mena, & Molina, 2008) and the organisational environment, which either facilitates strategy
implementation or resists it (Dobni, 2003). These are aspects to strategy implementation
where middle managers have little to no influence over and illustrate the different
organisational settings where middle managers may operate.
On the other hand there are many aspects and qualities of middle management that are
beneficial or facilitate strategy implementation. The position middle managers hold in a
company allows them insight about strategic direction and obstacles to strategy
implementation that top management will not be able to see. Middle management also acts as
a valuable source of knowledge and information that is necessary for the implementation
34
process. Furthermore it is middle management who translates the strategy into everyday
operational actions, facilitate with the communication flow and ensure alignment between
functional areas of a business. (Salih & Doll, 2013) In short it is possible to state that it is the
middle managers who adapt and translate top management made strategy into
comprehensible objectives and actions for the employees of the organisation that are
responsible for implementing the strategy (Browne et al., 2014).
While the importance of middle managers is becoming more and more clear when it comes to
strategy implementation there are still areas that need to be filled. This thesis sets out to
examine how middle management operates when given a strategy to implement. With middle
managements importance to strategy implementation being a relative new area within
academia (Noble, 1999) no well-known process of how a middle manager works during the
implementation process exists (Hrebiniak, 2006). Therefore this thesis will utilise two
implementation processes, Brenes, Mena and Molina’s (2008) strategy implementation
dimensions and Beer and Eisenstat’s (2000) implementation barriers, and apply a middle
management perspective to them.
2.7 Conceptualisation With previous research in the relevant research area reviewed it is now important to establish
a connection between the existing research and how it is going to be utilised in this study.
Several aspects of strategy implementation have many different views among the academics
and it is thusly required to make a well-considered choice regarding what theoretical views
are appropriate for this study. The purpose of the conceptualisation and the emerged
framework is to work as the theoretical foundation for the following data collection and
analysis. Furthermore the conceptualisation and the framework will be used as the basis in
order to answer this particular study’s overall purpose, “to provide a deeper understanding of
how middle management actively operates when implementing strategy”, and the three stated
research questions.
2.7.1 Conceptualisation of research question one
The first research question examines the link between middle managers and strategy
implementation. Research question one tries to establish an accurate portrayal of what the
middle managements implementation processes looks like. In order to do so there is need to
look at existing strategy implementation processes that applies to businesses’ on an
organisational and structural level and then apply a middle management perspective to those
processes. This is due to what Hrebiniak (2006) states that there does not yet exist a
frequently used and cited implementation process from the middle managers perspective.
First model
As a basis for this study the first model that will be used is the strategy implementation
dimensions by Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008). The model describes the key variables for
businesses when implementing strategy, these variables are then presented in the form of a
process with the objective of a successful strategy implementation.
35
Figure 6: Strategy implementation dimensions
Source: Adapted from Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008)
The strategy implementation dimensions model was chosen due to its clearly stated process
with the end goal of a successful strategy implementation. The authors also proved through
their research that the dimensions in the model are highly valued. They found that more
successful businesses valued and spent more resources on all dimensions in their
implementation process compared to less successful businesses (Brenes, Mena, & Molina,
2008) indicating that the dimensions are of importance. The model is also based on research
solely from Latin American companies and by testing the model in a different cultural setting
may add to an international perspective.
Furthermore the different dimensions and their components are valued by several other
researchers within the implementation field and aspects of what Brenes, Mena and Molina
(2008) mention can be found in other authors own research. Such as Crittenden and
Crittenden (2008), whose research concerns different levers towards strategy implementation
and successful organisations or by Hrebiniak (2006) whose research is about obstacles
towards successful strategy implementation. Or any of the other authors found in the
literature review that applied their research in any of the dimensions in regard to strategy
implementation. Therefore, the motivation to use the dimensions model felt like a viable
choice as the basis of the thesis.
It is also important to note the weaknesses of the model. Brenes, Mena and Molina’s (2008)
implementation process does not clearly state any explicit problems or barriers that
organisations should take into consideration. Furthermore, Alamsjah (2011) conducted a
similar study which suggests contradictory findings concerning the supporting dimension of
CEO involvement. This can indicate a weakness in the supporting dimensions, suggesting
further research is needed, and should be taken into consideration.
36
Second model
The second model that will also be used in this study is “the interaction of the six silent
killers” by Beer and Eisenstat (2000). The model explains specific barriers to strategy
implementation that can occur in a business and that will ultimately lead to poor strategy
implementation and bad business performance. The authors explain preventative actions in
order to avoid the implementation barriers which essentially transform the barriers in the
model to facilitators for strategy implementation.
Figure 7: The interaction of the six silent killers
Source: Adapted from Beer and Eisenstat (2000)
The barrier model will be used since it describes both obstacles and facilitators for strategy
implementation. The model also illustrates the importance of understanding how aspects of a
business impacts strategy implementation. The barriers are difficult for organisations to
identify but even more problematic is that one barrier may create another barrier leading to a
domino effect (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). This and the fact that the model operates from an
organisational perspective makes it interesting since it is still slightly unclear what or who
identifies the implementation barriers. By applying a middle management perspective to it
and examine how they view and are effected by the barriers makes the model valuable for
this particular research study.
It is also important to take into account the weaknesses that are associated with this model.
Primarily, the model is not an explicit process. It does not clearly state the exact steps and in
which order one should take the steps so as to reach successful strategy implementation.
Instead it is more of an illustration of how implementation barriers interact and affect the end
goal of implementation and business performance.
37
Organisational culture
None of the above-mentioned process models recognises the importance of organisational
culture. Even though Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) mentions culture as part of the
systematic execution, literature suggest that culture has a bigger impact than that. There
seems to be a general agreement that the organisational culture has an effect on strategy
implementation (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008; Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004; Dobni,
2003; Alamsjah, 2011;). Corporate culture affects the way that the employees behave and
think. It is the common beliefs and attitudes that all of the members of the firm contribute to
(Sadri, 2014). Dobni (2003) suggests that culture is the force that drives strategy forward
(Ibid) and the organisation should possess a culture that is proactive and accepting of
strategical change (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004). On the same note, culture should be
aligned with the strategy that the firm implements (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) this fit
between culture and strategy is called coalignment (Dobni, 2003). Furthermore, corporate
culture especially influences the successfulness of which middle managers are able to
accomplish the desired strategy implementation (Alamsjah, 2011). It is because of the impact
that corporate culture seems to have on strategy implementation it is important to take
corporate culture into account in this research study.
2.7.2 Conceptualisation of research question two
The second research question sets out to find the opportunities that middle managers create
when implementing strategy. In addition to middle managements implementation process,
which in itself brings with it opportunities, this question aims to explore other opportunities
middle managers influence during strategy implementation. The table below presents a list of
opportunities that can occur.
38
Table 9: Middle management opportunities
Factor Opportunity Author(s)
Culture Middle management can help create culture that
facilitates change.
(Dobni, 2003)
(Crittenden &
Crittenden, 2008)
Coalignment Middle management can facilitate the fit between
culture and strategy.
(Dobni, 2003)
Flexibility Middle management can affect the successfulness
of strategical decision with their flexibility.
(Miller, Wilson, &
Hickson, 2004)
Communication Middle management can create opportunities by
providing feedback.
(Hrebiniak, 2006)
Commitment Middle management can influence employees and
performance with their commitment to strategy
implementation.
(Hrebiniak, 2006)
(Salih & Doll, 2013)
Translation Middle management is key facilitators of
translating strategy into actions and procedures.
(Browne, et al.,
2014) (Hrebiniak,
2006) (Salih & Doll,
2013)
Knowledge Middle managements social aspects have an
impact on performance and influence up and down
the line. Middle management is also an
information source concerning the implementation
process.
(Ahearne, Lam, &
Kraus, 2014) (Salih
& Doll, 2013)
Source: Authors own construct
The table above illustrates specific opportunities that middle managers can contribute to the
implementation process. These opportunities will be examined since they specifically are not
mentioned in the two implementation processes discussed above in the conceptualisation.
These opportunities will be regarded as additional value to the implementation processes that
will be examined.
2.7.3 Conceptualisation of research question three
The third research question aims to understand the challenges middle managers face when
implementing strategy. The challenges that this research question will focus on are the
challenges that occur in addition to the implementation processes discussed above. The table
below presents the challenges according to literature that will be examined.
39
Table 10: Middle management challenges
Factor Challenge Author(s)
Culture Middle management faces culture that hinders
change.
(Dobni, 2003) (Salih
& Doll, 2013)
Flexibility Middle management faces flexibility issues due
to organisational structures that can hinder
performance.
(Miller, Wilson, &
Hickson, 2004)
Communication Middle management faces lack of trust due to
poor communication. Poor communication may
also lead to misinterpretation and loss of
meaning.
(Dobni, 2003) (Salih
& Doll, 2013)
Top managment
team
Middle management faces a top management
team that does not consider implications of
implementation.
(Hrebiniak, 2006)
Commitment Middle management faces uncommitted
employees and management throughout the
organisation.
(Crittenden &
Crittenden, 2008)
(Hrebiniak, 2006)
Time Middle management faces the long term aspects
of strategy implementation which can impact
focus and control.
(Hrebiniak, 2006)
Source: Authors own construct
The table above describes the challenges that middle management may face when
implementing strategy. These challenges are, like the opportunities mentioned above,
challenges that can occur outside of the implementation process discussed in the two models.
The challenges will be additional value to the implementation processes.
2.8 Emerged framework regarding research question one Drawing from the previous research as well as the conceptualisation it is now important to
establish the emerged framework in regards to research question one. The emerged
framework illustrates how theory is connected in order to develop a middle management
strategy implementation process. The figure below is an illustration of how the process may
take form during strategy implementation from a middle management perspective.
40
Figure 8: Emerged framework
Source: Authors own construct
The emerged framework is a merger of two different implementation models where both
models describe different steps and aspects that are needed in order to reach a successful
implementation from an organisational perspective. The models primarily used are the
strategy implementation dimensions by Brenes, Menas and Molina (2008) and the
implementation barriers by Beer and Eisenstat (2000). According to Brenes, Mena and
Molina (2008) a firm that correctly develops a set of independent decisions, known as
dimensions or phases, can improve the chances of successfully implementing strategy while
Beer and Eisenstat (2000) highlight barriers for successful implementation.
By combining the two models, an attempt to limit each models weakness has been made. The
emerged framework has an explicit implementation process that takes into consideration
implementation barriers that hinder implementation. This should increase the validity of the
emerged framework. The emerged implementation process consists of three different phases
supported by four main supporting dimensions that are all rooted in the cultural foundation in
order to reach successful implementation.
First phase – Strategy formulation
The first step in the strategy implementation process is strategy formulation and it contains
several aspects that need to be taken into consideration. According to Brenes, Mena and
Molin (2008) the strategy formulation phase consists of:
It governs, surveys and analyses all the parts that the firm uses when formulating
strategy. It implies that consideration must be given to all relevant aspects of the firm,
as environment, industry and competition.
41
One aspect to this phase is to look at the internal partners’ degree of involvement,
since they contribute to not only strategy but also implementation by their
commitment.
The long-term vision is also considered at this phase, to ensure that the strategy is
right for the firm.
The last aspect is the external advisor’s presence since they are the ones that may
activate the need for strategy formulation.
Strategy formulation is considered the first step in the implementation process, not only
because it is the first step in the primary model used in the emerged framework (Brenes,
Mena, & Molina, 2008), but also since it can be recognised in the literature that strategy
formally starts with it being formulated (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984; Crittenden &
Crittenden, 2008) and that strategy formulation can be sepetrated from strategy
implementation (Hrebiniak, 2006).
Second phase – Systematic execution
The second step in the implementation process is the execution of the strategy and it concerns
all the actions taken by the company while implementing strategy. There are two components
of action that need to be taken into consideration.
The organisations should establish a priority system for each action that should be
implemented.
The second component is to make sure to delegate the decision making efficiently
between the right individuals responsible for implementing the strategic actions.
(Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)
Depending on the firm’s strategy the decision making within the firm can be mostly top
management controlled or more balanced between top and middle management (Olson,
Slater, & Hult, 2005). As stated by Hrebiniak (2006) that strategy execution cannot be be
compromised to just a single decision or action instead it is the result of a series of integrated
decisions and actions over time. That is why systematic execution is the second phase in the
strategy implementation process.
Important to note regarding strategy execution is that in the original model from Brenes Mena
and Molina (2008) the systematic execution phase also considered the culture and structure of
the firm. In the emerged framework however, this aspect has been moved to another part of
the process that deals especially with culture.
Third phase – Control and follow up
The third step in the implementation process is strategy control and follow up. This phase
affects the way that the firm evaluates and controls the implementation progress. This phase
contains several aspects that need to be taken into consideration.
42
The firm needs to establish some form of control system that best work for the
specific firm.
Feedback is another component that is important in order to assess how the work is
going. By constantly provide feedback on how the execution and implementation of
strategy is going.
The last component is monitoring, measure and adjustment. This component occurs
when the firm constantly monitors the business environment in order to forecast
trends and/or strategy adjustment that are required, instead of just reacting to threats
and opportunities. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)
Depending on the control system and the feedback as well as the firms continuous monitoring
of the environment and industry, adjustment may be enforced accordingly (Ibid). There is a
need of a certain level of control to facilitate and enforce the strategy (Bourgeois & Brodwin,
1984). Since strategy implementation is a dynamic two-sided flow of feedback in the form of
control it allows the implementation process to be a more adaptive process that react to
changes and adapts accordingly (Hrebiniak, 2006). Since an implementation process should
be dynamic and two-sided, which occurs through feedback, control and follow up becomes
the third phase.
Supporting dimension – Leadership
One supporting dimension deals with leadership and the efficiency of the management style.
The CEO’s engagement and efficient leadership and management style is of great importance
(Beer & Eisenstat, 2000) and makes implementing strategy more effortless. It is ultimately
the responsibilities of the managers and the employees to implement strategy (Brenes, Mena,
& Molina, 2008). There are three main components in this dimension.
An engaged leadership style by the CEO and top management team (Beer &
Eisenstat, 2000).
It is the middle managers and employee’s responsibility to implement strategy
(Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008).
It is important that the CEO and top managers recruit and develop the right kind of
people to take on the responsibility of strategy implementation (Brenes, Mena, &
Molina, 2008).
The CEO, top management team should be able to add a clear understanding of the
firm’s goals, objectives and priorities (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Brenes, Mena, &
Molina, 2008).
This supporting dimension is crucial in attaining success in implementing strategies (Brenes,
Mena, & Molina, 2008) and by having an engaged and efficient leadership team that
contributes to the quality of direction of the firm, it should result in improved strategy
implementation (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). Leadership in itself is not part of the actual strategy
implementation process but works as a necessary dimension supporting all of the phases in
the process.
43
Supporting dimension – Support and commitment
One supporting dimension handles the support and commitment that is necessary throughout
the firm and some of its surroundings in order to attain successful strategy implementation.
Components of this dimension are:
There must exist commitment at all levels of the firm and amongst all the concerned
stakeholders of the firm in order to execute strategic change.
Commitment is also an important factor amongst those stakeholders who are
stockholder since strategical action often requires investment.
Commitment and agreement amongst the concerned stakeholders. In other words, it is
necessary to achieve a level of commitment and agreement amongst all those parties
that are in some way involved in the firm. This agreement and commitment involves
parties from management and stockholders down to the employees and is concerned
with all from the strategy, the long-term results to the financial support. (Brenes,
Mena, & Molina, 2008)
To successfully implement strategy, it is desirable to ensure commitment to said strategy
(Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984) since commitment from the top all the way down is required to
successfully implement strategy (Hrebiniak, 2006). The supporting dimension makes sure
that the firm is ready for the strategy and that everyone is aware of the strategical change.
Supporting dimension – Quality of implementation
Another supporting dimension concerns coordination as well as the development of
leadership skills. Three main components are included in this dimension.
It is necessary that there exists coordination across business functions in order to
collaborate effectively between those functions.
Down the line managers should have the opportunity to develop their leadership skills
in order to ensure the efficient collaborative coordination.
Giving the opportunity to managers below the CEO to feel confident in making
decisions based on an ensured and general understanding of the strategic directions of
the firm. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
If these components are met it can ensure the quality of the implementation efforts. (Beer &
Eisenstat, 2000)
Supporting dimension – Vertical communication
The last supporting dimension concerns the communication that aids the phases in the
strategy implementation process leading to successful strategy implementation. Vertical
communication allows the strategy to be refined. There are two main components to this
dimension.
44
Secures the actual execution of strategy by communicating downwards as well as
communicating upwards about potential problems and the current state of the strategy
implementation progress.
The communication both upwards and downwards should be efficient and fact based.
(Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
This supporting dimension is important since a lot of strategy implementation issues can be
directly related to poor communication (Dobni, 2003) and poor communication presents as an
actual problem to strategy implementation. (Salih & Doll, 2013)
Foundation – culture
Culture works as the foundation to the strategy implementation process. This is because it
permeates all of the phases and supporting dimensions in the strategy implementation
process. Since corporate culture plays an important part in how an organisation reacts to
change (Dobni, 2003), it has an impact on successful strategy implementation (Alamsjah,
2011). On the same note, culture should be aligned with the strategy that the firm implements
(Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) this fit between culture and strategy is called coalignment
(Dobni, 2003). The specific components that are especially important for the foundation are:
It is the culture that drives strategy forward (Dobni, 2003).
The organisation should possess a culture that is proactive and accepting of strategical
change (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004).
Corporate culture especially influences the successfulness of which middle managers
are able to accomplish the desired strategy implementation (Alamsjah, 2011).
Culture is the common beliefs and attitudes that all of the members of the firm
contribute to (Sadri, 2014).
45
3. Research methodology This chapter presents the chosen research methodology for the thesis. The chosen research
approaches and techniques in order to collect relevant empirical data to answer the research
questions are described and presented. The purpose, approach and strategy of the study are
presented along with a description of the data collection, sample selection and analysis
method. Furthermore a discussion regarding the reliability and validity of the thesis is held.
3.1 Research purpose This thesis had a research purpose that was of a partially descriptive and partially exploratory
nature. This is due to research question one is more of an exploratory purpose while still
having descriptive traits while research question two and three are mainly descriptive
however it can be argued that they have exploratory traits as well. The purpose of a study can
be determined by what the aim of the research questions are. Research question one of this
thesis set out to describe the implementation process from a middle management perspective.
This implies an exploratory purpose since it aims to seek new insight in a rather unexplored
phenomenon, which is indicative of an exploratory nature. The thesis also aimed to increase
the understanding of a problem, the middle management strategy implementation process,
and explore what is actually happening, which is also indicative of an exploratory purpose.
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016) The reason why research question one can be argued to
have a descriptive purpose is that it also aims to describe the process of implementation
which implies a descriptive purpose. Descriptive research purposes are utilised to “portray an
accurate profile of persons, events and situations” (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016, p.
175) which the implementation process can be argued as such.
The purpose of research questions two and three was to describe the opportunities that middle
management create during the process and the challenges they may face during
implementation. This means that question two and three mainly had a descriptive nature since
the aim was to describe a background or procedure, which implies a descriptive purpose. A
descriptive purpose for research questions two and three is also appropriate since a
descriptive research study can be an extension of an exploratory purpose (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2016) which is the case of this thesis.
3.2 Research approach After the research purpose has been defined the next step when conducting a research study is
to determine the research approach of the thesis. The approach describes how the scientific
problem of the thesis was addressed, how the theory was managed and connected to the
empirical data. This also implies that decisions’ regarding the method of collecting data has
to be made. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016)
This thesis had a deductive approach. The thesis used previous literature, theories and models
as a foundation and expanded upon these with the conceptualisation. The conceptualisation
and the following emerged framework, which were based on previous research, were used as
the framework for the data analysis of the collected data. This implies a deductive approach
46
since according to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016) a deduction is utilised when theory
and hypothesis are developed and then analysed and tested in order to examine them with
reality.
This thesis was also of a qualitative character. Qualitative research approach is appropriate
when a research study tries to discover and understand what may account for certain
behaviours. Furthermore, a qualitative approach seeks to provide a deeper understanding of
certain phenomenon. A qualitative approach is also indicative of a non-numerical form of
empirical data. (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016) The qualitative character of this thesis
is possible to discern due to the overall purpose of the thesis was to gain a deeper
understanding of how middle management operates during the implementation of strategy
which implies a qualitative approach. The intention of the thesis was to provide a
comprehensive view of the implementation process and to describe opportunities and
challenges connected to the process, which is indicative of a qualitative study.
3.3 Research strategy The research strategy of a thesis could be defined as the actions undertaken in order to answer
the purpose and research questions of the thesis (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). The
research strategy for a research study should be evaluated through three given factors. The
first aspect to take into consideration is what form of research question has been stated?
Thereafter control should be taken into account; does the study require control over
behavioural events? And, lastly does the research focus on contemporary events? By
evaluating the thesis from these questions it is possible to discern which research strategy to
choose. The table below illustrates the five different research strategies that are possible to
use and their following evaluation factors. (Yin, 1994)
Table 11: Relevant situations for different research strategies
Strategy Form of Research
Question
Requires control over
behavioural events?
Focus on
contemporary events?
Experiment How, why Yes Yes
Survey Who, what, where,
how many, how
much
No Yes
Archival analysis Who, what, where,
how many, how
much
Yes Yes/No
History How, why No No
Case studies How, why No Yes Source: Adapted from Yin (1994)
This thesis used case studies as the research strategy. Case studies can be defined as the
strategy undertaken when the research involves empirical investigation of a phenomenon that
is contemporary within its real life context using several sources of evidence (Saunders,
Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The choice of case study as the research strategy for this thesis
47
was based on the fact that the thesis research questions were stated as “How” and “What”
questions, the research study did not require control over behavioural events and since the
thesis had a clear focus on contemporary events it is possible to delimit the research strategy
to case studies. Case studies are often used when a deeper understanding of the problem area
is the aim (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). This is appropriate since the overall aim of
the thesis was to provide a deeper understanding of middle managements implementation
process. Furthermore the descriptive and exploratory nature of the thesis is in correlation with
case studies as the research strategy.
3.3.1 Case studies
When designing a case study a few different decisions need to be made and a few different
aspects need to be taken into consideration during the design of the case study strategy. This
thesis utilised a multiple case studies approach that was considered fully covered. The
multiple case study strategy was chosen due to the focus on several cases instead of a specific
case. Multiple case studies are primarily used so as to determine if the results of the research
study are consistent within the different cases and if it is possible to generalise the results
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). This is consistent with this particular thesis since a
cross-case comparison was necessary in order to be able to draw generalisations between the
cases about how middle managers operate during the process of implementation.
Furthermore the case study approach for this thesis was of a fully covered nature. This
implies that each case study focused on one middle manager where each manager was
regarded as a fully covered case study. This is in accordance with Saunders, Lewis and
Thornhill (2009) theory about fully covering case studies which state that a fully covered case
study utilises only one unit of analysis.
3.3.2 Unit of analysis
By defining the case, the case boundaries will be set and facilitate the application of the
theoretical framework on the analysis of the empirical data. The way to define the case is
answering the question “What is my case?”. (Yin, 1993) The unit of analysis for this thesis
was defined as managers from a middle management position. This unit of analysis was
chosen due to its fit with the purpose of the thesis and the well suited match with the
application of existing literature. Huy (2011) defines middle managers as a manager that is
positioned two levels below the CEO and one level above first-line supervisors.
3.4 Data collection After the research strategy has been chosen the way of gathering data can be decided. Based
on the overall purpose of this study as well as the stated research questions, this thesis relied
on primary data collection. Primary data can be defined as new data that is solely collected
for the research of the specific study (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Since the
research questions and purpose of this study researches an area which has not been fully
studied and answered in previous literature, secondary data cannot be utilised in order to
answer the purpose and research questions of this study.
48
The empirical data for this thesis was collected through interviews, more specifically semi-
structured in-depth interviews. Due to this study having a qualitative approach and a partially
exploratory and partially descriptive purpose to it, conducting semi-structured in depth
interviews were appropriate. Semi-structured interviews use a basic theme and/or questions,
though these can vary from interview to interview (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). The
interviews for this thesis were in-depth and semi structured in order to get as much
information as possible out of the interviewees as well as being able to ask follow up
questions and expand on areas of interest or if more information is needed. Furthermore this
approach allows questions to be asked during the interview that may not have appeared
during a structured approach. The interviews were conducted in an in-depth manner since the
study aimed at finding out what is really happening and understanding the certain context of
how middle managers operates, which is in accordance with the exploratory purpose.
The interviews were conducted in two different ways. Four of the interviews were conducted
over telephone due to the respondents were located in different areas in Sweden while two
interviews were conducted face-to-face at SSAB’s offices in Luleå, Sweden.
3.5 Sample selection In order to collect the empirical data the population has to be defined (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2009). This thesis population was middle managers. However, it is not possible to
interview all middle managers in the world or even Sweden. Therefore, this thesis utilised a
non-probability sampling technique with a purposive sample selection. Non-probability
sampling implies that all units or individuals do not have a chance to be selected for the
sample. Non-probability sampling instead indicates that the researcher uses subjective
judgement in order to choose the sample. (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009) Purposive
sampling is a non-probability sampling techniques that allows the research to choose the
sample based on the best judgement. This means that the chosen cases will ensure that
relevant information is shared in order to answer the stated research questions (Ibid).
Snowball sampling is an additional non-probability sampling method. This sampling
technique is often applied when it is difficult to identify samples in the desired population.
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) snowball sampling works by contacting
cases within the population that is under research and then having those cases refer on to
identify other cases.
When choosing the sample, the sample should optimally be of such character that it
represents the entire population (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). With this in mind this
thesis selected the sample of middle managers from two completely different industries. By
selecting two different industries the thesis received a higher level of transferability as well as
it was possible to discern if differences between the middle managers from the different
industries would arise. Furthermore, in order to further strengthen the transferability of the
thesis it was necessary that the middle managers were not too homogeneous. This was
ensured by using two different organisations of different sizes from two different industries,
located at different places.
49
This thesis used non-probability sampling with purposive and snowball sampling techniques
so as to ensure that the interviews were conducted with the right persons with the right
knowledge and information relevant to the research area and purpose. This implies that the
interviewees had to be managers from a middle management position with experience of
implementing a strategy. The snowball sampling occurred when an initial middle manager
that was contacted could not participate and referred to a colleague instead.
In order to ensure that suitable people were selected as candidates for the interviews a set of
characteristics were established. These characteristics were set so the interviewees had
sufficient knowledge and experience in order to answer questions within the chosen field of
study. The characteristics that were required are shown in the table below.
Table 12: Interviewee requirements
Position Middle management level
Time period Minimum of 2 years as a middle manager
Knowledge Experience of strategy implementation Source: Authors own construct
In order to be eligible as a candidate for the interviews, it is required that the interviewee has
held a middle management position for a minimum of two years. No requirement was made
that the interviewee had to have worked in the same company for that amount of time, instead
the candidate solely had to have had two years of working as a middle manager. Furthermore
the middle managers had to have experience of working with strategy and implementing
strategy.
With the previously mentioned requirements in mind a total of six middle managers from two
different industries were interviewed. The table below summarises the relevant characteristic
information of the interviewees together with the length and date of the interviews.
50
Table 13: Background information of the interview respondents
Respondent Position Experience Date Length
Mikael Svensson ICA Maxi Botkyrka:
Head of bakery
department
11 years 19/04 - 2017 40 min
Göran Wessman SSAB: Coordinator
Service desk
5 years 20/04 - 2017 30 min
Janne Nyberg ICA Maxi Botkyrka:
Controller, Head of
quality control
19 years 21/04 - 2017 47 min
Per Nerelius SSAB: Head of
vehicle section,
maintenance manager
21 years 26/04 - 2017 43 min
Pierre Ek SSAB: Lean manager,
Head of department
for SSAB One
2 years 26/04 - 2017 1 h 53 min
David Persson ICA Maxi Botkyrka:
Sales manager for dry
goods, dairy and
freezer.
5 years 27/04 - 2017 47 min
Source: Authors own construct
The table above illustrates that the set of characteristics that were established for the
interview respondents were fulfilled. The respondents must have had experience of working
as a middle manager for a minimum of two years. This was deemed necessary in order to
ensure that the respondents of the interviews possessed sufficient knowledge of strategy
implementation as a middle manager.
3.6 Data analysis With the empirical data collected the process of analysing it can begin. Since qualitative data
is neither numerical nor quantifiable it needs to be analysed in order for the meaning behind
the data to be understood (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The data that has been
gathered through interviews was analysed through using the three steps of data reduction,
data display and lastly, drawing conclusions. However, first the data had to be transcribed.
This implies that the data was word processed and written down (Ibid).
Data reduction implies that the empirical data is summarised and thereafter simplified so as
focus can be laid upon the relevant parts for the thesis. The data display then can be done
where the reduced data is categorised so as to create a clearer overview of the data so as to
facilitate analysis. This can often be done through tables and figures. Thereafter conclusions
can be made from the data and translated into meaning, which is the drawing conclusion
stage. (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016)
Furthermore this thesis used pattern matching in order to analyse the data according to Yin
(1994). Pattern matching occurs when the empirical data is compared to the theoretical
51
framework. This allows for comparing reality with theory which is appropriate when a deeper
understanding is sought after, which is the purpose of this thesis. (Ibid)
3.7 Validity and reliability Studies are always at risk of encountering methodology problems and it is therefore
important to try to reduce these risks as much as possible. A way of minimising risk is to try
to reach such a high level of validity and reliability as possible. Validity is created when the
results can be considered as true meanwhile reliability is created when it is possible to
achieve the same results if the study was conducted again. Though important, it is often
difficult to ensure that the study has a high level of both validity and reliability and
measurement should therefore be taken to achieve this. (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016)
A way of doing this is by following Yin’s (1994) four tests for validity and reliability quality.
These tests are construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability. The tests
and the methods of reducing methodology problems and risks are described in the table
below.
Table 14: Validity and reliability techniques in order to reduce methodology problems
Tests Definition Case study tactic Relevant phase of
research
Construct
validity
Correct operational
measure for concepts
- Use multiple sources
of evidence
- Establish chain of
evidence
- Have key informants
review draft case study
report
- Data collection
- Data collection
- Composition
Internal
validity
Establishing a non-
spurious causal
relationship (only for
explanatory)
- Do pattern matching
- Do explanation
building
- Address rival
explanation
- Use logic models
- Data collection
- Data collection
- Data collection
- Data collection
External
validity
Establishing the domain
for generalization
- Use theory in single
case studies
- Use replication logic
in multiple case studies
- Research design
- Research design
Reliability Repeatability of
operations of the case
study
- Use case study
protocol
- Develop case study
data base
- Data collection
- Data collection
Source: Adapted from Yin (2003)
The information provided in the table above was applied to this thesis in order to present the
actions taken to ensure such a high level of validity and reliability as possible.
52
3.7.1 Construct validity
A common criticism of case study designs is that they do not provide sufficiently set
measurements and the empirical data is often collected by subjective judgments. In order to
mitigate this multiple sources of evidence should be used, a chain of events needs to be
established and key informants should review the study during the process. (Yin, 2003)
This thesis has used all three components so as to try to achieve a high degree of construct
validity. The study has been reviewed several times during its construction. Different sections
of the thesis had been examined by a supervisor during the writing process in addition to the
draft and final version of the study has been reviewed by supervisors and peers. Multiple
sources of evidence were established since the study used several different sources for theory
as well as the multiple interviews. Validity was also created since the collected data was
gathered from several respondents. The chain of evidence was also present in this study since
a conceptualisation and the emerged framework used previous literature as its foundation.
These were then used in order to create the interview guide for the empirical data. The data
was then compared to the existing theory.
3.7.2 Internal validity
This thesis has disregarded internal validity since it is not relevant for this study. Internal
validity refers to the degree of which the findings can be attributed to flaws in the design of
the study rather than the planned interventions (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016).
Furthermore it is solely explanatory studies where the research tries to establish a relationship
between variables that need to be concerned with internal validity (Ibid). This study had a
purpose of a descriptive and exploratory nature so no steps were needed to be taken in order
to establish internal validity.
3.7.3 External validity
External validity refers to the possibility of generalising the result beyond the specific case
study. Single case studies are often regarded as a poor choice for generalisation since the
results that are achieved are derived from one single case. A way to minimise this is to use
theory as the foundation for the research design or by using replication logic in multiple case
studies. (Yin, 2003)
This thesis used theory as a base by comparing and analysing the collected data to the
literature review. This should also work as a way of mitigating incorrect assumptions and the
chance of drawing false conclusions. Furthermore this study used a multiple case approach
which should also strengthen the validity. Though important to note is that the sample size of
this thesis is rather small which can mean that the findings and conclusions may be rather
specific. To further strengthen the validity the same steps and actions have been taken in all
the interviews and analysis so as to ensure replication logic.
3.7.4 Reliability
Reliability is achieved when another researcher would arrive with the same findings and
conclusion as this study if the researcher follows the exact same process as in this study. This
implies that a higher level of reliability is established if errors and bias are reduced as much
53
as possible. (Yin, 2003) There are four different error and bias aspects that need to be taken
into consideration to increase reliability. They are subject or participant error, subject or
participant bias, observer error, and observer bias. (Robson, 2002) In order to reduce
reliability problems, the study should be conducted so as external people can follow each step
of the study (Yin, 2003).
The interview guide, attached in appendix A, was developed and used for the collection of
data. This facilitates for external observers to replicate the data collection method. The
interview guide was also translated from English to Swedish in order to make the interviews
as relaxed and natural as possible. Another justification for conducting the interviews in
Swedish is that Swedish is the native language of all the respondents. By having the
interviews in Swedish it minimised the risk of the middle managers feeling restrained in their
thought process and answers. According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), translating
questions and instructions into another language requires care so as to not contribute to
misinterpretation and ultimately affect the reliability of the research. The translation was
done independently by both authors of the thesis and thereafter compared. This was done in
order to try to gain such an objective perspective of the questions as possible.
During the analysis of the empirical data attention was paid so as to make sure that the data
represents the views of the respondents. A semi-structured interview may also bring with it
concerns about standardisation; this can be related to interview and interviewee bias.
Interview bias refers to how the interviewers might influence the interview through
comments, tone of voice, non-verbal behaviour or impose their own beliefs and frame of
reference (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
The interviews were conducted both by telephone and face-to-face. To reduce the risk for
interviewer bias both authors were present at all the interviews, this means that both authors
were able to take notes that could then be compared so the answers were correctly
understood. The phone interviews reduced the non-verbal behaviour and during the face-to-
face interviews steps were taken to minimise body language.
A possible issue with phone interviews is that it may create difficulties in making more
complex questions harder to understand for the interviewee (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill,
2009). This issue was solved by carefully developed questions and during the telephone
interviews continuously make sure that the interviewees understood the questions and
concepts discussed. Furthermore comments were kept to a minimum in order to not influence
the answers, questions were asked in such a way to try to let the respondents elaborate
without interruptions from the interviewers, control questions were asked so as to open up a
discussion before the actual questions connected to the conceptualisation were asked and
lastly theory was only explained to the interviewees if needed to start the discussion or clarify
for the respondent.
The interviews were also recorded both the face-to-face and telephone interviews; therefore it
was possible to re-listen to the interviews so the empirical data become a correct
54
representation. Another action taken to reduce bias was a trade-off between the interviewers.
To mitigate imposing the interviewer’s frame of reference on all the interviewees the author
responsible for conducting the interview was changed from interview to interview, though
both authors were always allowed to ask further questions.
3.8 Summary of methodology The figure below illustrates the overview of the methodology choices that have been made
and that most appropriately suit this thesis. The blue boxes and the following trace lines in
the figure illustrate the chosen methodology approaches this specific thesis has made.
Figure 9: Summary of methodology
Source: Authors own construct
55
4. Data Presentation In this chapter the empirical data that was collected in order to answer the research
questions is presented. The data that is presented is a summarisation of all the responses
from the interviewees.
4.1 Respondents In order to answer the thesis overall purpose and research questions six middle managers
from two different industries were interviewed, three middle managers from SSAB and three
middle managers from ICA Maxi Botkyrka. In order to present the data, the responses will be
divided into different sections where each section represents a dimension or phase according
to the emerged framework. The empirical data is also presented in a summarised form. This
is a process of data reduction and data presentation used to make the data clearer (Miles,
Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).
The respondents in the data presentation below will be handled anonymously however the
table below illustrates which industry they belong to.
Table 15: Respondents according to industry
Respondent Industry
A ICA Maxi
B ICA Maxi
C ICA Maxi
D SSAB
E SSAB
F SSAB Source: Authors own construct
It is important to note, that while the respondents most of the time based their answers of
situations occurring in their current industry, the middle managers had experience from
previous middle managers positions and companies and were allowed to include experiences
from them in their answers as well if they believed it was important. This should not be an
issue since, as stated in the methodology, each manager is a case in itself and it is their
experiences that are sought after.
4.1.1 ICA Maxi Botkyrka
ICA AB is one of the largest retailing businesses in northern Europe. The ICA group has a
focus on food but the group also owns a bank, real estate division and pharmacy. The group
has several retailers with different profiles depending on the grocery store and although the
stores are operated separately they all work under the same coordination, mission and vision
determined at headquarters. (ICA, 2017a)
ICA Maxi Botkyrka is a large hypermarket with around 300 employees located in the
outskirts of Stockholm, Sweden (ICA, 207b). ICA’s overall vision is to “make everyday a
little easier” with a mission stated as “to be the leading retail company focusing on food and
meals” (ICA, 2017c) In addition to this ICA Maxi Botkyrka also focuses on providing low
56
prices. The retailer aims to be a pleasant retailer where the customer will enjoy shopping and
get affordable goods and excellent service by the staff. (ICA, 2017b)
4.1.2 SSAB
SSAB is a highly specialised global steel company. The organisation develops high strength
steel and provides services for better performance from a sustainability perspective. In total
the company has around 15000 employees and are located in over 50 different countries.
(SSAB, 2017a) SSAB operates under the vision “A stronger, lighter and more sustainable
world”. (SSAB, 2017b)
SSAB Luleå, where two respondents of this thesis are located and one in SSAB Oxölesund,
was established in 1941 and has at present around 1100 employees. Although a global
company, the different locations all work under the coordination, vision and values
determined at headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden. (SSAB, 2017c)
4.2 Strategy formulation The respondents were all of the same opinion that the implementation process begins with the
formulation of the strategy. The respondents also stated that the formulation of strategy is
needed in order to receive a goal that the organisation can work towards and create a common
structure. Another respondent, respondent E, also stated that by formulating the strategy an
overview of the situation will be obtained. Though, whether or not the middle managers were
allowed to contribute to the formulation of strategy, the consensus was that it depended on
what strategy was in question. The overall corporate strategy was often out of the hands of
the middle managers however the parts of strategy concerning the aspects which the middle
managers were responsible over the middle managers were allowed to take part of the
strategy formulation - or at least give thoughts, opinions and input. A distinction that could be
made between the two industries is that in general the middle managers from ICA Maxi were
allowed more responsibility in the strategy formulation than the managers from SSAB.
All respondents agreed that if they were allowed to be part of strategy formulation the
execution of the strategy would become easier to perform. One respondent, respondent D,
stated that participation of strategy formulation leads to a higher degree of commitment and
involvement in the execution phase meanwhile respondent A believes that as a middle
manager, by taking part in the formulation, feedback whether the strategy is good or bad will
occur quicker. Respondent F summarised all respondents’ answers quite well with “effect and
outcome of the strategy will be better if you are allowed to be part of the process”.
Strategy formulation can also create challenges and problems for the middle managers.
Respondent D stated that a challenge with strategy formulation is when they receive a
strategy, which they have not had the opportunity to contribute to, and the strategy is not
formulated so as the employees tasked with executing the strategy understand it. This is
further strengthened by respondent C who replied that the objective of strategy may vary
depending on how the strategy is formulated. This can also create a challenge which
respondent E highlighted, that translating the strategy can create challenges. However
57
respondent A stated that a strategy should not create challenges or problems for a middle
manager and if it affects the execution it is either the strategy that is wrong or the
communication of it. Though on the other hand, all middle managers replied that their
contribution to strategy formulation creates opportunities in the implementation process.
Respondent E was of the opinion that middle managers create meaning through the
translation of the strategy, while respondent B stated that since they have more insight they
can contribute with different thoughts and opinions that would otherwise not have come to
light. Respondent A and D both stated that participation in formulation creates commitment
throughout the rest of the implementation process.
4.3 Systematic execution All the respondents agreed that systematic execution is the second phase in the strategy
implementation process. The respondents also expressed the importance to communicate the
already formulated strategy “down the line” in order to execute the strategy during this phase.
A general agreement among the middle managers was that it is the middle managers’
responsibility to translate strategy into everyday objectives. However, respondent B pointed
out that it also depends on what type of strategy is discussed and how the strategy is
formulated.
The different daily activities that occur during implementation need to be prioritised
however, how those activities are prioritised differed a bit depending on the respondent.
Amongst the respondents at ICA Maxi the answers leaned more towards that the middle
managers themselves decided the priorities. The managers expressed that the way to prioritise
came naturally depending on the strategy and with guidance from the business plan and
budget. At SSAB the middle managers themselves did not solely decide the priority of
activities by themselves. As respondent E expressed, it is not up to them to decide priorities,
it is rather the time aspect that decides. Meaning, that if things need to be done due to
scheduling urgencies or alike, that is the action that is prioritised first, or if something takes a
longer time to do, that is the actions that need to be prioritised in order to get it done in time.
Respondent D said that sometimes they decide the priorities and sometimes it is their
manager that decides and lastly respondent F said that the priorities are decided through a
consensus of their team.
All respondents expressed that they are allowed to make independent decisions when needed.
There was a general agreement amongst the respondents that within their area of
responsibility the middle managers could make the independent decisions necessary, and if
even bigger decisions were needed this was accomplished with a discussion with their
superior. As respondent C expressed, they will make the decisions that they feel are
necessary. Respondent F added that in addition to them making independent decisions, there
is also a decision process made up of dialogue and meetings with the team they are part of.
When asked about how the time aspect affects the systematic execution respondent A said
that in the terms of making fast decisions it is important to, as a middle manager, have an
understanding of “why” one is making the decision. A foundation to stand on in the form of
58
knowledge and understanding of the situation as whole is needed. When it comes to
implementing strategies the processes look a bit different depending on whether it is a “fast”
strategy with a short time period or a strategy that takes a longer time. When implementing
strategies with a shorter date the middle managers can act with more initiative, while if it’s a
longer strategy the managers have to communicate in a different way and one needs to have
shorter objectives. Respondent C and D said that it is easier to stay focused with shorter
strategies as well as that they may need to make independent decisions. Respondent B added
that it is important to have starting dates and not only ending dates in order to implement
strategy effectively. This is because without a starting date the inclination to actually get
started might be lesser since there might be a false sense of contentment with a belief that
there exists a lot of time to realise the strategy. Then when execution finally gets started the
realisation that the effects of the execution would have been better with an earlier start may
occur. That is why a starting date is important according to respondent B. Both respondent E
and F expressed concern about strategies that are ongoing for too long, saying that the longer
strategies are more difficult to implement since those strategies tend to be too “conceptual”
making it hard to put them into actual actions.
The respondents all had incredibly similar opinions regarding challenges and opportunities in
the execution phase. One of the opportunities that all the respondents expressed that they
create for themselves was in the way they communicate during the execution. By
communicating in an efficient, simple and straightforward manner the middle managers can
make their subordinates understand what needs to be done and what their tasks are. In the
same manner, the problems that can occur during this phase are largely dependent on how
well the middle managers succeed in creating good communication. The respondents agreed
that if communication fails in this phase, one cannot expect a good result. As expressed by
Respondent F, if the middle manager does a poor job, the result will be poor. Another
potential problem is that people can be reluctant towards change, according to respondent A,
and may dispute the execution of strategy, as stated by respondent D. The last problem that
was mentioned was the time frame for the systematic execution. Respondent E expressed
concern for the time period in the sense that if the execution takes too long to actually get
started, there is a risk that it can affect the rest of the implementation in the way that
everything gets started a little too late and with less certainty or maybe even not get started or
done at all.
4.4 Control and follow up All respondents agreed that control and follow up were crucial in order to achieve a
successful strategy implementation and if control faults it will greatly impact the
implementation. For example one respondent, respondent D, replied that if control is not done
there is a chance that tasks are not actually being done. Respondent E highlighted the time
aspect of control, if control is not followed through, or in other words, if control is not
assured and reinforced, the implementation will take longer than needed since now one
cannot be sure if everything has been done and if it has been done correctly. Respondent A
stated that feedback should occur instantly and if not there is the possibility of negligence or
mistakes occurring. Furthermore, respondent B mentioned the time aspect in the sense that a
59
starting date is needed in order to get strategy started but also in order to be able to monitor
and measure progress. This, as well as control and feedback, is important in case of a needed
adjustment or change of strategy. Respondent A replied that if control and feedback is not
conducted correctly it will have an immensely negative impact on the implementation process
because without the control there is no way to make sure that the strategy is being
implemented and keep track on the progress. The same goes with the feedback, without
feedback one cannot communicate the progress up and down the line as well as one cannot
make sure that everything is done correctly and as smooth as possible without providing
feedback to the employees. This received countenance from respondent C who replied that
without control and follow up the strategy will not be executed.
Although all middle managers agreed on the importance of control the way the different
managers went about control differed. Respondent A replied that they always followed up on
routines and in order to do so they documented and signed documents so as to remember who
is responsible and feedback is immediately achieved. Respondent B handled control and
follow up by utilising control points where they communicated follow up through post-it
notes, calendars and phone meetings. Respondent C replied that they used a checklist to
control daily activities in addition to a system with control points. Respondent D replied that
control was solely their responsibility and was done by communicating with the employees.
Meanwhile respondent E stated that they use a weekly meeting with the management team to
monitor that the implementation process is on pace. Respondent F on the other hand used
daily guidance in combination with a weekly and a monthly meeting.
Furthermore all respondents replied that depending on the outcome of the control and follow
up the strategy itself can be adjusted. Respondent A expressed that by constantly providing
feedback up and down the line it makes the strategy implementation process easier as a whole
since it creates the opportunity to constantly makes improvements and changes to the strategy
to better fit with the reality of the progress of the implementation. This makes the strategy
implementation process smoother. Respondent C thought it was very important to be able to
make changes to the strategy based on the control and follow up and it is a requirement for
future ventures to be successful. Meanwhile respondent E replied this was a sign of failure of
the formulated strategy and that adjustments could be done but should not be needed unless
the adjustment of the strategy was done due to external environmental factors.
Another feature of control and follow up that the respondents agreed was important was
credit and praise to their employees. Respondent F stated that they like to work with a
coaching approach. This implies a focus on positive aspects in order to make their employees
feel secure. This was echoed in respondent A’s reply, they stated that they dedicate time to
communication with the purpose of building a secure environment for the employees, that
nurtures them as individuals and make them feel good about their work. Respondent A stated
that in order to do so they used a complimentary dialogue and a manager is not a manager
unless they are able to use praise as a tool.
60
In regards to challenges and problems that can arise with control and follow up the
respondents could not highlight a specific challenge. Instead the most common reply was that
they as managers have to ensure involvement and commitment. Respondent B highlighted
what they labelled “do not care factor”, which means that the employees do not necessarily
care so much about the task they have been assigned and feel it is not important to
accomplish the task. The managers therefore have to ensure control and that the task actually
is done. On the other hand all middle managers believed that they contributed to a better
implementation by their use of feedback. Respondent A stated that through their structure and
way of working they are able to deliver feedback and tools that ensured the employees that
they were seen and appreciated which increased their willingness and commitment to
implementing the strategy.
4.5 Communication While communicating the middle managers all expressed the importance of being distinct and
clear in the way they communicate. It is important to ensure that all employees understand
the strategy and that there is no room for misinterpretation. Respondent F expressed the
importance to communicate the “why” in the implementation process, so as to achieve
understanding and consensus. While respondent C focused on having a good dialogue with
the people involved so as to achieve the same understanding and consensus. A way to achieve
this according to the respondents was communication that was open – meaning that all
discussions had to have their foundation in facts and honesty.
In order to share information within the company and to make sure that the people above and
under the middle managers are informed about the situation all of the middle managers said
that they make use of the previously established routines and meetings. The respondents at
ICA Maxi all agreed that in addition to the routines and meetings, people stay informed by
the “everyday” talk that occurs naturally at the company. Respondent D and F said that video
conferences and meetings sometimes where necessary due to SSAB operating in many
different locations. While respondent E stated that if there was a need for information to be
shared, they would seek contact with that person, in the way that seemed to fit the most,
whether that was to just walk across the corridor to that person’s office, e-mail them, skype
and so forth.
The respondents believed it to be their responsibility to connect the strategy to the firm’s
mission and vision. However, respondent B and C said that could also depend on the strategy
that is going to be implemented. If the connection is needed, for example to facilitate
understanding for the employees the communication of connection to the company’s values
will be made. If the connection does not add to the understanding or implementation of the
strategy, then it is not needed to do the connection.
When asked if whether they thought it important, as a middle manager, to be able to
communicate on an individual level the answer was an overall yes. Respondent A mentioned
it as being essential in order to communicate at all in a believable fashion and respondent B
and C stated it to be very important in order to have good communication. Respondent C
61
added that it was through personal communication on an individual level that they were able
to provide feedback and constructive criticism. Respondent D added that even though it is
important to be able to communicate on an individual level they still had to keep it
professional and be perceptive in order for the communication to work and be efficient.
On the same note the middle managers expressed that trust is of importance while
communicating. Respondents A and E expressed it to be one of the more critical factors while
communicating, saying that without the trust, you can’t expect the results you seek.
Respondent E added that if there is a lack of trust, the whole implementation process
becomes extremely slow and can lead to a complete stand still. However respondent B said
that of course you need to on some level trust that people do what you expect them to do and
that they are not lying to you, but at the same time it is more important that the job gets done
than it is to build a long lasting friendly relationship.
The problems that can occur if communication fails seem to be plentiful. On the most basic
level is that activities included in the strategy do not get done according to respondents B and
D and as a result you don’t get the results you are looking for stated by respondent A. In
addition there can be misunderstandings and that the activities that get done, maybe occur in
the wrong or not desired way according to respondent E. Respondent C added that problems
with failing communication could be that there is a lack of agreement, understanding and
engagement amongst the employees, which in turn will lead to poor results in the strategy
that is being implemented.
The middle managers could create opportunities in the way that they are communicating.
There was an overall consensus amongst the answers that, by themselves as middle
managers, being good communicators could improve the implementation process and avoid
some of the above mentioned challenges. Respondent A had a trick in communicating that
they learned at a leadership course. The communication or dialogue should start off with a
compliment, then constructive criticism then finish of with compliments again. Respondent E
said that by communicating in a sufficient way they could lead with a good example and be a
role model. Respondent B expressed that it was easier to communicate if they explain the
purpose and background to what is being discussed which is strengthened by respondent F
who also expressed the importance on communicating the reason why certain things needs to
be done. Respondent D said that it is important to really make sure that everyone understands
each other.
4.6 Support and commitment Concerning support and commitment during the implementation process the respondents
were of slightly different opinions. While four of the respondents believed commitment was
of utmost importance two respondents took a more relaxed approach to commitment.
Respondent B replied that commitment was not that important and that they instead valued
control and feedback more. Respondent E, who also viewed commitment as slightly less
important stated that everyone cannot be committed all the time however if it is aspects
within their area of responsibility they are engaged and committed. The respondents that
62
stated commitment as important were all of the opinion that commitment and engagement at
all levels led to better results.
In addition to that the middle managers should be committed to the strategy the respondents
all replied that if the CEO and top management team are committed to the strategy it
facilitates strategy implementation and execution. Respondent B stated that if the CEO and
top management are committed it will be felt at every level. This is further strengthened by
respondent C and respondent F. Respondent F explained that CEO commitment leads to
faster prioritising and that activities are set to action. This is in line with respondent A’s
answer which state that it is the CEO and top managements responsibility to understand how
everything in the organisation is connected and the CEO must therefore be committed.
Furthermore, most respondents stated that if the formulation of strategy does not consider the
execution the implementation process will be harder to achieve, however respondent E also
stated that they had never experienced a situation where the formulation did not consider the
execution. Respondent F explained that if these situations do arise the employees tasked with
execution realise that the strategy is not logical and execution of it will not occur. Strategy
formulation according to respondent E, should include the higher up employees
understanding what lower level employees do. This is supported by respondent B who states
that it is beneficial to have several parties involved in the formulation phase. Respondent A
on the other hand was of the opinion that it is their responsibility as a manager to solve any
problems and/or find the best way to achieve the objective with the strategy.
Issues regarding if an employee of the middle managers did not want to implement the
strategy was also unanimous across the respondents, it should not happen. One respondent,
respondent C, further stated that communication would be the issue here and not the
employee. It would most likely be a misunderstanding and not an outright refusal of the
employee to execute the strategy. Respondent A concurred this by stating that their task as a
middle manager is to get their employees to implement the strategy and if it does not occur
they will have to communicate in another way. Both these opinions were held by respondent
E and F as well. Respondents B and D further stated that if they could not get the employee to
do what has been asked of them they will have to take the issue at hand to their own manager.
All middle managers agreed that they, through their support and commitment, contributed to
a better implementation process. A highlight here that several of the managers mentioned is
communication as a way to ensure support and commitment. Respondent E replied through
personal communication they felt they could contribute support and increase commitment of
the employees. Respondent A had a similar answer, they stated that by communicating with
the employees, they will feel that the middle manager is committed. This in turn will affect
the rest of the employees in a positive manner towards the strategy. Respondent B, D and F
echoed these thoughts. Although the middle managers commitment according to the
respondents was beneficial towards the implementation process, respondent D stated that a
problem that can possible arise with this if the middle managers themselves do not believe in
the strategy which results in a decreased commitment. Meaning that it is hard to stay truly
committed towards a strategy if one does not fully believe in the strategy, the way to get there
63
or the results. Respondent C further stated that this lack of commitment in the middle
manager will be mirrored throughout the organisation. Other problems or issues that can be
associated to support and commitment according to respondent A and E is the
communication. While often beneficial, if communication is misinterpreted it can cause
challenges.
4.7 Leadership and quality of implementation When stating their opinion about what a leader is all of the respondents had quite similar
answers. A general consensus occurred where the respondents agreed that a leader is
someone that represents and manages to motivate people, a role model that teaches by doing.
Respondent C also mentioned that a leader should understand the organisation. Respondent E
also stated that a leader should create confidence in people while respondent F further
developed this by adding that a leader should help to develop the employees in their
workspace. As a middle manager, the respondents stated attributes they should have included:
Table 16: Traits of the middle manager
Traits of middle management Respondent
View of man F, E
Perceptive E, A
Clarity/transparency E, B
Humility A
Determination A, C
Calm D, B
Patient B Source: Authors own construct
The middle managers also had to take a stand to whether they believed flexibility was
important for a middle manager and overall most of the respondents agreed that it was.
Respondent C said it was very important, not only for the implementation process but also in
order to take care of their employees. Respondent A agreed but did not think it was as
important. Respondent D also believed flexibility was a trait a middle manager should have
however they also believed that they cannot be too flexible and there has to be limitations.
Respondent E echoed respondent C’s answer with a view of flexibility as important.
All of the respondents also had opportunities to develop their leadership skills both through
work and private and only one respondent, respondent D, replied that they had developed
their leadership skills by trial and error doing the daily operations as a middle manager.
Furthermore, the middle managers agreed that they all appreciated the opportunity to develop
their leadership skills and that the development of set skills was beneficial to their growth and
competence as middle managers. As Respondent A stated, it is important to continue to learn
in order to be able to perform better as a middle manager.
While discussion favourable traits of the CEO and top management, most of the respondents
stated that the traits of a middle manager should also be found in the CEO and top
64
management team though it was possible to discern a few differences. The table below
present the traits that a CEO should possess according to the middle managers.
Table 17: Traits of CEO and top management team
Traits of CEO and top management Respondent
Clarity B, E
Equal B
Fair/Objective B, D
Calm D
Professional D
Visionary C
Humility A
Determination A
Overall perspective A, E, F Source: Authors own construct
When asked about the recruitment process at their company, overall the respondents thought
it was good. Respondent E thought that the recruitment was a good mix between internal and
external recruitment but added that it is important that there are opportunities to grow
internal. This differed slightly from respondent F in the same industry who believed it could
be slightly better, especially by recruiting more internally. However the last respondent,
respondent D, from the same industry believed the recruitment process to be good.
Respondents A, B and C also thought the recruitment process in their company was good and
respondent C further stated that the process of recruitment looked different depending on the
employment and the process was adapted to each post. Important to note here though is that
no middle manager were responsible for recruitment in their company.
Middle management leadership can according to the respondents be both beneficial and
detrimental to the implementation process depending on the middle manager in question.
Respondent A replied that an issue that can arise in the implementation process due to the
middle managers leadership qualities is when the middle manager possesses personality traits
that do not work well with the employees. Respondent A further added that a middle manager
brings opportunities to the implementation process by their way of communicating and by
leading their employees from the start. Respondent F stated that if a middle manager is not
engaged it can impact the implementation process negatively. Respondent D was of the
opinion that a middle manager with a “bossy” leadership style might be problematic when
implementing strategies. Respondent E was slightly of the same opinion, with a belief that a
middle manager should operate more as a leader and not a manager. Respondent B stated that
a middle manager should be flexible since they deal with a lot of employees and need to
adapt to the best way of leading them. Respondent C also stated that a middle manager
should not be too analytical since, as respondent B said, they deal with a lot of people.
65
4.8 Culture The respondents at SSAB described their culture a bit different from each other. Respondent
D said that the culture can be described as fun and that people are nice to each other. On the
other hand, respondent E pointed out that the culture at SSAB is right now in the process of
changing, from the very masculine, harsh and conservative industrial culture towards a more
open, proactive and diverse culture. This was further strengthened by respondent F that
confirmed this, respondent F also added that culture should have a humanist perspective with
a leadership philosophy that guides the culture. The respondents at ICA Maxi needed to think
a bit about their culture and the responses were not immediate. However they all then
answered in almost the same manner. Respondent A said that the culture was focused on
giving the customers practical solutions and good service. Respondent B said that the culture
should act as a friend and provide a good and nice time at work. Respondent C described the
culture to be friendly with trust and responsibility.
When asked if the culture affects the strategy implementation process respondent A answered
that it does to a certain degree, since some types of organisational culture attracts certain
people and they in turn will affect the implementation process. Respondent A also added that
the culture does not make it harder to reach certain strategical goals or hinders the
implementation process for their part in any way. Respondent B simply said that culture can
affect the implementation process but could not give an example and respondent C expressed
a view point that if the culture is too strict it could inhibit creativity. The respondents at
SSAB were more certain in their answers. Respondent E said that the culture that still exists
at SSAB right now, even though it is in a transition, affects strategy implementation since the
conservative culture can resist change. Respondent F said that culture affects “how” strategy
is being implemented, that if there is a culture that nurtures everybody’s contribution then
people will be more prone to believe in the strategy. This can be further strengthened by
respondent D that expressed similar thoughts by stating that a more positive and “good”
culture makes things easier in harder times.
When asked specifically if there is anything in the organisational culture or structure that
could hinder or restrict the middle managers flexibility and ultimately the implementation
process, all of the middle managers said that that’s was not the case. However, respondent E
expressed an additional thought that culture does affect the implementation efforts, down the
line. That due to the organisation culture they had identified some unwillingness towards
changes within the firm.
All the respondents believed that they contribute to their company’s culture in some way.
Respondent E said that one contributes to culture by just existing in the firm and respondent
C added to that by stating that “you lead as you learn”. Regarding the question if some
strategical goals are harder to reach than others depending on the fit with the firm’s culture
respondent A and B from ICA maxi both said no, in the sense that it does not really apply on
ICA maxi, while respondent C said that it was something that possibly could happened. The
reason for this not applying on ICA Maxi according to the respondents was that the culture
never opposes strategy or that the culture might not be prominent enough to oppose strategy.
66
The responses from the middle managers at SSAB are more unanimously since they all said
that culture does affect the success factor of different strategical goals. Respondent E once
again referred to the transition that SSAB’s culture right now is in. In addition to the topic of
culture respondent E from SSAB said that since SSAB is a big company that crosses boarders
everything takes longer time, including cultural change and implementing strategy. It is also a
bigger risk that strategies that are supposed to get implemented grinds to a halt since they
can’t get passed certain areas in the organisation and “travel down” in order to get
implemented. This can occur due to language differences or usage of too conceptual words
that makes understanding the strategy hard, hence making the translation into everyday
objectives almost impossible.
67
5. Data Analysis This chapter presents the analysis of the empirical data and the theories presented in the
literature review. The analysis consists of a comparison of the empirical data to the
conceptualisation in order to answer the overall purpose of the study.
5.1 Analysis of the implementation process This thesis sets out to examine how middle management implements strategies. In order to do
so this thesis tries to provide a description of a middle managers implementation process.
This is done by analysing the implementation process as shown in the emerged framework
from a middle management perspective. The analysis of the implementation process has been
conducted by comparing the empirical data towards the implementation process described in
the emerged framework. The implementation process consists of different dimensions and in
order to analyse the dimensions as logically as possible each dimension will be firstly
analysed by itself.
5.1.1 Strategy formulation
According to the emerged framework, based on theory from Brenes, Mena and Molina
(2008) and Beer and Eisenstat (2000), the first step in an implementation process is the
formulation of strategy. This phase involves several aspects. First of all, literature states that
all parts of the firm and all internal partners should be involved in the strategy formulation
aspect. Furthermore, when formulating strategy the long term vision of the company has to be
taken into consideration. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) If this is compared to the empirical
data, it is possible to discern that the data supports strategy formulation as the first phase in
the implementation process. All respondents in both industries agreed that strategy
formulation is the first step in the implementation process.
Theory also states that strategy formulation should include all aspects of the company and the
degree of involvement from the internal partners (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). If this is
viewed from a middle management perspective one can establish middle managers as an
internal partner and as an important part of the company. This implies that middle managers
should be able to partake in the strategy formulation, since according to theory consideration
should be given to all relevant aspects and middle managers should be considers as such.
However this statement is only partially supported by the data. The data presents that middle
managers are allowed to influence strategy formulation only if the strategy concerns the
middle manager’s area of responsibility. Though another distinction can be made in the
empirical data here, the middle managers at ICA Maxi compared to SSAB were given more
room for input in the strategy formulation. This raises a question whether the size of the
company affects middle managers influence on strategy formulation. ICA Maxi has around
300 employees while SSAB in total has 15 000 and SSAB Luleå has around 1100 employees.
However, the respondents unanimously agreed that if they are part of the formulation process
the outcome and effect of the strategy will be better.
The strategy formulation phase, as mentioned, governs, surveys and analyses all parts that the
company uses such as environment, industry and competition when formulating strategy
68
(Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). This is not supported by the data. However important to
note here is that the emerged framework is a strategy implementation process from an
organisational perspective while the purpose of this thesis is from a middle management
perspective. This implies that this component of strategy formulation becomes redundant
since it does not apply to middle management who is responsible for their specific area of
responsibility or department. Though, this component of strategy formulation should be
considered partially supported since, as discussed in the section above, middle managers are a
relevant aspect and should be involved in strategy formulation if it concerns their area of
responsibility.
Interesting to note here is that, according to the empirical data, if the middle managers are
able to influence the strategy formulation process the degree of involvement in the remaining
implementation processes will be higher. This is partially supported by theory. Brenes, Mena
and Molina (2008) state that a component of strategy formulation is to examine the internal
partners, in this case middle management, degree of involvement which will illustrate the
partners’ commitment to the strategy when formulated. While the empirical data suggest that
involvement occurs during the strategy formulation, the data also states for this to occur the
middle managers must be involved in the formulation process.
The component regarding the long term vision of strategy formulation can be regarded as
irrelevant. As mentioned, the framework is developed from the organisational perspective
while the analysis is conducted from the middle management perspective. While the
empirical data states that strategy formulation is needed in order to achieve a goal or to create
a common structure no middle manager mentioned that they influence how formulation of
strategy is considered connected to the long term vision of the organisation.
Another aspect of the strategy formulation phase that becomes irrelevant is the component of
external advisors that act as a catalyst for strategy formulation. Middle managers are internal
partners of a firm and external advisors are therefore needless to examine for this study. This
is strengthened by the empirical data, no middle manager considered or even mentioned
external advisors in connection to strategy formulation.
The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in strategy
formulation, from theory, are supported from a middle management perspective.
69
Table 18: Strategy formulation compared to theory
Aspect Empirical data Supports
theory
Strategy formulation is the first phase Yes Supported
Middle managers (relevant aspect) should be
considered during strategy formulation
Yes Partially
supported
Middle managers (internal partners) degree
of involvement.
Partially – dependent on
involvement in formulation
Partially
supported
Long term vision No Not
supported
External advisors No Not
supported Source: Authors own construct
The analysis also presents a few components of strategy formulation from a middle
management perspective that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on
the empirical data and the following analysis these are components that the middle managers
regard as important during the strategy formulation phase. These aspects are summarised in
the table below.
Table 19: Strategy formulation aspects solely supported by empirical data
Aspect Empirical data
Involvement in formulation leads to better
implementation
Yes
Involvement in formulation leads to higher
degree of implementation commitment
Yes
Source: Authors own construct.
5.1.2 Systematic execution
Systematic execution is the second phase in the emerged framework which is supported by
the empirical data. All middle managers agreed that execution was the next step in the
implementation process. The components of the execution phase include priority systems and
delegation of decision making in order to implement strategy (Brenes, Mena, & Molina,
2008).
The component regarding priority systems states that organisations should set a priority
system of the activities that should be conducted in the execution (Brenes, Mena, & Molina,
2008). The data implies that the middle managers put it upon themselves to translate the
formulated strategy into everyday or short term objectives. Though respondent B, pointed out
that how and to what extent this is done depends on what kind of strategy it is and how it is
formulated. This means that translating strategy into action is an aspect of middle
management execution. Furthermore, the translation will differ depending on the kind of
strategy. The type of strategy influences the translation in how the everyday objectives are
established.
70
There is a difference in how the respondents from ICA Maxi and SSAB said the prioritisation
occurred. The middle managers at ICA Maxi stated it was up to them to set the priorities with
the guidance of budgets and business plans. The priority system came more as a natural
occurring progress than as something that had to be thought long and hard about to be
decided. At SSAB the opinions differed. Each middle manager had their own way of setting
priorities but no middle manager was the single deciding factor of how the priorities should
be set. The priority system could be decided due to the time aspect, through the consensus of
the team or dependent on what higher management decides. Interesting to note, is that once
again the kind of strategy affects the priority system. One middle manager from SSAB stated
that they set priorities different depending on the strategy. The theory states that there should
be a priority system for each action meaning to be implemented (Brenes, Mena, & Molina,
2008) this is partially supported by the data. Since the data presents numerous of different
ways to set the priority systems and it is not exclusively done by either the company or the
middle managers themselves. Sometimes the middle managers set the priority systems and
sometimes they do not. However, one could argue that the data is leaning towards showing a
difference between ICA Maxi and SSAB where the middle managers at ICA Maxi are more
prone to making the priority system by themselves compared to SSAB. Once again, this
raises the question whether size, culture and organisational structure might have an influence
the priority system.
Another component in the systematic execution phase is the delegation for decision making,
which describes the delegation for decision making for the individuals who are responsible
for implementing strategy (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). All the respondents expressed
that they are able to make independent decisions when needed. There were also a consensus
that if even bigger decisions where needed they could accomplish them by having a dialogue
with their superior. This implies that the middle managers at work have the authority to make
decisions delegated to them, supporting the theory by Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) from
a middle management perspective.
The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in strategy
execution, from theory, are supported by data from a middle management perspective.
Table 20: Systematic execution compared to theory
Aspect Empirical data Supports
theory
Systematic execution is the second phase in
the process
Yes Supported
Priority systems established by middle
management
Partially – dependent on
situation
Partially
supported
Delegation of decision making Yes Supported Source: Authors own construct
The analysis also presents a component of systematic execution from a middle management
perspective that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on the empirical
71
data and the following analysis this component is regarded as important by the middle
managers. The table below presents the component.
Table 21: Systematic execution aspect supported solely by empirical data
Aspect Empirical data
Middle managers translate the formulated
strategy into actions
Yes
Source: Authors own construct.
5.1.3 Control and follow up
According to theory (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) the third phase in the implementation
process is strategy control and follow up which includes components that companies can use
in order to follow up on strategy and control if the strategy has been implemented or not.
While the managers did not explicitly state that control and follow up is the third step, control
of each action needs to occur and does so continuously according to the managers. All the
middle managers agreed that control and follow up were crucial in order to achieve
successful strategy implementation. Therefore it is possible to state that the empirical data
supports that control and follow up can be regarded as the third phase in the implementation
process.
Regarding control systems, which theory states that companies should establish to reach
successful implementation (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008), the empirical data differed not
only between the two industries but also slightly between the middle managers. Each middle
manager at ICA Maxi went about control a bit differently even though their company
provided them with different routines and control systems. In order to establish control one
manager used documents and that employees had to sign so responsibility can be established.
This implied that feedback could occur immediately if needed. By using control points
control can also be achieved. In addition to this, checklists, post-it notes, calendars and phone
meetings were used to follow up on strategy. If this is comparing to the framework, there is
clear evidence that the middle managers uses one or multiple forms of control systems,
supporting the theory that states that firms should have control systems as a component of the
third phase. SSAB did not have a pre-made control systems unanimous used throughout the
company. The empirical data however suggest that the middle managers used weekly and/or
monthly meeting with the management team in addition to daily guidance. Furthermore
communication was seen as an important part of follow up in order to control if the strategy
was being implemented. Even though SSAB’s control systems differ from the ones at ICA
Maxi, the data supports theory from Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) in regards to control
system. All managers use and establish systems for control.
Theory states that feedback is needed in order to achieve a successful strategy
implementation, continuous feedback of how the execution is going is required (Brenes,
Mena, & Molina, 2008). The empirical data suggests that all managers regarded feedback as
important, without any form of control and follow up the strategy will not be executed, and
therefore supports theory. Feedback, according to the middle managers, should occur
72
instantly so as to minimise the risk of negligence or mistakes. If the implementation process
is not controlled there is no way of ensuring that the strategy is going in the right way and
possibilities to adjust and adapt the strategy are lost. This implies that feedback should be
conducted continuously after each activity, once again supporting theory. Furthermore,
feedback needs to be conducted in the correct manner otherwise it can have a large negative
impact on the implementation. Interesting to note, is that one important aspect of the middle
managers feedback, control and follow up was to give credit and praise to their employees.
One middle manager even went so far as to state a manager is not a manager if they are not
able to use praise as a management tool. Part of this is ensuring that employees feel secure.
One middle manager stated that this can be done by using a coaching approach that focuses
on positive aspects of employee performance. Furthermore, the data suggest an additional
component in the form of “time aspect”. Feedback should occur immediately and if the
control and follow up takes too long it will impact the implementation process so the
execution itself will take longer than needed.
Another component of control and follow up is that companies should constantly monitor the
business environment in order to be able to adjust strategy in accordance to trends, as well as
measure the state of strategy execution in order to be aware of the progress (Brenes, Mena, &
Molina, 2008). This can only be partially supported by the data. From a middle management
perspective, strategy can be adjusted based on the control, feedback and follow up done by
the middle managers. This means that while the result is the same – an adjusted strategy – the
means there differ from the theory. Theory states that the strategy will be adjusted due to
external changes while the empirical data suggest the strategy may be adapted only due to
internal changes. Interesting to note though is that the possibility to adapt the strategy is
regarded as important by many of the middle managers. Though one manager regarded
strategic changes due to internal issues as a failure of the strategy. Strategy can be monitored,
measured and adjusted but from a middle management perspective it is not done by the
reasons stated by theory, hence the data is partially supported.
The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in control and
follow up, from theory, are supported by data from a middle management perspective.
Table 22: Control and follow up compared to theory
Aspect Empirical
data
Supports
theory
Control and follow up is the third phase in the
implementation process
Yes Supported
Control system should exist Yes Supported
Middle managers should be able to provide feedback Yes Supported
Monitoring, measure and adjustment of strategy Partially Partially
supported Source: Authors own construct
The analysis also presents a component of control and follow up from a middle management
perspective that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on the empirical
73
data and the following analysis this component is regarded as important by the middle
managers. The table below presents the component.
Table 23: Control and follow up aspect supported solely by empirical data
Aspect Empirical data
Time frame of control Partially yes Source: Authors own construct
5.1.4 Leadership
In order to achieve a successful implementation the emerged framework presents supporting
dimensions in addition to the three phase implementation process. The first supporting
dimension is leadership, both the leadership of CEO and top management as well as
leadership qualities of the middle management. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008; Beer &
Eisenstat, 2000) The empirical data presents leadership as an important part of implementing
strategies. Leadership according to the data should be cultivated and viewed as a facilitator of
strategy implementation therefore it is possible to state that the empirical data supports theory
– leadership is a supporting dimension for the strategy implementation process. Without a
good leadership from the middle managers the implementation will suffer and a bad style of
leadership is even detrimental to the implementation process.
The leadership dimension states that in order to reach an effective implementation efficient
leadership needs to be found within the company. Without the commitment, communication
and effective leadership of the CEO it becomes very complex to implement strategies
however it is still ultimately the managers and employees that implement strategies. (Brenes,
Mena, & Molina, 2008) The empirical data supports this. All middle managers agreed that an
important and large part of their responsibilities include implementing strategies. It is the
middle managers that translate strategy and put it into action for their employees. This means
that it is the managers and employees that are responsible for implementing strategy and
therefore supporting theory by Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008).
An engaged leadership style by the CEO and top management is another component of this
dimension (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). The empirical data presents that all middle managers
agree that with CEO commitment, the strategy implementation process becomes easier to
execute. If the top management is engaged in the strategy it will affect the rest of the
organisation and make the employees more committed through a domino effect. Though,
while the leadership style of the CEO and top management influences the middle manager,
the middle manager cannot control the CEO and top management leadership style. Important
to remember here is that the framework uses an organisational perspective while the purpose
of the thesis uses a middle management perspective. This implies that the implementation
process viewed from a middle management perspective requires an engaged leadership from
middle managers. This is supported by the empirical data. The data also presents that
effective middle management leadership facilitates implementation. The middle managers
agreed that it is important that they are engaged and are able to motivate the employees. A
74
style of leadership that the middle managers agreed was effective and often used was “teach
by doing”.
The empirical data also illustrates what a good leader should be, qualities that should exist in
both CEO and top management as well as middle managers. In general, an agreement
occurred where a manager should be a leader who represents and motivates people. The
attributes that were mentioned all revolved around a humanist perspective, where a middle
manager should be perceptive and clear and view their employees a people. These thoughts
are echoed in the CEO attributes but in addition CEO and top management should also have a
more visionary perspective.
A component of this dimension is the communication of the strategy. Theory states that top
management are responsible for communicating a clear understanding of the organisations
priorities and how the strategy is linked to the core of the organisation. (Brenes, Mena, &
Molina, 2008; Beer & Eisenstat, 2000) If this concept is applied to a middle management
perspective the empirical data will support this theory. The data presents that a responsibility
of the middle managers is to communicate the strategy to their respective employees and
explain how the strategy is connected to the company’s mission, vision and goals. All the
middle managers mentioned that it was their responsibility to explain the strategy. This
includes connecting the strategy to the company, providing a deeper insight of how the
strategy connects to mission, vision and/or objectives and goals of the company. While this is
not something that occurs on a daily basis the middle managers communicate and explain this
to their employees when needed. Especially if employees feel uncertain or to do not
understand.
The recruitment process in a company is also a component of this supporting dimension. The
emerged framework presents that an area of responsibility for top management is recruiting
and developing talented employees. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) The empirical data
presents a well-functioning recruitment process in both industries where higher management
ensures that recruitment is done so as to align employees with company. Though the
empirical data also presents that middle management is not concerned with the recruitment in
their respective organisations. This means that the empirical data actually supports theory if it
is viewed from an organisational perspective as the original process was intended. Though
this process, to fit with the purpose of the study, should be viewed from a middle
management perspective implies that the data does not support theory - or that this aspect of
the dimension is not applicable to middle management.
The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in the
supporting dimension leadership, from theory, are supported by data from a middle
management perspective.
75
Table 24: Leadership dimension compared to theory
Aspect Empirical
data
Supports
theory
Leadership is a supporting dimension to strategy
implementation
Yes Supported
Middle managers should possess an engaged leadership
style
Yes Supported
Middle managers are responsible for implementing
strategy
Yes Supported
Recruitment of employees No Not supported
Communicating organisational understanding Yes Supported Source: Authors own construct
The analysis also presents a component of leadership from a middle management perspective
that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on the empirical data and the
following analysis this component is regarded as important by the middle managers. The
table below presents the component.
Table 25: Leadership aspects supported solely by empirical data
Aspect Empirical data
Effective middle management requires specific
personality traits
Dependent on the middle manager – though
all from humanist perspective Source: Authors own construct
5.1.5 Support and commitment
Another supporting dimension in the implementation process found in the emerged
framework is the support and commitment dimension. This dimension tackles the support,
commitment and involvement throughout the whole organisation. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina,
2008) The empirical data presents a situation where middle management believe commitment
to be an important part of strategy implementation. However, the data presents that the
middle managers opinions differed slightly on how important commitment is in order to
reach a successful strategy implementation. While all managers agreed that commitment
should exist concerning their area of responsibility one manager stated that they do not
always feel it to be necessary to create commitment amongst their employees. Instead they
believed that the employees should do their work as they are instructed and therefore value
feedback and control more. This may mean that commitment is perhaps not always as
important as other aspects to strategy implementation. Commitment should be regarded as a
supporting dimension, as theory states, but perhaps not the most crucial one.
Theory states that commitment must exist at all levels of the firm and amongst all concerned
stakeholders in order to execute strategic change (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). The
empirical data verifies this statement. If CEO and top management are committed it will have
a trickledown effect and be felt at every other level of the organisation. This strengthens
theories. If the commitment component is then viewed from a middle management
perspective - meaning that middle managers have to be committed to the strategy in order to
76
reach successful implementation – it is then also supported by the empirical data. The data
illustrates that all middle managers are committed to strategy, especially if it falls within their
area of responsibility. Middle managers are stakeholders thus meaning that the theory is
verified. Middle managers should be committed in order to reach successful implementation.
Another component of support and control is that commitment and agreement amongst
concerned stakeholders should exist (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). The empirical data is
inconclusive and can neither support nor oppose this statement since the empirical data is
solely based on one kind of stakeholder. However if this component is viewed from a middle
management perspective it becomes verified as stated in the paragraph above. The middle
managers do the best they can to achieve agreement and commitment but they cannot ensure
agreement and commitment outside of their area of responsibility. The data cannot support or
disagree with stockholder support to management either since this statement is not significant
for this thesis and has therefore not been examined.
An aspect to support and commitment that was not mentioned in the theory is
communication. The empirical data states that communication is an important and influential
part of commitment. That through their communication the middle managers can contribute,
support and increase commitment of their employees.
The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in the
supporting dimension support and commitment, from theory, are supported by data from a
middle management perspective.
Table 26: Support and commitment dimension compared to theory
Aspect Empirical
data
Supports
theory
Support and commitment is a supporting dimension in the
implementation process
Yes Supported
Commitment at all levels Yes Partially
supported
Commitment and agreement of all stakeholders - -
Stockholder support - - Source: Authors own construct
The analysis also presents a component of support and commitment from a middle
management perspective that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on
the empirical data and the following analysis this component is regarded as important by the
middle managers. The table below presents the component.
Table 27: Commitment aspects supported solely by empirical data
Aspect Empirical data
Communication creates commitment Yes Source: Authors own construct
77
5.1.6 Quality of implementation
In addition to the three phase process leading to successful strategy implementation, one of
the supporting dimensions is the quality of implementation. According to theory, this
dimension is concerned with coordination and effective collaboration across functions. It is
also concerned with the development of leadership skills as well as with the CEO making the
managers down the line feeling confident in their decision making. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)
The theory states that managers down the line should be given the opportunity to develop
their leadership skills since this will create a learning organisation that will be better at
implementing strategy (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). The data presents that the middle managers
were able to develop their leadership skills and did so either by company provided leadership
courses and education opportunities or privately. The data also suggests that the leadership
skills of the middle managers can be developed by trial and error in their everyday activities.
Since the middle managers believed that their leadership contributed to a better
implementation process they all thought that developing their skillset was important and
should be done. Since it has been established that leadership is an important supporting
dimension the opportunity to develop those skills should also be considered. Furthermore, the
empirical data states that all middle managers appreciated and thought that the opportunity to
develop their leadership was beneficial. Thus, the empirical data supports theory in regards to
developing leadership skills.
A component of this dimension is that there should exist coordination and collaboration
across functions (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). This component uses an organisational perspective
which implies that when the component is placed on a middle management perspective it can
be interpreted as middle managers should be able to collaborate effectively across functions
and so as to create coordination. The empirical data partially supports this. The data shows
that the middle managers make sure that everyone at the company stay informed in the
previously stated meetings and control systems and in other necessary means. For example,
the everyday talk while doing the daily operations adds to the information flow and
coordination. In addition to that, the respondents at SSAB also stated that due to the largeness
of their company, methods like video conferences, e-mails, phone calls and just walking
across the corridors and met personnel face to face is used. With this in mind it is possible to
state that the middle managers work towards an effective collaboration across functions.
They contribute to the coordination with information sharing but it is perhaps not totally
accurate to state that middle managers are ultimately responsible for the coordination across
business function thus partially supporting the theory.
Another component of quality of implementation is lower level management’s confidence in
making decisions (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). This implies that middle manager should feel
secure enough and possess the knowledge to take decisions. As previously stated in the
systematic execution phase, all of the middle managers unanimously stated that they are
allowed to make the decisions needed. To add to this, the empirical data does not show that
any of the middle managers felt uncomfortable in their decision-making process. Meaning
that the theory is supported from a middle management perspective.
78
With the analysis of the quality of implementation dimension it is possible to state that this is
a supporting dimension. Since middle management actively work with these components and
especially believe developing their own leadership is important this dimension can be
regarded as supporting the implementation process. The better the coordination, collaboration
and the leadership within the company the better the implementation process will be.
The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in the
supporting dimension quality of implementation, from theory, are supported by data from a
middle management perspective.
Table 28: Quality of implementation dimension compared to theory
Aspect Empirical
data
Supports
theory
Quality of implementation is a supporting dimension to
strategy implementation.
Yes Supported
Middle managers should be able to develop their
leadership skills
Yes Supported
Middle managers should effectively collaborate across
functions
Yes Partially
supported
Middle managers are confident in making decisions Yes Supported Source: Authors own construct
5.1.7 Vertical communication
The emerged framework presents vertical communication as the last supporting dimension.
This dimension concerns the communication that aids the different phases in the
implementation process (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). The empirical data supports vertical
communication as a supporting dimension in the implementation process. Middle
management view communication as a crucial part of implementation. So much so that if
middle managers are good communicators they can improve the implementation process. The
empirical data suggests that communication has been an influence or an aspect in the whole
implementation process, both in the actual implementation phases and the supporting
dimensions, implying that communication is of utmost importance. Thusly, supporting
theory.
A component of this supporting dimension is that the communication is vertical, meaning that
communication can occur vertically through the levels of the organisation, both up and down
(Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). Middle managers hold a unique position in regards to vertical
communication, they are positioned within a company as the ideal go between higher
management and lower level employees. This is strengthened by the empirical data which
state that the middle managers share information in various ways in order to keep people
above and under the middle managers informed about the situation. Furthermore, it is by
vertical communication that the middle managers actually ensure execution of the strategy.
The empirical data states that middle management receives the strategy from higher
management and then through communication, the middle manager translates strategy and
communicates to the employees how and why the strategy execution will be done. It is also
79
through vertical communication that strategy can be adjusted and redefined. With
information, control and feedback created at lower levels, middle management are then able
to communicate necessary adjustments or issues to higher level management so as to try to
create the best strategy possible.
Theory states that a component of the communication dimension is that communication
should be efficient and fact based (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). This is supported by the
empirical data. The middle managers believed that communication was at its most efficient
when the communication was open, honest and fact based. If communication is conducted in
this manner it mitigates the risk of misinterpretation, misunderstanding and inaccuracies.
The empirical data also states that an aspect of middle management communication is to
ensure understanding and consensus of the employees. This is done by communicating the
“why” of strategy implementation. By explaining the background and what the strategy
ideally wants to achieve better execution of the strategy can occur. This aspect is a middle
manager responsibility according to the empirical data. Another aspect of communication that
was important to the middle managers is the ability to communicate on an individual level.
The empirical data stated that it was through personal communication that the middle
managers were able to provide feedback and constructive criticism.
The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in the
supporting dimension vertical communication, from theory, are supported by data from a
middle management perspective.
Table 29: Communication dimension compared to theory
Aspect Empirical
data
Supports
theory
Vertical communication is a supporting dimension to the
strategy implementation process
Yes Supported
Middle management facilitate execution by vertical
communication
Yes Supported
Efficient and fact based communication Yes Supported Source: Authors own construct
The analysis also presents components of vertical communication from a middle management
perspective that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on the empirical
data and the following analysis these components are regarded as important by the middle
managers. The table below presents the component.
Table 30: Vertical communication aspects supported solely by empirical data
Aspect Empirical data
Communication increases understanding and
commitment
Yes
Personal communication is important Yes Source: Authors own construct
80
5.1.8 Culture
Culture according to the emerged framework can be regarded as an underlying foundation for
the implementation process since culture affects the implementation process in various ways
(Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008; Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004; Dobni, 2003; Alamsjah,
2011). This means that it is important to establish how the organisational culture affects the
implementation process from a middle management perspective.
The empirical data presents that the middle managers believed that they all contribute to the
organisational culture in some way. The middle managers expressed thoughts like “you lead
as you learn” and that they contribute to the culture just by existing in the firm. The data also
presents that there is a belief amongst the middle managers that a “good” culture generally
makes their job easier. An organisational culture that nurtures employee contribution results
in more employees believing in the strategy. As well as that a “good, positive and strong”
culture makes it easier to function within in the company at harder times. This implies that
culture affects the middle managers but also that the middle managers influence the culture.
The empirical data presents that the organisational culture seems to have a more prominent
influence over the middle managers at SSAB than ICA Maxi. The middle managers at ICA
Maxi expressed that culture could affect the implementation process though the impact of it
was slightly unclear. If this is compared to SSAB the middle managers stated that the culture
affects the implementation process. The middle managers mentioned that culture could affect
how successful the strategic goals are due to the employees oppose strategically change due
to cultural reasons Interesting to note here is that the empirical data presents two vastly
different cultures. The culture at SSAB is described as masculine, conservative and
stereotypical industrialised while the culture at ICA Maxi was regarded by the middle
managers as fun, friendly and positive. This raises the question of if the affects of culture on
the implementation process is dependent on the kind of culture that can be found in the
company. One could discuss if ICA Maxis middle managers do not notice the affects since
the company has an underlying culture that is nurturing and therefore actually facilities the
process while SSAB has a culture that can hinder the implementation process and that is why
the middle managers at SSAB notices affects from it.
Furthermore, an aspect of SSABs culture that was mentioned in the empirical data was that
larger organisations as SSAB may have increased risk of strategies that are supposed to be
implemented come to a standstill since the strategy cannot get passed different areas or
sections in the organisation. This is due to different aspects such as the culture,
misunderstandings, language differences, conceptual words and so forth that can make the
translation of strategy into everyday objectives almost impossible, hence the stand still. The
fact that SSAB is so big makes everything take a longer amount of time, all from cultural
change to strategy implementation.
Based on the empirical data it is possible to discern that the middle managers believe that
they contribute to culture. A component of the cultural foundation is that culture is the
81
aggregated beliefs and attitudes of the member of the company (Sadri, 2014). Since middle
manager state that they can influence culture this verifies the theory.
It is also possible to discern that middle managers believe that culture affects the strategy
implementation process, however it seems that if the culture is “positive” or “good” it does
not have that much of an effect on strategy being implemented. It is just something that exists
in the background and does not make the job of strategy implementation any more difficult or
easier for the middle managers. On the other hand, if the culture is “negative” for the
implementation process it seems to take up more of the middle managers time and effort
when implementing strategy. The fact that culture is “bad” seems to weigh heavier on the
implementation process from a middle management perspective than if culture is “good”,
partially supporting a component of culture which states that culture should be proactive and
accepting of strategic change (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004) and partially supporting
theory that states that corporate culture influences the successfulness of which middle
managers are able to accomplish the desired strategy implementation (Alamsjah, 2011).
Dobni (2003) states that culture is a driver of strategy which the empirical data supports. It
may not be as evident for the middle managers at ICA Maxi since they actually have a
driving culture, it is part of the backbone at the company, while SSAB who have a culture
that slightly opposes implementation illustrates how culture affects strategy. Opposing
culture hinders, or at least complicates and increases the time period, as the middle managers
from SSAB described.
The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in the cultural
foundation, from theory, are supported by data from a middle management perspective.
Table 31: Cultural foundation compared to theory
Aspect Empirical data Supports
theory
Culture is an underlying foundation for
strategy implementation
Yes Supported
Middle managers are contributors to culture Yes Supported
Culture should be proactive and accepting of
change
Yes Supported
Culture affects middle managers
successfulness in implementing strategy
Partially – dependent on the
kind of culture
Partially
supported
Culture is a driver of strategy Yes Supported Source: Authors own construct
5.2 Analysis of middle management opportunities Research question two set out to realise what opportunities middle management brought to
the strategy implementation process beyond their actual implementation process. To do this a
conceptualisation of middle management opportunities was created. The opportunities are
presented in the table below in addition to whether the empirical data either verified or
falsified the theory.
82
Table 32: Summarisation of opportunities compared to theory
Factor Opportunity Author(s) Supported
by data
Culture Middle management can help create
culture that facilitates change.
(Dobni, 2003)
(Crittenden &
Crittenden, 2008)
Partially
supported
Coalignment Middle management can facilitate the
fit between culture and strategy.
(Dobni, 2003) Partially
supported
Flexibility Middle management can affect the
successfulness of strategic decisions
with their flexibility.
(Miller, Wilson,
& Hickson, 2004)
Partially
supported
Communication Middle management can create
opportunities by providing feedback.
(Hrebiniak, 2006) Supported
Commitment Middle management can influence
employees and performance with their
commitment to strategy
implementation.
(Hrebiniak, 2006)
(Salih & Doll,
2013)
Supported
Translation Middle management is key facilitators
of translating strategy into actions and
procedures.
(Browne, et al.,
2014) (Hrebiniak,
2006) (Salih &
Doll, 2013)
Supported
Knowledge Middle managements social aspects
have an impact on performance and
influence up and down the line. Middle
management is also an information
source concerning the implementation
process.
(Ahearne, Lam,
& Kraus, 2014)
(Salih & Doll,
2013)
Supported
Source: Authors own construct
Comparing the empirical data against the theory illustrates that the cultural factor is partially
supported by the data. The empirical data presents a situation where the middle managers
stated that they are contributors to the organisational culture, however this contribution is not
an explicit action instead more of result of being part of the organisation. This implies that
culture is such an underlying concept that middle managers contribution occurs without them
thinking about it. Therefore it is possible to say that middle management can help create a
culture that facilitates implementation but it is also possible to say that they do not. It is
dependent on whether the company and in connection the middle manager actively works
towards a change in culture. But this implies that the middle managers have to be aware of
the culture and the cultural change that is occurring. Something that the empirical data does
not present as evident if one looks at ICA Maxi. SSAB on the other hand is currently
undergoing a cultural change and the middle managers are aware of this change.
The coalignment opportunity is partially supported by the empirical data. The theory is only
partially supported since the middle managers are not aware that they do this. To create
coalignment between strategy and culture feedback is needed. It is the middle managers who
provide this feedback towards top management and top management can then in turn adjust
83
or adapt strategy to fit with cultural changes. However, the middle managers may not be
aware of that the information they provide is used to create changes and coalignment – thusly
this theory is only partially supported.
Regarding flexibility, it can present as an opportunity but only within middle managers area
of responsibility. This means that this theory is partially supported by the empirical data. Data
illustrates that flexibility is important for middle managers to possess; it helps them adjust to
their employees, adapt activities depending on control and feedback and so forth but within
limitations. There are some aspects that are set in stone, such as corporate strategy, that
middle managers cannot adjust.
That communication is a middle management opportunity is clearly supported by the data.
All middle managers agreed that communication was one of their greatest tools in the
implementation process. This means that this factor is supported by the empirical data.
Communication opportunities can occur in several ways. Feedback allows the manager to
adjust, influence and create a better implementation process.
If the commitment factor is analysed against the empirical data it is possible to verify this
theoretical statement. All middle managers stated that they were able to receive more
committed employees through their actions. If the middle managers themselves are
committed to the strategy it will automatically influence their employees. Interesting to note
here is how large an impact communication has on commitment. By communicating with
their employees middle managers felt that they could support their employees which in turn
make them more engaged and involved in the strategy.
The empirical data verifies that middle managers are key facilitators in translating strategy.
In fact it is an important responsibility of the middle manager to translate the strategy into
actions for their employees.
Comparing the empirical data towards the knowledge factor, it possible to discern that data
supports the theory. The data presents that middle managers that are able to communicate on
a personal level with their employees receive a better implementation process since their
social competences creates engaged employees. An example of this, which the empirical data
presents is aspects of personal communication that shows how to present feedback to the
employees that actually creates a more engaged and committed employee. Middle
management can also work as an information source about the implementation process. Due
to their unique position in the company and that the middle managers are responsible for
making sure execution is occurring, middle management possesses the knowledge about how
for example the execution will occur and/or is occurring. They can therefore provide
feedback or insight to top management about the strategy and the implementation of it.
In addition to the above mentioned opportunities, the empirical data indicated a few more
opportunities that should be taken into consideration that were not mentioned in theory.
These are presented in the table below.
84
Table 33: Additional opportunities that middle management create supported solely by data
Factor Opportunity
Communication Communication facilitates all aspects of the process. From formulation to
implementation and all supporting activities surrounding it.
Feedback Non-monetary praise can result in more engaged employees.
Leadership Acting as a role model influences employees to commit more Source: Authors own construct
The first only empirical opportunity concerns an aspect of communication. Theory does not
do a thoroughly enough job of describing how important middle managers actually regard
communication. The middle managers state that middle management communication can
facilitate all aspects of the implementation process which makes it incredibly important.
Furthermore, the middle managers mentioned feedback of non-monetary praise as important.
This makes their employees feel appreciated and secure which has a positive result on the
employees. Secure job environment created a more engaged employee which meant that
work gets done and commitment to strategy increased. Which in turn results in a better
implementation process.
The middle managers also stated that they like to lead by example – acting as a role model
will also affect the employees resulting in a more committed and engaged workforce.
5.3 Analysis of middle management challenges Research question three set out to identify what challenges that middle management might
face in the strategy implementation process beyond their actual implementation process. To
do this a conceptualisation of middle management challenges was created. This is presented
in the table below in addition to whether the empirical data supports theory or not.
85
Table 34: Summarisation of challenges compared to theory
Factor Challenge Author(s) Supported
by data
Culture Middle management faces culture
that hinders change.
(Dobni, 2003)
(Salih & Doll,
2013)
Partially
supported
Flexibility Middle management faces flexibility
issues due to organisational structures
that can hinder performance.
(Miller, Wilson,
& Hickson,
2004)
Not
supported
Communication Middle management faces lack of
trust due to poor communication.
Poor communication may also lead to
misinterpretation and loss of
meaning.
(Dobni, 2003)
(Salih & Doll,
2013)
Supported
Top
management
team
Middle management faces a top
management team that does not
consider implications of
implementation.
(Hrebiniak, 2006) Supported
Commitment Middle management faces
uncommitted employees and
management throughout the
organisation.
(Crittenden &
Crittenden, 2008)
(Hrebiniak, 2006)
Partially
supported
Time Middle management faces the long
term aspect of strategy
implementation which can impact
focus and control.
(Hrebiniak, 2006) Supported
Source: Authors own construct
The cultural challenge states that middle manager may face a culture that hinders change.
This statement is partially supported by the empirical data. The data presents a situation
where organisational culture can oppose change but also facilitate change. It is all dependent
on the culture.
The flexibility factor is not supported by the data. The middle managers solely stated that
they do not face this type of challenge.
The empirical data supports the communication factor. The middle managers stated that
communication is greatly beneficial to the implementation process but at the same time, if
communication fails it can be very detrimental. Poor communication can result in
misinterpretation and/or misunderstandings. The lack of trust occurs due to repeat
communication failures and can result in undermining implementation efforts. The middle
managers did however state that they have not experienced this but that it is a possibility if a
middle managers has poor communication skills or communicates wrong information and/or
feedback.
The top management team challenge can also be supported by the empirical data. The data
identified this as a challenge. If a strategy is developed that does not consider how it should
86
be executed it becomes more difficult for the middle manager to execute the strategy. As
mentioned if middle managers are allowed to provide input and feedback to strategy it would
significantly ease the implementation process.
The commitment factor was only partially supported. The empirical data presents a mixed
situation regarding the importance of commitment. A few of the middle managers deemed it
as important for themselves, top management team and the CEO to be committed at all levels
of the strategy implementation process. Implying that it can be a challenge if commitment
from these players where not to occur. Other middle managers did not deem it as that
important for the process if they themselves where not committed at all times. Interesting to
note was the middle managers thoughts about uncommitted employees. Once again the data
presents mixed opinions. Some middle managers regard this as a fault in their own
communication while others see it as a sign of misunderstanding rather than refusal of
executing the strategy. Regardless uncommitted employees are a challenge that middle
managers may face.
The last challenge is the time aspect. The empirical data present time as a challenge to
strategy implementation. If strategy were to take too long to actually get started there is a
possibility of the strategy not being executed at all. Furthermore, all middle managers
mentioned the time aspect as a factor when dealing with strategy. The general agreement was
that if the implementation process requires a long time period, compared to a shorter, it
would become harder to keep focus and commitment towards the strategy. Hence, the
empirical data supports theory.
In addition to the above mentioned challenges, the empirical data indicated a few more
challenges that should be taken into consideration that were not mentioned in theory. These
are presented in the table below.
Table 35: Additional challenges that middle management may face supported solely by data
Factor Challenges
Translation Faces strategy that is difficult to translate into actions
Employee
behaviour
Faces employees who do not care about their work tasks
Belief Middle managers believe the strategy to be detrimental to the
organisation
Leadership Possess qualities that makes them inadequate leaders Source: Authors own construct
The first challenge may occur in the translation. A challenge that was identified in the
empirical data is connected to the translation of strategy down-the-line. As the empirical data
shows, middle managers take it upon themselves to translate strategy into everyday
objectives. It is in this translation that the challenge may occur. The strategy may be hard to
translate due to various reasons, such as language barriers or that the strategy is too
conceptually formulated.
87
Another challenge that the middle managers may face is that of the employees’ behaviour.
The empirical data shows the potential challenge of employees not caring about specific work
tasks related to strategy implementation. It makes it harder for the middle manager to ensure
that the strategy actually gets implemented if the employees do not care about their work
tasks and/or about the quality of their work.
The factor belief may present as a challenge for the middle managers. According to the
empirical data, one of the challenges that middle managers might face is the fact that the
middle managers themselves do not believe in the strategy that they are implementing. By
believing that the strategy that is being implemented is detrimental to the organisation,
middle managers may feel it to be difficult to fully commit to the strategy.
The last additional challenge is the factor of leadership. The middle managers identified the
fact that some people in a middle management position may not possess the adequate
attributes required to be a good leader. As the empirical data state, it is important to be a good
leader since it brings with it many benefits. It is on the same note a challenge one may face in
the implementation process if the middle manager does not possess the qualities of a good
leader able to lead the employees.
5.4 International analysis
Culture is very complex. The organisational culture is of course affected by the national
culture. Since both of the companies and the middle managers are located in Sweden this will
have an implication on the organisational culture. This raises the question whether findings
would be different if applied in a different cultural context. On the other hand, the emerged
framework is largely based upon an implementation model (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)
which was explicitly based from findings from Latin America. Implying that the
implementation model was only from a Latin American perspective but this thesis applied the
implementation model on a Swedish perspective. Since the findings from the study to a large
part supports the theory from Brenes, Mena and Molina’s (2008) Latin American model there
seems to be room for generalisation. Since the Latin American model could successfully be
applied in a Swedish setting. The national culture does not seem to largely affect different
aspects of the implementation process. Furthermore, the differences between the findings and
theory are often due to the different perspectives of the model. Meaning that the original
framework was from an organisational perspective while this thesis used a middle
management perspective.
A question to take into consideration is that middle managers are in their own national
culture, meaning that they do not have to make adjustments to the organisation. The culture
that can be found in the company has its basis in the national culture which is same culture of
the middle managers. However it would be interesting to examine if a middle manager from a
different culture than the national culture of the organisation would have the same
experiences as the middle managers of this study.
88
6. Findings and conclusions This chapter presents the findings and conclusions of the thesis.. The purpose of the chapter
is to summarise the most important results that have emerged from the data analysis and
thusly answer the overall purpose and research questions. Furthermore this chapter
discusses theoretical implications, possibilities for future research and implications for
practitioners.
6.1 How can the strategy implementation process for middle managers be
described? To answer the first research question the emerged framework was analysed from a middle
management perspective. During the analysis it was possible to discern some differences
from the organisational perspective to the middle managers perspective. This thesis therefore
suggests some changes to the model to be made. Presented below is the revised framework,
describing the strategy implementation process from a middle management perspective.
Figure 10: The strategy implementation process from a middle management perspective
Source: Authors own construct
89
First phase – Strategy formulation
The first phase in the strategy implementation process is the formulation of strategy. The
findings suggest that middle managers should be allowed to participate in strategy
formulation since this will lead to a better implementation process. This phase suggests:
Middle managements inclusion in formulation leads to a higher degree of
involvement.
Middle management involvement leads to better formulation.
Middle management involvement leads to higher commitment.
Second phase – Systematic execution
The second phase in the strategy process is the execution phase. This phase suggests:
There should exist a priority system.
Middle management should be able to make independent decisions.
Middle management translates strategy into everyday objectives.
Third phase – Control and follow up
The third phase in the strategy process is the control and follow up phase. This phase
suggests:
There should exist a control system in order to ensure execution.
Middle management should be able to provide feedback.
There exists a time aspect that affects the effectiveness of the control and follow up
on strategy.
Middle management should be able to monitor and measure progress which can lead
to change in the strategy.
Supporting dimension – Vertical communication
A supporting dimension for the implementation process is the vertical communication. The
findings of this study suggest that communication is more important than the emerged
framework stated. The communication dimension has therefore undergone a slight change.
Vertical communication should still be considered a supporting dimension to the
implementation process but it should also be viewed as a supporting dimension to the actual
supporting dimensions. Communication namely permeates every aspect of implementation.
This dimension suggests:
Middle management communication facilitates execution of strategy.
Middle management communication should be efficient and fact based.
Middle management communication increases understanding and commitment.
Middle management should be able to communicate on a personal level.
90
Supporting dimension - Leadership
A supporting dimension for the implementation process is the middle manager’s leadership.
This dimension suggests:
Middle management is responsible for implementing strategy.
Middle management should be able to communicate the connection between strategy
and organisation.
Middle management should possess a certain range of personality traits in order to be
good leaders.
Middle management should have an engaged style of leadership.
Supporting dimension – Support and commitment
Another supporting dimension for the implementation process is the middle management
support and commitment. This dimension suggests:
Middle management commitment should be found at all levels of their
responsibilities.
Middle management communication should create commitment.
Supporting dimension – Quality of implementation
A supporting dimension for the implementation process is the quality of implementation.
This dimension suggests:
Middle management should be able to develop their leadership skills.
Middle management should be able to effectively collaborate across functions.
Middle management should feel confident enough to make independent decisions.
Foundation - Culture
Corporate culture works as the foundation in the implementation process. The findings
suggest that even though the culture may not be evident to the middle managers, it is what
drives strategy. If the culture where not to beneficial for the middle managers it can hinder,
complicate and increase the time period of strategy implementation. However, if the culture
is beneficial for the middle managers it works as an underlying facilitator for an as smooth as
possible strategy implementation process. The foundation suggests:
Middle management is a contributor to the organisational culture.
Culture should be proactive and accepting of change.
Culture affects middle managements successfulness in implementation strategy.
Culture is a driver of strategy.
6.2 What are the opportunities that middle managers create when implementing
strategies? That middle management is important when organisations are trying to execute strategies has
become evident and that middle managers create opportunities or benefits during the
91
implementation is also quite clear. Middle managers should be included in the whole
implementation process, from start all the way to the end, since middle managers are able to
create opportunities throughout the process and therefore contribute to a better
implementation.
As both the literature and the empirical data presents, middle managers hold a unique
position in the company which places the middle managers in an ideal position for working
with implementation. Middle managers can almost be regarded as a pillar for strategy
execution, not only are they tasked with translating the strategy into everyday actions, they
influence, guide and engage the employees who execute the everyday actions but also
provide follow up and information about the implementation progress - a necessity for
implementation to function. It is also the middle managers that one of the first to realise faults
or complications to strategy and can then provide the necessary control and feedback so the
needed adjustments can be made.
The literature review, empirical data and the following analysis of it suggest that there are
benefits of middle managers in addition to the work they do during the execution process.
The most notable opportunity that middle managers create has its foundation in
communication. Middle management communication is incredibly important and if middle
managers possess good communication skills they can influence several other aspects in the
implementation process. Not only does it facilitate the process but also creates engagement
and commitment throughout the company and as the literature states, the more engaged
employees the better the implementation process.
The table below is a presentation of the conclusions regarding middle management
opportunities while implementing strategy.
92
Table 36: Suggested opportunities created by middle management
Factor Opportunity
Culture - Middle management can help create culture that facilitates change.
Coalignment - Middle management can facilitate the fit between culture and
strategy.
Flexibility - Middle management can affect the successfulness of strategic
decisions with their flexibility.
Communication - Middle management can create opportunities by providing
feedback.
- Middle management communication facilitates all aspects of the
process. From formulation to implementation and all supporting
activities surrounding it.
Commitment - Middle management can influence employees and performance
with their commitment to strategy implementation.
Translation - Middle management is key facilitator of translating strategy into
actions and procedures.
Knowledge - Middle managements social aspects have an impact on
performance and influence up and down the line. Middle
management is also an information source concerning the
implementation process.
Feedback - Middle managements non-monetary praise can result in more
engaged employees.
Leadership - Middle management acting as a role models influences employees
to be more committed. Source: Authors own construct
6.3 What are the challenges that middle managers face when implementing
strategies? That middle managers create benefits during the implementation is suggested above.
However, the middle managers also face challenges during the strategy implementation
process. There are aspects when implementing strategy that middle management does not
have control over and these aspects can present as challenges that the middle managers may
need to face and overcome in order to successfully implement strategy.
The middle managers may face a hurdle of challenges during the strategy implementation
process. The quality of the strategy that is being implemented relies on how well the middle
managers can handle the challenges. As the analysis presents, many of the opportunities that
middle managers create for themselves stems from how well they can avoid, handle or
transform the challenges into opportunities. If the challenges that occurs in the strategy
implementation process are handled in the correct way, they can be transformed into
opportunities and actually facilitate the implementation process and higher the quality of the
middle managers work.
The literature review, empirical data and the following analysis of it suggests that there are
challenges that middle managers face in addition to the inherent occurring issues that can
emerge during the strategy implementation process.
93
The table below is a presentation of the conclusions regarding the challenges middle
management may face while implementing strategy.
Table 37: Suggested challenges that middle management face
Factor Challenge
Culture - Middle management faces culture that hinders change.
Communication - Middle management faces lack of trust due to poor
communication.
- Poor communication may also lead to misinterpretation and
loss of meaning.
Top managment
team
- Middle management faces a top management team that does
not consider implications of implementation.
Commitment - Middle management faces uncommitted employees and
management throughout the organisation.
Time - Middle management faces the long term aspect of strategy
implementation which can impact focus and control.
Translation - Middle management faces a strategy that is difficult to translate
into actions.
Employee
behaviour
- Middle management faces employees who do not care about
their work tasks.
Belief - Middle management believes the strategy to be detrimental to
the organisation.
Leadership - Middle management possesses qualities that make them
inadequate leaders. Source: Authors own construct
6.4 Limitations The first limitation to keep in mind for this study is the empirical data. One should remember
that the data that was gathered was based upon a rather small sample of respondents. If more
middle managers had been interviewed there is a possibility that different information would
have been stated which in turn may have an impact on the findings and conclusions of this
thesis.
The middle managers that were interviewed were also from two different industries. If
respondents from several other industries had been used for the empirical data there is also a
possibility that other thoughts and opinions would have been given.
6.5 Theoretical implications This thesis examined a topic in literature that is still relatively new and is in need of more
research. As Hrebiniak (2006) stated managers want a logical model to guide execution
decisions and actions. Furthermore, a model from middle managers perspective does not fully
exist at the same time that theory states that middle managers are not fully used (Thorpe &
Morgan, 2007; Huy, 2001). This thesis set out to fill that gap in literature.
Overall, this thesis has contributed to the general knowledge of strategy implementation from
a middle managers perspective. By examining the emerged framework with information from
the empirical data a strategy implementation process model was able to be developed. This
94
developed process is part of filling the gap in literature since the basis of it is the middle
manager.
Another theoretical implication is the importance of communication. While mentioned in
theory as important, the findings of this thesis state that communication is crucial in order to
achieve a successful strategy implementation. Communication has therefore, suggested by
this thesis, been understated in previous literature.
6.6 Implications for practitioners This thesis contributes with findings that hopefully may be of interest and can be helpful for
both current middle managers who are working with strategy implementation but also middle
managers that may work with implementing strategy in the future. Furthermore, this thesis
could prove to be useful for organisations when formulating and implementing strategy.
First of all, this thesis gives middle managers a clear process that can be used when working
with strategies. This might be especially important for middle managers that have not had
experience with strategy implementation or middle managers who find implementing strategy
challenging. The process gives clear steps for middle managers to work after with a
combination of supporting activities that should be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the
opportunities and challenges that can occur during the implementation process are clearly
described so both middle managers and companies can prepare for what might occur during
the implementation.
For CEO’s and top management teams tasked with formulating strategy or changes within a
company, the findings suggest that they should consult middle managers when formulating
strategy. It is suggested that if middle management is allowed to be part of, or at least give
input and opinions, the strategy itself will fit the company and the implementation of it will
become easier and more effective. Especially since middle managers may see issues that are
not clear at top level.
The middle management implementation process might also be a helpful tool for CEO and
top management when developing strategy. It gives them a clear picture of how middle
managers work which then can be taken into consideration when formulating strategy. All to
make the strategy clearer and more efficient. The findings may also illustrate the importance
of cultivating middle managers leadership skills and perhaps providing some form of training
for the middle managers in order to make them more efficient, by for example providing
them with tools to become more efficient communicators.
The last managerial implication may be the recruitment in organisations. The thesis points out
several personality traits that are important for a middle manager to have – both concerning
personal and work attributes. This may help recruiting since it illustrates the most beneficial
aspects of a middle manager and could therefore facilitate recruitment.
95
6.7 International implications
This thesis suggests that the implementation process could be used in an international
perspective. The findings do not present any major differences in the implementation process
between Latin America and Sweden. Large parts of the framework was based on a model
which solely used a Latin American perspective and then applied in a Swedish context. The
result of this did not show any major differences due to the two national cultures implying
that the implementation process model could be successful internationally.
This could be strengthened by literature regarding middle management strategy
implementation does not often discuss international perspectives. This could suggest that
literature about middle management and strategy implementation is not culturally bound. The
international implications of this thesis should of course be tested in an international context
in order to verify this.
6.8 Implications for further research
Generalisation
The first implication for further research concerns the sample size of this study. It would be
interesting to see if more respondents and respondents from several other industries were able
to take part in a study and see if this impacts the findings. This in turn would allow one to see
how general the middle management implementation process actually is.
Vertical communication
Since this study found out that communication has an incredible importance for successful
strategy implementation it might also be of interest to look further into middle management
communication. Especially if one would allow higher level employees and lower level
employees as part of the study so as to examine the vertical communication.
Internationalisation
The thesis suggests the middle managements implementation process might not be influenced
by different cultures. This could be of interest to study further. By applying the model in
several different national cultures a more generalised and international perspective can be
achieved.
It could also be of interest to look into how a middle managers implementation process will
look like if the middle manager is of a different nationality than the national culture the
organisation is located in. This could then be compared to the middle management
implementation process that this thesis suggests and examine whether or not differences can
be found.
96
List of references Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & Kraus, F. (2014). PERFORMANCE IMPACT OF MIDDLE
MANAGERS’ ADAPTIVE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION: THE ROLE OF
SOCIAL CAPITAL. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 68-87.
Alamsjah, F. (2011). Key Success Factors in Implementing Strategy: Middle-Level
Managers' Perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 24, 1444-1450.
Albaum, G., & Herche, J. (1999). Management style comparisons among five European
nations. Journal of Global Marketing, 12(4), 5-27.
Ansoff, I. H. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvards business review, 35(5), 113-124.
Barton, L. C., & Ambrosini, V. (2013). The moderating effect of organizational change
cynicism on middle manager strategy commitment. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 24(4), 721-746.
Beer, M., & Eisenstat, A. (2000). The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation and
Learning. Sloan Management Review, 41(4), 29-40.
Bourgeois, L. J., & Brodwin, D. R. (1984). Strategic Implementation: Five Approaches to an
Elusive Phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 241-261.
Brenes, E. R., Mena, M., & Molina, G. E. (2008). Key success factors for strategy
implementation in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 590-598.
Browne, S., Sharkey-Scott, P., Mangematin, V., Lawlor, K., & Cuddihy, L. (2014). Adapting
a book to make a film: how strategy is adapted through professional practices of
marketing middle managers. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(9-10), 949-973.
Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three Models of Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 89-
98.
Chebat, J.-C. (1999). Introduction: special issue on strategy implementation and assessment
research – research on implementation deserves as much attention as strategy
formulation. Journal of Business Research, 45(2), 107-110.
Chimhanzi, J., & Morgan, R. E. (2005). Explanations from the marketing/human resources
dyad for marketing strategy implementation effectiveness in service firms. Journal of
Business Research, 58(6), 787-796.
Collier, N., Fishwick, F., & Floyd, S. W. (2004). Managerial Involvement and Perceptions of
Strategy Process. Long Range Planning, 37(1), 67-83.
Collins, J. (2001). LEVEL 5 LEADERSHIP. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 66-76.
Crittenden, V., & Crittenden, W. (2008). Building a capable organization: The eight levers of
strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 51, 301-309.
De Flander, J. (2017, 02 02). Jeroen De Flander. Retrieved 02 02, 2017, from Jeroen De
Flander - Strategy Execution: https://jeroen-de-flander.com/strategy-
execution/#strategy-execution-quotes
97
Dobni, B. (2003). Creating a strategy implementation environment. Business Horizon, 46(2),
43-46.
Favaro, K. (2015). Defining Strategy, Implementation, and Execution. Harvard Business
Review, n.d.(n.d.), 2-5.
Floyd, W., & Woolridge, B. (1992). Managing strategic consensus: the foundation of
effective implementation. Academy of Management Executive, 6(4), 27-39.
Furnham, A. (2002). Managers as change agents. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 21-
29.
Guth, W. D., & Macmillan, I. C. (1986). Strategy Implementation Versus Middle
Management Self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7(4), 313-327.
Hofstede, G., & Fink, G. (2007). Culture: organistions, personalities and nations. Gerhard
Fink interviews Geert Hofstede. European Journal of International Management,
1(1/2), 14-22.
Hrebiniak, G. (2006). Obstacles to Effective Strategy Implementation. Organizational
Dynamics, 35(1), 13-31.
Huy, Q. (2001). In praise of middle managers. Harvard Buisness Review, 79(8), 72-79.
Huy, Q. (2011). HOW MIDDLE MANAGERS’ GROUP-FOCUS EMOTIONS AND
SOCIAL IDENTITIES INFLUENCE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION. Strategic
Management Journal, 32(13), 1387–1410.
ICA Maxi Stormarknad Botkyrka Butiken. (n.d.). Retrieved 05 03, 2017, from ica.se:
https://www.ica.se/butiker/maxi/botkyrka/maxi-ica-stormarknad-botkyrka-
9411/butiken/
Johnson, K. L. (2004). Execute your strategy - without killing it. Harvard Management
Update, 9(12), 3-5.
Judge Jr, Q., & Stahl, J. (1995). Middle-Manager Efforts in Strategy Implementation: a
Multinational Perspective. International Business Review, 4(1), 91-11.
Kaplan, S. R., & Norton, P. D. (2005). The Office of Strategy Management. Harvard
Business Review, 10, 72-80.
Kaplan, S., & Norton, P. (2000). Having Trouble with Your Strategy - Then Map It. Harvard
Business Review, 78(5), 167-176.
Laffan, B. (1983). 'Policy Implementation in the European Community: The European Social
Fund as a Case study. Journal of Common Market Studies, 21(4), 20.
Larry, D. A. (1985). Successfully Implementing Strategic Decisions. Long Range Planning,
18(3), 91-97.
Lohrke, T., Bedeian, G., & Palmer, B. (2004). The role of top managment teams in
formulating and implementing turnaround strategies: a review and reserach agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(2), 63-90.
98
Lowey, A. (2015). The six dilemmas of strategy execution. Strategey & Leadership, 43(6),
18-24.
Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods source
book (Vol. 3ed). London: UK: Sage publications.
Miller, S., Wilson, D., & Hickson, D. (2004). Beyond Planning Strategies for Successfully
Implementing Strategic Decisions. Long range planning, 37(3), 201-218.
Noble, C. H. (1999). The Eclectic Roots of Strategy Implementation Research. Journal of
Business Research, 45(2), 119-134.
Noble, C. H., & Mokwa, M. R. (1999). Implementing Marketing Strategies: Developing and
Testing a Managerial Theory. Journal of Marketing, 63, 57-73.
O'Brien, D., Scott, P. S., & Gibbons, P. (2013). Developing Strategy from the Middle:
Subsidiary Strategy and the Role of the Subsidiary General Manager. Irish Journal of
Management, 32(2), 109-128.
Olson, M. E., Slater, F., & Hult, M. (2005). The importance of structure and process to
strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 48(1), 47-54.
Om ICA gruppen. (n.d.). Retrieved 05 03, 2017, from icagruppen.se:
http://www.icagruppen.se/om-ica-gruppen/#!/vision
Om ICA gruppen. (n.d.). Retrieved 05 03, 2017, from icagruppen.se:
http://www.icagruppen.se/om-ica-gruppen/#!/
Om oss: ssab. (2017, 04 04). Retrieved from ssab.se: http://www.ssab.se/ssab/om-ssab/ssab-i-
korthet
Om oss: ssab. (2017, 04 04). Retrieved from ssab.se: http://www.ssab.se/ssab/om-
ssab/vision-varderingar-strategi
Om oss: ssab. (2017, 04 04). Retrieved from ssab.se: http://www.ssab.se/ssab/om-
ssab/production-sites-in-sweden/lulea
Ouakouak, M. L., Ouedraogo, N., & Mbengue, A. (2014). The mediating role of
organizational capabilities in the relationship between middle managers involvement
and firm performance: A European study. European management journal, 32(2), 305-
318.
Pappas, M., Flaherty, E., & Wooldridge, B. (2003). Achieving Strategic Consensus in the
Hospital Setting: A Middle Management Perspective. Hospital Topics, 81(1), 15-22.
Pors, J. G. (2016). ‘It Sends a Cold Shiver down my Spine’: Ghostly Interruptions to Strategy
Implementation. Organization Studies, 37(11), 1641-1659.
Porter, E. M. (1991). Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy. Strategic Management
Journal, 12(2), 95-117.
Porter, E. M. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.
99
Ramaseshan, B., Ishak, A., & Kingshott, R. P. (2013). Interactive effects of marketing
strategy formulation and implementation upon firm performance. Journal of
Marketing Management, 29(11-12), 1224-1250.
Ramaseshan, B., Ishak, A., & Rabbanee, K. (2013). The role of marketing managers'
commitment and involvement in marketing strategy implementation. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 21(6), 465-483.
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research A Resource for Social Scientist and practitioner -
Researchers (Vol. 2). Oxford, UK: Blackwell publishing.
Sadri, G. (2014). High-performance corporate culture. Industrial Management, 56(6), 16-21.
Salih, A., & Doll, Y. (2013). A Middle Management Perspective on Strategy Implementation.
International Journal of Business and Management, 8(22), 32-39.
Sarin, S., Challagalla, G., & Kohli, K. (2012). Implementing Changes in Marketing Strategy:
The Role of Percieved Outcome- and Process-Oriented Supervisory Actions. Journal
of Marketing Research, 49(4), 564-580.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research Methods for Business Students
(Vol. 4ed). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students
(Vol. 5th). Essex: England: Pearson Education Limited.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Reserach Methods for Business Students
(Vol. 7th). Enngland: Pearson Education Limited.
Shimizu, K. (2017). Senders' Bias: How Can Top Managers' Communication Improve or Not
Improve Strategy Implementation. International Journal of Business Communication,
54(1), 52-69.
Slater, S. F., Hult, G. M., & Olson, E. M. (2010). Factors influencing the relative importance
of marketing strategy creativity and marketing strategy implementation effectiveness.
Industrial Marketing Management, 39(4), 551-559.
Sterling, J. (2003). Translating strategy into effective implementation: Dispelling the myths
and highlighting what works. Strategy & Leadership, 31(3), 27-34.
Thomas , L., & Ambrosini, V. (2015). Materializing Strategy: The Role of
Comprehensiveness and Management Controls in Strategy Formation in Volatile
Environments. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 105-124.
Thorpe , E. R., & Morgan, R. E. (2007). In pursuit of the “ideal approach” to successful
marketing strategy implementation. European Journal of Marketing, 41(5/6), 659-
677.
Westley, F. R. (1990). MIDDLE MANAGERS AND STRATEGY:MICRODYNAMICS OF
INCLUSION. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 337-351.
Wheelen, L. T., & Hunger, J. D. (2012). Strategic Management and Business Policy Toward
Global Sustainablity (Vol. 13). New Jersey: U.S: Pearson Education Inc.
100
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The Middle Management Perspective on
Strategy Process: Contributions, Synthesis, and Future Research. Journal of
management, 34(6), 1190-1221.
Yin. (1993). Applications of case study reserach (Vol. 34). Sage Publications.
Yin, K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks:
California: Sage Publications, Inc.
i
Appendices
Appendix A – Interview guide in English
Background questions
No Question
1. Name:
2. Current position and area of responsibility:
3. Number of years within the company:
4. Number of years of current and previous experience of a managerial position:
Question concerning research questions 1-3
No Question
1. How do you view implementation of strategies? (control question so we ensure that we
are discussing the same thing, also gives us an opportunity to explain what we mean by
strategies, implementation etc)
2 What does your process look like when implementing strategy/working towards a new
objective?
Strategy formulation
No Question
3 Do you think that the implementation process starts with formulation of the strategy?
Why/why not?
4 Are you involved in the strategy formulation process somehow? Are you allowed
opinions and input?
5 Do you believe it is easier to implement the strategy if you were able to contribute to the
formulation of it? If yes, how? If no, why not?
6 Could you describe how strategy formulation can create challenges and problems for
your work? If yes, how? If no, why not?
7 Could you say that your contribution to strategy formulation creates opportunities for
the implementation process?
Systematic execution
No Question
8 If we consider formulation the first step in the implementation process, what do you
think would be the next step? Why?
9 What does execution mean for you? What is your responsibility?
10 Is it your responsibility to translate strategy into everyday objectives? If yes, how? If no,
why not?
11 How are the activities prioritised? Do you prioritise?
12 How independent decisions are you allowed to make during the implementation
process? What kind? How?
ii
13 How does your decision making process look like? Across time?
14 Can you through your execution contribute to a better implementation process? Tips and
tricks?
15 Can you describe the challenges and opportunities that may arise in the implementation
process in regards to your execution process?
Control and follow up
No Question
16 How do you ensure that the work actually gets done? Do you have specific control
systems/routines?
17 How do you work with praise/rewards/feedback? (Non-monetary)
18 If control and feedback fails how do you believe this impacts the implementation? Why
does feedback fail?
19 How does the timeframe impact implementation? Years?
20 Depending on the control/measure/feedback is it possible to adjust the
strategy/implementation execution?
21 In regards to control and feedback, can you describe the problems and challenges that
can exist?
22 Could you also say how you contribute to better implementation through your work
with control and feedback? Tips and tricks?
Communication
No Question
23 What do you as a middle manager consider most important regarding communication?
How do you communicate? Does there exist something specific to take into
consideration while communicating? (control question)
24 How do you share information throughout the company? How do you ensure that
colleagues above and under you are informed?
25 How important do you think it is to be able to communicate on an individual level? If
yes, how? If no, why not?
26 When you are given a strategy to implement, is it your responsibility to communicate
how that strategy is connected to mission, vision? If yes, how? If no, why not?
27 How important is trust when you communicate? How important is it to you that you can
trust your superiors and your colleges can trust you? Can this show itself in a certain
way? Example of no trust?
28 If communication fails how do you believe it impacts the implementation process?
Concerning communication, can you describe the problems and challenges that can
arise?
29 Can you describe how you contribute to better implementation through your
communication? Tips and tricks?
Support and commitment
No Question
30 How important do you think it is to be committed and involved throughout the
implementation process? Why/why not?
31 How do you think it affects the implementation process if the formulation of the
iii
strategy does not consider the execution? (top management)
32 Do you think the implementation process will be affected depending on the CEO’s
commitment?
33 What happens if your colleagues do not want to implement the strategy?
34 How can you, through your involvement and commitment, contribute to positive aspects
of the implementation process? Tips and tricks?
35 Can you describe problems and challenges with the implementation process in regards
to commitment and involvement?
Leadership and quality of implementation
No Question
36 What does it mean to you to be a leader? (Control)
37 As a middle manager, what attributes/traits do you think are important?
38 What traits do you think a CEO should have concerning strategy implementation?
39 Do you think that the recruitment process at your company is adequate/good/bad?
40 Do you have opportunities to develop your leadership skills? Through work or on your
own?
41 Some theories state that flexibility is an important trait for middle managers, do you
agree? Why/why not?
42 Can you see challenges or any problems that arise while implementing strategy due to a
middle managers personal traits? How do you as a leader believe you influence the
process?
Culture
No Question
43 Could you briefly describe the company’s culture? (control question)
44 Do you believe that the company’s culture affects the implementation process? If yes,
how? If no, why not?
45 Do you believe that you contribute to the company’s culture? If yes, how? If no, why
not? Attitudes, behaviour, opinions?
46 Do you experience that some objectives are harder to achieve than others depending on
how they fit with the company culture? If yes, how? If no, why not?
47 Do you sometimes see an alignment or a collision between the strategies and the
company culture? Ex, friendly culture vs aggressive selling strategy?
48 Does there exist aspects to the company structure or routines that could hinder your
flexibility? If no, could you give an example of something that could affect flexibility?
49 Could you say that you have the ability to create opportunities through culture in the
implementation process?
50 Can you describe the problems and challenges that can arise in the implementation
process in regards to culture?
General questions Is there something you would like to add or something you feel you haven’t had the
opportunity to express?
iv
Appendix B: Interview guide in Swedish
Bakgrunds frågor
Nr Fråga
1. Namn:
2. Nuvarande position och ansvarsområde:
3. Antal år inom företaget:
4. Antal år inom nuvarande position och tidigare erfarenhet av mellanchefs position:
Frågor angående forskningsfråga 1-3
Nr Fråga
1. Hur ser du på implementering av strategier? (kontroll fråga)
2 Hur ser er process ut när du implementerar strategier eller jobbar mot ett nytt mål?
Formulering av strategi
Nr Fråga
3 Anser du att implementeringsprocessen börjar med formulering av strategi?
Varför/varför inte?
4 Är du med och formulerar strategi? Får ni tycka till/input? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför
inte?
5 Tror du det är lättare att utföra strategin om du fått vara med att påverka strategin
(formuleringen)? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte?
6 Kan du beskriva hur formuleringen av en strategi kan skapa problematik eller
utmaningar för ditt jobb? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte?
7 Skulle du kunna påstå att ditt bidrag till strategi formuleringen skapar möjligheter för
implementerings processen? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte?
Systematiskt utförande
Nr Fråga
8 Om vi ser strategi formulering som det första steget i implementeringsprocessen, vad ser
du som nästa steg? Varför?
9 Vad betyder utförande/verkställande av strategi för dig? Vad är ditt ansvar?
10 Är det ditt ansvar att omvandla strategin till vardagliga mål? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför
inte?
11 Hur är aktiviteterna prioriterade? Bestämmer du prioriteringen?
12 Hur självständiga beslut får du ta under implementeringsprocessen? Vilka? Hur?
13 Hur ser din beslutsfattande process ut? Genom tiden. Beskriv.
14 Kan du genom ditt utförande bidra till bättre implementering? Tips och tricks
15 Kan du beskriva vilka utmaningar och problem som kan uppstå i
implementeringsprocessen när det gäller din verkställande process?
v
Kontroll och uppföljning
Nr Fråga
16 Hur går du tillväga för att kontrollera att saker och ting blir gjorda? Har ni specifika
kontrollsystem eller rutiner?
17 Hur går du tillväga när det gäller beröm/belöningar/återkoppling? (icke monetära
belöningar)
18 Ifall kontroll och feedback brister hur anser du att det påverkar implementeringen?
Varför brister detta?
19 Hur påverkar tidsaspekten implementeringen? År?
20 Beroende på kontrollen/feedback är det möjligt att anpassa strategin/implementeringen?
21 När det gäller kontroll/feedback kan du beskriva vilka utmaningar och problem som kan
uppstå?
22 Kan du även säga hur du bidrar till bättre implementering genom din kontroll och
feedback? Tips och tricks?
Kommunikation
Nr Fråga
23 Vad anser du som mellanchef är viktigast angående kommunikation? Hur
kommunicerar du? Finns det något specifikt man ska tänka på när man kommunicerar?
(kontroll fråga)
24 Hur delar du information inom företaget? Hur ser du till att de som jobbar över och
under dig är informerade om läget?
25 Hur viktigt tycker du det är att kunna kommunicera på en individuell nivå? Om ja, hur?
Om nej, varför inte?
26 När ni får en strategi är det är ditt ansvar att kommunicera hur strategin kopplas ihop
med tex mission, vision? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte?
27 Hur viktigt är förtroende när ni kommunicerar? Samt hur viktigt är det för dig att du kan
lita på dina chefer och hur viktigt är det att dina medarbetare litar på dig? Kan det visa
sig på något sätt? Exempel på ingen tillit?
28 Ifall kommunikationen brister hur anser du att det påverkar implementeringen? När det
gäller kommunikation kan du beskriva vilka utmaningar och problem som kan uppstå?
29 Kan du även säga hur du bidrar till bättre implementering genom din kommunikation?
Tips och tricks?
Support och engagemang
Nr Fråga
30 Hur viktigt tycker du det är att vara engagerad och delaktig i hela implementations
processen? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte?
31 Hur tror du det påverkar implementerings processen om du ska utföra en strategi där de
som gjort strategin inte har tagit hänsyn till utförandet av den?
32 Tror du att implementeringsprocessen påverkas beroende på VDns engagemang?
33 Vad händer om dina medarbetare inte vill genomföra en strategi?
34 Kan du genom ditt engagemang och delaktighet bidra till bättre implementering? Tips
och tricks?
35 Kan du beskriva vilka utmaningar och problem som kan uppstå i
implementeringsprocessen när det gäller engagemang och medverkan?
vi
Ledarskap och kvalitet av implementering
Nr Fråga
36 Vad innebär det för dig att vara en ledare?
37 Som mellanchef, vilka personlighetsdrag tycker du är viktigast?
38 What traits do you think a CEO should have concerning strategy implementation?
39 Vilka attribut tycker att en VD ska ha gällande strategi implementering?
40 Har du möjlighet att utveckla dina ledarskapsfärdigheter? Antingen genom jobbet eller
på eget bevåg?
41 Vissa teorier menar på att flexibilitet är viktigt för en mellanchef, håller du med?
Varför/varför inte?
42 Kan du se att någon utmaning eller att problematik kan uppstår vid implementering pga
en mellanchefs personligattribut? Hur tror du att du som ledare påverkar
implementeringsprocessen?
Kultur
Nr Fråga
43 Kan du kortfattat beskriva hur företagets kultur ser ut? (kontroll fråga)
44 Anser du att företagets kultur påverkar implementeringsprocessen? Om ja, hur? Om nej,
varför inte?
45 Anser du att du bidrar till företagets kultur? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte? Attityd,
beteende, åsikter?
46 Upplever du att vissa mål som ska nås är svårare att uppfylla än andra mål beroende på
hur de passar med företagets kultur? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte?
47 Ser du ibland ett samband eller en krock mellan strategierna och kulturen? (Ex vänlig
kultur gentemot aggressivt säljande strategi)
48 Finns det någonting inom företagets struktur och rutiner som skulle kunna förhindra din
flexibilitet? Om inte, kan du ge ett exempel på vad det skulle kunna vara?
49 Kan du säga att du bidrar till bättre implementering genom hur du arbetar med kulturen?
Tips och tricks.
50 Kan du beskriva vilka problem och utmaningar som kan uppstå i
implementeringsprocessen vad gäller kulturen?
Generell fråga Är det något mer du vill tillägga eller känner att du inte har fått sagt?