The Impact of Organisational Culture on Implementation of Rural

The Impact of Organisational Culture on Implementation of

Rural Development Strategies in Selected Local Government

Authorities in Nigeria

AYOTUNDE HAKEEM ABDULRAHMAN

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy at the Cardiff Metropolitan University, Wales

April/2019

Abstract This research examines the impact of organisational culture typologies on current strategy implementation process in Nigerian Local Government Authorities (LGAs). The inefficiency of the current implementation process represents a burden on the lives of the Nigerian citizenry. This problem is examined from an organisational culture perspective. Previous research suggests that aligning organisational culture and strategy implementation produces favourable interrelationships. This research highlights operational implications of these interrelationships.

To achieve its objectives, a qualitative case study research is conducted on six Nigerian

LGAs using semi-structured interviews (n=60). It epistemologically embedded its research design in the organisational cultural assessment instruments (OCAI) to establish the LGAs contemporary cultural dynamics. The methodical analysis of information exemplifies the interrelationship between its variables and underscores the need for an implementation model which considers various layers of forces existing within and outside the LGAs.

A conceptual model with three categories showing interrelationships between the task environment, environmental context and external environment of the LGAs is developed and used as a framework to analyse the data. Findings uncovered the six LGAs adopt a culture mix favourable for their implementation effectiveness. However, key rationalities hindering strategy implementation are closely associated with the ostensible lack of attention to the behavioural patterns of strategic actors.

The research provides robust understanding of culture as a determiner of implementation success, and sparks series of novelty thoughts on the impact of culture typologies on strategy implementation practices in Nigerian LGAs. Its practical implications provide public managers with insight into realigning culture and implementation practices to achieve their

desired outcome using empirically supported dimensions of the OCAI. The findings of this research suggest the need for future research in examining the recursive and reciprocal effect of culture and implementation in public sector research.

Keywords: Nigeria Local Government Authorities, Strategy Implementation,

Organisational Culture, Strategic Management.

Dedication This thesis is dedicated, first, to God Almighty, then to the loving memory of my late daughter, Oluwafumbi Abdulrahman; to my loving parents, Prof. and Prof. Mrs

Abdulrahman, my beloved wife, Mrs Abiola Abdulrahman and my wonderful children,

Oluwaseun, Oluwademilade and Titobioluwa Abdulrahman.

Acknowledgement I give God almighty thanks and appreciation for granting me sound mind and stamina to see me through this doctoral thesis.

On this journey, I realised that it is almost impossible for an individual to solely begin and end a doctoral thesis without the collaborative efforts of loved ones who believe in him. I am certain that I may not have been able to pull through this doctoral programme alone without the motivation, encouragement, support and help that I received from many incredible and kind hearted people. Indeed, today, I am accomplished because of them.

Firstly, I acknowledge the absolutely significant roles of my director of studies, Dr. David

Sarpong and supervisor, Dr Teslim Bukoye in completing this thesis. I will never forget your insightful contributions sirs. Dr. Sarpong, I was in need of a person knowledgeable in research to guide me through the solitary path of a doctoral degree programme; today, I feel privileged to have learnt at your feet. I sincerely appreciate your guidance, help, and criticisms at every stage of my research. Your constructive comments illuminated my thesis, and I am grateful for your apt and clear suggestions which greatly improved my work. You have indeed impacted my life greatly. Dr. Teslim, I can’t but remember the hard push you gave me; the reprimands, then the indulgence, the regular checks and follow ups through constant phone calls and emails just to ensure I wasn’t losing steam. Sir, I proudly present to you the result of that hard push. The ease with which I developed my thesis was due to your astute suggestions and comments. I thank you immensely for your encouragement, generosity and support. Indeed I know I stand on the shoulders of giants.

Secondly, I am grateful to all members of staff of London School of Commerce and Cardiff

Metropolitan University for giving me this great opportunity of a life time. I am indeed proud to be an alumni member. Prof. Eleri Jones, Dr. Nandish Patel, Dr. Sheku Fofonah, and many

kind hearted staff too numerous to mention, your kind words, your smiles, the patting on the back has made me who I am today. I thank you very much.

My parents, my wife, children, brothers and sisters, your inestimable prayers, support, and patience made light the pressure that comes with accomplishing a research work of this magnitude. You were all very optimistic that I would conclude my thesis and this always motivated me to put in my best effort. You all have a place like no other in my heart.

I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to all members of staff of the six Nigerian

Local Government Authorities who accepted to participate in this research to ensure that my data collection process was seamless. I thank you so much for your time, the warm welcome, the kind words and the support you individually and collectively gave me.

Finally, I say a big thank you to my colleagues and friends who helped me in many ways than one. Your constant nudge, assistance and your belief in me gave me the courage to hold on.

Dr. Tala Abuhussein, we rode through this great journey together. Miss Tazi Anyigang, you were that little tick that constantly reminded me of how important it was to get there.

I thank you all.

Ayotunde Hakeem Abdulrahman

Declaration

Table of Content

ABSTRACT ...... 2 DEDICATION ...... 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... 5 DECLARATION ...... 7 CHAPTER ONE ...... 11 INTRODUCTION ...... 11

1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 22 1.1 THE RESEARCH CONTEXT ...... 25 1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 27 1.3 RESEARCH AIM...... 28 1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ...... 28 1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 28 1.6 THE RESEARCH SCOPE ...... 30 1.7 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND CONTRIBUTION...... 31 1.8 RESEARCH RATIONALE ...... 32 CHAPTER TWO ...... 35 STRATEGY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ...... 35

2.0 WHAT IS STRATEGY ...... 35 2.0.1 Types of strategy ...... 40 2.0.2 Levels of strategy ...... 46 2.0.3 Elements of strategy ...... 48 2.0.4 The Strategy process ...... 51 2.1 STRATEGY FORMULATION ...... 59 2.1.1 Strategy Formulation process ...... 61 2.2 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ...... 63 2.2.1 Importance of strategy implementation ...... 64 2.2.2 Strategy implementation Approaches ...... 69 2.2.3 Strategy implementation frameworks ...... 77 2.2.4 Obstacles to strategy implementation ...... 89 2.2.5 Failed strategy implementation efforts ...... 93 2.3 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ...... 94 2.3.1 Types of organisational culture ...... 98 2.3.2 The Competing Values Framework ...... 100 2.3.3 Organisational Culture in Public Sector Institutions ...... 105 2.3.4 Organisational Culture and Strategy Implementation ...... 108 2.4 GAPS IN THE LITERATURE...... 112 2.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ...... 115 2.6 SUMMARY ...... 119 CHAPTER 3 ...... 122 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH CONTEXT ...... 122

3.0 NIGERIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY (LGA) - A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ...... 122

3.1 CONCEPTS CLARIFICATION ...... 126 3.1.1 The Concept of Rural Areas ...... 126 3.1.2 Concept of Rural Development ...... 127 3.1.3 The Concept of Public Policy ...... 131 3.1.4 The Concept of Policy Implementation ...... 131 3.2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE IN NIGERIA ...... 133 3.2.1 Pre-Independence Experience ...... 133 3.2.2 Post-Independence Experience ...... 134 3.3 APPROACHES TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA ...... 138 3.4 ROLE OF LGAS IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT ...... 144 3.4.1 LGAs as instrument of mass mobilization ...... 145 3.4.2 LGAs as catalyst for rural development ...... 147 3.4.3 LGAs as driving force for socio-economic equity ...... 148 3.5 LGA IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ...... 150 3.5 CONSTRAINTS TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA ...... 153 CHAPTER FOUR ...... 159 METHODOLOGY ...... 159

4.0 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY ...... 159 4.1 SELECTION AND RATIONALISATION OF THE RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY ...... 162 4.2. RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 164 4.2.1 Qualitative case study research design ...... 165 4.3 RESEARCH APPROACH ...... 169 4.4 RESEARCH STRATEGY ...... 172 4.4.1 Case study research strategy ...... 173 4.4.2 Rationale for selecting Case Study Research Strategy ...... 174 4.5 RESEARCH METHOD ...... 175 4.5.1. Data Collection Method ...... 177 4.5.2. Semi-structured interviews ...... 178 4.5.3. Conducting the interviews...... 179 4.5.4. Pilot study and vital lessons learned ...... 181 4.6 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ...... 182 4.6.1 Qualitative Content Analysis ...... 184 4.7 RESEARCH QUALITY AND ROBUSTNESS ...... 206 4.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION ...... 207 4.9 SUMMARY ...... 207 CHAPTER FIVE ...... 209 PATTERNS OF STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION IN LGAS ...... 209

5.0 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS AND LGAS ...... 209 5.1 STRATEGIC CONTEXTS OF THE RESEARCHED LGAS ...... 212 5.2 DIFFERENT BEHAVIOURAL APPROACHES TO STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ...... 213 5.3 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS INITIATORS ...... 214 5.4 HETEROGENEOUS STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS PATTERNS ...... 216 5.4.1 Activities and Phases in the Implementation Process Patterns ...... 219 5.5 VARIATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS ...... 228 5.6 CAUSES OF VARIATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS ...... 230 5.6.1 Criteria for implementation success ...... 231 5.6.2 Quality Prioritising in implementation activities ...... 234

5.6.3 Implementation Preparedness ...... 235 5.7 SUMMARY ...... 238 CHAPTER SIX ...... 240 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE TYPOLOGIES IN THE LGAS ...... 240

6.1 ASSESSING ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE IN THE LGAS ...... 240 6.2 CULTURAL CONGRUENCE IN THE LGAS ...... 243 6.3 PREFERRED CULTURE VERSUS PRESENT CULTURE ...... 245 6.4 SUMMARY ...... 246 CHAPTER SEVEN ...... 248 INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE TYPOLOGIES AND STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION IN THE LGAS ...... 248

7.0 EFFECT OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ON IMPLEMENTATION ...... 248 7.0.1 Impact of clan culture on strategy implementation process ...... 250 7.0.2 Impact of Adhocracy culture on strategy implementation process ...... 253 7.0.3 Impact of Market culture on strategy implementation process ...... 258 7.0.4 Impact of Hierarchy culture on strategy implementation process ...... 263 7.0.5 Impact of other rationalities on strategy implementation ...... 270 7.1 SUMMARY ...... 272 CHAPTER 8 ...... 275 DISCUSSION ...... 275

8.1 THE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS PATTERNS ...... 277 8.2 THE ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE PROFILE OF THE LGAS ...... 281 8.3 IMPACT OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ON STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS ...... 285 8.4 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION ...... 289 CHAPTER 9 ...... 292 CONCLUSION ...... 292

9.1 THE OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY ...... 295 9.2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY ...... 304 9.2.1 Theoretical and Methodological contributions ...... 305 9.2.2 Contributions to practice ...... 308 9.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ...... 309 9.4 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 311 REFERENCES ...... 313 APPENDIX ...... 349

APPENDIX 1: THE IMPEDERS OF STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ...... 349 APPENDIX 2: FACTORS INFLUENCING STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ...... 350 APPENDIX 3: THE FIVE MODELS IN BRIEF ...... 352 APPENDIX4: SELECTED NIGERIAN LGA POLICIES FROM PRE-INDEPENDENCE TILL DATE...... 353 APPENDIX 5: INTERVIEW GUIDE USED FOR THE RESEARCH ...... 359 APPENDIX 6: RESEARCH QUALITY AND ROBUSTNESS ...... 360 APPENDIX 7: CONTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING TO CURRENT STUDY...... 364 APPENDIX 8 DEFINITIONS OF STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ...... 365 APPENDIX 9 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS AND AUTHORS ...... 365

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades, the call for a complete overhaul of the Nigerian state has taken a critical and urgent turn. Most prominent is the growing significance of Nigeria as Africa’s foremost promising market notwithstanding her under-utilised potentials (Mordi, 2015).

Since her return to democracy in 1999, and her decision to systematically revamp her public institutions and rebuild herself into a strong profitable market economy, the viability of

Nigeria registering herself as a precipitate for growth in Africa and a global economic force has become more pronounced (Falola and Yacob-Haliso, 2017). Since her independence in

1960, several national governments have introduced diverse economic plans to enable a national economy; but most of these plans failed to meet the intent for which they were introduced (Iheanacho, 2014). A majority of these national perspective plans, intended to be used as economic tools for national development by successive Nigerian governments met stringent mitigating factors which aborted the actualisation of the intent of those plans

(Stober, 2017). The major flaws faced by these economic plans or policy reforms, have been fingered by various authors to include bureaucratic bottlenecks, corruption, unsuitable macroeconomic and fiscal policies, instability in the polity caused by a division along political and ethnic lines, and lack of continuity in the implementation of policies (Acha Et al.

2017).

Until the recent decade, economic development in Nigeria was ostensibly unachievable

(Acha Et al. 2017). Many of the economic reform policies including the 1960s industrial policies; the 1962-1985 National Development Plans; the 1970s poverty alleviation programmes; the 1986 Structural Adjustment Programme; and a host of other public service reforms, judicial reforms, rural development programmes, and education reforms, were

introduced against the backdrop of the negative economic growth rates (Mordi, 2015; Stober,

2017). However, despite these policy reforms, the growth of the Nigerian economy was generally lethargic (Uwazie Et al. 2015; Ayinde and Yinusa, 2016). Consequently poverty and other critical social-economic challenges remained fundamental problems in Nigeria which almost became a dumping ground for the world economy (Osisioma, 2016). With the country’s admirable coastal location and her enviable resource endowment the thought of

Nigeria plunging into poverty should not make any list of expectations. Yet Nigeria has battled with all manners of social ills and utilised very little of her prospects (Songwe and

Initiative, 2014; Uduakobong, 2015). Her earlier efforts at growing and developing her economy have not been maintained. The history of a dwindling economic, political and social instability, crashing markets, and deteriorating welfare, has crippled development in Nigeria for most of the last three decades (Oluseye and Gabriel, 2017)

In the current decade, 2007 – 2017, the country has witnessed a significant turnaround in terms of development and appears to be ripe for the path of rapid and sustained growth

(Stober, 2017). This justifies its position amongst the N11 countries which are recognised for their prospects of achieving competitiveness globally through their civil reforms and demographic and economic settings (www.goldmansachs.com). The growth of the Nigerian economy, as indicated by the increase in its real GDP has ameliorated considerably (Chete Et al. 2014). During the current ten – year period Nigeria’s real GDP rose at an average rate of

5.6% annually and this figure has been the highest recorded in the last three decades

(Uduakobong, 2015). The growth rate which is almost twice the approximated 3.0% rate of growth of the population guarantees a 2.6% growth rate of real per capita output. However this observed improvement in growth performance especially in the 2000s is credited to the non-oil sector which rose at a 9.48% annual average rate, while the oil sector was responsible

for both the instability and growth decline in the GDP growth pattern (Uzonwanne, 2015;

National Planning Commission, 2009).

Despite the relatively impressive rates of growth witnessed in the economy, the country still faces the challenge of attaining annual double digit and broad-based real growth figures

(Oluseye and Gabriel, 2017). Considering the nation’s record of income inequity which is observable in its poverty levels, wide unemployment rates, and poor healthcare facilities, the mismatch between Nigeria’s social development and economic growth calls for urgent attention to increase labour productivity amongst its workforce and ultimately improve the welfare of its citizenry (Goshit, 2015). There is evidence for the country’s introduction of feasible and well targeted strategic development plans, but it appears that the observed failure in its implementation strategies have become the stumbling blocks along its path to economic growth (Obadan and Edo, 2010; Eneh, 2011; Olaseni and Alade, 2012). Globally, efficient and functional governments are characterised by the development of effective mechanisms that is able to transit strategic plans into systematic actions and favourable outcomes

(Doppelt, 2017). Such mechanisms as the curtailing of huge government spending, and the effective and transparent utilisation of public funds by public institutions to provide facilities that improve the living standards of the people are observed to deliver highly effective results

(Ayodele Et al. 2013).

Implementation mechanisms pose a big problem in Nigerian public institutions; and the problem Nigeria is faced with is a shadow of its poor strategy implementation process

(Mukoro, 2000; Ibeto and Chinyeaka, 2012). Ahmed (2005) remarked that strategy implementation in the three tiers of government in Nigeria, particularly at operational levels, is misconstrued and ineffective as there is an undeniable absence of documented evidence of its practice. A number of reforms have been formulated that could have created avenues for a systematic national growth, but evidently relevant sectors have failed to execute the range of

responsibilities allocated to them by these reforms (Wilson, 2013). The works of Flood Et al.

(2000), Kaplan and Norton (2001), Thompson and Strickland (2003) and Kaplan (2010) clearly underscore the importance of strategy implementation as an essential requirement to achieving organisational objectives. Leonardi (2015) properly illustrates the importance of strategy implementation by defining it as the way organisations create, employ, influence and integrate their structures, systems, and culture to align with strategies that ensure their competitiveness and improve their performance. As a result there is the need to make further academic contributions to examine the implementation mechanisms adopted in the Nigerian public domain in view of the recent development indicators. The current study is, therefore, an examination of the current implementation mechanisms employed by Nigerian local governments to ensure the actualisation of its public reforms and formulated development strategies.

The plan to successfully implement the current economic development plan dubbed Nigerian

Vision 20:2020 or NV20:2020 by the year 2020 remains the strategic focus of the current study. The previous Yaradua-led administration and subsequent Jonathan-led government had declared their intentions to successfully pursue the aspirations of the NV20:2020 with little or no result and the incumbent Buhari-led government has stated its commitment to attain the objectives of the plan (Matthew Et al. 2017). Hence the current study finds it imperative to explore contemporary implementation measures employed by Nigerian local government administrations in their role towards achieving the objectives of the NV20:2020 policy on the curious grounds that previous reforms, programmes, and development policies in Nigeria have been ineffective and considering that only two years are left for the expiration of

NV20:2020 plan.

Nigeria Vision 20:2020 Agenda was introduced in 2009 by the Olusegun Obasanjo administration (1999-2007) and framed around the NV20:2020 Economic Transformation

Blueprint (ETB) to mirror the intent of the government to register the economy amongst the first twenty world economies with a comprehensive growth target of about $900 billion in

GDP and $4000 per capita income annually by year 2020 (Ogbodo and Stewart, 2014). The

Vision prepares the stage for socio-economic growth and development in Nigeria and clarifies the direction for her long-term strategic plan and provides the economic imperatives for achieving Nigeria’s vision. It mirrors the overall needs of the Nigerian populace to stimulate national transformation and development that guarantees the transition of the nation’s economy from its current 39th world largest economy position to the 20th largest economy in the world (Ubi, Et al. 2012). To achieve this target, the programmes and policies developed in the NV20:2020 plan, are explicitly targeted at achieving two major objectives over the medium to long term: 1. To efficiently utilise Nigeria’s natural and human resources as catalyst for unfaltering economic development; and 2. To turn Nigeria’s economy into an egalitarian economy with equitable income for all its citizens.(www.nationalplanning.gov.ng/images/docs/NationalPlans/nigeria-vision-20-20

20.pdf). Given its social focus on creating a fair, just, peaceful, and harmonious society; its economic emphasis of an industrialised, diversified, and resilient economy; its institutional target of a purposeful and unwavering democracy; and its environmental goal of creating sustainable management and environmental awareness, the achievement of the NV20:2020 objectives is pivoted on instituting the manifesto for success by directly addressing the most crippling impediments to the nation’s growth and competitiveness; pushing forward with persistence and industriousness in creating the foundation of an envisioned economy and developing and deepening the capability of government to consistently translate national strategic intent into action and results by instituting evidence based decision making in

Nigeria’s policy space (Matthew Et al. 2017).

The vision is underpinned by the need to effectively and efficiently mobilise the nation’s resources to serve and improve the lives of its citizens, and to respond appropriately to the growing challenges of an increasingly smaller, mutually dependent, and interconnected world

(Soludo and Governor, 2007; Eneh, 2011; Olaseni and Alade, 2012). It encapsulates the key principles and thrusts of the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy

(NEEDS) and the Five Point Agenda of the current democratic administration (2015 – 2019), situating both within a single, long term strategic planning perspective (Matthew Et al. 2017).

The visioning process which involved active participation and input from a broad spectrum of

Nigerians: experts from various ministries; agencies, state and local governments; representatives from the private sector; as well as development consultants and non- governmental organizations, commenced with the development of comprehensive strategic plans for each sector of the economy at the conclusion of detailed diagnostic assessments and visioning sessions (www.nationalplanning.gov.ng). The country was analysed across 29 thematic areas for this purpose and the effort was delivered through 29 National Technical

Working Groups (NTWGs), comprising leading experts on each thematic area

(www.nationalplanning.gov.ng). Each of the NTWGs submitted strategic plans that included sector specific visions, policy targets, objectives and priorities for their respective thematic areas and formulated strategies, initiatives and implementation plans. The rigorous strategy development effort, undertaken by the NTWGs, was also replicated in each state of the federation and each Ministry, Department and Agency (MDA) at the federal level, by

Stakeholder Development Committees (SDCs) set up for this purpose. NV20:2020 is therefore a rallying call for all Nigerians, regardless of ethnicity, economic status, or religion to unite and stand behind a common cause of placing the country firmly on a path of sustainable growth, and taking it to its rightful place in the comity of nations. The blueprint articulates Nigeria’s economic growth and development strategies, for the eleven-year period

between 2009 and 2020 and will be implemented using a series of medium term national development plans. To achieve the above critical imperatives, Vision 20:2020 will be implemented through three medium term national development plans: 1st NIP (2010-2013),

2nd NIP (2014-2017) and 3rd NIP (2018-2020), which will detail specific goals, strategies and performance targets for all sectors of the economy, in line with the overall strategy and principles of Vision 20:2020 (www.nationalplanning.gov.ng).

Various authors have agreed that the launch of the Nigeria Vision 20:2020 is a step in the right direction (Chinedu Et al. 2010; Brycz., 2014; Falebita and Koul., 2017). Even though it took more than two years for the strategy to be produced; the production of a strategy is the first step towards the realisation of any vision (Igbuzor, 2010; Osabuohien Et al. 2012). There are certain unique features of this strategy especially when compared with previous strategies. First and foremost, the strategy is less neo-liberal than its predecessor the Nigerian

Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) (Ogbodo and Stewart, 2014).

Secondly, the strategy advocates integrated sectoral planning to enhance linkage and synergy.

This will ensure that agriculture, oil and gas and mineral and metal sectors serve as sources of input into the nation’s local manufacturing industry. Thirdly, the vision advocates a cluster based approach to industrialisation which will turn the six geopolitical zones into economically viable industrial clusters built around different sectors based on the economic geography of the different zones. Fourthly, the strategy will introduce performance management and accountability system for public service institutions. Finally, the strategy plans to institutionalise monitoring and evaluation across all levels of government to improve their capacity to translate all strategic plans and programmes into outcomes and impacts

(www.nigerianstat.gov.ng).

However, despite the positive aspects of the Vision 20:2020, there are serious defects that could make the attainment of the goal of the vision impossible. First and foremost, the

strategy glosses over or underestimates the political conditions or dimensions of the vision.

While there are clear social, economic, institutional and environmental dimensions, there is a clear absence of political dimension or how to create the political conditions for the vision to be actualised. Secondly, there are inconsistencies in the vision document in terms of what is possible and what the vision hopes to achieve. While the vision articulates the need for evidence based decision making in the policy space, the vision is anchored on unrealistic assumptions. Achievement of the goal of the vision is anchored on achieving broad based and double digit real growth rate annually. Meanwhile, the policy itself acknowledges that the

IMF predicts that Nigeria’s average economic growth rate will slow to 4.8 % between 2009 and 2014. There is no alternative prediction by the vision. Thirdly, although efforts were made to involve different sectors in the formulation of the blueprint, the level of participation is not widespread and deep. Finally and most importantly, it has been documented that implementation is the graveyard of public policies in Nigeria. Although the strategy outlined what will be done differently, there is no concrete strategy on how the challenges of implementation of previous strategies will be overcome (Enobong and Akpan, 2013).

Recognizing Nigeria’s limited success with implementation and execution of previous plans,

Igbuzor (2010) highlights five clear imperatives which underpin Nigeria’s efforts at making

Vision 20:2020 a reality. These includes ensuring that the vision is clearly linked to existing mechanisms for execution (medium term development plans and expenditure frameworks, medium term sector strategies and annual budgets), institutionalizing monitoring and evaluation across all levels of government to improve their capability to translate all strategic plans and programmes into outcomes and impacts, including those of Vision 20:2020, deployment of legislative instruments to ensure adherence to the NV20:2020 plan and

Institutionalize specific reforms recommended in the plan, defining a clear strategy for mobilizing the citizenry towards greater demand for performance and accountability using

Vision 20:2020 as a guiding light and addressing the challenge of implementation. Igbuzor

(2010) believes that if the vision is executed efficiently, effectively and professionally, then

Nigeria will be on the path of growth and development that will be beneficial to the citizens.

However he asserts that given current situation and realistic predictions, Nigeria is unlikely to join the league of the top twenty countries in the world by 2020 but implementation of the strategy will move Nigeria in the right direction. He asserts that deepening the ability of government at both state and federal levels, to consistently translate strategic intent into action and results on a permanent basis, is recognised as the single most important factor in making NV20:2020 a reality. Ezirim Et al. (2010) doubts whether the ‘ambitious’ plan will succeed, as oil in Nigeria accounts for over 95 percent of export earnings, 40 per cent of GDP and 70 per cent of the Federal Government Revenue; and the oil sector provides employment for less than 10 per cent of the Nigerian labour force. Onyenekenwa (2011) states that the

‘Vision’ is a utopia, as the vast of majority of the Nigerian populace live in highly underdeveloped rural areas. Olaseni and Alade (2012) argue that infrastructural development is crucial to achieve the Vision’s’ goal; infrastructure development can be sped up by changing the current meltdown of funding, governance and high corruption. Amakom and

Nwogwugwu (2012) state that a rise in electricity production may lead to economic growth through the development of industry. Nduke Et al. (2013) assessed the impact of trade openness on economic growth in Nigeria during Post-SAP period and concluded that trade openness has been driven by economic growth. Adekola (2014) states that public investment should concentrate on human capital which in turn will promote economic growth. Summing up the discussion above it is clear that there is a diversity of opinions as to whether all directions stated in the Vision will lead to economic growth. Thomas and Brycz (2014) summarised it by asking if dream can become reality.

The Vision recognises the local governments and jurisdictions as the hub from which the whole country will experience development. Therefore it adopts a bottom-up approach that is anchored on a deep understanding of the aspirations of all Nigerian citizens, and knowledge of the future needs of the country (www.nigerianstat.gov.ng). The bottom up approach is considered Nigeria’s key strategy to drive the implementation of NV20:2020 by empowering local governments to drive rural development at the grassroots and to ensure effective governance which responds to the felt needs of the people, particularly women, the girl child and other disadvantaged groups (Ibeto and Chinyeaka, 2012). This places much of the implementation burden on LGAs. Consequently, the central purpose of the current study was initially to gain a better insight into the level of preparedness of the Nigerian Local

Governments (LGAs) for their role in actualising the Vision 20:2020 plan.

Local Government is the third tier of government in Nigeria whose major responsibility is to ensure effective service delivery to the people through sustainable socio-economic development at the grass root. Sadly, the Nigerian experience in local government administration has been referred to as a paradox (Omoniyi, 2013). Local government as a statutory body has failed to do its bidding and the resident population is denied the benefits of its existence (Adeyemi, 2013). Citizens have lost trust in the government (Olusola, 2011) and provision of basic social services within the jurisdictions of local government is both a myth and mirage (Agba, 2006). The study, therefore, first examines the dynamics of strategy implementation in local governments in Nigeria by empirically examining the interrelationship between the typologies of organisational culture and the elements of strategy implementation.

Extant literature suggests that a good understanding of organisational culture and its interaction with strategy implementation can be useful in providing practicable insight to public managers in their future implementation plans by furnishing them with suitable and

implementation friendly cultures to achieve efficient strategy implementation (Jones Et al.

2005; Cristian-Liviu, 2013). Similarly although various studies identify inefficient strategy implementation mechanism as a major problem of service delivery in Nigerian LGAs

(Ahmed, 2005; Okogbule, 2006; Utomi Et al. 2007; Bukoye and Norrington, 2014) abstract discussions on the complexities of strategy implementation in Nigerian public sector institutions prove insufficient or have tended towards addressing only one functional problem per time rather than integrating the spectrum of problems. For example, Oviasuyi Et al.

(2010) focused on corruption and suggested that it has permeated through the system and has been left uncontrolled, persistent and unabashed. The issue of the endemic poverty level, leadership, joblessness, greediness, lack of respect for the rule of law and low or no moral standards and codes were underscored by Moyo and Taiwo (2011). (NPC, 2012) highlighted the lack of security, law and order, economic coordination and institution. Bukoye and

Norrington (2014) accentuated that there is presently no steady and efficient formal mechanism for public service delivery in Nigeria. Alao Et al. (2015) suggested factors ranging from undue intervention by the state governments, the structure, and corruption to over politicization of administration and staffing. These authors are of the view that challenges of implementation in Nigerian LGAs are either mostly institutional or attitudinal or both.

The crucial role of organisational culture in enhancing effective strategy implementation process has been recognised by various authors (Brodwin and Bourgeois, 1984; Okumus,

2001; Alashloo Et al. 2005; Ravasi and Schultz, 2006). There is general concurrence that culture impacts the process of implementation of strategies (Perez Lopez Et al. 2004) and that many past implementations efforts failed due to organisations’ ignorance of cultural factors

(Navanjo-Valencia Et al. 2011). Deal and Kennedy, (1982); Fowler (2002) and Scott, (2003) averred that among factors enlisted as key shapers of effective strategy implementation,

organisational culture is the single most important factor of success or failure with the greatest potential to affect organizational improvements (Cyrus, 2015). It is argued in many instances that the culture that adds to the power and effectiveness of a company’s strategy execution effort is one that is grounded in strategy supportive values, practices and behavioural norms (Arabi, 2002). Janićijević (2012) stresses the significant impact of organisational culture on effective implementation. Dodek Et al. (2010) remarked that culture is to an organization what personality is to the individual- a hidden, yet unifying theme that provides meaning, direction, and mobilization. Similarly, as a conclusion to their study of the relationship between organisational culture and strategy implementation, Ahmadi Et al.

(2012) observed the complexity of strategy implementation and its strong correlation with culture. Considering the importance of culture as a unifying and encouraging factor in the implementation process, this study finds it necessary to consider its impact on the process of implementation in local government authorities in Nigeria to enable it decipher the current problem associated with strategy implementation in Nigerian LGAs. The research finds abstract discussions in the field of strategy implementation as it relates to organisational culture within the Nigerian local government authorities ad hoc and eclectic.

1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The strategy implementation process inherent in local government authorities in Nigeria should be concise, easily understandable for every stake holder, time efficient and ultimately aimed at an efficient public service delivery (Mukoro, 2000). But as stated in the previous section, the current situation in Nigeria is, however, not so (Bukoye and Norrington, 2014).

Strategy implementation in Nigerian LGAs is an inefficient process that has cast a shadow on rural areas and indeed the whole country (Adegbite, 2015). The inefficiency of the current process represents a significant burden on the lives of the Nigerian citizenry and has prompted scholars to query and assess the factors responsible for the inefficiency of the

process. It is clear from extant literature (Andrews Et al. 2011) that many factors have been identified and recommendations made, however, despite an extensive search, no study, situated in the body of knowledge within the Nigerian context, has focused on investigating the interrelationships between organisational culture typologies and the core elements of strategy implementation process with the aim of providing explicit explanations for the impact of their interrelationship on the overall implementation process. This observation identified the following gap in the field of strategy implementation:

Many theories and frameworks focusing on the complexities of strategy implementation in

Nigerian local government authorities have been advanced in literature (Ikpeze, Et al. 2004;

Nwankwoala, 2011; Mwijuma, Omido, and Garashi, 2013)but there remains paucity in investigative frameworks that study the effects of organisational culture typologies on the process of strategy implementation. Therefore, the need arises to examine the interrelationship between these set of concepts in order to inform efforts to achieve the expected level of service delivery in Nigerian LGAs.

Figure 1.0 illustrates the current state of literature on the relationship between organisational culture and the elements of strategy implementation and between implementation barriers and strategy implementation.

STRATEGY STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION (SI) BARRIERS PROCESS

(Oviasuyi.Et al, 2010;

Adeyemi, 2012; Samihah and Adelabu 2011) Effective Strategy Implementation

ELEMENTS OF THE ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE STRATEGY (OC) IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

No study in the body of knowledge, within the Nigerian context, examines the relationship between OC and elements of SI

Figure 1.0 Current state of literature, within the context of the study.

This gap, identified in the knowledge base, informs the need for an empirical assessment of the evidence of the interaction between cultural characteristics and the core elements of strategy implementation process in order to gain deeper insight into how they influence effective strategy implementation. An understanding of these interactions enables a wider appreciation of contemporary obstacles within processual implementation and contextual cultural characteristics. It contributes towards the development of modified frameworks for strategy implementation in prospective research.

This study attempts to integrate the spectrum of problems within the strategy implementation process rather than addressing individual functional concerns by finding out appropriate organisational culture types that can either support or enhance the core elements of the implementation process. It proposes that by addressing the interactions between the elements of the strategy implementation process and the typologies of organisational culture, implementation of strategies within Nigerian local government authorities (LGAs) will be a seamless process that will generate efficient and effective service delivery. Therefore, this

study attempts to examine the current strategy implementation process vis-a-vis the types of organisational culture existing in Nigerian LGAs. Hence it adopts the Competing Values

Framework (CVF) developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999) which proposes four organisational culture typologies and six cultural dimensions and attempts to assess their impact on five explanatory elements of the implementation process derived from the data analysis (Ahmadi Et al. 2012) to establish the effect of organisational culture typologies on the elements of strategy implementation process in Nigerian LGAs.

1.1 THE RESEARCH CONTEXT

This study’s area of interest lies within the premise of enhancing implementation mechanisms in Nigerian LGAs through the theoretical lens of organisational culture with a view to ensuring the successful implementation of NV20:2020 by the year 2020. Recent reviews of

Nigerian local government administrative systems and processes show that the accountability incentive structure, fiscal discipline, local leadership skills (Ozoho and Paul, 2015) and quality of staff (Amankwah-Amoah, Ifere, and Nyuur, 2016) all need considerable improvement. Conversely, much of the anticipated social development within the country may not materialise if these problems are not fixed. According to World Bank report of 2013

Nigerian economy is listed as the third fastest growing economy in the world with an average growth rate of over 7% in the last decade but there is a startling distinction between the country’s rapid economic growth rates and the almost ‘non-visible’ socio-economic development for much of this period. Makinde (2005:65) believes the reason for this problem is the existence of a gap which he calls the ‘implementation – gap’. A number of LGA reforms have been successfully formulated that could have created avenues for a complete overhauling of the public sector, but clearly Nigerian LGAs have failed to execute the range of responsibilities allocated to them by these reforms (Ahmed, 2005). This supports

Ugwuanyi and Emma’s (2013) argument that effectively implemented policies and not the mere formulation of it can bring about the much expected national development in Nigeria

Nigeria has 774 local government areas (LGAs). Each local government area is administered by a Local Government Council consisting of a chairman who is the Chief Executive of the

LGA, and other elected members who are referred to as Councillors. Each of the areas is further subdivided into wards with a minimum of ten and a maximum of fifteen for each area.

Local governments are created with the ultimate goal of bringing government closer to the people at the grassroots. In Nigeria, the local government reforms aimed both to accelerate development and to enable the local population participate and hold those in power accountable for their governance roles. However, a true third tier has never taken off in the governance structure of Nigeria, despite the widespread endorsement of local government as a potent system to mobilise people for local participation in governance (Mfene, 2008).

Several studies (Makinde, 2005; Ahmed, 2005; Ugwuanyi and Chukwuemeka, 2013) have established the challenges bedevilling the Nigerian local government system, including issues such as poor funding, paucity of human capital, corruption, poor service delivery. However

Nigeria records no evidence in practical terms showing any prospects of development within its enclave. Understanding this problem, the present day Buhari-led government has formulated long term strategic policies focused on amending the constitution to require local governments to publish their service performance data, and items of spending over N10 million (N10,000,000) (www.abusidiqu.com, 2016). In the same vein, through the National

Rolling Plan beginning with the 1990-1992 Plan, past governments have regularly featured on-going government activities related to poverty eradication at the grass roots (Adeyemi,

2012). These include programmes such as: Primary Health Care (PHC) programme, whose purpose is to bring health care, particularly preventive health care to the grass roots of the

Nigerian Society, National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA) aimed at

promoting integrated rural development and establishment of the River Basin Development

Authorities and provision of rural access roads (Marcellus, 2009).

It is clear that successive Nigerian governments recognise the need for enhancing the performance of local governments as a tool for national development - an objective that is clearly stated in the country’s Vision 20:2020 programme (Nwafee, 2017). However their efforts have not yielded the required improvement because of the need for an effective and efficient strategy implementation process. Implementers at the local governments need good understanding of how to implement policies with a high rate of success. Katzenbach Et al.

(2012) believe that the understanding needed is one that inculcates deep-rooted practices and attitudes of organisational culture. Leaders often undermine how much a strategy is dependent on cultural alignment. Yet, it has been well documented that culture trumps strategy every time (Perez Lopez Et al. 2004; Dodek Et al. 2010; Navanjo-Valencia Et al.

2011; Janićijević (2012). Katzenbach Et al. (2012) concluded that a few cultural traits that truly match and support the organisation’s strategy should be identified and fostered. This research adds to this understanding by exploring appropriate culture typologies that would assist Nigerian Local governments overcome their implementation barriers. Consequently the study provides suggestions that will guide and improve effective strategy implementation in public offices. Thus, this it will bridge the gap in the strategy implementation literature and offer practical benefit to organisations seeking effective policy implementation.

1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The highlighted gap in section 1.0 raises the following important research questions:

 What is the current pattern of strategy implementation process in Nigerian LGAs?

 What is the existing organisational culture typology in Nigerian LGAs?

 How do the inherent organisational culture type(s) affect the core elements of the

strategy implementation process in Nigerian LGAs?

This study makes significant contribution to the literature by providing answers to these questions.

1.3 RESEARCH AIM

The aim of this thesis is to empirically investigate the relationship between organisational culture typologies and the elements of strategy implementation process to gain better understanding of their impact on the overall strategy implementation process.

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The key objectives of the thesis are:

 To examine current patterns of strategy implementation processes in LGAs in Nigeria.

 To identify the type (s) of organisational culture existent in Nigerian LGAs.

 To determine the interrelationship between the types of organisational culture and the

elements of strategy implementation process in Nigerian LGAs.

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study employs a purely qualitative approach and engages an epistemological interpretivist paradigm which enables it identify the ideas, perception and experiences of participants involved in the implementation process. The interpretivist paradigm relates to the subjectivism aspect of ontology which asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors (Bryman, 2003). It reflects a researcher’s belief about the nature of the world and maintains that knowledge is socially constructed and reality is ultimately subjective (Broom, Alex and Willis, Evan, 2007). The researcher’s choice of subjectivism ontology informs his selection of interpretivism epistemology,

therefore, an inductive approach is used with the application of qualitative methods of data collection. His choice of this stance is based on the premise that primary data generated via interpretivism studies might be associated with a high level of validity because data in such studies tends to be trustworthy and honest (Collins, 2010). Moreover, interpretivism studies usually focus on meaning and may employ multiple methods in order to reflect different aspects of the phenomenon (Myers, 2008). The downside associated with interpretivism relates to the subjective nature of the approach and creates room for bias on behalf of the researcher. Primary data generated in interpretivist studies cannot be generalized since data is heavily impacted by personal viewpoint and values. Therefore, reliability and representativeness of data is undermined to a certain extent. Nevertheless, interpretivist approach enables the an in-depth study of the phenomena, it is interactive, cooperative and participative and provides the researcher with first hand information on people’s perceptions and ideas, problems they are confronted with, and how they deal with them (Mansfeld, 2009).

The study’s primary purpose is to test the interrelationship between the typologies of culture and the elements of strategy implementation process in Nigerian LGAs therefore it studies the phenomena in its natural context, and its interpretations are based on participants’ point of view.

In assessing the interrelationship between the two sets of variables, the research methodology: 1) selected the elements of the research approach 2) Designed the research instrument for data collection 3) Tested the validity and reliability of the research instrument and 4) Selected and applied suitable methods and tools for data analyses

The research employed semi-structured interviews to collect empirical data from respondents within and outside the local government areas. A total of 42 respondents were interviewed.

Primary data was collected from stakeholders, local citizens, quality managers, directors, policy implementers and operation managers at top management, middle management and

lower cadre levels of the selected local government authorities. The researcher used purposive sampling, a non-probability sampling technique in selecting respondents based on their job experience, years of service, relevance of job roles to the phenomena under inquiry and position within the civil service. Purposive sampling is a sampling method in which decisions concerning the individuals to be included in the sample are taken by the researcher, based upon a variety of criteria which may include specialist knowledge of the research issue, or capacity and willingness to participate in the research (Jupp, 2006). The nature of the study dictates that purposive sampling is particularly relevant and appropriate as only suitable candidates, a better representative of target population when compared to other sampling methods, are targeted. The research instrument (semi structured interviews) was guided by secondary data from extensive literature review. The questions were tested for validity through pilot testing. Feedback on the clarity, structure and content of the proposed research instrument was sought through peer review sessions (Fink and Kosecoff, 1998). Insights from their feedback enabled the researcher revise and fine tune the research instrument. Data collected from the interviews were coded using Nvivo 8.0 – a software program designed to facilitate, link, document, search and reorganize codes and aid in the analysis of qualitative data. Data is analysed and interpreted using content analysis technique to ensure a focus on cultural context and semantic relationships and describe social situation and cultural patterns within it.

1.6 THE RESEARCH SCOPE

The study covers one local government area (LGA) in each of Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones (South South, South West, South East, North East, North Central, North West) making a total of six LGAs. The selection of these LGAs is guided by the single premise that they have been identified in previous studies with strategy implementation issues (Adeyemi,

2013). The primary scope of the study is also informed by the nature of the research design

and resource constraints; it is believed that the study’s choice of one LGA in each geopolitical zone will ensure uniformity and homogeneity. The researcher’s concern is to conduct an intensive study that provides a better understanding about the phenomenon not captured by literature however the resource concern demands that the scope be defined in the light of the level of financial and time resources available (Chambers and Carruthers, 1986).

1.7 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND CONTRIBUTION

This study presents an extension to previous works on culture typologies and strategy implementation and enriches a number of important areas in public administration theories.

Its theoretical contribution to knowledge base is found in its attempt to address the gap identified within the strategy implementation literature. Being the first study within its context to address this gap by explicitly examining the interrelationship between organisational culture typologies and the elements of strategy implementation process, it enhances existing knowledge on the influence of culture on implementation. Therefore, the research findings provide useful and practicable insight to public managers on best possible approaches to dealing with the intricacies and various layers of forces existing within and outside their environments and to researchers, an opportunity to assess the applicability of strategy implementation and organisational culture theories in various national contexts.

Methodological and theoretical contributions discussed in this research provide clear suggestions towards a rich and diversified approach to strategy implementation in local governmental authorities by explaining how the process of implementation is influenced by certain rationalities in an internally and externally complex environment.

Furthermore, the research instrument employed measures the distinct elements of strategy implementation and the dimensions of culture thus enabling public managers and practitioners evaluate the strength of their organisation’s culture and its preparedness to

embrace effective strategy implementation approach. Its conceptual framework depicts the interaction between the two sets of variables under study and can be applicable within both public and private institutions. Finally the result of this study has significant implications on strategists and policy makers suggesting the need for a review of all local governments’ implementation barriers.

1.8 RESEARCH RATIONALE

The Nigerian government is driven to diversify her economy from one that is extensively dependent on oil wealth to a more productive and globally competitive economy through the empowerment and development of local government authorities (Anyaehie, 2015). In her

Vision 20:2020 programme, Nigeria identified that to transform her economic offering to a multi-industry global contender, there is need for extensive cultural improvement and sound implementation policies to bring to realistic actualisation its development plans (Falebita and

Koul, 2017; Nwafee, 2017). Too often institutions’ strategies are incongruous with the inherent practices and attitudes of their culture (Ahmedi Et al. 2012). Leaders underestimate how much a strategy depends on cultural alignment. Yet, it has been well documented that culture trumps strategy every time (Katzenbach Et al. 2012).

Until the recent decade, many of the rural development programmes and a host of other economic reform policies, public service reforms, judicial reforms, and education reforms introduced against the backdrop of previous negative economic growth rates were ostensibly unachievable (Acha Et al. 2017). The Nigerian economy was generally lethargic (Uwazie Et al. 2015; Ayinde and Yinusa, 2016). Consequently a number of critical social-economic challenges remained fundamental problems in Nigeria. With the country’s admirable coastal location and her enviable resource endowment the thought of Nigeria facing these economic challenges should not make any list of expectations. Yet Nigeria has battled with all manners

of social ills and utilised very little of its prospects (Songwe and Initiative, 2014;

Uduakobong, 2015).

However, in the current decade, the country appears to have witnessed a significant turnaround in terms of development and appears to be ripe for the path of rapid and sustained growth (Stober, 2017). The growth of the Nigerian economy, as indicated by the increase in its real GDP has ameliorated considerably (Chete Et al. 2014). This observed improvement in growth performance is credited to the non-oil sector which rose at a 9.48% annual average rate, while the oil sector was responsible for both the instability and growth decline in the

GDP growth pattern (Uzonwanne, 2015).

Despite the relatively impressive rates of growth witnessed in the economy, the country still faces the challenge of attaining annual double digit and broad-based real growth figures

(Oluseye and Gabriel, 2017). The mismatch between Nigeria’s social development and economic growth calls for urgent attention to increase labour productivity amongst its workforce and ultimately improve the welfare of its citizenry. Much of the economic challenges Nigeria faces, which are offshoots of failed economic policy reforms, have been fingered by various authors to stem from a lack of well established implementation mechanisms (Obadan and Edo, 2010; Eneh, 2011; Olaseni and Alade, 2012) and a need for sound cultural improvement (Falebita and Koul, 2017). Globally, efficient and functional governments are characterised by the development of effective mechanisms that is able to transit strategic plans into systematic actions and favourable outcomes (Doppelt, 2017)..

Alongside the justification of exploring contemporary implementation measures employed by

Nigerian local government administrations to ensure the actualisation of NV20:2020, and examining characteristics of organisational culture that would help improve and sustain the implementation of strategies and consequently help in developing an improved understanding

of factors affecting strategy implementation in Nigerian LGAs, a further rationale for this study is based on the curious grounds that previous reforms in Nigeria have been ineffective yet only two years are left for the expiration of NV20:2020 plan. It is hoped that the findings of the study will inform the development of improved strategy implementation models that is practitioner-friendly with a view to assisting managers in the implementation of successful and sustainable strategies and policies.

CHAPTER TWO

STRATEGY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

2.0 WHAT IS STRATEGY

Ulwick (1999:3) likened the definitions of strategy to vitamins; ‘you get one-a-day and most of them are hard to swallow’. The definition of strategy, over the years, has continually evolved with different authors viewing the concept of strategy from various perspectives

(Agndal, and Chetty, 2007). The word strategy is a vague statement that means different things to different people at different times. It is the subject of many articles and the cause of many debates (Slack, 2015). Much of the cause for debate are on the premise that the various definitions of strategy not only attempt to define what a strategy is, but they also contain information regarding how a strategy is created, and what a strategy is expected to achieve

(Grant, 2016).

Strategy’s etymology dates back to classic Greek, through the middle ages and into the modern era (Strachan, 2005). As a term it originates from the Greek word strategia, meaning

"generalship" and came into usage in Britain, France and Germany in the late eighteenth century with its relevant references tending only towards politics and the arts of war especially in the military. It was however later adapted for use in business (Heuser, 2010).

Heuser (2010) observed that strategy entered the management literature as a way of referring to what one did to counter a competitor’s actual or predicted moves. In the military, strategy often refers to deploying troops into position before the enemy is actually engaged; once the enemy is engaged, attention shifts to tactics. Substitute resources for troops and the transfer of the concept to the business world begin to take form. Despite the entrance of the concept into the business world, there is, yet, very little agreement as to the meaning of strategy in

business (Stewart, 2004; Freedman, 2013). In other words there is no agreed upon definition of strategy that describes the field and limits its boundaries (Planellas, 2017).

Initially, Chandler (1962) attempted to define strategy as the determination of the basic long- term goals of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals. Ansoff (1965) built on Chandler's work by adding concepts and inventing a vocabulary. He developed a grid that compared strategies for market penetration, product development, market development and horizontal and vertical integration and diversification. Ansoff felt that management could use the grid to systematically prepare for the future. He used his analysis to clarify the gap between the current reality and the goals and to develop what he called “gap reducing actions” (Ansoff,

1965).

Subsequently, Porter (1980) also attempted a definition of the term. He defined strategy as the broad formula for how a business is going to compete, what its goals should be, what policies will be needed to carry out those goals, the combination of the goals for which the firm is striving and the means by which it is seeking to get there. He continued that the essence of formulating competitive strategy in business is to relate a company to its environment. Andrews (1980) however calls Porter’s definition ‘business strategy’ and draws a distinction between ‘business strategy’ which defines the basis of competition for a given business and ‘corporate strategy’ which determines the businesses in which a company will compete. He defines corporate strategy as the pattern of decisions in a company that determines and reveals its objectives, purposes, or goals, produces the principal policies and plans for achieving those goals, and defines the range of business the company is to pursue, the kind of economic and human organization it is or intends to be, and the nature of the economic and non-economic contribution it intends to make to its shareholders, employees, customers, and communities.

Ohmae (1988) opines differently from Porter and Andrew, not from the basis of competition or the company to be pursued, but from the basis of the understanding of a customer’s inherent needs and then rethinking what a category of product is all about. Henderson (1989) views however support the earlier views of Porter. Henderson believes that strategy is a deliberate search for a plan of action that will develop a business’ competitive advantage and compound it.

Mintzberg (1994) views as a departure from these earlier arguments stressed that strategy emerges over time as intentions collide with and accommodate a changing reality. He described the many different perspectives on strategy reflected in both academic research and in practice. He examined the strategic process and concluded that it was much more fluid and unpredictable than people earlier believed. He could not point to one process that could be called strategic planning. He quickly concluded that there are five types of strategies:

Strategy as plan, in which case, strategy is seen as a directed course of action to achieve an intended set of goals. Strategy as a pattern, in which case, strategy is observed as a consistent pattern of past behaviour, with a strategy realized over time rather than planned or intended.

Where the realized pattern was different from the intent, he referred to the strategy as emergent. Strategy as a position; strategy is seen as locating brands, products, or companies within the market, based on the conceptual framework of consumers or other stakeholders; a strategy determined primarily by factors outside the firm. Strategy as a ploy, a specific manoeuvre intended to outwit a competitor and Strategy as a perspective; here, strategies are executed based on a "theory of the business" or natural extension of the mindset or ideological perspective of the organization.

McGrath (2013) like Mintzberg, opined differently. His views on strategy was all about finding a favourable position in a well defined industry and then exploiting a long term competitive advantage. However, he opines that strategy as a business concept is seen as a

game that looks more like world of war-craft than the game of kings, you never actually win, but are always questing, gaining new skills and resources along the way and continually seeking the next challenge.

Within contemporary views of strategy, Freedman (2013) defined strategy as maintaining a balance between ends, ways and means; about identifying objectives; and about the resources and methods available for meeting such objectives. This balance requires not only finding out how to achieve desired ends but also adjusting ends so that realistic ways can be found to meet them by available means (Nickols, 2016). Strategy becomes inevitable where an actual or likely conflict of interest exists and resolution is required (Freedman, 2015). This is the major difference between a strategy and a plan (Allio, 2015). A plan assumes a series of actions that empowers one to confidently move from one state to another (Freedman, 2015;

Perkin, 2017). Strategy is needed when there are diverse and opposing concerns and interests that is likely to distort one’s initial plans (Sanders and Houghton, 2016; Perkin, 2017). The quote by popular boxer, Mike Tyson, ‘a well-aimed blow can thwart the cleverest plans’

(www.goodreads.com) illustrates this difference.

Summing up the above definitions, it is notable that all the authors address how a strategy is created or what a strategy is expected to achieve. Strategy, as suggested by Mintzberg, is arguably perspective, position, plan, and pattern (Capon, 2008; Banfield and Kay, 2012). It bridges the gap between tactics on the one hand and policy on the other (Walker, 2014).

Together tactics and strategy span the gap between means and ends (Marcella, 2010;

Kallberg, 2013; Nickols, 2016). In short, strategy as a term refers to a multiplex nexus of ideas, thoughts, perception, and acumen that offers broad guidance for definite actions in the quest for certain desired ends (Nickols, 2016). Strategy is therefore the path we tow, the expedition we envision and, accordingly, it is the route we navigate, the journey we indeed go on (Hiriyappa, 2013; Akhgar and Yates, 2013; Nickols, 2016). Paradoxically, when we

embark on a journey of realisation and unearthing especially without a distinct end in sight, the journey has a goal, a result, and a target to be kept in view (Nickols, 2016). Strategy, then, does not exist except for the ends that we seek; it is a broad model that guides the actions we take and, yet, is shaped by the actions we take (Nickols, 2016). This suggests that the needed prerequisite for formulating strategy is a lucid insight into the ends to be achieved (Pradhan,

2009; Lamborn, 2012; Nickols, 2016). It can be deduced therefore that where these ends are not kept in sight, action becomes merely tactical and ultimately reduced to a mere whirling about.

The diverse definitions of strategy reflect the evolution of the meaning of the term in today’s business world. Through literature on management and business, the use of the word gained wide spread recognition (Godfrey, 2015; Madsen, 2017). The policies and plans of organizations particularly their most important ones, have come to be termed strategic. It became easy for individuals and firms to use the term when the need arises to make professional choices (Freedman, 2015). Strategy therefore rose hand in hand with bureaucracy in organizations, organisational functions’ professionalization, and development of the social sciences. It mirrors the hope that the expert study of sociology, economics, psychology and politics would make the way for a more understandable and as such more forecast-able world, so that all actions could be better informed and effectively streamlined to meet current circumstances (Freedman, 2015). With the increased usage of the terms

‘strategy’ and ‘strategic’ in business, the concept of strategic management as a science was birthed following the works of Alfred Chandler - Strategy and Structure (1962); Igor Ansoff -

Corporate Strategy (1965); and the Harvard Textbook Business Policy: Text and Cases

(Learned Et al. 1965). With these authors, research in the field of strategic management began its journey from a pre-determined one-best-way approach to a more non-logical perspective where organizations became more aware of their external environment and

adapted accordingly (Planellas, 2017). The strategic management concept defined for organisations how to strategically integrate their ‘courses of action’, otherwise known as strategic management process, towards achieving organisational goals and staying competitive (Grant, 2016). Central to the process are three highly interdependent elements –

Strategy formulation, strategy implementation and evaluation and control (Dess and

Lumpkin, 2003; De Witt and Meyer, 2004; Borza Et al. 2008; Barnat 2015), (these are studied comprehensively in subsequent sections). The interdependency of these three elements nevertheless does not guarantee that when one element is successful it must result in the success of the whole process (Barnat 2015). The interrelationship between the three elements within the strategic management process is exemplified in fig 2.0

Figure 2.0: Elements of strategic management

Strategy Strategy Strategy Formulation Implementation Evaluation and Control

2.0.1 Types of strategy

Mintzberg and Waters (1985) identified two main types of strategies: Deliberate strategy and emergent strategies and conceived these as two ends of a continuum along which real- world strategies lie. By continuing along this continuum they challenged the notion that strategy is simply what the leaders of an organization 'plan' to do in the future, and an analytic process for establishing long-range goals and action plans for an organization; that is, as one of formulation followed by implementation. They argue that this perception of strategy is seriously limited, and the process needs to be viewed from a wider perspective so that the

variety of ways in which strategies actually take shape can be considered. Paying particular attention to exploring the relationship between leadership plans and intentions and what the organizations actually did, they use the label strategy for both of these phenomena-one called intended, the other realized, and comparing intended strategy with realized strategy, they distinguish deliberate strategies-realized as intended - from emergent strategies - patterns or consistencies realized despite, or in the absence of, intentions. This comparison led to the uncovering of various types of strategies including strategies planned, entrepreneurial, ideological, umbrella, process, unconnected, consensus and imposed strategies. Each of these embodied differing degrees of what they called deliberateness or emergentness. See fig 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Types of strategy form a pattern in the stream of actions

Deliberate strategy Intended strategy Realised strategy

Unrealised strategy Emergent strategy

Source: Mintzberg and Waters (1985:71)

Planned or deliberate strategies suggest clear and articulated intentions, backed up by formal controls to ensure their pursuit, in an environment that is acquiescent. In this first type of strategy, leaders at the centre of authority formulate their intentions as precisely as possible and then strive for their implementation-their translation into collective action-with a minimum of distortion, 'surprise-free'. In the case of Entrepreneurial strategies, the force for pattern or consistency in action is individual vision, the central actor's concept of his or her organization's place in its world. This is coupled with an ability to impose that vision on the organization through his or her personal control of its actions (e.g. through giving direct

orders to its operating personnel). The ideological strategy highlights the patterns of behaviour exhibited by organisation members who share a common vision and identify so strongly with it that they pursue it as an ideology. In an important sense, these intentions would seem to be most clearly organizational. Whereas the intentions of the planned and entrepreneurial strategies emanate from one centre and are accepted passively by everyone else, those of the ideological strategy are positively embraced by the members of the organization. Like the entrepreneurial strategy, the umbrella strategy represents a certain vision emanating from the central leadership. But here those who have the vision do not control its realization; instead they must convince others to pursue it. The umbrella puts limits on the actions of others and ideally provides a sense of direction as well. Similar to the umbrella strategy is what can be called the process strategy. Again, the leadership functions in an organization in which other actors must have considerable discretion to determine outcomes, because of an environment that is complex and perhaps also unpredictable and uncontrollable. But instead of trying to control strategy content at a general level, through boundaries or targets, the leadership instead needs to exercise influence indirectly.

Specifically, it controls the process of strategy making while leaving the content of strategy to other actors. Again, the resulting behaviour would be deliberate in one respect and emergent in others: the central leadership designs the system that allows others the flexibility to evolve patterns within it. The unconnected strategy is perhaps the most straightforward one of all. One part of the organization with considerable discretion-a subunit, sometimes even a single individual because it is only loosely coupled to the rest, is able to realize its own pattern in its stream of actions. And since they come neither from a central leadership nor from intentions in the organization at large, they would seem to be relatively emergent from the perspective of the entire organization. But from the perspective of the unit or individual involved, clearly they can be deliberate or emergent, depending on the prior existence of

intentions. In the consensus strategy which is clearly more emergent, different actors naturally converge on the same theme, or pattern, so that it becomes pervasive in the organization, without the need for any central direction or control. Unlike the ideological strategy, in which a consensus forms around a system of beliefs (thus reflecting intentions widely accepted in the organization), the consensus strategy grows out of the mutual adjustment among different actors, as they learn from each other and from their various responses to the environment and thereby find a common, and probably unexpected, pattern that works for them.

All the strategy types so far discussed have derived in part at least from the will (if not the intentions) of actors within the organization. However strategies can be imposed from outside as well; that is, the environment can directly force the organization into a pattern in its stream of actions, regardless of the presence of central controls (Johnson Et al. 2013). The clearest case of this occurs when an external individual or group with a great deal of influence over the organization imposes a strategy on it (McKelvey, 2008). Here the imposed strategy may be clearly deliberate, but not by anyone in the organization. However, given its inability to resist, the organization may resign itself to the pursuit of the strategy, so that it becomes, in effect, deliberate (Bodwell and Chermack, 2010). Table 1 presents a summary description of types of strategies.

Table 1: Summary description of types of strategies

Strategy type Major features

Planned Strategies originate in formal plans: precise

intentions exist, formulated and articulated

by central leadership, backed up by formal

controls to ensure surprise-free

implementation in benign, controllable or

predictable environment; strategies most

deliberate

Entrepreneurial Strategies originate in central vision:

intentions exist as personal, uinarticulated

vision of single leader, and so adaptable to

new opportunities; organization under

personal control of leader and located in

protected niche in environment; strategies

relatively deliberate but can emerge

Ideological Strategies originate in shared beliefs:

intentions exist as collective vision of all

actors, in inspirational form and relatively

immutable, controlled normatively through

indoctrination and/or socialization;

organization often proactive vis-a-vis

environment; strategies rather deliberate

Umbrella Strategies originate in constraints: leadership,

in partial control of organizational actions,

defines strategic boundaries or targets within

which other actors respond to own forces or

to complex, perhaps also unpredictable

environment; strategies partly deliberate,

partly emergent and deliberately emergent

Process Strategies originate in process: leadership

controls process aspects of strategy (hiring,

structure, etc.), leaving content aspects to

other actors; strategies partly deliberate,

partly

emergent (and, again, deliberately emergent)

Unconnected Strategies originate in enclaves: actor(s)

loosely coupled to rest of orgainization

piroduce(s)

patterns in own actions in absence of, or in

direct contradiction to, central or common

intentions; strategies organizationally

emergent whether or not deliberate for

actor(s)

Consensus Strategies originate in consensus: through

mutual adjustment, actors converge on

patterns that become pervasive in absence of

central or common intentions; strategies

rather emergent

Imposed Strategies originate in environment:

environment dictates patterns in actions

either through direct imposition or through

implicitly pre-empting or bounding

organizational

choice; strategies most emergent, although

may be internalized by organization and

made deliberate

2.0.2 Levels of strategy

Wheelen and Hunger (2000) highlight three levels of strategy: corporate-level strategy, business-level strategy and functional-level strategy (See fig 2.2). At corporate level of strategy, decisions regarding variety, vertical integration and proprietorship of a new activity are made and also method of allocation of resources among different units of the organization is considered (Jacobs, 2010). It relates to the future formula and structure of the company , and affects the rationale of the company and the business in which it intends to compete

(Neil, 2011) Collis and Montgomery (2005) defined corporate strategy as creating value through shaping corporate activities in multi-business markets. Their definition highlights three aspects of value creation, scope of corporation (configuration), and coordination between businesses.

Fig: 2.2 Levels of strategy

Corporate-level strategy

Business-level strategy Business-level strategy

Operations Financial and Marketing and R&D HR Strategy strategy accounting sales strategy strategy strategy

Source: Salimian Et al. (2012:12017).

The business-level strategy, sometimes referred to as competitive strategy concept was introduced by business policy scholars in the 1960s and 1970s. Collis and Montgomery

(2005) articulated that central to their ideas was the notion that firms needed to adopt a unified approach to their activities and resource allocation decisions. Business strategy deals with method of competition and determines the place of business within a specific industry.

According to Ohmae’s (1982), what distinguishes strategy from other business plans is one word and that is competitive advantage. Without competition, there would be no need for strategy. The sole aim of strategic planning is to enable the organization to achieve efficiency and superiority over its competitors. The important point that can be deduced from this definition is that the necessity of business strategy is due to the existence of a competitive environment and in the absence of this environment, the existence of strategy would be practically meaningless.

Functional-level strategies are developed in order to support the business–level strategy

(Davis Et al. 2003). In other words, functional strategies are a set of decisions in each of the functional areas of the organization which determine the role of the functional unit within the

business strategy. In other words, functional strategy is the notion used by a business area for achieving the objectives and strategies of company and business through maximizing resources efficiency. Marketing managers make decisions about the position of the products or services, advertisement, and customer relations management. Human resources managers make decisions about work force management, employment policies, and compensation policies. Financial and accounting managers make decisions about sources of financial supply, resource allocation, accounting system and the structure of internal auditing. This strategy level examines how the different levels of the business support the corporate and business strategies. Such corporate planning at the operational level is means oriented and most activities are concerned only with the ability to undertake directions (Ritson, 2011).

2.0.3 Elements of strategy

The definitions of strategy by Chandler (1963), Porter (1966) and Mintzberg (2007) each points to important but distinct elements of strategy. Chandler emphasises a logical flow from the determination of goals and objectives to the allocation of resources. Porter focuses on deliberate choices, difference and competition. On the other hand, Mintzberg uses the word

‘pattern’ to allow for the fact that strategies do not always follow a deliberately chosen and logical plan, but can emerge in more ad hoc ways. Hambrick and Fredrickson’s (2001) definition of strategy as not primarily about planning but about intentional, informed, and integrated choices however implies a more comprehensive view than some influential definitions. They argue that strategy consists of an integrated set of choices, but it isn't a catchall for every important choice an executive faces. Strategy addresses how the business intends to engage its environment, choices about internal organizational arrangements are not part of strategy. Accordingly these are merely critically important choices, which should reinforce and support strategy; but they do not make up the strategy itself. “If everything important is thrown into the strategy bucket, then this essential concept quickly comes to

mean nothing” (Hambrick and Fredrickson, 2001: 49). The key focus therefore for Hambrick and Fredrickson was not in following a sequential process, but rather in achieving a robust, reinforced consistency among the elements of the strategy itself. Hambrick and Fredrickson

(2001) recognised that if a business must have a strategy, then the strategy must necessarily have parts. They therefore highlight five elements of strategy which they referred to as the strategy diamond: Arenas, Vehicles, Differentiators, and Staging and Economic logic. (See figure 2.3).

Fig 2.3: The strategy diamond showing the five major elements of strategy

Arenas

Economic Staging & Vehicles logic pacing

Differentiators

Source: Hambrick and Fredrickson (2001:56).

The strategy diamond emphasises how essential it is that the five domains of choice

(elements) form a unified whole. Arenas encompass choices made about where to compete: the external environment - a most fundamental choices strategists must make. But beyond deciding on the arenas in which the business will be active, the strategist needs to decide how

to get there. The vehicles provide this great means by which arenas are entered. Therefore, selection of vehicles should not be an afterthought or viewed as a mere implementation detail. A strategy should specify not only where a firm will be active (arenas) and how it will get there (vehicles), but also how the firm will win the competition. Differentiators are those factors that are believed to allow the firm to win in its targeted arenas, particularly external arenas. However, achieving a compelling marketplace advantage does not necessarily mean that the company has to be at the extreme on one differentiating dimension; rather, sometimes having the best combination of differentiators confers a tremendous marketplace advantage.

Regardless of the intended differentiators—image, customization, price, product styling, after sale services, or others—the critical issue for strategists is to make up-front, deliberate choices. Without that, two unfortunate outcomes loom. One is that, if fop management doesn't attempt to create unique differentiation, none will occur. Again, differentiators don't just materialize; they are very hard to achieve. And firms without them lose. Choices of arenas, vehicles, and differentiators constitute what might be called the substance of a strategy—what executives plan to do. But this substance cries out for decisions on a fourth element—staging, or the speed and sequence of major moves to take in order to heighten the likelihood of success. Decisions about staging can be driven by a number of factors. One, of course, is resources. Funding and staffing every envisioned initiative, at the needed levels, is generally not possible at the outset of a new strategic campaign. Urgency is a second factor affecting staging; some elements of a strategy may face brief windows of opportunity, requiring that they be pursued first and aggressively. A third factor is the achievement of credibility. Attaining certain thresholds—in specific arenas, differentiators, or vehicles—can be critically valuable for attracting resources and stakeholders that are needed for other parts of the strategy. A fourth factor is the pursuit of early wins. It may be far wiser to successfully tackle a part of the strategy that is relatively doable before attempting more challenging or

unfamiliar initiatives. At the heart of a business strategy must be a clear idea of how profits will be generated—not just some profits, but profits above the firm's cost of capital. The most successful strategies have a central economic logic that serves as the fulcrum for profit creation. In some cases, the economic key may be to obtain premium prices by offering customers a difficult-to-match product. Economic logic for profit-oriented firms can take the form of scale economies, scope economies, premium pricing or some combination of these.

For non-profit organisations, economic logic reflects how well the organization is achieving its mission and vision and serving its focal stakeholders.

The five elements of the strategy diamond can be considered the hub or central nodes for designing a comprehensive, integrated activity system (Porter, 1996). However the strategy diamond has come under certain criticisms: First, the model assumes rational decision making - where choices about the strategy diamond facets and resource allocation are not politicized. Moreover, the model emphasizes strategy formulation and key “soft issues” would need to be accounted for in the context of strategy implementation. Secondly, the model itself is inwardly focused and does not automatically take system dynamics or competitive interaction into account. These dynamic aspects of strategy based on external analysis, must be included in the staging and pacing element for the strategy to also be dynamic. Finally, the relationships and ‘fit’ between the variables in the strategy diamond are not based on empirical evidence, but on anecdotal support. The diamond has the same drawbacks as other checklist-type models such as McKinsey's 7S and Galbraith's star model.

When one piece of the model is changed, it is possible that all the other pieces of the model must be changed as well.

2.0.4 The Strategy process

The concept of strategy implies that all the multitudinous individuals who make up an organization can be united around the effective pursuit of a coherent goal (Whittington 2001).

In practice, organizations tend to perceive their activities as processes, and activities around strategy are not an exception. Hence, the uniting activities around chasing a coherent goal can be captured as strategy process. Strategy literature (Clegg, Carter and Kornberger 2004,

Knights and Mueller, 2004) makes distinctions between process and content of strategy, as well as formulation and implementation. As examples of different views, content research focuses on linking decisions and structures to performance, whereas process research centres on the actions leading to and supporting strategy. From another viewpoint, strategy formulation concentrates mainly on generating decisions, whereas strategy implementation is interested in how the decisions are put into action. The number of perspectives in strategy literature characterizes the relevancy and piquancy, and also the complexity, of the subject.

The complexity makes it impossible to find a single right answer for strategy process. As

Whittington (2001) noted, the various conceptions of strategy have “radically different implications for how to go about ‘doing strategy’.

Whittington (2001) divides the conceptions of strategy into four different approaches, differing in their assumptions about the outcomes and the processes of strategy. The Classical approach, drawing on early authors like Chandler (1962) and Ansoff (1965), is interested in analysis and planning a right strategy and positioning the organization in the market. Based on careful planning and analysis, strategy is formulated and followed by implementation of those decisions. A relevant question is how to make organizational structures that follow the rational strategic decisions made by top managers. (Whittington 2001). However, this approach does not take into account any other members of the organization in strategizing or the possible irrationality of top managers in their decision-making. Although strategy implementation is perceived as important, it is considered a task that is taken care of by structures of an organization, not people like middle managers or personnel. Yet, even the decisions of managers are considered meaningless if viewed according to the evolutionary

approach. The Evolutionary approach relies on biological principles of the market, which naturally select the fittest for survival. Managers’ (or other individuals’) strategic decisions are not that important; their role is to keep the transaction costs low and options open. The environment will take care of structure following strategy. The Processual approach, for one, acknowledges the cognitive limitations of the rational actions of top managers and the micro- politics of organizations. It criticizes the all-powerfulness of planning and considers it rather a comforting ritual of managers, citing the notion of any old map will do (Weick 2001). In addition to bounded rationality of people, the emergent aspect in strategy is emphasized. The argument is that organizations cannot plan their actions but coherence in action can be perceived retrospectively. The last approach of the four views, the Systemic approach, views strategy as bound to its sociological context, embedded in social and economic systems. The local forms of rationality arise from the cultural conditions, which may differ across states or organizations. (Whittington 2001). The different views on strategy process are summarized in

Table 2.

Table 2 The strategy process from different perspectives of strategy.

Perspective of strategy Strategy process

Classical approach A process of calculation, analysis and

rational decision-making of top managers,

followed by implementation (by changing

structures)

Evolutionary approach Environment defines survival, the question of

strategy process of an organization is

irrelevant

Processual approach Instead of formal planning process, strategy

process is a pragmatic process of learning

and compromise, which can also shape

strategy

Systemic approach The process depends on the particular social

system in which strategy making takes place

A conclusion would be that seeking one best way to see strategy hardly succeeds, but in matching strategy to market, organizational and social environments, each approach may have its place, depending on the level of discussion (Whittington 2001). For the discussion in this thesis, the perspectives of the processual and systemic approaches, and also the classical, provide points of reference.

From the practitioners’ viewpoint, strategy process is typically reflected through the strategy planning process (Aaltonen Et al. 2001, Näsi and Aunola 2001). As part of this study, I will analyze official strategy processes of organizations, mostly referring to annual strategy planning processes, which argues for examining existing literature about strategic planning more thoroughly.

Studies concerning strategic planning, many of which adopt the classical approach to strategy, have tried to find answers to the question: What kind of planning process, if any, should organizations employ? Typically, the strategic planning process is considered as including the scanning of environmental and market trends, consumer needs, and competitors’ activities. Also, the strengths and weaknesses, goals and objectives of the organization in question are analyzed and defined in order to choose and write down the strategies (Armstrong 1982, Grant 2003, Reid 1989). Studies about planning processes have analyzed the relationship between environmental characteristics and planning systems

(Kukalis 1991, Lindsay and Rue 1980), for example, and the effectiveness of planning (Nutt

1977), the contribution of formal strategic planning to decisions (Armstrong 1982, Sinha

1990), the influence of the strategic planning process on strategic change (Dutton and Duncan

1987), the behavioural problems of managers in strategic planning systems (Lyles and Lenz

1982), the characteristics of strategic planning systems (Grant 2003), the relations of planning practices and performance (Boyd 1991; Brews and Hunt 1999) and the reality of strategic planning (Reid 1989).

Despite the number of studies conducted in the field of strategic planning, however, it has been noted that the measurement of the construct “strategic planning” has weaknesses due to the inconsistency of the measurement schemes, a priori assumptions of dimensions, the simple level of analysis, lack of tests of reliability and validity, as well as parsimony of the instrument (Boyd and Reuning-Elliott 1998).

Armstrong (1982), in a review of twelve studies of the evaluation of formal planning, observed that most of the studies did not include any description of the planning process.

Despite this limitation, he found some evidence for his hypothesis that it is valuable to have a formal process to gain commitment. Despite an aspiration for a shared process (Armstrong

1982, Reid 1989), the formal planning process has traditionally seemed to be a task of a small group in the organization (Reid 1989). It has been suggested that, at its best, planning can be considered institutional learning within management teams (de Geus 1988). Planning has been suggested most useful where changes were large, but, in general, explicit objective setting and monitoring results have been considered the most valuable aspects of strategic planning (Armstrong 1982).

Brews and Hunt (1999) suggest that lessons from both design and learning schools are needed for successful strategic planning. By combining the deliberate, rational and linear

process of the design school and the adaptive, incremental and complex learning process of the learning school (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel 1999), a more fertile result can be achieved. Thus, “specific plans may represent the ‘intended’ strategy while the inevitable incremental changes that follow as intentions become reality represent the emergent, or

‘realized’, part of the firm’s ‘deliberate’ strategy” (Brews and Hunt 1999, 903). Respectively,

Sathe (1978) defined emergent structure as “the actual behaviour of organizational members on the various dimensions of organizational behaviour”. Also Grant (2003) refers to the long debates between the “‘strategy-as-rational-design’ and ‘strategy-as-emergent-process’ schools”, and points to “a process of planned emergence in which strategic planning systems provide a mechanism for coordinating decentralized strategy formulation within a structure of demanding performance targets and clear corporate guidelines” (Grant 2003). Appendix 7 summarizes the contribution of previous studies on strategic planning to this study and presents the gaps identified.

In practice, a great concern in strategy relates to strategy implementation. This holds for this study as well. The study originated in a context in which successes and failures of strategy implementation were studied, with an aim of helping Nigerian LGAs in their challenges of practice. Section 2.3 provides a detailed review of strategy implementation.

Despite the vast interest in strategy and the various points from which it is viewed, these approaches do not seem to provide sufficient knowledge for an understanding of the strategy process in practice. This might be at least partly due to the dominance of the modernist view, taking an approach where mind controls matter, when strategy determines structure and in which the plan determines reality (Clegg Et al. 2004). The assumption constitutes several gaps, one of which is the distinction between the planning head and planned body, the head being top management and the body, the organization. Additionally, the same assumption

leads to a gap between planning and implementing and between planned change and emerging evolution.

Motivated by “growing frustration in the contemporary academic strategy literature”

(Johnson Et al. 2003), a micro perspective has been developing among strategy researchers.

The micro perspective stands as a counterargument to high abstraction, broad categories and lifeless concepts of the macro tradition and seeks direct confrontation with the complexities of managerial and organizational action. Johnson, Melin and Whittington (2003) argue that this perspective can be justified by two economic reasons. Firstly, due to increasingly open markets, mobile labor and information abundance, competitive advantage is gained by “micro assets that are hard to discern and awkward to trade. Secondly, hyper-competition, driven by speed, surprise and innovation, changes the level and frequency of strategic activities.

Therefore, strategizing cannot be sufficiently understood by only focusing on the activities of top managers or those responsible for strategic planning. Due to a dominant top-management perspective in the field of strategic management, the increasing interest in other actors as well can be considered a major shift. As to the frequency, the required speed of responses in the market makes strategizing something that cannot be solely fixed with the episodes and planned cycles of organizations. Instead, strategizing becomes “a chronic feature of organizational life (Johnson Et al. 2003).

How, then, is strategy defined in this study? As a position in the market (Porter 1980) perspective (Mintzberg and Quinn, 1991; Mintzberg Et al. 1999) or something else? This study agrees with Whittington (2001) about the effective pursuit of a coherent goal among individuals of an organization. In addition, the concepts of intended strategy, realized strategy, unrealized strategy, deliberate strategy and emergent strategy provide assistance

(Mintzberg 1978). Strategy implementation is concerned with how an intended strategy becomes realized, often seeking a deliberate strategy. However, an intended strategy may

turn into an unrealized strategy, just as an emergent strategy may contribute to the realized strategy. Therefore, it is reasonable to define strategy as a pattern in the stream of actions

(Mintzberg 1978; Mintzberg and Waters 1985; Mintzberg 1994c).

Although Whittington (2004) argues for a post-Mintzbergian research agenda, which would take formal strategy more seriously than Mintzberg, I still find the definition of Mintzberg relevant for the purposes of this study. The notion of an intended strategy captures the formal, official strategy of an organization. While a deliberate strategy (an intended strategy becoming realized precisely as it was intended) is only one possible path, the possibilities of emergent and unrealized strategies for the realized strategy take into consideration the complexity of practice that strategy implementation efforts may encounter.

In defining strategy process, the classic division between content and process in strategy literature confuses the discussion. As “the body of strategy process research is diverse and cannot be contained within a single paradigm” (Van de Ven 1992), researchers have been encouraged to be explicit about their definitions. To make it easier to understand strategy process research, researchers should define the meaning of process, clarify the theory of process and design research to observe process. I use strategy process to refer to those activities that strive to create and implement strategies in organizations. Activities are carried out by people, but it is not only the activities of top managers that count; the activities of other members of the organization also contribute to the strategy process of an organization.

Further, the strategy process includes activities related to the planning process, but is not limited to them. Rather, a notion of mind and body operating together binds the two, formation and implementation, the formal planning process and the disordered day-to-day activities, as one inseparable whole – the strategy process.

Summarily different perspectives have dominated the field of strategy to such an extent that some authors have suggested that the most significant contribution to research progress in the field of strategic management will in fact be made by those who cross the boundaries that have been carefully built up over the last several decades (Huff and Reger 1987, 227). Setting the battles of older schools aside (Mintzberg 1990, 1991, 1994a, 1994b; Ansoff 1991, 1994), essential understanding may be reached with the assistance of newer approaches. Special attention in this study is given to the school of strategy-as-practice and to a focus on the middle level of an organization. The perspective of strategy-as-practice notes the relevance of day-to-day practices and the activities of practitioners in strategy. Viewing strategy process from this perspective may free the study from the strategy’s intellectual lock-in on modernist detachment and economic theory (Whittington 2004), which does not seem to provide enough knowledge for describing the strategy process in practice. The studies by authors stating the importance of middle managers (Floyd and Wooldridge 2000) shift the focus from the dominant top management view to the activities of middle managers in the strategy process.

2.1 STRATEGY FORMULATION

The process by which a strategy is created is referred to as a strategy formulation process

(Ulwick, 1999). When individuals refer to strategy as the art of devising plans toward a goal or the deliberate search for a plan of action, for example, they are simply referring to the process by which a strategy is created. They are not defining what a strategy is but the process of strategy formulation. However, regardless of the definition of strategy that is used, an organization’s ability to strengthen its strategic position is dependent on one important factor—its ability to create/formulate the strategies that produces the desired results. An effective strategy formulation process is a prerequisite for success. An organization’s strategy formulation process, whether it is formal or not, is the mechanism by which its actions,

investments and decisions are determined. This ultimately controls the amount of value an organization creates for its customers, stakeholders, stockholders and others.

Hill Et al. (2009) observed that creating or formulating a strategy involves determining the organization’s objectives, mission, vision and goals and crafting a most suitable strategy to meet those objectives, mission, vision and goals. They highlight that the process involves carrying out intensive and extensive research in the form of strategic planning before a decision is made. Similarly Borza, Anca, Et al. (2010) viewed strategy creation/formulation as consisting of the determination of the organization’s mission, goals, and objectives and selecting or crafting an appropriate strategy to meet the mission, goals, and objectives (see figure 2.1). Strategy formulation involves much research and decision making, yet it is primarily a process to answer the question, “How are we going to accomplish our goals and get where we want to go?” Before this question can be asked, however, the goals and objectives must already have been determined. Essentially, crafting the strategy can be thought of as a continuous effort to develop a set of directions, draft a blueprint or draw a road map.

Bogner and Thomas (1993), define two competing models of strategy formulation. The objective model is based on economic concepts (i.e., supply and demand, competition factors, etc.). The model begins with a company objective, which will finally be affected by competition. The competition will have an impact on strategy formulation process. The industry structure (combined competitors) will directly impact the formulation process, which in turn will affect resource allocation decisions. This process will continue until an external factor (i.e., technological change) will disrupt it, at which time a new objective model will be formulated. The second model is the cognitive model. It exposes a flaw in the objective model (i.e. the inability to capture the significance of the changes causing the objective formulation process to begin again). The cognitive model follows the sample principles as the

first model. However, it also consists of a collective view of objective strategies, which are consolidated into one formulation process. This process is to define one’s place in the industry and cognitively organize one understanding of competitive strategy (Bogner and

Thomas, 1993).

Fig 2.4: The components of strategy formulation phase

STRATEGY FORMULATION

Management values and philosophy

Determination of mission

Establishment of objectives

Strategy planning

Corporate and business strategy

Strategic decision

Determination of policies

Source: Alkhafaji (2003:12)

An ineffective strategy formulation process negatively impacts an organization’s rate of growth and overall competitive position (Ulwick, 1999). An effective strategy formulation process may in itself become a competitive advantage

2.1.1 Strategy Formulation process

Strategy formulation refers to the process of choosing the most appropriate course of action for the realization of organizational goals and objectives and thereby achieving the

organizational vision. The process of strategy formulation basically involves six main steps.

Though these steps do not follow a rigid chronological order, however they are very rational and can be easily followed in this order.

Setting Organizations’ objectives - The key component of any strategy statement is to set the long-term objectives of the organization. It is known that strategy is generally a medium for realization of organizational objectives. Objectives stress the state of being there whereas

Strategy stresses upon the process of reaching there. Strategy includes both the fixation of objectives as well the medium to be used to realize those objectives. Thus, strategy is a wider term which believes in the manner of deployment of resources so as to achieve the objectives.

While fixing the organizational objectives, it is essential that the factors which influence the selection of objectives must be analyzed before the selection of objectives. Once the objectives and the factors influencing strategic decisions have been determined, it is easy to take strategic decisions.

Evaluating the Organizational Environment - The next step is to evaluate the general economic and industrial environment in which the organization operates. This includes a review of the organizations competitive position. It is essential to conduct a qualitative and quantitative review of an organizations existing product line. The purpose of such a review is to make sure that the factors important for competitive success in the market can be discovered so that the management can identify their own strengths and weaknesses as well as their competitors’ strengths and weaknesses.

After identifying its strengths and weaknesses, an organization must keep a track of competitors’ moves and actions so as to discover probable opportunities of threats to its market or supply sources.

Setting Quantitative Targets - In this step, an organization must practically fix the quantitative target values for some of the organizational objectives. The idea behind this is to compare with long term customers, so as to evaluate the contribution that might be made by various product zones or operating departments.

Aiming in context with the divisional plans - In this step, the contributions made by each department or division or product category within the organization is identified and accordingly strategic planning is done for each sub-unit. This requires a careful analysis of macroeconomic trends.

Performance Analysis - Performance analysis includes discovering and analyzing the gap between the planned or desired performance. A critical evaluation of the organizations past performance, present condition and the desired future conditions must be done by the organization. This critical evaluation identifies the degree of gap that persists between the actual reality and the long-term aspirations of the organization. An attempt is made by the organization to estimate its probable future condition if the current trends persist.

Choice of Strategy - This is the ultimate step in Strategy Formulation. The best course of action is actually chosen after considering organizational goals, organizational strengths, potential and limitations as well as the external opportunities.

2.2 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION

Extant literature reveals a non-universally accepted definition of ‘strategy implementation’

(Wernham, 1985; Peters Et al. 2013; Andrews Et al. 2017). However, there is a wide variety of strategy implementation definitions although most of these definitions are rather general in nature (e.g. Bryson and Bromiley, 1993; Flood Et al. 2000; Miller Et al. 2004). In essence most refer to a process by which the formulated strategy is to be implemented. The most common perspective about strategy implementation is that it is a relatively straightforward

process which puts clearly articulated strategic plans into operations (Noble, 1999). The process of carrying out the operations however remains largely unspecified. Only a few definitions (e.g. Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984; Reed and Buckley, 1988; Wheelen and Hunger,

2012) refer to tangible activities and systems such as personnel actions, organization structures, programs, control systems, procedures, budgets, and job requirements. For the purpose of the focus of this research, this thesis adopts the definitions of strategy implementation by Wheelen and Hunger (2012) and Leonardi (2015). Wheelen and Hunger

(2012) referred to strategy implementation as the sum total of the activities and choices required for the execution of a strategic plan while Leonardi (2015) defined strategy implementation as the way organisations employ, develop and integrate organisational structures, control systems and organisational culture to follow strategies that guarantee their competitive advantage and enhance their performance. Appendix 8 presents some definitions of strategy implementation.

2.2.1 Importance of strategy implementation

Strategy implementation is a key topic within the field of strategic management and organization science. It is a multifaceted process involving different actors and activities within an organisation’s context (Flood Et al. 2000). Successful implementation is important to achieve the objectives of any well-planned out strategies or policies (Kaplan and Norton,

2001) and gives organizations a significant competitive edge (Thomas, 2002) especially in contexts where unique strategies are difficult to achieve (Thompson and Strickland, 2003).

Well-formulated strategies produce superior performance for organizations only when they are successfully implemented (Li Et al. 2008; Speculand, 2009). The strongest and most robust strategies are valueless if they cannot be successfully implemented, thus, the success of strategy not only requires an appropriate strategy but also one that is implemented successfully (Kaplan, 2010), and timely. Leonardi (2015) properly illustrates the importance

of strategy implementation by placing it in the centre of organisations’ employment, development and integrating of organisational structures, control systems and organisational culture. He noted that this guarantees firms competitive advantage and enhance their performance. In addition, failed implementation of strategies can be very costly for organisations especially in terms of the cost of formulation and foregone benefits (Cândido and Sérgio (2015). Previous studies indicate that strategy implementation has significant impact on: organizational effectiveness (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984); is central to organizational performance (Sproull and Hofmeister, 1986); is essential to the operation of an organization (Schilit, 1987); and is a critical element in the formula for success of any firm or organization (Noble, 1999).

Despite this importance of strategy implementation however, how to successfully implement strategies and policies has long being a major challenge to managers (Alashloo Et al. 2005;

Ravasi and Schultz, 2006). It has proven difficult for many organisations, arguably, because of the insufficient knowledge of strategy implementation in comparison to strategic planning and decision making (Atkinson, 2006; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006). Also in spite of the very distinct importance of strategy implementation to strategic management literature and the obvious problems associated with its execution, it has been substantially neglected by academics (Pellegrinelli and Bowman, 1994; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Fowler 2002; Scott,

2003; Navanjo-Valencia Et al. 2011; Janićijević (2012). Okumus and Roper (1999, p. 21) noted that “far more research has been carried out into strategy formulation than into strategy implementation”. Alexander (1985) also observed that literature places more attention on strategy formulation and the long range planning process rather than the actual implementation of strategies, on which “little is written or researched” (p. 91).

But there appears to be no better time to submerge greater efforts into strategy implementation research than now. The need to pay more critical attention to strategy

implementation is more important in these recent ‘business-turbulent’ times. The dynamic business environment in which public and private organizations thrive is increasingly becoming turbulent (Perez Lopez Et al. 2004; Leonardi, 2015; Cyrus, 2015). Major developments such as rapid technological change (Wokurkaet Et al. 2017), the increasing aggressiveness of competition (Connelly Et al. 2017) the globalization of markets (Agrawal,

2017) a shift of organizations from the public to the private sector, and deregulation of industries and have radically altered the competitive rules of the 1990s and beyond

(Volberda, 1996). The long and stable periods in which organizations sustain their competitive advantage have been replaced by short periods of competitive advantage, punctuated by frequent disruptions (Zheng Et al. 2013; Common Et al. 2013; Spring Et al.

2017). These environmental changes place very strong demands on organisations for regular strategic change (Kunisch Et al. 2017) to maintain a balance with the changing environment.

In these business-turbulent environments, it is almost certain that an organisation’s ability to implement new strategies effectively and timely too may well mean the difference between their success and failure (Goetsch and Davis, 2014; Grant, 2016). Even slight delays can be disadvantageous in these highly dynamic and competitive environments (Chang, 2016).

Consequently, effective strategy implementation is a pivotal point in the management of strategic change (Grant, 2016).

A number of different perspectives have been applied to the strategy research field, including the Institutionalist, Economic, Behaviouralist and Integrating perspectives (Jenkins,

Ambrosini and Collier, 2007). The search for superior and sustainable competitive performance remains the core of much of strategy research literature which may be broadly categorized into, three streams (Powell, 2001): (a) superiority in decision making and strategic planning (Mintzberg, 1990; Porter, 1994); (b) valuable and difficult to imitate resource heterogeneity amongst firms as drivers of strategic planning and competitive

advantage (Barney, 2001a); and (c) organizational design and successful implementation

(Noble, 1999a; Edmondson Et al. 2001). Streams (a) and (b) are focused on strategy formulation, whereas stream (c) is directed towards strategy implementation issues.

Strategy implementation is generally conceptualised as complementary to business success

(Barney, 2001a). Implementation is considered more of an art as compared to planning

(Shanley and Peteraf, 2006). Some strategy process scholars like Mintzberg (1978) and

Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) have argued that strategy formulation and implementation are intertwined without much clarity of the start and end points or the two. Some scholars consider process related issues to be implementation oriented (Shanley and Peteraf, 2006), whilst others consider implementation and formulation to be too closely intertwined that it is futile to separate the two (Mintzberg Et al. 1998; Chakravarthy and Doz, 1992). This suggests that the strategy process or a strategy formation process is an all encompassing term, sufficient to cover everything. Therefore, the potential implementation formulation dichotomy is irrelevant, although this does not mean that implementation issues should be ignored in strategy process research. Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006) and Noble

(1999b) argued against black boxing of strategy implementation in strategy process and emphasized the need for empirical research focused on implementation.

The strategy implementation field continues to receive relatively limited empirical research attention in strategic management literature (Cravens, 1998; Noble, 1999; Okumus 2000;

2001; Foss, 2011) despite Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006) and Noble (1999b) argument. O’Toole (2000) observed that the explicit study of strategy implementation has swung in and out of fashion. As a result, researchers who are interested in the subject of strategy implementation are faced with the challenge of a paucity of literature on which to base new efforts (Ahmedi Et al. 2012).

Several possible explanations can be propounded for the limited research attention to strategy implementation. First, is the persistent focus on strategy formulation to the detriment of strategy implementation in the field of strategic management (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984;

Thomas, 2002). While the real challenge is argued to lie in implementation, research in the strategy field has placed more emphasis on the formulation of strategies (Rapert Et al. 2002).

The majority of the literature either emphasizes the actual content of the strategy being formulated or the strategic planning process itself (Hill, Jones and Schilling, 2014;

Rothaermel, 2015). In fact Hussey (1999: 244) stated that the strategy implementation literature was sparse because ‘much of the research into effective strategic management has been directed at the planning process or the strategic decisions, almost as if the desired end products were plans instead of actions’ (Patten, 2015). This persistent focus on strategy formulation over implementation dominates the strategic management literature (Elbanna Et al. 2016) hence the limited empirical research on strategy implementation. Rapert Et al.

(2002) believes that the tendency of some strategists to treat strategy formulation as the only necessary element for strategic success is also a reason for the lack of research attention to strategy implementation.

Second, is the shared perception that strategy implementation is a clear-cut process of operations which turns a clearly articulated strategic plan into action (Noble, 1999). The implementation of strategies is often treated as a simple subject of operational detail and planned adjustment (Pellegrinelli and Bowman, 1994) because many researchers and managers often view it as some strategic afterthought (Noble, 1999). Thus, the resultant effect of this, in practice, is the observed strategy implementation style of organisations reflecting the taken for granted routine of putting strategies into practice and this is often described as the way “we do things around here” (Andrews Et al. 2017). Also, some authors argue that strategy formulation is substantially easier in practice than strategy implementation

(De Kluyver and Pearce, 2003). Their argument was centred on the observation that organizations are more expensive and difficult to develop and slower to change than strategies are to prepare (Miller Et al. 2004); while strategy formulation is primarily an intellectual act, implementation is action oriented and requires great managerial and leadership skills.

Third, implementation is often perceived to be not so attractive. According to (Sproull, 1986:

43) strategy implementation is ‘nuts and bolts, details, and mundane problems’. Strategic decision making, however, is often viewed as glamorous and sometimes even heroic.

Strategy formulation is assumed to be well-bounded in time, having an observable end, and often endorsed by a vote or organizational announcement. Implementation by contrast is a highly complex phenomenon with no clear boundaries (Verweire, 2014).

There have been repeated calls in the strategy literature for the need to do more research on implementation concerns from a broader perspective (Noble, 1999a; Okumus, 2001; Arabi,

2002; Kaplan, 2010), sadly, these repeated calls have not received much empirical interest and strategy implementation continues to receive less attention than strategic planning in the strategy literature (Foss, 2011). Strategy implementation needs significantly more research to support conceptual development and rectify the imbalance in the wider strategy literature

(Chebat, 1999; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2006). This may be seen as an important juncture in strategy research, providing a crucial opportunity to conduct theoretically important yet practically useful implementation research. Such developments provided the key motivation for this present research.

2.2.2 Strategy implementation Approaches

In addition to the concerns of inadequate attention paid to strategy implementation in the strategic management literature, strategy implementation is also fragmented (Okumus and

Roper, 1999). It is perceived to not have a theoretical foundation or shared conceptualization since various authors employing their different sub-domains have adopted a more fragmented approach to strategy implementation (Dederichs, 2010; Andrews Et al. 2016). Much of strategy implementation research has focused on execution as an operational process with related outcomes, instead of linking strategy implementation with strategic competitive performance outcomes (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2006; Dederichs, 2010).

A review of the extant strategy implementation literature shows that the fragmented approaches to implementation may be categorised into three broadly differentiated streams.

These approaches are termed here as rational approach, emergent approach, and contingency approach. This broad categorisation allows integrating the fragmented strategy implementation literature and situating it in the more mainstream strategy thinking. The three groups are further condensed into one school of thought - the configurational or comprehensive school of thought (Mintzberg, 1990; Johnson and Scholes, 1993; Richardson,

1994). But Mintzberg and Quinn (1996) and Stacey (1996b) observed that even this group has its own limitations, and they proposed that organisations look past configurations and assess the complexities and dynamics of their strategy processes. They called this approach beyond configuration (Mintzberg and Quinn, 1996) or the chaos and complexity school of thought (Stacey, 1996b; Theys, 1998).

One common feature of the five approaches is the integrative and hierarchical relationship which exists among them, and they appear to not be commonly found in their natural form.

In the first group it is clear that the importance of planning to achieve clear objectives is emphasized. In the second group, the main focus is on strategy formulation and implementation as an incremental and learning process. The main focus of the third group suggests that the one best way to formulate and implement a strategy depends on the

situation. The following discusses these broad approaches, and representative scholars to illustrate the diversity and fragmentation in the extant strategy implementation literature:

I) Group 1: The rational approach

The development of the rational approach dates back to the late 1960s. The propounders of this approach: Chandler (1962), Sloan (1963), Ansoff (1965), and Andrews (1971) argued that the strategy process is the outcome of rational, planned, deliberate and sequential procedures; therefore tangible results including cost cutting, high market share and profit maximization are the ultimate goals of the strategy implementation process. The stages of formulation and implementation are considered separate in this approach, with more emphasis given to strategy formulation (Andrews, 1987). Strategy implementation is seen as majorly tactical – an operational process that is conducted by middle levels and lower levels staff. The approach proposes that top management should be responsible for developing the strategy and should not partake in the process of implementation except where minor adjustments are required. Other main propositions of this approach include clearly articulated plans with specific objectives, budgets, timetables, clear lines of responsibility, limited participation in strategy development, minimum discretion for all levels of strategic actors and resource allocations (Kay, 1993).

II) Group 2: The learning approach

The advocates of the learning approach: Quinn (1980), Johnson (1988), Pettigrew and Whipp

(1991) and Mintzberg (1994), believe that strategy implementation as proposed by the rational school of thought is not a neat sequential and rational process because of the complexities and dynamism in the environment but that strategies emerge and are therefore not the result of strict planning. They argued that successful companies, such as Honda

(Pascale, 1984), have attained their competitive position without necessarily following

strictly through the strategic management process of analysis, formulation, and implementation advocated by the rational approach. They believe that strategies are formulated and implemented by mainly middle managers in an incremental, trial-and-error way and as such strategy formulation and implementation are one stage (Mintzberg, 1987).

Organizational culture and internal politics and are viewed as crucial factors in strategy implementing, without which it is difficult to successfully implement any strategy. The appropriateness of the learning approach is supported by the empirical research findings of

Wernham (1984), Johnson (1987), De Geus (1988), James (1994), and Pettigrew, Ferlie, and

McKee (1992) in which implementation processes are found to not be rational and sequential but interactive and incremental.

III) Group 3: Contingency approach

The contingency approach departs from the works of Burns and Stalker (1961) and Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) which proposed that successful strategy implementation is not achieved by a simple single set of factors. Instead, a combination of certain factors and variables existing within the internal and external environment of the company determine its implementation effectiveness. The success of the strategy implementation process depends on the interaction between these factors and variables within any one situation. In other words, if strategies are chosen to match the situation, especially the extent of agreement about the strategy, the stability, the degree of capacity and coordination of the implementation system and the complexity of the environment and the organization, they can be more effectively carried out.

Berman (1980) puts it more aptly. He states that the process of strategy implementation cannot be homogeneous across organizational levels, invariable over time and uniform for all situations, therefore strategic actors need to switch and match approaches to accomplish their strategies successfully.

IV) Group 4: Configurational Approach

The configuration approach results from an attempted combination of all the previous approaches into one single perspective to eliminate the disadvantages that authors such as

Mintzberg (1990), Bailey and Johnson (1992), Johnson and Scholes (1993), and Richardson

(1994) perceive are present in each individual approach. This combined approach was designed to provide a common solution to assist in the formulation and implementation of strategies. The major difference between the configurational school and contingency school is that the first is concerned with “getting it all together” whereas the second view adopts an “it all depends” approach (Stacey, 1996b). In contrast to the propositions of the previous schools of thought, the configurational view advocates that in an organisation, all levels of management (top, middle, and lower) should participate in the strategy formulation and implementation process. The configurational school of thought views strategy formulation and implementation processes as consisting of a series of separate activities and argue that all other approaches can be combined and used together, although sometimes one approach may assume the leading position for a period of time (Mintzberg, 1990; Bailey and Johnson, 1992;

Johnson and Scholes, 1993). The central theme of this approach is that focusing on only one or a few factors, such as structure or strategy, is inadequate. Successful implementation can only be achieved through a fit among certain factors or variables, such as organizational culture, organisational structure, control, communication systems, resources and so forth

(Stonich, 1982). However, despite these notions, it is argued that even the configurational approach has its own limitations, therefore, practitioners and scholars are admonished to look beyond the configurational view (Stacey, 1996).

V) Group 5: The chaos and complexity approach

The central theme of the chaos and complexity approach emerged during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s but did not begin to reach a wider audience until the 1990s. The propounders of this approach: Pascale (1990), Stacey (1993), Levy (1994), Wheatley and KellnerRogers

(1995), Mintzberg and Quinn (1996) and Theys (1998) held the view that organizations are flexible systems that can take the form of non-sequential positive and negative feedback loops connecting an organization to other systems in the environment and connecting individuals, functions, groups, and processes within an organization to each other. It is argued that due to these non-sequential feedback loops, small changes within or outside the organization can have significant and unexpected impact on the organisation. This is referred to as the butterfly effect. The implication of this for strategy implementation is that managers continuously need to identify and assess emerging patterns within and outside their organisations and then develop and implement decisions rapidly. Also, managers need to need to consider the implications of the implementation process on functional areas, customers and competitors and not just on a specific part of the company (Glass, 1996).

It is believed that successful companies are those that operate in a state of non-equilibrium

(Stacey, 1996). Stacey argues that it is not good for organisations to aim to achieve a fit between the environment and internal resources of company, particularly because certain variables such as organizational structure, organisational culture, and the company’s environment are constantly moving or evolving. Managers must therefore implement strategies without achieving any type of harmony between internal and external factors.

Stacey (1993) also suggests that companies should attempt to develop diverse cultures and informal working groups and networks and allow for the emergence of internal conflicts among departments and groups. These mechanisms will help to challenge existing mental models and will allow the complexities and dynamics of the strategy formulation and

implementation process to be better understood. Eventually, this will allow, and perhaps force, the organisation to invent and create new ways of formulating and implementing strategies. It is also suggested that there might be some regularities and order in chaos, and therefore, managers should look for emerging patterns within chaos and complexities (Theys,

1998).

In contrast to the ideals of previous approaches, this school of thought proposes that organisations do not need to have futuristic aims and objectives. Instead, managers should understand, evaluate, and interpret the complexities and dynamics of the (environmental) situation as an ongoing process and respond to emerging patterns rapidly if they are to be successful. This may require continuous modification of an organisation’s structure and culture to incorporate new and relevant values and norms (Glass, 1996; Lane and Maxfield,

1996; Stacey, 1996).

An integrative and hierarchical relationship appears to exist among the five approaches, and they appear to be not commonly found in their natural form (Mintzberg, 1990). Meanwhile, the progression of these schools of thoughts is perhaps a sort of chronological evolution of the strategic management literature because of the trend found in the advocacy of new approaches to eliminate the limitations of previous views. For example, the rational school was largely criticised following the oil crises which led to the recession in the 1970s because it became apparent that clear objectives and detailed plans were not appropriate in complex and dynamic environments. However, in more ways than one, the rational approach has maintained its position as the most dominant approach in the strategic management field, perhaps because it proposes analytical tools and guidelines. Ansoff (1994) defended the rational view and argued that it has evolved tremendously and gone ahead to become more flexible and practical. Ansoff suggested that it remains the best way to successfully formulate and implement strategies. But the ideals of this school continue to gain widespread discontent

among other strategic writers due to the difficulties faced during implementation. The learning approach was advocated in reaction to the rational approach, but this school also met its own fair share of criticism. For example, it was argued that the learning approach is not particularly helpful as it does not offer practical solutions (Grant, 1991; Eccles, 1993; Kay,

1993). Critics believed that to accept the learning approach would mean to view strategies as incremental, that internal politics and organizational culture are important, and that the environment is dynamic and complex. They emphasized that these factors are still not sufficient to offer a solution to implementing a strategy successfully.

Strategists, Gold (1992) and Kay (1993) believe that the contingency approach is one best approach to implementation because it supports flexibility in strategy formulating and implementing. However, the contingency approach has also been criticized because it failed to proffer solution to persistent empirical and theoretical problems—especially in open-ended contexts where there is limited knowledge about possible contingencies (Mintzberg, 1994;

Stacey, 1996). It is believed that small changes to factors or variables can impact considerably on results, and additionally, the complexity of the environment, the scope of change, stability and risk and can be viewed differently by implementers. Therefore, managers in different organisations could construe the same environment in different ways thereby implement opposing strategies, both of which may succeed (Stacey, 1996b).

Consequently, the configurational approach has been proposed to merge all other previous approaches into one perspective. However, Mintzberg (1989) and Stacey (1996b) claim that even the configurational school has its limitations. Their key argument is that it is an extremely rigorous task getting all the conflicting forces together, achieving a fit among these conflicting tensions, and sustaining this coherence, particularly in complex and dynamic situations. Therefore they opine that practitioners and scholars should consider the

complexity approach. However, Gaddis (1997) criticized this view stressing it lacks a practical framework that practitioners and academics can consider and use.

Interestingly, Stacey (1996b) grouped all five approaches into only two categories: ordinary management, which subsumes the planning, learning, contingency, and configurational views; and extraordinary management, which comprises just the chaos and complexity view.

He further admits that perhaps all five approaches should be used simultaneously, stressing that an organisation needs to adopt the planning, learning, contingency, and configurational views (ordinary management techniques) when the internal and external environments are predictable and stable and employ the complexity approach when the situation is complex and dynamic to challenge and, if required, alter such organisation’s existing systems. Theys

(1998) further supports this stance as follows: ‘The old approaches are not obsolete, they correspond to particular configuration of problems and they are essential to model of interaction. But in a wired world, decision will become more and more complex. This will require interactive support systems allowing a lot of quick trials to anticipate situations emerging from the multiple potential decisions.... Understanding and acting on any form of life will depend more and more on our ability to master the emerging Theory of Complexity, a new paradigm for representing dynamic systems that does not replace the previous ones, but completes them. It will lead to a whole new set of methods’. (p. 262).

2.2.3 Strategy implementation frameworks

Okumus (2003) and Verweire (2014) argued that strategy implementation literature has been fairly fragmented due to a lack of a generally accepted and foremost strategy implementation framework in the field. From a more practical perspective, Alexander (1991) identified one key reason why implementation fails: practicing executives, managers and supervisors do not have practical, yet theoretically sound, frameworks to guide their actions during implementation. Without adequate models, they try to implement strategies without a good

understanding of the multiple factors that must be addressed, often simultaneously, to make implementation work. Supporting Alexander’s assertion, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1987, p. 12) noted that in all the companies they studied ‘the issue was not a poor understanding of environmental forces or inappropriate strategic intent. Without exception, they knew what they had to do; their difficulties lay in how to achieve the necessary changes’.

Although, several implementation frameworks have been developed since the early 1980s, these implementation frameworks have been described as largely theoretical and/or descriptive or conceptual (Siddique and Shadbolt, 2016). While the theoretical frameworks merely outline implementation variables, or exemplify them graphically, and then proceed to explain each variable individually and identify its role in the implementation process, the conceptual frameworks are tested empirically or developed from empirical works. Appendix

9 outlines these streams of frameworks and representative scholars to illustrate the diversity in the extant strategy implementation literature.

Okumus (2003) observed that these implementation frameworks can be generally classified into three broad streams: 1). Factor-oriented strategy implementation frameworks which list and describe critical factors to be considered in strategy implementation. 2). Process-oriented strategy implementation frameworks which suggest rational step-by-step implementation procedure, often difficult to employ in complex situations and 3). Context specific strategy implementation frameworks which emphasise the importance of context and process during the strategy implementation process.

1) Factor-oriented frameworks

Peters and Wateman (1982) proposed The McKinsey 7S Framework and argued that the effectiveness of organisations begins with the non-linear interrelationships between several factors including: Structure, Strategy, Systems, Style, Skills, Staff and Subordinate goals

They identified these key factors which they dubbed Mckinsey 7s to best explain the superior performance of organisations and argued that the framework provides a useful visualization of the key components managers have to consider in successfully implementing a strategy

(Pearce and Robinson, 1991). After the strategy is formulated, the framework suggests that managers focus on six components to ensure effective implementation: (organization) structure, systems, shared values (culture), skills, style, and staff (Peters and Waterman,

1982). The framework is based on the premise that for there to be a change of strategy, there must be a change in the organisation’s shared values and skills. See figure 2.5

However the McKinsey 7S Framework has received criticism. Richard D’Aveni (1994) is of the opinion that the consistency in the model makes businesses predictable and this allows competitors, especially those following an aggressive strategy, easily anticipate and beat such organisations. The 7S framework gives organisations an increased chance of implementing strategies but competitors can easily predict what your next line of action will be. The strategy has a high chance of being turned from a plan to reality without the consistency factor embedded in the 7S framework (D’Aveni, 1994).

Figure 2.5: McKinsey 7S Framework.

Source: Peters and Waterman (1982:18)

Ohmae (1983) took a strategic look at the factors needed for a successful strategy implementation process and proposed the 3C’s of strategic triangle which provides procedures for making the ‘How’ decisions needed to make the process of strategy implementation fully dynamic. According to Ohmae, the 3C’s triangle presents criteria for appraising the standard of the decisions taken to achieve a highly fluid implementation process that is dynamic and changes course as the strategy adapt to new conditions. It proposes that a sustained competitive advantage can only exist by the integration of the 3Cs: customer, company and competitor.

Hambrick and Cannella (1989) identified that elements which form the implementation guard of a manager are intertwined and must reinforce each other. They proposed five levers for implementation that strategist must consider: subunit policies and programs, resource commitments, rewards, structure, and people. The five levers interrelate as follows: resource commitments often have to be changed when implementing a new strategy; resource allocation has to be made for new strategies. To translate the new strategies into concrete actions plans with the various organizational subunits, subunit policies and programs are needed. Often a revised organizational structure is required for a new strategy. Rewards are considered a major basis for redirecting the efforts of individuals during implementation.

Finally, a strategy becomes a success through the aptitudes, values, skills and contacts of people at all levels of the organization.

The framework suggests that communication is a vital tool for successful implementation once the strategy has been formulated. The belief is that it is management’s responsibility to keep its employees all informed about the new strategy; its content, meaning and reasons for formulation. This process is however not complete without management providing opportunity for questions from and discussion with the affected employees. They emphasise the importance of properly explaining any new strategy and the need for clearly stating out

the responsibilities. There should be a regular flow of communication bottom-up, throughout the implementation process so that management can monitor the process and determine which changes are appropriate and where (Alexander, 1985; Hambrick Et al. 1989; Beer Et al. 2000; Neilson Et al. 2008). This method can be defined by five activities: get wide participation and broad input during the strategy formulation stage, carefully and consciously evaluate the impediments to strategy implementation, make early and swift moves across the full selection of implementation forces (Programmes and subunit policies, resource commitment, people, structure and reward). Sell, sell and sell the strategy to anyone who qualifies – downward, upward, outward, across, gradually adjust, fine tune and respond as trends and events arise.

Hambrick and Cannella continued that one very effective aid to implementation is the early involvement of people in the debate and the development of strategic choices. It may be almost impossible to obtain a general consensus on a new strategic direction but a wide array of inputs can enhance the quality of the choices, raise critical implementation issues and make the involved individuals more receptive to the new strategy, once chosen.

Roth Et al. (1991) empirically studied the relationship between international strategy and organisational design and its importance in the strategy implementation process. They proposed a strategy implementation framework after highlighting six factors: philosophy, coordination, integrating mechanisms, centralisation, managerial configuration and formalisation which they advised should be specially designed in order to implement domestic or global strategies. They noted that multi domestic and global strategies call for different implementation requirements and to implement strategies and achieve desired result was much easier with a poor alignment between strategy administrative mechanisms and organisational capabilities. Consequently, they recommended the readjustment of

administrative structures and wherewithal of the organisation to enable the proposed strategy achieve its aim.

Hrebiniak (1992) proposed a strategy implementation framework useful for driving strategy implementation in global firms. He highlighted the following implementation factors: developing global managers, Leadership, having a matrix structure, facilitating global learning and working with external companies.

Yip (1992) proposed framework consists of four factors which must be considered in terms of their importance in arbitrating strategy execution: culture, organisational structure, managerial processes and people. Yip (1992) argued that the individual elements of these factors determine the vital organisational forces that impact a company’s strength to formulate and implement strategies.

Thompson and Strickland (1995) proposed that managers play crucial roles in the process of strategy implementation. Due to this reason, communication is considered one of the vital factors for successful implementation. They believe that there is no special checklist to strategy implementation, as it is one of the most open ended and least charted parts of strategic management. Nevertheless, certain factors have to be considered regardless of the organisation’s circumstances: 1). Establishing an organisation with the ability to carry out the strategy. This includes the selection of the right people for sensitive positions and the organisation of business procedures and decision-making that is favourable for strategy execution.2) building budgets to turn abundant resources into value chain activities critical for strategic success.3) Establishing appropriate strategic policies and procedures.4)Putting in place mechanisms for best practices to ensure continuous improvement.5) Building support systems that allow staff carry out daily strategic roles successfully.6) Rewarding good strategy execution and achievement of performance objectives.7) Building corporate culture

and a work environment that supports strategy.8) Using internal leadership to drive implementation and to improve on strategy execution.

Pennings (1996) proposed a diagnostic framework of strategy implementation and organizational change. Pennings (1998) argues that this framework is a simple model for understanding the levers with which management can implement a strategy. These six levers of implementation are organization structure, control and information systems, reward systems, selection and socialization, power and politics and organization culture. By taking into account and adjusting these six factors, it is argued that management can implement a strategy successfully. The factors should support the implementation effort and not inhibit it.

In addition, these levers enable a firm to learn from its implementation efforts.

Sterling’s (2003) advocated a checklist for improving strategy implementation efficiency and success of the underlying strategy. The checklist which was based on past experiences and findings of business owners and academic researchers respectively, include: 1) the alignment of organisational capabilities and design with strategy. 2) The consideration of the reactions of prospective competitors to the strategy. 3) The involvement of managers in the process of strategy development. 4.) The consistency of communication to ensure understanding and buy-in. 5) Planning, action and budgeting. 6) Accountability and monitoring. 7)

Representational actions which include: physical settings, the stories that are told and retold, ceremonies, leadership and effective use of language. 8) Alignment of strategy with information resources.

Evident in the above frameworks is the highlighted conceptualisation of the strategy implementation process. Many of the rudiments of these frameworks are focused on stressing the needs of an organisation and what must be done to achieve implementation strategies that will enable organisations effectively adapt to varying situations and environments. However

they do not provide specific processual details on how to make the many practical and detailed decisions.

(2) Process-oriented frameworks: This category of frameworks proposes more realistic procedural implementation mechanism.

Da Vasconcellose Sa (1990) proposed a ten-step process for implementing a strategy: 1.)

Building the framework. 2) Select strategic units.3) Centralise some functions.4) Define strategic business unit objectives. 5) Building programmes to meet objectives by organizing and managing resources .6) Structuring each strategic business unit. 7) Committing of resources.8) Structure the sections. 9) Controls including policies, short term objectives and budgets should be established. 10) Maintain consistency in all steps.

Noble (1999) identified five managerial ‘levers’ for strategy implementation: goals, organizational structure, leadership, communications, and incentives. Goals are important in effective implementation because an implementation requires clear objectives. Changes in the organizational structure are often needed during the implementation. Leadership often plays a critical role in determining implementation performance. Especially the role of having a powerful champion is considered important. Communication is important because the details of the implementation effort need to be communicated as early and thoroughly as possible.

Finally, incentives are an important tool for inspiring organizational members to change in accordance with the new strategy.

De Feo and Janssen’s (2001) framework suggested ten steps that are necessary for integrating corporate strategy into an organisation’s culture: 1) Establish a vision with a customer based focus. 2) Agree on a mission. 3) Build essential strategies that drive the organisation’s vision.

4) Build strategic goals that are measurable and specific. 5) Set up values amongst staff through communication and training. 6) Communicate company policies. 7) Provide quality

leadership at top management level. 8) Set out short and long-term goals to change plans to projects. 9) Check progress against key performance indicators. 10) Re-evaluate progress and spot gaps that exist between contemporary conditions and targets.

Ouram, (2014) proposed the ‘conspiracy theory of management’. A procedural model he believes will solve an organisation’s implementation problems. He advocated that for an organisation to successfully implement its policies there must be strong leadership and a decisive use of human resources. He outlined a process which starts with the manager working closely with a small coterie of devout ‘believers’ which he called ‘conspirators’.

These conspirators must be a tight bond of no more than three or four trusted colleagues selected from within the immediate executive team and must adhere to a number of principles: They must understand and passionately believe in the strategy and behave in line with it, They must be loyalists to both the manager and the organisation at large and They must be willing to create awareness of the strategy, and its implications, to any doubters within the organisation. These select individuals would have the privilege of constructively challenging and questioning the manager while conspiring behind closed doors. Ouram believes that clarity is essential for the successful implementation of strategy and as such the failure of managers to set out clear objectives of their strategies to this inner circle will only result in a mediocre strategy implementation process. He however reiterates that successful

“conspiracies” require more than loyalty, having the right people in place at every level is essential. A mediocre team can run the best strategy aground and so organisations should first hire the best people possible and then proceed to educate and motivate them.

(3) Context-specific frameworks

Pettigrew and Whipp’s (1991) differentiated between three levels of implementation where top managers are expected to operate: the content, the context and the strategy

implementation process. They believed that strategic managers should understand why strategic decisions are made bearing in mind, organisational context, both internal and external; what mechanisms, information, impacts and rationales are integrated in the strategic decision made; and the process through which the decisions are reached and implemented.

The internal context involves internal factors such as capabilities, culture and resources. The external context is concerned with factors such as political, economic and social environments. It is important to be completely familiar with the context of the organisation before making strategic decisions. This understanding will enable decisions to be made on the strategy content. Strategy content sums up the organisational objectives, goals and purpose.

The last level discusses the actual process of implementation. For a change to be successful therefore there needs to be an interaction between the content, the process and the context. In other words there must be an interaction between the ‘what’ of change (purpose, objectives and goals), the ‘how’ of change (implementation) and the ‘where’ of change (the external and internal environment). Based on their findings, Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) offered five key interrelated factors that can be responsible for a successful strategy implementation. These include: Human resources as assets and liabilities, environmental assessment, leading change, overall coherence, linking operational and strategic change.

Okumus (2003) highlighted a few implementation factors and classified them into four classes, namely: content; context; process; and outcome. From the results of his empirical research, Okumus discovered that the factors highlighted earlier are fundamental in the implementation process of the companies observed. He found organisational learning and working with external companies and multiple project implementations as new implementation factors. Based on these research findings, Okumus (2003) presented a new model stating that the working together of all factors makes the transformation process possible. He however argued that process factors used mainly synergistically is an on-going

process, but a good understanding and control of the way strategies are implemented is very crucial. Okumus went further to state that, from his research, he found out that strategic decisions are often implemented without having a proper fit between the strategy and implementation factors. Any variations with one factor affect the other factors and, eventually, the entire implementation process. It is therefore not always realistic to achieve coherence between implementation factors in situations of complex and dynamic change.

For a successful strategy implementation process, Thompson Et al. (2006) proposed a 9- staged framework: 1) Employing staff with the right skills and expertise and wilfully developing and enhancing competitive capabilities and strategy-supportive competencies while systematizing the work effort. 2) Building a company culture and work environment conducive for successful implementation and execution of strategies. 3.) Building budgets that turn abundant resources into activities that are essential for strategic success. 4) Making sure that operating procedures and policies drive rather than hinder effective execution. 5)

Making use of best practices to carry out core business activities and continuously pushing for improvement. Business units must frequently re-evaluate the process of performing activities and conscientiously push for constructive changes and improvements. 6) Putting in place operating and information systems that allow staff better perform their strategic roles daily. 7) Encouraging people to work towards the target objectives vigorously and, if necessary, adjusting their job behaviour and duties to meet the requirements of successful strategy execution. 8). Rewarding attainment of performance objectives and strategy execution through incentives. 9.) Applying the internal leadership needed to pursue successful implementation and pushing for a continuous improvement on the process of executing the strategy. When hindrances are encountered, management must address and rectify such hindrances on a timely basis.

A review of the frameworks above gives rise to the following observations: First, the notion that management can implement a strategy using these levers can be considered to be instrumental and top-down in nature. From the argument earlier discussed it is increasingly becoming apparent in the implementation literature that subjects such as employee commitment and involvement are important pillars for successful strategy implementation.

Second, the strategy itself or the formulation of the strategy is often not included in the framework, with the exception of McKinsey’s 7S framework. This is in line with the majority of the implementation literature. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the dominant view in strategy implementation remains that strategy implementation is viewed a separate stage after strategy implementation. However, it is acknowledged more and more that strategy formulation and implementation are intertwined processes (e.g. Mintzberg, 1990; Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991; Noble, 1999).

Third, these frameworks are rather rational and logical in nature. This is in line with the observation, earlier in section 2.2.4, that dominant view on implementation is rather rational and logical in nature. Part of this logical view is the focus on ‘hard’ aspects of the implementation effort, such as organizational structure (which is mentioned by all frameworks), reward systems and control and information systems. Besides organization culture, less attention is paid to ‘soft’ aspects or the human side of implementation. For example, little attention is paid to subjects such as, leadership, behavioural change, coaching and counselling, employee motivation, and selection and socialization. In addition, little attention is paid to power and politics. As stated earlier, strategy implementation unavoidably raises questions of power within an organization. The very prospect of change confronts established positions. As such, power and politics can have significant influence on an implementation effort.

Fourth, these frameworks pay little attention to the context in which a strategy is to be implemented. Although aspects of the context are considered such as organization structure, culture, staff, and reward systems, they are viewed as aspects, which can be changed. As such, they are not viewed as contextual aspects, which may influence an implementation effort. In addition, little attention is paid to influences on an implementation which may originate from the outside of the organization and from an individual level.

Finally, these normative frameworks are largely based on simple logical analysis supported by case studies or small-sample survey data (Shrivastava, 1986; De Feo and Janssen, 2001;

Siddique and Shadbolt, 2016). As such, the models are factually underdetermined because of the limited empirical evidence on which they are based. It is evident that most of the previous studies on strategy implementation have been undertaken in Anglo-Saxon countries. Learning more about how organisations in other countries and cultures are developing and implementing their strategies would provide new insights to the field of strategic management.

2.2.4 Obstacles to strategy implementation

Mehmet Et al. (2009) identified that the most important reason for failed performances in any organisation is the obstacles they encounter while implementing strategies/policies. Literature presents many of these obstacles (Beer and Eisenstant, 2000, Dooley Et al. 2000, Okumus,

2001, Hoag Et al. 2002, Dobni, 2003, Freedman, 2003). For example, Alexander (1991) mentioned ten obstacles to strategy implementation: i) Implementation may have taken more time than was planned from the outset, ii) Unexpected big problems arose iii) Activities were not coordinated effectively. iv). Attention was taken away from implementation by competing activities and crises. v) Employees are not sufficiently capable to carry out their responsibilities, vi) Inadequate training of lower-level employees. vii) Problems created by uncontrollable external environmental factors. viii) Inadequate leadership and direction

provided by departmental managers. ix) Poor definition of vital implementation activities and tasks and x) Inadequate monitoring of activities by information system. Giles (1991) offers three reasons why strategy implementation efforts fail: i) a strategy is just a combination of budgets and management wish list and nothing more ii) a strategy is non-executable; and 3) the executors do not consider the strategy as "their own" since they were not part of the formulation process.

Wessel (1993) points out many individual barriers hindering successful strategy implementation: Priorities may be too many and conflicting, top team functions may be insufficient, a top to bottom management style, inter-functional conflicts and vertical communication may be poor and management development, inadequate.

Corboy and O’Corrbui (1999) define implementation obstacles as “deadly sins of strategy implementation” and present five obstacles: i) a clear lack of understanding of how to implement strategies ii) non-appreciation of the strategy by customers and staff iii) individual responsibilities in the change process are not clear iv) hindrances and difficulties are not recognized, acknowledged or acted upon and v) paying no attention to daily business imperatives.

Beer and Eisenstant (2000) defined their identified barriers to strategy implementation as six silent killers of strategy implementation and explained them as follows: i) a laissez-faire senior management style. ii) conflicting priorities and confusing strategic intentions iii) an inefficient senior management team iv) weak vertical communication v) functions, business or boarders are poorly coordinated, and vi) insufficient down-the-line leadership skills development.

Alashloo Et al. (2005) subsumed the obstacles to strategy implementation under four headings: planning consequences, organizational issues, managerial issues and individual

issues. They delineate what each heading consists of. See table 4. Alashloo Et al. (2005) categorization seems to not only be very comprehensive but also very operational in order to find out the relative importance of the obstacles in the processes of strategy development and implementation.

Table 4: The obstacles to strategy implementation

No Obstacles No Obstacles

P Planning consequences O Organisational Issues

P1 Lack of exact strategic planning O1 Incompatible structure with the strategy

P2 Insufficient linking of the strategy O2 Unsuitable resources allocation

to goals.

P3 Time limitation O3 Lack of adequate communication

P4 Lack of consensus among O4 Lack of effective co-ordination

decision makers

P5 Lack of identification of major O5 Lack of adequate information system

problems

P6 Lack of effective role formulators O6 Incompatible organizational culture

P7 Unsuitable training system O7 Competing activities among people

P8 Unclear regulation and executive O8 Competing activities among units

policies

P9 Lack of choice of real strategy P9 Unsuitable evaluation and control

Systems

P10 Lack of a national attitude to O10 Unsuitable compensation system

strategy

O11 Inadequate physical facilities

O12 Lack of creative system

M Managerial Issues I Individual issues

M1 Unsuitable leadership I1 Lack of enough capabilities of employees

M2 Lack of adequate organizational I2 Resistance to change among people

support

M3 Lack of adequate manager I3 Resistance to change among units

commitment

M4 Fear of insecurity among I4 Fear of insecurity in the new territory

managers

M5 Political factors in regard to I5 Lack of understanding of the strategy

power

M6 Unsuitable personnel I6 Inadequate connection to the vision

management

M7 Uncontrollable factors I7 Lack of enough motivation of employees

M8 Lack of enough motivation I8 Lack of employee commitment

among the managers

Source: Alashloo Et al. (2005)

The fragmented views on strategy implementation and the barriers impacting on the process is indicative of the evolution of the field of strategy implementation and the existence of several approaches that organisations can adopt in implementing strategy. It is also suggestive of the need for further investigation in order to formulate an ideal framework for strategy implementation (Nyamwanza and Mavhiki, 2014).

2.2.5 Failed strategy implementation efforts

A number of previous studies have shown the increasing rates of failed strategy implementation efforts among business firms (Speculand 2009; Andrews Et al. 2011;

Cândido and Sérgio, 2015; Grindle, 2017). Strategy implementation literature suggests that implementation failure is common, definite, and structured (Ivančić Et al. 2016) amongst organisations. A general finding among many of these studies is that about half of the strategies and policies in organizations fail at the implementation phase while only a hand- full successfully make it past this phase (Speculand 2009). In fact Cândido and Sérgio (2015) in carrying out an extensive review of literature to ascertain the true rate of implementation failures discovered that a claim of up to ninety percent of strategic initiatives fails are made.

They concluded that although they believe the true rate of implementation failure remains to be determined its existence cannot be overruled. Most organizations find it difficult to implement their strategies and policies, similarly, between forty to sixty per cent of the potential value of many organisation’s strategic plan is never realized due to insufficiencies in implementation (Mankins and Steele, 2005; Franken Et al. 2009). In many cases, only sixty-three per cent of the promised financial value of companies’ strategies is delivered

(Mankins and Steele, 2005), the reason being that ninety-five per cent of an organisation’s employees do not understand or are not familiar with their organisation’s strategy (Grindle,

2017). According to Johnson (2004), sixty-six percent of corporate strategy is never implemented highlighting the difficulty of successful implementation in actual business conditions.

Apparently, a significant part of these failures can be attributed to a poor knowledge of strategy implementation (Okumus, 2001; Čater and Pučko, 2010; Zakaria, Dahalan, Ahmad,

2014). Also Okumus (2001) observed that implementation failure takes root from elements over which management has control, for example effective communication (Shimizu, 2017).

Most times after a comprehensive strategy has been formulated, some avoidable difficulties are often encountered during the subsequent implementation process which many organisation neglect (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000). Consequently, the ‘plans-do-not-often-work- out-as-intended’ experience is widely shared (Nutt, 1983; Okumus, 2001). Many organizations have a fundamental disconnect between the formulation of their strategy and the implementation of that strategy into useful action (Kaplan, 1995). This is referred to as

‘the execution gap’ (Bossidy and Charan, 2002) or a ‘knowing – doing gap’ (Pfeffer and

Sutton, 2000). Therefore, implementation constitutes an enigma and a source of frustration in many organisations. Today, achieving successful implementation remains a continuing challenge for managers (Shimizu, 2017). These widely reported incidences of implementation failures suggest that a careful examination of implementation practice should be a priority for both practitioners and researchers (Holm and Günzel-Jensen, 2017).

2.3 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

The term ‘organisational culture’ is widely used amongst scholars and practitioners; however its usage has given rise to a degree of ambiguity. Watson (2006) averred that the word

‘culture’ originally derives from an allegory of the organisation which means “to cultivate something”. For a number of decades unspecified, many scholars and practitioners who have studied organisations have suggested that the concept of culture defines the environment and practices that organisations create which determines how they handle people or which refers to their values and statement of beliefs (Schein, 2004). Schein (2004) indicated that the one thing of importance that is commonly associated with the role of leaders of organisations is the creation and management of culture; that the distinctive aptitude of leaders lies in their proficiency to appreciate and work with culture; and that the decisive act of leadership is to annihilate culture when it is believed to be dysfunctional.

Diverse definitions of organisational culture have therefore sprung up in the literature

(Schwartz and Davis, 1981; Prajogo and McDermott, 2005; Zu Et al. 2010; Anitha and

Begum, 2016). However, most of these definitions point to organisational culture as comprising of commonly held attitudes, value and beliefs of organisation members (Gallear and Ghobadian, 2004). For example Schein (1985), defined organisational culture as the shared beliefs, mindsets, and values held by members of an organisation which influences the practices and behavioural patterns of the organisation which are easily accessible. Similarly,

Martin (1985) expressed his view on culture as values, beliefs and attitudes that are commonly held by organisational members; and Munter (1993) defined it in terms of its continuity as the prevailing values, behaviours and attitudes of a set of people. However,

Eagleton (2000) believes that organisational culture is defined differently by different disciplines. Gallear and Ghobadian (2004) reiterated Eagleton’s (2000) argument stating that a school of thought assert that culture means ‘shared values’, another averred that it is a ‘way of working’ while a third group claim that it as a combination of both. Gallear and Ghobadian

(2004) concluded that from strategy implementation perspectives, the claim of the third school of thought is ostensibly more appropriate since the common values shared by a set of people influences the way they work. Maull Et al. (2001) also, further explained Eagleton’s stance by highlighting four cultural views: a strategy, a learned entity, a mental programme, and a belief system.

By practice, these views are built into the characters of members of a group; such characters which are anchored on attitudes, beliefs and values which group members commonly hold

(Schein, 1985; Owoyemi and Ekwoaba, 2014). Consequently, these views govern the behaviours and elements of organisational members (Lunenburg, 2011.). The daily behaviour of organisation members is shaped by a key set of implied rules and assumptions that mirrors the organisation’s culture (Martins and Terblanche, 2003).

Deal and Kennedy (1982) stressed the existence of visible levels of culture which included rites, traditions and ceremonies, rituals and heroes. They believe these attributes shape behaviour. However they stated that the invisible levels, perhaps, may be of more importance to public sector organisations because of their ability to drive or impede organisational change. Rousseau (1990) whilst critiquing studies that consider only one or a few of these attributes, developed a ring shaped multilayered framework. Rousseau’s ring shaped model organised the visible signs of culture on the outer rings and the hidden signs, in other words, the difficult to access signs of culture on the inner rings. It appears to consider all the key elements of culture: ‘a continuum from unconscious to conscious, from interpretative to behaviour, from inaccessible to accessible’ (Rousseau 1990, p.158).

Schein (1990) further highlighted the visible and invisible levels of corporate culture which he termed ‘culture iceberg’. The visible levels (the surface appearance) of the culture iceberg integrate dress and physical settings, slogans, observable symbols, stories, ceremonies, and behaviours. The invisible levels, on the other hand incorporate feelings and attitudes, beliefs, assumptions and underlying values. He noted that, very often, efforts for organisational change are focused on the visible levels.

Organisational culture, therefore, comprises of more ‘peripheral’ aspects such as observable signs, ceremonies and behavioural patterns, and more inherent values, beliefs, and assumptions. The underlying argument amongst scholars, with regards to these aspects of culture, lies in the aspect to be considered for organisational change. Some advocates have argued for the more visible aspects such as rituals and rites as they are considered shapers of behaviour; however, others argued that this is a misunderstanding of culture therefore deeper aspects such as feelings and beliefs must be considered.

Schein (2005) believes that organisational culture differentiates one organisation from another. It is an explicative variable that presents the distinctions between any two organisations (Sathe, 1985). It not only varies across organisations, it also varies across places and regions because of the influence of nationality disparities in values, work orientations, and beliefs across nations (Mba and Teresa, 2013; Jonsson and Holmgren, 2013;

Martin, 2014; Bedi, Et al. 2014). Therefore Hofstede (1991) and Schwartz (1994) asserted the exclusive identification of unique cultural values of individual organisations as they believe that difference in cultural values is possible even within organisations that make up a conglomerate.

Culture therefore establishes the true identity of an organisation and gives rise, through the organisation’s beliefs, values, rituals, legends, norms, language and meanings, to the way things are done around the organisation (O’Donnel and Boyle, 2008). An organisation’s culture epitomises all it is and has been good at. O’Donnel and Boyle (2008) noted that cultural practices are often accepted without question by old members of an organisation.

They argued that new employees however learn these practices as part of the first few things they are confronted with upon resumption as they are taught about the organisation’s traditions. They believe that an organisation’s tradition stays with it and becomes a determiner of the way things are done. In time the organisation develops a unique behavioural pattern, i.e a norm.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the concept of culture is its revelation of the phenomena that are arguably almost invisible; that are hugely impactful but hidden and to a large degree subliminal. Schein (2004) noted that the behaviours that result are visible but often the elements underneath that provoke such behaviours are hidden. Yet, just as our character and personality steer and restrict our behaviour, so does culture steer and restrict the behaviour of group members through their shared norms. Schein puts it succinctly by stating

that what character or personality is to an individual is what culture is to a group (Schein,

2004).

2.3.1 Types of organisational culture

Extant literature suggests that there is not just one organisational culture (O’Donnel and

Boyle, 2008). Academic literature widely recognises that different organisations have distinct culture types and often there is more than one culture within an organisation (Bradley and

Parker, 2006).

Investigating culture has being a daunting task for change agents and researchers (Dellana and Hausser, 1997). This is because, according to Zammuto, Gifford and Goodman (1999), no single mechanism provides a well-rounded assessment of an abundantly wide scope of generic cultural dimensions. Most organisations are faced with the challenge of how well they know their culture or what suitable culture supports their strategy. Various organisational development researchers proposed and expounded a wide range of models, instruments and methods in the literature to assess and describe organisational culture typologies: Wallach (1983) designed a set of cultural elements which derived from a combination of certain key organisational culture dimensions; Enz (1986) developed the

Organisational Value Congruence Scale; Cooke and Lafferty (1987) introduced the

Organisational Culture Inventory; O’Reilly Et al. (1991) proposed the Organisational Culture

Profile Scale; MacKenzie (1995) designed the MacKenzie Culture Questionnaire; Walker Et al.(1996) developed the Corporate Culture Questionnaire; and based on the Competing

Values Framework developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), Cameron and Quinn (1999) classified four major organisational culture types revealed in theoretical analyses of organisations. See Figure 2.6

Fig 2.6: Types of organisational culture

Flexibility and discretion

Culture Type: CLAN Culture Type: ADHOCRACY

Orientation: COLLABORATE Orientation: CREATE

Leader Type: Facilitator, Mentor, Team Leader Type: Innovator Entrepreneur, builder Visionary Values Drivers: Commitment, Communication Value Drivers: Innovative outputs Development Transformation, Agility

Theory of Effectiveness: Human development Theory of Effectiveness: Innovativeness, and high commitment produce effectiveness. vision and constant change produce effectiveness. Internal Environment External Environment Culture Type: HIERARCHY Culture Type: MARKET Orientation: CONTROL Orientation: COMPETE

Leader Type: Coordinator, Monitor, Organizer Leader Type: Hard-driver, Competitor, Producer Value Drivers: Efficiency, Timeliness, Consistency and Uniformity Value Drivers: Market Share, Goal achievement, Profitability Theory of Effectiveness: Control and efficiency with capable processes produce Theory of Effectiveness: Aggressively effectiveness. competing and customer focus produce effectiveness.

Stability and control

Source: Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983:369)

Despite the high number of models aiming to assess and classify organisational culture, only a few have been applied within organisational culture research literature. Woodman (1989) noted that one reason for this may be the disinclination to initiate quantitative measures into a research domain often associated with qualitative ethnographic methods (Denison and

Spreitzer, 1991). One model, however, that has enjoyed substantial application is the competing values framework. Since its introduction, it has been applied to organisational aspects such as organisation life cycles (Quinn and Cameron, 1983); organisational climate

(Zammuto and Krakower, 1991); organisational change (Eby, Et al. 2000); Leadership

(Dipadova and Faerman, 1993); strategy (Bluedorn and Lundgren, 1993); human resource policies (Yeung, Et al. 1991; Giek and Lees, 1993); and leadership roles (Quinn, 1994).

2.3.2 The Competing Values Framework

The Competing Values Framework (CVF) departs from the qualitative approach that has typified most culture research (Pettigrew, 1979; Frost Et al. 1985). The framework derives from the presupposition that organisations can be categorised based on cultural traits common to all human organisations (Hofstede, 1980; Denison, 1990; Hofstede Et al. 1990). Originally designed and introduced by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) to assess the effectiveness of organisations, the CVF is a metatheory that examines conflicts and competing tensions between an organisation’s external and internal environments and between its flexibility and control (Bradley and Parker, 2001). The CVF’s primary focus on the competing tensions within organisations allows for the analysis of both equilibrium and transformation and the conceptualization of both linear and paradoxical phenomena (Denison and Spreitzer, 1991).

Since its introduction, it has been applied to organisational aspects as identified earlier in section 2.4.

The CVF was extended further to investigate organisational culture by Denison and Spreitzer,

(1991). They argued that its value inclinations allows for the examination of inherent structures of organisational culture, the primary assumptions built around such factors as effectiveness, leadership, values, motives, compliance, and decision making (Quinn and

Kimberly 1984). It links the political, strategic, institutional, and interpersonal aspects of organisations by categorising the various patterns of shared values, interpretations, and assumptions that describe an organisation’s culture.

Figure 2.3 above identifies two main axes, representing an ordinate continuum, upon which the CVF is anchored. The first axis reflects the competing demands of flexibility and control

100

that describe two conflicting orientations between flexibility and discretion on one end and stability and control on the other. In other words, it mirrors the distinctiveness between an emphasis on dynamism, flexibility, and spontaneity and an emphasis on order, stability, and control. Denison and Spreitzer (1991) noted that some organisations are more effective when they are flexible, organic, and dynamic while the effectiveness of others depends on how well they are stable, mechanistic and predictable. This first axis re-echoes the popular variance in the theories of organisations between the mechanistic and the organic structures of organisations (Lorenz, 2001; Mazur, 2010). The second axis reflects the conflicting demands of the internal and external environments that highlight two alignments: the first being an alignment of integration and maintenance to sustain the organisation while the second is oriented towards adapting to, competing, and interacting with the external environment. This second axis reflects the distinctiveness between an emphasis unity, integration and internal orientation and an emphasis rivalry, differentiation and external orientation. In other words, while congruous internal characteristics may enhance the effectiveness of some organisations, the effectiveness of other organisations may be dependent on a focus on the external environment (Denison and Spreitzer (1991). This dimension also reflects a number of classics (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Thompson, 1967) of organisational theory.

An interesting connotation of these dimensions lies in their representation of conflicting assumptions. Each axis highlights opposing core values on either of its ends - i.e., stability versus flexibility, and external versus internal. The resultant effects of these conflicts are the quadrants that are in themselves competing along the continuum. The upper left quadrant emphasises organic and internally focused values while the lower right quadrant emphasises stable and externally focused values. Accordingly, the lower left quadrant emphasises control and internally focused values while the upper right quadrant emphasises organic and externally focused values. Combined, the two ends of competing tensions give rise to four

101

typologies of organisational culture identified in the theoretical description of organisations

(Blackler Et al. 1999; Zammuto Et al. 1999): Clan culture, Market culture, Hierarchy culture, and Adhocracy culture. Each of these four cultural orientations reflects one of the four major organisational theory models. These four cultural types along with their heterogeneous underlying assumptions are presented below.

(1) Clan culture

The clan culture in the upper left quadrant in fig 2.6 places its primary emphasis on human relations. It emphasises flexibility and maintains its primary concern with the internal environment. Organisations with emphasis on the clan culture promote broader human resource development and training which are employed to achieve cohesiveness, participation, openness, commitment of employee. Such organisations are characterised by a work friendly environment; high commitment; and leaders are seen as facilitators, coaches, mentors, and in some cases, parent figures. The theory for effectiveness for this culture type includes: participation and human development produce effectiveness. Participation and trust are core values. Tradition, collaboration and loyalty hold the organisation together. Success means genuine concern for people. The organisation considers teambuilding, open communication and Human resource development as its quality strategies (Cameron and

Quinn, 1999).

(2) Adhocracy culture

The adhocracy culture in the upper right quadrant of fig 2.6 also places its primary focus on flexibility and discretion but with an external orientation. It is emphasises innovation, growth, continuous improvement, acquisition of new resources, and continuous adjustment to the external environment. Organisations which emphasise the adhocracy culture are characterized by an entrepreneurial, creative, and dynamic workplace which encourages employees to take

102

risks. Leaders are also risk takers, visionary, idealistic, innovative, and entrepreneurial. They encourage employee creativity and freedom. In this culture type, innovation and commitment to experimentation holds organisations together. The effectiveness theory is vision, innovativeness and new resource yields effectiveness. Its long term focus are growth and on new resource allocation. Success means being on the leading edge of services (Cameron and

Quinn, 1999).

(3) Market culture

The market culture in the lower right quadrant of fig 2.6 places emphasis on control and stability and is focused on the external environment. It stresses productivity, performance, and goal achievement. Its primary driving force is competition. Organisations which emphasise the market culture are characterised by a goal-oriented workplace. Organisational heads are considered hard-drivers, directors, and competitors, who constantly provide structure and encourage productivity. The binding force in this culture type includes a focus on winning. The long-term emphasis is on competition and successful achievement of planned targets. Success means market penetration and high market share; beating the competition, and market leadership (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).

(4) Hierarchical culture

The hierarchy culture in the lower left quadrant of fig 2.6 emphasises internal orientation and is focused on control and stability. Organisations which adopt the hierarchy culture are oriented towards ensuring a smooth running system of operations through respect for systems regulations, and consistency to achieve stability and order. Such organisations are typified by a well structured and formal work environment. Leaders are considered conservatives, organizers and good coordinators who pay close attention to efficiency. Core values include

103

uniformity and efficiency. Policies and formal rules bind these organisations. Long-term emphasis is on efficiency, predictability, and stability (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).

Each of the four culture typologies highlighted has a polar opposite. The internal orientations and flexibility focus of the clan culture can be contrasted with the external orientations and control focus of the market culture. The flexibility focus and external orientations of adhocracy culture can be contrasted with the internal orientation and stability focus of the hierarchy culture. The continuums among the cultures are also significant: the clan and adhocracy cultures share a common focus on flexibility; the market and hierarchy cultures share a common emphasis on control; the adhocracy and market cultures share a common external orientation and finally the hierarchy and clan cultures share a common internal orientation.

The CVF is built on several assumptions. First assumption is the importance of balance. An overemphasis of anyone quadrant leads to the organisation becoming dysfunctional and the strength of the quadrant may eventually turn into weakness. For example an overemphasis on flexibility can result in chaos; an over emphasis on order and control can produce rigidity.

The model stresses that a broader approach to effectiveness may be more likely to be truly effective than the current single criteria for effectiveness. The framework does not give consideration to the normative prescription that a culture type which integrates the characteristics of all four culture types is the most effective culture; however it identifies that a balance in culture types indicates the ability to react to varying environmental situations.

Second assumption is that the four culture types are ideal types. Organisations in most cases do not have only one culture; on the contrary a combination of cultural types with some being more dominant than others are observed among organisations. As Cameron (1986) and

Cameron and Quinn, (2011) noted, a contradictory combination of ideals often typify

104

organisations. As a model framed from the generic descriptions of organisational cultures, the

CVF does not consider the exclusive peculiarities of an organisation’s culture; however it categorises cultures into extensive groups based on general values common to all organisations (Ouchi, 1981; Schein, 1984; Hofstede Et al. 1990). Identifying that an individual culture’s specific content will vary widely, the framework assumes that the general dimensions will remain relevant across a wide range of settings.

2.3.3 Organisational Culture in Public Sector Institutions

Bradley and Parker (2000) identified a paucity of empirical understanding of organisational culture in public institutions. They however concluded that all public institutions should be geared towards a post‐bureaucratic cultural ethos; away from their usual bureaucratic norms.

Recognising the impact of industrial characteristics and the peculiarities of the external environment on the values of public institutions (Gordon, 1991; Chatman and Jehn, 1994)

Schraeder Et al. (2005) believes that public institutions have found it rather difficult adapting to organisational change. This perhaps explains the strong hold onto their cultural idiosyncrasies. Norris (2003) studying the distinctions between organisational cultures in private and public institutions identified that employees of public organisations are more motivated, and have unique work orientations, than their counterparts in the private sector.

He found that generally public sector employees bore a clearer sense of mission to contribute to society; they viewed themselves as public servants. Norris’ finding raised two fundamental questions: Does a peculiar culture exist in the public institutions and is it performance friendly? And, if it is not, are they ready to adopt an organisational change process?

Parker and Bradley (2000) respond to the first question. The found that in spite of recent incessant calls for public institutions to overhaul their cultural orientations; to adopt flexibility instead of rigidity, dynamism, efficiency and productivity, innovation, and entrepreneurialism, public organisations continued to stress the norms of a hierarchical or

105

bureaucratic organisational culture. The literature on public sector institutions has advanced the orientation of public organisations as traditional (Bradley and Parker, 2000); under- emphasising the elements of market and adhocracy cultures because of the inherent lack of adaptability, efficiency, productivity, innovation, and risk taking. Rather, they are tended towards a hierarchical culture type because of their focus on stability, order, rules, control and procedures (Martins and Terblanche, 2003; Schraeder Et al. 2005). Mc Neill (2010) observed the persistence of public sector organisations on internal values, procedures and regulations regardless of workers ostensible preference for external values, dynamism, greater flexibility, human relations, and productivity.

Accordingly, the culture of traditional public institutions is subject to political influences rather than market controls (Dunleavy and Hood, 1994; Rainey, 2009). All procedures, rational rules, hierarchies, and decision making are based on administrative expertise

(Rosenberg and Ferlie, 2016). Van Wart (2017) observed that bureaucratic cultures are usually not in harmony with organisational performance and service goals. He reiterated that the performance of public organisations has been subjected to regular questioning; the reason being its comparison with the returns on investment obtainable in private institutions. To cope with the pressure, public sector managers started to utilise management techniques used by private institutions (Bradley and Parker, 2001; Rice, 2004), an approach that is focused on the New Public Management values, (NPM) (Dunleavy and Hood, 1994). The NPM describes changes in governance styles in public sector administration (Barrett, 2007) and is founded on the assumption that public sector effectiveness and efficiency could be enhanced through the utilisation of management techniques employed in the private sector (Tooley,

1999; Lane, 2000; McLaughlin Et al. 2002; Dunleavy Et al. 2006; Laegreid and Christensen.,

2013; Bryson Et al. 2014; Wiesel and Modell, 2014). Bouckaert Et al. (2016) believed that, public sector engagement of the NPM initiates changes to the systems and structures of

106

public sector organisations for the purpose of a smoother and more efficient operation. The origination of this new public management approach was to advance the culture of performance (De Vries and Nemec, 2013; Kuipers Et al. 2014; Alonso Et al. 2015; Van

Dooren Et al. 2015). O’Donnell and Boyle (2008) asserted that an understanding of public service cultural characteristics is significant to understanding the impact of reforms within the public sector. They noted that culture is central to planning for organisational change and argued that proposed organisational changes may not be particularly successful without due attention paid to culture. Culture is to be highly considered in cases of organisational change or transformation or the introduction of major reforms which require new cultural traits

(O’Donnell and Boyle, 2008)

Szabla Et al. (2014) describes employee resistance to change as a potent barrier to successful organisational change. A milder side to this argument is that work cultures influences the actions of the work force to a point where change cannot just be simply imposed on them by higher authority while a more rigid side of the argument describes employees as actively resistant to change. Other empirical evidences present resistance as a positive productive factor in the change process because of its ability to encourage communication and to be a basis of information. Szabla Et al. (2014) argues that a multidimensional understanding of the phenomenon of organisational resistance taking account of cognitive emotional and intentional aspects is needed in order to understand and manage its effect on planned change.

Towards this formulation which incorporates both resistance and change readiness in staged models of change (e.g. Keup Et al. 2001) appear helpful. ‘The notion of readiness for change can be defined as the extent to which employees hold positive views about the need for organizational change (i.e. change acceptance), as well as the extent to which employees believe that such changes are likely to have positive implications for themselves and the wider organization’ (Jones Et al. 2005:362). Keup Et al. (2001:27) suggest that institutional

107

readiness for change is inversely related to the resistance experienced during the transformation effort. Similarly, Jones Et al. (2005:362) argue: ‘the reason so many change efforts run into resistance or outright failure is traceable to the organization’s inability to effectively unfreeze and create readiness for change before attempting a change induction. In this respect, organizations often move directly into change implementation before the individual or the group to be changed is psychologically ready.’ (Jones Et al. 2005: 362).

Accordingly, researchers of organizational change have sought to identify factors that might promote more positive attitudes to intended change. Variables identified as influencing change readiness include: employees’ perceptions of their organization’s structural and operational flexibility and their beliefs about its ‘reshaping capabilities’ (its preparedness to take on large scale change); and supportive and participative working cultures that are strong in human relations values (Jones, Et al. 2005). Unsurprisingly, therefore, studies on how to achieve change readiness lead back to organisational culture. Keup, Et al. (2001: 25) propose that institutional readiness for transformation efforts should be preceded by the nurturing of a culture of trust, and the introduction of open, participative planning strategies.

2.3.4 Organisational Culture and Strategy Implementation

Researchers in the field of strategic management have described strategic management as a universal philosophy that can fit anywhere (Oakland, 2003; Dale Et al. 2007). However, another group of researchers argued that national culture; business environment and organisational behaviour impact greatly on the effectiveness of strategy implementation

(Abraham Et al. 1999; Ho Et al. 1999; Eby, Et al. 2000; Prajogo and McDermott, 2005;

Jones, Et al. 2005). Their argument stresses that for effective implementation of strategies to be achieved there must be a change in an organisation’s culture.

Although culture and strategic management both have different origins, both fields have come together to create awareness on the need for organisations to change or work with their

108

existing culture in order to achieve quality and excellence (Lewis, 1996). Many studies are found in the literature that deals with the interrelationship between these two phenomena

(Saraph and Sabetian, 1993; Sinclair and Collins, 1994; Smith Et al.1994, Brown, 1998;

Elsmore, 2001; Elsmore, 2001 Business success and corporate culture, 2014). Ahmadi Et al.

(2012) averred that organisational culture and implementation of strategies are closely interrelated to each other. Nyamwanza and Mavhiki (2014) promoted the importance of cultural aspects of strategic management and argued that strategies have to be implemented within suitable organisational cultures. In the same context, Birken Et al. (2015) observed that one of the primary causes of delay in strategy implementation is that top managers and external consultants are insufficiently aware of their organisation’s basic cultural values.

Most of the authors who explicitly address these phenomena see organisational culture and strategy implementation as variables which are affected by internal and external stimuli and which may be consciously managed by organisations themselves (Lewis, 1996).

The strategic management literature supports the claim that a change in culture results in a permanent organisational change (Huq and Martin, 2000; Maull Et al. 2004; Gallear and

Ghobadian 2004). For example, Prajogo and McDermott’s (2005) assertion that softer cultural aspect of strategic management must be made conducive for harder aspects such as systems and techniques to be implemented. This means that in the long term strategic management can only be established successfully if it positively influences not only the behaviours of employees’ but their values and attitudes also (Ghobadian and Gallear, 2001).

In addition, there are considerations for categories of culture that are strategy implementation friendly in the literature. Tata and Prasad (1998) and Ahmadi Et al. (2012) believe that flexible cultures that are people-oriented and include practices such as teamwork, leadership commitment, customer focus, employee empowerment, inclusive management and continuous improvement enhance the implementation process. Lopez Et al. (2004) and

109

Naranjo-Valencia (2011) provide support for this argument. These studies provide that cultures where the empowerment and values of employees are considered paramount facilitate effective strategy implementation. Similarly Sousa-Poza Et al. (2001) proposed that it is vital to identify and understand an organisation’s culture before and during strategy implementation as literature indicates a positive relationship between culture and implementation.

Furthermore, the strategy implementation literature indicates that culture influences the understanding of strategy implementation and affects its operationalisation (Kumar Et al.

2011). In their research, Nyamwanza and Mavhiki (2014) argued that for real success, strategic management practices (formulation, implementation and execution) need to be conducted within a suitable environment (i.e. culture). The few studies that have attempted to examine the strategy implementation-culture relationship, such as those by Ahmadi Et al.

(2012), Nyamwanza and Mavhiki (2014), Ayiecha and Senaji (2014) always place organisational culture as the antecedent of strategy implementation practices. As argued by many other researchers (McNabb and Sepic, 1995; Westbrook and Utley, 1995; Maull Et al.

2001), organisational culture tends to determine more the results of strategy implementation rather than the strategy implementation bringing about cultural change. These arguments infer that an appropriate approach for strategy implementation is one in which strategy implementation needs to be moulded to the organisation's culture before any attempts are made to re-shape the organisational culture to fit strategy implementation (Klein Et al.1995).

Thus, although strategy implementation may need profound cultural change, a firm cannot expect to change the culture all at once. Rather culture changes as a result of doing the right things over time (Oakland, 2003)

Although the literature has greatly emphasized the impact of culture on strategy implementation; however relatively little research effort is evident that has explored the

110

intensity and nature of this impact. Many strategy implementations have failed, preventing organisations from realizing the benefits of their potentials because of the lack of awareness of cultural factors (Dale and Cooper, 1992; Oakland, 1995; Wilkinson Et al.1998; Mehmet Et al. 2009); mismanagement of corporate culture (Bowen and Lawler, 1992; Utley Et al. 1997).

Kotter (2008) placed high importance on the influence of corporate culture on the effective implementation of strategies. In their conclusion of a study on cultural effects on strategy implementation, Sousa-Poza Et al. (2001) reported that strategy implementation is a complex programme that has a strong relationship with the organisation's corporate culture.

The significance of organisational culture in enhancing the competitive drive of organisations and in growing organisations’ productivity and profits has instigated managers to explore avenues in which organisational culture can be changed and managed (Cameron and

Freeman, 1991).The current knowledge and understanding relating to strategy implementation research mandates the need for new thinking and approaches to answer the question of how organisations implement their strategies and why they implement in a particular pattern. It is suggested here that it might be more useful to employ different theoretical lens to the strategy implementation process. This will allow greater synergies by utilising the different focus of different theoretical lenses. Strategy process research is deeply rooted in the cognitive behaviours of management agency and role of their acting within strategic management (Sminia, 2009). Most processual research is aimed at ‘the topics of strategic change or strategic decision-making’ (Shanley and Peteraf, 2006: 5). It is increasingly recognised in other strategic management traditions that more attention is needed to understand how managerial actions influence firm performance (Shanley and

Peteraf, 2006: 10). Strategy implementation literature has paid limited attention to variety in implementation process patterns (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst‘s, 2006). Similarly, there is a lack of research on the influence of organisational culture on how the activities of

111

strategic actors lead to heterogeneity in organisation’s implementing styles and behaviours.

This is somewhat surprising given the recurrence of organisational culture as a considerable factor in strategic management literature (Ahmedi Et al. 2012).

2.4 GAPS IN THE LITERATURE

The core focus of the theories of organisational culture is the attention to organisational behavioural patterns as it interrelates with a firm’s resources and performance outcomes.

Such focus is needed in processual research of strategizing processes (Hutzschenreuter and

Kleindienst‘s, 2006; Sminia, 2009). But the performance implications of a meso-level processual phenomenon like strategy implementation of strategic directions remain unknown

(Langley and Tsoukas, 2010; Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009). This reflects an important research gap to link internal firm processes to internal and external competitiveness outcomes

(Peteraf, 2005). This attention to performance outcomes will allow a critical evaluation of the activities in the strategy implementation process and potential contribution to superior performance.

A critical evaluation of the strategy implementation literature reveals two core problem areas that need attention in terms of theoretical developments and encouragement of implementation-focused future research. These problems were partially identified by

Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006) in their review of strategy process research, although they remain largely unresolved: a) inattention to the consequences of the behavioural patterns of strategic actors in strategy implementation process for competitive performance; b) relatively less attention to processual characteristics associated with implementation. These problem areas are now analysed to establish the need to apply organisational culture as a theoretical lens on the behavioural phenomenon of strategy implementation process.

112

It is argued here that the two problem areas identified in strategy implementation literature can be addressed by pursuing more processual research that would connect the variety in implementation process patterns and managerial agency to performance (Okumus, 2003).

This would enable theoretical development by linking the processual phenomenon of strategy implementation to the more content elements of strategic management (Barney and Zajac,

1994). The perception of strategy implementation and its activity-based image are rooted in the view that implementation barriers pose significant challenges for managers (Li Et al.

2010). Earlier conceptualisations of the strategy process (Andrews, 1971) and the treatment of strategy implementation remained highly tactical (Nutt, 1998). This was further compounded by strategic strategy-making gaining prominence in processual traditions

(Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006; Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009).

There is a major research gap relating to the examination of the linkages between implementation process characteristics and outcomes. Processual research has been long criticised for ignoring strategic performance issues. ‘Process researchers have not generally included a strategy outcome in their studies’. (Chakravarthy and White, 2002: 184) Patterns of strategic implementation (e.g. rational and emergent) and their sequential variation have not been looked at in sufficient detail to assess the nature of any implementation variety and the relationship with performance consequences (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006).

Pettigrew (2000: 253) famously recognised that ‘It is one thing to catalogue the interrelated factors that shape the fate of change initiatives. It is a much bigger and more intractable problem to argue that a particular pattern of change initiatives contributes to organizational performance’ (Pettigrew, 2000: 253). There is a need to identify the linkages between the implementation process, the generative mechanisms and their performance implications.

Limited attention to strategic outcomes is evident in processual traditions of strategy and future research needs to explore those implications. It is important to be able to guide

113

managerial practice in firms and project strategy implementation as a phenomenon of performance contribution. ‘Understanding the link between strategy process and outcome is important. Without it, process research is of little value to managers’. (Chakravarthy and

White, 2002:182). Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst‘s (2006) emphasis on process outcome research focusing on strategy implementation is similar to Barney and Zajac (1994). Overall, future strategy implementation research needs to look at processual parameters and their performance consequences. This should incorporate different patterns and variations relating to implementation associated with alternative broad approaches relating to continuity and change trajectories of strategic development.

The application of different theoretical lenses to the same phenomenon can contribute in two ways depending upon the approach taken. The research can evaluate the anomalies emerging from the application of different theoretical lenses to the same phenomenon (Gilbert and

Christensen, 2005). Another approach is to explore complementary-seeking issues by synergizing different theoretical lenses (Peteraf, 2005). This complementary-seeking approach is argued here for the theoretical development of strategy implementation as a field of study. It is argued here that applying a culture based theory within the strategy implementation process will contribute significantly, especially through the analysis of the variety of human and organizational activities and temporal patterns associated with superior performance. This will also address a longstanding gap in the organisational culture literature which has largely excluded strategy implementation and downplays the managerial agency role in strategizing (Johnson Et al. 2003; Helfat Et al. 2007).

Overall, there exists a major opportunity for the theoretical development of strategy implementation via complementary-seeking research associated with the processual nature of implementation and linking it with culture-based concerns. This will address the existing gaps resulting from the inattention to performance concerns in implementation and in doing

114

so carve out an identity and distinctiveness for strategy implementation within the wider strategy development group of activities. The synergy of processual and culture-based lenses will provide insights into the dynamic, temporal, path-dependent nature of managerial and organizational processes.

2.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Definition of terms and concepts, within the structure of social sciences as a discipline, has not been without its debates. This is partly because of the diverse nature and paradigmatic features of various disciplines within the field (Adeyemi, 2012). Therefore to properly situate the strategy implementation model within the context of our analysis, organisational culture is examined in terms of its impact on the process of strategy implementation. The analysis is guided by a theoretical understanding of the subject matter and hopes to find answers to the following questions: Should public service managers worry themselves with culture? Does it matter? What types of culture or cultures exist in their organisation? What is the impact of organisational culture on strategy implementation?

Schein (2004: 362) underlines the point that “diagnosing a culture for its own sake is not only too vast an undertaking but also can be viewed as a boring and useless exercise. ‘On the other hand, when the organisation has a purpose, a new strategy, a problem to be solved, a change agenda, then to determine how the culture impacts the issue is not only useful but in most cases necessary. The issue should be related to the organisation’s effectiveness and should be stated in as concrete a way as possible”. One cannot agree with Schein more especially since culture is important in shaping organisational practice and performance in public sector (O'Donnell and Boyle, 2008). More importantly however, is the ability of managers to actually shape or influence the culture.

115

A close look at Ban’s (1995) study of the US Environmental Protection Agency compared to other federal agencies (Pandey Et al. 2007) show the impact of organisational culture on service delivery in the public sector. Ban’s study suggests that “In simple terms, Organisation

A and Organisation B could face exactly the same rule burden. However, Organisation A could be more effective than Organisation B because of its ability to cope with and manage this rule burden. The difference between the two organisations is the nature of the organisational culture: Organisation B has a culture that encourages rule adherence, resulting in a greater likelihood of goal displacement away from effectiveness, whereas Organisation A has a culture focusing on finding ways to use the rules flexibly to improve performance”

(Pandey Et al. 2007: 403).

Within the Nigerian context, the introduction of culture as a tool for efficient service delivery witnessed a leap with the introduction of the Local Government Integrity Initiative (LGII) designed by the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) (Adeyemi, 2012). LGII was initiated in the LGAs to usher in a culture of integrity through open administration, commitment to standards, accountability and transparency, values and advocacy of integrity which will, in turn, change the current adverse public perception of local government authorities. Adeyemi (2012) maintained that institutionalizing culture in the administration of local government in Nigeria is key to the repositioning of the local government authorities as bedrock for service deliveries and development at the grassroots. Figure 1 depicts the

Culture-cum-Implementation Framework (CIF) which synergises the ongoing discussion into a conceptual framework in an attempt to position the study within the larger field of strategy implementation and culture research.

116

Figure 1: The Culture-cum-Implementation Framework (CIF)

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

CLAN ADHOCRACY ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE INTERNAL FOCUS EXTERNAL FOCUS FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY

TASK ENVIRONMENT TASK

ENVIRONMENT EXTERNAL IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

POLICY PROCESS MANAGMENT STRATEGIC FORMULATION STRATEGIC CHAIN OF CONTENT COMMAND OUTCOME

ASSIGNING RESOURCE RESPONSIBILITY ALLOCATION

HIERACHY MARKET

INTERNAL FOCUS EXTERNAL FOCUS STABILITY STABILITY

Source: Author (2016)

The Culture-cum-Implementation Framework (CIF) is drawn from different streams of

literature and in particular, the Competing Values Framework (CVF) developed by Cameron

and Quinn (1999) which describes four types of cultures: hierarchy, clan, market, and

adhocracy. The researchers’ choice of the CVF is informed by the model’s attention to

flexibility and stability and its focus on both internal and external positions which enables the

research take a holistic view of local governments in terms of their internal focus, external

positions and their flexibility and stability in relation to their strategy implementation

processes. The CIF framework breaks the process of strategy implementation down into five

dimensions (Ahmadi Et al. 2012) to demonstrate the dimensional correlation between both

variables.

117

The workability of the model within the Nigerian Local Government context begins with the

Strategic Content - the situation analysis local government authorities carry out: both internal and external and micro-environmental and macro-environmental. Concurrent with this analysis, objectives are set. Setting objectives here refers to crafting vision statements (long term), mission statements (medium term), overall corporate objectives (both financial and strategic), strategic business unit objectives (both financial and strategic), and tactical objectives. The objectives, in the light of the situation analysis, suggest a strategic plan which provides the details of how to achieve organisational goals.

The Strategic Content is communicated to implementers who initiate the implementation process with the formulation of the strategy. This means: determining the current position of the organisation, determining where it wants to go, and then determining how to get there. It involves acquiring the requisite resources, developing the process, training, process testing, documentation, and integration with legal procedures. Allocation of resources refers to the allotment of financial, personnel, time and computer system support, establishing a chain of command or some alternative structure such as cross-functional teams, assigning responsibility of specific tasks or processes to specific individuals or groups, process management, which includes monitoring results, comparing to benchmarks and best practices, evaluating the efficacy and efficiency of the process, controlling for variances, and making adjustments to the process as necessary.

The integration of these variables and the resultant impact of the four culture types on the implementation process lead to a strategic outcome – one which can be used to measure the performance of an organisation (Mehta and Krishnan, 2004). The external environment refers to all elements outside the boundary of the organisation to which an organisation needs to adapt (Dauber, Fink, and Yolles, 2012). The Task environment refers to the internal environment where the strategic content takes place.

118

The CIF is intended to provide direction and spark a series of thoughts for stakeholders when implementing strategies, taking cognisance of organisational culture. In practice, for instance, the CIF may be useful in facilitating the implementation of one of the agendas the current

Buhari led administration has pledged to execute within its first term - to build a country where citizens get the basics that any country should provide: infrastructure that works, healthcare that is affordable, even free; respect for the environment and sustainable development, education that is competitive and outcome-oriented in a knowledge-economy.

2.6 SUMMARY

It is evident from the preceding review of the strategy implementation literature that strategy implementation is yet to develop into an area of significant research. Chebat‘s (1999) assertion that research on implementation deserves as much attention as strategy formulation is still valid and relevant. Some research attention has been paid to factors related to implementation barriers and implementation success factors but limited research into strategy implementation processes. Strategy process researchers have largely explored decision- making processes with little focus on strategy implementation (Hutzschenreuter and

Kleindienst, 2006).

This indicates that more attention is required to research different dimensions of the strategy implementation process. The calls by Noble (1999a) for a broader approach to implementation research and by Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006) for more processual research into implementation process characteristics and their effects on performance are highly relevant. Table 5 provides the summary analysis of the significant issues within the strategy implementation literature, as discussed earlier. Those issues reflect the fragmented nature of the strategy implementation literature and the complex issues that need attention for theory development and empirical research.

119

Table 5: Summary analysis of the extant strategy implementation literature

 Strategy implementation is a dynamic and complex process with different sub

processes taking place over time. Strategy implementation is often considered as

synonymous to execution of intended strategies and is deemed to include actions that

achieve the enactment of plans. Actions and activities are important dimensions of

strategy implementation success and highlight the significance of human agency in

implementation.

 There are differences among scholars concerning the relevance of rationality and

intentionality within implementation in the overall strategy process. Similarly, there

are differences concerning the degree of distinctiveness between planning and

implementation in the strategy process - drawing on major debates surrounding the

rational and emergent views.

 This debate needs greater clarity and resolution as implementation often gets couched

within formulation issues in emergent views, due to the focus on strategy-making. It

is hard to find implementation related prescriptions for managers beyond the rational

view of strategy.

 Strategy process research, despite its attention to decision making actions, has been

unable to explore implementation actions in sufficient detail and depth.

 There is an imbalance in strategy process literature as most studies look at decision

making and planning processes, while only limited attention has been given to

strategy implementation.

 Strategy implementation literature is still fragmented without much theoretical

developments beyond strategic cognition.

 Most strategy implementation process studies have looked at the implementation

120

process from a planning and strategy making lens.

 It is important to conduct processual studies focused on strategy implementation. The

inferiority perception that is attached to strategy implementation needs to change for

improving the identity of strategy implementation as a worthwhile area of research in

strategic management.

 The inattention to strategy implementation‘s consequences for competitive

performance and outcomes, presents a major opportunity for future theory

development and empirical research.

 Conceptual clarity is needed in the future implementation.

121

CHAPTER 3

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH CONTEXT

3.0 NIGERIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY (LGA) - A HISTORICAL

OVERVIEW

The creation of local government systems in Nigeria can be traced back to the Native

Authority Ordinance of 1916 which was promulgated by the then British leadership in

Nigeria ostensibly to strengthen the traditional administrative systems already existing in the different regions of what was later to be called Nigeria. The Ordinance which was purportedly set up to unify the system of local government established the first indirect rule system (Ikeanyibe 2009) within the regions. However the indirect rule system was confronted by informed resistance from the Western and Eastern regions, majorly because it was anti- democratic and because it did not align with the interests of their already existing traditional administrative systems. Faced by the resistance, the ordinance was put on hold until the new regional assemblies was introduced in 1946 by the Richard constitution. By 1949, the Local

Government Ordinance of 1950, which paved the way for a democratic system of local government, was promulgated on the platform of the Eastern house of assembly (Ogunna,

1996).

By 1954, the local government systems in the three regions (Western, Northern and Eastern) of Nigeria had been pervaded with democratic values with each of the regions gaining total control over the function, type and structure of its own local government (Ikeanyibe 2009).

However with the introduction of the well received democratic values also came the beginning of federal and state supremacy over local government administration, which is

122

perceived to have lasted from the colonial rule era through post-colonial era to present day

Nigeria.

In the face of this historical beginning, the introduction of contemporary local government systems in Nigeria can be credited to the local government reform of 1976. The reform was aimed at modernising and revamping local government administration, thereby making it the best in Africa. Its goals included the achievement of uniformity of local government administration across the nation and the extension of the rule of federation by making government accessible to the grass root (Olanipekun 1988).

The 1976 local government reform marked the beginning of a very remarkable change in

Nigerian local government administration. It initiated, for the first time, a single system of local government in Nigeria. The financial system was revamped. A statutory fixed revenue allocation to local governments by the federal and state was introduced. Local government revenues were ring-fenced to protect it from state encroachment (Ekpo and Ndebbio, 1998).

The reform also made provision for the rights of local governments to generate revenue internally through a number of potential sources, e.g. through rates such as education rates, street lighting and property rates; through taxes such as poll tax; and through fees and fines such as market fees, court fines, public advertisement fees, regulated premises fees, birth registrations etc. To ensure the effectiveness of the reform, local politicians and local government officers were empowered to operate without external interference. State ministries overseeing local government affairs were only responsible for advising, guiding and assisting but not controlling the local governments. The1976 reform also protected traditional rulers from party politics.

By 1988 Local government was, again, restructured with the introduction of the civil service reforms by the federal military government. The reform was geared towards professionalising

123

the local government system and so it mandated the creation of departments (finance, personnel, supply etc) and local officers (councillors, treasurers, auditor-general for local government, secretaries etc). The functions of the Local Government Service Commission, which provided systems for monitoring and staffing local governments, were clearly spelt out particularly in a bid to institute dependable local governance in the Nigeria.

By the institution of the1999 constitution, which takes almost the same position on local government as the 1979 constitution but with some modifications, the functions of local government in Nigeria had been clearly spelt out. Local government became a unit of government with defined powers and authority, and relative autonomy. The functional areas for local government included in the 1999 constitution included the provision and maintenance of all health services, primary, vocational and adult education; national and agricultural resource development; and other functions that the state may confer on it. Based on the weight of these functions, the 1999 constitution established the authority of local government councils as stipulated in the 1976 local government reform.

Overall, historically, Local Government system in Nigeria has undergone a chain of aeons beginning with the Indirect Rule system; through the Localisation of the administrative system; to the Democratization of the system by the separation of powers between the traditional council and democratic Local government system. The latter of these aeons is the most remarkable especially in the way it strengthened democracy at the local government level. The last aeon, has undergone not less than nine reforms to date: The 1976 Guidelines for Local Government Reform; The 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria;

The 1984 Dasuki Report on the Nigerian Local Government system; The 1988 Civil Service

Reforms in the Local Government system; The 1989 Constitution of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria; The 1992 Handbook on Local Government Administration; The 1989 Constitution

124

of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the 2003 Review of Local Government Councils in Nigeria (Olasupo, 2012).

The Nigerian Local Government Authority (LGA) is the third tier of the administrative structure in Nigeria and is tasked with the primary responsibility of rural development. The rural areas of Nigeria are inhabited by the bulk of the nation’s population; they serve as the base for the production of food and fibre. They are also the major sources of capital formation for the country, and a principal market for domestic manufactures (Olayiwola and

Adeleye, 2005). In general terms, the rural areas engage in primary activities that form the foundation for Nigeria’s economic development. There are 774 local government areas in the country (Achimugu Et al. 2012; Okechukwu and Edwin, 2013) with a population of about

183 million people in 2015 (Worldometers, 2015) –the most current population censors statistics, 70% of which are classified as poor and 54.4% living in absolute poverty

(Anumudu Et al. 2013). This magnitude of poverty in Nigeria which has been considered a function of the ineffectiveness of local government administration has received considerable scholarly attention (Adamolekun 1979; Gboyega 1987; Ekpo and Ndebbo 1998; Oyediran

2001; George 2010; Bamidele 2013). The country is rich in crude oil and blessed with diverse mineral resources but the citizens live below average in the midst of plenty. In 1960, the poverty rate in the country was estimated at about 15% and by 2010 it had hit an all-time high of 71% (Nigerianstat.gov.ng, 2015). It currently stands at a staggering 33.1% following the

World Bank’s pronouncements that poverty may have been overestimated in Nigeria because the country’s economy is now being increasingly understood (World Bank Group, 2015).

Successive governments have concentrated their efforts at eradicating this endemic poverty in

Nigeria with the introduction of diverse poverty alleviation and rural development policies, but in spite of the much orchestrated demonstration of their commitment to development, evidence on ground points to the fact that the poverty “virus” is becoming more entrenched

125

and spreading wider among the citizenry. As is expected, the reforms and constitutional developments carried out in Nigeria have all attempted to capture the essence of local government. However, these attempts have left much to be desired, with many gaps evident.

Their implications for a well-functioning local government system are explored further.

3.1 CONCEPTS CLARIFICATION

For a better understanding of the study contents, the selected terminologies used in the discussion are conceptualised.

3.1.1 The Concept of Rural Areas

The definition of the concept of rural area has been approached in diverse ways by various authors depending on differing contexts. It has been conceptualised based on how it occurs in different countries of the world depending on geographical location, population and activity characteristics. Omale (2005) defined rural areas according to their population size which is usually below 20,000 people; their specific occupation; and their location which is generally removed from urban areas in terms of services e.g. health, electricity and water. In the context of Nigeria, he added that it is one poorly provided for, and measured by demography index; Nigeria is 80% rural. However, the United States Department of Agriculture (2002 farm bill) defined rural areas as any area other than a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 people. Anele (2012), regarded the condition of living in the rural areas is rustic, hard, and sometimes inhuman adding that many rural dwellers are distressed by diseases, starvation, and poverty. He succinctly observed the existence of a dangerous gap in the development levels between urban and rural areas which threatens the social and political stability of a nation. Muoghalu, 1992) defines it as an area known for meagre annual per capita income, lack of access to formal education, malnutrition, liveable housing and various forms of social and political isolation, and pervasive and endemic poverty which is

126

manifested by widespread hunger and poor health compared with their urban counterparts.

Attempting to give a more explicit description of the concept of rural areas, with regards to

Nigeria, Roberts (2014) explained that the term rural is highly abstruse because what is generally described as rural is clearly noticeable even in urban cities in Nigeria. She described rural areas to be made up of places where social infrastructure and houses are concentrated in very small spaces with major parts of the land dominated by pastures, fields, water, forest, desert, and mountain.

Roberts (2014) described rural areas in Nigeria as areas with severe poverty, where up to 80 per cent of the rural dwellers live below poverty line. He added that in spite of Nigeria’s oil wealth and abundant agricultural wherewithal, social services and infrastructure are inadequate; poverty is prevalent and has increasingly grown since the late 1990s. Roberts alleged further that a majority of the areas are ecologically vulnerable and resourcefully poor with very limited infrastructure. Inhabitants have very little or no capital, no land asset, and no jobs besides fishing and farming (Roberts, 2014). According to Abah (2000) the lamentable condition of the rural areas in Nigeria is emphatic. The Nigerian rural population is made up of peasants, and the country’s largest group of unlearned people (Obiukwu, 1992).

Rural areas share common social disabilities: lack of access to public services, environmental vulnerability, premature death resulting from malnutrition poor medical facilities, and persistent local endemic diseases, and constitute nomads, fishermen, small-scale farmers, and pastoralists. These social ills reduce productivity and the quality of the labour force and increase the dependency of deprived womenfolk (Abah, 2000).

3.1.2 Concept of Rural Development

The concept of rural development has been interpreted differently by different schools of thought because of its multi-disciplinary and multidimensional. Among the earliest authors to use the expression was Hunter (1964) who considered rural development as the starting point

127

of development characterized by subsistence. According to Nwobi (2017) rural development is a process which ensures that the standard of living of the people in rural areas is increased and this is measured by health, food and nutrition level, housing, recreation, security, and education. As stated by Egwemi and Odo (2013) rural development is a process of continuous development of rural people to enable them efficiently and effectively employ all their resources (technology, intellect,) to further develop themselves and their resources. In essence rural development is a planned change where rural people are moved from what they are to where they should be. From the foregoing definitions, one resounding element was

‘rural people’. Therefore it is clear that the object of any rural development is centred on rural people. In this research context, Olatunbosun (1973) referred to the rural people as ‘Nigeria’s neglected majority’; Anthoni (1981) described them as ‘the stagnant sector’ in the Nigerian economy; and Ijere (1981) referred to them as ‘the other Nigeria’ with poverty associated characteristics.

In the last two decades, the initial narrow conceptualisation of rural development which expresses economic growth in terms of aggregate economic indicator of GNP has evolved to a wider-based conceptualization of the term as a multifaceted process which integrates the reduction of inequality, structural changes, absolute poverty eradication, acceleration of economic growth institutions and attitudes (Neumeier, 2017). From its conceptualisation the term rural development is therefore all activities that boost people’s abilities and potentials and mobilise them to react to shared needs and problems. It promotes the institutionalisation of rural development agencies that utilise assets to establish social justice improve the standard of living in the community. Additionally it provides for the collaboration of community and other public agencies’ efforts to improve the quality of government. Otigba

(2013) added that it is a strategy designed to raise the socio-economic life of rural people within their communities. He averred that rural development involves a process of planned

128

change where diverse approaches are engaged for the transformation and or improvement of the lives of the rural populace. Similarly, Adelakun (2013) supported Idike’s view point reiterating that rural development is a general process of enhancing the standard of living and economic well-being of people living in sparsely populated and relatively isolated areas and that the process has traditionally focused on the utilization of land-intensive natural resources such as forestry and agriculture. However, he submitted that increased urbanisation and global production network changes have influenced the character of rural areas. Agriculture and resource extraction as key economic drivers have been replaced by niche manufacturers, recreation, and increased tourism (Marsden, 2017).

Raheem Et al. (2014) defined rural development in line with World Bank (1995) as a process that is geared towards rural poverty alleviation through sustained growth in productivity and incomes of rural citizens. This definition, however, appears to dwell majorly on just an aspect of development: economic growth, which renders it defective. Taking into cognizance, the economic growth and social improvement as facets of development, Kovách (2017) explained that the scope of rural development is broad and covers all known factors including maintenance of public law and order, generation of new employment, wide spread improvement in health, nutrition and housing, more equitable access to arable land, equitable distribution of income, creation of incentives and opportunity for saving, credit and investment. Raheem Et al. (2014) reiterated that rural development involves the creation of opportunities, through training; participative decisions making; and activities which directly impact their lives, for the people to realize their full potential. The prominent point in the foregoing definitions therefore is enhancing the living standards of the rural people through the combined efforts of the people and the government.

From a broader perspective, Sam (2014) averred that rural development was the comprehensive overhauling of all economic and social structures, relationships, processes,

129

and institutions in any rural community which integrate equitable access to agricultural land, empowerment in health, equitable distribution of income, a common voice for all rural people, housing and nutrition, and widely spread opportunities for all individuals. Asian

Development Bank (2007) observed that rural societies are uncomplicated, yet the structure and the forces or elements which stimulate their daily lives is complex. Underdevelopment and Poverty are general characteristics of rural settings in developing countries of the world

(Bale, 1999; Warr, 2005). Barrios (2007) described rural development in line with GoP and

WB (2000) to encompass the provision of financial services, and physical and social infrastructure in rural areas, for small and medium scale enterprises in market towns and rural communities that are in close contact with the rural economy rather than the economies of urban cities. He added that rural development also includes the growth of traditional rural sectors, such as natural resource management and agriculture. Barrios (2007) highlighted the key dimensions for facilitating the achievement of rural development to include financial services, social infrastructure, and physical infrastructure, the dynamics of which sets the stage for the betterment of the lives of rural households. The Observation of events linked to such dynamics can aid the measurement of rural development constructs. Omale (2005) observed that rural development was the initiating of a change in the current position of things or situations especially in low populated areas characterized by poor service, are remote from urban areas, and have simple occupations. Tenuche (2005) examines that the development of rural areas involves the mobilization and allocation of locally available resources in the rural areas for the betterment of the lives of the local citizens. Ewuim (2010) however, described rural development in terms of the movement from improving the lives of rural dwellers financially and socio-economically to reducing inequality, unemployment, and poverty among the people thus, making them feel a sense of belonging. It is the integrated approach to the creation of physical, social and institutional infrastructures that is aimed at

130

improving the standards of life of a people in rural areas (Ogeidefa, 2010). Subsequent review attempts to demystify the concept of public policy.

3.1.3 The Concept of Public Policy

Public policy is viewed as government’s definite acts or actions directed towards the discharge of the responsibility of government on its citizens, which include the provision of social and economic infrastructure required to better the lives of the people; and maintenance of law and order (Eminue, 2005; Klaster, Et al. 2017). Public policy is generally formulated around strategies and activities to be adopted for its implementation. It takes the legal form of laws promulgated by a government’s legislative arm, or decisions taken by boards of directors or cabinet members of public institutions or private organisations, or even directives issued by state departments (Miller and Demir, 2006) and constitutes the blueprint of action by government officials which is legally binding, with legally coercive quality, and equally authoritative. This course of action guides the range of linked activities in a given field

(Ippolito, 2010). Public policies infrequently aim to resolve only one problem; rather, they address aggregates of intertwined and long-term problems (Mackay, 2011). Cochran (2014) asserted that public policy guides governments and offers accountability links to citizens.

3.1.4 The Concept of Policy Implementation

The concept of policy implementation encompasses the issuance and enforcement of directives, the allocation and expending of funds, employment of personnel, and mobilisation of citizens for full realization (DeGroff and Cargo, 2009). Policy implementation is concerned with the execution of plans and decisions. It is a fundamental phase of policy process (Uwazuruike, 1991). Implementation is the process of turning policy into action for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the policy (Paudel, 2009). More explicitly, it is the phase, which oversees the execution of the policy as planned and adopted. It involves

131

advancing policy objectives by means of political and administrative steps (Wang and Li,

2015). Across various levels of government, agencies tasked with policy implementation are considered a part of government bureaucracy. In other words, the implementation of economic development policies at rural level is assigned to the economic department at the local government level or the ministry in charge of economic matters at state level. Therefore the relationships between policy implementation and administrative organogram are complex and intractable (DeGroff and Crago, 2009). The system’s unity of purpose and structured chain of command must be respected in the implementation of the policies (Dye, 1972).

Policy implementation sets the operational stage for executing public policies declared by competent authority (Gyampo, 2012). It is the action side of the government. Mbieli (2006) highlighted the significance of the combination of money, material, machine, and humans in the execution of public policy. He further classified implementation agencies into two broad categories: the non-governmental and government agencies. He argued that these agencies are responsible for developing the citizens and for the provision of required goods and services. Similarly Maduabum (2008) relates the significance of policy implementation to the success of any public policy stating that it constitutes the central point of the policy process.

Brynard (2005) It explains that the distinct roles and activities of implementation agencies or organizations involves the identification of policy plans and projects; the provision of details of strategies, coordinating mechanisms, and linkages as well as resources (financial, human, material, acquisition and utilization of information and technology). Additionally, an effective and efficient policy implementation will require the input of sound administrative and managerial capabilities for proper scheduling of activities, rationalization and mobilization of resources, budgeting, network analysis, cost/benefit analysis, decision making, supervision, and problem-solving (Brynard, 2009). Randel (2010) added that, to avoid the occurrence of implementation gaps, policy targets must be set alongside

132

performance standards, time frame, guidelines, and plans. Randel referred to implementation gap as the difference between the actual outcome and expected outcomes from well articulated policy objectives which results from poor or inefficient policy implementation.

However, the chief activity in the policy implementation process is goal setting. Policy makers, mostly in developing countries, involve themselves in the elaborate exercise of setting goals through the creation of structures for planning (Eminue, 2005; Sambo, 2008;

Grindle, 2017). As policy makers engage in planning as a foundation for development but frequently create gaps between the expectations and realization of policy objectives, Makinde

(2005) and Ikelegbe, (2006) observed that, the implementation gap problem emerges when policy originates from government rather than from the target groups. This implies that planning is top-down, and for this reason, target beneficiaries are disallowed their contribution to formulation of policies that impact their lives.

3.2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE IN NIGERIA

3.2.1 Pre-Independence Experience

The Nigerian Government’s involvement in the provision of social-economic infrastructure dates back to 1917 when the colonial government enacted the Township ordinance (Raheem

Et al. 2014). The ordinance which grouped communities within the country into first, second and third class categories of townships had the first class townships (an example being

Lagos) heavily concentrated with infrastructure especially because it was reserved solely for the colonial masters and their workers. They second and third class townships, however, were allocated little, poor or no social infrastructure. In the same vein, roads and railway lines were constructed across selected parts of the country, ostensibly for the development of rural areas.

However, this was not to be the case as the locations of these constructions was selective indicating its exploitative rather than welfaristic purpose. The reason behind the constructions

133

was to ease the tapping and evacuation of the communities’ agricultural products such as cocoa, groundnuts, palm produce and cotton. This demystifies the current pattern of rail system in Nigeria (Raheem Et al. 2014) and in developing countries generally where rail lines only link the hinterlands with the seaports from where the country’s resources are taken overseas.

One notable rural development within this era was the introduction of agricultural mechanisation in the rural areas to increase food production for export and silently for the exploitation of the rural areas. The objective of this ostensible development of the rural areas during this period was secondary (Raheem Et al. 2014). In other words, the motive behind the development was to satisfy foreign needs rather than for genuine rural development purposes.

Accordingly, the few rural developments, which was a focus on agricultural development and productivity, in the rural areas within this period were by chance, rather than planned.

The situation continued until 1952 when the local government councils were established in

Western Nigeria. The Local Government Councils were seen as avenues through which infrastructural facilities could be extended to the rural areas. But then, the fund allocations to the local governments were hardly enough to maintain facilities in the council headquarters.

In fact little or no fund was available to initiate new schemes for rural development. Yet ironically, in spite of the limited benefits of the colonial policies, the investment pattern established during the colonial period was further consolidated by subsequent governments after independence. This is evident in all the development plans initiated since 1960.

3.2.2 Post-Independence Experience

Although, a majority of Nigeria’s post-independence political leaders came from indigenous rural settings, the post-independence era in Nigeria has increasingly experienced a huge concentration of its developmental efforts in the urban sector of the economy rather than the

134

rural economic base (Saheed, 2010; Omorogiuwa, 2014). Over time the ripple effect of the development of urban areas began to emerge. Government’s intervention efforts in rural development then came as a response to lifting urban pressures which emanated from a complete neglect of rural areas (Igbokwe and Ajala, 1995). The resources billed for rural development had been diverted to develop the urban areas, for example, Nigeria’s famous

Cocoa House and her first television station were built in the urban cities with the proceeds from levies and taxes from the rural farmers. This singular action resulted in a dramatic rural- urban influx as it was more convenient and profitable to live in the urban areas than to be

‘extorted’ by the nation in the rural areas. As conjectured by Raheem Et al. (2014) the rural- urban drift significantly grew the population size of the urban areas, thereby resulting in the creation of complex socio-economic problems of housing and unemployment.

However, in the 1970s, renewed effort was geared towards rural development. Unlike the first national development plans (1962-68) and the second national development plans (1970-

74) which were not so keen on rural development, the third national development plan (1975-

80) for the first time highlighted serious concerns, at the national level, for rural development. The plan stressed the need to eliminate regional inequality so as to strengthen national unity by adopting an integrated rural development approach.

The post independence plan period is reviewed under six major eras. The First National

Development Plan Period (1962-68); The Second National Development Plan Period (1970-

74); The third national development plan (1975-80); The Fourth National Development Plan

Period (1981-85);The Rolling Plan Era (1990-1998); and The New Democratic Dispensation

(1999-2010). Subsequently carefully selected policies initiated within these periods that directly impact on rural development are reviewed

135

The First National Development Plan was launched in April 1962 and was to cover a period of six years (1962-68). Under this plan, a total investment expenditure of about N2.132 billion was proposed (See table 1). Out of this, public-sector investment was expected to be about N1.352 billion, while the remaining investment expenditure of N780 million was to be undertaken by the private sector. The full implementation of this development plan was however interrupted by two major political events, namely, the military intervention in 1966 and the 1967-70 civil war. Consequently, the period of the plan was extended to March 31,

1970. These major interruptions notwithstanding, both the Federal Government and regional governments recorded a number of landmark achievements during the development plan period. During the crisis period, the Federal Government alone successfully executed projects like the Oil Refinery in Port Harcourt, the Paper Mill, the Sugar Mill and the Niger Dam (in

Jebba and Bacita respectively), the Niger Bridge, and ports’ extension, while it also constructed a number of trunk ‘A’ roads.

The Second National Development Plan (1970-74): The Second plan was launched shortly after the end of the civil war. The plan attempted to rehabilitate economic activities in the war-affected areas. The plan spelt out five principal national objectives meant to achieve a united, just, strong and self-reliant nation. Some N 2,050.738 billion was allocated as expenditure. Like the First National Development Plan, the Second National Development

Plan also recorded a number of major projects, which were successfully executed by both the federal and state governments. Such projects included the successful construction of many federal roads; the successful take-off of the National Youth Service Corps Scheme; the introduction of federal scholarship and loan schemes for Nigerian students, etc.

The Third National Development Plan (1975-80): The plan covered a five-year period from

April 1975 to March1980. Ayinla (1998) describes this plan as a watershed in the evolution of economic planning in Nigeria. It was a unique development plan because, apart from its

136

huge initial investment of about N30 billion (which was later revised to N43.3 billion), extensive consultations with the private sector of the economy were made in the course of its preparation. The cardinal objectives of this plan were also part of its uniqueness. Such objectives included increase in per capital income during the plan period; more even distribution of income; reduction in the level of unemployment; diversification of the economy; balanced development; and indigenization of economic activities. As laudable as the objectives of this development plan were, the implementation was adversely affected by the change of government in July 1975, barely three months after the plan was launched. In particular, the change of government led to a reappraisal of some of the cardinal objectives as contained in the plan. Here, more emphasis was placed on those projects which were thought to have direct effects on the living standard of the common man. Sectors that were thus given priority included agriculture, water supply, housing and health (Olaniyi, 1998).

Table 6: Summary of the post-independence national development plans total capital expenditure (N Billion)

Plans Period Total expenditure % of Total

First National Development 1962-68 2.132 3.7

Second National Development 1970-74 2.507 5.7

Third National Development 1975-80 30.000 8.6

Fourth National Development 1981-85 82.000 11.4

Source: Adapted from (Olayiwola and Adeleye, 2005)

137

The Fourth National Development Plan, (1981-85) was launched by President Shehu Shagari in 1981 on behalf of the Federal Government and the governments of the then nineteen states of the federal. This was the first plan to be formulated by a democratically elected government under a new constitution based on the presidential system of government. As observed by Ogunjimi (1997), the plan was intended to further the process of establishing a solid base for the long-term economic and social development of Nigeria. Unlike the previous development plans, the fourth plan was the first in which the local governments were made to participate at two levels. One, they participated at the level of preparation, and two, they were allowed to have their own separate programmes under the plan. The capital investment target was N82.2 billion shared between the public and private sectors with the former putting in about N70.5 billion, while the latter put in the balance of N11.7 billion. The Fourth

Development Plan was again affected by the change of government in1983 and by yet another change in 1985. These two changes seriously disrupted the implementation of the programmes of the plan and, consequently, the performance of the economy during the fourth plan period was generally poor. Whatever the case (success or failure), it is interesting to note that between 1945 and 1986; the concept of development planning was a common planning tool for social, economic and sustainable development in Nigeria.

3.3 APPROACHES TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA

The realisation of the significance of rural areas in economic development in Nigeria and the call for a better standard of living for rural citizens who make up a substantial segment of the population led past successive Nigerian governments to issue series of policies and programmes aimed at addressing the deplorable socio – economic problems beleaguering the rural populace. These policies are highlighted below:

138

1) National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP)

The earliest post-independence strategy/policy directly impacting on local government authorities in Nigeria was the NAFPP. Launched in 1972, it was an agricultural scheme initiated to alleviate poverty at the grassroots by encouraging increased food production. It focused on achieving a significant increase in the production of maize, rice, wheat and cassava through subsistence production within a short period of time. It was short lived with the exit of the Gowon administration in 1976 and replaced by the Operation Feed the Nation, a programme launched by the Obasanjo administration. The NAFPP enjoyed some success.

2. Operation Feed the Nation (OFN)

Launched in 1976 by the Obasanjo administration, the OFN was introduced to reawaken the populace, particularly rural dwellers to the advantages of agriculture as an occupation. Within this period, government tried to boost local food production and efficiency in the general performance of the agricultural sector. The Free and Compulsory Primary Education (FCPE) strategy was also introduced at this time to reduce mass illiteracy at the grassroots level. The

OFN worked on the premise that availability of cheap food guarantees a higher nutrition level and invariably leads to national growth and development. Lack of sustenance of agricultural policies, inadequate provision of fertilizers to farmers and over-centralisation of implementation were responsible for the failure of the programme.

3. Green Revolution

Launched in 1980 by the Shagari administration, the Green Revolution was designed to increase food production. Among others, its main objective was to make the country a self- sufficient food producing nation. However the programme failed because the same government began importing rice from America and India on a large-scale (Otoghagua, 1999;

139

Raheem Et al. 2014). This singular act crippled local production and made void the aim of the programme.

4. Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS)

The ACGS was launched to provide rural dwellers and mostly farmers with credit facilities.

To indicate its determination to successfully carry out its plan, the government established and empowered a number of financial institutions to grant credits to rural dwellers at very low interest rates. This was aimed at encouraging high productivity which was hoped would create a strong economy and financial base for the rural populace. However, sadly, within a short time, the planned funds were mismanaged by the banks which eventually liquidated without fulfilling the purpose for which they were established.

5. Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI)

The DFRRI was instituted by the Babangida administration. The main aim of the programme was to improve the quality of life of the majority of rural dwellers (Ekpo and Olaniyi, 1995).

To achieve this, the following objectives were set: 1). to explore the abundant rural resources in the provision of security, and political, socio-cultural, and economic development activities of rural areas; 2). to create a development process for self-sustenance through effectively mobilized mass participation starting with the grass roots. The DFRRI recorded a substantial level of success in its effort to carry Nigeria through a genuine rural development process. It constructed link roads to connect rural communities and rural to urban centres (Raheem Et al.

2014). Also, in 1987, it developed aquaculture, horticulture, and livestock development programmes and recorded huge progress. However, despite all its achievements, subsequent governments did not deem it fit to continue its policies therefore priority misplacement and mismanagement eventually led to its abandonment.

140

6. Structural Adjustment Program (SAP)

In 1986, the SAP was adopted and called for a rapid departure from the government’s previous reform movements. It echoed Clausen’s emphasis on relying on the private sector rather than the state in solving the fundamental problems of the economy. The World Bank supported the program and contributed over US$450 million to aid international trade. The

SAP period produced a severe economic crisis that worsened the living standards of many

Nigerians, especially poor people. In quick reaction to tackle the crisis, the government designed and implemented many poverty alleviation programmes between 1986 and 1993 under the guided deregulation of the economy. For example, establishment of the Directorate of Food, Road and Rural infrastructure (DFRRI) was not only a departure from the previous programmes but complementarily associated basic needs such as food, shelter, potable water and road construction. However, DFRRI could not achieve many of its objectives, as it was over-ambitious scope, steeped in corruption, and had a lack of standards for project harmonization and effective mechanisms for coordination among the three tiers of government (CBN Enugu Zone 1998).

7. Better Life Programme

Introduced in 1986, the Better Life Programme sought to improve the living standards and status of rural women by creating awareness in women to encourage them to realise, utilise and develop their potentials for a more fulfilling life (Adoba, 2005). It was envisioned to redress the continuous rural-urban migration and the impoverishment of those who decide to stay in the rural areas. The project suffered over-dominance of urban women and power play by elitist women. It was short lived with the exit of the then administration.

Several other policies aimed at grassroots development were introduced by successive governments prior to the country’s journey to the current democratic dispensation in May

141

1999. Various regimes, both military and civil, put in place different programmes in an attempt to fight poverty. Among such programmes are the River Basin Development

Authority (RBDA), Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS), Directorate of Foods,

Road and Rural Infrastructure (DIFRRI), National Directorate of Employment (NDE),

Family Support Programme (FSP) and Family Economic and Advancement Programme

(FEAP). The majority of them dissipated without achieving their objectives.

8. Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP)

In 1999, the PAP was introduced to provide employment to 200,000 unemployed youths all over the country. It aimed at improving better attitudes towards a maintenance culture in urban and rural roads and public buildings. However, by 2001 PAP was phased out due to structural inefficiency problems and fused into a newly created National Poverty Eradication

Programme (NAPEP). A further assessment of the performance of NAPEP in the rural areas, again, leaves much to be desired. According to BBC World News programme on ten years of democracy in Nigeria (1 May, 2009), 34 million people lived in poverty in 1999 when

Nigeria returned to democratic rule and this has risen to an alarming and astonishing 74 million within ten years of democratic rule.

The dismal performance and achievements of the NAPEP gave rise to the introduction of the

National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS), known as the State

Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS) at the state level and also called the Local Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (LEEDS) at the local level.

9. The Seven-Point Agenda

142

Introduced in 2007, the Seven-Point Agenda was targeted at achieving seven strategic goals: energy, security of lives and properties, land reforms, human capital development, wealth creation, poverty alleviation, transportation and infrastructural development. The agenda, which appeared to be promising and captured a vast majority of the country’s socio-economic problems, failed to meet its objectives as it was short lived with the death of the president.

10. The Transformation Agenda

The Transformation Agenda was launched in 2011. It was a five-year development plan driven by a team of 28 technocrats under the chairmanship of the president himself and the coordination of a renowned economist, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. The Transformation

Agenda focused on fundamental areas: inclusive and non-inflationary growth, value re- orientation of the citizenry and employment generation and poverty alleviation. The transformation agenda was a wellthought-out policy that had the potential for success especially when considering its following strengths: managed by a world class economic management team, a human, financial and political resource base, and growing institutions of governance, such as the National Assembly, the electoral umpire and the judiciary,

Nevertheless, there are also a number of threats and challenges to the realisation of the

Transformation Agenda. These include: lack of accountability and good governance, lack of synergy between public office holders and political office holders, insecurity and corruption.

Without doubt the objectives of the Transformation Agenda were sure to revamp the ailing socio-economic life of the country if the agenda was given a chance. However, the challenges pointed out have significantly limited the attainment of these laudable, desired ends.

11. The Five-Point Agenda

Elected on 29 May, 2015, President Muhammadu Buhari listed a five-point change agenda which he would implement during his tenure. He pledged to change the nation’s debilitating

143

dependence on crude oil to earn revenue. The five-point agenda is focused on providing mass employment, adequate security, fighting corruption, improving infrastructure and good health care. While the tenets of this agenda look promising, the nation stands with great expectations for a quick delivery of its promises. (See figure 1 in appendix, for a table of strategies and their objectives and limitations.)

While these strategies were formulated to facilitate efficient and effective service delivery at the grassroots, it is clear that certain factors have militated against their successful implementation and hence the poor performance of local government authorities in Nigeria.

3.4 ROLE OF LGAS IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT

The primary goal of any economic development is to improve all human, material and infrastructural resources through effectively mobilizing both material and human resources and by the active participation of the rural populace (Abugu, 2014). Out of the four primary objectives of the1976 Nigerian local government reform earlier discussed, two were aimed at accomplishing the objectives of economic development and entrusted to local governments: to ensure proper development of initiatives and effective delivery of services; and to mobilize material and human elements through the participation of community members in local development.

In view of the foregoing, Olowu (1988) outlined the roles of local government in the process of economic development to include: nation building and political integration; advancement of transparent governance; training in political leadership; and provision of social and economic development. Abugu (2014) however contends that the role of local government in the economic development process is a tripartite function involving: (a).Local governments as instruments of mass mobilization; (b) Local government as catalyst for economic development and; (c) Local government as driving force for socio-economic equity. Abugu

144

believes that not only are these triadic roles of great quintessence but they are a sine-qua non for viable economic development.

3.4.1 LGAs as instrument of mass mobilization

Local government is to freedom what primary schools are to science; they make it accessible to the people; they indoctrinate the people to value its peace and become accustomed to utilizing it. The solidity of a liberalised people is domiciled in the local community. Where there is no local government, a nation may impose on itself a free government but indeed it has not freedom. Ephemeral passion, fleeting interests or opportunistic circumstances may present it with a superficial exterior shape of sovereignty, but the dictatorial proclivities which reside in the interior of the body will sooner than later emerge to the fore

(Tocqvile,1945).

One of the principal purposes of the 1976 Nigerian local government reform was to involve material and human resources, through the mobilisation of members of the public, in community development. Local government is designed to convey the essence of other tributaries of government to the grass root populace, and to equip them for effective economic development. Being the government closest to a vast majority of the people, it is the best institution for mobilizing, motivating and encouraging the people as well as creating the much needed awareness of participative decision making. For example, if a member of the community is effectively motivated by self-interest, local government presents the platform for enhancing such a tendency and palliating it with the interest of others in the community, which leads to a reciprocal relationship of constant well-being. The reciprocal relationship on the other hand results in the citizen expanding areas of cooperation with his neighbours, especially in the smooth running of community activities (Olowu1988). In view of this Deutch (1964) defined mobilization as the movement of a people away from a life of political conservativeness, traditionalism, and local isolation, into a new life of greater

145

involvement in the immeasurable complexities of urban life which includes actual and potential participation in mass politics. Oji (2004) noted that the implication of this is that effective mobilisation would involve: (a) stirring the developmental tendencies within community leaders and followers with a view to making them actively participate in policy formation, evaluation and supervision; (b) the involvement of the people in the right macroeconomic and social policy formation; (c) collaboration of agencies and sectors, support for government at every stage of development projects in the community; (d) all-inclusive communication instrument and systems, community refinement, management of information and education; (e) long term vision of people-oriented development planning and; (f) safe guarding of community asset, economic use of resources and public answerability.

Consequently, Oji (2004) aptly summarised the pros of active community involvement in the developmental process to include; (1) It helps the local government get a much more accurate picture of community priorities and needs; (2) It minimises cost through the mobilization of untapped material and human resources; (3) It makes people understand and appreciate the policies and actions of government at all levels; (4) It contributes to political stability.

Accordingly local government is better placed to put an end to the decaying standard of living of the rural populace in the country; it is better positioned to not only stem the high tide of rural poverty, but to awaken the interest of the people in local participation. This, it can achieve through effective grass root strategies and local institutions. For example the Dasuki report of 1984 authorized every traditional head, as the father of the community, to support and advance the task of mobilizing the people for effective participation in development programmes within their jurisdictions. Consequently, local governments are more able to arouse and garner the support of the local citizenry for effective participation in programmes affecting them through the use of grass roots institutions. Olowu (1988) noted that giving means and power to the people to determine their own affairs would result in empowering

146

them to better realize corporate self- determination under existing political setting and therefore are more likely to appreciate the complexities of governance. Similarly Maddick

(1966) stated that local institutions afford local citizens the opportunity to get involved in local schemes and local decisions within the overall national policies and in the whole to act as centres of initiatives and activities favourable for development.

3.4.2 LGAs as catalyst for rural development

Developmental starting point must begin from local government areas that should mobilise the activation and energizing of productive activities in rural Nigeria thereby reversing the current rural-urban rellocation (Gen Babangida, address to nation, 1st Oct., 1988). Every responsible local institution in Nigeria should prioritise national growth and development.

However it is clear that most local authorities in Nigeria do not have the needed resources to engage any meaningful community development. A vast majority of the population not only live below average but the apparent low income per head hinders economic growth. As a result, the generation of adequate resources for community development projects is difficult.

The concept of social desirability however implies that people and their communities desire to be perceived in the right direction. Local authorities can therefore act as an accelerator for rapid economic growth through effective mobilization. Olowu (1988) supporting this view affirmed that effective local governments can help rural people organize themselves to better manage their resources, minimise waste from rural development projects that results from poor feedback, and non performing bureaucracies. In addition, local governments can help in attracting economic schemes and creating employment in their respective communities. Local institutions are an essential condition for accelerated development which emphasizes improvement in the welfare of the people (Odiong 2003). Similarly Ozor (2002) averred that the grassroots constitutes the basis for viable economic development programs. The active support of the local citizens who constitute the majority of the population of Nigeria is a sine

147

qua non for national economic development. To achieve success in any social and economic development programme, it must be people-oriented and designed to meet the needs of the people at the grassroots.

The realization of the role of local governments as an effective tool for catalysing viable economic growth and development informed the creation rural development programmes such as the Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) which was designed to oversee the creation and maintenance of community roads to ease rural-urban transportation of rural economic resources; the National Agricultural Development Authority

(NALDA); and the Better life for Rural Women. Local government is therefore better positioned to develop the initiative and desires of the people towards economic developmental programmes. Ex Nigerian military president, General Ibrahim Babangida aptly sums this up as: In essence, because of the commitment of the federal republic of

Nigeria to ensuring accelerated development of rural areas, local governments are empowered not just to pay salaries but to mobilise an all inclusive governance, create the employment opportunities, motivate social and economic development, and provide social services which can better the lives of the people.

3.4.3 LGAs as driving force for socio-economic equity

Economic development will be almost impossible in a nation where economic and social inequality thrives. It is the responsibility of local governments therefore, as the closest government to the people to provide an enabling environment which allows for easy conduct of economic activities by the rural populace, thus enabling them generate sufficient resources needed to carry out their civil responsibilities to the government. This is in line with John locks’ social contract theory (Riley, 2006; Abioye, 2011) which states that the failure of a government to secure the natural rights of its citizens or satisfy the best interests of society can cause citizens to withdraw their obligation to obey, or effect the change of leadership

148

through elections or other means. This implies that if and when local governments are planning to mobilize its people towards achieving stated objective, it must make available a secured environment with equal distribution of wealth and respond effectively and favourably to their aspirations. Okoli and Onah (2002) noted that the components of development must be found within society; that all effective transformation and social development begin from within the society, nevertheless, in many instances the foundation of such transition is embedded in the cross generation of initiatives and experiences originating from different social orders.

Olowu (1988) averred this stance by stating that the successful initiation and sponsoring of economic projects by local governments could result in a reduction in social inequality by improving the standards of living of the poor thereby enabling a more active participation in decision making both at the central and local levels. There is no disputing the fact that economic and social injustice partly accounts for the reason for the hitherto massive failure of economic development but it is obvious that in the last three decades, various governments through public policy have not been successful in using the machinery of economic and social justice to sufficiently and operationally equip the entire citizenry for developmental programmes. As Maddick (1966) argued, the achievement of social transformation and of general economic growth requires the distribution of efforts so that individuals and their local communities can participate, to bring under ideal conditions, enthusiasm, energy, and very significantly, local ideas to the operationalisation of local development processes. Okoli and

Onah (2002) summed it up by reaffirming that communities must take responsibility for and stay in charge of their own development but must welcome changes that can improve their conditions.

149

3.5 LGA IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

The successful implementation of any public policy revolves around the willingness of the citizens to participate in ensuring the achievement of set goals (Nwagboso, 2012). Sadly, there is currently a lack of trust for and confidence in the local government systems in

Nigeria (Akkoyunlu, 2015). To achieve success in her policy implementation drive, the current situation in Nigeria warrants that the Federal government and indeed all state and local governments secure the trust of the people in order to facilitate the required level of participation and collaboration that will guarantee the success of the implementation of public policies and very importantly so, the success of the current rural economic development policy tagged NV20:2020 for which this study is focused.

Literature (Onibokun, 1987; Nyagba, 2009; Nwagboso, 2012) asserts that a first major step needed to achieve policy implementation success is to develop policies that respond to the needs of the people. This is expected to ultimately re-establish the confidence and trust of citizens for the system. Citizens who are assured of the government’s efforts to improve their standard of living will willingly involve themselves in activities that are driven to achieve the strategic thrust (Oji, 2004). Efficient public service delivery breeds greater trust and thus increases the possibility of achieving set goals (Megele, 2012). Greater confidence in the government is achieved through this means and citizens are more receptive to vision plans which guarantee their participation in the implementation of the policy (Adeyemi, 2013).

Within the Nigerian context, the Directorate for Food Road and Rural Infrastructure

(DFFRRI) is the lead organization for rural development. By creating DFRRI, government’s intention was to avoid existing bureaucracy in order to achieve a quick and seamless process of the implementation of policies that are aimed at addressing poverty and stagnation in the rural areas. However at the commencement of implementation operations at the DFFRRI, the

150

policies were found to not only struggle with the myriad of complex problems facing the rural areas, but also with the high degree of skepticism and cynicism with which rural citizens perceived government programmes. Therefore government adopted strategies designed to wage an orchestrated and articulated publicity war in a bid to win over the citizens to its integrated rural development programme. The consequences of the implementation of these programmes has been associated with the materialisation of the urban-bias and anti-rural development strategy in Nigeria. It is alleged to have created monopoly power and resource market imperfections which corrupted the pattern of resource allocations. Large-scale capitalist farmers were being favoured above small-scale farmers. The programme is accused of increasing the degree of income and wealth distribution inequality.

Consequently, rural poverty was heightened; an imbalanced economy was created which generated a mutual poisoning process where the poor rural citizens desperately staged revenge by mass relocation into urban areas. This accounted for two major problems: 1) An expansion of urban areas to unmanageable proportions, and 2) An aggravation of the urban unemployment problems and urban food shortage. Thus the problem of urban mass poverty was worsened (Yunusa, 1994).

The DFFRRI`s universal interests brought about severe problems of definition of task and of implementation strategies. Even though, the Directorate perceived its interests as comprising of three broad aspects: infrastructural development, productive activities, and social mobilization, it is however believed that DFRRI’s areas of interests were almost already specific responsibilities of other public agencies (DFRRI / EIRD, 1989).

Nigeria’s implementation considerations for the achievement of the Nigeria vision 20:2020 plan is centred on the following streamlined strategies: First the government intends to translate the objectives and outcomes of the vision into specific projects and programmes to

151

which adequate resources will be allocated; Secondly to strengthen all machinery of government at all levels to ensure that all tiers of government are enabled to execute the projects and programmes contained in the NV20:2020 document; and thirdly to measure and evaluate implementation regularly against goals to ensure the achievement of desired objective.

In addition, according to the 2010 abridged version of the Nigerian Vision 20:2020, further considerations by government for the successful implementation of the NV20:2020 includes: to link NV20:2020 with other government development strategies to ensure that they complement each other; to enable all levels of government monitor and evaluate the projects and programmes being implemented under the Vision; to promulgate the Vision into law; to adequately propagate the projects and programmes in the Vision.

In the main the adopted strategies for the successful implementation of the NV 20:2020 is anchored on two broad requirements: Constitutional and legislative requirement.

A constitutional requirement for the successful implementation of the NV20:2020 is a revision of the federal constitution. With the existence of an allocation framework in place there is provision for a revision of appropriate sections of the federal constitution which address public expenditure and finance for the purpose of achieving an inclusive approach to budgeting processes and a bottom up approach to budgeting. This will mean more flexibility to the provisions of the budget which is a major objective of the amendment of the federal constitution and ensures that the Appropriation act of each tier of government has the same decisive quality as seen in other laws and executable on its own merit.

The legislative requirement for the successful implementation of NV20:2020 are grouped into three categories: 1) The revision of some existing laws that are vital to the achievement of the policy objectives of NV20:2020 and the enforcement of absolute conformity to these

152

laws. For instance: The Land Use Act; The Federal Responsibility Act, (FRA) 2007; The

Public Procurement Act (PPA) 2007; Banking and Other Financial Matters Act (BOFIA); and

The Evidence Act. 2) The enactment of pending laws that aligns with the policy objectives of the Vision. For example: the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill. 3) The enactment of new laws that directly facilitate implementation. For example: Project Implementation Continuity

Act (PICA); NV20:2020 Act; and Development Planning Act (DPA).

These strategies are aimed at providing direction and implementation milestones for the execution of the ostentatious plans presented in the NV20:2020 policy document.

3.5 CONSTRAINTS TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA

Nigerian local government authorities (LGA) are faced with several obstacles which hinder their effective participation in economic building (Oviasuyi Et al. 2010, Abugu, 2014). Extant literature (Chukwuemeka Et al. 2014; Otinche, 2014; Ezeani, 2012; Tumini, 2011) have previously outlined a combination of factors which act as barriers to the effective delivery of

Nigeria local government duties to its people. These barriers include inadequate financial resources, economic and social inequality, general poverty, ‘the Nigeria factor’ etc. Many of these barriers or challenges have been characterised to primarily revolve around the mismanagement of the LGAs structure (the unitary system recognized in the 1999 Federal constitution of Nigeria) which accounts for its inefficiency (Alao Et al. 2015).

First, the difference in population figures between the LGAs is viewed to make the current one-layer arrangement work for LGAs with low population and unsuitable for LGAs with a high population figure, for example, Isin LGA in Kwara state with a population of less than

40,000 may enjoy the benefits of the one-layer structure while this may not be suitable for other LGAs with high population figures, such as Shomolu LGA in Lagos state with a population of around 700,000. When compared with developed systems like USA, France

153

and Britain where multi-layer LGA systems are exclusively designed to cater to specific needs of the local citizenry, Nigeria’s one layer arrangement is inadequate to manage its developmental challenges.

Secondly, the capacity of the LGA system operators are affirmed to be weak and slow to respond to development challenges albeit there was the true intention to perform

(Chukwumeka Et al. 2014). A unitary administrative system does not have the capacity to effectively accommodate the distinctness of each of Nigeria’s local council and this has resulted in the current replication of offices to satisfy the approved structure without cogitation for their needs. In addition, LGAs in Nigeria are faced with the imperiousness of the state government which inadvertently paralysed the autonomy of local authorities (Aina,

2006). This was largely obvious during the democratic eras (1979-1983) and (1999-2015).

The resource allocation to the LGAs from the federal account was too attractive to be disregarded by the state governments. Therefore, using relevant sections of the 1999 federal constitution as they apply to state and local governments as alibi, state governments developed various systems, cynically, to rob the LGAs off their mandate of allotting their own funds (Alao Et al. 2015).

Thirdly, the persistent state governments’ interference in local council elections has ensured that state nominated or the state’s party candidates constantly win the elections. This enables easy manipulation of LGA operatives making them fully answerable to state governors.

Furthermore, the state governments’ introduction of the Joint Allocation Account which forcefully insists that LGA leaders sign letters to reflect their support of the process has raised serious concerns amongst authors as this arrangement erases the fear of litigation (Odo,

2003). LG operatives are mandated to hand in lists of planned projects intended for implementation while the state governments seize the responsibility of awarding contracts.

The issues of unrestricted requests for funds by the state governments from the LGAs and the

154

overly high expectations of the local political force who expect the councils to satisfy them at the expense of communal development (Ovaga, 2009) is also worthy of note. Such situations demand that LGA administrations balance the communities’ expectations with the governor’s demands.

Consequently, insufficient funds are often disbursed by the state government to the LGAs and this often falls short of the amount needed for effective administrative management such as staff salaries etc. This reflects a repetition of the experience of 1983/1984 when LGA staff salaries across the federation remained unpaid for about 10 months necessitating a bail out from the then military regime (Ovaga, 2009). Therefore, as observed by Ugwu (2010), Ezeani

(2012), Ani Et al. (2013) and Chukwumeka Et al. (2014) the local government allocations in

Nigeria, placed side by side the societal needs and constitutionally assigned responsibilities are almost always grossly inadequate.

Over dependence on statutory allocation or federal funds also constitute a challenge to local government administration in Nigeria. LGAs appear to not have the capacity to function effectively without their statutory monthly allocation. Although the 1999 federal constitution clearly stipulates the functions of and sources of revenue for the LGAs, the LGAs don’t effectively tap into these sources to their advantage. The reasons include the hijacking by the state government of all attractive sources of internally generated revenue including tenement rate, large markets, naming of street among others. In addition, the stipulated 10 per cent of the internally generated revenue which is supposed to be remitted by the state government to

LGAs is often not remitted. All these problems to a large extent challenge LGAs capacity to deliver effective service (Ibok, 2014 and Abada, 2007).

Corruption in Nigeria has gone from an evil to a necessity. It has become a tameless multi headed fiend that has strangulated service delivery and democratic values in Nigeria. It is no

155

longer irregular for electoral votes to be traded (Alao Et al. 2015). Aluko (2006), Aina

(2007), Kyenge (2013) and Ejike (2014) identified corruption as one of the biggest obstacles to effective service delivery in Nigerian LGAs. Aina (2007) noted that almost all salaries and additional incomes generated by council positions, whether they are elected or appointed comes through corrupt practices. Bribery and corruption fit into external and internal political conflicts in the LGAs. As a matter of fact, they represent major elements in local government politics (Aina, 2007); manifesting in the forms of dubious fabrication of financial transaction, falsified contracts, collusion with supervisors from the state and inclusion of ghost workers on payrolls. The era of 10 per cent contract award appears to have faded; the current illogical trend is the outright payment for abandoned contracts (Alao Et al. 2015). The biggest challenge in abating corruption in the LGAs is that often the aim is not to apprehend the culprit but to indict political opponents once they relinquish power to settle political scores.

This in no way vindicates such political opponents who might actually be corrupt but the initial intention was not to sanitise the system in the first place. Therefore, the palliative measures are incapacitated to stop the depth of institutional corruption embedded in the LGA system. In effect, this breeds inefficiency, raised transaction costs and limits the potentials of the LGAs. Corruption has become so infectious that it has proven difficult for corrupt practices institutions like The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and

Independent and Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) to record sufficient result in checkmating corrupt practices. Therefore Akanbi (2004) averred that systemic corruption undermines institutions, results in poor governance and restricts development which is the central purpose of the LGAs. In addition, it decays and abrades ethical and social values as noted by Animashaun (2007).

The over politicization of economic growth programmes is another challenge faced by LGAs in Nigeria. The axiom that politics ends with election is only but a careless expression in the

156

Nigerian political circle. Consequently, the intent of allocating projects is often found to be geared towards buying political patronage and not to satisfy the needs of society. This is reflected in the over concentration of economic growth projects in particular communities at the expense of others. For this reason, there is an imbalance in the provision of social welfare and infrastructure across communities in Nigeria. For example while some communities have health centres, clinics and both teaching and state hospitals, other communities without political influence continue to suffer institutional neglect.

The over bloated personnel structure of the LGAs has largely increased their financial burdens. Although arguably creation of employment is an important attribute of a good government. However, employing staffs who were not properly inducted can turn out to be disadvantageous to the LGAs. All states in Nigeria have Local Government Service

Commission tasked with the responsibility, among other functions, of addressing employment problems; however, many employments are found to have a political undertone.

For example, according to LGSC (2015) in 2012 Kwara State declared that there were twelve thousand employees within its local government system, and Ifelodun local government of the state had an employee population of 1009 as at June, 2015. Also in 2010, Okiti Pupa local government revealed it staff strength was 1201; Ondo West had 1123 staffs, and Akoko

South East had 1215 staffs (Ondo State Digest of Local Government Statistics, 2010). Staff strengths like these cannot but be unfavourable to efficient financial resource control as a huge percentage of revenue is spent on overheads. This partly accounts for inability of the

LGAs to pay staff salaries and allowances regularly which necessitated the Federal

Government bailout in July, 2015. When situations like these arise, economic growth projects would naturally become less important.

Recruitment and deployment of staff have also largely been politicised rather than being considered for efficient service delivery in the LG systems. As earlier discussed, the wrong

157

mix of staff will impact negatively on the quality of staff and quality of service delivery

(Kyenge 2013). For example Alao Et al. (2015) observed that Kwara state, since 2000, has been experiencing a high conversion rate of primary and secondary school teachers to

Directors of personnel after it first appoints them into top levels of personnel administration without undergoing any ignoble examinations – an arguably despicable arrangement which is alleged to be favourable to the chairmen because it satisfies their interests.

Scheme of Service, Civil Service Rules, and Financial Instruction are disregarded in such instances in order to satisfy political leaders. Although there may be nothing wrong in such conversion especially where it is merited, however in such cases where candidates are not properly examined to test for rudimentary knowledge in administration before being appointed to head administrative systems it only reflects that political exigencies are considered more important than the sustenance of the system. The consequence of this is that regardless of how efficient civil servants are at their duties, for them to achieve relevance within the institution, they need to identify with the winning political party.

158

CHAPTER FOUR

METHODOLOGY

4.0 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY Research philosophy refers to a researcher’s view of knowledge and the way he addresses knowledge development (Saunders Et al. 2007). Broadly, research philosophy is categorised and associated with a wide range of disciplines – From Positivism to realism, objectivism, subjectivism, interpretivism and pragmatism and many more philosophies amongst which researchers choose to adopt in their research process. However, within the field of business and management research two main contrasting research philosophies - positivism and interpretivism - are adopted (Easterby-smith Et al. 2008).

Healy and Perry (2000) identified two key approaches to research philosophies: Ontology and

Epistemology. They defined ontology as the investigation of truth (reality) which researchers carry out, devoid of social actors and epistemology as the relationship between that truth

(reality) and the researcher. They added that methodology is the technique researchers use to investigate that reality. Simply put, ontology bothers around whether social entities should be perceived as objective (positivist) or subjective (interpretivist) (Saunders Et al. 2009).

The conflict between these two philosophies lies within their individual paradigms.

Positivism is defined as a highly structured approach which permits replication and quantitative analysis which can lead to statistical solutions (Saunders Et al. 2007). The basic assumption in positivistic research is that the researcher and the topic are independent of one another and hence do not have any effect on each other (Remenyi and Williams, 1998).

Interpretivism refers to an approach that takes the position that social phenomenon develops

159

from the perceptions and resultant actions of social actors concerned with their existence

(Saunders Et al. 2009). It rejects the positivist view that meaning resides within the world devoid of consciousness (Collins, 2010). The basic assumption in interpretivist research is that reality (given or socially constructed) can only be accessed through social constructions such as shared meanings, language, consciousness and instruments (Myers, 2008). Thus interpretivism integrates human interest into a study (Saunders Et al. 2009).

According to Ryan Et al. (2002), studies adopting the interpretive paradigm begin with the belief that social systems cannot be treated in the same way natural phenomena is done in positivist research because of their inherent complexity and recursiveness. The approach views the world as a social construct because it believes that the activities of human actors can influence a change in it. It refers to methods that are connected with hermeneutics, ethnography, phenomenology, and case studies (Ryan Et al. 2002). Similarly, the empirical reality in the interpretive approach is interpreted according to what it means to the experiential human actors (Lee, 1991). These meanings, intersubjectively created, are recognised as a fundamental part of the phenomenon studied (Meyers, 2001). Unlike the positivist research, interpretive research is more holistic in its orientation and bases its belief on the premise that social systems have a characteristic wholeness wherefore their individual part should not be studied out of context (Ryan Et al. 2002). Essentially, these holistic characteristics are explained by holistic research methods which try to locate social systems in their practical context (Meyers, 2001). Furthermore contrary to positivist research which generalises from the setting to a population, the intent of the interpretive research is to understand the deeper structure of a phenomenon, which can then be used to inform other settings (Orlikowsky and Baroudi, 1991). Table 7 best illustrates the differences between these two approaches:

Table 7: Differences between Positive Paradigm and Interpretivism Paradigm

160

Positivist Paradigm Interpretivism paradigm

The world is perceived as external and The world is perceived to be socially

objective constructed and subjective

Observer is considered a part of the object of Basic notions Independency of the observer observation

Value-free approach to science Human interests drives science

Focusing on facts

To be focusing on meanings Causalities and fundamental laws are

searched Aiming to understand the meaning of events

Responsibilities of researcher Phenomenon are reduced to the simplest Exploring the totality of each individual case

elements Ideas are developed by induction from data

Hypotheses formulation and testing them

Most suitable research Using several methods in order to different Concepts have to be operationalized methods aspects of phenomena

Small samples are analyzed in a greater Samples have to be large depth or over longer period of time

Source: Easterby-Smith Et al. (2008)

161

The choice between positivism and interpretivism philosophies and the approaches to these philosophies which are ontology and epistemology as described by Healy and Perry (2000) depends on the research area, and the stance of the researcher in relation to the study.

In this study, the author adopts a subjectivism ontology and interpretivism epistemology to the development of its research instrument. The researcher follows Yin (2009) who states that there is no objective reality in case study research. In other words, the social reality in which strategy implementation process takes place must be interpreted by the researcher who also appreciates that the actions of implementers are influenced by how they interpret situations and take actions. It was important for the researcher to understand the organisational culture inherent in the LGAs relating to the implementation strategies employed by the LGAs. The research further relies on information provided by LGA staff members, which are, themselves, based on the staff’s own interpretation of their social reality. Since it is not the intent of this research to develop ‘universal truths’ or generalizable theories, which provide success and /or failure factors for strategy implementation, the research used the interpretation of the particular circumstances of the cases, which themselves offer reasons for success or failure of the implementation efforts, success factors and the degree of success of strategy implementations. The researcher approaches the case study as an opportunity to explore and explain factors influencing strategy implementation performance in a particular context.

4.1 SELECTION AND RATIONALISATION OF THE RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY

The aim of the research is to empirically explore evidence on the interrelationship between organisational culture typologies and the elements of the strategy implementation process to better understand their impact on the comprehensive and effective implementation of strategies. To achieve this aim it was therefore important to gain a substantial understanding

162

of subjective interpretations of reality if a qualitative research was to be conducted. The researcher appreciated that it was important to understand the views of the implementers relating to the implementation strategies employed in their LGAs and to what degree culture inherent in the LGAs affect the process of implementation.

This research adopted Subjectivism as its ontological position because it recognises subjective reality which comes as a result of the involvement of social actors in research process and meaning derivation (Saunders Et al. 2003). Subjectivism provides the researcher the opportunity of making sense of strategic issues and informs the research on strategy processes (Mir and Watson, 2001). It promotes the building of context-specific theories that relates to and employs contextual knowledge and frameworks to advance empirical research

(Von Glaserfield, 1995; Gummesson, 2006). The author considered it vital to interact with implementers to understand their interpretations of the strategy implementation process.

Subjectivism allowed this interaction and the exploration of relevant contextual details embedded in the LGAs. This subjectivist position was also congruent with the Case study approach and the derived research questions to understand details of the strategy implementation process (Yin, 2009). Strategy processes are complex and fluid with a spread over time and space thus further supporting qualitative exploration of socially constructed reality pertaining to strategy implementation (Langley, 2007; Jarzabkowski, 2008).

The Interpretive epistemology adopted stresses that the knowledge of reality is not objective or comparable to law-like generalizations but depends on the beliefs and interpretations of respondents and researchers during the research process (Gummesson, 2003; Denzin and

Lincoln, 2008). This further supports the research aim and emphasises that the study’s theoretical analyses are interpretive renderings of a reality, not objective reportings of it

(Charmaz, 2008). This is in contrast with Positivism and its objective stance which suggests a distance between the researcher and the respondents was considered and found counter-

163

productive for exploration of complexities in the strategy implementation process (Guba and

Lincoln, 1994).

4.2. RESEARCH DESIGN

Research design refers to the logical plan that the researcher adopts to integrate the different aspects of the study in a systematic and coherent way to ensure the research questions are effectively addressed; it comprises the blueprint for data collection and analysis (Trochim, and William, 2006). In this study, the researcher adopts a flexible and exploratory research design - the Qualitative Case Study design (QCS) - to the development of his research instrument. This is informed by the research problem outlined in section 1.3. The Case study research design is a systematic research process that demands rigour and a high degree of depth with prudent attention given to show how the evidence(s) supports the study’s conclusions (Rose, 2015). The chosen research design helped this study in prioritising its research elements, such as its philosophical underpinnings, the research orientation and the nature of the research inquiry towards developing a framework (Bryman, 2008). It was useful in collecting data on the different culture types within the different LGA contexts. Morse

(2011) and Hallberg (2013) emphasise that to further develop the case study research as a comprehensive qualitative methodological approach capable of making valuable contribution to the field of qualitative inquiry, the researcher must demonstrate rigour by sufficiently describing the methodological foundations. However, case studies with insufficient detail to make for easy understanding of the research design, and without justification of key methodological decisions, may likely lack quality or credibility (Yin, 2006). Therefore the following sub-sections expound on the study’s research design and rationale for its methodological decisions.

164

4.2.1 Qualitative case study research design

The Qualitative Case Study is documented as an approach to research that facilitates an empirical inquisition into a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context using multiple sources of data (Yin, 2014). The Case-study research can include single cases or multiple case studies (Yin 2006) and draws from extant theoretical propositions (Baxter and

Jack, 2008) which are not always present but prove to be helpful in sharpening the scope of the study and increasing the feasibility of completing the project as can be noticed in the cases of Baxter, (2000; 2006) and Anastakis Et al. (2002). These propositions form the basis for the study’s theoretical framework (Stake, 1995) which Baxter and Jack, (2008) affirm guides the direction of the research and limits its scope. According to them, ‘the more a study contains specific propositions, the more it will stay within feasible limits’ (p.552).

The Qualitative Case Study research begins with the determination of the ‘case’ or ‘unit of analyses’. Once this is gotten out of the way, the researcher is required to bind the case by placing restrictions on time and place (Creswell, 2003); time and activity (Stake, 1995); and by definition and context (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Binding the case guarantees a reasonable scope within which the study will remain focused (Yin, 2009). This stage is followed by a consideration of the type of case: Exploratory case as seen in the works of

(Joia, 2002); Descriptive case, in the works of (Lotzkar and Bottorff, 2001); Multiple-case study in the case of (Campbell and Ahrens, 1998); Intrinsic case (Hellström, Nolan, and

Lundh, 2005); Instrumental case (Luck, Jackson, and Usher, 2007) and Collective case in

(Scheib, 2003) to be conducted. The overall purpose of the study guides the selection of the specific case study design (Rose, 2015). The researcher then considers conducting between a single case study and a multiple case study. As with any other qualitative research design the data is collected and analysed concurrently. The type of analysis adopted depends on the type

165

of case study engaged. During the data analysis phase the researcher must converge the data to illuminate the case (Baxter and Jack, 2008).

It is apparent from the current state of strategy implementation literature that there is need for more contemporary empirical research to ‘illuminate’ the success of implementation drives in institutions by integrating all the factors necessary for success and highlighting the success- inhibiting elements of the implementation process (Ahmadi Et al. 2012). This research seeks to close that gap by gaining a deeper understanding of how strategy implementation processes are affected by culture and exploring which culture type is linked to implementation success and why.

Yin (2014) emphasizes that a case study approach should be considered when: (a) the study is focused on answering “how” and “why” questions (p.10); (b) the researcher does not have influence over the behaviours of implementers; (c) the researcher wants to cover contextual conditions because of their relevance to the phenomenon under study; and (d) the boundaries between the phenomenon and context, are not clear. These conditions make the case study methodology ideally suitable for this research thesis considering that the study’s objective is to understand ‘how’ culture affects the strategy implementation activities and processes within the different LGA contexts. Moreover, the researcher in this case cannot manipulate the behaviours of those involved in the process of strategy implementation in the LGAs.

The case study research design has been found useful across multiple research disciplines

(Denzin and Lincoln, 2011; Creswell, 2013) and is progressively becoming popular among qualitative researchers (Thomas, 2011). The approach has evolved in published literature over the years and this is attributed to the paradigm, selection of methods and study design with which case study approach is shaped (Hyett Et al. 2014). This evolution and the argument about its credibility and relevance to qualitative research practice, provide that the

166

different perceptions on case study methodology may hinder a consensual understanding of practice and rigour. Nevertheless case study research offers a level of flexibility that is not readily obtainable in other qualitative research approaches such as phenomenology or grounded theory. It is tailored to match the case and satisfy the demands of the research questions; already published case studies have revealed a broad diversity in study design

(Hyett Et al. 2014).

But the inconsistencies in case study’s methodological and philosophical underpinnings raise diverse views and opinions amongst case study researchers (Morse, 2011; Hyett Et al. 2014).

Tight (2010) identified that in an attempt to give their studies qualitative methodology and some respectability, ‘case study’ becomes a convenient name for researchers when they can’t come up with anything better. Gerring (2004) likened the approach to a “curious methodological limbo” (p. 341) and Luck Et al. (2006) compared it to a “paradigmatic bridge” (p. 104), sitting on the edge between constructionist and post positivist interpretations. The approach has been gratuitously undervalued and presented to be weak when compared to other, arguably, more rigorous approaches (Yin, 2009; Tight, 2010;

Flyvbjerg, 2011). But Case study is not a comparative approach to research (N. Hyett Et al.

2014). Its objectives are not statistical and it does not aim towards results that can be generalised across all cases (Thomas, 2011). Its value is better understood from the social constructionist or interpretive viewpoints (Merriam, 2009). A lot of the reported inconsistencies in the approach seemed to have emerged from the tension between the study design and the methodology in many studies (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011; Bronken Et al.

2012) which sadly, has implications for methodological integrity – a value and ethical requirement of the qualitative research tradition (Wager and Kleinert, 2010). Hyett Et al.

(2014) noted that a significant number of case studies they reviewed missed key elements that shape qualitative case study methodology; there were inconsistencies between the studies’

167

methodology, study design, and paradigmatic approach. To create a better awareness of the case study approach, Morse (2011) calls for improvements in publication quality of qualitative research which includes the case study approach. Case study theorists are recommended to follow expert methodological advice and lay out their theoretical framework and methods clearly (Wager and Kleinert, 2010).

A major advantage of this approach is the opportunity it accords researchers to be close to participants, while it enables participants tell their stories (Crabtree and Miller, 1999).

Through these stories, researchers are able to better understand participants’ actions as they describe their views of reality (Lather, 1992; Robottom and Hart, 1993). Given the interpretive position adopted in this research and the nature of the research questions, the case study methodology was considered the most appropriate to drive the research aim. Therefore to ascertain current trends this study grounds its methodology in the works of Yin (2009) and

N. Hyett Et al. (2014). Fig 4.1 presents Yin (2009) general steps in case study research.

Overall, their approaches are considered highly suitable to systematically guide this thesis and answer the research questions particularly regarding the differences in the strategy implementation patterns and the implications of culture in the different LGA contexts. Case study axioms of research propositions, flexibility, set boundaries and systematic data analysis and iterative process are employed in the design of this research.

168

Figure 4.1: General steps in case study design

Research Question

Existing Theory Thematizing the study

Case Selection

Case Study Protocol

Pilot Study

Case 1 Case 2 Case n…. Data collection Data collection Data collection

Case 1 Case 2 Case n…. Data Analysis Data Analysis Data Analysis

Findings and conclusion

Cross-case comparison

Source: Rose Et al. (2015:4)

4.3 RESEARCH APPROACH

Research approach refers to the general perspective adopted by a researcher to conduct the research. It involves the selection of a suitable path of research that is able to build or to test

169

theory about the phenomena under study (Saunders Et al. 2007). Saunders, Et al. (2007) highlight two kinds of research approaches: the deductive approach and the inductive approach. The deductive approach, according to Collins and Hussey (2003) is one in which theories and hypotheses are developed and a research strategy is designed to test the hypothesis. It is the research approach of first choice in the natural sciences where laws present the basis of explanation, allow the anticipation of phenomena, predict their occurrence and therefore permit them to be controlled. Various steps are involved in the deductive approach. Gill and Johnson (2010) pointed out that the deductive approach is concerned with the creation of hypotheses and ideas from literature, followed by testing the hypothesis and using data collected from respondents. Bryman and Bell (2011) identified that on the basis of what is known about a particular domain and of theoretical considerations in relation to that domain, the researcher deduces a hypothesis (or hypotheses) that must be subjected to empirical scrutiny. Embedded within the hypothesis are concepts that will need to be translated into researchable entities. This means that the researcher needs to specify how data can be collected in relation to the concepts that make up the hypothesis.

The Inductive approach is suggested by Trochim Et al. (2011) as involving qualitative and interpretive study. The steps involved in the approach are: collection of data, analysis of the data collected to create a proposition, the propositions created leads to the formation of a model or theory which can then be further tested or modified through further data collection, what Bryman and Bell (2011) call a revision of theory. In summary, the inductive approach is one in which a researcher collects data and develop a theory as a result of the data analysis

(Saunder, Et al. 2007).

Walker (1998) summarised both approaches by referring to deductive approach as being conceptualised and mathematical while the inductive approach is experimental, case study focused and statistical. This is illustrated in table 8

170

Table 8: Types of theory – building research

Deductive/Analytical Inductive/Empirical

Analytical conceptual research Empirical experimental research

Analytical mathematical research Empirical statistical research

Analytical statistical research Empirical case study

Source: Walker (1998)

In selecting an appropriate research approach, researchers must bear in mind the nature of the research topic (Saunders Et al. 2007). From extant literature, this research considers organisational culture as an influencing factor in the process of strategy implementation and its objective was to examine the interrelationships between culture types and the elements of strategy implementation process with the aim to better understand their impact on the comprehensive and effective implementation of strategies. With no intentions to generalise findings or test hypothesis logically this research takes an inductive approach, from observations, Pattern, and Theory as shown in figure 4.2. Accordingly, having relied solely on description from social factors relating to relationships between well developed constructs, it adopted an approach being the most suitable for this kind of study.

Figure 4.2 Inductive Approach: observations, Pattern, and Theory

Summarily the rationale for selecting the inductive paradigm was based on the following considerations identified by Saunders Et al. (2007), but was primarily informed by the need

171

to build theory about the phenomena from empirical data collected within the phenomena’s social context.

- The research aims to explore the meaning of human attachment and gain good

understanding of the research context.

- The research structure required a more flexible approach to allow provisions for

changes during the research.

- The data required was qualitative

- The research findings do not have to be generalised

- The researcher would be a part of the research process.

4.4 RESEARCH STRATEGY

Saunders Et al. (2009) defined research strategy as a researcher’s general plan that shows how he will answer the research questions. Similarly, Bryman (2008) viewed research strategy as “a general orientation to the conduct of research” (p.698). Saunders Et al. (2009) explained that researchers must select suitable research strategies based on: a) their research objectives and research questions; b) the degree of existing knowledge available on the subject area under study; c) the amount of resources and time available to them and d) the philosophical underpinnings of the researcher. Yin (2003) acknowledged the existence of different research strategies researchers can employ for many different types of research although he argues that there are large overlaps among them therefore it is important for researchers to select the strategy with the most advantages for a particular research. Some of the common research strategies used in business and management research include: experiment, action research, survey, case study, ethnography, grounded theory, longitudinal studies, archival research, cross sectional studies, and participative enquiry (Easterby-Smith

Et al. 2008; Collis and Hussey, 2009; Saunders Et al. 2009). From these research strategies, the researcher adopts the case study research strategy as the most suitable strategy for this

172

research after considering all the aforementioned strategies. Following sections briefly describe the case study strategy and justify its preference as opposed to other strategies.

4.4.1 Case study research strategy

Case study research strategy refers to an “empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2003: p.13). This definition uncovers a range of case study characteristics worthy of consideration. Firstly, we recognise that there usually is not a clear distinction between the phenomenon and the context in real-life contexts. Secondly case study deals with distinctive situations and relies on multiple sources of evidence while benefitting from theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis. According to Yin (2003) the case study research strategy is the most suitable research strategy when a clear distinction cannot be readily made between the phenomenon and the context. But Dul and Hak (2008) argue that Yin’s definition excludes one major case study characteristic which is the use of a single case or a small number of cases. Therefore they defined case study as a strategy which selects and studies a single case or a small number of cases in their real life contexts and information obtained from these cases are analysed in a qualitative manner (Dul and Hak, 2008). To give further credence to and fully cover the scope of case study strategy, Collis and Hussey (2009) rendered their definition of case study as a methodology which uses a variety of methods to gain in-depth knowledge during the exploration of phenomenon in its natural setting. This definition elucidates case study’s ability to accommodate different research techniques and its use to obtain in-depth knowledge with regard to a particular phenomenon. Yin (2003) and Gerring, (2007) further explained that case study strategy can also accommodate both qualitative and quantitative data therefore offering the researcher access to a rich mix of data for the study. Whilst case study research strategy seems to present these many advantages to a research study it is not

173

without criticism. It has been criticised for its bias, lack of rigor and difficulty to generalise

(Yin, 2003). However Fellows and Liu (2008) propose that the quality of a case study can be enhanced when four common tests are followed - construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability.

4.4.2 Rationale for selecting Case Study Research Strategy

The rationale for selecting the case study research strategy was based on the following considerations:

A) Yin (2003) recommends that case study strategy is preferred when the research questions take the form of “how” and “why”. Accordingly this research thesis was developed to answer the following question: How does the current typology of organisational culture adopted by the researched LGAs influence the core elements of their strategy implementation process. It is clear that these research question predominantly consist of ‘how’ type of research question thereby favouring a case study research.

B) Susan (2015) noted that case study research is gaining acceptance within different areas of management research especially where generalisability is not of high importance and the focus is on a specific situation or context, for example in describing the implementation of a programme or policy. The situation under study in the current research is implementation of strategies. According to Rose (2015) the likes of Mintzberg and McHugh (1985) who studied

- Strategy formulation in an adhocracy; Wilson Et al. (2002) who studied Success factors in implementing customer relationship management systems and Olsson Et al. (2008) who studied Client–vendor relationships in two-stage off-shoring have all successfully applied case study strategy to their studies, suggesting the suitability of the method in studies involving implementation of programmes and /or processes.

174

C) Based on the researcher’s philosophical views, the research was channelled along the philosophical viewpoint of an interpretivist which meant that the nature of the research questions was positioned towards subjectivism. Although the positivist approach can be used to conduct case study research (Rezgui and Miles, 2010), case studies are often associated with interpretivism (Sexton and Barrett, 2003). Furthermore, Sexton’s (2007) study where he plotted a range of research strategies on a variety of epistemology and ontology spectrums establishes that case study research was compatible with the philosophical stance of interpretivism.

Perhaps Grounded theory can be identified as the next best alternative for this research, because of the type of research questions asked. However, this research sought to explore phenomena in a real-life context and examine how the issues with regard to organisational culture affect the process of implementing strategies. Therefore, it was not purely attempting to generate theory out of data, but also sought to apply existing theory to strategy implementation and organisational culture in Nigerian LGAs. Hence, grounded theory was deemed less suitable, when compared to the case study strategy.

4.5 RESEARCH METHOD

Research methods, simply put, refer to the ways by which researchers gather information.

The three most common methods of information gathering in research include: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). Merriam (2009) provides that qualitative research methods are methods used by researchers who are interested in gaining in-depth understanding of how humans view their world and the socially constructed meanings they attach to experiences they have in the world. Emphasising a more epistemological position, Parkinson and Drislane (2011) rendered their definition of qualitative research methods as methods which end in a narrative or descriptive account of a

175

setting or practice and typically adopt a form of interpretivist sociology. While none of these definitions is of any less importance, the author finds Nkwi Et al. (2001) definition simpler more outcome-oriented, and particularly useful within the context of applied research, they defined qualitative research method as any research method which use data that do not indicate ordinal values. This definition avoids the generalization and divaricated positioning of qualitative research with respect to its quantitative counterpart, allows for the miscellany of epistemological and theoretical frameworks that are linked with qualitative research and permits the use of different kinds of data collection and analysis techniques. Bryman and Bell

(2005) define quantitative methods of research as methods which entail the collection of numerical data through experimentation or survey strategy and offers high levels of precision in measurement with equally significant statistical power, and high levels of data reliability

(Metveev, 2002). The mixed method generally involves the collection of data using a blend of both quantitative and qualitative methods.

In order to maximally utilize the more exploratory, inductive and flexible methodological procedure of the qualitative research which is vital for meeting the objectives of this research, the empirical data gathered herein is analyzed using descriptive (qualitative) analysis procedure. Therefore, the research adopts a case study research method and adopts semi structured interviews as its data collection technique along with descriptive data analysis procedures in the form of qualitative content analysis. Subsequent subsections elaborate on the research’s data collection method.

Being an inductive study, this research followed the inductive approach where empirical generalisations are developed and preliminary relationships between the phenomena are identified as the research progresses. This was aptly achieved by a qualitative analysis of the data using qualitative content analysis which enabled the author to infer the core meanings,

176

directions and strengths of relationships between organisational culture and the implementation of strategies.

4.5.1. Data Collection Method

This study adopts a qualitative data collection technique. Easterby-Smith Et al. (2002) defined qualitative techniques as a range of interpretative techniques which seek to provide a depth of understanding of meanings, not frequency, by decoding, translating and describing naturally occurring phenomenon in the social world. Typically, in qualitative studies interviews, observation and case studies are generally used for data collection. Polonsky and

Waller (2005) categorize images, visions, printed and spoken words, recorded sounds as well as forms and structures in various media as data collection methods.

In this research, semi structured interviews as a qualitative data collection technique was selected as data collection method. Patton (2002) argues that qualitative data collection techniques are time consuming and unnecessarily rigorous for both the respondents and the researcher. Silverman (2000) believes that the qualitative researcher’s philosophical stance often affects the level of interaction, flexibility and reflexivity during the data collection process However, because of their in-depth, multi-sided approach, qualitative methods often provide opportunities to understand aspects of human behaviour and thinking that would otherwise be impractical or unethical to study using other methods. It is recognised that research which only considers measurable aspects of human behaviour will not likely offer insights into the subjective dimension of human experience which is vital to qualitative researchers.

The rationale for selecting semi structured interviews as data collection method by this research was firstly because the social constructionist and interpretive position adopted required that the researcher engaged more interaction with the respondents which helped in

177

understanding their interpretations of the reality of strategy implementation and the creation of socially constructed knowledge through data driven interpretations (Flick, 2009). Secondly considering the complexity of the phenomenon and the population under study, semi structured interview was found suitable to understand the central meanings respondents attach to the social reality they experience. The next subsection describes this in detail.

4.5.2. Semi-structured interviews

Interviews are a popular method of data collection within qualitative research and this is attributed to their ability to facilitate detailed explorations (Descombe, 2003; Sheard, 2011).

In response to why interview data is preferred, Sheard (2011:623) responds that “In-depth interviews represent one of the best possible ways in which to access experiences, thoughts, and opinions”. This research therefore chose interviews instead of other qualitative methods, such as focus groups or participant observation, as it was felt to be the greatest way of mining the richness and depth needed. Bryman (2008) highlights three different types of interviews typically used in qualitative research, namely: structured, unstructured and semi-structured interviews. This research adopts the semi-structured interviews as its method of data collection and preferred it over structured or un-structured interviews due to a) the level of flexibility it offers during the interview process; b) its ability to allow the emergence of contextual issues devoid of the researcher’s bias or pre-conceived ideas; and c) its realisation that respondents may perceive realities differently and its provision for them to justify why they think in the way they do (Bryman and Teevan, 2005; Berg, 2007).

A total of sixty in-depth interviews were conducted by the researcher with forty-two respondents. Multiple interviews were conducted on respondents to gain an in-depth exploration of complex and interrelated implementation and culture issues which demand lengthy discussions. Out of the forty-two respondents only four chose to have one long interview session with occasional time breaks. The researcher finds short multiple interviews

178

particularly beneficial as this reduced the rate of respondent-tiredness especially because each session was earmarked for forty minutes. Additionally it gave the researcher huge data for a detailed exploration.

4.5.3. Conducting the interviews

To successfully conduct the interviews without hitches, an interview guide with open ended questions was necessary to establish details of the implementation process, the organisational culture within the LGA context, and the relationship between the two towards building a model for enhancing efficient service delivery (Easterby-Smith Et al. 2008). The interview questions, broken into three parts, were targeted at exploring past and current implementation activities – how it’s done and why it’s done that way- and the link to organisational culture to fully understand the impact of one on the other. Certain earmarked questions were specifically asked to generate examples and reasons for past and present implementation success and/or failure. The interviews were all conducted in English as this was very comfortable for all respondents especially because Nigeria adopts English as her official language.

The open ended questions were useful for deep probing into the lived experiences of respondents with regards to the activities involved in the implementation process and how their organisational culture has influenced it. Bernard (1995) highlights that the key to successful interviewing is learning how to probe effectively, that is, to stimulate an informant to produce more information without injecting yourself so much into the interaction that you only get a reflection of yourself in the data. Based on the questions asked respondents gave retrospective accounts of strategy implementation and this helped in discovering details of implementation process that has good potential for conceptualisation (Langley, 1999). See table 4.3 in Appendix for illustrations of the interview guide used for the research:

179

The interview opened with an exchange of brief introduction between respondents and researcher and this was quickly followed by an explanation of the purpose and focus of the research. Rapport building efforts were made by the researcher through informal chatting to keep respondents at ease with interview focus and interview settings (Patton, 2002).

Respondents were briefed that the interviews were aimed at open and candid discussions hence no cosmetic statements were needed. They were intimated that the research was essentially an academic type research but targeted at capturing the reality of strategy implementation issues in LGAs; this helped establish confidence in the respondents for greater openness in their discussions. The snowballing technique adopted to gain access was also useful in developing personal trust in the respondents which led to open dialogue during the data collection process; it came in handy during the investigation of sensitive issues. Data was collected using digital audio recording with explicit consent from respondent (Silverman,

1998). Respondents were assured of their anonymity and of data confidentiality to ensure candid responses (Patton, 1990).

The interview questions were drawn in line with the interpretivist philosophical stance of the research which allows for clearer explanations and understanding for the respondents and the researcher respectively (Silverman, 2004) - an approach which rejects the positivist stance of pure, fly-on-the-wall type interviews. Respondents were encouraged to give detailed explanations of their opinions, understandings and accounts of events and once they got comfortable with the flow and direction of questions, they began speaking with fervour and the sessions became an exhilarating learning experience for both the researcher and the respondents themselves. Respondents’ bias was however minimized by allowing them elaborate in detail on issues raised before the researcher makes any further probes

(Silverman, 1998).

180

Probe techniques used by the researcher were ‘Echo Probe’, ‘Silent Probe’ and the ‘Uh-huh’

Probe to encourage respondents to continue with their narrative. It was imperative to not lead the respondents on to ensure that the reality of phenomena was captured from the view points of the respondents (Easterby-Smith Et al. 2008). The use of ‘How’ and ‘Why’ questions facilitated greater levels of explanations and understandings of complex strategy implementation process issues within the LGA.

All through the interview sessions, the researcher‘s tone of voice was kept neutral not approving or disapproving respondents’ opinions which allowed the respondents to freely give detailed information even on sensitive issues. This active interaction type is argued to be a major strength of the research design adopted (Yin, 2009). Further data was collected as data analysis, which was done simultaneously with data collection, revealed different emerging themes, for example, party programming as a hindering factor in the implementation process.

4.5.4. Pilot study and vital lessons learned

As the research progressed it became imperative to conduct a pilot study before embarking on a full-scale research. This became necessary to understand the appropriateness of the research approach and data collection method. It also helped appropriate how much time would be needed for in-depth interviewing during the full scale research. A pilot interview was conducted with twelve local government staff which consisted of two top management staff, seven middle management staff and three lower cadre staff. The pilot interviews ascertained the suitability of the research approach and data collection method adopted (De Vaus, 1993;

Baker, 1994). The researcher knew one of the respondents from previous professional contacts and other respondents were contacted through snowballing technique. Each pilot interview generated very candid and thorough discussion and lasted for up to sixty minutes.

181

The pilot study informed various modifications to the interview questions and arrangements.

Some changes which the researcher found necessary to make include: a) to make the questions non prescriptive and free of business terminologies to ensure that respondents are clear of all the terms used. b) to include separate questions to cater to discussions on culture and implementation separately; c) to add open ended questions seeking respondents’ viewpoint on their thoughts about what should or should not be included or removed from the current implementation process to achieve desired results. Additionally, the pilot study revealed that respondents were not conversant with the classifications of organisational culture and thus did not know how to classify the type of organisational culture existent in their LGAs. This was noted and addressed in the full scale research.

It also emerged that for a detailed discussion of strategy implementation, a minimum of two and a half hours per respondent was needed to provide a good understanding of the complexities in the implementation processes (Holliday, 2007). This meant that the interviews had to be conducted multiple times with short time sessions. The researcher found that discussing implementation failures with some respondents was a bit difficult as they were sceptical to hold such discussions within the office premises. Such discussions were kept for subsequent interviews where such respondents were invited to cosy restaurants for the interviews. The same practice was later adopted for the full scale research. The expenses were borne by the researcher.

4.6 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Qualitative data analysis is an iterative and reflexive process that begins as data are being collected rather than after data collection has ceased (Graue, 2015; Chowdhury, 2015).

“Qualitative analysis transforms data into findings. No formula exists for that transformation.

Guidance, yes. But no recipe. Direction can and will be offered, but the final destination

182

remains unique for each inquirer, known only when—and if—arrived at” Patton (2002:432).

This process of analysing the data and interpreting them continues throughout the project

(Chowdhury, 2015), a process Sinkovics and Alfoldi (2012) referred to as progressive focusing. The analyst adjusts the data collection process itself when it begins to appear that additional concepts need to be investigated or new relationships explored (Engel and Schutt,

2012). This iterative cycling of data and emerging theory is important to refine the research focus.

In the words of Miller and Crabtree (1999b) “Interpretation is a complex and dynamic craft, with as much creative artistry as technical exactitude, and it requires an abundance of patient plodding, fortitude, and discipline. There are many changing rhythms; multiple steps; moments of jubilation, revelation, and exasperation. . . . The dance of interpretation is a dance for two, but those two are often multiple and frequently changing, and there is always an audience, even if it is not always visible. The two dancers are the interpreters and the texts”. (pp. 138–139). The qualitative data can be interpreted during analysis in two ways: a) as an understudy for experience; or b) as an object of analysis (Ryan and Bernard, 2000, p.

771).

This research considered the interview data as an understudy for strategy implementation experiences in the LGAs. It found hermeneutics, semiotics or Conversation analysis non suitable for this research (Flick, 2009) and notes that to make the research transparent and trustworthy, it is important for the interpretive data analysis approaches to be rigorous and detailed (Mir and Watson, 2001). Therefore the data analysis done during the pilot study and the full-scale data collection realigned the focus of the research and led to refinements in data collection thus both processes of collection and analysis took place iteratively, enabling the research give a rigorous probe into the phenomenon. However, due to the fact that data analysis continued for much longer than data collection and as per common practice its

183

discussion follows data collection (Myers, 2009). Following Silverman (2013) critique of interpretations of data in qualitative research, especially data collected via interviews this research recognises the importance of the sequential organization of actions (including conversation) and interprets the data not just as a set of interviewee responses but as an analytical project different from journalism (Silverman, 2013).

4.6.1 Qualitative Content Analysis

Qualitative content analysis is one of two types of content analysis methods (Qualitative and

Quantitative) used by qualitative researchers for analyzing data and interpreting its meaning through an inductive approach (Schreier, 2012). It is defined as “a research method for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005: p.1278). It is a generic form of data analysis in that it is comprised of an atheoretical set of techniques which can be used in any qualitative inquiry in which the informational content of the data is relevant. Qualitative content analysis stands in contrast to methods that, rather than focusing on the informational content of the data, bring to bear theoretical perspectives (Forman and

Damschroder, 2008). It is more than merely counting words or extracting objective content from texts to examine meanings, themes and patterns that may be present and latent to a particular text. It allows researchers to understand social reality in a subjective but scientific manner. It is suitable for examining data that is the product of open-ended data collection techniques aimed at detail and depth, rather than measurement (Forman and Damschroder,

2008).

However, as an analytical research method, qualitative content analysis has suffered a paucity of research publications to support the quality of its findings (Elo Et al. 2014). Critiques argue that while its quantitative counterpart has enjoyed several publications on its validity and reliability (Neuendorf, 2011; Rourke and Anderson, 2004) the same cannot be said of

184

qualitative content analysis; the trustworthiness of its use has not yet been systematically evaluated (Elo Et al. 2014). Schreier (2012) however, argued that qualitative content analysis in itself is a systematic process because it takes into account all relevant materials; its sequential in its steps during the analysis, and consistency is ensured during coding. Elo Et al. (2014) finally agreed that if all stages of the process (preparation, organization, and reporting) are comprehensively documented then its trustworthiness criteria will be greatly increased. Despite these criticisms, however, qualitative content analysis has remained popular amongst researchers as it addresses some of the weaknesses of the quantitative approach.

This research finds the qualitative content analysis suitable for its case study data. It finds that the qualitative content analysis is exploratory in process, and predictive or inferential in intent

(Krippendorff, 2004). Elo and Kyngäs (2008) highlight its ability to reduce data to concepts which is useful for describing the research phenomenon (Shannon, 2005) by creating models or conceptual systems (Morgan, 1993). This exploratory and inferential nature of qualitative content analysis alongside its ability to create conceptual models to describe phenomenon made it suitable to use for the case study data in this research thesis. Moreover, because of the depth of interaction between the researcher and the respondents, the case study strategy adopted by this thesis provided an unexpectedly rich text suitable for qualitative content analysis. In contrast, quantitative content analysis was found positivistic and quantitative thus was not considered suitable for this research’s exploratory and qualitative research design

(Bryman, 2008). In analyzing the case study, the aim was to identify themes relating to organisational culture and strategy implementation qualitatively thus, the report does not apply any quantitative techniques such as analysis of frequencies to the data.

Generally, qualitative content analysis uses non frequency indicators unlike its quantitative counterpart (Krippendorff and Bock, 2009). It entails the use of codes to uncover important

185

concepts, and the use of relevant information and quotes to contextualise in a bid to provide

answers to specific research questions. It begins with a preparation of the data

(recording/coding), followed by a definition of the unit of analysis (unitizing) then

developing categories and a coding scheme, testing the coding scheme on a sample of text,

coding all the texts, checking for coding consistency and finally reporting the methods and

findings. For this research thesis, Table 4.4 provides an overview of the recording/coding

and unitizing used in this research as drawn from Krippendorff (2004).

Table4.4: An overview of preparation of data stage of this research as drawn from

Krippendorff (2004): Unitizing and Recording/coding

S.no Content Analysis Concept As used in this research

1 Unitizing

- Sampling units  Local Government Authorities in

Nigeria: Research is focused on

strategy implementation processes

and process issues in relation to

organisational culture.

- Contextual units

 Words, Sentences, and phrases that

reflect the context of interviewee - Definition of units discussion.

 Thematic distinctions in line with

186

the Research questions.

2 Recording/ Coding

- Recording  Preparing for audio recording

 Transcribing interviewee

verbalisations and audible

behaviour (Schilling, 2006)

 Deletion of audio files

 Storage of coded transcripts in - Coding computer database

 Administrative records

 Developed coding manual (Weber,

1990)

 Following Tesch (1990) texts are - Inter-coder reliability coded systematically and assigned

to more than one category.

 Attention to manifest and implied

meanings in data

 Independent coder used

(Krippendorff, 2004)

 Non-frequency indicators

considered.

187

(1) Unitizing

Unitizing is defined as a process of systematically differentiating segments of texts, voices, images and other observables found relevant for analysis (Krippendorff, 2004). Each of these segments is called a unit of analysis which is analysable as an independent element. Different units of analysis can be used by content analysts: sampling units, recording/ coding units, and context units. This section discusses each of these units as used by this research.

Krippendorff (2004) defined sampling units as units that are carefully selected for inclusion in an analysis. These should be independent of each other to enable a thorough and in-depth analysis of social situations (Duriau Et al. 2007).

Six local government authorities (LGAs) are considered by this research as sampling units for it qualitative content analysis. The researcher ensured that the current dynamics of strategy implementation process and the process related issues with regards to organisational culture were analysed for each LGA collectively. However, using the LGAs themselves as sampling units allowed for easy organization of data for each LGA independently. The constant comparative design encouraged by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and adopted by this thesis required that data obtained from the exploration of strategy implementation in each sampling unit were not connected thereby removing researcher’s bias from the interpretations. Also it was useful in ensuring that all relevant data was usable without any omissions.

Krippendorff (2004) referred to context units as units of a textual nature (words, sentences or paragraphs) that define the bounds on the information to be included in the description of recording units and unlike sample units, data gathered from recording units may overlap as they provide the context of different issues. Krippendorff acknowledged that the sentence for

188

recording of codes is the minimum contextual boundary but argued that in many instances a paragraph or a collection of sentences may be needed for a clear understanding of the context of those codes. Since it was important to understand the complexities of the strategy implementation process as different issues were interlinked, this research thesis preferred the collection of sentences as the contextual units in its data analysis. Also it became apparent during the data collection process that respondents were quick to disseminate information related to strategy implementation success but contextualise their interpretations of the implications of organisational culture types in view of how implementation activities were carried out in their respective LGAs. Therefore the research found that using words or a single sentence as contextual unit proved difficult to provide the contextual details necessary for the analysis. Consequently, a collection of sentences was found appropriate for its coding and categorization and since the contextual unit was large enough, it was meaningful and feasible thus adding to the research’s validity and reliability (Krippendorff, 2004).

Krippendorff (2009) stated that the objectives of any qualitative research determine the research’s units of analysis. For this research, thematic distinctions were used for unitizing of recording units in line with its research objectives. The researcher did not preconceive any distinction; rather the distinctions were allowed to emerge from the data. Each research question presented a framework for analysing processual strategy implementation and its relationship with organisational culture in each LGA. The researcher found that many issues were strewn within the data therefore the search for their interrelationship was vital for validating the analytical value in this case study analysis of strategy implementation.

Each contextual unit contained information about respondents’ interpretations of the dynamics of strategy implementation and how it is affected by organisational culture. The ease of coding and categorisation however came from the researcher’s understanding and

189

familiarity with respondents’ nuances. The research’s use of respondent‘s quotes for coding draws from Krippendorff’s (2004) suggestions for qualitative content analysis.

(2) Recording

Ritchie Et al. (2003) stated that it can be overwhelming for researchers to efficiently deal with large volumes of data, therefore it is important to organise their raw data into manageable sizes for data analysis. This is also considered important to make the results readily analyzable (Krippendorff, 2004). Krippendorff (2004) define recording as what takes place when readers, analysts, observers, or researchers interpret what they find, read or see and then state their experiences in the formal terms of an analysis. Recording, therefore, presents a methodological way of arranging the data into an analysable format. To ensure proper recording for this research, the research developed a recording manual with the following guiding instructions to make sure that information were completely recorded and subsequently fully coded: researcher must a) fully transcribe interview audio recordings in

English; b) ensure recorded data is devoid of researcher’s bias; c) ensure data is recorded in a way to facilitate its analysis, qualitatively; d) ensure the recording, transcribing and analysis is done by researcher himself; e) engage an additional independent coder to ensure inter- coder reliability; f) develop computer database to securely keep interview transcripts, researcher’s notes and any related documents; g) delete interview audio files once verbatim transcription is completed to keep respondents’ anonymity.

The audio recordings for this research lasted approximately one hundred and three hours in total. Transcribing the data was a dreary and time-consuming task yet it was a very vital process as verbatim transcriptions of data provide rigour to data analysis and validity to qualitative research (Morrison-Beedy Et al. 2001; Whittemore Et al. 2001). The transcripts aided a good level of familiarization with the data and enabled theoretical sampling and

190

constant comparison based on emerging strategy implementation issues in the different contexts. The transcribed text files were saved in a computer database and pass-worded for data confidentiality and respondents’ anonymity. Each file was saved under the sobriquet of each LGA and each respondent for easy access. The database was constantly updated with fresh files as the research proceeded with coding and categorisation. For ease of search and analysis separate folders were maintained for each LGA. The audio flies were subsequently deleted.

The initial list of coding categories on which the research inquiry was based was derived from three sources: the data, previous related studies, and theories. However the list was modified as the analysis progressed and new categories emerged inductively (Miles and

Huberman, 1994). This list alongside the researcher’s social sensitivity and cognitive familiarity with Nigeria facilitated the coding of strategy implementation issues and other issues as they emerged in the LGAs. The recording manual was followed religiously because it was necessary to record information correctly. Serial numbers were allotted where multiple interviews were conducted with respondent. The different codes and their corresponding quotes from respondents were also given serial numbers. For example, the interviews were numbered from 1A to 6F in each of the LGAs; multiple interviews were given 1.0A to 6.0F while the LGAs were numbered 1 to 6. This made it easy to work with the large chunk of data available and concurrently keep tab of issues.

Each research question, sample unit and respondent quote was allocated a separate master file. Also each LGA had a distinct record which allowed for reliable comparisons to be made with regards to the way respondents interpreted different implementation issues. These files were safely kept throughout the coding process as comparisons were done regularly between with emerging theoretical concepts and further data collected.

191

(3) The Coding and Categorisation

Richards and Morse (2007) defined coding as a process that leads the researcher from the data to the idea and from the idea to all the data pertaining to that idea. In other words it is the transitional process between data collection and more extensive data analysis. Charmaz’s

(2006:45) metaphors simply put it as the process that “generates the bones of your analysis.… Integration will assemble those bones into a working skeleton”. To codify means to apply and reapply codes to qualitative data – a process that allows the segregation, grouping, regrouping and re-linking of data in order to integrate meaning and explanation

(Grbich, 2007). Codes are often words or short phrases that symbolically assign a summative or salient attribute for a portion of language based or visual data (Saldana, 2008). Sipe and

Ghiso (2004) noted that coding is subjective since researchers’ bring their subjectivities, quirks, predispositions and personalities, to the process.

Categorisation is defined as the process of getting up from the heterogeneity of data to the shapes of the data, the sorts of things represented (Richards and Morse, 2007).

Concepts are how researchers move to more abstract constructs (Saldana, 2008). The ability to show how these concepts and codes systematically interrelate ultimately leads to the development of theory.

Different coding schemes are used by qualitative researchers (Saldana, 2008). This researcher adopts the open coding, axial coding and selective coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, 2008;

Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The open coding was done at the initial stage of the research to build concepts using in vivo codes - descriptors used by respondents to explain relevant concepts, dimensions and properties. Subsequently, the axial and selective codes were done to identify the relationships between the open codes and selectively code any data that relates to the core variables identified. In structuring the codes as they emerged from the analytical

192

iterations within the data, the researcher used the research questions as guides (Krippendorff and Bock, 2008). This helped maintain the research focus and organize the codes for easy access. Although the researcher finds that this strategy was tedious and time-consuming, it helped to build detail structured conceptual data model; it allowed the identification of important strategy implementation issues that differ in the different LGA contexts. The coding process allowed the researcher to move from inherent strategy implementation process issues to organisational culture issues and their implication on service delivery. The coding process involved constant comparison and theoretical sampling to analyse the relevant data, emerging theoretical constructs and achieve saturation in coding and categorization.

The subsequent sections expound on the open, axial and selective coding done in this research and cite illustrative examples of each.

(4) The Open Coding

The researcher began the open coding process by reading the interview transcripts. The transcripts were read and re-read line-by-line to generate key concepts related to strategy implementation processes and activities in the LGAs and to ensure saturation of data. This is in line with Glaser and Strauss (1967) who stressed the need for a researcher’s immersion in the data for a rigorous analysis. The open coding was useful for identifying and saturating the current dynamics of the strategy implementation process of each LGA in the data in fulfilment of the requirement of RQ-1; for identifying the organisational culture characteristics of each LGA in RQ-2; and for assessing the relationship between organisational culture types on the strategy implementation process in RQ-3.

The codes were allowed to emerge from the line-by-line reading of each interview and analysed to find the similarities and differences in the strategy implementation process and the role of organisational culture characteristics in the processual strategy implementation in

193

each LGA. Following Strauss and Corbin (1998) Nvivo codes were used as much as possible as the coding unit for analysis and this generally comprised few words (Krippendorff, 2004).

However, where the researcher recognized that single words would not provide a complete description, multiple words was used as the coding units of analysis. Also, where respondents’ sentences offered no such descriptors, the researcher used memos as the open codes.

As the open coding process continued, the researcher progressively searched for and paid close attention to the similarities and homogeneities within the open codes. Very similar open codes were grouped together using a single, identical code. For example, phrases such as:

“clear description of roles”, “clarity of roles and responsibilities” and “well defined job description” were all considered similar codes and as such were identically coded as “clarity of roles and responsibility”. In addition to the codes, the serial number of each interview and the page number for each code were also noted. The open codes helped in the retrieval and the linking back of codes to their specific LGAs during the data analysis. Bryman (2008) concluded that coding is interpretive; therefore the researcher actively engaged in the interpretations of the respondents’ explanations (Bryman, 2008). Table 9 provides the illustrative examples of the open coding:

Table 9: Illustrative examples of the open coding:

Table 9: Illustrative examples of open codes for current dynamics of strategy

implementation (RQ 1)

s.no Respondent’s quote Open codes (Concepts)

(LGA)

194

“…..implementation for us is guided Strategy implementation

by established rules and processes and activities guided LGA6 procedures……since we all know the by established rules and

guidelines it is easy for us to procedures (1.02-pg.3)

successfully execute our planned

initiatives by simply following laid

down procedures…..”

“The nature of the situation on Strategy implementation

ground determines how we address approach is determined by LGA 5 problems here. Sometimes there is nature of the problem (2.06-

just no time to take a long walk pg.8)

before you make a decision or take

action….”

“The public service in this country Favouritism as a behavioural

has only one problem and until it is pattern linked to failure of LGA 2 solved, we will continue to stay strategy implementation

where we are……it is favouritism.” approach (2.09-pg9)

The table 10 provides illustrative examples of the open coding for how organisational culture characteristics affect the core elements of the strategy implementation process

Table 10: Illustrative examples of open codes for impact of organisational culture types

195

on strategy implementation process (RQ2) s.no Respondent’s quote Open codes

(LGA)

LGA 1 “Everyone here is committed because we work Commitment and innovation

as a team … I would say because of the friendly has resulted in high

environment and the encouragement to be performance (3.09-pg12)

innovative, we always have a break through

change.”

LGA 5 “I think above all, so far, our high score in the Flexibility and adaptability has

way we implement policies has been the fact resulted in high performance

that we are flexible on some rules that we (3.10-pg12)

consider too stringent during the process of

implementation, this makes it possible for us to

adapt easily. Our aim is to get the job done in

whatever way we can.”

(5) Categorisation of open codes

Similar to open coding, categories were created by the researcher and consisted of subcategories that linked back to the categories (Vaismoradi Et al. 2016). Categorisation on the one hand is about analyzing the codes for similarities and then grouping the similarities into categories based on their common properties (Strauss and Corbin, 2014). Categories on the other hand are the descriptive level of text and are explicit manifestation of the participants’ account (Vaismoradi Et al. 2016). The open codes generated by the research

196

were initial abstractions of the key concepts identified in participants’ accounts and the researcher ensured that these were comprehensive to capture details of strategy implementation processes, its link with organisational culture types and their implications for service delivery.

Following the successful coding of concepts, the researcher transited from codes to categories by repeatedly reviewing the codes and their associated respondents’ quotes to enable the grouping of similar strategy implementation concepts together. This formed the categories.

For example strategy implementation concepts were categorised together with their particular characteristics based on the respondents’ interpretations of the dynamics of strategy implementation in their LGAs. For the avoidance of missing out some important concepts, which may not appear frequently but are relevant to shed vital light on the phenomena under enquiry (Bryman and Burgess, 1994), the researcher searched for the significance in determining a concept for categorisation rather than counting the number of times they occur

(Braun and Clarke, 2006). The categorization process involved constant comparison of the open codes to compare between respondents’ interpretations of strategy implementation and organisational cultural issues in their individual LGAs and analyse how they differ between the different LGAs. The researcher found this process long and somewhat tedious. The categories are a reflection of the practical complexities associated with strategy implementation processes and the effects of organisational culture types on the implementation process.

The benefits of using the research questions as guides for analysis became highlighted during the categorisation process as the process led to the cataloguing of the different strategy implementation concepts with their dimensions and revealed important differences between the LGAs in terms of their implementation processes. This fulfilled the requirement of RQ-1 which sought to identify the dynamics of strategy implementation in the different LGAs and

197

how they compared amongst each other. The researcher, with intent, enabled the categories to highlight the presence and significance of different concepts to achieve depth in the data analysis and avoid missing out important categories of concepts. The timing issues and path dependence were identified, although they became well pronounced once the categories were linked with each other. The table 11 provides the illustrative examples of the types of categories identified and shows the distinctiveness and similarity of the categories amongst the different LGAs:

Table 11: The illustrative examples of categories identified showing how saturation was achieved using the open codes generated.

S. no Category The open codes Nature of category

(Highlights different sources) (similar or distinctive)

1. Strategy content Policy documentation and

constant updating of policy

manual to ensure uniformity Similar to all six across departments (5.11, pg LGAs 41); Determination of LGA

focus and direction (7.13, pg

28); process involves the

acquisition of requisite

resources (1.17, pg 12);

Integration with legal

198

procedures (8.01, pg 52)

Distinct to some LGAs

Traditional approach to

policy implementation (2.01, Distinct to some

pg 4); LGAs

Dynamic approach to policy

implementation (2.15, pg 6)

2. Allocation of allotment of resources takes

resources time and is usually a difficult Similar to all six LGAs decision to make (2.10, pg

19); Allocation of financial,

personnel, time and computer

system support to the various

department (3.05 pg 25);

Budgetary control (4.24 pg

15)

3. Chain of command Create cross-functional teams Similar to all six LGAs

(6.16, pg 5);

199

4. Assigning By assigning responsibility Similar to all six LGAs

responsibility of specific tasks or processes

to specific individuals or

groups (4.35, pg 12)

5. Process management Monitoring results (4.19, pg Similar to all six LGAs

7); Comparing to

benchmarks and best

practices (5.09, pg 6);

Evaluating the efficacy and

efficiency of the process

(9.00, pg7); Controlling for

variances, make adjustments

where necessary(3.11, pg 6)

(6) Linking Categories and sub-categories

At this stage of the research, emerging concepts within the sub-categories necessitated the need for the researcher to further explore the strategy implementation activities in the different LGAs to identify how they define the similarities and heterogeneity identified in the strategy implementation process in the various LGAs. Langley (2007) and Shanley and

Peteraf (2006) opine that dynamism, interconnectedness, multiple actors and complexity are the hallmark of processual research. From interview data it emerged that implementation activities in the LGAs are shaped by attitudes and beliefs of implementers - a reflection of the organisational culture. This further exploration, therefore enabled the research establish the interconnectedness between strategy implementation activities driven by organisational culture and strategy implementation process with a view to determining how they integrate

200

for effective and efficient service delivery. The strategy implementation activities proved to be interlinked and spread over time to shape the dynamics of the strategy implementation process with different service delivery implications. The open codes categories reveal different characteristics that show implementation activities being crowded together around some key themes in the implementation process.

The interactions between the different categories of strategy implementation process were identified and coded to generate categorical codes (Suddaby, 2006). The coding was done around the ambit of the categories and their processual interactions during the implementation process. However, since it emerged from the data that the differences in implementation activities defined the patterns of implementation process adopted due to their inter-connections (Sminia, 2009), the researcher linked the earlier created categories of the open codes to each other according to their nature in the implementation process. The linking of these categories of important strategy implementation concepts generated a more comprehensive structure of categories and sub-categories. The new categories and subcategories in line with the research questions provided insights into the current strategy implementation activities and strategy implementation process patterns, organisational culture and their implications on service delivery.

The researcher repeatedly searched the data to saturate these emerging sub-categories and their linkages. In the process, specific respondents were re-contacted to obtain further data and ensure that the emerging categories and sub-categories exhaustively dealt with all relevant strategy implementation issues. This theoretical sampling for emerging categories and their interactions was important in saturating categories (Suddaby, 2006). Furthermore due to the explorative nature of this research, the heterogeneity in the strategy implementation process in the local governments called for further data collection for constant comparison. For example, the resource allocation process in some LGAs required

201

further data collection to understand the related activities involved in the allotment process and the interaction of the process with other categories.

In the same vein the project portfolio optimization category emerged, during the coding, from the different strategy implementation activities and largely explained the heterogeneity in the way projects and resources are managed in the LGAs. Additionally, resource acquisitions, resource development, and resource deployment emerged as important sub-categories linked with the different categories of the implementation process. The coding was done with a consideration for the activity dynamics to enable a rigorous analysis of the process. Careful steps were taken at this stage to record the differences in the resource management activity dynamics as the researcher found that there was paucity in the conceptualisation of the nature of resource management within resources management literature. Particular attention was given to activities of different implementers involved in the resource management process; the coding considered the roles of these actors and continually compared the data to saturate the effect of this category on the strategy implementation process.

Overall, to assess the reliability of the coding process the researcher considered Interrater reliability - an important indication of the reliability of the coding process in content analysis

(Krippendorff, and Bock, 2009). Krippendorff (2004) argues that in content analysis, reproducibility is arguably the most important interpretation of reliability and reproducibility is achieved by employing two or more widely available coders or observers who, working independent of each other, apply the same coding instructions or recording devices to the same set of units of analysis. For example, Isabella’s (1990) work was identified as an exemplar of methodological rigour (Suddaby, 2006) due to her employment of a coder who worked independently on 25 randomly selected excerpts, after having briefed him on the basis for the representative examples of the data for her categories. The independent coder allocated 24 of the given excerpts to the same categories as Isabella. Both raters generated

202

similar codes for a large proportion of the sample. Suddaby (2006) considered this a strong representation of interrater reliability as it ensured the accurateness of the coding process at the categorization stage. Similarly, Jarzabkowski (2008) achieved over 90% agreement after employing a co-analyst to check the reliability of her coding.

Following the success stories of Isabella (1990) and Jarzabkowski (2008), the researcher worked with an interrater, Dr. Jamiu, of the Usman Danfodiyo University, Sokoto-Nigeria.

Dr. Jamiu was briefed about the open codes and the emergence of categories from them. A copy of the word-for-word interview transcripts was sent to him to enable him understand the contextual issues in the LGAs. It was agreed that a random selection of 70 data excerpts will be enough to achieve interrater reliability of around 90%. After the initial iteration, it was discovered that we both coded 65 data excerpts to the same categories thereby achieving a

92% coding agreement. The researcher assumes this level of agreement verifies the accuracy of the coding process. Table 4.8 illustrates the emerging categories of strategy implementation activities, their sub-categories, their temporal nature, linkages and the relevance of the LGAs.

(7) Theoretical interpretation from categorical codes

Case study research must have a theoretical dimension otherwise it will be of little value for wider generalization (Yin, 2004). Yin (2004) identified Theory building case studies

(Grounded theory method) as one way theory is used in case study research. The purpose of this study is to explore and uncover contemporary implementation issues (its core category) within its substantive area of research as well as the resolution to the problem therefore its approach to the data borrows from the grounded theory (GT) method. In GT studies, researchers consider theoretical codes which emerge simultaneously with substantive codes

203

from the data, to conceptualize how the substantive codes may relate to each other as hypotheses to be integrated into the theory (Glaser, 1978)

To enable a valid wider generalisation of its findings, this research used theoretical codes to implicitly conceptualize how the open codes and categorical codes relate to each other as interrelated multivariate hypotheses in accounting for resolving its main concern (Glaser,

1998). The theoretical coding linked the saturated categories of strategy implementation activities (which is established, within this context, to be driven by organisational culture) their dynamics and interactions with the strategy implementation approach adopted by the researched LGAs and their service delivery implications (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This was arguably a rather difficult process because of the complexity of strategy implementation process issues. Frequentative analysis was done for all the saturated categories and the interactions of activities and different implementers involved in the strategy implementation process at the LGAs. The researcher’s interpretation of the open and categorical codes was used for the coding process. Several repeated runs were made across the data to ensure a detailed comparison is carried out of the different processes of strategy implementation identified in the researched LGAs and to ascertain the robustness of the emerging theory of the interrelationship between strategy implementation, organisational culture and their implications for efficient service delivery.

The researcher focused on integrating the different codes to understand how the impact of organisational culture on the underlying activities involved in the implementation process ultimately explains the implementation process dynamics and defines the effectiveness of the

LGAs in terms of service delivery. The coding proceeded to integrate the analysis for each of the research question (RQ1 - RQ3). Through the theoretical coding the researcher was able to critically assess the service delivery implications of the strategy implementation process approaches exhibited by the LGAs. The process revealed three different strategy

204

implementation approaches which explained the differences in the levels of implementation success achieved by each LGA.

The theoretical interpretation process began with the researcher initially grouping the categories and sub-categories of the implementation activities according to the strategy implementation process patterns that emerged. The interactions between the activities were then, used to develop the process models for each of the emerging strategy implementation process patterns. Subsequently, the process models were analysed for their explanations of strategy implementation success. Finally, the emerging implementation process approaches, their implications for implementation success and the impact of the type of organisational culture adopted were linked and compared for the different LGAs.

This critical assessment clearly substantiated the finer details of each strategy implementation process approach and offered the data-grounded explanations for the level of implementation success in each of the researched LGAs. A rigorous process was followed for theorizing the contributions of effective use of organisational culture to strategy implementation success.

The research findings were juxtaposed with empirical findings from extant strategy implementation literature and significant differences were noticeable in the dynamics of strategy implementation processes identified in the researched LGAs and those of their foreign counterparts in first world countries. The rather generic presentation of theoretical and practical ideas for strategy implementation identified by the researcher in extant literature highlights considerable inadequacies in the overall strategy implementation literature. To refine the emerging theory and develop valid conclusions, the researcher compared the research findings and emergent theory with extant literature.

205

The research drew its conclusion from a summary of its empirical findings grounded in data and its implication for the research gap stated in the opening chapter and for future research to extend the emerging theory of strategy implementation process (O'Reilly Et al. 2012).

4.7 RESEARCH QUALITY AND ROBUSTNESS

Given the varied genus of qualitative research, there appears to be no consensus in the ways any piece of qualitative research work should be assessed for quality (Leung, 2016). Various authors have, however, suggested diverse approaches but the two leading schools of thoughts

(Leung, 2016) are: The school of Dixon-Woods Et al. (2004) which stresses on methodology and the school of Lincoln Et al. (2011) which emphasises the rigor of interpretation of results.

Dixon-Woods suggested a checklist of questions for assessing precision and correctness of the research question; the description and appropriateness for sampling, data collection and data analysis; levels of support and evidence for claims; coherence between data, interpretation and conclusions, and finally level of contribution of the paper. Meyrick (2006) arguing from a different perspective proposed fulfilment of the dual core criteria of

“transparency” and “systematicity” for good quality qualitative research. In brief, every step of the research logistics (from theory formation, design of study, sampling, data acquisition and analysis to results and conclusions) has to be validated for transparency and systematism.

In this manner, both the research process and results can be assured of high rigor and robustness. Similarly Kitto Et al. (2008) typified six measures for assessing overall quality of qualitative research: (i) Clarification and justification, (ii) procedural rigor, (iii) sample representativeness, (iv) interpretative rigor, (v) reflexive and evaluative rigor and (vi) transferability/generalisability. See appendix 6, Table 4.10 for research quality and robustness.

206

4.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION

It was important that the researcher anticipated ethical issues that may arise during the research process. Creswell (2009) opined that researchers need to protect their research participants by being trustworthy, promoting the integrity of the research, guarding against misconduct and any impropriety that might reflect on their organizations or institutions.

The proposed research solicited sensitive responses to its questions from respondents. The researcher was aware of the sensitivity of these responses as they involved human thoughts, behaviours and organisational practices. Ethical considerations to this research were viewed from 3 perspectives:

The Institution: Ethical approval was sought in line with Cardiff Metropolitan University's requirement for each phase of the field work.

The Participants: Participation of individuals was voluntary and participants’ identities kept confidential. Respondents and their LGAs were advised in writing of the voluntary nature of their participation and that they could decline to answer any question they are not comfortable with. The research objectives were distinctly delineated in writing and articulated to the participants.

The Profession: The researcher ensured to duly adhere to the Nigerian Public Bureau code of ethics. The purpose of this code is to identify those professional obligations that serve to protect professionals in general and the client in particular.

4.9 SUMMARY

The chapter presented a comprehensive account of the study’s case study research methodology adopted using (Yin, 2004) as guide. It illustrated with supporting arguments and illustrative examples, the interpretivism philosophical position of the research and outlines its

207

research design approach for data collection and data analysis. It elaborated on the research’s iterative cycles between the data, literature, further data collection and emerging concepts.

The semi-structured interviews were delineated for data collection purposes. In line with

Krippendorff‘s (2004) guidelines, the research employed the principles of unitizing and coding for the qualitative content analysis. The detailing of the open codes, delineation of categorical codes, and the theoretical interpretation from categorical codes resulted in the identification of emerging concepts regarding the researched LGAs heterogeneous organisational culture types as explanations of their implementation process patterns and implementation success. Finally, the chapter discussed the rigour and trustworthiness achieved by the research.

208

CHAPTER FIVE

PATTERNS OF STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION IN LGAs

5.0 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS AND LGAS

The researched local government authorities (LGAs) cut across Nigeria’s six geo-political zones. Each of the researched LGAs and indeed all 774 LGAs in Nigeria are administered by a local government (LG) council headed by a chairman, who is the Chief Executive of the LG council and other elected members, who are referred to as Councillors. To meet the needs of this research, this study collected data on the demographic variables of 6 LGAs solely for exploratory purposes to investigate the relationship, if any, between the study’s main phenomena and organisational demographics which might be of interest to future research.

There is no intention to use them as control variables in the analysis. Extant literature provide further clarity on the influence of demographics on strategy implementation (Barber, Laing and Simeone 2005; Zona and Zattoni 2007; and Wooldridge, Schmid and Floyd 2008). Goll and Rasheed (2005) noted that management demographic characteristics influence strategy implementation and ultimately organisational performance. Parnell (2008) supported this position stating that the extent to which strategies are effectively implemented is a function of some organisational demographics such as organisational culture, stage of economic development and management practices. Table 12 and Table 13 show the demographic classification of the researched LGAs and the demographic characteristics of respondents in each LGA respectively. Population figures are sourced from the most recent population census figures of 2006. The names of the LGAs are coded for confidentiality purposes.

Table 12 Demographic classification of researched LGAs

S.no LGA Rural Area (km²) Staff Year of establishment

Residents

209

(Population) Strength

1 LGA 1 157,770 1043km² >900 1984

2. LGA 2 182,296 1704 km² >900 1976

3. LGA 3 217,362 1127 km² >900 1945

4 LGA 4 309,633 484 km² >600 1904

5 LGA 5 353,344 706 km² >800 1947

6 LGA 6 198,247 718 km² >800 1841

Source: Author (2016)

Table 13 Demographic characteristics of respondents

S.No LGA Gender Qualification Years of Experience

Male Female Age Range Highest Lowest Min Max

1 LGA 1 4 3 30-50 B.sc HND 12 years 20 years

2 LGA 2 5 2 30-50 HND OND 14 years 24 years

3 LGA 3 6 1 30-50 MSc OND 20 years 30 years

4 LGA 4 3 4 30-50 HND OND 10 years 15 years

5 LGA 5 5 2 30-50 HND Sec. 10 years 23 years

Studies

6 LGA 6 4 3 30-50 M.A HND 15 years 31 years

Source: Author (2016)

210

Table 5.0 reveals that the highest qualification of respondents across the researched LGAs is a Masters degree with the lowest being Secretarial Studies. Only three respondents have

Masters Degrees while five others have BSc. A large chunk of respondents have either

Ordinary Diplomas (OND) or Higher National Diplomas (HND). This discovery led the researcher to delve a bit further to explore the relationship between educational qualifications and strategy implementation. Most respondents agreed that the level of educational qualification held by staff within the local government and indeed the level of qualification needed for recruitment and selection into the local government councils constitute a major constraint to the efficacy of the implementation process. They stated that the minimum qualification for recruitment into local government councils, which is a Secondary School

Leaving Certificate, is anachronistic, dysfunctional and has had consequential effects and negative implications for human resource competence and capabilities and ultimately, implementation performance. This empirically supports Amankwah-Amoah, Ifere, and Nyuur

(2016) views on the persistence of organisations to retain underperforming workers. A middle management staff recounted that:

“Most of our staff did not major in disciplines related to the nature of the work they are assigned.” (Respondent C3, LGA4). Another respondent, a top management staff is of the view that if the system must deliver efficiently:

“We must overhaul the system. All these staffs that have qualifications not relevant to their job functions must first be removed.”(Respondent B6 from LGA 1). However he opined that:

“They won’t allow such because the recruitment cycle must satisfy ethnicity or Federal Character rather than professionalism”. (Respondent B6 from LGA 1).

This problem may explain why there is a high level of incompetence during initiation of ideas in this dimension (Omisore and Okofu, 2014). Staff recruitment and selection system and

211

practice in Nigerian Public Service is plagued with extra-institutional factors that alter the demands for meritocracy and thus constitute a threat to the efficacy of the Public Service as an instrument and machinery of development in Nigeria (Omisore and Okofu, 2014).

5.1 STRATEGIC CONTEXTS OF THE RESEARCHED LGAS

To achieve a comprehensive analysis of the patterns of strategy implementation in the researched LGAs, it is first imperative to understand the strategic context of the LGAs. Table

14 provides essential contextual information which are pointers to the strategic context of the

LGAs; how strategic actions occur within the LGAs. Observably, a lot more detail about the

LGAs are available but for the sake of frugality only the information relevant to this study are presented.

Table 14: Strategic context of the researched LGAs

LGAs Structure Strategic Situation

All researched LGAs Bureaucratic Adoption of policies is

influenced by external

factors. Systems and

processes follow a strict

administrative process.

Top management is not

directly involved with

implementation process.

Source: Author 2016

212

5.2 DIFFERENT BEHAVIOURAL APPROACHES TO STRATEGY

IMPLEMENTATION

Significant variations were found in the behavioural orientations of strategic actors to the strategy implementation process in each of the researched LGAs. A closer look at these heterogeneous behavioural patterns identified the “Classical” and “Traditional” orientations to strategy implementation. These behavioural differences were found rooted in the way implementers approached their strategy implementation processes through the implementation activities they undertake. It emerged that top management and middle management were responsible for driving either of these orientations and influenced other implementers in their LGAs.

Strategic actors in four of the researched LGAs (LGAs 2, 3, 4 and 6) approached strategy implementation as an important process necessary for their strategic competitive success.

However the strategic actors in LGAs 1 and 2 viewed strategy implementation as a routine process to execute their strategies with little or no attention to competitive outcomes. These classical and traditional behavioural orientations reflected in the individual implementation phases and activities undertaken by implementers engaged in the implementing process.

The Classical behavioural orientation highlights the implementing behavioural approaches of

LGAs and their strategic actors who consider strategy implementation a strategic process that is able to significantly contribute to their competitive performance. Competitiveness and loyalty appear to be key motivators in this approach type in some of the LGAs (LGAs 2 and

6) while in others, (LGAs 3 and 4) the value influencers include: transformation, agility, goal achievement and profitability. A top management staff member that:

“Successfully implementing our policies and strategies is one sure way we use to stay ahead of competition.” (Respondent B1, LGA 6).

213

Similarly, a member of staff of the middle management team noted that

“A critical success factor for us to take the lead ahead of other local authorities around is strategy implementation. With respect to our implementation process, we carry out as much as possible out of what we put on paper. You know paper is patient…. We once stated that within 3 months, we will complete a certain capital project, people said it was unrealistic and we achieved it.”(Respondent A3, LGA 4).

In contrast to Classical behavioural orientation, the Traditional behavioural orientation underscores the implementing behaviours of LGAs and their implementers who approached strategy implementation as a routine process necessary to execute their strategies. It highlights the general view about implementation activities being centred on middle management and emphasizes that implementation action plans were targeted at getting things done according to plan or by the book. Thus execution emerged as the key influencer in this approach type. As noted by a social welfare officer:

“Implementation process is simply a process we use in executing strategies….I believe the main aim of implementing strategies is to finally execute it, right?”(Respondent B2, LGA3).

Correspondingly, the head of budgeting, averred that:

“Strategy implementation process creates a platform where we put all our staff and resources together to interact to execute our plans”. (Respondent C4, LGA1).

The two identified strategic actors’ behavioural orientations to implementation uncover their significant impact on how strategic actors engage the implementation process at the different

LGAs. Additionally, the data revealed the influences of certain process initiators responsible for how the implementation process occurs over time.

5.3 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS INITIATORS

An examination of the data revealed that strategy implementation process did not begin from the same strategic position for the different LGAs. In other words what motivated the commencement of the implementation process was different across the LGAs. Strategic

214

actors either initiated the implementation process dynamically in view of future opportunities or passively as a response to situations. These process initiators provide significant understanding into the action priorities and motivations guiding strategic actors’ actions in the strategy implementation process. These distinctions were therefore labelled as Dynamic and Passive process initiator and linked to the implementing behaviours of strategic actors in the researched LGAs.

The Dynamic implementation process initiator defines the initial drive in the implementing process which results from the anticipatory, change-oriented and self-initiated behaviour of implementers and their LGAs. It accentuates the behavioural patterns of implementers in advance of a future situation. For example, LGA 6 anticipated the occurrence of massive soil erosion within their local community which could lead to an enormous destruction of crops and properties. They decided on some strategic initiatives and proactively engaged in implementing grassed water ways to reduce the effect of the expected erosion. Also, some agronomic, structural practices were implemented to control the erosion before its arrival.

Simultaneously, there was the demand for an irrigation system during reduced rainfall periods and these consequently led to the running of different implementation activities and phases concurrently.

“We anticipated the occurrence of soil erosion on a massive scale on our community farmlands a couple years ago, so we met, discussed, negotiated and concluded that we will implement control measures at least to reduce its effect to the barest minimum, and we successfully carried this out.” (Respondent F4, LGA 6).

Similarly respondent C7 recounts that:

“We saw an opportunity in building new low cost housing for local residents, you know that’s one rare thing to do in this present recession , but we did it and it served two ways: comfortable accommodation for citizens and profit for the local government”. (Respondent C7, LGA 3).

215

The Passive implementation process initiator highlights the initial push in the implementing process by implementers and their LGAs which results from a reaction to situations. It underscores a response to change rather than a creating or controlling of it. For example, the inability of LGA 1 to produce accurate data of all deaths, births and other business activities within its LGA to appropriate authorities as at when due led to the LGA’s reactive measure to implement an ERP system to enable it collect, store, manage and interpret data for all activities happening within its enclave. As respondent C5 detailed:

“When we realised it was difficult to manually collate data, we had to join the league of LGAs that had already started using the ERP system.”(Respondent C5, LGA 1)

Similarly, Respondent B6 mentioned that:

“We realized that we needed to meet the standard already set by some LGAs to deliver the death and birth report, so we met and decided to implement an ERP system,…. you know our allocations depended on that.” (Respondent B6, LGA 5)

These implementation process initiators were found to shape the process and pattern of strategy implementation in the different LGAs. For instance, LGA 6 pursued classical behavioural approach to implementing with a passive process initiator and demonstrated the initial phase of recognising the need to improve existing strategic initiatives. However, LGA1 pursued traditional behavioural approach to implementing with a passive process initiator and demonstrated the initial phase of reassessing the existing situation and then planning to control the situation. These varied process initiators play a major role in shaping the eventual strategy implementation process pattern adopted by the LGAs. The process phases are presented later in the thesis.

5.4 HETEROGENEOUS STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS PATTERNS

The classification of the different strategy implementation process patterns emerged from the differences in implementers’ behavioural approaches to the strategy implementation process

216

and the heterogeneous process initiators found in the LGAs. A 2 x 2 matrix is used to differentiate between four distinct strategy implementation process patterns as observed from empirical data. Table 15 shows this classification and categorises all six researched LGAs as either adopting the Classical-Dynamic implementing pattern, the Traditional-Passive implementing pattern, the Classical-Passive implementing pattern or the Traditional-Dynamic implementing patterns.

Table 15: Strategy implementation process patterns in the researched LGAs

Strategy Process initiators

implementation Dynamic Passive behavioural

approaches

Classical-Dynamic Classical-Passive

implementing implementing Classical

LGA 6 LGA 2, LGA 5

Traditional-Dynamic Traditional-Passive

implementing implementing Traditional

LGA 3, LGA 4 LGA 1

217

Source: Author (2016)

The existence of differences in the strategy implementation process patterns rejects the idea of a generic approach to strategy implementation as discussed in much of strategy implementation literature (Noble, 1999; Hrebiniak and Joyce, 2005; Li Et al. 2010). The heterogeneity in implementation process however, supports the contingency oriented process approach to implementation (Sabherwal and Robey, 1993; Nutt, 2001).

The complexities of the four identified strategy implementation process patterns were found to revolve around implementation activities and the phases in which those activities are undertaken. Different levels of strategic actors were revealed to be involved in the implementation process at different points in time: Senior Management Team (SMT) which is made up of heads of service units including the council chairman and deputy, and Middle

Management Team (MMT), consisting of Managers of departments. The individual roles of each of these levels of implementers were found to be distinct. For example, the role of SMT in strategy implementation was distinct to that of the MMT. Similarly, the role of MMT was distinct to that of the stakeholders. However these roles of implementers changed during the different phases of the implementation process. A top management staff narrates:

“As the implementation process deepens. You may find that first you are a negotiator in the early stages of the process, then you may be given a supervisory role and you just may never know, you can end up as an assessor in the final stage”. (Respondent D6, LGA 2).

Similarly, a second respondent confirmed:

“….No one can particularly stick to one role, although at inception we are all assigned responsibilities but as the process is kick started, you find that you may be called upon to take up other responsibilities, for example, I have worked with the monitoring team before but was later asked to be in action planning” (Respondent G2, LGA 5).

218

5.4.1 Activities and Phases in the Implementation Process Patterns

Implementation process phases here refer to the distinct time-periods within which strategic actors undertake various implementation activities to achieve phase-specific goals in the strategy implementation process. The outcome of each phase defines the eventual nature of implementation success in the process pattern. It was noted in LGA 2 that:

“We categorise the implementation process in phases and set goals for each stage; and as we move from stage to stage to implement our strategy or project we ensure that we achieve those set goals first before moving to the next stage” (Respondent B4, LGA 2).

Tables 16 and 17 present an outline of the different phases found in the four implementation patterns. An overview of the activities found within each phase from the initial phase through to the phase where implementation is considered either successful or unsuccessful is recorded in table 19 for the four implementation patterns. Also highlighted is the different ways by which implementation success is viewed and used in the implementation process by implementers in the distinct implementation patterns. This is further discussed in section 5.6.

These different ways by which implementation success is viewed and used offers a solid platform for a comprehensive comparison of the reasons for variations in implementation success between the four implementation patterns.

219

Table16: Phases in the Classical Strategy Implementation Process Patterns

Classical-Dynamic Classical -Passive

1. Strategic content: SMT carries out 1. Strategic content: SMT Responds to call situation analysis of immediate for new strategic initiative. Consultations are environmental needs, consults with heads made with heads of clans. SMT evaluates of clans and evaluates recent recent performance. Resources are assessed implementation performance in terms of to check availability for the new initiative. resources and expertise to meet new New strategic initiative is agreed upon in line opportunity. New strategic initiative is with competitive objective of LGA. agreed upon. Acquisition of requisite 2. Allocation of resources: SMT consults resources, documentation, and integration with MMT and other stake holders to identify with legal procedures. appropriate strategy content and

2.Allocation of resources: Strategic implementation plan. Available resources are content and implementation actions are allotted to meet initial implementation contextualised by SMT and TMT. The requirement. resource requirement for implementation 3. Chain of command: New initiatives are are thoroughly analysed and mobilised. integrated with existing ones. Modalities are Implementation action is linked to worked out to ensure smooth running of the competitive performance. new portfolio of strategies. Structures of

3.Chain of command: SMT meet with authority are defined.

MMT to engage in operational planning 4. Assigning responsibility: MMT assigns over new strategic initiative. MMT engage tasks to groups and ensures to provide with operational staffs and field staffs in resources and support for successful

220

their individual units to work out implementation in line with competitive modalities on how to meet assigned tasks performance. within the initiative. Cross-functional 5.Process Management: Periodic review of teams are established. Initiative is implementation process. Identification of communicated downward. New action areas for improvement. Good implementation plans are developed and integrated with practices are rewarded. Key learning from existing initiatives to check workability current implementation pattern is considered and ensure smooth running of the new for new strategic initiative. portfolio of strategic initiatives.

4.Assigning responsibility: MMT assigns specific tasks or processes to specific individuals or groups and provides resources and support for successful implementation in line with competitive performance.

5.Process management: SMT and TMT periodically review implementation process. Implementing techniques are reinforced. Controlling for variances, and making adjustments to the process as necessary. Identification of areas for revising in the current implementation process towards improving implementation efforts. Key learning from

221

current implementation pattern is

considered for new strategic initiative.

Table 17: Phases in the Traditional Strategy Implementation Process Patterns

Traditional-Dynamic Traditional-Passive

1.Strategy content: SMT assesses recent 1.Strategy content: MMT assesses recent implementation performance. Considers implementation performance and existing new environmental needs. Meet with strategic initiatives discusses with SMT to stakeholders. Agree on new strategic stress the need to respond to current situation. initiative. 2.Allocation of resources: MMT negotiates

2.Allocation of resources: SMT and new strategic initiatives options and their

MMT meet to map out strategies on boundaries and communicates broader plan to meeting the resource requirement of new SMT. SMT is not directly engaged in initiative in line with laid down processual strategy implementation and procedures. Resource provided is although remained unclear on implementer’s sometimes sufficient or insufficient strategic priorities approves disbursement of

Initiative clearly communicated to MMT. resources for implementation actions.

3.Chain of command: SMT provides 3.Chain of command: MMT engaged in

222

resources and support through functional creating activity-schedules around the broad leadership roles. Strategy execution is plan. Interrelated strategic initiatives are central activity. Management of strategic managed poorly. Delays and inter-unit initiatives is inconsistent. Bureaucratic conflicts arise. lines of authority are established. Over- 4.Assigning responsibility: Tasks are concerned with procedure at the expense distributed across functional groups. Work of efficiency. schedules are raised and communicated to

4.Assigning responsibility: MMT implementers by in-line heads. assesses the scope and feasibility of 5.Process Management: Unsuccessful strategic initiative and the individual implementation leads to inability to reap strength of team members to assign duties implementation benefit. Processes are poorly for the completion of tasks. managed. Time management is poor and risks

5.Process Management: SMT and MMT are not assessed effectively. MMT reviews critically appraise the implementation recent implementation performance and process periodically to ascertain level of discusses with SMT. success and compares with previous performances. Control scope, cost and issues and manage time, risks and benefits effectively.

The interaction of the outlined phases within the researched LGAs begins with the strategy content phase - the situation analysis local government councils must carry out: both internal and external and micro-environmental and macro-environmental. Concurrent with this analysis, objectives are set including crafting of the vision statements (long term), mission

223

statements (medium term), overall corporate objectives (both financial and strategic), strategic business unit objectives (both financial and strategic), and tactical objectives. The objectives, in the light of the situation analysis, suggest a strategic plan which provides the details of how to achieve implementation goals. Within this phase the strategy is formulated which involves the determination of current position of the LGA, where it wants to go, and then how it wants to get there. It involves establishing how to acquire the requisite resources, develop the process, training, and process testing, documentation, and integration with legal procedures. Allocation of resources refers to the allotment of financial, personnel, time and computer system support, establishing a chain of command or some alternative structure such as cross-functional teams, assigning responsibility of specific tasks or processes to specific individuals or groups, process management, which includes monitoring results, comparing to benchmarks and best practices, evaluating the efficacy and efficiency of the process, controlling for variances, and making adjustments to the process as necessary. The effective integration of these phases leads to a strategic outcome – one which can be used to measure the implementation performance of the LGAs (Mehta and Krishnan, 2004).

Within the phases, a number of implementation activities are undertaken in the implementation process patterns. Table 18 presents these activities, their meanings and the implementation process pattern in which they can be found. It was noted that the activities were unevenly distributed as some of the implementation activities were specific only to a particular implementation process pattern. For instance, surveying was done only in the

Classical-Dynamic implementation process pattern. Similarly, Harmonizing during the reviewing phase was noted only in the Traditional-Passive implementation process pattern.

Contingency planning was also engaged only in the Classical-Dynamic implementation process pattern. Respondent G3, LGA 6 commented: “We made sure to deliberate on potential implementation contingencies and identify appropriate implementation actions”

224

Matching of implementation action to situation was evident only in Classic-Dynamic implementation patterns. Similarly, aligning of implementation action to laid-down procedures was evident only in Traditional-Administrative implementation patterns. This mirrored the strong emphasis of working by the books within the LGAs implementation context. The piloting activity found only in Classical-Dynamic pattern also highlights the

LGAs drive towards better management of the implementation efforts:

“We engage first in piloting the new initiative before engaging the full scale implementation. We are better able to manage the full implementation that way.”(Respondent C1, LGA 6).

Table 18: Implementation Activities, their meanings and linked process patterns

Implementation Meanings Linked process pattern

Activity

Surveying Proactively searching for new strategic All dynamic process patterns

initiatives to enhance competitive

performance

Assessing Evaluating recent implementation All patterns

performance to identify areas of

improvement.

Aligning Ensuring implementation actions stay Traditional-passive process

within laid-down procedures pattern

Revising Key learning from recent All process patterns

implementation performance is

considered for new initiative

225

Contingency Identification of implementation Classical-Dynamic process planning contingencies patterns

Piloting Piloting of implementation process Classical-Dynamic process

before the full scale implementation pattern

task

Accounting SMT holds MMT accountable for All process patterns

implementation performance.

Rewarding SMT rewards good implementation All process patterns

performers

Monitoring Staff and processes are periodically All dynamic process patterns

observed and recorded for

implementation progress throughout

the implementation process

Inter-unit Coordination of all cross-functional All process patterns

Coordinating unit activities for strategy

implementation

Communicating Two-way communication (top-down All process patterns except

and bottom-up) of strategic priorities Traditional-passive process

is maintained. Implementation details pattern

are kept simple and clear

Performance Managing performance through All process patterns

Managing feedback, accountability and

226

documentation for performance

outcomes as defined in terms of

performance goals during

implementation process.

Intervening SMT and MMT intervene for All process patterns

corrective actions during

implementation process

Operation SMT and MMT collaborate with All process patterns systematizing stakeholders to systematize policies

and operations procedures

Resource SMT approves agreed resources at All process patterns

Allocating agreed timings to reinforce action

plans

Executing Carrying out agreed tasks by All process patterns

implementers

Action Prioritizing of implementation actions Classical-Dynamic process prioritizing according to the competitive strategy patterns

and potential benefits

Strategy Fine-tuning strategy and Classical-Dynamic process

Refining implementation choices by SMT and pattern

MMT to enable competitive matching

227

Routinising Creating work schedules to be Traditional-passive process

followed through the implementation pattern

process

Utilising Making use of ideas got from Classical-Dynamic process

reviewing recent implementation patterns

performance in shaping next phase of

strategy implementation process

Phase and Managing the timing of Classical-Dynamic process activity Timing implementation activities and patterns

processes to ensure competitiveness

The next section 5.6 presents the findings related to the implementation success implications of the classical and traditional implementation process patterns.

5.5 VARIATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS

A detailed examination of the classical and traditional implementation process pattern shows considerable differences in the strategy implementation success achieved by the individual

LGAs. Overall, three categories of implementation success emerged from the data: effective implementation, partly effective implementation, and ineffective implementation. The variations identified suggest that LGAs adopting the classical implementation patterns were consistently linked with effective implementation, whereas those adopting traditional patterns were linked to either partly effective or ineffective implementation. These categories of implementation success were deduced from the explanations of respondents regarding the extent to which they think their LGAs have fared in its implementation drive. The table 19

228

presents the strategy implementation process patterns and the linked implementation success categories.

Table 19: Strategy Implementation Process Patterns and Implementation

Performance

Strategy Implementation Process Pattern LGA Implementation success

category

 Classical-Dynamic implementing LGA 6

process Effective

Implementation

 Classical-Passive implementing LGA 3 and

process LGA 4

 Traditional-Dynamic process pattern LGA 2 and Partly Effective

LGA 5 Implementation

 Traditional-Passive process pattern LGA 1 Ineffective

Implementation

Both variants of the classical implementation process patterns were linked to effective implementation as respondents attributed the achievement of their desired implementation outcomes to these process patterns. Respondent C5 stated that:

229

“Consistently, we have achieved up to 90 percent success in all our implementation drives.” (Respondent C5, LGA 4).

In the same vein, a project manager emphasized that:

“It is obvious that we have been highly successful, our projects and policies have been successfully closed. It is so clear we don’t have to prove anything.”(Respondent B4, LGA 6).

The variants of the traditional implementation process patterns however emerged as partly effective implementation as it enabled the achievement of some planned implementation outcomes, and ineffective as some significant implementation failures were credited to this process pattern thus respondents viewed it as ineffective.

“Although to a large extent we have managed to successfully implement some of our initiatives, for example the provision of the irrigation system last year was a huge success, however, other initiatives like the creation of link roads which are very necessary for these farmers was not successfully implemented, but again that can be due to several political factors that mitigated the process…” (Respondent A3, LGA 5).

Similarly, the traditional-passive implementation pattern was categorised as ineffective because respondents believe it did not enable the achievement of their desired implementation outcomes.

“Sadly a lot of our initiatives have not enjoyed much of success in terms of implementation to be honest; the rejection of newer ideas and procedures of successfully carrying out implementation by the powers that be has been our major problem, I’ll keep saying it; bureaucratic bottlenecks and nepotism have paralysed our processes.”(Respondent D4, LGA 2).

5.6 CAUSES OF VARIATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS

A close examination of the classical and traditional implementation process patterns revealed the factors responsible for variations in the strategy implementation performance in the researched LGAs. These factors underscore the complexities rooted in the processual nature of strategy implementation in the individual LGAs. Table 20 presents these factors and the primary key issue that explain the variations in implementation success:

230

Table 20: Causes of variations in implementation performance and key issues

Factors Key Issues

 Competitiveness as process

 Criteria for implementation success outcome; Implementation success

as meeting designed plans.

 Quality Prioritising in implementation  Activity and phase performance in

activities implementation patterns.

 Implementation Preparedness  Rigorous and detailed preparation

for implementation.

5.6.1 Criteria for implementation success

The classical and traditional implementation patterns revealed that the criteria used to judge implementation success varied in the individual LGAs. Two distinct key issues emerged which ultimately influenced how implementers in the implementation process patterns approached the implementation process. Implementation success as process outcome and implementation success as meeting initial designed plans determined the nature of

231

implementation success. The classical and traditional process patterns exhibited important distinctions for the criteria they used to judge implementation success.

The classical implementation process patterns revealed that the implementers –SMT and

MMT defined the success of their strategy implementation performance by their ability to make competitiveness the strategic outcome of their implementation process.. LGAs pursuing this pattern types showed a high level of consideration for strategy implementation as a strategic phenomenon that helped in enhancing the competitiveness of their strategies and thus approached the implementation process as such. Empirically the classical implementation process pattern emerged to be associated with effective implementation of strategies in the different LGAs. For example, Compliance unit head described how:

“We make futuristic plans in implementation. We don’t consider implementation as mere execution of strategy. It is highly tactical and as such our eventual outcome must be highly competitive. We made sure to imbibe the same culture in our people particularly in making strategic choices and at the right time too.”( Respondent B6, LGA6).

The traditional implementation process patterns showed that implementers defined the success of their strategy implementation process based on the extent to which implementation has met their initial plan. Implementation is considered strategic because it meets the initial devised plan and does not exceed budgeted resources. Respondents empirically linked this pattern types to partially effective or ineffective implementation of strategies in the researched LGAs.

“Implementation is successful when we are able to implement the strategy according to our intended plans and if the whole process falls within our available resources.”(Respondent A2, LGA 1).

This mirrors the extent to which strategy implementation success has been operationally conceptualized and is linked with the traditional behavioural pattern of strategy implementation.

232

Further differences emerged from data showing how the classical and traditional implementation patterns established implementation success as a process outcome. The classical implementation patterns established implementation success as an incremental outcome that is achieved during the process of implementation and subsequently employed to improve or develop new strategies. Implementation success is conceptualised as an outcome that represents the adoption and institutionalization of the LGAs’ strategy, as well as an input in implementation process to improve strategic content choices. For example, respondent E6, mentioned that:

“We were glad at the point at which we became certain we had successfully implemented our key strategic initiatives but again, we needed to use what we had learnt from that implementation to improve our strategic options and reaffirm our competitive edge. At that point we held several meetings and the result of those meetings is our new programs that we are currently implementing, the new sewage system. So you see we don’t just simply stop at the success of one implementation but we take it our learning further to improve and adapt our strategies. ” (Respondent E6, LGA 4).

The traditional implementing patterns, in contrast to the classical implementing patterns, conceptualised implementation success as an outcome that symbolises the adoption of their strategy and its institutionalisation at different levels. This underscores the synoptic nature of implementation success as an outcome of implementation process. It emerged that implementers engaged in traditional implementing to institutionalize the strategy within their

LGAs; the implementation success was simply considered as a general outcome they achieve as a result of the implementation process. The phases of resource allocation in the traditional- dynamic and assigning responsibility in the traditional-passive implementing patterns uncover this generic nature of implementation success. A middle management staff highlighted how:

“Implementation success for us is to adopt our strategy and institutionalize it at all levels.” (Respondent B5, LGA5).

233

5.6.2 Quality Prioritising in implementation activities

Significant differences emerged from empirical data in the way the individual LGAs, pursuing the different implementation patterns view quality in their implementation performance. The differences in their beliefs and approaches to the quality of the phases and implementing activities reveal a major impact on the level of implementation success they achieved. This accounts for the variations in the success levels observed. For example, the final execution of strategies – which forms the last stage of implementation - was viewed for quality in the implementation process under the classical implementing process patterns. The degree to which the LGAs provided services that meet the needs of locals was paramount in managing and directing all activities and phases at this stage of the implementation. The focus on the qualitative management of the implementation processes and stages has consistently enabled the LGAs under the classical-dynamic implementation process pattern achieve effective implementation. However, effective strategy execution was inconsistent in the traditional-dynamic process pattern. The process appeared to suffer a gridlock. Executors in the LGAs under the traditional implementing process patterns criticised the process for not containing enough detail to help in the construct of the three processes within an organization: people, strategy and operations, which allows for successful execution. Hence it undermined the quality of the process. Equally, they viewed the process as having too many sub processes that it can be overwhelming to executors. The issue of ensuring qualitative processes however doesn’t come without its own consequences as it emerged that in LGAs 3,

4 and 6, top management’s push for perfectionism resulted in time losses and arguably delayed the execution of activities. A member of the regional planning committee acknowledged the existence and importance of qualitative delivery of service but was quick to mention the effects:

234

“We believe in providing quality service here, it’s the norm, and anything short of that is frowned at. I believe it should be the case with all other councils, unfortunately in instances where urgent decisions and actions had to be taken, we couldn’t meet up with the stipulated time frame because the chairman believes everything must be perfectly done and this takes time.” (Respondent 4B, LGA 2).

Similarly, in allocating resources for planned implementation actions, LGAs pursuing the traditional implementation process pattern did not consistently provide sufficient resources throughout the implementation process. This was more severe in the traditional-passive implementation pattern. It emerged that allocating resources was more based on the perception of top management rather than on a detailed assessment of implementation requirements in the traditional implementation patterns. On the other hand, classical implementation process patterns revealed that resources were allocated after a comprehensive assessment of implementation requirements and the potential of implementation to succeed.

“The allocation of sufficient resources is necessary for any project to be conducted successfully, because without it, how can we deliver? The present TSA accounts run by the federal government has put a hold to so many resources made available to us before this administration. If you look around you, you’ll notice lots of unfinished projects. I may not know how other local councils have been able to manage theirs but here we are fully reliant on resources from above.” (Respondent A2 in LGA 5).

This enables an understanding of the pressures and demands on the LGAs during the implementation process and provided insights into resource allocation decisions.

5.6.3 Implementation Preparedness

Implementation preparedness varied among the classical and traditional implementing patterns in the researched LGAs. Implementation preparedness bothers around the LGAs’ preparation for implementation through detailed analysis of the requirements for implementation, detailed assessment of the LGA’s implementation potential, comprehensive action plan, and good time management.

The detailed analysis of implementation requirements was important in aligning implementation requirements with the implementation skills of the LGAs; how all units would be required to synergise their functions, setting out the different activities in order of

235

priority during the implementation process and what kind of resources would be needed to implement the strategy. The detailed assessment of the LGAs’ implementation potential emerged as another important issue linked to implementation preparedness. This uncovered a rather biased side of the implementation planning as self-assessment of an LGA’s ability to implement strategies may well be over rated by implementers.

The LGAs employing the classical implementing process patterns showed a better comprehensive implementation action plans. These implementation action plans clearly shows the actions for implementation and the group and individual responsibilities and timeframes for achieving the implementation.

For example, the consideration by LGA6 to build a maternity clinic for the locals required that the analysis needed to be comprehensive and involved the assessment of all dimensions of the LGAs implementation potential looking at the organizational processes, skills, behaviours, and other resources. The comprehensiveness of these action plans enabled effective monitoring and follow-ups by unit heads during strategy implementation. Similarly, these plans were used in assigning tasks and arriving at good reasons for different roles across the different units. Also it involved negotiations between senior management and middle management over allocation of resources and the nature of group responsibilities.

“When we plan, we consider our implementation skills. As a matter of fact when we design a new project, we first consider the ability of our team of implementers then we look at our resources…. you know, what is on ground or what we are expecting, and then based on that, we take action.” (Respondent C3, LGA6).

In contrast, LGAs which employ the traditional implementing patterns were not very detailed in their assessment of the implementation requirements and the implementation skills of strategic actors within their organisations. Also they failed to consider, thoroughly, the strategic contingencies during the implementation process and the details of strategic actions that are to be implemented. For an example, LGA1 did not anticipate fully the weight of the

236

NV20:2020 policy in terms of its timing and the roles of the LGA in ensuring successful delivery and so has been unable to satisfactorily come up with contingency plans and quick decision. LGA 6 liaised with state government and relevant public sector stakeholders for the implementation of the policy and quality Systems and they made sure to address implementation contingencies. This highlights that LGA1 has not been very successful in implementing new initiatives because of its implementation approach and process initiator type. This justifies the ineffective implementation success linked to the LGAs implementation pattern.

A further interesting finding was the issue of timing. Time management emerged as key issue in implementation preparedness as respondents shared their views about the implications of delayed implementation and implementation done too soon. Most respondents opined that there is need to understand the most appropriate time to execute planned actions and to analyse current environmental needs before implementing some initiatives. For example,

LGA 2 could have implemented its sewage policy earlier than it did. Rather it delayed the policy for about a year which resulted in certain health related issues within the council.

The implementation views of LGA2 reflects its laissez faire approach to dealing with some of its policies and therefore most projects are either delayed or abandoned mid way thus public confidence is lost. The contrast between delayed implementation and implementation done swiftly reflects the importance of ascertaining the appropriate time for implementation actions and clearly swift implementation has not fared well either. For example, the attempt by LGA 4 to quickly construct several link roads backfired significantly. The initiative was launched without much consideration for weather and implementation potentials which resulted in the poor state of the link roads. This swift approach to implementing led to severe losses and consequences.

237

5.7 SUMMARY

The findings for research question one reflect a critical exploration of the patterns of strategy implementation process, implementers’ behavioural approaches, process initiators and the linked implementation success in the researched LGAs. It responds to Noble (1999),

Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006), and Li Et al. (2010) and presents significant evidence that implementation process patterns differ considerably in practice among the researched LGAs. The identified differences however provide support for some existing strategy implementation literature (Ahmadi Et al. 2012; Nyamwanza and Mahviki, 2012).

Overall it rejects the idea that there is universality in the conceptualization of strategy implementation as a mechanistic phenomenon (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 2005). The identified

Classical and Traditional implementation process patterns emerged with significant variations in implementation process. These variations were evident in the behavioural approaches of strategic actors and the identified process initiators as well as from the differences identified in implementation phases and activities during strategy implementation. Also of significant importance are the differences in the way implementers conceptualised strategy implementation as a process outcome in the different LGAs.

The Classical implementing process pattern emerged as having a competitive behavioural approach to implementation and the LGAs pursuing this pattern type viewed strategy implementation as a strategic process that is able to contribute to their competitive performance. The Traditional implementing process pattern depicts the behavioural approach of implementers and their LGAs who regard strategy implementation as a routine process for implementing their strategies. The Classical implementing patterns emerged as consistently delivering success in strategy implementation. The Traditional implementing patterns was linked to both partly effective implementation and ineffective implementation. These varied

238

implementation patterns revealed different factors responsible for the variations in implementation success.

The findings challenged the concept of rational-mechanistic implementation (Hrebiniak and

Joyce, 2005; Kleindienst, 2006; Li Et al. 2010) and its implication for achieving implementation success in the researched LGAs and found that the synoptic nature of the traditional implementing patterns was linked with partly effective implementation in LGAs 2 and 5 and ineffective implementation in LGA 1. The data for the classical implementing patterns clearly revealed that implementation process within this pattern was not mechanistic but evolutionary (Lovas and Ghoshal, 2000; Lehtimäki and Karintaus, 2013).

Additionally, the research findings showed that the idea of conceptualization of implementation success as a reflection of the institutionalization of an organisation’s strategy

(Jarzabkowski, 2008; Li Et al. 2010) may not be applicable within the context of the researched LGAs as findings show that the criteria for implementation success and the nature of implementation success within the traditional and classical implementing patterns differ significantly. The differences in the processual approach towards implementation as a strategic phenomenon; the criteria for implementation success and the nature of implementation success in the researched LGAs emerged as the most vital empirical findings.

These variations in implementation patterns are analysed and discussed for organisational culture in the researched LGAs.

239

CHAPTER SIX

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE TYPOLOGIES IN THE LGAs

6.1 ASSESSING ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE IN THE LGAS

The empirical data reveal that LGAs 1 and 4 employed a mixture of hierarchy culture (a focus on process control, stability and secured employment) and clan culture (a focus on human resource development, employee empowerment and high employee commitment) and with market and adhocracy culture being the weaker two respectively. They emphasised the long term benefits of human resource development and attached great importance to cohesion and morale and on stability, growth and acquisition of new resources. However between the two stronger cultures, hierarchy culture was more dominant. For example in LGA 4 a middle management staff explained that:

“Everyone here is committed because we work as a team … I would say because of the structured environment and the encouragement to be efficient and the employment security, we always get our staff committed.” (Respondent C5; LGA 4).

Also, in LGA 1, a junior staff reiterated that:

“There has been a slow but incremental development for us, you know, there is some satisfactory level of cohesion amongst us. Our chairman is more like a father figure, a coordinator and that ensures smooth running of the council. I’m optimistic that with the level of commitment shown by staff here we will surely get there …….it’s just that Nigerians expect rapid changes in quick successions.”( Respondent A3; LGA 1).

These LGAs place more premiums on teamwork, efficiency and stability and believe that human development and process control produce effectiveness. A majority of staff from

LGAs 1 and 4 who responded shared this view point. They maintained that cohesiveness, consistency, openness and human development exist within their LGAs and top management emphasises discipline.

240

LGAs 2, 3 and 6 employed a mixture of market culture (a focus on production, goals and target, competition and result-drive) and hierarchy culture (a focus on process control, stability and secured employment) with adhocracy culture and clan culture being the weaker two respectively. Their principal long term emphasis is on leveraging on acquisition of new resources to remain effective and relevant and to achieve measurable goals and target which ensures growth. Between these two stronger cultures however market culture was more dominant. Their value drivers emerged as innovative outputs, profitability, transformation and continuous improvement and they believe that innovativeness and a complete focus on the needs of local citizens will produce effectiveness. For example in LGA 3, a top management staff explained that:

“I think above all, so far, the hallmark in our performance has been the dynamism and creativity of our work place which allows for innovation….”( Respondent D2; LGA 3).

In the same vein respondent A2 responded that:

“Our major concern here is to get the job done, to meet the needs of the people. We have a group of hard drivers at the helm of affairs that are tough and demanding but you know they create that avenue for creativity and it makes work interesting.” (Respondent A2, LGA 6).

Similarly, in LGA 2, a respondent remarked that:

“Our long term goal is meeting the needs of the local citizens before they even ask for it. we believe that this way our local council will lead the pack of councils within this region, we are bent on creating new standards in local governance, although resource supplies have being a major issue for us but we are working on alternative means of getting constant supply of our relevant resources to achieve our aim.”(Respondent D4; LGA 2)

These LGAs place more emphasis on leading the other local councils within their regions.

Success for them means gaining unique high points ahead of other LGAs and this is achieved through innovative ideas and proactive measures. Success and reputation are common concerns for these three LGAs as majority of respondents maintained that the glue that holds the LGAs together is an emphasis on winning and a commitment to innovation which exist

241

within their LGAs. Although all three LGAs point to the key issue of resource allocation, the culture embedded within each LGA appears to drive their implementation process.

LGA 5 employed a dominant hierarchy culture (a focus on formalised procedures, structures and control) with elements of market culture (a focus on production, goals and target, competition and result-drive). Its long term concern is stability and performance with efficient, smooth operations. Generally its management believe that through the instruments of control, error detection and efficiency with appropriate processes, effectiveness can be produced. Respondent D1 explained that:

“Everyone here knows what to do per time. We have laid down rules and regulations which are there to guide our activities…”(Respondent D1 in LGA 5).

A top management staff also highlighted that

“Maintaining a smooth-running operation is most critical priority for us….”(Respondent A1; LGA 5).

Majority of respondents in LGA5 believe that it is a very formalised and structured place to work. They believe that management staffs are good coordinators and organisers who are efficiency-minded.

Although each of the researched LGAs exhibited varied cultural characteristics, it is observed that the hierarchy culture was a subtle culture type that found its way into each of the LGAs.

Further analysis of the data revealed that all six LGAs had their chairmen and top council staff display elements of strict control. They emphasised on punctuality, consistency and uniformity and pride themselves on being leaders with the ultimate decision. It is apparent from the results therefore that there is a mixture of cultures where emphasis is placed on procedures and planning in all six LGAs.

242

The usefulness of a typology of cultural attributes is its ability to empirically examine the extent to which elements of a culture are congruent. The determination of the congruent culture in the LGAs to match the identified culture to the operational climate revealed the following interesting findings discussed next.

6.2 CULTURAL CONGRUENCE IN THE LGAS

A congruent culture in the six LGAs means that all six dimensions: dominant characteristics, organizational leaders, management of employees, organizational glue, strategic emphases, and criteria for success must fall into the same cultural quadrant. The interview questions were targeted at critically assessing each of these six dimensions to establish the congruency or incongruency of the culture characteristics in the researched LGAs. These dimensions were selected because of their centrality in the literature on organisational culture (Cameron and Ettington, 1988). They represent core attributes of the different forms of culture discussed. Each LGA is determined for its cultural congruency by assessing if the six dimensions are consistent within a particular quadrant. For example they may all be indicative of the clan culture type. On the other hand incongruent cultures are those that are not consistent with a single culture type.

In LGA 5 it emerged that dominant characteristics are formalised and structured; a case where procedures govern what people do (lower left quadrant). This was not the case in

LGAs 2, 3 and 6 as they exhibited the potentials for dynamism (upper right quadrant). LGAs

4 however demonstrated elements of a formalised structure but with a higher consideration for cohesiveness and teamwork (upper left quadrant). Organisational leadership emerged to be different in all six LGAs. Results show that in five of the six LGAs leaders were perceived to be more of coordinators and organisers (lower left quadrant). In LGA 6 leaders were observed to exhibit a perfect mix of mentorship and team building (upper left quadrant). The

243

initial five LGAs however see their heads as mentors and parent figures in very peculiar situations. Majority of respondents in LGAs 1, 4 and 5 considered innovation and risk taking least amongst their leaders. The management of employees which includes the security of employment, conformity, predictability and stability in relationships emerged with significant results in LGA 1 and 5 (lower left quadrant). Hard driving competitiveness, high demands and achievement were least prevalent in these LGAs and stronger in LGAs 2, 3, 4 and 6

(lower right quadrant). In all six cases it emerged that formal rules and policies is the organisational glue that holds the LGAs together. Maintaining a smooth-running local authority was very important. All six LGAs showed high regard for this dimension but agreed to a high commitment, mutual trust and loyalty to the LGAs amongst staff (upper left quadrant). This was rather ironic. It emerged that that there is a high strategic emphasis on permanence and stability across the researched LGAs. Efficiency, control and smooth operations are very vital in all six LGAs, however it was more prevalent in LGAs 1, 4 and 5

(lower left quadrant). Attaining targets and winning in the marketplace were the hallmarks of

LGAs 2, 3 and 6 (lower right quadrant). The criteria for success used by the LGAs varied. It emerged that all six LGAs defined success from different perspectives. LGA 1 defined success on the basis of efficiency and smooth scheduling (lower left quadrant). For LGAs 2 and 5 success was determined based on innovation and creativity (upper right quadrant).

LGA 3 and 4 regarded success as the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment and concern for people (upper left quadrant). LGA 6 defined its success for both innovative leadership and outpacing the competition (lower right quadrant).

The results emerging from the analysis of the six dimensions of culture reveals that the current working culture in the researched LGAs was incongruent for each of the LGAs. No single LGA had all the dimensions consistent with one another and in the same quadrant.

Literature is filled with propositions that the cultural congruence of organisations is linked

244

with high performance; that successful organisations often have a congruent culture.

However Cameron and Freeman (2010) debunked this proposition having discovered through a comparison of the cultures of 334 organisations that cultural type is more important in determining organisational effectiveness than cultural congruence or strength. The need for a cultural change may be pressing in the long term for these LGAs. However all six LGAs may presently continue to work with their individual culture characteristics in anticipation that their cultural characteristics will evolve to fit their operational climate with time (Cameron and Freeman, 2010).

6.3 PREFERRED CULTURE VERSUS PRESENT CULTURE

Emerging results from the analysis of cultural congruency in the LGAs show that LGAs would rather have a different culture than currently exist in their LGAs. Although a significant number of respondents showed preference for their existing organisational culture they would however welcome a focus on a few critical shifts in behaviour - a slightly different cultural characteristic to the one currently adopted by their LGAs. It emerged that these respondents would rather their LGAs lay more emphasis on achievement of goals through performance management, mission statements and performance-based rewards than on the current rule enforcement and administration. Their desires align with the assessment of the Victorian Public Service Commission (2015). Most middle managers and lower level employees in all six researched LGAs preferred that their existing culture emphasise a lesser focus on the internal process model than currently exists but not a complete change of culture. Although between them, more middle managers opted for a more external focus. A middle manager reiterated that:

“It is not totally true that our culture is entirely bad. What we need to do is to identify specific aspects of the culture that need improvement and this can be done by integrating formal and informal interventions”.( Respondent A4, LGA 1).

245

Similarly respondent C5 stated that:

“If the top will acknowledge some innovative ideas we offer for improved process management, we may well be on our way to consistent success”. (Respondent C5, LGA 4).

In the same vein, respondent B2, a lower level believes that:

“The ability of the local government to look more externally may be the ingredient for effective performance.”( Respondent B2, LGA 2).

The study infers from the findings that what may be important for long-term implementation success may not be a particular type of organizational culture per se but the ability to effectively manage and change the culture over time to adjust to changes in the situation and needs of the organization. Therefore there is need for an urgent needs assessment which can play an important role in identifying and understanding the weaknesses in the current organisational culture in each LGA.

6.4 SUMMARY

The findings for research question two reflect an examination of the typologies of organisational culture inherent in the researched LGAs, the discrepancy between the current and preferred culture types and their success implications and the cultural congruency of each of the LGAs.

The identified heterogeneity in the culture types and their implication for organisational performance respond to Parker and Bradley (2000); Baker (2002); Moynihan and Pandey

(2010); Schein (2010, 2014) and Taylor (2014) and presents contextual evidence that effective performance in public organisations is more likely when it is integrated and aligned with an organization’s culture regardless of the culture type (s) engaged (Victorian Public

Service Commission, 2015). The findings challenged the argument that the primary source of failure of many performance drives in the researched LGAs has been failure to change the

246

organisational culture (Cameron and Quinn, 2011). Overall it rejects the idea that a managerial support for change in organisational culture is sufficient for effective service delivery. The current research however provides support for the works of Katzenbach Et al.

(2012) and argues that public organisations must honour the strengths of their existing culture. According to Katzenbach Et al. (2012:10) ‘the secret is to stop fighting your culture and to work with it and within it, until it evolves in the right direction’. The identified hybrid of culture types emerged with significant variations in operational climates. These variations were evident in the differences identified in the implementation phases and activities during the implementation process as highlighted in phase one. Also of significant importance are the differences in the way implementers, involved in these varied implementation patterns, perceived the contribution of strategy implementation as a strategic phenomenon.

247

CHAPTER SEVEN

INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE TYPOLOGIES AND STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION IN THE LGAS

7.0 EFFECT OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ON IMPLEMENTATION

The culture types found in the researched LGAs revealed important dynamics to the implementation process patterns in the individual LGAs. Evidence from empirical data show that strategy implementation process does not just begin and conclude with the activities of implementers which include the integration and manipulation of organisational resources, rather, serving as a unifying theme, the LGAs culture provides meaning, mobilisation and direction which shapes the implementers’ activities and behavioural approaches to strategy implementation.

All six researched LGAs were found to have elements of all four culture types. However they all were subtly inclined towards the hierarchical and market culture types. Therefore their general ideology and philosophy is towards stability, control, predictable implementation performance outcomes and centralization - attributes of the hierarchical culture - and efficiency, task focus, profitability, productivity and goal achievement- attributes of the market culture. In the all six researched LGAs there was an overarching cultural characteristic which tended towards the traditional implementation patterns as revealed by a significant number of respondents:

“….Our processes and activities are guided by rules. It’s not as if we do not welcome new ideas or procedural change but even those have to be tried, tested and trusted.”(Respondent C6, LGA 5).

Similarly, respondent A3 disclosed how:

248

“People adhere strictly to rules in government. We are quite different from the private sector. We have an administrative structure here but you know it has kept us together anyway.”( Respondent A3, LGA 3).

Although all six researched LGAs were found to have harmonious internal characteristics, the subtle role of the hierarchy culture makes them show mechanistic characteristic tendencies, which in the opinion of Ahmedi Et al. (2012) may not be favourable for strategy implementation. A middle manager commented:

“We have laid down implementation processes and procedures…and yes we welcome new ideas but they have to be within the framework of laid down rules and guidelines. You know some of us may not completely agree with the present process but you don’t want to get on the wrong side of management.” (Respondent D4, LGA 3).

For strategy implementation to flourish maximally the process needs a dynamic, organic and adaptable organisational character (Ahmedi Et al. 2012). In other words flexible cultures breed better grounds for effective strategy implementation. More specifically, clan culture, characterized by open communication, teamwork, mentoring leadership and participation, on the one hand, and adhocracy culture characterized by innovation, risk taking and creative leadership on the other hand, provide suitable conditions for strategy implementation.

Ironically, these two culture types exist within the researched LGAs but were found to be the weaker culture types. Respondent A6 confirmed that:

“Personally, I think part of our main problem is that we do not allow participation of staff in decision making. I think it’s important to make them feel important…you know I mean we really do not have significant value for human relations and it’s really worth looking into.” (Respondent A6, LGA 5).

These dominant characteristics of the less favourable culture types over the weak characteristics of the more favourable culture types in the researched LGAs may be in part responsible for the partly effective and ineffective implementation drive highlighted in phase one of this research. Weak clan culture characteristics mean weak value for human relations; weak staff development; and lack of open discussion and communication and under this type

249

of conditions, it may be difficult for employees to find tangible reasons to justify their commitment and contribution towards the success of the implementation process. Perhaps the most fundamental requirement for successful strategy implementation therefore is good communication while a second important element is employee involvement. In the context of the research population, both vital characteristics were found weak in some LGAs. Similarly the weakness of adhocracy culture characteristics in a number of the researched LGAs suggests a lack of flexibility and decentralization which in turn may restrain growth, development and expansion due to a paucity of innovation and creativity. In today’s ever evolving global workplace, non-flexible organisational cultures put a restraint on organisations’ ability to innovate (Riley, 2014). Therefore, the presence of weak adhocracy culture characteristics indicates that the researched LGAs may currently lack the impetus to maximise their implementation drive. Innovation oriented climates are consistent with, and conceptually overlap continuous improvement, a feature of strategy implementation.

In reality, for organisations to stay effective, they adopt at least an element of each of the four culture categories (Zammuto and Krakower, 1991). The findings show a significant but varying impact of organisational culture mixed typologies on the implementation process patterns. The classical and traditional implementing patterns found in the researched LGAs were established based on the behavioural orientations of strategic actors involved in the implementation process and the implementation process initiators. Each of these patterns is established to have similar phases but different implementing activities. The degree to which each culture type impacts on each of the implementing activities in each pattern is found to vary from the most effective to less effective.

7.0.1 Impact of clan culture on strategy implementation process

Results show that clan culture impacted effectively on the Strategy content and Process management phases of the implementation process under the two identified patterns of

250

strategy implementation. Similarly implementing activities within these phases such as surveying, assessing and utilising were also found to be favourably affected by this culture type. However its impact was less effective on resource allocation, chain of command and assigning responsibility phases. A possible explanation for its effective impact on strategy content and process management phases could be that the internal focus and flexible nature of clan culture type which encourages commitment and loyalty of staff to their LGAs reduced all senior management (SMT) and middle management (MMT) concerns. In the LGA 4 with a strong clan and hierarchy culture and elements of market, and adhocracy cultures, a middle management staff explained that:

“Resources have been difficult to mobilise, and so allocation has not been as forthcoming as we expected, although everyone here is committed because we work as a team … I would say because of the stable and friendly environment and the employment security, our operations are smooth running.” (Respondent A6, LGA 5).

A majority of respondents shared this view point.

Prior literature suggests that clan culture, having an internal and flexible orientation is associated with impacting favourably on top management processes (Dension and Spreitzer,

1991). In both the classical and traditional implementing patterns, senior management (SMT) was involved majorly in strategy content with middle management (MMT) overseeing much of the process management phase. The primary responsibility of the SMT and MMT in the

LGAs is to keep staff unified and operating in the same direction. In the LGAs which employed the traditional implementing pattern and where elements of clan culture was found stronger, staffs exhibited a great sense of teamwork and unity and SMT showed a high level of involvement and concern for staff. Ahmedi Et al. (2012) assert that clan culture inter- phases favourably with people management and the principles of top management which makes clan culture an ideal culture type from the top management perspective. Specifically, top management’s support and involvement in terms of provision of resources for staff

251

training to help increase employee skills, knowledge and ability is considered to be driven by clan culture. The importance of this relationship is also supported by Naor Et al. (2008) and

Dellana and Hauser (1999) who consider top management support as a basic factor in implementation. These authors believe that strategy implementation encounters less resistance in organisations employing clan culture and that strategy implementation problems under these culture types is generally experienced when top management fails to create a harmonious working environment through the communication of its vision to staff or when it fails to communicate implementation progress to staff or create organisational goals awareness for strategy improvement (Kaynak, 2003; Lee and Choi, 2006). This implies that through the characteristics of open communication in clan culture, it is expected to reduce the problem of communication gap between top management and staff of the LGAs.

Empirical evidence from the above studies suggests that the dominance of clan culture enhances the involvement of top management in implementation processes and indeed other organisational processes as a whole. In fact, other studies (Beer, 2003) which are not particularly focused on culture and implementation relationship, have suggested a rational relationship between this culture type and top management activities. For example, a feature of clan culture is supportive leadership, one which considers and values employees’ ideas. As such, this feature would be expected to reduce the problem of top management’s lack of support and commitment to implementation. Since leadership in clan culture is participative and supports teamwork and empowerment, top management of LGAs 1, 2 and 4 are expected, as a matter of cultural principle, to actively support the implementation process by providing adequate resources for staff training to enhance staffs’ skills, knowledge and ability (Beer, 2003). Similarly, the non-involvement of employees in development projects will result in staff detachment from organisational goals, change in staff attitude and

252

ultimately, ineffective performance. These problems can be reduced by adopting the characteristics of clan culture (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).

The success of the implementation process in some of the LGAs, that adopted this culture type, however was linked to ineffective implementation. For example LGA1, although exhibited a strong presence of the features of clan culture, did not enjoy the benefits of clan culture type in its implementation efforts. One possible explanation may be that the relative presence of hierarchical and market cultures (oriented towards stability and control), might have limited the extent to which the presence of clan culture encourages senior management to communicate with and empower employees. The goal achievement focus and competitive nature of the hierarchy and market cultures may have forced senior management to hold back on expending openness and empowerment to staff thus inadvertently impeding what ordinarily is a successful implementation. A second explanation may be that the laissez faire attitude of strategic actors which defines the passive process initiator under this implementing pattern may be responsible for the ineffective implementation. Generally, the less effective impact of clan culture on chain of command, allocation of resources and assigning of responsibility makes the implementation process under clan culture arbitrary.

7.0.2 Impact of Adhocracy culture on strategy implementation process

Adhocracy culture was found to impact most effectively on assigning responsibilities, strategy content and allocation of resources and less effectively on chain of command and process management. Accordingly, implementing activities such as operation optimising, action prioritising and strategy refining were impacted upon favourably by this culture type.

A possible explanation for this is that the LGAs where adhocracy culture is strongest may be more inclined to behave organically in order to react quickly to unpredictable circumstances.

A second explanation is to view the external focus and flexible nature of adhocracy culture as favourable for these three phases and their concurrent activities. The nature and

253

characteristics of adhocracy culture allow for growth and acquisition of resources and thus drives effective allocation of resources. The strategy content and assigning responsibility phases may also be driven by the fact that leaders under the adhocracy culture are generally innovators, visionaries and risk takers. Hence they understand the consequences of responsibility sharing (assigning responsibility) and the implications of policy formulation

(strategy content) (Lund 2003).

Prior literature (Naranjo-Valencia, 2011; Ahmadi Et al. 2012) which had previously considered relationships between organisational culture and strategy implementation provide empirical support for this finding. The studies concluded that adhocracy culture considerably favours resource allocation, strategy content and responsibility sharing. In the case of strategy content Ahmadi Et al. (2012) found that the sound relation with adhocracy culture can be explained on the basis that policies lead organisations’ activities and formulating these policies is an up to date function. As such flexible cultures are more adapted to modifications.

Like clan culture, adhocracy culture emphasizes flexibility, but in its case there is a greater focus on the external environment (Fey and Denison, 2003) therefore the strategy content phase is channelled towards assessing and reassessing the competition and adapting new policies to meet changes in the external environment that will guarantee them a leading edge.

Lopez Et al. (2004) assert that the inclination of organisations with adhocracy culture is towards resource acquisition, innovativeness, growth and continual adjustment to fit the external environment therefore such organisations are characterized by innovative workplaces which give people the freedom to take risks and experiment. This explains the effectiveness of the resource allocation phase under the adhocracy culture type, especially because the theory of effectiveness for adhocracy culture is vision, innovativeness and new resources produce effectiveness (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). With innovative leadership and creative employees, organisations with adhocracy culture orientation can achieve speedy

254

growth through the creation of new standards and continuous improvement (Fey and

Denison, 2003; Abdul Rashid Et al. 2004). The quality strategies of adhocracy culture emphasise on finding creative solutions, decentralization, innovation, growth and freedom of action (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).

The studies above provide empirical support for the relationship between adhocracy culture and strategy implementation process as do other studies in the wider implementation literature. For example, Sanz-Valle Et al. (2011) assert that a dynamic, entrepreneurial, and creative work place, free of fear and compulsion, a feature of adhocracy culture by virtue of its orientation of freedom of action will inherently motivate workers to do a good job. This dynamic work place creates a sense of commitment and trust which ultimately guarantees the untiring contributions of employees to organisational issues. The encouragement for innovation and the commitment to experimentation allows employees to bring creative ideas for organisational development and are thus allowed to participate in decision making

(Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Therefore adhocracy culture is expected to reduce or remove perceived implementation obstacles such as lack of employee involvement, lack of process and goal awareness and lack of communication. It helps to tackle the issues of insufficient teamwork and staffs’ resistance to change. Similarly, Oakland (1997) and Al-Zamani Et al.

(2002) assert that in order for organisations to be on the leading edge, staffs need to engage more in teamwork, which necessitates a high level of knowledge and employee skill, one that can be realised through systematic training and education. Al-Zamani Et al. (2002) insists that Adhocracy culture attaches high importance to staff training and that quality vocational and pedagogical training has been a major obstacle faced by many organisations on the way to development hence adhocracy culture oriented organisations would be better placed for implementation success.

255

In both the classical and traditional implementing patterns, senior management (SMT) was involved majorly in allocation of resources and strategy content with middle management

(MMT) overseeing the chain of command phase. Since these responsibilities are structural and primarily within the domain of SMT and MMT adhocracy culture appears to be a more ideal culture type from management’s perspective. In the LGAs which employed the classical implementing patterns and where the adhocracy culture was found to be strongest, implementation success was linked to either partly effective or effective implementation. This is justified by Ahmedi Et al. (2012) assertion that flexible cultures which prepare acquiescent working environment for employees receive more relevance with structural factors of strategy implementation. The reason may be that the extent a structure tolerates deviations from mechanistic body and present freelance in organisational behaviour is crucial in strategy implementation. The favourable relationship between adhocracy culture and implementation is also supported by Lee and Tseng (2005) and Pirayeh Et al. (2011). These authors believe that strategy implementation will be a seamless process in organisations employing a dominant adhocracy culture and that strategy implementation problem under this culture type is generally experienced when situations occur that require defined leadership or where management fails to stress the importance of integrated communication for all employees

(Kaynak, 2003; Lee and Choi, 2006). This implies that through the characteristics of flexibility in adhocracy culture, it is expected to decrease the problem of individualism in staff and rigid, non adaptable policies in the LGAs.

The success of the implementation process in some of the LGAs, who adopted adhocracy culture, was linked to effective and partly effective implementation success. For example

LGA 2, although exhibited a strong presence of the features of adhocracy culture, did not enjoy the benefits of adhocracy culture type in its implementation efforts. One possible explanation may be that the elements of inadequate planning and risk assessment in

256

adhocracy culture can leads to a reactionary style of business and in the absence of risk management, unforeseen consequences can occur. A second explanation may be that the relative presence of some elements of hierarchical and market cultures (oriented towards stability and control), might have limited the extent to which employees can bring creative ideas or experiment and take risks. The formalised procedure of the hierarchy structure which enforces adherence to policy and established procedure may force senior management to lose its flexibility and commitment to experimentation thus inadvertently impede what ordinarily should be a successful implementation. There is also the issue of the laissez faire attitude of strategic actors which defines the passive process initiator under the classical- passive implementing pattern found in LGA2. This may also be linked with to the partly ineffective implementation.

The impact of adhocracy culture was found to be less effective on chain of command and process management. In LGA 2 where the adhocracy culture is dominant with some elements of market, hierarchy and clan culture, respondent A4, a middle management staff explained that:

“I think above all, so far, our high score in the way we implement policies has been the fact that we are flexible on some rules that we consider too stringent during the process of implementation, this makes it possible for us to adapt easily. Our aim is to get the job done in whatever way we can.”(Respondent A4, LGA2)

A resultant effect of this culture blend is that effective Process management is absent.

Respondent C1 indicated that:

“Some of our policies have been effectively implemented but it is apparent that there are no effective monitoring processes in place and no comparison of results to best practices. Although adjustments were made to the process where necessary, an evaluation of the efficiency and efficacy of the process is not properly done.”( Respondent C1, LGA2).

257

This view was shared by majority of respondents. Generally, the less effective impact of adhocracy culture on process management and chain of command has made the implementation process capricious.

7.0.3 Impact of Market culture on strategy implementation process

Results indicate that market culture impacted effectively on chain of command, allocation of resources and assigning responsibility. However its impact was less effective on process management and strategy content. Consequently the conduct of implementing activities such as phase and activity timing, action prioritising, executing, intervening and performance managing were found to be effective. Market culture is characterised by competitive actions and achievement of measurable goals (Mehta and Krishnan, 2004), its external orientation, and control and stability natures makes the organisational style aggressive (Cameron and

Quinn, 1999). Therefore its competitive characteristic is consistent with assigning the right responsibilities to skilled individuals to ensure that the competition is beaten or kept at its barest minimum and its stability and control feature allows for adherence to structural procedures thus impacting favourably on lines of authority (chain of command). Also its hard drive on profitability increases resource allocation. This is explained for its drive to leverage on cost efficiency (Gallagher Et al. 2008). Profitability strategy is dependent on an organisation’s ability to properly allocate resources in a cost efficient manner (Timothy Et al.

2005). The nature and characteristics of market culture however appears to not be consistent with process management. It competitiveness and customer focus orientation may allow for a disregard for certain processes if the purpose is to achieve goals and beat competition.

Respondent B6 mentioned that :

“Our local government chairman is a hard driver, he is so obsessed with the reputation of the council, and as a matter of fact he has created external partnership that is somehow taking over our own roles as internal staff.”(Respondent B6, LGA 3).

258

This cultural characteristic is found to impact negatively on the strategy content phase.

Respondent A1 remarked:

“There is a limit to which we as ordinary staff can advice management, they pass the laws and we must obey. You know….innovative ideas are not encouraged, you must only carry out tasks that have been assigned to you.”(Respondent A1, LGA 2).

A flaw of the market culture is its lack of encouragement for innovation or its lack of a supportive working environment within the organization; because of the lack of flexibility to allow for this mechanism, market culture did not impact on strategy content favourably

(Naranjo-Valencia Et al. 2011). It is worthy of note that competition amongst LGAs in

Nigeria was very minimal, almost non-existent therefore emphasis on market culture that promotes competition was found to be very low.

The finding is in line with previous studies which had considered relationships between organisational culture and strategy implementation (Davenport and Prusak, 1997; Ouchi,

1981; Carnall, 1990; Meijen, 2007). These studies concluded that there was an influential relationship between market culture and implementation phases with a competitive focus.

Market culture has an external focus, and competitors are outside the boundary of the organisation. This relationship was also corroborated by Dodek Et al. (2010). The study by

Hatch and Zilber (2011) also supports the validity of this relationship. Ahmadi Et al. (2012) found that the sound relation between phases of a competitive focus and market culture can be explained on the basis that competitiveness defines the organisations’ activities and achieving a leading edge can only be achieved by leaders who are tough and demanding. As such stable and control cultures are more consistent with this requirement. There is a greater focus on the external environment (Fey and Denison, 2003) therefore the strategy content phase is channelled towards assessing and reassessing the competition and adapting new policies to meet changes in the external environment that will guarantee them a leading edge.

259

Lopez Et al. (2004) assert that the inclination of organisations with market culture is towards improving productivity, enhancing competitiveness, profitability and goal achievement, therefore such organisations are characterized by a tough and challenging workplace whose major concern is to get the job done. This explains the effectiveness of the resource allocation phase under the market culture type, especially because the theory of effectiveness for market culture is aggressive competition and customer focus produce effectiveness (Cameron and

Quinn, 1999). With tough and demanding leadership and hard-driven employees, organisations with market culture orientation can achieve results through the creation of external partnerships and its continuous emphasis on winning (Abdul Rashid Et al. 2004).

The studies above provide empirical support for the relationship between market culture and strategy implementation process as do other studies in the wider implementation literature.

For example, Dauber Et al. (2012) assert that a result oriented and challenging work place, a feature of market culture by virtue of its orientation of competition and high market share will inherently push staff to their limit in achieving organisational goals. This very demanding and challenging work place helps drive continual improvement in organisational systems and processes because it supports a culture of experimentation. Organisational leaders and functional units continually explore opportunities to improve upon service offerings to meet current and future needs of clientele. The encouragement for experimentation and hard drive for profitability allows leadership in a market oriented culture focus on improvement by allocating adequate resources for organisational processes

(Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Therefore market culture is expected to reduce implementation obstacles such as lack of allocation of adequate resources. Inadequate resources allocation is evaluated as a critical factor hindering strategy implementation in several previous studies

(Minjoon, 2004; Kotey and Slade, 2005; Soltani Et al. 2008). The issues of delay in decision making process is reduced by this market type, even though employees are not encouraged to

260

participate in decision making as portrayed by respondent A1 earlier. The result-oriented nature of market culture demands an instant and speedy management style which breaks through the barrier of many layers of management (Soltani Et al. 2006). For example respondent B2, affirmed:

“For us we don’t delay in making decision, we have different lines of authority and if quick decisions have to be taken, all these lines of authority can be approached.”(Respondent B2, LGA3). In change management, the attitude of employees towards improvement and development is seen as a potential barrier in many organisations. It is believed that employees build a resistance to quality because they view the pursuit of quality as needless and one of added cost, hence do not consider it an integral part of the job (Oakland, 2003). Market culture has the potential to ensure change management by virtue of its result-oriented characteristic.

Therefore, market culture would is expected to reduce the implementation barrier of employees resistance to change.

In both the classical and traditional implementing patterns, senior management (SMT) was involved majorly in allocation of resources with middle management (MMT) overseeing the chain of command and assigning responsibility phases. Since these responsibilities are structural and primarily within the domain of SMT and MMT market culture is considered a more ideal culture type from management’s perspective. In the LGAs which employed the classical implementing patterns and where the market culture was found to be strongest, implementation success was linked to effective implementation. This contrasts Ahmedi Et al.

(2012) assertion that only flexible cultures which prepare acquiescent working environment for employees receive more relevance with structural factors of strategy implementation. The reason behind this contrast may be that market culture being a stable and control oriented culture still tolerates some form of experimentation as long as such experimentation will guaranty profitability and result in goal achievement. Ahmedi Et al. (2012) believes this

261

characteristic is crucial in strategy implementation. The favourable relationship between market culture and implementation is also supported by (Kumar Et al. 2011). These authors believe that strategy implementation will be a seamless process in organisations employing a strong market orientation because it drives processes and systems and that strategy implementation problems under this culture type are generally experienced when management fails to adequately leverage on it human resources and adapt its human resource policies to reflect the goal of the organisation (Lee and Choi, 2006). This implies that through the characteristics of stability and control in adhocracy culture, it is expected to decrease the problem of human resource barriers.

The success of the implementation process in the LGAs, who adopted market culture, was linked to effective and partly effective implementation success. For example LGA 3, although exhibited a strong presence of the features of market culture, was not successful in all its implementation drives. A possible explanation may be that the element of inadequate process management in market culture is responsible for the lack of a systemic process which may cause the negligence of rather important steps in the implementation process in the

LGAs. A second explanation may be that the relative presence of some elements of clan and adhocracy cultures (oriented towards flexibility and adaptability), might have limited the extent to which SMT is able to aggressively drive its competitive values among staff. The adaptable procedure of the adhocracy structure which encourages dynamism and innovation limits senior management’s hold on stability and control thus it almost unknowingly impede its own implementation process. There is also the issue of the laissez faire attitude of strategic actors which defines the traditional implementing element of the traditional-dynamic implementing pattern found in LGA 3. This may also be associated with the partly ineffective implementation.

262

The impact of market culture was found to be less effective on process management and strategy content. Respondent B2, a middle management staff explained that:

“Our policies are drawn by senior management….they make the rules we carry them out…we are guided by rules and procedures here and to a large extent the emphasis on winning in our rules is the glue that holds this council together.” (Respondent B2, LGA 3).

A resultant effect of this culture characteristic is that employees are not involved in strategy the content phase and as such can impact negatively on employee morale. Respondent C1 indicated that:

“We have been successful in implementing some of our policies but a bulk part of the reason why others have not been particularly successful can be blamed on our processes.”(Respondent C1, LGA2).

Generally, the study identifies that the less effective impact of market culture on process management and strategy may be responsible for the erratic implementation process.

7.0.4 Impact of Hierarchy culture on strategy implementation process

Analysis of data shows that Hierarchy culture impacted most effectively on chain of command and assigning responsibility under the traditional and classical implementation patterns. However its impact was less effective on process management, strategy content, and allocation of resources under both implementation patterns. Consequently, aligning and routinising implementing activities were found to be impacted upon most effectively in the traditional implementing patterns. This finding is in line with the findings of earlier studies by Denison and Spreitzer (1991); Jae Moon (2000); Prajogo and McDermott (2005) and

(Bradley and Parker, 2000). However, Zu Et al. (2009) and Pollitt and Bouckaert (2004) findings emerged differently. A majority of respondents in LGA 1 and LGA 4 emphasise that formal rules and regulations, characteristics of hierarchy culture, have been the binding force holding their LGAs together. They acknowledge a seamless process of assigning responsibility and chain of command such as cross-functional teams. Pollitt and Bouckaert

263

(2004) also argue that public institutions are essentially different from private institutions on a variety of dimensions including access to resources, the diversity of their goals, and the nature of organisational constraint. Consequently it is not expected that the culture types which thrive in private sector organisations will be suitable for public sector institutions.

Respondent B1 mentioned that:

“We are quite different from the private sector like you mentioned, so there’s absolutely no way we can function in the same capacity. As a matter of fact our system of operation has ensured that we maintained a smooth running organisation which has kept us together, really.”(Respondent B1, LGA 4).

These highpoints of hierarchy culture which ensures a well structured and stable institution also allows for consistency, efficiency and uniformity (Barrington Et al. 2014). The general consensus is that control and efficiency with appropriate processes will produce effectiveness. The long term concern is stability and performance with efficient, smooth operation and success is defined in terms of dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low cost (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Its internal orientation, and control and stability natures make the organisational style predictable (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Therefore its formalised and structured characteristic is consistent with assigning responsibilities and chain of command to ensure strict governance and monitoring of staff activities. Its stability and control feature allows for adherence to structural procedures thus impacting favourably on lines of authority (chain of command). Also success is defined in terms of low cost. This is explained for its drive to leverage on cost efficiency (Gallagher Et al. 2008). Profitability strategy is dependent on an organisation’s ability to properly allocate resources in a cost efficient manner (Timothy Et al. 2005).

The nature and characteristics of hierarchy culture however is not consistent with process management, strategy content and allocation of resources. The less competitive nature and

264

internal orientation of the hierarchy culture allows for a disregard for the significance of efficient resource allocation. Respondent A3 pointed out that:

“We have do not have a contingency mechanism that prioritises things to be budgeted for. We allocate our resources manually according to the needs of units per time.” (Respondent A3, LGA1).

But resource allocation efficiency, otherwise known as the pareto efficiency is viewed as the combination and distribution of inputs and outputs such that any change in the organisation can make a unit better off by making a second unit worse off (Kanbur, 2005). This view of resource allocation shows a contingency plan which considers priority ranking of items to fund if more resources become available and which item should be sacrificed if cost efficiency is to be achieved. From the process management perspective it emerged that it was difficult making adjustments to systems and processes where it became obviously necessary to do so, as rules and regulations guiding the process does not permit. There is also the case of implementers not given realistic implementation periods to carry out tasks. An undesirable effect of hierarchy culture is that an effective process management is absent. Staff indicated that some policies were successfully implemented but it was apparent from their discussions that there were no effective monitoring processes in place and no comparison of results to best practices. Although adjustments were made to the process in some very rare cases, there is no proper evaluation of the efficiency and efficacy of the implementation process. Even though process control was identified as a quality strategy of the hierarchy culture (Cameron and Quinn, 1999), this was not the case in the researched LGAs. A possible explanation could be that there were other rationalities existent within the institution that combated the efficiency of process management. This is further discussed in section 6.05. The process of formulating policies under the strategy content phase was also found to be obscured. The cultural characteristic of hierarchy culture is not consistent with strategy content in any of the

265

implementing patterns. Ahmedi Et al. (2012) observed that for a sound policy formulation process, flexible cultures are more adaptable to modifications. Respondent A1 remarked that:

According to Pirayeh Et al. (2011) and Naranjo-Valencia(2011) this represents a flaw of the hierarchy culture. Its lack of encouragement for participation and involvement does not impact on strategy content favourably (Naranjo-Valencia Et al. 2011). It is worthy of note that competition amongst LGAs in Nigeria was very minimal, almost non-existent therefore emphasis on competition for this culture type was not considered.

Authors who previously considered the relationship between organisational culture and strategy implementation (Denison and Spreitzer, 1991; Moon, 2000; Prajogo and McDermott,

2005; Bradley and Parker, 2000) concluded that there was an influential relationship between hierarchy culture and implementation patterns with a traditional focus. Hierarchy culture has an internal focus, and competitors are more or less not given any substantial consideration.

This relationship was also corroborated by Dauber Et al. (2012). The study by Barrington Et al. (2014) also supports the validity of this relationship. Ahmadi Et al. (2012) found that the all types of cultures are related to all dimensions of implementation. The sound relation found between the assigning responsibility and chain of command phases and hierarchy culture in the LGA can therefore be explained on the basis that it is critical for organisations employing the hierarchy culture type to maintain a smooth running organisation as such this can only be achieved by leaders who are coordinators, monitors and organisers. Therefore a stable and control orientation is more consistent with this requirement. There is a greater focus on the internal environment (Fey and Denison, 2003) and competition is of no consequence so the strategy content phase is channelled towards passively assessing the environment with very

266

rare cases of policy change to meet current needs in the external environment. Parker and

Bradley (2000) assert that the inclination of organisations with hierarchy culture is towards error detection, measurement, process control, and systematic problem solving therefore such organisations are characterized by a formalised and structured workplace where procedures govern what people do. This explains the effectiveness of the chain of command and responsibility sharing phase under the hierarchy culture type, especially because the theory of effectiveness for hierarchy culture is that control produces effectiveness of processes.

(Cameron and Quinn, 1999). With coordinating and power wielding leadership and obedient and organised employees, organisations with hierarchy culture orientation can achieve results through consistency, punctuality and uniformity (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004).

The studies above provide empirical support for the relationship between hierarchy culture and strategy implementation process as do other studies in the wider implementation literature. For example, Rajasekar (2014) assert that a formally structured work place, a feature of hierarchy culture by virtue of its orientation of stability and efficiency will inherently deliver dependably with smooth operations and low cost. This control oriented work place helps drive secured employment for staff and stability in organisational systems and processes because it supports a culture of rules and regulations. Organisational leaders and functional unit heads continually maintain absolute authority to check that implementing activities and phases meet laid down procedures. The encouragement to be organised and coordinated allows leadership in a hierarchy oriented culture focus on internal development by monitoring all phases of implementing for improvement. Therefore hierarchy culture is expected to reduce implementation obstacles such as lack of well defined and systematic processes. Clear cut processes and systems are evaluated as a critical factor hindering strategy implementation in several previous studies (Minjoon, 2004; Kotey and Slade, 2005; Soltani

Et al. 2008). The problems of a well articulated process, one clearly spelt out for employees

267

to adequately understand, is reduced by this culture type. Even though employees are not encouraged to participate in decision making as indicated by respondents, the nature of consistency in hierarchy culture demands a smooth flowing management style which breaks through some barriers of process management (Welford, 2016). For example respondent B3, mentioned that:

“I don’t consider that we delay in making decision, we have different lines of authority and our policies must be vetted in line with organisational visions and goals and at any point in time when the need arises to make quick decisions we call for ad hoc meetings.”(Respondent B3, LGA3).

Similarly respondent D2, reiterated that:

“There has been a slow but incremental development here…….it’s just that Nigerians expect rapid changes in quick successions.”( Respondent D2, LGA 1).

Nutt (2011) believes that hierarchy culture has its own pros in terms of strategy content. He identified that decisions taken with urgency took a lesser time than non-urgent decisions but produced slightly poorer results and important decisions slightly took twice the time to implement but generated impressive outcomes. Therefore, hierarchy culture can be expected to reduce the strategy content if properly cultivated.

In both the classical and traditional implementing patterns, senior management (SMT) was involved majorly in chain of command and assigning responsibility with middle management

(MMT) overseeing the assigning responsibility phase. Since these responsibilities are structural and primarily within the domain of SMT and MMT, hierarchy culture is considered to effectively enable SMT in the researched LGAs coordinate and monitor systems control. It is therefore a more ideal culture type from management’s perspective. In the LGAs which employed the classical implementing patterns and where characteristics of hierarchy culture were found, implementation success was linked to partly effective implementation. This contrasts Ahmedi Et al. (2012) assertion that only flexible cultures which prepare acquiescent

268

working environment for employees receive more relevance with structural factors of strategy implementation. The reason behind this contrast may be that hierarchy culture being a stable and control oriented culture still tolerates some form of experimentation as long as such experimentation is in line with laid down rules and procedures. Dedek Et al. (2010) and

Hatch and TammarZilber (2012) believe this characteristic is crucial in strategy implementation. The favourable relationship between hierarchy culture and implementation is also supported by (Kumar Et al. 2011). These authors believe that strategy implementation will be a systematic process in organisations employing a strong hierarchy orientation because it drives processes and systems and that strategy implementation problems under this culture type are generally experienced when management loses its control and regard for human resource (Lee and Choi, 2006). This implies that through the characteristics of stability and control in hierarchy culture, it is expected to decrease the problem of human resource barriers.

The success of the implementation process in the LGAs, who adopted a relatively strong hierarchy culture, was linked to partly effective implementation success. For example LGA 4, although exhibited a strong presence of the features of hierarchy culture, was not successful in all its implementation drives. A possible explanation may be that the lack of dynamism in its resource allocation and process management and non involvement of staff in strategy content is responsible for the weak implementation drive. The implication of this is a lack of staff commitment to the implementation process. A second explanation may be that the relative presence of some elements of clan and adhocracy cultures (oriented towards flexibility and adaptability), might have limited the extent to which SMT is able to gain and maintain control of processes and systems. The adaptable nature of the adhocracy culture which encourages dynamism and innovation limits senior management’s hold on stability and control thus processes are not effectively coordinated and monitored. There is also the issue

269

of the laissez faire attitude of strategic actors which defines the traditional implementing pattern found in LGA 3. This may also be associated with the partly ineffective implementation.

The impact of hierarchy culture was found to be less effective on process management, allocation of resources and strategy content. Respondent B2, a middle management staff explained that:

“Our resources are allocations as deemed fit by senior management, otherwise how would you explain some of the implementation failures we have experienced in the past due to inadequate resources. This issue has been raised severally but have fallen on deaf ears, so it’s bound to affect the drive of the ordinary staff.” (Respondent B2, LGA 4).

A resultant effect of this culture characteristic is that employees are not provided adequate resources necessary for implementation and as such can impact negatively on employee morale. Respondent C1 indicated that:

“We have been successful in implementing some of our policies but a bulk part of the reason why others have not been particularly successful can be blamed on our stringent processes, everything is tied to the book.”(Respondent C1, LGA4).

Generally, the study identifies that the less effective impact of hierarchy culture on process management, strategy content and resource allocation may be responsible for the inconsistent implementation effectiveness experienced by the LGAs.

7.0.5 Impact of other rationalities on strategy implementation

Interestingly the data analysis revealed two other significant and peculiar rationalities, worthy of consideration as they are found to potentially impact on the relationship between culture and strategy implementation. These rationalities include Nepotism and Party Programming.

All six researched LGAs emphasised the existence of nepotism and Party programming in their various LGAs - an epidemic that has taken its toll on the Nigerian public service

(Mukoro, 2000).

270

Hofstede (2001) refer to nepotism as the situation where individuals holding public office exploit their power to grant favour to a relative even though such person(s) may not merit it.

The implication of nepotism as highlighted by Amankwah-Amoah, Ifere, and Nyuur, (2016) informs the persistence of organisations in keeping underperforming workers and consequently has negative implications for human resource competence and capabilities and ultimately, organisational performance. Party programming on the other hand is termed by this study to refer to the practice of granting favours and contracts to known individuals in return for political support.

A top management staff lucidly illustrates that:

“The public service in this country has only one systemic problem and until it is solved, we will continue to stay where we are………it is favouritism and it affects our systems and processes negatively.”(Respondent C4, LGA 2).

Similarly a middle management staff confirmed that:

“...a lot of people don’t know exactly what they are doing here, you find inexperienced people occupying very sensitive positions simply because they have one relation high up there in power….” (Respondent A5, LGA 4).

Ford and McLaughlin (1986) stressed the negative impact of nepotism on the overall goal of the organisation. They emphasised its effect on employee behaviour and business decisions.

Also, Hofstede’s fifth dimension indicates that business culture is often characterised by high collectivism (Hofstede, 1997, 2001). These negative impacts of nepotism are expressed by respondents who expressed great distrust for the system reiterating that sector processes are developed based on personal gains:

“You know why it will always seem impossible for the things to work here, because everyone is here for his own personal gains. It is almost becoming a culture and we are helplessly passing it on to the next generation……, let’s see if the new government can change things.” (Respondent A4, LGA 5).

271

The problem of ‘party programming’ has not been studied in relation to strategy implementation especially within the Nigerian context. Findings reveal that during every period of power change, there is a lobbying by people in authority to win over individuals for political support and this inadvertently impacts negatively on systems, processes and control.

During this period, political party loyalists are programmed to occupy places of authority so they can canvass for support for their party. Qualified people and party ‘dis-loyalists’ are withdrawn from such positions. The consequent implication of this is that strategic processes are stalled; there is discontinuity of implementation processes and the occurrence of disunity amongst staff because of their loyalty to different parties. Respondent A2 stated that:

“……..The last election put a hold on everything ….. Even money was not disbursed for execution purposes….” (Respondent A2, LGA 4).

This is substantiated by respondent C6:

“Shortly before the elections last year, a lot of our processes where suspended because of the tension in the polity……no one can tell what the next government will introduce….and this has always been the case”. (Respondent C6, LGA 1).

These viewpoints summarise the opinions of the majority of respondents.

7.1 SUMMARY

In all six researched LGAs, it is observed that there is an overarching cultural characteristic which tended towards the hierarchical culture. The immediate implication of this is that the

LGAs’ organisational culture is heavily skewed towards an internal process model, pointing to the presence of the cultural characteristics of traditional model of public administration – a model Bradley and Parker (2000) argue may restrict dynamism in public sector administration. Bradley and Parker (2000) offered that public sector organisations should fashion their management after the new public management theory, a philosophy which provides that effective management of public sector organisations can be achieved through an

272

exploitation of the management style in private sector organisations (Van Gramberg and

Teicher 2000). The new public sector management culture argues that a shift in emphasis from the traditional model of public administration which includes rule enforcement and administration to the attainment of result through entrepreneurial management strategies, mission statement, performance management and performance based rewards will enhance the effectiveness of public sector organisations (Bradley and Parker, 2000). Jae Moon (2000) stated that public organisations should de-emphasise hierarchical cultures and seek to develop aspects of adhocracy, market and clan cultures. This can be conceptualised as a process of organisational isomorphism in which public sector organisations are moulded to match or mimic the best practices of private sector organisations (Di Maggio and Powell, 1991). This means that public organisations should have cultural characteristics that are externally oriented rather than internally oriented; cultural characteristics that are generally associated with private sector organisations. The philosophy is critical of the traditional approaches and views them as unnecessarily rigid and stagnant.

But research proponents of the traditional model of public administration (Pollitt and

Bouckaert (2004) continue to argue that public sector organisations are fundamentally different from private sector organisations on a number of dimensions including the diversity of their goals, access to resources, and the nature of organisational constraint (economic versus political). Public sector organisations form a part of a broader government strategy of economic management and social development. They are therefore affected by prevailing political ideologies and so are not performed in an equivalent manner to the production of goods or the delivery of service in the private sector (Parker and Bradley, 2000). It is possible that public sector activities cannot be easily equated with activities in the private sector because they involve high levels of inter-organisational coordination research, communication, and negotiation and conflict resolution (Perry, 1996). Consequently, the

273

prescription of management theory, which is drawn from the experience of successful private sector organisations, might be unsuitable for application to public sector organisations

(Barrington Et al. 2014).

274

CHAPTER 8

DISCUSSION

The strategy implementation literature has thrived with diverse strategy implementation definitions, explanations of the content of strategy implementation, empirical studies and theories, strategy implementation models and standards. However, this study is in broad agreement with the theories that support effective implementation of strategies yields cost effectiveness, optimum utilization of resources and performance excellence. All through literature strategy implementation has proved its ability to affect positively on performance outcomes, service delivery outcomes and human outcomes, such as employee satisfaction, employee relations, and customer satisfaction (Waterman, Peters and Phillips, 1980;

Galbraith and Kazanjian, 1986; Alexander, 1991; Beer and Eisenstat, 2000; Thompson Et al.

2005; Wheelen and Hunger, 2012; Hrebiniak, 2013; Speculand, 2014), but in the real world, this is not the case in practice (Li Et al. 2008). These strategy implementation benefits are not easily achieved (Ivančić, 2013). Despite its theoretical support and the euphoric response to strategy implementation, the literature is abashed with many cases of strategy implementation failures (Mintzberg, 1987; Speculand, 2009; Kaplan and Norton, 2001; Grol,

2001; Ivančić, 2013; Chang, 2016; Hoffman Et al. 2016; Grindle, 2017). Researchers have generally attributed these failures to a wide range of factors: organizational structure, resources, leadership, organisational culture, time, uncontrollable external factors, communication, coordination, motivational and reward system. (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000;

Allio, 2005; Hrebiniak, 2006; Kalali Et al. 2011; Ivančić, 2013). However it appears that none of the previous research studies provides in-depth discussion and evaluation of these factors in a way that accounts for their interactive effects and how they impact negatively on strategy implementation. Following a careful review of the literature therefore, this study

275

discovered the importance of organisational culture as a unifying and an encouraging factor in the process of implementation (Nyamwanza and Mavhiki, 2014). Consequently, based upon the prevalent argument that organisational culture can drive and impede the strategy implementation process (Ahmedi Et al. 2012) and that problems of strategy implementation can be addressed by developing characteristics of organisational culture that are implementation-friendly and moderating characteristics of organisational culture that impede strategy implementation (Naranjo-Valencia Et al. 2013; Bortolottia Et al. 2014; Hartnell Et al. 2016; Forte Et al. 2016) the current research considered organisational culture as the lens through which the strategy implementation phenomenon was going to be viewed. In the context of this study therefore, the study has empirically examined evidence on the impact of organisational cultural characteristics on the elements of the strategy implementation process.

The main purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between these two variables to gain a better understanding of the missing link to effective strategy implementation. It attempted to fulfil this aim by identifying the dynamics of strategy implementation inherent in the different researched LGAs and then exploring the types of organisational culture employed in the survey population. Finally the relationship between each of the types of culture identified and each of the elements of strategy implementation were highlighted to gain further insight into the conceptualisation of strategy implementation processes and to outline recommendations on what type of organisational culture should be associated with what type of strategy implementation pattern for effective implementation performance.

The study attracted 42 responses from key organisational informants constituting a response sample that provided a substantive representation of the total survey population. The summary of the demographics of respondents in table 5.1 (chapter 5) supports the fact that all three criteria of relevance, qualification and experience of respondents were met and that the data was obtained from highly dependable professionals (Weaver Et al. 2008). Similarly, the

276

demographic of the participant organisations in table 5.2 (chapter 5) shows a balanced representation of organisations (by location and size) therefore, the preconditions of coverage and sampling (Dillman Et al. 2009) were satisfactorily met. These include: include survey population of all organisations to which results will be generalized; and decide on a sample that represents the survey population. Another important consideration was the validity of the survey instrument used in this study. According to Johnston (1995), to achieve the validity of inferences in research where values of scales have been adapted and applied to specific culture and region, it is necessary to assess the relevance of the context of the scale.

Therefore, the instrument was revised further through pilot semi-structured interviews with implementers in the LGAs and academics from the same context and background as the target sample population to ensure that the interview questions were relevant, comprehensive, understandable and valid. The survey instrument was modified based on their input. The verbatim transcriptions of data also provided rigour to the data analysis and validity of the research (Morrison-Beedy Et al. 2001; Whittemore Et al. 2001).The interview questions were administered verbally while the CVF was administered as questionnaires. Values of scales were fixed therefore there was no chance of dissidents in the data. Finally, the reliability and validity of the adapted scales was assessed through construct validity (Aroian and Schappler,

1996). It is expected that replication of this study in other organisations/sector with different cultures and context may further help in developing an improved model of strategy implementation. The key findings of this research are discussed below in section 7.2.

8.1 THE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS PATTERNS

The effectiveness of the whole process of planning diminishes if the formulated strategies are not implemented (Siddique and Shadbolt, 2016). Therefore understanding the process of implementing by organisations and channelling this understanding to the activities, steps and phases of the implementation process needed to ensure effective implementation is an

277

important part of the strategy implementation journey. Studies have consistently shown that many strategies fail in the implementation phase and this has led many authors to explore diverse approaches to the implementing process and investigate different implementing patterns organisations adopt (Noble, 1999, Anderson, 2004, Jarzabkowski, 2008). Miller et. al.(2004) describes implementing as all the processes and outcomes which accrue to a strategic decision once authorization has been given to go ahead and put the decision into practice. This further lends credence to the fact that adopting the right implementing patterns, techniques or approaches will enhance implementation performance (Li Et al.2008; Leonardi,

2015) The growing awareness to the significance of the process of implementation firstly, is indicative of the evolution of this field of study and secondly, provides the availability of several approaches that organisations can adopt in implementing strategies. It is also suggestive of the need for further investigation into the ideal type of implementation pattern, if any. (Nyamwanza and Mavhiki, 2014). Consequently in this study the strategy implementation pattern in the researched LGAs was observed and identified as classical and traditional implementing process patterns.

The study’s findings for Research question-1 respond to Noble (1999); Hutzschenreuter and

Kleindienst (2006), and Li Et al. (2010) and reflect a critical exploration of the process of strategy implementation and success of the implementation process in the researched LGAs.

The data presents significant evidence that in practice the researched LGAs showed considerable differences in the pattern of strategy implementation process they adopted.

These differences provide support to existing strategy implementation literature (Ahmadi Et al. 2012; Nyamwanza and Mahviki, 2012).

The emerged implementing patterns of Classical implementing and Traditional implementing adopted by the researched LGAs underscored the significance of implementers’ behavioural approach towards strategy implementation and highlighted the role of process contingencies

278

that define the strategy implementation patterns and link them to different levels of implementation success. It is worthy of note that Classical implementing and Traditional implementing behaviours are significantly different from the interpersonal, structural, integrated or procedural approaches in strategy implementation literature (Noble, 1999,

Anderson, 2004, Jarzabkowski, 2008). The Classical and Traditional implementing validated the need to explore the differences in how implementers approached strategy implementation in the different LGAs.

Empirical data revealed that all of the researched LGAs integrated their activities addressing structural (systems, HR, job roles identification, policies) and interpersonal issues (Noble,

1999; Skivington and Daft‘s, 1991). But the key driving forces in the Classical and

Traditional implementing approaches was the differences in implementer‘s perceived contribution of strategy implementation as a strategic phenomenon. Due to these differences in perception there is a significant difference in the way unit heads and LGA leaders utilised implementation activities in the different implementation patterns. For example the

Traditional implementing patterns showed far lesser attention to implementation competitiveness, implementation thoroughness, and synergy when compared to the Classical implementing pattern. Also of importance is that the difference in implementation process patterns revealed sequential variations in implementation process due to the different distribution of activities across phases in the varied implementation patterns. This contrasts with extant strategy implementation literature (Li Et al. 2010; Jarzabkowski, 2008) which gives little significance to the heterogeneity in the role of strategy implementation as considered by implementers in the different LGAs. The Traditional and Classical implementation process patterns were found to be associated with two distinct strategic approaches: Dynamic and Passive implementing approaches. These two approaches defined how implementers viewed the strategy implementation process and value their competitive

279

performances. Therefore the researched LGAs pursued either Classical-Dynamic or

Traditional-Dynamic or Classical-Passive and Traditional-Passive strategy implementation patterns; however, only one each of the researched LGAs was found to employ the

Traditional-Passive and Classical-Dynamic implementation patterns. The Classical and

Traditional strategy of implementing showed that implementers select different implementation activities in the implementation phases based on how they view the role of strategy implementation in their LGA. Both patterns of implementing therefore stress the need to further understand behavioural differences in how implementers and their LGAs engage with strategy implementation as a strategic phenomenon.

The contextual contingencies like LGA size, time constraints, resources, importance and the power and position of the implementing manager proved to shape the implementation patterns and provide processual evidence for the use of option-theoretic logic by implementers in adopting their implementation pattern in the different LGAs (Bowman and

Hurry, 1993). The research findings therefore refute the idea of a universal implementation process as suggested by Bossidy and Charan (2002) and the use of contingency approach as suggested by Govindarajan (1988). But the use of the option-theoretic logic indicates that managers’ subjectivity or intuition played a crucial role in the adoption of implementation patterns and contextual factors played key part in this adoption process. Nutt (2001) calls for the avoidance of contingency models in adopting implementation approaches. Having examined the outcomes of 376 strategic decisions, he concluded that contingency approaches lack empirical justification: decisions taken with urgency took a lesser time than non-urgent decisions, but produced slightly poor results while highly important decisions on the other hand took almost twice the time to implement but generated impressive outcomes. This suggests that urgent decisions only result in temporary fixes with poor impact in the future.

Hence he proposed the use of intervention and participation approaches to implementation

280

having found them successful in his study. However this raises the question: are the adoption measures he considered useful for decisions that have a very limited window of opportunity?

Such a qualification is important for future work but remain outside the scope of this research.

8.2 THE ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE PROFILE OF THE LGAS

The attainment of business excellence and optimum organisational performance can’t be achieved merely by rudimentary improvement of strategies but by the development of the will and ability to do the right things in the right way through a persistent and lasting set of norms and values (Oakland, 2003). Such inherent norms and values which shape an organisation’s climate, behaviours and beliefs are referred to by many authors as organisational culture (Cameron and Quinn, 1999; Al-khalifa and Aspinwall, 2001; Prajogo and McDermott, 2005). It therefore becomes important to understand the cultural profile of an organisation to enable an appropriate matching of this profile to the operational climate of the organisation with a view to accomplishing a change in organisational performance

(Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Organisational culture is increasingly being identified as a key factor in organisational performance. Cameron and Quinn (2011) argue that what most distinguishes successful organisations, their most important competitive advantage is their organisational culture. Organisational culture research has typically come from two standpoints. Firstly a desire to fully understand and define what organisational culture is and secondly, theories around different types of organisation culture and how they function.

Consistent with the different perspectives on organisational culture is the differing perspectives on how it functions. Several methods have been used to classify organisational culture. While there is no unitary type of organisational culture because of the differing organisational culture types amongst organisations, a certain degree of commonality exists

(Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Denison, 1990). Literature around this different typologies of

281

culture applicable in organisations more often than not commence with an analysis of the idea of strong versus weak cultures. Baker (2002:4) notes that although all organisations have cultures, ‘some appear to have stronger, more deeply rooted cultures than others’. A strong culture is typically conceptualised as a coherent set of beliefs, values, assumptions, and practices embraced by most members of the organisation. In contrast a weak culture is characterised by core values that are not clearly defined, communicated or widely accepted by employees of the organisation. However, arguments that a strong culture is always good because it promotes motivation, commitment identity and sameness, have been questioned as there are strong suggestions that strong can also imply inflexible and intransigent. (Baker,

2002). Consequently, in this context, the organisational culture profile observed in the researched LGAs is discussed.

The identified heterogeneity in the culture types and their implication for organisational performance respond to Parker and Bradley (2000); Baker (2002); Moynihan and Pandey

Service Commission, 2015). The findings challenged the argument that the primary source of failure of many implementation performances in the researched LGAs has been failure to change the organisational culture (Cameron and Quinn, 2011). It rejects the idea that a managerial support for change in organisational culture is sufficient for effective service delivery. The current research however provides support for the works of Katzenbach Et al.

282

The identified hybrid of culture types emerged with significant variations in operational climates and degrees of implementation success. These variations were evident from the differences identified in implementation phases and activities during strategy implementation.

The study findings show that the researched LGAs predominantly employed a mix of hierarchical and market culture types. This implies that the focus of the researched LGAs is more on control, stability and order, (hierarchical culture); and goal achievement, task focus, productivity and profitability and efficiency (market culture) rather than dynamism, flexibility and discretion (Clan culture and Adhocracy culture). Also the organisational focus of the hierarchy culture is internal and inclined towards improvement and maintenance of the existing organisation, while that of market culture is external and oriented towards interaction and adaptation with the external environment. This shows that the researched LGAs have an external focus on market share and profitability along with an internal focus on stability and control. The LGAs have harmonious internal characteristics together with a focus on interacting or competing with other LGAs. The existence of a weak clan culture which suggests signs of non-participation of employees in decision making; lack of communication/open discussion; lack of empowerment of employees to act; low regard for the value of human relations and cohesion and teamwork indicates that LGA employees may see no reason to justify their commitment and contribute whole-heartedly to organisational improvement (Gallear and Gobadian, 2004). Similarly the recessive role of the adhocracy culture also suggests that the LGAs lack flexibility and decentralization that in turn is likely to restrain growth and development due to lack of innovation and creative problem solving processes (Prajogo and McDermott, 2005).

It may be impossible to appreciate how these concepts apply to the overall performance of the LGAs without first understanding the cultural characteristics of public service and its centrality to the impact of reforms within the public service. Parker and Bradley (2000)

283

suggest that most public sector organisations continue to emphasise the values of a bureaucratic or hierarchical organisational culture. This hierarchical organisational culture has been well conceptualised in literature (Prajogo and McDermott, 2005; Cameron and

Quinn, 2011). Research on public organisations reveals a set of common characteristics including the presence of structured hierarchies, rational rules and procedures, formalised decision making processes and advancement through administrative expertise (Bozeman,

1979). Stability and predictability have been central characteristics of this culture type (Perry and Rainey, 1988). A further more compelling feature of this culture type is that organisations are subject to political rather than market controls. Unlike private organisations they are constrained by political authority and political activities (Dahl and Lindblom, 1953).

Their objectives, structures and processes have often been defined by central bureaucratic agencies or constrained by legislation (Cole,1988). They have been accountable to the public through the political process and have been subject to conflicting demands from multiple public interests in the form of social movements and interest groups (Hughes, 1994). As a result of these political constraints public organisations have had blurred objectives and goals and the autonomy of public sector managers to pursue organisational goals has been constrained (Day and Klein, 1987). The literature on public organisations therefore suggests that they have traditionally under emphasised adhocracy aspects of culture because they have lacked an orientation towards adaptability, change and risk taking. Instead these organisations have been oriented towards a hierarchical culture because of their emphasis on rules, procedures and stability.

In overcoming these deficiencies management theories suggest and provide a basis for increased productivity and improved efficiency in the delivery of public service (Metcalfe and Richards, 1992; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). This is based on the premise that the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector organisations could be improved through the

284

application of management techniques that have previously been reserved for private-profit making organisations in a competitive environment. Osborn and Gaebler (1992) argued in favour of separating policy development role from service delivery roles and introducing market pressures in relation to the service delivery function. These changes are designed and proposed to achieve greater flexibility and responsiveness of public sector organisations to the changing economic environment.

The findings of this study contribute to the understanding of the alignment between the prescription above and the culture type in the researched LGAs. The LGAs continuous use of hierarchy culture answer to a number of possible explanations: there is a limit to managers capacity to manage cultural change: a significant body of literature draw attention to the difficulty of changing organisational culture on the grounds that culture is deeply ingrained in the underlying norm and values of an organisation and cannot be imposed from above (Beer,

1990; Molinsky, 1999). There is also the proposition that culture in the public sector remains aligned with the hierarchical culture because public organisations are fundamentally different from private organisations and will therefore remain oriented towards a hierarchical culture regardless of policy prescriptions designed to achieve organisational change.

8.3 IMPACT OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ON STRATEGY

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

This section discusses the relationship between organizational culture typologies and the elements of strategy implementation process as revealed in the data. Organisational culture, as previously defined is a set of commonly held norms and values which shape an organisation’s climate, behaviours and beliefs (Cameron and Quinn, 1999; Al-khalifa and

Aspinwall, 2001; Prajogo and McDermott, 2005). Each organisation has a unique type of organisational culture (s) and each type of organisational culture has a specific impact on the

285

processes within the operational environment of the organisation (Oakland, 2003). Extant literature underscores the significant influence of organizational culture typologies on the elements of the implementation process (Ahmedi Et al. 2012; Nyamwanza and Mavhiki,

2014). However, while extant organisational culture literature already provides for the typologies of organisational culture as one of the variables used by these studies, the same cannot be said of the provision of the elements of implementation process in the strategy implementation literature. This can be attributed to the paucity of literature in this field of study and heterogeneity in the process of implementation in different organisations and regions. Therefore the formulation of the phases and activities of strategy implementation process has been drawn according to the suitability of the elements within the context of study. In this context, the phases and activities of strategy implementation described have all emerged from the data. During the data analysis stages, the coding process enabled a classification and grouping of implementation processes and activities under elements of implementation. Each element represents a set of processes. The final classifications are used by this study herein to show their relationship with typologies of culture.

The first elements: Strategy content describes determining where the organisation is now, determining where it wants to go, and then determining how to get there. It involves the process of acquiring the requisite resources, developing the process, training, process testing, documentation, and integration with legal procedures. The second element: Allocation of resources encompasses all the process involved in the allotment of financial, personnel, time and computer system support. The third element: Chain of command involves the processes of establishing alternative structures such as cross-functional teams. The fourth element:

Assigning responsibility represents the distribution of specific tasks or processes to specific individuals or groups and finally the Fifth element: Process management includes monitoring results, comparing to benchmarks and best practices, evaluating the efficacy and efficiency of

286

the process, controlling for variances, and making adjustments to the process as necessary.

Empirical findings provide evidence for the link between the inherent LGAs organizational culture and the phases and activities of the strategy implementation process. This is in line with previous studies which considered the relationships between organizational culture and strategy implementation (Fey and Denison, 2003; Lopez Et al. 2004; Abdul Rashid Et al.

2004; Lee and Tseng, 2005; Pirayeh Et al. 2011; NaranjoValencia, 2011).

According to obtained results, the study found that the strong culture types (Hierarchy and

Market cultures) which are characterised by stability, control, systematic problem solving

(Hierarchy culture) and aggressive competition, achievement of goals and market share

(Market culture) found in the six researched LGAs impacted most favourably on Chain of command, Assigning responsibilities and Allocation of resources with a less effective impact on Policy formulation and Process management. The sound relations between these culture types and Chain of command, Assigning responsibilities and Allocation of resources can be justified by the fact that under the hierarchy culture, leaders are good coordinators and organisers who are efficiency-minded and for them, maintaining a smooth-running organisation is critical. Therefore these attributes impacts significantly on assigning responsibilities and chain of command as these two elements require consistency, stability and control for performance efficiency. Leaders under the Market culture however are hard drivers who are tough and demanding. Competitive pricing and market leadership are important to them. These attributes ensures that the allocation of resources is done efficiently and timely to enhance competitiveness through the empowerment of departments and staff.

287

The observed weak cultures (Clan and Adhocracy) in the researched LGAs which are characterised by human development, open communication, and team building (Clan culture) and innovation, growth, and dynamism (Adhocracy culture) impacted most effectively on

Policy formulation and Process management. In the case of policy formulation, sound relations with clan and adhocracy cultures can be justified by the fact that policies lead the organization’s routine activities and forming them is an up-to-date function. Obviously flexible cultures are more adapted to modifications. Regarding Process management, the study uncovered that these flexible cultures (clan and adhocracy) prepared friendly and creative surroundings for their employees and therefore received more relevance with structural factors of strategy implementation. The reason may be that the extent to which a structure tolerates deviations from mechanistic body and present freelance in organizational behaviour is crucial in strategy implementation. For example process management requires making adjustments to the process as necessary.

The findings clarify that clan and adhocracy culture considerably favoured the decision stages

(policy formulation) and the management of the entire process of strategy implementation.

Results also showed that hierarchy and market cultures increased the efficiency of structural factors which sustained the smooth running of the LGAs. This study therefore, although upholds a cogent defence for the general view towards culture’s constructive flexibility because of the amenable environment it prepares for its employees which increases creativity and open communication, supports the significant relevance of stability and control in the implementation process because the researched LGAs are subject to conflicting demands from multiple public interests in the form of social movements and interest groups (Hughes,

1994) therefore they would only thrive with very formalised structures in places under such conditions.

288

Finally the findings explicated the importance of continuously building a cultural environment that will decrease the possible unfavourable impacts of culture mix on its strategy implementation process in order to increase the possibility of implementation success (Schein, 2004). The observed positive impact of each of the culture mix on each of the elements of the implementation process indicates that an emphasis on one single culture type is not the best approach for overall organisational effectiveness. Therefore the results of this study suggest that in order to seek maximum benefits from implementation, it is important to develop not only flexibility and people-oriented culture values (the clan and adhocracy culture) but also control and external oriented values (the market and hierarchical culture).

8.4 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

The findings from the results obtained by the study suggest that most of the LGAs in Nigeria are not typified by a single cultural type, but are inclined towards the dominance of a mix of hierarchical and Market culture characteristics with clan and adhocracy cultures being the weaker cultures. This provides support for the works of Parker and Bradley (2000) who argued that most public sector organisations are tended towards the more stable cultures. The study reveals that the focus of the LGAs in the survey population is on stability (hierarchical culture) and competitive performance/profitability (Market culture). Theoretically, this tendency is not desirable, because the cultural profile that supports strategy implementation in most literature bothers around the dominance of clan culture that focuses on human development and adhocracy culture that prescribes dynamism and creativity (Cameron and

Quinn, 2011).

In order to measure the impact of organisational culture on strategy implementation process, the typologies of culture as proposed by Cameron and Quinn (1999) were considered and

289

explored for their influence on the core elements of the implementation process derived from the data. Largely, the findings show that flexible cultures which are believed to be ideal cultures for strategy implementation helped improve policy formulation and process management but had relatively low impact on assigning responsibilities, chain of command and resource allocation. Stable cultures had limited influences on policy formulation and process management but impacted favourably on assigning responsibilities, chain of command and resource allocation. The findings of the study by Sorensen (2002) where he examined the relationship between the strength of an organisation’s culture and business performance appropriately support the findings of the current research. He found that strong cultures were best able to deliver a successful strategy in fairly stable operating conditions.

However, when the market or the economy became more unstable or volatile, organisations with a strong culture might be less likely to react to the need to change. These results suggest the urgent attention that should be paid to the influential power of stable cultures in improving the process of implementation and provides processual evidence that all culture type have individual unique impacts in the process of implementing. This is a very important contribution of this study.

The empirical results of the study indicated that the researched LGAs principally adopted two different implementing patterns (Traditional and Classical implementing patterns). These different patterns proved to be shaped by two process initiators which this study referred to as

Dynamic and Passive process initiators. Heads of unit and implementers approached the implementation process based on the value they attached to strategy implementation in their individual LGAs. While a number of LGAs perceived strategy implementation as a strategic phenomenon others viewed it as a means to an end. This led to the competitive orientation which informed the Classical process pattern of implementation and the bureaucratic orientation in the Traditional implementing process pattern. The observed patterns, defined

290

by the strategic approaches mentioned were found to be chiefly defined by the influence of the characteristics of the different culture mix in each of the LGAs. For example in LGA 6 where the Classical-Dynamic process pattern was used and associated with successful implementation it is observed that a dynamic process initiator was adopted by implementers and this was mainly influenced by the characteristic feature of coordination, consistency

(hierarchy culture) and goal achievement (market culture).

Also worthy of note in the findings of the current study is the persistent existence of previously identified key challenges of shortage of skilled employees, lack of training and closed communication gaps in the researched LGAs (Mukoro, 2000; Ahmed, 2005;

Okogbule, 2006; Utomi Et al. 2007). A well-trained and motivated workforce is considered an urgent need for the sustainable development of any organisation (Samihah, 2012). The result of this study infer that these problems can be objectively addressed if the LGA leadership brings to the fore, human resource development through provision of relevant training to staff especially in group discussion and communication techniques. Staff involvement in improvement projects and the culture of open communication should also be considered crucial. Such cultural practices are consistent with the characteristics of clan and adhocracy cultures. Promoting the characteristics of these flexible cultures in the researched

LGAs may thus significantly reduce the identified performance challenges.

The empirical data did not fully support some of the arguments in literature indicating that the implications of theory were not totally supported by the facts in the study’s context.

Nevertheless, overall, the majority of theories were supported, whatever the reason for this disparity triggers a need for further inquiry.

291

CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSION

This chapter starts with a brief discussion of the research overview and structure of the thesis.

This is followed by a presentation of key issues emerging from the findings of the study.

Original contributions of this research in terms of the theoretical and methodological contributions arising from the study are discussed. Initially the theoretical contributions of the thesis, in terms of the gap in the strategy implementation knowledge domain are explicated.

Then the contributions of the study to practice are expounded. This is followed by a discussion of the methodological and theoretical limitations of the research. Finally some areas for further research are highlighted to conclude the thesis.

This research aimed to fill the gap for effective strategy implementation by seeking corresponding understanding of the relationship between strategy implementation process and organisational culture. Six local government authorities (LGAs) cut across the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria were used for the investigation of the relationship between the two variables. Chapter one introduced the broad research scope, the research problem, the research context, the research aim and objectives, and research questions and concluded by presenting the rationale behind the research. Chapter two provided in-depth and critical evaluation of the relevant strategy implementation and organisational culture literature It highlighted the paucity of attention to strategy implementation issues and processes in the mainstream strategy literature which suggests the fragmented nature of strategy implementation literature and brought to the fore the processual perception of strategy implementation. Different process conceptualizations and variations of strategy implementation were critically reviewed and the paucity of a good process model which integrates elements of strategy implementation process and dimensions of organisational

292

culture in a way that duly accounts for the interactive effects of the two variables and which would be more practitioner and research friendly was identified as an important gap. The implications of a limited theoretical focus on processual strategy implementation were outlined as key research gaps to enable an understanding of the strategic value of the implementation process. Chapter three offered a cursory look at local government systems in

Nigeria. The different strategic policies initiated from pre independence till date are presented. Chapter four provided a commentary of the case study foundations adopted from

Yin (2014) for this exploratory research. The inductive – qualitative approach was adopted for this research among the LGAs in Nigeria. Semi-structured interviews and the

Organisational culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) were used for data collection to understand strategy implementation processes and organisational culture characteristics respectively amongst the researched LGAs. The principles of qualitative content analysis

(Krippendorff, 2004) were adopted for unitizing and recording/coding and led to an in-depth analysis of the data for implementation process heterogeneity. The measures taken by the researcher to improve the research quality are also discussed. Chapter five presented the empirical findings for the heterogeneity in implementation process patterns among the researched LGAs. The Classical and Traditional implementation approaches emerged from the data based on the implementers’ approach towards the implementation drive. A detailed analysis of these strategy implementation patterns revealed that the Traditional-Dynamic implementation was related to partial implementation success in the LGAs. The Traditional-

Passive implementation emerged as unsuccessful in the LGAs. The Classical-Dynamic implementing patterns (Dynamic and Passive) were found to be successful and partially successful in all LGAs. Reasons for variations in implementation success were identified and these included criteria for success, timing, and process competitiveness. The competitive nature of implementation success under the Classical-Dynamic implementing patterns

293

emerged when the implementers and their LGAs assumed refinements in implementation effectiveness as rationale for implementation success. In contrast, the Traditional-Passive implementing focussed on implementing strategies only. The key findings are discussed and compared with relevant literature. The distinctions for the Classical and Traditional implementing patterns are validated and exclusive insights established. Chapter six expounded the typologies of organisational culture inherent in each local government and substantiated the research findings for the heterogeneity in organisational culture characteristics found in the researched LGAs. A mixture of organisational culture typologies emerged from the data with hierarchy and market culture being the strong cultures. These mixed culture types revealed important distinctions for the Classical and Traditional implementation patterns and proved to interrelate with the core elements of the two implementation process patterns. The mixed culture of Clan and Adhocracy cultures impacted most favourably on Policy formulation processes and Process management in both implementation process patterns. Hierarchy culture impacted most effectively on Chain of command, Assigning responsibilities in the Traditional implementation process patterns with a less effective impact on Policy formulation and Process management and Allocation of resources in Classical implementing patterns. Both Adhocracy and Market cultures impacted most effectively on all the dimensions except Policy formulation in Traditional implementation process patterns. The identified heterogeneous implementation process patterns were shaped by the distinctive cultural characteristics of implementers and LGA leaders (they were either dynamic or passive in nature) and this revealed that implementation process performance was a key outcome of implementers’ reaction timing, competitive orientation, and how effectively the process is managed. The findings were compared with extant literature to establish significant analytical pointers for conceptualising strategy implementation process through complementary insights from process analysis of the

294

implementation patterns. Chapter seven presented the findings on the interrelationship between organisational culture and strategy implementation. The findings rebut the view that the role of strategy implementation is to complement an operational process but provides support for the notion that there is no universality in the type of cultural characteristic an organisation can employ to achieve implementation success. Although, according to extant literature, flexible cultures prove to be strategy implementation friendly, the study identified the Classical implementation patterns that are highly effective due to the nature of their successful implementation and their timing. Their strategic approach did not necessarily result in implementation success consistently when they engaged flexible cultures. The

Traditional implementing patterns, however, do correlate with extant literature with regards to their nature of implementation being operational for adoption of strategy. These findings strongly support that the conceptualisation of strategy implementation process is a worthwhile scholarly pursuit. The findings also demonstrated the value of evaluating an organisation’s culture for a processual phenomenon like strategy implementation as this led to unique insights related to implementation performance and implementation competitiveness. Chapter eight discusses the result of the findings highlighted in chapter five, six and seven in light of literature. Chapter nine concludes the thesis with a brief discussion of the outcomes of the study, the limitations of the study, its theoretical and methodological contributions and contributions to practice and an examination of areas for future research.

9.1 THE OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY

The conclusions drawn from this study are presented according to each of the research questions raised in chapter one of this study:

Research Question 1: What is the current pattern of strategy implementation process in

Nigerian LGAs?

295

The findings from empirical data reveal five phases of strategy implementation process

(discussed in RQ3): Policy formulation, Resource allocation, Chain of command, Assigning responsibility and Process management, embedded within two principal types of strategy implementation process patterns – The Traditional and Classical implementation process patterns – and associated with two distinct process initiators: Dynamic and Passive implementation process initiators. These two process initiators define how implementers view the strategy implementation process and value their competitive performances. In other words both initiators were found to shape the processual nature of strategy implementation process in the different LGAs. It emerged that implementers engaged in implementing their strategies either dynamically in view of future opportunities or passively in response to different strategic situations. In either of the cases the approaches provided the study with significant insights into the motivations, action priorities, and initial process options guiding strategy implementation process. Thus the study developed these initiators and the identified implementation patterns into a 2x2 matrix to narrow down four specific types of strategy implementation process patterns used by the researched LGAs, although only one of the researched LGAs used Traditional-passive implementation pattern.

From literature (Lane Et al. 2013) the Traditional pattern of strategy implementation is generally associated with failures in translating, adapting, and sustaining a strategy which ultimately may thwart an organization’s efforts to effectively bring its strategy to life.

Empirical evidence from the findings shows that this typical approach to implementing strategy is highly administrative in nature, focusing on the time, manpower, and sequence of activities necessary to enact change. The literature best describes this pattern as an approach that frames the implementation challenge as a giant manufacturing problem: which means that problems are mechanically broken down into pieces, then master plans that details the assembly instructions are developed, timing and sequencing of different work-streams are

296

specified, and parallel teams are deployed to assemble the required components according to the specified instructions (Dunlop, 2013). But Speculand (2014) suggests that the traditional implementing approach is attractive on many levels as it could help ensure that the organization is mobilized quickly. It offers very vivid milestones and clear timelines and provides a guarantee that regardless of the size and complexity of problems they can be divided and conquered; it provides certainty and clarity on roles and responsibilities, and frees up leaders’ time as they delegate downstream implementation choices to individual line and function leaders. However Speculand (2014) also admits that the traditional approach is only most effective in very specific contexts, such as situations when the organization desires only a modest amount and scope of change, when the competition is stable, or when a top- down, command-and-control approach is sufficient because the organization does not need to learn. But such situations are rare today. Firms frequently face circumstances where the competitive environment changes rapidly, resulting in significant uncertainty and a greater need for the organization to learn as it goes. They also may have strategic ambitions that are broad in scope, spanning a large number of activities, business units, and geographies. Or they may be pursuing an ambitious strategy that requires significantly new capabilities. Thus, because the traditional - administrative approach is based on fragmenting tasks and creating highly regimented, largely inflexible project plans, organisations that use it generally can’t avoid experiencing one or more of the failures that undermine strategy implementation.

From empirical data however, the Traditional implementation pattern may not be wholly bad particularly when LGAs approached the pattern dynamically. Implementers under this pattern type generally linked Traditional-Dynamic implementation pattern with partial success as it achieved some planned implementation outcomes; however, some significant implementation failures also existed. A possible explanation for this failure may lie in the fact that the LGAs failed to prepare for implementation in detail and rigour or that they did not pay enough

297

attention to the activities and phases of the implementation process. Whether this implementation pattern actually produces the desired result is outside the scope of this study but Nutt (2001) contends that the success of using a ‘non-crises’ (Traditional-Administrative) approach is largely dependent on several situational and contextual factors such as: opposition or support for change by key organisational members, crises and external pressure, time constraints and resources. Together these factors are thought to create a contingency network that skilled managers must learn to read and tailor their selection of implementation approaches to, accordingly. This will either drive or impede the implementation process.

The second and alternative implementation process pattern to the Traditional implementing pattern of strategy implementation, emerging from empirical data is the Classical implementation process pattern. This more dynamic approach is based on the belief that for strategy implementation to be effective companies must treat it as a leadership activity and avoid structuring or delegating it as a purely administrative activity. Classical strategy implementation focuses on translating leaders’ strategic ambition into downstream implementation choices needed to create the desired strategic outcomes, explicitly designing activities to enable the organization to adapt to changing conditions, and investing in capability-building efforts to embed new skills and behaviours deep in the organization. This process patterns was linked with successful implementation by implementers as it achieved all the desired implementation outcomes in the respective LGAs. As a matter of fact, and ironically too, implementers linked the Classical-Passive implementation pattern with successful implementing. It is believed that the reason for the level of success of this pattern type will not be far from the fact that implementers in the Classical implementation pattern considered implementation as strategic because it helped in implementing and improving the competitiveness of strategy.

298

The source of variations in success between the Classical implementation pattern and the

Traditional implementation pattern are linked to many factors in literature: the criteria for implementation success; quality differences in implementation activities; synergizing the strategy implementation process (Donald, 2014).

From the foregoing discussion two conclusions arise: organisation should adopt the Classical-

Dynamic implementing pattern and avoid both approaches of the Traditional implementing patterns. The success of Classical-Dynamic implementation generalized across all the six researched LGAs in this study. The findings clarify that Classical-Dynamic implementation was the preferred approach for important, urgent, and high resource decisions and when decisions arose from internal and external pressures the data showed that Classical-Dynamic implementation process can and should be used more often. However, this conclusion should be viewed as rather tentative because of several limitations in the study; ranging from the factors used to measure implementation success to contextual factors not considered. The factors used to measure success may not have sufficiently considered all aspects of a successful decision. Consequently, the inferences drawn herein could be biased. The failure to consider all relevant factors in this paper limits conclusions about the value of Traditional implementing pattern and therefore sparks a series of thoughts for future research.

Research Question 2: What is the existing organisational culture typology in Nigerian

LGAs?

The findings of this study reveal the existence of mixed culture types within the researched

LGAs and established a prevalence of hierarchy and market cultures in all LGAs. The weaker cultures in this context (Clan culture and adhocracy culture) are oriented towards decentralization which reflects flexibility and spontaneity. This indicates that general tendency of all the researched LGAs is therefore towards control, centralization, stability, and

299

predictable performance outcomes (hierarchical culture); and task focus, goal achievement, efficiency, productivity and profitability (market culture). The organisational focus of hierarchy culture is internal and oriented towards maintenance and improvement of the existing organisation, while that of market culture is externally focused on adaptation and interaction with the external environment. This indicates that the LGAs in survey population have an internal focus on integration and unity along with an external focus on differentiation, and rivalry. The researched LGAs emerged as having harmonious internal characteristics together with a focus on interacting or competing with others outside their boundaries. Due to the strong presence of control oriented culture types, the researched LGAs show a propensity for a stable, predictable, and mechanistic character while strategy implementation is more perceived to need a changing, adaptable, and organic character to fully flourish (Cameron and Quinn, 2011). According to literature (Zu Et al. 2009) the prevalence of both hierarchical and Market cultures in the survey population reflects a strong hold of culture that is not in line with what may be considered an implementation-friendly culture. Empirical findings from previous research also suggest that cultures which are characterized by flexibility (Clan and Adhocracy) rather than control (Hierarchical and

Market) are most likely to support the implementation process more effectively (Ahmedi Et al. 2012). Ironically, both culture types which are regarded as favourable towards strategy implementation appear to be the weaker cultures in the researched LGAs. Therefore it is reasonable to argue that the less significant role of the more favourable culture types and the more dominant role of the less favourable culture types in the researched LGA account for any potential problem in their implementation performance. The prevalence of the hierarchy and market culture type may be as a result of the controlled and centralized organisational structures in the Nigerian public sector.

300

The majority of the researched LGAs indicated a weak presence of clan culture which is a sign of a potentially considerable lack of employee participation in decision making; open discussion and communication; empowerment of employees to act; value of human relations, teamwork and cohesion; and developing human resources through training. Under such conditions, LGA staffs may find it difficult to justify their commitment and contribute whole- heartedly to the overall performance of their councils, or to the improvement of the implementation process (Gallear and Gobadian, 2004). Similarly the recessive role of the adhocracy culture also suggests that the researched LGAs lack flexibility and decentralization that in turn is likely to curb expansion, growth and development due to lack of innovation and creative problem solving processes (Cameron and Quinn, 1999; Prajogo and McDermott,

2005).

However, some characteristics of hierarchical culture such as control, formalization, step-by- step task procedures and standardisation of processes are supported in the literature to obtain the requisite degree of stability, continuity and order. The literature also indicates that such characteristics of hierarchical culture are also needed in strategy implementation (Baker,

2002; MacCarthaigh, 2008). For example, in order to maintain stability and order, Deming

(1986) emphasized the need to establish clear standards and methods for employees’ work.

Supporting the need for formalization and routinisation, Feigenbaum (1991) stressed that employees should clearly know their duties and responsibilities. Similarly, there is evidence in literature that many successful organisations in developed and developing countries have more focus on the characteristics of market culture such as task accomplishment, goal achievement, efficiency, productivity and profitability, rather than characteristics of clan culture such as employee empowerment, employee participation and human resource development, for example this is particularly true in the USA (Zu Et al. 2009); Australia

(Prajogo and McDermott, 2005); and the Middle East (Alkhalifa and Aspinwall, 2000).

301

Since evidence in the literature suggests that many organisations in developed countries such as listed above have a dominant market culture, yet have successful strategy implementation processes it may therefore be reasonable to imply that market culture also supports the implementation process.

While acknowledging the prevalence of hierarchical and market culture types, the findings of this study substantiated the idea of the concurrent coexistence of flexible and stable types of culture in Nigerian LGAs. Such contradictory combination of cultures is consistent with the findings of previous studies on the composition of organisational culture (Buenger Et al.

1996; Kalliath Et al. 1999; Ahmedi Et al. 2012;). In the context of combinations of cultures as found in this study, previous research on organisational culture suggests that organisations are unlikely to reflect only one culture type and that to be effective, the adoption of some elements of each of the four ideal culture types (Clan, Adhocracy, Market and Hierarchical) is necessary. Therefore, a favourable mix of characteristics of organisational culture is desired, that not only meets the competing demands of change and stability but also provides enough flexibility to accommodate innovation and growth (Prajogo and McDermott, 2005).

Nevertheless, whatever dominant culture organisations have will have an extensive impact on the character, behaviour and performance of an organisation and ultimately this dominant culture is likely to be a major determinant of the success of the implementation process

(Prajogo and McDermott (2005).

Hence the current research provides support for the works of Katzenbach Et al. (2012) which recommends that public organisations should honour the strengths of their existing culture by working with it and within it, until it evolves in the right direction as organisational change may not be an immediate solution to performance problems. In support of this stance also,

Sorensen (2002) found that strong cultures were best able to deliver a successful strategy in fairly stable operating conditions. However, when the market or the economy became more

302

unstable or volatile, businesses with a strong culture might be less likely to react to the need to change. Baker (2002:4) sums this up by noting that “today’s organizations, characterised by rapidly changing environments and internal workforce diversity, need a strong organizational culture but one that is less pervasive in terms of prescribing particular norms and behavioural patterns than may have existed in the past”. Finally Pollitt and Bouckaert

(2004) expanded on the strength of the foregoing argument when they concluded that the idea of a single culture which is regarded as now totally obsolete is as implausible as the suggestion that there is now a global recipe which will reliably deliver enhanced performance.

Research Question 3: How do the inherent organisational culture type(s) affect the core elements of the strategy implementation process in Nigerian LGAs?

Findings reveal disparities in the effects of organisational culture types on the elements of the strategy implementation process. First the findings of the study provide empirical evidence in line with previous studies (Abdul Rashid Et al. 2004; Pirayeh Et al. 2011; Naranjo-Valencia,

2011; Ahmadi Et al. 2012) which suggest the existence of a significant relationship between an organisation’s culture and its strategy implementation process. The study found that a mixed culture of Clan and Adhocracy impacted most effectively on Policy formulation,

Allocation of resources and Process management while Hierarchy culture impacted most effectively on Chain of command and Assigning responsibilities with a less effective impact on Policy formulation and Process management. Also both Adhocracy and Market cultures had the most effective impact on all the dimensions except Process management.

The findings explicated the importance of continuously building a cultural environment that will decrease the possible unfavourable impacts of culture mix on its strategy implementation patterns in order to increase the possibility of implementation success. The different patterns

303

are driven by and reflect multiple dimensions of organisational culture (Prajogo and

McDermott, 2005). As recognized in the literature (Cameron and Freeman, 1991; Quinn and

Spreitzer, 1991; Smart and St. John, 1996), the unique advantage of different culture types indicates that an emphasis on one single culture type is not the best approach for overall organisational effectiveness. The results of this study suggest that in order to seek maximum benefits from implementation, it is important to develop not only flexibility and people- oriented culture values (the clan and adhocracy culture) but also control and external oriented values (the market and hierarchical culture).

This study is based on the argument that there is an organisational culture impact on the core elements of strategy implementation process which defines implementation success.

Therefore, based on the empirical findings of this research, the relationship between culture and implementation can be concluded by stating that organizational culture determines the success of implementation process rather than the implementation process bringing about cultural change. This statement supports the works of Maull Et al. (2001).

9.2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY

This section discusses the research contributions from both the theoretical and practical perspectives. Firstly, three overarching contributions are presented:

First the study adds to the existing knowledge on strategy implementation and organisational culture as it is one of the first studies, within the Nigerian context, that has explicitly and empirically examined the influence of organisational culture on strategy implementation process. Thus, the findings of this research provide for a deeper and richer understanding of culture as a major determiner of implementation success.

Second, the study sparks a series of thoughts by testing the theoretical model which was based mostly on literature developed mainly in western contexts, in the context of Nigerian

304

LGAs. This accords the researcher an opportunity to evaluate the applicability of implementation/culture theories in a different non-western national context.

Third, this study also developed and validated a contextual framework which sets out the interrelationship between the phenomena based on the synthesis of prior work and participants’ views and can be used by practitioners and researchers in their effort to advance the theory and practice of the implementation approach.

9.2.1 Theoretical and Methodological contributions

The theoretical and methodological contributions of this research are significantly considerable and underscore the value of the conceptualisation of strategy implementation through empirical research synergising the implementation process and organisational culture abstractions. Its empirical findings question some prevailing thoughts within strategy implementation literature.

The study established that the core research gap is the inattention to the implications of strategic actors’ behavioural patterns in the strategy implementation process in the extant strategy implementation and organisational culture literatures and advances this as a substantial future research agenda. This is identified from the knowledge gaps related to the heterogeneity of strategy implementation process, processual view of strategy implementation, and insufficient attention to implementers’ behavioural patterns in the strategy implementation literature (Li et al., 2010). It is a novelty study within the context of

Nigeria that combines the elements of the implementation process and the typologies of culture concepts for the exploration of their impact on the overall strategy implementation process. Therefore it argued that the culture of an organisation and its heterogeneous processual implementation patterns cannot individually enable deeper understanding of the performance implications of strategy implementation. It considers that it is imperative to

305

exploit concepts from both of these potentially interdependent but distinct variables and explore their roles in the implementation process for performance implications in different organisations.

The empirical findings also underscore the value of using case study methodology for conceptualising strategy implementation and understanding the heterogeneous nature of implementation process and organisational culture. Drawing on the processual implementation and organisational culture views, this research used content analysis to explore implementation process and behavioural patterns in the six Nigerian LGAs, providing an unusual empirical example of combining processual views and culture abstractions

(Shanley and Peteraf, 2006). The concepts of managerial involvement, temporality and dynamism identified in the strategy implementation process enabled deeper understanding of different implementation patterns and the underlying causes of the identified pattern distinctions. Similarly, the behavioural patterns of strategic actors in the implementation process provided valuable insights into the role of implementers from a cultural perspective.

Overall, the case study methodology approach enabled a rich and thorough analysis of the performance implications of strategy implementation in different public institution contexts.

The empirical findings also highlighted the importance of espousing heterogeneity in strategy implementation research as implementation processual patterns and their principal activities vary considerably. Four distinct strategy implementation process patterns emerged from the data which were informed by strategic actors’ approach to strategy implementation as a strategic phenomenon, LGA types, and the process initiators of the implementation process.

The implementation process pattern - Classical-dynamic implementation, showed varying levels of implementation success among the LGAs. Therefore it challenged some schools of thought in the extant strategy implementation literature. The general and all inclusive

306

approaches suggested by Noble (1999) and Li Et al. (2010) are in practice, not adopted by organisations. On the contrary, considerable heterogeneity exists in strategy implementation.

The data established that the different implementation patterns – Classical implementation and Traditional implementation patterns are associated with different levels of implementation success in the different LGAs. The Classical-dynamic implementation pattern led to effective implementation in LGAs 3, 4 and 6. However, the Traditional – dynamic pattern was associated with partly effective implementation in LGAs 2 and 5 while the Traditional passive implementation pattern was associated with ineffective implementation in LGA 1. The process initiators linked to the implementing behaviours of strategic actors also varied significantly between the Classical and Traditional implementation patterns. These findings point to significant heterogeneity in implementation process patterns and the resulting process outcomes. This empirically questions the position of implementation to adopt and establish strategy as a convention within the organisation

(Noble, 1999; Jarzabkowski, 2008). Instead, these empirical findings revealed the role of strategy implementation in strategy distillation for competitive performance. Clearly, the

Classical implementing patterns considers a contribution towards strategy distillation; however, Traditional Implementing patterns limits strategy implementation to more operational and conventional role of strategy institutionalization. The empirical findings offer an understanding of the role and performance implications of strategy implementation in different public institution contexts.

This research also contributes to organisational culture literature by highlighting how strategic actors behave differently in the Classical and Traditional Implementing patterns.

The varied implementation process patterns showed evidence of variations in the action priorities and motivations guiding strategic actors’ actions in the strategy implementation process that linked to the distinctions in implementation success and performance

307

implications. This provides significant empirical insights into the role of strategy implementation as a causal factor of process heterogeneity in the different LGAs (Sirmon et al., 2011; Maritan and Peteraf, 2011). These findings reject the conventional ideology of strategy implementation as an organizational process and therefore call for more attention to the competitive edge achieved by institutions pursuing the Classical implementation patterns and competitive disadvantages which results from partial or ineffective implementation.

Overall, the study presents a significant departure from the conventional approaches to implementation and the insufficient attention to strategic actors’ behavioural patterns in strategy implementation process. This research thus makes a significant theoretical contribution towards de-institutionalising strategy implementation and offers preliminary foundations for future research directions.

9.2.2 Contributions to practice

Undoubtedly, the need to accept the important role of strategy implementation in distilling strategy effectiveness is a vital managerial contribution. Managers must also recognize, appreciate and work with their existing organisational cultures rather than frequently calling for a complete cultural change which is in most cases not cost effective. This involves identifying appropriate culture mix with importance for implementation effectiveness and then tweaking those culture types for competitive and effective performance.

More empirically based findings are needed to be established from context-specific empirical research which offers methods of enhancing implementation efficiency and effectiveness.

There is strong evidence for managers to understand the strategic essence of strategy implementation in providing competitive edge and managers need to properly allocate strategic dues during implementation process.

308

9.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The under-listed are a few methodological limitations of the study:

1. The possibility of self-reporting bias cannot be completely removed from the data as

Norris (1997) points out that there is the risk of self reporting bias in qualitative research especially when the researcher uses semi-structured interviews to collect data on participants’ beliefs, actions and values. To help mitigate such bias, it is suggested that multiple responses from each organisation can be obtained. In this study however, the target respondents were mainly implementers involved in the implementation process, service chiefs and heads of units who are quite few in each of the LGAs. This accounted for the difficulty in guaranteeing the identification of multiple respondents at such a level in each LGA.

However, using the perceptions of single respondent from each LGA is a justified approach, as this approach is highly common in high impact research as is seen in Prajogo and

McDermott, 2005 and Zu Et al. 2009.

2. Self-reported data has also been associated with social desirability bias. In some situations, the respondent may be tempted to give a socially desirable response to a survey question rather than expressing what is really happening in the organisation. Alreck and Settle (1995) state that when personal preferences, opinions, or behaviour deviate from what’s socially prescribed, respondents are very prone to report what’s socially acceptable, rather than the true answers. Some of the questions asked around cultural characteristics and implementation process had this potential weakness and it may be argued that they were therefore prone to such bias. Also, when self-reported data is taken on one occasion only, concerns over common method bias influencing the recorded responses may arise (Hair Et al. 2009).

Nevertheless, the author took steps to mitigate this happening, notably by clarifying this possibility in the interview instructions to reduce this bias. Furthermore, each question was a

309

part of the larger construct that was designed for aggregation in the analysis, and thus a specific response on a specific question was not used to draw any inferences. Therefore, the potential problem of “social desirability” was further moderated.

3. The issue of non-generalisability of the study’s results to other countries around the globe because culture is intrinsic and unpredictable and varies from place to place. It is however argued that the results of this study are useful points of departure for other public sector organisations globally. Hofstede (1991) and Schwartz (1994) strongly propose that it is essential to measure the cultural values of the particular sample being studied and not to rely on reported values for other samples, even if they are for the same cultural area or grouping.

Similarly, the causes of strategy implementation failures found in the study’s sample population can’t be generalized to other places/regions. In this context, the results are more suggestive for countries beyond Nigeria than conclusive, but will act as valuable groundwork for later research in the strategy implementation domain. Therefore, an empirical investigation is required to identify the type of culture and issues existing in other sectors where future study would take place. However, the validated and empirically tested framework, along with the research instrument may be used anywhere, conveniently.

4. A further limitation is the cross-sectional design of the study, collecting data at a single point in time. Future researchers are encouraged to consider longitudinal designs which can establish the effect of culture on strategy implementation process over time.

Despite the limitations discussed above, the study achieved its objectives, and its overall aim of empirically examining evidence on the impact of organisational culture on the strategy implementation process to better understand their influence towards the effective and comprehensive implementation of strategies.

310

9.4 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This section suggests the following future research directions:

1. The study’s findings support the notion that organisational culture can serve as either a motivator or an impeder to the implementation process. However this view point leaves room for further debate in this area. In particular the recursive and reciprocal effect of both research phenomena need to be explored further. One of the assumptions may be that adoption of an effective implementation perspective could impact positively on an organisation’s culture and reciprocally such transformation of organisational culture would provide sustainability for implementation of strategies - creating a recursive effect. Also it is expected that the results will foster a formal discussion between researchers taking opposing stances on whether culture is an antecedent of implementation or vice versa. In order words whether strategy implementation determines organisational culture or organisational culture promotes/inhibits strategy implementation.

2. This study collected data on organisational culture profile at the organisational level.

Future research may broaden its empirical base by collecting data within each unit/division or function as these may have subgroups of culture which are more similar within the unit/division but are varied with respect to overall organisational culture because of the distinct nature of their function. For instance, the regional planning unit in the LGA may have adhocracy culture as more dominant, but the finance unit may have market or hierarchical culture more prevalent. Similar speculations can also be applied to implementation processes as these may vary due to the specificity of tasks in each unit. Future research may investigate these at unit level.

3. Another research domain may be regarding the most appropriate combination of cultures and how they differ with respect to industry sector, strategic goals of the organisations and

311

business environment. This research area remains open. Organisations operating in a stable industry might be expected to emphasize more on control elements of organisational culture such as the characteristics of hierarchical or market culture, while organisations operating in a dynamic environment might be more expected to put more emphasis on clan and adhocracy culture. Further examination of this phenomena is required to inquire whether adding such variables as control variables into the existing conceptual framework will affect the results or not.

4. According to extant literature, flexible cultures are more implementation-friendly than control cultures. The results of this empirical study demonstrate that all culture types are equally relevant for effective implementation; organisations are however advised to investigate their organisational culture types prior to implementation to avoid the conflicting interest of both variables. This stance contradicts some theory-based recommendations and the results of some previous empirical studies. Therefore its findings initiate a call for further investigation.

312

REFERENCES

Abioye, F.T., (2011). Constitution-making, legitimacy and rule of law: a comparative analysis. Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, 44(1), pp.59-79.

Abugu, S.O., (2014). The role and challenges of local government in community development: An insight. Review of public administration and management, 3(6), pp.129-

139.

Acha, I.A., Michael, E.I. and Essien, J.M., (2017). Nigeria’s Investment Environment: Issues of Economic Growth and Development. Expert Journal of Finance, 5, pp.1-11.

Achimugu. H., Abubakar. Y. I., Agboni. J. and Orokpo. J. O. (2012). Rethinking Poverty

Reduction and Sustainable Development in Nigeria: An Advocacy for the Buttom-Top

Paradigm. Canadian Social Science, 8(6), pp.78-90.

Adegbite, E., (2015). Good corporate governance in Nigeria: Antecedents, propositions and peculiarities. International Business Review, 24(2), pp.319-330.

Adelakun, J.B., (2013). Rural-Urban Development Dichotomy: A Debate. Being a text

Presented on the Flagg-Off of Osun Rural Awareness Campaign organized by the State of

Osun Local Service Commission. February, pp.5-8.

Adeyemi O. O, (2012). Institutionalizing the culture of accountability in local government administration in Nigeria. Afr. J. Pol. Sci. Int. Relat., 6(4), pp. 81-91.

Adeyemi, O., (2013). “Local Government and the Challenges of Service Delivery: The

Nigeria Experience.” Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol.15, (7), 84-98.

Adoba, I., (2005). Nigeria: Better Life Programme, a success – Mrs Babangida. This Day

NewsPapers. Available at www.allafrica.com/stories.

313

Adogamhe, P. (2007). “The Nigerian National Economic Empowerment and Development

Strategy (NEEDS): A Critical Assessment”, A Paper Delivered at the 48th Annual

Convention of International Studies Association, Chicago, USA, February 28th-3rd March

African Economic Outlook (2012). Nigeria 2012. Available at http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin

(accessed on 5th May 2014).

Agndal, H. and Chetty, S., (2007). The impact of relationships on changes in internationalisation strategies of SMEs. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), pp.1449-

1474.

Agrawal, G., (2017). Global Financial Markets Integration: A Comparative Study Between

Developed and Emerging Economies. In International Business Strategy (pp. 277-299).

Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Ahmadi, S.A.A., Salamzadeh, Y., Daraei, M., and Akbari, J. (2012). Relationship between

Organizational Culture and Strategy Implementation: Typologies and Dimensions. Global

Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 4(3/4), pp.286-299.

Akhgar, B. and Yates, S. eds., (2013). Strategic intelligence management: National security imperatives and information and communications technologies. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Akkoyunlu, S., (2015). The potential of rural-urban linkages for sustainable development and trade. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Policy, 4(2), pp.20.

Alashloo, F. R., Castka, P., Sharp, J. M., (2005). Towards Understanding the Impeders of

Strategy Implementation in Higher Education (HE): A case of HE Institutes in Iran. Quality

Assurance in Education, 13(2), pp.132-147.

Alkhafaji, A., (2013). Strategic Management. 1st ed. London: Routledge, pp.68-97.

314

Alkhafaji, A., and Nelson, R. (2013). Strategic Management. 1st ed. Hoboken: Taylor and

Francis.

Alkhafaji, A.F., (2003). Strategic management: Formulation, evaluation and control in a dynamic environment. USA: The Haworth Press, pp. 317.

Allio, R.J., (2015). Good strategy makes good leaders. Strategy & Leadership, 43(5), pp.3-9.

Alonso, J.M., Clifton, J. and Díaz-Fuentes, D., (2015). Did new public management matter?

An empirical analysis of the outsourcing and decentralization effects on public sector size.

Public Management Review, 17(5), pp.643-660.

Aluko, S. O., (2006). Corruption in the Local Government System in Nigeria, Ibadan, Oluben

Printers pp. 55, 60.

Amankwah-Amoah, J, Ifere, S. & Nyuur, R. (2016). Why hang on to losers? An examination of persistence with underperforming employees. Presented at the 43rd Academy of

International Business (AIB-UK & Ireland) Conference, Department of Management,

Birkbeck, University of London, UK. 7-9th April, 2016.

Amankwah-Amoah, J., Ifere, S.E. and Nyuur, R.B., (2016). Human capital and strategic persistence: An examination of underperforming workers in two emerging economies.

Journal of Business Research, 69(10), pp.4348-4357.

Ameh, M., (2008). “Ex Local Government Chairman and Two Others Arraigned in Court for

Corruption”. ICPC News, Volume 3, No. 4, May.

Andrews, R., Beynon, M.J. and Genc, E., (2017). Strategy Implementation Style and Public

Service Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity. Administrative Sciences, 7(1), pp.4.

315

Andrews, R., Boyne, G., Law, J. and Walker, R., (2011). Strategy Implementation and Public

Service Performance. Administration and Society, 43(6), pp.643-671.

Angen, Maureen J., (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), pp.378-395.

Anitha, J. and Begum, F.N., (2016). Role of organisational culture and employee commitment in employee retention. ASBM Journal of Management, 9(1), p.17.

Ansoff, H. I., (1984). Implanting strategic management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice/Hall International.

Anumudu, C. N., Umar, A. and Madu, M. E., (2013). Review of poverty reduction policies in

Nigeria: myth or reality. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management

1(2).pp.1-16.

Anyaehie, M.C. and Areji, A.C., (2015). Economic diversification for sustainable development in Nigeria. Open journal of political science, 5(02), p.87.

Audit Commission (2012). Local Government Inspection Reports. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcomloc/763/76302.htm

(Accessed on 19th June 2014).

Ayinde, T.O. and Yinusa, O.G., (2016). Financial Development and Inclusive Growth in

Nigeria: A Threshold Analysis. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Œconomica, 12(5).

Ayodele, O.S., Obafemi, F.N. and Ebong, F.S., (2013). Challenges facing the achievement of the Nigeria vision 20: 2020. Global advanced research journal of social science, 2(7), pp.143-

157.

316

Bale, M., (1999). The Rural Poor: A Thematic Approach, The World Bank: East Asia and

Pacific Region.

Banfield, P. and Kay, R., (2012). Introduction to human resource management. Oxford

University Press.

Barnat, R., (2015). Strategic Management: Dimensions of Strategic Management. Available at: http://www.introduction-to-management.24xls.com/en215 [Accessed 15 Jul. 2015].

Barrett, J., (2007). Distant greener grass? Lessons for South Africa from New Zealand's experience of new public management. Politeia, 26(1), pp.18-32.

Barrios, E.B., (2007). Spatial effect in the efficient access of rural development (No. 65).

ADB Institute Discussion Papers.

Bedi, P., Lakra, P. and Gupta, E., (2014). Workforce diversity management: Biggest challenge or opportunity for 21st century organizations. Journal of Business and

Management, 16(4), pp.102-107.

Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R. A., (2000). The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation and

Learning. Sloan Management Review, 41(4), pp. 29-40.

Bergadaa, M., (1999). Strategic Decision and Implementation: ProdinTM, A Prospective

Dialectic Interpersonal Model. Journal of Business Research, (45)2, pp.211–220. bin Zakaria, M., bin Dahalan, H. and Ahmad, O.N., (2014). Strategy implementation obstacles encountered by Malaysian engineering contractors.

Birken, S., Lee, S., Weiner, B., Chin, M., Chiu, M. and Schaefer, C., (2015). From strategy to action. Health Care Management Review, 40(2), pp.159-168.

317

Blackler, F., Crump, N. and McDonald, S., (1999). Managing experts and competing through innovation: An activity theoretical analysis. Organization, 6(1), pp.5-31.

Blindenbacher, R. and Pasma, C., (2007). Dialogues on local government and metropolitan regions in federal countries. [Ottawa]: Forum of Federations.

Bodwell, W. and Chermack, T.J., (2010). Organizational ambidexterity: Integrating deliberate and emergent strategy with scenario planning. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 77(2), pp.193-202.

Bonnet, D. and Yip, G., (2009). Strategy convergence, Business Strategy Review, 20(2), pp.

50-55.

Borza, A., Bordean, O., Dobocan, C., Mitra, C., (2008). Strategic management. Concepts and cases, Risoprint Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca.

Borza, A., Rus, C., Mitra, C. and Bordean, O., (2010). An investigation on the strategy formulation process within the Romanian companies. Managerial Challenges of the

Contemporary Society, (1), pp.26-31.

Bouckaert, G., Peters, B.G. and Verhoest, K., (2016). Coordination of Public Sector

Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan.

Bourgeois, L. and Brodwin, D., (1984). Strategic implementation: Five approaches to an elusive phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), pp.241-264.

Bradley, L. and Parker, R., (2001). Public sector change in Australia: Are managers' ideals being realized?. Public Personnel Management, 30(3), pp.349-361.

Brycz, M., 2014. Nigeria vision 20: 2020 can dream become reality? Evidence from national accounts.

318

Bryman, A. and Bell, E., (2003). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E., (2011). Business research methods. Cambridge: Oxford University

Press.

Brynard, P., (2005). Policy implementation: Lessons for service delivery. Journal of Public

Administration, 40(Special issue 3), pp.649-664.

Brynard, P.A., (2009). Mapping the factors that influence policy implementation.

Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C. and Bloomberg, L., (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public

Administration Review, 74(4), pp.445-456.

Buchanan, D., (2011). The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods. London:

SAGE.

Bukoye, O.T. and Norrington, P., (2014). The Applicability of Best Value in the Nigerian

Public Sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(11), pp.709-723.

Cameron, K. and Quinn, R., (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture.

Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Cameron, K. and Quinn, R., (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, John Wiley & Sons.

Cameron, K., (1986). A study of organizational effectiveness and its predictors. Management

Science, 32(1), pp.87-112.

319

Cândido, C.J.F. and S.P. Santos., (2015) Strategy implementation: What is the failure rate?

Journal of Management & Organization, 21(2), 237-262. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.77.

Capon, C., (2008). Understanding strategic management. Pearson Education.

Čater, T. and Pučko, D., (2010). Factors of effective strategy implementation: Empirical evidence from Slovenian business practice. Journal for east european Management Studies, pp.207-236.

Central Bank of Nigeria, Enugu Zone (1998). A Profile of Regional/Zonal Poverty in

Nigeria: The Case of Enugu Zone. In Measuring and Monitoring Poverty in Nigeria,

Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Zonal Research Units.

Chang, J.F., (2016). Business process management systems: strategy and implementation.

CRC Press.

Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A., (1994). Assessing relationships between industry characteristics and organizational culture: how different can you be? Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 37, June, pp. 522-53.

Chete, L.N., Adeoti, J.O., Adeyinka, F.M. and Ogundele, O., (2014). Industrial development and growth in Nigeria: Lessons and challenges (No. 2014/019). WIDER Working Paper.

Chinedu, E.A., Titus, O.C. and Thaddeus, E.O., (2010). Achieving vision 2020 in Nigeria: A review of the economic and market-oriented business reforms. Journal of sustainable

Development in Africa, 12(4), pp.58-71.

320

Chinedum, I., (2014). Why Nigeria's Public Policies Fail at the Local Government Level :

Any Hope in the Fourth Republic?. Singaporean Journal of Business, Economics and

Management Studies, 3(4), pp.1-12.

Chisholm, M., (2010). Structural reform of British local government: Rhetoric and Reality

Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Chowdhury, M.F., (2015). Coding, sorting and sifting of qualitative data analysis: debates and discussion. Quality & Quantity, 49(3), pp.1135-1143.

Cochran, C.L. and Malone, E.F., (2005). Public policy: Perspectives and choices. Lynne

Rienner.

Collinge, C. and Leach, S., (1995). Building the capacity for strategy formation in local government. Local Government Studies, 21(3), pp.343-352.

Connelly, B.L., Tihanyi, L., Ketchen, D.J., Carnes, C.M. and Ferrier, W.J., (2017).

Competitive repertoire complexity: Governance antecedents and performance outcomes.

Strategic Management Journal, 38(5), pp.1151-1173.

Cristian-Liviu, V., (2013). Organizational culture and strategy: How does it work? An empirical research. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 22(1), pp.1690-1696.

Crouch, M. and McKenzie, H., (2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), pp.483-499.

David, F., (2013). Strategic Management Concepts and cases Global Edition. Pearson

Education Ltd.London.

321

David, F.R., (2005). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, Tenth Edition. Prentice

Hall, Pearson Education International, 2005.

Davis, P., (2012). A model for strategy implementation and conflict resolution in the franchise business. Strategy & Leadership, 40(5), pp.32-38.

Dayuan, X., (2011). The main content and implementation strategy for China Biodiversity

Conservation Strategy and Action Plan. Biodiversity Science, 19(4), pp.387-388.

De Foe, J.A. and Janssen, A., (2001). Implementing a Strategy Successfully. Measuring

Business Excellence, (5)4, pp.4–6. de Ven, A., Peters, T. and Waterman, R., (1983). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from

America's Best-Run Companies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), pp.621.

DeGroff, A. and Cargo, M., (2009). Policy implementation: Implications for evaluation. New

Directions for Evaluation, 2009(124), pp.47-60.

Demirkan, H., Spohrer, J. and Krishna, V., (2011). Service systems implementation. New

York: Springer.

Denison, D.R. and Spreitzer, G.M., (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development: A competing values approach. Research in organizational change and development, 5(1), pp.1-21.

DFRRI-NWIRD DFRRI (1989). “National Workshop on Integrated Rural Development for

Local Government Chairmen and secretaries” (Lagos).

DiPadova, L.N. and Faerman, S.R., (1993). Using the competing values framework to facilitate managerial understanding across levels of organizational hierarchy. Human resource management, 32(1), pp.143-174.

322

Dobni, B., (2003). Creating a strategy implementation environment. Business Horizons,

46(2), pp.43-46.

Dodek, P., Cahill, N.E. and Heyland, D.K., (2010). The Relationship between Organizational

Culture and Implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines: a Narrative Review. Journal of

Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 34(6), pp. 669-674.

Doppelt, B., (2017). Leading change toward sustainability: A change-management guide for business, government and civil society. Routledge.

Dunleavy, P. and Hood, C., (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public money & management, 14(3), pp.9-16.

Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinkler, J., (2006). New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of public administration research and theory,

16(3), pp.467-494.

E.C. Martins, F. Terblanche., (2003). "Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 Issue: 1, pp.64-74.

Eby, L.T., Adams, D.M., Russell, J.E. and Gaby, S.H., (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees' reactions to the implementation of team- based selling. Human relations, 53(3), pp.419-442.

Egonmwan, J.A., (1991). Public policy analysis: concepts and applications. SMO Aka and

Brothers Press.

Egwemi, V. and Odo, L.U., (2013). Rural development and poverty eradication in Nigeria. J.

Res. Nat. Dev, 11, pp.101-110.

323

Eisenhardt, K., (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), pp.532-550.

Ekpe, A., and Kofi, U., (2012). Corruption and Public Accountability in the Local

Government System in Nigeria. The Intuition, 2(1), pp. 1-11.

Ekpo, A. H. and Olaniyi, O., (1995). Rural development in Nigeria: analysis of the impact of the Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI).

Elbanna, S., Andrews, R. and Pollanen, R., (2016). Strategic planning and implementation success in public service organizations: Evidence from Canada. Public Management Review,

18(7), pp.1017-1042.

Eminue, O.E., (2005). Public policy analysis and decision making. Lagos: Concept

Publication Limited.

Eneh, O.C., (2011). Nigeria’s Vision 20: 2020-issues, challenges and implications for development management. Asian Journal of Rural Development, 1(1), pp.21-40.

Engel, R.J. and Schutt, R.K., (2012). The practice of research in social work. Sage.

Enobong C. Umobong., Usenobong F. Akpan., (2103). Distortions in the Nigerian Economy and the Roadmap to Vision 2020: Lessons from Past Development Strategies. Journal of

Humanities and Social Science, 7(4), pp. 1-13.

Falebita, O. and Koul, S., (2017). From developing to sustainable economy: A comparative assessment of India and Nigeria. Environmental Development.

324

Falola, T. and Yacob-Haliso, O. eds., (2017). Gendering Knowledge in Africa and the

African Diaspora: Contesting History and Power (Vol. 5). Taylor & Francis.

Fedderke, J., Perkins, P. and Luiz, J., (2006). Infrastructural Investment in Long-Run

Economic Growth: South Africa 1875–2001, World Development, 34(6): 1037–1059.

Fey, C. and Denison, D. R., (2003). Organizational culture and effectiveness: Can an

American theory be applied in Russia? Organization Science, (14), pp.686-706.

Flood, P. C., (2000). Managing strategy implementation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Ford, R., and McLaughlin, F., (1986). Nepotism: Boon or bane. Personnel Administrator,

31(11), pp. 78-89.

Freedman, L., (2015). Strategy: A history. Oxford University Press.

Freedman, M., (2003). The genius is in the implementation. Journal of Business Strategy,

24(2), pp.26-31.

Freeman, R. E., (2010). Strategic management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Garba, S.J.A., Alinno, F.C. and Ikwegbe, D., (2012). Rural Economic Development: Policy

Implementation in Nigeria. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management

Review, 2(2), pp.14-26.

Giesecke, E., (2000). Local government. Chicago, Ill.: Heinemann Library.

Godfrey, R., (2015). Strategic Management: A Critical Introduction. Routledge.

Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B., (2014). Quality management for organizational excellence.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson.

325

Gordon, G.G., (1991). “Industry determinants of organizational culture”, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 396-415.

Goshit, G.G., (2015). Monetary Policy and Inclusive Growth in Nigeria: Theoretical, Issues,

Challenges and Prospects. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 2855(6), p.20.

Government of the Philippines (GoP)-World Bank Joint Report, (2000). Rural Development and Natural Resource Management: Trends, Strategy Implementation, And Framework

Performance Indicator System, Volume 1, Manila: World Bank.

Grant, R.M., (2016). Contemporary Strategy Analysis Text Only. John Wiley & Sons.

Grant, R.M., (2016). Contemporary strategy analysis: Text and cases edition. John Wiley &

Sons.

Graue, C., (2015). Qualitative data analysis. International Journal Of Sales, Retailing &

Marketing, 4(9), pp.5-14.

Grindle, M.S., (2017). Politics and policy implementation in the Third World. Princeton

University Press.

Gyampo, R.E. and Obeng-Odoom, F., (2013). Youth Participation in Local and National

Development in Ghana: 1620-2013. Journal of Pan African Studies, 5(9).

Gyampo, R.E., (2012). The Youth and Development Policy Implementation in Ghana’s

Fourth Republic.

Hambrick, D. and Cannella, A., (1989). Strategy Implementation as Substance and Selling.

Academy of Management Executive, 3(4), pp.278-285.

326

Hargis, B. M and John D. W., (2010). Organizational Perception Management: A Framework to Overcome Crisis Events, Organization Development Journal, 28(1), pp.73-87.

Hatch, M.J. and Zilber, T., (2011). Conversation at the Border between Organizational

Culture Theory and Institutional Theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(1), pp. 94-97.

Healy, M. and Perry, C., (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative market research: An international journal, 3(3), pp.118-126.

Heuser, B., (2010). The evolution of strategy: thinking war from antiquity to the present.

Cambridge University Press.

Hill, C.W., Jones, G.R. and Schilling, M.A., (2014). Strategic management: theory: an integrated approach. Cengage Learning.

Hiriyappa, B., (2013). Corporate Strategy: Managing The Business. AuthorHouse.

Hoag, B.G., Ritschard, H.V. and Cooper, C.L., (2002). Obstacles to effective organizational change: The underlying reasons. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(1), pp.6-15.

Hofstede, G., (2001). Culture's consequences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G., (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online

Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).

Holliday, A., (2007). Doing & writing qualitative research. Sage.

Holliday, A., (2010). Complexity in cultural identity. Language and Intercultural

Communication, 10(2), pp.165-177.

327

Holm, A.B. and Günzel-Jensen, F., (2017). Succeeding with freemium: Strategies for implementation. Journal of Business Strategy.

Hrebiniak, L., (1992). Implementing global strategies. European Management Journal, 10(4), pp.392-403.

Hrebiniak, L. and Joyce, W., (1984). Implementing strategy. New York: Macmillan.

Hrebiniak, L. and Joyce, W., (2002). Implementing strategy. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:

Prentice Hall.

Hrebiniak, L., (2005). Making strategy work. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Wharton School.

Pub.

Hysi, A., (2014). The Reform Strategy of the Local Government in Albania. Academic

Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies.

Ibeto, I. and Chinyeaka, J., (2012). Issues and challenges in local government project monitoring and evaluation in Nigeria: The way forward. European Scientific Journal, 8(18), pp.180-185.

Igbokwe, E. M. and Ajala, A. A., (1995). Popular participation for rural development in

Nigeria.

Iheanacho, E.N., (2014). National Development Planning in Nigeria: An Endless Search for

Appropriate Development Strategy. International Journal of Economic Development

Research and Investment, 5(2), pp.49-60.

Ikelegbe, A.O., (2006). Public policy analysis: Concepts, issues and cases. Lagos: Imprint

Services.

328

Ikpeze, N.I., Soludo, C.C. and Elekwa, N.N., (2004). 13. Nigeria: The Political Economy of the Policy Process, Policy Choice and Implementation. The Politics of Trade and Industrial

Policy in Africa: Forced Consensus?, pp.341.

Ingobro, W., (2006). Former Council Chairman of Abeokuta North Jailed ICPC News,

Volume 1, No. 11, November.

Ippolito, D.S., (2010). Why budgets matter: Budget policy and American politics. Penn State

Press.

Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Bettis. R. A. and Auld De Porras. D., (1987). Strategy

Formulation Processes: Differences in Perceptions of Strenghth and Weaknesses Indicators and Environmental Uncertainty by Managerial Level. Strategic Management Journal, 8(5), pp. 469-485.

Ivančić, V., Jelenc, L. and Mencer, I., (2016). Failing Strategy Implementations. In

Neostrategic Management (pp. 95-112). Springer International Publishing.

Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D. and Regnér, P., (2013). Exploring strategy text & cases (Vol. 10). Pearson.

Johnson, L. K. (2004). Execute your strategy-without killing it. Harvard Management

Update, December, pp. 3-5.

Johnson, S., Long, D., Gompert, D. and Davis, P., (2015). Analysis of Strategy and Strategies of Analysis. [online] Available at: http://www.rand.org [Accessed 15 Jul. 2015].

Jones, R.A., Jimmieson, N.L. and Griffiths, A., (2005). The impact of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: The mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), pp.361-386.

329

Jonsson, A. and Holmgren, D., (2013). Cultural diversity in organizations: A study on the view and management on cultural diversity.

Joseph, R.A., (2014). Democracy and prebendal politics in Nigeria (Vol. 56). Cambridge

University Press.

Kallberg, J., (2013). Teaching Strategy: Challenge and Response. Air & Space Power

Journal, 27(1), pp.198-201.

Kanbur, Ravi., (2005). Pareto's revenge". Journal of Social and Economic Development.

Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, 7 (1), pp.1–11.

Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., (2001). The strategy-focused organization. Boston, Mass.:

Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan, R. S., (2010). The strategy-focused organization. [Hamilton, N.Z.]: Summaries.Com.

Kimberly, J.R. and Quinn, R.E., (1984). Managing organizational transitions. McGraw-

Hill/Irwin.

Klaster, E., Wilderom, C.P. and Muntslag, D.R., (2017). Balancing Relations and Results in

Regional Networks of Public-Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory.

Kotter, J.P., (2008). Corporate culture and performance. Simon and Schuster.

Kovách, I., (2017). Leadership and local power in European rural development. Routledge.

330

Kuipers, B.S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J. and Van der Voet, J., (2014).

The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public

Administration, 92(1), pp.1-20.

Kunisch, S., Bartunek, J., Mueller, J. and Huy, Q., (2017). Time in Strategic Change

Research. Academy of Management Annals, pp.annals-2015.

Laegreid, P. and Christensen, T. eds., (2013). Transcending new public management: the transformation of public sector reforms. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

Lamborn, G.L., (2012). Arms of Little Value: The Challenge of Insurgency and Global

Instability in the Twenty-First Century. Casemate.

Lane, J.E., (2000). New public management. Taylor & Francis US.

Lascu, D. and Yip, G., (1994). Total Global Strategy: Managing for Worldwide Competitive

Advantage. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), pp.121.

Lawal, T., (2014). Local Government and Rural Infrastructural Delivery in Nigeria.

IJARBSS, 4(4), pp.140.

Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W., (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, pp.1-47.

Leach, R., (1994). Restructuring local government. Local Government Studies, 20(3), pp.345-360.

Leach, S., (2010). Managing in a political world.The life cycle of Local Authority Chief

Executives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Leonardi, P., (2015). Materializing Strategy: The Blurry Line between Strategy Formulation and Strategy Implementation. British Journal of Management, 26, pp.S17-S21.

331

Leung, Lawrence., (2015). “Validity, Reliability, and Generalizability in Qualitative

Research.” Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 4.3 (2015): 324–327. PMC. Web.

29 June 2016.

Li, Yang., Sun Gou-hui and Martin J. Eppler., (2008). Making Strategy Work: A Literature

Review on the Factors influencing Strategy Implementation (Working Paper). ICA Working

Paper 2, pp. 1-46.

Lorenz, E., (2001). Models of cognition, the contextualisation of knowledge and organisational theory. Journal of Management and governance, 5(3), pp.307-330.

Lunenburg, F.C., (2011). Understanding organizational culture: A key leadership asset. In

National forum of educational administration and supervision journal (Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 1-

12).

Mackay, M., (2011). Understanding and Applying Basic Public Policy Concepts. University of Guelph.

MADDICK, H., (1966). The Local Government Service. The Political Quarterly, 37(2), pp.192-205.

Madsen, D.Ø., (2017). Not Dead Yet: The Rise, Fall and Persistence of the BCG Matrix.

Makinde, T., (2005). Problems of policy implementation in developing nations: The Nigerian experience. Journal of Social sciences, 11(1), pp.63-69.

Marcella, G. ed., (2010). Teaching strategy: Challenge and response. Strategic Studies

Institute.

332

Marcellus, I.O., (2009). Development planning in nigeria: reflections on the national economic empowerment and development strategy (NEEDS) 2003-2007. Journal of social sciences, 20(3), pp.197-210.

Marsden, T., (2017). Agri-food and Rural Development: Sustainable Place-making.

Bloomsbury Publishing.

Martin, G.C., (2014). The effects of cultural diversity in the workplace. Journal of Diversity

Management (Online), 9(2), pp.89.

Matthew, O., Adediran, O., Adeleye, N. and Adegboye, F.B., (2017). Can Labour and Trade

Stimulate the Achievement of Nigeria’s Vision 20: 2020 Drive?. International Journal of

Scientific Research in Multidisciplinary Studies ISROSET, 3(2), pp.1-8.

Mazur, B., (2010). Cultural diversity in organisational theory and practice. Journal of

Intercultural Management, 2(2), pp.5-15.

Mba Sr, I.N. and Teresa, E.U., (2013). Diversity in the concept of management: different style and difference ethics. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), pp.144-150.

Mcfadden, J., (2008). Local government law in Scotland. Haywards Heath [England]: Tottel.

McKelvey, B., (2008). Emergent strategy via complexity leadership. Complexity and

Leadership: Part I. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, pp.225-268.

McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S.P. and Ferlie, E. eds., (2002). New public management: Current trends and future prospects. Psychology Press.

McNeill, F., Burnett, R. and McCulloch, T., (2010). Culture, change and community justice.

Project Report. Scottish Centre for Crime and Criminal Justice.

333

Megele, C., (2012). The Guardian. “Local government in 2020: challenges and opportunities.

11 April 2012 09.00 BST Cited in http://www.theguardian.com/local-government- network/2012/apr/11/local-government-2020-challenges-opportunities. [Accessed 14 July.

2016].

Mehta, S. and Krishnan V.R., (2004). “Impact of Organizational Culture and Influence

Tactics on Transformational Leadership”, Journal of Management and Labor Studies, Vol. 29

No. 4, pp. 281-290.

Mfene, P.N., (2008). Administrative leadership and public policy implementation in the public service. Journal of Public Administration, 43(Special issue 1), pp.207-218.

Miller, H.T. and Demir, T., (2006). 10 Policy Communities. Handbook of Public Policy

Analysis, p.137.

Mintzberg, H. and Quinn, J., (1991). The strategy process. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice

Hall.

Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A., (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent, Strategic management journal, 6(3), pp. 257-272.

Mintzberg, H., (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press.

Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J., Quinn, J. and Ghoshal, S., (2003). The strategy process. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mitchell, D., (2004). Strategy implementation gets another building block. Journal of

Business Strategy, 25(5).

334

Mordi, E.N., (2015). Industrial relations, labour productivity and national development in

Nigeria, 1990-2014: A political economy approach. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and

Humanities, 4(4), pp.16-28.

Mosse, D., (2004). Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of aid policy and practice. Development and Change, 35(4), pp.639-671.

Mukoro, A., (2000). Institutional administration. Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria: Malthouse

Press.

Mwijuma, O.M., Omido, K. and Garashi, H., (2013). Effectiveness of strategy implementation using the balanced scorecard in local government authorities.

Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jimenez-Jimenez, D. and Sanz-Valle, R., (2011). Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), pp. 55-72.

National Planning Commission., (2009). Nigeria Vision 20: 2020 Economic Transformation

Blueprint. Abuja FCT.

Neumeier, S., (2017). Social innovation in rural development: identifying the key factors of success. The geographical journal, 183(1), pp.34-46.

Nickols, F., (2016). Four Strategies for Managing Change.

Nigerianstat.gov.ng, (2015). Central Data Catalog. [online] Available at: http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/nada/index.php/catalog [Accessed 24 May. 2016].

Nilsen, P., (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks.

Implementation Science, 10(1), p.53.

Noble, C. H. and Michael P. M., (1999). Implementing Marketing Strategies: Developing and Testing a Managerial Theory. Journal of Marketing, (63), pp. 57-73.

335

Noble, C.H., (1999). The Eclectic Roots of Strategy Implementation Research, Journal of

Business Research, 2(45), pp.119–134.

Nutt, P., (2001). Decision Debacles and How to Avoid Them, Business Strategy Review,

12(2), pp.1-14.

Nutt, P.C., (1983). Implementation Approaches for Project Planning. 1. Academy of

Management Review, 8(4), pp.600-611.

Nwafee, F.,(2017). Economic analysis of public expenditure growth and optimal size of public sector in Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation).

Nwagboso, C.I., (2012). Rural Development Programme Implementation in Developing

Countries: The Experience Of China And India. Global Journal of Human-Social Science

Research, 12(11-C).

Nwankwoala, H.O., (2011). Localizing the strategy for achieving rural water supply and sanitation in Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 5(13), pp.1170-1176.

Nwankwoala, H.O., (2011). The role of communities in improved rural water supply systems in Nigeria: management model and its implications for vision 20: 2020. Journal of Applied

Technology in Environmental Sanitation, 1(3), pp.295-302.

Nwobi, F.O., (2017). Local Government and Rural Development in Anambra State, 2006-

2014 (Doctoral dissertation).

Nyagba, S., (2009). “Review of Nigeria’s Rural Development Policy for Sustainable

Growth”: Presentation at the West African Regional Conference on Smart, Appropriate

Technologies for Rural Communities, Abuja, Nigeria, July 9-11.

336

Nyamwanza, T. and Mavhiki, S., (2014). Strategy Implementation Framework Used by

SMEs in Zimbabwe. Journal of Business Management, 3(2), pp.1-16.

Obadan, M.I. and Edo, S.E., (2010). Performance of the Nigerian economy since independence. Bello-Imam, IB (ed.), 50, pp.14-36.

O'Donnell, O. and Boyle, R., (2008). Understanding and managing organisational culture.

Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

Ogbodo, S.G. and Stewart, N.F., (2014). Climate Change and Nigeria's Sustainable

Development of Vision 20-2020. Ann. Surv. Int'l & Comp. L., 20, pp.17.

Oji, P.N., (2004). Strategies for Grassroots Mobilisation and Participation in Community development in Nigeria. Unpublished thesis (M.Sc), Department of Social Work, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Okechukwu, I. E. and Edwin, I., (2013). Local Government and Fiscal Autonomy for Local

Government in Nigeria. Review of Public Administration and Management, 1(3).

Okogbule, N. S., (2006). An appraisal of the legal and institutional framework for combating corruption in Nigeria, Journal of Financial Crime, 13(1), pp.92-106.

Okoli, F.C and Onah, F.O., (2002). Public Administration in Nigeria: Nature, Principles and

Application. Enugu, John Jacob’s Classic Publisher.

Okonjo Iweala, N. and Osafo-Kwaako, P., (2007). Nigeria’s Economic Reforms Progress and

Challenges, The Brookings Institution, March 2007.

Okumus, F. and Roper A., (1999). A Review of Disparate Approaches to Strategy

Implementation in Hospitality Firms, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 23(1), pp.20–38.

337

Okumus, F., (2001). Towards a strategy implementation framework. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(7), pp.327-338.

Okumus, F., (2003). A framework to implement strategies in organizations. Management

Decision, 41(9), pp.871-882.

Okumus, F., Altinay, L. and Chathoth, P., (2010). Strategic management for hospitality and tourism. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Olaseni, M. and Alade, W., (2012). Vision 20: 2020 and the challenges of infrastructural development in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(2), pp.63.

Olaseni, M. and Alade, W., (2012). Vision 20: 2020 and the challenges of infrastructural development in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(2), p.63.

Olasupo, M.F., (2012). Historical epochs of local government administration in Nigeria: women and the poor. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 12(9-A).

Olisadebe, E. U., (1995). Trends in Nigeria Balance of Payments (1980 – 1994) in Central

Bank of Nigeria, Economy and Financial Review, (33).

Oliver, C., (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes, Academy of Management

Review, 16 (1), pp. 145-179.

Oluseye, I.C. and Gabriel, A.A., (2017). Determinants of Inclusive Growth in Nigeria: An

ARDL Approach. American Journal of Economics, 7(3), pp.97-109.

Ōmae, K., (1983). The mind of the strategist. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Omeyafa, P.S., (2008). Public Sector Reforms in Africa: Aphilosophical Re-thinking, African

Development, 33(4), pp. 15-30, Council for the Development of Social Science Research in

Africa.

338

Omisore, B.O. and Okofu, B.I., (2014). Staff Recruitment and Selection Process in the

Nigerian Public Service: What is to be done? International Journal of Human Resource

Studies, 4(3), pp. 280-293.

Omorogiuwa, O., Zivkovic, J. and Ademoh, F., (2014). The role of agriculture in the economic development of Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 10(4).

Onibokun, A. G., (1987). “Rural Development Policy Planning and Implementation in

Nigeria” Journal of the Nigeria Institute of Town Planners Vols. vii and ix.

Osisioma, B.C., (2016). Capacity building for economic turnaround: evidence from nigeria.

Ouchi, W.G., (1981). The Z organization. Classics of organization theory, pp.451-460.

Oviasuyi, P. O., Idada, W. and Isiraojie, L., (2010). Constraints of local government administration in Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences, 24(2), pp. 81-86.

Owoyemi, O. and Ekwoaba, J., (2014). Organisational Culture: A Tool for Management for

Management Control, Motivate and Performance Enhancement. American Journal of

Business and Management, 3(3), pp.168-177.

Oyelakin, O. O., (1992). Handbook on Nigerian Local Government Administration, Edited

Copy, Tonem Publicity, Abuja.

Panara, C. and Varney, M., (2013). Local government in Europe. London: Routledge.

Parker, R. and Bradley, L., (2000). Organisational culture in the public sector: evidence from six organisations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2), pp.125-141.

Paudel, N.R., (2009). A critical account of policy implementation theories: status and reconsideration. Nepalese Journal of Public Policy and Governance, 25(2), pp.36-54.

339

Pearce, J and Robinson, R., (2013). Strategic Management: Planning for domestic and global competition. McGaw-Hill Education-Europe.

Pearce, J. A. and Robinson, R. B., (2007). Formulation, implementation, and control of competitive strategy. Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill.

Pearson, G. J., (2012). The rise and fall of management. Farnham, England: Gower.

Perkin, N. and Abraham, P., (2017). Building the Agile Business through Digital

Transformation. Kogan Page Publishers.

Peters, D.H., Adam, T., Alonge, O., Agyepong, I.A. and Tran, N., (2013). Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. Bmj, 347, p.f 6753.

Pettigrew, A. M., (1992). The Character and Significance of Strategy Process Research.

Strategic Management Journal, (13)1, pp.5-16.

Pirayeh, N., Mahdavi, A. M. and Nematpour, A. M., (2011). Study of Organizational Culture

Influence (Based on Denison’s Model) on Effectiveness of Human Resources in Karun Oil &

Gas Production Company. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(9), pp.1886-

1895.

Planellas, M., (2017). The Evolution of Strategy (Over Six Decades and Thirty Models).

Poirier, C. and McCollum, D., (2006). RFID strategic implementation and ROI. Fort

Lauderdale, Fla.: J. Ross Pub.

Pradhan, S., (2009). Retailing management: Text and cases. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

PREMIUM TIMES, (2013). Rebased GDP Has No Effect On Welfare of Nigerians - NLC.

340

Raheem, W.M. Oyeleye, O.I. Adeniji, M.A. and Aladekoyi, O.C., (2014). Regional

Imbalances and Inequalities in Nigeria: Causes, Consequences and Remedies. Research on

Humanities and Social Sciences 4 (18) pp 163-174

Rainey, H.G., (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. John Wiley &

Sons.

Raps, A., (2005). Strategy implementation – an insurmountable obstacle?. Handbook of

Business Strategy, 6(1), pp.141-146.

Ravasi, D. and Schultz, M., (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), pp.433-458.

Rice, M.F., (2004). Organizational culture, social equity, and diversity: Teaching public administration education in the postmodern era. Journal of Public Affairs Education, pp.143-

154.

Richards, L. and Morse, J.M., (2007). Coding. Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods, pp.133-151.

Riley, J. (2014). Organisational Culture: Strong V Weak, http://beta.tutor2u.net/business/blog/organisation-culturestrong-v-weak (Accessed September

2015)

Riley, P., (2006). The Social Contract and Its Critics, chapter 12 in The Cambridge History of

Eighteenth-Century Political Thought. Eds. Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler. Vol 4 of The

Cambridge History of Political Thought. Cambridge University Press,. pp. 347–75.

Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J., (2003). Qualitative research practice. London: Sage Publications.

Ritchie, J., (2014). Qualitative research practice. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE.

341

Rose, S., Spinks, N. and Canhoto, A.I., (2014). Management research: Applying the principles. Routledge.

Rosenberg Hansen, J. and Ferlie, E., (2016). Applying strategic management theories in public sector organizations: Developing a Typology. Public Management Review, 18(1), pp.1-19.

Roth, K., Schweiger, D. and Morrison, A., (1991). Global Strategy Implementation at the

Business Unit Level: Operational Capabilities and Administrative Mechanisms. Journal of

International Business Studies, 22(3), pp.369-402.

Rothaermel, F.T., (2015). Strategic management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Rugman, A. and Verbeke, A., (2002). Edith Penrose's contribution to the resource-based view of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), pp.769-780.

Rumelt, R., (2011). Good strategy, bad strategy. London: Profile Books.

Rural Poverty Portal (2014). Rural Poverty Portal. Available at: http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org [Accessed: 21 Feb 2016].

Saheed, A. B., (2010). Poverty situation in Nigeria. An overview of rural development institutions. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences 7 (5), 351-356.

Saldaña, J., 2008. The drama and poetry of qualitative method.

Samihah, K., (2012). Fiscal planning and local government administration in Nigeria: The quest for sustainable rural development. African Journal of Business Management, 6(9).

Sanders, D. and Houghton, D.P., (2016). Losing an empire, finding a role: British foreign policy since 1945. Palgrave Macmillan.

342

Saunders, C., (2013). Doing philosophy. London: Continuum International Publication

Group.

Saunders, M. Et al., (2007). Research Methods for Business students, 4th Ed., England:

Pearson Education.

Saunders, M. Et al., (2009). Research Methods for Business students, 5th Ed., England:

Pearson Education.

Savage, A., (2010). Local government in Western Nigeria. [S.l.]: Xlibris Corp.

Schein, E., (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 1st ed., San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Schein, E.H., (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan management review, 25(2), pp.3-16.

Schraeder, M., Tears, R.S. and Jordan, M.H., (2005). Organizational culture in public sector organizations: Promoting change through training and leading by example. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 26(6), pp.492-502.

Schwartz, H. and Davis, S.M., (1981). Matching corporate culture and business strategy.

Organizational dynamics, 10(1), pp.30-48.

Scott, W.R., (2001). Institutions and Organisations, Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shimizu, K., (2017). Senders’ Bias: How Can Top Managers’ Communication Improve or

Not Improve Strategy Implementation?. International Journal of Business Communication,

54(1), pp.52-69.

Siddique, M.I. and Shadbolt, N., (2016). Strategy Implementation.

343

Sinkovics, R.R. and Alfoldi, E.A., (2012). Progressive focusing and trustworthiness in qualitative research. Management International Review, 52(6), pp.817-845.

Skivington, J.E. And Daft, R.L., (1991). A Study of Organizational “Framework” and

“Process” Modalities for the Implementation of Business-Level Strategic Decisions. Journal of Management Studies, (28), pp. 45–68.

Slack, N., (2015). Operations strategy. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Soludo, C.C. and Governor, C.F.R., (2007). Nigerian economy: Can we achieve the vision

20: 2020?. Governor, Central Bank of Nigeria 8th January.

Songwe, V. and Initiative, A.G., (2014). Africa’s Capital Market Appetite: Challenges and

Opportunities for Financing Rapid and Sustained Growth. Foresight Africa, pp.13.

Sorensen J. B., (2002). The Strength of Corporate Culture and the Reliability of Firm

Performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, pp.70-91.

Speculand, R., (2009). Six necessary mind shifts for implementing strategy. Business

Strategy Series, 10(3), pp.167-172.

Spring, M., Hughes, A., Mason, K. and McCaffrey, P., (2017). Creating the competitive edge: A new relationship between operations management and industrial policy. Journal of

Operations Management, 49, pp.6-19.

Stewart, J., (2004). The meaning of strategy in the public sector. Australian Journal of Public

Administration, 63(4), pp.16-21.

Stober, E.O., (2017). Trending a New Normal: Is Nigeria becoming a failed Nation?

Romanian Economic Journal, 20(64).

Strachan, H., (2005). The lost meaning of strategy. Survival, 47(3), pp.33-54.

344

Szabla, D.B., Stefanchin, J.E. and Warner, L.S., (2014). Connecting Organizational Change

Content with Change Strategy: Has Theory Become Practice?. In Research in Organizational

Change and Development (pp. 99-140). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Tashakkori, A., (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research.

Los Angeles [u.a.]: SAGE.

Tavana, M., (2013). Management theories and strategic practices for decision making.

Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Thompson, A. A. and Strickland, A. J., (1995). Strategic Management – Concepts and cases.

Eight edition. Chicago: Irwin.

Thompson, A. A. and Strickland, A. J., (2003). Strategic management. Boston: McGraw-

Hill/Irwin.

Thompson, J.D., (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Transaction publishers.

Thompson, L., (2000). E-commerce: changing the rules of strategy implementation. Strategy and Leadership, 28(4).

Tooley, S.T., (1999). New public management and change within New Zealand's education system: an informed critical theory perspective. Department of Accountancy and Business

Law, Massey University.

Tsang, A., Bogo, M. and Lee, E., (2010). Engagement in Cross-Cultural Clinical Practice:

Narrative Analysis of First Sessions. Clinical Social Work Journal, 39(1), pp.79-90.

Ubi, P.S., Eko, S.A. and Ndem, B.E., (2012). Corruption and its Implications for Actualizing

Nigeria Vision 20-2020. Global Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1), pp.41.

345

Uduakobong, S.I., (2015). Poverty Alleviation Strategies In Nigeria: A Call For An Inclusive

Growth Approach. Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development, 15, pp.110-118.

Ugwuanyi, B.I. and Chukwuemeka, E., (2013). The obstacles to effective policy implementation by the public bureaucracy in developing nations: the case of Nigeria.

Singaporean Journal of Business, Economics and Management Studies, 1(8), pp.34-43.

Utomi, P., Duncan, A. and Williams, G., (2007). The political economy of reform: the case of Nigeria 2003‐2007. The Policy Practice Brief. The Policy Practice Ltd.

Uwazie, I.U., Igwemma, A.A. and Eze, N.B., (2015). Causal Relationship between Foreign

Direct Investment and Economic Growth in Nigeria: 1970-2013. International Journal of

Economics and Finance, 7(11), p.230.

Uzonwanne, M.C., (2015). Economic diversification in Nigeria in the face of dwindling oil revenue. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 6(4), pp.2222-1700.

V. Kumar, Eli Jones, Rajkumar Venkatesan, and Robert P., (2011). Is Market Orientation a

Source of Sustainable Competitive Advantage or Simply the Cost of Competing? Leone

Journal of Marketing. Volume 75. van der Maas, A., (2008). Strategy implementation in a small island community (No. EPS-

2008-127-LIS).

Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J., (2015). Performance management in the public sector. Routledge.

Van Wart, M., (2017). Leadership in public organizations: An introduction. Taylor & Francis.

Vasconcellos e Sa’, J., (1990). How to Implement a Strategy, Business, (40)2, pp.23–32.

Verweire, K., (2014). Strategy Implementation. Routledge.

346

Victorian Public Service Commission (2015). Organisational Culture http://vpsc.vic.gov.au/html-resources/organisational-culture (Accessed September 2015)

Vyas-Doorgapersad, S Et al., (2013). Public administration in Africa. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC

Press.

Wager, E. and Kleinert, S., (2010). Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Singapore, pp.309-16.

Walker, R., (2014). Strategic management communication for leaders. Nelson Education.

Wang, C. and Li, X., (2015). Policy Implementation of Sustainable Public Procurement in

China. In International Public Procurement (pp. 287-299). Springer International Publishing.

Warr, P., (2005). Road Development and Poverty Reduction: The Case of Lao PDR, ADBI

Research Paper No. 64, March 2005.

Waweru, M., (2011). Comparative Analysis of Competitive Strategy Implementation. JMS,

2(3).

Wiesel, F. and Modell, S., (2014). From new public management to new public governance?

Hybridization and implications for public sector consumerism. Financial Accountability &

Management, 30(2), pp.175-205.

Wilson, D. and Game, C., (2011). Local government in the United Kingdom Basingstoke,

Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wilson, G., (2013). The politics of local government reforms and democratic governance in

Nigerian local governments. Developing Country Studies, 3(1).

347

Wokurka, G., Banschbach, Y., Houlder, D. and Jolly, R., (2017). Digital Culture: Why

Strategy and Culture Should Eat Breakfast Together. In Shaping the Digital Enterprise (pp.

109-120). Springer International Publishing.

Wood, J. and Wood, M., (2010). Michael Porter. Vol. 3. London: Routledge.

World Bank Group (2015). World Bank Group. [online] Available at: http://Web.worldbank.org [Accessed 14 Jun. 2015].

Worldometers (2015). Worldometers - real time world statistics. Available at: http://worldometers.info [Accessed 01 Jun. 2015].

Worrell, L., (1998). Strategic analysis: a scientific art. Wolverhampton: Wolverhampton

Business School

Yip, G.S., (1992). Total Global Strategy. London: Prentice Hall.

Zammuto, R. F. and Krakower, J. Y., (1991). Quantitative and Qualitative Studies of

Organisational Culture, Research in Organisational Change and Development, (5), pp. 83-

114.

Zu, X., Robbins, T.L. and Fredendall, L.D., (2010). Mapping the critical links between organizational culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices. International journal of production economics, 123(1), pp.86-106.

348

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1: The Impeders of strategy implementation

No Impeders No Impeders

P Planning consequences O Organisational Issues

P1 Lack of exact strategic planning O1 Incompatible structure with the strategy

P2 Insufficient linking of the strategy O2 Unsuitable resources allocation

to goals.

P3 Time limitation O3 Lack of adequate communication

P4 Lack of consensus among O4 Lack of effective co-ordination

decision makers

P5 Lack of identification of major O5 Lack of adequate information system

problems

P6 Lack of effective role formulators O6 Incompatible organizational culture

P7 Unsuitable training system O7 Competing activities among people

P8 Unclear regulation and executive O8 Competing activities among units

policies

P9 Lack of choice of real strategy P9 Unsuitable evaluation and control

Systems

P10 Lack of a national attitude to O10 Unsuitable compensation system

strategy

O11 Inadequate physical facilities

O12 Lack of increative system

M Managerial Issues I Individual issues

M1 Unsuitable leadership I1 Lack of enough capabilities of employees

349

M2 Lack of adequate organizational I2 Resistance to change among people

support

M3 Lack of adequate manager I3 Resistance to change among units

commitment

M4 Fear of insecurity among I4 Fear of insecurity in the new territory

managers

M5 Political factors in regard to I5 Lack of understanding of the strategy

power

M6 Unsuitable personnel I6 Inadequate connection to the vision

management

M7 Uncontrollable factors I7 Lack of enough motivation of employees

M8 Lack of enough motivation I8 Lack of employee commitment

among the managers

Source: (Mehmet Et al., 2009)

APPENDIX 2: Factors influencing strategy implementation

Authors Factors

Peter and Waterman (1982) Structure, style, staff, shared values, skills, system,

McKinsey’s 7S strategy

Wernham (1984) Resources, confidence, others delivering what they

promised, information and back up materials

David (1989) Motivation, leadership and direction skills, co-

ordination

Skivington & Daft (1991) Intended

strategy,structure,systems,interactions,sanctions

350

Roth Et al. (1991) Cordination, managerial philosophy,

configuration,formalisation,centralisation,intergrating

mechanisms

Hrebiniak (1992) Leadership, facilitating global learning, developing

global managers,

having a matrix structure, working with external

companies

Yip (1992) Organizational structure, culture, people, managerial

processes

Eisenstat (1993) Competence, co-ordination and commitment

Bryson & Bromiley Context, process, outcome

(1993)

Sandelands (1994) Commitment, time, emotion and energy

Lingle & Schieman Market, people, finance, operation, adaptability, and

(1994) environmental

Factors

Okumus (2001) Content, context, process, outcome

Peng ve Litteljohn Structural arrangements and the selection and

(2001) development of key roles

Higgins (2005) Strategy and purposes, structure, systems and

processes, style of leadership,

staff, resources, shared values, organizational culture,

and strategic

performance

Birnbaum (2007) Action planning; organisational structure; human

351

resources; the annual

business plan; monitoring and control; the linkage-

The Foundation for

Everything Else.

Source: Nilsen (2015)

APPENDIX 3: The five models in brief

Model The CEO’s strategic question CEO’s Role

Commander ‘How do I formulate the Rational Actor

optimum strategy?’

Change ‘I have a strategy in mind; now, Architect

how do I implement it?’

Collaborative ‘How do I involve top Coordinator

management to get commitment

to strategies from the start?’

Cultural ‘How do I involve the whole Coach

organisation in

implementation?’

Crescive ‘How do I get managers to Premise-Setter and judge

come forward as champions of

sound strategies?’

Source: Bourgeois and Brodwin (1982: 3)

352

APPENDIX4: Selected Nigerian LGA policies from pre-independence till

date.

Year Strategies/Policies Strategic Performance Limitations

Objective Indicators

1946- Emphasis on local Good progress. Lack of political

1955 processing of raw Raised the living will and

produce to standard of the commitment.

achieve dynamic people.

self-sustaining

growth.

1960- National Provision of basic Average Progress. Lack of

1974 Accelerated Food infrastructure, Significant continuity.

Production diversification of diversification of

Programme- the economy and economy

(NAFPP) reduction of level achieved.

of unemployment.

1977 Operation Feed To boost Enhanced the Policy instability

the Nation (OFN) agricultural quality of life of and insufficient

production and many Nigerians. involvement of

efficiency in the the poor people in

general the programme.

performance of

the agricultural

sector.

353

1977 Free and To reduce mass Significant Insufficient

Compulsory illiteracy at the increase in the involvement of

Primary grassroots level. number of the poor people in

Education (FCPE) educated citizens. the programme.

1980 Green Revolution Efficiency in the Improved Policy instability.

general standard of living

performance of at the rural areas.

the agricultural

sector.

1986 Structural Emphasis on No progress. Low levels of

Adjustment deregulation, Increased poverty investments.

Programme (SAP) market and hardship on Large fiscal

liberalisation. Nigerians. imbalances.

1986 Better Life Women Widely accepted Suffered over

Programme liberalisation and project that dominance of

empowerment touched on urban women and

women from all power play by

spheres of life elitist women.

Short lived with

the exit of the

Babangida

administration

354

1986 National Promotion of skill Trained more than Gaps between the

Directorate of acquisition, self- two million objectives and

Employment employment and unemployed and outcomes.

(NDE) labour intensive provided business Implementation

Potentials. training for not problems and lack

Combat less than 400,000 of funding

unemployment. Nigerians

1990 People’s Bank of To encourage Adequate Violation and

Nigeria (PBN) savings and disbursement of disregard for

provide credit funds. PBN lending rules by

facilities to poor disbursed up to the banks

people. N1.7 billion and executives.

N0.9 billion as in- Corruption.

house loans

1993 National To provide Impacted Over spending.

Agricultural Land strategic public positively on the Corruption.

Development support for land agricultural sector

Authority development, and by

(NALDA) optimum implication

utilization of rural reduced poverty.

land resources,

evolution of

economic size

rural settlements.

355

1998 Family Support To provide health No Progress Bedeviled by

Programme (FSP) care delivery, several

child welfare, malpractices

youth including the non-

development to supervision and

families in rural monitoring of

areas project.

1998 Family Economic To provide credit No Progress Provision of

Advancement for agricultural substandard

Programme production and equipment, poor

(FEAP) processing and loan recovery,

small-scale death of erstwhile

industries in rural president.

and urban areas.

2000 Poverty To create jobs for Unsuccessful. Over

Alleviation the unemployed in Generated public centralisation, over

Programme (PAP) the face of outcry. politicization,

increasing youth irregular payment,

restiveness. uncoordinated

management, high-

level corruption.

356

2001 National Poverty To address and Average success. Poor

Eradication eradicate the The Program implementation,

Programme aspects of trained 130, 000 governance

(NAPEP) absolute poverty. youths and problems and

engaged 216,000 corruption.

persons, but most

of the

beneficiaries were

non-poor

prudence.

2003 Small and To address Low success. Corruption, low

Medium poverty, rooted People with skills access to

Enterprises out of lack of or knowledge for information, low

Development access to income creativity are synergy between

Agency of Nigeria earning sidelined. various tiers of

(SMEDAN) opportunities. government.

2004 NEEDS, SEEDS To grow the Average Progress. Corruption in both

and LEEDS private sector led 69% OF populace public and private

broad based still live in abject sector. Minimal

market oriented poverty. Reduced input of LGA in

economy. mortality rate. resource allocation

in both Federal and

State levels.

357

2007 The Seven-Point Emphasis on No progress. Short lived with

Agenda accommodates the exit of the

power and energy, Yaradua

food security and administration.

agriculture,

wealth creation

and employment,

mass

transportation,

land reform,

security and

qualitative and

functional

education.

2011 Transformation To ensure Low success. 70% Corruption at all

Agenda inclusive and non- of youths still levels of

inflationary unemployed, government. Bad

growth, value re- poverty level at governance. Lack

orientation of the 33.1%. of accountability

citizenry, and transparency.

employment

generation and

poverty

alleviation.

358

2015 Five-Point Provision of ongoing ongoing

Agenda mass

employment,

adequate

security, fight

corruption,

improve

infrastructure

and good health

care.

Source: Author (2015)

APPENDIX 5: Interview guide used for the research

Table 4.3: Interview guide used for this research

Interview Type: Semi structured with Open ended questions

 Introduction - Friendly greeting between researcher and respondent.

 Research purpose and focus - Researcher explains purpose and focus of research.

 Rapport building – Setting a friendly atmosphere through informal chatting with

respondent.

Sample Interview Questions

Kindly tell me about your LGA and how it has developed over the years?

What strategy does your LGA adopt? Any reasons? How successful is this strategy?

How are strategies/policies implemented in your LGA? Why this way- any particular reasons?

kindly talk me through one or two strategic initiatives that your LGA has successfully

359

implemented and which involved a contributory input from at least three to four departments

within the LGA.

Why do you think the implementation of these initiatives were successful? Please explain

your reasons.

Interviewer note: Details of probe into implementation activities and culture type and the

resulting impact on implementation performance. Use of body language and gestures.

Attention to respondent‘s opinions and interpretations. Probe respondent‘s interpretations for

why and how.

End interview with an assurance of information confidentiality and anonymity of respondent

and the LGA. Also, where necessary, request for future meetings for further clarification of

emerging concepts.

APPENDIX 6: Research Quality and Robustness

S.no Criteria for rigour and trustworthiness Achieved by research

1. Research Process and Research - The study thoroughly reviewed

findings (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; extant literature to establish research

Yin, 2004) gaps and the emerging theories were

compared with research findings to

establish the similarities and

conflicts.

- The empirical data is exclusively a

reflection of respondent‘s

interpretations and provided

360

insightful details about the research

phenomenon in the survey

population.

- The research findings are grounded

in data and drawn from the

application of case study method and

analytical tools.

- Categories and sub-categories of

concepts were thoroughly analysed

and saturated.

- Theoretical saturation was done for

all six LGAs to ensure rigorous

comparison of implementation

activities and their implementation

process implications.

- The researcher ensured a pragmatic

approach in dealing with the iterative

process of constant comparison of

data.

2. Trustworthiness (Lincoln and Guba, Credibility –

1985) - In line with the interview guides and

ethics, interviews were conducted

with freedom of discussion which

provided good quality access into

361

respondents’ experiences about the

research phenomenon.

- Informed consent was sought and

gained for each LGA and

respondents.

- Well established case study methods

were used for data collection and

analysis which ensured that

consistent attention was paid to

constant comparison of emerging

concepts.

Transferability –

- Details of the study’s research

methods are outlined for

transferability in similar research

settings.

- The details of the research analysis

process are provided and considered

ideal for transferability in other

research contexts.

Dependability –

- The research achieved an interrater

reliability of 92% using an

362

independent coder; data achieved

reliability across different coders in

the content analysis. (Krippendorff,

2004).

- The findings of the study are a result

of a thorough and rigorous process

of content analysis of the

respondent‘s interpretations. The

analytical process of drawing the

study’s conclusion from the

respondents’ accounts ensured

reliability and dependability.

- The process of coding was done in

multiple stages and systematically

progressed from single key concepts

in the data to a categorization of key

themes which ultimately led to a

higher level integration thus

allowing for a good understanding of

the research phenomenon within the

study’s contexts.

Confirmability –

- Responses collected via interviews

were transcribed word for word and

363

rechecked against audio recording to

ensure their accuracy.

- All information was easily traceable

due to proper maintenance of

records.

- The researcher ensured that data

analysis focussed on the

interpretations and the accounts

provided by the respondents.

APPENDIX 7: Contribution of literature on strategic planning to current study

Contribution to this study Gaps identified in this

study

Literature on strategic Mechanism for Focus on strategy planning processes e.g. coordination and control, formulation

Armstrong (1982), Brews context for strategic and Hunt (1999), Grant decision making Focus on top

(2003), Reid (1989) management

Usefulness for explicit

objective setting and Use of mainly

monitoring results as well questionnaire

as gaining commitment Data

Representation of the

364

intended strategy

APPENDIX 8 Definitions of Strategy Implementation

 Strategy implementation is the transition period during which targeted organizational

members ideally become increasingly skillful, consistent, and committed in their use

of an innovation’ (Klein and Sorra, 1996).

 Strategy implementation is the communication, interpretation, adoption, and

enactment of strategic plans” (Noble, 1999).

 Strategy implementation is ‘the successful implementation of strategic decisions’

(Flood Et al. 2000)

 Strategy implementation refers to ‘all the processes and outcomes which accrue to a

strategic decision once authorization has been to go ahead and put the decision into

practice’ (Miller Et al. 2004).

 Strategy implementation is designing appropriate organizational structures and control

systems to put the organization’s chosen strategy into action (Hill Et al. 2007).

 Strategy implementation is the sum total of the activities and choices required for the

execution of a strategic plan (Wheelen and Hunger, 2012).

Source: Noble (1999).

APPENDIX 9 Strategy implementation frameworks and authors

Authors Factors

Peter and Waterman (1982) Structure, style, staff, shared values, skills, system,

McKinsey’s 7S strategy

Wernham (1984) Resources, confidence, others delivering what they

promised, information and back up materials

365

David (1989) Motivation, leadership and direction skills, co-

ordination

Skivington and Daft (1991) Intended

strategy,structure,systems,interactions,sanctions

Roth Et al. (1991) Cordination,managerial philosophy,

configuration,formalisation,centralisation,intergrating

mechanisms

Hrebiniak (1992) Leadership, facilitating global learning, developing

global managers,

having a matrix structure, working with external

companies

Yip (1992) Organizational structure, culture, people, managerial

processes

Eisenstat (1993) Competence, co-ordination and commitment

Bryson and Bromiley Context, process, outcome

(1993)

Sandelands (1994) Commitment, time, emotion and energy

Lingle and Schieman Market, people, finance, operation, adaptability, and

(1994) environmental

Factors

Okumus (2001) Content, context, process, outcome

Peng ve Litteljohn Structural arrangements and the selection and

(2001) development of key roles

Higgins (2005) Strategy and purposes, structure, systems and

processes, style of leadership,

366

staff, resources, shared values, organizational culture,

and strategic

performance

Birnbaum (2007) Action planning; organisational structure; human

resources; the annual

business plan; monitoring and control; the linkage-

The Foundation for

Everything Else.

Source: Nilsen (2015)

367