Implementing Strategy? Don't Forget the Middle Managers Strategy Implementation from a Middle Management Perspective

Implementing strategy? Don't forget the middle managers Strategy implementation from a middle management perspective

Emily Johansson Johanna Svensson

Företagsekonomi, master 2017

Luleå tekniska universitet Institutionen för ekonomi, teknik och samhälle Acknowledgments

This master thesis has been carried out as a degree project for a Masters degree in Business Administration, specialisation in International Business, at Luleå University of Technology. The work began in January 2017 and was finished in June 2017. During the course of the work for this thesis we have learned a lot about strategy implementation and middle management and hope that the results will be of interest to the reader and provide new insight to strategy implementation from a middle management perspective.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved in making this thesis possible. A special thank you is devoted to our supervisor Mana Farshid for her help and guidance.

We would also like to extend our gratitude towards the middle managers who shared their expertise, thoughts and opinions. Their insight and experience made this thesis possible.

June 2017

Emily Johansson Johanna Svensson

Abstract

Business strategy in itself is a well-known concept in today’s academic literature and extensive research on strategy formulation can easily be found. Strategy implementation on the other hand has not been researched to the same extent. This seems to be contradictory when one takes into consideration that effective and efficient strategy implementation has been proven to have an incredibly large impact on the success of any firm, company or organisation. Furthermore, no strategy will be beneficial for a company if it cannot be implemented. Adding to the complexity of this situation, middle management has long been disregarded concerning the strategy process or even thought to be detrimental. However, in recent years there has been a shift and research has started to recognise the importance of middle managers. The thesis aims to provide a deeper understanding of how middle management actively operates when implementing strategy. By doing so the thesis may be of value for middle managers and companies working with strategy, by increasing awareness about middle management’s influence on the strategy implementation process.

This thesis is partially exploratory and partially descriptive with a qualitative and deductive nature. In order to answer the purpose, a research strategy of case studies was used where empirical data was collected from interviews held with six different middle managers.

An implementation process model that described the different phases of strategy execution and supporting activities surrounding implementation was created. The developed implementation framework had its foundation in previous research concerning strategy implementation from an organisational perspective. The data that was collected from the middle managers was then analysed and compared to the model. By modifying the implementation process model using the information received from the middle managers a verified implementation process model was created which takes into account the middle management perspective.

The most important findings suggest that middle managers are important for the implementation process. An implementation process model from a middle management perspective has been developed which presents the phases of execution and what impact middle managers have during the course of the implementation. The findings further suggest that middle management can increase the successfulness of a strategy if allowed influence from start to finish.

Sammanfattning

Strategier i sig självt är ett välkänt område i dagens akademiska litteratur och man kan enkelt hitta utförlig forskning om strategi formulering. Implementeringen av strategier är däremot inte ett lika populärt forskningsområde. Detta är något motsägelsefullt när man tar hänsyn till att en effektiv implementering av strategi har visat sig ha en väldigt stor påverkan på företags framgång. Dessutom kan ingen strategi vara fördelaktig för ett företag om strategin ej kan implementeras. För att öka komplexiteten av detta har mellanchefer länge blivit förbisedda eller till och med ansetts vara skadliga för strategi processen. Dock håller detta på att ändras och mellanchefer börjar mer och mer anses som viktiga. Denna uppsats försöker skapa en djupare förståelse för hur mellanchefer aktivt arbetar när implementering av strategier sker. Genom detta kan uppsatsen vara av värde för mellanchefer och företag som arbetar med strategier genom att bidra med en ökad medvetenhet om mellanchefers påverkan på implementeringsprocessen.

Uppsatsen var delvis explorativ och delvis deskriptiv med ett kvalitativ och deduktiv tillvägagångssätt. Fallstudier användes där data samlades in via intervjuer med sex olika mellanchefer.

En modell som beskriver implementeringsprocessens olika faser och stödjande faktor skapades. Modellen var baserad på tidigare forskning om implementering av strategier från ett företagsperspektiv. Data som samlades in från mellancheferna var sedan analyserad och jämnförd med modellen. Genom att anpassa modellen med informationen från mellancheferna en verifierad implementeringsprocess utifrån ett mellanchefsperspektiv skapades.

Det viktigaste resultatet antyder att mellanchefer är viktiga för implementering av strategier. Implementeringsmodellen ur ett mellanchefsperspektiv presenterar faser av utförandet av strategi och effekten mellanchefer har under implementeringsprocessen. Resultaten antyder även att mellanchefer kan öka strategiers sannolikhet för framgång om de har möjlighet att bidra från stat till slut.

iii

Table of contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Problem discussion ...... 3 1.3 Purpose and research questions ...... 5 1.4 Outline of the thesis ...... 5 2. Literature Review ...... 7 2.1 Strategy implementation ...... 7 2.1.1 CEO influence on strategy implementation ...... 8 2.1.2 Organisational structure influences on strategy implementation ...... 9 2.1.3 Organisational climate influence on strategy implementation ...... 12 2.2 Implementation factors ...... 14 2.2.1 Integrated factors for successful implementation ...... 14 2.2.2 Levers of implementation ...... 15 2.2.3 Implementation factor comparison ...... 16 2.3 Implementation obstacles ...... 19 2.3.1 Implementation barriers ...... 21 2.4 Implementation process ...... 23 2.4.1 Five dimension process to strategy implementation ...... 23 2.4.2 Implementation barrier process ...... 25 2.4.3 Importance of commitment and involvement ...... 29 2.5 Middle management and strategy implementation ...... 30 2.5.1 The different portrayals of the middle manager ...... 32 2.6 Discussion ...... 33 2.7 Conceptualisation ...... 34 2.7.1 Conceptualisation of research question one ...... 34 2.7.2 Conceptualisation of research question two ...... 37 2.7.3 Conceptualisation of research question three ...... 38 2.8 Emerged framework regarding research question one ...... 39 3. Research methodology ...... 45 3.1 Research purpose ...... 45 3.2 Research approach ...... 45 3.3 Research strategy ...... 46 3.3.1 Case studies ...... 47 3.3.2 Unit of analysis ...... 47 3.4 Data collection ...... 47 3.5 Sample selection ...... 48

3.6 Data analysis ...... 50 3.7 Validity and reliability ...... 51 3.7.1 Construct validity ...... 52 3.7.2 Internal validity ...... 52 3.7.3 External validity ...... 52 3.7.4 Reliability ...... 52 3.8 Summary of methodology ...... 54 4. Data Presentation ...... 55 4.1 Respondents ...... 55 4.1.1 ICA Maxi Botkyrka ...... 55 4.1.2 SSAB...... 56 4.2 Strategy formulation ...... 56 4.3 Systematic execution ...... 57 4.4 Control and follow up ...... 58 4.5 Communication ...... 60 4.6 Support and commitment ...... 61 4.7 Leadership and quality of implementation ...... 63 4.8 Culture...... 65 5. Data Analysis ...... 67 5.1 Analysis of the implementation process ...... 67 5.1.1 Strategy formulation ...... 67 5.1.2 Systematic execution...... 69 5.1.3 Control and follow up ...... 71 5.1.4 Leadership ...... 73 5.1.5 Support and commitment ...... 75 5.1.6 Quality of implementation ...... 77 5.1.7 Vertical communication ...... 78 5.1.8 Culture ...... 80 5.2 Analysis of middle management opportunities ...... 81 5.3 Analysis of middle management challenges ...... 84 5.4 International analysis ...... 87 6. Findings and conclusions ...... 88 6.1 How can the strategy implementation process for middle managers be described? ...... 88 6.2 What are the opportunities that middle managers create when implementing strategies? ...... 90 6.3 What are the challenges that middle managers face when implementing strategies? ...... 92 6.4 Limitations ...... 93 6.5 Theoretical implications ...... 93

6.6 Implications for practitioners ...... 94 6.7 International implications ...... 95 6.8 Implications for further research ...... 95 List of references ...... 96 Appendices Appendix A Appendix B List of figures Figure 1: Thesis outline Source: Authors own construct ...... 6 Figure 2: Implementing model: key decisions and actions ...... 14 Figure 3: Strategy implementation dimensions ...... 23 Figure 4: Interaction of the six silent killers ...... 26 Figure 5: Structural model for commitment and involvement ...... 29 Figure 6: Strategy implementation dimensions ...... 35 Figure 7: The interaction of the six silent killers ...... 36 Figure 8: Emerged framework ...... 40 Figure 9: Summary of methodology ...... 54 Figure 10: The strategy implementation process from a middle management perspective ...... 88

List of tables Table 1: Summarisation of strategy implementation definitions and perspectives ...... 7 Table 2: Summary of the five model approach ...... 8 Table 3: Characteristics of archetypes ...... 10 Table 4: Appropriate match between archetype and strategy ...... 11 Table 5: Eight implementation levers ...... 15 Table 6: Five levels of leadership ...... 16 Table 7: Six barriers to strategy implementation ...... 22 Table 8: Actions to prevent the implementation barriers ...... 27 Table 9: Middle management opportunities ...... 38 Table 10: Middle management challenges ...... 39 Table 11: Relevant situations for different research strategies ...... 46 Table 12: Interviewee requirements ...... 49 Table 13: Background information of the interview respondents ...... 50 Table 14: Validity and reliability techniques in order to reduce methodology problems ...... 51 Table 15: Respondents according to industry ...... 55 Table 16: Traits of the middle manager ...... 63 Table 17: Traits of CEO and top management team ...... 64 Table 18: Strategy formulation compared to theory ...... 69 Table 19: Strategy formulation aspects solely supported by empirical data ...... 69 Table 20: Systematic execution compared to theory ...... 70 Table 21: Systematic execution aspect supported solely by empirical data ...... 71 Table 22: Control and follow up compared to theory ...... 72 Table 23: Control and follow up aspect supported solely by empirical data ...... 73 Table 24: Leadership dimension compared to theory ...... 75 Table 25: Leadership aspects supported solely by empirical data ...... 75 Table 26: Support and commitment dimension compared to theory ...... 76 Table 27: Commitment aspects supported solely by empirical data ...... 76 Table 28: Quality of implementation dimension compared to theory ...... 78

Table 29: Communication dimension compared to theory ...... 79 Table 30: Vertical communication aspects supported solely by empirical data ...... 79 Table 31: Cultural foundation compared to theory ...... 81 Table 32: Summarisation of opportunities compared to theory ...... 82 Table 33: Additional opportunities that middle management create supported solely by data ...... 84 Table 34: Summarisation of challenges compared to theory ...... 85 Table 35: Additional challenges that middle management may face supported solely by data ...... 86 Table 36: Suggested opportunities created by middle management ...... 92 Table 37: Suggested challenges that middle management face ...... 93

vii

1. Introduction This chapter presents the background of the chosen research area as an introduction to the thesis. Thereafter a problem discussion about strategy implementation and middle managements role in connection to strategy implementation is provided in order to familiarise the reader with the problem area. Furthermore the overall purpose of the thesis and the associated research questions are presented. Lastly an outline of the structure of this thesis is presented.

1.1 Background

“A strategy, even a great one, doesn’t implement itself”

- (Jeroen De Flander, 2017)

The success or failure of a firm can often be the result of the firm’s strategy (Porter, 1991). However a good strategy does not ensure a company’s success because the situation regarding the implementation and execution of strategy is complicated. If a strategy is not effectively implemented no business strategy will be successful, but where the development and formulation of strategy is difficult, the implementation and execution of strategy is even more so. Despite this, managerial focus is often on the development of strategies and not their execution. (Hrebiniak, 2006)

The essence of strategy can be narrowed down to the activities of a company that differentiate the company from its competitors. It is about creating a fit among a company’s activities. (Porter, 1996) There is no general definition of what strategy actually consists of since strategy itself is multidimensional and situational and will therefore vary by industry and circumstance. However in general terms, strategy can be said to be the activities and processes conducted within a firm in order to take an organisation from point A to point B. (Chaffee, 1985) Dobni (2003) concludes that strategy has two main objectives. The first objective of strategy should be to position the company in order to compete and the second objective of strategy is to create a climate to support implementation (Dobni, 2003).

Strategy implementation as a concept has been defined from several different perspectives and depending on the authors’ approach strategy implementation is viewed differently (Noble, 1999; Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004). For example Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984 cited in Noble, 1999) view strategy implementation as an act of control and measure, while other researchers view strategy implementation with emphasis on interpersonal and behaviour elements (Workman, 1993 cited in Noble, 1999). Miller et al. (2004) view implementation as all the processes and outcomes that becomes a strategic decision after that decision has been set by authority to go ahead and put that decision into practice. However the most common view of strategy implementation is that it is an operationalisation of a strategic plan (Noble, 1999).

The strategy implementation process should be conducted side-by-side with the strategy formulation process. This in turn will lead to plans that make up financially, socially and ethically responsible strategies for a company. Successful implementation of a well developed strategy further creates long term benefits for a company since it should lead to the improvement of the organisation over time, enabling it to achieve its long term vision, mission and corporate success. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008) However, well formulated strategies will only result in superior performance for a company if the strategy is successfully implemented (Noble, 1999).

Past research concerning strategy implementation has largely focused on top management and how their actions and involvement can affect the implementation process (Lohrke, Bedeian, & Palmer, 2004; Shimizu, 2017; Judge Jr & Stahl, 1995; Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984). Top management play an important part in setting the organisational conditions for effective implementation. It is the top managers that communicate the vision and direction of the company. Further they are also responsible for encouraging members of the organisation to be responsive and provide ideas and feedback to higher management. (Shimizu, 2017) However research has found that strategy implementation is seldom consistent with strategy development, indicating an implementation gap between the top management and the lower levels of an organisation (Floyd & Woolridge, 1992; Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004). Furthermore, Lohrke, Bedeian, and Palmer (2004) identified the need for further research in the area of strategy implementation, outside that of the top management perspective.

Even though top management play an important role in the strategy implementation process, there is a gap in top managements’ communication efforts and the effect this has on the members of the firm. The gap is largely due to top management’s overestimation of the quality of their communication down to the employees. (Shimizu, 2017) Researchers are more and more starting to realise the importance of the employees outside the top management and are starting to respond to the need for further research on the subject (Huy, 2001; Dobni, 2003; Guth & Macmillan, 1986; Noble, 1999; Alamsjah, 2011).

Middle management has had a bad reputation for a long time as far as strategy implementation is concerned (Huy, 2001). The general picture of the middle manager is depicted as the person whom, due to self-interest, will make or break the top management formulated strategy (Guth & Macmillan, 1986). However, this portrayal is changing since more and more research is showing the importance of the often neglected (Huy, 2001) middle managers (Alamsjah, 2011; Huy, 2001). Middle managers make important contributions to the implementation of strategy, but are often unnoticed by senior management (Huy, 2001). The middle managers are the ones executing the strategy as well as the contributors to the strategy implementation corporate culture (Alamsjah, 2011) and environment (Dobni, 2003). It has even been suggested that maximum efforts of middle management is of utmost importance when implementing new strategies (Judge Jr & Stahl, 1995).

1.2 Problem discussion Previous research has illustrated that while the strategy formulation process is very important, strategy implementation is equally important. Neglected or a poorly understood and realised strategy implementation will not only lead to current poor performance but will also affect future strategy formulation process. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008) A strategy that is impeccable in its formulation has little to no value unless it is effectively implemented (Noble, 1999).

This is especially important when one takes into consideration that 66% of corporate strategy is actually never even executed (Johnson, 2004) or that 70% of strategic plans and strategies are never successfully implemented (Sterling, 2003). In addition to this a study of a 1000 different organisations illustrated that 60% of employees think that their organisation is weak in strategy execution and that only 37% of an organisations employees have a clear understanding of what the organisation is trying to achieve and why. (Shimizu, 2017) Another study conducted by Kaplan and Norton (2005) found that 95 % of a company’s employees either do not understand or are unaware of the company’s strategy. This implies that a gap occurs between the formulation and the implementation of a strategy, a gulf between the strategies conceived at top management levels and awareness at lower levels. This phenomenon has been called the implementation gap and research has shown that this gap is widening. (Floyd & Woolridge, 1992; Noble, 1999)

A strategy with a successful implementation can prove to be largely beneficial to a company. Effective implementation of strategy is even more crucial in a situation where a firm faces declining performance. During declining circumstances a company’s management team needs to take action and quickly formulate and then successfully implement strategies in order to turn the situation around and save the company from failure. (Lohrke, Bedeian, & Palmer, 2004) A well implemented strategy can in addition to saving a company in decline from total bankruptcy (Ibid.) also create superior performance, give the company a competitive advantage as well as give the company a stronger position than its competitors (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005). Furthermore a more recent study has found that the effectiveness of strategy implementation is positively related to a company’s market performance (Slater, Hult, & Olson, 2010).

For management, the current challenge lies in implementing strategy and not so much in formulating it (Dobni, 2003). As stated in the background, previous research has emphasised the CEO and top management team in strategic decisions however the importance of middle- level management during the implementation of new strategic decisions has had a growing recognition. (Judge Jr & Stahl, 1995; Wooldridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008) Previous research has operated under the conception that middle managers are inconsequential or even worse as detrimental (Huy, 2001) and a reason for why strategy execution failed (Floyd & Woolridge, 1992). Achieving a middle management perspective on strategy implementation is further complicated by the fact that middle managers’ focus on processes makes identifying and understanding outcomes relevant to middle management more difficult than outcomes relevant to top management. Since top management research focuses solely on effects

3 affecting the company as a whole compared to middle management research who in addition to outcomes affecting the whole company also researches the intermediate outcomes. This has led to the middle management strategy research becoming rather fragmented. (Wooldridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008) However recent literature is increasingly operating under the view that middle management is highly valuable for strategy implementation. (Thomas & Ambrosini, 2015)

There is no comprehensive and accepted definition of a middle manager (Ouakouak, Ouedraogo, & Mbengue, 2014). However, one definition of middle managers is that they are two levels below the CEO and one level above first-line supervisors. Middle managers hold a particular and important position in regards to implementing change in a business. (Huy, 2001) The challenge for businesses is to motivate the senior marketing executive team to recognise the need, value and importance of middle manager’s expertise (Thorpe & Morgan, 2007) If middle level management is involved in the strategic implementation planning the commitment to the implementation process will increase. The earlier middle managers are allowed to contribute to both plan and process the workability of a specific action plan will improve. (Larry, 1985) It is through utilising middle managers that a company can gain implementation allies (Thorpe & Morgan, 2007).

Middle management is an important aspect to strategy development and execution, middle managers think and act strategically and should therefore be included in a company’s decision making process (Pappas, Flaherty, & Wooldridge, 2003). Strategic consensus can be defined as the shared understanding and commitment to a strategic directive between individuals in an organisation. The higher degree of strategic consensus that can be found within a company the higher possibility of implementation success. If strategic consensus does not occur within a company, members of the company will not be operating under the same goals and objectives. Consensus becomes important, especially if one regards implementation through a trickle down perspective, where senior management creates and initiates strategies which are then communicated through middle management to the employees. (Noble, 1999) If senior management from the start clearly communicate the strategy to middle managers the probability of a successful implementation increases (Kaplan & Norton, 2000).

Current strategy implementation approaches fail to provide sufficient operational interface. The inability to move the top management planned strategy in to action results in a perplexing outcome of eminently defined strategy followed by poor or completely absent implementation plans. (Dobni, 2003) If strategy is implemented in an organisation it will not succeed or lead to great performance if it is solely ordered top to bottom. Instead the strategy needs to be explained and understood by the people throughout the whole organisation since it is the actual employees who will perform the strategy. This is where the importance of middle level managers comes in. Middle managers fully understand competencies and core values of an organisation and it is the middle managers who know how to convey this to the employees in order to implement strategy. (Huy, 2001) Due to their unique position within the company (Wooldridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008; Huy, 2001; Ahearne, Lam, & Kraus,

2014) middle management possesses the knowledge of how to get thing done, how to motivate the workforce and how to avoid confusion and discord when implementing change and strategy. (Huy, 2001)

Implementation of strategy and execution research has been facing a number of challenges for a long time (Chebat, 1999). This area is in need of further research (Sarin, Challagalla, & Kohli, 2012; Thomas & Ambrosini, 2015; Salih & Doll, 2013) since at present there is a lack of literature regarding strategy implementation even though companies fail more often due to implementation reasons and not due to strategy formulation reasons (Thomas & Ambrosini, 2015). This makes developing new research efforts more complicated. (Noble, 1999) The how in strategy thinking is at least as important as the what. Strategies in general need to be formulated realistically so they can be implemented adequately. However, the implementation part does not attract as much interest as the formulation part of strategy. While strategy formulation is viewed as romantic, the strategy implementation is viewed as mechanistic at its best. Previous research is also currently lacking a more cohesive body of previous literature concerning strategy implementation. (Chebat, 1999) The gap in literature (Judge Jr & Stahl, 1995; Thorpe & Morgan, 2007) shows that middle managers are not fully used (Thorpe & Morgan, 2007; Huy, 2001) nor does a conceptual model regarding strategy implementation concerning middle management involvement exist. Managers want and need a logical model to guide execution decisions and actions. (Hrebiniak, 2006)

1.3 Purpose and research questions Based on the above mentioned background and problem discussion, the overall purpose of this thesis is to provide a deeper understanding of how middle management actively operates when implementing strategy. In order to answer the overall purpose, three different research questions have been developed. They are stated as following:

RQ1: How can the strategy implementation process for middle managers be described?

RQ2: What are the opportunities that middle managers create when implementing strategies?

RQ3: What are the challenges that middle managers face when implementing strategies?

1.4 Outline of the thesis This thesis will in total consist of six different chapters; introduction, literature review, methodology, empirical data, data analysis and findings and conclusions. Chapter two, the literature review will present and describe relevant theories that are connected to the research area. This chapter will also illustrate the developed frame of reference. The methodology chapter is the third chapter which will describe how the thesis and research was conducted. Thereafter the empirical data will be presented in the next chapter. The fifth chapter is the

5 data analysis. This chapter will connect, compare and evaluate the gathered empirical data with the frame of reference which was created from past literature and presented in the second chapter. The final chapter, findings and conclusions, will answer the thesis research questions. In addition possible implications for further research and practitioners will be presented. The outline of the thesis is illustrated in figure one below.

Chapter 2 - Chapter 3 - Chapter 4 - Chapter 6 - Chapter 1 - Chapter 5 - Literature Research Empirical Findings and Introduction Data Analysis Review Methodology Data Conclusions

Figure 1: Thesis outline Source: Authors own construct

2. Literature Review This chapter presents previous research and theories that are relevant to the area of research and the research questions. This chapter also presents the conceptualisation of the literature and the emerged framework which serves as the foundation for the rest of the thesis.

2.1 Strategy implementation As mentioned in the previous chapter, a general and unambiguous definition of what strategy implementation entails does not exist (Noble & Mokwa, 1999; Noble, 1999). Strategy implementation is often said to be the execution of the strategic plan (Floyd & Woolridge, 1992; Kotler, 1985 cited in Noble, 1999) though it has been argued that this view is too limited since it does not take into consideration that initial plans often have to undergo changes due to changing organisational or environmental conditions (Noble, 1999). Other authors argue the control and monitoring aspect of implementation (Hrebniak & Joyce, 1984 cited in Noble, 1999) while others highlight planning and allocating of resources and operational issues (Laffan, 1983; Cespedes, 1991 cited in Noble, 1999). Noble and Mokwa (1999) combined several aspects of strategy implementation and state that implementation can be regarded as consisting of the communication, interpretation, adoption, and enactment of a strategy or a strategic initiative. This is in line with the most common interpretation of strategy implementation which states that strategy implementation is the operationalisation of a strategic plan (Noble, 1999). Strategy implementation is all the activities and choices made in execution of a strategic plan (Wheelen & Hunger, 2012, p. 272; Favaro, 2015). Noble, (1999) summarised the most prominent strategy implementation definitions and perspectives as illustrated in table one below.

Table 1: Summarisation of strategy implementation definitions and perspectives Definition Author(s) Implementation is a series of interventions concerning organizational Hrebiniak and structures, key personnel actions, and control systems designed to Joyce, 1984 control performance with respect to desired ends. The implementation stage involves converting strategic alternatives into Aaker, 1988 an operating plan. Implementation is the managerial interventions that align organizational Floyd and action with strategic intention. Woolridge, 1992 Implementation is the process that turns plans into action assignments Kotler, 1984 and ensures that such assignments are executed in a manner that accomplishes the plan’s stated objectives. Implementation is turning drawing board strategy into marketplace Bonoma, 1984 reality. Implementation refers to the “how-to-do-it” aspects of marketing. Cespedes, 1991 Implementation deals with organizational issues, with the development of specific marketing programs, and with the execution of programs in the field During the implementation phase, a policy decision must be spelled out Laffan, 1983 in operational detail and resources allocated among programs. Source: Noble (1999) p. 120

Favaro (2015) also argues that a distinction between implementation and execution can be made. If implementation is viewed as the decisions and activities undertaken to turn strategy into reality, execution is the activities and decisions that turn the implemented strategy into a commercial success. (Favaro, 2015) Though this distinction is not made by many researchers and instead they treat implementation and execution as synonymous terms (Hrebiniak, 2006; Lowey, 2015). Therefore this thesis will tackle strategy implementation and execution as interchangeable.

2.1.1 CEO influence on strategy implementation In an often cited paper by Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984) (Noble & Mokwa, 1999; Thorpe & Morgan, 2007; Huy, 2011; Westley, 1990; Ahearne, Lam, & Kraus, 2014; Noble, 1999) the authors review five different process approaches to implementing strategy. The processes have their foundation in that the organisation’s CEO has to take on different roles and ask different strategic questions depending on the desired result or outcome. This implies that depending on what strategy has been developed the CEO of the organisation has to act differently in order to achieve successful implementation. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984) The table below illustrates the different roles of the CEO.

Table 2: Summary of the five model approach Model Role of the CEO Commander Rational actor Change Architect Collaborative Co-ordinator Cultural Coach Crescive Premise-setter and judge Source: Adapted from Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984)

The first model is called the commander model. In the commander model the CEO takes on the role of a rational actor and focuses on the question: “How do I formulate the optimum strategy?”. This process approach focuses only on the strategic position and guides the CEO to map out the organisation’s future. The model is based around economic and competitive analyses in order to plan resource allocations. Additionally, the model has an inbuilt bias toward centralised direction and decision making. The model requires the CEO to hold a lot of power and information, it does not consider the implementation part of strategic decisions as an aspect that requires planning, resources, time and money. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)

The second model is labelled the change model and it starts where the commander model left off, with the implementation aspect of strategy. The CEO takes on the role of an architect and asks the question: “I have a strategy in mind: now how do I implement it?”. The model handles the implementation aspect of strategy and emphasises how organisational structure, incentives, control systems and the like can be used to facilitate the enforcement of the strategy. In the model the CEO is the architect whose role is to design administrative systems and apply behavioural techniques to manoeuvre the organisation towards the strategic plan in order to achieve the predetermined goals of the strategy. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)

In the third model, which is called the collaborative model, the CEO takes on the role of a coordinator and operates from the perspective of the question: “How do I involve top management to get commitment to strategies from the start?”. The model focuses on group decision-making and involves the top management in the strategy formulation process in order to secure commitment to said strategy. In the model, the CEO uses group decision making techniques such as brainstorming to get managers with different viewpoints to add to the strategy formulation process. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)

In the cultural model the CEO takes on the role of a coach and works from the question: “How do I involve the whole organization in implementation?”. In the model, strategy implementation is enabled through the corporate culture that exists throughout the organisation. The CEO guides the organisation by communicating the vision and mission of the organisation and then letting the individuals throughout the organisation to take part in the shaping of the firm’s future. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)

The final model is called the crescive model and it examines issues regarding strategy from a principal/agent model, where the CEO takes on the role as premise-setter and judge and works from the question: “How do I encourage managers to come forward as champions of sound strategies?”. The model works from the perspective that managers have a tendency to want to develop fresh opportunities when they arise in the day to day work. In this model the strategy comes from the line workers and makes it ways to the top management rather than the other way around. The CEO, as the premise-setter and judge, works a fine balancing act when they need to define the organisations purpose broad enough to encourage innovation and then rationally select among the strategy projects that reach the CEO’s attention. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)

Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984) express their belief that these models are not mutually exclusive but rather function together, where the CEO of an organisation takes on a different role, with a different emphasise continuously during their period as chief executive, depending on the situation. The models presented illustrate the complexity of tools that the CEO might consider when leading an organisations strategy. (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984)

2.1.2 Organisational structure influences on strategy implementation Miller, Wilson and Hickson (2004) state that under the right conditions, strategic planning may improve organisational performance. In addition to managements capabilities the outcome of implementing strategic decision is affected by the kind of organisation and its structure. The organisation itself should possess a structure and culture of overall “readiness” for strategic implementation and change, as well as in-house knowledge and experience. The managers, or at least the management team, should possess a sensitivity to human issues, capability of planning and have an insightful organisational knowledge in order to successfully implement strategy. The overall successfulness of achieving set strategic decisions depends on how versatile and flexible the responses are at both the organisational and managerial levels. It does not depend as much on directives that are rule-bound and strict. (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004)

In a study of more than 200 businesses, Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) found evidence that the way that a firm is structured and which behaviours are nurtured will strongly influence the performance of the firm. The authors conducted the study by identifying a taxonomy of four different types of structure and behaviour of a firm, which they refer to as organisational archetypes. Furthermore, Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) matched the archetype to a specific business strategy in order to determine which combination that best facilitates the implementation of a specific strategy. Each of the four archetypes possesses different levels of organisational structure and strategic behaviour as presented in table two below. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005)

Table 3: Characteristics of archetypes Formalization Centralization Specialisation Customer Competitor Innovation Internal/cost orientation orientation orientation orientation Management High High Low Low Low Low Low dominant Customer- Low Low High High Moderate High Moderate centric innovators Competitor- Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate High centric cost controllers Middle Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate ground Source: Olson, Slater & Hult (2005)

The Management dominant firms have in comparison to the other archetypes a great confidence in senior managers. The decision making is almost exclusively done by senior managers and the authority and influence is moved high up the ranks. The second archetype, labelled the Customer-centric innovators, are firms that have a high number of specialists who understand the customers’ needs and innovate accordingly, all in an informal setting. The Competitor-centric cost controllers are the archetype that consists of firms that put a high focus on monitoring the competitors. In regards to decision making the firms have a balanced approach between senior and middle managers. The fourth and last archetype is called Middle ground and unlike the other archetypes, it has no distinctive characteristics. The firms belonging to the middle ground category show no tendency to focus on any special behavioural norms, nor do any of the structural elements get more attention than the other. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005)

To know how well a firm’s strategy is matched to its behavioural structure and organizational standard there is a need to know what the strategy consists of. Four different market strategies have been identified. These four different strategies have been labelled Prospectors, Analysers, Low cost defenders and Differentiated defenders. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005) These strategies share some similarities to the classic Ansoff matrix (Ansoff, 1957). Firms that adopt a prospector strategy face the challenge of identifying and exploiting new products

10 and opportunities that arise with new markets. The focus of this strategy is innovation and to develop markets and products. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005) Much like the Ansoff matrix’s market development and product development strategies, where focus lies on either developing new products or exploring new market segments (Ansoff, 1957).

The analysers strategy plan is to in detail analyse the market, the products and its competitors in order to identify gaps or contra-actions that they can exploit. The focus is to further improve or reduce costs to already successful products, often started by prospectors, or markets. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005)

Low cost defenders focus on establishing their products in stable markets. The firms practicing the low cost defender strategy usually put attention on standardised practices that enhance the efficiency rather than effectiveness that originates from flexibility. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005) This strategy is similar to the Ansoff Matrix’s market penetration, where the focus also lies in trying to increase shares in already existing markets. Usually there is an emphasis on competitive pricing. (Ansoff, 1957)

The last strategy that Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) identified is called Differentiated defender. This strategy focuses on providing extraordinary products with high quality or maintaining a desirable image. Much like the low cost defenders strategy, this strategy also offers their products throughout the whole market with the difference that the prices are higher. Even though the four strategies are different, there are possibilities to combine strategies and be successful. With the different strategy approaches in mind, the authors found that an appropriate match between strategy and archetype leads to higher performance for the firm. The matches between archetype and strategy are shown in table three below. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005)

Table 4: Appropriate match between archetype and strategy Management Customer-centric Competitor-centric Middle dominant innovators cost controllers ground Prospectors Low High Low Low

Analysers Low High High Low

Low-cost Low Low High Low defenders Differentiated Low High High Low defenders Source: Olson, Slater & Hult (2005)

Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) found that the prospector firms that had the highest overall performance were customer centric innovators. It is the fit between the prospector strategy, which strives to find new products and markets, and the behaviours and norms of the archetype Customer-centric innovators, which have a high number of specialists whom innovates after the customer’s needs, which result in these firms excellent performance. For

11 firms that are adapting the Analysers strategy, the most successful way to implement such a strategy is to have the archetype of either Competitor-centric cost controllers or Customer- centric innovators. This is because Analysers focus on products and markets that already are successful, which makes analysers fall into one of the two archetypes depending on flexibility and if the mentality of the firm is to cut costs or improve upon products. As can be imagined, the most successful archetype for Low-cost defenders is competitor-centric cost controllers. This match is successful since the firms focus on understanding market prices, competitors and its customers that are price sensitive. The Differentiated defenders that performed the best were, like the Analysers, either Customer centric innovators or Competitor- centric cost controllers. It is no surprise that there is compatibility between this strategy and the archetype Customer-centric innovators. The focus lies in innovation and differentiation through excellent products. What is surprising though, according to Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) is “that Differentiated defenders that adopted the Competitor-centric cost control focus performed almost as well.” (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005, p. 53)

2.1.3 Organisational climate influence on strategy implementation Research suggests that one of the reasons why strategies are difficult to implement may not lie so much in the type of strategy but rather in which context the implementation is applied in. The context in this case refers to the organisational environment and culture that either facilitates change or repels it. (Dobni, 2003) This is further strengthened by Alamsjah (2011) who states that corporate culture has a significant impact on successful strategy implementation and that especially middle level managers can more successfully accomplish strategy implementation if they are aided by a supportive corporate culture (Alamsjah, 2011). A firm’s structure and how that firm emphasise behaviour from their employees will strongly influence the firm’s performance. It is beneficial if the organisational structure matches the behavioural norms of the employees. The better the match the more successful the firm will be in its performance. (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005)

According to Dobni (2003) the most important action that a manager can do is to create an environment that helps facilitate change. Dobni continues to describe a six aspect taxonomy that a manager should follow in order to create a strategy implementation friendly environment. The aspects are culture, coalignment, core competencies, connection, customer value and communication. (Dobni, 2003)

Culture is the aspect that drives strategy. Culture is one of the internal variables that the firm can somewhat control. In essence, a firm’s culture represents the aggregated opinions and attitudes the members of the firm have about themselves, the company and the management. So in order to create a change, implement strategy, the best way is to have a proactive and encouraging culture that facilitates change in combination with managers that have knowledge about the firm’s culture and how it operates. It should be known that national culture influences corporate culture and especially managers’ decision making process. Corporate culture can be viewed as a representation of the managers’ cultural backgrounds. (Albaum & Herche, 1999) While corporate culture and national culture can be argued to be different, both cultural aspects are interrelated as the national culture affects the employees

12 within the organisation and in turn the organisational culture. (Hofstede & Fink, 2007) Dobni (2003) further states that an issue that might occur in regards to the firms culture and the implementation of strategy is that the implementation efforts is only as strong as the lowest common trait of the opinion and attitudes that exists within the culture. Dysfunctional departments and employees as well as careless actions and practices might undermine the culture that is being strived for. (Dobni, 2003)

Another aspect is coalignment which involves the fit between the culture and the strategy. In order to yield the benefits that can occur if coalignment is achieved, managers need to consider if the culture of the firm is in line with the competitive context. If the competitive environment changes, so should also the culture of the firm, in order to maximize the firm’s performance. The coalignment implies that it is important for the firm to have people, processes and a culture that are flexible according to the changing environment. (Dobni, 2003)

Core competencies are the aspects in the taxonomy that are related to the strategy implementation being moulded around the core competencies that the firm possesses. The employees need to understand the core competencies of the firm and how they can contribute to, and develop them. For management, it is important to be aware of the employee’s unique capabilities and if the firm is promoting them in an efficient way. If there are capabilities amongst the employees, the managers should utilise that employee accordingly since this can benefit the firms’ implementation culture. (Dobni, 2003)

The fourth aspect in the taxonomy is connection and it addresses the question whether the employees are connected to the values and vision of the firm. To create an implementation friendly environment, it is of importance that the members of the organisation are connected to the organisation’s vision. It is through this connection that the employees feel comfortable and empowered enough to take value adding actions. If employees are not connected, it can strangle innovation and the willingness for employees to do anything above their initial work assignments. (Dobni, 2003)

The fifth aspect in the taxonomy is customer value, which for many firms is essential for their continued existence and prosperity. Accordingly, it is important for a firm to support objectives and behaviour that brings advantages to the customer value. For management, by not neglecting customer value and truly understand what the companies specific customers truly value, they can help create an essential foundation for strategy implementation. (Dobni, 2003)

Communication is the last aspect in the taxonomy. A lot of strategy implementation issues can be directly traced back to poor communication. Inefficient communication leads to a lack of trust for the management, the strategy, mission or vision of the firm, which in turn undermines any implementation efforts. (Dobni, 2003) Having good communication in the company can improve relationships which in turn will help with the effectiveness of strategy implementation (Chimhanzi & Morgan, 2005). Management should identify the

13 communication barriers and remove them and work actively to improve communication practices in the firm to create an environment that nurtures strategy implementation. (Dobni, 2003)

2.2 Implementation factors Previous research has identified several underlying dimensions that according to the middle managers were crucial for successful strategy execution. Not only are these dimensions important in the middle manager’s eyes, but seven out of the original 11 identified dimension actually show to have a positive correlation to or a significant positive impact on successful strategy implementation. The dimensions are: corporate culture, clear strategy, communication, execution plan, people competencies, documentation and performance management. The four dimensions that are left proved to be substantially less significant for successful strategy implementation. These are: managing change, the CEO’s involvement, organisational structure and uncertain environment. However, it should be said that the reason for the dimension to be more or less significant may depend on if the middle managers operates in well-established and -managed firms. (Alamsjah, 2011)

2.2.1 Integrated factors for successful implementation Hrebiniak (2006) found that for organisations to successfully implement their strategies managers require guidelines. Implementation needs to be regarded as a well-structured well informed process therefore directions need to be made so as to lead and support the process of implementation. (Hrebiniak, 2006)

Figure 2: Implementing model: key decisions and actions Source: Adapted from Hrebiniak (2006)

Hrebiniaks (2006) model above is based on the author’s research regarding obstacles to strategy implementation and is constructed from the most important findings. The first conclusion that was possible to discern is that the implementation process should be conducted with a logical flow, execution and decision should be done in a logical manner.

The model illustrates the logical order to execute decisions with its arrows, which presents which decisions should be made before others. As the model describes, strategy implementation is not a unilateral, down-ward only flow of communication. There are also feedback loops in the form of control. These are necessary since an implementation process should be a dynamic and adaptive process and if changes are occurring feedback about performance against strategic short term objectives are necessary. (Hrebiniak, 2006)

2.2.2 Levers of implementation Successful strategy implementation can also be achieved through structure and managerial skills. Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) view strategy implementation as a vital element when building an organisation and with the use of some appropriate “levers” of implementation will help further the organisation. Through their research the authors managed to identify eight such levers with structural and managerial implications for organisations. The identified levers were divided so as four levers had structural implication whilst the other four levers concerned managerial skills. The identified levers are described in the table below.

Table 5: Eight implementation levers Structural levers Managerial levers Actions Cross-functional integration and Interacting Utilisation of strategic company collaboration – who, what leadership. and when. Programs Concerning organisational learning and Allocating When and where to continuous improvement practices. allocate resources. Systems Strategic support systems. Monitoring Rewards to achievements. Policies Strategy supportive policies. Organising Strategic shaping of organisational structure. Source: Adapted from Crittenden & Crittenden (2008)

As the table indicates strategy implementation can be divided into two different variables, structures and managerial skills. The structural variables are levers that provide the framework or configuration in which companies operate effectively while the managerial variables concern the behavioural activities that managers use in the structures developed by the organisation. Furthermore the structural variables can be said to be the toolkit that organisations can use in order to identify key levers that influecnces the formulation to implementation process. Managerial skills on the other hand are of a more subjective nature and will therefore vary depening on the manager in question’s perception and behviour. Together these levers should be able to facilitate strategy implementation, though all eight levers might not be necessary in order to sucessfully implement strategy, the identification of the different levers will indicate strong and weak aspects of an organisation that could have an impact on strategy implementation. Strategy is executed through the structure with the management skills as important indicators of whether the implemetation effort has been succesful or not. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)

2.2.3 Implementation factor comparison In order for a company to achieve a successful implementation, strategic leadership is imperative. This implies that the first managerial variable interacting, or the exercising of strategic leadership, is needed. This lever defined that a main responsibility of a leader was direction, protection, orientation, managing conflicts and shaping norms. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008) Five levels of leadership were identified and a hierarchy was constructed (Collins, 2001). This is pictured in the table below.

Table 6: Five levels of leadership Level 1 Highly capable individual Talent, knowledge, skills and work habits are contributions. Level 2 Contributing team member Works efficiently in groups and contributes group objectives. Level 3 Competent manager Organises both people and resources. Level 4 Effective leader Develops visions and high performance standards. Level 5 Executive Enduring greatness through personal humility and professional will. Source: Adapted from Crittenden & Crittenden (2008)

Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) found that all five levels of leadership were found in the companies that they based their research on. Interesting to note is that while it is not necessary for members of top management to move sequentially through the hierarchy they must possess characteristics of all levels. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)

Hrebiniak (2006) stated that the first decision that needs to be taken into consideration for successful implementation is corporate strategy. The corporate role is both strategic and financial. Corporate strategy is all encompassing and focuses on all aspects of an organisation. Such areas can be portfolio management, diversification and allocation of resources. (Hrebiniak, 2006) This thought is strengthened by the second managerial lever, resource allocation, from Crittenden and Crittenden (2008). Resource allocation includes the usage of important resources such as money, people and capabilities. Moreover, physical, human and organisational capital can also be regarded as resources that fall under this variable where the managerial skill is to understand when and where to allocate resources. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)

Corporate strategy is a key decision maker for the choice of corporate structure. Corporate structure can also be expressed as a vital part of strategy implementation. The relationship between organisational structure and implementation is a balance between centralised and decentralised. Businesses have to be independent enough to respond to market changes, competitor’s actions and customer needs in a timely manner. But at the same time different businesses cannot be so decentralised that unnecessary duplication of resources occurs and destroy all chances for synergies or scale economies across businesses. In order to execute and achieve strategic goals corporations need to create the correct balance of centralisation and decentralisation. (Hrebiniak, 2006) This is thought can be found in the last structural

16 lever identified by Crittenden and Crittenden (2008). This lever concerns a strategy supporting policy that tackles day to day decisions and actions. The lever states that guidance should be found top-down throughout the organisation and also consistency throughout geographically dispersed units. These policies should be established through patterns and not be based on individual incidents. This ensures that the policies support the organisations overall mission and objectives. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)

The strategy supporting policy lever and Crittenden and Crittenden’s (2008) first structural lever, actions, can also be discerned in one of Hrebiniaks (2006) success factors, namely the need for integration concerning corporate structure. This refers to the actions taken in order to achieve cooperation across the units that make up the organisation. Coordination and integration is a necessity for the efficiency goals of an organisation and the effectiveness of decentralised units. Hrebiniak (2006) further states that the choice of structure creates an interdependence among differentiated units that places a premium on integration efforts. (Hrebiniak, 2006) For an organisation to achieve successful implementation all players at all levels of the organisation have to cooperate. This is independent on the strategy level, regardless if it is corproate, business or functional strategy. Therefore the structural lever actions can be defined as the actions that occur in an organisation in order to foster cross- functional integration and collaboration. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)

The next step in Hrebiniak’s (2006) implementation model concerns business strategy, which is focused on products, services and how to compete in the industry. Business strategy is important for the implementation of corporate strategy. Though business strategy is important in order to gain competitive advantage it is also important for the execution of corporate strategy. An aspect, according to Hrebiniak (2006), which is often overlooked. Corporate strategy and business strategy are interdependent, one will affect the other. Corporate planning is responsible for assigning roles and goals for business units where the result or performance of the business unit will in turn affect the execution of corporate strategy. If the strategic performance at the business level is poor it will detract from the corporates ability to reach its goals. Business strategy also creates demands that have to be met in order for successful implementation. Functional skills, capabilities and competencies that make implementation possible have to be created at a business level. Failure to respond to these demands will lead to poor implementation. (Hrebiniak, 2006)

Business strategy has to be translated into short term operating objectives. This leads to another decision in the implementation model, integrating strategy and short term objectives. In order to achieve strategic objectives the objectives have to be converted to measurable short term objectives. These short term objectives have to be in line with the business strategy and how the business plans on competing. This translation process is an important and integral part of strategy execution. (Hrebiniak, 2006) When translating the original top management made strategy, into a more understandable and doable procedure, middle managers play a key part in making this happen (Browne, Sharkey-Scott, Mangematin, Lawlor, & Cuddihy, 2014).

Business structure is an important aspect for strategy implementation according to Hrebiniak (2006). Even if businesses belong to the same organisation they may have different structure or design depending on the competitive market they are in. Therefore imposing the same structure on all businesses may not be ideal. Corporate should avoid this execution error at all costs. Business structure should be determined by the nature of business strategy in order to implement that strategy successfully. Important for strategy execution is also lateral communication and managing across organisational functions. In order to achieve strategic success coordination across business units has to be achieved. (Hrebiniak, 2006) This perspective is found once again in the structural lever action which tries to foster cross- functional integration and collaboration (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008). Furthermore knowledge and information sharing and integration methods can increase a business’s flexibility and therefore the organisation ability to respond to implementation challenges. (Hrebiniak, 2006) This is illustrated in the structural lever strategic support systems. Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) found that companies that are able to manage their information technology investments have proven to have up to 40% higher returns than their competitors. Strategic support systems facilitate companies with both qualitative and quantitative information about customers, HR, revenues and costs, and inventory or order fulfilment. Furthermore this structural lever can for example help facilitate other levers such as making complicated cross-functional issues easier to understand. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)

Incentives and control is the last aspect of Hrebiniak’s (2006) implementation model. In order for implementation efforts to be successful some methods of acquiring individual and organisational goal congruence is required. Execution according to Hrebiniak (2006) will fail if no one has “a stake in the game”. Performance feedback is also important in order to evaluate whether the right actions and decisions are being made. (Hrebiniak, 2006) Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) also view this as important and regard monitoring as a managerial lever that is needed in order to achieve successful implementation. Monitoring as a strategy lever concerns tying rewards to achievements, good work should be rewarded and recognised. Reward systems are often divided into two different groups, monetary and non- monetary incentives. Salary increases, bonuses, stock options, promotions and retirement packages fall under the monetary category while praise, constructive criticism, visible recognition, interesting assignments and job security and are incentives that are non- monetary. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)

An aspect that is needed for successful implementation of strategy to occur that Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) discuss that Hrebiniak (2006) does not mention is creative capital - i.e. the creative thinking in a company. This is regarded is one of the most important assets of a company by Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) Creative capital in an organisation should be planned with implementation in mind since this will in the end determine strategy formulation and which strategies are executed. However, research has proven that simply hiring creative thinkers is insufficient. Acquiring creative capital is the first step, though an environment must then be built that will foster this. This leads to the structural variable;

18 programs which foster organisational learning and continuous improvement practices. These programs should also incorporate innovation into this lever. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)

Culture has been found to have a strong relationship to strategy implementation (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008; Dobni, 2003). While each organisational culture is different and unique to each company, organisational culture can be divided into three different parts. Internal culture which is based on operational success, engineering culture drives core technology and executive culture that engages the top management and its closest subordinates. Culture, though unique to its company, is a powerful implementation tool for managers and should therefore be reflected in managerial decision making. Therefore a managerial lever is organising so as strategic shaping of culture occurs. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008)

2.3 Implementation obstacles Miller, Wilson and Hickson (2004) research discusses apects to what contributes to poor perfomance for an organisation. The authors argue that failure to achive strategic goals can be a result of decisions which are either permanent, even when they go wrong, too unsure in relative to the organisational scope, or do not consider the social and politial context of implementation. (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004)

According to Hrebiniak (2006) the main obstacle regarding strategy implementation is the lack of actual knowledge about strategy implementation. Much more is known about strategy formulation and planning than the actual implementation. An often held view by managers is that marketing strategy, financial strategy, human resource strategy, competitive strategy and any other aspect of strategy that can be found within an organisation is the only “right” approach is detrimental to the implementation. This is due to the execution of a strategy requires an integrative view over the business. If the implementation is not able to be coordinated across different functions the success rate of the implementation will be reduced and the rate for problems to arise will increase. (Hrebiniak, 2006)

Another obstacle that can affect implementation success is the discord between top level management and lower level employees. This implies that top management either disregards their role in implementation or is unaware of it. Hrebiniak’s (2006) study found that top managmet often had an attitude towards implementation where they believed their role was to plan the strategy while the lower level employees carried out the demands and implementation requirements. Therefore if the strategy failed the fault would not lie with the managers but instead with the employees who were not succesfull in implemeting an otherwise viable and sound plan. Though all organisation have a slight separation between plan and execution, if this separation becomes dysfunctional, implementation difficulties and problems will arise. For implementation to be succesfull Hrebniak (2006) states that implementation demands ownership across all levels of management. Commitment from the top all the way down is required. Implementation should be regarded as a key function and responsibility of managers. (Hrebiniak, 2006)

Though it is possibe to clearly separate formulation and implementation of strategy into two distinct parts of managerial process it is important to remember that they are also interdependent. Often formulation or planning is distinguished from implementation where implementation follows strategy planning. This is a logical assumption since executing something that does not exist is not possible. But it is important to keep in mind that planning affects execution and execution in turn will affect changes to strategy and long term planning. This implies that the strategy implementation with most success will be when the employees responsible for execution are also part of the planning process. The probabilty for success increases if interaction between execution and formulation overlap. Furthermore it is possible to discern that strategic success is dependent on planning and implementation processes are able to be viewed simultainously. While planning the strategy managers need to think about execution. Issues with the strategy execution need to be thought about and anticipated during the formulation process. This integrated view is important but difficult to achieve and therefore presents as an obstecle to strategy implementation. (Hrebiniak, 2006)

The long term aspect of strategy implementation may also present as an obstacle. Since the implementation of a strategy may take several years it can make it more difficult for managers to focus and control the execution process. (Hrebiniak, 2006) Some middle managers find it more valuable if issues with the strategy are brought up as soon as possible. Even though it may be time consuming and a hindrance for immediate implementation in the short run, it can help reduce bigger issues with the strategy implementation in the long term aspect (Browne et al, 2014). To further complicate this, the outcome of changes in strategy and its execution is not always easy to determine due to “noise” or uncontrolled events. A way to manage long term aspect of implementation is to translate long term needs into short term objectives. Controls should also be set up in order to provide managers with feedback, the implementation process itself should also be adaptive and dynamic so as to respond to unanticipated events and compensate for them. (Hrebiniak, 2006)

One challenge when implementing strategy is the large number of individuals that must be involved. The larger the number of people that are involved the greater the challenge for successful implementation. This means that communication issues can arise top down or across functions. Managers have to make sure that incentives throughout the organisation support the execution efforts. Strategic objectives have to be linked to day to day objectives at all levels and locations of the organisation which can prove to be problematic. (Hrebiniak, 2006) According to Dobni (2003) a primary reason why organisations find it difficult to implement strategy is because of the implementation linkage. The difficulties occur because the organisations focus on the link between positioning and performance instead on the link between positioning and employee behaviour. In other words, just stating a desired position for the company will mean nothing if the employees do not understand and actively work towards that position. (Dobni, 2003)

Ineffective management of change has proven to be an obstacle to strategy implementation. The purpose of strategies is to achieve competitive advantage and is often linked to the businesses vision. This in turn implies that implementing new strategies often necessitate

20 change. Change to a company’s processes, systems, structures and/or culture. Implementing strategies means inevitable change. However change can be difficult. Consequences of the change are difficult to estimate even though risks are evaluated. Therefore the change processes needs to be managed though this can also prove to be difficult. An aspect of change is its interconnectedness, events may occur that affect both the strategy and the employees of the organisation. In order to manage the change process it requires managers to have a general awareness of the strategic direction and knowledge of operational activities at the individual level. (Salih & Doll, 2013)

Poor communication can also present as an obstacle to strategy implementation. Poor communication can lead to misinterpretation and loss of meaning. It can even undermine implementation efforts. This may occur if information is inaccurate, poorly stated, sent to the wrong person or otherwise problematic. (Salih & Doll, 2013)

Another obstacle found by Salih and Doll (2013) is the needed discipline to support strategy implementation. The absence of a supportive discipline has proved to be a pressing problem. An unsupportive discipline may include reactionary management style, being to tactical and less strategic, conflicting perspectives, focus on day-to-day urgent matters and performance driven culture. These impede strategic thinking, reflection, creativity and innovation. (Salih & Doll, 2013)

2.3.1 Implementation barriers When organisations seek to gain competitive advantages or to change the first step is developing a strategy and thereafter implementing the strategy. The process of implementation is however rather complicated. It requires realigning structures, systems, leadership behaviour, HR policies, culture, values and management processes and between the ideal strategic alignment and implementation lies several opportunities for problems. Especially when companies often face barriers that block strategy implementation and organisational learning. To further complicate matters these barriers can often be unseen, meaning that they are difficult for companies to identify. These barriers, or silent killers as they were named by Beer and Eisenstat (2000), do not mean immediate failure for the strategy implementation process as long as businesses are aware of them and leaders within the organisation actively engage people throughout and communicate about the barriers and their underlying causes. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

Identified problems concern structure, systems, management processes and human resource policies but there are six main “silent killers” that are common and often found to be a hindrance to strategy implementation. These barriers are presented in the table seven below. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

Table 7: Six barriers to strategy implementation

Strategy implementation barriers 1 Top-down or laissez-faire senior management style 2 Unclear strategy or conflicting priorities 3 An ineffective senior management team 4 Poor vertical communication 5 Poor coordination across functions, businesses or borders 6 Inadequate down-the-line leadership skills and development Source: Adapted from Beer & Eisenstat (2000)

These six barriers were labled silent killers since they are very seldom acknowledged or explicitly addressed in organisations. To further complicate matters some barriers may actually cause hinderence to address other barries. An example of this is the barrier poor vertical ommunication. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

The first barrier to strategy implementation identified by Beer and Eisenstat (2000) is the top- down or laissez-faire senior management style. This aspect includes conflict avoidance or discomfort, often absent management during acquisitions and the top team is used for administrative tasks rather than strategic discussions. Furthermore this variable identified that decisions were often made by top management without fully considering input from functioning managers. This makes the necessary coordination to implement strategies to suffer which affects the development of lower level-managers. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

The two silent killers conflicting priorities and poor coordination are strongly linked to each other. If an organisation has competing strategies, or aspects of strategies that conflict they may start battling each other for resources. This in turn can lead to an internal competition between factions around the two strategies, which if not handled correctly can lead to the organisation tearing itself apart from within. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

The ineffective senior management team barrier to strategy implementation also has a link to previous mentioned barriers. It concerns the decision making and the operation of the top team in an organisation. A common occurrence is that the top team operate in silos which imply that they work very independently. This can result in skewed perceptions and inefficient cooperation. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

The poor vertical communication barrier occurs when a gap in communication between employees of an organisation and it managers occurs. If employees suspect that management chose to avoid potentially threatening or embarrassing issues, and that lower levels should keep observations to themselves communication issues may arise. Employees can often recognize problems but if management is not open for discussion the problems cannot be solved. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

Inadequate down-the-line leadership is the last barrier. If lower level management are not afforded the opportunities to lead or change, supported through training, coaching or

22 leadership themselves, lower management will not develop the necessary skills. This barrier requires open engagement with root causes. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

2.4 Implementation process Implementation should be regarded as a process that requires a great deal of attention in order to make it work. The execution of a strategy cannot be comprised to just a single decision or action instead it is the result of a series of integrated decisions and actions over time. If companies try to find quick solutions to their execution problems the probability of them failing is very high. Successful integration takes time and attention. This can present as a challenge for managers and increases the difficulty of achieving a successful strategy implementation. (Hrebiniak, 2006)

2.4.1 Five dimension process to strategy implementation Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) identified a five dimensional process from a Latin American perspective, that has an impact on the implementation of business strategy. The authors assert that if a firm correctly develops these dimensions it can improve their chances on successfully implementing strategy and therefore also improve the chances of being successful in the market, i.e. gaining competitive advantage. Strategy formulation, systematic execution and strategy control and follow up are the dimensions that can be regarded as a series of independent decisions that allows the firm to define assumptions of underlying strategy and move those now defined assumptions into the instruments of feedback plan and performance. The two facilitating dimensions are the dimensions that are necessary as supportive dimensions in order to make the processes of the first three effective. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) The relationship between the dimensions are illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 3: Strategy implementation dimensions Source: Adapted from Brenes, Mena & Molina (2008)

The strategy formulation dimension is the aspect that helps the firm identify implementation barriers. It is also the dimension that helps set the foundation of the mission and vision for the firm as well as it helps set priorities. Strategy formulation deals with all the parts that a company uses when formulating strategy. First of all, consideration must be given to all relevant aspects concerning the firm, such as the environment, industry and competition, these and the process of formulation itself should then be surveyed in an extensive and analytical way. Another component is the internal partner’s involvement since they all contribute and it is of essence that they are committed to the strategy. The long term vision is a component that assures that the chosen strategy is the one best suited for the firm. The external advisors presence is the ones that activate the strategy formulation process. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)

The systematic execution dimension relates to all the actions taken by the firm while implementing strategy. One of the components of systematic execution is that the organisation should establish a priority system for each action that should be implemented. Another component considers the firms structure and culture, they should be aligned to the new strategy and may need adjustments. The final component in this dimension is the delegation for decision making which makes sure that the decision making effectively goes to the right individuals who are responsible for implementing parts of the strategic actions. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)

The last one of the three dimensions is strategy control & follow up which relates to the way that the company evaluates and controls the strategy implementation progress. The first component is that the firm needs to establish some form of control systems that best work for the specific firm. Feedback is another component that is important as to assess how the work is going, by constantly providing feedback on how the execution and implementation of strategy is going. The last component is monitoring, measure and adjustment. This component occurs when the firm constantly monitors the business environment in order to forecast trends and/or strategy adjustment that are required, instead of just reacting to threats and opportunities. By having control and follow up it is possible for the firm to measure the strategic progress and maintain the course of the strategy. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)

The supporting process dimension CEO's leadership and suitable, motivated management and employees is essential in order to attain success. It is complicated to implement strategy in the absence of CEO commitment and leadership, however it is the managers and employees that are ultimately responsible for the implementation of strategy. Still, without efficient communication from the CEO, explaining and motivating the employees, it will most likely lead to a poorly executed strategy. Another component is that the top management is responsible for the recruitment and development of talented employees that are fully aligned with the company’s strategy and culture. This is related to the last component which is to add a clear understanding of the firm’s goals, objectives and priorities. Accordingly, if this is done effectively, it should result in a firm that is able to perform in a competitive environment. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) The need for top managements support and engagement is also strengthened by Ramaseshan, Ishak and Kingshott (2013)

24 who argues that by showing commitment and support towards middle marketing managers it facilitates their decision making as well as creates larger commitment to the strategy being implemented.

The last supporting dimension is called corporate governance leading the change. The first component of this dimension is that there must exist commitment at all levels to the strategic change, of the corporate governance system, to a point of leading it. Commitment is also important amongst the stockholders, since strategical actions do require investment. The last component is commitment and agreement amongst the concerned stakeholders. In other words, it is necessary to achieve a level of commitment and agreement amongst all those parties that are in some way involved in the firm. This agreement and commitment involves parties from management and stockholders down to the employees and is concerned with all from the strategy, the long-term results to the financial support. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)

2.4.2 Implementation barrier process The six barriers to implementation, which were mentioned in the implementation obstacles section, can be troublesome for organisations individually but if they occur together it can be even more worrying for businesses. Together these barriers create a vicious circle from which it can be very difficult to escape. These six barriers can be divided into three different categories; quality of direction, quality of learning and quality of implementation. Though separate these three different categories all interconnect and influence each other. It is difficult to achieve successful implementation if the first step, i.e. quality of direction is poor. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000) The figure below illustrates the six strategy implementation barriers, grouped into the three different categories and how the interaction between them occurs.

Figure 4: Interaction of the six silent killers Source: Adapted from Beer & Eisenstat (2000)

During their research Beer and Eisenstat (2000) found that businesses often had three distinct responses towards the six strategy implementation barriers – avoidance, managerial replacement and engagement. The three responses, at least to some part, proved to be successful however the engagement response has the best chance of building long term competitive capabilities. The authors established actions for each barrier that directly addresses the problem of that barrier. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000) The actions corresponding to each implementation barrier are presented in the table below.

Table 8: Actions to prevent the implementation barriers

Barrier to implementation Preventative actions Top-down or laissez-faire senior Create partnership built around the management style. development of a business direction, enabling organisational context and the delegation of authority to accountable individuals and teams. Unclear strategy and conflicting priorities. A statement of strategy is created by the top team as a group and priorities are developed which the members are willing to back. An ineffective senior management team. Top team as a group is involved in all aspects of the change process so that its effectiveness is tested and developed. Poor vertical communication. Honest communication based on facts should be established with lower management Poor communication across functions, Define business wide initiatives, new businesses and borders. organisational roles and capabilities to facilitate implementation. Inadequate down-the-line leadership skills Lower-level management develops skills by and development. leading change and driving key business initiatives. By supporting, coaching, training and recruitment should ensure success. Source: Adapted from Beer & Eisenstat (2000)

Quality of direction is the first step in the model created by Beer and Eisenstat (2000) and concerns the barriers regarding management and strategy. Ineffective, top-down, laissez-faire senior management and unclear strategies are closely related barriers. The senior management approaches lead to ineffective teams if the CEO sidesteps the senior management when making decisions, the teams potential may suffer through laissez-fire approach to management since discussions are avoided that may cause conflict and if management is done on a one-to-one basis it may cause limitations to group discussions. This implies that strategically important issues may not be discussed in-depth in the group and in order to avoid unsolvable conflicts the CEO may work in a one-on-one setting. This kind of pattern then results in reduced trusts, less effective strategy formulation and then poor business performance due to poor implementation efforts. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

In order to tackle the first implementation barrier, top-down or laissez-faire senior management style, a business requires an engaged leadership approach. Employees should not be viewed as barriers concerning strategic change and execution. If they are properly engaged, employees become true partners to a business. By engaging the top management team with lower level employees businesses are able to evaluate and develop alternatives that are viable for the company. This should result in an improved strategic plan and execution process that has the commitment of both top management and lower levels tasked with execution. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

Unclear strategies or conflicting priorities is classified as the second barrier. In order to solve this obstacle it is recommended to create a clear business direction. This can be done by the top team as a group. By developing the strategy statement in a group it will ensure that the top management and the business teams tasked with enacting it share the same views. Feedback is an important step here since it allows those tasked with developing the strategy to clarify and redefine strategy when needed. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

Effective senior management is the preventative action corresponding to the third barrier – ineffective senior management. This action implies that senior management should work as a group and be highly involved in the change process. If the top team is involved in almost every aspect – strategy development, organisational diagnosis, action planning, communicating the change and monitoring – the team must work cohesively. Otherwise unknown internal competition or hindrances may occur. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

The next cogwheel in the model is the quality of organisational learning which implies the vertical communication in an organisation. Vertical communication has a large impact on a business strategy implementation and its ability to refine its strategy. If a strategy is not able to be communicated downwards, why new ways of working are demanded or the employees do not receive guidelines, employees will not know what day-to-day activities they should undertake. Furthermore poor upwards communication can affect the business. If employees do not know the direction of the business they will not know how to get it there nor can employees inform higher levels of potential problems. Poor vertical communication will affect implementation if those tasked with the execution cannot communicate with senior management about problems. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

If vertical communication is available within a business it can provide several positive effects. For example, open fact based communication often results in trust and commitment. If higher management is open to communication and feedback it can show that they care about the employees. So not only will feedback about issues and how to solve them be received but also show that management is serious and takes thoughts and opinions of employees into consideration. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

Quality of implementation is the last process in the model. If the barriers regarding management practices hinder lower level coordination the needed down-the-line leadership skills and capabilities will not be developed. Middle managers will not be able to collaborate effectively across functions, businesses and countries if they are pushed in different competing directions from higher management. Furthermore understanding the strategic direction will facilitate perspectives with the result of lower level management capable of independently judging and taking actions. If only the CEO has the understanding of the whole picture all major decisions are required to be made at the top. A direct result of this is the sixth implementation barrier, inadequate leadership development down the line. Top- down management is not capable of providing leadership development. A dilemma here found by Beer and Eisenstat (2000) is that top management has difficulties in finding people to run cross functional programs. This is due to, according to the authors research, “Senior

28 managers point to the paucity of management talent and conclude that lower-level managers can’t handle increased responsibility” (ibid. p.34). This is a vicious cycle illustrating how the six barriers are connected. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

If teamwork can be created – through role realignment, responsibilities and accountability – business should be able to tackle the barrier poor coordination across functions, businesses and borders. Businesses should try to avoid silos and instead aim for cross-functional business teams. This should enable the teams to understand the direction of the company and facilitate the alignment of different parts of the organisation. This will also highlight who is responsible for what and a measure of accountability for decisions to be made. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

By creating strong leadership with a general management perspective a business should be able to prevent inadequate down-the-line leadership skills. Research has found that strategy implementation requires lower level management that are able to coordinate strategic initiatives across functions, business units and borders. With increased confidence in lower level management senior management will be able to delegate authority to them as members of the business team. This should be effective in general terms since the lower level managers are aware of day-to-day practices in the business. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

2.4.3 Importance of commitment and involvement For all concerning stakeholders of the firm, including middle level managers (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008), it is important to have a level of commitment to the implementation process (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008; Ramaseshan, Ishak, & Rabbanee, 2013). The authors Ramaseshan, Ishak and Rabbane (2013) developed a structural model illustrating different organisational factors where commitment and involvement from the managerial perspective is needed, which will have a positive impact on organisational performance. See figure below.

Figure 5: Structural model for commitment and involvement Source: Adapted from Ramaseshan, Ishak, & Rabbanee (2013)

The authors found that innovative culture, top management support and autonomy have a notable positive effect on commitment. Innovative culture refers to the total atmosphere, behaviours and attitudes existing in the organisational context, which in this case is specifically related to promoting innovation and willingness to take changes. The organisational factor that refers to the top management support is related to which extent the managers feel that the top managers’ value and support the strategy that is being formulated and later implemented. The last organisational factor called autonomy refers to the extent of which the managers have freedom to make decisions as well as act independently when needed. (Ramaseshan, Ishak, & Rabbanee, 2013)

The involvement refers to how much managers are involved in formulating and creating strategy. (Ramaseshan, Ishak, & Rabbanee, 2013) Managers that are more involved in strategy tend to see and act towards the implementation process in a more favourable and effective way (Collier, Fishwick, & Floyd, 2004). Middle managers that are excluded from the strategic process feel dissatisfaction which in turn could lead to inefficiency and added costs to the firm (Westley, 1990). According to the study done by Collier, Fishwick and Floyd (2004) managers that show a higher level of involvement in strategy process have a different viewpoint and attitude than those managers that are not as involved. Involved managers are more likely to see the strategy implementation process as less top-down, as less constrained by external aspects and that the strategy better incorporates a stronger vision and greater adaptiveness. Managers act on perception, this means that even if the perception does not correspond to reality, the managers are presumably going to act as if it did. This further means that managers that are involved in the strategy process not only causes them to set a more desirable set of impressions but also causes a more desirable set of behaviours. I.e. The more managers see the process as positive, they become more likely to change their behaviour into one that better matches with effective strategy development which in turn means that they are increasing their involvement which may lead to a “…positive self- reinforcing cycle of perceptions and behaviour.” (Collier, Fishwick, & Floyd, 2004, p. 76)

2.5 Middle management and strategy implementation In the past 25 years more and more research has started to focus on strategy implementation and general organisational change through the perspective of middle managers (Wooldridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008). The authors’ refer to this body of work as the “middle management perspective”. The middle management point of view is important when one wants to get a deeper understanding of the organisational process when building and renewing new competences. (Wooldridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008) The middle manager perspective also unlocks the possibilities to make further theoretical contributions to a number of research streams that are not yet looked into, as example in an international business perspective. Middle managers are of great usefulness since their relative success can be connected to the success of their subsidiary unit. (O'Brien, Scott, & Gibbons, 2013)

Strategizing, i.e. formulating and implementing strategy, has a large social practice aspect to it (Thomas & Ambrosini, 2015). If the social aspects are lacking, for example the support from top managers and lack of trust amongst middle managers, it can create organisational

30 change cynicism. If cynicism has already become a part of the organisation, then inviting middle managers to participate is not enough to change the situation. Even though middle managers are more likely to be psychologically engaged to the results of the strategy implementation process if they had the possibility to be a part of the process and express their opinions, more is needed to change cynicism. Nevertheless, inviting middle management into the process will not alone change already established organisational change cynicism, it is beneficial for the firm in the long-run. (Barton & Ambrosini, 2013) Middle manager’s social capital and social networks, as well as their skill to cultivate those relationships, have an impact on their performance of influencing upwards and downwards in the organisation (Ahearne, Lam, & Kraus, 2014). According to Furnham (2002) the social skills that middle managers possess, in the form of courage, communication, feedback and sensitivity can be seen as one of the firm’s core competencies. If these social skills are not present it would lead to a firm with underperforming employees, lack of innovation and a corporate culture that is harmful not only for the employees but for the company’s performance. (Furnham, 2002)

Middle management’s commitment to strategy implementation is critical for the execution to be successful since they are a valuable source of knowledge and information that is required in the implementation process. Middle management contributes to strategy implementation by translating organisational strategies into everyday operational actions through monitoring individual performance, developing methods to achieve a strategy and ensure alignment between strategy and expected behaviour. (Salih & Doll, 2013) Strategy may fail because of lack of commitment from middle managers (Salih & Doll, 2013) but it may also happen due to more complex reasons that are connected to the middle managers sudden change in organisational vision (Pors, 2016). This interruption in strategy implementation may occur when middle managers suddenly become more aware of the non-linear existence of the corporate strategy. As a result, they begin to wonder about the bigger picture, the social and political aspects of their operation and often request time to reflect, think and connect the proposed strategy to their own values as individuals before they act to implement the strategy, therefore causing the interruption in strategy implementation. (Pors, 2016)

Middle management holds a unique position in a business in regards to strategy implementation. Due to middle managers knowledge of day-to-day operations, familiarity with operations and organisational processes, middle management occupy a place in an organisation where they can advise higher level management about strategic direction and potential obstacles to strategy implementation. Therefore the structural position of middle managers becomes important to strategy implementation. The strategic direction can be evaluated through middle managers since they are aware of the day-to-day work conducted by employees, the skill sets of the employees and market dynamics. This implies that they are able to assess if the strategic direction is in alignment with market trends and the internal capabilities. This also means that middle managers can indicate risks or trade-offs that may be necessary if the strategy is pursued. The structural position of middle management also allows them to advise senior management about resource requirements for successful execution. (Salih & Doll, 2013)

Middle management also holds the role as communicator for strategy implementation. They act as translators for the strategic intentions developed by top management. Middle management holds the best position in the company for strategy implementation execution. They translate and convey on behalf of the top management, they facilitate with downward flow of information and alignment between functional areas of a business. (Salih & Doll, 2013) It is the middle managers whom, through their awareness of the business and their boldness to challenge the top managers’ decisions and knowledge, decipher the formal strategy and make it applicable in everyday operations. This enables the top management’s vision to be implemented but done so in a more efficient way through the appropriate medium and communication throughout the organisation. In other word, the middle managers adapt and translate the formal strategy into something much more comprehensible for everyone that actually is responsible for implementing the strategy. (Browne et al., 2014)

2.5.1 The different portrayals of the middle manager Middle managers do not deserve (Huy, 2001) the bad reputation as the ones who sabotages strategical change in an organisation (Guth & Macmillan, 1986). Rather they are valuable to the strategy implementation process (Furnham, 2002) as they work as a contributor to the realisation of strategy in four major areas: as an entrepreneur, as a communicator, as a therapist and lastly as the person who delicately balances the progression and stagnation within the firm. (Huy, 2001)

Middle managers are entrepreneurs in the way that they are able to see new possibilities for both organisational growth and problem solving. This is because, as a group they are more diverse than the top management team as well as they are close to the everyday operations. This means that they know and understand the dynamics and problems that can occur, and yet are positioned far away enough to see the entire perspective of the firm. Therefore, when the time comes to implement strategical change, middle managers unique position in the organisation enables them to envision and implement the change. This position also allows them to come up with creative ideas and innovation to further strengthen the company’s position in the market. (Huy, 2001)

Due to middle manager’s unique position in the company they are well suited to communicate change throughout the company (Huy, 2001). This unique position for the middle managers is also referred to as “boundary spanners”. The middle managers boundary spanner role has the result, that with their ideal position which allows middle managers to detect environmental changes and judge their involvement in to the organisations strategies, that the strategies are always up to date with the current situation. (Ramaseshan, Ishak, & Rabbanee, 2013)

Change in a company in the form of strategy has two stages to it; formulation and implementation, and it is well known that failure to succeed more often than not occurs in the implementation stage. It is therefore of utmost importance that the strategy is clearly communicated. Middle managers unique position gives them the opportunity to communicate many parts of the organisation since they often have a large social network within the organisation. If the middle manager has credibility and an extensive network and indeed

32 understands and appreciates the proposed strategy, the middle manager is more likely to sell it to the rest of the firm in an easy, subtle and calm way. (Huy, 2001)

Middle managers act as the therapist when strategical change is being implemented. The change can result in emotional turbulence and concern amongst the employees. This uncertainty and fear amongst the employees can in worst case result in a complete halt in the intellectual part of the firm. People stop learning, stop adapting and are not motivated, they are inclined to leave the firm or are afraid to act in the firm. The top management teams are too far away to address this problem since the communication will be in obscure corporate speech, top-down. The middle managers however, are in the ultimate position to address the employee’s wellbeing. Middle managers can create a psychologically safe work environment by communicating on a personal and individual level with the employees. (Huy, 2001)

Middle managers keep the work going, they are problem solvers and as established, they possess a unique position in the firm. Middle managers are thought to act as the ones performing the balancing act between making changes happen and not making changes happen too fast, especially when change is being implemented in the firm. If change were to occur too fast it would result in complete chaos but on the same note if change were to happen too slowly it would result in organisational stagnation. Due to the mentality of middle managers as a group as well as their once again unique positon in the organisation, they surprisingly often perform this balancing act considerably well. (Huy, 2001)

2.6 Discussion Literature suggests that the view of middle management has recently undergone a change. While middle managers are of great importance to the strategy implementation process (Alamsjah, 2011; Huy, 2001; Dobni, 2003; Judge Jr & Stahl, 1995) they are not the exclusive reason why strategy implementation will fail or succeed (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004; Dobni, 2003; Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984). Strategy implementation’s success or failure is also largely due to what kind of organisation is in question and that organisations particular structure (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004). Implementation is also dependent on how well the business strategy matches the multiple levels of organisational structure and strategic behaviour (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005), the overall corporate culture (Alamsjah, 2011), in which direction the CEO is working (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984), if there is an overall organisational and systematically agreement amongst all concerning stakeholders (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) and the organisational environment, which either facilitates strategy implementation or resists it (Dobni, 2003). These are aspects to strategy implementation where middle managers have little to no influence over and illustrate the different organisational settings where middle managers may operate.

On the other hand there are many aspects and qualities of middle management that are beneficial or facilitate strategy implementation. The position middle managers hold in a company allows them insight about strategic direction and obstacles to strategy implementation that top management will not be able to see. Middle management also acts as a valuable source of knowledge and information that is necessary for the implementation

33 process. Furthermore it is middle management who translates the strategy into everyday operational actions, facilitate with the communication flow and ensure alignment between functional areas of a business. (Salih & Doll, 2013) In short it is possible to state that it is the middle managers who adapt and translate top management made strategy into comprehensible objectives and actions for the employees of the organisation that are responsible for implementing the strategy (Browne et al., 2014).

While the importance of middle managers is becoming more and more clear when it comes to strategy implementation there are still areas that need to be filled. This thesis sets out to examine how middle management operates when given a strategy to implement. With middle managements importance to strategy implementation being a relative new area within academia (Noble, 1999) no well-known process of how a middle manager works during the implementation process exists (Hrebiniak, 2006). Therefore this thesis will utilise two implementation processes, Brenes, Mena and Molina’s (2008) strategy implementation dimensions and Beer and Eisenstat’s (2000) implementation barriers, and apply a middle management perspective to them.

2.7 Conceptualisation With previous research in the relevant research area reviewed it is now important to establish a connection between the existing research and how it is going to be utilised in this study. Several aspects of strategy implementation have many different views among the academics and it is thusly required to make a well-considered choice regarding what theoretical views are appropriate for this study. The purpose of the conceptualisation and the emerged framework is to work as the theoretical foundation for the following data collection and analysis. Furthermore the conceptualisation and the framework will be used as the basis in order to answer this particular study’s overall purpose, “to provide a deeper understanding of how middle management actively operates when implementing strategy”, and the three stated research questions.

2.7.1 Conceptualisation of research question one The first research question examines the link between middle managers and strategy implementation. Research question one tries to establish an accurate portrayal of what the middle managements implementation processes looks like. In order to do so there is need to look at existing strategy implementation processes that applies to businesses’ on an organisational and structural level and then apply a middle management perspective to those processes. This is due to what Hrebiniak (2006) states that there does not yet exist a frequently used and cited implementation process from the middle managers perspective.

First model As a basis for this study the first model that will be used is the strategy implementation dimensions by Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008). The model describes the key variables for businesses when implementing strategy, these variables are then presented in the form of a process with the objective of a successful strategy implementation.

Figure 6: Strategy implementation dimensions Source: Adapted from Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) The strategy implementation dimensions model was chosen due to its clearly stated process with the end goal of a successful strategy implementation. The authors also proved through their research that the dimensions in the model are highly valued. They found that more successful businesses valued and spent more resources on all dimensions in their implementation process compared to less successful businesses (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) indicating that the dimensions are of importance. The model is also based on research solely from Latin American companies and by testing the model in a different cultural setting may add to an international perspective.

Furthermore the different dimensions and their components are valued by several other researchers within the implementation field and aspects of what Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) mention can be found in other authors own research. Such as Crittenden and Crittenden (2008), whose research concerns different levers towards strategy implementation and successful organisations or by Hrebiniak (2006) whose research is about obstacles towards successful strategy implementation. Or any of the other authors found in the literature review that applied their research in any of the dimensions in regard to strategy implementation. Therefore, the motivation to use the dimensions model felt like a viable choice as the basis of the thesis.

It is also important to note the weaknesses of the model. Brenes, Mena and Molina’s (2008) implementation process does not clearly state any explicit problems or barriers that organisations should take into consideration. Furthermore, Alamsjah (2011) conducted a similar study which suggests contradictory findings concerning the supporting dimension of CEO involvement. This can indicate a weakness in the supporting dimensions, suggesting further research is needed, and should be taken into consideration.

Second model The second model that will also be used in this study is “the interaction of the six silent killers” by Beer and Eisenstat (2000). The model explains specific barriers to strategy implementation that can occur in a business and that will ultimately lead to poor strategy implementation and bad business performance. The authors explain preventative actions in order to avoid the implementation barriers which essentially transform the barriers in the model to facilitators for strategy implementation.

Figure 7: The interaction of the six silent killers Source: Adapted from Beer and Eisenstat (2000) The barrier model will be used since it describes both obstacles and facilitators for strategy implementation. The model also illustrates the importance of understanding how aspects of a business impacts strategy implementation. The barriers are difficult for organisations to identify but even more problematic is that one barrier may create another barrier leading to a domino effect (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). This and the fact that the model operates from an organisational perspective makes it interesting since it is still slightly unclear what or who identifies the implementation barriers. By applying a middle management perspective to it and examine how they view and are effected by the barriers makes the model valuable for this particular research study.

It is also important to take into account the weaknesses that are associated with this model. Primarily, the model is not an explicit process. It does not clearly state the exact steps and in which order one should take the steps so as to reach successful strategy implementation. Instead it is more of an illustration of how implementation barriers interact and affect the end goal of implementation and business performance.

Organisational culture None of the above-mentioned process models recognises the importance of organisational culture. Even though Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) mentions culture as part of the systematic execution, literature suggest that culture has a bigger impact than that. There seems to be a general agreement that the organisational culture has an effect on strategy implementation (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008; Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004; Dobni, 2003; Alamsjah, 2011;). Corporate culture affects the way that the employees behave and think. It is the common beliefs and attitudes that all of the members of the firm contribute to (Sadri, 2014). Dobni (2003) suggests that culture is the force that drives strategy forward (Ibid) and the organisation should possess a culture that is proactive and accepting of strategical change (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004). On the same note, culture should be aligned with the strategy that the firm implements (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) this fit between culture and strategy is called coalignment (Dobni, 2003). Furthermore, corporate culture especially influences the successfulness of which middle managers are able to accomplish the desired strategy implementation (Alamsjah, 2011). It is because of the impact that corporate culture seems to have on strategy implementation it is important to take corporate culture into account in this research study.

2.7.2 Conceptualisation of research question two The second research question sets out to find the opportunities that middle managers create when implementing strategy. In addition to middle managements implementation process, which in itself brings with it opportunities, this question aims to explore other opportunities middle managers influence during strategy implementation. The table below presents a list of opportunities that can occur.

Table 9: Middle management opportunities Factor Opportunity Author(s) Culture Middle management can help create culture that (Dobni, 2003) facilitates change. (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008) Coalignment Middle management can facilitate the fit between (Dobni, 2003) culture and strategy. Flexibility Middle management can affect the successfulness (Miller, Wilson, & of strategical decision with their flexibility. Hickson, 2004) Communication Middle management can create opportunities by (Hrebiniak, 2006) providing feedback. Commitment Middle management can influence employees and (Hrebiniak, 2006) performance with their commitment to strategy (Salih & Doll, 2013) implementation. Translation Middle management is key facilitators of (Browne, et al., translating strategy into actions and procedures. 2014) (Hrebiniak, 2006) (Salih & Doll, 2013) Knowledge Middle managements social aspects have an (Ahearne, Lam, & impact on performance and influence up and down Kraus, 2014) (Salih the line. Middle management is also an & Doll, 2013) information source concerning the implementation process. Source: Authors own construct

The table above illustrates specific opportunities that middle managers can contribute to the implementation process. These opportunities will be examined since they specifically are not mentioned in the two implementation processes discussed above in the conceptualisation. These opportunities will be regarded as additional value to the implementation processes that will be examined.

2.7.3 Conceptualisation of research question three The third research question aims to understand the challenges middle managers face when implementing strategy. The challenges that this research question will focus on are the challenges that occur in addition to the implementation processes discussed above. The table below presents the challenges according to literature that will be examined.

Table 10: Middle management challenges Factor Challenge Author(s) Culture Middle management faces culture that hinders (Dobni, 2003) (Salih change. & Doll, 2013) Flexibility Middle management faces flexibility issues due (Miller, Wilson, & to organisational structures that can hinder Hickson, 2004) performance. Communication Middle management faces lack of trust due to (Dobni, 2003) (Salih poor communication. Poor communication may & Doll, 2013) also lead to misinterpretation and loss of meaning. Top managment Middle management faces a top management (Hrebiniak, 2006) team team that does not consider implications of implementation. Commitment Middle management faces uncommitted (Crittenden & employees and management throughout the Crittenden, 2008) organisation. (Hrebiniak, 2006) Time Middle management faces the long term aspects (Hrebiniak, 2006) of strategy implementation which can impact focus and control. Source: Authors own construct

The table above describes the challenges that middle management may face when implementing strategy. These challenges are, like the opportunities mentioned above, challenges that can occur outside of the implementation process discussed in the two models. The challenges will be additional value to the implementation processes.

2.8 Emerged framework regarding research question one Drawing from the previous research as well as the conceptualisation it is now important to establish the emerged framework in regards to research question one. The emerged framework illustrates how theory is connected in order to develop a middle management strategy implementation process. The figure below is an illustration of how the process may take form during strategy implementation from a middle management perspective.

Figure 8: Emerged framework Source: Authors own construct The emerged framework is a merger of two different implementation models where both models describe different steps and aspects that are needed in order to reach a successful implementation from an organisational perspective. The models primarily used are the strategy implementation dimensions by Brenes, Menas and Molina (2008) and the implementation barriers by Beer and Eisenstat (2000). According to Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) a firm that correctly develops a set of independent decisions, known as dimensions or phases, can improve the chances of successfully implementing strategy while Beer and Eisenstat (2000) highlight barriers for successful implementation.

By combining the two models, an attempt to limit each models weakness has been made. The emerged framework has an explicit implementation process that takes into consideration implementation barriers that hinder implementation. This should increase the validity of the emerged framework. The emerged implementation process consists of three different phases supported by four main supporting dimensions that are all rooted in the cultural foundation in order to reach successful implementation.

First phase – Strategy formulation The first step in the strategy implementation process is strategy formulation and it contains several aspects that need to be taken into consideration. According to Brenes, Mena and Molin (2008) the strategy formulation phase consists of:

 It governs, surveys and analyses all the parts that the firm uses when formulating strategy. It implies that consideration must be given to all relevant aspects of the firm, as environment, industry and competition.

 One aspect to this phase is to look at the internal partners’ degree of involvement, since they contribute to not only strategy but also implementation by their commitment.  The long-term vision is also considered at this phase, to ensure that the strategy is right for the firm.  The last aspect is the external advisor’s presence since they are the ones that may activate the need for strategy formulation.

Strategy formulation is considered the first step in the implementation process, not only because it is the first step in the primary model used in the emerged framework (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008), but also since it can be recognised in the literature that strategy formally starts with it being formulated (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984; Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008) and that strategy formulation can be sepetrated from strategy implementation (Hrebiniak, 2006).

Second phase – Systematic execution The second step in the implementation process is the execution of the strategy and it concerns all the actions taken by the company while implementing strategy. There are two components of action that need to be taken into consideration.

 The organisations should establish a priority system for each action that should be implemented.  The second component is to make sure to delegate the decision making efficiently between the right individuals responsible for implementing the strategic actions. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)

Depending on the firm’s strategy the decision making within the firm can be mostly top management controlled or more balanced between top and middle management (Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005). As stated by Hrebiniak (2006) that strategy execution cannot be be compromised to just a single decision or action instead it is the result of a series of integrated decisions and actions over time. That is why systematic execution is the second phase in the strategy implementation process.

Important to note regarding strategy execution is that in the original model from Brenes Mena and Molina (2008) the systematic execution phase also considered the culture and structure of the firm. In the emerged framework however, this aspect has been moved to another part of the process that deals especially with culture.

Third phase – Control and follow up The third step in the implementation process is strategy control and follow up. This phase affects the way that the firm evaluates and controls the implementation progress. This phase contains several aspects that need to be taken into consideration.

 The firm needs to establish some form of control system that best work for the specific firm.  Feedback is another component that is important in order to assess how the work is going. By constantly provide feedback on how the execution and implementation of strategy is going.  The last component is monitoring, measure and adjustment. This component occurs when the firm constantly monitors the business environment in order to forecast trends and/or strategy adjustment that are required, instead of just reacting to threats and opportunities. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)

Depending on the control system and the feedback as well as the firms continuous monitoring of the environment and industry, adjustment may be enforced accordingly (Ibid). There is a need of a certain level of control to facilitate and enforce the strategy (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984). Since strategy implementation is a dynamic two-sided flow of feedback in the form of control it allows the implementation process to be a more adaptive process that react to changes and adapts accordingly (Hrebiniak, 2006). Since an implementation process should be dynamic and two-sided, which occurs through feedback, control and follow up becomes the third phase.

Supporting dimension – Leadership One supporting dimension deals with leadership and the efficiency of the management style. The CEO’s engagement and efficient leadership and management style is of great importance (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000) and makes implementing strategy more effortless. It is ultimately the responsibilities of the managers and the employees to implement strategy (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). There are three main components in this dimension.

 An engaged leadership style by the CEO and top management team (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000).  It is the middle managers and employee’s responsibility to implement strategy (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008).  It is important that the CEO and top managers recruit and develop the right kind of people to take on the responsibility of strategy implementation (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008).  The CEO, top management team should be able to add a clear understanding of the firm’s goals, objectives and priorities (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008).

This supporting dimension is crucial in attaining success in implementing strategies (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) and by having an engaged and efficient leadership team that contributes to the quality of direction of the firm, it should result in improved strategy implementation (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). Leadership in itself is not part of the actual strategy implementation process but works as a necessary dimension supporting all of the phases in the process.

Supporting dimension – Support and commitment One supporting dimension handles the support and commitment that is necessary throughout the firm and some of its surroundings in order to attain successful strategy implementation. Components of this dimension are:

 There must exist commitment at all levels of the firm and amongst all the concerned stakeholders of the firm in order to execute strategic change.  Commitment is also an important factor amongst those stakeholders who are stockholder since strategical action often requires investment.  Commitment and agreement amongst the concerned stakeholders. In other words, it is necessary to achieve a level of commitment and agreement amongst all those parties that are in some way involved in the firm. This agreement and commitment involves parties from management and stockholders down to the employees and is concerned with all from the strategy, the long-term results to the financial support. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008)

To successfully implement strategy, it is desirable to ensure commitment to said strategy (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984) since commitment from the top all the way down is required to successfully implement strategy (Hrebiniak, 2006). The supporting dimension makes sure that the firm is ready for the strategy and that everyone is aware of the strategical change.

Supporting dimension – Quality of implementation Another supporting dimension concerns coordination as well as the development of leadership skills. Three main components are included in this dimension.

 It is necessary that there exists coordination across business functions in order to collaborate effectively between those functions.  Down the line managers should have the opportunity to develop their leadership skills in order to ensure the efficient collaborative coordination.  Giving the opportunity to managers below the CEO to feel confident in making decisions based on an ensured and general understanding of the strategic directions of the firm. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

If these components are met it can ensure the quality of the implementation efforts. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

Supporting dimension – Vertical communication The last supporting dimension concerns the communication that aids the phases in the strategy implementation process leading to successful strategy implementation. Vertical communication allows the strategy to be refined. There are two main components to this dimension.

 Secures the actual execution of strategy by communicating downwards as well as communicating upwards about potential problems and the current state of the strategy implementation progress.  The communication both upwards and downwards should be efficient and fact based. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

This supporting dimension is important since a lot of strategy implementation issues can be directly related to poor communication (Dobni, 2003) and poor communication presents as an actual problem to strategy implementation. (Salih & Doll, 2013)

Foundation – culture Culture works as the foundation to the strategy implementation process. This is because it permeates all of the phases and supporting dimensions in the strategy implementation process. Since corporate culture plays an important part in how an organisation reacts to change (Dobni, 2003), it has an impact on successful strategy implementation (Alamsjah, 2011). On the same note, culture should be aligned with the strategy that the firm implements (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) this fit between culture and strategy is called coalignment (Dobni, 2003). The specific components that are especially important for the foundation are:

 It is the culture that drives strategy forward (Dobni, 2003).  The organisation should possess a culture that is proactive and accepting of strategical change (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004).  Corporate culture especially influences the successfulness of which middle managers are able to accomplish the desired strategy implementation (Alamsjah, 2011).  Culture is the common beliefs and attitudes that all of the members of the firm contribute to (Sadri, 2014).

3. Research methodology This chapter presents the chosen research methodology for the thesis. The chosen research approaches and techniques in order to collect relevant empirical data to answer the research questions are described and presented. The purpose, approach and strategy of the study are presented along with a description of the data collection, sample selection and analysis method. Furthermore a discussion regarding the reliability and validity of the thesis is held.

3.1 Research purpose This thesis had a research purpose that was of a partially descriptive and partially exploratory nature. This is due to research question one is more of an exploratory purpose while still having descriptive traits while research question two and three are mainly descriptive however it can be argued that they have exploratory traits as well. The purpose of a study can be determined by what the aim of the research questions are. Research question one of this thesis set out to describe the implementation process from a middle management perspective. This implies an exploratory purpose since it aims to seek new insight in a rather unexplored phenomenon, which is indicative of an exploratory nature. The thesis also aimed to increase the understanding of a problem, the middle management strategy implementation process, and explore what is actually happening, which is also indicative of an exploratory purpose. (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016) The reason why research question one can be argued to have a descriptive purpose is that it also aims to describe the process of implementation which implies a descriptive purpose. Descriptive research purposes are utilised to “portray an accurate profile of persons, events and situations” (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016, p. 175) which the implementation process can be argued as such.

The purpose of research questions two and three was to describe the opportunities that middle management create during the process and the challenges they may face during implementation. This means that question two and three mainly had a descriptive nature since the aim was to describe a background or procedure, which implies a descriptive purpose. A descriptive purpose for research questions two and three is also appropriate since a descriptive research study can be an extension of an exploratory purpose (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016) which is the case of this thesis.

3.2 Research approach After the research purpose has been defined the next step when conducting a research study is to determine the research approach of the thesis. The approach describes how the scientific problem of the thesis was addressed, how the theory was managed and connected to the empirical data. This also implies that decisions’ regarding the method of collecting data has to be made. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016)

This thesis had a deductive approach. The thesis used previous literature, theories and models as a foundation and expanded upon these with the conceptualisation. The conceptualisation and the following emerged framework, which were based on previous research, were used as the framework for the data analysis of the collected data. This implies a deductive approach

45 since according to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016) a deduction is utilised when theory and hypothesis are developed and then analysed and tested in order to examine them with reality.

This thesis was also of a qualitative character. Qualitative research approach is appropriate when a research study tries to discover and understand what may account for certain behaviours. Furthermore, a qualitative approach seeks to provide a deeper understanding of certain phenomenon. A qualitative approach is also indicative of a non-numerical form of empirical data. (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016) The qualitative character of this thesis is possible to discern due to the overall purpose of the thesis was to gain a deeper understanding of how middle management operates during the implementation of strategy which implies a qualitative approach. The intention of the thesis was to provide a comprehensive view of the implementation process and to describe opportunities and challenges connected to the process, which is indicative of a qualitative study.

3.3 Research strategy The research strategy of a thesis could be defined as the actions undertaken in order to answer the purpose and research questions of the thesis (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). The research strategy for a research study should be evaluated through three given factors. The first aspect to take into consideration is what form of research question has been stated? Thereafter control should be taken into account; does the study require control over behavioural events? And, lastly does the research focus on contemporary events? By evaluating the thesis from these questions it is possible to discern which research strategy to choose. The table below illustrates the five different research strategies that are possible to use and their following evaluation factors. (Yin, 1994)

Table 11: Relevant situations for different research strategies

Strategy Form of Research Requires control over Focus on Question behavioural events? contemporary events?

Experiment How, why Yes Yes Survey Who, what, where, No Yes how many, how much Archival analysis Who, what, where, Yes Yes/No how many, how much History How, why No No Case studies How, why No Yes Source: Adapted from Yin (1994)

This thesis used case studies as the research strategy. Case studies can be defined as the strategy undertaken when the research involves empirical investigation of a phenomenon that is contemporary within its real life context using several sources of evidence (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The choice of case study as the research strategy for this thesis

46 was based on the fact that the thesis research questions were stated as “How” and “What” questions, the research study did not require control over behavioural events and since the thesis had a clear focus on contemporary events it is possible to delimit the research strategy to case studies. Case studies are often used when a deeper understanding of the problem area is the aim (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). This is appropriate since the overall aim of the thesis was to provide a deeper understanding of middle managements implementation process. Furthermore the descriptive and exploratory nature of the thesis is in correlation with case studies as the research strategy.

3.3.1 Case studies When designing a case study a few different decisions need to be made and a few different aspects need to be taken into consideration during the design of the case study strategy. This thesis utilised a multiple case studies approach that was considered fully covered. The multiple case study strategy was chosen due to the focus on several cases instead of a specific case. Multiple case studies are primarily used so as to determine if the results of the research study are consistent within the different cases and if it is possible to generalise the results (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). This is consistent with this particular thesis since a cross-case comparison was necessary in order to be able to draw generalisations between the cases about how middle managers operate during the process of implementation.

Furthermore the case study approach for this thesis was of a fully covered nature. This implies that each case study focused on one middle manager where each manager was regarded as a fully covered case study. This is in accordance with Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) theory about fully covering case studies which state that a fully covered case study utilises only one unit of analysis.

3.3.2 Unit of analysis By defining the case, the case boundaries will be set and facilitate the application of the theoretical framework on the analysis of the empirical data. The way to define the case is answering the question “What is my case?”. (Yin, 1993) The unit of analysis for this thesis was defined as managers from a middle management position. This unit of analysis was chosen due to its fit with the purpose of the thesis and the well suited match with the application of existing literature. Huy (2011) defines middle managers as a manager that is positioned two levels below the CEO and one level above first-line supervisors.

3.4 Data collection After the research strategy has been chosen the way of gathering data can be decided. Based on the overall purpose of this study as well as the stated research questions, this thesis relied on primary data collection. Primary data can be defined as new data that is solely collected for the research of the specific study (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Since the research questions and purpose of this study researches an area which has not been fully studied and answered in previous literature, secondary data cannot be utilised in order to answer the purpose and research questions of this study.

The empirical data for this thesis was collected through interviews, more specifically semi- structured in-depth interviews. Due to this study having a qualitative approach and a partially exploratory and partially descriptive purpose to it, conducting semi-structured in depth interviews were appropriate. Semi-structured interviews use a basic theme and/or questions, though these can vary from interview to interview (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). The interviews for this thesis were in-depth and semi structured in order to get as much information as possible out of the interviewees as well as being able to ask follow up questions and expand on areas of interest or if more information is needed. Furthermore this approach allows questions to be asked during the interview that may not have appeared during a structured approach. The interviews were conducted in an in-depth manner since the study aimed at finding out what is really happening and understanding the certain context of how middle managers operates, which is in accordance with the exploratory purpose.

The interviews were conducted in two different ways. Four of the interviews were conducted over telephone due to the respondents were located in different areas in Sweden while two interviews were conducted face-to-face at SSAB’s offices in Luleå, Sweden.

3.5 Sample selection In order to collect the empirical data the population has to be defined (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). This thesis population was middle managers. However, it is not possible to interview all middle managers in the world or even Sweden. Therefore, this thesis utilised a non-probability sampling technique with a purposive sample selection. Non-probability sampling implies that all units or individuals do not have a chance to be selected for the sample. Non-probability sampling instead indicates that the researcher uses subjective judgement in order to choose the sample. (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009) Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling techniques that allows the research to choose the sample based on the best judgement. This means that the chosen cases will ensure that relevant information is shared in order to answer the stated research questions (Ibid). Snowball sampling is an additional non-probability sampling method. This sampling technique is often applied when it is difficult to identify samples in the desired population. According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) snowball sampling works by contacting cases within the population that is under research and then having those cases refer on to identify other cases.

When choosing the sample, the sample should optimally be of such character that it represents the entire population (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). With this in mind this thesis selected the sample of middle managers from two completely different industries. By selecting two different industries the thesis received a higher level of transferability as well as it was possible to discern if differences between the middle managers from the different industries would arise. Furthermore, in order to further strengthen the transferability of the thesis it was necessary that the middle managers were not too homogeneous. This was ensured by using two different organisations of different sizes from two different industries, located at different places.

This thesis used non-probability sampling with purposive and snowball sampling techniques so as to ensure that the interviews were conducted with the right persons with the right knowledge and information relevant to the research area and purpose. This implies that the interviewees had to be managers from a middle management position with experience of implementing a strategy. The snowball sampling occurred when an initial middle manager that was contacted could not participate and referred to a colleague instead.

In order to ensure that suitable people were selected as candidates for the interviews a set of characteristics were established. These characteristics were set so the interviewees had sufficient knowledge and experience in order to answer questions within the chosen field of study. The characteristics that were required are shown in the table below.

Table 12: Interviewee requirements

Position Middle management level Time period Minimum of 2 years as a middle manager Knowledge Experience of strategy implementation Source: Authors own construct

In order to be eligible as a candidate for the interviews, it is required that the interviewee has held a middle management position for a minimum of two years. No requirement was made that the interviewee had to have worked in the same company for that amount of time, instead the candidate solely had to have had two years of working as a middle manager. Furthermore the middle managers had to have experience of working with strategy and implementing strategy.

With the previously mentioned requirements in mind a total of six middle managers from two different industries were interviewed. The table below summarises the relevant characteristic information of the interviewees together with the length and date of the interviews.

Table 13: Background information of the interview respondents

Respondent Position Experience Date Length Mikael Svensson ICA Maxi Botkyrka: 11 years 19/04 - 2017 40 min Head of bakery department Göran Wessman SSAB: Coordinator 5 years 20/04 - 2017 30 min Service desk Janne Nyberg ICA Maxi Botkyrka: 19 years 21/04 - 2017 47 min Controller, Head of quality control Per Nerelius SSAB: Head of 21 years 26/04 - 2017 43 min vehicle section, maintenance manager Pierre Ek SSAB: Lean manager, 2 years 26/04 - 2017 1 h 53 min Head of department for SSAB One David Persson ICA Maxi Botkyrka: 5 years 27/04 - 2017 47 min Sales manager for dry goods, dairy and freezer. Source: Authors own construct

The table above illustrates that the set of characteristics that were established for the interview respondents were fulfilled. The respondents must have had experience of working as a middle manager for a minimum of two years. This was deemed necessary in order to ensure that the respondents of the interviews possessed sufficient knowledge of strategy implementation as a middle manager.

3.6 Data analysis With the empirical data collected the process of analysing it can begin. Since qualitative data is neither numerical nor quantifiable it needs to be analysed in order for the meaning behind the data to be understood (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The data that has been gathered through interviews was analysed through using the three steps of data reduction, data display and lastly, drawing conclusions. However, first the data had to be transcribed. This implies that the data was word processed and written down (Ibid).

Data reduction implies that the empirical data is summarised and thereafter simplified so as focus can be laid upon the relevant parts for the thesis. The data display then can be done where the reduced data is categorised so as to create a clearer overview of the data so as to facilitate analysis. This can often be done through tables and figures. Thereafter conclusions can be made from the data and translated into meaning, which is the drawing conclusion stage. (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016)

Furthermore this thesis used pattern matching in order to analyse the data according to Yin (1994). Pattern matching occurs when the empirical data is compared to the theoretical

50 framework. This allows for comparing reality with theory which is appropriate when a deeper understanding is sought after, which is the purpose of this thesis. (Ibid)

3.7 Validity and reliability Studies are always at risk of encountering methodology problems and it is therefore important to try to reduce these risks as much as possible. A way of minimising risk is to try to reach such a high level of validity and reliability as possible. Validity is created when the results can be considered as true meanwhile reliability is created when it is possible to achieve the same results if the study was conducted again. Though important, it is often difficult to ensure that the study has a high level of both validity and reliability and measurement should therefore be taken to achieve this. (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016) A way of doing this is by following Yin’s (1994) four tests for validity and reliability quality. These tests are construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability. The tests and the methods of reducing methodology problems and risks are described in the table below.

Table 14: Validity and reliability techniques in order to reduce methodology problems

Tests Definition Case study tactic Relevant phase of research Construct Correct operational - Use multiple sources - Data collection validity measure for concepts of evidence - Data collection - Establish chain of - Composition evidence - Have key informants review draft case study report Internal Establishing a non- - Do pattern matching - Data collection validity spurious causal - Do explanation - Data collection relationship (only for building - Data collection explanatory) - Address rival - Data collection explanation - Use logic models External Establishing the domain - Use theory in single - Research design validity for generalization case studies - Research design - Use replication logic in multiple case studies Reliability Repeatability of - Use case study - Data collection operations of the case protocol - Data collection study - Develop case study data base Source: Adapted from Yin (2003)

The information provided in the table above was applied to this thesis in order to present the actions taken to ensure such a high level of validity and reliability as possible.

3.7.1 Construct validity A common criticism of case study designs is that they do not provide sufficiently set measurements and the empirical data is often collected by subjective judgments. In order to mitigate this multiple sources of evidence should be used, a chain of events needs to be established and key informants should review the study during the process. (Yin, 2003)

This thesis has used all three components so as to try to achieve a high degree of construct validity. The study has been reviewed several times during its construction. Different sections of the thesis had been examined by a supervisor during the writing process in addition to the draft and final version of the study has been reviewed by supervisors and peers. Multiple sources of evidence were established since the study used several different sources for theory as well as the multiple interviews. Validity was also created since the collected data was gathered from several respondents. The chain of evidence was also present in this study since a conceptualisation and the emerged framework used previous literature as its foundation. These were then used in order to create the interview guide for the empirical data. The data was then compared to the existing theory.

3.7.2 Internal validity This thesis has disregarded internal validity since it is not relevant for this study. Internal validity refers to the degree of which the findings can be attributed to flaws in the design of the study rather than the planned interventions (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). Furthermore it is solely explanatory studies where the research tries to establish a relationship between variables that need to be concerned with internal validity (Ibid). This study had a purpose of a descriptive and exploratory nature so no steps were needed to be taken in order to establish internal validity.

3.7.3 External validity External validity refers to the possibility of generalising the result beyond the specific case study. Single case studies are often regarded as a poor choice for generalisation since the results that are achieved are derived from one single case. A way to minimise this is to use theory as the foundation for the research design or by using replication logic in multiple case studies. (Yin, 2003)

This thesis used theory as a base by comparing and analysing the collected data to the literature review. This should also work as a way of mitigating incorrect assumptions and the chance of drawing false conclusions. Furthermore this study used a multiple case approach which should also strengthen the validity. Though important to note is that the sample size of this thesis is rather small which can mean that the findings and conclusions may be rather specific. To further strengthen the validity the same steps and actions have been taken in all the interviews and analysis so as to ensure replication logic.

3.7.4 Reliability Reliability is achieved when another researcher would arrive with the same findings and conclusion as this study if the researcher follows the exact same process as in this study. This implies that a higher level of reliability is established if errors and bias are reduced as much

52 as possible. (Yin, 2003) There are four different error and bias aspects that need to be taken into consideration to increase reliability. They are subject or participant error, subject or participant bias, observer error, and observer bias. (Robson, 2002) In order to reduce reliability problems, the study should be conducted so as external people can follow each step of the study (Yin, 2003).

The interview guide, attached in appendix A, was developed and used for the collection of data. This facilitates for external observers to replicate the data collection method. The interview guide was also translated from English to Swedish in order to make the interviews as relaxed and natural as possible. Another justification for conducting the interviews in Swedish is that Swedish is the native language of all the respondents. By having the interviews in Swedish it minimised the risk of the middle managers feeling restrained in their thought process and answers. According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), translating questions and instructions into another language requires care so as to not contribute to misinterpretation and ultimately affect the reliability of the research. The translation was done independently by both authors of the thesis and thereafter compared. This was done in order to try to gain such an objective perspective of the questions as possible.

During the analysis of the empirical data attention was paid so as to make sure that the data represents the views of the respondents. A semi-structured interview may also bring with it concerns about standardisation; this can be related to interview and interviewee bias. Interview bias refers to how the interviewers might influence the interview through comments, tone of voice, non-verbal behaviour or impose their own beliefs and frame of reference (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).

The interviews were conducted both by telephone and face-to-face. To reduce the risk for interviewer bias both authors were present at all the interviews, this means that both authors were able to take notes that could then be compared so the answers were correctly understood. The phone interviews reduced the non-verbal behaviour and during the face-to- face interviews steps were taken to minimise body language.

A possible issue with phone interviews is that it may create difficulties in making more complex questions harder to understand for the interviewee (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). This issue was solved by carefully developed questions and during the telephone interviews continuously make sure that the interviewees understood the questions and concepts discussed. Furthermore comments were kept to a minimum in order to not influence the answers, questions were asked in such a way to try to let the respondents elaborate without interruptions from the interviewers, control questions were asked so as to open up a discussion before the actual questions connected to the conceptualisation were asked and lastly theory was only explained to the interviewees if needed to start the discussion or clarify for the respondent.

The interviews were also recorded both the face-to-face and telephone interviews; therefore it was possible to re-listen to the interviews so the empirical data become a correct

53 representation. Another action taken to reduce bias was a trade-off between the interviewers. To mitigate imposing the interviewer’s frame of reference on all the interviewees the author responsible for conducting the interview was changed from interview to interview, though both authors were always allowed to ask further questions.

3.8 Summary of methodology The figure below illustrates the overview of the methodology choices that have been made and that most appropriately suit this thesis. The blue boxes and the following trace lines in the figure illustrate the chosen methodology approaches this specific thesis has made.

Figure 9: Summary of methodology Source: Authors own construct

4. Data Presentation In this chapter the empirical data that was collected in order to answer the research questions is presented. The data that is presented is a summarisation of all the responses from the interviewees.

4.1 Respondents In order to answer the thesis overall purpose and research questions six middle managers from two different industries were interviewed, three middle managers from SSAB and three middle managers from ICA Maxi Botkyrka. In order to present the data, the responses will be divided into different sections where each section represents a dimension or phase according to the emerged framework. The empirical data is also presented in a summarised form. This is a process of data reduction and data presentation used to make the data clearer (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).

The respondents in the data presentation below will be handled anonymously however the table below illustrates which industry they belong to.

Table 15: Respondents according to industry Respondent Industry A ICA Maxi B ICA Maxi C ICA Maxi D SSAB E SSAB F SSAB Source: Authors own construct

It is important to note, that while the respondents most of the time based their answers of situations occurring in their current industry, the middle managers had experience from previous middle managers positions and companies and were allowed to include experiences from them in their answers as well if they believed it was important. This should not be an issue since, as stated in the methodology, each manager is a case in itself and it is their experiences that are sought after.

4.1.1 ICA Maxi Botkyrka ICA AB is one of the largest retailing businesses in northern Europe. The ICA group has a focus on food but the group also owns a bank, real estate division and pharmacy. The group has several retailers with different profiles depending on the grocery store and although the stores are operated separately they all work under the same coordination, mission and vision determined at headquarters. (ICA, 2017a)

ICA Maxi Botkyrka is a large hypermarket with around 300 employees located in the outskirts of Stockholm, Sweden (ICA, 207b). ICA’s overall vision is to “make everyday a little easier” with a mission stated as “to be the leading retail company focusing on food and meals” (ICA, 2017c) In addition to this ICA Maxi Botkyrka also focuses on providing low

55 prices. The retailer aims to be a pleasant retailer where the customer will enjoy shopping and get affordable goods and excellent service by the staff. (ICA, 2017b)

4.1.2 SSAB SSAB is a highly specialised global steel company. The organisation develops high strength steel and provides services for better performance from a sustainability perspective. In total the company has around 15000 employees and are located in over 50 different countries. (SSAB, 2017a) SSAB operates under the vision “A stronger, lighter and more sustainable world”. (SSAB, 2017b)

SSAB Luleå, where two respondents of this thesis are located and one in SSAB Oxölesund, was established in 1941 and has at present around 1100 employees. Although a global company, the different locations all work under the coordination, vision and values determined at headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden. (SSAB, 2017c)

4.2 Strategy formulation The respondents were all of the same opinion that the implementation process begins with the formulation of the strategy. The respondents also stated that the formulation of strategy is needed in order to receive a goal that the organisation can work towards and create a common structure. Another respondent, respondent E, also stated that by formulating the strategy an overview of the situation will be obtained. Though, whether or not the middle managers were allowed to contribute to the formulation of strategy, the consensus was that it depended on what strategy was in question. The overall corporate strategy was often out of the hands of the middle managers however the parts of strategy concerning the aspects which the middle managers were responsible over the middle managers were allowed to take part of the strategy formulation - or at least give thoughts, opinions and input. A distinction that could be made between the two industries is that in general the middle managers from ICA Maxi were allowed more responsibility in the strategy formulation than the managers from SSAB.

All respondents agreed that if they were allowed to be part of strategy formulation the execution of the strategy would become easier to perform. One respondent, respondent D, stated that participation of strategy formulation leads to a higher degree of commitment and involvement in the execution phase meanwhile respondent A believes that as a middle manager, by taking part in the formulation, feedback whether the strategy is good or bad will occur quicker. Respondent F summarised all respondents’ answers quite well with “effect and outcome of the strategy will be better if you are allowed to be part of the process”.

Strategy formulation can also create challenges and problems for the middle managers. Respondent D stated that a challenge with strategy formulation is when they receive a strategy, which they have not had the opportunity to contribute to, and the strategy is not formulated so as the employees tasked with executing the strategy understand it. This is further strengthened by respondent C who replied that the objective of strategy may vary depending on how the strategy is formulated. This can also create a challenge which respondent E highlighted, that translating the strategy can create challenges. However

56 respondent A stated that a strategy should not create challenges or problems for a middle manager and if it affects the execution it is either the strategy that is wrong or the communication of it. Though on the other hand, all middle managers replied that their contribution to strategy formulation creates opportunities in the implementation process. Respondent E was of the opinion that middle managers create meaning through the translation of the strategy, while respondent B stated that since they have more insight they can contribute with different thoughts and opinions that would otherwise not have come to light. Respondent A and D both stated that participation in formulation creates commitment throughout the rest of the implementation process.

4.3 Systematic execution All the respondents agreed that systematic execution is the second phase in the strategy implementation process. The respondents also expressed the importance to communicate the already formulated strategy “down the line” in order to execute the strategy during this phase. A general agreement among the middle managers was that it is the middle managers’ responsibility to translate strategy into everyday objectives. However, respondent B pointed out that it also depends on what type of strategy is discussed and how the strategy is formulated.

The different daily activities that occur during implementation need to be prioritised however, how those activities are prioritised differed a bit depending on the respondent. Amongst the respondents at ICA Maxi the answers leaned more towards that the middle managers themselves decided the priorities. The managers expressed that the way to prioritise came naturally depending on the strategy and with guidance from the business plan and budget. At SSAB the middle managers themselves did not solely decide the priority of activities by themselves. As respondent E expressed, it is not up to them to decide priorities, it is rather the time aspect that decides. Meaning, that if things need to be done due to scheduling urgencies or alike, that is the action that is prioritised first, or if something takes a longer time to do, that is the actions that need to be prioritised in order to get it done in time. Respondent D said that sometimes they decide the priorities and sometimes it is their manager that decides and lastly respondent F said that the priorities are decided through a consensus of their team.

All respondents expressed that they are allowed to make independent decisions when needed. There was a general agreement amongst the respondents that within their area of responsibility the middle managers could make the independent decisions necessary, and if even bigger decisions were needed this was accomplished with a discussion with their superior. As respondent C expressed, they will make the decisions that they feel are necessary. Respondent F added that in addition to them making independent decisions, there is also a decision process made up of dialogue and meetings with the team they are part of.

When asked about how the time aspect affects the systematic execution respondent A said that in the terms of making fast decisions it is important to, as a middle manager, have an understanding of “why” one is making the decision. A foundation to stand on in the form of

57 knowledge and understanding of the situation as whole is needed. When it comes to implementing strategies the processes look a bit different depending on whether it is a “fast” strategy with a short time period or a strategy that takes a longer time. When implementing strategies with a shorter date the middle managers can act with more initiative, while if it’s a longer strategy the managers have to communicate in a different way and one needs to have shorter objectives. Respondent C and D said that it is easier to stay focused with shorter strategies as well as that they may need to make independent decisions. Respondent B added that it is important to have starting dates and not only ending dates in order to implement strategy effectively. This is because without a starting date the inclination to actually get started might be lesser since there might be a false sense of contentment with a belief that there exists a lot of time to realise the strategy. Then when execution finally gets started the realisation that the effects of the execution would have been better with an earlier start may occur. That is why a starting date is important according to respondent B. Both respondent E and F expressed concern about strategies that are ongoing for too long, saying that the longer strategies are more difficult to implement since those strategies tend to be too “conceptual” making it hard to put them into actual actions.

The respondents all had incredibly similar opinions regarding challenges and opportunities in the execution phase. One of the opportunities that all the respondents expressed that they create for themselves was in the way they communicate during the execution. By communicating in an efficient, simple and straightforward manner the middle managers can make their subordinates understand what needs to be done and what their tasks are. In the same manner, the problems that can occur during this phase are largely dependent on how well the middle managers succeed in creating good communication. The respondents agreed that if communication fails in this phase, one cannot expect a good result. As expressed by Respondent F, if the middle manager does a poor job, the result will be poor. Another potential problem is that people can be reluctant towards change, according to respondent A, and may dispute the execution of strategy, as stated by respondent D. The last problem that was mentioned was the time frame for the systematic execution. Respondent E expressed concern for the time period in the sense that if the execution takes too long to actually get started, there is a risk that it can affect the rest of the implementation in the way that everything gets started a little too late and with less certainty or maybe even not get started or done at all.

4.4 Control and follow up All respondents agreed that control and follow up were crucial in order to achieve a successful strategy implementation and if control faults it will greatly impact the implementation. For example one respondent, respondent D, replied that if control is not done there is a chance that tasks are not actually being done. Respondent E highlighted the time aspect of control, if control is not followed through, or in other words, if control is not assured and reinforced, the implementation will take longer than needed since now one cannot be sure if everything has been done and if it has been done correctly. Respondent A stated that feedback should occur instantly and if not there is the possibility of negligence or mistakes occurring. Furthermore, respondent B mentioned the time aspect in the sense that a

58 starting date is needed in order to get strategy started but also in order to be able to monitor and measure progress. This, as well as control and feedback, is important in case of a needed adjustment or change of strategy. Respondent A replied that if control and feedback is not conducted correctly it will have an immensely negative impact on the implementation process because without the control there is no way to make sure that the strategy is being implemented and keep track on the progress. The same goes with the feedback, without feedback one cannot communicate the progress up and down the line as well as one cannot make sure that everything is done correctly and as smooth as possible without providing feedback to the employees. This received countenance from respondent C who replied that without control and follow up the strategy will not be executed.

Although all middle managers agreed on the importance of control the way the different managers went about control differed. Respondent A replied that they always followed up on routines and in order to do so they documented and signed documents so as to remember who is responsible and feedback is immediately achieved. Respondent B handled control and follow up by utilising control points where they communicated follow up through post-it notes, calendars and phone meetings. Respondent C replied that they used a checklist to control daily activities in addition to a system with control points. Respondent D replied that control was solely their responsibility and was done by communicating with the employees. Meanwhile respondent E stated that they use a weekly meeting with the management team to monitor that the implementation process is on pace. Respondent F on the other hand used daily guidance in combination with a weekly and a monthly meeting.

Furthermore all respondents replied that depending on the outcome of the control and follow up the strategy itself can be adjusted. Respondent A expressed that by constantly providing feedback up and down the line it makes the strategy implementation process easier as a whole since it creates the opportunity to constantly makes improvements and changes to the strategy to better fit with the reality of the progress of the implementation. This makes the strategy implementation process smoother. Respondent C thought it was very important to be able to make changes to the strategy based on the control and follow up and it is a requirement for future ventures to be successful. Meanwhile respondent E replied this was a sign of failure of the formulated strategy and that adjustments could be done but should not be needed unless the adjustment of the strategy was done due to external environmental factors.

Another feature of control and follow up that the respondents agreed was important was credit and praise to their employees. Respondent F stated that they like to work with a coaching approach. This implies a focus on positive aspects in order to make their employees feel secure. This was echoed in respondent A’s reply, they stated that they dedicate time to communication with the purpose of building a secure environment for the employees, that nurtures them as individuals and make them feel good about their work. Respondent A stated that in order to do so they used a complimentary dialogue and a manager is not a manager unless they are able to use praise as a tool.

In regards to challenges and problems that can arise with control and follow up the respondents could not highlight a specific challenge. Instead the most common reply was that they as managers have to ensure involvement and commitment. Respondent B highlighted what they labelled “do not care factor”, which means that the employees do not necessarily care so much about the task they have been assigned and feel it is not important to accomplish the task. The managers therefore have to ensure control and that the task actually is done. On the other hand all middle managers believed that they contributed to a better implementation by their use of feedback. Respondent A stated that through their structure and way of working they are able to deliver feedback and tools that ensured the employees that they were seen and appreciated which increased their willingness and commitment to implementing the strategy.

4.5 Communication While communicating the middle managers all expressed the importance of being distinct and clear in the way they communicate. It is important to ensure that all employees understand the strategy and that there is no room for misinterpretation. Respondent F expressed the importance to communicate the “why” in the implementation process, so as to achieve understanding and consensus. While respondent C focused on having a good dialogue with the people involved so as to achieve the same understanding and consensus. A way to achieve this according to the respondents was communication that was open – meaning that all discussions had to have their foundation in facts and honesty.

In order to share information within the company and to make sure that the people above and under the middle managers are informed about the situation all of the middle managers said that they make use of the previously established routines and meetings. The respondents at ICA Maxi all agreed that in addition to the routines and meetings, people stay informed by the “everyday” talk that occurs naturally at the company. Respondent D and F said that video conferences and meetings sometimes where necessary due to SSAB operating in many different locations. While respondent E stated that if there was a need for information to be shared, they would seek contact with that person, in the way that seemed to fit the most, whether that was to just walk across the corridor to that person’s office, e-mail them, skype and so forth.

The respondents believed it to be their responsibility to connect the strategy to the firm’s mission and vision. However, respondent B and C said that could also depend on the strategy that is going to be implemented. If the connection is needed, for example to facilitate understanding for the employees the communication of connection to the company’s values will be made. If the connection does not add to the understanding or implementation of the strategy, then it is not needed to do the connection.

When asked if whether they thought it important, as a middle manager, to be able to communicate on an individual level the answer was an overall yes. Respondent A mentioned it as being essential in order to communicate at all in a believable fashion and respondent B and C stated it to be very important in order to have good communication. Respondent C

60 added that it was through personal communication on an individual level that they were able to provide feedback and constructive criticism. Respondent D added that even though it is important to be able to communicate on an individual level they still had to keep it professional and be perceptive in order for the communication to work and be efficient.

On the same note the middle managers expressed that trust is of importance while communicating. Respondents A and E expressed it to be one of the more critical factors while communicating, saying that without the trust, you can’t expect the results you seek. Respondent E added that if there is a lack of trust, the whole implementation process becomes extremely slow and can lead to a complete stand still. However respondent B said that of course you need to on some level trust that people do what you expect them to do and that they are not lying to you, but at the same time it is more important that the job gets done than it is to build a long lasting friendly relationship.

The problems that can occur if communication fails seem to be plentiful. On the most basic level is that activities included in the strategy do not get done according to respondents B and D and as a result you don’t get the results you are looking for stated by respondent A. In addition there can be misunderstandings and that the activities that get done, maybe occur in the wrong or not desired way according to respondent E. Respondent C added that problems with failing communication could be that there is a lack of agreement, understanding and engagement amongst the employees, which in turn will lead to poor results in the strategy that is being implemented.

The middle managers could create opportunities in the way that they are communicating. There was an overall consensus amongst the answers that, by themselves as middle managers, being good communicators could improve the implementation process and avoid some of the above mentioned challenges. Respondent A had a trick in communicating that they learned at a leadership course. The communication or dialogue should start off with a compliment, then constructive criticism then finish of with compliments again. Respondent E said that by communicating in a sufficient way they could lead with a good example and be a role model. Respondent B expressed that it was easier to communicate if they explain the purpose and background to what is being discussed which is strengthened by respondent F who also expressed the importance on communicating the reason why certain things needs to be done. Respondent D said that it is important to really make sure that everyone understands each other.

4.6 Support and commitment Concerning support and commitment during the implementation process the respondents were of slightly different opinions. While four of the respondents believed commitment was of utmost importance two respondents took a more relaxed approach to commitment. Respondent B replied that commitment was not that important and that they instead valued control and feedback more. Respondent E, who also viewed commitment as slightly less important stated that everyone cannot be committed all the time however if it is aspects within their area of responsibility they are engaged and committed. The respondents that

61 stated commitment as important were all of the opinion that commitment and engagement at all levels led to better results.

In addition to that the middle managers should be committed to the strategy the respondents all replied that if the CEO and top management team are committed to the strategy it facilitates strategy implementation and execution. Respondent B stated that if the CEO and top management are committed it will be felt at every level. This is further strengthened by respondent C and respondent F. Respondent F explained that CEO commitment leads to faster prioritising and that activities are set to action. This is in line with respondent A’s answer which state that it is the CEO and top managements responsibility to understand how everything in the organisation is connected and the CEO must therefore be committed. Furthermore, most respondents stated that if the formulation of strategy does not consider the execution the implementation process will be harder to achieve, however respondent E also stated that they had never experienced a situation where the formulation did not consider the execution. Respondent F explained that if these situations do arise the employees tasked with execution realise that the strategy is not logical and execution of it will not occur. Strategy formulation according to respondent E, should include the higher up employees understanding what lower level employees do. This is supported by respondent B who states that it is beneficial to have several parties involved in the formulation phase. Respondent A on the other hand was of the opinion that it is their responsibility as a manager to solve any problems and/or find the best way to achieve the objective with the strategy.

Issues regarding if an employee of the middle managers did not want to implement the strategy was also unanimous across the respondents, it should not happen. One respondent, respondent C, further stated that communication would be the issue here and not the employee. It would most likely be a misunderstanding and not an outright refusal of the employee to execute the strategy. Respondent A concurred this by stating that their task as a middle manager is to get their employees to implement the strategy and if it does not occur they will have to communicate in another way. Both these opinions were held by respondent E and F as well. Respondents B and D further stated that if they could not get the employee to do what has been asked of them they will have to take the issue at hand to their own manager.

All middle managers agreed that they, through their support and commitment, contributed to a better implementation process. A highlight here that several of the managers mentioned is communication as a way to ensure support and commitment. Respondent E replied through personal communication they felt they could contribute support and increase commitment of the employees. Respondent A had a similar answer, they stated that by communicating with the employees, they will feel that the middle manager is committed. This in turn will affect the rest of the employees in a positive manner towards the strategy. Respondent B, D and F echoed these thoughts. Although the middle managers commitment according to the respondents was beneficial towards the implementation process, respondent D stated that a problem that can possible arise with this if the middle managers themselves do not believe in the strategy which results in a decreased commitment. Meaning that it is hard to stay truly committed towards a strategy if one does not fully believe in the strategy, the way to get there

62 or the results. Respondent C further stated that this lack of commitment in the middle manager will be mirrored throughout the organisation. Other problems or issues that can be associated to support and commitment according to respondent A and E is the communication. While often beneficial, if communication is misinterpreted it can cause challenges.

4.7 Leadership and quality of implementation When stating their opinion about what a leader is all of the respondents had quite similar answers. A general consensus occurred where the respondents agreed that a leader is someone that represents and manages to motivate people, a role model that teaches by doing. Respondent C also mentioned that a leader should understand the organisation. Respondent E also stated that a leader should create confidence in people while respondent F further developed this by adding that a leader should help to develop the employees in their workspace. As a middle manager, the respondents stated attributes they should have included:

Table 16: Traits of the middle manager

Traits of middle management Respondent View of man F, E Perceptive E, A Clarity/transparency E, B Humility A Determination A, C Calm D, B Patient B Source: Authors own construct

The middle managers also had to take a stand to whether they believed flexibility was important for a middle manager and overall most of the respondents agreed that it was. Respondent C said it was very important, not only for the implementation process but also in order to take care of their employees. Respondent A agreed but did not think it was as important. Respondent D also believed flexibility was a trait a middle manager should have however they also believed that they cannot be too flexible and there has to be limitations. Respondent E echoed respondent C’s answer with a view of flexibility as important.

All of the respondents also had opportunities to develop their leadership skills both through work and private and only one respondent, respondent D, replied that they had developed their leadership skills by trial and error doing the daily operations as a middle manager. Furthermore, the middle managers agreed that they all appreciated the opportunity to develop their leadership skills and that the development of set skills was beneficial to their growth and competence as middle managers. As Respondent A stated, it is important to continue to learn in order to be able to perform better as a middle manager.

While discussion favourable traits of the CEO and top management, most of the respondents stated that the traits of a middle manager should also be found in the CEO and top

63 management team though it was possible to discern a few differences. The table below present the traits that a CEO should possess according to the middle managers.

Table 17: Traits of CEO and top management team

Traits of CEO and top management Respondent Clarity B, E Equal B Fair/Objective B, D Calm D Professional D Visionary C Humility A Determination A Overall perspective A, E, F Source: Authors own construct

When asked about the recruitment process at their company, overall the respondents thought it was good. Respondent E thought that the recruitment was a good mix between internal and external recruitment but added that it is important that there are opportunities to grow internal. This differed slightly from respondent F in the same industry who believed it could be slightly better, especially by recruiting more internally. However the last respondent, respondent D, from the same industry believed the recruitment process to be good. Respondents A, B and C also thought the recruitment process in their company was good and respondent C further stated that the process of recruitment looked different depending on the employment and the process was adapted to each post. Important to note here though is that no middle manager were responsible for recruitment in their company.

Middle management leadership can according to the respondents be both beneficial and detrimental to the implementation process depending on the middle manager in question. Respondent A replied that an issue that can arise in the implementation process due to the middle managers leadership qualities is when the middle manager possesses personality traits that do not work well with the employees. Respondent A further added that a middle manager brings opportunities to the implementation process by their way of communicating and by leading their employees from the start. Respondent F stated that if a middle manager is not engaged it can impact the implementation process negatively. Respondent D was of the opinion that a middle manager with a “bossy” leadership style might be problematic when implementing strategies. Respondent E was slightly of the same opinion, with a belief that a middle manager should operate more as a leader and not a manager. Respondent B stated that a middle manager should be flexible since they deal with a lot of employees and need to adapt to the best way of leading them. Respondent C also stated that a middle manager should not be too analytical since, as respondent B said, they deal with a lot of people.

4.8 Culture The respondents at SSAB described their culture a bit different from each other. Respondent D said that the culture can be described as fun and that people are nice to each other. On the other hand, respondent E pointed out that the culture at SSAB is right now in the process of changing, from the very masculine, harsh and conservative industrial culture towards a more open, proactive and diverse culture. This was further strengthened by respondent F that confirmed this, respondent F also added that culture should have a humanist perspective with a leadership philosophy that guides the culture. The respondents at ICA Maxi needed to think a bit about their culture and the responses were not immediate. However they all then answered in almost the same manner. Respondent A said that the culture was focused on giving the customers practical solutions and good service. Respondent B said that the culture should act as a friend and provide a good and nice time at work. Respondent C described the culture to be friendly with trust and responsibility.

When asked if the culture affects the strategy implementation process respondent A answered that it does to a certain degree, since some types of organisational culture attracts certain people and they in turn will affect the implementation process. Respondent A also added that the culture does not make it harder to reach certain strategical goals or hinders the implementation process for their part in any way. Respondent B simply said that culture can affect the implementation process but could not give an example and respondent C expressed a view point that if the culture is too strict it could inhibit creativity. The respondents at SSAB were more certain in their answers. Respondent E said that the culture that still exists at SSAB right now, even though it is in a transition, affects strategy implementation since the conservative culture can resist change. Respondent F said that culture affects “how” strategy is being implemented, that if there is a culture that nurtures everybody’s contribution then people will be more prone to believe in the strategy. This can be further strengthened by respondent D that expressed similar thoughts by stating that a more positive and “good” culture makes things easier in harder times.

When asked specifically if there is anything in the organisational culture or structure that could hinder or restrict the middle managers flexibility and ultimately the implementation process, all of the middle managers said that that’s was not the case. However, respondent E expressed an additional thought that culture does affect the implementation efforts, down the line. That due to the organisation culture they had identified some unwillingness towards changes within the firm.

All the respondents believed that they contribute to their company’s culture in some way. Respondent E said that one contributes to culture by just existing in the firm and respondent C added to that by stating that “you lead as you learn”. Regarding the question if some strategical goals are harder to reach than others depending on the fit with the firm’s culture respondent A and B from ICA maxi both said no, in the sense that it does not really apply on ICA maxi, while respondent C said that it was something that possibly could happened. The reason for this not applying on ICA Maxi according to the respondents was that the culture never opposes strategy or that the culture might not be prominent enough to oppose strategy.

The responses from the middle managers at SSAB are more unanimously since they all said that culture does affect the success factor of different strategical goals. Respondent E once again referred to the transition that SSAB’s culture right now is in. In addition to the topic of culture respondent E from SSAB said that since SSAB is a big company that crosses boarders everything takes longer time, including cultural change and implementing strategy. It is also a bigger risk that strategies that are supposed to get implemented grinds to a halt since they can’t get passed certain areas in the organisation and “travel down” in order to get implemented. This can occur due to language differences or usage of too conceptual words that makes understanding the strategy hard, hence making the translation into everyday objectives almost impossible.

5. Data Analysis This chapter presents the analysis of the empirical data and the theories presented in the literature review. The analysis consists of a comparison of the empirical data to the conceptualisation in order to answer the overall purpose of the study.

5.1 Analysis of the implementation process This thesis sets out to examine how middle management implements strategies. In order to do so this thesis tries to provide a description of a middle managers implementation process. This is done by analysing the implementation process as shown in the emerged framework from a middle management perspective. The analysis of the implementation process has been conducted by comparing the empirical data towards the implementation process described in the emerged framework. The implementation process consists of different dimensions and in order to analyse the dimensions as logically as possible each dimension will be firstly analysed by itself.

5.1.1 Strategy formulation According to the emerged framework, based on theory from Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) and Beer and Eisenstat (2000), the first step in an implementation process is the formulation of strategy. This phase involves several aspects. First of all, literature states that all parts of the firm and all internal partners should be involved in the strategy formulation aspect. Furthermore, when formulating strategy the long term vision of the company has to be taken into consideration. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) If this is compared to the empirical data, it is possible to discern that the data supports strategy formulation as the first phase in the implementation process. All respondents in both industries agreed that strategy formulation is the first step in the implementation process.

Theory also states that strategy formulation should include all aspects of the company and the degree of involvement from the internal partners (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). If this is viewed from a middle management perspective one can establish middle managers as an internal partner and as an important part of the company. This implies that middle managers should be able to partake in the strategy formulation, since according to theory consideration should be given to all relevant aspects and middle managers should be considers as such. However this statement is only partially supported by the data. The data presents that middle managers are allowed to influence strategy formulation only if the strategy concerns the middle manager’s area of responsibility. Though another distinction can be made in the empirical data here, the middle managers at ICA Maxi compared to SSAB were given more room for input in the strategy formulation. This raises a question whether the size of the company affects middle managers influence on strategy formulation. ICA Maxi has around 300 employees while SSAB in total has 15 000 and SSAB Luleå has around 1100 employees. However, the respondents unanimously agreed that if they are part of the formulation process the outcome and effect of the strategy will be better.

The strategy formulation phase, as mentioned, governs, surveys and analyses all parts that the company uses such as environment, industry and competition when formulating strategy

(Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). This is not supported by the data. However important to note here is that the emerged framework is a strategy implementation process from an organisational perspective while the purpose of this thesis is from a middle management perspective. This implies that this component of strategy formulation becomes redundant since it does not apply to middle management who is responsible for their specific area of responsibility or department. Though, this component of strategy formulation should be considered partially supported since, as discussed in the section above, middle managers are a relevant aspect and should be involved in strategy formulation if it concerns their area of responsibility.

Interesting to note here is that, according to the empirical data, if the middle managers are able to influence the strategy formulation process the degree of involvement in the remaining implementation processes will be higher. This is partially supported by theory. Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) state that a component of strategy formulation is to examine the internal partners, in this case middle management, degree of involvement which will illustrate the partners’ commitment to the strategy when formulated. While the empirical data suggest that involvement occurs during the strategy formulation, the data also states for this to occur the middle managers must be involved in the formulation process.

The component regarding the long term vision of strategy formulation can be regarded as irrelevant. As mentioned, the framework is developed from the organisational perspective while the analysis is conducted from the middle management perspective. While the empirical data states that strategy formulation is needed in order to achieve a goal or to create a common structure no middle manager mentioned that they influence how formulation of strategy is considered connected to the long term vision of the organisation.

Another aspect of the strategy formulation phase that becomes irrelevant is the component of external advisors that act as a catalyst for strategy formulation. Middle managers are internal partners of a firm and external advisors are therefore needless to examine for this study. This is strengthened by the empirical data, no middle manager considered or even mentioned external advisors in connection to strategy formulation.

The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in strategy formulation, from theory, are supported from a middle management perspective.

Table 18: Strategy formulation compared to theory

Aspect Empirical data Supports theory Strategy formulation is the first phase Yes Supported Middle managers (relevant aspect) should be Yes Partially considered during strategy formulation supported Middle managers (internal partners) degree Partially – dependent on Partially of involvement. involvement in formulation supported Long term vision No Not supported External advisors No Not supported Source: Authors own construct

The analysis also presents a few components of strategy formulation from a middle management perspective that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on the empirical data and the following analysis these are components that the middle managers regard as important during the strategy formulation phase. These aspects are summarised in the table below.

Table 19: Strategy formulation aspects solely supported by empirical data Aspect Empirical data Involvement in formulation leads to better Yes implementation Involvement in formulation leads to higher Yes degree of implementation commitment Source: Authors own construct.

5.1.2 Systematic execution Systematic execution is the second phase in the emerged framework which is supported by the empirical data. All middle managers agreed that execution was the next step in the implementation process. The components of the execution phase include priority systems and delegation of decision making in order to implement strategy (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008).

The component regarding priority systems states that organisations should set a priority system of the activities that should be conducted in the execution (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). The data implies that the middle managers put it upon themselves to translate the formulated strategy into everyday or short term objectives. Though respondent B, pointed out that how and to what extent this is done depends on what kind of strategy it is and how it is formulated. This means that translating strategy into action is an aspect of middle management execution. Furthermore, the translation will differ depending on the kind of strategy. The type of strategy influences the translation in how the everyday objectives are established.

There is a difference in how the respondents from ICA Maxi and SSAB said the prioritisation occurred. The middle managers at ICA Maxi stated it was up to them to set the priorities with the guidance of budgets and business plans. The priority system came more as a natural occurring progress than as something that had to be thought long and hard about to be decided. At SSAB the opinions differed. Each middle manager had their own way of setting priorities but no middle manager was the single deciding factor of how the priorities should be set. The priority system could be decided due to the time aspect, through the consensus of the team or dependent on what higher management decides. Interesting to note, is that once again the kind of strategy affects the priority system. One middle manager from SSAB stated that they set priorities different depending on the strategy. The theory states that there should be a priority system for each action meaning to be implemented (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) this is partially supported by the data. Since the data presents numerous of different ways to set the priority systems and it is not exclusively done by either the company or the middle managers themselves. Sometimes the middle managers set the priority systems and sometimes they do not. However, one could argue that the data is leaning towards showing a difference between ICA Maxi and SSAB where the middle managers at ICA Maxi are more prone to making the priority system by themselves compared to SSAB. Once again, this raises the question whether size, culture and organisational structure might have an influence the priority system.

Another component in the systematic execution phase is the delegation for decision making, which describes the delegation for decision making for the individuals who are responsible for implementing strategy (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). All the respondents expressed that they are able to make independent decisions when needed. There were also a consensus that if even bigger decisions where needed they could accomplish them by having a dialogue with their superior. This implies that the middle managers at work have the authority to make decisions delegated to them, supporting the theory by Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) from a middle management perspective.

The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in strategy execution, from theory, are supported by data from a middle management perspective.

Table 20: Systematic execution compared to theory Aspect Empirical data Supports theory Systematic execution is the second phase in Yes Supported the process Priority systems established by middle Partially – dependent on Partially management situation supported Delegation of decision making Yes Supported Source: Authors own construct

The analysis also presents a component of systematic execution from a middle management perspective that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on the empirical

70 data and the following analysis this component is regarded as important by the middle managers. The table below presents the component.

Table 21: Systematic execution aspect supported solely by empirical data Aspect Empirical data Middle managers translate the formulated Yes strategy into actions Source: Authors own construct.

5.1.3 Control and follow up According to theory (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) the third phase in the implementation process is strategy control and follow up which includes components that companies can use in order to follow up on strategy and control if the strategy has been implemented or not. While the managers did not explicitly state that control and follow up is the third step, control of each action needs to occur and does so continuously according to the managers. All the middle managers agreed that control and follow up were crucial in order to achieve successful strategy implementation. Therefore it is possible to state that the empirical data supports that control and follow up can be regarded as the third phase in the implementation process.

Regarding control systems, which theory states that companies should establish to reach successful implementation (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008), the empirical data differed not only between the two industries but also slightly between the middle managers. Each middle manager at ICA Maxi went about control a bit differently even though their company provided them with different routines and control systems. In order to establish control one manager used documents and that employees had to sign so responsibility can be established. This implied that feedback could occur immediately if needed. By using control points control can also be achieved. In addition to this, checklists, post-it notes, calendars and phone meetings were used to follow up on strategy. If this is comparing to the framework, there is clear evidence that the middle managers uses one or multiple forms of control systems, supporting the theory that states that firms should have control systems as a component of the third phase. SSAB did not have a pre-made control systems unanimous used throughout the company. The empirical data however suggest that the middle managers used weekly and/or monthly meeting with the management team in addition to daily guidance. Furthermore communication was seen as an important part of follow up in order to control if the strategy was being implemented. Even though SSAB’s control systems differ from the ones at ICA Maxi, the data supports theory from Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008) in regards to control system. All managers use and establish systems for control.

Theory states that feedback is needed in order to achieve a successful strategy implementation, continuous feedback of how the execution is going is required (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). The empirical data suggests that all managers regarded feedback as important, without any form of control and follow up the strategy will not be executed, and therefore supports theory. Feedback, according to the middle managers, should occur

71 instantly so as to minimise the risk of negligence or mistakes. If the implementation process is not controlled there is no way of ensuring that the strategy is going in the right way and possibilities to adjust and adapt the strategy are lost. This implies that feedback should be conducted continuously after each activity, once again supporting theory. Furthermore, feedback needs to be conducted in the correct manner otherwise it can have a large negative impact on the implementation. Interesting to note, is that one important aspect of the middle managers feedback, control and follow up was to give credit and praise to their employees. One middle manager even went so far as to state a manager is not a manager if they are not able to use praise as a management tool. Part of this is ensuring that employees feel secure. One middle manager stated that this can be done by using a coaching approach that focuses on positive aspects of employee performance. Furthermore, the data suggest an additional component in the form of “time aspect”. Feedback should occur immediately and if the control and follow up takes too long it will impact the implementation process so the execution itself will take longer than needed.

Another component of control and follow up is that companies should constantly monitor the business environment in order to be able to adjust strategy in accordance to trends, as well as measure the state of strategy execution in order to be aware of the progress (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). This can only be partially supported by the data. From a middle management perspective, strategy can be adjusted based on the control, feedback and follow up done by the middle managers. This means that while the result is the same – an adjusted strategy – the means there differ from the theory. Theory states that the strategy will be adjusted due to external changes while the empirical data suggest the strategy may be adapted only due to internal changes. Interesting to note though is that the possibility to adapt the strategy is regarded as important by many of the middle managers. Though one manager regarded strategic changes due to internal issues as a failure of the strategy. Strategy can be monitored, measured and adjusted but from a middle management perspective it is not done by the reasons stated by theory, hence the data is partially supported.

The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in control and follow up, from theory, are supported by data from a middle management perspective.

Table 22: Control and follow up compared to theory Aspect Empirical Supports data theory Control and follow up is the third phase in the Yes Supported implementation process Control system should exist Yes Supported Middle managers should be able to provide feedback Yes Supported Monitoring, measure and adjustment of strategy Partially Partially supported Source: Authors own construct

The analysis also presents a component of control and follow up from a middle management perspective that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on the empirical

72 data and the following analysis this component is regarded as important by the middle managers. The table below presents the component.

Table 23: Control and follow up aspect supported solely by empirical data Aspect Empirical data Time frame of control Partially yes Source: Authors own construct

5.1.4 Leadership In order to achieve a successful implementation the emerged framework presents supporting dimensions in addition to the three phase implementation process. The first supporting dimension is leadership, both the leadership of CEO and top management as well as leadership qualities of the middle management. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008; Beer & Eisenstat, 2000) The empirical data presents leadership as an important part of implementing strategies. Leadership according to the data should be cultivated and viewed as a facilitator of strategy implementation therefore it is possible to state that the empirical data supports theory – leadership is a supporting dimension for the strategy implementation process. Without a good leadership from the middle managers the implementation will suffer and a bad style of leadership is even detrimental to the implementation process.

The leadership dimension states that in order to reach an effective implementation efficient leadership needs to be found within the company. Without the commitment, communication and effective leadership of the CEO it becomes very complex to implement strategies however it is still ultimately the managers and employees that implement strategies. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) The empirical data supports this. All middle managers agreed that an important and large part of their responsibilities include implementing strategies. It is the middle managers that translate strategy and put it into action for their employees. This means that it is the managers and employees that are responsible for implementing strategy and therefore supporting theory by Brenes, Mena and Molina (2008).

An engaged leadership style by the CEO and top management is another component of this dimension (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). The empirical data presents that all middle managers agree that with CEO commitment, the strategy implementation process becomes easier to execute. If the top management is engaged in the strategy it will affect the rest of the organisation and make the employees more committed through a domino effect. Though, while the leadership style of the CEO and top management influences the middle manager, the middle manager cannot control the CEO and top management leadership style. Important to remember here is that the framework uses an organisational perspective while the purpose of the thesis uses a middle management perspective. This implies that the implementation process viewed from a middle management perspective requires an engaged leadership from middle managers. This is supported by the empirical data. The data also presents that effective middle management leadership facilitates implementation. The middle managers agreed that it is important that they are engaged and are able to motivate the employees. A

73 style of leadership that the middle managers agreed was effective and often used was “teach by doing”.

The empirical data also illustrates what a good leader should be, qualities that should exist in both CEO and top management as well as middle managers. In general, an agreement occurred where a manager should be a leader who represents and motivates people. The attributes that were mentioned all revolved around a humanist perspective, where a middle manager should be perceptive and clear and view their employees a people. These thoughts are echoed in the CEO attributes but in addition CEO and top management should also have a more visionary perspective.

A component of this dimension is the communication of the strategy. Theory states that top management are responsible for communicating a clear understanding of the organisations priorities and how the strategy is linked to the core of the organisation. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008; Beer & Eisenstat, 2000) If this concept is applied to a middle management perspective the empirical data will support this theory. The data presents that a responsibility of the middle managers is to communicate the strategy to their respective employees and explain how the strategy is connected to the company’s mission, vision and goals. All the middle managers mentioned that it was their responsibility to explain the strategy. This includes connecting the strategy to the company, providing a deeper insight of how the strategy connects to mission, vision and/or objectives and goals of the company. While this is not something that occurs on a daily basis the middle managers communicate and explain this to their employees when needed. Especially if employees feel uncertain or to do not understand.

The recruitment process in a company is also a component of this supporting dimension. The emerged framework presents that an area of responsibility for top management is recruiting and developing talented employees. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) The empirical data presents a well-functioning recruitment process in both industries where higher management ensures that recruitment is done so as to align employees with company. Though the empirical data also presents that middle management is not concerned with the recruitment in their respective organisations. This means that the empirical data actually supports theory if it is viewed from an organisational perspective as the original process was intended. Though this process, to fit with the purpose of the study, should be viewed from a middle management perspective implies that the data does not support theory - or that this aspect of the dimension is not applicable to middle management.

The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in the supporting dimension leadership, from theory, are supported by data from a middle management perspective.

Table 24: Leadership dimension compared to theory Aspect Empirical Supports data theory Leadership is a supporting dimension to strategy Yes Supported implementation Middle managers should possess an engaged leadership Yes Supported style Middle managers are responsible for implementing Yes Supported strategy Recruitment of employees No Not supported Communicating organisational understanding Yes Supported Source: Authors own construct

The analysis also presents a component of leadership from a middle management perspective that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on the empirical data and the following analysis this component is regarded as important by the middle managers. The table below presents the component.

Table 25: Leadership aspects supported solely by empirical data Aspect Empirical data Effective middle management requires specific Dependent on the middle manager – though personality traits all from humanist perspective Source: Authors own construct

5.1.5 Support and commitment Another supporting dimension in the implementation process found in the emerged framework is the support and commitment dimension. This dimension tackles the support, commitment and involvement throughout the whole organisation. (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) The empirical data presents a situation where middle management believe commitment to be an important part of strategy implementation. However, the data presents that the middle managers opinions differed slightly on how important commitment is in order to reach a successful strategy implementation. While all managers agreed that commitment should exist concerning their area of responsibility one manager stated that they do not always feel it to be necessary to create commitment amongst their employees. Instead they believed that the employees should do their work as they are instructed and therefore value feedback and control more. This may mean that commitment is perhaps not always as important as other aspects to strategy implementation. Commitment should be regarded as a supporting dimension, as theory states, but perhaps not the most crucial one.

Theory states that commitment must exist at all levels of the firm and amongst all concerned stakeholders in order to execute strategic change (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). The empirical data verifies this statement. If CEO and top management are committed it will have a trickledown effect and be felt at every other level of the organisation. This strengthens theories. If the commitment component is then viewed from a middle management perspective - meaning that middle managers have to be committed to the strategy in order to

75 reach successful implementation – it is then also supported by the empirical data. The data illustrates that all middle managers are committed to strategy, especially if it falls within their area of responsibility. Middle managers are stakeholders thus meaning that the theory is verified. Middle managers should be committed in order to reach successful implementation.

Another component of support and control is that commitment and agreement amongst concerned stakeholders should exist (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008). The empirical data is inconclusive and can neither support nor oppose this statement since the empirical data is solely based on one kind of stakeholder. However if this component is viewed from a middle management perspective it becomes verified as stated in the paragraph above. The middle managers do the best they can to achieve agreement and commitment but they cannot ensure agreement and commitment outside of their area of responsibility. The data cannot support or disagree with stockholder support to management either since this statement is not significant for this thesis and has therefore not been examined.

An aspect to support and commitment that was not mentioned in the theory is communication. The empirical data states that communication is an important and influential part of commitment. That through their communication the middle managers can contribute, support and increase commitment of their employees.

The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in the supporting dimension support and commitment, from theory, are supported by data from a middle management perspective.

Table 26: Support and commitment dimension compared to theory Aspect Empirical Supports data theory Support and commitment is a supporting dimension in the Yes Supported implementation process Commitment at all levels Yes Partially supported Commitment and agreement of all stakeholders - - Stockholder support - - Source: Authors own construct

The analysis also presents a component of support and commitment from a middle management perspective that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on the empirical data and the following analysis this component is regarded as important by the middle managers. The table below presents the component.

Table 27: Commitment aspects supported solely by empirical data Aspect Empirical data Communication creates commitment Yes Source: Authors own construct

5.1.6 Quality of implementation In addition to the three phase process leading to successful strategy implementation, one of the supporting dimensions is the quality of implementation. According to theory, this dimension is concerned with coordination and effective collaboration across functions. It is also concerned with the development of leadership skills as well as with the CEO making the managers down the line feeling confident in their decision making. (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000)

The theory states that managers down the line should be given the opportunity to develop their leadership skills since this will create a learning organisation that will be better at implementing strategy (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). The data presents that the middle managers were able to develop their leadership skills and did so either by company provided leadership courses and education opportunities or privately. The data also suggests that the leadership skills of the middle managers can be developed by trial and error in their everyday activities. Since the middle managers believed that their leadership contributed to a better implementation process they all thought that developing their skillset was important and should be done. Since it has been established that leadership is an important supporting dimension the opportunity to develop those skills should also be considered. Furthermore, the empirical data states that all middle managers appreciated and thought that the opportunity to develop their leadership was beneficial. Thus, the empirical data supports theory in regards to developing leadership skills.

A component of this dimension is that there should exist coordination and collaboration across functions (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). This component uses an organisational perspective which implies that when the component is placed on a middle management perspective it can be interpreted as middle managers should be able to collaborate effectively across functions and so as to create coordination. The empirical data partially supports this. The data shows that the middle managers make sure that everyone at the company stay informed in the previously stated meetings and control systems and in other necessary means. For example, the everyday talk while doing the daily operations adds to the information flow and coordination. In addition to that, the respondents at SSAB also stated that due to the largeness of their company, methods like video conferences, e-mails, phone calls and just walking across the corridors and met personnel face to face is used. With this in mind it is possible to state that the middle managers work towards an effective collaboration across functions. They contribute to the coordination with information sharing but it is perhaps not totally accurate to state that middle managers are ultimately responsible for the coordination across business function thus partially supporting the theory.

Another component of quality of implementation is lower level management’s confidence in making decisions (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). This implies that middle manager should feel secure enough and possess the knowledge to take decisions. As previously stated in the systematic execution phase, all of the middle managers unanimously stated that they are allowed to make the decisions needed. To add to this, the empirical data does not show that any of the middle managers felt uncomfortable in their decision-making process. Meaning that the theory is supported from a middle management perspective.

With the analysis of the quality of implementation dimension it is possible to state that this is a supporting dimension. Since middle management actively work with these components and especially believe developing their own leadership is important this dimension can be regarded as supporting the implementation process. The better the coordination, collaboration and the leadership within the company the better the implementation process will be.

The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in the supporting dimension quality of implementation, from theory, are supported by data from a middle management perspective.

Table 28: Quality of implementation dimension compared to theory Aspect Empirical Supports data theory Quality of implementation is a supporting dimension to Yes Supported strategy implementation. Middle managers should be able to develop their Yes Supported leadership skills Middle managers should effectively collaborate across Yes Partially functions supported Middle managers are confident in making decisions Yes Supported Source: Authors own construct

5.1.7 Vertical communication The emerged framework presents vertical communication as the last supporting dimension. This dimension concerns the communication that aids the different phases in the implementation process (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). The empirical data supports vertical communication as a supporting dimension in the implementation process. Middle management view communication as a crucial part of implementation. So much so that if middle managers are good communicators they can improve the implementation process. The empirical data suggests that communication has been an influence or an aspect in the whole implementation process, both in the actual implementation phases and the supporting dimensions, implying that communication is of utmost importance. Thusly, supporting theory.

A component of this supporting dimension is that the communication is vertical, meaning that communication can occur vertically through the levels of the organisation, both up and down (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). Middle managers hold a unique position in regards to vertical communication, they are positioned within a company as the ideal go between higher management and lower level employees. This is strengthened by the empirical data which state that the middle managers share information in various ways in order to keep people above and under the middle managers informed about the situation. Furthermore, it is by vertical communication that the middle managers actually ensure execution of the strategy. The empirical data states that middle management receives the strategy from higher management and then through communication, the middle manager translates strategy and communicates to the employees how and why the strategy execution will be done. It is also

78 through vertical communication that strategy can be adjusted and redefined. With information, control and feedback created at lower levels, middle management are then able to communicate necessary adjustments or issues to higher level management so as to try to create the best strategy possible.

Theory states that a component of the communication dimension is that communication should be efficient and fact based (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). This is supported by the empirical data. The middle managers believed that communication was at its most efficient when the communication was open, honest and fact based. If communication is conducted in this manner it mitigates the risk of misinterpretation, misunderstanding and inaccuracies.

The empirical data also states that an aspect of middle management communication is to ensure understanding and consensus of the employees. This is done by communicating the “why” of strategy implementation. By explaining the background and what the strategy ideally wants to achieve better execution of the strategy can occur. This aspect is a middle manager responsibility according to the empirical data. Another aspect of communication that was important to the middle managers is the ability to communicate on an individual level. The empirical data stated that it was through personal communication that the middle managers were able to provide feedback and constructive criticism.

The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in the supporting dimension vertical communication, from theory, are supported by data from a middle management perspective.

Table 29: Communication dimension compared to theory Aspect Empirical Supports data theory Vertical communication is a supporting dimension to the Yes Supported strategy implementation process Middle management facilitate execution by vertical Yes Supported communication Efficient and fact based communication Yes Supported Source: Authors own construct

The analysis also presents components of vertical communication from a middle management perspective that the emerged framework does not mention. However, based on the empirical data and the following analysis these components are regarded as important by the middle managers. The table below presents the component.

Table 30: Vertical communication aspects supported solely by empirical data Aspect Empirical data Communication increases understanding and Yes commitment Personal communication is important Yes Source: Authors own construct

5.1.8 Culture Culture according to the emerged framework can be regarded as an underlying foundation for the implementation process since culture affects the implementation process in various ways (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008; Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004; Dobni, 2003; Alamsjah, 2011). This means that it is important to establish how the organisational culture affects the implementation process from a middle management perspective.

The empirical data presents that the middle managers believed that they all contribute to the organisational culture in some way. The middle managers expressed thoughts like “you lead as you learn” and that they contribute to the culture just by existing in the firm. The data also presents that there is a belief amongst the middle managers that a “good” culture generally makes their job easier. An organisational culture that nurtures employee contribution results in more employees believing in the strategy. As well as that a “good, positive and strong” culture makes it easier to function within in the company at harder times. This implies that culture affects the middle managers but also that the middle managers influence the culture.

The empirical data presents that the organisational culture seems to have a more prominent influence over the middle managers at SSAB than ICA Maxi. The middle managers at ICA Maxi expressed that culture could affect the implementation process though the impact of it was slightly unclear. If this is compared to SSAB the middle managers stated that the culture affects the implementation process. The middle managers mentioned that culture could affect how successful the strategic goals are due to the employees oppose strategically change due to cultural reasons Interesting to note here is that the empirical data presents two vastly different cultures. The culture at SSAB is described as masculine, conservative and stereotypical industrialised while the culture at ICA Maxi was regarded by the middle managers as fun, friendly and positive. This raises the question of if the affects of culture on the implementation process is dependent on the kind of culture that can be found in the company. One could discuss if ICA Maxis middle managers do not notice the affects since the company has an underlying culture that is nurturing and therefore actually facilities the process while SSAB has a culture that can hinder the implementation process and that is why the middle managers at SSAB notices affects from it.

Furthermore, an aspect of SSABs culture that was mentioned in the empirical data was that larger organisations as SSAB may have increased risk of strategies that are supposed to be implemented come to a standstill since the strategy cannot get passed different areas or sections in the organisation. This is due to different aspects such as the culture, misunderstandings, language differences, conceptual words and so forth that can make the translation of strategy into everyday objectives almost impossible, hence the stand still. The fact that SSAB is so big makes everything take a longer amount of time, all from cultural change to strategy implementation.

Based on the empirical data it is possible to discern that the middle managers believe that they contribute to culture. A component of the cultural foundation is that culture is the

80 aggregated beliefs and attitudes of the member of the company (Sadri, 2014). Since middle manager state that they can influence culture this verifies the theory.

It is also possible to discern that middle managers believe that culture affects the strategy implementation process, however it seems that if the culture is “positive” or “good” it does not have that much of an effect on strategy being implemented. It is just something that exists in the background and does not make the job of strategy implementation any more difficult or easier for the middle managers. On the other hand, if the culture is “negative” for the implementation process it seems to take up more of the middle managers time and effort when implementing strategy. The fact that culture is “bad” seems to weigh heavier on the implementation process from a middle management perspective than if culture is “good”, partially supporting a component of culture which states that culture should be proactive and accepting of strategic change (Miller, Wilson, & Hickson, 2004) and partially supporting theory that states that corporate culture influences the successfulness of which middle managers are able to accomplish the desired strategy implementation (Alamsjah, 2011).

Dobni (2003) states that culture is a driver of strategy which the empirical data supports. It may not be as evident for the middle managers at ICA Maxi since they actually have a driving culture, it is part of the backbone at the company, while SSAB who have a culture that slightly opposes implementation illustrates how culture affects strategy. Opposing culture hinders, or at least complicates and increases the time period, as the middle managers from SSAB described.

The table below is a summarisation of how the different components included in the cultural foundation, from theory, are supported by data from a middle management perspective.

Table 31: Cultural foundation compared to theory Aspect Empirical data Supports theory Culture is an underlying foundation for Yes Supported strategy implementation Middle managers are contributors to culture Yes Supported Culture should be proactive and accepting of Yes Supported change Culture affects middle managers Partially – dependent on the Partially successfulness in implementing strategy kind of culture supported Culture is a driver of strategy Yes Supported Source: Authors own construct

5.2 Analysis of middle management opportunities Research question two set out to realise what opportunities middle management brought to the strategy implementation process beyond their actual implementation process. To do this a conceptualisation of middle management opportunities was created. The opportunities are presented in the table below in addition to whether the empirical data either verified or falsified the theory.

Table 32: Summarisation of opportunities compared to theory Factor Opportunity Author(s) Supported by data Culture Middle management can help create (Dobni, 2003) Partially culture that facilitates change. (Crittenden & supported Crittenden, 2008) Coalignment Middle management can facilitate the (Dobni, 2003) Partially fit between culture and strategy. supported Flexibility Middle management can affect the (Miller, Wilson, Partially successfulness of strategic decisions & Hickson, 2004) supported with their flexibility. Communication Middle management can create (Hrebiniak, 2006) Supported opportunities by providing feedback. Commitment Middle management can influence (Hrebiniak, 2006) Supported employees and performance with their (Salih & Doll, commitment to strategy 2013) implementation. Translation Middle management is key facilitators (Browne, et al., Supported of translating strategy into actions and 2014) (Hrebiniak, procedures. 2006) (Salih & Doll, 2013) Knowledge Middle managements social aspects (Ahearne, Lam, Supported have an impact on performance and & Kraus, 2014) influence up and down the line. Middle (Salih & Doll, management is also an information 2013) source concerning the implementation process. Source: Authors own construct

Comparing the empirical data against the theory illustrates that the cultural factor is partially supported by the data. The empirical data presents a situation where the middle managers stated that they are contributors to the organisational culture, however this contribution is not an explicit action instead more of result of being part of the organisation. This implies that culture is such an underlying concept that middle managers contribution occurs without them thinking about it. Therefore it is possible to say that middle management can help create a culture that facilitates implementation but it is also possible to say that they do not. It is dependent on whether the company and in connection the middle manager actively works towards a change in culture. But this implies that the middle managers have to be aware of the culture and the cultural change that is occurring. Something that the empirical data does not present as evident if one looks at ICA Maxi. SSAB on the other hand is currently undergoing a cultural change and the middle managers are aware of this change.

The coalignment opportunity is partially supported by the empirical data. The theory is only partially supported since the middle managers are not aware that they do this. To create coalignment between strategy and culture feedback is needed. It is the middle managers who provide this feedback towards top management and top management can then in turn adjust

82 or adapt strategy to fit with cultural changes. However, the middle managers may not be aware of that the information they provide is used to create changes and coalignment – thusly this theory is only partially supported.

Regarding flexibility, it can present as an opportunity but only within middle managers area of responsibility. This means that this theory is partially supported by the empirical data. Data illustrates that flexibility is important for middle managers to possess; it helps them adjust to their employees, adapt activities depending on control and feedback and so forth but within limitations. There are some aspects that are set in stone, such as corporate strategy, that middle managers cannot adjust.

That communication is a middle management opportunity is clearly supported by the data. All middle managers agreed that communication was one of their greatest tools in the implementation process. This means that this factor is supported by the empirical data. Communication opportunities can occur in several ways. Feedback allows the manager to adjust, influence and create a better implementation process.

If the commitment factor is analysed against the empirical data it is possible to verify this theoretical statement. All middle managers stated that they were able to receive more committed employees through their actions. If the middle managers themselves are committed to the strategy it will automatically influence their employees. Interesting to note here is how large an impact communication has on commitment. By communicating with their employees middle managers felt that they could support their employees which in turn make them more engaged and involved in the strategy.

The empirical data verifies that middle managers are key facilitators in translating strategy. In fact it is an important responsibility of the middle manager to translate the strategy into actions for their employees.

Comparing the empirical data towards the knowledge factor, it possible to discern that data supports the theory. The data presents that middle managers that are able to communicate on a personal level with their employees receive a better implementation process since their social competences creates engaged employees. An example of this, which the empirical data presents is aspects of personal communication that shows how to present feedback to the employees that actually creates a more engaged and committed employee. Middle management can also work as an information source about the implementation process. Due to their unique position in the company and that the middle managers are responsible for making sure execution is occurring, middle management possesses the knowledge about how for example the execution will occur and/or is occurring. They can therefore provide feedback or insight to top management about the strategy and the implementation of it.

In addition to the above mentioned opportunities, the empirical data indicated a few more opportunities that should be taken into consideration that were not mentioned in theory. These are presented in the table below.

Table 33: Additional opportunities that middle management create supported solely by data Factor Opportunity Communication Communication facilitates all aspects of the process. From formulation to implementation and all supporting activities surrounding it. Feedback Non-monetary praise can result in more engaged employees. Leadership Acting as a role model influences employees to commit more Source: Authors own construct

The first only empirical opportunity concerns an aspect of communication. Theory does not do a thoroughly enough job of describing how important middle managers actually regard communication. The middle managers state that middle management communication can facilitate all aspects of the implementation process which makes it incredibly important.

Furthermore, the middle managers mentioned feedback of non-monetary praise as important. This makes their employees feel appreciated and secure which has a positive result on the employees. Secure job environment created a more engaged employee which meant that work gets done and commitment to strategy increased. Which in turn results in a better implementation process.

The middle managers also stated that they like to lead by example – acting as a role model will also affect the employees resulting in a more committed and engaged workforce.

5.3 Analysis of middle management challenges Research question three set out to identify what challenges that middle management might face in the strategy implementation process beyond their actual implementation process. To do this a conceptualisation of middle management challenges was created. This is presented in the table below in addition to whether the empirical data supports theory or not.

Table 34: Summarisation of challenges compared to theory Factor Challenge Author(s) Supported by data Culture Middle management faces culture (Dobni, 2003) Partially that hinders change. (Salih & Doll, supported 2013) Flexibility Middle management faces flexibility (Miller, Wilson, Not issues due to organisational structures & Hickson, supported that can hinder performance. 2004) Communication Middle management faces lack of (Dobni, 2003) Supported trust due to poor communication. (Salih & Doll, Poor communication may also lead to 2013) misinterpretation and loss of meaning. Top Middle management faces a top (Hrebiniak, 2006) Supported management management team that does not team consider implications of implementation. Commitment Middle management faces (Crittenden & Partially uncommitted employees and Crittenden, 2008) supported management throughout the (Hrebiniak, 2006) organisation. Time Middle management faces the long (Hrebiniak, 2006) Supported term aspect of strategy implementation which can impact focus and control. Source: Authors own construct

The cultural challenge states that middle manager may face a culture that hinders change. This statement is partially supported by the empirical data. The data presents a situation where organisational culture can oppose change but also facilitate change. It is all dependent on the culture.

The flexibility factor is not supported by the data. The middle managers solely stated that they do not face this type of challenge.

The empirical data supports the communication factor. The middle managers stated that communication is greatly beneficial to the implementation process but at the same time, if communication fails it can be very detrimental. Poor communication can result in misinterpretation and/or misunderstandings. The lack of trust occurs due to repeat communication failures and can result in undermining implementation efforts. The middle managers did however state that they have not experienced this but that it is a possibility if a middle managers has poor communication skills or communicates wrong information and/or feedback.

The top management team challenge can also be supported by the empirical data. The data identified this as a challenge. If a strategy is developed that does not consider how it should

85 be executed it becomes more difficult for the middle manager to execute the strategy. As mentioned if middle managers are allowed to provide input and feedback to strategy it would significantly ease the implementation process.

The commitment factor was only partially supported. The empirical data presents a mixed situation regarding the importance of commitment. A few of the middle managers deemed it as important for themselves, top management team and the CEO to be committed at all levels of the strategy implementation process. Implying that it can be a challenge if commitment from these players where not to occur. Other middle managers did not deem it as that important for the process if they themselves where not committed at all times. Interesting to note was the middle managers thoughts about uncommitted employees. Once again the data presents mixed opinions. Some middle managers regard this as a fault in their own communication while others see it as a sign of misunderstanding rather than refusal of executing the strategy. Regardless uncommitted employees are a challenge that middle managers may face.

The last challenge is the time aspect. The empirical data present time as a challenge to strategy implementation. If strategy were to take too long to actually get started there is a possibility of the strategy not being executed at all. Furthermore, all middle managers mentioned the time aspect as a factor when dealing with strategy. The general agreement was that if the implementation process requires a long time period, compared to a shorter, it would become harder to keep focus and commitment towards the strategy. Hence, the empirical data supports theory.

In addition to the above mentioned challenges, the empirical data indicated a few more challenges that should be taken into consideration that were not mentioned in theory. These are presented in the table below.

Table 35: Additional challenges that middle management may face supported solely by data Factor Challenges Translation Faces strategy that is difficult to translate into actions Employee Faces employees who do not care about their work tasks behaviour Belief Middle managers believe the strategy to be detrimental to the organisation Leadership Possess qualities that makes them inadequate leaders Source: Authors own construct

The first challenge may occur in the translation. A challenge that was identified in the empirical data is connected to the translation of strategy down-the-line. As the empirical data shows, middle managers take it upon themselves to translate strategy into everyday objectives. It is in this translation that the challenge may occur. The strategy may be hard to translate due to various reasons, such as language barriers or that the strategy is too conceptually formulated.

Another challenge that the middle managers may face is that of the employees’ behaviour. The empirical data shows the potential challenge of employees not caring about specific work tasks related to strategy implementation. It makes it harder for the middle manager to ensure that the strategy actually gets implemented if the employees do not care about their work tasks and/or about the quality of their work.

The factor belief may present as a challenge for the middle managers. According to the empirical data, one of the challenges that middle managers might face is the fact that the middle managers themselves do not believe in the strategy that they are implementing. By believing that the strategy that is being implemented is detrimental to the organisation, middle managers may feel it to be difficult to fully commit to the strategy.

The last additional challenge is the factor of leadership. The middle managers identified the fact that some people in a middle management position may not possess the adequate attributes required to be a good leader. As the empirical data state, it is important to be a good leader since it brings with it many benefits. It is on the same note a challenge one may face in the implementation process if the middle manager does not possess the qualities of a good leader able to lead the employees.

5.4 International analysis Culture is very complex. The organisational culture is of course affected by the national culture. Since both of the companies and the middle managers are located in Sweden this will have an implication on the organisational culture. This raises the question whether findings would be different if applied in a different cultural context. On the other hand, the emerged framework is largely based upon an implementation model (Brenes, Mena, & Molina, 2008) which was explicitly based from findings from Latin America. Implying that the implementation model was only from a Latin American perspective but this thesis applied the implementation model on a Swedish perspective. Since the findings from the study to a large part supports the theory from Brenes, Mena and Molina’s (2008) Latin American model there seems to be room for generalisation. Since the Latin American model could successfully be applied in a Swedish setting. The national culture does not seem to largely affect different aspects of the implementation process. Furthermore, the differences between the findings and theory are often due to the different perspectives of the model. Meaning that the original framework was from an organisational perspective while this thesis used a middle management perspective.

A question to take into consideration is that middle managers are in their own national culture, meaning that they do not have to make adjustments to the organisation. The culture that can be found in the company has its basis in the national culture which is same culture of the middle managers. However it would be interesting to examine if a middle manager from a different culture than the national culture of the organisation would have the same experiences as the middle managers of this study.

6. Findings and conclusions This chapter presents the findings and conclusions of the thesis.. The purpose of the chapter is to summarise the most important results that have emerged from the data analysis and thusly answer the overall purpose and research questions. Furthermore this chapter discusses theoretical implications, possibilities for future research and implications for practitioners.

6.1 How can the strategy implementation process for middle managers be described? To answer the first research question the emerged framework was analysed from a middle management perspective. During the analysis it was possible to discern some differences from the organisational perspective to the middle managers perspective. This thesis therefore suggests some changes to the model to be made. Presented below is the revised framework, describing the strategy implementation process from a middle management perspective.

Figure 10: The strategy implementation process from a middle management perspective

Source: Authors own construct

First phase – Strategy formulation The first phase in the strategy implementation process is the formulation of strategy. The findings suggest that middle managers should be allowed to participate in strategy formulation since this will lead to a better implementation process. This phase suggests:

 Middle managements inclusion in formulation leads to a higher degree of involvement.  Middle management involvement leads to better formulation.  Middle management involvement leads to higher commitment.

Second phase – Systematic execution The second phase in the strategy process is the execution phase. This phase suggests:

 There should exist a priority system.  Middle management should be able to make independent decisions.  Middle management translates strategy into everyday objectives.

Third phase – Control and follow up The third phase in the strategy process is the control and follow up phase. This phase suggests:

 There should exist a control system in order to ensure execution.  Middle management should be able to provide feedback.  There exists a time aspect that affects the effectiveness of the control and follow up on strategy.  Middle management should be able to monitor and measure progress which can lead to change in the strategy.

Supporting dimension – Vertical communication A supporting dimension for the implementation process is the vertical communication. The findings of this study suggest that communication is more important than the emerged framework stated. The communication dimension has therefore undergone a slight change. Vertical communication should still be considered a supporting dimension to the implementation process but it should also be viewed as a supporting dimension to the actual supporting dimensions. Communication namely permeates every aspect of implementation. This dimension suggests:

 Middle management communication facilitates execution of strategy.  Middle management communication should be efficient and fact based.  Middle management communication increases understanding and commitment.  Middle management should be able to communicate on a personal level.

Supporting dimension - Leadership A supporting dimension for the implementation process is the middle manager’s leadership. This dimension suggests:

 Middle management is responsible for implementing strategy.  Middle management should be able to communicate the connection between strategy and organisation.  Middle management should possess a certain range of personality traits in order to be good leaders.  Middle management should have an engaged style of leadership.

Supporting dimension – Support and commitment Another supporting dimension for the implementation process is the middle management support and commitment. This dimension suggests:

 Middle management commitment should be found at all levels of their responsibilities.  Middle management communication should create commitment.

Supporting dimension – Quality of implementation A supporting dimension for the implementation process is the quality of implementation. This dimension suggests:

 Middle management should be able to develop their leadership skills.  Middle management should be able to effectively collaborate across functions.  Middle management should feel confident enough to make independent decisions.

Foundation - Culture Corporate culture works as the foundation in the implementation process. The findings suggest that even though the culture may not be evident to the middle managers, it is what drives strategy. If the culture where not to beneficial for the middle managers it can hinder, complicate and increase the time period of strategy implementation. However, if the culture is beneficial for the middle managers it works as an underlying facilitator for an as smooth as possible strategy implementation process. The foundation suggests:

 Middle management is a contributor to the organisational culture.  Culture should be proactive and accepting of change.  Culture affects middle managements successfulness in implementation strategy.  Culture is a driver of strategy.

6.2 What are the opportunities that middle managers create when implementing strategies? That middle management is important when organisations are trying to execute strategies has become evident and that middle managers create opportunities or benefits during the

90 implementation is also quite clear. Middle managers should be included in the whole implementation process, from start all the way to the end, since middle managers are able to create opportunities throughout the process and therefore contribute to a better implementation.

As both the literature and the empirical data presents, middle managers hold a unique position in the company which places the middle managers in an ideal position for working with implementation. Middle managers can almost be regarded as a pillar for strategy execution, not only are they tasked with translating the strategy into everyday actions, they influence, guide and engage the employees who execute the everyday actions but also provide follow up and information about the implementation progress - a necessity for implementation to function. It is also the middle managers that one of the first to realise faults or complications to strategy and can then provide the necessary control and feedback so the needed adjustments can be made.

The literature review, empirical data and the following analysis of it suggest that there are benefits of middle managers in addition to the work they do during the execution process. The most notable opportunity that middle managers create has its foundation in communication. Middle management communication is incredibly important and if middle managers possess good communication skills they can influence several other aspects in the implementation process. Not only does it facilitate the process but also creates engagement and commitment throughout the company and as the literature states, the more engaged employees the better the implementation process.

The table below is a presentation of the conclusions regarding middle management opportunities while implementing strategy.

Table 36: Suggested opportunities created by middle management Factor Opportunity Culture - Middle management can help create culture that facilitates change. Coalignment - Middle management can facilitate the fit between culture and strategy. Flexibility - Middle management can affect the successfulness of strategic decisions with their flexibility. Communication - Middle management can create opportunities by providing feedback. - Middle management communication facilitates all aspects of the process. From formulation to implementation and all supporting activities surrounding it. Commitment - Middle management can influence employees and performance with their commitment to strategy implementation. Translation - Middle management is key facilitator of translating strategy into actions and procedures. Knowledge - Middle managements social aspects have an impact on performance and influence up and down the line. Middle management is also an information source concerning the implementation process. Feedback - Middle managements non-monetary praise can result in more engaged employees. Leadership - Middle management acting as a role models influences employees to be more committed. Source: Authors own construct

6.3 What are the challenges that middle managers face when implementing strategies? That middle managers create benefits during the implementation is suggested above. However, the middle managers also face challenges during the strategy implementation process. There are aspects when implementing strategy that middle management does not have control over and these aspects can present as challenges that the middle managers may need to face and overcome in order to successfully implement strategy.

The middle managers may face a hurdle of challenges during the strategy implementation process. The quality of the strategy that is being implemented relies on how well the middle managers can handle the challenges. As the analysis presents, many of the opportunities that middle managers create for themselves stems from how well they can avoid, handle or transform the challenges into opportunities. If the challenges that occurs in the strategy implementation process are handled in the correct way, they can be transformed into opportunities and actually facilitate the implementation process and higher the quality of the middle managers work.

The literature review, empirical data and the following analysis of it suggests that there are challenges that middle managers face in addition to the inherent occurring issues that can emerge during the strategy implementation process.

The table below is a presentation of the conclusions regarding the challenges middle management may face while implementing strategy.

Table 37: Suggested challenges that middle management face Factor Challenge Culture - Middle management faces culture that hinders change. Communication - Middle management faces lack of trust due to poor communication. - Poor communication may also lead to misinterpretation and loss of meaning. Top managment - Middle management faces a top management team that does team not consider implications of implementation. Commitment - Middle management faces uncommitted employees and management throughout the organisation. Time - Middle management faces the long term aspect of strategy implementation which can impact focus and control. Translation - Middle management faces a strategy that is difficult to translate into actions. Employee - Middle management faces employees who do not care about behaviour their work tasks. Belief - Middle management believes the strategy to be detrimental to the organisation. Leadership - Middle management possesses qualities that make them inadequate leaders. Source: Authors own construct

6.4 Limitations The first limitation to keep in mind for this study is the empirical data. One should remember that the data that was gathered was based upon a rather small sample of respondents. If more middle managers had been interviewed there is a possibility that different information would have been stated which in turn may have an impact on the findings and conclusions of this thesis.

The middle managers that were interviewed were also from two different industries. If respondents from several other industries had been used for the empirical data there is also a possibility that other thoughts and opinions would have been given.

6.5 Theoretical implications This thesis examined a topic in literature that is still relatively new and is in need of more research. As Hrebiniak (2006) stated managers want a logical model to guide execution decisions and actions. Furthermore, a model from middle managers perspective does not fully exist at the same time that theory states that middle managers are not fully used (Thorpe & Morgan, 2007; Huy, 2001). This thesis set out to fill that gap in literature.

Overall, this thesis has contributed to the general knowledge of strategy implementation from a middle managers perspective. By examining the emerged framework with information from the empirical data a strategy implementation process model was able to be developed. This

93 developed process is part of filling the gap in literature since the basis of it is the middle manager.

Another theoretical implication is the importance of communication. While mentioned in theory as important, the findings of this thesis state that communication is crucial in order to achieve a successful strategy implementation. Communication has therefore, suggested by this thesis, been understated in previous literature.

6.6 Implications for practitioners This thesis contributes with findings that hopefully may be of interest and can be helpful for both current middle managers who are working with strategy implementation but also middle managers that may work with implementing strategy in the future. Furthermore, this thesis could prove to be useful for organisations when formulating and implementing strategy.

First of all, this thesis gives middle managers a clear process that can be used when working with strategies. This might be especially important for middle managers that have not had experience with strategy implementation or middle managers who find implementing strategy challenging. The process gives clear steps for middle managers to work after with a combination of supporting activities that should be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the opportunities and challenges that can occur during the implementation process are clearly described so both middle managers and companies can prepare for what might occur during the implementation.

For CEO’s and top management teams tasked with formulating strategy or changes within a company, the findings suggest that they should consult middle managers when formulating strategy. It is suggested that if middle management is allowed to be part of, or at least give input and opinions, the strategy itself will fit the company and the implementation of it will become easier and more effective. Especially since middle managers may see issues that are not clear at top level.

The middle management implementation process might also be a helpful tool for CEO and top management when developing strategy. It gives them a clear picture of how middle managers work which then can be taken into consideration when formulating strategy. All to make the strategy clearer and more efficient. The findings may also illustrate the importance of cultivating middle managers leadership skills and perhaps providing some form of training for the middle managers in order to make them more efficient, by for example providing them with tools to become more efficient communicators.

The last managerial implication may be the recruitment in organisations. The thesis points out several personality traits that are important for a middle manager to have – both concerning personal and work attributes. This may help recruiting since it illustrates the most beneficial aspects of a middle manager and could therefore facilitate recruitment.

6.7 International implications This thesis suggests that the implementation process could be used in an international perspective. The findings do not present any major differences in the implementation process between Latin America and Sweden. Large parts of the framework was based on a model which solely used a Latin American perspective and then applied in a Swedish context. The result of this did not show any major differences due to the two national cultures implying that the implementation process model could be successful internationally.

This could be strengthened by literature regarding middle management strategy implementation does not often discuss international perspectives. This could suggest that literature about middle management and strategy implementation is not culturally bound. The international implications of this thesis should of course be tested in an international context in order to verify this.

6.8 Implications for further research

Generalisation The first implication for further research concerns the sample size of this study. It would be interesting to see if more respondents and respondents from several other industries were able to take part in a study and see if this impacts the findings. This in turn would allow one to see how general the middle management implementation process actually is.

Vertical communication Since this study found out that communication has an incredible importance for successful strategy implementation it might also be of interest to look further into middle management communication. Especially if one would allow higher level employees and lower level employees as part of the study so as to examine the vertical communication.

Internationalisation The thesis suggests the middle managements implementation process might not be influenced by different cultures. This could be of interest to study further. By applying the model in several different national cultures a more generalised and international perspective can be achieved.

It could also be of interest to look into how a middle managers implementation process will look like if the middle manager is of a different nationality than the national culture the organisation is located in. This could then be compared to the middle management implementation process that this thesis suggests and examine whether or not differences can be found.

List of references Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & Kraus, F. (2014). PERFORMANCE IMPACT OF MIDDLE MANAGERS’ ADAPTIVE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 68-87. Alamsjah, F. (2011). Key Success Factors in Implementing Strategy: Middle-Level Managers' Perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 24, 1444-1450. Albaum, G., & Herche, J. (1999). Management style comparisons among five European nations. Journal of Global Marketing, 12(4), 5-27. Ansoff, I. H. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvards business review, 35(5), 113-124. Barton, L. C., & Ambrosini, V. (2013). The moderating effect of organizational change cynicism on middle manager strategy commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(4), 721-746. Beer, M., & Eisenstat, A. (2000). The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation and Learning. Sloan Management Review, 41(4), 29-40. Bourgeois, L. J., & Brodwin, D. R. (1984). Strategic Implementation: Five Approaches to an Elusive Phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 241-261. Brenes, E. R., Mena, M., & Molina, G. E. (2008). Key success factors for strategy implementation in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 590-598. Browne, S., Sharkey-Scott, P., Mangematin, V., Lawlor, K., & Cuddihy, L. (2014). Adapting a book to make a film: how strategy is adapted through professional practices of marketing middle managers. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(9-10), 949-973. Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three Models of Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 89- 98. Chebat, J.-C. (1999). Introduction: special issue on strategy implementation and assessment research – research on implementation deserves as much attention as strategy formulation. Journal of Business Research, 45(2), 107-110. Chimhanzi, J., & Morgan, R. E. (2005). Explanations from the marketing/human resources dyad for marketing strategy implementation effectiveness in service firms. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 787-796. Collier, N., Fishwick, F., & Floyd, S. W. (2004). Managerial Involvement and Perceptions of Strategy Process. Long Range Planning, 37(1), 67-83. Collins, J. (2001). LEVEL 5 LEADERSHIP. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 66-76. Crittenden, V., & Crittenden, W. (2008). Building a capable organization: The eight levers of strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 51, 301-309. De Flander, J. (2017, 02 02). Jeroen De Flander. Retrieved 02 02, 2017, from Jeroen De Flander - Strategy Execution: https://jeroen-de-flander.com/strategy- execution/#strategy-execution-quotes

Dobni, B. (2003). Creating a strategy implementation environment. Business Horizon, 46(2), 43-46. Favaro, K. (2015). Defining Strategy, Implementation, and Execution. Harvard Business Review, n.d.(n.d.), 2-5. Floyd, W., & Woolridge, B. (1992). Managing strategic consensus: the foundation of effective implementation. Academy of Management Executive, 6(4), 27-39. Furnham, A. (2002). Managers as change agents. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 21- 29. Guth, W. D., & Macmillan, I. C. (1986). Strategy Implementation Versus Middle Management Self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7(4), 313-327. Hofstede, G., & Fink, G. (2007). Culture: organistions, personalities and nations. Gerhard Fink interviews Geert Hofstede. European Journal of International Management, 1(1/2), 14-22. Hrebiniak, G. (2006). Obstacles to Effective Strategy Implementation. Organizational Dynamics, 35(1), 13-31. Huy, Q. (2001). In praise of middle managers. Harvard Buisness Review, 79(8), 72-79. Huy, Q. (2011). HOW MIDDLE MANAGERS’ GROUP-FOCUS EMOTIONS AND SOCIAL IDENTITIES INFLUENCE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1387–1410. ICA Maxi Stormarknad Botkyrka Butiken. (n.d.). Retrieved 05 03, 2017, from ica.se: https://www.ica.se/butiker/maxi/botkyrka/maxi-ica-stormarknad-botkyrka- 9411/butiken/ Johnson, K. L. (2004). Execute your strategy - without killing it. Harvard Management Update, 9(12), 3-5. Judge Jr, Q., & Stahl, J. (1995). Middle-Manager Efforts in Strategy Implementation: a Multinational Perspective. International Business Review, 4(1), 91-11. Kaplan, S. R., & Norton, P. D. (2005). The Office of Strategy Management. Harvard Business Review, 10, 72-80. Kaplan, S., & Norton, P. (2000). Having Trouble with Your Strategy - Then Map It. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 167-176. Laffan, B. (1983). 'Policy Implementation in the European Community: The European Social Fund as a Case study. Journal of Common Market Studies, 21(4), 20. Larry, D. A. (1985). Successfully Implementing Strategic Decisions. Long Range Planning, 18(3), 91-97. Lohrke, T., Bedeian, G., & Palmer, B. (2004). The role of top managment teams in formulating and implementing turnaround strategies: a review and reserach agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(2), 63-90.

Lowey, A. (2015). The six dilemmas of strategy execution. Strategey & Leadership, 43(6), 18-24. Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods source book (Vol. 3ed). London: UK: Sage publications. Miller, S., Wilson, D., & Hickson, D. (2004). Beyond Planning Strategies for Successfully Implementing Strategic Decisions. Long range planning, 37(3), 201-218. Noble, C. H. (1999). The Eclectic Roots of Strategy Implementation Research. Journal of Business Research, 45(2), 119-134. Noble, C. H., & Mokwa, M. R. (1999). Implementing Marketing Strategies: Developing and Testing a Managerial Theory. Journal of Marketing, 63, 57-73. O'Brien, D., Scott, P. S., & Gibbons, P. (2013). Developing Strategy from the Middle: Subsidiary Strategy and the Role of the Subsidiary General Manager. Irish Journal of Management, 32(2), 109-128. Olson, M. E., Slater, F., & Hult, M. (2005). The importance of structure and process to strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 48(1), 47-54. Om ICA gruppen. (n.d.). Retrieved 05 03, 2017, from icagruppen.se: http://www.icagruppen.se/om-ica-gruppen/#!/vision Om ICA gruppen. (n.d.). Retrieved 05 03, 2017, from icagruppen.se: http://www.icagruppen.se/om-ica-gruppen/#!/ Om oss: ssab. (2017, 04 04). Retrieved from ssab.se: http://www.ssab.se/ssab/om-ssab/ssab-i- korthet Om oss: ssab. (2017, 04 04). Retrieved from ssab.se: http://www.ssab.se/ssab/om- ssab/vision-varderingar-strategi Om oss: ssab. (2017, 04 04). Retrieved from ssab.se: http://www.ssab.se/ssab/om- ssab/production-sites-in-sweden/lulea Ouakouak, M. L., Ouedraogo, N., & Mbengue, A. (2014). The mediating role of organizational capabilities in the relationship between middle managers involvement and ﬁrm performance: A European study. European management journal, 32(2), 305- 318. Pappas, M., Flaherty, E., & Wooldridge, B. (2003). Achieving Strategic Consensus in the Hospital Setting: A Middle Management Perspective. Hospital Topics, 81(1), 15-22. Pors, J. G. (2016). ‘It Sends a Cold Shiver down my Spine’: Ghostly Interruptions to Strategy Implementation. Organization Studies, 37(11), 1641-1659. Porter, E. M. (1991). Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 95-117. Porter, E. M. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.

Ramaseshan, B., Ishak, A., & Kingshott, R. P. (2013). Interactive effects of marketing strategy formulation and implementation upon ﬁrm performance. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(11-12), 1224-1250. Ramaseshan, B., Ishak, A., & Rabbanee, K. (2013). The role of marketing managers' commitment and involvement in marketing strategy implementation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 21(6), 465-483. Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research A Resource for Social Scientist and practitioner - Researchers (Vol. 2). Oxford, UK: Blackwell publishing. Sadri, G. (2014). High-performance corporate culture. Industrial Management, 56(6), 16-21. Salih, A., & Doll, Y. (2013). A Middle Management Perspective on Strategy Implementation. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(22), 32-39. Sarin, S., Challagalla, G., & Kohli, K. (2012). Implementing Changes in Marketing Strategy: The Role of Percieved Outcome- and Process-Oriented Supervisory Actions. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(4), 564-580. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research Methods for Business Students (Vol. 4ed). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students (Vol. 5th). Essex: England: Pearson Education Limited. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Reserach Methods for Business Students (Vol. 7th). Enngland: Pearson Education Limited. Shimizu, K. (2017). Senders' Bias: How Can Top Managers' Communication Improve or Not Improve Strategy Implementation. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(1), 52-69. Slater, S. F., Hult, G. M., & Olson, E. M. (2010). Factors inﬂuencing the relative importance of marketing strategy creativity and marketing strategy implementation effectiveness. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(4), 551-559. Sterling, J. (2003). Translating strategy into effective implementation: Dispelling the myths and highlighting what works. Strategy & Leadership, 31(3), 27-34. Thomas , L., & Ambrosini, V. (2015). Materializing Strategy: The Role of Comprehensiveness and Management Controls in Strategy Formation in Volatile Environments. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 105-124. Thorpe , E. R., & Morgan, R. E. (2007). In pursuit of the “ideal approach” to successful marketing strategy implementation. European Journal of Marketing, 41(5/6), 659- 677. Westley, F. R. (1990). MIDDLE MANAGERS AND STRATEGY:MICRODYNAMICS OF INCLUSION. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 337-351. Wheelen, L. T., & Hunger, J. D. (2012). Strategic Management and Business Policy Toward Global Sustainablity (Vol. 13). New Jersey: U.S: Pearson Education Inc.

Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The Middle Management Perspective on Strategy Process: Contributions, Synthesis, and Future Research. Journal of management, 34(6), 1190-1221. Yin. (1993). Applications of case study reserach (Vol. 34). Sage Publications. Yin, K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks: California: Sage Publications, Inc.

100

Appendices

Appendix A – Interview guide in English

Background questions

No Question 1. Name: 2. Current position and area of responsibility: 3. Number of years within the company: 4. Number of years of current and previous experience of a managerial position:

Question concerning research questions 1-3

No Question 1. How do you view implementation of strategies? (control question so we ensure that we are discussing the same thing, also gives us an opportunity to explain what we mean by strategies, implementation etc)

2 What does your process look like when implementing strategy/working towards a new objective?

Strategy formulation

No Question 3 Do you think that the implementation process starts with formulation of the strategy? Why/why not? 4 Are you involved in the strategy formulation process somehow? Are you allowed opinions and input? 5 Do you believe it is easier to implement the strategy if you were able to contribute to the formulation of it? If yes, how? If no, why not? 6 Could you describe how strategy formulation can create challenges and problems for your work? If yes, how? If no, why not? 7 Could you say that your contribution to strategy formulation creates opportunities for the implementation process?

Systematic execution

No Question 8 If we consider formulation the first step in the implementation process, what do you think would be the next step? Why? 9 What does execution mean for you? What is your responsibility? 10 Is it your responsibility to translate strategy into everyday objectives? If yes, how? If no, why not? 11 How are the activities prioritised? Do you prioritise? 12 How independent decisions are you allowed to make during the implementation process? What kind? How?

13 How does your decision making process look like? Across time? 14 Can you through your execution contribute to a better implementation process? Tips and tricks? 15 Can you describe the challenges and opportunities that may arise in the implementation process in regards to your execution process?

Control and follow up

No Question 16 How do you ensure that the work actually gets done? Do you have specific control systems/routines? 17 How do you work with praise/rewards/feedback? (Non-monetary) 18 If control and feedback fails how do you believe this impacts the implementation? Why does feedback fail? 19 How does the timeframe impact implementation? Years? 20 Depending on the control/measure/feedback is it possible to adjust the strategy/implementation execution? 21 In regards to control and feedback, can you describe the problems and challenges that can exist? 22 Could you also say how you contribute to better implementation through your work with control and feedback? Tips and tricks?

Communication

No Question 23 What do you as a middle manager consider most important regarding communication? How do you communicate? Does there exist something specific to take into consideration while communicating? (control question) 24 How do you share information throughout the company? How do you ensure that colleagues above and under you are informed? 25 How important do you think it is to be able to communicate on an individual level? If yes, how? If no, why not? 26 When you are given a strategy to implement, is it your responsibility to communicate how that strategy is connected to mission, vision? If yes, how? If no, why not? 27 How important is trust when you communicate? How important is it to you that you can trust your superiors and your colleges can trust you? Can this show itself in a certain way? Example of no trust? 28 If communication fails how do you believe it impacts the implementation process? Concerning communication, can you describe the problems and challenges that can arise? 29 Can you describe how you contribute to better implementation through your communication? Tips and tricks?

Support and commitment

No Question 30 How important do you think it is to be committed and involved throughout the implementation process? Why/why not? 31 How do you think it affects the implementation process if the formulation of the

strategy does not consider the execution? (top management) 32 Do you think the implementation process will be affected depending on the CEO’s commitment? 33 What happens if your colleagues do not want to implement the strategy? 34 How can you, through your involvement and commitment, contribute to positive aspects of the implementation process? Tips and tricks? 35 Can you describe problems and challenges with the implementation process in regards to commitment and involvement?

Leadership and quality of implementation

No Question 36 What does it mean to you to be a leader? (Control) 37 As a middle manager, what attributes/traits do you think are important? 38 What traits do you think a CEO should have concerning strategy implementation? 39 Do you think that the recruitment process at your company is adequate/good/bad? 40 Do you have opportunities to develop your leadership skills? Through work or on your own? 41 Some theories state that flexibility is an important trait for middle managers, do you agree? Why/why not? 42 Can you see challenges or any problems that arise while implementing strategy due to a middle managers personal traits? How do you as a leader believe you influence the process?

Culture

No Question 43 Could you briefly describe the company’s culture? (control question) 44 Do you believe that the company’s culture affects the implementation process? If yes, how? If no, why not? 45 Do you believe that you contribute to the company’s culture? If yes, how? If no, why not? Attitudes, behaviour, opinions? 46 Do you experience that some objectives are harder to achieve than others depending on how they fit with the company culture? If yes, how? If no, why not? 47 Do you sometimes see an alignment or a collision between the strategies and the company culture? Ex, friendly culture vs aggressive selling strategy? 48 Does there exist aspects to the company structure or routines that could hinder your flexibility? If no, could you give an example of something that could affect flexibility? 49 Could you say that you have the ability to create opportunities through culture in the implementation process? 50 Can you describe the problems and challenges that can arise in the implementation process in regards to culture?

General questions Is there something you would like to add or something you feel you haven’t had the opportunity to express?

iii

Appendix B: Interview guide in Swedish Bakgrunds frågor

Nr Fråga 1. Namn: 2. Nuvarande position och ansvarsområde: 3. Antal år inom företaget: 4. Antal år inom nuvarande position och tidigare erfarenhet av mellanchefs position:

Frågor angående forskningsfråga 1-3

Nr Fråga 1. Hur ser du på implementering av strategier? (kontroll fråga) 2 Hur ser er process ut när du implementerar strategier eller jobbar mot ett nytt mål?

Formulering av strategi

Nr Fråga 3 Anser du att implementeringsprocessen börjar med formulering av strategi? Varför/varför inte? 4 Är du med och formulerar strategi? Får ni tycka till/input? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte? 5 Tror du det är lättare att utföra strategin om du fått vara med att påverka strategin (formuleringen)? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte? 6 Kan du beskriva hur formuleringen av en strategi kan skapa problematik eller utmaningar för ditt jobb? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte? 7 Skulle du kunna påstå att ditt bidrag till strategi formuleringen skapar möjligheter för implementerings processen? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte?

Systematiskt utförande

Nr Fråga 8 Om vi ser strategi formulering som det första steget i implementeringsprocessen, vad ser du som nästa steg? Varför? 9 Vad betyder utförande/verkställande av strategi för dig? Vad är ditt ansvar? 10 Är det ditt ansvar att omvandla strategin till vardagliga mål? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte? 11 Hur är aktiviteterna prioriterade? Bestämmer du prioriteringen? 12 Hur självständiga beslut får du ta under implementeringsprocessen? Vilka? Hur? 13 Hur ser din beslutsfattande process ut? Genom tiden. Beskriv. 14 Kan du genom ditt utförande bidra till bättre implementering? Tips och tricks 15 Kan du beskriva vilka utmaningar och problem som kan uppstå i implementeringsprocessen när det gäller din verkställande process?

Kontroll och uppföljning

Nr Fråga 16 Hur går du tillväga för att kontrollera att saker och ting blir gjorda? Har ni specifika kontrollsystem eller rutiner? 17 Hur går du tillväga när det gäller beröm/belöningar/återkoppling? (icke monetära belöningar) 18 Ifall kontroll och feedback brister hur anser du att det påverkar implementeringen? Varför brister detta? 19 Hur påverkar tidsaspekten implementeringen? År? 20 Beroende på kontrollen/feedback är det möjligt att anpassa strategin/implementeringen? 21 När det gäller kontroll/feedback kan du beskriva vilka utmaningar och problem som kan uppstå? 22 Kan du även säga hur du bidrar till bättre implementering genom din kontroll och feedback? Tips och tricks?

Kommunikation

Nr Fråga 23 Vad anser du som mellanchef är viktigast angående kommunikation? Hur kommunicerar du? Finns det något specifikt man ska tänka på när man kommunicerar? (kontroll fråga) 24 Hur delar du information inom företaget? Hur ser du till att de som jobbar över och under dig är informerade om läget? 25 Hur viktigt tycker du det är att kunna kommunicera på en individuell nivå? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte? 26 När ni får en strategi är det är ditt ansvar att kommunicera hur strategin kopplas ihop med tex mission, vision? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte? 27 Hur viktigt är förtroende när ni kommunicerar? Samt hur viktigt är det för dig att du kan lita på dina chefer och hur viktigt är det att dina medarbetare litar på dig? Kan det visa sig på något sätt? Exempel på ingen tillit? 28 Ifall kommunikationen brister hur anser du att det påverkar implementeringen? När det gäller kommunikation kan du beskriva vilka utmaningar och problem som kan uppstå? 29 Kan du även säga hur du bidrar till bättre implementering genom din kommunikation? Tips och tricks?

Support och engagemang

Nr Fråga 30 Hur viktigt tycker du det är att vara engagerad och delaktig i hela implementations processen? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte? 31 Hur tror du det påverkar implementerings processen om du ska utföra en strategi där de som gjort strategin inte har tagit hänsyn till utförandet av den? 32 Tror du att implementeringsprocessen påverkas beroende på VDns engagemang? 33 Vad händer om dina medarbetare inte vill genomföra en strategi? 34 Kan du genom ditt engagemang och delaktighet bidra till bättre implementering? Tips och tricks? 35 Kan du beskriva vilka utmaningar och problem som kan uppstå i implementeringsprocessen när det gäller engagemang och medverkan?

Ledarskap och kvalitet av implementering

Nr Fråga 36 Vad innebär det för dig att vara en ledare? 37 Som mellanchef, vilka personlighetsdrag tycker du är viktigast? 38 What traits do you think a CEO should have concerning strategy implementation? 39 Vilka attribut tycker att en VD ska ha gällande strategi implementering? 40 Har du möjlighet att utveckla dina ledarskapsfärdigheter? Antingen genom jobbet eller på eget bevåg? 41 Vissa teorier menar på att flexibilitet är viktigt för en mellanchef, håller du med? Varför/varför inte? 42 Kan du se att någon utmaning eller att problematik kan uppstår vid implementering pga en mellanchefs personligattribut? Hur tror du att du som ledare påverkar implementeringsprocessen?

Kultur

Nr Fråga 43 Kan du kortfattat beskriva hur företagets kultur ser ut? (kontroll fråga) 44 Anser du att företagets kultur påverkar implementeringsprocessen? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte? 45 Anser du att du bidrar till företagets kultur? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte? Attityd, beteende, åsikter? 46 Upplever du att vissa mål som ska nås är svårare att uppfylla än andra mål beroende på hur de passar med företagets kultur? Om ja, hur? Om nej, varför inte? 47 Ser du ibland ett samband eller en krock mellan strategierna och kulturen? (Ex vänlig kultur gentemot aggressivt säljande strategi) 48 Finns det någonting inom företagets struktur och rutiner som skulle kunna förhindra din flexibilitet? Om inte, kan du ge ett exempel på vad det skulle kunna vara? 49 Kan du säga att du bidrar till bättre implementering genom hur du arbetar med kulturen? Tips och tricks. 50 Kan du beskriva vilka problem och utmaningar som kan uppstå i implementeringsprocessen vad gäller kulturen?

Generell fråga Är det något mer du vill tillägga eller känner att du inte har fått sagt?