Middle Managers’ Role in Strategy Implementation
- Middle Managers View
Heini Ikävalko and Petri Aaltonen
Helsinki University of Technology
Industrial Engineering and Management
Work Psychology and Leadership
P.O.Box 9500
FIN-02015 HUT
FINLAND
tel.: (358) 9 451 4658
fax: (358) 9 451 3665
heini.ikavalko@hut.fi
petri.aaltonen@hut.fi
Presented at the 17th EGOS Colloquium
July 5-7, 2001, Lyon, France
This is a draft. Please do not cite or quote without permission of the authors.
1
Introduction
The study presented in this paper is a part of a research project on strategy implementation, in which the main interest was how strategies are communicated, interpreted
and adopted, and how they affect everyday life in organisations. To understand strategy implementation from an organisation-wide perspective, the focus of the study was
greatly on how different actors of the organization act in relation to strategy implementation. More precisely, this paper focuses on the role of middle management. In
our research we define middle managers as those actors, who are both subordinates
and superiors, that is, between the organisational levels of management and personnel.
Thus, our definition includes both middle management and operating management
(cf. Floyd and Lane 2000).
In literature, strategy implementation has been defined in many ways. Traditionally
the focus has been on organisational structure and systems (e.g. Galbraith 1980; Ansoff 1984; Higgins 1985; Thompson & Strickland 1995; Pearce & Robinson 1996;
Johnson & Scholes 1999). Some authors (e.g. Bourgeois & Brodwin 1984; Noble
1999) have stressed the communicational and cultural aspects in strategy implementation.
Our view on strategy implementation was more consistent with the communicational
and cultural aspects than with the view that emphasises structure and systems. However, the starting point in this study was the definitions of the interviewees, the views
of 84 middle managers in 12 organisations.
Different actors of the organisation are likely to have different views on organisation’s issues. Therefore, it is interesting to find out the differences and similarities in
the views of issues that are supposed to concern all the actors. In this paper, the interest is mainly on how middle management sees strategy implementation.
In this paper we report how the middle managers in our study defined the concepts of
strategy and strategy implementation, how they saw their role in strategy implementation and, what in their view were the greatest problems of strategy implementation.
2
The findings are reflected on the views of management as well as on the findings in
prior research and literature.
Methodology
The research data were collected in 12 organisations or units of an organisation. The
organisations were mainly professional service organisations, from both public and
private sector. For example, finance, insurance and telecommunications companies,
and government departments were included. The size of the organisations or the units
under study was 100 to 500 employees.
The study was qualitative in nature, main research method being semi-structured interviews. In each organisation or unit, representatives from three groups of actors,
namely top management, middle management, and personnel, were interviewed. Altogether twenty-five interviewees per organisation were randomly chosen: 2-5 persons representing the management level, 4-13 persons the middle management level,
and 8-17 persons the personnel level. The interviewees were chosen randomly, ensuring however that different tasks, work groups, and departments were represented equitably.
The general topic of the interviews was strategy implementation. The interviewees
were asked, for example, how they participate in the organisation’s strategy process,
and, how they define strategy implementation, and what in their opinion is their own
role in it (Table 1). The primary data in this paper consists of 84 interviews of middle
managers. In addition, 36 interviews of managers were used.
During the interviews, the interviewees also filled in questionnaires, in which they
evaluated various problem statements. The problems were those that had been found
relevant in prior literature of strategy implementation. The problems were related to
feasibility of strategy, awareness of strategy, systems and structure, commitment to
strategy, and evaluation and development of strategy implementation. These questionnaires, as well as the comments of the interviewees for the statements, were analysed for the paper, too.
3
Table 1. Interview questions of the research.1
How do you define the concept of strategy? (What kind of issues do you associate
strategy with?)
How do you define the concept of strategy implementation? (What kind of issues do you associate strategy implementation with?)
How do you participate in the strategy process? [Was asked first as an open
question, then by going through a process chart describing organisation’s strategy process]
Describe your own role in strategy implementation.
How do you communicate strategies?
Evaluate the degree of the following strategy implementation problems in
your organisation. [Interviewer handed interviewee a questionnaire which was then
discussed and filled up]
The main data analysis method was content analysis (e.g. Krippendorff 1980) of the
interviews. The transcribed interviews were coded according to the central issues of
the research. Typologies, matrices and quantification of the qualitative data were used
for analysing the issues at interest (e.g. Miles & Huberman 1984).
Strategy implementation
Before discussing the roles of middle management in strategy implementation, we
grasp to the concepts of ‘strategy’ and ‘strategy implementation’. Interviewees were
asked to define the concepts themselves, and the results are presented and discussed
here. We believe that the view someone has on implementation is associated with the
way she sees her own role in it.
The concept of strategy
Our focus here is on strategy implementation, but before dwelling into that we must
understand the ways the concept of strategy has been defined. The word strategy has
long been used both in business and in academia in different ways and there exists
number of definitions and schools of strategy research. We will go through two theo-
1
Interviews included also a number of other questions on topics not covered in this paper.
4
retical categorisations but first we look at the definitions middle managers gave in our
research.
The middle managers’ view
In the beginning of the interviews, the middle managers were asked to define the concept of strategy. Most often, by almost half of the interviewees, strategy was defined
as some kind of consistent way of action. Concepts like ‘policy’, ‘line of action’ and
‘operational principle’ were mentioned. Almost as common definitions were goal,
objective, vision, or direction. Quite often middle managers mentioned that strategy is
connected to vision, goal or objective but more often they included these concepts in
the concept of strategy. Thirdly common definition was the means to achieve goal,
objective or vision, whereas plans and planning comprised the fourthly popular group
of definitions. The five most common definitions interviewees gave, the number of
interviewees mentioning it, and the respective percentages are presented in table 2.
Table 2. Middle managers’ five most common definitions of strategy.
Definition of strategy
(n=84)
1
2
3
4
5
Policy, line of action, or operational principle
Goal, objective, vision, or direction
Means to achieve goal, objective, or vision
Plan, planning
Is connected to vision, goal or objective
Number of
persons who
mentioned2
39
33
25
20
17
Percentage
of all interviewees
46 %
39 %
30 %
24 %
20 %
The middle managers’ definitions differed somewhat from the managers’ definitions.
The managers mentioned most often goal, objective, vision, or direction and the
means for reaching them. Only after those definitions came the consistent way of action (policy, line of action, or operational principle), which, at the same time, was the
most popular middle managers’ definition of strategy. Here, one could draw a conclu-
2
Interviewees often mentioned several issues, which belonged into either same or different categories.
Figures here tell how many different persons mentioned at least one definition in this category.
5
sion that the managers were slightly more concerned on the organisation’s external
issues, while middle managers focused a little more on internal issues.
Somewhat surprisingly, references to external issues, other than vision and direction
of organisation, were few among both managers and middle managers. Only some of
them mentioned organisation’s environment, customers, business idea, brand, image,
scenarios or position in connection with strategy. Also rare were definitions of strategy as a guarantee of organisation’s success or a means to differentiate form competitors.
In the following sections, the definitions of strategy will be compared with Mintzberg’s and Chaffee’s models of strategy.
Mintzberg’s Five P’s
In his five P’s model Mintzberg (Mintzberg & Quinn 1991, Mintzberg et al. 1998)
defines strategy as a plan, a ploy, a pattern, a position, and a perspective. Plan is defined as a consciously intended course of action, or a guideline to deal with a situation. Ploy means a specific “maneuver” intended to outwit an opponent or competitor.
While plan and ploy refer to intended strategies, that is, looking forward, pattern is a
stream of actions or consistency in behaviour over time, or, looking back. Strategy as
a position looks outside an organisation, seeking to locate the organisation in its environment, whereas strategy as a perspective looks inside the organisation and inside its
members’ heads, referring to a shared way of perceiving the world.
The definitions middle managers gave (see table 2) fell in most cases into the plan
category of Mintzberg’s five P’s model. Definitions at ranks 2 to 5, that is, goal, objective, vision, or direction, means to achieve them, and plans and planning, belong
clearly to the plan view of strategy. The most common single group of definitions,
policy, line of action, or operational principle seems to fit best to the Mintzberg’s pattern category. Strategy definitions fitting to Mintzberg’s position view were quite few
and references to the ploy and perspective views were close to zero.
6
Chaffee’s three models of strategy
Chaffee (1985) has provided a categorisation of strategy into three models: linear,
adaptive and interpretive strategy. Of these three, linear model focuses on planning.
According to the linear view, strategy consists of integrated decisions, actions, or
plans that will be set to achieve organisational goals. Both the goals and the means of
achieving them are results of strategic decision.
In the adaptive model of strategy organisation is continually evaluating its external
and internal conditions. Main concern here is the development of a viable match between the opportunities and risks present in the external environment and the organization’s capabilities and resources for exploiting these opportunities.
The interpretive model of strategy is associated with the social and cultural aspects of
an organisation. Strategy is about conveying meanings, by using orienting metaphors
or frames of reference that are intended to motivate stakeholders in ways that favour
the organisation.
To sum up, do the definitions of the middle managers go along these models? The
middle managers’ definitions of strategy fell mostly into the linear model of strategy,
which is quite similar to Mintzberg’s plan view. A few comments on the environment,
customers, and strategy as a guarantee of success reflected the Chaffee’s adaptive
model, which is close to Mintzberg’s position view. Definitions supporting Chaffee’s
interpretive model, as well as Mintzberg’s ploy and perspective views, were practically non-existent.
The concept of strategy implementation
Strategy implementation has received increasing attention in literature (e.g. Bourgeois
& Brodwin 1984; Alexander 1991; Grundy 1998; Noble 1999; Beer & Eisenstat 2000;
Flood et al. 2000). However, no coherent research paradigm seems to exist, main reason being the diversity of perspectives that have been taken in defining the concept
(Noble 1999). We start here with the middle managers’ conceptions and then connect
them to two theoretical models.
7
The middle managers’ view
The definition of strategy implementation caused slightly more difficulties among interviewees than the concept of strategy. Some middle managers said that implementation is just “doing things” or “turning strategy into action”. However, almost everyone
could give a more detailed description on the concept. The variety of issues mentioned was large. The data were analysed by classifying the definitions. Five categories were created based on the data.
The categories, in the order of frequency from most common to least common, are:
management, communication, planning, control, and daily actions.
The middle managers who had the management view talked about different actions,
means, methods, and tools, top-down process and organisation. Communicational
view on implementation was mainly about communicating the strategy and enhancing
the motivation and commitment of personnel. Planning view included different plans
(e.g. annual plans), goal/objective setting and recognition. Control view dealt with
instructions, rules, policies, monitoring and measurement. Strategy implementation as
daily actions means that strategy is taken into account in every day work and it shows
as changes in working practices and priorities.
The categories, the definitions, the number of interviewees mentioning it, and the respective percentages are presented in table 3.
8
Table 3. Middle managers’ definitions of strategy implementation.
Definition of strategy implementation
(n=84)
1 MANAGEMENT
actions, carrying out things
means, methods, tools
process top-down
organising
putting things to smaller pieces
decision making
projects
competence development, training
power relationships
tactics
2 COMMUNICATION
communication
enhancing commitment, motivation
concretising
reflecting in ones own group
understanding ones own role or task
leadership
objective / result / development discussions
seminars/theme days
agreeing on things
considering development areas
discussions
meetings
suggestions bottom-up
3 PLANNING
goal / objective setting
planning, plans
goal / objective recognition
resources
schedule
environment analysis
4 CONTROL
instructions, rules, policies
monitoring, control, measurement
taking care of the execution of plans
balanced scorecard
5 DAILY ACTIONS
taking strategy into account in every day work
changes in focus or priorities
changes in working practices
3
Number of
persons3
47
Percentage
56%
38
45%
35
42%
22
26%
13
15%
Interviewees often mentioned several issues, which belonged into either same or different categories.
Figures here tell how many different persons mentioned at least one definition in this category.
9
In their definitions of implementation, the majority of middle managers mentioned
some kind of managerial issues. Also the managers had most often the management
view on strategy implementation. A little less than a half of both managers and middle
managers mentioned also communicational issues.
The greatest difference in the frequencies of managers and middle managers definitions was in planning. Managers talked more often about planning and generation of
different plans (58% of managers) in the in association with strategy implementation
than middle managers (42% of middle managers).
Next, we will compare the categories presented here with two prior classifications,
namely those of Noble’s and Bourgeois and Brodwin’s.
Noble’s view on strategy implementation
Noble (1999) has made a large review of research carried out in the dispersed field of
strategy implementation. Noble himself combines the perspectives and, having a focus on the process of implementation, defines strategy implementation as communication, interpretation, adoption and enactment of strategic plans.
Noble makes a distinction between structural and interpersonal process views on
strategy implementation. The structural perspective focuses on formal organisational
structure and control mechanisms, while the interpersonal process is about understanding issues like strategic consensus, autonomous strategic behaviours, diffusion
perspectives, leadership and implementation styles, and communication and other interaction processes.
Of our strategy implementation categories, the management, planning and control
seem to be quite close to Noble’s structural view and our communication category
seem to fit to interpersonal process view of Noble. Our daily actions category, that is,
taking strategy into account in every day work by changing focus or working practices, seems not to fit easily into any of the Noble’s categories.
An interesting result here is that although structural view was dominating, the interpersonal processes can be seen quite often in the middle managers’ definitions as
well.
10
Bourgeois & Brodwin’s five models of strategy implementation
Bourgeois & Brodwin (1984) categorise strategy implementation into five models,
which they say to represent a trend toward increasing sophistication in thinking about
implementation and also a rough chronological trend in the field.
In commander model, general manager, after exhaustive period of strategic analysis,
makes the strategic decision, presents it to top managers, tells them to implement it,
and waits for the results. In this model, general manager has a great deal of power and
access to complete information, and is insulated from personal biases and political
influences. The model also splits the organisation into thinkers and doers.
In change model, after making strategic decisions, general manager plans a new organisational structure, personnel changes, new planning, information measurement
and compensation systems, and cultural adaptation techniques to support the implementation of the strategy.
Collaborative model of strategy implementation goes to involve the management
team in strategic decision-making. General manager employs group dynamics and
brainstorming techniques to get managers with different viewpoints to provide their
inputs to the strategy process.
Cultural model takes the participative elements to lower levels in the organisation as
an answer to the strategic management question ‘How can I get my whole organisation committed to our goals and strategies?’ The general manager guides organisation
by communicating her vision and allowing each individual to participate in designing
her work procedures in concert with the vision.
In crescive model the strategy comes upward from the bottom of the organisation,
rather than downward from the top. The general manager’s role is to define organisation’s purposes broadly enough to encourage innovation, and to select judiciously
from among those projects or strategy alternatives that reach his attention.
Again, we can compare our findings on middle managers’ conceptions of strategy implementation with the model summarised above. The most common definitions in
management, planning, and control categories (see table 3) fall best into Bourgeois
11
and Brodwin’s commander and change models. Signs of collaborative model can be
seen in few comments on seminars and meetings for managers. Elements of cultural
model could be seen rather frequently in comments on e.g. communication, commitment, motivation, reflecting in lower level groups, and understanding ones own role.
The crescive model with its bottom-up approach to strategy implementation is a trickier one. Maybe definitions in our last category, daily actions, which means taking
strategy into account in every-day work, could be close to this model. How about then
the most common single definition, actions, and carrying out things? It seems to fit
none of the models or, on the other hand, into every model. Perhaps actions or ‘doing
things’ is as a concept too general and it does not express the initiator of actions,
which is essential part in Bourgeois and Brodwin’s models.
Middle managers’ different roles
Middle management is one of the actors in strategy implementation, and in organizational change in general. In literature their role has been widely discussed, both highlighted and questioned.
In the early 90s, many authors, e.g. in management philosophies like lean management (Womack 1990), questioned the function of middle management. There are also
those who argue for the importance of the middle managers' role (e.g. Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Fenton-O'Creevy 2000). Those who side with middle management state
that middle managers have a key role in organizations, as they have both “the ability
to combine strategic (context-free) and hands-on (context-specific) information”
(Nonaka 1988). Burgelman (1983) emphasizes the importance of autonomous behaviour initiated outside top management and therefore, middle managers have a crucial
role in formulating new strategies and trying to convince the top management of
them. Further, Guth and Macmillan (1986) studied strategy implementation versus
middle management self-interest, and suggested that “middle managers who believe
that their self-interest is being compromised can not only redirect a strategy, delay its
implementation or reduce the quality of its implementation, but can also even totally
sabotage the strategy”.
12
In implementing strategic change, models of strategic roles for different managerial
levels have been developed (e.g. Floyd & Wooldridge 1992; Nonaka 1988; see also
Floyd & Lane 2000). These models describe the behaviours that are expected from
middle managers. Floyd and Wooldridge’s (1994) model combines upward and
downward influence with integrative and divergent thinking. According to them, there
are four main roles, namely championing alternatives, synthesizing information, facilitating adaptability, and implementing deliberate strategy (Figure 1).
Behavioural Activity
Upward Influence
Downward Influence
Divergent
Championing Strategic
Alternatives
Facilitating Adaptability
Integrative
Synthesizing Information
Implementing Deliberate
Strategy
Cognitive
influence
Figure 1. A typology of Middle Management Roles in Strategy (Floyd & Woodridge
1992).
Floyd and Lane (2000) concluded the findings of prior research into ten managerial
roles, each of them involving both processing of information and taking action. According to their categorization, top management has decision-making roles of ratifying, directing, and recognizing. Middle managers’ role is to communicate between the
operating and top levels of management in the forms of championing, facilitating,
synthesizing, and implementing. Operating managers react to information by experimenting, conforming or responding.
The middle managers’ view
Of the four main roles by Floyd and Wooldridge (1994, see Figure 1), the middle
managers we interviewed experienced the role of implementing deliberate strategy as
their main role. This role has a downward and integrative influence. The behaviour
relating to this role was typically concretising the strategy to the personnel. In addition, to communicate the organization’s goals, to plan the required actions, and also,
scheduling and control, were included. Challenges in this role had to do with communication and motivation. Also, it was experienced challenging to manage the two-way
13
communication, to become self motivated and then motivate the subordinates, to
communicate the strategy so that also the subordinates find it important.
The second common role in the middle managers’ opinion was to facilitate adaptability, with divergent influence directing downward. The middle manager in this role
acted as facilitator of change, removed obstacles like contradictory goals, and ensured
the required resources. The behaviours like reflecting, discussing and empowering
personnel were included. The interviewees who talked about their role as facilitators
were mostly superiors of self-directed teams.
The roles with upward influence were less common. In the role of synthesizing the
middle manager evaluated effectiveness of the actions that had been implemented,
and communicated the feedback upwards. The role of championing was typically
bringing innovations upwards in the organization. The managers who adopted this
role participated in the vision creation, brought their unit or group’s view in the strategy work. In this role, the challenging part was the effectiveness of this participation:
to some extent, the interviewees had doubts whether their ideas had any effect.
Problems in strategy implementation
Our own experiences and studies, as well as literature in general argue that strategy
implementation is a difficult task in practice. The problems in strategy implementation include unfeasibility of the strategy, weak management role, lack of communication, lacking commitment to the strategy, unawareness or misunderstanding of the
strategy, unaligned organizational systems and resources, poor coordination and sharing of responsibilities, inadequate capabilities, unexpected obstacles, competing activities, delayed schedule, uncontrollable environmental factors, and negligence of
daily business. (Alexander 1991; Giles 1991; Galpin 1998; Lares-Mankki 1994; Beer
& Eisenstat 2000).
In our study, both the management and the middle management saw that maybe the
biggest problem of strategy implementation is to get the strategies become a part of
everyday life. The everyday life with its routines and busyness prevents strategic
thinking and acting in the organisations. The middle managers face the reality of eve14
ryday life in several issues. More often than the managers, the middle managers saw
more problematic the lack of resources in strategy implementation, as well as indistinct role definitions. Also, from their view the inconsistency of different strategies
was more often seen problematic.
The problem statements that had to do with communication were as group seen the
most problematic. The middle managers held the view that most problematic is that it
is assumed (by managers or middle managers) that everybody already knows the
strategy, received strategy information is not correctly understood, or, information
flow is discontinued at some level of the organisation.
Commitment for strategy was not seen as problematic as communication. Nevertheless, both the management and the middle management felt that the lower the actor is
in the organization hierarchy, the less she commits herself for the strategy. The middle managers felt that it was difficult to evaluate how they commit themselves for the
strategy. Although the managers saw the problem of middle managers’ lack of commitment bigger than the middle managers themselves, half of the middle managers
expressed the existence of the problem as well.
Further, the problems of acceptance and adoption of strategy were assessed to hinder
strategy implementation more than the lack of commitment. Generally, the middle
managers evaluated it as a bigger problem than the managers.
The problem statement that the reward system would conflict with the strategy was
considered one of the biggest single problems of strategy implementation. This view
was shared both by the management and the middle management. The middle managers, however, evaluated the problem greater than the managers. Also, they found the
evaluation of this problem statement very difficult. Many middle managers commented that they did not know what the reward system is like in their organisation, or
even doubted that there exists one.
15
Discussion
When evaluating the findings, some limitations of the study should be taken into account. More detailed analysis of the environment of the organisations or other organisational factors like organisation structure could have been made and reflected on the
findings. Also, the way the interviews were conducted may have guided the interviewees’ thoughts on defining the key concepts: after all, at the beginning of the interviews we presented the aims of the study, that is, to find out how strategies affect
everyday life in organisations.
The findings of this study support the earlier research on the roles of middle management. The middle managers saw their role mainly as influencing downwards, often as
certain kind of messenger of interpreter. The main role was considered implementing
deliberate strategies while the role of facilitating change was ranked second. The roles
with upward influence seemed not as relevant as the ones with downward influence.
Although some authors have considered middle management redundant, we agree
with the opposite view. Middle managers do have a role in strategy implementation as
well. However, that role must accommodate to changing conditions of the organisation. For example, management philosophies like autonomous work groups are changing the role of middle management; this study suggests that the middle managers in
those organisations with autonomous teams tended to see their role more as facilitators.
An issue for further research and especially for discussion in organisations in assigning middle managers is the question of needed competencies. What are the key competences of middle managers in their different roles? How to facilitate the changes in
the role demands by e.g. training?
The communicational role of middle managers was present also in the middle management’s views on strategy implementation. Managing top-down processes, communicating the strategy, motivating and committing the personnel for the strategy were
included in their definitions. The middle managers’ view on strategy implementation
did not include planning to such a degree as the managers’ view.
16
As to the problems of strategy implementation, the findings of this study are, at least
to some extent, aligned with the results of prior research. Lack of communication
seems to be an eternal problem, and appeared also in this study. Likewise, commitment was seen in some degree problematic. Acceptance and adoption of strategy are
not that much emphasised on prior research, but according to our data seemed quite
relevant problems. Of the systems and resources, the most problematic was the lack of
connection between strategy and reward systems. Other problems suggested by prior
research, like unfeasibility of strategy or uncontrollable environmental factors, were
not that much present.
All in all, the most significant difficulty in strategy implementation seemed to be to
get the strategies become a part of everyday life. The middle managers saw the problems of strategy implementation from more concrete level of organisations’ activities
than the managers. Middle managers are the ones who face the problems of resources
but also the problem of really understanding strategies and adapting them to the daily
actions. These problem statements were the ones that differed most between management and middle management.
Despite the newer insights on the forums of strategy research the organisations tend to
see the world of strategy still from rather traditional perspective. The views on strategy implementation did have same elements as the existing models, with the emphasis
on structural as well as commander and change models.
Some consistency between the definitions of strategy and strategy implementation,
and the roles of middle managers could be noticed. The emphasis on both was on the
implementation of planned strategies.
Inspired by the discussion of which follows which, structure or strategy, it could be
suggested that the roles follow the conceptions of strategy implementation. Or vice
versa? To show any real connections, however, further analysis is to be made because
for this paper, the views on strategy implementation and the roles were not analysed
jointly.
The views of the middle managers represented more or less the traditional view on
strategy and strategy implementation. One could pose a question of what would the
17
role descriptions be like if strategy and strategy implementation were defined differently?
Burgelman (1983) e.g. emphasises the role of autonomous behaviour initiated outside
top management. In his model there are two kinds of strategic activities, namely the
induced and the autonomous strategic activities. He suggests that autonomously behaving middle managers formulate broader strategies for areas of new business activity and try to convince top management to support them. If the middle managers
would share this view on strategy, their views on their roles would probably be different from the views presented in this paper.
References
Alexander, L. D. (1991) Strategy Implementation: Nature of the Problem. International Review of Strategic Management, 2 (1).
Ansoff, I. (1984) Implanting strategic management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Beer, M. & Eisenstat, R. A. (2000) The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation and
Learning. Sloan Management Review, 41 (4) 29-40.
Bourgeois, L. J. III & Brodwin, D. R. (1984) Strategic Implementation: Five Approaches to an Elusive Phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5 (3) 241-264.
Burgelman, R., A. (1983) A Model of the Interaction of Strategic Behavior, Corporate
Context and the Concept of Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8 (1) 61-70.
Chaffee, E. E. (1985) Three models of strategy. Academy of Management Review , 10
(1) 89-98.
Fenton-O'Creevy, M. (2000) Middle Management Resistance to Strategic Change Initiatives: Saboteurs or Scapegoats? In: Flood, P.C., Dromgoole, T., Carroll, S.J., Gorman, L. (Eds.) Managing Strategy Implementation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
18
Flood, P. C., Dromgoole, T., Carroll, S. J. & Gorman, L. (Eds.) (2000) Managing
Strategy Implementation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Floyd, S. W. & Lane, P. J. (2000) Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing
role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review 2000, 25 (1) 154177.
Floyd, S. W. & Wooldridge, B. (1992) Middle management involvement in strategy
and its association with strategic type: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 153-167.
Galbraith, J. R. (1980) Strategy Implementation: the role of structure and process. St.
Paul: MN West.
Galpin, T. J. (1998) When leaders really walk the talk: Making strategy work through
people. Human Resource Planning, 21 (3) 38-45.
Giles, W. D. (1991) Making Strategy Work. Long Range Planning, 24 (5) 75-91.
Grundy, T. (1998) Strategy Implementation and Project Management. International
Journal of Project Management, 16 (1) 43-50.
Guth, W., D. & Macmillan, I., C. (1986) Strategy Implementation Versus Middle
Management Self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 313-327.
Higgins, J. M. (1985) Strategy: Formulation, Implementation, and Control. Chicago:
Dryden Press.
Johnson G. & Scholes K. (1999) Exploring Corporate Strategy. Fifth edition. London:
Prentice Hall Europe.
Krippendorff, K. (1980) Content analysis. An Introduction to its methodology. Sage
Publications.
Lares-Mankki, L. (1994) Strategy Implementation Bottlenecks: Identification, Analysis and Removal. Lappeenranta: Lappeenranta University of Technology.
19
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis: A sourcebook of
New Methods. California: Sage Publications.
Mintzberg, H. & Quinn, J. B. (1991) The Strategy Process. Concepts, Contexts,
Cases. Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. Ahlstrand, B. & Lampel, J. (1998) Strategy Safari. New York: The
Free Press.
Noble, C. H. (1999) The Eclectic Roots of Strategy Implementation Research. Journal
of Business Research, 45, 119-134.
Nonaka, I. (1988) Toward Middle-Up-Down Management: Accelerating Information
Creation. Sloan Management Review, 29 (3) 9-18.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pearce, J. A. & Robinson, R. B. (1996) Strategic management: Formulation, Implementation, and Control. Burr Ridge, Illinois: Irwin.
Thompson, A. A. & Strickland, A. J. (1995) Strategic Management – Concepts and
cases. Eight edition. Chicago: Irwin.
Womack, J. P. (1990) The Machine That Changed The World. New York: Rawson
Associates.
20