Contingency-oriented process and strategy implementation

This sub-stream looks at the variety of implementation process patterns and highlights the role of contingency in implementation success (Sabherwal and Robey, 1993; Andersen, 2004; Jarzabkowski, 2008). Firms arguably pursue either a single strategy process type i.e. rational-mechanistic, incremental or emergent or an integrated mix of different patterns depending upon contextual differences.

Theoretically, this research stream does not lend itself towards supporting either the rational or the emergent extremes of strategy process (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 2005;

Mintzberg, 1978). Furthermore, this contingency approach rejects the notion of a universally similar implementation process as suggested by Schultz et al. (1987), Kaplan and Norton (1996) and Bossidy and Charan (2002). There is an

‗option-21 theoretic‘ logic that underlies the contingency process stream (Bowman and Hurry, 1993: 760).

Interestingly, limited attention has been paid to the processual contingencies in implementation in comparison to the implementation factor contingencies. Strategic processes are viewed as the reflections of organizational context and the behaviours of strategic actors (Pettigrew, 1992; Van de Ven and Poole, 2005). Govindarajan (1988: 828) argued the need to recognise contingency as the ‗most critical aspect of strategy implementation‘ in large organizations. However, his search of implementation factor contingencies, and not SIMP processual contingencies, is similar to much of the SIMP literature (see for example, Bryson and Bromiley, 1993).

Govindarajan (1988) also emphasised the need to match administrative mechanisms with competitive strategy, either low cost or differentiation.

Hart (1992) discussed different strategy-making modes focussing on the roles and interactions of top management and other organisational actors during decision making. However, his conceptualisation relied more on the decision-making for strategic formulation with implementation being simply one task or middle managers.

The argument for implementation was rationale-oriented and down-the-line actors were identified as subordinates with implementation responsibilities. Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) mentioned that firms start with intentions and then incrementally change their strategies. They identified implementation as a sub-process within a larger strategy process with the primary focus on change and strategy-making (Sminia, 2009).

Sabherwal and Robey (1993) used the strategic initiatives approach to explore patterns in implementation of information systems. They identified six archetypical patterns in the implementation process, depending upon the implementation approach of firms. Those patterns included textbook style, logical minimalist, traditional off-the-shelf, outsourced cooperative, problem-driven minimalist, and in-house trial and error. Sabherwal and Robey considered those archetypes as ‗the alternative courses of events that may be followed during the implementation process.‘ (p. 571) However, they recognised that their classification was based on actions of firms without consideration of actors and no attempt was made to link implementation process pursued with implementation success. They identified the

22 need for future research to assess the link between different implementation process types and implementation success as defined by stakeholders.

Anderson (2004) adopted a variance definition of the strategy formation process and found that an integrated approach was better to develop effective strategy for firm‘s performance in a highly turbulent international environment, as compared to either the planning or the decentralized emergence approach. Anderson‘s work hinted implicitly, although lacking the detail, at the existence of different patterns of strategy implementation depending upon the strategy-formation mode adopted. This supports the need for processual studies of strategy implementation to analyze the SIMP patterns linked to implementation success. In a similar vein, Jarzabkowski (2008) looked at the variety in strategy process in the Universities within the UK. She found procedural, interactive and integrated behavioural approaches of strategy shaping by top management at those universities. Two patterns of sequential and simultaneous strategy shaping by top management in action and institutional realms were identified. This reflected the contingencies of strategizing behaviours and strategizing patterns in shaping strategy and structuring organisational realms. The simultaneous strategizing helped structure both strategy and actions supporting the on-going implementation of strategies.

Jarzabkowski (2008) highlighted that the integrative approach to strategizing via procedural arrangements and interactive dialogue helped in the implementation of on-going strategies. She further highlighted that strategic continuity and strategic change may require different behavioural approaches from top management thus needing more attention by researchers to variations in top management‘s strategizing behaviours. Her work remained focussed on top management and, while being useful in highlighting the role of process contingencies, the management‘s behaviour also needs attention in future implementation research. This is important as most strategy process literature identified middle managers with the responsibility for implementation (Wooldrige, Schmid and Floyd, 2008). Future research needs to look at both top and middle management behaviours in the strategy implementation of strategic continuity and strategic change.

23 2.7. Processual views and their treatment of strateg2y implementation

Strategy process (Van de Ven, 1992; Sminia, 2009) and recent Strategy-as-practice (Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009) both share processual thinking, albeit with a different focus. Whittington (2007) detailed the differences in those two views, whereas Carter et al. (2008) criticised strategy-as-practice for being fashionable yet lacking focus. It is important to look at the situation of strategy implementation research in the strategy-as-process and strategy-as-practice literatures to clearly establish the research gaps informing this present thesis. Initially, a critical analysis of implementation research in the strategy process literature is provided, followed by the same for strategy-as-practice. This is done in view of the theoretical position of this thesis being inclined towards strategy implementation as a process with activities, actors, and process trajectories as generative mechanisms (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006; Sminia, 2009). These and other generative mechanisms explain sequences in strategizing processes and may help explain outcomes at a particular time.

Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006) critically reviewed strategy process literature and repeatedly highlighted a) relatively little attention to strategy implementation issues; b) the reduction of strategy implementation as an operational and tactical phenomenon; and c) the need for strategy process research to analyse implementation characteristics and their impact on strategic performance. Dederichs (2010) emphasised that strategy implementation needs research focus, distinct from other strategizing issues in the Strategy-as-Practice (S-as-P) literature. The limited research attention to strategy implementation in those processual views and inattention to organizational performance outcomes is discussed hereunder.

2.7.1. Strategy process and strategy implementation

The strategy process literature is full of different conceptualisations of strategy process, including rational, logical incrementalism, evolutionary, life cycle, teleogical and dialectic among others (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995; Das and Teng, 1999;

Burgleman, 1983; Quinn, 1980). The strategy process literature is too descriptive and needs research that provides information for process patterns that help improve outcomes (Sminia, 2009). The strategy process literature can be divided into either

24 the type of strategy process undertaken by firms (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006; Van de Ven and Poole, 1995) or the cognitive processes pursued (Narayanan et al., 2011). Narayanan et al. (2011) recently highlighted the cognitive nature of strategy processes and identified strategy implementation as one of four strategic cognition processes; others included strategy formulation, strategic change, and organizational learning.

Sminia (2009) recognised two groups of scholars who either consider rational- decision making as the benchmark for strategy process (for example, Barney and Hesterly, 2008) or strategy process as an inconsistent, emergent process of strategy-making (for example Mintzberg et al., 2003). In those two conceptualisations, strategy implementation is either a separate process to strategy formulation or a part of the overall strategy-formation process. This is also clear in the recent literature reviews on strategy process (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006) and strategy implementation (Li et al., 2010). Burgleman (1983), however, argued that implementation may precede formulation in some cases thus raising doubts about the relevance of rationality in the strategy process.

Sminia (2009: 99) himself defined strategy formulation as a process of collusion between ‗deliberate managerial intentions‘, ‗subsequent implementation effort‘ and

‗unanticipated emerging developments‘. This unitary conceptualisation of strategy process has received some criticism from Strategy-as-Practice scholars (Johnson et al., 2003), arguing for the need to look at the micro details of processes. Overall, theoretical differences remain in: a) how distinct is implementation effort in the strategy process and b) how much deviation from intended strategy resulting from strategy emergence leads to changes in strategy implementation. It is a surprisingly honest observation by Sminia (2009: 114) following his review of the strategy formation process literature that ‗What appears to be lacking is an elaborate answer to the ‗how to‘ question.‘

Whittington (2007: 1581) criticised the lack of guidance for managers within the emergent view of the strategy process (Mintzberg et al., 1999) as a consequence of the diminished value assigned to strategic practices and the detachment of organizational outcomes from strategic intentions. It is interesting to note here that

25 scholars in the other traditions of strategic management generally consider process research as concerned with actions and thus implementation (Barney and Zajac, 1994; Peteraf, 2005). However, strategy process literature reveals a rather imbalanced attitude towards strategy implementation as a research area.

Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006) provided a detailed review of the strategy process literature and identified major shortcomings relating to strategy implementation. They repeatedly emphasized the ‗one-sidedness‘ (p. 694) of the strategy process literature, suggesting that: ―The small set of studies exploring implementation issues points to a strong disequilibrium concerning strategy-process research. It seems that research on implementation issues is seen as inferior compared with research on formulation issues. This is all the more incomprehensible because strategy implementation is a significant phase of the strategy process.‖ (p.

694) Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst further highlighted the theoretical position of strategy implementation in the strategy process literature ‗as a matter of operational detail and tactical adjustments.‘ suggesting that ‗the potential of implementation as an important lever in strategy-process effectiveness, however, has largely been overlooked.‘ (p. 701). They also argued for future research to be aimed at exploring the links between implementation characteristics and outcomes whilst analysing the effect of strategy implementation on performance from a rational-mechanistic process view.

Edmondson, Bohmer and Pissano (2001) researched the strategic initiative implementation of technological projects in the context of hospitals. They found that successful implementers pursued a different process pattern involving collective learning for successful implementation. They identified a four-stage implementation process that includes enrolment, preparation, trials and reflection. Edmondson et al.

provided a comparative analysis of successful vs. unsuccessful implementers in one industry. They highlighted the role of routines as generative mechanisms to create acceptance for change and later enable implementation, similar to Orlikowski (1993).

Pentland (2003) introduced the concept of sequential variety in execution of work processes. He emphasised that understanding of the processual variations is currently limited and needed greater attention as to how the sequence of patterns may vary in different organizations. Pentland did not theoretically link sequential

26 variety to strategic outcomes and thus was more interested in the socialised variety in execution processes. Similarly, Becker (2005) argued that organizational routines required a human agency for strategy implementation and future research should explore agency influences on implementation of organizational rules and policies.

Narayanan et al. (2011:13) reviewed cognitive perspectives in strategy and conceptualised strategy implementation ‗as an ongoing cycle of sense-giving by top managers, sensemaking by lower echelons, and issue selling specifically by middle managers.‘ They recognised intentions in sense-giving, subjective interpretations in sensemaking and emergence of new ideas in the implementation process (Balogun and Johnson, 2005). The sensemaking research owes a lot to Weick‘s (1995) work that looked at how plans are translated to give meaning for action via ‗inter-recipient processes‘ (Balogun and Johnson, 2005: 1574). Narayanan et al. also identified that strategy implementation processes are likely to be different for different strategic directions such as mergers and acquisitions (Vaara et al., 2003) and spin-offs (Corley and Gioia, 2004). However, it remains unclear as to which implementation sequences would result in more successful implementation and how this may differ in different organizational contexts. This underlines the need for empirical research that extends the cognitive literature on strategy implementation by comparing implementation patterns in a variety of intra-organizational contexts.

Narayanan et al. (2011), whilst recognising the limited attention to strategy implementation in strategy cognition perspectives, they differed from Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006). They argued that strategy implementation is not a unitary process but a ‗vibrant set of processes‘ (p. 32) and some implementation characteristics have started to slowly emerge in research on sensegiving, sensemaking and issue-selling. This recognition of variety in implementation patterns is more in line with the broader strategy process literature (Van de Ven and Poole, 2005). However, Narayanan et al. failed to identify any existing research or suggest any future research direction linking implementation patterns with outcomes or competitive performance. This lack of activity is indicative of the prevalence of the more tactical image of strategy implementation among strategy process scholars, highlighted by Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006).

This is an area of concern as well as opportunity for future research to link

27 implementation patterns and their underlying generative mechanisms like sub-processes and activities with organizational outcomes and competitive performance.

Floyd and Woolridge (2000) accept that the rational approach to strategy process with distinctions between strategy formulation and implementation remains the dominant perspective in strategic management. Hrebiniak and Joyce (2005) strongly criticised the notion that implementation can happen without preconceived intentions, something Mintzberg et al. (1998) and Burgleman (1983) would strongly argue against. This issue of intentionality vs. emergence remains unresolved and highlights the need to adopt a more contextualist approach (Pettigrew, 1985; Pettigrew and Whipp, 1993) towards strategy implementation research. Li et al. (2010) recently reviewed the broader strategy implementation literature, including the variety of definitions, and proposed a phase-wise process framework of SIMP from a rational view of the strategy process. Similar to Noble (1999a), Li et al. considered execution as synonymous to implementation as evident in sixty papers reviewed; they did not attempt to suggest future research for competitive performance consequences of strategy implementation. This is in line with the conventional perception of implementation as a support process for execution of planned strategies but without contributing to performance outcomes on its own.

Overall, the strategy process literature has identified phase-wise process frameworks, with limited attention to processual dynamics and pattern variation in different organizational contexts. Overall, strategy implementation is synonymous with the execution of strategies and there are differences among scholars as to whether implementation is purely intention driven or can happen without a preconceived rationale. More important is the lack of attention to link strategy implementation patterns in different organisational contexts with competitive performance (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006).

2.7.2. Strategy as practice and strategy implementation

Strategy-as-Practice (S-as-P) is a rather recent addition to the cognitive processual view of strategic management, with strategy being an activity comprised of what humans do compared to what firms possess. With its attention to what strategists do in terms of strategy making, there is an explicit inclination to demonstrate how

28 strategists use different practices for strategy shaping (Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009). The S-as-P focuses on micro activities of human actors and their interactions in the strategy process (Johnson et al., 2007). There are some scholars like Whittington (2007) and Chia and MacKay (2007) who strongly argued to position S-as-P distinctly from the processual views of strategy. However, there are others who recognise that S-as-P is a ‗recent strand of strategy formation research‘ (Sminia, 2009: 110) and ‗generally embodies processual thinking‘ (Langley, 2007: 272; Carter et al., 2008). S-as-P considered strategy as a combination of practices, practitioners, and strategy praxis that involves humans at different levels within a larger institutional context (Whittington, 2007). In essence, the S-as-P criticised the lack of managerial agency and human actions in the popular economic views like the RBV and the insufficient attention to micro details in the cognitive view of the strategy process (Jarzabkowski, 2005; Johnson et al., 2003).

A critical analysis of Strategy-as-Practice literature reveals that strategy implementation is viewed as a process with different routinized practices contributing towards successful implementation (Johnson et al., 2006). Whittington (1996: 619) included all ‗activities involved in the deliberate formulation and implementation‘ as the praxis of strategizing. It is noted that S-as-P considers implementation as an inseparable activity from formulation (Jarzabkowski, 2005). However, there is a small number of S-as-P studies focussing on implementation related activities like Hoon (2007), Paroutis and Pettigrew (2007), Laine and Vaara (2007) and Dederichs (2010). Hoon (2007) looked at the practice of strategy committees and identified that middle managers used formal and informal communication activities in strategy committees to get the approvals for the implementation of their initiatives.

Paroutis and Pettigrew (2007) identified the activities of strategy teams such asexecuting, initiation, coordinating, and reflecting during the strategic planning process. Paroutis and Pettigrew (2007: 108) looked at strategizing as the ‗way strategic planning process was perceived, communicated and implemented‘. This is a clear indication of conceptualising implementation as a subset of strategizing activities dependent upon strategy formulation processes. Implementation was rather implicit in the executing and coordinating categories of practices involved in the strategic planning process. Interestingly, they identified strategy team activities in

29 relation to the recursiveness or the concluding adaptations in the strategic planning process. This approach of looking at implementation from a planning process lens reflected a rather back-seat perspective of implementation as a subset within the strategic planning process. This implied stance is contrasted by Dederichs (2010), who focussed on implementation practices for the external growth strategy in a subsidiary of a multinational firm.

Laine and Vaara (2007) looked at activities during sense-making of strategies by different practitioner groups in a functional capacity (e.g. engineering), and how they pursued their subjective goals often in contravention to the organizational goals.

However, the focus remained on the implementation of the strategy development process in a functional group praxis context. This is similar to Paroutis and Pettigrew (2007) who argued for implementation issues to be discussed in the area of strategy development. This is commendable for crossing the content-process divide but at the same time highlights strategy development as the core of strategizing activity, while strategy implementation remained a peripheral issue.

Dederichs (2010) conducted his PhD research on an intended corporate-wide external growth strategy implementation in the German subsidiary of a US multinational firm. He applied the S-as-P framework of practices and interactions among practitioners for implementation. He identified implementation as the execution of intended strategy (p. 158) and mentioned that ‗Both conceptually and practically, the execution of intended strategy implies the existence of some kind of expressed strategic direction (Costanzo, 2004; Hrebiniak, 2006; Hrebiniak & Joyce, 2005; Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2002).‘ This is in line with broader strategy implementation literature that considers strategy execution as synonymous with strategy implementation (Noble, 1999; Li et al., 2010). An interesting finding of Dederichs‘ (2010: 160) is the recognition that ‗Execution of strategy implies the existence of expressed strategic direction‘. This showed the importance of rationality and intention in execution of strategies and supported Whittington‘s (2007) argument for intentionality in strategizing practices.

It is important to locate the theoretical nature of implementation within the broader S-as-P literature. Both, Johnson et al. (2007) and Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009) considered strategy implementation as a processual issue. Johnson et al. (2007)

30 talked about the management challenge of implementing intended strategy as a

‗process issue‘ that involves issues of process interactions between organisational systems and human actors and their activities. They also highlighted the need for researching the impact of such interactions on strategic outcomes. Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009: 76) considered implementation of strategic direction as a meso-level phenomenon – strategy praxis at sub-organizational or organizational level.

Matthiesen and Jarzabkowski (2009) discussed the role of conflict and its changing nature during strategy implementation. They found that conflict remains during implementation, though at reduced levels and thus patterns of conflict change over time.

Overall, S-as-P literature views strategy implementation as a processual issue, a managerial challenge, and highlights the need for identification of interactions and

Overall, S-as-P literature views strategy implementation as a processual issue, a managerial challenge, and highlights the need for identification of interactions and