Implementing deliberate strategy

Finally, Floyd and Wooldridge (1996: 96) define the fourth middle management strategic role of implementing deliberate strategy as:

a se ies of i te e tio s desig ed to alig o ga izatio al a tio ith st ategi i te t.

In this model, mid-level manage s as keepe s of the pa adig i id: fill the gaps between strategy formulation and execution using integrative and downward influences. Flo d a d Woold idge a gue that i ple e tatio e tails a e o ous range of intellectual, leadership, and admi ist ati e skills i id: .

Implementing is much more than simply an action plan and series of performance easu es. Flo d a d Woold idge s (1992, 1994, 1996) te deli e ate st ateg contrasts with the adaptability in the facilitating role which suggests greater emergence and unintended strategies. They argue that as middle managers are nearer the action, they are often much better placed than top managers to understand how strategies can actually be implemented in practice.

In their survey, Floyd and Wooldridge (1996: 149–151) consider that middle managers who are effective in implementing deliberate strategy do the following:

42 1. Implement action plans designed to meet top management objectives. 2. Translate organisational goals into objectives for individuals.

3. Communicate and sell top management initiatives to subordinates. 4. Translate organisational goals into departmental action plans. 5. Monitor activities within their unit to ensure that they support top

management objectives.

Floyd and Wooldridge (1992, 1994, 1996) highlight the need for integrative action and for a focus downwards for strategic implementation. Again, as in the other

oles, to use a theat i al te , st ategizi g i the ou d ight e o e appropriate given the middle position of the manager, as implementation may depend on actions from top managers as well as laterally and externally. The

se ies of i te e tio s a d efe e e to i te t suggests a pu poseful, li ea approach while in practice ad hoc, emergent changes that were not necessarily originally intended might more realistically reflect the complexity of getting things done in a pluralistic unit in a large multi-unit organisation and in a mature industry sector. Compared with the synthesizing role, the focus here is similarly on

convergence and closure. Implementing strategy differs from synthesizing

information, however, in terms of an action bias rather than reflective assimilation concentrated on cognitive processes. Not, of course, that implementation should be done without thinking or questioning.

Strategic implementation was first defined by Schendel and Hofer (1979) from the perspective of controlling. Chandler (1962) recognised the influence of

43 organisational structure and processes, while Selznick (1957: 91–107)

ackno ledged the a so ptio of poli i to the o ga isatio s so ial st u tu e. Pa igia i a d Hollo a : defi e st ateg i ple e tatio as taki g a tio th ough ope atio s to e e ute st ateg , hi h the assu e elies o managerial characteristics, internal organisation, and corporate influence (Gupta and Govindarajan, 1984). Mintzberg (1978) argues that separating strategy

formulation from implementation, thinkers from doers, imposes a false division of labour. Moreover, he has suggested that organisatio s a e overled and

u de a aged Mi tz e g, . He advises managers to listen to March, who stated that [A]ll the p a ti al p o le s of o ga izi g eeti gs, gi i g o de s o whatever, are important. Leadership involves plumbing as well as poetr (March and Augier, 2004: 173). The strategy literature on middle management has suggested that scholars have viewed them as doers rather than thinkers. This thesis on upper middle managers suggests the contrary, that some are more thinkers and delegaters than doers. It follows, then that they should pay more attention to both poetry (championing) and plumbing (implementing).

For the purposes of this thesis, strategy execution suggests developing dynamic apa ilities. Tee e et al : defi e d a i apa ilities as the fi s a ilit to i teg ate, uild, a d e o figu e i te al a d e te al o pete es. Teece (2007) hypothesized three generic, behavioural dynamic capabilities as the bases for the fitness of an enterprise: (i) sensing and shaping opportunities and threats; (2) seizing opportunities; and (3) reconfiguring resources and structures to sustain competitiveness. Activities include making and carrying out strategic plans, resolving issues, making decisions, finishing projects and delivering results. In a

44 very narrow sense, when leading a research-intensive business school a primary performance measure of implementation is the acceptance of a highly cited academic article in a top ranked journal.

Various strategic management scholars have reflected on managing strategy in higher education in terms of politics and power (Baldridge, 1971; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1974; Pfeffer and Moore, 1980); decision-making (Hills and Mahoney, 1978); and sensemaking (Gioia et al 1994; Gioia and Thomas, 1996). Jarzabkowski and Wilson (2002) explored formulating and implementing strategy in university top teams using a strategy-as-practice lens with a focus on direction setting, monitoring and control, resource allocation and interactions. Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984: suggests that [i]n professional organizations where goals are less t a ta le, as i u i e sities o i so e thi k-ta ks , the eha iou of ke ope ato s a e pe ei ed o se e s to e so e hat dis o e ted. The

ga age a odel of o ga izatio al hoi e Cohe et al, of p o le s, solutions, decision makers and goals attaching and detaching themselves to and from each other may be less relevant in a more managed university sector in the 21st century. Despite more explicit goals in the business school sector, deans are working with professionals and have to adopt practices less akin to dictating and more based on nudging (Thaler and Sunstein, 2009) professionals while

demonstrating some respect for academic freedom. In a marketised sector, deans must also be more aware of distinguishing between the rhetoric of ambitions in mission statements and the reality of what has actually still to be achieved (Newman et al, 2004). Dea s eed to ala e a a do e t ep e eu ial ultu e with being mindful of scholarly practices that require abstraction and reflection.

45 As boundary spanners linking different constituencies and balancing the status quo and future aspirations, deans are continually striving to fill the

implementation gap between the strategic plan and actual achievements. Golden et al (2000) argue that professionals and managers clash when because they inte p et ide ti al issues i diffe e t a s.

Thomas (2007: 37) lists the following metrics as key performance measures in usi ess s hools: fi a ial easu es – profitability, financial surplus, level of endowment funding; operational measures – faculty quality, student quality, research quality, teaching quality, programme efficiency, measures of market positioning; and organisational effectiveness – league table rankings, reputation, stude t satisfa tio , e plo e satisfa tio , a editatio . Da so 08: 159), o e of the espo de ts i the thi d stud , sees the usi ess s hool as a t i-fold h id o ga izatio ith the t iple o je ti es of alig i g the i te ests of pu li sector management, a professional service partnership, and a commercial entity. A key challenge she recognised during her 11 years as director of Cambridge Judge Busi ess “ hool as to ealize a st ategi pla fo g o th i e e ues, eputatio , and scale in such a way that growth is never at the e pe se of ualit i id: . She aimed to advance knowledge and enable leade ship th ough eati e a d

o st u ti e solutio s i id: .

It might be expected in this study that business school deans as scholars are experts in abstracting and conceptualising ideas. They should, therefore, be predisposed to formulating strategy. In a public sector context of highly

autonomous professionals, the problematisation and articulation of an issue are interesting academic exercises. In such a pluralistic environment, strategy

46 exeution can be problematic, although the higher education policy environment has increasingly focused academic leaders on clearer performance metrics. The tenures of some business school deans mirror those of premier-league football managers, with a similar churn for falling in league tables. This reflect an increasingly results-focused approach.

Implementing, however, is far more than the cognitive exercise Floyd and

Wooldridge (1996) suggest. In getting things done, deans must draw on emotional (Huy, 2002, 2011), social (Hendry, 2000), structural (Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2002), discursive (Vaara et al, 2004) and contextually sensitive practices to ensure strategy is executed.