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).