Conceptualizing and measuring strategy implementation: A multidimensional view

• Author: John Ruzibuka,Nii Amoo,Cynthia Akwei,Jacqueline Hiddlestone‐Mumford
• Date: 01 November 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2298
• Published date: 01 November 2019

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Conceptualizing and measuring strategy implementation:

A multidimensional view

Nii Amoo

1

| Jacqueline Hiddlestone-Mumford

2

| John Ruzibuka

1

| Cynthia Akwei

3

1

Leeds Business School, Leeds Beckett

University, Leeds, United Kingdom

2

Management School, University of Liverpool,

Liverpool, United Kingdom

3

Faculty of Business and Law, Liverpool John

Moore University, Liverpool, United Kingdom

Correspondence

Nii Amoo, Leeds Beckett University, Portland

Gate, Leeds, LS1 3HB, United Kingdom

Email: n.amoo@leedsbeckett.ac.uk

Abstract

When it comes to strategy making and strategy implementation, although it is

acknowledged that the biggest challenge is the implementation, most of the literature

tends to focus more on the strategy making part. Just like how the strategy imple-

mentation part of the strategy process has received little attention in the strategic

planning literature, equally there are not much research devoted to developing mea-

sures for studying this important management process and practice. Through quanti-

tative methodological approaches for studying the strategic management and

planning process, and analysis of data from 208 senior managers involved in strategy

processes within ten UK industrial sectors, this paper addresses this void by pre-

senting evidence on the measurement properties of a multi-dimensional instrument

that assesses ten dimensions of strategy implementation. Using exploratory factor

analysis, results indicate the sub-constructs (the ten dimensions) are uni-dimensional

factors with acceptable reliability and validity. Furthermore, using three additional

measures, a correlation and hierarchical regression analysis,the nomological validity

for the multi-dimensional strategy implementation construct was also established.

Relative importance of ten strategy implementation dimensions (activities) for prac-

tising managers is highlighted, with the mutually and combinative effects and drawing

conclusion that senior management involvement leads the way among the ten key

identified activities vital for successful strategy implementation.

1|INTRODUCTION

The dwindling number of strategic planning studies has been noted by

several authors (Bryson, Edwards, & Van Slyke, 2018; Whittingon &

Cailluet, 2008; Wolf & Floyd, 2017). Although highly reputable peer-

reviewed journals have recently given space for the publication of

strategy management and strategy processes (see Burgelman et al.,

2018; Gans & Ryal, 2017; Kin, Howard, Pahnke, & Boeker, 2016;

O'Regan, Kling, Ghobadian, & Perren, 2012; Thomas & Ambrosini,

2015), these papers tend to look more at the strategy formation and

strategy development, often on the use of strategy tools and tech-

niques (see Arend, Zhao, Song, & Im, 2017; Jarzabkowski, Giulietti,

Oliveira, & Amoo, 2013; Tassabehji & Isherwood, 2014; Vuorinen,

Hakala, Kohtamäki, & Uusitalo, 2018) and with few putting the strat-

egy into action (strategy implementation). Hambrick and Cannella

Jr. (1989), p. 278) stated that “without successful implementation, a

strategy (plan) is but a fantasy.”There is an expectation that strategy

implementation will create value as a vital role in the strategic plan-

ning processes (Aldehayyat & Anchor, 2010; Allio, 2005; Hrebiniak,

2013; Sull, Homkes, & Sull, 2015). However, notwithstanding this

importance in organizational effectiveness (Barrick, Thurgood, Smith, &

Courtright, 2015; Greer, Lusch, & Hitt, 2017), there is a general lack

of comprehensive studies within the extant literature on this vital part

of the strategic planning process (Chebat, 1999; Hrebiniak, 2013;

Lee & Puranam, 2016; Noble, 1999; Parsa, 1999; Walker Jr & Ruekert,

1987). While researchers are confronted with the challenge of this

lack of a significant body of literature, they also find it more challeng-

ing to conceptualize, operationalize, and measure the dimensions of

JEL classification codes: C12, C18, C83, C88, D21, D22, M19.

DOI: 10.1002/jsc.2298

Strategic Change. 2019;28:445–467. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jsc © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 445

strategy implementation compared to strategy making (Andersen,

2004; Andersen & Nielsen, 2009; Bailey, Johnson, & Daniels, 2000).

In practice, strategy implementation involves highly complex tasks

requiring sequential and simultaneous thinking, as such is a difficult

activity for an organization to tackle (Hrebiniak & Joyce, 2001; Yang,

Sun, & Eppler, 2010; Hrebiniak, 2013). It could, therefore, be inferred

that if undertaking implementation tasks is difficult in reality, then

operationalizing the variables to measure them becomes even more

challenging. We found a lack of a comprehensive methodology for

strategy implementation measure in the extant literature. Some stud-

ies have provided measures of implementation (Brenes, Mena, &

Molina, 2008; Floyd & Woolridge, 1992; Homburg, Krohmer, & Work-

man, 2004; Thorpe & Morgan, 2007); however, these are primarily

undertaken for each implementation task and this, in turn, has led to

the fragmentation of strategy implementation research (Hrebiniak &

Joyce, 2001; Yang et al., 2010). We address this void by reporting on

the methodological development and validation of a multidimensional

measure to represent the strategy implementation construct, which

provides a sound basis to focus future research studies and a source

of consistency within the approaches used.

This article is organized as follows. The first section provides a

background and overview of strategy implementation in the extant lit-

erature. Here, we review and discuss the various concepts and per-

spectives used to define strategy implementation. Based on these, we

provide the dimensions used to operationalize the methodological

concept. In the second section, we explain our methods, and how

items were measured and the results of our analysis. The third

section illustrates nomological validity assessment of the newly devel-

oped scale and conceptual relationships between variables of the new

strategy implementation construct relative to the hypothesis posed. In

the final section, we provide a roadmap of the relative importance of

the multidimensional scale in terms of literature and practicing man-

ager competencies and the variance between the dimensions of strat-

egy implementation. Here, we discuss the implication and

contribution of our study, both for academia and managerial practice.

2|BACKGROUND TO THE MEASURING

INSTRUMENT

The value of strategy implementation in strategy research is found in

the concept of strategy and the strategic management model—

sometimes denoted as the “process”or “framework”(Ackoff, 1970;

Andrews, 1971; Ansoff, 1965; Dyson & O'brien, 1998; Espinosa,

Reficco, Martínez, & Guzmán, 2015; Kazmi, 2008) and from many

decades of strategy planning—performance studies (Grant, 2003;

Kohtamäki, Kraus, Mäkelä, & Rönkkö, 2012; Kudla, 1980; Miller &

Cardinal, 1994; Pollanen, Abdel-Maksoud, Elbanna, & Mahama, 2017;

Thune & House, 1970).

Broadly speaking within the strategy literature, most models, or

frameworks of the strategy process have several stages (Andrews,

1971; Barney & Hesterly, 2018; Grant, Hardy, Oswick, & Putnam,

2003; Wheelen& Hunger, 2017). Some depict a strategyformulation or

formation stage, a choice stage, a selection stage, and an implementa-

tion stage.In these stages, the organizationseeks to understandits stra-

tegic position, makes a selection based on the assessment of various

choices, and puts the strategic choices into action (Johnson,

Whittington, Scholes, Angwin, & Regnér, 2014; Mintzberg & Rose,

2003). Additionally, there are stages where the organization manages

the changes required to allow strategy execution (Balogun, 2006;

Balogun & Johnson,2004; Floyd & Woolridge, 1992),monitor and eval-

uate the results for control purposes, and provide feedback to improve

the process for the future (Covin, Green, & Selvin, 2006; Schreyögg &

Steinmann, 1987; Simons, 1994). However, all these stages could be

subsumedinto two main activities—strategymaking and strategy execu-

tion or the notion of thinking and acting activities as advocated by

Henry Mintzberg (Chakravarthy & Lorange, 1991; Gluck, Kaufman, &

Walleck, 1980;Mintzberg, Ahlstrand,& Lampel, 1998; Wheelen & Hun-

ger, 2017). There are concerns in the literature as to whether these

activities flow sequentially or cyclically, and some authors have argued

that the model failsto incorporate strategic changes,which are gradual,

and the notion of incrementalism is ignored (Elbanna, 2006; Johnson

et al., 2014; Lindblom, 1979; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985; Quinn,

1980a). For these reasons, models of the strategic planning process

have been labeledas too traditional, prescriptive,reductionist, and sim-

plistic. Key amongthese concerns is how past research has paidinsuffi-

cient attention to the process of strategy implementation (Lee &

Puranam, 2016; Pearce, Freeman, & Robinson, 1987; Pryor, Anderson,

Toombs, & Humphreys, 2007; Smith& Kofron, 1996).

While some authors consider that it is possible to distinguish con-

ceptually between stages in the strategy process (Ackoff, 1970;

Andrews,1971; Ansoff, 1965; Ansoff,1991; Bellamy, Amoo, Mervyn,&

Hiddlestone-Mumford, 2019; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013), other authors

considerthat any identification of the stagesin strategy is artificial, irrel-

evant, dysfunctional, and therefore inappropriate (Barney & Zajac,

1994; Lenz & Lyles, 1985; Mintzberg, 1990). While this debate is

addressed extensively in the main strategic management literature and

not repeatedhere (see, e.g., Hrebiniak & Joyce,2001; Hrebiniak, 2013),

this study adopts the view that it is theoretically possible and analyti-

cally usefulto identify different stagesof the strategy process although,

in practice, theremay be elements of overlap.

In one of Mintzberg's notions of “The Three Grand Fallacies of

Strategic Planning”, the detachment of strategy making and strategy

execution is seen as separating thinking from acting (Mintzberg,

1994a; Mintzberg, 1994b, pp. 227–321; Mintzberg, 1994c,

pp. 15–19; Mintzberg et al., 1998, p. 52; De Wit & Meyer, 2014).

Hrebiniak and Joyce (2001) and Hrebiniak (2006, 2013) suggest the

reason why there are no measuring scales to investigate strategy

implementation is due to this formulation—implementation dichot-

omy. Essentially, if they are the same, then there is no need for

research concerning implementation. Because of this criticism, most

strategy research has avoided consideration of separate stages in the

strategy process and has tended to bundle formulation and implemen-

tation variables into a single measure as strategy planning—

particularly in strategic planning performance studies (Miller & Cardi-

nal, 1994; Hopkins & Hopkins, 1997, p. 642; Phillips & Moutinho,

446 AMOO ET AL.