Content uploaded by Pooya Tabesh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pooya Tabesh on Feb 21, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Strategy implementation: A review and an introductory framework
Alex Tawse
a
,
1
, Pooya Tabesh
b
,
*
,
1
a
J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, 35 Broad St NW, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA
b
College of Business and Economics, California State University, Los Angeles, 5154 State University Dr, Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA
article info
Article history:
Received 21 March 2019
Received in revised form
24 August 2020
Accepted 4 September 2020
Available online xxx
Keywords:
Strategy implementation
Strategy implementation effectiveness
Strategy implementation process
Literature review
Dynamic managerial capability
Strategy execution
abstract
Effective strategy implementation is a critical component of organizational success and a potential source
of competitive advantage. However, despite many calls for increased attention, research on the subject
remains a disparate constellation of recommendations, case studies, and empirical work that provides
insight but lacks a cohesive framework. As a result, strategy research most often treats implementation
as a black box and overlooks sources of performance heterogeneity derived from differences in strategy
implementation effectiveness. To improve our understanding of the strategy implementation process,
and to promote its inclusion in strategy research, the authors systematically review and synthesize
findings in the extant strategy implementation literature to abductively derive an integrative framework
comprised of three components: (1) actions through which managers influence the implementation
process, (2) conditions necessary for strategy implementation effectiveness, and (3) the underlying dy-
namic managerial capabilities to create the best possible combination of conditions by enacting the most
appropriate managerial actions. By explaining the relationships among these three components, we
provide an introductory foundational framework on which to build future knowledge about this
important field of inquiry.
©2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
“Without successful implementation, a strategy is but a fantasy”
(Hambrick &Cannella, 1989, p. 278).
1. Introduction
Along with effective strategy formulation, effective strategy
implementation (SI) is a critical component of why some firms
outperform others as even a well-formulated strategy cannot
guarantee success until it is effectively implemented (e.g., Hitt et al.,
2017;Raes, Heijltjes, Glunk, &Roe, 2011;Sull, Homkes, &Sull,
2015). A fitting analogy is the preparation of a great meal, which
requires more than just a fabulous recipe (i.e., a strategic plan). It
takes high quality ingredients, the right equipment, and a capable
team of chefs, sous-chefs, and servers working well together; all
critical elements involved in the preparation and service (i.e.,
execution) of the meal. In addition, effective strategy imple-
mentation is a requirement for effective evaluation of strategy
(Bonoma, 1984;Lee &Puranam, 2016). In other words, if the recipe
is not executed in the exact way it was intended, it is impossible to
accurately evaluate the recipe’s merits. Finally, and importantly, the
process of strategy implementation is more complicated than
formulation (Andrews, Boyne, Law, &Walker, 2011), and many
managers and organizations struggle with effective implementa-
tion of business strategies (Hrebiniak, 2006). As a result, strategy
implementation effectiveness is a significant source of performance
heterogeneity between firms (e.g., Greer, Lusch, &Hitt, 2017),
reinforcing the need for a clear understanding of the strategy
implementation process.
Unfortunately, despite its essentialness to organizational suc-
cess and broad agreement about its importance in strategy research
(Elbanna, 2006;Papadakis, Thanos, &Barwise, 2010), conceptual
understanding of the SI process remains underdeveloped (e.g., de
Oliveira, Carneiro, &Esteves, 2019;Elbanna, Andrews, &Pollanen,
2016;Greer et al., 2017;Yang, Sun, &Eppler, 2010), and there is
no commonly agreed upon framework on which to base new
theoretical knowledge. In other words, SI has not received the same
level of attention as strategic decision making and planning and, as
a consequence, the process through which strategies are translated
into organizational outcomes has largely remained a black box
(Hutzschenreuter &Kleindienst, 2006). Similarly, strategy
*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ptabesh@calstatela.edu (P. Tabesh).
1
Both authors contributed equally to this paper and are listed in reverse
alphabetical order.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
European Management Journal
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/emj
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.09.005
0263-2373/©2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Please cite this article as: A. Tawse and P. Tabesh, Strategy implementation: A review and an introductory framework, European Management
Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.09.005
textbooks show a strong bias in favor of the strategy formulation
process and underemphasize the way strategy is effectively
implemented within an organization (Hitt et al., 2017). As a result,
practitioners continue to rank SI as the most challenging task that
they face and researchers have an incomplete picture of why some
firms implement strategy better than others (Greer et al., 2017;
Neilson, Martin, &Powers, 2008).
Existing SI research has predominantly focused on a wide va-
riety of managerial actions that influence SI effectiveness (SIE).
These actions were categorized into structural and interpersonal
process views of SI by Noble (1999), who summarized the eclectic
roots of SI research in order to capture and organize the broad range
of perspectives on the subject. The Noble (1999) study, like others,
contributes valuable insight regarding the antecedents of effective
strategy implementation but falls short of providing a compre-
hensive view about the relationships between constructs. Similarly,
because strategy implementation “lends itself to a multitude of
theoretical perspectives”(Yang et al., 2010, p. 167), there exists no
consolidated explanation of the processes that link the broad range
of managerial actions to SI effectiveness. The most widely applied
theoretical lens is contingency theory, or the concept of “fit,”which
suggests that SI effectiveness is determined by the congruence
between a firm’s strategy and different dimensions of the organi-
zation and its environment (Chandler, 1962;Galbraith &
Nathanson, 1978;Govindarajan, 1988;Miles &Snow, 1978). How-
ever, because the concept of fit can be applied in a variety of ways
(Drazin &Van de Ven, 1985;Venkatraman, 1989), “fit”or “match”
or “alignment”are often used in a ubiquitous and generic manner
and the rationale applied to fit is often inductive in nature or relies
on logic based on practical experience.
In the past few years, however, the landscape regarding SI
research has changed. Many scholars have called for increased
attention to the topic (de Oliveira et al., 2019;Greer et al., 2017) and
these calls have garnered enough momentum for SI to be listed as
one of the top emergent topics in strategic management and or-
ganization theory literature (Kastanakis et al., 2019). It is within this
environment that we undertook the task of building upon Noble’s
(1999) work to deepen our understanding of the SI process to
identify additional mechanisms through which strategic intentions
are effectively translated into reality. To do this, we systematically
reviewed and synthesized SI research published since Noble’s
(1999) paper.
The proposed framework that emerged from our synthesis in-
cludes the two types of managerial actions that influence SI effec-
tiveness (structural and interpersonal) outlined by Noble (1999),
three conditions through which managerial actions influence SI
effectiveness (competence, commitment, and coordination), and the
dynamic managerial capabilities (managerial cognition, managerial
social capital and managerial human capital) to create the best
possible combination of conditions by enacting the most appro-
priate managerial actions. Put differently, managerial actions cap-
ture the ways through which managers can influence the SI
process. Conditions capture key requirements of effective SI and
explain how managerial actions impact SIE. Finally, dynamic
managerial capabilities, as the micro-foundation of SI success or
failure, explain why some firms can implement strategy better than
others.
In the following sections, we first define strategy implementa-
tion and strategy implementation effectiveness before we describe
the methodology used to systematically review the literature and
synthesize the research findings into a framework. Then we present
the emergent framework and provide a detailed description of its
components. Finally, we conclude by discussing the theoretical and
practical implications of our research, addressing its limitations,
and proposing avenues for future research.
2. Definitions
Strategy implementation has been defined in many different
ways (e.g., Amoo, Hiddlestone-Mumford, Ruzibuka, &Akwei, 2019).
In our work, strategy implementation is defined as a “dynamic,
iterative, and complex process”that is comprised of various “ac-
tivities by managers and employees to turn strategic plans into
reality in order to achieve strategic objectives”(Yang et al., 2010,p.
165). Accordingly, we define strategy implementation effectiveness
as the extent to which an organization’s implemented strategies
correspond to its strategic intentions (Lee &Puranam, 2016). These
definitions are in line with the notion of “rational implementation”
that assumes the separation of formulation and implementation
processes (Andrews et al., 2011) and allows focused attention on
the SI process independent of processes related to strategic plan-
ning and decision making. Importantly, these definitions stop short
of conceptualizing SI success in terms of firm performance, which
would blur theory building and introduce the possibility of tauto-
logical arguments (Lee &Puranam, 2016). Indeed, we acknowledge
that positive firm-level outcomes, such as firm performance,
require effective strategy formulation and implementation, but for
the purpose of this work, we maintain focus on the implementation
process. This way, we assume that the implementation of strategy
follows strategy formulation and its effectiveness depends on how
closely outcomes match what was intended in the strategic plan
(e.g., Hutzschenreuter &Kleindienst, 2006;Lee &Puranam, 2016).
This approach was taken in order to sharpen our focus on the
process of strategy implementation and not to disregard emergent
or adaptive views of strategy that emphasize the way strategy gets
enacted in practice (Jarzabkowski, 2004;Whittington, 1996).
3. Methodology
Our goal was to engage in a comprehensive review of the SI
literature to conceptually consolidate the existing work (e.g.,
Crossan &Apaydin, 2010) into a meaningful introductory frame-
work of SI effectiveness. Considering the breadth of published work
on the subject, we accomplished this goal by adhering to a sys-
tematic process of planning, execution, and reporting the synthe-
sized findings (Tranfield, Denyer, &Smart, 2003).
In the planning stage, we set the scope for the study. Strategy
implementation literature offers a diverse set of approaches drawn
from a number of different disciplines such as strategic manage-
ment (e.g., Herrmann &Nadkarni, 2014), marketing (e.g.,
Cadwallader, Jarvis, Bitner, &Ostrom, 2010), and operations (e.g.,
Beer, 2003) among others. Therefore, we considered a full range of
academic and practitioner studies across a variety of business dis-
ciplines beyond strategic management. In line with the purpose of
our study, we also decided to maintain focus on those studies that
address organizational tools, actions, processes and constructs,
hereafter collectively referred to as ‘factors,’that impact strategy
implementation effectiveness. It is also important to reiterate that
based on our definitions of SI and SIE, our work is focused on the SI
process, and does not include research on strategy formulation,
strategic planning and decision-making, or the relationship be-
tween SI effectiveness and firm performance. Finally, we focused
the scope of our search on papers published in 1997 or later to
capture research findings since Noble’s (1999) review of the SI
literature. Noble’s work included research published through 1996.
However, in order to anchor our stream of work in a research
tradition, we also include some older references (Borgatti &Foster,
2003).
The execution stage included three phases that are described
below (Gioia, Thomas, Clark, &Chittipeddi, 1994;Hlady-Rispal &
Servantie, 2018).
A. Tawse and P. Tabesh European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
2
3.1. Phase 1: paper selection
We searched for relevant texts using the databases ABI/INFORM
Collection and EBSCOhost (including Business Source Complete and
PsychINFO) to retrieve peer-reviewed journal articles that included
the phrases “strategy implementation”or “strategy execution”in
their titles, abstracts, subjects, or keywords. We then compared our
resulting sample of articles with those identified in previous re-
views of the strategy implementation literature (e.g., Noble, 1999;
Yang et al., 2010) to identify authors with at least two articles on the
subject and searched all the works by each of these authors to find
any relevant additional articles. Our initial pool of studies was
comprised of 1108 articles. The two authors independently
reviewed the articles by reading their abstracts. In line with the
review plan, the goal was to identify articles that study organiza-
tional factors that impact strategy implementation effectiveness.
With this boundary condition in mind, we retained 333 of the 1108
articles in which elements of strategy implementation effectiveness
were directly or indirectly used as a focal construct. Of these 333
articles, 37 were excluded because: (a) their conceptualization of
strategy was too narrow, with the focus on the implementation or
adoption of a specific management tool or system, rather than an
overarching organizational strategy (e.g., Finnegan &Currie, 2010),
or (b) the paper was outside our scope because it primarily focused
on elements of strategy formulation rather than implementation
(e.g., Elbanna et al., 2016). Finally, in order to ensure the quality of
our final work, we limited our review to research published in peer
reviewed outlets that are ranked as A*, A, or B on the Australian
Business Deans Council (ABDC) 2019 journal quality list
2
(e.g., Ott &
Michailova, 2018). This process resulted in a final pool of 105
papers.
3.2. Phase 2: descriptive codification and analysis
The purpose of the codification phase was to explore the current
status of the field and to identify and summarize the current
research findings related to factors that contribute to SI effective-
ness. In this step, the two authors independently reviewed the
content of the studies in the final pool and coded each of them
based on research type, methodology, and research findings. For
each paper, the key findings were identified and briefly summa-
rized based on a comprehensive reading of the articles with specific
attention to the abstract, discussion, and conclusion sections where
the main findings are reported. An additional outcome of this phase
was a long list of factors that, in one way or another, have been
found to impact SI effectiveness. The authors then compared their
coded findings and reconciled the inconsistencies. Summaries of
conceptual and empirical papers included in our review are pre-
sented in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.
3.3. Phase 3: classification of findings and presentation of
relationships
Phase 3 involved an iterative and abductive process through
which we concurrently (A) compared and contrasted the study
findings identified in phase two (Glaser &Strauss, 1967) in order to
organize the identified factors into a number of meaningful
categories and dimensions and (B) identified the high-order re-
lationships
3
among the categories of factors (Corley &Gioia, 2004;
Gioia et al., 1994;Hlady-Rispal &Jouison-Laffitte, 2014).
Step A. The first step of Phase 3 involved an iterative process of
“constant comparison”(Strauss &Corbin, 1990), in which we
repeatedly compared and contrasted the factors identified in phase
2 to place them into appropriate categories which were then
grouped together into abstract aggregate dimensions
4
(Langley &
Abdallah, 2011). This process, that entailed iterative grouping and
regrouping of factors into meaningful categories, continued until all
factors that contribute to SIE were organized into distinct cate-
gories. As illustrated in Fig. 1, this process resulted in the catego-
rization of initial factors identified in phase 2 (i.e., first-order factors)
into eight categories (i.e., second-order categories), which were then
organized again into three aggregate dimensions.
As a result, the first-order factors were eventually organized into
the three aggregate dimensions of managerial actions, conditions,
and dynamic managerial capabilities (see Table 1 for definitions).
The eight second-order categories that provide the main elements
of our framework include two categories of managerial actions that
aligned with Noble’s (1999) framework (structural and interper-
sonal), three types of conditions required for SI effectiveness
(competence, commitment, and coordination), and three di-
mensions of dynamic managerial capability (managerial cognition,
social capital, and human capital). These eight elements serve as
second-order categories that provide clarity and bridge the gap
between the broad range of general factors that comprise SI
research and the three aggregated dimensions we identified as part
of our review and synthesis.
Step B. In conjunction with organizing the factors that contribute
to SI effectiveness (Step A), we undertook an abductive process in
order to provide a meaningful theoretical explanation for the high-
order relationships among the second-order categories (e.g., Hlady-
Rispal &Servantie, 2018). In other words, we used abduction to
theorize the relationships between the various categories of dy-
namic managerial capabilities, managerial actions, and conditions
that emerged in our process. As we explain in the following section,
we drew upon various organizational theories to explain these
relationships. “As a foundation for inquiry, abduction begins with
an unmet expectation and works backward to invent a plausible
world or a theory”(Van Maanen, Sørensen, &Mitchell, 2007,p.
1149) and allows researchers to develop new explanations for the
complex patterns (Van de Ven, 2007). Thus, the iterative and
abductive process we followed in steps A and B facilitated evalua-
tion, combination, and recombination of findings of the SI literature
in order to present them within a conceptual framework that
outlines the theoretical relationship between aggregate di-
mensions and their associated second-order categories using boxes
and arrows (e.g., Hlady-Rispal &Jouison-Laffitte, 2014;Hlady-
Rispal &Servantie, 2018). The emergent framework, as summa-
rized in Fig. 2, provides an organized panoptic outline of the diverse
body of work that encompasses the field of SI.
2
We thank the anonymous reviewer for this suggestion that helped us improve
the quality of papers included in the review. Future work that follows our meth-
odology can apply this quality check on the initial pool of papers.
3
By using the term “high-order relationship”, we want to emphasize the re-
lationships among the ‘categories of factors’rather than relationships among the
individual factors.
4
In qualitative studies of management and strategy, this method is used to
“search informants’(i.e., interviewee’s) understanding of organizational events”
(Langley &Abdallah, 2011, p. 109). We apply the same approach to evaluate and
analyze the reported findings in the literature (i.e., first-order factors). This way, the
authors’account of their findings is analogous to the informants’understanding of
organizational events which, as we explain, were grouped into second-order cate-
gories and aggregate dimensions.
A. Tawse and P. Tabesh European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
3
Fig. 1. An illustrative example of how second-order categories and aggregate dimensions emerged.
Table 1
Definitions for the aggregate dimensions.
Aggregate dimensions Definitions
Managerial Actions Actions through which managers influence the implementation process. These actions are used by managers to communicate, adopt, and
enact a strategy or a strategic initiative.
Conditions Conditions represent dimensions of the emergent state that result from managerial actions and define three critical components required for
SI effectiveness. These conditions explain how managerial actions ultimately impact SI effectiveness.
Dynamic Managerial
Capabilities
The underlying managerial capability to create the best possible combination of conditions by enacting the most appropriate managerial
actions.
Fig. 2. An introductory framework of strategy implementation effectiveness.
A. Tawse and P. Tabesh European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
4
4. Synthesis of findings
In the reporting stage of our systematic review, the associated
second-order categories within each of the aggregate dimensions
presented in Fig. 2 are explained and the theoretical relationships
between them are discussed.
4.1. Managerial actions in support of strategy implementation
The focus of prior work has been the identification of a broad
range of factors through which managers at different levels of the
organization contribute to the successful implementation of busi-
ness strategies. We capture these factors as the first dimension of
our framework and define them as ‘managerial actions’used to
communicate, adopt, and enact a strategy or a strategic initiative
(Greer et al., 2017;Noble, 1999;Radaelli &Sitton-Kent, 2016;Smith,
2011). In the extant literature, managerial actions are often referred
to as “levers”(e.g., Hambrick &Cannella, 1989)or“tools”(e.g., Guth
&MacMillan, 1986) that involve activities such as the arrangement
of organizational structure, the application of policies, controls, and
reward systems, and various forms of communication and inter-
personal interaction within and across various levels of an orga-
nization. Based on our synthesis of previous work, managerial
actions can be organized into two broad categories: structural and
interpersonal (Noble, 1999).
4.1.1. Structural managerial actions
Research that takes a structural perspective investigates “the
effects of the formal organizational structure and control mecha-
nisms on implementation processes and outcomes”(Noble, 1999,p.
120). In its narrowest sense, structure represents the formal lines of
authority, responsibility, and communication (Chandler, 1962)or
the formal allocation and segmentation of work roles to control and
integrate work activity (Child, 1972;Galbraith &Nathanson, 1978).
The elements of structure in these terms tend to fall into degrees of
centralization and the format of reporting relationships that serve
as the foundation of contingency theory or “fit”between structure
and strategy (Galbraith &Nathanson, 1978). In a broader sense,
factors such as policies, procedures, controls, systems, and pro-
grams, are also included as structural forms of managerial action
that influence the SI process (e.g., Crittenden &Crittenden, 2008;
Hambrick &Cannella, 1989).
Prominent components of the structural view are the use of
goals (e.g., Sull, Turconi, Sull, &Yoder, 2018), visualization tools
(Eppler &Platts, 2009), and the Balanced Scorecard (e.g., Epstein &
Manzoni, 1998) that can help define responsibilities, plan and
monitor SI related activities, and causally link individual and group
activities to strategic objectives. In addition, our synthesis high-
lighted the importance of reward systems and policies as mana-
gerial actions that can have a significant impact on SI effectiveness.
Reward systems can be used to encourage SI supporting behavior
and recognize SI achievement (Hambrick &Cannella, 1989;
Mankins &Steele, 2005). Similarly, policies can “envelop a collec-
tive pattern of day-to-day decisions and actions”in order to guide
strategy supporting behavior and provide a level of consistency and
common understanding about strategic objectives (Crittenden &
Crittenden, 2008, p. 306). Some other impactful studies that
highlight the influence of structural managerial actions on SI
effectiveness include Brenes, Mena, and Molina (2007) and Beer,
Voelpel, Leibold, &Tekei (2005).
4.1.2. Interpersonal managerial actions
In addition to a supportive structure, SI effectiveness requires a
personal touch (Sull et al., 2015), and that can be provided through
interpersonal managerial actions. Unlike structural actions,
interpersonal managerial actions are formal or informal human
interactions (Skivington &Daft, 1991) that influence the feelings
and actions of others. Within this category, we include activities
such as “facilitating,”“championing,”“influencing,”“selling,”“dis-
cussing,”“coaching,”“team building,”and “supporting.”The core
interpersonal managerial action involved in all these activities is
communication, which, when ineffective, has been identified as the
number one barrier to SI (Heide, Grønhaug, &Johannessen, 2002)
and one of the six “silent killers”of effective SI (Beer &Eisenstat,
2000). Top down communication of strategic goals and priorities
improves organizational understanding of strategy, which in turn
positively impacts commitment to strategy and strategy imple-
mentation (Schaap, 2012) as well as the effective coordination of SI
supporting activities (Miller, 1997). In addition, effective top-down
communication is critical to SI when large-scale structural changes
are being made as part of the implementation process (Peng &
Litteljohn, 2001).
The importance of good communication to SI success is not only
top down, but also bottom up and across organizations. Raes et al.
(2011) present a model of the top management emiddle man-
agement interface that relies on the participative leadership of top
managers and the active engagement of middle managers to
effectively exchange important information about strategic objec-
tives and processes in order to achieve high implementation
quality. Managerial actions that promote effective communication
between functions also help clarify objectives and measures, which
improves the coordination of SI supporting tasks and enhances
information feedback loops that improve organizational learning
(Chesley &Wenger, 1999). Similarly, organizational learning, which
can positively impact SI effectiveness in a number of ways, can be
improved through interpersonal managerial actions that promote a
safe environment for employees to share errors and mistakes
(Argyris, 1989). As a final example, effective managerial commu-
nication can help develop consensus, or common understanding of
strategic goals (Noble, 1999;Rasoolimanesh, Jaafar, Badarulzaman,
&Ramayah, 2015). Top management teams that work to achieve a
common understanding about strategic goals are more likely to
gain the commitment of followers to achieve SI effectiveness
(Dooley, Fryxell, &Judge, 2000;Lane &Clewes, 2000) and SI
effectiveness is also improved when managers at different levels of
the organization perceive strategic goals in the same way (Ho, Wu,
&Wu, 2014;O’Reilly, Caldwell, Chatman, Lapiz, &Self, 2010). A
paper by Hambrick and Cannella (1989) captures the overall
importance of intraorganizational communication with a model of
effective SI that is focused on “selling”the strategy to everyone who
matters: “upward, downward, across, and outward”(Hambrick &
Cannella, 1989, p. 278). This supports the perspective that the
“implementation of strategic decisions is a complex and
demanding process that requires an open and lateral communica-
tion of free-flowing information to champion and make sense of a
firm’s intended changes”(Lampaki &Papadakis, 2018, p. 627).
4.2. Conditions of effective strategy implementation
In addition to the categorization of managerial actions, the
process of comparing and contrasting the factors related to SIE
allowed three conditions of SI effectiveness to emerge: competence,
commitment, and coordination. The conditions do not represent
actions taken by managers. Instead, they represent dimensions of
the emergent state that result from managerial actions and reflect
three critical components required for SIE. For example, managerial
structural actions, such as adjustment of a compensation system,
can impact SI effectiveness by improving the coordination of SI
tasks (by clarifying roles and responsibilities) and by increasing
commitment to carrying out those tasks.
A. Tawse and P. Tabesh European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
5
In this section, we discuss each of the three categories of con-
ditions and elaborate on their relationships with managerial ac-
tions by applying organizational theories and providing relevant
examples from the extant literature.
4.2.1. Competence
As it pertains to our framework, and drawing from competence-
based theories of the firm (e.g., Hamel, 1990;Sanchez &Heene,
1997), the condition of competence refers to the knowledge, skills,
and abilities required to execute tasks that support strategic ob-
jectives. These competencies are akin to “operational capabilities”
described by Helfat and Winter (2011) in that they are not dynamic
in nature. Instead, these competencies lie in the actions of organi-
zational members as they engage in the implementation of stra-
tegies. Operational competencies enable “repeated and reliable
performance of an activity”(Helfat &Winter 2011, p. 1244) and
determine the quality of SI task outcomes. This is also consistent
with assertions of the resource-based view, which theorizes that
the acquisition and configuration of tangible and intangible re-
sources create competencies that can generate competitive
advantage (e.g., Barney, 2001;Wernerfelt, 1984). For example, the
competency to negotiate contracts and conduct business in a
foreign language are critical to the effective implementation of a
global sourcing strategy (Petersen, Prayer, &Scannell, 2000) and
the competency to network is a basic requirement for the imple-
mentation of shared value strategies (Mühlbacher &B€
obel, 2019).
As such, the competency to carry out tasks –often referred to using
terms such as expertise, capability, and proficiency –required by a
strategy, is a basic condition of effective implementation.
Operational competency is a prominent theme within the SI
literature. For example, Othman (2007) emphasizes the importance
of using the right people, with the right skills, in the right place,
through structural actions such as use of the balanced scorecard in
conjunction with formal scenario planning, which allows an orga-
nization to better predict the capabilities required to deal with
future competitive contingencies. Organizational learning is also
highlighted as a means of improving SI competency (e.g., Beer,
2003;Lee &Puranam, 2016;Okumus, 2001). Organizational
learning can be impacted through structural actions such as the
formalization of communication channels and the application of
control systems and performance measurement tools (Douglas &
Judge, 2001;Kale &Singh, 2009). In addition, competency is the
key to implementation success that results from the managerial
development and interpersonal support for a non-blaming culture,
which helps create an “honest organization-wide conversation”
that improves information flow and feedback (Beer, 2003;Beer &
Eisenstat, 2004). Other studies that reinforce the importance of
competency to successful SI include Greer et al. (2017), who explore
SI from the perspective of human capital resources, and Moingeon,
Ramanantsoa, M
etais, and Orton (1998), who apply the resource
based view to highlight a framework that integrates the conceptsof
organizational competencies, capabilities, structure, and learning.
4.2.2. Commitment
A second condition of effective SI identified in our synthesis is
the commitment to implement strategy. In the context of SI,
commitment describes the extent to which organizational mem-
bers are determined to execute their implementation re-
sponsibilities and support strategic goals (Noble &Mokwa, 1999).
This is consistent with workplace commitment theory and the
conceptualization of commitment as “a force that binds an indi-
vidual to a course of action of relevance to a target”(Meyer &
Herscovitch, 2001, p. 299). In the case of SI, strategic goals serve
as the target and commitment serves as the motivational force
behind actions to support strategic goals. The importance of
commitment to SI success is highlighted throughout the literature
and is important to the process because, “implementation occurs
within a context of imperfect control where discretionary behav-
iors are critical”(Greer et al., 2017, p. 8). Commitment is often
analyzed as an explanatory variable (e.g., Devlin, 1989;Naidoo &
Wu, 2011;Noble &Mokwa, 1999;Thorpe &Morgan, 2007b), but
it has also been studied as a dependent variable (Barton &
Ambrosini, 2013;Ramaseshan, Ishak, &Rabbanee, 2013)
impacted by a variety of managerial actions.
Several studies have focused on the relationship between
interpersonal actions and the commitment to implement strategy.
For example, commitment can be improved through the facilitation
of broad-based input into the SI planning process (Barton &
Ambrosini, 2013;Wooldridge &Floyd, 1990) and participation of
middle managers in this process has been found to provide em-
ployees with a sense of importance and value, and demonstrates
procedural justice; all of which were found to foster a mindset of
commitment to implement strategy (Nutt, 1998). Structural actions
have also been found to improve commitment to SI. For example,
structures that include greater autonomy for employees have been
found to produce higher levels of commitment to SI than those that
with less autonomy (Cadwallader et al., 2010). Additionally,
changes to organizational structure can be used to clarify re-
sponsibilities, which improves the commitment of employees to
fulfill their SI roles (Noble &Mokwa, 1999).
4.2.3. Coordination
A third condition of effective implementation we identified is
coordination, which is defined as the “process of interaction that
integrates a collective set of interdependent tasks”(Okhuysen &
Bechky, 2009, p. 463). As a central purpose in organizations, coor-
dination is at the core of organizational design theory and is a key
source of organizational productivity and efficiency (Andres &
Zmud, 2002;Sirmon, Hitt, &Ireland, 2007). While commitment
addresses the problem of motivational alignment to reach common
strategic goals (an agency problem), coordination is focused on the
alignment of actions (Heath &Staudenmayer, 2000). Coordination
theory is critical to the effective design of SI processes and the
management of dependencies, tasks, and resources involved in the
process (Crowston, 1997).
Within the SI literature, coordination is addressed through a
wide variety of terminology such as, “interdependence,”or “col-
lective action,”as well as “accountability,”“predictability,”and
“common understanding,”the three integrative elements of coor-
dination identified by Okhuysen and Bechky (2009). Accountability
clarifies responsibility for carrying out specific tasks, predictability
determines the ease of anticipating subsequent tasks, and common
understanding represents the shared conception of tasks
(Okhuysen &Bechky, 2009).
In addition to the direct analysis of coordination, all three
integrative elements of effective coordination are widely applied
within the literature to explain why certain managerial actions
improve SI effectiveness. For example, structural managerial ac-
tions, such as the arrangement of reporting structure and the
assignment of roles and responsibilities, can improve the coordi-
nation of tasks by providing accountability and transparency to the
SI process (Hrebiniak, 2006;Pryor, Anderson, Toombs, &
Humphreys, 2007). At the same time, the clarification of roles
and responsibilities also helps SI effectiveness by improving the
predictability of actions that will be taken in the future (Grant,
1996). Also, performance control systems, such as the Balanced
Scorecard, impact successful SI by clarifying accountability and
creating common understanding of responsibilities throughout the
organization (Atkinson, 2006). Similarly, transparent goal-setting
policies can be used to improve SI effectiveness by highlighting
A. Tawse and P. Tabesh European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
6
redundancy, improving common understanding, and providing
visible criteria for making decisions; all of which support improved
coordination (Sull et al., 2018).
Interpersonal managerial actions, such as the communication of
information, can improve SI effectiveness by positively impacting
the coordination of work within and across levels (Greer et al.,
2017). Examples include vertical communication, through which
strategic goals and implementation plans are clarified and shared
(e.g., Miller, 1997;Rapert, Velliquette, &Garretson, 2002) or hori-
zontal communication, which helps coordinate interdependent
tasks between departments (Chimhanzi &Morgan, 2005). In
addition, a consistent message coming from the top management
team not only reinforces commitment but also helps develop
common understanding so that work across the organization will
be better aligned to support strategy (Roth, Schweiger, &Morrison,
1991 ). As a final example, a study performed by Thorpe and Morgan
(2007a) found that both top-down structure and bottom-up
interpersonal actions impacted SI effectiveness by coordinating
the efforts of middle managers.
To summarize, we used theories such as competence theories of
the firm, the resource-based view, workplace commitment theory,
and coordination theory to introduce the conditions of SIE, which
provide a theoretical backbone to the SI process by explaining how
managerial actions impact SI effectiveness. Logic in support of the
three conditions of effective SI can also be drawn from the meta-
phor of a football team. The three conditions describe the skills of
the players (i.e. competencies), their drive to execute the system or
game plan (i.e., commitment), and their level of teamwork (i.e., co-
ordination). All three conditions are required in sufficient measure
to effectively execute the strategy, as a shortfall in any one of them
will result in some form of execution failure.
4.3. Dynamic managerial capabilities
So far, our framework includes two dimensions of managerial
actions and three conditions through which managerial actions
determine SI effectiveness. However, our synthesis uncovered one
additional dimension of the SI process: the underlying managerial
capabilities to create the best possible combination of conditions by
enacting the most appropriate managerial actions. In order to
better organize and understand the evidence that emerged in our
synthesis regarding managerial capability, we integrated the theory
of dynamic managerial capability (Helfat &Martin, 2015;Helfat &
Peteraf, 2015).
In general, dynamic capability theory is relevant to the SI pro-
cess because it addresses a firm’s ability to reconfigure its compe-
tencies (Teece, Pisano, &Shuen, 1997), and “fills the gap between
intention and outcome, …in such a way that the outcome bears a
resemblance to what was intended”(Dosi, Nelson, &Winter 2000,
p. 2). This aligns well with the definition of SI effectiveness, which is
“the extent to which an organization’s actions correspond to its
strategic intentions”(Lee &Puranam, 2016, p. 1529). Dynamic
managerial capability (DMC) is an offshoot of dynamic capability
theory and “helps to explain the relationship between the quality of
managerial decisions, strategic change, and organizational perfor-
mance”(Helfat &Martin, 2015, p. 1281). DMC theory is germane to
SI because it addresses the process of organizational reconfigura-
tion and helps explain why some firms develop the conditions of SI
more effectively than others. DMC theory places the focus of dy-
namic capability on managers at different levels of the organization
who have control over the managerial actions of SI and are
responsible for the success or failure of implementation efforts
(e.g., Greer et al., 2017;Hambrick &Cannella, 1989;Hrebiniak,
2006;Nutt, 1986). Thus, DMC theory is a critical element of the SI
process because it helps explain capability differences between
firms that impact the effective selection and execution of the most
appropriate managerial actions. DMC is broken down into three
categories: managerial cognition, managerial social capital, and
managerial human capital (Adner &Helfat, 2003;Helfat &Martin,
2015;Helfat &Peteraf, 2015). Our review shows that the level of
managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital, enacted
through managerial actions, determine the level of competence,
commitment, and coordination achieved.
4.3.1. Managerial cognition
Managerial cognition consists of “knowledge structures”that
determine how managers understand the implications of different
choices (Garbuio, King, &Lovallo, 2011). Therefore, managerial
cognition determines how well managers anticipate and under-
stand the process through which available actions will impact SI
effectiveness. Within the extant literature, we found that mana-
gerial cognition is highlighted as a critical component of SI in a
number of ways. Singh (1998) finds a need for managers to have
“cognitive control,”which is required for effective implementation
monitoring, resource deployment, and adjustment of managerial
actions. In addition, managerial cognition represents a manager’s
understanding of how to effectively implement strategy and in-
cludes an awareness of the relationship between the managerial
actions of SI and the achievement of strategic goals (Grant, 1996;
Nutt, 1986). Sull (2007) describes this as a manager’s ability to make
sense of a situation, which is a critical component of the SI process.
It is also important for managers to have the ability to adjust their
decision-making type depending on the implementation feedback
they receive. For example, managers must know which actions will
most effectively overcome culture-related barriers or try to mold
culture to better fit with strategy implementation goals (Bates,
Amundson, Schroeder, &Morris, 1995;Lane &Clewes, 2000).
4.3.2. Managerial social capital
In addition to understanding how managerial choices impact the
SI process, evidence suggests that managers must have the neces-
sary social capital to influence others. Managerial social capital
“consists of goodwill derived from relationships, both formal and
informal, that managers have with others and can use to obtain
resources and information”(Helfat &Martin, 2015, p. 1286). Social
capital involves power and goodwill derived from relationships and
enables managers to take advantage of their cognitive ability (Blyler
&Coff, 2003). Effective and coordinated manipulation of organi-
zational resources comes from managers with the legitimacy and
credibility to initiate change. For example, Brenes et al. (2007)
found that companies that are successful at SI are more likely to
have a CEO who shows strong implementation leadership, is
personally present during the SI process, and actively facilitates the
process. Strong social capital not only allows managers to effec-
tively communicate strategy, but also enables them to relate to and
connect with the perspectives of key implementation personnel. If
such a connection is absent from managerial leadership, the socio-
emotional identities of other individuals and groups within an or-
ganization can take over and undermine the SI effort (Huy, 2011).
4.3.3. Managerial human capital
The third dimension of DMC is managerial human capital, which
focuses on the knowledge, education, experience, and skills of
managers (Helfat &Martin, 2015;Hitt &Ireland, 2002;Wright,
Coff, &Moliterno, 2014). The level of human capital has been
found to moderate the relationship between strategy and perfor-
mance (Hitt, Biermant, Shimizu, &Kochhar, 2001) and evidence
about the impact of human capital on the SI process was found
within several studies that investigated the relationship between
various types of managerial experience and SI success (e.g., Bryson
A. Tawse and P. Tabesh European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
7
&Bromiley, 1993;Govindarajan, 1989;Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015).
For example, Govindarajan (1989) showed that general manager
research and development experience positively influenced the
implementation of a differentiation strategy but negatively
impacted the implementation of a cost leadership strategy. In
addition, general manager manufacturing experience was benefi-
cial to the implementation of a low-cost strategy but had a negative
effect on the implementation of a differentiation strategy. Finally,
managerial planning expertise and process management skills
(Bryson &Bromiley, 1993)aswellasfinancial management profi-
ciency (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015), have been found to signifi-
cantly impact SI effectiveness.
Combined, the three components of DMC determine how well
managers can gather information, understand problems, and
effectively select and manipulate managerial actions to positively
influence the conditions of effective SI. Supported by DMC theory,
the dynamic managerial capability to implement strategy provides
a microfoundation as to why some firms can implement strategy
more effectively than others. The cognition, social capital, and hu-
man capital of managers, individually and collectively, at all levels
of management, differ between firms. These differences provide
variance between organizations in terms of their understanding of
how managerial actions impact the conditions of effective SI, the
types of actions chosen, and the achievable level of impact that
managerial actions can have on the conditions of effective SI. Or-
ganizations with superior DMC will be better able to predict the
impact of managerial actions and will be able to select and apply
managerial actions more efficiently and effectively.
5. Discussion
Strategy implementation effectiveness is a critical element of
organizational performance and a necessary antecedent to the
evaluation of the quality of formulated strategies (Bonoma, 1984;
Lee &Puranam, 2016). However, like the proverb of the blind men
and the elephant, SI research has been limited to the investigation
of individual parts of the overall animal that researchers are trying
to understand. The result is a field characterized by broad scope but
shallow depth that provides “little clarity as to what comprises this
necessary cornerstone of a capable organization”(Crittenden &
Crittenden, 2008, p. 301).
To address these shortcomings, we performed a detailed syn-
thesis of the strategy implementation literature and undertook an
iterative and abductive process to compare and contrast extant
findings, organize findings into meaningful categories, and identify
relationships between categories. The outcome of our work was the
emergence of an introductory framework comprised of the re-
lationships among three integrated dimensions. Our framework
builds upon previous work focused on a variety of structural and
interpersonal managerial actions (Noble, 1999) to identify three
conditions of SI effectiveness and three components of the dynamic
managerial capability to effectively select and carry out managerial
actions that create the necessary conditions of SI effectiveness.
5.1. Theoretical implications
Our primary contribution is the introduction of a strategy
implementation process framework that reveals the outline of the
proverbial “elephant”that represents the field of strategy imple-
mentation research. By organizing the valuable but fragmented
extant research into three aggregate dimensions and proposing
how the dimensions relate to each other, we gain a more nuanced
understanding of the process through which managerial actions are
selected and the way they influence strategy implementation
effectiveness. Thus, our framework serves as a foundation on which
to build a more structured, organized, and detailed examination of
the relationships between constructs that impact SI effectiveness.
The proposed framework advances the strategy implementation
process research in two important ways.
First, the identification of three conditions of SI effectiveness
provides clarity to conceptualization of the construct and serves as
a theoretical bridge between managerial actions and the effective
implementation of strategy. The implication is that, given the same
strategy and resources, a firm will improve its competitive advan-
tage over competitors by reaching higher levels of competence,
commitment, and coordination within its strategy implementation
process. In addition, by outlining the three conditions of SIE, our
work paves the way for better measurement of this important
construct. These conditions allow researchers to remove SIE from
the black box within which it has been constrained and evaluate it
independently of strategy formulation and firm performance. As
noted earlier, the lack of independency among elements of strategy
formulation, strategy implementation, and firm performance, has
plagued theoretical rigor in previous studies (Miller, Washburn, &
Glick, 2013) and introduced issues of tautology (Lee &Puranam,
2016). Moving away from tautological views, the three proposed
conditions emerged from our work may provide a possible proxy
for the measurement of SI effectiveness as an independent
construct.
Second, our work improves the theoretical understanding of
strategy implementation process by identifying and positioning
dynamic managerial capability as the microfoundation of effective
SI. This supports the view that managers at different levels of the
organization control the managerial actions of SI and are ultimately
responsible for the success or failure of implementation efforts
(e.g., Greer et al., 2017;Hambrick &Cannella, 1989;Hrebiniak,
2006;Nutt, 1986). Thus, while the conditions determine the level
of SI effectiveness, the combined level of managerial cognition,
social capital, and human capital, enacted through managerial ac-
tions, determine the level of commitment, capability and coordi-
nation achieved. By extension, we have introduced a theoretical
foundation and explanation for SI effectiveness heterogeneity be-
tween firms. In addition, by differentiating between two different
forms of capabilities (DMCs vs. competences) our work sheds light
on two important forms of SI-related capability. First, SI effective-
ness requires “competence”as a condition to execute tasks that
support the execution of strategy. For instance, in order to effec-
tively implement a cost leadership strategy, a firm must have the
expertise to operate more efficiently than competitors. Second, a
firm must also have the dynamic managerial capability to develop
and maintain that competence, as well as the commitment and
coordination of tasks that support a low-cost strategy. Thus, orga-
nizational capability lives at the heart of SI effectiveness, both in
terms of operational competence to execute strategy and the dy-
namic capability of managers to effectively select and execute the
managerial actions that influence the conditions of SIE.
5.2. Implications for managers
Because of the shortfall in implementation effectiveness,
“companies typically realize only about 60% of their strategy’s po-
tential value”(Mankins &Steele, 2005, p. 123). Our framework of SI
effectiveness can help managers improve this rate of return in a
number of ways. First, the identification of three necessary condi-
tions of SI effectiveness helps clarify the goals of an effective
implementation process. Since companies typically struggle with
finding specific ways to achieve SI effectiveness (Hitt et al., 2017;
Okumus, 2003), the clarification of conditions provides additional
guidance that enables managers to better identify implementation
deficiencies and devise proper interventions. For example, if a
A. Tawse and P. Tabesh European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
8
company is experiencing implementation failure, managers can
focus their efforts on identifying the problem in terms of a shortfall
in competence, commitment and coordination. This will help them
to identify the most appropriate managerial actions and speed up
the process of improving SIE.
Second, the identification of DMC as the foundation for SI suc-
cess reinforces the responsibility of strategic leaders and managers
to understand that they must not only know how to implement
strategy effectively (have the cognitive skill to select an effective
managerial action), but they must also have the necessary social
capital to effectively influence others and the requisite human
capital to deal with firm-specific contingencies associated with the
implementation process. This has significant implications for
managerial training and hiring practices. If improved SI effective-
ness is the goal, more emphasis should be put on hiring or devel-
oping a team of managers that have the requisite cognitive skills,
social capital, and human capital to identify and execute effective
managerial actions in pursuit of organizational competence,
commitment and coordination. In addition, similar to the advan-
tage of knowing the conditions of effective SI, managers will benefit
from their awareness about the three underlying dynamic capa-
bilities that contribute to SI process and use that knowledge to
identify managerial shortcomings more efficiently and effectively.
5.3. Recommendations for future research
As part of our review and synthesis of SI research and reflection
upon the framework that emerged, we identified four areas of
future research that would further enhance our understanding of
the factors that contribute to SI effectiveness:
5.3.1. Empirical evaluation of the framework
Given the introductory nature of our work, the relationships
between elements within the framework need to be tested. In
particular, the independence of the three conditions of SI effec-
tiveness needs to be scrutinized. This is because there is evidence to
suggest that a change in one condition impacts another. For
example, SI competence has been found to improve the coordina-
tion of work (Bryson &Bromiley, 1993;Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015)
and an increase in top management team commitment has been
found to be positively related to increased organizational compe-
tence to implement strategy (Petersen et al., 2000). These types of
relationships imply that there are significant spillover effects be-
tween conditions. A more thorough understanding of these effects
would be highly valuable to researchers and practitioners and allow
for more detailed models to emerge.
5.3.2. Adoption of a more fine-grained approach towards the level
of analysis
Strategy implementation research would greatly benefit from a
better understanding of levels of analysis. Our synthesis uncovered
three dimensions of SI conditions, however, the existing findings
have not produced enough evidence regarding the organizational
level in which these conditions must be present in order to achieve
SI effectiveness. The existing evidence suggests that commitment
to strategic goals is critical within the ranks of top managers (e.g.,
Dooley et al., 2000;Lane &Clewes, 2000) and middle managers
(e.g., Barton &Ambrosini, 2013;Wooldridge &Floyd, 1990), but
does not directly speak to whether or not it is also a requirement
among operational level employees. The same applies to our un-
derstanding of SI competence and the coordination, which would
benefit from a fine-grained analysis of how these constructs apply
within and between levels of the organization.
Similarly, the field would benefit from a greater understanding
of how the variance of DMC within the top management team and
middle manager ranks impacts SI effectiveness. Although success-
ful SI involves the engagement of managers at all levels of an or-
ganization (Greer et al., 2017;Lampaki &Papadakis, 2018), top and
mid-level managers have different responsibilities regarding the SI
process and varying levels of control in terms of the actions they
can undertake. Because of these differences, successful top man-
agers most likely require a different set of cognitive skills than
middle managers, who bridge the gap between strategy formula-
tion and implementation (Floyd &Wooldridge, 1992;Guth &
MacMillan, 1986). In this sense, middle managers serve sense-
making and sensegiving roles as “interpreters and sellers of stra-
tegic change”(Rouleau, 2005, p. 1413). These differences in
cognitive capability requirements, in addition to possible differ-
ences in social and human capital requirements, need to be fleshed
out and better understood. In addition, since top-level and mid-
level managers influence each other, the interface between levels
of management needs to be further explored. A starting point for
this work could be the theoretical model proposed by Raes et al.
(2011), which outlines how various elements of the top manager
emiddle manager interface work together to influence SI
effectiveness.
5.3.3. Integration of strategic paradigms
We encourage more work on the integration of strategic the-
ories and paradigms related to SI. Our work was mainly centered on
the specificfield of strategy implementation, but as Noble (1999:
p.131) stated, “strategy implementation is a multifaceted and
complex organizational process,”and there are several other
managerial paradigms that overlap with this field in content and
focus. For example, there is a rich literature on organizational
control structures (e.g., Eisenhardt, 1985;Ouchi, 1980) that could
provide greater detail on the way structural managerial actions can
improve the conditions of effective SI. Another example is the
investigation of possible overlaps between the literature on stra-
tegic human capital and SI. The development and deployment of
human capital vis-
a-vis SI effectiveness is the focus of research by
Lorange (1998) and Greer et al. (2017), in which the authors make
the case that firms must “retain high quality human capital in order
to implement the firm’s strategies”(Greer et al., 2017, p. 14). This
approach highlights the importance of the human capital dimen-
sion of DMC and has implications for more detailed understanding
of the condition of competency that was introduced in our work.
Additional strategic paradigms that overlap with the SI process
include temporal aspects of the strategy implementation process,
organizational development and change, and organizational design
theory. For example, strategy process research investigates the
development of strategy over time with an emphasis on chains of
causality (Langley, 2007;Pettigrew, 1992). Thus, methods deployed
within strategy process research may provide additional value to
the framework in terms of how SI effectiveness temporally unfolds
and further improve our understanding about the temporal chain
of causality between DMC, managerial actions, and the conditions
of effective SI. Organizational development and change analyzes
the nature of change as well as the impact of environmental ele-
ments such as organizational culture and learning (e.g., March,
1981;Müller &Kunisch, 2018;Weick &Quinn, 1999). As dis-
cussed in the limitations section, there are strong indications that
contingency factors (e.g. organizational culture or the competitive
environment) play an important role in the SI process and more
research on these types of relationships is required. In addition,
organizational politics are shown to significantly influence the
process of strategy implementation (Kapoutsis &Thanos, 2019). For
example, it has been reported that political behavior reduces
comprehensiveness of implementation efforts (Elbanna &Fadol,
2016) and limits SI success (Lampaki &Papadakis, 2018). Finally,
A. Tawse and P. Tabesh European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
9
research on organizational design theory (e.g., Galbraith, 1977;
Thompson, 1967), which some believe has naively fallen out of
favor (Heath &Staudenmayer, 20 00), could provide further insights
regarding structural managerial actions and their impact on orga-
nizational coordination.
5.3.4. Focused attention on strategy implementation processes
Finally, our work has important implications for strategy pro-
cess research. Research in this area investigates the processes
through which business strategies are formulated and imple-
mented (Elbanna, 2006), however, the implementation processes
have traditionally received far less attention (Hutzschenreuter &
Kleindienst, 2006). Because the quality of implementation pro-
cesses contributes to the effectiveness of implementation and firm-
level outcomes (Elbanna, Thanos, &Colak, 2015), a better under-
standing of the many factors that contribute to implementation
process should be at the center of attention in future strategy
process research.
5.4. Limitations
The primary limitation of our work is that it involved the anal-
ysis of a collection of studies that, while valuable, is fragmented and
generally lacks theoretical underpinnings. For that reason, we
deem the framework that emerged to be introductory in nature, in
that the accuracy and strength of the relationships we identify
require further scrutiny and examination. In addition, findings
within existing SI research did not allow us to make an informed
conclusion about the role of contingency factors that influence the
relationship between the dimensions of our proposed framework.
However, it is important to recognize that the SI process does not
happen in a vacuum, and environmental factors, both within and
outside of organizations, have been found to influence the SI pro-
cess. For example, internal environmental contingencies, such as
organizational politics (Kapoutsis &Thanos, 2019;Lampaki &
Papadakis, 2018) and individual and group identities (e.g., Huy,
2011;Smith, 2011), as well as external contingencies, such as in-
dustry dynamism (e.g., Eisenhardt &Sull, 2012;Sull, 2007), have
been found to impact the relationship between managerial actions
and SI effectiveness. In addition, factors such as organizational slack
(Bourgeois &Brodwin, 1984), past performance (Elbanna et al.,
2015), stakeholder uncertainty (Elbanna et al., 2016), front-line
employee’s perceived external reputation (Schaarschmidt, 2016),
and organizational size (Sashittal &Wilemon, 1996) have also been
found to influence the SI process. Finally, strategy type has also
been found to influence various factors within the SI process (e.g.,
Andrews et al., 2011;Olson, Slater, Hult, &Olson, 2018).
The limitations of our review and the breadth of options for
future research on the strategy implementation process highlight
the many opportunities that exist within this vitally important but
not well-understood area of research. The complex and interdis-
ciplinary nature of SI provides an opportunity for collaboration
between scholars from different disciplines that can lead to the
discovery of new insights into why some firms implement strate-
gies more effectively than others. We hope that our framework
paves the way for future research to empirically explore how the
constellation of constructs works together to impact the effective
implementation of business strategies.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.09.005.
References
Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capa-
bilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011e1025.
Amoo, N., Hiddlestone-Mumford, J., Ruzibuka, J., & Akwei, C. (2019). Conceptual-
izing and measuring strategy implementation: A multidimensional view. Stra-
tegic Change, 28(6), 445e467.
Andres, H. P., & Zmud, R. W. (2002). A contingency approach to software project
coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 41e70.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Strategy implementation
and public service performance. Administration &Society, 43(6), 643e671.
Argyris, C. (1989). Strategy implementation: An experience in learning. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 18(2), 5e15.
Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: A role for the balanced scorecard?
Management Decision, 44(10), 1441e1460.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year
retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6),
643e650.
Barton, L. C., & Ambrosini, V. (2013). The moderating effect of organizational change
cynicism on middle manager strategy commitment. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 24(4), 721e74 6.
Bates, K. A., Amundson, S. D., Schroeder, R. G., & Morris, W. T. (1995). The crucial
interrelationship between manufacturing strategy and organizational culture.
Management Science, 41(10), 1565e1580.
Beer, M. (2003). Why total quality management programs do not persist: The role of
management quality and implications for leading a TQM transformation. De-
cision Sciences, 34(4), 623e642.
Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (2000). The silent killers of strategy implementation and
learning. MIT Sloan Management Review, 41(4), 29.
Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (2004). How to have an honest conversation about your
business strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 82e89, 123.
Beer, M., Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2005). Strategic management as
organizational learning: Developing fit and alignment through a disciplined
process. Long Range Planning, 38(5), 445e465.
Blyler, M., & Coff, R. W. (2003). Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent
appropriation: Ties that split pies. Strategic Management Journal, 24(7),
677e686.
Bonoma, T. V. (1984). Making your marketing strategy work. Harvard Business Re-
view, 62(2), 69e76.
Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational
research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991e1013.
Bourgeois, L. J., & Brodwin, D. R. (1984). Strategic implementation: Five approaches
to an elusive phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 241e264.
Brenes, E. R., Mena, M., & Molina, G. E. (20 07). Key success factors for strategy
implementation in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 590e598.
Bryson, J. M., & Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical factors affecting the planning and
implementation of major projects. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5),
319e337.
Cadwallader, S., Jarvis, C. B., Bitner, M. J., & Ostrom, A. L. (2010). Frontline employee
motivation to participate in service innovation implementation. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 219e239.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American
enterprise. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chesley, J. A., & Wenger, M. S. (1999). Transforming an organization: Using models
to foster a strategic conversation. California Management Review, 41(3), 54e73.
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of
strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1e22.
Chimhanzi, J., & Morgan, R. E. (2005). Explanations from the marketing/human
resources dyad for marketing strategy implementation effectiveness in service
firms. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 787e796.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a
corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173e208.
Crittenden, V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2008). Building a capable organization: The
eight levers of strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 51(4), 301e309.
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organi-
zational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 47(6), 1154e1191.
Crowston, K. (1997). A coordination theory approach to organizational process
design. Organization Science, 8(2), 157e175.
de Oliveira, C. A., Carneiro, J., & Esteves, F. (2019). Conceptualizing and measuring
the “strategy execution”construct. Journal of Business Research, 105,333e344.
Devlin, G. (1989). How to implement a winning strategy. European Management
Journal, 7(3), 377e383.
Dooley, R. S., Fryxell, G. E., & Judge, W. Q. (2000). Belaboring the not-so-obvious:
Consensus, commitment, and strategy implementation speed and success.
Journal of Management, 26(6), 1237e1257.
Dosi, G., Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (2000). The nature and dynamics of organizational
capabilities. New York: Oxford University Press.
Douglas, T. J., & Judge, W. Q. (2001). Total quality management implementation and
competitive advantage: The role of structural control and exploration. Academy
of Management Journal, 44(1), 158e169.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly,514e539.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches.
A. Tawse and P. Tabesh European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
10
Management Science, 31(2), 134e149.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Sull, D. N. (2012). Simple rules for a complex world. Harvard
Business Review,1e8.
Elbanna, S. (2006). Strategic decision-making: Process perspectives. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 1e20.
Elbanna, S., Andrews, R., & Pollanen, R. (2016). Strategic planning and imple-
mentation success in public service organizations: Evidence from Canada.
Public Management Review, 18(7), 1017e104 2.
Elbanna, S., & Fadol, Y. (2016). An analysis of the comprehensive implementation of
strategic plans in emerging economies: The United Arab Emirates as a case
study. European Management Review, 13(2), 75e89.
Elbanna, S., Thanos, I., & Colak, M. (2015). An exploratory study of the determinants
of the quality of strategic decision implementation in Turkish industrial firms.
Journal of General Management, 40(2), 27e46.
Eppler, M. J., & Platts, K. W. (2009). Visual strategizing: The systematic use of
visualization in the strategic-planning process. Long Range Planning, 42(1),
42e74.
Epstein, M., & Manzoni, J.-F. (1998). Implementing corporate strategy:: From
Tableaux de Bord to balanced scorecards. European Management Journal, 16(2),
190e203.
Finnegan, D. J., & Currie, W. L. (2010). A multi-layered approach to CRM imple-
mentation: An integration perspective. European Management Journal, 28(2),
153e167.
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1992). Middle management involvement in strategy
and its association with strategic type: A research note. Strategic Management
Journal, 13(S1), 153e167.
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
Galbraith, J. R., & Nathanson, D. A. (1978). Strategy implementation: The role of
structure and process. St. Paul: MN: West Pub. Co.
Garbuio, M., King, A. W., & Lovallo, D. (2011). Looking inside psychological in-
fluences on structuring a firm’s portfolio of resources. Journal of Management,
37(5), 1444e1463.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and
strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence.
Organization Science, 5(3), 363e383.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Govindarajan, V. (1988). A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the
business-unit level: Integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy.
Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 828e853.
Govindarajan, V. (1989). Implementing competitive strategies at the business unit
level: Implications of matching managers to strategies. Strategic Management
Journal, 10(3), 251e269.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Orga-
nizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4),
375e387.
Greer, C., Lusch, R., & Hitt, M. (2017). A service perspective for human capital re-
sources: A critical base for strategy implementation. Academy of Management
Perspectives.
Guth, W. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (1986). Strategy implementation versus middle
management self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7(4), 313e327.
Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (1989). Strategy implementation as substance and
selling. The Academy of Management Executive, 3(4), 278e285.
Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,
68(3), 79e91.
Heath, C., & Staudenmayer, N. (2000). Coordination neglect: How lay theories of
organizing complicate coordination in organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 22,153e191.
Heide, M., Grønhaug, K., & Johannessen, S. (2002). Exploring barriers to the suc-
cessful implementation of a formulated strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Man-
agement, 18(2), 217e231.
Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015). Dynamic managerial capabilities review and
assessment of managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of Management,
Article 0149206314561301.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the
microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6),
831e850.
Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities:
Strategy for the (N) ever-changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11),
1243e1250.
Herrmann, P., & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Managing strategic change: The duality of CEO
personality. Strategic Management Journal, 35(9), 1318e1342.
Hitt, M. A., Biermant, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and moderating
effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service
firms: A resource-based perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1),
13e28.
Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, D. (2002). The essence of strategic leadership: Managing
human and social capital. Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies, 9(1),
3e14.
Hitt, M. A., Jackson, S. E., Carmona, S., Bierman, L., Shalley, C. E., & Wright, M. (2017).
The oxford handbook of strategy implementation. New York, NY: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Hlady-Rispal, M., & Jouison-Laffitte, E. (2014). Qualitative research methods and
epistemological frameworks: A review of publication trends in entrepreneur-
ship. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(4), 594e614.
Hlady-Rispal, M., & Servantie, V. (2018). Deconstructing the way in which value is
created in the context of social entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 20(1), 62e80.
Ho, J. L., Wu, A., & Wu, S. Y. (2014). Performance measures, consensus on strategy
implementation, and performance: Evidence from the operational-level of or-
ganizations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(1), 38e58.
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2006). Obstacles to effective strategy implementation. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 35(1), 12e31.
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Kleindienst, I. (2006). Strategy-process research: What have
we learned and what is still to be explored. Journal of Management, 32(5),
673e720.
Huy, Q. N. (2011). How middle managers’group-focus emotions and social identi-
ties influence strategy implementation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13),
1387e1410.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and prac-
tices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529e560.
Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2009). Managing strategic alliances: What do we know now,
and where do we go from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3),
45e62.
Kapoutsis, I., & Thanos, I. C. (2019). Politics in organizations: Lessons, challenges and
future directions. European Management Journal, 37(3), 245e250.
Kastanakis, M., Robinson, S., Tsalavoutas, Y., Fernando, M., Jonczyk, C., Stettner, U.,
et al. (2019). Making a difference: Thoughts on management scholarship from
the editorial team. European Management Journal, 37(3), 245e250.
Lampaki, A., & Papadakis, V. (2018). The impact of organisational politics and trust
in the top management team on strategic decision implementation success: A
middle-manager’s perspective. European Management Journal, 36(5), 627e637.
Lane, S., & Clewes, D. (2000). The implementation of marketing planning: A case
study in gaining commitment at 3M (UK) abrasives. Journal of Strategic Mar-
keting, 8(3), 225e239.
Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization,
5(3), 271e282.
Langley, A., & Abdallah, C. (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of
strategy and management. In G. B. Dagnino, & M. C. Cinici (Eds.), Research
Methods for strategic management: 201-235. New York, NY: Taylor &Francis.
Lee, E., & Puranam, P. (2016). The implementation imperative: Why one should
implement even imperfect strategies perfectly. Strategic Management Journal,
37(8), 1529e1546.
Lorange, P. (1998). Strategy implementation: The new realities. Long Range Planning,
31(1), 18e29.
Mankins, M. C., & Steele, R. (2005). Turning great strategy into great performance.
Harvard Business Review, 2607.
March, J. G. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 563e577.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a
general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299e326.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process.New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Miller, S. (1997). Implementing strategic decisions: Four key success factors. Orga-
nization Studies, 18(4), 577e602.
Moingeon, B., Ramanantsoa, B., M
etais, E., & Orton, J. D. (1998). Another look at
strategyeStructure relationships:: The resource-Based view. European Man-
agement Journal, 16(3), 297e305.
Mühlbacher, H., & B€
obel, I. (2019). From zero-sum to win-win-Organisational
conditions for successful shared value strategy implementation. European
Management Journal, 37(3), 313e324.
Müller, J., & Kunisch, S. (2018). Central perspectives and debates in strategic change
research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 457e482.
Naidoo, V., & Wu, T. (2011). Marketing strategy implementation in higher educa-
tion: A mixed approach for model development and testing. Journal of Mar-
keting Management, 27(11e12), 1117e1141.
Neilson, G. L., Martin, K. L., & Powers, E. (2008). The secrets to successful strategy
execution. Harvard Business Review, 86(6).
Noble, C. H. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. Journal
of Business Research, 45(2), 119e134.
Noble, C. H., & Mokwa, M. P. (1999). Implementing marketing strategies: Devel-
oping and testing a managerial theory. Journal of Marketing,57e73.
Nutt, P. C. (1986). Tactics of implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2),
230e261.
Nutt, P. C. (1998). Leverage, resistance and the success of implementation ap-
proaches. Journal of Management Studies, 35(2), 213e240.
O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., Lapiz, M., & Self, W. (2010). How
leadership matters: The effects of leaders’alignment on strategy implementa-
tion. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 104e113 .
Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. (2009). Coordination in organizations: An inte-
grative perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 463e502.
Okumus, F. (2001). Towards a strategy implementation framework. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(7), 327e338.
Okumus, F. (2003). A framework to implement strategies in organizations. Man-
agement Decision, 41(9), 871e882.
Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Olson, K. M. (2018). The application of
human resource management policies within the marketing organization: The
impact on business and marketing strategy implementation. Industrial Mar-
keting Management, 69,62e73.
Othman, R. (2007). Enhancing the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard with
A. Tawse and P. Tabesh European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
11
scenario planning. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Man-
agement, 57(3), 259e266.
Ott, D. L., & Michailova, S. (2018). Cultural intelligence: A review and new research
avenues. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 99e119.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science
Quarterly,129e141.
Papadakis, V., Thanos, I., & Barwise, P. (2010). Research on strategic decisions:
Taking stock and looking ahead. In P. Nutt, & D. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of
decision making: 31-69. UK: Joh Wiley &Sons Ltd.
Peng, W., & Litteljohn, D. (2001). Organisational communication and strategy
implementation-a primary inquiry. International Journal of Contemporary Hos-
pitality Management, 13(7), 360e363.
Petersen, K. J., Prayer, D. J., & Scannell, T. V. (2000). An empirical investigation of
global sourcing strategy effectiveness. Journal of Supply Chain Management,
36(1), 29e38.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). The character and significance of strategy process research.
Strategic Management Journal, 13(S2), 5e16.
Pryor, M. G., Anderson, D., Toombs, L. A., & Humphreys, J. H. (2007). Strategic
implementation as a core competency: The 5P’s model. Journal of Management
Research, 7(1), 3e17.
Radaelli, G., & Sitton-Kent, L. (2016). Middle managers and the translation of new
ideas in organizations: A review of micro-practices and contingencies. Inter-
national Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3), 311e332.
Raes, A. M., Heijltjes, M. G., Glunk, U., & Roe, R. A. (2011). The interface of the top
management team and middle managers: A process model. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 36(1), 102e126.
Ramaseshan, B., Ishak, A., & Rabbanee, F. K. (2013). The role of marketing managers’
commitment and involvement in marketing strategy implementation. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 21(6), 465e483.
Rapert, M. I., Velliquette, A., & Garretson, J. A. (2002). The strategic implementation
process: Evoking strategic consensus through communication. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 55(4), 301e310.
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Badarulzaman, N., & Ramayah, T. (2015). Investi-
gating a framework to facilitate the implementation of city development
strategy using balanced scorecard. Habitat International, 46,156
e165.
Roth, K., Schweiger, D. M., & Morrison, A. J. (1991). Global strategy implementation
at the business unit level: Operational capabilities and administrative mecha-
nisms. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3), 369e402.
Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How
middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management
Studies, 42(7), 1413e14 41.
Sanchez, R., & Heene, A. (1997). Reinventing strategic management: New theory
and practice for competence-based competition. European Management Journal,
15(3), 303e317.
Sashittal, H. C., & Wilemon, D. (1996). Marketing implementation in small and
midsized industrial firms: An exploratory study. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 25(1), 67e78.
Schaap, J. I. (2012). Toward strategy implementation success: An empirical study of
the role of senior-level leaders in the Nevada gaming industry. UNLV Gaming
Research and Review Journal, 10(2), 2.
Schaarschmidt, M. (2016). Frontline employees’participation in service innovation
implementation: The role of perceived external reputation. European
Management Journal, 34(5), 540e549.
Singh, D. T. (1998). Incorporating cognitive aids into decision support systems: The
case of the strategy execution process. Decision Support Systems, 24(2), 145e163.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dy-
namic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of
Management Review, 32(1), 273e292.
Skivington, J. E., & Daft, R. L. (1991). A study of organizational framework and
process modalities for the implementation of business-level strategic decisions.
Journal of Management Studies, 28(1), 45e68.
Smith, B. D. (2011). Turf wars: What the intraorganisational conflict literature may
contribute to our understanding of marketing strategy implementation. Journal
of Strategic Marketing, 19(1), 25e42.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.
Sull, D. N. (2007). Closing the gap between strategy and execution. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 48(4), 30.
Sull, D., Homkes, R., & Sull, C. (2015). Why strategy execution unravelsdand what to
do about it. Harvard Business Review, 93(3), 57e66.
Sull, D., Turconi, S., Sull, C., & Yoder, J. (2018). Howto develop strategy forexecution.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(2), 130e135.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 509e533.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative
theory. London, UK: Transaction publishers.
Thorpe, E. R., & Morgan, R. E. (2007a). In pursuit of the “ideal approach”to suc-
cessful marketing strategy implementation. European Journal of Marketing,
41(5/6), 659e677.
Thorpe, E. R., & Morgan, R. E. (2007b). A role theoretic view of product-market
strategy execution: An investigation of mid-level marketing managers. Journal
of Strategic Marketing, 15(2e3), 223e236.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review.
British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207e222.
Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). The interplay between
theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1145e11 54 .
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social
research. NEw York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and
statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423e444.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual
Review of Psychology, 50(1), 361e386.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 5(2), 171e180.
Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5), 731e73 5.
Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W. (1990). The strategy process, middle management
involvement, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal,
11(3), 231e241.
Wright, P. M., Coff, R., & Moliterno, T. P. (2014). Strategic human capital crossing the
great divide. Journal of Management, 40(2), 353e370.
Yang, L., Sun, G., & Eppler, M. J. (2010). Making strategy work: A literature review on
the factors influencing strategy implementation. In P. Mazzola, &
F. W. Kellermanns (Eds.), Page 165-183. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub-
lishing, Inc.
A. Tawse and P. Tabesh European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
12
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal managerial actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to
implement; “COM” denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human
capital respectively. “SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness. ABDC 2019.
Supplementary Table S1. Summary of Conceptual Strategy Implementation-related Literature
Authors(s) Year ABDC
ranking Overview Framework
Theme* Contribution
Epstein and
Manzoni
1997 B The similarities of Balanced Score Card and Tableaux
de Bord are introduced and discussed vis-à-vis SI
S Describes the impact of the Balanced Scorecard and
Tableaux de Bord as important tools for SIE.
Mentzas 1997 A A theoretical model for the implementation of an
information systems strategy.
S, I, CRD Emphasizes the importance of structure and
interpersonal mechanisms in order to gain the
common understanding and coordination required for
effective implementation.
Lorange 1998 A A human resource approach to SI with a focus on team-
based, internally-generated growth.
S, I, CPT, MC,
MSC, MHC
Applies a new knowledge-based approach to long-
range planning that focusses on the roles for key
executive actors in the SI process.
Piercy 1998 A* Marketing focus: discusses paradigm shifts and
weakening of the marketing function in organizations.
S, CPT Marketing strategy formulation and implementation
should be linked to organizational processes and
capabilities.
Noble 1999(b) A A review of the SI literature structured to summarize
general perspectives on the topic. Research separated
into Structural Views and Interpersonal Views. The
paper includes summary tables of conceptual and
empirical work.
S, I Summarizes the "eclectic roots" of SI and organizes
previous work into a framework of managerial actions
that impact SI effectiveness. Actions are characterized
as structural (e.g. reporting structure and controls) or
interpersonal (e.g. communication and leadership) in
nature. Makes the case for additional research on the
impact of organizational culture, management style,
commitment, validated measures, and the need for
comprehensive conceptual models.
Zagotta and
Robinson
2002 B Discusses several key success factors for SI. S, I Highlights the importance of effective communication
and effective measurement of progress in the SI
process.
Meehan and
Baschera
2002 B Highlights the importance of communication and
control in SI.
S, I Emphasizes the importance of the employee-customer
link in implementing strategy in service industries.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal managerial actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to
implement; “COM” denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human
capital respectively. “SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness. ABDC 2019.
Authors(s) Year ABDC
ranking Overview Framework
Theme* Contribution
Beer 2003 A* Develops four propositions regarding the capacity of
senior leadership teams to implement a TQM
transformation strategy.
I, CRD, COM,
CPT, MC, MSC,
MHC
The quality of management is critical to the
implementation of a TQM strategy. Quality is defined
as the capacity of the senior team to develop
commitment, improve cross-functional skills and
team culture, and create a culture of open dialogue
about progress that enables learning.
Okumus 2003 B Proposes a framework of SI that categorizes
elements/factors into different groups depending on
their role and importance.
S, I, CRD, CPT,
MC, MSC, MHC
Reviews prior SI frameworks and proposes a new one
designed to capture the complexities of the process.
The framework is comprised of four categories:
Strategic Content, Strategic Context, Operational
Processes, and Outcomes. Operational processes
include 5 elements: Planning, Resources,
Communication, People, and Control.
Beer and Eisenstat 2004 A Provides a summary of key lessons learned about the
importance of "honest conversations" to effective SI.
I, CPT, MC, MSC,
MHC
Emphasizes the importance of honest conversations
that include data gathering, data driven decision
making, safe sharing of information and
p
rofessionally facilitated meetings.
Allio 2005 B A short, practical guide to implementing strategy from a
practitioner perspective.
S, R, CRD, COM,
MC
Provides a list of common stumbling blocks to SI, an
outline of the process, and ten practical guidelines to
effective SI.
Beer et al. 2005 A Contributes in four areas: 1) Provides an explanation of
several barriers to SI through 4 different theoretical
lenses, (2) Reiterates the six "silent killers" of effective
SI (see Beer & Eisenstat, 2000), (3) Proposes a model
of "organizational fitness," and (4) proposes a five step
process to develop organizational fitness.
S, I, CRD, COM,
CPT, MC, MSC,
MHC
The model of organizational fitness includes 4
dimensions: (1) Organizational levers that include
organizational principles and culture as well as
management processes, (2) Capabilities that include
coordination, communication, and commitment, (3)
Goals, which include objectives, and strategic tasks,
and (4) Learning loops that allow for the dynamic
adjustment of the entire system in order to achieve fit
between capabilities, environment, and strategic
objectives.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal managerial actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to
implement; “COM” denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human
capital respectively. “SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness. ABDC 2019.
Authors(s) Year ABDC
ranking Overview Framework
Theme* Contribution
Mankins and
Steele
2005 A Describes 7 rules for successful SI based on experience
working with consulting clients.
S, I, CRD, COM,
CPT, MC, MSC,
MHC
The 7 Rules include: Keep goals simple and easy to
communicate; challenge assumptions; speak the same
language; discuss resource deployments early;
identify priorities; continuously monitor performance;
and develop execution ability.
Atkinson 2006 B A review of the SI literature with a focus on the role of
the balanced scorecard to solve key problems associated
with the SI process.
S, I, CRD, COM,
CPT
It is argued that the balanced scorecard helps improve
communication, clarifies the role of middle managers,
and supports the integration of existing control
systems.
Sheehan 2006 B Provides an outline of 4 strategy execution levers that
work in concert to align strategy with actions.
S, I, CRD, COM,
CPT
The four levers are: Diagnostic Controls (key
performance indicators), Boundary Controls
(behaviors that are not allowed), Belief Controls
(vision and mission linked to emotional commitment
to SI), and Interactive Controls (feedback
mechanisms to maintain flexibility).
Sull 2007 A Introduction of a "strategy loop" that outlines how
managers in highly dynamic, fast-paced industries
should think about SI.
I, COM, MC,
MSC
The strategy loop is an interactive process that
consists of 4 major steps: Make Sense, Make Choices,
Make Things Happen, Make Revisions.
Othman 2007 B Argues that use of the balanced scorecard is enhanced
when combined with scenario planning.
S, COM, CPT Scenario planning enhances the use of the balanced
scorecard and SI by making it more reflective of
changes that may appear in the future.
Khadem 2008 B Highlights effective control mechanisms and the
alignment between strategy and actions.
S, CRD Alignment and follow-up are identified as two
important factors that contribute to successful SI.
Crittenden and
Crittenden
2008 B Identifies 4 structural levers and 4 skill-related levers
that form a toolkit for SI.
S, I, CRD, COM,
CPT, MC, MSC,
MHC
The 4 structural levers are: Actions, Programs,
Systems, and Policies. The 4 skill-related levers are:
Interacting, Allocating, Monitoring, and Organizing.
Eppler and Platts 2009 A Promotes the use of visualization tools to enhance a
systematic process of strategic planning and
implementation.
S, I, CRD, COM Takes an integrated approach to planning and
implementation that includes the importance of
structural controls and interpersonal communication
to improve coordination and commitment.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal managerial actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to
implement; “COM” denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human
capital respectively. “SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness. ABDC 2019.
Authors(s) Year ABDC
ranking Overview Framework
Theme* Contribution
Kale and Singh 2009 A Investigates the drivers of successful alliance strategy
implementation.
S, I, CRD, CPT Has implications for SI in terms of post-formation
alliance management and capability that includes
controls and guidelines as well as interpersonal
mechanisms to engender trust and coordination.
Smith 2009 A Emphasizes the importance of commitment in the
implementation of marketing strategies.
S, COM Applies goal-setting and expectancy theory to
highlight the role of commitment and motivation as
mostly-forgotten factors in successful SI.
Smith 2011 A Develops six propositions relating to the SI issue of
intra-organizational conflict.
I, CRD, COM,
MC, MSC
Proposes that intra-organizational conflict is a major
roadblock to effective SI and the level of conflict is
influenced by the degree of departmental identity
within the organizational culture.
Raes et al. 2011 A* A theoretical process model of the interface between
top management and middle management and how that
impacts SI effectiveness.
I, MC, MSC Proposes that implementation quality is a function of
a process of information exchange and mutual
influencing between top managers and middle
managers. That process is impacted by cognitive
flexibility, integrative bargaining as well as the role
behaviors of the actors involved.
Yaprak et al. 2011 A Offers a contingency framework of global strategy
implementation effectiveness. Discusses the
requirements for successful global business strategy
implementation.
S, CRD, CPT Provides a comprehensive perspective for evaluating
several firm and market-level characteristics that
impact SI and strategy performance.
Smith 2014 A Provides a multi-level perspective of marketing SI. S, I, COM Focuses on interdepartmental and individual
components of SI by highlighting the importance of
commitment and motivation and combining them
with structural factors.
Sull et al. 2015 A The paper focuses on 5 common "myths" of effective
SI.
I, CRD, COM,
MC, MSC, MHC
Five myths are: 1) Execution equals alignment (2)
Execution means sticking to the plan (3)
Communication equals understanding (4) A
performance culture drives execution (5) Execution
should be driven from the top.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal managerial actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to
implement; “COM” denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human
capital respectively. “SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness. ABDC 2019.
Authors(s) Year ABDC
ranking Overview Framework
Theme* Contribution
Lee and Puranam 2015 A* Proposes a theoretical model emphasizing the
importance of effective execution even when strategy
itself is flawed.
CPT, MC, MHC Relentless pursuit of perfect SI is beneficial even if
strategy is imperfect because it allows for more
effective learning about the value of current
strategies. Imprecise SI makes it difficult to evaluate
strategy because it masks the source of imperfection.
Pretorius 2016 B Primarily focused on the importance of clear vision and
clear communication of vision throughout the
organization. All employees should understand the
message.
I, MC, MSC,
MHC
Strategy can only be realized when the audience is
engaged.
Thanyawatpornkul
et al.
2016 B Focuses on employee perceptions of the SI process. S, I, CPT, MC,
MSC
Highlights the importance of interpersonal
communication and effective reward systems for
successful execution of strategies.
Greer et al. 2017 A Combines service dominant logic (SDL) view from
marketing and human resource management (HRM)
concepts from management to address effective SI.
S, I, CPT, COM,
CRD, MHC
Bundling human capital and relational capital
resources can contribute to the development of
strategic capabilities that positively impact SI.
Rey and Bastons 2018 A Outlines the relationship between the mission of a
company and its members’ motivation to implement
strategy.
S, I, CPT, COM,
CRD
Provides a holistic conceptualization about a
managerial tool, the company mission, and identifies
three forms of consistency that improve motivation;
authenticity, coherence, and integrity.
Sull et al. 2018 A Discusses 3 important steps that help align strategy with
SI.
CRD, MC Effective strategy guidelines that help improve SI are
a link to the corporate vision, the identification of
critical vulnerabilities, and a focus on clarifying
priorities.
Mühlbacher and
Böbel
2019 B Introduces the conditions for effective implementation
of shared value strategies.
S, CPT, CRD Synthesizes the findings to highlight shared value-
oriented entrepreneurial vision, strategic alignment,
shared value-oriented innovation, networking
capabilities, and impact monitoring as important
conditions for successful SI.
Rani 2019 B A conceptual overview of the SI process S, I, CPT, MC A practical summary of key factors within the SI
process. A focus on the right people, resources,
culture, systems, and structure.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal managerial actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to
implement; “COM” denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human
capital respectively. “SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness. ABDC 2019.
Authors(s) Year ABDC
ranking Overview Framework
Theme* Contribution
Tabesh et al 2019 B Highlights the necessary actions for effective
implementation of big data strategies
S, I, CPT, COM Elaborates on the managerial responsibilities for
successful adoption of advanced analytics systems
based on big data.
Tawse et al. 2019 B Highlights the differences in mindset between strategy
formulation and strategy implementation and proposes
a series of "nudges" to improve SI effectiveness
I, COM, MC Investigates psychological barriers to SI effectiveness
and provides various managerial "nudges" to improve
commitment to strategy implementation.
References for Supplementary Table S11
Allio, M. K. (2005). A short, practical guide to implementing strategy. Journal of Business Strategy,
26(4): 12-21.
Khadem, R. (2008). Alignment and follow-up: steps to strategy execution. Journal of Business Strategy,
29(6): 29-35.
Meehan, S., & Baschera, P. (2002). Lessons from Hilti: How customer and employee contact improves
strategy implementation. Business Strategy Review, 13(2): 31-39.
Mentzas, G. (1997). Implementing an IS strategy—a team approach. Long Range Planning, 30(1): 84-95.
Piercy, N. F. (1998). Marketing implementation: the implications of marketing paradigm weakness for the
strategy execution process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(3): 222-236.
Pretorius, M., & Pretorius, M. (2016). Crooked strategy implementation: covert tactics fill the gaps.
Journal of Business Strategy, 37(4): 24-31.
Rey, C., & Bastons, M. (2018). Three dimensions of effective mission implementation. Long Range
Planning, 51(4): 580-585.
Sheehan, N. T. (2006). Want to improve strategic execution? Simons says levers. Journal of Business
Strategy, 27(6): 56-64.
Smith, B. D. (2009). Maybe I will, maybe I won't: what the connected perspectives of motivation theory
and organisational commitment may contribute to our understanding of strategy implementation.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17(6): 473-485.
Smith, B. D. (2014). Capturing an elusive phenomenon: developing and testing a multiple perspective
model of marketing strategy implementation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(1): 16-40.
Tabesh, P., Mousavidin, E., & Hasani, S. (2019). Implementing big data strategies: A managerial
perspective. Business Horizons, 62(3): 347-358.
Tawse, A., Patrick, V. M., & Vera, D. (2019). Crossing the chasm: Leadership nudges to help transition
from strategy formulation to strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 62(2): 249-257.
Thanyawatpornkul, R., Thanyawatpornkul, R., Siengthai, S., Siengthai, S., Johri, L. M., & Johri, L. M.
(2016). Employee’s perspective towards strategy execution in facility management in Thailand.
Facilities, 34(11/12): 682-702.
Yaprak, A., Xu, S., & Cavusgil, E. (2011). Effective global strategy implementation. Management
International Review, 51(2): 179.
Zagotta, R., & Robinson, D. (2002). Keys to successful strategy execution: The most brilliant strategy
ever devised won’t get you anywhere if you can’t execute it. Journal Business Strategy, 23(1): 1-6.
1Studies that are referenced in the main document are not included in this list
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Supplementary Table S2. Summary of Empirical Implementation-Related Literature
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Miller
1997
A*
6 case studies that
included public,
private,
manufacturing and
service businesses
Backing,
Accessibility,
Specificity, Cultural
Receptivity,
Propitiousness,
Familiarity, Priority,
Resource
Availability,
Structural
Facilitation,
Flexibility
Successful SI
in terms of
completion,
achievement,
& acceptability
Ranking of
factors based
on interviews
S, I, CRD,
COM
4 factors are critical for SI
success: backing, clear aims and
common understanding of goals,
planning, and a conducive
climate. Experience, setting
priorities, resources, structure,
and flexibility matter less.
Moingeon et al.
1998
B
A case study of
Salomon, a French
manufacturer of
outdoor sports
equipment
Organizational
learning, how
resources are
acquired and
managed
SIE in terms of
competitive
advantage
Case study
S, CPT, MC
Integrating the concepts related
to competencies,
organizational capabilities,
organizational
structure, and learning is
important for explaining
effective implementation.
Nutt
1998
A*
Database of 376
cases relating to
the implementation
of strategic
decisions
Implementation
approach, level of
resistance, and level
of implementing
manager's leverage
Success of
adoption,
value, and
efficiency
Qualitative
analysis based
on interviews
with key actors
in each
organization
S, I, COM,
MC, MSC
"Intervention" is the most
successful approach no matter
what the situation. This
approach includes presenting a
need for action, networking,
leveraging data, waiting for
agreement to act before building
options, and showing success.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Singh
1998
A*
144 MBA/BBA
Students
Computerized
memory support,
computerized
strategy support,
strategy complexity
SI
effectiveness
and efficiency
ANOVA
MC
Computerized cognitive aids
support the decision makers’
strategy execution process and
have a significant positive
impact on both decision-making
efficiency and SI effectiveness.
Chesley and
Wenger
1999
A
Case study of the
National
Reconnaissance
Office
Use of the Balanced
Scorecard (BSC)
Improved
strategy
conversations
and
organizational
learning
Qualitative
longitudinal
case study
based on
interviews
S, I, CRD,
COM, CPT
Premise is that strategic
conversations are critical to SI
and the BSC is a model that can
be effectively used and "tuned"
to the organization to enhance
the strategy conversation and
help an organization learn to
learn.
Noble
1999(a)
B
Based on a large-
scale survey of a
variety of
organizations
5 key managerial
levers identified:
goals, organizational
structure, leadership,
communication, and
incentives.
Effective SI at
4 different
stages
Exploratory,
qualitative
analysis based
on interviews
with senior and
mid-level
managers
S, I, CRD,
COM, CAP,
MC, MSC,
MHC
A model of SI is presented that
includes 5 key managerial levers
and use of these levers at 4
different stages of SI.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Noble and
Mokwa
1999
A*
Survey study of
two organizations:
A large multistate,
financial services
organization and a
market share
leader in the
packaged goods
industry
Fit with vision,
importance, scope,
championing, Sr.
management support,
and buy-in; Three
types of commitment
(organizational,
strategy, and role);
role factors of
involvement,
autonomy, and
significance
Role
performance as
a mediator to
SI success
Literature
review and
grounded
theory building
process for
model of
effective SI.
Tested via
survey and
analyzed using
the CALIS
path analysis
S, I, CRD,
COM, CPT
Role performance and “buy-in”
significantly effect SI success,
which have a direct effect on SI
success and commitment.
Strategy and role commitment
found to significantly impact
role performance. Fit with vision
and importance found to
significantly impact strategy
commitment and role
significance found to
significantly impact role
commitment.
Nilsson and
Rapp
1999
B
Case study of
Sandvik Bahco
tool makers and
their acquisition of
Bahco Verktyg
Management control
system
SIE of a
differentiation
strategy
A survey and
qualitative
study
S, CRD,
CPT
A decentralized, flexible control
system is beneficial for the
implementation of a
differentiation strategy by
improving coordination between
levels and the capability to
execute major improvements to
a variety of operational
measures.
Parsa
1999
A
Mailed Survey to
141 franchises
Economic (coercive
and legitimate) and
non-economic
(referent and
information) power
SIE in terms of
business
performance &
satisfaction
ANOVA
S, I, MSC,
MHC
Interaction of power sources and
SI could impact a firm’s
performance and satisfaction.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Beer and
Eisenstat
2000
A
10 business units
and 2 corporate
entities
An inductive study
that identified six
"silent killers" of
effective SI
SI
effectiveness
Qualitative
observation of
a process of
Organizational
Fitness
Profiling
S, I, CRD,
COM, CPT,
MC, MSC,
MHC
Six "silent killers" of SI are: top-
down or laissez-faire senior
management style, unclear
strategy and conflicting
priorities, ineffective senior
management team, poor vertical
communication, poor
coordination across functions,
and inadequate down-the-line
leadership skills and
development.
Lane and
Clewes
2000
A
Case study at 3M
(UK) Abrasives
A process model that
includes factors such
as culture, senior
management
commitment,
feedback
communication
loops, and various
tactics
Successful
implementation
of a strategic
marketing plan
Inductive case
study analysis;
5 years using
observation,
archival
records, focus
groups, open-
ended
interviews,
questionnaire
S, I, COM,
MC, MSC
Gaining commitment to a
strategic marketing plan is more
problematic than developing the
strategy itself. Segment action
teams and cross-functional
groups proved pivotal to SI
success. This facilitated
involvement, teamwork,
ownership, a strong customer
focus, and concentration of
activity.
Petersen et al.
2000
A
73 companies
implementing a
global sourcing
strategy
Top management
commitment, global
sourcing structures
and processes,
international
language capabilities,
and global sourcing
business capabilities
Global
sourcing
strategy
effectiveness
Structural
equation
modeling
(SEM)
S, COM,
CPT
Supportive structure, top
management commitment,
business capabilities, and
language capabilities are
significant factors for successful
SI of a global sourcing strategy.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Dooley et al.
2000
A*
68 strategic
decision-making
teams in
Southeastern U.S.
hospitals
Decision consensus
with decision
commitment as a
mediator
SI success and
implementation
speed
Longitudinal
data from
questionnaire
subjected to
CFA and OLS
regression
I, COM
Management team consensus
improves organizational
commitment, which improves SI
success but slows
implementation speed.
Okumus
2001
A
Two international
hotel groups
Environmental
uncertainty and
internal context
influence the
strategic context,
which impacts the
strategic process,
which determines
tangible
characteristics of SI
outcomes.
Effective
implementation
of strategic
decisions
Inductive
qualitative
study using in-
depth, semi-
structured
interviews,
observations,
and
documentation
analysis
S, I, CPT,
MC, MSC,
MHC
A framework of SI is developed.
Three variables in addition to
those found in the literature
review are identified: the impact
of multiple project
implementation, the level of
organizational learning, and the
impact of working with external
companies to build competency.
Douglas and
Judge
2001
A*
193 hospitals
Structural "control"
(clear procedures,
systems, and job
descriptions) and
"exploration" (free
flow of information
and freedom to
depart from past
practices).
Subjective
Organizational
Performance
Hierarchical
regression
analysis
S, CPT
Two measures of organizational
structure - control and
exploration - are found to
influence the financial
performance of firms
implementing a TQM strategy.
A balance between the two is
found to be most effective.
Peng and
Littlejohn
2001
A
Three UK based
hotel chains
Organizational
communication
SI
effectiveness
Qualitative
study based on
3 case studies
S, I
Suggests that effective
communication is a primary
requirement of SI but not a
guarantee. It is even more
important when SI involves a
structural change.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Rapert et al.
2002
A
322 hospitals
Vertical
communication as IV
and Strategic
consensus as
mediator
SIE in terms of
performance
measured by
profit, gross
revenue, and
net revenue
growth
Survey data
from CEOs
subjected to
CFA and SEM
I, CRD
When vertical communication is
frequent, strategic consensus is
enhanced and organizational
performance improves.
Marketing performance found to
be a significant mediator.
Love et al.
2002
A*
95 U.S.
manufacturing
firms
Explicit articulated
strategy and degree
of organizational
centralization
SIE in terms of
subjective
measures of
firm
performance
Moderated
hierarchical
regression
I, CRD,
COM
Very high and very low
explicitness are associated with
higher performance, while
moderate explicitness is
associated with lower
performance. Data also supports
a contingency view whereby
explicit articulation of strategy
has stronger positive effects for
decentralized firms.
Heide et al.
2002
B
A Norwegian
ferry-cruise
company
Various types of
communication
problems possibly
influenced by
organizational
structure
Successful
implementation
of formulated
strategy
Inductive
qualitative case
study to find
barriers to
successful SI
S, I, MSC
Most frequently mentioned
barrier is communication
followed by organizational
structure barriers and learning
barriers.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Hickson et al.
2003
A*
55 cases of
decision
implementation
Explores 2
approaches: The
experience-based
approach
(accessibility,
specificity, and
resourcing) and the
readiness-based
approach (structural
facilitation and
priority)
Subjective
measures of
implementation
achievement
Confirmatory
Factor
Analysis
(CFA)
I, CRD,
COM, CPT,
MC, MSC,
MHC
Two broad approaches are
identified for successful SI. The
experience-based approach
leverages experience and
capability, while the readiness-
based approach leverages
commitment. Both can be used
together for maximum positive
impact on performance.
Chimhanzi
2004
A*
Structured mail
survey from 230
UK service
organizations
Inter-functional
conflict,
connectedness,
written
communication,
interpersonal
communication,
senior management
support, joint reward
systems, and
informal integration
Effective
communication
between
marketing and
HR functions a
mediator for SI
effectiveness
Standardized
regression
analysis
S, I, CRD,
COM
SI is affected negatively by
conflict and positively by
interpersonal communication,
which improves inter-functional
connectedness. These dynamics
are affected by senior
management support, joint
reward systems, and informal
integration.
Homburg et al.
2004
A
Managers of
marketing SBUs in
the US and
Germany
Strategy type.
Mediators:
intelligence
generation,
intelligence
dissemination,
responsiveness
SIE in terms of
organizational
performance
SEM
S, I
Market orientation plays a key
role for the successful
implementation of a premium
product differentiation (PPD)
strategy.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Chimhanzi and
Morgan
2005
A
230 medium and
large European
service-based
firms
6 process-based
dimensions that look
at the marketing/HR
dyad: joint rewards,
informal integration,
connectedness,
senior management
support, written
communication, and
interpersonal
communication
Marketing SI
effectiveness
mediated by
relationship
effectiveness
and inter-
functional
conflict
Regression
S, I, CRD,
COM
A strong relationship is found
between both relationship
effectiveness and inter-
functional conflict and SI
success. Joint rewards and
written communication along
with connectedness are
negatively related to inter-
functional conflict.
Connectedness is found to be
most strongly associated with
relationship effectiveness.
Qi
2005
A
169 survey
responses from
middle marketing
managers in UK
private companies
Middle manager
demographic
characteristics
The level of
support
received by
middle
managers
T-tests
I, COM,
MSC
The majority of middle
managers (MM) surveyed are
found to be unhappy with the
level of support received for SI.
Male top managers are found to
provide more support than
female top managers, younger
MM reported more support than
older MM, and MM with longer
tenure reported less support than
shorter tenure MM.
Minarro-
Viseras et al.
2005
A
106 manufacturing
organizations from
a variety of
countries
106 item validated
questionnaire based
on items identified
from the literature on
change management
and project
management
Effective
implementation
of strategic
manufacturing
initiatives
Inductive study
to identify the
key success
factors for the
implementation
of strategic
manufacturing
initiatives
S, I, CRD,
COM, CPT,
MC, MSC,
MHC
A ranked list of 36 items are
found to be critical to SIE. Items
include: communication skills of
the project manager, top
management commitment,
sufficient evaluation measures,
top manager ability to motivate,
commitment of the project
manager, and motivated teams.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Olson et al.
2005
B
Data is based on a
study of over 200
businesses and
business units.
Fit between Miles
and Snow's strategy
types, organizational
structure, and
behavioral norms
SIE in terms of
firm
performance
Inductive study
to identify
archetypes
found to
facilitate
successful SI
for various
types of
strategies
S, I
For prospectors, a customer-
centric innovator design is
preferable. For low-cost
defenders, a competitor centric
cost controller design is just as
preferable. For analyzers and
differentiated defenders, it
appears that either a competitor-
centric cost controller or a
customer-centric innovator
design will help to generate high
performance.
Hrebiniak
2006
A
443 managers from
the "Gartner E-
Panel database and
Wharton Executive
Education Survey
who are involved
in strategy
execution
Issues that impact SI
are: (1) Managerial
training (2)
Perceptions about SI
responsibility (3)
Perceptions about
planning and
implementation
independencies (4)
Allowing enough
time for SI (5)
Allocating enough
people for effective
SI.
Effective SI
A combination
of obstacles
identified
through review
and obstacles
inductively
derived
through survey
data.
S, I, CRD,
MC, MHC
The top 6 obstacles identified
are: (1) Inability to manage
change and overcome resistance
to change, (2) Poor or vague
strategy, (3) No model or
guidelines to guide SI efforts,
(4) Inadequate information
sharing, (5) conflicting
priorities, and (6) Unclear
responsibility or accountability
for SI decisions or actions.
Harrington and
Kendall
2006
B
424 members of
the Louisiana
Restaurant
Association
Degree of
environmental
complexity, firm
size, and level of
involvement in the SI
process
Level of SI
success
Hierarchical
regression
analysis
I, CRD,
COM
Increased involvement in the SI
process is found to improve SI
success and the level of
involvement in the SI process
mediates the relationship
between environmental
complexity and SI success.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Brenes et al.
2007
A
Survey of 300
Latin American
executive
managers
Inductive study to
identify key success
factors of SI focused
on clarity, alignment,
leadership,
motivation, and
control.
Subjective
evaluation of
successful SI
Comparison of
results between
highly
successful and
less successful
firms
S, I, CRD,
COM, CPT,
MC, MSC,
MHC
More successful companies have
higher ratings on the following 5
dimensions: (1) Strategy
formulation process, (2)
Systematic execution, (3)
Strategy control and follow-up,
(4) CEO leadership & suitable,
motivated employees, and (5)
Corporate governance leading
change.
Thorpe and
Morgan
2007(a)
A*
115 European
service-based
SBUs in the
telecom, transport,
and financial
industries
Three "types" of SI
(Change,
Collaborative, and
Cultural) combined
with five contextual
and process
characteristics of
marketing SI
Subjective
measure of
strategic
performance
Multivariate
analysis of
variance
(MANOVA)
S, I, COM,
CRD
Top-down structural actions are
as important as bottom-up
relational actions for engaging
middle managers to coordinate
their efforts and achieve
marketing SI effectiveness.
Thorpe and
Morgan
2007(b)
A
B2B service-based
strategic business
units based in
Europe
External Locus of
control (role clarity,
role significance) and
internal locus of
control (role
commitment, role
self-determination)
Product market
strategy
execution
effectiveness
Regression,
survey
S, I, COM
In firms with a highly effective
product-market strategy, the
mid-level marketing manager's
role performance is explained by
an external locus-of-control
(role clarity and role
significance).
Naranjo-Gil
and Hartmann
2007
B
218 CEOs of
public hospitals in
Spain
CEO backgrounds,
MIS style
Effective
implementation
of cost
reduction
strategy and a
quality
enhancement
strategy
Test of mean
difference (t-
test)
S, I, CPT,
MHC
The results indicate that CEOs
with a clinical background focus
on non-financial information
which contributes to flexible
strategies. CEOs with a
predominantly administrative
background are effective in cost-
reduction strategies.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Bhimani
2007
A
Most senior
accounting officers
within large UK
firms
Emphasis on
financial or non-
financial information
Structure and
formality of SI
Questionnaire
responses and
interviews
S
Strategy development and
implementation activities tend to
be structured and formal, and
while greater emphasis is placed
on financial information in
strategy implementation, in
strategy development both
financial and non-financial
information are used.
Parnel
2008
B
Mexican and
peruvian managers
enrolled in post-
graduate business
programs
Strategic diffusion
(defined in terms of
implementation)
SI
commitment,
satisfaction
with
performance
Correlation
analysis
I, COM
Strategic diffusion is related to
performance satisfaction among
all managers. Overall, Mexican
managers produced higher
scores on the strategic diffusion
scale than did their Peruvian
counterparts. The link between
strategic diffusion and
organizational commitment
among middle and lower-level
managers remains unclear.
Den Hertog et
al.
2010
B
10 European steel
companies
The context of
change, the SI
process of change,
and communication
strategies used by
management to
create trust
towards change.
SIE in terms of
strategic
change
Case study
S, I
Human research management
supports effective
implementation through
structure, communication, and
trust building
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
O'Reilly et al.
2010
A*
313 physicians
from six medical
centers and eight
specialty
departments
Strategic leadership
behavior across three
levels
SI in terms of
patient ratings
of performance
Hierarchical
linear
modeling
I, COM
No separate independent
performance effects of
leadership effectiveness are
reported. There are significant
effects of leadership on
performance in aggregate
(across levels).
Cadwallader et
al.
2010
A*
An automobile
manufacturer and
its dealership
network
Role Clarity,
employee feelings
about service
innovation
Situational
motivation,
participation in
implementation
CFA, SEM
S, I, COM
Motivation at different levels
has significant direct and
indirect effects on frontline
employees' SI behaviors.
Andrews et al.
2011
B
Various
departments within
the Welsh local
authority (e.g.
education,
housing, social
services)
Type of “approach”
to SI (rational,
incremental, none),
moderated by
strategy type
(defender,
prospector, reactor)
SI in terms of
service
improvement
Regression -
Survey
S, I, CRD,
No single style of SI is
independently likely to lead to
service improvement. There are
positive associations between a
rational approach and a defender
strategy as well as an
incremental style and a
prospector strategy.
Micheli
2011
A
44 subsidiaries of
Cisma group
(Italian
corporation)
Use of PMS
(performance
measurement
systems),
use of IT systems
SI
A mix of
qualitative and
quantitative
methods
(interviews +
survey)
S
Use of IT systems and specific
governance actions alone enable
the implementation of strategy
across the group only to a
limited extent. Also, the lack of
a comprehensive PMS have a
negative effects on both strategy
formulation and implementation.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Huy
2011
A*
Canco: large
Canadian
information
technology service
company
Middle manager
social identity and
group focus emotions
SI
effectiveness
Qualitative
interviews:
Three years
real-time field
research
S, I, MC,
MSC, MHC
This study links senior
executives’ actions and middle
managers’ social identities,
group-focus emotions to SI
outcomes. Study shows how top
executives who favor an affect
neutral task approach (e.g.,
structural change) can
inadvertently activate middle
managers’ organization-related
social identities.
Ogbeide and
Harrington
2011
A
Sample of
members in a state
restaurant
association in the
Southern USA
Firm size,
organizational
structure,
participative
management style
Management
involvement,
implementation
success
Regression, t-
test, Survey
I
The SI process in organizations
with a larger structure requires a
greater level of involvement of
middle and lower
management.
Naidoo and
Wu
2011
A
Universities from
UK, Australia and
United States, New
Zealand
Role commitment,
buy-in, vision fit,
role significance
Marketing SI
effectiveness
SEM
I, COM
Four constructs are found to
impact marketing strategy
implementation: implementation
related outcome variables and
dimensions of commitment,
strategy, and role factors.
Kohtamaki et
al
2012
B
160 small &
medium-sized
Finish IT
companies
IV: participative
strategic planning.
Mediator: personnel
commitment to SI
and organizational
learning
SIE in terms of
company
Performance
Survey
I, COM
Participative strategic planning
is found to positively impact
personnel commitment to SI and
increases company performance.
Organizational learning has a
positive impact on company
performance.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Schaap
2012
B
120 senior-level
leaders in Casinos
in Nevada
Leadership
behaviors, common
understanding,
understanding of
strategy planning and
the implementation
process
SIE in terms of
organizational
performance
Correlation
analysis
S, I, COM,
CRD
Frequent communication
up and down the organization
structure enhances strategic
consensus by
fostering shared attitudes and
values.
Morgan et al.
2012
A*
Exporting
manufacturing
units in UK
IV: Different types of
marketing
capabilities.
Mediator: marketing
SI effectiveness
SIE in terms
of market &
Financial
Performance
Regression
CPT
Results indicate that effective
implementation of a planned
export marketing strategy
contributes to financial
performance and that marketing
capabilities play an important
role in enabling effective
marketing strategy
implementation in export
venture operations.
Barton &
Ambrosini
2013
A
Sample of 128
'high tech’
organizations in
the UK
Procedural justice,
senior management
support,
participation,
information
availability
Commitment
to SI in terms
of
organizational
change
cynicism
Regression
I, COM,
CRD
Senior management support for
the organization’s strategy and
participation in decision-making
found to be significantly and
positively related to strategy
commitment.
Colman &
Grodad
2013
B
A Multi-national
organization
Role of managers,
power struggles
SIE in terms of
organizational
integration
Case
S, I, CRD,
MC, MSC
Emphasizes the importance of
recognizing the role of target
managers and key personnel
during post acquisition. Efforts
to facilitate sociocultural
integration should be
implemented carefully in targets
with distinct identities different
from the acquirer.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Klingebiel &
De Meyer
2013
A*
121 decision-
making episodes
we observed
at a company
Focuses on the
process of decision-
making during SI
decision awareness
and decision
uncertainty
SI processes
Qualitative -
interviews
MC, MHC
A framework proposing that
decision-level differences in
awareness and uncertainty can
explain the observed variation in
strategic decision-making
processes during an
implementation initiative.
Ramaseshan et
al.
2013
A
Sample of
marketing
managers
Innovative culture
TMT support
job autonomy
(DV/mediator):
SIE in terms of
performance/
Commitment
to SI
SEM
I, S, COM
The study reveals that marketing
mangers’ commitment towards
SI has a significant and positive
impact on organizational
performance.
Innovative culture, top
management support and job
autonomy are found to have a
significant positive impact on
commitment.
Kets De Viris
2014
A
Executives of a
global energy
company
Group coaching
SI
effectiveness
Case study
I
Group coaching can help
organizational decision makers
to understand how their job fits
with the ‘‘big picture’’ and why
this is critical to SIE.
Ahearne et al.
2014
A*
285 Middle
managers and 43
senior managers in
a large business
unit of a Fortune
500 company
Reputational social
capital and
informational social
capital
SIE in terms of
business unit
performance
Hierarchical
linear
modeling
I, MC, MSC
Reputational social capital
enhances the performance
impact of middle managers’
upward influence while
informational social capital
elevates the performance impact
of their downward influence.
The size of a business unit or
region has differential
moderating effects.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Herrmann &
Nadkarni
2014
A*
120 SMEs in
Ecuador
Big five personality
characteristics of
CEOs
Initiation and
implementation
of strategic
change
Hierarchical
regression
I, MC, MHC
Extraversion and openness
influence strategy initiation
only. Emotional stability and
agreeableness influence
initiation and SI performance.
Conscientiousness had opposing
effects on initiation and
effective implementation.
Kiss & Barr
2014
A*
104 Firms
competing in four
high-tech
industries and
meeting new
venture criteria
Environmental
turbulence, TMT
mental model
centralization
SI duration,
SIE in terms of
new venture
performance
Regression
MC
Longer new product
development (NPD) durations
improve performance in stable,
low-growth industry
environments or when firms are
run by TMTs who exhibit high
mental model centralization.
Shorter NPD durations are better
in turbulent, high-growth
industry environments or when
firms are run by TMTs who
exhibit low levels of mental
model centralization.
Kleinbaum &
Stuart
2014
A*
A large
information
technology
company
Network centrality
Degree of
centrality,
structural
constraint,
and a
“matchmaker
index” measure
Regression -
email analysis
MSC
Improves our understanding of
how network effects play an
important role in the SI process.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Elbanna et al.
2015
B
116 Turkish
Industrial Firms
Trust, participation,
past performance,
speed of decision
implementation,
implementation
uncertainty
Quality of
decision
implementation
Path analysis
I, CDR,
COM, MC
The quality of decision
implementation is positively
related to trust as well as
participation and past
performance. Decision quality is
negatively related to
implementation speed and
uncertainty.
Rasoolimanesh
et al.
2015
A
Qazvin City (Iran)
Consensus building,
participation of
stakeholders, finance,
leadership, capacity
building,
institutionalization
City
development
SI
PLS-SEM -
Case study
survey
S, I, CPT,
MC, MSC,
MHC
Stakeholders, financial
management skills,
institutionalization, capacity
building, and leadership have
significant and positive effects
on city development SI.
Srivastava &
Sushil
2015
B
Respondents from
12 different
industries in India
Leadership,
communication,
reflection, adaptive
culture
Strategy
execution
success
Mediation
Analysis
S, I, MC
The findings of the study
suggest that focusing on
execution leadership and
communication significantly
improves strategy execution
when supported by the
incorporation of reflection and
development of an adaptive
culture.
Thomas &
Ambrosini
2015
A
Self-administered
postal survey from
a stratified random
sample of middle
managers (MMs)
from UK
high tech
organizations
Top management
team championship,
strategy
comprehensiveness,
information
availability, control
SI
implementation
performance
Mediated
regression
analysis
S, I
Comprehensiveness, output, and
professional controls positively
influence MMs’ implementation
performance, and together,
antecedents reinforce each other
in terms of SIE.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Espinosa et al.
2015
A*
E- case
Use of an operations
research tool in SI
SI success
Case study
S
Provides insights about the
promise and constraints of soft
operations research
methodology to collectively
structure complex decisions that
support organizational redesign
and SI.
Krush et al.
2016
A*
U.S. business-to-
business firms
Use of a marketing
tool (dashboard).
Moderator:
centralization,
formalization
Marketing SI
speed and
information
management
capability
Survey, SEM
S
The use of marketing
dashboards is significantly
related to marketing SI speed
and market information
management capability.
Gębczyńska
2016
B
30 Polish
enterprises
Structural barriers to
successful
implementation, use
of specific tools
Successful SI
Reporting
descriptive
S, I
Barriers to the SI process are
discussed. Several structural and
relational factors are listed.
Schaarschmidt
2016
B
350 German &
American frontline
employees
Perceived external
reputation, expected
positive outcomes
Effectivness of
innovation SI.
Interviews and
surveys
COM
The link between perceived
external reputation and service
innovation implementation
behavior is mediated by
expected reputation gains and
expected positive performance
outcomes.
Albrecht
2017
A
Organizations that
are directly or
indirectly related
to tourism industry
in New Zealand
Stakeholder
involvement, goal
specificity,
collaboration
Tourism SI
Qualitative
semi-structured
interviews
I, CRD, MC,
MSC
Highlights the challenges related
to tourism SI in New Zealand.
Dilemmas related to the type
and number of stakeholders
involved in SI, the strategy goals
themselves, and systemic issues
inherent in public–private sector
collaboration are discussed.
* This column was added after phase 3. “S” and “I” denote structural and interpersonal actions respectively; “CPT” denotes competency to implement; “COM”
denotes commitment; “CRD” denotes coordination; “MC”, “MSC”, and “MHC” denote managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital respectively.
“SI” denotes strategy implementation and “SIE” refers to SI effectiveness.
Author(s) Year ABDC
Ranking Sample Explanatory
Variables DV Analysis Framework
Themes* Key Findings
Hayati et al.
2018
A*
398 salespeople
Sales manager’s
transactional and
transformational
leadership, central
salesperson’s
strategy role
commitment
SIE in terms of
sales group
performance
Regression
I, COM
Formal leadership effects and
informal peer effects can
influence strategy role
commitment in the process of
strategy implementation
Lampaki &
Papadakis
2018
B
228 middle
managers from 114
Greek firms
Middle manager’s
perceptions of
organizational
politics, middle
managers’ trust in
TMT
SI success
Hierarchical
Regression
I, MSC
There is a negative relationship
between organizational politics
and implementation success.
When trust in the top
management team is high, the
negative impact is reduced.
Olson et al.
2018
A*
179 senior
marketing
managers
A contingency model
of fit between
generic business
strategy type (e.g.
Prospector) and
marketing strategy
type (e.g. Mass
Marketer)
SIE in terms of
HR policies
(selection,
training,
appraisal, and
compensation)
as well as firm
performance
ANOVA
S, I, CPT
Firms whose business and
marketing strategies align (fit)
demonstrated significantly
higher average scores for HR
items and stronger overall firm
performance scores than those
whose business and marketing
strategies do not align.
ul Musawir
2020
A
Meta-analysis of
271 Publications
Multiple
Multiple
Meta-analysis
of project
governance
and its role in
enabling
strategy
implementation
S, I, CPT,
COM, CRD,
A broad summary of papers.
Theories identified to explain
the benefit of project
governance to SIE include
agency, stewardship,
institutional, and network.
Conclusion highlights the need
for improved understanding of
how governance mechanisms
influence SI outcomes.
References for Supplementary Table S21
Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & Kraus, F. (2014). Performance impact of middle managers' adaptive strategy
implementation: The role of social capital. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1): 68-87.
Albrecht, J. N. (2017). Challenges in National‐level Tourism Strategy Implementation–A Long‐term
Perspective on the New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2015. International Journal of Tourism Research,
19(3): 329-338.
Bhimani, A., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2007). Structure, formality and the importance of financial and non-
financial information in strategy development and implementation. Management Accounting
Research, 18(1): 3-31.
Chimhanzi, J. (2004). The impact of marketing/HR interactions on marketing strategy implementation.
European Journal of Marketing, 38(1/2): 73-98.
Colman, H. L., & Grøgaard, B. (2013). Integration vacuum: Creating action space for global strategy
implementation in international acquisitions. Thunderbird International Business Review, 55(4): 405-
418.
Den Hertog, F., Van Iterson, A., & Mari, C. (2010). Does HRM really matter in bringing about strategic
change? Comparative action research in ten European steel firms. European Management Journal,
28(1): 14-24.
Espinosa, A., Reficco, E., Martínez, A., & Guzmán, D. (2015). A methodology for supporting strategy
implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a Latin-American multi-national. European
Journal of Operational Research, 240(1): 202-212.
Gębczyńska, A. (2016). Strategy implementation efficiency on the process level. Business Process
Management Journal, 22(6): 1079-1098.
Harrington, R. J., & Kendall, K. (2006). Strategy implementation success: The moderating effects of size
and environmental complexity and the mediating effects of involvement. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 30(2): 207-230.
Hayati, B., Atefi, Y., & Ahearne, M. (2018). Sales force leadership during strategy implementation: a
social network perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(4): 612-631.
Hickson, D. J., Miller, S. J., & Wilson, D. C. (2003). Planned or prioritized? Two options in managing the
implementation of strategic decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 40(7): 1803-1836.
Homburg, C., Krohmer, H., & Workman, J. P. (2004). A strategy implementation perspective of market
orientation. Journal of Business Research, 57(12): 1331-1340.
Kets de Vries, M. F. (2014). Vision without action is a hallucination: Group coaching and strategy
implementation. Organization Dynamics, 44: 1-8.
Kiss, A. N., & Barr, P. S. (2014). New Product Development Strategy Implementation Duration and New
Venture Performance: A Contingency-Based Perspective. Journal of Management, 43(4): 1185-
1210.
Kleinbaum, A. M., & Stuart, T. E. (2014). Inside the black box of the corporate staff: Social networks and
the implementation of corporate strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1): 24-47.
Klingebiel, R., & De Meyer, A. (2013). Becoming aware of the unknown: decision making during the
implementation of a strategic initiative. Organization Science, 24(1): 133-153.
Kohtamäki, M., Kraus, S., Mäkelä, M., & Rönkkö, M. (2012). The role of personnel commitment to
strategy implementation and organisational learning within the relationship between strategic
planning and company performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
18(2): 159-178.
Krush, M. T., Agnihotri, R., Trainor, K. J., & Rudd, J. (2016). A contingency model of marketing
dashboards and their influence on marketing strategy implementation speed and market information
management capability. European Journal of Marketing, 50(12).
1 Studies that are referenced in the main document are not included in this list
Love, L. G., Priem, R. L., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2002). Explicitly articulated strategy and firm performance
under alternative levels of centralization. Journal of Management, 28(5): 611-627.
Micheli, P., Mura, M., & Agliati, M. (2011). Exploring the roles of performance measurement systems in
strategy implementation: The case of a highly diversified group of firms. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 31(10): 1115-1139.
Minarro-Viseras, E., Baines, T., & Sweeney, M. (2005). Key success factors when implementing strategic
manufacturing initiatives. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(2):
151-179.
Morgan, N. A., Katsikeas, C. S., & Vorhies, D. W. (2012). Export marketing strategy implementation,
export marketing capabilities, and export venture performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 40(2): 271-289.
Noble, C. H. (1999a). Building the strategy implementation network. Business Horizons, 42(6): 19-28.
ul Musawir, A., Abd-Karim, S. B., & Mohd-Danuri, M. S. (2020). Project governance and its role in
enabling organizational strategy implementation: A systematic literature review. International
Journal of Project Management, 38(1): 1-16.
Naranjo-Gil, D., & Hartmann, F. (2007). How CEOs use management information systems for strategy
implementation in hospitals. Health Policy, 81(1): 29-41.
Nilsson, F., & Rapp, B. (1999). Implementing business unit strategies: the role of management control
systems. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 15(1): 65-88.
Ogbeide, G.-C. A., & Harrington, R. J. (2011). The relationship among participative management style,
strategy implementation success, and financial performance in the foodservice industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(6): 719-738.
Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (2005). The importance of structure and process to strategy
implementation. Business horizons, 48(1): 47-54.
Parnell, J. A. (2008). Strategy execution in emerging economies: assessing strategic diffusion in Mexico
and Peru. Management Decision, 46(9): 1277-1298.
Parsa, H. (1999). Interaction of strategy implementation and power perceptions in franchise systems: an
empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 45(2): 173-185.
Qi, H. (2005). Strategy implementation: the impact of demographic characteristics on the level of support
received by middle managers. MIR: Management International Review: 45-70.
Srivastava, A. K., & Sushil, -. (2015). Modeling organizational and information systems for effective
strategy execution. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(4): 556-578.
Thomas, L., & Ambrosini, V. (2015). Materializing strategy: the role of comprehensiveness and
management controls in strategy formation in volatile environments. British Journal of Management,
26(S1): S105-S124.
Viswanathan, M., & Olson, E. M. (1992). The implementation of business strategies: implications for the
sales function. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 12(1): 45-57.
