IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aae/journl/v17y2021i2p99-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The strategy implementation process as perceived by different hierarchical levels: The experience of large Croatian enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Valentina

    (Ph.D., Domovinskih žrtava 20, 52466 Novigrad, Croatia, e-mail: valy186@gmail.com, corresponding author.)

  • Lara

    (Ph.D., Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Rijeka, Ivana Filipovića 4, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, e-mail: lara.jelenc@efri.hr)

  • Ivan

    (Ph.D., Full Professor, Janka Polić Kamova 95a, Rijeka (Croatia), e-mail: ivan.mencer@ri.t-com.hr)

Abstract

Purpose: Although the implementation process involves employees from different hierarchical levels, previous research on the implementation topic focused mostly on a top management perspective, omitting the perspective of lower hierarchical levels. We believe that employees from different hierarchical levels perceive differently the way the implementation process is carried out because of many intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Considering the primary role of lower hierarchical levels during the implementation process, we decided to include lower levels of management and operatives in our research. Methodology: We investigate the way employees from different hierarchical levels perceive the implementation process. The implementation process in our research was evaluated using four implementation factors: 1) People, 2) Resources allocation, 3) Communication, 4) Operational planning & control. We sent the questionnaire to all large Croatian enterprises (396) and gathered 208 questionnaires from 78 enterprises. Findings: The research findings confirm that the evaluation of key implementation factors differs significantly between hierarchical levels in two of the four identified factors: 1) Communication and 2) Operational planning & control. Frontline managers and operatives mostly consider the instructions for implementing the strategy too vague and unclear, their suggestions not taken into account, the communication generally too slow, what creates confusion and reduces the efficiency in coordinating operational tasks and introducing potential changes. Implications for theory and practice: Although we proved the statistically different perception about two out of four implementation factors, we contributed in a way to point out that this stream of research, with multiple factors and multiple respondents from different hierarchical levels, should be taken into consideration in future research about strategy implementation. Top managers should include feedback from lower hierarchical levels in order to grasp the pitfalls of strategy implementation. This study highlights the operational problems that might occur such as vague or slow communication, budget discrepancy, inadequate definition of timeline for activities and its dynamics, and ways to measure performance during strategy implementation. We believe that the research results are beneficial for academics and consultants when creating teaching and training programs for future managers about strategy implementation. Originality and value: Based on the analysis of the literature review and the research findings, we develop a new implementation model with questionnaire to analyze the way employee from different hierarchical levels perceive the implementation process.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentina & Lara & Ivan, 2021. "The strategy implementation process as perceived by different hierarchical levels: The experience of large Croatian enterprises," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 17(2), pages 99-124.
  • Handle: RePEc:aae:journl:v:17:y:2021:i:2:p:99-124
    DOI: 10.7341/20211724
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://jemi.edu.pl/uploadedFiles/file/all-issues/vol17/issue2/JEMI_Vol17_Issue2_2021_Article4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.7341/20211724?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saku Mantere, 2008. "Role Expectations and Middle Manager Strategic Agency," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(2), pages 294-316, March.
    2. Anna Pereverzieva, 2019. "A Methodical Approach to the Assessment of Human Resources` Interactions," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 15(1), pages 171-204.
    3. Noble, Charles H., 1999. "The Eclectic Roots of Strategy Implementation Research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 119-134, June.
    4. Tawse, Alex & Patrick, Vanessa M. & Vera, Dusya, 2019. "Crossing the chasm: Leadership nudges to help transition from strategy formulation to strategy implementation," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 249-257.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cees B. M. Van Riel & Guido Berens & Majorie Dijkstra, 2009. "Stimulating Strategically Aligned Behaviour Among Employees," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(7), pages 1197-1226, November.
    2. Thomas Schaefer & Thomas Guenther, 2016. "Exploring strategic planning outcomes: the influential role of top versus middle management participation," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 205-249, May.
    3. Tabesh, Pooya & Mousavidin, Elham & Hasani, Sona, 2019. "Implementing big data strategies: A managerial perspective," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 347-358.
    4. Ricardo Azambuja & Gazi Islam, 2019. "Working at the boundaries: Middle managerial work as a source of emancipation and alienation," Post-Print halshs-01959107, HAL.
    5. Michael Behnam & Andreas Rasche, 2009. "‘Are Strategists from Mars and Ethicists from Venus?’ – Strategizing as Ethical Reflection," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 79-88, January.
    6. Kohtamäki, Marko & Einola, Suvi & Rabetino, Rodrigo, 2020. "Exploring servitization through the paradox lens: Coping practices in servitization," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    7. Ricardo Azambuja & Gazi Islam, 2019. "Working at the boundaries: Middle managerial work as a source of emancipation and alienation," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) halshs-01959107, HAL.
    8. Krista L. Pettit & Mary M. Crossan, 2020. "Strategic renewal: Beyond the functional resource role of occupational members," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 1112-1138, June.
    9. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Philip Gylfe & Henrika Franck & Curtis Lebaron & Saku Mantere, 2016. "Video methods in strategy research: Focusing on embodied cognition," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 133-148, January.
    10. Dominik Aaken & Clemens Koob & Katja Rost & David Seidl, 2013. "Ausgestaltung und Erfolg von Strategieworkshops: eine empirische Analyse," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 65(6), pages 588-616, November.
    11. Pedro Bruno de Souza & Jorge Carneiro & Rodrigo Bandeira-de-Mello, 2015. "Inquiry into the Conceptual Dimensions of Project Portfolio Management," Brazilian Business Review, Fucape Business School, vol. 0(2), pages 118-148, August.
    12. Rodney J. Scott & Robert Y. Cavana & Donald Cameron, 2016. "Client Perceptions of Reported Outcomes of Group Model Building in the New Zealand Public Sector," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 77-101, January.
    13. Nishani Bourmault & Michel Anteby, 2020. "Unpacking the Managerial Blues: How Expectations Formed in the Past Carry into New Jobs," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 1452-1474, November.
    14. Elbasha, Tamim & Avetisyan, Emma, 2018. "A framework to study strategizing activities at the field level: The example of CSR rating agencies," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 38-46.
    15. Ugonna, Dr Charity Udodirim & Ochieng, Prof Edward G. & Zuofa, Dr Tarila, 2021. "Augmenting the delivery of public research and development projects in developing countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    16. Dwivedi, Abhishek & Pawsey, Nicholas, 2023. "Examining the drivers of marketing innovation in SMEs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(PB).
    17. repec:dau:papers:123456789/15193 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Tawse, Alex & Tabesh, Pooya, 2023. "Thirty years with the balanced scorecard: What we have learned," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 123-132.
    19. Sal Mistry & Bradley L. Kirkman & Michael A. Hitt & Murray R. Barrick, 2023. "Take it from the Top: How Intensity of TMT Joint Problem Solving and Levels of Interdependence Influence Quality of Strategy Implementation Coordination and Firm Performance," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 400-427, March.
    20. Li, Da-yuan & Liu, Juan, 2014. "Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 2793-2799.
    21. Pierre Garner, 2017. "Retroaction perçue d’efficacité personnelle. Pour une traduction de l’effet Galatee chez les middle managers," Post-Print hal-02512269, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aae:journl:v:17:y:2021:i:2:p:99-124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anna Ujwary-Gil (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://fundacjacognitione.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.