THE IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGIC CONTENT, STRATEGIC …
Transcript of THE IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGIC CONTENT, STRATEGIC …
THE IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGIC CONTENT, STRATEGIC
CONTEXT AND ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS FACTORS TO
EFFECTIVE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION: A CASE STUDY OF
DELOITTE KENYA
BY
OBAGA, EDGAR MOKAYA
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY – AFRICA
SUMMER 2016
THE IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGIC CONTENT, STRATEGIC
CONTEXT AND ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS FACTORS TO
EFFECTIVE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION: A CASE STUDY OF
DELOITTE KENYA
BY
OBAGA, EDGAR MOKAYA
A Research Project Report Submitted to the Chandaria School of Business
in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Degree of Masters in
Business Administration (MBA)
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY – AFRICA
SUMMER 2016
ii
STUDENT’S DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any other
college, institution or university other than the United States International University in
Nairobi for academic credit.
Signed: Date:
Edgar Obaga – ID No. 641696
This research report has been presented for examination with my approval as the appointed
supervisor.
Signed: Date:
Fred Newa
Signed: Date:
Dean, Chandaria School of
Business
iii
COPYRIGHT
© 2016 Edgar M. Obaga
All rights reserved including rights of reproduction in whole or part in any form without the
prior permission of the author or United States International University or Office of the Deputy
Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs.
iv
ABSTRACT
One of the long outstanding problems faced by managers and practitioners in the field of
strategic management has been the high rate of failure of organizational strategies. It is
estimated that approximately 80 to 90% of all organizational strategies fail. Research has
identified that the primary reason why most strategies fail is due to a lack of theoretically sound
yet practical models to guide the decisions and actions of managers during the strategy
implementation process. The purpose of this study therefore was to examine the importance of
strategic content, strategic context and organizational process factors to effective strategy
implementation, using Deloitte Kenya as a case study.
The study adopted a descriptive research design. The target population comprised members of
staff of Deloitte Kenya with responsibilities for strategy implementation, namely the managers,
directors and partners. Stratified random sampling technique was used to select the sample that
was investigated for purposes of this study. The population was stratified into low/operational-
level, mid-level and senior-level management. The sample size was computed using Yamane’s
(1967) formula. This yielded a sample size of 89 management staff, which was increased to
90. The study used primary data collected using a structured questionnaire that was
administered online via the Internet. A total of 68 complete responses were received,
representing a 75.56% response rate. Descriptive statistics including mean and standard
deviations were used to analyse the quantitative data and capture the characteristics of the
variables under study. Inferential statistics were used to test the nature and magnitude of the
relationships between the variables.
The first research objective examined the importance of strategic content to effective strategy
implementation. The study established that strategic content was positively related to effective
strategy implementation, with both the process of strategy development and the content of
strategy being given top priority in the case study company. This was consistent with most of
the published literature reviewed, which emphasize the role of strategic content as an essential
component in effective strategy implementation.
Corporate strategies are formulated and implemented within a specific strategic context. This
study established a positive relationship between both external and internal strategic context
v
factors and effective strategy implementation. However, the overall multivariate regression
analysis model found the relationship between strategic context factors and effective strategy
implementation to be insignificant, implying that these factors were the least important among
the three factors examined in the study.
The third objective of this study sought to examine the importance of organizational process
factors to effective strategy implementation. This study operationalised organizational process
factors in terms of operational planning, resource allocation, communication, people
involvement and control and feedback. The findings revealed that these factors had a positive
and significant relationship with effective strategy implementation. Although the study did not
directly seek to rank the five sub-constructs in terms of relative importance, the findings
suggested that communication was the strongest predictor of effective strategy implementation
among the five sub-constructs.
The study concluded that firms that aim to effectively implement strategy need to consider the
process they adopt during strategy development. This should be comprehensively articulated,
with a definite time frame and clearly outlined phases. The roles and responsibilities of all
participants in the process must be clarified. In addition, it is fundamental that the content of
strategy be consistent with the overall strategic direction of the organization. In order to make
strategy work, it is important that both the development and execution be appropriate to the
context of the firm carrying out the implementation exercise.
Organizations must ensure that any changes initiated by the new strategy are appropriately
reflected in areas such as budgeting and resource allocation. They must also ensure that the
HR plans for staffing, training, empowerment and reward and recognition are consistent with
the strategic goals of the organization. Managers must continually adjust their business
strategies to reflect the trends and conditions prevalent in their operating environment. In
addition, they are required to provide the necessary strategic leadership to ensure effective
implementation of strategy.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The completion of this research project would not have been possible without the support of a
few individuals and institutions, to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude.
My supervisor, Dr Fred Newa, has without doubt had the greatest influence on the completion
of this paper. He has been an academic mentor, an inspiring instructor, and a great friend. I am
extremely grateful for his wise counsel throughout the writing process.
The success of this study largely hinged on gathering the honest and complete views of the
members of staff of the case study organization, and I am sincerely indebted to them for taking
time to share their views. I would like to express special gratitude to Sammy Onyango and Joe
Eshun, the CEO and Deputy CEO of Deloitte East Africa, for their support and backing of this
study.
Finally, I am deeply indebted to my parents and family members for their motivation and
encouragement not only in my academic pursuits, but also in everything I set out to do in life.
vii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this research project to my best friend, Sylvia, and to the family that we are honored
and privileged to raise together. May the completion of these works be a constant source of
inspiration to you in your relentless, fearless and wholehearted pursuit of your dreams.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STUDENT’S DECLARATION ............................................................................................. ii
COPYRIGHT ......................................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................................... vi
DEDICATION....................................................................................................................... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. xiv
CHAPTER ONE ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 6
1.3 General Objective ....................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Specific Objectives ..................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 8
1.6 Scope of the Study...................................................................................................... 9
1.7 Definition of Terms .................................................................................................... 9
1.8 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................................. 12
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 12
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 12
2.2 The Importance of Strategic Content to Effective Strategy Implementation ........... 12
2.3 The Importance of Strategic Context to Effective Strategy Implementation ........... 16
ix
2.4 Importance of Organizational Processes to Effective Strategy Implementation ...... 21
2.5 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER THREE .............................................................................................................. 29
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 29
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 29
3.2 Research Design ....................................................................................................... 29
3.3 Population and Sampling Design ............................................................................. 30
3.4 Data Collection Methods .......................................................................................... 32
3.5 Research Procedures ................................................................................................ 33
3.6 Data Analysis Methods ............................................................................................ 33
3.7 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................. 35
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................................... 35
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 35
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents .................................................... 35
4.3 Strategic Content and Effective Strategy Implementation ....................................... 40
4.4 Strategic Context and Effective Strategy Implementation ....................................... 47
4.5 Organizational Processes and Effective Strategy Implementation .......................... 57
4.6 Multivariate Regression Analysis Results................................................................ 64
4.7 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 66
CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................................................. 67
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 67
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 67
5.2 Summary .................................................................................................................. 67
5.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 68
5.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 74
x
5.5 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 75
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 78
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... i
APPENDIX I: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................. i
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Population Distribution .......................................................................................... 30
Table 3.2: Sample Size Distribution ....................................................................................... 32
Table 4.1: Survey Response Rate ........................................................................................... 35
Table 4.2: Descriptive Results of the Process of Strategy Development ............................... 41
Table 4.3: Correlation Results of Process of Strategy Development ...................................... 42
Table 4.4: Model Summary for the Process of Strategy Development .................................. 42
Table 4.5: ANOVA for the Process of Strategy Development ............................................... 42
Table 4.6: Regression Coefficients – Process of Strategy Development ................................ 43
Table 4.7: Descriptive Results of the Process of Strategy Development ............................... 44
Table 4.8: Correlation Results of the Content of Strategy ...................................................... 45
Table 4.9: Model Summary for the Content of Strategy ........................................................ 45
Table 4.10: ANOVA for the Content of Strategy ................................................................... 45
Table 4.11: Regression Coefficient for the Content of Strategy ............................................. 46
Table 4.12: Model Summary for Strategic Content ................................................................ 46
Table 4.13: ANOVA for Strategic Content ............................................................................ 47
Table 4.14: Regression Coefficient for Strategic Content ...................................................... 47
Table 4.15: Descriptive Results of the External Environment ............................................... 48
Table 4.16: Correlation Results of External Context .............................................................. 49
Table 4.17: Model Summary for the External Context ........................................................... 49
Table 4.18: ANOVA for the External Context ....................................................................... 49
Table 4.19: Regression Coefficient for External Context ....................................................... 50
Table 4.20: Descriptive Results of Organizational Structure ................................................. 51
Table 4.21: Descriptive Results of Organizational Culture .................................................... 51
Table 4.22: Descriptive Results of Leadership ....................................................................... 52
Table 4.23: Correlation Results of Internal Context ............................................................... 53
Table 4.24: Model Summary for Internal Context .................................................................. 53
Table 4.25: ANOVA for the Internal Context ........................................................................ 53
Table 4.26: Regression Coefficient for the Internal Context .................................................. 54
Table 4.27: Model Summary for the overall Influence of the Internal Context ..................... 55
xii
Table 4.28: ANOVA for the overall Influence of the Internal Context .................................. 55
Table 4.29: Regression Coefficient for the overall Influence of the Internal Context ........... 55
Table 4.30: Model Summary for the overall Influence of Strategic Context Factors ............. 56
Table 4.31: ANOVA for the overall Influence of Strategic Context ...................................... 56
Table 4.32: Regression Coefficient for the overall Influence of Strategic Context ................ 56
Table 4.33: Descriptive Results of Operational Planning ....................................................... 58
Table 4.34: Descriptive Results of Resource Allocation ........................................................ 58
Table 4.35: Descriptive Results of Communication ............................................................... 59
Table 4.36: Descriptive Results of People Involvement ......................................................... 60
Table 4.37: Descriptive Results of Control and Feedback ..................................................... 60
Table 4.38: Correlation Results of Organizational Process Factors ....................................... 61
Table 4.39: Model Summary for Organizational Process Factors .......................................... 62
Table 4.40: ANOVA for Organizational Process Factors ...................................................... 62
Table 4.41: Regression Coefficient for Organizational Process Factors ................................ 63
Table 4.42: Model Summary for overall Influence of Organizational Process Factors ......... 63
Table 4.43: ANOVA for overall Influence of Organizational Process Factors ...................... 64
Table 4.44: Regression Coefficient for overall Influence of Organizational Process Factors 64
Table 4.45: Model Summary for Multivariate Regression ..................................................... 65
Table 4.46: ANOVA for Multivariate Regression .................................................................. 65
Table 4.47: Regression Coefficient for Multivariate Regression ........................................... 65
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Gender of the Respondents................................................................................... 36
Figure 4.2: Respondents' Age Range ...................................................................................... 37
Figure 4.3: Service Line of the Respondents .......................................................................... 37
Figure 4.4: Managerial Level of the Respondents .................................................................. 38
Figure 4.5: Length of Time Spent Working at Deloitte Kenya .............................................. 38
Figure 4.6: Length of Time Involved in Strategy Formulation and Implementation ............. 39
Figure 4.7: Presence of Firm-wide Strategies in Deloitte Kenya ........................................... 39
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CEO Chief Executive Officer
DEA Deloitte East Africa
GOK Government of Kenya
HR Human Resources
ICS Internal Client Services
IT Information Technology
PSI Professional Services Industry
SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The concept of strategy has developed as an important aspect of management due to the
dynamics and complexity of the world as well as an increasingly turbulent business
environment (Kibicho, 2015). Strategy encompasses the process, organizational restructuring
and the outcomes of chosen long-term directions (which can either be conscious, planned or a
series of events), which lead to a desired objective. It also involves the evaluation of the
impacts of both the external and internal organizational environments on the long-term goals
of the organization (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel, 1998).
According to Njagi and Kombo (2014), the modern business environment has become very
competitive, making it necessary for firms to practice strategic management, which consists of
the analysis, decisions and actions an organization takes in order to develop and sustain
competitive advantage. Davenport (2007) argues that executing a strategy, no matter how
brilliant, requires a planned approach. Njagi and Kombo (2014) agree, saying that in order to
achieve intended results strategies have to be properly implemented.
Njagi and Kombo (2014) define strategy implementation as the process of converting the
strategic plan into action and then results. Strategy implementation is an administrative activity
that entails working through others, organizing, motivating, and creating strong links between
strategy and how the organization operates (Musyoka, 2011). It involves the execution of
viable operations designed to yield the organization’s targeted results as well as bring about
changes that can be adaptive, innovative or radically innovative (Byars, Rue and Zahra, 1996).
Some of the delicate issues involved in strategy implementation include; restructuring, cultural
changes, process changes, technological changes, policy, resource mobilization, and leadership
changes (Musyoka, 2011).
In recent years, organisations have started moving away from hierarchical structures to more
modular forms that create greater organizational flexibility and are able to withstand
environmental turbulence (Balogun and Johnson, 2004). Consequently, decentralisation and
2
delayering have been the subjects of responsibility, resources and power in firms leading to
increased scrutiny of the role of employees charged with strategy implementation duties
(Kibicho, 2015).
Naranjo-Gil and Hartmann (2006) indicate that, globally, strategy implementation is slowly
taking into account functional areas such as accounting, marketing, human resource
management and information management. However, much of the extant literature still
suggests continued emphasis on the well-accepted factors of strategy implementation such as
structure, culture or organizational processes. Olson, Slater, Tomas and Hult (2005) reiterate
the significance of organizational structure and processes in strategy implementation.
The strategic management process involves evaluating the organizational performance of
recurring activities to establish organizational goals, monitoring progress toward the goals, and
making adjustments to achieve those goals more effectively and efficiently, with the overall
objective of improving a firm’s performance (Njagi and Kombo, 2014). There has been an
increasingly growing recognition by researchers and practitioners that issues in strategic
management are not primarily as a result of strategy formulation but as a result of strategy
implementation. Recent research indicates that strategy implementation and strategy
formulation are both important for excellent business performance although this wasn’t the
case for many decades prior as strategy formulation was regarded as a more important
component of the strategic management process than strategy implementation (Holman, 1999;
Flood, Dromgoole, Carrol and Gorman, 2000; Kaplan and Norton, 2000).
The current phenomenon being witnessed is that most company executives spend more time
on strategy formulation than on strategy execution or implementation. According to strategy
practitioners, developing a sound strategic plan is an easier and more glamorous process than
making it happen. This is because implementing strategy is tough and time-consuming and
calls for a different set of managerial skills to spearhead it. However, according to Njagi and
Kombo (2014), behaviour does not change merely because a new strategy has been announced.
Managers ought to work with the rest of the team in organizing, motivating, building culture
and creating a strong fit between strategy and the organization’s way of doing things in order
to ensure the success of strategy implementation efforts.
3
Allio (2005) also pointed out that coming up with a strategy is not as difficult as managing the
process of implementation. Ideas that cannot be translated into action serve little purpose. In a
2004 economic survey on 276 senior operating executives of firms, 57% were reported to have
been unsuccessful at executing strategic initiatives (Allio, 2005). Thus successful
implementation presents a challenge that demands patience, stamina and energy from the
managers involved (Muchira, 2013).
Research into strategy implementation – the process by which strategic plans are turned into
organizational action (Madegwa, 2013) – has often been described as fragmented and eclectic.
Unlike strategy formulation, strategy implementation is perceived more as a craft than a
science (Noble, 1999). In fact, it has become the most significant management challenge that
corporations face as indicated in a report titled ‘White Paper of Strategy Implementation of
Chinese Corporations’ (2006). The report surveyed a number of companies and identified that
83 percent of them failed to implement their strategy smoothly, while only 17 percent of the
companies had a consistent strategy implementation process (Njagi and Kombo, 2014).
Hrebiniak (2005) singles out lack of strategic leadership by an organization's management as
one of the major barriers to effective strategy implementation. This is further reinforced by
Lynch (2006), who concedes that strategy implementation is primarily driven by strategic
leadership.
Researchers and practitioners concede that much of the existing research on the practice of
strategic management has focused on strategy formulation rather than on strategy
implementation. Alexander (1991) and Noble (1999) point out that there is need for further
research into strategy implementation as there exists lack of knowledge on strategy
implementation frameworks. Noble (1999) in particular crucially singled out the need for
detailed conceptual models and frameworks on strategy implementation.
Okumus (2003) carried out a review of conceptual frameworks of strategy implementation
with the aim of identifying those factors that were critical to effective strategy implementation
so as to propose a more comprehensive implementation framework. In his review, he noted
that whereas research into strategy implementation was scarce and highly fragmented, most
authors on the subject were in agreement that a multiplicity of factors, variously referred to as
4
implementation variables or implementation factors, ought to be simultaneously considered
when developing and implementing strategic initiatives. He developed a conceptual
framework based on a critical review of previous frameworks, positing that effective strategy
implementation entails paying attention to and addressing the relationship between the
following 11 variables: strategy development; environmental uncertainty; organizational
structure; organizational culture; leadership; operational planning; communication; resource
allocation; people; control; and outcome (Okumus, 2003).
Okumus (2003) grouped these implementation factors into four categories based on the roles
and characteristics of each, namely strategic content, strategic context, organizational
processes, and outcome. Strategic content includes the development of strategy and the
organization’s overall strategic direction, management priorities and strategic initiatives.
Strategic context variables influence the strategy implementation process but the organization
has little control over them in the short term; management however takes these into account as
a means of managing the challenges associated with strategy implementation. The external
context includes environmental uncertainty, whereas the internal context comprises
organizational structure, culture and leadership. Organizational process variables are directly
used or involved in the implementation process. Organisations have substantial control over
these variables, particularly in the short term, and they include operational planning, resource
allocation, communication, people and control and feedback. The final grouping, strategic
outcome, consists of the expected results of the implemented strategy (Okumus, 2003).
“Deloitte” is the brand under which tens of thousands of dedicated professionals in independent
firms throughout the world collaborate to provide audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk
management, tax, and related services to select clients. These firms are members of Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), a UK private company limited by guarantee. Each DTTL
member firm provides services in particular geographic areas and is subject to the laws and
professional regulations of the particular country or countries in which it operates (Deloitte,
2016).
Deloitte’s overarching vision is, ‘To be the Standard of Excellence’. The firm aims to be the
first choice of the most coveted talent and the most sought-after clients in the market. Deloitte
5
Eastern Africa’s strategy is geared towards achieving dominance and market leadership in all
its geographical locations. The four pillars that underpin this strategy include; talent agenda,
client agenda, partnership agenda and brand agenda. The talent agenda focuses on recruiting
the best talent available in the market, developing the capabilities of current employees and
retaining talented personnel. The client agenda focuses on creating a quality-driven and risk
sensitive organizational culture to enable provision of quality services. The agenda also focuses
on creating a pool of quality clients that provide Deloitte with strategic growth opportunities.
The partnership agenda emphasizes on growth in quality of service delivery, growth in
earnings and strengthening of one-firm culture and behaviours. The brand agenda concentrates
on enhancing the organization’s brand and achieving operational excellence in service delivery
(Deloitte East Africa Strategy, 2012).
Deloitte in Kenya is part of Deloitte East Africa (DEA), the DTTL member firm in Kenya.
DEA is one of the largest professional services firms in the region. Dedicated since 1907 to
the needs of its clients, the company has grown with the economy and aspirations of the region
into a large and experienced firm supplying the very best in accounting, taxation, consulting
and other business solutions to some of East Africa’s most prominent organizations. The firm
consists of 21 partners and nearly 400 staff providing services from offices in Nairobi,
Mombasa, Dar es Salaam, Kampala, Kigali, Bujumbura and Addis Ababa. The East African
firm possesses experience and in-depth expertise in providing advisory services to the public
and private sectors (Deloitte, 2016).
DEA’s clients range from the largest and most prestigious organizations in the region,
including nearly 30% of the companies quoted on the Nairobi Stock Exchange (NSE), to sole
traders (Deloitte, 2016). The company’s clients span a diverse range of industries in both the
public and private sectors, including manufacturing, financial services, energy and resources,
technology, media and telecommunications, development agencies, non-governmental
organizations and parastatals. The organization takes great pride in its ability to provide quality
services to its clients – whether they are owner-managed businesses or large multinational
corporations. The firm has multi-skilled, multi-disciplined teams and offers its clients a wide
range of industry-focused business solutions. The organization recruits the brightest and the
best employees - whatever their area of specialty. Deloitte staff combines the dynamism and
6
fluid-thinking of the young graduate, with the business knowledge and insight of the seasoned
executive. Investing in its employees means its clients get world-class expertise to solve their
complex business problems (Deloitte, 2016).
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The popularity of Strategic Management has been increasing among firms over the last decade,
with more and more companies rolling out 3- to 5-year strategic plans every year. Despite this
growing importance, however, research has shown that the concept of strategy implementation
is still a confusing and enigmatic one, as evidenced by the low success rate of intended
strategies of between 10-30 percent, according to Raps (2005). Miller (2001) concurs,
reporting that companies alarmingly fail to implement more than 70 percent of their strategic
initiatives.
Several scholars (Noble, 1991; Okumus, 2003; Hrebiniak, 2006; Saunders, Mann and Smith,
2008) have concluded that the primary reason why most implementations fail is due to a lack
of theoretically sound yet practical models to guide the decisions and actions of managers
during the strategy implementation process. Indeed, several frameworks exist to guide
managers on strategy formulation, such as SWOT, value chain analysis and industry structure
analysis, but by contrast there is no dominant or generally accepted framework in strategy
implementation (Okumus, 2001).
Okumus (2003) noted that the success of the strategy design and implementation process was
influenced and determined by the continuous, fluid interactions, relationships and synergies
between the variables proposed in his implementation framework. Any problems or
inconsistencies with one variable influence one or more of the other variables and consequently
influence the success of the strategy implementation process. He argued that an effective
strategy implementation process will only be achieved by a combination of the variables
working together, in tandem. The strategic content takes into account the context, both internal
and external, which the organization finds itself in. Further, the organizational process
variables are tailored around the context and content to produce the desired strategic outcome
(Okumus, 2001). He further argued that a clear understanding of the implementation factors
7
and the relationships between them would help management foresee and mitigate or overcome
potential implementation challenges before they arise.
Whereas Kazmi (2008) acknowledges the superiority and comprehensiveness of Okumus’
strategy implementation framework because “it attempts to take into account an array of
variables and binds them into a compact model”, he points out that there is still scope for its
improvement. In his review, Okumus (2003) points out that one of the ways in which his
framework could be improved is by evaluating it empirically in the light of actual cases of
strategy implementation in organizations, and suggested this as a possible area of future
research. He also advocated that future research efforts be extended to service firms due to the
limited amount of research on the area, as well as in global firms, arguing that this would
enhance the understanding of the practice of strategy implementation. One of the primary
objectives of this study then was to establish the importance of the factors proposed in
Okumus’ framework by investigating the strategy implementation process at Deloitte Kenya.
In addition, a review of extant literature suggests that there has been scant research carried out
in the emerging market context, and specifically Kenya. This study therefore sought to bridge
the existing knowledge gap by specifically looking at the factors facing strategy
implementation in a Kenyan firm, using Deloitte Kenya as a case study. Further, the study
helped determine whether the strategy implementation concepts provided by western
researchers are relevant to the Kenyan context.
1.3 General Objective
The general objective of this research was to examine the importance of strategic content,
strategic context and organizational process factors to effective strategy implementation in
Deloitte Kenya.
1.4 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of the study were:
1.4.1. To examine the importance of strategic content to effective strategy implementation
at Deloitte Kenya
8
1.4.2. To examine the importance of strategic context to effective strategy implementation
at Deloitte Kenya
1.4.3. To examine the importance of organizational processes to effective strategy
implementation at Deloitte Kenya
1.5 Significance of the Study
Review of the literature in this area suggested that very little has been done in the way of
attempting to understand the strategy implementation process in a developing economy such
as Kenya, much less in providing organizations with a framework for the implementation of
such strategies to ensure success and an enhancement of their competitive position. The
findings of this research are expected to contribute towards the strategy implementation
practice based on the Kenyan context in addition to acting as a trigger for additional, more
comprehensive research to be undertaken in this area.
Specifically, the results of the study may be beneficial to the following groups:
1.5.1 Management Staff
Knowledge of how to effectively implement strategy may help managers, not just of Deloitte
Kenya, but also of other local companies in the professional services industry (PSI) and other
sectors, in their quest to turn their ideas, visions and strategy into tangible action that may
develop and sustain competitive advantage.
1.5.2 Strategy Practitioners
The study may address a fundamental knowledge gap by arming consultants and strategy
practitioners with a framework for effective strategy implementation specifically focused on
the Kenyan context, which highlights critical factors for a successful strategy implementation
as well as the common pitfalls to avoid.
9
1.5.3 Deloitte Kenya
This study may be important to Deloitte Kenya as it may enlighten top management of
challenges associated with prior strategy implementation exercises as well as provide them
with a sound framework that may inform future strategy implementation efforts.
1.5.4 Academicians and Researchers
This research may contribute to the scant information available on strategy implementation in
Kenya as well as act as a point of reference for other academicians who wish to extend the
study to other industry groups in Kenya.
1.6 Scope of the Study
This research is a case study focusing on Deloitte Kenya. The study was limited to members
of staff with responsibilities for strategy implementation, namely the partners, directors and
managers. This grouping comprises the firm’s senior, middle and operational level
management respectively. This study reviewed the firm’s most recently concluded strategy
implementation cycle. A possible limitation of this is that it was anticipated that several
members of staff who were involved in the strategy implementation could have since left the
employ of the consulting firm. During data collection, the researcher identified if any such
cases existed and encouraged any such individuals to take part in the study on the basis of strict
confidentiality. Data for the study was collected in July 2016.
1.7 Definition of Terms
1.7.1 Strategy
This study adopted Pearce and Robinson’s (2011) definition of strategy as “large-scale, future-
oriented plans for interacting with the competitive environment to achieve objectives”.
1.7.2 Strategic Management
Strategic management, according to Pearce and Robinson (2011) refers to the set of decisions
and actions that result in the formulation and implementation of plans designed to achieve a
company’s objectives.
10
1.7.3 Strategy Formulation
Alkhafaji and Nelson (2003) define strategy formulation, also referred to as strategic planning,
as a process that involves the making of strategic decisions concerning an organization’s
mission, philosophy, objectives, policies and methods of achieving organizational objectives.
1.7.4 Strategy Implementation
Strategy implementation entails converting the strategic plan of the organization into action
and then into results (Thompson and Strickland, 2003).
1.7.5 Critical Success Factor
Brinkschroder (2014) defines critical success factors for strategy implementation as the most
important aspects if the implementation process is to be effective and successful. They are the
most relevant factors which management must take into account when implementing a
strategy.
1.7.6 Strategic Content
Okumus (2001) views strategic content as “the overall strategic direction of the company and
the need to design new initiatives”. It refers to ‘why’ and ‘how’ strategy is implemented.
1.7.7 Strategic Context
Maas (2008) defines strategic context as the set of circumstances under which both the strategy
content and organizational process are determined.
1.7.8 Organizational Processes
Okumus (2003) defines organizational processes of implementing strategy as the combination
of organizational activities necessary to operationalize or implement a strategic initiative,
including operational planning, resource allocation, communication, people and control and
feedback.
11
1.8 Chapter Summary
This chapter gives a brief background of the research problem as well as the case study
company under investigation. The statement of the problem identifies the research gaps that
have warranted this study. The research objectives have also been stated. The significance of
the study, scope of the study and definition of key terms follow respectively.
The next chapter presents a review of literature and works by other researchers who have
focused their studies on strategy implementation. This was guided by the specific research
objectives stated in Chapter One. Chapter Three then discusses the research methodology that
was adopted in carrying out this study. Chapter Four presents the results and findings of the
study while Chapter Five comprises the discussions, recommendations and conclusions.
12
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of a detailed literature review on the implementation variables
suggested in Okumus’ (2003) framework. The structure of this review is tailored to identify
extant literature that has focussed on the objectives of our study. The chapter has been divided
into three sections each focussing on the three research objectives. The last section gives the
chapter summary.
An appreciation of previous work relevant to this study was beneficial in providing direction
in the construction of data collection instruments, particularly in guarding against the risk of
overload at the primary data collection stages of the research.
2.2 The Importance of Strategic Content to Effective Strategy Implementation
Okumus (2001) defines strategic content as “the overall strategic direction of the company and
the need to ‘design new initiatives’”. His definition refers to ‘why’ and ‘how’ strategy is
implemented (Okumus, 2003) dissipating earlier concepts on strategic planning that were
predicated on the assumption that it was a process merely about the ‘why’ (Heracleous, 1998).
While Okumus’ (ibid) definition lays emphasis on designing “new initiatives” (strategies),
Marr (2006) points to the need for strategic content that embraces environmental realities (both
past and present) which progressively informs projections. This would be done through
clarifying existing missions and goals, targeting spending, reshaping an organization’s
programs, and fundraising amongst other operational aspects. Mintzberg (2007) further cites
strategic content as a synthesis of the learning experiences of the people – including leaders
and employees – into a shared vision.
Much research has been done with regard to strategy and the strategy formulation process (e.g.
Qi, 2005; Shah, 2005; Schaap, 2006). According to Waterman, Peters and Philips (2003),
strategy articulates how a company intends to create value for its customers. It also articulates
how the organization intends to respond to changes in its external environment, including
13
competition. It is therefore fundamental that the content of strategy, including the objectives,
initiatives and management priorities be consistent with the organization’s overall direction
(Okumus, 2003). Waterman et al. (1980) emphasize that strategy development is a critical
variable in the organization design process as it depicts an organization’s chosen route to
competitive success.
Many a research, however, have argued against the concept of strategy development citing that
it shouldn’t be recognized as a genesis of the strategic process but as a tool or approach that
should aid in the development of already existing strategies (Mintzberg, 1994; Albretch, 1994;
Kinni, 1994). They question whether planners can actually predict what will happen in the
market place and further question the engagement of leaders who are detached from business
operations and the market context. Their proposition is for a concept that allows for creative
thinking and radically new ideas in a rather periodic and natural fashion; that strategy
formulation is a generic process that should leave room for an asynchronous relation with
strategy implementation. Conversely, their argument fails to recognize strategy formulation as
an analytical process that forms a critical part (Porter, 1996) of any strategy outcome. Well-
defined analytical approaches such as Michael Porter’s (ibid) five force analysis, the value
chain, the diamond model of national competitive advantage and strategy as activity system
are important contributions to the field of strategy formulation that have led to the sort of
creative thinking and radically new ideas that Mintzberg and associates call for in the first
place. Thus, strategy formulation becomes the much-needed first step towards the successful
execution of most successful strategies.
Further, what Mintzberg (1994), Albretch (1994) and Kinni (1994) allude to in their criticism
is the lack of flexibility and environmental understanding of contexts when it comes to strategy
formulation. This was typical of traditional strategic management literature that described the
strategic management process in a linear fashion, with discrete steps comprising strategy
formulation, to its implementation and finally monitoring and control. However, recent
research suggests that linking the steps aids strategy implementation and improves the
performance of the firm (Okumus, 2003).
14
A review of literature reveals that a poorly formulated or vague strategy significantly hampers
strategy implementation efforts. Strategy formulation has been cited as a key step in strategic
management, preceding implementation and control of plans that are designed to achieve an
organization’s vision (Pearce and Robinson, 2011). Hrebiniak (2006) points out that even the
best execution efforts are powerless in overcoming the shortcomings of a bad strategy or a
poor strategic planning effort. It is important to note that both the type of strategy that is
developed (Alexander, 1985; Allio, 2005) and the actual process of developing the strategy
(Kim & Mauborgne, 1993) inherently influence the effectiveness of its implementation.
Ergo, for clarity we shall split our review into two parts; with the first section examining the
process of developing or crafting a strategy and the second section discussing the actual content
of strategy. Further, the role of these two critical components in effective strategy
implementation will be reviewed.
2.2.1 The Process of Strategy Development
Aaltonen and Ikävalko (2002) argue that a well-known and explicit strategy formulation
process is key in supporting effective strategy implementation. In many organizations, this
takes place in the shape of an annual strategic planning process. This process, they argue,
should be comprehensively articulated, with a definite start and end and clearly outlined
phases. The roles and responsibilities of the participants in the process ought to be clarified,
and the product of the process (the strategic plans, objectives and initiatives) needs to be
explicitly specified. In addition, they advocate that the process be linked with the goal-setting
practices of the organizations so that individual goals are linked with the strategic goals of the
organization in goal-setting discussions between managers and their subordinates. Achieving
this goal congruence at the outset, they argue, is instrumental in eliciting the required
behavioural change and motivation in employees, which stands the implementation process in
good stead (Aaltonen and Ikävalko, 2002).
Kim and Mauborgne (1991) bring out the concept of the “procedural justice” of the strategy
formulation process as a key factor that influences the trust, commitment and organizational
harmony of managers in subsidiary companies. They argue that if a subsidiary’s management
feels that the strategy formulation process is open, fair, consistent, and is inviting of their input,
15
this brings about a great sense of commitment to the organizational good, trust in head office
management, and social harmony with their head office counterparts, and therefore they would
be more motivated to implement the strategy. Various supportive perspectives based on age-
old interpretive sociology note that organizations are socially constructed systems of shared
meaning (Burrell and Morgan, 2005; Pfeffer, 1981; Welck, 1979). Lack of such a so-called
due or fair process would bring about the opposite effect (Kim and Mauborgne, 1991). This is
also true of local companies. Research has shown that one way of securing employee buy-in
is by involving them in the strategy formulation process.
2.2.2 The Content of Strategy
Allio (2005, p. 13) argues that good implementation begins with good strategic input, noting
that “the soup is only as good as the ingredients”.
Shah (2005) conducted a study to identify obstacles to strategy implementation and the factors
that were critical in promoting effective implementation. Using survey data obtained from 104
managers drawn from a cross-section of companies, the study revealed that a significant
majority of the respondents ranked the selection of a sound strategy as the most important
factor for successful strategy implementation. In his findings, he concurs with Hrebiniak’s
(2006) view that a strategy that is not fundamentally sound will be doomed to fail, despite the
very best implementation efforts. Alexander (1985) also noted that most business executives
frequently mention the need to start with a clearly formulated strategy containing good
concepts and ideas as critical in aiding successful implementation.
However, Mintzberg (1994), one of the leading thinkers in the area of strategic management,
introduces the concept of realized versus intended strategy, noting that no matter how well an
organization plans its strategy, a different strategy could emerge. Sometimes organizations
realize strategies that were never intended in the first place. He termed this ‘emergent strategy’.
This school of thought seems to counter what most of the above authors say on the importance
of the formulation process.
Okumus (2003) points out several key areas for management to consider with regard to
strategic content. Firstly, any new strategic initiative ought to be consistent with the firm’s
16
overall strategic direction, and its aims should be clearly identified and explicitly highlighted.
In addition, the potential impact of this new strategic initiative on current and future strategic
projects should be evaluated. The opposite is also true, that the potential impact of current and
future strategic projects on the new initiative also need to be considered. Okumus (2003)
recommends active participation from all levels of management in the development of strategy,
though as later sections of this literature review will show, it is equally important to ensure
active participation from all employees, as they are the ones who will execute the specific tasks
required to achieve the strategic objectives. Lastly, he singles out the knowledge and
proficiency of the strategy developers in managing change as a crucial concern (Okumus,
2003). Indeed, Saunders et al. (2008) point out that successfully managing the changes that
occur as a new strategic initiative is deployed was a common challenge facing nearly all
organisations. Shah (2005) also recognizes the role played by strategy developers in effective
strategy implementation, adding that an effective strategy takes cognizance of the needs,
perceptions and behaviours of key customer segments, the actions, strengths, and strategies of
key competitors, and the capabilities of the organization in delivering on its strategy. Failure
to do so will lower the chances of a successful implementation.
2.3 The Importance of Strategic Context to Effective Strategy Implementation
Strategies are formulated and executed within a specific strategic context (Okumus, 2001).
Strategic context here refers to the set of circumstances under which both the strategy content
and organizational processes are determined (Maas, 2008). It is assumed that, over the short
term at least, organizations have little control over the variables in this grouping. However,
both Yip (1992) and Okumus (2003) acknowledge the importance of these factors in shaping
or influencing the crucial organizational processes that affect a company’s ability to effectively
create and implement strategy. Consequently, it is imperative for management to take the
internal context into account as a means of managing the challenges associated with
implementation (Okumus, 2003).
Okumus (2001; 2003) distinguishes between two components of an organization’s strategic
context: the external context and the internal context. We shall delve into deeper discussion of
each of these components below.
17
2.3.1 External Context
The external context comprises the organization’s external environment and the degree of
uncertainty and changes in it (Okumus, 2003); in this case it means the political, economic,
social, technological and competitive environments (Ivančić, 2013).
An organization’s external environment plays a fundamental role in shaping the future of
businesses and entire industries and in order to keep abreast of competition, managers must
continually adjust their business strategies to reflect the trends and conditions in their operating
environment (Ansoff, 1965; Porter, 1985). Consequently, most organizations incorporate an
external environment scanning phase at the start of the strategy review process, using
frameworks and models such as SWOT, PESTLE, and Porter’s five force analysis to analyse
the environment (ibid, 2013).
According to Bhasin (2015), in order to make strategy work, it is important that both the
development and execution be appropriate to the context of the firm carrying out the strategy
implementation exercise. The external environment is dynamic and evolving, creating
situations that force an organization to constantly change and adapt. Whereas Ivančić (2013)
acknowledges that there is no specific solution to address environmental uncertainty, the need
to anticipate the changing circumstances is very important. Thus, a strategic plan needs to be
flexible enough to allow the organization to adapt to the changing environment. Management
needs to design effective communication and information flows during implementation to
facilitate continuous scanning and monitoring of the environment for changes, which will
allow quick and agile response by the organizations (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000). Ivančić (2013)
further cites management’s failure to anticipate the changing environment and consequently
undertake the necessary defensive action to overcome adversity as one of the key reasons why
even the best designed strategies don’t achieve their intended outcomes. She argues that the
essence of good strategy formulation is to build a flexible yet strong position to ensure
successful performance despite the impact of unforeseeable and unanticipated changes in the
external environment.
18
2.3.2 Internal Context
Having an internal organizational context that is receptive to change is crucial in ensuring the
successful implementation of strategy. According to Okumus (2003), the characteristics of an
organization’s internal context include the organizational structure, culture and leadership.
2.3.2.1 Organizational Structure
Organizational structure refers to the configuration of tasks and activities in an organization.
(Skivington and Daft, 1991). Okumus (2003) further elaborates organizational structure and
points to a description of shape, division of labour, job duties and responsibilities, prescriptions
of authority, distribution of power, and decision-making procedures and hierarchies in the
organization.
Much research has been carried out on the relationship between an organization’s structure and
its strategy. For many years, the topic of interest was whether the strategy determined structure
or structure determined strategy. Alfred Chandler (1962), one of the earliest authors on this
perspective, stipulated that a new strategy required a new or at least a refashioned structure if
the new enterprise was to operate efficiently. Over time, emerging research suggested that each
affects the other simultaneously (Rajapakshe, 2002). Thus, according to White (1986) and
Slater and Olson (2001), the fit between business unit strategy and the firm’s internal
organizational structure inherently affects the performance of a business unit. These authors
argue for an organizational structure that is mostly dependent on the type of strategy that
emerges.
An empirical study carried out by Skivington and Daft (1991) established a correlation between
strategy implementation and an organization’s structure. As they examined the effect of
organizational framework and process modalities on implementation of strategies, they noted
that longer-term strategic changes were associated with significant changes in the structural
configuration of the organization, i.e. jobs and departmentation. This was in contrast to smaller,
short-term, discrete strategic decisions that required minimal recalibrations of structure.
Saunders et al. (2008) further note that top managers often reconfigure an organization’s
formal structure to implement new behaviours appropriate to new strategy. Indeed, the
19
translation of strategy into action may require managers to redefine roles, duties and
responsibilities or change the division of labour and task specialization.
Okumus (2001) argues that organizational structure plays a vital role in ensuring the
achievement of strategic outcomes by connecting the external environment context with
internal organizational processes. Shah (2005) adds that an indistinct organizational structure
with unclear lines of responsibility causes confusion and frustration among employees, thereby
impeding successful strategy implementation. Okumus’ framework proposes that, prior to the
deployment of any new strategic initiatives, management should consider the potential
adjustments in roles, duties, decision making, and reporting relationships attributed to the new
strategy, as well as take into account the potential impact of the new strategy on informal
groups, networks and politics in the organization (Okumus, 2003).
2.3.2.2 Organizational Culture
Cole (1995) describes organizational culture as the sum of shared values, assumptions, visions,
philosophies, perspectives and modes of behaviour that constitute an organization. Lund
(2003) further alludes to culture as the shared ideologies, expectations, attitudes and norms
that typify the organization. Research shows that organizational culture is a key source of
sustained competitive advantage and a key factor to organizational effectiveness (Ahmadi,
Salamzadeh, Daraei and Akbari, 2012).
According to McNeal (2009), culture forms in response to the need for external adaptation and
survival, as organizations aim to find a niche to enable them cope with changes in the
environment. Organizational culture also forms in response to the need for internal integration,
typified through the development of language, concepts, groups, power, status, rewards and
punishment in order to establish and maintain effective working relationships among members
of an organization.
The relationship between the organizational culture and its effect on strategy implementation
has been a topic of considerable interest in the field of research. Strategies are often formed
and implemented within the context of an organization’s culture. It is therefore crucial to
achieve alignment between the cultural norms and behaviours of the organization and the
20
actions required to execute strategy in order for it be implemented successfully. Strategic
initiatives that match the culture and competencies of an organisation can ensure rapid and
successful implementation (Saunders et al., 2008). For example, a firm that wants to execute a
cost-leadership strategy needs to embrace a culture of frugality and thrift, whereas a company
pursuing a differentiation strategy based on innovation and technology leadership would
require a culture that embraces creativity and innovation, collaboration and the willingness to
embrace change (ibid, 2008).
Organizational culture represents a powerful aspect of an organization’s status quo. Resistance
to actions and behaviours borne out of culture pose a formidable challenge to the success of
the implementation process. This, coupled with the pervasiveness of an organization’s culture,
requires that management recognize underlying dimensions of their corporate culture and its
impact on employee-related variables such as satisfaction, commitment, cohesion,
performance, among others (Lund, 2003) as a key factor prior to implementing strategy. Buul
(2010) agrees, noting that a fundamental part of the strategy implementation process should
take into account organizational culture. The impact of organizational culture on
communication, coordination and cooperation between various functions, departments and
levels of management needs to be considered prior to implementation of strategic initiatives.
Implementation efforts that embrace shared values and leverage on workplace support
strategies are likely to result in higher chances of success (Ahmadi et al., 2012).
2.3.2.3 Leadership
Although the strategy implementation process involves the collective effort of every member
of the organization, the overall responsibility of implementing strategy rests with top
management, who are ultimately accountable for the performance of the organization (Shah,
2005). Leadership is the ability to influence a group towards the pursuit and achievement of
organizational goals (O'Reilly, Caldwell, Chatman, Lapiz and Self, 2010). In the context of
Okumus’ framework, leadership refers to the actual involvement, support and backing of the
CEO and other senior executives in the strategy formulation and implementation process
(Okumus, 2003).
21
Several researchers have emphasized the role of effective leadership in strategy
implementation (Schaap, 2006). Shah (2005) notes that effective leadership is required at all
levels of the implementation process not only for decision-making, but also to guide, support
and motivate the people involved in implementation. Similarly, Harrington (2006) points to
leadership as crucial in utilizing the organizational process factors and also in manipulating the
internal context to create an operating environment that is supportive of the change.
Brinkschröder (2014) concurs, asserting that it is the responsibility of top management to
ensure that the rest of the organization stays committed throughout the strategy implementation
process. They are expected to convince employees that a new strategy is important by creating
a shared meaning and understanding of the strategy. They are also expected to deal with
resistance in the organization, allocate the appropriate resources towards the process and create
consensus. Such consensus is critical in ensuring leaders at the lower levels reinforce strategy
and align the entire workforce towards a single compelling direction (O'Reilly et al., 2010).
Many authors including Alexander (1985) and Al-Ghamdi (1998) cite ineffective leadership
as a major barrier towards effective strategy implementation, As established by Shah’s (2005)
research, inadequate leadership and management skills, poor direction provided by
departmental managers, along with poor comprehension of roles, may affect the quality of
strategy implementation. Ineffective leadership also manifests in poor coordination of
implementation activities and failure to create effective communication lines within the team;
for example, bypassing middle management and directly obtaining information and/or giving
orders to the lower level employees. (Alexander, 1985; Beer and Eisenstat, 2000).
2.4 Importance of Organizational Processes to Effective Strategy Implementation
El-Ansary (2006, p. 276) defines a process as “a procedure, progression, mean, or course of
action to administer or manage”. The organizational processes of implementing strategy refer
to the combination of organizational activities necessary to operationalize or implement a
strategic initiative, including operational planning, resource allocation, communication, people
and control and feedback (Okumus, 2003).
22
2.4.1 Operational Planning
Speculand (2009) asserts that it is not enough to make sure that members of the organization
understand the new strategy; it is imperative that they also understand exactly what actions
they need to take in order to implement the new strategy. Okumus (2003) describes operational
planning as the process of launching the new strategy and coming up with the detailed planning
of implementation activities and tasks. It has a profound impact on resource allocation,
communication, and the provision of training and incentives necessary to achieve the desired
skills and motivation for implementation.
An operational plan guides the daily, weekly and monthly operational activities that are
necessary to achieve the objectives of the set strategy. It articulates in specific terms how an
organization will operate in practice to implement its strategic plan by specifying the capacity
needs required, how to engage resources, how to deal with risks as well as how to ensure results
sustainability (Beale, Maquet and Tua, 2007). Speculand (2009) notes that a disproportionate
amount of communication about a new strategy usually focuses on its launch, and on
communicating the reasons behind the new strategy. While he recognizes that it is vital for
employees to understand the rationale and importance of a new strategy, he argues that the
focus of communication ought to shift towards getting employees to embrace the strategy by
spelling out what each one needs to do differently as a result of the new strategy, adding that
“successful implementation goes beyond ensuring staff members understand the strategy; they
must also know exactly what to do and be motivated to do it.”
According to Beale et al. (2007), it is important to recognize that whereas a strategy is crafted
mostly at the top of the organization chart, it gets implemented from the bottom-up.
Operational planning therefore provides the critical bridge between strategy formulation and
implementation by translating the goals of the new strategy into specific actionable steps
(Speculand, 2009) and tasks that can be monitored for control purposes. A good operational
plan effectively specifies who needs to do what and by when. It prioritises tasks and activities
that are required to achieve the set strategy based on importance and ensures adequate
resources are allocated to those activities in a timely manner (Beale et al., 2007).
23
To ensure effective implementation, an organization must ensure that any changes initiated by
the new strategy are reflected in areas such as budgeting, resource allocation, incentive
compensation and information systems. The overall goal is to integrate the objectives
articulated in the strategic plan with daily, weekly and monthly routines that drive the efforts
of the different functions in the organization such as sales and marketing, finance, production,
operations, human resources and research and development (Barnat, 2014).
2.4.2 Resource Allocation
This is the process of ensuring that all necessary financial, physical, human, and organizational
resources including time, skills, and knowledge are made available for purposes of executing
the tasks and activities related to the new strategy (Okumus, 2003). It is closely linked with
operational planning. Barnat (2014) views resource allocation as a crucial management activity
necessary for effective strategy execution, adding that the genuine value of any resource
allocation program lies in the subsequent achievement of an organization’s objectives. Most
organizations adopt a quantitative allocation process through the use of budgets.
Christensen and Donovan (2000) view the resource allocation process as a complex and
diffused one, warning that significant disproportions could develop between the company’s
intended strategy and its realized strategy if resource allocation is not tied to the company’s
intended strategy. The process of resource allocation therefore needs to be understood and
controlled and decisions that are made at all levels of the organization looked into if strategy
is to be effectively implemented (Bhasin, 2015).
Several scholars, including Shah (2005) and Waithaka (2013) cite resource insufficiency as
one of the greatest barriers to strategy implementation. Senior management often
underestimate the time required to implement a strategic initiative. Al-Ghamdi, (1998) and
Alexander (1985) observed that in most cases, implementation takes more time than was
anticipated. This is often a result of lack of diligent operational planning, failure to clearly
identify the critical factors underpinning the successful execution of strategy and failure to
effectively prioritize the key tasks necessary to execute the plan. This leads to a loss of focus
and attention towards the implementation exercise (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000; Corboy and
Corrbui, 1999; Al-Ghamdi, 1998; Alexander, 1985). It should therefore be clear to all
24
employees involved in the implementation which activities have greater priority for execution
and management should ensure availability of all resources, including time, information and
financial resources, in a timely manner.
2.4.3 Communication
In strategy application, communication refers to the means through which the strategy is sold
to the rest of the organization. According to Falkowski, Pedigo, Smith and Swanson (1998),
effective communication of a new strategy and its underlying rationale is critical to the success
of strategy implementation. They insist that communication ought to be relayed to all levels of
the workforce. Sterling (2003) supports this view; arguing that effective communication
becomes more critical particularly when reaching out beyond the group directly involved in its
formulation.
Rapert, Velliquette and Garretson (2002) hold that frequent, vertical communication is crucial
in the creation and dissemination of shared perceptions, values and beliefs among different
levels of the workforce. Thus, all levels of management are required to communicate the
importance of the strategy implementation exercise in order to generate consensus and the
much-needed buy-in (Wee, 2000). Sumner (1999) further asserts that any changes to scope,
objectives, activities and updates in the organization as a result of the strategy implementation
should be communicated to the whole organization. These positions are supported by
Brinkschröder (2014), who indicates that communication is deeply connected in the strategy
implementation process where everybody in the organization must know the direction the
organization will take after the implementation of strategy, the vision and the ideal state of the
organization. Communication also plays a crucial role in knowledge transfer, training and
learning during the process of strategy implementation (Li, Guohui and Eppler, 2008).
A study carried out by Kaplan and Norton (2008) in the United States revealed that nearly 90
percent of employees in the companies surveyed did not understand their company’s strategy.
This study was augmented by Hrebiniak (2006) who found that employees are more often than
not unaware of their company’s strategy. These alarming findings bring the role of
communication to the fore in considering an effective strategy implementation process, whilst
25
simultaneously questioning the amount of engagement that employees are actually accorded
in realistic implementation contexts.
Saunders et al. (2008) single out the vital role played by middle managers in communicating
strategies and ensuring a shared understanding of the strategy; as well as increasing awareness
of the reasons and business drivers for deploying the initiative. The impact of the new strategy
on key stakeholders outside the organization such as customers, partners and suppliers should
also be communicated.
2.4.4 People
“Strategy implementation is essentially a people issue” (McKnight, 2005). The ‘people’ part
of successful strategy implementation refers to the organizational human resource (HR)
practices of recruitment and selection, training, rewards and incentives, competency
development and the style of managers and employees that are aligned to meet the
organization’s strategic objectives (Okumus, 2003).
Zafara, Butt and Afzal (2014) recognize three essential elements that must be taken into
account in the strategy implementation process in order to drive the success of the strategy;
people, their perspective and their drive. MacMillan (1978) supports this view, adding that
people are motivated more by their apparent self-interest rather than by the organizational
interest unless these are largely congruent. Guth and MacMillan (1986) studied the motivation
of middle management towards strategy implementation and observed that middle managers
are likely to divert, delay or otherwise subvert the process if they believe their self-interest is
being compromised. Maas (2008) advocates for a reward system that monitors the progress of
implementation and recognizes employees’ and management’s efforts towards the realization
of a strategy. Reward systems geared towards strategy implementation are crucial for
motivating staff, securing greater commitment and ensuring appropriate behaviour in relation
to the strategy.
The lack of employees with appropriate skills and abilities to execute the strategy has been
cited as a major barrier towards implementation by several authors (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000;
Al-Ghamdi, 1998; Alexander; 1985). New strategies that are specifically aimed at radical
26
change often involve new tasks, activities and new ways of thinking that necessitate a new set
of competencies to enable effective execution. The HR function is instrumental in providing
employees who have the requisite skill set and attitude to implement the new strategy (Maas,
2008), either by going to market and hiring new employees and managers possessing these
skills, or by providing existing staff with the correct training and instruction that equips them
with the knowledge, skills, abilities and self-efficacy necessary to effectively execute the
strategy. The question executives need to ask themselves therefore is whether their business
has in place appropriate HR plans for staffing, training, empowerment, involvement and
recognition that are consistent with the strategic goals of the organization (Saunders et al.,
2008).
2.4.5 Control and Feedback
This refers to “the formal and informal mechanisms that allow the efforts and results of
implementation to be monitored and compared against predetermined objectives” (Okumus,
2003).
The intended outcomes of a strategy will not be noticed immediately following the
commencement of implementation activities. There is usually a considerable amount of time
between initial implementation and achievement of the set objectives, during which numerous
investments are made and activities undertaken to execute the strategy. Strategic control is
concerned with tracking the progress of the strategy throughout the various phases of
implementation, detecting any problems or potential problems that may arise, and taking the
necessary corrective action to ensure that set strategic objectives are met (Barnat, 2014).
Control and feedback mechanisms allow management to know whether the strategy is being
implemented as planned and whether the results produced by the strategy are those intended
(Schreyogg and Steinmann, 1987; Mintzberg, 1994). The importance of such systems is
underscored when you take into account the fact that the contextual factors underpinning a
firm’s strategy – such as market forces and the technological and competitive landscapes –are
not static but are likely to evolve over time. Strategic controls are necessary to steer the firm
through these events by assessing whether the overall strategy should be changed in light of
27
unexpected events, intermediate performance or new information, and by providing means of
how to go about the same (Barnat, 2014).
In their study, Saunders et al. (2008) found that nearly all the executives they interviewed
considered feedback about the strategic initiative from employees and other internal and
external stakeholders vital to successful implementation. As noted earlier in the chapter, such
feedback mechanism are directly influenced by the communication flows within the
organization.
Schreyogg and Steinmann (1987) point out several shortcomings of the feedback–control
system, notably that it is based on post-action control. The authors cite the post-action
characteristic of the feedback-control mechanism as a massive drawback, arguing that
feedback about strategic actions already taken may come too late to allow any meaningful
correction to be undertaken. This is often the case if feedback is not provided until after the
strategy has been implemented in totality. They argue that placing strategic control in this
traditional feedback framework fails to capture the innovative essence of the idea of strategic
control. To mitigate this, they advocate for a feed-forward mechanism that allows management
to be proactive in the prevention and/or mitigation of adverse events as opposed to being
reactive.
Control and feedback mechanisms are inextricably linked with communication and operational
planning. Management needs to design communication channels that would allow proper
monitoring to be carried out both during and after implementation, as well as to enable
feedback capture from salient stakeholder groups (Okumus, 2003). A combination of both
feedback and feed-forward mechanisms (Schreyogg and Steinmann, 1987) as well as periodic
reviews of strategy at regular intervals (Speculand, 2009) would be considered most
appropriate in making the monitoring process more robust.
2.5 Chapter Summary
This chapter provides a detailed literature review on the implementation variables suggested
in Okumus’ framework. The first section of the chapter reviews literature on the importance
of strategic content in effective strategy implementation. The second section reviews literature
28
that highlights the importance of the strategic context to effective implementation, including
the external and internal context. The chapter closes by discussing the importance of
organizational processes in successful strategy implementation. The next chapter discusses the
research methodology that was used in this study.
29
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the research methodology that was adopted in our assessment of
strategy implementation at Deloitte Kenya, including the research design, the population and
sampling design, sampling frame; sampling technique; sample size showing the distribution of
the population; data collection methods; research procedures and the data analysis methods
that will be used in the study.
During this phase, I held a discussion with the Deputy CEO of Deloitte Kenya, who is also the
Chief Strategy Officer at the consultancy responsible for overseeing the strategy formulation
and implementation process at the firm, with the main objective of identifying the ideal target
population as well as to agree on suitable data collection techniques.
3.2 Research Design
This study adopted a descriptive research design. The main objective of a descriptive study is
to present an accurate profile of persons, events, or situations (Robson, 2011). According to
Ngonjo and Sindani (2013), descriptive research is concerned with ‘the who, when, where,
what and how’ of a particular observed phenomenon. It attempts to describe the main
characteristics or functions of the phenomenon. Sloman (2010) holds that descriptive research
is particularly advantageous because it involves direct observation of a phenomenon in a
natural environment thus providing a means to gather baseline data around the phenomenon
for future analysis. A descriptive research design was appropriate for such a study because,
according to Ngonjo and Sindani (2013), it enables us to generalize the findings of the study
to a larger population, e.g. to the wider Kenyan context.
Our research design constituted the blueprint for collection of data, its measurement and
analysis. Consequently, our assessment of strategy implementation at Deloitte Kenya took the
form of a cross-sectional study. The dependent and independent variables in this study were
obtained from our research objectives.
30
3.3 Population and Sampling Design
3.3.1 Population
Cooper and Schindler (2014) define a population as the total collection of elements that are to
be investigated and to which we wish to generalize the results of the study. A research
population represents the elements from whom the information required to answer the research
questions is obtained, and could include people, events, objects, households, firms, services,
or other items of interest.
The target population for this study comprised members of staff of Deloitte Kenya with
responsibilities for strategy implementation, namely the partners, directors and managers.
Table 3.1 below presents our population distribution.
Table 3.1: Population Distribution
Population % Distribution
Partners (senior management) 21 18%
Directors (middle management) 40 35%
Managers (operational management) 54 47%
Total 115 100%
Source: Deloitte Kenya HR Department
3.3.2 Sampling Design
3.3.2.1 Sampling Frame
According to Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2012), a sampling frame, also known as the
working population, is a complete list of all the elements in the population from which our
sample will actually be drawn. Sample selection from a defined target population requires us
to construct an accurate sampling frame which ensures that we target the right population for
investigation.
The sampling frame for this study was the mailing list of the partners, directors and managers
in Deloitte Kenya as at 30 June 2016, and was obtained from the consultancy’s IT department.
31
3.3.2.2 Sampling Technique
Stratified random sampling technique was used to select the sample that was investigated for
purposes of this study. Kothari (1985) defines stratified random sampling as the process of
dividing the population into mutually exclusive groups, or strata, based on certain stratification
variables and drawing random samples from each group.
Saunders et al. (2012) contend that the stratified random sampling technique is best used when
the population is heterogeneous. In our study, the stratification variable chosen was the level
of management. Consequently, we stratified our population into low/operational-level, mid-
level and senior-level management. The motivation for stratifying our population thus is
because each level of management may have different points of view concerning our research
objectives and it was therefore crucial to obtain and understand each of these perspectives.
Additionally, each strata is homogeneous internally but heterogeneous with the other strata.
Our choice of a probability sampling technique was designed to ensure that each element in
our target population stood an equal chance of being selected for purposes of data collection
(Crossman, 2012). Nabwire (2014) undertook a similar study in which she investigated the
factors facing strategy implementation at one of the leading commercial banks in Kenya. In
her study, she used a stratified random sampling method to classify her population into low,
middle and senior management. One advantage of using this technique is that it ensures
complete and correct representation within a sample thereby increasing the sample’s statistical
efficiency (Cooper and Schindler, 2014).
3.3.2.3 Sample Size
The sample size used for this study was arrived at based on Yamane’s (1967, p. 886) formula
below:
𝑛 =𝑁
1 + 𝑁(𝑒)2
where, n = the sample size,
N = the population size, and
32
e = the margin of error or the level of precision
By using the formula above with a margin of error of 5 percent at a 95 percent confidence
level, the calculation from a total population of 115 management staff yielded a sample size of
89 management staff, which will be increased to 90.
The sample size distribution table is shown below:
Table 3.2: Sample Size Distribution
Strata Population % Distribution Sample Size
Senior Management 21 18% 16
Middle-level Management 40 35% 32
Operational-level Management 54 47% 42
Total 115 100% 90
3.4 Data Collection Methods
Given that this research was a case study survey, primary data was collected using a structured
questionnaire that was administered online via the Internet. According to Mugenda and
Mugenda (2003), questionnaires represent a quick and cost-effective way of collecting
information from a large, educated sample. Use of a questionnaire for this study was therefore
justified given the relatively large sample size. In addition, the target respondents were
uniquely qualified to provide the information required for the study via this research
instrument.
The questionnaire consisted of closed-ended questions covering a range of factors considered
important for the research. These questions typically consisted of five-point Likert scales
where respondents were asked to either indicate their level of agreement with the statements
or score the statements based on perceived importance.
The questionnaire was designed in consideration of the published literature reviewed in the
area of study and was structured in line with the objectives of the study. The first part of the
33
questionnaire covered the demographic information of the respondents while the subsequent
parts focused on examining the importance of strategic content, strategic context and
organizational process factors to effective strategy implementation respectively.
3.5 Research Procedures
A pre-test questionnaire was sent to 5 individuals from the target population representing
5.56% of the sample size so as to gauge the suitability of the data collection instrument for
purposes of addressing the research objectives. This exercise was useful in determining the
appropriateness and understandability of the questions, the amount of time it would take
respondents to fill the questionnaire as well as the respondents’ willingness and ability to
answer the questions. Feedback received from the pre-test exercise informed improvements to
the research instrument. The final questionnaire was then administered to the respondents
online via the Internet.
An email communication was sent out to the respondents containing a cover letter and a link
to the online questionnaire. The cover letter stated the purpose of the research, emphasized the
value of the research findings to Deloitte Kenya and assured the respondents that all
information provided was solely for academic purposes and that it would be treated with strict
confidentiality. To increase the credibility of the research as well as the response rates, this
email communication was sent out by the Deputy CEO of Deloitte Kenya. Subsequent email
reminders were sent to prompt those who hadn’t completed the questionnaire to do so.
3.6 Data Analysis Methods
The data collected was first be edited and cleaned for completeness and consistency before
being subjected to analysis. This study made use of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) software to analyse the data by means of both descriptive and inferential statistics.
Descriptive statistics including mean and standard deviations were used to analyse the
quantitative data and capture the characteristics of the variables under study. Inferential
statistics such as correlation and regression analysis were used to test the nature and magnitude
of the relationships between the variables. The findings were communicated using tables and
figures for ease of interpretation.
34
3.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter covers the research methodology that was used in carrying out the study. It
comprehensively describes the research design, the population of interest, sampling design
including the sample size determination and distribution, the data collection methods, research
procedures and the data analysis methods that were used. The study adopted a descriptive
research design targeting members of staff of Deloitte Kenya with responsibilities for strategy
implementation, namely the partners, directors and managers. A sample of 90 respondents was
selected through stratified random sampling technique. Data was collected via online
questionnaires and analysed using SPSS.
The subsequent chapters provide a detailed analysis of the results and findings of our study,
and summarise the logical conclusions and recommendations ensuing from the same.
35
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
The general objective of this study was to examine the importance of strategic content, strategic
context and organizational process factors to effective strategy implementation in Deloitte
Kenya. This chapter presents the results and findings of our data analysis. The results have
been organized based on the specific objectives of the study. Descriptive analysis was
employed including mean, frequencies and standard deviation. Inferential statistics such as
correlation and regression analysis were also used to test for the relationship between the
variables. Data for our study was collected via structured questionnaires that were administered
online. Based on our target sample size of 90, a total of 68 complete responses were received,
representing a 75.56% response rate. According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) a response
rate of over 50% is adequate for a descriptive study; hence we were able to carry out an
effective analysis of the results and findings. The data was analysed using the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and presented in frequency and percentage tables to
facilitate ease of interpretation and understanding of the research findings.
Table 4.1: Survey Response Rate
Category Frequency Percentage
Returned questionnaires 68 75.56%
Unreturned questionnaires 22 24.44%
Total 90 100%
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
This section contains a description of the demographic characteristics of the respondents,
including their gender, age group, service line, managerial level, the period of time they have
worked with the firm and the length of time they have been involved in strategy formulation
36
and implementation. Charts and figures were used to presents the results of the demographics
characteristics of the respondents.
4.2.1 Gender
The study sought to find out the gender of the respondents. The findings revealed that 59% of
the total respondents were male while 41% were female, implying that majority of the members
of staff of Deloitte Kenya with responsibilities for strategy implementations were male.
Figure 4.1: Gender of the Respondents
4.2.2 Age Range
More than half (51.5%) of the respondents who participated in this study were between 30-39
years, followed by 29.4% who were between 40-49 years. Respondents over 60 years old were
the fewest at 2.9%, followed by those less than 30 years old at 5.9%. These findings imply that
a majority of the members of staff of Deloitte Kenya with responsibilities for strategy
implementation were less than 50 years as shown in Figure 4.2.
Female41%
Male59%
37
Figure 4.2: Respondents' Age Range
4.2.3 Service Line
The findings indicate that 39.7% of the respondents in this study were from the Advisory
service line. Audit and tax were represented by 26.5% and 20.6% of the respondents
respectively.
Figure 4.3: Service Line of the Respondents
4.2.4 Managerial Level
The study also sought to understand the position the respondents held at the firm. Sixty percent
(60%) of the respondents were managers, while 26% of the respondents were partners.
Associate directors were the fewest at 12% as shown in Figure 4.4 below.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Younger than 30years
30 – 39 years 40 – 49 years 50 – 59 years 60 years or older
5.9
51.5
29.4
10.3
2.9
%
Advisory, 39.7
Audit, 26.5
ICS, 13.2
Tax, 20.6
38
Figure 4.4: Managerial Level of the Respondents
4.2.5 Period of Time Spent Working at Deloitte Kenya
This study was also interested in finding out the number of years the respondents had worked
with the firm. Nearly 81% of the respondents had spent 4 years or longer working with the
firm, suggesting that majority had worked long enough to be familiar with the strategies that
were being implemented in Deloitte Kenya.
Figure 4.5: Length of Time Spent Working at Deloitte Kenya
4.2.6 Length of Time Involved in Strategy Formulation and Implementation
The study further sought to understand how long the respondents had been involved in the
formulation and implementation of strategy in any organisation. Nearly 57% of the respondents
had been involved in strategy formulation and implementation for between 1 to 7 years while
35.2% had been involved in strategy formulation and implementation for between 8 to 20
Partner26%
Associate Director12%
Manager62%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Less than 1 year 1 – 3 years 4 – 7 years 8 – 10 years 11 years or more
4.4
14.7
33.8
20.6
26.5
%
39
years. These findings similarly suggest that majority of the respondents had a good
understanding of the practice and concepts of strategic management.
Figure 4.6: Length of Time Involved in Strategy Formulation and Implementation
4.2.7 Presence of Firm-wide Strategies in Deloitte Kenya
The respondents were also asked if they were aware of any firm-wide strategies that had been
formulated and were being implemented at Deloitte Kenya. Ninety percent (90%) responded
in the affirmative, with 9% saying they were unaware.
Figure 4.7: Presence of Firm-wide Strategies in Deloitte Kenya
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Less than 1year
1 – 3 years 4 – 7 years 8 – 10 years 11 – 20 years 21 years ormore
5.9
32.4
25
17.6 17.6
1.5
%
Yes90%
No1%
Not Aware9%
40
4.3 Strategic Content and Effective Strategy Implementation
The first objective of this study was to examine the importance of strategic content to effective
strategy implementation at Deloitte Kenya. The study focused on two aspects of strategic
content; namely the process of strategy development and the content of the actual strategy. The
study used both descriptive statistics, specifically mean, standard deviation and percentages,
and inferential statistics, specifically correlation and regression analysis, to ascertain the
relationship between strategic content and effective strategy implementation.
4.3.1 Influence of Process of Strategy Development on Effective Strategy
Implementation
4.3.1.1 Descriptive Results of the Process of Strategy Development
The results in the table below show that most of the statements on the process of strategy
development had a mean of 4 which indicates that the respondents’ response fall under the
“usually” category. The standard deviation also indicates that the responses varied slightly.
These findings imply that at Deloitte Kenya, the strategy formulation process ensures that all
planning participants have a solid understanding of the business, its strategy and the underlying
assumptions. The process also ensured that all managers are involved in the formulation of
strategy to establish firm-wide identification with the strategy right from the very beginning
and that the teams involved in strategy formulation have the necessary expertise to carry out
this function. The results also reveal that at Deloitte Kenya, individual service line goals and
targets are aligned with the firm-wide strategy, and finally, that the potential impact of new
strategic initiatives on ongoing and future projects is considered during strategy formulation.
41
Table 4.2: Descriptive Results of the Process of Strategy Development
N R S U A Mean Std
Dev
The strategy formulation process
ensures that all planning
participants have a solid
understanding of the business, its
strategy and the underlying
assumptions.
0.0% 11.8% 25.0% 55.9% 7.4% 4 0.80
All managers are involved in the
formulation of strategy to
establish firm-wide identification
with the strategy right from the
very beginning.
5.9% 32.4% 38.2% 20.6% 2.9% 3 0.93
The teams involved in strategy
formulation have the necessary
expertise to carry out this
function.
0.0% 4.4% 39.7% 51.5% 4.4% 4 0.66
Individual service line goals and
targets are aligned with the firm-
wide strategy.
0.0% 7.4% 30.9% 55.9% 5.9% 4 0.72
The potential impact of new
strategic initiatives on ongoing
and future projects is considered
during strategy formulation.
0.0% 19.1% 32.4% 48.5% 0.0% 3 0.77
(NB: N = Never; R = Rarely; S = Sometimes; U = Usually; A = Always)
4.3.1.2 Correlation Results of the Process of Strategy Development
Pearson is a measure of the linear correlation between two variables X and Y, giving a value
between +1 and −1 inclusive, where 1 is total positive correlation, 0 is no correlation, and −1
is total negative correlation. The correlation was conducted to test whether there existed
association between process of strategy development and effective strategy implementation.
The correlation results indicate that process of strategy development had a strong and
significant (r=0.491, p<0.000) association with effective strategy implementation as shown in
Table 4.3 below.
42
Table 4.3: Correlation Results of Process of Strategy Development
The Process of
Strategy
Development
Strategy
Implementation
The Process of Strategy
Development
Pearson Correlation 1 .491**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 68 68
Effective Strategy Implementation
Pearson Correlation .491** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 68 68
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
4.3.1.3 Univariate Regression Results of the Process of Strategy Development
This study conducted a univariate regression analysis to ascertain the relation between the
process of strategy development and effective strategy implementation. F-statistic indicates the
model was statistically significant. R square results imply that the process of strategy
development accounts for 24.1% of the variation in effective strategy implementation.
Table 4.4: Model Summary for the Process of Strategy Development
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .491a .241 .229 .59707
a. Predictors: (Constant), The process of strategy development
Table 4.5: ANOVA for the Process of Strategy Development
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 7.457 1 7.457 20.917 .000b
Residual 23.528 66 .356
Total 30.985 67
a. Dependent Variable: Effective strategy implementation
b. Predictors: (Constant), The process of strategy development
The results of regression analysis revealed that the process of strategy development had a
positive and significant relationship (β=0.512, p<0.000) with effective strategy
implementation.
43
Table 4.6: Regression Coefficients – Process of Strategy Development
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 2.230 .430 5.183 .000
The process of strategy
development .512 .112 .491 4.574 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Effective strategy implementation
This relationship was computed using the formula:
Effective Strategy Implementation = 2.230+0.512 (Process of Strategy Development) + ε
The study sought to find out the importance of the process of strategy development to effective
strategy implementation. The results imply that a unit increase in the independent variable (the
process of strategy development) will cause 0.512 units variation in the dependent variable
(effective strategy implementation).
4.3.2 Influence of Content of Strategy on Effective Strategy Implementation
4.3.2.1 Descriptive Results of the Content of Strategy
The study also sought to establish the relationship between the content of strategy and effective
strategy implementation. Descriptive results indicate that majority of the respondents agreed
that content of strategy is given priority at Deloitte Kenya. More than half (56.50%) of the
respondents indicated that the selection of a clearly-formulated and sound strategy is the most
important factor for successful strategy implementation. Nearly 60% of the respondents also
indicated that new strategic initiatives are consistent with the firm’s overall strategic direction.
The respondents further indicated that Deloitte Kenya strategy did not always take into account
the actions, strengths and strategies of our key competitors and the capabilities of the
organization and its people in delivering the strategy. The findings are given in Table 4.7
below.
44
Table 4.7: Descriptive Results of the Process of Strategy Development
N R S U A Mean Std
Dev
The selection of a clearly-
formulated and sound strategy is
the most important factor for
successful strategy
implementation.
0.0% 8.1% 24.2% 56.5% 11.3% 4 0.78
New strategic initiatives are
consistent with the firm’s overall
strategic direction.
1.50% 2.90% 35.30% 58.80% 1.50% 4 0.66
The firm’s strategy takes
cognizance of the needs,
perceptions and behaviours of our
key client portfolios.
1.50% 17.60% 36.80% 42.60% 1.50% 4 0.80
The firm’s strategy takes into
account the actions, strengths and
strategies of our key competitors.
8.80% 23.50% 39.70% 25.00% 2.90% 3 0.98
The firm’s strategy takes into
account the capabilities of the
organization and its people in
delivering the strategy.
2.90% 23.50% 38.20% 35.30% 0.00% 3 0.84
(NB: N = Never; R = Rarely; S = Sometimes; U = Usually; A = Always)
4.3.2.2 Correlation Results of the Content of Strategy
The results of our correlation analysis revealed that the content of strategy had a positive and
significant association (r=0.421, p<0.000) with effective strategy implementation. The
findings imply that when the strategy is sound, clearly formulated and consistent with the
firm’s overall strategic direction, there is a higher likelihood of effective strategy
implementation.
45
Table 4.8: Correlation Results of the Content of Strategy
Content of Strategy Effective Strategy
Implementation
The Content of Strategy
Pearson Correlation 1 .421**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 68 68
Effective Strategy Implementation
Pearson Correlation .421** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 68 68
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
4.3.2.3 Univariate Regression Results of the Content of Strategy
Regression analysis was conducted to ascertain the relation between content of strategy and
effective strategy implementation. The model summary results indicated that content of
strategy accounted for 17.7% of the variation in effective strategy implementation. The results
of ANOVA indicate that model linking content of strategy to effective strategy implementation
was statistically significant (F=14.21, p<0.000).
Table 4.9: Model Summary for the Content of Strategy
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .421a .177 .165 .62149
a. Predictors: (Constant), The content of strategy
Table 4.10: ANOVA for the Content of Strategy
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 5.492 1 5.492 14.219 .000b
Residual 25.493 66 .386
Total 30.985 67
a. Dependent Variable: Effective strategy implementation
b. Predictors: (Constant), The content of strategy
The regression results revealed a positive and significant relationship (β=0.401, p<0.000)
between the content of strategy and effective strategy implementation.
46
Table 4.11: Regression Coefficient for the Content of Strategy
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.742 .386 7.097 .000
The content of strategy .401 .106 .421 3.771 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Effective strategy implementation
This relationship was computed using the formula:
Effective Strategy Implementation = 2.742+0.401 (Content of Strategy) + ε
The study sought to find out the importance of the content of strategy to effective strategy
implementation. The results imply that a unit increase in the independent variable (the content
of strategy) will cause 0.401 units variation in the dependent variable (effective strategy
implementation).
4.3.3 Overall Influence of Strategic Content on Effective Strategy Implementation
The study combined both process of strategy development and content of strategy to test the
overall influence of strategic content on effective strategy implementation. The study used
regression analysis to ascertain the relationship between strategy content and effective strategy
implementation. The overall model summary indicates that strategy content accounted for
24.7% of the variation in effective strategy implementation. This model was also statistically
significant as shown by the F-statistics in the ANOVA table.
Table 4.12: Model Summary for Strategic Content
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .383a .247 .234 .63285
a. Predictors: (Constant), Strategic Content
47
Table 4.13: ANOVA for Strategic Content
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 4.552 1 4.552 11.367 .001b
Residual 26.433 66 .400
Total 30.985 67
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
b. Predictors: (Constant), Strategic Content
Table 4.14: Regression Coefficient for Strategic Content
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.864 .395 7.252 .000
Strategic Content .379 .112 .383 3.371 .001
a. Dependent Variable: Effective strategy implementation
The findings of the regression analysis revealed that strategic content had a positive and
significant relationship (β=0.379, p<0.001) with effective strategy implementation. This
relationship was computed using the formula:
Effective Strategy Implementation = 2.864+0.379 (Strategic Content) + ε
The study sought to find out the importance of strategic content to effective strategy
implementation. The results imply that a unit increase in the independent variable (strategic
content) will cause 0.379 units variation in the dependent variable (effective strategy
implementation).
4.4 Strategic Context and Effective Strategy Implementation
The second objective of this study was to examine the importance of strategic context factors
to effective strategy implementation at Deloitte Kenya. Under strategic context the study
focused on the firm’s external and internal contexts. The external context comprises
environmental uncertainty, whereas the internal context focuses on organisational structure,
organizational culture and leadership of the organisation.
48
4.4.1 Influence of the External Context on Effective Strategy Implementation
4.4.1.1 Descriptive Results of the External Context
In this section, the study sought to find out whether Deloitte Kenya took into account the
environmental uncertainty during the implementation of strategy. The descriptive results
indicate that 46.3% of the respondents agreed that strategic management processes
incorporated an external environment analysis/scanning phase. However, majority of the
respondents (35.3%) were neutral in their perception of whether Deloitte Kenya continually
adjusted its strategies to reflect the conditions, trends and developments in the operating
environment while 29.4% disagreed with the statement. Similarly, 33.8% disagreed that the
firm’s strategic plan was flexible enough to allow quick and agile responses to the changing
operating environment.
Table 4.15: Descriptive Results of the External Environment
SD D N A SA Mean Std
Dev
Our strategic management processes
incorporate an external environment
analysis/scanning phase.
0.0% 28.4% 25.4% 46.3% 0.0% 3 0.85
Our business continually adjusts its
strategies to reflect the conditions,
trends and developments in the
operating environment.
0.0% 29.4% 35.3% 33.8% 1.5% 3 0.83
The firm’s strategic plan is flexible
enough to allow quick and agile
responses to the changing operating
environment.
0.0% 33.8% 35.3% 30.9% 0.0% 3 0.81
(NB: SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree)
4.4.1.2 Correlation Results of the External Context
To test the strength of association between the external context and effective strategy
implementation, the study carried out a correlation analysis. The results of the correlation
analysis showed a strong and significant association (r=0.510, p<0.000) between external
context and effective strategy implementation.
49
Table 4.16: Correlation Results of External Context
External Context Effective Strategy
Implementation
External Context
Pearson Correlation 1 .510**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 68 68
Effective strategy implementation
Pearson Correlation .510** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 68 68
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
4.4.1.3 Univariate Regression Results of the External Context
To further establish the type of relationship between external context and strategy
implementation, the study conducted a linear regression. The findings revealed that the
external context accounted for 26% of the variation in effective strategy implementation. The
model used to link external context and strategy implementation was statistically significant as
indicated by F-statistics results.
Table 4.17: Model Summary for the External Context
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .510a .260 .249 .58944
a. Predictors: (Constant), External context
Table 4.18: ANOVA for the External Context
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 8.054 1 8.054 23.179 .000b
Residual 22.931 66 .347
Total 30.985 67
a. Dependent Variable: Effective strategy implementation
b. Predictors: (Constant), External context
50
Table 4.19: Regression Coefficient for External Context
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.567 .341 7.537 .000
External context .449 .093 .510 4.814 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Effective strategy implementation
The regression coefficient result indicate that external context had a positive and significant
relationship (β=0.379, p<0.001) with effective strategy implementation. This relationship was
computed using the formula:
Effective Strategy Implementation = 2.567+0.449 (External Context) + ε
The study sought to find out the effects of external context on effective strategy
implementation. The results imply that a unit increase in the independent variable (external
context) will cause 0.449 units variation in the independent variable (effective strategy
implementation).
4.4.2 Influence of the Internal Context on Effective Strategy Implementation
4.4.2.1 Descriptive Results of the Internal Context
The study focused on three sub-constructs of the internal context: organisational structure,
organisational culture and leadership. Under organisation structure, the study sought to
examine its importance to effective strategy implementation. The descriptive results indicated
that 63.2% of the respondents agreed that achieving a fit between the firm’s strategy and the
organizational structure was crucial to the achievement of strategic outcomes while 47.1% of
the respondents agreed that the firm’s organization structure is continually adjusted to align
with new strategic initiatives being deployed.
51
Table 4.20: Descriptive Results of Organizational Structure
SD D N A SA Mean Std
Dev
Achieving a fit between the firm’s
strategy and the organizational
structure is crucial to the achievement
of strategic outcomes.
0.0% 4.4% 8.8% 63.2% 23.5% 4 0.71
The firm’s organization structure is
continually adjusted to align with new
strategic initiatives being deployed.
0.0% 17.6% 35.3% 47.1% 0.0% 3 0.75
(NB: SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree)
On the importance of organizational culture to effective strategy implementation, an
overwhelming majority (85.3%) of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that
strategic initiatives that embrace an organisation’s cultural identity and shared values were
likely to result in successful implementation. Similarly, 61.8% of the respondents agreed that
resistance to actions and behaviours borne out of culture pose the greatest threat to effective
strategy implementation. These findings imply that most of the respondents considered
organization culture as an important factor affecting strategy implementation.
Table 4.21: Descriptive Results of Organizational Culture
SD D N A SA Mean Std
Dev
Strategic initiatives that embrace our
cultural identity and shared values are
likely to result in successful
implementation.
0.0% 4.4% 10.3% 75.0% 10.3% 4 0.62
Resistance to actions and behaviours
borne out of culture pose the greatest
threat to effective strategy
implementation.
0.0% 8.8% 16.2% 61.8% 13.2% 4 0.78
(NB: SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree)
The study further sought to find the respondents’ opinions on the importance of leadership to
effective strategy implementation. The results show that 57.4% of the respondents agreed that
it is the responsibility of the leadership to ensure that the rest of the firm remains committed to
52
the strategy. Nearly 60% of the respondents also agreed that senior management provides the
necessary strategic leadership to ensure effective implementation of strategy and that the
support of the CEO and other senior management has been vital in ensuring the successful
implementation of strategy in Deloitte Kenya. These findings underpin the crucial role of
organisation leadership in effective strategy implementation.
Table 4.22: Descriptive Results of Leadership
SD D N A SA Mean Std
Dev
It is the responsibility of the leadership
to ensure that the rest of the firm
remains committed to the strategy.
0.0% 4.4% 13.2% 57.4% 25.0% 4 0.75
Senior management provides the
necessary strategic leadership to ensure
effective implementation of strategy.
0.0% 8.8% 26.5% 57.4% 7.4% 4 0.75
The support of the CEO and other
senior management has been vital in
ensuring the successful implementation
of strategy in Deloitte Kenya.
0.0% 7.4% 19.1% 58.8% 14.7% 4 0.78
(NB: SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree)
4.4.2.2 Correlation Results of the Internal Context
To test the strength of association between the internal context factors and effective strategy
implementation, the study carried out a correlation analysis. The result of the correlation
analysis showed a strong and significant association (r=0.450, p<0.000) between a firm’s
internal context and effective strategy implementation.
53
Table 4.23: Correlation Results of Internal Context
Effective Strategy
Implementation
Internal Context
Effective Strategy Implementation
Pearson Correlation 1 .452**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 68 68
Internal Context
Pearson Correlation .452** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 68 68
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
4.4.2.3 Univariate Regression Results of the Internal Context
The study conducted a regression analysis to ascertain the relationship between internal context
and effective strategy implementation. The results of the model summary revealed that internal
context (organisation structure, organisation culture and leadership) accounted for 45.6% of
the variation in effective strategy implementation. The ANOVA results also indicated that
model was statistically significant.
Table 4.24: Model Summary for Internal Context
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .675a .456 .430 .51321
a. Predictors: (Constant), Leadership, Organisation Culture, Organisation Structure
Table 4.25: ANOVA for the Internal Context
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 14.128 3 4.709 17.880 .000b
Residual 16.857 64 .263
Total 30.985 67
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
b. Predictors: (Constant), Leadership, Organisation Culture, Organisation Structure
54
Table 4.26: Regression Coefficient for the Internal Context
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) .608 .493 1.233 .222
Organisation Structure .271 .129 .238 2.103 .039
Organisation Culture .359 .133 .299 2.698 .009
Leadership .310 .109 .305 2.848 .006
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
The regression coefficient result indicate that organisation structure (β=0.271, p<0.039),
organisation culture (β=0.359, p<0.009) and leadership (β=0.310, p<0.006) had positive and
significant relationships with effective strategy implementation. This relationship was
computed using the formula:
Effective Strategy Implementation = 0.608 + 0.271(Organisation Structure) +
0.359(Organisation Culture) + 0.310(Leadership) + ε
The results imply that a unit increase in organisation structure as the independent variable will
cause 0.271 units variation in effective strategy implementation. Similarly, a unit increase in
organisation culture as the independent variable will result in an increase of 0.359 units in
effective strategy implementation and finally a unit increase in leadership as the independent
variable will cause an increase of 0.310 units in effective strategy implementation.
4.4.2.4 Overall Influence of the Internal Context on Effective Strategy Implementation
The three sub-constructs were then combined to test the overall importance of internal context
to effective strategy implementation. The study used a regression model to test the relationship
between internal context and strategy implementation. The model summary results indicate
that internal context accounted for 20.5% of the variation in strategy implementation. This
model was also statistically significant as shown by the P-value of F-statistics which was less
than 0.000.
55
Table 4.27: Model Summary for the overall Influence of the Internal Context
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .452a .205 .193 .61104
a. Predictors: (Constant), Internal Context
Table 4.28: ANOVA for the overall Influence of the Internal Context
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 6.342 1 6.342 16.986 .000b
Residual 24.643 66 .373
Total 30.985 67
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
b. Predictors: (Constant), Internal Context
Table 4.29: Regression Coefficient for the overall Influence of the Internal Context
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.848 .568 3.250 .002
Mean Internal Context .598 .145 .452 4.121 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Mean strategy implementation
The regression coefficient result indicate that internal context had a positive and significant
relationship (β=0.598, p<0.001) with effective strategy implementation. This relationship was
computed using the formula:
Effective Strategy Implementation = 1.848+0.598 (Internal Context) + ε
The study sought to find out the importance of internal context to effective strategy
implementation. The results imply that a unit increase in the independent variable (internal
context) will cause 0.598 units variation in the dependent variable (effective strategy
implementation).
56
4.4.3 Overall Influence of Strategic Context Factors on Effective Strategy
Implementation
The external and internal contexts were statistically combined using mean to test the overall
importance of strategic context factors to effective strategy implementation. The results of the
model summary revealed that overall strategic context accounted for 17.2% of the variations
in effective strategy implementation. The findings further revealed that the model adopted was
statistically significant which implies that strategic context was a good predictor of effective
strategy implementation.
Table 4.30: Model Summary for the overall Influence of Strategic Context Factors
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .268a .172 .158 .66012
a. Predictors: (Constant), Strategic Context
Table 4.31: ANOVA for the overall Influence of Strategic Context
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 2.225 1 2.225 5.107 .027b
Residual 28.760 66 .436
Total 30.985 67
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
b. Predictors: (Constant), Strategic Context
Table 4.32: Regression Coefficient for the overall Influence of Strategic Context
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.843 .593 4.796 .000
Strategic Context .368 .163 .268 2.260 .027
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
57
The regression result also revealed that strategic context factors had a positive and significant
relationship with effective strategy implementation (β=0.368, p<0.027). This relationship was
computed using the formula:
Effective Strategy Implementation = 2.843+0.368 (Strategic Context) + ε
The study sought to find out the importance of strategic context factors to effective strategy
implementation. The results imply that a unit increase in strategic context will cause 0.368
units variation in effective strategy implementation.
4.5 Organizational Processes and Effective Strategy Implementation
The final objective of this study was to examine the importance of organizational process
factors to effective strategy implementation at Deloitte Kenya. Organizational process factors
comprise operational planning, resource allocation, communication, people and control and
feedback.
4.5.1 Descriptive Results of Organizational Process Factors
The study sought to find out whether the following aspects of operational planning were
conducted at Deloitte and their importance to effective strategy implementation. 41.2% of the
respondents acknowledged that the firm sometimes developed detailed operational plans that
translated the strategic goals into specific actionable steps and tasks. Nearly half (48.5%) of
the respondents indicated that the firm usually identifies and allocates roles and responsibilities
to support delivery of the strategy.
58
Table 4.33: Descriptive Results of Operational Planning
N R S U A Mean Std
Dev
Developing detailed operational
plans that translate the strategic
goals into specific actionable
steps and tasks.
2.9% 17.6% 41.2% 36.8% 1.5% 3 0.84
Clearly identifying and allocating
roles and responsibilities to
support delivery of the strategy.
0.0% 16.2% 26.5% 48.5% 8.8% 4 0.87
(NB: N = Never; R = Rarely; S = Sometimes; U = Usually; A = Always)
The study also sought to find out the importance of resource allocation to effective strategy
implementation at Deloitte Kenya. 33.8% of the respondents indicated that the firm rarely
allocated enough time and financial resources to the projects, activities and tasks required to
deliver the set strategy, while 35.3% indicated that the firm only did this sometimes. Slightly
over 40% further indicated that the annual budgeting process was sometimes linked with the
strategy with 29.4% indicating that annual budgeting process was usually linked with the
strategy.
Table 4.34: Descriptive Results of Resource Allocation
N R S U A Mean Std
Dev
Allocating enough time and
financial resources to the projects,
activities and tasks required to
deliver the set strategy
5.9% 33.8% 35.3% 16.2% 8.8% 3 1.04
Linking the annual budgeting
process with the strategy 0.0% 22.1% 41.2% 29.4% 7.4% 3 0.88
(NB: N = Never; R = Rarely; S = Sometimes; U = Usually; A = Always)
The study also sought to find out the importance of communication during strategy formulation
and implementation. 39.7% of the respondents revealed that the firm usually creates a shared
vision and understanding of the strategy across all levels of the firm, while 23.5% indicated
this only happened sometimes with 19.1% indicating the firm rarely created a shared vision
59
and understanding of the strategy across all levels of the firm. On whether the firm ensured
employees understood the business drivers underpinning the strategy, 33.8% indicated that this
was done sometimes, 26.5% indicated that this was usually done, 25.0% said that this was
rarely while 14.7% indicated that this was always done. None of the respondents indicated the
firm never ensured employees understood the business drivers underpinning the strategy. On
whether the firm ensured employees understood their roles and responsibilities in the pursuit
of the strategic goals, 44.1% said that the firm sometimes ensured this, while 33.8% indicated
that the firm usually ensured this.
Table 4.35: Descriptive Results of Communication
N R S U A Mean Std
Dev
Creating a shared vision and
understanding of the strategy
across all levels of the firm.
2.9% 19.1% 23.5% 39.7% 14.7% 3 1.06
Ensuring employees understand
the business drivers underpinning
the strategy.
0.0% 25.0% 33.8% 26.5% 14.7% 3 1.01
Ensuring employees understand
their roles and responsibilities in
the pursuit of the strategic goals.
0.0% 13.2% 44.1% 33.8% 8.8% 3 0.83
(NB: N = Never; R = Rarely; S = Sometimes; U = Usually; A = Always)
The study further aimed to examine the importance of people to effective strategy
implementation at Deloitte Kenya. The study sought to find out whether the firm ensured that
managerial and non-managerial staff possessed the skills and competencies needed to execute
the strategy effectively. 35.3% indicated sometimes, 23.5% indicated rarely, 29.4% indicated
usually, 8.8% indicated always while only 2.9% indicated never. The results also show that
32.4% indicated that the firm rarely aligned its performance management and remuneration
and reward systems with the strategy while 33.8% indicated that the firm sometimes aligned
the firm’s HR plans for recruitment, selection and staff development with the strategy.
60
Table 4.36: Descriptive Results of People Involvement
N R S U A Mean Std
Dev
Ensuring that managerial and
non-managerial staff possess the
skills and competencies needed to
effectively execute the strategy.
2.9% 23.5% 35.3% 29.4% 8.8% 3 0.99
Aligning the firm’s performance
management and remuneration
and reward systems with the
strategy.
2.9% 32.4% 29.4% 26.5% 8.8% 3 1.03
Aligning the firm’s HR plans for
recruitment, selection and staff
development with the strategy.
5.9% 32.4% 33.8% 22.1% 5.9% 3 1.01
(NB: N = Never; R = Rarely; S = Sometimes; U = Usually; A = Always)
The study assessed whether Deloitte Kenya took control and feedback into consideration to
ensure effective strategy implementation. The study aimed to find out whether the firm clearly
articulated the performance measures that are used to monitor the performance of the strategy.
35.3% of the respondents revealed that this was usually done, while 33.80% revealed that this
was only done sometimes with 23.5% indicating that it was rarely done. 38.2% of the
respondents perceive that the firm conducts periodic reviews to track the progress of the
strategy throughout the various phases of implementation while slightly below 40% indicated
that the firm made timely adjustments during implementation in response to feedback gathered
from the reviews.
Table 4.37: Descriptive Results of Control and Feedback
N R S U A Mean Std
Dev
Clearly articulating the
performance measures that will be
used to monitor the performance
of the strategy.
1.50% 23.50% 33.80% 35.30% 5.90% 3 0.92
61
N R S U A Mean Std
Dev
Conducting periodic reviews to
track the progress of the strategy
throughout the various phases of
implementation.
5.90% 22.10% 32.40% 38.20% 1.50% 3 0.95
Making timely adjustments
during implementation in
response to feedback gathered
from the reviews.
5.90% 26.50% 39.70% 23.50% 4.40% 3 0.96
(NB: N = Never; R = Rarely; S = Sometimes; U = Usually; A = Always)
4.5.2 Correlation Results of Organizational Process Factors
Correlation analysis was conducted to test the association between organisational process
factors (operational allocation, resource allocation, communication, people, control and
feedback) and effective strategy implementation (r=0.266, p=0.028). The results revealed that
there is positive and significant association between organisational process factors and strategy
implementation.
Table 4.38: Correlation Results of Organizational Process Factors
Effective Strategy
Implementation
Organizational
Processes
Effective Strategy Implementation
Pearson Correlation 1 .266*
Sig. (2-tailed) .028
N 68 68
Organizational Process Factors
Pearson Correlation .266* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .028
N 68 68
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4.5.3 Univariate Regression Results of Organizational Process Factors
The study conducted a regression analysis to ascertain the relation between organizational
process factors and effective strategy implementation. The results of the model summary
showed that operational allocation, resource allocation, communication, people and control
62
and feedback accounted for .0391 of the variation in strategy implementation. The findings
further revealed that the model adopted was statistically significant which implies that
organizational process factors were good predictors of effective strategy implementation.
Table 4.39: Model Summary for Organizational Process Factors
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .625a .391 .342 .55167
a. Predictors: (Constant), Control and Feedback, Resource Allocation, Communication, People, Operational
Planning
Table 4.40: ANOVA for Organizational Process Factors
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 12.116 5 2.423 7.962 .000b
Residual 18.869 62 .304
Total 30.985 67
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
b. Predictors: (Constant), Control and Feedback, Resource Allocation, Communication, People, Operational
Planning
Curiously, the regression results revealed that operational planning, resource allocation, people
and control and feedback had a positive but insignificant relationship with effective strategy
implementation. Only communication had a positive and significant relationship with effective
strategy implementation. This relationship was computed using the formula:
Effective Strategy Implementation = 1.357 + 0.022(Operational Planning) +
0.146(Resource Allocation) + 0.318(Communication) +0.071(People) + 0.133(Control and
Feedback) + ε
63
Table 4.41: Regression Coefficient for Organizational Process Factors
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 1.357 .480 2.830 .006
Operational Planning .022 .167 .025 .132 .896
Resource Allocation .146 .149 .170 .986 .328
Communication .318 .148 .333 2.143 .036
People .071 .173 .068 .412 .682
Control and Feedback .133 .151 .153 .882 .381
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
4.5.4 Overall Influence of Organizational Process Factors on Effective Strategy
Implementation
The five organizational process factors were statistically combined to test the overall
importance of organizational processes on effective strategy implementation. The model
summary result revealed that organizational process factors accounted for 17.1% of the
variations in strategy implementation. The model adopted to link the independent variables
and dependent variable was statistically significant which implies that the independent
variables are good predictors of effective strategy implementation.
Table 4.42: Model Summary for overall Influence of Organizational Process Factors
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .266a .171 .157 .66042
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Processes
64
Table 4.43: ANOVA for overall Influence of Organizational Process Factors
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 2.199 1 2.199 5.042 .028b
Residual 28.786 66 .436
Total 30.985 67
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
b. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Processes
Table 4.44: Regression Coefficient for overall Influence of Organizational Process
Factors
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.586 .710 3.641 .001
Organizational Processes .356 .158 .266 2.245 .028
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
The regression result also revealed that, overall, the organizational process factors had a
positive and significant relationship with strategy implementation (β=0.356, p<0.028). This
relationship was computed using the formula:
Effective Strategy Implementation = 2.586 + 0.356 (Organizational Process Factors) + ε
The study sought to find out the importance of organizational process factors on effective
strategy implementation. The results imply that a unit increase in Organizational Process will
cause 0.356 units variation in effective strategy implementation.
4.6 Multivariate Regression Analysis Results
The study conducted a multivariate regression analysis to test the joint influence of the
independent variables on the dependent variable. The model summary results indicate that
independent variables accounted for 38.2% of the variation in the dependent variable (effective
strategy implementation). The ANOVA results also imply the model adopted was statistically
significant (F=5.726, p=0.02).
65
Table 4.45: Model Summary for Multivariate Regression
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .460a .382 .375 .61781
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Process factors, Strategic Context, Strategic Content
Table 4.46: ANOVA for Multivariate Regression
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 6.557 3 2.186 5.726 .002b
Residual 24.428 64 .382
Total 30.985 67
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
b. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Process factors, Strategic Context, Strategic Content
Table 4.47: Regression Coefficient for Multivariate Regression
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 1.068 .877 1.218 .228
Strategic Content .280 .123 .284 2.283 .026
Strategic Context .215 .169 .156 1.272 .208
Organizational Processes .306 .151 .229 2.029 .047
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Strategy Implementation
Overall model optimization:
Effective Strategy Implementation = 1.068 + 0.280(Strategic Content) + 0.215(Strategic
Context) + 0.306 (Organisational Process) + ε
The findings shows that strategic content had a positive and significant relationship with
effective strategy implementation (B=0.280, p=0.026). Similarly, the study results also
showed that organisational process factors had a positive and significant relationship with
effective strategy implementation (B=0.306, p=0.047). However, the findings revealed that
66
strategic context factors had a positive but insignificant relationship with effective strategy
implementation (B=0.215, p=0.208).
4.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter provides a presentation of the results and findings of our study, which were
presented in the form of tables and charts. The results of the demographic characteristics of the
respondents are provided at the beginning of the chapter. Other findings are subsequently
presented based on the research questions. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used
to ascertain the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable.
The multivariate model summary results indicated that independent variables accounted for
38.2% of the variation in the dependent variable (effective strategy implementation). The
ANOVA results also revealed that the model adopted was statistically significant. The findings
demonstrated that strategic content and organisational process factors had a positive and
significant relationship with effective strategy implementation. However, strategic context
factors had a positive but insignificant relationship with effective strategy implementation. The
next chapter provides a more in-depth discussion of the findings, makes suitable conclusions
based on the discussion and presents recommendations for practice and future study.
67
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a brief summary of the study including the research objectives, research
methodology and key findings. It then delves into a discussion of these key findings in
consideration of the published literature reviewed and in line with the research objectives of
the study. Later, the researcher makes conclusions upon which recommendations are drawn.
Suggestions for future studies are also presented.
5.2 Summary
The purpose of this research was to examine the importance of strategic content, strategic
context and organizational process factors to effective strategy implementation in Deloitte
Kenya. A descriptive research design was deemed appropriate for this study because it would
enable us to generalize the research findings to a larger population, e.g. to other firms in Kenya.
The target population for this study comprised members of staff of Deloitte Kenya with
responsibilities for strategy implementation, namely the partners, directors and managers. The
sampling frame for this study was the mailing list of the partners, directors and managers in
Deloitte Kenya as at 30 June 2016, and was obtained from the consultancy’s IT department.
Stratified random sampling technique was used to select the sample that was investigated for
purposes of this study. The population was stratified into low/operational-level, mid-level and
senior-level management. The sample size was computed using Yamane’s (1967) formula.
This yielded a sample size of 89 management staff, which was increased to 90. The study used
primary data collected using a structured questionnaire that was administered online via the
Internet.
The questionnaire consisted of closed-ended questions covering a range of factors considered
important for the research. These questions consisted of five-point Likert scales where
respondents were asked to either indicate their level of agreement with the statements or score
the statements based on perceived importance. Data collected from questionnaires was coded
68
and keyed into computer software. Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS. Descriptive
statistics including the mean and standard deviations were used to analyse quantitative data
and capture the characteristics of the variables under study. Inferential statistics were used to
test the nature and magnitude of the hypothesized relationships. The findings were
communicated using tables, charts and figures for ease of interpretation.
The first objective of this study was to examine the importance of strategic content to effective
strategy implementation at Deloitte Kenya. Descriptive results indicated that majority of the
respondents agreed that both the process of strategy development and the content of the
strategy were given priority at Deloitte Kenya. Both correlation and regression analysis
revealed a positive relationship between the process of strategy development and the content
of strategy with effective strategy implementation.
The second objective of this study sought to examine the importance of strategic context to
effective strategy implementation at Deloitte Kenya. Strategic context here includes both the
external and internal contexts. External context refers to the external environmental
uncertainty, while the internal context comprises the firm’s organizational structure, culture
and leadership. The study findings revealed a significant positive relationship between both
the external and internal contexts and effective strategy implementation.
The third objective of this study was to examine the importance of organizational process
factors to effective strategy implementation at Deloitte Kenya. This study operationalised
organizational processes in terms of operational planning, resource allocation, communication,
people involvement and control and feedback. The findings revealed that these factors had a
positive and significant relationship with effective strategy implementation.
5.3 Discussion
5.3.1 The Importance of Strategic Content to Effective Strategy Implementation
The study sought to examine the importance of strategic content to effective strategy
implementation at Deloitte Kenya. Strategic content was broken down into the process of
strategy development and the actual content of strategy. The results of regression analysis
revealed that the process of strategy development had a positive and significant relationship
69
with effective strategy implementation. Further, the correlation analysis results revealed that
content of strategy had a positive and significant association with effective strategy
implementation. The regression analysis supported this finding by revealing a positive and
significant relationship between the content of strategy and effective strategy implementation.
The findings also revealed that overall, strategic content factors had a positive and significant
relationship with effective strategy implementation.
The findings of this study are consistent with most of the published literature reviewed, which
emphasize the role of strategic content as an essential component in effective strategy
implementation. Shah (2005), who carried out a survey to identify the obstacles to strategy
implementation and the factors that were critical in promoting effective implementation, found
that a significant majority of the respondents ranked the selection of a sound strategy as the
most important factor for successful strategy implementation. Similarly, Hrebiniak (2006)
observed that even the best execution efforts would be powerless in overcoming the
shortcomings of a bad strategy or a poor strategic planning effort.
The study reinforce Allio’s (2005) assertion that good strategic input was the foundation for
good implementation. The study findings also support the arguments of Alexander (1985), who
noted that most business executives frequently mentioned the need to start with a clearly
formulated strategy containing good concepts and ideas as the first critical step towards
successful implementation.
The study findings are consistent with Waterman et al. (2008), who viewed strategy
development as a critical variable in the implementation process, more so because it depicts an
organization’s chosen route to success. The findings are also consistent with Aaltonen and
Ikävalko (2002) who argued that a well-known and explicit strategy formulation process was
key in supporting effective strategy implementation. In many organizations, this takes place in
the shape of an annual strategic planning process.
Kim and Mauborgne (1991) singled out what they termed the “procedural justice” of the
strategy formulation process as a key factor that influences the trust, commitment and
organizational harmony of managers in companies. Majority of the respondents in the study
felt that the strategic planning process in their organization ensured that all planning
70
participants had a solid understanding of the business, its strategy and the underlying
assumptions, which was key to supporting effective implementation.
5.3.2 The Importance of Strategic Context to Effective Strategy Implementation
The second objective of this study sought to examine the importance of strategic context
factors to effective strategy implementation at Deloitte Kenya. As noted by Yip (1992) and
Okumus (2003), it is assumed that, over the short term at least, organizations have little control
over these factors, i.e. the external environmental uncertainty, organizational structure,
organizational culture and leadership. However, both authors acknowledge the importance for
management to take these factors into account as a means of managing the challenges
associated with strategy implementation. It is for this reason perhaps that the overall
multivariate regression analysis model found the relationship between strategic context factors
and effective strategy implementation to be positive but insignificant, implying that these
factors were the least important among the three factors examined in the study.
The study findings concur with Bhasin (2015) who argued that in order to make strategy work,
it was important that both the development and execution be appropriate to the context of the
firm carrying out the strategy implementation exercise. The external environment is dynamic
and evolving, creating situations that force an organization to constantly change and adapt.
Whereas it is acknowledged that there is no specific solution to address environmental
uncertainty, the need to anticipate the changing circumstances is still very important (Ivančić,
2013). A strategic plan must therefore be flexible enough to allow the organization to adapt to
the changing environment. Our research findings support this view. The results of the
correlation analysis revealed a strong and significant association between external context and
effective strategy implementation. The regression result further reinforced the importance of
external environment by revealing a positive and significant between external context and
effective strategy implementation.
The study also sought to establish the importance of internal context, which includes
organisational structure, organisational culture and leadership, to effective strategy
implementation. Majority of the respondents agreed that the firm’s internal context played a
significant role in effective strategy implementation. The regression result also indicated that
71
organisation structure, organisation culture and leadership had positive and significant
relationships with effective strategy implementation.
The findings of this study are consistent with Okumus (2003) who posited that having an
internal organizational context that is receptive to change is crucial in ensuring the successful
implementation of strategy. The findings are also in agreement with White (1986) and Slater
and Olson (2001) who argued that the fit between business unit strategy and the firm’s internal
organizational structure inherently affected the performance of a business unit.
Among the three sub-constructs of internal context, organizational culture was found to be the
strongest influencer of effective strategy implementation. The descriptive statistics reinforced
this, with an overwhelming majority of the respondents agreeing that resistance to actions and
behaviours borne out of culture posed the greatest threat to effective strategy implementation.
An even greater majority either agreed or strongly agreed that strategic initiatives which
embraced an organisation’s cultural identity and shared values were more likely to result in
successful implementation. The findings reinforce the arguments of Ahmadi et al. (2008) and
Saunders et al. (2008) who emphasized the importance of achieving alignment between the
cultural norms of the organization and the actions required to execute strategy in order for it to
be implemented successfully. Our findings are also consistent with Buul (2010), who contends
that a fundamental part of the strategy implementation process ought to take organizational
culture into account.
Although the strategy implementation process involves the collective effort of every
organizational member, the overall responsibility of implementing strategy rests with top
management (Shah, 2005). The study findings corroborate this argument, with 82.4% of the
respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing that it is the responsibility of the leadership
to ensure that the rest of the firm remains committed to the strategy. Most respondents also
agreed that the support of the CEO and other senior management was crucial in ensuring the
successful implementation of strategy at the firm, lending credence to Brinkschröder’s (2014)
assertion that strong leadership in the organization is critical to effective implementation of
strategy.
72
5.3.3 The Importance of Organizational Processes to Effective Strategy
Implementation
The final objective of this study was to examine the importance of organizational process
factors to effective strategy implementation at Deloitte Kenya. These factors include
operational planning, resource allocation, communication, people and control and feedback.
The study sought to find out to what extent the case study organization utilized these factors
during the implementation of strategy, as well as the respondents’ perception of the importance
of those factors to effective strategy implementation. Majority of the respondents
acknowledged that the firm sometimes translated the strategic goals into specific actionable
steps and tasks to support effective implementation. Nearly half of the respondents indicated
that the firm usually identified and allocated roles and responsibilities to support the delivery
of strategy. The descriptive results also revealed that nearly 70% of the respondents felt that
the organization either rarely or only sometimes allocated enough time and financial resources
to the projects, activities and tasks required to deliver the set strategy.
The regression model adopted was statistically significant. In addition, the overall regression
results revealed that organizational process factors had a significant positive relationship with
effective strategy implementation, implying that these factors were good predictors of effective
strategy implementation. Curiously, the regression results revealed that operational planning,
resource allocation, people and control and feedback had a positive but insignificant
relationship with effective strategy implementation. Only communication had a positive and
significant relationship with effective strategy implementation. These findings imply that
communication was the strongest predictor of effective strategy implementation. None of the
studies we reviewed sought to rank the implementation factors in terms of relative importance,
with most authors on the subject arguing instead that these factors ought to be simultaneously
considered when developing and implementing strategic initiatives. We believe this presents a
potential area for additional research on the subject.
A number of authors whose work was reviewed shared arguments that corroborate the study
findings. Speculand (2009) in particular emphasized that ensuring that members of the
organization understood exactly what actions they needed to take in order to implement the
73
new strategy was crucial to the success of the implementation. Beale et al. (2007) also stressed
the importance of operational planning, recognizing that whereas a strategy is crafted at the
top of the organization chart, it gets implemented from the bottom-up. The study findings
equally revealed that operational planning had a profound impact on resource allocation,
communication and control and feedback.
Several authors we reviewed (Shah, 2005; Waithaka, 2013) cited resource insufficiency as one
of the greatest barriers to strategy implementation. Our findings support this view, with a
majority of the respondents noting that senior management often underestimated the time and
financial resources required to implement strategic initiatives, thereby posing a threat to
effective implementation.
The study findings also echoed the importance of communication to effective strategy
implementation. Creating a shared vision and understanding of the strategy across all levels of
the organization and ensuring all employees understand the business drivers underpinning the
strategy significantly aids the implementation process. Effective communication about a new
strategy becomes even more critical particularly when reaching out beyond the group directly
involved in its formulation (Sterling, 2003), a view supported by our research findings.
Brinkschröder (2014) indicated that communication was deeply connected in the strategy
implementation process because everyone in the organization needs to know the direction the
organization will take after the implementation of strategy.
The research findings also brought to the fore the role of people in the implementation process,
affirming McKnight’s assertion that strategy implementation was essentially a people issue.
Majority of the respondents felt that the organization more often than not failed to effectively
align its performance management and remuneration and reward systems as well as its HR
plans for recruitment, selection and staff development with the strategy. The univariate
regression results also showed a positive but insignificant relationship between the people
factor and effective strategy implementation. Our findings are consistent with those of
MacMillan (1976), Guth and MacMillan (1986) and Zafara et al. (2014), who argued that
failure to align employee skills and the performance reward systems with the strategy was
detrimental to the success of the strategy.
74
With regard to control and feedback, the study findings augment the views of Schreyogg and
Steinmann (1987), Saunders et al. (2008), Speculand (2009) and Barnat (2014) who argued
that feedback about the strategic initiative from employees and other internal and external
stakeholders was vital to the successful implementation of strategy.
5.4 Conclusions
5.4.1 The Importance of Strategic Content to Effective Strategy Implementation
The study established that strategic content was positively related to effective strategy
implementation. Organizations and firms that aim to effectively formulate and implement
strategy must consider the process they adopt in strategy development. The process should be
comprehensively articulated, with a definite time frame and clearly outlined phases. The roles
and responsibilities of the participants in the process must be clarified. Further, it is
fundamental that the content of strategy, including the objectives, initiatives and management
priorities, be consistent with the organization’s overall strategic direction. The impact of new
strategic initiatives on ongoing and future projects should be considered during strategy
development.
5.4.2 The Importance of Strategic Context to Effective Strategy Implementation
Strategies are formulated and implemented within a specific strategic context. In order to make
strategy work, therefore, it is important that both the development and execution be appropriate
to the context of the firm carrying out the strategy implementation exercise. The study
acknowledges the need to have a strategic plan that is flexible enough to allow the organization
to adapt to the changing environment. Achieving a fit between the firm’s strategy and its
organizational structure is crucial to the achievement of strategic outcomes, and therefore
organizations must continually align their structure with the strategic initiatives being
deployed. Strategic initiatives that match the culture and competencies of an organization can
ensure rapid and successful implementation. In addition, senior management ought to provide
the necessary strategic leadership to ensure effective implementation of strategy, given that the
overall responsibility of implementing the strategy rests with them.
75
5.4.3 The Importance of Organizational Processes to Effective Strategy
Implementation
Successful implementation of strategy goes beyond ensuring staff members understand the
strategy; they must also know exactly what they need to do differently as a result of the new
strategy. Good operational planning enhances the success of strategy implementation by
prioritizing the tasks and activities that are required to achieve the set strategy and ensuring
that adequate resources are allocated to those activities in a timely manner. All levels of
management are required to communicate the importance of the new strategy and its
underlying rationale in order to generate consensus and the much-needed buy-in critical to the
success of the strategy implementation. It is also crucial for organizations to align their
performance management and remuneration and reward systems with the strategy so as to elicit
the required behavioural change and motivation in employees to achieve the strategy.
Organizations also need to have in place appropriate HR plans for staffing, training,
empowerment, involvement and recognition that are consistent with the strategic goals of the
organization. Feedback about the new strategic initiatives from employees and other internal
and external stakeholders is vital to successful implementation.
5.5 Recommendations
5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement
Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations were made:
5.5.1.1 The Importance of Strategic Content to Effective Strategy Execution
The strategy development process in organisations should be comprehensively articulated with
a definite time frame and clearly outlined phases. All managers including lower-level managers
need to be involved in the strategy development process in order to establish firm-wide
identification with the strategy right from the very beginning. New strategic initiatives should
be consistent with the firm’s overall strategic direction. In addition, managers should take into
account the needs, perceptions and behaviours of key customer segments, the actions,
strengths, and strategies of key competitors, and the capabilities of the organization and its
people when coming up with new strategies.
76
5.5.1.2 The Importance of Strategic Context to Effective Strategy Execution
The strategic context in which the organization finds itself will affect the company’s ability to
effectively create and implement strategy and therefore it is crucial that management takes it
context into account as a means of managing the challenges associated with implementation.
Good strategy formulation is all about building a flexible yet strong position to ensure
successful execution despite the impact of unanticipated and unforeseeable changes in the
operating environment. Therefore, managers must continually adjust their business strategies
to reflect the trends and conditions in their operating environment. Firms should align their
organizational structure and culture with the new strategy in order to ensure effective
implementation. In addition, effective leadership at all levels is required during the
implementation process not only for decision-making, but also to provide the necessary
guidance, support and motivation to the people involved in implementation.
5.5.1.3 The Importance of Organizational Processes to Effective Strategy Execution
Organizations must ensure that any changes initiated by the new strategy are appropriately
reflected in areas such as budgeting, resource allocation, and incentive compensation. Having
detailed operational plans will serve to guide the actions of employees in achieving the set
strategy by integrating the objectives articulated in the strategy with the daily, weekly and
monthly routines that drive the efforts of everyone in the organization. Communication efforts
should focus on creating a common understanding of the new strategy and must be designed
to capture all levels of the workforce. This will ensure that all employees understand the
business drivers underpinning the strategy as well as their roles and responsibilities in the
pursuit of the strategic goals, thereby enhancing the likelihood of success of change initiatives.
It is pivotal to ensure that the members of the organization have the appropriate skills and
abilities to execute the strategy. Organizations can do this by hiring new employees or by
upskilling the existing employees through various training and development initiatives. Lastly,
the performance measures that will be used to monitor the new strategy throughout the various
phases of implementation need to be clearly articulated from the start. Periodic reviews of the
strategy need to be conducted so that any events that could undermine or threaten the success
of the strategy are identified and the necessary adjustments or corrective action taken.
77
5.5.2 Recommendations for Further Study
One of the curious findings of the study was that whereas both strategic content and
organizational process factors had a positive and significant relationship with effective strategy
implementation, strategic context factors, on the other hand, had a positive but insignificant
relationship with effective strategy implementation. Future studies could replicate this study
by using a larger sample size in order to better understand this phenomenon. Additionally,
further empirical studies could be carried out to rank the relative importance of these
implementation factors. One of the limitations of case studies however is that they focus on
one organization and the findings are therefore limited to that organization. To this end, it is
recommended that future studies be extended to cover different organizations in a cross-section
of industries so as to increase the breadth and depth of knowledge in the area of strategy
implementation frameworks.
78
REFERENCES
Aaltonen, P., & Ikävalko, H. (2002). Implementing Strategies Successfully. Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, 415-418.
Ahmadi, S. A., Salamzadeh, Y., Daraei, M., & Akbari, J. (2012). Relationship between
Organizational Culture and Strategy Implementation: Typologies and Dimensions.
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 286-299.
Albrecht, K. (1994). The Power of Bifocal Vision. Management Review, 42-46.
Alexander, L. D. (1985). Successfully Implementing Strategic Decisions. Long Range
Planning, 91-97.
Alexander, L. D. (1991). Strategic Implementation: Nature of the Problem. International
Review of Strategic Management, 73-96.
Al-Ghamdi, S. M. (1998). Obstacles to Successful Implementation of Strategic Decisions:
The British Experience. European Business Review, 322-327.
Alkhafaji, A. F., & Nelson, R. A. (2003). Strategic Management: Formulation,
Implementation, and Control in a Dynamic Environment. New York, NY: The
Haworth Press, Inc.
Allio, M. K. (2005). A Short, Practical Guide to Implementing Strategy. Journal of Business
Strategy, 12-21.
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for
Growth and Expansion. New York: Mc-Graw Hill.
Ansoff, I., & McDonnell, E. (1990). Implanting Strategic Management (2nd Ed.). Hemel
Hempstead, UK: Prentice.
Awino, Z. B. (2002). Purchasing and Supply Chain Strategy: Benefits, Barriers and Bridges.
An Independent Conceptual Study Paper in Strategic Management, 1-59.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational Restructuring and Middle Manager
Sensemaking. The Academy of Management Journal, 523-549.
Barnat, R. (2014). Strategic Management: Formulation and Implementation. Retrieved from
http://www.strategy-implementation.24xls.com/en211
Beale, W., Maquet, M., & Tua, J. (2007). WWF Standards of Conservation Project and
Programme Management. London: WWF.
79
Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (2000). The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation and
Learning. Sloan Management Review.
Bhasin, H. (2015, July 16). Strategy Implementation. Retrieved from Marketing 91:
http://www.marketing91.com/strategy-implementation/
Brinkschroder, N. (2014). Strategy Implementation: Key Factors, Challenges and Solutions.
4th IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference, 1-9.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (2005). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.
Virginia, TX: Ashgale Publishing Company.
Buul, M. V. (2010). Successful Strategy Implementation. Executive Master of Internal
Auditing, 1-40.
Byars, L. L., Rue, L. W., & Zahra, S. A. (1996). Strategic Management. Atlanta, GA:
Richard D. Irwin.
Christensen, C. M., & Donovan, T. (2000). The Process of Strategy Development and
Implementation. Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 00-075, 1-12.
Cole, G. A. (1995). Organizational Behaviour: Theory and Practice. London: High Holborn
House.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York: Harper Collins.
Collins, J., & Porras, J. I. (2004). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies.
New York City, United States: Harper Business.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business Research Methods (12th Ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Corboy, M. O., & Corrbui, D. (1999). The Seven Deadly Sins of Strategy. Management
Accounting: Magazine for Chartered Management Accountants, 29-30.
Crittenden, V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2008). Building a Capable Organization: The Eight
Levers of Strategy Implementation. Business Horizons, 301-309.
Crossman, A. (2012). Types of Sampling Designs. Retrieved from About Education:
http://sociology.about.com/od/Research/a/sampling-designs.htm
Daft, R. L. (2001). Organization Theory and Design (7th Ed.). Canada: South-Western
Thomson Learning.
80
Davenport, T. (2007, December 06). Strategy Execution: Avoid the Extremes. Retrieved June
18, 2015, from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2007/12/strategy-execution-
avoid-the-e/
Deloitte. (2012). Deloitte East Africa Strategy. Nairobi: Deloitte.
Deloitte. (2016). About Deloitte. Retrieved from
http://www2.deloitte.com/ke/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/about-deloitte.html
El-Ansary, A. I. (2006). Marketing Strategy: Taxonomy and Frameworks. European
Business Review, 266-293.
Falkowski, G., Pedigo, P., Smith, B., & Swanson, D. (1998). A Recipe for ERP Success.
Beyond Computing, 44-45.
Flood, P. C., Dromgoole, T., Carroll, S., & Gorman, L. (2000). Managing Strategy
Implementation: An Organizational Behaviour Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Business.
Giles, W. D. (1991). Making Strategy Work. Long Range Planning, Vol. 24, 75-91.
Guth, W. D., & Macmillan, I. C. (1986). Strategy Implementation versus Middle
Management Self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7(4), 313-327.
Harrington, R. J. (2006). The Moderating Effects of Size, Manager Tactics and Involvement
on Strategy Implementation in Food Service. Hospitality Management, 373-397.
Heracleous, L. (1998). Strategic Thinking or Strategic Planning? Long Range Planning, 481-
487.
Heracleous, L. (2000). The Role of Strategy Implementation in Organization Development.
Organizational Development Journal, 75-86.
Hill, C. W., & Jones, G. R. (2009). Theory of Strategic Management with Cases. United
Kingdom: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Holman, P. (1999). Turning Great Strategy into Effective Performance. Strategic Planning
Society, UK.
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2005). Making Strategy Work: Leading Effective Execution and Change.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2006). Obstacles to Effective Strategy Implementation. Organizational
Dynamics, 12-31.
Hrebiniak, L., & Joyce, W. (1984). Implementing Strategy. New York, NY: Macmillan.
81
Ivančić, V. (2013). The Biggest Failures in Managing Strategy Implementation.
Interdisciplinary Management Research, 197-208.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2005). Exploring Corporate Strategy: Text and
Cases (7th Ed.). London, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Johnson, P. (2002). The Top Five Reasons Why Strategic Plans Fail. Retrieved June 18,
2015, from Business Know-how:
http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/splanfail.htm
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced
Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Boston, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kazmi, A. (2008). A Proposed Framework for Strategy Implementation in the Indian
Context. Management Decision, 1564-1581.
Kibicho, P. M. (2015). Determinants of Strategy Implementation Success in the Insurance
Industry: A Survey of Insurance Companies in Kenya. International Journal of
Business and Social Science, 74-87.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Making Global Strategies Work. Sloan
Management Review, 11-27.
Kothari, C. R. (1985). Research Methodology - Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: Wiley
Eastern Ltd.
Li, Y., Guohui, S., & Eppler, M. J. (2008). Making Strategy Work: A Literature Review on
the Factors Influencing Strategy Implementation. Institute for Corporate
Communication, 1-46.
Lund, D. B. (2003). Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 219-236.
Lynch, R. (2006). Corporate Strategy. London, UK: Pitman.
Maas, A. A. (2008). Strategy Implementation in a Small Island Community: An Integrative
Framework. Rotterdam: Erasmus Research Institute of Management.
Macharia, J. M. (2013). Strategy Implementation at Chase Bank Kenya. University of
Nairobi: Unpublished MBA Project.
MacMillan, I. C. (1978). Strategy Formulation: Political Concepts. Saint Paul, MN: West
Publishing Company.
82
Madegwa, A. L. (2013). Barriers to Strategy Implementation by Mid-Sized Companies in
Kenya. Global Journal of Management and Business Research Administration and
Management.
Marr, B. (2006). Strategic Performance Management: Leveraging and Measuring your
Intangible Value Drivers. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.
McKnight, R. (2005). HR’s Role in Strategy Implementation: Leading the Human Side of
Change. Right Management, 1-15.
McNeal, G. S. (2009). Organizational Culture, Professional Ethics, and Guantanamo. Case
Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 125-149.
Miller, D. (2001). Successful change leaders: What makes them? What do they do that is
different? Journal of Change Management, 359-368.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review,
107-114.
Mintzberg, H. (2007). Tracking Strategies: Toward a General Theory. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J., & Ahlstrand, B. (1998). Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour through
the Wilds of Strategic Management. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Muchira, W. N. (2013). Relationship between Strategy Implementation and Performance in
Commercial Banks in Kenya. University of Nairobi: Unpublished MBA Project.
Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative & Qualitative
Approaches. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies.
Musyoka, L. W. (2011). Challenges of Strategy Implementation in Jomo Kenyatta
Foundation. International Journal of Current Research, 301-308.
Nabwire, M. (2014). Factors Affecting Implementation of Strategy. United States
International University: Unpublished MBA Thesis.
Naranjo-Gil, D., & Hartmann, F. (2006). How Top Management Teams use Management
Accounting Systems to Implement Strategy. Journal of Management Accounting
Research, 21-54.
Ngonjo, C., & Sindani, M. (2013). Strategy Implementation Process in Commercial Banks in
Kenya. International Journal of Social Science, 1-18.
83
Njagi, L., & Kombo, H. (2014). Effect of Strategy Implementation on Performance of Banks
in Kenya. European Journal of Business and Management, 62-67.
Noble, C. H. (1999). Building the Strategy Implementation Network. Business Horizons, 19-
28.
Noble, C. H. (1999b). The Eclectic Roots of Strategy Implementation Research. Journal of
Business Research, 45(2), 119-134.
Okumus, F. (2001). Towards a Strategy Implementation Framework. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(7), 327-338.
Okumus, F. (2003). A Framework to Implement Strategies in Organizations. Management
Decision, 871-882.
Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., & Hult, G. T. (2005). The Importance of Structure and Process to
Strategy Implementation. Business Horizons, 47-54.
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 Implementation.
The Leadership Quarterly, 104-113.
Patrick, R. (2009). Strategies used by Classified Hotels in Major Cities in Kenya. University
of Nairobi: Unpublished MBA Thesis.
Pearce, J. A., & Robinson, R. (2011). Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation,
and Control. Boston, MA: Mc-Graw Hill.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Porter, M. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 61-78.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance. New York: The Free Press.
Qi, H. (2005). Strategy Implementation: The Impact of Demographic Characteristics on the
Level of Support Received by Middle Managers. Management International Review,
45-70.
Rajapakshe, W. (2002). Strategy and Structure Re-examined. Journal of Management
Science, 142-167.
Rapert, M. I., Velliquette, A., & Garretson, J. A. (2002). The Strategic Implementation
Process: Evoking Strategic Consensus through Communication. Journal of Business
Research, 301-310.
84
Raps, A. (2005). Strategy Implementation – An Insurmountable Obstacle? Handbook of
Business Strategy, 141-146.
Robson, C. (2011). Real World Research (3rd Ed.). Oxford: Wiley.
Rosario, J. G. (2000). On the Leading Edge: Critical Success Factors in ERP Implementation
Projects. Business World.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students
(6th Ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson.
Saunders, M., Mann, R., & Smith, R. (2008). Implementing Strategic Initiatives: A
Framework of Leading Practices. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 1095 - 1123.
Schaap, J. I. (2006). Toward Strategy Implementation Success: An Empirical Study of the
Role of Senior-Level Leaders in the Nevada Gaming Industry. UNLV Gaming
Research & Review Journal, 13-37.
Schreyogg, G., & Steinmann, H. (1987). Strategic Control: A New Perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 12(1), 91-103.
Shah, A. M. (2005). The Foundations of Successful Strategy Implementation: Overcoming
the Obstacles. Global Business Review, 293-302.
Skivington, J., & Daft, R. (1991). A Study of Organizational Framework and Process
Modalities for the Implementation of Business Level Strategic Decisions. Journal of
Management Studies, 45-68.
Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2001). Marketing's Contribution to the Implementation of
Business Strategy: An Empirical Analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 1055-
1067.
Sloman, K. N. (2010). Research Trends in Descriptive Analysis. The Behaviour Analyst
Today, Vol. 11, 20-35.
Speculand, R. (2009). Six Necessary Mind Shifts for Implementing Strategy. Business
Strategy Series, 167-172.
Sterling, J. (2003). Translating Strategy into Effective Implementation: Dispelling the Myths
and Highlighting what Works. Strategy & Leadership, 27-34.
85
Sumner, M. (1999). Critical Success Factors in Enterprise Wide Information Management
Systems Projects. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems
(AMCIS), 297-303.
Thompson, A. A., & Strickland, A. J. (2003). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Waithaka, G. K. (2013). Challenges of Strategy Implementation in Public and Private
Hospitals in Nairobi Hospital. University of Nairobi: Unpublished MBA Project.
Waterman, R. H., Peters, T. J., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure is not Organization.
Business Horizons, 23, 14-26.
Wee, S. (2000, February). Juggling toward ERP Success: Keep Key Success Factors High.
ERP News.
White, R. E. (1986). Generic Business Strategies, Organizational Context and Performance:
An Empirical Investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 217-231.
Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Harper
and Row.
Yang, L., Sun, G.-h., & Eppler, M. J. (2010). Making Strategy Work: A Literature Review on
the Factors Influencing Strategy Implementation. Handbook of Research on Strategy
Process, pp. 165-183.
Zafar, F., Butt, A., & Afzal, B. (2014). Strategic Management: Managing Change by
Employee Involvement. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied
Research, 205-217.
i
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
The high failure rate of strategy implementation efforts in an environment characterized by rapid
change is well documented, and is estimated to range from 57% to as much as 90%. This poses an
area of major concern for the strategic leaders of contemporary organizations.
Research has identified that that the primary reason why most implementations fail is due to a lack
of theoretically sound yet practical models to guide the decisions and actions of managers during
the strategy implementation process.
The primary objective of this study is to examine the importance of strategic content, strategic
context and organizational process factors to effective strategy implementation in Deloitte Kenya.
The results of this study will be beneficial to the firm as it will enlighten leadership of the challenges
associated with prior strategy implementation exercises, as well as provide us with a sound
framework that will inform future implementation efforts.
As an integral member of Deloitte’s management team entrusted with strategy formulation or
implementation responsibilities, you are kindly invited to complete the attached questionnaire (it
will take approximately 12-15 minutes of your time) to obtain your perception of the challenges
and factors that are critical to successful strategy execution. The success of this study depends
largely on gathering your complete and honest views, and it will be appreciated if you would
complete the questionnaire between now and FRIDAY 15TH JULY 2016.
All information provided by you will be will be used solely for academic research purposes and will
be treated confidentially. Under NO circumstances will this information be made public or used for
any other purpose than the research. In addition, a copy of the research findings will be made
available to you upon request and at no cost whatsoever.
ii
PART A: DEMOGRAPHICS
The following information is collected for demographic purposes only and WILL NOT be
used to identify any respondents. Your responses are CONFIDENTIAL and will only be
used to compare groups of respondents.
A1 Please select your gender. {Male | Female}
A2 Please indicate your age range?
Younger than 30 years
30 – 39 years
40 – 49 years
50 – 59 years
60 years or older
A3 Please select your Service Line: {Advisory | Audit | ICS | Tax}
A4 What is your level in the firm? {Partner | Associate Director | Manager}
A5 How long have you been with the firm?
Less than 1 year
1 – 3 years
4 – 7 years
8 – 10 years
11 years or more
A6 How long have you been involved in strategy formulation and implementation in ANY
ORGANIZATION?
Less than 1 year
1 – 3 years
4 – 7 years
8 – 10 years
11 – 20 years
21 years or more
A7 Are there any firm-wide strategies that have been formulated and are being
implemented in Deloitte Kenya? {Yes | No | Not Aware}
iii
PART B: EFFECTIVE STRATEGY EXECUTION
This section deals with two factors:
Section B1 deals with YOUR PERCEPTIONS of the generic issues in strategic management,
including strategy implementation1 in ANY ORGANIZATION.
Section B2 deals with YOUR PERCEPTIONS of the effectiveness and importance of strategy
implementation in DELOITTE KENYA.
B1 Kindly indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements by using the following scale:
SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree
Statements SD D N A SA
1. Strategy implementation is more important than strategy formulation as a means of delivering superior financial results in an organization.
1 2 3 4 5
2. The ability to implement a strategy in an organization is more important than the ability to formulate a
strategy in an organization.
1 2 3 4 5
3. The implementation of a strategy is more difficult than the formulation of a strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
4. The high failure rate of organizational change initiatives is a direct result of poor strategy implementation.
1 2 3 4 5
1 Strategy implementation entails converting the strategic plan of the organization into action and then into
results
iv
B2 Please answer each of the following questions using the following scale:
NE = No Extent; SE = Small Extent; ME = Moderate Extent; LE = Large Extent; VLE =
Very Large Extent
To what extent do you believe the following: NE SE ME LE VLE
1. That the firm is better at formulating strategy than at implementing strategy?
1 2 3 4 5
2. That there is a gap between the formulation of, and the effective implementation of, strategy in Deloitte Kenya?
1 2 3 4 5
3. That the firm is effective at implementing strategy? 1 2 3 4 5
4. That an improvement in the effectiveness of strategy implementation in Deloitte Kenya will directly lead to enhanced client service delivery?
1 2 3 4 5
5. That an improvement in the effectiveness of strategy
implementation in Deloitte Kenya will directly lead to an improvement in the firm’s financial performance?
1 2 3 4 5
6. That an improvement in the effectiveness of strategy implementation in Deloitte Kenya will directly lead to an improvement in the firm’s operational efficiency2?
1 2 3 4 5
7. That an improvement in the effectiveness of strategy implementation is an important leadership challenge for Deloitte Kenya?
1 2 3 4 5
2 Operational efficiency refers to the firm’s capability to offer high quality services and deliver superior value to
its clients in the most timely and cost-effective manner possible.
v
PART C: STRATEGIC CONTENT
This section deals with YOUR PERCEPTION of the importance of strategic content3 factors to effective
strategy implementation in DELOITTE KENYA.
C1 Please rate the extent to which you feel each of the following statements applies to
Deloitte Kenya by using the following scale:
N = Never; R = Rarely; S = Sometimes; U = Usually; A = Always
Statements N R S U A
1. The strategy formulation process ensures that all planning participants have a solid understanding of the business, its strategy and the underlying assumptions.
1 2 3 4 5
2. All managers are involved in the formulation of strategy to establish firm-wide identification with the strategy right from the very beginning.
1 2 3 4 5
3. The teams involved in strategy formulation have the
necessary expertise to carry out this function. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Individual service line goals and targets are aligned with the firm-wide strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
5. The potential impact of new strategic initiatives on ongoing and future projects is considered during
strategy formulation.
1 2 3 4 5
6. The selection of a clearly-formulated and sound strategy is the most important factor for successful strategy implementation.
1 2 3 4 5
7. New strategic initiatives are consistent with the firm’s overall strategic direction.
1 2 3 4 5
8. The firm’s strategy takes cognizance of the needs, perceptions and behaviours of our key client portfolios.
1 2 3 4 5
9. The firm’s strategy takes into account the actions,
strengths and strategies of our key competitors. 1 2 3 4 5
10. The firm’s strategy takes into account the capabilities of the organization and its people in delivering the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
3 Strategic content refers to the overall strategic direction of the firm, including ‘why’ and ‘how’ strategies are
formed.
vi
PART D: STRATEGIC CONTEXT
This section deals with YOUR PERCEPTION of the importance of strategic context4 factors to effective
strategy implementation in DELOITTE KENYA.
D1 Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements by using the following scale:
SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree
Statements SD D N A SA
1. Our strategic management processes incorporate an external environment analysis/scanning phase.
1 2 3 4 5
2. Our business continually adjusts its strategies to reflect the conditions, trends and developments in the
operating environment.
1 2 3 4 5
3. The firm’s strategic plan is flexible enough to allow quick and agile responses to the changing operating environment.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Achieving a fit between the firm’s strategy and the organizational structure is crucial to the achievement of strategic outcomes.
1 2 3 4 5
5. The firm’s organization structure is continually adjusted to align with new strategic initiatives being deployed.
1 2 3 4 5
6. Strategic initiatives that embrace our cultural identity and shared values are likely to result in successful implementation.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Resistance to actions and behaviours borne out of culture pose the greatest threat to effective strategy implementation.
1 2 3 4 5
8. It is the responsibility of the partnership to ensure that the rest of the firm remains committed to the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
9. Senior management provides the necessary strategic leadership to ensure effective implementation of strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
10. The support of the CEO and other senior management has been vital in ensuring the successful implementation of strategy in Deloitte Kenya.
1 2 3 4 5
4 Strategic context refers to the set of circumstances under which the firm’s strategy is determined, and
includes the external environment, the organizational structure, culture and leadership.
vii
PART E: ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES
This section deals with YOUR PERCEPTION of the importance of organizational process5 factors to
effective strategy implementation in DELOITTE KENYA.
E1 Kindly indicate to what extent the firm incorporates the following activities when
implementing strategy by using the following scale:
N = Never; R = Rarely; S = Sometimes; U = Usually; A = Always
Statements N R S U A
1. Developing detailed operational plans that translate the strategic goals into specific actionable steps and tasks.
1 2 3 4 5
2. Clearly identifying and allocating roles and responsibilities to support delivery of the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
3. Allocating enough time and financial resources to the projects, activities and tasks required to deliver the set strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Linking the annual budgeting process with the strategy. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Creating a shared vision and understanding of the strategy across all levels of the firm.
1 2 3 4 5
6. Ensuring employees understand the business drivers underpinning the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Ensuring employees understand their roles and responsibilities in the pursuit of the strategic goals.
1 2 3 4 5
8. Ensuring that managerial and non-managerial staff possess the skills and competencies needed to effectively execute the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
9. Aligning the firm’s performance management and
remuneration and reward systems with the strategy. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Aligning the firm’s HR plans for recruitment, selection and staff development with the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
11. Clearly articulating the performance measures that will be used to monitor the performance of the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
5 Organizational processes refer to the combination of organizational activities necessary to operationalize or
implement strategic initiatives.
viii
Statements N R S U A
12. Conducting periodic reviews to track the progress of
the strategy throughout the various phases of implementation.
1 2 3 4 5
13. Making timely adjustments during implementation in response to feedback gathered from the reviews.
1 2 3 4 5
ix
E2 How do you rate the importance of each activity below to the firm’s ability to
effectively implement strategy? Use the following scale:
NI = Not Important; SI = Slightly Important; FI = Fairly Important; VI= Very
Important; AE = Absolutely Essential
Statements NI SI FI VI AE
1. Developing detailed operational plans that translate the strategic goals into specific actionable steps and tasks.
1 2 3 4 5
2. Clearly identifying and allocating roles and responsibilities to support delivery of the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
3. Allocating enough time and financial resources to the
projects, activities and tasks required to deliver the set strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Linking the annual budgeting process with the strategy. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Creating a shared vision and understanding of the
strategy across all levels of the firm. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Ensuring employees understand the business drivers underpinning the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Ensuring employees understand their roles and responsibilities in the pursuit of the strategic goals.
1 2 3 4 5
8. Ensuring that managerial and non-managerial staff possess the skills and competencies needed to effectively execute the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
9. Aligning the firm’s performance management and remuneration and reward systems with the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
10. Aligning the firm’s HR plans for recruitment, selection and staff development with the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
11. Clearly articulating the performance measures that will be used to monitor the performance of the strategy.
1 2 3 4 5
12. Conducting periodic reviews to track the progress of
the strategy throughout the various phases of implementation.
1 2 3 4 5
13. Making timely adjustments during implementation in response to feedback gathered from the reviews.
1 2 3 4 5
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire and for your
contribution to this study.