obstacles to effective strategy implementation

Obstacles to EffectiveStrategy Implementation

LAWRENCE G. HREBINIAK

F ormulating strategy is difficult. Makingstrategywork – executing or implement-

ing it throughout the organization – is evenmore difficult. Without effective implemen-tation, no business strategy can succeed.Unfortunately, most managers know farmore about developing strategy than theydo about executing it.

Theories and advice abound in manage-ment literature about the requisites of goodplanning and strategy formulation. A vastarray of planning models and techniqueshas been paraded before managers over theyears, and managers for the most part under-stand them and know how to use them effec-tively. However, the problem with poorperformance typically is not with planning,but with doing. Making strategy work is moredifficult than strategy making. Sound plansfounder or die because of a lack of executionknow-how and the ability to confront difficultorganizational and political obstacles thatstand in the way of effective implementation.

What are the obstacles to successfulexecution? What problems must be con-fronted and overcome to make strategywork? This article summarizes my recentresearch on implementing strategy. It iden-tifies themain obstacles to effective executionor implementation, and briefly describeswhat managers must do to overcome theimpediments and achieve strategic success.

OBSTACLES TO EFFECTIVESTRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION

The road to successful strategy implementa-tion is full of potholes that must be nego-tiated. What are these problems, and how

real and serious are they? This paper pro-vides answers to these questions from twoseparate, but interdependent sources. First,my research and consulting work over thepast two decades has allowed me to observemany execution-related problems firsthand.Second, I undertook an empirical study ofimplementation issues in which data werecollected from 443 managers involved instrategy execution. No armchair musingshere; the data reflect the real implementationexperiences and problems of managers actu-ally trying to make strategy work. Let’s lookfirst at some general, overarching issues thatimpede strategy execution, and then turn tothe empirical survey data and the opinions ofthe practicing managers.

Managers are Trained to Plan,not Execute

One basic problem is that managers knowmore about strategy formulation than imple-mentation. They’ve been trained to plan, notexecute plans. For example, in most M.B.A.programs, students learn a great deal aboutstrategy formulation and functional plan-ning. Core courses typically hone in on com-petitive strategy, marketing strategy,financial strategy, and so on. The numberof courses in most core programs that dealexclusively with execution or implementa-tion? Usually none. Execution is most cer-tainly touched on, but not in a dedicated,elaborate, purposeful way. Emphasis clearlyis on conceptual work, primarily planning,and not on doing.

The lack of training in execution is due tothe fact that strategy and planning in most

Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 12–31, 2006 ISSN 0090-2616/$ – see frontmatter� 2006 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.12.001www.organizational-dynamics.com

12

business schools are taught in ‘‘silos,’’ bydepartments or disciplines. Execution isn’temphasized in these courses. The view thatmarketing strategy, financial strategy,human resource (HR) strategy, competitivestrategy, and so on is the only ‘‘right’’approach is deleterious to the integrativeview demanded by execution. If this is true– if managers are trained to plan, not toexecute, and if they acquire functional exper-tise, but not how to coordinate across thedisparate functions – then the successfulexecution of strategy becomes less likelyand more problematic. Execution is learnedin the ‘‘school of hard knocks,’’ and the path-ways to successful results are likely fraughtwith mistakes and frustrations.

One could argue, of course, that executioncannot be taught, that implementationinvolves ‘‘doing’’ and on-the-job experience.Even so, managers can be taught the keysteps, actions, or variables that lead to execu-tion success. They can benefit from a modelof implementation that lays out the process,the steps or decisions involved, and a logicalapproach to making strategy work. Such amodel can inform and guide subsequentimplementation actions.

Let the ‘ ‘Grunts’ ’ HandleExecution

Another problem is that some top-levelmanagers believe strategy implementationis ‘‘below them,’’ something best left tolower-level employees. Indeed, the headingof this section comes from an actual quotefrom a high-level manager who believed thatit was top-management’s role to plan andthink strategically, and the role of lower-level‘‘grunts’’ to simply carry out the top level’sdemands and implementation requirements.

What a picture of the planning and execu-tion process! The planners (the ‘‘smart’’ peo-ple) develop plans that the ‘‘grunts’’ (notquite as smart) simply have to followthrough on and make work. ‘‘Doing’’obviously involves less ability and intelli-gence than ‘‘planning,’’ a perception of man-agerial work that clearly demeans the

implementation process. This view holdsthat one group of managers does innovative,challenging work (planning), and then‘‘hands off the ball’’ to lower-levels for execu-tion. If things go awry and strategic plans arenot successful (which often is the case), theproblem is placed squarely at the feet of the‘‘doers,’’ who somehow couldn’t implementa perfectly sound and viable plan.

Every organization, of course, has someseparation of planning and doing, of formu-lation and implementation. However, whensuch a separation becomes dysfunctional –when planners see themselves as the smartpeople and treat the doers as ‘‘grunts’’ – thereclearly will be execution problems. The truthis that implementation demands ownership atall levels of management. From C-level man-agers on down, people must commit to andown the processes and actions central toeffective execution. The implementation ofstrategy is not a trivial part of managerialwork; it defines the essence of that work.Execution is a key responsibility of all man-agers, not something that ‘‘others’’ do orworry about.

Planning and Execution areInterdependent

Strategy formulation and implementationare separate, distinguishable parts of thestrategic management process. Each can bedifferentiated and discussed separately, con-ceptually and practically. Logically, imple-mentation follows formulation; one cannotimplement, carry out, or ensure fulfillmentof somethinguntil that somethingexists.Mak-ing strategy work implies the existence ofstrategy.But formulationand implementationare also interdependent, part and parcel of anoverall process of planning-executing-adapt-ing. Planning affects execution. The executionof strategy, in turn, affects changes to strategyand planning over time. This relationshipbetween planning and doing suggests twocritical points.

First, successful strategic outcomes arebest achieved when those responsible forimplementation are also part of the planning

13

or formulation process. The greater the inter-action between ‘‘doers’’ and ‘‘planners,’’ orthe greater the overlap of the two processesor tasks, the higher the probability of execu-tion success.

Second, strategic success demands a‘‘simultaneous’’ view of planning and doing.Managers must be thinking about executioneven as they are formulating plans. Execu-tion or implementation is not something toworry about later. Execution issues or pro-blem areas must be anticipated as part of a‘‘big picture’’ dealing with planning anddoing. Formulating and executing are partsof an integrated strategic managementapproach. This dual or simultaneous viewis important, but difficult to achieve, and itpresents a challenge to effective implementa-tion.

Consider, for example, an analysis of strat-egy and structure. While emphasis is right-fully placed on the costs and benefits ofcompeting organizational designs, giventhe business strategy being pursued, a focuson only strategy and structure is not suffi-cient. Issues that come later in time or in thelogical flow of implementation activitiesmust also be on the decision makers’ minds.For example, the strategy–structure rela-tionship may hold implications for controlor management information systems (MIS)requirements, due to the interdependenciesand coordination needs inherent in anew structural configuration. Actual choicesof information systems hardware, re-engineering requirements, and coordinationmechanisms will not be made for some time.Yet, analysis of strategy and structure musthave decision makers thinking ahead andconsidering future choices and costs. Deci-sions about strategy and structure in thepresent are affected, in part, by a simulta-neous view of related future decisions,needs, and costs.

Implementation is a Process thatTakes Longer than Formulation

The execution of strategy usually takeslonger than the formulation of strategy.

Whereas planning may take weeks ormonths, the implementation of strategy isusually played out over a much longer per-iod of time. The longer time frame can makeit harder for managers to focus on and con-trol the execution process, as many things,some unforeseen, can materialize and chal-lenge managers’ attention. Interest rates mayfluctuate, competitors don’t behave the waythey’re supposed to, customers’ needschange, key personnel leave our company,etc. The outcomes of changes in strategy andexecution methods cannot always be easilydetermined because of ‘‘noise’’ or uncon-trolled events. This obviously increases thedifficulty of execution.

The longer time frame puts pressure onmanagers dealing with execution. Long-termneeds must be translated into short-termobjectives. Controlsmust be set up to providefeedback and keep management abreast ofexternal ‘‘shocks’’ and changes. The processof execution must be dynamic and adaptive,responding to and compensating for unanti-cipated events.

A point just made is critical and should berepeated: implementation is a process. It is notthe result of a single decision or action. It isthe result of a series of integrated decisions oractions over time. Execution is a process thatdemands a great deal of attention to make itwork. Managers who seek a quick solution toexecution problems will surely fail in theirattempts. Faster is not always better; success-ful integration takes time and attention. Thispresents a real challenge to managers andincreases the difficulty of strategy implemen-tation efforts.

Execution Involves More Peoplethan Strategy Formulation

In addition to being played out overlonger periods of time, strategy implementa-tion always involves more people than strat-egy formulation. This presents additionalproblems. Communication down the organi-zation or across different functions becomesa challenge. Making sure that incentivesthroughout the organization support strat-

14 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

egy execution efforts becomes a necessityand, potentially, a problem. Linking strategicobjectives with the day-to-day objectives andconcerns of personnel at different organiza-tional levels and locations becomes a legit-imate, but challenging task. The larger thenumber of people involved, the greater is thechallenge to effective strategy execution.

I recently was involved in a strategic plan-ning project with a well-known bank. Astrategy was articulated and a plan of execu-tion developed to educate key personnel andto set goals consistent with the new thrust.Branch managers and others dealing withcustomers were brought in to corporate fortraining and to create widespread enthu-siasm for the program.

After a few months, the data revealed thatnot much had changed. It clearly was busi-ness-as-usual, with no change in the out-comes that were being targeted by the newprogram. The bank decided to do a briefsurvey to canvas customers and branch per-sonnel to determine reactions to the programand see where modifications could be made.The results were shocking. Few people knewabout the program. Some branch personneldid mention that they had heard about‘‘something new,’’ but nothing differentwas introduced to their daily routines. Afew said that the new program was probablyjust a rumor, as nothing substantial had everbeen implemented.

Communication and follow-through forthe new program were obviously inade-quate, but the bank admittedly faced a daunt-ing task. It is a big bank. It has manyemployees at the branch level. Educatingthem and changing their behaviors wasmade extremely difficult by the bank’s size.Decentralized branch operations ensuredthat problems were always popping up inthe field, challenging employees’ attentionand making it difficult to introduce newideas from corporate to a large group ofemployees. A large number of peopleinvolved, added to the longer time framesgenerally associated with strategy imple-mentation, clearly creates problems whentrying to make strategy work.

ADDITIONAL CHALLENGESAND OBSTACLES TOSUCCESSFULIMPLEMENTATION

The issues previously noted are serious,potentially impeding execution. Yet thereare still other challenges and obstacles tothe successful implementation of strategy.These need to be identified and confrontedif execution is to succeed.

To find out what problems managersroutinely encounter in the execution of strat-egy, I developed two research projects toprovide some answers. My goal was to learnabout implementation from those most qua-lified to give me the data—managers dealingwith strategy execution. I felt that a wide-spread approach – surveys directed towardmany practicing managers – would yieldadditional positive results and usefulinsights into execution issues.

Wharton–Gartner Survey

This was a joint project involving GartnerGroup, Inc., a well-known research organi-zation, with data collection and analysis acouple of years ago. The purpose of theresearch, from the Gartner introduction, was:

‘‘To gain a clear understanding ofchallenges faced by managers asthey make decisions and take actionsto execute their company’s strategyto gain competitive advantage.’’

The research instrument was sent to 1,000individuals on the Gartner E-Panel database.The targeted sample comprised managerswho reported that they were involved instrategy formulation and execution. Com-plete usable responses were received froma sample of 243 individuals, a return rate thatis more than sufficient for this type ofresearch. In addition, the survey collectedresponses to open-ended questions to pro-vide additional data, including explanationsof items covered in the survey instrument.

Twelve items on the survey dealt withobstacles to the strategy-execution process.

15

They focused on conditions that affect exe-cution, and were originally developed inconjunction with aWharton Executive Devel-opment Programon strategy implementation.Let’s briefly consider this program and thesurvey it generated, and then we’ll look at theitems involved.

Wharton Executive EducationSurvey

I have been running an executive programon strategy implementation at Wharton anumber of times a year for many years.Hundreds of managers with responsibilityfor strategy execution, many of whom con-fronted major hurdles in their attempts toexecute strategy successfully have attendedthese programs. As part of the formal pro-gram, managers brought their real-worldproblems with them. Time was allocated toair out the problems and focus on their solu-tions in the course of the program.

Based on these presentations and mydiscussions with managers, a list of execu-tion hurdles or challenges to the executionprocess was crafted. This list was discussedwith managers, asking them to rank theproblems or obstacles in order of impor-tance. Over time, items were modified,added to, or deleted from the list, until 12items were chosen that made sense andhad face validity. These items, managersfelt, clearly had a relationship to strategyexecution.

Using the 12 items to gather opinions overa large number of executive education pro-grams provided me with responses from asample of 200 managers. They provided aranking of the items’ impact on strategyexecution. Open-ended responses to ques-tions about implementation issues, pro-blems, and opportunities were alsocollected over time, providing additionalvaluable data. Coupled with the data col-lected in theWharton–Gartner Survey usingthe same 12 items, I had complete responsesfrom 443 managers involved in strategyimplementation who told me about theirproblems and solutions.

Panel Discussions

In subsequent executive programs after thedata collection, we hosted informal panel dis-cussions to collect additional insights intowhat the data were saying. Managers wereasked why, in their opinion, people respon-ded the way they did. ‘‘What are the surveystelling us about execution problems orissues?’’ was the predominant question.

These discussions forced managers toread between the lines and interpret the for-mal data. They also enabled me to probe intowhat could be done to overcome the obsta-cles and achieve successful execution out-comes. Insights were collected, then, notonly on the sources of execution problems,but their solutions as well.

Survey Results : Ranking theObstacles

Table 1 shows the top five obstacles tostrategy implementation that resulted fromthe two surveys. Failure to recognize andhandle the obstacles would surely lead to afailure of implementation, according to themanagers surveyed. Let’s consider each ofthe major obstacles in turn.

Inability to manage change effectively. Theimportance of managing change well isclearly important for effective strategy imple-mentation. The inability to manage changeand reduce resistance to new implementationdecisions or actions and their consequenceswas ranked as the topmost obstacle in both theWharton–Gartner and Wharton-ExecutiveEducation surveys. Although culture wasnot mentioned explicitly in the item, theopen-ended responses and panel discussionsplaced culture at the core of many change-related problems. To many of the respon-dents, ‘‘change’’ and ‘‘culture change’’ weresynonymous.

Another change-related issue that emergedfrom the discussions with managers dealswith ‘‘speed’’ in the execution process. Howfast is too fastwhen implementingstrategy isacritical issue. The demands that strategy


makes in the execution process on structure,incentives, new information requirements,feedback mechanisms, etc. often are hugeand complex. How fast must managers reactto these demands and institute new methodsor systems? In the opinion of managers sur-veyed, excessive speed isdangerousandofteninjurious to the implementationprocess. Theirpoint is that often ‘‘speed kills,’’ an issue Iaddress again below.

Poor or vague strategy. Strategy is the pri-mary driver. Implementation begins withstrategy. Execution cannot occur until onehas something to execute. Bad strategy begetspoor execution and poor outcomes, so it’simportant to focus first on a sound strategy.A poor or vague strategy severely limitsimplementation efforts and thus presents amajor obstacle, according to the surveyresults. Good execution cannot overcomethe shortcomings of a bad strategy or poorstrategic planning effort.

Good people are important for execution.It is vital to get the ‘‘right people on the bus inthe right seats, the wrong people off the bus,’’so to speak. But it’s also important to knowwhere the bus is going and why. Strategy iscritical. It drives the development of capabil-ities and which people with what skills arechosen to sit in what seats on the bus. If onesubstitutes ‘‘jet airplane’’ for ‘‘bus’’ – giventoday’s highflying, competitive markets – theimportance of strategy, direction, and the

requisite critical skills and capabilities neces-sary for success are emphasized even more.

Strategy defines the arena (customers,markets, technologies, products, logistics.)in which the execution game is played.Execution is an empty effort without theguidance of strategy. What aspects of strat-egy and planning impact execution outcomesthe most is a critical question that needsanswering. Another critical question dealswith the relationship between corporate-and business-level strategies and how theirinteraction affects execution outcomes.

Not having a model to guide implementationefforts. Managers sorely need and want alogical model to guide execution decisionsand actions. The survey results and paneldiscussions with managers highlighted thispoint emphatically.

Without guidelines, execution becomes alabyrinth. Without guidance, individuals dothe things they think are important, oftenresulting in uncoordinated, divergent, evenconflicting decisions and actions. Withoutthe benefit of a logical approach, executionsuffers or fails because managers don’t knowwhat steps to take and when to take them.Managers need to know what comes first,second, etc., in the execution process, andwhy it’s critical to focus on these steps at all.Having a model or roadmap positivelyaffects execution success; not having oneleads to execution failure and frustration.

17

TABLE 1 TOP FIVE OBSTACLES TO STRATEGY EXECUTION

RANKINGS

OBSTACLES

WHARTON EXECUTIVE

EDUCATION SURVEY (n = 200)WHARTON–GARTNER

SURVEY (n = 243)

Inability to manage change effectively andovercome resistance to change

1 1

Poor or vague strategy 2 5Not having guidelines or a model to guidestrategy implementation efforts

2 –

Poor or inadequate information sharing amongindividuals/units responsible for strategy execution

4 2

Trying to execute a strategy that conflicts withthe existing power structure

5 2

Unclear responsibility or accountability forimplementation decisions or actions

5 4

Poor or inadequate information sharing andunclear responsibility and accountability.Poor sharing of information or poor knowl-edge transfer and unclear responsibility andaccountability also can doom strategy-execu-tion attempts. These two items suggest thatattempts at coordination or integration acrossorganizational units can suffer if unclearresponsibilities and poor sharing of vitalinformation are the rule.

This makes sense because complex strate-gies often demand cooperation and effectivecoordination and information sharing. Notachieving the requisite knowledge transferand integration certainly cannot help theexecution of these strategies. A lack of clearresponsibility or accountability muddles thepicture even further. Effective coordinationcannot occur if managers don’t know who isresponsible forwhat andwithwhom they areinterdependent in task-related implementa-tion activities. Knowledge transfer and inte-gration simply cannot be effective givenambiguity in roles and responsibilities andunclear direction as to who must receive andemploy critical information.

Working against the power structure. Suc-cessful strategy implementation indicates anability to gain support for a particular courseof action or execution plan. Making strategywork often entails getting others to perform incertain ways or change their behavior. Lead-ing execution presupposes an ability to influ-ence others. Leading effective change, thenumber one requisite for successful strategyimplementation, also presupposes an abilityto influence and move others into purposefulaction.

Trying to execute a strategy that conflictswith the prevailing power structure clearly isdoomed to failure, according to the managerssurveyed. Confronting thosewith influence atdifferent organizational levels who disagreewith an execution plan surely will have dys-functional consequences.Working against thepower structure clearly presents a majorobstacle to effective implementation andmak-ing strategy work. On the positive side, thesurvey results suggest that an ability to form

coalitions and gain the support of influentialpeople in the organization will help immen-sely with the execution of formulated plans.

These, then, are themajor obstacles to effec-tive strategy implementation identified by the443managers inmyresearch sample. Thenextquestion, of course, deals with how to con-front and negate the obstacles. Explaining justhow to do this resulted in an analysis anddiscussion that literally took the best part of abook, and to do so presently would not bepossible due to space and time limitations.Still, identification of the obstacles alone isincomplete and insufficient. Therefore, anattempt ismadepresently toderive the criticaldecisions and action steps from the empiricaldata that allowmanagers to confront obstaclesand successfully implement their organiza-tions’ strategies. Specifically, the followingdiscussion identifies two critical solutions,actions, or steps that encompass and confrontmany of the major obstacles to the effectiveexecution of strategy.

OVERCOMING THEOBSTACLES ANDIMPLEMENTING STRATEGYSUCCESSFULLY

The first critical realization among the man-agers surveyed is that implementation effortsrequire guidelines. The execution of strategyshould not be a helter–skelter affair. It shouldnot be an unstructured process that relies ongood people taking the initiative on their ownand, hopefully, making strategy work. Arm-chair philosophy andmanagerialmusings arenot sufficient to inform the difficult task ofstrategy execution. Thus, the first step in con-fronting the formidable implementationobstacles previously identified is to developguidelines to lead and support the implemen-tation process.

Developing and Using aModel of Execution

As a result of this and previous re-search, an approach or model to guide


the implementation process (Fig. 1) wascrafted. It’s impossible to cover every aspectof the model in this article. Accordingly,this discussion will focus on the mostimportant findings of the research.

Two general comments about Fig. 1 are inorder. First, the model shows that there is alogical flow of execution decisions or actions.The arrows in the figure show this flow.Incentives, for example, are last in the model,because they must be. Incentives cannot beset until prior decisions about strategy, short-term objectives, and structure are made.Logically, incentives must reward and rein-force the right decisions, which must clearlyprecede the development of those incentives.Similarly, corporate strategy is of paramountimportance. If the strategy of a business unitis inconsistent with (or contradictory to) cor-porate strategy, the latter must prevail. Thearrows, then, show a logical order to execu-tion decisions. They show which decisionsprecede others when executing strategy.They do not suggest a unilateral, down-

ward-only flow of communication or a lackof participation.

Second, there are feedback loops in themodel, though they are not obvious. The‘‘controls’’ portion of the model comprisesfeedback and change. Execution is a dynamic,adaptive process, leading to organizationallearning. For learning and change to occur,feedback about performance against strategicand short-term objectives is necessary. Con-tinuous monitoring of performance, conduct-ing ‘‘autopsies’’ when implementationstruggles or fails, and managing change arecritical aspects of the execution process. Thepresent model is not static by any means, anotion I wish to stress strongly at the outset.

Corporate strategy. The model in Fig. 1begins with corporate strategy, which is con-cerned with the entire organization andfocuses, accordingly, on such areas as port-folio management, diversification, andresource allocations across the businessesor operating units that make up the total

19

FIGURE 1 IMPLEMENTING STRATEGY: KEY DECISIONS AND ACTIONS

enterprise. The corporate role is financial andstrategic, weighing how to invest scarce capi-tal and how to grow the entire enterprise(e.g., mergers and acquisitions, vertical inte-gration, and the allocation of capital acrossbusiness units).

Corporate structure. Corporate strategydrives the choice of corporate structure.Alternatively, the choice of structure is vitalto the implementation of corporate strategy.To see this relationship, consider the age-oldstructural issue of degree of centralizationand decentralization in an organization.Over time, a corporation creates or acquiresthe businesses that make up and define theorganization. Some corporate acquisitionsbecome relatively independent, decentra-lized units competing in different industries.Yet there usually are activities or functionsthat cut across different businesses that allowfor centralization, reduced duplication ofresources, and the scale economies so oftensought by corporate strategists. Differentbusinesses must be sufficiently independentto respond quickly to market demands, com-petitors’ actions, and customer needs. Yetthey can’t be so independent as to createan unnecessary duplication of resourcesand destroy all chances for synergies or scaleeconomies across businesses. The corpora-tion, then, must create the right balance ofcentralization and decentralization to exe-cute its strategy and achieve its strategicgoals.

Universities face issues similar to thosefaced by corporations. They are marked bydecentralized units (colleges) but have cen-tralized staff functions such as HR that ser-vice all colleges to avoid duplication andgenerate cost savings. Like corporations, uni-versities too are characterized by sharedresources that define the ‘‘corporate center.’’Simultaneously, they are decentralizedaround colleges (business units) that com-pete in different product markets, usuallywith large amounts of autonomy and localcontrol in a decentralized structure. Corpora-tions, universities, indeed, most organiza-tions, must choose a mix of centralized and

decentralized resources, with the choicebeing driven by their strategic focus.

Need for integration. The integration com-ponent of corporate structure noted in Fig. 1refers to the methods used to achieve coordi-nation across the units comprising organiza-tional structure. In the previous example,corporations and universities both weremarked by centralized functions that allowedfor scale economies and low costs of duplica-tion across operating units. To achieve thesebenefits, the work of the centralized unitsmust be shared by decentralized units. Coor-dination or integration of functional expertiselaterally, acrossunits relyingon that expertise,is absolutely essential to the efficiency goals ofthe entire organization and the effectivenessgoals of the decentralized units. Structuralchoice creates an interdependence among dif-ferentiated units that places a premium onintegration efforts.

Business strategy. Fig. 1 shows that busi-nesses create strategies of their own, and thisrepresents the next element of the model. Atthe business level, strategy is focused onproducts, services, and how to compete ina given industry. Emphasis is on industryanalysis and industry forces external to theorganization as the business attempts to posi-tion itself for competitive advantage. Atten-tion is also paid to internal resources andcapabilities as the business tries to createskills and competencies that differentiate itfrom competitors. In essence, business strat-egy deals with how to compete and gainadvantage in a given market, and muchhas been written on the topic.

What must be stressed presently is thatbusiness strategy is important to the imple-mentation of corporate strategy. Businessstrategy is important in its own right becauseit helps achieve competitive advantage andprofitability for the business unit and, ulti-mately, the entire organization. But businessstrategy is also important to the execution ofcorporate strategy, a role not often assignedto it by those interested in execution. Indeed,business strategy and corporate strategy are


interdependent; each affects and is affectedby the other.

Consider for a moment the well knownportfolio approaches to corporate strategy.‘‘Cash cows,’’ for example, generate cash.Corporate ‘‘milks’’ them and uses their cashto feed and grow other business units, suchas ‘‘stars’’ with growth potential. Corporateneeds the ‘‘cash cows’’ to grow parts of itsportfolio, consistent with its strategy. Simi-larly, the university routinely ‘‘milks’’ itsprofitable business school in order to supportother important, but financially strapped col-leges. What would happen if ‘‘cash cows’’did not meet corporate expectations? What ifthey fail to produce the requisite cash nour-ishment for the internal funding of growthand acquisition? Clearly, funds would haveto come from elsewhere; otherwise, corpo-rate strategy could not be executed success-fully.

The point is that business strategy is essen-tial to the successful execution of corporatestrategy. Corporate planning assigns rolesand goals to business units, the performanceof which affects the execution of corporatestrategy. Poor strategic performance at thebusiness level detracts from corporate’s abil-ity to achieve its strategic aims, while goodperformance helps make corporate strategywork.

Business strategy also makes important‘‘demands’’ that must be met to execute suc-cessfully. The business must create the func-tional skills, capabilities, and competenciesthat make sound implementation possible.Failure to respond to the demands of strategywill usually result in poor implementation,while success in implementation usually fol-lows the satisfaction of these demands.

Consider, for example, the well-knowngeneric strategy, that of the low-cost produ-cer. To execute this strategy successfully, it isnecessary for the organization to invest in,nurture, and reward the right functionalskills and managerial capabilities (Table 2).Low cost, companies (e.g., Wal-Mart Stores,Dollar General Corp., Dell Computer Corp.)usually invest heavily in up-to-date equip-ment or technology, as Table 2 shows. Com-puterized production controls and roboticsreduce variable costs of production by repla-cing labor, a more expensive factor of pro-duction (Ford Motor Co., Toyota MotorCorp.). Airlines (e.g., Southwest AirlinesCo., JetBlue Airways, United Airlines, Rya-nair) seek larger planes with fewer, morefuel-efficient engines to reduce the operatingcost per passenger mile. Even movie theaters(e.g., Carmike Cinemas Inc.) invest in large,centrally located popcorn machines to serveall of the theaters in their multiplex model.The major need or demand under the low-cost strategy – indeed, the holy grail of sorts –is to achieve high volume, standardization,and repetition of work, for these lead invari-ably to economies of scale and scope, thebasis of a low-cost position.

Other investments are also suggested inTable 2 in companies’ quest for a low-costposition. Effective and efficient IT or MISsystems are needed to provide up-to-dateinformation about costs, production, ship-ments, and inventory. Accounting controlsand methods are developed to provide validinformation about costs in a timelymanner. ITsystems aid in knowledge transfer, so thatheadway in cost reduction in one part of theorganization canbeunderstood anddeployedin other, more remote parts of the company.

21

TABLE 2 THE ‘‘DEMANDS’’ OF THE LOW-COST STRATEGY ON

ORGANIZATIONAL ASSETS, SKILLS, OR CAPABILITIES

� Capital investment in equipment, technology� Emphasis on volume, standardization, and repetition of work� Focus on economies of scale and scope� Choosing organizational structures that produce efficiency and economies� Development of MIS or IT systems and processes and appropriate accounting methods and controls� Fostering incentives and controls that motivate and support cost reduction

Organizational structure must be consis-tent with strategy. Choice of structureusually focuses on functional structures tomaximize repetition, volume, and economiesrelated to scale and scope. Incentives are tiedto cost reduction to support the strategy and‘‘reward the right things.’’ Again, to achievea low-cost position, decisions about invest-ments, capabilities, and operationsmust sup-port and be consistent with that strategy.Successful implementation requires that the‘‘demands’’ of business strategy be met andthe right capabilities and competencies bedeveloped.

Integrating strategy and short-termobjectives. Fig. 1 shows that business strat-egy must be translated into short-term oper-ating objectives or metrics in order to executethe strategy. To achieve strategic objectives,an organization must develop short-term,measurable objectives that relate logicallyto, and are consistent with, business strategyand how the organization plans to compete.

Most managers in complex organizationsfaceanddealwith local, short-term issues.Thefocus is on what’s needed daily, weekly,monthly, or quarterly, as managers confrontthe usual problems and opportunities asso-ciated with customers, competitors, andemployees. It is impossible, evenat thehighestlevels of a business, to manage effectivelyarmed only with a strategic plan. Key issues,elements, and needs of the business strategymustbe translated intoshorter-termobjectivesand action plans, and this translation processis an integral and vital part of the execution ofstrategy. Short-term thinking is okay if it’s tiedto long-term, strategic thinking. Fig. 2 showsthis translation process and a few examples ofmeasurable long- and short-term metrics thatcan be used to integrate strategic and operat-ing objectives. Insert Fig. 2 here.

Business structure. Fig. 1 shows that struc-ture and integrationmethods are as importantfor the implementation of business strategy asthey are for corporate strategy.


FIGURE 2 TRANSLATING STRATEGY INTO SHORT-TERM METRICS

In a sense, it is necessary now to talk aboutorganizational ‘‘designs’’ or ‘‘structures.’’Different businesses in the same companycan face very different competitive situationsand thus have a need for different structures(e.g., Johnson &Johnson, General ElectricCo., Asea Brown Boveri). Imposing the samestructure on all businesses or divisions sim-ply because they are part of the same orga-nization is not a logical and appropriate wayto determine structure. Corporate shouldavoid this execution error at all costs. Thefigure does show that corporate structure canconstrain business structure. For example, acentralized research and development(R&D) unit creates a dependency on thecorporate unit and affects coordinationbetween businesses and the corporate staff.Still, this is a vastly different situation fromcorporate imposing the same structure on allits businesses. Business structure shouldreflect, and be driven primarily by, the natureof business strategy in order to implementthat strategy successfully

Integration again comes into play at thebusiness level, just as it did at the corporatelevel. Once again, structure defines the majorfunctions or operating units that make up thebusiness. Once more, the issue is one ofcoordination or integration, as businessesdevelop processes or methods of achievinglateral coordination across these major oper-ating units or functions to foster successfulstrategy implementation.

In geographically dispersed businesses,managing across organizational units isof paramount importance. Coordinatingwork flows, transferring relevant knowl-edge effectively from one part of the busi-ness to another, and achieving integrationso as to meet business objectives are neces-sary ingredients for successful performance(e.g., CitiBank, Asea Brown Boveri, McKin-sey & Co.). A focus on knowledge transfer,information sharing, and effective integra-tion or coordination is vitally important,as the present survey data showed ratherconvincingly.

Size and geographical dispersion are notthe only challenges to effective communica-

tion and coordination. Different units andfunctional areas within a business are oftencharacterized by differences in goals, percep-tions, and time frames for action. They oftenhave very different cultures. Integration ofthese diverse, differentiated units (‘‘silos’’) toachieve superordinate goals is certainly achallenging task, but it is central to the suc-cessful execution of business strategy.

In brief, lateral communication and mana-ging across organizational boundaries areimportant to successful strategy execution.Transferring knowledge and achieving coor-dination across operating units within a busi-ness are vital to strategic success. Informationsharing and integration methods can increasethe flexibility of structure and the organiza-tion’s ability to respond to implementation-related problems.

Incentives and controls. The picture of strat-egy execution is not yet complete because thecreation of strategy, objectives, structure, andcoordinating mechanisms is not sufficient toensure that individuals will adapt their owngoals to those of the organization. Somemethod of obtaining individual and organi-zational goal congruence is required. Priordecisions and actions can be negated by alack of commitment among individualschargedwith execution. Executionwill sufferif people are rewarded for doing the wrongthings. Execution will fail when no one has astake in the game.

Feedback on performance is also neededso the organization can evaluate whether theright things are indeed being accomplishedin the strategy execution process. Feedback isabsolutely essential to organizational changeor adaptation over time. In essence, what isrequired for successful strategy implementa-tion is the careful development of incentivesand controls, the last component of themodel in Fig. 1.

On one hand, incentives motivate or guideperformance; on the other, controls providefeedback about whether desired perfor-mance outcomes are being attained. Controlsallow for the revision of incentives and otherexecution-related factors if desired goals are

23

not being met. Incentives support the keyaspects of the strategy-execution model.They must reinforce the ‘‘right’’ things ifimplementation is to succeed. Controls, inturn,must provide timely and valid feedbackabout organizational performance so thatchange and adaptation become part and par-cel of the implementation effort.

The Implementation Context

This, then, is a model or conception of thestrategy implementation or execution processand its key variables or action steps. It lays outthe major elements or stages in the processand focuses on the logical connections andorder among them. It takes a step to beginaddressing the implementation-related obsta-cles identified in the current research surveys.

The last point to emphasize about themodel is that the decisions and actions inFig. 1 take place within an organizational orenvironmental context. This context is impor-tant because it can affect implementation pro-

cesses and outcomes. Consistent with theviews reported by managers in the presentresearch, there are four contextual factors thatdeserve attentionwhenexplaining the successof the execution decisions and actions justconsidered in the model: (1) the change man-agement context, (2) the culture of the organi-zation, (3) the organizational power structure,and (4) the leadership context (Fig. 3).

It’s impossiblepresently to considerall fourcontextual factors in depth. Instead, the pre-sent paper will briefly consider one of thembecause of its critical importance for strategyexecution—namely, change management.

CHANGE MANAGEMENT ANDSTRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION

Table 1 showed that the biggest obstacle tosuccessful strategy implementation is theinability tomanage change.The443managersinvolved in the execution of their companies’strategy unequivocally listed changemanage-


FIGURE 3 THE CONTEXT OF IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

ment as the most critical skill or capabilityrequired to make strategy work. This, ofcourse, makes sense. Strategy execution ofteninvolves change. Execution may demandchanges in job responsibilities, organizationalstructure, coordination methods, people,incentives, or controls. These changes maybe vital to the success of execution outcomes,thus the ability to manage the change processwell is a prime requisite for success.

Some aspects of change managementhave received ample attention in the organi-zations and management literature—e.g.,overcoming resistance to change. This paperwill focus on just one aspect of changemanagement that is absolutely critical to suc-cessful strategy implementation, but one thathas received little formal attention—namely,how to manage large, complex, execution-related changes, including how fast to makethese requisite changes. Mergers and acquisi-tions, for example, often flounder or failbecause of poor management of the integra-tion process, including the speed or alacritywith which an acquired organization ismelded into the parent organization (e.g.,AOL/Time-Warner, Costco/Price, Matsush-ita/MCA, Quaker Oats/Snapple, MorganStanley/Dean Witter). Similarly, the paceand methods of change when introducing aneworganizational structureor new incentiveprograms often affect the success of thesechanges. Let’s consider the relationshipbetween change and implementation success.

Managing Execution-RelatedChange

Discussions with managers revealed twocritical variables in the strategy implementa-tion process—the size of the change and thetimemanagers felt theyhad to achievepositiveresults. For present purposes, let’s assumethat a looming prospective change is large;indeed,most implementation-relatedchangesin structure, incentives, controls andpeople inresponse to strategic change are usually large,formidable, and challenging. The decidingcritical factor, then, is how fastmanagerswishto execute the changes.

‘‘Speed’’ is important when executingchanges related to strategy implementation.A short implementation horizon – the timeperiod within which managers feel that thechanges must be made – suggests differentproblems or challenges than a long imple-mentation horizon. For example, the effectsof shorter time horizons include increasingthe number of change components that mustbe considered simultaneously. Generally,the shorter the time horizon, the greaterthe complexity of the change process, asmore andmore critical factors must be takeninto account at once. Table 3 shows thatthere are two different approaches to mana-ging the large changes associated with strat-egy implementation—sequential or complexchange.

Sequential change. If managers believe thatthe time available for execution is long,Table 3 indicates that a sequential changeintervention is employed. A sequential inter-ventionmeans that the organization reduces alarge change into smaller, more manageablepieces or proportions. It handles each piece oraspect of the changeprocess beforemovingonto the next. Under sequential change,whatwesee is a chain of activities or steps, withmove-ment to the next step determined by analysisor outputs at a prior step in the process, asshown in this simple graphic:

25

TABLE 3 MANAGING LARGE

IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED

CHANGES

IMPLEMENTATION

HORIZON

SIZE OF IMPLEMENTATION LONG SHORT

Large change Sequentialchange

Complexchange

To solve a strategic problem and initiatechange, market research, industry analysis,or interviews with customers might deter-mine that a particular type of product, ser-vice or competitive strategy could work in adefinedmarket segment (A). Two prototypes(B and B1) of a product or service are devel-oped and field tested in a samplemarket, andproduct performance and customer reactionsare observed. Modifications are made, result-ing in a new product or service (C), which istested further. A decision is made, and theproduct is placed in mass production (D),with the company ultimately expanding dis-tribution to yet additional market segments(E).

Or employing the present model of execu-tion, a change in corporate strategy maynecessitate a change in structure or even achange in business strategy for a unit in thecorporate portfolio. A revised business strat-egy could precipitate possible changes inbusiness structure or the coordinationmechanisms employed to achieve effectiveintegration and unity of effort. Incentives,then, would at minimum have to be exam-ined to see if they adequately support thenew strategic and short-term objectives of thecompany. These are examples of a sequentiallogic and approach to change. Large pro-blems are reduced to smaller more manage-able proportions, and the analysis focuses onone element of the process before moving onto the next.

Benefits and costs of sequential chan-ge. This process of change has some obviousbenefits. It is methodical and paced. It repre-sents a type of planned or rational change, aseach step is engaged only after the prior stepis satisfactorily completed. Bank of Americafollowed a sequential change process afteracquiring Fleet Boston, as did Kraft/GeneralFoods after their merger, and the resultsgenerally were well planned and positive.

The step-by-step process allows managersto celebrate success and reduce resistance tochange. Naysayers and doubters can beshown the results of market research andthe initial positive reactions of customers to

a new product. The success of the first stagesin the change process can be used to win overdoubters who were originally against theentire change initiative. Positive results alsoaffect buy-in and ownership in a positiveway. A ‘‘pat on the back’’ can be given tothose achieving positive interim results,which reinforces their motivation and com-mitment to the planned change.

Sequential interventions allow for clearcause–effect analysis. The effects of an incre-mental change can be more readily observedthan the effects of many simultaneouschanges. Coordination and learning are thuseasier to achieve in this more controlledversion of change management.

A sequential process also allows for incre-mental investments of time and money.Everything need not be invested and put atrisk all at once. Small portions of an invest-ment can be done with minimal risk, low-ering the overall risk profile and uncertaintyfor the organization. There is no need to ‘‘betthe entire house’’ on a new venture. Under asequential change process, management isbetting on smaller pieces and only afterachieving some measure of prior success.

There are also some problems withsequential change. The first obvious one isthat it takes time. The different parts of thechange process are spread out over months,even years. One danger is that people losesight of the ultimate goals of the change. Thedesired execution outcomes lose their sal-ience or significance because short-termissues dominate managerial work. Leadersof change must constantly reinforce execu-tion efforts, remind individuals of the ulti-mate outcome being pursued, and keeppeople focused on the change process.

The long implementation horizon pre-sents an additional problem for sequentialchange. Simply, other factors come into play.Exogenous forces change. Competitors’actions or plans change, consumers becomemore price conscious, or government anti-trust decisions hold implications for a com-pany’s own strategic scenarios. Thesequential change process must always beadapting to these external shocks.


Managers may see sequential change pro-cesses as less than exciting. They see the logicof serial changes that feed one into another.They espouse the benefits of planned orrational change. Still, the logical, sequentialprocess is seen at times as mundane, an exer-cise in project management more than anexciting challenge in managing strategicchange. Again, to combat this situation, theleaders of change must often celebrate suc-cesses and achievements in the change pro-cess. They must also constantly reinforceexecution efforts and keep people focusedon the ultimate positive outcomes for theorganization.

Complex change. If the time available forlarge-scale, strategic change is deemed to beshort, complex change is the result (Table 3).The large change facing the organization,coupledwith a short implementationhorizon,means that many aspects or elements ofchange are needed to respond to and copewith theproblem.Andgiven the short time forexecution, they all must be handled or donesimultaneously. This, then, is a defining char-acteristic of complex change: everything impor-tant is going on at once during the intervention.The short time frame demands the simulta-neous consideration of key change variables inorder to beat the time constraint.

Engaging in a complex change can seemexciting and beneficial. Large problems canbe confronted faster. Complex change is sel-dom, if ever, boring. Managers at all levels ofthe organization roll up their sleeves andpitch in to confront and solve a major stra-tegic problem. This pervasive, overridingapproach often breeds a camaraderie of sorts,an esprit de corps, as top-level managers toilwith middle managers, get their collectivehands dirty, and solve the organization’svulnerability before a large strategic threat.

These seemingly positive aspects of com-plex change notwithstanding, this changeprocess teems with problems. It flirts withdisaster. It creates a number of issues thatvirtually guarantee the failure of changeand poor execution outcomes. Indeed, myresearch argues that complex change should

be avoided. Unless it’s absolutely inevitable, acomplex intervention should rarely be used.Complex change courts disaster and, moreoften than not, guarantees the poor executionof strategic change. Why? There are fourmajor problems with complex change inter-ventions that are omnipresent and difficult toovercome.

First, coordination and control are extremelydifficult. Under complex change, it is difficultto set up effective coordination mechanismsand controls. Too much is going on at once.Different managers are responding tochange-related issues in real time, simulta-neously, and this ongoing, at-once treatmentof multiple problems in multiple functionalareas or geographical settings defies easy andeffective coordination.

Second, cause–effect analysis is difficult, if notimpossible. Assume that an organization is inthe throes of a complex change. By defini-tion, time is of the essence, and many thingsare going on at once. If one were to depictthe complex change, it might look like thefollowing:

What we see is an organizational ‘‘blackbox’’ of sorts with many activities, tasks, orchange programs (a–j) going on at the sametime, the intention being to solve a problemor achieve some goals as quickly as possible.

Assume next that the change process failsmiserably. The goal isn’t attained, and theorganization suffers major, but hopefully notirreparable, damage. Clearly, an autopsy is inorder and the reasons underlying the failedchange must be identified and understood.

The problem is that a clear cause–effectmodel cannot be drawn. It is nearly impos-sible to explain with great certainty exactlywhat happened. It is difficult to explain whatwent wrong. Did single elements in the‘‘black box’’ of tasks, activities and programs

27

affect goal attainment independently of theothers? Did ‘‘a’’ through ‘‘j’’ have separate,independent effects on the outcome? Or werethere interactive effects? Did a subset or var-ious subsets of the ten tasks, activities, orprograms interact with each other to nega-tively affect the outcome, as the followingsuggests?

Considering that there are a huge numberof possible binary combinations of ‘‘a’’through ‘‘j’’ and a host of other combinationsor permutations of three or more variables ininteraction, explaining what caused the fail-ure is virtually impossible. What explains theoutcome when so many things are going onsimultaneously? Nothing does, at least noteasily and transparently. Cause and effectremain uncertain and unclear.

Third, Learning suffers. The result of anunclear model of cause and effect leads logi-cally and inexorably to yet another problem:learning cannot occur.

A contentious or failed major change isserious (e.g., K-Mart, AT&T). Many resourcesare usually dedicated to a complex change,including a great deal of management’s time,efforts, and commitment. At minimum, theorganization wants to learn from its mistakesand prevent the recurrence of such a hugechange-related failure in the future.

The problem is that it can’t learn. Theunclear cause–effect relationship whenmanytasks or activities are being attended tosimultaneously prevents learning. Giventhe difficulty of determining the independentand interactive effects of a through j onchange outcomes in the previous example,what would the organization do differentlyin the future? What corrections in the set oftasks and activities that were handled con-currently in the complex change would be

made? Which tasks or activities would beeliminated or reinforced?

There obviously are no simple answers tothesequestions. Learning is not an easyoptionwhen failure results under complex change.Topmanagement surelywill try tomake someeducated guesses as to what needs fixing orwhom to blame for the failure, but this repre-sents an exercise in judgment, at best.

Fourth, it is necessary to relax the perfor-mance criteria against which people are heldaccountable. The only way to make a complexchange work is to reduce its complexity. Theneed is to focus on a small subset of simulta-neous tasks, activities, or programs and nothold individuals accountable for performancein other areas. In other words, set priorities,focus on key performance outcomes, and letother performance measures slide.

Why is this cure listed as a problem ofcomplex change? Because organizations usuallyaren’t willing to relax or eliminate the performancecriteria against which people are held accountable.They insist thatmanagers continue to do it all.They won’t let managers focus on someaspects of change and let others slip. They’llusually ask the overworked and embattledmanagers involved with complex change to‘‘do the best you can.’’

Being asked to ‘‘do the best you can’’ isusually the wrong goal to set. Without relax-ing the number of measures that managersare responsible and accountable for, the com-plex change won’t work. The change will beseen as a failure, and the managers involvedwill often be tainted by it and seen as failuresby the organization.

In sum, faced with large strategic pro-blems, an organization should rely onsequential change, despite its pedestrian nat-ure. If complex change is inevitable, then thewarnings and issues presented on the vag-aries and difficulties of complex changemustbe acknowledged and addressed by manage-ment in as effective a way as possible. Atminimum, top management must reduce thenumber of performance criteria againstwhich individuals are held accountable togive the change a chance and increase theprobability of success.


There, of course, are other factors thataffect the success of change management,including handling culture change and resis-tance to new strategy implementation pro-grams. The present emphasis is on themanagement of large-scale change and howcomplex changes can threaten the success ofmultiple execution plans, tasks, and pro-cesses. The inability to handle large changesrelated to strategy implementation clearly isthe number one obstacle to success, accordingto our sample of managers, and the presenttreatment of the management of large-scalechange actually is a worthwhile and impor-tant focus, given these research results.

SUMMARY

There are a number of daunting challenges toeffective strategy implementation, and thepresent article has identified the key obstaclesin this process. The empirical data collected aspart of this research have earmarked, amongother problems or challenges, the followingcritical roadblocks:

– An inability to manage change– Poor or vague strategy– Not having guidelines or a model to

guide implementation efforts

– Pooror inadequate information sharing– Unclear responsibility and account-

ability, and– Working against the organizational

power structure

Also discussed were the contributions ofother conditions to ineffective execution,including (a) the time required for imple-mentation, (b) the separation of planningand doing, (c) managers’ formal educationthat favors planning and conceptual devel-opment over analysis of execution-relatedneeds, and (d) the difficult requirement forsimultaneous thinking in the planning-execution process.

The latter portion of this article focusedon two responses to address the obstacles orproblems: a model of strategy implementa-tion to guide execution tasks, and a discus-sion of how to manage the large-scalechanges often inherent in the implementa-tion process. Following the suggested modeland change guidelines, it is argued, can intro-duce a sense of logic and rationality to thedifficult task of confronting the major obsta-cles to making strategy work.

29

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

The material in the present article is derivedprimarily from the research reported in Mak-ing Strategy Work: Leading Effective Executionand Change (Wharton Publishing, 2005), byLawrence G. Hrebiniak. This book presentsin greater detail the data collection and ana-lysis methods underlying this research, aswell as the identification and elaborationof implementation problems or obstaclesand the ways to confront and solve themeffectively.

Not a great deal of attention has beendevoted exclusively to strategy implementa-tion in the management and organizationsliterature. The issue of implementation orexecution is implied, to be sure, but dedi-cated, formal attention to the topic has beenlacking. A good review of the OB-OT-man-agement literature and the implications forimplementation can be found in LawrenceHrebiniak andWilliam Joyce, ‘‘ImplementingStrategy: An Appraisal and Agenda forFuture Research,’’ inMichael Hitt, R. EdwardFreeman, and Jeffrey Harrison (eds.), Hand-book of Strategic Management (Blackwell Busi-ness, 2001), 602–626. Implementing Strategy

by Lawrence Hrebiniak and William Joyce(MacMillan, 1984) is one of the early, pioneer-ing works in strategy implementation thatlaid the foundation for much of the currentapproach to strategy execution. What ReallyWorks by William Joyce, Nitin Nohria, andBruce Roberson (Harper Business, 2003) pre-sents an empirical analysis of the factorsaffecting firm performance, including factorsrelated to strategy implementation.

Other works have focused on aspects ofthe implementation process, but with vary-ing degrees of empiricism and analyticalrigor. Execution by Lawrence Bossidy andRam Charan (Crown Business, 2002) is apopular book, but one that relies more on‘‘war stories’’ and managerial musings thanempirical data. Good to Great by Jim Collins(Harper Business, 2001) likewise touches on afew key execution issues but it takes a lessextensive and more subjective view of thetopic than some of the other works men-tioned. An early work by Tom Peters andRobert Waterman, In Search of Excellence(Warner, 1988) also touches upon someimplementation issues.

Lawrence G. Hrebiniak is a professor in the department of managementat The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. A member ofthe Strategy Group, he teaches courses in competitive strategy andstrategy implementation in the Wharton M.B.A. and Executive Educationprograms. He is a past president of the Organization Theory Division ofthe Academy of Management, and for two years was one of five Whartonfaculty providing commentaries on the ‘‘Wharton Management Report,’’a program that appeared daily on national television on the FinancialNews Network. Hrebiniak’s current research is concerned primarily withstrategy execution, but he is also interested in strategic adaptation asorganizations change over time to remain competitive. He has writtenfive books and has published numerous articles in professional journals,contributing to his reputation as an international authority on strategyimplementation, organizational design, and organizational adaptation.His latest book from Wharton School Publishing (2005), Making Strategy


Work: Leading Effective Execution and Change, is a comprehensive,integrative work that ties together planning and execution, identifiesthe major obstacles to effective execution, and shows how to overcomethem to implement strategy successfully. He has applied the principlesand insights gained from his empirical research on strategy executionwhile acting as a consultant to many companies inside and outside theU.S.A. (Tel.: +1 215 898 8254; e-mail: [email protected]).

31

mailto:[email protected]

obstacles to effective strategy implementation

Documents