Strategy implementation versus middle management self‐interest

Abstract

This paper focuses on middle management motivation to implement strategy. It uses expectancy theory to predict that middle managers will intervene in organizational decision‐making processes leading to strategy implementation when their self‐interest is at stake. It develops the notion of ‘counter effort’, as an extension of expectancy theory. The paper reports an empirical study of middle management intervention theory. The data and analysis of this study provide strong, if indirect, evidence that middle managers who believe that their self‐interest is being compromised can not only redirect a strategy, delay its implementation or reduce the quality of its implementation, but can also even totally sabotage the strategy. Implications of the study for the management of strategy implementation are developed.

Consultants’ versus Managers’ - Perceptions of a Group Development Intervention Program

“…The experience of time-parsimony in interventions was shared mostly by consultants and the groups that showed retrograde development. This might be a shared experience of not targeting those groups [2] or the managers' [19] actual areas in need of development [26].…”

“…This theme was captured among the managers with groups that retrograde development. It seems that the managers and their attitudes towards the intervention remains of immense importance [3,9,10,[19][20][21] and since the narratives of their leadership were exclusive for the 'retrograde' managers and not shared by the consultants its appealing to interpret the statements as either a way of defending themselves against shameful associations [12] in that they were afraid of implementing the change [19], or as an expression of resentfulness that their specific needs were not being met [16]. The second experience, this time by the managers that showed progress, not shared with the consultants was statements about that they had wanted the fitters to have been involved in the workshops.…”

“…Middle management exerts a special position with regard to implementation of change [9,10,[19][20][21]. Middle management may implement the determining factor modulating whether or not a change will be executed successfully [19].…”

“…Middle management may implement the determining factor modulating whether or not a change will be executed successfully [19]. Available evidence implies that the managers who are most in need of change implementation are those showing most resistance and least capacity for change implementation [20].…”

Creative Marketing Strategy and Effective Execution on Performance in Pakistan

“…Wind and Robertson (1983) suggest a simple definition of marketing strategy implementation as "the operationalization of a clearly articulated strategic marketing plan." Some researchers (Guth & MacMillan, 1986;Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000) argued that the effective implementation of a business strategy is a sole responsibility of mid-level managers, due to their precarious role and current market situation. Despite their crucial role, only a few studies addressed the drivers of a successful implementation of creative strategies by mid-level managers working in marketing departments (Bower & Gilbert, 2007).…”