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.