Implementing strategies

The first step in implementation is identifying the

activities, decisions, and relationships critical to
accomplishing the activities.
There are six principal administrative tasks that shape a
manager's action agenda for implementing strategy. In
general, every unit of an organization has to ask, "What
is required for us to implement our part of the overall
strategic plan and how can we best get it done?".
The specific components of each of the six strategy-
implementation tasks:
1. Building an organization capable of executing the
strategy. The organization must have the structure
necessary to turn the strategy into reality.
Furthermore, the firm's personnel must possess the
skill needed to execute the strategy successfully.
Related to this is the need to assign the responsibility
for accomplishing key implementation tasks to the
right individuals or groups.
2. Establishing a strategy-supportive budget. If the
firm is to accomplish strategic objectives, top
management must provide the people, equipment,
facilities, and other resources to carry out its part of
the strategic plan. Further, once the strategy has been
decided on, the key tasks to perform and kinds of
decision required must be identified, formal plans
 must also be developed. The tasks should be arranged
in a sequence comprising a plan of action within
targets to be achieved at specific dates.
3. Installing internal administrative support systems.
Internal systems are policies and procedures to
establish desired types of behavior, information
systems to provide strategy-critical information on a
timely basis, and whatever inventory, materials
management, customer service, cost accounting, and
other administrative systems are needed to give the
organization important strategy-executing capability.
These internal systems must support the management
process, the way the managers in an organization
work together, as well as monitor strategic progress.
4. Devising rewards and incentives that are tightly
linked to objectives and strategy. People and
departments of the firm must be influenced, through
incentives, constraints, control, standards, and
rewards, to accomplish the strategy.
5. Shaping the corporate culture to fit the strategy. A
strategy-supportive corporate culture causes the
organization to work hard (and intelligently) toward
the accomplishment of the strategy.
6. Exercising strategic leadership. Strategic leadership
consists of obtaining commitment to the strategy and
its accomplishment. It also involves the constructive
use of power and politics, and politics in building a
consensus to support the strategy.
Selecting an implementation approach

1. The Commander Approach

The strategic leader concentrates on formulating the
strategy, applying rigorous logic and analysis. The leader
either develops the strategy himself or supervises a team
of planners charged with determining the optimal course
of action for the organization. He typically employs such
tools as experience curves, growth/share matrices and
industry and competitive analysis.
This approach addresses the traditional strategic
management question of "How can I, as a general
manager, develop a strategy for my business which
will guide day-today decisions in support of my longer-
term objectives?" Once the “best" strategy is
determined, the leader passes it along to subordinates who
are instructed to executive the strategy.
The leader does not take an active role in implementing
the strategy. The strategic leader is primarily a
thinker/planner rather than a doer. The Commander
Approach helps the executive make difficult day-to-day
decision from a strategic perspective.
However, three conditions must exist for the approach to
succeed:
 The leader must wield enough power to command
implementation; or, the strategy must pose little
threat to the current management, otherwise
implementation will be resisted.
 Accurate and timely information must be available
and the environment must be reasonably stable to
allow it to be assimilated.
 The strategist (if he is not the leader) should be
insulated from personal biases and political
influences that might affect the content of the plan.
A drawback of this approach is that it can reduce
employee motivation. If the leader creates the belief that
the only acceptable strategies are those developed at the
top, he may find himself an extremely unmotivated, un-
innovative group of employees.
However, several factors account for the Commander
popularity. First, it offers a valuable perspective to the
chief executive. Second, by dividing the strategic
management task into two stages -"thinking" and "doing"
-the leader reduces the number of factors that have to be
considered simultaneously. Third, young managers in
particular seem to prefer this approach because it allows
them to focus on the quantitative, objective elements of a
situation, rather than with more subjective and behavioral
considerations.
Finally, such an approach may make some managers feel
as an all-powerful hero, shaping the destiny of thousands
with his decisions.

2. Organizational change approach

This approach starts where the Commander Approach
ends: with implementation. The organizational Change
Approach addresses the question "I have a strategy -now
how do I get my organization to implement it?" The
strategic leader again decides major changes of strategy
and they consider the appropriate changes in structure,
personnel, and information and reward systems if the
strategy is to be implemented effectively.
The most obvious tool for strategy implementation is to
reorganize or to shift personnel in order to lead the firm in
the desired direction. The role of the strategic leader is
that of an architect, designing administrative systems for
effective strategy implementation.
The Change Approach is often more effective than the
Commander Approach and can be used to implement
more difficult strategies because of used the several
behavioral science techniques. This techniques for
introducing change in an organization include such
fundamentals as: using demonstrations rather than words
to communicate the desired new activities; focusing early
efforts on the needs that are already recognized as
important by most of the organization; and having
solutions presented by persons who have high credibility
in the organization.
However, the Change Approach doesn't help managers
stay abreast of rapid changes in the environment. It can
backfire in uncertain or rapidly changing conditions.
Finally, this approach calls for imposing the strategy in
"topdown" fashion, it is subject to the same motivational
problems as the Commander Approach.

3. the collaborative approach

This approach extends strategic decision-making to the
organization's top management team in answer to the
question "How can I get my top management team to
help develop and commit to a good set of goals and
strategies?"
The strategic leader and his senior manager (divisional
heads, business unit general managers or senior functional
managers) meet for lengthy discussion with a view to
formulating proposed strategic changes.
In this approach, the leader employs group dynamics and
"brainstorming" techniques to get managers with
differing points of view to contribute to the strategic
planning process.
The Collaborative Approach overcomes two key
limitations inherent in the previous two. By capturing
information contributed by managers closer to operations,
and by offering a forum for the expression of managers
closer to operations, and by offering a forum for the
expression of many viewpoints, it can increase the quality
and timeliness of the information incorporated in the
strategy. And to the degree than participation enhances
commitment to the strategy, it improves the chances of
efficient implementation.
However, the Collaborative Approach may gain more
commitment that the foregoing approaches, it may also
result in a poorer strategy.
The negotiated aspect of the process brings with several
risks -that the strategy will be more conservative and less
visionary than one developed by a single person or staff
team. And the negotiation process can take so much time
that an organization misses opportunities and fails to react
enough to changing environments.
A more fundamental criticism of the Collaborative
Approach is that it is not really collective decisions
making from an organizational viewpoint because upper-
level managers often retain centralized control. In effect,
this approach preserves the artificial distinction between
thinkers and doers and fails to draw on the full human
potential throughout the organization.

4. The cultural Approach

This approach extends the Collaborative Approach to
lower levels in the organization as an answer to the
strategic management question "How can I get my whole
organization committed to our goals and strategies?"
The strategic leader concentrates on establishing and
communicating a clear mission and purpose for the
organization and the allowing employees to design their
own work activities with this mission. He plays the role of
coach in giving general direction, but encourages
individual decision-making to determine the operating
details of executive the plan.
The implementation tools used in building a strong
corporate culture range from such simple notions as
publishing a company creed and singing a company song
to much complex techniques.
These techniques involve implementing strategy by
employing the concept of "third-order control." First-
order control is direct supervision; second - order control
involves using rules, procedures, and organizational
structure to guide behavior. Third - order control is more
subtle - and potentially more powerful. It consists of
influencing behavior through shaping the norms, values,
symbols, and beliefs that managers and employees use in
making day-to-day decisions.
This approach begins to break down the barriers between
"thinkers" and "doers."
The Cultural Approach has a number of advantages which
establish an organization-wide unity of purpose. It
appears that the cultural approach works best where the
organization has sufficient resources to absorb the cost of
building and maintaining the value system.
However, this approach also has several limitations. First,
it only works with informed and intelligent people.
Second, it consumes enormous amounts of time to install.
Third, it can foster such a strong sense of organizational
identity among employees that it becomes a handicap; for
example, bringing outsider in a top management levels
can be difficult because they aren't accepted by other
executives.
The strongest criticism of this approach is that it has such
an overwhelming doctrinal air about it, and foster
homogeneity and inbreeding.

5. the cresive approach

This approach addresses the question "How can I
encourage my managers to develop, champion, and
implement sound strategies?" (Crescive means
"increasing" or "growing"). The strategic leader is not
interested in strategizing alone, or even in leading others
through a protracted planning process. He encourage
subordinates to develop, champion, and implement sound
strategies on their own.
The crescive approach differs from the others in several
ways. First, instead of strategy being delivered downward
by top management or a planning department, it moves
upward from the "doers" (salespeople, engineers,
production workers) and lower middle-level managers.
Second, "strategy" becomes the sum of all the individual
proposals that surface throughout the year. Third, the top
management team shapes the employees' premises -that
is, their notions of what would constitute supportable
strategic projects. Fourth, the chief executive functions
more as a judge, evaluating the proposals that reach his
desk, than as a master strategist.
Brodwin and Bourgeois suggest use of the Crescive
Approach primarily for managers of large, complex,
diversified organizations. In these organizations the
strategic leader cannot know and understand all the
strategic and operating situations, facing each division.
If strategies are to be formulated and implemented
effectively, the leader must give up some control to spur
opportunism and achievement. Therefore, the Crescive
Approach for strategic management suggests some
generalizations concerning how the chief executive of the
large divisionalized firm should help the organization
generate and implement sound strategies.
The recommendation consists of the following four
elements:
 Maintain the openness of the organization to new and
discrepant information.
 Articulate a general strategy to guide the firm's
growth.
 Manipulate systems and structures to encourage
bottom-up strategy formulation.
  Use the "the logical incrementalist" manner
described by James Brian Quinn, to select from
among the strategies which emerge.
The Crescive approach has several advantages. For
example, it encourage middle-level managers to formulate
effective strategies and gives them opportunity carry out
the implementation of their own plans.
Moreover, strategies developed, as these are, by
employees and managers closer to the strategic
opportunity are likely to be operationally sound and
readily implemented. However, this approach requires
that funds be available for individuals to develop good
ideas unencumbered by bureaucratic approval cycles and
that tolerance be extended in the inevitable cases where
failure occurs despite a worthy effort having been made.
One of the most important and potentially elusive of these
methods is the process of shaping managers' decision-
making premises. The strategic leader can emphasize a
particular theme or strategic thrust to direct strategic
thinking.
Second, the planning methodology endorsed by the leader
can be communicated to affect the way managers view
the business. Third, the organizational structure can
indicate the dimensions on which strategies should focus.
The choice of approach should depend on the size of the
company, the degree of diversification, the degree of
geographical dispersion, the stability of the business
environment, and, finally,the managerial style currently
embodied in the company's culture.
Brodwin and Bourgeois's research suggests that the
Commander, Change, and Collaborative Approaches can
be effective for smaller companies and firms in stable
industries. The Cultural and Crescive alternatives are used
by more complex corporations.
Four Business level strategy

Miles and Snow identified four business-level strategies:

defender, prospector, analyzer, and reactor.
Defender Strategy. Organizations implementing a
defender strategy attempt to protect their market from
new competitors. As result of this narrow focus, these
organizations seldom need to make major adjustments in
their technology, structure, or methods of operation.
Instead, they devote primary attention to improving the
efficiency of their existing operations. Defenders can be
successful especially when they exist in a declining
industry or a stable environment.
Prospector Strategy. Organizations implementing a
prospector strategy are innovative, seek out new
opportunities, take risks and grow. To implement this
strategy, organizations need to encourage creativity and
flexibility. They regularly experiment with potential
responses to emerging environmental trends. Thus, these
organizations often are the creators of change and
uncertainty to which their competitors must respond. In
such an environment, creativity is more important then
efficiency.
Analyzer Strategy. Organizations implementing analyzer
strategies attempt to maintain their current businesses and
to be somewhat innovative in new businesses. Some
products are targeted toward stable environments, in
which an efficiency strategy designed to retain current
customers is employed. Others are targeted toward new,
more dynamic environments.
They attempt to balance efficient production for current
lines along with the creative development of new product
lines. Analyzers have tight accounting and financial
controls and high flexibility, efficient production and
customized products, creativity and low costs. However,
it is difficult for organizations to maintain these multiple
and contradictory processes. new product lines.
Reactor Strategy. Organizations that follow a reactor
strategy have no a consistent strategy-structure
relationship. Rather than defining a strategy to suit a
specific environment, reactors respond to environmental
threats and opportunities in ad hoc fashion.
Sometimes these organizations are innovative, sometimes
they attempt to reduce costs, and sometimes they do both.
Reactors are organizations in which top management
frequently perceive change and uncertainty occurring in
their organizational environments but are unable to
respond effectively. Therefore, failed organizations often
are the result of reactor strategies.