Main hypothesis and research questions

There are probably connections between the six factor groups but also between individual variables constituting the factor groups. In this preliminary model it is not possible to design such a complexity. The analysis based on field data may hopefully create information making it possible to develop the model.

The model is basically designed for an empirical approach where most variables represent views and opinions of actors in the organizational context. The purpose is not to find a “truth” but to catch the harmonies and the tensions among the actors by applying the dual perspective top-down versus down-up. The model however also treats objective information like economical information from annual reports.

Specific aspects of the model, such as the variables constituting the factor groups, how to measure them and the top-down versus down-up perspective are discussed in Chapter 4 as well as the methodological dimension of data collection.

Designing a model creates a risk of blindness: the model IS the reality. Even if I have done a lot of work to design the implementation model I am aware of the truth that everything cannot be foreseen. I definitively try to keep eyes open and ears open, when going to use the model, in order to ensure that unexpected information will not be over-looked or not treated. The theme is developed even more in Chapter 4.

H1 The implementation model satisfactorily explains differences in the implementation efficiency of top management decisions in complex profit-driven Swedish organizations

The literature review identified differences in decision implementation success between organizations. Top management has often fragmented and insufficient information about what is going on in the organization (see, e.g., Cook &

Hunsaker, 2001, and Carlzon, 1985). Executives and subordinates therefore have incongruent pictures. A certain down-up perspective is therefore motivated (see 3.1). Many different proposals of measuring implementation success have been made and carried out in the reported studies. Most studies have analyzed strategic decisions. All these observations result in a set of research questions.

RQ1 Are there essential differences in implementation efficiency between complex profit-driven Swedish organizations?

RQ2 Do decision makers and implementers differ in their opinions on implementation conditions and results?

RQ3 How are goal satisfaction and implementation process efficiency, constituting implementation efficiency, connected?

RQ4 Does the type of decision (strategic vs operational) matter regarding the implementation efficiency?

RQ5 Which are the reasons explaining implementer attitudes towards implementation action?

3.4.2 Additional research questions

I use the implementation model structure when presenting the research questions.

This means that each factor group is presented under a separate headline with the background to research questions followed by the question(s).

3.4.2.1 Corporate profile

Extreme business situations force or alert the organization (see, e.g., Wallander, 1990). If business is very successful there may be a positive spiral. New decisions to implement may be seen as new possibilities for even more success. If business is poor “something must happen” and the decision may be managed as a new possibility to save the ship. Business “in the middle” is managed by a culture

“quite well as it is, why change?”

RQ6 Do extreme corporate situations such as a very successful running business or a business in deep crisis improve the implementation efficiency?

RQ7 Does the size of an organization itself influence the implementation efficiency?

3.4.2.2 Corporate culture

As discussed in connection with figure 3, corporate culture is a difficult pattern to manage. A convential look at corporate culture is expressed as “A system of shared meaning within an organization that determines, to a large degree, how employees act” (Robbins & Coulter, 1999, p. 80). New research results propose that corporate culture is defined and experienced individually (see, e.g., Kaufmann

& Kaufmann, 1998, and Sjöstrand et al., 1999). These two perspectives lay behind the following formulations:

RQ8 Does strong, pervasive and committed corporate culture improve the implementation efficiency?

RQ9 Do differences in the individually perceived corporate culture of executives and subordinates affect their opinion about implementation efficiency?

There is not always a demand or expectation in the organization of the decision to be implemented (see, e.g., Pressman & Wildavsky, 1979). There can be an unconsciousness or fear, blindness or wishful thinking. But there is sometimes a readiness to make things happen even if the “thing” is not wanted.

RQ10 Do implementers in general have a readiness to implement top management decisions even if they are perceived as controversial?

RQ11 Does an action-oriented corporate culture improve implementation efficiency ?

3.4.2.3 Leadership style

What is important for a CEO will be important in the organization (see, e.g., Carlzon, 1985, and Peters & Waterman Jr, 1982). CEOs spend their time on many different tasks (Mintzberg, 1973). Quantitative investigations have proved that they use less than 30% of their working time on decision making and execution (Tengblad, 2002, and Carlsson, 1951); Tengblad specifies 7% and 20%

respectively. Executive participation in implementation is sometimes a good way but not always the best way to improve implementation efficiency (see, e.g., Nutt, 1998).

Leadership style may potentially include different leadership tactics for implementation (Nutt, 1987). This issue is studied in terms of strategic decisions to implement. However, it is doubtful if strategic decision means the same for different researchers (Hickson, 1987, p. 189). The approach in this study is to examine any types of decisions. Probably some decisions may be so trivial that the executives decide not engage themselves in the implementation. Therefore the tactic dimension is not studied per se; the study of the CEO action is not restricted to the decision type.

RQ12 Does a CEO leadership style characterized by engagement and confidence in people improve the implementation efficiency?

RQ13 Does the quantitative input of executive time and engagement in the implementation process improve the implementation efficiency?

3.4.2.4 Decision making process

If the implementers participate in the decision making process, they are more likely to enthusiastically support the outcome than if they are just told what to do (see, e.g., Cooke & Slack, 1991; Robbins & Coulter, 1999; Braga Rodrigues &

Hickson, 1995). However, to a certain degree, the improvement is situational.

RQ14 Does the participation of implementers in the decision making process improve the implementation efficiency?

3.4.2.5 Implementation context

The studied literature has covered many contextual aspects of decision implementation but the implementer perspective is not prominent; the perceived implementation context may differ between decision makers and implementers.

The opinion about the decision itself is a specific situation: in an implementer perspective, the decision may be demanded, requested, appreciated or expected on one side, and undesired, unexpected or astonishing on the other side. In order to cover the first, positive group of attitudes, I have chosen to refer to such decisions as “demanded” throughout this study.

The following research questions are formulated.

RQ15 Does the type of decision target group influence the implementation efficiency?

RQ16 Does the scope of the decision influence implementation efficiency?

RQ17 Does implementers’ recognition of the decision or a demanded decision improve the implementation efficiency?

RQ18 How do implementers’ perceived conflict between actual decision to implement and existing goals, guidelines, etc., influence the implementation efficiency?

3.4.2.6 Implementation profile

Clear aims, sufficient resources including time schedules, out-spoken responsibility and information are factors influencing the implementation efficiency (see, e.g., Miller, 1997, and Braga Rodrigues & Hickson, 1995), but they are situational. The need of a follow-up plan is also underlined: “Diagnostic control systems are the essential management tools for transforming intended strategies into realized strategies: they focus attention on goal achievement for the business and for each individual within the business” (Simons, 2000, p. 303). This is a top-down perspective but the given mission to implement is also evaluated by the implementers. Regarding implementation context, the perceived implementation profile may differ between decision makers and implementers.

RQ19 Does an implementation plan attached to the mission improve the implementation efficiency?

RQ20 Does a follow-up plan improve the implementation efficiency?

3.4.2.7 Non-model factors

The implementation process image and the transmission event are discussed in 3.3 as potential variables in the implementation model. Even if they are not integrated in the model at this stage of the model design we have to learn more about them.

Therefore the following research questions are raised.

RQ21 Is it possible to identify an implementation process and some of its elements?

RQ22 Does it matter how the decision to implement is transmitted?

3.4.2.8 Comments to the research questions

Some research questions may be seen as overlapping, e.g., RQ10 vs RQ17 and RQ5 vs RQ9. However, they are formulated from different starting-points in order to manage the study analysis into relevant answers, given the research question context.