This article was downloaded by: [Acadia University]

On: 03 June 2013, At: 05:33

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Change Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

The Eight ‘S’s of successful strategy execution

James M. Higginsa
a
Roy E. Crummer Graduate School of Business, Rollins College, FL, USA
Published online: 17 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: James M. Higgins (2005): The Eight ‘S’s of successful strategy execution, Journal of Change Management,
5:1, 3-13

To link to this article:

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use:

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will
be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Change
Management Vol. 5, No. 1, 3–
13, March 2005

The Eight ‘S’s of Successful

Strategy Execution

JAMES M. HIGGINS
Roy E. Crummer Graduate School of Business, Rollins College, FL, USA

ABSTRACT As the business environment becomes more complex and more changeful, the need to
reformulate strategy and/or to adjust elements of the existing strategy becomes more frequent. As a
resultseniorexecutivesfindthemselvesconfrontedwiththeneedtointegrateanumberofchangesin
the execution of the new or revised strategy. This dissemination and integrationof
execution actions is especially difficult across cross-functional activities. The ‘8 “S”s of Strategy
Execution’ is a heuristic that enables senior management to more readily enact, monitor, and
assess the cross functional execution of strategies, new or revised. The 8 ‘S’s model is a revision
of the original McKinsey 7 ‘S’s model. The most significant change comes in the deletion of
skills from the McKinsey model and the addition of reSources in its place. Furthermore, Strategic
Performance has been added to the model to help focus the strategy execution effort.

KEY WORDS: Strategy execution, 8 ‘S’s of strategy execution, cross-functional coordination,

aligning functions with strategy, successful alignment, unsuccessful alignment

Successful executives spend a great deal of their time on strategy execution.

They realize that executing strategy is just as important, if not more important,
than formulating strategy. They know that organizational performance invariably
suffers when insufficient time and effort are expended on executing strategy, or
when time and effort are expended on inappropriate execution actions. Much of
successful strategy execution revolves around aligning key organizational
factors with strategy. But with significant changes occurring so frequently in the
business environment, strategies are changed more often now than they have
been in the past, and thus the alignment process has become an even greater
challenge. Because most organizations and business units are structured along

Correspondence Address: James M. Higgins, Harriet and George D. Cornell Professor of Innovation
ManageJ ment, Roy E. Crummer Graduate School of Business, Rollins College, 1000 Holt Avenue,
Winter Park, FL 32789, USA. Fax: þ1 (407) 647 5575; Tel: þ1 (407) 740 8974; Email:
jhiggins@rollins.edu 1469-7017 Print=1479-1811 Online=05=010003–11 # 2005 Taylor &
Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080=14697010500036064
4 J. M. Higgins

functional lines—marketing, operations, finance, human resources, R&D, inforf

mation, logistics—cross functional execution issues are sometimes overlooked
when strategy is changed.
At a minimum, executives must align the following cross functional organiA
zational factors—structure, systems and processes, leadership style, staff,
resources, and shared values—with each new strategy that arises in order for
that strategy to succeed, in order for strategic performance to occur. As a cont
sequence of the frequency and significance of the changes in strategy and the
required changes in key organizational factors, executives would benefit from a
heuristic that guides cross-functional thinking. All of these factors have been
integrated in a practical model for successfully executing strategy that I call the
‘Eight “S”s of Strategy Execution’.
This model is a cross-functional way of thinking about how to execute
strategy and implement change across an organization. This model is based
on the McKinsey Seven ‘S’s, first introduced to us in 1982 by Thomas J. Peters
and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Waterman, 1982).
Table 1 defines each of these eight ‘S’s. Figure 1 portrays the Eight ‘S’s
model as its application should appear in organizations. Figure 2 portrays
the Eight ‘S’s model as its application as it actually appears in most
organizations.
Please note that Figures 1 and 2 are subdivided into two parts—the Seven
Contextual ‘S’s and Strategic Performance. The seven contextual ‘S’s—strategy
and purposes, structure, systems and processes, style, staff, resources and shared
values—must all be aligned for strategic performance to be optimal. Figure 1
conveys this alignment with arrows. I like to say that an organization’s arrows
should all be pointing in the same direction, that is, they should all be aligned
with one another. The other six contextual ‘S’s should be pointing in the same
direction as strategy. But as we all know most organizations look a lot more
like the one represented in Figure 2 than the one represented in Figure 1.
Figure 2 portrays an organization with non-aligned 8 ‘S’s, with its arrows
pointing in all sorts of directions. That the arrows are pointing in different
directions reflects the impacts of previous executives on strategy and the strategy
execution process. Thus, for example, while strategy probably reflects the current
CEO’s vision and strategies to reach that vision, the organization’s structure may
have been put into place two or three CEO’s ago, the organization’s systems
may be a mix of the several CEO’s perspectives, and the organization’s culture
has been around forever. Similar misalignments typically occur in the other
‘S’s. What is required is alignment, getting the arrows to all point in the same
direction as strategy. You will note specifically that performance is not pointing
in the same direction as strategy, a direct result of the fact that none of the
other ‘S’s is aligned with strategy.
The 8 ‘S’s model differs from the original 7 ‘S’s model in two primary ways:

1. ReSources has replaced Skills as one of the 7 Contextual ‘S’s. The original
7 ‘S’s model did not contain an ‘S’ devoted to resources, other than the ‘S’
for staff. An organization cannot successfully execute strategy without
marshalling additional resources such as money, information, technology,
and the time
 The Eight ‘S’s of Successful Strategy Execution 5
Table 1. The eight ‘S’s of strategy execution defined

1. Strategy and Purposes

Strategies are formulated to achieve organizational purposes. Changes in strategic purposes lead
to changes in strategy. Strategic purposes include strategic intent, vision, focus, mission, goals,
and strategic objectives. There are four types of strategies: corporate, business, functional, and
process designed to achieve these purposes. The corporate strategy defines what business or
businesses the firm is in or should be in, and how the firm will conduct that business (or those
businesses) in a fundamental way. The business strategy describes how a firm will compete in a
particular business. A firm’s business strategy is its major plan of action aimed at gaining a
sustainable advantage over competitors. Relative differentiation and relative low cost are the two
most frequently suggested generic business strategies. Functional strategies support the business
strategy. Functional strategies in the areas of marketing, finance, operations, human resources
management, R & D, information, and logistics should be aligned with the business strategy.
Process strategies normally cut across functions and are aimed at integrating organizational
processes across the organization in order to make them more effective and more efficient.
Strategy formulation involves the consideration of strengths (for example, core competencies
and capabilities), weaknesses, threats and opportunities.
2. Structure
The organization’s structure consists of five parts: jobs; the authority to do those jobs; the grouping
of jobs in a logical fashion, for example, into departments or divisions; the manager’s span
of control; and mechanisms of coordination. The first four of these parts are normally shown
in an organization chart. The last is usually described in the firm’s operating policies and
procedures. Major issues include the choice of the organizing principle for primary
organizational units, for example, product versus function, or product versus geography; and
how such authority to delegate to organizational units and managers, traditionally thought of in
terms of centralization versus decentralization, or mechanistic versus organic.
3. Systems and Processes
The systems and processes that enable an organization to get things done from day to day
(for example, strategic planning systems, information systems, capital budgeting systems,
manufacturing processes, reward systems and processes, quality-control systems and
processes, performance measurement systems).
4. Style (leadership/management style)
The consistent pattern of behavior exhibited by leaders/managers when relating to subordinates and
other employees.
5. Staff
The number and types of employees with what types of individual and group competencies the firm
needs to meet its strategic purposes.
6. reSources
The extent to which the organization has adequate resources to achieve its strategy—people (staff),
technology and money are the three most critical. Resources may include funding for divisions
such as R & D, or technology such as software, or systems such as those for knowledge
management and organizational learning. The other major concern is the extent to which the
organization leverages its resources.
7. Shared Values (organizational culture)
The values shared by members of the organization that make it different from other
organizations. Managing values and cultural artifacts are critical to successfully leading
organizational change.
8. Strategic Performance
Strategic performance is a derivative of the other seven ‘S’s. Strategic performance is possessed by
an organization as a whole, or for profit-based parts of the whole. Performance can be measured
at any level. Financial performance measurements are critical barometers of strategic performance,
but an expanded balanced scorecard approach is best.

Source: Details substantially revised from Waterman (1982, p. 71).

6 J. M. Higgins

Figure 1. Aligned eight ‘S’s

Figure 2. Non-aligned eight ‘S’s

 The Eight ‘S’s of Successful Strategy Execution 7
required of top management and others in the organization. Furthermore,
much of what constituted Skills as described by Peters and Waterman would
today be labeled as core competencies or capabilities, and as such should be
addressed under the ‘S’ for strategy. Recognition of the necessity of this
change to the model came about when I examined firms that were attempting
to execute a strategy of innovation. They could not nor can any strategist
achieve strategic success without the proper resources being dedicated to
the new strategy, or to the existing strategy for that matter. While that seems
intuitively obvious, it becomes readily apparent when you actually attempt
to execute a strategy.
2. An eighth ‘S’, Strategic Performance, has been added to provide focus and
closure. Adding this eighth ‘S’ helps those executing strategy to focus
on what counts, results. This ‘S’ can be used in a number of ways from
setting strategic objectives to measuring results.

An organization’s key factors can become misaligned for a number of reasons,

but mostly for these two: CEOs and other change leaders either do not recognize
the need to align the other Ss with a new strategy, or do so only perfunctorily
because they do not fully understand the implication of the required alignment.
Thus, while the new strategy points in one direction, the structure arrow
points in the direction that the previous CEO wanted it to point in, the systems
and process arrow reflects the strategy of the CEO two CEOs ago, the organization
culture arrow has always pointed in the same direction because the organization
has always had the same culture that its founder instilled, and so on. For
example, if a company adopts a strategy based on low costs as opposed to its
previous strategy which was based on differentiation through new product
development, then there are implications for making changes in each of the
‘S’s. For example, among these changes could be flattening the organization
structure to reduce costs, refocusing the information system so that it reports on
costs in a value added approach, reducing the amount of empowerment for the
leadership style of most managers, providing the staff with efficiency training,
investing in plant and equipment to gain efficiencies of scale, and adding low
cost as a focal point of action to the company’s statement of values. Strategic
performance requirements would also be changed to reflect this change in strategy.
These changes in the ‘S’s would go across all functions.
Conceivably an organization’s seven contextual ‘S’s could simultaneously
reflect the strategic thrusts of seven different CEOs. More often than not, they
reflect the strategic thrusts of three or four. A major problem for most organizr
ations today is that the 8 ‘S’s are not sufficiently aligned. Therefore, strategic
performance is less than what is sought. Further complicating matters is the fact
that not all ‘S’s must be misaligned to reduce the effectiveness of strategy. The
misalignment of culture or leadership style, for example, is enough in itself to
lead to difficulties in successfully executing strategy. Finally, not all alignment
changes need to be major. They simply need to be sufficient to align each ‘S’
with the new strategy. Sometimes a tweaking of the existing condition is sufficient;
while sometimes wholesale change must be brought about in order to achieve
alignment.
8 J. M. Higgins
Successful Alignment
From 2000 to 2003, CEO Steve Bennett helped guide the dramatic turnaround
of highly successful Intuit. Yes, you read it correctly, he has ‘... helped guide
the dramatic turnaround of highly successful Intuit’ (Tischler, 2003; Nee
2003). In 2000, Intuit was not in any financial difficulty and it had three of
the best brands in the business—Quicken, TurboTax, and QuickBooks which
owned 73%, 81%, and 84% of their respective markets. But Intuit was a classic
under7 achiever—grossly less profitable than it should have been, missing
market opportunities that competitors were seeing, under controlled, and slow
to make decisions. Enter Steve Bennett, then VP of GE Capital and 23-year
veteran of the GE system. He immediately recognized Intuit as a firm that
needed serious process improvement, what in GE jargon is known as
‘process excellence’, which revolves around the six sigma quality process.
Intuit founder and board chairman Scott Cook knew that Bennett would be a
perfect fit. And he was right.
In his first few weeks as CEO, Bennett visited most corporate locations,
addressed most of the firm’s 5000 employees, and talked one on one with 100
of the firm’s top executives. What he discovered was a lot of passion for their
products, but not very much management of the process. After a few more
weeks he had a chance at a meeting of the firm’s top 200 executives, to shake
things up and to provide his vision of the future. In a position paper he referred
to as ‘Steve’s Dream for Intuit’, he detailed stretch objectives and a series of
actions needed to achieve those objectives. The audience went away in shock at
the stretch levels involved. But through an intense selling effort, and the bringing
on board of a few, select GE executives; he was able to win most of Intuit’s
employees over to his vision and the plans he had to achieve that vision.
Bennett’s results have been monumentally successful. Intuit’s revenues have
expanded every year at double-digit rates. Each year, operating profits have
jumped 40% to 50%. And, operating margins have moved from 14.6% to
22.4%. Intuit has been so successful that its stock has gone up significantly in a
seriously down market.
When you examine his actions, you find that he aligned the seven contextual
‘S’s to achieve the eighth S, strategic performance, as follows:

1. Strategy and Purposes: He employed the classic GE strategy of quality

and efficiency as the key to improving shareholder value. But he also
moved quickly to broaden their product line; for example, by identifying the
numerous niche markets available to their major product lines, and
acquiring several firms that helped complete their product portfolio. He set
stretch objectives that were demanding, but doable.
2. Structure: He changed the organization’s structure to make it more effective at
efficiency. For example, he immediately increased his personal number of
direct reports from 8 to 18. This followed his leadership style of
empowering his managers. He also made each product business unit
responsible for the entire product process from product development to
delivery.
3. Systems and Processes: He aligned two essential systems to make the
strategy work—information and rewards. He built his management
process around
 The Eight ‘S’s of Successful Strategy Execution 9
measurement. He reconstructed the rewards process around rewarding
performance as defined in the new strategy. He also made it a point to
personally write notes of praise to those he felt had performed well. He
instituted zero-based budgeting and standardized equipment throughout the
organization.
4. Leadership Style: He changed the accepted management style at Intuit to
make it more performance oriented. He was very empowering as Scott
Cook had been, but he also managed the results more closely. He provided
a vision for change and sold that vision. He built relationships with
his managers around the new vision. He recognized and rewarded
performance, tying rewards to performance in ways that had not been
done in the past. He used the employee’s highly emotional passion for
products to drive their focus on quality. And he maintained a positive
attitude about the organization’s potential for greater success throughout
the execution process.
5. Staff: He hired a few select managers from GE, but his biggest
alignment change in the staff area was to change employee attitudes about
quality and efficiency.
6. reSources: He provided the resources that were necessary to accomplish
the objectives he had set forth. Large sums of money were spent on
R&D for product development and improvement, and for acquisitions.
But his biggest focus was on the efficient use of resources. One of his major
resource management focuses was on time management. He urged people to
‘work on the critical few (issues, customers, etc.) versus the trivial many’.
7. Shared Values: By selling his vision, he convinced the large majority of
Intuit managers and employees to buy into new values: quality, efficiency,
and rewards for performance being the primary new values. He respected
the companies strongly entrenched operational values posted on company
walls, but he also urged employees to temper their use if they conflicted
with the new values he was instilling.
8. Strategic Performance: The financial results were overwhelmingly positive.

Unsuccessful Alignment
In contrast to the successful alignment at Intuit, consider the
unsuccessful execution efforts of Durk Jager as CEO of Procter &
Gamble. Jager took control of the reins of the company on January 1,
1999, but was forced into retirement by July 1, 2000. Jager’s demise was
clearly an execution problem. The strategy chosen appeared by all accounts
to be just what the company needed, but Jager made errors both in his
choice of how to align the other Ss and in the timing of his actions.
Furthermore he did a poor job of selling his new initiative.
In September of 1999, P&G announced that Jager, already head of several major
P&G divisions, would become CEO. At this same time CEO and Chairman John
Pepper also announced a sweeping reorganization of the company that would
support what senior leadership knew was going to be Jager’s strategy. If
we analyze the primary actions taken by Jager with regards to the 8 ‘S’s, they
10 J. M. Higgins

would be as follows (Bennis and Thomas, 2002; Berner, 2003; De Lombaerde

and Frazier, 2000; n.a., 1998):

1. Strategy: The business strategy for all major business units was fast new
product development accompanied by timely acquisitions in growth
markets where the company had no real presence. On the surface, this strategy
appeared to be just what was needed for the stodgy old company that had
a number of older brands that were beginning to lose their growth
potential or their market share.
2. Structure: Two major structural initiatives were chosen to carry out this
strategy. The first was the one announced in September 1998, entitled,
‘Organization 2005’. It had five major components, three aimed at improving
product development capabilities, while the other two were aimed primarily
at cutting costs. The former included the creation of 7 Global Business
Units (GBUs) based on product lines rather than the current 4 global
business units which were based on geography. Another such action was
the creation of 8 Market Development Organizations (MDOs) which
would control the development and marketing of products in local markets.
In aligning structure with strategy, there is always a question as to which
is better, geographicw or product line-based divisions. Under Jager, the
company sought both. The GBUs gave the company a product
perspective; the MDOs gave the company a geographic perspective. In
the fall of 2003, the company had
4 GBUs and 7 MDOs.
The cost cutting group of actions included the development of a Global
Business Services (GBS) Division into which all of the support units would
be grouped, thus eliminating redundancies at the division levels. It was also
planned that many people would be shifted from Corporate Offices to the
GBUs, MDOs, or GBS.
One problem with both of these sets of changes was that they were so
sweeping that employees pushed back. This sweeping reorganization resulted
in numerous mini-reorganizations that left many employees at a loss with
respect to what their roles were and who they reported to. Many of the
actions required a large number of physical moves from one location to
another.
Shortly after Jager assumed the role of CEO, he also announced that 15,000
jobs would be cut from the company’s 110,000 positions world wide, further
compounding the problem. As of the fall of 2003, P&G had 98,000 employees.
When you analyze what eventually took place, it appears that the structural
changes were appropriate, but too much too soon.
3. Systems and Processes: Reward systems were modified to encourage inno3
vation. In addition, Jager pushed the Internet as the communication
medium for the company, a company long known for its memos. Jager’s
alignment of systems and processes are appropriate, but the how of the
change resulted in push back on the Internet part of his actions.
4. Leadership Style: Jager apparently did not make an attempt to align the
management style of the rest of the organization’s leaders to fit the needs of
the strategy. But more importantly, his own style was abrasive to many, thus
 The Eight ‘S’s of Successful Strategy Execution 11
negating most of his efforts at promoting change. When one examines the
overall impact of his leadership style on the ultimate lack of execution, it
becomes apparent that his style was one of his primary execution failures.
He failed to provide the kind of leadership style that was appropriate. He
tried to order change rather than sell it and provide a mandate for change.
When you examine successful change leaders, you find that they: communiW
cate the why and how of innovation over and over; encourage risk raking;
reward and celebrate innovation successes; empower employees to be
creative; exhibit a positive attitude about the change; focus on organizational
purpose; understand their employees’ emotions, help them work through
those that lead to resistance to change, and use the positive emotions of
employees surrounding change related issues such as beating the competition
and improving customer satisfaction, to build a mandate for change; and
construct relationships with others in the firm that are vital to achieving
success. With the exception of rewarding and celebrating innovation, Jager
apparently performed none of the other prerequisite leadership actions.
5. Staff: Some training and development programs were to be changed to
accom5 modate the new strategy. Other than these actions, it is not clear
from Jager’s strategy or actions how he intended to align staff with
strategy, other than through the structural realignments already noted.
One misstep is clear however, he failed to anticipate the impact on the
staff of all of the sweeping changes he was making, and hence his initiatives
suffered a series of setbacks.
6. reSources: Jager did set aside funds for the restructuring, and presumably
he anticipated that the results of the cost cutting efforts would be used to
help fund the new strategy. However the company did have a debt level
which could be seen as detrimental to strategy execution. It is important
to note that the company’s cost reduction efforts have been successful.
7. Shared Values: The greatest challenge Jager faced in realignment was to
change the culture to match the strategy, but Jager failed to recognize just
how difficult this would be and he did not really attempt to change the
culture in the right way. As noted previously, Jager tried to order change to
come about, rather than leading it. P&G’s culture is famous for its ability to
engrain an employee mind set. And this culture has survived for 166
years. It wasn’t going into the night easily. Had Jager moved to create a
more organic culture, he might have been successful. But just how he
envisioned the eventual culture is unclear. When you examine Figure 1 in
this article, you will note that shared values—culture—are at the hub of the
model. Jager missed this point of centrality.
Furthermore, when you ask employees to make a 90 degree turn in organizF
ational culture, you have to communicate over and over and over why this
has to be done, and how; and you have to involve the employees in the
changes if you want them to be successful. Finally, research also shows
that change is most easily processed by people if it appears to be less change
than it really is. If the 90 degree change can be seen as a 30 degree change,
and better yet as a modification of past actions, then it is easier for the
change to be accepted by employees. Jager declared a wholesale change was
in store which made everyone uncomfortable (Huy, 1999).
12 J. M. Higgins
8. Strategic Performance: The strategic objectives set by Jager were challenging,
but unfulfilled. It was after the third profit warning that he was forced
into retirement.

Jager’s failure was partly caused by moving too quickly to try to do too much
too soon; it was partly a failure to align the ‘S’s; especially his leadership
style and culture; and finally it was after all a failure to communicate. It would
appear that Jager aligned structure, many systems, part of staff and resources
appropriately. For any CEO or other strategic leader to be successful, they must
ask themselves what each of the ‘S’s should be like in order for strategy to
succeed. In some cases Jager did this, and in some he apparently did not.
A.G. Lafley, who followed Jager as CEO, also believed in the need for making
major radical changes in the organization. In fact he and Jager agreed on many
if not most of the changes Jager made. But Lafley had a leadership style that
focused not on what was wrong with P&G and what was wrong with the employf
ees at P&G (as did Jager) but rather on how the company could beat the
competition and better satisfy the customer. He also understood just how far he
could move the culture and worked for change within the existing culture at a
level of change that employees felt comfortable with. Furthermore, he worked
tirelessly to communicate the need for change and to sell the change program.
Ironically under Lafley P&G has experienced tremendous success developing
the kinds of new products that Jager had hoped to produce although Lafley
de-emphasized product development and focused on brand management. Lafley
suggests that part of this success can be attributed to asking employees to do
what they do best, brand management, and integrating product development in
that setting rather than as an end all function unto itself. Finally, his financial
results have been only slightly short of spectacular (Berner, 2003; Brooker, 2002).
The major lesson here is that mis-alignments can lead to failure, especially
mis-alignments of leadership style and culture. And we must not forget that a
failure to communicate is really a failure of leadership. One of the leader’s key
skills is communication. While most of Jager’s alignment actions were sound,
those related to leadership and shared values were not. And those critical
deficiencies were enough to forestall success. Lafley complemented Jager’s
realignment actions with appropriate style and cultural realignments, thus
leading to success.

The Eight ‘S’s Model

On a cross-functional basis, virtually everything an organization does is covered
within the 8 ‘S’s. By using the model during the strategizing process, the
organw ization’s leaders can anticipate what needs to be changed in the
organization in order for the strategy to work. Then during the execution
stage, the model serves as a road map for implementation. And if you want to
uncover what the cause for the failure of strategy execution might be, this
model almost always points to the reason.
The underlying principle of the 8 ‘S’s model is that different strategies require
different kinds of structures, systems, style, staffing, resources, and shared values
 The Eight ‘S’s of Successful Strategy Execution 13
to make them work. If there is not a good match among these factors, performance
suffers. The two examples used in this article demonstrate clearly how success
follows alignment, and how insufficient performance follows misalignment.

References
Bennis, W.G. and Thomas, R.J. (2002) Alchemy of leadership. A book excerpt, CIO (1 December), pp. 1–3.
Berner, R. (2003) P&G: New and improved, how A.G. Lafley is revolutionizing a bastion of
corporate conservatism, Business Week (7 July), pp. 52–63.
Brooker, K. (2002) The un-CEO, Fortune (16 September), pp. 88–96.
De Lombaerde, G. and Frazier, M. (2000) Jager ouster widely praised, CincinnatiBusinessCourier(9 June), p. 1.
Huy, Q.N. (1999) Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change, Academy of
Management Review (1 April), pp. 325–345.
n.a. (1998) P&G pursues greatest growth ever. P&G news release (9 September).
Nee, E. (2003) The hottest CEO in tech, Business 2.0 (June), pp. 88–92.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H., Jr. (1982) In Search of Excellence (New York: Harper & Row).
Tischler, L. (2003) Sudden impact, Fast Company (September), pp. 106–110.
Waterman, R.H. (1982) The seven elements of strategic fit, Journal of Business Strategy (Winter), p. 71.