Submitted by

Klaus Wolfmayr, BSc

K1057304

Submitted at

Institute for Strategic

Management

Supervisor

MASTER’S THESIS
Assoz. Univ.-Prof.in Mag.a
Dr.in Regina Gattringer

Co-Supervisor
High Speed Strategy Implementation in a Global,
Mag.a Dr.in Sabine Reisinger
Dynamic Business Environment

Linz, February 2020

Master’s Thesis
to confer the academic degree of

Master of Science
in the Master’s Program

General Management

JOHANNES KEPLER

UNIVERSITY LINZ

Altenberger Str. 69

4040 Linz, Austria

Statutory declaration

I hereby declare that the thesis submitted is my own unaided work, that I have not used other than the
sources indicated, and that all direct and indirect sources are acknowledged as references. This printed
thesis is identical with the electronic version submitted.

Klaus Wolfmayr

Linz, February 2020

II/128
Content
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... VIII

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 11

1.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 11

1.2. OBJECTIVE OF THE MASTER’S THESIS .......................................................................................... 12
1.3. RESEARCH METHOD .................................................................................................................... 13
1.4. STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................................. 14

2. GLOBALIZATION AND DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTS ................................................................ 16

2.1. IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AND DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES................................................................ 19

2.2. IMPACT ON STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND THE PLANNING PERSPECTIVE ..................................... 20
2.2.1. GLOBALIZATION ......................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.2. DEREGULATION AND PRIVATIZATION .......................................................................................... 21
2.2.3. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE ......................................................................................................... 21
2.2.4. KNOWLEDGE INTENSITY ............................................................................................................. 22
2.2.5. INCREASED COMPETITION.......................................................................................................... 22

3. STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................. 25

3.1. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNED/DELIBERATE STRATEGIES ............................................................ 31

3.2. DELIBERATE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ASPECTS .................................................................... 33
3.3. DELIBERATE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION CONTEXT .................................................................... 34
3.3.1. ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE CONTEXT ......................................................................................... 35
3.3.2. DESIGN CHOICES ...................................................................................................................... 36
3.4. DESIGN CHOICES IN HIGH SPEED STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION .................................................... 38

4. STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION AND THE TIME FACTOR....................................................... 43

4.1. WAYS TO COPE WITH TIME CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................... 44

4.1.1. DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES.............................................................................................................. 49
4.1.2. AMBIDEXTERITY......................................................................................................................... 57
4.1.3. AGILE/SCRUM ........................................................................................................................... 62
4.1.4. ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH AVENUES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ............ 66

5. STUDY DESIGN ........................................................................................................................... 74

5.1. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ............................................................................................................. 75

5.1.1. APPROACH AND DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 75

III/128
5.1.2. INTERVIEW PARTNER ................................................................................................................. 77
5.1.3. DOCUMENTATION OF RESULTS .................................................................................................. 78
5.2. HIGH SPEED STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS .................................................................... 79
5.2.1. STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT IN A DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT............................................................. 79
5.2.2. APPLICABILITY OF DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND AMBIDEXTERITY IN PRACTICE .............................. 86
5.2.3. DESIGN CHOICES AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS IN PRACTICE ....................................................... 88
5.2.4. STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION UNDER TIME PRESSURE ................................................................ 91
5.2.5. STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................. 92
5.2.6. PROCESSES .............................................................................................................................. 95
5.2.7. LEADERSHIP STYLE ................................................................................................................... 96
5.3. PERCEPTIONS ON DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS ............................................................ 100
5.3.1. ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION AT TECHWORKS..................................... 102
5.3.2. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 107

6. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 109

6.1. IMPLICATIONS DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 111

6.2. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 112

7. LITERATURE ............................................................................................................................. 114

8. APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 126

IV/128
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: THESIS STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................................IX

FIGURE 2: FINDINGS OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... X
FIGURE 3: STRATEGIC THINKING AND PLANNING ..................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 4: LCAG ..................................................................................................................................................... 29
FIGURE 5: CHANGE KALEIDOSCOPE ....................................................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 6: GENERIC TYPES OF DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES ............................................................................................ 51
FIGURE 7: AGILE INNOVATION DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 64
FIGURE 8: STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS AMONG CONTEXT, PROCESS AND OUTCOME VARIABLES ...... 72

V/128
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: INTERVIEW PARTNERS ............................................................................................................................. 77

TABLE 2: INTERVIEW GUIDELINE GERMAN ........................................................................................................... 126
TABLE 3: INTERVIEW GUIDELINE ENGLISH............................................................................................................ 127

VI/128
List of Abbreviations

BCG...............................................................................................................Boston Consulting Group

CSR..................................................................................................... Corporate Social Responsibility
DBIS....................................................................................................................Datenbank-Infosystem
EBSCO ..............................................................................................Elton Bryson Stephens Company
EZB............................................................................................. Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek
IJV’s.......................................................................................................... International Joint Ventures
JKU............................................................................................................ Johannes Kepler University

VII/128
Executive Summary

Strategic management in general and strategy implementation in particular are increasingly influenced
by a growing level of dynamism in almost all industries. With the advent of globalization and disruptive
technologies, strategic management increasingly needs to be executed under growing time pressure. It
is therefore likely that practitioners find it increasingly difficult to implement new processes and
strategies in a constantly changing dynamic environment. Thus, changes to the formulation and
implementation of strategies might be necessary leading to a paradigm shift. Here, the influence on the
planning perspective and a possible disadvantage of the implementation of deliberate strategies will be
at the center of the focus.

This master’s thesis aims to identify and examine the influencing factors and the challenges linked to
high-speed implementation of planned strategies in a global and dynamic business environment. The
definitions and underlying assumptions of globalization will be the initial focus, followed by dynamic
environments and their impact on both different industries and strategic management. Subsequently,
strategy implementation in general and strategy implementation of planned, deliberate strategies in
particular will be of interest and the relevancy and consequences that arise due to global, dynamic
environments.

Within strategy implementation, proposed activities to cope with a dynamic environment and its effects
on an organization’s structure, processes and leadership style will be highlighted. In addition to the
effects of a dynamic environment on strategy implementation, the anticipated time pressure as a
consequence of dynamism and the consideration of the organization’s change context will further add
to a holistic picture. The views and tools researchers have put forward are included to address strategy
implementation in dynamic markets signified by unpredictability, dynamism and instability. Proposed
adjustments ranging from single activities to frameworks are highlighted and analyzed in order to
complete a multi-faceted analysis. The structure of the thesis and its different viewpoints are depicted
below.

VIII/128
 Figure 1: Thesis structure
Source: Own Illustration.

Also, the impact on practitioners and their potential adjustments to the actual implementation of
strategies will be underlined in this master’s thesis. Through the use of empiric research with
practitioners at an Austrian company, the main consequences for today´s strategy implementation
processes are made clear and allow for the drawing of conclusions after comparing to previously
mentioned theoretical implications.

The findings implicate that strategy implementation is becoming increasingly challenging in companies.
Although deliberate strategies remain a part in companies’ strategic management processes, it
increasingly is combined with emergent strategies. Also, different approaches to address dynamic
environments vary among the individual situation a company is facing and the organizational context in
the strategy implementation process. Thus, approaches in a company’s processes, structure and
leadership style to enable quick strategy implementations in a dynamic environment vary significantly
and range from decentralized structures to participative leadership. During the empiric research in the
focal company, some of the outlined approaches were found to be perceived differently in certain parts

IX/128
of the organization. Depending on the field of expertise, interviewees had an individual stance toward
approaches.

Although most of the outlined views and tools from both authors and practitioners were perceived as
being helpful by interviewees, different perceptions with regard to the applicability and outcome of
single approaches at different organizational levels of the focal company could be detected. Therefore,
any attempt to address high speed strategy implementation in a dynamic environment calls for a thorough
execution with the help of intense communication efforts.

Figure 2: Findings overview

Source: Own Illustration.

X/128
 Introduction
1.1. Problem Statement

Companies and institutions are increasingly exposed to the high pace of adjustments in their strategy
due to new technologies and an increased level of competition, Milani and Park (2015) state that “one
of the most significant changes that affected the world economy over the last three decades has been
the rapid increase in trade integration among national economies” (p. 292). Due to the increased
density of networks, institutional velocity and transnational participation, globalization can have
profound effects (Keohane & Nye, 2000, pp. 108-119). Thus, companies are frequently confronted
with the need to adapt to external influences, ranging from an incremental to a fundamental change
(Müller-Stewens & Lechner, 2011, p. 455).

These developments make the use of new approaches such as a global perspective, strategic
flexibility and speed in innovation and integration necessary (Hin, Isa & He, 2011, p. 431). Thus, the
timely implementation of a strategy in a constantly changing globalized economy has a pivotal role.
Therefore, Hrebiniak (2006) calls for a series of integrated decisions and warn practitioners that faster
integration may not always be better since a thorough approach needs enough time and attention.
Hence, companies can find it increasingly difficult to implement entirely new or partly new strategies
to an entity.

With the growth of dynamism and the increasing use of emergent strategies, both the practicability
and value of the implementation of deliberate strategies are of interest. Pertinent literature has
highlighted views on strategy implementation in dynamic environments, which led to the
development of approaches for how to work with time pressure in strategy implementation and the
proposition of tools. Within the proposed activities to deal with time constrains both similar and
diverging activities to improve strategy implementation in dynamic environments were outlined.
While some authors emphasized adjustments in an organization’s processes, others focused on
structure and leadership style. Thus, a comprehensive overview and classification of highlighted
activities to improve high speed strategy implementation will add to the understanding of the topic
at hand.

11/128
 1.2. Objective of the Master’s Thesis
The objective of this master’s thesis is to discover if the increased time pressure under which strategy
implementation due to globalization and the accompanying dynamic environment affects the
implementation process of new strategies. Through the focus on deliberately formulated strategies, it is
also aimed at uncovering which implementation processes may be the subject of alternation in a dynamic
environment. Thereby, the relevancy and practicability of deliberate strategy implementation in a
dynamic, globalized environment will be highlighted. Additionally, possible disadvantages and
advantages in the implementation process under time pressure will be outlined. Thus, the focus will be
on the implementation of deliberate strategies developed under rational and structured decisions and
their framework conditions (i.e. systems, structure and management).

The factors which influence strategy implementation in dynamic environments and the resulting key
questions are of interest. Also, research on the topic and recommendations from researchers as to how
to address dynamic environments when implementing strategy will be highlighted. In addition, views
and proposed tools for high speed strategy implementation will be outlined and analyzed with regard to
their usefulness in a dynamic environment and classified according to their areas of necessary
adjustments in the organization. In order to depart from a static view of high speed strategy
implementation, it is important to incorporate a firm’s different internal peculiarities and contextual
features which might significantly alter the usefulness of the outlined activities. The findings of pertinent
literature will then be discussed with regards to the data collected from qualitative research.

After reviewing this master’s thesis readers should be able to understand globalization and dynamic
environments and the accompanying challenges for today’s businesses. More specifically, the impact on
strategic management with regards to the implementation of new strategies under time pressure
stemming from dynamic environments are of particular importance and will be discussed in detail.

Additionally, the effects of different implementation aspects and contextual features in dynamic
environments will be highlighted in order to locate interdependencies or trade-offs. This master’s thesis
should therefore give the reader a thorough picture of the implementation process of planned strategies
in a dynamic environment and deliver implications as to the advantages or disadvantages of high-speed
strategy implementation. Since research on strategy implementation in global, dynamic business
environments is still evolving and there is a lack of available data, this work also contributes empiric
data and implications on the subject in order to add to the development of the topic.

12/128
 1.3. Research Method
In order to deliver a full analysis, a two-pronged approach will be taken. The thesis will be of empirical
nature. First, the current scientific standpoint on the subject by reviewing current literature will be
analyzed. By analyzing recent journals, e-journals, scientific papers and databases (e.g. DBIS, EZB,
EPUB, Elsevier Science direct, Emerald, Springer and Google Scholar) a comprehensive picture
evolves.

The following search terms or combinations thereof were used to find research articles and data for the
topic at hand:

• Globalization
• Globalism
• Dynamic environment
• Volatile environment
• Competitive environment
• Strategy implementation
• Strategic management
• Strategic decision making
• Planning perspective
• Hypercompetition
• Implementation management
• High-speed strategy implementation
• Change management
• Change kaleidoscope

With the gathered input the influence of globalization and dynamics on different industries in general
and on strategic management in particular will be elaborated on. A comparative analysis of strategy
implementation in theory and practice using a global company as the basis is also conducted. With the
help of qualitative research (i.e. expert interviews) this Austrian technology company will be the subject
of the empirical analysis focusing on business entities which are entirely or at least exposed to a large
degree to a dynamic environment and, therefore, experienced in global strategic management.

13/128
The company has several sites worldwide and markets and distributes its products to customers on five
continents. Since the organizational structure of the company is of a divisional nature, the focus is on
the divisions with the highest degree of global exposure and dynamism. Potential differences in strategy
implementation on a larger scale with regard to the industry, the life-cycle stage, or other factors can
then be analyzed. The findings will be compared to views and current research avenues in strategic
management and potential effects on the implementation process will be elaborated on. Thereby, the
whole of the implementation process will be disseminated and problems or recommendations may be
outlined.

Finally, the influence of speed on other factors in strategic management will be part of the analysis (e.g.
influence of the time factor on parts of the change kaleidoscope). The strategic management tools used
in the comparative study are based on the literature review and empirical research.

The analysis on the impact on business and strategic management will be carried out by a secondary
data review (i.e. current literature via desk research). The empiric part will be executed by an analysis
of primary data collected with qualitative research. Also, interviews with open questions will be
conducted. The interviews are structured by an interview guide providing open questions to assure
comparability (Döring & Bortz, 2016, p. 16). Also, possible alternatives to the interview guideline and
the interview questions due to personal or objective reasons will add to the usability of this approach
(Döring & Bortz, 2016, p. 16).

Ten practitioners in the company who deal with strategy implementation on a regular basis were
interviewed. In order to get a thorough picture of the full implementation process in practice, strategy
planner, strategy steersmen and strategy implementer were interviewed. In the event of interviews
unveiling either empirical frequency of occurrence or statements strongly deviating from other
interviewees, these data sets will be not only analyzed in a contextual but also structured fashion within
a categorized analysis (Mayring, 2010, pp. 98-100).

1.4. Structure
This master’s thesis will give an introduction of the research field of strategy implementation and also
discuss and differentiate the notions at hand. Relevant terminology such as globalization, strategy
implementation and planning perspective will be defined in detail and possible differences in the
perception of different groups will be highlighted. Also, influencing factors of the aforementioned
concepts will be outlined and put into context. The subsequent sections will outline the current state of
research regarding dynamic environments and its impact on strategic management, followed by a focus

14/128
on high-speed strategy implementation in dynamic environments. Additionally, the relevance and
usability of deliberate strategies in dynamic environments will be elaborated on.

The next part will highlight the empirical findings of this master’s thesis. With the help of qualitative,
semi-structured interviews of practitioners at an Austrian technology company, recent developments in
strategy implementation in practice will be collected. In addition, contextual aspects in strategy
implementation under time pressure will be discussed and evaluated.

The findings of primary data analysis and current research will be analyzed and implications drawn. An
overview of strategy implementation in dynamic environments in the focal firm is used in order to put
the findings of the relevant secondary data in perspective. In addition, the use of deliberate strategies in
practice will also be analyzed. The last section will compare the findings of both desk research and
empiric research.

15/128
2. Globalization and Dynamic Environments
This chapter will give an overview of globalization and dynamic environments as the terms are used in
this master’s thesis. Furthermore, a thorough overview of the influencing factors on economies and
industries in a globalized and dynamic environment will be outlined. Finally, the influence of
globalization and dynamism on strategic management and the increasing need to exert strategy
formulation and implementation under growing time pressure will be highlighted.

Pieterse (2012) state that globalization started in the bronze-age and underwent different phases (Greco-
Roman Empire, Oriental globalization, colonialism of the 19th century). With the different phases of
globalization, the process affected constantly more areas of interaction and the depth thereof. Initial trade
relationships evolved in an additional exchange of ideas and information. Thus, the process of
globalization increasingly affects not only business aspects but also social and political factors (Das,
2011, p. 18).

Since the concept of globalization and the concept of globalism are also often used interchangeably, it
is necessary to both define globalization and also distinguish it from the concept of globalism. According
to Das (2011), globalism implies networks bringing different areas closer together both economically
and socially. Globalization however describes the mechanisms whereby globalism is both intensified
and promoted (Das, 2011, p. 18). Thus, globalization defines the degree of globalism in certain areas.
Here it is important to note that globalization has not always increased and thereby facilitated
international trade but has also during different periods of time decreased. In the wake of World War I
and World War II globalization has considerably slowed and eventually led to the collapse of the global
economic order (Das, 2011, p. 11). Hence, globalization should be considered as a phenomenon
changing its intensity under the influence of political and social factors.

Globalization refers to the process by which societies and economies all over the world become
increasingly integrated (Irani, 2011, p. 216). Although globalization is mostly understood as the process
of intensified trade and competition around the world, there are more facets and prerequisites to be noted.
With the advent of communication technology and better means of transport, globalization has not only
affected the economy in recent times but also led to an increase of the movement of ideas and
information.

As previously mentioned, there are many different views and definitions of what globalization is, ranging
from rather narrow to broad definitions. Although most definitions share similarities and are
overlapping, for this master’s thesis globalization will refer to that of Das (2011, p. 18).

16/128
“Globalism implies networks of connections spanning multi-continental distances, drawing them closer
together economically, socially, culturally and informationally.” (Das, 2011, p. 18)

“Globalization in turn is generally conceived as the processes promoting and intensifying

multi- continental interconnectedness, and thereby increasing the degree of globalism. The
phenomenon of globalization assumes progressively increasing globalism, which in turn stands
for an intensification of network connections or multiplicity of relationships among economies
and countries.” (Das, 2011, p. 18)

Alternative definitions of globalization are manifold referring to different focal points. While some
definitions are mainly aimed at the integration of economies, globalization influences many more aspects
of international interaction. In this regard, effects of globalization on culture and societies are also to be
considered since they additionally foster the integration of economies and thereby further increase the
number and frequency of changes in the environment.

“…a world in which societies, cultures, politics and economics have, in some sense, come closer
together.” (Kiely & Marfleet, 1998, p. 3)

“…a process of cross-cultural interaction, exchange, and transformation.” (Cooppan, 2001, p. 15)

The process of globalization with all its accompanying factors (e.g. increased competition and a dynamic
environment) and their impact on societies and industries are frequently debated. The pro-globalization
lobby outlines the increased opportunities for businesses and the growing efficiencies which foster the
affordability of products for customers (Irani, 2011, p. 216). While at the same time, the anti-
globalization lobby criticizes the negative effects on societies and laborers including competitive
pressure on small companies and profits for global companies (Irani, 2011, p. 216).

However, most economists and political scientists promote globalization stating it is a force that will
ultimately equalize income all over the world and thereby help to decrease inequality (Irani, 2011, p.
217). As with the definition of globalization, the effects on industries are also disputed and vary
significantly according to the researcher. Stiglitz (2004) mentions five major forces that affect industries
including knowledge transfer and intensity, trade liberalization, labor flows across boundaries, foreign
direct investment and the liberalization of capital markets. Fitzroy and Hulbert (2005) found slightly
different globalization effects on industries, although they also acknowledge that the increase of
knowledge intensity plays a role, they additionally highlight that technological change affects the
dynamism. This then in return forces companies to react in cycles that are continuously decreasing in
duration.

17/128
While technological inventions in the early 20th century, such as the automobile, had slow growth and
adaption rates, inventions by the ending 20th century, such as the internet, had much faster growth rates
(Fitzroy & Hulbert, 2005, p. 16). This forces companies to react quickly to new changes in order to be
able to realize opportunities (Fitzroy & Hulbert, 2005, p. 17). According to Fitzroy and Hulbert (2005),
the increase of changes in a market combined with their often exogenous origin can change competitive
positions within a market and thereby increasing dynamism due to globalization.

Similar to globalization, the notion of dynamism and dynamic environments are not always clearly
defined in literature either. Dynamic environments, volatile environments and uncertain environments
may often be used interchangeably and will therefore also need to be clearly defined for this master’s
thesis. Dynamic environments are defined as consisting of two characteristics, one being the rate of
change (i.e. volatility) the other being the lack of predictability of change (Anand &Ward, 2004, p. 369;
Miller & Friesen, 1983, p. 222). The environment’s influencing factors often referred to in this context
are an absence of pattern and unpredictability of both micro and macro business environments (Dess &
Beard, 1984, p. 56).

The increasing level of globalization, which in turn affects the integration of business activities and
dynamism, may lead to an increase in competition (Goeltz, 2014, p. 5). One example highlighted by
Goeltz (2014) has been hypercompetition. Hypercompetition is believed to become increasingly relevant
on a global basis (Harvey, Novicevic & Kiessling, 2001, p. 611). D’Aveni (1998) proposed that
hypercompetition is not the mere result of global recessions or overcapacities but of four main other
drivers that are also outcomes from globalization. These four drivers are listed below.

Consumer expectations

The pressure of consumers’ expectations regarding the value of products forces companies to quickly
react to recent trends in customer tastes (D’Aveni, 1998, p. 184). Thus, companies are forced not only
to bring innovative products to the market but also to constantly reduce costs in order to compete on
price as well.

Technology

Technological inventions have caused disruptions in almost every industry. Not only the extent of the
technological disruptions but also their increasing appearance puts pressure on companies (D’Aveni,
1998, p. 184). Here, first mover advantages and investments in new technologies are of vital importance.

18/128
Disappearing entry barriers

The lack of entry barriers to markets due to national and international agreements make it increasingly
easy for companies to discover new markets and thereby fostering hypercompetition (D’Aveni, 1998, p.
184; D’Aveni, Dagnino & Smith, 2010, p. 1382). The lowering of restrictions for new entrants have
made it possible for companies to significantly reduce costs and risks related to entering new markets.

Increased financial power

Due to the rising number of mergers and acquisitions, government subsidies and alliances, some
companies have been able to escalate hypercompetition to a global level (D’Aveni, 1998, p. 185). Big
global companies have an advantage over smaller companies which can lead to a consolidation of an
industry. Therefore, D’Aveni (1998) proposed to compete in four arenas: price-quality, know-
how/timing, stronghold creation/invasion and deep pockets. Being competitive in all four arenas in an
escalating way to gain competitive advantage.

2.1. Impact on the Economy and Different Industries

A global and dynamic environment is not only believed to impose challenges to economies and
industries but can also provide opportunities for expansion in sales and profit in industries and increase
economic growth (Kilic, 2015, p. 9; Wiersema & Bowen, 2008, p. 118). According to Kilic (2015),
economic and political globalization fostered the growth of 74 developing countries between 1981-2011.
Therefore, Kilic (2015) calls for increased participation of developing countries in international trade
organizations and political decision making on an international level.

However, globalization has also affected almost every industry in that it increases competition and the
pressure to compete on a global basis (Wiersema & Bowen, 2008, p. 115). Wiersema and Bowen (2008)
outline that the drivers for increased globalization of industries include the homogenization of goods and
services and the development of global scale economies in manufacturing and R&D. Therefore,
Wiersema and Bowen (2008) state that the pressure stemming from globalization may significantly
change how companies compete in an industry and that they have to constantly revise their options on a
larger scale.

Additionally, globalization leads to an increase of internationalization as a strategic alternative

(Wiersema & Bowen, 2008, p. 118). Whittington, Johnson, Scholes, Angwin and Regner (2017) outline
that globalization and internationalization have not only market drivers but also cost drivers, competitive
drivers and government drivers.

19/128
With regard to market drivers of globalization, Yip and Hult (1997) highlighted the standardization of
market characteristics and similar needs of customers throughout the world to be of particular
importance. In the cost area, Yip and Hult (1997) found that economies of scale, advantage of country-
specific differences and favorable logistics have a profound impact on industry globalization drivers.
Finally, Whittington et al. (2017) outline that in the competitive area interdependencies which lead to
pressure for global coordination and cross subsidization are additional drivers of globalization and
internationalization in industries.

In addition to the above mentioned drivers of globalization, Ristovska and Ristovska (2014) state that
the additional changes in politics and business activities cause an increase in the need to quickly react to
changing factors. However, different levels of the aforementioned influencing factors in certain
industries may lead to significant differences of internationalization and globalization effects
(Whittington et al., 2017, p. 281). Thus, with regard to internationalization Wiersema and Bowen (2008)
state that the greater domestic competition is, the greater the level of internationalization in an industry
would be as globalization increases.

However, in an increasing dynamic environment companies have to heighten the pace of their processes
significantly in order to maintain competitive advantage. The mentioned factors of consumer
expectations, technology, disappearing entry barriers and increased financial power are general
implications on industries and therefore only a part of the influencing forces that put pressure on
companies.

The general effects of globalization and dynamic environments on the economy and different industries
outlined in chapter 2 and 2.1 are highly relevant for almost all industries. Single or multiple of the
aforementioned globalization drivers force industries to adjust to external influences on an increasingly
intense and dynamic level. At the same time, government interferences to protect single industries or
geographic areas are increasing which might additionally put pressure on businesses to adapt.
Consequently, firms are finding it increasingly difficult to harness their markets from dynamic markets.

2.2. Impact on Strategic Management and the Planning Perspective

Globalization and dynamism not only have an effect on the economy and different industries, but also
on the way strategies are formulated and implemented (Kopmann, Kock, Killen & Gemünden, 2017, pp.
557-570; Volberda, Morgan, Reinmoeller, Hitt, Ireland & Hoskisson, 2011, pp. 1-13; Fitzroy & Hulbert,
2005, p. 21). For strategic management in practice, Fitzroy and Hulbert (2005) mentioned the following

20/128
five main sources of increased dynamism that potentially make adjustments to strategy implementation
necessary.

2.2.1. Globalization
Knowledge intensity and the accompanying competition for talents are aspects of globalization impact
on strategic management. The integration and accumulation of financial markets and capital have led to
a strong interrelationship among markets around the world (Fitzroy & Hulbert, 2005, p. 21). The
availability of capital and complex financial instruments have allowed developing markets to join world
trade. The access to global markets also enable companies to target new customer groups and foster the
development of new products (Fitzroy & Hulbert, 2005, p. 22).

2.2.2. Deregulation and Privatization

Globalization, deregulation and privatization produce emerging markets in the developing world which
not only brings opportunities but also new competitors (Fitzroy & Hulbert, 2005, p. 24). Companies find
it increasingly easy to enter new markets in order to increase market share.

The risk and costs of entering new markets has shrunk with the privatization of many industries around
the world and thereby has increased competition and choices for customers. Increased competition due
to the shift of traditional industry boundaries also put pressure on companies and strategic management;
especially the banking industry and the steel industry have undergone tremendous changes in their
structure during the last decades (Fitzroy & Hulbert, 2005, p. 22). The lift of monopolies has furthermore
opened up many promising markets for new entrants, thus allowing for greater choices for consumers,
increased competition and lower prices. This deregulation of markets has significantly changed
industries with new companies and new arenas of competition.

2.2.3. Technological Change

Technological changes of the last decades facilitated a dynamic environment. First and foremost, the
rise of communication technology accelerated both innovations and integration of markets (Meyer,
2017, pp. 78-90). The introduction of the World Wide Web has provided consumers with plenty of
possibilities to compare products, prices and services fostered communication with companies and put
additional pressure on businesses at the same time (Fitzroy & Hulbert, 2005, p. 23). In addition, means
of transport with decreasing travel time has offered companies new possibilities to improve time to
market spans. Thus, incentives to technological diffusion has increased since they can be the source of
growth in a globalized economy (Grossman & Helpman, 2015, p. 103).

21/128
 2.2.4. Knowledge Intensity
Fitzroy and Hulbert (2005) also mention an increase in knowledge as one of the main drivers of increased
competition. This increase in knowledge shifts the focus on to human capital which often makes an early
entry in a market particularly beneficial. The change from capital and labor intensive factors to the factor
of knowledge made the competing for human capital more intense. When knowledge can be diffused to
other areas of the world it has been stated to foster growth (Grossmann & Helpman, 2015, p. 100). This
promotes early entering of markets, the higher pacing of internationalization, establishing the product as
a benchmark and forming alliances with competitors to share knowledge and gain economies of scale
(Casillas, Barbero & Sapeinza, 2015, p. 102-114; Fitzroy & Hulbert, 2005, p. 24).

2.2.5. Increased Competition

The constant competition on price, innovation and quality and the competition for resources forces
companies to always reduce costs and increase innovation (Fitzroy & Hulbert, 2005, p. 22). This in
return leads to shorter life cycles and a higher level of dynamism. Increased competition due to the shift
of traditional industry boundaries also creates additional relevance of the subject for companies and
strategic management. Particularly information technology has increased competition further as it
opened opportunities for innovative small business to access markets worldwide without the need for
physical facilities. The Internet has offered some companies in certain industries the possibility to get
rid of intermediaries while other industries created opportunities to exploit the market as an intermediary
(e.g. travel agents, internet provider) (Fitzroy & Hulbert, 2005, p. 22).

Fitzroy and Hulbert (2005) also mention that the change of structure is another arena of increased
competition as companies are changing their corporate structure by acquiring other firms or merging in
order to stay ahead of the competition. This accumulation of resources allows companies to reach
economies of scale earlier and enables them to constantly drive down product prices (Wiersema &
Bowen, 2008, p. 118). The accumulation of knowledge and expertise allows global companies to create
synergies through mergers, acquisitions and international joint ventures, which drive innovative product
and process developments.

The consequences of the aforementioned drivers of dynamic environments for strategic management are
manifold. With the increasing speed of strategy formulation and implementation, a shift towards new
approaches to tackle an unpredictable and unstable environment might become necessary. Both strategy
formulation and implementation are likely to be adapted to withstand the influence of the increasing
frequency of changing external factors. Here, single approaches such as the broadening of the geographic
focus in strategic management leading to constant environmental scanning and increased diversification

22/128
activity were mentioned (Wiersema & Bowen, 2008, p. 128). In addition, more holistic attempts as to
how strategic management should be adjusted to cope with dynamism were highlighted (e.g. Helfat &
Martin, 2015; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). The extension of the resource
based view of dynamic capabilities is one example of how firms addressed dynamism (Eisenhardt &
Martin, 2000, p. 1106). Here, dynamic capabilities were stated to take Schumpeterian rents into
consideration by emphasizing a company’s internal assets, market positions and also processes to cope
with a globalized economy (Teece & Pisano, 1994, p. 553). In fact, many attempts of strategic
management to address dynamic environments have intended to implement a quick reconfiguration of
resources to stay competitive (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008, pp. 188-189).

Additionally, globalization and dynamic environments have also facilitated a different view on
deliberate and emergent strategies in strategic management. The formulation and implementation of
rational strategies have received some criticism, Mintzberg (1990) stated that rational decision oriented
implementation had only normative character and did not take empirical data into account. Mintzberg
(1990) also criticized that rational decision oriented implementation strictly separated strategy
formulation and implementation and additionally lacked the acknowledgement of learning processes.

In the light of this criticism, the planning oriented perspective seems to be questionable in a dynamic
environment. However, the planning oriented perspective has evolved towards a more flexible model by
acknowledging participative views and the notion of strategic change (Welge, Al-Laham & Eulerich,
2017, p. 41). Thus, the aforementioned changes in business due to globalization, dynamism and
accompanying factors may have an impact on the planning perspective and strategy implementation. In
a dynamic environment, the concept of planned strategy implementation may be at a disadvantage since
circumstances change more frequently and more intense than in stable environments. A deliberate
strategy in a dynamic environment may therefore become obsolete by the time it is to be implemented.
Also, frequent changes to deliberate planned strategies might be necessary which could endanger the
existence of a static model altogether.

Literature is divided whether the planning perspective is a practicable approach in a globalized industry
signified by a dynamic environment calling for high-speed strategy implementations. The majority of
researchers oppose engaging in the planning perspective in dynamic environments while others agree
with it (e.g. Kopmann et al., 2017; Bolisani & Bratianu, 2017; Rahman & DeFeis, 2009; Brauer &
Schmidt, 2006; Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988). Some researchers in fact see the planning perspective
as a viable way in dynamic environments in that it increases success due to a comprehensive evaluation
of alternatives (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988, pp. 816-833). Therefore, attempts to combine strategic

23/128
planning and thinking as well as the combination of systematic and synthetic elements were developed
to both address exploration and exploitation simultaneously in globalized, dynamic environments
(Graetz, 2002, pp. 456-461).

Therefore, further discussion of implementation processes with regards to their usability in dynamic
environment are especially relevant. Due to the previously outlined challenges that globalization and
dynamic environments put on companies and strategic management, the strategy implementation
process in dynamic environments will be further elaborated in the next chapter. Deliberate strategies,
emergent strategies, the extension of the resource-based view and the combination of strategic planning
and strategic thinking to address dynamic environments are presented. As the discussion of influences
of globalization and dynamism on different industries and strategic management brought several
different drivers to light which may influence companies in different industries to varying degrees, a
differentiated view needs to be taken. The different environmental factors might furthermore affect
companies in the same industries differently as the internal change context and the availability of
resources might heavily influence the effects on firms.

Thus, this work is aimed at not only the general effects of globalization and dynamism on a certain
industry but also on the detection of possible deviations within an industry and organizations because of
different internal organizational circumstances. Therefore, the change kaleidoscope proposed by Hailey
and Balogun (2002) will be incorporated in the next chapter to visualize how and why internal factors
are affected differently by external forces and from this, the options for high speed strategy
implementation that arise due to them.

Finally, the LCAG scheme proposed by Learned, Christensen, Andrews and Guth (1978) will be
introduced in the next chapter in order to classify the presented views, methods and tools with regard to
strategy implementation in dynamic environments and their target in organizational processes, structures
and leadership style. The LCAG scheme as an established tool initially developed in a rather stable
environment with little consideration for implementation speed offers the opportunity to detect changes
companies make in a dynamic environment which depart from the viewpoint of the traditional deliberate
strategy implementation approach. In addition to the suitability for the theoretic part of this master’s
thesis, the LCAG scheme also offers value to the analysis of a company in a dynamic environment while
still making use of deliberate strategy formulation and implementation in certain parts of the organization
due to the industry structure and necessity for long term investment planning. Taking into consideration
both the change kaleidoskope and the LCAG scheme also in the empiric part of this master’s thesis, a
detailed and holistic picture of both theory and practice will be executed.

24/128
3. Strategy Implementation
The main purpose of implementation is that new strategic directions for the firm can be brought to
concrete actions for the organizations structure, processes and management style in order to achieve the
fit between the strategy and the success factors (Welge et al., 2017, p. 816). Thus, the agreed upon
measurements in order to achieve the desired future state may be realized.

This chapter will highlight central elements, views and activities with regard to strategy implementation
in general and strategy implementation in a globalized, dynamic environment in particular. Before the
implementation of deliberate strategies and the effects of time pressure due to dynamic environments
will be outlined, the focus will initially be on the distinction of deliberate and emergent strategies as well
as underlying assumptions of the strategy making process. Deliberate strategies and the planning of the
strategy making process are distinct from the implementation of emergent strategies with a high level of
flexibility and responsiveness. Thus, the effects on strategy implementation in a dynamic environment
and the subsequent effects on the design choices of the implementation process will be outlined in
advance.

Strategic planning is the deliberate and planned step-by-step process of strategic management in
formulating, implementing and evaluating strategy with a great consideration for formalities (Wolf &
Floyd, 2017, p. 11). Strategic planning is a multidimensional construct consisting of systems, techniques,
functional coverage and both internal and external facets. Although having a strong focus on formality,
strategic planning has been complemented later with dynamic perspectives (Wolf & Floyd, 2017, p. 11).

In contrast to strategic planning, strategic thinking is the process of strategic management with a flexible,
responsive and intuitive approach at different levels of the firm (Graetz, 2002, p. 456). In a similar
manner, Dhir, Dhir and Samanta (2018) state that strategic planning focuses on analysis and thereby
enables the formalization and elaboration of existing procedures while strategic thinking fosters the use
of imagination and instinct. Gross (2016) additionally states that strategic thinking has the ability to
enable modes within the company that include multidimensional functions to enable change and realize
opportunities. Goldman (2012) outlined that most practitioners engaging in strategic thinking stated that
the most used practices were reacting (i.e. responding to crises), learning (i.e. support discussion and
education about environmental trends), developing (i.e. setting direction and encourage new ideas) and
structuring (i.e. adopt human resource processes to develop and reward strategic thinking). So while
strategic planning is seen as the traditional approach focusing on long-term positioning of a firm in order

25/128
to achieve a competitive advantage, strategic thinking is seen as the innovative and flexible approach to
attain divergent strategic management (Liedtka, 1998, p. 32).

While strategic planning might be helpful in a static environment, strategic thinking is seen as the key
to create and sustain a competitive advantage in a dynamic, competitive and unpredictable environment
(Liedtka, 1998, p. 32). Liedtka (1998) proposes strategic thinking as having several attributes making it
suitable for dynamic markets: Strategic thinking imposes a holistic view acknowledging and
appreciating how different parts of a company influence each other and in turn are influenced by different
environments instead of focusing on a fit between resources. Furthermore, strategic thinking focuses on
an intent allowing for possible misfits (Liedtka, 1998, pp. 30-35).

Figure 3: Strategic thinking and planning

(Graetz, 2002, p. 457).

However, strategic thinking was also found to be difficult to realize. The approach is best implemented
by having staff with a high level of emotional intelligence (i.e. high level of interpersonal skills, at ease
with ambiguity, enthusiasm, sensitivity and ability to build networks). In a study of a company engaging
in scenario planning Graetz (2002) found that groups consisting of very different types of personal traits
(e.g. analytic capabilities and intuitive capabilities) of staff were performing best in strategic thinking.

26/128
The findings then led Graetz (2002) to the conclusion that in a dynamic environment both strategic
planning and strategic thinking should be combined to have the best possible outcome. Teams engaging
in strategic formulation and implementation should therefore combine criteria of creativity, plausibility,
consistency and thereby balance both approaches (Andersen, 2004, pp. 1271-1299; Nuntamanop,
Kauranen & Igel, 2013, p. 245; Graetz, 2002, p. 460). Additional findings from the study of Graetz
(2002) show that people tend to move from strategic thinking and being tolerant to ambiguity and
intuition to a more analytic way of formulating and implementing in times of crisis and time pressure.

However, although both strategic planning and strategic thinking have pros and cons, there are several
contextual factors to be considered when deciding which approach fits the situation and the challenges
ahead the best. In any case, Graetz (2002) states that if strategy formulation and implementation should
be truly effective in a dynamic environment it cannot rely on either strategic planning or strategic
thinking, instead both approaches must be combined to become dynamic, adaptive and flexible.

In a similar manner, Andersen (2004) pointed to benefits of using a blend of different strategy
formulation and integration approaches. The resource-based view emphasizes that an integration of
different strategic capabilities in combination with environmental dynamism should improve
performance (Andersen, 2004, pp. 1271-1299). Andersen (2004) states that strategic planning and the
use of rational decisions are associated with high performance in less dynamic environments but low
performance in highly dynamic environments. Other studies however pointed to different findings
stating that planning had positive influence also in dynamic environments (Brews & Hunt, 1999, pp.
889-913; Andersen, 2004, pp. 1271-1299).

Since one of the recent adjustments to strategy formulation and implementation was the use of
decentralized emergent strategies rather than planned and deliberately implemented strategies, Andersen
(2004) conducted a study of 185 organizations active in different industries in order find evidence
whether strategic planning or decentralized strategy processes were superior in dynamic environments.
Thereby, Andersen (2004) saw strategic planning as the centralized, rational, analytical and deliberate
formulation of strategies and the subsequent coordinated implementation across all of the company.
Decentralized strategy processes are seen as non-responsive capabilities not initiated by the top
management and thus allow for emergent strategies to be developed and implemented by lower level
managers (Andersen, 2004, pp. 1271-1299; Andersen & Nielsen, 2009, pp. 94-106). Andersen (2004)
points to the finding of the study that the sole use of decentralized strategies (e.g. product development)
improves economic performance. However, in combination with strategic planning, performance
increases even more. Thus, the development and implementation of deliberate strategies is always a

27/128
facilitator of economic performance in all environments (Kopmann et al., 2017, p. 567; Andersen, 2004,
pp. 1271-1299). The use of decentralized strategies was found to be beneficial in dynamic environments
in that it improves organizational effectiveness (Andersen, 2004, pp. 1271-1299). However, the
combination of integrative planning processes with decentralized authority to a dual structure would
bring especially fruitful results (Andersen, 2004, pp. 1271-1299).

The implementation process of strategies in a dynamic environment and the usability of deliberate
strategies are affected by globalization and dynamism and thus significantly different from strategy
implementation in stable environments (Rahman & DeFeis, 2009, p. 45; Brauer & Schmidt, 2006, p.
217). Increased competition and dynamics put pressure not only on the implementation of the right
strategy but also on a quick and thorough implementation of a strategy in order to being able to monetize
on strategic windows. Welge et al. (2017) emphasize that in the initial model of strategy formulation and
implementation the separation of strategy formulation and implementation were emphasized. The
formulated strategies must be put into action to deliver results. For example, the development of clear
activities for parts and functions within the company need to be developed as thoroughly as possible.

The implementation of strategies under time pressure make the consideration for several aspects
necessary. Whittington et al. (2017) underline that the process of implementation includes several key
elements to achieve strategic change starting with the diagnosis of the change context. The analysis of
the change context includes the necessary type of change, the context of change, cultural underpinnings
that might influence strategy implementation and force field analysis (Whittington et al., p. 473). The
initial diagnosis of the contextual factors of change clarify the scope and speed of change and possible
effects of corporate culture in order to choose appropriate measures.

In a similar vein, Bryson and Bromiley (1993) call for internal change context to be incorporated when
implementing strategies and projects since differences between actual and perceived value of activities
and outcomes may significantly differ within organizations. Lehner (2004) also emphasizes the need for
an analysis in several different areas when implementing strategy (i.e. perception of the environment,
the organizational context and the strategy of choice). Thereby, different influences on the formulation
and implementation of strategies might influence the choice of the implementation mode. According to
Lehner (2004), the environment and the degree of dynamism and uncertainty are sources of complexity
in strategy formulation and implementation and thereby can have an effect on both. Here, leadership
style has been stated as being strongly influenced by the environment and its dynamism (Lehner, 2004,
p. 469).

28/128
In order to detect the influences on different areas in strategy implementation under time pressure and
to clearly allocate the area of impact, the LCAG model proposed by Learned et al. (1978) will be used
in this master’s thesis. The model proposed by Learned et al. (1978) has been further developed by
Christensen, Andrews, Bower, Hamermesh and Porter (1987) and separates strategy implementation
into three sections that can be addressed to enable strategy implementation (Welge et al., 2017, p. 34).

Figure 4: LCAG Strategy Formulation and Implementation

Source: Own Illustration based on (Christensen et al., 1987, p.99).

29/128
Welge et al. (2017) outline the importance of the organizational processes and behavior which establish
certain rules and standards of how implementation should be conducted and that they should be guided
by motivational aspects and have a suitable incentive scheme in place. Furthermore, the alignment of
leadership styles at the strategic, organizational and personal level to complement the structure and
process measurements and the overall implementation goals are vital.

It is important to note that the LCAG model has some specific assumptions including that strategy
formulation and implementation are considered to be deliberate and planned strategies developed
intentionally and purposefully (Welge et al., 2017, p. 38). Every strategy is uniquely developed by the
company’s top management for specific goals and is sequentially formulated and implemented (Welge
et al., 2017, p. 38).

For the analysis of high-speed strategy implementation in a dynamic environment the LCAG model
offers a multifaceted tool allowing for the analysis of the effects on all relevant areas in a company
regarding strategy implementation (i.e. structure, processes and leadership style). The additional
emphasis on deliberate strategies will further add value to the topic at hand and allow for the detection
and analysis of deviations with regard to measures to address dynamic environments in the empiric
section of this master’s thesis.

The implementation of strategies in general and the implementation of deliberate strategies under time
pressure need the consideration of the aforementioned points and especially possible deviations of
effects from a strategy implementation process with sufficient time. In addition, influences of time
pressure on other contextual aspects outlined by Whittington et al. (2017) are of particular importance.
Also, the value and applicability of planned strategies in a dynamic environment need consideration
altogether due to a possible shift of outcomes with regard to the time available.

The subsequent part of this chapter will therefore further elaborate on the implementation of planned
strategies. Since strategy implementation has different aspects regarding scope and type of change
context to consider, an analysis of the different influential aspects will be made. According to
Whittington et al. (2017), contextual factors might change the appropriate leadership style and can
therefore have consequences of how to implement change. Thus, the chapter will conclude with the
presentation of contextual factors with a strong emphasis on time when implementing strategy in a
dynamic environment.

30/128
 3.1. Implementation of Planned/Deliberate Strategies
Perspectives in strategic management emphasizing rational and planned strategies are based on the
assumption that strategic management is a structured process in which sequenced and interconnected
decision are made and are similar to the concept of planning schools or design schools (Welge et al.,
2017, p. 30). Since its main perspective is a rational process, its basic assumption also underlies most
other perspectives in strategic management and thus had significant impact (Mintzberg, 1990, p. 171).
In the planning-oriented perspective a certain strategy is developed with the help of a thorough analysis
of both internal and external factors and opportunities and threats in order to achieve a strategic fit.
Thereby, internal and external opportunities and threats are put in context with internal strengths and
weaknesses in a way to maximize the outcome of strengths and minimize the impact of weaknesses (i.e.
SWOT analysis).

Mintzberg (1990) further postulates seven fundamental premises for the design school:

• Strategy formation should be controlled and conscious

• Responsibility for control and consciousness rests with the chief executive officer
• Strategy formation must be kept simple and informal
• Strategies should be unique
• Strategies emerge from the design process fully formulated
• Strategies should be explicit and formulated
• Only after formulation, strategies can be implemented (pp. 175-179).

Whittington et al. (2017) emphasize that the main implications for planning and designing in strategic
management highly value analysis in order to cope with complexity and uncertainty and meet the
expectations of important stakeholder (e.g. employees, banks). At the same time, it places little emphasis
on soft factors such as creativity and feedback activities (Whittington et al., 2017, pp. 192-193).

Ansoff and McDonell (1988) described strategic management as a deliberate process under
consideration of several factors and later divided strategy formulation and strategy implementation.
Although the concept in its early stages did not include strategic implementation, it was added at a later
stage (Welge et al., 2017, p. 33). Ansoff and McDonell (1988) proposed the following tasks for strategy
implementation:

31/128
 • The development of an entrepreneurial culture within the company
• The diagnosis of management culture, management competencies as well as potentials and
resources in the different areas of the company
• The strategic change of potentials within the firm in order to achieve strategic fit
• The balancing of operational and strategic goals within the firm
• The managing of change and resistance against new strategies (pp. 163-212).

The development and implementation of deliberate and planned strategies is mostly found in static
environments and the formulation and putting in place of planned and rigid strategies is therefore
considered as not suitable for dynamic environments by some authors (Brauer & Schmidt, 2006, p. 218;
Rahman & DeFeis, 2009, pp. 45- 54). The arguments of opponents to the implementation of deliberate
strategies in dynamic environments are mainly that the static nature would hinder companies to
appropriately react to changes and thereby loose the required flexibility (Rahman & DeFeis, 2009, pp.
45-54; Brauer & Schmidt, 2006, pp. 217-218), In addition, Brauer and Schmidt (2006) do not
recommend to implement deliberate strategies in highly dynamic environments but rather have a high
level of flexibility.

Also, Rahman and DeFeis (2009) do not see the implementation of rational and deliberate strategies as
beneficial in dynamic environments when time is scarce. Instead, they suggest scanning the environment
on a constant basis also when implementing strategy and make adjustments to the implementation
process when necessary in order to reduce complexity and increase the probability of a successful
implementation (Rahman & DeFeis, 2009, pp. 45-54). However, deliberate strategies in dynamic
environments are seen as a viable starting point by many researchers and can, combined with emergent
elements, be a valuable guideline (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988, pp. 827-829). Although some authors
promote the use of deliberate strategies to varying levels, it has been mentioned that the use of either
approach can be beneficial when strategic control mechanisms were implemented (Kopmann et al., 2017,
pp. 557-570; Bolisani & Bratianu, 2017, p. 240). Furthermore, the combination of emergent and
deliberate strategies were mentioned to be beneficial not only as a starting point but also as an integral
part of strategic management in dynamic environments, with the proposed decentralization of strategic
management and the combination of strategic thinking and strategic planning, deliberate strategies are
not seen isolated or as a stand-alone option but as complementing factors to emergent strategies
(Andersen, 2004, pp. 1271-1299; Graetz 2002, pp. 456-461).

Although Kopmann et al. (2017) state that deliberate strategies and emergent strategies are moderated
by external turbulences in that the effect for deliberate strategies is higher at low levels of turbulence

32/128
and higher for emerging strategies at high levels of turbulence, they found that deliberate and emergent
strategies positively complement each other. Thus, researchers’ propositions as to how to address
strategy implementation in dynamic environments mainly have a positive stance towards blending
deliberate and emergent strategies and will be discussed in detail in following chapters.

Nevertheless, the formulation and implementation of deliberate strategies has to be considered under a
variety of different aspects and contextual factors, which, especially considering globalization and an
increased level of dynamism, are vital to a thorough approach. Therefore, the type of change needed
with regard to the time pressure, the extent needed and the contextual factors within the organization
may have an effect on the of possible choices of how to implement strategy. The type of change may
make a certain leadership style viable as well as different contextual aspects or factors (e.g. time, scope,
preservation, capability) may have reciprocal effects which determine the choices for a certain change
path.

3.2. Deliberate Strategy Implementation Aspects

Different types of change that need to be implemented with consideration of not only the speed of change
but also the extent of change might alter the degree of usability of deliberate strategies. Here, it is vital
to ensure commitment for strategic initiatives of affected stakeholder groups (Ates, Tarakci, Porck, van
Knippenberg & Groenen, 2018, p. 3). Also, the consideration for contextual aspects in the
implementation of strategies as proposed by Hailey and Balogun (2002) might further have an effect on
the usability of deliberate strategies.

In order to focus on not only the influencing factor of time but also on possible reciprocal effects on
other factors and outcomes as mentioned by several authors (e.g. Bryson and Bromiley, 1993; Lehner,
2004; Okumus, 2001), and the possible implications for the result as to how to implement strategies
under time pressure, a thorough approach shall be taken. Hailey and Balogun (2002) classify the types
of changes necessary into two factors: the extent of change needed and the speed of change needed for
the change process. Thus, they propose four distinct ways to implement change: evolution, revolution,
adaptation and reconstruction (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p. 161).

Depending on the aforementioned change types that need to be executed under time pressure and the
organizational change context, the choices of possible adjustments in leadership style, processes and
structure may be different. Balogun and Hailey (2008) suggested to use different implementation styles
for the different change types in order to ensure a favorable outcome. Although Balogun and Hailey

33/128
(2008) highlight implementation styles which are partly overlapping with Bourgeois and Brodwin
(1984), they still deviate significantly on certain points and are therefore presented below.

Education and delegation: Employees are educated and informed about the necessary changes in order
to gain understanding and commitment.

Collaboration: Decisions are made jointly with employees regarding strategy implementation in order
to generate involvement and commitment.

Participation: Employees are invited to participate in the decision as to how strategic goals are being
met in order to gain a limited degree of involvement.

Direction: Major decisions are made by the management as to how and what needs to be done in order
to provide direction and minimize time loss.

Coercion: Use of excessive power to force changes in order to achieve immediate results (Balogun &
Hailey, 2008, p. 36).

As pointed out above, strategy implementation has several different aspects to be considered in order to
adjust the process to meet a company’s perspectives. However, an often referred to and therefore vital
part is strategy implementation and the availability of time (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, pp. 153-173;
Nguyen Huy, 2001, p. 616). Therefore, time pressure predetermines the way as to how to implement
strategies successfully and often makes an incremental implementation unsuitable. The previously
presented implementation styles were thus developed with the availability of time as an influencing
factor.

3.3. Deliberate Strategy Implementation Context

The implementation of a strategy is to be seen as very unique for different companies active in different
industries serving different markets. While early works on strategy implementation did not consider the
many different contextual aspects which should be considered for each attempt, subsequent work
regarding this topic has developed an awareness for these key success factors.

Hailey and Balogun (2002) point to the fact that researchers often only focused on certain options of
change implementation that might work in a specific setting but do not take contextual aspects into
account to the extent necessary. These approaches therefore are shortsighted and additionally lead
practitioners to use them prescriptively resulting in a small range of recipe driven change approaches
(Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p. 155). The interaction of different obstacles to strategy implementation and

34/128
a further amplification due to a neglecting were mentioned to be hazardous (Candido & Sergio, 2019,
pp. 39-57). Therefore, the change kaleidoscope has been stated to consider all constraints and enablers
to the implementation of deliberate strategy implementation in seeing change as a process in itself
(Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p. 159). The change kaleidoscope provides a more thorough and holistic
model of the change process and thereby not only considers contextual constraints and enablers but also
options for the implementation (e.g. urgency of change, organizational culture, power).

Figure 5: Change Kaleidoscope

(Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p. 156).

3.3.1. Organizational Change Context

The highlighted eight contextual aspects by Hailey and Balogun (2002) of which the organizational
change context (e.g. time, scope) is comprised will henceforth be referred to as contextual factors or
context factors.

35/128
Time

The time factor considers the necessary speed for strategic actions. Depending on the individual
implementation situation, change can have different timelines to realize the implementation. Whereas
pro-active implementations might have moderate time pressure, turnaround strategies usually have very
high time pressure (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p. 161).

The time factor in strategy implementation and possible reciprocal effects on the remaining factors of
the change kaleidoscope is the most important factor for high-speed implementation in dynamic
environments. Since the remaining factors (i.e. scope, preservation, diversity, capability, capacity,
readiness and power) might also have an effect on the time factor and thereby significantly alter the
implementation options, they will also be included in this master’s thesis. As with the empiric section
unveil, certain interdependencies of single contextual factors have an effect on the measures on
structures, processes and leadership style that were chosen by the focal firm when strategy had to be
implemented under time pressure.

The above mentioned contextual factors have an impact on the design choices such as the change path
or the change starting point a company can chose to implement a strategy (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, pp.
153-173). Therefore, each factor can be an enabler that facilitates a specific path or a constraint that
hinders a certain path and thus alters the possible implementation approaches and additionally might
also change other contextual factors (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, pp. 153-173).

3.3.2. Design Choices

Change path

The change path signifies the type of change that needs to be executed in terms of scope and speed in
order to achieve the desired change. This can range from an incremental change speed to a revolutionary
transformation of a company within a short time aiming at either limited parts of the company or the
whole organization (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p. 161).

Change starting-point

The starting point of the implementation of the change process is the initial point for the implementation
to be carried out through either top-down or bottom-up approaches (e.g. organizational culture) through
trial implementations to test effectiveness or immediate real-life initiatives (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p.
161).

36/128
Change style

The change styles which can be chosen to conduct change range from coercive to education and
communication (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, pp. 153-173). In combination with top-down and bottom-up
approaches change styles can be paired with appropriate leadership styles (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p.
161).

Change target

The change targets are either aimed at output, behavior, attitudes, values or combinations thereof (Hailey
& Balogun, 2002, p. 161). Here, narrow interventions such as integrated approaches aimed at structures,
systems, power networks and company culture are possible (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p. 161).

Change interventions (levers)

Change levers or interventions are used in the technical, political and cultural arena in organizations but
also on a personal level with employees to enable change ranging from intensive communication to
individual development (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p. 161).

Change roles

Distribution of competencies and responsibilities for implementing change in combination with a

definition of change roles (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p. 161).

In addition, Hailey and Balogun, (2002) suggest to combine the necessary speed of change of
implementation and the extent in order to find the right path for change ranging from incremental to
revolutionary and from transformation to re-alignment.

The previously mentioned contextual factors and the combination of urgency and extent for the strategic
option also alter the change path a company might take. Thereby, the initial force for implementation
and change can reside in a top–down or a bottom-up approach (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p. 162). Also,
the starting point may vary depending on the contextual factors and can later spread to other parts of a
company either simultaneously or in waves. In a next step, the combination of implementation starting
point and implementation change leads management to different change styles ranging from
education/communication, collaboration/participation, direction and coercion to intervention (Hailey &
Balogun, 2002, p. 162). The change kaleidoscope for strategy implementation suggests to make out
constraints and enablers in the contextual factors, choose the change path and choose remaining choices

37/128
(i.e. starting point, target, style, levers and roles) for every individual part of the change process (Hailey
& Balogun, 2002, p. 173).

With the increase of international business networks an increasing level of complexity has to be
anticipated, which adds to the complexity of strategic management also within the organization. Thus,
different external factors might have different effects on single contextual factors within the organization
and therefore have to be considered not only individually but also in combination with interrelations to
other contextual factors which predetermine the design choices for strategy implementation under time
pressure. Consequently, strategy implementation in a dynamic environment has a high level of
influencing factors which call for an idiosyncratic approach in how to plan the realization of strategies.
The subsequent chapter will therefore highlight the author’s suggested design choices for a successful
attempt.

3.4. Design Choices in High Speed Strategy Implementation

This chapter will focus on the different design choices with special attention to the contextual factor of
time. Several authors have elaborated on the implementation of both deliberate and emergent strategies
in dynamic environments (e.g. Kopmann et al., 2017; Bolisani & Bratianu, 2017; Ayiecha & Senaji,
2014; Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988; Graetz, 2002; Noble, 1999). Here, authors offer a variety of
suggestions, they mentioned both similar and diverging ways of how to address dynamic environments
in strategy implementation.

Additionally, while some authors suggested focusing on only one key area in design choices others
called for the adjustment of several areas to cope with time pressure. In order to emphasize the
importance of contextual factors in general and the time factor in strategy implementation under time
pressure in particular, an overview of authors dealing with the topic and which focus they were
promoting classified according to the different design choices of the change kaleidoscope proposed by
Hailey and Balogun (2002) will be presented.

Change path/starting point

Nguyen Huy (2001) recommends using the alternation of values and beliefs and also change social
relationships of a company at the beginning of the change path in the implementation of strategies and
thereby focuses on the starting point. Brauer and Schmidt (2006) also address the change path by
suggesting to be opportunistic in the implementation process and alter the process whenever recent
developments might make it necessary. In addition, Noble (1999) also sees the starting point in strategy

38/128
implementation as vital for companies and he therefore proposes to achieve a consensus about the
implementation process amongst staff as an important prevalence. Furthermore, the alternation of the
organizational structure to be flexible is seen as a success factor and if a flexible organizational structure
would not be possible it is also recommended to change the leadership style (Noble, 1999, pp. 119 -132).

Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) propose to address the starting point of implementing strategy when
time pressure was high and state that the seemingly contradictory starting point in high-speed strategy
implementation should be the development of rational and deliberate strategies. Even if time was scarce,
the thorough search for alternatives, articulation and implementation should be part of every process in
combination with clear communication and quickly made decisions once the processes are agreed upon
(Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988, p. 829).

Change target/levers

In addition to the change starting point, Nguyen Huy (2001) also addresses change target and levers and
notes that if time pressure was high, a commanding approach could be the best choice. Nguyen Huy
(2001) also provides a word of caution since a commanding style could raise retention from employees,
in that case the author proposes to combine different change approaches.

In as similar vein, Ayiecha and Senaji (2014) also call for the change of the corporate culture if it is not
suitable to the implementation of a new strategy, which is especially crucial in the implementation of
turnaround strategies. Also, Ahmadi et al. (2012) and Noble (1999) focus on the alternation of corporate
culture and processes in order to achieve a favorable environment for strategy implementations in a
dynamic environment. While Ahmadi et al. (2012) suggest to alter the entire corporate culture towards
the principle of flexible organizations (e.g. adhocracy culture, clan culture) which would enable
companies to successfully change strategy in a dynamic environment, Noble (1999) recommends to alter
the organization or parts of it in order to have an increased level of flexibility.

Change style

In addition to the change starting point and change levers, Nguyen Huy (2001) has a focus on change
style when it comes to strategy implementation. He proposes four distinct intervention styles when
dealing with implementation: commanding intervention, engineering intervention, teaching intervention
and socializing intervention.

39/128
In the event of time scarcity, Nguyen Huy (2001) recommends to make use of a commanding
intervention or a blend of interventions including commanding intervention in order to have a favorable
result. In addition to the change path, Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) also aim at change styles when
they propose to use a blend of different elements in changing the organization such as strategy
implementation. The combination of both autocratic and participative leadership styles would ensure a
clear and quick decision making process (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988, p. 831).

Additionally, Brauer and Schmidt (2006) see explorative elements in combination with exploitative
elements as useful and thus also emphasize that strategy implementation should not only be aimed at
rationalizing processes by implementing strategy but also allow for the evolution of new resources which
might be uncovered during the implementation. In a similar manner, Prajogo (2016) proposes not only
exploitation but also exploration (e.g. product and process innovations) as they appear in dynamic
environments in order to increase business performance.

Finally, Graetz (2002) comes to a similar conclusion by promoting the use of both strategic planning
and strategic thinking as a combination of exploitation and exploration, blending a static and a flexible
approach which were confirmed as being beneficial in dynamic environments when combined with
decentralization (Pertusa-Ortega & Molina-Azorin, 2018, p. 94).

Change roles

Apart from change style Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) also focus on change roles in implementation.
They propose to assign certain activities to certain groups within the firm. Initial decisions about how to
implement strategy should be made at the top-management level in order to achieve important legitimacy
and momentum by exerting autocracy (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988, p. 832). At a later stage, it is vital
to delegate the authority to lower-level management in order to transfer control to the parts of the
organization where activities are based. The combination of both approaches by decentralizing decision
authority at a later stage of strategy implementations ensures quick decision making and thereby support
strategy implementation in high-velocity environments (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988, p. 831).

The review of past literature about the subject offers a diverse and broad picture of recent research
avenues. It reveals that the starting point and the change path of strategy implementation under time
pressure have received significant attention from Nguyen Huy (2001) and Bourgeois and Eisenhardt,
(1988) to name a few. All of the aforementioned authors also addressed the change style of strategy
implementation in that they offer different change styles to be used in a dynamic environment and
recommend to either use specific styles or even multiple change styles simultaneously to ensure

40/128
timeliness of the decision making process and avoiding alienation of affected staff members at the same
time.

What also attracted considerable attention has been the change levers of strategy implementation.
Ayiecha and Senaji (2014) call for the change of corporate culture if it would hinder a quick and
successful implementation of a new strategy, with either changing values and beliefs or social
relationships. In a similar vein, Ahmadi et al. (2012) proposes the alternation of the corporate culture
and the organizational structure towards either an adhocracy or a clan structure since they would support
quick decisions to be put in practice.

Finally, change roles have also attracted some attention by researchers. Eisenhardt (1984) focused on
the division of decision making to initial decisions made by top management and the subsequent
delegation of tasks to middle management at a later stage in the implementation process.

Combinations of design choices

What is also noteworthy is the different focus researchers have had and the combinations of different
areas they made in order to provide a thorough approach of the implementation process under time
pressure. While some elaborated on two to four different design choices with regard to the time factor
considered in the change kaleidoscope, some focused on a single area. Also, the combinations of
different areas researchers made were distinct and thus will be highlighted below.

While Ayiecha and Senaji (2014) focused only on the levers/targets, others see the necessity to make
changes in more areas when implementing strategy in a high-speed manner. Ahmadi et al. (2012) and
Noble (1999) addressed the change target/levers. Both papers proposed the alternation of the entire
organization or parts of the organization in terms of values and beliefs. The combination of change
style/starting point and path has been the focus of several researchers. In fact, Brauer and Schmidt (2006)
and Nguyen Huy (2001) elaborated on both. Thus, the change style (e.g. commanding style, participative
style) and a possible alternation of the change style and other factors over the course of the
implementation process seem to be seen as especially relevant for authors in the implementing of
strategy in a dynamic environment.

Finally, Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) have focused on almost every section of the change
kaleidoscope’s design choices. They not only addressed style and roles by promoting an initial top-down
approach when implementing strategy but also delegate control to lower level management after the
implementation process has been initiated and addressed the change path and its starting point when

41/128
stating that deliberate strategy implementation can be a valuable choice in strategy implementation also
in the event of time pressure (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988, p. 826). Thus, Bourgeois and Eisenhardt
(1988) provided the most thorough work on strategy implementation and see the necessity of the
broadest alternation attempt of several parts of the organization prior or during high-speed
implementation.

The wide variety of change paths have made it clear that strategy implementation in a dynamic
environment is not only dependent on the availability of time. Instead, different aspects such as the type
of change and other factors such as the scope of change, available capacity or readiness very much
influence other factors and ultimately the available choices for strategy implementation. The author’s
individual perspectives on different scenarios with different circumstances in dynamic environments
thus led them to different recommendations as to which design choices to use in a dynamic environment.

42/128
4. Strategy Implementation and the Time Factor
Several authors have addressed strategy implementation in dynamic environments and the need for quick
execution of the implementation in general and the effects of time pressure in particular (e.g. Argouslidis,
Baltas & Mavrommatis, 2015; Al-Kandi, Asutay & Dixon, 2013; Radomska, 2014). The body of
literature thereby is widespread and focuses on different aspects of the topic at hand ranging from general
implications the time factor has on strategic projects and their contextual factors to the focus on the
implementation of specific strategies and their affectedness by time constraints. This section will be
aimed at providing evidence of the time factor’s effects on strategy implementation.

Rahman and DeFeis (2009) state that companies in fast-changing environments almost always have to
cope with time pressure. Often too many interdependencies and a shortage of time not only affect
strategy implementation but the decision-making process as a whole. Decision makers are often aware
that constant improvement may lead to a competitive advantage, but often times it is only a temporary
competitive advantage and managers are forced to continue developing further to preserve the
competitive advantage under constant time pressure.

Al-Kandi, Asutay and Dixon (2013) found that the failure rate in strategy implementation is very high,
in fact, up to 70% have an unsuccessful outcome. The possibility of success in implementing a strategy
decreases when the velocity of external factors is high and repeated quick reactions have to be made
(Radomska, 2014, p. 38.) Although supervision can decrease the adverse effects, time pressure in
implementation is not seen as being positive. In a similar vein, Huy (2011) found evidence in interviews
with senior executives that they mainly see time pressure as a hindering factor for the successful
implementation of strategies.

Although time pressure is mainly seen as a disadvantage, other findings have been put forward as well.
Argouslidis, Baltas and Mavrommatis (2015) claim that environment complexity negatively affects the
speed in which companies can reach and implement decisions on whether or not to discontinue certain
products in a product line. However, they also mention that they have mixed evidence with regard to the
speed of decision making and implementation in a turbulent environment. Especially polychronicity (i.e.
the exertion of several tasks at once) has a positive impact because external turbulences make
polychromic work in implementation even more beneficial (Argouslidis et al., 2015, p. 282).

Although Argouslidis et al. (2015) are not specifically claiming that quick decisions and
implementations are always superior, they state that it can be very beneficial. Also Yew Wong (2005)
states that decision speed can have positive effects on the implementation process. However, he also

43/128
points to the necessity to provide enough resources, one of which being time to enable employees to
perform in the process (Yew Wong, 2005, p. 272). In addition, providing opportunities and time
resources to get familiar with new procedures and ensure learning is of particular importance in
implementation (Yew Wong, 2005, p. 272).

The high relevance of time pressure on strategy implementation outlined in this chapter in combination
with a high failure rate in dynamic environments underline the strong effect of time and complexity on
strategy implementation. The following chapter will therefore continue the focus on the previously made
design choices and outline views and methods of how to deal with time constraints in strategy
implementation.

4.1. Ways to Cope with Time Constraints

Before authors’ view on strategy implementation in a dynamic environment and proposed methods to
deal with time constraints are presented, it is important to mention that some of the subsequently
highlighted approaches might be applied differently by different companies operating in various
industries with different perceptions and implications of strategic and tactical actions. Strategies are
usually perceived as the long-term goal of a company while tactics being the incremental steps towards
achieving the formulated strategy. Strategy is the pursuit of a desired state in a particular market (Müller-
Stewens & Lechner, 2011, p. 17).
“Strategy entails designing business models (and redesigning them as contingents occur) to
allow the organization to reach its goals……. Similar to strategy, tactics are also plans of
action. Tactics are courses of actions that take place within the bounds drawn by the firm’s
business model.” (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010, p. 204)
However, in light of the different industries with significantly differing time horizons with regards to
strategy and tactics, the distinction might become increasingly blurred. Müller-Stewens and Lechner
(2011) point to the fact that strategy is not static and is constantly adjusted by strategic initiatives
depending on internal and external influences.

These strategic initiatives span a wide variety of coordinated tactics to achieve the formulated future
state of the company and are not only intended but also emergent and might in turn influence the initially
pursued strategy (Müller-Stewens & Lechner, 2011, p. 18). Also, the increased dynamism due to
globalization and disruptive innovations might additionally shift perceptions on strategy and strategic
initiative and tactics to a heightened emphasis on initiatives and tactics. An additional shift in the
balancing of strategy and tactics such as an increased use of strategic initiatives and tactics at the cost of

44/128
deliberate strategies might be possible. In addition, strategic initiatives and tactical instruments might be
increasingly used as a means to implement whole strategies in uncertain and dynamic environments. The
present chapter will therefore highlight views on strategy implementation in dynamic environments and
concrete tools of how to address them. As will subsequently be outlined in this chapter, Rigby,
Sutherland and Takeuchi (2016) mentioned the transition from Agile approaches initially used in
software development and thereby being rather a tactic instead of a strategy increasingly used as a means
to implement strategies. Here, the use of Agile approaches has been mentioned as a way to transform
companies to flexible, innovative entities being able to address changes in a short time period and also
to turn companies around in the face of threating events (Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50).

As previously mentioned, current research on high-speed strategy implementation in dynamic

environments provides a rather scattered picture. In chapter 3.4., several suggestions by authors under
contextual viewpoints regarding design choices (i.e. change path, starting point, target, style,
interventions and roles) in implementation processes when time pressure for the implementation is
apparent were presented (e.g. Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988; Nguyen Huy, 2001). Here, the initial
alternation of the organizational culture in order to enable quick implementations and the
implementation of deliberate strategies are discussed controversially with opposing results, while
Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) see an advantage of implementing deliberate strategies, Rahman and
DeFeis (2009) do not and point to the fact that deliberate strategies would leave little room for
alternations in dynamic environments. Additionally, change levers and change styles were areas of
interest as researchers mentioned points for adjustments, several authors see the change of values and
beliefs of ill-fitted organizations as the main area for improvement (Ayiecha & Senaji, 2014, pp 88-93;
Nguyen Huy, 2001, p 601). Additionally, Ahmadi et al. (2012) suggest to transform the organization
towards an adhocracy culture or a clan culture which would enable companies to successful change
strategy in a dynamic environment. Finally, change style and its positive impact on high speed strategy
implementation has also attracted the attention of authors (e.g. Brauer & Schmidt, 2006; Nguyen Huy,
2001; Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988)

Most authors recommend a blend of different leadership styles including commanding intervention,
engineering intervention, teaching intervention and socializing intervention, tailored to the need of the
company. Thereby, some authors recommend using both autocratic and participative leadership styles
either in an alternating or simultaneous fashion (Nguyen Huy, 2001, p 606; Bourgeois & Eisenhardt,
1988, p. 831). Since time pressure in a dynamic environment has heavy impact on the implementation
and an increase of dynamism is likely, authors developed theories of how to adapt implementation. Over

45/128
time, initial general assumptions subsequently developed into more specific guidelines under the
viewpoint of different contextual factors and recommendations as to which adaptions in structures,
processes and leadership styles to make were articulated. Nevertheless, the outcomes were partly
contradictory and lacked a thorough framework.

In a dynamic environment however, companies would heavily benefit from a readily available
framework they could quickly apply and would help them to institutionalize repeated quick strategy
implementation whenever a dynamic environment makes it necessary. The consequence of readily
available and applicable frameworks could be an increase of success prospects and the probability to
survive a globalized and dynamic environment. Over the course of time, several promising attempts to
establish frameworks were made, hence, the present chapter will highlight different approaches by
authors on strategy implementation in dynamic environments starting from the use of a set of single
actions to the use of full frameworks.

In the area of international joint ventures Luo, Tan and O’Connor (2001) have stated that companies
need to align their strategic management to dynamic environments in a variety of ways. Firms such as
IJV’s develop very distinct strategic management approaches in dynamic environments, depending on
different factors like hostility, complexity and dynamic of the market. According to Luo, Tan and
O’Connor (2001), companies in a dynamic environment seek to achieve risk-adjusted efficiency but also
emerging opportunities. Thus, companies were found to engage in an analyzer orientation proposed by
Miles, Snow, Meyer & Coleman (1978) balancing both opportunities and threats. By being an analyzer
organization, companies pursuing cost minimization whenever possible but also engaging in risky
innovation opportunities (Luo, Tan & O’Connor, 2001, p. 20). Each of the aforementioned main sources
of dynamism affect companies and force them to both carefully be aware of changes in the environment
and quickly react to changes. The growing dynamic influences force almost all areas of business to
increase the pace by which processes are executed. Especially for strategic management and strategy
implementation, this fact signifies the need to detect changes earlier and more quickly implement the
necessary changes.

Volberda, et al. (2011) offer several concepts and possible alternatives to strategic management in order
to address dynamic environments. Firstly, Volberda et al. (2011) suggest strategists to take on a different
mindset which values both flexibility and speed in decision making. Furthermore, it is highlighted that
a company’s core competences must be leveraged to meet external influences and thereby provide
unique values for potential customers as the mere reliance on internal resources is not sufficient

46/128
(Volberda et al., 2011, p. 2). Moreover, a heavy dependence on resources could impose a threat in a
dynamic environment in that it may manifest itself in a core rigidity of the company that might, due to
its typically higher level of inertness compared to external factors, hinder the company from establishing
an integration from both internal and external resources (Volberda et al., 2011, p. 2).

In light of these propositions, Volberda et al. (2011) state different ways to meet the demands of a
globalized dynamic business environment. One way to address dynamism is to engage in cooperative
strategies, enabling companies to bundle forces and at the same time share objectives (Volberda et al.,
2011, pp. 1-13). Cooperative strategies (e.g. strategic alliances, joint ventures) allow companies to gain
additional benefits and insights they would not have achieved acting on their own and this leads to
impressive results (Volberda et al., 2011, p. 7). At the same time, entrepreneurial abilities should find
its way to strategic management, innovation management and the development of dynamic capabilities
(Madsen, 2010, pp. 223-240; Volberda, et al., 2011, p. 9; Subramanian & Balanagarajan, 2018, p. 17).
Also, the ability to find opportunities and rapidly monetize on them can be achieved by a constant
scanning of the environment. To achieve an entrepreneurial climate, Volberda et al. (2011) propose to
encourage strategic managers to engage in environmental scanning and provide support and trust also in
times of failures.

Another proposed way of dealing with dynamism is strategic renewal which emphasizes the change of
locus of fit. Instead of the prevalence of strategic fit between structure, competences, resources and
processes and opportunities and threats, strategic renewal should draw the focus to a dynamic strategic
fit addressing dynamic environments being in a constant flux (Schmitt, Barker, Raisch & Whetten, 2016,
p. 362; Volberda, et al., 2011, pp. 1-13). Since competitive advantages increasingly become only
temporarily relevant and stable periods become disrupted increasingly, the balancing of stability and
change becomes even more important (Volberda et al., 2011, pp. 11-13). Strategic management in stable
conditions mostly establishes a rigid structure enabling the exploitation of resources. In dynamic
environments however, a flexible and emergent approach (i.e. risk-taking, experimentation, discover
new ideas) which enables the exploration of opportunities becomes important (Volberda, et al., 2011,
pp. 1-13; Kopmann et al., 2017, pp. 557-570).

Although promising, Volberda, et al. (2011) admit that the combination of exploitative and explorative
strategic approaches is difficult to achieve. While exploitation can lead to inertia, exploration drives
away exploitation which makes different organizational models and processes for each approach

47/128
necessary (Volberda et al., 2011, pp. 1-13). However, Volberda et al. (2011) propose that strategic
renewal can be achieved by exerting strategic flexibility. Companies should therefore nurture a flexible
strategic approach in all of the organization’s sectors. Organizations that can quickly and sustainably
implement new approaches and apply new knowledge through corporate entrepreneurship will be able
to achieve strategic renewal and be able to effectively cope with a dynamic environment and their
opportunities (e.g. Glaser, Fourne & Elfring, 2015; Volberda, et al., 2011).

In a similar vein, Kopmann et al. (2017) propose to combine traditional approaches with flexible
approaches. Kopmann et al. (2017) recommend the use of deliberate strategies but also allow for
emergent strategies which positive interaction effect has been confirmed. Although they point to the
decrease of effectiveness of deliberate strategies with the degree of dynamism, they see deliberate
strategies as a valuable framework for a company’s orientation. However, similar to O’Reilly and
Tushman (2008) and Volberda et al. (2011), also Kopmann et al. (2017) recommend the use of static
models and exploitation alongside emergent, flexible and explorative tools. In the formulation and
implementation of deliberate strategies Kopmann et al. (2017) see the positive effects of providing
clarity of strategic direction and also prioritization of projects especially in dynamic environments.
Furthermore, Kopmann et al. (2017) strongly emphasize the need to incorporate strategic control
mechanisms.

Control mechanisms such as project portfolio management (i.e. premise control and implementation
control) monitor and analyze the progress of current projects in order to uncover deviations. Hence,
project portfolio management in dynamic environments has been the focus of authors and also positioned
as a dynamic capability (e.g. Killen & Hunt, 2010; Petit & Hobbs, 2010).

Finally, Kopmann et al. (2017) point to findings regarding an attempt to merge both planning and
emergent approaches. According to Kopmann et al. (2017) planned emergence can be achieved using
formal planning and control processes like combination of deliberate top-down strategy processes with
emergent strategies and thereby enhancing performance. Thus, planned emergence has received
increased attention from authors dealing with various topics in manufacturing and strategy (Kopmann et
al., 2017, pp. 557-570). The partly similar proposals of Volberda et al. (2011) and Kopmann et al. (2017)
to combine static and emergent strategies were also mentioned by several other authors. Their ideas
share some striking parallels with the proposals by researchers named as dynamic capabilities (e.g. Zollo
& Winter, 2002; Wang & Ahmed, 2007; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997).

48/128
 4.1.1. Dynamic Capabilities
Dynamic capabilities are a an extension of the resource based view of the firm in that it considered the
pivotal role of strategic management when dealing with dynamism in the environment and has been
stated to be achieved by inside operating routines stemming from internal processes and a firms history
(Teece & Pisano, 1994, p. 537).

Dynamic capabilities initially have been a theoretic view of how to be successful in dynamic
environments by significantly shortening strategy implementation times when external factors change.
Zollo and Winter (2002) propose to avoid dynamic capabilities to be seen as mere capabilities, instead
they call to see dynamic capabilities as operating routines addressed to tackle uncertainty such as the
ability to execute acquisition integration processes in a systematic and predictable manner.

Dynamic capabilities imply the possibility to execute activities in a patterned fashion (Schilke, Hu &
Helfat, 2018, p. 393). Zollo and Winter (2002) state that dynamic capabilities evolve from learning
mechanisms such as knowledge articulation and knowledge codification and the co-evolution of tacit
experience accumulation processes and lead into dynamic capabilities (e.g. restructuring, acquisition
integration). Thereby, articulation and codification of knowledge are vital for the development of
dynamic capabilities and have different levels of effectiveness in different settings. Thus, the
codification of knowledge has greater effectiveness in the development of dynamic capabilities when
disruptions occur infrequently (Zollo & Winter, 2002, p. 339). Therefore, both articulation and
codification are complementary and ensure that experiences undergo a reflection process (Zollo &
Winter, 2002, pp. 339-351).

Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) mention that in order to sustain competitive advantages, strategic
management has heavily relied on a focus on firm level analyses which is not suitable for a deeper
understanding as to why and how companies create and protect competitive advantages in unstable
environments. Dynamic capabilities depart from the notion of firm-specific capabilities as the
determinants of a company’s performance. Although the resource-based view acknowledges competitive
advantage, it failed to explain the underlying mechanisms that lead to the development and safeguarding
of competitive advantages (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997, p. 510).

While the resource-based view in moderately dynamic environments is enhanced by merging of the path
dependent logic of leverage with the path altering strategic logic of change, in highly dynamic
environments the strategic imperative of the resource-based view is change instead of leverage

49/128
(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000, p. 1118). The constant building and reconfiguring of both external and
internal competences ensure the survival of a company in a dynamic environment.

Dynamic capabilities are simple, non-analytic and iterative and thereby enable companies to develop
situation-specific knowledge which is applied with simple boundary and prioritization rules (Eisenhardt
& Martin, 2000, pp. 1105-1121). Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) point to the two main aspects of the
term dynamic capabilities with the term dynamic referring to the ability to alter or renew competences
in order to achieve a fit with a changing environment and the term capabilities stressing the role of
strategic management in reconfiguring those competences and resources to meet the needs of a dynamic
environment. Thus, Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) state “We define dynamic capabilities as the firm’s
ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing
environments” (p. 516).

Dynamic capabilities enable organizations to engage in both exploration and exploitation (Benner &
Tushman, 2003, pp. 238-256). In general, two directions in the definition of corporate capabilities can
be detected. The first has an apparent focus on activities that make a firm dynamic including the
extension of ordinary capabilities or the ability to reconfigure a firm’s resources and processes (Zahra et
al., 2006, p. 924; Zollo & Winter, 2002, p. 340; Winter, 2003, p. 991). The second has its focus on the
presence of external conditions such as the subset of capabilities allowing companies to create
advantages, organizational and strategic resources that allow firms to allocate new resource
configurations as new markets emerge and the development of new competences to respond to dynamic
environments (Rindova & Taylor, 2002, p. 6; Teece & Pisano, 1994, p. 541; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000,
p. 1107).

Both approaches combined create a blend of exploration and exploitation where searching and
evaluating opportunities can be dynamic capabilities such as the routinization and retention of processes
like resource allocation and resource configuration (Madsen, 2010, p. 230).

50/128
 Figure 6: Generic types of dynamic capabilities
(Madsen, 2010, p. 233).

Wang and Ahmed (2007) see dynamic capabilities as a company’s behavioral orientation in the
reconfiguration and adaption of their capabilities and resources in order to meet external factor changes
and although not easy to identify, can be found in a company’s specific capabilities. Eisenhardt and
Martin (2000) have mentioned that the definition of dynamic capabilities were the target of criticism
since they lacked clarity and were mainly non-operational. However, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000)
provide examples of dynamic capabilities such as the integration of resources.

Here, the combination of skills and knowledge to create products and services that generate profit are
considered as dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000, p. 1107). Also, the reconfiguration such
as transferring knowledge-based resources into different parts of a company or the allocation of scarce
resources when dynamic environments make adjustments necessary can be dynamic capabilities. On a
more strategic level, the establishment and constant reconfiguration of synergies in combining resources
throughout different parts of an organization can also be a dynamic capability aimed at quick
reallocations in dynamic environments (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000, pp. 1105-1121). Additionally,

51/128
Winter (2003) emphasizes that dynamic capabilities are different from ad-hoc problem solving.
Therefore, establishing dynamic capabilities call for processes which enable the organization to inherit
dynamic capabilities and allow for the separation of both activities in exploration and exploitation in the
organization (Kliesch-Eberl & Schreyögg, 2007, pp. 918-933). While ad-hoc problem solving (e.g.
quickly reacting to external influences) has no underlying pattern and occurs as a result of novel and
unique changes in the environment, dynamic capabilities are considered to be routines to address
frequently occurring changes such as the switch to learned change roles whenever needed and the switch
back to regular routines when the change was accomplished (Winter, 2003, pp. 991-995). The
development of dynamic capabilities as routines and specialized resources need therefore long-term
consideration which typically leads to higher costs than the mere ad-hoc problem solving approach
(Winter, 2003, pp. 991-995).

While some dynamic environments are similar across firms and can be analyzed comparatively, others
may be very different among firms operating in distinct industries (e.g. knowledge creation and transfer).
Dynamic capabilities are very distinct with regards to the dynamism of the environment; while linear
incremental decisions and implementations are suitable for moderately dynamic environments they are
not suitable for highly dynamic environments. In moderately dynamic environments where change
occurs on predictable paths, dynamic capabilities mainly rely on readily available knowledge residing
in the company. Thus, managers must thoroughly analyze the situation and plan their subsequent actions
in a structured and analytic fashion (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000, p.1110).

In highly dynamic environments where market boundaries, successful business models and market
players are in a constant flux and therefore nonlinear and less predictable, companies cannot rely on
existing knowledge to the same degree as in moderately dynamic environments. Here, new knowledge
directed at the new situation has to be developed and implemented quickly (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000,
pp. 1105-1121). Therefore, dynamic capabilities cannot be complicated to ensure that managers are
focused on the most urgent issues and preventing them from using established routines and hindering
them from quick actions. However, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) point to the fact that dynamic
capabilities in dynamic environments after all need to have a certain degree of structure in order to
prevent managers from becoming paralyzed by a myriad of information influx in uncertain industries.

Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) further state that dynamic capabilities are only effective when they are
applied sooner and more astutely than competitors and may become irrelevant over the course of time.
In contrast, Wang and Ahmed (2007) state that dynamic capabilities can be indeed a source for

52/128
competitive advantage. The ability to be alert to changes and to implement new strategies swiftly cannot
be copied easily and is costly to imitate (Wang & Ahmed, 2007, pp. 31-51).

Although, the relationship is indirect and additionally mediated by the development of additional
capabilities, Wang and Ahmed (2007) see dynamic capabilities as a means to increase firm performance.
Wang and Ahmed (2007) divide dynamic capabilities into two factors, component factors and underlying
processes. The component factors consist of adaptive capability, absorptive capability and innovative
capability which reside in a company and underlying processes consisting of integration,
reconfiguration, renewal and recreation (Wang & Ahmed, 2007, p. 39).

Wang and Ahmed (2007) propose managers create their dynamic capabilities using benchmarking with
their competitors and by not seeing it as a stand-alone resource but rather seeing it in the context of
several mediating factors including the company´s history, strengths, weaknesses and strategic
orientation. Also, the development of dynamic capabilities must be seen as a long-term process,
therefore, setbacks and failures should not prevent a company from pursuing the development of
dynamic capabilities in a dynamic environment (Wang & Ahmed, 2007, pp. 31-51). O’Reilly and
Tushman (2008) and Teece (2007) state that dynamic capabilities require the alignment of structures,
competencies and cultures and provide three distinctive steps for dynamic capabilities to be achieved.

Sensing

The detection of opportunities in dynamic environments requires routines and resources in the strategy
making process that enable the company to constantly scan and explore the environment (O’Reilly &
Tushman, 2008, p. 190). Also, encouraging the long-term emphasis on exploration and encouraging a
company’s subunits to give constant feedback are important. In this context, O’Reilly and Tushman,
(2008) mentioned the previous top-down articulation of strategic intent in combination with a bottom-
up supply of learning an innovation.

Seizing

Seizing as the next proposed way to develop dynamic capabilities is about the development of the
strategy, followed by the assembling of assets, organizational alignment and consensus in order to ensure
that the needed resources are in place (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008, p. 191).

53/128
Reconfiguring

Reconfiguration is the subsequent realignment of resources to the needed area (i.e. shifting of resources
away from mature business to exploration and vice versa). The recombination of resources in
combination with the alignment of organizational structures such as decentralization as proposed by Cao
(2011) need to be exerted timely in order to meet the needs as markets change and therefore may need
to be exerted in parallel (Teece, 2007, p. 1341-1343). Reconfiguring is again heavily dependent on
management’s ability to provide resources, their willingness to change organizational systems and a
guiding incentive scheme (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003, pp. 997-1010). With the three activities in dynamic
capabilities firms can increase the company’s longstanding eligibility rather than efficiency in the
present situation (Schoemaker, Heaton & Teece, 2018, p. 36).

Now that several authors have outlined the potential benefits of the development of dynamic capabilities
in dynamic environments, the question remains unanswered as to which capabilities should be
developed. Felin and Powell (2016) addressed this question by focusing on organizational structures and
processes, they suggest to initially use polyarchy to differentiate their organizational structure to enable
sensing, shaping and seizing of market opportunities. Polyarchy thereby being the opposite of autocracy
enabling individuals to make decisions about their work themselves by embracing decentralized
organizational forms. Here, polyarchy goes beyond decentralization and enables high potential
specialists of all organizational levels to detect opportunities and also suggest projects, teams and
budgets for the opportunities and threats the environments holds (Felin & Powell, 2016, p. 83).

According to Felin and Powell (2016), the company functions as a resource provider for employees and
does not provide strict guidelines as to how to develop dynamic capabilities but rather offers guidance
in decision making by asking questions as to the most valuable or highest impact. This also signifies that
the development of dynamic capabilities resides in all employees not just top management and is ideally
tied to incentives for idea generation. Polyarchy should nevertheless be coupled with a counterbalance
of social proof, reducing the danger that a single use of polyarchy might have (Felin & Powell, 2016,
pp. 78-96). Thereby, groups of people will value ideas developed under polyarchy according to their
usefulness and ultimately approve them.

The underlying reason for the combination of polyarchy and social proof is the separation of sensing and
seizing of opportunities since idea generation is usually better performed individually while seizing
opportunities are performed better in groups (Felin & Powell 2016, pp.78-96). To make their point, Felin
and Powell (2016) provide the example of Valve Corporation, which they consider a real life example

54/128
for the development of dynamic capabilities. Valve Corporation is a video game company founded by
former Microsoft employees producing bestsellers in a fast-moving market that forces them to constantly
innovate and adapt (Felin & Powell, 2016, p. 78). Valve has adapted their organization towards a flat
hierarchy enabling employees to individually drive innovative projects and avoid top-down hierarchical
structures and formal processes. The outcome has been the previously mentioned blend of polyarchy
and social proof to fully release employees’ responsiveness and creativity in order to sense and seize
market opportunities. Hence, Valve`s strategy implementation is not deliberate and regulated but rather
emergent and signified by not only one or few big strategy implementations at a time but many smaller
implementations whenever needed. Thereby, Valve has been successful in a dynamic environment by
being able to quickly sense opportunities and integrate necessary strategies swiftly (Felin & Powell,
2016, p. 79).

In connection with dynamic capabilities Madsen (2010) has pointed out the connection between
entrepreneurial orientation and dynamic capabilities and claims that several authors assumed that
entrepreneurial activities and management practice can foster the creation of new resource combinations.
Thereby, unveiling an association of entrepreneurial traits, resource-based theory and dynamic
capabilities (Madsen, 2010, pp. 223-240). Entrepreneurial traits therefore are believed to increase the
possibility of companies to engage in new markets and develop new products, which makes quick
strategy implementations necessary and more likely to be successful. Madsen (2010) claims that the
presence of entrepreneurial traits in a company makes different use of dynamic capabilities from the
previously mentioned approaches probable.

The proactive use of dynamic capabilities and the will to innovate and take risks makes a more forward
looking use likely, culminating in actions made proactively to achieve a desired future state (Madsen,
2010, pp. 223-240). Thus, entrepreneurial orientation is positively associated with dynamic capabilities
(Teece & Leih, 2016, p. 9; Griffith, Noble & Chen, 2006, pp. 51-62; Madsen, 2010, pp 223-240).

Here, the main interest is which traits are to be considered entrepreneurial, how do they emerge and how
would they help to develop dynamic capabilities in order to address dynamic environments. Carland,
Hoy, Boulton and Carland (1984) mentioned both normative and empirical findings of other researchers
with regard to personal traits of entrepreneurs including risk-bearing, innovative, initiative, ambitious,
power conscious, achievement conscious, risk taking, independence oriented, energetic and growth
oriented.

55/128
Although some of the previously mentioned traits are considered to be inherent in entrepreneurs, Carland
et al. (1984) also mention that not only entrepreneurs are prone to risk taking but also small business
owners and therefore, being a real entrepreneur is not automatically equal to being more likely to engage
in disruptive innovations. It is also the concept of ownership in combination with entrepreneurship that
influences the probability of being risk taking (Carland et al., 1984, p. 356).

Since several researchers state that entrepreneurs have a higher level of risk taking and uncertainty and
are additionally more likely and willing to engage in dynamic environments, disruptive innovations and
technologies, they might have a natural advantage over other businesspeople when it comes to the
implementation and monetization of new innovations and the previously mentioned advantage in the
development of dynamic capabilities (Griffith, Noble & Chen, 2006, pp. 51-62; Madsen, 2010, pp. 223
-240). In fact Adomako, Quartey and Narteh (2016) found that entrepreneurial managers had a higher
level of passion for their work in dynamic environments and this passion for work positively influenced
firm performance.

Lee and Hsieh (2010) also follow the notion that entrepreneurship is signified by being innovative, taking
risks, being proactive and is in combination with the right business structure especially advantageous in
engaging in innovation. Lee and Hsieh (2010) investigated the connection between entrepreneurship,
marketing and innovation capabilities. They drew a linear structure model and used software to analyze
data collected from 1000 Taiwanese manufacturers. They found that entrepreneurial characteristics
positively influenced innovative capabilities, which directly influenced the level of competitive
advantage (Lee & Hsieh, 2010, p. 109). In addition, several other authors found evidence that
entrepreneurial traits would foster the adoption of innovative approaches (Marcati, Guido & Peluso,
2008, p. 1588; Salavou & Lioukas, 2003, p. 94).

Finally, Subramanian and Balanagarajan (2018) mentioned the concept of exponential entrepreneurship,
whereby entrepreneurs are combined with innovative businesses or technical innovations. Exponential
innovation is more likely than ever due to the influence of digital technologies, frequent market
disruptions and globalization. When combined with exponential entrepreneurship, innovations and
technologies can become disruptive immediately (Subramanian & Balanagarajan, 2018, p. 17).

Exponential entrepreneurs are risk bearing and innovative businesspeople who are willing to offer
products and services that not only bring value to customers but also address major problems of our
time. Thus, by combining entrepreneurs and their specific traits with innovation, exponential growth can
be achieved (Subramanian & Balanagarajan, 2018, p. 17). By avoiding incremental steps in favor for

56/128
disruptive moves, exponential entrepreneurs can take advantage in a dynamic environment
(Subramanian & Balanagarajan, 2018, p. 17).

The vast majority of authors see dynamic capabilities as an internal source to address dynamic
environments and significantly reduce implementation times. The development and impact of dynamic
capabilities is seen differently as most authors aim to combine adjustments in a company’s structure,
processes and leadership style in order to enable the evolvement of dynamic capabilities (Wang &
Ahmed, 2007, pp. 31-51; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000, pp. 1105-1121; Felin & Powell, 2016, pp. 78-96).
However, it is worth mentioning that some researchers state that dynamic capabilities may be applied
differently depending on the company’s approach towards sensing, seizing and reconfiguring activities
(i.e. structural separation, behavioral integration and sequential alternation) and can also be acquired
from outside of the firm (Ambrosini, Bowman & Collier, 2009, pp. 9-24; Birkinshaw, Zimmermann &
Raisch, 2016, pp. 36-58).

Finally, the performance of dynamic capabilities must not in itself lead to improvements in performance
as the right perceptions of the degree of dynamism may lead to a successful outcome (Ambrosini,
Bowman & Collier, 2009, pp. 9-24).

4.1.2. Ambidexterity
With organizational ambidexterity another concept to balance new and existing opportunities in
dynamic environments has been highlighted (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008, p. 189). Thereby,
ambidexterity facilitates new resource configurations in order to achieve a competitive advantage. Thus,
staff or organizational resources can be the source for reconfigured assets of a company to react to
disruptions (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008, pp. 185-206). The quick reconfiguration of resources not only
enables bundling forces for a specific aim but also for the dispersion of resources whenever necessary.

O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) state that companies operating in dynamic environments need less
formally defined processes but more organic systems, organizational ambidexterity is therefore aimed
at the initiation and implementation of innovations while simultaneously engaging in stable markets.
Therefore, ambidexterity focuses on exploitation and exploration efforts in the same company
simultaneously (Tamayo-Torres, Roehrich & Lewis, 2017, pp. 282-299). While both approaches in the
same company were often stated as being contradictory and should therefore be separated, the concept
of ambidexterity implies the possibility to exert both in the same entity (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013, p.
325). This requires companies in an environment signified by environmental and technical change to

57/128
adapt structures and leadership that enable them to exploit and explore without interfering with each
other (Tamayo-Torres, Roehrich & Lewis, 2017, pp. 282-299; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013, p. 328).

Ambidexterity allows for a significant positive connection of exploration and growth in environments
signified by dynamism and radical innovations where exploitation usually has a stronger impact on stable
high-tech industries compared to dynamic low-tech industries (Bierly & Daly, 2007, pp. 493-516).
Additionally, ambidexterity has also been stated as being especially advantageous for larger firms
operating in an uncertain environment, which typically have more resources available as long as the
level of ambidexterity is not over or underused (Cao, Gedajlovic & Zhang, 2009, pp. 781-796; Wang &
Li, 2008, pp. 925-951). Studies have outlined that organizations combining exploitation and exploration
can have better financial performance levels and improved learning levels (Markides & Charitou, 2004,
pp. 22-36; Holmqvist, 2004, pp. 70-81).

Companies can adjust their structures, processes and management style to achieve different forms of
ambidexterity for different environments and situations. However, senior management’s actions,
behaviors and choices (e.g. communication of a strategy emphasizing the need for exploitation and
exploration) will highly influence whether an organization will become ambidextrous and a failure of
senior management will be therefore especially detrimental (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013, p. 328).
O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) mention different ways to achieve ambidexterity both temporarily and
constantly and these are listed below.

Sequential ambidexterity

Sequential ambidexterity is the initial model of ambidexterity in which companies are changing their
processes and structures when confronted with dynamic environments and frequent changes (Kauppila,
2010, pp. 283-312; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013, pp. 324-338). However, exploitation and exploration
are not carried out at the same time, but instead companies switch between exploration and exploitation.
This type used to be successful in the service sector and moderately dynamic environments but is lacking
fine-grained research clarifying how exactly firms accomplish the transition from one point to the other
(O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013, p. 327).

Structural ambidexterity

Structural ambidexterity is an advanced way to engage in both exploration and exploitation. Here, the
simultaneous use of exploitation and exploration is made with the help of separate units within a
company each specializing on either approach allowing for a tailored approach dependent on the

58/128
environment (Papachroni, Heracleous & Paroutis, 2016, p. 1807; Gilbert, 2005, pp. 741-763). In
addition, complementing systems, processes and cultures are often used to facilitate both approaches in
the company’s subunits (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008, p. 192). Structural ambidexterity is achieved by
independent structural units engaging in either exploration or exploitation and an overarching strategic
intent with a common set of values in order to enable the seemingly contradicting approach. The
separation of structures in order to achieve ambidexterity in a company has been the most used approach
in achieving the different challenges of exploitation and explorations simultaneously. Thus, structural
ambiguity is to be considered a leadership issue and a structural issue since tensions between the two
approaches and their different organizational alignments must be addressed by capable management
(Martin & Eisenhardt, 2010, pp. 285-301; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011, p. 9). Furthermore, a
complementary use of integrating activities such as job-rotation, cross-functional teams and cross-
functional decision making additionally foster structural ambidexterity (Hansen, Wicki & Schaltegger,
2018, p. 505).

Contextual ambidexterity

Contextual ambidexterity focuses on the individual level and the achievement to simultaneously exert
exploitation and exploration. It has been stated as the behavioral ability of individuals to engage in both
approaches at the same time and can be achieved by trust and discipline (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004,
p. 214). Thus, contextual ambidexterity has a strong focus on the integration of exploitation and
exploration through social and behavioral means (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009, p. 696).

The prerequisites of contextual ambidexterity are an emphasis on the individual rather than company
subunits and the agreement of the individuals that their subunit is capable of exerting contextual
ambidexterity (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013, p. 329). The exertion of both exploration and exploitation
call for personnel with the right competencies stemming from both experience and educational sources
(Güttel & Kronlechner, 2009, p. 160). An example of how contextual ambidexterity can be achieved is
provided by O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) by pointing to Toyota’s production system where workers
perform routine tasks and job rotation at the same time.

However, the use of sequential, structural and contextual ambidexterity was found to be different
depending on the industry and evidence of applicability is scarce (Fourne, Rosenbusch, Heyden &
Jansen, 2019, p. 574; Kauppila, 2010, pp. 283-312). Instead, only contextual ambidexterity was stated
to be viable in the service sector (Fourne et al., 2019, p. 35). Fourne et al. (2019) further state that
exploration and exploitation do not have to be a contradiction in ambidexterity, instead it can be mutually

59/128
reinforcing. Fourne et al. (2019) additionally point to the fact that both small and large companies can
achieve and benefit from the structural separation of exploitative and explorative activities.

O’Reilly and Tushman (2008) mention that research on dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity has been
signified by two streams. The first being the reconfiguration of capabilities including product
development, coordination and organizational learning within a company to address dynamic
environments with a focus on senior management’s abilities to overcome inertia by the adaption of both
existing and novel assets (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008, pp. 185-206). The second being a company’s
ability to exert exploitation and exploration at the same time with a strong focus on organizational
design.

Thus, both dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity highlight simultaneous exploitation and exploration
to cope with dynamism with a different level of emphasis on processes, structure and leadership style.
However, O’Reilly and Tushman (2008) propose that ambidexterity can be a dynamic capability when
the following propositions are met.

Propositions

• Strategic intent emphasizing the need to exploit and explore at the same time
• Common vision and values providing a common identity
• Consensus among management about strategy
• Aligned organizational architectures (cultures, competencies)
• Senior leadership that resolves contradicting alignments and tensions (O’Reilly & Tushman,
2008, pp. 197-199).

Although difficult to achieve, O’Reilly and Tushman (2008) believe that the strategic contradiction of
exploiting and exploring can be overcome with ambidexterity. It therefore needs a management team
with the right mindset embracing both the vision and the strategic content to align the company’s
organization for this approach.

The previously mentioned dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity have a strong emphasis on the
alternation of structure, processes and leadership style. Although not explicitly mentioned by the referred
authors, the trend in strategic management and in strategy implementation seems to evolve towards an
inherent strategy process in the company. Some authors have highlighted the need to implement dynamic
capabilities as operating routines in order to embrace change as the strategic imperative rather than
leverage (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000, p. 1118; Zollo & Winter, 2002, pp. 339-351). Thereby, internal

60/128
capabilities and competencies are seen as the activities that make the company dynamic and the
allocation of new resource configurations enable firms to respond to dynamic environments (Eisenhardt
& Martin, 2000, p. 1107; Teece & Pisano, 1994, p. 541; Rindova & Taylor, 2002, p. 6). Dynamic
capabilities therefore focus on a blend of explorative activities (e.g. observation and resource renewal)
and exploitative activities (e.g. resource acquisition and resource configuration) (Madsen, 2010, pp. 223-
240).

Organizational ambidexterity is another approach to address dynamic environments and reduce time
consumption to adjust to outside influences and the development and implementation of strategies.
Although O’Reilly and Tushman (2008) point out similarities to dynamic capabilities and state that
ambidexterity can also be a dynamic capability when a common vision and culture throughout the
company is present, it is distinct in that it has an apparent focus on the organizational design. While
dynamic capabilities focus on processes and management style, structural ambidexterity features the
alternation of the organizational design and leadership to address dynamic environments. However, as
Gupta, Smith and Shalley (2006) point out, ambidexterity is not just to be seen entirely as an issue with
regards to an organization’s structure. Instead, it also includes the abilities to reconfigure a company’s
assets and foster learning within the organization.

Although organizational ambidexterity focuses on decentralization, integration and differentiation, it

also very much relies on senior management’s abilities in balancing the contradicting directions
organizational ambidexterity holds (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008, p. 202). Additionally, ambidexterity
might not be used in a static way but can be used in a sequential, structural or contextual fashion, which
further adds to a flexible applicability in dynamic environments (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013, pp. 324-
338). This approach enables companies to fully or partly take advantage of opportunities dynamic
environments might bring by placing an emphasis on constant change and strategic awareness. Both
dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity might significantly cut down on the time needed to detect,
formulate and finally implement a new strategy since an ambidextrous company ideally is in a constant
flux and thus more familiar with changes in the strategy.

As a consequence, the classical planning and implementing process mentioned in chapter 3 seems to
lose influence. Furthermore, the deliberate implementation of strategies were sometimes found to be not
suitable in unstable markets which further enhances the notion of a decreasing applicability in dynamic
environments (Brauer & Schmidt, 2006, p. 217; Rahman & DeFeis, 2009, p. 54). Ambidexterity is aimed
at strategy being implemented from the bottom-up in the organization or parts of the organization rather
than being formulated and implemented in a separate unit. Thus, the aim here seems to be to significantly

61/128
shorten lead times for implementations combined with the awareness and capability of all organizational
parts to cope with strategy implementation. Ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities also emphasize
bottom-up initiatives to ensure feedback from an early stage on which is a significant advantage over
deliberate planning and implementation (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008, p. 185-206). Hence, in dynamic
capabilities and ambidexterity, strategists rather focus on being enabler instead of implementer.

Until now the recommendation to use deliberate strategies in dynamic environments was only
recommended by a few authors highlighted in the deliberate strategy implementation context chapter in
this master’s thesis. However, the revision of frameworks to address dynamic environments (i.e.
dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity) has not brought insight about the use of deliberate strategies in
the aforementioned frameworks. Here, strategic thinking proposed by Graetz (2002) provides an
interesting approach including strategic planning and deliberate strategies.

Graetz (2002) states that strategic thinking or strategic planning cannot only be used individually but
also be combined depending on the dynamism of the environment and the company’s needs and
therefore must not function as a trade-off. Instead, both approaches can be combined in order to
sufficiently address contradicting and quickly changing environments.

4.1.3. Agile/Scrum
With dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity as views on how to address dynamic environments the
focus will now be on suggested tools of how to engage in high speed strategy implementation. A recent
attempt to provide a methodology to address dynamic environments can be seen in the Agile innovation
approach (Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50). Agile innovation derived from software development teams’
approaches to invent new products and is seen as a promising way to replace inflexible line organizations
(Steude, 2017, p. 105). The approach includes Scrum, which focuses on creative teamwork when solving
difficult problems and lean development focusing on the constant minimizing of waste. Furthermore,
Kanban is included in Agile innovation, which has a strong focus in reducing lead time, remaining work
and repetitive planning (Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50). In the Agile innovation approach, small teams
consisting of three to ten people are usually created to tackle a specific problem (Gloger & Margetich,
2014, pp.7-24). Their nature of being cross-functional, self-reliant and self-managing ensures a high
level of independence. The team is led by the team owner. The team owner however being less of a
supervisor but more a facilitator (Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50).

The Agile team develops a roadmap and breaks the most pressing tasks into smaller modules (Vinekar,
Slinkman, & Nerur, 2006, p. 32; Rigby et al., 2016, p. 40-50). However, in sharp contrast to a deliberate

62/128
process, the project is not specified entirely since many instances can change the internal and external
environment (Gloger & Margetich, 2014, p. 7-24). Teams repeatedly hold stand up meetings to identify
and remove problems to their task and thereby significantly speeding up any process and increasing
transparency and employee satisfaction. At the same time, it reduces redundant meetings, waste and
repetitive planning (Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50; Gloger & Margetich, 2014, p. 7-24). Agile innovation
was found to be beneficial for a variety of processes, one of which being speeding up corporate transition
(Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50).

According to Rigby et al. (2016), especially in turnaround scenarios where strategies had to be
implemented under high time pressure, the approach raised awareness. Rigby et al. (2016) further state,
that the main guidelines in the Agile innovation methodology are not to change structures but roles, to
name only one boss for each decision, to focus on teams and not to lead with orders. The idea behind
the guidelines and the approach in general being that independent teams are addressing a specific
problem, rather than using a waterfall process where tasks and processes were organized in a sequential
top-down fashion. The drawback of waterfall approaches however is the reliance on predictive planning
and extensive control (Rigby, Berez, Caimi, & Noble, 2015, pp. 1-13).

The waterfall approach also often leads to slow results and an overload of repetitive and unnecessary
work, which is especially counterproductive in volatile environments (Rigby et al., 2015, pp. 1-13). IT
developers began to implement this approach due to considerable success from product developments
in other processes and industries. Thereby the appointed teams would take a certain task from beginning
to end through all stages and departments of the company the assignment had to pass (Rigby et al., 2015,
pp. 1-13).

63/128
 Figure 7: Agile Innovation Design
(Rigby et al., 2015, p. 5).

Scrum, like Agile, has initially been used in software production and places emphasis on transparency,
frequent checks on the progress of a project and flexibility in achieving results and according to Vinekar
et al. (2006), increased business satisfaction, productivity and quality. The Scrum approach initially
focuses on the customer view and solutions. The requirements are achieved incrementally by sprint
intervals which ultimately lead to Scrum, readily usable products. Scrum teams are comprised of a
product owner responsible for the economic success, the development team and the Scrum master
responsible for the Scrum setup.

The approach initially aimed at quick developments of software but is recently becoming increasingly
popular in other industries. Especially companies in dynamic environments adapted the approach to
address customers’ needs and transformed the entire company towards an agile management approach
(Gloger & Margetich, 2014, p. 23). Scrum is based on design thinking, a strong customer focus in
combination with innovation and creativity. Thereby, the approach does not start from deliberate

64/128
planning and implementing but rather from an iterative, self-organizing way to achieve the desired goal
(Gloger & Margetich, 2014, p.7). Scrum, like Agile, empowers cross-functional, creative teams and is
well-suited for innovative teams (Steude, 2017, pp. 95-105; Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50). Scrum
delivers innovations very early and simultaneously increases employee satisfaction (Rigby et al., 2016,
pp. 40-50). Scrum therefore evolved from a mere project management vehicle to a tool to manage whole
departments and companies (Gloger & Margetich, 2014, p.7-24).

By following the Agile methodologies in IT, the approach has brought some remarkable improvements,
including twice as many employees working with the approach were found to be emotionally engaged
in their work and market initiatives were found to generate 40% more customer inquiries (Rigby et al.,
2016, pp. 40-50). The transition to other processes and industries has brought equally impressing results,
in some instances companies could reduce redundant projects by 30% and assignments could be
accomplished in considerably less time (Rigby et al., 2015, pp. 1-13). Although Agile methodology is
not useful for repetitive tasks, it has advantages in market environments with a frequent change of
customer preferences, where rapid feedback is necessary, where problems are complex and work can be
divided into different parts and realized in quick cycles (Rigby et al., 2015, pp. 1-13). If strategy
implementations have the previously mentioned prerequisites, the Agile approach may be an option for
the process in dynamic environments when time is scarce.

Rigby et al. (2016) mentioned the example of General Electric (GE) developing a transition strategy and
the aim of the process was to create an organizational unit within the company consisting of 20,000
employees who should focus on digitally enabled products and thereby help GE to rebrand itself as a
digital industrial company. GE began to form teams which would be appointed with tasks such as the
prioritization of assignments for the executive teams, simplifying the administration processes and
solving pricing issues for their products (Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50). By appointing the Agile teams
and also ensuring regular meetings and transparency for all employees, they accomplished considerable
success (Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50).

Thus, Agile has proven to be valuable also in strategic management. Additional experiences of other
companies implementing Agile teams in order to improve high-speed strategy implementation are, due
to the novelty of the approach, rather small in numbers. It can be anticipated however that the promising
first results will initiate additional research.

Although Steude (2017) states that network organizations or Agile adhocracies will increasingly replace
line organizations, Agile innovation approaches are mostly elaborated on in connection with the strategy

65/128
implementation in a single part or a specific area of a company. However, whether the use of the
approach for strategy implementation in an entire organization is useful is scarce. Vinekar et al. (2006)
addressed this question by stating that possible negative effects due to the plurality of approaches can
be dampened by embracing an ambidextrous approach. Thus, Vinekar et al. (2006) have focused on the
use of both Agile and traditional systems in the same organization and pointed to several insights they
gained. Just as the previously mentioned researchers, also Vinekar et al. (2006) see the necessity to
become more flexible as an organization in an increasingly dynamic environment. However, Vinekar et
al. (2006) also point out that some companies might not implement Agile approaches in the whole
organization since parts of the organization would benefit from a traditional approach. Vinekar et al.
(2006) thus propose to implement an ambidextrous organization to pursue both approaches at the same
time. It is thereby recommended to create a corporate culture fitting both approaches and separating
Agile subunits and traditional subunits. According to Vinekar et al. (2006), it will thereby be possible to
pursue both exploitative and explorative projects at the same time without interference. Hence, Vinekar
et al. (2006) also promote the use of different approaches in a dynamic environment similarly to the
previously highlighted authors (e.g. Madsen, 2010).

Gloger and Margetich (2014) argue that Scrum and Agile undermine classic hierarchical organizations
which might have a static strategic management approach and management’s implicit knowledge which
serves as their power basis. By empowering individuals and teams, the implicit knowledge becomes
accessible for all team members.

Thus, the transition of an organization to an Agile organization often requires a severe change in a
company’s culture (Gloger & Margetich, 2014, p. 7). Additionally, Agile approaches need to go along
with a change to flexible management leadership and organizational adaptions (Steude, 2017, p. 105;
Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50). Scrum and Agile activities are hence not necessarily to be considered as
incorporated in all of a company’s units but rather suited for the explorative part of an ambidextrous
company.

4.1.4. Analysis of Research Avenues and Implications for Strategy Implementation

Due to the attempt to combine different approaches simultaneously, the previously outlined research
avenues aim at addressing increased uncertainty without sacrificing exploitative sources for revenue and
thus add to their relevancy for strategy implementation in dynamic environments. Thereby an increase
in both flexibility and speed in implementation should allow companies to address changes in the
environment.

66/128
Ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities for instance have not only been stated to increase firm
performance and survival (e.g. Hsu, Lien & Chen, 2013; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Danneels, 2011;
Lubatkin, Simsek Ling & Veiga, 2006) but also to address dynamism (e.g. Jansen, George, Van den
Bosch & Volberda, 2008; Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Li &Liu, 2014).

Now that several views and suggestions of how to adapt strategic management and strategy
implementation in dynamic environments have been outlined, it will subsequently put into perspective
with the traditional processes of the model of strategic management outlined by Christensen et al. (1987)
in chapter 3 of this master’s thesis.

Here, the processes that make up strategy implementation are divided in structure and relationship,
process and behavior and leadership. The previously mentioned dynamic capabilities were stated as the
ability to reconfigure and integrate competences to address dynamic environments, reconfiguring
resources and processes and creating exploration and exploitation simultaneously (Madsen, 2010, p.
229; Zollo & Winter, 2002, p. 340; Zahra et al., 2006, p. 924; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997, p. 516).
Here, dynamic capabilities are seen as a behavioral orientation towards the reconfiguration of
capabilities and internal resources (Wang & Ahmed, 2007, pp. 31-51). According to Wang and Ahmed
(2007) dynamic capabilities consist of component factors (i.e. adaptive and absorptive capability) and
underlying processes (i.e. integration, reconfiguration and renewal).

Also, the alignment of structures, competences and company culture are considered to be vital in order
to develop and nurture dynamic capabilities (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008, p. 190). In addition, the
sensing, seizing and reconfiguring processes mentioned by O’Reilly and Tushman (2008) point to the
adjustment of several areas in strategy implementation. Sensing requires routines in the strategic process
to ensure constant exploring, seizing and reconfiguring can lead to the adjustment of all three areas of
the implementation process (i.e. structures, processes and leadership style). The additionally mentioned
entrepreneurial traits of both management and decision makers in strategic management (e.g. risk taking,
innovative, ambitious and independent) might additionally improve the sensing, seizing and
reconfiguring processes in dynamic capabilities (Madsen, 2010, pp. 223-240; Eisenhardt & Martin,
2000, pp. 1105-1121). Here, both the detection of employees with entrepreneurial traits and the nurturing
and cultivation seem to have a positive influence in establishing dynamic capabilities. Although these
leadership personal traits initially were referred to as mediators in the development of dynamic
capabilities, some researchers have taken this notion further and proposed the combination of
entrepreneurs and businesses within an innovative and dynamic environment (Subramanian &
Balanagarajan, 2018, pp. 14-17).

67/128
Organizational ambidexterity is similar to dynamic capabilities in several ways. Both emphasize the
reconfiguration of assets in dynamic environments and the exertion of both explorative and exploitative
activities (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008, pp.185-206; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013, pp. 324-338). However,
organizational ambidexterity typically needs a certain level of resources and may therefore not be
valuable for smaller firms.

Another distinction has been the different temporal applicability. Ambidexterity was highlighted to be
applicable in several ways, including sequential, structural and contextual, making different adjustments
in processes, management style or organizational structure necessary (Kauppila, 2010, pp. 283-312;
O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013, pp. 327-330). While structural ambidexterity calls for complementing
processes and cultures, contextual ambidexterity calls for an adjustment of behavioral capabilities on the
individual level achieved through trust and discipline (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004, p. 214). While
dynamic capabilities have an emphasis on both reconfiguring assets and strategy making activities,
ambidexterity has a stronger focus on organizational adaptations in order to be able to explore and exploit
simultaneously.

Strategic thinking as the combination of deliberate and emergent elements has greatly emphasized
dynamic environments. Similar to organizational ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities, several
authors highlight the beneficial use of exploitation and exploration in dynamic environments in order to
significantly shortening adaption (e.g. Madsen, 2010; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; O’Reilly & Tushman,
2013; Graetz, 2002). In contrast to the aforementioned views, Graetz (2002) proposes to use a blend of
different strategic perspectives (i.e. strategic thinking and strategic planning) in order to be able to
orchestrate exploitation and exploration simultaneously. Here, strategic thinking has been described as
creative, divergent and innovative in order to seek innovation and a possible adjustment to a company’s
strategy whereas strategic planning being the prescriptive and systematic strategy formulation and
implementation (Graetz, 2002, p. 457).

Although Graetz (2002) sees strategic planning as particularly beneficial in a static environment, she
points to a beneficial complementation with strategic thinking in dynamic environments. Thus, Graetz
(2002) acknowledges that strategic planning and deliberate strategies can be of value also in dynamic
environments when combined with a flexible, decentralized approach. However, in contrast to other
authors (e.g. Madsen, 2010; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013), Graetz (2002)
does not emphasize the adaptation of processes and structures as much but rather focuses on the behavior
and strategic flexibility of top management.

68/128
In comparison to dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity, Agile and Scrum can be seen as an additional
attempt to adapt to dynamic environments. However, unlike dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity
Agile/Scrum provide additional suggestions with regard to application in practice. Therefore, Agile and
Scrum techniques can be considered as a tool to deal with strategy implementation in a dynamic
environment.

Agile is a collaborative problem-solving approach in cross-functional teams. The approach focuses on

the adjustment of roles within an organization rather than the change of structures (Rigby et al., 2016,
pp. 40-50). With the establishment of independent and cross-functional teams, strategic decisions aimed
at client driven priorities and their implementation are outsourced to the teams (Vinekar et al., 2006, p.
32; Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50). The different approach to development in making smaller incremental
steps ensures the possibility to immediately check the outcomes and the change of the focus whenever
external influences might make them necessary. Since every team is responsible for every step in a
project, it also seeks at a considerable improvement in lead times for the development of products or
services.

Agile, is thus a vehicle to empower teams within a company to improve reaction times. Both Agile and
Scrum can be applied in smaller entities within a firm without the need of large-scale adaptions in
structures or corporate culture (Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50). Agile and Scrum have clearly an emphasis
on project work since it was developed for this purpose. However, the approach was also mentioned as
being applicable for different companies in different industries to improve performance in a dynamic
environment. Hence, both could be a tool for decision maker in implementing new strategies under time
pressure such as in a corporate transition (Rigby et al., 2016, pp. 40-50).

Although Agile and Scrum recently attracted considerable attention, Vinekar (2006) states that both are
considered mostly in single projects. Similarly to organizational ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities,
the shift of strategic decisions and implementation away from static to emergent attempts in the affected
part of the company can be anticipated (Steude, 2017, p. 105). The presented models and activities to
deal with high-speed strategy implementation in dynamic environments signified by uncertainty and
time pressure are different in their scale and temporary applicability. Some are aimed at large scale
implementation in a company (e.g. organizational ambidexterity) while some are aimed at single projects
(Agile/Scrum).

In addition, different recommendations for each approach have been put forward as to which adjustments
need to be made in the company in order to make implementations successful, ranging from the

69/128
adjustment of behavior and leadership style to the adjustment of structure, processes, behavior and
leadership style. Although the strategy formulation processes with deliberate strategy implementation
and the planning perspective were highlighted to be useful by Graetz (2002) and Kopmann et al. (2017),
the relevance of deliberate strategy implementation declines with the increase of an environment’s
dynamism while the relevance of emergent strategies increases (Kopmann et al., 2017, pp. 557-570).

The presented findings have several consequences for strategic management and strategy
implementation in dynamic environments. The narrow view on the implementation of deliberate
strategies without the recognition of emergent strategies must be questioned and the main trend in global,
dynamic environments seems to evolve towards a more emergent formulation and implementation
approach. The repeated recommendation of both exploring and exploiting in the same organization
suggests a shift to a rather decentralized, flexible and creative strategy making process including
extensive communication efforts (Felin & Powell, 2016, p. 93; Graetz, 2002, p. 457; O’Reilly &
Tushman, 2008, p. 198; Steude, 2017, p. 105). Also, the seemingly contradictory focus on exploitation
and exploration in the same company led researchers to call for the encouragement of independent
strategy making in these parts of the company that allow for a blend of both deliberate strategy and
emergent strategy implementation (Kopmann et al., 2017, pp. 557-570).

According to Whittington, Yakis-Douglas, Ahn and Cailluet (2017) dynamism and turbulences in the
environment have also organizational and educational concerns for strategists. The decentralization of
strategic planning implies increased managerial and operational participation in strategic planning, also,
strategic planning becomes less organizationally detached and more accessible through discourse
(Whittington et al., 2017, pp. 108-119). Thus, the tendency of strategists to engage with lower level
managers while formulating and implementing strategy in dynamic environments is believed to increase
(Whittington et al., 2017, pp. 108-119).

The recent chapters have outlined how globalization and dynamic environments not only affect the
economy and different industries but also strategic management and strategy implementation. The
drivers of globalization are multifaceted and, due to different levels of exposure, have varying effects
on certain markets. Globalization and dynamism also affect strategic management and the
implementation of deliberate strategies in that it forces companies to react quickly. Due to the heightened
emphasis on the need to quickly react to outside changes, the use of deliberate strategies has been
questioned by authors and finally enhanced with a complementary use of emergent strategies. Also, the
extension of the resource-based view with dynamic environments can be seen as an approach to
acknowledge increased environmental dynamism.

70/128
The evolving views of how to adjust organizations and strategic management to meet the demands of
global environments (e.g. dynamic capabilities, ambidexterity) have strongly emphasized to both
embrace exploitation and exploration in the same firm to ensure a high level of flexibility without the
sacrifice of exploitation. The views over time evolved and initiated certain suggestions for practitioners
and tools of how to deal with high speed strategy implementation (e.g. Agile/Scrum).

The different views and activities to cope with dynamic environments are however aiming at different
areas in an organization ranging from an adaptation of structures and processes to the change of
leadership style. Thus, were often seen in combination with contextual factors within the firm and the
availability of resources. Each of the outlined activities therefore has very distinct features and may
differ in their value for different firms. The outlined peculiarities in a company’s contextual factors and
the different approaches authors have taken as to which change levers should be used in order to quickly
implement strategies in a dynamic environment call for a strong consideration for individual situations.

Therefore, the empiric section connects to the findings of the theoretical part and provide practical
implications. The outlined influences of globalization and dynamism on a technology company’s
environment and strategy implementation will be subject of the next chapter. Subsequently, an overview
of the company’s environment and their strategy implementation processes will be given to understand
peculiarities and challenges the company faces in a dynamic environment. In order to evaluate practical
implications and the usability of authors’ already stated use of deliberate and emergent strategies as well
as outlined views and recommended activities, interviewees are asked for their opinion. Thereafter,
activities are presented with the help of the LCAG scheme already used in the theoretical part in order
to ensure comparability.

Finally, contextual constraints and enablers according to the change kaleidoscope outlined in the theory
part of this master’s thesis will also be used in order to be able to put practical findings into perspective
with authors’ proposed activities. Also, the company’s distinct approaches in high speed strategy
implementation with regard to context will be highlighted. To further emphasize organizational context
and resulting different perceptions in practice, the empiric part of this master’s thesis will also aim at the
detection of possible deviations in different parts of the organization. Bryson and Bromiley (1993)
proposed that several factors influence the success of strategy implementation, here not only the
availability of time influences outcomes but also additional internal factors (e.g. involvement, managers
ability to communicate) would both directly and indirectly influence success. Thus, not only processes
in implementation function as mediators in success but also contextual factors influence outcomes both
directly and indirectly through process variables. Therefore, Bryson and Bromiley (1993) call for the

71/128
incorporation of not only the availability of time and techniques but also of the internal context in
implementation in order to detect intra-organizational deviations in the perception of internal
arrangements and performance.

Figure 8: Statistically significant relationships among context, process and outcome variables
(Bryson & Bromiley, 1993, p. 333).

Therefore, the value of activities to deal with high speed strategy implementation in practice will be
analyzed differentiated with regards to the perceived usefulness in different parts of the organization.
Thus, not only the effect of time will be of interest but also possible organizational factors that may
make certain activities in high speed strategy implementation valuable. Hence, employees from all
organizational parts affected by high speed strategy implementation were interviewed in order to be able
to detect deviations with regard to perceived usefulness of activities within the organization.

72/128
Subsequently, practical experiences with activities in high speed strategy implementation with
consideration for different parts of the organization will be outlined. Finally, proposed best practice
routines stated by interviewees and suggested courses of improvement in the implementation of
strategies will be highlighted.

73/128
5. Study Design
The review of the theoretical part of this master’s thesis brought several findings with regard to strategy
implementation. The initially stated increase of competition and dynamism due to globalization were
mentioned to not only change the occurrence of changes in the environment but also the way in which
strategies have to be adapted. The subsequent outlined attempts to address this dynamism in the
implementation of strategies and the perceived changes of the use of deliberate strategy implementation
led researchers to the formulation of alternative approaches to cope with dynamic environments. The
implications of the outlined measures to address dynamic environments with regard to the use of both
exploration and exploitation and the anticipated shift to emergent and fine-grained strategies would
involve several changes to strategic management in general and the usability of planned strategy
implementation in particular.

However, the lack of both empirical data and examples from practice call for a holistic attempt.
Therefore, this master’s thesis is not only directed towards elaborating on strategy implementation in
dynamic environments by reviewing pertinent literature but also on the collection of qualitative data
from practitioners. In order to understand the view of practitioners on strategy implementation in a
dynamic environment and their experiences with activities and the organizational context outlined in the
theory section, empiric data from expert interviews have been incorporated in this master’s thesis.

The interviews were all conducted with employees from an Austrian technology corporation with a high
level of exposure to globalization and dynamic environments. Due to its high export orientation and
business relationships to several different industries, interviewees in the focal company comprise
different views of varying levels of uncertainty and dynamism stemming from unique sources in
different industries resulting in partly very different viewpoints. The different viewpoints and
peculiarities in the perception of dynamism in different parts of the company led practitioners to unique
approaches as to how to address high speed strategy implementation.

In order not to divulge any sensitive information about the focal company’s business practices that might
adversely affect them, the name of the company will not be disclosed and instead will henceforth referred
to as Techworks.

The empiric part of this master’s thesis focuses on the practicability of proposed measurements of both
researchers and practitioners. Thus, strategists, operating management and operational staff were
interviewed. Possible inconsistencies in the perception of practicability of certain implementation
aspects across different stakeholder groups within the organization will be detected and highlighted. It

74/128
is the goal to conduct interviews about strategy implementation and possible implications on the decision
maker level, followed by interviewing organization members affected by strategy implementation in
subsequent hierarchy levels. Thus, the highlighted activities from management were categorized and
analyzed accordingly (Mayring, 2010, pp. 98-100). Furthermore, lower level employees were presented
with statements from management and asked about their opinion about the practicability in their field of
experience.

Finally, the interviewees’ experiences with previous high-speed strategy implementations in their
company and unique measures not mentioned in literature will be highlighted. Therefore, interviewees
were encouraged to outline measures which both had positive and negative effects in high-speed strategy
implementation.

5.1. Qualitative Research

The empiric part of this master’s thesis has been conducted by qualitative research of non-standardized,
non-numerical data. Interviews with staff members of the already mentioned industrial corporation have
been conducted individually. All of the interviewed employees have considerable experience of both
small and large size strategy implementations with varying degrees of time pressure. The goal is to allow
staff members to share experiences from practice and opinions in order to be able to analyze data in a
contextual fashion (Döring & Bortz, 2016, p. 16). Also, suggestions by interviewed persons have been
collected as to whether some proposed measurements of both researchers or management personnel
would be practicable.

5.1.1. Approach and Data Analysis

For the empiric part of this master’s thesis, semi structured guided interviews have been conducted, the
interviewed persons are experts in their respective areas and have a minimum seniority of five years with
the organization in focus.

Interviews were structured by an interview guide providing a certain set of open questions to ensure
comparability (Döring & Bortz, 2016, p. 16). Also, the possibility to alter the interview guideline and
the interview questions due to personal or objective reasons add to the usability of this approach (Döring
& Bortz, 2016, p. 16). The interview guidelines were mainly the same for each interviewee, certain
adaptions regarding wording or formulations due to different use of terminology have been made during
the research process. Also, the interview questions evolved slightly over time and are outlined in the
interview transcriptions. With the exception of one interview which has been conducted by telephone
and transcribed according to the handwritten notes taken in the interview, all interviews were held

75/128
personally, recorded and transcribed subsequently. All interview partners were asked for their
permission to use the provided data and assured of confidential treatment and anonymity. Prior to the
interview, all interviewees were informed about the purpose of the study. At the initial stage of the
interview rather general questions about strategy implementation under time pressure in the company
were raised. At a later stage, more detailed questions were at the core of the interview aiming to
determine influencing factors or underlying reasons for certain statements.

All interviews were conducted in German, the recordings were translated to English and transcribed
subsequently. Interviewees were encouraged to add relevant information or corrections to the topic at
any stage of the interview and were free to point to amendments in both the interview guideline or
research avenue approaches outlined in the theoretical part of this master’s thesis. The interviews were
scheduled to take one hour with each interviewee with sufficient spare time in order either of the
influencing factors might make a prolonged interview necessary. In fact, most interviews were
conducted within 30 to 60 minutes. If reasonable or necessary, follow-up interview meetings were
scheduled in addition to the main interview.

The data sets were collected during personal interviews since all interviewees were employees of the
same company situated at the same site, it was aimed at interviewing persons with the possibility to also
consider non-verbal communication. Interviewees were initially asked about their experience with
strategy implementation in a rather free unstructured manner. At a later stage, a certain set of questions
related to the theoretical findings of this master’s thesis were asked. Also, additional questions depending
on the interview path and possible raised points could be subjoined. In order to both filter and categorize
subtopics, content and certain additional aspects of interview data into predetermined theoretical
categories and subcategories, the interview data has been contextually analyzed (Mayring, 2010, p 98).
Thereby, categories according to theoretical findings have been established and the interview transcripts
were categorized according to both categories and subcategories.

All categories were subsequently summarized and conclusions regarding the already outlined theoretical
findings were made. In the case that interviews unveiled either empirical frequency of occurrence in
statements or strongly deviating inputs from other interviewees, the data sets were not only analyzed
contextually but also structured in a categorized analysis (Mayring, 2010, pp. 98-100).

76/128
 5.1.2. Interview Partner
Interviewees were chosen due to several aspects. Firstly, they needed to be experts in their respective
field. Secondly, they needed to have prior expertise in strategy implementation in general and strategy
implementation under time pressure in particular. Lastly, they needed to be from either of the previously
mentioned organization levels of strategists, management or operations.

Interviewee Gender Organizational level

1 Male Strategist

2 Female Management

3 Male Operations

4 Female Operations

5 Male Operations

6 Male Strategist

7 Male Management

8 Male Management

9 Female Operations

10 Female Operations

Table 1: Interview partners

Source: Own work.

77/128
 5.1.3. Documentation of Results
The following chapter will present the findings of the study gathered through interviews. In order to be
able to put the outlined findings of authors in the theory section into perspective, interviewees were
asked to answer general questions regarding globalization and dynamism but also about recommended
actions to address strategy implementation in a dynamic environment.

The insights from interviewees will first be used to provide an overview of how strategic management
with regard to the planning perspective and deliberate strategy implementation is perceived and applied
in practice to give the reader a conspectus of the company’s structure and processes. The diverse
structure within the company with a large number of different products marketed and delivered to a
variety of very distinct customers allowed for a thorough approach. The variety of interviewees in
different parts of the company contributed to a large number of inputs differing due to the heterogeneity
of customer structure. Thereafter, strategy implementation in practice and the impact of time pressure is
the focus in order to put theoretical findings into field experience context. Henceforth, the different
aspects, design choices, influencing factors and approaches to address time constraints outlined in
chapter 3 and 4 have been revised in the light of empiric data. Here, not only the expertise of interviewees
with regard to the applicability of the above mentioned aspects were outlined but also activities which
were not to be found in literature but were highlighted by experts as being fruitful in dynamic
environments.

The aggregation of findings from the different groups (i.e. decision-making level, implementer level and
operational level) generates further insights regarding the applicability of outlined activities to address
strategy implementation in dynamic environments. Therefore, the findings from interviews with
management personnel and their stated activities to implement strategies under time pressure in the
company were outlined in the interviews with implementer personal and operationalists and reviewed
accordingly. Meaning that the subsequent levels were asked to comment on the suggested measures from
management with regards to their practicality and value in practice. In order to add to the usability and
comprehensibility, the measures at Techworks were categorized according to the model outlined by
Christensen et al. (1987) in chapter 3 of the present master’s thesis (i.e. structure, process, leadership
style).

Furthermore, peculiarities from operational personnel with regards to strategy implementation under
time pressure were analyzed and possible diverging measures from the initial implementation path were
the subject of the results chapter. Finally, the underlying reasons for diverging change paths and possible

78/128
effects on other parts of the organization due to unique organizational context factors at Techworks
during implementation were outlined.

5.2. High Speed Strategy Implementation Results

5.2.1. Strategic Management in a Dynamic Environment
In order to get an overview of Techworks’ strategy implementation processes and thereby enable to put
their unique situation in perspective, the next chapter will outline both the peculiarities of their
environment and the approaches to address them. Strategic management at Techworks is executed under
many different viewpoints and a myriad of influencing factors. The size of the company and its different
products and services target several key markets resulting in different strategies for different purposes.
The inhomogeneous and sometimes contradicting goals of the company’s core businesses call for diverse
approaches and often lead to different results in different business units. Strategy formulation is therefore
executed across several places in most of the firm’s organizational units. Different business units of the
company have a responsible person or people for strategy formulation and implementation. Thereby, the
strategic tools used and means of how informations are gathered and distributed might differ in the
respective units. However, the corporate strategy is made at the top management level and all parts of
the company are bound to it. Thus, general decisions on the main overarching decisions valid for all
parts of the organization and CSR topics are developed and formulated at the top level. Therefore,
subsequent strategies in different parts of the organization and its business units have to be in line with
those guidelines.

Since Techworks traditionally has a high share of international customers and aims to further increase
the number of foreign customers, the level of dynamism has increased significantly. The additional large
number of different industries being served include the automotive industry, constructing industry and
home-appliances industry, are in turn increasingly affected by different technological changes and
regulations which further increase time pressure in strategy formulation and implementation. Also, the
different economic cycles of customers in their respective industries and markets accompanied by
protectionism of certain governments additionally make swift changes to both the strategy and tactics
necessary.

Interviewees were initially asked about their main challenges in strategy implementation in a global,
dynamic environment and many employees stated similar perceptions. The increasing globalization of
markets has been mentioned several times in interviews with strategists and operational management. In
connection with a higher interdependence of markets, the need for several different strategy
implementations in different parts of the organization is commonplace.

79/128
Therefore, the increased time pressure and provision of resources in strategy formulation and
implementation has been mentioned as being challenging. The recent protectionist measures of some
countries had additionally brought the need for changes to long-term planning as the necessary free
markets for internationally active companies were the subject to deviations. Also the pace of changes in
the environment and the increasing lack of reliability of both economic and political predictions were
highlighted as an increasing problem for strategy processes. These challenges were considered not only
for future investments but also for already existing investments that have been made in recent years.
Since acquisitions and partnerships were established not only in Europe but also in the US, the
aforementioned protectionist measures and uncertainty regarding politics and economic developments
have unexpectedly put additional pressure on strategists.

During interviews with management employees it became apparent that Techworks currently has several
changes in external factors to consider which challenged not only strategists but the whole organization.
The lengthiest and the one considered most intensively by managers are the previously mentioned
protectionist measures by the US government, the looming Brexit scenario and rising costs for input
factors. Both articulated and non-verbally communicated gesticulation and mimicry pointed to several
serious challenges for Techworks’ management. One operational manager stated:

“We have several challenges in strategy implementation and globalization. The recent
developments in world trade for instance…”(Interview 8, P01.7)

An interviewed strategist added:

“ So you are shifting things, there are certain strategic goals and then the framework changes,
consider the US market, the decisions to protectionist measures, then you have to postpone
certain decisions because you have to address that, how long does that last, has it implications
and the like. “(Interview 6, P04.137)

What is both important and interesting to mention here is that Techworks not only experiences dynamics
from an increase of globalization but from changes that can be considered as a decrease in globalization.
The withdraw from the outlined deregulation that accompanies globalization, which in Techworks’
instance had been US protectionism and the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European
Union, equally challenged strategic management by a decrease in globalization. Thus, not only an
increase in deregulation might foster dynamism and thereby affect strategic management and deliberate
strategy implementation as stated by Fitzroy and Hulbert (2005) but also a decrease in deregulation and
globalization.

80/128
 “You know, the globalization situation we need for our corporate strategy is free markets,
which is increasingly difficult due to protectionism. There you have to think with regards to our
need to have economies of scale, when you have a site in one country and then experience
problems to deliver to other sites in a different country where protectionism is present, that
means with regards to globalization, it’s becoming more complex and therefore you have to
make decisions early because often times a business model does not allow you to be in the local
markets where necessary, instead decisions might be made in the headquarters…”(Interview 6,
P01.11)

Techworks has therefore several complex, sometimes quickly changing factors to consider when
formulating and implementing strategies to one of their organizational units. The self-conception of
strategists therefore is strongly influenced by this dynamism and its unpredictability, yet very clear of
their tasks and their challenges in a global environment, one interviewee stated: “I’d say it’s the clear
task to understand and analyze global markets, to recognize the potentials there and derive them to fine-
grained, regional strategies. Meaning the attempt to realize the potentials of the relevant target markets”
(Interview 1, P01.07).

With regard to strategy implementation and realization, the same interviewee stated:

“Regarding the realization it’s clear to selectively and depending on the situation act differently
in the markets, adapt strategies for the market in order to increase potentials. Because one
cannot assume that there is a global strategy which functions equally well in different markets.
… Except you are the global player having its trademark which works anywhere, which is also
an illusion…” (Interview 1, P01.11)

The company’s industry is traditionally long-term oriented, although increasingly influenced by the
above mentioned factors fostering dynamism. Here, technological disruptions in the company’s products
and services are rather unusual. In contrast, technological disruptions in the customers’ industries occur
frequently and often go along with changing government regulations and these changes then effect
Techworks’ strategy when the target industry demands changes. One interviewee stated “There is one
sector where we are currently under pressure in this regards …., because the companies who are first
mover can expect to get orders, and only them. So here the pressure stems from a technological
disruption…” (Interview 5, P01.34).

The time horizon applied for strategies at Techworks is between 10 to 15 years, although it has been
stated that strategies below that horizon can be, due to the mentioned dynamism, also possible. Some

81/128
interviewed experts in strategy formulation and implementation stated that the use of extensive planning
and deliberate strategies are common. Since globalization and dynamism not only have a strong impact
on strategic management in general but also on the implementation of planned and deliberate strategies,
the company also has to consider the implications for their strategy work.

Fitzroy and Hulbert (2005) highlighted five main drivers that have influenced the use of planned strategy
implementations (i.e. globalization, deregulation and privatization, technological change, knowledge
intensity and increased competition) which were already mentioned in chapter 2.2. The aforementioned
influencing factors on the planning perspective have varying impact on different industries and
companies such as Techworks. In this regard, the increase of competition and knowledge intensity have
an impact on the use of deliberate strategies.

The factors which have influenced the firm’s strategy formulation and implementation process the most
and have been repeatedly mentioned in interviews are deregulation and privatization. More precisely,
the increasing uncertainty and partly reversing of deregulation in certain countries has strongly
influenced strategic management and long-term planning. Here, differences in certain parts of the
organization with regard to the aforementioned influencing factors have to be pointed out. However,
especially for top-management, the use of static planning is prevalent. Several interviewees stated that
the planning perspective and the use of deliberate strategies were still an integral part of their strategy
work. When asked about the usability of extensive planning in a dynamic environment, one interviewee
stated, “…for us strategy is from 5 to 10 years, otherwise it’s no longer a strategy and these aims are
rather rigid. When half way disruptions are detected it does not change my strategy it changes my tactical
implementation frame” (Interview 1, P02.57).

Therefore, strategic planning and deliberately implemented strategies are used to achieve long-term
goals for the whole organization or parts thereof. Interviewees have pointed out that the time frame in
which a strategy must be implemented for the affected parts of the company have to be considered
individually and thereby vary in the way they are formulated and implemented.

As previously mentioned, one interviewee strongly pointed to the prevalent distinction of overarching
strategies for the whole of the organization and strategies and tactics for different parts of the
organization in order to be able to achieve the overarching strategy. In the development and the
implementation of the group strategy valid for all units of Techworks only rarely are changes in the
strategy and implementation of strategies executed under time pressure. Here, the low frequency of
disruptions makes the use of extensive planning and the implementation of deliberate strategies viable.

82/128
Within this process, cautious environmental analysis is executed constantly and different strategic tools
such as strategic foresight and scenario planning were claimed to be used in order to develop strategies.
Thus, the planning perspective is part of the company’s strategy management processes and deliberate
strategy implementations are common. In the formulation and implementation of strategies and tactics
for single parts of the company, time pressure is likely to be prevalent in order to address shifts in
customer demands. Although strategic decisions at Techworks are considered to be long term, changes
under time pressure in subunits due to external influences stemming from increased globalization (e.g.
government regulations or shifts in customer demand) are possible.

In this context, strategies developed for international markets underlie a frequent change of external
factors and therefore need to be either changed or newly developed followed by an implementation under
time pressure. Here, shifts in government regulations, protectionism and changes in the supply chain
occur in a frequent manner. When asked about the occurrence of shifts in external influencing factors
which make the alternation of strategies necessary, one interviewee stated, “…We have that often, in
certain sectors for instance…. Then, you cannot wait two years, instead you must pull that off in the next
months. There are plenty of examples” (Interview 2, P02.46).

In general, the awareness of the many different target markets and their influencing factors leads
strategists to develop fairly unique market strategies for their business unit. A main driver here is to
recognize potential of each individual market and translate them to fine-grained, regional strategies. The
planning and formulation stage is revised in an ongoing process where the current strategy may be
altered. In addition, monthly panels consisting of members from all relevant units (e.g. sales
management, sales personnel and strategic sales) are held in order to detect changes in the market.

“That can change within a short time and we experienced that ourselves, we created a product
as a derivative from an existing product that would be perfect for the US market and the
product was well developed and marketed, everything looked well then suddenly [claps his
hands] the 25 percent import tax to the US came and the dream was suddenly over and that’s a
problem in strategy implementation in that you have to make yourself clear that although a
strategy is developed for years you have to quickly…although its been said you should not
change strategy quickly.. but in my opinion you have to revise strategy annually and we do
that, that’s important to adapt that, because it is a flexible target and it is developed for years
and therefore you shouldn’t change it annually, that’s basically right but when changing factors
proof you to be wrong then you should react immediately and revise in an annual review“
(Interview 7 P01.26)

83/128
These panels are not only composed of employees with different functions but also from different
regions. Since Techworks has dependencies in foreign countries, local personnel frequently report on
recent local shifts in the environment. This information is forwarded to the headquarters, processed and
if necessary passed on to other parts of the company. In this regard, a thorough information collection
and consequent information management for the whole organization is pursued. If changes are detected,
these panels can initiate smaller changes to the respective market strategy in order to address these
changes, which usually leads to adapted tactics and operational measures. Although the interviewees
stated some diverging approaches and different focal points, some similarities in their emphasis could
be found.

The formulation and provision of goals were mentioned from several interviewees. The knowledge of
employees who have been appointed to implement strategy of what is expected from them was stated to
be very important. Also the provision of clear responsibilities was mentioned to be paramount and a
possible lack of division of labor was highlighted as being one of the main hindering factors in the
implementation process.

The articulated goals and responsibilities were also mentioned to be important in connection with clear
and transparent timelines. Here, the responsible person is assigned with the goals to be achieved and is
also given predefined deadlines. The timelines are then checked in frequent stand-up meetings or
predefined progress-meetings ensuring a timely implementation of additional measures when goals are
in danger of not being met. After the strategy implementation is initiated, not only frequent checks on
the progress are made, but the agreed upon strategy is also revised on a constant basis.

Thereby, changes in external influences are addressed and ensure short reaction times to obstacles. After
the management’s appointment of a strategy implementer, the implementer in turn may appoint teams
or a single person to realize certain parts or organizational measures in order to enable the
implementation of the overarching strategy. Here, appointed personnel are usually not occupied full time
with strategy implementation. Instead, the vast majority of their duties is their dedicated operational
work which occupies them to a large extent. Therefore, the danger of the implementation of strategies
and single measures being realized either with a time delay or with a lack of sufficiency due to a work
overload is prevalent.

However, strategy implementer and management are very well aware of this hindering factor at
Techworks. Therefore, assigned personnel are released from operational work during strategy
implementation as best as possible. Furthermore, the leadership style is also exerted in a way that

84/128
involved personnel in decision making from an early stage on. Some interviewees have stated that a
participative leadership style is a helpful way of ensuring the commitment and necessary comprehension
among employees. Thus, the awareness of the impact of leadership style as highlighted in several
chapters in this master’s thesis is prevalent at Techworks. One interviewee stated:

“…if you make that participative, it is easier to make smaller corrective actions because people
understand that because they were part of the process and are ready to do a 180 degrees change
when things are changing also against the current strategy, they understand it better because
they have the big picture and that’s very important.” (Interview 2, P02.72)

Finally, tradition in different units of the organization may be an important factor as well and can also
play a role in the consideration of organizational factors and change paths. Here, the way of things being
done in a subunit create a degree of self-understanding and are both intentionally or unintentionally
passed on to younger generations. This may stem from the organizations corporate culture and individual
perceptions. The previously mentioned awareness of the impact of different leadership styles and the
resulting preference to use participative leadership style can thus be considered to be an example.

The flexibility towards strategy implementation under time pressure for the different organizational units
in combination with a participative leadership style were seen as beneficial by both strategists and
management personnel. The high level of flexibility at Techworks despite its size has been stated as
being unique in the industry and is seen as an advantage over competitors. Additional reasons for the
responsiveness in the company can be found in the geographical proximity of stakeholder and a high
emphasis on communication. One interviewee stated:

“I think, what helps us here is that we are small, we have all relevant people here, the quality
department, development, customer care, they are not far away, we know each other we have
personal relationships, that makes us strong and we have the process that’s been guided
centrally that’s also good and important in order to have more or less a single approach in the
process. The content is maybe different, that has to be accepted, we have different segments
and they function like different companies.” (Interview 7, P05.214)

However, the high level of flexibility is not seen as entirely positive. Due to the many different strategies
with different goals which might be additionally implemented at different times with varying attempts
as to which areas to address (i.e. process, structures and management style) adds to the complexity within
the company. Therefore, a high level of resources has to be devoted in communication and constant

85/128
coordination amongst the company’s different strategies in the respective subunits. Thus, one
interviewee described the pros and cons at Techworks as follows:

“I think we are good at developing and implementing strategies for our different segments in
the company. It is very well thought through and sophisticated. However, what’s not so good is
that we sometimes have interferences with the strategies of other parts of the company. That’s
what is done not so well. So sometimes you have a conflict about which target to address.“
(Interview 8, P1.22)

5.2.2. Applicability of Dynamic Capabilities and Ambidexterity in Practice

During the interviews experts were being asked about their familiarity with theoretical models found in
the literature review and outlined in previous chapters of this master’s thesis. Most interviewees from
the management level were familiar with ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities whereas Agile and
Scrum techniques were known to a smaller extent. Most management members had a thorough
understanding of ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities and if not, they were presented with a short
introduction to the models.

When asked if they believed if one of the approaches could be practiced in their organization all of them
replied that they are certain that these approaches could be helpful especially in a dynamic environment.
Some of the interviewees in fact stated that it is essential to have exploration and exploitation in the
same organization as highlighted in the pertinent literature about dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity.
Here, the need to constantly engage in new areas in order to detect changes in the environment has been
highlighted. In addition, one interviewee mentioned another benefit in engaging in exploration and
exploitation.

“That’s definitely practicable, when ambidexterity is not there, when you are not efficient on
the one hand and on the other hand engage in new things, then you can take the BCG matrix,
when you don’t care of new stars then you die, then you miss the chance to generate new
products for the market, that’s a classical must have - its only wrapped in new words - but it’s
nothing new, it’s a classical management task to do both.” (Interview 1, P04.122)

Other interviewees also stated that both attempts are practicable and necessary in an organization and
have also pointed to examples in their organization where processes and structures had been adjusted to
exert exploitation and exploration. Here, separations in structure and processes for certain industries,
customer segments or single customers within the same industry have been created including teams

86/128
consisting of sales personnel, customer care personnel, development and production, in order to address
aspects regarding either exploitation or exploration.

Due to the limited level of technological disruptions and the rise of entirely new products in some of the
industries, exploration and exploitation is not exerted at any time. Thus, the use of both explorative and
exploitative activities very much depend on the industry and customer structure if both are addressed.
Here, dynamic customer industries were more likely to be the target for exploitative and explorative
activities at Techworks. However, if ambidexterity and dynamic capability activities were used, they
were mainly of limited nature in both time and extent. Here, one interviewee mentioned the limited
resources in manpower that were available and that ambidexterity would not be necessary in all parts of
the company. With a further increase of dynamism however, an increase in the use of ambidexterity and
dynamic capabilities is possible. Although most of the interviewed practitioners acknowledged the need
to have both attempts in strategy implementation, one interviewee pointed to the boundaries of the
applicability in his area of expertise. In order not to overuse exploration and exploitation when benefits
are limited, the interviewee stated that the preconditions as to when to use exploration and exploration
have to be clearly defined.

Also when both attempts were agreed to be used to a limited extent, the terms should be agreed upon
beforehand. One interviewee had a cautious stance towards the use of exploration and exploitation in
the same organization. He highlighted the need to have a clear framework for both attempts and
emphasized the need to not endanger the company’s core business and customer relations.

“Because the danger then is, that people think they can do it entirely as they wish, which leads
to more complexity and is no longer manageable so it should be in a certain frame. If there are
new developments which are not as crucial to harm customer relations, if it doesn’t work then
you can try things but not in your core business, which goes in the direction of ambidexterity, if
you do both it has to be in a certain framework there are not endless resources for that.”
(Interview 6, P03.87)

Also, some additional problems with exploitation and exploration in an organization as outlined in both
ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities in the same organization were mentioned. One interviewee
pointed to his experiences that top management usually focuses on either efficiency or exploration.
Therefore, one part of ambidexterity would always suffer in the implementation process. The
interviewee’s suggestion to address this problem in practice would be to have a top management team
of two people with one specialist in either of the approaches. Another possible aspect which needs

87/128
consideration in dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity is that the more exploration attempts are away
from the core business, the more a spin-off or a separate organization becomes valuable, although it
might be difficult to reintegrate this unit when necessary.

Similar to ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities, also Agile and Scrum methods were mentioned and
interviewees were asked if the company is using Agile and Scrum methods to address strategy
implementation in a dynamic environment. Some had experiences with both methods in the organization.
Both methods were partly used in the development of a new SAP platform to enable the organization to
declutter the previous system infrastructure and thereby lead to more reliability and a higher capability
to react to customer requests and changes in the market. In strategy formulation and implementation
however, the use of Agile and Scrum could not be confirmed by interviewees and were partly seen as
questionable in strategy work. Although the use of both approaches might be of value in strategy
implementation, the use of Agile and Scrum presently for the organization seems to only have limited
potential.

5.2.3. Design Choices and Contextual Factors in Practice

Techworks has a wide variety of different customer with different external influence factors. The
highlighted shift of strategies to evolve towards being more fine-grained, individual and short-lived in
dynamic environments call for the consideration of these influences on the crafting of the
implementation process in practice. The following analysis of contextual factors and design choices at
Techworks helps to grasp the effects on how time pressure alters the effect of contextual factors and the
subsequent choice for different measures.

Researchers have suggested several attempts of how to address dynamism in strategy implementation
with the consideration for contextual factors (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, pp. 155-173). The choices of a
company in strategy implementation in practice are heavily influenced by these organizational change
contextual factors: thereby scope, preservation, diversity, capability, capacity, readiness and power
influence strategists’ choice with regard to which design choices are to be used when implementing
strategies. The most important contextual factor is the time available to the implementation of strategies
and was thus the main focus.

With recognition from the necessary type of change, strategists in the organization decide which
contextual factors are relevant and subsequently develop design choices. While the time factor for
strategy implementation under time pressure was unsurprisingly perceived as the most important one,

88/128
other factors might also be considered as vital to a successful outcome. While potentially all contextual
factors are relevant in practice, the most important ones are readiness, capacity, scope and preservation.

The popularity of participative leadership and management’s consideration for the importance of the
support of affected personnel for implementation decisions, especially in a dynamic environment with a
high level of time pressure, has been highlighted by interviewees. Here, the additional time needed to
formulate strategy was stated to pay off in a significantly quicker and easier implementation process
compared to a directive leadership style. Also, the capacity as a contextual factor has a high level of
awareness amongst most interviewees. The necessity to enable operational personnel to thoroughly
implement a new strategy was also highlighted in an interview. Thereby, staff should be free of everyday
work as best as possible when implementing a new strategy.

One interviewee has repeatedly experienced problems with employees from operations not having
sufficient resources in time to address the activities to enable strategy implementation. Scope, in addition
to the time factor, were at the center of interviewees’ focus. Thus, the scope of the strategy and the
number of employees who were affected by a strategy implementation were also considered in both the
distribution of resources and the approach. Other contextual factors were not mentioned in the interviews
but nevertheless might also have importance in the evaluation of the implementation options. In this
regard, the corporate culture, composition of teams and personal preference of decision makers may play
a role in the consideration of contextual factors. The highlighted change types in the change kaleidoscope
were evolution, revolution, adaptation and reconstruction (Hailey & Balogun, 2002, p. 161). Here, the
extent of change necessary and the speed in which changes have to be made are considered at Techworks.

Several interviewees stated that changes to strategy formulation and implementation at Techworks were
only used in a restrictive manner. Corporate strategies are valid for a period of at least ten years and are
usually pursued strictly. Strategies for business units and operational parts of the organization are usually
shorter and are repeatedly subject to alternations. Here, the common ways to make changes in strategy
are of limited nature implying smaller changes with varying time pressure at the corporate level. In this
regard, Techworks has a selective approach and is very cautious in adjustments to their strategy.

The reasons to limit change at the corporate level can be seen for several reasons. The already mentioned
small impact of technological change and the lack of new market entrants allow the company to have a
consistent strategy at the corporate level. Also, a careful exerted strategy formulation process with prior
forecasting and scenario planning allows strategists to deliver a thorough strategy which is less likely to
be changed than a hastily developed and implemented strategy.

89/128
Several interviewees emphasized the careful and holistic strategy making process of the company which
allows for the development of sophisticated strategies. Therefore, the dedicated personnel for strategic
management in the organization and their emphasis on a thought through analysis in combination with
the awareness of the danger of time pressure in strategy formulation can be seen as an advantage over
other companies. In this regard, two interviewees see the low level of necessary adaptations in the
company to be connected to the high emphasis on strategic management on a corporate level.

With regards to the contextual factor of time, researchers different focus on one or several of the design
choices has been highlighted in previous chapters of this work (e.g. Rahman & DeFeis, 2009; Ayiecha
& Senaji, 2014; Ahmadi et al., 2012; Noble, 1999; Brauer & Schmidt, 2006; Nguyen Huy, 2001;
Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988). The emphasis on change path and starting point by some researchers is
also a main focus in practice (e.g. Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988; Brauer & Schmidt, 2006; Rahman &
DeFeis, 2009). This is especially true with the use of deliberate strategies also in dynamic environments
as proposed by Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) as they were stated to be used in the company.

It also became apparent that another design choice in practice is very important to Techworks’
management level. Interviewees repeatedly stated that the use of participative leadership has been the
change style of choice when time pressure was immanent in strategic decisions. As highlighted already,
interviewees emphasized the high level of employee commitment and engagement when participative
leadership was used. However, not all interviewees solely relied on participative leadership, some stated
to use participative leadership in combination with clear boundaries or directive leadership elements
which is similar to the suggested change styles in the theory section (e.g Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988).

Finally, change roles were also mentioned to be a design choice regularly used in strategy
implementations. Interviewees stated that not only the inclusion of lower level management and
operational staff from an early stage in strategy formulation and implementation would be crucial but
also granting control in certain areas of the implementation process. Although a general decision about
the framework of how strategy is implemented remains at the top management level, affected personnel
are granted a certain degree of self-organization. One interviewee highlighted the benefits of the already
mentioned decentralized structure of the reviewed company and stated:

90/128
 “At the end of the day you need to have decision makers because you need a clear decision
structure you cannot always have democracy of course but participate in being responsible and
allowing people to make decisions decentralized, but it’s not democratic but provide a
guideline then move freely in this area by being participative because then you also have
different opinions.” (Interview 6, P02.70)

Here, certain decisions regarding strategy implementation were handed over to strategy implementer
and line management. This approach shares similarities with suggested design choices found in the
literature review of this master’s thesis as Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) suggested to transfer the
locus of control from top management to lower level management over the course of the implementation
process.

The design choice of change target in strategy implementation under time pressure as mentioned by
Nguyen Huy (2001), Ayiecha and Senaji (2014) and Ahmadi et al. (2012) in chapter 3.4 were not
mentioned explicitly by interviewees. The proposed alternation of the corporate culture in general and
values and beliefs in particular has not been the focus of interviewees in the implementation of strategies
under time pressure. However, change levers as the company transitions towards a flexible organization
to address dynamism as proposed by Noble (1999) has been highlighted by some interviewees.

Thus, the importance of the time factor in strategy implementation has a very high level of awareness
on the management level at Techworks. However, similarly to proposed additional contextual factors
that mediate success, also strategists and operational management at Techworks have experienced
additional contextual factors that influence outcomes in strategy implementation. Here, the influence of
context factors such as available resources or the scope of change on the outcome were mentioned to be
high. Furthermore, the influence of the aforementioned context factors also on the chosen alternations
in the organizations processes, structures and leadership style before and during strategy implementation
at Techworks point to a practical relevancy of the findings of Bryson and Bromiley (1993). Although
not always explicitly mentioned by interviewees from management, the considerations of additional
context factors other than time seem to play a role in both a conscious and unconscious way when
deciding on activities to implement strategies under time pressure.

5.2.4. Strategy Implementation Under Time Pressure

Strategy implementation under time pressure is affecting Techworks in many areas. Initially chapter 2.2
of this master’s thesis outlined factors that lead to a more dynamic market also affect the focal firm (e.g.
increased knowledge intensity, technological changes and deregulation). According to both strategists

91/128
and operational management, governmental regulations and increased price competition also put the
organization repeatedly under time pressure and forced them to change or initiate implementation of
new strategies.

In addition, implementations of single activities and tactics such as bundles of activities to alter
operations in order to realize the formulated strategy were made repeatedly under great time pressure.
The already outlined large number of customers in very different industries and markets lead to very
different needs and approaches. While in some parts of the organization quick reactions are necessary,
other parts may not be affected due to their different target market. Here, different influences of changes
in customer demand or government interference through regulations became apparent.

The prevalence and immanence of time pressure in strategy implementation, deployment of tactics and
operational activities were described by one interviewee:

“..if we want to enter the Chinese market we have to address the right persons within the next
three months, then we implement these actions and we already have this process where we say
we have defined measures, a dedicated responsible person and a deadline, there are measures
addressed at the next month, the next three months or the next two years.” (Interview 2,
P01.38)

However, not only time pressure due to increased uncertainty and dynamism of Techworks’ external
environment has affected the company but also a shift towards an individual and tailored strategy
formulation could be observed. Also, strategy implementation approaches in different areas of the firm
are changing towards a more fined-grained and individually developed implementation process for
different units within the firm. Thereby, a shift away from big projects has been stated to be one of the
major changes in recent years. Instead of similar attempts with disregards to the different customers in
different industries, a more dynamic set of different solutions for different customers and markets were
developed and put in place. Thus, the formulation and implementation process at Techworks takes
advantage of the decentralized organizational structure of the company in order to be able to develop
individual processes and structures whenever necessary.

5.2.5. Structure
Strategy implementation has led the organization to value certain organizational structures. Division of
labor and the coordination of responsibility are flexible in order to be able to address changes in the
environment sufficiently and quickly. Here, organizational structures were mentioned to be affected by

92/128
dynamism. One interviewee highlighted the decentralized organizational structure to be very
advantageous in a dynamic environment:

“… If we are looking on the whole company we are organized decentrally, which is the right
way. Then you have the advantage of being quicker in realizing changes in customer behavior
and markets, Certainly, if it is disruptive changes and the customer might not see that coming
then you are not seeing them as well, but essentially you realize many changes and are quick on
the market and can implement changes quickly because I am in the area with a small
organization.” (Interview 6, P02.54)

Activities within strategy implementation are assigned based on the individual circumstances and with
consideration for available resources. Also informational systems have been adjusted to be able to cope
with dynamic environments. In addition to common means of communication, a web-based
communication platform additionally enables personnel to share information about global and regional
market developments.

The organizational structure, division of labor and responsibilities of customer relations in the company
is not managed the same way in all of the organizations units. While in some parts of the company
structures, processes and leadership style are tailored for different regions in implementation as some
units are centered around product groups and served industries. This approach enables the company to
make use of synergies and allows for a strong focus in a small and defined area. Since customers
operating in the same industry usually are affected by the same external influences, measures to address
changes in the market due to externalities can be developed and implemented quickly.

A structure around geographical markets for some parts is therefore less valuable and is thus not the
main focus. Although a geographical focus in one part of the organization is prevalent and helpful in the
detection of regional governmental influences, these externalities are believed to become less relevant.
Here, globalization, increased competition and deregulation may already have a greater impact and is
likely to continue growing. Companies in the same industries, no matter where they are situated
geographically are increasingly experiencing similar external influences, therefore, the existing
approach has proved to be valuable in a globalized environment.

Additionally, the existing division of labor might be changed when implementing strategies under time
pressure since affected personnel might need to gather additional resources. This crucial factor exists in
management’s evaluations and in case employees responsible for strategy implementation would be too

93/128
occupied by operational work, changes in the division of labor or even structural modifications may take
place.

“So when someone implements it is important that superiors ensure that the person is freed
from bureaucracy and operational work. It sounds simple but it isn’t, because the
preconditions that you free persons from that work is to know what are those operational
works, often that’s not even clear there are many examples where people say: what shall I
start with?” (Interview 2, P03.117)

Although the awareness of organizational structure and division of labor is essential for high-speed
strategy implementations and therefore was mentioned by almost all interviewees from the management
level, two interviewees also highlighted problems with adjustments in the organizational structure and
the accumulation of resources. One interviewee pointed to the fact that personnel responsible for strategy
implementation could not always be freed from daily business and therefore had multiple tasks, which
was an obstacle to quick and successful implementations or adaptions to strategy. Another interviewee
added that in his field of expertise strategy implementer almost always had to deal with daily work and
were rarely supported in this regard.

Another highlighted example from an interviewee with regard to structure and division of labor were
cross-functional teams who were appointed to tackle a certain area of possible dynamism, uncertainty
or threats for either the whole organization or parts thereof. These cross-functional teams are often
appointed under time pressure with an unknown level of either intensity or endurance. Therefore, most
cross-functional teams are not free from daily work and are completing their tasks parallel to
organizational work. In order to address time constraints when implementing strategies, Techworks
embraces decentralization and flexibility in the division of labor. The decentralized and individual
diffusion of implementation steps depending on the task and the availability of resources enables the
company to address time pressure. Thereby, Techworks’ activities in the organization’s structure are in
line with the already highlighted statements of researchers that decentralization would improve
performance in a dynamic environment (Andersen, 2004, pp. 1271-1299). The additional combination
of deliberate planning with a decentralized implementation authority at Techworks are also in line with
the outlined usefulness in high speed strategy implementation and dynamic capabilities (e.g. Cao, 2011).

94/128
 5.2.6. Processes
Not only operational issues are developed and treated within a certain unit organized around an industry
but also strategies and tactics are developed and implemented accordingly. Therefore, strategies are
developed for different market segments individually. The responsible employee attends meetings with
sales staff and members of liaison offices worldwide in order to detect changes in the environment and
the current strategy is thus revised on a constant basis. In addition to meetings, processes have
additionally been extended with a virtual platform to enable all employees involved in customer
interactions to post and provide news and potentially valuable information for other organizational
members. Here, general market information but also detailed information about single customers (e.g.
recent order activities and new contracts with customers) are passed to members of the blog enabling for
swift information distribution and initiation of activities.

Standards and measures in strategy implementation have been set up in addition to structural adjustments
at Techworks. Here, measures are oriented towards predefined short and long term goals and are revised
on a constant basis. Motivation and incentives are aligned as best as possible to the articulated goals and
the strategy that is to be implemented. However, the large size of the company not always enables
management to align motivations and incentives perfectly to their goals since contextual factors and
possible interferences must be considered.

The strategy formulation and implementation is then developed for the respective segment in order to
individually address peculiarities. Head of segments are responsible for the strategy to be implemented
and distribute work to employees or teams. Also, single operational measures and tactics are distributed
by the head of the respective market segment. It has also been stated by interviewees from management
that strategy implementation processes have evolved from inflexible structures to dynamic structures
with constant bottom up initiatives, feedback activities and flexible assignment distribution with
consideration for the individual instance. However, it has been outlined that although processes have
been changed to dynamic ones, the need to have a guiding framework is also vital. Thus, implementers
are regularly granted a certain level of freedom but must nevertheless follow the guiding principles.

By embracing this adjustment of processes in implementation, the positive effects anticipated by

operational management are an increase in the speed of implementation, a higher level of commitment
and an increased level of input from lower organizational levels resulting in bottom-up initiatives. As
with structures, also processes cannot always be adapted in order to enhance a quick and successful
strategy implementation. In some instances both processes and structures could not be adapted in order
to support the implementation process but mainly had to remain unchanged due to a lack of resources.

95/128
Similarly to Techworks’ structure also its processes share similiarities of outlined activities in dynamic
capabilities in that it enables the routinization and retention of processes that support strategy
implementation in a dynamic environment (Madsen, 2010, p. 230). Thereby, sensing, seizing and
reconfiguring activities in dynamic capabilities as outlined by O’Reilly and Tushman (2008) are ought
to be supported at Techworks through flexible processes. Finally, bottom-up initiatives and feedback
activities shall further improve Techworks’ processes to suit a dynamic environment.

5.2.7. Leadership Style

With regards to strategic management in general and strategy implementation in particular, the company
has, in addition to structure and processes, also aligned their leadership style in order to address increased
dynamism in their environment. The organization has had different attempts in the past and therefore
has a great deal of experience in leadership style throughout the organization. The long existence of the
company with a multitude of different challenges to be dealt with created a high level of knowledge in
different areas.

The awareness of the impact of leadership style in dynamic environments is very high on the
management level. Several interviewees emphasized the importance of the right leadership style and
also the many different opportunities the right leadership style would provide to boost not only success
in business but also employee morale and inclusion of staff. Especially in an uncertain environment
signified by additional dynamism of external factors, a suitable leadership style was repeatedly noted as
essential. Here, the already mentioned participative leadership style has been highlighted to be especially
valuable in strategy implementation under time pressure. The inclusion of affected personnel in decision-
making is therefore made whenever possible. One interviewee stated:

“…most people would say you have to give clear orders, I have a different opinion and the
last five years we have made the experience that participation is the most important thing,
because the underlying reason is time efficiency, sometimes it’s hard to believe, because you
think, well, including so many people and everybody has something to say and participates.
And yes, that’s right in formulation, its essential that the people who are formulating strategy
and put it into practice can participate. And the advantage of a participatory formulation is,
that the time invested in formulation pays off three to four times which is empirically
confirmed, because you are quicker in implementation, and why quicker? Because people
understand it, they jointly developed them and are motivated to accomplish the goals.”
(Interview 2, P02.57)

96/128
The same interviewee also discussed the effects on a personal level:

“The people today in this volatile times needing quick implementation …the people are
different today. They don’t want to do what they have been told, people want to be part of the
process and that’s what the complexity of the market brings with it, that the people want to
participate.” (Interview 2, P03.81)

Similarly to processes, some interviewees mentioned that a high degree of autonomy for employees was
essential but they also needed to have a clear framework. In this regard, one of the main concerns was
that responsible employees should not have to make every decision on their own but only a smaller part
that should enable flexibility while other factors were less flexible and provided certainty. Not only
participative leadership style was mentioned to be valuable in strategy implementation under time
pressure but also the notion of being an enabler. Here, management supports staff responsible for
strategy implementation to accomplish their task. Following this notion, managers engage as coaches
and have mentioned this to be helpful in order to ensure employee loyalty and thereby achieve quick
results.

In connection with participative leadership and management acting as a coach, the importance of clarity
has been put forward by operational management. Management’s clarity about job roles, responsibilities
and the awareness of important and unimportant tasks was perceived as a precondition to be an enabler.
For some interviewees participative leadership is also connected to regular feedback meetings which
enable employees working in operations to evaluate the implemented strategies. With regards to
leadership style, one interviewee mentioned the importance to have the right corporate culture. If
participative leadership attempts would be exerted in a company with an ill-suited corporate culture,
participative leadership style would be doomed to fail.

The corporate culture at Techworks however was believed to encourage the inclusion of lower level
employees in strategy implementation. One interviewee stated that the corporate culture in the company
could be seen as the main enabler. “The culture, when I started in the company I thought: Wow, it’s like
a family, the company is big but you feel like in a family and I think this company is like a family despite
it is so big…” (Interview 2, P04.157).

Interviewee 2 also continued to talk about the corporate culture being important: “…because that fosters
momentum, and ultimately, a company’s success factor, of every company are its people they enable
swift implementations. And when you enable that people love working for the company then the
readiness to act swiftly is higher” (Interview 2, P04.162).

97/128
The same interviewee went on to say that the company culture and the use of participative leadership
style was very well nurtured in the company and considered this to be something other firms could learn
from this company. However, although very passionate when mentioning corporate culture and
leadership style, the interviewee also acknowledged that the corporate culture and leadership style could
not be considered to be the same in all parts of the organization and therefore, may be exerted differently.
The awareness in the organization that a great deal of expertise sits in the operational parts of the
organizations became apparent and is included in the implementation and revision of strategy whenever
possible. Especially in dynamic environments, the expertise and close connection to customers in certain
areas of the organization is valued heavily and embraced although it might be time consuming initially.

“But those people in operations are very important they have the experience in the market and
can provide a very important input of what has to be implemented quickly… That’s an
essential point in case you have to change quick, because people from operations are at the
customers and feel when something changes and you have to gather these informations
quickly before you make decisions in an autocratic way, which then is no longer autocratic.”
(Interview 2, P05.177)

In addition to differences of leadership style in the company’s subunits, there might also be different
leadership styles for different purposes (i.e. strategic, operational or personal). Although a certain
consistency of leadership styles throughout the company is believed to be desirable by some
management employees, different approaches at the strategic, operational and personal level are used.
Here, individual situations of affected personnel with regard to their personality will have an effect on
the use of management style in certain areas and therefore vary with the degree of time pressure.

Also, the presence of resources and readiness for change plays a vital role in choosing the appropriate
leadership style from a continuum ranging from participative to directional. During interviews it became
clear that the leadership style often times is dependent on many different external factors. Also, the
personal capabilities of staff has to be taken into account leading to different and sometimes changing
leadership styles within organizational parts or even offices and teams.

In contrast to the previously mentioned emphasis on participative leadership of some interviewees, there
were however also some interviewees who, although acknowledging the benefits, practiced a directive
leadership style when time pressure was high. In this regard, especially the short-term savings in time
were the main reasons. “Regarding leadership style: it is both practicable and fruitful in a dynamic

98/128
environment. However, it is not always possible, sometimes it’s just giving orders. Often, when time
pressure is high, it’s rather directive.” (Interview 8, P01.17)

Another interviewee replied after being asked which leadership is seen as superior in strategy
implementation in dynamic environments:

“Because [participative leadership] that’s blocking a lot of decisions and in my opinion 70-80
percent of people agreeing is sufficient, the rest has to be autocratic. It has also to do with
educating staff and not only giving orders and managing by objectives, the people must
understand why certain decisions had been taken.” (Interview 7, P3.99)

With few exceptions, all of the interviewees highlighted their positive experiences with participative
leadership style in the event of high-speed strategy implementations. However, perceptions of which
measures to take in order to enable quick changes may be perceived differently in certain organizational
parts and will be the focus of the next chapter.

The preferred leadership style at Techworks’ to cope with time pressure is clearly participative
leadership style. However, as stated by Whittington et al. (2017) leadership style should be changed
according to contextual factors. Therefore, the influence of the environment, dynamism and contextual
factors were mentioned to have a strong influence on leadership style (Balogun & Hailey, 2008, p. 36;
Lehner, 2004, p. 469). The previously mentioned factors could also be observed at Techworks, the
participative leadership style as the leadership style of choice is only to be changed to directional or even
coercive leadership style in the event of immediate threats. Thus, Techworks uses different leadership
styles depending on time pressure, contextual factors and environmental factors as suggested by several
authors in the theory section of this master’s thesis (e.g. Nguyen Huy, 2001; Bourgeois & Eisenhardt,
1988).

The interviews with both strategists and management personnel showed that globalization and
dynamism also affected the strategy implementation at Techworks. Most interviewees stated that they
have experienced an increase in external influences that make the revision of the strategies necessary.
These changes in the environment then might culminate in the adaption of existing strategies or the need
to implement entirely new strategies. Approaches might range from the adaption of the strategy for a
certain part of the organization supported by tactics and operational measures to the implementation of
wholly new strategies.

99/128
As highlighted before, the potential areas for adjustments in strategy implementation under time pressure
in the company range from the adaption of either processes, structure or leadership style to a combination
of them. Therefore, the awareness of the challenges for businesses in general and strategy
implementation in particular that stems from globalization and dynamism is high among the interviewed
strategists and operational managers.

Thus, every interviewee had a high level of awareness for the topic at hand and had collected practical
experiences over the years. Hence, all interviewees drew conclusions from their experiences and had
developed personal preferences as to which measures to take in the event of time pressure. While some
interviewees focused on either processes, structures or leadership style, some would adjust a
combination of the aforementioned dimensions. The dimension that has been perceived as the most
promising amongst management personnel appeared to be leadership style.

5.3. Perceptions on Different Organizational Levels

In order to get a broad view of strategy implementation under time pressure, this master’s thesis not only
focuses on the management level at Techworks but also on all affected organizational areas and their
possible deviations in the perception of practicability of highlighted activities. Thus, the previously
mentioned statements of management personnel will now be compared to the statements of operational
staff.

In general, employees from operations (i.e. sales, customer care) shared the perception of operations
management with regard to globalization, dynamic environments and an increased uncertainty.
Interviewee’s from operational management, sales and customer care highlighted the growing time
pressure they have experienced in strategy implementation and operational work. Also, the increasing
number of international customers with a significant shift from domestic and European customers to
overseas customers was mentioned as adding to complexity and dynamism.

“Regarding the first question, globalization. I am working for six years for the company and
when I started the setup wasn’t that international like now. Back then we were aiming at
Germany and Europe but since some markets are changing we also aim at the US and
Brazilian market, that’s increased and also from the structure.” (Interview 3, P01.27)

The increasing internationalization has led employees form operations also to a perceived increase in
strategy implementations.“Employees have to prepare for one strategy when the next is already in the
pipeline, that’s getting more and more…” (Interview 3, P03.88)

100/128
Most interviewees from operations also shared the same opinion about the occurrence of new or changed
strategies in a globalized environment. Some interview partners mentioned they had the feeling strategies
would be newly implemented or changed in an ever-shortening cycle.

One interviewee additionally mentioned that the number of simultaneous changes in different parts of
the company is increasing and that one implementation of one strategy in a certain part of the company
sometimes is not complete before the next implementation already starts, which adds to an increase of
workload that might endanger the successful completion of an implementation. Here, the tension of
increased dynamism and commitment to corporate values can be especially challenging. One
interviewee stated: “I’d say, the intervals of strategies are getting shorter, but we as a company have to
represent and stick to a certain industry. We are environmental conscious and that’s not changing
although markets are getting more dynamic” (Interview 5, P02.48).

Interviewed employees from the operational level were used to quick implementations and adjustments.
However, in contrast to management level, operational level employees had perceived additional
challenges which were not mentioned by the management. For one interviewee, the main challenges and
peculiarities with regard to strategy implementation in a dynamic environment had been communication,
clear goals and a timeline. Especially in a dynamic setting, the interviewee stated this to be crucial and
sometimes missing in practice.

Here, especially when it comes to the translation of the corporate strategy into the different segments,
the communication of responsibilities and activities sometimes are the main hindering factor for
successful outcomes. Techworks repeatedly had to react to outside influences, which immediately
affected daily work of operationalists. For another interviewee, the resources available to implement
strategy were essential. Thereby, not only external resources were important but also own resources in
order to realize new strategies and also deal with daily operational work. One interviewee had the feeling
that sometimes strategy and tactics were implemented too quickly and sometimes led to increased costs
instead of cost savings.

However, the constant occurrence of changes need resources that are not always available readily. The
previously mentioned success factor of management employees that strategy implementation needs
enough internal resources and that operational personal has to be freed from daily work in order to enable
change points to a high awareness of this problem.

101/128
 5.3.1. Activities to Address Strategy Implementation at Techworks
As mentioned, management employees have some perceptions about strategy implementation under
time pressure. Along these perceptions, certain approaches to address the dynamism affecting strategy
implementation are present. Some of these activities are also found in literature as suggestions of authors,
some might have evolved individually in the organization with a strong influence of corporate culture
and personal preferences. In addition, employees from operations were presented with the statements
from management and asked about their opinion about the practicability and value of these activities in
their field of experience.

Structure

One approach mentioned by an interviewee from management with regard to structure is a

decentralization of the organization in order to quickly and individually address areas where strategies
had to be adjusted or implemented due to changes in external factors. Thereby, the emphasis would be
on an individual strategic management for all parts of the organization, which is due to its diversity in
customer structure, seen as advantageous. Operational management and staff from operations (i.e. sales,
customer care) perceived the decentralized structure of the organization as a contributing factor to
flexibility and tailored measures for their field of expertise. The structuring around markets is perceived
as being advantageous in a dynamic setting and is seen equally important amongst employees from
operations.

“Strategy for me is planned, also in a dynamic environment, because also in a dynamic

environment you need your frame your constant planning and reviewing that’s important. But
this process must also enable bottom-up processes which works better in a decentralized
structure because you have different pictures and aggregations.” (Interview 6, P03.101)

As highlighted, one interviewee from the management level outlined the need to free operational
management, sales and customer care staff from both bureaucracy and daily work when strategies have
to be adapted or implemented.

Some interviewees from operations mentioned that this is often the main hindering reason for
implementations. Operational staff sometimes is so occupied with routines that they do not have the
resources to engage in additional work. One interviewee from operations stated after being asked which
challenges with regards to globalization and implementation he experienced: “The resources I have in
order to be able to achieve that besides operational work. That depends on the task…. We had that in the
past, we had to do a lot of additional work…” (Interview 3, P01.07).

102/128
However, the awareness from management to ensure enough resources for affected personnel in strategy
implementation seems to have initiated a change for the better. In strategy implementation and
operational tasks, elements of dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity are used to improve outcomes and
employee satisfaction. Although partly not being familiar with the concept of ambidexterity and
therefore not specifically referred to as being ambidextrous, organizational management implemented
activities to enable swift changes.

Here, certain parts of the organization or individuals were handed tasks to enable the organizational units
to exert exploitation and exploration at the same time. Thus, the division of customers amongst staff has
similarities to an ambidextrous organizational design by grouping the support of customers according to
their characteristics with regard to dynamism. Thereby, dynamic customers with quickly changing
requirements due to both internal and external influences are sometimes grouped in a specific part of the
organization. Also, customers operating in the same dynamic industry are often grouped in a certain part
of the organization. Since these customers often experience changes, which also makes the change or
implementation of a new strategy at Techworks necessary, the ambidextrous division of labor enables
the company to quickly react to changes without jeopardizing other parts of the company.

Since exploitative activities are not the subject of constant changes in strategy and tactics, the generation
of economies of scale is not endangered. At the same time, strategically important customers or
industries can be addressed in an explorative manner in that it enables the organization to nurture future
markets as best as possible.

Processes

As with structures, also processes have been adjusted at Techworks to address dynamic markets and
high speed strategy implementations. Although some deviations in different parts of the organization
could be found, interviewees uncovered a fairly similar approach with regard to the optimization of
processes towards a responsive approach.

During interviews it became apparent that the activities to enhance organizational processes to meet
quickly changing factors were very similar to dynamic capabilities as mentioned by Teece, Pisano and
Shuen (1997) and Madsen (2010). As with the concept of ambidexterity, not all interviewed persons
from management were familiar with the concept of dynamic capabilities. They nevertheless embraced
a very similar process.

103/128
The sensing, seizing and reconfiguring activities as described by O’Reilly and Tushman (2008) were
part of the company’s attempt to address dynamic environments. The sensing activities regarded as the
detection of opportunities were addressed in the firm by constantly scanning the environment for
changes. The previously mentioned decentralized structure enables individual approaches and can be
seen as one activity to enable individual sensing for all parts of the company. Also, regularly reviewing
strategy by having regular meetings adds to this notion.

“…and having decentralized structures has the advantage that you are quicker in
implementation. Additionally you have more input because you are closer to the market and
the customer and then provide these informations to upper levels in order to being able to
learn from each other .. in organization, processes and leadership style its certainly important
to have some guidelines but allow personnel to move freely within those boundaries.“
(Interview 6, P02.61)

Finally, the outlined introduction of internal means of communication enables personnel to create blogs
and thereby, forward information about the market and customers ensures a swift information
distribution to sense both threats and opportunities. Seizing activities are addressed in the subsequent
execution of strategy implementation in the organization. In the event of dynamic shifts, dedicated teams
organized around customers are given the task to develop measures. The teams are usually organized
cross functionally consisting of sales personnel, customer care personnel and technicians to ensure the
alignment of the whole value chain.

The reconfiguring activities as the orchestration of assets are made subsequently at the point of dynamic
disruptions. Here several activities had been implemented in the past ranging from tactics of limited
nature to the formulation and implementation of new strategies potentially adjusting the whole value
chain. The activities aimed at processes however were not entirely perceived as advantageous and
practicable for lower level employees. As mentioned, one interviewee pointed to the lack of
communication and clear responsibilities in some instances. Also, a lack of timelines and resource
distribution had been difficult in the past. In general, most interviewees from lower levels mentioned
that dynamic shifts occur increasingly more often in very short cycles.

This led not only to some challenges for the management level but also for personnel dealing with
operational tasks. Some interviewees from the operational level of the organization highlighted an
increased workload and a regular dual burden of daily business and constant changes in measures, tactics
and strategies. “Yes I think we have to be quicker and because the workload has increased and

104/128
management, they say just do it and participative leadership has decreased, that’s my opinion” (Interview
3, P01.33).

Also, the alignment of both motivation and incentives were not always referred to as being adequate by
employees from the operational level and therefore seen as insufficient or absent altogether especially
when time pressure was perceived as high. The alignment of incentives and measures therefore might
sometimes be sacrificed in favor of a quick implementation.

Although some interviewees from the management level also pointed to the absence of motivation and
incentives in some instances and thus have a high level of awareness, countermeasures were only
initiated to a limited extent. The reasons mentioned were a lack of time and resources but also possible
interferences with already existing measures and incentives.

Management style

Another highlighted approach at Techworks to address high-speed strategy implementation was the
emphasis on participative leadership style. Several interviewees mentioned the importance of including
affected staff and highlighted the benefits for both the reactiveness of the company to changes and also
the increased employee satisfaction. Whenever possible, staff from operations and operational
management should be involved in decision making and the expertise of all affected organizational levels
should be taken into account.

Some interviewees from management also had the self-perception of being an enabler rather than
someone who gives orders and were convinced to not only accomplish a higher degree of flexibility
towards environmental disruptions but also enhanced feedback activities.

“..you have topics bottom up and emergent you have strategies there, you have opportunities
which are passed on to higher levels and here middle management is very important because
they experience a lot of feedback which they pass to higher levels and when participative
leadership is allowed, which is practiced in many areas ..that’s improving your capabilities
..different views” (Interview 6, P 3.104)

Interviewees from the operational level also found participative leadership styles to be more
advantageous over other leadership styles and also had the impression that it would not only enhance
commitment but also the speed of a strategy to be implemented.

105/128
A notable example with regard to leadership style in high-speed implementation of strategies was
highlighted by an interviewee from operations. This employee stated to prefer directive leadership style
over participative leadership style in the event of high time pressures. The reasons for this were a
perceived increase in speed in operational tasks and a lower level of uncertainty in being told what to
do. However, most interviewees see a participative leadership style as their preferred leadership style
when implementing strategy.

Interestingly, some interviewees pointed to a perceived change in leadership style when it comes to
strategy implementation under time pressure in the organization. Therefore, the high level of
participative leadership in the organization was perceived to move towards a directive leadership style
in certain areas. The majority of employees dealing with operational issues had expressed the impression
of a shift in leadership style, which has been perceived as a consequence of an increase in uncertainty
and cost reduction measures. One interviewee stated, “Lower level personnel are rather instruction
receiver of goals, in the past management often were supporters and patrons, that’s changing” (Interview
5, P02.56).

And another interviewee from a different office added:

“Right, it’s always getting more difficult with time pressure, I think that back then we had
participative leadership but that changed, more laissez faire, we had the feeling we had
someone to go to but that’s decreasing due to time pressure.” (Interview 3, P02.60)

This perceived shift in leadership style in the event of time pressure and an increased level of uncertainty
were confirmed by several interviewees from operations in different areas. These perceptions of a change
in leadership style in the event of time pressure confirm the statements by management personnel
outlined earlier that participative leadership styles due to a lack of resources were not always possible.

Thus, not only employees from operations were aware of a shift in leadership style when uncertainty
increases but also employees from the management level exercising this particular leadership style. This
perceived shift in leadership style with an increase of time pressure supports the findings of Cameron,
Kim & Whetten (1987).

In addition, one interviewee highlighted that not only leadership style was the subject to shifts but also
processes and structures. With the increase of dynamics in the market, the perceived effects on
implementation with regard to structure and processes were: “…so the processes are getting shorter,

106/128
stricter and have to be clearly distinct and definitely leadership is getting more authoritarian from a
certain level” (Interview 5, P 02.54).

Employees from the operational level perceive it as being increasingly difficult to realize changes in
strategy while at the same time dealing with day-to-day work. During interviews with several employees
from operations, a certain level of discontent with both the growing number of changes to strategy and
the tendency towards a growing inflexibility in processes, structures and leadership style could be
detected. Thus, the high level of uncertainty and quickly occurring changes in the environment often
translates into the need to exert several activities at the same time, which occupies a lot of resources on
the operational level.

Hence, the perceived increase of inflexibility of structures and processes combined with a shift to
directive leadership style when dynamism and uncertainty rise make it additionally difficult for
employees dealing with operational issues to complete all activities regarding strategy implementation
on time.

5.3.2. Results
The perceived challenges towards globalization and dynamism at Techworks have been mainly the same
at all involved organizational levels and were stated as the growing time pressure in the adaption and
implementation of strategies. Also the intervals in which strategies are changed was perceived to become
shorter and the total number of adaptations and changes were perceived to be growing especially in
operations.

The activities that Techworks incorporated in structure, process and leadership style to address dynamic
environments have also been perceived positively across the different organizational parts. The
decentralization of the organization structure and adaptation of processes was equally stated as being
advantageous in a dynamic environment by strategists, operational management and operational staff.
However, in the perception of misalignment of incentives and motivation in processes as well as the
sometimes missing communication of timelines and goals on the operational level revealed differences
in the perception compared to management employees and made deficiencies in communication between
the involved organizational parts obvious.

The leadership style that was perceived as being the most valuable in a dynamic environment is
participative leadership. However, leadership style has been stated to move from participative to
directional with the increase of time pressure and thereby is the aim of, at least, temporal changes.
Although some of the strategists and operational managers mentioned that leadership would change in

107/128
instances with very high time pressure, the perception of a change in leadership style was higher amongst
operational staff.

108/128
6. Conclusion
The final chapter of this master’s thesis shall give the reader an overview of the main findings. The
theoretical insights will be summarized and interpreted. Subsequently, empirical findings will be
outlined and comparatively put into perspective with theoretical findings. Finally, limitations of both
theoretical and empirical findings will be mentioned and suggestions for future research will be given.

Several authors highlighted in the theory part of this master’s thesis have stated that globalization and
dynamic environments have many effects on the economy and different industries (Whittington et al.,
2017, p. 281; Wiersema & Bowen, 2008, p. 118). The findings of authors regarding the impact of
globalization and dynamic environments on industries and the economy could be mainly confirmed by
interviewees at Techworks. Here, increasing competition and internationalization have been highlighted
by several interviewees from both operational management and operations. Many interviewees also
observed an increase of cost and time pressure with the increase of globalization and dynamism.
However, perceptions varied among interviewees and interviewees pointed to different influential
factors, occurrence of disruptions and intensity with regard to different industries and customers.

Furthermore, the previously outlined influencing factors of globalization and dynamism on strategic
management had been recognized at Techworks. Additionally, protectionist tendencies and government
regulations were mentioned as important. The planning perspective and the implementation of deliberate
strategies however is still a vital part of Techworks’ strategic management. Thereby, deliberate strategies
in combination with emergent activities and tactics are seen as a valuable symbiosis of both guidance
and flexibility. However, adjustments to the strategy at Techworks are always made with regards to the
industry that is being served in order to be able to appropriately address individual influencing factors.
Thereby, implementation aspects and contextual factors had a high relevancy in practice. As a
consequence of the contextual factors, differences in the design choice of strategy implementation had
been highlighted and thus might range from the use of different change styles to certain change levers.

The highlighted adjustments to address time constraints in the theoretical part of this master’s thesis (i.e.
ambidexterity, dynamic capabilities, Agile and Scrum) were for the most part known by both strategists
and management. In some parts of the organization ambidextrous approaches to nurture dynamic
capabilities could be confirmed. Although both concepts were well received among management staff,
limitations in resources to the use in practice were mentioned and therefore used only to a limited extent.
While ambidexterity had been used temporarily in small areas, Agile and Scrum approaches were mainly
used in single projects and thus not considered to be valuable on a larger scale. However, adjustments at

109/128
Techworks in structure, processes and leadership style with a consideration for contextual factors shared
several similarities with dynamic capabilities (e.g. decentralization, inclusion of staff, flexible processes
to nurture exploration and exploitation).

With varying degrees, structure (division of labour, decentralization), processes (motivation, incentives)
and leadership style (directive versus participative) had also been adjusted to support high-speed strategy
implementations, which shared similarities to ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities in that the
organization valued exploitation and exploration. It therefore comes as no surprise that the majority of
interviewees stated ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities as being helpful in high-speed strategy
implementation. Also, the decentralized structure at Techworks, their flexible and tailored processes and
the widely used participative leadership style were perceived as being advantageous in a dynamic
environment by interviewees across the organization. Thus, the analysis of the perception of means to
address dynamism in strategy implementation in practice revealed a high level of similar viewpoints
among different organizational levels.

However, activities in structure, processes and leadership style brought also some differences in the
perception of intention and the actual outcome in different parts of the organization to light. The rather
large emphasis of operations employees on the degree of bureaucracy and daily work in comparison to
management level employees were significant and was mentioned as being a potential hindering factor
for successful implementations. Also, a lack of communication, motivation and incentive alignment to
goals was mentioned by employees from the operational level, which deviated from the statements of
both strategists and management personnel. Although management staff occasionally mentioned
motivation and incentive alignment as being important for strategy implementation in dynamic
environments, the importance of both appeared to be higher on lower levels of the organization.

Finally, the occasional increase in the level of inflexibility in processes, structures and leadership style
under time pressure at Techworks stated by employees from operations seems to diverge from the
perceptions of management personnel and is contradicting the stated shift to flexible structures and
processes. Although management was also aware of possible shifts of leadership to directive, the
perceived intensity and scope had also here been higher on the operational level of the organization.

Since Techworks at the time the interviews were conducted had to adjust existing strategies due to
external influences (i.e. protectionism, change in government regulations, cost reduction, declining
business figures) the impression of increasing inflexibility of structure and processes due to time and
cost pressure was clear. Although many interviewees from management perceived leadership style

110/128
sometimes to shift from participative to directional, the increasing level of inflexibility in structures and
processes was rarely mentioned by managers.

These statements by interviewees confirm the findings of Lehner (2004) and Cameron et al. (1987) in
that dynamic environments with a high level of uncertainty would influence the level of flexibility in a
company’s structures and processes along with effects on the leadership style. The different perceptions
at Techworks may therefore potentially lead to an inconsistent applying of activities and ultimately might
endanger successful strategy implementations. Hence, the differences in perceptions across the involved
parts of the organization call for skilled planning staff and an increase in communication efforts.

6.1. Implications Discussion

The effects of globalization and dynamism are affecting different industries with varying degree. Here,
not only the effects on single industries but also differences of external influences in different industries
should be taken into account in strategic management and strategy implementation. Especially
businesses serving different clients in different industries have to be aware of possible contradicting
activities or adverse impacts. The example of Techworks as a company being active in many different
industries with very different external influences and contextual factors highlighted the need to balance
different, often contradicting influences in different industries.

Techworks has taken several approaches to address dynamism and time pressure in processes, structure
and leadership style. Techworks has organized its structures in a decentralized way in order to be able
to address different industries with individual activities. Processes have been adapted accordingly to
ensure a high amount of flexibility and to allow both exploitation and exploration in the same
organization. Techworks has further embraced participative leadership style to include operational
employees in decision making from an early stage. These adaptations were stated to be advantageous in
dynamic environments and had a high level of popularity among different levels within the organization.
The use of the planning perspective and deliberate strategy implementation is disputed among
researchers. At Techworks however, deliberate strategies are still a vital part of strategic management.
Deliberate strategies were stated by strategists as being of high value in delivering a guiding framework
and certainty. Similar to the findings of Kopmann et al. (2017) in the theoretical part of this master’s
thesis, deliberate strategies were seen as complementary with emergent strategies from both strategists
and operational managers at Techworks. However, implementation of either deliberate or emergent
strategies were also seen as influenced by contextual factors such as time, capacity and scope within the
company and therefore considered in strategy formulation and implementation at Techworks.

111/128
In summary, strategy implementation appears to become less deliberate and is increasingly becoming
emergent in a dynamic environment. Dynamism and uncertainty appear to force to more fine-grained
and individual strategy implementations for different customers and industries. Also, the decentralized
organizational structure facilitate quick and tailored reactions at Techworks to different external factors
in strategic management. Furthermore, strategy implementation is exerted with an increasing level of
inclusion of the operational level and thus appears to move from a rather top-down to a bottom-up
strategy formulation and implementation approach. However, although inclusion of different
organizational levels in high-speed strategy implementation has seemed to work well for Techworks,
deviations in perceptions in different parts of the organization are still prevalent and growing inflexibility
in strategies and processes with an increase of time pressure is seen as critical on the operational level.
Thus, heightened communication efforts may additionally improve strategy implementation outcomes.

Finally, as the example of Techworks showed not only that an increase in globalization might foster
dynamism but also a decrease can lead to dynamism and uncertainty which can force companies to act
under time pressure. The level of globalization therefore not only implies increased dynamics for
managers when growing but also when declining. Thus, managers must closely observe globalization
levels and changes in either direction.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research

The previously outlined effects of globalization and dynamic environments on the economy and different
industries may vary in their relevancy and effect on different companies in different industries. Different
levels of government regulations and knowledge intensity vary amongst different industries and
therefore may lead to very different levels of exposure to globalization and implications for different
actions. As a consequence, the needs for strategy implementation may vary greatly among firms in
different areas of the world being active in different industries.

Furthermore, different business models, products and their life cycle may also lead to a different
perception of strategy. Companies from the service sector may have shorter strategy horizons compared
to companies with a high capital cost level. Therefore, differences in the perception between strategies
and tactics among different firms and industries may occur. Also, the terminology of strategy, tactics,
dynamism and volatility is not always clearly defined in literature and therefore may be used
interchangeably. In addition, proposed approaches to address high-speed strategy implementation (e.g.
ambidexterity, dynamic capabilities) are limited and one-sided. Some of these approaches are
furthermore disputed amongst researchers and thus need clarification. Also, the consideration for

112/128
contextual factors would add to the applicability of both models. Although contextual factors have been
incorporated in this master’s thesis for that particular reason, further research could lead to valuable
insights and increase practicability.

Finally, a stronger focus on practice in both effects of dynamism on strategy implementation and the
applying of ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities would further enhance usability. Thereby, concrete
suggestions and recommendations for practitioners would add to both the value and applicability of the
outlined activities and ultimately contribute to better grasp all influencing factors and their impact on
high speed strategy implementation.

113/128
7. Literature

Adomako, S., Howard Quartey, S., & Narteh, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation, passion for work,
perceived environmental dynamism and firm performance in an emerging economy. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, 23(3), 728-752.

Ahmadi, A., Ali, S., Salamzadeh, Y., Daraei, M., & Akbari, J. (2012). Relationship between
organizational culture and strategy implementation: Typologies and dimensions. Global Business &
Management Research, 4, 286-299.

Al-Kandi, I., Asutay, M., & Dixon, R. (2013). Factors influencing the strategy implementation process
and its outcomes: Evidence from Saudi Arabian banks. Journal of Global Strategic
Management, 14(1), 5-15.

Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in
strategic management?. International journal of management reviews, 11(1), 29-49.

Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C. & Collier, N. (2009). 'Dynamic capabilities: An exploration of how firms
renew their resource base', British Journal of Management, 20, 9-24.

Anand, G., & Ward, P. T. (2004). Fit, flexibility and performance in manufacturing: coping with
dynamic environments. Production and Operations Management, 13(4), 369-385.

Andersen, T. J. (2004). Integrating decentralized strategy making and strategic planning processes in
dynamic environments. Journal of management studies, 41(8), 1271-1299.

Andersen, T. J., & Nielsen, B. B. (2009). Adaptive strategy making: The effects of emergent and
intended strategy modes. European Management Review, 6(2), 94-106.

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational

ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science, 20(4), 696-717.

Ansoff, H. I., & McDonnell, E. J. (1988). The new corporate strategy. New York: J. Wiley.

Argouslidis, P. C., Baltas, G., & Mavrommatis, A. (2015). An empirical investigation into the
determinants of decision speed in product elimination decision processes. European Management
Journal, 33(4), 268-286.

114/128
Ateş, N. Y., Tarakci, M., Porck, J. P., van Knippenberg, D., & Groenen, P. J. (2018). The dark side of
visionary leadership in strategy implementation: Strategic alignment, strategic consensus, and
commitment. Journal of Management, 1-29. doi:10.1177/0149206318811567

Ayiecha, F. O., & Senaji, T. A. (2014). Moderating effect of organizational culture on the
implementation of turnaround strategy. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 16(4), 88-93.

Balogun, J., & Hailey, V. H. (2008). Exploring strategic change. Pearson Education.

Benner, M., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, Exploration and Process Management: The
Production Dilemma Revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.

Bierly III, P. E., & Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and
organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(4),
493-516.

Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How Do Firms Adapt to Discontinuous Change?
Bridging the Dynamic Capabilities and Ambidexterity Perspectives. California Management Review,
58(4), 36–58.

Bolisani, E., & Bratianu, C. (2017). Knowledge strategy planning: an integrated approach to manage
uncertainty, turbulence, and dynamics. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 233-253.

Bourgeois, L. J., & Brodwin, D. R. (1984). Strategic implementation: Five approaches to an elusive
phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 241-264.

Bourgeois III, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Strategic decision processes in high velocity
environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management science, 34(7), 816-835.

Brauer, M., & Schmidt, S. L. (2006). Exploring strategy implementation consistency over time: The
moderating effects of industry velocity and firm performance. Journal of Management &
Governance, 10(2), 205-226.

Brews, P. J. & Hunt, M. R. (1999). ‘Learning to plan and planning to learn: resolving the planning
school/learning school debate’. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), 889–913.

115/128
Bryson, J. M., & Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of
major projects. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 319-337.

Cameron, K. S., Kim, M. U., & Whetten, D. A. (1987). Organizational effects of decline and
turbulence. Administrative Science Quarterly,32(2), 222-240.

Cândido, Carlos J.F. & Santos, Sérgio P. (2019). Implementation obstacles and strategy
implementation failure, Baltic Journal of Management, 14(1), 39-57.

Cao, L. (2011). Dynamic capabilities in a turbulent market environment: empirical evidence from
international retailers in China. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(5), 455-469.

Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambi-dexterity: Dimensions,
contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.

Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from
owner managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354-359.

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto
tactics. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 195-215.

Casillas, J. C., Barbero, J. L., & Sapienza, H. J. (2015). Knowledge acquisition, learning, and the
initial pace of internationalization. International Business Review, 24(1), 102-114.

Christensen, C.R., Andrews, K.R., Bower, J.L., Hamermesh, P., Porter, M. (1987). Business Policy:
Text and Cases, (6). Homewood

Cooppan, V., (2001) ‘World Literature and Global Theory: Comparative Literature for the New
Millennium’, Symploke, 9, (1) 15-43.

Danneels, E. (2011). Trying to become a different type of company: Dynamic capability at Smith
Corona. Strategic Management Journal, 32(1), 1-31.

Das, D. K. (2011). Conceptual globalism and globalisation : an initiation. [Coventry] : Centre for the
Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick (Working paper no. 275), 1-43.
Retrieved January 15, 2020, from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/49071

116/128
D'Aveni, R. A. (1998). Waking up to the new era of hypercompetition. Washington Quarterly, 21(1),
183-195.

D'Aveni, R. A., Dagnino, G. B., & Smith, K. G. (2010). The age of temporary advantage. Strategic
management journal, 31(13), 1371-1385.

Dess G, & Beard D. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science
Quarterly 29: 52–73.

Dhir, S., Dhir, S., & Samanta, P. (2018). Defining and developing a scale to measure strategic
thinking. foresight, 20(3), 271-288.

Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016): Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial und
Humanwissenschaften. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they?.Strategic management
journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.

Felin, T., & Powell, T. C. (2016). Designing organizations for dynamic capabilities. California
Management Review, 58(4), 78-96.

Fitzroy, P. T., & Hulbert, J. M. (2005). Strategic management: Creating value in a turbulent world.
Hoboken USA: John Wiley & Sons.

Fourné, S. P., Rosenbusch, N., Heyden, M. L., & Jansen, J. J. (2019). Structural and contextual
approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental
contingencies. European Management Journal, 37(5), 564-576.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2) 209-226.

Gilbert, C. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource vs. routine rigidity. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(5), 741-763.

Glaser, L., Fourné, S. P., & Elfring, T. (2015). Achieving strategic renewal: The multi-level influences
of top and middle managers’ boundary-spanning. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 305-327.

117/128
Gloger, B., & Margetich, J. (2014). Das Scrum-Prinzip: agile Organisationen aufbauen und
gestalten. Projektmanagement, Innovationsmanagement, 7-24.

Goeltz, D. R. (2014). Globalization and hypercompetition-Drivers, linkages, and industry

differences. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 8, 1-15.

Goldman, E. F. (2012). Leadership practices that encourage strategic thinking. Journal of Strategy
and Management, 5(1), 25-40.

Graetz, F. (2002). Strategic thinking versus strategic planning: towards understanding the
complementarities. Management decision, 40(5), 456-462.

Griffith, D. A., Noble, S. M., & Chen, Q. (2006). The performance implications of entrepreneurial
proclivity: A dynamic capabilties approach. Journal of Retailing, 82(1), 51-62.

Gross, R. (2016). Towards an understanding of the relationship between leadership styles and
strategic thinking: A small and medium enterprise perspective. Journal of Business Studies
Quarterly, 8(2), 22-39.

Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (2015). Globalization and growth. American Economic
Review, 105(5), 100-104.

Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and
exploitation. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 693-706.

Güttel, W. H., & Konlechner, S. W. (2009). Continuously hanging by a thread: Managing contextually
ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Business Review, 61(2), 150-172.

Hailey, V. H., & Balogun, J. (2002). Devising context sensitive approaches to change: the example of
Glaxo Wellcome. Long Range Planning, 35(2), 153-178.

Hansen, E. G., Wicki, S., & Schaltegger, S. (2018). Structural ambidexterity, transition processes, and
integration trade-offs: a longitudinal study of failed exploration. R&D Management. 484-508.

118/128
Harvey, M., Novicevic, M. M., & Kiessling, T. (2001). Hypercompetition and the future of global
management in the twenty-first century. Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(5), 599-616.

Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and assessment of
managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of management, 41(5), 1281-1312.

Helfat, C. E. & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles.
Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997-1010.

Hin, C. W., Isa, F. M., & Hee, H. C. (2011). Globalization and application of strategic management
model and theories to entrepreneurs in a turbulent economy. Chinese Business Review, 10(6), 429-
437.

Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and
between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization science, 15(1), 70-
81.

Hrebiniak, L. G. (2006). Obstacles to effective strategy implementation. Organizational

dynamics, 35(1), 12-31.

Hsu, C. W., Lien, Y. C., & Chen, H. (2013). International ambidexterity and firm performance in small
emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 48(1), 58-67.

Huy, Q. N. (2011). How middle managers' group-focus emotions and social identities influence
strategy implementation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1387-1410.

Irani, F.N.H.A. (2011). Globalization and Challenge; What are the globaliztion’s contemporary issues?
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 1 Issue: 6, 216-217.

Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes
and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of
Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007.

Kauppila, O.-P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing separate

interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8(4), 283-312.

119/128
Keohane, R. O., & Nye Jr, J. S. (2000). Globalization: What's new? What's not?(And so
what?). Foreign policy-Washington-, 104-119.

Kiely , R. & Marfleet, P. (1998), Globalisation and the Third World (London: Routledge).

Kilic, C. (2015). Effects of Globalization on Economic Growth: Panel Data Analysis for Developing
Countries. Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti Bulletin, Technical Series, 67(1), 1-11.

Killen, C. P., & Hunt, R. A. (2010). Dynamic capability through project portfolio management in service
and manufacturing industries. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 157-169.

Kliesch-Eberl, & M., Schreyögg, G. (2007). How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards
a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), 913-933.

Kopmann, J., Kock, A., Killen, C. P., & Gemünden, H. G. (2017). The role of project portfolio
management in fostering both deliberate and emergent strategy. International Journal of Project
Management, 35(4), 557-570.

Learned, E., Christensen, C., Andrews, K.& Guth, W. (1978). Business Policy: Text and Cases, (4),
Homewood.

Lee, J. S., & Hsieh, C. J. (2010). A research in relating entrepreneurship, marketing capability,
innovative capability and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Business & Economics
Research, 8(9), 109-119.

Lehner, J. (2004). Strategy implementation tactics as response to organizational, strategic, and

environmental imperatives. Management revue, 460-480.

Li, D. Y., & Liu, J. (2014). Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage:
Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2793-2799.

Liedtka, J. M. (1998). Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning. Strategy & Leadership, 26(4),
30-35.

120/128
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to
medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of
management, 32(5), 646-672.

Luo, Y., Tan, J. J., & O'Connor, N. G. (2001). Strategic response to a volatile environment: The case
of cross-cultural cooperative ventures. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18(1), 7-25.

Madsen, E.L. (2010). A dynamic capability framework – Generic types of dynamic capabilities and
their relationship to entrepreneurship. In Wall, S., Zimmermann, C., Klingebiel, R. and Lange, D.
(eds.) Strategic Reconfigurations: Building Dynamic Capabilities in Rapid-Innovation-Based
Industries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Marcati, A., Guido, G., & Peluso, A. M. (2008). The role of SME entrepreneurs’ innovativeness and
personality in the adoption of innovations. Research Policy, 37(9), 1579-1590.

Markides, C., & Charitou, C. D. (2004). Competing with dual business models: A contingency
approach. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(3), 22-36.

Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Technik. 11. Aufl. Weinheim: Beltz
Verlag.

Meyer, K. E. (2017). International business in an era of anti-globalization. Multinational Business

Review, 25(2), 78-90.

Milani, F., & Park, S. H. (2015). The effects of globalization on macroeconomic dynamics in a trade-
dependent economy: The case of Korea. Economic Modelling, 48, 292-305.

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman Jr, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure,
and process. Academy of management review, 3(3), 546-562.

Miller, D. & Friesen P. H. (1983), “Strategy Making and Environment: The Third
Link,” Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221-235.

Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: reconsidering the basic premises of strategic
management. Strategic management journal, 11(3), 171-195.

121/128
Müller-Stewens, G. & Lechner, C. (2011): Strategisches Management: Wie strategische Initiativen
zum Wandel führen, 4. Auflage, Stuttgart.

Nguyen Huy, Q. U. Y. (2001). Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Academy of
management Review, 26(4), 601-623.

Noble, C. H. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. Journal of business
research, 45(2), 119-134.

Nuntamanop, P., Kauranen, I., & Igel, B. (2013). A new model of strategic thinking
competency. Journal of Strategy and Management, 6(3), 242-264.

Okumus, F. (2001). Towards a strategy implementation framework. International journal of

contemporary hospitality Management, 13(7), 327-338.

O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the
innovator's dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185-206.

O’Reilly III, C. A. & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers
explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5-22.

O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and
future. Academy of management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.

Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2016). In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial
reactions to innovation–efficiency tensions. human relations, 69(9), 1791-1822.

Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2018). A joint analysis of determinants and

performance consequences of ambidexterity. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 21(2), 84-98.

Petit, Y., & Hobbs, B. (2010). Project portfolios in dynamic environments: sources of uncertainty and
sensing mechanisms. Project Management Journal, 41(4), 46-58.

Pieterse, J. N. (2012). Periodizing globalization: Histories of globalization. New Global Studies, 6(2),
1-25.

122/128
Prajogo, D. I. (2016). The strategic fit between innovation strategies and business environment in
delivering business performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 241-249.

Radomska, J. (2014). Operational risk associated with the strategy

implementation. Management, 18(2), 31-43.

Rahman, N., & De Feis, G. L. (2009). Strategic decision-making: models and methods in the face of
complexity and time pressure. Journal of General Management, 35(2), 43-59.

Rigby, D. K., Berez, S., Caimi, G., & Noble, A. (2015). Agile innovation. San Francisco: Bain &
Company, 1-13. Retrieved January 15, 2020, from https://www.bain.com/insights/agile-innovation/

Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing agile. Harvard Business
Review, 94(5), 40-50.

Rindova, V., & Taylor, S. (2002). Dynamic capabilities as macro and micro organizational evolution.
Robert H. Smith School of Business-Smith Papers Online, 1(11). Retrieved January 16, 2020, from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/985d/d9470227b19538b1e94ed0788b5ffe1a3639.pdf

Ristovska, K. & Ristovska, A. (2014). “The Impact of Globalization on the

Business”, Economic Analysis, vol. 47 (3–4), 83–89.

Salavou, H., & Lioukas, S. (2003). Radical product innovations in SMEs: the dominance of
entrepreneurial orientation. Creativity and innovation management, 12(2), 94-108.

Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review
of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management
Annals, 12(1), 390-439.

Schmitt, A., Barker III, V. L., Raisch, S., & Whetten, D. (2016). Strategic renewal in times of
environmental scarcity. Long Range Planning, 49(3), 361-376.

Schoemaker, P. J., Heaton, S., & Teece, D. (2018). Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and
leadership. California Management Review, 61(1), 15-42.

123/128
Steude, D. H. (2017). Change and innovation leadership in an industrial digital
environment. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, 78(1), 95-107.

Stiglitz, J.E. (2004). “Globalization and growth in emerging markets”, Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol.
26(4). 465–484.

Subramanian, K. P., & Balanagarajan, K. (2018). EXPONENTIAL ENTREPRENEURS:

ENTREPRENEURS ACHIEVING EXPONENTIAL GROWTH THROUGH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
AND INNOVATION–A REVIEW. International Journal on Recent Trends in Business and Tourism,
2(4), 14-18.

Tamayo-Torres, J., Roehrich, J. K., & Lewis, M. A. (2017). Ambidexterity, performance and
environmental dynamism. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(3), 282-
299.

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of

(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.

Teece, D., & Leih, S. (2016). Uncertainty, innovation, and dynamic capabilities: An
introduction. California Management Review, 58(4), 5-12.

Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial And
Corporate Change, 3(3), 537-556.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Vinekar, V., Slinkman, C. W., & Nerur, S. (2006). Can agile and traditional systems development
approaches coexist? An ambidextrous view. Information systems management, 23(3), 31-42.

Volberda, H. W., Morgan, R. E., Reinmoeller, P., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E.
(2011). Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization. South-Western College
Publishing.

Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research
agenda. International journal of management reviews, 9(1), 31-51.

124/128
Wang, H. & Li, J. (2008). Untangling the effects of overexploration and overexploitation
on organizational performance: The moderating role of organizational dynamism. Journal of
Management, 34(5), 925-951.

Welge, M. K., Al-Laham, A., & Eulerich, M. (2017). Strategisches Management: Grundlagen-Prozess-
Implementierung. Springer-Verlag.

Whittington, R., Johnson, G., Scholes, K., Angwin, D., & Regnér, P. (2017). Exploring strategy.
Pearson.

Whittington, R., Yakis-Douglas, A. B., Ahn, K., & Cailluet, L. (2017). Strategic planners in more
turbulent times: The changing job characteristics of strategy professionals, 1960-2003. Long Range
Planning. 50(1), 108-119.

Wiersema, M. F., & Bowen, H. P. (2008). Corporate diversification: The impact of foreign competition,
industry globalization, and product diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 29(2), 115-132.

Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding Dynamic Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10),

991-995.

Wolf, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2017). Strategic planning research: Toward a theory-driven agenda. Journal
of Management, 43(6), 1-35 DOI: 10.1177/0149206313478185

Yew Wong, K. (2005). Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and
medium enterprises. Industrial management & Data systems, 105(3), 261-279.

Yip, G.S. & Hult, G.T. (1995). Total Global Strategy, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall.

Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A
review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management studies, 43(4), 917-955.

Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities.
Organization Science, 13 (3), 339-351.

125/128
8. Appendix
Table 2 and 3 represent an exemplary guideline used in interviews in German and English.

Hauptfrage Ergänzungsfrage

Einstiegsfrage (Globalisierung, Welche Herausforderungen und

dynamische Märkte) Spezifika gibt es im Unternehmen
im Hinblick auf strategische
Implementierung im globalen
Zusammenhang ?

Implementierung Wie wirkt sich die zunehmende In welchen Bereichen werden im

Dynamik der Märkte auf die Unternehmen Prozesse, Strukturen
Implementierung aus (Struktur, und Mitarbeiterführung verändert
Prozesse, Management Style) ? um Strategien schnell
implementieren zu können ?

Implementierung unter Welche besonderen Finden Dynamic capabilities oder

Zeitdruck Herausforderungen gibt es bei Agile/Scrum Anwendung, bzw.
schneller Implementierung von wäre eine Anwendung denkbar ?
Strategien (was funktioniert was
nicht, ggf. auf aktuellen Fall
hinweisen).

Best practice Beispiele Was können andere Firmen im

Hinblick auf
Strategieimplementierung von
Ihnen lernen, was würden Sie
ihnen empfehlen ?

Schlussfragen Was würden Sie hinzufügen, was Gibt es im Unternehmen

wurde nicht behandelt ? Maßnahmen die noch nicht
angesprochen wurden ?

Table 2: Interview guideline German

Source: Own work.

126/128

Opening question (globalization,
dynamic environments)
Implementation
High speed strategy
implementation
Best practice examples
Closing question
Main question Auxiliary question
Which challenges and peculiarities
are there with regards to strategy
implementation in a global
environment?
How does the increase in Are processes, structures and
dynamism in the environment leadership style adapted in order to
affect strategy implementation address high speed strategy
(structure, processes, management implementation? If yes, where and
style)? how?
Which challenges are there in high Are dynamic capabilities or Agile
speed strategy implementation? and Scrum approaches practiced at
Techworks or would they be of
What works well what doesn’t (if
value for Techworks?
possible, point to instances)?
What could other companies learn
from Techworks with regard to
strategy implementation in a
dynamic environment?
Any additional thoughts, anything Are there activities at Techworks
that’s not been covered? that were not been mentioned yet?
Table 3: Interview guideline English
Source: Own work.
127/128
128/128