The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Managing strategic consensus: the foundation of effective implementation
Abstract
Executive Overview A frequent complaint of senior executives is that middle and operating managers fail to take the actions necessary to implement strategy. As one top manager told us. “It's been rather easy for us to decide where we wanted to go. The hard part is to get the organization to act on the new priorities.” Implementation problems of this type are often the result of poor middle management understanding and commitment to strategy. In our research we've found that relatively few middle managers articulate the same goals as their superiors. More troublesome, other researchers have found that middle managers who disagree with strategic initiatives frequently work against their implementation. This article examines an approach to implementation that focuses on the level of strategic understanding and commitment shared by managers within the organization. A framework identifying four categories of strategic consensus is introduced and used as the basis for analyzing differences in how managers perceive organizational priorities. A series of examples show the effects of such differences on strategy implementation and on management's ability to change direction. The article offers a practical approach for closing the gap between strategy development and execution.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Challenge of Innovation Implementation
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259164 · Cited by 2,113
Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor?
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639402000206 · Cited by 1,632
Metadata
- Authors
- Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Perspectives
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1992-11
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 27-39
- ISSN
- 1558-9080 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4529
- OpenAlex
- W2018989689
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.