Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Managing strategic consensus: the foundation of effective implementation

Floyd, Steven W., Wooldridge, Bill·1992·Academy of Management Perspectives

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/ame.1992.4274459

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B.
Venue
Academy of Management Perspectives
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.