University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of middle manager alignment in achieving effective strategy execution: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of middle manager alignment in achieving effective strategy execution: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE ROLE OF MIDDLE MANAGER ALIGNMENT IN ACHIEVING EFFECTIVE

STRATEGY EXECUTION: AN EVALUATION STUDY

By

Stefan Garcon

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Stefan Garcon

ii

Dedication
To my amazing son, Evan. Stay true to yourself and never lose your curiosity.

iii

Acknowledgments
My completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the support and
encouragement of others. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr. Ken Yates for chairing my
dissertation committee and keeping me focused throughout the process. Your expert guidance,
sincere mentorship, and constant support were vital in helping me succeed. I would not have
been able to arrive at this point without your generous help.
Thank you also to Dr. Douglas Lynch and Dr. Themistocles Sparangis for serving on my
committee and always providing invaluable feedback and assistance. Dr. Lynch, I am fortunate
to have met you during my first semester, as your insights and continuous advice were vital in
helping me hone my research topic.
While not on my committee, I would also like to thank Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, the
OCL program chair, for providing direction and guidance at a critical stage during the planning
process of my research.
To the leadership at my research organization, thank you for inviting me in and allowing
me to conduct this study. I owe gratitude to all interview participants for taking time out of their
busy schedules to meet with me and share candid and insightful feedback.
Thank you also to my incredible parents, Karla and Klaus. Your love and endless
support always enabled me to dare and pursue my dreams. Without you, I would have never
enjoyed so many opportunities.
Evan, my son, you are a gift. You may not realize this yet, but you kept me grounded
and always reminded me of what matters most in life. Thank you, buddy.

iv

Last but certainly not least, thank you to my wonderful wife, Peggy. You always
believed in me. You supported me throughout the entire program and knew just when I needed a
little nudge. I will be forever grateful for that.

v

Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ v

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ xiii

Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ...................................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission .......................................................................................... 2
Organizational Goal .................................................................................................................... 2
Related Literature........................................................................................................................ 2
Importance of the Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 5
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................. 5
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals .................................................................................. 6
Stakeholder Group for the Study ................................................................................................ 7
Purpose of the Project and Questions ......................................................................................... 8
Methodological Framework ........................................................................................................ 9
Definitions................................................................................................................................... 9
Organization of the Project ....................................................................................................... 10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
Strategy and the Challenge of Implementation ......................................................................... 11
Fundamentals of Strategy ..................................................................................................... 11
Causes of Implementation Issues .......................................................................................... 13
Middle Management ................................................................................................................. 14
Middle Managers’ Role in an Organization .......................................................................... 14
Middle Managers’ Role as Strategic Actors ......................................................................... 16
Alignment ................................................................................................................................. 17

vi

Alignment Fundamentals ...................................................................................................... 17
Fostering Alignment Through Learning ............................................................................... 18
Strategic Alignment of Middle Managers................................................................................. 21
Receiving Information on Strategy ....................................................................................... 21
Interpreting Strategy ............................................................................................................. 23
Line of Sight ......................................................................................................................... 24
Creating Alignment ............................................................................................................... 25
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework . 27
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...................................... 27
Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................................................... 28
Knowledge influences ........................................................................................................ 28
Developing knowledge of the organization’s strategy ....................................................... 29
Aligning actions with the organization’s strategy ............................................................. 30
Reflecting on own abilities to advance knowledge. ........................................................... 30
Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 33
Self-Efficacy theory ........................................................................................................... 34
Middle manager’s self-efficacy ......................................................................................... 35
Expectancy value theory .................................................................................................... 35
Middle manager’s values ................................................................................................... 36
Organization .......................................................................................................................... 38
Cultural Models ................................................................................................................. 39
Shared purpose and direction ............................................................................................. 40
A culture of dialogue and information sharing across organizational hierarchies ............. 41
Cultural Settings................................................................................................................. 42
Established tools, mechanisms, or channels to facilitate bi-directional flow of information
across the organizational hierarchy .................................................................................... 43
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and ... 45
the Organizational Context ....................................................................................................... 45
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 50

Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 52
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 52

vii

Methodological Approach and Rationale ................................................................................. 52
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 54
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale ........................................................................... 55
Criterion 1. Position within the organizational hierarchy ................................................. 55
Criterion 2. Time in current role ....................................................................................... 55
Criterion 3. Responsibility in an area related to the organization’s strategy .................... 56
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .................................................. 56
Document Analysis Sampling Criteria and Rationale .......................................................... 57
Criterion 1. Relevance to this study’s conceptual framework .......................................... 57
Criterion 2. Content shared with the organization’s middle managers ............................. 57
Document Analysis Sampling Strategy and Rationale ......................................................... 57
Data Collection and Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 58
Documents and Artifacts ....................................................................................................... 58
Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 59
Interview Protocol .............................................................................................................. 59
Interview Procedures ......................................................................................................... 60
Alignment of KMO Influences and Data Collection Methods and Instruments ...................... 61
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 66
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 67
Ethics......................................................................................................................................... 69

Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 72
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 72
Determination of Assets and Needs .......................................................................................... 73
Results and Findings for Research Question 1 ......................................................................... 74
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes............................................................................ 75
Declarative Knowledge ......................................................................................................... 76
Influence 1. Middle managers need to know the specifics of the organization’s strategy to
create alignment ................................................................................................................. 76
Procedural Knowledge .......................................................................................................... 78
Influence 2. Middle managers need to know how to align their actions with the
organization’s strategy ....................................................................................................... 78

viii

Metacognitive Knowledge .................................................................................................... 80
Influence 3. Middle managers need to assess/reflect on their abilities to advance their
knowledge of the strategy beyond what is being communicated to them to create
alignment............................................................................................................................ 80
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes ............................................................................ 81
Value ..................................................................................................................................... 82
Influence 4. Middle managers need to see the value in aligning their actions with the
organization’s strategy ....................................................................................................... 82
Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................................... 83
Influence 5. Middle managers need to feel confident in their ability to align their actions
with the organization’s strategy ......................................................................................... 83
Results and Findings for Organization Causes ......................................................................... 85
Cultural Model ...................................................................................................................... 85
Influence 6. Having a shared sense of purpose and direction. .......................................... 85
Cultural Model ...................................................................................................................... 87
Influence 7. A culture of dialogue and information sharing across organizational
hierarchies. ......................................................................................................................... 87
Cultural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 90
Influence 8. Established tools, mechanisms, or channels to facilitate critical dialogue and
a bi-directional flow of information across the organizational hierarchy .......................... 90
Summary of Validated Influences ............................................................................................ 92
Knowledge ............................................................................................................................ 93
Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 93
Organization .......................................................................................................................... 94
Findings Unrelated to Predetermined Influences ...................................................................... 95
The organization’s strategy needs to be articulated in a way that resonates with, and can be
understood by, all levels of the organization ........................................................................ 95
Knowing the goals and objectives of individuals above the mid-management level supports
middle managers’ alignment process .................................................................................... 97
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 98

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation ......................................................................... 99

ix

Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 99
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ................................................. 100
Knowledge Recommendations ........................................................................................... 100
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 100
Middle managers need to know the organization’s strategy and critical component
pieces................................................................................................................................ 102
Motivation Recommendations ............................................................................................ 103
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 103
Middle managers need to see value in aligning their actions with the organization’s
strategy ............................................................................................................................. 105
Organization Recommendations ......................................................................................... 107
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 107
Middle managers need to believe that the organization has a culture of open and critical
dialogue across organizational hierarchies ...................................................................... 109
Middle managers need to believe that the organization provides mechanisms or channels
to enable open dialogue and information flow across the organizational hierarchy........ 111
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..................................................................... 113
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ....................................................................... 113
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations ................................................................ 114
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ............................................................................. 114
Level 3: Behavior ................................................................................................................ 116
Critical behaviors ............................................................................................................. 116
Required drivers ............................................................................................................... 117
Organizational support ..................................................................................................... 119
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................................ 119
Learning goals .................................................................................................................. 119
Program ............................................................................................................................ 120
Evaluation of the components of learning. ...................................................................... 121
Level 1: Reaction ................................................................................................................ 122
Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................................. 123
Immediately following the program implementation ...................................................... 123

x

Delayed for a period after the program implementation .................................................. 123
Data Analysis and Reporting .............................................................................................. 124
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 125
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ........................................................................... 125
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 127
Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 128
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 129
References ................................................................................................................................... 131

Appendix A: Document Analysis Worksheet ............................................................................. 144
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 146
Appendix C: Level One and Level Two Evaluation Instrument Immediately Following
Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 150
Appendix D: Evaluation Instrument Delayed for a Period After the Implementation ............... 152
Appendix E: Data Dashboard Example ...................................................................................... 156

xi

List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Goals .......................................... 7
Table 2: Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment ....................... 32
Table 3: Motivational Influences and Motivation Influence Assessments ................................... 37
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments .......................... 44
Table 5: KMO Influences, Data Collection Methods, and Instruments ....................................... 61
Table 6: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ............................................... 93
Table 7: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ................................................ 94
Table 8: Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ............................................. 94
Table 9: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ........................................ 101
Table 10: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ...................................... 104
Table 11: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ................................... 108
Table 12: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ..................... 115
Table 13: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................ 116
Table 14: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ......................................................... 118
Table 15: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................... 122

xii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of Relevant Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences Affecting Highland Technology’s Middle Managers ................................................. 49

xiii

Abstract
This evaluation study applied the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to understand
the role of middle manager alignment in achieving effective strategy execution. The purpose of
this study was to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences
related to Highland Technology’s (a pseudonym) middle managers aligning their actions with the
organization’s strategy. The study employed a qualitative research approach and collected data
through semi-structured interviews with a purposefully selected sample of middle managers and
document analysis. The data were coded and analyzed to classify each of the eight assumed
KMO influences as either an asset or a need to achieve strategic alignment. The findings
identified five assets, which related to middle managers’ knowledge (procedural, metacognitive),
motivation (value, self-efficacy), and beliefs regarding a shared sense of purpose and direction
within the organization. The identified needs related to middle managers’ declarative
knowledge; beliefs regarding the organization’s culture of critical dialogue and bi-directional
information sharing; and beliefs regarding established tools, mechanisms, or channels to
facilitate such critical dialogue and bi-directional information exchange. Evidence-based
principles were used to develop context-specific recommendations for each of these identified
needs. This study contributes to the literature on strategy execution and the role of middle
managers as strategic actors. While its findings and recommendations are unique to one
company, other organizations may benefit from the study’s application of the gap analysis
framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), the discussion of critical KMO influences related to achieving
strategic alignment, and the practical recommendations.
Keywords: strategy, strategy execution, middle manager, alignment, strategic alignment

1

Chapter One: Introduction
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This study addresses the challenge of aligning actions with an organization’s strategy to
enable its execution. Companies of all sizes regularly formulate strategies to chart a course for
their future and position themselves for success. But despite the use of tested methodologies,
detailed analysis of data, and support from senior leadership during the strategy formulation
process, research has shown that a significant percentage of firms struggle with the
implementation of those strategies (Sull et al., 2015). Reported failure rates within firms have
varied, but often have seemed to exceed half of all implementation efforts (Pryor et al., 2007;
Franken et al., 2009). While successful strategy execution relies on the contributions of various
stakeholder groups, middle managers play a particularly important role, as they are often
responsible for translating the organization’s high-level direction into more tangible and
executable objectives (Hrebiniak, 2006).
The fact that organizations struggle with the execution of strategies is not only surprising,
given the effort and resources invested upfront during strategy formulation, but also alarming, as
failing to execute will prevent firms from fully achieving the objectives defined in their strategies
(Hrebiniak, 2006). However, achieving these objectives is not only critical to long-term success
(Beer & Eisenstat, 2000), but survival (V. Crittenden & W. Crittenden, 2008; Ranjbar et al.,
2014). Considering today’s dynamic and highly competitive environment, where technology
advancements enable newcomers to disrupt entire industries and customer preferences are ever-
changing (Browne et al., 2014), successfully executing a strategy is more critical than ever.

2

Organizational Context and Mission
Highland Energy and Industrials (Highland; a pseudonym) is a large multinational
industrial corporation headquartered in Europe. The company competes globally in different
market segments and has a complex organizational structure. At a high level, Highland is
organized similar to a matrix with different operational units that generate revenue, as well as a
variety of supporting functions and organizations. One of these transversal organizational units
is Highland Technology, whose mission is to establish a technology-related environment that
enables Highland to achieve its critical internal and external ambitions. Highland Technology is
the focus of this study.
Organizational Goal
The organizational goal of Highland Technology is to achieve the objectives of its
strategy. Different internal metrics to measure that achievement exist, but cannot be disclosed
for confidentiality reasons. Highland Technology’s operating environment is highly competitive
and constantly evolving, which forces its leaders to be adaptive and regularly review its strategy
while also driving its implementation. Both internal capabilities and external market forces
factor into making any potential strategic adjustments to ensure the organization is positioned for
long-term success. To enable that success, and achieve the organizational goal mentioned above,
it is critical that Highland Technology’s middle managers create and maintain alignment. This
will help implement the organization’s strategy throughout the different levels of the
organizational hierarchy.
Related Literature
Poor strategy execution is a widespread and frequently occurring problem that affects
organizations in the private sector, and a surprisingly large number of organizations seem to

3

struggle with the successful implementation of formulated strategies. According to Sull et al.
(2015), several studies showed that more than 50% of organizations have difficulties with the
implementation of their long-term plans. In addition to affecting many companies, execution
issues also seemed to occur repeatedly, therefore impacting a significant number of individual
strategies. Franken et al. (2009) supported claims that more than half of all strategy
implementation efforts suffer from poor implementation. While several studies explored this
issue over the years, no consensus has been reached as to the exact failure rates. In an extensive
review of the literature on the topic of strategy execution, Cândido and Santos (2015) found that
there was a broad and inconsistent range of reported failure rates. Varying definitions and, in
some cases, a lack of supporting detail provided in those studies further complicates the
development of a coherent picture. Despite the wide range of findings, however, there is no
debate that this is a common and recurring issue plaguing many organizations across different
industries. As such, it is necessary to further examine the relevant literature on strategy
execution to develop a deeper and more meaningful understanding.
While the discipline of strategy is undoubtedly a popular topic that received much
attention in the literature, the body of research on its execution is not comprehensive. A
significant amount of research was written on strategy over the years, but much of the focus has
been on the act of creating, or formulating, a strategy (Pryor et al., 2007). Implementation on the
other hand – the act of putting a strategy to work – has not been covered as thoroughly
(Atkinson, 2006). Several reasons contributed to that seeming imbalance in academic coverage.
For example, Hrebiniak (2006) noted an apparent separation between planning and doing inside
many organizations, and lamented that “doing” is often viewed as a less challenging and lower-
level activity. Also, Atkinson (2006) ascertained that the topic lacks a certain level of allure or

4

attractiveness, which in turn makes it a less appealing research topic. The lack of depth in the
literature on this topic is somewhat surprising, given how common and frequently occurring
execution issues seem to be in practice. On the other hand, the missing depth highlights that this
is a field worth exploring to further understand root causes and explore potential solutions.
Research on strategy execution looked at the topic from different perspectives and
identified a wide variety of influencing factors that, for the most part, can be grouped into a set
of overarching categories that seem to apply more broadly. The current body of literature
revealed that researchers approached the issue from three different viewpoints. While some
investigated factors that could prevent successful execution and identified sets of “barriers”
(Heide et al., 2002), “obstacles” (Hrebiniak, 2006) or “silent killers” (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000),
others took a more positive stance and looked at “levers” (V. Crittenden & W. Crittenden, 2008)
or “success factors” (Alamsjah, 2011) for implementing strategy. A third group took a more
holistic approach and investigated “frameworks” (Okumus, 2003) and “models” (Pryor et al.,
2007) for strategic implementation. The findings of those different research efforts revealed that
the issue is multi-faceted and impacted by a diverse set of factors. For example, Hrebiniak
(2006) identified five main items affecting strategy execution, while Beer and Eisenstat (2000)
stated six, and V. Crittenden and W. Crittenden (2008) suggested eight. Despite the multitude of
identified factors and a variety of viewpoints, different categories or clusters emerged when
looking at the sum of all findings. Some of the main overarching themes included topics like
culture, organization, communication, and understanding of strategy. When it comes to
understanding strategy, for example, Heide et al. (2002) argued that people inside an
organization need to have the necessary knowledge and skills to execute. In addition, Sull et al.
(2015) pointed out that communicating a strategy does not necessarily mean that the audience

5

will understand the strategy. As the literature demonstrates, the issue of strategy execution is
complex and impacted by a considerable number of variables. Given the impact on the
organization's long-term success, it is also a very relevant issue.
Importance of the Evaluation
The issue of strategy execution is crucial because it links directly to the success and
well-being of an organization. To better understand this relationship, it is necessary to examine
why organizations formulate strategies in the first place. Looking at the way strategy has been
defined over the years, it seems that there is broad consensus on what the core of strategy
includes. Tregoe and Zimmerman (1980) offered one of the most succinct and time-tested
definitions when they stated that strategy is “the framework which guides those choices that
determine the nature and direction of an organization” (p. 17). In other words, strategy defines
how an organization can best achieve its desired to-be state. In his seminal work on competitive
strategy, Porter (1980) framed strategy in similar terms but also highlighted its importance in
determining an organization’s competitive positioning. Considering the direct link between
strategy and the success of an organization, it becomes clear why failing to implement a strategy
can have profound negative consequences. Today’s highly competitive business environment
and ever-increasing technological advancements only exacerbate the potential impact. No matter
how well thought out a strategy is, if it is not properly implemented it will not lead to the desired
outcomes, which in turn can pose significant threats to an organization’s success and survival
(Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Hrebiniak, 2006).
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Several stakeholder groups contribute directly to and benefit from the achievement of
Highland Technology's organizational goal. The first stakeholder group is Highland

6

Technology's middle managers. These individuals are two levels below the organization's top
leaders and manage a team of direct reports. They play a critical role in operationalizing the
organization's strategy and creating strategic alignment within the context of their positions. The
second stakeholder group is Highland Technology's top leadership team. These individuals lead
the main units of the organization and play a critical role in influencing and advocating for the
strategy. Lastly, the third stakeholder group is Highland Technology's internal communications
team. They share important organizational content, like a strategy, to the relevant individuals
inside the organization.
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1 summarizes Highland Technology’s organizational mission, organizational goal,
and the performance goals for middle managers, top leaders, and the internal communications
team.

7

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission
Highland Technology’s mission is to establish a technology-related environment and
conditions that enable Highland to achieve critical internal and external ambitions.
Organizational Performance Goal
Highland Technology’s organizational goal is to achieve the objectives of its strategy.
Middle Managers Top Leadership Team Internal Communications
Team
Highland Technology’s
middle managers will align
their actions with the
organization’s strategy.

Highland Technology’s top
leadership team will ensure the
organization’s strategy
remains relevant, and will
share critical information with
their direct reports and internal
stakeholders, including the
internal communications team.
Highland Technology’s
internal communications team
will share relevant
information and updates on
the organization’s strategy
with the rest of the
organization.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, the organization’s middle managers are the focus of this study. The individuals in this
group play a crucial role in the strategy execution process and will provide rich data to explore
the problem of practice. The stakeholder goal of aligning their actions with the organization’s
strategy is an important expectation of middle managers. Interestingly, that expectation is not
always explicitly stated and often implied. Considering that strategies generally evolve, the

8

process of aligning is not bound by specific start or end dates. To successfully operationalize
any strategy or long-term ambition, managers need to ensure alignment. If they fail to achieve
alignment, the organization’s strategy will remain aspirational or only have limited impact,
which, in turn, can threaten its future (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; V. Crittenden & W. Crittenden,
2008; Ranjbar et al., 2014).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine Highland Technology’s middle manager goal
of aligning their actions with the organization’s strategy. Drawing from Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis model, the analysis will focus on knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
influences related to achieving the stakeholder goal. While a complete performance evaluation
would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the focus of this analysis is the middle
manager stakeholder group.
The following questions will guide the evaluation study that addresses KMO influences
on the middle managers.
1. To what extent do Highland Technology’s middle managers believe the organization
is meeting its goal to achieve its strategy?
2. What are Highland Technology’s middle managers’ knowledge and motivation
related to achieving their goal of aligning their actions with the strategy?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context, and middle
managers’ knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for middle managers’ organizational practice in the
areas of KMO resources?

9

Methodological Framework
As mentioned in the previous section, this project employed a modified version of the
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model. The qualitative approach chosen for this study
enabled the researcher to explore middle managers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences in a natural setting, and with enough flexibility, to inductively develop meaning as
suggested by J.W. Creswell and J.D. Creswell (2018), as well as Locke et al. (2010). Data
collection and analysis drew on personal interviews, document analysis, and a literature review.
Research-based solutions were recommended and assessed diligently.
Definitions
This section provides terms and definitions frequently used throughout the research study
and the dissertation.
Strategic Alignment: For the purposes of this study, the term strategic alignment is
defined as linking or configuring actions, activities, goals, decisions, etc. to achieve coherence
across the different levels of the organizational hierarchy (Andrews et al., 2012; Prieto & de
Carvalho, 2018).
Middle Managers: Middle Management is an established term in the literature and
descriptive of this group’s positioning in the organization’s hierarchy, rather than its
organizational responsibilities (Rensburg et al., 2014). For the purposes of this study, the term
middle manager is defined as a manager situated below the organization’s chief executive and
his or her executive management team, and above first-level managers and individual
contributors (Huy, 2001; Rensburg et al., 2014; Wooldridge et al., 2008).
Strategy: At its core, strategy is “the framework which guides those choices that
determine the nature and direction of an organization” (Tregoe & Zimmerman, 1980, p. 17).

10

Organization of the Project
The study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provided the reader with the key
concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about strategy execution. It also
introduced the organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders, as well as the framework for the
project. The second chapter provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the
study. Topics of strategy, strategy execution, alignment, and the role of middle managers are
addressed. Chapter Three details the KMO elements examined as well as methodology when it
comes to the choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and
results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature,
for closing the perceived gaps, as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation
plan for the solutions.

11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review examines the role of middle managers in creating alignment
between their actions and an organization’s strategy as to enable its implementation. The review
begins with general research on the topic of strategy and potential causes for poor execution.
This is followed by an overview of the literature on middle managers, which examines their role
both as organizational actors in general and implementers of strategies. The literature review
then pivots towards the topic of alignment and the importance of learning. Next, the review
brings these disparate themes together and presents a detailed discussion on middle managers
pursuing alignment to enable strategy implementation. Following the general research literature,
the review turns to the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic conceptual framework and,
specifically, knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences on middle managers’
ability to align their actions with an organization’s strategy.
Strategy and the Challenge of Implementation
The success of an organization is determined, in part, by the quality and execution of its
strategy. However, despite the importance of that relationship, organizations often struggle to
implement their business strategies successfully (Sull et al., 2015). The following sections
examine the topic of strategy from an organizational and business context and provide a
perspective on the known causes of poor execution.
Fundamentals of Strategy
At the most basic level, a strategy is about making choices that help organizations
achieve a stated goal. The term strategy can be traced back to ancient Greece, where it was used
in the context of warfare and the military (Ghemawat, 2002). Within an organizational or
business context, however, it took until the twentieth century for the term to gain popularity

12

(Ghemawat, 2002). In what is considered one of the first books dedicated to the topic of
business strategy, Chandler (1962) posited that strategy is formed inside an organization with the
intent to determine its basic objectives and to guide the selection of supporting actions. As such,
Chandler (1962) argued that the structure of a firm, including organizational design and activities
such as resource allocation, follows its strategy. Tregoe and Zimmerman (1980) built on that
rationale and described strategy as a framework that helps organizations make vital decisions
related to their desired future. Therefore, a strategy is primarily concerned with the fundamental
nature and direction of an organization, and less with the detailed actions of how to achieve and
pursue the organization's desired future state (Tregoe & Zimmerman, 1980). Porter referred to
such vital and direction-defining decisions as trade-offs and argued that internal organization
barriers can often pose considerable threats (Porter, 1996).
Mintzberg and Waters (1985) found that strategy formulation can follow different
patterns that range from deliberately planned to emergent. Many strategies, however, fall
somewhere in between these two extremes and display characteristics of both (Mintzberg &
Waters, 1985). Often, this is driven by the need to adjust to evolving external factors (Mintzberg
& Waters, 1985), as organizations are impacted by competitive pressures, changing customer
demands, rules and regulations, or technological advances (Browne et al., 2014; Noble, 1999;
Porter, 1996). To that end, Sull et al. (2018b) argued that a strategy should not only provide
clear direction and guidance, but also include inherent flexibility to allow organizational leaders
to either counter or take advantage of changing external conditions. The authors (2018b) also
advised organizations to translate strategies into a limited number of future-oriented priorities
that guide their decisions. In sum, the literature showed that an effective strategy is not a
detailed action plan or static construct that organizational leaders need to adhere to regardless of

13

evolving circumstances. Instead, it is a framework designed to help key actors inside an
organization apply their perspective and judgment to critical decisions in the face of changing
conditions, in pursuit of the desired future state of the organization. Despite strategy’s crucial
role in securing organizational success, companies repeatedly struggle with its execution.
Causes of Implementation Issues
Strategy implementation is a complex process that is impacted by a variety of factors. As
discussed in the first chapter, the body of literature on strategy execution is growing, but lags
behind the available research on, and attention devoted to, the topic of strategy formulation
(Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Atkinson, 2006; de Oliveira et al., 2019; Pryor et al., 2007).
Research conducted to date on the topic of unsuccessful execution, however, revealed an
extensive and diverse range of potential causes. For example, Beer and Eisenstat (2000)
identified six main barriers to implementation, which relate to senior management style, strategy
clarity, management effectiveness, vertical communication, internal coordination, and leadership
skills. Based on an empirical study of implementation challenges that combined data from over
400 managers, Hrebiniak (2006) identified a different set of causes, which relate to change
management, strategy quality, implementation skills and guidance, information sharing,
responsibilities and accountability, and organizational power structures. Aaltonen and Ikävalko
(2002), on the other hand, were able to cluster identified causes for implementation issues into
only three main categories. Their qualitative study included nearly 300 interviews at 12 service
organizations and surfaced factors that could be linked to strategic communication, strategic
actors, and structures and systems (Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002). Lastly, Noble (1999) looked at
the topic of implementation more broadly and conducted a literature review for which he was
able to categorize findings as either driven by organizational structure or interpersonal processes.

14

While the previous paragraph highlighted only a sample of the available literature on
execution, the presented data illustrated two critical and representative findings; there are a
multitude of causes for poor execution and most of these factors can be defined as organization-
internal. Focusing only on internal influences affecting execution, a literature review conducted
by Ranjbar et al. (2014) surfaced a total of thirteen different intra-organizational factors, which
further underscored the complexity of the issue. Combined, the findings presented in this section
demonstrated that practitioners hoping to impact execution would benefit from adopting a
holistic approach to address the diverse and often interrelated set of influences. Next, this
literature review examines middle managers as this study’s main stakeholder group.
Middle Management
Middle management is an often-discussed stakeholder group whose impact extends
beyond the hierarchal center of the organization. The following sections first discuss the general
role and responsibilities of middle managers and then transition towards a discussion of their
relevance as strategic actors.
Middle Managers’ Role in an Organization
Middle management is an essential organizational stakeholder group that can connect and
facilitate between different layers within the corporate hierarchy. While the term middle
management is well established and used by practitioners and researchers alike, its definition is
somewhat unintuitive, as it does not describe what middle managers do, but where they are
placed within the organizational hierarchy (Rensburg et al., 2014). Therefore, as alluded to in
the first chapter, it is helpful to define their position within a given organization. Commonly,
middle managers are assumed to be two layers below the organization’s leader or executive

15

management team, and at least one tier above first-level managers or individual contributors
(Huy, 2001; Rensburg et al., 2014; Wooldridge et al., 2008).
The perspective on middle managers and the value of their contributions have evolved.
In the past, these stakeholders have often been portrayed as somewhat rigid and obstructive
organizational actors that can impede real change (Balogun, 2003). However, that perspective
has changed over the years, and middle managers and their work today are viewed more
positively (Balogun, 2003; Huy, 2002).
Many of the positive attributions found in the literature highlighted middle managers’
ability to leverage their position at the hierarchical center of the enterprise. For example, several
researchers repeatedly highlighted those managers’ ability to act as intermediaries, or brokers,
between the different organizational levels above and below them (Balogun & Johnson, 2004;
Lewis, 2011; Rensburg et al., 2014; Wooldridge et al., 2008). Rouleau and Balogun (2011)
argued that such a boundary-spanning role also extends laterally. Another recurring theme
related to middle managers’ abilities to communicate to diverse stakeholder groups, craft
targeted messages, and exert influence (Huy, 2001; Rensburg et al., 2014; Rouleau & Balogun,
2011). In that context, Balogun (2003) also emphasized middle managers’ role concerning
sense-making and interpretation. Because of their relative proximity to customers and end
markets, mid-level managers are better positioned than executive leaders to assess and generate
ideas about developing market forces and customer preferences (Ashford & Detert, 2015; Guo et
al., 2017; Wooldridge et al., 2008). Lastly, the literature clearly documented that mid-level
professionals play an important role as organizational agents and implementers of change
(Balogun, 2003; Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Huy, 2002). Huy (2002) added that middle

16

managers’ frequent exposure to and experience with incremental change efforts also prepare
them well to facilitate radical change within an organization.
The literature discussed in this section showed that middle managers often act as
organizational change agents and inter-organizational facilitators whose impact extends far
beyond the middle of the hierarchy in which they are situated. The fact that strategy
implementation often results in organizational change elevates middle managers’ role as strategic
actors even further.
Middle Managers’ Role as Strategic Actors
Enterprises lean heavily on their mid-level leaders to help execute and operationalize
their strategies. The literature reviewed for this study documented that strategy implementation
is one of the primary objectives and expectations of middle managers (Floyd & Lane, 2000; Raes
et al., 2011; Rensburg et al., 2014; Wooldridge et al., 2008). Rensburg et al. (2014) added that
this expectation also aligned with how middle managers interpreted their own roles and scope of
responsibilities. The central hierarchical position of these mid-level leaders uniquely enabled
them to facilitate both execution and communication across ranks and internal boundaries (Floyd
& Lane, 2000; Raes et al., 2011; Rensburg et al., 2014).
The view on middle managers’ role in the strategy process is evolving. A growing body
of research argued that middle managers are not just uniquely qualified to implement but can
also make meaningful contributions to formulate strategies (O'Shannassy, 2014; Prieto & de
Carvalho, 2018; Rouleau & Balogun, 2011; Wooldridge et al., 2008). Such a perspective
acknowledges the insights and value middle managers can add and reflects the ambition of many
contemporary organizations to be more open and participative, and less reliant on top-down
directives (Prieto & de Carvalho, 2018; Rensburg et al., 2014). Wooldridge et al. (2008) added

17

that, in addition to contributing during the strategy formation process, mid-level individuals may
also have the ability to reshape their leaders’ notion of strategy. Lastly, Lines (2005) found that
including middle managers in the strategy process has a positive impact on organizational
learning, which will be the theme in one of the upcoming sections.
Individuals, not organizations, formulate, and implement strategies (Colvin & Boswell,
2007; Mantere, 2008). Middle managers play a critical role during implementation, and there is
growing evidence that these organizational actors can make valuable contributions at other stages
of the strategy process. The next section of this literature review explores the relevant literature
on the topic of strategic alignment.
Alignment
Organizational objectives are more likely to be achieved if organizational factors and
individual actions are aligned. The following sections start with a general discussion on this
subject and then hone in on the role of learning specifically.
Alignment Fundamentals
Alignment can take various forms but generally means that diverse organizational factors
are purposely configured to achieve a desired outcome or to address change. Different
conceptualizations of the term alignment exist in the relevant literature and include vertical,
horizontal, internal, and external alignment (Kathuria et al., 2007; Prieto & de Carvalho, 2018).
A prevalent interpretation, and the one most appropriate for this study, is vertical alignment.
This variation can be defined as the configuration or linking of strategic stances and
organizational factors such as activities, goals, objectives, decisions, etc., to achieve coherence
across different levels of the organizational hierarchy (Andrews et al., 2012; Kathuria et al.,

18

2007; Prieto & de Carvalho, 2018). Miles and Snow (1984) highlighted that alignment or fit can
describe both a desired state and the process in which it is achieved.
Srivastava and Sushil (2017) claimed that alignment between a strategy and relevant
structural and organizational factors is a foundational enabler of effective strategy execution.
Furthermore, Kaplan (2005) argued that tight alignment between a strategy and appropriate
systems and structural components considerably increases implementation success. Looking at
the strategy process more broadly, Kathuria et al. (2007) underscored the importance of pursuing
alignment during strategy formulation. Building on this argument, and broadening the scope
even further, Porter (1996) posited that strategic alignment across organizational functions helps
companies both create and maintain their competitive advantage, as even discrete organizational
activities can impact one another.
Change is a relentless force. Organizations and the strategies they create are generally
exposed to a multitude of evolving internal and external variables (Kaplan & Norton, 2006;
Mintzberg & Waters, 1985; Prieto & de Carvalho, 2018). As such, alignment is not merely a
complex process, but a continuous one (Kaplan & Norton, 2006). The literature reviewed for
this section illuminated some of these complexities and showed that alignment can be created
and maintained at various levels within an organization. Organizational learning supports this
process and will be discussed in the next section.
Fostering Alignment Through Learning
Organizations with the capacity to learn and adapt are better equipped to maintain
alignment than those that are unable to change. While there was no single or commonly agreed-
upon definition in the literature of what exactly constitutes a learning organization, there seemed
to be broad agreement regarding its primary elements (Santa, 2015). Garvin et al. (2008)

19

asserted that “in a learning organization, employees continually create, acquire, and transfer
knowledge—helping their company adapt to the unpredictable faster than rivals can” (p. 1).
Giesecke and McNeil (2004) provided a similar definition and emphasized the importance of
taking action and translating learning into new or modified behaviors. The authors also
discussed that learning can occur at an individual, group, and organizational level, which are
generally interconnected and reinforcing (Giesecke & McNeil, 2004).
Learning is a vital process that enables an organization’s ability to adapt to changing
environmental influences (Garvin et al., 2008; Lines, 2005). As such, learning provides
organizations a mechanism by which to affect their positioning and competitiveness. In that
vein, Senge (1990) argued that “over the long run, superior performance depends on superior
learning” (p. 7). Gronhaug and Stone (2012) agreed with that notion and posited that superior
learning was determined by an organization’s learning climate and tools, as well as their
interaction.
Organizational learning environments can be fostered in various ways (Santa, 2015). For
example, Senge, who was instrumental in helping the concept of the leaning organization
flourish in the early 1990s, argued that establishing a shared vision, surfacing and testing mental
models, and engaging in systems thinking are the three critical leadership skills required to
achieve the concept’s promise (Senge, 1990). From Senge’s (1990) perspective, leaders are
responsible for building learning organizations. He emphasized that having a vision and clear
understanding of the organization’s desired future is as critical as having an honest and objective
account of its present state (Senge, 1990). Garvin et al. (2008) applied a less leader-centric
perspective. Pointing to several decades of organizational research, the authors argued that
organizational learning and adaptability require a supportive learning environment, concrete

20

learning processes, and leadership that reinforces learning (Garvin et al., 2008). While the first
category (i.e., supportive learning environment) can be disaggregated into psychological safety,
appreciation of differences, openness of new ideas, and time for reflection, the second category
(i.e., learning processes) can be broken into experimentation, information collection, analysis,
education and training, and information transfer (Garvin et al., 2008). Organizations can use
these categories to guide analyses and inform actions.
Research exploring the relationship between adaptability, organizational change, and
learning is not limited to the learning organization construct. For example, Michel and Wortham
(2009) studied how different investment banks designed their work practices and managed
uncertainty, and found that organizations that nurture a collective learning environment, while
sharing the necessary organizational resources, were best equipped to deal with uncertainty. In
fact, the enterprise whose employees showed the greatest capacity to deal with change
deliberately fostered a level of uncertainty across the organization to ensure people drew on
collective organizational resources to solve problems instead of relying on pre-defined concepts
or individual knowledge (Michel & Wortham, 2009). The authors referred to this approach as
cognitive uncertainty amplification (Michel & Wortham, 2009). Building on this research,
Michel (2014) found that organizations that address changing conditions continuously and
incrementally from the bottom up, versus periodically from the top down, were able to
“coevolve” with their customers and thus had a competitive advantage. As such, the adaptability
of these enterprises was enabled by the organizational collective and not the quality of occasional
top-down mandates from executive leaders (Michel & Wortham, 2009).
The research discussed above highlighted the value of several of the critical building
blocks of organizational learning. Enterprises that embrace uncertainty and actively foster

21

continuous learning at all organizational levels are better equipped to adapt and maintain
alignment when faced with unforeseen circumstances. Next, the literature review moves towards
an integrated perspective of the three main themes discussed so far – strategy execution, middle
management, and alignment.
Strategic Alignment of Middle Managers
This final portion of the general literature review is organized into four parts and intends
to provide a more holistic and process-oriented perspective. The following section covers the
first main step in that process and illuminates how middle managers receive new strategic
information. This is followed by a discussion on how middle managers interpret new
information, and subsequently determine how their roles contribute to the achievement of a
strategy. The literature review then concludes with a discussion on the process of creating
alignment.
Receiving Information on Strategy
To educate their managers on a new strategic direction, organizations often lean heavily
on top-down, internal communication mechanisms. Rapert et al. (2002) argued that effective
strategy execution requires stakeholders to have a fundamental understanding of a strategy and
that it is up to the organization’s top leaders to establish such a shared cognition by
communicating the strategy persistently and accurately down the hierarchy.
Organizations employ different techniques to ensure contributors at all levels of the
organization know about their strategic priorities. These mechanisms often rely on traditional
forms of corporate communication like emails, management meetings, or town hall discussions
(Boswell & Boudreau, 2001; Sull et al., 2015; Sull et al., 2018b). However, Sull et al. (2015)
cautioned that organizations and its top leaders tend to gauge the effectiveness of their efforts by

22

merely measuring the sheer amount or frequency of communication instead of focusing on more
appropriate metrics that reveal how well stakeholders comprehended what they were told. The
faulty assumption in many organizations is that frequently and well-communicated strategy
content is automatically understood (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Sull et al., 2015). Referencing
research from the behavior change domain, McKenzie-Mohr and Schultz (2014) made a related
claim and explained that organizations often act on the mistaken belief that people will change
their behavior if they have more information available to them.
The complexities relating to the issue of information dissemination are not limited to the
exchange between top leaders and their subordinates. For example, Boswell and Boudreau
(2001) posited that the relationship between superiors and subordinates could have a profound
impact on the communication and enforcement of strategic goals. Looking at enterprises more
broadly, Rapert et al. (2002) described organizations as social collectives or interpretative
systems constituted by the social interactions of its participants. Such a perspective implies that
an overemphasis on vertical communication from the top down may neglect the impact of
channels that flow from the bottom up or are more informal in nature. Lastly, this
communication process is further complicated by the organization’s exposure to its changing and
sometimes unstable external environments.
As discussed above, the reliance on cascading information down the organizational
hierarchy partly assumes that people can individually understand and contextualize what they are
being told. However, an individual may not always be able to contextualize information, and
this inability to understand new information could also be an issue for middle managers. After
receiving new knowledge on the organization’s overall direction, middle managers need to
process and put into context what they have learned.

23

Interpreting Strategy
Middle managers leverage their knowledge and past experiences to assess new strategic
information and make meaningful interpretations. Such an interpretation process can be
deliberate, based on rational thought processes, or occur unconsciously, driven by personal
practical experiences (Gioia & Mehra, 1996; Rouleau, 2005). Furthermore, as several authors
pointed out, mid-level individuals do not merely interpret, but also evaluate new strategies to
assess their overall relevance, feasibility, or impact on personal objectives (Hope, 2010; Huy,
2001; Rensburg et al., 2014).
Sensemaking was the most commonly used term in the relevant literature to describe the
process middle managers engage in after receiving new strategic information. Rouleau (2005)
defined sensemaking as “the way managers understand, interpret, and create sense for
themselves based on the information surrounding the strategic change” (p. 1415). As such,
sensemaking is directly linked to decision-making and can either inform or constrain personal
actions (Weick et al., 2005). Maitlis (2005) described sensemaking as a fundamentally social
process and added that it enables individuals to address ambiguity and uncertainty in their
environments. Consequently, sensemaking is a critical capability for mid-level managers to
perform their role (Rouleau & Balogun, 2011).
The meaning-making process of middle managers impacts other organizational
stakeholders. Inherently linked to the process of sensemaking is sensegiving, which describes
middle managers’ actions directed at influencing others (Rouleau, 2005). Sensegiving thus can
be interpreted as an attempt to affect the sensemaking of others (Hope, 2010). Such efforts to
exert influence or gain support can be directed both upward and downward to reach stakeholders

24

at various levels of the organizational hierarchy (Huy, 2001; Rensburg et al., 2014; Rouleau,
2005).
The literature discussed in this section showed that middle managers engage in a
continuous learning and sensemaking process to construct meaning. Once the relevant details of
a new strategy are processed, managers need to determine how their roles and actions are
connected to that strategy in order to pursue strategic alignment.
Line of Sight
Middle managers need to understand how their choices and actions contribute to realizing
the organization’s strategy. Based on their research on strategy execution, which included over
120 organizations, Sull et al. (2018a) posited that the most accurate predictor of strategic
alignment is how consistently managers describe the relevance of objectives and priorities within
the context of their unit and that of the entire enterprise. This finding explains the concept of
line of sight, which is a popular term in strategy literature. Line of sight can be defined as an
understanding of the organization’s primary objectives and how to contribute to them (Boswell,
2006; Boswell & Boudreau, 2001). Boswell (2006) argued that line of sight is vital to successful
strategy execution and reduces the risk of misalignment.
The benefits of having line of sight extend beyond strategy alignment. For example,
Boswell and Boudreau (2001) explained that line of sight enables employees to act in the
organization’s best interest during times of uncertainty or ambiguity. As such, the concept
contributes to risk mitigation inside an organization (Boswell, 2006). Additionally, D. Sull and
C. Sull (2018), and Berbary and Malinchak (2011) argued that a clear understanding of how to
contribute to the organization’s strategy, as well as the primary goals of the strategy, is positively

25

related to employee engagement. Lastly, Armstrong (2017) highlighted line of sight as an
enabler of effective performance management.
Notions similar to line of sight exist in other domains. For example, the military concept
of commander’s intent relates to the knowledge local leaders have of their remote supervisor’s
intent or their mission in general (Shattuck & Woods, 1997; Winner et al., 2007). Such an
understanding can be vital to success, given that local actors are often confronted with and must
react to changing and unexpected circumstances (Shattuck & Woods, 1997; Vandergriff, 2015;
Winner et al., 2007). Local actions informed by intent can thus be referred to as disciplined
initiative (Dempsey & Chavous, 2013). While the business and military domains are distinctly
different, they share important commonalities when it comes to organization and strategy
execution. As Winner et al., (2007) succinctly stated, “In teams with hierarchical command
structures and other forms of decentralized control, success depends on the ability to
communicate intent throughout the organization” (p. 122).
Knowing how their behaviors and objectives relate to the organization’s strategy is a
critical enabler of middle manager strategic alignment. A clear understanding of the strategy’s
underlying intent, combined with the authority to adjust critical decisions, enables middle
managers to adapt faster and more appropriately to unforeseen circumstances. After receiving
strategic information, engaging in sensemaking, and understanding how their role relates to the
strategy, middle managers can align their actions with the organization’s overall direction.
Creating Alignment
Disaggregating an organization’s strategy into more granular component pieces enables
the alignment process. As previously discussed, a strategy does not aim to offer a blueprint for
execution or to provide detailed operational guidance on achieving long-term goals. Thus, to

26

facilitate alignment and enable strategy execution, middle managers need to break strategies
down and translate them into specific short-term objectives and actions (Hrebiniak, 2008;
Hrebiniak, 2006; Rensburg et al., 2014; Srivastava & Sushil; 2017). Such operational objectives
should be both measurable and actionable (Hrebiniak, 2008; Hrebiniak, 2006). Depending on
the size and complexity of an organization, these more granular elements of a strategy can either
turn into middle manager actions, thus guaranteeing alignment, or provide critical signposts by
which middle managers can synchronize their actions.
Strategies and middle manager actions need to coevolve with their environment. Sull et
al. (2015) argued that even well-thought-out strategies will not be able to anticipate all
exogenous or endogenous shocks that could emerge. The authors thus emphasized managers’
ability to adapt to new circumstances to mitigate emerging risks or exploit new opportunities as
they arise (Sull et al., 2015). Mintzberg and Waters (1985) made a similar point and underscored
the importance of being able “to respond to an evolving reality rather than having to focus on a
stable fantasy” (p. 271). These arguments underscored that alignment is a constant process that
requires middle managers to learn, adapt, and act.
This review started by discussing the literature on the central themes for this study
individually and then transitioned towards an integrated perspective. As demonstrated,
alignment does not equal execution (Sull et al., 2015), but if middle manager actions are
configured to support a strategy’s component pieces, strategy execution and value creation will
be enhanced (Colvin & Boswell, 2007). Next, the review discusses the modified version of the
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework used to understand what impacts the stakeholder
goal of creating alignment.

27

Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework
A conceptual framework is critical for organizing a qualitative research study (Rocco &
Plakhotnik, 2009). Clark and Estes (2008) provided a systematic conceptual framework to
identify business and individual performance goals inside an organization and determine
potential performance gaps. If a discrepancy between a goal and the actual performance level is
identified, the framework then guides the analysis of the assumed stakeholder KMO influences
that may impact the gap (Clark & Estes, 2008). Next, the objective of the framework aims at
identifying and implementing possible solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the final step, the
model enables the evaluation of the results and highlights options for adjustment (Clark & Estes,
2008).
In this evaluation study, the researcher used a modified version of the Clark and Estes
(2008) framework to evaluate the different dimensions critical to Highland Technology’s middle
managers achieving their stakeholder goal. The first section addresses the assumed knowledge
and skill-related influences on the achievement of the stakeholder goal. Then, assumed
influences relating to middle managers’ motivation are discussed. Lastly, assumed
organizational influences are explored. Each of these assumed influences on the achievement of
the stakeholder goal are assessed via the research methodology outlined in Chapter Three.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This review of current literature focused on three dimensions of what middle managers at
Highland Technology need to achieve their stakeholder performance goal of aligning their
actions with the organization’s strategy.

28

Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge-related influences are the first dimension pertinent to Highland Technology’s
middle managers achieving their stakeholder goal. Clark and Estes (2008) argued that
employees’ knowledge and skills are key determinants of organizational performance. The
authors explained that improving individuals’ knowledge and skills not only increases their
ability to address potential gaps related to the achievement of a performance goal but benefits the
organization in general. Rueda (2011) supported this argument and added that having
appropriate knowledge and skills are prerequisites to achieving any type of goal. Consequently,
investing in employees, their knowledge, and their abilities, will generate positive outcomes for
an organization and strengthen its competitive positioning (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge influences. To determine progress toward the achievement of Highland
Technology’s middle managers’ stakeholder goal, it is essential to assess the relevant knowledge
influences and corresponding knowledge types. According to Krathwohl (2002), there were four
different types of knowledge. The first type of knowledge was factual knowledge and refers to
the basic elements or facts that are specific to certain domains, disciplines, or activities
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Knowing or being familiar with these fundamental elements
and terminologies is a prerequisite for individuals to perform or solve problems within a given
context (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge was the second knowledge
type and focuses more closely on the interrelationships of these basic facts or elements specific
to a certain domain or activity (Krathwohl, 2002). Therefore, this knowledge type refers to
people’s understanding of principles, theories, generalizations, and categorizations relevant to a
certain area. Procedural knowledge was the third knowledge type and refers to individuals’
knowledge of how to do something (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive knowledge

29

was the fourth and final type of knowledge, and refers to individuals’ knowledge of themselves
and their own cognitive processes and thinking (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). This
knowledge type requires the highest level of abstraction, allows employees to consider relevant
contextual information, and helps determine when and why to take specific actions (Krathwohl,
2002; Rueda, 2011).
The following sections address three knowledge influences critical for Highland
Technology’s middle managers to achieve their stakeholder goal, and categorize them into one of
the knowledge types reviewed above. Classifying these influences is necessary to determine
appropriate approaches to assess progress towards the achievement of the middle managers’
stakeholder goal.
Developing knowledge of the organization’s strategy. The first knowledge influence
that Highland Technology’s middle managers need to achieve their performance goal is knowing
both the specifics and the implications of the organization’s strategy. Before any manager or
organizational leader can act to align with a strategy, they need to know it exists and have a basic
understanding of what it intends to achieve. Companies generally rely on internal
communication mechanisms, and choose to cascade information down the organizational
hierarchy, to educate the different management layers on a new or revised strategy (Hrebiniak,
2006; Sull et al., 2015). However, research shows that merely telling people about a strategy
does not necessarily mean that they understand it or can develop steps that support its
implementation (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Sull et al., 2015). Therefore, having a basic
understanding of the organization’s overall strategy, including its main components,
assumptions, and objectives, is not only an intuitive but a critical prerequisite for Highland
Technology’s middle managers to achieve their performance goal. This knowledge influence is

30

categorized as declarative knowledge because it focuses on the what of a strategy (Aguinis &
Kraiger, 2009). Based on the previously mentioned classification of knowledge types by
Krathwohl (2002), both factual and conceptual knowledge fall into this category and are
necessary to help middle managers form the needed understanding of their organization’s long-
term strategy.
Aligning actions with the organization’s strategy. The second knowledge influence
that Highland Technology’s middle managers need to achieve their performance goal is knowing
how to translate the organization’s strategy and objectives into more granular goals and actions
specific to their scope of work. To successfully execute a strategy, it needs to be converted into
measurable and more immediate operating objectives, with clear responsibilities and
accountability for execution (Hrebiniak, 2006; Srivastava & Sushil, 2017). Hrebiniak (2006)
emphasized that this process of linking strategic long-term ambitions with mid or short-term
objectives and actions is a critical challenge. The organization’s middle managers have a
significant influence on the overall performance of a company (Currie & Procter, 2005) and it is
their role to convert the organization’s overarching goals into tangible actions and objectives to
facilitate execution (Hrebiniak, 2006). Thus, Highland Technology’s middle managers need to
know how to effectively align their actions with the goals of the organization. This knowledge
influence is categorized as procedural knowledge as it focuses on how to do something, namely,
the process of translating organizational objectives into lower-level actions.
Reflecting on own abilities to advance knowledge. The third knowledge influence that
Highland Technology’s middle managers need to achieve their performance goal is assessing and
reflecting on their ability to advance their knowledge of the organization’s strategy beyond what
is communicated to them. As mentioned, companies often focus on cascading strategy related

31

information down the various organizational levels from the senior levels (Hrebiniak, 2006; Sull
et al., 2015). However, the intended recipients do not always receive a comprehensive picture of
the strategy, including the different rationales and assumptions that led to its creation (Beer &
Eisenstat, 2000; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992). While not sharing all underlying information may
be a deliberate and justifiable decision by the top leadership team (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992),
it limits the ability of lower-level managers to learn and develop a deeper understanding of what
is guiding the long-term direction of the organization. Also, strategies do not exist in a vacuum
and are impacted by changes in the organization’s environment, which may force managers to
deviate from a once sensible course of action and adjust to new realities (Mintzberg & Waters,
1985; Sull et al., 2018a). To do that successfully, managers need to know more about a strategy
than what trickles down through internal channels as part of the organization’s top-down
communication flow. Therefore, Highland Technology’s middle managers need to assess their
ability to learn more about the organization’s strategy to supplement what is officially
communicated to them. This knowledge influence is categorized as metacognitive knowledge
because it focuses on middle managers’ knowledge of their abilities to advance their
understanding of the strategy.
Table 2 categorizes the three previously mentioned knowledge influences by knowledge
type; explains assessment method; and lists Highland Technology’s organizational mission, its
organizational global goal, and the stakeholder goal.

32

Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment
Organizational Mission
Highland Technology’s mission is to establish a technology-related environment and
conditions that enable Highland to achieve critical internal and external ambitions.
Organizational Global Goal
Highland Technology’s organizational goal is to achieve the objectives of its strategy.
Stakeholder Goal
Highland Technology’s middle managers’ goal is to align their actions with the
organization’s strategy.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Middle managers need to
know the specifics (and
implications) of the
organization’s corporate
strategy to create
alignment.
Declarative (Factual,
Conceptual)
Assess relevant documents
explaining the
organization’s strategy.

Interview middle managers
and ask them to paraphrase
the strategy or explain its
core elements.
Middle managers need to
know how to align with the
organization’s strategy.
Procedural Interview middle managers
and ask them to explain the
process by which they align
their actions.

33

Middle managers need to
assess/reflect on their
abilities to advance their
knowledge of the strategy
beyond what is being
communicated to them to
create alignment.
Metacognitive Interview middle managers
and ask what measures or
methods they employ to
learn more about the
organization’s strategy.

Motivation

Motivation-related influences are the second dimension of influences critical to Highland
Technology’s middle managers achieving their stakeholder goal. While the previous section on
knowledge focused on middle managers knowing what to do and how to do it, this section
examines if these managers want to or will achieve their goal (Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011)
pointed out that the two dimensions of knowledge and motivation are often examined in
isolation, but stressed that both are closely related and directly affect each other. The impact of
motivation on people’s performance is critical, and Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that many
organizational performance gaps are due to motivational causes. However, the authors
emphasized that increasing motivation does not only help address performance shortcomings, but
produces positive organizational outcomes even if there is no apparent performance gap. This
correlation is particularly relevant in the case of Highland Technology, as the objective of the
evaluation model applied in this dissertation is to evaluate middle managers’ progress toward
goal achievement.
Motivation is what makes individuals select a goal and work toward its achievement
(Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) unpacked the topic of motivation further
and asserted that its three main components are active choice, persistence, and mental effort.

34

Active choice refers to an individual’s decision to pursue a goal, persistence refers to the
individual’s commitment and continued efforts to work on the goal despite potential challenges,
and mental effort addresses the mental work the individual invests in the task (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011). Pintrich (2003) pointed out that several principles, or motivational
generalizations, like adaptive self-efficacy, adaptive attributions, interest, value, and goals,
impact motivation. The following sections focus on self-efficacy and value, as both are critical
to evaluating Highland Technology’s middle managers’ motivation to achieve their stakeholder
goal.
Self-efficacy theory. The first motivational influence related to Highland Technology’s
middle managers’ ability to achieve their stakeholder goal is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is
situated at the core of social cognitive theory and can be defined as people’s beliefs or
perceptions about their abilities to perform a task (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2009). The higher
people’s beliefs in their capabilities and competence, the more motivated they will be to engage
in a task, persist, and perform well (Denler et al., 2009; Pajares, 2009; Rueda, 2011). Therefore,
the motivational construct of self-efficacy is a useful predictor of behavior, as people are more
likely to pursue tasks and goals that they believe they can accomplish and, conversely, avoid
those in which they feel less competent (Pajares, 2009). Clark and Estes (2008) concurred and
added that confidence is a measure of how people judge their own abilities, and that
misjudgment can have a negative effect on motivation.
Various factors influence the development of an individual’s self-efficacy beliefs and, in
turn, their motivation (Pajares, 2009). These factors align with the core principles of social
cognitive theory (Denler et al., 2009), and include an individual’s own experiences, their
observations of others, the intentional or unintentional input they receive from others, and their

35

own experiences with psychological and emotional reactions (Pajares, 2009; Rueda, 2011).
Pajares (2009) highlighted that self-efficacy can apply to both individuals and teams, meaning
that a group of individuals can develop a form of shared or collective efficacy.
Middle manager’s self-efficacy. Aligning actions with the objectives of the
organization is not a trivial task for middle managers inside large organizations like Highland
Technology. To achieve the desired alignment, middle managers may need to act as mediators;
link different organizational layers and entities; and engage in the process of sense-making to
understand, interpret, and refine content (Rensburg et al., 2014; Rouleau & Balogun, 2011).
Prieto and de Carvalho (2018) added that actions to create alignment can happen at different
levels and impact structure, people, or systems. Hence, to achieve their stakeholder goal,
Highland Technology’s middle managers must feel confident in their ability to align their actions
with the organization’s strategy. Higher confidence levels in their skills and abilities will lead to
higher levels of self-efficacy. Consequently, middle managers with higher self-efficacy levels to
achieve alignment will be more motivated to persist in accomplishing their stakeholder goal.
Expectancy value theory. The second motivational influence related to Highland
Technology’s middle managers achieving their stakeholder goal is perceived value, which is a
critical component of expectancy value theory (Eccles, 2009). Eccles (2009) argued that, at its
core, expectancy value theory is about two primary motivational questions: “can I do the task?”
and “do I want to do the task?” (p.390). The author asserted that the first question addresses an
individual’s expectations of completing a task (Eccles, 2009). Therefore, it is related to the
individual’s self-efficacy beliefs, which were discussed in the previous section. The second
question deals with if an individual wants to perform a task and addresses the perceived value

36

that person associates with the task (Eccles, 2009). The second question will be the focus for the
rest of this section.
The higher the perceived value, the more likely a person will actively choose to
participate, persist during times of adversity, and engage (Rueda, 2011). Eccles (2009) posited
that four main components, or constructs, influence the perceived value of a task and impact an
individual’s motivation. These components are intrinsic value, which relates to the pleasure of
carrying out a task; attainment value, which refers to the correlation between a task and an
individual’s self-perception; utility value, which is based on how a task supports the achievement
of an individual’s goals or desired rewards; and perceived cost, which considers input factors
like time or energy that are necessary to engage in a task (Eccles, 2009; Rueda, 2011). The
following paragraph will look at each construct through the lens of Highland Technology’s
middle managers and their stakeholder goal.
Middle manager’s values. Intrinsic value is closely related to the ideas of intrinsic
motivation and interest, and refers to the enjoyment of carrying out a task (Eccles, 2009; Rueda,
2011). If Highland Technology’s middle managers enjoy the process of ensuring their actions
support the long-term direction of the organization, they will place a higher intrinsic value on
completing this task, and become more motivated to create alignment. The second construct is
attainment value and refers to the degree to which a task aligns with a person’s self-image
(Eccles, 2009; Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011). Tasks perceived to be important to a person’s
identity will likely create higher attainment value (Eccles, 2009; Pintrich, 2003). Therefore,
Highland Technology’s middle managers will be more motivated to actively pursue alignment if
they believe that doing so is an essential part of their role. The third construct is utility value and
can be described as the perceived usefulness of the task and degree to which it contributes to

37

personal goal attainment (Eccles, 2009; Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011). Highland Technology’s
middle managers will be more likely to pursue alignment and support the overarching
organizational strategy if doing so supports the achievement of their goals (Eccles, 2009).
Perceived cost is the final construct and considers factors like time or effort associated with
participating in the activity (Eccles, 2009; Rueda, 2011). If Highland Technology’s middle
managers perceive a low cost regarding invested time and effort to create alignment, then they
will be motivated to pursue their stakeholder goal. These four constructs illustrate the value
component of expectancy value theory and directly impact a person’s motivation to achieve a
goal (Eccles, 2009).
Table 3 shows the organizational mission, the organizational global goal, the stakeholder
goal, and two motivational influences and methods for assessment.
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Motivation Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
Highland Technology’s mission is to establish a technology-related environment and
conditions that enable Highland to achieve critical internal and external ambitions.
Organizational Global Goal
Highland Technology’s organizational goal is to achieve the objectives of its strategy.
Stakeholder Goal
Highland Technology’s middle managers’ goal is to align their actions with the
organization’s strategy.

38

Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Middle managers need to see the value in
aligning their actions with the
organization’s strategy.

Value (Utility, Attainment)
Interview middle managers and ask them
how valuable or important it is for them to
align their actions with the organization’s
strategy.
Middle managers need to feel confident in
their ability to align their actions with the
organization’s strategy.

Self-Efficacy
Interview middle managers and ask them
how confident they are in their abilities to
align their actions with the organization’s
strategy.

Organization

Organization-related influences are the third dimension essential to Highland
Technology’s middle managers achieving their stakeholder goal. Clark and Estes (2008)
contended that organizational outcomes are mainly determined by the interplay between an
organization’s culture and work environment, and the knowledge, skills, and motivation of its
employees. The three dimensions of KMO influences are highly interconnected, and even
skilled and motivated individuals can experience performance issues if the organizational culture
is not supportive or is misaligned (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, all three dimensions,
including their underlying interrelationships, need to be considered to enable sustainable
organizational change and performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). The following paragraph further
defines and examines the construct of organizational culture.
At a high level, culture can be defined as the shared learning a group accumulates as it
addresses challenges and changes relating to its external environment and internal organization

39

(Schein, 2017). Thus, culture is an abstract, dynamic, and evolving construct that helps to form
the values and norms of the group’s members (Erez & Gati, 2004; Schein, 2017). Organizations
are inherently complex (Bolman & Deal, 2013) and can be viewed as a system of different
interrelated and interdependent structures (Kezar, 2001). The complexities outlined in this
paragraph highlight that assessing or operationalizing the concept of organizational culture is not
a trivial task (Rueda, 2011). Schein suggested that it is sensible to consider different degrees of
observability when analyzing culture and argued that there are three main levels associated with
observability that include artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying
assumptions (Schein, 2017). Artifacts are tangible and refer to visible manifestations and
observable behavior (Schein, 2017). Espoused beliefs and values are less overt and relate to an
organization’s ideals, values, and goals, and may or may not be aligned with the organization’s
observable behavior (Schein, 2017). Basic underlying assumptions are deeply embedded in the
organization and are the least visible (Schein, 2017). Schein (2017) characterized these
assumptions as unconscious and generally taken for granted.
The following sections address three vital organizational influences that interact with
Highland Technology’s middle managers’ knowledge and motivation to achieve their
stakeholder goal. To make the assessment more tangible, these influences are categorized as
either cultural models or cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). While this
distinction makes it possible to assess each organizational influence in isolation, it is essential to
understand that those cultural models and settings are in a reciprocal relationship and impact
each other (Rueda, 2011).
Cultural Models. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) defined cultural models as “shared
mental schema or normative understandings of how the world works, or ought to work” (p. 47).

40

In other words, cultural models are generally not observable and relate to the beliefs or
assumptions of individuals or groups about how things are or should be (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Rueda (2011) added that cultural models are dynamic and impact the ways
organizations are structured. There are two cultural model influences critical to Highland
Technology’s middle managers.
Shared purpose and direction. The first organizational influence impacting Highland
Technology’s middle managers’ knowledge and motivation is a shared sense of purpose and
direction inside the organization. Tregoe and Zimmerman (1980) asserted that the nature and
desired future direction of an organization should be at the core of its strategy. Thus, in most
cases, some degree of evolution or change needs to take place to help propel the organization
from its current to the anticipated state. Moran and Brightman (2000) contended that, for change
to take place successfully, individuals inside an organization need to have a clear understanding
of the nature of the business, which includes a clearly defined and known shared purpose.
Organizational culture is a critical factor impacting an organization’s purpose (Schein, 2017). If
an organization’s primary purpose is not shared or known, middle managers will struggle to
achieve their stakeholder goal of creating strategic alignment, especially considering that
organizational strategies only aim to provide a framework to guide decisions and not a detailed
action plan to orchestrate execution (Tregoe & Zimmerman, 1980; Sull et al., 2018b).
Individuals join organizations to pursue a common purpose (Schein, 2017). Sinek (2009)
called that purpose the Why of an organization and asserted that it should guide critical actions.
In a similar vein, Moran and Brightman (2000) highlighted that purpose is one of the key
determinants affecting work behavior, and added that individuals are likely to push back against
organizational change that is misaligned with their own sense of purpose. Schein (2017)

41

furthered this notion and asserted that a lack of purpose can create a state of anxiety, which
individuals may try to counter by creating a more stable or predictable environment. These
attempts to create a more stable environment may not align with the organization’s overall
strategy. Therefore, having a shared purpose will positively impact Highland Technology’s
middle managers’ knowledge and motivation, and help them establish line of sight, which was
discussed earlier in this chapter as an important element of their sense-making process.
A culture of dialogue and information sharing across organizational hierarchies.
The second organizational influence affecting Highland Technology’s middle managers’
knowledge and motivation is a culture that allows for bi-directional, vertical flow of information.
Open dialogue, including a robust exchange of insights and perspectives from the bottom up, has
a positive impact on organizational health, performance, employee identification, and decision
quality (Clark & Estes, 2008; Enz & Schwenk, 1991; Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990; Morrison &
Milliken, 2000; Smidts et al., 2001). Valuing diverse viewpoints and opposing ideas helps create
a supportive learning environment inside an organization, which enables it to become faster at
adapting to changing market conditions (Garvin et al., 2008). Morrison and Milliken (2000)
described organizations with such a culture as pluralistic, but argued that employees who
withhold relevant insights on important issues and choose not to share them with individuals
higher up in the organizational hierarchy, present a common issue for companies. The authors
termed the scenario, in which individuals believe that speaking up would make no material
difference or may even lead to negative consequences, as organizational silence. The impacts of
this phenomenon will likely be greater for organizations with large geographic footprints, or
those operating in highly competitive and quickly changing environments, like Highland
Technology (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

42

An environment of trust, which uncouples fear from failure and welcomes a candid
exchange of opinions across all levels, enables managers to be more efficient, creative, and
supportive of the organization’s goals (Catmull & Wallace, 2014). Such a culture of vertical
information sharing is relevant to both knowledge and motivation influences of Highland
Technology’s middle managers. If a two-way flow of information is welcomed, middle
managers will not only receive strategic insights from the top leadership, but also feel
encouraged to share their perspective and ask clarifying questions to deepen their understanding.
As a result, both the declarative and metacognitive knowledge influences addressed earlier in this
chapter will be affected. Research on the topic of strategy execution found that operating in a
culture that makes middle managers feel like they had a chance to contribute during the strategy
process will increase their motivation to pursue goal alignment (Wooldridge et al., 2008).
Conversely, if middle managers believe that a strategy does not align with their values, they may
decide to work against it (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992; Guth & Macmillan, 1986; Hope, 2010).
Morrison and Milliken (2000) added that those managers may also try to prevent relevant
information from flowing upward if they believe that top management does not value dialogue
and disagreement. Thus, there is a clear link between an organization’s culture of constructive
dialogue and information sharing, and middle managers’ knowledge and motivation.
Organizations then need to question how they enable such a culture.
Cultural Settings. Cultural settings are visible, concrete manifestations of cultural
models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). As such, activities, behaviors, and
artifacts relating to cultural models are apparent and can be observed (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001; Rueda, 2011). The following cultural setting influence is relevant to Highland
Technology’s middle managers.

43

Established tools, mechanisms, or channels to facilitate bi-directional flow of
information across the organizational hierarchy. The third organizational influence
interacting with Highland Technology’s middle managers’ knowledge and motivation is the
availability of particular means or channels to facilitate a vertical and bi-directional exchange of
information. This cultural setting relates to the second cultural model discussed in the previous
section. Senge (1990) advocated that an organization’s actions should match its espoused
theory, and the same general concept applies to this topic.
The importance of internal communications to educate an organization on a strategy and
to cascade relevant information down the organizational hierarchy is well established (Beer &
Eisenstat, 2000; Hrebiniak, 2006; Rapert et al., 2002). However, there does not seem to be
consensus on what channels are best suited to communicate strategy and ensure that it is
understood. When it comes to sharing information from the bottom up, Morrison and Milliken
(2000) contended that it is pivotal for organizations to establish adequate channels and formal
structures to enable employee voice. Berger (2014) added that bi-directional symmetrical
communication and the usage of multiple channels are important building blocks for anchoring
strategic employee communication within an organizational culture.
Having concrete means in place to facilitate two-way streams of information-sharing
benefits both knowledge and motivational influences of middle management. For example, an
organization’s executive leadership team can leverage such means to ensure strategic priorities
are cascaded to the appropriate audiences (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Hrebiniak, 2006; Rapert et
al., 2002) and middle managers can use upward channels to share relevant insights or obtain
additional information to support their sense-making processes (Berger, 2014; Morrison &
Milliken, 2000). Hence, both declarative and metacognitive knowledge is impacted. The ability

44

to lean on particular means to influence the strategy process should also have a positive impact
on middle managers’ perceived value (Wooldridge et al., 2008) and self-efficacy beliefs related
to the achievement of their stakeholder goal.
This section highlighted three critical organizational influences interacting with Highland
Technology’s middle managers’ knowledge and motivation. The first cultural model of having a
shared purpose and sense of direction ties to the very core of an organization’s strategy and
middle managers’ line of sight. The second cultural model, which describes a culture of two-
way information sharing and dialogue, directly relates to the cultural setting of employing
appropriate communication and knowledge-sharing mechanisms that cut across the
organizational hierarchy. Both are interconnected and mutually reinforcing.
Table 4 highlights the organizational mission, the organizational global goal, and the
stakeholder goal, as well as three organizational influences and assessment methods.
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
Highland Technology’s mission is to establish a technology-related environment and
conditions that enable Highland to achieve critical internal and external ambitions.
Organizational Global Goal
Highland Technology’s organizational goal is to achieve the objectives of its strategy.
Stakeholder Goal
Highland Technology’s middle managers’ goal is to align their actions with the
organization’s strategy.

45

Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence: Middle
managers need to believe that a shared
sense of purpose and direction exists within
the organization.
Assess relevant documents explaining the
organization’s purpose and mission.

Interview question about whether middle
managers believe they have a clear
understanding of the nature and purpose of
the organization.
Cultural Model Influence: Middle
managers need to believe that the
organization has a culture of dialogue and
information sharing across organizational
hierarchies.
Interview question about whether middle
managers believe they are able and
encouraged to share information upward,
and influence or participate in the strategy
process.
Cultural Setting Influence: Middle
managers need to believe that established
tools, mechanisms, or channels exist that
facilitate dialogue and a bi-directional flow
of information across the organizational
hierarchy.
Interview questions about specific tools,
mechanisms, or channels in place to share
information and influence the strategy
process.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework affects all aspects of a research study and establishes its
underlying structure (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) stated that a conceptual
framework brings together the main concepts, variables, beliefs, and assumptions of a study, and
highlights what potential relationships may exist. As such, a conceptual framework establishes a
tentative conception, or theory, of a given phenomenon and guides how the research will be

46

designed, carried out, and how the collected data may be interpreted (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
As the description above implies, a conceptual framework is a construct the researcher
builds, not finds (Maxwell, 2013). Maxwell (2013) argued that there are four primary sources
available for a researcher to build a framework: his or her own experience, prior theory and
research, pilot studies, and thought experiments. For this study on middle managers and their
effort to drive strategy execution by aligning their actions with the organization’s strategy, the
researcher drew primarily on prior theory and research, experiential knowledge, and, to a certain
extent, thought experiments. Existing research on the topic of strategy is robust but heavily
biased towards strategy formulation (Pryor et al., 2007; de Oliveira et al., 2019). Research on
strategy implementation is limited (Atkinson, 2006), and often focused only on specific elements
of execution (Sull et al., 2015). Maxwell (2013) posited that experiential knowledge is a vital
conceptual resource, especially if used critically and without bias. In the case of this study, the
researcher had professional experience in the areas of strategy formulation and implementation,
gained at various organizations and in different professional roles. The researcher also engaged
in thought experiments to explore possible interactions between different strategic assumptions.
Drawing on these sources, the conceptual framework for this dissertation ties together central
concepts and variables, and highlights the interaction with relevant KMO influences affecting
middle managers as the primary stakeholder group. So far, these influences were presented
separately, but they do not exist in isolation. The conceptual framework will demonstrate how
they likely interact.
The underlying problem of practice for this dissertation is the challenge of implementing
a strategy that was formulated by an organization’s executive level leadership (Franken et al.,

47

2009; Pryor et al., 2007). To inform that challenge, this study focuses on the role of middle
managers as critical actors in the strategy implementation process (Wooldridge et al., 2008).
Situated in the middle of the organization, these managers are affected by several knowledge-
related influences. Before middle managers can take any action, they need to receive relevant
information on a strategy and establish factual and conceptual knowledge of the subject, which
can also be referred to as declarative knowledge. Considering that the information and guidance
they get from the top of the organization will likely be limited, middle managers also need to
consider their ability to advance their understanding of the strategy beyond what is
communicated to them (Tregoe & Zimmerman, 1980). This knowledge influence is categorized
as metacognitive knowledge. Both declarative and metacognitive knowledge enable the strategic
sense-making process middle managers need to engage in to facilitate the implementation of a
strategy (Rouleau & Balogun, 2011). Procedural knowledge is the last knowledge influence
affecting Highland Technology’s middle managers and focuses on their actual skills and ability
to create alignment.
Self-efficacy theory and value theory are two essential motivation influences that impact
Highland Technology’s middle managers and interact with their knowledge. Individuals are
more likely to pursue tasks that they believe they can achieve (Pajares, 2009). Therefore, if
middle managers feel self-efficacious and are confident in their ability to align with the
organization’s strategy, they will be motivated to persist and accomplish their stakeholder goal
(Pajares, 2009). Rueda (2011) stated that an individual’s motivation to pursue and accomplish a
task is positively related to the task’s perceived value. Thus, middle managers will be more
likely to actively strive for alignment, if doing so supports the achievement of their own goals
(Eccles, 2009).

48

Middle managers have a boundary-spanning role inside organizations (Rensburg et al.,
2014), and their knowledge and motivation interact with various organizational influences. The
fundamental purpose of an organization should guide its strategy and critical actions (Moran &
Brightman, 2000; Sinek, 2009). If there is a shared understanding and knowledge of that
purpose inside the organization, middle managers will be in a better position to understand how
exactly they can contribute, and as a result, more effectively understand what is necessary to
create alignment (Boswell & Boudreau, 2001). Having a culture of candid dialogue and two-
way information sharing is another critical organizational influence. Such a culture will not only
help middle managers receive targeted strategic insights from the top of the organization, but
will also encourage them to ask clarifying questions to deepen their understanding (Beer &
Eisenstat, 2000; Hrebiniak, 2006; Rapert et al., 2002). Therefore, both declarative and
metacognitive knowledge will be impacted. Also, if managers believe that they can influence the
strategy process, their motivation to pursue goal alignment will likely increase (Wooldridge et
al., 2008). To enable such a culture, concrete means and mechanisms need to be in place, which
the third organizational influence addresses (Berger, 2014; Morrison & Milliken, 2000).
Figure 1 is a visual representation of the conceptual framework and highlights how its
components likely interact.

49

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework of Relevant Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Affecting Highland Technology’s Middle Managers

Stakeholder Goal
Highland Technology’s middle managers’ goal is to
align their actions with the organization’s strategy.
Organization
• Cultural Model Influence: MMs need to believe that a shared sense of purpose and
direction exists within the organization.
• Cultural Model Influence: MMs need to believe that the organization has a culture
of critical dialogue and information sharing across organizational hierarchies.
• Cultural Setting Influence: MMs need to believe that established tools,
mechanisms, or channels exist that facilitate dialogue and a bi-directional flow of
information across the organizational hierarchy.
Middle Managers (MMs)
•
MMs Skills and Knowledge
• Declarative (conceptual, factual):
MMs need to know the strategy to
align their actions.
• Procedural: MMs need to know
how to align their actions with the
organization’s strategy.
• Metacognitive: MMs need to
assess/reflect on their abilities to
advance their knowledge of the
strategy beyond what is being
communicated to align their
actions.
MMs Motivation
• Self-Efficacy: MMs need to
feel confident in their ability
to align their actions with the
organization’s strategy.
• Value (utility, attainment):
MMs need to see the value in
aligning their actions with the
organization’s strategy.

50

The conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 shows that Highland Technology’s
middle managers (blue circle) are the primary stakeholder group for this study and located in the
middle of the organization (grey circle). The two orange circles inside the middle manager scope
represent the three knowledge influences and two motivational influences covered in this study.
A bi-directional arrow connects both orange circles to indicate that knowledge and motivation
are two separate but interacting dimensions. The dotted line chosen for the middle manager
circle represents permeability and interconnectedness with the three organizational influences in
the grey circle. The stakeholder goal (green square) is directly tied to middle management, as
indicated by the vertical arrow.
Conclusion
This study examines the role of middle managers in creating alignment between their
actions and an organization’s strategy to enable its implementation. To inform this study, this
chapter reviewed the general literature related to middle managers’ role in the strategy process.
The literature showed that middle managers are a pivotal stakeholder group (Wooldridge et al.,
2008) and that receiving new information on a strategy, interpreting data, and translating it into
tangible goals are critical to create alignment and enable implementation (Hrebiniak, 2006;
Rapert et al., 2002; Rouleau & Balogun, 2011). Further, this literature review identified likely
KMO influences relevant to Highland Technology’s middle managers achieving their
stakeholder goal. Relevant knowledge influences can be categorized as declarative, procedural,
and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002); motivation influences are grounded in self-efficacy theory
(Pajares, 2009) and value theory (Eccles, 2009); and organizational influences include both
cultural models and cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). A conceptual framework
visualized the central concepts of this study and highlighted the assumed interaction with the

51

relevant knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Chapter Three will describe the
methodological approach, including research design, sampling procedure, and data collection.

52

Chapter Three: Methods
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine Highland Technology’s middle manager goal
of aligning their actions with the organization’s strategy. Drawing from Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis model, the analysis focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
influences related to achieving the stakeholder goal. While a complete performance evaluation
would have examined all stakeholders, for practical purposes, Highland Technology’s middle
managers were the focus of this analysis.
The following questions guided the evaluation study that addressed knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences for the middle managers stakeholder group.
1. To what extent do Highland Technology’s middle managers believe the organization
is meeting its goal to achieve its strategy?
2. What are Highland Technology’s middle managers’ knowledge and motivation
related to achieving their goal of aligning their actions with the strategy?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context, and middle
managers’ knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for middle managers’ organizational practice in the
areas of KMO resources?
Methodological Approach and Rationale
This study employed a qualitative research approach, which was emergent in nature, took
place in natural settings, and focused on deconstructing the meaning stakeholders ascribe to their
experiences (J.W. Creswell & J.D. Creswell, 2018; E.K. McEwan & P.J. McEwan, 2003;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative research is predominantly inductive, as it aims to identify

53

patterns and generate concepts or theories from the bottom-up through organizing the evidence
gathered in the field (J.W. Creswell & J.D. Creswell, 2018; Locke et al., 2010; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The qualitative research approach relies on rich descriptions collected by the
researcher, who is the primary research instrument collecting and interpreting the data (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The researcher chose a qualitative approach because his purpose was to
understand and evaluate what took place in the organization that impacted middle managers’
alignment of their actions with the organization’s strategy. The descriptive research questions
derived from this qualitative inquiry process allowed the researcher to explore KMO influences
related to his topics of analysis.
Considering that qualitative research is interpretive and relies on the researcher as the
primary instrument for data collection and interpretation, it was crucial for the researcher to be
reflexive during this process, acknowledge past experiences, and consider their potential impact
on his interpretations of the data (J.W. Creswell & J.D. Creswell, 2018). Aligned with the idea
of reflexivity, and the overall need to define adequate research methods and procedures,
qualitative researchers need to consider their personal philosophical worldview (J.W. Creswell &
J.D. Creswell, 2018). The researcher predominantly held a constructivist worldview, as his aim
was to describe, understand, and interpret data to inductively develop meaning (J.W. Creswell &
J.D. Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This worldview can also be referred to as
interpretivism (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). J.W. Creswell and J.D. Creswell (2018) pointed out
that constructivists are interested in researching the diverse and multiple meanings people
establish. Thus, the interpretive worldview aligned well with the researcher’s qualitative
research approach, as well as the project purpose to better understand the KMO influences that
affect middle managers during strategic alignment.

54

It is critical for researchers to determine a research design that supports their approach
(J.W. Creswell & J.D. Creswell, 2018). For this qualitative study, the researcher chose a
phenomenological design of inquiry. Phenomenological research focuses on detailed
descriptions of individuals’ experiences and tries to distill the core (J.W. Creswell & J.D.
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). J.W. Creswell and J.D. Creswell (2018) emphasized
that this type of design is heavily based on personal interviews and generally involves three to 10
participating individuals. The authors further stated that qualitative research is characterized by
a relatively small number of purposefully selected participants who can be observed or
interviewed (J.W. Creswell & J.D. Creswell, 2018). Based on the overall purpose of this study,
and considering the limited number of middle managers available to interview and ask questions,
the characteristics of a phenomenological research design were fitting. To enhance the
credibility and trustworthiness of this study, the researcher also incorporated several strategies
like member checking, data triangulation, and rich, comprehensive descriptions (J.W. Creswell
& J.D. Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This chapter begins with a description of the participating stakeholders and continues
with an explanation of the methods and sampling criteria for data collection. After discussing
data analysis, and the credibility and trustworthiness related to this study, this chapter concludes
by highlighting relevant ethical considerations.
Participating Stakeholders
The problem of practice at the center of this study was the challenge of operationalizing
and executing a strategy inside an organization. While different organizational constituents
impacted this issue, this study explicitly addressed middle managers as crucial stakeholders in
the strategy implementation process. Given the organizational size and complexity of Highland

55

Energy and Industrials, and to ensure the research scope remained manageable, this study
focused only on the strategy and middle managers of Highland Technology, a subset of the larger
organization. Approximately 70 individuals were part of that organizational unit’s middle
management layer during the planning and data collection phases of this study. Of this total
population, a subset of 13 individuals were purposefully selected based on their ability to
illuminate the underlying research problem (J.W. Creswell & J.D. Creswell, 2018; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Eleven of the 13 contacted individuals agreed to participate. The criteria for
their selection corresponded with the research questions and study purpose, and included the
individual’s position within the organizational hierarchy; the individual’s exposure to, and
familiarity with, the strategy process; and their scope of responsibility. The following sections
will explain the chosen methods of data collection and further detail the sampling criteria
mentioned above.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Position within the organizational hierarchy. The individual must have
been at least two levels below the organization’s leader. They also must have had a minimum of
two direct reports below them in the hierarchy to ensure they were managers and squarely placed
within the middle of the organization (i.e., they were not a direct report of the leader and had a
span of control greater than one).
Criterion 2. Time in current role. The individual must have held their current position
since at least December 2018 to ensure adequate exposure to the organization’s revised strategy,
including relevant processes and communication (i.e., covering all internal communications
relating to the strategy update).

56

Criterion 3. Responsibility in an area related to the organization’s strategy. The
individuals must have had roles that were directly impacted by the unit’s strategy, to ensure the
concept of strategy alignment applied to them (i.e., they should not have had a role within a
support function like accounting).
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Qualitative interviews were the primary data collection method for this study, and
participants were identified based on a non-probability sampling strategy. Non-probability
sampling is also referred to as purposeful sampling and constitutes the primary sampling method
for most qualitative research (J.W. Creswell & J.D. Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
An essential quality of purposeful sampling is that it allows for the selection of individuals who
are best positioned to help establish an in-depth understanding of the research questions
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Maxwell (2013) argued that there are different types of purposeful sampling. The type
selected for this study was typical purposeful sampling, as it aimed to achieve representativeness
by choosing individuals and settings that were assumed to be typical (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Given that a primary goal of qualitative interviews is to surface in-depth
information about the participant’s knowledge, feelings, motivations, and reasonings (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015), each interview can be viewed as an individual case. J.W. Creswell and J.D.
Creswell (2018) highlighted that approximately four to five cases constitute an adequate sample
size for a case study. Thus, performing interviews with all eleven individuals presented a
qualitative sample that was both substantive and achievable; this was true especially considering
the allocated time in the field, and the necessary time and coordination for coding and analysis.
The sensitive nature of the organization’s strategy and intent to limit the disruption of daily

57

operations contributed to the selection of data collection methods and size of the sample.
Highland Technology’s human resources leader supported the researcher’s sampling efforts and
assisted in communicating with and recruiting qualified individuals.
Document Analysis Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Highland Technology regularly shares information on a variety of organizational topics
with its employees. The sampling of documents and artifacts relevant to this study was guided
by two primary criteria.
Criterion 1. Relevance to this study’s conceptual framework. Highland Technology-
internal communications and files related to middle managers’ KMO influences were used for
the study.
Criterion 2. Content shared with the organization’s middle managers. Documents
and artifacts shared with either the entire employee base of Highland Technology or sub-groups
that included the organization’s middle managers were included in the study.
Document Analysis Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The second data collection method for this study involved the collection of constructed,
and secondary or existing data (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). This can include personal and
official documents and files in both physical or digital form (J.W. Creswell & J.D. Creswell,
2018; Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The use of different data collection methods allowed for
the triangulation of data and increased the credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research
(Maxwell, 2013; E.K. McEwan & P.J. McEwan, 2003; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The sampling
strategy and rationale for the document analysis was to include all Highland Technology-internal
communications relating to the organization’s strategy and core values, which helped illuminate
the knowledge and organizational dimensions of this study, respectively. Considering that the

58

majority of applicable documents already existed and were produced for reasons unrelated to this
dissertation, the files were collected and assessed before participants were interviewed, to allow
the researcher to establish necessary context (Bowen, 2009). The purposeful sample of middle
managers, combined with interviews and document analysis as the primary methods of data
collection, enabled the researcher to develop a deep understanding of the research questions and
increased the quality of the research findings. Personal documents were excluded from this
study.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The two primary methods of data collection chosen for this study were interviews and
document analysis. These methods allowed the researcher to develop a deep understanding of
Highland Technology’s middle managers’ knowledge and motivation related to creating strategic
alignment, and the interaction between organizational culture and context with middle managers’
knowledge and motivation. While personal interviews addressed the KMO influences related to
this study’s conceptual framework, the analysis of documents and artifacts mainly targeted the
knowledge and organizational dimensions, although artifacts or work product also are indicators
of motivation. This section will discuss document analysis and interviews as the two main
methods that were used to collect data.
Documents and Artifacts
Documents and artifacts are stable and valuable sources for qualitative studies that can
help uncover meaning and establish insights (Bowen, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) argued that there are various types and forms of documents. The ones best
suited to illuminate the research questions of this study were classified as organization-internal
records. These records existed in electronic or digital form and included presentation slide

59

decks, meeting recordings, and other informational content that was accessed remotely by all
employees of the organization. The original purpose of these documents was to inform people
inside Highland Technology about the specifics of the organization’s strategy and its core values.
Therefore, analyzing these records helped illuminate the knowledge and organization-related
dimensions of this study’s conceptual framework. The researcher had access to all applicable
documents because he was part of Highland Technology, and these documents had already been
produced for reasons other than this study. However, to ensure their completeness and
availability, the researcher consulted with critical internal stakeholders, like Highland
Technology’s human resources and internal communications departments. Appendix A presents
the document analysis protocol.
Interviews
Interview Protocol. Interviewing was the primary and most adequate choice of data
collection for this study because it allowed the researcher to obtain detailed data related to
people’s feelings, interpretations, and sensemaking processes that could not have been collected
otherwise (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Weiss, 1994). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) posited that
there are three main types of interviews that can be distinguished based on the degree of desired
structure: highly structured/standardized, semi-structured, and unstructured/informal. The
interview type best suited to explore the research questions of this study was semi-structured,
which is placed in the middle of the interview structure-continuum (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
With this type, a list of questions and critical topics guide the interview process (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). However, questions are worded more flexibly, which allows the researcher to
respond to emerging situations and explore new ideas (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

60

Interviews were used to investigate the KMO influences affecting Highland
Technology’s middle managers. Patton (2002) suggested that there are six main types of
interview questions: experience and behavior, opinion and value, feeling, knowledge, sensory,
and background/demographic. Interview questions related to the knowledge dimension of this
study’s conceptual framework fell exclusively into the knowledge category of questions. The
motivation dimension of the conceptual framework, on the other hand, drew on questions related
to both feelings and opinions/values. Lastly, the organization dimension of this study was
explored via questions from the knowledge, behavior, and opinion/value categories. Appendix B
presents the interview protocol.
Interview Procedures. Interviews were conducted after most of the document analysis
had been completed. Considering that the documents relevant to this study already existed,
assessing them before conducting interviews helped the researcher establish necessary context
and improved the precision of both the interview and probing questions. The researcher
conducted one formal interview with each of the eleven individuals in the sample. Each
interview was initially scheduled for 45 minutes, which was reasonable based on the number of
interview items, and also aligned with guidance received from the organization’s human
resources leader, who asked to keep the total interview time under 60 minutes per participant.
Based on the time-stamped transcripts that each conversation yielded, the actual mean interview
time, excluding the time needed for introductions, set-up, and informed consent, was 38 minutes.
The longest conversation lasted nearly 56 minutes, while the shortest interview was completed
after 19 minutes. The total interview time of all eleven conversations combined amounted to 421
minutes, or seven hours and one minute. Given the geographic dispersion of the sample, the
interviews occurred based on the participants’ availability and were conducted via the Zoom

61

audio conferencing application. All participants agreed to have their conversations recorded,
which enabled the production of verbatim transcripts (Maxwell, 2013) and ensured the
researcher was able to focus on establishing rapport, conducting the interview, and asking
probing questions (Patton, 2002). The researcher also took personal notes to capture his
reactions, formulate new questions, and identify markers he wished to follow up on later during
the interview (Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994). All interviews were conducted in English, which is
the official working language inside Highland Technology. Two pilot interviews were
conducted beforehand to improve the interview guide and ensure the clarity of the interview
questions. The data gathered via these two pilot interviews were not included in the findings of
this study.
Alignment of KMO Influences and Data Collection Methods and Instruments
Table 5 shows each KMO influence and the method and measure of the influence. By
examining the rows, the alignment of the influences and methods is demonstrated.
Table 5
KMO Influences, Data Collection Methods, and Instruments
Organizational Mission
Highland Technology’s mission is to establish a technology-related environment and
conditions that enable Highland to achieve critical internal and external ambitions.
Organizational Global Goal
Highland Technology’s organizational goal is to achieve the objectives of its strategy.
Stakeholder Goal
Highland Technology’s middle managers’ goal is to align their actions with the
organization’s strategy.

62

Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Interview Item Document
Analysis
Middle managers
need to know the
specifics (and
implications)
of the organization’s
strategy to create
alignment.

Declarative
(Conceptual,
Factual)
Assess relevant
documents explaining
the organization’s
strategy.

Interview middle
managers and ask
them to paraphrase the
strategy or explain its
core elements.
“If you had to explain the
organization’s current
strategy to a peer that just
joined the team, what
would you say?” [If the
interviewee doesn’t know
the strategy well enough
to paraphrase it, take
note, and highlight that
four main elements or
ambitions are at the core
of the strategy, and ask if
they can list or describe
them.]
Highland
Technology internal
communications and
content relating to its
strategy (i.e.,
presentation files of
employee meetings
with leadership,
recordings of these
meetings, etc.).

63

Middle managers
need to know how
to align their actions
with the
organization’s
strategy.

Procedural
Interview middle
managers and ask
them to explain the
process by which they
align their actions.
“Could you explain to me
how you go about
aligning with the
organization’s strategy?”
[Or, in case interviewee
says he or she does not
align: “If a colleague
asked for your advice on
how to achieve
alignment, what steps do
you suggest he or she
should take?”]
N/A
Middle managers
need to
assess/reflect on
their abilities to
advance their
knowledge of the
strategy beyond
what is being
communicated to
them to create
alignment.

Metacognitive
Interview middle
managers and ask
what measures or
methods they employ
to learn more about
the organization’s
strategy.
“Imagine a new
organizational strategy
was created and
communicated. If I could
observe you get more
informed about that new
strategy, what would I
see you do?” [If the
interviewee says that he
or she solely relies on
top-down
communication, take note
of that and ask if they do
anything proactively.]
N/A

64

Assumed
Motivation
Influences
Motivational
Influence Assessment
Interview Item Document
Analysis
Middle managers
need to see the
value in aligning
their actions with
the organization’s
strategy.

Value (Utility,
Attainment)
Interview middle
managers and ask
them how valuable or
important it is for
them to align their
actions with the
organization’s
strategy.
“Let’s look more closely
at your position and
objectives inside the
organization.
How important or
valuable is it to you to
have alignment with the
organization’s strategy?”
N/A
Middle managers
need to feel
confident in their
ability to align their
actions with the
organization’s
strategy.

Self-Efficacy
Interview middle
managers and ask
them how confident
they are in their
abilities to align their
actions with the
organization’s
strategy.

“How confident are you
in your abilities to align
your actions with the
organization’s strategy?”
N/A

65

Assumed
Organizational
Influences
Organization
Influence Assessment
Interview Item Document
Analysis
Middle managers
need to believe that
a shared sense of
purpose and
direction exists
within the
organization.

Cultural Model
Assess relevant
documents explaining
the organization’s
purpose and mission.

Interview question
about whether middle
managers believe they
have a clear
understanding of the
nature and purpose of
the organization.
“How would you
describe the main
purpose of the
organization? In other
words, what do you think
is at its core?”
Highland
Technology internal
communications and
content relating to its
purpose and mission
(i.e., employee
training, presentation
files of employee
meetings with
leadership;
recordings of these
meetings, etc.)
Middle managers
need to believe that
the organization has
a culture of dialogue
and information
sharing across
organizational
hierarchies.

Cultural Model
Interview question
about whether middle
managers believe they
can and are
encouraged to share
information upward
and influence
[participate in] the
strategy process.
Question 1: “Tell me
about the organization’s
culture of open dialogue
and if it encourages
information to be shared
both up and down the
hierarchy.”

Question 2: “How does
the organization
encourage you to
influence or participate in
the strategy process?”
N/A

66

Middle managers
need to believe that
established tools,
mechanisms, or
channels exist that
facilitate dialogue
and a bi-directional
flow of information
across the
organizational
hierarchy.

Cultural Setting
Interview question
about specific tools,
mechanisms, or
channels in place to
share information and
influence the strategy
process.
“Can you tell me about
the specific channels, or
tools, or mechanisms that
are available to you to
facilitate that dialogue
and share information
with people above you.”
Highland
Technology
quarterly all-
employee meeting
recordings.

Data Analysis

For interviews, data analysis began during data collection. The researcher wrote analytic
memos after each interview to capture his thoughts, concerns, and initial findings of the data as it
related to the study’s conceptual framework and research questions. The interview recordings
were transcribed, reviewed for accuracy, and subsequently deleted to maintain the confidentiality
of the participants. Coding of the transcribed interviews was completed in multiple phases. In
the first phase of analysis, the researcher reviewed the transcripts and applied a priori codes
developed from the conceptual framework and its three main categories of KMO. During
subsequent reviews of the transcripts, the researcher added empirical codes, which were then
aggregated into axial/analytic codes. Next, a codebook was used to account for typicality, and to
identify and organize pattern codes and themes that emerged in relation to this study’s research
questions and conceptual framework. The researcher also analyzed documents for evidence

67

consistent with the concepts in the conceptual framework. This systematic and iterative process
enabled the researcher to formulate critical assertions.
Throughout the coding process, the researcher applied various analytic tools, or thinking
techniques, like the use of questioning, looking for negative cases, making comparisons, looking
at language, and assessing the structure of the narrative (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Corbin and
Strauss (2008) asserted that applying such heuristic tools promotes conceptual thinking,
increases the researcher’s awareness, and ultimately leads to more robust research findings.
Chapter Four will discuss the results of the data analysis process.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Ensuring the trustworthiness of the research process and credibility of findings is pivotal
to conducting qualitative research (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However,
qualitative researchers, who are the primary instrument of data collection, face several threats to
the credibility and trustworthiness of a study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Maxwell, 2013). Such
issues can include researcher bias and subjectivity, which relates to the researcher’s personal
beliefs and perceptions, or reactivity, which relates to his or her potential influence on the
interview participants (Maxwell, 2013). While it is impossible to eliminate all issues, qualitative
researchers can apply several strategies to minimize potential threats (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). This section describes the strategies the researcher used to increase the
credibility and trustworthiness of this study.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) indicated that credibility and trustworthiness can be
addressed during all phases of the research process. During research design, the researcher
ensured that the study’s conceptual framework and relevant literature guided the selection of
appropriate data collection methods. As mentioned above, personal interviews and document

68

analysis were the primary collection methods chosen for this study. Therefore, the strategy of
triangulation between these methods was applied to reduce the risk of biases and confirm
findings (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
During data collection, the researcher shared some interview notes, assumptions, and
questions with several of his interview participants. This strategy of respondent validation, or
member checking, reduced the risk of misinterpreting the meaning of what the interviewed
individuals shared (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher also sought to
spend adequate time collecting data to increase the likelihood of fully understanding middle
managers’ perspective on the topic of strategic alignment (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) suggested that adequate time is invested when the same topics and tentative
findings keep emerging, and the gathered data feel saturated. As part of this process, the
researcher actively looked for data that countered emerging themes. Looking for discrepant or
negative cases is another strategy to establish confidence in the researcher’s findings and
increase their credibility (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Throughout the data collection phase, the researcher reflected on his biases and kept a
journal to document relevant decisions and questions. Such documentation established an audit
trail that helped the study’s readers understand the project history and authenticate the
researcher’s choices and findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, the researcher used
reflective memos, as suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (2007), to explore his ongoing thoughts
and analysis. Applying these approaches helped enable the researcher to reflect on his biases,
worldview, and positionality (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
During data analysis and reporting, the researcher continued to practice reflexivity and
explain his biases and their potential effect via journaling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To add

69

meaningful context and increase the trustworthiness of his study, the researcher gathered and
shared rich descriptions of the setting, participants, and findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Such rich data included verbatim interview transcripts, direct quotes from participants, and field
notes (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The strategies presented above were put in
place to counter known threats to qualitative research and, in turn, increase the credibility and
trustworthiness of this study.
Ethics
The trustworthiness of data in a research study depends in large parts on the credibility
and ethics of the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As such, it is critical for the researcher
to ensure the ethical obtainment of data and deal with potential dilemmas in an ethical manner.
Glesne (2011) and H. Rubin and I. Rubin (2012) asserted that the primary obligation of a
researcher is to protect the study participants from unintended and negative consequences and to
keep the promises they made. For this evaluation study, the researcher ensured that several
ethical safeguards were in place to protect the participants and the researcher. These measures
included Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, informed consent, and confidentiality.
This study was subject to approval by the IRB at the University of Southern California
(USC). The primary purpose of a university’s IRB is to ensure research involving human
subjects follows strict ethical guidelines (H. Rubin & I. Rubin, 2012). Informed consent is an
essential element of the IRB process, as it ensures that participants understand the purpose of the
research, potential risks, the voluntary nature of their participation, and their right to withdraw at
any point (H. Rubin & I. Rubin, 2012). For this study, informed consent was collected
personally at the onset of each discussion. The researcher read an informed consent form to each
participant before beginning the interview, provided an opportunity to ask questions, and only

70

proceeded after the participant agreed. The researcher also shared a digital copy of the informed
consent form via email after each conversation. The third ethical safeguard put in place
addressed the issue of privacy protection and confidentiality. During all phases of the study, the
researcher ensured that all participation was confidential and that no names of participants were
disclosed. To supplement his hand-written notes, the researcher also requested permission to
record audio of the interviews. The collected data were stored in a secure location outside of the
organization’s storage drives and the files were destroyed after completion of the study. Aligned
with an open democratic research approach as described by Glesne (2011), participants not only
had control over which data were collected but also which data were included in the report. No
participant objected to the full use of all collected data. Lastly, no participant received incentives
for participation.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argued that the researcher’s relationship to participants and
the organization are a key point of concern in qualitative research. While the researcher held a
position within the broader strategy community at the organization where the study took place,
none of the participants were in a subordinate role to the researcher. Therefore, issues of power
did likely not interfere with the researcher-participant relationship of this study (H. Rubin & I.
Rubin, 2012). In addition, the researcher ensured that all interview partners understood his role
as a neutral investigator by emphasizing the purpose of the study and the difference in roles
before each interview.
Considering the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection, it is critical he or
she examines inherent assumptions and biases relating to the area of research (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). For this study, the researcher acknowledged that he is experienced in the field of
strategy, worked at the research site, and was part of the organization’s strategy community. The

71

researcher was genuinely interested in how middle managers align their actions with a strategy,
and the outcomes of this study were not expected to affect his upward mobility or career
prospects within the organization. Glesne (2011) argued that qualitative researchers run the risk
of inadvertently assuming different roles during data collection and that these roles have the
potential to generate ethical dilemmas. Although the researcher wanted the organization to
accomplish its goals, he was mindful not to take on the role of either an intervener or advocate,
who tries to induce change or champion a cause, respectively (Glesne, 2011). Every effort was
made by the investigator to remain his neutrality during data collection and ensure the
participants of their anonymity. In general, the ethical considerations applied to this study
helped protect the participants, the research site, and the quality of the research outcomes.

72

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
Chapter Four presents the findings of this study as they pertain to the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) causes related to Highland Technology’s
middle managers achieving their stakeholder goal of aligning their actions with the
organization’s strategy. As discussed in Chapter Three, the categorization of KMO causes was
guided by Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model.
Multiple sources of qualitative data from interviews, documents, and artifacts were
collected to validate the assumed KMO causes. Personal interviews constituted the primary data
source, while documents and artifacts were analyzed first to establish context, then to provide
further evidence and triangulation. Given that most of the relevant materials already existed and
were produced for reasons unrelated to this study, it was sensible that document collection and
analysis started before the interviews were conducted.
Participating Stakeholders
Highland Technology’s middle managers were the key stakeholder group for this study.
Eleven middle managers participated in personal interviews and agreed to have their
conversations recorded and transcribed. Each participant ranked two layers below the
organization’s leader and had at least two direct reports below them in the hierarchy. All
interviewed middle managers had been in their roles since at least December 2018, when the
organization communicated its updated strategy, and each position was relevant to the execution
of that strategy. Six middle managers were female (54.55%), while the remaining five
individuals were male. Roughly representing the geographic dispersion of the organization’s
middle management layer, nine of the 11 participants (81.82%) were based in the United States

73

and the remaining two in Europe. No other individual demographic data were collected from the
participants.
Determination of Assets and Needs
Personal interviews and document analyses constituted the primary methods of data
collection for this study. However, these two sources did not apply to all assumed assets. As
discussed in Chapter Three, interviews covered all KMO influences, while documents and
artifacts only applied to the knowledge and organizational dimensions and were mainly analyzed
to triangulate findings. In addition to data triangulation, other strategies like member checking,
looking for discrepant cases, and spending adequate time in the field were used to enhance the
credibility and trustworthiness of this study. Saturation was reached after approximately eight
interviews when general themes and tentative findings started to repeat themselves. However,
the researcher decided to interview and use the data of all 11 middle managers that had agreed to
participate in this study.
Although the assumed influences differed in relative importance to the achievement of
the stakeholder goal, the researcher chose to apply a consistent and high threshold level for all
causes. Assumed influences were validated as an asset when at least nine of the 11 interview
participants (81.82%) provided responses that confirmed the influence. If fewer than nine out of
11 middle managers (81.82%) provided validating answers, then that assumed influence was
determined to be a need. All documents and artifacts used for document analysis were produced
by Highland Technology, not individual middle managers, and analyzed for triangulation and
additional evidence regarding some of the assumed influences.

74

Results and Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked interviewed middle managers to what extent they believed
that Highland Technology was achieving its stated strategy. Eight of the 11 participants
(72.73%) reflected positively on the organization’s implementation efforts and thought that
Highland Technology was at least partially successful in achieving its long-term objectives. For
example, Participant 11 stated, “I think we are quite on track and quite good on managing and
implementing the strategy,” while Participant 7 simply declared, “Yes, I believe so.” Some of
these eight participants shared a more nuanced perspective and acknowledged that, despite their
positive assessment overall, there was still room for improvement. To that extent, Participant 3
explained, “I think we are on the right path, but I think we still have a way to go. I think to be
really successful, I think we still need some more.”
Two of the eleven middle managers (18.18%) interviewed reflected negatively on the
organization’s implementation success and did not think that Highland Technology was
achieving the objectives of its strategy. Participant 9 was one of these two managers and stated,
“I don't believe that we're executing as well as we can, because we're not growing in areas that
we want to grow in.” Here, Participant 9 referenced one of the organization’s main areas of
strategic focus to illustrate the argument. Participant 5 also did not believe the organization was
successful in achieving its goals and explained, “I think at every level I've experienced,
everything is pure firefighting and reactionary. I don't see the needle moving forward, making
progress on any of those [strategic ambitions].” Participant 5 concluded, “The real progress isn’t
happening here.”

75

The response of the remaining eleventh participant did not fit into either of the two
categories discussed above. Alluding to the time component of the strategy implementation
process, Participant 11 responded, “I don't know. It might be too early to tell.”
It is important to note that the interview item addressing Research Question 1 was asked
immediately after the question discussing participants’ declarative knowledge. That sequencing
was deliberately chosen and allowed the researcher to remind the participants of the
organization’s strategy and four strategic ambitions. As such, each interviewed middle manager
had the same factual knowledge of the strategy when asked about their perception of Highland
Technology’s implementation success.
The findings presented above show that the majority of interviewed middle managers
believed that Highland Technology was successful in implementing its strategy. Eight of eleven
participants (72.73%) shared a positive assessment of the company’s efforts, while two managers
(18.18%) did not believe that the organization was achieving the desired impact. One participant
(9.09%) thought that it was not yet appropriate to assess progress in this regard.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Middle manager knowledge causes were assessed through interviews and document
analyses. The findings are presented in the following section for each assumed knowledge
influence and categorized as declarative, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). Each assumed influence was determined to be an asset (validated) or a need (not
validated) based on the findings and cut score/threshold level discussed above.

76

Declarative Knowledge
Influence 1. Middle managers need to know the specifics of the organization’s
strategy to create alignment.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. When asked how they would describe Highland Technology’s
current strategy to a peer, eight interviewed middle managers (72.73%) were able to name or
paraphrase at least three of the organization’s four primary ambitions that make up its strategy.
The remaining three participants (27.27%) were able to speak to only two strategic ambitions.
The researcher considers the ability to name and describe at least three ambitions as
demonstrating an adequate level of understanding of the organization’s overall strategy.
Therefore, the majority of interviewed middle managers successfully demonstrated their
declarative knowledge of the organization’s strategy.
Of the eight middle managers that exhibited an adequate understanding of the strategy,
three individuals were able to cover three strategic ambitions, while the remaining five managers
were able to address all four. For example, Participant 3 stated, “I think the easiest way to
describe is, you know, the four pillars that we have for Highland Technology's strategy. That we
are kind of focused on those four things.” Participant 3 then continued and addressed each of the
four ambitions in detail (no direct quotation was used to ensure the confidentiality of the research
site). Participant 8 followed a similar pattern and started by declaring, “Well, I think we have
four main focus areas, you know.” They then named and elaborated on each of the four
ambitions (no direct quotation was used to ensure the confidentiality of the research site).
Participant 9 reversed this order and responded by first paraphrasing the ambitions’ rationales.
When also asked to label them, Participant 9 correctly referenced three and acknowledged not

77

remembering one: “It’s [ambition 1, ambition 2, and ambition 3]. I forgot the fourth one. The
fourth one, what am I missing?”
Three middle managers failed to demonstrate adequate comprehension of the strategy and
were only able to reference two ambitions during their interviews. After realizing the apparent
knowledge gap, Participant 2 expressed frustration and explained, “It's like speaking Greek to
me.” A bit later in the interview, they added, “like I said, it just doesn't resonate.”
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. Materials collected for document analysis included a company-
internal training video on the organization’s strategy, an Intranet webpage, and recordings and
presentation files of four quarterly all-employee meetings. The training video was accessible by
all employees of Highland Technology, hosted on the organization’s internal learning portal, and
created with the intent to educate the workforce on the organization’s strategy. Each of Highland
Technology’s four strategic ambitions was covered on a dedicated slide and narrated by the
organization’s leader.
Like many large commercial organizations, Highland Technology maintains an Intranet
webpage to consolidate and share fundamental organizational data with its employees. The
organization’s strategy is published in a dedicated section labeled Mission and Priorities.
Every quarter, the leader of Highland Technology hosts a virtual meeting to share critical
organizational updates and decisions with all employees. After each meeting, a recording of the
session is published internally to allow employees to revisit the presented content at their leisure.
Four sessions were relevant for this study: the last quarterly meeting of 2018 (4Q18), as it
introduced the organization’s updated strategy this study focuses on, and the three subsequent
quarterly meetings (1Q19, 2Q19, and 3Q19) that occurred until the data collection phase

78

concluded in October of 2019. The analysis of the recordings and presented content revealed
that the organization’s strategy was addressed consistently during all four quarterly meetings.
Each time, the organization’s leader covered the strategy as one of the first agenda items,
presented the same visual depiction of the underlying four ambitions, and highlighted the
importance of understanding and internalizing the strategy. The visual depiction and content
presented by the leader were identical to the content of the training video and on the Intranet.
The analysis of the materials mentioned above showed strong evidence of Highland
Technology communicating its strategy consistently and repeatedly. Employees looking to
educate themselves could find the relevant content on a dedicated Intranet webpage and an
online training session. The organization also used its quarterly meetings to reinforce and
present reminders of the strategy. All materials included in this document analysis were created
to address employees at all organizational levels. The researcher was not able to identify and
obtain relevant content specific to middle managers.
Summary. The assumed declarative knowledge influence that Highland Technology’s
middle managers need to know the specifics of the organization’s strategy in order to align their
actions was determined to be a need. Although the majority of participants (72.73%)
demonstrated an adequate understanding of the strategy, the threshold level of 81.82% (nine
participants) for this influence was missed. The researcher believes that a high threshold is
justified due to the significant impact and foundational nature of this knowledge influence.
Procedural Knowledge
Influence 2. Middle managers need to know how to align their actions with the
organization’s strategy.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.

79

Interview findings. Middle managers were asked how they go about aligning their
actions with the organization’s strategy. Nine of 11 interview participants (81.82%) confirmed
that they have a process and illustrated what specifically they do to achieve alignment.
Therefore, this assumed procedural knowledge asset was validated.
It is important to note that this item aimed to determine if participants had a process and
not to evaluate the merits or nuances of each approach. Nevertheless, the data revealed that the
majority of participants used at least one of two methods commonly cited in the literature,
namely goal-setting and breaking the strategy into more granular component pieces (Currie &
Procter, 2005; Hrebiniak, 2006). Six participants (54.55%) referenced that they establish or
adjust personal goals, or those of subordinates, as a mechanism to align with the strategy, while
eight participants (72.73%) explained that they try to deconstruct the main ambitions into more
granular actions or objectives. For example, Participant 7 explained, “And then, of course, on a
regular basis, it’s aligning performance goals … aligning performance goals to the work to
support that strategy.” Participant 9 responded, “it's very much breaking it down to its
component parts. And using those component parts as almost like sub-strategies or the segments
of a strategy that need to be built back up.” Six of the interviewed managers (54.55%) explained
that they apply both approaches.
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Summary. The assumed knowledge influence that Highland Technology’s middle
managers need to know how to align their actions with the organization’s strategy was
determined to be an asset. Ten of 11 interview participants (90.91%) illustrated how they

80

advance their knowledge of the organization’s strategy, which is above the 81.82% threshold
level (nine participants) for this influence.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Influence 3. Middle managers need to assess/reflect on their abilities to advance
their knowledge of the strategy beyond what is being communicated to them to create
alignment.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. When asked what they do to learn more about the organization’s
strategy after they initially hear about it, ten participants (90.91%) described different techniques
they apply to advance their knowledge and close potential gaps. As such, the majority of
participants understood that they need to deepen their understanding of the strategy beyond what
gets cascaded to them through company-internal communication channels.
The most often cited mechanism was personal discussions. Seven participants (63.64%)
explained that they further their understanding by discussing the strategy with others, like
colleagues or a superior. For example, Participant 1 described, “you need to deep-dive; you try
to understand what your colleagues have understood.” Participant 11 asserted, “the first thing
I'm trying to do is to ensure that I understand the right strategy by discussing it with my
manager.” Participant 11 continued, “because sometimes it is not 100% obvious, so the first
thing to do is to check that I understand the right thing; I understand the right strategy or the right
direction.” Here, Participant 11 acknowledged that top-down communication can appear to be
incomplete or even confusing and may require recipients to actively seek out additional
information needed to pursue alignment. Participant 3 shared a similar rationale and asserted:

81

Having regular conversations to understand, what does that mean, how does that get
translated, what is the expectation, and so forth; I think that that becomes an important
part for me to understand how to then kind of take it to the next level.
Some participants also described that they try to explore the strategy from different viewpoints.
To that extent, Participant 9 stated, “what I have a tendency to do is to see how that strategy
translates at the business unit level. And within the business unit, I look at, you know, what's the
impact?"
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Summary. The assumed influence that Highland Technology’s middle managers need to
reflect on their abilities to advance their knowledge of the strategy beyond what they receive was
determined to be an asset. Ten of 11 interview participants (90.91%) illustrated how they
advance their knowledge of the organization’s strategy, which is above the 81.82% threshold
level (nine participants) for this influence.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Middle manager motivation causes were analyzed via interviews. The findings are
presented in the following section for each assumed motivation influence and categorized as
value (Eccles, 2009; Pintrich, 2003) and self-efficacy (Pajares, 2009). Each assumed influence
was determined to be an asset (validated) or a need (not validated) based on the findings and cut
score/threshold level discussed above.

82

Value
Influence 4. Middle managers need to see the value in aligning their actions with the
organization’s strategy.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. When asked how important or valuable it is to them to have
alignment with Highland Technology’s strategy, 11 of 11 interview participants (100%)
indicated that it is critical. As such, all interviewed middle managers believed that aligning their
actions with the organization’s strategy creates some degree of value for them. For example,
Participant 10 stated, “It is 100% important” and added that “it gives you a yardstick if you will,
or a way to calibrate and say here's what I prioritize or don't prioritize.” With that statement,
Participant 10 validated that this influence is an asset and provided a concrete example of a
derived benefit. Participant 1 was also able to derive value from aligning actions and stated, “So
for me, it's really important to understand and align with the strategy.” Here, Participant 1 not
only validated the influence but also acknowledged the importance of having declarative
knowledge.
Some additional themes emerged during the discussion of this assumed motivation
influence. Five of the interviewed middle managers (45.45%) pointed out that aligning their
actions with the strategy is needed to perform their current roles. As Participant 9 succinctly
stated, “It is absolutely critical to be aligned, due to one the nature of what I'm responsible for.”
Another, albeit weaker, sub-theme was related to the potentially negative consequences that a
lack of alignment might cause. Participant 3 was one of three middle managers (27.27%) that
alluded to such potential issues and summarized that “if what we’re doing is not in line with
Highland Technology’s strategy, then I think we end up wasting resources.” Lastly, while

83

discussing Influence 4 and the topic of value, both Participants 1 and 10 affirmed the positive
correlation between successful strategy execution and alignment at the middle management
level. To that end, Participant 10 declared, “I think [having alignment] is crucial to execute any
of the strategy.”
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Summary. The assumed motivation influence that middle managers need to see the value
in aligning their actions with the organization’s strategy was determined to be an asset. All 11
interview participants (100%) highlighted that having such alignment is important to them,
which is clearly above this influence’s threshold level of 81.82% (nine participants).
Self-Efficacy
Influence 5. Middle managers need to feel confident in their ability to align their
actions with the organization’s strategy.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. Middle managers were asked how confident they feel in their ability
to align their actions with the organization’s strategy. All 11 interview participants unanimously
believed that they possess the necessary competence and capabilities to create the desired
alignment. For example, Participant 2 declared, “I’m confident I can do it,” while Participant 4
simply stated, “100 percent.”
Three of the interviewed middle managers (27.27%) also highlighted the challenging
nature of creating and maintaining alignment. As Participant 3 explained:

84

I don't think it's an easy task to do it. And simply because, I think, it sometimes is also a
matter of interpretation … sometimes people tend to have slightly different
interpretations of how you could achieve those objectives [strategic ambitions] or even
the understanding of some of those objectives.
With this statement, Participant 3 acknowledged that creating alignment requires sense-making
to interpret the strategy, which the literature review addressed as one of the critical tasks middle
managers need to engage in. Participant 10 also expressed the belief that maintaining alignment
is not a trivial undertaking and that it sometimes feels like she is trying “to map to a moving
target.” Here, Participant 10 not only confirmed the difficulty of pursuing alignment but also
alluded to the fact that strategies are not static and tend to evolve, which this study’s literature
review also addressed. Lastly, Participant 5 emphasized that their self-efficacy is impacted by
their understanding of the organization’s purpose and strategic objectives. To that effect,
Participant 5 stated, “I have complete confidence in my ability to do that [align personal actions
with the organization’s strategy]. My confidence is dependent, though, on the clarity of that
vision statement; on the clarity of those goalposts [organization’s strategic objectives].”
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Summary. The assumed motivation influence that Highland Technology’s middle
managers need to feel confident in their ability to align their actions with the organization’s
strategy was determined to be an asset. All 11 interview participants (100%) clearly expressed
their belief they have the required capabilities, which is above the 81.82% threshold level (nine
participants) for this influence.

85

Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Organizational causes were assessed through interviews and document analyses. The
findings are presented in the following section for each organizational influence and categorized
as cultural models and cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Each assumed
influence was determined to be an asset (validated) or a need (not validated) based on the
findings and cut score/threshold level discussed above.
Cultural Model
Influence 6. Having a shared sense of purpose and direction.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. When asked to describe Highland Technology’s purpose or mission,
ten interview participants (90.91%) were able to paraphrase and speak to critical elements of the
organization’s mission statement. It is important to reemphasize that this interview item aimed
to determine whether participants believed that the organization is guided by a shared purpose,
and not to test participants’ factual knowledge. As such, the data showed that the majority of
interviewed middle managers believed that the organization does have a shared purpose and
direction.
The ten participants that validated this influence all used their own words to describe key
components of the organization’s mission. For example, Participant 4 explained, “So it's
twofold. It's to [omitted to ensure the confidentiality of the organization], and then it's to provide
efficient infrastructure.” With this answer, Participant 4 not only expressed the belief that the
organization has a mission, but also demonstrated the ability to group the elements of that
mission into different categories. Participant 9 demonstrated a similar practice by paraphrasing
the mission’s core elements, “it's twofold – it's the enablement piece, and then there's the

86

[omitted to ensure the confidentiality of the organization] piece.” Some of the interviewed
middle managers also alluded to the general importance of having a mission. For example,
Participant 8 first outlined the underlying purpose of Highland Technology and concluded,
“That’s really why we’re here.”
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. As with document analysis for Influence 1, materials included an
internal training video, an Intranet webpage, and recordings and presentation files of four
Highland Technology quarterly all-employee meetings. The training video was available to all
employees and designed primarily with the intent to educate the workforce on the organization’s
strategy. However, Highland Technology’s written mission statement was briefly shown at the
beginning of that training. The presenter did not narrate the content.
The organization’s Intranet web page provided another source for assessment. The
mission statement is published in a dedicated section labeled Mission and Priorities¸ which can
be accessed by all employees.
The leader of Highland Technology hosts quarterly online meetings to share critical
organizational updates and decisions with all employees. After each session, relevant
presentation files and a recording of the meeting are made available to each employee. Four
sessions were relevant for this study: the last quarterly meeting of 2018 (4Q18), as it introduced
the organization’s updated strategy this study focuses on, and the three subsequent quarterly
meetings (1Q19, 2Q19, and 3Q19) that occurred until the data collection phase concluded in
October of 2019. The analysis revealed that both the 4Q18 and 1Q19 meetings covered the
organization’s mission statement. In both sessions, the mission was shown on a presentation

87

slide, but not commented on by the presenter. The mission was not covered during the 2Q19 and
3Q19 meetings.
The analysis of the materials mentioned above showed some evidence of Highland
Technology sharing its mission statement to help employees establish a shared sense of purpose
and direction. Employees can find the organization’s mission via its Intranet presence and a
short online training video on strategy. The quarterly meetings with leadership, however, only
show some reinforcement of the mission. Materials considered for this document analysis were
originally created to address employees at all levels of the hierarchy. The researcher was not
able to identify mission-focused documents created specifically for middle managers.
Summary. The assumed cultural model influence that Highland Technology’s middle
managers need to have a sense of shared purpose and direction in order to align their actions with
the organization’s strategy was determined to be an asset. Ten of the 11 interviewed middle
managers (90.91%) believed that the organization does have a shared purpose and were able to
paraphrase the organization’s mission, which is above the 81.82% threshold level (nine
participants) for this influence. This threshold was met, despite the organization only showing
some evidence of reinforcing.
Cultural Model
Influence 7. A culture of dialogue and information sharing across organizational
hierarchies.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. Informed by the findings of this study’s literature review, two
interview questions were asked to explore this cultural model influence. The first item was

88

guided by the general literature on organizational culture, while the second item was informed
specifically by the literature on strategy execution.
The first interview item for this cultural model influence asked middle managers if they
believe the organization has a culture of open dialogue that encourages critical information to be
shared both up and down the hierarchy. Five interview participants (45.45%) believed that
Highland Technology does have such a culture in place. Most of these managers relied on short,
declarative statements to affirm this influence and did not provide additional context by
elaborating further. For example, Participant 7 declared, “Oh yes, I believe so,” while
Participant 9 explained, “I think we encourage it, but in a systematic fashion.” Here, Participant
9 indicated the potential presence of limiting conditions regarding the openness of Highland
Technology’s culture. Participant 9 went on to explain, “It's always systematic. It's never a
forum that allows for very open and unrestrained discussion.”
The group of participants that believed the organization lacks a culture of critical
dialogue provided more descriptive, and sometimes even passionate, responses. For example,
when asked if Highland Technology has an open culture, Participant 5 emphatically declared,
“No. Definitive No. 100%-definitive No. I don't know how much more clearly I can say that.”
Participant 5 continued, “And there's not really any forums for debate or discussion. It's kind of
decided among a few people sitting in [the organization’s main North American hub], and you
know, a few people sitting in [the organization’s main European hub].” Here, Participant 5, who
is based in said North American hub, explained why they believe that there is no open culture
and alluded to an apparent centralization of power as a potential cause. When asked to assess if
candid and critical feedback was encouraged, Participant 4 explained:

89

No, not necessarily. I don't think that we're that good. No. I think we like to paint pretty
pictures upwards. Downwards, we can probably say what we want. But upwards, it feels
like people like to paint pretty pictures. Or maybe just don't want to give all the dirty
details.
Participant 4 then continued, “it does seem a little bit like we're not always that good at being
descriptive about the problems, and maybe facing the facts. Maybe it's facing the facts. Trying to
make it look a little bit prettier.” Participant 10 shared a similar observation and referenced a
“mismatch of what you're allowed to say, versus the value of” challenging the status quo and
speaking up (quote paraphrased to maintain anonymity). They declared, “I think it's one of the
worst environments I've ever been in. And I'm not sure as to why. … You can only come with
good news.”
The second interview item for this cultural model influence asked middle managers how
Highland Technology encourages them to influence or participate in the strategy formulation
process. The primary objective of this item was to determine if participants believed that they
have an opportunity to help shape the strategies they are being asked to execute, and not to
evaluate the nuances of what such contributions may look like. Five out of 11 interview
participants (45.45%) believed they were able to make some form of contribution when the
strategy was created or updated. As such, less than half of the middle managers interviewed felt
they had a chance to influence the long-term ambitions of the organization. For example,
Participant 3 explained, “And I feel like, I'm part of that process that helps shape some of that
strategy,” while Participant 9 simply stated, “I do believe I influence it [strategy].”
Six interviewed middle managers (54.55%) declared that they do not directly influence or
contribute when the organization creates its strategy. Participant 4 admitted, “No, I'm not really

90

involved in the strategy development, to be honest.” Participant 2 provided a similar response
and elaborated as to why that might be the case: “No. I am not part of any process for that. I
might just be too low [in the organizational hierarchy].” Participant 5 was one of two managers
who indicated their desire to become an active contributor. Participant 5 also expressed the
belief that participation may not necessarily create an impact: “And those are two separate things
that are both critical, right? To be a part of the process is one, and to actually be heard is a
second.”
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Summary. The assumed cultural model influence that Highland Technology’s middle
managers need to believe the organization fosters a culture of open and critical dialogue was
determined to be a need. Two questions were asked to explore this influence, neither of which
generated enough validating responses. Five of 11 interview participants (45.45%) believed the
organization has a culture of open dialogue that encourages sharing of critical information across
organizational hierarchies, which is below the 81.82% threshold level (nine participants) for this
item. The second question yielded similar results. Only five middle managers (45.45%)
interviewed confirmed that the organization encourages them to influence or participate in the
strategy formulation process, which is also significantly below the item’s threshold level.
Cultural Setting
Influence 8. Established tools, mechanisms, or channels to facilitate critical dialogue
and a bi-directional flow of information across the organizational hierarchy.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.

91

Interview findings. When asked what specific channels, tools, or mechanisms Highland
Technology maintains to facilitate open and critical dialogue, six participants (54.55%) were able
to name options they deemed suitable. As such, a slight majority of interviewed middle
managers believed the organization actively creates conditions that foster a bi-directional flow of
communication. For example, Participant 3 stated, “I think Highland Technology provides the
tools to do that, and the avenues to do that” and highlighted the critical role someone’s
“immediate manager” plays in terms of encouraging the use of such tools. Other participants
mentioned the organization’s quarterly all-employee meetings hosted by its leader, “onsite senior
vice president leadership meetings”, “town halls,” and different internal networking and
collaboration tools as additional options.
Five participants (45.45%) believed the organization does not provide adequate tools or
mechanisms to enable critical dialogue. For example, Participant 5 declared, “There's no
channel, there's no mechanism for that” while Participant 11 provided a similar response and
specified, “Not in the context of sharing our opinion about the organization or sharing what's
good, what's bad, how we can improve, etc.”
Of note is that the quarterly all-employee sessions were referenced as both positive and
negative examples for this influence. Three of the six participants (54.55%) that affirmed this
cultural setting influence indicated that the quarterly meetings presented a viable mechanism to
provide critical bi-directional feedback. For example, Participant 1 declared, “I think the
[quarterly meetings with the organization’s leader] are a fantastic mechanism.” Participant 8
also approved, but qualified, “We don't have enough time for questions.” Three of the five
middle managers that did not validate this influence stated that the quarterly meetings do not

92

present suitable options. Alluding to the main intent of these meetings, Participant 4 declared,
“it's not really a forum to exchange heavy ideas or thinking.”
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. Given that six participants (54.55%) referenced the quarterly all-
employee meetings, and that the researcher had permission to access the recordings of these
meetings, it was sensible to review them and determine how much time was used to address
participant questions. As discussed above, four of these meetings fell within the scope of this
study (i.e., 4Q18, 1Q19, 2Q19, and 3Q19). For three of the four sessions, content presentations
concluded before the official end of the meeting, and the remaining time was used to address
questions that were submitted either via audio or the meeting’s chat functionality. The fourth
event concluded without spare time left for questioning, but participants were able to post
questions via the chat functionality throughout the session (an option for all of these calls).
Assessing all four recordings showed that the mean time dedicated to answering questions was
approximately 6 minutes and 45 seconds per meeting (11.25% of the scheduled 60-minute time
slot). The mean number of questions addressed during that time was two questions per session.
Summary. The assumed cultural setting influence that Highland Technology needs to
provide specific channels, tools, or mechanisms to enable open and critical dialogue across
organizational hierarchies was determined to be a need. Six of 11 interview participants
(54.55%) believed that such options are indeed at their disposal, which is above the 81.82%
threshold level (nine participants) for this influence.
Summary of Validated Influences
Tables 6, 7, and 8 show the KMO influences for this study and their determination as an
asset or a need.

93

Knowledge
Assets in two of the three assumed knowledge influences were validated through
interviews. One assumed knowledge influence did not reach the needed threshold level and was
hence determined to be a need. Table 6 presents an overview of the assessment results for each
assumed knowledge influence.
Table 6
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge Influence Asset or Need
Declarative
Middle managers need to know the specifics of the
organization’s strategy to create alignment.
Need (Not Validated)
Procedural
Middle managers need to know how to align their actions
with the organization’s strategy.
Asset (Validated)
Metacognitive
Middle managers need to assess/reflect on their abilities to
advance their knowledge of the strategy beyond what is being
communicated to them to create alignment.
Asset (Validated)

Motivation
Both assumed motivation influences were validated through interviews and document
analyses. Table 7 presents an overview of the assessment results for each assumed motivation
influence.

94

Table 7
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Motivation Influence Asset or Need
Value
Middle managers need to see the value in aligning their
actions with the organization’s strategy.
Asset (Validated)
Self-Efficacy
Middle managers need to feel confident in their ability to
align their actions with the organization’s strategy.
Asset (Validated)

Organization

Assets in one of the three assumed organization influences were validated through
interviews and document analyses. Two assumed organization influences did not reach the
required threshold levels and were, therefore, determined to be a need. Table 8 presents an
overview of the assessment results for each assumed organization influence.
Table 8
Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Organization Influence Asset or Need
Cultural Model
Middle managers need to believe that a shared sense of
purpose and direction exists within the organization.
Asset (Validated)

95

Cultural Model
Middle managers need to believe that the organization has a
culture of dialogue and information sharing across
organizational hierarchies.
Need (Not Validated)
Cultural Setting
Middle managers need to believe that established tools,
mechanisms, or channels exist that facilitate dialogue and a
bi-directional flow of information across the organizational
hierarchy.
Need (Not Validated)

Findings Unrelated to Predetermined Influences

The findings discussed above focused on assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organization influences derived a priori from this study’s conceptual framework. However, data
analysis revealed two findings that were not directly linked to these predetermined causes. This
section will address these two additional findings.
The organization’s strategy needs to be articulated in a way that resonates with, and can be
understood by, all levels of the organization.
A theme that emerged during data analysis that was not directly linked to one of the
predetermined influences related to the clarity with which the organization’s strategy was
articulated. Five of the 11 middle managers (45.45%) interviewed highlighted the importance of
expressing the organization’s long-term ambitions in a way that employees at all levels of the
organizational hierarchy can relate to and grasp in order to enable alignment and execution. Four
of these managers also expressed their belief that this is an area of improvement for Highland
Technology. For example, while discussing the clarity of the organization’s strategy, Participant

96

2 stated, “But when I see it, and I hear it, it's like speaking a foreign language. It just doesn't
resonate with me. You know, it's just the way it's written and everything, it just doesn't resonate.”
Participant 5 made a similar argument about the strategy’s underlying ambitions and claimed:
Nobody in this organization below [the executive leadership] level talks about these
things. No one. Zero. It's something that goes on PowerPoint slides and is used in
portfolio planning. But no one uses these things, or even discusses them. I guarantee you
if I went to my team, and this isn't a commentary on my team, it's repeatable everywhere,
no clue!
Alluding to the challenges that come with cascading content down the organizational hierarchy,
Participant 10 described:
But there's got to be a translation down to layman's terms. Because you know, either
people don't care, they don't understand, or they're so far removed from those levels. But
they're doing individual tasks and activities, and those things [strategic ambitions] don't
translate well.
Participant 10 summarized, “So they [strategic ambitions] don't really mean anything.”
Participant 1 did not criticize how Highland Technology expressed its ambitions, but
commented on the general need to articulate strategies in a way that enables employees at lower
organizational levels to correctly interpret content: “So, I think that it's important that people
understand this strategy, and that they can by themselves, with some guidelines, execute that.”
Participant 1 added, “Interpreting [the strategy] in their way and empowering them to execute
how they think that strategy was intended by the leaders.”
The finding that the organization’s strategy needs to be articulated in a way that resonates
with people at all organizational levels to support execution and alignment will be addressed in

97

the Recommendations For Future Research section of Chapter Five. Based on the analysis
completed for this study, it appears that this finding is related to both the knowledge and
organization dimensions of the KMO model and the concept of line of sight. Ultimately, it falls
within the responsibility of the organization to articulate its strategy in a way that ensures
understanding.
Knowing the goals and objectives of individuals above the mid-management level supports
middle managers’ alignment process.
Another theme that emerged during data analysis related to goal transparency and the
benefits some of the interviewed middle managers claimed to derive from being aware of their
superiors’ goals. Three participants (27.27%) referenced a positive correlation between creating
strategic alignment and knowing what their leaders had committed to in terms of goals and
objectives. Two of these three managers reported that their teams’ software-supported goal-
setting and measurement approach provided that upward visibility. Discussing this approach,
Participant 11 compared the software’s user interface to a “tree” that visualized the objectives of
their superiors and the organization’s leader. Participant 11 summarized, “So with this, we are
making sure that we are always working on the priorities that are coming from the top.” The
third participant did not use the goal-setting approach and software mentioned above but made a
similar argument regarding the potential benefits that goal transparency could bring for creating
strategic alignment:
I don't get to see [my manager’s] goals and objectives. I don't get to see [the
organization's leader’s] goals and objectives. There isn't a cascading of goals and
objectives. If we were more transparent than that, then I could align better.

98

The finding that goal transparency at the executive leadership level may help middle
managers’ strategic alignment process will be addressed in the Recommendations For Future
Research section of Chapter Five. Based on the analysis completed for this study, it appears that
this finding is also related to both the knowledge and organization dimensions, as well as the line
of sight concept. It is up to the organization to establish practices that may address this finding.
Summary
This chapter presented the findings of the qualitative data analysis described in Chapter
Three. Five of the eight pre-determined influences were validated, while the remaining three
were determined to be a need. Two additional influences were identified. Chapter Five will
address this study’s final research question and present recommendations, based on empirical
evidence, for middle managers’ organizational practice in the areas of KMO resources.

99

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation
This chapter consists of two core sections and focuses on the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences identified as needs during data analysis in the previous chapter.
The first main segment addresses research-based principles and context-specific
recommendations for each of the validated influences. Following this, the Kirkpatrick New
World Model (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016), a four-stage evaluation approach for
training program outcomes, is used to develop one integrated evaluation and implementation
plan around the proposed solutions. As such, Chapter Five addresses this study’s fourth and
final research question of, “What are the recommendations for middle managers’ organizational
practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?” The next sections
present a reminder of the study’s main purpose and four research questions and begin the
discussion of recommendations by identifying appropriate evidence-based theory for the
declarative knowledge-related gap identified in the fourth chapter.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
An examination of Highland Technology’s middle manager goal of aligning their actions
with the organization’s strategy was the purpose of this project. Drawing from Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analysis model, the analysis focused on KMO influences related to achieving the
stakeholder goal. The stakeholder group of focus for this analysis was the group of middle
managers, but a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders. This
project’s scope limited the stakeholder groups examined.
The following questions guided the evaluation study that addresses KMO influences for
the middle managers at the center of this study.

100

1. To what extent do Highland Technology’s middle managers believe the organization
is meeting its goal to achieve its strategy?
2. What are Highland Technology’s middle managers’ knowledge and motivation
related to achieving their goal of aligning their actions with the strategy?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and middle
managers’ knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for middle managers’ organizational practice in the
areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Closing knowledge-related gaps is critical to improving performance and
enabling organizational change (Clark & Estes, 2008). Krathwohl (2002) distinguished between
four different types of knowledge: factual (declarative), conceptual (declarative), procedural, and
metacognitive. The three assumed knowledge influences assessed in this study were guided by
the conceptual framework and relevant literature and included declarative, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge. As discussed in the previous chapter, only the declarative knowledge
influence was determined as a need, while both the procedural and metacognitive influences
were determined to be assets. Table 9 lists all three influences and identifies evidence-based
principles, and a context-specific recommendation for the declarative knowledge influence that
data analysis validated as a gap. The selection of the recommended solutions was guided by the
work of Clark and Estes (2008), who suggested that knowledge-related performance gaps can be
addressed with additional information, job aids, training, or education. Following this table is a
discussion of the recommendation and the associated supporting literature.

101

Table 9
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Asset
or
Need
Priority
Yes, No
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Middle managers
need to know the
specifics (and
implications) of
the organization’s
strategy to create
alignment.

(Declarative)
Need Yes Information Processing
System Theory
How individuals organize
knowledge influences how
they learn and apply what
they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Models of Interest
To increase interest, use
learning materials that are
clear, coherent, and
complete (Schraw &
Lehman, 2009).
Provide a job aid that
details the strategy,
its ambitions, and the
underlying rationales.

[Consider a) different
versions to reflect the
context of the
different
organizational
functions/units the
relevant middle
managers reside in;
b) both digital and
non-digital formats.]
Middle managers
need to know how
to align their
actions with the
organization’s
strategy.

(Procedural)
Asset No N/A N/A

102

Middle managers
need to
assess/reflect on
their abilities to
advance their
knowledge of the
strategy beyond
what is being
communicated to
them to create
alignment.

(Metacognitive)
Asset No N/A N/A

Middle managers need to know the organization’s strategy and critical component
pieces. The results and findings of this study show that 27.27% of interviewed middle managers
demonstrate less than adequate declarative knowledge of the organization’s strategy. A
recommendation rooted in information processing system theory is chosen to close this
declarative knowledge gap. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) found that how individuals organize
knowledge impacts how they learn and apply what they know. Additionally, Schraw and
Lehman (2009) asserted that the use of learning materials that are clear, coherent, and complete
increases learners’ interest, which is a vital component of learning. Therefore, helping middle
managers identify, understand, and meaningfully organize important points would support their
learning. A recommendation to facilitate this learning is to provide Highland Technology’s
middle managers with a job aid that details the organization’s strategy, its four ambitions, the
underlying rationales, and anticipated business outcomes. In addition to written text, such a job
aid could also contain a visual representation of the strategy to further engage sensory memory

103

and enhance learning (Mayer, 2011). Including information tailored to different stakeholder sub-
groups would increase learning and information storage by helping individuals connect new
knowledge to what they already know (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Knowledge is a key determining factor of human behavior (Colvin & Boswell, 2007).
Declarative knowledge of a strategy and understanding its main elements and implications is
vital for middle managers to implement a company’s long-term ambitions successfully and to
create alignment (Rapert et al., 2002; Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007). However, the top-down
communication methods commonly used by organizations to educate managers on a new
strategy often fail to establish the desired factual and conceptual understanding (Sull et al., 2015;
Sull et al., 2018a). Therefore, this study’s recommendation of providing a job aid that details the
organization’s strategy and supplements the already existing traditional communication
mechanisms may assist Highland Technology’s middle managers in closing their knowledge gap
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Drawing on a multi-year research effort on strategy execution, Sull et al.
(2018a) also found that explaining a strategy in the context of managers' organizational units
improved their understanding, which further validates the recommended intervention of
providing a tailored job aid.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Learning and knowledge creation are in a close and reciprocal
relationship with motivation (Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) posited that active choice,
persistence, and mental effort are the primary indicators that define motivation. Choice relates to
the decision to actively select a task or activity, persistence refers to the continued efforts to
pursue the activity despite distractions and challenges, and mental effort refers to the mental
work invested in the activity (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The two assumed motivation

104

influences assessed in this study are grounded in self-efficacy theory and value theory. Both
influences were validated as assets during data analysis.
Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that increasing motivation can lead to positive
organizational and performance outcomes, even if there is no known performance gap. Rueda
(2011) added that the more value an individual associates with a task, the higher the probability
that they will actively select that task, persist, and expend mental effort. While the data analysis
did not reveal any material motivation-related gaps with Highland Technology’s middle
managers, it is sensible to provide a recommendation on how to maintain the value-based
influence as a critical motivation-related asset to the organization. Table 10 lists the two
motivation influences and identifies evidence-based principles and a context-specific
recommendation for the value influence. Following this table is a discussion of the
recommendation and the associated supporting literature.
Table 10
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Asset or
Need
Priority
Yes, No
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Middle managers need to
see the value in aligning
their actions with the
organization’s strategy.

(Value – Utility,
Attainment)
Asset Yes Rationales that
include a discussion
of the importance
and utility value of
the work or learning
can help learners
develop positive
values (Eccles,
Reinforce rationales
about the utility
value of aligning
middle managers’
actions with the
organization’s
strategy.

105

2009; Pintrich,
2003).
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Eccles, 2009).
[Consider
leveraging a limited
number of critical
organizational
events or milestones
to deliver
reinforcement, e.g.,
quarterly leadership
meetings or the
annual performance
discussions.]
Middle managers need to
feel confident in their
ability to align their
actions with the
organization’s strategy.

(Self-Efficacy)
Asset No N/A N/A

Middle managers need to see value in aligning their actions with the organization’s
strategy. The analyzed data showed that 100% of interviewed middle managers believed that it
was not just important, but beneficial to them, to align their actions with Highland Technology’s
overarching strategy. Although not a motivation gap for the middle managers, a
recommendation rooted in value-based theory was selected to maintain this influence as a critical
motivational asset. According to Eccles (2009), motivation increases if an individual values a
task. Also, Eccles (2009) and Pintrich (2003) claimed that rationales that include a discussion of
the importance and utility value of work can help individuals develop positive values. These
principles suggest that highlighting the utility value of creating strategic alignment would help

106

middle managers remain committed to maintaining this motivational asset. The
recommendation, then, is to reinforce middle managers’ beliefs that aligning their actions with
the organization’s strategy creates value and contributes to the achievement of their objectives.
Such reinforcement could be incorporated into the quarterly all-employee meetings with the
organization’s leader or the annual performance and goal discussions.
People choose to pursue actions when they value the anticipated outcomes and avoid
activities that do not appear to support what is useful or important to them (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Floyd and Wooldridge (1992) applied this concept to the management domain and argued that
managers’ commitment to a strategy and motivation to support its implementation depend, in
part, on how well that strategy is aligned with their self-interests. Guth and Macmillan (1986)
made a similar claim while also highlighting the adverse organizational impact that a perceived
lack of value can create. Their empirical study on middle management interventions showed that
middle managers chose to interfere with internal decision-making processes and to actively work
against strategy implementation when their self-interest appeared at risk (Guth & Macmillan,
1986). More recent research on performance measures and strategy execution supports these
findings. Johnston and Pongatichat (2008) demonstrated that operations managers applied
different coping measures to avoid aligning with changing organizational strategies if they
believed that aligning was not in their personal best interest and unsupportive of their own goals.
Lastly, Huy (2011) argued that the anticipated personal impact of a new strategy can create
positive or negative emotions with middle managers, which then factor into their willingness and
effort to support the strategy’s implementation. These findings suggest that reinforcing the value
and benefits of creating strategic alignment might help Highland Technology’s middle managers
maintain this motivational influence as an asset.

107

Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Organization-related deficits can hinder individuals’ goal achievement
and performance, even if stakeholders are knowledgeable, skilled, and motivated (Clark & Estes,
2008). Moreover, organizations that take steps to manage their culture actively can increase the
likelihood of achieving their strategic ambitions (Chatman & Cha, 2003). To categorize
organizational influences, Gallimore and Goldenberg (2008) suggested the two constructs of
cultural models and cultural settings. While cultural models relate to shared mental schema and
are generally not observable, cultural models refer to concrete artifacts or observable
manifestations of cultural models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008). Two of the three assumed
organization influences assessed in this study were categorized as cultural models, and one
influence classified as a cultural setting. The analysis of interview transcripts, documents, and
artifacts validated one of the models as an asset, while the remaining model and setting were
both determined to be organizational needs. Given how closely related and mutually reinforcing
these two needs are, it is sensible to address both with one recommendation. Table 11 lists the
three influences together with evidence-based principles and a context-specific recommendation.
A discussion of the suggested recommendation and the relevant literature follows the table.

108

Table 11
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Asset or
Need
Priority
Yes, No
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Middle managers need to
believe that the
organization has a
culture of dialogue and
information sharing
across organizational
hierarchies.

(Cultural Model)
Need Yes Organizational
effectiveness increases
when leaders
encourage open lines
of communication
(Kegan, 1994; Pincus,
2006; Waters et al.,
2003).

Effective change
efforts ensure that all
key stakeholders’
perspectives inform
the design and
decision-making
process leading to the
change (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Modify the recurring
strategy formulation
process to increase
the participation and
contribution of
middle managers.

[Consider making it
a formal
requirement for
executive leaders to
actively solicit,
document, and
evaluate middle
managers' insights
on internal
capabilities and
external market
conditions]
Middle managers need to
believe that established
tools, mechanisms, or
channels exist that
facilitate dialogue and a
bi-directional flow of
Need Yes Espoused values and
beliefs must align with
messages and concrete
practices
(Clark & Estes, 2008;
Schein, 2017).
Modify the recurring
strategy formulation
process to increase
the participation and
contribution of
middle managers.

109

information across the
organizational hierarchy.

(Cultural Setting)
[Consider making it
a formal
requirement for
executive leaders to
actively solicit,
document, and
evaluate middle
managers' insights
on internal
capabilities and
external market
conditions]
Middle managers need to
believe that a shared
sense of purpose and
direction exists within
the organization.

(Cultural Model)
Asset No N/A N/A

Middle managers need to believe that the organization has a culture of open and
critical dialogue across organizational hierarchies. The results and findings presented in
Chapter Four of this study showed that the majority of interviewed middle managers (54.55%)
believed that Highland Technology lacked a culture rooted in open and candid dialogue. Several
authors argued that organizational effectiveness increases when leaders encourage engagement
and open lines of communication (Kegan, 1994; Pincus, 2006; Waters et al., 2003). In addition,
Clark and Estes (2008) posited that effective change efforts ensure that all key stakeholders’
perspectives inform the design and decision-making process leading to the change. These

110

principles would suggest that increasing middle managers’ participation during strategy-making
and providing opportunities to contribute would positively impact their assessment of the
culture’s openness. Thus, the recommendation is to amend Highland Technology's strategy
process to increase and formalize the involvement of leaders at the middle management level.
Such increased participation and dialogue could be realized in different ways. For example,
during certain milestones of the planning process, executive leaders could be required to solicit,
document, and consider middle managers' insights on strategy-relevant topics like company-
internal capabilities or external market conditions.
Inclusion is an essential desire in the human experience (Kegan, 1994). Researching the
topic of employee voice, Morrison and Milliken (2000) found that soliciting and valuing diverse
and critical feedback from individuals below the top leadership level can have a positive impact
on those individuals’ motivation, and enhance the quality of organizational decision-making.
The authors also discovered that greater employee involvement reduces the perceived lack of
control some lower-level leaders may experience. That effect, in return, positively impacts those
leaders’ view of the organization as an inclusive construct that values minority viewpoints and
critical discourse (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Other researchers looked even more closely at
the central stakeholder group of this study. Wooldridge et al. (2008) reviewed 25 years of
research on the topic of middle managers within the strategic management domain and found
that involving middle managers in the strategy process enhances their support of that strategy
and willingness to align with it. Rouleau and Balogun (2011) corroborated these findings and
emphasized that middle managers want to be heard and included in strategic discussions. These
combined findings suggest that increasing middle manager participation during Highland
Technology’s strategy formulation process, which is inherently iterative and interactive, might

111

improve these leaders’ perspectives on the openness of the organization’s culture and its
appreciation of pluralistic views.
Middle managers need to believe that the organization provides mechanisms or
channels to enable open dialogue and information flow across the organizational hierarchy.
The analyzed data showed that nearly half (45.45%) of the interviewed middle managers did not
believe that the organization provided the necessary channels or mechanisms to enable the open
and critical dialogue that was at the core of the cultural model influence discussed in the previous
section. Clark and Estes (2008) and Schein (2017) argued that for organizations to be successful,
their espoused values and beliefs must be aligned with and supported by concrete practices and
actions. This principle would suggest that providing formal and regular opportunities for middle
managers to contribute during strategy formulation would improve their perspective on
company-provided mechanisms and channels to support open dialogue. From the perspective of
this study’s key stakeholder group and considering the research questions and conceptual model,
the strategy process can be regarded as an essential and already existing mechanism or channel
in and of itself. The recommendation, then, is to adjust Highland Technology's strategy process
to increase middle managers’ involvement and ability to influence and contribute to the outcome
of that process. The choice to propose a joint recommendation to address both organizational
gaps is justified, in part, based on the specifics of the research site and the interrelated nature of
the two underlying organizational influences. As highlighted in the previous section, greater
participation of middle managers during strategy formulation could be achieved by introducing
formal checkpoints during which executive leaders would have to engage in critical vertical
dialogue on strategy-relevant themes.

112

As highlighted, this organizational setting is closely interrelated with the previously-
discussed organizational model, and both influences were intended to be assessed in relation to
each other. In his seminal work on the learning organization, Senge (1990) argued that an
organization’s espoused beliefs should match its actions. In other words, if an organization
promotes certain behaviors or values, like an open culture that welcomes bi-directional
discourse, it needs to establish an adequate infrastructure or tools to enable that culture. Berger
(2014) and Morrison and Milliken (2000) stressed the importance of providing formal bi-
directional channels and mechanisms to facilitate employee voice and organizational success.
These findings, combined with the understanding that Highland Technology’s strategy process
can be viewed as its own mechanism or channel, further support the joint recommendation for
both organizational gaps.
The research-based evidence discussed in the two previous sections showed that
increasing middle managers’ involvement during strategy formulation should have a positive
impact on their view of Highland Technology’s culture of open dialogue (cultural model need)
and their perception of established mechanisms to enable such a culture (cultural setting need).
Both needs are critical organizational influences affecting middle manager alignment.
Furthermore, the evidence highlighted that the recommendation has a direct positive impact on
achieving effective strategy execution, which is the goal both these organizational influences aim
to support. However, the benefits of strengthening middle manager participation extend beyond
the organizational dimension and positively affect both knowledge and motivation as well. For
example, Wooldridge et al. (2008) found substantial evidence that the involvement of managers
in the strategy process increases their knowledge and understanding of the strategy. Moreover,
Ketokivi and Castañer (2004) proved that a participatory approach to strategy planning has a

113

positive effect on the motivation of the included middle managers. Research relating to goal-
setting theory provided further evidence for the recommendation’s positive impact on
motivation. The work by Locke and Latham (2002) suggested that formalizing increased
participation in concrete and challenging but achievable goals for middle managers should have
a positive impact on motivation and performance. Together, these findings demonstrated the
recommended solution's appropriateness and highlighted the interconnected and often mutually
reinforcing nature of the KMO dimensions.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The integrated implementation and evaluation plan is based on the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model builds on the original
Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation and suggests an inverted planning approach that
starts with the organization’s goals and then works backward (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick,
2016). Once relevant goals and related leading indicators are identified (Level 4), the model
recommends defining critical behaviors and required drivers needed to help achieve these desired
outcomes (Level 3). Next, J. Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) recommended identifying
indicators that demonstrate learning occurred during program implementation (Level 2),
followed by establishing metrics that assess participant engagement and satisfaction (Level 1).
Structuring the implementation and evaluation program based on this model ensures that actions
are guided by the organization’s most critical outcomes while providing opportunities for
continuous improvement during execution (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016). Each level
will be discussed further in the following sections.

114

Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
As outlined earlier in this study, the purpose of Highland Technology is to provide the
technology-related environment and capabilities required by the Highland group to accomplish
its internal and external ambitions. Critical to realizing that mission is that Highland Technology
successfully executes and achieves the objectives of its strategy. The organization’s middle
managers play an essential role in that process, and the alignment of their actions with the
organization’s strategy is a vital enabler of success. This project examined the KMO influences
affecting the managers’ objective to create strategic alignment and flagged several areas
requiring intervention. The research-based recommendations to address the identified needs
include providing a tailored job aid, reinforcing the value of alignment, and making the strategy
formulation process more inclusive. Together, these three solutions should help produce the
desired outcome of the organization accomplishing its long-term objectives via successful
strategic alignment by its mid-level leaders.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
J. Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) suggested identifying and tracking short-term
observations and measurements, called leading indicators, to monitor the impact of critical
behaviors and ensure the desired organizational outcomes are realized. As such, leading
indicators build a bridge between Levels 3 and 4. Table 12 outlines the proposed Level 4:
Results and Leading Indicators, in the form of outcomes, metrics, and methods for both external
and internal outcomes for Highland Technology. Considering that Highland Technology is a
transversal organization within the larger Highland group it supports, relevant external outcomes
are focused only on Highland. If the internal outcomes are achieved as expected as a result of
the implemented measures, then the external outcomes should also be realized.

115

Table 12
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Improved perception other
Highland entities have of the
technology expertise, support,
and infrastructure they receive
from Highland Technology.
Number of Highland
entity/business unit leaders
who provide positive feedback
on the relationship with
Highland Technology.
Collect feedback during
annual budget forecasting and
planning rounds (middle
manager superiors).
Improved achievement of
Highland Technology’s four
strategic ambitions.
Achievement percentage of
the organization’s main
strategic ambitions. [specifics
omitted to ensure the
confidentiality of the research
site]
Collect data during quarterly
business reviews (middle
manager superiors).
Internal Outcomes
Increased percentage of
middle managers’ goals and
objectives directly relatable to
the organization’s strategic
ambitions.
Percentage of individuals’
goals and objectives aligned
with the organization’s
strategic ambitions.
Compare data from the annual
goal setting process (middle
manager superiors).
Increased percentage of
middle managers contributing
to the strategy process.
Percentage of contributing
middle managers.
Collect and analyze data
during strategy formulation
(middle manager superiors or
strategy leaders).
Increase the percentage of
middle managers that can
Number of positive responses. Survey middle managers
(middle manager superiors or
strategy leaders).

116

demonstrate sufficient
knowledge of the strategy.
Maintain the percentage of
middle managers that see
value in aligning their actions
with the organization’s
strategy.
Number of positive responses. Survey middle managers
(middle manager superiors or
strategy leaders).

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. J. Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) asserted that Level 3 is
their model’s most critical level as it measures to what degree individuals apply what they
learned to their job. The desired on-the-job application of new knowledge can be measured by
observable actions that J. Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) referred to as critical behaviors.
Table 13 details the critical behaviors and related metrics, measures, and timing for the primary
stakeholder group, Highland Technology’s middle managers.
Table 13
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Middle managers
start team meetings
with a brief reminder
of the organization’s
strategy. [leverage
job aid]
Percentage of
relevant team
meetings started with
a strategy reminder.
Middle managers to
self-check, log the
frequency of this
behavior, and discuss
during recurring one-
on-one meetings with
their superior.
Each relevant
meeting during the
first 90 days of a
strategy release or
update, and monthly
thereafter.

117

2. Middle managers
ensure that their goals
and objectives are
directly tied to the
organization’s
strategy. [leverage
value rationales]
Percentage of
individual goals and
objectives that are
derived from the
organization’s
strategy and
contribute to its
achievement.
Middle manager
superiors to assess
and document goal
alignment as part of
the recurring
performance
discussions with their
team members.
During annual goal
setting and
subsequent
performance check-
points.
3. Middle managers
increase their
contributions to the
strategy-formulation
process.
Percentage of invited
middle managers
actively contributing
to the strategy-
formulation process.
The strategy process
leader and middle
manager superiors to
track the involvement
and contributions of
those middle
managers that were
invited to participate
in the annual
strategy-formulation/
update process.
During the annual
strategy-
formulation/update
process.

Required drivers. Given the importance of applying new knowledge on the job, the
behaviors outlined above should be strengthened by a set of processes and systems that J.
Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) referred to as required drivers. These drivers aim to
increase support and accountability by monitoring, reinforcing, encouraging, and rewarding the
performance of critical behaviors (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 14 outlines the
main drivers recommended to support Highland Technology’s middle managers’ critical
behaviors.

118

Table 14
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3, Etc.
Reinforcing
Middle manager superiors will
remind middle managers of
the need to regularly address
both the strategy fundamentals
and the value of aligning with
the strategy during relevant
meetings.
During recurring/quarterly
one-on-one meetings.
1, 2
Organizational leaders will
remind the superiors of
middle managers to formally
include them during strategy-
formulation.
Annually (during strategy-
cycle kick-off).
3
Encouraging
Middle manager superiors will
encourage middle managers to
contribute insights and critical
thinking to the strategy
formulation process.
During the strategy cycle. 3
Rewarding
Organization-internal
recognition of middle
managers who consistently
cover the strategy in relevant
meetings.
Annually. 1

119

Monitoring
Strategy process
leader/organizational leaders
to track middle manager
participation during the
strategy process.
During the strategy cycle. 3

Organizational support. Successful implementation of the required drivers will require
the organization to provide support in several ways. First, the organization’s executive leaders
and strategists will need to define a job aid detailing Highland Technology’s strategy and
underlying rationales. Middle manager superiors will need to distribute the aid, explain its
importance, and promote usage. Second, during relevant recurring meetings throughout the year,
the organization’s executive leaders will take an active role in reiterating the strategic ambitions
and reinforcing the utility value of creating strategic alignment. Then, middle manager superiors
will follow the same approach and repeat this practice exclusively for mid-level leaders. Finally,
the organization’s strategy formulation process needs to become more open and include formal
opportunities for middle managers to participate and contribute in a meaningful way. The
organization’s executive leaders will champion that adjustment process and encourage mid-level
leaders to become active contributors and share their insights. Simultaneously, middle manager
superiors will ensure the new process will be rolled out successfully and help facilitate
throughout the strategy cycle, if necessary.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Level 2: Learning is the primary prerequisite to the Level 3 critical
behaviors and desired on-the-job application of new knowledge (J. Kirkpatrick & W.
Kirkpatrick, 2016). As such, Level 2 evaluations should focus on the knowledge, skills, attitude,

120

confidence, and commitment the training participants gained as a result of their participation in a
program or other form of deliberate learning intervention (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick,
2016). Upon implementation of the recommended solutions, most notably the job aid detailing
the organization’s strategy and periodic reinforcement of alignment value, the stakeholders will
be able to:
1. Accurately identify the organization’s strategy and the main strategic ambitions
(Declarative).
2. Describe the strategy in both general terms and within the context of their units
(Declarative).
3. (Continue to) Value the synchronization of their actions with the organization’s strategy
(Value).
Program. Level 2 generally assumes that the organization designs and conducts a formal
training program to educate its stakeholders and help them achieve their critical learning goals (J.
Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016). However, the knowledge and motivation-related
recommendations identified earlier in this study, combined with the specifics of the research site,
do not justify a formal training plan or event.
The declarative knowledge gap identified in Chapter Four will be addressed by providing
middle managers with a job aid detailing Highland Technology’s strategy and strategic
ambitions. The content of such an informatics-based solution could be curated to target the issue
from different perspectives. For example, strategy professionals could create visual depictions of
critical strategy components or interrelationships while middle manager superiors and other
organizational leaders might add context-specific insights from the unique perspective of their
organizational sub-units. As delineated earlier in this chapter, the job aid could be distributed

121

both electronically and in hard-copy format. Once distributed, superiors and the organization’s
leadership should periodically encourage managers to use the aid and refresh their understanding
of the strategy.
To maintain middle managers’ motivation to align their actions with the strategy, they
will receive periodic reminders of the personal value that such a practice generates. For
example, middle manager superiors could reinforce the importance and utility value of pursuing
alignment during team meetings, or during private discussions like performance reviews.
Leveraging both group and individual settings throughout the year will ensure superiors have
multiple avenues to reach their target audience and provide stakeholders different opportunities
for follow-up and reflection.
Evaluation of the components of learning. J. Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016)
argued that Level 2 evaluations should assess the knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment the training participants acquired due to their participation in the program. As
discussed in the previous section, a formal training program is neither necessary nor adequate in
the case of Highland Technology. However, it is still possible for organizational leaders and
middle manager superiors to gather some Level 2: Learning data relating to declarative
knowledge and attitude through formal and informal discussions with their stakeholders.
When distributing the job aid, superiors can discuss its contents and desired usage with
their subordinates and, therefore, gather some evaluative data regarding their declarative
knowledge (“I know it”) (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016). Also, when discussing and
reinforcing the value of creating alignment, organizational leaders and middle manager superiors
can gather attitude-related data (“I believe this is worthwhile”) (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick,

122

2016). Despite the lack of a formal program, these evaluation methods would still be considered
formative, as both occur during the learning process (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 1: Reaction
J. Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) defined Level 1: Reaction as the degree to
which participants believe the training was favorable, engaging, and relevant to their roles. The
authors cautioned to conserve evaluation resources during this early stage of the process and
suggested focusing on formative instead of summative evaluation methods (J. Kirkpatrick & W.
Kirkpatrick, 2016). While a formal program will not be implemented at Highland Technology, it
is still possible to evaluate the three main components of Level 1. Table 15 highlights the
methods to measure middle manager reactions to the implementation of the recommended
solutions.
Table 15
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method Timing
Engagement
Asking meaningful questions. During the distribution of the job aid and
initial reinforcement of alignment value.
Relevance
Pulse-check or informal discussion. During the distribution of the job aid and
initial reinforcement of alignment value.
Customer Satisfaction
Pulse-check or informal discussion. During the distribution of the job aid and
initial reinforcement of alignment value.

123

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. J. Kirkpatrick and W.
Kirkpatrick (2016) suggested conducting evaluations both immediately following training and
delayed after participants had a chance to apply the newly acquired knowledge or skills. While
immediate evaluations should focus only on Levels 1 and 2, delayed evaluation tools should
address all four levels in one combined format (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
lack of a formal program, as is the case with this study, does not affect the authors’
recommendations, as “all interventions warrant evaluation to ensure that value is being created
and demonstrated” (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 85).
Immediately after the introduction of the job aid and reinforcement of alignment value,
middle manager superiors will engage in discussions with the stakeholders to gather and
document feedback regarding managers’ learning (Level 2) and reaction (Level 1). The
suggested evaluation form consists of ten Likert scale items – four for Level 2: Learning
focusing on declarative knowledge and attitude, and six for Level 1: Reaction, addressing
engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction. See Appendix C for the evaluation tool and
the response scale.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately 90 days after
the initial introduction of the job aid and reinforcement of alignment value, middle manager
superiors should engage in a follow-up discussion with the stakeholders to gather and document
summative feedback regarding all four levels. The superiors could leverage one of their
recurring one-on-one personal conversations with the relevant middle managers and make the
evaluation a separate agenda item. The suggested evaluation form to help the superiors lead such
a discussion consists of both open response and Likert scale items, covering results and leading

124

indicators, behaviors, learning, and reaction in one combined format. See Appendix D for the
proposed evaluation tool and the response scale.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Level 4: Results of the New World Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model indicate to what degree
the implemented training or learning intervention led to the desired organizational results. J.
Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) suggested that evaluators should be selective about which
data to present to establish their credibility and ensure stakeholders can focus on what is most
valuable and mission-critical. Therefore, data reporting will target three internal outcomes that
are tied directly to the knowledge gap (close) and motivation asset (maintain) discussed earlier in
this chapter. Continuously tracking these outcomes will enable the organization to evaluate
progress and, if necessary, take corrective action.
Middle manager superiors will be responsible for tracking the relevant data and should
use a simple reporting dashboard to communicate results both within their peer group and to
upper management. Such a reporting mechanism could provide two levels of granularity, a
color-coded dashboard on the first page, followed by more detailed analyses on subsequent
pages. The information displayed on the dashboard should be easy to absorb and, at a minimum,
consist of the desired outcomes and a comparison between actual versus target performance.
More detailed views of the data could follow the dashboard and provide breakdowns by
organizational subunits or visualize trends over time. While the tool is intended to enable
quarterly tracking and reporting, it can also be used for annual reporting to the organization’s top
leadership team. See Appendix E for a notional representation of what such a tool could look
like in practice.

125

Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was used to guide the development of this study’s
integrated implementation and evaluation plan. Prior to applying the model, relevant KMO data
were collected from a sample of Highland Technology’s middle managers. The analysis of these
data identified several assumed influences as gaps, which the recommendations delineated earlier
in this chapter aimed to address. As such, the suggested recommendations were the focus of the
proposed implementation and evaluation approach.
Based on an inverted planning approach, the New World Kirkpatrick Model begins with
the organization’s goals and leading indicators at Level 4: Results, and then works backward (J.
Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 3: Behavior, identifies the critical behaviors and
supporting drivers of middle managers, while Level 2: Learning, centers on indicators validating
that learning occurred during program implementation (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Lastly, Level 1: Reaction, defines and measures metrics that assess participant engagement and
satisfaction (J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016). A combination of formative and
summative evaluation methods ensures that all four levels are assessed holistically and allows
evaluators to address issues as they arise. Once the interventions are deployed, a basic
dashboard will provide a mechanism to ensure accountability and to assess and communicate the
performance of mission-critical outcomes on a recurring basis.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The combination of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analytic conceptual framework and the
J. Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model provided a thorough approach for
determining a set of meaningful influences, identifying gaps, and structuring an implementation
and evaluation plan to operationalize the recommendations chosen to close the gaps. An

126

apparent strength of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model is its comprehensiveness, as
it analyzes performance issues through the distinct lenses of KMO causes. While the application
of this approach does not necessarily lead to a set of mutually exclusive influences, the KMO
categorization itself does provide a collectively exhaustive framework for grouping issues related
to human performance.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) work is rooted in research-based evidence from both the
education and business domains, which make it an appropriate choice in the case of Highland
Technology. However, to fully leverage the comprehensiveness of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis approach, other stakeholder groups like middle manager superiors or the executive
leadership team should have been assessed as well. Such an expanded application of the model
was neither feasible nor practical, given the nature of this study and the inherent limiting factors
related to resources, time, and access. Like the gap analysis method, the J. Kirkpatrick and W.
Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model has both advantages and shortcomings worth highlighting.
The J. Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model uses a sequenced four-
step approach that is both straightforward and practical. Starting in reverse order with Level 4:
Results, the model forces its user to adopt a holistic perspective of the training and evaluation
process and, in theory, ensures that the organizations’ critical outcomes are the driving force
behind that process. While these factors describe advantages of the model, it is not without
critics. For example, one common critique of the J. Kirkpatrick and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) New
World Model is that it is not as deeply rooted in research as the original Kirkpatrick Model
conceptualized by Dr. Donald Kirkpatrick in the 1950s. Another potential weakness relates to
the model’s application at Highland Technology and the fact that the organization does not
require a formal training program to address the needs identified in Chapter Four. While the

127

absence of a formal training program should not affect the general applicability of the approach
(J. Kirkpatrick & W. Kirkpatrick, 2016), it might limit some of the cross-leveling effects that
users of a more traditional training program may experience. Lastly, it is important to note that
Level 4: Results could be affected by a variety of factors unrelated to the training program.
However, the combined use of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model and the J. Kirkpatrick
and W. Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model provides a comprehensive approach that meets the
unique requirements of this study and the research site. The following section will discuss the
main limitations and delimitations inherent in this study.
Limitations and Delimitations
J.W. Creswell and J.D. Creswell (2018) suggested that discussing known limitations and
potential areas for future research are part of the researcher’s interpretation process. Hence, it is
pertinent to highlight that this study contained several limitations and delimitations that the
reader should consider.
Limitations relate to factors outside of the researcher’s control that may impact a study.
Some limitations to this research include:
● the truthfulness of the interview participants;
● the lack of generalizability beyond the organizational unit this study focuses on;
● the limited time in the field to collect data; and
● the number of personal interviews, which directly corresponded to this study’s relatively
small sample size.
Delimitations relate to the researcher’s choices that may affect the study and include:
● the narrow focus on one stakeholder group to illuminate a complex organizational
problem;

128

● the narrow focus on alignment as a vital enabler of strategy execution;
● the focus on a single organizational unit inside a larger corporate construct to keep the
scope of the study manageable; and
● the investigator being part of Highland Technology.
Future Research
Future research can advance the body of knowledge on strategy execution and alignment
by addressing the limitations and delimitations mentioned in the previous section. For example,
new studies on this topic could include additional stakeholder groups to illuminate in greater
detail the interactions between middle managers and other relevant organizational players.
Moreover, expanding the sample size of mid-level managers would allow for the collection of a
richer and more robust data set.
The choice of the research site presents another option for adjustment. This study
focused on one transversal support organization inside a larger corporate structure. Future
research could seize a different vantage point and investigate the same research questions at the
corporate level. While the primary stakeholder groups, assumed influences, and underlying
assumptions should remain the same, data analysis could reveal different findings and
organizational needs. Another alternative would be to look at several organizations and conduct
a multiple case study, which would address the issue of generalizability and allow for a greater
exploration of the research questions. Assessing organizations in different industries presents
another option for future studies.
Data collection and analysis for this study focused on eight assumed influences relating
to middle managers’ KMO factors. While these influences were essential in exploring the

129

research questions, future research could broaden that scope to develop and assess a more
comprehensive set of influences affecting the stakeholders.
Additionally, as discussed in Chapter Four, data analysis revealed two findings not
directly linked to the eight predetermined causes. These two findings related to the clarity of the
organization’s strategy as well as middle managers’ knowledge of their superiors’ goals, and
present further options for future research. The suggestions presented in this section build on the
design and findings of this study and offer promising options to advance the understanding of
strategic alignment at an organization’s middle management level.
Conclusion
Middle managers constitute an essential organizational stakeholder group, and aligning
their actions with the organization’s strategy is a critical enabler of successful strategy execution.
Guided by the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model, this evaluation study examined the
KMO influences affecting Highland Technology’s middle managers and their objective to align
their actions with the organization’s strategy. A thorough literature review and the development
of a conceptual framework led to the identification of eight assumed KMO influences relating to
knowledge (declarative, procedural, and metacognitive), motivation (self-efficacy theory, value
theory), and organization (cultural models, cultural setting).
Interview and document analyses validated one knowledge-related influence and two
organization-related influences as needs, while the remaining five influences were determined to
be assets. Next, recommendations grounded in evidence-based principles were advanced to
address the three needs and sustain one asset. To support the implementation of the proposed
solutions, an integrated implementation and evaluation plan based on the J. Kirkpatrick and W.
Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model was created.

130

Organizations formulate strategies to guide the critical choices that impact their direction
and success (Tregoe & Zimmerman, 1980). However, research shows that a significant
percentage of organizations struggle to properly implement what they have formulated (Franken
et al., 2009; Sull et al., 2015). Understanding and managing the influences identified in this
study will help both Highland Technology, and other organizations, in their effort to enable
successful strategy execution by improving strategic alignment at the middle manager level.

131

References
Aaltonen, P., & Ikävalko, H. (2002). Implementing strategies successfully. Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, 13(6), 415-418.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Alamsjah, F. (2011). Key success factors in implementing strategy: Middle-level managers’
perspectives. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1444-1450.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G., Meier, K., O’ Toole, L., & Walker, R. (2012). Vertical strategic
alignment and public service performance. Public Administration, 90(1), 77–98.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01938.x
Armstrong, M. (2017). Reinventing performance management: Building a culture of continuous
improvement. Kogan Page.
Ashford, S., & Detert, J. (2015). Get the boss to buy in. Harvard Business Review, 93(1,2), 73–
79. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1642657755/
Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: A role for the balanced scorecard? Management
Decision, 44(10), 1441-1460.
Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change
intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14(1), 69–83.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00266
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager
sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159600

132

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (2000). The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning.
Sloan Management Review, 41(4), 29.
Berger, B. (2014). Read my lips: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations of
strategic employee communications. Research Journal of the Institute for Public
Relations, 1(1).
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (5th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Boswell, W. (2006). Aligning employees with the organization’s strategic objectives: Out of
“line of sight”, out of mind. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
17(9), 1489–1511. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190600878071
Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2001). How leading companies create, measure and achieve
strategic results through “line of sight.” Management Decision, 39(10), 851–860.
doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006525
Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal
9(2).
Browne, S., Sharkey-Scott, P., Mangematin, V., Lawlor, K., & Cuddihy, L. (2014). Adapting a
book to make a film: how strategy is adapted through professional practices of marketing
middle managers. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(9-10), 949–973.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2014.933867

133

Cândido, C. J., & Santos, S. P. (2015). Strategy implementation: What is the failure rate?
Journal of Management and Organization, 21(2), 237-262.
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in
the way of true inspiration. Random House.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise.
(M.I.T. Press research monographs). M.I.T. Press.
Chatman, J. A., & Cha, S. E. (2003). Leading by leveraging culture. California Management
Review, 45(4), 20–34.. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166186
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Colvin, A. J. S., & Boswell, W. R. (2007). The problem of action and interest alignment: Beyond
job requirements and incentive compensation. Human Resource Management Review, 17,
38–51.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Crittenden, Victoria L., & Crittenden, William F. (2008). Building a capable organization: The
eight levers of strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 51(4), 301-309.
Currie, G., & Procter, S. J. (2005). The antecedents of middle managers’ strategic contribution:
The case of a professional bureaucracy. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1325–
1356.

134

Berbary, D., & Malinchak, A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. The Public Manager, 40(3), 55-59.
Dempsey, R., & Chavous, J. (2013). Commander’s intent and concept of operations. Military
Review, 93(6), 58–66.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2009). Social cognitive theory. In E. M. Anderman & L.
H. Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p.p.
833-839). Macmillan Reference USA.
de Oliveira, C., Carneiro, J., & Esteves, F. (2019). Conceptualizing and measuring the “strategy
execution” construct. Journal of Business Research, 105, 333–344.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.012
Eccles, J. (2009). Expectancy value motivational theory. In E. M. Anderman & L. H. Anderman
(Eds.), Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p.p. 390-393).
Macmillan Reference USA.
Enz, C., & Schwenk, C. (1991). The performance edge: Strategic and value dissensus. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01390440
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A Dynamic, multi‐level model of culture: From the micro level of
the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 583–598.
Floyd, S., & Lane, P. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Management role conflict
in strategic renewal. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259268
Floyd, S., & Wooldridge, B. (1992). Managing strategic consensus: The foundation of effective
implementation. The Executive, 6(4), 27-39.

135

Franken, A., Edwards, C., & Lambert, R. (2009). Executing strategic change: Understanding the
critical management elements that lead to success. California Management Review,
51(3), 49-73.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Garvin, D., Edmondson, A., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard
Business Review, 86(3), 109–116.
Ghemawat, P. (2002). Competition and business strategy in historical perspective. Business
History Review, 76(1), 37-74.
Giesecke, J., & McNeil, B. (2004). Transitioning to the learning organization. Library Trends,
53(1), 54–67.
Gioia, D., & Mehra, A. (1996). [Review of Sensemaking in organizations, by K. E. Weick]. The
Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1226–1230. https://doi.org/10.2307/259169
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Gronhaug, K., & Stone, R. (2012). The learning organization. Competitiveness Review: An
International Business Journal, 22(3), 261-275.
Guo, Y., Huy, Q., & Xiao, Z. (2017). How middle managers manage the political environment to
achieve market goals: Insights from China's state‐owned enterprises. Strategic
Management Journal, 38(3), 676-696.
Guth, W., & Macmillan, I. (1986). Strategy implementation versus middle management self‐
interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7(4), 313–327.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250070403

136

Heide, Grønhaug, & Johannessen. (2002). Exploring barriers to the successful implementation of
a formulated strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18(2), 217-231.
Hope, O. (2010). The politics of middle management sensemaking and sensegiving. Journal of
Change Management, 10(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697011003795669
Hrebiniak, L. (2008). Making strategy work: Overcoming the obstacles to effective execution.
Ivey Business Journal (Online), 72(2).
Hrebiniak, L. (2006). Obstacles to effective strategy implementation. Organizational Dynamics,
35(1), 12-31.
Huy, Q. (2011). How middle managers’ group‐focus emotions and social identities influence
strategy implementation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1387–1410.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.961
Huy, Q. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The
contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31–69.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3094890
Huy, Q. (2001). In praise of middle managers. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 72-9, 160.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Johnston, R., & Pongatichat, P. (2008). Managing the tension between performance
measurement and strategy: Coping strategies. International Journal Of Operations &
Production Management, 28(9-10), 941–967.
Kaplan, R. (2005). How the balanced scorecard complements the McKinsey 7-S model. Strategy
& Leadership, 33(3), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570510594442

137

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2006). Alignment: Using the balanced scorecard to create corporate
synergies. Harvard Business School Press.
Kathuria, R., Joshi, M., & Porth, S. (2007). Organizational alignment and performance: Past,
present and future. Management Decision, 45(3), 503–517.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740710745106
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University
Press.
Ketokivi, M., & Castañer, X. (2004). Strategic planning as an integrative device. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 49(3), 337–365. https://doi.org/10.2307/4131439
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume
28, Number 4. Jossey-Bass.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218. https://doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). John Wiley & Sons.
Lines, R. (2005). How social accounts and participation during change affect organizational
learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(3), 157–177.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620510588680

138

Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation: A 35-year odyssey. The American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.57.9.705
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding
research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management
Journal, 48(1), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993111
Mantere, S. (2008). Role expectations and middle manager strategic agency. Journal of
Management Studies, 45(2), 294–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00744.x
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications, Inc.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Schultz, P. (2014). Choosing effective behavior change tools. Social
Marketing Quarterly, 20(1), 35–46.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Michel, A. (2014). The mutual constitution of persons and organizations: An ontological
perspective on organizational change. Organization Science, 25(4), 1082–1110.
Michel, A., & Wortham, S. (2009). Bullish on uncertainty: How organizational cultures
transform participants. Cambridge University Press.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1984). Fit, failure and the hall of fame. California Management
Review, 26(3), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165078

139

Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic
Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250060306
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 12(2), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620010316226
Morrison, E., & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy Of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259200
Noble, C. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. Journal of Business
Research, 45(2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00231-2
Okumus, F. (2003). A framework to implement strategies in organizations. Management
Decision, 41(9), 871-882.
O'Shannassy, T. (2014). Investigating the role of middle managers in strategy-making process:
An australian mixed method study. Journal of Management and Organization, 20(2),
187-205. doi: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1017/jmo.2014.29
Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In E. M. Anderman & L. H. Anderman (Eds.),
Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p.p. 791-794). Macmillan
Reference USA.
Pappas, J., & Wooldridge, B. (2007). Middle managers’ divergent strategic activity: An
investigation of multiple measures of network centrality. The Journal of Management
Studies, 44(3), 323–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00681.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications,
Inc.

140

Pincus J. (2006). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction and job performance. Human
Communications Research, 12(2), 395–419.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
https://doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Porter, M. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors.
Free Press.
Prieto, V., & de Carvalho, M. (2018). Can internal strategic alignment influence performance?
An empirical research applying structural equation modelling. Academia Revista
Latinoamericana de Administración, 31(3), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-09-
2016-0235
Pryor, M., Anderson, D., Toombs, L., & Humphreys, J. (2007). Strategic implementation as a
core competency: The 5P's model. Journal of Management Research, 7(1), 3-17.
Raes, A., Heijltjes, M., Glunk, U., & Roe, R. (2011). The interface of the top management team
and middle managers: A process model. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 102–
126. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.55662566
Ranjbar, M. S., Shirazi, M. A., & Blooki, M. L. (2014). Interaction among intra-organizational
factors effective in successful strategy execution: An analytical view. Journal of Strategy
and Management, 7(2), 127-154.
Rapert, M., Velliquette, A., & Garretson, J. (2002). The strategic implementation process:
Evoking strategic consensus through communication. Journal of Business Research,
55(4), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00157-0

141

Rensburg, M., Davis, A., & Venter, P. (2014). Making strategy work: The role of the middle
manager. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(2), 165–186.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.33
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and
theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(1), 120-130.
Rouleau, L., & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive
competence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 953–983.
Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle
managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7),
1413–1441.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.)
(pp. 85-92). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Santa, M. (2015). Learning organisation review – A “good” theory perspective. The Learning
Organization, 22(5), 242–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-12-2014-0067
Schein, E.H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. In E. M. Anderman & L. H. Anderman (Eds.),
Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p.p. 510-513). Macmillan
Reference USA.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2009). Information processing theory. In E. M. Anderman & L.
H. Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p.p.
493-497). Macmillan Reference USA.

142

Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1302987038/
Shattuck, L., & Woods, D. (1997). Communication of intent in distributed supervisory control
systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting,
41(1), 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/107118139704100159
Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Portfolio.
Smidts, A., Ad Th. H. Pruyn, & Cees B. M. van Riel. (2001). The impact of employee
communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. The
Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051-1062.
Sull, D., Homkes, R., & Sull, C. (2015). Why strategy execution unravels— And what to do
about it. Harvard Business Review, 93(3), 57-66.
Sull, D., & Sull, C. (2018). With goals, FAST beats SMART. MIT Sloan Management Review,
59(4), 1-11.
Sull, D., Sull, C., & Yoder, J. (2018a). No one knows your strategy - Not even your top leaders.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(3), 1–6.
Sull, D., Turconi, S., Sull, C., & Yoder, J. (2018b). Turning strategy into results. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 59(3), 1-12.
Srivastava, A., & Sushil. (2017). Alignment: The foundation of effective strategy execution.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(8), 1043–1063.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-11-2015-0172
Tregoe, B., & Zimmerman, J. (1980). Top management strategy: What it is and how to make it
work. Simon and Schuster.

143

Vandergriff, D. (2015). Personnel reform and military effectiveness.
https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2015/08/personnel-reform-and-military-effectiveness/
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking.
Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Winner, J., Freeman, J., Cooke, N., & Goodwin, G. (2007). A metric for the shared interpretation
of commander’s intent. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Annual Meeting, 51(3), 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120705100301
Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. (1990). The strategy process, middle management involvement, and
organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 231–241.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250110305
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. (2008). The middle management perspective on
strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management,
34(6), 1190–1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324326

144

Appendix A: Document Analysis Protocol
Document Analysis

Date: _______________________ Type/Format: ______________________
Author(s): ___________________ Recipient(s)/Audience: ______________
Intent: ______________________ Characteristics: ____________________
Subject/Content: _________________________________________________

Knowledge (Influences and Method of Assessment)
#
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Document
Analysis
Observed?
0 = no evidence,
1= some evidence,
2=strong evidence
Comments/Evidence/Questions
1 Middle managers
need to know the
specifics (and
implications) of the
organization’s
strategy to create
alignment.

Knowledge –
Declarative
Assess
relevant
documents
explaining the
organization’s
strategy.

145

Document Analysis

Date: _______________________ Type/Format: ______________________
Author(s): ___________________ Recipient(s)/Audience: ______________
Intent: ______________________ Characteristics: ____________________
Subject/Content: _________________________________________________

Organization (Influences and Method of Assessment)
#
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Document
Analysis
Observed?
0 = no evidence,
1= some evidence,
2=strong evidence
Comments/Evidence/Questions
1 Middle managers
need to believe that
a shared sense of
purpose and
direction exists
within the
organization.

Organization –
Cultural Model 1
Assess
relevant
documents
explaining the
organization’s
purpose and
mission.

146

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Research Questions for Reference:
1. To what extent do Highland Technology’s middle managers believe the organization is
meeting its goal to achieve its strategy?
2. What are Highland Technology’s middle managers’ knowledge and motivation related to
achieving their goal of aligning their actions with the strategy?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context, and middle managers’
knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for middle managers’ organizational practice in the areas
of KMO resources?
Research
Question
KMO
Construct and
Type
Interview Question Type of
Question
(Patton, 2002)
(1) General and Alignment-Focused Questions
N/A N/A Before we get started, could you briefly describe
your current role?
Background /
Demographic
N/A N/A As mentioned, the term alignment can be defined
as linking or configuring different activities or
decisions to achieve coherence across
organizational levels.
How do you define the term alignment? In other
words, what does it mean to you?
Opinion /
Values;
Knowledge
N/A N/A In your opinion, how critical is it to have
alignment between one’s work and the
organization’s strategy?
Opinion /
Values

147

N/A N/A And who would you say should have a leading
role in creating alignment? [Or: If you had to
make a recommendation as to who should create
alignment, who would you suggest?]
Opinion /
Values
(2) Interviewee-Focused Questions
2 Motivation –
Value
Let’s look more closely at your position and
objectives inside the organization.
How important or valuable is it to you to have
alignment with the organization’s strategy?
Opinion /
Values
2 Knowledge –
Procedural
Could you explain to me how you go about
aligning with the organization’s strategy? [Or, in
case the interviewee says he or she does not
align: If a colleague asked for your advice on
how to achieve alignment, what steps do you
suggest he or she should take?]
Knowledge
2 Motivation –
Self-Efficacy
And how confident are you in your abilities to
align?
Feelings
(3) Organization-Focused Questions
3 Cultural
Model 1
We are already at the half-way mark of our
conversation. Let’s shift the focus a bit more on
the organization.
How would you describe the main purpose or
mission of the organization? In other words,
what do you think is at its core?
Knowledge

148

3 Cultural
Model 2
Do you think the organization has a culture of
open dialogue that encourages information to be
shared both up and down the hierarchy?
[Consider probing if there is a difference
between positive and negative information. Or
create a separate question for that.]
Opinion /
Values
3 Cultural
Setting
Tell me about the specific channels, or tools, or
mechanisms that are available to you to facilitate
that dialogue and share information with people
above you. [Make sure to validate that examples
provided are indeed bi-directional. Do you think
the organization provides sufficient channels?]
Behavior
3

Cultural
Model 2
Related to that, do you believe that you are
encouraged to influence or participate in the
strategy process?
Opinion /
Values
(4) Interviewee-Focused Questions
2 Knowledge –
Metacognitive
We have reached the last section of our
conversation.
Imagine a new organizational strategy was
created and communicated. If I could observe
you get more informed about that new strategy,
what would I see you do? [If the interviewee
says that he or she solely relies on top-down
communication, take note of that and ask if they
do anything proactively.]
Knowledge

149

2 Knowledge –
Declarative
If you had to explain the organization’s current
strategy to a peer that just joined the team, what
would you say?
Knowledge
1 N/A Lastly, if that new peer would ask you if the
organization is successful in implementing its
strategy, what would you say?
Opinion /
Values
N/A N/A Thank you. We have reached the end of our
conversation. Before we wrap up, is there
anything else I should have asked you to
understand this topic better?
Opinion /
Values

150

Appendix C: Level One and Level Two Evaluation Instrument Immediately Following
Implementation
Please rate your agreement with below statements on a scale of 1-5.
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Somewhat Disagree
3 = Neither Disagree or Agree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
Level 2: Learning
Declarative Knowledge
1. The individual [middle manager] can correctly describe or paraphrase the organization’s
strategy and four strategic ambitions.
1 2 3 4 5

2. The individual can explain the organization’s strategy within the context of his/her
organizational sub-unit.
1 2 3 4 5

Attitude
1. The individual believes that it is worthwhile to align his/her actions with the organization’s
strategy.
1 2 3 4 5

2. The individual will continue to align his/her actions with the organization’s strategy to create
personal value.
1 2 3 4 5

151

Level 1: Reaction
Engagement
1. The individual remained engaged and interested during the discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
2. The individual asked meaningful questions during the discussion.
1 2 3 4 5

Relevance
1. When asked, the individual confirmed that the job aid and value reinforcement are relevant to
performing his/her role.
1 2 3 4 5

2. When asked, the individual confirmed that he/she was clear on how to apply the new
knowledge.
1 2 3 4 5

Customer Satisfaction
1. When asked, the individual confirmed that he/she would recommend this approach to peers in
other organizational units.
1 2 3 4 5

152

Appendix D: Evaluation Instrument Delayed for a Period After the Implementation
(i.e., approximately 90 days after the introduction of the job aid and initial reinforcement of
alignment value.)

Please rate your agreement with below statements on a scale of 1-5.
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Somewhat Disagree
3 = Neither Disagree or Agree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
1. The perception other Highland entities have of the technology expertise, support, and
infrastructure they receive from Highland Technology has improved.
1 2 3 4 5

2. (Open response) Please describe how the perception of these other Highland entities has
improved.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

3. The achievement of Highland Technology’s four strategic ambitions has improved.
1 2 3 4 5

4. (Open response) Please describe how the achievement of the four strategic ambitions has
improved.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

153

5. Middle managers' knowledge of the organizations’ strategy and long-term objectives has
increased.
1 2 3 4 5

6. (Open response) Please describe how/to what degree middle managers' knowledge of the
organization’s strategy has increased.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

7. (Open response) Please describe other organizational outcomes that the introduction of the job
aid and initial reinforcement of alignment may have contributed to.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Level 3: Behavior
1. Middle managers have actively used the job aid while performing their job (e.g., at the
beginning of internal meetings to remind participants of the organization’s strategy.)
1 2 3 4 5

2. (Open response) If middle managers have not demonstrated usage of the job aid, what are the
reasons?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

154

3. Middle managers continue to align their actions with the organization’s strategy.
1 2 3 4 5

4. (Open response) If middle managers did not continue to align their actions with the
organization’s strategy, what are the reasons?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Level 2: Learning
Knowledge
1. The individual can correctly describe or paraphrase the organization’s strategy and four
strategic ambitions.
1 2 3 4 5

Attitude
1. The individual believes it was worthwhile for him/her to apply what he/she learned.
1 2 3 4 5

Level 1: Reaction
Relevance
1. The individual was able to apply what he/she learned to his/her job.
1 2 3 4 5

155

2. (Open response) Please describe how the individual has applied what he/she learned.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Customer Satisfaction
1. In retrospect, the individual confirmed that taking the time to discuss the job aid and receiving
the value reinforcement were worthwhile and helpful to his/her learning.
1 2 3 4 5

2. In retrospect, the individual confirmed that he/she would still recommend this approach to
peers in other organizational units.
1 2 3 4 5

156

Appendix E: Data Dashboard Example
Figure E1
Notional example of a data dashboard.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This evaluation study applied the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to understand the role of middle manager alignment in achieving effective strategy execution. The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences related to Highland Technology’s (a pseudonym) middle managers aligning their actions with the organization’s strategy. The study employed a qualitative research approach and collected data through semi-structured interviews with a purposefully selected sample of middle managers and document analysis. The data were coded and analyzed to classify each of the eight assumed KMO influences as either an asset or a need to achieve strategic alignment. The findings identified five assets, which related to middle managers’ knowledge (procedural, metacognitive), motivation (value, self-efficacy), and beliefs regarding a shared sense of purpose and direction within the organization. The identified needs related to middle managers’ declarative knowledge

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study

PDF

Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study

PDF

Middle-management's influence on employee engagement in the ambulatory practices

PDF

Improving exempt nurse leader work-life balance: an innovation study

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

Maintaining alignment between strategic and tactical goals in an innovative healthcare organization

PDF

Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study

PDF

Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

Development of intraorganizational post-merger collaboration plan: an evaluation study

PDF

The impact of advanced technologies on the workplace and the workforce: an evaluation study

PDF

Readiness factors influencing the ability of institutions of higher education to align the budget with organizational goals: an evaluation study of a college

PDF

A field study of leadership evaluation and promotion practices in technology organizations

PDF

The impact of high turnover and burnout among behavioral health's clinical workforce (clinicians)

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluative study on implementing customer relationship management software through the perspective of first level managers

PDF

Exploring mindfulness with employee engagement: an innovation study

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Garcon, Stefan (author)

Core Title The role of middle manager alignment in achieving effective strategy execution: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/21/2020

Defense Date 05/29/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag alignment,middle manager,OAI-PMH Harvest,strategic alignment,strategy,strategy execution

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth (committee chair), Lynch, Douglas (committee member), Sparangis, Themistocles (committee member)

Creator Email garcon@usc.edu,sgarcon@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-336794

Unique identifier UC11663787

Identifier etd-GarconStef-8707.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-336794 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GarconStef-8707.pdf

Dmrecord 336794

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Garcon, Stefan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA