Contingency Approaches Applied to the Implementation of Strategic Decisions

ABSTRACT Contingency theory contends that a match of approach to situation improves the prospect of success. To test this premise, the outcomes of strategic decisions were examined to determine how context influences the success of implementation approaches. The explanatory variables in the study were made up of implementation approaches used by managers and contextual factors that describe time constraints, importance, resources, source of pressure to change, and the power and position of the implementing manager. The contextual factors were included to find conditions under which an implementation approach tends to be used and successful. The findings indicate that the most successful implementation approach, intervention, was not subject to contextual influences, raising questions about the need to select an approach according to the contextual factors considered in this research. Keywords: Implementation; Contingency approaches I. INTRODUCTION Implementation is viewed by managers and researchers alike as an important issue that merits study (Daft, 1995). As Gray (1996) points out, implementation difficulties represent one the greatest sources of frustration and disappointment for top executives. There has been considerable speculation about factors that inhibit or facilitate implementation, but little work is exploring these factors with actual decision-making episodes. Despite the absence off empirical fieldwork, several widely cited contingency models have been proposed that call for managers to select an implement approach according to situational demands (Lippitt and Mackenzie, 1976; Nutt, 1989; Vroom and Jago, 1978; Vroom and Yetton, 1973). This study explores the basic premise of these models, examining whether success depends on matching implementation approaches to the demands of the situation. Several contextual factors are believed to limit their chance of success when managers attempt to implement strategic decisions. Key organizational members may oppose or support a change. Crisis situations, that provoke urgency, and origin of the pressure for change, also seem important. Crises and external pressures are apt to make implementation easier. Level or position power suggests leverage. Position power may increase adoption prospects and coax the powerful to take decisive action when under time pressure. Together these factors are thought to create a contingency network that skilled managers must learn to read and tailor their selection of implementation approaches accordingly. Exploring the value of contingency models poses questions that are best answered by a field-based study of decision making, attempting to find out how implementation is managed by practitioners facing situations given by key contextual factors (Huber, 1990). Actual decisions made by organizations are required to provide this type of field-testing. External validity, clear generaliz-ability to practice, seems crucial, even if this emphasis results in a loss of classification rigor (Beyer and Trice, 1978). With actual decision, success can be addressed and abstractions, such as measuring college students' role-playing reactions, can be avoided. Actual decisions also allow outcomes to be measured and consequences determined. Analysis of the decisions provides an opportunity to explore several questions thought to be crucial in developing a deeper understanding of decision implementation. First, how do top managers go about implementing strategic decisions? Second, do top and lower level managers use the different implementation approaches, and do they use them in similar proportions? Third, how successful are these implementation approaches? Answers to these questions depend, in part, on conditions given by contextual factors that are encountered during an implementation attempt. Factors indicating the urgency, importance, resources, origin of problems/ issues, and the implementator's power and level identify contingencies under which an implementation approach can be more or less successful. …