CHALLENGES OF STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION AT THE MINISTRY OF
STATE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHERN KENYA AND OTHER ARID
LANDS
TIMOTHY MUNGAI MWANGI
|UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI 
L O W E R  K A B E T 5  
L IB R A R Y
A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE 
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF 
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (MBA), SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY
OF NAIROBI
OCTOBER 2012
DECLARATION
Student’s Declaration
This management research project is my original work and has not been presented for a 
degree in any other university or any other examination body. No part o f this research 
should be reproduced without my consent or that of the University of Nairobi.
Signed....... ........................ Date... .1.9. ! . \ ). 1. . '.5 r ......
Timothy Mungai Mwangi 
D61/71571/2008
This project has been submitted for examination with my approval as university 
supervisor.
Date....
Prof Martin Ogutu
Department of Business Administration 
School of Business 
University of Nairobi (UON)
u
DEDICATION
I dedicate this project to my wife, the Mwangi's family and all those in one way or 
another helped me achieve in developing the ideas in this final report.
in
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank the Almighty God for His guidance and providence which enabled me to 
undertake this project.
I also acknowledge the presence of my family especially my wife in both moral and 
financial support.
1 am mostly obliged to my supervisor Prof. Martin Ogutu whose advice, constant 
guidance, encouraging remarks and intellectual comments fashioned my work to its 
completion
May God bless them.
tv
ABBREVIATIONS
ASAL African Association for Public Administration and Management
GoK Government of Kenya
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
IT Information Technology
KCB Kenya Commercial Bank
MBA Master of Business Administration
MDNKOAL Ministry o f State for Development of Northern Kenya and other 
Arid Lands
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
UK United Kingdom
v
ABSTRACT
Strategy implementation is the translation of chosen strategy into organizational action so 
as to achieve strategic goals and objectives. Strategy implementation is also defined as 
the manner in which an organization should develop, utilize, and amalgamate 
organizational structure, control systems, and culture to follow strategies that lead to 
competitive advantage and a better performance. The main objectives o f this study were 
to investigate the challenges o f strategy implementation in the ministry of Northern 
Kenya and other arid areas. The study was a case study since the unit of analysis was one 
organization w hich was the Ministry of Northern Kenya. The interviewees were the top 
managers and functional heads in charge of finance, risk management, information 
technology and operations, human resources, marketing and research division, and public 
affairs and communication division. The primary data was collected using an interview 
guide. The data obtained from the interview guide was analyzed using content analysis. A 
few of the Quantitive data was analyzed using (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 
SPSS. The study concludes that that factors that influence strategy implementation in 
Ministry of Northern Kenya were financial capacity of the organization, top management 
support, involvement of board of directors and the employees in the strategic 
implementation process, organization structure, communication process and also staff 
motivation and capability of the human resource in the organization in managing and 
implementing new strategic direction. The study also concluded that the effect of strategy 
implementation and performance in the ministry was that the need to attain a competitive 
advantage over other ministries dependent on strategy implementation and performance. 
The study therefore recommends that for an efficient and effective implementation 
process senior management must at all levels be involved and committed throughout the 
process, departmental employees w ith should be provided with a sound understanding of 
the forthcoming changes and of the new way of understanding, preparation must be done 
as much as possible before embarking on full implementation; and also the organization 
must ensure that there are sufficient resources for the transition and that the top manager 
and the board of directors are empowered to make the necessary decisions. The study 
also recommends that the communication process be reinforced with a policy that will 
govern the activities related so as to well enhance the implementation of strategies in the 
ministry.
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION................................................................................................................................ ii
DEDICATION...................................................................................................................................Hi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................iv
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................... vi
ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the Study............................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Challenges of Strategy Implementation.....................................................................................2
1.1.2 The Ministry of Northern Kenya...............................................................................................4
1.2 Research Statement...................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Research Objectives.......................................................................................................................7
1.4 Value of the Study......................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................9
2.1.1 The Concept of Strategy Implementation................................................................................. 9
2.2 Models of Strategy Implementation..........................................................................................11
vii
2.2.1 The Seven (7s) Model of the Strategy Process 11
2.2.2 Other Models.......................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Challenges of Strategy Implementation....................................................................................13
2.3.1 Top Management Commitment............................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Communication Challenges......................................................................................................15
2.3.3 Coordination Challenges........................................................................................................... 18
2.3.4 Cultural Challenges................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.5 Resistance to Change............................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................... 22
3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................22
3.2 Research Design...........................................................................................................................22
3.3 Data Collection............................................................................................................................ 23
3.4 Data Analysis...............................................................................................................................23
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATIONS AND
DISCUSSIONS.................................................................................................................................25
viii
4.1 Introduction 25
4.2 Qualitative Analysis on challenges of strategy implementation at the Ministry of 
Northern Kenya...................................................................................................................................25
4.2.1 Top Management Support.........................................................................................................26
4.2.2 Co-ordination.............................................................................................................................27
4.2.3 Communication......................................................................................................................... 28
4.2.4 Culture........................................................................................................................................28
4.2.5 Resistance to Change................................................................................................................29
4.3 Areas that the Ministry of Northern Kenya need to give more attention in order to 
enhance an effective strategy implementation process....................................................................29
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............31
5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................31
5.2 Summary of Findings................................................................................................................. 31
5.2.1 Top Management Support........................................................................................................ 31
5.2.2 Communication.........................................................................................................................33
5.2.3 Coordination Challenges.......................................................................................................... 33
5.2.4 Cultural Challenges.................................................................................................................. 34
5.2.5 Resistance to Change................................................................................................................34
IX
5.3 Conclusions of the study. 34
5.3.1 Top management....................................................................................................................... 35
5.3.2 Communication..........................................................................................................................35
5.3.3 Coordination..............................................................................................................................35
5.3.4 Culture........................................................................................................................................35
5.3.5 Resistance to change................................................................................................................. 36
5.4 Recommendations for Policy and Practice................................................................................. 36
5.5 Limitations of the Study...............................................................................................................36
5.6 Suggestions for Further Research............................................................................................... 37
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................38
APPENDIX I: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION........................................................................46
APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW GUIDE........................................................................................ 47
x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Strategic implementation is about working together and sharing information with each 
other. The value of any strategy and its potential contributions include increasing 
productivity, reducing costs, growing profits, and improving service or product quality. 
In today’s competitive environment, implementing strategies successfully is vital for any 
organization, either public or private. Without implementation, even the most superior 
strategy is useless. The notion of strategy implementation might at first seem quite 
straightforward: the strategy is formulated and then it is implemented. Implementing 
would thus be perceived as being about allocating resources and changing organizational 
structure. However, transforming strategies into action is a far more complex and difficult 
task (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000).
Strategy implementation has attracted much less attention in strategic and organizational 
research than strategy formulation or strategic planning. Alexander (1991) suggests 
several reasons for this: strategy implementation is less glamorous than strategy 
formulation, people overlook it because of a belief that anyone can do it, people are not 
exactly sure what it includes and where it begins and ends. Furthermore, there are only a 
limited number of conceptual models of strategy implementation.
The implementation process involves the collective wisdom, knowledge, and even 
subconscious minds of the collaborators. This powerful phenomenon is becoming a 
requirement to effectively compete in today's global marketplace (Alavi, 1994: Hills,
1
1997). There is currently considerable interest in strategy implementation. Management 
interest can be gauged from the high levels of attendance at the large number of industrial 
conferences on the subject. Academic interest is manifest through the considerable 
number o f papers on the topic (Neely, 1999). But this interest is not new. In the late 
1970s and 1980s, authors expressed a general dissatisfaction with traditional backward 
looking accounting based on strategy implementation, identifying their shortcomings and 
arguing for change.
1.1.1 Challenges of Strategy Implementation
Organizations seem to have difficulties in implementing their strategies. Strategy 
implementation is the match between an organization’s resources and skills and the 
environmental opportunities as well as the risks it faces and the purposes it wishes to 
accomplish (Thompson, 1993). However, researchers have revealed a number of 
problems in strategy implementation which include: weak management roles in 
implementation, a lack of communication, lacking a commitment to the strategy, 
unawareness or misunderstanding of the strategy, unaligned organizational systems and 
resources, poor coordination and sharing of responsibilities, inadequate capabilities, 
competing activities, and uncontrollable environmental factors (Galpin, 1998; Lares- 
Mankki, 1994).
According to Alexander (1985), the ten most frequently occurring strategy
implementation problems include underestimating the time needed for implementation
and major problems surfacing that had not been anticipated, in addition uncontrollable
factors in the external environment had an adverse impact. Based on empirical work with
2
93 firms he observed that senior executives were over optimistic in the planning phase 
and it is noteworthy that the first two issues which occurred most frequently in 
Alexander's study are planning issues. He also found the effectiveness of coordination of 
activities and distractions from competing activities inhibited implementation, in addition 
key tasks were not defined in enough detail. With regard to people, the capabilities of 
employees involved were often not sufficient, leadership and direction and "training and 
instruction given to lower level employees were not adequate" (Alexander, 1985). 
Although the least frequent in this study in many cases the information systems used to 
monitor implementation were not adequate.
More recent articles confirm notable barriers to successful strategy implementation about 
which there appears to be a degree of accord including Beer and Eisenstat's (2000) “six 
silent killers of strategy implementation” These comprise: a top-down/laissez-faire senior 
management style; unclear strategic intentions and conflicting priorities; an ineffective 
senior management team; poor vertical communication; weak co-ordination across 
functions, businesses or borders; and inadequate down-the-line leadership skills 
development (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000).
It is recognized that such change requires a shared vision and consensus (Beer et al., 
1990) and “failures of strategy implementation are inevitable” if competence, 
coordination and commitment are lacking (Eisenstat, 1993). Corboy and O'Corrbui 
(1999), meanwhile, identify the "deadly sins of strategy implementation” which involve: 
a lack o f understanding of how the strategy should be implemented; customers and staff 
not fully appreciating the strategy; unclear individual responsibilities in the change
3
process; difficulties and obstacles not acknowledged, recognized or acted upon; and 
ignoring the day-to-day business imperatives. Overall though, it is increasingly 
acknowledged that the traditionally recognized problems of inappropriate organizational 
structure and lack of top management backing are not the main inhibiting factors to 
effective strategy implementation (Aaltonen and Ikavalko, 2002).
Rather, the major challenges to be overcome appear to be more cultural and behavioral in 
nature, including the impact of poor communication and diminished feelings of 
ownership and commitment (Alexander, 1985; Giles, 1991; Corboy and O'Corrbui, 1999. 
In addition to the above, another inhibitor to successful strategy implementation that has 
been receiving a considerable amount of attention is the impact of an organization’s 
existing management controls and particularly its budgeting systems (Reed and Buckley, 
1988; Otley, 2001).
1.1.2 The Ministry of Northern Kenya
The Ministry of State for Development o f Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands 
(MDNKOAL) is a technical ministry created to provide policy direction and leadership in 
the planning, implementation and coordination of development in northern Kenya and 
other arid lands. Arid and Semi Arid Lands (ASAL) constitute 84 percent o f the total land 
mass in Kenya, or 24 million hectares (GoK 2007). The extent of aridity, coupled with 
demographic structures, shape the economic mainstay of these lands, which is nomadic 
pastoralist. The most marginalized districts in Kenya have traditionally been identified as 
ASAL.
4
The Ministry for the Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands was 
therefore mandated to turn these plights around and help in bringing development to the 
people o f these regions. The Ministry is to support all efforts to bring positive change and 
put its hand on the plough of development o f Northern Kenya and other arid lands.
The mandate of the Ministry includes the development of infrastructure, the planning of 
settlements, strengthening livestock marketing and livestock related industries, water 
supply and irrigation, natural resource management, mineral resources exploration, 
opening up the arid lands for tourism, human resources development and tapping solar 
and wind energy to fuel development. The ministry has some laid down strategy to help 
achieve its objectives despite challenges in the implementation efforts. For example, in 
2009, the MDNKOAL commissioned a team of pastoral experts from the International 
Institute for Environment & Development (1IED) to assist in the design o f a new national 
strategy to allow nomadic children and adults to access high quality education.
1.2 Research Statement
Failure in strategic management almost always happens during the implementation of the 
strategic plan. While very few have been done into strategy implementation, Alexander 
observes that literature is dominated by a focus on long range planning and strategy 
content rather than the actual implementation of strategies, on which "little is written or 
researched" (Alexander. 1985). The apathy to strategy implementation can be ascribed to 
several reasons, among them: greater likelihood of failures in implementing strategies; 
higher complexity in the process of strategy implementation; strategy implementation
5
being considered to be less glamorous than formulation; and practical difficulties in 
research involving middle-level managers (Alexander. 1985).
Bridging the gap on strategy implementation has since long been experienced as 
challenging. Key issues that affect the Ministry of state for Development of Northern 
Kenya and other Arid Lands towards strategy implementation include commitment, 
communication challenges, coordination challenges, organization culture as well as 
resistance to changes. Due to various challenges in strategy implementation, the ministry 
has not managed to fully implement its plans in the last decade. Despite the neglect by 
academicians and consultants, more challenges are experienced in practice in the course 
of strategy implementation. In their research, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1987) found that in 
all the companies they studied, the issue was not a poor understanding o f environmental 
forces or inappropriate strategic intent. Without exception, they knew what they had to 
do; their difficulties lay in how to achieve the necessary changes”. Strikingly, 
organizations fail to implement about 70 per cent of their new strategies (Miller, 2002). 
Another recent study is a bit less alarming; it says 40 per cent of the value anticipated in 
strategic plan is never realized (Mankins and Steele, 2005).
Local studies have been done; Kamanda (2006) did a study on Factors Influencing the 
Regional Growth Strategy at KCB. Muturi (2005) investigated on strategic responses by 
Christian churches in Nairobi. Also, Okumus (1999) did a study on strategy 
implementation: a study of international hotel groups. However, no known study has 
been done to explore the challenges encountered in strategy implementation by Kenyan 
ministries. In an effort to contribute to the already attempted studies on strategy
6
implementation, this study will investigate the challenges of strategy implementation in 
the ministry of Northern Kenya and other arid areas. The findings o f this study have 
answered the research questions: what are the challenges of strategy implementation at 
the ministry of northern Kenya? And what are the responses to the challenges of strategy 
implementation by the ministry?
1.3 Research Objectives
This research study was guided by the following research objectives;
i. To establish the challenges o f strategy implementation at the ministry of 
Northern Kenya and other arid areas
ii. To establish measures taken to overcome challenges of strategy 
implementation at the ministry of Northern Kenya and other arid areas
1.4 Value of the Study
The study would be important to the ministry of Northern Kenya and other arid areas on 
the issues relating to challenges of strategy implementation and the measures that can be 
adopted to overcome strategy implementation.
The study would be important to other ministries and organizations in Kenya for it would 
help them understand the challenges of strategy implementation and how to overcome 
them, it helps different firms achieve success better than others.
The results of the study would be important to the practitioners and academicians both in 
the private and public sector by contributing to the existing body of knowledge in the
area of strategic management in general and strategy implementation in particular.
7
Academicians would use findings for further research, while practitioners would apply 
lessons in strategies and implementations for success o f the firms.
The study would be a source of reference material for future researchers on other related 
topics; it will also help other academicians who undertake the same topic in their studies. 
The study would also highlight other important relationships that require further research; 
this may be in the areas of relationships between intelligence and firm's performance.
8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the information from other researchers who have carried out 
their research in the same field of study. The specific areas covered here are strategy 
implementation, types of strategy implementation, change model, collaborative model, 
cultural model, and finally the factors affecting strategy implementation.
2.1.1 The Concept of Strategy Implementation
Ansoff (1999) views strategy in terms of market and product choices. According to his 
view, strategy is the common thread among an organization’s activities and the market. 
Johnson and Scholes (1998) define strategy as the direction and scope of an organization 
that ideally matches the results o f its changing environment and in particular its markets 
and customers so as to meet stakeholder expectation. According to Jauch and Glueck 
(1984), strategy is a unified and integrated plan that relates the strategic advantages of the 
firm to the challenges of the environment and that is designed to ensure that the basic 
objectives of the enterprise are achieved through proper execution by the organization.
Mintzberg and Quinn (1979) also had a hand in strategy definition whereby he perceives 
strategy as a pattern or a plan that integrates organization’s major goals, policies and 
action into a cohesive whole. Porter (1996) has defined strategy as a creation of a unique 
and vulnerable position of tradeoffs in competing, involving a set of activities that neatly 
fit together, that are simply consistent, reinforce each other and ensure optimization of 
effort. Pearce and Robinson (2007) defines strategy as the company's “game plan" which
9
results in future oriented plans interacting with the competitive environment to achieve 
the company's objectives.
Johnson and Scholes (2002) view strategy as the direction and scope of an organization 
over the long-term, which achieves advantage for the organization through its 
configuration of resources within a changing environment, and fulfill stakeholder’s 
expectations. Strategy implementation evolves either from a process of winning group 
commitment through a coalitional form of decision-making, or as a result of complete 
coalitional involvement of implementation staff through a strong corporate culture. 
Implementing strategies successfully is about matching the planned and the realizing 
strategies, which together aim at reaching the organizational vision. With firms evolving 
in terms of structure it follows that the style of strategy implementation will differ 
depending on the style of organisation and management that exists in the firm. In general 
terms the types of leadership style can play a critical role in overcoming barriers to 
implementation.
Reed and Buckley (1988) discuss problems associated with strategy implementation 
identifying four key areas for discussion. A1 Ghamdi (1998) replicated the work of 
Alexander (1985) in the UK and found that 92 percent of firms implementation took 
more time than originally expected, that major problems surfaced in 88 percent of 
companies, again showing planning weaknesses. He found the effectiveness of 
coordination of activities as a problem in 75 percent and distractions from competing 
activities in 83 percent cases. In addition key tasks were not defined in enough detail and 
information systems were inadequate in 71 percent o f respondents. What is interesting is
that there is congruence between these findings, which implies that lessons have still not 
been learned; as A1 Ghamdi states, the drama still continues (A1 Ghamdi, 1998).
2.2 Models of Strategy Implementation
2.2.1 The Seven (7s) Model of the Strategy Process
The model (7s) posits that Managers, need to take account of all seven of the factors to be 
sure of successful implementation of a strategy- large or small. They're all 
interdependent, so if you fail to pay proper attention to one of them, it can bring the 
others crashing down around you. The model is most often used as a tool to assess and 
monitor changes in the internal situation of an organization. The model is based on the 
theory that, for an organization to perform well, these seven elements need to be aligned 
and mutually reinforcing. So, the model can be used to help identify what needs to be 
realigned to improve performance, or to maintain alignment (and performance) during 
other types of change.
Whatever the type of change -  restructuring, new processes, organizational merger, new 
systems, change of leadership, and so on -  the model can be used to understand how the 
organizational elements are interrelated, and so ensure that the wider impact of changes 
made in one area is taken into consideration.. Like a lot of these models, there's a good 
dose of common sense in here, but the 7S Framework is a useful way o f checking that 
you've covered all the bases (Alexander, 1991). These represent; Strategy-a set of actions 
that you start with and must maintain; Structure- How people and tasks / work are 
organized; Systems- all the processes and information flows that link the organisation
UNIVERSITY OF N W O S l)
LOWER KAP'
LIBRAr_____ i
11
together. Style- refers to how managers behave; staff- refers to how we develop managers 
(current and future); super ordinate Goals which refer to longer-term vision, and all that 
values stuff, that shapes the destiny of the organisation and finally; skills which are 
dominant attributes or capabilities that exist in the organisation
2.2.2 Other Models
Co-Evolutionary theory (Lewin and Volberda. 1999) indicates that as firms grow and 
evolve from small to larger and multidivisional organisations, the strategy 
implementation methods also evolve simultaneously. The various strategy 
implementation models described by Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984) are meant to meet 
the changing needs of firms as they evolve through various stages of the organizational 
life cycle (Parsa. 1999). In contrast to the earlier descriptive models, this model is more 
prescriptive with an, albeit limited, empirical basis.
Not all firms implement their strategies in the same manner; nevertheless, research 
investigating the differing styles of implementation is scarce. Nutt (1995) utilizes Jungian 
theory (Jung, 1923) for his framework of implementation style, however, this is very 
much an analysis of the psychological style of individuals within the firm. More recently, 
Parsa (1999) utilised Bourgeois and Brodwin's (1984) classification of strategy 
implementation types.
The majority of existing classification models in strategy implementation tends to be 
normative in nature (Parsa, 1999). Alternatively, they are developed from organizational 
observation, and as such, become context specific and frequently lack any broader
12
theoretical grounding (Hooley et al., 1992). In contrast. Bourgeois and Brodwin's (1984) 
model is comprehensive and based on specific theoretical assumptions and has been used 
by authors such as Parsa (1999). Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984) to refute the traditional 
approach to strategy implementation as simply an addition to the strategy formulation 
phase of the strategy process. Rather, they contend that strategy implementation evolves 
either from a process of winning group commitment through a coalitional form of 
decision-making, or as a result of complete coalitional involvement of implementation 
staff through a strong corporate culture.
2.3 Challenges of Strategy Implementation
2.3.1 Top Management Commitment
The most important thing when implementing a strategy is the top level management’s 
commitment to the strategic direction itself. This is undoubtedly a prerequisite for 
strategy implementation. Therefore, top managers must demonstrate their willingness to 
give energy and loyalty to the implementation process. This demonstrable commitment 
becomes, at the same time, a positive signal for all the affected organizational members 
(Rapa and Kauffman, 2005).
To successfully improve the overall probability that the strategy is implemented as 
intended, senior executives must abandon the notion that lower-level managers have the 
same perceptions of the strategy and its implementation, of its underlying rationale, and 
its urgency and instead, they must believe the exact opposite. They must not spare any 
effort to persuade the employees of their ideas (Rapa and Kauffman, 2005). Overall
13
though, it is increasingly acknowledged that the traditionally recognized problems of 
inappropriate organizational structure and lack of top management backing are the main 
inhibiting factors to effective strategy implementation (Aaltonen and Ikavalko, 2002).
Aaltonen and Ikavalko recognize the role of middle managers, arguing they are the "key 
actors” "who have a pivotal role in strategic communication” (Aaltonen and Ik&valko, 
2002) meanwhile Bartlett and Goshal (1996) talk about middle managers as threatened 
silent resistors whose role needs to change more towards that of a “coach”, building 
capabilities, providing support and guidance through the encouragement of 
entrepreneurial attributes. So, if they are not committed to performing their roles the 
lower ranks of employees will not be provided support and guidance through 
encouragement of entrepreneurial attributes.
Kamanda (2006) suggests that employee performance, absenteeism, innovation, turnover 
and satisfaction may be gauged by the degree of workers’ commitment to the company. 
Corporate loyalty, as affected by corporate restructuring, cultural differences and labour- 
management relations, is analyzed. It is concluded that these three factors are changing 
the nature of the employee-company relationship. Organizational commitment is being 
eroded while the “Me Inc.” relationship, which puts employee interests ahead of the 
corporate welfare, is emerging. They also conclude that business executives should 
accept the reality that the structure of US business is changing.
Nutt, (1995) points out that subtle changes taking place in the attitudes of employees
towards working, their employers, and their lives are requiring companies to change their
personnel management techniques accordingly to motivate their employees and instill
14
them with commitment. Employees want to work for companies they can be proud of, 
which exhibit values and viewpoints similar to their own, and are concerned about long­
term goals. He states that there are certain phases in commitment-building. They include 
the scientific phase where management motivates workers using the carrot and stick 
method, the human relations phase where firms treat employees with fairness and 
kindness, and a phase emphasizing principles, where managers make better use of their 
employees’ creativity and imagination.
2.3.2 Communication Challenges
At first look, the suggestion that communication aspects should be emphasized in the 
implementation process seems to be a very simple one. Even though studies point out that 
communication is a key success factor within strategy implementation (Miniace and 
Falter, 1996), communicating with employees concerning issues related to the strategy 
implementation is frequently delayed until the changes have already crystallized. One of 
the reasons why strategy implementation processes frequently result in difficult and 
complex problems — or even fail at all -  is the vagueness of the assignment of 
responsibilities. In addition, these responsibilities are diffused through numerous 
organizational units (Rapa and Kauffman, 2005) resulting in unclear individual 
responsibilities in the process.
To avoid power struggles between departments and within hierarchies, one should create
a plan with clear assignments of responsibilities regarding detailed implementation
activities. This is a preventive way of proceeding. Responsibilities are clear and potential
problems are therefore avoided (Rapa and Kauffman, 2005). Top management is
15
essential to the effective implementation of strategic change. Top management provides a 
role model for other managers to use in assessing the salient environmental variables, 
their relationship to the organization, and the appropriateness of the organization's 
response to these variables. Top management also shapes the perceived relationships 
among organization components (Noble, 1999). Top management is largely responsible 
for the determination of organization structure (e.g., information flow, decision-making 
processes, and job assignments). Management must also recognize the existing 
organization culture and leam to work within or change its parameters (Otley, 2001). Top 
management is also responsible for the design and control of the organization's reward 
and incentive systems.
Finally, top management is involved in the design of information systems for the 
organization. In this role, managers influence the environmental variables most likely to 
receive attention in the organization (Sandelands, 1994). They must also make certain 
that information concerning these key variables is available to affected managers. Top- 
level managers must also provide accurate and timely feedback concerning the 
organization's performance and the performance of individual business units within the 
organization. Organization members need information to maintain a realistic view of their 
performance, the performance of the organization, and the organization's relationship to 
the environment.
Managers cannot create coordination mechanisms or integrate strategic and short-term 
operating objectives if job responsibilities and accountability are unclear. Clarifying 
responsibility and accountability is vital to making strategy work. The problem is that
16
job-related responsibilities are not always clear, and even authority is not always 
unambiguous (Parsa, 1999). Responsibility and accountability are often blurred when 
people from different divisions, functions, or hierarchical levels come together to solve a 
problem. Matrix-like structures in global settings marked by lateral, hierarchical, and 
country influences often suffer from a cloudy picture of responsibility, accountability, 
and authority.
To execute strategy, responsibility and accountability must be clear. Use of a 
responsibility matrix or similar tool can help to define key execution tasks or activities 
and the people responsible for them. Without this clarification o f roles and 
responsibilities for critical tasks, decisions, and outcomes, making strategy work is 
difficult, at best. In this context, many organizations are faced with the challenge of lack 
of institution of a two-way-communication program that permits and solicits questions 
from employees about issues regarding the formulated strategy. In addition to inability to 
solicit questions and feedback, lack of communications cause more harm as the 
employees are not told about the new requirements, tasks and activities to be performed 
by the affected employees, and, furthermore, cover the reason behind changed 
circumstances (Alexander, 1985).
It is essential both during and after an organizational change to communicate information 
about organizational developments to all levels in a timely fashion. However, one may 
misunderstand communication, or the sharing of information, as engagement the direct 
dialogue that produces lack of active participants in the process. The way in which a 
strategy is presented to employees is of great influence to their acceptance of it. To deal
17
with this critical situation, an integrated communications plan must be developed. Such a 
plan is an effective vehicle for focusing the employees’ attention on the value of the 
selected strategy to be implemented (Rapa and Kauffman. 2005).
Lares-Mankki (1994) examined the effects o f top management’s practices on employee 
commitment, job satisfaction, and role uncertainty by surveying 862 insurance company 
workers. Five management practices are analyzed: creating and sharing an organizational 
goal, acting as a role model, encouraging creativeness, providing support for employees, 
and allowing employee participation in making job-related decisions. The results indicate 
that there is a strong relationship between top management’s actions and employees' 
attitudes and perceptions.
2.3.3 Coordination Challenges
So far in the review of literature on strategy implementation there is evidence of some 
recurring themes, including coordination which is essential to ensure that people across 
the organisation know what to do and to ensure that they stay focused on the key targets 
under the everyday pressures. Strategic control systems provide a mechanism for keeping 
today's actions in congruence with tomorrow's goals. A1 Ghamdi (1998) replicated the 
work of Alexander (1985) in the UK and found for most of the firms, due to lack of 
coordination, implementation took more time that originally expected and major 
problems surfaced in the companies, again showing planning weaknesses.
Alexander (1985) found the effectiveness of coordination of activities as a problem in 
most of the firms and distractions from competing activities in some cases. In addition
18
key tasks were not defined in enough detail and information systems were inadequate. 
More recent articles confirm notable barriers to successful strategy implementation about 
which there appears to be a degree of accord including Beer and Eisenstat's (2000) who 
assert that silent killers o f strategy implementation comprise unclear strategic intentions 
and conflicting priorities and weak co-ordination across functions.
2.3.4 Cultural Challenges
One of the major challenges in strategy implementation appears to be more cultural and 
behavioral in nature, including the impact of poor integration of activities and diminished 
feelings of ownership and commitment (Aaltonen and Ikavalko, 2002). Corboy and 
O'Corrbui (1999), meanwhile, identify the deadly sins of strategy implementation which 
involve: a lack of understanding o f how the strategy should be implemented; customers 
and staff not fully appreciating the strategy; difficulties and obstacles not acknowledged, 
recognized or acted upon; and ignoring the day-to-day business imperatives.
Marginson (2002) contend that strategy implementation evolves either from a process of
winning group commitment through a coalitional form of decision-making, or as a result
of complete coalitional involvement of implementation staff through a strong corporate
culture. Organizational culture refers to the leadership style of managers -  how they
spend their time, what they focus attention on, what questions they ask o f employees,
how they make decisions; also the organizational culture (the dominant values and
beliefs, the norms, the conscious and unconscious symbolic acts taken by leaders (job
titles, dress codes, executive dining rooms, corporate jets, informal meetings with
employees). In Collaborative Model of strategy implementation, organisations have both
19
a strong culture and deep-rooted traditions. The challenges of successful implementation 
results from lack of cultivation of strong cultural values to meet the changing 
organizational needs. The distinction between “thinkers" and "doers" begins to blur but 
does not totally disappear.
In organizations adopting the cultural model that emphasizes a lower level employee 
participation in both strategy formulation and implementation there is separation of 
"thinkers" and "doers". It seeks to implement strategy through the infusion of corporate 
culture throughout the firm. The cultural model contradicts and challenges the basic 
objectives from the economic perspective of a firm (Parsa, 1999). A "clan-like" (Ouchi, 
1980) organisation is expected to prevail, where a powerful culture results in employees 
aligning their individual goals and behaviors with those of the firm. However, a high 
level of organizational slack is needed to instill and maintain a cultural model. This 
model has several limitations: it assumes well-informed and intelligent participants; firms 
with this model tend to drift and lose focus; cost of change in culture often comes at a 
high price; increased homogeneity can lead to a loss of diversity, and creativity 
consequently (Parsa, 1999).
2.3.5 Resistance to Change
Resistance at its most obvious is a slow motion response to meet agreements or even a
complete refusal to cooperate with change. It can either be intentional or unintentional.
covert or overt (O'Connor, 1993). Burnes (1992) that resistance to change is a critical
issue in all change initiatives because it may lead to a lack of co-operation and
communication among those involved and affected by the change process. Resistance is
20
sometimes portrayed by consultants and managers as the result o f employee weakness, 
and individuals may be stereotyped and called saboteurs, shirkers, dinosaurs, ostriches, 
loony lefties, and loss o f morale, distrust, becoming self-centered, narrow-minded and so 
on (Cascio, 1993). Resistance to change occurs when it creates too much role 
incompatibility for employees. Expecting shop-floor workers to communicate with a 
larger number o f teams and managers in the plant will mean they have to adopt a broader 
role set; that is, they will have to cooperate with various groups and learn to behave and 
respond to different expectations.
In the organizations, employees will often psychologically resist change when it involves 
altering their work values and self-concept; some professionals find marketing and 
administration duties unsatisfying when they take up time that could have been spent 
executing professional work (Whittington, McNulty and Whipp, 1994). Many 
professionals in the public and in the private sector are facing increased responsibility for 
marketing and administration and some of them are unsure how much of their newly 
defined role they should accept their reluctance to change is partly a consequence of their 
occupational commitment to professional work; their unwillingness to take on more 
duties is rarely just a case of irrational resistance (Morris and Pinnington, 1998).
21
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter sets out various stages and phases that are followed in completing the study. 
It involved a blueprint for the collection, measurement and analysis of data. This section 
was an overall scheme, plan or structure conceived to aid the researcher in answering the 
raised research question. In this stage, most decisions about how research was executed 
and how respondents were approached, as well as when, where and how the research was 
completed. Therefore in this section the research identified the procedures and techniques 
that will be used in the collection, processing and analysis of data; the research design, 
study location, target population, sample and sampling technique, data collection and data 
analysis and presentation.
3.2 Research Design
The study was a case study since the unit of analysis was one organization which was the 
Ministry o f Northern Kenya. A case study is an in-depth investigation of an individual, 
institution or phenomenon (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). The primary purpose of a 
case study is to determine factors that have resulted in the behavior under study. It 
enables a researcher to get an in-depth investigation that considers underlying issues. 
Since this study sought to gather in-depth information regarding the practices and 
challenges o f strategy implementation at the Ministry of Northern Kenya and other arid 
areas, the case study design deemed the best approach to fulfill the objectives of the 
study.
22
3.3 Data Collection
In this study, emphasis was given to primary data. The primary data was collected using 
an interview guide. An interview guide is a set of questions that the interviewer asks 
when interviewing (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). It makes it possible to obtain data 
required to meet specific objectives of the study. The interviewees were the top managers 
and functional heads in charge of finance, risk management, information technology and 
operations, human resources, marketing and research division, and public affairs and 
communication division.
The researcher sought to utilize the respondents knowledge since they were more versed 
with strategic issues for it is them that formulate and oversee the implementation of 
strategic decisions and are as a consequence experienced in that area. So as to avoid 
duplicity o f data obtained, the researcher picked 5 officials at the Ministry of Northern 
Kenya. These constituted 1 top manager 2 middle managers and 3 lower level managers. 
The various respondents were drawn from the various departments in the ministry, 
(Operations, Human Resource, Project and coordination department, and Communication 
Departments).
3.4 Data Analysis
The data obtained from the interview guide was analyzed using content analysis. A few
of the Quantitive data was analyzed using (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) SPSS.
Qualitative data analysis makes general statements on how categories or themes of data
are related (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). Content analysis is a method for summarizing
any form of content by counting various aspects of the content. Content analysis is the
23
systematic qualitative description o f the composition o f the objects or materials of the 
study (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). It involves observation and detailed description of 
objects, items or things that comprise the object of study (Cooper and Schindler, 2003). 
The themes (variables) that are to be used in the analysis are broadly classified into two: 
factors influencing strategy implementation and challenges in strategy implementation.
24
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATIONS AND
DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
This section provides the data analysis, interpretation and findings. The main objectives 
of this study were to establish the challenges of strategy implementation at the ministry of 
Northern Kenya and other arid areas and: to establish measures taken/areas that were 
demanding to overcome challenges of strategy implementation at the ministry of 
Northern Kenya and other arid areas.
4.2 Qualitative Analysis on challenges of strategy implementation at the Ministry of 
Northern Kenya
The head of strategy also reported that the organization maintains a manual on how to 
implement the strategy. The study also found that divisional policies on implementation 
are updated on regular basis and also when the need arises.
It was also found that the division policy were very relevant to the current company 
activities. All the divisions concerned have to contribute to the creation and review of 
policy documentation. Some or all of these departments concerned play a significant role 
in the management of the situation. If relevant departments have not given their 
endorsement for a policy, the policy is sure to experience problems during 
implementation.
25
4.2.1 Top Management Support
The study also found from the head o f strategy that the employees, board of directors and 
the management were supportive o f the policy development and implementation. Having 
the support o f these members, the implementation process was made easier due to the 
teamwork and spirit and also the employees felt that they were fully accepted in the 
organization and therefore the implementation process was made much more effective 
and efficient.
The head of strategy also reported that the company had the financial capacity to 
implement strategies formulated. He then stated that there was always a budget set aside 
for the implementation o f strategies and therefore the ministry had the capacity to 
implement the strategies formulated. The board members and management were also 
very committed in providing financial resources to support the implementation ot 
strategy initiatives as the budget for this is always set aside.
It was also clear from the study that the board of directors and employees were motivated 
to support the strategic initiatives. If the board of directors and the employees are well 
motivated, they will give maxim um cooperation and support and therefore smoothening 
the process of strategic implementation. This is consistent with Rapa and Kauffman 
(2005) where they suggest that senior level managers must not spare any effort to 
persuade the employees of their ideas.
The current organization structure was also appropriate to support the implementation of
strategic initiatives. Implementing a new strategy often required new resources and skills
for new activities. An organization cannot afford a mismatch between strategy and
26
structure, since a mismatch can lead to poor strategy implementation. Just as the 
organization's strategy needs to change with changing external environment, so must the 
structure change for proper strategy implementation. Once a strategy has been chosen, 
structure must be modified to fit the strategy.
4.2.2 Co-ordination
Respondents also argued that improper coordination of the activities in the ministry leads 
to misunderstanding of tasks related to strategy assigned to the staff. But this human 
resources manager said that the presence of such a division in the ministry is always 
aware of its coordination assignments meant to align individual tasks in the ministry. 
From the study, the head of strategy reported that before implementing the chosen 
strategies, two processes always help. First, everyone in the Organization should 
understand broadly the company strategy for ease of the coordination process, and what it 
means for their actions. This ensures that the actions that they take day to day are geared 
towards the company's strategic objectives. Secondly, each individual should be charged 
and evaluated with undertaking key actions that will further the company's strategy. 
Implementation, translating strategy into action is the last and most important aspect of 
company strategy. If it is done correctly, you will create an Organization that is devoted 
to the creation of customer value and competitive advantage.
Other respondents also reported that the available human resource in the organization was
very capable in managing and implementing new strategic direction they possessed the
necessary skills and knowledge and also they had all the necessary management skills.
Due to poor coordination sometimes, most of the respondents admitted that the staff
27
sometimes disagrees on new arrangements and plans as directed by the senior managers 
therefore failing to achieve in some areas.
4.2.3 Communication
The IT department always ensures that the right channels of communication are used. 
Internal memos, meeting, messaging, direct delegations, notice board, emailing; were all 
referred to as the various means managers get work done in the ministry. Respondents 
indicated that communication was a core determinant in the strategy implementation 
process. Where communication between employees and the managers, is effective there 
is effective way on the issuance of strategic directions. This finding agrees with (Miniace 
and Falter, 1996) where their study points out that communication is a key success factor 
within strategy implementation
4.2.4 Culture
Respondents also reported that the ministry has staffs that come from different tribes and
societies hence with diversities related to language, beliefs and traditions. The human
resources manager and the project manager indicated that there is a policy in place to
manage culture including sections in the main ministerial policy. Most of the respondents
also indicated that culture and other determinants of culture and social beliefs are never
allowed by the management to interfere with the activities related to strategies
implementation in the ministry. This results are in harmony with Marginson (2002)
contend that strategy implementation evolves either from a process of winning group
commitment through a coalitional form of decision-making, or as a result of complete
coalitional involvement of implementation staff through a strong corporate culture.
28
4.2.5 Resistance to Change
The staffs were prepared for organization change as they were trained in advance on the 
importance o f organization change, the top management and the board of directors also 
supported the organizational change. According to the human resources manager, 
whenever some resistance to change is experienced, the management in the ministry are 
always ready to engage consultants for restructuring process. On resistance, most of the 
respondents admitted that the staff sometimes disagrees on new arrangements and plans 
as directed by the senior managers therefore failing to achieve in some areas. Bumes 
(1992) is consistent with this phenomenon where he states that resistance to change is a 
critical issue in all change initiatives because it may lead to a lack of co-operation and 
communication among those involved and affected by the change process.
4.3 Areas that the Ministry of Northern Kenya need to give more attention in order 
to enhance an effective strategy implementation process
The researcher also requested the respondents to suggest the areas that ministry of 
northern Kenya Management need to give more attention in order to enhance an effective 
and an efficient strategy implementation process. From the findings, the respondents 
suggested that the top managers in the ministry of northern Kenya should support the 
strategy implementation process, the companies should also involve the stall in the 
strategy implementation process, there should be continuous monitoring ot internal and 
external (environment) if  the strategy implementation process is to be made much more 
effective, the companies should also create a strategic atmosphere that foresters a team 
spirit during the process and also clear direction and purpose of the implementation
29
process should be well stated. These suggestions are of the same opinion with the Seven 
(7s) Model of the Strategy Process which posits that Managers, need to take account of 
all seven of the factors to be sure o f  successful implementation of a strategy- large or 
small. They're all interdependent, so if you fail to pay proper attention to one of them, it 
can bring the others crashing down around you
30
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
The following chapter presents the summary, conclusions and recommendations of the 
study based on the study objectives which were to establish the challenges of strategy 
implementation at the ministry of Northern Kenya and other arid areas and; to establish 
measures taken/areas that were demanding to overcome challenges of strategy 
implementation at the ministry of Northern Kenya and other arid areas.
5.2 Summary of Findings
From the study, the researcher found that divisions maintained a policy manual on how to 
implement divisional policies. Maintenance of a policy manual helped in updating the 
implemented policies from time to time or when need arises, it eliminated the need to 
dedicate valuable time to researching and collecting information on implementation of 
strategies, it enhanced selection o f appropriate strategies, it helped in revising and fine- 
tuning the implemented strategies and also the divisions maintained Policy Manual to 
eliminate the guesswork. The study also found that the strategy implementation in the 
department was updated regularly. Most of the functional heads also reported that the 
strategy implementation in their departments was updated annually.
5.2.1 Top Management Support
The researcher also found from most of the respondents (75%) that the divisions had 
financial capacity to implement the departmental strategies formulated. The head of 
strategy explained that there was always a budget set aside for the implementation of
31
strategies formulated and therefore there was financial capacity in the divisions to 
implement the departmental strategies formulated.
It was also clear from the study that the most important factor in supporting strategy 
implementation in the organization was the involvement o f superiors. Involvement of the 
staff members and involvement of board of directors was also found to be important in 
supporting the strategy implementation. The head of strategy explained that the 
management, board of directors and the employees were supportive of the strategy 
implementation process. The made the process much more easy due to the teamwork and 
spirit and also the employees felt that they were fully accepted in the organization and 
therefore the implementation process was made much more effective and efficient.
The study also established that the board of directors and the employees were motivated 
in order to support the strategy implementation process. This was because by motivating 
the board of directors and the employees they will give maximum cooperation and 
support and therefore smoothening the process of strategic implementation.
The respondents therefore suggested that the areas that Ministry of Northern Kenya need
to give more attention in order to enhance an effective and an efficient strategy
implementation process that the top managers in the ministry should support the strategy
implementation process, the companies should also involve the staff in the strategy
implementation process, there should be continuous monitoring of internal and external
(environment) if the strategy implementation process is to be made much more effective,
the companies should also create a strategic atmosphere that foresters a team spirit during
the process and also clear direction and purpose of the implementation process should be
32
well stated. Therefore, top managers must demonstrate their willingness to give energy 
and loyalty to the implementation process which demonstrable commitment becomes, at 
the same time, a positive signal for all the affected organizational members (Rapa and 
Kauffman, 2005).
5.2.2 Communication
Respondents indicated that communication was a core determinant in the strategy 
implementation process. Where communication between employees and the managers, is 
effective there is effective way on the issuance of strategic directions. This is true as 
Falter (1996) asserted that communicating with employees concerning issues related to 
the strategy implementation should be frequently done. The study also argued that one of 
the reasons why strategy implementation processes frequently result in difficult and 
complex problems -  or even fail at all -  is the vagueness ol the assignment ot 
responsibilities.
5.2.3 Coordination Challenges
The human resource available in the organization was also capable in managing and 
implementing as part of the coordination activity on the new strategic direction as they 
had the necessary management skills required in managing and implementing the 
strategic direction. Effective coordination always accelerates strategy implementation. A1 
Ghamdi (1998) replicated the work of Alexander (1985) in the UK and found for most of 
the firms, due to lack of coordination, implementation took more time that originally 
expected and major problems surfaced in the companies, again showing planning 
weaknesses.
33
5.2.4 Cultural Challenges
Finally, the study established that most of the respondents also indicated that culture and 
other determinants of culture and social beliefs are never allowed by the management to 
interfere with the activities related to strategies implementation in the ministry. 
Marginson (2002) confirms in the collaborative Model o f strategy implementation, that 
organisations have both a strong culture and deep-rooted traditions. The challenges of 
successful implementation results from lack of cultivation of strong cultural values to 
meet the changing organizational needs.
5.2.5 Resistance to Change
On resistance, most of the respondents admitted that the staff sometimes disagrees on 
new arrangements and plans as directed by the senior managers therefore tailing to 
achieve in some areas. This confirms with the literature by Bumes (1992) that resistance 
to change is a critical issue in all change initiatives because it may lead to a lack of co­
operation and communication among those involved and affected by the change process.
5.3 Conclusions of the study.
From the study, the researcher concluded that the challenges that influence strategy
implementation in Ministry of Northern Kenya were financial capacity of the
organization, top management support, involvement of board of directors and the
employees in the strategic implementation process, appropriate organization structure and
also motivating them and capability of the human resource in the organization in
managing and implementing new strategic direction. The study also concluded that the
effect of strategy implementation and performance in the ministry was that the need to
34
attain a competitive advantage over other ministries dependent on strategy 
implementation and performance.
5.3.1 Top management
The study concludes that top management support is critical in the strategy 
implementation process. Without the board members, managers (top, lower and middle 
level) the process o f strategy implementation cannot be achieved leading to its failure.
5.3.2 Communication
The study also concludes that effective communication process must be put in place if the 
ministry or any other organization has the interest of its strategy success. A situation 
where management staff and other employees are free to interact always creates an 
atmosphere for good communication where every problem or progress can be addressed.
5.3.3 Coordination
This study concludes that the coordination of activities in the ministry is effective since 
every department is supportive of the other and that the human resource management 
department is the overall responsible of the coordination ot the ministry activities.
5.3.4 Culture
The study concludes that culture can sometimes be a barrier to the strategy success of any 
organization. The study also concludes that culture related to language, practices, beliefs, 
traditions should well be managed by the organization to avoid crisis related to them. 
Staffs only adopt one culture of the organization which creates a competitive advantage 
as well as enhancing organizational performance respectively.
35
5.3.5 Resistance to change
The study also concludes that resistance to change sometimes leads to a healthy 
workplace and may move a long way to enhancing strategy implementation success. 
Unhealthy resistance to change like illegal strikes by the staff may lead to failure in 
strategy implementation success.
5.4 Recommendations for Policy and Practice.
From the discussions and the conclusions, the researcher recommends that for an efficient 
and effective implementation process senior management must at all levels be involved 
and committed throughout the process, departmental employees should be provided with 
a sound understanding of the forthcoming changes and o f the new way ot understanding, 
preparation must be done as much as possible before embarking on full implementation; 
and also the organization must ensure that there are sufficient resources for the transition 
and that the top manager and the board of directors are empowered to make the 
necessary decisions. The study also recommends that the communication process be 
reinforced with a policy that will govern the activities related to enhance the 
implementation o f strategies in the ministry.
5.5 Limitations of the Study.
This study was limited only to 5 staff in the Ministry o f Northern Kenya. This therefore 
means that the findings reflecting in this study are a generalization of the challenges that 
influence strategy implementation in any other organization. If many organizations/ 
ministries were involved, then the results would clearly bring the effects of the challenges
more clearly.
36
5.6 Suggestions for Further Research.
This study suggests that further studies be undertaken even in other ministries to find out 
whether the same results would be obtained. More study on the same factors need to be 
undertaken so as to establish the strength of effect of each. Regression and correlation 
analysis may be used to establish the relationship between the variables.
37
REFERENCES
Aaltonen, P., Ikavalko, H. (2002), Implementing strategies successfully, Integrated 
M anufacturing Systems, Vol. 13 No.6, pp.415-18
A1 Ghamdi, S.M. (1998), Obstacles to successful implementation of strategic decisions: 
the British experience, European Business Review, Vol. 98 No.6, pp.322-7.
Alexander. L.D (1991), Strategy implementation: nature of the problem. International
Review o f  Strategic M anagement, Vol. 2 No.l, pp.73-91.
Alexander, L.D. (1985), successfully implementing strategic decisions. Long Range 
Planning, Vol. 18No.3, Pp.91-7
Anderson. P.F. (1982), ‘Marketing, strategic planning and the theory of the firm’, Journal 
o f  M arketing, Vol. 46 No.2, Pp. 15-26
Ansoff, H.l. (1999), Implanting Strategic Management, Prentice Hall, Cambridge, United 
Kingdom
Balogun. J. (2003), From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: creating change 
intermediaries, British Journal o f  Management, Vol. 14 pp.69-83.
Bartlett, C.A and Ghoshal, S. (1987), Managing across borders: new strategic 
requirements, Sloan M anagement Review, Vol. 28 No.2, pp.7-17.
Bartlett, C.A., Goshal, S. (1996), Release the entrepreneurial hostages from your 
corporate hierarchy. Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 24 No.4, pp.36-42
38
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., Spector, B. (1990), Why change programs don't produce 
change. H arvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No.6, pp. 158-66
Bourgeois, L.J., and Brodwin. D.R. (1984), “Strategic implementation: five approaches to 
an elusive phenomenon". Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 pp.241-64.
Casciom W.F. (1993). Downsizing: what do we kNow? What have we learned? Academy 
o f  M anagem ent Executive. Vol.7, No.l, pp.95-104.
Chakravarthy. B.S., White, R.E. (2001), Strategy process: forming, implementing and 
changing strategies, in Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H., Whittington, R. 
(Eds) J iandhook o f  Strategy a nd  Management, Sage Publications, London,
Cooper, D.R and Schindler, P.S. (2003). Business Research Methods (8th edn), McGraw- 
Hill: New York
Corboy, M and O'Corrbui, D. (1999). The seven deadly sins of strategy, Management 
Accounting, No.November, pp.29-30.
Drazin, R and Howard, P. (1984). “Strategy implementation: a technique for 
organizational design", Journal o f  Management Studies, Vol. 34 No.3, pp.465-85.
Eisenstat, R. (1993). Implementing strategy: developing a partnership for change. 
Planning Review, Vol. 21 No.5, pp.33-6.
Beer. M. and Eisenstat, R (2000). The silent killers o f strategy implementation and
learning, S lo a n  M anagem ent R ev iew , Vol. 41 No.4, pp.29-40.
39
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., Spector, B. (1990), Why change programs don't produce 
change. H arvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No.6, pp. 158-66
Bourgeois. L.J., and Brodwin. D.R. (1984), ‘Strategic implementation: five approaches to 
an elusive phenomenon’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 pp.241-64.
Casciom W.F. (1993). Downsizing: what do we kNow? What have we learned? Academy 
o f  M anagem ent Executive. Vol.7, No.l, pp.95-104.
Chakravarthy, B.S., White, R.E. (2001), Strategy process: forming, implementing and 
changing strategies, in Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H., Whittington, R. 
(Eds),H andhook o f  Strategy and  Management, Sage Publications, London,
Cooper, D.R and Schindler, P.S. (2003). Business Research Methods (8th edn), McGraw- 
Hill: New York
Corboy, M and O'Corrbui. D. (1999). The seven deadly sins of strategy, Management 
Accounting, No.November, pp.29-30.
Drazin, R and Howard. P. (1984). ‘Strategy implementation: a technique for 
organizational design', Journal o f  Management Studies, Vol. 34 No.3, pp.465-85.
Eisenstat, R. (1993). Implementing strategy: developing a partnership for change. 
Planning Review, Vol. 21 No.5, pp.33-6.
Beer. M, and Eisenstat, R (2000). The silent killers o f strategy implementation and
learning, S lo a n  M anagem ent R eview , Vol. 41 No.4, pp.29-40.
39
Floyd. S.W and Wooldridge, B. (2000). Building Strategy From the Middle: 
Reconceptualizing the Strategy Process, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA ,.
Galpin, T.J (1998). When leaders really walk the talk: m aking strategy work through 
people. H um an Resource Planning, Vol. 21 No.3, pp.38-45
Giles. W.D (1991), M aking strategy w ork, Long Range Planning, Vol. 24 No.5, pp.75-91.
Grant, R.M. (2002). Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques,
Applications. Blackwell, O xford,.
Gupta, A.K and Govindarajan, V. (1984). ‘Business unit strategy, managerial 
characteristics and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation’, 
Academ y o f  Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp.25-41
Homburg, C., Workman, J.P., Jensen, O. (2000). ‘Fundamental changes in marketing 
organization: the movement towards a customer-focused organizational structure’, 
Journal o f  the Academy o f  M arketing Science, Vol. 28 No.4, pp.459-78.
Hooley, G.J., Lynch. J.E., Jobber, D. (1992). ‘Generic marketing strategies’, 
International Journal o f  Research in Marketing, Vol. 9 pp.75-89.
Huse, M., Gabrielsson, J. (2004). ‘Past trends and future challenges in research on boards 
and governance’: a review o f  major management journals between 1990-2002, 
paper presented at 4th EURAM  Annual Conference, St Andrews, 5-9 May.
Jauch, L., and Glueck.W.. (1984). Business Policy and Strategic Management, McGraw- 
Hill. Inc., Fourth Edition
40
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K (2002). Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice Hall, 6th 
Edition
Jung, C.G. (1923). Psychological Types, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London,.
Kamanda C. (2006). Factors Influencing the Regional Growth Strategy at KCB, 
Unpublished MBA Project, School of Business, University o f Nairobi
Lares-Mankki, L (1994). Strategy Implementation Bottlenecks: Identification, Analysis 
and Removal. Lappeenranta University o f Technology, Lappeenranta,.
Lewin, A.Y and Volberda, H.W. (1999). Prolegomena on coevolution: a fram ew ork fo r  
research on strategy and new  organizational form s. Organization Science, Vol. 
10 No.5, pp.519-34.
Marginson, D.E.W. (2002), ‘Management control systems and their effects on strategy 
formation at middle management levels: evidence from a UK organisation , 
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 pp. 1019-31
Miller, D. (2002), ‘Successful change leaders: what makes them? What do they do that is 
different?’, Journal o f  Change Management, Vol. 2 No.4, pp.359-68
Miller, S and Wilson, D., Hickson, D. (2004). Beyond planning strategies fo r  successfully 
implementing strategic decisions. Long Range Planning, Vol. 37 No. I. pp.201-18.
Miller, S. (1987), ‘Strategy making and structure: analysis and implications for 
performance'. Academy o f  Management Journal, Vol. 30 No.l, pp.7-32.
41
Miniace. J.N., Falter, E. (1996). Communication: a key factor in strategy implementation. 
Planning Review, Vol. 24 pp.26-30..
Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Prentice- 
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Moorman, C and Miner, A.S. (1998), ‘The convergence of planning and execution: 
improvisation in new product development', Journal o f  Marketing, Vol. 62 pp.l-
20.
Morris, T. J. and Pinnington. A. H. (1998). Promotion to partner in professional firms. 
Human Relations, Vol.51, N o.l, pp.3-24
Mugenda M. O. and Mugenda A. (1999). Research Methods: Qualitative and 
Quantitative Approaches, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi, 
Kenya.
Mugenda, O.M and Mugenda, A.G (2003). Research Methods, Quantitative & 
Qualitative Approaches, Acts Press, Nairobi
Muturi J.G. (2005). Strategic Responses by Christian Churches in Kenya to Changes in 
the External Environment, A Case of Evangelical Churches in Nairobi, 
Unpublished MBA Project, School of Business, University of Nairobi
Ngechu. M. (2004). Understanding the research process and methods. An introduction to 
research methods. Acts Press, Nairobi.
42
Noble. C.H. (1999). ‘The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research'. Journal o f  
Business Research . Vol. 45 No.2, pp.l 19-35
Nutt. P.C. (1995), ‘Implementation style and use of implementation approaches'. 
International Journal o f  M anagement Science, Vol. 23 No.5, pp.469-84
O'ConNor. C.A. (1993). Resistance: The repercussions of change. Leadership & 
O rganization Development Journal. Vol. 14, No.6, p.30.
Okumus, F. (1999), Strategy implementation: a study o f international hotel groups, 
Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.. Unpublished PhD  thesis,.
Okumus, F., Roper, A. (1998). Great strategy, shame about the implementation! 
Proceeding of the 7th Annual Hospitality Research Conference (CHME), 
Glasgow, 14-16 April, pp.218-36
Olson, E.M., Slater, S.F., Huh, G.T.M. (2005). The importance o f structure and  process 
to strategy implementation, Business Horizons, Vol. 48 pp.47-54.
Otley, D. (2001). Extending the boundaries of management accounting research: 
developing systems for performance management, British Accounting Review, 
Vol. 33 pp.243-61.
Ouchi, W.G. (1980. Markets, bureaucracies and clans, Administrative Science Quarterly, 
Vol. 25 pp. 129-41.
43
Parsa. H.G. (1999), 'Interaction o f strategy implementation and power perceptions in 
franchise systems: an empirical investigation'. Journal o f  Business Research, Vol. 
45 pp. 173-85.
Pearce, J.A. and Robinson. R.B. (2007). Strategic Management: Strategy Formulation 
and Implementation. Third Edition, Richard D. Irwin Inc
Pettigrew. A., Ferlie, E„ McKee, L. (1992). Shaping Strategic Change, Sage, London
Porter, M.E. (1996), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and 
Competitors, Free Press, New York, NY
Quinn, B. (1980). Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Irwin, Homewood 111, 
1980.
Rapa, A. and Kauffman, D (2005). Strategy implementation -  an insurmountable 
obstacle?. Handbook of Business Strategy, Volume 6, Number 1, pp 141-146
Rapert, M.L., Velliquette, A., Garretson, J.A. (2002). ‘The strategic implementation 
process: evoking strategic consensus through communication , Journal of 
Business Research, Vol. 55 pp.301-10.
Redding. J.C., Catalanello, R.C. (1994), Strategic Readiness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 
C A ,.
Reed, R. and Buckley, R.M. (1988). Strategy in action: techniques for implementing 
strategy. Long Range Planning, Vol. 21 No.3, pp.67-74.
44
C
Sandelands, E. (1994). All talk and no action? Perish the thought. Management Decision. 
Vol. 32 No.5,pp. 10-11.
Situma S. (2006). A Study of the Turnaround Strategy Adopted at KCB. Unpublished 
MBA Project, School of Business, University of Nairobi
Tavakoli, I and Perks, K.J. (2001). The development of a strategic control system for the 
management of strategic change. Strategic Change, Vol. 10 pp.297-305.
Thompson, S., (1993). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, New York: Prentice 
Hall
Webster. F.E. (1992).'The changing role of marketing in the corporation’. Journal of 
Marketing, Vol. 56 pp.29-39.
Whittington, R.. McNulty, T,.and Whipp, R. (1994). Market-driven change in 
professional service: problems and processes. Journal o f  M anagement Studies, 
Vol.31, No.6, November, pp.829-45
Workman. J.P. (1993). ‘Marketing's limited role in new product development in one 
computer systems firm’. Journal o f  Marketing Research, Vol. 30 pp.405-21.
45
APPENDIX 1: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
Dear Respondent;
I am a master's student at the University of Nairobi pursuing a degree course in business 
administration (MBA). As part of my course work. I am required to undertake a research 
study on “ Challenges of strategy implementation in the Ministry of Northern Kenya ". 
Kindly feel free to participate in this study as you provide the relevant information 
pertaining the research study. Your responses will be treated with utmost confidentiality 
and for academic purposes only.
Thank you in advance
Timothy Mwangi
46
APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW GUIDE
Name (Optional)
1. Department/Division
Finance [ ]
Risk Management [ ]
Information Technology [ 1
Operations [ 1
Human Resources [ 1
Marketing and Research Division [ ]
Public Affairs [ ]
Communication Division [ ]
2. Level o f Education
Masters [ ]
Undergraduate [ ]
Secondary [ ]
Any other, (please indicate)
47
3. How does your organization go about implementing the chosen strategies?
4. How relevant is the ministry of Northern Kenya s policies to current activities?
5. What is the most important thing when implementing strategies in the 
organization?
6. How often are the policies on strategy updated in your department?
7. Does your division maintain a policy manual on how to implement strategies? 
Please elaborate
8. What are the important factors supporting strategy implementation Ministry ot 
Northern Kenya?
9. Please indicate the area that the management need to give more attention in order 
to enhance an effective and an efficient strategy implementation process
10. How are the following supportive of policy development and implementation? 
Employees
Board of directors 
The management
48
11. How appropriate is the current organizational structure to support the 
implementation of strategic initiatives?
12. How does commitment affect strategy implementation at Ministry o f Northern 
Kenya?
13. What could be the major cause o f lack of commitment of the people involved in 
strategy implementations Ministry of Northern Kenya ?
14. Which areas of strategic management are affected by challenges ot commitment 
amongst the participants of strategy implementation at Ministry ot Northern 
Kenya?
15. What causes delays in communicating with employees concerning issues related 
to the strategy implementation?
16. In your own opinion, how does coordination of activities at feet strategy 
implementation Ministry of Northern Kenya?
17. How does the organizational culture affect strategy implementation in the 
organization?
18. Which specific issues about organization culture pose a challenge in GAPP 
strategy implementation at Ministry of Northern Kenya?
19. How does the Ministry of Northern Kenya deal with challenges of organizational 
culture in the affecting strategy implementation process?
49
20. Suggest the possible measures that could also be implemented to counter the 
challenges of strategy implementation at Ministry of Northern Kenya?
21. Does this organization experience resistance to change in any way? Describe.
22. What are the various causes of the resistance?
23. What strategies have been put in place to control resistance to change in this 
organization?
THANK YOU
50