FACTORS INFLUENCING STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION 
AMONG LOCAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN 
NAIROBI, KENYA 
MUEMA ENOCH KIINDU 
A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL 
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD 
OF DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, 
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI 
AUGUST, 2012 
DECLARATION 
This research project is my original work and has not been submitted for examination 
in any other university. 
Signature... 
Date 
MUEMA ENOCH KIINDU 
D61/75308/2009 
This research project has been submitted for examination with my permission as 
supervisor. 
DR. JUSTUS MUNYOKI 
SENIOR LECTURER 
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS 
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI 
ii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
I am highly indebted to my supervisor, Dr. Justus Munyoki for his guidance and 
invaluable support towards this project. His constructive criticism, careful guidance 
and patience enabled me to complete the project in time. He never accepted less than 
my best efforts. Thank you. 
Special thanks go to those who agreed to fill the questionnaires for without your time 
and cooperation, this project would not have been possible. Many thanks and 
appreciations also go to the proposal presentation panel and colleagues who were 
present during the presentation of this project proposal. 
Finally, and most especially, I sincerely thank God who made all things possible. 
i i i 
DEDICATION 
\ 
I dedicate this research project to my lovely son Ethan Kito who was born during the 
project proposal presentation and to his mum Sophie; my dear wife who has been a 
great source of inspiration and joy in my daily endeavors to better my best. 
/ 
i v 
ABSTRACT 
Strategy implementation is understood as one of the most difficult business challenges 
facing today's managers. The challenges can be ascribed to several reasons among 
them ever changing external environment, inadequacy of resources and inappropriate 
organizational systems among others, despite the neglect by academicians and 
consultants. No known study has been done on factors influencing strategy 
implementation among local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Nairobi. 
This study therefore sought to fill this gap by investigating the factors influencing 
strategy implementation among local NGOs in the city of Nairobi. The study used 
cross sectional survey research design. The target population of the study was the 
local NGOs in Nairobi amounting to 2252 registered local NGOs in Nairobi district. 
The study used stratified random sampling technique to select a sample of 100 local 
NGOs in Nairobi. Data was collected using structured questionnaire while data 
analysis was done using descriptive statistics. From the findings, the study concluded 
that the major factors influencing strategy implementation in NGOs in Nairobi are 
poor communication; lack of commitment of top management to strategy 
implementation, poor leadership style of managers, inadequate funds, limited human 
resource stills, economic forces and pressure from donors. The study recommends 
that the management should ensure that they employ and deploy qualified and 
competent individuals. The NGOs should implement approaches such as effective 
reward management systems meant to enhance manager's commitment. The NGOs 
should improve integrated communications plans to improve strategy implementation. 
v 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
DECLARATION ii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii 
DEDICATION iv 
ABSTRACT v 
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi 
LIST OF TABLES ix 
LIST OF FIGURES x 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 
1.1 Background of the Study 1 
1.1.1 The Concept of Strategy 3 
1.1.2 Strategy Implementation 4 
1.1.3 Factors Influencing Strategy Implementation 5 
1.1.4 Local Non-Governmental Organizations in Nairobi Kenya 7 
1.2 Research Problem 8 
1.3 Research Objective 10 
1.4 Value of the Study 10 
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 12 
2.1 Introduction 12 
2.2 Strategic Management Theory and Practice 12 
2.3 Implementation of Strategy 14 
2.4 Challenges of Strategy Implementation 15 
2.5 Measures to Deal With Strategy Implementation Challenges 20 
v i 
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 23 
3.1 Introduction 23 
3.2 Research Design 23 
3.3 Population 23 
3.4 Sample Design 23 
3.5 Data Collection 24 
3.6 Data Analysis 24 
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS 
26 
4.1 Introduction 26 
/ 
4.2 Demographic Information 26 
4.3 Factors Influencing Strategy Implementation among Local NGOs in Nairobi 
32 
4.3.1 Organizational Level Where Challenges in Strategy 
Implementation are Faced 32 
4.3.2 Commitment by Top Management on Strategy Implementation...33 
4.3.3 Communication Process in Strategy Implementation 34 
4.3.4 Coordination of Activities in Strategy Implementation 35 
4.3.5 Organizational Inappropriate Systems 36 
4.3.6 Inadequacy of Resources in Strategy Implementation 37 
4.3.7 Macro-environmental Forces Effects in Strategy Implementation8 
4.3.8 Operating Environmental Forces 38 
v i i 
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 40 
5.1 Introduction...... 40 
5.2 Summary 40 
5.3 Conclusion 42 
5.4 Recommendations 43 
5.4.1 Recommendations with Policy Implications 43 
5.4.2 Recommendation for Further Research 45 
5.5 Implications of the Study on Policy, Theory and Practice 45 
REFERENCES 47 
APPENDICES i 
Appendix I: Letter of Introduction i 
Appendix II: Questionnaire ii 
Section A: Demographic Information ii 
Section B: Factors Influencing Strategy Implementation among Local NGOs 
in Nairobi iv 
v i i i 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table 4.1: Job Designation 27 
Table 4.2: Highest Level of Education 28 
Table 4.3: Number of Years of Existence of NGOs 29 
Table 4.4: Nature of NGOs 31 
Table 4.5: Organizational Levels 32 
Table 4.6: Commitment by Senior Management on Strategy Implementation 33 
Table 4.7: Role of Communication in Strategy Implementation 34 
Table 4.8: Coordination of Activities in Strategy Implementation 35 
Table 4.9: Organizational Features that Affect Strategy Implementation 36 
Table 4.10: Inadequacy of Resources in Strategy Implementation 37 
/ 
Table 4.11: Macro-environmental Forces and Strategy Implementation 38 
Table 4.12: Operating Environmental Forces 39 
i x 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 4.1: Working Duration 27 
Figure 4.2: Number of Employees 30 
Figure 4.3: Ownership Structure of Organization 31 
x 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 
1.1 Background of the Study 
Strategic management is the art, science and craft of formulating, implementing and 
evaluating cross-functional decisions that will enable an organization to achieve its 
long-term objective (Thompson and Strickland, 2003). Strategic management seeks to 
provide solutions to these issues by maintaining a long term focus to anticipate and 
deal with issues facing the organization with a view of long term growth, profitability 
and survival (Robbins and Coulter 2004). Strategy of an organization is the roadmap 
towards attainment of its long term goals and objectives. Today's global competitive 
environment is complex, dynamic, and largely unpredictable. To deal with this 
unprecedented level of change, a lot of thinking has gone into the issue of how 
strategies are best formulated. Complexity in the global environment is a product of 
contextual factors such as technological advances, diverse social and economic 
change, and political upheavals. More directly, for the firm complexity is intensified 
by the scope of its operations in global markets, at different levels of the value chain 
and how they are arrayed across markets, the interlinking and interdependences 
between markets, and the increased blurring of product market boundaries, both 
functionally and geographically. 
As noted by Thompson & Strickland (2003), the cornerstone of strategy 
implementation is building an organization capable of carrying out the strategy 
successfully. Strategic formulation includes the setting of the mission, goals and 
objectives for the organization, the analysis of the external environment as it affects 
the organization, together with its internal resources and the choice of strategic 
alternatives. K a p l a n & Norton (2001) see the ability to execute the strategy as an 
1 
even bigger management challenge than determining the right vision and the quality 
of the strategy itself. They point to the importance of adequate performance 
management systems as a critical success factor for implementing strategies. More 
and more companies are acknowledging that performance measurement systems need 
a focus, by linking them to the strategy of the organization. Many academicians and 
performance management consultants see a solution in new performance 
measurement systems. These initiatives perhaps seem to be attractive but there is still 
a lack of integration. 
There are different aspects of strategic management, and to a greater extend all these 
aspects are relevant for most organization. However different aspects will be more 
important in some context and in some organizations than in others (Johnson & 
/Scholes, 2005). Of interest in this study is the not-for-profit sector with emphasis in 
the non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In this sector, the underlying values and 
ideology will be of central significance and play a vital role in strategy development 
and implementation. In such organizations, the sources of funds may be diverse and 
are quite likely not to be direct beneficiaries of the services offered. Nonetheless the 
principles of competitive strategy still hold. The fact that multiple sources of the 
donors, might also lead to a high incidence of political lobbying, difficulties in clear 
strategic planning and implementation, and a requirement to hold decision making 
and responsibility at the centre, where it is answerable to external influences rather 
than delegate it within the organization. This creates a great extend of impedance to 
the process of strategy implementation. 
2 
1.1.1 The Concept of Strategy 
Strategy can be defined as the direction and scope of an organization that ideally 
matches the results of its changing environment and in particular its markets and 
customers so as to meet stakeholder expectation (Johnson & Scholes, 2002). 
According to Greenley (2006), 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. 
Strategy is a multi-dimensional concept and various authors have defined strategy in 
different ways. It is the match between an organization's resources, skills and the 
environmental opportunities as well as the risks it faces and the purposes it wishes to 
accomplish (Quinn, 1993). It is meant to provide guidance and direction for the 
activities of the organization. Since strategic decisions influence the way 
organizations respond to their environment, it is very important for a firm to make 
strategic plans and define strategy in terms of it function to the environment. 
The purpose of strategy is to provide directional cues to the organization that permit it 
to achieve its objectives while responding to the opportunities and threats in the 
environment (Pearce and Robinson, 2007). Mintzberg (2003) perceive strategy as a 
pattern or a plan that integrates organization's major goals, policies and action into a 
cohesive whole. Porter (2004) 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. 
3 
According to Pearce & Robinson (2007), strategy is defined as the company's "game 
plan" which results in future oriented plans interacting with the competitive 
environment to achieve the company's objectives. This definition of strategy is 
important in this study as it reflects competitiveness in the environment and the game 
plan aspects, which organizations put into place to be able to compete effectively. 
1.1.2 Strategy Implementation 
Strategy implementation involves organization of the firm's resources and motivation 
of the staff to achieve objectives .Implementation is defined as the phase in which 
systems and procedures are put in place to collect and process the data that enable the 
measurements to be made regularly (Drazin and Howard, 2002). This process 
includes the various management activities that are necessary to put strategy in 
motion, institute strategic controls that monitor progress, and ultimately achieve 
organizational goals. According to Raps and Kauffman (2005), the implementation 
process covers the entire managerial activities including such matters as motivation, 
compensation, management appraisal and control processes which entail cascading 
strategy to all functional areas in such a way as to achieve both vertical and horizontal 
logic and enhance implementation of policies. 
As pointed out by Galbraith and Schendel (2002), almost all the management 
functions-planning, controlling, organizing, motivating, leading, directing, 
integrating, communicating and innovations are in some degree applied in the 
implementation process. Hendry and Kiel (2004) also explain that to effectively direct 
and control the use of the firm's resources, mechanisms such as organizational 
structure, information systems, leadership styles, assignment of key managers, 
4 
budgeting, rewards and control systems are essential strategy implementation 
ingredients. There should be specific interim or ultimate time-based measurements to 
be achieved by implementing strategies in pursuit of the company's objectives. The 
implementation activities are in fact related closely to one another and decisions about 
each are usually made simultaneously (Alexander, 1985). 
The challenges of strategy implementation are illustrated by the unsatisfying low 
success rate (only 10 to 30 percent) of intended strategies (Raps and Kauffman, 
2005). The primary objectives are somehow dissipated as the strategy moves into 
implementation and the initial momentum is lost before the expected benefits are 
realized. Successful implementation is a challenge that demands patience, stamina and 
energy from the involved managers. The key to success is an integrative view of the 
implementation process (Raps and Kauffman, 2005). Awino (2001) identified four 
challenges areas affecting successful strategy implementation. He cited lack of fit 
between strategy and structure; inadequate information and communication systems; 
and failure to impart new skills. He identified most challenges as concerning 
connecting strategy formulation to implementation; resource allocation; match 
between structure with strategy; linking performance and pay to strategies; and 
creating a strategy supportive culture. 
1.1.3 Factors Influencing Strategy Implementation 
As proposed by Beer and Eisenstat (1996), there are three essential factors for 
successful strategy implementation. First of all, the change process should be 
systemic. This means that both the human and systemic aspects of the organization 
should fit with each other in the organization. This is a very important point. 
5 
It is easy to imagine a situation in which severe motivation problems would arise in 
effect of a lack of interest in one of these aspects. The second factor is the condition 
that the change process should encourage the open discussion of barriers to effective 
strategy implementation and adaptation. All impediments to strategy should be taken 
in to account and the most reliable way to get the best information is to include the 
largest possible number of the organization's members into the discussion. This 
brings us to the third factor proposed by the authors, which tells us that the change 
process should develop a partnership among all relevant stakeholders (Campbell & 
Goold, 2000). 
Elsewhere, Beer and Eisenstat 2000) catalogued a group of relevant, inhibiting factors 
to strategy implementation and learning. The factors are: a top-down or laissez-faire 
management style, unclear strategy and conflicting priorities, an ineffective senior 
management team, poor vertical communication, poor coordination across functions, 
plus inadequate down-the-line leadership skills and development. The authors seem to 
clearly acknowledge the need for large-scale communication as well as at least partial 
participation and on the other hand leadership and organizational integrity. The 
factors proposed by Beer and Eisenstat are present in a survey done by Alexander 
(1985). The major problems present in strategy implementation: the implementation 
taking more time than allocated, unanticipated, major problems surfacing during 
implementation, poor coordination, competing activities, lacking competencies, etc. 
speak of a poor fit between human resources and the organizations structure and 
systems as well as poor vertical communication in both directions. 
6 
Alexander goes on promoting five guidelines to overcome the problems, not unlike 
those proposed by Beer and Eisenstat. They are: communication, starting with a good 
concept, providing sufficient resources, obtaining employee commitment and 
developing an implementation plan (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000). Noble (1999) in turn 
speaks of barriers to effective implementation. The physical distances hindering the 
necessary, cross-functional collaboration in the organization form physical barriers. 
Turf barriers are the other side of this coin, representing the differing interests of the 
distinct units. Interpretive barriers are formed by the different ways different units 
interpret and comprehend the strategy. Personality barriers reflect the personal 
characteristics of key personnel, as well as between different groups in the 
organization's hierarchy. Another important barrier is that of varied goals amidst the 
organization and its units. Noble's perspective, therefore, is that of the organization as 
consisting of different units and functional groups. His novel contribution to the 
discussion of effective implementation is that for effective implementation the 
strategist must create unofficial communication networks (Noble, 1999). 
1.1.4 Local Non-Governmental Organizations in Nairobi Kenya 
Most non Governmental Organizations are funded by private donors, international 
agencies and the Kenyan Government initiatives. The main areas of concern for these 
organizations include health, housing, sanitation, food and providing other needs and 
basic facilities. There is also the issue of Gender inequality, HIV AIDS support and 
the Adult care as well as charity. Most of these NGOs are health based, improving the 
livelihood of most Kenyans who live below the poverty line. There are approximately 
2252 local non-Governmental Organizations in Nairobi. 
7 
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are increasingly being recognized by 
governments everywhere as potent forces for social and economic development; 
important partners in nation building and national development; valuable forces in 
promoting the qualitative and quantitative development of democracy and not least, 
important contributors to GDP. Currently there are many national, regional and 
international NGOs in Nairobi Kenya. Some of these deal with issues such as gender, 
human rights, environment, advocacy and participatory development. All of them 
have been assisting in strengthening the civil society through informing and educating 
the public on various issues, such as their legal rights, entitlements to services or by 
helping them attune to government policies. NGOs are involved in all spheres of life. 
The activities of NGOs have increased since 1980s. The 1980s and 1990s was a 
period in which Kenyan NGOs changed in several ways. They shifted their focus 
away from concerns about relief to more general interests in development. They 
increased their involvement in socioeconomic matters. The range of activities in 
which they began to involve themselves widened to include sectors such as energy, 
environment, primary health care, nutrition, education, and vocational training. The 
government of Kenya and development partners recognizes the role of NGOs as 
agents of development and positive change. 
1.2 Research Problem 
Strategy implementation is the process of allocating resources to support the chosen 
strategies. In the world of management, increasing numbers of senior people are 
recognizing that one of the key routes to improved business performance is better 
implementation (Hambrick and Cannella, 2003). However, at the same time, it is also 
8 
understood that implementation is one of the more difficult business challenges facing 
today's managers (Drazin and Howard, 2002). 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 being considered to be less glamorous than formulation; and 
practical difficulties in research involving middle-level managers. Despite the neglect 
by academicians and consultants more challenges are experienced in practice in the 
course of strategy implementation. The organizations have to manage these 
challenges effectively for them to achieve their strategic intent. 
The interest in the study 'factors influencing strategy implementation among local 
NGOs in Nairobi, has been inspired by the fact that strategy implementation besides, 
the existing knowledge in addition to the current literature is biased towards 
developed nations, creating further a gap in emerging economies and their unique 
needs. Strategy implementation will therefore continue to attract attention because it 
plays a central role in the overall success of organizations today be they small or 
large, profit or non-profit making and even government institutions worldwide. 
Studies have been done on the challenges of strategy implementation. For instance, 
Arumonyang (2009), did a survey on strategy implementation challenges facing 
regional development authorities in Kenya, Patrick (2009), on challenges of strategy 
implementation at Kenya wildlife service, Njoki (2009), on challenges of strategy 
implementation at Oxfam Great Britain-Kenya, Merikol (2010), on challenges of 
strategy implementation at the ministry of road and public works in Kenya and Aosa 
(1992), on an empirical investigation of aspects of strategy formulation and 
9 
implementation within large, private manufacturing companies in Kenya. No known 
study has been done on factors influencing strategy implementation among local 
NGOs in Nairobi. This study therefore seeks to fill this gap by investigating the 
factors influencing strategy implementation among local NGOs in the city of Nairobi. 
The study will therefore answer the question: what are the factors influencing strategy 
implementation among local NGOs in Nairobi, Kenya? 
1.3 Research Objective 
The objective of the study was to determine factors influencing strategy 
implementation among local NGOs in Nairobi, Kenya. 
1.4 Value of the Study 
Findings of the study may particularly be useful in providing additional knowledge to 
existing and future institutions on strategy implementation and provide information to 
potential and current scholars on strategic management in Kenya. This may expand 
their knowledge on strategy implementation and also identify areas of further study. 
The study may 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 findings of this study will help in enlightening the key decision makers in local 
NGOs in Nairobi Kenya in policies formulation and on how to successfully 
implement their strategies and how they could purpose to mitigate the challenges 
facing them. The study will in addition to the above, be useful to stakeholders, donors, 
and investors in formulating and planning areas of intervention and support. 
1 0 
Finally, the study may be important not only to local NGOs in Nairobi but also to 
other managers in other sectors. It would help them understand the factors influencing 
strategy implementation and how to overcome them. It would help them understand 
why different firms achieve success better than others. 
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 
2.1 Introduction 
This chapter presents 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, challenges of strategy implementation and strategies in overcoming 
the challenges of strategy implementation (commitment of top management, involve 
middle manager's valuable knowledge, communication, clear assignment of 
responsibilities, change management, teamwork, respect the individual's different 
characters, supportive implementation instruments and calculate buffer time for 
unexpected incidents). 
2.2 Strategic Management Theory and Practice 
There is no single universally accepted definition of strategy. Different authors and 
managers use the term differently (Mintzberg, 1993). Quinn (1980) defines strategy as 
the pattern or plan that integrates an organization's major goals, policies and action 
sequences into a cohesive whole. He goes further to state that a well formulated 
strategy helps to marshal and allocate an organization's resources into a unique and 
viable posture based on its relative internal competencies and shortcomings, 
anticipated changes in the environment and contingent moves by intelligent 
opponents. Strategy can be formulated on three different levels, namely: corporate, 
business unit and operational level. While strategy may be about competing and 
surviving as a firm, one can argue that products and not organizations compete. 
Products are developed by the business units. The role of the organization then is to 
manage its business units and products so that each is competitive and so that each 
contributes to the organization's purposes (Porter, 1980). 
1 2 
Strategy helps to position a firm in the wider external environment. It also defines the 
obligation of the firm to its stakeholders (Johnson and Scholes, 1999). Strategy helps 
to define the specific business of the firm in terms of products, markets and 
geographical scope. Strategy can also be considered as a firm's game plan that 
enables the firm to create competitive advantage (Pearce and Robinson, 2007). The 
firm needs to look at itself in terms of what the competitions are doing. This is critical 
because firms in the same industry tend to compete for the same customers. Ansoff 
and Mc Donnell (1990) define strategy as a set of decision making rules for guidance 
of organizational behavior. This strategy is used as a yardstick to measure firm's 
performance and to define its relationship with the external environment. Strategy 
needs to take into consideration both the immediate and remote environments. 
There is no single exhaustive definition of strategy. What emerges, however, is that 
strategy is defined by how a firm relates to its environment. This has to take into 
account the internal capabilities of the firm which defines the firm's competitive 
advantage. The success or failure of a firm's strategy will depend on skillful 
formulation and effective implementation. However, all successful strategies have 
some common elements. They are based on simple consistent and long term 
objectives. They are also based on a profound understanding of the competitive 
environment and objective appraisal of available resources (Cox and Britain, 2000). 
In addition, a well developed control mechanism that monitors and evaluates the 
strategy implementation process is a vital tool required for successful implementation 
of strategy. Continuous and well calculated scanning of the external environment 
comes in handy during the strategy implementation phase. 
1 3 
2.3 Implementation of Strategy 
Strategy implementation has attracted much less attention in strategic and 
organizational research than strategy formulation or strategic planning. Alexander 
(1985) 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. In the world of management, increasing numbers of senior people are 
recognizing that one of the key routes to improved business performance is better 
implementation (Renaissance Solutions Ltd, 1996). However, at the same time, it is 
also understood that implementation is one of the most difficult business challenges 
facing today's managers (Pfeeffer, 1996). Within this, management ability, or 
competence, is seen as an important contributor to achieving this aim (Boyatzis, 
1982). 
Implementing strategies successfully is about matching the planned and the realizing 
strategies, which together aim at reaching the organizational vision. The components 
of strategy implementation; communication, interpretation, adoption and action are 
not necessarily successive and they cannot be detached from one another. Okumus 
(2003) observe that "despite the importance of the strategic execution process, far 
more research has been carried out into strategy formulation rather than into strategy 
implementation", while Alexander concludes 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). 
1 4 
Reasons put forward for this apparent dearth of research effort include that the field of 
strategy implementation is considered to be less "glamorous" as a subject area, and 
that researchers often underestimate the difficulties involved in investigating such a 
\ 
topic especially as it is thought to be fundamentally lacking in conceptual models 
(Alexander, 1985). More "practical" problems associated with the process of strategy 
implementation, meanwhile, include communication difficulties and "low" middle 
management skill levels (Otley, 1999). 
What tends to be absent from these programmes is attention to any higher order 
competencies which enable managers to use these educational or technical abilities to 
make a difference to the organization (Harris, 1989). As an example, better financial 
management may require senior managers not only to have a good grasp of financial 
/ 
principles but also to "remain open minded" or to "lead by example' under the 
difficult circumstances of trying to get other managers to keep a closer eye on 
expenditure. Similarly, improved chairmanship may demand qualities of "self 
confidence" and the ability to "read interpersonal or political situations" which often 
crop up in management meetings, as well as learning about techniques for running 
meetings. Exactly the same is argued to be true for organizational strategy and other 
areas of business improvement (Ulrich, 1998). 
2.4 Challenges of Strategy Implementation 
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. 
1 5 
Reed and Buckley (1988) discuss problems associated with strategy implementation 
identifying four key areas for discussion. They acknowledge the challenge and the 
need for a clear fit between strategy and structure and claim the debate about which 
comes first is irrelevant providing there is congruence in the context of the operating 
environment. They warn that, although budgeting systems are a powerful tool for 
communication, they have limited use in the implementation of strategies as they are 
dominated by monetary based measures and due to their size and the game playing 
associated budget setting '*it is possible for the planning intent of any resource 
redistribution to be ignored" (Reed and Buckley, 1988). Another problem is when 
management style is not appropriate for the strategy being implemented, they cite the 
example of the "entrepreneurial risk taker may be an ideal candidate for a strategy 
involving growth, but may be wholly inappropriate for retrenchment" (Reed and 
Buckley, 1988). 
Resource insufficiency is another common strategy implementation challenge. This 
may be as a result of lack of resources which include financial and human or 
indivisibility of resources. Established organizations may experience changes in the 
business environment that can make a large part of their resource base redundant 
resources, which may be unable to free sufficient funds to invest in the new resources 
that are needed and their cost base will be too high (Johnson and Scholes, 2002). 
Changes do not implement themselves and it is only people that make them happen 
(Bryson. 2005). Selecting people for the key positions by putting a strong 
management team with the right personal chemistry and mix of skills is one of the 
first strategy implementation steps (Thompson and Strickland, 2003). They point out 
1 6 
that assembling a capable team is one of the cornerstones of the organization-building 
task. Strategy implementation must determine the kind of core management team they 
need to execute the strategy and then find the right people to fill each slot. Staffing 
issues can involve new people with skills (Hunger and Wheelen, 2005). Bryson 
(2005) observes that people's intellect creativity, skills, experience and commitment 
are necessary towards effective implementation. However selecting able people for 
key positions remains a challenge to many organizations. 
Whilst the strategy should be chosen in a way that it fits the organization structure the 
process of matching structure to strategy is complex (Bryson, 2005). The structure 
that served the organization well at a certain size may no longer be appropriate for its 
new or planned size. The existing structure and processes in the organization support 
in different ways, there is likely to be problems should the existing structures be used 
to implement the changes (Meldrum and Atkinson, 1998). The current structures may 
as well distort and dilute the intended strategy to the point where no discernible 
change takes place. According to McCarthy (1986), creating that structure for 
managers is the selection of the organization structure and controls that will 
implement the chosen strategies effectively. 
Cultural impact under estimation is yet another challenge to strategy implementation. 
The implementation of a strategy often encounters rough going because of deep 
rooted cultural biases. This causes resistance to implementation of new strategies 
especially in organizations with defensive cultures. This is because they see changes 
as threatening and tend to favor "continuity" and "security" (Wang, 2000). 
1 7 
It is the strategy maker's responsibility to choose a strategy that is compatible with the 
"sacred" or unchangeable parts of prevailing corporate culture. Creating an 
organization's culture, which is fully harmonized with implementation plan, offers a 
strong challenge to the strategy implementation leadership abilities. Aosa (1992) 
observes that lack of compatibility between strategy and culture can lead to high 
organizational resistance to change and demotivation, which can in turn frustrate the 
strategy implementation. 
Strategic change is the movement of an organization from its present state to toward 
some desired future state to increase its competitive advantage (Hill and Jones, 2001). 
The behaviour of individuals ultimately determines the success or failure of 
organizational endeavours and top management concerned with strategy and its 
• 
implementation must realize this (McCurthy, 1986). 
As indicated by Aaltonen and Ikavalko (2001) the amount of strategic communication 
in most organizations is large with both written and oral communication being used in 
form of top down communications. However, a great amount of information does not 
guarantee understanding and there is still much to be done in the field of 
communicating strategies. According to Wang (2000), communication should be two 
way so that it can provide information to improve understanding and responsibility 
and to motivate staff. Also they argue that communication should not be seen as a 
one-off activity throughout the implementation process. In many cases it is not so and 
therefore communication still remains a challenge to strategy implementation process. 
1 8 
Before any strategy can be implemented, it must be clearly understood. Clear 
understanding of a strategy gives purpose to the activities of each employee and 
allows linking whatever task is at hand to the overall organizational direction (Byars, 
1996). Lack of understanding of a strategy is one of the obstacles of strategy 
implementation (Aaltonen and Ikavalko, 2001). They point out that many 
organizational members typically recognize strategic issues as important and also 
understand their context in generic terms. 
Some of the barriers of strategy implementation as identified by Al-Ghamde (1998) 
are competing activities that distract attention from implementing the decision; 
changes in responsibilities of key employees not clearly defined; key formulators of 
the strategic decision not playing active role in implementation; problem requiring top 
management involvement not communicated early enough; key implementation task 
and activities not sufficiently defined. Meldrum and Atkinson (1998) identified two 
problems of implementation: a flawed vision of what it seems to be in a strategic 
position within an organization and a myopic view of what is needed for successful 
management of operational tasks and projects within a strategic brief. 
A study by Okumus (2003) found out that the main barriers to the implementation of 
strategies include lack of coordination and support from other levels of management 
and resistance from lower levels and lack of or poor planning activities. Meldrum and 
Atkinson (1998) found out a number of implementation pitfalls such as isolation, lack 
of stakeholder commitment, strategic, drift, strategic dilution, strategic isolation, 
failure to understand progress, initiative fatigue, impatience, and not celebrating 
success. 
1 9 
As identified by Sterling (2003), there are several reasons why strategies fail. Among 
these are unanticipated market changes; lack of senior management support; effective 
competitor responses to strategy application of insufficient resources; failure of buy 
\ 
in, understanding, and/or communication; timeliness and distinctiveness; lack of 
focus; and bad strategy poorly conceived business models. 
2.5 Measures to Deal With Strategy Implementation Challenges 
The strategy implementation process normally requires much more energy and time 
than the mere formulation of the strategy. A creative chaos can be advantageous for 
the formulation phase whereas the more administrative strategy implementation phase 
demands discipline, planning, motivation and controlling processes (Alexander 1985). 
The second most important thing to understand is that strategy implementation is not 
a top-down-approach. The success of any implementation effort depends on the level 
of involvement of middle managers. To generate the required acceptance for the 
implementation as a whole, the affected middle managers' knowledge (which is often 
underestimated) must already be accounted for in the formulation of the strategy. 
Then, by making sure that these managers are a part of the strategy process, their 
motivation towards the project will increase and they will see themselves as an 
important part in the process (Tavakoli and Perks 2001). 
Communication aspects should be emphasized in the implementation. 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 
2 0 
the changes have already crystallized. Traditional strategy implementation concepts 
generally over-emphasize the structural aspects and reduce the whole effort down to 
an organizational exercise. It is dangerous, however, when implementing a new 
strategy, to ignore the other existing components. Strategy implementation requires an 
integrative point of view. Not only the organizational structure, but cultural aspects 
and the human resources perspective are to be considered as well. An implementation 
effort is ideally a boundary less set of activities and does not concentrate on 
implications of only one component, e.g. the organizational structure (Aaltonen and 
Ikavalko, 2001). 
Teamwork plays an important role within the process of strategy implementation. 
When it comes down to implementation activities, however, it is often forgotten. It is 
/ 
indisputable, that teams can play an important part to promote the implementation 
(Drazin and Howard, 1984). To build up effective teams within strategy 
implementation the Myers-Briggs typology can be useful to ascertain person-to-
person differences. Differences in personality can result in serious inconsistencies in 
how strategies are understood and acted on. Recognizing different personality types 
and learning how to handle them effectively is a skill that can be taught. 
To facilitate the implementation in general implementation instruments should be 
applied to support the processes adequately. Two implementation instruments are the 
balanced scorecard and supportive software solutions. The balanced scorecard is a 
popular and prevalent management system that considers financial as well as non-
financial measures. It provides a functionality to translate a company's strategic 
objectives into a coherent set of performance measures (Kaplan and Norton, 1993). 
2 1 
When it comes to meeting the criteria of a strategy implementation instrument, there 
is an excellent fit. The individual character of each balanced scorecard assures that the 
company's strategic objectives are linked to adequate operative measures. As a 
consequence, it provides even more than a controlling instrument for the 
implementation process. It is a comprehensive management system, which can 
support the steering of the implementation process. 
2 2 
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
3.1 Introduction 
This chapter presents the methods that are adopted by the study in obtaining 
information necessary to achieve objectives of the study. The chapter outlines 
research design, target population, sample design, data collection and data analysis. 
3.2 Research Design 
The research design that was used in this study was cross sectional survey. The design 
was cross sectional because data was collected at one point in time. A cross sectional 
survey attempts to describe or define a subject often by creating a profile of a group of 
problems, people or events through the collection of data and tabulation of the 
frequencies on research variables or their interaction as indicated. 
/ 
3.3 Population 
The target population of the study was the local NGOs in Nairobi. According to the 
NGO Co-ordination Board of Kenya 2012, there are 2252 registered local NGOs in 
Nairobi district. 
3.4 Sample Design 
The study used stratified random sampling technique to select a sample of 100 local 
NGOs in Nairobi. The goal of stratified random sampling is to achieve the desired 
representation from various sub-groups in the population. 
2 3 
Each stratum comprised of proportionate representation of NGOs that engage in 
multiple sectors of socio-economic development. The main sectors of socio-economic 
development that the study focused on were health, education, human rights, 
community development and gender and youth affairs among others. 
3.5 Data Collection 
The study relied on primary data which was collected through administering 
structured questionnaire comprising of closed and open-ended questions. The 
questionnaires were administered to 100 local NGOs in Nairobi where one respondent 
in top level management from each local NGO was asked to fill in the questionnaire. 
The top level management targeted was the executive director, the finance director, 
the operations director, the programmes director or the external relations director. 
Selecting respondents from senior management level enhanced validity of data 
gathered. 
The research instrument was divided into two parts where Part A covered general 
demographic data of the respondents and part B consisted of questions focusing on 
factors influencing strategy implementation among local NGOs in Nairobi. These 
questions were addressed using Likert 1-5. 
3.6 Data Analysis 
The process of data analysis involved several stages. The completed questionnaires 
were edited for completeness and consistency. They were checked for errors and 
omissions and then coded. 
2 4 
Descriptive statistics involving percentage mean and standard deviations were used to 
determine factors influencing strategy implementation. A Likert scale and the use of a 
statistical computer application were employed to determine the descriptive statistics. 
Tables, Pie charts and other graphs were used as appropriate to present the data 
collected for ease of understanding and analysis of factors influencing strategy 
implementation among local NGOs in Nairobi. 
/ 
2 5 
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS 
4.1 Introduction 
This chapter presents analysis and findings of the study as set out in the researcl 
methodology. The results were presented on the factors influencing strateg' 
implementation among local non-governmental organizations in Nairobi, Kenya. Th< 
research was conducted on a sample of 100 respondents from top level managemen 
to which questionnaires were administered. 
However, out of the issued questionnaires, 75 were returned duly filled in making ; 
response rate of 75% which was sufficient for statistical reporting. This response rate 
were sufficient and representative and conforms to Mugenda and Mugenda (1999 
stipulation that a response rate of 50% is adequate for analysis and reporting; a rate o 
60% is good and a response rate of 70% and over is excellent. This commendabli 
response rate was due to extra efforts that were made via personal calls and visits t< 
remind the respondents to fill-in and return the questionnaires. The chapter covers th< 
demographic information and the findings are based on the objectives. 
4.2 Demographic Information 
The respondents were asked to indicate their job designation. This was crucial foi 
determining whether the respondents were holding positions where they can mak( 
decisions in their organizations. The results are shown in Table 4.1. 
Table 4.1: Job Designation 
Job Designation Frequency Percentage 
Executive Officer 22 29.3 
Finance Director 18 24 
Operations Director 16 21.3 
External Relations Director 19 25.3 
75 100 
As indicated in Table 4.1, most of the respondents (29.3%) were executive officers 
and 25.3% were external relations directors. This depicts that the respondents were in 
senior management and hence conversant with the strategy implementation in their 
organizations. 
In order to determine whether the respondents had reasonably worked long enough in 
their organization to experience a strategy implementation process, the respondents 
were asked to indicate the duration in which they had been working in the NGO. The 
results are shown in figure 4.1. 
Figure 4.1: Working Duration 
45% 
40% 
35% 
30% 
25% 
20% 
15% 
10% 
5% 
0% 
39% 
Less than 2 years 2 - 5 years 6 - 1 0 years 11 years and more 
2 7 
As indicated in figure 4.1, most of the respondent (39%) had worked in the NGO for 6 
to 10 years. This therefore means that most of the managers in the NGOs had worked 
for a long duration of more than 6 years, and hence they had rich information on 
factors which influence strategy implementation in their organizations, based on their 
extensive experience. 
The respondents were requested to indicate their level of academic qualifications. 
This was carried out in order to find out whether the respondents had attained the 
necessary education and knowledge on strategy implementation. The results are 
shown in Table 4.2. 
Table 4.2: Highest Level of Education 
/ 
Highest Level of Education 
Frequency Percentage 
Certificate 0 0 
Diploma 0 0 
Higher National Diploma 7 11.3 
Bachelors 30 48.4 
Masters 15 24.2 
PhD 10 16.1 
Total 75 100.0 
As indicated in Table 4.2, most of respondents (48.4%) had bachelors degree and 
24.2% had masters degree. This shows that most of managers in NGOs have attained 
university education thus had rich information and knowledge on factors influencing 
implementation of strategies in their organizations. 
2 8 
The study also sought to determine the number of years that the organization had been 
in existence. This was necessary to establish the age of the organizations. This would 
therefore determine whether the organization has existed long enough to carry out a 
strategy implementation process. The results are shown in Table 4.3. 
Table 4.3: Number of Years of Existence of NGOs 
Years of Existence 
Frequency Percentage 
Cumulative 
Frequency 
Less than 5 years 33 44.7 33 
6 - 1 0 years 17 23.7 50 
1 0 - 1 5 years 8 10.5 58 
1 6 - 2 0 years 4 5.2 62 
More than 20 years 13 17.3 75 
Total 75 100 
As indicated in Table 4.3, most of the NGOs were less than 20 years old since they 
were established. The survey deduces that most of the NGOS in Nairobi were formed 
after the entry of multiparty democracy in Kenya in 1992. 
The study sought to establish the size of the NGOs using the number of employees the 
NGOs had. This exercise was crucial in determining the size of the organization. This 
is due to the fact that different organizations in terms of size face diverse challenges 
in implementing strategy. The results are shown in Figure 4.2. 
2 9 
Figure 4.2: Number of Employees 
50.00% -, 
45.00% 
40.00% 
35.00% 
30.00% -
25.00% -
20.00% -
15.00% 
10.00% 
5.00% 
0.00% 
44.70% 
15.80% _ _ 
13.20% 
7.90% 
. • I I 
less than 20 21-30 31-40 41-50 more than 50 
employees employees employees employees employees 
As indicated in Figure 4.2, most of the NGOs had less than 20 employees. This 
depicts that most of the NGOs are small and medium sized organizations basing on 
the number of the employees. 
The respondents were further required to indicate the ownership structure of the 
organization. This was valuable as the ownership would influence the funding of 
these organizations and consequently influence strategy implementation. The results 
are shown in Figure 4.3. 
3 0 
Figure 4.3: Ownership Structure of Organization 
Foreign owned 
Locally owned 
24% 
76% 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 
As indicated in Figure 4.3, majority of the NGOs (76%) were locally owned. This 
depicts that majority of the NGOs were run by the people from within the country and 
required to adopt and implement strategies to comply with the international standards. 
/ 
The study also sought to identify the sector that the NGOs belong to. It is important to 
note that different strategy development and implementation is influenced by the 
context the organization engages in. The results are shown in Table 4.4. 
Table 4.4: Nature of NGOs 
Nature of NGO Frequency Percentage 
Health 32 42.1 
Education 25 34.2 
Gender/Youth Affairs 4 5.3 
Community Development 10 13.3 
Human rights 4 5.3 
Total 75 100 
3 1 
As indicated in Table 4.4, the study found out that most of the organizations belonged 
to the health and education sector although there was appropriate distribution among 
the various sectors. 
4.3 Factors Influencing Strategy Implementation among Local 
NGOs in Nairobi 
4.3.1 Organizational Level Where Challenges in Strategy 
Implementation are Faced 
The study in this area asked the respondents to state the extent to which challenges in 
the strategy implementation were experienced at Corporate, Business, Functional and 
operational level. The responses were rated on a five point Likert scale where: 1 - to 
/ 
no extent 2 - little extent 3 - moderate extent 4- great extent and 5- very great 
extent. The results are presented in Table 4.5. 
Table 4.5: Organizational Levels 
Organizational Level 
Mean Standard Deviation 
Corporate level 3.03 0.203 
Business level 2.97 0.282 
Functional level 3.16 0.194 
Operational level 2.48 0.367 
As indicated in Table 4.5, most of the respondent reported that challenge was faced 
majorly on functional level as shown by a mean score of 3.16 with the minimum 
standard deviation of 0.194 and corporate level with a mean score of 3.03. This means 
that strategy implementation among NGOs in Nairobi was greatly affected by 
challenges in the functional and corporate levels in the management of the NGOs. 
3 2 
4.3.2 Commitment by Top Management on Strategy Implementation 
The respondents were requested to indicate their level of agreement on various 
statements in relation to the effect of level of commitment of top management on the 
strategy implementation. The responses were rated on a five point Likert scale where: 
1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neutral 4- Agree and 5- Strongly Agree. The 
mean and standard deviations were generated from statistical computer application. 
The results are shown in Table 4.6. 
Table 4.6: Commitment by Senior Management on Strategy Implementation 
/ 
Commitment by Senior Management 
Mean Std 
Dev 
The top management 's commitment to the strategic direction itself is the most 
important factor. 4.5 0.561 
The top managers must demonstrate their willingness to give energy and 
loyalty to the implementation process for it to succeed. 
4.4 0.853 
The managers must not spare any effort to persuade the employees of their 
ideas for strategy implementation to be effective. 
4.14 0.566 
Lack of top management backing is the main inhibiting factors. 3.1 0.374 
Lack of manager 's commitment to performing their roles leads to the lower 
ranks of employees missing support and guidance through encouragement of 
entrepreneurial attributes. 
2.8 0.173 
As indicated in Table 4.6, most of the respondent were in agreement with the 
statements that the top management's commitment to the strategic direction itself is 
the most important factor with a mean of 4.5 while the managers must not spare any 
effort to persuade the employees of their ideas for strategy implementation to be 
effective had a mean score of 4.14. They were neutral that lack of manager's 
commitment to performing their roles leads to the lower ranks of employees missing 
support and guidance through encouragement of entrepreneurial attributes (2.8). This 
depicts that the top management's commitment to the strategic direction is significant 
factor in the strategy implementation process. 
3 3 
4.3.3 Communication Process in Strategy Implementation 
The respondents were requested to indicate their level of agreement on the statements 
in relation to the effect of communication on the strategy implementation. The 
responses were rated on a five point Likert scale where: 1 - Strongly Disagree 2 -
Disagree 3 - Neutral 4- Agree and 5- Strongly Agree. The mean and standard 
deviations were generated from statistical computer application. The results are 
shown in Table 4.7. 
Table 4.7: Role of Communication in Strategy Implementation 
Communication Process 
Mean Std 
Dev 
Communicating with employees is frequently delayed until changes have already 
crystallized. 
2.53 0.508 
The organization is faced with the challenge of lack of a two-way-communication 
program that permits and solicits questions from employees about issues 
regarding the formulated strategy. 
2.15 0.348 
Lack of communications causes more harm as the employees are not told about 
the new requirements, tasks and activities to be performed by the affected 
employees. 
2.19 0.261 
It is essential both during and after an organizational change to communicate 
information about organizational developments to all levels in a timely fashion. 
4.17 0.197 
An integrated communications plan must be developed at the organization to 
enhance strategy implementation. 
4.63 0.285 
As indicated in Table 4.7, most of the respondents were in agreement with the 
statement that an integrated communications plan must be developed at the 
organization to enhance strategy implementation with a mean score of 4.63. This 
depicts that for communication in the organizations to effectively impact on the 
strategy implementation; NGOs should develop an integrated communications plan 
and ensure that they communicate information about organizational developments to 
all levels during and after an organizational change. They should also adopt a two 
way communication program. 
3 4 
4.3.4 Coordination of Activities in Strategy Implementation 
The respondents were requested to indicate their level of agreement on the statements 
in relation to the effect of coordination of activities on strategy implementation. The 
responses were rated on a five point Likert scale where: 1 - Strongly Disagree 2 -
Disagree 3 - Neutral 4- Agree and 5- Strongly Agree. The mean and standard 
deviations were generated from statistical computer application. The results are 
shown in Table 4.8. 
Table 4.8: Coordination of Activities in Strategy Implementation 
Coordination of Activities 
Mean 
Standard 
Deviation 
Coordination is essential to ensure that people across the 
organization know what to do and to ensure that they stay 
focused on the key targets under the everyday pressures. 
3.2653 1.18017 
Strategic control systems provide a mechanism for keeping 
today's actions in congruence with tomorrow's goals. 
2.4286 1.20992 
The effectiveness of coordination of activities is a problem in 
most of the firms and distractions from competing activities in 
some cases. 
3.5204 1.25369 
Silent killers of strategy implementation comprise unclear 
strategic intentions, resistance to change, conflicting priorities 
and weak coordination across functions. 
3.5408 1.14125 
As indicated in Table 4.8, the majority of the respondents strongly agreed that silent 
killers of strategy implementation comprise unclear strategic intentions, resistance to 
change, conflicting priorities and weak co-ordination across functions (M=3.5408) 
and that the effectiveness of coordination of activities is a problem in most of the 
firms and distractions from competing activities in some cases (M=3.5204). This 
depicts that to ensure success in coordination during strategy implementation; NGOs 
should deal with silent killers of strategy implementation and ensure that employees 
4.3.5 Organizational Inappropriate Systems 
The respondents were requested to indicate the extent to which internal organizational 
inappropriate systems and policies effect strategy implementation. The responses 
were rated on a five point Likert scale where: 1 - Not at all 2 - Less extent 3 -
Moderate extent 4- Great extent and 5- Very great extent. The mean and standard 
deviations were generated from statistical computer application. The results are 
shown in Table 4.9. 
Table 4.9: Organizational Features that Affect Strategy Implementation 
Organizational Inappropriate Systems 
Mean Std Dev 
Lack of understanding of strategy implementation. 3.71 0.429 
Organizational structure does not match strategy. 2.60 0.139 
Difficulties and obstacles not acknowledged, recognized or acted upon. 3.62 0.452 
Ignoring the day-to-day business imperatives. 2.80 0.148 
Leadership style of managers. 3.73 0.540 
How managers make decisions. 3.50 0.413 
The dominant beliefs, values and norms. 2.81 0.421 
Very little support from management. 2.50 0.350 
As indicated in Table 4.9, most of the respondents strongly agreed that leadership 
style of managers and lack of understanding of strategy implementation affect 
strategy implementation most. This was indicated by mean scores of 3.73 and 3.71 
respectively. This illustrates that the internal organizational systems that affected 
strategy implementation were poor leadership style and lack of understanding of 
strategy. 
3 6 
4.3.6 Inadequacy of Resources in Strategy Implementation 
The respondents were requested to indicate the extent to which various facets of 
inadequacy of resources affect strategy implementation. The responses were rated on 
a five point Likert scale where: 1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neutral 4-
Agree and 5- Strongly Agree. The mean and standard deviations were generated from 
statistical computer application and the results are shown in Table 4.10. 
Table 4.10: Inadequacy of Resources in Strategy Implementation 
Inadequacy of Resources 
Mean Standard 
Deviation 
Inadequate funds. 4.5714 0.77326 
Human resources skills are limited. 4.5306 0.78915 
Lack of experience of key staff. 4.3776 0.68135 
Having the right facilities plays a big role in strategy 
implementation. 
4.2755 0.58821 
Inadequate equipment plays no role in strategy implementation. 4.2347 0.95220 
As indicated in Table 4.10, majority of the respondents indicated that the most 
significant facets of inadequacy of resources affecting strategy implementation were 
lack of inadequate funds (M=4.5714) and limited human resources skills (M=4.5306). 
This depicts that most NGOs in Nairobi are faced with inadequate funding and limited 
human resources skills that are vital in strategy implementation. 
3 7 
4.3.7 Macro-environmental Forces Effects in Strategy 
Implementation 
The respondents were requested to indicate the extent to which various facets of 
macro-environmental forces affect strategy implementation. The responses were rated 
on a five point Likert scale where: 1-Not at all, 2-Less extent, 3-Moderate extent, 4-
Great extent and 5-Very great extent. The mean and standard deviations were 
generated from statistical computer application. The results are shown in Table 4.11. 
Table 4.11: Macro-environmental Forces and Strategy Implementation 
Macro-environmental Forces Mean Standard Deviation 
Economic forces 3.7959 0.95204 
Politico-legal forces 3.7755 1.07962 
Social-cultural forces 3.6531 1.12242 
Technology 3.7859 1.11188 
Ecological forces 3.6327 0.90118 
As indicated in Table 4.11, majority of the respondents indicated that the most 
significant macro-environmental forces affecting strategy implementation were 
economic forces (M=3.7959) and technology (M=3.7859). This depicts that the 
dominant external environmental forces significantly affecting strategy 
implementation among NGOs in Nairobi are economic forces and technology. 
4.3.8 Operating Environmental Forces 
The respondents were requested to indicate the extent to which various facets of 
operating environmental forces affect strategy implementation. The responses were 
rated on a five point Likert scale where: 1-Not at all, 2-Less extent, 3-Moderate 
3 8 
extent. 4-Great extent and 5-Very great extent. The mean and standard deviations 
were generated from statistical computer application. The results are shown in Table 
4.12. 
Table 4.12: Operating Environmental Forces 
Operating environmental forces Mean Standard Deviation 
Pressure from donors. 4.4082 0.75760 
Pressure from shareholders. 4.1837 0.85370 
Pressure from the local community. 3.1323 1.39930 
As indicated in Table 4.12, majority of the respondents indicated that the most 
significant facets of operating environmental forces affecting strategy implementation 
were pressure from donors (M=4.4082) and pressure from shareholders (M=4.1837). 
This depicts that the most significant operating environmental forces influencing the 
strategy implementation in NGOs are pressure from donors and shareholders. This is 
owing to the fact that the NGOs must always comply with the conditions of the 
donors and shareholders who finance their operations. However these conditions may 
not be in line with the strategy implementation leading to reduced success rate in the 
strategy implementation. 
3 9 
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
5.1 Introduction 
This chapter presents the summary of the findings on factors influencing strategy 
implementation among local non-governmental organizations in Nairobi, Kenya. It 
also provides the conclusions and recommendations of the study based on the 
objectives of the study. The objective of this study was to investigate the factors 
influencing strategy implementation among local non-governmental organizations in 
Nairobi, Kenya. 
5.2 Summary 
/ 
The study found out that commitment by the top management affected to a very great 
extent the strategy implementation. The study also found out that the top 
management's commitment to the strategic direction is significant factor and that the 
managers must demonstrate their willingness to give energy and loyalty to the 
implementation process for it to succeed and not spare any effort to persuade the 
employees of their ideas for strategy implementation to be effective in most of the 
NGOs. 
The study found out that communication is a key factor on strategy implementation at 
NGOs and that this affects implementation to a great extent. The study also showed 
that an integrated communications plan must be developed at the organization to 
enhance strategy implementation, and that it is essential both during and after an 
4 0 
organizational change to communicate information about organizational 
developments to all levels in a timely fashion. It also found that the NGOs are rarely 
faced with the challenge of lack of a two-way-communication program that permits 
and solicits questions from employees about issues regarding the formulated strategy. 
The 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. 
The study further found out that the most significant internal organizational 
challenges affecting the NGOs were leadership styles of managers and lack of 
understanding of strategy implementation. Most of the managers were not 
transformational leaders neither were they change agents, a strong leadership style 
that is key in strategy implementation. In addition it was found that difficulties and 
obstacles in strategy implementation were not acknowledged, recognized or acted 
upon. This was further compounded by the lack of cultivation of strong cultural 
values to meet the changing organizational needs. 
The study further revealed that the most significant facets of inadequacy of resources 
affecting strategy implementation were lack of adequate funds and limited human 
resources skills. The dominant macro-environmental forces affecting strategy 
implementation were economic forces and technology. In addition, the most 
significant facets of operating environmental forces affecting strategy implementation 
were pressure from donors and pressure from shareholders respectively. This 
conforms to current trends of performance based funding that requires NGOs to 
comply with conditions of donors and shareholders who finance their projects. 
4 1 
5.3 Conclusion 
The study concludes that commitment by the top management affects the strategy 
implementation to a very great extent. It further concludes that the top management's 
commitment is a major issue and the managers must exhibit their willingness to 
demonstrate power and loyalty to the implementation process for it to succeed. The 
top management should also not spare any effort to persuade the employees of their 
ideas for strategy implementation to be effective in most of the NGOs. 
The study also concludes that communication is a major factor in strategy 
implementation in NGOs. In addition, lack of effective two-way-communication 
program that permits and solicits questions from employees about issues regarding the 
formulated strategy and lack of communications about the employees' new 
requirements, tasks and activities to be performed by the affected employees rarely 
affect communication in NGOs in Nairobi, Kenya. 
The study also concludes that poor leadership styles of managers and lack of 
understanding of strategy implementation were the major impediments of strategy 
implementation in terms of internal organizational systems. It was further concluded 
that economic forces and technology were the main micro-environmental factors that 
influence strategy implementation. Other factors influencing strategy implementation 
were lack of adequate funding from donors and limited human resources skills. The 
situation is further compounded by pressure from donors who demand total 
compliance with strict terms and conditions; however these conditions may not be in 
line with the strategy implementation plan. 
4 2 
5.4 Recommendations 
This section presents the recommendations of the study that are subdivided into two 
parts. The first part presents recommendations with policy implications; and the 
second part presents recommendations for further research. 
5.4.1 Recommendations with Policy Implications 
The study found out that commitment to strategy implementation by senior 
management team is vital. It is therefore recommended that managers must 
demonstrate their willingness to give more energy and loyalty to strategy 
implementation process for it to succeed. Further, they should not spare any effort to 
persuade the employees of their ideas for strategy implementation to be effective. 
The study also found out that organizational inappropriate systems and policies were 
major challenges faced in strategy implementation. It is therefore recommended that 
the NGOs should implement approaches such as effective reward management 
systems meant to enhance manager's commitment to performing their roles as well as 
incorporating lower ranks of employees in strategy design and implementation. The 
study also recommends that NGOs should embark on staff improvement through 
training and offering conducive environment for their work to improve their 
productivity which in turn will win support from the staff and thus make strategy 
implementation a reality in NGOs. 
4 3 
The study also found out that lack of adequate funds and limited human resources 
skills immensely affected strategy implementation. It is therefore recommended that 
the management should ensure that they employ and deploy qualified and competent 
individuals. The study also recommends that NGOs should employ 
monitoring/supervision mechanism, to allow efficiency in strategy implementation. 
The study also recommends that the NGOs should cultivate a vigorous resource 
mobilization exercise in order to mobilize more funding for their projects for both 
core and restricted projects. This will go a long way in improving the services to 
NGOs. 
The study also found out that communication is a key tool in the process of strategy 
implementation. It is therefore recommended that the NGOs should engage integrated 
communications plan to improve strategy implementation. The content of such 
communications plan should include clear explanation of what new responsibilities, 
tasks, and duties need to be performed by the affected employees. This will enhance 
communication of change during and after an organizational change on organizational 
developments to all levels in the appropriate manner. 
The study also found out that coordination of activities was a major impediment to 
strategy implementation. It is therefore recommended that the NGOs should adopt 
staff oriented approaches to facilitated full appreciation of the strategy in a bid to 
minimize challenges of successful implementation which emanates from lack of 
cultivation of strong cultural value to meet the changing organizational needs. This 
will enhance proper integration of activities and feelings of ownership and 
commitment. 
4 4 
5.4.2 Recommendation for Further Research 
The study on factors influencing strategy implementation was carried out in the Non-
governmental organizations sector. This may not fully determine the factors that 
influence strategy implementation. A comparative study is therefore recommended on 
factors affecting strategy implementation in organizations such as the banks in Kenya 
which operate in highly competitive environment, to ascertain the validity of the 
research findings. The study also recommends that further studies should be done on 
the role of staff training on strategy implementation. 
5.5 Implications of the Study on Policy, Theory and Practice 
The findings of the study were useful in providing additional knowledge to existing 
and future institutions on factors influencing strategy implementation among local 
NGOs in Nairobi. The main findings of the study were importance of commitment by 
top management on strategy implementation, communication in strategy development 
and implementation, adequate funding, use of appropriate organizational systems 
among others. These expand knowledge on competitive strategy implementation in 
local NGOs and also identify areas of further study where the study seconds the idea 
of sustainable competitive advantage. 
# 
One of the major impediments to the process of strategy implementation that came 
out clearly from the study is pressure from funding bodies. The study supports the 
ideas put across by (Johnson & Scholes, 2005) that the principles of competitive 
strategies still hold. This is due to the fact that multiple sources of donors may lead to 
high incidences of political lobbying that may generate difficulties in clear strategy 
4 5 
development and implementation. A requirement to hold decision making and 
responsibility at the centre of the organization is jeopardized by the diversity in the 
funding bodies. This pressure from the donors brings in external influence to the 
process of strategy development and implementation, which is a mandate of the 
management of the organization. It can be deduced from the study that one of the 
main reasons why the process of strategy development and implementation is 
influenced by the donors is due to the fact that core funding to NGOs is no longer the 
order of the day. Donors have lately turned into performance based funding through 
restricted projects with no major inputs from the implementing organizations. 
The study may help in enlightening the key decision makers in local NGOs in Nairobi 
Kenya in policies formulation and on how to successfully implement their strategies 
and how they could purpose to mitigate the challenges facing them. The study may in 
addition to the above, be useful to stakeholders, donors, and investors in formulating 
and planning areas of intervention and support. 
4 6 
REFERENCES 
Aaltonen, P. & Ikavalko, H. (2001). Implementing Strategies Successfully. A Paper 
Presented at the XII World Productivity Congress, San Jose, CA. 
Alexander, L.D. (1985). Strategy implementation: nature of the problem, 
International Review of Strategic Management, Vol. 2 No.l , pp.73-91. 
Ansoff, H.I. (1999) Implanting Strategic Management, Prentice Hall, Cambridge, 
United Kingdom. 
Aosa, E. (1992). An empirical investigation of aspects of strategy formulation and 
implementation within large, private manufacturing companies in Kenya 
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 
Scotland. 
Awino, Z. B. (2002). Purchasing and Supply Chain Strategy: Benefits, Barriers and 
Bridges. An Independent Conceptual Study Paper in Strategic Management, 
School of Business, University of Nairobi September 2002. 
Beer, M. & Eisenstat, R. (2000). The silent killers of strategy implementation and 
learning, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 No.4, pp.29-40. 
Bourgeois, L.J. & Brodwin, D.R. (2004). Strategic implementation: five approaches 
to an elusive phenomenon, Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 5 pp.241-64 
Boyatzis, R. (1982). The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance, 
John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 
Bryson, J.M. (2005). Strategy Planning for Non-Profit organizations. Revised 
Edition. 
Drazin. R. & Howard, P. (2002). Strategy implementation: a technique for 
organizational design. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 34 No.3, pp.465-
85. 
4 7 
Galbraith, C. & Schendel, D. (2002). An empirical analysis of strategy types, 
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 4 pp. 153-73. 
Ghauri, P. and Gronhaug, K. (2005). Research Methods in Business Studies: A 
practical Guide". (3rd edn.), Pearson Education Limited. 
Greenley, G.E. (2006). Does strategic planning improve company performance, Long 
Range Planning, Vol. 19 pp. 101-9. 
Hambrick, D.C.. & Cannella, A.A. (2003). Strategy implementation as substance and 
selling: Academy of Management Executive. Strategic Management Journal, 
Vol. 3 No. November, pp.278-85. 
Hendry, K. & Kiel, G.C. (2004). The role of the board in firm strategy: integrating 
agency and organizational control perspectives, Corporate Governance: An 
International Review, Vol. 12 pp.500-20. 
Hunger, J.D. & Wheelen, T.L. (2005). Strategic Management. 5th ed., New York: 
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, USA. 
Johnson G. & Scholes (2002). Exploring Corporate Strategy. 6th New Jersey: 
Prentice Hall, USA. 
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (1993), Putting the balanced scorecard to work, Harvard 
Business Review, Vol. 71 pp. 134-42. 
McCarthy, D. (1986). Business Policy and Strategy: Concepts and Readings. Strategic 
Management Journal, Richard D, Irwin, Inc. 
Meldrum, M. & Atkinson, S. (1998). Meta-abilities and the Implementation of 
» 
Strategy: Knowing What to do is Simply not Enough. Journal of 
Management Development Vol. 17,8. 
Mintzberg, H. (2003). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, 
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 
4 8 
Mugenda, O.M. & Mugenda, A.G. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative & 
Qualitative Approaches. Acts Press. Nairobi. Kenya. 
Okumus, F. (2003). A framework to Implement Strategies in Organizations 
Management Decisions, vol. 41.9. 
Otley, D. (2001). Extending the boundaries of management accounting research: 
developing systems for performance management, British Accounting 
Review, Vol. 33 pp.243-61. 
Pearce, J.A. & Robinson, R.B. (2007). Strategic Management: Implementation and 
Control, 3rd edition, Boston: Richard D. Irwin McGraw-Hill, USA. 
Quinn C. N., (1993). Strategy detection in graphic interfaces, The World Conference 
on Artificial Intelligence in Education. 
Raps, A. and Kauffman, D (2005). Strategy implementation - an insurmountable 
/ 
obstacle? Handbook of Business Strategy, Volume 6, Number 1, pp 141-146. 
Reed, R., & Buckley, R.M. (1988). Strategy in action: Techniques for implementing 
strategy. Long Range Journal of Planning, Vol. 21 No.3, pp.67-74. 
Sterling, J. (2003). Translating Strategy into effective Implementation; Dispelling the 
Myths and Highlighting what works, Strategy and Leadership. Strategic 
Management Journal, Vol. 12 pp.34-9. 
Tavakoli, I. & 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, A.A. and Striokland, A. (2003). Strategic Management Concept and Cases 
edition, New York, USA. 
Wang, Y. (2000). Strategy Implementation TU: Seminar Study in Strategy and 
International Business, Helsinki University of Technology, Institute of 
Strategy and International Business, Unpublished Report. 
4 9 
APPENDICES 
Appendix I: Letter of Introduction 
MUEMA ENOCH KIINDU 
D61/75308/2009 
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI 
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS 
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT 
P.O BOX 30197, 00100 
NAIROBI 
12th September, 2012 
Dear Sir/Madam, 
RE: REQUEST FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN MBA RESEARCH 
PROJECT 
I am a student at the University of Nairobi pursuing a Master of Business 
Administration degree. As part of my coursework, I am required to carry out and 
submit a research project report on factors influencing strategy implementation among 
local non-governmental organizations in Nairobi, Kenya. 
To achieve this objective, I kindly request for your assistance in completing the 
attached copy questionnaire. I assure you the information you provide is purely for 
academic purposes and will be treated with utmost confidentiality. Should the finding 
of this Research Project be of interested to you or your organization, a copy would be 
available at the University of Nairobi Library. 
Yours faithfully, 
Muema Enoch Kiindu 
D61/75308/2009 
i 
Appendix II: Questionnaire 
Section A: Demographic Information 
1. What is your job title? (Tick whichever is appropriate). 
Executive Officer 
Finance Director 
Operations Director 
External Relations Director 
Other (indicate) 
2. For how long have you served in the organization? (Tick whichever is 
appropriate). 
3. What is your highest level of education? (Tick whichever is appropriate). 
4. How long has your organization been into existence? (Tick whichever is 
appropriate). 
Less than 5 years 
6 - 1 0 years 
10 -15 years 
1 6 - 2 0 years 
More than 20 years 
Less than 2 years 
2 - 5 years 
6 - 1 0 years 
11 years and more 
t i 
t ] 
[ ] 
t i 
Certificate 
Diploma 
Higher National Diploma 
Bachelors Degree 
Masters Degree 
PhD 
[ ] 
[ ] 
[ ] 
[ ] 
[ ] 
[ ] 
ii 
5. What is the size of your organization in terms of number of employees? 
(Tick whichever is appropriate). 
Less than 20 [ ] 
21-30 employees [ ] 
3 1 - 4 0 employees [ ] 
41 - 50 employees [ ] 
More than 50 employees [ ] 
6. What is the ownership structure of your organization? (Tick whichever is 
appropriate). 
What sector does your organization work in? (Tick whichever is 
. appropriate). 
Health [ ] 
Education [ ] 
Human rights [ ] 
Community development [ ] 
Gender/youth affairs [ ] 
Other (indicate) r i 
Locally owned 
Foreign owned 
t ] 
t ] 
i i i 
Section B: Factors Influencing Strategy Implementation among 
Local NGOs in Nairobi 
8. To what extent does your local NGO in Nairobi face challenges in the 
strategy implementation at the following levels? Use a scale of 1 to 5 where 
1 is to a very great extent and 5 is to no extent. 
Organizational Levels 1 2 3 4 5 
Corporate level. 
Business level. 
Functional level. 
Operational level. 
9. What is your level of agreement with the following statements that relate to 
the effect of level of commitment of top management on the strategic 
implementation? Use a scale of 1-5 where 1= strongly agree and 5= strongly 
disagree. 
Effect of level of commitment of top management 
on the strategic implementation 
1 2 3 4 5 
The top management's commitment to the strategic 
direction itself is the most important factor. 
The top managers must demonstrate their willingness 
to give energy and loyalty to the implementation 
process for it to succeed. 
The managers must not spare any effort to persuade 
the employees of their ideas for strategy 
implementation to be effective. 
Lack of top management backing is the main 
inhibiting factors. 
Lack of manager's commitment to performing their 
roles leads to the lower ranks of employees missing 
support and guidance through encouragement of 
entrepreneurial attributes. 
i v 
10. To what extent do you agree with the following statements that relate to 
communication process influencing strategy implementation in your local 
NGO in Nairobi? Use a scale of 1-5 where 1= strongly agree and 5 = 
strongly disagree. 
Communication in strategy implementation 1 2 3 4 5 
Communicating with employees is frequently delayed 
until changes have already crystallized. 
The organization is faced with the challenge of lack of 
a two-way-communication program that permits and 
solicits questions from employees about issues 
regarding the formulated strategy. 
Lack of communications causes more harm as the 
employees are not told about the new requirements, 
tasks and activities to be performed by the affected 
employees. 
It is essential both during and after an organizational 
change to communicate information about 
organizational developments to all levels in a timely 
fashion. 
An integrated communications plan must be developed 
at the organization to enhance strategy implementation. 
11. What is your level of agreement with the following statements that relate to 
coordination of activities and its effect on strategy implementation? Use a 
scale of 1-5 where 1= strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree. 
Coordination of activities 1 2 3 4 5 
Coordination is essential to ensure that people across 
the organization 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. 
The effectiveness of coordination of activities is a 
problem in most of the firms and distractions from 
competing activities in some cases. 
Silent killers of strategy implementation comprise 
unclear strategic intentions, resistance to change, 
conflicting priorities and weak coordination across 
functions. 
v 
12. To what extent do the following facets of inappropriate system of 
organizational culture, structure, leadership, policies, support and reward 
affect strategy implementation? 
Inappropriate systems Very 
great 
extent 
Great 
extent 
Mode 
rate 
extent 
Less 
extent 
Not 
at 
all 
Lack o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f 
s t ra tegy imp lemen ta t i on . 
Organ iza t iona l s t ruc ture 
does not ma tch s t ra tegy. 
Di f f i cu l t i e s and obs tac les 
not a c k n o w l e d g e d , 
r ecogn ized or ac ted upon . 
Ignor ing the day - to -day 
bus iness impera t ives . 
L e a d e r s h i p s tyle o f 
Lack o f mot iva t ion f r o m 
m a n a g e m e n t . 
T h e d o m i n a n t be l ie fs , 
va lues and n o r m s . 
Very little suppor t f r o m 
m a n a g e m e n t . 
13. To what extent do the following facets of inadequacy of resources affect 
strategy implementation? 
Inadequacy of resources Very 
great 
extent 
Great 
extent 
Mode 
rate 
extent 
Less 
extent 
Not 
at 
all 
Inadequa t e f unds . 
H u m a n r e sources skil ls are 
l imi ted . 
Lack of expe r i ence of key 
ctcff 
H a v i n g the r ight faci l i t ies 
p lays a big role in s t ra tegy 
imp lemen ta t ion . 
Inadequa te e q u i p m e n t 
p lays no role in s t ra tegy 
v i 
14. To what extent do the following facets of macro-environmental forces affect 
strategy implementation? 
Macro-environmental Very Great Moderat Less Not 
forces great extent e extent extent at 
extent all 
Economic forces. 
Politico-legal forces. 
Social-cultural forces. 
Technology. 
Ecological forces. 
15. To what extent do the following facets of operating environmental forces 
affect strategy implementation? 
Operating 
environmental forces 
Very 
great 
extent 
Great 
extent 
Moderat 
e extent 
Less 
extent 
Not 
at 
all 
Pressure from donors. 
Pressure from 
shareholders. 
Pressure from the local 
community. 
v i i