The art of strategy execution : An investigation into the gap between scientific literature about strategy execution and strategy execution in practice within the cultural sector

Executive Programme in Management Studies

The art of Strategy Execution

An investigation into the gap between scientific literature about

strategy execution and strategy execution in practice within the

cultural sector.

Student : E. (Erik) de Leeuw Student number : 11395966 Program : Executive Programme in Management Studies Track : Strategy Thesis supervisor : Jeroen Kraaijenbrink Date : 28-06-2018

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Erik de Leeuw, who declares to take full responsibility

for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in

this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text

and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and

Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for

the contents.

E. (Erik) de Leeuw,

11395966.

Abstract

The concept of strategic management has always attracted much attention in scientific literature. Scientific research shows us that more attention is given to strategy development instead of strategy execution. There are many useful frameworks for understanding how firms can compete effectively. However, during the same period a high percentage of organisational strategies failed. How was this possible with all these frameworks and best practices that were available in literature? Researchers have, in fact, noted for more than a decade that no generally accepted framework has emerged from strategy execution. This research focuses on cultural organisations in the Netherlands. What are the challenges they face during the strategy execution in their organisation? The central research question of this research is: To what extent are the main drivers of strategy execution applicable within cultural sector organisations? Scientific literature about strategy execution can be distinguished in three main parts. There is written a lot about the main inhibitors of strategy execution. What are the mechanisms that cause the problems within strategy execution? The second part is about the main drivers of strategy execution. What are the driving forces within strategy execution? And based on these driving forces researchers developed frameworks. These are the key findings in empirical research into strategy execution frameworks. The drivers that takes centre stage in this research are organisational structure and culture, management control systems, communication, middle management, commitment of employees and developing skills for change. The research design for this thesis is a multiple case study within the Rijksmuseum, van Gogh Museum and Centraal Museum Utrecht. Ten respondents were interviewed. These mostly concern executives or management positions that were involved in strategy execution. This research shows that not al drivers mentioned in the literature review are applicable within cultural sector organisations. For example, organisational structure and implementation, this is more an inhibiting factor. And this research shows that management control systems are not necessary in successful executing a new strategy. In summary, it can be concluded that the various drivers should not be an end in themselves when executing a new strategy. Communication is of course extremely important. But communicating the content of a strategy endlessly and clearly indicating what is expected of everyone will not be the key to success within strategy execution. The key to success is creating ownership. The described drivers can contribute to this.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ... 7 1.1 Background ... 7 1.2 Relevance ... 8 1.4 Context ... 8 1.5 Research question ... 9 1.6 Road map ... 10 2. Literature review ... 11 2.1 Strategy execution or strategy implementation? ... 11 2.2 Importance of strategy execution ... 11 2.3 Inhibiting forces within strategy execution ... 12 2.4 Drivers of strategy execution ... 13 2.4.1 Organisational structure and culture ... 13 2.4.2 Management control systems ... 14 2.4.3 Communication ... 15 2.4.4 Middle management ... 15 2.4.5 Commitment of employees ... 16 2.4.6 Developing skills for change ... 17 2.4.7 Schematic overview drivers ... 18 2.5 Strategy execution frameworks ... 18 2.5.1 Strategy frameworks and their approaches ... 18 2.5.2 Importance of context ... 19 2.5.3 Context sensitivity with the ‘change kaleidoscope’ ... 21 2.5.4 Limitations of strategy execution frameworks ... 24 3. Research methods ... 26 3.1 Methodology ... 26 3.2 Research design ... 27 3.3 Case selection ... 27 3.4 Data Collection ... 28 3.5 Validity, Reliability and Generalizability ... 29 3.6 Data Analysis ... 30

3.7 Strengths and limitations of the research design ... 31 4. Interview results ... 32 4.1 The Rijksmuseum ... 32 4.1.1 Context ... 32 4.1.2. Implementation description ... 32 4.1.3. Drivers and inhibitors for the Rijksmuseum specific ... 33 4.1.4. Described drivers in implementation process ... 34 4.1.6 Summary ... 36 4.2 The Van Gogh Museum ... 37 4.2.1 Context ... 37 4.2.2 Implementation description ... 37 4.2.3 Drivers and inhibitors for the Van Gogh Museum specific ... 38 4.2.4 Described drivers in implementation process ... 39 4.2.5 Summary ... 41 4.3 Centraal Museum Utrecht ... 42 4.3.1 Context ... 42 4.3.2 Implementation description ... 42 4.3.3 Drivers and inhibitors for Centraal Museum specific ... 43 4.3.4 Described drivers in implementation process ... 44 4.3.5 Summary ... 45 5. Cross-case analysis ... 47 5.1 Organisational structure and culture ... 47 5.2 Management control systems ... 47 5.3 Communication ... 48 5.4 Middle Management ... 49 5.5 Commitment of employees ... 50 5.6 Developing skills for change ... 51 5.7 Contextual factors ... 51 6. Conclusion ... 54 6.1 Research question ... 54 6.2 Implications ... 54 6.2.1 Scientific implications ... 54 6.2 Implications for practice ... 55

6.3 Limitations ... 56 6.4 Applications for further research ... 56 Literature ... 58 Appendix 1: List of Interviewees ... 62 Appendix 2: Interview questions ... 63

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The concept of strategic management has always attracted much attention in scientific literature. Strategy, in its broadest definition, refers to the ‘ set of plans and policies by which a company aims to gain advantages over its competitors’ (Skinner 1969: 139). This early definition is, however, still valid today. In 2008, Porter defined the term strategy in a similar manner as Skinner did. According to Porter, ‘strategy is the creation of a unique and valuable position, involving a different set of activities’ (2008). Scientific research shows us that more attention is given to strategy development instead of strategy execution. There are many useful frameworks for understanding how firms can compete effectively. For example, Porters five-forces framework (1980) helps to analyse the level of competition within an industry. Another example is the classic SWOT analysis, which is widely used to assess strategic situations. Furthermore, Barney developed the VRIO framework (2002), which shows in what ways resources can gain, or sustain, competitive advantage. Lastly, the value-chain framework by Porter (1985) helps to analyse the firm’s activities and sources of competitive advantages. On the one hand, there appears to be a lot of attention for strategy making, on the other hand scientific literature shows that there is a challenging and unresolved problem in the strategic management area: the high percentage of organisational strategies that fail, with an estimate rate of failure between 50 and 90% (Candido and Santos 2015: 237). By failure they imply that a new strategy was formulated but not implemented, or it was implemented with poor results. According to a survey, conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, 40% of the executives rated their organisation as being successful at strategy execution (Economist Intelligence Unit 2004). Other survey argued that organisations only realize 60% of their intended strategy because of breakdowns in planning and execution (Mankins and Steele 2005). Yet another study found out that half of all strategic decisions fail to get implemented (Nutt 1999). Even though these studies have their limitations, they confirm the impression experts in strategic execution have that only a very small proportion of strategies are executed successfully.

Given these results it is surprising that there is little attention for strategy execution in scientific literature (Edgar and Taylor 1996, Noble 1999, Otley 2003, Raps 2005 and Hrebiniak 2006). The results indicate that even a perfectly formulated new strategy will not gain competitive advantage if it is not executed well enough. The real value of strategy can only be recognised through execution – the ability to execute strategy is more important than the quality of the strategy itself (Kaplan and Norton 2001, Martin 2010).

1.2 Relevance

In the last decades the concept of strategy execution received more attention within scientific literature as models, frameworks and best practices were getting increasingly published. However, during the same period a high percentage of organisational strategies failed. How was this possible with all these frameworks and best practices that were available in literature? Researchers have, in fact, noted for more than a decade that no generally accepted framework has emerged from strategy execution. There have been few multiple case studies of leading strategy deployment practices in diverse organisations from both private and public sector. (Saunders et al. 2008). So far there has been little research on the applicability of these frameworks and best practices. What research does show is that supposed solutions and approaches do not always work in practice. In other words, there is simply no ‘one size fits all’ solution for strategy execution. Different environments and contexts need different approaches as Hailey and Balogun point out in their ‘change kaleidoscope’ (2002). This is why it is important to research in practice and focus on the challenges that organisations face during strategy execution within different contexts. A manufacturing organisation can face different challenges in comparison to a service organisation. The context in this thesis is within the cultural sector which will be elaborated upon in the next paragraph.

1.4 Context

In 2010 the Dutch government announced a decrease in the budget for cultural subsidies. According to the Netherlands Court of Audit (Algemene Rekenkamer 2015) there has been a cut in cultural subsidies of 200 million euros between 2011 and 2013. Cultural organisations were forced to change their strategies and find alternative ways of increasing their own sources of income. This research focuses on cultural organisations in the Netherlands. What are the challenges they face during the strategy execution in their organisation? It is actually an interesting

sector to investigate, because, contrary to the general notion of a private firm, cultural organisations do not consider making a profit to be their core business. In fact, many cultural organisations are foundations and, under Dutch law, are not even allowed to make a profit. Furthermore, they do not have the resources large firms have. Secondly, there are a lot of mechanisms that differ from the ‘hard-core’ private sector. Thirdly, it is also interesting to investigate the difference in challenges between large and small cultural organisations. If so, in what ways are these challenges dealt with? As cultural organisations need to be less dependent on government subsidies it is important that they are able to execute their new strategies. There has been little to no research done on this subject matter within the cultural sector. The assumption is that cultural organisations do not have the resources for strategy execution. Cultural organisations are generally thought to consist of employees who have a lot of knowledge about art and no specific knowledge of business and change processes. Another assumption is that museums are not 'blue' (result-oriented, structured) organisations. Working with control systems is therefore not self-evident. Yet this is seen as one of the main drivers within strategy execution. How do the museums function without tightly controlled control systems? This is why it is interesting and even important to know which challenges strategy practitioners face within the cultural sector and how these challenges correspond with the current strategy execution literature.

1.5 Research question

Based on the theories and context mentioned above the following research question is formulated: To what extent are the main drivers of strategy execution applicable within cultural sector organisations? Sub questions: - What are the main driving forces of strategy exaction within scientific literature? - What kind of drivers and inhibitors do strategy practitioners within the cultural sector face during strategy execution in their organisations? - To what extent correspondent literature and practice, and what can they learn from one another? This research explores which strategy themes are more applicable to organisations in general and cultural organisation in particular.

1.6 Road map

The next chapter presents the literature review. The review consists of previous investigations relating to the research question. Chapter three describes the methodology of this research; the way in which the data is collected and a clarification of how the data is analysed. Chapter four represents the results of the multiple case study. Chapter five consists of the discussion and chapter six provides the overall conclusions.

2. Literature review

2.1 Strategy execution or strategy implementation?

Despite the fact that there a enough books and articles about strategy execution, it is not often clearly defined by other writers. And besides that it is striking that multiple definitions are used within scientific literature. Strategy execution or strategy implementation. In substance there is little difference between those terms. In scientific literature strategy implementation is more common. One of the best definitions of strategy implementation in scientific literature is given by Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984): ‘Implementation is a series of interventions concerning organisational structures, key personnel actions, and control systems designed to control performance with respect to desired ends’. In this definition both the soft and hard controls of implementation are included. It is about control systems that give you information about the process to this desired end but also the personnel is very important. Those people are responsible for reaching this desired end. But this thesis prefers to use strategy execution. This because strategy execution refers more to ‘doing strategy’, the creation of unique and sustainable value. Execution is the result of thousands of decisions made every day by employees acting according to the information they have and their own self-interest (Neilson et al. 2008). This endorses the complexity of strategy execution. Strategy execution is concerned with creating a portfolio of change programs that will deliver the strategy and with attracting, allocating and managing all the necessary resources to deliver these change programs (Franken et al: 2009: 49). As mentioned before, different researchers use different terms. And this thesis prefers to use strategy execution. But in this chapter both definitions are used. The same terms will be used as the researcher used in his research. So where you read strategy implementation this could be replaced by strategy execution, and vice versa.

2.2 Importance of strategy execution

Strategy execution is the process that turns formulated strategy into a series of action. By doing that the organisation tries to ensure that the vision and corresponding strategic objectives are successfully achieved as planned. That’s why strategy execution is an integral component of the strategic management process (Hrebiniak 2008; Thompson et al 2008). Different research shows us that strategy execution, rather than strategy formulation alone,

is a key requirement for successful organisational performance (Holman 1999: Kaplan and Norton 2001; Hrebiniak 2008). The high failure rate of strategy execution, as mentioned in the introduction, shows that there is a growing recognition that the most important problems in strategic management are not related with formulating strategy, but rather to strategy execution. Good strategy execution is necessary to experience the benefits of new strategy formulation in the future. According to Hrbeniak, in 2013 - eight years after the publication of Making Strategy Work – the problems that organisations face with strategy implementation are remarkably similar to those reported by managers in 2005 (Hrebiniak 2013: 3). The obstacles are still real and difficult. Hrebiniak also mentioned that strategy execution gets more attention within organisations than a decade or so ago.

2.3 Inhibiting forces within strategy execution

The last decades there is more attention for strategy execution. Hbreniak (2006) describes some obstacles to strategy execution. For example the inability to manage change, a poor or vague strategy, poor or inadequate information sharing, unclear responsibility and not having guidelines or a model to guide implementation efforts. That is why strategy researchers start writing about things that strategy practitioners care about. They developed guidelines and models to downsize the failure rate of strategy execution. Scientific literature about strategy execution can be distinguished in three main parts. There is written a lot about the main inhibitors of strategy execution. What are the mechanisms that cause the problems within strategy execution? The second part is about the main drivers of strategy execution. What are the driving forces within strategy execution? And based on these driving forces researchers developed frameworks. These are the key findings in empirical research into strategy execution frameworks. The majority of scientific literature in strategy execution is about the inhibiting forces that have a negative effect on successful strategy execution. For example the resistance to change (Hanley 2007; Okumus 2003; Kotter 2007), lack of control systems (Kaplan and Norton 2008; Atkinson 2006) and lack of communication (Hrebiniak 2008; Hanley 2007). This research is about the driving forces of strategy execution. These driving forces are often related to the inhibiting forces. In many cases, a reverse reasoning is used. For example, when resistance to change is an inhibiting force then is developing skills for change a driving force. Just like commitment of employees to the company’s vision. All those driving forces are used in frameworks to guide organisations in their strategy execution process. The main

driving forces this research addresses are described in chapter 2.4. And in chapter 2.5 the strategy execution frameworks will be discussed. This research mainly focuses on the driving forces. The inhibiting forces have therefore been discussed less extensively. But as previously indicated reverse reasoning is often used when it comes to describe the inhibiting forces. Below, these different forces are comprehensively collected in Table 1. Inhibiting forces References Execution takes more time than planned (Hrebiniak, 2008) Lack of communication (Hrebiniak, 2008; Hanely, 2007) Resistance from lower levels (Hanely, 2007; Okumus, 2003; Kotter, 2007) Lack of control systems (Kaplan & Norton, 2008; Atkinson, 2006) Execution viewed as isolated tasks (Hrebiniak, 2008) Strategy not clear and actions not defined (Kaplan & Norton, 2008; Corboy & O’Corrbui,1999) Rewards and incentives not aligned to strategic goals (Kaplan & Norton; 2008) Poor leadership (Muell & Shani, 2008; Beer & Eisenstat, ₂₀₀₀₎ Table 1: Inhibiting forces of strategy execution

2.4 Drivers of strategy execution

Based on all the current scientific literature the following drivers could be distinguished. According to the literature, those six drivers contribute to successful strategy execution. Drivers could be described as people, knowledge and conditions that initiate and support activities for which the business was designed.

2.4.1 Organisational structure and culture

Organisational structure and culture that is receptive to change is a very important driving force for successful strategy execution. Related to this driving force is the backing of senior executives. Saunders, Mann and Smith have researched best practices of strategy implementation in organisational excellence environments. They interviewed managers responsible for implementing strategic initiatives and based on the findings they developed a framework for strategy implementation that is relevant for both corporate and business units (Saunders et al 2008). The researches asked the respondents to rank 30 practice statements in order of importance to their organisation’s ability to deploy strategic initiatives. The most important activity, according to the respondents is to identify and allocate the roles, responsibilities

and the team. In third place the designation of a leader for the initiative and creating a shared vision for the initiative at all levels of management. ‘The most important thing when implementing a strategy is the top 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’ (Raps 2005: 141). Raps also indicates that a complex organisational structure and over-bureaucracy can have a negative effect on strategy implementation. To avoid power struggles and unknown responsibilities between departments and within hierarchies, organisations need a plan with clear assignments of responsibilities regarding the different implementation activities (Raps 2005: 143).

2.4.2 Management control systems

Successful strategy execution requires a combination of hard (planning) and soft (process) approaches. It is important to translate the new strategy in clear objectives. Whereby long-term objectives should be split up into short-term objectives to reduce the complexity of the strategy implementation (Hanley 2007: 19). Control systems ensure that the strategic plans are translated into action. They provide short-term goals that deliver long-term goals. These control systems are especially required to provide a balance between longer-term organisational goals and shorter-term operational demands (Atkinson 2006: 1446). The balance scorecard is such a management control system. This scorecard aims to provide executives a brief summary of the success factors of the business, and to facilitate the alignment of business operations with the overall strategy (Okumus 2003). The developers of the balanced scorecard, Kaplan and Norton, suggested five principles. First translating the strategy in to operational terms. Second to align the organisation to the strategy and by doing that (third), make strategy everyone’s job. Fourth, make strategy a continual process and at last, mobilise change through leadership (Kaplan and Norton 2001). Performance measurement systems are not only useful for monitoring the progress of strategy execution but also for motivating the employees at all levels and fostering organisational learning (Micheli and Manzoni 2010). That’s why those control systems make strategy a continual process. Based on the outcomes, the execution of strategy can be adjusted.

2.4.3 Communication

According to Claude Hanley, problems in execution often occur by communication breakdowns. Communication problems occur more frequently than most managers admit. And these communication problems pose a great threat to successful implementation (Hanley 2007). This problem often occurs in larger organisations, where different project teams or departments work in a different way. So communication could correlate with organisational structure. Whereby effective communication could hampered by organisational structure. That’s why organisations need to formalize an approach to communications. Organisational employees who are affected by the implementation must be familiar with the plan so they can contribute actively in its creation. ‘Organisations need to communicate clear objectives, schedule regular reporting times and employ standard reporting protocols’ (Hanley 2007: 19). Only with those actions commitment could be achieved among all employees. Hrebiniak argues that communication is not only important to create commitment but that communication is needed to clarify responsibilities. ‘Poor sharing of information or poor knowledge transfer and unclear responsibility and accountability also can doom strategy execution attempts’ (Hrebiniak 2006: 18). The clear responsibilities are needed for a good integration across organisational units. Complex strategies often demand collaboration and therefore effective coordination.

2.4.4 Middle management

The execution of new strategy often results in a change program. Middle managers play an important role in those change programs. For years middle managers have gotten a bad reputation as inflexible, unimaginative bureaucrats. But it shows now that when it comes to implementing radical change, middle managers are the best bet for success (Huy 2001). Huy describes that a middle manager can have four roles in the implementing process of (radical) change. The first role – the entrepreneur – does not apply in the context of this research. In this research we assume that senior management already defined the strategy. Two roles are applicable in radical change. The therapist role is about addressing employees’ emotional well-being. Radical change can often result in anxiety, stress and fear. The second role is the tightrope artist. The middle manager can balance between change and continuity. When change is imposed, balancing promoting change and keeping the company working is very important. Middle managers are problem solvers and they show flexibility (Huy 2001: 78-79). The last role is applicable for all types of change. That is the communicator role. The

middle manager is uniquely suited to communicate the proposed changes across an organisation. The middle manager can get people on board because they have the best social network. The middle manager can translate the strategy into skills and sell them throughout the organisation (Huy 2001: 77). Also Balogun underlines the importance of middle managers. Balogun argues that middle managers are change intermediaries. They are part of the implementation chain, and act as implementers, but can both be target and agents of change (Balogun 2003). The middle managers have to interpret the implications of the change intent for themselves in terms of the way they both think and carry out their work. This could be the source for a gap with the intentions by senior managers. That’s why it is important to investigate that intentions of middle managers and senior management are corresponding. Raps is even more rigid about the role of the middle manager. After commitment of top management is ‘second most important thing to understand that strategy implementation is not a top-down-approach. The success of any implementation effort depends on the level of involvement of middle managers (Raps 2005: 141). Raps argue that the knowledge of the middle manager must be accounted in the formulation of the strategy. Research studies indicate that less than 5 percent of a typical workforce understand their organisation’s strategy (Kaplan and Norton 2001). Without understanding of the general course of strategy, employees cannot effectively contribute to a strategy implementation. That’s why middle managers are important to enlarge the understanding of the implemented strategy.

2.4.5 Commitment of employees

Successful strategy execution takes people, not paper. This is the headline of Haudan his publication (Haudan 2007). ‘If strategic execution is the key, then what is the key to strategy execution? More and more, companies recognize that people are the key. Strategy and operations are critical arteries, but people are the heart of strategy execution’ (Haudan 20017: 37). The employees have to execute the strategy, so it is important that they are committed to the strategy and the execution process. But, even employees who are engaged and who have the best intention to contribute, is not enough. It is important that employees know what’s expected of them. Employees who don’t may feel engaged in their workplace, but they are not engaged in executing strategy. Haudan indicates that companies that successfully execute strategy not only focus on creating culture of employee satisfaction or even engagement, but also connect those

feeling to real strategic priorities. There are three core elements of true strategic engagement according to Haudan: - Creating a line of sight or common understanding of strategic plans - Connecting goals so each team or person can make a meaningful, consistent, and personal connection to the bigger strategic picture, and - Developing capabilities in a way that is clearly and inherently connected to the strategic direction and goals (Haudan 2007: 38). The last core element is the last driver that will be discussed in the next paragraph. It is naïve to think that strategy execution will be a success when you complete those core elements of strategic engagements. When it comes to employees, context factors also play an important role. According to Johnson, Scholes and Whittington organisational culture will influence the process of strategy execution. Every organisation has a different organisational culture. So there is no turnkey solution. The organisational culture has four layers. Values, beliefs, behaviours and taken for granted assumptions (Johnson et al 2006: 199-200). If the organisational values, beliefs and behaviours almost match the individual values, beliefs and behaviours it would be easier to execute the strategy.

2.4.6 Developing skills for change

Executing new strategy if often synonymous for executing change. ‘A company may need seismic skill shifts to execute a new strategy, but may not have access to the right people – or may not realise the extent of the changes needed or the time it will take to get up to speed’ (Wery and Waco 2004: 155). Often management underestimates the timing, cost and complexity of adapting or adding the talent pool to bridge the competency gaps. Or they underestimate the changes that must be made. In McKinsey’s 7-S Framework ‘skills’ is one of the seven elements of a strategic fit. According to this framework, skills are those capabilities that are possessed by an organisation as a whole as opposed to the people in it. A reverse view of this topic is described by Rafferty et al. (2013) with their change readiness concept. They argue that employees’ attitude to change is an important factor why implementing planned change fails. They focus on change readiness; ‘an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organisation’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes’ (Rafferty et al. 2013). One of the cognitive components of change readiness is efficacy. Efficacy consists two parts. First self-efficacy, which is an individual’s perceived capability to implement the change imitative. The second part of efficacy is principal

support, which can be described as an individual’s belief that his organisation will provide tangible support for the change (resources/information).

2.4.7 Schematic overview drivers

The most frequently mentioned drivers of strategy execution are described in the previous paragraphs. These drivers are summarized in table 2 below.

Driving forces

References

Organisational structure and culture that is receptive to change (Saunders, Mann, & Smith, 2008; Raps, 2005) Development of management control systems (Kaplan & Norton, 2001, Okumus, 2003; Hanley 2007; Micheli & Manzoni, 2010) Developing skills for change (Wery & Waco, 2004; Johnson & Scholes, 2002) Communication activities (Hrebiniak, 2008; Hanely, 2007) Commitment of employees to the

company's vision (Johnson et al, 2006; Haudan 2007; Bennet & Bennet, 2007) Aligning execution (Kaplan & Norton, 2001,2008) Clear assignment and responsibilities (Raps, 2005; Hrebiniak, 2008) Contribution of middle management (Balogun 2003; Noble, 1999: Huy 2001; Raps, 2005) Table 2: Overview of driving forces

2.5 Strategy execution frameworks

2.5.1

Strategy frameworks and their approaches

Strategy execution is all about closing the gap between the current strategy and the desired strategy of the organisation. There are different frameworks developed to help organisations with this process. McKinsey’s 7S model is such a framework. It is a management model to make an internal analysis. McKinsey states that you can divide the company’s internal organisation into 7 main components. All 7 components are in balance when there is optimal operational performance. These frameworks help to conceptualize the organisation and identify the gaps. To close those gaps there are different approaches. ‘Management approaches to strategy implementation can be placed on a continuum with prescriptive planning at one and process approaches at the other’ (Saunders et al. 2008: 1097). The perspective planning approach involves moving from strategy to action planning, by setting objectives and performance controls, allocating resources and motivating employees (Ansoff 1990; Mintzberg 1994). At the other side the process approach argues that successful implementation depends on soft skills like people changing their behaviour. Changing routines of people in organisations, including the routines of the managers (Dawson and Palmer 1995: Miller et al. 2004). All the different approaches can be divided

within those two main approaches, the prescriptive planning (hard) and process (soft) approach. For example there a different ‘sub approaches’ described within scientific literature to close the gap between desired and current strategy. For example the performance management approach, the change management approach, the management innovation approach and the participation approach. The performance management approach for example is about formulating clear objectives and measuring them. Kaplan and Norton (1996) developed the balanced scorecard to help organisation to translate the new strategy into objectives and find a way to measure them. The change management approach is more focusing on the soft elements. How can you prepare your employees for the change in strategy? And how to deal with resistance? Harris and Ogbonna (2002) have researched the unintended consequences of culture interventions. They studied the unexpected outcomes of these culture interventions. By researching in practice, scientific research tries to develop formats and best practices to support strategy practitioners. With all those formats and best practices researchers try to downsize the failure rate of strategy execution. At a more abstract level there are a lot of publications of frameworks and models that argue they can help to successful execute an organisations strategy. For example the eight ‘s’s of successful strategy by James Higgins (2005), based on McKinsey’s 7S model. A framework to implement strategies in organisations by Fevzi Okumus (2003) and modelling drivers of adapt for effective strategy execution by Strivastava and Sushil (2014). But how does it help strategy practitioners? Although there a several frameworks used for strategy analysis and strategy development (like SWOT, five forces and value chain), relatively few models have been made for strategy execution and been widely accepted by practitioners. Different researchers have noted that for more than a decade that no generally accepted or dominant framework has emerged for strategy execution (Minarro-Viseras et al. 2005: Noble 1999: Okumus 2003).

2.5.2 Importance of context

This paragraph describes the importance of contextual factors within strategy execution. As mentioned before, more and more researches endorse the important of context within the execution phase. For example, the type of strategy can influence strategy implementation actions (Walderseel and Sheather 1996) and managers need context sensitivity, the ability to

understand the context they are working in and devise approached to change that will be effective in that context (Haily and Balogun 2002) and organisational structure can influence strategy implementation actions (Hrebiniak 2008: Waterman et al. 1980). Some of the contextual factors are processed in current frameworks, but some of them are underexposed. 2.5.2.1 Strategy type Strategy execution is the process that turns formulated strategy into a series of action. Strategy execution starts with the formulated strategy. That’s why the type of strategy can influence the strategy execution process. Walderseel and Sheather have conducted a study about the effects of strategy type on strategy implementation actions. The result of their study indicates that the type of strategy managers are implementing may potentially influence the implementation actions that managers adopt (Walderseel and Sheather 1996: 118). They distinction two types of strategy; an entrepreneurial strategy and a more conservative strategy. When the managers in their study were faced with an entrepreneurial strategy, they recognized the need to be more participative and persuasive in their leadership style. When implementing a more conservative strategy – for example competing on low cost production – the same managers in their research faced efficiency as the most important issue, and the recognised that they need to adopt a more controlling, top down approach to strategic change. The more participative and persuasive style shows some similarities with the process approach as described in paragraph 2.3.2. This can be seen as the more soft approach in strategy execution. The more controlling and top down approach when a conservative strategy is implemented shows some similarities with the prescriptive planning approach. 2.5.2.2 Organisational structure When the new strategy is finished it has to be executed within the organisation. Each organisation is different. That is why organisational structure is so important. Most frameworks describe the different elements that all together form the organisational structure. Waterman et al. create the ‘7 S framework’ that contains the multiplicity of factors that influence an organisation’s ability to change (Waterman et al. 1980). The seven elements contain structure, systems, style, staff, skills, strategy and superordinate goals. All these variables together make the organisational structure. Each organisation differs in these variables. And each variable is important in the strategy execution process. Is the management style in line with the stated strategy? Is there a superordinate goal that binds

the organisation together in pursuit of a common goal? When organisations use this framework as a checklist, it could lead to understanding how organisations really operate or how they can design a truly comprehensive change program.

2.5.3 Context sensitivity with the ‘change kaleidoscope’

Hailey and Balogun describe that that context sensitivity is one of the key skills for managers in managing change. ‘The ability to understand the context they are working in and device approached to change that will be effective in that context’ (Hailey and Balogun 2002: 153-154). They argue that implementation options (for example change type and management style) receive more attention in scientific literature. And also a limited range of contextual issues, for example time in which change must be achieved and the change scope. Hailey and Balogun uses the existing literature to build a framework that presents a more comprehensive view of both range of implementation options open to organisations when designing a change approach, and the aspects of context that have to be taken into account when choosing between the options (Hailey and Balogun 2002: 154). They call this framework the change kaleidoscope. This framework forms a diagnostic tool for managers. With the change kaleidoscope managers can analyse the context, considerate a range of implementation options, create awareness of their own preferences about change and how this limits the options considered and the kaleidoscope creates a development of change judgement. Starting point for their framework is the widespread recognition of the danger of applying a change formula that worked in one context directly into another context. Other researchers developed some contingency models (Kotter and Schlesinger 1979; Stace and Dunphy 1994), which attempt to understand if, and why, particular implementation options are more successful in certain change contexts. The limitation of these contingency models is that the models concentrate on particular implementation options and restrict the range of contextual features considered (Hailey and Balogun 2002: 155). Often these models restrict to examine choices such as style and type of change. By doing that there is a danger that the descriptive models may appear to offer a recipe for making complex change paths simpler and manageable. Hailey and Balogun argue that it’s more appropriate to use the organisation’s context to guide the change approach. Haily and Balogun developed the change kaleidoscope (see Figure 1) by bringing together the wide range of contextual features and implementation options. The outer ring contains

the features of change context that can either enable of constrain the change process. The inner ring contains the menu of implementation options for the change agent. Figure 1: Change Kaleidoscope by Hailey and Balogun (2002). Below an explanation of the different contextual constraints and enablers of the change kaleidoscope. Time is about the speed, which change needs to be achieved. Is there a change implantation in response to a new strategy or in response to a particular event? When there is crisis, organisations have little time. Longer-term strategic developments have more time to change. Scope is about the extent of change required. Which parts of the organisation will be affected by the change? Is it transformational change or is it about realignment? Preservation is the extent to which it is necessary to maintain continuity in certain practices or preserve specific assets. For example staff, aspects of culture or particular competences. Diversity is about the degree of diversity in terms of values, norms and attitudes among the people affected by change. There could be different subcultures within a organisation. Capability can be described as the level of competence for managing change in the organisation. For example staff knowledgeable about the design of change and the ability of employees to cope with change.

Capacity is about the amount of money available to invest in the change process and the availability of human recourses and managerial time. Readiness to change can be described as the extent to which staff members are aware of the need for change, understanding of the implication of change and the motivation to achieve the change. Power must be seen as the relative power of the change initiator in relation to the other stakeholders who can influence the change process. The change kaleidoscope features all these contextual constraints and enablers. ‘It enables questions to be asked of the specific change situation. What type of change is best here? Do we need something radical and fast, or something slower?’ (Hailey and Balogun 2002: 159). To define the type of change they combine the speed of change with the extent of change required. The extent of change required can be defined in terms of scope; re-alignment or transformation.. Hailey and Balogun distinguish four types of change, see figure 2. Figure 2: types of change by Hailey and Balogun (2002). This research is about strategy execution. In terms of time, the execution of new strategy formulation is often pro-active and is concerned with longer-term strategic development. That’s why this research supposes that new strategy within the cultural sector would be more incremental. Museums are not so commercialized in comparison with commercial businesses and competition is not as big as in other sectors. The extent of change could be both transformational or more via realignment. It depends on the scope of the new strategy.

Hailey and Balogun encourage organisations to follow three steps. The first step is to assess the contextual constraints and enablers. The second step is to determine the change path. Consider the extent of change required (transformation versus re-alignment). The last step is to use the contextual features to select the remaining design choses for each part of the change path.

2.5.4 Limitations of strategy execution frameworks

A limitation of many of these frameworks is their step-by-step approach in which execution is seen as a sequential process. Logical sequential models of change have recently been questioned by researched for not reflecting the complex and dynamic nature of change initiatives (Collins 1998; Dawson 2003). On the other hand, this step-by-step approach can also provide guidance the strategy execution process. In addition, it does not always have to be a linear process. Steps can also be used in a different order (Kraaijenbrink 2018). A lot of frameworks emphasize the importance of context and process within strategy execution. But, they don’t give details of which contextual factors are important, and their role and impact during strategy execution (Saunders et al. 2008). Each organisation is different. Differences can be sector specific, and even within a certain sector, organisations can be different in culture, structure and other context type differences. A best practice that worked in one context does not have to work into another context. ‘There is widespread recognition both of the dangers of applying change formulae that worked in one context directly into another and of the increased likelihood of success if a context-dependent approach is adopted to the implementation of change’ (Hailey and Balogun 2002: 155). A lot of frameworks do not take this context in consideration. Strategy execution within a service company could be different than strategy execution within a production company. That is why this research questions whether those commonly accepted drivers of strategy execution are applicable within cultural sector organisations. It is interesting to examine whether there are contextual mechanism that will influence the strategy execution within these organisations. In recent years the number of publications about strategy execution has grown. There are very few publications on strategy execution within cultural organisations. That is why it is difficult to say whether specific factors play a role within cultural organisations. Abraham, Griffin and Crawford (1999) examined organisation change and management decisions in museums. They concluded that the museum who achieved successful change outcomes were able to translate externa needs to internal vision and then to employee action. They were able to align integrate tasks, structures, processes and systems at the technical,

political and cultural levels. And they argue that the unique nature of museums as professional organisations make it highly unlikely that directive or coercive leadership styles would be associated with effective change outcomes regardless of the scale of change. It is also striking that the success factors as mentioned in the research also have common ground with the soft drivers as described in this literature review. None has a relationship with the preparation of management control systems. The second research about strategy execution within cultural organisations is a more recent research. McCall and Gray (2014) examined the transformation to a new type of museum. They call it the ‘new museology’. ‘The ‘new museology’ is a discourse around the social and political roles of museums, encouraging new communication and new styles of expression in contrast to classic, collections-centred museum models The ‘new museology’ evolved from the perceived failings of the original museology, and was based on the idea that the role of museums in society needed to change: in 1971 it was claimed that museums were isolated from the modern world, elitist, obsolete and a waste of public money’ (McCall and Gray 2014: 20). They also describe what contributes to an effective implementation. McCall and Gray also underline the importance of context factors. ‘The previous discussion has shown that the context in which museum workers negotiate policy is far from simple. There are competing factions based on functionality, complex worker/managerial relationships and structures, and a sense of role ambiguity. It is difficult within these environments to assess the extent to which the principles of the ‘new museology’ have become a part of the established practices of museum staff. Actually undertaking the process of transforming museums is not straightforward’ (McCall and Gray 2014: 32). The ambiguity of policy and policy direction often created more room at the ground level for museum workers to pursue their own ideas and values. McCall and Gray are using a definition of Lipsky for effective implementation. Lipsky (2010) believed that effective implementation was the fulfilment of higher-level policy expectations at the ground level. However, McCall and Gray argue that the negotiations and actions at ground- level make workers the key agents in ‘effective implementation’. It is the level of discretion at the ground level that allows museum workers to negotiate the multiple expectations within policy and their roles and function. That is why they argue that the extent to which an effective service is delivered has a lot to do with the resilience and creativity of the workers at ground level. So it means that the effective implementation of the ‘new museology’ depends on the degree to which workers themselves believe in its related values.

3. Research methods

This chapter describes the methodology, interview selection and the analysis of this study. This chapter also explains the choices made and describes the reliability, validity and generalizability of this research.

3.1 Methodology

In social sciences there are different competing approaches, contrasted on their ontological, their epistemological and their methodological basis (Corbetta 2003: 12-13). The ontological question is about the objective of the research. What do we study? This research aims to be a qualitative and interpretive one. ‘Interpretive research aims at understanding events by discovering the meanings human beings attribute to their behaviour and the external world. The focus is not on discovering laws about causal relationships between variables, but on understanding human nature, including the diversity of societies and cultures’ (Della Porta and Keating 2008: 25). In this research the focus is on understanding how strategy execution works in a particular context. How does strategy execution work in a particular way and why does is work in that way? Epistemology is about how we know things. It is a branch of philosophy that addresses the question of the ‘nature, sources and limits of knowledge’ (Klein 2005). For an interpretivist research like this it is about subjective meanings and social phenomena. This research focuses on the details of strategy execution within the cultural sector and gives a reality behind these details and subjective meaning that motivate certain actions within this phenomenon. The nature of the research and overall design consist of an interpretative qualitative research. The aim of this qualitative study is to understand how the main drivers of strategy execution are applicable within the cultural sector. According to Yin, qualitative research provides an opportunity to collect data that reflect a thorough understanding of the context, processes, relationships and events (Yin 2009). This research treats understanding and interpreting the context of strategy execution within the cultural sector. Are the main drivers of strategy execution as mentioned in scientific literature applicable within this sector? The research approach consists of a literature review (chapter 2) to understand the main drivers of strategy execution and interviews with the research group (chapter 4).

3.2 Research design

The design of this research consists of a multiple case study. According to Stoecker cases studies are those research projects which attempt to explain (w)holistically the dynamics of a certain historical period of a particular social unit (Stoecker 1991). Behaviour of people and social phenomena in general are determined in a complicated way by causes of different nature. This cannot be measured with the simple causal models used in the analysis of survey data. A case study is needed to go deeper into the research and to focus on the depth and detail of the problems these organisations in the cultural sector face with executing strategy. The next step is to compare the findings of the case study with current literature. A multiple case study has been chosen because of the fact that organisations within the cultural sector are far from homogeneous. You cannot compare the largest museum in the Netherlands, the Rijksmuseum, with the much smaller Centraal Museum Utrecht. The size of the organisation differs, the organisational structure is different and these museums are operating in a different context. For example, a Centraal Museum Utrecht is more dependent on subsidies and does not benefit from the tourist flow to Amsterdam. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Hailey and Balogun argue that the context is very important in strategy execution. That is why a multiple case study is necessary to examine the effect of the differences in executing strategy. A multiple case study will give more insights in comparison to a single case study. The conclusions from one case should be compared and contrasted with the results from the other case (Bengtsson 1999). And multiple case studies will increase external validity. When the external conditions do not create much variance and cases are not similar, a small number of cases are needed (Yin 2009). The expectation is that the external conditions, like the context factors as described before, would create variance. But because of limited time not more than three cases could be examined.

3.3 Case selection

Rijksmuseum The Rijksmuseum is the largest museum in the Netherlands, also when it comes tot he amount of employees. After the successful re-opening in 2013 visitor numbers grew. But the last years a decreasing trend is visible. The Rijksmuseum sees itself as a museum of the Netherlands and feels that the museum should be supportive to another museums in the country. The Rijksmuseum, however, is not as commercial as the Van Gogh Museum. Van Gogh Museum

The Van Gogh Museum is currently the biggest museum when it comes to visitor numbers. Van Gogh is a very strong brand in the world, especially in Asia. The Van Gogh Museum is a more commercial organisation compared to the Rijksmuseum. The board launched Van Gogh Museum Enterprises BV (VGME) more then ten years ago as the museum’s commercial subsidiary. Under the brand name ‘Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam’, VGME develops products and services inspired by the life and works of Vincent van Gogh. VGME is always seeking new and unique approaches to making Vincent’s work accessible to the widest possible audience. Centraal Museum Utrecht Centraal Museum Utrecht is a much smaller museum in the Netherlands. Yet they are very successful. How did they reach a broader audience with fewer resources? What kind of strategy is behind this success? And how did they execute this strategy?

3.4 Data Collection

There are different sources of data. In this research, data have been obtained via interviews. According to Corbin and Strauss (2015) there are three types of interviews; unstructured interviews, semi-structured interviews and structured interviews. The interviews in this research are semi-structured (see below for more information on how and with whom these interviews were conducted). This qualitative research method provides flexibility, because during the interviews there has been room to ask additional questions for a picture that is as complete as possible. In addition, the aim was to obtain specific data about the sub-questions and central variables. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted in this study within three museums in the Netherlands. In total there are 680 museums in the Netherlands. In qualitative research, 80% of the information comes in between 4 and 8 interviews (Scholl & Olivier). To be more certain, 10 interviews were chosen in this study. According to Blumberg et al. (2008) the 'probability sample' (random sample) is the most reliable method for the selection of respondents. However, because not all those involved in this study are available 'at random', the best alternative has been chosen, the snowball approach (Saunders & Lewis 2012 p.139). For two of the three cases my own network was sufficient. Since the researcher himself works for a subsidiary of the Rijksmuseum and the Van Gogh Museum. For the third case, the Centraal Museum, the snowball effect approach was chosen, based on the network of the first respondents, new respondents identified and approached (Blumberg et al. 2008).

The researcher has asked both the Business Director of the Rijkmuseum and the Van Gogh Museum which relatively small museum has successfully implemented a new strategy. Both have indicated that the Centraal Museum Utrecht would be an interesting case. The last two respondents were approached via the Business Director. The list of interviewees can be found in Appendix 1. It has been attempted to interview various functions within the museum. The constant in the interviews concerned the position of Business Director. Since they are jointly responsible for drawing up strategies and executing them. The other respondents are responsible for the execution as a middle manager, substantively involved from their expertise, head of business or employee who is subject to the strategy implementation. In order to promote openness and honesty in the interviews, it was decided that interviewees would not be quoted by name. Only their functions within the museum are visible in this thesis. The topics that have been covered in each interview are the drivers of strategy execution as mentioned in the scientific literature. An overview of the interview questions can be found in Appendix 2. First of all, questions are asked that should explain the type of strategy execution. It is important to mention that afterwards open questions are asked about what according to the respondents the driving and ihibitor factors were within this execution process. And they are free to add anything else to the interview that they might feel is relevant to the discussion. Afterwards, the various drivers were specifically discussed and named in the theoretical framework. According to DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006) data collection is complete when saturation is met. Saturation is the iterative process of data collection and analysis that lead to a point in collection of data where no more themes or data emerge. Due to time limitations it is not possible to interview that many people in orde for saturation to emerge, that’s why 10 interviews were taken.

3.5 Validity, Reliability and Generalizability

Validity in qualitative research means “appropriateness” of the tools, processes, and data (Leung 2015). The interviewees that have been selected promoted a deep understanding of the subject studied; strategy execution. To be sure of this aspect, random sampling is not sufficient. The interviewees were people who gave the command for strategy execution, who managed the execution and the people that contributed to the execution. By selecting those interviewees it is possible to measure what we want to measure. They are able to tell

what are the drivers and inhibitors of strategy execution in their organisation. Those results can be compared with the general results of strategy execution, as described in the theoretical framework. Using multiple sources of research in the theoretical framework and using multiple cases in the field research will guarantee internal validity as much as possible. ‘In quantitative research, reliability refers to exact replicability of the processes and the results. In qualitative research with diverse paradigms, such definition of reliability is challenging and epistemologically counter-intuitive. Hence, the essence of reliability for qualitative research lies with consistency’ (Leung 2015). By using semi-structured interviews, in which the same topics are discussed in each interview consistency is guaranteed. Furthermore, by interviewing the same type of actors within strategy execution consistency is guaranteed as much as possible. During the interviews within this research, the reason and objective of the research were discussed, with the aim to arouse trust among the respondents and to obtain reliable and useful information. The interviews are recorded, transcribed and thematised on the basis of the literature topics, after which all relevant insights in this research have been coded and analysed in an Excel scheme. ‘Most qualitative research studies, if not all, are meant to study a specific issue or phenomenon in a certain population or ethnic group, of a focused locality in a particular context, hence generalizability of qualitative research findings is usually not an expected attribute’ (Leung 2015). Due time limitations, it is not possible to interview all cultural organisations about their experiences with strategy execution. Due to the limited size, this research is not generalizable for the whole cultural sector. But the research tried to select a cross-section of all cultural organisation, so that the results will give a representative presentation of strategy execution within the cultural sector. Interim insights that occurred during the interviews were written down and included in the subsequent interviews, which created more depth. Furthermore, this structured approach to data collection and analysis, the research strategy, contributed to internal validity.

3.6 Data Analysis

How does the analysis of the different interviews answer (or contributes to an answer for) the research question? This research is structured via the method of ‘ design science research’. First, the data is collected from the literature. The drivers that have an effect on the success rate of strategy execution are mentioned in the theoretical framework, this phase is called the rigor cycle (Hevner 2007). The next phase is the relevance cycle. Via

interviews the drivers could be confirmed (validation) or new drivers could be found. In the design cycle the results of the interviews will be combined with the theoretical framework. The interviews start with questions about the execution process the interviewees faced. They tell about the intended strategy and the contextual features that are important within the execution process. After that, the interviewees will be asked what, according to them, the drivers and inhibitors are within the execution process. At this moment in the interview the interviewees do not know what the drivers are according to the literature. This is the purest method to compare practice with theory. After these questions, the interviewees will be faced with the drivers of the theoretical framework. And they will be asked how important those drivers were in their execution process. With analysing those answers it is possible to compare the answers of the interviewees (the drivers that are important in practice within cultural sector organisations) and the results of the literature about strategy execution.

3.7 Strengths and limitations of the research design

The strength of this research lies in the fact that several cases have been investigated. One museum would not be generalizable for all museums in the Netherlands. Especially given context factors can play a major role in the strategy execution. Because several museums were investigated and the time was limited, only 3 to 4 interviews were conducted per museum. That is also the limitation of this research. As described earlier, 80% of the information comes from 4 to 8 interviews in qualitative research. The number of interviews per museum is just below that.

4. Interview results

There have been conducted ten interviews in total among three museums: four were held at the Rijksmuseum, three at the Van Gogh Museum and three at the Centraal Museum Utrecht. Appendix 1 gives a description of the interviewees’ professions. The interview questions are described in appendix 2. This chapter classifies the results per museum. In order to stimulate openness in the interviews, it has been agreed upon anonymity for the interviewees, except for the positions they are currently holding.

4.1 The Rijksmuseum

4.1.1 Context

The Rijksmuseum opened in 2013 after a renovation that lasted ten years. The renovation took longer than expected and cost much more than budgeted. The focus was on the grand opening of the museum. Everyone had this same mutual goal. The Head of the Safety Department indicated: ‘After all the money that was put in, we wanted to show it to the Netherlands. Come and see. The focus was not on the inner world but on serving Dutch society’. All four interviewees indicated that they see the Rijksmuseum as the museum of the Netherlands. ‘The Rijksmuseum is everyone's. Everyone therefore has his judgements. Is earning money now leading? No, I do not think so. The Rijksmuseum is more of a public organisation than a private organisation’, according to the Head of the Safety department. Since the opening the museum was able to operate on a high level. Things could not be better. But recently the museum faces the cost level rising, while revenue is stabilising or even decreasing due to falling visitor numbers. The Business Director voiced a clear-cut view on this subject: ‘If you want to be able to continue functioning at the same level, we have to go to 2.5 million visitors. We need that income. That is where the urgency is’.

4.1.2. Implementation description

The Rijksmuseum is currently in the middle of an implementation process with the aim of realising a culture change and achieving concrete goals. The main objective is to achieve a structural visitor number of 2.5 million visitors per year. The Rijksmuseum is aided in attaining its objectives by consultancy agency McKinsey. 'How do you ensure that it is not just fun on paper, but how are you really going to do that? That sounds obvious, but that is exactly the reason for this research’, the Business Director states. Together with McKinsey the Rijksmuseum has looked at how the organisation works: what are the various specialisations and how can these different types of expertise be combined and have them

work together. When asked if it would not work without McKinsey, the Business Director answered: ‘With McKinsey it is a legitimate way of working. It is a blueprint, but because they are McKinsey it adds extra value. They can think hard about how we can achieve our goals. We have the final goal in mind and they advise on the road to it. Which assignment do you have to formulate? They indicate a framework. This is as they do at Shell, this is how it works. It is a confirmation’. For the Rijksmuseum as a whole, working groups have now been set up with a chairman, project manager and an external supervisor of McKinsey. They will examine how they can work out the goals set by the Board. The aim is to work out as many ideas as possible via scrum and to finally hand over a blueprint to the Board. Ultimately, the Board decides how much money it wants to make available for which proposal. Within the Safety Department a new strategy has recently been executed. A new way of working was introduced within the Safety Department, which in itself involved a reorganisation. The organisation of security guards in the museum turned out to be inefficient, making people feel bored quickly. Eventually the organisational structure had to be changed. In addition, there was the wish to become a learning organisation. The goal was to achieve a more proactive security organisation.

4.1.3. Drivers and inhibitors for the Rijksmuseum specific

The respondents were asked what the positive and negative factors were in the strategy execution. All respondents indicated that many people who work for the Rijksmuseum consciously opted for the Rijksmuseum. They are intricately motivated to work for the museum and, therefore, they often have a strong bond with art and culture. For example, the HR advisor states: 'Connection with the cultural sector has ensured that people are also prepared to change. And the employees who had less of that bond also left. ' Another positive effect was not having a blockbuster exhibition in 2017. This had created rest in the museum, according to the Head of the Safety Department. There was time to reflect. The change of General Director had also contributed. ‘It did not necessarily have to be a hyped museum. Everything came in a calmer waters’. It turned out to be more easy for the respondents to indicate impeding factors specific to the museum. The Business Director indicated that Rijksmuseum is an organisation with clearly defined departments which completely differed from each other. The various departments formed so called ‘silo’s’. Within the artistic departments there are a lot of employees who have worked for a very long time for the museum. They are still quite

committed and they want to get involved on all levels. This sometimes makes taking decisions difficult and has a delaying effect. The museum is an organisation of content professionals, who are very specialised within their expertise. The museum does not manage to achieve an integral mind set without external expertise. 'There is little management potential present in the museum. Heads of Department become chief because they understand content aspects. Not because they are good managers’, according to the Head of the Safety Department. The independence of museums is still relatively recent. Historically, museums were led by civil servants. These former officials were brought into a private foundation. But still brought all kinds of old rights and customs. ‘ ‘You need a crisis to change that’ , according to the Head of the Safety Department. The HR advisor adds that people from the cultural sector are not necessarily doers. They think very theoretically. They are not focused on practice and are not used to thinking cross-border, they are limited to their own 'silo'. Finally, the Business Director states that despite the size of the organisation, the number of staff positions is limited. So if you want to free people for realising a strategy, this will affect the going concern.

4.1.4. Described drivers in implementation process

After the open questions about what, according to the respondents, the stimulating and obstructing factors were within the Rijksmuseum we asked how the six described drivers were applied within the implementation project. The Business Director indicated that within the Rijksmuseum the performance indicators were often imposed from the subsidy provider. Through these imposed indicators government and funds shows what they find important. The Rijksmuseum then supply this information. 'We are now formulating what we consider important'. Our organisation was ready for another goal. Employees really asked for it; where are we going to work now? The organisation needs concreteness. It is now our task to combine the ideology (corporate social responsibility) with concrete objectives and clear choices’. An employee from the Safety Department confirmed that there was no clear spot on the horizon. 'The management posted a vaguely abstract film on the intranet about the importance of connecting. The Rijksmuseum was all of us. As an employee you do not know what to do with that. It is nice to see that direction is now being determined and that the management also makes it clear per department how you can contribute to that as an employee’.