Table 2.1 showed examples of literature that discussed the influence of middle managers in the organization for creating awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy and the perception of the feasibility of the strategy. The use of these three factors will be further justified and the position of middle management and higher levels of management and lower levels of employees upon these three factors will be explained in the following sections.
2.3 Awareness of the strategy
Kaplan and Norton (2005) have stated that 95 % of the employees neither are aware of the business strategies of their organization nor do understand them. Thereby, researchers address that confusion arises if members of a company were not aware of the common strategies and when information does not flow through different levels inside the organization (Nobel, 1999). That makes awareness of the strategy an influencer of effective strategy implementation. As is shown in Table 2.1 understanding and communication are mainly important for awareness of the strategy. Understanding is important because people are a lot more willing to participate in a change if the reason is being told to them. In order to achieve this, clear and compelling communication is required (Huy, 2001). Hrebiniak (2006) states that poor information about the strategy could doom strategy implementation. Poor information sharing could cause that employees do not know and understand the common strategic direction and will hamper these employees in executing it very well. Guth and MacMillan (1985) and McDermott and Boyer (1999) think that strategy awareness of top management, middle management and lower levels of employees enhances effective strategy implementation. Moreover, Rapert, Veliquette and Garretson (2002) even find that strategic awareness throughout the organization enhances
organizational performance. Throughout the organization means that strategy implementation requires that top, middle, and operating level managers are aware of the strategy or at least have the perception that they are aware of the strategy. Hambrick (1981) sees a visible decline in the level of strategy awareness as he moves down from top management to middle management in the organization. The first hypothesis will be formulated after a review of the three groups in relation to awareness of the strategy: higher levels of management, lower levels of employees and middle managers.
Higher levels of management and awareness of the strategy
As top managers formulate and invent the strategy; they have the information available that feed their
strategic decisions and they initiate the new strategy. Top-management therefore has more information
available to the logics behind strategic decisions and initiatives than middle managers or lower-level
management. Higher levels of management have a more organization and industry-wide perspective
than those employees that have more specialized functions (Hambrick, 1986).
Lower levels of employees and awareness of the strategy
As higher levels of management have an organization-wide perspective; lower levels of employees have their own specialized functions and day-to-day activities as their main responsibility. They are easily excluded from strategic decision-making and they have less access to strategic information.
Lower levels of employees that are unaware of the strategy might not see that many operational problems are related to the strategy or could be solved by strategic decisions. This may be caused by strategic objectives that are often not well defined or do not provide a backbone for day-to-day activities (Mantere, 2007). Additionally, Galpin (1998) states that, in order to implement a strategy, it is important that even frontline staff and employees understand the strategy.
Middle managers and awareness of the strategy
Balogun (2003) states that if middle managers are not aware of the strategy and do not understand the strategy, the performance of the organization may be obstructed. Middle managers have both the responsibility to keep the business going and to support the strategic decisions. If middle managers understand better what the senior team is trying to accomplish with its strategic decisions, they will feel more comfortable in supporting these and moreover in translating it to day-to-day activities of lower levels of managers (Huy, 2001). Bott and Hill (1996) address that middle managers have an enormous power because they have access to and communicate frequently with both their superiors and subordinates. Since middle managers have access to both top management and lower levels of management they could ask for strategic information available to the top management and translate it to the lower levels of management. Their actions and words are therefore more influential than higher levels of management because they have the possibility to, for example, directly communicate with their subordinates. Unfortunately higher levels of management may fail to openly communicate, hold on information, and have the tendency to communicate the strategy on a ‘need-to-know’ basis instead of explaining it. This may cause that middle managers are not aware of the strategy and are not able to provide strategic directions and perform their task to reach employees down the line. As middle managers may not succeed in this, the strategic information flow will be discontinued at some level in the organization. Guth and MacMillan (1985) and McDermott and Boyer (1999) support this as well and address that communication with middle managers about the strategy and the reasoning behind it is key to gaining shared understanding in the entire organization. Thus, literature shows that middle managers are positioned between ‘higher and lower levels’ of awareness. Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated (1):
The hierarchical position in the organization explains the degree of awareness of the strategy.
Unawareness of the strategy obstructs effective implementation. Besides that, the willingness to act upon the strategy is important as well (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994). This so-called commitment to the strategy will be defined in the following section.
2.4 Commitment to the strategy
Commitment to the strategy reflects identification with strategic decisions, involvement in and dedication to the strategy (Rapert, Lynch & Suter, 1966). Derived from the literature in Table 2.1, especially consistency and accountability are important elements of commitment to the strategy. It is associated with the willingness of individuals to exert higher levels of effort on the behalf of the organizations, and a sense of identification with the strategic objectives, so that personal and
organizational goals are aligned (Guth & MacMillan, 1986). Because the implementation of any kind of strategy may cause small or large changes in the organization, employees have to feel motivated to turn the strategy into reality, change the status quo and they have to believe that strategy
implementation has been worth the effort they have made in order to implement it (McKnight, 2000).
Commitment to the strategy is important also because organizational actors that are engaged with the strategic initiative will weaken their resistance to the strategy (Huy, 2001). Moreover, commitment motivates the individual to go the extra mile to fulfill the strategy, to expand his effort and to translate strategy into action (Rapert et al., 2001). Guth and MacMillan (1986) imply that although there is no significant evidence that commitment and organizational performance are related, a great number of studies addressed the relationship between commitment and the willingness to make higher levels of effort on behalf of the organization. Thus, literature shows that higher levels of commitment to the strategy engage and motivate employees to act upon the strategy and to contribute to effective strategy implementation. Organizations that face lower levels of resistance to the strategy and higher levels of commitment should perform better in strategy implementation than those
organizations that do not have committed individuals. Again, the three groups in relation to
commitment to the strategy will be reviewed and the second hypothesis will be formulated thereafter.
Higher levels of management and commitment to the strategy
Heed (2002) states that 91 % of the organizations that are successful in implementing business strategies feel that the management team is committed to the strategy. Top managers have a dominant position in establishing strategic priorities. They are logically more committed because they have the ownership to take decisions and they are more likely to see the goals and strategies as appropriate.
Higher levels of management pursue the organizational strategic goals and as they have initiated the
strategy their individual goals are more likely to be consistent with these goals. Moreover, because of
their position they are less likely to be affected by day-to-day activities and to observe or experience
situations in which daily practices are inconsistent with the strategic initiative (Floyd & Wooldridge,
1994).
Lower levels of employees and commitment to the strategy
Ikävalko and Aaltonen (2001) state that the lower the actor in the hierarchy of the organization, the less one will commit itself to the strategy. Since lower levels of employees have personal goals that are less likely to be in line with organization-wide strategic goals, alignment between their personal goals and strategic goals will be expected to be the lowest in the organization. Contrary to higher levels of managers, they are not in the position to take the ownership for strategic decisions. They may perceive the strategy, for example, as too drastic or personally threatening and resist to it (Floyd &
Wooldridge, 1994).
Middle managers and commitment to the strategy
Brache (2004) states that middle managers are not likely to be fully committed to the strategy when they see the strategy as contradicting with their own vision and reality. As previously mentioned, commitment to the strategy is influenced by perceived alignment of personal and organizational goals.
Middle managers may have different goals than organizational goals and consequently, their personal goals are less aligned with these goals. Guth & MacMillan (1986) address that middle managers with low or negative commitment to the formulated strategies can create obstacles to effective strategy implementation. Besides being committed to the strategy, middle managers have the task of preventing the subordinates to feel victimized by the strategy while satisfying their superiors and managing subordinates. As top management commitment is extremely important in strategy
implementation, positive signals of commitment have to reach middle managers so that they are able to drive strategy implementation by both engaging lower levels of employees and transfer high levels of commitment (Allio, 2005; Dlodlo, 2010). Thus, middle managers’ commitment is important for strategy implementation and they are more likely to be committed to the strategy than lower levels of employees. The following hypothesis is stated (2):
The hierarchical position in the organization explains the degree of commitment to the strategy.
McKnight (2005) states that shared understanding of the strategy and commitment to the strategy is a great accomplishment for effective strategy implementation. Table 2.1 restricts to another important factor: the perception of feasibility of the strategy.
2.5 Perception of feasibility of the strategy
To have the perception or belief that the strategy is feasible requires that every individual in the organization sees that the strategy is applicable in the organization, that the resources are available and that the environment of the organization supports its implementation (Ikävalko, 2005). So, perceived feasibility applies to the belief and confidence in the ability of the strategy to be put into practice.
Allio (2005) identified in his article ‘A short, practical guide to implementing strategy’ the reasons
why strategy implementation often staggers. He addresses that implementation of the strategy requires that the strategy is taken into day-to-day activities; otherwise it might happen that strategies lose their relevance or become untranslatable. Individuals that perceive the strategy as unfeasible obstruct the strategy from being implemented as well. Next to this theory regarding the perception of feasibility of the strategy, the following sections review the three groups also in relation with this factor.
Higher levels of management and the perception of feasibility of the strategy
Higher levels of management may not see that a strategy is difficult to execute. At a certain moment in time they feel the pressure to initiate strategy to stay ahead but forget that lower levels of employees feel the pressure of keeping the normal business going. A problem may occur here because many managers in the higher levels of the organization believe it is just the job of managers down the line to implement the strategy (Hanley Jr., 2007). However, higher levels of management do not always realize that the skills that are required to keep the business going and to manage day-to-day activities are not always the same skills required in the activities to successfully implement the strategy.
Lower levels of employees and the perception of feasibility of the strategy
Managers down the line may see more barriers and perceive the strategy as unfeasible because their day-to-day activities, that may not be in line with the strategic decision, are priority. Because of this they feel less the urgency of implementing a new strategy or change. Consequently, lower levels of employees are obstructed in strategic thinking and acting in the organizations, because day-to-day activities prevent them to do so (Ikävalko & Aaltonen, 2001). Lower levels of employees that perceive the strategy as feasible are important for the implementation of strategies to succeed. Because their specialized functions they can strategically contribute and implement the strategy in actual practices which is crucial.
Middle managers and the perception of feasibility of the strategy
Middle managers operate between day-to-day activities and strategic apex and therefore
implementation of the strategy is seen as the task of middle managers (Smit, 2000). Balogun and Johnson (2004) address that senior managers provide a blueprint for the strategy and the
implementation is thereafter determined by behavioral and operational routines created by middle managers. Huy (2001) adds that middle managers connect strategic objectives with day-to-day activities they know how to get things done for strategy implementation. Middle managers that perceive the strategy as feasible will link the organizational space between strategy and operations and translate the strategy throughout the organizations. Bott and Hill (1996) state in relation to this that general management may develop agents of middle managers to translate strategy into day-to-day activities and to be an ambassador that will influence the perceived feasibility of the strategy
throughout the organization. When higher levels of managers in organizations find it helpful to assign
middle managers as ambassadors to identify how lower levels of employees can contribute to achieving the overall strategic initiative, middle managers are forced to think strategically. Finally is expected that the middle managers’ perceptions of feasibility fall between the higher levels of managers and lower levels of employees. The following hypothesis is stated (3):
The hierarchical position in the organization explains the perception of feasibility of the strategy.
2.6 Summary
In order to come to the hypotheses, the theoretical part of this thesis started by defining the distinctive position of the middle manager. As its position is in between higher levels of management and lower levels of employees it is seen as both a receiver and a director, as a translator and a motivator. Because strategy implementation is an organization-wide process in which the strategy should be translated down the line, middle managers are ought to have an important position here. They are assumed to have an influence on the perception employees in different hierarchical positions have of awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy, and perceived feasibility of the strategy. This thesis
hypothesizes that the perceptions differ across hierarchical levels and is in search for proof of this discrepancy. As organizational actors that report high on awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy, and perceived feasibility of the strategy are more likely to act positive towards the strategy, organizations will better succeed in implementing the strategy.
2.7 Conceptual model
This chapter discussed the middle manager, strategy implementation, and the hierarchical positions with regard to awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy, and perceived feasibility of the strategy. These three factors were used for formulating three hypotheses. Figure 2.1 shows the conceptual model in which numbers show the three hypotheses. The boxes ‘effective strategy implementation’ and ‘organizational performance’ are included in the conceptual model to visualize the context and relevance of this thesis.
Figure 2.1
3. METHODS
This thesis used two research methods: interviews and questionnaires. Interviews and questionnaires are often used together. A qualitative method delivers a more in-depth insight because it has the aim of understanding an experience as nearly as possible as its participants feel it or live it. A limitation is that it is difficult to apply to standards of reliability and validity (Burns, 2000). In this thesis,
qualitative research functioned as the backbone for the quantitative research. Quantitative methods are useful to allow analysis and are precise because of reliable measurement (Burns, 2000). To provide evidence for the hypotheses proposed in this thesis, a quantitative method is therefore used. The following section will shortly describe the qualitative research and will elaborate on the quantitative part.
3.1 Qualitative method
The qualitative part included three semi-structured face-to-face interviews and one semi-structured phone interview. The interviews were conducted to gain an insight in the subject of this thesis and to collect practical examples that related to the initial research question. A semi-structured format was chosen in order to support two-way communication, to gain sufficient practical examples, and to serve as inspiration for the research question of this thesis.
Each interview took about 1 ½ hour and the questions were categorized in six themes (Strategy, strategy process, strategy implementation, middle managers and strategy implementation, challenges in strategy implementation, and problems in strategy implementation). The interviews were held with four HR directors from four different organizations. The outcome of the interviews will not be specifically discussed because the outcomes did not seem relevant for answering the current research question. However, some comments are intertwined in the theoretical section because these were relevant to the literature discussed.
3.2 Quantitative method
In this thesis a self-administered questionnaire was used. A self-administered questionnaire was chosen because it could be delivered by e-mail and the interviewer could not bias the way questions were asked. Furthermore, the use of standardized questions made it possible to focus on the questions of interest, so time was not spent on the analysis of irrelevant data (Ader, Mellenbergh & Hand, 2008).
The questionnaire was sent out to a random sample of people from different organizations.
These organizations were deemed appropriate because they operate in relatively competitive and
dynamic environments where benefits from middle manager’s strategic involvement are expected to
exist. Therefore, the respondents were all working in companies facing a dynamic environment and
logically needing to think strategically. A prerequisite for every company was that it was easy to
separate middle management from the levels below or above middle management. An email guided
the questionnaire stating the subject of the thesis, clarifying the questionnaire and guaranteeing the
confidentiality of the data handling and the anonymity of the respondents. Around 10 contacts from organizations of MeyerMonitor were approached to participate, from which about 25 respondents participated. Around 50 people from the network of colleagues at MeyerMonitor were approached, from which 34 responded. The respondents were working in different industries in the private sector, from medium-size to large organizations. A diverse sample helps in generalizing the results about strategy implementation across a wide range of contexts, organizations, industries and hierarchical levels. In order to provide the questionnaire in the mother language of the respondents two versions were made: English and Dutch. The questionnaires were both entered in an online survey tool provided by www.surveymonkey.com and can be found in the Appendix. In total, 56 out of 59 questionnaires were used in the analyses. Three respondents were not included because they did not complete every question. For completing the questionnaire the respondents were asked to keep the strategy of their organization in mind. In this thesis the specific types of strategies were not relevant, because any organization’s strategy was useful in asking the respondents coming from different hierarchical positions for the three variables: awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy and perceived feasibility of the strategy.
3.2.1 Measures
The complete questionnaires were conducted among 17 respondents ‘below middle management’, 21 respondents ‘middle management’ and 18 respondents ‘above middle management’. The remaining part of the questionnaire consisted out of 16 items, divided among three scales: awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy and the perception of feasibility of the strategy.
Six five-point Likert-type items were used to measure awareness of the strategy and five five- point Likert-type items were used to measure commitment to the strategy and the perception of feasibility of the strategy. The answers varied from ‘I completely agree’ (1), ‘I agree’ (2), ‘I disagree’
(3), ‘I fully disagree’ (4) to ‘I do not know’ (5). In SPSS the labels were computed in variable view to
‘I completely agree’ (4), ‘I agree’ (3), ‘I disagree’ (2), ‘I fully disagree’ (1), and ‘I do not know’ (0), so that the highest score was logically the most positive.
Internal consistency was measured for all items. This can be measured by determining the
Cronbach’s alpha. Values above 0.8 are considered to be reliable. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.918 was
measured. The first scale, awareness of the strategy, consists out of six items. An example item of
awareness of the strategy is ‘Our organization is open about the strategy’. The reliability of the scale
was measured by determining a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,878. The reliability of the five items of
commitment to the strategy was measured by determining a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.851. An example
item of commitment to the strategy is ‘My contribution in strategy implementation is clear’. Five
items showing a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.788 measured the perception of feasibility of the strategy. An
example items of the perception of feasibility of the strategy is ‘Different issues in the strategy are
consistent. The ‘if item deleted’ Cronbach’s was determined as well. There were no items that would
extremely increase the Cronbach’s alpha after deletion of that specific question. As can be seen in Table 3.1 the internal consistency of these three variables is fairly good (> 0.70, and > 0.80).
Table 3.1 Cronbach’s alpha
SCALE CRONBACH’S ALPHA
Awareness of the strategy 0.878 Commitment to the strategy 0.851 Perception of feasibility 0.788
3.2.2 Data analysis
For the analyses both the English and Dutch answers were added together. A next step in defining the data was to define missing values. The five-point Likert-type questions contained one possibility (0) ‘I do not know’, which should not be included in calculating the mean rate of the answer. Therefore in further analysis the items will be treated as four-point Likert-type. Although ‘I do not know’ has a value label because the respondent did pick this option instead of leaving it blank. Table 3.2 gives an overview of the system-missing values and the user-missing values. The user-missing values were calculated by counting the answers (0) ‘I do not know’.
Table 3.2 Missing values MISSING VALUES System-missing values 7
User-missing values 23
System-missing value were assigned by the value -9 and user-missing values were assigned by the value 0. Respondents chose to pick ‘I do not know’ and so system-missing values and user-missing values have a different meaning. A system-missing value is a non-response. A non-response is a response that does not add or contribute to the measurements. Respondents could lack knowledge or interest about the perceptions assessed in the questionnaire or could be incapable of understanding a questionnaire item. In order to decrease the likelihood of random error and consequently decreasing reliability and validity of the results the ‘I don’t know option was provided (Lam, Allen and Green, 2010). Because the option (0) is reported as a user-missing value, the items were actually measured with the use of a four-point ordinal scale. Within an ordinal scale the distance, for example, between ‘I agree’ and ‘I completely agree’ has no meaning. Therefore, the discussion of how to treat an ordinal scale was kept in mind. On the one hand, the conservative view argues that researchers might show very strange results by calculation means and standard deviations with ordinal scales. On the other hand, within this current thesis the liberal view was applied. The liberal view argues that it makes little difference to treat an ordinal scale as an interval scale and therefore, this thesis proposed to use the calculation of the mean (Knapp, 1990; Mobach, 1999).
For the comparison of the three groups in awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy, and the perception of feasibility of the strategy, descriptive statistics, The Kruskal-Wallis H (KWH) test, the Jonckheere-Terpstra (JT) test and a follow-up KWH test were used. The KWH is a non-parametric test used for determining the significance of the difference between two or more independent groups. To assess whether there is any significant difference, all three groups were compared together in the first analysis. This comparison was made with rough data and measured every item of the three scales separately. The JT test was performed to assess whether the perceived degree of the variables of interest is indeed higher for groups that are higher positioned in the
organization. Pair wise comparisons between the three groups were conducted with a follow-up KWH test for the statistical significance of the difference between pairs of the three groups with regard to awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy, and the perception of feasibility of the strategy.
The final analysis was quite liberal. The scales were computed in to three new variables and analyzed by calculating the mean and standard deviation. The mean is calculated in order to give a notion in which direction the average answer is and the standard deviation to give an estimation of the average distance to the mean.
5. RESULTS
The statistical analyses described in the previous chapter were made in SPSS 20.0. This chapter will firstly provide some general descriptive results and moves further with the statistical tests and descriptive results relevant for the hypotheses. The aim of this thesis was to assess whether the
hierarchical position explains the degree of awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy, and the perception of feasibility of the strategy. Therefore, the main objective of the questionnaire was to assess middle manager’s perceptions, in comparison with higher levels of management and lower levels of employees. It was shown that middle managers, higher levels of managers and lower levels of employees perceive awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy, and the perception of feasibility of the strategy in a different degree.
4.1 Descriptive results
The questionnaire was answered by respondents positioned in three different groups: ‘below middle management’, ‘middle management’, and ‘above middle management’. The results in Table 4.1 show their gender and where they are positioned in their organization. The respondents answered three general questions on their gender, organization and functional area. 50.9 percent is male and 49.1 percent is female. Table 4.1 shows these percentages and although this matter will not be further discussed, I found it interesting to read out that the percentage of male respondents in the group
‘above middle management’ is obviously greater than the percentage of female respondents (see percentage in bold).
Table 4.1 Gender and position of respondents
RESPONDENTS BELOW MM MM ABOVE MM TOTAL
SEX N % N % N % N %
Male n=6 35.5 % n=10 47.6 % n=13 72.2 % n=29 51.8 % Female n=11 64.7 % n=11 52.4 % n=5 27.8 % n=27 48.2 %
n=17 30.4 % n=21 37.5 % n=18 32.1 % n=56 (mm= middle management)
The respondents were asked to answer three questions on their position and involvement in strategy
implementation. 30.4 percent positioned itself ‘below middle management’, 37.5 percent ‘middle
management’ and 32.1 percent ‘above middle management’. 61.1 % of the group ‘above middle
management’ was part of top management.
4.2 Findings
A KWH test was conducted to evaluate whether the differences among the three groups on the three test variables are significant (Kruskal & Wallis, 1952). This test was chosen because it is relevant to use for ordinal data, small samples and to compare two or more independent groups. The higher the mean ranking the higher the respondents’ perceived degree of awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy, and the perception of feasibility of the strategy. A small p-value indicates significant differences between the three groups. Table 4.2-4.4 provide the results of the three scales and their underlying items separately.
Table 4.2 Kruskal-Wallis test – Six items for awareness of the strategy
AWARENESS N CHI-
SQUARE
SIGN.
TOTAL AWARENESS
56 13.054 0.001**
ITEMS HIERARCHICAL
POSITION
MEAN RANK
Below MM 17 21.38
MM 21 27.93
Awareness1
Above MM 18 35.89
9.521 0.009**
Below MM 17 23.38
MM 21 28.45
Awareness2
Above MM 18 33.39
4.116 0.128
Below MM 17 23.24
MM 21 26.11
Awareness3
Above MM 18 33.00
4.767 0.092
Below MM 17 19.53
MM 21 25.90
Awareness4
Above MM 18 38.33
15.529 0.000425***
Below MM 17 20.91
MM 21 28.50
Awareness5
Above MM 18 35.67
8.710 0.013*
Below MM 17 23.26
MM 21 26.24
Awareness6
Above 18 36.08
7.090 0.029*
Significance *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
The results shown in Table 4.2 indicate that there is a significant difference in the mean ranks of four items of awareness of the strategy. For every item of awareness of the strategy the group ‘below middle management’ had the lowest mean rank, and the group ‘above middle management’ had the highest mean rank. Significant differences were, for example, found for Awareness1 ‘I am aware of the strategy’ (X² = 9.521, p=.009).
The results shown in Table 4.3 indicate that there is a significant difference in the mean ranks
of every item of commitment to the strategy. Significant differences were, for example, found for
Commitment1 ‘I am committed to the strategy’ (X² = 18.614, p=0.000091).
Table 4.3 Kruskal-Wallis test – Five items for commitment to the strategy
COMMITMENT N CHI-
SQUARE
SIGN.
TOTAL COMMITMENT
56 23.455 0.000008***
ITEMS HIERARCHICAL
POSITION
MEAN RANK
Below MM 15 16.83
MM 21 25.67
Commitment1
Above MM 18 38.53
18.614 0.000091***
Below MM 16 21.06
MM 18 22.61
Commitment2
Above MM 18 35.22
11.091 0.004**
Below MM 14 18.18
MM 20 23.10
Commitment3
Above MM 18 36.75
16.108 0.000318***
Below MM 14 20.46
MM 21 26.79
Commitment4
Above MM 18 32.33
6.624 0.030*
Below MM 15 17.50
MM 21 26.19
Commitment5
Above MM 18 37.36
17.522 0.000157***
Significance *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
Table 4.4 Kruskal-Wallis test –Five items for the perception of feasibility of the strategy
FEASIBILITY N CHI-
SQUARE SIGN.
TOTAL FEASIBILITY
56 8.787 0.012*
ITEMS HIERARCHICAL
POSITION
MEAN RANK
Below MM 17 22.97
MM 18 20.72
Feasibility1
Above MM 18 37.08
17.416 0.000165***
Below MM 16 24.25
MM 20 23.28
Feasibility2
Above MM 18 35.08
7.581 0.023*
Below MM 16 24.50
MM 19 24.42
Feasibility3
Above MM 18 31.94
3.800 0.150
Below MM 15 27.27
MM 19 23.11
Feasibility4
Above MM 18 29.44
2.281 0.320
Below MM 17 27.21
MM 20 24.15
Feasibility5
Above MM 18 33.03
3.403 0.182
Significance *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
The results in Table 4.4 indicate that there is a significant difference in the mean ranks of only
two items of the perception of feasibility of the strategy. Significant differences were, for example,
found for Feasibility2 ‘The strategy is applicable in every part of the organization’ (X² = 7.581,
p=.023).
The KWH test just assessed whether there are significant differences between the three groups. As the hypotheses assume a rank order in the data the JT test is performed with rough data of every item. The JT test can indicate whether the hierarchical order of the groups, from ‘below middle management (1)’, to ‘middle management (2)’, and to ‘above middle management (3)’, is the same as the order in the degree of awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy and the perception of feasibility of the strategy (from ‘I completely disagree (1)’ to ‘I fully agree (4)’).
Table 4.5 JT test
ASYMP. SIGN. (2-tailed)
AWARENESS 0.000304***
Awareness1 0.002**
Awareness2 0.045*
Awareness3 0.034*
Awareness4 0.000064***
Awareness5 0.002**
Awareness6 0.01**
COMMITMENT 0.000001***
Commitment1 0.000008***
Commitment2 0.002**
Commitment3 0.000082***
Commitment4 0.008**
Commitment5 0.000016***
FEASIBILITY 0.05 Feasibility1 0.001**
Feasibility2 0.025*
Feasibility3 0.15 Feasibility4 0.32 Feasibility5 0.182
Significance *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
The p-values presented in Table 4.5 show that the items that were indicated by the KWH test to differ significantly are found to have significant p-values in the JT test as well. Different hierarchical
positions perceived different degrees of awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy, and the perception of feasibility of the strategy. The degrees of awareness and commitment were highly significantly ordered with higher positions in the organization: JT test, two-tailed p < 0.05. This confirms the first two hypotheses. This was however not the case for the third hypothesis. Only two items were significantly ordered for the perception of feasibility of the strategy. There was no significant relationship between the other three items for the perception of feasibility of the strategy across the three hierarchical positions: JT test, two-tailed p > 0.05.
The KWH test and JT test showed the differences and order of differences across the three groups. As
the order of the level in the organization increases (from below middle management to above middle
management), the degree of the items of awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy and the
perception of its feasibility increases as well. Respondents from higher levels of management
perceived a higher degree of awareness of the strategy and commitment to the strategy. As mentioned in the previous paragraph this is not the case for three items of the perception of feasibility of the strategy. Briefly worded, significant differences were found for awareness of the strategy and commitment to the strategy and a significant trend in this data was revealed as well. The aim of this thesis is to assess the difference between hierarchical positions. Therefore, in order to precisely indicate between which of the three groups the significant differences in degree of awareness, commitment and the perception of feasibility are the highest, pair wise follow-up analyses used the KWH test to compare each pair of groups (‘below middle management (1)’, middle management (2)’, and ‘above middle management (3)’).
Table 4.6 Follow-up KWH test – Pair wise comparisons 1 VS. 2
Chi-square p
2 VS. 3 Chi-square p
1 VS. 3
Chi-square p AWARENESS 2.068 0.150 5.952 0.015* 11.945 0.001**
Awareness1 2.120 0.145 3.985 0.046* 9.074 0.003**
Awareness2 1.136 0.287 0.978 0.323 4.419 0.036*
Awareness3 0.425 0.514 2.191 0.139 4.371 0.037*
Awareness4 2.939 0.087 8.518 0.004** 12.141 0.00***
Awareness5 3.447 0.063 2.851 0.091 7.00 0.008**
Awareness6 0.429 0.512 4.407 0.091 5.993 0.014*
COMMITMENT 4.076 0.044* 14.675 0.000129*** 17.302 0.000032***
Commitment1 4.587 0.032* 9.980 0.002** 15.248 0.00***
Commitment2 0.078 0.78 7.084 0.008* 9.235 0.002**
Commitment3 1.350 0.245 9.598 0002** 12.836 0.00***
Commitment4 2.523 0.112 2.349 0.125 5.031 0.025*
Commitment5 5.621 0.018* 7.863 0.005** 12.972 0.00***
FEASIBILITY 0.931 0.335 7.902 0.005** 4.034 0.045*
Feasbility1 0.654 0.419 12.106 0.001** 10.680 0.001**
Feasibility2 0.082 0.774 5.836 0.016* 5.172 0.023*
Feasibility3 0.00 0.984 2.828 0.093 2.518 0.113 Feasibility4 0.935 0.334 2.076 0.15 0.257 0.612 Feasibility5 0.459 0.498 3.127 0.077 1.448 0.229
Significance *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
Table 4.6 shows the significantly different distributions to the degrees of awareness of the strategy,
commitment to the strategy and the perception of feasibility of the strategy. Pair wise comparisons
using the KWH test revealed that not every difference between the pair of groups for the selected
items was significant ( p < .05). The smallest differences were found between ‘below middle
management’ and ‘middle management’. The test did not yield any significant differences in the rough data between ‘below middle management’ and ‘middle management’ for awareness of the strategy and for commitment to the strategy, the test only indicated significant differences for two items. As the JT test confirmed the hierarchical order of the positions is the same for the degree of the variables of interest, the KWH test shows that the lowest group (‘below middle management (1)’) does differ significantly with the highest group (‘above middle management (3)’).
In addition to the analyses relevant for the hypotheses of this thesis, Table 4.7 shows an overview of the means per groups and per dependent variable. As mentioned in the methods section, these data are measured in a liberal way and calculated the means of the ordinal scale. The internal consistency of the items was measured fairly well enough and the items are computed in three scales.
As mentioned in the methods section, the ordinal Likert-scale here is treated as an interval scale and gives us a feel for which direction the average answer is.
Generally speaking, the group ‘below middle management’ moderately agrees on all three variables. The group ‘middle management’ moderately agrees with awareness of the strategy and commitment to the strategy also, but agrees less with feasibility of the strategy than the group ‘below middle management’. The group ‘above middle management’ agrees more strongly with awareness of the strategy, commitment to the strategy and the perception of feasibility of the strategy. This explains why the outcomes of the JT test did not confirm the hypothesis that the three groups and feasibility of the strategy are significantly ordered in the same direction.
Table 4.7 Overview of the means and standard deviation
HIERARCHICAL POSITION
MEAN ST. DEV
Below MM 2.9118 0.43747
MM 3.1524 0.44641
AWARENESS OF THE STRATEGY
Above MM 3.1911 0.51131
Below MM 2.6524 0.47028
MM 2.9667 0.39665
COMMITMENT TO THE STRATEGY
Above MM 3.5111 0.46639
Below MM 2.7294 0.38040
MM 2.6475 0.34621
PERCEPTION OF FEASIBILITY
Above MM 3.0539 0.57394
