Elina Pöntinen 

A Comparative analysis of factors influencing 
strategy implementation 

Differences between large companies vs. SME´s and micro-companies  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Vaasa 2025 

School of Management  
Master’s thesis in Strategic 

Business Development 
 



2 

 

UNIVERSITY OF VAASA 
School of management 

Author: Elina Pöntinen 
Title of the thesis A Comparative analysis of factors influencing strategy 

implementation. Differences between large companies vs. SME´s 
and micro-companies    

Degree: Master of Science in Economics & Business Administration 
Programme: Strategic business development 
Supervisor: Ausrine Šilenskytė 
Year: 2025 Pages: 121 

ABSTRACT: 
 
Strategy implementation refers to the process through which planned strategies are executed 
in practice (Heide et al., 2002; Weiser et al., 2020) and is regarded as the most challenging phase 
of strategic management (Ivancic, 2016; Zaidi et al., 2018), with studies estimating that up to 
90% of strategies fail during implementation (Raps, 2004; Cater & Pucko, 2010). Although 
research on strategic planning is extensive, the execution phase remains underexplored (Tawse 
& Tabesh, 2021; de Oliveira et al., 2019). Moreover, existing studies focus primarily on large 
firms, offering limited insight into smaller enterprises (Kelliher & Reinl, 2009; Kearney et al., 
2019).  
 
The purpose of this thesis is to examine how the practices and factors influencing strategy 
implementation differ between large and smaller companies. The theoretical framework 
examines the factors that could hinder or, conversely, facilitate the effective execution of the 
strategy. These include factors such as clarity and precision in strategic foundations and 
leadership and management capabilities, as well as other significant factors that influence the 
implementation process. The research focuses on two large, two medium, three small-sized 
companies and a micro company. Data is collected through semi-structured interviews, which 
allows a detailed comparison of practices and challenges related to strategy implementation 
between the organizations of different sizes. 
 
The findings show how factors influencing strategy implementation differ between large and 
smaller companies. Large firms typically rely on formal structures, clear strategic foundations, 
and distributed leadership. In smaller firms, implementation is more informal and dependent on 
individual leaders, often leading to fragmented practices. Resource allocation was considered 
important across all firm sizes, but only large companies had the capacity to manage it 
systematically. Small firms particularly struggled with limited leadership and management 
capabilities. Leadership structures were often underdeveloped, and responsibilities 
concentrated in the hands of founders. A critical issue discovered was the lack of consensus and 
commitment between owners, which significantly hindered implementation and, in some cases, 
led to critical organizational dysfunction. 

This study highlights significant internal variation within the SME category and shows that size 
alone does not determine implementation practices. The taxonomy analysis based on Šilenskytė 
and Smale (2021) reinforces the finding that organizational characteristics, not just size, shape 
strategic behaviour. The results also challenge the analytical validity of treating size-based 
categories such as SMEs as homogeneous, suggesting a need for more nuanced segmentation 
when analysing strategy implementation in different organizational contexts. 

AVAINSANAT: Strategic planning, Strategy implementation, Strategy execution 



3 

 

Contents 

1 Introduction 6 

1.1 Research gap 7 

1.2 Research question and objectives 8 

1.3 Research structure and framing 9 

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 10 

2.1 Literature review 10 

2.1.1 Strategy implementation 11 

2.1.2 Strategy implementation in SME & micro firm context 12 

2.1.3 Research on factors affecting strategy implementation 14 

2.2 The key factors affecting SI identified from the literature 16 

2.2.1 Clarity and precision in strategic foundations 16 

2.2.2 Leadership and management capabilities 17 

2.2.3 Communication and information flow 18 

2.2.4 Resource allocation 19 

2.2.5 Strategy awareness 20 

2.2.6 Guidelines for implementation 20 

2.2.7 Reward systems 21 

2.2.8 Corporate culture and strategic goals 22 

2.2.9 Other significant factors outside the framework 23 

2.3 Synthesis 25 

3 METHODOLOGY 27 

3.1 Research philosophy 27 

3.2 Research approach 28 

3.3 Methodological choices 29 

3.4 Research strategy 30 

3.5 Case selection 32 

3.6 Data collection 34 

3.7 Data anaysis 37 

3.8 Validity and reliability 39 



4 

 

4 FINDINGS 41 

4.1 Within case description 41 

4.1.1 Case company Alpha 41 

4.1.2 Case company Beta 47 

4.1.3 Case company Gamma 52 

4.1.4 Case company Delta 58 

4.1.5 Case company Epsilon 64 

4.1.6 Case company Zeta 69 

4.1.7 Case company Theta 75 

4.1.8 Case company Eta 79 

4.2 Cross-case analysis 87 

4.2.1 Clarity and precision in strategic foundations 89 

4.2.2 Leadership and management capabilities 89 

4.2.3 Communication and information flow 91 

4.2.4 Resource allocation 91 

4.2.5 Strategy awareness 92 

4.2.6 Guidelines for implementation 93 

4.2.7 Reward systems 93 

4.2.8 Corporate culture and strategic goals 94 

4.2.9 Other significant factors outside the framework 95 

4.2.10 Diffrerences between challenges of strategy implantation in companies of 

different sizes 97 

5 CONCLUSIONS 102 

5.1 Theoretical contribution 104 

5.2 Managerial implications 105 

5.3 Limitations and suggestions for future research 107 

References 107 

Appendices 120 

Appendix 1. Interview questions 120 

  



5 

 

Tables 
 
 
Table 1 Key business statistics in the business economy, %, share for each enterprise size 

class, EU, 2021) (Adapted from Eurostat, 2024) 8 

Table 2. Identified key factors influencing strategy implementation from literature. 16 

Table 3. Company size definition (Adapted from European Comission, n.d.) 33 

Table 4. Case Companies in numbers and the role of the interviewee. 34 

Table 5. Panel discussion participants and interviewees and coding 35 

Table 6. Details of the interviews. 36 

Table 7. Interview questions by topic 37 

Table 8. Key implementation factors mapped accross case companies 88 

Table 9. Taxonomy of SI in the case companies 101 

 
 

Abbreviations 
 
CEO: Chief Executive Officer  

SAP= Strategy as practice 

SI= Strategy implementation 

 
  



6 

 

1 Introduction 

 

“Without successful implementation, a strategy is but a fantasy” (Hambrick and 
Cannella 1989, p.278).  

 

Strategy implementation refers to the process through which formulated strategies are 

translated into concrete actions and realized within the organization (Heide et al 2002; 

Weiser et al, 2020). While this may seem straightforward, simply putting the strategy to 

work often proves to be a challenging task (Koseoglu et al.,2009). Implementation is 

considered the most challenging aspect of strategic management (Zaidi et al 2018; 

Ivancic, 2016) and numerous studies suggest that most implementation efforts fail, with 

some estimates indicating that as many as 90 percent of strategies are not executed 

effectively (Cater and Pucko 2010; Raps, 2004). 

 

Although organizations may formulate strong and promising strategies, their ability to 

sustain competitive advantage often falters due to shortcomings in the implementation 

stage. Indeed, even seemingly straightforward improvements require the careful 

integration of numerous interdependent strategic activities, where failure in just a single 

element can undermine the entire effort (Weiser et al., 2020; Alharthy et al., 2017). Thus, 

the underlying issue is not necessarily with the strategy itself but with the organization's 

inability to effectively implement it. The failure of implementing strategy often stems 

from a lack of execution expertise as managers generally possess greater knowledge of 

strategy creation than of its actual implementation. In addition, the inability to navigate 

difficult organizational changes prevent effective implementation (Cater & Pucko, 2010).  

 

While there is extensive literature on strategic planning and positioning, the practical 

execution of strategies remains underexplored and is often treated superficially. (Tawse 

and Tabesh 2021; de Oliveira et al 2019; Ivančić 2013) Nevertheless, academic interest 

in the execution of strategy has been growing, with recent studies placing increasing 

emphasis on the dynamic and adaptive dimensions of strategy implementation (Weiser 



7 

 

et al., 2020; Amin, 2024). Despite the increasing scholarly interest, most research has 

continued to focus on large companies and SME´s, while limited attention has been given 

to strategizing within micro firms (Kearney et al., 2018). While SME literature is extensive, 

it often lacks clarity on whether it focuses primarily on medium-sized firms, which 

represent less than 1% of EU companies, or includes small companies, which together 

with micro enterprises make up about 99% of EU businesses, more equally (Table 1).  

 

There remains limited understanding of how small and micro enterprises characterized 

by informal flexible and resource-constrained environments implement strategy. These 

firms often execute strategy intuitively quickly adapting to external changes but face 

vulnerabilities due to limited resources and high dependence on individual leaders. 

(Kelliher and Reinl 2009; Kearney et al. 2019) Consequently, actionable insights into 

small business strategy execution remain sparse.  

 

By examining this underexplored context, the thesis provides a comprehensive view of 

strategy implementation in companies of various sizes, highlighting differences between 

large and smaller firms. It offers practical managerial implications and identifies future 

research avenues by revealing challenges and practices unique to resource-constrained, 

owner-driven environments. The thesis begins with an introduction to the research topic, 

questions, and structure, followed by a literature review covering strategy and strategy 

implementation. The methodology section outlines the case study approach, and the 

empirical part presents a comparative analysis of eight construction industry firms of 

varying sizes. The study concludes by integrating theoretical and empirical findings, 

discussing implications, and suggesting directions for future research. 

 

 

1.1 Research gap 

The existing body of research on strategizing is predominantly conducted on larger and 

medium-sized organizations, often overlooking the practical challenges faced SME´s, 



8 

 

leaving a gap of in-depth research on how micro navigate strategic challenges and 

opportunities.  (Kearney et al. 2019) 

 

This gap is particularly significant given that micro enterprises (SMEs) account over 94% 

of all businesses in the EU (see Table 1). This thesis provides an insight into how the 

factors influencing strategy implementation may differ between small and large 

companies, or whether they are fundamentally the same, shedding light on the unique 

challenges and opportunities organizations of different sizes, and especially smaller 

organizations, face when implementing strategy. 

 

Table 1 Key business statistics in the business economy, %, share for each enterprise size 
class, EU, 2021) (Adapted from Eurostat, 2024) 

Number of 
employees 

%, Share of 
companies 

%, Share of 
persons  

employed 

 %, Share of 
wealth  

generated  

0 - 9 94,1 30,1  19,2 

10-49 4,9 18,9  16,1 

50-249 0,8 15,4  17,1 

250+ 0,2 35,6  47,5 

TOT 100 100  100 

 

 

1.2 Research question and objectives 

The research question for the master's thesis is: 

 

RQ 1: How do success factors and challenges of strategy implementation differ between 

large companies and smaller firms (SME´s and micro companies) 

To address the research question and delineate the scope of the study, the following 

research objectives have been established:  

 

RO1: Identify the success factors and the challenges in SI 

RO2: Compare success factors and challenges in the firms of different sizes 



9 

 

 

With this approach, this thesis aims to identify key factors influencing strategy 

implementation and how they vary by company size. The findings offer much-needed 

guidance for small and micro firms, helping them implement strategies more effectively 

and supporting their growth while addressing a notable gap in existing literature. 

 

 

1.3 Research structure and framing 

The research process will begin with the definition of the research focus, design, 

objectives, and questions. The theoretical phase of the research will continue with a 

comprehensive literature review. The necessary background and context of the existing 

research on strategy implementation and the factors effecting it will be provided. 

 

The research begins by presenting the methods, establishing a solid foundation for the 

study. This is followed by a examination of the process for identifying and selecting the 

case companies. The subsequent data collection phase employs semi-structured 

interviews to obtain qualitative insights into strategy implementation practices and the 

factors influencing these practices within the case companies. Within case descriptions 

aim to uncover critical factors affecting the strategy implementation process and 

following cross-case analysis analyses how these factors differ between large and small 

companies, reveals the findings of the study and offers a nuanced understanding of 

organizational dynamics in varying contexts. The thesis will conclude with theoretical 

and practical implications of the research findings, as well as suggestions for further 

research in this field. 



10 

 

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 

 

2.1 Literature review 

Strategy has historically been understood in various ways, with definitions reflecting 

different theoretical perspectives. Originating from the ancient Greek term strategos, 

meaning to lead an army, the concept emphasizes coordination and planning to achieve 

objectives (Cummings, 1993, p.133). In modern business contexts, strategy defines the 

business model a firm uses to compete, while tactics refer to the specific actions taken 

within that model (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010, p.196). Since this thesis focuses 

on strategy implementation, it does not explore the full range of strategy definitions 

found in the literature. However, the following selected examples highlight diverse 

conceptualizations and offer a brief overview of the theoretical foundations and schools 

of thought that shape academic understanding of strategy: 

 

“Competitive strategy is a combination of the ends (goals) for which the firm is 
striving and the means (policies) by which it is seeking to get there.” (Porter, 1980, 
p.xxiv) 

 

“Strategy refers to the decisions and actions made in the present to ensure future 
success and capitalize on emerging opportunities.” (Karlöf, 2004, p.19) 

 

Strategy can be explicit or implicit (Heide et al., 2002) and involves both planned and 

emergent elements (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). The strategy process typically includes 

analysis, formulation, and implementation (Price & Newson, 2003, p.183), 

encompassing environmental assessment, change identification, execution, and 

monitoring (Karlöf, 2004). Strategies are generally classified into portfolio (corporate 

level), business (competitive), and operational (functional) types (Karlöf, 2004, p.10–13). 

Complementing this, the strategy-as-practice perspective emphasizes strategy as a 

dynamic and socially embedded process shaped by the actions and interactions of 



11 

 

individuals (Vaara & Whittington, 2012), particularly relevant in smaller firms, where 

strategy often emerges from the everyday practices of key actors (Kearney et al., 2019). 

2.1.1 Strategy implementation 

Strategic planning is only the starting point, not the final outcome (Galpin, 1998, p.40). 

Strategy formulation is a multifaceted and dynamic phase involving iterative decision-

making and coordinated actions by managers and employees (Li et al., 2010). It is shaped 

by internal and external factors and aims to guide the organization toward strategic 

objectives (de Oliveira et al., 2019; Friesl et al., 2021; Pučko & Čater, 2010). Ultimately, 

strategic success rests on coordinated action, adaptive leadership, and continuous 

refinement. Attempts to rush the process may undermine outcomes, as effective 

integration demands deliberate effort (Friesl et al., 2021, p.2–3; Hrebiniak, 2006, p.14).  

 

Despite thorough planning, many organizations struggle to translate strategic aspirations 

into concrete outcomes, revealing a persistent gap between planning and execution 

(Cater & Pucko, 2010, p.208; Noble, 1999b, p.19; Friesl et al., 2021). The implementation 

phase is often more challenging than the actual planning process, requiring continuous 

monitoring and adaptability (Galpin, 1998, p.38; Ivančić, 2013, p.2; Friesl et al., 2021; 

Okumus, 2001). Bridging this gap requires operationalizing strategies into tangible 

actions and aligning resources to meet performance targets (Heide et al., 2002; Ivančić, 

2013; Li et al., 2010; Miller, 1997).  

 

Effective strategy implementation requires clear responsibilities, structured planning, 

and sustained execution. Leaders must align organizational structures with strategic 

goals, define key tasks, allocate resources, and ensure internal buy-in. Leadership is also 

crucial in addressing obstacles such as unclear responsibilities, resistance to change, and 

ineffective reward systems. (Miller et al., 2004; Friesl et al., 2021; Pučko & Čater, 2008). 

SI is a progressive, ongoing and integrated process, requiring meticulous planning and 

alignment across organizational levels (Heide et al., 2002, p.218) and demanding 

simultaneous efforts across key dimensions: translating strategy into actionable steps, 



12 

 

coordinating activities, monitoring progress while providing feedback, and enhancing 

employee competencies (de Oliveira et al., 2019).  

 

On the other hand, SI is not an instantaneous process but rather unfolds over time, 

combining deliberate actions with unanticipated developments. (Friesl et al., 2021; 

Hrebiniak, 2006). Successful implementation is contingent upon efficient resource 

allocation and resolving operational challenges while ensuring a holistic approach rather 

than focusing on isolated components (Raps, 2005, p.142). 

 

Despite extensive discussions and advice on the topic, the concept of strategy 

implementation often remains vague and undefined, lacking clear guidance on the 

essential components that make it a foundational element of an effective organization. 

(Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008, p.301) Strategy implementation (SI) is understood in 

various ways, depending on the perspective taken. In their study, Silenskyte & Smale 

(2021, p.515) present a useful taxonomy of SI in multinational corporations, categorizing 

conceptualizations into three distinct levels: O-level, I-level, and A-level perspectives. At 

the O-level, strategy implementation is viewed as a tangible and structured process, 

where planning precedes execution in a linear and predefined manner. The A-level 

perspective also follows the general logic of planning followed by implementation; 

however, unlike the O-level, strategy is understood as an emergent rather than a fixed 

phenomenon. Strategy implementation at the I-level is more embedded in everyday 

activities and reflects more of the “Strategy as Practise”-approach. This taxonomy offers 

a valuable conceptual framework for the present study and will also be applied to the 

cross-case analysis. 

 

2.1.2 Strategy implementation in SME & micro firm context 

Strategic management in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is characterized by 

a unique set of challenges and opportunities that distinguish it from large corporations. 

Its importance is recognized, yet it is generally insufficiently integrated into the routine 

operations of the enterprise. Often, managers either underestimate the critical role of 



13 

 

strategic thinking in organizational success or lack the capacity to effectively implement 

a coherent strategic framework (Belas, 2020). In SME´s, strategic management is not 

always prioritized, and many owner-managers focus on short-term survival rather than 

long-term growth (Wolczek, 2018). Only a small share of SME companies prepares 

strategies with a time horizon exceeding five years, indicating a generally short-term 

orientation in strategic planning (Skokan et al., 2013). 

 

This characteristic of deprioritizing strategic management is also present in micro firms, 

where limited managerial capacity and highly centralized decision-making result in the 

owner-manager playing a central role across all business functions.  

 

Particularly, in micro and small enterprises, the strategic role is often held by the owner, 

(Wolczek, 2018). Strategy work in this context is closely intertwined with daily operations 

and is strongly shaped by the entrepreneur’s personal experiences, tacit knowledge and 

intuitive judgment (Kelliher & Reinl, 2009). The personal involvement of the owner or 

manager in the strategic process ensures fast and direct decision-making, but it can also 

create bottlenecks if the owner lacks strategic management expertise or if authority is 

overly centralized (Kearney et al., 2019). In addition, this characteristic of small and 

micro companies limits delegation and collaboration. (Wolczek, 2018).   

 

While flexibility in smaller organizations provides certain advantages, there are 

significant challenges associated with strategic implementation in small and micro firms. 

One of the most pressing issues is resource constraints. Many small businesses suffer 

from “resource poverty,” lacking sufficient financial capital and skilled personnel to 

pursue long-term strategic objectives effectively (Kelliher & Reinl, 2009). Consequently, 

owner-managers tend to prioritize immediate operational concerns over sustained 

strategic development (Wolczek, 2018). Strategic efforts may be postponed or 

abandoned entirely when urgent operational matters arise, particularly in resource-

intensive contexts (Skokan et al., 2013). 

 



14 

 

Another critical challenge related to the high degree of owner dependence is that the 

firm’s strategic success often relies heavily on a single individual, making the business 

particularly vulnerable to disruptions such as leadership changes or burnout. (Kearney 

et al., 2019). Furthermore, micro and small enterprises frequently operate in intensely 

competitive markets where larger firms benefit from economies of scale and stronger 

financial resources. This competitive imbalance can hinder smaller firms’ ability to 

sustain long-term strategic initiatives, as they lack both the market influence and 

structural capacity to compete on equal terms. (Kearney et al., 2019). 

 

2.1.3 Research on factors affecting strategy implementation 

The following section focuses on examining the factors contributing to strategy 

implementation. Building upon existing academic research, this work establishes a 

framework for further examination of practical implications of the factors within 

organizational contexts.  

 

A literature review of 13 key research articles was conducted to identify common 

barriers and enablers of strategy implementation. The most critical factors were selected 

and examined in depth, with additional studies included to support a comprehensive 

analysis. 

 

Beer and Eisenstat (2000) identify six key "Silent killers" of strategy execution, while 

Galpin (1998) highlights the "Seven Deadly Sins" that can undermine organizational 

initiatives. Hrebiniak (2006) in his study, conducted a survey to pinpoint major barriers 

to effective execution. Aziza et al. (2008) reference a study which examines the common 

pitfalls in SI. Building on earlier research, Heide et al. (2002) highlight seven crucial 

factors that affect SI outcomes, whereas Li et al. (2010) identify nine recurring factors 

from a comprehensive review of the literature. Crittenden and Crittenden (2008) offer 

an implementation toolkit to bridge the gap between strategy formulation and execution. 

Cater and Pucko (2010) contribute through their extensive literature review on the 

factors of effective SI. Aaltonen and Ikävalko (2002) focus on challenges faced by 



15 

 

organizations during implementation, while Noble (1999) introduces five key levers for 

enhancing cross-functional execution. Zeps and Ribickis (2015) explore the impact of 

variables in strategy creation on implementation success in Latvian organizations. 

Koseoglu et al. (2009) emphasize organizational issues as a primary cause of failure 

during implementation. Finally, Amin (2024) reviews internal and external factors critical 

to strategy execution in the public sector, further enriching the understanding of what 

drives successful implementation. 

 

The studies discussed above effectively summarize the key factors that either hinder or 

facilitate strategy implementation, and similar themes are found in several other studies 

and literature reviews, also incorporated to the review. According to the chosen studies, 

the factors in question are largely the same; however, depending on whether they 

materialize or not, they function either as barriers or enablers of effective strategy 

implementation. Based on the referenced studies, eight key factors recurring in at least 

four sources were selected for further examination due to their significant impact on 

strategy implementation (Table 2). In addition, other important factors outside the 

framework were included in the analysis based on their frequent occurrence in the 

literature, and particularly in smaller companies examined in this study. All the above-

mentioned factors are summarized in table 8 (p. 88), which presents the key findings 

from the case company interviews regarding strategy implementation (SI) factors. 

 

  



16 

 

Table 2. Identified key factors influencing strategy implementation from literature. 

Factor Biggest challenges in strategy implementation (according to study) 

Clarity and precision 
in strategic 

foundations 

(Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Aziza et al., 2008; Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Cater & 
Pucko, 2010; Hrebiniak, 2006; Li et al., 2010; Noble, 1999b; Zeps & Ribickis, 2005) 

Leadership and 
management 

capabilities 

(Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Cater & Pucko, 2010; Crittenden 
& Crittenden, 2008; Galpin, 1998; Heide et al., 2002; Hrebiniak, 2006; Noble, 1999b; 

Li et al., 2010; Zeps & Ribickis, 2005) 

Communication and 
information flow 

(Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Amin, 2024; Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Cater & Pucko, 
2010; Galpin, 1998; Heide et al., 2002; Hrebiniak, 2006; Koseoglu et al., 2009; Li et 

al., 2010; Noble, 1999b) 

Resource Allocation 
(Aziza et al., 2008; Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008; Galpin, 1998; Heide et al., 2002; 

Noble, 1999b) 

Strategy awareness (Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Aziza, 2008; Heide et al., 2002; Zeps & Ribickis, 2005) 

Guidelines for 
implementation 

(Cater & Pucko, 2010; Hrebiniak, 2006; Li et al., 2010; Zeps & Ribickis, 2005) 

Reward systems and 
strategy 

implementation 

(Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Allio, 2005; Cater & Pucko, 2010; Crittenden & 
Crittenden, 2008; Hambrick & Cannella, 1989; Hrebiniak, 2006; Noble, 1999a; Li et 

al., 2010; Tawse & Tabesh, 2021; Zeps & Ribickis, 2015) 

Corporate culture 
and strategic goals 

(Amin, 2024; Cater & Pucko, 2010; Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008; Heide et al., 
2002; Koseoglu et al., 2009) 

 

 

2.2 The key factors affecting SI identified from the literature 

2.2.1 Clarity and precision in strategic foundations 

According to Cater & Pucko (2010) and Hrebiniak (2006), a poorly conducted strategic 

analysis and an inadequately defined strategy are often the root causes of problems in 

both formulation and implementation. A lack of clarity and precision in a strategy, 

common across many organizations, create uncertainty within the organization and 

leaves employees uncertain about their role and how to contribute through their daily 

actions hampering its members' ability to execute the strategy in a focused and collective 

manner (MacLennan & Markides, 2021). According to research conducted by Skokan et 



17 

 

al. (2013), businesses that have formulated a detailed strategy tend to achieve, on 

average, significantly better performance outcomes. 

 

Without clearly defined strategic goals and short-term, measurable objectives for 

organizational units, it becomes difficult to maintain focus on key challenges, leading to 

ineffective execution (Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Allio, 2005; Hrebiniak, 2006; Ivancic, 

2013; Noble, 1999b; Rumelt, 2011). In addition, according to Li et al. (2010), drawing on 

Heracleous (2000), managers must feel confident in the strategy and see its value. If 

managers see the strategy as flawed or threatening, they may resist it. (Li et al., 2010). 

 

Koseoglu et al. (2009) state that the formulation process plays a more crucial role in 

explaining strategic failures. Conversely, Cater and Pucko (2008, p.230) argue that “It is 

better to have a less perfectly crafted strategy which is fully executed than to formulate 

an excellent strategy which is never implemented”. Lee and Puranam (2016, p.1529) 

further explain that even well-executed strategies, like cost-cutting, may fail if they do 

not align with industry dynamics, highlighting the importance of strategic fit alongside 

execution. 

 

2.2.2 Leadership and management capabilities 

Leaders play a crucial role in the implementation of strategy (Šilenskytė, 2020; Noble, 

1999a; Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008; Noble, 1999a) and effective leadership is 

essential for identifying areas where change is necessary and overcoming obstacles that 

may arise during the implementation process. Leaders are also responsible for managing 

people, motivating them, and adjusting organizational structures to drive successful 

change. (Cater & Pucko, 2010)  

 

Noble (1999a) and Beer & Eisenstat (2000) emphasize the role of middle managers 

acting as powerful agents in driving strategic success, as effective strategy execution 

increasingly depends on lower-level managers who can guide teams to align and execute 

critical strategic initiatives across various functions. Managers’ cognitive ability to 



18 

 

anticipate and adjust their actions is vital for effective strategy implementation, helping 

them overcome challenges like cultural barriers and respond to feedback to keep the 

organization on track (Tawse & Tabesh, 2021).  

 

Effective management of personnel is a cornerstone of both strategy creation and 

execution, as employees’ ambitions, emotions, and needs have a profound influence on 

organizational outcomes. Neglecting these human factors can result in significant 

opposition to strategic initiatives (Heide et al., 2002). To address this, leaders play a 

pivotal role in identifying critical areas requiring transformation and proactively 

addressing resistance. Their responsibilities include managing key individuals, aligning 

incentives, and adjusting organizational structures to facilitate the successful 

implementation of strategic goals (Cater & Pucko, 2010). 

 

2.2.3 Communication and information flow 

In numerous studies and articles on strategy implementation, communication has 

consistently been highlighted as the most crucial factor for success (Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 

2002; Li et al., 2010, p.19; Galpin, 1998; Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). When companies clearly 

communicate their winning approach, aligning execution with corporate goals, they 

foster a culture of performance (Aziza et al, 2008). 

 

Written strategies play a significant role in successful strategy implementation. A well-

documented strategy provides clear guidance and direction, ensuring alignment and 

coherence across all levels of the organization (Zeps & Ribickis, 2015). Additionally, 

structured tools such as templates and frameworks help present the strategy 

consistently, facilitating understanding and the effective explanation of strategic 

objectives (Allio, 2005, p.18; Noble, 1999b). Providing context helps employees 

understand the rationale behind the new direction and how their roles contribute to the 

organization’s strategic goals (Li et al., 2010) They help employees to comprehend how 

the strategy is implemented in day-to-day operations and furthermore, to become 

proactive agents of change within the organization. (Aziba et al., 2008). 



19 

 

 

A hierarchical management style can significantly obstruct open communication from 

lower levels and hinder an organization’s ability to learn and adapt (Beer & Eisenstat, 

2000). In contrast, frequent vertical communication the organization promotes strategic 

consensus by fostering shared attitudes and values (Li et al., 2010). When organizational 

members do not have access to consistent information or when communication must 

traverse multiple hierarchical layers, the resulting divergence in understanding can 

hinder the development of strategic consensus (Rapert et al., 2002). In addition, open, 

interactive communication, as well as active listening, fosters a shared understanding 

and strengthens commitment to the strategy’s success enhancing the decision-making 

process and organizational flexibility (Šilenskytė, 2020; Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). 

 

2.2.4 Resource allocation 

To implement a successful strategy, organizations must ensure they have sufficient re-

sources allocated to meet their strategic goals. Insufficient allocation of resources can 

significantly hinder the execution of an organization's strategy and slow its progress 

(Amin, 2024; Cater & Pucko, 2010; Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008; Galpin, 1998; Heide 

et al., 2002; Li et al., 2008; Kohtamäki et al., 2012). It is crucial for organizations to 

carefully assess their resource needs and ensure that they are adequately prepared to 

achieve their strategic objectives (Cater & Pucko, 2010).  

 

Crittenden and Crittenden (2008, p.301) highlight that proper resource allocation 

involves utilizing essential resources such as finances, people, and capabilities. However, 

resources should not only be viewed in financial terms (Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008; 

Heide et al., 2002, Amin, 2024). Physical capital, such as facilities, equipment, and 

technology, as well as human capital, which encompasses expertise, experience, and 

motivation as well as organizational capital, including processes, systems, and networks, 

also plays a key role in supporting strategic goals. (Crittenden and Crittenden, 2008)  

 



20 

 

2.2.5 Strategy awareness 

Aaltonen and Ikävalko (2002) note that high volumes of communication do not 

guarantee understanding. Their study highlights the need for clear, effective 

communication that ensures comprehension at all organizational levels. Typically, 95% 

of the workforce does not understand the strategy (Kaplan and Norton, 2005), thus, 

simply sharing information is not enough; employees must understand, accept, and 

internalize the strategy for effective implementation (Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002). If 

employees do not understand the company's strategy, the likelihood of successful 

implementation diminishes, which can negatively impact financial performance 

(Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008; Aziza et al., 2008). 

 

When communication occurs frequently across different levels of the organization (for 

example, between management and employees), it fosters a shared understanding of 

strategic priorities. This, in turn, enhances organizational performance, as everyone has 

a clear understanding of the goals to be achieved and the reasons behind their 

importance. (Li et al., 2010) Although strategy may be clear at the top levels of the 

organization, its understanding and adoption across the entire workforce is often lacking 

(Allio, 2005; MacLennan & Markides, 2021) and managers often lead implementation 

teams despite having a limited understanding of the overarching strategy (Noble 1999b).   

 

2.2.6 Guidelines for implementation 

For a strategy to be effectively implemented, employees must recognize its existence 

and possess the requisite knowledge and skills to carry it out (Heide et al., 2002). 

MacLennan and Markides (2021), in their survey of over 2,000 managers, found that 

while managers generally possess a clear understanding of their organizations' 

overarching goals, they exhibit considerably less clarity regarding the specific methods 

and processes employed to achieve these objectives 

 



21 

 

Many processes and programs are launched without a clear understanding of their 

purpose or the specific objectives they aim to achieve. This lack of strategic direction 

hampers effective change, as actions are taken without a coherent plan or vision 

(MacLennan & Markides, 2001). Comprehensive and well-structured guidelines ensure 

employees can effectively contribute to the organization's success. Without clear 

frameworks or explicit instructions, employees struggle to align their daily efforts with 

strategic objectives, leaving the organization vulnerable to inefficiency and misaligned 

actions (Allio, 2005, p.19; Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Hrebiniak, 2006) 

 

2.2.7 Reward systems  

One of the most frequently emphasized aspects in studies and articles on strategy 

implementation is the importance of aligning reward systems with strategic objectives 

(Aaltonen & Ikävalko, 2002; Allio, 2005; Al-Ghamdi, 1998; Cater & Puco, 2010; Crittenden 

& Crittenden, 2008; Hambrick & Cannella; 1989; Hrebiniak, 2006; Noble, 1999b; Li et 

al.,2010; Tawse & Tabesh, 2021; Zeps & Ribickis, 2015)  However, according to Aziza et 

al. (2008), 70% of organizations do not link middle management incentives to strategy.  

 

Incentive systems must be consistently aligned with the organization's strategic 

objectives. (Noble, 1999b; Hambrick & Cannella, 1989, p.282) When incentives conflict 

with these goals, it can significantly hinder effective strategy SI. For instance, if 

employees are rewarded solely based on the performance of their specific functions, 

they may lack the motivation to contribute toward overarching, shared objectives (Noble, 

1999b, p.27; Hrebiniak, 2006, p.23).  

 

Motivating individuals in strategy implementation requires a balanced mix of financial 

and non-financial incentives, such as recognition and growth opportunities. Incentive 

systems should be flexible and tailored to individual goals to maintain commitment 

throughout the implementation process (Crittenden & Crittenden; 2008, p.307; 

Silenskyte, 2020; Noble, 1999b). Rewards can take many forms: they may be formal, such 

as bonuses, promotions, or commissions, or informal, such as verbal praise, recognition, 



22 

 

or a sense of pride and accomplishment. Tailoring the type and criteria of rewards to fit 

the specific strategic direction of the business is essential. Hambrick & Cannella (1989)  

 

2.2.8 Corporate culture and strategic goals 

Organizational culture is seen as one of the most critical factors influencing the success 

of strategy implementation, drawing on insights from multiple studies (Aaltonen & 

Ikävalko, 2002, p.417; Amin, 2024, p.68; Heide et al., 2002, p.219; Hrebiniak, 2006, p.16; 

Koseo-glu et al., 2009) It encompasses the collective cognitive frameworks and 

behavioural patterns within an organization, shaped by shared values, attitudes, and 

norms that influence how individuals are likely to act (Cater & Pucko, 2010, p.307; Heide 

et al., 2002, p.219). 

 

Organizational culture problems often stem from a lack of trust, which can manifest as 

employees' reluctance to share knowledge with their colleagues. Another cultural 

challenge is a tendency to focus on short-term objectives rather than long-term goals 

(Cater & Pucko, 2010). Resistance to change often stems from perceived misalignment 

between new strategies and established organizational culture. Aligning strategic 

initiatives with core cultural values is essential to gain acceptance and support effective 

implementation. (Merkus et al., 2019) 

 

Change, being closely related to SI, is often perceived as synonymous with cultural 

transformation, highlighting the profound interplay between strategic shifts and the 

deeply ingrained values, norms, and behaviours within an organization. To further 

complicate matters, different units and functions within organizations often develop 

distinct subcultures, making it challenging to maintain strategic coherence. (Hrebiniak, 

2006) 

 



23 

 

2.2.9 Other significant factors outside the framework 

The following section briefly examines other commonly highlighted factors that were 

mentioned two to three times across the selected sources and were identified in the 

case companies as influencing factors in strategy implementation, following the 

abductive research approach (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p.24; Saunders, 2023, p.154–

161). 

 

2.2.9.1 Challenges regarding organizational structure and decentralization 

Effective strategy implementation, at any level, depends on the active participation and 

collaboration of all employees (Aziza et al., 2008, p.16; Crittenden & Crittenden, 2008, 

p.304, Noble, 1999b, p.121; Tawse & Tabesh, 2021, p.30) Regular communication can 

strengthen cross-functional relationships by fostering a deeper understanding and 

greater appreciation of each department's contributions (Noble, 1999a). Integrating 

distinct organizational units to reach overarching goals is crucial for successful strategy 

execution, despite its challenges (Hrebiniak, 2006, p.23). 

 

2.2.9.2 Consensus and commitment 

Strategic consensus refers to the degree to which members within an organization align 

their perceptions and agree on the key strategic priorities. It reflects the level of shared 

understanding regarding the organization's direction and objectives. (Rapert & 

Garretson, 2002) In addition, that the lack of consensus is an obstacle to the creation of 

a sound strategy (Koseoglu, 2009), numerous studies highlight that both external and 

internal consensus are crucial for the successful SI (Li et al., 2010). Gaining commitment 

from all levels of an organization can be a significant obstacle (Noble, 1999a, p.121). A 

lack of both collective clarity and commitment often leads to fragile agreement on 

strategic objectives. Strengthening both understanding and dedication among 

stakeholders is essential to bridging the critical "implementation gap" and ensuring the 

success of strategic initiatives (Li et al., 2010, p.22). 

 



24 

 

 

2.2.9.3 Employee engagement 

To enhance organizational performance, it is essential to engage employees in 

participative strategic planning (Kohtamäki et al., 2010; Zeps & Ribickis, 2015). This 

approach improves their comprehension of the company's strategy and fosters a greater 

commitment to its implementation (Kohtamäki et al., 2012). Engaging both senior and 

junior staff in the initial stages of strategy development allows them to foster a sense of 

ownership across the organization even before the implementation process starts (Noble, 

1999b). However, companies often fail to fully leverage the expertise and insights of 

lower-level employees. Not involving employees adequately can result in missed 

opportunities for valuable contributions to the strategic process (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). 

 

2.2.9.4 Working against power structure 

Challenges in strategy implementation can arise from the attitudes or perceived threats 

from operational managers towards upper management. Furthermore, if team cohesion 

within organizational subgroups is particularly strong. If cliques form, it can lead to the 

polarization of these groups, creating divisions that hinder collaboration. The 

distribution of power within an organization plays a critical role, as it shapes decisions 

on allocating the resources required for strategy execution (Noble, 1999a). As Hrebiniak 

(2006) points out, working against the existing power structure can obstruct progress 

unless coalitions are formed, and influential stakeholders are engaged. Similarly, Cater 

and Pucko (2010) emphasize that the dynamics of organizational power significantly 

impact the successful realization of strategic initiatives. (Cater & Pucko, 2010; Noble, 

1999a) 

 

2.2.9.5 External distractions and operational pressures 

Conflicting priorities and an overload of competing activities often diverted attention 

away from successful implementation (Al-Ghamdi, 1998). Managers often lose focus, 

enthusiasm, and direction when transitioning from strategic workshops back to daily 



25 

 

operations, as the practical challenges of implementing broad strategies like "improving 

internal efficiencies" become unclear amidst competing demands, limited resources, 

and re-emerging priorities (Allio, 2005, p.1).  

 

2.2.9.6 Cross-unit collaboration and coordination 

Effective strategy implementation requires strong coordination across different units 

within an organization, as these units often have differing goals and perspectives. 

Aligning objectives across functions, rather than focusing on individual departmental 

goals, can reduce conflict and improve performance. Additionally, as strategies grow 

more complex, the role of lower-level managers becomes critical in ensuring cross-

functional coordination and alignment, facilitating successful execution. (Beer & 

Eisenstat, 2000; Hrebiniak, 2006; Noble, 1999b) 

 

Major large enterprises struggle with siloed departments and structures, requiring 

formal coordination mechanisms. Silos often emerge in organizations with competitive 

cultures, fragmented goals, and reward systems that prioritize individual or unit 

performance. Leaders may foster isolated domains, reinforcing division through power 

dynamics and hierarchical control. (de Waal et al., 2019)  

 

 

2.3 Synthesis 

SI is a critical phase that transforms plans into tangible outcomes. Without effective 

implementation, a strategy may remain purely theoretical and fail to yield the expected 

benefits. Many organizations struggle with execution challenges, and research indicates 

that up to 90% of strategies do not materialize as intended. 

 

Successful SI relies on several key factors. A clear strategic foundation is essential, as 

ambiguous and unmeasurable objectives result in fragmented execution. The role of 

leadership is particularly pronounced in driving change and motivating personnel. 



26 

 

Through communication, the strategy is embedded within various organizational levels, 

ensuring that strategic objectives become an integral part of daily operations. 

Communication is central to execution, serving as the binding element between 

different organizational layers and ensuring that all stakeholders comprehend the 

significance of the strategy and their respective roles in its realization. The allocation of 

resources to strategically appropriate areas support implementation and ensures that 

the organization’s capabilities align with its long-term goals. Furthermore, the 

compatibility of organizational culture with the strategy facilitates the successful 

execution of necessary changes, ensuring alignment with the company’s values and 

operational models. Separating strategic planning from implementation can lead to 

failure; thus, execution must be integrated into the planning phase to avoid 

fragmentation. 

 

The challenges of strategy implementation are fundamentally similar across 

organizations of different sizes, but their manifestations vary significantly. Large 

enterprises benefit from established processes and resources, yet their complex 

structures and hierarchies can slow execution. Smaller firms, on the other hand, can 

adapt strategic changes more swiftly but often face resource constraints and difficulties 

in embedding strategic thinking into daily operations.  

 

The role of communication is particularly pronounced in addressing these differences. 

In large organizations, communication acts as a structural adhesive, integrating different 

levels of the organization into strategic objectives while ensuring that all stakeholders 

receive uniform and timely information. In smaller firms, communication enhances 

flexibility and facilitates the rapid adaptation of strategy into daily operations, where 

close collaboration and informal communication play a significant role. Strategic 

planning and execution require different approaches depending on the size and 

operational environment of a company, but the fundamental success factor remains 

effective and clear communication. 



27 

 

3 METHODOLOGY 

 

The following chapter presents the methodological approach adopted in the study, 

outlining the a) underlying philosophical assumptions, b) the selected research approach, 

c) methodological choices, d) research strategy. As described by Saunders (2023, p. 130), 

the themes (a-d) serve as a framework for structuring these key themes, guiding the 

development of the research logic and structure. This chapter further describes the case 

selection, data collection process, and analytical techniques used to ensure a rigorous 

investigation. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion on the validity and 

reliability of the study, reinforcing the credibility of the research findings.  

 

 

3.1 Research philosophy 

Researchers must practice reflexivity by critically examining their own beliefs, 

assumptions, and biases to ensure alignment between philosophical stance and research 

design. This reflection supports methodological consistency, enhances credibility, and 

involves actively questioning one’s worldview to connect philosophical assumptions with 

research practice (Saunders, 2023, p. 131). To support this, research philosophy provides 

the foundational framework for how research is approached and conducted, built on 

ontology, epistemology, and axiology (Saunders, 2023, p. 161; Eriksson & Kovalainen, 

2016, p. 14). Ontology concerns what is real, epistemology what constitutes valid 

knowledge, and axiology how researchers’ values influence choices (Saunders, 2023, p. 

133–134; Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p. 15–16). 

 

Research philosophies can be distinguished based on where their underlying 

assumptions lie along the spectrum between objectivism and subjectivism (Saunders, 

2023, p.162). Objectivism assumes that social phenomena exist independently of 

perception, aiming to uncover one truth through observable facts, with minimal 

researcher influence (Saunders, 2023, p. 131–139). Subjectivism, in contrast, sees reality 



28 

 

as constructed through human interpretation and language. Nominalism denies an 

objective reality beyond interpretation, while social constructionism views reality as co-

created through interaction, shaped by context (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p. 15). 

Subjectivist researchers accept that their values influence the research and critically 

reflect on their position (Saunders, 2023, p. 135–137; Dubois & Gibbert, 2010). 

 

This study adopts a social constructivist ontology, acknowledging that strategy 

implementation may differ by company size but does not assume it does. The approach 

is subjectivist, incorporating multiple narratives that shape social realities through 

interaction (Eisenhardt, 2021; Saunders, 2023, p. 137). While the author aims for 

neutrality, she recognizes the influence of personal values on topic selection and accepts 

the challenge of full objectivity, thus adopting an axiologically flexible stance (Saunders, 

2023, p. 137). 

 

Saunders (2023, p. 145–154) identifies five main philosophical approaches in business 

and management research: positivism, critical realism, interpretivism, postmodernism, 

and pragmatism. This thesis adopts a flexible social constructivist approach, viewing 

strategy implementation as context-dependent and shaped through language and social 

interaction. It draws on interpretivism to explore perceptions and meanings, while also 

incorporating elements of pragmatism, recognizing that no single perspective or method 

can fully capture the complexity of the phenomenon (Saunders, 2023, p. 147, 153). 

 

 

3.2 Research approach 

Theory development in research typically follows deductive, inductive, or abductive 

reasoning (Saunders, 2023, p. 162). Deduction starts from existing theory and tests 

hypotheses through structured, measurable designs aimed at generalization (Eriksson & 

Kovalainen, 2016, p. 23; Saunders, 2023, p. 154–161). Induction, in contrast, derives 

theory from empirical observations without predefined assumptions, often focusing on 

context and aligning with interpretivism (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p. 24; Saunders, 



29 

 

2023, p. 154–161). Abduction combines both, moving between theory and data to 

generate explanations, reflecting the iterative nature of empirical research (Dubois & 

Gibbert; Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p.24; Saunders, 2023, p. 154–161). 

 

This study follows an abductive approach, beginning with a theory-based research 

question and moving between literature and empirical data to explore SI in smaller 

companies, a less-studied context. This approach allows the re-searcher to identify 

patterns in data and extend or refine existing frameworks (Saunders, 2023, p. 154–157). 

This approach also aligns with the interpretivist paradigm, as noted by Eriksson & 

Kovalainen (2016, p. 24). 

 

 

3.3 Methodological choices 

Since the study does not involve quantitative data, calculations, measurements, statis-

tical analysis or any other form of numerical data (Gilham, 2000, Saunders, 2023, p. 181), 

the methodological choice is qualitative, where “meanings are derived from words and 

images, not numbers”. However, if both approaches would be used in the study, it would 

be referred to as a mixed-method research design. (Saunders, 2023, p. 181). Although 

the study includes a numerical table (Table 8), the underlying data is entirely qualitative 

and based on the author's interpretation of the case company interviews. 

 

Qualitative methods within the interpretivist approach focus on understanding the 

meanings behind actions and experiences, viewing individuals as active participants in 

constructing their realities (Saunders, 2023, p. 184; Gilham, 2000; Ronkainen et al., 2011, 

p. 82) and the researcher’s role is to interpret these experiences from multiple 

perspectives to build theories or generate hypotheses (Bazen et al., 2021). In both 

qualitative and quantitative research, it is possible to use either a mono-method or a 

multi-method approach. This refers to whether the study relies on a single data 

collection method or multiple methods within the chosen research strategy. In 

qualitative research, there is a wide range of data collection tools, and one of the most 



30 

 

common methods is interviews (Bazen et al., 2021). In this study both primary data and 

secondary data is utilized, thus study applies a multi-method qualitative approach. 

 

 

3.4 Research strategy 

The main types of qualitative research are Grounded theory, Phenomenology, 

Ethnography, and Case Study (Bazen et al., 2021). Although the terminology is used 

variably in research, this study’s methodology section is based on the research onion by 

Saunders (2023, p. 130), according to which these types are connected to the choice of 

research strategy.  

 

Grounded theory seeks to develop new theories by examining social interactions and 

processes. Phenomenology explores how individuals experience and interpret a 

phenomenon. Ethnography investigates the cultural meanings and beliefs of a group, 

typically through extended observation. Case Study, on the other hand, provides an in-

depth description of a single person, group, or event, analysing its context and unique 

characteristics. (Bazen et al., 2021) Since in this study, the aim is at gaining an in-depth 

understanding of the interactions and phenomena (factors relating to SI) occurring 

within a specific context (case companies) (Eisenhardt, 1989; Halinen & Törnroos, 2005; 

Dubois & Gadde, 2002), a case study research strategy has been chosen for this study. 

 

The primary aim of a case study is to answer specific research questions by collecting 

and analysing different types of evidence available within the case setting. A case study 

can focus on a variety of units, or larger entities like institutions or communities, serving 

various purposes. Some offer rich descriptions of events, allowing readers to draw their 

own conclusions and others are used to partially support theories or frameworks, 

functioning in a quasi-deductive theory-testing manner. This study adopts the latter 

mentioned, which combines deductive reasoning by testing existing theoretical 

propositions with inductive flexibility, allowing empirical insights to refine or challenge 



31 

 

those assumptions based on the data collected. (Gilham, 2000; Dubois & Gadde, 2002; 

Yin, 2018, p. 15-16) 

 

Depending on the objective of the research, the researcher must select the most ap-

propriate approach for the case study strategy. According to Massis and Kotlar (2014), 

case study approaches can be categorized into three types: exploratory, which aims to 

answer the question how; explanatory, which focuses on explaining why something 

happens; and descriptive, which seeks to describe and confirm the existence of a 

phenomenon in a real-life context. However, according to Yin (2018, p. 286–287), the 

explanatory approach aims to answer both how and why questions, whereas the 

purpose of an exploratory case study is to investigate and clarify research questions that 

will be used in future studies. Since this study’s research question begins with how and 

aims to uncover causal links, it is classified as explanatory. 

 

In addition to the aspects outlined above, the researcher must also determine whether 

to adopt a single case study or a multiple case study design. If the study includes more 

than one case, it follows a multiple case design (Yin, 2018, p. 54). The choice between a 

single case study and a multiple case study is contingent on balancing analytical depth 

with broader applicability. While a single case study enables a comprehensive, context-

specific investigation, a multiple case study enhances comparability and generalizability 

(Dubois & Gadde, 2002). While unique or extreme cases may justify a single case study, 

a multiple case study is more suitable for exploring common patterns across several 

cases within the same topic (Yin, 2018, p. 54-55).  

 

As this thesis compares how strategy implementation factors appear in large and small 

companies, a multiple case study is the most suitable design for exploring both 

similarities and differences across cases. By examining multiple cases, this study aims to 

identify recurring themes and patterns of similarity to enable a more comprehensive and 

nuanced understanding of the factors that shape successful strategy implementation, 

thereby enhancing the broader generalizability of the findings. (Dubois & Gadde, 2002;)  



32 

 

 

While studies that simply reproduce previous findings offer only a limited contribution 

to academic discourse, those that expand theoretical frameworks drive meaningful 

advancements in research (Eisenhardt, 1989). Theoretical replication enables scholars to 

refine the boundaries of existing theories by investigating cases that challenge 

fundamental assumptions (Riedl, 2007) and thus extend the theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). 

Since the manifestation of strategy implementation factors in small firms remains 

underexplored, this study aims to expand the literature and deepen under-standing in 

that context. Identifying significant differences could enhance the relevance and 

applicability of existing theories. 

 

 

3.5 Case selection 

The cases were purposively selected through the author's professional network, 

combining large corporations for literal replication and smaller firms for theoretical 

replication based on contrasting characteristics. The selection aimed to represent a 

sample well suited to the research objectives. 

 

The study is framed within the context of the construction sector, specifically targeting a 

diverse range of companies of different size. Definition of sizes are presented in detail 

below (table 3). Most interviewees have decades of experience working in the leadership 

teams of construction companies, making them familiar with the concept of strategy 

implementation.  

 

  



33 

 

Table 3. Company size definition (Adapted from European Comission, n.d.) 

Company  

category Staff headcount Turnover (M €) OR Balance sheet total (M €) 

Large Over 250 Over 50 
 

43+ 

Medium-sized 50-250 10,1-50 
 

10,1-50 

Small 10-49 2,1-10 
 

2,1-10 

Micro 0-9 0-2 
 

0-2 

TOT 100 100   100 

 
 

In total, eight companies were selected for in-depth analysis through semi-structured 

interviews for the empirical part of the research.  These interviews were used to explore 

in greater detail the challenges and success factors associated with strategy 

implementation within the selected firms. The interviewees were chosen specifically 

targeting individuals who hold the roles of founders and/or CEOs within their respective 

companies and due to their experience in both the formulation and implementation of 

strategies, providing them with in-depth insights into the research topic.  

 

The table (table 4) presented below categorizes the case companies in the study based 

on their size. Where applicable, prior experience in other organizations [as a founder or 

CEO] is indicated in parentheses in the table. Additionally, if there are no parentheses, 

the interviewee has witnessed the company’s growth phases from within the case 

organization.  

 

  



34 

 

Table 4. Case Companies in numbers and the role of the interviewee. 

  

Founding 
year 

Annual 
turnover (ca. 
M€, 2024)  

Number of 
employees 
(ca.2024) 

Company Size 
by definition 
(figure 1.)  

Interviewee past 
experience;role 
CEO/founder/owner 

Company Alpha  2009 450 400 Large 
(Micro, Small), 
Medium  

Company Beta  2014 65M 380 Large 
(Micro) Small, 
Medium  

Company 
Gamma  

2011 12 M 110-120 Medium Micro, Small  

Company Delta  2018 7 74 Medium Micro, Small 

Company Epsilon  2019 9,5 29 Small 
(Micro, Small, 
Medium, Large) 
Micro 

Company Zeta 2009 6 13 Small Micro  

Company Eta 2017 2,2 20 Small Micro 

Company Theta  2017 0,8 9 Micro - 

 

 

 

3.6 Data collection 

Case study data may be gathered through various qualitative methods, such as 

interviews, observations, and document analysis, as well as quantitative approaches like 

surveys (De Massis & Kotlar, 2014). Primary data refers to information collected and 

analysed directly by the researcher, whereas secondary data consists of previously 

gathered information that is reanalysed by someone other than the original collector 

(Church, 2002). 

 

Interviews provide a focused, in-depth, and highly effective method for gathering 

comprehensive empirical data (De Massis & Kotlar, 2014), thus interviews are the main 

source of data utilized in this study. In addition, primary data from earlier interviews 

conducted by the author as preparatory material for panel discussions will be utilized for 

Cases Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon (Table 5). These interviews provide 

background information on the case companies and valuable insights into the 

interviewees’ companies, including their histories and founding processes. By leveraging 



35 

 

these two complementary sources of primary data, the study aims to construct a deeper 

understanding of the companies, and their representatives studied.  

 

Table 5. Panel discussion participants and interviewees and coding 

Interviewee Interview lenght Interview conducted on Interview coding 

Interviewee Alpha 60 min 10/2023 P1 

Interviewee Beta 60 min 10/2024 P2 

Interviewee Gamma 60 min 10/2024 P3 

Interviewee Delta 60 min 10/2024 P4 

Interviewee Epsilon 60 min 10/2023 P5 

 

A semi-structured interview approach is conducted for this study. This method is 

characterized by consistent questions across all interviews, allowing respondents to 

express their answers in their own words. Specific themes and topics are uniformly ad-

dressed with each participant (Hirsjärvi & Hurme, 2008, pp. 47–48; Metsämuuronen, 

2008, p. 40). The semi-structured format is recognized as being more effective in 

revealing the underlying reasons behind participants' actions compared to structured 

interviews (Metsämuuronen, 2008, p. 40). Thematic interviewing is an especially 

appropriate method for this research as it emphasizes capturing the interviewees' 

interpretations of the topics, ensuring that their perspectives and lived experiences are 

integral to the analysis. These interpretations and meanings emerge through 

interpersonal interaction between the interviewer and interviewee (Hirsjärvi & Hurme, 

2008, p.48). In thematic interviews, the questions are not fixed in form or order; however, 

it is essential that the same themes are covered with all interviewees (Eskola & Suoranta 

2018, 64).  

 

As a source of primary data, informal interviews conducted with employees of the case 

companies provide valuable background information and potentially reinforce diverse 

internal perspectives. These interviews provide qualitative data, offering nuanced 

perspectives that might not emerge in more formal questioning. From these 

conversations, general foundational elements related to strategy implementation within 

the companies will be identified and integrated into the analysis to enrich the overall 



36 

 

understanding. The aim of the semi-structured interviews is to identify the factors that 

influenced the SI process and integrate findings into a framework (table 8, p.88). 

Interviews are deemed the most effective method for data collection in this research, as 

certain essential information can only be obtained through direct conversations with the 

companies' representatives.   

 

Secondary data, which consists of previously gathered information that is reanalysed by 

someone other than the original collector (Church, 2002). Secondary data used in this 

thesis will be collected from the case companies' strategy documents, if available, and 

general information from the companies’ official websites, and additionally from 

newspaper and magazine publications. 

 

Interview questions are provided in Appendix 1. To facilitate more in-depth responses, 

most of the questions are open-ended, with additional follow-up questions prepared. 

The interview includes both introductory and content-specific questions. The 

interviewees have been compiled in the following table (table 6), providing an overview 

of the participants and relevant details for the study.  

 

Table 6. Details of the interviews. 

Company Interview date Interview lenght Responsity level 

Company Alpha 26.3.2025 1,5 h 
Founder, former CEO, 
emeritus 

Company Beta 12.3.2025 1,5 h Founder, former CEO 

Company Gamma  14.3.2025 1 + 1 h Founder, CEO 

Company Delta  19.3.2025 1,5 h Founder, CEO 

Company Epsilon  19.3.2025 1,5 h Founder, COO 

Company Zeta  3.4.2025 1,5 h Founder, CEO 

Company Eta 10.4.2025 1,5 h Founder, CEO 

Company Theta  24.3.2025 1,5 h Founder, CEO 

 

The interviews are recorded, transcribed, and thoroughly analysed. The interview 

questions are organized into various categories, each with an explanation of its purpose 

(Table 7). To ensure that the respondents can fully comprehend the questions, they will 



37 

 

be provided with interview questions several days prior to the interview to ensure that 

the participants are well-prepared and familiar with the questions prior to the interviews. 

 

Table 7. Interview questions by topic 

Topic 
Interview 
Questions 

Context 

Overall strategy situation and 
background 

1-4 To know the basics of strategy development in the company. 

Strategy implementation and 
practical challenges 

5-7 
To identify practical challenges faced during the strategy's 
implementation and how they were addressed. 

Key factors in strategy 
implementation 

8-17 
To examine the eight identified key factors and how they are 
perceived and impact the implementation and perception of the 
strategy within the company. 

Other factors affecting strategy 
implementation 

18 
To examine additional factors that might influence strategy 
implementation, followed by follow-up questions to gather 
deeper insights. 

 

In this case study, the anonymity of the interviewees has been preserved to protect both 

the participants and company-specific confidential information, as the content is 

somewhat controversial. This approach safeguards both the cases and the individuals 

involved (Yin, 2018, p.239). 

 

3.7 Data anaysis 

In a multiple case study, each case is first analysed separately, and afterward, insights 

and overall interpretations are derived from these separate studies. (Yin, 2018, p.54) The 

researcher must observe and draw conclusions about whether meaningful patterns 

emerge in the data and seek out promising concepts and recurring themes. (Yin, 2018, 

p.166-167). 

 

Within-case analysis involves a detailed examination of a single case, focusing on its 

individual characteristics and elements. This approach helps to gain a comprehensive 

understanding of the case by analysing all its aspects separately. In contrast, for example 

cross-case analysis entails comparing multiple cases to identify similarities and 

differences across them. (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p.143) 



38 

 

 

Yin (2018, p.168–173) outlines four general strategies for data analysis: relying on 

theoretical propositions, working your data from the ground up, developing a case 

description, and examining plausible rival explanations. For this study, I have chosen the 

first strategy, which emphasizes pre-existing theory and examines its manifestation in 

different context, here the context being large companies and SME’s. The central 

proposition in this research is "Whether the factors influencing strategy implementation 

manifest differently in smaller enterprises compared to larger ones, considering 

variations in the factors affecting to the strategy implementation process”, which helps 

to organize the analysis by directing attention to the description of specific conditions 

within a particular context (Yin, 2018, p.168–169). 

 

For the analytic technique, Yin (2018, p.175–199) presents several options: pattern 

matching, explanation building, time-series analysis, logic models, and cross-case 

synthesis. As this is an explanatory study that asks, “How do success factors and 

challenges of strategy implementation differ in smaller and larger firms?” and aims to 

contribute to the existing theory, the pattern matching technique is chosen to be utilized 

in this study. In this approach set of patterns will be defined based on the initial findings 

and assess the presence of these conditions in the findings of the group of smaller case 

companies to draw conclusions regarding the overall proposition. This technique can be 

challenging, as the failure of even one proposition to hold true in a particular small 

company may prevent us from making conclusive judgments about the claim either way. 

Nonetheless, this technique was selected for the present study, as it is believed to yield 

stronger results than, for instance, cross-case synthesis, which would illustrate 

differences between cases but might not allow for the identification of reliable emerging 

patterns.  (Yin, 2018, p.175) 

The data analysis begins by identifying key themes (factors affecting SI) within each case 

company. As a first step, a table is populated based on the thematic framework 

presented (table 2, p.16), completed separately for large and medium-sized companies, 

and for small and micro-enterprises. The table is then expanded to include additional 



39 

 

significant themes that emerge from the data. The matrix supports the research 

objective of comparing success factors and challenges across firms of different sizes and 

supports the theoretical framework (literal replication) alongside findings that reflect 

theoretical replication, enabling a structured comparison aligned with the research 

question (Yin, 2018, p.166).  

 

Thus, the themes are cross-examined between larger and smaller case companies to 

identify underlying patterns, points of convergence and divergence, as well as notable 

differences across organizational sizes. Significant observations and insights are 

highlighted, and their relevance will be assessed across the different comparison groups 

to provide a deeper understanding of the dynamics of strategy implementation in case 

companies of various size.  

 

 

3.8 Validity and reliability 

Reliability refers to the extent to which research results can be consistently replicated 

when the same study is conducted multiple times. If other researchers can replicate the 

study and obtain similar results, the study can be considered reliable. Validity refers to 

the accuracy and credibility of the conclusions drawn from the research. In qualitative 

research, validity is concerned with ensuring that the descriptions and conclusions are 

precise and well-supported by evidence. This is achieved through rigorous analysis and 

by considering the research from multiple perspectives. (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, 

p.305-307) 

 

Reliability in qualitative research is often debated due to the differences in how research 

findings are generated (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2006, p.305). However, in this study, the 

consistency of results is maintained by ensuring that the same theoretical framework 

guided all interviews, and the findings are grounded in evidence collected from multiple 

sources. In interpretivist studies, credibility can be established by employing 

triangulation methods to verify findings from multiple perspectives (Steenhuis & de 



40 

 

Bruijn, 2006). Triangulation, a common technique in qualitative research, employed in 

the study, means that evidence is gathered from various empirical sources and cross-

checked to confirm its consistency and accuracy (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2006, p.306). 

This approach enhances both the validity and reliability of the research by verifying the 

consistency and correctness of the conclusions drawn and increases the construct 

validity (Yin, 2018, p.43). To further enhance the quality of the study and increase its 

construct validity, a draft of the report will be shared with the interviewees for their 

review, to ensure that nothing has been misinterpreted. Any necessary corrections will 

be made based on their comments. This also provides the interviewees with an 

opportunity to elaborate further on the topic and contribute additional evidence in case 

certain aspects were unintentionally overlooked or not addressed during the interviews. 

(Yin, 2018, p.43,241) 

 

Given that literal replication is employed to ensure consistency in outcomes across 

multiple cases, with the expectation of similar results, it serves to strengthen the 

reliability and credibility of research findings and thus increases the external validity of 

the study (Church, 2002; Yin, 2018, p.43,55). This approach will be applied to examine 

how well the established theories of strategy implementation hold true across different 

cases in this study.  

 

In addition to serving as the primary analytic technique in this study, pattern matching 

contributes to strengthening the internal validity of the case study. A key requirement of 

the pattern matching approach is the consideration of rival explanations. This means 

that when a pattern is identified in the data, alternative and plausible explanations must 

be acknowledged and systematically ruled out. It is essential to ensure that the observed 

outcome is not attributable to a different, equally reasonable explanation than the one 

identified in another case within the same pattern. The objective is to identify all 

potential threats to validity and systematically verify that no other plausible explanations 

exist for the assumptions made. (Yin, 2018, p.177) 

 



41 

 

4 FINDINGS 

 

4.1 Within case description 

In the following section, the key factors influencing strategy implementation are 

examined through the lens of the case company. In addition, selected elements from the 

“other significant factors” category have been included where they were observed to 

have a distinct influence on the case company.  

 

4.1.1 Case company Alpha 

Case company Alpha, a privately held Finnish construction group, operates primarily in 

Finland's key growth regions and has grown to become one of the largest players in its 

sector. Its business spans residential, commercial, and renovation construction as well 

as real estate development. Structurally, Case company Alpha functions as a parent 

company with multiple regional subsidiaries, where centralised support functions are 

coordinated at the group level. (Company web page, n.d; Panel interview P1) 

 

The interviewee, one of the founding members and the company’s first CEO, stepped 

away from the company’s operations 2021 and reflects on the company’s journey from 

its founding to his departure. (Panel interview P1, 2023) 

 

Clarity and precision in strategic foundations. Alpha’s strategy work evolved 

significantly alongside its growth. Initially, strategy was intuitive and owner-driven, 

focused on financial targets and communicated superficially. As the company expanded 

and established subsidiaries, strategy became more structured, supported by an 

experienced external board member. From 2015 to 2018, strategic goals were clearly 

documented and discussed through regional strategy days, fostering broader 

organizational engagement. Strategic competence was deliberately brought into the 



42 

 

board through the recruitment of individuals with experience from larger corporations, 

which added professionalism and structure to the strategy process:  

“We brought in someone to the board who had done strategy work in many larger 
companies.”  

 

By the early 2020s, Alpha’s strategy work had become fully professionalized, with 

subsidiary-level strategies aligned to group objectives, systematic monitoring, and 

strategy integrated as a central tool for guiding leadership, culture, and organizational 

coherence. 

 

Leadership and management capabilities. One of the key drivers of successful 

implementation was the visible and consistent commitment of the leadership team. It 

was seen as essential that management endorsed the strategy and actively embodied it 

in their behaviour and communication. As noted in the interview: 

“We showed that we were committed to the strategy ourselves. This was a 
prerequisite for others to take it seriously.”  

 

This leadership-by-example approach helped translate abstract strategic goals into 

concrete, everyday behaviour, reinforcing alignment across levels. Over time, leadership 

capabilities transitioned from being concentrated in a few key individuals to a more 

institutionalized and distributed form of strategic governance. 

 

Communication and information flow. Initially led by the CEO, strategic communication 

evolved into a significant, continuous, interactive process involving the entire 

organization. The CEO alone spent weeks each year personally communicating the 

strategy to different units and teams, adapting his message to smaller groups to ensure 

understanding. This personal engagement became a critical enabler of strategy diffusion. 

Responsibility for implementation was gradually distributed. Local unit directors and 

subsidiary CEOs took on more structured roles in delivering and following up on strategic 

objectives:  

“The regional directors and unit CEOs were responsible for making sure the 
message stuck locally.”  



43 

 

 

In addition, regular quarterly meetings engaged personnel across units in reviewing 

strategic progress and identifying necessary adjustments. This open dialogue was 

supported by intranet-based communication, emphasizing clarity, repetition, and 

transparency.  

 

Resource allocation. As strategic awareness matured, more attention and internal 

capacity were devoted to implementation. One of the most important resources was 

time, particularly that of senior leaders. Regular strategy sessions were scheduled, and 

managers were expected to organize follow-ups and performance reviews aligned with 

the strategic framework. A recurring theme in the interview was that resource allocation 

improved primarily through experiential learning. Over time, strategy implementation 

came to be seen not as a side activity but as a core managerial responsibility: 

 “Eventually, we realized this needs to be part of how we lead the company - 
constantly, not occasionally.” 

 

Strategy awareness. In the early stages of case company Alpha, strategic awareness was 

exceptionally strong due to the shared history among staff, as most employees had 

transitioned together from a previous organization. As the interviewee noted: 

“92% of the staff came with us - we all knew each other.” 
 

This cohesion meant that strategy was implicitly understood without formal 

communication. However, as the company expanded and hired people from diverse 

backgrounds, maintaining alignment required more structured efforts. The organization 

began actively reinforcing strategy awareness through communication and engagement. 

As the interviewee explained:  

“We had to work harder to ensure new people really understood what this 
company is about, and it took more time, more dialogue and more structure.” 

 

Guidelines for implementation. Each subsidiary's strategy was reviewed systematically 

by the parent company’s board to ensure alignment with the overarching corporate 

strategy. These structural mechanisms helped translate strategy from an abstract plan 



44 

 

into a practical, governing framework across the organization. However, in the early 

years, such structure did not exist. The interviewee described how the implementation 

process initially lacked formal planning altogether:  

“The plan was me.” 
 

The organization gradually moved towards a more systematic model, with clear 

implementation schedules, defined roles, and organizational routines. The interviewee 

emphasized the importance of this shift in hindsight:  

“One of the most important lessons was that you need to be well-prepared before 
introducing strategic changes, there has to be a plan for how to communicate and 
implement it.” 

 

Reward systems and strategy implementation. The case company implemented a 

reward system that was deliberately simple and transparent, and according to the 

interviewee, it was precisely this simplicity that made it effective. Performance-based 

bonuses were tied to the financial results of each region or subsidiary, creating clear, 

localized incentives. As the interviewee noted: 

“We had a very simple performance-based reward system… people always get 
disappointed if it’s too complicated.” 

 

According to the interviewee, this straightforward model avoided unnecessary 

complexity, which could have undermined trust or demotivated employees. It allowed 

the company to incentivize performance in a way that matched its operational culture, 

results-driven, fast-paced, and grounded in trust. Additionally, it also allowed people to 

clearly understand the link between collective results and personal or team rewards. 

 

Corporate culture and strategic goals. Organizational culture was central to Alpha’s early 

strategic success. The founding team and most employees had previously worked 

together in the same business unit, bringing with them shared practices, trust, and 

mutual understanding. This strong cultural cohesion laid a solid foundation for strategy 

implementation in the company’s formative years:  

“We were kind of like one big family… we had the same goals.” 
 



45 

 

Alpha’s core values of honesty, openness, and people-centricity were actively 

demonstrated in leadership behaviour and daily operations. Rather than being abstract 

ideals, values were enforced through consistent actions, creating a strong cultural 

framework that supported strategy implementation. As the interviewee noted: 

 

“Even though the strategy was basic at first, people still understood what we were 
doing. That’s because we all came from the same background.” 

 

As Alpha expanded and hired employees from diverse organizational backgrounds, its 

previously cohesive culture began to fragment. Different work habits and expectations 

led to the formation of informal subgroups, making strategic alignment more challenging. 

To maintain clarity and cohesion, the leadership team had to invest more in personal 

engagement and communicate values and strategy in smaller group settings. As the 

company evolved into a network of semi-autonomous units, it became evident that the 

original informal cultural model was no longer sufficient, and a more structured 

approach to strategy was necessary. 

 

Other significant factors outside the framework 

 

Challenges regarding organizational structure and decentralization. As case company 

Alpha expanded and introduced a subsidiary structure, the strategic implementation 

process became significantly more complex. Initially, strategy could be managed 

centrally due to the organization’s “small size” (as the interviewee described it, although, 

by definition, the company was medium sized already at the founding stage) and cultural 

homogeneity. However, once multiple semi-independent units were established, each 

with its own leadership and local operations, coordination challenges emerged: 

“At some point, it stopped being one company, it became regions, units, with their 
own strategies that had to align with the corporate one.” 

 

The interviewee recognized that this decentralization introduced friction and increased 

the need for synchronization:  



46 

 

“We had to make sure each unit’s strategy was in sync with the group strategy, not 
always an easy task.” 

 

Consensus and commitment. Strategic alignment within the leadership team was 

consistently strong. Although there were occasional disagreements, these were resolved 

through open dialogue:  

“If we disagreed, we handled it behind the scenes - nothing ever lingered... We 
were always aligned on the overall direction, even if we saw things differently 
along the way.”  

 

According to the interviewee, this ability to maintain open internal dialogue and reach 

agreement was critical for strategic clarity. This consensus within the leaders created a 

stable foundation from which strategic initiatives could be launched and maintained. 

 

Beyond leadership, employee commitment was seen as essential to successful strategy 

implementation. In the early stages, strong cultural and operational cohesion meant that 

strategic alignment was largely implicit, as long-standing team members shared a 

common understanding without formal articulation. The interviewee emphasized that 

true commitment stems from understanding, not instruction, highlighting the 

importance of transparent communication in building genuine engagement. 

 

Employee engagement. The implementation of strategy at the case company was 

closely tied to employee engagement, even though employees were not directly 

involved in the actual formulation of the strategy. The leadership actively involved 

personnel by facilitating dialogue and requesting feedback: 

“We always asked for feedback on the strategy and people could comment freely.”  
 

The CEO (later the chairman of the board) made a point of visiting all regional offices 

quarterly and holding sessions that invited participation and reflection:  

“We discussed whether anything needed to change, sometimes the feedback came 
weeks later by email, but it came.” 

 



47 

 

The interviewee believed that this inclusive approach fostered a stronger sense of 

ownership among employees and contributed to their understanding of the company’s 

strategic direction.  

 

4.1.2 Case company Beta 

Case company Beta is a privately owned Finnish indoor climate technology company that 

has experienced significant growth since its establishment. Headquartered in Southern 

Finland, the company specializes in ventilation, heating, and cooling solutions, including 

maintenance, modernization, and lifecycle services. Its operations are concentrated in 

urban growth centres where the demand for technical building services is high. The 

company is structured as a group and is centralized under the parent organization 

(Company web page n.d.; Panel interview P2, 2024) 

 

The interviewee has served as the company’s CEO for many years and played a central 

role in shaping its early growth and strategic direction and recently he has transitioned 

from the CEO role to a more focused position where he is currently responsible for 

overseeing acquisitions. (Panel interview P2, 2024) 

 

Clarity and precision in strategic foundations. Case company Beta has developed the 

latest clearly defined strategy for the years 2022–2027, formulated in collaboration with 

the consultancy firm PwC. This process lasted five weeks and involved multiple senior 

leaders, indicating a structured and collaborative approach. The strategic plan includes 

specific objectives such as market positioning and geographic focus:  

"The strategy covers the years 2022–2027 and includes, among other things, the 
company's goals in the market, such as whether to be a generalist or a specialized 
player, and in which geographic areas the company wants to operate." 

 

The interviewee highlights the importance of having a clearly defined and well-

structured strategy to guide organizational direction. He also emphasizes that strategy 

should be actionable and embedded in the organization’s everyday operations. 



48 

 

 

Leadership and management capabilities. The interviewee reflects on the leadership 

within his company and highlights the importance of experience among those in 

managerial roles. He considers experience essential for those in leadership positions, as 

it enables them to better understand complex situations and make well-grounded 

decisions:  

“I truly believe that experience plays a central role in leadership. It allows you to 
see the bigger picture and make more informed decisions. 

 

The interviewee emphasized that effective leadership is rooted in authenticity, 

inspiration, and adaptability. Leaders must genuinely believe in the company’s vision to 

inspire others and foster commitment. He cautioned against aggressive, purely results-

driven leadership styles, which may produce short-term gains but lack long-term 

sustainability. Instead, he stressed the importance of empathetic leadership that 

acknowledges the varied capacities of employees to adapt to the pace of strategic 

change. Additionally, he highlighted that strong leaders are those who learn from their 

mistakes, internalize the lessons, and adjust their behaviour to avoid repeating them, 

reinforcing a culture of continuous learning and responsible leadership. 

 

Communication and Information flow. The interviewee emphasizes the importance of 

internal communication in enabling strategy implementation. Various formats, such as 

onboarding, team events, and informal gatherings, are used to communicate company 

goals and direction. He describes how transparency and regular dialogue have been key 

practices, even during challenging times:  

“We have these briefing sessions… even during the pandemic we met face-to-face, 
with things like Friday pizza gatherings and all kinds of events. We keep 
communicating it all the time and let people know where we are, what we’re 
aiming for, and why.” 

 

To ensure that strategic communication is effective, clarity and simplicity are key. The 

interviewee recalls how a 176-slide presentation was eventually condensed into a single, 

easily understood visual:  



49 

 

“The strategy has to be simple - it can’t be a hundred pages long…The message 
must be accessible to everyone, not just senior leadership.” 

 

Resource Allocation. At case company Beta, strategic implementation is tightly linked to 

forward-looking resource and personnel planning. The company focuses on identifying 

the expertise required to support growth and address operational needs. Budgeting 

plays a central role in translating strategic goals into action, functioning as a financial 

tool and as a mechanism for alignment. As the interviewee stated: 

 
“Strategy is a great idea, but when it comes to execution, the budget is what makes 
it possible - or impossible…To ensure alignment we break the annual budget down 
to monthly and unit levels.’” 

 

At case company Beta, resource planning is dynamic and adjusts to changing needs 

across business units. Although planning is rigorous, it remains flexible and responsive 

to operational realities. A key challenge is the shortage of skilled labour, which has led 

the company to invest in internal training programs as a long-term solution to secure 

future talent and support strategic growth. 

Finally, the company supports flexibility by enabling collaboration between units. Unit 

managers and regional directors actively share resources and expertise to avoid 

duplication and inefficiencies. 

Strategy Awareness. The interviewee emphasizes that strategic awareness is actively 

built from the very beginning of the onboarding process. New units and their 

management teams are introduced to the company’s strategy during orientation, where 

key strategic themes are broken down and contextualized:  

“The strategy is communicated to all employees and new companies during 
orientation…We also run a dedicated onboarding session for the management of 
each new company where we go through the same strategic content.” 

 

Despite consistent communication, the interviewee acknowledges that it is not always 

verified whether the message has been internalized across the organization. This 



50 

 

realization led the interviewee to reflect on the need for more systematic methods to 

assess whether the strategy is truly understood across the organization. 

Finally, he points out that in different units or roles, the strategy may be perceived 

differently depending on their operational focus. This highlights his view on how local 

interpretations and strategy awareness can deviate from the central narrative. 

Guidelines for Implementation. The interviewee describes how strategy 

implementation at the case company is structured through practical planning processes 

that emphasize realism and adaptability. He views the annual budgeting cycle as the 

most important structural framework guiding implementation, as it transforms strategic 

goals into actionable, measurable components, which translate high-level strategy into 

measurable outcomes and are supported by KPIs and local-level ownership. However, 

beyond budgeting, he highlights several interrelated practices that support execution 

across the organization. In addition to strategic planning and communication, each 

business unit creates its own annual action plan. These include specific targets and 

resource needs, and in some areas, such as sales, concrete metrics are defined. 

 

Reward systems and strategy implementation. While the interviewee does not 

emphasize formal performance-based bonuses, he outlines a clear link between strategy 

implementation and measurable targets. These include financial indicators such as 

revenue and EBITDA and non-financial metrics like employee satisfaction, customer 

satisfaction, and ESG goals. As he explains:  

“Measurable goals include increasing revenue and EBITDA… employee satisfaction 
and customer satisfaction are also very important.” 

A key element supporting strategy implementation at the case company is equity-based 

ownership. Offering shares to key personnel has strengthened strategic alignment and 

commitment by tying individual success to the company’s overall performance. This 

long-term incentive structure encourages cross-unit collaboration and replaces short-

term bonus schemes. With a planned private equity exit, shared ownership ensures that 



51 

 

those involved in execution benefit directly, providing a stable and unifying motivator for 

long-term strategic success. 

Corporate culture and strategic goals. The organizational culture of the company has 

been strongly built around an entrepreneurial spirit and a hands-on approach. 

Historically, the culture has been characterized by a strong reliance on individuals: trust 

in the entrepreneur(s) as a person(s) and confidence in the company’s ability to provide 

employment and continuity. As the interviewee describes the early phase: 

"In a way, there was trust in the person, in the entrepreneur, that they would be 
able to provide you with work and manage things." 

 

During Beta’s growth phase, the culture has remained fundamentally the same, but 

mergers and rapid expansion have introduced greater diversity. Companies and 

personnel from various backgrounds have brought their own practices, and maintaining 

a unified culture has required active management and communication efforts. As the 

interviewee notes: 

"We are bringing in many different cultures, seven last year and six the year before. 
We are constantly kind of in a state of fermentation [i.e. continuous phase of 
change]." 

 

Other significant factors outside the framework 

 

Cross-unit collaboration & coordination. The interviewee emphasizes the importance 

of creating a shared sense of purpose across the organization to mitigate risks. In this 

context, employee ownership plays a critical role:  

“We have over 60 key people who are shareholders. That really hel