Samuel Kärkkäinen Employee Awareness of Organizational Strategy: Understanding the Link Between Job Roles and Strategic Goals Vaasa 2026 School of Management Master’s thesis Strategic Business Development 2 UNIVERSITY OF VAASA School of Management Author: Samuel Kärkkäinen Title of the thesis: Employee Awareness of Organizational Strategy: Understanding the Link Between Job Roles and Strategic Goals Degree: Master of Sciences in Economics and Business Administration Discipline: Strategic Business Development Supervisor: Diduc Sniazhana Year: 2026 Pages: 92 ABSTRACT: In today’s increasingly global and interconnected world, organizations face both new opportunities and increasing competition. To remain competitive, they must possess a clear strategic vision and a well-defined plan for achieving it. This plan, also known as strategy, serves as a critical foundation which success depends on whether employees understand it and are aware how their work tasks contribute to it. Despite its importance, prior research suggests that employee’s strategic awareness and their understanding of how their daily tasks support achieving strategic goals, remain limited. This study examines the general level of strategic awareness among employees in Finland and investigates the factors that influence it, such as tenure, age, and gender. As prior research has highlighted a gap in the literature regarding the limited attention given to frontline employees, this study addresses that gap by examining how strategic awareness varies across organization’s hierarchical levels. In addition, this thesis explores how well employees understand the connection between their own job tasks and the organization’s strategic goals, and whether this connection predicts motivation, job satisfaction, and engagement rather than general strategic awareness alone. Based on existing literature this this study poses three hypotheses: Employees’ overall strategic awareness remains relatively low; that positive outcomes arise primarily from employees understanding of how their job tasks are connected to achieving organization’s strategic goals rather than from general awareness itself; and that Strategic awareness increases at higher levels of organizational hierarchy. The theoretical framework draws on research in strategic communication, sensemaking and line of sight, which together help understanding how employees interpret strategic information and connect it to their roles. This study takes a quantitative research approach, as the data was collected through an online questionnaire, which was distributed across various organizations in Finland, resulting in 122 responses. The analysis included descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, one-way ANOVA, and hierarchical multiple regression. The results showed that overall strategic awareness among employees in Finland was relatively high, but varied significantly across hierarchical levels, with blue-collar employees showing the lowest level of awareness and managers the highest. Based on the results line of sight was found to be the main positive driver for motivation, job satisfaction, and engagement rather than general strategic awareness alone. KEYWORDS: Strategy, Line of Sight, Strategic awareness, Sensemaking, Strategic communication 3 4 UNIVERSITY OF VAASA School of Management Author: Samuel Kärkkäinen Title of the thesis: Employee Awareness of Organizational Strategy: Understanding the Link Between Job Roles and Strategic Goals Degree: Kauppatieteiden maisteri Discipline: Strategic Business Development Supervisor: Diduc Sniazhana Year: 2026 Pages: 92 ABSTRACT: Nykyisessä globaalissa ja verkottuneessa toimintaympäristössä organisaatiot kohtaavat lisääntyvää kilpailua. Kilpailukyvyn säilyttäminen edellyttää selkeää strategista suuntaa, jonka onnistunut toteutuminen riippuu myös siitä, kuinka hyvin työntekijät ymmärtävät strategian ja oman työnsä merkityksen strategisten tavoitteiden saavuttamisessa. Aiempi tutkimus viittaa siihen, että tämä ymmärrys on usein rajallista. Tämän tutkielman tavoitteena on tarkastella strategisen tietoisuuden yleistä tasoa Suomessa työskentelevien työntekijöiden keskuudessa sekä selvittää siihen vaikuttavia tekijöitä. Lisäksi tutkielmassa tutkitaan, kuinka hyvin työntekijät ymmärtävät omien työtehtäviensä ja organisaation strategisten tavoitteiden välisen yhteyden sekä sitä, liittyvätkö myönteiset työelämään liittyvät vaikutukset ensisijaisesti tähän ymmärrykseen vai yleiseen strategiseen tietoisuuteen. Tutkimus vastaa kirjallisuudessa tunnistettuun tutkimusaukkoon, joka liittyy etulinjan työntekijöiden vähäiseen huomioimiseen strategiatutkimuksessa. Tutkimuksen teoreettinen viitekehys pohjautuu strategiseen viestintään, merkityksenmuodostukseen (sensemaking) sekä line of sight -käsitteeseen. Strateginen tietoisuus ymmärretään työntekijöiden yleiseksi ymmärrykseksi organisaation strategiasta, kun taas line of sight viittaa työntekijöiden käsitykseen siitä, miten omat työtehtävät edistävät strategisten tavoitteiden saavuttamista. Tutkimus on toteutettu kvantitatiivisena tutkimuksena. Aineisto on kerätty verkkokyselyllä useista Suomessa toimivista organisaatioista ja analysoitu tilastollisin menetelmin. Kyselyyn vastasi 122 henkilöä. Tulokset osoittavat, että työntekijöiden strateginen tietoisuus on yleisesti melko korkealla tasolla, mutta vaihtelee organisaation hierarkkisten tasojen välillä. Lisäksi havaitaan, että työntekijöiden ymmärrys omien työtehtäviensä ja strategisten tavoitteiden välisestä yhteydestä on keskeinen myönteisten työelämään liittyvien vaikutusten selittäjä. Pelkkä yleinen strateginen tietoisuus ei yksinään selitä näitä vaikutuksia yhtä vahvasti. Johtopäätöksenä voidaan todeta, että strategian kytkeminen työntekijöiden päivittäiseen työhön on keskeistä strategisten tavoitteiden toteutumisen kannalta. KEYWORDS: Strategia, Line of Sight, Strateginen tietoisuus, Merkityksenmuodostus, Strateginen kommunikointi 5 Contents 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Purpose of the study 8 1.2 Scope and limitations 10 2 Literature review 12 2.1 Defining Strategy 12 2.2 Strategy statement 15 2.3 Strategy map & balanced scorecard 17 2.4 Strategic awareness 19 2.5 Strategic communication 22 2.6 Line of sight 25 2.7 Strategy as a practise 30 2.8 Sensemaking theory 32 2.9 Theoretical framework 33 3 Methodology 37 3.1 Research approach 37 3.2 Methodological choice 39 3.3 Data collection 42 3.4 Data analysis 43 3.5 Interpreting the results 45 4 Findings 47 4.1 Strategic awareness 47 4.1.1 Gender and strategic awareness 48 4.1.2 Education and strategic awareness 50 4.1.3 Age and strategic awareness 52 4.1.4 Hierarchical level on strategic awareness and LOS 54 4.2 Correlations 56 4.2.1 Tenures correlation to strategic awareness 56 4.2.2 Line of sight and strategic awareness 57 4.3 Multiple regression analysis 58 4.3.1 Meaningfulness of work 58 4.3.2 I feel motivated to do more than expected 60 4.3.3 Building a long-term career 61 4.3.4 Interested in learning more about my organization’s strategy 63 4.3.5 I feel excited about the future of my organization 64 4.4 What affects strategic awareness 66 4.5 What affects Line of sight 69 4.6 How is strategy communicated in your organization? 72 4.7 How would you prefer the strategy to be communicated to employees? 74 4.8 Thoughts, observations, or development suggestions related to the organization's strategy 76 4.9 Summary of the results 77 6 5 Discussion 81 5.1 Theoretical implications 81 5.2 Managerial implications 82 5.3 Suggestions for future research 84 References 86 Appendices 93 Appendix 1. Questionnaire 93 7 1 Introduction Every organization should have a well-defined strategy to guide its efforts toward achieving its set goals. In an era of globalization and intensifying competition across industries and markets, it becomes increasingly vital for organizations to ensure that they a have well defined strategy and that their employees possess a strong awareness of strategic priorities. This awareness is essential not only for maintaining competitiveness but also for capturing the positive effects that stem from having a workforce that is aligned with organizational objectives. Once an organization has determined its strategy, it becomes the responsibility of managers and supervisors to express it to all employees, the better the communication is done, the higher the level of strategic awareness among employees can be achieved, as argued by Schultz & Wehmeier (2010). Research indicates that perceptions of an organization’s strategy can vary notably among employees. Collis and Rukstad (2008) argue that in many organizations even executives struggle to clearly articulate their company’s strategy. This raises an important concern: if those responsible for communicating and implementing the strategy are unable to express it clearly, it is unlikely that employees will have a strong understanding of it either. Collis and Rukstad (2008) further suggest that organizations lacking a simple and coherent statement of strategy often face difficulties in execution and alignment throughout the organization. These insights emphasize the critical role of strategic clarity. When the strategy is not clearly defined or communicated, both leaders and employees may struggle to understand it, ultimately weakening overall strategic awareness and the organization’s ability to achieve its goals. The word strategy has many different definitions, as showcased later in this paper. For the purposes of this study, strategy is defined as an organization’s top-level strategic objectives and goals, the overarching, long-term plans that shape its direction and priorities. This includes corporate-level strategies that articulate the mission, vision, and value-creation approach, distinct from narrower functional strategies like 8 marketing or mergers and acquisitions strategies. Strategic awareness, which is one of the main research topics of this thesis, refers to the degree to which employees understand their organization’s strategy that is designed to achieve long-term goals. Organizational strategies are often mentioned in corporate websites, job posts, or they might be discussed during the first days of starting in a new job, and every now and then during our work life, varying between organizations. I think it is still safe to say, that in most cases we are introduced to our organization’s strategy at one point or another, whatever the level of the job. Therefore, it would make sense that every employee should be aware of their organization’s strategy, at least on some level. 1.1 Purpose of the study One of the main goals of this thesis is to assess the general level of strategic awareness among employees working in Finland and explore its relationship with subjects such as work motivation, job satisfaction, and perceived meaningfulness of work. Despite extensive research on the positive outcomes of strategic awareness, little is known about its prevalence among employees. This study aims to address that gap, offering insights that can help organizations refine not only their strategy communication practices, but also their understanding of how employees interpret and make sense of strategic information in their daily work. This interpretive process is known as sensemaking, a topic which will be discussed further later in this thesis. If awareness is found lacking, companies may redirect efforts to enhance it, if it is at a high level, they can confidently allocate resources elsewhere. The topic of how to increase strategic awareness will be discussed later to introduce solutions which managers can consider adapting, if the findings show low levels of strategic awareness among employees. Ultimately, the findings seek to improve employee engagement, performance, and strategic alignment, benefiting both organizations and their workforce. In addition, this 9 paper aims to find insights about the factors that influence levels of strategic awareness. Past studies have recommended future studies to include the analysis of individuals attributes correlation to strategic awareness and to involve multiple organizations in the sample size (Davis et al, 2010, pp. 336-337). This thesis will be executed in a way, that fills this presented research recommendation. This study also questions past studies by exploring whether the benefits of strategic awareness come from understanding the link between job tasks and strategic goals rather than general strategic awareness itself. To answer to this question, this paper will also investigate employees’ understanding of how their job tasks align with organizational strategic objectives, drawing on the “Line of Sight” (LOS) framework (Boswell et al., 2006). Understanding what truly drives the positive outcomes associated with strategic awareness helps organizations see more clearly how to align employees with strategic goals and which actions are most effective in achieving those results. This thesis poses the following 5 key questions: 1. What is the general level of strategic awareness among employees? 2. What factors (e.g., tenure, age, gender) influence this awareness? 3. How aware are employees of how their job tasks contribute to achieving strategic goals? 4. How does this specific task-strategy awareness affect motivation, performance, or satisfaction? 5. Are the positive effects linked to overall awareness of strategy, or specifically to employees understanding their contribution to it? The main question this thesis seeks to answer is whether positive outcomes stem primarily from employees’ general strategic awareness or from their understanding of how their individual job tasks help in achieving organizational strategic goals. 10 By answering these questions, the study examines correlations with factors such as motivation, job meaningfulness, alignment and commitment. These questions will also help to answer to the main research question, whether the benefits of strategic awareness come from understanding the link between job tasks and strategic goals rather than general strategic awareness itself. The practical significance lies in offering organizations actionable insights to enhance employee engagement and strategic alignment, while academically, it contributes to the literature on organizational behaviour and strategy implementation by addressing an understudied area, as according to Boswell & Boudreau (2001, pp.3) the literature on the topic of line of sight is limited. Remote work became increasingly common during and after the COVID-19 pandemic as many organizations have adopted fully or partially remote working practices. This has changed how employees interact, communicate, and connect with their organizations, potentially influencing how they understand and interpret strategic goals. For this reason, the aspect of remote work is included in this thesis to a limited extent, to examine whether working remotely affects employees’ strategic awareness or line of sight. However, this perspective plays only a minor role in the overall analysis. 1.2 Scope and limitations This research focuses on organizational strategy at the corporate level, excluding sub- strategies like marketing or mergers and acquisitions, to maintain coherence and breadth. Data will be collected from employees working in Finland across various industries, targeting employees on all levels to see if there are notable differences between different job levels. 11 The scope of this paper is not limited to a specific field but includes companies from various industries, which are analysed as a whole. Including Industry focused analysis would require a large amount of data from various companies operating in the same field, for accurate and reliable conclusions to be made. Collecting such amount of data would require more time and effort than what is available for this thesis. Therefore, I see it fitting to analyse data from different sources as one. This study has some limitations that should be noted. The sample data was collected through a survey, meaning that the results are based on employees’ own perceptions, which can be influenced by personal interpretation or a desire to answer socially acceptable way. Lakshman et al. (2000, p. 370) also highlight this risk, noting that the main weakness of survey-based data collection is related to respondents’ behaviour. Participants may misunderstand questions, hesitate to answer honestly, or be influenced by “courtesy bias”, which is the tendency to respond in a way they believe is expected or desired. These factors can affect the credibility and reliability of the results. In addition, the sample size (n=122) is also relatively small, which limits how widely the results can be generalized, as the respondents may not present all industries or types of organizations in Finland. As part of the survey, respondents were also asked to indicate their highest educational degree, and the analysis examined whether educational background affects strategic awareness or line of sight. However, only four participants held a doctoral degree, which limits the interpretation of results for this group. Because the data was collected at one point in time, the study can only show relationships between variables, not direct cause-and-effect links. Also, different factors like company culture and leadership style were not considered, even though they might affect the results. Despite these limitations, the study offers useful insights into how employees understand and connect with their organization’s strategy. 12 2 Literature review To establish a foundation for this research, core concepts such as strategy, strategic awareness, Line of Sight, and other related theories will be discussed in this chapter. Prior relevant studies will also be discussed, as they will be later analysed with the results of this paper. Going through these topics help clarifying terms for readers that they might not be familiar with, and help minimizing misinterpretation, while the literature review highlights supporting evidence and gaps that justify this study. Although the topics of strategic awareness, strategic communication, line of sight, strategy-as-practice, and sensemaking are presented separately, they are all closely connected. Together they help understanding how the key concepts of strategic awareness and line of sight emerge and are strengthened withing organization, forming a solid theoretical foundation for this thesis. Based on the literature review this thesis poses 3 following hypotheses: H1. The general level of strategic awareness is low among employees working in Finland H2. Strategic awareness increases at higher levels of organizational hierarchy. H3. Positive work-related outcomes are more strongly associated with employees’ understanding of how their job tasks and roles contribute to achieving organizational strategic goals than general strategic awareness alone 2.1 Defining Strategy The word “strategy” originates from the Greek term “strategos,” meaning “generalship” (Nickols, 2016). Its roots trace all the way back to ancient Greece, where it was tied to military planning and warfare. As battles grew increasingly complex and 13 forming alliances became a more common practise, strategy evolved into a helpful framework for addressing these topics. By the late 18th century, nations such as Britain, Germany, and France adopted the term to articulate military objectives to their generals (Freedman, 2015). It was not until the 1960s that strategy entered the field of business. During this period, a structured approach to planning emerged, supported by tools and techniques that enabled managers to make well-informed decisions (Whittington, 1996). The concept gained awareness in the 1970s, and by the early 2000s, it had become one of the cornerstones of business management, guiding and helping executives in strategic decision-making (Freedman, 2015, pp. 22–23). In contemporary use, strategy extends to practically any scenario involving planning. Freedman (2015) observes that organizations now have tailored strategies for various departments, while individuals apply strategic thinking to personal choices, such as purchasing a vehicle, advancing a career, or managing complicated tasks. Usually, to understand a new topic, we can look up the definition of the word and gain a decent understanding of the topic in hand. When it comes to the topic of strategy, this can be a bit more confusing, as scholars have come up with various definitions for strategy. Varying definitions also be seen as a positive thing, as according to Mintzberg (1987) because of the complex and vast nature of the topic, multiple definitions can help to capture the whole “scope” of what strategy means. To demonstrate his point (1987, p. 11), he proposes five complementary perspectives for strategy: strategy as a plan, ploy, pattern, position, and perspective. According to Mintzberg (1987, pp. 11-17) strategy can be a deliberate, pre-planned roadmap an organization has created for achieving determined business objectives. These plans can also take a form of a ploy, that are designed to outplay competitors. He compares these two definitions of strategy to military campaigns, as they share 14 similarities in their purposes, all of them are designed for winning. While these two definitions, strategy as a plan and a ploy, give a great example of how strategy can be formulated as an intended way to achieve certain goals, it can also be emerged through repetitive patterns, where constant behaviours and unplanned actions subtly shape outcomes over time, in the end forming into a what can be called a strategy. Alternatively, viewing strategy as a position highlights an organization’s placement within its competitive landscape, creating a unique niche to stand out. Lastly, the author defines strategy as a perspective, the organization's way of seeing the world, like its mindset or outlook. This perspective is shaped by the company's culture and values, and it influences how the organization makes decisions and responds to situations. These definitions of strategy introduced by Mintzberg (1987) reveal that strategy can be formed deliberately or emerge as the outcome of an evolving, repetitive patterns. Mintzberg (1987) underscores that these definitions are not mutually exclusive, for instance an Intended strategy can also shape its form in the long run through repetitive patterns. Various definitions and perspectives can be found for the topic of strategy. Johnson et al. (2008, pp. 13–14) define strategy as an organization’s long-term track and scope, taking advantage of resources to gain a competitive edge and fulfil stakeholder needs. Porter (1996, p. 39) frames it as delivering unique customer value through differentiation from competitors. Dictionary.com (2023) defines strategy as “a plan, method, or series of manoeuvres or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result”, and Quinn (1981) defines it as “the pattern or a plan that integrates an organization’s major goals, policies, and action sequences into a cohesive whole”, and the list could go on. Collectively, these definitions show that strategy is a complex concept that serves as both a plan and a guiding framework for organizational action and it can be formulated 15 and developed in various ways. A common ground can be found among these definitions, as they generally suggest that strategy provides direction and alignment between an organization’s goals, recourses, and activities. Because strategy has so many definitions it can also be understood differently by different individuals, which is why it is important that organizations communicate their strategies clearly. Tools such as strategy statements and strategy maps can help reduce confusion and misunderstandings, and these topics that will be discussed further later in this chapter. As mentioned in the introduction, in this paper strategy is defined as an organization’s top-level strategic objectives and goals, the overarching, long-term plans that shape its direction and priorities, much like Mintzberg’s (1987, pp. 11-17) definition of strategy being like a plan. This definition was selected because it reflects a common and widely used understanding of strategy in organizations, where strategy is often seen as the organization’s overall direction and long-term goals. Using a definition that is easy to understand makes it more suitable for studying topics addressed in this thesis. 2.2 Strategy statement Defining strategy is only the starting point. For employees to understand what the strategy means in practice, the organizations must express it clearly. Strategy statement is a tool that builds on this by translating broad strategic intentions into a simple and communicable form. Strategy statement, as the name suggests, is a statement of the strategy, which should, according to Collis & Rukstad (2008) include at least the following three elements, object, scope, and competitive advantage, which play a crucial role play in ensuring that the statement will ensure focus and clarity within the organization. 16 Having a strategy statement will help executives and managers to form a clear understanding of strategic matters, which will help them to more efficiently talk about the topic downwards to other employees, increasing strategic awareness. The authors also suggest that managers should include employees from all levels to take part in the creation of the strategy statement. It is important that the statement is also easy to understand, as unclear statement can lead to negative outcomes, it can for example cause confusion and misalignment among employees. Being confused about what the company wants to achieve can lead employees to make decision and work towards different goals, wasting time and energy. In the worst case, unclear statement can prevent the intended strategy from happening. (Collis & Rukstad, 2008.) Collis & Rukstad (2008) further emphasize that the statements’ strategic objective must be defined clearly, as it will help individuals to grasp the idea of what the organization wants to achieve, further helping them to align their inputs accordingly. The objective should leave no room for questions and be measurable. Clear objective will also help different stakeholders to understand why specific decision have been made in the organization, as the direction to which the company aims to move towards is clear. Collis & Rukstad (2008) continue by emphasizing how important it is to define a clear scope, as it will establish clear boundaries for the organization’s activities, guiding decisions on which markets to enter, which customer groups to prioritize, and how to manage its supply chain. Defining these boundaries will also help employees staying aligned with strategic objectives by discouraging efforts that differ from what is the organizations core focus. For instance, specifying the intended customer base allows the organization to avoid pursuing irrelevant markets or developing products that don't fit its strategic vision. The authors (2008) argue that defining the third element, competitive advantage, helps the organization to create a clear picture of how they differ from their 17 competitors. Competitive advantage is something unique that the organization possesses, which makes its customers choose its products or services over competing alternatives. A well-defined advantage also outlines the internal processes and activities that must work together to support this differentiation. They also suggest that organizations could identify their key strengths by mapping the firm's value proposition in comparison to competitors. Once a strategy statement is complete and ready to be communicated, different tools, such as value proposition chart and activity-system map can be used to make the communication more efficient. These tools will help visualising complex ideas making it easier for employees to grasp how the strategy sets the company apart. Sharing the strategy statement across all levels of the organization is key to embedding it into everyday actions. By ensuring each management level communicates the strategy to the next, companies can build alignment and empower employees to make decisions that consistently reflect strategic priorities. (Collis & Rukstad, 2008) 2.3 Strategy map & balanced scorecard According to Kaplan & Norton (2000) for an organization to be able to execute their chosen strategy, the employees must understand it. To help leaders and managers increase their employee’s strategic awareness, the authors suggest mapping the strategy based on balanced scorecard, which is a more visual way used to communicate the strategy showing how the organization plans to convert its various assets into desired outcomes. Balanced scorecard helps measuring organizations performance from four perspectives: financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth. The authors point out, that managers and executives often give limited description about what they want the employees to do and the motivation behind their orders, which leads to confusion and unclearness that makes it difficult for the strategy to be executed as intended. The benefit of using visuals for 18 communicating strategy was also emphasised by Collis & Rukstad, (2008), as mentioned earlier. This tool can help organizations to enhance the line of sight among employees, meaning that employees will be more aware of how their job tasks are linked to achieving the organizations strategic objectives. The topic of line of sight will be discussed more in detail in the following chapter. Kaplan & Norton (2000) also give a clear suggestion for managers, and anyone interested in creating balanced scorecard, on how to begin the process. According to the authors, the process should take a top-down approach, starting from the organization’s ultimate goal and go down from there to identify the pathways for achieving it. What they see important is that the organizations mission and core values are reviewed carefully before starting, making it clear what is the reason the organization exists and what it stands for. After that one should move to formulating a strategic vision, so a clear statement of what the organizations aspires to become which should include a clear articulation of the organizations long term goal, such as becoming the profit leader in the industry. From here the process moves to the strategy map, which outlines the logical steps of objectives and actions that are required to be achieved to reach the long-term goal, linking strategic goals to operational initiatives across the balanced scorecards key perspectives, which are: financial, customer, internal processes, and learning and growth, as can be seen from figure 1. 19 Figure 1. Balanced scorecard - Strategy map. Adapted from Kaplan & Norton (2000) 2.4 Strategic awareness According to Hambrick (1981) strategic awareness is when the executive’s perception of organizational strategy is realized as intended. This definition makes sense, as when employees are aware of the strategy, they naturally know better how to work towards implementing it correctly. Therefore, as Davis et al (2010) emphasise, managers and those individuals who are responsible for communicating the strategy to all employees, should do it as clearly as possible. They argue that clear communication about strategy helps developing and fostering strategic awareness among employees. Urbanski (2021), who examined employees’ awareness of their organization’s global strategy, found that overall awareness was low, identifying this as a risk that could create challenges and negatively affect organizational performance. According to Hambrick (1981), strategic awareness decreases as one moves down the organizational hierarchy. Surprisingly, the study found a significant decline even among 20 second-level executives, those reporting directly to top management, indicating that managers themselves may lack a clear understanding of the organization’s strategy. This observation is consistent with Collis and Rukstad (2008), who argued that in many organizations, even senior executives often struggle to clearly articulate their company’s strategic direction. Past studies have linked high levels of strategic awareness to numerous benefits, including enhanced employee motivation (Urbanski, 2021; Dyczkowska & Dyczkowski, 2015), greater participation in goal, improved commitment to corporate strategy (Dyczkowska & Dyczkowski, 2015), and positive impacts on both strategic and creative performance (Al Haraisa, 2022; Kazem et al., 2022). Gagnon et al. (2014) suggest that awareness of organizational strategy significantly impacts employee commitment levels. I question these argued positive effects, as they fail to consider how well the employees understand how their job tasks help in achieving strategic goals, which could also explain these effects. It is worth to mention, that these two topics share similarities and are not mutually exclusive. The concept of line of sight (LOS) will be discussed later in this paper to shed light to this perspective. Fostering strategic awareness is in the best interest of organizations that aim to improve competitiveness in their markets. Having strategically aware employees will also help organizations to adapt to constantly changing business environments and to exploit opportunities and avoid major pitfalls (Al-badayneh, 2021). A lack of understanding about the organization’s strategy among lower-level employees can create numerous challenges and negative outcomes. For example, Sandy (Noble, 1999, p. 131) argues that implementation failures arise when the strategic initiative lacks clear organization for action, specifically, when essential implementation behaviours are not clearly defined. This lack of clarity can lead key organizational members to hesitate in executing the strategy, as they are unsure of how to achieve success. Similarly, Argyris (Noble, 1999) points out that companies 21 often have habits, called "defensive routines," that mess up strategy execution. These habits, like pretending to agree with a boss even when you don’t, not knowing what you can discuss with higher-ups, or waiting until the last minute to mention problems, are common and stop people from learning or understanding the plan clearly. This confusion in turn creates gaps between what workers and managers think, making it harder to execute the strategy, especially at the lower levels where the work happens. Baron (2006) points out that the consistency of a business strategy can affect how it is perceived. If an organization keeps changing its strategy every now and then, employees start perceiving it less seriously. In contrast, when individuals understand their organizations strategic vision and how their job roles help in achieving it, they are more likely to feel motivated and committed to its implementation. Therefore, it is important to understand that developing the business strategy is only the first step, the true challenge for employers is to ensure that the employees understand how their roles is linked to the successful implementation of that strategy. Urbanski (2021) examined the vital role that employee awareness plays in successfully carrying out a company’s global strategy in his research paper. He found that, even though global strategy significantly influences performance and competitiveness, employees often lack sufficient understanding of it, which undermines its impact. To tackle this gap, Urbanski’s study evaluated how aware employees in large Polish companies were of their firm’s global strategy, a subject that hadn’t been widely explored before. The study used a quantitative approach with a cross-sectional design, gathering firsthand data at a single point in time. They distributed 200 questionnaires to employees at large Polish firms and analysed 82 valid responses. This method shed light on how employees view global strategy and its advantages, such as strengthening the brand, driving innovation, expanding markets, improving product quality, boosting sales, and increasing profits. 22 The research highlighted that building employee awareness is key to improving the uptake and success of a global strategy. The findings suggest that when employees are more informed, they’re more motivated and better equipped to help meet strategic objectives, which in turn boosts overall organizational performance. Urbanski’s conclusions contribute to the field of knowledge management and offer practical guidance for large companies aiming to use global strategy as a tool for long-term success. 2.5 Strategic communication As mentioned earlier, strategic awareness and fostering LOS are heavily linked to how efficient and clear strategic communication is. There are many ways strategies can be communicated. Hallahan et al. (2007, p. 3), who examined the nature of strategic communication, defined it as purposeful use of communication by an organization to achieve its mission. According Falkheimer (2014), the reason for the increased interest towards the topic of strategic communication lies in the need to adapt to today’s modern society, in which trustworthiness and being credible are respected virtues. Argenti et al. (2005) researched the topic of strategic communication. In their study they defined strategic communications as “communication aligned with the company’s overall strategy, to enhance its strategic positioning” (p. 63). The study involved over 50 in-person interviews conducted over six months with executives from various companies, including well-known communicators (e.g., Dell, FedEx), crisis-tested firms (e.g., Cendant), and effective yet lesser-known organizations (e.g., JetBlue). The researchers interviewed CEOs, CFOs, and communication officers, focusing on communication's role in strategy, its structure, and executive involvement. 23 The authors (2005) note that many companies often stumble in strategic communication by taking a tactical and especially a short-term approach to communicating with key constituencies, which can lead to the communication to be inconsistent with the strategy and slow or even prevent it from happening. Companies that take this kind of approach can also face challenges in competing in the market, which is why the authors emphasise the importance integrating communication and taking a more strategic approach. To help organizations develop their communication, they introduced a framework for strategic communications, illustrated in the figure 2. The authors found out that those companies, where the CEO has a natural understanding of how communication can be a differentiator for a business and therefore drive strategy, are the ones that also are aware of the importance of strategic communication. They emphasised the importance of strategic communication in organizations that are growing, as they often become more complex and require larger number of employees, which in turn drives the need for consistent strategic communication. (Argenti et al., 2005.) 5 important aspects about strategic communication were introduced by the authors that aim to help organizations in translating planned strategy into concrete actions. Firstly, they emphasise the important role of senior managers carry, stating that CEOs and top leaders should be involved actively in supporting and engaging in strategic communication, as it should not be left solely to the communication department. This argument is in line with the thoughts of Hambrick (1981), who argues that managers and executives carry the responsibility of effectively communicating the strategy downwards to other employees, for them to know how to operate for the strategy to realize as intended. Baron (2006) also notes that it is the responsibility of a leader to make sure that everyone understands the strategy, and that leaders should put effort into making sure, that strategy is not only a vision for themselves but is also understood on the lower level. 24 Secondly, Argenti et al. (2005) argue that all communication efforts should align with the company’s overall strategy, ensuring a consistent and unified message across functions. Similarly, Collis & Rukstad (2008) talk about the positive effects, that can result when people across the organization share the same view on certain topics. They argue that a simple, clear strategy statement is more likely to be understood in a same way across the organization, which will align employee’s behaviour within the business. Sharing the same view of the strategy will allow employees to make individual choices that reinforce one another. Thirdly, Argenti et al. (2005) argue that structural integration, combining all communicational roles under one communicational executive, is not the only choice. Rather, it is more important to have placed right people into right roles where their skills and potentials are utilized most efficiently. Strong networks, strategic awareness, and credibility across multiple communicational roles can be equally effective in ensuring alignment. Their next, fourth lesson, emphasises the importance of having a long-term communication strategy, which they called a “master strategy”, which aligns with the organizations long-term goals, like strategic marketing or budgeting plans. Lastly, to achieve efficient strategic communication, the individuals that are responsible for the communication, must have diverse leadership skills. They describe effective communication professional as someone, who possesses a deep understanding of the business and its strategy and can speak the same language as the senior executives. (Argenti et al, 2005) 25 Figure 2. The Framework for Strategic Communication. Adapted from Argenti et al (2005) 2.6 Line of sight Employees awareness of the organizational strategic objectives is important, but what can be even more crucial, according to Boswell et al (2006, p. 508), is their understanding of how their job tasks are linked with achieving organizational strategic objectives. In their study the authors explore the concept of Line of Sight (LOS), which refers to an employee's understanding of both the company's strategic goals and how their own job tasks help in achieving them. The research was motivated by the increasing realization that human capital is one of the most important aspects of organizational success. While companies spend a lot of time discussing, planning and analysing strategic topics, the real key to success, according to the authors, lies in whether employees at every level can connect their work to those strategies. The authors argue that lack of line of sight can cause drop in productivity and cause strategic opportunities to slip away. 26 To investigate LOS, the researchers combined qualitative and quantitative approaches. They started with focus groups involving HR executives from four fast-growing, knowledge-driven companies to refine the LOS concept and pinpoint factors that shape it. Then, they conducted a broader survey of 661 employees and managers across industries like telecommunications, biotechnology, healthcare, and tech. This allowed them to measure LOS, identify its drivers, and evaluate its effect on organizational performance. Their findings emphasize that clear communication, employee participation, and a mix of extrinsic rewards (like bonuses) and intrinsic motivators (like a sense of purpose) are essential to building LOS. They also looked at how leadership styles and organizational setups can either support or obstruct employees' ability to link their work to strategic goals. The study offers a practical framework for aligning employees with company objectives, making it especially useful for business leaders and HR professionals aiming to harness human capital for a competitive edge. Strengthening LOS can lead to a more engaged, proactive, and strategy-focused workforce. Gay & D’Aprix (2006, pp. 26–29) introduce a four-step process for establishing Line of Sight, shown in figure 3, which they defined as employees’ ability to understand, believe in, and commit to the organization’s strategy while having a good understanding about how their actions contribute to its success. They emphasize that a vast amount of research highlights a significant correlation between employees’ alignment with business strategy and their engagement levels, positioning LOS as a critical factor in organizational effectiveness. Their proposed framework consists of four interrelated steps which can be done in any order, developing and validating core messaging, aligning leaders and defining their roles, committing to proof points, and measuring success, which all should be carefully addressed to ensure strategic alignment. 27 The first step, developing and validating core messaging, focuses on crafting a clear and understandable description of the strategy (Gay & D’Aprix, 2006, p. 26). This aligns with the idea that tools like strategy statements and balanced scorecard can help translate strategy into simpler, more interpretable forms (Collis & Rukstad, 2008; Kaplan & Norton, 2000). According to the authors (2006, pp. 26-29) the goal of validating core messages is to help employees grasp upcoming changes, what is expected from them, and what kind of support they can rely on from their organization. The authors highlight that employees are more likely to engage with the strategy when they understand the reasoning behind it. Senior leaders play an important role in delivering a consistent and clear message across all levels of the organizations. Rather than treating communication as a one-way process, they suggest involving leaders in developing the message and employees in validating it. This would not only strengthen the level of understanding but also create a sense of ownership and connection to the organization’s future. (Gay & D’Aprix, 2006.) The second step, aligning leaders and defining their roles, focuses on preparing the leaders with the necessary tools and support to communicate effectively. Leaders’ actions should mirror the strategic priorities they promote, and they should hold each other accountable for maintaining that alignment. The authors also point out that developing soft skills, like being able to listen, plays an important role in how efficiently leaders can translate the strategy into concrete actions. The third step, committing to proof points, emphasizes that it is crucial that the communication is continuous and consistent, as it helps to reinforce the relevance and credibility of the strategy. Employees need to see that leadership’s commitment is genuine, that they are not just giving orders and saying words, but are actually “walking the talk” themselves through visible and concrete actions. Clear expectations, open discussions, and opportunities for feedback were also mentioned to help in maintaining confidence in the direction of the strategy. 28 The finals step, measuring success, involves setting a clear objectives and metrics from the beginning in order to track how well the organization is aligning around the strategy. The authors propose five questions managers should consider to create and foster line of sight: How can we confirm employees possess a clear LOS with the business? How do we determine their knowledge, belief, and commitment to the strategy? How will behavioural changes be monitored? How do we evaluate leaders’ effectiveness in connecting employees to the strategy? And which business outcomes, such as profitability or productivity, will this influence? These questions that the authors suggest asking provide a practical framework for turning strategic intentions into shared understanding and action across all levels of the organization. 29 Figure 3. Four stages to creating a line of sight. Adapted from Gay & D'aprix (2006, p. 26) Boswell and Boudreau (2001) conducted a study designed to address gaps in the existing literature and enhance understanding of Line of Sight (LOS) within organizational contexts. Their research employed a mixed-methods approach, incorporating focus group discussions with human resource professionals from four companies and a quantitative analysis involving a single organization. The quantitative component resulted in 661 employee responses to a distributed questionnaire. In their paper, the authors categorize LOS into two dimensions: LOS-objectives, which relates to employees’ comprehension of what organizational contribution involves, and LOS- actions, which focuses on employees’ understanding of how to enact such contributions. Additionally, the study explored the extent to which employees grasp these objectives and align their actions accordingly. 30 The findings of their study revealed a strong relationship between employees’ performance levels and their understanding of Line of Sight. Employees with weaker performance tended to have limited understanding of both Line of Sight actions and objectives, whereas those with stronger performance demonstrated a more comprehensive understanding of both. The authors also identified several organizational practises that was found to strengthen Line of Sight. Company-wide meetings were shown to enhance employees understanding of overall strategic objectives, while department meetings and direct communications about the organizations strategy, values, and goals improved their understanding of how to translate these objectives into daily actions. Organizations should not only communicate their strategic vision but also make sure that employees clearly understand how their individual work supports it. 2.7 Strategy as a practise Strategy as Practice (SAP) emerged in the late 20th century as a fresh way to think about strategy. Whittington (1996) introduced this approach to shift attention from organizations and their strategies to the actions, behaviours, and interactions of strategy practitioners, the people who create strategies. He aimed to answer the question: “What makes an effective strategy practitioner?” Golsorkhi et al. (2016, pp. 27-28) explain SAP as a method that goes beyond just looking at how strategies impact performance. Instead, it focuses on understanding the real processes of making, planning, and carrying out strategies, including the decisions and actions involved. In the paper “Strategy as Practice,” written by Whittington (1996), he defines strategy practitioners as managers, consultants, and executives, those individuals that are directly involved in strategic tasks. This focus on management, however, overlooks frontline employees, who are essential in putting strategies into action through their 31 everyday work. Whittington himself notes this limitation, pointing out that not enough is said about the unheroic work of ordinary strategic practitioners in their day-to-day routines (Whittington, 1996, p. 734). In his later research paper, he defined strategy practitioners as “those people who do the work of strategy,” extending beyond top executives to include managers at different organizational levels and also important external stakeholders, like consultants and analysts (Jarzabkowski a& Whittington, 2008). While this broader perspective moves the discussion beyond senior management, it still largely centres on managerial and professional roles, leaving the involvement of frontline employees only indirectly addressed. Exploring Strategy as Practice is valuable because, as Nini (2006, p. 8) suggests, it adds new ideas to strategic management by showing how strategy is both developed and put into practice. Whittington (1996, p. 732) argues that effective strategy practitioners must possess a deep understanding of both localized routines and the diverse roles integral to the strategy-making process. He suggests that strategic practices within organizations solidify into distinct, recurring patterns over time, making familiarity with these localized norms, or the “done thing”, crucial for successfully enacting strategic initiatives. The strategy-as-practice perspective, as a research domain, focuses on the practical execution of strategy, examining who undertakes it, what actions they perform, how they execute these actions, the tools or resources they employ, and the broader implications for strategy formation. The emergence of SAP as a distinct field stems partly from growing discontent with traditional strategy research, which often overlooks the action-oriented aspects of strategy development. SAP narrows its research focus to practitioners, those who are actively engaged in strategic work. Empirical studies within this field suggest that the term “strategy practitioner” extends beyond individual actors to encompass groups, highlighting the need for a systematic 32 classification of practitioner types to comprehensively map the domain. (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009.) In addition to its practical insights, SAP links closely with several of the concepts discussed earlier in this chapter. Since SAP highlights how strategy is carried out through everyday actions, it complements the idea of strategic awareness, as employees can only contribute effectively when they understand what the strategy requires from them. SAP is also relevant to LOS, since employees’ ability to understand how their work tasks contribute to strategic objectives depends on how strategy is experienced in daily work. 2.8 Sensemaking theory Sensemaking theory plays a crucial role in building strategic awareness. The processes of sensemaking and sensegiving are central to fostering this awareness among employees (Davis et al., 2012, p. 323). Sensemaking is a straightforward concept, as it involves making sense of uncertain or puzzling situations (Weick, 1995, pp. 4; Schön, 1983). Schön (1983) expands on this by explaining that problems don’t simply present themselves as clear issues, but instead, they must be constructed from unclear and uncertain situations, which is where sensemaking occurs. While sensemaking happens within individuals as they interpret information, sensegiving is the process in which someone, often a manager, provides explanations to help others understand unclear situations. Gioia and Thomas (1996) describe sensegiving as a way for managers to clarify unclear ideas. Similarly, Davis et al. (2012, p. 336) highlight that clear communication acts as a bridge between those who develop strategy and employees who implement it. This connection is also central to the concept of LOS, as employees can only understand how their work tasks contribute to organizational strategic objectives when they are able to interpret the strategic 33 messages they receive. In other words, LOS depends not only on the availability of information but on employees’ sensemaking process, which transforms strategic communication into meaningful understanding of their role in achieving the strategy. In their study, Gioia and Thomas (1996) examined how top management teams in higher education institutions made sense of strategic changes in modern academia. Their research combined a case study and a quantitative survey of 611 executives from 372 colleges and universities in the United States. They also conducted in-depth interviews with three key leaders, a university president, an executive vice president/provost, and a vice provost, who were responsible for driving strategic changes (pp. 4-5). One vice president emphasized that their goal was to align employee thinking with managerial expectations, reinforcing the link between sensegiving and strategic alignment (p. 10). Through sensegiving, top- and mid-level managers aim to shape employees' strategic awareness and foster consensus. After receiving these strategic messages, employees, particularly those in boundary-spanning roles, engage in sensemaking to interpret the strategy and apply it in their daily work. (Davis et al., 2012, p. 324.) Earlier discussed tools like strategy statements and strategy maps can be beneficial in the sensegiving process, as they offer managers concrete and structured ways to clarify strategic messages and better make sense to employees what they are trying to communicate. 2.9 Theoretical framework Based on the literature review section of this thesis I have developed a theoretical framework illustrated in the figure 4. The purpose of this framework is to integrate the key concepts, strategy formulation, strategic communication, sensemaking, strategic awareness, and line of sight (LOS) into a summarized model that explains how 34 employees come to understand organizational strategy and how their work tasks are linked to organizational strategic objectives, which in turn lead to positive employee outcomes. As seen from the Figure 4, the process starts from the strategy formulation, during which organizational leaders define their long-term objectives and overall strategic direction of the company (Mintzberg, 1987; Johnson et al., 2008). Although formulation typically happens at the upper levels of the organization, the success of the strategy depends on how well it is later communicated to employees at all levels and how well they understand it and how their work tasks are linked to its objectives. Once the strategy has been formulated, it must be communicated throughout the organization. According to Argenti et al (2005) and Collis & Rukstad (2008), the clarity, consistency, and quality of the strategic messages delivered by leaders play a critical role in shaping employees’ understanding of the strategy. For managers, strategic communication acts as a tool for sensegiving, that is explaining the sense of something (strategy) to employees. Employees try to interpret the strategic communication and make sense of it, a process called sensemaking (Weick, 1995; Gioia & Thomas, 1996). Sensegiving helps shape how employees should interpret strategic intentions, while sensemaking reflects how employees internalize and contextualize this information in their daily work. These interpretive processes bridge the gap between written strategy and individual understanding (Davis et al., 2012). Through effective strategic communication and sensemaking employees can develop strategic awareness, which refers to their understanding of the organization’s strategic objectives and direction (Hambrick, 1982; Urbanski, 2021). Strategic awareness represents a general level understanding of what the organization aims to achieve. However, previous studies suggest that this understanding is often limited. Hambrick 35 (1981) reported that strategic awareness tends to decrease at lower levels of organizational hierarchy, with even second level executives not fully understanding the strategy. Similarly, Collis & Rukstad (2008) argue that many organizations struggle to communicate their strategy in a clear way, and that even senior executives may be unable to express it. These findings highlight the importance of examining whether low levels of strategic awareness can also be identified among employees working in Finland, which is one of the main goals of this thesis. Although strategic awareness provides employees with insights into the organization’s overall direction, it remains abstract until employees also understand how their personal work tasks are linked to achieving these strategic goals. This link, known as Line of Sight (LOS) reflects employees’ understanding not only of the organization’s goals (LOS-Objectives) but also how their own tasks contribute to achieving these goals (LOS-actions) (Boswell & Boudreau, 2001; Boswell et al., 2006). While strategic awareness provides employees with knowledge of the broader strategic direction, LOS operationalizes this awareness by enabling employees to link their individual roles to organizational outcomes. In this sense, LOS can be understood as role-specific and actionable form of strategic awareness. Employees may understand the overall strategy without fully grasping how their work tasks contribute to it. Previous research has associated strategic awareness with positive outcomes such as job motivation, participation, and commitment (Urbanski, 2021; Dyczkowska & Dyczkowski, 2015; Gagnon et al., 2014). However, these studies have not distinguished whether such outcomes result from awareness itself or from employees understanding of how their own work align with strategy. This study addresses this gap by examining both concepts separately but simultaneously. 36 Figure 4. Theoretical framework In the framework illustrated in figure 4, employee outcomes represent the dependent variables of the study and are measured using self-reported survey data. These outcomes include perceived meaningfulness of work, motivation to exceed expectations, and engagement-related attitudes, which are examined quantitatively in the empirical analysis part of this study. 37 3 Methodology This chapter’s goal is to showcase the methodological framework of the study and explain the reasoning behind the chosen research design. First, I will describe the different research paradigms and approaches which form the philosophical and theoretical foundations of the work. I will then proceed to discuss the methodological choice between qualitative and quantitative strategies and justify the use of a quantitative survey method. As the software I used to analyse gathered data (SPSS) might not be familiar to everyone, I will go through the key statistical metrics and how they are analysed in a short manner before moving to data analysis part. these sections help the reader understand the reasoning behind the chosen methods and how the research design enables the study to address the research questions and test the proposed hypotheses. 3.1 Research approach Paradigms represent the underlying assumptions, beliefs, and ways of thinking that guide researchers in their work. They shape the ontological, epistemological, and methodological foundations of the research process and are therefore essential to consider (Turin et al., 2024, p. 1). The most common paradigms are positivism, interpretivism, and constructivism. The positivist paradigm assumes that reality is objective, singular, and can be observed and measured empirically. Researchers adopting this paradigm typically use quantitative methods such as hypothesis testing, surveys, or experiments to identify causal relationships. (Park et al., 2020; Turin et al., 2024.) In contrast, the interpretivist and constructivist paradigms argue that reality is subjective and socially constructed. They prioritize qualitative methods, such as interviews and ethnographic studies, to understand the meanings individuals assign to their experiences. (Pulla & Carter, 2018; Turin et al., 2024.) 38 A less common approach, Pragmatist paradigm, emphasizes practical problem-solving and combines both quantitative and qualitative methods depending on what best addresses the research problem. Pragmatism does not commit to a single worldview but instead values methodological flexibility. (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019; Turin et al., 2024.) Finally, the critical paradigm focuses on uncovering power structures, inequalities, and social injustices. It often employs a mix of methods but with the explicit goal of challenging and changing existing societal structures. (Asghar, 2013; Turin et al., 2024.) Understanding these paradigms is important as the choice determines not only how data is collected and analysed, but also how the findings are interpreted. For this thesis, the positivist paradigm is adopted, as the research seeks to measure employee awareness of organizational strategy and the link between their job tasks and strategic objectives, identify factors influencing this awareness, and test hypotheses through statistical analysis. In addition to identifying the research paradigm, it is important to clarify the research approach, which shapes how theory and data interact. Okoli (2021) provides a comprehensive framework for understanding inductive, abductive, and deductive theorizing. According to Okoli (2021), inductive theorizing begins with empirical observations that are not based on existing theory and aims to develop or support theoretical explanations based on the patterns found from the data. This definition is supported by the view of Thomas (2006, p. 238) who defines inductive theorizing as follows “inductive analysis refers to approaches that primarily use detailed readings of raw data to derive concepts, themes, or a model through interpretations made from the raw data by an evaluator or researcher”. He (pp. 238-239) also notes that this approaches key strengths lies in its ability to allow researchers to conduct analysis without the restraints imposed by structured methodologies and that it is commonly used in descriptive qualitative 39 analyses, as it emphasizes data-driven interpretation and the discovery of underlying meanings. In contrast to inductive theorization, the deductive approach is a research method that begins with existing theories or general principles and moves toward testing how they can be used in specific contexts. In this approach, researchers start the process by reviewing previous studies and theoretical frameworks related to the phenomena that is being investigated. Then, the researchers develop hypotheses that can be tested empirically using data to determine if it contradicts or supports the theoretical assumptions. As this approach emphasizes testing various hypothesis, logical reasoning and the verification of the established theories through systematic observation and analysis, it is often associated with scientific inquiry. (Kumar, 2024.) Although their differences, Thomas (2006, p. 238) mentions that both inductive and deductive approaches can be used at the same time. Abductive theorization operates as a middle ground between inductive and deductive theorization. It begins with existing theoretical frameworks or partial theories and uses empirical observations to refine, extend, or develop new theoretical insights (Okoli, 2021, p. 4). This approach, according to Gadde (2025, p. 559) is beneficial when the researcher’s main goal is to discover new elements, like other variables and relationships. This study follows a deductive approach, as it builds on existing theories of strategic awareness and line of sight to formulate hypotheses, which are then empirically tested using survey data. 3.2 Methodological choice Researchers that are planning their studies face the important question of whether they want to take the route of quantitative or qualitative research methodology. Their differences make them each more suitable to specific kind of research and choosing 40 one depends on the nature of the research and what the researcher wants to find out. Lakshman et al. (2000) explains clearly, the strengths and weaknesses of these two research methodologies. In their paper, they (p. 369) define quantitative method as “A method that examines the effect of specified circumstances (independent variables) on an outcome of interest (dependent variables) in ways that can be expresses numerically”. By analysing patterns and making direct observations from collected data, the researchers try to find cause-and-effect relationships. Studies that are efficiently controlled work best for this type of research methodology, as no outside factors can then affect the results. Highly controlled studies results can also be repeated easily and are more likely to accurately predict what will happen in similar future situations. (Lakshman et al., 2000) According to Lakshman et al (2000), the key strength of quantitative methodology lies in its ability to handle data efficiently. By using precise and aggregated data, it becomes possible to summarize the overall findings clearly and briefly. The authors (p. 370) also mention that the surveys which are used for collecting the data are easy and fast to create and implement. In addition, they are often standardized increasing the reliability, comparability, and precision of data across different regions and time periods. Lakshman et al. (2000) note that even with careful planning and design of the survey, they can still produce uncredible results. The main weakness of conducting a survey lies in the behaviour of respondents. Some questions might be misunderstood by respondents or considered too sensitive to be answered honestly. Respondents might be afraid of the possible consequences if they answer truthfully and therefore lie in their answers. The authors also noted that a common problem with questionnaires conducted in rural areas in developing countries, is that the respondents tend to answer what that they believe the interviewer wishes to hear, a phenomenon known as "courtesy bias”. 41 In case there are too few subjects for statistical analysis or when the factors that influence an outcome are unclear, a qualitative research methodology offers a great approach. Qualitative methodology focuses on understanding people’s beliefs, actions and motivations, as well as how institutions and organizations behave. In contrast to quantitative method where data is often collected by surveys, qualitative method includes observations, interviews and analysis of previously written material. This approach becomes especially handy when the surrounding context is complex or not well understood. (Lakshman, 2000.) The key objective of qualitative research is to understand what is happening and why, and to gain a deep understanding of situations and relationships, in contrast to quantitative approach which focuses on patterns and numbers and aims to produce results that can always be repeated or predicted. Qualitative method offers a great way to study anything from the behaviour of a single individual to the operations of a large organization. (Lakshman, 2000.) From Table 1 we can see the key differences between quantitative and qualitative approaches. Table 1. Quantitative and qualitative research approaches. Adapted from Castellan (2010, pp.7). Components of Research Approaches Quantitative Qualitative Method Positivist perspective, objective reality, researcher is independent of what is researched Postpositivist perspective, naturalistic, social, multiple & subjective reality where researcher interacts with what is being researched Purpose Generalizability, explanation, prediction Understanding, insight, contextualization and interpretation Questions/hypothesis Hypothesis is informed guess of prediction Question is evolving, general and flexible Data Questionnaires, surveys, tests, etc. in the form of numbers and statistics Written documents from field work, interviews, pictures, observations, objects, etc. Data analysis Deductive process, statistical procedures Inductive process: codes, themes, patterns to theory 42 Researchers Etic (outsiders’ point of view); objective, neutral, detached and impartial Emic (insider’s point of view); personal involvement and partiality Subjects Randomly selected sample, proportionally representative of population Usually, a small number of non-representatives Philosophical assumptions Positivist perspective, objective reality, researcher is independent, of that which is researched Postpositivist perspective, naturalistic, social, multiple & subjective where researcher interacts with that being researched For this thesis, a quantitative methodology is chosen as research approach, as it allows the systematic measurement and analysis of relationships between variables in a way that is objective and replicable. As the purpose of this thesis is to examine employees’ awareness of organizational strategy and the level to which they understand how their job tasks contribute to achieving their organizations strategic goals, a quantitative approach provides the most suitable framework for collecting comparable data from a larger sample. Using a survey enabled me to quantify levels of strategic awareness and line of sight, identify correlations between these variables, and test hypotheses found from existing theory. 3.3 Data collection The primary data for this study was collected through a survey distributed via a web link to various organizations and individual participants, who were encouraged to share it further within their networks. According to Webropol’s internal statistics, 47 % of those who opened the survey completed it, while 53 % exited before finishing. Because the survey was distributed openly and the total number of people who received the link cannot be determined, a formal response rate or the number of different organizations cannot be calculated. Participants were not selected through any specific sampling method, instead, all employed individuals in Finland were invited to participate. The questionnaire link was first shared to individuals within my own personal and professional network, and those individuals were courage to share the 43 link to their colleagues to gain as many responses as possible. This open approach was chosen to maximize the number of responses and to obtain insights from employees across different industries and organizational levels, ranging from frontline staff to managers. The survey was created using the Webropol platform and was available in both Finnish (n= 96) and English (n= 26) languages. It remained open from May 19 to August 30, 2025, and received a total of 122 responses. The questionnaire included 21 questions, including seven multiple-choice questions, three open-ended questions, and eleven statements rated on a five-point Likert scale. The open-ended responses originally written in Finnish were translated into English, and therefore minor grammatical adjustments were made to improve readability. Participation was anonymous. The survey questions were developed based on existing literature on the positive outcomes of strategic awareness, aiming both to validate previous findings and to examine whether the concept of line of sight serves as a key explanatory factor behind these effects. Strategic awareness was measured by assessing how well respondents understood their organization’s strategy and how clear and logical they perceived it to be. Line of sight, in turn, was measured through questions measuring how well respondents understood how their daily work tasks contributed to the organization’s strategic goals and how important they perceived their role to be in achieving those goals. 3.4 Data analysis To analyse the gathered survey data, I used a software called SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). As the name suggests, the platform is designed specifically for statistical analysis and was therefore well suited for this research. Since the goal of the analysis was to examine potential correlations between strategic awareness and Line of Sight (LOS) with different outcomes such as work motivation, meaningfulness, and excitement about the organization’s future, SPSS provided an appropriate and reliable tool for these objectives. I gained access to the program through the University of Vaasa and therefore I did not need to purchase any separate licenses. After uploading 44 the questionnaire data to SPSS, I went through it carefully to ensure that it was valid and contained no missing values or errors before starting the actual analysis. The data was analysed using quantitative statistical methods to explore relationships and differences between variables related to strategic awareness, LOS, and employee attitudes. Most of the responses were collected using Likert-scale and categorical questions, which allowed the results to be expressed and compared numerically. The analysis began with descriptive statistics, which was used to summarize and illustrate the demographic characteristics of the respondents and to provide an overview of how employees perceived their organization’s strategy. These results were shown mainly through frequencies, percentages, and graphs to make the findings clear and easy to interpret. To analyze what causes positive outcomes, strategic awareness or line of sight, a multiple regression analysis was carried. Regressions analysis creates automatically model summary, ANOVA and Coefficients table. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used as a supportive insights and visual comparisons rather than as a central analytical method. To identify relationships between key variables, Pearson’s correlation coefficients was also conducted. Correlation analysis was used, for example, to test the link between tenure and strategic awareness, as well as between strategic awareness and LOS. These results provided the basis for the later regression models. To further examine which factors predicted employee attitudes and opinions, multiple linear regression analyses was conducted. These models tested how strategic awareness and LOS predicted outcomes such as the meaningfulness of work, motivation to go beyond expectations, long-term career orientation, and excitement about the organization’s future. 45 Hierarchical regression analyses were also conducted to explore how different groups of variables explained the variation in strategic awareness and LOS. The first model included demographic and structural factors, followed by message-related variables such as the perceived clarity and logicality of the strategy, and finally motivational variables such as perceived role importance and interest in learning more about the organization’s strategy. 3.5 Interpreting the results To interpret the results of the analysis, several statistical indicators were employed to evaluate the strength, direction, and significance of relationships between variables. The correlation coefficient (r) measures the linear relationship between two variables, with values ranging from –1 to +1. Values closer to +1 indicate a strong positive relationship, those near –1 a strong negative relationship, and values around 0 suggest no linear relationship (Correlation | SPSS Annotated Output, 2024). In regression analyses, the R-value represents the multiple correlation between all predictors and the dependent variable, while the coefficient of determination (R²) indicates how much of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the independent variables. The Adjusted R² refines this estimate by considering the number of predictors and the sample size, providing a more accurate measure of explanatory power. (Field, 2018.) The F-statistic is used to test the overall significance of the regression model, specifically, whether the set of predictors collectively explains a meaningful portion of variance in the dependent variable. A higher F-value combined with a low p-value indicates that the model fits the data significantly better than a model without predictors. As Field (2018) explains, a large F-statistic with an associated p < .001 suggests that there is less than a 0.1% probability that such a result would occur if the 46 null hypothesis were true, therefore confirming that the model is statistically significant. Unstandardized beta (B) and standardized beta (β) coefficients are included in regression analysis tables. Unstandardized beta (B) coefficients show how much the dependent variable (y) is expected to change when one of the independent variables (x) increases by one unit, when other variables stay unchanged. So, for example if β = 0.5, then one unit increase in x leads to an average increase of 0.5 units in y. If the model has several predictors, each coefficient represents the effect of one variable while controlling for the others, which is why they are called partial regression coefficients. (Lefcheck, 2021.) Unlike unstandardized coefficients, standardized coefficients are presented in a common unit that does not depend on the original measurement scale. They are typically expressed in units of standard deviations, allowing results to be compared across variables measured on different scales. The main purpose of standardization is to make coefficients directly comparable, so that their sizes can indicate the relative strength of the relationships between variables. (Lefcheck, 2021.) The t-statistic tests whether each coefficient significantly differs from zero, indicating whether the predictor has a meaningful effect on the dependent variable. If the t-value is large and its associated p-value is below the chosen significance threshold, the variable is considered a significant predictor. (Field, 2018.) The p-value, which is displayed as “Sig.” in SPSS, indicates the probability that the observed effect could have occurred by chance if the null hypothesis were true (Nahm, 2017). According to Altman & Kryzwinski (2024) generally results with p < .05 are considered statistically significant, p < .01 highly significant, and p < .001 very highly significant. Although results with p value > .05 might not be statistically significant, they should still be discussed when they offer theoretically relevant insights. 47 4 Findings In this chapter, I will go through the findings of this thesis. The purpose is to describe the key patterns and insights found from the data, see how strategic awareness and line of sight are connected to each other, and to identify which factors have the biggest influence on key outcomes such as meaningful work, motivation, and career intentions. The findings are presented in various forms to make it easier for the reader to grasp and analyse the answers themselves. The aim is to provide a clear, evidence- based foundation for the interpretations and implications discussed in the next chapter. 4.1 Strategic awareness One of the goals of this paper was to find out what is the general level of strategic awareness in Finland. The results shown in figure 5 indicate a generally high level of strategic awareness among employees, as out of the 122 respondents, a clear majority expressed that they understand their organization’s strategy, with 55.7% (n=68) selecting “agree” and 30.3% (n=37) selecting “strongly agree”. In total, 86% of respondents positioned themselves on the agreement side of the scale, which demonstrates that the organization’s strategic message is broadly understood by its members. None of the respondents (n=0) felt like they strongly disagreed with the statement, and only 4.9% (n=6) of the respondents disagreed, while 9% (n=11) remained neutral, suggesting that total lack of awareness is rare. 48 Figure 5. General level of strategic awareness Table 2. General level of strategic awareness I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Disagree 6 4,9 4,9 4,9 Neutral 11 9,0 9,0 13,9 Agree 68 55,7 55,7 69,7 Strongly agree 37 30,3 30,3 100,0 Total 122 100,0 100,0 4.1.1 Gender and strategic awareness The analysis of responses by gender indicates a clear difference in the way men and women perceive their understanding of the organization’s strategy. Among male respondents (n=43) the answers were evenly spread between “agree” and “strongly agree”, with 46,5% (n=20) of men answering “agree”, and 39,5% (n=17) selecting “strongly agree”. Only 4.6% (n=2) of men reported disagreement, while the remaining 9.3% (n=4) were neutral. From table 3 we can see that the pattern for women respondents (n=79) is clearly different, with 60.8% (n=48) selecting “agree”, and only 25.3% (n=20) “strongly agree”. This suggests that women were more likely to select a moderate level of agreement, while men tended to position themselves at the higher end of the scale. The results suggest that both genders generally understand the organization’s strategy, but men appear to express stronger confidence or certainty in that understanding. It is worth to note, that women made up most of the sample, and 49 therefore the overall results are weighted toward their perceptions. These findings could reflect differences in communication channels, levels of involvement in strategic processes, or even differences in self-perception and confidence when evaluating one’s own strategic knowledge. . Figure 6. Gender and strategic awareness Table 3. Gender and strategic awareness Gender * I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. Total Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Gende r Male 2 4 20 17 43 Femal e 4 7 48 20 79 Total 6 11 68 37 122 50 4.1.2 Education and strategic awareness From table 4 we can see that educational background appears to have some influence on strategic awareness. Respondents with only a high school degree (n=15) show strong levels of agreement, with 86,7% (n=6) answering “agree” and 46,7% (n=7) “strongly agree”. Since the number of respondents whose highest level of education was high school was relatively small, the results for this group should be interpreted with caution. Among those respondents with bachelor’s degree (n=34), 85,3% agreed with the statement on some level, with 64,7% (n=22) answering “agree” and 20,6% (n=7) answering “strongly agree”. While those with bachelor’s degree leaned clearly more to moderate agreement rather than strong agreement, the respondents holding a master’s degree (n=69) had a smaller difference between these two options. The overall agreement level for respondents with master’s degree was 88,4%, with 56,5 % (n=39) answering “agree” and 31,9 % (n=22) answering “strongly agree”. Interestingly, doctoral degree holders (n=4) stood out as an exception. This group was divided, with 50% either disagreeing or remaining neutral, and only 50% agreeing or strongly agreeing. Even though this suggest that higher levels of education do not necessarily correspond with stronger perceptions of strategic awareness, no reliable conclusions can be drawn due to the small number of respondents holding a doctoral degree in the sample. 51 Figure 7. Degree and strategic awareness Table 4. Degree and strategic awareness Degree * I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. Crosstabulation I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. Total Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Degre e High school Count 0 2 6 7 15 % within Degree 0,0% 13,3% 40,0% 46,7% 100,0% Bachelors degree Count 1 4 22 7 34 % within Degree 2,9% 11,8% 64,7% 20,6% 100,0% Masters degree Count 3 5 39 22 69 % within Degree 4,3% 7,2% 56,5% 31,9% 100,0% Doctoral degree Count 2 0 1 1 4 % within Degree 50,0% 0,0% 25,0% 25,0% 100,0% Total Count 6 11 68 37 122 % within Degree 4,9% 9,0% 55,7% 30,3% 100,0% 52 4.1.3 Age and strategic awareness Looking at figure 8 we can see that the relationship between age and strategic awareness shows some variation across age groups, although the general trend indicates that understanding of organizations strategy seems to increase with age. Among the youngest employees in age group 18–24 years (n=4), responses were split between neutrality and agreement, with no respondents strongly agreeing. This suggests that early-career employees may not yet feel fully exposed to strategic matters. Most of the respondents fell into the 25–29 age group (n=30), which showed greater alignment, with 80% (n=24) agreeing or strongly agreeing, though the share of strong agreement, which was 23.3% (n=17) remained relatively modest. Strategic awareness continued to rise among employees aged 30–34 (n=14), where 64,3% (n=9) answered “agree” and 21,4% (n=3) selected “strongly agree”. In the age group of 35-39 (n=12) the overall agreement level to the statement was on the positive side but leaning more modest agreement, as 75 % (n=9) of the respondents in this age group answered “agree” and 8,3 % (1) answered “strongly agree”. This age group saw a small decline in strategic awareness level compared to previous age bracket as it had one respondent answering “Disagree”. Through ages 40 to 54 we can see continuous increase in strategic awareness, with the highest overall awareness observed in the age group 50–54 (n=16), where every participant (100%) agreed or strongly agreed, evenly divided between the two options. This suggests that employees in this age range, which are typically more experienced professionals or senior staff, possess both exposure to and confidence in understanding their organization’s strategy. The level remained strong at the age group of 55-59 (n=17), where interestingly 52,9% (n=9) answered “totally agree” and 35,3% (6) answered “agree”, which makes it the only age group that has more responses to stronger agreement than modest. The oldest age group in the sample, 60-64 showed good levels of strategic awareness with 42,9 % (n=3) answering “agree” and 42,9 % (n=3) answering “strongly agree”, with the last 1 respondent disagreeing. 53 These findings suggest that strategic awareness develops with career maturity. Older individuals that have progressed further in their careers moving into more experience required tasks, which can also require more strategic understanding and involve more strategic matters. Figure 8. Age and strategic awareness Table 5. Age and strategic awareness Age * I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. Crosstabulation I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. Total Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Age 18-24 Count 0 2 2 0 4 % within Age 0,0% 50,0% 50,0% 0,0% 100,0% 25-29 Count 3 3 17 7 30 % within Age 10,0% 10,0% 56,7% 23,3% 100,0% 30-34 Count 0 2 9 3 14 % within Age 0,0% 14,3% 64,3% 21,4% 100,0% 35-39 Count 1 1 9 1 12 % within Age 8,3% 8,3% 75,0% 8,3% 100,0% 40-44 Count 0 1 10 2 13 % within Age 0,0% 7,7% 76,9% 15,4% 100,0% 45-49 Count 1 0 4 4 9 % within Age 11,1% 0,0% 44,4% 44,4% 100,0% 50-54 Count 0 0 8 8 16 % within Age 0,0% 0,0% 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% 54 55-59 Count 0 2 6 9 17 % within Age 0,0% 11,8% 35,3% 52,9% 100,0% 60-64 Count 1 0 3 3 7 % within Age 14,3% 0,0% 42,9% 42,9% 100,0% Total Count 6 11 68 37 122 % within Age 4,9% 9,0% 55,7% 30,3% 100,0% 4.1.4 Hierarchical level on strategic awareness and LOS One of the key goals of this thesis was to find out the level of strategic awareness in different hierarchical levels. In the questionnaire, participants were asked to tell whether they worked in blue collar, white collar, specialist, or management roles. To minimize the risk of incorrect responses, various example roles were mentioned next to answer options. As shown in table 6, we can see that strategic awareness increases when you go higher in the hierarchy: blue-collar employees reported the lowest mean level of strategic awareness (M = 3,48), followed by white-collar employees (M = 4,00), specialists (M = 4,27), and managers (M = 4,63). These differences were statistically significant (p < .001) as shown in table 7, indicating that employees in higher-level roles understand the organization’s strategy more clearly than those in lower-level roles. Hierarchical level was also analysed in relation to line of sight. From table 6, we can see that LOS follows a similar upward trend across hierarchical levels, atlough white- collar employees (M = 3,83) reported a slightly lower mean than blue-collar employees (M = 3,95). However, unlike strategic awareness, the differences in LOS across job roles did not reach scientistical significance (p < .068), as seen from table 7. This suggests that while general strategic awareness differs meaningfully between levels, LOS does not. 55 Table 6. Hierarchical level on strategic awareness and line of sight Table 7. Hierarchical level ANOVA ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. Between Groups 13,594 3 4,531 9,414 <,001 Within Groups 56,799 118 ,481 Total 70,393 121 I understand how my work contributes to the Between Groups 6,180 3 2,060 2,437 ,068 Descriptives N Mean Std. Deviatio n Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Mini mum Maxi mum Lower Bound Upper Bound I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. Blue collar 21 3,476 2 1,03049 ,2248 7 3,0071 3,9453 2,00 5,00 White collar / Salaried / Administrative work 24 4,000 0 ,58977 ,1203 9 3,7510 4,2490 3,00 5,00 Specialist / Senior salaried 64 4,265 6 ,59741 ,0746 8 4,1164 4,4149 2,00 5,00 Management 13 4,615 4 ,65044 ,1804 0 4,2223 5,0084 3,00 5,00 Total 122 4,114 8 ,76273 ,0690 5 3,9780 4,2515 2,00 5,00 I understand how my work contributes to the achievement of the organization's strategic goals Blue collar 21 3,952 4 1,16087 ,2533 2 3,4240 4,4808 2,00 5,00 White collar / Salaried / Administrative work 24 3,833 3 ,91683 ,1871 5 3,4462 4,2205 2,00 5,00 Specialist / Senior salaried 64 4,203 1 ,87613 ,1095 2 3,9843 4,4220 1,00 5,00 Management 13 4,615 4 ,65044 ,1804 0 4,2223 5,0084 3,00 5,00 Total 122 4,131 1 ,93553 ,0847 0 3,9635 4,2988 1,00 5,00 56 achievement of the organization's strategic goals Within Groups 99,722 118 ,845 Total 105,902 121 4.2 Correlations 4.2.1 Tenures correlation to strategic awareness Looking at table 8 we can see that the correlation between tenure and strategic awareness is positive and statistically highly significant with p = (0.004) < .01. This means that employees who have worked longer in the organization tend to report a better understanding of its strategy, which supports the insights from table 8 where we could see strategic awareness increasing with age. However, the effect is quite small, when we square the correlation (r = 0.256² ≈ .07), it shows that tenure explains only about 7% of the differences in how employees understand the strategy. In other words, while longer tenure is an affecting factor, most of the variation in strategic awareness is caused by other reasons. Table 9 shows that most respondents had relatively short tenures, as 47,6 % (n=58) of the respondents had worked 3 years or less in their current organizations. 32 % of the respondents (n=39) had tenures from 4 to 10 years in their current organizations, and 20,3 % (n=25) had tenures of 11 years or longer. The relatively large share of respondents who were still early in their careers helps explain why the strength of the correlation (r = .256) was modest. Table 8. Working years correlation to strategic awareness Working_years I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. 57 Working_years Pearson Correlation 1 ,256** Sig. (2-tailed) ,004 N 122 122 I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. Pearson Correlation ,256** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,004 N 122 122 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 9. Working years of respondents Working_years N % ,00 5 4,1% 1,00 18 14,8% 2,00 15 12,3% 3,00 20 16,4% 4,00 6 4,9% 5,00 7 5,7% 6,00 4 3,3% 7,00 8 6,6% 8,00 4 3,3% 9,00 6 4,9% 10,00 4 3,3% 11,00 2 1,6% 12,00 1 0,8% 13,00 2 1,6% 14,00 1 0,8% 15,00 4 3,3% 18,00 1 0,8% 19,00 2 1,6% 23,00 3 2,5% 24,00 1 0,8% 29,00 3 2,5% 30,00 2 1,6% 33,00 1 0,8% 41,00 1 0,8% 42,00 1 0,8% 4.2.2 Line of sight and strategic awareness The correlation of strategic awareness and line of sight is very highly significant with p < .001, as we can see from the table 10. The results signal that respondents that reported higher understanding of their organizations strategy are also more likely to 58 understand how their job tasks are linked to achieving organizational strategic objectives. The correlation is also strong but not perfect, with square correlation being r = .650² ≈ .42, meaning that line of sight and strategic awareness share about 42 % of their variance. This indicates that while the correlation is strong it is still possible for employees to be aware of the strategy without fully understanding how their own role contributes to it. Table 10. Strategic awareness and Line of sight correlation I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. I understand how my work contributes to the achievement of the organization's strategic goals I have a good understanding of my organization's strategy. Pearson Correlation 1 ,650** Sig. (2-tailed) <,001 N 122 122 I understand how my work contributes to the achievement of the organization's strategic goals Pearson