Introduction
The implementation of the organization’s development strategy can be considered a consciously controlled process aimed at achieving the goals set for the company and solving problems in the field of long-term growth. This activity occurs through sequential or parallel work on interrelated projects, each of which is designed to address one of the main, secondary, or intermediate strategic tasks. In the case of incorrect or insufficient efforts, the risks of inhibition of development arise, which are fraught with negative consequences for profit and other aspects that determine development success. This allows for arguing that the choice of a strategy is a significant factor in achieving the set goals, and productivity directly depends on the adequacy of approaches to its implementation. This work is aimed at identifying common features of the organization’s development strategy, describing unsuccessful approaches to its implementation, presenting socio-psychological barriers, and suggesting optimization methods. The implementation of the development strategy is the most important task in achieving the set objectives. All operational decisions used in this process must be conducted in strict accordance with the planned activities to avoid discrepancies between the anticipated and real outcomes.
Implementation of the Development Strategy: Main Aspects and Problems
In the vast majority of cases, the process of competent implementation of the strategy includes a controlled change in internal systems, structures, and approaches to management and work at all levels. It is managed rather than hectic and crisis-driven change that keeps an organization competitive in the long term. Failures in such changes, and hence failures in the company’s adaptation to new conditions, are the most common reasons for the failure of implementation. According to Teece (2017), such failures and barriers are often carefully hidden, and responsible parties refer, for instance, to external factors and other circumstances of force majeure for management. As a result, the ability to establish a continuous control activity designed to address the development of a task step by step can be considered a critical condition for successful growth.
Many external changes are not under the influence of management, which may be due to the structural control system, the order in which tasks are distributed in the company, and other factors. However, the entire organization and its constituent parts are under the influence of management. In such an environment, thoughtful and proactive control of the company’s adaptation to changes is the key not only to survival but also to economic success. An organization is a complex socio-economic system, and any changes in it inevitably meet a certain level of resistance. As Veloso-Besio et al. (2019) argue, this is particularly true for strategic changes that require multi-vector planning. Therefore, the topic of change management is the most relevant to the implementation of the development strategy. It is crucial to understand that any established system is, by definition, stable, and resistance to change is a natural property of such a system.
Unsuccessful Strategy Implementation Examples
As unsuccessful examples of the implementation of the development strategy in organizations, one may consider situations in which, due to incompetent management, the objectives set cannot be addressed. For instance, in the relevant case study, Aithal (2021) evaluates the case of the inability to assign responsibilities and ensure interaction with customers. Responsible employees may not have sufficient theoretical and practical knowledge about the fulfillment of assigned obligations, which is a direct prerequisite for failure. In addition, analytical information may not be enough for effective planning, which is often the result of an improperly built financial system. Finally, the company may adhere to outdated principles of development and resist innovation. In this case, according to Lokuge et al. (2019), additional risks arise, for example, competitive barriers and weak technological potential. In this regard, one can speak of a weak corporate culture that hinders effective strategic dialogue and directly contributes to practices and traditions that negatively affect strategy implementation.
Another clear example of failure in the implementation of the development strategy is the difference of opinion regarding optimization paths and steps to follow. Burke (2018) considers situations in which managers condemn their colleagues for not following strategic solutions while the prevailing number of respondents are convinced of the correctness of their views. Such an example also demonstrates an ineffective strategic dialogue within the company and speaks of a poorly built interaction culture. Given these constraints, it is essential to identify common socio-psychological barriers that do not allow the development strategy to be implemented productively.
Socio-Psychological Problems in the Implementation of the Development Strategy
The main socio-economic causes of problems in the implementation of development strategies or individual strategic projects can originate from both individual and collective factors. From a social perspective, an organization is a unit in which all members have personal views and visions, and these differences can lead to disagreements. From a psychological standpoint, individual factors can be exacerbated by external influences, such as pressure from management or stressful labor conditions. Therefore, it is essential to identify the main socio-psychological aspects that affect the implementation of the organization’s development strategy.
Passive Aggressive Disagreement
It is unlikely that a situation can be reached where all employees of the organization agree on all the details of major strategic shifts. Disagreement may be based on logic, experience, or personal discomfort at the change or loss of power. In any case, if a corporate culture does not support objections, these objections will not disappear but will become hidden. Sufficiently or insufficiently justified resistance to the decisions of top management will continue. Under such conditions, employees will demonstrate their support for the changes, but in reality, their task will be to hide the passivity in their implementation. A similar situation can occur when individual units that need to make some internal structural or process changes do not demonstrate sufficient productivity. As a result, due to passivity, the implementation of the development strategy cannot be effective.
Fear of Confrontation
In organizations that support teamwork and the active involvement of employees in decision-making algorithms, managers do not tend to show a keen desire to go into confrontation with colleagues who do not fully support strategic shifts. They do not want to create conflicts or are afraid of damaging relationships, which, in its own way, is a competent approach to maintaining a favorable climate in the team. Nevertheless, when assessing these situations more deeply, one may notice that such employees try to compromise not with colleagues but with a strategy. This ultimately ends up with a revision of the existing development steps and limited requirements for change-inhibiting units. This practice is particularly pronounced in bureaucratic systems of government. As Du et al. (2020) state, individual decision-makers’ personal interests can replace the interests of a higher level of management or the entire organization. This outcome is a problem holding back effective strategy implementation.
Lack of Guiding Requirements
The successful implementation of a strategy is not only about the successful performance of a few strategic projects. This is a fairly noticeable change in several layers of the organization, influencing the cultural, process, organizational, and functional aspects of activities. Due to a complex and multi-layered structure of work, managers need assistance in implementing the strategy from almost every employee. Nonetheless, without clear and intermittent signals, subordinates tend to avoid change and still support their superiors with words while showing only the attempts of actions. At the same time, when strong external or internal threats to the existence of the company are absent, top management usually avoids too much pressure and decisive steps. Layoffs of incompetent employees or a fundamental overhaul of the management system are examples of such initiatives (Giupponi et al., 2022). Managers rely on the fact that all operational processes line up by themselves and there is no need to rush. As a result, a vicious circle is formed, which can be broken only at the cost of an integrated approach and the involvement of employees in the implementation of the development strategy.
Solutions for Addressing the Socio-Psychological Causes of Resistance
A good place to start in identifying the aforementioned strategy implementation problems is to provoke an internal dialogue about company development issues. Employees rarely want to be part of a collective failure, and a specific interaction mode can be one of the ways to show that things are going in the right or, conversely, in the wrong direction. In addition, some other aspects are essential to take into account when building optimization steps to ensure that the development strategy meets the set long-term goals.
Firstly, a good strategy is relatively difficult to formulate due to individual organizational criteria. Secondly, it is even more difficult to implement it due to the aforementioned socio-psychological barriers. According to Ahlstrom et al. (2020), engaging lower levels of management in strategy development increases the likelihood of success, innovation, and productivity and enhances the complexity of coordination and management. Therefore, the development strategy should be based on a specific organizational background but not on general theoretical principles. The use of resources, including finance and labor, must be appropriate to the capacity of the respective environment; otherwise, the risks of failure remain.
An increase in the planning horizon can be viewed as the probability of success in implementing the development strategy. In addition to the aforementioned process of engagement, one can note that the involved participants should be able to make individual contributions to the common cause. This thesis is relevant to any organizational environment, which is due to both corporate and social principles of organizing the work process and retaining employees. For instance, Warner and Wäger (2019) evaluate the productivity of a workflow in which each member has a voice and can offer personal suggestions without fear of being ridiculed or judged. While applying such an algorithm to the development strategy, managers can notice that related tasks are also solved, for example, maintaining a favorable microclimate in the team and strengthening positive communication. Thus, expanding capacity planning through involvement in decision-making is a potentially valid practice in the context of the topic under consideration.
Finally, the ability to quickly and timely adjust the development strategy, guided not only by crisis factors but also by internal organizational features, is a prerequisite for competent management and resource allocation. Even an efficient scheme of work is not eternal, and the life cycle of any strategy has limitations (Haiyan et al., 2021). In this regard, it is up to leaders and managers to control whether the chosen course of work is relevant or not. It is possible that the decision to choose a new path may be erroneous. However, even in this case, participants in change programs will gain the necessary experience and will be able to better understand the markers that reflect the need for reorganization processes. For any company, this experience is useful due to continuous innovation in various areas. When analyzing the opportunities for transformation, one may notice that combining different strategies or extracting the most valuable approaches from different development programs to build new ones are the ways to optimize. As a result, the timely adjustment of the development strategy is the key to sustainable growth.
Conclusion
Building a development strategy is a critical task that requires adapting operational decisions to a specific organizational environment to avoid differences between planned and actual results. Regardless of the available resources, including the workforce, responsible planners must control the development strategy by making timely adjustments. The situation is complicated because some socio-psychological barriers can be deterrents to productive control. The listed solutions to these problems, namely planning variation, combining approaches, and adapting to specific organizational settings, can be critical conditions for ensuring the sustainability of development strategies.
References
Ahlstrom, D., Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Qian, G., Ma, X., & Faems, D. (2020). Managing technological, sociopolitical, and institutional change in the new normal. Journal of Management Studies, 57(3), 411-437. Web.
Aithal, P. S. (2021). Business excellence through the theory of accountability. International Journal of Case Studies in Business, IT, and Education (IJCSBE), 5(1), 88-115. Web.
Burke, W. W. (2018). The rise and fall of the growth of organization development: What now? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 70(3), 186-206. Web.
Du, Z. J., Yu, S. M., & Xu, X. H. (2020). Managing noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group decision-making: Integration of independent and supervised consensus-reaching models. Information Sciences, 531, 119-138. Web.
Giupponi, G., Landais, C., & Lapeyre, A. (2022). Should we insure workers or jobs during recessions? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 36(2), 29-54. Web.
Haiyan, D., Ahmed, K., & Nanere, M. (2021). Life cycle, competitive strategy, continuous innovation and firm performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 25(01), 2150004. Web.
Lokuge, S., Sedera, D., Grover, V., & Dongming, X. (2019). Organizational readiness for digital innovation: Development and empirical calibration of a construct. Information & Management, 56(3), 445-461. Web.
Teece, D. J. (2017). A capability theory of the firm: An economics and (strategic) management perspective. New Zealand Economic Papers, 53(1), 1-43. Web.
Veloso-Besio, C. B., Cuadra-Peralta, A., Gil-Rodríguez, F., Ponce-Correa, F., & Sjöberg-Tapia, O. (2019). Effectiveness of training, based on positive psychology and social skills, applied to supervisors, to face resistance to organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32(2), 251-265. Web.
Warner, K. S., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326-349. Web.