Implementation style and use of implementation approaches

Pergamon Omega, Int. J, Mgmt Sci. Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 469~.84, 1995

Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed in Great Britain 0305-0483(95)00022-4

Implementation Style and Use of Implementation Approaches

P C N U T T

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

(Received July 1994; accepted after revision April 1995)

Managers are called on to select among implementation approaches according to situational demands. This paper examines factors that influence this selection. To conduct such a study, managers' views of the pragmatics (prospects of success and resistance), potential use, and ethics of several implementation approaches were systematically collected. Explanatory variables included the participating managers' characteristics (level, gender, and experience) and the situation (participative or control-oriented climates). 'Implementation style', which measures a manager's preferences for a given implementation approach, was also included as an explanatory factor. The study found that managers had a repertoire of implementation approaches and used some of the approaches contingently. However, managers preferred to use implementation approaches that did not match the demands of the situation. Also, the managers' implementation style influenced their selection and use of implementation approaches. The implications of these findings for managers and management are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

TO IMPLEMENT A CHANGE, organizat ional leaders must deal with the concerns of stakeholders. Wary stakeholders may offer token gestures of compliance, engage in acts of sabotage, or make arguments for traditional ways of doing business, which create barriers to change [1, 33, 34]. To be successful, leaders must remove or get around change barriers by managing the social and political forces that produced them. A number of implementation approaches have been developed to elicit the support, cooperation, or acquiescence from stakeholders by dealing with the forces blocking change. Lippitt and Mackenzie [28], Vroom and Jago [51], and Nutt [38] have developed and tested frameworks that match implementation approaches to situational factors. Such an approach is not apt to be used unless managers are both aware of these implementation approaches and find them equally attractive. Research to date has not considered whether

practicing managers are inclined to use a variety o f implementat ion approaches or select them according to the demands o f the situation.

This paper examines how the situation and characteristics o f practicing managers influences their choice o f an implementat ion approach. Participative and control-oriented implementation settings identify two types o f situations. Factors used to capture manager characteristics were gender, experience, organizat ional level, and cognitive predispositions. The research defines and operationalizes a measure o f ' implementat ion style' that suggests preferences for particular types implementat ion approaches. The study explores how managers with a particular implementat ion style, in various situations, see the potential use, ethics, and pragmatics (prospects o f success and resistance) o f implementat ion approaches that call for accommodat ion , bargaining, incentives, and argumentat ion. To determine these views, two types o f information were collected. First, practicing managers were surveyed to determine

469

470 Nutt--lmplementation Approaches

their views of the ethics and prospects of using accommodation, bargaining, incentives, and argumentation-based implementation approaches. Second, a simulation was created in which these four implementation approaches were used in divisions of a hypothetical organization that had climates conducive and less conducive to change. The same group of practicing managers assessed each plan and indicated its likelihood of success and resistance. Analysis determined how situation, implementation style, participant characteristics, and the factor interactions influenced these assessments. If the approach-situation interaction is significant implementation approaches are used contingently, as called for by the literature. The implementation approach-style interaction offers a different explanation. The findings provide insights into needs for training and other means of promoting the use of a repertoire of implementation approaches, under appropriate circumstances. The study attempts to bridge the gap between the development of implementation approaches and their use in practice.

IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES AND IMPLEMENTATION STYLE

Implementation approaches were identified that could be matched to the implementation styles of managers. A literature search was conducted to uncover implementation approaches that seemed congruent to each style and had procedures that would be understood by participants. Four implementation approaches called accommodation, bargaining, incentives, and argumentation meet these tests. First, each implementation approach included in the study is discussed, and then these approaches are linked to one of the implementation styles.

Implementation approaches

The accommodation approach calls for reflection and adaptation to tease out hidden meanings in the situation prior to an implementation attempt. The implementation situation is explored to identify stakeholders, uncovering interests and points of view that may provoke support or opposition [15, 21, 25, 43]. Accom- modation is mostly reflective and contact with people is limited. Zones of compromise are sought for potentially antagonistic stakeholders. Possible changes in each antagonist's position

are explored to find win-win situations, hoping to foster agreement. Managers attempt to implement by making the differences among the antagonists appear to be small and insignificant. Goal incongruence is managed by narrowing these differences.

Techniques drawing on this approach help the manager reflect to uncover important interests and positions that people hold. An example is the 'game scenario' technique [1, 33, 34] in which the metaphor of a game is used to help a manager identify pivotal interests [21]. The game metaphor is used to uncover players, stakes, rules of conduct, conditions of fair play, and notions of fraud to suggest how stakeholders are apt to react to an implementation attempt. Games based on resource acquisition, changing objec- tives, and evasion of control offer a framework to elicit ploys and counter ploys that can foreclose options [39].

Bargaining calls on managers to become organizational brokers, e.g. [2,24]. Using knowledge of organizational networks, bargaining tactics are carried out with potential antagonists to seek compromise. Managers in a broker role see themselves as creating forums in which ideas are shaped until they become acceptable to key parties. Managers have a facilitation role, working various groups to create bridges that facilitate agreement. Bargain- ing differs from accommodation because the action takes place with others in a dynamic fashion. Goal incongruence is managed by 'horse trading'.

Bargaining techniques help the manager by improving his/her negotiation skills. Negotiation techniques offered by Fisher and Urey [14], Glaser and Glaser [18], and Lewicki and Litterer [26] help managers build their compromise skills.

An incentive approach uses tangible rewards to coax desirable behavior from stakeholders, e.g. [46, 47]. The situation is managed by the incentive with minimal need for consultation with performers. This approach carefully selects a reward that is valued by a stakeholder and links the reward to desirable behavior. It is assumed that giving such a reward will reinforce desired behavior and encourage others to comply. The key to using incentives is finding rewards that are valued and being clear about desired behavior that will result in a reward. Incentives must cater to the preferences of people and be carefully administered, insuring that only desired behavior

Omega, Vol. 23, No. 5 471

receives a reward. Goal incongruence is managed by offering something of value to compensate people with something to lose if the plan is implemented.

Kouzes and Posner [24] and Hackman and Lawler [20] provide many useful illustrations of how organizations encourage desirable behavior through a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, carefully linked to desired performance. For example, 'spot strokes', such as an instant lunch or an afternoon off, can be given with ceremony whenever desirable behavior occurs. Spot strokes tacticly encourage similar behavior from others. The importance of intrinsic rewards is illustrated by the Limited Company that has a full time manager of non-monetary compensation. Devices such as recognition in the company's monthly magazine, a call from an executive, a note from the boss, and the like are often effective. Bonus schemes and incentive pay can also direct behavior, although such extrinsic rewards are much more costly to use than intrinsic ones [24].

Argumentation is often advocated, e.g. [9, 10, 11, 41, 45]. To argue for adoption, the implementing manager concentrates on the benefits of the proposed change, using illustrations, anecdotes, or demonstrations to convince stakeholders that the plan is both desirable and effective. When the organization's interests seem to be served by the plan, and when people have little to lose, stakeholders tend to go along. However, stakeholders who are adversely affected by the plan may object. When people begin to balk or show signs of resistance, managers using argumentation are forced to detail their arguments and hope that the implied power of their position will secure compliance [27, 33, 34, 44]. Goal incongruence is managed by appealing to the 'greater good' that will be served by the plan.

For argumentation to work the implementing manager must have a reputation of candid and honest dealings with people and a track record of accurate assessment of organizational needs [39]. These requirements are drawn from the notion of 'information power' [16]. Information is tailored to the situation, attempting to modify someone's ideas about what is useful or desirable. Information power is similar to what Parsons [41] calls 'pure persuasion'. The arguments must be seen as well intended and in the best interests of the organization to be accepted.

A useful way to contrast the four implementation approaches is to examine their similarities and differences. Both incentives and argumentation attempt to coax stakeholders. Differences stem from how people are coaxed. Incentives use rewards to entice people to go along. Argumen- tation relies upon selling the idea. Accommo- dation and bargaining both seek zones of compromise. Differences arise in stakeholder involvement. Accommodation calls for the implementator to find areas of potential conflict which are carefully managed with minimal participation of the people involved. Bargaining involves stakeholders in finding a compromise.

Drawing on their experience, practicing managers may.find that one approach is more pragmatic (high success and low resistance), ethical (corresponds with a manager's norms for professional conduct), and useful. This suggest that practicing managers find what they believe to be the best implementation approach and use it exclusively. As a result, managers would resist using contingency frameworks.

Implementation style Implementation style is based on Jungian

theory [22] and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or MBTI, which classifies people according to Jung's theory [31]. The MBTI is considered to be one of the most reliable classification instrument of its kind, e.g. [6, 7, 8, 50]. Most people working in the field consider the MBTI to be the best way to measure the cognitative predispositions of managers (e.g. [23]). Furthermore, research shows that managers with a particular style have different preferences and make different decisions, e.g. [4, 23, 33, 34, 40]. Nutt [35, 37] used the E/I (introversion or internal/ extroversion or external) and J/P (judgment/ perception) scales in the MBTI to indicate the type and focus of a manager's preferred action that make up an 'implementation style', as shown in Table 1.

Action focus can be internal or external. Individuals with an internal focus prefer to concentrate on concepts or ideas. Externals prefer to deal with people and things. The action types that deal with the world are called judging and perceiving. A judging individual wants to regulate and control, whereas a perceiving individual tries to understand and then adapt. As a result, managers are believed to have cognitive preferences that lead them to focus internally or

472

Dominant focus when taking action

Nutt--lmplementation Approaches

Table 1. Implementation styles

Internal (I)

External (E)

Preferred Type of Action

Judging (J) Perceiving (P)

Influencers OJ)

Persuaders (EJ)

Tuners (IP)

Brokers (EP)

externally and to prefer take a control or an adaptative action during implementation. Com- bining these preferences identifies an individual's preferred implementation style, which has been used to predict how managers will prefer to carry out implementation [35, 37].

The tuner style. Managers with an IP or tuner style prefer reflection and adaptation. A manager with this style reflects to characterize the situation so adjustments can be made before any implementation-related action is taken. Infor- mation is sought to find zones of compromise that can be offered to stakeholders. Tuners promote harmony by finding areas of potential agreement. If a manager can show that the positions of potential antagonists are similar, differences are more likely to become minor and unimportant. Such an approach was used by former President Carter to develop the Camp David accords and, more recently, to negotiate with the leaders of North Korea and Haiti [37]. The accommodation approach can be linked to the tuner style. Managers with a tuner style are predicted to prefer accommodation and believe it to be effective.

HI: Managers with a tuner style will prefer to use an accommodation approach for implementation and, when using accommodation, find success likely, resistance low, and action ethical.

The broker style. Managers with an EP or broker style are predicted to promote compromise by creating forums for people discuss their positions. Brokers see themselves as agents making contacts and view implementation as a dynamic process of compromise. To realize these aims, brokers seek implementation approaches that create an environment conducive to

compromise. This suggests that brokers prefer to implement through mechanisms such as groups. Managers with a broker style are predicted to prefer bargaining approaches and believe that such an approach is effective.

H2" Managers with a broker style will prefer to use a bargaining approach for implementation and, when using bargaining, find success likely, resistance low, and action ethical.

The influencer style. Managers with an IJ or influencer style are predicted to regulate and control with minimal contact with people. This suggests that influencers engage in implementation-related action by managing the situation to pave the way for adoption. Influencer tactics would be subtly hidden and seen only through their effects. Once the influence process has been constructed, influencers attempt to use it artfully to promote adoption. To illustrate, consultants who encourage their clients to begin on their own, knowing that they will fail because they lack basic skills, use such an approach. Implemen- tation approaches that are apt to be preferred by managers with a influencer style include contingency reinforcement [47] and bonus schemes. Accordingly, managers with an influencer style are predicted to prefer incentives and view it as the best way to implement a plan.

H3: Managers with an influencer implementation style will prefer to use incentives for implementation and, when using incentives, find success likely, resistance low, and action ethical.

The persuader style. Managers with a EJ or persuader style are postulated to take action by


making overt appeals to reason or values. Using argumentation [49] to call for action satisfies the urge to regulate and control. Persuaders seem to populate organizations because claims are made overtly. To call for action, persuaders present information drawn from the merits of the case. Either logic or values can be used to develop the argument. Persuaders are prone to cite facts and use illustrations, anecdotes, or demonstrations in an attempt to convince others. This suggests that managers with a persuader style prefer to use some form of argumentation and see it as the best way to implement change.

H4: Managers with a persuader style will prefer to use argumentation for implementation and, when using argumentation, find success likely, resistance low, and action ethical.

Situational influences

Situational factors, such as the magnitude of a change and the position power of the implementing manager, can influence the prospects of implementation success, e.g. [17, 45, 53]. Contex- tual factors such as climate and implementator power have been found to create an approach- situation interaction effect [5]. Results such as this have prompted contingency approaches to implementation that call on managers to select an implementation approach according to the demands of the situation, e.g. [13, 19, 28, 38, 51]. A contingency approach assumes that managers have a repertoire of implementation approaches and will use them contingently. The study seeks to determine the extent to which participants apply implementation approaches contingently and whether their matching of approach to situation agrees with prescriptions in the literature.

H5: Managers select an implementation approach according to situational factors.

The hypotheses suggests that situation has more influence on the selection of an implementation approach than other factors.

METHODS

To examine the hypotheses, controlled ma- nipulation of the factors to be studied and well informed participants are required [12]. To meet these requirements, hypothetical plans were

devised that described implementation attempts in which the four implementation approaches were applied in both a participative and a control-oriented setting. To capture beliefs about the likely fate of each plan, practicing managers were asked to take on the role of a responsible executive and indicate each plan's chance of success and its prospect of provoking resistance. Sixty percent of the participants had positions at or above the COO role they were asked to take. Each participant was asked to indicate what they thought the COO should do in their responses. They were told there were no right or wrong answers. Participants then completed a survey that asked about the perceived usability and ethics of each implementation approach, and filled out an MBTI.

Simulation design

The simulation described a large decentralized company that supplies the big three auto makers. The company had geographically separated divisions, which were acquired by a parent company. Each division, due to its history of independent operation, had evolved a different style of management, which created different cultures. The divisions were described as being similar in size and producing the same six automotive products (wheels, hubcaps, steering wheels, gas caps, fuel injectors, power seat and window controls). Creating divisions in this way made it plausible that different implementation approaches would be used and implausible that size and other types of divisional features would influence the findings.

To make the scenarios salient to participants, the company was described as having a quality problem [30]. In the scenarios, the company felt threatened by the number of rejections and returns from its key customers. To respond, the company's strategic plan called for a quality improvement program to deal with product rejections and returns by the big three auto makers. The company was attempting to install the quality plan in each of its eight divisions. Each division head, a vice president in the parent company, had been asked to prepare an implementation plan and submit it to the company's chief operating officer (COO). These plans differed because the climate in some divisions was better than others and because each VP adopted somewhat different implementation

474 Nutt--Implementation Approaches

Table 2. Research design for the implementation simulation.

Implementation approach:

Situation: Incentive Argumentation Accommodation Bargaining

Participative Climate Division 11 Division 3 Division 5 Division 7

Control Division 2 Division 4 Division 6 Division 8 Climate

1Division t has a participative climate and implemented the quality plan using incentives.

tactics, a throwback to the period when the divisions were independently operated. As a result, each of four implementation approaches could be used in a division that had a different culture. Each respondent was asked to assume the role of the company's COO and evaluate the implementation approach offer by each division VP. This assessment was to provide the basis for a report to the board of directors that indicated adoption prospects of the quality improvement plan.

The two by four experimental design, shown in Table 2, uses combinations of the four implementation approaches and two climates to specify the key features of the eight plans to be considered by the company's CO0. The orthogonal nature of the design eliminates multicolinearity, which permits an independent

estimate of the implementation approach and situation factors. Table 3 illustrates the plan for division 6, identified in Table 2. Each plan was described as a report depicting what each division was doing to implement the quality plan, with two rating scales to assess the plan (Table 3).

To test construct validity, each of the eight plans was critiqued by my former graduates who hold major management positions in a automotive company. The critique uncovered changes that were incorporated to make the hypothetical plans more realistic.

Situation. In the simulation, each implementation approach was carried out in a division that had either a control or a participative climate, as described in Table 4. In the control oriented division, managers set performance expectations and monitored results. In the participative

Table 3. Illustrative case scenario

In this division, the VP has been preoccupied with unit cost performance and maintaining high volume, which can make the division an important contributor to company profit. To keep departments' diverse product lines under control, procedures require that costs be periodically monitored and compared to present performance standards in a formal report to management. All deviations must be explained by departmental managers. Volume is maintained by continually tracking production rates.

This VP has met with you on several occasions to hear the company's position on the need for the quality program and expected benefits. The VP then met with each of the departmental managers in the division and explained why the plan was being initiated by top management. In this meeting, the explanation stressed the need for increased quality and why the plan was expected to be beneficial. The same message was sent as opportunities arose, at both social and work related gatherings, and in one-on-one encounters.

Please mark the scale to indicate the division VP's chance of success:

Success None unlikely

I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 25

Failure as likely as Success

success likely Certain

I l l I I I I I I I 50 75 1 O0

Please mark the scale to indicate the prospect of resistance to the CEO's tactics:

None A little

resistance

I l l 25

Normal Considerable resistance resistance Certain

I I I I I I I I I , , l l , , , l [ I I 50 75 100

Omega, Vol. 23, No. 5

Table 4. Situations considered in the simulation

475

Participative climate Control climate

Decision making, goal setting, and performance monitoring

Management approach

Divisional management has allowed product line managers considerable independence. Participative decision making is stressed with goals set jointly with product line managers. Performance and goals reviewed jointly to set new performance expectations and to revise goals

Managing by walking around. (Managers who network by periodic informal discussions with people)

Divisional management pre-occupied with unit cost performance and maintaining high volume. Sales, orders, cost, and volume indicators are reviewed on a regular basis. Deviations from preset performance targets must be explained by the responsible manager. Man- agers are expected to offer plans to make up shortfalls Managing by ensuring that subordinates met pre-set performance expectations

divisions, decision making, goal setting, and performance monitoring were done jointly, by involving key division managers in their development. Beginning with McGregor [29] these two types of climates have been used to characterize the spectrum of environments found in organizations. As Pascale [42] points out, managers continue to polarize the choice of climate as autocratic versus participative. This suggests that participation and control provide a useful way to depict a range of situations, some conducive to change and others less so, in which an implementation approach must work. Some implementation approaches may be preferred in one of these climates and not the other, suggesting whether managers use contingency thinking as they select an implementation approach.

Implementation approach. Table 5 summarizes each of the four implementation approaches and the steps taken to tailor each approach to a participative and a control oriented setting, as called for by the simulation. The changes in procedure reflect moving from the more favorable conditions, often found in a participative setting, to the more difficult ones that can arise in a control oriented setting. Carrying out an implementation approach somewhat differ- ently in a control and a participation setting corresponds to what most shrewd administrators would do and makes the simulation seem realistic.

To carry out accommodation in the simulation, the division VP reflected to find individuals who may object to the plan. In participative environments, the division VP listened to each view and then explained the mutuality of interests. Under the less favorable conditions found in control environments, the division VP used accommodation to sniff out coalitions and head them off by meeting with

potential coalition leaders. In this meeting, the VP attempted to make their objections seem minor and unimportant.

In the simulation, the incentive approach relied upon rewards. In participatory environments, people who have supported the quality effort were complemented by the division VP for their past efforts, without any reference to the quality plan. This division VP crafted commendations that catered to the individual's preferences. Under less favorable, control environments, more tangible rewards were offered by the VP.

Bargaining in the simulation applied negotiation tactics. In participative environments, the division VP determined how key people were affected. People benefiting were asked to give up some of their windfall gains to people who were affected unfavorably. In a control situation, the VP acted as the facilitator of a group that was formed to seek the same results.

The argumentation approach presented the benefits of the plan. In participative environments, a memo describing the quality program's merit was circulated by the division VP to elicit support. The memo suggested what each person should do to comply with and support it. In control environments, more formal presenta- tions were made by the VP and the message was delivered in a broader range of situations, which included social and work related gatherings.

Participants and external controls

Study participants were managers who had attended executive training programs. Because the participants came from manufacturing organizations across the USA and its posses- sions, a wide variety of view points and many geographically dispersed organizations were included in the study. The participants were given classroom exposure to each of the

476 Nutt--lmplernentation Approaches

c,,,-,

. . ~

.~ _~

"Fz ~ 'N o

~ . ~

a

~ . = ~

"/I.~ =

_

I ~ 1 ~ • •

8 8 "~ ¢o i .

e~

.g

o

0 ~ ' ~ o ~

= .o .=

e~

!

I'i N

~ g

2

< . ~ "K ~ ..~ ..~

.~ ~,~

implementation approaches shown in Table 4 before the data were collected. Control was exercised through instructions asking respon- dents not to consult with one another when evaluating the scenarios.

Participants were asked to take the role of the company CO0 who had been asked to evaluate how each of the company's eight divisions were progressing with the quality program, using the scales shown in Table 3. The scales capture two different aspects of implementation pragmatics: the chance of success and the prospect of resistance. An implementation attempt can prompt resistance but lead to an adoption, if implementation is adroitly carried out, and failure can result in situations with little resistance when implementation is faulty.

The rating scales (Table 3) were devised to capture the respondent's assessment of the plans. The scales were reversed to force the rater to read the scale anchors and discourage them from marking both scales at the same location. The scale anchors have two purposes. First, the anchors help to create intervally scaled response data. When raters are given rating scales that specify how zero and scale increments are defined, these ratings take on interval scale properties and parametric statistical methods can be used to analyze the data. Second, the anchors allow average responses to be interpreted in terms of the result that is suggested by the anchor.

The participants were asked to review the eight division VPs' implementation plans and indicate their view of the plan's chance of success and prospects of resistance by checking along each rating scale. The implementation plan for each division was placed on a separate page to make it difficult for a respondent to compare ratings. Data were recorded as a value from 0 to 100, in increments of one unit.

Information depicting years of experience, level (determined by current position), and gender were extracted from the application files. Mangers who had at least 5 years experience were identified. (The remaining surveys were discarded.) One hundred and sixty-two of the participants meet this test. In this group, nearly 60% were top managers (CEOs, COOs, or CFOs). The participant's experience ranged from 5 to 38 years. The rating scales used to determine the preferred use and ethics of each implementation approach are shown in Table 9.

Omega, Vol. 23, No. 5

Table 6. The influence of participant characteristics and simulation factors on success and resistance

Chance Prospect of

Simulation factors

1. Implementation Approach Accommodation Incentive Bargaining Argumentation

2. Climate Participative Control

of success t D M R T ~ resistance 2 DMRT

65.8 A 37.7 A 55.4 B 44.2 B 55.3 B 50.0 C 48.4 C 53.3 D

P < 0.001 P < 0.0001

60.6 41.0 51.9 51.5

P < 0.01 P < 0.01

Participant characteristics N Freq. 1. Implementation style

IP (tuner) 16 10.5% 58.9 IJ (influencer) 46 30.2% 57.1 EP (broker) 41 26.7% 55.6 EJ (persuader) 49 32.6% 55.1

Total 152 100.0% NS

2. Level Executive 88 57.5% 54.8 Managerial 23 15.0% 56.0 Department 22 14.4% 59.0 Staff 20 13.0% 60.0

Total 155 100.0% P _< 0.02

3. Gender Male 125 80.6% 55.4 Female 30 19.4% 59.5

Total 155 100.0% P _< 0.01

4. Average ratings 162 56.2

'Scale for success runs from 0 = none to 100 = certain. "Scale for resistance runs from 0 = none to 100 = certain.

B A/B

A A

43.3 45.3 48.0 47.0

P < 0.10

47.6 46.0 44.8 43.3 NS

46.9 44.3 NS

46.3

477

~DM RT, Duncan multiple range tests. The letter categories indicate means for the different factor categories (such as the four implementation approaches) that are different, P _< 0.05.

Analysis

Multiple regression (MR) was used to analyze the data. MR was applied to determine how the implementation approach and climate factors influenced judgments about success and resistance, controlling for the manager's implementation style, organizational level, gender, and experience. A regression was also carried out for other dependent variable (ethics and useability) with implementation approach, implementation style, level, gender, and experience as explanatory variables. Factors describing interactions between implementation approach and the climate factor as well as interactions between implementation approach and implementation style, level, gender, and experience were also included in the regressions.

The Duncan multiple range test (DMRT) was applied to find differences among levels of the explanatory variables. This test compares values of a dependent variable associated with all combinations of the independent variable's levels, two at a time, using an 0.05 level of significance. This test adjusts significance levels

to account for the number of non-independent tests that are conducted.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Results are presented in three ways. First, the reaction of the participants to the simulation is reported. This analysis reveals how managers view each of the implementation approach, indicating approaches thought to have the best chance of success and lowest prospect of resistance. Next, discussion will shift to exploring whether implementation style influences the preferences of the practicing managers, address- ing HI, H2, H3, and H4. Finally, qualifications which address H5 are presented.

Simulation results

Analysis of the simulation results revealed that managers, particularly top managers, had very different beliefs about which implementation approach should be used to implement a strategic plan. The discussion first considers implementation approach, followed by qualifications

478 Nuft-lmplementaiion Approaches

Table 7. The ioint effect of imolementation aooroach and situation

Implementation approach

Situation: Accommodation Bargaining Incentives Argumentation

C/lance of Success Participative climate 74.5 44.5 53.0 42.8 Control climate 57.1 66.3 57.8 54.0

P IO.0001

Prospect qf Resistance Participative climate 29.2 61.3 46.8 61.6 Control climate 46.2 38.2 41.6 45.0

P ~0.0001

derived from assessing interactions between implementation approach and the other factors.

Implementation approach. Implementation approach had a highly significant effect on both the perceived chance of success and the prospect of resistance (P I 0.0001). Accommodation was viewed as having the best chance of success and producing the least resistance (Table 6). Using the anchored rating scale in Table 3 to interpret the results, success for accommodation had a rating of 65.8 which can be characterized as just below ‘likely success’. The prospects of resistance with a rating of 37.7 can be characterized as having slightly more than ‘a little resistance’. The managers in this study were quite favorably disposed toward accommodation as an implementation approach.

Incentives and bargaining approaches had success ratings that were just above 55. This suggests that the participating managers regard incentives and bargaining as a bit more likely to succeed than fail. However, incentives were seen as having less chance of provoking resistance than bargaining.

Argumentation was seen as the least effective implementation approach. The participating managers found success prospects to be slightly

less than neutral (a rating of 48.4) and the prospects of resistance a bit more than normal (53.3).

Taken together these findings suggest that accommodation was seen as a workable way to implement strategic decisions, that was unlikely to provoke resistance. Argumentation was seen as the least desirable approach, with problematic success and some anticipated resistance. Incen- tives were viewed as just as workable as bargaining; however, bargaining was found to be more apt to provoke resistance.

Situation. As shown in Table 6, the managers in the study viewed a participative climate as more conducive to change and less apt to provoke resistance (P I 0.01). Many studies have found that participation creates an environment favorable to change and that control erects barriers to change, e.g. [3, 11, 36,44, 521. Because the effects of the factors were in the expected directions, the other results in the study have more credibility.

Participant e&cts. Implementation approach had much more of an impact on the success and resistance assessments than any of the factors describing participants. Experience had no effect, and level and gender produced only minor

Table 8. The joint effect of implementation approach and organizational level

Implementation approach

LEVEL: Accommodation Bareainine Incentives Argumentation

Chance of Success Executive Managerial Departmental Staff

Prospect of Resistance Executive Managerial Departmental Staff

fii

P i 0.05

38.7 51.7 44.0 56.1 37.4 46.3 48.0 52.2 37. I 46.6 45.1 50.2 36.9 47.5 42.0 47.0

P 5 0.05


differences (Table 6). Top managers made up of CEOs, COOs, and CFOs (called the executive level) were less optimistic about the prospects of an implementation success than people with managerial and departmental responsibilities. People with staff positions made the most favorable assessments. The same pattern was followed in the resistance assessments. Execu- tives believed that resistance was more likely than the other participants, although these difference were not significant. Females made more favorable assessments of the prospects of an implementation success, although their resistance assessments did not differ from those made by males. Top executives and males appear to have more conservative expectations about the chance of an implementation success.

The manager's implementation style had no effect on the overall assessment of success and resistance. This was expected because the effect of style was postulated to appear only when the implementation style is considered with implementation approach as an interaction, as noted in HI, H2, H3, and H4.

Situation and level qualifications The interactions of implementation approach

with the situation and organizational level factors are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. Finding a situation-approach interaction suggests that H5 can be confirmed. The results in Table 7 can be interpreted with the anchored rating scales found in Table 3. The data suggest that accommodation applied in a participative setting makes success seem more likely and produces only a little resistance. The same managers believe that accommodation in a control environment was as apt to fail as succeed and provokes normal (typical) resistance. According to these findings, managers believe that accommodation is more apt to work in a participative environment, but problematic in a control oriented situation.

Bargaining was preferred in a control setting, with adoption prospects approaching 'likely success' and provoking between little and normal resistance. In participative settings, the give and take of bargaining made failure seem a bit more likely than success. Resistance increased to beyond normal levels. Incentives were thought to work equally well in a participative or a control setting and to provoke similar levels of resistance. Argumentation was found to be a bit more apt to be successful in control settings than

participative ones. Argumentation in participative settings is believed to make success unlikely and to provoke more than typical resistance but in a control setting argumentation is believed to make success somewhat likely and provoke a bit less than typical resistance.

The interaction shown in Table 8 identifies how preferences associated with implementation approaches were influenced by organizational level. The level designations were taken from Thompson [48] who identified managerial roles by level, referred to here as top, middle, and departmental. Top managers were CEOs, COOs, or CFO's. Middle managers have a coordina- tional role that connects top managers to departmental managers. Departmental managers oversee a functional area (e.g. R&D, accounting, engineering, etc.). The staffcategory was made up of participants who had been managers but current have staff positions.

Reading down the columns in Table 8 helps to identify differences due to organizational level for each implementation approach. Level differences for accommodation were not observed. This suggests that people at all levels of an organization regard accommodation as low risk and apt to be successful. This also suggests that staff, departmental, and middle managers may respond favorably to an accommodation approach used by someone at a higher level. Bargaining was viewed less favorably by top managers than others and was thought to provoke more resistance. As a result, top managers should approach bargaining situations involving others with more confidence because middle managers and staff seem to regard bargaining as apt to produce implementation adoptions and to lower resistance. Staff have a more optimistic view of the power of incentives than people in management positions. Because staff members find incentives to be useful, managers may find staff to be more susceptible to incentives than they realize. As a result, incentives may be a useful way to implement plans that affect people who occupy staff positions. Argumentation was viewed more negatively by top managers than other managers or staff. Top managers may have more experience attempting to sell plans to adversely affected stakeholders who can block or subvert the plan. The data suggest that top managers see the pitfalls of attempting to sell organizational interests to disadvantaged stakeholders.


Implementation style qualifications

To test HI, H2, H3, and H4, the dependent variables (success, resistance, prospective use, and ethics) were analyzed with four one-way ANOVAs. Each ANOVA had one of the four implementation styles and each of the four implementation approaches as explanatory variables. This is simpler than exploring the interaction term of implementation style and implementation approach in a regression, and yields more precise results. The findings are shown in Table 9. Each row in the table summarizes the results of a one way ANOVA

for one of the dependent variables and one implementation style, with the implementation approaches as explanatory variables.

To support the hypotheses, the four underlined values for a dependent variable in the table must be larger (or smaller, for resistance) than the rest of the values in each row. Although, highly significant differences were observed, the predicted ordering was not observed for all of the styles, as shown in Table 9. To simplify the discussion and interpretation of results, each implementation style will be considered separately.

Tuners. The findings for managers that have a tuner style provide strong support for HI.

Style and

Table 9. How implementation style influences views of implementation approaches

Implementation approaches

dependent variable N Freq. Accommodation

1. Chance of Success IP (tuner) 16 10.5% 66.0 EP (broker) 46 30.2% 62.0 1J (influencer) 41 26.7% 66.0 EJ (persuader) 49 32.5% 70.3

152 100.0% Average 65.8

2. Prospect of Resistance IP (tuner) EP (broker) 1J (influencer) EJ (persuader) Average

3. Prefer to Use IP (tuner) EP (broker) IJ (influencer) EJ (persuader) Average

4. Ethics of Use IP (tuner) EP (broker) IJ (influencer) EJ (persuader) Average

Success Scale:

Resistance Scale:

Ethics Scale:

Success None unlikely

0 25

36.6 40.5 38.9 31.9 37.7

A little None resistance

0 25

Bargaining Incentives Argumentation Significance

56.0 58.0 49.0 54.5 53.0 49.0 56.0 56.0 44.0 57.5 51.5 56.0

55.3 55.4 48.4

Failure as likely as Success success likely Certain

50 75 100

50.3 41.6 52.7 50.0 47.6 52.0 50.4 43.6 58.0 47.6 45.0 49.0 44.2 50.0 53.3

Normal Considerable resistance resistance Certain

50 75 100

65.7 34.4 32.0 60.9 58.3 38.5 39.0 62.5 58.2 33.7 46.4 55.1 55.2 35.4 42.6 65.7 57.9 35.9 42.3 61,1

As often Never Seldom as not Often Always

Use Scale:

0 25 50 75 100

60.3 36.5 53.0 66.3 61.3 36.7 36.9 58.4 55.9 39.2 41.5 50.5 53,3 43.3 47.3 61.5 57.8 39.0 43.2 58.0

Somewhat Somewhat Fully Unethical unethical Neutral ethical ethical

0 25 50 75 I00

P < 0.05 P < 0.07 P _< 0.08 P < 0.03

P < 0.05 P < 0.05 P _< 0.06 P < 0.01

P _< 0.001 P _< O.OOl P _< 0.005 P _< 0.001 P _< 0.001

P ~ 0.005 P ~ 0.005 P < 0.01 P < 0.01 P_< 0.01


Managers with a tuner style saw accommodation as providing the best chance of success, with the least resistance. When tuners use accommodation as an implementation approach, success was seen as approaching 'likely'. When using the other three approaches the prospect of success was closer to neutral (Table 9). Tuners expect a 'little resistance' when accommodation is used. The tuner believes that resistance will grow if any other approach is used. These findings are confirmed by the prefer to use and ethics indicators in Table 9. Tuners indicated that they would seldom use bargaining or incentives and saw accommodation as ethical. Tuners were found to have a strong commitment to implement with accommodation.

Brokers. The results for brokers fail to confirm H2. Brokers, like all managers in the study, preferred accommodation to any other implementation approach. Brokers found bargaining to have the same likelihood of success as incentives and argumentation. Surprisingly, brokers were apt to use argumentation and find it to be ethical. Brokers believe that accommodation has the best change of success but prefer to use argumentation, and seem to concede that resistance is apt to result.

Influencers. The results fail to confirm H3. Influencers are much like brokers. Influencers believe that success is more likely with accommodation, but are inclined to use argumentation. Like brokers, influencers concede that resistance is apt to be provoked by argumentation.

Persuaders. The data partially confirm H4. Persuaders prefer to use argumentation over any other approach. However, persuaders acknowl- edge that accommodation is more likely to be successful and will lower resistance.

Ethical considerations. The averages for implementation approaches in Table 9 indicate managers' views of the usability and ethics of the four implementation approaches. The data show that managers prefer to use implementation approaches that they believe to be ethical or that managers find ethical what they prefer to use. Treating either as causal, leads to the same conclusions.

Accommodation and argumentation were thought to be ethical. Bargaining and incentives were seen as somewhat unethical. To explore these results, the findings are examined according to the manager's implementation style. The same

pattern emerges, although some implementation styles have stronger preferences than others. Tuners see both accommodation and argumentation as ethical, incentives as ethically neutral, and bargaining as somewhat unethical. Influencers have the same pattern except that their views of ethics are not as pronounced. Brokers also have the same preference pattern, except that incentives are also viewed as somewhat unethical. Persuaders display a different pattern believing that argumentation is the most ethical way to carry out an implementation. Argumen- tation may have been seen as ethical because power was not used in the scenarios to carry out this approach. Accommodation and incentives are viewed as ethically neutral and bargaining is seen as somewhat unethical by persuaders.

CONCLUSIONS

Managers in the study seem to have a repertoire of implementation approaches and to use them contingently. Assuming that these preferences suggest how managers would react to an actual implementation, the pragmatics and likely use of the implementation approaches differ from prescriptions found in the literature, e.g. [21, 28, 38, 53]. Managers in this study were inclined to use accommodation in a participative environment and argumentation in a control environment. The implementation literature calls for accommodation to be applied in control settings and argues against using argumentation. Accommodation helps to unfreeze a work unit and ready it for change [1, 2, 43]. Argumentation used in a work unit accustomed to control is apt to produce suspicion and resistance [26]. Bargaining was preferred by the managers in the study for a control setting, but it is better suited to participative ones [52].

Empirical studies find that a match of an implementation approach to the situation increases the chance of an adoption and that an implementation approach mismatched to the situation leads to failure [38, 51]. Drawing on studies of implementation attempts in organizations, accommodation was found to have nearly 100% adoptions, bargaining 80%, and argumentation 50% [36]. This suggests that using participation or argumentation instead of accommodation in a control environment will dramatically reduce the prospect of an adoption. The managers in this study seem to have

OME 2M~-B


unrealistic expectations for argumentation. The prospects for success when using argumentation in a control environment are poorer than the prospects for success with participation [36]. Managers in this study believe that argumentation in a control setting increases the chance of success. The managers preferred to use incentives in a control environment, which is consistent with prescriptions in the literature, e.g. [46]. In this instance, managerial preferences match prescriptions.

These conclusions suggest two ways to improve the prospects of plan adoption. First, managers should be aware of their preferences and the implications of these preferences. If preferences suggest likely behavior, managers tend to apply implementation approaches that are prone to failure. Dramatic increases in success are possible by abandoning preferences and following the prescriptions in the literature. Second, managers need training to characterize implementation situations and to select approaches that fit the situation.

The influence of implementation style on preferences also has some interesting implications. As predicted, tuners found accommodation to be pragmatic (increased success and lowered resistance) and also preferred to use this implementation approach and found it to be ethical. Persuaders recognized the value of accommodation, but preferred to use argumentation. This commitment to an implementation approach congruent with the persuaders style was also predicted. The findings for brokers and influencers were not predicted. Like all managers in the study, brokers and influencers recognized the value of accommodation, but managers with these two styles were not influenced by their style-predicted preferences. Each preferred to use argumentation over the implementation approach most congruent with their style. This suggests that all managers, but tuners, are drawn to arguing for the merits of a change, even though they know that this approach is not apt to be successful. This preference for using logical arguments in the face of serious social and political barriers may explain the high rate of implementation failure in organizations [36].

Ethics and use proved to be tangled: managers either used approaches seen as ethical or consider ethical what they use. Because ethics and use seem related, ethical considerations may explain why accommodation and argumentation were

preferred to incentives and bargaining. Man- agers saw incentives and bargaining as somewhat unethical. Even managers with implementation styles that were congruent to these implementation approaches, saw incentives and bargaining as less ethical than the others. Interestingly, these same managers saw incentives and bargaining as pragmatic (apt to be successful with low resistance). This suggests that renewed effort to present intrinsic rewards and bargaining as useful tools that can be applied in an ethically acceptable manner would increase their use in practice.

These findings provide insights into implementation pragrnatics, as seen by the participating managers. Managers may be mislead by their perception of ethics. Experience, which suggests that argumentation is not pragmatic (less success and more resistance), may be set aside because argumentation seems ethically acceptable. This view may stem from the widespread use of argumentation in organizations. One's every day experience suggests that arguments are fre- quently used, suggesting that argumentation is ethically acceptable. Also, people are apt to resist a sales pitch when the plan being sold does not serve their interests. Selling the 'greater good' of a plan seems ethical, but experience may suggest that peoples' vested interests will provoke resistance. Nutt [36] finds that two-thirds of the implementation attempts in organizations use some form of argumentation and that only 50% of these efforts lead to a successful adoption. Argumentation is believed to be more useful than its track record would indicate.

Bargaining and incentives do not seem to be widely accepted by managers. This view of incentives may stem from bad experiences with bonus pay systems or performance-based pay. Negative views of extrinsic incentives may be extended to the intrinsic incentive, leading managers to treat all types of incentives as having dysfunctional consequences. The views about bargaining are less clear. The success of bargaining tactics such as 'N2' [18] and 'win-win' negotiation [14] suggests that organizations may not appreciate how bargaining can be both ethical and effective. Renewed attempts to demonstrate the value of bargaining and incentives in organizations seem needed.

Implementation style appears to create preferences that entice managers to use a limited number of approaches to implementation. This


suggests that contingency-based implementation frameworks are not apt to be used until the barriers posed by ethics are squared with those of pragmatics. The rationale that lies behind these preferences needs to be considered in future work on implementation. A better understanding of these preferences may suggest what has caused them and what to do to change them. Also, work is needed to confirm the postulated link between preferences and behavior.

The study has several limitations, beyond the assumed link of preferences to what would be done in an actual implementation. First, the views of participations in this study may not be indicative of how all managers view implementation. Also, the simulations may have coaxed the study participants to limit their thinking to the special set of circumstances characterized by the scenarios. As a result, extensions of the findings to all types of organizations may not be warranted. Despite the limitations, the findings pose some important questions about prescriptions that are offered in the management literature that do not consider the preferences and practices of people who are to use them.

REFERENCES

1. Bardach E (1977) The Implementation Game. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

2. Bennis W and Nanus B (1985) Leaders: the Strategies for Taking Charge. Harper & Row, New York.

3. Beyer JM and Trice HM (1978) Implementing Changes: Alcoholism Policies in Work Organizations. The Free Press, New York.

4. Blaylock BK and Rees LP (1984) Cognitive style and the usefulness of information. Mgmt Sci. 15, 74-91.

5. Boal K and Bryson J (1987) Representing and testing policy implications of planning processes. Strategic MgmtJ. 8, 211 231.

6. Borus O (1978) The Eight Mental Measurement Yearbook. Gryphone Press, Highland Park, IlL

7. Carlson JG (1985) Recent assessments of the Myers- Briggs type indicator. J. Pers. Assess. 49, 356-365.

8. Carlyn M (1977) An assessment of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. J. Pers. Assess. 41, 461-473.

9. Churchman CW (1975) Theories of implementation. In Implementing Operations Research/Management Science (Edited by Schultz RL and Sleven DP). Elsevier, New York.

10. Churchman CW and Schainblatt AH (1965) The researcher and the manager: a dialectic of implementation. Mgmt Sci. 11, B69-B87.

11. Coch L and French Jr JRP (1948) Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relat. 1,512-532.

12. Cook TD and Campbell DT (1979) Quasi-Experimen- tation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Rand McNally, Chicago.

13. Daft R and Becker SW (1978) Innovation Organizations. Elsevier, New York.

14. Fisher R and Ury W (1983) Getting to Yes. Houston Miflin, Boston.

15. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic Management: A Stake- holder Approach. Pitman, New York.

16. French J and Raven B (1959) The bases of social power. In Studies in Social Power (Edited by Cartwright D). Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Mich.

17. Ginsbcrg MJ and Schultz RL (1987) Special issues in implementation. Interfaces 17, No. 3.

18. Glaser R and Glaser C (1989) N2 Model of Negotiating Behavior. Macmillan, New York.

19. Govindarajan V (1989) Implementing competitive strategies at the business unit level: implications of matching managers to strategies. Strategic Mgmt J. 10, 281-289.

20. Hackman JR and Lawler EE (1971) Employee reactions to job characteristics. J. AppL Psychol. 55, 417-426.

21. Hickson D, Butler R, Gray D, Mallory G and Wilson, D (1986) Top Decisions: Strategic Decision Making in Organizations. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, Calif.

22. Jung CG (1923) Psychological Types. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

23. Kilmann R and Thomas KW (1977) Interpersonal conflict handling behavior as reflections of Jungian personality dimensions. Psychol. Rep. 37, 971-980.

24. Kouzes JM and Posner BZ (1987) The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, Calif.

25. Lasswell H (1974) A Preview of the Policy Sciences. American Elsevier, New York.

26. Lewicki RJ and Litterer JA (1985) Negotiation. West, New York.

27. Lewin K (1947) Group decisions and social change. In Readings in Social Psychology (Edited by Maccoby JE, Newcomb TW and Harley E). Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.

28. Lippitt ME and Mackenzie KD (1976) Authority task problems. Admin. Sci. Q. 21, 643-660.

29. McGregor D (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill, New York.

30. Morley MC and Luthans F (1985) Refining the displacement of culture and the use of scenes and themes in organizational studies. Acad. Mgmt Rev. 10, 219-229.

31. Myers IB and Myers PB (1980) Gifts Differing. Consulting Psychological Press, Palo Alto, Calif.

33. Nutt PC (1983) Implementation approaches for planning. Acad. Mgmt Rev. 8, 600-611.

34. Nutt PC (1986) Decision style and the strategic actions by top executives. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 29, 341-366.

35. Nutt PC (1986) Decision style and its impact on managers and management. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 30, 39-62.

36. Nutt PC (1987) Identifying and appraising how managers install strategic changes. Strategic Mgmt J. 8, 1-14.

37. Nutt PC (1989) Making Tough Decisions. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, Calif.

38. Nutt PC (1989) Selecting tactics to implement strategic plans. Strategic Mgmt J. 10, 145-161.

39. Nutt PC (1992) Managing Planned Change. Macmilian, New York.

40. Nutt PC (1993) Flexible styles of decision making and the choice styles of top executives. J. Mgmt Stud. 2, 28-43.

41. Parsons T (1951) The Social System. The Free Press, New York.

42. Pascale RT (1990) Managing on the Edge. Simon & Schuster, New York.


43. Pressman J and Wildavsky A (1984) Implementation, 3rd edition. Berkeley: University of California Press, Berkeley.

44. Schein EH (1964) The mechanisms of change. In Interpersonal Dynamics (Edited by Bennis W, Schein E, Stelle G and Berlow A). Dorsey Press, Homewood, Ill.

45. Schultz RL and Ginzberg MJ (Eds) (1984) Management Science Implementation. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn.

46. Scott W and Cummings LL (1973) Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Irwin, Homewood, Ill.

47. Skinner BF (1969) Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis. Appleton Century Crafts, New York.

48. Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action. McGraw- Hill, New York.

49. Toulmin S (1979) Knowing and Acting: An Invitation to Philosophy. Macmillan, New York.

50. Tzeng O, Outcalt D, Boyer S, Ware R and Landis D (1983) Item validity and the Myers-Briggs type indicator. J. Pers. Assess. 48, 255-256.

51. Vroom VH and Jago AG (1978) On the validity of the Vroom-Yetton model. J. Appl. Psychol. 63, 151-162.

52. Vroom VH and Yetton PW (1974) Leadership and Decision Making. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa.

53. Zand DE and Sorenson RE (1975) Theory of change and the effective use of management science. Admin. Sci. Q. 20, 532-545.

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Dr PC Nutt, College of Business, The Ohio State University, 1775 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

Documents

Implementation style and use of implementation approaches