Strategy Development and Implementation

Paper Info
Page count 18
Word count 5070
Read time 18 min
Subject Business
Type Essay
Language 🇺🇸 US

Organizations face various challenges due to changes in the business environment. Competitors introduce a new line of products and services in the market and utilize innovative ways in operations. Equally, new business regulations and taxes can be presented, and the prices for materials increase. As a result, companies develop ways to overcome the challenges to remain competitive and ensure profitability and future growth. The top management and other strategists develop and implement strategic plans necessary to accomplish organizational goals and objectives. An evaluation of what strategy is, individuals who develop strategies, essential perspectives for strategy, strategic thinking, analysis, and strategic leadership can help understand how strategies are formed and implemented.

What Is Strategy?

The word strategy is commonly used by managers and has a significant influence on organizational goals and objectives. The strategy has several specific definitions that can be used in a different context. However, the most commonly used definition is that a strategy is a “plan for the top management to attain outcomes that are consistent with organizational goals and missions” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel, 2001, p.9). It can also be defined as “a plan of action to achieve short, middle, and long term desired goals or a roadmap of an organization” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel, 2001, p.9). The typical features of a strategy are that it deals with long-term development, helps organizations foresee the future, and is created to account for customers’ and competitors’ probable behavior. Any strategy adopted by an organization has both advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of a Strategy

Strategies set a direction for organizations to move cohesively through their environments. Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel (2001, p. 15) indicate that strategies help organizations focus their efforts, promoting coordination of activities. Chaos may be inevitable as individuals in companies pull in different directions in the absence of strategy. Strategies define organizations by providing their stakeholders with a straightforward way of understanding their firms and distinguish them from others. They give a comprehensive meaning as well as convenient means of comprehending what organizations do. Strategies also provide consistency, minimizing ambiguity and giving an order.

Disadvantages of a Strategy

The direction associated with strategies can blind strategists, hiding potential dangers. Although approaching particular goals is vital, sometimes it is crucial to move slowly and assess all aspects to shift behaviors at a moment’s notice (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel, 2001, p. 15). A focused effort can limit possibilities for alternative organizational visions. Organizations’ definitions associated with strategies can be a source of stereotyping, losing the complexity of their system. Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel (2001, p. 17) add that strategies can distort or misrepresent organizations and limit creativity. Notably, inconsistency promotes creativity as new and different ideas are combined.

Key Theories of Strategy Development and Implementation (Porter’s Deliberate and Mintzberg’s Emergent Perspectives)

Porter’s deliberate strategy is an approach to strategic planning that accentuates intention. The perspective holds that strategies are based on organizational vision and mission, and they aim at accomplishing the purpose of business operations. Michael Porter said that “Strategy is about making choice, trade-offs; it is about deliberately choosing to be different” (Moore, 2011). The concept emphasizes that companies should strive to achieve one of three generic competitive strategies. These strategies include cost leadership strategy, differentiation strategy, and focus strategy. Organizations should either achieve the lowest cost of operation, or offer unique products, or attain cost leadership of differentiation status in the market. According to Mintzberg and Waters (1985, p. 258), while changes in external environments are challenging to predict, deliberate strategy minimizes outside influences impacting business operations. The top management team’s commitment to the implementation of deliberate strategy is fundamental.

Mintzberg’s emergent perspective on strategy emphasizes identifying unexpected outcomes from strategy execution and learning how to integrate them in future corporate plans. According to this concept, the business environment changes constantly, and companies need to be flexible to benefit from various opportunities (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985, p. 259). Emergent strategy occurs when organizations involve behaviors in response to changes rather than executing plans. Although emergent strategies are flexible, implementing them can be challenging due to a lack of management control.

How Strategies Are Made

The process of strategy development involves several steps that strategists must follow. The first step is about understanding the current state of an organization. Having a clear picture of the current state is vital in defining the future state. Leaders should know their companies’ strengths and weaknesses, core competencies, and prevailing risks and opportunities (Nini, 2020). The second step is scenario formulation to know what the future brings. While it is challenging to predict the future in detail, one can develop a scenario of it. A better understanding of competitors, market trends, core competencies, and the regulatory environment can help predict the future.

The third stage is strategy formulation, where strategists need to answer several vital questions. They need to know which strengths they should foster to guarantee future success, which weaknesses to eliminate, competencies or nurture or change, and areas of action they should address (Nini,2020). The answers to questions are instrumental in defining an organization’s future state. The fourth step is about strategy communication to explain why an organization’s future state is imperative. The last phase is strategy implementation, which explains how companies move from current to future (Nini, 2020). Good organizational strategies are creative, flexible, responsive, realistic, challenging, engaging, focused, and involve different individuals.

Individuals Who Develop Strategies in Organizations-Strategists

The development of strategies in organizations is imperative since it determines how businesses accomplish their goals and objectives. Thus, individuals making strategies need to be focused and having detailed information about what they want to achieve. According to Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, and Pyle (2011, p. 500), strategies are emergent and involve people from all organizational departments and outside. However, the top management team, including the managers and directors, strategy planners, middle managers, and strategy consultants, are the most common strategists in organizations.

Top Managers and Directors (Top Management)

The conventional perspective is that the top management team’s core business is strategy. Therefore, these individuals’ roles are separated from operational responsibilities, allowing them to focus mainly on strategy. Ideally, the involvement of top managers and directors in such operations as service delivery or sales can distract them from long-term issues since they can prioritize their departments’ or business units’ interests (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes and Pyle, 2011, p. 500). The strategists in this category may include the chief executive officers, top management team, or non-executive directors.

Most organizations consider their chief executive officers (CEOs) as their principal strategists, bearing all responsibility for strategic decisions. CEOs spend approximately 33.33% of their time on strategies (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes and Pyle, 2011, p.500). They serve as tactical leaders who can set disciplined approaches to all that fit overall strategies. Thus, CEOs are accountable for the success or failure of strategies. While the precise role of the CEOs in directing their organizations towards achieving their strategic goals guarantees focused attention, there are some dangers. Excessive personalization may be inevitable due to the centralization of responsibilities on the CEOs, leading to changing the latter in response to setbacks rather than examining underlying sources of failure. Additionally, the CEOs who become successful may become over-confident, which can lead to failures.

The Top Management Team

The team comprises companies’ executive directors, who also have a considerable share of strategy’s responsibility. According to Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, and Pyle (2011, p. 501), the executive directors contribute additional insight and experience to the CEOs. Although team members are supposed to challenge the CEOs and enhance strategic debate, various factors constrain them. First, their operational responsibilities distract them or contribute to their partiality strategic thinking. Second, in most cases, they are appointees of the CEOs, depriving them of the independence for a real challenge. Lastly, members of these teams may tend to establish a solid consensus to circumvent internal questioning conflict, especially where they face strong leadership. Nevertheless, encouraging openness to outside perspectives and embracing diversity in members can make the top management teams instrumental strategists in organizations.

Non-Executive Directors

The strategists comprising this category have no organizational executive management responsibility. Therefore, they provide an external and objective point of view about a strategy. The CEOs consult the public companies’ board chairmen, who are non-executive, on strategies since their role in liaising with investors is imperative (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes and Pyle, 2011, p. 501). Nevertheless, the non-executive directors’ ability to substantially contribute to strategies is limited. Their role is mainly consultative, reviewing, and challenging top management executive teams’ strategy proposals. However, they make sure that organizations have rigorous systems for developing and reviewing strategies.

Indeed, the capability of top managers and directors in making strategies is critical, and no one should assume that. To contribute effectively in making and guaranteeing high-level strategy, non-executive directors need to have particular essential qualities. They should have exceptional analytical concepts and techniques, which they can acquire through education (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes and Pyle, 2011, p. 501). They should also have outstanding social and influencing skills to ensure their colleagues understand and accept their strategy analysis. Further, they have to be effective and accepted players in teams discussing strategies. Every top manager and director has to win respect from other members contributing to strategy-making.

Strategic Planners

This category of strategists is also referred to as strategy directors, and they comprise managers whom organizations give an obligation to coordinate strategy processes. Strategic planners are common in large firms as well as not-for-profit and public sectors. Although these individuals do not directly make strategic decisions, they do different essential tasks that ensure effective development and implementation of strategies. Strategic planners provide decision-makers with information and analysis since they have adequate skills, time, and resources. Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, and Pyle (2011, p. 502) indicate that strategic planners’ information and analysis help the organization respond faster and confidently to unexpected occurrences and ensure clear communication and strategic decisions. They also manage the strategy process by assisting and guiding other managers through the strategic planning cycle. This task involves the strategic planners acting as a link between the businesses and corporate centers by clarifying the latter’s guidelines and expectations. The role may also provide business managers and directors with strategy training, analytical techniques, and templates to help them develop strategies. Strategic planners further serve as a valuable resource for supporting top management on particular projects such as organizational restructuring.

Middle Managers

Middle managers in organizations also play a significant role in the development and implementation of strategies. Middle managers’ considerable involvement in operations often limits their role to strategy implementation. However, Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, and Pyle (2011, p. 504) indicate that they are increasingly participating in strategy-making due to various reasons. One explanation is the decentralization of organizational structures in most companies to enhance responsiveness and accountability in dynamic and competitive business environments. Another reason is the increased business education that trains middle managers better, making them more confident in the strategy domain. Moreover, shifting towards professional services from the manufacturing economy makes middle managers knowledge-based sources of competitive advantage in organizations. Therefore, middle managers execute different roles related to strategic management.

First, middle managers serve as information sources due to their higher experience and knowledge about the market and organizational realities than most top managers. They can provide information about changes in organizations’ strategic positions. Second, they participate in the sense-making of a developed strategy. While top managers and directors create strategies, middle managers’ responsibility is to explain and make sense of them in particular contexts (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, and Pyle, 2011, p. 504). Thus, they are a fundamental link between lower levels staff and top management that facilitate translating strategies into locally relevant messages. Third, middle managers’ day-to-day interaction with various elements of organizations and their environments allows them to reinterpret and adjust strategic responses as activities unfold. Lastly, their closeness to operations and markets may help middle managers champion new ideas that can be a base for novel strategies.

Other factors can potentially increase middle managers’ influence on strategies. According to Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, and Pyle (2011, p. 505), these aspects may include key organizational positions and access to corporate networks as well as strategic conversations. For instance, the critical knowledge possessed by middle managers heading large business units or departments can help them influence strategies. Equally, these managers can utilize internal organizational networks to raise issues and support proposals to increase their effects on strategy. Further, participation in strategic conversations that involve top managers and directors can help middle managers develop their personal contributions to critical strategic issues.

Strategy Consultants

Some organizations utilize external consultants to help them develop strategies. According to Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, and Pyle (2011, p. 505), most large consultant firms also offer strategy development and analysis to other companies. The roles of consultants in the development of strategies in companies vary considerably. These may include analysis, prioritization, and generation of options, knowledge transfer, promotion of strategic decisions, and implementation of strategic change. Executives in organizations may identify numerous strategic issues or disagree about the latter. As a result, a lack of clarity on which strategy to implement becomes inevitable. However, organizations can hire consultants to the identified issues afresh, help them prioritize, and create different options for the executives to consider. The strategy consultants also influence decisions taken and implemented by organizations. Moreover, they participate in project planning and coach and train strategists within organizations about strategic change.

While most organizations seek strategy consultants’ services, some fail to achieve the intended goals and objectives due to poor management of their consulting processes. However, (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, and Pyle, 2011, p. 506) indicates that companies can adopt different measures to guarantee better and enhanced outcomes in strategy consulting. They can professionally purchase consulting services, develop supervisory skills, and ensure effective partnership with the consultants. Organizations should avoid hiring strategy consultants based on their personal relationships with top managers and directors. Such a move can ensure extensive searching of consulting suppliers, clear project briefs, appropriate pricing, and proper project review at the end. The development of supervisory skills is vital in managing consulting projects’ portfolios. Partnering with the consultants improves the effectiveness of knowledge transfer and executing projects at the end. Indeed, the knowledge and experience retained by organizations managers due to the partnership when the strategy consultants leave can have an instrumental role in the implementation of recommendations.

Strategic Thinking

Strategic thinking is about making a chain of decisions regarding actions organizations intend to take to be more competitive and successful. Leaders who think strategically see and understand the big picture of their organizations in terms of what they are, their goals and objectives, and approaches to achieve them. Strategic thinking involves several elements, including identifying, diagnosing, conceiving, and realizing (Wit and Meyer, 2005, p. 29). Strategists must be aware of various challenges their organizations face and acknowledge their significance before countering them or acting to benefit from opportunities. They should also ensure that they understand prevailing problems’ structure and their underlying causes. The diagnosing may involve reflecting and analyzing issues to help strategists address issues. Strategically thinking leaders further develop potential solutions to strategic problems (Wit and Meyer, 2005, p. 29). If there is more than one possible solution, strategists need to choose the most promising one. The leaders then execute problem-solving activities and assess whether the outcomes are positive.

Components of Strategic Thinking

The standard components of strategic thinking are analysis tools, purpose, values, vision, key goals, and action planning. Strategists utilize various tools when engaging in strategic thinking. The most commonly used tool is SWOT, which helps strategic thinkers to start the process by knowing what is working and what does not. It also helps them learn about potential threats and opportunities they need to consider when planning for the future. The strategic purpose component allows leaders to understand why they and their organizations exist (Dionisio, 2017, p. 45). It gives strategists a common purpose, minimizing the possibility of selecting priorities based on personal criteria.

Values in strategic thinking reflect the organizational culture that individuals need to consider when making decisions. Clear values allow companies to promote cultures that support their visions and purposes (Dionisio, 2017, p. 47). Therefore, strategists need to clarify organizational values and use them as a foundation for practical strategic thinking. The vision identifies the direction that an organization should take and creates a picture of the company’s future. Vision helps leaders to think strategically about where they need to take their organizations. Key goals are instrumental in connecting leaders’ strategic thinking with vision and purpose since they define where the strategists are going. The action planning element of the strategic thinking process clarifies how daily work in an organization can help achieve set goals.

Importance of Strategic Thinking

Strategic thinking allows leaders to determine how they can utilize limited resources, including people, time, and money, in the most effective way to move their companies towards their goals and objectives. The strategic thinking process ensures that management teams focus on areas that have higher chances of succeeding (Hill, n.d.). Strategic thinking helps managers and directors to be prepared for changes in the business environment and establish plans for dealing with them. Examples of changes may include the emergence of new competitive threats and materials’ price increase. Strategic thinking also allows companies to match their competitors’ strengths. Such organizations continually compare their weaknesses and strengths with those of their key competitors.

Strategic thinking further helps companies acknowledge the need for growth and improve the decision-making process. Growth means that firms would generate higher profits and become more competitive (Hill, n.d.). Organizations recognize that they need to advance by becoming innovative in various aspects of their operations. Strategic thinking supports leaders and business owners in making logical and confident decisions. The management team can easily predict possible competitors’ reactions to strategies they implement.

Strategic Analysis

Strategic analysis is one of the essential parts of businesses’ long-term planning and the initial phase of the latter’s process. Strategic analysis refers to the process of collecting information that is helpful to organizational leaders in deciding priorities and goals and shaping businesses’ long-term strategies (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes and Pyle, 2011, p. 509). The process allows companies to understand and design appropriate strategic plans. Strategic analysis is vital since it offers a foundation and context for formulating business strategy and overall position.

The essential factors to consider when performing designing and performing strategic analysis are cost and purpose. According to (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, and Pyle, 2011, p. 510), strategic analysis is costly since it demands considerable resources and time. The cost of collecting data is inevitable, mainly when organizations use strategy consultants. While adequate time for strategic analysis is necessary, there are risks of ‘paralysis by analysis’ when managers take too long to perfect their analyses, leaving little time for making decisions and executing them. Therefore, managers need to be reasonable about how much strategic analysis they need. Concerning the purpose of strategic analysis, the latter is not always about giving the required information for exceptional strategic decisions. The goal for strategic analysis may be pretty different; for example, it can be a well-thought form of procrastination that aims at stopping or delaying decisions. Equally, strategic analysis can be a symbol for rationalizing decisions that have already been made. Thus, purposes for strategic analysis have two fundamental implications for managers.

First, they should design any strategy analysis based on the real purpose. The underlying purpose for strategic analysis should determine individuals involved and their competencies, allocated budget and time, and communication of the analysis outcomes. Second, there should be an appropriate investment in technical quality in any strategic analysis (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, and Pyle, 2011, p. 510). An enhancement of technical analysis quality can lead to a valuable addition to strategic decisions. Conversely, managers can be counter-productive when they insist on technical perfection.

Managers can know that they are performing strategic analysis if they are focusing on high-level strategy, looking forward and backward at the same time, and involving other leaders in the process. When focusing mainly on information that directly impacts long-term goals and strategies, strategic analysis is a continuous process. The process involves assessing past data to determine their implications to performance and forecast what may happen in the future. Organizations move forward better when managers effectively reflect on the past. While analysts may gather the necessary information, top leadership must make decisions and act based on the data.

Steps for Strategic Analysis

Managers and other leaders doing strategic analysis need to follow five crucial steps. The first step is about determining the level of strategic analysis they are doing. Depending on the intended area for the analysis, it is imperative to understand organizations’ strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats to devise the best strategies for future growth (Straková, 2017, p. 199). The second step is gathering an appropriate team to help in the analysis. Participants should comprise members from the top leadership team and representatives from operations, finance, sales, and human resources departments. These individuals have different perspectives on businesses and can help identify and assess external and internal information. The third step involves using various analytical tools such as PESTEL and SWOT to perform the analysis (Straková, 2017, p. 199). The fourth phase is about summarizing findings and presenting them to the decision-making team. Analysts should prepare a report that outlines their work and highlights their conclusions. The last stage involves devising a strategy based on the analysis. The leaders utilize the strategic analysis to organize their priorities and generate goals and measures helpful to achieve them.

Key Tools for Strategic Analysis

While several tools are available for strategic analysis, the most commonly used by managers are SWOT and PESTEL analyses. SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis plays a significant role in helping the organization identify areas where they are thriving well and where they can improve from external and internal viewpoints (StrakovĂĄ, 2017, p. 200). PESTEL (political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental) analysis focuses on external factors that companies cannot control but that they should be prepared for. The analysis can require leaders to pay attention to political stability, changing interest rates, new laws, and tax legislation, which can have a material impact on their business.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Strategic Analysis

The strategic analysis allows managers and other leaders to understand their business better. Additionally, it enables them to address weaknesses, deter threats, take advantage of their strengths, and capitalize on opportunities (StrakovĂĄ, 2017, p. 197). Moreover, leaders can use strategic analysis to plan for unforeseen future occurrences. However, the strategic analysis does not provide solutions to problems or offer alternative decisions. The process can also generate numerous ideas making it challenging to the best one. Additionally, strategic analysis can create a lot of information, some of which is not useful.

Strategic Leadership

Strategic leadership refers to the executives’ practices using varying management styles to develop organizational vision, vital in adapting or remaining competitive in a dynamic technological and economic climate. According to Mistarihi (2021, p. 57), strategic leaders utilize the set vision to motivate departments and workers. Consequently, they promote a sense of direction and unity among the employees, facilitating change implementation within their organizations. Strategic leadership’s primary objectives include streamlining organizational processes, encouraging innovation, and boosting strategic productivity (Mjaku, 2020, p. 915). Additionally, it nurtures an environment that inspires workers to be more productive, independent, and pursue new ideas.

Strategic Leadership Process

The process of strategic leadership involves three essential steps that leaders must follow. The initial stage is bout understanding the company’s mission for the leader to be strategic. Managers and directors must comprehend the reasons for the organization’s existence, including what goals and objectives they want to accomplish and social and economic problems they wish to address (Mistarihi, 2021, p. 57). Equally, leaders should know their clients and approaches they can use to add value to their lives. The next step is about formulating a vision of how an organization’s mission would look like in a future’s specified period. This phase helps leaders, their subordinates, and other employees to be focused. The last stage requires leaders to design strategies that are necessary to put the vision into action. The crafted strategies show steps that organizations follow or change to drive them from their current state to the desired ones.

Strategic Leadership Skills and Characteristics

There are various trains and skills possessed by strategic leaders that distinguish them from others. According to Mistarihi (2021, p. 62), strategic leaders can challenge perspectives without attracting significant resistance from others within organizations. They can also see both the small and big picture of organization goals and can make difficult decisions when it comes to strategy building. Strategic leadership also advocates for employees and engage with them to ensure their needs are met. The key characteristics that define strategic leadership include loyalty, transparency, delegation, compassion, empathy, self-awareness, effective communication, and judicious use of power. For instance, strategic leaders are loyal to their organizations’ visions, are ready to delegate responsibilities, and understand other workers.

The essential skills for strategic leadership include challenging, anticipating, interpreting, learning, aligning, and deciding. Strategic leadership views and reframes problems from different viewpoints to understand their underlying causes (Mistarihi, 2021, p. 55). The leadership gathers information from various internal and external sources to predict competitors’ moves and reactions to new strategies, products, or initiatives. Strategic leaders test and interpret multiple working hypotheses to guarantee optimal conclusions and consider such factors as risks, customers, and long-term as well as short-term investments when making decisions. They also learn from both stories of failure and success.

Advantages of Strategic Leadership

Strategic leadership encourages objective thinking, supports unity, establishes frameworks for strategic decisions, builds commitment, and ensures clarity to tasks. While leaders can forget to plan for the future as they engage in daily activities, strategic leadership makes management understand the link between day-to-day work and the future. The leadership encourages unity to minimize the possibility of conflicts and promote collaboration between individuals, groups, teams, and departments (Cortes and Herrmann, 2020, p. 225). The leadership also installs a strategic model for considering every decision, which is vital for helping employees and the entire organization move in the same direction. Strategic leadership models workers to ensure their dedication to the company and its business objectives. Strategic leaders communicate tasks’ importance and how they relate to organizational goals, allowing employees to understand better the work they do.

Disadvantages of Strategic Leadership

The drawbacks of strategic leadership include challenges in predicting the future, may fail to address current problems, are less flexible, can limit the rate of growth for the organization, and can lead to unexpected expenses. Strategic leaders attempt to focus on the present and try to predict the future at the same, where the latter does not happen as anticipated (Mistarihi, 2021, p. 64). They care more about current occurrences in their organizations and how they can influence the future, increasing the chances of forgetting to address existing problems. Strategic leadership is less flexible since it concentrates on implementing strategic plans, making it hard to change something in the process. Strategic leaders may be more conservative and avoiding to take risks. As a result, they can halt firms’ growth and prevent them from capitalizing on possibly beneficial opportunities. Implementing strategic plans and aligning companies behind them can be costly and expensive, especially when things do not go as intended.

Strategy Implementation

Strategy implementation is the process of executing plans to attain desired outcomes. The process is vital to an organizations’ success, and it involves seven key steps. The first phase is about setting clear goals and defining important variables (Miller, 2020). Managers should identify goals that the strategies they have developed should accomplish, allowing them to set appropriate plans to achieve them. The set goals should be attainable and realistic to avoid making the implementing feel uninspired or overwhelmed. The second step in the implementation process involves determining roles, responsibilities, and relationships (Miller, 2020). The management team should establish a roadmap for achieving set goals, set each team member’s expectations, and communicate the plan for implementing the strategy to prevent confusion. Documentations of all available resources such as workers and teams and outlining of what each involved party is responsible for accomplishing is vital in this phase. Managers should also ensure strong relationships with all individuals in their organizations.

The third phase of the strategy implementation process is work delegation, after knowing what should be done to guarantee success. The management team determines who should do what and when. In this regard, managers refer to the original goal and timeline lists and delegate duties to appropriate individuals (Miller, 2020). They should also explain the organization’s vision to team members to ensure that every individual knows their specific responsibilities. The fourth stage involves plan execution, monitoring of performance and progress, and provision of continuous support. Managers should learn how to effectively guide and support their staff and respond to employees’ questions, and address challenges they may be experiencing.

The fifth stage involves taking corrective actions such as adjusting or revising strategic plans when necessary. A change can occur, or unexpected challenges or issues arise during the implementation process (Miller, 2020). Equally, changes in the nature of projects can necessitate the shifting of the original goals. Therefore, the management should be flexible, attentive, and willing to alter or readjust plans. The sixth step is getting closure on the projects and agreeing on the output. The implementing team members should agree about what the final product should look like depending on set goals. The last phase is about reviewing how the implementation process went (Miller, 2020). The strategy implementing team can ask themselves such questions as did they achieved their goals? If not, what went wrong? What challenges did they encounter, and how can they avoid them in the future?

The Relationship between Strategy, Innovation, and Change

Strategy, innovation, and change have a significant influence on each other. A change in the business environment is the essential thing that triggers innovation and strategy. A change can bring new issues that organizations need to address to maintain their competitiveness in the market. As a result, they develop innovative ways of doing business and resolving challenges. Conversely, innovation drives change in internal and external business environments. Equally, change is a fundamental driver of business strategies. Therefore, one can conclude that innovation is the way of accomplishing strategies.

Reference List

Cortes, A. and Herrmann, P., (2020). Strategic leadership of innovation: A framework for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(2), pp.224-243.

Dionisio, M., (2017). Strategic thinking: The role in successful management. Journal of Management Research, 9(4), pp.44-57.

Hill, B., (n.d). Why Is Strategic Thinking Important to the Success of Business?. [online] Small Business –

Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K. and Pyle, S., (2011). The Practice of Strategy. In: Exploring strategy. Financial Times Prentice Hall, pp.498-528.

Miller, K., (2020). A manager’s guide to successful strategy implementation | HBS Online. [online] Business Insights.

Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J., (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), pp.257-272.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand,, B. and Lampel, J., (2001). “And over here, ladies and gentlemen: The Strategic Management Beast.” In: Strategy safari : the complete guide through the wilds of strategic management. Financial Times Prentice Hal, pp.1-21.

Mistarihi, A., (2021). Strategic leadership competencies: Evidence from the state of Qatar. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 09(01), pp.57-81.

Mjaku, G., (2020). Strategic Management and Strategic Leadership. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP), 10(8), pp.914-918.

Moore, K., (2011). Porter or Mintzberg: Whose view of strategy is the most relevant today?. [online] Forbes.

Nini, M., (2020). Strategy development: An introduction on how to develop a strategy for professionals | CQ Net – Management skills for everyone. [online] CQ Net – Management skills for everyone!

StrakovĂĄ, J., (2017). Strategic analysis methods and their influence on stability and development of small and medium-sized enterprises in the Czech Republic. Studia Commercialia Bratislavensia, 10(38), pp.196-214.

Wit, B. and Meyer, R., (2005). Strategic thinking. In: B. Wit and R. Meyer, ed., Strategy synthesis: Resolving strategy paradoxes to create competitive advantage. Thomson, pp.27-48.

Cite this paper


EduRaven. (2023, March 7). Strategy Development and Implementation. Retrieved from


EduRaven. (2023, March 7). Strategy Development and Implementation.

Work Cited

"Strategy Development and Implementation." EduRaven, 7 Mar. 2023,


EduRaven. (2023) 'Strategy Development and Implementation'. 7 March.


EduRaven. 2023. "Strategy Development and Implementation." March 7, 2023.

1. EduRaven. "Strategy Development and Implementation." March 7, 2023.


EduRaven. "Strategy Development and Implementation." March 7, 2023.


EduRaven. 2023. "Strategy Development and Implementation." March 7, 2023.

1. EduRaven. "Strategy Development and Implementation." March 7, 2023.


EduRaven. "Strategy Development and Implementation." March 7, 2023.