The purpose of this case is to deepen understanding about strategy implementation. The study draws on a network survey conducted in four internationally operating companies and presents analysis on the role of social relations in strategy implementation. As an outcome, the study provides insight into the ways by which social relations within the firm facilitate strategy implementation. This article contributes to literature of strategic initiatives by examining the informal structure, the social relations in four internationally operating firms.
BalogunJ.JohnsonG. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26, 1573.
2.
BartkusV.O.DavisJ.H. (2009). Introduction: The yet undiscovered value of social capital. In BartkusV.O.DavisJ.H. (Eds), Social capital: Reaching out, reaching in (pp. 1–14). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
3.
DanneelsE. (2010). Trying to become a different type of company: Dynamic capability at Smith Corona. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1–31.
4.
ErikssonP.KovalainenA. (2008). Qualitative methods in business research. Los Angeles: SAGE.
5.
GergenK. (2009). Relational being. Beyond self and community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HeracleousL.HendryJ. (2000). Discourse and the study of organization: Toward a structurational perspective. Human Relations, 53(10), 1251–1286.
8.
HuyQ. (2011). How middle managers’ group-focus emotions and social identities influence strategy implementation. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1387–1410.
9.
KilduffM. (1993). The reproduction of inertia in multinational corporations. In GhoshalS.WestneyE. (Eds), Organization theory and the multinational corporation (pp. 250–274). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
10.
KostovaT.RothK. (2003). Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro model of its formation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 297–317.
11.
LechnerC.FloydS. (2012). Group influence activities and the performance of strategic initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 478–495.
12.
LechnerC.FrankenbergerK.FloydS. (2010). Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 865–889.
13.
LehtimäkiH.KarintausK. (2012). Social capital for strategic sensitivity in global business. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 1(2), 85–98.
NahapietJ. (2009). Capitalizing on connections: Social capital and strategic management. In BartkusV.DavisJ. (Eds), Social capital: Reaching out, reaching in (pp. 205–236). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
16.
NahapietJ.GhoshalS. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
17.
NahapietJ.GrattonL.RochaH. (2005). Knowledge and relationships: When cooperation is the norm. European Management Review, 2(1), 3–14.
18.
ParmigianiA.HollowayS. (2011). Actions speak louder than modes: Antecedents and implications of parent implementation capabilities on business unit performance. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 457–485.
19.
PoppoL. (2003). The visible hands of hierarchy within the m-form: An empirical test of corporate parenting of internal product exchanges. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 403–430.
20.
RoleauL. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1413–1441.
21.
StakeR. (2000). Case studies. In DenzinN.K.LincolnY.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1–28). 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
22.
UzziB. (1997). Social structure and competition in inter-firm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.
23.
Van de VenA.H. (2007). Engaged scholarship. A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
