Lately many large and small organisations became more interested in strategic planning and its probable benefits (Parker, 1990). Strategic planning keeps on having a very important role in an increasingly complicated and vague environment since it affects the organisationâ€™s performance positively (Raman, 2009). However, separating planners from doers is one of the downsides in strategic planning (Parker, 1990). For example, the risk of developing to some extent an impracticable and inappropriate set of plans by a small group of professional to address the desires and guidelines of the organisation increases (Parker, 1990).
Therefore, it is said to be that involving middle level managers ...view middle of the document...
Moreover, top managers mentioned repeatedly that their most extreme difficulty was to apply the organisationâ€™s strategic direction and implementation continued to be persistent difficulty when lacking the support from their middle managers (Thakur, 1998).
Wooldridge and Floyd (1990) report publicized an authentic belief in the essential need for significant middle management participation. When involved in strategy process, middle managers experience better position to suggest, commence, and assess different courses of action. In addition, when they expressed dissatisfaction with their firmâ€™s strategy was not because of the goals wanted to be achieved rather in how the goals were to be met (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1990). Nevertheless, the report showed that some managers revealed that low levels of participation possibly would decrease commitment. Since middle managers are the ones who have to handle and take care of many environmental aspects, which the planning process is concerned, Parker (1990) reported that planning should preserve opportunity for the observations and personal judgments of these managers.
Moreover, involving middle managers in the planning process is a very vital way to stay away from strategic plan paralysis (Parker, 1990). Besides, involving managers from across the organisation is more likely to result in secure sufficient information, reasonable suppositions, innovative directions and commitment (Parker, 1990).
Kanter (1982) also reported that without the middle management involvement the restructure of an organisation would have faced with significantly more opposition and could have been unsuccessful. The changes in the role of middle managers in the early 1990s may contribute to their motivation to be practical in recognizing and applying variations in strategy, mainly in functioning area (Yip et al. 2001). Successful implementation involves middle managers understanding the logic behind the strategic plan and the organisationâ€™s particular paths. It is argued that such understanding can merely result from broad involvement in the strategy development. This perception lets middle managers be exceptionally effective in strategy implementation (Yip et al. 2001).
Furthermore, there are two explanations why middle managers want to be included in strategic discussions. First, permitting them in these discussions allows them to benefit from access to authoritative association within the firm. Second, inclusion gives them the capacity to gain accurate and deep intuitive understanding of the organisational sense making (Yip et al. 2001)
Floyd and Wooldridge developed a typology of middle management involvement in strategy and identified the strategic roles of middle managers fifteen years ago (Raman, 2009). The typology included together the upward and the downward power of middle managers, and the resulting four roles were labelled as championing alternatives, synthesising information, facilitating...