Research note Organisational communication and strategy implementation a primary inquiry

Wei Peng Lecturer, School of Business and Administration, The Open University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong David Litteljohn Professor, Travel, Tourism and Hospitality, Division of Management, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK

Keywords

Communications, Organizational policy, Strategy, Implementation, Yield, Hotels

Introduction
Organisations constantly evolve in response to social and technical changes. For example, contemporary organisations, which are shaped by globalisation, developments in cyberspace and other dynamics, often take either corporate forms where management, ownership, technical experts and line workers are separated (Neher, 1997) or collaborative forms such as clusters and strategic alliances. These trends make it more difficult to conceptualise an organisation as single and unified, a situation, which is often emphasised by separation in distance, language and culture of organisational members. Therefore, communication and cooperation between diverse participants within an organisation have been recognised as crucial elements to maintain organisational stability and adaptation to change. Over the last decade, organisational communication has attracted growing academic interest. Approaches to the subject are diverse. They may differ in conceptual lenses, research focus, and the way organisational communication is treated. Neher (1997) classifies methodologies adopted by current communication researchers into three broad groupings: interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism. Interpretivists are concerned with understanding the experiences of people engaged in organisational communication (rather than managing the organisation). They tend to focus on organisational/ corporate culture and use tools such as stories, dramas, fantasies, group myths and organisational metaphors to arrive at an understanding of what communication means to people. Critical theorists are concerned with issues of efficiency and
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

Abstract

Over the last decade, organisational communication has attracted growing academic interest. Focuses on organisational communication within multi-unit organisations in order to understand better the strategy implementation process from a communication perspective. Three hotel chains were investigated, all UK plcs with diversified business portfolios, and which were in the process of implementing a strategic initiative. The findings show that effective communication is a primary requirement of effective implementation but it does not guarantee the effectiveness of implementation.

productivity in relation to means and ends. They often study organisational communication in terms of hidden or implicit exercises of power and dominance. Functionalists are mainly concerned with the performance of organisations. They see an organisation as an entity where communications are variables that shape and determine its operations and performance. Therefore, this approach focuses on goals and intended and unintended outcomes of communications and explores ways to improve communication systems and behaviours in an organisation. Thus, functionalism is often administrative- or management-oriented. Despite an increased academic interest in organisational communication and in strategy implementation, current studies in both fields have paid scant attention to the role of organisational communication in the process of strategy implementation and often fail to address fully issues relating to organisational communication in diverse, dynamic and complex contemporary organisations. To address these problems, the emphasis of this research note leans to organisational communication in the process of strategy implementation within multi-unit organisations. The purpose of this exploration is to provide a better understanding of strategy implementation process from a communication perspective.

Organisational communication and strategy implementation some empirical findings

Our thoughts in this research note are derived from an empirical study, which examines strategy implementation within the organisational setting of hotel chains. The three cases investigated are UK plcs with a diversified business portfolio (e.g. in locations, size, market levels, and brands) and they were in the process of implementing a strategic initiative yield management

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 13/7 [2001] 360363 # MCB University Press [ISSN 0959-6119]

[ 360 ]

Wei Peng and David Litteljohn Organisational communication and strategy implementation a primary inquiry International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 13/7 [2001] 360363

(YM). They vary considerably in corporate context (e.g. managerial and administrative systems, resources and capabilities, IT infrastructure, strategic objectives, etc.). Owing to limited space, this discussion is focused on the role of organisational communication in relation to two dimensions of strategy implementation: structural arrangements, and the selection and development of key roles. For the sake of confidentiality, the three case organisations are referred to as X, Y and Z. To standardise nomenclature, all YM specialists or managers at units of the case organisations are termed as room revenue managers (RRMs).

Structural arrangements

Case X implemented YM by creating a new functional department at both head office (HO) and unit levels with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. This functional arrangement set up a stable and dedicated formal channel where HO and unit staff were communicated about the project. Nevertheless, even with formal meetings or training sessions, it was found that most of the communication between central and local YM staff was informal, such as telephone conversations, informal gatherings and unplanned visits. Both formal and informal communications established an open relation between HO and units, which contributed greatly to an efficient YM system. Careful study of X shows that it had an ``alignment'' system in place before the introduction of YM. Under this system, the key role of HO functional staff was explicitly defined as ``supporting'' the people and process in the units, rather than ``authorising'' unit initiatives. Informality of HO-unit communication was almost part of the norm in the organisation. Therefore, it could be argued that the informal nature of communication between HO and unit YM staff was in part determined by this preexisting system. The establishment of a new functional department also created barriers for lateral communication which, in turn affected the operationalisation of YM. It was found that tensions were built up between YM and some of the existing functional departments (e.g. front office and sales at units and sales at HO). This is probably due to the fact that newly set department tended to take some of the decision-making power away from the existing ones abruptly, and overlapping and ambiguous responsibilities shared by the old and new departments. This is particularly evident in some units where unwillingness to cooperate and intervention from colleague

departments sometimes eroded the consistency and quality of YM decision making, and caused frustration to the RRMs. In Y, instead of a new YM department, responsibilities of some existing roles/ positions within some existing departments at HO and unit levels were expanded. Here, at HO, existing training staff provided units with direct support on the installation and operation of computerised YM systems (CYMS) located at each hotel. At unit level, the role of sales and marketing managers was expanded to cover full responsibilities for YM implementation and operation in their units. Thus, apart from central support on training, roles and responsibilities in relation to YM evolved in the units and the change was primarily contained within one department. It is interesting to note that similar structural arrangements were made for almost all IT-related strategic initiatives in Y. In Z, HO management did not assume any formal roles at the beginning of the implementation process. Instead, they implanted a group of RRMs into a number of parent-owned hotels to develop YM techniques, drive the required changes and operationalise YM approach. These RRMs were first positioned into hotels as internal consultants and reported directly to unit GMs. No specialised technical system or resource was provided from HO, a lack of direct central support, coupled with a demanding task (developing and implementing YM) forced the RRMs to team up to share expertise and experience and co-operate in YM development. The above findings illustrate that structural arrangements have significant impact on organisational communication in the process of strategy implementation. The choice of structural forms may shape formal communication channels and indirectly facilitate the development of informal communication channels/activities. Structural arrangements may facilitate communication on the one hand, and create barriers for communication on the other. This, in turn, may have positive or negative impact on the process of strategy implementation. However, structural arrangements do not solely determine communications and the effectiveness of communications. Pattern of managerial behaviour (e.g. in Y), existing managerial/ administrative systems (e.g. in X), and many other factors in the organisations all play a part.

[ 361 ]

Wei Peng and David Litteljohn Organisational communication and strategy implementation a primary inquiry International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 13/7 [2001] 360363

Selection and development of key roles

Effectiveness of strategy implementation is, at least in part, affected by the quality of people involved in the process (Galbraith and Kazanjian, 1988, Govindarajan, 1989). Here, quality refers to skills, attitudes, capabilities, experiences and other characteristics of people required by a specific task or position. In X, HO management focused on training unit YM staff through formal class training programs, individual tutoring, the critical report method, networked CYMS and other means. Instead of seeing themselves as the only source of knowledge, they sought advice and consciously learned from the local YM staff to bring in first-hand experience and improve their application knowledge. Further, they encouraged local staff to share experiences and learn from each other. It was found that unit YM staff frequently communicated to each other informally to discuss problems encountered, share best practice, and seek support. Some of them even saw this lateral connection as the most effective and convenient channel for learning. Thus, through interactive horizontal and vertical communication, knowledge was distributed reciprocally among HO and units, which enhanced learning among key role holders. In Y, HO almost solely provided training to units. YM staff in the units seldom communicated with each other. In general, they believed that it was difficult for them to share experience of YM due to market differentiation across units. Here, HO served as the expertise centre distributing knowledge to units. Owing to a limited corporate resource, training was provided on an inconsistent and insufficient basis. This inhibited learning speed and the proper use of CYMS, which were virtually unused by some units. Instead of training, HO management in Z focused on selecting capable people for the position of RRMs. The GMs who agreed to take the RRMs into their units were also involved in the recruiting process. Through the selection process, HO management found the people who met the requirements of the new roles, and gained understanding and support from the GMs. The selection process itself also sent a powerful and clear message across the organisation we are serious about YM introduction, we select the best as key developers and implementers of YM. This in turn motivated the RRMs and enhanced their influence and authority in the units. Apart from selection, the previously mentioned inter-RRMs network played an important or even critical role in facilitating YM implementation in Z. It was

one of the major channels by which RRMs shared their skills and knowledge, gained support, and developed YM techniques. Thus, organisational communications play important roles in training, knowledge distribution and learning in the process of strategy implementation. In the context of hotel chains, the role of lateral communications between units is particularly noteworthy. They may serve as important or even critical knowledge distribution/learning channels in developing new competencies and as ``supporting'' networks by which local staff gain motivation and confidence. They further help to overcome the limitation of corporate resources and allow the distributed organisational resource to be used synergistically. Apart from other factors, it was found that perception of management on local expertise and dispersed units in multiunit organisations may facilitate or hinder inter-unit communications.

Conclusions
An analysis of the empirical findings on strategy implementation shows that communication is pervasive in every aspect of strategy implementation, and it is related in a complex way to organising processes, organisational context and implementation objectives which, in turn, have an impact on the implementation process. Communicating is not organising, as organising involves structure arrangements, resource allocation and many other activities, which are beyond the capacity of communication. But communication is embedded in the processes of organising, affecting the effectiveness and efficiency of these processes and, in turn, the process of strategy implementation. In other words, effective communication is a primary requirement of effective implementation but it does not guarantee the effectiveness of implementation. Further, the analysis has confirmed the value of using communication as a useful lens for studying strategy implementation. In relation to Neher's (1997) classification, we have found the exercise helpful to uncover and explore complex organisational activities although, as yet, inconclusive in terms of a clear way forward. For example, interpretivism allows greater play to be given to organisational context (e.g. culture, existing managerial/administrative systems) and management perception (on a given strategy and the nature of the organisation concerned). This is particularly useful in understanding the existence of particular

[ 362 ]

Wei Peng and David Litteljohn Organisational communication and strategy implementation a primary inquiry International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 13/7 [2001] 360363

communications and their roles in the strategic process. A critical approach allows political and power dimensions of strategy implementation to be uncovered. We found that this lens is useful in understanding the distribution of decision-making authority and power and the consequential influence on strategy implementation in multi-unit organisations with a great range of vertical and horizontal relationships. The functionalist approach with concrete view of what could be termed as the ``organisational cosmos'' stresses the power of organisational structure in shaping formal communications by creating channels and erecting barriers to the free flow of information, and the consequential positive and negative effects on the strategy implementation process. However, on its own, we find functionalism an inadequate approach. Concentrating on visible elements of organisational structure allows for initial analysis. However, there are no guarantees that the visible elements

alone can capture relevant variables for establishing causal relationships. For example, the approach neither gives sufficient weighting to explanations of why particular organisation structures, roles and practices have come into existence, nor attends to the rich set of informal activities and communications which play an important part in organisational life.

References

Galbraith, J.R. and Kazanjian, R.K. (1988), Strategy Implementation Structure, Systems, and Process, 2nd ed., West Publishing Company, St Paul, MN. Govindarajan, V. (1989), ``Implementing competitive strategies at the business unit level: implications of matching managers to strategies'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 251-69. Neher, W.W. (1997), Organisational Communication, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.

[ 363 ]