Search

This study explores the relationship between various profiles of the strategy implementation process and managers' perception of the task environment, complexity and dynamism. This study addresses the following research questions: Do differences exist between levels of perceived environmental change/uncertainty and users of middle-up-down and top-down strategy implementation approaches? And, does this relationship become more meaningful when ownership, firm structure and foodservice segment characteristics are considered? There has been very little research on the food service industry that assesses the relationship between eleven task environment measures of complexity and dynamism and the use of a predominately top-down or middle-up-down approach to the implementation of strategies. Using a sample of food industry managers, multiple discriminate analysis (MDA) was used to predict the use of implementation strategies. Substantive differences appear to exist between levels of perceived environmental change/uncertainty and users of middle-up-down and top-down strategy implementation approaches for foodservice firms. The ability to correctly classify users of middle-up-down and top-down approaches using a multivariate combination of environmental variables is improved radically when ownership, firm structure, and market segment classifications were are considered. Taken as a whole, the findings are most convincing and support the basic hypotheses. Study findings indicate that a broad brushstroke approach to determining whether a middle-up-down or top-down is used or appropriate based on the perceived task environment may not be valuable. The results support previous findings in other industries in that the prediction is better for market segments served and the public versus private nature of the firms involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study considers the measurement of environmental dynamism and environmental complexity. Previous hospitality strategy research utilizing main environmental constructs (uncertainty, dynamism, complexity, and munificence) is examined. The measurement of these constructs used in the general strategy literature is contrasted with the hospitality strategy literature. Using a multimethod-multitrait approach, convergent and discriminant validity is assessed between these constructs using archival and self-reported measures. The findings indicate that knowledgeable managers' perceptions match archival measures of dynamism and complexity when the same domain is ensured. Common self-reported measures of dynamism and complexity assess a broader domain than commonly used archival measures. Dynamism and complexity are shown to be separate and distinct constructs. It is suggested that these latent variables are important independent and control variables for strategy research. Further clarification in the measurement and impact of these variables should provide a clearer understanding of the relationship between the industry task environment, strategies, structure, and performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]