Thomas & Ambrosini (2015), British Journal of Management

Materializing Strategy: The Role of Comprehensiveness and Management Controls in Strategy Formation in Volatile Environments

Among middle managers in volatile environments, comprehensive strategy-making and results-based and professional controls went with better implementation performance, while the authors argue that process controls may hamper strategy.

Parts of the Loop it informs

Start it close to the workSupports

Read the original paper

Summary written by Unfrozen from the published abstract, then checked twice by independent AI reviewers against the source. Loop coding is exploratory and AI-assisted, pending human verification. Spot an error? Email info@unfreeze.us and it gets fixed.

Questions this study helps answer

What the research saysDo middle managers affect performance?

Related studies

Huy et al. (2014)Over three years of a radical change, middle managers went from supporting their top leaders to mutiny as they reassessed whether those leaders were legitimate, and their emotional reactions fed rising resistance.Huy (2011)In a three-year case at a large tech firm, executives treating strategy as a purely task-focused job unintentionally stirred middle managers' group identities around tenure and language; the resulting emotions saw managers, even ones executives promoted, back or quietly brush off an initiative.Logan & Ganster (2007)At a large trucking company, a randomized empowerment program raised unit managers' sense of control only where they felt their own bosses backed them, and it also lifted their units' measured performance.Glaser et al. (2016)Among 383 middle managers in a multinational, the tie between a tendency to take initiative and job performance was weaker for risk-takers, a gap that widened with high autonomy and narrowed in units with strong performance management.