FACTORS AFFECTING STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION IN THE

PUBLIC SECTOR:A CASE STUDY ON MINISTRY OF URBAN

DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION.

THESIS SUBMITTED TO ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF

BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER SCIENCE IN
MANAGEMENT

BY: - GIZAW KIFLE ALEMU (GSR3015/10)

ADVISOR: - DR. YITBAREK TAKELE

January, 2020
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

FACTORS AFFECTING STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR:

ACASE STUDY ON MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION.

BY: - GIZAW KIFLE ALEMU (GSR 3015/10)

APPROVED BY BOARD OF EXAMINERS:

Dr. Yitbarek Takele (Advisor) _______________ _____________

Signature Date

Dr. Meskerem Mitiku (Internal Examiner) _______________ _____________

Signature Date

Dr. Bantie W. (External Examiner) _______________ ____________

Signature Date

AC Chairperson: - Name Signature Date

_____________________ ________________ _________

i
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

STATEMENT OF DECLARATION

I, Gizaw Kifle, hereby declare that this thesis entitled “Factors affecting strategy
implementation in the public sector:- The case of Ministry of Urban Development and
Construction”. Submitted by me for the award of the degree of Master of Science in
Management, Addis Ababa University at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, is my original work and it has
never been presented in any university. All sources and materials used for this thesis have been
duly acknowledged.

Name: Gizaw Kifle Alemu

Signature: ___________________

Place: Addis Ababa

Date of Submission: January, 2020

ii
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that Gizaw Kifle Alemu has carried out his research work on the topic entitled

“Factors affecting strategy implementation in the public sector: A case study on Ministry
of Urban Development and Construction”.

This Work is original and suitable for the submission in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
the award of Master Degree in Management (MSC in Management).

Advisor:- Dr. Yitbarek Takele

Signature _______________________ Date__________________________

iii
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and for most, I am highly indebted to the Almighty of God for his mercy and grace in all
spheres of my life that helped me to dedicate and realize my life dreams. I sincerely thank my
Advisor Dr. Yitaberk Takele, for his guidance and priceless support from the inception to an end,
without whom this research work would have not been realized. Your constructive critics and
professional advice has resulted undoubtedly in the completion of this research and helped me to
develop research skills for my future endeavor.

I am also thankful to Ministry of Urban development and Construction management and

employees for their immediate response of questionnaire and interview to get first hand
information for this study. Moreover I would like to thank you my colleagues for their moral
support throughout my study.

The completion of this research project would not have been realized without the support of my
brother shamble kifle for his unreserved support. The last but not the least, I would like to thank
you my all family for their financial, morally as well as in any case encouragement and support.

iv
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

ABSTRACT

The general purpose of this study was to identify the significant factors that affect strategy
implementation in the public sector, Ministry of Urban Development and Construction. The
research design was a descriptive survey. The study adopted a stratified random sampling
technique to select the sample size. Primary and secondary data‟s were used to conclude the
study. Leadership quality, that is lack of proper educational background and work experience,
poor managerial skills are unable to analysis cases, problem solving, and decision making are the
most factors affecting ministry strategy implementation. The ministry too much hierarchy which
delays decision making, didn‟taligned with the strategy and also lacks flexibility. Shortage of
competent human & technology, and inefficient utilization of budget which is a hindrance to its
strategy implementation. The communication in the ministry was found inadequate, untimely
and one way which didn‟t allow participation of staffs and stakeholders during strategy
implementation. Further the ministry had less culture of tolerating new ideas and innovativeness.
The study recommended that the ministry should enhance leadership capabilities, employees
qualified human resource and avail the required tools and technologies which can foster the
implementation of strategy. Besides, develop effective communication system to communicate
the strategy adequately, on time and embracing all stakeholders and staffs. It is further
recommended that the `ministry should encourage better ways of undertaking and innovation
which can facilitate the implementation of its strategy in an improved manner.

Key words:- Strategy implementation, Public sector.

v
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3 1. Sample Size.................................................................................................................. 20

Table 4.1. Respondents profile ..................................................................................................... 22

Table 4. 2. Reliability statistics ..................................................................................................... 24
Table 4.3. Effect of leadership quality on strategy implementation ............................................. 24
Table 4.4.Assessment of leadership qualities ............................................................................... 25
Table 4.5.Effect of resource availability and utilization on strategy implementation .................. 27
Table 4.6.Assessment of resource availability and utilization ...................................................... 28
Table 4.7.Effect of effective and timely communicationon strategy implementation .................. 30
Table 4.8.Assessment of effective and timely Communication .................................................. 30
Table 4.9.Effect of Organizational structure on strategy implementation .................................... 32
Table 4.10.Assessment of Organizational structure ..................................................................... 33
Table 4.11.Effect of Organizational culture on strategy implementation ..................................... 33
Table 4.12. Assessment of Organizational culture ...................................................................... 34
Table 4.13. Assessment of Implementation strategies .................................................................. 36
Table 4.14.Assessment of main Strategic pillars of the ministry ................................................. 38
Table 4.15.Budget Availability,and Utilization of the ministry ................................................... 42
Table 4.16. Correlations between variables .................................................................................. 44
Table 4.17. Model Summary ....................................................................................................... 45
Table 4. 18. Statistical significance (ANOVAa) ........................................................................... 45
Table 4.19. Estimated model coefficients ..................................................................................... 46

vi
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2. 1 Dependent and independent variables ........................................................................ 16

Figure 4.1The extent of leadership qualities effect on the strategy implementation .................... 25
Figure 4.2. Assessment of leadership qualities ............................................................................ 27
Figure 4.3The extent of resource effect on strategy implementation ........................................... 28
Figure 4.4The extent of communication affects implementation of strategy in the ministry. ...... 30
Figure 4.5The extent of organizational structure effect on strategy implementation ................... 32
Figure 4.6. The extent of organizational culture effect onstrategy implementation ..................... 34
Figure 4.7. Assessment of Organizational culture ........................................................................ 35
Figure 4.8.The extent of which the ministry properly implemented its overall strategic plan. ... 36
Figure 4.9Assessment of Implementation strategies ................................................................... 37
Figure 4.10.Time and cost over, Project quality management comparison. ................................. 41

vii
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ANOVA:- Analysis of variance

E.C:- Ethiopian Calendar

GTP:Growth and Transformation Plan

MOUDC: Ministry of Urban Development and Construction

SPSS:-Statistical Package for Social Sciences

viii
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Table of Contents
STATEMENT OF DECLARATION ........................................................................................................... ii

STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION......................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................. v

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. viii

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Background of the study ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Background of the Organization ................................................................................................... 2

1.3. Statement of the problem .............................................................................................................. 3

1.4. Research questions ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.5. Objectives of the study.................................................................................................................. 5

1.5.1. General objective .................................................................................................................. 5

1.5.2. Specific objectives ................................................................................................................ 5

1.6. Scope and limitation of the study.................................................................................................. 6

1.6.1. Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................ 6

1.6.2. Limitation of the study .......................................................................................................... 6

1.7. Significance of the study ............................................................................................................... 6

1.8. Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................................... 7

1.9. Organization of the paper .............................................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................................... 9

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 9

2.1. Strategy Implementation .................................................................................................................... 9

ix
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

2.2 Theoretical Models of Strategy Implementation............................................................................... 10

2.2.1. Max Weber‟s Bureaucratic Model ............................................................................................ 10

2.2.2. Resource Allocation Process Model ......................................................................................... 10

2.2.3. The New Public Management Theory ...................................................................................... 11

2.2.4. Systems Model .......................................................................................................................... 11

2.3. Empirical Evidence of Strategy Implementation ............................................................................. 12

2.3.1. The Role of Leadership in Strategy Implementation ................................................................ 12

2.3.2. The role of resource Availability in Strategy Implementation.................................................. 13

2.3.3. The role of Communication in strategy implementation .......................................................... 13

2.3.4. The Role of Organizational Structure in Strategy Implementation........................................... 14

2.3.5. The Role of Culture in Strategy Implementation ...................................................................... 15

2.4. Conceptual Framework for Understanding Strategy Implementation ............................................. 16

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................................... 17

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 17

3.1. Research design ............................................................................................................................... 17

3.2. Research Approach .......................................................................................................................... 17

3.3. Study Population ............................................................................................................................. 17

3.4. Sampling Technique ........................................................................................................................ 18

3.5. Sample size ...................................................................................................................................... 18

3.6. Data collection methods ................................................................................................................... 19

3.7. Methods of data analysis .................................................................................................................. 20

3.8. Reliabilityand Validity ..................................................................................................................... 20

3.9. Ethical considerations ...................................................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................................................... 22

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ........................................................ 22

4.1. Background of respondents.............................................................................................................. 22

x
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

4.2. Reliability test .................................................................................................................................. 24

4.3. The effectof leadership qualitiesonthe ministry strategy implementation ....................................... 24

4.4. The effect of resource availability and utilization on the ministry strategy implementation ........... 27

4.5. The effectof effective and timely communication on the ministry strategy implementation .......... 29

4.6. The effectof organizational structure onthe ministry strategy implementation ............................... 31

4.7. The effect of organizational culture on the ministry strategy implementation ................................ 33

4.8. Strategic Implementation of the Ministry ........................................................................................ 35

4.9. Major findings from Interview Analysis .......................................................................................... 38

4.10. Major findings from document Analysis ....................................................................................... 40

4.11.Inferential statistics Analysis .......................................................................................................... 43

4.11.1. Correlation Analysis ................................................................................................................... 43

4.11.2. Multiple Regression Analysis ..................................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................................ 48

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.......................................... 48

5.1. Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................. 48

5.2. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 50

5.3. Recommendation ........................................................................................................................ 52

5.4. Future Research Direction .......................................................................................................... 53

REFERENCES: .......................................................................................................................................... 54

Appendices 1. (Questionaire & interview) ................................................................................................. 61

Appendices 2. (Testing result) ................................................................................................................ 68

xi
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1.Background of the study

Strategic management is defined as the exercise of crafting plans, organizing tasks, leading
employees, controlling results and coordinating work processes to accomplish preferred outcomes
(Dessler, 2008). Strategic plans are considered to be very important in the management and
success of organizations.

Strategy implementation is considered to be the process that converts the crafted strategy into
actions which facilitate and guarantee that the vision, mission and strategic objectives of the
organization are positively realized as laid out in the strategy blue print (Hill & Jones, 2008).

The strategy literature claims that between 50% and 80% of strategy implementation efforts fail
(Ashkenas & Francis, 2000; Beer &Nohria, 2000). According to Bell, Dean, and Gottschalk
(2010), strategy execution is commonly the most complicated and time consuming part of strategic
management, while strategy formulation is primarily an intellectual and creative act involving
analysis and synthesis. According to Zaribaf and Bayrami (2010), the majority oflarge
organizations had problems with strategy implementation.

The environments of public organizations according to Bryson (2011) have become not only
increasingly uncertain in recent years but also more tightly interconnected; thus changes
anywhere in the system reverberate unpredictably, and often chaotically and dangerously
throughout the environment. This increased uncertainty and interconnectedness requires a fivefold
response from public organizations. First, these organizations must think strategically as never
before. Second, they must translate their insights into effective strategies to cope with their
changing circumstances. Third, they must develop the rationale necessary to lay the ground work
for the adoption and implementation of their strategies. Fourth, they must build coalitions that are
large enough and strong enough to adopt desirable strategies and protect themselves during
implementation. And finally, they must build capacity for ongoing management of the strategic
change (Dvir, 2010).

1
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Considering the importance of investigate factors affecting strategy implementation in the public
sector. The study aimed to determine the influence of leadership qualities, resource availability
and utilization, effective and timely communication, organizational structure and organizational
culture on implementation of strategic plan in the public sector.

1.2.Background of the Organization

The Ministry of Urban Development and construction was established during Emperor Haile
Selassie in 1948 E.c in the name of working ministry (MOUDC, Public Relation &
Communication directorate, 2020). The ministry called with different names, duties and
responsibilities in different times. At one time they separated each other, and then merge together
in other times for many times. From 1967 E.c- 1973 E.c,1984 E.c- 1993 E.cand 1998 E.c-
2007E.c acts as one ministry. From 1974 E.c - 1983 E.c, 1994 E.c- 1997 E.c & 2008 E.c- 2010
E.c acts as separate entity (MOUDC, Public Relation & Communication directorate,2020).
Currently it was re-established and titled in the name of ministry of urban development and
construction.

The Ministry is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring proper and planned growth of urban
centers with adequate infrastructure, employment, urban land management, construction and
services to the citizens (MOUDC,GTPII 2015/16-2019/20). The Ministry is also mandated to
implement Policies, Strategies, development packages & Programs relating to urban
development & Construction (MOUDC,2011). The World Bank‟s (2015) urbanization review on
Ethiopia described it as the fastest urbanizing country at a rate of 5.2% annually.The apparent
implication of this is clear. Cities will face more pressure from the rising population and
struggle to provide jobs, housing, infrastructure, services, and many more unless planned
proactively. Rapid urbanization in the country is putting a lot of pressure in urban centers in
terms of service provision.

The government of Ethiopia is currently implementing its second Growth and Transformation
Plan 2015/16–2019/20, which sets a long-term goal for Ethiopia to become a middle-income
country by 2025 (plan commission,2015). Our urban centers are characterized by high level of
unemployment, lack of basic infrastructures, inadequate quantity and quality of social services,
critical shortage of housing unbalanced growth and shortage of recreational centers and

2
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

incidence of pollution due to a number of interwoven challenges. Key strategic areas for urban
development are poverty and unemployment reductions, deliver efficient, effective, and fair
infrastructure and services to urban citizens sustainably, and improve the urban environment for
living and work (MOUDC,GTPII 2015/16-2019/20). Implementing the GTP in turn depends on
sector policies, strategies and programs

1.3. Statement of the problem

A number of factors can potentially affect the process by which strategic plans are turned into
organizational actions. Noble (1999) argued that unlike strategy formulation, strategy
implementation is most of the time seen as something of a craft rather than a science. He further
states that best strategies may fail to bring out superior performance if not successfully
implemented. The three common pillars of effective strategy execution are direction (which
provided a map for where to go), structure (a holistic approach on how the implementation will be
conducted) and people (the resources for doing the work) (Getz and Lee, 2011).

The public sector is charged with the responsibility of offering effective and efficient service to the
public of any given economy or country (Wachera, Jane and Benard,2017). In recent times, many
public sector organizations have been engaging in activities that will improve their service delivery
to their clients. One such activity is the development of strategic plans (Wachera, Jane and
Benard,2017). Public sector organizations have strategies but results of all organizations are not
rewarding in accordance to long term objectives (Sial, Usman, Zufiqar, Satti & Khursheed, 2013).
Today many public sectors have failed to implement well thought out strategies. Implementation
of the strategic plan is more important than formulation; otherwise it is nothing except well
documented pieces of paper in an organization (Jooste and Fourie, 2009).

With regards to strategy implementation in public sector, some researches have been done in this
area. Mbaka and Mugambi (2014) research result shows that involving the employees during the
strategy implementation process, engaging employees through frequent updates, providing
adequate resources, aligning of organization structure with the new strategy, proper structures,
clear and well developed strategies, motivation, support by top level management, technological
infrastructure are recommended to ensure successful implementation of strategies in the Water

3
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Sector in Kenya. Rajasekar (2014) finding shows that leadership is by far the most important factor
influencing successful implementation strategy in the service sector.

Nyakeriga (2015) the finding show that existing human resources practices, organizational
culture,organizational leadership, effective communication and consensus influences
implementation of strategic in newly established public universities. Shibru, Bibiso,and Ousma
(2017) their finding show that Leadership experience, academic rank of the managers, applied
policy and procedures, making professional learning community and ensuring efficient financial
management and accountability influencing the performance of Wolaita Sodo University. Ngairah
(2018) his finding shows that Leaderships, organizational culture, and organizational structure
have own effect on strategic plan implementation in the Ministry of lands and physical planning in
Kenya.

However there was no study made on addressing factors affecting effective strategy
implementation in the public sector in the case of Urban Development and Construction Ministry.
So there is a need for further research in the areas of factors affecting strategy implementation in
public sector to fill the knowledge gap about public sector practices.

According to the ministry of Urban development and Construction first gross and transformation
performance report (2007), and second mid-term gross and transformation plan performance report
(2011) shows that most of the ministry strategy implementation does not implement accordingly
they set. Though some factors are mentioned as reasons for factors affecting strategy
implementation in the ministry, it was not supported by comprehensive & sufficient data. There is
evidence of gaps that discusses the factors affecting strategy implementation in the ministry. This
study therefore intended to fill this gap.

The main purpose of conducting this research was to investigate the major factors affecting
strategy implementation in the public sectors and to recognize those factors that need more
consideration to develop measurement so as to avoid those factors that hinders the implementation
of strategy in the public sectors.

4
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

1.4. Research questions

This research designed to addresses the following basic research questions:-
1. What is the influence of leadership quality on strategy implementation in the Ministry of
Urban development and Construction?
2. What is the influence of resource availability and utilization on strategy implementation in
the Ministry of Urban development and Construction?
3. What is the influence of effective and timely communication on strategy implementation in
the Ministry of Urban development and Construction?
4. What is the influence of organizational structure on strategy implementation in the Ministry
of Urban development and Construction?
5. What is the influence of organizational culture on strategy implementation in the Ministry
of Urban development and Construction?
1.5. Objectives of the study

This study has the following general and specific objectives

1.5.1. General objective

The general objective of the research was to identify the significant factors that affect effective
strategy implementation in the Ministry of Urban Development and Construction in order to
improve the ministry strategy implementation.

1.5.2. Specific objectives

The specific objectives of the research include:-

1. To examine the effect of leadership quality on strategy implementation in the Ministry of

Urban development and Construction.
2. To assess the influence of resource availability and utilization on strategy implementation
in the Ministry of Urban development and Construction.
3. To examine the effect of effective and timely communication on strategy implementation
in the Ministry of Urban development and Construction.
4. To assess the effect of organizational structure on strategy implementation in the Ministry
of Urban development and Construction.

5
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

5. To examine the effect of organizational cultural on strategy implementation in the

Ministry of Urban development and Construction.

1.6. Scope and limitation of the study

1.6.1. Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is to identify the significant factors affecting effective strategy
implementation in the Ministry of Urban development and Construction public sector. The study
encompasses five factors which are considered to be the major causes for poor strategy
implementation; these are leadership quality, Resource availability and utilization, effective and
timely communication, Organization Structure, and Organization culture. This study constrained
by a number of boundaries. Firstly, the study focuses on public sector organizations. Private, profit
and nonprofit organizations were not included in the study. Secondly, the study investigates factors
affecting strategy implementation; the effect of strategic planning formation process was not
covered. Thirdly, the study focuses entirely on the Ministry of Urban development and
construction, other public sector organizations were not under considered.

1.6.2. Limitation of the study

Hence the topic of strategy implementation has been given less attention in the developing world to
that of developed country the researcher faced lack of available literature on strategy
implementation challenges that was done in the context of developing country especially in the
Ethiopia context from which lessons can be drawn. To overcome the limitation, studies in the
developed world literatures were used to draw lessons to support empirical data. Issues of mistrust
arose from a few respondents in the questionnaire but the researcher managed by explaining the
purpose of the research, and assuring respondents of confidentiality.

1.7. Significance of the study

The research finding is significant to public sector organizations in general and to Ministry of
Urban development and Construction in specific. The research finding help for top management to
solve the practical problem faced regarding with strategy implementation in the public sector and it
also help policy makers to have new orientation in the area of factors affecting strategy

6
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

implementation to review the way of monitoring and evaluation system of public sector.
Furthermore, it is supposed to alert public service sectors to acknowledge the dominant influencing
factors and the respective actions they need to take.

The study also helps other researchers as a standing point to do further research in the areas of
factors affecting effective strategy implementation in the public sector.

1.8. Definition of Terms

Strategic Plan:-A step by step guide, created by a business or organization, to map out how it will
reach goals, and set a foundation so the entire company knows what will happen and what is
expected of them (Mintzberg, 2014).

Strategic implementation:- strategy implementation is a process that turns implementation

strategies and plans into actions to accomplish objectives (Pride and Ferell, 2003).

Leadership qualities:- Leadership qualities that is education background, leadership skills

(technical and management), Leadership experience, capabilities, attitudes, and other
characteristics of people required by a specific position (Bryson, 2012).

Resource availability:- Organizational resources can take a tangible nature such as physical
resources, financial resources and human resource (Hill, C. & Jones, 2008). It is well known that
resource availability is considered to be a key factor in influencing the success of any strategy
implementation (Obeidat, Al-Hadidi and Tarhini,2017).

Effective communication:- Communication is an act of transmitting information. Hierarchical

correspondence assumes a vital part in preparing, information spread and picking up amid the
procedure of system execution (Beach, 2014). effective communication is a key requirement for
effective strategy implementation (Peng and Litteljohn,2001).

Organization structure:- Organizational structure refers to the clustering of tasks and people into
smaller groups. The way labor is divided within an organization influences how strategic change
will be implemented (Robins and Coulter, 2012).

Organizational culture:- Corporate culture refers to the set of common values and belief that
members of a company share in common (Pearce & Robinson, 2014).

7
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

1.9.Organization of the paper

The research paper is organized in to five chapters.

Chapter One: Introduction: - this chapter covers introduction to the research area, background of
the organization, statement of the problem, research questions, research objectives, significance
and the scope and limitation of the research.

Chapter Two: Literature Review: - this chapter consist review of literatures. Conceptual and
contextual literatures regarding with factors affecting strategy implementation are reviewed.

Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology: - this chapter comprises the research design
and approach, sampling and data collection techniques and data analysis method used for the
research.

Chapter Four: Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation: - this chapter covers data
presentation and analysis techniques, and also interpretation of the results obtained.

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation: - this chapter comprises the
summary and conclusion of the research output, and also recommendation of the research and for
further research.

8
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Strategy Implementation

Nobble (1999) argues that even good strategies may fail to give superior performance for the
organization if not successfully implemented. According to Pride and Ferell (2003) strategy
implementation is a process that turns implementation strategies and plans into actions to
accomplish objectives. These address the questions of who, where, when, and how to carry out
successful strategic implementation. Thus, it is better to effectively implement a second grade
strategy than to ruin a first class strategy by implementation that is ineffective. Managers and the
employees should all be involved in implementation decision and good communication should be
enhanced across all parties for effective strategy implementation (David, 2003). The
implementation of a strategy depends on the ability of the managers to coordinate activities to
transform strategic intent into action (Shah, 2005).

According toYabs (2007), a number of factors must be looked into when implementing a strategy.
These are prerequisites‟ for implementation, resources for implementation, leadership skills,
leadership qualities and temperamental characters. Prerequisites looked into are factors that
emanate from both external and internal environment. External factors include all inputs that are
turned into finished goods such as raw materials, energy and manpower whereas internal factors
are machinery, qualified employees, financial strength, internal structure and management
capability. In conclusion, successful implementation of a strategy depends on the following major
factors, the action plan which stipulates the steps and specific individual tasks and responsibility
for accomplishing each of the activities in action plan. Secondly, skilled human resource is another
major factor in enabling the implementation of the strategies. Thirdly, the strategy should fit in the
current organization structure. Fourthly, availability of adequate funds to fund the intended
strategies through the annual business plans (Cole, 2006). Lastly, successful implementation of the
strategy will depend on monitoring, controlling and evaluation of the strategy under
implementation. This is to make sure the strategy is being implemented within the allocated
resource and time frame.

9
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

2.2 Theoretical Models of Strategy Implementation

2.2.1. Max Weber’s Bureaucratic Model

Max Weber characterized bureaucracy as a system of administration where, for the purpose of
achieving efficiency, an organization‟s operations for achievement of results are guided by laid
down rules, regulations, procedures and methods. It is a system where emphasis is placed on legal-
rational leadership, knowledge, qualification and experience as the criteria for selection into
organizations. Positions which are hierarchically organized are determined by knowledge,
qualification, skills and experience. Rewards and promotions are awarded on merit. According to
Weber (1946), bureaucracy is, from a purely technical point of view, capable of attaining the
highest degree of efficiency and is in this sense formally that most rational known means of
carrying out imperative control over human beings.

This theory relates to this study as it emphasis on leadership, knowledge, qualification and
experience as the criteria for selection into organizations. Positions which are hierarchically
organized are determined by knowledge, qualification, skills and experience.

2.2.2. Resource Allocation Process Model

Resource has been defined in this literature as assets tied semi-permanently to firms and includes
tangibles and intangibles (Wernerfelt 1984). The central proposition is that the way the resources
are allocated in the firm shapes the realized strategy of the firm. Understanding the resource
allocation process allows one to understand how strategy is made. The processes that lead to
strategic outcomes are remarkably stable even as environments change (Wernerfelt 1984). Despite
the complexity of the process, many of the forces can be managed if they are understood.This
theory relates to this study since resources allocation and utilization are great impact on
organization implement strategy.

10
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

2.2.3. The New Public Management Theory

The New Public Management (NPM) has in its central design the idea of flexibility in the use of
private management tools to improve performance in public organizations (Lambru,2007).
Characteristic elements of the new public management can be systematized as follows: the
introduction and the use of performance indicators and quality standards for public services; the
preference for specialized administrative structures, with well-defined purpose, at the expense of
large bureaucratic structures, with rigid hierarchies, with multiple purposes; the use of contractual
models to define the hierarchical relationships of administrative institutions; the widespread use of
market and market mechanisms for providing public services; the disappearance of clear borders
between management solutions used in public and private organizations; the flexibility in
supporting alternatives to direct offers of goods and services from the public sector, giving priority
to solutions that value on efficiency in spending public money; creating a new competitive
environment for organizations, and; new forms of budgetary and financial management to support
features such new public management approach presented (Lambru,2007).

This theory was relevant to this study as strategic management is essentiall for public sector in
pursuit of enhanced service delivery. Specialized administrative structures with well-defined
purpose, and new forms of budgetary and financial management for providing public services. The
enabling organizational cultural framework that animates the actions of all employees in pursuit of
common goals and objectives.

2.2.4. Systems Model

The system model emphasizes the means needed for the achievement of specific ends in terms of
inputs, acquisition of resources, leadership, structures and processes (Henri, 2003). The model
explains the effectiveness and the ability to obtain necessary resources from the environments
outside the organization (Schermerhorn, Davidson and Woods, 2004). The application of system
resource can be effective if a vivid relation exists between the resources which an organization
receives and the goods or services it produces. This model invites managers to consider the
organization not only as a whole but as a part of a larger group as well.This theory was relevant to

11
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

this study since it emphasizes the internal factors like leadership, resources, structures and cultures
that is indeed essential to enhance service delivery.

2.3. Empirical Evidence of Strategy Implementation

2.3.1. The Role of Leadership in Strategy Implementation

Leadership and specifically strategic leadership, is widely described as one of the key drivers of
effective strategy implementation (Wachera, Jane and Benard, 2017). According to Koske (2003)
leadership is considered to be one of the most important elements affecting organizational
performance. However, a lack of leadership, and specifically strategic leadership by the top
management of the organization, has been identified as one of the major barriers to effective
strategy implementation. Strategic leadership is defined as “the leader‟s ability to anticipate,
envision, and maintain flexibility and to empower others to create strategic change as necessary”
(Wachera, Jane, and Benard,2017). Rajasekar (2014) indicates that leadership is by far the most
important factor influencing successful implementation strategy in the service sector. Noble (1999)
describes the abilities needed by managers as a combination of technical skills, interpersonal skills
and sensitivity to the needs of other functions. Cater and Pucko (2010), while a well-formulated
strategy, a strong and effective pool of skills, and human capital are extremely important resources
for strategy success, poor leadership is one of the main obstacles in successful strategy
implementation. Lorange (1998) argued that the chief executive officer (CEO) and top
management must emphasize the various interfaces within the organization therefore, the need for
effective leadership outweighs any other factor. Beer and Eisenstat (2000) referred to poor
coordination across functions and inadequate down-the-line leadership skills and development as
killers of strategy implementation. The implementation of the strategic plans is influenced by
Managerial Skills (ndegwah,2014).

The most important reason for the failure of the strategic plan implementation in public sectors
organization is incompetent management and staff (Sial, Usman, Zufiqar, Satti, and Khursheed,
2013). As much as possible, the leadership of the organization should fill relevant positions with
qualified people committed to the change efforts (Bryson, 2012).

12
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

2.3.2. The role of resource Availability in Strategy Implementation

Organizations have at least four types of resources that can be used to achieve desired objectives
namely; financial resources, physical resources, human resources, and technological resources
(David, 2003). Miller (1997) and Hickson et al. (2003) considered resource availability in terms of
personnel, finance, and time as one of the most important factors affecting the success in
implementation of strategies. Ismail,Uli and Abdullah (2012) recommend that internal capabilities
and their resources are necessary to achieve competitive advantage. According to Lorange (1998)
People are the key strategic resource; therefore it is essential for organizations to effectively utilize
the know-how of their employees at the right places. There is also a need to choose the right
people for the right responsibility (Lorange,1998). According to Beaumaster (2009) technology
has had a great impact on human development and implementation of strategies all through the
history.

Nkosi (2015) revealed that inadequate financial resources remain the most noteworthy impediment
to successful strategy implementation. The implementation of the strategic plans is influenced by
resources allocation (ndegwah,2014). Reid, Brown,Nerney, & Perri, (2014) found that shortage in
financial and human resources were the main obstacles for successful implementation.

Obeidat, Al-Hadidi, Tarhini, and Masa'deh (2017) indicates resources that should be available to
help for successful strategy implementation are the allocated time for implementation; sufficient
financial resources, sufficient human resources, sufficient administrative resources, sufficient
technological resources and sufficient physical resources. According to Wachera, Jane, and
Benard (2017) concludes that financial resource constraints, and information technology
significantly affect implementation of strategic plans. It is well known that resource availability is
considered to be a key factor in influencing the success of any strategy implementation (Obeidat,
Al-Hadidi and Tarhini,2017).

2.3.3. The role of Communication in strategy implementation

Effective communication is a key requirement for effective strategy implementation (Peng and
Litteljohn,2001). Organization communication plays an important role in training, knowledge

13
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

dissemination and learning during the process of strategy implementation. Therefore effective
communication should clearly explain the new responsibilities, duties and tasks which will be done
by targeted employees (Peng and Littleljohn, 2001). Throughout the implementation process,
communication should flow bottom-up to allow management to monitor the implementation
process and determine whether changes to the approach are needed Beer and Eisenstat (2000).
According to Beer and Eisenstat (2000) blocked vertical communication has a particularly
pernicious effect on a business‟s ability to implement and refine its strategy.

Feurer, Chaharbaghi & Wargin, 1995) identified that lack of communication among the strategy
makers and staff and management of the organization are significant factors for the failures of the
strategic plan. According to Mbaka and Mugambi (2014) there is lack of communication between
the strategy formulators and the employees. Employees are not well informed about the strategies
and the various tasks they are supposed to perform. In certain cases, the employees are not even
aware of the vision and the mission of their organizations. Schaap (2006) indicates that frequent
communication up and down in organization enhances strategic consensus through the fostering of
shared attitudes and values.

2.3.4. The Role of Organizational Structure in Strategy Implementation

Organizational structure can increase strategy implementation using: (1) decision-making

processes; (2) role clarity and responsibilities; (3) human resource allocation, and (4) organization
flexibility (Rajasekar, 2014). Bushardt, Glascoff and Doty (2011) showed that organizational
structure had a positive effect on strategy implementation through facilitating decision-making
processes and resource allocation. Mbaka and Mugambi (2014) recommends that aligning of
organization structure with the new strategy, and proper structure are crucial for successfully
strategy implementation. Root (2017) highlights that the structure of an organization sets the
hierarchy for responsibility and creates the various levels of communication within an
organization. The study shows that organizational structures that are inorganic and less versatile
tend to cause miscommunication in the overall strategy of the organization while open, fluid
organizational structures have exemplary performance measurements.

14
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

2.3.5. The Role of Culture in Strategy Implementation

Corporate culture refers to the set of common values and belief that members of a company share
in common (Pearce & Robinson, 2014). Culture can either be strength or weakness. As strength,
culture can facilitate communication, decision making, and control, and can create co-operation
and commitment. As a weakness, culture may obstruct the smooth implementation of strategy by
creating resistance to change (Pearce & Robinson, 1988). Ahmadi, Salamzadeh, Daraei, and
Akbari (2012) studied the impact of organizational culture while implementing strategies in
Iranian banks and concluded that a meaningful relationship exists between organizational culture
and strategy implementation. Results of their study showed that all types of organizational cultures
have significant relationships with the implementation process, but the extent of the culture‟s
influence varies from the most effective (clan culture) to the least effective (hierarchy culture).

Alpander and Lee (1995) investigated how the organizational development program and its
application influence a company to change its culture, structure, and operating procedures and
concluded that a flexible structure and adaptable employees who are willing to initiate process and
procedure changes are necessary to produce high-quality products or services at the lowest
possible cost. In a study involving Latin American firms, Brenes and Mena (2008) concluded that
organizational culture supportive of principles and values in the new strategy resulted in successful
strategy implementation in the sampled firms. They also revealed that 86% of the most successful
companies see culture aligned to strategy as highly significant, against only 55% of less successful
companies.

Ahmed and Shafiq (2014) further highlight that all the dimensions of the culture influence the
different perspective of organizational performance. According to Oduol (2015), for performance
of firms to improve, present organization culture should be supportive and compatible with
intended strategies and day to day running of activities of employees. Kamaamia (2017) postulates
that all constituent components of organizational culture including goal oriented measures, work
oriented measures, employee oriented measures, open culture system, and professional work
culture enhance organizational performance.

15
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

2.4. Conceptual Framework for Understanding Strategy Implementation

The figure below will show the relationship between dependent (Strategy implementation) and
independent variables (Leadership qualities, Resources availability and utilization, effective, and
timely Communication, Organizational structure, and organizational culture).

Independents Dependent variable

Leadership Qualities

Resource availability &

utlization Strategy
Implementation

Effective & timely

Communication

Organizational structure

5.3
Organizational Culture

Figure 2.1. Conceptual framework

16
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research design

A research design is a systematic plan to study a scientific problem. Singah (2006) research
designs are types of inquiry within qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches that
provide specific direction for procedures in a research design.

The study adopted descriptive survey and inferential statistical design to investigate the factors
affecting effective strategy implementation in the public sectors. The descriptive design was used
in this study because it allowed the researcher togather numerical and descriptive data to assess
the relationship between the variables.

3.2. Research Approach

There are quantitative and qualitative approach in research Borland (2001). The quantitative
approach involves the collection of quantitative data, which are put to rigorous quantitative
analysis in a formal and rigid manner while as the qualitative approach uses the method of
subjective assessment of opinions, behavior, factors and attitudes Borland (2001). Quantitative
research engages in systematic and scientific investigation of quantitative properties and
phenomena and their relationships Borland (2001). The researcher used a mixed approach
consisting of qualitative and quantitative strategies. Borland (2001) asserts that the differences
between quantitative and qualitative researches are not exclusive. He argues that using both
paradigms in a study yields important in result.

3.3. Study Population

A population is a well-defined or set of people, services, elements, and events, group of things or
households that are being investigated (Ngechu, 2004). The sampling frame is a physical
representation of the target population and comprises all the units that are potential members of a
sample (Kothari, 2004).

17
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

The target population for the study was the employees of Urban development and Construction
Ministry. According to the Human resources department of Urban development and Construction
Ministry there are 582 employees working in the ministry.

3.4. Sampling Technique

The study adopted a stratified random sampling technique to select the sample size. Stratified
random sampling is considered to be a technique that attempts to restrict possible samples to
those which are „less extreme‟ by ensuring that all parts of the population are represented in the
sample in order to increase the efficiency. Stratified random sampling is preferable because the
population may be arranged in sub-groups and then a random sample may be selected from each
of these sub-groups (Lohr, 2010). It comprises different subgroups, known as strata together they
comprise the whole population. The strata in this study were the various levels of management
and employees working in different bureau/department in the Ministry of Urban development
and Construction.

3.5. Sample size

Muganda (2010) describe the sample size as a smaller set of the larger population. According to
Kothari (2013), for population approximately 500, 30% of the population should be sampled. At
least 30% sample of the population will be considered in such a study with a population size of
582. Therefore a sample size of 175 respondents was consisted. The sample size from each
bureau/department is computed according to the proportion as shown in the table below.

Table 3.1. Sample Size

Department Population Proportion Sample size

Urban Plan preparation and implementation bureau 40 0.069 12

Urban land development and management bureau 21 0.036 6

Urban good governance & capacity building bureau 37 0.064 11
Housing development & Administration bureau 41 0.070 12
Construction wing competition development bureau 17 0.031 5
Construction industry working improvement bureau 18 0.031 5

18
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Urban revenue improvement & infrastructure development 44 0.076 13

finance project bureau
Urban Air pollution change controlling bureau 26 0.044 8
Urban development and construction sector policy research and 8 0.013 2
advisor bureau
Corporate resource management bureau 125 0.215 38
Information technology and data base development bureau 40 0.069 12
Reform and Human resource development & management 31 0.053 10
bureau
Plan and program budget bureau 56 0.096 17
Minister office and mini cabine affairs bureau 63 0.108 19
Deputy Ministries office 15 0.025 5
Total 582 1.00 175
Source: Ministry of Urban development and construction Human resource development &
management Directorate (2019).

3.6. Data collection methods

Both primary and secondary source of data were used. The primary sources of data were
collected from management and experts of Ministry of Urban development and Construction by
using questionnaires and interview.

A well-structured open and closed questionnaire are distributed and collected from the study
samples. The questionnaires are planned to gather data‟s on the level of strategy implementation
of the ministry, and the effects of leadership qualities, effective, and timely communication,
resource availability and utilization, organization structure and organization culture on the
effective strategy implement in the MOUDC.

Besides interview was made to the total of 7 ministry members (3 bureau head, advisory, and 3
senior experts) targeted to get in-depth discussion regarding with the factors affecting strategy
implementation of the ministry. Secondary data were collected from relevant sources such as
literature review, reports of the ministry, different studies done concerning ministry, and
brochures.

19
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

3.7. Methods of data analysis

For the purpose of data analysis both descriptive and inferential statistics is applied. Descriptive
statistics such as graphs, charts, percentages were applied to characterize the sample units.

Questionnaires were used to collect quantitative data and it was analyzed by the use of
descriptive statistics using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) and presented through
percentages, means and frequencies. In addition, the study conducted a multiple regression
analysis to determine the relationship between strategy implementation and the variables of the
study. The regression model was given by

Y = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + + β4X4 + β5X5 + ε

Whereby Y = strategy implementation

X1 = Leadership qualities
X2 = Resource availability and utilization
X3= Effective and timely communication
X4 = Organization Structure
X5 = Organizational Culture
β0 = constant term; ε = Error term and
β1, β2, β3, β4 and β5 are the regression equation coefficients for each of the variables.
The results of the regression analysis were interpreted based on the R square, significance of F
statistics and the significance of beta values from the coefficients of the X variables at 95% level
of confidence. Also data collected via interview and organization‟s document review are
interpreted using narrative analysis method.

3.8. Reliability and Validity

Joppe (2000) defines reliability as the extent to which results are consistent over time and an
accurate representation of the total population under study is referred to as reliability and if the
results of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is
considered to be reliable. Cronbach's alpha is a coefficient of reliability that gives an unbiased
estimate of data generalization (Zinbarg, 2005). An alpha coefficient of 0.75 or higher indicated

20
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

that the gathered data are reliable as they have a relatively high internal consistency and can be
generalized to reflect opinions of all respondents in the target population (Zinbarg, 2005).

According to Joppe (2000) Validity determines whether the research truly measures that which it
was intended to measure or how truthful the research results are. In other words, validity is the
degree to which results obtained from the analysis of data actually represents the phenomenon
under study. The data was a true reflection of the variables and the inferences based on such data
were accurate and meaningful. To reduce subjectivity, the questionnaires were revised many
times after repeatedly discussed with advisor and other experts. The questionnaire was evaluated
and commented by different professionals and classmates were asked to give comments and
opinion on statements used in the questionnaire in terms of clarity and completeness.

Pilot testing was conducted to check the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.
Adjustments were made on the questionnaire items and necessary corrections were done, and it
was found to be valid and reliable.

3.9. Ethical considerations

The respondents may be vulnerable because of their ages, work experiences, or position. I
considered the following points as the general philosophy while conducting this research.
Transparency, accountability, confidentiality and integrity. During the whole process of the
research data and information will be kept confidential and used only for this research purpose.

21
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter deals with the analysis of data gathered through both quantitative and qualitative
means. As stated in the research methodology, both approaches were analyzed in a single study.
A total of 175 questionnaires were distributed to the staffs of MOUDC at different departments,
and out of which 166 questionnaires were returned which constituted response rate of 94.9
percent. The response rate of 94.4 percent was considered as adequate for statically
generalization of the study findings. The researcher also conducted a structured interview with
seven ministry members (three bureau head, advisory, and three senior experts) regarding the
factors affecting strategy implementation of the ministry. And also reviewed as references the
ministry reports.

4.1. Background of respondents

This section presents the respondents‟ background information in terms of their gender
distribution, education level, years of experience in the ministry, current work position and
participation in the strategy implementation.

Table 4.1 shows that majority of the respondents were male comprising of 61.4 percent while
females were 38.6 percent,implying that more males than females are involved in the ministry
strategy implementation.
Table 4.1. Respondents profile

No Item Respondent Category Frequency Percentage

1 Sex: Female 64 38.6
Male 102 61.4
2 Education level Certificate 0 0
Diploma 8 4.8
First Degree 89 53.6
Master‟s Degree 69 41.6

22
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

PHD 0 0
3 Duration of Experience in less than 1 year 14 8.4
the ministry 1-5 year 76 45.8
5-10 year 58 34.9
above 10 years 18 10.8
4 Current position of Expert 47 28.3
respondents Senior expert 83 50.0
Lower Manager 23 13.9
Middle manager 10 6.0
top manager 3 1.8
5 Participationin the Yes 152 91.6
implementation of strategy. No 14 8.4
Total 166 100
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

According to the findings shown in table 4.1, the level of education of majority of respondents
are first Degree holders (53.6%), followed by Master‟s Degree (41.6%), and diploma holders
(4.8%). Joppe (2000) stated that during research process, respondents with technical knowledge
on the study problem assist in gathering reliable and accurate data on the problem under
investigation. Concerning with duration of experience in the ministry, majorities are with 1-5
years (45.8%), followed by 5-10 years (34.9%), above 10 years (10.8%) and the remaining 8.4%
of respondents had less than one year experience in the MOUDC.As the result shown in table
4.1, the majority (50% of respondents) are senior experts, followed by Experts (28.3%), lower
manager (13.9%), middle manager (6%) and 1.8% of respondents are top managers. This
indicates that most of the respondents are senior experts, and hence it is believed that they can
understood the level of ministry‟s strategy implementation and related challenges faced during
implementation helps to provide relevant information.
Regarding with respondents participation in strategy implementation, majority (91.6%) of
respondents have participated in the ministry strategy implementation while 8.4% haven‟t
participated as shown in table 4.1.This may assures that the respondents are the right persons to
provide reliable information pertaining to the topic investigated.

23
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

4.2. Reliability test

Cronbach's alpha is a coefficient of reliability that gives an unbiased estimate of data

generalization (Zinbarg 2005). An alpha coefficient of 0.75 or higher indicated that the gathered
data are reliable as they have a relatively high internal consistency and can be generalized to
reflect opinions of all respondents in the target population (Zinbarg, 2005). As shown in table 4.2
the overall Cronbach‟s alphas coefficients for expected scale item are 0.83. Therefore, the
expected scales used in this study demonstrate high reliability.

Table 4. 2. Reliability statistics

Dimensions Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

Effect of leadership .764 5
Effect of resource .410 4
Effect of communication .802 6
Effect of organizational structure .727 5
Effect of organizational culture .785 4
Overall scale
reliability .834 24
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

4.3. The effectof leadership qualitiesonthe ministry strategy implementation

Primarily, the respondents were asked to their perceptions on the effect of leadership on the
strategy implementation of the ministry.Accordingly the result shown on table 4.3, majority of
respondents (93.4%) confirmed that leadership capabilities had an effecton ministry strategy
implementation.

Table 4.3. Effect of leadership quality on strategy implementation

Yes 155 93.37%

Do you think leadership capabilities affects strategy
No 11 6.63%
implementation in the ministry?
Total 166 100.00%
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

24
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Further, they are requested to rank the extent (i.e. low, moderate, and great, very great) to which
the leadership capabilities influence the ministry strategy implementation.The study finding as
shown in figure 4.1, majority of respondents (53.70%) confirmed that leadership qualities
influence the strategy implementation to a great extent, followed by moderate extent (24.69%),
very great extent (18.52%) and the remaining 3% stated low extent.

Figure 4.1The extent of leadership qualities effect on the strategy implementation

60.00% 53.70%

40.00%
24.69%
18.52%
20.00%
3.09%
0.00%
Low extent Moderate Great extent Very great extent

Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

The respondents were also asked to indicate their level of agreement to the statements explaining
the qualities of leadership in the ministry. The results are tabulated in percentage for each
statements with respect to the level of agreement (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and
strongly disagree) as shown in Table 4.4below.

Table 4.4.Assessment of leadership qualities

Statements Strongly Agree Neutral disagree Strongly
agree disagree
The leaders in the ministry don‟t have sufficient 7.23% 44.58% 22.89% 18.07% 7.23%
education background, and work experience.
The ministry leaders don‟t equipped with a good 19.88% 46.39% 15.66% 15.06% 3.01%
conceptual, technical and human skill.
The ministry leaders‟ lacks commitment to perform 20.48% 54.22% 17.47% 6.63% 1.20%
their roles, leads to the lower ranks of employees
missing support and guidance.
The leadership, direction and instructions provided 18.67% 53.01% 17.47% 10.84% 0.00%
by the ministry‟s managers were inadequate.
The ministry leaders‟ lacks decision making, case 16.87% 58.43% 14.46% 9.64% 0.60%
analysis, problem solving and Innovation skills.
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

25
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

The majority (45%) of respondents have agreed that the leaders in the ministry don‟t have
sufficient education background and work experience followed by 23% responded neutral, 18%
disagreed, and 7% strongly agreed while 7% responded strongly disagreed. This indicated that
the leaders in MOUDC had inadequate education back ground and work experience which
affects the strategy implementation of the ministry.

Regarding with managerial skills of leaders, the majority of respondents 46% agreed and 20%
strongly agreed that the ministry leaders doesn‟t equipped with a good conceptual, technical and
human skill; whereas the remaining 16% neutral, 15% disagreed and 3% strongly disagreed. This
revealed that the ministry leaders doesn‟t equipped with a good conceptual, technical and human
skill that helps to foster strategy implementation of the ministry.

The result shown that the majority of respondents 54% agreed and 21% strongly agreed that the
ministry leaders‟ Lacks commitment to perform their roles leads to missing support and guidance
to the lower ranks of employees; while 17% responded neutral, 7% disagreed, and 1% strongly
disagreed. This revealed that the ministry leaders lack commitment to perform their roles,
support and guidance to the lower rank of employees.

The result revealed that the majority of respondents 53% agreed and 19% strongly agreed with
the statement that states the leadership, direction and instructions provided by the ministry‟s
managers were inadequate; where as 17% and 11% of respondents were neutral and disagreed
respectively. This shown that the leadership, direction and instruction provided by the ministry
leaders are not adequate.

The finding above also shown that, the majority of the respondents 58% agreed and 17%
strongly agreed that the ministry leaders lack decision making, case analysis, problem solving
and Innovation skills; while only 10%disagreed. This revealed that theleaders‟ lack decision
making, case analysis, problem solving and Innovation skills.

26
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Figure 4.2. Assessment of leadership qualities

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Leaders Lacks Leaders don’t Lack of manager’s Inadequate Leaders’ lacks
sufficient education equipped with a commitment leadership, direction decision making, case
background, and good conceptual, and instructions analysis, problem
work experience. technical and human solving and
skill. Innovation skills.
Strongly agree Agree Neutral disagree Strongly disagree

Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

Thus, from the above discussion and also on the figure 4.2 shown above, it is concluded that the
overall leadership qualities of the MOUDC leaders are ranked as poor.

4.4. The effect of resource availability and utilization on the ministry strategy
implementation

The respondents were asked to their perceptions on the effect of resource allocation and
utilization on the strategy implementation of the ministry. Majority of respondents (91%) stated
that resource allocation and utilization had an effecton ministry strategy implementation.

Table 4.5.Effect of resource availability and utilization on strategy implementation

Yes 151 90.96%

Do you think resource availability and utilization affects
No 15 9.04%
strategy implementation in the ministry?
Total 166 100.00%
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

27
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Furthermore, in response to the extent to which the resource allocation and utilization influences
the ministry strategy implementation, the majority of respondents (55.92%) confirmed to great
extent, followed by moderate extent (26.32%),very great extent (15.13%) and the remaining
2.63% stated low extent as shown on figure 4.3 below.

Figure 4.3The extent of resource effect on strategy implementation

60.00% 55.92%

40.00%
26.32%
20.00% 15.13%
2.63%
0.00%
Low extent Moderate Great extent Very great extent

Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

Moreover, the respondents were also asked to indicate their agreement to the statements
explaining the resource availability and utilization in the ministry. Thus, the responses are
tabulated in percentage for each statements with respect to the level of agreement (strongly
agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree) as shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6.Assessment of resource availability and utilization

Statements Strongly Agree Neutral disagree Strongly

agree disagree
The ministry has no a clear resource 7.23% 37.35% 21.69% 25.90% 7.83%
planning, allocation and utilization system.
The ministry had often a shortage of 7.23% 40.96% 19.88% 27.71% 4.22%
competent human capital (employee)
during strategic implementation.
The ministry often faced shortage of 7.23% 18.07% 15.06% 50.60% 9.04%
financial resources to execute the planned
strategies.
The ministry had often a shortage of tools 10.24% 44.58% 9.64% 30.72% 4.82%
and technology required for strategy
implementation.
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

The study result shows that 37.35% agree, 7.23% strongly agree, and 21.69% responded neutral
with the statement that the ministry has no resource planning, allocation and utilization system;

28
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

while 25.9%, and 7.83% of respondents disagree and strongly disagree respectively. This implies
that somehow there is a system of resource planning, allocation to the bureau, and mechanism of
controlling system in the ministry.

Itis widely acknowledged that resources are vital inputs to achieve the desired strategy
implementation. The four basic resources considered in this study are; physical resource, human
resource, financial and technological resource. Regarding with human capital majority (41% )
responded agree, followed by 27.7% disagree, 19.9% neutral with a statement that states the
ministry faced shortage of human resource during strategy implementation; while the remaining
7.23% and 4.2% responded strongly agree and strongly disagree respectively. Concerned with
financial resources majority (50.6%) responded disagree, followed by 18.1% agree, 15.1%
neutral with a statement that states the ministry often faced shortage of finance resource during
strategy implementation; while the remaining 9% and 7.2% responded strongly disagree and
strongly agree respectively. Regarding to technological resources majority (44.6%) responded
agree, followed by 30.7% disagree, and 10.2% strongly agree with a statement that states the
ministry often faced shortage of technologies for strategy implementation; while the remaining
9.6% and 4.8% of respondents responded neutral and strongly disagree respectively. In
conclusion from the above discussion, the ministry had a large shortage of competent human
capital, and tools and technological resource which are necessary for effective implementation of
strategy, whereas it is good in financial resource allocation. A number of factors commonly
prohibit effective resource allocation. These include an overprotection of resources, too great an
emphasis on short run financial criteria, organizational politics, vague strategy targets, a
reluctance to take risks, and a lack of sufficient knowledge.

4.5. The effectof effective and timely communication on the ministry strategy
implementation

Once the strategy has been formulated, communication is one of the most important vehicles for
successful implementation.In response to the importance of communication for effective strategy
implementation in the ministry, the majority (95.2%) of the respondent confirmed that
communication would play an important role in the effective strategy implementation in the
ministry.

29
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Table 4.7.Effect of effective and timely communicationon strategy implementation

Yes 158 95.18%

Do you think effective Communication influence strategic
implementation in the ministry? No 8 4.82%
Total 166 100.00%
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

Regarding to the extent to which communication influences the ministry strategy

implementation, the majority of respondents (56.33%) confirmed to great extent, followed by
moderate extent (27.85%), very great extent (10.13%) and the remaining 5.70% stated low extent
as shown on figure 4.4 below.

Figure 4.4The extent of communication affects implementation of strategy in the ministry.

60.00% 56.33%

40.00%
27.85%

20.00% 10.13%
5.70%
0.00%
Low extent Moderate Great extent Very great extent

Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

Moreover, the respondents also indicated their agreement to the sort of statements explaining the
effective and timely communication in the ministry. Thus, the responses are tabulated in
percentage for each statements with respect to the level of agreement (strongly agree, agree,
neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree) as shown in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8.Assessment of effective and timely Communication

Statements Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
There is inadequate internal communication of 12.05% 58.43% 11.45% 15.66% 2.41%
strategy among different offices and staffs.
There is no a frequent and timely communication 9.64% 55.42% 9.64% 24.70% 0.60%
among the ministry offices and staffs.
Information systems used to monitor strategy 10.84% 56.63% 11.45% 19.28% 1.81%
implementation is not adequate in the ministry.
One-way communication, only from top to down, 21.08% 51.81% 10.84% 15.06% 1.20%
is practiced in the ministry which didn‟t allow
participation of staffs in questioning, criticizing and

30
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

giving feedback on the ministry strategy

implementation.
There is a poor horizontal communication among 17.47% 54.82% 12.05% 13.25% 2.41%
the offices and staffs in the ministry.
The ministry has a poor external communication 10.24% 59.04% 12.65% 16.87% 1.20%
with external organizations on the common and
supportive strategy implementation.
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

The finding shows that, majority of respondents (58.4% agree, and 12% strongly agree) confirmed
that the ministry has got inadequacy of internal communication among different offices and staffs.
In addition,the majority of respondents (55.4% agree and 9.6% strongly agree) stated that the
ministry has failed to communicate strategy on time and in a frequent manner.Regarding to the
way of communication, the majority of respondents (51.81% agreed and 21.08% strongly agreed)
confirmed that the ministry practices one-way, i.e.top to down, communication which don‟t allow
a room for participation of staffs in criticizing and giving feedback on the strategy
implementation.Furthermore, the result also shows that there is a poor horizontal communication
among the offices and staffs in the ministry (54.82% agree, and 17.47% strongly agree). Similarly
the external communication made with external organizations on the common and supportive
strategy implementation was found to be poor (59% agree and 10.24% strongly agreed).

In conclusion the communication of strategy in the ministry characterized as inadequate internal

communication, poor external communication, one-way, and untimely. Thus, it has got a great
influence on the effective strategy implementation in ministry.

4.6. The effectof organizational structure onthe ministry strategy implementation

The organizational structure provides a visual explanation of two main things: the decision-
making process and resource allocation.On the assessment of respondents‟ perception on the
influence of organizational structure on strategy implementation in the ministry, majority
(92.8%) of the respondents confirmed that the organizational structure of the ministry had an
effect on the strategy implementation.

31
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Table 4.9.Effect of Organizational structure on strategy implementation

Do you think organizational Structure influence strategy Yes 154 92.77%
implementation in the ministry? No 12 7.23%
Total 166 100.00%
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

Regarding to the extent to which organization structure influences the ministry strategy
implementation, the majority of respondents (51.95%) confirmed to great extent, followed by
moderate extent (25.97%), very great extent (13.64%) and the remaining 8.44% stated low extent
as shown in figure 4.5.This revealed that organizational structure had a great impact on strategy
implementation in the ministry.

Figure 4.5The extent of organizational structure effect on strategy implementation

60.00% 51.95%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00% 25.97%
20.00% 13.64%
8.44%
10.00%
0.00%
Low extent Moderate Great extent Very great extent

Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

Moreover, the respondents were also asked to indicate their level of agreement to the sort of
statements about the current organizational structure of the ministry. Thus, the responses are
tabulated in percentage for each statements with respect to the level of agreement (strongly
agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree) as shown in Table 4.10.

The finding shows that, majority of respondents (59% agree, and 10.8% strongly agree) stated
that the current organizational structure of the ministry doesn‟t adequately support or aligned
with the strategies in addition they (68% agree and 9.6% strongly agree) also confirmed that it is
not flexibly adjusted to strategic plan. This indicates that the ministry organizational structure do
not fit and not flexible to adjust with strategy implementation.

32
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Table 4.10.Assessment of Organizational structure

Statements Strongly Agree Neutral disagree Strongly
agree disagree
The current Organizational structure of the ministry 10.84% 59.04% 13.25% 14.46% 2.41%
wasnotaligned with the strategy
The Organizational structure of the ministry isn‟t 9.64% 68.07% 10.84% 11.45% 0%
flexibly adjusted according to strategic plan.
The organizational structure of the ministry didn‟t 6.02% 24.70% 3.61% 62.05% 3.61%
allow horizontal communication, and team working.
The organizational structure of the ministry is highly 9.64% 16.27% 6.02% 65.06% 3.01%
formalized, rigid and centralized.
The ministry has highly hierarchystructure that 10.24% 65.06% 3.01% 19.28% 2.41%
delays decision making.
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

The majority (65%) of respondents disagree with the statement that states the organizational
structure of the ministry is highly formalized, rigid and centralized.On the other hand, Majority
respondents (65% agree, and 10.24% strongly agree) stated that the organizational structure of the
ministry has got too much hierarchy which can delays decision making. The majority (62%) of
respondents disagree with the statement that states the organizational structure ofthe ministry
didn‟t allow horizontal communication, and team working. On other word, they are conforming
that the ministry‟s organizational structure doesn‟t affect the horizontal communication and team
workings among the staffs.

4.7. The effect of organizational culture on the ministry strategy implementation

Corporate culture refers to the set of common values and belief that members of a company share
in common (Pearce & Robinson, 2014). The respondents were asked to put their perception on
the effect of organization culture on the strategy implementation of the ministry. Accordingly,
the majority (90.3%) of the respondent confirmed that the current organizational culture in the
ministry had influence on the strategy implementation.

Table 4.11.Effect of Organizational culture on strategy implementation

Yes 150 90.36%

Do you think Organizational cultureinfluence strategic
No 16 9.64%
plan implementation in the ministry?
Total 166 100.00%
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

33
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Regarding to the extent to which organization culture influences the ministry strategy
implementation, the majority of respondents (49.33%) confirmed to great extent, followed by
moderate extent (34%), very great extent (12.67%) and the remaining 4% of respondent stated
low extent as shown in figure 4.6. This result revealed that organizational culture had a great
impact on strategy implementation in the ministry.

Figure 4.6. The extent of organizational culture effect onstrategy implementation

60.00%
49.33%
50.00%
40.00% 34.00%
30.00%
20.00% 12.67%
10.00% 4.00%
0.00%
Low extent Moderate Great extent Very great extent

Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

Furthermore, the respondents were also asked to indicate their level of agreement to the sort of
statements about the current organizational culture of the ministry. Thus, the responses are
tabulated in percentage for each statements with respect to the level of agreement (strongly
agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree) as shown in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12. Assessment of Organizational culture

Statements Strongly Agree Neutral disagree Strongly
agree disagree
The ministry has totally unsupportive organization 6.63% 12.65% 22.89% 56.02% 1.81%
culture, doesn‟t promote staff‟s consensus and
commitments.
The ministry has less culture of tolerating risks. 3.01% 18.67% 30.72% 46.99% 0.60%
The ministry has a poor culture to tolerate new 5.42% 66.27% 8.43% 19.28% 0.60%
ideas.
The ministry less believes in loyalty and mutual 3.61% 35.54% 25.30% 32.53% 3.01%
trust, teamwork, consensus, and participation.
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

According to respondents replied that the majority 56% disagree while 12.7% agree to the
statement that state the ministry has totally unsupportive organization culture. This infers tothe
ministry had a supportive organizational culture that promote the staffs consensus and

34
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

commitment. Regarding with a culture of tolerating risks, 50% responded disagree while 18.68%
agree to the statement that implies the ministry has less culture of tolerating a risk. This implies
that the ministry has a good culture of tolerating risks. On contrary, the majority (66% agree and
5.4% strongly agree) of respondents were agree that the ministry has a poor culture to tolerate
new ideas. Similarly, the ministry had less culture of believes in loyalty, mutual trust and
teamwork.

Figure 4.7. Assessment of Organizational culture

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Less culture of

participation.
consensus and

A poor culture

in loyalty and
commitments.

mutual trust,
Less believes
Unsupportive
organization

consensus,
teamwork,
new ideas.
to tolerate
tolerating
promote
culture,
doesn’t

staff’s

risks.

and
Strongly agree Agree Neutral disagree Strongly disagree

Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

4.8. Strategic Implementation of the Ministry

The respondents asked to put the extent to which the ministry properly implemented its overall
strategic plan. Accordingly, the finding shown in figure below, the majority (50.60%) responded
to low extent, followed by 32.53% moderate, 13.25% great and the remaining 3.61% responded
very great extent. This implies that the level of overall strategy implementation of the ministry is
low.

35
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Figure 4.8.The extent of which the ministry properly implemented its overall strategic
plan.

50.60%
60.00%
40.00% 32.53%

20.00% 13.25%
0.00% 3.61%

Low extent
Moderate
Great
extent Very great
extent

Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

Furthermore, the respondents were also asked to indicate their level of agreement to the sort of
statements which explains about the effective strategy implementation in the ministry. Thus, the
responses are tabulated in percentage as shown in Table 4.13.
The findings show that the ministry hasyearly plans to implement strategies since the majority
79.5% of respondents (53% disagree and 26.5% strongly disagree) stated that the ministry has
yearly plans to implement strategies. In addition, the majority (44.58% disagree and 5.42%
strongly disagree) 50% of respondents replied that the ministry has got precise procedures
followed for achieving strategy implementation and the result also attests (63% disagree and
4.22% strongly disagree) that regular progress review has been conducted during strategy
implementing.
On contrary, the majority 65% of respondents stated that the ministry doesn‟t take initiation to
amend to its strategy although it was necessary to be made. This implies that even though the
ministry evaluates regularly its progress against the target, no adjustment has been made on the
strategy.
Table 4.13. Assessment of Implementation strategies
Statements Strongly Agree Neutral disagree Strongly
agree disagree
The ministry don‟t have yearly plans to implement 3.61% 10.84% 6.02% 53.01% 26.51%
strategies
The ministry doesn‟t have precise procedures followed 1.20% 24.70% 24.10% 44.58% 5.42%
for achieving strategy implementation.
When implementing strategies the ministry doesn‟t 1.20% 20.48% 10.84% 63.25% 4.22%
regularly review progress against targets.
During the implementation process, the ministry doesn‟t 2.41% 65.06% 9.64% 21.08% 1.81%

36
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

amend their strategies if necessary.

The ministry lacks allocating strict responsibility for 4.22% 62.05% 7.23% 24.10% 2.41%
strategy implementation
The developed strategies of the ministry main pillar 12.05% 65.66% 7.23% 13.86% 1.20%
wasn‟t implemented successfully
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

Similarly the majority (62%) of respondents agreed that the ministry lacks in allocating strict
responsibility for strategy implementation.Without sharing or assigning of responsibility among
the stakeholder it is difficult to achieve the strategic objectives which will results in failure to
strategy implementation.

The main strategic pillars of the ministry are grouped in to five; these are job creation and urban
food security, housing development and administration, urban plan preparation &
implementation, Construction industry capacity building and regulator, and integrated
infrastructure and solid waste management. Regarding with the implementation of the ministry
main strategic pillars, the finding shows that 77.7% (65.66% agree and 12.06% strongly agree)
of respondents responded that the ministry main pillar wasn‟t implemented successfully

Figure 4.9Assessment of Implementation strategies

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
Strongly agree
20.00%
10.00% Agree
0.00% Neutral
precise procedures followed

The ministry lacks allocating

The developed strategies of the

During the implementation
When implementing strategies
The ministry don‟t have yearly

process, the ministry don‟t

the ministry doesn‟t regularly
plans to implement strategies

The ministry doesn't have

amend their strategies if

disagree
ministry main pillar wasn‟t
strategy implementation

implemented successfully
strict responsibility for
for achieving strategy

review progress against

implementation.

Strongly disagree
necessary.
targets.

Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

37
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Further the study was made to identify the level of implementation of main strategic pillars of the
ministry. The result shown on table 4.14; Job creation and urban food security (64% poor),
Housing development and Administration (72% poor), Construction industry capacity building
and regulator (52.4%), and Integrated infrastructure and solid waste management (61% poor);
declared that the strategic implementation of the main pillars are poor except Urban plan
preparation & implementation (39% poor, 34% satisfactory) which indicates a relatively
satisfactory implementation.
Table 4.14.Assessment of main Strategic pillars of the ministry
Main Strategic pillars of the ministry Poor satisfactory good Very Extremely
implementation rate good good
1. Job creation and urban food security 63.86% 21.69% 9.64% 4.82% 0%
2. Housing development and Administration 71.69% 12.65% 10.24% 5.42% 0%
3. Urban plan preparation & implementation 38.55% 33.73% 21.08% 6.63% 0%
4. Construction industry capacity building and 52.41% 23.49% 17.47% 6.63% 0%
regulator
5. Integrated infrastructure and solid waste 60.84% 22.29% 11.45% 5.42% 0%
management
Source: Compiled from the questionnaire (2019)

4.9. Major findings from Interview Analysis

The researcher also conducted a structured interview with seven ministry members (three bureau
head, advisory, and three senior experts) regarding the factors affecting strategy implementation
in the ministry.

Question 1.Extent of leadership quality affect the ministry strategy implementation

The result of interview shows that inadequate skills and abilities of the leadership team involved
in the strategy implementation have major problems; especially the relevant skills leads to the
ministry leaders‟ lacks decision making, case analysis, problem solving and Innovation skills.
Ineffective leadership is one of the key hindering factors in strategy implementation due to in
ineffective coordination. The quality refers to the capabilities, experience, skills, attitudes, and
other characteristics of people required by a specific position.

38
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Question 2.Extent of resource availability and utilization affect ministry strategy implementation

According to most of the interviewee eventhough the ministry follow program based budget
allocation system lacks clarity. Most of the time the ministry doesn‟tface shortage of budget
ratherthan ineffective utilization of budget is the critical problem due to this the ministry return
huge amount of budget at the end of each fiscal yearto ministry of finance.Onother hands even
thoughthe number of human capital (employees) are not such great problem in the ministry but
there is lack of capable human capital especially those who have implementation skills.In
relation to technology especially in the areas of construction industry using modern technology
that helps to fosters construction industry is remained at low stage. And also there is Phobey of
technology adaptation like Automation of activities. Technological advancement in terms of
speedy processes and procedures, as well as design, will make a positive contribution to the
successful implementation of strategies.

Question 3. Influence of effective and timely communication in the ministry strategy

implementation

Effective and timely communication are important in the process of strategy implementation.
The ministry does not have well organized and strategic communication that helps to fosters
strategy implementation. Communication includes explaining what new responsibilities, tasks,
and duties need to be performed by the employees in order to implement the strategy.
participatory communication both internal, and external (stakeholders) strategically are not
implemented in the ministry.When the strategy is not fully understood by those involved in
implementation it becomes difficult for them to effectively work towards the set goals.

Question 4. Influence of organizational Structure in the ministry strategy implementation.

According to most interviewee the current organizational structure of the ministry is not fruitfull
for achieving the strategy objectives.The structure of an organization sets the hierarchy for
responsibility and creates the various levels of communication within an organization. Heavy
hierarchical structure delays in decision making aswell as overlapping of some duties affecting
strategy implementation of the ministry. And also lack of align with regions and city
administration bureaus that works to achieve collaborate national plan.

39
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Question 5.The ministry organizational culture influence the ministry strategy implementation.

Corporate culture gives employees a sense of how to behave and act and hence influencing
employees to support current strategy in order to strengthen its implementation. According to
most interviewee the ministry has not yet definitive organizational culture that leads to
implement strategy in a good ways such as tolerating of new way of doing things culture.
Providing employees with opportunities to explore, investigate and experiment creates an
entrepreneurial organization culture that fosters innovative behavior are crucial one for strategy
implementation.

Question 6.The main pillars of the ministry strategy implementation rate.

Most of the examinee replied that the main pillars of the ministry strategy implemented arenot
implemented successfully the reason raised up by most interviewee fail to execute at high level
the ministry strategy is basically the leader of the ministry is not capable in human, technical,
and conceptual skills. There is not enough certified employees in the ministry that foster
implementation skill.The ministry doesnot well communicated their strategy implementation for
employees and stakeholders, there is no consistency of culture that innovative way of doing
things helps strategy implementation of the ministry at high level are the major obstacles of the
ministry strategy implementation accordingly major interviewee .

4.10. Major findings from document Analysis

Data from document review also showed some similar results. According to MOUDC GTP-II
(2015/16 – 2019/20) mid-term evaluation performance report of the Ministry of Development
and Construction show that permanent job created achieved 66% of plan. Social inclusion and
urban productivity safety net important tools for building inclusive cities and raising the quality
of life of city residents for 254,265 citizens planned to give direct support achieved only 70,542
(15.4%).

The housing development and management program is a key investment area with social and
economic aspects, particularly alleviating housing problem, and job creation. According to the
GTP-II mid term performance report of the Ministry of Urban Development and Construction,

40
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

there was a plan to construct through public housing development scheme 125,000 housing units
in Addis Ababa with the achievement registered only 61,924 (49.5%)at the end.

Urban plan preparation & implementation:-the prime intent of this pillar is to strengthen
municipal capacity in urban plan preparation, boundary demarcation and implementation, as well
as in land use planning and spatial development. The major achievements ofthis pillar are:- by
regions capacity 678(87%)city basic plan, 29(78.4%) city wide structure plan, &1,111 (28%)
rural Keble sketch plan. In addition to this based on national spatial plan preparation 9 Regional
Urban Development Spatial Planare not achieved.

Construction industry implementation capacity building is among the pillars under realization in
the GTP-II med-term period. In general the construction sector does not render at the expected
level due to lack of modern technology that helps to addresses efficient and effective
construction.In addition to this the home grown construction capacity in terms of project
management as well as financial capacity is very low.

Figure 4.10.Time and cost over, Project quality management comparison.

Source: - Ministry of Urban development and construction (2010 E.C)

Integrated infrastructure and solid waste management:- the pillar aims to mobilize resources for
infrastructure development and to incentivize municipalities to develop the appropriate human
and institutional capacity to maintain existing built-up infrastructure such as coble stone roads,
drainage systems, dry waste dumping sites, liquid waste collection sites, bridge building, parking
etc.Improving solid waste management urban coverage also remain low.

41
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Table 4.15.Budget Availability,and Utilization of the ministry

No Budget Approved Utilization Performance in Remarks

Year Budget/Adjusted Percentage
Budget

1 2009 E.c 1‚026‚226‚684.65 659‚083‚646.62 64.2% This budget

performance
indicates only
2 2010 E.c 1‚254‚889‚326.27 744‚051‚041.13 59.3% treasury source. Not
include External
assistance.
3 2011 E.c 1‚493‚548‚757.47 855‚424‚955.7 57.3%

Total 3‚774‚664‚768.39 2‚258‚559‚643.45 59.8

Source: - Ministry of Urban development and construction (2019)

From open ended questionnaire, interview, and ministry report the leading challenges observed
in relation to implementation strategy especially the main pillar of the ministry are:- poor
leadership quality (in terms of such as failure to prepare plans and reports, follow up, support and
evaluation and feed backs to the expected level, quality and time), Low experience, skill and
capacity of the leadership in terms of promoting stakeholders‟ participation (in terms of such as
designing different proclamations, regulations and policies that help to effectively implement
plans; clearly understanding and implementing policies, strategies and laws, etc); Gaps in terms
of employing human resources with adequate capacity and skills, providing the necessary tools
and creating conducive environment that enhance imitativeness for effective implementation of
plans; Failures to perform the activities with full responsibilities and sense of urgency,
Continuous turnover of urban managers; as well as weak follow-up and monitoring activities.
Shortage of trained and certified manpower in the sector, limitation of cost effective construction
technology; shortage and price inflation of construction inputs provision; poor participation of
stakeholders and integration of works, inadequate construction management capacity to the level
required for the current development as well as immature performance capacities of
stakeholders.

42
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

The public sector is charged with the responsibility of offering effective and efficient service to
the public of any given economy or country. Developing and having strategy alone is not
enough. Implementation of a strategy is more important than formulation. Otherwise it is nothing
except well documented pieces of paper in an organization (jooste and Fourie, 2009).

4.11.Inferential statistics Analysis

Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between strategy
implementation and the five independentvariables for the case of MOUDC. The regression
model was adopted for the study is:

Y = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + + β4X4 + β5X5 + ε

Whereby Y = strategy implementation; X1 = Leadership qualities; X2 = Resource availability

and utilization; X3= Effective and timely communication; X4 = Organization
Structure; X5 = Organizational Culture;β0 = constant term;
β1, β2, β3, β4 and β5are the regression equation coefficients for each of the
variables; and ε = Error term
The researcher was used SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software to compute the
measurements of multiple regression result for the study. Prior to analysis of the data,
assumptions are testing such as checking of the data for linearity, normality, homoscedasticity
and Multicollinearity was made.All diagnostic tested result show that fit to the model (attached
in the appendices figure A, B, C & table A).

4.11.1. Correlation Analysis

Pearson correlation was used to measure the degree of association between variables under
consideration i.e. independent variables and the dependent variables. Pearson correlation
coefficients range from -1 to +1. A negative value indicates negative correlation and positive
values indicates positive correlation.

43
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Table 4.16. Correlations between variables

Strategy Leadership Resource Communic Organizational Organizationa

Implementation quality Utilization ation Structure l Culture

PearsonCorrel
Strategy Implementation 1 .796** .617** .605** .755** .564**
ation
(SI)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
PearsonCorrel
. 1 .588** .545** .725** .497**
Leadership quality (Le) ation
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .000 .000
Pearson
Resource Utilization . 1 .442** .536** .459**
Correlation
(Res)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
Pearson
1 .505** .431**
Communication (Comm) Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
Pearson
Organizational Structure 1 .508**
Correlation
(OS)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Pearson
Organizational Culture . 1
Correlation
(OC)
Sig. (2-tailed) . .
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlation summary shown in the table 4.16 depicts that there is a positive relationship
between strategy implementation and Leadership quality (0.796), Resource availability and
utilization (0.617), effective and timely communication (0.605), Organizational Structure
(0.755), and Organizational Culture (0.564). Therefore, it can be implied that there is a strong
positive relationship between strategy implementation (dependent variable) and each of
independent variables (Leadership quality, Resource availability and utilization, effective and
timely communication, Organizational Structure, Organizational Culture)

4.11.2. Multiple Regression Analysis

Regression model is used here to describe how the dependent variable changes with
changing conditions. Predictive regression Analysis was carried out for Leadership quality,
Resource availability and utilization, effective and timely communication, Organizational
Structure, and Organizational Culture and strategy implementation.

44
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Table 4.17. Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the Estimate

Square
1 .864a .746 .738 6.940
a. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Culture (OC), Communication (Comm), Resource Utilization (Res),
Organizational Structure (OS), Leadership quality (Le)
b. Dependent Variable: Strategy Implementation (SI)

The model summary (table 4.17) indicates that there was a very strong positive relationship
(R=0.864) between the dependent and independent variables. The value of R-square 0.746
indicates that 74.6% of the variation in strategy implementation is explained by the independent
variables of the study (Leadership quality, Resource availability and Utilization, effective and
timely Communication, Organizational Structure, and Organizational Culture). The remaining
25.4% of strategy implementation is determined by other factors not considered under this study.
This is quite high so predictions from the regression equationare fairly reliable and the goodness
of fit test is fulfilled.

Table 4. 18. Statistical significance (ANOVAa)

Model Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
Regression 22609.266 5 4521.853 93.895 .000b

1 Residual 7705.342 160 48.158

Total 30314.608 165

a. Dependent Variable: Strategy Implementation (SI)
b. Predictors: (Constant), Organizational Culture (OC), Communication (Comm), Resource
Utilization (Res), Organizational Structure (OS), Leadership quality (Le)

The F-ratio in the ANOVA table (4.18)tests whether the overall regression model is a good fit
for the data. The table shows that the independent variables statistically significantly predict the
dependent variable, F (5, 160) = 93.895, p< .0005the regression model is a good fit of the data).

45
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Table 4.19. Estimated model coefficients

Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig. 95.0% Confidence Collinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
B Std. Beta Lower Upper Tolerance VIF
Error Bound Bound

(Constant) 17.877 1.666 10.728 .000 14.586 21.168

Leadership quality (Le) 6.057 1.011 .382 5.990 .000 4.060 8.054 .390 2.565
Resource Utilization (Res) 1.875 .769 .126 2.438 .016 .356 3.394 .596 1.677
Communication (Comm) 2.390 .773 .153 3.090 .002 .863 3.917 .646 1.547
Organizational Structure (OS) 4.665 1.023 .278 4.558 .000 2.643 6.686 .428 2.336
Organizational Culture (OC) 1.966 .881 .109 2.230 .027 .225 3.706 .662 1.510
a. Dependent Variable: Strategy Implementation (SI)

The generated model is given by:

Strategy Implementation (SI) = 17.877 + 6.057*Leadership quality (Le) + 1.875*Resource

Utilization (Res) + 2.390*Communication (Comm) + 4.665*Organizational Structure (OS)
+ 1.966*Organizational Culture (OC).

The estimated model coefficient (Table 4.19) shows that the all independent variables of the
study are significant at 5% level of significance and 95% level of confidence. The
Unstandardized coefficients indicate how much the dependent variable varies with an
independent variable when all other independent variables are held constant. Thus, it infers the
leadership quality and organization structure contributes the most to the effective strategy
implementation in the MOUDC, followed by effective and timely communication, organization
culture, and resource availability and utilization.

Other researcher findings also show the same result Rajasekar (2014) show that leadership is by
far the most important factor influencing successful implementation strategy in the service
sector. Lorange (1998) argued that effective leadership outweighs any other factor. Beer and
Eisenstat (2000) suggested that in the absence of effective leadership poor coordination across
functions and inadequate down-the-line leadership skills and development as killers of strategy
implementation. Cater and Pucko (2010) shows that poor leadership is one of the main obstacles
in successful strategy implementation. According to Koske (2003) leadership is considered to be

46
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

one of the most important elements affecting organizational performance. However, a lack of
leadership, and specifically strategic leadership by the top management of the organization, has
been identified as one of the major barriers to effective strategy implementation. Strategic
leadership is defined as “the leader‟s ability to anticipate, envision, and maintain flexibility and
to empower others to create strategic change as necessary” (Wachera, Jane, and Benard,2017).
Noble (1999) describes the abilities needed by managers as a combination of technical skills,
interpersonal skills and sensitivity to the needs of other functions. This relates with my research
leadership qualities that is skills (technical, human relation & conceptual) are important for case
analysis, decision making, and problem solving that helps for successful strategy
implementation.As much aspossible, the leadership of the organization should fill relevant
positions with qualified people committed to the change efforts (Bryson, 2012).

John (2017) shows that organizational structures that are inorganic and less versatile tend to
cause miscommunication in the overall strategy of the organization while open, fluid
organizational structures have exemplary performance measurements.This research relates with
my finding that the ministry organizational structure are lacks flexibility, not align with strategy,
and heavy hierarchical structure highly affects strategy implementation of the ministry. Further,
Root (2017) highlights that the structure of an organization sets the hierarchy for responsibility
and creates the various levels of communication within an organization. Mbaka and Mugambi
(2014) recommends that aligning of organization structure with the new strategy, and proper
structure are crucial for successfully strategy implementation.

47
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The general objective of the research wasto identify factors that affect strategy implementation in
the public sector case in ministry of Urban Development and Construction and to recommend
possible solution. To this effect both primary and secondary data sources were accessed and
relevant facts were gathered. The collected facts were presented, analyzed and discussed under
different headings. The analysis and discussion results from these relevant data presented and
interpreted can be concluded in the following section. In addition, based on the conclusions
drawn, a researcher has made some recommendations for organizations and future researchers.

5.1.Summary of Findings

 The effect of leadership qualities on strategy implementation

Accordingly the majority of respondents (93.4%) confirmed that leadership capabilities had an
effect on ministry strategy implementation.The majority of respondents agreed that the leaders in
the ministry had insufficient competence (45% agree, 7.23% strongly agree); poor managerial
skill (46% agree, 20% strongly agree); lacks commitment (54% agree,21% strongly agree);
provide inadequate leadership and instruction (53% agreed, 19% strongly agreed); and lacks
problem solving and decision making skills (58% agree,17% strongly agree). Interview and
document anlaysis also indicates the same result leadership incapability contribute highly for
unsuccessful implementation of ministry strategy. This infers the poor level of leadership quality
in the MOUDC.

 The effect of resource availability and utilization on strategy implementation

Resource allocation is a central management activity that allows for strategy execution. Majority
of respondents (91%) stated that resource availability and utilization had an effecton ministry
strategy implementation.The finding of the study also shown that in the ministry has no a clear
resource planning allocation and utilization system (37.3% agree, and 17.2% strongly agree. The
respondent pointed out that the ministry had shortage of competent human capital (41% agree,
48
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

7.23% strongly agree) and tools and technological resource (44.6% agree,10.2% strongly agree),
whereas it is good in financial resource allocation. Interview and document analysis also show
that eventhough the ministry follow program budget allocation system lacks clearity, under
utilization of budget ,Shortage of trained and certified manpower in the sector, limitation of cost
effective construction technology are affects strategy implementation of the ministry.

 The effect of effective and timely communication on strategy implementation

It is widely recognized that communication is one of the most important vehicles for successful
implementation. The majority of respondents stated that the internal communication way of the
ministry is inadequate (58.4% agree, 12% strongly agree), one-way which don‟t allow a room
for participation of staffs (51.81% agreed,21.08% strongly agreed)and untimely (55.4% agree
and 9.6% strongly agree). Besides, the respondents also pointed out that the external
communication of the ministry on the common and supportive strategies was found to be poor
(59% agree and 10.24% strongly agreed). The interview analysis also infers that the ministry
does not have well organized communication strategy to fosters strategy implementation. Poor
communication of internal and external stakeholders.

 The effect of organization structure on strategy implementation

The organizational structure provides a visual explanation of two main things: the decision-
making process and resource allocation. Majority of respondents stated that the current
organizational structure of the ministry doesn‟t aligned with the strategies (59% agree, and
10.8% strongly agree) and also lacks flexibility adjusted to strategic plan (68% agree and 9.6%
strongly agree). They also argued that the structure has got too much hierarchy which can delays
decision making (65% agree, and 10.24% strongly agree). Interview and document anlaysis also
indicates that heavy hierarchical structure,overlapping of some duties and also lack of align with
regions and city administration bureaus that works to achieve collaborate national plan affecting
strategy implementation of the ministry.

 The effect of organization culture on strategy implementation

Corporate culture refers to the set of common values and belief that members of a company share
in common (Pearce & Robinson, 2014). Most respondents agreed the ministry had a supportive

49
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

organizational culture that promote the staffs commitment and good culture of tolerating risks
and on contrary the ministry had less culture of tolerating new ideas.

 The ministry strategy implementation

The finding shows that the developed strategies of the ministry main pillars were not
implemented successfully. The respondents indicated that, Job creation and urban food security
(64% poor), Housing development and Administration (72% poor), Construction industry
capacity building and regulator (52.4% poor), and Integrated infrastructure and solid waste
management (61% poor), the strategic implementation of the main pillars are poor except Urban
plan preparation & implementation (39% poor, 34% satisfactory) which indicates a relatively
satisfactory implementation. Document review also indicates the same results.

Furthermore, the research established regression model for strategy implementation with five
independent variables of study (leadership quality, resource availability and utilization, effective
and timely communication, organization structure, and organization culture). The result of the
regression analysis indicated a significant relationship between the dependent and independent
variables; and the leadership quality and organization structure contributes the most to the
effective strategy implementation in the MOUDC.

5.2.Conclusion

A number of factors can potentially affect the process by which strategic plans are turned into
strategy implementation. The study considered five variables that influence the strategy
implementation of MOUDC: leadership quality, resource availability and utilization, effective
and timely communication, organization structure and organization culture.

Leadership is considered to be one of the most important elements affecting organizational

performance.The effective strategy implementation is largely influenced by the leadership
qualities of the leaders in the ministry. The study revealed that the leadership qualities of the
ministry leaders is poor which was manifested by insufficient competence, poor managerial skill,
lacks commitment to perform their tasks, provide inadequate leadership and instruction, and
lacks problem solving and decision making skills.Thus, the failure in strategy implementation is

50
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

directly related with the poor leadership qualities of the leaders in the ministry.Therefore the
ministry should enhance leadership qualities so as to improve its strategy implementation.

Resource allocation is a central management activity that allows for strategy execution. The
effective strategy implementation requires a continuous flow resources (the required quantity at
the right time) and efficient utilization of the available resource. Based on the findings it is
concluded that the resource availability and utilization had an effect on strategy implementation
specifically due to shortage of competent human capital and technology. Thus, the ministry
should give much emphasis to hire qualified human resource to the required quantity and avail
the required tools and technology which can facilitate the implementation of its strategy.

Communication is one of the most important vehicles for successful implementation. The finding
indicates that in the ministry inadequate internal communication, untimely communication and
one-way communication from top to down which didn‟t allow participation of staffs in
questioning, criticizing and giving feedback on the ministry strategy implementation Besides, the
external communication on the common and supportive strategies was found to be poor. This
leads to poor and inefficient communication among ministry offices and staffs which in turns
responsible to poor strategy implementation in the ministry. Thus, the ministry should develop
effective and timely communication system to communicate the strategy adequately and two way
communication along stakeholders and staffs.

The study also concludes that the current organization structure had a great influence on the
strategy implementation in the ministry.The current organizational structure of the ministry
didn‟t adequately support or aligned with the strategy and also lacks flexibility to adjust
according to strategic plan. The ministry has got too much hierarchy which delays decision
making. This indicates that the organizational structure of the ministry may become
ineffective.The structural design of a company helpspeople pull together in their activities that
promote effective strategy implementation.

The study further concludes that the organization culture had an influence on the effective
strategy implementation in the ministry.The ministry had a supportive culture that promote the
staffs‟ commitment and culture of tolerating risks. On contrary the ministry had less culture of
tolerating new ideas, a new ways of doing undertaking and innovativeness is not encouraged

51
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

which is a hindrance to strategy implementation. Thus, the ministry should encourage innovation
which can facilitate the implementation of strategy in a better way.

Moreover, based on the findings the study concludes that the main pillar strategies of the
ministry were not implemented successfully. The regression model indicates that 74.6%
variation in strategy implementation is expressed by the independent variables of the study
(leadership quality, resource availability and utilization, effective and timely communication,
organizational structure,and organizational culture). From the detail analysis on the pillars, the
study also concludes that the implementation of main pillar of the ministry is poor except urban
plan preparation & implementation which indicates a relatively satisfactory implementation.

5.3.Recommendation

Based on the findingsof the study and conclusions drawn, the following recommendations are
forwarded:-

 Leadership qualities that are education background, leadership skills (conceptual,

technical and human skill), Leadership experience, attitudes, and other characteristics of
people required by a specific position are great impact on the implementation ofstrategy.
Therefore, it is recommended that the ministry leaders should be equipped with both
professional and leadership competencies. Leader‟s professional competency rests on a
particular expertise of certain professional area that helps decision making, case analysis,
problem solving and Innovation skills. Leadership competency, which refers to how the
leader understands different levels of leadership responsibility and kinds of leadership
approach applied appropriately to the right level.
 The human resources and technologies are critical to achieve the strategies objectives of
the ministry. The study recommends that the ministry should be better to launch
continuous professional development and short term training programsto upgrade the
competencies of employees tosolve shortage of trained and certified manpower in the
sector,and also implementing of advance technology like cost effective construction
technology, City net etc.
 Communicationis one of the most important vehicles for successful implementation.
Therefore, it is recommended that the MOUDC should adapt an effective and timely

52
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

communication system. Two way communication systems should be used across the
offices and departments which allow participation of staffs in questioning, criticizing and
giving feedback on the ministry strategy implementation.This is helpful to create a team-
spirit and shared accountability as well as enhance participation of stakeholders.
 Regarding with the organizational structure it is recommended that the top management
and concerned bodies should take initiations to amend the current organizational structure
of the ministry to make in line with and flexibly adjusted to the strategy, andnot too
hierarchical which will foster the decision making process.
 Itis further recommended that the ministry shall better to introduce a culture of
innovativeness or newway of doing things that helps to foster strategy implementation.
5.4.Future Research Direction

The following recommendations are forward for further research:

 This study encompassed only five independent factors, considering additional

factors like Strategy formulation, leadership style, control and feed back. that
can potentially affect strategy implementation can results in improved
conclusion.

 It is well recognized that every public service organizations have certain unique
futures; therefore it is recommended to conduct a study on strategy
implementation for other public service organizations, also better to extend to
government enterprises and private companies.

53
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

REFERENCES:

 Ahmadi, A., Ali, S., Salamzadeh, Y., Daraei, M., &Akbari, J. (2012). Relationship between
organizational culture and strategy implementation: Typologies and dimensions. Global
Business & Management Research, 4.

 Ahmed, M., & Shafiq, S. (2014). The impact of organizational culture on organizational
performance: A case study on telecom sector. Global journal of management and business
research.

 Alharthy, A. H., Rashid, H., Pagliari, R., & Khan, F. (2017). Identification of strategy
implementation influencing factors and their effects on the performance.

 Alpander, G. G., & Lee, C. R. (1995). Culture, strategy and teamwork. Journal of
Management Development.

 Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Strategy implementation and
public service performance. Administration & Society, 43(6), 643-671.

 Aosa, E. (1992). An empirical investigation of aspects of strategy formulation and

implementation within large, private manufacturing companies in Kenya.

 Aosa, E. (2012). An Empirical Investigation of Aspects of Strategy Implementation within

Large, Private Manufacturing Companies in Kenya. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.

 Asfaw, T. (1992). An Overview of Ethiopia's Planning Experience. The Ethiopian

Economy: Structure, Problems and Policy Issues.

 Ashkenas, R. N., & Francis, S. C. (2000). Integration managers: Special leaders for special
times. Harvard Business Review, 78(6), 108-116.

 Beach, L. R. (2014). Decision making in the workplace: A unified perspective. Psychology

Press.
 Beaumaster, S. (2009). Information Technology Implementation Issues: An Analysis.
Virginia: .)
 Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (2000). The silent killers of strategy implementation and
learning. Sloan Management Review, 29-40

 Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change Boston. Mass.: Harvard
Business School.

54
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

 Bell, P., Dean, G., & Gottschalk, P. (2010). Information management in law enforcement:
The case of police intelligence strategy implementation. International Journal of
Information Management, 30(4), 343-349.

 Borland Jr, K. W. (2001). Qualitative and quantitative research: A complementary

balance. New directions for institutional research, 2001(112), 5-13.

 Brenes, E. R., Mena, M., & Molina, G. E. (2008). Key success factors for strategy
implementation in Latin America. Journal of business research, 61(6), 590-598.

 Bryson, J. M. (1988). A strategic planning process for public and non-profit

organizations. Long range planning, 21(1), 73-81.

 Bryson, T. (2011). Project team and project manager. European journal of information
systems, 4, 86-97.

 Bryson, J (2012). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organization, San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass
 Bushardt, S. C., Glascoff, D. W. and Doty, D. H. (2011), Organizational culture, formal
reward structure, and effective strategy implementation: A conceptual model, Journal of
Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 57.

 Čater, T., &Pučko, D. (2010). Factors of effective strategy implementation: Empirical

evidence from Slovenian business practice. Journal for east European Management
Studies, 207-236.

 Cole, G.A. (2006). Management Theory and Practice, 6th Edition, London: T. J.
International.

 David, F.R. (2003). Strategic Management Concepts. 9th Edition, London: PrenticeHall.

 Dessler, Gary. (2008). Human Resource Management. 12th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc.

 Dvir, Dov. (2010). An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and
project success. International journal of project management, 89-95.

 Ethiopia plan commission second Growth and Transformation Plan 2015/16–2019/20.

 Feurer, R., Chaharbaghi, K., &Wargin, J. (1995). Analysis of strategy formulation and
implementation at Hewlett‐Packard. Management Decision.

 Getz, G., & Lee, J. (2011). Why your strategy isn't working. Business Strategy Series.

55
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

 Hambrick, D. C., &CannellaJr, A. A. (1989). Strategy implementation as substance and

selling. Academy of Management Perspectives, 3(4), 278-285.

 Hassan, M., Anwar, M. A., Rafique, Z., &Saeed, A. (2014). The Impact of Organizational
Structure on Employees‟ Creativity: A Sector Based Study. Iiste Journal, 4(8).

 Henri, J. (2003). Performance Measurement and Organizational Effectiveness: Bridging the

Gap. www.fsa.ulaval.ca.

 Henri, J. F. (2004). Performance measurement and organizational effectiveness: Bridging

the gap.

 Hill, C. & Jones, G. R. (2008). Essentials of Strategic Management. New York, NY:
Cengage Learning Ige,Adeyeye&Aina, 2011).

 Hrebiniak, L. (2006). Implanting Strategic Management, Prentice Hall. 2nd Edition.

 Hrebiniak, L. G. (2006). Obstacles to effective strategy implementation. Organizational

dynamics.

 Ismail, A. I., Rose, R. C., Uli, J., & Abdullah, H. (2012). The relationship between
organisational resources, capabilities, systems and competitive advantage. Asian academy
of management Journal, 17(1).

 John, S. (2017). How does organizational Structure Affect Performance Measurement.

 Jooste, C., & Fourie, B. (2009). The role of strategic leadership in effective strategy
implementation: Perceptions of South African strategic leaders. Southern African Business
Review, 13(3).

 Joppe, G. (2000). Testing reliability and validity of research instruments. Journal of

American Academy of Business Cambridge, 4(1/2), 49-54.

 Joyce, P. (2004). Public sector strategic management: the changes required. Strategic
Change, 13(3), 107.

 Kamaamia, A. (2017). The Effect of Organization Culture on Organizational Performance:

A Case of Kenya School of Monetary Studies (KSMS). Unpublished MBA Project,
Nairobi: United States International University-Africa.

 Koske, F. K. (2003). Strategy implementation and its challenges in public corporations:

The case of Telkom Kenya Ltd. Unpublished MBA Project, University of Nairobi.

56
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

 Kothari C.R, (2004). Research Methodology: Methods & Techniques. New Age
International (P) limited Publishers, New Delhi.

 Kothari, H. (2013). A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage

 Lambru, M. (2007). Administraţie publică [Public Administration]. In C. Zamfir & S.

Stănescu (Eds.) Enciclopedia dezvoltării sociale [Encyclopedia of Social Development] (pp.
27-31) Iaşi: Polirom.

 Lohr, S. (2010). Sampling: Design and Analysis. Boston: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.

 Lorange, P. (1998). Strategy implementation: the new realities. Long range

planning, 31(1), 18-29.

 Maxwell Philip OmondiKephaOmbui Joseph Mungatu (2015).Factors affecting effective

strategy implementation for attainment of Millennium Development Goal 5 by
international reproductive health non-governmental organizations in Kenya. The TQM
Journal Vol. 25 No. 5, 2013, 507-519.

 Mbaka, R. M., &Mugambi, F. (2014). Factors affecting successful strategy implementation

in the Water Sector in Kenya. Journal of Business and Management, 16(7), 61-68.

 Messah, and Mucai (2015). Factors Affecting the Implementation of Strategic Plans in
Government Tertiary Institutions: A Survey of Selected Technical Training Institutes.
European Journal of Business and Management ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839
(Online)Vol 3, No.3.

 Miller, S. (1997). Implementing strategic decisions: Four key success factors. Organization
studies, 18(4), 577-602.

 Ministry of Urban development and Construction second Gross and Tranformation plan
(2015/16-2019/20).

 Ministry of Urban development and Construction second Gross and Transformation plan
med term report (2011).

 Ministry of Urban development and Construction second Gross and Transformation plan
2012 plan.

 Ministry of Urban development and Construction 2011 plan and performance report.

 Ministry of Urban development and construction Human resource development and

management Directorate (2019).

57
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

 Ministry of Urban development and Construction public relation and communication

directorate (2020).

 Mintzberg, H. (1991). Five Ps for strategy. MINTZBERG, H., QUINN, JB The strategy
process: concepts, contexts, cases, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (NJ, USA), 12-19.

 Mintzberg, H. (2014). The fall and rise of Strategic Planning, Harvard Business Review,
2(1) 376-389

 Muganda, N. (2010). Applied Business and Management Research: Exploring the

principles of research within the context of Africa. Nicorp Africa, Nairobi.

 Mugenda, A. & Mugenda, O. (2010). Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. (3rd Ed.). Nairobi: ACTS.

 Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research methods: Quantitative and

qualitative approaches. Acts press.

 Nabwire, M. (2014). Factors Affecting Implementation of Strategy A Case of Barclays

Bank of Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University-Africa).

 Ndegwah, D. M. (2014). Factors affecting the implementation of strategic plans in public

secondary schools in Nyeri County, Kenya. International Review of Management and
Business Research, 3(2), 993.

 Neilson, G. L., Martin, K. L., & Powers, E. (2008). The secrets to successful strategy
execution. Harvard business review, 86(6).

 Ngairah, L. M. (2018). Factors Affecting Implementation of Strategic Plans in the Public

Sector: A Case Study of the Ministry Of Lands and Physical Planning In Kenya (Doctoral
dissertation, United States International University-Africa).

 Ngechu, M. (2004). Corporate social responsibility as a factor in strategy development and

implementation at East African Breweries Limited.

 Nguyen (2016). Factors Affecting Business Strategy Implementation of Vietnam Garment

Companies. Vietnam.International Journal of Business and Management; Vol. 12, No. 1;
2017.

 Nkosi, S. M. (2015). Factors affecting strategy implementation: A case study of a local

municipality in Mpumalanga province, South Africa. European Journal of Business and
Management, 7(36), 29-35.

58
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

 Noble, C. H. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. Journal of

business research, 45(2), 119-134.

 Nyakeriga, C. K. (2015). Factors influencing strategic plan implementation in the newly

established public universities in Kenya (Doctoral dissertation).

 Obeidat, B. Y., Al-Hadidi, A., &Tarhini, A. (2017). Factors affecting strategy

implementation. Review of International Business and Strategy.

 Oduol, S. M. (2015). Effects of organizational culture on performance of subsidiaries of

selected regional commercial banks headquartered in Kenya. University of Nairobi
Repository.

 Otieno& Wallace (2016).Strategic Factors Influencing Successful Implementation of

Strategic Plans: A case of Non-Governmental Organization in Migori County, Kenya.
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Vol-2.

 Pearce, J. A., & Robinson, R. B. (1988). Strategic management: Strategy formulation and
implementation (Vol. 1). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

 Pearce, J.A. & Robinson, R.B. (2014). Strategic Management: Strategy Formulation and
Implementation. Third Edition, Richard D. Irwin Inc

 Peng, W. and Litteljohn, D. (2001), “Organisational communication and strategy

implementation a primary inquiry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality, Vol.
13 No. 7, pp. 360-363.

 Pride, WM and Ferrell, OC (2003), Marketing Concepts and Strategies, Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston

 Rajasekar, J. (2014). Factors affecting effective strategy implementation in a service

industry: A study of electricity distribution companies in the Sultanate of
Oman. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(9).

 Reid, M. F., Brown, L., Mc Nerney, D., & Perri, D. J. (2014). Time to raise the bar on
nonprofit strategic planning and implementation. Strategy & Leadership.

 Robins, K &Coulter, G.A. (2012), Implementing the balanced scorecard approach to

managing hotel operations, Cornell HRA Quarterly, 2(1), 47-107

 Root, G. N. (2017). The Impact of Organization Structure on Productivity. www.impact-

organization-structure-productivity-21902.html

59
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

 Schaap, J.I. (2006). ―Toward Strategy Implementation Success: An Empirical Study of the
Role of Senior-Level Leaders in the Nevada Gaming Industry‖. UNLV Gaming Research &
Review ournal, 10, 13-37.

 Schermerhorn, R, Davidson, P & Woods, P. (2004) Performance Management (5 th Edition)

John Wiley &Sons publishing company. Australia: Milton Old Publishers

 Shah, A. M. (2005). The Foundations of Successful Strategy Implementation: Overcoming

the Obstacles, Global Business Review, 6 (2), 293-302.

 Shibru, S., Bibiso, M., & Ousman, K. (2017). Assessment of Factor Affecting Institutional
Performance: The Case of Wolaita Sodo University. Journal of Education and
Practice, 8(7), 60-66.

 Sial, A., Usman, M. K., Zufiqar, S., Satti, A. M., & Khursheed, I. (2013). Why do public
sector organizations fail in implementation of strategic plan in Pakistan. Public Policy and
Administration Journal, 3(1), 33-41.

 Singah, Y. K. 2006. fundamental of research methodology and statistics, New Delhi, New
Age International (P) Ltd.

 Thomson, A. A. & Strickland, AJ (Ill) (1989). Strategy Formulation and Implementation:

Tasks of the General Manager.

 Wachera, K. V., Jane, M. U. N. G. A., &Benard, B. A. I. M. W. E. R. A. (2017).

Challenges facing implementation of strategic plans in the public sector: A survey of
ministry of land, housing and urban development. International Journal of Business
Management and Finance, 1(1).

 Weber, Max (1946). Bureaucracy. Oxford Press.

 Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management

journal, 5(2), 171-180.

 World Bank (2015) Ethiopia urbanization review: Urban Institutions for a middle income
Ethiopia (Addis Ababa).

 Yabs, J. (2007). International Business Operations in Kenya: A Strategic Management

Apporach.

 Zaribaf, M., &Bayrami, H. (2010). An effective factors pattern affecting implementation of

strategic plans. Academic and Business Research Institute, 9, 508-517.

 Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach‟s α, Revelle‟s β, and
McDonald‟s ω H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of
reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123-133.

60
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Appendices 1. (Questionaire & interview)

Questionnaire form

Dear respondents;

My name is Gizaw kifle Alemu. I am a graduate student in the Department of Management:

MSC in management program at Addis Ababa University. Now I am conducting a research in
the area of “Factors affecting strategy implementation in the public sector: A case study on
Ministry of urban development and construction” for the purpose of partial fulfillment of
Master of Science in Management. Your response for the following questions is highly important
for the successful of this research. The response you give us used only for this research purpose
and will be kept highly confidential. I would request you to kindly spare some time to fill up this
questionnaire.

Instructions:-

 You don‟t need to write your name.

 Please Put in Side the Box “√ or ×” mark for choice questions
 For questions that demands your opinion, please try to honestly describe as per the
questions on the space provided
I thank you very much for your cooperation in advance!!

Part one: Background Information

1. Sex: Female Male

2. Educational status: A). Certificate B) Diploma C). First Degree
D).Master‟s Degree E). PHD
3. For how long have you served in the ministry?
A). less than 1 year B). 1-5 year C).5-10 year D).above 10 years

61
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

4. In what position are you currently working? A). Expert B).Senior expert C). Lower
Manager D). Middle manager E).top manager
5. Have you ever participated in the implementation of strategy in the past five years? Yes
No

Part Two: - Effect of Leadership to strategy implementation.

6. In your opinion do you think leadership capabilities affects strategy implementation in the
ministry? Yes No
7. If your answer for question No.6 is yes, to what extent does the level of leadership affect
implementation of strategy in the ministry?
A).Low extent B).Moderate C).Great extent D).Very great extent
8. Please rate you level of agreement to the following statements:

Statements Strongly Agree Neutral Disagre Strongly

agree e disagree
The leaders in the ministry don‟t have sufficient education
background, and work experience.
The ministry leaders don‟t equipped with a good conceptual,
technical and human skill.
Lack of manager‟s commitment to perform their roles leads to the
lower ranks of employees missing support and guidance.
The leadership, direction and instructions provided by the
ministry‟s managers were inadequate.
The ministry leaders‟ lacks decision making, case analysis,
problem solving and Innovation skills.

Part Three: - Effect of Resource on strategy implementation.

9. In your opinion do you think resource allocation and management affects strategy
implementation within the ministry? Yes No
10. If your answer for Question No. 8 is yes, to what extent does the level of resource affect
implementation of strategy in the ministry?
A).Low extent B).Moderate C).Great extent D).Very great extent

62
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

11. Please rate you level of agreement to the following statements:

Statements Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

agree disagree
The ministry has no a clear resource planning, allocation and
utilization system.
The ministry had often a shortage of competent human
capital (employee) during strategic implementation.
The ministry often faced shortage of financial resources to
execute the planned strategies.
The ministry had often a shortage of tools and technology
required for strategy implementation.

Part Four: - Effect of Communication on strategy implementation.

12. Do you think effective Communication influence strategic implementation in the ministry?

Yes No
13. If your answer for Question No.10 is yes, to what extent does the level of communication
affect implementation of strategy in the ministry?
A). Low extent B). Moderate C). Great extent D).Very great extent

14. Please rate you level of agreement to the following statements:

Statements Strongly Agree Neutral disagree Strongly

agree disagree
There is inadequate internal communication of strategy among
different offices and staffs.
There is no a frequent and timely communication among the
ministry offices and staffs.
Information systems used to monitor strategy implementation is
not adequate in the ministry.
One-way communication, only from top to down, is practiced in
the ministry which didn‟t allow participation of staffs in
questioning, criticizing and giving feedback on the ministry
strategy implementation.
There is a poor horizontal communication among the offices and
staffs in the ministry.
The ministry has a poor external communication with external
organizations on the common and supportive strategy
implementation.

63
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Part Five: - Effect of Organizational Structure on strategy implementation.

15. Do you think organizational Structure influence strategy implementation in the ministry?
Yes No
16. If your answer for question No.14 is yes, to what extent does the level of organizational
structure affect implementation of strategy in the ministry?
A). Low extent B). Moderate C). Great extent D).Very great extent

17. Please rate you level of agreement to the following statements:

Statements Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

agree disagree
The current Organizational structure of the ministry was not
aligned with the strategy
The Organizational structure of the ministry isn‟t flexibly adjusted
according to strategic plan.
The organizational structure of the ministry didn‟t allow
horizontal communication, and team working.
The organizational structure of the ministry is highly formalized,
rigid and centralized.
The ministry has highly hierarchy structure that delays decision
making.

Part Six: - Effect of Organizational Culture on strategy implementation.

18. Do you think Organizational culture influence strategic plan implementation in the ministry?
Yes No

19. If your answer for question No.17 is yes, to what extent does the level of organizational
culture affect implementation of strategy in the ministry?
A). Low extent B).Moderate C). Great extent D).Very great extent

20. Please rate you level of agreement to the following statements:

Statements Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

agree disagree
The ministry has totally unsupportive organization culture, doesn‟t
promote staff‟s consensus and commitments.
The ministryhas less culture of tolerating risks.
The ministryhas a poor culture to tolerate new ideas.
The ministry less believes in loyalty and mutual trust, teamwork,
consensus, and participation.

64
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Part Seven: Strategic Implementation of the Ministry’s office

21. To what extent did the ministryproperly implemented its overall strategic plan?

A). Low extent B).Moderate extent C). Great extent D).Very great extent

22. Please rate you level of agreement to the following statements:

Statements Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

agree disagree
The ministry hasn‟t yearly plans to implement strategies
The ministry hasn‟t precise procedures followed for achieving
strategy implementation.
When implementing strategies the ministry doesn‟t regularly review
progress against targets.
During the implementation process, the ministry doesn‟t amend their
strategies if necessary.
The ministry lacks allocating strictresponsibilityforstrategy
implementation
The developed strategies of the ministry main pillar wasn‟t
implemented successfully

23. Please rate the extent of strategy implementation of five main pillars of the ministry.

Main Strategic pillars of the ministry implementation rate Poor satisfactory good Very Extremely
good good
1. Job creation and urban food security

2. Housing development and Administration

3. Urban plan preparation & implementation

4. Construction industry capacity building and regulator

5. Integrated infrastructure and solid waste management

24. Please rate, from 1= Poor to 4= Very good ranges, the independent variables in the ministry.

Independent Variables: poor satisfactory good Very good

Leadership quality (Le)
Resource availability and utilization (Res)
Effective and timely Communication (Comm)
Organizational Structure (OS)
Organizational Culture (OC)

65
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

25. Please rate the overall Strategy Implementation of the ministry out of 100%?

26. What suggestion(s) would you give that will help the ministry to avoid or minimize strategy
implementation challenges? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Please give any other comment you may have regarding the subject of this research. ----------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------Thanks for your contribution---------------------The end--------------------

66
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Interview questions

1. Do you think leadership qualities affect the ministry strategy implementation if yes to what
extent?
2. Does the ministry follow determined procedures for resources allocation and management?
If yes,explain the system they will follow? To what extent resource availability and
utilization affect ministry strategy implementation?
3. What influence does effective and timely communication have on strategy implementation in
the ministry?
4. What influence does Organizational Structure have on strategy implementation in the
ministry?
5. Do you think the ministry organizational culture is foster strategy implementation? If not
what is the reason?
6. Doyou think the main pillars of the ministry strategy implemented successfully? If not what
is the reason fail to execute at high level? What can be done to improve the ministry
effectiveness of turning strategy into action?

67
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Appendices 2. (Testing result)

Figure A. Scatter plot for linearity check

68
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Figure B. Normal P-P plot of residual.

69
 Factors Affecting Strategy implementation in the Public Sector: A case study on MOUDC

Figure C. Scatter plot for Homoscedasticity

Table A. Estimated model coefficients (Multicollinearity)

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Collinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
B Std. Beta Lower Upper Tolerance VIF
Error Bound Bound

(Constant) 17.877 1.666 10.728 .000 14.586 21.168

Leadership quality (Le) 6.057 1.011 .382 5.990 .000 4.060 8.054 .390 2.565
Resource Utilization (Res) 1.875 .769 .126 2.438 .016 .356 3.394 .596 1.677
Communication (Comm) 2.390 .773 .153 3.090 .002 .863 3.917 .646 1.547
Organizational Structure (OS) 4.665 1.023 .278 4.558 .000 2.643 6.686 .428 2.336
Organizational Culture (OC) 1.966 .881 .109 2.230 .027 .225 3.706 .662 1.510
a. Dependent Variable: Strategy Implementation (SI)

70