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

Introduction

In this paper we explore how strategy materializes in organizations operating in volatile environments and specifically address the question: what are some of the antecedents that help materialize strategy? Strategy materializes at the point of implementation (Raes et al., 2011) and is the outcome of ‘all kind of stuff’ (Whittington, 2007) that strategy making involves. This means that to understand how strategy materializes we need to examine how it is developed, i.e. both the deliberate and emergent processes (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985), and how it is implemented. To develop our argument and investigate how strategy materializes, we draw not only on the strategy formation literature but also on the strategy as practice (SAP) perspective, for which strategy is what people do. Taking these perspectives means that we consider the materialization of strategy as being both planned and emergent and as a social accomplishment. This implies that managerial perceptions of the environmental and organizational context and the interactions between organizational members are critical to understand how strategy is materialized, i.e. how it actually happens. Understanding strategy formation is a key SAP concern (Sminia and de Rond, 2012); however, there is a lack of understanding of the micro aspects of strategy emergence (Vaara and Whittington, 2012). There is also a lack of studies on implementation despite the fact many organizations fail for implementation reasons rather than formulation reasons (Hickson, Miller and Wilson, 2003; Raes et al., 2011). For this reason it is critical to understand the aspects of strategy formation which influence implementation performance, i.e. the quality of the materialized strategy.

To address our research question and capture both deliberate and emergent strategy processes we examine two aspects of strategy formation, comprehensiveness and management controls (MCs), and hypothesize that they may aid or hinder how strategy materializes. We suggest that both MCs and comprehensiveness need to be examined because, as we will explain, they illuminate strategy formation from a deliberate and emergent perspective, are information-based processes and involve top and middle management interactions. They form the context in which managers operate and thus guide managerial agency, influencing behaviour and impacting on whether strategy is successfully materialized. Moreover, these variables allow us to focus on the ‘micro’, i.e. what people do, and relate to strategy outcomes (Johnson, Melin and Whittington, 2003).

Comprehensiveness is defined as ‘the extent to which an organization attempts to be exhaustive or conclusive in making and integrating strategic decisions’ (Fredrickson, 1986, p. 474). In other words it reflects the extensiveness of strategy planning activities (Boulton et al., 1982; Lindsay and Rue, 1980). We use comprehensiveness to assess actual planning practice because it is a well-acknowledged measure of rational strategic planning (Atuahene-Gima and Li, 2004; Forbes, 2007; Fredrickson, 1986) and includes not only formally planned and but also emergent factors. It is important to study the actual activities undertaken to establish comprehensiveness since previous studies are inconclusive about whether comprehensiveness produces improved performance in volatile environments (Andersen, 2004; Bourgeois and Eisenhardt, 1988; Forbes, 2007; Meissner and Wulf, 2014) and because planning is one of the most used strategy tools (Spee and Jarzabkowski, 2009). However, studies highlight that in volatile environments organizations face complex information processing requirements necessitating organizational designs to incorporate strategic processes, control systems or communication patterns which allow for real-time information collection and interpretation (Atuahene-Gima and Li, 2004). We focus on MMs' perceptions of top management championing and information availability as sources of comprehensiveness because, by stimulating exchanges between top managers (TMs) and MMs, they form the cognitive context in which strategic issues are perceived and diagnosed (Daft and Weick, 1984; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006). We do so as, by virtue of their role, MMs underpin this process and viewing strategy as socially accomplished requires studies of managerial perceptions (Kaplan, 2011). In short, by impacting MMs' strategic understanding of the environment, perceptions help or hinder coordination and integration of strategy activity (Vilà and Canales, 2008).

To develop more insights into how strategy materializes we explore another aspect of strategy formation: management controls (MCs). MCs are central to strategy formation as they shape the emergence of strategy and help support the implementation of deliberate strategies (Gond et al., 2012; Marginson, 2002). While formal controls aid the achievement of deliberate strategies, informal controls provide input into the emergence of strategy (Gond et al., 2012). However, MCs may also be detrimental to strategy materialization. MCs that allow too much undirected autonomy face the risk of employees engaging in undesirable activity where interdependent activities become uncoordinated and conflictual (Davila, 2005). At the same time, if MCs constrain experimentation and fail to identify and nurture beneficial variations, then the organization may forgo potential strategic opportunities. With this in mind, we develop hypotheses to explore the impact of both formal (process and outcome) and informal (professional) MCs on implementation performance within volatile environments. We also study MCs because their role in the materialization of strategy is under-studied (Kownatzki et al., 2013; Tucker, Thorne and Gurd, 2009).

Strategy implementation performance is our proximate strategy outcome, as strategy materializes in organizations when it is executed (Raes et al., 2011). Put differently, implementation is about carrying out the strategy, resulting in the actual materialized strategy, and implementation performance is the degree to which individual managers perceive the implementation effort as successful in meeting the goals and objectives of their role (Noble and Mokwa, 1999). Implementation performance is important as the materialized strategy may not be the desired one but rather a source of failure (Nutt, 1999).

We have two boundary conditions. Our first is the context of organizations operating in a volatile environment. Volatile environments are characterized by high competitiveness and fast changing technological developments (Armstrong, 1982; Hopkins and Hopkins, 1997). Studies on strategy formation in such environments have delivered mixed results (Fredrickson, 1986; Fredrickson and Mitchell, 1984; Slater, Olson and Hult, 2006) and few have examined the important relationship between MCs and implementation outcomes. Our second is the focus on MMs. MMs are sources of emergent strategy (Wolf and Floyd, 2013) and are critical to strategy implementation (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1992, 1994). While there are many definitions of MMs (see Currie, 1999; Dutton and Ashford, 1993; Jarzabkowski and Balogun, 2009), we refer to MMs as functional managers who are concerned with product-market strategy, i.e. the way a firm chooses to position itself against its competitors (Day, 1994; Zott and Amit, 2008). MMs' decentralized role is critical in volatile markets where new product developments are frequent, since MMs are closer to the market, providing them access to critical information and prompting higher quality decisions, and also have the autonomy to take new initiatives forward, allowing the organization to quickly respond to changing market conditions (Andersen, 2004; Floyd and Wooldridge, 1997; Guth and MacMillan, 1986).

We address our research question using data from a sample of MMs in 701 organizations operating in volatile environments. Our paper provides valuable insights into how strategy materializes in this context. Specifically, we contribute to the Mintzbergian perspective of strategy formation, which argues that strategy is both deliberate and emergent by advancing that, when considering how strategy materializes, one should study MCs and comprehensiveness. They are elements of the context within which MMs implement strategy and both are factors influencing the development of deliberate and emergent strategies. Based on our integrative literature review, we develop our hypotheses, and argue that process controls may hamper the materialization of strategy in volatile environments whereas output and professional control aid it. Our argument puts to the fore that professional controls, as part of a control system, are key to how strategy materializes. Professional control is a form of social control based on individuals' knowledge and experience which allows them to apply their expertise independently in conditions of uncertainty (Abernethy and Stoelwinder, 1995). Output control too confers greater autonomy in strategy formation whereas process control relies on explicit monitoring and evaluating which constrains resourcefulness in strategy formation (Ouchi, 1979) necessary in conditions of uncertainty. We contribute to the strong scholarly research which stresses that strategizing is a social accomplishment (Jarzabkowski and Balogun, 2009; Whittington, 2004) by underlining the importance of MCs, a factor not yet examined in this context, and by emphasizing the flexibility embedded in comprehensiveness that is derived from ‘human’ aspects: TMs' championing and information availability. Finally we make an empirical contribution by quantitatively testing the impact of MCs and comprehensiveness on implementation performance. Our results reveal that comprehensiveness and output and professional control have a positive impact and that these antecedents are complementary.

Theoretical background

The Mintzbergian perspective of strategy formation is concerned with how strategies are formulated and implemented and emphasizes that strategy formation is both deliberate and emergent (Eisenhardt and Zbaracki, 1992; Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). Mintzberg (1987) explains that strategy emerges as a coherent pattern of collective activities through the actions of multiple participants. In this literature it is emphasized that strategy formation is shaped by the organizational and environmental context (Pettigrew, 1997) and that cognitive context shapes strategists' perception and diagnosis of strategic issues (Chakravarthy and Doz, 1992; Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). From a Mintzbergian perspective the way individuals interpret their context is a source of emergence and the materialized strategy results from both these emergent processes and planned rational design.

Strategy formation is key to SAP (Sminia and de Rond, 2012): strategy is not what an organization has but what people do (Johnson et al., 2007). SAP is concerned with everything involved in the formulation of deliberate strategy, the emergence of strategy and strategy implementation. This reflects the interest in both Mintzberg's (1987) pattern of decisions and of actions. However, while the formation and SAP literature is rich and many insights have been gained on strategy development and formulation/planning (Burgelman, 1983; Slevin and Covin, 1997; Spee and Jarzabkowski, 2009) little attention has been given to strategy emergence (Vaara and Whittington, 2012) and implementation (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006; Tamayo-Torres, Verdú-Jover and García-Morales, 2012). Existing research (e.g. Sillince and Mueller, 2007; Stensaker and Falkenberg, 2007) has concentrated on the MMs' role and sensemaking rather than on implementation performance. This may seem surprising as with no implementation no strategy is materialized and as poor implementation is the source of many organizational failures (Hickson, Miller and Wilson, 2003; Nutt, 1999). Phrased differently, implementation performance is linked to organizational performance (Raes et al., 2011) and is thus a key strategic management concern (Johnson, Melin and Whittington, 2003).

Drawing on this, in explaining our conceptual model (Figure 1) and then developing our hypotheses, we now address our research question: what are some of the antecedents that help materialize strategy? Herein, our inquiry is twofold. We examine comprehensiveness and MCs as antecedents to implementation performance.

Conceptual framework

Comprehensiveness is key to understanding how strategy materializes as it affords the examination of both deliberate and emergent aspects of strategy formation. Additionally, there remains a long standing question as to whether it enables firms to make better decisions in various environmental contexts (Bourgeois and Eisenhardt, 1988; Fredrickson, 1984), particularly volatile ones (Forbes, 2007; Miller, 2008; Meissner and Wulf, 2014) where it may not be possible to develop a perspective of the future and formulate explicit objectives, since these environments are unpredictable, ambiguous and uncertain (Idenburg, 1993).

Comprehensiveness reflects the extensiveness of the planning activity (Boulton et al., 1982; Lindsay and Rue, 1980). It concerns an organization's executives' attempts to be exhaustive in their systematic gathering and processing of information from the external environment in making strategic decisions (Fredrickson, 1984; Glick, Miller and Huber, 1993). It is a measure of planning: a bundle of strategy planning practices, tools and techniques for analysing competitive environments, target setting, organizing, communicating and budgeting (Wolf and Floyd, 2013). We argue that comprehensiveness embeds both formality, most usually conceptualized through the use of quantitative analytical techniques (Dean and Sharfman, 1993; Slater, Olson and Hult, 2006), and flexibility, allowing the development of multiple options through extensive scanning and adaptation to new information with the objective of alignment. Flexibility is maintained through MMs choosing the most appropriate option amongst alternatives, defining the details of the strategy, and having contingency plans to fall back upon (Hughes et al., 2006; Slater, Olson and Hult, 2006).

This argument is based on the formation and SAP literatures which are grounded in a Mintzbergian perspective. Here planning is contended to be a tool for integrating hierarchical layers and coordinating centralized and peripheral sources of strategy (Jarzabkowski and Balogun, 2009; Ketokivi and Castañer, 2004). It is thus viewed as embedding both formality and flexibility (Vaara and Whittington, 2012), and a means through which agents can creatively interpret and adapt strategy (Raes et al., 2011). This suggests that there is both formality and flexibility within comprehensiveness as a measure of planning. In volatile environments, organizations cannot rely on a stable core of norms, expectations and routines for planning (Miller, 2008). Such environments require flexible responses and comprehensiveness allows for the generation of such responses. Flexibility develops through the interactions of TMs and MMs and is necessary in conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity to allow for organizations to adapt to changing conditions (Jarzabkowski, Lê and Feldman, 2012; Mantere, 2005; Spee and Jarzabkowski, 2009).

To understand why emergence is embedded in comprehensiveness, one needs to examine the sources of this emergence. Given our emphasis on micro activities and the human aspects of strategy formation we consider the impact of TMs' championing and information availability as these are linked to MMs' capacity for processing and interpreting information and influence the alignment of formulation and implementation. They represent important task-specific elements of the environment, which form part of MMs' cognitive context and influence comprehensiveness through the interactions of actors. Since previous studies illustrate comprehensiveness as a mediator between managerial cognition and firm performance (Glick, Miller and Huber, 1993; Miller, Burke and Glick, 1998), in our exploration of materialization we hypothesize that comprehensiveness mediates the influence of these aspects of MMs' cognitive environment on implementation performance. Championing and provision of information for strategy formation increases MMs' understanding and commitment to the strategy (Raes et al., 2011). As seen, Mintzberg and Waters (1985) argue that the way individuals interpret their context is a source of emergence. TMs' championing through choice and selective nurturing of initiatives is important since this shapes the direction of strategy by signalling preferences for intelligence gathering and indicates acceptable courses of action consistent with the overall business strategy (Peljhan, 2007). TMs' championing indicates what is important in the organization and hence influences MMs' cognitive context. Since organizations are viewed as information processing systems that scan and collect data from their environments, interpret the data and learn by acting upon interpretation (Daft and Weick, 1984), information availability is an aspect of MMs' cognitive environment that directly affects their ability to formulate strategically relevant causal understanding (Forbes, 2007). The quantity and ambiguity of information available are characteristics that have implications for MMs' information processing and use.

We explore how comprehensiveness impacts implementation performance by highlighting that it permits both a deliberate and emergent approach to strategy formation, balancing the need for formal analytical analysis with reflection, experimentation and learning. Based on extensive scanning and adaptation of activities relative to new information, an understanding of the resources required and of their effective allocation for implementing the most appropriate alternative option is facilitated. This results in a closer alignment with target objectives and acknowledges the need for the reassessment of objectives for firms operating in volatile environments (Krohmer, Homburg and Workman, 2002; Mintzberg and Waters, 1985; Morgan, Clark and Gooner, 2002; Ramanujam, Venkatraman and Camillus, 1986).

MCs are the other antecedent we consider in our quest to explore how strategy materializes. MCs are a means of conceptualizing the control context in which MMs operate, shaping their interpretation of the internal environment and promoting the encouragement or constraint of real-time information collection (Atuahene-Gima and Li, 2004; Daft and Weick, 1984), hence influencing their actions and degree of goal congruence (Gani and Jermias, 2012). MCs are designed to influence the development and implementation of business strategies (Daft and Macintosh, 1984; Ittner and Larcker, 1997; Marginson, 2002). Traditionally, MCs have reflected relatively formalized mechanisms for strategy formation where objective criteria and procedures are imposed and behaviour is controlled through monitoring and feedback (Menon et al., 1999; Simons, 1991). Such a diagnostic approach to control criteria helps ensure strategies are appropriately supported with required resources and can assist in promoting intelligence gathering through established processes (Chenhall, Kallunki and Silvola, 2011). Formal MCs are purportedly well suited for monitoring the implementation of intended strategies (Osborn, 1998), where perceptions of market uncertainty pressure managers to review and fine-tune the scope of their intended strategies (Chari et al., 2014). Conversely, informal control is desirable in rapidly changing environments (Chenhall, 2003; Osborn, 1998), as formal controls cannot cater for the unpredictability of complex work demands (Abernethy and Stoelwinder, 1995). Informal MCs become a means for surfacing and acting upon potential emergent strategies on a day-to-day basis (Osborn, 1998; Simons, 1991) and as such should be considered when exploring emergence from a SAP perspective. Discussion and collaboration are key to such mechanisms and rely on MMs' experience and expertise. Consequently, MCs, as part of the organization's internal context, help frame MMs' belief system, and specifically what is important is MMs' perception of them (Boulton et al., 1982); these perceptions guide behaviour (Frigotto, Coller and Collini, 2013; Marginson, 2002). Within volatile environments we therefore suggest that exploring both formal and informal controls allows us to shed light on how stability and flexibility might be reconciled and maintained since, in addition to comprehensiveness, these are core to strategy formation within volatile environments. We argue that they are micro-level mechanisms that can foster or inhibit strategy emergence (Osborn, 1998), affect managerial agency and, in turn, the materialization of strategy.

In short, we are interested in the contribution of formal and informal MCs to the implementation of intended strategies and for the stimulation of emergent strategy. Whilst formal controls are beneficial for disseminating intended strategy from above, by translating into action plans, monitoring the implementation of these plans and identifying deviations for corrective action, informal controls encourage experimentation, support variations in day-to-day responses and structure interactions that facilitate the exchange of knowledge (Davila, 2005; Simons, 1991). MCs must allow for flexibility, so that MMs can respond quickly to changes in the environment, but also for stability so that they are able to learn, allowing the organization to grow based on its strengths (Osborn, 1998).We develop our hypotheses based on this framing.

Hypotheses development

Methodology

Quantitative studies and cross-sectional descriptive designs, as ours, are common in strategy research (Mackenzie, 2000). The empirical SAP literature, however, is strongly dominated by the use of qualitative methods (Golsorkhi et al., 2010; Vaara and Whittington, 2012). To our knowledge there are two notable published exceptions: the articles authored by Hodgkinson et al. (2006) and Healey et al. (2013).

Our quantitative study responds to Whittington's (2002) call for methodological pluralism and follows Huff, Neyer and Moslein's (2010, p. 206) suggestions ‘for expanding evidence on strategizing’ explaining that ‘Ethnographic methods have become the cornerstone of the field and will continue to be useful […]. However, methods with other strengths are also needed. […] it is particularly important to collect data that can support more generalized and more precise conclusions’ (2010, p. 206). Moreover invoking the notion of methodological fit (Edmondson and McManus, 2007) it can also be argued that the field is ‘ripe’ for quantitative studies.

Edmondson and McManus (2007) suggest that when the field is nascent qualitative methods should be used, once it is intermediate both quantitative and qualitative methods should be used, and when it is mature quantitative methods should be used. The SAP field is now over 10 years old and therefore maturing. The field has grown tremendously since 2003 and, as reviews of the field have shown (Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009; Vaara and Whittington, 2012), SAP has produced many new insights, constructs and issues using exploratory qualitative studies. Qualitatively developed propositions should now be quantitatively researched to allow the generation of more generalizable and precise conclusions (Edmondson and McManus, 2007): hence our choice of design. We want not only to enhance our theoretical understanding of strategy formation but also to qualitatively test supported relationships.

Analysis and results

The variance inflation factors were all within an acceptable range indicating that multi-collinearity is not a problem. Table 4 contains the correlation results and descriptive statistics. Table 5 presents the mediation effect of comprehensiveness on our cognitive context constructs and implementation performance (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Our results indicate that comprehensiveness fully mediates the influence of championing on implementation performance (α = 0.09, non-significant) and partially mediates the relationship of information availability on implementation performance (α = 0.35**, p ≤ 0.01). Table 6 contains the regression results. Model 1 tests the effects of the control variables on strategy comprehensiveness. The addition of championing and information availability in model 2 added 36% (F = 11.91, p ≤ 0.01) to the explained variance in model 1. Hypothesis 1a is strongly supported (α = 0.34, p ≤ 0.01) as is Hypothesis 1b (α = 0.35, p ≤ 0.01). Our control variables were not significant predictors of comprehensiveness.

Models 3–5 present the results for our hypotheses of the relationships between strategy comprehensiveness and MCs on implementation performance. Model 3 tests the effects of the control variables on implementation performance. Model 4 presents the results of Hypothesis 2 adding 31% of the variance explained in model 3. Hypothesis 2 is strongly supported (α = 0.58, p ≤ 0.01). In model 5 we added MCs (-). Their addition accounts for 8% of the variance explained in model 4. Hypothesis 3a is supported (α = 0.25, p ≤ 0.05), as are Hypotheses 3b (α = −0.26, p ≤ 0.01) and 3c (α = 0.18, p ≤ 0.1). Consistent with previous studies (Hopkins and Hopkins, 1997), the control variables were not significantly predictive of implementation performance.

Before discussing our results and highlighting our contributions we need to mention some of the limitations inherent in our study. First our design prohibits the establishment of any causality from a longitudinal perspective and we acknowledge that future research could address this. Second, whilst we included industry variations to enhance external validity, we did not control for firm-specific contextual determinants within the different industries. Third, our research design did not separate public and private organizations; however, it should be noted that doing so might generate different results since the reduced regulatory and reporting requirements in private companies mean that resources are freed up to allow a focus on longer term goals which might result in smoother implementation performance.

Discussion and conclusions

Through our exploration of antecedents that help strategy materialize, we have advanced understanding of some of the ‘all kinds of stuff’ (Whittington, 2007) that strategy formation involves, which is a key SAP concern (Vaara and Whittington, 2012). We have illuminated the role micro-level mechanisms play in implementation performance by linking micro-phenomenon to macro-phenomenon (a fundamental SAP agenda), and have furthered our understanding about what contributes to or inhibits the materialization of strategy in volatile environments. This is important, as SAP research is ultimately concerned with the micro-level foundations of strategy making in order to help illuminate organizational outcomes (Orlikowski, 2010). With this study we contribute both theoretically and empirically to the strategy formation literature, notably the Mintzbergian perspective, by arguing that, when considering how strategy materializes, researchers should consider MCs and comprehensiveness, which put human factor to the fore, highlight the importance of context in guiding behaviours, and allow for the examination of emergent and deliberate strategy. We present and discuss our theoretical and empirical contributions next.

There is a dearth of management studies that have directly explored the role of formal and informal MCs on implementation performance. We thus make a theoretical contribution to the strategy formation literature in our argument by highlighting their importance for understanding how strategy materializes. They are part of the organizational context within which MMs implement strategy and influence what managers do. Output and professional controls have an enabling influence on MMs and we suggest that they positively impact implementation performance. We argue that process control inhibits MMs' sense of autonomy and self-control (Ouchi, 1979). Hence such MCs relying as they do upon routinized rules and procedures may not be salient for the materialization of strategy in volatile environments.

The incorporation of professional MCs, however, allows discretion for control within the work group through patterns of interpersonal interactions and impromptu discussion (Ahrens and Chapman, 2004). It is thus adaptive to an organization's context, and specifically volatility and a source of emergence (Osborn, 1998). Output controls too impact positively on implementation. As suggested, output control is a recursive MC well suited to monitoring the deliberate strategy (Osborn, 1998), yet it affords MMs a degree of responsibility in implementing strategy, beneficial in volatile environments (McGrath, 2001).

Whilst all forms of control improve our understanding of how strategy materializes, in explicitly recognizing that professional controls are antecedents to implementation performance we contribute to the strong body of work which emphasizes strategizing as a social practice (Jarzabkowski and Balogun, 2009; Whittington, 2004). These controls are informal with values and norms of the professional group guiding behaviour (Falkenberg and Herremans, 1995). We provide new insight into the role of a social mechanism which has so far received little attention within this body of work, but which illustrates that socialized strategizing is important for the materialization of strategy.

Following this argument, we suggest that MCs should be considered a strategic tool. As its name implies, an implement is a tool, and hence any strategizing activities that are directed towards the implementation of a strategy can be conceptualized as being a strategic tool. Specifically, we propose that, as planning is well established as a strategic tool (Spee and Jarzabkowski, 2009; Wolf and Floyd, 2013) and argued to be an outcome control (Kownatzki et al., 2013), MCs should also be conceptualized as such. We propose this as they impact on implementation performance and hence firms can use these too to control how strategy materializes. This conceptualization is in line with Ashcraft, Kuhn and Cooren (2009)'s account that artifacts may have material, such as texts, and ideational, such as norms, qualities. They also explain that artifacts influence people's behaviour and attitudes in organizations. This is what MCs do. By conceptualizing control as strategy tools, the use of MCs can start to be recognized as part of wider strategizing activities (Spee and Jarzabkowski, 2009), e.g. as catalysts for new initiatives (Simons, 1991). They can start to be seen as resources that shape strategizing and that can also be manipulated to affect their outcome. Hence it can be suggested that they are critical to understand as social and political interactions in strategizing (Jarzabkowski and Balogun, 2009). They are part of what people do in strategy (Johnson, Melin and Whittington, 2003). Hence, if MCs are recognized as strategic tools rather than as management tools used to monitor individuals, they may be taken more into consideration by both scholars and practitioners since they ‘form a critical and cognitively demanding element in the practice of effective strategy workers' (Wright, Paroutis and Blettner, 2013, p. 92). The use of both formal and informal controls in organizations facing volatile environments is a means of organizing attention and therefore a powerful tool for guiding and energizing the competitive evolution of the organization (Simons, 1991).

An additional theoretical contribution to the strategy formation literature is provided through our argument that comprehensiveness represents not only formality in planning but also flexibility; to date this literature comprehensiveness has only considered it as being about formality (Forbes, 2007; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006; Wolf and Floyd, 2013). We have shed light on comprehensiveness as a means through which both deliberate and emergent strategy comes about. It balances the need for stability via formality of approach and flexibility through stimulating greater information research and the choice of potential strategic alternatives that come from TMs' championing and information availability. These are important aspects of MMs' cognitive context that help shape their frames of reference and create a shared understanding of strategy through the symbolic sense-giving practices between TMs and MMs (Mantere, 2005; Vilà and Canales, 2008). This is an important addition to the literature, as it provides a more nuanced understanding of comprehensiveness: by grounding comprehensiveness in Mintzberg and Water's (1985) emergent view, it becomes a more realistic and socialized rather than simply a rational process (Wolf and Floyd, 2013). Hence this also substantiates quantitatively previous qualitative studies revealing the importance of social interaction and cognition in strategizing (Jarzabkowski and Balogun, 2009; Ketokivi and Castañer, 2004; Miller, Burke and Glick, 1998; Stensaker and Falkenberg, 2007).

We also make an empirical contribution to the strategy formation literature and to the literature concerned with organizations operating in volatile environments. We do so not only by providing evidence of the positive impact of output and professional control and of comprehensiveness but also by showing that in volatile environments MCs and comprehensiveness work in tandem (see Table 5). As such, our study highlights the dynamics of the relationship between comprehensiveness and MCs for firms operating within these environments. We suggest that selected MCs and comprehensiveness reinforce each other as sources of emergence and the establishment of an operating context facilitating interaction and opportunities for discussion, and alignment of different mind-sets and practical viewpoints (Gond et al., 2012). This aids in reaching understanding and commitment and ultimately fostering positive strategy implementation behaviour. With this study, therefore, we build on the long standing debate surrounding the merits of comprehensiveness for organizations facing volatile environments (Bourgeois and Eisenhardt, 1988; Fredrickson and Mitchell, 1984; Glick, Miller and Huber, 1993; Meissner and Wulf, 2014; Miller, 2008). At the same time we underline important sources which encourage comprehensiveness under such conditions. Clearly, therefore, encouraging comprehensiveness, and employing appropriate MCs which balance formal with informal mechanisms within firms faced with environmental volatility, avoids constraining MMs to pre-specified plans and objectives in strategy formation, but allows them to identify strategic opportunities by facilitating their reaction to changing environmental circumstances supporting the exploration of new directions of evolution and increasing the likelihood of successful implementation.

To conclude, we add that by adopting a quantitative research design we respond to the call for the need for quantitative SAP research (Whittington, 2002) and that, because strategic management has both academic and managerial elements (Pettigrew, Thomas and Whittington, 2002) and because practical utility should be part of the contribution (Corley and Gioia, 2011), this study has implications for practitioners in terms of providing some guidance into the mechanisms that can be manipulated to help strategy materialize positively.