Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by VGTU Press This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. *Corresponding author. E-mail: nogag@uek.krakow.pl Business, Management and Education ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169 2018 Volume 16 Issue 2: 222–238 https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2018.6261 PROBLEMS OF ADAPTING ENTERPRISES IN THE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS. CASE OF POLAND Gracjana NOGA * Department of Strategic Analyses, Cracow University of Economics, Cracow, Poland Received 29 October; accepted 05 December 2018 Abstract. Purpose – The purpose of the article was to analyse the impact of the enterprise adapta- tion stage on implemented strategy effectiveness. Research methodology – In the theoretical part the method of analysis and critical review of the literature was used. The technique used in the empirical study was paper-and-pencil interviewing (PAPI). In order to investigate relationships, the χ2 Pearson test and the Yule’s Coefficient of Association ϕ were employed. Findings – The article resulting underline the importance of the stage of adapting the enterprise in the strategy implementation process. The organisational structure, skills and knowledge, as well as organisational culture, have a particularly strong impact on the effectiveness of the strategy. Research has not confirmed any relationship between management style and resources. Research limitations – The empirical research was carried out on business organisations from a ranking of 500 innovative businesses of the Institute of Economics of the Polish Academy of Sciences list, what does not ensure that the indicated problems are characteristic for the average companies active in Poland. Practical implications – The obtained results became the basis for defining recommendations, which are practical guidelines for those trying to implement a strategy. It should be noted that the presented practical guidelines are not static research indications and will develop as the organisa- tion and its environment change. Originality/Value – There is a lack of research in Poland, which is focused on the problem of adjusting enterprise in the strategy implementation. Keywords: strategy, strategy implementation, adjustment of the enterprise. JEL Classification: L210. Introduction Effective implementation of the strategy is pivotal for the development of the company. It is one of the most important challenges faced by managers by solving any evolving organisa- tional problems (Szarucki, 2015). The economic practice still provides examples of companies that have failed in this difficult process. To a large extent, this is due to the improper imple- mailto:nogag@uek.krakow.pl https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2018.6261 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7411-5260 Business, Management and Education, 2018, 16(2): 222–238 223 mentation of the strategy implementation in enterprises. Factors influencing the process of effective strategy implementation were discussed by various authors (Ranganathan & Dhali- wal, 2001; Čatera & Pučko, 2010; Ahearne, Lam, & Kraus, 2014; Obeidat, Al-Hadidi, Tarhini, & Masa’deh, 2017). However, the state of knowledge in this area is still limited. The essence of the implementation is to transform the strategy included in the strategic plan as a set of actions carried out in individual departments and organisational units and also to organise hierarchical, functional, technical and information relationships between these depart- ments and units (Szarucki, 2013). The problem with strategy implementation relates to the fact that it covers a wide range of issues. Their full appreciation is often impossible for entrepre- neurs. They concentrate only on selected aspects, omitting the others, which unfortunately fails the strategy implementation process and discouragement of the managers. The strategy imple- mentation has to be a holistic system (Segatto, de Padua, & Martinelli, 2013), concentrating on the integration of its components. One of them is enterprises adopting process. Nowadays (H. Norreklit, L. Norreklit, Mitchell, & Bjornenak, 2012; Chaola, Pratoon, & Raksong, 2015), it is to be noted that the adaptation of an enterprise in the strategy implementation process is one of the organisational performance benchmarks but is associated with the undertaking of status quo questioning activities (Lowy, 2015) and with unpopular decisions, while being often linked with the involvement of large resources and considerable time commitments. The article is of a theoretical and empirical nature, and the research problem is located in the management sciences in the subdiscipline of strategic management and the method- ology of management sciences (Lisiński, 2013). Using the method of analysis and critical review of the literature, the place and role of adapting the enterprise, as part of the strategy implementation process, will be discussed, together with areas that should be included in each implementation process. The empirical part will present its own research on the imple- mentation of strategies in enterprises in the area of adapting individual areas of the company to the implemented strategy as an important part of the implementation process. The tech- nique used in this study was paper-and-pencil interviewing (PAPI). In order to investigate relationships, the Pearson test and the Yule’s Coefficient of Association ϕ were employed. The research results will become the basis for developing practical guidelines for enterprises. 1. Enterprise adjustment stage as part of the strategy implementation process The strategy implementation is a complex process, covering many areas of the enterprise, but also taking into account the external context. It consists of putting the strategic plan into action. It is a sequence of activities in which their substantive scope will be combined with activities regarding the instantiation, implementation and satisfaction1. When indicating the stages of the strategy implementation process, it is necessary to spe- cify the sequences of actions through which the functions of this process are implemented. In practice, the functions are called tasks, which results from giving them the obligatory nature in the formalised pragmatics of company management (Stabryła, 2000). 1 Extensive reflections on the process of strategy implementation can be found in the works on strategic manage- ment, see: (Cândido & Santos, 2015; Schaap, 2012; Čatera & Pučko, 2010; Hrebiniak, 2005; Okumus, 2003; Olson, Slater, & Hull, 2005; Allio, 2005; Noga, 2007). 224 G. Noga. Problems of adapting enterprises in the strategy implementation process. Case of Poland M. Moszkowicz (2005) claims that the main task of the implementation is to answer the question: how to change from the current state to the expected state in certain company con- ditions? The author points out, that the essence of the actions must be: gaining management and crew to implement the adopted strategy (to want!), proper distribution of resources (to be able to!), skills development  – training (to know how!) and appropriate organisation of the company’s activity in time (manage it!, be ahead!). So, the implementation includes the task which requires entrepreneurial skills, whose evaluation criterion is effectiveness, i.e. the company’s ability to implement projects approved in the strategy formulation process. H. Piekarz (2008) marks, that implementation must be a rational action; therefore it should proceed according to specific time and space-ordering rules, taking into account the boundary criteria and conditions. She mentions three functions which are important for the implementation: planning, organising and controlling. Regarding strategic planning, she claims that the flexibility of actions must be ensured in the implementation area. In the case organizing the author focuses mainly on the question of adjusting the structure. Hover, control, similarly to planning, must refer to the strategy and operational level. Here, the autonomy and knowledge of workers will determine the effectiveness. F. Alashloo, P. Castka, J. Sharp (2005), understand the tasks of implementation in a simi- lar way. They claim that implementation must include the task of preparation, organisation and motivation of different complex activities to ensure smooth implementation of the stra- tegy, its control and verification, and its exploitation. M. Srinivasan also refers to the main management functions (2014), demonstrating the following stages in the implementation process: – framing goals  – a stage which requires precision, ensuring its transparency and no problems with interpretation; – implementation process control – where the implementation concentrates on opera- tional management; – the management of changes – with particular consideration is being given to the effect of the changing environment; – the involvement of staff – including the selection of change leaders, delegating deci- sion-making powers to them, as well as providing them with an appropriate incentive- based system; – an ongoing analysis of process sequences and measuring performance. Based on the presented points of view of different authors, it can be assumed that the tasks of management strategy implementation include: preparatory tasks, adjustment tasks, proper tasks and controlling tasks. The preparatory tasks include the development of frame- work guidelines for the entire implementation process and an indication of procedures for the entire company and its parts. H. Steinmann and G. Schreyögg (2001) indicate that prepa- ration in the implementation process must include people, strategic programs and organisa- tional initiatives. The adjustment tasks are intended to indicate the areas of the enterprise in which changes should be made. Adjustment tasks as part of strategy implementation, relating to the conditions of ensuring the company’s readiness to achieve the goal. These functions are realised by creating conditions: economic, technical and social for implementing the established strategies with the help of its employees. Proper tasks focus on the realization of strategic activities by the division of the tasks, resources and choosing the persons respon- sible for them. In the implementation of these tasks, attention should be paid to ensuring Business, Management and Education, 2018, 16(2): 222–238 225 proper communication. Controlling tasks include monitoring and correcting activities in the strategy implementation process. Moving forward to specifying particular activities included in the implementation process one should bear in mind the tasks mentioned above. Kazmi (2008) shows the strategy implementation process in the form of a constant pro- cess; its goal is to achieve effectiveness through change management by the activation of strategies. He shows three phases: active strategy, changes management, achieving effecti- veness. The first phase is to prepare the ground for tasks and managerial activities related to strategy implementation. The next phase, being the core of strategy implementation, is change management in complex situations. The last phase, or effectiveness, is the result of the implementation process. In his proposition C. Noble (1999 shows implementation in a structured way. The author depicts four stages of the implementation process: – The stage preceding the implementation (engagement in the formation of strategy, the concentration of the implementation efforts, selection of representatives for individual functions, education). – Organisation of implementation (gathering resources, solving functional conflicts an indication of leadership in the implementation, development of the implementation plan, building partnerships understanding the possibilities and concerns of other functional areas). – Management of the implementation process (physical barriers, barriers resulting from the so-called “plots” barriers related to the lack of knowledge, communication bar- riers, personality issues, different goals, resistance in the organisation, subversives). – Maximising inter-functional performance (informal networks, instilling a “sense of haste”, achieving “buying” strategies. The author pays particular attention to the inter-functional connections, in which he finds the key to successful implementation. He presents the problem of implementation as a network. He thinks that in order to understand the process and obstacles, which can be met during its realisation, one should look at the implementation network from the managers’ point of view and find the keys to the successful management of this network. A. Srivastava and Sushil (2014) perceive the process of implementation as an interaction of four types of activities: ensuring consistency between management functions and strategy; the actions which are to ensure correct functioning of processes; automation, understood as the stan- dardisation of the monitoring system and of measured performance results, as well as adaptation. In his approach, M. Lisiński (2004) presents, the implementation process in a coherent way and indicates two phases of this process: – Phase I. Initiation of strategies: diagnostic analysis of the organisation, undertaking improvement measures, adjusting the organisation to the adopted strategy. – Phase II. Implementation and evaluation of the strategy: implementation of the stra- tegic plan, evaluation of the implementation of the strategic plan. H. Witczak (2004) doesn’t point out stages of the process but claims that implementation consists of three classes of actions. These are preliminary activities (warm-up), main activities and final activities. They characterise in the following stages: – The preliminary activities include all the actions which are achieved by an organisa- tion of full implementation capacity. The author doesn’t describe the stages in detail. 226 G. Noga. Problems of adapting enterprises in the strategy implementation process. Case of Poland He only marks that they must cover activities connected with the identification of the organisational elements which require adjustment. – The main activities are connected with taking actions. The strategy must be put into practice by performing subsequent assumptions of the strategic plan, it covers all areas of the organisation’s functioning. The author pays attention to the fact that this issue covers all the activities that can be called working. – The final activities are connected with controlling the execution. Managers must check that the actions taken by the organisation are consistent with the chosen policy option and bring the expected results. The key is the appropriate selection of indicators. The aspect of adjusting organisation to the requirements of a new strategy is also exposed in the authorship model by Ch. W. L. Hill (1989). The author also notes that the lack of such a match or becoming aware of this need too late may lead to serious difficulties and inhibitions. Taking the presented views in the strategy implementation process under consideration, we can distinguish three phases: preparation and organisation of implementation, imple- mentation management and control of strategy implementation. The proposal for a detailed strategy implementation procedure can be found in Table 1. Table 1. The procedure of implementing management strategy in an enterprise (source: own study) Phases Stages Research steps Pr ep ar at io n an d or ga ni sa tio n of th e st ra te gy im pl em en ta tio n pr oc es s I. Introductory actions 1. Adoption of the key assumptions concerning the new strategy, iden- tification of milestones, time range, amount of budget  al.ocated for this purpose, identification of risk. 2. Establishment of principles for observing the environment to capture opportunities or threats appearing there. 3. Establishment of a team for the strategy implementation or the per- son conducting the process and indicating its place in the structure. 4. Communicating the main strategy assumptions to the employees. 5. Selection of implementation methods. II. Enterprise adjustment 6. Specification of the elements to be verified. 7. Diagnostic analysis of the specified elements. 8. Evaluation of consistency with the strategy. 9. Indication of necessary changes to be adapted to the strategy. 10. Conduct of actions. 11. Checking the results. III. Operation- alisation of strategy 12. Preparation of strategic programs and allocation of resources. 13. Development of performance indicators within individual programs. 14. Indication of the persons responsible for the implementation of the programs. M an ag em en t o f t he im pl em en ta tio n pr oc es s IV. Conducting activities 15. Planning detailed operations and deadlines for their implementation. 16. Sharing tasks between particular employees. 17. Piloting activities and overcoming psychological barriers. V. Controlling conducted activities 18. Setting standards and designing control systems. 19. Indication of people or cells to monitor implementation of the strategy. 20. Systematic review of conducted activities. 21. Undertaking corrective actions. VI. Caring for good communication 22. Establishing communication procedures in case of problems while conducting activities aimed at applying the new strategy. 23. Establishing deadlines for regular meetings on the strategy imple- mentation. 24. Reporting results to people responsible for the programs. Business, Management and Education, 2018, 16(2): 222–238 227 Phases Stages Research steps Ev al ua tio n of th e st ra te gy im pl em en ta tio n pr oc es s VII. Measure- ment of strategy 25. Indication of people responsible for the process of selection and mea- surement of assessment indicators. 26. Selection of the most important criteria to carry out the measurement. 27. Measuring the effectiveness of the selected criteria. VIII. Strategy evaluation 28. Analysis of the gathered results. 29. Evaluation of the implementation process and formulating conclusions. 30. Submission of applications to the management of the enterprise. Adjusting the enterprise is the stage of phase preparation and organisation of the strategy implementation process. As the first step, the enterprises which implement the strategy  – should individually indicate key elements for this process, especially of the internal context, but also specify the most important conditions shaping the relations between them. The next step is an assessment of the indicated elements regarding consistency and adjustment to the implemented strategy as well as identification of any deviations. Adaptation projects are be- ing prepared for them. The changes should be made based on clear criteria for the strategic match, and these are: – Consistency with the competitive advantage, – Consistency with workflow-facilitating and strategy-supporting processes, – Support for the functions of primary importance regarding the geographical nature of the business, – Adaptation to basic product variables and market segmentation variables – Transferring decision-making power to persons in the positions closest regarding be- longing to a given decision, and thus having the greatest possibilities to implement this decision, – Cooperation of enterprise elements (Drazin & Howard, 2004). In the next step, all the projects should be implemented. Control over the introduced changes and their compliance with the strategy is the last action within the adaptation phase. The proposed structuring of the strategy implementation process in a detailed way indica- tes the stages and research steps in individual stages. It can serve as support for the enterpri- ses which have no experience in strategy implementation. It also underlines the importance of the enterprise adaptation phase. Given these considerations, it seems advisable and appropriate to link the degree of the strategy fulfilment with adjusting of the enterprise components to the implemented strategy. It is important to note that both the strategy and the enterprise components must not be based on rigid premises which, in volatile conditions, do not adequately represent the specific characteristics of the organisation activity, thus creating some confusion (Dandira, 2012). End of Table 1 228 G. Noga. Problems of adapting enterprises in the strategy implementation process. Case of Poland 2. Elements of the enterprise that need to be adjusted during strategy implementation In the literature, there are many propositions indicating elements of the enterprise which are important for the strategy implementation process. A. Pettigrew and R. Whipp (2007) do not specify in detail the areas which the strategy implementation should be concerned with, but they point out that it must combine three related aspects: – Analytical – implementation must cover many organisational areas, – Educational  – new strategic knowledge which is derived from its implementation, must be captured and spread across the entire organisation, which is why implemen- tation cannot be treated as constant and unchangeable; organisation learns about its strategies through implementation, – Political  – implementation must be flexible and react to pressure from outside and inside the organisation. Ch. W.  L.  Hill (1989) lists the organisational structure, the appropriate system for me- asuring and evaluating the achieved results, and the rewarding system for these results, the information and control system, organisational culture and performance potential. All these factors describe the internal potential of an enterprise, and according to the model’s author, they play an important role in strategy implementation, regardless of the type of industry in which the company operates. One of the most widely recognised models dealing with the implementation factors is the 7S model by R. H. Waterman Jr., T. J. Peters and J. R. Phillips (1980). It indicates seven elements that are interrelated, and a change in one of them causes a change in the other: strategy, organisational structure, systems (all formal and informal procedures enabling the functioning of the organisation), management style (actions taken by the top management), staff, value system (organisational culture), skills (competences, dominant features possessed by the enterprise). J.  M.  Higgins (2005) is the author of the 8S model, in which factors from the 7S model have been slightly modified. They include strategy, structure, systems and processes, mana- gement style/leadership, staff, resources, organisational culture and additionally the “results” factor. By adding the “results” factor, the author justifies the need to control the obtained results. Fewer, as only four important factors, are indicated by G. Yip (1992). These are the fol- lowing factors: organisational structure, culture, people, management processes. The author claims that these four factors determine necessary forces in the organisation, which influence its capacity to formulate and implement strategies. Another example is the proposition of the authors M.  A.  Carpenter and W.  G.  Sanders (2007), who pointed to organisational structure, systems and processes, people and prizes, strategic leadership, resources, communication. According to this approach, attention is paid to the communication factor, which according to the authors is particularly important. The models mentioned above differ in the number and nature of the factors which deter- mine strategy implementation. An attempt to include all the factors (dimensions) in strategy Business, Management and Education, 2018, 16(2): 222–238 229 implementation that could constitute important areas of managers’ intervention during stra- tegy implementation was undertaken by C. J. F. Candido and D. S. Morris (2001). According to them, the basic dimensions of strategy implementation are: the paradigm / model of the world, attitudes, skills, roles and styles of managers, the content of strategy, structure, facilities, equipment along with technological characteristics and potential, information and communication systems, decision-making processes, service analysis systems, design, exter- nal communication and delivery, rules, policies and task descriptions, systems: evaluation, control and remuneration, organisational competencies, people, power structures (formal and informal), commitment, values and norms, stories, symbols, rituals, routine procedures and ceremonies, financial resources, time (schedule, coordination, programming, urgency). The twenty dimensions included in this model are elements that simultaneously: – Can be changed and should be controlled and consistently adjusted, – Should be monitored and made the subject of collected and distributed information, – Could be within reach of a difficult organisational debate due to their interests, basics of power, approach and belief, – Are co-dependent and when certain dimensions are changed – affect all others; some of these influences will prove helpful and compensatory, others will be harmful or retaliatory. The model’s authors claim that 20 dimensions and their connections can determine the success or failure of any strategic change which is why they were grouped into one instru- ment that can be used for: improving and enriching the diagnosis, stimulating thinking, assessing the necessary scope of change in relation to each dimension, and supporting change planning. According to F. Okumus (2003), Jiang and Carpenter (2013), the factors closely related to implementation are divided into external and internal ones. The external ones include or- ganisational structure (a division of power, decision-making practices), organisational culture (traditions, values, standards), leadership (management support), resources (distribution of means, information, time limits). For the process of implementing the strategy, a role will be played by the elements of the external context, which macro-environment and micro-insecurity belong to. Macro-environ- ment contains processes and phenomena, which must directly affect the tasks being achieved by the enterprise, however, they create the necessary conditions for running a business. Mi- cro-environment consists of two specific organisation subjects or their groups which may influence the enterprise. It includes competitors, customers, suppliers, trade unions, owners and strategic allies (Pearce & Robinson, 2015). Both the micro and macro environment do not have spatial boundaries; everything depends on the strength and directions of connec- tions between the enterprise and the surrounding phenomena, processes and entities. For the strategy implementation process, the internal context is particularly important, defining the elements inside the company that are in mutual relations with each other and with the elements that create the external context. The internal context is composed of organisational structure, organisational culture, resources, management style, skills and knowledge, and systems that comprise: the motivational system, information and communication system. 230 G. Noga. Problems of adapting enterprises in the strategy implementation process. Case of Poland 3. Methodology of conducted research In the empirical sciences, which include management science and strategic management, as its sub-discipline, the basis for conclusions is practical research. The value of any theory is determined by observation. About the scientific problem being analysed in this article, empirical research aimed to verify whether the adaptation of enterprise, constituting a stage in the strategy implementation process, has an impact on the effectiveness of the implemen- tation process2. The results of research on adopting a company to a strategy, as introduced in this ar- ticle are part of a wider research on the strategy implementation in enterprises. The study involved 693 business entities, from Poland, listed in the ranking of 500 innovative businesses of the Institute of Economics of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Baczko & Puchała-Krzy- wina, 2013). A crucial reason for using this ranking is the fact that innovation occupies a leading position on the list of postulates formulated towards strategic management. Since the assumption was to reach out to the enterprises putting strategic management into practice, it was recognised that companies are trying to be innovative in a special way also focus on formulating and implementing strategies. The research technique used in the research was a direct questionnaire interview (PAPI). The interview questionnaire contained 59 proper questions and eight metrics questions. The study was conducted in 2015. The problems dis- cussed in the article were addressed by the following research problems: – Determining whether business subjects pay attention to the adjustment of the com- pany in connection with strategy implementation, – determining whether, in connection with strategy implementation, they have made changes in one of the areas of the company. – Determining the level of difficulty in making changes in the indicated areas, – determining the impact of adjusting enterprise elements to the implemented strategy on the effectiveness of the entire implementation process, – determining whether the environment is perceived as a source of problems when implementing the strategy. 20.6% of small enterprises, 41.2% of medium enterprises and 38.2% of large enterprises employing over 250 employees took part in the conducted research, of which 17.6% were en- terprises employing 501–1000 employees and 14.7% enterprises employing over 1000 people. Among the most important tasks in strategy implementation, the respondents indicated: determining the priorities, assigning responsibility, assessing the results, supervising the implementation and adaptation of the enterprise. They confirmed that they pay attention to the adjustment of the company strategy implementation. The enterprises indicated, in order to implement a new strategy, it is necessary to make changes in the following enterprise areas: skills and knowledge (76.50%), resources (76.50%), 2 Research was carried out by the author of article as a part of her doctoral thesis (Noga, 2017): Methodology of implementation of the management strategy in enterprise, prepared in the Department of Strategic Analysis at the Cracow University of Economics. 3 For the sake of the character of the discussed issue, micro-enterprises were excluded from the study, and thus 278 small and medium-sized enterprises and 197 large companies were included in it. Business, Management and Education, 2018, 16(2): 222–238 231 organisational structure (75%), management style (75%), management systems (67.50%), organisational culture (55.90%). Enterprises assessed the difficulty of making changes in particular areas. Their opinions are illustrated in the picture below (Figure 1). The analysis of the presented graph shows that: – Organisational structure – The introduction of changes in this area of the company is relatively smooth. There were no indications for any difficulties that would make the changes impossible, 29.4% of the respondents marked value 1  – little difficulty and 27.5% of enterprises chose value 3 – medium difficulty. – Organisational culture  – an area difficult for changes to be carried out. Difficulties which made changes in the enterprise impossible appeared in 2.6% of the cases. The highest percentage of the respondents, 42.1%, indicated emergence of very serious difficulties. – Management style – Answer 3 dominates in this area – medium difficulties, 37.3% of the enterprises. Despite a general impression that in this case, the changes proceeded rather smoothly, 5.9% of the respondents indicated that they had difficulties making changes impossible. – Skills and knowledge  – in this area the difficulties appeared rather often. However they were not particularly cumbersome. This area should be ranked second, after organisational structure, as one where changes went rather smoothly. – Resources  – in this area more than 20% of the enterprises indicated the presence of particularly big difficulties, also 3.8% of respondents indicated difficulties are preven- ting the changes. – Management systems  – this one, like organisational culture, turned out to be prob- lematic for changes to proceed. The most common answer was the value of 5  – the difficulties preventing implementation, accounting for6.5% of the indications here. At the high level, there is also answer 4 – very big difficulties, indicated by 28.3% of the respondents. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 0 1 2 3 4 5 Organiza�onal Structure Organiza�anal Culture Management Style Skils and Knowledge Resources Management Systems Note: 0 – no changes were made, 1 – minor difficulties, 2 – small difficulties, 3 – medium difficulties, 4 – large difficulties, 5 difficulties preventing strategy implementation. Figure 1. Difficulties in making changes adapting the organisation to the new strategy (research results) 232 G. Noga. Problems of adapting enterprises in the strategy implementation process. Case of Poland The enterprises were also asked to indicate whether they had to make changes in their assumptions during the implementation. The answers of the respondents were referred to the environment in which the examined entities were functioning. The results are as follows: – Enterprises operating in a very stable environment: no changes were made in the plan of 50% of the enterprises, slight changes took place in 50% of the entities. – Enterprises operating in a moderately stable environment: there were no changes in the plan of 23.5% of the enterprises, minor changes were made in 58.8% of the enter- prises and large changes – in 17.6% of the enterprises. – Enterprises working in a dynamic environment: 10.7% of the enterprises made no changes in the plan, minor changes were made by 60.7% of the respondents, and large changes were made in 28.6% of the enterprises previously envisaged in the strategic plan. The presented results indicate that that enterprise try to stick to the assumptions adopted in the strategic plan. Nevertheless, operating in a very dynamic environment requires them to demonstrate high flexibility and adjustment methods. Innovative enterprises, which were included in the study, can react and adapt their companies’ policies to changing conditions. To establish relations between the enterprise’s elements and the effectiveness of strategy implementation, respective statistical calculations were made. All tests were carried out with the significance level of 0.05. The significance of the relation of nominal features was calcu- lated using Pearson’s χ2 test. In order to measure the strength of relations between variables, Yule’s correlation coefficient ϕ was determined. In particular, the following was examined: – Relationship between adjustment of the organisational structure and effective strategy implementation, – Relationship between adjustment of the organisational culture and effective strategy implementation, – Relationship between adjustment of the management style and effective strategy im- plementation, – Relationship between adjustment of the skills and knowledge and effective strategy implementation, – Relationship between adjustment of the resources and effective strategy implemen- tation, – Relationship between adjustment of the management systems and successful strategy implementation. The relationships between individual elements of the enterprise and the effectiveness of strategy implementation are presented in Table 2. By the conducted test, a significant relationship was observed between changes in the following elements of the enterprise and the effectiveness of strategy implementation: or- ganisational structure, organisational culture, management systems, skills and knowledge. Enterprises, which adopted the areas mentioned above to the implemented strategy, have achieved their strategic goals to a greater extent. By the conducted test, there was no significant relationship between changes in the fol- lowing elements of an enterprise and the effectiveness of strategy implementation: manage- ment style, resources. Business, Management and Education, 2018, 16(2): 222–238 233 The correlation test shows that the following have the most important impact on the effectiveness of implementation measures: organisational structure 0.3623, skills and knowl- edge – 0.3228 and organisational culture – 0.2997. The tests confirmed that adjustment of such areas as organisational structure, organisa- tional culture, skills and knowledge and management systems has a direct influence on the success of strategy implementation. According to the opinions of the respondents, less significant factors were resources and management style. It should be noted, however, that the respondents pointed to resources as a particularly important factor in the strategy formulation phase, thereby emphasising that it plays an important role in the strategy implementation process. However, it is rather perceived as an element conditioning the selection of a given strategy, and not as an element requiring adaptation. 4. Proposals for enterprises resulting from the research The research confirmed that the adaptation of areas such as organisational culture, organ- isational structure, knowledge and skills, and management systems contributes to success in strategy implementation. Respondents paid particular attention to the organisational culture, which they indicated as particularly difficult to adapt. To implement a strategy, proper organisational culture is necessary, being characterised by the will of achievement, engagement, discipline and the employees’ sense of strategy ownership. Organisational culture bridges the gap between what the formal procedures and instructions describe and what is going on, so it is a powerful engine during strategy implementation. Regarding organisational structures, solutions should be sought that promote the ex- change of information, coordination of activities and clear assignment of tasks and respon- sibilities. The organisational structure must meet the company’s pursuit of flexibility and adaptability to changed conditions. Regarding knowledge, the employees’ knowledge should be expanded so that they can carry out the tasks properly assigned to them. Table 2. The relationship between the enterprise’s elements and effectiveness of strategy implementation (source: research results, n = 69) Enterprise area p Pearson’s correlation coefficient Correlation coefficient ϕ Organisational Structure 0.0131 8.6646 0.3623 Organisational Culture 0.0040 5.9291 0.2997 Management Style 0.5424 1.2234 0.1362 Skills and Knowledge 0.0321 6.8790 0.3228 Resources 0.6383 0.8978 0.1166 Management Systems 0.2721 4.8855 0.0026 234 G. Noga. Problems of adapting enterprises in the strategy implementation process. Case of Poland The systems must be fully concentrated on the implemented strategy. The task of the in- formation system is to acquire, process, store, protect and transfer information. Such a system should not only provide relevant strategic information but also properly convey information about the strategy both within and outside the company. The matrix of M. Freedman (2003) may be useful, where those strategy elements are indicated that should be communicated to individual stakeholder groups in the enterprise. The strategic communication system should focus on informing the employees about the assumptions and strategic goals, explain the doubts and ambiguities, and convince them about the validity of long-term development directions. Both systems form an inseparable body and should support one another. The motivational system should also provide additional support. The situation that the employ- ees receive respective remuneration, regardless of whether the implementation is success or failure, should be avoided. When it comes to the management style, in the chosen solutions, it is not only the mana- gers but all the employees who should be engaged in the implementation processes. Chan- ges in this new strategy are associated with the emergence of employee resistance. It is a natural reaction, reflecting a certain mental state of the employees, which is an expression of the fear of the unknown. That is why it is very important to make employees aware of the upcoming changes and the team’s commitment to introduce them. Participation will be possible after making employees aware that the changes are necessary in order to maintain a competitive position on the market. For smooth implementation, it is also crucial to inform the employees about the current basis on the progress in implementing the strategy, but also about any problems that have arisen throughout the performance of the specific tasks. The leader must, therefore, communicate perfectly, making everyone focus their attention on the company’s strategic priorities. W. Chan Kim and R. Mauborgne (2005) indicate that during the operation, it reveals whether employees were provided with intellectual and emotional recognition. The authors write, that in a situation of vivid and honest trust, appreciation of particular entities and deep belief in their knowledge, skills and talents it will be easier to be successful in achieving the company’s goals. The resources are a particularly important area for formulating and implementing the strategy. The problem of resources limits small and medium-sized enterprises to a larger extent than the big ones especially in the aspect of financial resources, but also all others. It is different in large enterprises where it is easier to obtain funds, more often they also have qualified staff. Human resources play a significant role in smooth strategy implementation. People play an important role because they will ultimately decide on the successful (or unsuc- cessful) strategy implementation. Like in business functioning in general, effective strategy implementation requires compliance of the company’s goals and activities with the goals and personal actions of its employees. It is easy to engage all of them in the strategic management process. A strategic instrument proposed by O. Gadiesh and J.  L.  Gilbert (2001) may be a helpful instrument in this respect. The principle is to provide employees with a signpost and motivation to act, show the direction in the constantly changing business environment and help quickly respond to emerging opportunities. It is important to extract the quintessence of the strategy and formulate it in the form of one short sentence because even the greatest strategy gives little unless people understand and use it in their everyday work. Business, Management and Education, 2018, 16(2): 222–238 235 The enterprises also paid attention to the limits of the environment where the company operates  – its stability, type, complexity. Changes occurring in the environment that cause risk and uncertainty are an inseparable element related to the functioning of the enterprise. Strategy implementation requires constant monitoring of the activities carried out inside the company, as well as in its environment. Also, it is important to identify even weak signals, then to properly assess their meaning and anticipate which of them may affect the functio- ning of the company. Exceptionally unexpected and fundamental changes in the environment may even result in complete obsolescence of the assumptions which the strategy was based, on, potentially leading to its redefinition. The adjustment of an enterprise is a demanding task. Therefore the choice of the proper methods is important. The following instruments may be useful: project management, Ba- lanced Scorecard, Strategy Map, General Management Navigator, internal audit, change ma- nagement, diagnostic method prognostic method, critical evaluation and analysis method. Certainly, the chosen method depends on many factors, including the level of the company’s preparation for the application of the given method, cost, and time-consumption. The com- pany must select the tools that it uses, and it is impossible to propose a perfect solution for use in any enterprise (Noga, 2016). Concerning adapting business areas, one of the important aspects affecting the process is the period of business activity. Enterprises that operate longer and have experience in the field of implementation can be identified. The second group is made up of companies with a short operating period, having less experience in strategy implementation. In the case of a well-established enterprise, adaptation to the company’s strategy becomes a particular problem. In these cases, the communication and motivation system plays an extremely im- portant role. It must be well designed to give employees incentives to engage in new pro- jects related to the implemented strategy, requiring them to learn something new and new responsibilities often. For an enterprise being on the market for a short time and not having experience in strategy implementation, any good practices that it can use and develop further are generally missing. In these cases, the knowledge and competencies of the personnel are particularly important. Conclusions The reflections presented in the article resulting from the author’s research on strategy im- plementation underline the importance of the stage of adapting the enterprise in the stra- tegy implementation process. The organisational structure, skills and knowledge as well as organisational culture have a particularly strong impact on the effectiveness of the strategy. Research has not confirmed any relationship between management style and resources. The obtained results became the basis for defining recommendations, which are practical guidelines for those trying to implement a strategy. It should be noted that the presented practical guidelines are not static research indications and will develop as the organisation and its environment change. In this context, attention should be drawn to the research limitations, associated with the character of undertaken practical investigations. One of the limitations is the fact that the 236 G. Noga. Problems of adapting enterprises in the strategy implementation process. Case of Poland group of respondents consisted of business organisations from a ranking list, what does not ensure that the indicated problems are characteristic for the economic operators active in Poland. In addition, a certain dose of subjectivism in such studies is simply unavoidable for the practical absence of real possibilities to verify the answers provided by respondents. It, therefore, opens up the field for even more detailed empirical studies. The article also indica- tes the problem of selecting methods in the process of adjusting the enterprise to the strategy. The enterprise itself has to select the tools that it will use to implement the strategy, depen- ding on its assumptions, its resources or the economic and social situation. In agreement with M.  Szarucki’s opinion (2016), who, analyzing the issue of the choice of a suitable method for solving a particular task, points out that “lack of classification of management methods hinders the possibility of choosing the proper one”, attempts should be made to reorganize the methods used in the process of strategy implementation. The classification criteria should include many factors such as the level of preparedness of the company, its resources, costs of the method used, or the area of its application. This will make it easier for the companies to choose a suitable method and will contribute to successful strategy implementation. Finally, there is a need to channel future studies on strategy implementation to the issue of the underlying risk. It has both a theoretical and practical dimension. It appears therefore necessary to expand the analyses on strategy implementation with the risk management issue. Disclosure statement I don’t have any competing financial, professional, or personal interests from other parties. References Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & Kraus, F. (2014). Performance impact of middle managers’ adaptive strategy implementation: the role of social capital. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 68-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2086 Alashloo, F., Castka, P., & Sharp, J. (2005). Towards understanding the impeders of strategy implemen- tation in higher education – a case study of HE institutes in Iran. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(2), 132-147. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880510594382 Allio, M. K., & Short, A. (2005). Practical guide to implementing strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 26, 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660510608512 Baczko, T., Puchała-Krzywina, E. (Ed.). (2013). Raport o innowacyjności gospodarki Polski w 2012 roku. Instytut Nauk Ekonomicznych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Warszawa. Cândido, C., & Santos, S. (2015). Strategy implementation: what is the failure rate? Journal of Manage- ment & Organisation, 21, 309-326. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.77 Candido, C. J. F., & Morris, D. S. (2001). The implications of service quality gaps for strategy implemen- tation. Total Quality Management, 12(7-8), 825-833. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544120100000003 Carpenter, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2007). Strategic management: a dynamic perspective. Concepts and cases (pp. 309-326). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Čatera, T., & Pučko, D. (2010). Factors off effective strategy implementation: empirical evidence from Slovenian business practice. Journal for East European Management Studies, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2010-3-207 https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2086 https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880510594382 https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660510608512 https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.77 https://doi.org/10.1080/09544120100000003 https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2010-3-207 Business, Management and Education, 2018, 16(2): 222–238 237 Chaola, P., Pratoon, K., & Raksong, S. (2015). A conceptual model of strategic management renewal orientation and firm performance. Proceedings of the Academy of Strategic Management, 14(2), 27. Chan Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: how to create uncontested market space and make competition irrelevant (p. 260). Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Dandira, M. (2012). Strategy in crisis: knowledge vacuum in practitioners. Business Strategy Series, 13(3), 128-135. https://doi.org/10.1108/17515631211225288 Drazin, R., & Howard, P. (2004). Strategy implementation: a technique for organisational design. Co- lumbia Journal of World Business, 19, 40-60. Freedman, M. (2003). The art and discipline of strategic leadership (p. 34). New Jersey: McGraw-Hill. Gadiesh, O., & Gilbert, J. L. (2001). Transforming corner – office strategy into frontline action. Harvard Business Review (5), 72-79. Higgins, J. (2005). The Eight ‘S’s of successful strategy execution. Journal of Change Management, 5(1-3), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010500036064 Hill, Ch. W. L. (1989). Strategic management. An integrated perspective (p. 56). Boston: Prentice-Hall. Hrebiniak, L. G. (2005). Making strategy work. Leading effective execution and change. Pearson Educa- tion, Upper Saddle River. Jiang, N., & Carpenter V. (2013). A case study of issues of strategy implementation in intern nationaliza- tion of higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(1), 4-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311289792 Kazmi, A. (2008). A proposed framework for strategy implementation in the Indian context. Manage- ment Decision, 46(10), 1568-1581. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810920047 Lisiński, M. (2004). Metody planowania strategicznego (p. 34). Warszawa: PWE. Lisiński, M. (2013). Structural analysis of the management science methodology. Business, Management and Education, 11(1), 109-136. https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2013.07 Lowy, A. (2015). The six dilemmas of strategy execution. Strategy & Leadership, 43(6), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-07-2015-0062 Moszkowicz, M. (Ed.). (2005). Zarządzanie strategiczne, systemowa koncepcja biznesu (p. 126). Warsza- wa: PWE. Noble, C. (1999). Building strategy implementation network. Business Horizons, 11-12, 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-6813(99)80034-2 Noga, G. (2007). Enterprise strategy implementation methodology. Nowy Sącz Academic Review, (3), 4-28. Noga, G. (2016). Metodologia implementacji strategii  – wyniki badań praktycznych. Prace Naukowe UE we Wrocławiu, 444, 354-364. Noga, G. (2017). Metodyka implementacji strategii zarządzania w przedsiębiorstwie. Praca doktorska, materiały niepublikowane, UEK, Kraków. Norreklit, H., Norreklit, L., Mitchell, F., & Bjornenak, T. (2012). The rise of the Balanced Scorecard – relevance regained? Journal of Accounting and Organisational Change, 8(4), 490-510. https://doi.org/10.1108/18325911211273491 Obeidat,  B.  Y., Al-Hadidi, A., Tarhini, A., & Masa’deh,  R.  E. (2017). Factors affecting strategy imple- mentation: a case study of pharmaceutical companies in the middle east. Review of International Business and Strategy, 27(3), 386-408. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-10-2016-0065 Okumus, F. (2003). A framework to implement strategies in organisation. Management Decision, 41(9), 825-833. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310499555 Olson,  E.  M., Slater,  S.  F., & Hult,  G.  T. (2005). The importance of structure and process to strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 48, 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2004.10.002 https://doi.org/10.1108/17515631211225288 https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010500036064 https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311289792 https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810920047 https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2013.07 https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-07-2015-0062 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-6813(99)80034-2 https://doi.org/10.1108/18325911211273491 https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-10-2016-0065 https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310499555 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2004.10.002 238 G. Noga. Problems of adapting enterprises in the strategy implementation process. Case of Poland Pearce, J. A., & Robinson, R. B. (2015). Strategic management, planning for domestic & global competition (p. 103). New York: McGraw – Hill Education. Pettigrew, A., & Whipp, R. (2007). Managing change for competitive success (p. 172). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Piekarz, H. (2008). Implementacja strategii z perspektywy procesu zarządzania. Studia i Prace UEK. Wyd. UEK, Kraków 2008, 1, 244-252. Ranganathan, C., & Dhaliwal, J. (2001). A survey of business process reengineering practices in Singa- pore. Information & Management, 39(2), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00087-8 Segatto, M., de Padua, S., & Martinelli, D. (2013). Business process management: a systematic approach? Business Process Management Journal, 19(4), 698-714. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-Jun-2012-0064 Schaap, J. (2012). Towards strategy implementation success: an empirical study of the role of senior- level leaders in the Nevada gaming industry. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 10(2), 14. Stabryła, A. (2000). Zarządzanie strategiczne w firmie (p. 47). Warszawa-Kraków: PWN. Steinmann, H., & Schreyögg, G. (2001). Zarządzanie: podstawy kierowania przedsiębiorstwem: koncep- cje, funkcje, przykłady. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław. Srinivasan, M. (2014). The challenge of execution in a changing world. XIMB Journal of Management, 11(1), 135. Srivastava, A., & Sushil, (2014). Modelling drivers of adapt for effective strategy execution. The Learning Organisation, 21(6), 369-391. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-08-2013-0038 Szarucki, M. (2013). Dobór instrumentów formułowania i implementacji strategii. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczo – Humanistycznego w Siedlcach, 97, 333-347. Szarucki, M. (2015). Evolution of managerial problems from the perspective of management science. Business: Theory and Practice, 16(4), 362-372. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2015.684 Szarucki, M. (2016). Dobór metod w rozwiązywaniu problemów zarządzania w opinii pracowników naukowo-dydaktycznych. In Sieci międzyorganizacyjne, procesy i projekty w erze paradoksów, “PN UE we Wrocławiu” no. 421. Waterman, R. H Jr., Peters, T. J., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure is not organisation. Business Horizons, 23(3), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(80)90027-0 Witczak, H. (2004). Implementacja strategii w zarządzaniu strategicznym. In E. Urbanowska-Sojkin & P. Banaszyk. Zarzadzanie strategiczne przedsiębiorstwem. Zeszyty Naukowe. Wydawnictwo Akade- mii Ekonomicznej, Poznań, 43, 85-107. Yip, G. S. (1992). Total global strategy (p. 34). London: Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00087-8 https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-Jun-2012-0064 https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-08-2013-0038 https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2015.684 https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(80)90027-0