When first discussing about strategic planning, all of the interviewees saw that strategic planning is the main responsibility of the management of the company. Management formulates strategies which are then implemented in the organisation. In the large and medium sized companies, the top level forms the more abstract strategies, and lower levels interpret those strategies and adjust it depending how they see that the strategy is reasonable to execute.
Example (Case B, large company):
”Globally the top management draws very wide outlines. Then, the next layer of management inteprets those outlines, narrows and adjusts how they see the best.
After that, the next layer again interprets, narrows and adjusts”
In the small companies there were not such complexity, as the level of hierarchy is low. The interpretation was seen to be needed from all the members of the organisation. Example (Case E, small company):
”It is our management that decides what our strategy is… Every member of our organisation is responsible for interpreting that strategy and act as they see the best to implement that strategy”
In every interview, it was considered important that employees have an adequate level of understanding of the company’s strategy. In that way it was seen more probable that all parts of the organisation are moving in the same direction. Example (Case E, small company):
”It is important, because it makes clear how to operate and helps to integrate the actions of different parts and prevent from doing what is not reasonable for us”
Discourse related to strategic planning shows how the middle managers maintain the view of management as strategy experts. The management formulates strategies, but everyone in the organization has the responsibility to follow the strategies based on their understanding.
Employees are seen as implementors of strategy, not formulators. Responsibility is although given to employees to interpret the strategies and act as they see the best.
The views of strategic planning were at first rather traditional. The participants in strategic planning were seen to be top managers and that it is the responsibility of the rest of the organisation to implement those strategies. When discussed about strategic planning, in many of the cases it was mentioned that there are challenges in communicating the strategy, and that it would be important that the employees would have an overall understanding of the strategy.
4.3.2 Employee innovativeness in strategic planning
When discussing about issues related to utilization of employees’ innovativeness in strategic planning, all of the case companies shared rather similar views. The utilization of employees innovativeness was seen challenging, and the interviewees even questioned the importance of utilizing of employees’ innovativeness in strategical issues. Example (Case A, large company):
”Well, in this kind of business I see that using employees in strategy is rather challenging. Employee-level usually thinks about the individual employees and what they do there. But when it’s a large company, using them in strategical issues may not be the best practise in larger frames”
Other example (Case C, medium company):
”Reaching goals without competent employees do not succeed… But the industry is focused in narrow area, so I see that it is the managements job to do strategy and related arrangements”
Other example (Case D, small company):
”I would see that maybe it is better for the employee to concentrate on the daily and operational work, as it is what he is paid to do. There could be many challenges”
Therefore, strategic planning was still seen almost entirely as the responsibility of the company management. Utilizing employees’ innovativess at least directly in strategic planning was not seen reasonable. The challenges or restrictions were seen to be related to lack of expertise of employees, lack of knowledge and lack of resources. Example (Case B, large company):
”Strategy is being formed by our top level managers, so I do not think that we need more people there. There is enough people in my opinion. At least that we don’t need employees there, as their expertise is not high enough”
Other example (Case D, small company):
”In strategy there is lot to do, for example marketing, investing, selling and buying. So if we think about the big strategical picture, it may be pointless to put weight on our employees shoulders… Also, there might be some things that we don’t want our employees to know, such us some vulnerable information”
Other example (Case E, small company):
”Well, if our customer has some specific needs, the employee does not know what those needs are… There are restrictions in the knowledge of employees”
The discourse of this topic shows how the middle managers almost completely contain employees out of the strategy work by arguing, that more participants can not be included and that top management is enough. They maintain the view that small group of strategy experts is
enough, and that employees’ responsibility is the operative work and they may not have enough expertise in strategy.
Employees therefore may not possess adequate level of expertise that is required when considering strategical issues. The lack of knowledge was seen to be caused because the employees daily work is consisted of operational issues. Resources were seen to restrict the utilization as it is not possible to include more people to the strategical planning. Almost every interviewee also mentioned that because of the type and industry of their company, utilizing employees in strategy is challenging.
4.3.3 Participation of employees in strategic planning
The interviewees saw that it is the management that formulates strategies, but when discussing more about how strategies are being formed, it was found that almost all members of the case companies are somehow related to strategic planning. The ways how members were found to be participating were more or less indirect. Example (Case B, large company):
”Well yes, actually employees are kind of participating by creating basis that is being used to formulate strategies. We for example have these occasional meetings between employees and managers, where employees have a change to express their opinions and ideas. These ideas are then possibly utilized in formulation of strategies”
Other example of indirect participation (Case E, small company):
”Actually, employees do have different perspectives on things and based on those different strategies are emerging. The perspectives are mostly affecting our end products and therefore our strategies”
In addition to indirect participation channels, few interviewees mentioned that the company has formed some more direct ways of participation, but still indirect. Example (Case C, medium company):
”We have these employee representatives who sometimes sit with the management team. In that way the voice of employees may be heard and possibly used in the formulation of strategies”
The discourse here could be indirect participation discourse, which is meaningful but more passive persperctive to strategy formulation than direct participation. This discourse gives employees a role in forming basis for strategies and gives them possibilites to express their ideas, but participation is not that active. Employees are seen to enrich strategies providing different views of strategy. The active role of employees in strategy is not necessarily being recognized, as the middle managers posses rather traditional views of strategy. Although, employees are partly participating in strategy, and the middle managers do not want to contain employees completely out of strategy work.
Employees are therefore participating in strategic planning, although at first the interviewees considered that it is the management team that formulates the strategies. The participation of employees may be difficult to see as it is not their main responsibility. Also, it was found that the middle managers themselves are also participating, despite at first they did not mention their participation. In the large and medium companies the participation was seen mainly via adjusting the strategy from the upper level, but in some cases also by presenting results or ideas that have occured. In the small companies the participation was more direct, as the interviewees were more included in the strategy planning procedures.