Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Strategy implementation often diverges from planned intent. Middle managers—who translate strategy into action—are often at the center of this gap. Prior work has often treated such deviations as a problem of weak alignment or resistance. Here, we examine, however, when and why middle-manager deviations become constructive adaptations compared with destructive drift. In so doing, we draw on 92 documented deviations reported by 40 middle managers across 30 multinational organizations. The goal is to distinguish between deviations that improve outcomes and those that delay, dilute, or derail execution. Our analysis identifies seven recurring reasons for deviation, each of which is rooted in organizational design rather than individual indiscipline. Disagreement with strategy was nearly universal across both constructive and destructive deviations. As such, it does not explain implementation failure. Instead, misaligned incentives, lack of accountability, and insufficient slack systematically distinguish destructive from constructive outcomes. We also integrate these findings into a design-based framework that explains how organizational conditions shape middle managers’ sensemaking, prioritization, and use of discretion during implementation. Specifically, our study reframes deviation as a diagnostic signal. It also offers actionable guidance for leaders seeking to reduce destructive drift while enabling constructive adaptation. These findings suggest that leaders should shift attention from enforcing compliance to designing implementation contexts that channel middle managers’ discretion toward constructive adaptation rather than destructive drift.
Source: Organizational Dynamics
Authors: Annabel Christie, Esther Tippmann
Institution: Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway
Language: English
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $2,740
Funders: Purdue University, Cranfield University
OpenAlex ID: W4413789213