Why firms adhere to or deviate from their strategic plans is poorly understood. However, theory and limited research suggest that the process through which such plans emerge may play a part. In particular, top management decision-sharing consensus-oriented, team-based Decision -making-may increase the likelihood that firms will adhere to their plans, because those involved in the decision-making may be more committed to the chosen course of action, thereby increasing the likelihood that organizations will subsequently adhere to their plans.

    However, the relationship between top management decision-sharing and adherence to plans may be affected by a firm's strategic mission (its fundamental approach to increasing sales revenue and market share, and generating cash flow and short-term profits). At one end of the strategic mission continuum, "build" strategies are pursued when a firm desires to increase its market share and is willing to sacrifice short-term profits to do so. At the other end, "harvest" strategies are used when a firm is willing to sacrifice market share for short-term profitability and cash-flow maximization. Research and theory suggest that top management decision-sharing may have a more positive relationship with adherence to plans among firms with harvest strategies than among firms with build strategies. In a study of strategic practices in several largefirms, managers in harvest strategy scenarios were more able to adhere to their business plans. As one of the managers in the study explained it, this is partly because "[t] ypically all a manager has to do [when implementing a harvest strategy] is that which was done last year." Additionally, managers under harvest strategies may have fewer strategic options than do those under build strategies; it may therefore be easier to reach agreement on a particular course of action through decision-sharing, which will in turn tend to promote adherence to plans. Conversely, in a "build" strategy scenario, individual leader-ship, rather than decision-sharing, may promote adherence to plans. Build strategies-which typically require leaders with strong personal visions for a firm's future, rather than the negotiated compromise of the team-based decision-maybe most closely adhered to when implemented in the context of a clear strategic vision of an individual leader, rather than through the practice of decision-sharing.

(This passage is excerpted from material published in a1997.)

    Whereas United States economic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965,it has grown at an annual rate of only about 1 percent since the early 1970's. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. Manufacturing, however, constitutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods-producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970's, its productivity growth has declined.

    Several explanations have been offered for this decline and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that traditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the under measurement of quality, where as service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue that since the 1970's, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but service workers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because of slow growth in demand for manufactured goods.

    Yet another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rates would be lower too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technologies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector. There is, however, no dearth of technological resources; rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines. High productivity growth levels attained by leading-edge service companies indicate that service-sector managers who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve their companies' productivity. The culprits for service-sector productivity stagnation are the forces-such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary governmental regulation-that distract managers from the task of making optimal use of available resources.