In championing, synthesizing, and facilitating, middle managers go beyond, or even ignore, the plans embedded in top management's deliberate strategy. The most commonly recognized strategic role, however, is the implementation of top management's intentions. Here, the strategic contribution rests on middle managers’ efforts to deploy existing resources efficiently and effectively. Reports suggest a widening gap between intentions and implementation, [viii] however, and the cause is often attributed to middle manager obstinacy. Our research suggests another reason.

Implementation is commonly perceived as a mechanical process where action plans are deduced and carried out from a master strategy conceived by top management. The reality is more complex. Even in fairly stable situations, priorities must be revised as conditions evolve and new information presents itself. And, few situations are stable in today's business world. Implementation, therefore, is best characterized as an ongoing series of interventions which are only partly anticipated in top management plans and which adjust the direction to suit emergent events.

In short, the conception that top managers formulate strategy while middle managers carry it out is not only unrealistic; it is also self-defeating. Effective implementation requires that middle managers have a firm understanding of the strategic rationale behind the plan, in addition to the specific directives. Such understanding appears to be the result of broad participation in the strategic process, [ix] and middle management's effectiveness in implementing strategy is thus directly related to their involvement in other roles. The "implementation gap" reflects a broader chasm between senior management's perception of implementation, and what middle managers must know to get the job done. In an earlier AME article, we described the problem as lack of strategic consensus and outlined a process for narrowing the gap. [x]