Strategy Implementation Styles of Local Authorities of Copperbelt Province (Zambia)

Serious concerns have been raised by strategic plan formulation and implementation experts on the best strategic plan implementation style to result in effectiveness and efficiency in organisational performance. Nonetheless, empirical studies on this issue are at its infancy. In the developing economies no effort has been made by researchers to establish the best strategic plan implementation style. The literature indicated that an effort was made by researchers to establish the best strategic plan implementation style for effectiveness and efficiency in Turkish Municipal Authorities. The purpose of the study was to establish the strategy implementation styles used by local authorities on the Copperbelt Province of Zambia to realize their strategic objectives. Five out of ten local authorities were used for the study. Four strategy implementation styles from the literature were adopted and used as independent variables, i.e., rational, instrumentalism, logic-instrumentalism and no implementation style were adopted. The multiple linear regression model used to test the hypotheses revealed that, none of the hypotheses was significant (i.e., p value less than .05) The conclusion was that, though in all the local authorities strategic plan implementation has been carried out using a mixture of rational and incremental styles have been adopted. However, the two styles are not firmly adhered to because of lack of finances to oversee to the plan implementation. The possible reason could be that the organizational culture and systems affect the implementation process; leadership vision in driving the implementation is non-existent, hence poor and ineffective implementation style.


INTRODUCTION
Strategy implementation is the most intricate and time consuming part of strategic management. Strategy implementation defines the manner in which an organisation should develop, utilize and blend organizational structures, control systems and culture to follow strategies that lead to competitive advantage and improved performance (Sorroshian et al. 2010). Hence, it is obvious that strategy implementation is a key challenge for today's organizations (Li, Gouhui & Eppler, 2008). Business success is governed more by how well strategies are implemented than by how good the strategy is to begin with (Speculand, 2009;Nyamwanza et al. 2013). On this note, Li, Gouhui, and Eppler (2008), reiterated that, there are many (soft, hard and mixed) factors that influence the success of strategy implementation, ranging from the people who communicate, or implement the strategy to the systems or mechanisms in place for coordination and control.
Nonetheless, it appears that managers do not pay much attention to the planning of implementation as they pay attention when formulating strategy (Speculand, 2009; (Li, Gouhui & Eppler, 2008;Shah, 2005). There are numerous factors that affect strategy implementation in organisations which in turn affect their performance. The difficulties usually arise during the implementation process (Li, Gouhui & Eppler, 2008). In most cases, the organizational leaders' thinking is often flawed; as a result, they fail to successfully implement the strategies they create (Speculand, 2009). Speculand (2009) argued that leaders habitually underestimate the challenge of implementing strategy and delegate the process of implementation to their subordinates eventually, not paying attention to what needs to be done. Hence, strategies fail not because the strategy is wrong, but because the execution was poorly done.
There are two types of strategy implementation studies: those highlighting the importance of factors and those that emphasize the 'big picture' of how such factors interrelate and form a strategic implementation environment (Li, Gouhui & Eppler 2008). Li, Gouhui and Eppler (2008) further identified nine individual factors that influence strategy implementation: the strategy formulation process; the strategy executors (managers and employees); the organisational structure; communication activities; consensus regarding the strategy; the relationship among different units/departments and different strategy levels; the tactics employed; the level of commitment; and the administrative systems in place.
Much has been written about implementation in the public sector, but little is known about organizational strategy implementation styles and their effect on organization performance. On this note, Andrews et al. (2011) disclosed that, none of the established styles of implementation (i.e., rational, incremental, and "no clear approach") by themselves are likely to lead to better performance but when incorporated in the strategic orientation of the organization (i.e., defender, prospector, and reactor), normally has an important moderating effect on the relationship between strategic plan implementation style and service performance.
According to Elbanna and Fabol (2016), there has been a significant amount of research on strategy processes, i.e., "the process by which a strategic decision is made and implemented and the factors which affect it". Much of this work concluded that, process matters after performance (Hart, 1992). Moreover, much of the process literature had focused more on the effects of strategy formulation, with very little evidence on the processes that organizations use when implementing their strategies and the consequences for performance (Dobni & Luffnan, 2003;Bantel & Osborn, 2001;Stone, Bigelow & Crittenden, 1999). This is a critical issue for all organizations, as many have noted before, implementing strategic plan is often more difficult than formulating it, and it is widely accepted to be an aspect of management where many organizations fail (Hrebiniak, 2006;Nutt, 1999).

Statement of the Problem
It has been empirically documented that most strategic plans fail to be implemented due to a number of factors, i.e., vision barriers, management barriers and resources barriers. However, what has not been documented and extensively researched on are the implementation styles by institutions. From a decision-making perspective, the successful implementation of strategies depends on the particular style of implementation that an organization decides to adopt, which, in turn has important implications for organizational performance. Hence, it is of great importance to investigate and assess the implementation styles used by local authority management in achieving strategic plan implementation success.
The research questions generated from the problem statement are as follows: What implementation styles are utilized by the local government management in implementing strategic plans? What are the possible reasons and rationale behind the adoption of specific implementation styles in the realization of strategic objectives by local government management? What are the similarities and differences in implementation styles of strategic plans at the local government institutions?

Study Area
The study was undertaken on the Copperbelt Province of Zambia. The Copperbelt has 10 local authorities, 2 City Councils, 5 Municipal Councils, and 3 District councils. Kitwe and Ndola are city councils. Chililabombwe, Chingola are District Councils. Kalulushi, Luanshya and Mufulira are Municipal Councils whilst Lufwanyama, Masaiti and Mpongwe are District Councils. The 5 local authorities used for the study were Kitwe, Ndola, Luanshya, Lufwanyama and Mufulira. The five are the local authorities that have had their strategic plans implemented and therefore were considered appropriate for the study. Chingola has Municipal Council has a strategic plan being implemented but were not ready to participate in the study. Chililabombwe Municipal Council and Masaiti District Council have formulated strategic plans but they have not been launched to start the implementation process. Kalulushi Municipal Council and Mpongwe District Council did not have any strategic plans made. Thus, based on the information about the local authorities on strategic plan formulation and implementation the study focused on the five local authorities highlighted above.

LITERATURE REVIEW
This section presents different scholarly perspectives on the strategic plan implementation styles. The first part discusses the definitions of key terms, i.e., strategic plan, implementation, style of implementation (implementation style) and strategy implementation. The second part reviews and discusses the empirical literature on implementation styles in private sector institutions. This is followed by a similar review and discussions on the public sector institutions. The key terminologies in this section includes: strategic plan, implementation, style of implementation and strategy implementation.

Strategic Plan
The expression strategic plan has become a commonplace feature particularly with both the private and public sector institutions. However, definitions of strategic plan have a few variations. In all the definitions, the target focus has been the development of a logical process to enable institutions (i.e., public and private), to be competitive in the unpredictable contemporary global economy. Nonetheless, efforts were made to identify and review some exciting definitions to guide the contextual definitions for the study. Some of the definitions include, Maishanu (2009) who stated that, a strategic plan is a document that shows an organisation's best possible use of available and/or limited resources (i.e., time, funds, and staff) to achieve the greatest returns (i.e., outcome, results, or impact). Contrary, McKay (2001) defined strategic plan as a vision for the organization's future which states the necessary priorities, procedures, and operations (strategies) to achieve that vision.
The two definitions by Maishanu (2009) andMckay (2001) could be perceived as a subset of the other. Mckay's definition is very broad focusing on the vision, but that of Maishanu (2009) focuses on specific elements or components of the organisation. Interestingly, Tapinos, Dyson and Meadows (2005) disclosed that, a strategic plan is a set of processes undertaken to develop a range of strategies that will contribute to achieving the organizational direction. Furthermore, Terstegen and Willemsen (2005) explained that, a strategic plan is a guide on how an organization must move towards the intended results. In addition, Bryson (2011: 8) defined "strategic plan" as, a fundamental decision and action that shape and guide what an organization (or other entity) is, what it should do, and why." The definitions of Terstegen and Willemsen (2005) and that of Bryson (2011) complement each other with Terstegen and Willemsen (2005) being narrower by focusing on the movements an organization needs to take to achieve or produce the intended results. On the other hand, Bryson's (2011) definition is quite broad by focusing on what Parker (1998) said, "If I do not know myself, I cannot know my subject". Meaning, an organisation needs to know what it is to understand its purpose, thereby knowing what needs to be done and why. In view of the diversity and variations in definitions this study, adopted Bryson's (2011) definition of strategic plan which states that a strategic plan is the fundamental decision and action that shapes and guides what an organization's, should do, and why.

Implementation
Similar to the diversity of definitions of strategic plan, the concept of implementation also has variations in meanings. Most researchers use both "implementation" and "execution", interchangeably (Alharthy et al. 2017). However, some researchers argue that the two terms should not be treated as being interchangeable and the same (Li, Guohui & Eppler, 2008) whilst others protest that they have the same meaning (Alharthy et al. 2017). The latter's perspective is supported by the definitions outlined in Alu and Lie (2013), in which they perceived the verb "to implement" as, the completion of a task, performance of a task or carrying out of a task, while the verb "to execute" is defined as the act of following through with or carrying out an action. Therefore, "implementation" and "execution" can be said to mean the same thing. Nonetheless, the following are some of the scholarly definitions of implementation extracted from the literature for discussion to guide the study. One of the intriguing definitions of "implementation" is that of De Kluyver and Pearce (2003) who stated that, it expresses hands-on operation and action-oriented human behavioural activity that calls for executive leadership and key managerial skills. Additionally, Schaap (2006) operationally defined implementation as those senior-level leadership behaviours and activities that will transform a working plan into a concrete reality (i.e., implementation of the strategy). Excitingly and interestingly, Maishanu (2009) referred to implementation as "putting of choices into action, which in turn changes the current position".
Based on the diversity of definitions in the literature, this study adopted De Kluyver and Pearce's (2003) definition which expressed "hands-on operation and action-oriented human behavioural activity that calls for executive leadership and key managerial skills"

Strategy Implementation
Undoubtedly, strategy implementation has been perceived by many authors (Giles, 1991;Noble, 1999;Bradford, Duncan & Tarcy, 2000;Li, Gouhui & Eppler, 2008;Håkonsson et al. 2012;Andrews, Beynon, & Genc, 2017) in the literature as an essential area of discussion in the overall field of strategic management. However, many definitions of strategy implementation have been posited such that, it is challenging to provide an overarching one (Li, Gouhui & Eppler, 2008). For instance, Giles (1991) disclosed that, strategy implementation is concerned with putting strategy into practice that can be described as the execution of tactics so that the company moves in the desired strategic direction (see also Bradford, Duncan & Tarcy, 2000). Similarly, Noble (1999:119 cited in Cater & Pucko, 2010 described the roots of the strategy implementation research as "eclectic". Hence, Noble defined strategy implementation as, "the communication, interpretation, adoption, and enactment of strategic plans" (1999:120). Contrary, Håkonsson et al. (2012:182) defined "strategy implementation" as, "the realization of strategies and what the firm does". The definitions by Noble (1999) and Håkonsson et al. (2012) express similar opinions focusing more on institutions or individuals ensuring that strategies are not mere dreams but become reality through the institutions' conscious investment in time, financial and human resources to operationalize the strategic objectives and action plans This is similar to the definition by Bradford, Duncan and Tarcy (2000) and Li, Gouhui and Eppler (2008). Li, Gouhui and Eppler (2008) defined strategy implementation as the actions an organisation takes to meet its strategic goals whilst Bradford, Duncan and Tarcy (2000), defined strategy implementation as the process of putting strategies and policies into action through the development of programmes, budgets and procedures. In the same vein, Cater and Pucko (2010:210) also expressed strategy implementation as "a systematic process composed of a logical set of connected activities that enable a company to make a strategy work" Interestingly, Padovani, Young and Heichlinger (2018) in their attempt to develop a framework of action for strategy implementation in Local Governments considered the Six Cs Model by Barnard (1938) that focused on the following activities: coalition building, citizen involvement, conflict management, compensation and rewards, cross-unit collaboration, and control. This approach did not specify on the style of implementation. Hence, it provides a challenge to researchers on strategy implementation to rethinking and review on how best and effective strategic plans can be implemented.
For this study, the explanation generated from the definitions of Noble (1999), Bradford, Duncan and Tarcy (2000), Li, Gouhui, and Eppler (2008) and Håkonsson et al. (2012) expressing that strategy implementation is the process whereby institutions or individuals ensuring that strategies are not mere dreams but become reality through the institutions' conscious investment in time, financial and human resources to operationalize the strategic objectives and action plans were adopted.

Style of Implementation
This refers to the approaches or procedures that organizations adopt when putting strategies into practice (Andrews et al. 2011). This definition is very similar to the view of Hill and Hupe (2009) who defined "an implementation style" as a part of an organization's administrative routine, which is crucial to understanding the dynamics of implementation. Focusing on Elbanna, Andrews, and Pollanen (2016) and Genc (2018), the categorisation of implementation styles was highlighted. According to Genc (2018), an examination of existing implementation styles indicates that there are a number of core elements, such as the extent to which responsibility is centralized or decentralized, and whether formulation and implementation are distinct sequential activities or are intertwined and represent a distinction between more or less planned styles of implementation (Long & Franklin, 2004). Genc (2018) further stated that, an organization's implementation style tends to become institutionalized and established over time. However, researchers argue that organizations might apply different implementation styles for distinct purposes (Elbanna, Andrews & Pollanen 2016;Andrews, Beynon & Genc, 2017). Andrews et al. (2016) disclosed that in seeking to understand what works and when for strategy implementation, strategic decision making theories focus on the key implementation styles, i.e., a rational or planned style of implementing and an incremental or ad-hoc style of implementation. A rational implementation style prioritizes getting people to follow precise procedures for the introduction of new policies and strategies, and the use of systems that can ensure that such organizational changes follow a pre-planned sequence of steps (Parsa, 1999cited in Andrews, Beynon & Genc, 2017. Contrary, an incremental implementation style emphasizes the fluid nature of change management, and the need to encourage and support the modification of strategies on the ground by the people responsible for making them work (Quinn, 1990cited in Andrews, Beynon & Genc, 2017. The high failure rate of strategic plan implementation motivated a significant number of academicians in the field of strategic management to focus more attention on the question of implementation challenges vis-ȧ-vis the issue of implementation style. However, research on strategic implementation style seems to have been initiated after the seminal publication by Noble (1999) on "Eclectic roots of strategy implementation research" when he suggested some areas of possible research to be seriously focused on. This has taken almost two decades of efforts by academicians to really get to grip with the real dynamics underlying strategy implementation success. Hussey (2000) stated that, the implementation of strategies remains one of the most difficult areas of management, simply because its success depends both on the selection of an appropriate strategy and converting that strategy into action (Kirui, 2013). Furthermore, the strategy literature claims that, between 50% and 80% of strategy implementation efforts fail (Ashkenas & Francis, 2000). Interestingly, the last decade of implementation science has seen wider recognition of the need to establish the theoretical bases of implementation and strategies to facilitate implementation (Neilson, Martin & Powers, 2008). Thus, significant efforts by researchers to establish and understand the possible factors hindering successful implementation of strategic plans have been reported in the United States, Europe, Middle East, Asia and East and Southern Africa (Elbanna & Fobol, 2016).
In view of the above expositions by different researchers (Parsa, 1999;Ashkenas & Francis, 2000;Neilson, Martin & Powers, 2008;Elbanna & Fobol, 2016;Andrews, Beynon & Genc, 2017), literature on both private and public sector was reviewed for comparison purposes because presumably they (i.e., private and public) implement their strategies differently. As Parsa (1999) puts it, private sector institutions are concerned with profit making. Hence, they use particular styles that will enhance profit making.
On the other hand, the public sector is more concerned with the effectiveness and efficiency (Andrews Beynon & Genc 2017), i.e., public sector is more concerned with styles that will boost the effectiveness of the strategic plans put in place and efficiency in the use of limited resources thereby improving the welfare of the people. Thus, according to Genc (2018), public institutions adopt different combinations of implementation styles which have varying implications on performance and strategic objective achievement. Hence, it has been noted that, a logical incremental implementation style is a successful approach in strategy implementation although the rational style is perceived to be the key to better performance (Andrews, Beynon & Genc, 2017).

Strategic Objectives
Generally, an objective describes the end results to be achieved by the firm or institution. It is a specific commitment to achieve a measurable result within a given time frame (iedunote.com) To that effect, an objective refers to the measurable targets that the firm or institution wants to achieve. Belicove (2013), "an objective is a measurable step you take to achieve a strategy". Strategic objectives, therefore, forms the basis for formulating the strategy of any organization or institution (ibid). Keyte (2014) indicated that Strategic Objective is a continuous improvement activity. He further stressed that, strategic objectives are considered to be the DNA of the Balanced Scorecard system. Keyte's definition is quite intriguing. It hints on the best appropriate approaches to achieve organizational goals and vision. Thus, objectives being a means of measuring planned targets of an organization, is tightly linked to the organizational vision, hence confirming Keyte's definition of it being a continuous improvement. Perceived as the dependent variable of the study, the focus was on how the Local Authorities continuously monitor and achieve their set targets in improving their performance during the planned period.

Empirical Literature Reviews
One of the limitations of the existing literature is the scarcity of empirical studies which examine the impact of implementation style on performance (Stone, Bigelow & Crittenden 1999). This has been a "missing link" in much of the research on strategy implementation. A significant problem with many of the studies of strategic plan implementation is the issue that success is identified as the adoption of the strategy, rather than higher performance (for example Nutt, 1989). Nonetheless, a significant number of studies were identified and reviewed to provide insights and directions for this study. The studies include private sector strategy implementation styles by Joshi, Sheman and Schermerhorn (2004) and Kennedy (2002)  The purpose of the study by Joshi, Sherman, and Schermerhorn (2004) was to initiate more systematic and cross-cultural examinations of the implementation styles used by middle managers when they implement strategic changes. Earlier, Balogun (2003) had observed that one of the factors that affected the choice of implementation styles was whether the change was in reaction to an event or whether it was a proactive move to deal with an event that was expected to happen in the future. On this point Balogun, and Jenkins (2003) argued that, in reactive or crises situations, managers tend to use a more rational style, whereas in proactive situations, managers prefer more incremental approaches. One of the interesting outcomes of the study by Joshi, Sherman, and Schermerhorn (2004) was that the three areas of study have different cultures that in a way also influence organizational cultures and ways of operation. The cultures tend to influence the choice of implementation styles by middle managers in the decisions.
Another empirical study of interest was done by Huy (2011) and Teulier & Rouleau (2013) respectively in the United States of America. The two studies highlighted the important roles that middle managers play in organizational strategic activities and strategy implementation in particular (Huy, 2011). Unlike the study by Joshi, Sherman, and Schermerhorn (2004) and Kennedy (2002), the majority of the participants in the study pointed to an incremental implementation style as the approach that inspires employee engagement as one of the key factors influencing strategy implementation (Vilà & Canales, 2008). The perception of the majority of the participants was that, an incremental style is necessary and best suitable for strategy implementation, because middle managers in the strategy development phase facilitates engagement (Delbridge et al. 2013).
Furthermore, Xu et al. (2013) argued that, when middle managers are included in formulating strategic initiatives, they feel they have contributed in the strategic efforts and develop a sense of ownership. It is further argued by Shirey (2011) that employee engagement encourages a sense of ownership of the strategy and further develops organizational capabilities. Hence, participants indicated that it is critical to engage middle managers and employees from other levels in the organization in the strategy work because those organizational members are normally closer to the execution lines (Salih & Doll, 2013).
Aside the empirical studies discussed above, two different public sector institutions in two different geographical regions, i.e., Turkish Metropolitan municipalities in Turkey in the Middle East and Welsh Local Authority in Wales in Great Britain in Europe have systematically examined the relationship between alternative strategy implementation styles and the performance of public service organizations (Andrews et al. 2017) even though the modest research effort to date focused on the relationship between strategy implementation style and implementation success (Hickson, Miller & Wilson 2003), the performance effects of discrete implementation styles (Andrews et al. 2011) or is undertaken in Western organizational settings (Stewart & Kringas, 2003).
This study examined the relationship between alternative strategy implementation styles and the perceived performance of service departments. Fuzzy cluster analysis was used to identify four different styles of strategy implementation, reflecting varying levels of commitment to features of rational and incremental strategy implementation: logical-incremental, mostly rational, mostly incremental, and no clear approach (Andrews, Beynon & Genc, 2017). Findings from multivariate hierarchical regression analyses suggested that, a logicalincremental and a mostly rational implementation style are associated with higher levels of effectiveness, efficiency and equity than the other implementation styles, with no clear approach associated with the lowest level of performance.
The study highlighted that public service organizations adopt different combinations of implementation styles and that those combinations can have varying implications for organizational outcomes (Genc, 2018). Importantly, a logical-incremental implementation style appears to be a successful approach to strategy implementation, with the results for a mostly-rational style indicating that the adoption of rational implementation processes may hold the key to better performance.
On the contrary, the Welsh Local Authorities study focused on a range of services i.e., education, social services, housing, highways, public protection, and benefits and revenues represented a suitable context for testing the relationship between implementation style, strategy, and performance across different public organizations (Andrew et al. 2011). Thus, by restricting the analysis to service departments, other potential influences on performance, such as the policies of higher tiers of government and legal constraints, were held constant (Andrews, Beynon & Genc, 2017). The findings were not statistically significant. It was discovered that logical incremental implementation style appears to be less helpful than a rational approach and it is negatively rather than positively related to organisational performance (Andrews et al. 2011). This observation seems to contradict much of the suggestion in the literature that, incremental style enhances organizational performance (Delbridge et al. (2013). For instance, Delbridge et al. (2013) argued that, an incremental style is necessary and best suitable for strategy implementation because involving stakeholders in the strategy development and implementation phase facilitates engagement thereby leading to good organisational performance. However, Andrews et al. (2011) stated that, the potential explanation for the negative association between an incremental implementation style and organisational performance is that, it leads to a lack of focus in the implementation process. In addition, Kim (2002) stated that an incremental implementation style is positively associated with organisational performance. It was further discovered that, there is a negative relationship between no style of strategy implementation and performance although the coefficient was not statistically significant. The findings suggested that there is no single style of implementation that is likely to lead to service improvement independently. Meaning, the style of implementation makes no difference on organisational performance.
Even though the Turkish case study of Municipal Authorities was intriguing and brought out the issue of different socio cultural elements affecting decision choices by middle managers to influence strategy implementation styles, the fascinating and enlightening lesson learnt from the study was the methodology used for the study. It was realized that the researchers focused on 20 metropolitan municipalities. This is similar to this study which focused on the local authorities on the Copperbelt Province. It was perceived that the research design, the population sampling procedure and method of data collection from the metropolitan municipalities could be similar to the approach to be used for the study on the Copperbelt Province. Hill and Jones (2008) highlighted that, strategy implementation involves putting strategies in practice, which entails the introduction of new service delivery models, monitoring the effectiveness of operational changes and redesigning the organizational structure, evaluation system, and culture required to fit the new strategy. Additionally, the strategy implementation style of an organisation forms part of the administrative routines recognized as crucial to understanding the dynamics of implementation (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2000). Thus, an organization's implementation style tends to become established and institutionalized over time (Andrews et al. 2011). The models (i.e., rational, incremental, mixed approach and no approach) illustrate the range of implementation styles that may possibly exist in organizations, but what differs is in the variables that they consider and the terms that are used. For example, Hickson, Miller, and Wilson (2003) used the terms planned and prioritized, whereas Bourgeois and Brodwin's (1984) as cited by Andrews et al (2011) highlighted examples of implementation style are commander, change, collaborative, cultural, and crescive. Thompson (2000) categorized implementation style along a spectrum of approaches, with rational/command at one end and incremental/ generative at the other. However, Cespedes and Piercy (1996)  This study adopted the models evolved by Andrew, Beynon and Genc (2017) in their study of Turkish Municipal Authorities whereby using the Fussy Cluster analysis evolved the four concepts of Rational Implementation Style, Incremental Implementation Style, Mixed Incremental Style, and Absence of Implementation style. Rational Implementation style derives its foundation from the concept of rationality which Olveira (2007) defined as the "compatibility between choice and value". Thus, rational behaviour seeks to heighten the significance of the consequences focusing on the process of choosing rather than emphasizing the selected alternative (Uzonwanne, 2016). Therefore, a rational implementation style's priority is on making people to follow the precise procedures before introducing new policies and strategies and using systems that ensures that the organizational changes are following the pre-planned sequence of steps (Parsa, 1999). Additionally, the rational implementation style has centralized control, uses the formal means of securing compliance, and it separates the formulation and implementation of strategies. Furthermore, the rational implementation style ensures that top management is able to monitor and closely control organizational change (Andrews, Beynon & Genc, 2017).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The alternative to rational implementation style is Incremental strategy implementation model introduced by Charles Lindblom in 1959 through his publication The Science of Mudding Through. Lindblom (1959) claimed that the limited nature of rationality and capacities of human cognition, together with constraints on time and resources, do not allow planners to follow a rational type of reasoning, particularly when dealing with complicated issues. Thus, incremental implementation style places emphasis on the fluid nature of change management and the need to encourage and support the modification of strategies on the ground by the people responsible for making them work (Quinn, 1990 as cited by Andrews, Beynon & Genc, 2017). Organizations that use this style of implementation decentralise responsibilities and have a looser distinction between formulation and implementation. The role of the organization's members is enhanced as they are active participants in the process of developing and implementing strategies (Andrews, Beynon & Genc, 2017). The involvement of staff facilitates organizational learning because the strategy can be fine-tuned and adjusted, leading to the continual adaptation of strategies as they are being implemented. The framework was developed based on the factors and possible strategic plan implementation styles that were highlighted in the literature. The framework shows the relationship between implementation styles organisations could use when implementing strategic plans.

Rational Implementation style and Achievement of Strategic Objectives
The concept of rational implementation style stresses ensuring top management make the staff follow the precise procedures in introducing new policies and strategies whilst using systems that ensure that the organizational changes are following the pre-planned sequence of steps (Parsa, 1999). In other words, the rational implementation style has centralized control enforced by management in the use of formal means of securing compliance in the implementation of strategies (see also Andrews et al. 2017). Based on the expositions highlighted based on the reference by Parsa (1999) and Andrews et al. (2017) the following hypothesis was posited:

Incremental Implementation Style and Achievement of Strategic Objectives
In this study the concept of incrementalism as it originates from the works of Lindblom (1959) was adopted to facilitate its operationalization. The basis of the evolution of the concept of incrementalism in the planning theory literature was the perceived drawbacks associated with the concept of rational comprehensive planning principle and philosophy of being overly sure of securing all the information to make the strategic implementation decisions. The rationality in this case is left to management. This, in most cases, is perceived to result in the failure of strategy plan implementation. Hence, the incremental approach posits that to overcome the drawback associated with the rational approach, decentralization of decision making processes by engaging not only the top management but involving sub-managers and supervisors from all units within the organization improves the success rate of strategy implantation. To this effect, Rainey (2003) stated that, staff participation in decision making is associated with improved implementation and organizational achievement of strategic objective. The rationale underlying this approach is that, units can have serious pragmatic decisions to implement projects within their units hence contributing to the achievement of the strategic objectives. Based on the discussions on incremental implementation style, we hypothesised that:

Rational-Incremental Implementation Style and Achievement of Strategic Objectives
This is a mixture of the first two approaches in strategy implementation. It cannot be wholly accepted that one approach is very ideal in achieving strategy implementation. As stated by Andrews et al. (2011: 648) some organizations may have no discernible or consistent style of implementation. This is very pragmatic in the sense that the leadership visions and management styles differ with different personalities characterised by their educational and socio-cultural backgrounds. Hence, the organization may be seen to utilize a combination of both rational and incremental style of strategy implementation. Thus the following hypothesis was postulated:

Absence of Implementation Style and Achievement of Strategic Objectives
The concept of "strategy absence" as propounded by Inkpen and Choudhury's (1995) suggested that it is possible for organizations to have no clearly discernible style of strategy implementation. In such organizations, there is no taken-for-granted or preferred routine for implementing strategies (Andrews, Beynon & Genc, 2017). The absence of a clear approach to strategy implementation may therefore be associated with poor achievement because those involved in the introduction of new practices have few processes and procedures to draw upon or are not encouraged to participate in decision-making on the ground (Genc, 2018). Hence, we hypothesised that: H4: Absence of strategy implementation style negatively affects the achievement of strategic plan objectives in Local Authorities

METHODOLOGY
The research used cross-sectional survey of five (5) Local authorities (i.e., Kitwe City Council, Ndola City Council, Luanshya Municipal Council, Mufulira Municipal Council, and Lufwayama District Council) on the Copperbelt Province of Zambia. These are the local authorities that had formulated and implemented their strategic plans. The sixth Local Authority that has also implemented its strategic plan but did not participate in the research was Chingola Municipal Council. The sample frame focused on top and middle management staff which included heads of departments and supervisors based on the following organizational structure: Each local authority has the number of departments based on its ranking (i.e., city, municipal and district). However, 13 departments were identified; Housing, Procurement and Stores, office of the Town Clerk, Development Planning, Legal Services, Finance, Administration, Surveying, Engineering Services, Human Resource, Public Health, Auditing and IT. With this approach, the total target sample of respondents was estimated to be 115, i.e., 25 respondents from each of the city and municipal councils and 15 respondents from Lufwanyama District Council that has a smaller establishment of senior and middle management personnel.
Qualitative statements of 56 items reflecting on the research questions and the hypotheses derived from the conceptual framework were grouped under rational implementation style, incremental implementation style, logical-incremental implementation style, absence of implementation style and strategic objective achievement and measured using the 7 point Likert scale questionnaire with the lowest scale being 1 representing strongly disagree and the highest being 7 representing strongly agree.
The questionnaire was first piloted on potential respondents form the Planning Departments of two of the local authorities, i.e., Chingola, and Kitwe. The responses on the questions were to expectation. The comments received from the respondents on the pilot study was that, the clarity of the questions was good; secondly, time to complete the questionnaire was less than 10 minutes which did not pose a challenge to the respondents. With a total of 115 potential respondents, the questionnaires were distributed through the Planning Department to the identified staff giving them the opportunity to express their views on strategic plan implementation style(s) used by their institution in relation to their strategic plan.

Reliability and Convergent Validity
The data was coded and entered into the SPSS Version 25 software. The first test done on the data was to establish if there were some outliers in the data set, i.e., (establishing the skewness and kurtosis). This proved not to be the case. The next thing was to perform the factor analysis and reliability test. Principal Component Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation was performed to reduce the number of variables from the initial 56 using a cut off loading of 0.7. The Bartlett's test of sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy were to test the significance and factorability of the variables. The Bartlett's test statistic was significant at p< 0.000 while the KMO had to be above .50. At this minimum criterion, it was observed that not all factors had factor loadings above 0.7 making the dataset in its original form not suitable for factor analysis. The factors with less than 0.7 were removed one after the other until all the factors remaining were above 0.7 for the KMO test. To this effect, the following items were removed from the computation for RATIMPST A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9; B3, B4, B5, B8, B9 and B10 for INCREMIMPST; C1, C2, C7 and C8 for LOGICINIMPST; D1, D4, D5, D7, and D8 for ABSIMPST; E4, E6, and E7 for the variable ACHSTROBJE. The Commonalities for all the variables were above the critical value of .300, whilst the KMOs were .661, .803, .817, .809 and .790 for RATIMPST, INCREMIMPST, LOGICINIMPST, ABSIMPST, and ACHSTROBJE respectively.
To test for reliability and convergent validity, the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was set at (≥ 0.7). Table 1 shows the Cronbach's reliability coefficient values for the factors. All the factors had Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient values of more than .8; thus, considered good reliability indicators for the study. The data made it possible to transform the independent and dependent variables to the following names: RATIMPST representing Rational Implementation Style; INCREMIMPST representing Incremental Implementation Style; LOGICINIMPST representing Logic Incremental Implementation Style (i.e., Rational-Incremental Implementation Style); ABSIMPST representing absence of Implementation Style, and ACHSTROBJE representing Achievement of Strategic Objective.

Demographic Profile
This section analyses and discusses the demographic characteristics of the respondents, which includes the Years worked, Service area, Gender, Age and Education. Table 1 provides the statistics. The gender of the respondents depicted 64% males and 36% females. On the age groups it was realized that almost half of the respondents (49%) were between the ages of 18 and 29 with 36% between 30 and 39 years; In other words, 85% of the respondents are in the active labour force age category. The implication in that barring the issue of transfers and resignations, the personnel is an asset for strategic plan formulation and implementation with experiences. The education level of the respondents also exhibited a salient significant point with respect to the study. The personnel might be well informed on the issue of strategic plan formulation and implementation.
On the number of years served in the organisations, it was realized that 72% of the respondents had served fewer years. One of the reasons could be that most of the personnel in this category might have experienced transfers from different local Authorities. The other reason could be that they might have been recruited by Local Government Commission in the last five years after graduation from Universities. It must be stressed herein that, in the last few years the Local Government Commission has been engaged in transfers of personnel between Local Authorities due to the creation of new Districts since the Patriotic Party was voted into power on 20 th September 2011.

Respondents Service Areas
The total number of departments represented was 13 from 5 local authorities. Housing, procurement and the town clerk departments each recorded 1%. The development planning department had the highest record at 32%, Legal department recorded 17%, finance department 16%, administration and surveying departments each recorded 7%, engineering services recorded 6%, human resource and public health departments each recorded 4% and finally auditing and IT departments recorded 2% each.      Based on the results of the correlation matrix, a multiple linear regression analysis was performed to establish the specific strategic plan implementation style that has significantly positive influence on the achievement of strategic objectives developed by the Local Authorities on the Copperbelt Province of Zambia. The model summary indicated a significant model fit with p<.05 with a Coefficient of Variance, R 2 being 9.5%. This implies that the model explains only 9.5% of the strategy implementation style. This is very weak. The ANOVA results indicate significant p< .05 (See Tables 5 and 6). Even though the correlation matrix indicated that RATIMPST, INCREMIMPST, LOGINCIMPST had significant correlation with the dependent variable, ACHSTROBJE, none of the three independent variables was positively significant to influence the achievement of strategic objectives. The results portray that all the four (4) hypotheses were not supported (see Table 8). The implications of the results could be due to the following possible factors:

Correlation Matrix
a) The Local Authorities being public institutions have a peculiar organizational climate and culture that significantly influence on the leadership vision and attitude in the execution of strategic plans b) The Local Authorities might have successfully made good strategic plans, the leadership fail to articulate and adhere to a specific style of implementation due to non availability of financial resources to execute the plans. c) The Local Authorities formulate strategic plans with the aim of securing external financial support from cooperating planners based on promises given during the plan formulation process. The observed reality is that, in most cases, the promises are not fulfilled by the partners giving excuses of institutional policy changes on financial regulations and discipline. d) The Local Authorities formulate strategic plans expecting the central government to fund priority projects on the assumption that the projects are identified in line with governing party's manifesto. Such perception by the management of Local Authorities tends to negative affect the achievement of strategic objectives. e) The study on Local Authorities on the Copperbelt Province in Zambia is very unique in the sense that financially, the institutions struggle to raise adequate funds to meet their staff monthly remunerations, let alone have the finances to support their strategic plan projects. Hence, with the Local Authorities being cash strapped, though the management might have the desire and willingness to implement projects from the strategic plan, the style of implementation becomes ad hoc. In other words, projects enshrined in the strategic plans are implemented as and when funds are available. f) One prominent factor that must not be overlooked is the regularity with which the Local Government Commission transfers personnel working in the Local Authorities of Zambia. The transfers invariably are perceived to likely affect some of the leadership and supervisory vigilance of implementation of strategic projects in the strategic plans. Besides, the reality on the ground is that not all leaders have the same vision, drive and enthusiasm to uphold the vision of their predecessors. Hence, each leader or supervisor comes with a different style of approaching the implementation of planned projects. g) From the years worked within the organization, it was realized that 72% of the respondents had been in their position for only less than 5 years. This attests to the point raised above. Young new leaders might have been posted to the institution when the plan implementation process has already taken place without being aware and fully briefed about the implementation style. h) Most strategic plans are very ambitious and loaded (i.e., crowding the plan with numerous expensive prioritized projects). This ambitious dream makes it difficult to effectively perform realistic goals achievement matrix to single out projects that have to be implemented with effective time frames. The underlying influence in this failure to achieve strategic objectives is the invisible hand of political power of influence in the implementation process. Table 7 depicts the coefficient values from the multiple linear regression analysis. The statistics indicate that none of the independent variables had any positive significant influence on the dependent variable ACHSTROBJE. It is also realized from the results that all the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values are less than 5, hence concluding that there was no multi-collinearity between the independent variable.

CONCLUSION
The research set out to find answers to the research questions that emanated from the problem statement. On the first research question, i.e., what implementation styles are utilized by the local government management in implementing strategic plans? It was realized from the responses generated from the structured questionnaire that, all the Local Authorities through their management subscribe to some form of strategy implementation style. From the correlation matrix, it was realized that some of the local Authorities might adopt one or two of the three strategic plan implementation styles, i.e., rational implementation style (RATIMPST), incremental implementation style (INCREMIMPST) and the mixed rational -incremental implementation style (LOGINCIMPST) depending on unforeseen circumstances. Since none of the hypotheses was significant in influencing the achievement of strategic objectives, it was concluded that there was no specificity of a particular strategic plan implementation style. However, the style that seems to be more prominent in application is the mixed rational-incremental approach. This is a very flexible style that allows the units to take initiative in the implementation process especially on projects that do not require large sums of funding.
On the second research question, i.e., what are the possible reasons and rationale behind the adoption of specific implementation styles in the realization of strategic objectives by local government management? As already stated under the results and discussion section of this paper above, a number of factors might influence the adoption of any of the strategy implementation style. The first possible reason could be the leadership style of the management. Leaders have their own visions that guided their relationships with the management team. The second possible reason could be due the organizational climate and culture pertaining in the local Authority. Human attitudes and behavioural tendencies play a significant role in the strategic plan implementation. The third possible reason is the non-availability of funds to finance the implementation of project. Finally, the issue of personnel transfers also plays some significant role in the adoption of specific implementation style during the implementation process. Change of leadership and new supervisors during the implementation process is likely change the implementation style.
On the third research question, i.e., what are the similarities and differences in implementation styles of strategic plans at the local government institutions? The governance systems in all the Local Authorities are similar. However, with respect to the strategy formulation and implementation processes, it was realized that the institutions do not exhibit any differences. What is more spectacular and prominent was that, all the Local Authorities have the same management problems in handling their strategy implementation processes. The problem of finance and the regularity with which the Local Government Commission transfer personnel significant besets the implementation processes and styles. Hence, it could be concluded that, the similarities are related to governance whilst are no differences in strategy implementation styles.
Based on the conclusions emanating from the results and discussions, the possible recommendations are as follows: The complex and sensitive nature of strategy implementation requires the Local Authorities to have stable management that have the leadership vision and style that recognizes all the expert knowledge and skills in the organizations to share their experiences and ideas. The leadership should have that will and zeal to drive the strategic plan implementation process taking into consideration all staff participation. Second, the constraint posed by the rampant transfers in the Local Authorities should be seriously addressed by the Government of the Republic of Zambia if her decentralization policy of promoting integrated development from below with the local Authorities initiating the process by incorporating all stakeholders in the strategy formulation and implementation process is to be achieved. The Government should review the transfers' policies within the Local Government institutions to ensure that leadership and management personnel are kept in the institutions for at least a minimum of ten (10) years. This proposition implies that a management personnel will be able to participate effectively in at least one strategic plan formulation and implementation process, Hence experiences, challenges and lessons learnt could be useful in t enhancing further strategic plan formulation and implementation processes.