Formulation of strategy might be an tough work but implementation of the same is no less than that in comparison. Implementation process of strategy faces many hurdles and one of the prime is shift of the responsibility, especially if strategy-formulation decisions come as a surprise to middle- and lower-level managers. This place where and why it is essential that divisional and functional managers be involved as much as possible in strategy-formulation activities. In my research I have found that following are the few strategy implementation hurdles being faced across organization across the globe:

·         Establish annual objectives
·         Devise policies
·         Allocate resources
·         Alter an existing organizational structure
·         Restructure and reengineer
·         Revise reward and incentive plans
·         Minimize resistance to change
·         Match managers with strategy
·         Develop a strategy-supportive culture
·         Adapt production/operations processes
·         Develop an effective human resources function
·         Downsize and furlough as needed
·         Link performance and pay to strategies

Well from the above list it can be well found that the entire management changes are extensive while implementation of strategy. In my research I find that through gap analysis that failure of implementation of strategy is lack of interest is detrimental to organizational success. The organizational changes not only needs to be communicated but needs to be open space culture where mid level management and lower level management needs to be included within the change. It communication process should not be tuned like an order flow since in that case the probability of miss representation of the same becomes a key point. It’s being often being found that changes are being communicated just like an order which creates negative impact on the performance for the short term where employees often treat the changes as unsecured which impacts the strategy implementation. Top down flow of communication is essential for developing bottom-up support.

In my research I have developed a complex but simple process where employees can be motivated to be a part of the implementation of the strategy. Strategies are developed keeping in mind the competition analysis of the competitors. Now if the employees of the organization are benchmarked with the competitor analysis then the process of implementation of strategy could achieve the desired objectives. Firms need to develop a competitor focus at all hierarchical levels by gathering and widely distributing competitive intelligence; every employee should be able to benchmark her or his efforts against best-in-class competitors so that the challenge becomes personal.

Only just creating benchmark of implementation among the employees would not be a wise process since motivation are required more while implementation of the strategy. Hence benchmarking the performance with the competitors is the key to motivation which would lead to an auto process of growth for the successful implementation of the strategy. Objectives should state quantity, quality, cost, and time—and also be verifiable.  This is only possible when they are best linked with competitors. Terms and phrases such as maximize, minimize, as soon as possible, and adequate should be avoided. These are the steps through which organizations faces the hurdles of growth. It is being found that after 2008 the business process has taken a new shape where awards and compensation are no longer being used as the motivational aspect of implementing strategy. Hence linking the performance and driving the performance from the mid level and lower level management is link it with the competitor benchmark theory is the best motivational key. Through this process one company develops its future management employees. It also helps to keep an tab and link between the competitor and developing its future level management.