Historically An Organisations Strategy Business Essay Example

and Five Forces, as well as SWOT and PESTEL analyses. These practical strategic planning tools have played a significant role in reducing the need for planners and creating a market for analysts. Mintzberg somewhat cynically adds that this School has proven to be highly profitable for consultants and academics. (Johnson et al., 2006; Whittington, 2004)In the early 60s, Segal-Horn categorized the attack to scheme as part of the Classical School. This approach viewed companies and administrations as efficient and rational resource-allocation mechanisms. As a result, directors were encouraged to consider the wider environment in order to achieve long-term competitive advantage over similar rivals in terms of size, efficiency, and resources. These perspectives were shaped by the stability of the 1960s, which supported a planned approach focused on long-term development. Andrews (1971) emphasizes the importance of having clearly defined objectives to prevent a company from wandering aimlessly. This research and practice heavily rely on data examination and analysis, whether gathered from primary or secondary sources, such as Harvard's extensive databases, which are used to establish strategy as a "positive science." This data and analysis are then utilized to create normative plans, known as "strategic formulas," which are handed down by directors and meticulously followed step by step for assumed success.The text suggests that the traditional approach to strategy, characterized by deliberate planning initiated by top management, extensive industry analysis, and a focus on consistency, is perpetuated. However, there is concern that this formal and structured approach is too restrictive in modern economies characterized by economic and geopolitical instability, globalization of trade, and rapid technological advancements. It is widely acknowledged that the business environment has changed significantly

over the past decades. In the past, firms were able to achieve high profitability due to market regulations, scarce production resources, controlled distribution channels, and the acquisition and rationalization of underperforming companies. However, markets have now changed in terms of physical distance and time, economies have been liberalized, industries deregulated, markets globalized, and new information technology has been introduced. Segal-Horn acknowledges that the emphasis on long-term planning using predominantly quantitative techniques became less appropriate in the 1970s.If houses use the same information and techniques, they will make the same decisions, leading to deadlocks as multiple rivals pursue the same generic success factor (Ghemawat, 2002, p50). Gray (1986) raises different concerns. He believes that strategic planning is being treated as a separate subject map imposed by administration leaders on directors, without considering the actual problems faced by those directors. This lack of integration and ownership causes many impressive plans to fall apart during execution (p89). According to Glor's research (2007, p33), the planned approach applied to the modern economy results in 65-70% of companies failing to achieve their intended organizational change. Similarly, Mintzberg and Lampel caution that clear and easily communicable ideas can lead to sterile thinking and application (p29). Gray is worried that strategic planning is declining, but he still advocates for a top-down approach with a focus on training line managers and involving all business units in the strategy process. He also notes that individual business units should be decentralized so that they can act and be treated differently in each strategic environment (p92).Additionally, the author acknowledges that good strategic planning is not just something to add on, but rather a mindset, a manner,

and a set of techniques for effectively managing a business. It is widely accepted that simply considering external factors and seeking market advantages is not sufficient for maximizing potential. Instead, companies must also identify their own corporate capabilities and assess strategic opportunities. This viewpoint aligns with the belief that a more adaptable approach to strategy implementation is necessary. The traditional methods of the Classical school are seen as too restrictive, with an over-reliance on collecting quantitative data to build rigid "Grand Strategies." There is growing support for an approach that incorporates qualitative methods. Consequently, managers now realize that identifying competitive forces, opportunities, and threats in the industry, as suggested by Porter (1980), is not enough when formulating a corporate strategy. To maximize potential, companies must also consider their internal capabilities and resources in order to assess strategic opportunities (Andrews, 1971).According to Mintzberg and Lampel, different approaches to strategy have emerged, which they refer to as the Descriptive schools. These approaches rely less on specific programs or locations and instead rely on broad visions or perspectives. Mintzberg and Lampel identify seven procedures (Entrepreneurial, Cognitive, Learning, Power, Cultural, Environmental, and Configuration) that rely on emergent strategy. This addresses Pascale's concerns about the traditional strategic approach becoming overwhelmed by the pace of change and resulting in failed attempts to meet expectations. Segal-Horn notes that this shift in thinking emerged in the 1990s, where interest shifted from external competition to internal analysis of the company as the basis for strategy development and finding sources of competitive advantage, known as the "Resource based view." This perspective considers why companies with similar size and physical resources can perform differently and emphasizes

human resources as a way to achieve unique competitiveness. The growth of a company is seen as dependent on managers developing resource packages to achieve strategic objectives.The Resource based position suggests that the traditional approach to strategy has focused too much on a company's physical resources, resulting in a lack of ambition due to the limitations of those assets. According to Stacy (2007), the resource based view involves companies leveraging resources in innovative ways to achieve seemingly impossible goals. However, this view still involves setting clear goals that create a challenging and shared vision for the future of the company, which Stacy refers to as strategic purpose. Some business experts believe that effectively managing a company's latent knowledge is key to addressing market needs and creating sustainable advantage. According to Rastogi, companies that practice knowledge management are able to create value even in a volatile and highly competitive business environment, while others stagnate or decline. Rastogi's perspectives are part of a growing body of work that explores how some companies are organizing themselves to harness the intellectual capital within their organization and unlock the potential of individuals for the benefit of the company.Quinn (1980) argues that non-rational incrementalism is logical due to the iterative nature of strategic determinations and the need to constantly adjust them. Volberda builds on this idea by suggesting the necessity of a station modern scheme position, where participants can adapt to and make sense of their environment. This approach allows resource-limited companies to outperform those with more resources and strategic options. Complexity theory challenges traditional business models, stating that an effective business relies on intangible resources and interconnected networks of information,

trust, and cooperation (Starkey and Tempest 2004). Pascale (1999) echoes the need for companies to innovate and move their business plans forward, using HP computers as an example by stating that sticking to a previously successful business model for too long is the biggest threat to any business today.This research has caused observers like John Vogelsang (2007) to believe that CAS emphasizes self-administration and resiliency, allowing companies to move away from a rigid, streamlined perspective of the future and prepares the organization "to be aware of the constant changes and possibilities happening in the present" (Stacy, 2007, p152). Stacy also argues that managers need to challenge the "implicit, taken for granted assumptions made in the ways of thinking" expressed in strategic management textbooks, since "in a completely unpredictable environment, under strict time pressures, it would not be logical or reasonable to try and make decisions in a pain venturing manner" (p152). Rastogi (2002) agrees with this philosophy, noting that "all competitive advantages have become temporary" and as a result, companies must approach organization differently from traditional inflexible, linear strategic models. However, many executives at the top of organizations resist this viewpoint as strategies are traditionally designed to establish a clear defined direction with as much certainty as possible. They certainly "prefer not to have organizational change that has a life of its own".According to Glor (2007, p33), if this situation continues, there is pressure for individuals to be innovators and generators of new ideas, rather than analysts or planners. This creates discomfort for traditional strategists who prefer a controlled mode of operation. Glor (2007, p35) argues that this approach removes the organization's ability to adapt.

Rastogi also emphasizes the importance of adaptability for success, stating that the competitive edge and sustainability of an organization lies in its knowledge, utilization of knowledge, and ability to quickly acquire new knowledge. Ricardo Semler, endorsing this view, transformed his father's traditional engineering company into a diverse and multi-skilled organization by giving employees the freedom to think. Semler acted as a shepherd and guide, allowing his company to flourish and venture into new and unforeseen directions.Semler argues that although the complexity approach to management may bring risk, it is still better than adopting a cautious program. He believes that strategies aimed at reducing uncertainty may not be effective and could potentially harm the organization's survival. Mitleton-Kelly adds that excessive control and intervention can have counterproductive consequences. On the other hand, WL Gore believes that their non-hierarchical environment, involving all levels of the organization in the innovation process, has led to their success. They believe this allows for the flourishing of creative minds. March emphasizes the importance of both short-term development and long-term exploration. Theorists argue that complex adaptive systems do not differentiate between short-term and long-term; they simply organize appropriately. While some may view the shift in strategy from a structured perspective to a messy and disorderly process, Whittington suggests that a mixed perspective is necessary, as modernism's disdain for practicality is no longer justifiable.He believes that the current academic-based approach to new thinking has become too excessive, and there is a need to reconnect with practicality. He shares concerns with Mintzberg and Lampel that without control, these new attacks can result in confusion, generating numerous possibilities and perspectives that hinder application. Interestingly, Semco's chaotic

freedom is supported by three fundamental principles. Each new venture must have a high level of complexity, operate in the high-end market, and occupy a unique niche. Volberda also acknowledges this and proposes that the next step in development is the synthesis of strategy. By drawing from various subjects within the field of strategy, organizations can choose the method that best suits their specific needs at any given time. He has developed his concept into three schools: the boundary school, which aims to define parameters and manage the blurry line between the company and its environment. This approach seems most suitable for companies operating in relatively stable environments.The Dynamic capableness school focuses on fast-paced and constantly changing environments. It advocates for an approach similar to Rastogi's learning management, where internal resources are developed to create a reservoir of capabilities and resources. This allows the company to excel in various markets. The constellation school seeks to understand the process of organizational change, drawing from classical school and biology. It emphasizes the importance of alignment with goals, structures, plans, and expectations. Overall, strategic management has shifted from a rational planning perspective to an emergent, incremental, process-oriented viewpoint.
Regardless of the strategic plan, the key element for sustainable competitiveness is the whole organization's commitment to it.The crucial factor is the coordination and harmony of mentalities, programs, patterns, and overall controls within a company. In the most efficient companies, strategic planning is not simply an additional managerial task; it is a way of thinking about business operations. (Grey 1986 p97)