|
The concept of strategic management is a
universal one, encompassing a range of different models, tools
and techniques. Therein lies the problem, or at least in terms
of interpreting and applying the concept to organisations
across the globe, because the term "strategy" is
generic, there are strong conflicting opinions as to what
it actually represents so to be able to identify an accepted
view of strategic management is as presumptuous as it is to
assume that the role of Michael Porter is that of a myth-maker;
but then why not? Out of the vast amount of literature I've
reviewed the one concept that remains in the back of my mind
is that there is no such thing as strategy, not as a management
discipline anyway. The concept is nothing more than a myth,
a simple way of explaining events in terms of lessons and
experiences, and where the boundaries can only be identified
at an organisational level. In other words there is no accepted
view of strategic management and its content because what
it supposedly represents is multidimensional and situational
(Chaffee 1985)1. For the purpose of this however, let me first
explain the different applications of strategy and it's somewhat
mottled definitions.  The majority of the research conducted within this field
of study is linear as it focuses on planning and forecasting.
However more recently there has been a shift toward a more
adaptive approach. Which tends to focus the managers attention
on means and is largely concerned with fit2. Within these
concepts falls the theory of single and double loop learning,
whereby strategic planning is linear, allowing no evaluation
of external constraints and contingencies and is where single
loop learning occurs. On the other hand, double loop learning
is more adaptive, accounting for external influences and constraints
thus allowing the leader to alter their strategy should they
need to3. Contemporary approaches to strategic management
are hardly extraordinary, Mintzberg's models have focussed
on longitudinal rather than cross sectional problems and Porters
concepts on the opposite, namely what constitutes an appropriate
strategic position3.
The concept of strategy as described above is therefore only
effective to a point as there are external constraints that
impact upon the success of a strategy. More importantly there
are also internal issues, not necessarily culture, but the
financial, and human resources, that limit the capabilities
of an organisation. An organisation cannot grow beyond its
means or resources and that alone is one of its limitations.
No matter how you interpret it, strategic management is essentially
a method for an organisation to analyse its potential via
its environment but an organisation still needs to know its
limits. If a strategy is designed to show all of the possibilities
of a company then why do some strategies fail? From this it
has led me to recognise that there are some alternative views
to the concept of strategic management, which offer a view
more sustainable than those models and interpretations dominant
in the academic field of strategy today.
Fahey and Christensen (1986)5 suggest that strategic content
is found in many areas beyond strategic management including
economics, finance and marketing. In other words it provides
a sense of direction and purpose, as well as facilitating
necessary changes induced by a companies environment. O'Gaddis
(1997)6 who assumes that the concept of strategy embraces
all the critical activities of a firm supports this view,
thus strategy enables an organisation to identify its long-term
objectives, via an act of prescience.
But I would argue that the concept of foresight is understated.
Foresight according to Slaughter (1996)7 is predominantly
a capacity, which can be bent, moulded and applied in many
different ways, but the wider use of foresight extends a number
of different limitations and boundaries, particularly in terms
of its practical application. For instance, a common view
held by empiricists, is as there are no future facts, the
only sources of useful knowledge are those found in the past
or present, implying that we should stick to what we know
and let the future take care of itself. I suggest that this
belief is entirely mythical and the view itself is limited
by comfortable habits of thought and perception delivered
by writers such as Porter and Mintzberg. A view backed up
by Knights (1991)8 who suggests that linear models are attractive
to management because it provides the user with some illusion
of control and self-assurance in the face of uncertainty.
So the notion of strategy then, in the accepted form is based
on a narrow set of assumptions (McKiernan 1997)2. There is
an alternative view to strategy, an additional model that
is largely interpretative, qualitative in nature and assumes
that strategy is a metaphor which technically cannot be measured,
and dare I suggest it, the value attributed to the work of
Porter is overstated, particularly in light of the contemporary
muddled business environment. Hemel and Prahalad (1994)9 suggest
that organisations can become victims of their own experience.
Therefore the strategy used by every company is different
and is arguably limited by the scope of its leadership and
other contextual factors such as culture and this provides
a useful explanation as to why some strategies fail.
The irony of culture is that as soon as an organisation decides
to become the market leaders rather than followers, all interest
in culture becomes irrelevant. This is because a decision
has been made to divorce the past in order to invent the future.
This alone has permitted the development of a series of comfortable
myths suggesting that it is possible to change without having
to change business activities. The limitation and risks surrounding
culture leads to the tempting question of who needs culture
anyway. To alternative writers (Chaharbaghi and Newman 1998)10
culture is a convenient cover for when the chosen strategy
is to follow someone else because the ability to innovate
in the market has been lost. Therefore the view that culture
is a useful analytical concept is entirely mythical, as it
exists in a philosophical void, like the views of Mintzberg
and Porter, and that it is not possible to neither predict
nor manage the process.
Leadership is also bounded by a series of myths and fables.
Drucker's powerful phrase of 1954 "today's decisions
for tomorrow's results"6, have implied that not only
should leaders have the capability to define a desirable future
for the organisation (via foresight), but also should be able
to programme a set of actions which can lead to that future
(single and double loop learning). Compaq is a prime example,
the new CEO (Pfeiffer) embarked on a new strategy, which within
12 months offered a new approach involving the complete overhaul
of the company Taylor (1995)11 explains. But the manner in
which the writers tell the story is almost visionary, like
there is a lesson to be learnt, and this is reflected by words
of Beeby (1992)1 "some of the noblest of human achievements
are myths created to give a sense of permanence". One
of the forgotten limitations of leadership in terms of strategic
management literature is that it is typically orientated toward
top managers, but in reality very few people will ever become
top managers who are responsible for corporate strategies
and company overhauls, and that's why it can be argued that
once again we are left with a tell tale story about the qualities
involved and required for a successful strategy.
The only common theme that's running through this report
is strategy is a way that managers make sense of their experiences,
like the way myths are told and used. According to Cilliers
(1998)12 people try to capture the contingency and complexity
of events in stories. Throughout the organisation, there are
a number of common themes, which allow a story to be created.
This story tells of a journey and allows the reader to get
a better understanding of the effects this journey has had
on the environment and how the interaction with the environment
in turn effected the direction of the organisation. In a story
certain persons and actions are also singled out. It essentially
allows the functional business barriers to be removed because
poor communication between different departments can have
a negative impact on the strategy and that's why the manner
in which fables are foretold and the characters employed are
extremely important to the success and application of the
myth or strategy; depending on your choice of word. Unless
broad strategic directions are translated to internal systems,
competences, and cultural norms then the desired strategic
direction cannot be pursued effectively13.
Harfield1 uses the work of Beeby (1992) as a way to make
sense of strategic management. In other words suggests that
the function of a myth is to provide a criterion against which
all purposes can be judged, similar to the world of strategy
and in order to be acceptable and effective the myth must
meet a number of different criteria. Including the existence
of some kind of general consensus towards the desired goals,
expressed in a language that will allow the possibility of
providing practical guidance, but must be unattainable in
the near future so the story can evolve and provide the user
with a number of twists and turns, none of them predictable
and none of them unrealisable.
Based on this information and the facts above I'd suggest
that it is acceptable to view the content of strategic management
as a myth, serving only a sense of purpose to decision makers,
and it's hard not to see the linear relationship between the
criteria of a myth and the comfortable concepts of strategic
management. The point is strategy is just another word, in
a long line of previously popular words, suggesting that strategy
management is a combination of evolution and revolution. This
leads me to conclude that the boundaries of the topic are
as generic as the subject matter and just like any good tale
you never quite know where it might take you.
|
