Custom Essays and Free Coursework

Management Essay on Strategic Management Discussed

There are countless definitions and variations on the subject of strategic management, in not only in what it entails but in also what strategy is. For instance “Strategy can be seen as the matching of the activities of an organisation to the environment in which it operates” (Johnson and Scholes, 1999, P5). However, to leave it there would be somewhat insufficient, as strategy is far more than a “simple” case of strategic fit, strategy is also “concerned with the overall purpose and scope of the organisation to meet the expectations of stakeholders and add value to the different parts of the enterprise” (Johnson and Scholes, 1999, P11). Therefore I would suggest that the main reason why there appears to be a gap between academic research and practitioner needs is simply because of the fact that the term strategy is generic, encompassing a myriad of different models, tools and techniques, which apply to different organisations in different ways (Tardino et al, 2002). This realisation has led me to investigate whether there is any need to bridge this gap or indeed whether or not it can be bridged, given that no one really can provide a universal definition on the subject of “strategy”.

Assigning reasons that explain why things may or may not work is paramount in situations where prediction and control is essential, but at the same time, a well-designed activity requires a combination of both theory and practice. Therefore, there is a balance to be achieved in order to eradicate any potential weaknesses driven by methodological techniques (Bingman and Smith, 2001), which leads me to say that one is not necessarily better than the other. Many observers have focussed on this gap (Wilkerson 1999), consequently there has been a vast amount of investigation by academics in the business and management disciplines on how to increase the relevance of their research, whilst according to Grey and French (1996) “maintaining rigidity and breadth”. However in order to understand the significance of this proposed gap it is first necessary to understand the reasons this gap has been noted by many observers.

In retrospect the reason why the theory-practice debate has been given a great deal of attention in recent years is arguably twofold. Wilkerson (1999) argues that because of volatile market that organisations operate in, it’s leaders and management need more than hands-on experience to be able to effectively recognise any threats or opportunities, and therefore academic research is vital to organisational development. On the other hand, Hammonds (2002) argues that during the 1990’s strategy research lost its “intellectual currency”, as practitioners were apparently being tricked and misled by other ideas (academics). The significance of even implementing a strategy was also given a great deal of attention and was largely characterised by the idea that in the world of change there was very little point in having a strategy, as by the time it came to producing it, it was outdated. In fact according to Cravens et al (1997) strategy concepts and models of the past 25 years are inappropriate for the competitive realities today. This is because the current strategic emphasis is shifting toward more market driven goals, where it is increasingly necessary to capture new opportunities, which has rendered existing linear tools and techniques insufficient, as they do not incorporate contemporary strategic views. However since no one can really define strategy, what actually constitutes a strategic view?

Lauder (1997) argues “Management theory has been characterised at times as unrealistic and impractical, too rational and formulaic and lack in specificity”. In other words, the research that academics undertake does not reflect the affairs or strategic view of management. In particular the conceited style of most academic writing is too outlandish for many practitioners. This is supported by Anderson (1998) who argues, “that the indecipherable styles of writing in research reports and opined that managers regard the top academic journals in the organisational behaviour field as unreadable, banal and inconsequential” (P325). Adding to the existing work of De Burgundy (1995) who argued that the fundamental beliefs that underpin consultant and management research are deeply flawed, because academics and practitioners are not asking or seeking out the same questions or answers, otherwise journals and such would be more tailored towards management standards and views.

So strategy research is based on out-dated concepts, which is too reliant on statistical methodologies and is characterised by a lack of relevant guidelines for practitioners, but if recent research has confirmed that the interests of academics and practitioners are different, it should come of no surprise that theory and practice aren’t as close knit as some may have assumed beforehand. Heracleous and Devoge (1998) propose that to bridge the gap of relevance, will require closer interaction between organisational development (practitioner) and strategic management (academic), but the same writers add that strategic management is mostly internally driven and organisational development is concerned with external constraints, which merely adds to the consensus that the views of academics and practitioners are completely different, and that as a result there will always exist this theory-practice gap which observers have been so desperate to close. This therefore leads me to consider the significance of this proposed gap and to assess whether or not anything is to be gained from reducing it.

Rynes et al (2001) report that there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests that practitioners generally don’t turn to academics in developing management practices anyway, and according to Sackett and Larson (1990), it’s rare for academics to turn to practitioners for inspiration in setting their research questions. Which on the one hand explains the reasons for differences between the recommendations of academics and the actual practices of management, but on the other, doesn’t necessarily dictate that there is any real need to close this gap, if it is in fact even possible (Pfeffer, 1998). According to Rynes et al (2001) though this gap between research and practice is considered to be of particular significance, because of the changing political and economic conditions – similar to the argument presented by Hammonds (2002). As a result of these conditions practitioners and academics are becoming increasingly receptive to allying and learning from one another (Burack, 1999), where practitioners are seeking out alternative solutions which may make their organisations more effective (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000). Thus, these developments have resulted in practitioners becoming more heavily involved in academic research (Powell and Owen-Smith, 1998).

However, attempting to narrow this gap has sparked of a whole new argument. According to Powell and Owen-Smith (1998) academics are split as to whether collaboration with practitioners is a good or a bad thing anyway. On the one hand Rynes et al (2001) recite the beliefs of Murphy and Saal (1990) who argued that practitioners can be excellent sources of important problems and that their individual insights can stimulate important scientific discoveries. Whilst on the reverse side, many worry that collaborating with practitioners may mean that only narrow, short-term, or commercially profitable projects will be pursued. Either way, this whole argument is driven by the unsupported assumption that practical matters can be considered separately from theoretical research in the first place, (Collins, 1996) and that on reflection, the theory can then be applied to organisations. The limitations identified here are supported by the findings of Anderson, (1998), who proposes that the need for theory to aid with business development has led managers to seek out alternative development sources, such as consultants. This is in fact supported by the growing use of consultancy and gurus, whom, according to Collins (1996), have the answers to questions, which management and “academics” cannot satisfy for all the reasons discussed above.

Pellegrinelli (2002) reports that those organisations that do not use consultants are now the exception to the rule. Typical management consultancy has roots in concepts of scientific management (pioneered by Taylor) consequently practitioners continue to focus on the consultant’s distinguished ability to solve problems, which therefore remains the most popular activity. In fact I probably wouldn’t be too far off the mark if I assumed that consultants are arguably a managers cure for this theory-gap syndrome that I have been talking about in the first half of this essay. I base this on the fact that according to Fincham (1999) consultants are alleged to combine theory, knowledge and analytical approaches, developed and evolved out of practical experience, which they then use to devise and implement solutions to matters of organisational and managerial interest.

At the heart of the theory-practice gap syndrome, which has forced management to turn to other sources to aid with the organisation’s development, as mentioned previously is the fact that interests of academics and practitioners are essentially different, and consequently consultancy theory such as the model proposed by Lippitt and Lippitt (1978) (discussed by Pellegrinelli 2002) assumes that consultants are able to translate theory into applicable practice. However. Williams (2003) argues that consultants may only tell managers what they actually want to hear, and Kaarst-Brown (1999) adds that the simple arrival of a consultant, acts as an indicator of change to come. This has led to writers such as Bloch (1999), questioning the capability of management consultants.

This leads nicely to the work of Collins (2000), who tells of a new phenomenon within the fad-motif discipline, calling it “Consultobabble”. According to Collins (2000) consultants (he calls gurus in this article) “live in false or deluded worlds and that as such their contribution can only at best be minimal” (Collins, 2000, P134). I feel that it’s important at this point to try and define what a guru is. According to Wood[1] (Norris, 2002) there are two types of guru. Firstly, there is the academic and theory based spokesperson, driven by the need to put across their latest research to anyone that will listen and for that reason Woods (Norris, 2002) argues that you are getting a validated message. The second kind is the inspirational speaker who basically acts as a role model, attempting to create order in people’s lives through a series of steps.

Based on what has been discussed so far, it is possible to associate the knowledge of guru’s to that of consultants, and possibly even academics – as it appears to be nothing more than a different way of presenting knowledge to the end user. This is a point made by Collins (2000) that after considering the various ideas of the likes of consultants, it appears to look like an attempt to substitute actual answer for the preferred view. In other words, academics analyse how things are, gurus express how things should be and consultants bridge the gap between where organisations are and how they get to where they want to be (Roth and Senge, 1996). After considering the vast amount of criticism of academics, gurus and consultants a like, Collins (2002) provides another useful insight, which I am inclined uphold; those who are charged with offering no more than “old win in new bottles” should find refuge in the fact that nothing is ever completely new, and strategy concepts whether new or old are rarely unconditionally applied in organisations, because every company is different, which is probably why there is a myriad of definitions and techniques within the field of strategic management.

The general purpose of this essay however, was to ascertain the exact nature of the relationship between theory and practice, and to conclude this report I will refer to the work of Harvey (1999), who’s model on the phenomenon of organisation learning (appendix 1) appears to encompass all of the literature I have discussed within this brief essay. More specifically this model illustrates the relationship and views of practitioners and theorists, within the business environment (including the political and economical conditions). According to Harvey (1999) there are two main differences between academics and practitioners. The latter see the unstable business environment as challenging, but mostly disconcerting and awkward, whereas in contrast theorists generally find it to be inspiring.

Theorists of any discipline generally provide practitioners with solutions to real life situations, driven by changes in the business environment. These solutions are given to practitioners in the form of advice and essentially are based on the experience of the organisation, and according to Harvey (1999), theorists are able to generate models and concepts by “abstracting from reality” (Harvey, 1999, P192). Earlier in this essay I focussed on the idea that strategy is a generic topic, which has led to a variety of models and techniques. Harvey (1999), proposes that as a result of this, a set of “thinking tools” has been accumulated over the years, and now practitioners are able to draw from these tools to address the increasingly complex realities of their operating market. From this model it would seem that academics are all the same and that they all have the same needs and expectations, but much of the research identified in this essay has proven this to be far from true.

So what do we now understand about the relationship and interplay between academics and practitioners? I propose that there is no one answer, that the relationship and interplay is somewhat muffled. Harvey’s model represents the ideal, how the system should work in an idyllic world. The only real conclusion that I can reach at the end of this essay would be that in order to work most effectively there is a need for a balance between theory and practice as mentioned earlier in this report. However, finding a unanimous balance between theory and practice is not as simple as it sounds, simply because it appears that the interpretation of the relationship between the two has not been clearly defined, making it difficult to actually identify the extent of the gap between management theory and management practice in the first place. After consideration, it appears that there’s always been a gap between theory and practice, but I can’t say without further research whether or not there is in fact any point in reducing this disparity between research and practice. Finally, since strategy is a military term, I’m inclined to finish by quoting General George S. Patton [2], who once argued, “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking”.