Management Essay on Strategy and Management Differences
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”.
Researcher at the Australian
graduate school of management[Return]
Anderson, N. (1998), "The people
make the paradigm", Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 19, pp. 323-8.
Barcan, R, (1996). The body of the
(humanities) Academic, or, “what is an Academic”.
Australian Humanities review. Accessed March 2003 URL: www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archie/issue-sept-1998/barcan
Bingman, M; and Smith, C (2001).
Research to practice, Research in practice: Disseminating
Results or Supporting Change? Proceedings of the Adult Education
Research Conference Proceedings. Accessed March 2003. URL:
www.edst.ubc.ca/aerc/2001/2001bingman.htm
Bloch, B, (1999). How they put the
“con” in consulting. Managerial Auditing Journal
Vol. 14 No. 3 pp. 115-117
Carter, C; Crowther, D; and Cooper,
S (2000) Organisational consumerism: The appropriation of
packaged managerial knowledge. Management Decision, Vol.
38, No. 9, pp, 626-637
Collins, D. (1996). No such thing
as…a practical approach to management. Management
decision. Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.66-71
Clark, T; and Salaman, G (1998).
Telling tales: management gurus’ narratives and the
construction of managerial utility. Journal of management
studies. Vol. 35, No. 2, PP. 137 - 161
Cravens, W., Greenley, G., Piercy,
N., Slater, S. (1997). Integrating contemporary strategic
management perspectives, Long range planning, vol. 30, no.
4, pp. 493-506
De Burgundy, J (1995). Working daze:
uncertainty and ambiguity in consulting. Management decision.
Vol. 33, No. 8, PP. 51-55
Drew, S. (1999). Building knowledge
management into strategy: Making sense of a new perspective.
Long range planning. Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 130-136
Fincham, R. (1999), The consultant-client
relationship: critical perspectives on the management of
organisational change’, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 335-51.
General George S. Patton. The Famous
Quotes website: Accessed March 2003, URL http://home.att.net/~quotations/business.html
Gibson, J; Hodgetts, R; and Herrera,
J (1999). Management history gurus of the 1990’s.
Their lives, their contributions. Journal of management
history. Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 380-397
Goffman, E (1959). The presentation
of self in everyday life. 2nd Edition (1956 original) Doubleday,
Garden City: NY
Grey, C. and French, R. (1996), "Rethinking
management education: an introduction", in French,
R. and Grey, C. (Eds), Rethinking Management Education,
Sage, London, pp. 1-16.
Hammonds, K. (2002). Michael Porter’s
Big Ideas. Fastcompany: Learning. Accessed March 2003. URL:
www.fastcompany.com
Harvey, C. (1999). To come of age:
the antecedents of organisation learning. Journal of management
studies. Vol. 36, No. 7, pp 897 -916
Heracleous, L., & De Voge, S.
(1998). Bridging the gap of relevance: strategic management
and organisational development, Long range planning, vol.
31, no 5, pp. 742-754
Hogg, G. and Foolan, D (1999). Playing
the part: practitioner’s roles in public relations.
European journal of marketing. Vol. 33, No 5/6, PP. 567-611
Kaarst-Brown, M (1999). Five symbolic
roles of external consultant – integrating change,
power and symbolism. Journal of organisational change management
Vol. 12, No. 6, PP. 540-561
Lauder, E. (1997), "What I didn't
learn from business schools or books", in Krass, P.
(Ed.), The Book of Business Wisdom: Classic Writings by
the Legends of Commerce and Industry, Wiley, New York, NY,
pp. 347-53.
Liedtka, J. (1998). Strategic Thinking:
can it be taught? Long range planning, vol. 31, no. 1, pp.
120-129
Muson, H, (2002). Friend? Foe? Both?
Across the board. Vol. 39, No. 2
Norris, S (2002). The prophets profiting
from a bewildered land. Executive education. Accessed March
2003. www.afr.com/specialreports/report2/2002/09/05/ffxz2v4pm5d
Pellegrinelli, S. (2002). Managing
the interplay and tensions of consulting interventions.
The consultant-client relationship as mediation and reconciliation.
Journal of management development. Vol. 21, No. 5, pp, 343-365
Pfeffer, J; and Sutton, R. (2000).
The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn
knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Powell, W; and Owen-Smith, J. (1998)
Universities and the market for intellectual property in
the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Vol.17, PP.253-277
Reingold, J (2002). You can’t
create a leader in a classroom. Fastcompany: Learning. Accessed
March 2003. URL: www.fastcompany.com
Roth, G; and Senge, P (1996). From
theory to practice: research territory, processes and structure
at an organisational learning center. Journal of organisational
change management. Vol. 9, No.1, pp. 92-106
Rynes, S; Bartunek, J; and Daft,
R. (2001). Across the great divide: knowledge creation and
transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of
management journal. Vol.44, No. 2
Simmonds, P; Dawley, D; Ritchie,
W; and Anthony, W. (2001) An exploratory examination of
knowledge transfer of strategic management concepts from
the academic environment to practicing managers. Journal
of managerial issues. Vol. 12, No. 3
Sackett, P; and Larson, J. (1990)
Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational
psychology. Handbook of Industrial & Organizational
Psychology Vol.1, No.1, PP419-489.
Sturdy, A (1997), The consultancy
process – an insecure business. Journal of management
studies, Vol. 34, No 3 pp. 389-413
Tardino, V; Einspahr, K; Dean, D;
and Kramer, T. (2002). Bridging organisational learning
theory and practice. Case study of the action map process.
Management Leaning.
Williams, R (2003). “Consultababble”
and the client-consultant relationship. Managerial Auditing
Journal. Vol. 18, No. 2, pp 134-139
Vastag, G; and Whybark, D. (2003).
Is anybody listening? An investigation into popular advice
and actual practices. International journal of production
economics. Vol. 81-82. PP. 115-128
Webber, A (2002). Learning for a
change. Fastcompany: Learning. Accessed March 2003. URL:
www.fastcompany.com
Wilkerson, J. (1999). On research
relevance, professors’ real world experience, and
management development: are we closing the gap? The journal
of management development. Vol. 18, No. 7
Please note: The above essays and dissertations were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their work to us.
