Business strategies demand discipline in the execution of long-term Strategic Plans and flexibility to address emergent changes. Discuss. Explain which one of the two features is more critical in your view

        Essentially therefore a key issue arising with the development and especially implementation of such strategies is to the level of discipline by which it is followed. An organisation will have placed resources in the development of a strategic plan however how rigidly should they follow this when there may be emerging factors which may alter their perception on the correct course of action to take? This is a situation which a majority of organisations experience due to changes within their market place, the external economy or any unexpected internal predicaments.

        It is therefore essential, in order for us to appreciate this circumstance that we identify these emergent factors as unexpected. Firms can incorporate within a strategic plan, possible resolutions to expected events, as situations may be identified through research which could potentially have a variety of outcomes. However, what level of discipline should an organisation adopt in the event of emergent unexpected factors?

        The initial perception of strategic planning was developed in the 1960’s and 1970’s where management began to recognise that organisations require an overall strategy to provide a sense of direction. At this early stage management generally implemented a strict regime to this area of development certifying that a business strategy was followed step by step with little manoeuvre. This rigid approach was supported by the mind set as outlined by Boddy, a professor within the University of Glasgow Business School who identified that management perceived the “world in general in purely objective terms” and assumed that “human beings always behave rationally”. This however in a modern day environment could be perceived as a naive approach and one by which modern day management would be sceptical.

At the other end of the spectrum, Mintzberg has developed research in the field of strategy and presented a theory that strategic management is almost a learning process. He argues that strategy is not a concept which can be formulised or set in stone. Instead it is a process which is developed through an evolving or adaptive process. He argues that the planning approach of the 1970’s has fundamental fallacies which highlights key issues within the planning perspective and a disciplined approach to strategic management. Within these fundamental fallacies he presents an argument contesting the predetermination of a strategy, the way in which it almost assumes the prediction of the unpredictable. The second of these fallacies is the perceived detachment of a business strategy. Mintzberg identified the perception that the formulation and execution of a strategy was performed in a single process, during which “the world has to hold still”. In this respect, businesses adopting such a planning perspective will develop a strategy with the use of past data and research and fail to recognise current events. The final fundamental fallacy identified by Mintzberg is the over enthusiasm related to formalization. Mintzberg states “No amount of rearranging of the boxes can resolve the problem of the very existence of boxes. Strategy making, like creativity, needs to be functional beyond boxes, to create new perspectives as well as new combinations”. This I feel concludes the final fallacy. Essentially Mintzberg interprets the formation of strategy as requiring insight and the need for this process to be creative. To summarise, management must in the preparation and execution of a business strategy, “think outside of the box”.

In contrast to the fallacies identified with the planning approach, the learning perspective to strategy adopts a more creative and emergent style identifying that although strategy is still crucial and central to an organisation, it should be developed over a period of time through a learning process. It is argued that “this learning proceeds in emergent fashion, through behaviour that stimulates thinking retrospectively, so that sense can be made of action”. Therefore to conclude the learning approach, firms are considerably less formal in the construction of a business strategy, however still essentially realise and respect the importance of its creation. They do however in contrast to the planning approach appreciate that it needs to be flexible, incorporating emerging factors and therefore enabling firms to respond to unpredicted or unidentified issues. Essentially therefore management develop an understanding over a period of time of the content of the strategy to angle the organisation in the correct direction.

I believe that it is important to identify the complexity of the development of a strategy and appreciate that it is a “sophisticated, subtle and at times subconscious of human cognitive and social processes” and if performed correctly will offer a competitive advantage to an organisation within its market place. Therefore essentially within an organisation a strategy is essential however as identified within the essay what approach should a firm adopt, planning and discipline or a more reactive and emergent approach?

        Essentially, I believe that we need to identify the irony between these two concepts. It can be argued that in order for an organisation to adopt an effective learning approach and identify emergent strategies, they must incorporate some discipline and visa versa. Organisations must ensure that they do not centralise too deeply on emergent events resulting in an overly sensitive organisation with constant alteration of strategy. This would simply result in a loss of direction and wasted resources, possibly leaving an organisation further away from their desired market position than if they applied a strict, disciplined strategy. On the other hand however, firms who adopt a rigid planning approach also must attempt to incorporate a realisation for emerging factors, ensuring they are recognised and possibly monitored. Therefore management with a planning perspective almost need to adopt a more lasses-faire approach with respect to emerging changes in and outside of the organisation.

        In a step towards the resolution of this trade off, it can be argued that an organisation can incorporate the two types of perspectives of management to support these two areas of strategic planning. Mintzberg demonstrates this through the use of a metaphor visualising the organisation as having two hands, a left and a right. On the left hand side the management are perceived as creative planners who encourage strategic thinking and constant review whereas on the right hand side, management provide a more predictable and stable strategy with clear programming. It can therefore be argued that the right hand management of the organisation can formulate and analyse however during dramatic and emerging stages the left hand side can step in to attempt to incorporate these new developments into the current strategy.

        In a modern day economic environment it can be argued that a majority of organisations will find themselves between these two perspectives on strategy. In general firms will realise the importance of a long term strategic plan however also compensate that this must constantly be reviewed and incorporate new emergence of data. I do however feel that the idea of a plan simply promotes inflexibility and it is crucial within the modern day economy and cut throat markets that organisations are able to react and diversify away from previous tactics. Essentially a strategy is a key competitive advantage and firms need to ensure that the development and execution is performed in a way which is suited to the organisation and its environment.         

        To conclude, I feel that modern day management should be able to appreciate the emergence of new developments within the market place and be able to adapt while bearing in mind previous strategic perceptions. A Business strategy is something which must be under constant review and therefore automatically highlight the development of new criteria. It is therefore in essence the measure of competitive advantage, how well and organisation incorporates this.    

WORD COUNT: 1,613

Bibliography

Strategy Safari. Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel.

Management: An Introduction 2nd Edition. David Boddy