By: Vera Ndrecaj BA(Hons). MBA.
verandrecaj@yahoo.co.uk
Introduction
Strategy deals with changing environment, complexity, uncertainty,
operational decision, integration, relationships and networks (Johnson et
al., (2008). Current business environment in micro and macro levels is unpredictable due to the global economical and political uncertainties. These changes bring diverse combinations of circumstances of the
organisation; the substance of strategy remains unstructured, un-programmed, non-routine,
and non-repetitive (Masson and Mitroff, 1981; Mazzolini, 1981; Miles and
Cameroun, 1982; Narayanan and Fahey, 1982; Van-Cawenbergh and Cool, 1982).
However, the purpose of this paper will be, to critically evaluate the above
quote. The critical evaluation aims to provide balanced
analyses of different perspectives. The objective of the study is to
answer three following questions;
- How does strategy happen?
- What is a strategist?
- Where does strategy happen?
In addition, this paper will highlight differences between operations and strategy, exploring the relationship between micro and macro perspectives of strategic development, examine the language of strategy, discuss the concepts of rationality and complexity in strategic thinking, and also explore power and politics in the context of strategic management. This paper also will explore the practice perspective future, and also examine strategy as a practice (SAP) in the context of its praxis and practitioners. Academic theories and examples of real practice will be used to support arguments put forward. Theoretical development in strategy play important role in SAP, it is important to understand the way of thinking about strategy, how it is developed through theoretical framework, and also, how strategy is developed from planning to chaos, from prescriptive to descriptive, from direction to tactics. However, scientific knowledge has too often let practitioners down and, beside, is far less exclusive (Whittington, 2004). But, Toulmin, (2001) made a very good point, scientists and practitioners can be partners in putting ‘reason to work in the area of practice’.
Organisations
are facing exciting and dynamic challenges, the complexity of business environment,
uncertainties, high competition, enhance the importance of strategy, to enable
the organisation to achieve sustainability and competitive advantage (Porter,
1985), its goal, objectives and vision (Miller, 1991; Kay, 1993; Kaleba, 2006).
The term strategy is one of the over-used, and poorly understood (Segal-Horn,
2004). It is complex, and consensus on its definitions does not exist
(Hatten, 1979; Hofer and Schendel, 1978; Rumelt, 1979; Spender, 1979; Steiner,
1979; Bourgeois, 1980; Lenz, 1980; Gluck et al., 1982; Glueck, 1980; Caffee,
2001). However, Hambrick, (1983) explained that, strategy is
multidimensional; it must be situational and vary from industry. At the
heart of the strategy field are contradictory opinions (Shaw, 1950). All
theories make own assumptions that make difficult and complex for practitioners
(De Wit and Meyer, 2004).
The
idea of strategy is derived from Greek word ‘strategos’ which mean that “the
art of general” (Bracker, 1980; Tzu, 1983; Legge, 1995; Lundy and
Cowling, 1996). Strategy is new discipline, stretching no further back than
1960s (McKiernan, 1998; De Wit and Meyer, 2004). However, from thousands
of years, the strategy of military and politics has existed as a way of
leadership thinking (Segal-Horn, 2004). In order to investigate how strategies
happen Slack and Lewis (2002) distinguished between strategy and operation.
Strategy deal with long-term direction and scope, while operation deal with
day-to-day routines, function and processes, it is link between business
strategy and implementation (ibid).
Nevertheless, Lowson (2002)
defined operation strategy as “…decision and strategic management of core
competencies, capabilities and processes, technologies, resources and key
tactical activities necessary in the function or chain of functions that create
and deliver products and services combination and the value demanded by
customers” (2002:57). Armstrong, (1982) and Powell, (1992) stress the
important of the number of distinct steps that need to be carried out in a
sequential and orderly way, in conscious and structured manner. Fundamental
decision-making process is determinant of most strategies; therefore managers
must focus on it in order to establish the situation in which the best
strategic option can be develop. However, critical drivers of business
unit strategy are organisations objectives, resources and decision capabilities
and managers must be aware of those drivers to enable them to create value for
customers and maximise wealth and value for shareholders.
A
variety of definitions of strategy have since appeared each with their own
highlights and possible meanings. Chandler (1962) and Andrews, (1971) described
strategy as determination of long - terms goals, the modification of courses of
accomplishment, and the allocation of resources in order to achieve its goals
and objectives. But on the other hand, Andrews (1971) argued that, “…every
business organisation, every sub-unit of organisation and even every individual
have a clearly defined set … of goals which keeps it moving in a deliberately
chosen direction and prevents it drifting in undesired directions” (1971:23). These definitions advocate that strategy happen through rational
planning (Mintzberg and Lample, 1999; Caffee, 2001; Segal-Horn, 2004).
The need for formal approach to corporate strategy is associated with planning
school, originally descended from Chandler (1962); Sloan (1963); and Whittington
(2001) with ‘planning’ approach to strategy and put emphases in management role
as a coordinated functional hierarchy steered by the ‘visible hand’ (Chandler,
1962). Formulation and implementation of strategy are seen as separate aspects,
it is deliberate and driven from top-down (Andrews, 1960). Alternatively,
Markides, (2000; 39) defined strategy “…as a art of crafting a unique strategic
position in the firms industry. A strategic position is nothing more than
answering … whom should I target as customers and who should I not? What should
I offer these customers and what should I not? How can I do this in the most
effective way”. This could be very good starting point for strategic planning
process for any company regardless the industry or sector.
Jarzabkowski,
(2010) argued that, many of the past approaches to ‘‘strategy’’ have not much
to do with strategy at all. Post modernist increasingly challenges the hard
rationality of traditional management theories (Cooper and Burrell, 1988; Chia,
1995; Clegg and Kornberger, 2003). However, Whittington, (1993) classified four
types of strategic approaches as shown in table 1. Classical and systemic views
accept that strategies can be planned and deliberate, and that individuals can
and carry out intentional actions. Strategy takes place within frameworks of
systems, in which both strategic ends and means are inextricably linked to the
culture and power structure (Marris, 1964; Granovetter, 1995). Classical views
consider profit maximisation principal and perhaps the only objective for the
organisation. Strategy happen through rational planning, strategists are
chief executives with little account taken of any unpredictable responses which
might come from competitors or individuals with different objectives (Chandler,
1962; Ansoff, 1965; Porter, 1980, 1985).
Planning
approach is criticised by processual and evolutionary views (Whittington,
1993), because strategic processes are irrational, not planned, the way that
people operate in organisations is too chaotic; it is impossible to follow
rational planning because of market dynamics. According to Cyert and
March, (1963); Mintzberg, (1987); and Pettigrew, (1990) strategy happens
through bodging, compromises, bargaining. The evolutionaries view
moderately dismiss the ability of individuals to create and implement
strategies at all; instead, because of unpredictability of environment,
strategies emerge as a result of interactive and selective processes in which
those who are suitable survive (Hannan and Freeman 1977, 1988; and Williamson,
1991).
Ackoff
(1970) described planning “...as a design of desirable future… in effective
ways…” (1970:1). But, Ozbekhan (1969) explained that, planning creates control
in external and internal environment. However, Greenley (1986) and David (1995)
highlighted the importance of strategic planning in term of competitor and
future awareness, increase productivity, prevent cultural problems, improve
resource allocation, tactical action, and internal communication. Wildavsky
(1973) argued that if people or organisations have objectives and goals
directed than planning is only the way that strategy can be develop. However,
Chaffee (1970); Quinn, (1978); and Minztberg (1999) argued that, planning is
not efficient anymore because there are uncertainties the business environment
is not sustainable due to political, economical, conflicts, it is
unpredictable. If strategy happens through prescriptive approach that would be
very difficult to access perfects information (Pettigrew, 1990), an analysis
does not associate with learning.
Strategic planning can promote inflexibility and detaches thinking from acting. Despite the fact that this approach is highly criticised, classical theorists (Faylor, 1841-1925; Taylor, 1856-1915; and Weber, 1864-1920) and planning as an approach to strategy is still relevant for formal bureaucratic organisation but more moderated. It is effective and proactive approach, concerning efficiency and effectiveness, and also the important role of leaders and managers in the strategy formation and implementation process is crucial. However David, (1995) argued that, there is no clear evidence in term of performance. Nevertheless, Kaplan (2001) clarified that, strategy is not only about ‘doing’ but also it is about ‘not doing’. However planning and controlling are valuable for routine activities that need to be efficiently organised such as products or finance, but less valuable to generate creativity and innovation (Hamel, 1996; Kanter, 2002).
Strategic planning can promote inflexibility and detaches thinking from acting. Despite the fact that this approach is highly criticised, classical theorists (Faylor, 1841-1925; Taylor, 1856-1915; and Weber, 1864-1920) and planning as an approach to strategy is still relevant for formal bureaucratic organisation but more moderated. It is effective and proactive approach, concerning efficiency and effectiveness, and also the important role of leaders and managers in the strategy formation and implementation process is crucial. However David, (1995) argued that, there is no clear evidence in term of performance. Nevertheless, Kaplan (2001) clarified that, strategy is not only about ‘doing’ but also it is about ‘not doing’. However planning and controlling are valuable for routine activities that need to be efficiently organised such as products or finance, but less valuable to generate creativity and innovation (Hamel, 1996; Kanter, 2002).
Nevertheless,
Mintzberg and Lampel (1998) reviewed the evolution of strategy field in terms
of ten schools, which represent fundamentally different processes of strategy
formation. Prescriptive schools included; design, planning and positioning
school advocate strategy as a rational planning. Design school is process of
conception (Selznick, 1957; Chandler, 1962; and Andrews, 1971) strategies are
intentionally designed much as an engineer designs a bridge (De Wit and Meyer,
2009). This approach was directed towards profit maximisation and it was top
managers’ responsibility (Segal-Horn, 2004), this is associated with army,
politics, governments and formal bureaucratic structural organisation form
public and private sectors (Mullins, 2008). However, Lynch (2009) argued that,
objectives are not necessarily profit maximisation: for example; in publicly
owned enterprise, charities or social-cooperative objectives are social service
standard (Ansoff, 1968; Porter, 1985). In this context, the prescriptive
strategic management works by (1) defying in advance clear objectives; (2)
analysis and projection of the environment surrounding the organisation
macroeconomic analysis; (3) reconsidered objectives; (4) develop strategy
options; (5) select options against likelihood of achieving objectives; and (6)
implement chosen strategy.
However,
is it best to deliberately draw up objectives and trust that the strategy is
flexible enough to adapt with change, is the idea of master plan misplaced? To
enable the organisation to respond to opportunities and threats the can best
result be achieved by developing a strategy incrementally. Unfortunately, the
literature of strategic management does not offer clear answer for these
questions (De Wit and Meyer, 2004); they suggest that, perhaps in sustainable
environment planned strategy could be effective approach. Although, Mintzberg
(1994) has accepted that same strategic planning may be beneficial to the
organisation. Nevertheless, Chaffee, (1985) and Hart, (1992) suggested that,
there might be different styles in balancing deliberateness and emergence, which
is seen as ‘best way ‘ to approach of the issues of strategic formation (De Wit
and Meyer, 2004). Strategic planning lend itself well to formalisation, the
steps of strategic planning approach can be captured in planning systems
(Lorang and Vancil, 1977; Kukalis, 1991). In this context the most important
division of labour is between those who formulating the plan and those who
implementing.
Historically
the development in strategic field is influenced from environment changes
(Lynch, 2009). The way of thinking about strategy has evaluated from
prescriptive to descriptive, from planned (Anssof, 1965) to chaos (Mintzberg,
1987; Stacey, 1993) and complexity (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1998), from top-down
planning to strategic thinking (Segal-Horn, 2004). However, advocates of
strategic planning perspective argues that, strategy must be deliberately
planed, and executed, planning is necessary for communication. In their
view anything emerged unplanned is not really strategy (De Wit and Meyer,
2004). Successful pattern of actions that is not planned cannot be called
strategy; it can be seen as an improvisation or just luck (Andrews, 1987). ‘Think
before act’ is a motto of prescriptive strategy (De Wit and Meyer, 2004;
Lynch, 2009). Therefore, the worst strategy can be ‘no strategic planning’, no
future direction. Johnson and Scholes, (2001) defined strategy as a “…direction
and scope of an organisation over the long term…”(2001:3). However,
prescriptive strategy approach is based on the number of dangerous assumption
as to how organisations operate in practice (Mintzberg, 1994). For instance;
People may not like and agreed with recent government strategy regarding to
fund cut or increasing tuition fees for student therefore this might reflect in
next election.
However,
strategic management respond to environment (Segal-Horn, 2010; Lynch, 2004).
The pressure of strategic management comes from free market competition,
importance and development in Asian-pacific economies, global competition,
greater knowledge and training of managers and employees, greater speed of
technical change and rise of new form of communication, and recognition of
ethical issues in management These developments emerge to move away from
inflexible rational planning to flexible strategy, where the organisation and
its environment constitute and open system (Hofer, 1973; Mintzberg, 1978,
Rumelt, 1979; Hambrick, 1980, Quinn, 1980). The reality is defined through a
process of social interaction (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Chaffee, 2001).
The recent emergence of practise based perspective, seeing strategy as a
sociological process (Whittington, 2004; Volberda, 2004), with complexity
thinking begin to offer prescription, importance of leadership and
decision-making process, and emergence of ethics and corporate social
responsibility as components of value-based strategy (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990;
1993). A divers approach is probably needed in the future prospect.
But
on the other hand, post modernism strategy is concerned with development of
viable opportunities and risk present in external environment (Porter, 1985).
The organisation’s core competencies (Prahalad and Hamel, 1992; 1993) and
resources are crucial for exploring those opportunities (Hofer, 1973). The
resource based view first proposed from Wernerfelt (1984) highlight the
importance of resources to achieve competitive advantages. Resources, not
product underpins success (ibid). Another development of strategy in
theoretical framework core competencies which contribute creating ‘uniqueness’
and differentiate the organisation from others Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; 1993).
Strategy is seen as a calculated behaviour in non-programmed situations (Van
Cauwenbergh and Cool, 1982). Furthermore, descriptive strategies concerned how
strategy actually forms in organisation, logical incrimination (Quinn, 1980).
These schools of thought acknowledge the complexity of organisation and some
draw in complexity theory (Stacey1993; 2001; and Pascal, 2001) that derived
from the work of biologist Kauffman (1993:1995) with evolutionary process.
Their focus is in learning, idea generation, creativity and innovation and also
emergent processes. The organisation is seen as ‘organic’ rather than ‘machine’.
However, Wittington (1998) argued that, strategy can result not coherent, it is
dangerous being descriptive rather than prescriptive, and also incrementalism
can lead organisations gradually into undesirable position.
New strategy involves in confrontation of peoples cognitive maps, questioning
organisations’ culture, threatening individuals’ current interest and
disrupting the distribution of power within organisation (Johnson, 1988; Hamel’
1996) power and culture are essential elements of strategy. “Strategy is
something that people do, and follow” Wittington (2004) therefore it can be seen as a social
practice, and strategy formation is a social process rooted in culture which
could be shape from leaders (Johnson et al., 2009). Mintzberg (1987) comes up
with the model of emerging strategy that invent from the interaction into
organization with its environment, not from the mind of the strategists. Emergent
strategy originates not in the mind of the strategist, but in the interaction
of the organization with its environment. Byren, (1998) Strategists referring
to leaders, are able to create differentiation, focuses in organizations
resources, and design system, which not everyone within organization can do it,
it is leaders ‘job’. However Quinn, (1978) explained that manager’s nature and
promote strategy, they are involved in formation and implementation.
According
to Markides (1999) strategy formation and implementation is integrated process,
never-ending requiring continuing reformation. Emerging strategy tends to
integrate into patter idea and actions from multiple sources, to create
learning organization, which is core functions of any business organization
(Sengen, (1990). Emerging strategy is not appropriate because is
impossible for managers to understand and deal with enormous
information and fundamental changes, learning, negotiation and compromises must
take place (Legge, 1995).
Moncrieff (1999)
comes with model of strategy dynamic process, which pretend that strategy is
partially deliberate and partially unplanned, but he does not make clear
whether performance is better form strategy planning. Unplanned strategy
is associated with two sources; (1) ‘emerging strategy’ as a result of
opportunities and threats in market and (2)‘strategy in action’ are
combination and coordination of peoples’ actions from all parts of
organization. These action are not deliberated, are informal, and are not
recognize as a strategy, but they are emerged from within organization in the
same way as ‘emerging strategy’ emerge from environment (Mintzberg, 1987) it is
dynamic model of the strategy process (Byrne, 1998). But, it is not
comprehensible under what circumstance strategy could more effective if it is
deliberately planed.
However, Moncrieff (1999) clarified that, effective strategy could be planned and emerged, it happen everywhere, it is dynamic, and interaction. The strategic learning, the arrangements of actions with strategic goals and objectives, the variety of actions of leaders and managers, the ability of the organization to respond to environment issues quick and effectively are general process interact to Moncrieff’s strategic model. Alternatively, System Thinking’ (Granovett, 1985; Shrivastava, 1986) view strategy as a social reflection, political, geographical and cultural context, still profit maximization is key driver of strategy. Volberda (2004) clarified that; with conventional notion the strategy is a prescriptive process of top-down control, formal rational planning and industry analyses. But rational planning seems to be exhausted as a general project ‘it is hell as it likes’ (Byrne, 1998:19).
However, Moncrieff (1999) clarified that, effective strategy could be planned and emerged, it happen everywhere, it is dynamic, and interaction. The strategic learning, the arrangements of actions with strategic goals and objectives, the variety of actions of leaders and managers, the ability of the organization to respond to environment issues quick and effectively are general process interact to Moncrieff’s strategic model. Alternatively, System Thinking’ (Granovett, 1985; Shrivastava, 1986) view strategy as a social reflection, political, geographical and cultural context, still profit maximization is key driver of strategy. Volberda (2004) clarified that; with conventional notion the strategy is a prescriptive process of top-down control, formal rational planning and industry analyses. But rational planning seems to be exhausted as a general project ‘it is hell as it likes’ (Byrne, 1998:19).
No matter what
the balance between philosophies and science is, the knowledge of the theory of
strategy will help to deal with complexity of organisation environment
(Mullins, 2007). Caos is so attractive to post modernist; science seems to have
come to the end of its capabilities because of dynamics and uncertainties
(Byrne, 1998). Theories of strategy are unable to deal with complex
environment. D’Aveni (1994) has come with the idea of ‘Hypercompetition’
included capability and system dynamics, as a balance between theories and
practice, between strategy formation and implementation. Some of strategy
theories are derived from financial theories (Schwartz and Trgeorgis, 2001),
which are, applied to strategic chose and management. Strategic thinking and
operation planning are the best strategy approach in a dynamic and uncertain
business environment (Joyce and Woods, 2010) these strategies encourage creativity
and innovation that lead to competitive advantage.
Nevertheless, fundamental
decision-making process is determinant of most strategies; therefore managers
must focus on it in order to establish the situation in which the best
strategic option can be develop. However, critical drivers of business
unit strategy are organisations objectives, resources and decision capabilities
and managers must be aware of those drivers to enable them to create value for
customers and maximise wealth and value for shareholders.
Categories of Strategy
|
||||
Whittington
(1993)
|
McKiernan
(1996)
|
Mintzberg
(1998)
|
Chaffee
(2001)
|
|
Supports
of; “Planning is
an only way that strategy can be developed in organisation”
|
Classical
Systemic
|
Planning
and process
Positioning
Resources
|
Designing
Planning
Positioning
|
Linear
|
Critiques
of;
“Planning
is an only way that strategy can be developed in organisation
|
Processual
Evolutionary
|
Learning
Natural
selection
Incremental
Cultural
/Political
Visionary
Patterns
of strategy development
|
Entrepreneurial
Cognitive
Learning
Power
Cultural
Environmental
Configurationally
|
Adaptive
Interpretive
|
Table 1. Source:
Adapted by Author
All
strategy theories make assumptions, explicitly or implicitly. Every theorist’s
assumptions differ giving rise to a wide variety of positions. Many of the
major disagreements within the field of strategic management are rooted in the
different assumption made about coping with strategy tensions. For this reason
the theoretical debate was centred around of different perspectives of strategy
on dealing with particular strategy tension. Hambrick (1983) declare that,
strategy is not multidimensional and situational but it is more complicated
topic, which make any consensus in literature very difficult. Mintzberg after a
long-time exploration in this field still asks ‘what strategy is? Is it jus
imagination that exists in leaders mind? Who knows, .no one has seen one’.
Regarding to definitions and strategy approaches literature is alienated in
different groups and is ongoing debate between classical approach and emerging
strategies, one is associated with rational planning and other is associated with
dynamic process of strategy and strategic thinking, partially planned strategy.
Modern
literature support strategy flexibility, they associate strategy as a social
interaction where everyone is evolved in strategy formation and implementation,
everyone within organisation are motivated enough to achieve organisations
mission and vision through knowledge share. Planning approach to strategy could
be effective in sustainable environment not in dynamic and unsustainable
environment where is very difficult to predict the future. It is
effective approach if the goals and objectives of the organisation are clear. However,
this approach is still useful into formal bureaucratic organisation, such as
army, public and private sectors which aiming to have control and command,
decision making system is from top-down and leaders are strategist and they are
likely to be autocratic. Implementation process is responsibility of
operational managers.
Profit maximisation is the only objective of the organisation. However, this approach is criticised from descriptive strategists because it is not relevant any more, it does separate ‘thinking’ from ‘doing’, and in today’s environment goals and objectives are not clear because of unpredictability of internal and external environment. Mintzberg (1994: 187) states that, “strategic planning is not strategic thinking’. Planners can help managers to think strategically, provide data, and program the vision, but they cannot create strategies (ibid). Authors associated with strategy as a deliberated planning are; Chandler, (1962); Cannon, (1969); Learned et al., (1969); Gilmore, (1970); Andrews, (1971); Child, (1972); Drucker, (1974); Pain and Maumes, (1974); Lorange and Vancil, (1976) and Steiner and Miner, (1977).
Profit maximisation is the only objective of the organisation. However, this approach is criticised from descriptive strategists because it is not relevant any more, it does separate ‘thinking’ from ‘doing’, and in today’s environment goals and objectives are not clear because of unpredictability of internal and external environment. Mintzberg (1994: 187) states that, “strategic planning is not strategic thinking’. Planners can help managers to think strategically, provide data, and program the vision, but they cannot create strategies (ibid). Authors associated with strategy as a deliberated planning are; Chandler, (1962); Cannon, (1969); Learned et al., (1969); Gilmore, (1970); Andrews, (1971); Child, (1972); Drucker, (1974); Pain and Maumes, (1974); Lorange and Vancil, (1976) and Steiner and Miner, (1977).
Emerging
strategy (Mintzberg, (1978) or adaptive approach (Chaffee, (2001) are
associated with strategic management and choice, strategic predisposition,
strategic fit and niche, this does not advocate that planning is an only way
that strategy can be developed. This model relies on biological model they seen
organisation as ‘organic’ rather than ‘mechanistic’. These support
open systems, monitoring environment to enable the organisation to make changes
based on market trends. The focus of this approach is competition and
stakeholders; organisational changes are dependent in environmental changes.
However, as a result of high competition and continual changes of market
tendency, dynamics of environment are less likely to be calculated, in this
context the importance of stakeholders is enormous.
Another important influence in
strategic approach is micro and macro power. Micro-power the process involving
barging, persuasion and confrontation among actors that share the power.
Macro-power is very trendy now in global market, organisation uses its power
over other and among its partners, in strategy alliance, joint venture, and
other networks relationship to negotiation, in other world ‘collective’
strategy is its intention. Evolutionary approach to strategy is another
strategy model rejecting rational planning as an inappropriate approach as a
result of turbulences in whole global economy. The recent emergence of the
practice based perspective-seeing strategy as a sociological process
(Wittington, 2004: Volberda, 2004). Importance of leadership and
decision-making is crucial than ever, and also emerge ethics and responsibly as
a component of value based strategy. A combination between different approaches
is probably needed…………………
References
Angwin
et al (2009) Connecting Up Strategy: Are Senior Strategy Directors A Missing
Link? California Management Review. 51:3. Pp74-96.
Alkhafaji. F. A, (2003) Strategic management:
Formulation, implementation and control in a dynamic environment. The Haworth
Press, Inc. New York.
Biggadike. E. R (1981) The Contributions of
Marketing to Strategic Management. Acadamy of Management Review. No 6. Pp
621-632.
Brooks, S.B. (2005) Corporate Social Responsibility
and Strategy: The Prospects for Converging Discourses. Strategic Change, vol. 14, no. 7, pp.
401-11.
Banfield, C, E. (1958)
Ends and Means in Planning. Available from: http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/subjects/ims5042/stuff/readings/banfield.pdf
[accessed 10/03/2011]
Bovaird. T (2008) Emergent Strategic Management and
Planning Mechanism in Complex and Adaptive Systems: The case of UK Best Value
initiative. Vol 10. No 3. Pp
319-340.
Brown. S. L and Eisenhardt. K. M (1997) The art of
continuous change. Linking complexity theory and time-peace evolution in
relentlessly shifting organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol, 14.
Pp1-34.
Byrne. D, (1998) Complexity Theory and the Social
Sciences: An Introduction.
Available from:http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NaVSZXVdc-0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=what+complexity+theory+said&ots=2HV5Vt7i-h&sig=EhKkFQU0Q9AE5yLEBKQd3hNpIKU#v=onepage&q=what%20complexity%20theory%20said&f=false
[Accessed, 03/04/2011]
Chaffee, E, E. (1985) Three Models of Strategy,
Academy of Management Review. 10:1. Pp89-98.
Cyert. R. M and March. J.G (1963) A Behaviour
Theory of the Firm. Oxford. Blackwell.
Chung. E and McLarney. C (1999) When giants
collide: strategic analysis and application. Management Decision. MCB University press. Pp233-247.
Chia. R, (1995) From modern to pas modern
organisation analysis. Organisation studies. Vol, 16. No 11. Pp570-604.
Cooper. R, and Burrell. G, (1988) Modernism,
postmodernism and organisational analysis. Organisation studies. Vol, 9. No, 11. Pp 91-113.
Clegg. S. R, and Kornberger. M, (2003) Modernism,
Postmodernism, Management and Organisation Theory
De
Wit. B and Rob. M (2004) Strategy, Process, Content, Context and International
Perspective. Thomson Learning. North Workshire.
Segal-Horn.
S (2004) The modern roots of strategic management. European Business Journal
(2004). Pp.133-142.
Linn.
M, (2008) Planning Strategically and Strategic Planning. Emerald Group
Publishing. Vol 21. No, 1. Pp 20-23
Masson.
R. O and Mitrof. I. I (1981) Challenging Strategic Planning Assumption. New
York.
Mantere.
S (2007) Becoming Strategist: Senior Manager Trajectories. Oxford University
Press. London.
Macus.
M (2008) Board Capability: An Interactions Perspective on Boards of Directors
and Firm Performance. 38:3. Pp98-116.
Markides, C (2000) ‘Commentary on the Henry Mintzberg
Interview’, Academy of Management
executive, Vol. 14. Issue 3, pp. 39-41, [online3], Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com.ergo.glam.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=26206292&site=ehost-live
[Accessed, 08/04/2011]
Mintzberg.
H and Lampel. J (1999) Reflecting on the Strategy Process. Sloan Management
Review. 21-30.
Mintzberg.
H (1994) The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review.
Mintzberg
et al., (1998) Strategy safari: a guided tour through the wild of strategic
management. London. Prentice Hall.
Miles.
R. H and Cameron. K. S (1982) Coffin Nails and Corporate Strategies. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall.
McKiernan.
P (1996) Historical Evolution of Strategic Management. Dartmouth,
Aldershot.
Narayanan.
V. K and Fahey. L (1982) The macro Politics of Strategy Formulation. Academy of
Management Review. Vol 7. Pp 23-34.
Elfring, T. & Volbeda, W, H. (2004) Schools of
Thought in Strategic Management: Fragmentation, Integration or Synthesis,
Available from: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/9388_006130ch1.pdf
[Accessed 02/03 2011]
Fryer et al., (2004) The Practice of construction
management: people and business performance. Available from:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JbtHSNwBa8QC&pg=PA1&dq=what+is+management+thinking&hl=en&ei=XVDLTK2XCsqcOouL3Z4B&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20management%20thinking&f=false
[Accessed 29/03 2011].
Hart. S and Banbury. C (1994) How strategic-making
process can make different. Strategic Management Journal. Vo.15.
Pp251-269.
Jarzabkowski. P, (2004) Strategy as a Practice:
Recursivenes, adoptions and practice –in-use. Organisation studies
(Press).
Joyce. P and Woods. A, (2001) Strategic Management:
a fresh approach to developing skills, knowledge, and creativity. Kogan Page
Limited. London.
Johnson et al., (2006) Toward a Mid-Range Theory of Strategy Workshop.
Advanced Institute of Management Research.
Johnson et al., (2005) Exploring Corporate
Strategy: Text & Cases. Pearson Education Limited. England.
Johnson . G, Melin. L and Wittington. R, (2003)
Macro Strategy and Strategizing Towards an Activity-Based View. Blackwell
Publishing. London.
Johnson, G. Scholes, K. Whittington, R (2009) Exploring Corporate Strategy: Text and
Cases. 8th ed. England. Prentice Hall.
Kaplan, R, S (2001) ‘Strategic
Performance measurement and Management in Nonprofit Organizations’, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol.
11, No. 3, pp. 353-370, [Online], Available from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ergo.glam.ac.uk/ehost/detail?vid=26&hid=17&sid=bdf66c2e-affa-44b3-be03-b10339368c4f%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=5006650
[Accessed, 08/04/2011]
Teece. J. D, (2010) Alfred Chandler and
‘capabilities’ theories of strategy and management. Available from: http://icc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/297.full
[Accessed 13/03 2011].
Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. London, Pitman.
Lowson. H. R (2002) Strategic Operations
Management: The new competitive advantage. Available from: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3zQXMAP2kJEC&pg=PA57&dq=definition+of+operation+strategy&hl=en&ei=fHPETYSoG8i38QPgtsHYAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=definition%20of%20operation%20strategy&f=false
[Accessed: 03/04/2011]
Lynch. R (2009) Strategic Management. 5th
ed. England. Pearson Education Limited.
Lenz. R. T (1980) Strategy Capability: A Concept
and Framework for Analysis. Academy of Management Review. Vol, 5. Pp 225-234.
Pascale, R.T. (1990) Managing on the Edge. Penguin. Harmondsworth.
Pascale, R.T., Millemann, M. and Gioja L. (2000)
Surfing the Edge of Chaos: The Laws of
Nature and the New Laws of Business. Crown Business, New York.
Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance. Free Press,
New York.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) The Core
Competence of the Corporation. Harvard
Business Review, May-June: pp. 79-91.
Pettingrew. A. M, (1992) On studying managerial
elites. Strategic management journal. Vol 13. No, 9. Pp 163-182.
Pettingrew> A. M, (2001) Management after
modernism. British Journal of Management. Vol, 12. No, 8. Pp 61-70.
Prajogo. I. D and Sohal. S. A
(2001) TQM and innovation: a literature review and research framework.
Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8B-436W007-1&_user=477543&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1684105901&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000022838&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=477543&md5=6469720a6de3318356cd0e36730dd508&searchtype=a
[Accessed, 18/03/2011]
Quinn, J.B. (1978) Strategic
Change: ‘Logical Incrementalism’.
Sloan Management Review, Fall,
pp. 7-21.
Quinn, J.B. (1980b) Managing Strategic Change. Sloan Management Review, Summer. pp 3-20.
Slack.
N and Lewis. M (2002) Operation Strategy Available from:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e1upWYAGbM0C&pg=PA6&dq=definition+of+operation+strategy&hl=en&ei=fHPETYSoG8i38QPgtsHYAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=definition%20of%20operation%20strategy&f=false
[Accessed, 03/04/2011]
Simpson. G. D, (1998a) Why Most Strategic Planning
is Waist of Time and What You Can do About It. Elsevier Science Ltd. Vol 31. No3. Pp476-480.
Simpson. G. D (1998b) Why Most Strategic Planning is Waist of Time and
What You can do About It.
Elsevier Science Ltd. Vol, 31. No, 4. Pp
623-627.
Stacey R. (1993) Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics. Pitman, London.
Stacey R. (2000) Complexity and Management: Fad or
Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking? Rutledge, London.
Stacey R. (2003) Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, (4th edition). Pitman,
Spee. P. A and Jarzabkowski. P (2008) Strategy
Formation as a Communication Process.
Haberberg. A and Rieple. A, (2005) The Strategic
Management of Organisations. Pearson Education Limited. England.
Heracleous. L, (1998) Strategic Thinking or
Strategic Planning. Strategy At The Leading Edge New Research& Conference
Report . Vol, 31. No, 3. Pp 481-487.
Toulmin. S, (1990) Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of
Modernity. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
Toulmin. S, (2001) Return to reason. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.
Van Cauwenbergh. A and Cool. K
(1982) Strategic Management I a New Framework. Vol 3. Pp245-265.
Wilson. I (1996) Strategic
Planning for Millennium. Resolving the Dilemma. Elsevier Science Ltd. Vol, 31. No, 4. Pp 507-513.
No comments:
Post a Comment