Beware 'accounting logic'

Strategy and strategic thinking is about the future, what is likely to happen, how the environment will look, what we need to be aware of and therefore what decisions should we be taking today.  It is frequently written that we are in a period of fast paced change and we need to be able to lead and plan in a complex environment under conditions of uncertainty.  The future is unlikely to be an extrapolation of the past so we need to ensure our thinking isn't dominated by projections based on the past.

In my travels as a manager and more recently as a consultant I have often come up against a phenomena which I label 'accounting logic', the use of primarily historical financial information as the basis for decision making.  Now I have nothing against accounting and accountants (though some think I have) but the information that they provide can't be given more weight than other sources of information when strategic planning but it often is used as the primary yardstick.

This can create a number of problems but one of the most critical is organisation and managerial inertia.  If the financial numbers are still okay then we don't need to change course despite what new information about the environment is known.  Management becomes wedded to the success of the past and misses the turn off to the future.  The following picture sums up the logic.......

History is littered with examples, one of the most famous being IBMs reluctance to embrace PCs as the mainframe market was just to lucrative.  Today, video rental stores and CD stores are soon to be extinct no matter how good their current cash-flow maybe.

The key point is you can't rely on financial information to paint you a picture of how the world will be it simply tells you how good it has been.  If you rely on 'accounting logic' when making decisions, well you're ok so far..............

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mintzberg and Waters' strategy model

Image
It is interesting how some strategic management models come and go whilst other ones seem to survive the test of time.  In 1985 Henry Mintzberg (one of the leading strategic management thinkers) and James Waters developed a model to demonstrate how the strategy that is ultimately delivered is made of two parts; deliberate strategy (what the organisation set out to do) and emergent strategy (what happened on the way). In their original paper the model looks just a little clunky, word processing not as it is today, but very recognisable for all scholars and practitioners. And although the concept of the model hasn't changed at all, it does look a little funkier with a 'lick of paint'. The model still communicates with a simplicity that belies the revolutionary nature of what it was at the time.  It looks obvious with hindsight that of course we haven't got a crystal ball and the world changes so where we end up is a combination of where we were heade...
Read more

Double Hermeneutic

I came across this term (pronounced 'her men you tic') in my strategic management PhD travels and was quite intrigued by it as it's both simple (despite its name) and very enlightening.  Hopefully I'll do the simple part justice here!!!! It was coined by  Anthony Giddens , a famous British sociologist, and it reveals a major difference in the way we should (stress on the should) theorise about the natural world versus our social world and of particular interest to me, theories about how we should manage people. In essence, a theory about our natural world has no impact on the natural world which remains the same no matter what we think.  For example it was previously thought that the world was flat (and yes there are some of you still out there) but that didn't change the shape of the earth which remained a sphere (oh yes it is).  This is a single hermeneutic. However in the social sciences this isn't the case and, if for example...
Read more

If planning is everything, Maybe its nothing.

A blog back on my subject area, strategic planning or strategic management to use the correct term for the academic field. I have been reading an interesting article entitled 'If planning is everything, Maybe its nothing' written back in 1973 by Aaron Wildavsky.  It is almost a fore runner to one of the largest debates in strategic management, whether strategy should be planned and deliberate or it emerges naturally as part of general management activities. The article makes some very interesting points but it does read a little gloomily as though Mr Wildavsky hasn't got a lot of time for planners in general.  His particular interest is planning in the 3rd world (although it wasn't called the 3rd world then) and he observes that in amongst all the money poured into formal plans and planning, the results have been pretty disappointing. It raises another interesting argument/point and that is the difference between the plan and the outcomes.  He appears to be a...
Read more