Strategy is different

During my recent PhD reading and thinking I've come to the conclusion that strategy, although lumped in with all the other management areas, is different, fundamentally different.  And because of this it needs to be thought of and treated differently as well and I don't think that is done.

Why is strategy different?

Two things;

  1. It is about positioning the organise in a future environment
  2. The competition are doing the same thing so you are competing.
A simple analogy is a car race - The team decides what strategy to start with and what to do in the race, every other activity is about keeping the car on the road and making it go faster.  To bring this into a business context, strategy is about what to do and every other activity is about efficiency and effectiveness.

For this reason strategy it is a skill set that differs and you really can't just think about it every now and again and hope to be good at it or even competent.  The teams that race cars spend countless hours week in week out thinking about how they are going to tackle situations and what they should do.  Imagine if they only met at the start of the year and that was the strategy done for the season!!!!  It would make the drivers job pretty difficult.

So you need to start thinking differently about strategy and putting in time to get better at it.  After all it is the pointy bit of the arrow and once the arrow is flying it is to late to change........... 

This area starts to bring in the concepts of proactivity and reactivity but today I'm out of time...........


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