A CRITIQUE OF PRESCRIPTIVE VIEWS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
This paper presents a critique of mechanistic views to strategic management. It was done as part of the requirements for admission to study towards a Doctorate in Business Leadership in Strategic Management.
Click to see the full-text of:
Dataset: A CRITIQUE OF PRESCRIPTIVE VIEWS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
Article: Management: The problems of success[Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. You may purchase this article from the Ask*IEEE Document Delivery Service at http://www.ieee.org/services/askieee/
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Despite its long tradition and well known contributions, corporate strategy research is yet far from being mature. This paper proposes an innovative framework that approaches the field from the theoretical perspective provided by complexity theory. We propose to see the corporate level of the organization as the driver, pacer and framer of the overall firm's evolution process. Drive is provided by the cognitive representation of the corporate fitness landscape that is implicit in the firm's corporate plan. Pacing is a consequence of the kind of strategic initiatives ("search strategy") developed by the company. Framing is achieved through the architectural design that the corporate level implements for the firm.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Increasingly the body of knowledge derived from strategy theory has been criticized because it is not actionable in practice, particularly under the conditions of a knowledge economy. Since strategic management is an applied discipline this is a serious criticism. However, we argue that the theory-practice question is too simple. Accordingly, this paper expands this question by outlining first the theoretical criteria under which strategy theory is not actionable, and then outlines an alternative perspective on strategy knowledge in action, based upon a practice epistemology. The paper is in three sections. The first section explains two contextual conditions which impact upon strategy theory within a knowledge economy, environmental velocity and knowledge intensity. The impact of these contextual conditions upon the application of four different streams of strategy theory is examined. The second section suggests that the theoretical validity of these contextual conditions breaks down when we consider the knowledge artifacts, such as strategy tools and frameworks, which arise from strategy research. The third section proposes a practice epistemology for analyzing strategy knowledge in action that stands in contrast to more traditional arguments about actionable knowledge. From a practice perspective, strategy knowledge is argues to be actionable as part of the everyday activities of strategizing.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Among the schools of thought on strategy formation, one in particular underlies almost all prescription in the field. Referred to as the ‘design school’, it proposes a simple model that views the process as one of design to achieve an essential fit between external threat and opportunity and internal distinctive competence. A number of premises underlie this model: that the process should be one of consciously controlled thought, specifically by the chief executive; that the model must be kept simple and informal; that the strategies produced should be unique, explicit, and simple; and that these strategies should appear fully formulated before they are implemented. This paper discusses and then critiques this model, focusing in particular on the problems of the conscious assessment of strengths and weaknesses, of the need to make strategies explicit, and of the separation between formulation and implementation. In so doing, it calls into question some of the most deep-seated beliefs in the field of strategic management, including its favorite method of pedagogy.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The resource-based approach is an emerging framework that has stimulated discussion between scholars from three research perspectives. First, the resource-based theory incorporates traditional strategy insights concerning a firm's distinctive competencies and heterogeneous capabilities. The resource-based approach also provides value-added theoretical propositions that are testable within the diversification strategy literature. Second, the resource-based view fits comfortably within the organizational economics paradigm. Third, the resource-based view is complementary to industrial organization research. The resource-based view provides a framework for increasing dialogue between scholars from these important research areas within the conversation of strategic management. Resource-based studies that give simultaneous attention to each of these research programs are suggested.
Article: Surfing the Edge of Chaos