philosophy of strategy
- 格式：pdf
- 大小：115.34 KB
- 文档页数：14
Towards a philosophy of strategy:reassessing five critical dilemmas instrategy formulation and change
John A.Parnell1* and Donald L.Lester21School of Business,University of North Carolina at Pembroke,USA
2Center for Entrepreneurial and Family Business Studies,College of Business,Arkansas State
University,USA
᭹Although there has been a considerable amount of prescriptive research in the strategicmanagement field,top executives are still faced with a number of somewhat philo-sophical ‘judgment calls’when formulating strategies for their companies.᭹Five of these key issues include:(1) approaching strategy as an art or as a science;(2)publicizing strategy content or maintaining its secrecy;(3) seeking strategic consistencyover the long term or maintaining flexibility;(4) embracing or avoiding strategic risk;and (5) adopting a top-down or a bottom-up approach to strategic planning.᭹This paper examines the predispositions of managers concerning these challenges andintegrates them into four comprehensive philosophical approaches to strategy formula-tion.Prospects for future research are also presented.Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons,Ltd.
There is increasing evidence that strategy for-mulation is linked to the top executive’s per-sonal philosophy and personality (Hambrickand Fredrickson,2001;Kotey and Meredith,1997).Management’s self-interest,their per-sonalities,interpretations and influences onstrategy have been linked to the strategy for-mulation process and ultimately performance(Guth and Macmillan,1986;Janis,1972;Smircich and Stubbart,1985;Walsh and Fahey,1986).Hence in some respects,strategic management remains an intuitive and philo-
Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons,Ltd.Strategic Change,Sept–Oct 2003
sophical undertaking.As such,strategic man-agers are faced with some key critical ‘judg-ment calls’when formulating strategy for theircompanies,each of which involves apparentcontradictions that must be resolved if a firmis to succeed.This paper outlines five critical strategicissues that influence strategic decision-making.Since a top executive’s philosophicalperspective on each issue can greatly influ-ence the role he or she plays in strategy formulation,it is argued that the resolution of these practical concerns should be based on a philosophy of strategy based on experi-ence,research and reason.Scales are devel-oped and tested to measure proclivities concerning each issue,followed by sugges-tions for strategic managers and implicationsfor research.
Strat.Change12:291–303 (2003)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI:10.1002/jsc.639
Strategic Change
*Correspondence to:John A.Parnell,Belk Professor ofManagement,School of Business,University of NorthCarolina at Pembroke,PO Box 1510,Pembroke,NC28372,USA.E-mail:john.parnell@uncp.edu292John A.Parnell and Donald L.Lester
Question 1:Should strategy beapproached as an art or a science?
The art versus science debate is one of themost fundamental issues in strategy for-mulation.While some may argue that theart–science discussion is merely an academicdispute,the perception of the strategy phe-nomena,and more specifically the process ofstrategy formulation,is a key building block ofstrategy.In other words,one’s view of howthestrategy process should function is inseparablefrom one’s view of whatthe strategy shouldbe (i.e.,content).The difference between the art and scienceinterpretations of strategy is substantial.Ac-cording to the art perspective,the lack ofenvironmental predictability and the fast paceof change suggest that the inherent value ofstrategic planning is limited.Instead,strate-gists should incorporate substantial creativityand intuition in order to design a comprehen-sive strategy for the firm (Ford and Gioia,2000).In contrast,followers of the scienceperspective see the business environment aslargely objective,analysable and predictable toa great extent.As such,strategic managersshould follow a systematic process of envi-ronmental,competitive and internal analysisand build the organization’s strategy on thisfoundation (see Table 1).Most of the strategy literature has tradition-ally favoured the science or planning model,whereby strategic managers are encouraged tosystematically assess the firm’s external envi-ronment and,based on perceived strengthsand weaknesses,evaluate the pros and cons ofmyriad alternatives before formulating strat-egy.The search for causal relationships andobjectivity are central to the planning model.By definition,strategic managers should betrained,highly skilled analytical thinkerscapable of digesting a host of objective dataand translating it into a desired direction forthe firm.In contrast,Mintzberg’s (1987) notion of a craftsman,encompassing individual skill,dedication and perfection through mastery ofdetail,represents the artistic approach to strat-
