Enacted Environment - Essay Example

? Response Paper Smircich and Stubbart bring something new to the table with their suggestions that environments are not separate from organizations but rather that the two influence one another. Their ideas are different from the ideas presented in most strategic management outlines, and they do make a lot of sense. The main point that the authors attempt to explain is that a manager’s view of environment should change in order to make a business more effective. The authors identify problems with the way that traditional views regarding environment versus organization have impacted businesses, and they try to offer examples to this effect. They succeed in some ways and fall short in others. However, even more than falling short of explaining themselves adequately, their arguments simply only apply in some cases but not all. It is my belief that their ideas are very helpful in cases in which they are applicable, but there are many cases in which these ideas do not apply. There are reasons why the traditional practices of strategic management have been used for as long as they have by so many businesses, and there is something to be said for using them, so I can see this argument from both sides. What the authors are saying offers a new and useful perspective that can certainly be helpful when it applies, and their view is something that most managers fail to even acknowledge and can benefit from recognizing. However, I do not think it should be presented as the only possible view that applies, as traditional strategic management views really are the most useful in some situations. Yes, managers must look at themselves and their situations objectively, but external trends and consumer patterns cannot be ignored. It is true, as the authors of this article claim, that it is important for managers to look within themselves and their organizations when attempting to solve problems, but managers also need TEXAS SOUTHERN judge judy to observe what is going on in the market and in the minds of consumers, because their opinions and misconceptions are very real. Ultimately, it definitely makes sense to unlearn debilitating concepts and to take risks that others refuse to take, but it does not make sense to do this instead of looking at the environment. Why not do both? In my opinion, their refusal to consider the other methods is just as dangerous as the idea of using only the other methods exclusively. In terms of whether or not the authors convinced me, the answer is “somewhat”. While their analogies were helpful, none of the examples really proved an instance in which their perspectives worked better than others; the only examples given listed failures of the other models to work and how these failures could have been prevented or corrected using their model, instead. Understandably, their model has probably not been used by many companies yet, and if so, it probably has not been studied in practice, so these examples were likely difficult to find. Ultimately, my conclusion is that the authors are correct that it is dangerous for a person to become confined by his or her own beliefs to the extent that that person has created an environment in which things can only be done a certain way, and he or she will not consider stepping outside of the box. However, whether accurate or not, consumers do have very real beliefs and behavioral patterns that should not be denied or overlooked for the sake of self-analysis. With regard to what difference this article’s ideas will make to the way I view or practice management, the authors do a good job of emphasizing the importance of looking inward first, before blaming outside factors for influence or failure, so this is something I would change or implement. One example of an external environmental factor that came to mind as I was reading this article is the way that “the economy” has sort of become the buzz word for consumers these days. Everyone uses “the economy” as the reason for everything, whether or not it has personally affected them. Consumers use this as a reason not to buy simply because of their fears, their perceptions of what is occurring, or just because it sounds good. In this way, the recession has become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy and a mysterious concept that affects everyone just by virtue of idea, whether or not it actually has actually had any real influence. In this way, I use the economy as an example of an external factor that really is not that big of interference in most cases, and this is the perfect example of a scenario in which traditional strategic managing practitioners attempt to connect the dots and blame lack of sales on a “big picture” factor. Customers and managers both say, “Well, it’s just the economy,” when times are slow, when really they do not even know what exactly that means, and the economy has not actually had that much of an influence. Managers would be better off looking inward at themselves to find out how they could have done something differently. In most cases, “the economy” does not really matter that much to consumers if the products are of high quality and they feel that they need them. In a way, the recession is this mysterious factor that everyone is throwing around, and it has been created by consumers’ own fears. This is something that really is not that much of an obstacle at all, if managers would just push it out of the picture and not allow it to get in the way rather than using it as an excuse, when in most cases their lack of sales could likely be overcome by using different tactics. From this approach, these external conditions, or supposed external conditions, are just convenient excuses that managers can blame, but they are probably not the real reasons for the problems. Even if external factors do contribute to problems, the problems can likely be solved by a change in strategy, but businesses are unable to do so, because they simply accept the conditions and believe that they cannot be challenged. In this way, newcomers on the scene may have more success by ignoring those factors and challenging them simply because they do not know any better. I can certainly see the truth in this. However, on the other hand, I can also see the traditional perspective. Whether or not the economy, for example, really is to blame, if it is a factor in the minds of consumers, then it must be acknowledged. For the record, the economy is just one example in this case, but this same idea applies to any other factor. It does not seem to make sense to only acknowledge the facts and ignore the big picture or perceptions and misconceptions if they really do exist. Even if these beliefs are misconceptions, they are still very real in the minds of consumers, so these external factors must be taken into account. Even if individual problems can be solved by different sales techniques, thought must still be given to how these “big picture” ideas are affecting the larger customer base. When attempting to market to a large number of customers, it must be acknowledged that the recession, for example, is occurring and that consumers are thinking about it. Whether or not you personally believe the external factors should really matter, they must be accounted for, because they matter to your potential customers. These thoughts tie into the authors’ thought that businesses take for granted certain ideas and do not think to challenge them. Managers believe that they should pay attention to trends and attempt to learn as much as possible about the market and that there are some practices that that cannot be changed and obstacles cannot be moved past, when really evidence shows that it is good to challenge those ideas. This is one idea that the authors successfully prove through example. They do mention specific companies that have been successful by not following the rules because they did not know better. This is a prime example of a situation in which “unlearning” does make sense. Sometimes, managers become so set in what they believe to be absolutes that they are unable to see other possibilities or take risks. I do agree with the authors’ argument that managers run the risk of not being able to think outside the box when they limit themselves like this by accepting what they believe they must. The economy also serves as a great example in this case. Most managers exhibit fear and change their policies because of “the economy,” while those who are newer on the scene may not know better and will still take big risks and be more successful for it. The authors’ idea that it is impossible to know an environment completely does make sense, but I do not believe it is a good reason to refuse to acknowledge the environment or attempt to account for environmental or external factors when examining their successes or troubles. Of course, focusing on individual responses to these problems while ignoring these outside problems will definitely help as an added strategy to improve success, but I do not understand why both cannot be done, because I believe both are important. In an enacted world, a manager’s job would be different than in traditional strategic management strategies, because he or she would spend less time conducting research and gathering data about outside factors, trends and patterns and would spend more time analyzing what the business is actually doing and taking efforts to improve personal approaches. In addition, managers would spend time unlearning preconceived concepts about the industry that are holding them back and would challenge themselves and those within their businesses to take risks and be creative. Rather than accepting what has always been the norm in their industries, managers will embrace different viewpoints and ideas and realize that their keys to success lie in being willing to essentially start from scratch and value differences of opinion, because they exist within their customers, too. The whole key to this idea is that managers will no longer think of organization and environment as separate entities, because they will realize that they create their own environments and that external factors do not exist separately from the organization but because of or along with it. Rather than wasting time attempting to connect ambiguous dots in order to understand “big picture” ideas, managers will spend more time looking at what actually works in individualized cases rather than what is projected to work with the given situation. The most significant overall difference between enacted management styles and strategic management styles is that the perspectives of all will be valued, including and especially newcomers; their ideas will no longer be discounted because they do not fit into the prescribed model for how a business in this given industry is supposed to work. Managers will try more different approaches and newer approaches in order to test the responses they actually get rather than relying on and trusting external information. Rather than dealing with vague concepts, managers will simplify and break down their moves to each individual interaction, for example. Based on this model of how a manager’s role would change using the suggestions in this article, I definitely do understand the value of this model. It cannot be denied, after taking time to understand the authors’ arguments, that most businesses could benefit from taking a more analytical approach and from paying much more attention to their own strategies and being willing to adjust them and try new things, even when doing so is considered to be “outside of the box” of what they “should” do. However, I do not believe that this approach should be the only way that effective management is conducted. I believe that, as with the example of the economy, external factors must be acknowledged but challenged at the same time. I believe a combination of both management styles would give a company the best chance for success. If a company becomes too internally focused, they run the risk of failing to understand, address or even notice concerns that are very real to their customers and patterns that are worth paying attention to. However, if managers only focus on these larger pictures, they are limiting themselves to the same fates as their competition and may be missing out on real growth by failing to make necessary moves. Therefore, after reading this article, I believe both strategies are almost equally important. Bibliography 1. All Business, 1999-2011. What is Strategic Management? (2011) [Online] Available at : http://www.allbusiness.com/management/2975129-1.html [Accessed 12 May 2011] 2. Arsham, Hossein, 1994-2011. Leadership Decision Making (2011) [Online] Available at: http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/opre640/partxiii.htm [Accessed 12 May 2011] 3. Ashraf, T. Organizational Behavior [Online] Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/aladin/paldin/pdf/course02/unit_14.pdf [Accessed 11 May, 2011] 4. Big Dog and Little Dog’s Performance Juxtaposition, 1998. Leadership and Organizational Behavior (2011) [Online] Available at: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadob.html [Accessed 11 May 2011] 5. Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp, 2010-2011. Three Effective Management Styles [Online] (2011) Available at: http://www.dandb.com/credit-resources/human-resources-management/ways-to-effectively-manage [Accessed 12 May 2011] 6. Economy Watch. Business Management Strategy, Business Strategic Planing [sic]. [Online] Available at: http://www.economywatch.com/business/business-management-strategy.html [Accessed 12 May 2011] 7. LearnManagement2.Com. Management Styles [Online] Available at: http://www.learnmanagement2.com/leadership%20styles.htm [Accessed 12 May 2011] 8. McKinsey Quarterly, 1992-2011. Beyond Expats: Better Managers for Emerging Markets (2011) [Online] Available at: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Beyond_expats_Better_managers_for_emerging_markets_2802 [Accessed 11 May 2011] 9. Power, D.J., 1997-2000. Supporting Business Decision-Making (2000) [Online] Available at: http://dssresources.com/dssbook/ch1sbdm.pdf [Accessed 12 May 2011] 10. Tutur2U. Strategy – What is Strategy? [Online] Available at: http://tutor2u.net/business/strategy/what_is_strategy.htm [Accessed 11 May 2011] Read More