Strategic Thinking and Strategic Leadership - Research Paper Example

Strategic Thinking and Strategic Leadership Abstract This report discusses about the Strategic Thinking and Leadership that will help managers to be a good and effective leader, at the same time. Ideally, considering the brain of the strategist, he should encourage guests to consistently question their own logic, ideas, principles and ideas, and to enhance their perfect considering. The procedure and features needed to effectively impact others are mainly related to an understanding of leadership and its forex in the perspective of developing community wellness, nourishment as self-discipline and its place in our everyday exercise. It tells readers as what actions they can take in order to be an effective leader. Leadership is, no doubt, an important element, which plays a vital role in the development of any business by following some principles of governance. Knowledge is necessary to know how you have to work and a good leader has all that knowledge. He knows how to work in a team, how to motivate the team members, how to assist in the application of different financial assistance schemes, he has to make alerts to the Director of matter that is crucial to the well-being of the children and staff and much more, for becoming a good leader. This paper will help leaders know the way to constantly improve and add value to the curriculum so that it meets the goals and many other things, which are helpful for the students. This research paper will evaluate how one can have a need to develop a sense of judging the situation in the right way and that is what will give me strength. And to be a good and successful leader, they need to focus on some important points which are, to have a bigger picture to see the future even in the presence and ability to know the organization well and the tact of helping and supporting other team members. Strategic Thinking and Strategic Leadership Introduction What comes into your brain about being a strategist? An awesome question that is easy to ask, but challenging to respond. Yet, it is a question that is essential in two methods -generally and independently. Beginning up the 'black box' of the strategist's ideas to see how choices are made can help to estimate or effect this considering. Studying how managers form their perfect views and select their suggested actions can be used to make more efficient strategy techniques. It is due to this importance of perfect considering that a personal area with this guide is devoted to the topic. Yet, for each viewer independently, the topic of perfect considering is also of key importance, as it immediately improves the concerns 'what is going on in my mind?' and 'how perfect is my thinking?’ Finding the topic of perfect considering triggers each individual to find their own ideas and seriously indicate towards their own strategic choices. Ideally, considering the brain of the strategist should encourage guests to consistently question their own logic, ideas, principles and ideas, and to enhance their perfect considering (Laurie Hillis n.d.). Taking risk is an integral and vital element of any business and also of life. And thus it is very important to know how to handle such situation and how to overcome any risk in the right way. Few of us know the real ways of handling such situations and overcoming any kind of barrier and risk. Leadership, nowadays, is a challenging task to do and the world is changing its concept towards the leadership and leaders. A leader has to learn many good and effective traits and I believe that risk taking is one of the most important elements to learn. It is about taking new chances and facing new challenges and risks in order to get success in the life (Newstrom and Davis 1993). We all have to learn such traits as we all believe that no one is born with perfection and we have to learn all in our life. After making a decision about a matter, leaders have to think and analyze their decisions about how right they are? We need to think and focus more on the quality instead of focusing on the quantity. Culture is an important element, which decides the outcome of an idea and innovation. For example a business should design its product, which is acceptable by the people of specific culture and economy. Culture difference can be a cause of loss in the business and it would give less satisfaction to the customer. So, a leader is liable to decide, which pattern is to be adopted. A leader has to learn many good and effective traits in his life to boost his career up and I believe that knowledge about the target public and having information about their culture is one of the most important elements to learn. Learning is also a challenging job and must be taken seriouslyand for that purpose, a strategy should be designed accordingly (Newstrom and Davis 1993). Many businesses fail due to less knowledge about the culture. An intelligent leader always knows what is important to him and on what things he has to focus more. No doubt, a leader is a person who helps others do the things in more effective ways.  Leadership is all about unlocking the hidden potential of team members, whether an individual’s hidden potential or that of an entire group or team, company or organization. Leadership is really not about telling people what to do, but inspiring them to see and decide themselves what they are capable of, then, helping them to get there (Wolfson 2012). With the passage of time, the world is getting advanced as new technologies are introduced, organizational structure and systems are introduced and new ways of doing the work are presented, organizations have to adopt these changes in the leadership styles,otherwise they won’t be able to survive in the digital world. Manager of an organization doing work in any of the situation must face the situation of change, he has to analyze the nature of the change in the initial level of the implementation of change that is the most appropriate way of managing the change situation. First of all, analyze the need of change in the leadership styles, whether the change is required to take place in the organization and then find out that it is appropriate according to the organizational environment or not. Since for introducing the change, first thing is to recognize the need for this change like if there is a problem in working with the present ways of doing work, the work is not more efficient with the present ways and there are some opportunities existent, which encourage to bring change and replace the old methods of work with the new methods. With the evaluation of the change, the manager may also need to convince others that some kind of change is necessary to the passage of time to get the efficient work. Firstly, he appoints the appropriate person with skills of evaluating the problem, recognizing the opportunity or problem related to the change, determining the nature of change with respect to the organizational environment, identifing the need of change in the organization, preparing for the change in present and planning for the future, preparing the alternative of the change plan, implementing the change where it is needed, getting feedback and giving the recommendation for the decision making (Newstrom and Davis 1993). Leadership is a key factor and plays an important role to bring the change and innovation, manager of an organization can perform the work as a leader in the change and innovation process. He has ability to diagnose where the change is required and which type of change is required, examine the change according to the organizational environment, do planning related to the implementation of the change and examine the results whether the selection of the change is appropriate or it requires improvement or replacement and also has the ability to develop a plan for the future tasks, which help in the decision making (How to Make Better Decisions?). Well, a lot, but if decreased to its simple requirements, it can be said that strategists are involved in the procedure of working with ideal issues. To deal with these ideal issues, supervisors must not simply think, but they must go through an ideal considering procedure, looking for ways to define and take care of the difficulties at hand. The authority has a variety of explanations, but at its easiest it is involved with the capability to impact others to achieve objectives. The procedure and features needed to effectively impact others are main to an understanding of leadership and its forex in the perspective of developing community wellness nourishment as self-discipline and its place in our everyday exercise. There is a recognized literature that explains the individual features of leaders, including having a big image perspective that is effectively shared and creating choices that is obvious and decisive based on the evaluation of available details. Leaders have a dedication to potential developing and empowering others, are well-mannered and consultative but willing to make tough choices when needed. At the primary level of leadership is the feature of reliability, usually gained by demonstrating ethical and obvious techniques to practice (Laurie Hillis n.d.). Yes? Or No? It is a question which almost all of us face in our daily life and also in business. Decision making is an essential leadership skill. If you can learn how to make timely, well-considered decisions, then you can lead your team to well-deserved success. If, however, you make poor decisions, your time as a leader will be brutally short. We all have to learn such traits as we all believe that no one born with perfection and we have to learn all in our life. After making a decision about a matter, leaders have to think and analyze his decision about how right he is? At a disturbing time in life when significant events have happened out of parental control and its co-construction provides a mean of controlling life to be regained (How to Make Better Decisions). A decision usually involves three steps: An identification of the situation and recognition of need, as the first step is to know about what matter we have to make a decision. The leader should be focused enough to know whether he has taken right decision or not and should have the ability to change the decision just to fill the void or need; A conscious dedication to implement the decision (decision quality). Management Science is a wide subject and a subject who can easily help leaders and managers in reducing or eliminating the fact fear of making wrong decisions by providing help with the decision-making process. To be a good and successful leader, I need to focus on some important points which are, to have a bigger picture to see the future even in the presence and ability to know the organization well and the tact of helping and supporting members. Knowledge does not accept self pride or egotism. It should not only for the personal benefits, but it also should be equally beneficial for the others and participation is the opposite of authoritarianism. A leader has to know how to motivate his followers and team members in order to share and to give honor to humankind and to the economy (Maslow 1970). Revolution always comes after the motivation. Motivational leadership is one of the most successful leaders. Motivation helps leaders and employees to be goal oriented and it helps them in achieving their task. A leader must have tried to motivate his employees and team members in order to get work done in an effective way. To be self motivated is the best trait a leader can have in him if he wants to become an efficient and successful leader (McCleelland 1985). It includes: Developing a sense of responsibilities in the employees and team members. Encouraging team members by offering some rewards and bonuses and appreciating their good tasks. Keep in view and take care of the needs of his employees and team. He should hear his team members carefully and help them if they need in their problems. A leader should be a role model himself to motivate his team. Getting the work done in an effective way completely depends upon the leader. The leader should be committed and skilled enough to motivate his employees. He should be polite while communicating with his followers and team. Those people who have spent their lot of time to build their career in the leadership, they perfectly know that all the leaders should have some of common sense to motivate their team in the right direction, over and over again for the good judgment. By working on trial and making some errors in the start in the management career, many people can get their tasks done easily. Many people can get there by making a lot of mistakes along the way (McCleelland 1985). The leader should know how to punish his followers if they make a mistake, when to give them reward on doing something extra-ordinary which is beneficial for business, and when to fire them according to the need and demand of business to hire someone else who is more eligible and has more experience of performing the same task, and easiest ways of building trust along with the loyalty? Management takes determined threats when required, talks out against the position quo and leaps ahead to take responsibility and displays effort when required. This kind of behavior in exercise needs excellent ideal considering, interpersonal interaction abilities and psychological intellect. In truth, we all display and need authority skills to be efficient in our everyday exercise, whether that be in academic, areas or organizations. We all perform to influence others to accomplish our goals, regardless of the stage at which, we function in the community. Leadership is not confined to the top of the decision-making shrub, but instead is often required at lower-down stages to ‘shake the branches’. At a high end, there is a need for strategic development projects that develop authority within the public wellness nourishment employees. Leadership is not an innate attribute, but a complicated package of expertise, personal features and perspective that needs development via knowledge, contact with performance and problems, part modeling and guidance with current management. The need for workforce leadership growth as an ideal involvement is accentuated when there is an under-developed workforce infrastructure classified by a small variety of mentors and employees disorganization. This explains the public health nourishment employees in most areas around the globe. The importance of authority growth as a workforce development involvement has been acknowledged by the food market in Western countries by means of the European Nutrition Leadership Program since the mid-1990s, and has been duplicated in various types in other areas of the globe since then. An innovator can create more efficient ideal considering abilities. This is done by taking advantage of any probability to better comprehend yourself, how you think about complicated issues, and how to go about selection. This knowing of yourself is crucial, since these details that type the base for creating your ideal considering abilities are necessary in the ideal atmosphere. The more you comprehend yourself, the more management you have over both the procedure, and the items you generate. Considering and Performing Tactically – A crucial authority skill Two of the key features that CEOs and Forums search for when choosing or advertising someone into a key professional place are cultural efficiency and the capability to think and act strategically. As I’ve mentioned several times before, at the mature stage, technological proficiency is a given. It’s hard to go up the steps if you are not officially certified. However, whether you are a full-time professional operating on everyday problems or an advisor employed to “fix” a significant issue, your capability to think and strategy in advance will increase you above the package and generate you the regard of your manager or customers. The continuous task for all active professionals is to prevent being absorbed by the everyday smash of just placing out losing shoots, and to look forward. People who think tactically regularly re-evaluate their business atmosphere. They assess at a company stage by looking at the organization's strategy, customers, competitors, and industry styles. At the division stage, they assess the department’s inner difficulties and roles. Next, they collect and assess comprehensive information to calculate the changes that must be made today in order to produce the preferred results the next day. Idealistic thinking is a continuous process. Good ideal thinkers Identify connections, styles, and styles while realizing styles across apparently irrelevant activities, and classify related details to decrease the number of issues with which one must deal concurrently; Think successfully by producing solutions, imagining new opportunities, complicated presumptions, and starting themselves to new information; Analyze data while showing priority for the most important information; Prioritize activity steps to focus on one goal on key goals while managing several requirements and competitive priorities; Make trade-offs while knowing the potential pros and cons of an idea or approach. From that, they create options trying to balance short- and long-term issues. Make your perfect considering ability by training the following: Curiosity: being truly passionate about what happens in your organization, department, industry, and the wider organization environment; Flexibility: trying new methods and ideas when new details indicate the need to do so; Focus on the future: considering your organization's efficient conditions that may modify in the arriving a few several weeks and decades. Remaining conscious for opportunities that may validate useful later on — as well as threats that may be looming; Maintain an excellent outlook: viewing complications as opportunities, and understanding that success is possible; Openness: enjoyable new ideas from others, such as outside stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, and organization partners; Self-expansion: regularly wanting to boost your encounter and details. Doing so will help you to see connections and designs across obviously unrelated places of details. In the existing organizational atmosphere, anyone who can think and act logically is valuing his or her body weight in Money. The difference begins with leaders' thinking This delivers us to the primary of the conversation - without any second viewpoint, management is resource of great businesses. It is the authority concepts that distinguish one company from the other in how the company translates the ideal difficulties, how it reacts to the crucial achievements aspects in the market, how it makes for spotted threats and possibilities, how it reacts to the present and upcoming objectives of its stakeholders and creates a maintainable company structure for the company to make improving value for its stakeholders. This is the element that places apart two companies competing for the same pie of the market. All other noticeable differentiators like technological innovation, product functions, relationships, picture of the market and other such aspects are a kind of leaders' concepts of the company. The difference begins with leaders' concept. And it all relies on the capability of management to think tactically. Literature review Strategy is of paramount importance to organizations, being the most important factor in corporate valuations (Kaplan and Norton 2001). According to Porter (1997), 'Strategy is about setting yourself apart from the competition' (p. 17). Quinn (1996) describes that organizations will have numerous strategies over their different structural levels (Johnson, Scholes and Whittington 2005). Strategic decisions determine an overall direction for the body, as well as viability in the light of characteristics and changes that may occur in significant surrounding environments. Johnson et al. (2005) and Quinn (1996) distinguishes strategy from: goals or objectives (which are associated with aims and targets rather than method); policy (which express the limits associated with actions); programmers (which specify the sequence of actions necessary to achieve major objectives), strategic intent or vision (a desired future state of the organization), and mission (a general expression of the overall purpose of the organization). Mintzberg (1996), in turn, details the different possible uses or definitions of the term strategy. It describes a general or specific plan, an intended course of action (for instance in a military context); it can be a ploy or a specific maneuver; it might be a pattern or stream of actions; it also describes a position (of an organization within an environment); and finally a perspective (the character or shared world view of an organization). The case study strategy considered later in this assignment falls within the domain of a 'plan' which intended to drive policy and action. Before addressing the essay question through analyzing strategic processes within my organization, selected contemporary strategy‐related concepts are outlined to establish how strategy is developed and implemented. In particular, for purposes of clarity, these might be categorized as: formation‐related, process‐related, strategy genesis‐related, and direction‐related; and are treated in turn below. However, these categories are not mutually exclusive with, for instance, certain 'activities' making up part of a strategic 'process'. Next, preliminary distinctions between public and private sector strategy are discussed. Finally, after briefly describing the host organization, the Introduction closes with a summary of the strategy which forms a case study for the assignment. Lydia (2001) collates literature, which suggests that within strategy formation, there are two separate groups of activity: strategic thinking (ST) and strategic planning (SP). SP is distinct from ST in that it tends to involve the programming and use of pre‐identified rules or strategies. Whilst planning has a positive impact upon organizational performance (e.g., Miller and Cardinal 1994), a critique of the placement of procedural emphasis upon planning that is opposed a reinvention of the future. This can impair successful organizational adaptation (Stacey 1992 cited in Liedtka 2001). Liedtka (2001) presents a model of ST which consists of five elements: a systems perspective (a mental model of the whole system and the interdependencies between its elements); intent focus (a continuously evolving long‐term view regarding a desirable competitive position); thinking in time, hypothesis‐driven, and intelligent opportunism. ST will be facilitated in the organization that has structures, processes and systems which takes creativity of its entire work‐force (Bonn 2001). Both ST and SP are necessary, Mintzberg (1994) highlighting that SP should naturally follow‐on from ST. Management consultants describe using techniques which blend ST and SP within change packages. Baines et al. (2005) describe a facilitated process ('strategic positioning decision process') where a strategy team engages in an exploration of products/services together with a gap analysis. Next the team assesses possible actions according to weighted key decision criteria, also a mapping of the relevant internal and external environment; finally ending with a balanced and objective assessment of possible actions. Similarly, Rowe et al. (1994), describe strategic position and action evaluation (SPACE), that has focused on two strategies; responsiveness and positioning (the ability of the organization to present competitive products in attractive local markets). It identifies combinations, or postures. The process of successfully implementing strategy is far from straight‐forward. At least eight companies, out of ten, fail to implement them effectively (Deloitte and Touche 1992, cited in O'Regan and Ghodadian 2002). A number of studies have identified broadly similar barriers to the deployment of strategic planning (Beer and Eisenstat 2000; O'Regan and Ghodadian 2002; Wessel 1993) including internal factors (e.g., inadequate communication, unrealistic time‐scales, shortfall in employee capabilities and poor coordination) and external factors (e.g., crises distracting attention from implementation or unanticipated problems). Such difficulties have given rise to a plethora of theories regarding the successful implementation of strategy. These often consist of a number of stages which should pass through within a process. Kotter's (1996) eight stage process is popular (see Appendix 1), his 1995 research article being one of the most requested reprints from the Harvard Business Review. Whilst models of strategy implementation have commonalities, it is of note that they also differ. Firstly, they differ over the order in which the stages should take place. For instance, Kanter, Stein and Dick (1992) place the creation of a sense of urgency after the creation of a vision, whereas Kotter (1995, 1996) puts them in the reverse order and mentions the creation of short‐term wins. These variations are significant as the authors suggest that each stage should be addressed in the order outlined. Hamel and Prahalad (1996), Kanter et al. (1992) and the Department of Health (DoH, 1999) includes some form of organizational or environmental analysis in their models; the latter also focusing on political sponsorship; whereas DoH, and Hamel and Prahalad models emphasis evaluation and review at the end of the process. Others have proposed similar models. Such models assume that strategic processes are linear, rational and analytical. However, there are alternative discourses which should be noted. For instance, logical instrumentalism (Quinn and Voyer 1996) embraces the observation that change processes that are typically fragmented, evolutionary and intuitive. Effective strategies tend to emerge incrementally and opportunistically as subsystems of organizational activity are later blended into a coherent pattern. Incremental processes have particular advantages. For instance, instrumentalism allows plans to be evolving, living or evergreen; and also allows organizations to avoid large‐scale commitments which may increase risk, allowing various factors to be tested while allowing a luxury of delaying final commitments (Arnaboldi and Azzone 2005). In this way, there would appear to be a dichotomy between deliberate and emergent strategies. Deliberate strategies are defined as intentions‐based and formulated in advance; whereas emergent‐strategies are produced from evolving patterns despite or in the absence of intentions (Mintzberg and McHugh 1985). However, Mintzberg and Waters (1985) researched strategy formulation over a number of years and observed that strategies' genesis appeared to lie along a continuum (rather than a dichotomy) with the poles of deliberate verses emergent strategy. Some authorities advocate the merits of a more deliberate process (Ansoff 1991; Goold 1992) and others support a more emergent alternative (Mintzberg 1991, 1994; Mintzberg and Waters, 1982; Mintzberg and McHugh 1985; Pascale 1984; Stacey 1993). Mintzberg and Waters (1985) have categorized various strategy formation themes along this continuum (although space limitations preclude description of these). Mintzberg (1996b) elaborated on these categories. Porter (1996) additionally considered the environmental forces which might provoke strategy within corporations, positing that the strategist's goal is to 'find a position in the industry where his or her company can best defend itself against the forces or can influence them in its favor' (p. 75). In doing so, the strategist should also consider internal factors such as the critical strengths and weaknesses of the company, together with external factors to clarify the areas where strategic changes may yield the greatest pay‐off. There are alternative paradigms of strategic direction to Porter's (1980, 1985) 'competitive model', which might be described as having an 'outside‐in' emphasis that analyses the competitive advantages and its sources. In contrast, 'inside‐out' approaches, such as resource‐ (e.g., workforce, reputation or technology) or competency‐focused models (i.e., the capacity of a group of resources; Grant 1991), analyses internal factors. There are various methods of determining the content or direction of a strategy (for a comprehensive review of techniques see Subramanian and Krishnankuttv 2002). Kaplan and Norton (2001) introduced a Balance Scorecard (BSC) approach, which provides a structure and guide for the content of a strategy. They counterbalance a traditional emphasis upon financial measures as a basis for review. These are 'lag indicators' which provide feedback regarding past actions and, as such, rely on these measures resulting in an institutional 'short‐termism'. The BSC approach provides a framework for strategy over four domains: financial (strategy for growth and profitability for shareholder); the customer, internal business process, and learning and growth. Integral to a BSC approach is the translation of strategy into objectives and targets, together with the pinpointing of measures (or strategic control) to evaluate progress over the domains. The literature generally endorses the BSC approach (Epstein and Manzoni 1997; cited in Lawrie and Cobbald 2004). Many parts of public sector provide services in the same way as commercial organizations. However, the role of ideology and social obligation in the development of strategy is greater (Johnson et al. 2005 ; Moore 1995). Public sector organizations tend to have a near monopoly on service provision with funding via taxation rather than from paying customers. This can exert restrictions on strategic choice (e.g., upon increased specialization within services or the targeting of customers) as they often must provide a universal service. Further, strategic direction tends to be dictated by the provider of funding rather than the user of the service, and so the notion of competition is usually concerned with competition for resources (Johnson et al 2005). Nevertheless, despite these limitations and complications, Moore (1995) argues that strategic alignment is as much an imperative for the public sector. Russell (1999) also described it as complex, producing huge quantities of information from diverse sources, resulting in difficulties in using informatics to inform strategic planning and potentially diverse options (Schneider and De Meyer 1991). Mintzberg (1993) suggested that this type of uncertainty could lead to strategy motivated, usually resulting a plan, which is mechanical and aimed at survival rather than growth. Liedtka (1998) proposed that the organizational solution to this was the adoption of an ST mindset. Having introduced various aspects of strategy, the local organization and one of its strategies that forms a case study for the assignment are now described. Critical analysis The questioner has been filled up from all the top managers of a public organization ABC. Also the SWOT analysis is conducted in the aforesaid organization to check out how much the ABC company has strategic thinking in its leadership approach. The questionnaire has been filled up by the organization. As John Adair says, ideal considering is about considering centered on end and means. Tactically considering management not only develops a specified viewpoint of the future, they also shape the lifestyle – interpreting the behaviors necessary to engage in the path. Formulating ideal perspective and interpreting primary principles is certainly the symptom of ideal considering. Strategic preparing is not ideal considering. Strategic preparing is following up on ideal considering. Quality in considering results in great ideal plans. Undoubtedly, creativity of idealist thinkers has no range. Yet ideal considering is not about wild goals. Management who thinks tactically has a careful mix of innovative and crucial considering. Creativity allows such leaders to develop new concepts and crucial considering allows them to assess these concepts on their worth. Creativity is about new concepts and crucial considering is about picking up practical concepts, together they make leaders, idealistic thinkers. Conclusion Ideal considering cannot be trained but it can be discovered through statement and exercise. How does management create this ability of considering strategically? Leaders should create clear ideas on marketplaces, clients and technology. They should regularly indicate towards their experience and search for new information on growing facts to create an important perspective of the future. Leaders who are strategic thinkers surpass the limitations – beyond current marketplaces, clients and technology. Those who are rendered to the school of strategic considering - either normally or implemented through statement and exercise - display some unique attributes quite emphatically. They collect attributes from others and enhance their own. The foundation of tenets that define ideal considering are: Flexibility Cognition Anticipation Learning Clarity The leaders should practice themselves to adhere to step-by-step rationality – rigorously examining issues using medical methods and computation the maximum course of action They should boldly go where no one has gone before – redefining problems and creating new programs of action. The studies examined in this paper provide feedback for the strategy. In addition, they identify that cutting-edge actions can only happen when the BFT is in affordable control. They make sure to identify crucial business issues experienced by the company and choose a purpose and a goal to get over the issue. They are also to create a complete strategy and to guide the company, identify assisting techniques with actions and owners. To apply the strategy, several actions can be taken. Specific APTs at all stages provide assistance and linkage as well as generate the execution programs. They determine obvious liability for each product in the execution programs. Keep in mind, this is where the real modification happens. Because important tasks usually require both intra- and enterprise collaboration as they create programs in a cross-functional, cross-departmental and cross-process way. Comprehensive conversations within and between divisions and procedures and the role of entrepreneurs are important to the achievements of the overall strategy. After the programs have been put in any type and combined out, constantly observe each strategy's success using the recognized PPMs. Emphasize any diversions from the plan on the evaluation platforms, which also put historical activities taken based on the results. A technique is finished when the ideal objective is acquired. Lastly, review the PDSA pattern for the year in the yearly evaluation desk. Questions to Stimulate Strategic Thinking (Questionnaire to complete report) Analysis of External Conditions 1. What can you learn from the macro environments in which you do business? 2. What can you learn from a strategic analysis of your industry or industries, the marketplaces, competitors, and other key players who influence your firm? 3. Where will you be active and with how much emphasis? 4. What are the firm’s boundaries? 5. Who are your core customers? Analysis of Internal Conditions: 1. What are your resources and capabilities (activities)? 2. To what extent are these resources and capabilities rare, relevant, durable, and connected? 3. To what extent do the resources and capabilities fit with the organization’s administrative history; structure, systems, culture, and management style. 4. What can you do to enhance the returns from your resources and capabilities? 5. What are your core metrics? Focus: 1. What do you want to achieve? What is your fundamental purpose; values; mandates; targets and objectives; why are you in business? 2. How can you be different compared to those with whom you compete or cooperate for resources? What are your points of parity and difference? 3. Will your strategy beat the market Implementation? 4. What can you achieve? 5. What moves should you make to achieve your purpose? Goals? 6. What will be your speed and sequence of the moves? 7. How do you balance commitment and flexibility? 8. How will you obtain returns? What is the best business model for your company? 9. How do you know you are achieving your purpose? 10. Analytical and Process Skills for Content Awareness and Content-in-Use (these questions relate to the necessary base knowledge needed to do strategy and the organizational processes to do strategic thinking) 11. What data do you consider most important to take into account in your strategic thinking? 12. What are the key performance indicators of your business? (See question 10) 13. How can you act to gather relevant information and to make decisions? 14. Is your analysis granular enough to gain specific data to make decisions? 15. How should you phrase your strategic alternatives and your strategic direction? 16. How do you surface inevitable biases and internal political influence on decision making? 17. Who should be at the table and how does each member perform a role in the process? 18. What are the internal and external processes of variation, selection, retention and comtition (i.e., innovation) Bibliography Ansoff, H. J., 1991. Critique of Henry Mintzberg's “The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management”’. Strategic Management Journal 12(6), 449‐62. Arnaboldi, M. and Azzone, G. 2005. Incrementalism and strategic change: A university's experience. International Journal of Educational Management 19(7), 552‐563. Baines, T., Kay, G., Adesola, S. and Higson, M. 2005. Strategic positioning: an integrated decision process for manufacturers International. Journal of Operations & Production Management 25(2), 180‐201. Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R. A. 2000. The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning. Sloan Management Review, Summer: 40‐44. Bonn, I., 2001. Developing strategic thinking as a core competency. Management Decision 39(1). 63‐70. Christenson, C. R., Andrews, K. R. and Bower, J. L. 1978. Business Policy: Text and cases. Homewood, Ill: Richard D. Irwin. Danials, K. and Bailey, A. 1999. Strategy development processes and participation in decision making: Predictors of role stressors and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Management Studies 8, 27‐42. Deloitte and Trouche. 1992. Building global competitiveness imperatives for the 21st century. London: Deloitte and Touche. Epstein, M. J. and Manzoni, J. F. 1997. The balanced scorecard and tableau de bord: A global perspective on translating strategy into action. INSEAD working paper. 97/63/AC/SM. Goold, M. 1992. Design, learning and planning: A further observation on the design school debate. Strategic Management Journal 13(2), 169‐70. Grant, R. M. 1991. The resource‐based view of competitive advantage: implication for strategy formulation. California Management Journal 33, Spring, 114‐34. Hamel, G. 1996. Strategy as revolution. Harvard Business Review:sn 74, 69‐80. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. 1996. Strategic Intent. In H. Mintzberg & J. B. Quinn, J. B. ed. The strategy process: Concepts, contexts, cases (3rd ed.), 3‐10). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Heracleous, L. 1998. Strategic thinking or strategic planning? Long Range Planning, 31(3), 481‐7. How to Make Better Decisions. (n.d.). Retrieved from mindtools.com. Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. 2005. Exploring corporate strategy. 7th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Kanter, R. A., Stein, B. A. and Jick, J. D. 1992. The challenges of organisational change. New York: Free Press. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. 2001. The strategy‐focussed organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Kotter, J. P. 1995. Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, March‐April, 59‐67. Kotter, J. P. 1996. Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Lawrie, G. and Cobbold, I. 2004. Third‐generation balanced scorecard: Evolution of an effective strategic control tool. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(7), 611‐623. Liedtka, J. M. 1998. Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning. Strategy and Leadership, 26, 30‐5. Liedtka, J. M. 2001. Strategic thinking and strategic planning. [Online]. Available at: Accessed 18 December 2012. Laurie Hillis, M. (n.d.). Culture Follows the Leaders. Maslow, A. H. 1970. Motivation and Personality. New York: Oxford University Press. McCleelland, D. C. 1985. Human Motivation. New York: Aspen Publishers. Miller, C. C. and Cardinal, L. B. 1994. Strategic planning and firm performance: A synthesis of more. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1649‐65. Mintzberg, H. 1991. Learning 1, planning 0: Reply to Igor Ansoff. Strategic Management Journal 12(6), 463‐6. Mintzberg, H. 1993. The pitfalls of strategic planning. California Management Review, 36, 32‐47. Mintzberg, H. 1994. The rise and fall of strategic planning. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, H. 1996. Five Ps for strategy. 3rd ed. In H. Mintzberg & J. B. Quinn, J. B. (Eds.). The strategy process: Concepts, contexts, cases 3‐10). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, H. and McHugh, A. 1985. Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 160‐97. Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J.A. 1982. Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 465‐99. Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. 1985. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, July‐Sept, 6, 257‐272. Moore, M. H. 1995. Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Newstrom, J. W., and Davis, K. 1993. Organizational Behaviour: Human Behaviour at work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Oswald, S. L., Mossholder, K. W. and Harris, S. G. 1994. Vision salience and strategic involvement: Implications for psychological attachment to organization and job. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 477‐489. O'Regan, N. and Ghogadian, A. 2002. Formal Strategic Planning: The Key to Effective business process management? Business Process Management, 8(5), 416‐429. Pascale, R. T. 1984. Perspective on strategy: The real story behind Honda's success. California Management Review, 26, 47‐72. Picken, J. C. and Dess, G. G. 1996. The seven traps of strategic planning. Inc., 18(16), 99‐101. Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York, NY: Free Press. Porter, M. 1997. Creative advantages. Executive Excellence, 14, 17‐18. Rowe, A., Mason, R., Dickel, K., Mann, R. and Mockler, R. 1994. Strategic management: A methodological approach. 4th ed. Toronto: Addison‐Wesley. Rumelt, R. R. 1996. Evaluating business strategy. 3rd ed. In H. Mintzberg & J. B. Quinn, J. B. (Eds.). The strategy process: Concepts, contexts, cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Russell, L. 1999. Painting the future picture: Changing the organization by moving beyond its comfort zone. Health Forum Journal, 42, 46‐50. Quinn, J. B. 1996. Strategies for change. In H. Mintzberg & J. B. Quinn, J. B. (Eds.). The strategy process: Concepts, contexts, cases (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Quinn, J. B. and Voyer, J. 1996. Logical incrementalism: Managing strategy formation. In H. Mintzberg & J. B. Quinn, J. B. (Eds.). The strategy process: Concepts, contexts, cases. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schneider, S. C. and De Meyer, A. 1991. Interpreting and responding to strategic issues: The impact on national culture. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 307‐20. Schraeder, M. 2002. A simplified approach to strategic planning: Practical considerations and an illustrated example. Business Process Management, 8(1), 8‐18. Smith, M. 1998. Measuring organizational effectiveness. Management Accounting CIMA, 76, October, 34‐36. Stacey, R. 1992. Managing the unknowable. San Fransisco: Jossey‐Bass. Stacey, R. 1993. Strategic management and organizational dynamics. London: Pitman. Subramoniam, S. and Krishnankuttv, K. V. 2002. An expert system for the selection of strategic planning techniuque. Kybemetes, 31(3/4), 550‐560. Tilles, S. 1963. How to evaluate corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, July‐August, 111‐121. Wessel, J. R. 1993. The strategic human resource management process in practice. Planning Review, 21(5). 37‐9. Wolfson, B. 2012. A Culture of Leadership. [Online]. Available at: Accessed on 18 Decmeber 2012. Read More