Strategy as practice & leadership - Essay Example

? Strategy Practice (A) Lecturer: Practices simultaneously stir up prior meaning and develop conditions for new ones; thus, serving to move beyond the resistance between objectivism and subjectivism. Moreover, though most co-operations present their strategy in conceptual conditions, this strategy also plays a big role in our everyday activities and mostly those who work with large co-operations. Nevertheless, both social and every day aspects of the strategy are vastly unexplored. The paper seeks to show individuals or aspects that try to influence strategic issues more than their immediate operational responsibilities. An individual sees this strategy as a major concern and an immense necessity, which can lead to the achievement of organisational goals and objectives. Activities involved in manipulating strategic issues differ considerably such as seeking to influence opinions or activities of superiors, subordinates, peers, seeking to protect resources or even seeking to alter the organization or its systems. The essay assesses strategic practices that both enable and disable the approach of strategy as practice. Through strategic practices, the paper first refers to the concepts, techniques and tools involved in developing strategies and subsequently, the social routines regarded by strategy workers as crucial in strategy formation and implementation (Cummings, 2003). According to Whittington (2003), practice is stuff performed and acknowledged both as genuine and practiced properly. Strategy can be referred to an organizational asset, and involves these activities, which are performed by the organisation employees; therefore, strategy can be described as a day-to-day activity in the organisations. For example, differentiation strategies can be described as an activity, which is conducted by people in different customs and therefore, appears to be a bigger challenge for the rest to replicate; therefore, strategy procedures engage individuals to make those strategies. As such, strategy practice essentially concerns strategy as an activity within organizations, usually the interaction of people, instead of strategy being an organization’s property. On one hand, managers crave to be strategy expert practitioners, while alternatively, scholars face an enormous problem flanked by strategy theories and actual practice strategy (Cockburn, Henderson and Stern, 2000). Strategy as practice is a fresh perspective and the paper seeks to set out theoretical foundations as well as experimental job, this leads to its theoretical and empirical growth (Brown and Duguid, 2001). There has been growing research in practice of strategy since it forms part of intellectual movement. In strategic management, the process of coming up and implementing organizational strategy has been under scrutiny by various scholars even including the study of micro processes. Although resource based view of an organization focuses on dynamic abilities, most of the abilities that can result in sustainable advantage are not commodities, but hard-to-discern and awkward to trade; therefore, they remain hidden resource based strategy. By contrast, strategy as practice holds the potential for improved contemplation of both work and concerns of practitioners to developing actionable knowledge (Brown and Starkey, 2000). Leadership and learning are very important in ensuring that the organisation is in a position to achieve its goals and therefore, become a successful co-operation with high skilled workers (Phillips, 2003). High-quality strategy recognizes the organization’s position with respect to the needed destination, and the needs for the company to grow and attain its goals. Therefore, the space between the existing reality and the desired circumstances needs to be crammed by increasing individual proficiency and organizational capability (Bernthal, and Wellins, 2004). An appropriate operations strategy is essential in organizations since it determines the extent to which a business strategy is implemented and is a source of competitive advantage (Cockburn, Henderson and Stern, 2000). An organization may have the intended strategy; on the other hand, only some of it can be attained through a deliberate strategy. Therefore, some of the intended strategy may not be realised; thus, strategies that disregard operational feasibility may not be realised, remaining only as sets of intentions. The strategy as well emerges from actions carried within an organization, which with time form a steady pattern, and such actions, arise from operations within an organization; thus, whether planned or not, organizational operations plays a crucial role on the formation of organizational strategy. Some people tend to believe that strategy has become a matter, which splits from the daily organizational performances. However, if at some point this observation becomes inadequate, this can lead to the strategy becoming a logical action, which can be performed by the skilled workers who do not have a daily hassle share. Mintzberg among others caution managers from being detached from the basics of enterprises, they caution that big issues base on little details (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel, 1998). Strategy practice includes vertical links with organisation chain of command in business and organisation strategies and horizontal connection with the functional strategies of a business like marketing. Operations strategy can occur in an ascending or descending process with respect to corporate and business strategies. Moreover, organizations may develop operations strategy in reply to the market needs or base on the abilities of its operations. Strategy as practice paradigm seeks to grasp the content of strategists including the diverse practices they engage in and the nature of practice. Based on theories linked to practice in social science, strategy as a practice concept lies between macro-organizational structures and individual activities. The core motivation for strategy-as-practice paradigm is that the knowledge of what strategists actually do is limited, compared to the strategic management history spanning half a century (Jarzabkowski, 2004). Thus, it is possible to treat championing as a practical role for individuals with the role being direction of expectations toward an individual in a social structure. On the other hand, the setback in championing is that the observation does not present appropriate attention to willing individuals who are unable to champion issues they believe are of strategic implication. Although, a lot of literature on championing activities exists, they never address individuals who are willing to champion but unable to participate. However, other authors have sought to untangle and understand micro processes that make up strategic change. Assuming that many strategy processes are not entirely functional is reasonable, since some people who can contribute not indulged. Some individuals are facilitated by championing activities, while others are thwarted and hindered from conveying their activity in ways they consider to correspond to organizational interest. The article utilises the framework introduced by Jarzabkowski to analyze enabling and disabling strategic practices; thus, linking the results to strategy as a practice. The Jarzabkowski framework was influenced by Gidden’s theory of structuration and it bears the central idea of the theory that social structures reproduce certain practices in social action and they are transformed in social action (Jarzabkowski, 2004; Giddens, 1984). Since strategy-as-practice scholars are mindful of the relevance of practitioners, they are self-consciously engaged in the notion that theories and findings of social sciences cannot be isolated from the meaning and actions they investigate. Practice approaches to strategy try to reduce detachment by aiming the functions of managers and subsequently assessing how these micro phenomena may link to macro influences and outcomes. As a result, scholars in strategy-as-practice explore the bi-directional relation between micro and macro strategic practice taking up both interactions and interpretations upon which strategic activity emerges with time. Scholars study the way well-informed strategic actors build up and reconstitute a system of mutual strategic practice. Increasingly, strategy is neither viewed as an artefact nor a process, but rather a dynamic set of practices, which result in successive adjustments between an organization and its environment (Clegg, Carter, and Kornberger, 2004). Knowledge of an organization is a crucial in mobilising effective and complete strategy for responding to crisis management, and developing future strategy (Clegg, Carter, and Kornberger, 2004). While strategizing, organizational members compete with immediate pressures in order to distinguish their organization when seeking legitimacy. Overemphasis on imitating successful performers in an institution can result in strategies that deviate from the organization’s identity (Dutton, and Penner, 1993). Therefore, too much emphasis on differentiation may result in strategies that are devoid of meaning to organizational stakeholders. When organizational debate about the identities of their organizations, they use pressures to differentiate and mimic their organization’s context. Therefore, organizational identity is an essential element in strategy practice (Clegg, Carter, and Kornberger, 2004). Strategy is not only an asset for organizations, but also something firms and their actors perform. The issues of strategy performance, the manner in which to carry out the strategy, those who performs it and the instruments to be used to perform the strategy are essential for business owners and strategy philosophers. There is an increase in dissatisfaction in normative representations of science, which guides to the research in the field of strategic management this is because most studies have led to many strategic theories that determines a strategy as a set of few linked activities avoiding details of its performance. This researches aim at assessing and evaluation of organizations and industry breakdown levels; thus, giving small awareness to human activities. Therefore, the hypotheses decrease actors to figures symbolized by demographic variables that are doubtfully connected to the performance of an organization. Thus, the supremacy of the assumption of strategic management research has made strategy theory more and more isolated and not in contact with the intricacies of strategy in practice. Despite 40 years of strategic management research, no valid theory on how strategies are created exists (Hamel, 1996). Meaningful relation between theory and practice is aided by dynamic, locally contextualised theories that have the ability to reciprocate the intricacies of practice in the modern world. Practice research aims at understanding the realities of performing strategy as living experience by going deeper into the business owner’s strategies since they grapple through rival precedence, numerous partners and other unfinished information while trying to come up with a number of logical perspectives and action plans, which are allegedly known as strategy. Therefore, the making of strategy mainly involves deep contemplation, manipulation, cooperation, reflections and implementation of activities, which are the instruments and technologies employed, as well as the suggestions of various types of strategizing practise as a major act in most organizations (Hamel, 1996). Furthermore, social theory was adopted in order to tackle two crucial subject matters of recursiveness and adaptation, which are the main fundamentals of practice that indirectly strengthen most of the contemporary strategic management works and establish key tension for strategy makers. While the world is constantly evolving organizations must adapt they also require basic stability for them to function efficiently. The challenge of recursiveness is that it permeates strategic management works at several levels ranging from personal to structural structures and business environments. However, this problem is overcome by social context where practice takes place in macro-environments that suggest all-encompassing commonalities of accomplishments and in settings where deeds are highly local and the relations between the frameworks that present a chance for acclimatization training process. Therefore, this practice is a self-reinforcing learning process and the routine nature of practice is detailed by social theories like structuration, where connection between proxies and socially created systems that occur from recursive practices that are the foundations for the everyday routine. These social systems compel and facilitate human accomplishment; moreover, they are also formed and reinvented by the partners who rely on social structures to take actions and responsibilities (Giddens, 1984; Cummings, 2003). Therefore action is a product of practical awareness, where tacit, experience-based information becomes integrated in practices that amount to a huge part of everyday life (Giddens, 1984). Structuration usually has three contributions towards the routine environment of practice; the first concentrates on the institution of social systems that endure space and time. The second contribution relates to the establishment of social organisations that are assimilated into the daily practices that result into action. Lastly, systems advance and grow through tacit knowledge and realistic awareness of partners who prefer well-known examples since they offer them with ‘ontological security. In addition, reciprocity is a dialect of social formation and structuring character surrounded by every realistic act that takes place (Bourdieu, 1990). The dialect usually refers to the ‘habitus’, which is generally created, but exceed the person, being comprised in action and directed toward practical purposes (Giddens, 1984). Practices comprise of social aspect exists inside human’s brains and in the ‘habitus’ that functions as collective memory, but the later has characteristics similar to genetics that reveal and promote the acquisition of predecessors characters in successors (Bourdieu, 1990). The short duration diligence of ‘habitus’ creates the objectives of people who endorse it in everyday practice. Thus, at firm level, the connection and linkage between recursive and adaptive practices is essential to take advantage of procedures enhancing organisations goals attainment and development of the capability for invention (Garud and Karnoe, 2001). Even though, the definition of practice may be partial, as it resonates with what strategists perform since organizations and stakeholders involved utilize, adapt to, and at times get rid of as management instruments and practices while strategizing. For successful organizations, leaders operate as designers of strategy, organizing proper route for a company in the prevailing marketplace. Moreover, a leader has to exert effort continuously in order to implement strategic directives while remaining a translator of strategy to the rest of the individuals in the organization; thus, a leader has to work continuously toward the set goals. However, this occurs at diverse levels in an organization and highlights the point that effective leadership is crucial in a business or institution in order to achieve success in business. Smart executives employ development of leadership as a technique for creating, interpreting and communicating strategy (Bolt, 2004). Therefore, an effectively and efficiently developed leadership and learning strategies play a fundamental role in assisting managers and leaders in their translation and implementation of functional responsibilities and roles. In order to attain this, executives have to communicate efficiently the reasons and consequences of having a corporate strategy to managers, who in turn interpret the strategy for employees throughout the organization, in order for the employees to comprehend and make it happen (Boje, 2001). Several studies reveal that approximately sixty to seventy percentage of all strategies fail to be implemented and to overcome this, leading management growth corporations appear to have revealed a method to beat such odds and it involves ensuring that everybody in an organization comprehends the strategy, its goals and objectives and finally their roles in achieving it. It is crucial that the management should recognize that efficient inter- departmental activities usually provide an effective means of sharing information and offering instruments for the successful implementation of strategies. In addition, it is evident that when leadership improvement is considered a strategic goal and when the growth is closely tied to policies and requirements of business, then an outstanding organizational performance is witnessed (Brown and Starkey, 2000). Furthermore, the requirement to categorize improvement activities and plans into a cohesive strategy is very significant and an overarching tendency in leadership development. Leadership development originates and concludes with consideration of strategy and goals of a business. Leadership development is a puzzle that characterizes initiatives and programs that are require integrating together; but they never appear to coalesce in the most appropriate way. Moreover, leadership development architecture can get incoherent elements into a consummate whole with lofty chances for delivering results. However, such design has to be incorporated and connected to strategy and the needs of the business to advance chances of genuine impact and communicate it extensively to the entire support. The best practice organizations attach their leadership growth attempts on lean competency model that connect or links performance to remuneration structures (Salob and Greenslade, 2005), that takes cognisant of skills, behaviours and approaches required in the attainment of an organization strategic goals. There is a possibility of a substantial organizational through inclusion of few people in strategy making, with the capability of making them and who that can go back to their normal jobs and interpret the knowledge to others. These translators of both learning and strategy are valuable in any organization. In the process of raising leaders who can generate and implement strategies, the emphases lie on maximising their strategic capacities to get them to be strategic. This emphasis is the key to leadership growth and is often considered carefully by organizations, since success is often linked to a leader’s capability to visualize the future strategically and to take appropriate actions in order to realise the goal. A critical point of as regards strategy as practice is the availability of practitioners and restoring of actor in strategy research. Practitioners interrelate with social environments and structures involved in carrying out of a strategy; therefore, the focus is on how practitioners act, their actions, whom they relate with and their application of intellectual in local practice of strategy (Chia, 2004). Strategy as a practice is concerned with activities and resources that encompass tools and objects people employ in making, performing and implementing their strategies. In conclusion, a strategy aims at leading an organization through the changes and modifications it goes through in order to protect and secure its future development and sustainable realization of its objectives. Therefore, strategy as practice has recently turned into a major model for addressing executives in modern-day organizations as well as managers. Moreover, strategy as a practice approach integrates previous positions into a new accepted view despite its various challenges. Sociology in nature emphasises how influence and governments form approaches that materialize as strategic choices, the language that compose the strategy and how the strategy is comprehended through interpretive approaches. On the other hand, strategy as practice framework deems strategy as a fundamental social practice that organizational members perform. Strategy as practice points out elevated levels of uncertainty, which are supportive in creating loosely, joined networks of people, action and ideas. However, from theories and management, certain degree of ambiguity is essential in maintaining flexibility in locally meaningful interpretations. Nevertheless, ambiguity that aided in the institutionalisation of strategy as practice may hinder its theoretical advancement. Moreover, strategy as practice has indecisive associations with traditional concepts of strategy. Nevertheless, the strategy as practice approach begins in organizations that bear a managerial perspective; Moreover, the approach aims at the top management as point of strategizing and refers to their activities as strategic. The approach offers explanation to considerable phenomena and development of something, where individuals at personal level and community level have a lot in stake. The crusaders of intellectual movement have been triumphant in constructing and instituting the field. However, its establishment comes at a price because it results in ceremonialism whereby a degree of reasonableness and rationality is recommended. The methodology asserts to have an innovative understanding of strategy through appealing to all stakeholders in its creation that are fashioned out of work. Besides, the approach trades off nervousness regarding the distinction between present theories on what people supposedly do and what they actually perform. Thus, the practice approach pursues organizational theory that analyses the functions of managers for some time; therefore, it does not fully utilise the perception of practice fully. Bibliography Barry, D. and Elmes, M., 1997. ‘Strategy Retold: Toward a Narrative View of Strategic Discourse’, Academy of Management Review 22(2): 429–52. Bernthal, P., & Wellins, R. S., 2004. Leadership Forecast: 2003-2004. Bridgeville, PA: Development Dimensions International, Inc. Boje, D. M., 2001. Narrative Methods for Organization and Communication Research. New York: Sage Bolt, J., 2004. Executive Development Trends 2004: Filling the Talent Gap. Kansas City, MO: Executive Development Associates, Inc. Bourdieu, P., 1990. The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brown, A.D., & Starkey, K., 2000. Organizational identity and learning: a psychodynamic perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25, 102-120. Brown, J. S., and Duguid P., 2001 ‘Knowledge and organization: A social practice perspective’. Organization Science 12/2: 198–213. Chia, R., 1996. Organizational Analysis as Deconstructive Practice. Berlin: De Gruyter. Clegg, S. R., Carter, C. and Kornberger, M., 2004. ‘Get Up, I Feel Like Being a Strategy Machine’, European Management Review 1(1): 21–8. Cockburn, I. M., Henderson R. M., and Stern S. 2000 ‘Untangling the origins of competitive advantage’. Strategic Management Journal 21:1123–1145. Cummings, S., 2003. Recreating Strategy. London: Sage. Dutton, J., and Penner, W., 1993. The importance of organizational identity for strategic agenda building. In: J. Hendry, G. Johnson, & J. Newton (Eds) Strategic thinking: Leadership and the management of change, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H., 2004. ‘Rethinking Strategy: Contemporary Perspectives and Debates’, European Management Review 1(1): 43–8. Garud, R., and Karnoe P., 2001. ‘Path creation as a process of mindful deviation’ in Path dependence and creation. R. Garud and P. Karnoe (eds), 1–39. Mahwah, NJ, and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Giddens, A., 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hamel, G., 1996. ‘Strategy as Revolution’, Harvard Business Review July–August: 69–82. Jarzabkowski, P., 2004. ‘Strategy as Practice: Recursiveness, Adaptation and Practices-in-Use’, Organization Studies 25: 529–60. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J., 1998. Strategy Safari, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Phillips, J. J., 2003. Return on Investment in Training and Performance Improvement Programs (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Rioux, S. M., & Bernthal, P., 2006. Succession Management Practices. Bridgeville, PA: Development Dimensions International. Salob, M., & Greenslade, S., 2005. "How the Top 20 Companies Grow Great Leaders". Hewitt Associates. Whittington, R, 2003. ‘The Work of Strategizing and Organizing: for a Practice Perspective’, Strategic Organization. Web. 1(1): 117–25 Read More