Three Models of Strategy - Essay Example

A CRITIQUE ON CHAFFEE’S THREE MODELS OF STRATEGY As humanity enters into global community, the dynamics and processes by which human relations are being formed and established become more intricate and complex. As such is the situation that confronts modern man, the necessity for understanding strategy goes beyond from the acceptance of the belief that players who utilize it are more or less “working with the same mental model.”1 Rather, what is demanded is to define strategy in way that it may encapsulate basic notions regarding it. At the same time, make room for enough discourse to be continued and explored without fear. With this perspective, the article that I am going to critique is Ellen Earle Chaffee’s paper Three Models of Strategy. CLASSIFICATION AND RELEVANCE Ellen Earle Chaffee’s paper Three Models of Strategy primarily deals with the idea that the three models of strategy-linear, adaptive and interpretive need not be seen as independent and separate models. Instead, these models should be appreciated as forming an interrelated hierarchy whose gradation corresponds to the complexity of organization itself.2 As such, this representation of the models is considered as similar with Boulding’s hierarchy of systems. In this regard, the paper leans to modernist perspective and adopts the organic metaphor. For the reasons that in discussing strategies of organizations she presented the idea that, organizations are open systems that act and may be acted upon. And because its nature is such, the most convenient way for us to be able to understand its movements, and actions are basically analogous to our understanding of organisms as it acts voluntarily and involuntarily. With this as Chaffee’s main point, I think what she is trying to present is the notion that strategies employed by organizations are essentially complex undertakings in themselves. Moreover, the complexity is to be understood neither by a single paradigm nor one formula but by multiple frameworks to accommodate the reality that strategy is multidimensional in its particularity. This point is interesting for it disperses control and power within the organization, since what is now highlighted is coordination of work.3 Though, it recognizes the notion that it is basically the leadership that transforms4 and motivates the organization in its pursuits. But its success lies not solely on the efficiency of the leader but it also demands the efficiency of the subordinates as they do their functions. As Adam Smith claims, “the greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is any where directed, or applied seem to have been the effects of the division of labour.”5 Take for example Information Technology. Incoming up with new gadgets like mobile phones or computer, companies like IBM, Nokia and Apple Computer do not follow the simple laws of supply and demand. But in fact follows Say’s law which states that supply creates its own demand. In a case like this, how will you be able to come up with a viable strategy? In this sense, Chaffee’s paper affords us help. She is categorically claiming that in every step of the project from its inception as an idea to its production up to the point wherein persuade and shift the attitude of players in the oganization, the three models of strategy are at play - each responding to its particular concern yet at the same time addressing the whole gamut of the organization’s goals. Although this point is interesting since it affords us to look at strategies being intricate in itself but when Chaffee claims that “…Ultimately the construct may emerge as a unitary merger of the three models… “6 she appears to be consciously taking a slower step in the direction of the evolution of her claim. The moment that you employ interpretive or adaptive or linear as being the proper response to a particular problems one should see the remote possibility of unity or merger of the three models for the reason that these models are addressing diverse, variegated situations. However, it may be possible that combinations between the models may sometime arise but it does not necessarily imply that it is now possible to form a unified strategy. The beauty of strategy lies in it being innovative yet anchored on situations, theoretical yet always open to empirical verification, chartable yet dynamic, variegated yet capable of complementing. In addition, to cling onto the ideals of a merger or unification among the three models will certainly diminish the vitality of strategy. THEORETICAL INTEGRITY Taking her cue from Boulding’s hierarchy of system, wherein there is an explicit recognition that each step in the hierarchy is a whole in itself complex and comprehensive but it is not in isolation. Each level, in effect, is a part of the next level although the upper level cannot be claimed to be encompassed in the lower level or step7 since the complexity and comprehensiveness of the level is read and understood from bottom to top. Chaffees paper follows the same breakdown that we can find in Boulding’s hierarchy of system. She claims that the three models of strategies are in essence corresponding to it. She states that linear strategy can be applied to the lowest three classes in the system since it pertains to mechanisms that allow the organization to set its goals following a particular path. Thus, the task of “planning, strategy formulation and its implementation”8 is on the shoulders of the top managers of the company. The intermediate level, on the other hand, pertains to the ‘biological level’ that corresponds to adaptive strategy. This signifies the notion the moment the organization starts anticipating, reacting, responding to the elements in the environment where it is situated adaptive mechanisms are employed. Finally, Chaffee maintains that the last three levels in the system, which is the most complex, is fundamentally analogous to interpretive strategy. In this level, the organization is basically responding to cultural phenomenon that is resting on the supposition that the players are persons that are equipped with consciousness and ability to become sharers of meaning. This is important in the sense that on this level we come up with the notion that persons are capable of creating symbols and attaching meanings to it thus creating a ground by which language game known to everyone is played. In this light, the model presents a coherent position in the analysis of strategy vis-a-vis that of organization itself. What Chaffee is showing us is that at each level of the system, each particular problem encountered can be properly address by employing the corresponding strategy. This method though it appears to be a neat basket categorization of the levels of organization and its corresponding appropriate strategy fails to address problems that results from not having shared meanings. This “lack” of method or way to accommodate differences or not having shared meanings is I think the limitation of Chaffee’s paper. This is important in a global community wherein multiple voices should be given space not because it is a voice but because it has something to say. COMPARE AND CONTRAST If Chaffee’s paper speaks of the apparent correspondence between Boulding’s hierarchy system and the three models of strategy, Locke’s paper on the other hand centers on man himself as the player in the organization. Locke claims that goal or organizational goal should not be seen as the prime motivating factor that compels human beings to perform or employees to work. Though it gives the idea that human action is rational for the goal more or less directs human action but it fails to recognize that there are many other factors that may act as motivators to employees. In the sense, the basic difference between the two papers is the focus of elucidation. As Chaffee tries to explain dynamics of strategies juxtapose to organization from which it is employed while Locke has set his explication on men themselves, man’s very nature that makes him not just a ‘goal-seeker’ but a rational being who utilizes ‘goals’ as part of the factors that may influence his actions. In the end, the whole process encompassing of man in an organization employing strategies as he address problems manifest man’s innate nature of always being part of the dynamics of community life with the hope that it will lead to the achievement of the good life for everybody. Reference List: A. Books Hatch, Mary Jo, Organization Theory: Modern Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Ott, J. Steven, Sandra J. Parkers and Richard B. Simpson. eds., Classic Readings in Organizational Behavior 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 2003. Shafritz, Jay M., J. Steven Ott and Jang suk Yong. eds., Classics of Organization Theory 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 2005. Williamson, Oliver E. ed., From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. 1995. B. Journals Chaffee, Ellen Earle. “Three Models of Strategies.” Academy of Management Review Vol 10. N0 1 (1985) : 89-98. Locke, Edwin. “The Ubiquity of the Technique of Goal Setting in Theories of and Approaches to Employee Motivation.” Academy of Management Review (July 1978) : 594-601. Read More