Criticism of Strategy as Practice - Literature review Example

STRATEGY + Introduction For many years now, various researchershave sought to answer how strategies work in organizations. Often, these researchers have embarked on developing theories and using empirical studies to explain this concept. Because of these efforts, over time there has been a development of different perceptions of strategy. For instance, “adoption of courses of action” “determination of the primary long-term goals” and “allocation of resources” are some of the common perceptions that have developed over time. Among all these dominant theories, it agrees that strategy is something possessed by all organizations (Whittington 2006). The primary focus of these leading process based views on strategy is that it ought to be designed by senior-level managers and then get implemented by the lower managers. Over the last few years, there has been a new movement in this field of research and has attracted quite a good number of researchers (Jarzabkowski et al. 2007). Contrary to the present dominant view on strategy as something most organizations possess, the construct of strategy as a practice is primarily concerned with a policy as something mostly done by people in groups. Researchers have introduced the term ‘strategizing’ to refer to the doing of strategy (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). A dominant feature of studies that view strategy as practice is that most members of organizations are considered as strategic actors (Whittington 2006 & Jarzabkowski et al. 2007). Therefore, the focus of strategy has been distributed amongst different actors involving middle managers and strategy consultants. This essay will attempt to review the view of recent researchers (Jarzabkowski et al. 2007) on the analytical role of policy tools, and then give a personal verdict. In particular, this essay will attempt to give various reasons that will disagree with ‘strategy as practice’ as viewed by these researchers (Jarzabkowski et al. 2007). 2. Strategy as Practice Jarzabkowski et al., (2007) contend that strategy as practice is something that is meant to humanize research on organizations and management. In addition to this view, Whittington (2006) observed that the objective of practice theorists is to overcome dualism that exists between societism and individualism. In his attempts to introduce a new perspective can represent both views, Whittington (2006), proposed a framework for practices of strategy so as bridge the gap between macro and micro level perspectives on policy. In line with Reckwitz’s (2002) view on practice in social theory, Whittington (2006) also pointed out that there strong reason why to have a better understanding of the divergent meanings of practice. 3. Criticism of Strategy as Practice Like many other fields, the field of strategy has got its criticisms. Cartel et al. (2008) asserts that the role of strategy is to lead the firms through the changes and keeping it unstable for the future success. A strategy is a concept for senior managers and CEOs. Carter et al. (2008) observes that ‘resource allocation,’ ‘direction setting,’ and ‘monitoring and control’ were used by Jarzabkowski (2003) as formal course of action of strategy as practice are a piece of the current management principles that were introduced by Fayol (1981) in place of being new concepts., scholars such as Whittington and Jarzabkowski have not come out directly to assert with the reason they used some principles that were introduced much earlier than them as formal the formal procedures of strategy as practice. Nevertheless, the regarding the significance of the practice purview of the strategic works, strategy as practice is a new approach of looking at a plan. Therefore, it is possible for the procedures in policy that were utilized by the lines of thought can also be employed in this new perspective. In fact, Jarzabkowski et al. (2007) contended that strategy as a practice is mainly concerned with expounding on the existing problems contrary to being concerned about the use of the theory. The fact that the focus in this new field is based on the identity of strategists, their reasons, and activities as well as means for them, this area does not need a new knowledge but it instead attempts to utilize the existing body of knowledge to explore the newly identified problems. Further, cartel et al. (2004) asserts that while considering strategy as practice, most researchers have not taken into account important strategists such as Mintzberg. For example, Varyani, M and Khammar (2010), argues that Johnson et al. (2003) came up with the idea of bottom-up strategy but did not mention the work of Mintzberg on emerging policy is a critical contributor in the same field of study. Researchers such as Whittington believe that strategy as practice needs to get over the ancient feels like that of Mintzberg and then focus on methods. The term post-Mintzberg is used by Whittington so as to describe what is known as a new era of strategic research (Whittington 2004, Jarzabkowski &Whittington 2008). Defining the term practice is another ambiguous part that has been highly criticized by various scholars. Scholars for strategy as practice assert that this definition of practice covers most of the things starting from the process to the actual activity carrying a myriad of contradictory meanings. In addition, it also changes in plural form to a term with an entirely different meaning. Jarzabkowski (2004) contend that practice is the real event, activity, or work of strategy; and on the other hand, practices refer to those norms, traditions, routines and rules upon which policy work is mainly constructed. Nevertheless, when these claims are critically analyzed, they seem to hold no water. For instance, cartel et al. (2008) wonders why practice and methods should ever have different meanings. The suggestion being proposed by cartel et al. (2008) is that practice is viewed to be close to reality and it is more practical. By focusing on practice as practice concept such as ‘what people do,’ will most probably lead to the narrowing of the view of practice. Though Jarzabkowski and Whittington (2008) argued that their perception of practice should not be considered as simply reality, cartel et al. (2008) still does not view these claims to be satisfactory. The other point that comes out against the concept of Jarzabkowski is the meaning of the term ‘strategy’ as observed by cartel et al. (2008). If someone follows strategy in reverse, as suggested by Ville (2002), it will be noted that policy does not exist as a foundation and the associated practices with it made the acceptance arguing that strategy is an object that can be perceived as well as being managed. In fact, a policy does not exhibit in an independent state free of a set of practices that form its base. The proponents of strategy as practice observe that only a few actions that are done most organizations are referred to as plan because those actions were around a sequence of actions that made what is known as a policy. They further observed that when the focused has been based on strategy as practice, the most concentration will be on the methods that are referred to as strategic activity in advance. This brings us to another set of actions regarding the assertions by the proponents of strategy as practice. For instance, Cartel et al. (2008) questions as to what makes an action strategic and whether it is true that policy authors are necessarily strategists or perhaps it is rituals or practices of strategy that might make a person an administrator. Whittington and Jarzabkwski (2008) agreed with cartel et al.’s (2008) point of the danger of focusing on the thought of strategists which may mainly curb looking at what is not done, practiced and not said. They both agreed that that people should attend to the importance of what that has not been enacted into practice, including that which is. In conclusion, evolution in strategic thinking has elicited a myriad of perceptions of strategy as well as the way strategy performs in organizations. What is common however in most of these theories is the perception that strategy is a tool that most organizations possess. In the recent times, there was an emergence of a new theory that was based on focusing on practice as a strategy. Contrary to what the popular views of strategy hold, this new perspective holds that strategy is something people in organizations pursue. Nevertheless, this new perspective has not actually addressed the real of policy in regards to leading organizations through unstable situations while keeping them sustainable for future success. Finally, strategy as practice is a concept that ought to be studied in a plethora of subjects and areas in approach works. In the considered scrutiny of this paper that both the praises and criticisms of the concept of viewing strategy as practice will enhance the management of people and organizations effectively. References Carter, C, Clegg, SR and Kornberger, M 2008, Strategy as practice?, viewed 20th April 2015, http://www.martinkornberger.com/includes/08strategizing.pdf Fayol, H1981, Theorists & Theories Integration Classical, viewed 20th April 2015, http://spia.ncsu.edu/pa/current-students/phdpa/documents/OrgBehCompsPhD.pdf Jarzabkowski et al., 2007, Strategy-as-practice: A Review and Future Directions for the Field, `viewed 20th April 2015, http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/106904.pdf. Jarzabkowski, P2003, Strategy as Practice: Recursiveness, Adaptation, and Practices-in-Use, viewed 20th April 2015, http://www.uk.sagepub.com/cleggstrategy/Jarzabkowski%20P.pdf. Johnson, PTJ2003, Limb Deformities As An Emerging Parasitic Disease In Amphibians: Evidence From Museum Specimens And Resurvey Data, viewed 20th April 2015, http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/facultysites/pieter/documents/Johnson%20et%20al%20200 3.pdf Reckwitz, A2002, Toward a Theory of Social Practices a Development in Culturalist Theorizing, viewed 20th April 2015, http://hec-forum.anu.edu.au/2014/Linked-docs/15-08- 2014/reckwitz_toward_a_theory_of_social_practices.pdf Whittington, R2006, Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy Research, viewed 20th April 2015, http://www2.ufersa.edu.br/portal/view/uploads/setores/65/WHITTINGTON,%202006.pdf Ville, VL2002, Strategy as the art of designing contexts: coupling discourses to narratives, viewed 20th April 2015, http://www.res-systemica.org/afscet/resSystemica/Crete02/delaVille-ESSC-GB.pdf Varyani,M and Khammar,M2010, A Review of Strategy-as-Practice and the Role of Consultants and Middle Managers, viewed 20th April 2015, http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/127382.pdf Read More