Why Would Strategists Need a Multi-Perspective Approach to Strategy - Literature review Example

Running head: WHY WOULD STRATEGISTS NEED A MULTI-PERSPECTIVE APPROACH TO STRATEGY? Why would strategists need a multi-perspective approach to strategy? [Writer’s name] [Institutions name] Why would strategists need a multi-perspective approach to strategy? Introduction A lot of organizations and management studies still depend on only one particular paradigm for their management. Supporters of a mono-perspective approach argue that the hypothesis of research paradigms can never be commensurable and that it is impractical to adopt conflicting point of views from different approaches into one approach of management (Jackson and Carter, 1991, 1993). This point of view has been proved wrong, by researchers who support the multi-perspective approach. This is due to the fact that it promotes a broad understanding of the complicated organizational phenomenas (Gioia and Pitre, 1990; Scherer, 1998; Schultz and Hatch, 1996). The utilization of more than one paradigm as heuristic assists in extending the importance and creativeness of the approach of the organization (Lewis and Grimes, 1999). The above mentioned point of view is evaluated in the present paper in the analysis section; this analytical paper will serve as an essential contributor to the debate regarding the multi-perspective approach. Due to this the paper shall analyze why strategists need a multi-perspective approach to strategy? The paper will start off with a general overview of how strategic management ahs changed over the years and thus it has it make use of a multi-perspective approach to strategy. The assignment consist in studying the need for new approach to the management of people in order to reflect the way in which organisations are evolving at the start of the 21st century. Analysis The use of multiple perspectives (Holland, 1999; Lewis and Kelemen, 2002) has become the need of the management of every organization. Its original idea originated from the paradigm ‘wars’ as some theorists thought that this theory was not commensurable, theorist realized that this kind of theory could provide the organization with a comprehensive understanding of how to manage it’s people (Gioia and Pitre, 1990). Likewise, Morgan (1983, p. 16) made a lot of organizations realize the importance of a multi perspective approach of management by evaluating different approaches within a single approach used within a particular system. Organizations must keep in mind Morgan’s (1986) research of metaphors as it analyzed the supported the use of multiple paradigms. this kind of paradigm according to the model will have a positive effect on organizations knowledge production; ever since then it has expanded and now it even consists of to various vocabularies, approaches , stories, analysis, contradictions and different managerial aspects. (Willmott 1999). According to Alvesson (1996); Organization should use multi perspective approach as Rorty’(1989) pointed out the disadvantage of following a single perspective of management , while considering Rorty they should realize that by using more then one practice due to the fact that they w ill be using a combination of perspectives they will also be overcoming a lot of limitations which they may face while using a single perspective , this may give the management a new kind of insight. It is the combination of these perspectives that may help their management. Organizations must use the multi perspective paradigm so that it can develop a strategically innovative management . Nonaka (1994), supports this point of view, as he states that organizations that desire to develop in strategically innovative organizations have forget the traditional model of management to solve their issues and adopt a to a model that, handles both the cause and solution to their problem and an organization can only do this by using an multi perspective approach to management (Martin, 1992). The present debate on multi-paradigm perspective is based on the fact that it is a valid developing theory which combines all paradigms. However it is also true that such that paradigms do not have the solutions to all the problems as they are combination of only a few characteristics of all the paradigms (Willmott, 1993 ) . Since each paradigm is completely different from the other a combination of all paradigms at times may be impracticable (Jackson and Carter, 1991, 1993). However most organizations do not believe in this , they are organizations which believe that their management can only be successful if perspectives are combined and that it Is possible to combine them(Reed, 1985) organization should support the conformity to a essential dominant paradigm which incorporates all the qualities of the other paradigms. (Donaldson, 1985), On the other hand, in supporting an elite paradigm in this way, the other paradigms become completely ignored and organizations for get their importance. However many people still support the multi-paradigm approach (Donaldson 1998). Supporters suggest a lot of paradigms of management have some connection to each other, whilst also giving emphasis to those paradigms can be considered to be interrelated .(Gioia and Pitre 1990). Thus the above paragraph proves that organizations should use a multi perspective paradigm as all management paradigms are interrelated. (Schultz and Hatch, 1996). This kind of paradigm provides the organization with advanced knowledge of managerial trends as well (Scherer, 1998). If Lewis and Grimes (1999) ‘s case study is considered then one realizes the interrelation between different paradigms and how they help in building one prefect theory of management. Managerial multi perspectives mostly support an approach of cross-fertilization or paradigm inter relationship where mangers usually analyze the difference between paradigms, and then find out how they can be used as one multi perspective [paradigm. nevertheless also maintain the notable characteristics of each paradigm after combining them (Boje 1995). Thus this helps the management of organizations to get involved in innovative thinking, rather just rigid thinking along the lines of a single paradigm. If the management of organizational culture is considered then even it can be help in managing the diversity in the organization, whilst also utilizing different paradigms for their different theoretical perspectives and direction.. Example In evolving to a product development process based on knowledge creation, the need to keep an eye on changes in Healthcare co’s daily practices continuously became obvious. The previous institutionalized practice needed a single strategy file to be handed over to senior management at the beginning of the development process. Yet with the environmental and organizational conditions and context changing to quickly this practice was inadequate. The project team attempted to understand and systematize the operationalization of approach, and got no encouragement from senior management in their goal to develop the strategic plan for a new product development procedure and analysis of the new product case. A handy and planned system was thus required which could contain developing organizational knowledge (Tornow 1993). They shifted to simple and well known , promising product system, which consisted of knowledge regarding the product can be animatedly structured in almost every form and maintained in almost every dimension, this helped the organization in becoming more flexible and innovative in its strategic management (Pfeffer 1993). However this whole strategy seemed unplanned and emergent. It supported every piece of information regarding a strategic selection to be uncovered in a rational and realistic way, this was to be done keeping in mind the creative goals of the management . This let all the paradigms to exist in synchronization, one paradigm was thus inter related with the other , and let the development of the knowledge base to take place in a planned and translucent manner (Pfeffer, 1997). This mini-case thus gives importance to structural and secular aspects of the reality of managing knowledge. It illustrates how a lot of complicated theories knowledge, which are based on more then just knowledge. It highlights the fact that the existing knowledge different forms in a fixed a prepared manner. Caluwe´ and Vermaak (2003) presume that amalgamation of perspectives is achievable moreover the management will fellow a number of different dominant approaches. However they also state that ‘a haphazard mix may result in complete managerial failure (ibid). Beer (2001) and Sminia and Van Nistelrooij (2006, p. 100) emphasize that selecting only one approaches , because of it’s rigid qualities , is considered to be insufficient for a the proper implementation of the over all management furthermore, the combination of every approach of management appears to be best option in any case. Furthermore, the utilization of numerous methods, used concurrently, in similar or successively; is without a doubt supported for the use of developing a multi-perspective insight of the organization or activity under analysis. The general perspectives, with their general recommendations, are analytically narrow, and as Perrow (1986) rather systematically pointed out, are easily criticized for their avoidance of the complexity issue and unrealistic assumptions: according to Barnard (1938) authority is in no way a changeable entity ; bounded rationality “inadequately considered the question of how the power of maters is enhanced by their capacity to set premises” (p. 264); evolutionary theory “usually pays no attention to the state models economics models “single out a concept such as markets versus hierarchies, … assume self-interest as the motive, [and] sweep aside reality” (p. 256); and institutional perspectives fail to “see society as adaptive to organizations” (p. 173). Perrow (1986) usually used different perspectives in opposition to each other as challenge for each. For instance, economics perspectives is completely opposite to the human relations organizations, moreover institutional and ecological approaches sometimes have conflicting points of view ; each perspective can in fact be used to criticize each of the other perspectives, and the argument might be made that each perspective on organizations was derived from a criticism of each of the other perspectives. The result of the proliferation of organizational perspectives might therefore be considered a set of independent perspectives of organizations that, when they are considered as total, comprise of a moderately complete and practical view of how organizations operate in their surroundings (assuming that each perspective has something to contribute at the organizational level of analysis) (Schultz and Hatch 1996). Ever since the development and creation of these different perspectives, a lot of development made in organizations support of multi perspectives follow Kuhn’s (1996) prediction that once the research paradigm has been set, work proceeds toward filling out that paradigm (in the social sciences, Kuhn allowed for simultaneous existence of multiple paradigms). Today usually organizations tend to claim that they use just one perspective, for instance the it can be the institutional theory, or maybe the agency theory, it could even be the population ecology, or the decision theory, or resource dependence. The alternative to the above analytical approach is an integrated approach that accommodates for multiple views of organizations, yet reduces real-world complexity to a simulated environment(Hassard 1991). This Model should be utilized by organizations in order to capture the necessary characteristics of real systems by dividing them more manageable elements that are easy to comprehend and to influence. As these models are extremely related with the field in which they symbolize (Savolainen et al. 1995). That area will identify their practising community, language as well as the related tools utilized. This it can be said that this model is an overview of veracity (Booch et al. 1999). Real systems are large entities consisting of interrelated components working together in a complex manner. Models help people to appreciate and understand such complexity by enabling them to look at each particular area of the system in turn. Models are used in systems development activities to draw the blueprints of the system and to facilitate communication between different people in the team (Rhem 2005). This view emphasizes the fit between organizational processes and the characteristics of the situation. It is based on the fact that approach can suit any problem or situation. It is a complete theory which can be based on universal management practices and promotes eth utilization of all three system traditional, behavioural, as well as systems thus it makes sit an ideal paradigm for management as it helps them to handle different situations. This paradigm also helps to mould the managerial behaviour as it makes organization realize that managerial behaviour relies on different theories . Thus, it helps the organization‘s management knowledge of management thought (Van de Ven and Poole 2005). A far better approach might include a constant and overriding organizational commitment to both gradual improvement and, more importantly, new creativity regarding profit creating activities or facilitating a reduction of the cost of currently existing products or programs. That is what productivity is all about. Rewarding employees/managers for their contributions to this further productivity and cost savings has proven a necessity. Secondarily, but just as important, is a concept of changing the organizational "culture" to make it admirable and desired to "think-outside-the box" and explore new and different ways to accomplish overall organizational objectives and goals 9 Eisenhardt and mark 1992). When a junior level manager hears a conversation like the one represented above, he/she must immediately and consistently step in and encourage both employees to further explore the new idea that the "rookie" has brought to the game. Help the employees determine if the concept is viable, and if so, move rapidly to implement it in a meaningful way. Thirdly, world conditions and future opportunities dictate that we stop our participation (Heath and Palencahr 1993 . It means - there is no one best way of doing things, everything is depending on another, hence "management's job is to search for important contingencies(Poole and Van de Ven (1989). When mangers learn to identify important patterns and characteristics of their organizations, they can then fit solutions to those characteristics." (Daft, 2003) By using this perspective the management refutes universal principles of management by stating that a variety of factors, both internal and external to the firm, may affect the organization's performance." (Bateman & Snell,1996). Today's rapidly changing environment, especially the rapidly moving information technology Today's rapidly changing environment, especially the rapidly moving information technology environment, has significantly changed the way of organization and management thinking. Today's organization can no longer be managed and controlled in the same way as the past few decades. To survive, organizations have to continue to learn new things, to adapt to the changes, and stay ahead of it. This new learning organization, "in which everyone is engaged in identifying and solving problems, enables the organization to continuously experiment, change, and improve, thus increasing its capacity to grow, learn, and achieve its purpose." (Daft, 2003, 55) The learning organization is skilled at acquiring, transferring, and building knowledge that enables the organization to continuously experiment, improve, and increase its capability. The learning organization is based on equality, open information, little hierarchy, and a shared culture that encourages adaptability and enables the organization to seize opportunities and handle crises. (Ghee & Daft, 2004 589) CONCLUSION The change of the social forces, economic forces, and the political forces has lead to the change of the management style, organizational structure, and the leadership. An organization needs both managers and leaders to survive and succeed. "Businesses must find ways to train good managers and develop leaders at the same time. Without a solid organizational framework, even leaders with the most brilliant of ideas may spin their wheels. Organizations which use a multiple perspective mostly, therefore, produce a more affluent picture, creating many insights that can be utilized to develop the entire process of management. In order make their management more efficient by developing their for their management skills organization development and the requirement for innovative approaches to manage people. As the people management viewpoint and methods which are based on the way in which the organisation’s entire approach of people management help in developing their effectiveness. References Alvesson, M. (1996). Communication, Power and Organization. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Barnard, C. I. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bateman, T.S. and Snell, S.A. (1996) Management: Building Competitive Advantage,. Third Edition, Irwin, Chicago, IL Beer, M. (2001) How to develop an organization capable of sustained high performance: embrace the drive for results-capability development paradox, Organizational Dynamics, 29, pp. 233–47. Boje, D. M. (1995). ‘Stories of the storytelling organization: a postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamaraland” ’. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 997–1035 Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J. and Jacobson, I. (1999). The Unified Modelling Language User Guide, Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. Daft, R. L. 2003. Management. 6th Edition. Thomson Learning, USA De Caluwe´, L. & Vermaak, H. (2003) Learning to Change. A Guide for the Organization Change Agent (ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.) Donaldson, L. (1985). In Defense of Organization Theory: a Response to the Critics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Donaldson, L. (1998). 'The Myth of Paradigm Incommensurability in Management Studies: Comments by an Integrationist', Organization, 5(2), pp. 267-272. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Mark J. Zbarecki. 1992. Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal 13: 20-22. Ghee, L. & Daft, R. 2004, The Leadership Experience in Asia, Thomson Learning, Singapore Gioia, D. and Pitre, E. (1990). ‘Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building’. Academy of Management Review, 15, 584–602 Hassard, J. (1991). ‘Multiple paradigms and organisational analysis: a case study’. Organisation Studies, 12, 275–99. Heath L. Robert and Palenchar James Michael ( 2009)Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges Sage Publications Herrington J. Bryce (1999); Financial and Strategic Management for Nonprofit Organizations: A Comprehensive Reference to Legal, Financial, Management, and Operations Rules and Guidelines for Nonprofits, 3rd Edition jossey-bass. Holland, R. (1999). ‘Reflexivity’. Human Relations, 52, 463–84. Jackson, N. and P. Carter (1991). 'In Defence of Paradigm Incommensurability', Organization Studies, 12(1), pp. 109127. Jackson. N. and P. Carter (1993). '"Paradigm Wars": a Response to Hugh Willmott', Organization Studies, 14(5), pp. 721-725. Kelly Louise and Booth Chris (2004); Dictionary of Strategy: Strategic Management A-Z. Sage Publications, Inc; Kuhn, T. S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press Lewis, M. W. and Kelemen, M. L. (2002). ‘Multiparadigm inquiry: exploring organizational pluralism and paradox’. Human Relations, 55, 251–75. Lewis. M. W. and A. J. Grimes (1999). 'Metatriangulation: Building theory from Multiple Paradigms', Academy of Management Review, 24(4), pp. 672-690 Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organisation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgan, G. (Ed.) (1983). Beyond Method. Strategies for Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Perrow, C. 1986. Complex organizations: A critical essay. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Pfeffer, J. (1993). 'Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable', Academy of Management Review, 18(4), pp. 599-620. Pfeffer, J. (1997). New Directions for Organization Theory. Problems and Prospects. Oxford University Press, New York Poole, M. S. and Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). ‘Using paradox to build management and organization theories’. Academy of Management Review, 15, 562–78. Reed, M. (1985). Redirections in Organizational Analysis. Tavistock, London Rhem J. Anthony (2005); UML for Developing Knowledge Management Systems Auerbach Publications; 1 edition Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sangren, S. (1992). ‘Rhetoric and the authority of ethnography’. Current Anthropology, 33, Supplement, 277–96. Savolainen, T., Beeckmann, D., Groumpos, P, and Jagdev, H. (1995) Positioning of modelling approaches, methods and tools, Computers in Industry, Vol.25, pp.255-262. Schultz, M. and Hatch, M. J. (1996). ‘Living with multiple paradigms: the case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies’. Academy of Management Review, 212, 529–57 Sminia, H. & Van Nistelrooij, A.T.M. (2006) Strategic management and organization development: planned change in a public sector organization, Journal of Change Management, 6(1), pp. 99–113. Tornow, W.W. (1993), "Perceptions or reality: is multi-perspective measurement a means or an end?", Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 pp.221-30. Van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. (2005). ‘Alternative approaches for studying organizational change’.Organization Studies, 26, 1377–404. Willmott, H. (1993). ‘Breaking the paradigm mentality’. Organization Studies, 145, 681–719. Read More