Strategy Development and Implementation for a Large Corporation - Coursework Example

STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR A LARGE CORPORATION REFLECTIVE REPORT by Student’s name Code + course name Professor’s name University name City, State Date Theories and Models of Strategy There are multiple varied opinions that strategy originates from Greek words ‘agein’ and ‘stratos’. After combining and forming the word “strategos” it has a meaning of the art of general’s office, generalship or command, or troop leader (Ahmed, Bwisa, Otieno and Karanja 2014). In martial framework, strategy is the science and art of assembling, identifying and organizing equipment and troops of combat in a way that must assure the total conquering of the foe. In the business management framework, strategy is a manner of deed that is essential to attain the major goal provided resources’ scarcity. Succinctly, it concerns obtaining a competitive benefit over opponents offered certain choices. There are three types of strategies namely competitive strategy, corporate strategy and general strategy (Ahmed, Bwisa, Otieno and Karanja 2014). General Strategy correlates between means and ends, or the results we look for and the available resources. On the other side, corporate stratagem connects the ecology within which the firm operates. Competitive strategy describes the foundation within which the organization competes. Strategic decision-making process (SDMP) tackles the procedure of making the strategic resolution, execution as well as the features which affect the procedure. The hypotheses supporting strategic decision making are fairly miscellaneous that require multidisciplinary approach and seems non-differential from decision-making theories (Freeman 2010). The standardized classification of the theories possesses no complete agreement. One opinion places the criteria on the people’s number embarking on the decision (Bratton and Gold 2012). Several researchers have as well categorised the hypotheses as either non-rational or rational. The rational theories are identified in four attributes that are internal consistency, optimization, omniscience and optimization. In the similar vein, non-rational hypotheses are recognizable to have features such as ecological rationality, descriptive, non-optimization, search and cognitive construction blocks for example, social norms, imitation and emotions. Strategic Thinking, Decision Making and Complexity Strategic thinking is the mixture of operational planning, strategy planning and innovation. The procedure starts with innovation (Hill and Jones 2013). Organizations attempt to build the perfect future and think the plans required to attain them and make them happen. As such, innovation assists corporations in moving outside their comfort zones within the likelihoods of exceeding organizational and customer expectations and requirements. In strategic thinking procedure, however, incorporation of staffs, organization and customers needs’ is done (Steptoe-Warren, Hume and Howat 2011). Additionally, benchmarking is also incorporated to ensure inclusion of the industry’s best ways in the future’s vision. Workers participation at every strategic thinking process’ stage is critical to making sure that they are engaged in the operational plans’ establishment. As such, operational planning comes in there (Steptoe-Warren, Hume and Howat 2011). Measurement is the other portion of strategic management. An organization requires embracing on a continuous procedure of gauging the plans’ effectiveness and confirming that they get employed as scheduled. Measurement should also be utilised in benchmarking the foundational requirements against the executed actions (Harrison 2013). Strategic decision-making entails developing and implementing choices which would manipulate the organization’s enduring welfare. Frequently, those choices entail main organizational alteration and big resource devotions that are hard to overturn the moment they are executed. Strategic decision-making mirrors experience of the decision makers, the posts they hold, and their administrative atmosphere (Harrison 2013). Often, senior managers make strategic decisions which possess long-term repercussions. The middle management make tactical decisions that assist in strategy implementation. The junior and middle managers make operational decisions. The decisions involve the business’ daily operations. Strategy Formation and Governance Boards normally play a critical role in the formation of strategies. When the board is involved in strategy formulation, it controls the planning procedure, while the management plays the executive role. Directors ought to be transparent the moment it is suitable for them to engage in strategy making or when they ought to distance themselves. They should involve themselves in taking caution not to prevent management prerogatives and decisions, therefore bringing in chaos with the executives (Kim, Burns and Prescott 2009). If they do not participate in the strategy formulation, on the other end, they can be demoted to detached observers or onlookers. Boards are likely to find themselves between under involvement and over involvement within the strategic planning procedure (Schooley, Renner, and Allen 2010). Attending the strategic scheduling retreat once annually does not amount to efficient board engagement. As such, it does not sufficiently permit the directors to increase value. The continuous board dialogue and examination should address the strategic issues. Both the board and the management are required to retain a cautious watch over the circumstances that either hamper or fuel the outcome’s achievement (Schooley, Renner, and Allen 2010). The outcome of that vigilance then turns into the consistent strategic dialogue’s subject by the management and board. Recently due to the increment of pressures and regulations, several boards have desired becoming more profoundly engaged and building an in progress strategic responsibility such as through partaking in yearly strategy retreats or via the CEO performance appraisal procedure (Kim, Burns and Prescott 2009). In several corporations today, boards restrict their participation to endorsing strategy suggestions and to manning development toward strategic objectives. As such, only a few engage in developing and shaping the strategic direction of the company. There is a broadly common held belief that strategy making is essentially a management duty. Thus, the board’s role ought to be restricted to ensuring that a suitable strategic planning procedure is instituted and the real strategy’s development is specifically assigned to the CEO (Schooley, Renner, and Allen 2010). Even the supporters of greater director participation within strategy assert that the involvement’s extent ought to be dependent on the particular situations at hand. Strategic Leadership The quintessence of leadership is wider than having certain expertise and skills. It is more profound than whichever leadership evaluation can unearth. It is deeper than being responsible to shareholders to pass on vision and obtain fiscal results (Caldwell, Karri, and Vollmar, 2006). Stewardship is the readiness to be held responsible for the welfare of the bigger organization through functioning in service, instead of control of the people around someone. This means that leaders are also stewards (Morse, Buss and Kinghorn 2014). Leaders possess power. Leaders require using their power to create, to build and push history in a diverse course. The utilization of organizational politics proposes that political activity is employed to beat resistance and entails a conscious endeavour to arrange activity to challenge antagonist in a precedence decision circumstance. Changes in organisations are typically commenced by top management. This means that they are persuaded of the transformation’s necessity. Therefore, not terrifyingly, those leaders appear to view the positive features of change, both for themselves and for the company. For the corporation, change offers the chance for refocusing and renewal which would assist it to be more effective (Day 2014). For the managers themselves, leading a firm’s change embodies inspiring professional hardships. Normally, top leaders consider change favourably due to the powerful individual interest at hand. Change management involves considerate planning and perceptive implementation (Day 2014). Additionally, it involves discussion with and engagement of individuals affected by the transformations. Change ought to be measurable, achievable and realistic. Face-to-face communication with the concerned people requires being employed. That would encourage people who might be resisting change to accept it whatever its outcomes. Rational Planning Models The hearts of every strategic plan is the mission and vision for a corporation. The mission statement explicates the services and products (what), strategies (who), and target markets (who). On the other hand, a vision statement expounds the organization’s long term aspirations (Lewis 2007). It is a depiction of the manner within which the company desires to be seen by other companies at some time to come. It is suitable to reaffirm the firm’s vision and mission. After establishing the company’s mission and vision it becomes easy to determine the strategic goals. Strategic objectives are the result’s statements which a firm desires to attain for a long time. A majority of companies implement their goals to mirror their success’ perception. A number of managers view profit as their pointer of success. As such, exploiting revenue becomes their key strategic goal (Lewis 2007). The strategy implementation plan describe who (persons) would get the firm there and the execution lane for the populace. The implementation of a strategy entails making the strategies work through involving the people of the organization in putting in place outcome measures, action steps, implementation goals, and objectives that connect the strategic procedure to the operating processes of the corporation. Before entering the new market, the organization should consider conducting environmental scanning via PEST Analysis (Babatunde and Adebisi 2012). The PEST acronym is used to describe the Political, Economic, Social-Cultural, and Technological aspects which affect the company. The outside environments comprise of threats and variables opportunities which are outside the firm and not characteristically in the short-run top management’s control. As such, the organization’s management possesses minute or no power upon the exterior environment. Adaptive Planning Models and Complexity The current workplace comprises of complicated intangibles possessing several drivers. The eventual driver for each industry and company is the business function. Additionally to that purpose is the culture or heart of the organization that enables endurance (Jacobides 2010). The other driver is the multigenerational labour force that demands an inclusive vision to permit and augment its involvement. The people and the business purpose nurture and shape culture within a consistent flow which is propped up via a bigger awareness of how both are intrinsically connected to the other. That flow must be supported by space. To support that complicated coalition, the design process should go beyond the current state of verifying counts of conference rooms, offices and work stations that yields a secure, handy approach but never fuel the progression of what space would turn into. A tailored strategic place of work planning process encourages the business in making culturally sound decisions concerning its constructed environment and offers durable solutions (Maoboussin 2009). Performance, productivity and engagement are awfully hard to quantify. However, a classy and combined strategic planning procedure which involves customers early would join all the organization’s aspects and prop up its development into a high-performance administrative centre. The best manner of effecting positive corporation transformation is via involving a section of persons within a sequence of customized workshop that employ surveys and engagement tools prior to initiating a dialogue regarding design. The strategic procedure links the organizational traditions with a novel working way (Maoboussin 2009). Additionally, in doing that, it discovers associations determine discontinuity, generating a more informed, motivated and cohesive workforce. That becomes the basis for creating factual estate strategies, recognising recital metrics, building up assets and substitute solutions, and making new work procedures and collaborative techniques, directly notifying the eventual design resolution. Decision Making in Complex and Changing Environments All too frequently, managers depend on normal leadership approaches which perform well in a single set of conditions but perform very poorly on others. The differences in performances lie within a primary presumption of organizational practice and theory: that a particular echelon of order and predictability prevails on earth (Burgelman 2010). Circumstances alter, however, and when they turn more complicated, the simplifications can become unsuccessful. Good headship is not a single sided proposition. Time has arrived to widen the traditional focus of decision making and leadership and create a fresh perspective grounded on complexity science (Scharmer 2009). Since the development of Cynefin framework, executives have been capable of viewing things from new perspectives, assimilate complicated concepts and tackle real-world opportunities and problems. The framework classifies the issues confronting leaders into five milieus described by relationship’s nature between cause and effect (Christiansen and Lechman 2016). The four contexts namely: chaotic, complex, complicated and simple demand leaders to establish circumstances and to perform in contextually suitable ways. The simple frameworks are typified by transparent cause-and-effect and stability associations which are effortlessly distinguishable by everybody. Simple contexts when suitably evaluated demand straightforward monitoring and management. The leader responds, categorizes and senses. That means he gauges the situation’s facts, classifies them and then bases his reaction on instituted practice. Weightily process-oriented circumstances for example, loan payment processing fall on the simple framework. It is common for leaders to become complacent when things seem to be moving smoothly (Christiansen and Lechman 2016). If the simple framework alters at that position, there is likelihood of the leader missing the current on-goings and responding when it is already late. On the other hand, leaders within a complicated milieu must respond, analyze and sense. That mechanism is hard and frequently demands professionalism. The complex context is often considered appropriate because it demands scrutinizing multiple choices, for example, in the hunt for mineral deposits and oil (Highouse, Dalal and Salas 2013). The effort normally necessitates a group of professionals; in excess of one place would potentially generate results. Additionally, the right spots’ location for mining or drilling entails sophisticated scrutiny and comprehending of outcomes at numerous echelons. On the other hand, at least one accurate answer prevails in a complex context. Similar to other contexts, leaders in the complex domain also face many challenges. Leaders who fail to identify that a complex sphere demands a more experimental management’s mode might become intolerant the moment they appear not to be attaining the outcomes they were looking for (Mohr, Preuschoff and Hsu 2015). They might also find it hard to accept unsuccessfulness, which is an important feature of experimental comprehending. If they attempt to over control the corporation, they would prevent the chance for useful patterns to materialize (Mohr, Preuschoff and Hsu 2015). On the other hand, in chaotic contexts, seeking the correct answers becomes pointless. As such, cause and effect correlations are unfeasible to determine since they shift continuously and manageable patterns never exist. In the chaotic context, an immediate job of the leader is stanching the bleeding rather than discovering patterns. A leader requires first acting to institute order, then consider where steadiness is available and the place is absent (Christiansen and Lechman 2016). He should then reply by working to change the circumstance from chaos to complication, where the recognition of surfacing patterns can both assist thwart future crises and determine fresh opportunities. The important communication is that of broadcast. Levels of Strategy The strategy process and content varies at each firm’s level. There are three levels of strategies namely: business level, corporate level and industry level. The corporate level strategy concerns itself with the choosing of businesses within which the corporation ought to contend and with coordination and development of that business’ portfolio (Furrer 2016). The corporate level strategy handles various organizations’ issues. First, it involves describing the issues which are corporate duties (Furrer 2016). The duties might entail acknowledging the corporations’ overall goals, the kinds of businesses the corporation should involve in and the manner of managing and integrating businesses. Second, the strategy concerns with managing business interrelationships and activities (Grant 2016). As such, it aims at developing synergies by coordinating and sharing employees and other assets across business entities to match other activities of the corporate business. The other strategy is business unit level strategy. In the business unit level, the strategic matters are more about sustaining and developing a competitive benefit for produced services and goods (Grant 2016). At the business echelon, the strategy making phase handles three matters. First is situating the business against competitors. The other matter is expecting changes in technologies and demand and changing the stratagem to contain them. The third matter is influencing the competition’s nature via strategic actions for example, vertical integration as well as through political deeds like lobbying (Axelsson and Easton 2016). The other strategy is industry level strategy. The industrial level strategy entails coordinating the different operations and functions required to support, deliver, manufacture, and design the service or product of every business in the business portfolio (Axelsson and Easton 2016). Industrial strategy is often concerned with proper timing. Industrial strategies tackle problems normally confronted by lower-level managers and handles strategies for the main organizational functions deemed pertinent for attaining the business strategies and propping up the corporate-echelon strategy. Strategy Environment & Contexts The first corporate social responsibility concerns with incorporations (Benn, Todd and Pendleton 2010). As such, the global incorporation of public authorities, infrastructure and services, corporate systems and practice’s codes exacerbates the insolvency and inefficiency situations, quality insufficiencies and several kinds of inequity that can appear in each manufacturing corporation. The outcomes affect the individual organization’s survival and the exterior globe through damaging the network’s equilibrium, the operating constitution or the system that the corporation falls in. On the other hand, there are various ethical issues surrounding the different environmental contexts. The first issue is quality (Ferrell and Fraedrich 2016). As such, corporations are expected to make and supply products and services that meet the described standards as well as the specific expectations of the customers in regards to the given price. The other issue is cooperation. The cooperation’s issue is particularly the most important and suggestive to measure the ethical features of operations of a company. The other issue is the safeguard of the environment. As such, the society expects corporations to protect the environment as much as possible when conducting their operations. The other issue is socially responsible investing (Cavalieri 2007). As such, investors and shareholders expect their invested capital to be employed in a behaviour they deem responsible. Aligning Strategy and Business Performance Strategic alignment assists an organization to identify the purpose of that corporation. Strategic alignment demands planning, readiness to re-evaluate and make changes regularly, and a labour force that feels engaged and in charge of accomplishing the firm’s objectives. Before the company’s leaders starting the strategic alignment, it requires them taking a candid look at the organization’s state (Kaplan and Norton 2006). The leaders must resolve the corporation’s goal and afterwards organize objectives which would assist it in realizing the goals. Strategic alignment contributes to an organization working cohesively. As such, everybody’s activities are coordinated making the organization to work towards similar goals utilizing laid down processes. Strategic alignment offers workforce a vision and roadmap of the most important matters in the organization making them use their time on deeds that support objectives rather than focusing totally on their individual goals. The strategic alignment of an organization should never remain stationary (Kaplan and Norton 2006). As such, it ought to be fluid and changing in due course. Adjustments should be made after assessing the periodical achievement of the goals. Strategy Mapping The correlation between the other business functions and operations is equally imperative. The operations’ functions objective is producing the services and goods demanded by consumers while efficiently managing the resources at the best level. The operations strategy can occur in a bottom-up or a top-down procedure in concern to corporate and business strategies. Likewise, it can be developed in reaction to the market desires (Shavarini, Nazemi, Salimian and Alborzi 2013). The operations strategy is derived from the top-down outlook. It supports the business strategy of the organization. The bottom-up angle is the one that views operations strategy coming out through various decisions and actions occupied with time in operations (Brown, Bessant and lamming 2013). To make the organization’s objectives tangible to everybody, it requires translating them into pertinent operational and strategic goals for business entities and functional departments. Importantly, everyone requires being shown how strategic the objectives are and the manner goals would be achieved. Strategic Innovation The innovation procedure is isolated into two wide thinking modes namely convergent and divergent thinking. The divergent mode is inquisitive, exploratory and open-ended, deploys modern, innovative thinking and future visioning methods (Cooper, Edgett and Scott 2010). It comprises of exploratory customer/consumer insight study, qualitative investigation of market/industry fashion, and conjectures on potential industry endings. The majority of organizations nowadays view themselves as consumer driven (Cooper, Edgett and Scott 2010). As such, they aim at manufacturing products, solutions and services that are based on the needs of consumers. In fact, corporations possess little understanding of customers’ deep-seated behaviours, needs and perceptions (Martin 2009). In particular, those companies which are product-driven benefit considerably from taking a customer/consumer approach. As such, they use the bottom-up approach and involve customers/consumers as their real partners in the modernization process. After knowing what the customer/consumer needs, the organizations become capable of planning for the future. They also employ qualified workforce and improved technology thus increasing their production and market share. Bibliography Ahmed, A., Bwisa, H., Otieno, R and Karanja, K 2014, Strategic Decision Making: Process, Models, and Theories. Business Management and Strategy. vol., 5, no., 1, 78-104 Axelsson, B and Easton, G 2016, Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality. Oxford: Routledge. Babatunde, BO and Adebisi, AO 2012, Strategic Environmental Scanning and Organization Performance in a Competitive Business Environment. . Benn, S., Todd, L and Pendleton, J 2010, Public Relations Leadership in Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, vol., 96, no., 8, 403-423. Bratton, J and Gold, J 2012, Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. Washington: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, S., Bessant, JR and Lamming R 2013, Strategic Operations Management. New York: Routledge. Burgelman, R 2010, Strategy is Destiny. New York: The Free Press. Caldwell, C., Karri, R., Vollmar, P 2006, Principal Theory and Principle Theory: Ethical Governance from Followers Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, vol., 66, 207-223. Cavalieri, E 2007, Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility, Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, no., 2, 24-34. Christiansen, B and Lechman, E 2016, Neuroeconomics and the Decision-making Process. Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference, an Imprint of IGI Global. Cooper, R.G, Edgett, SJ 2010 Developing a Product Innovation and Technology Strategy for Your Business. Research Technology Management, vol., 53, no., 3, 33-40. Day, DV 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Ferrell, OC and Fraedrich, J 2016, Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases. Mason OH: Cengage Learning. Freeman, RE 2010, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Furrer, O 2016, Corporate Level Strategy. London: Routledge. Grant, RM 2016, Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Hoboken: Wiley. Harrison, R 2013, Strategic Thinking in 3D: A Guide for National Security, Foreign Policy, and Business Professionals. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books. Hill, C., and Jones, G 2013, Strategic Management: Theory: An Integrated Approach. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Jacobides, MG 2010, Strategy Tools for a Shifting Landscape. Harvard Business Review, vol., 88, no., 2, 76-84. Kaplan R and Norton D 2006, Alignment. Boston: Harvard Business School. Kim, B., Burns, ML and Prescott, JE 2009, The Strategic Role of the Board: The Impact of Board Structure on Top Management Team Strategic Action Capability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol., 17, no., 6, 728-743. Lewis, PS 2007, Management: Challenges for Tomorrow’s Leaders. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western. Maoboussin, M 2009, Think Twice: Harnessing the Power of Counter Intuition. Boston Mass Ch: Harvard Business Press. Martin, R 2009, The Design of Business. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Mohr, PNC., Preuschoff, K and Hsu, M 2015, Decision Making Under Uncertainty. Oxford: Frontiers Media SA. Morse, RS., Buss, TF and Kinghorn, CM 2014, Transforming public Leadership for the 21st Century. New York: Routledge. Scharmer, CO 2009, Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges. San Francisco: Berret Koehler. Schooley, D., Renner, C and Allen, M 2010, Shareholder Proposals, Board Composition and Leadership Structure. Journal of Managerial Issues, vol., 22, no., 2, 152-165. Shavarini, SK., Salimian, H., Nazemi, J and Alborzi, M 2013, Operations Strategy and Business Strategy Alignment model (Case of Iranian Industries). International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol., 33, no., 9, 1108-1130. Steptoe-Warren, G., Hume, I and Howat, D 2011, Strategic Thinking and Decision Making: Literature Review. Journal of Strategy and Management, vol., 4 no., 3, 238-250. Read More