tgomery (2008) has defined corporate strategy in terms of ‘a fluid view of space-time dimension’ which not only recognizes but also acknowledges the existence of a far more causally relevant host of endogenous and exogenous variables among a multitude of internal and external environmental factors of the organization. In the first instance she suggests that the CEO must act in the manner of a guide who not only lays down the strategy but also envisages the futuristic organizational goals in accordance with it (Porter, 1980).
According to her the fusion of leadership with strategy has produced a very desirable outcome, i.e. strategy has acquired a game plan dimension rather than being a static force. However the underlying theoretical underpinnings of this perspective are essentially related to economics and therefore related costs are many because despite the fact that tools of teaching strategy have been sharpened to add greater emphasis to formulation of strategy, its transformational and continuous impact on the organization have been disregarded.
Montgomery instead suggests a different approach based on this fusion that would guide the organization over time as a continuous dynamic force that acts as a positive catalyst through time and space. As a corollary of the above it’s the ultimate result of an inevitable synthesis that produced a dichotomous identity by way of a divided approach which is not in the best interest of strategy implementation. The implementation phase was given a mere nod while the strategy formulation phase received all attention and planning.
According to Montgomery a better symbiosis could be developed with focus of attention being shifted away from its short-run merit-based approach to practically desirable long run approach in which the evolving scenario of developments are taken into consideration (Penrose, 1995). The argument is essentially influenced by the positive correlations between motivation and leadership rather than
...Download file to see next pages Read More