Rising turbulence in the economic environment of organisations in a globalised world enhances the discussion of whether strategic planners should be involved in the strategic decision-making process of organisations. This essay outlines the importance of strategic planners all the more in times of great uncertainty, although there is a number of advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, for example, it helps the management of an organisation by finding emergent strategies, by fostering creativity and by providing a coordination and communication tool. However, in terms of disadvantages, it can stifle flexibility and creativity, and it is questioned whether planning can actually be undertaken when the future is uncertain. Firstly, this essay defines a number of key terms, then critically discusses the advantages and disadvantages of involving strategic planners in strategic decisions in an uncertain environment, before it finally draws the main challenges and benefits together in a conclusion.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Defining Strategy and Strategic Decisions, Uncertain Environment and Strategic Planners
2.1 Strategy and Strategic Decisions
2.2 An Uncertain Environment
2.3 The Role of Strategic Planners
3. Discussion: Advantages and Disadvantages of the Involvement of Strategic Planners
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the role and effectiveness of strategic planners in modern organizations, particularly within highly volatile and uncertain economic environments. It investigates whether the involvement of these professionals facilitates effective decision-making or, conversely, hinders organizational agility and creativity, ultimately seeking to reconcile the debate between deliberate and emergent strategy-making processes.
- Evolution of strategy definitions: deliberate vs. emergent.
- Impact of global economic turbulence on organizational planning.
- Responsibilities and distinct roles of "strategic planners" versus "strategic thinkers."
- Critical analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of formal strategic planning.
- Conceptual frameworks for combining structured planning with organizational flexibility.
Excerpt from the Book
2.3 The Role of Strategic Planners
To begin with, strategic planners do not decide over strategic decisions themselves given that they lack the necessary authority and access to crucial soft data (Mintzberg, 1994b). Nevertheless, strategic planners have the time, the inclination to analyse (Mintzberg, 1994a) and the “formal responsibility for coordinating the strategy process” (Johnson et al., 2017, p. 501). Conventional strategic planners, originating in the relatively stable economic environment of the 1960s, were expected to deliver perfectly elaborated strategies that the managers only had to sign their approval to (Mintzberg, 1994b). Yet, due to increasing turbulence, volatility and competition, this process has undergone a considerable change (Whittington, Yakis-Douglas, Ahn, & Cailluet, 2017). Typically, today the main responsibilities of strategic planners involve gathering information and analysis, acting as an intermediary between the senior and middle management and working on specialised projects (Johnson et al., 2017). Moreover, according to several authors, a distinction has to be made between strategic ‘planners’, and ‘thinkers’ (Graetz, 2002; Mintzberg, 1994b). More conventional strategic planners “should make their contribution around the strategy-making process rather than inside it” (Mintzberg, 1994b, p. 108). According to Mintzberg (1994b) they should act as strategy finders, analysts and catalysts, hence, ensure that new strategies are found, necessary hard data is included and that managers think about the future in creative ways. In contrast, strategic thinkers are more creative, synthesizing information, seeking strategies in unconventional places and sometimes even becoming involved in the strategy formation (Mintzberg, 1994b). It is widely agreed that both kinds of planners complement each other and therefore are needed in any large organisation, although the number of each, however, depends on the stability of the environment: The more stable, the greater the number of conventional planners that are needed (Mintzberg, 1994b).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the discussion regarding the necessity of strategic planners in a globalized, turbulent economic landscape and defines the scope of the essay.
2. Defining Strategy and Strategic Decisions, Uncertain Environment and Strategic Planners: Provides essential terminology and discusses how environmental volatility influences the evolution of strategy and the changing functions of strategic planners.
3. Discussion: Advantages and Disadvantages of the Involvement of Strategic Planners: Critically evaluates the benefits of formal planning against the risks of inflexibility, drawing on the debate between deliberate and emergent strategy theories.
4. Conclusion: Synthesizes the arguments, suggesting that both conventional planners and creative thinkers are essential for organizational success in uncertain environments.
Keywords
Strategic Planning, Strategic Planners, Strategic Thinkers, Uncertain Environment, Deliberate Strategy, Emergent Strategy, Organizational Turbulence, Strategy Formation, Decision-Making, Logical Incrementalism, Planned Emergence, Fallacy of Formalization, Organizational Learning.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The work focuses on the role and value of strategic planners within organizations, specifically exploring how they navigate complex, uncertain environments while supporting senior management in decision-making.
What are the core thematic areas?
The core themes include the distinction between deliberate and emergent strategy, the impact of economic turbulence, the roles of planners versus thinkers, and the critique of traditional planning formalization.
What is the central research question?
The research asks whether the involvement of strategic planners is beneficial for organizational survival and effectiveness, or if it inhibits the necessary flexibility required in modern, fast-paced markets.
What methodology is employed?
The text utilizes a literature-based, critical analytical approach, contrasting existing management theories and academic arguments from authors such as Mintzberg, Grant, and Johnson.
What is covered in the main body?
The main body defines core strategy concepts, analyzes the environmental context of the 1960s versus today, and provides a balanced discussion on the merits and pitfalls of employing strategic planners.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include Strategic Planning, Uncertain Environment, Deliberate vs. Emergent Strategy, and Organizational Turbulence.
What is the "Fallacy of Formalization"?
It refers to Mintzberg’s criticism that overly fixed planning frameworks can create a dangerous divide between strategy on paper and organizational reality, ultimately stifling creativity.
How do "planners" and "thinkers" differ according to the text?
Planners typically provide structure, hard data, and analysis, while thinkers are characterized by their ability to synthesize information creatively and explore unconventional strategic paths.
Why is long-term planning considered difficult today?
Due to unpredictable market volatility, technological advancements, and shorter innovation cycles, traditional forecasting methods are increasingly limited, making long-term prediction difficult.
What is the proposed resolution to the planning dilemma?
The author suggests a hybrid approach that integrates both conventional planners (for analysis and coordination) and strategic thinkers (for creativity and sensing environmental signals).
- Quote paper
- Leander Ross (Author), 2018, Strategic Management. Are Strategic Planners Still Essential?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/451165
