This paper discusses the assertion that strategy is in crisis as Wilson and Jarzabkowski (2004) suggest. To come to this discussion, it is necessary to define the terms strategy and crisis. However, defining strategy is not straightforward. In fact, there is hardly any one who knows what strategy is (Markides, 2004). Even Porter (1987) recognises that there is not really an agreement about the definition of strategy. As a result, several, even opposing definitions shape the field of strategy (Whittington, 1996) as well as an accumulation of terms connected to strategy which are more confusing than claryfying (Markides, 2004). Mintzberg and Lampel (1999) for example, try to divide these different views into ten schools, whereas Johnson, Scholes and Whittington (2005) suggest that these approaches can be assembled with three lenses. Apart from the existing fields, there are also new ones emerging like the view of strategy as practice which focuses roughly speaking on the individuals in a company (Whittington, 2002). Nickols (2003) goes one step further. He claims that every definition and hence every approach has its right to exist, because strategy involves any of those definitions. Finally, Franklin (1998a) even questions the assumption whether strategy is an established paradigm, though it has been researched for many years...
Table of Contents
1. Definition of strategy and crisis
2. Resources as a foundation for strategy
3. Environmental assessment and market positioning
4. Strategy implementation and organizational structure
5. Challenges in strategy formulation and uncertainty
6. Evolutionary strategy and market dynamics
7. Conclusion on the state of corporate strategy
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper investigates the widely discussed assertion that corporate strategy is in a state of crisis by evaluating conflicting theoretical frameworks and the practical challenges faced by management in an unpredictable environment. The core research question addresses whether the lack of a unified definition and the emergence of divergent strategic approaches signal a fundamental failure of the strategic paradigm.
- The theoretical fragmentation within the field of strategic management.
- The relationship between resource-based views and competitive advantage.
- Practical hurdles in strategy implementation and alignment with organizational structure.
- The impact of environmental uncertainty on the viability of long-term strategic planning.
Excerpt from the Book
Is corporate strategy in crisis?
This paper discusses the assertion that strategy is in crisis as Wilson and Jarzabkowski (2004) suggest. To come to this discussion, it is necessary to define the terms strategy and crisis. However, defining strategy is not straightforward. In fact, there is hardly any one who knows what strategy is (Markides, 2004). Even Porter (1987) recognises that there is not really an agreement about the definition of strategy. As a result, several, even opposing definitions shape the field of strategy (Whittington, 1996) as well as an accumulation of terms connected to strategy which are more confusing than claryfying (Markides, 2004).
Mintzberg and Lampel (1999) for example, try to divide these different views into ten schools, whereas Johnson, Scholes and Whittington (2005) suggest that these approaches can be assembled with three lenses. Apart from the existing fields, there are also new ones emerging like the view of strategy as practice which focuses roughly speaking on the individuals in a company (Whittington, 2002). Nickols (2003) goes one step further. He claims that every definition and hence every approach has its right to exist, because strategy involves any of those definitions. Finally, Franklin (1998a) even questions the assumption whether strategy is an established paradigm, though it has been researched for many years.
Summary of Chapters
1. Definition of strategy and crisis: This chapter establishes the working definitions for the study and highlights the lack of consensus regarding what corporate strategy actually entails.
2. Resources as a foundation for strategy: This section explores how firm-specific resources and competencies can provide a stable basis for competitive advantage despite changing environments.
3. Environmental assessment and market positioning: This chapter contrasts resource-based perspectives with Porter’s market-based approach, emphasizing the importance of activities and positioning.
4. Strategy implementation and organizational structure: This part examines the critical link between strategy formulation and execution, noting that structure must align with strategic goals.
5. Challenges in strategy formulation and uncertainty: This section addresses the difficulties managers face when choosing between tools and models in the face of unpredictable environmental changes.
6. Evolutionary strategy and market dynamics: This chapter discusses the necessity of adapting strategies in real-time, focusing on flexibility over long-term planning.
7. Conclusion on the state of corporate strategy: This final chapter synthesizes the findings, concluding that the lack of a common paradigm supports the notion that strategy is in crisis.
Keywords
Corporate Strategy, Competitive Advantage, Resource-Based View, Strategic Implementation, Market Positioning, Environmental Uncertainty, Strategy Crisis, Organizational Structure, Strategic Models, Management, Business Performance, Evolutionary Strategy, Decision Making, Paradigm Shift.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this paper?
The paper argues that the field of corporate strategy is currently in crisis due to a lack of consensus on its definition and the existence of conflicting theoretical frameworks.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Central themes include the definition of strategy, resource-based views, market-based positioning, the challenges of implementation, and the impact of environmental uncertainty.
What is the main objective of the research?
The primary objective is to evaluate whether the diversity of strategic approaches suggests that the traditional paradigm of strategy is no longer effective or valid.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper uses a comprehensive literature review and qualitative comparative analysis of various strategic management theories and case studies.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main sections cover the debate between resource-based and market-based views, the complexities of strategy implementation, and the shift toward evolutionary, flexible strategic processes.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include corporate strategy, competitive advantage, strategic implementation, environmental uncertainty, and the resource-based view.
How does the author view the role of 'resources' in strategy?
Resources are viewed as the cornerstone for sustainable competitive advantage, providing a stable foundation for a company even when the market environment undergoes radical change.
How is the example of Google used to support the author's argument?
Google is used to illustrate a shift away from long-term, rigid planning toward a model based on simple, flexible rules that allow for rapid adaptation in a chaotic market.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Matthias Axthelm (Autor:in), 2005, Is Strategy in Crisis?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/51332
