Strategy In Action And Contemporary Essay
Excerpt from Essay :
The shared understanding is crucial in order to build strength and enough confidence necessary for the implementation of strategy and to necessitate evolution.
Second Phase: LG's strategic intent
In order to remain competitive, LG has to stick to its long-term vision which should act as stabilizers to the corporation in times of uncertainty. The vision in this case refers to as a statement of the things that can be achieved by the corporation. The concept of strategic intent is very crucial to the operating of a corporation since it acts as a magnet that pulls the present corporate dynamics and activities to the future. Any given strategic intent should be formulated in a manner that the corporation's remain with a large vision that can energize the workforce at all times. The formulation of new strategic intent options can help LG in capturing new markets while remaining competitive within the uncertain economic environment since it present anew purpose to the corporation.
Third Phase .Success indicators
LG should make use of indicators of success in order to level of achievement of strategic intent. The indicators must however be chosen wisely since they are bound to heavily influence the lives of people at LG. LG Corporation should use indicators such as increasing the level of mobile telephony penetration in Africa.
Fourth Phase: Supporting the strategic objective
The fourth phase is concerned with the refining of strategic objectives. They are a major source of momentum for the corporation that does help in the provision of the missing link in order to achieve the laid down strategic intent. They do offer the corporation new and improved vantage points as well as pathways that are necessary for ensuring the gaining of competitive advantage for maximum profitability. It is important that LG Corporation treat each of the strategic objectives in order to ensure that the goals are reached. Each and every strategic objective is independent but works in synergetic manner with the rest. It is important that there clear communication within the organization structure as well as appropriate resource allocation in preparation for the realization of the strategic objective of conquering new markets in Africa and Middle East.
Fifth Phase. Strong leadership
The fifth phase of strategy-in-action that must be used in order to influence the strategic plan for LG Corporation is leadership. It is important that the establishing and empowering strong leadership takes a lot of time (Schein,1985, 1992). There are two major types of leadership. The background empowerment and the leaders. LG Corporation must ensure that it prepares itself for the changes that may occur as a result of conquering new markets. The corporation must make its workforce ready for the changes that can occur as a result of mergers and acquisitions (M&as) as it conquers new markets (Tetenbaum,1999). It has been demonstrated it several articles that M&a can have serious consequences on organizational culture. LG Corporation must be ready for establishing strong leadership and change management strategies that can counter the negative impacts to the organization culture. Kavanagh & Ashkanasy (2006) successfully investigated the positive influence of leadership as well as change management strategy on the culture of an organization and on employee acceptance of change during a merger
Sixth Phase. The Catalytic actions
The catalytic actions are responsible for altering the business environment. The acquired environment could either transform or inform the strategic processes in an organization through the provision of a rapid feedback mechanism to a certain strategy. The catalytic actions are to be responsible for taking care of the deficiencies in the existing services and programs while eliminating duplication of various efforts in order to save on corporate resources. They also create convergence with the firms' the existing initiatives.
Seventh Phase: Sustenance of momentum
This phase is concerned with attempting to sustain success. This is through the constant taking of stock, innovate, engage other partners and enrich the existing strategy for the sake of continuity, future and profitability.
Why the traditional approach will always reign over the strategy-in-action approach at LG
A close analysis of the strategy-in-action approach...
...The first reason is that it is organic when most of managers are used to the mechanistic paradigm / Newtonian paradigm that was inherited from Newton. This is to say that most humans do believe in as well rely on computers and machines. This tends to make human beings to appear unreasonable. The second reason as which makes me believe strongly on the traditional approach as opposed to the strategy-in-action approach is that the latter may make managers to have a fear associated with empowerment; This is because strategy-in-action demands that there is an element of power sharing with the rest of the people in the organization as well as the sharing of extremely sharing and proprietary information with everyone in the corporation which can be likened to breeding chaos and anarchy. This is in line with the opinion of Tschohl (1997) who observed that empowerment can eliminate the role played by the middle managers. The executives and middle level managers do think that empowerment is tantamount to control and therefore they will experience a general power loss if they empower others. On the other hand, if they think of empowerment as the giving of power of performance to others, then this would be beneficial since the empowered lot would reciprocate the given power in the form of good performance and profits! Unfortunately, this is never the case on the ground. The other reality which is hard to admit is that working with other people is always a pain irrespective of the ultimate gains. This is to say that if managers would rely on pushing of computers (mechanistic devices which epitomizes strategy-in-action), and then they do it gladly in order to produce the much needed results alone. The only reason as to why they team up in form of organizations is so as to get the opportunity of producing the relevant outcomes that do lie beyond the scope of a single person. The current competitiveness in the global market therefore demands that certain survival moves such as involving the entire organization in the corporate process be embraced in order to realize good outcomes (profitability).The traditional approach therefore reigns over strategy-in-action due to these dynamics.
The Myths that surround the traditional approach
There are certain myths that people do hold regarding the traditional approach to organization strategy. Most strategies do fail as a result of the managers falling prey to certain unrecognized biases and assumptions which are unexamined. These assumptions are then responsible for the filtering of critical information which results in the damaging of productivity as well as creativity that are existent in potent form in most organizations. The following roadblocks have been noted to prevent the successful implementation of organization strategy;
Bias of reification (reification fallacy)
Reification means making something concrete. There is a bias that is associated with reification of facts such as the thought that a strategy is a perfect blueprint that is complete in its prescription of a roadmap and plan for the achievement of a particular goal. The term strategy however, doesn't deserve its intended name if it is not highly adaptive and evolutionary in its deployment.
Bias due to control
Most managers and executives do believe quite often that they are fully in charge of everyone in the organization sand therefore all their wishes must be implemented. This is where they go wrong since they as the planners of the strategic process do think that the process can be controlled unilaterally using a top down approach. The best approach is usually bottom-up whereby the people at the top take time to filter out the most vital information that flows in the organization from the bottom.
Bias due to linearity
The tendency of most planners to believe that a strategy is a linear, step-by-step process is totally false. This is because strategy operates like life itself; complex, often messy and highly unpredictable. What strategy requires is careful control in out of control moments.
The hard or soft bias
There is a belief among planners that issues related to a person are soft while the ones regarding business dealings are critical. This is wrong since the planners cannot ignore the people because they are the hardest to deal with. They should therefore empower the people and then watch their progress keenly.
Business related bias
This form of bias comes into play whenever planners erroneously believe that business culture is quite unique as compared to other organization cultures. They go ahead into believing that the strategic process and logic that is used by various governments as well as Non-Government -- Organizations (NGOs) are different from the ones used by business entities. The truth however is that the vantage point is the same…
Sources Used in Documents:
Chandler, AD (1962).Strategy and structure: chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise.
The American Historical Review, October 1962, Vol. 68 Issue: Number 1 p158-158
Bradford, RW (2008). Communicating Your Strategic Plan with Employees . Available online http://www.strategyletter.com/CD1103/featured_article.php retrieved 16 January 2011
Bartlett, C. And Ghoshal, S. (1994), "Changing the role of top management: beyond strategy to purpose," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72
Cite This Essay: