Vision, Strategy, and Change Management: Two Critiques
This paper presents two connected critiques of foundational management articles. The first evaluates Rotemberg and Saloner's (2000) study on visionary CEOs, examining their argument that narrowly focused visions better support compensation and incentive programs, while noting the authors' failure to provide concrete metrics or direct prescriptive guidance. The second critiques Gebhart's (1996) summary of Kotter's eight-step change model, acknowledging its methodical structure while pointing out insufficient analysis of urgency as a sustained driver, the limits of short-term rewards for fostering lasting internalization, and the absence of comparative frameworks such as autonomy-mastery-purpose motivation theory and IT-sector change methodologies.
- Visionaries, Managers, and Strategic Direction: Overview: Summary of Rotemberg and Saloner's core argument
- Key Arguments and Paradoxes in CEO Vision: CEO vision paradox and middle management autonomy
- Critique of the Visionaries and Managers Article: Gaps in metrics, directness, and practical guidance
- Leading Change and the Kotter Model: Overview: Gebhart's summary of Kotter's eight change steps
- Critique of the Leading Change Article: Missing frameworks, urgency analysis, and internalization
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each critique follows a clear two-part structure — summary first, then critical evaluation — making the argument easy to track.
- The paper identifies specific logical tensions within the sources, such as the paradox between broad and narrow CEO vision, and uses those tensions as the spine of its critique.
- Critiques are grounded in the source texts through direct quotation, giving the evaluative claims concrete textual support.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models analytical critique by first faithfully summarizing each source's argument and then systematically identifying gaps — missing metrics, insufficient depth of analysis, and absent comparative frameworks. This move from "what the authors argue" to "what the authors fail to do" is a core technique in graduate-level critical writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper is divided into two self-contained critique sections. Each section opens with a summary of the source article's central claims, proceeds through supporting arguments and key quotations, and closes with a focused evaluation of shortcomings. The conclusion of each critique escalates from minor concerns (lack of directness, shallow step analysis) to the most significant failing (absence of metrics or comparative frameworks), creating a logical hierarchy within each section.
Visionaries, Managers, and Strategic Direction: Overview
In Visionaries, Managers, and Strategic Direction (Rotemberg & Saloner, 2000), the authors contend that the most effective CEOs mitigate the risk of biased analyses of a visionary new initiative or product strategy by choosing one that is narrowly focused over broad, complex, and often unwieldy ones to manage. A foundational precept of the study is that bias exists in how CEOs choose the projects that support their vision-based orientation of their businesses. As the CEO's vision for the company changes, there are reverberating impacts on incentive and compensation plans.
The foundational premise of the article is that when a company's vision changes, it becomes inordinately more difficult to manage compensation and incentive plans accurately and with fidelity to the original promises made to employees. The authors also state that "profits may be enhanced further by letting objective middle managers decide which projects to investigate, even though their decisions can depart from the firm's 'strategy' by differing from those the CEO would have made" (Rotemberg & Saloner, 2000). The authors continue with an expanded analysis of how visions of CEOs that have a narrow focus have a much greater potential of being achieved.
Key Arguments and Paradoxes in CEO Vision
This narrow-focus argument is paradoxically presented, as the authors state that CEOs must be expansive and all-encompassing in their vision of what their enterprises can be, while at the same time maintaining a very granular, clear focus on a specific vision that has a higher probability of being accomplished (Rotemberg & Saloner, 2000). This paradox serves as the foundation for the remainder of their analysis.
Making a case against micromanagement as detrimental to the growth of a business, the authors state that "independence of middle management is critical for the implementation of the vision" (Rotemberg & Saloner, 2000). This further reinforces the paradox the authors use to illustrate how wide, broad visions of CEOs often conflict with the need for a precisely defined vision that middle managers and employees can rally around and believe in.
The authors also contend that the "role of middle managers in bridging the gap between visionary senior managers and the lower-level managers who are the engine of innovation, experimentation, and change in the organization" is essential (Rotemberg & Saloner, 2000). The article concludes by showing how significantly the economics of a given enterprise are directly tied to the performance of the CEO in defining and executing a vision. CEOs who are biased or who capitulate on their visions essentially undermine compensation and incentive plans, robbing employees of the opportunity to have greater ownership over their inventions and innovations (Rotemberg & Saloner, 2000).
Leading Change and the Kotter Model: Overview
The foundation of Leading Change (Gebhart, 1996) is the eight phases of the Kotter Model of Change. The author has carefully defined each of the eight stages, making the first — increasing urgency — a foundational element of the analysis (Gebhart, 1996). The author states that "leaders can alleviate the complacency that grips organizations by concentrating more on having a compelling sense of urgency that change is necessary for improvement" and for the attainment of challenging objectives and goals (Gebhart, 1996).
Defining the steps of building guiding teams, getting the vision right, communicating for buy-in, and enabling action are what the author identifies as critical for long-term change to become the new normal of an organization (Gebhart, 1996). These steps are juxtaposed with the need to create short-term wins, maintain intensity of effort, and ultimately make change stick — all of which are presented as critically important for long-term change management to occur (Gebhart, 1996). The author delineates these final three phases — creating short-term wins, not letting up, and making change last — as all being essential for the internalization of goals.
The author also makes the point that once these eight steps have been successfully completed, "it is time to reward the change agents. While celebrating short-term gains, leaders also need to produce more change and keep up the momentum" (Gebhart, 1996). These are essential strategies for change management and must be orchestrated well across all eight phases, regardless of the duration of the change being attempted — a key point that Kotter himself has made in commentary on the model (Iveroth, 2012).
References
Gebhart, J. (1996). Leading change. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 119–119.
Iveroth, E. (2012). Leading global IT-enabled change across cultures. European Management Journal, 30(4), 340.
Rotemberg, J. J., & Saloner, G. (2000). Visionaries, managers, and strategic direction. The RAND Journal of Economics, 31(4), 693–716.
Wilson, I. (1992). Realizing the power of strategic vision. Long-Range Planning, 25(5), 18–18.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.