What can you say about the Criticism of Strategic Management? What valuable lesson to learn? Strategic management may be beneficial in some cases, but they are likely to be ineffective in some of time on other company. There are several aspects of strategic management that have been questioned, and the arguments should be addressed. According one line of criticism, strategy isn't necessarily developed; it might just happen. The most crucial decisions in a company may not be the huge or abrupt ones, but rather the small and gradual ones. Strategic management is believed to be founded on false assumptions. No matter how careful the executives are, there will always be a gap between their goals and their actions. According to Mintzberg, 1994, no one understands enough about good strategic management thus, organizational success and failure are influenced by luck. According Miller and Cardinal, 1994, it is still a question that traditional strategic techniques help firm in creating a plan and avoiding disasters. While empirical research indicates no clear relationship between planning and actions, the findings of these studies may differ due to methodological difficulties According to Henry Mintzberg (1994), the term "realized strategy." are rarely the outcome of human design alone. On some scenario, lower-level employees will accomplish things that senior management does not want and will fail to do things that senior management does want. While skepticism is justified, this does not mean that strategy should be intentionally ignored. Even if the results aren't perfect, preparation may be better than leaving things to chance. Perhaps a more criticism is that the concept of strategy is tautological. A company that has its “effective strategy” are mostly to succeed. On the other hand, a company that has “ineffective strategy” probably would fail. It's uncommon that an organization's game plan will pay off before it's implemented. Moreover, strategy has become too analytical. According to Freeman and Gilbert, 1988, formal models have resulted in an overemphasis on statistics and a de-emphasis on the human condition. The how-to books present strategy oversight as more mechanical than it is. Strategy is viewed as something to be negotiated rather than being designed. Regardless of who is correct, the debate over methodological rigor does not jeopardize strategic management, as long as it is understood that there are no remedies for organizational diseases and no magic bullets to ensure organizational health. The advantages of strategic management have occasionally been exaggerated by proponents.
What can you say about the Criticism of Strategic Management? What valuable lesson to learn?
Strategic management may be beneficial in some cases, but they are likely to be ineffective in some of time on other company. There are several aspects of strategic management that have been questioned, and the arguments should be addressed.
According one line of criticism, strategy isn't necessarily developed; it might just happen. The most crucial decisions in a company may not be the huge or abrupt ones, but rather the small and gradual ones. Strategic management is believed to be founded on false assumptions. No matter how careful the executives are, there will always be a gap between their goals and their actions.
According to Mintzberg, 1994, no one understands enough about good strategic management thus, organizational success and failure are influenced by luck. According Miller and Cardinal, 1994, it is still a question that traditional strategic techniques help firm in creating a plan and avoiding disasters. While empirical research indicates no clear relationship between planning and actions, the findings of these studies may differ due to methodological difficulties
According to Henry Mintzberg (1994), the term "realized strategy." are rarely the outcome of human design alone. On some scenario, lower-level employees will accomplish things that senior management does not want and will fail to do things that senior management does want. While skepticism is justified, this does not mean that strategy should be intentionally ignored. Even if the results aren't perfect, preparation may be better than leaving things to chance.
Perhaps a more criticism is that the concept of strategy is tautological. A company that has its “effective strategy” are mostly to succeed. On the other hand, a company that has “ineffective strategy” probably would fail. It's uncommon that an organization's game plan will pay off before it's implemented.
Moreover, strategy has become too analytical. According to Freeman and Gilbert, 1988, formal models have resulted in an overemphasis on statistics and a de-emphasis on the human condition. The how-to books present strategy oversight as more mechanical than it is. Strategy is viewed as something to be negotiated rather than being designed. Regardless of who is correct, the debate over methodological rigor does not jeopardize strategic management, as long as it is understood that there are no remedies for organizational diseases and no magic bullets to ensure organizational health. The advantages of strategic management have occasionally been exaggerated by proponents.
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
