Strategic Breadth
Many current books include the term "strategy" in their titles and/or chapter headings and/or indices. So strategy in an "in" term by which to characterize your diagnosis or prescription within any number of policy areas. I have read many of these books, and learned a great deal. BUT, I have noticed that various of these authors contradict one another regarding both the analysis and the advice being offered -- yet each argument seems credible within the context of the book! So what is going on here? Can contradictory arguments all be correct, or are they all wrong? I was never sure how to resolve this dilemma until I read Whittington.
The problem is that "strategy" is not a unified field. Strategic thinking occupies a conceptual space in which there is room for different policies, tactics, and intelligence gathering. Within strategic space, there are four archetypal quadrants, each with different assumptions, goals, methods, and perspectives.
Whittington labels the quadrants of conceptual space as CLASSICAL, EVOLUTIONARY, SYSTEMIC, and PROCESSUAL, but I prefer characterizing them according to their operational core, as behavioural, institutional, societal, and cognitive. In any case, classical strategy is typical of individualistic entrepreneurs; evolutionary strategy is a group approach; processual strategy is a consultant's or policy-maker's mode; and systemic strategy encompasses a comprehensive outlook on current circumstances. The divisions which distinguish the quadrants are actually performance dimensions, but I will leave it to the reader to discover what these are.
Transcending History
The term strategy originated with the ancient Greeks, and referred to the art of commanding in the battlefield. We can still learn a lot from military examples, BUT strategic thinking is NOT any longer exclusively confined to the application of military logic to other situations! Strategic thinking consists in anticipating and preparing for the implications and consequences of contemporary actions.
If you are acting alone (classical situation), then strategic thinking consists in recognizing your effects on others and coping with their responses. If you are acting on behalf of an institution (evolutionary circumstances), then strategic thinking consists in being mindful of how the mandate/mission of the group will impact on, and be reacted to, by other groups and individuals. If you are acting as an advisor (processual situation), then strategic thinking consists in recognizing that the cognitive challenges of the policy-making task include limits on time, information, and understanding, so developing solutions will require prioirtizing. If you are acting as a societal leader or spokesperson (systemic circumstances), then strategic thinking consists in considering the interests of all of the stakeholders in a particular situation and seeking to protect systemic integrity.
Strategic thinking should be applied to business, politics, the environment, the family, culture, warfare, and any other area where implications and consequences are of concern to participants. THIS SOUNDS LIKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPLY STRATEGIC THINKING TO ALL OF LIFE! AND SO IT IS! But the military metaphor of "enemies and annihilation" is NOT appropriate to most situations or strategic frameworks. So if someone tries to tell you that strategy consists exclusively of "defeating your opponents or competitors", that person is a closet predator or combatant, NOT necessarily a strategist. To suggest that a military metaphor encompasses strategy, is a throwback to the conceptual thinking of barbaric eras.
By the same token, to identify the whole of strategy exclusively with only one particular quadrant's concerns, is both narrow-minded and short-sighted. Entrepreneurs, group leaders, consultants, and social leaders, should not mistake their own strategic perspectives for those of all interests. Similarly, over-reliance on Machiavellian or Draconian tactics, also ignores strategic considerations. For instance, cooperation is as necessary as is competition in strategic action. Focusing predominantly on one at the expense of the other, is not strategically apt. The craft of strategy consists in identifying the mix of appropriate policies, deploying them as needed, and staying alert to the prospect that changing circumstances will require changing the mixture!
All of these thoughts are implicit in the conceptual space for strategizing that Whittington identifies (which means this review is an example of reflexive strategy!) . This book contains the breadth of strategic thinking which is missing from so many of the current books on business, or information, or technology strategy. So read Whittington, and then watch out for benighted visions which claim to see the light!
Strategic Depth
Once you appreciate the diverse locus of strategy, it is apparent that the practice of strategy is an artful process. That is to say, strategy is not predominantly rational modeling nor formal planning, but rather an informed overview. Therefore, the key factor in effective strategy is THE STRATEGIC IMAGINATION. This is rarely recognized, and as Henry Mintzberg says, is largely responsible for the ruination of business strategizing. Such insight is the basis of Clarkson's book. [One of Clarkson's strategic principles is the timely updating of concepts and terms, and I shall apply it to his labels.]
Clarkson identifies a sequence of steps in strategic analysis which I will label as follows:
intelligence input
monitoring stage
prospects recognition stage
projection stage
assessment output
Measures of performance in strategic analysis rely on these three parameters:
processing capability (rate)
methodological adequacy (fit)
signification setting (meaning)
AND, consist of distributions of three types of variables:
effectiveness (relevance)
readiness (timeliness)
maintenance (sustainability)
Using Good Form
The practice of this strategic art will be assisted by the use of ten (10) concepts that Clarkson calls forms. I will identify eight (8), and leave it to the reader to find the other two:
scenarios (forecasts)
options (actions)
indicators (trends)
anomalies (exceptions)
projections (expectations)
specificity (particulars)
postulation (theorizing)
impartiality (neutrality)
After an extensive evaluation of strategic challenges vs. cognitive limitations, Clarkson concludes that only with a combination of information technology and simulation software will we be capable of strategizing about the increasingly complex organizational and societal problems we must deal with. Scientific research and systems analysis are both beginning to confirm this contention. With Clarkson's forms however, even the lone analyst can develop the disciplined outlook that will be required to effectively use the kind of strategic simulation software currently under development. Think about it!
Many current books include the term "strategy" in their titles and/or chapter headings and/or indices. So strategy in an "in" term by which to characterize your diagnosis or prescription within any number of policy areas. I have read many of these books, and learned a great deal. BUT, I have noticed that various of these authors contradict one another regarding both the analysis and the advice being offered -- yet each argument seems credible within the context of the book! So what is going on here? Can contradictory arguments all be correct, or are they all wrong? I was never sure how to resolve this dilemma until I read Whittington.
The problem is that "strategy" is not a unified field. Strategic thinking occupies a conceptual space in which there is room for different policies, tactics, and intelligence gathering. Within strategic space, there are four archetypal quadrants, each with different assumptions, goals, methods, and perspectives.
Whittington labels the quadrants of conceptual space as CLASSICAL, EVOLUTIONARY, SYSTEMIC, and PROCESSUAL, but I prefer characterizing them according to their operational core, as behavioural, institutional, societal, and cognitive. In any case, classical strategy is typical of individualistic entrepreneurs; evolutionary strategy is a group approach; processual strategy is a consultant's or policy-maker's mode; and systemic strategy encompasses a comprehensive outlook on current circumstances. The divisions which distinguish the quadrants are actually performance dimensions, but I will leave it to the reader to discover what these are.
Transcending History
The term strategy originated with the ancient Greeks, and referred to the art of commanding in the battlefield. We can still learn a lot from military examples, BUT strategic thinking is NOT any longer exclusively confined to the application of military logic to other situations! Strategic thinking consists in anticipating and preparing for the implications and consequences of contemporary actions.
If you are acting alone (classical situation), then strategic thinking consists in recognizing your effects on others and coping with their responses. If you are acting on behalf of an institution (evolutionary circumstances), then strategic thinking consists in being mindful of how the mandate/mission of the group will impact on, and be reacted to, by other groups and individuals. If you are acting as an advisor (processual situation), then strategic thinking consists in recognizing that the cognitive challenges of the policy-making task include limits on time, information, and understanding, so developing solutions will require prioirtizing. If you are acting as a societal leader or spokesperson (systemic circumstances), then strategic thinking consists in considering the interests of all of the stakeholders in a particular situation and seeking to protect systemic integrity.
Strategic thinking should be applied to business, politics, the environment, the family, culture, warfare, and any other area where implications and consequences are of concern to participants. THIS SOUNDS LIKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPLY STRATEGIC THINKING TO ALL OF LIFE! AND SO IT IS! But the military metaphor of "enemies and annihilation" is NOT appropriate to most situations or strategic frameworks. So if someone tries to tell you that strategy consists exclusively of "defeating your opponents or competitors", that person is a closet predator or combatant, NOT necessarily a strategist. To suggest that a military metaphor encompasses strategy, is a throwback to the conceptual thinking of barbaric eras.
By the same token, to identify the whole of strategy exclusively with only one particular quadrant's concerns, is both narrow-minded and short-sighted. Entrepreneurs, group leaders, consultants, and social leaders, should not mistake their own strategic perspectives for those of all interests. Similarly, over-reliance on Machiavellian or Draconian tactics, also ignores strategic considerations. For instance, cooperation is as necessary as is competition in strategic action. Focusing predominantly on one at the expense of the other, is not strategically apt. The craft of strategy consists in identifying the mix of appropriate policies, deploying them as needed, and staying alert to the prospect that changing circumstances will require changing the mixture!
All of these thoughts are implicit in the conceptual space for strategizing that Whittington identifies (which means this review is an example of reflexive strategy!) . This book contains the breadth of strategic thinking which is missing from so many of the current books on business, or information, or technology strategy. So read Whittington, and then watch out for benighted visions which claim to see the light!
Strategic Depth
Once you appreciate the diverse locus of strategy, it is apparent that the practice of strategy is an artful process. That is to say, strategy is not predominantly rational modeling nor formal planning, but rather an informed overview. Therefore, the key factor in effective strategy is THE STRATEGIC IMAGINATION. This is rarely recognized, and as Henry Mintzberg says, is largely responsible for the ruination of business strategizing. Such insight is the basis of Clarkson's book. [One of Clarkson's strategic principles is the timely updating of concepts and terms, and I shall apply it to his labels.]
Clarkson identifies a sequence of steps in strategic analysis which I will label as follows:
intelligence input
monitoring stage
prospects recognition stage
projection stage
assessment output
Measures of performance in strategic analysis rely on these three parameters:
processing capability (rate)
methodological adequacy (fit)
signification setting (meaning)
AND, consist of distributions of three types of variables:
effectiveness (relevance)
readiness (timeliness)
maintenance (sustainability)
Using Good Form
The practice of this strategic art will be assisted by the use of ten (10) concepts that Clarkson calls forms. I will identify eight (8), and leave it to the reader to find the other two:
scenarios (forecasts)
options (actions)
indicators (trends)
anomalies (exceptions)
projections (expectations)
specificity (particulars)
postulation (theorizing)
impartiality (neutrality)
After an extensive evaluation of strategic challenges vs. cognitive limitations, Clarkson concludes that only with a combination of information technology and simulation software will we be capable of strategizing about the increasingly complex organizational and societal problems we must deal with. Scientific research and systems analysis are both beginning to confirm this contention. With Clarkson's forms however, even the lone analyst can develop the disciplined outlook that will be required to effectively use the kind of strategic simulation software currently under development. Think about it!
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for leaving comments. You are making this discussion richer and more beneficial to everyone. Do not hold back.