Module 2: Strategy Development Approaches PDF

**[Module 2]** **[Approaches to Strategy]**  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Markides C, 2012, 'Fine-Tuning Your Strategic Thinking', 4 Business | | Strategy Review, pp 80−85** | +--------...

**[Module 2]** **[Approaches to Strategy]**  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Markides C, 2012, 'Fine-Tuning Your Strategic Thinking', 4 Business | | Strategy Review, pp 80−85** | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | In the article \"Fine-Tuning Your Strategic Thinking,\" Markides | | (2012) explores the various debates surrounding the concept of | | strategy and how organisations can enhance their strategic thinking. | | He argues that although strategy is a core element of business, there | | is still a lack of consensus on its exact definition. Strategy | | encompasses both planning and adaptability, creativity and analysis, | | and therefore should balance these different aspects (Markides 2012). | | | | Markides highlights three key areas where debates around strategy | | often occur: the content and process of strategy, the balance between | | analysis and creativity, and the dynamic nature of strategy. He | | asserts that strategy must evolve with changing market conditions, | | and successful organisations are those that can balance their current | | business needs while preparing for future industries. The process of | | strategy development should incorporate both rational thinking and | | creative experimentation (Markides 2012). | | | | The key takeaway is that effective strategic thinking involves | | continuously questioning existing approaches and being open to | | innovation while maintaining a balance between planning and | | adaptability. This combination allows organisations to remain | | competitive in rapidly changing environments (Markides 2012). | | | | **[\*\*Reference:\*\*]** | | | | Markides, C 2012, \*\'Fine-tuning your strategic thinking\'\*, | | Business Strategy Review, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 80-85. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ **[1. Context]** **1.1 Introduction** In this module, the focus is on how various writers and scholars have described the development of strategy within organisations. Over the past 60 years, this field has generated a vast amount of literature, including publications, textbooks, videos, and research, making it quite comprehensive. However, the field is also subject to changing trends, with different approaches gaining popularity at different times. When we examine the evolution of these ideas, we can observe a shift from predominantly prescriptive methods towards those that acknowledge some degree of emergence. Despite these shifts, there is a general agreement that a combination of both approaches is often necessary. When exploring how to develop a strategy, it is crucial to understand the main approaches outlined in the literature. The sheer volume of work on this subject highlights the complexity and contested nature of strategy development. Each organisation must find an approach that aligns with its current circumstances, achieves its intended outcomes, and fits its internal and external environments. In the first module, we explored the language and concepts that form the foundation of strategy development in organisations. This included examining the connections between strategy and other related organisational activities such as planning, management, and risk management. Now, in this module, we delve into the literature on strategy from the past 60 years. Although the field is vast, a close examination reveals that most approaches and success formulas are rooted in two primary perspectives: \'prescriptive\' approaches, which advocate for a rational, structured process, and \'systems thinking\' approaches, which view organisations as complex systems where strategy emerges over time. In reality, most strategies incorporate elements from both perspectives, and each organisation must determine the right blend of these approaches to suit its unique situation. Every organisation must engage in strategy work, even if it is just to review or confirm existing strategies. The challenge for organisations and their leaders is to identify an approach to strategy development that is appropriate for their specific needs. This decision should take into account the type of organisation, its current status, and the internal and external context it operates within. A close-up of a white background Description automatically generatedTop of Form  A white background with black text Description automatically generated  **[2. Making sense of 60 years of strategy development thinking]** How can we make sense of the extensive body of literature and advice on strategy development that has accumulated over the past 60 years? Scholars like Henry Mintzberg have tried to organise this wealth of information into his '10 Schools of Strategy.' While this categorisation offers valuable insights into various approaches, emphases, and the evolution of thought, it has limited practical application for our current study. Different approaches to strategy each have their strengths, and their relevance can vary depending on the stage of an organisation's lifecycle. For example, during periods of significant change, strategies that embrace flexibility and adaptability may be more useful compared to times of stability, where structured planning is often more effective. In stable environments, planning is crucial, particularly for organisations with a production-focused model. Conversely, startups or organisations facing rapid disruptions may benefit more from an entrepreneurial approach. The evolution of strategy theories reflects past practices and current needs. Theories and practices provide a snapshot of how organisations and their environments were understood at different times. After World War II, the focus was on planning due to the massive logistical operations of the war and the subsequent high demand in markets. This led to an era where planning was highly emphasized, with detailed plans seen as a key to success. However, as economies evolved, the limitations of planning became apparent. Planning and strategy, though closely related, are distinct activities addressing different aspects of an organisation's pursuit of its objectives. There is no single \'correct\' method for developing strategy. However, it is crucial for managers to be acquainted with various approaches and their historical evolution. This knowledge provides a framework for understanding the range of strategies that might be applicable when developing or revising an organisation's strategy. The fundamental concept of strategy development is that it involves guiding an organisation from its current state to a desired future state. This principle applies universally, regardless of the organisation's purpose. Later modules will delve into how to achieve this transition in a practical and intellectually sound manner. In practice, developing strategy requires a tailored approach that draws on a mix of different perspectives. Leaders must select methods that align with their organisation's unique situation, context, and challenges. What works for one organisation might not be suitable for another, and an approach that fits now might not be appropriate in the future. **[3. The rational (prescriptive) and systems thinking (emergent) approaches to strategy]** Up until this point, strategic management has been presented as a unified field. However, it\'s crucial to address a key debate within the discipline regarding its development. The diversity of opinions on strategic management stems from its wide scope and complexity. For now, we can categorise the differing views into two main approaches: the rational and systems thinking approaches. Strategy, management, and related organisational functions such as risk management, planning, governance, and human resources are deeply interconnected. Research across these fields often overlaps. For instance, developing strategy and managing an organisation both rely on insights from human behaviour studies, and understanding uncertainty is crucial for both risk management and strategy development. Given these interconnections, it\'s important to adopt a nuanced perspective on strategy development. We will explore the two main lines of thought---rational thinking and systems thinking---and their implications for strategy. Both perspectives are essential for effective strategy development. Ultimately, it is up to those involved in strategy development to judiciously apply a combination of these insights tailored to their specific context. +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | |  | +===================================+===================================+ | [**Rationalist** --- classic or | **[Systems | | prescriptive | Thinking]** | | approach] | | | | [**Systems** --- emergence and | | | the learning | | | organisation.] | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Rational thinking has | Systems thinking recognises that | | traditionally been the go-to | not all problems can be | | method for most strategic and | effectively tackled through | | managerial tasks. | rational analysis alone. | | | | | The core idea is that by breaking | Some challenges are too complex | | down a problem into its | for straightforward or even | | individual components, gathering | intricate rules to apply. In such | | data, and conducting analysis, | cases, the complexity of the | | one can formulate a well-informed | situation means that traditional | | course of action. | analytical techniques may not | | | suffice. | | This method has significantly | | | advanced our understanding of | As a result, strategy development | | many aspects of the world, | often involves organisational | | particularly through disciplines | learning as a means of navigating | | like statistics and mathematics. | situations where it's difficult | | | to predict outcomes through | | When applied to strategy, this | analysis. | | approach is generally known as | | | prescriptive. | This approach acknowledges that | | | when uncertainty cannot be fully | | | reduced, strategy must be | | | adaptive---taking actions, | | | observing results, and being | | | prepared to either continue, | | | reassess, or pivot depending on | | | how things unfold. | | | | | | The complexity of the world, | | | people, and organisations | | | necessitates a strategic approach | | | that mirrors this complexity. | | | | | | This type of strategy work is | | | typically referred to as | | | emergent. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[4. Rationalist thinking]** The rationalist approach is a perspective on understanding the world and reality, often associated with classical or prescriptive methods of strategy development. These terms---\'classic,\' \'classical,\' and \'prescriptive\'---are sometimes used interchangeably with \'rationalist\' or \'rational.\' The approach is based on the idea that people will behave logically and rationally and that the universe is organised. It asserts that cause-and-effect links may be found, despite the fact that doing so calls for a lot of work. Within the framework of management theory, this method is consistent with the classical school of thinking, which includes prominent proponents such as Taylor, Fayol, and Weber. For instance, Taylor insisted on the technical requirements of every assignment because he thought there was only one right method to complete it. He maintained that management should be in charge of identifying and enforcing this ideal approach, considering people as only another resource to be used in the production process, like a gear in a machine. This perspective, also known as reductionism, assumes that an organisation\'s activity may be divided into a number of activities or components. Then, these jobs may be accurately defined, finished with certain resources and in preset amounts of time. This reductionist method offers efficiency and structure for particular work kinds, and it is still applicable to some organisational functions today. Understanding the nature of the issues or challenges that managers and leaders encounter and how these factors impact how they approach strategy creation is the main difficulty for them. When industries shifted to manufacturing and related industries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this strategy was very helpful in forming the labour force. **4.1 The classic or prescriptive approaches** One of the major approaches to strategy, often referred to as prescriptive or classical, is grounded in a rationalist perspective of the world. The term \'prescriptive\' is derived from a 1748 dictionary definition meaning \'giving definite, precise directions,\' which aligns with how this approach views strategy work---as a set of clear guidelines to follow. The prescriptive approach emerged as societies and economies evolved in the latter half of the 20th century, marking the starting point of an evolutionary process in strategic thinking. In the rationalist view, strategic management involves identifying the purpose of an organisation and devising plans and actions to achieve that purpose. This approach implies that strategy can be planned in advance and executed over time, much like a doctor prescribing treatment for an illness. Some scholars suggest that strategic management is a linear and logical process that begins with assessing the current state and then developing strategies for the future. In this context, a prescriptive strategy is one where the objectives are predetermined, and the key elements are developed before implementation begins. The prescriptive approach involves charting the future course of the organisation based on its available resources. It operates on the assumption that strategic analysis, development, and implementation are sequentially linked. In practice, this means using environmental and organisational analysis to develop a strategy, which is then put into action. The core activities of this approach include: - Analysing the environment and organisational resources - Assessing strengths and weaknesses - Formulating and selecting strategic options - Implementing the strategy This approach is simple to implement and has worked well for several businesses in a variety of settings. However, supporters of the prescriptive method frequently claimed that managers\' improper implementation of the strategy was the real problem, rather than the strategy itself, in response to concerns and disappointing outcomes. They believed that while the approach was well-formulated, the true difficulties were in putting it into practice. Since the budgeting process has a close connection to prescriptive schools of thought, planning is essential to every effectively managed business. Planning is making sure that all required systems and resources---such as employees, buildings, and assets---are estimated and decided upon well in advance. To foresee future demands, previous data is frequently predicted. But it\'s important to understand the difference between strategy and planning. Though crucial, planning is different from strategising. Simple, informal company plans made way for elaborate, highly formulated plans created by professional planning teams throughout the post-World War II era. The market climate that supported the planning paradigm of strategy creation, where the emphasis was on fulfilling demand rather than outperforming competition, corresponded with this age of specialised strategic planners. Formal methods, training, analysis, and a strong dependence on quantitative data are all stressed by the planning school. Gary Hamel, in 1996, critiqued this approach, arguing that strategic planning is often a routine, calendar-driven process rather than an exploration of innovative possibilities. He suggested that the strategy-making process tends to be reductionist, relying on simple rules and heuristics, and operates under the assumption that the future will resemble the present. Hamel pointed out that this process is often elitist, involving only a small proportion of an organisation\'s creative potential, and questioned how often strategic planning has led to true innovation. His critique highlighted the essential problem of failing to distinguish between planning and strategising---planning is about programming, not discovering. In his view, entrusting planners with the responsibility of creating strategy is akin to asking a bricklayer to sculpt Michelangelo's Pietà. The problem with the rationalist approach is not so much in using planning tools as it is in trying to apply these skills to the process of developing strategies. Even though this method frequently entails obtaining and analysing enormous quantities of data, the results have occasionally fallen short of expectations, with complex plans collecting dust on shelves while managers and staff continue to operate mainly with no interest in their existence. **4.2 Key authors of the classic or prescriptive approaches** The foundational thinkers who first adopted the prescriptive approach to strategy were individuals like Chandler, Ansoff, and Andrews. Their work in the mid-20th century established the groundwork for modern strategy development practices. **[Chandler]** Chandler (1962) is a key figure in the development of the prescriptive approach to strategy. He defined strategy development as the process of determining an organisation\'s fundamental long-term goals and objectives, selecting a course of action, and allocating the resources needed to achieve those goals. His approach was clear and straightforward. Chandler strongly believed that an organisation\'s structure should align with its strategy, emphasising that the way an organisation is structured plays a crucial role in achieving its strategic objectives. According to Chandler, after an organisation identifies its strategy, it should then determine the most suitable organisational structure to achieve those goals. He also argued that the headquarters of multidivisional firms should focus on two main activities: 'entrepreneurial' efforts to create value for the corporation and 'administrative' functions to prevent losses and ensure efficient use of resources.  Andrews Kenneth Andrews (1971) was another significant advocate of the prescriptive approach to strategy. Andrews argued that strategy defines the business areas an organisation should focus on, as well as the type of economic and human organisation it aims to become. His approach to corporate strategy involved first establishing a set of goals and the policies, followed by creating plans to achieve those goals. According to Andrews, the statement of goals is crucial as it determines the business the organisation is involved in or aspires to enter. He viewed strategy formation as a deliberate and methodical process of conception, typically led by the chief executive. This top-down approach involves the chief executive: - Defining the organisation\'s scope and policies through a mission or vision statement - Scanning the environment, which includes: - Assessing external factors like economic conditions and technological trends. - Evaluating internal competencies and resources within the organisation. - Setting objectives for others in the organisation to achieve and implement. Although there are variations among different prescriptive or classical approaches, they all share the belief that the strategy development process is linear and rational. The following sections will explore how these approaches have evolved over time. **[5. Evolution of the prescriptive approach --- Recent adaptions]** **5.1 Kaplan and Norton and the Balanced Scorecard** The planning school experienced a resurgence in the 1990s, largely due to the introduction of the Balanced Scorecard by Kaplan and Norton. Kaplan and Norton defined strategy as a \"set of hypotheses about cause and effect.\" They introduced a strategic approach rooted in accounting principles, focusing on four key areas essential for developing and executing strategy: - Financial - Customer - Internal business processes - Learning and innovation Kaplan and Norton believed that these areas could be clearly defined and measured, providing a balanced approach that considers both short-term and long-term goals, aligns desired outcomes with the factors driving performance, and balances objective, quantifiable metrics with more subjective, qualitative measures. The Balanced Scorecard gained significant popularity in both the private and public sectors in Australia during the 1990s. It remains a highly relevant and useful tool, with thousands of organisations worldwide continuing to use it with great satisfaction. Like many management trends, it brought valuable insights and perspectives, although its potential can sometimes be overstated.  **5.2 Porter's 5 Forces model** Michael Porter\'s Five Forces model is a significant deviation from the conventional or prescriptive approach. This model offers managers a framework for analysing the competitive dynamics at work in the environment of an industry. Porter outlined five important forces that should be taken into account, arguing that each force\'s strength impacts established businesses\' ability to raise prices and turn a profit. The more powerful these forces are, the more limited a company\'s potential for profitability. While Porter\'s model has been widely influential, it has also faced criticism for its limitations, particularly its lack of consideration for external factors such as government influence and regulatory changes. For example, when applying Porter\'s 5 Forces to the supermarket industry, these external elements might play a crucial role that the model doesn\'t fully address. A diagram of a diagram Description automatically generated **5.3 Porter's Value Chain model** Porter further developed his ideas by introducing the concept of the Value Chain. The Value Chain analysis is based on a straightforward, linear concept that every activity within an organisation should contribute value to the final products or services. If an activity does not add value, it should be re-evaluated or modified.  **5.4 The Boston Consulting Group (or Growth Share matrix)** The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) played a significant role in shaping analytical business strategy, particularly with the development of the Growth Share Matrix in 1968 by BCG\'s founder, Bruce Henderson. This straightforward matrix simplified strategy by focusing on just two factors: relative market share and industry growth rate. The success of the BCG matrix led to widespread adoption and a surge in the use of similar matrices. These frameworks helped companies analyse their products based on growth and market share, providing insights into which products could best capitalise on market share growth opportunities. Over time, matrices became quite popular, with some expanding into more complex versions with up to nine boxes. A diagram of a dog and a star Description automatically generated **5.5 Portfolio planning** During the same period, another strategic tool known as portfolio planning was developed. This approach assists executives in evaluating their organisation\'s potential for success across different industries. It provides recommendations on actions to take within each industry and offers guidance on how to allocate resources effectively. While portfolio planning can be a valuable tool, it does have some significant limitations 1. First of all, when assessing a company\'s activities within an industry, it tends to oversimplify the complexity of competition by concentrating on only two factors: relative market share and industry growth rate. In actuality, strategic decisions need to take into account much more factors than simply these two. 2. Second, depending on which quadrant their business unit is located in the matrix, portfolio planning may cause problems with employee motivation. **5.6 Care with the use of models and matrices** Categorisation matrices present a significant challenge---despite being straightforward, user-friendly, and practical, they can sometimes lead to oversimplification. It's crucial to ensure that these tools are used to encourage learning and strategic thinking rather than simply arriving at a quick answer. The real value lies in the discussions and debates that arise when participants attempt to place an item within the matrix. Through this process, they might discover gaps in their knowledge or realise that the exercise risks becoming a mere checkbox activity, losing its deeper strategic purpose. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Question A** **Think about your organisation and try using the BCG matrix to categorise the products or services that your organisation produces. If you are in the public sector, try doing it with policies.** In ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **5.7 Limits of rationalism** The classical school of thought in strategy development emphasised formal, complex, and often rigid planning and analysis methods. While these approaches had their advantages, particularly in specific contexts, there was growing concern about their limitations. Issues such as managing change, evolving corporate culture, coping with turbulent environments, and implementing total quality management programmes started to dominate the agendas of consultants and business schools. Dissatisfaction with the rationalist approach became widespread, partly due to the confusion it caused among executives, managers, and employees about the boundaries between planning and strategy. It became clear that while some activities were distinctly planning and others were strategic, there was an overlap where people could easily revert to their familiar ways of thinking and working. A recurring argument was that failures in strategy were often attributed to poor implementation. While this might be true in some cases, it raises the critical point that a well-formulated strategy should also be implementable. No matter how well-crafted a strategy is, if it cannot be executed effectively within the organisation, it loses its value. The idea of separating strategy formulation from implementation is flawed. These two aspects of strategy are deeply interconnected, and a great strategy that is poorly implemented is, in essence, ineffective. The classical school\'s reliance on linearity and predictability leaves little room for more dynamic processes like emergence, learning, and cognition, which are essential in viewing an organisation as a complex, adaptive system. **[6. Systems thinking or emergent perspectives]** The rise of globalisation and progressively changing surroundings brought to light the fact that the future looked less certain and less like the past. Organisations were now faced with a level of change and unpredictability that was beyond the capabilities of the rigid, highly organised analytical methods to strategy that had previously dominated the field. For example, the positioning school works under the assumption that formulating a strategy involves choosing the best choice from those produced by a comprehensive analytical process. This perspective replaces planners with analysts who guide managers, arguing that strategies are already in existence and only need to be found with the appropriate tools and methods. This method emphasises the systematic and logical process of formulating strategies, frequently ignoring the significance of learning, cognition, and emergence. If strategy is broadened to encompass employees and organisational arrangements, it risks becoming so all-encompassing that it complicates the process and obscures the direct chain of causality from the competitive environment to position, activities, employee skills, and overall organisation. The assumption that organisations and markets operate as linear systems is increasingly challenged by experts and researchers. Successful organisations frequently achieve their status without rigorously adhering to the procedures of assessments, development, and implementation inferred by the prescriptive or rationalist schools. Since Lindblom first discussed this concept in 1959, there has been recognition that methods might be adaptable and opportunistic rather than rigidly planned. Scholars such as March (1965) challenged whether the top-down, rationalist approach to strategy formulation was compatible with the real dynamics of organisations and how they actually operated in the early 1960s. Management and strategy theories shouldn\'t rely on too simplistic models; instead, they should take into account real-world situations. Organisations are complex structures of people and interactions that are always changing, not simply linear systems. March contended that a more appropriate way to see organisations is as evolving collaborations, where opposing demands and objectives are irregularly and inadequately coordinated and where change happens gradually. The rationalist paradigm ignores the facts of these organisational dynamics, in which top management selects and enforces a pattern of conduct. Linear techniques lose their effectiveness and may even be detrimental when a complex organisation operates inside a more complex system, such as its external environment. This does not imply that the rationalist or prescriptive approach is worthless. Rather, it implies that these methods should take into account the complex nature of organisations, the necessity of slow changes, and the requirement for flexible approaches. Organisations still need some structure and stability in order to function well, and the rationalist method may still offer a helpful foundation for developing strategies. The majority of organisations create their strategies in a gradual and flexible manner, but careful analysis and control should never be sacrificed.  **6.1 Learning organisation** Hamel (1993) posits that in today\'s complex and rapidly evolving environment, innovation in strategy is crucial for achieving success. Strategic innovation involves reimagining industry models to: - Deliver new value to customers, - Outmanoeuvre competitors, and - Generate new wealth for all stakeholders. This concept of innovation aligns with the idea of learning as an iterative process where new insights are continually developed. Although the classical approaches also aimed to achieve these outcomes, the emergent school focuses on using a systems approach rather than a linear one. In modern competition, the focus has shifted to a \"race to learn,\" where accumulating skills and competencies is as crucial as competing for market share or position. This perspective views strategy as a contest to acquire and leverage resources rather than simply competing in the traditional sense. Strategic learning and similar concepts challenge the linear models of classical strategy schools, and attempts to integrate them have had varying degrees of success. Tom Peters, a prominent advocate of the learning school, sought a new paradigm that minimized layers of management and control. Peters extensively engaged with both business and academic communities, exploring innovative practices across various sectors domestically and internationally. While working at McKinsey, Tom Peters, along with Robert Waterman, developed the McKinsey 7-S Framework. This model includes three \'hard\' S\'s and four \'soft\' S\'s, each focusing on different aspects of organisational effectiveness: **[Hard S\'s:]** - **Structure:** This refers to the organisational chart and how different roles and departments are arranged. - **Systems:** These are the established procedures and routines for reporting and operational pro cesses. - **Strategy:** This involves the planned course of action that directs how resources are allocated to achieve set objectives. **[Soft S\'s:]** - **Shared Values:** These are the core beliefs and important meanings that an organisation instils in its members. - **Staff:** This describes the key categories of personnel within the organisation and their roles. - **Skills:** These are the unique capabilities and competencies of the organisation's key personnel. - **Style:** This refers to the management approach and cultural style of the organisation, including how leaders conduct themselves to achieve the organisation's goals. A diagram of a structure Description automatically generated In their book \*In Search of Excellence\*, Peters and Waterman introduced a people-focused approach to management that marked a shift from purely rational analysis to a consideration of social complexity. They outlined eight principles that they believed were hallmarks of successful companies: - A preference for action - Proximity to customers - Encouragement of autonomy and entrepreneurship - Emphasis on productivity through people - Hands-on management and strong values - Focus on core competencies - Simple organizational structure with a lean workforce - Balancing flexibility with control Despite offering valuable insights, their work had significant limitations. Subsequent performance data revealed that the companies they highlighted as \"excellent\" only outperformed the stock market by about 1% over the five years after the book\'s release. In contrast, companies that were not featured in the book outperformed the market by approximately 12%. This discrepancy pointed to weaknesses in the evidence and methodology supporting their claims. **6.2 Emergent strategy** This perspective is grounded in the idea that both organisations and their environments are highly complex, often behaving in non-linear ways. To tackle this complexity, scholars have started viewing organisations and their interactions with the environment as complex adaptive systems. A complex system is essentially one where numerous independent elements or agents interact, resulting in emergent outcomes that are challenging, if not impossible, to predict by examining the individual components alone. When applied to organisations, complex adaptive systems are characterised by distributed decision-making and behaviour rather than centralised control or rigid, mechanistic structures. Organisations evolve in response to the feedback they receive from their environment. A key aspect of complex adaptive systems is the concept of emergence, though defining exactly what emergence entails remains a challenge. Contrary to the rationalist perspective, it is clear that observing and assessing how companies behave and interact with their environment cannot be predicted. Mintzberg is a prominent opponent of the planned approach to strategy-making, arguing that the creation and implementation of a strategy are interconnected. According to him, developing a strategy requires both intended and emergent elements; completely planned strategies are extremely uncommon. The concept of emergent strategy suggests that within an organisation, strategy often develops organically, emerging from practices in a bottom-up or unplanned manner. Since it isn\'t directed, it evolves from activities within a complex system and cannot be prescribed in advance. Emergent strategies can sometimes fail, but they may also succeed in shifting the organisation\'s overall direction. Emergent strategy-making tends to occur at levels where managers are directly engaged with new technological developments and changing market conditions, and where they have some control over budgets. This view sees strategic decision-making as a continuous, inductive process of change. It can be path-dependent and incremental, with strategies that continuously change and are incorporated into the organisation. Mintzberg doesn\'t suggest that all strategies should solely rely on emergence. He acknowledges the concept of \'intended strategy,\' which refers to the strategy developed by the top management team. However, even in this case, the process isn\'t purely rational; it\'s shaped by negotiation, bargaining, and compromise among various individuals and groups within the organisation. On the other hand, \'realised strategy,\' which is the strategy that actually gets implemented, often differs from what was initially intended. This realised strategy is influenced by both the intended plan and emergent strategy---decisions that arise from the complex dynamics within the organisation. As managers interpret the intended strategy and adapt to evolving external conditions, such as a new product not gaining traction with customers or changes in the regulatory environment, certain aspects of the original strategy may be altered or abandoned. Therefore, the realised strategy is a blend of deliberate intentions and emergent factors that unfold over time.  When a strategy shifts from its original \'intended\' form to a \'realised\' strategy that includes emergent elements, these unplanned aspects become integrated into the final strategy. A striking example of emergent strategy on a large scale was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, where the crisis significantly influenced organisations, leading to various unforeseen outcomes. In such scenarios, management faces the critical decision of whether to embrace these emergent changes, which can reshape the organisation\'s strategy. Failing to do so can result in missed opportunities or unaddressed threats. Several factors can trigger the emergence of new elements in a strategy, including: - **Internal factors:** such as the departure or arrival of a key individual with unique expertise, the loss of a vital resource, or the chance to acquire an asset that could enhance the organisation\'s performance. - **External factors:** like economic shifts, or the entry of new competitors or potential collaborators. Mintzberg highlighted that most strategies are a mix of rational planning and emergent adaptation. The key challenge lies in managing the blend of these forces to achieve a positive outcome for the organisation. However, the concept of emergent strategy is not without its detractors. Some critics argue that it opens the door to potentially irrational processes, where one person's idea of necessary adaptation might be seen by others as disorganisation or loss of control. Despite this, many experts believe that the emergent approach is especially useful for understanding strategy development and implementation in highly complex and ever-changing environments. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Question B** **Which definition would help you explain to your organisation's leadership what the concept of strategy means? Why is that particular definition helpful?** In -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **[7. Other approaches and perspectives]** One of the most straightforward methods for developing a strategy is to replicate the approach that another organisation has successfully implemented. This idea often appeals, particularly when it is framed as adopting \'best practice.\' However, it raises the question: which elements of a competitor\'s success should be emulated? Many Western companies, for instance, were impressed by Japan\'s manufacturing prowess. Japanese cars might not have been the most stylish, but they were renowned for their reliability. The challenge for Western companies was figuring out which aspects of Japan\'s manufacturing approach were worth copying. The complexity lay in the fact that Japan\'s success stemmed from a unique combination of factors. It was difficult to discern which elements were merely superficial and which ones genuinely contributed to the organisation\'s ability to consistently produce high-quality products. **[8. Fads in strategy]** When developing and implementing strategy, organisations must navigate a wide range of variables that can significantly influence the outcome. The primary challenge lies in determining how much effort should be invested in strategic planning compared to maintaining the organisation\'s ongoing operations to achieve its goals. Adding to this complexity is the need to manage numerous variables, which has led to the rise of management fads. A management fad typically follows a predictable pattern. **Typical lifecycle of a fad:** 1. A group of academics conducts research on a sample of organisations to identify causal relationships between certain practices and outcomes. These findings are then distilled into an explanation, sometimes framed as a theory, and branded with a catchy name as \'best practice.\' This often leads to the publication of an accessible management book, and a new fad is born. A notable example is Tom Peters, who published numerous books, including 'In Search of Excellence'. However, within 18 months of its release, a significant percentage of the companies he praised had gone bankrupt, and their average share price gain over the next decade was 200% lower than the stock market average. 2. Consultants and business schools then develop comprehensive 'recipes' based on the new fad, often involving extensive consultancy services. These are typically supported by change management programs or cultural alignment initiatives to help employees adopt the new practices. 3. Management teams within organisations take these recipes and create implementation plans, outlining steps to achieve the promised benefits and significant improvements. However, in many cases, employees are still recovering from the previous initiative. 4. Once the fad has run its course in the corporate world, consultants may shift their focus to applying \'industry best practice\' to government departments and agencies. While these fads can sometimes provide valuable insights for those working within organisations, the biggest issue is their tendency to suggest a one-size-fits-all approach. The emergence of such fads highlights the inherent difficulty and complexity of running an organisation and developing effective strategy. **[Case study]** +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Question 1 -- A** | | | | **Read the Strategic Plan FY 22-24 for the Greater Metropolitan | | Cemeteries Trust and apply** | | | | **what you have learned in this module to the issues outlined in it | | by considering the** | | | | **following issues:** | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **How would you explain what strategy development is and what might | | be of assistance to the trust?** | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Strategy development is the process of defining an organisation\'s | | long-term direction and the means to achieve its goals, taking into | | account its mission, values, and the external environment. This | | involves analysing the internal and external factors that can affect | | the organisation, setting clear objectives, and determining the best | | course of action to reach those objectives. | | | | For a trust, strategy development is crucial as it provides a | | structured approach to fulfilling its purpose amidst various | | challenges and opportunities. This could involve assessing the | | trust's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT | | analysis), and identifying key areas where the trust can make the | | most impact. Additionally, involving stakeholders in the process can | | ensure that the strategy aligns with the trust\'s values and mission | | while remaining adaptable to changes in the environment. | | | | Assistance for the trust might include employing tools like | | environmental scanning to stay aware of external changes, using | | scenario planning to prepare for different future possibilities, and | | regularly reviewing and adjusting the strategy to ensure it remains | | relevant and effective. Engaging with experienced consultants or | | leveraging industry best practices, while being cautious of fads, | | could also provide valuable insights and guidance. Ultimately, the | | strategy should be a living document, continuously evolving as the | | trust grows and as circumstances change. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Question 1 -- B** | | | | **Read the Strategic Plan FY 22-24 for the Greater Metropolitan | | Cemeteries Trust and apply** | | | | **what you have learned in this module to the issues outlined in it | | by considering the** | | | | **following issues:** | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Think about how strategy may help this trust and how, as a | | governance professional, you may be able to help them achieve their | | purpose.** | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Strategy can be a powerful tool for the trust to align its actions | | with its purpose and ensure that its resources are effectively | | utilised to achieve its goals. For the trust, having a clear and | | well-defined strategy can provide direction, help prioritise | | initiatives, and guide decision-making processes. It also enables the | | trust to anticipate and respond to challenges and opportunities in | | its environment, ensuring that it remains resilient and sustainable | | in the long term. | | | | As a governance professional, my role in helping the trust achieve | | its purpose would involve several key activities: | | | | 1. **Facilitating Strategic Planning:** | | | | I would work closely with the trust\'s board and leadership to | | facilitate the strategic planning process. | | | | This would involve helping them articulate their mission, vision, and | | values, and then translating these into specific, measurable goals. I | | would also assist in conducting a thorough analysis of the internal | | and external environment, including stakeholder expectations, to | | ensure that the strategy is grounded in reality. | | | | 2. **Ensuring Compliance and Alignment:** | | | | A crucial aspect of my role would be to ensure that the strategy is | | aligned with the trust's legal and regulatory obligations. I would | | help the trust navigate the complex landscape of compliance, ensuring | | that all strategic initiatives are in line with governance frameworks | | and ethical standards. This alignment not only protects the trust but | | also enhances its credibility and reputation. | | | | 3. **Risk Management:** | | | | Part of developing and implementing strategy involves identifying and | | managing risks that could impact the trust's ability to achieve its | | objectives. I would help integrate risk management into the strategic | | planning process, ensuring that potential risks are identified, | | assessed, and mitigated. This proactive approach would help the trust | | avoid or minimise disruptions and adapt more effectively to changes | | in the environment. | | | | 4. **Stakeholder Engagement:** | | | | Engaging with stakeholders is essential for the trust to build strong | | relationships and secure the support needed to achieve its purpose. I | | would facilitate stakeholder engagement by ensuring that their | | perspectives are considered in the strategic planning process. This | | would involve transparent communication and creating channels for | | ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, including beneficiaries, donors, | | and partners. | | | | 5. **Monitoring and Evaluation:** | | | | To ensure that the strategy is being effectively implemented, I would | | establish mechanisms for monitoring progress and evaluating outcomes. | | This could include setting up key performance indicators (KPIs) and | | regular reporting processes. By tracking the trust\'s progress | | against its strategic goals, we can make informed adjustments as | | needed, ensuring that the strategy remains relevant and effective. | | | | 6. **Adapting to Change:** | | | | Finally, I would support the trust in remaining agile and responsive | | to change. This involves helping the trust anticipate future trends | | and challenges, and ensuring that the strategy is flexible enough to | | adapt. As part of this, I would promote a culture of continuous | | learning and improvement within the trust, encouraging innovation and | | the exploration of new opportunities. | | | | In summary, as a governance professional, I would play a pivotal role | | in guiding the trust through the strategy development process, | | ensuring that it is robust, compliant, and aligned with the trust's | | purpose. My efforts would focus on facilitating a clear strategic | | direction, managing risks, engaging stakeholders, and ensuring that | | the trust remains adaptable and resilient in a dynamic environment. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Question 1 -- C** | | | | **Read the Strategic Plan FY 22-24 for the Greater Metropolitan | | Cemeteries Trust and apply** | | | | **what you have learned in this module to the issues outlined in it | | by considering the** | | | | **following issues:** | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Consider what level of strategy they need, their objectives and how | | they ensure it is fit for-purpose.** | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | When considering the level of strategy the trust needs, it\'s | | essential to align the strategy with its specific objectives and | | ensure that the approach taken is fit-for-purpose. Given that trusts | | often have focused missions and operate within a defined scope, the | | strategy should be tailored to address both the broader | | organisational goals and the more specific operational objectives | | that will drive the trust\'s success. | | | | **Level of Strategy** | | | | The trust likely requires a 'corporate-level strategy' that defines | | its overall direction and how it plans to achieve its mission. This | | would include high-level decisions about the trust\'s purpose, the | | services it offers, the resources it allocates, and how it positions | | itself within the broader community or sector it serves. Depending on | | the trust\'s size and scope, it might also need a 'business-level | | strategy' that focuses on how to deliver value through its specific | | programs or services. | | | | **Objectives** | | | | The objectives of the trust would typically revolve around fulfilling | | its mission, which could include delivering services to | | beneficiaries, managing resources effectively, and maintaining | | financial sustainability. These objectives should be clearly defined | | and measurable, providing a basis for evaluating the trust\'s success | | over time. Examples of specific objectives might include increasing | | the number of beneficiaries served, enhancing the quality of | | services, securing new funding sources, or improving operational | | efficiency. | | | | **Ensuring Fit-for-Purpose Strategy** | | | | To ensure that the strategy is fit-for-purpose, several key steps | | should be taken: | | | | 1. **Alignment with Mission and Values:** | | | | The strategy must be directly aligned with the trust\'s mission and | | core values. This ensures that all strategic initiatives support the | | overarching purpose of the trust and reflect its ethical and | | operational principles. | | | | 2. **Stakeholder Involvement:** | | | | Engaging stakeholders in the strategy development process is crucial. | | This includes trustees, staff, beneficiaries, donors, and partners. | | Their input can provide valuable insights into the trust\'s | | strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges, helping to | | shape a strategy that is both relevant and effective. | | | | 3. **Realistic and Achievable Goals:** | | | | The strategy should set goals that are ambitious but realistic, | | taking into account the trust\'s current capabilities, resources, and | | external environment. This includes setting clear, measurable | | objectives with defined timelines and assigning responsibility for | | achieving these goals. | | | | 4. **Adaptability and Flexibility:** | | | | Given the dynamic nature of the environment in which the trust | | operates, the strategy should be flexible enough to adapt to changes. | | This involves regularly reviewing and updating the strategy to | | respond to new opportunities, risks, or shifts in the external | | environment. | | | | 5. **Resource Allocation:** | | | | The strategy must ensure that resources---whether financial, human, | | or physical---are allocated efficiently and effectively. This | | involves prioritising initiatives that will have the greatest impact | | on the trust\'s objectives and ensuring that resources are aligned | | with strategic priorities. | | | | 6. **Monitoring and Evaluation:** | | | | Implementing a robust monitoring and evaluation framework is | | essential for ensuring the strategy remains on track and | | fit-for-purpose. This includes setting up key performance indicators | | (KPIs), regular progress reviews, and mechanisms for adjusting the | | strategy as needed. | | | | 7. **Risk Management:** | | | | A fit-for-purpose strategy must incorporate a comprehensive risk | | management approach. This means identifying potential risks that | | could impact the trust\'s ability to achieve its objectives and | | developing strategies to mitigate those risks. This approach ensures | | that the trust is prepared for uncertainties and can respond | | proactively to challenges. | | | | 8. **Long-term Sustainability:** | | | | The strategy should focus not just on immediate objectives but also | | on the long-term sustainability of the trust. This includes planning | | for financial sustainability, building capacity, and ensuring that | | the trust can continue to fulfil its mission in the future. | | | | **Conclusion** | | | | In summary, the trust needs a well-defined, fit-for-purpose strategy | | that aligns with its mission, involves stakeholders, sets realistic | | goals, and remains adaptable to change. As a governance professional, | | my role would be to guide the trust through this process, ensuring | | that the strategy is both effective in achieving the trust's | | objectives and sustainable in the long term. This approach would help | | the trust fulfil its purpose and navigate the complexities of its | | operating environment with confidence and clarity. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | What is the strengths and weaknesses of the prescriptive and emergent | | strategy approaches systems? | +=======================================================================+ | When evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of prescriptive and | | emergent strategy approaches, it\'s important to understand how each | | system operates and the context in which they are most effective. | | | | **[Prescriptive Strategy Approach]** | | | | **Strengths:** | | | | 1. **Clarity and Direction:** | | | | - The prescriptive approach offers a clear, structured plan that | | provides direction to an organisation. It outlines specific steps | | and objectives, making it easier to align resources and efforts | | towards a common goal. | | | | 2. **Predictability:** | | | | - With a well-defined plan in place, the organisation can | | anticipate outcomes and measure progress against predetermined | | benchmarks. This predictability is particularly valuable in | | stable environments where changes are minimal. | | | | 3. **Control and Accountability:** | | | | - Since the strategy is developed and approved by top management, | | there is a higher level of control over its implementation. This | | allows for easier tracking of responsibilities and accountability | | throughout the organisation. | | | | 4. **Resource Allocation:** | | | | - The prescriptive approach ensures that resources are allocated | | efficiently and in alignment with strategic priorities. This | | helps in avoiding wastage and focusing on initiatives that | | directly contribute to the organisational goals. | | | | **Weaknesses:** | | | | 1. **Rigidity:** | | | | - One of the main drawbacks of the prescriptive approach is its | | inflexibility. In a rapidly changing environment, the strategy | | may become outdated quickly, making it difficult for the | | organisation to adapt to new challenges or opportunities. | | | | 2. **Overemphasis on Planning:** | | | | - The prescriptive approach often requires significant time and | | resources to develop a detailed plan. This can lead to an | | overemphasis on planning at the expense of action, delaying the | | organisation's response to emerging issues. | | | | 3. **Limited Innovation:** | | | | - By sticking to a rigid plan, the organisation may miss out on | | innovative ideas or opportunities that arise unexpectedly. The | | focus on following a predetermined path can stifle creativity and | | reduce the organisation's ability to capitalise on new trends. | | | | 4. **Top-Down Approach:** | | | | - Prescriptive strategies are typically developed by senior | | management with little input from lower-level employees. This can | | lead to a disconnect between strategy and implementation, as | | those who are directly involved in the execution may not fully | | understand or agree with the plan. | | | | **[Emergent Strategy Approach]** | | | | **Strengths:** | | | | 1. **Flexibility and Adaptability:** | | | | - The emergent strategy approach is highly flexible, allowing the | | organisation to adapt quickly to changes in the environment. This | | responsiveness is particularly valuable in dynamic and uncertain | | contexts where unexpected challenges or opportunities arise. | | | | 2. **Encourages Innovation:** | | | | - Since emergent strategies develop organically from within the | | organisation, there is greater scope for creativity and | | innovation. Employees at all levels can contribute ideas, leading | | to a more diverse range of strategic options. | | | | 3. **Bottom-Up Engagement**: | | | | - Emergent strategies often involve input from a broader range of | | employees, leading to greater buy-in and commitment. This | | bottom-up engagement can result in strategies that are more | | practical and closely aligned with the realities of day-to-day | | operations. | | | | 4. **Realistic Implementation:** | | | | - As emergent strategies evolve from actual practices and | | experiences, they are often more realistic and grounded in the | | operational context of the organisation. This can lead to more | | effective and achievable outcomes. | | | | **Weaknesses:** | | | | 1. **Lack of Clarity and Direction:** | | | | - The emergent approach can sometimes lead to a lack of clear | | direction, as the strategy is not predetermined but evolves over | | time. This can create confusion and make it difficult for the | | organisation to stay focused on its long-term objectives. | | | | 2. **Inconsistent Decision-Making:** | | | | - Without a clear plan, decision-making can become inconsistent and | | fragmented. Different parts of the organisation may pursue | | different priorities, leading to a lack of coherence in the | | overall strategy. | | | | 3. **Resource Inefficiency:** | | | | - The emergent approach can lead to inefficiencies in resource | | allocation, as the strategy may change frequently and resources | | may not be optimally deployed. This can result in wastage or | | misalignment with the organisation's broader goals. | | | | 4. **Potential for Chaos:** | | | | - The flexibility of the emergent approach can sometimes lead to | | chaos or a sense of drift within the organisation. Without a | | clear framework to guide decision-making, the organisation may | | struggle to maintain control and focus. | | | | **Conclusion** | | | | In summary, both the prescriptive and emergent strategy approaches | | have their strengths and weaknesses. The prescriptive approach | | provides clarity, predictability, and control but can be rigid and | | stifle innovation. On the other hand, the emergent approach offers | | flexibility, encourages innovation, and engages employees but can | | lack direction and lead to inconsistent decision-making. The key is | | to strike a balance between these approaches, leveraging the | | strengths of each to develop a strategy that is both effective and | | adaptable to changing circumstances. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Which type of organisations will fall under Prescriptive Strategy | | Approach and under Emergent Strategy Approach? | +=======================================================================+ | When considering which types of organisations are more likely to | | adopt a prescriptive strategy approach versus an emergent strategy | | approach, it's important to look at factors like the organisation\'s | | environment, size, industry, and overall strategic goals. | | | | **Organisations that Typically Adopt a Prescriptive Strategy | | Approach:** | | | | 1. **Large Corporations:** | | | | Big companies with established structures and clear hierarchies, such | | as multinational corporations (MNCs), often favour a prescriptive | | strategy. These organisations typically operate in relatively stable | | environments where long-term planning and control are crucial for | | maintaining their market position. | | | | Examples include automotive manufacturers, consumer goods companies, | | and large banks. | | | | Why: The prescriptive strategy provides the control and consistency | | necessary to manage large-scale operations and ensure alignment with | | corporate goals. | | | | 2. **Government Agencies:** | | | | Public sector organisations, including government departments and | | regulatory bodies, often rely on prescriptive strategies. These | | organisations usually need to adhere to strict regulations, policies, | | and procedures, which makes a structured and planned approach | | necessary. Stability and predictability are key for these entities, | | especially when delivering public services or implementing national | | policies. | | | | Examples include National health services, defence departments, | | public education systems. | | | | Why: The prescriptive approach ensures that these organisations meet | | legal, regulatory, and policy requirements while delivering public | | services effectively. | | | | 3. **Traditional Industries:** | | | | Industries that have not seen rapid change or innovation, such as | | utilities, infrastructure, and heavy manufacturing, are more inclined | | towards prescriptive strategies. These industries often operate with | | long-term capital investments and require detailed planning to ensure | | efficiency and compliance with safety standards. | | | | Examples include Automotive manufacturers, electronics producers. | | | | Why: Prescriptive strategies ensure that production processes are | | efficient, costs are controlled, and products meet quality standards. | | | | 4. **Organisations in Highly Regulated Environments:** | | | | Businesses operating in sectors with stringent regulations, such as | | pharmaceuticals, finance, or aerospace, typically use prescriptive | | strategies. These sectors demand detailed planning and adherence to | | regulatory requirements, where a controlled and predictable approach | | is critical for success. | | | | Examples include Banking, pharmaceuticals, utilities. | | | | Why: The prescriptive strategy helps maintain compliance, manage | | risks, and avoid costly legal penalties. | | | | **Organisations that Typically Adopt an Emergent Strategy Approach:** | | | | 1. **Startups and Small Businesses:** | | | | Startups and smaller firms often embrace emergent strategies due to | | their need for flexibility and agility. These organisations operate | | in dynamic environments where market conditions and opportunities can | | change rapidly. Since they often lack the resources to engage in | | long-term planning, they rely on adapting to circumstances as they | | unfold. | | | | Examples include Tech startups, creative agencies, small-scale | | retail. | | | | Why: The emergent approach allows them to remain flexible, pivot | | strategies as needed, and innovate in response to customer feedback | | and market trends. | | | | 2. **Tech Companies and Innovators:** | | | | Companies in fast-paced industries like technology, digital media, | | and biotech are more likely to use emergent strategies. These | | organisations need to innovate continuously and respond quickly to | | new technological developments, market trends, or consumer demands. | | They often operate in uncertain environments where the ability to | | pivot and adjust strategies is essential. | | | | Examples include Software development firms, social media platforms, | | tech disruptors like Uber or Airbnb. | | | | Why: The emergent approach allows them to iterate quickly, adopt new | | technologies, and respond to competitors' actions and technological | | advancements. | | | | 3. **Creative Industries:** | | | | Organisations in creative sectors, such as advertising, fashion, and | | entertainment, also tend to favour emergent strategies. These | | industries thrive on creativity, experimentation, and responding to | | cultural shifts. A more flexible, bottom-up approach allows these | | organisations to remain relevant and innovative in a rapidly changing | | environment. | | | | Examples include Film production companies, advertising agencies, | | design firms. | | | | Why: The emergent strategy enables continuous learning, | | experimentation, and the ability to respond to evolving artistic and | | market demands. | | | | 4. **Nonprofit Organisations:** | | | | Many nonprofits operate in complex and unpredictable environments | | where the needs of the communities they serve can change quickly. | | They may also rely heavily on external funding, which can be | | uncertain. As a result, nonprofits often adopt emergent strategies to | | stay adaptable and responsive to new opportunities or challenges. | | | | Examples include Local NGOs, social innovation projects. | | | | Why: The emergent strategy helps them adapt to changing social needs, | | donor priorities, and community feedback. | | | | **Conclusion** | | | | In essence, larger, more established organisations in stable or | | highly regulated environments are more likely to use a prescriptive | | strategy approach, while smaller, more innovative, or | | creatively-driven organisations operating in dynamic environments | | often favour an emergent strategy approach. The choice between these | | approaches depends on the organisation's need for stability versus | | flexibility, as well as its ability to predict and control versus | | adapt and innovate. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | What would you say is the barriers to flexibility and adaptability in | | the system - how do you overcome them? | +=======================================================================+ | When it comes to flexibility and adaptability in organisational | | systems, several barriers can hinder the ability to respond | | effectively to changing circumstances. Overcoming these barriers is | | crucial for organisations to remain competitive and resilient. | | | | **Barriers to Flexibility and Adaptability:** | | | | 1. **Rigid Hierarchical Structures:** | | | | Traditional organisational structures with strict hierarchies often | | create bottlenecks in decision-making. The layers of approval | | required can slow down responses to changes, making the organisation | | less agile. | | | | - **Overcoming It:** | | | | To counteract this, organisations can flatten their structures, | | delegate decision-making authority to lower levels, and encourage a | | more decentralised approach. This allows for quicker responses and | | empowers employees to act on emerging opportunities or threats. | | | | 2. **Resistance to Change:** | | | | Employees and management may resist changes due to a preference for | | the status quo, fear of the unknown, or concerns about job security. | | This resistance can stifle innovation and adaptability. | | | | - **Overcoming It:** | | | | Building a culture that values continuous learning and openness to | | change is essential. This can be achieved by involving employees in | | the change process, providing training and support, and clearly | | communicating the benefits of change. | | | | 3. **Inflexible Processes and Policies:** | | | | Organisations often have established processes and policies that are | | designed for stability and consistency. However, these can become | | obstacles when flexibility is needed, as they may not accommodate | | rapid adjustments or unconventional solutions. | | | | - **Overcoming It:** | | | | Regularly reviewing and updating processes and policies to ensure | | they remain relevant is key. Introducing more adaptable frameworks, | | such as agile methodologies, can also help in making processes more | | flexible. | | | | 4. **Lack of Diversity in Thinking:** | | | | Homogeneity in decision-making teams can lead to a narrow perspective | | on problems and solutions, reducing the organisation's ability to | | adapt to new challenges or opportunities. | | | | - **Overcoming It:** | | | | Encouraging diversity in teams---be it in terms of background, | | experience, or expertise---can lead to a broader range of ideas and | | approaches. Promoting an inclusive environment where diverse | | perspectives are valued can significantly enhance adaptability. | | | | 5. **Inadequate Information Flow:** | | | | Poor communication and information silos within an organisation can | | prevent the timely sharing of critical information, which is | | necessary for making informed and adaptive decisions. | | | | - **Overcoming It:** | | | | Establishing open communication channels, fostering a culture of | | transparency, and utilising technology to improve information flow | | can help break down silos. Regular cross-functional meetings and | | collaboration tools can also support better information sharing. | | | | 6. **Short-Term Focus:** | | | | Organisations that focus too heavily on short-term goals and | | immediate financial performance may neglect the importance of | | long-term adaptability and flexibility. | | | | - **Overcoming It:** | | | | Balancing short-term objectives with long-term strategic goals is | | important. This can be achieved by incorporating adaptability and | | innovation into the organisation's key performance indicators (KPIs) | | and ensuring that leadership is committed to sustaining long-term | | growth. | | | | 7. **Limited Resources:** | | | | A lack of financial, human, or technological resources can constrain | | an organisation's ability to pivot or adapt when needed. | | | | - **Overcoming It:** | | | | Strategic resource allocation, including investing in technology that | | supports agility and flexibility, is crucial. Additionally, | | organisations can explore partnerships or collaborations to pool | | resources and share risks. | | | | **Conclusion** | | | | Overcoming these barriers requires a proactive approach to | | organisational design, culture, and leadership. By fostering a | | culture of adaptability, streamlining decision-making processes, | | embracing diversity, and ensuring effective communication, | | organisations can enhance their flexibility and better navigate the | | complexities of today's business environment. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ How would you explain what strategy development is and what might be of assistance to the trust? \*\*Strategy development\*\* is the process by which an organisation determines the best course of action to achieve its long-term goals and objectives. For the cemetery trust, this involves setting a clear direction, identifying priorities, and determining how to allocate resources effectively to overcome the specific challenges they face. Given the trust\'s context---a small, volunteer-based organisation with a wide range of responsibilities---there are several key aspects that could assist in their strategy development: 1\. \*\*Stakeholder Engagement and Input:\*\* Involve all members of the trust, volunteers, and possibly community members in discussions about the cemetery\'s future. This will help ensure that the strategy reflects a broad range of perspectives and gains buy-in from those who will implement it. 2\. \*\*Clear Vision and Objectives:\*\* The trust needs to define what success looks like in both the short and long term. This could involve ensuring the cemetery\'s financial sustainability, preserving its historical and botanical value, and meeting the community\'s evolving needs. 3\. \*\*Risk Management and Compliance:\*\* Given the legislative requirements and the need for perpetual maintenance, the strategy should include a robust risk management plan. This could address issues such as succession planning, financial sustainability, and the preservation of historical records. 4\. \*\*Cultural and Conflict Management:\*\* The trust\'s diverse membership can be both a strength and a potential source of conflict. Developing a strategy that includes conflict resolution mechanisms and ways to harness this diversity productively will be crucial. 5\. \*\*Resource Allocation and Fundraising:\*\* As volunteers, the trust members may have limited time and resources. The strategy should include plans for efficient resource use, potentially seeking additional funding or support to ensure ongoing operations and future developments. 6\. \*\*Adaptability and Future-Proofing:\*\* With changing burial practices, rising demand, and evolving community needs, the trust's strategy should be adaptable. This might involve planning for natural burials, digitalising records, and anticipating shifts in cultural or religious practices. In summary, strategy development for the trust will involve creating a roadmap that addresses immediate operational challenges while positioning the cemetery for long-term sustainability and relevance. This process should be inclusive, clear, and adaptable to changing circumstances. Think about how strategy may help this trust and how, as a governance professional, you may be able to help them achieve their purpose.? \*\*Strategy\*\* can be a crucial tool for the cemetery trust in navigating its current challenges and ensuring its long-term sustainability. For a small, volunteer-run organisation like this trust, a well-defined strategy can provide clarity, direction, and focus, allowing them to make informed decisions, prioritise actions, and manage resources effectively. As a governance professional, you can play a pivotal role in helping the trust develop and implement this strategy to achieve its purpose. Here\'s how: \#\#\# How Strategy May Help the Trust: 1\. \*\*Clarity of Purpose and Direction:\*\* \- A strategy helps the trust articulate its core purpose and set clear, achievable goals. This clarity ensures that all members and volunteers are aligned and working towards the same objectives, reducing the likelihood of conflicting priorities. 2\. \*\*Effective Resource Allocation:\*\* \- With limited resources, both in terms of finances and volunteer time, a strategy allows the trust to allocate these resources where they are most needed. This ensures that critical tasks, such as compliance with legal requirements and the preservation of the cemetery\'s historical and botanical values, are adequately funded and supported. 3\. \*\*Succession Planning:\*\* \- The trust faces the challenge of finding and retaining volunteers with the right expertise. A strategy that includes a succession plan will ensure continuity in leadership and operational capabilities, reducing the risk of operational disruptions due to the loss of key members. 4\. \*\*Risk Management:\*\* \- A strategic approach to risk management will help the trust identify potential threats, such as financial shortfalls or legal non-compliance, and develop mitigation strategies. This proactive approach will help safeguard the trust\'s operations and reputation. 5\. \*\*Adaptation to Change:\*\* \- The cemetery trust operates in a changing environment, with shifts in burial practices, rising demand, and evolving community expectations. A strategy that anticipates and plans for these changes will enable the trust to adapt and remain relevant to the community it serves. \#\#\# How a Governance Professional Can Assist: 1\. \*\*Facilitating Strategy Development:\*\* \- As a governance professional, you can guide the trust through the process of developing a strategic plan. This involves facilitating discussions to define the trust's purpose, goals, and key priorities, and helping to articulate these in a clear, actionable plan. 2\. \*\*Ensuring Compliance and Best Practices:\*\* \- You can ensure that the trust's strategy complies with relevant legislation and industry standards. This includes advising on legal obligations, such as the Australian standards for monuments and health-related legislation, and incorporating these into the strategy. 3\. \*\*Enhancing Governance Structures:\*\* \- You can help the trust establish or strengthen its governance structures, ensuring that decision-making processes are transparent, accountable, and aligned with the strategic plan. This includes setting up committees or roles th