Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Have You Ever Known the Boundary? The context of the strategic thinking
ByDM Chaminda Dassanayake
LecturerDepartment of Tourism & Hospitality Management, Faculty of Management Studies,
Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Mihintale. [email protected], 0716 838 724
Abstract
The highly complex organizations and the business environment do not
provide a comfortable platform to strategies to implement and achieve their
targets as expected. Therefore, highly programmed, premeditated, inflexible
strategies are no longer been effective in today’s context. The concept of
strategic thinking has come in to the action to overcome the problems which
are associated with strategic planning. But it is still a problem to identify the
nature of strategic thinking and its context in the strategic management
process. The purpose of this paper is to construct a critical analysis of the
concept of strategic thinking by examine past studies and archival
information associated with the concept of strategic thinking, and it looks at
the key elements involved in the strategic management context. At the end
it emphasizes the important of strategic thinking rather than strategic
planning in today’s context and provides a conceptual outline which will
elaborate the contributing and associating elements in strategic thinking
process.
Introduction
Did your strategy work as you expected? Can you assure that a strategy
formulated based on on-hand information and future predictions will
perfectly work on tomorrow? Can you plan your strategies to be totally
suited for tomorrow circumstances? Will there be anything new on
1
tomorrow to the things you have already thought of? Finally, can you
program the modern dynamic business world in advance?
In an environment characterized by instability and uncertainty, capacity for
innovative different strategic thinking rather than highly programmed
strategic planning will be the key to creating and sustaining competitive
advantages. Organizations should posses perfect strategy related
competencies and should understand the context within which the strategies
are being formulated, implemented as well as controlled.
The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the importance of the role of
strategic thinking in creating and sustaining competitive advantages for
organizations operating in highly competitive and dynamic business
environment and analyze the key elements associated with the concept.
This study is mainly based on archival information gathered from past
studies. The paper will discuss and contrast between strategic planning and
strategic thinking, the methodology of the study, discussion of strategic
thinking with associated elements, recommendations & conclusions
respectively.
Background -Strategic Planning vs. Strategic Thinking
Even though the terms strategic planning and strategic thinking has been
using interchangeably in most occasions in the strategic management
literature; it is worthwhile to contrast between two terms initially and then to
highlight the significance of the role of strategic thinking in modern complex
business environment rather than strategic planning. To Heracleous (1998),
Strategic planning is often used to refer to a programmatic, analytical
thought process, and strategic thinking to refer a creative, divergent thought
process.
As Mintzberg (1994), Strategic planning is about breaking down a goal into
steps; determine how the steps could be implemented, and identifying the
possible consequences of each step. At this definition, the strategic planning
2
produces highly programmed and structured set of actions with less flexible
nature with a low level ability to face unexpected environmental changes.
The expected results will only be achieved if the predictions are perfectly fit
with the future events.
Strategic thinking, on the other hand, as Mintzberg (1994) highlighted, is a
complementary and critical addition to the process of strategic planning,
implementation and management. And it is often described as a reflective
dialogue about the future so that one can avoid pitfalls as well as take
advantage of opportunities. In another way, strategic thinking is ability to
think systematically, with a whole system perspective which often exceeded
what the organization is currently engaged in. Thinking strategically will be
interesting when compared with highly programmed strategic planning and
it is a creative and powerful skill that energizes people and prepares the
person and their organization for the unknown future.
To Mintzberg (1994), the essence of strategy making is the process of
learning as we act. Formal system can never internalize, comprehend, or
synthesize hard information. Strategies can develop inadvertently, without
the conscious intention of senior management, often trough a process of
learning. Learning plays a critical role in strategy making, while Strategic
planning is identified as strategic programming- articulating and elaborating
strategies that already exist. Strategic thinking holds the point of regularly
scanning the organization’s external environment for significant changes
and trying to understand implications of these programs, organization
structures, staffing etc. Strategic thinking is not as detailed as strategic
planning. Strategic thinking implies predicting a general ‘shape’ of what the
future might bring; i.e., financial trends or significant political events.
Literature Review
3
This section of the paper will discuss the some of the conceptual aspects of
strategic thinking as well as strategic planning using researches and studies
done on the subject.
According to Liedtka (1998), Strategic thinking includes five elements
(Figure 01); i.e., systems perspective (sees vertical linkages like relationship
between corporate, business level, and functional strategies to each other,
to the external context, and to the personal choice; and horizontal linkage
like connection across departments and functions, and between
communities and suppliers and buyers), intent-focused (pursuing goals with
psychic energy), intelligently opportunistic (be responsive to opportunities),
involves thinking in time (uses both an institution’s memory and its broad
historical context to well about creating its future), hypothesis driven
(generating and testing hypothesis).
Figure 01: The Elements of Strategic Thinking Source: Liedtka (1998)
Further he highlights that in order to incorporate strategic thinking into
planning process, however, it should be organized three discrete aspects of
process; repertoire-building, managing the strategic issues agenda, and
programming.
As Heracleous (1998) summarized the ideas of well known strategic
management philosophers -Henry Mintzberg & Michael Porter; Mintzberg
believes that strategic thinking & planning involve distinct thought process,
4
the former being creative and the latter analytical; whereas Porter believes
that strategic thinking is achieved by utilizing analytical tools. The
underplaying issue with regard to these two views seems to be a focus on
different aspects of strategy. Mintzberg, for example, sees strategies as
patterns in a stream of decisions and actions, which may be deliberate at
times, emergent at other times, or mixed, and mostly based on managerial
intuition and creativity. Porter on other hand, being highly analytical, sees
strategies as particular configurations of the value chain which are ideally
unique and sustainable, providing strategic positions which cannot be easily
copied by competitors. Porter’s contributions have tended to focus on the
cross-sectional rather than longitudinal problem, however, and Mintzberg’s
contributions have tended to focus on the longitudinal rather than cross
sectional problem.
Figure 02: Strategic Thinking & Strategic Planning Source: Heracleous 1998
Finally, as Heracleous (1998) exhibited (Figure 2), strategic thinking &
strategic planning are interrelated in a dialectical process, where both are
necessary for effective strategic management, and each mode on its own is
necessary but not sufficient.
To Wilson (1998), strategic planning which arisen early 1970s is still
effective in today’s business world, but with some changes. He gave two
5
massages from his article titled ‘strategic planning for the millennium:
resolving the dilemma’, first, a major reason for the erratic history of
strategic planning has been management’s futile search for a single silver
bullet, coupled with a misunderstanding of the holistic nature of strategy;
and second, if we are to get best out of strategic planning , we must
recognize that it requires a sustained commitment, an understanding of its
complexity, and a harnessing of strategic opposites. But his views also align
with the core idea of strategic thinking and he tries to develop the concept
of strategic planning without touching the word ‘thinking’. Finally we can say
that his ideas are laid up somewhere between planning & thinking.
Gilmore & Camillus (1996) introduced seven fundamental principles for
strategic planning so as to make it strategic thinking; i.e., prototyping (there
is no final plan), explicit communication (successful exchange of information
about concepts, needs, plans, decisions, assessments or opinions as well as
underlying assumptions), inclusion (employing more widespread, on-going
participation of people in the process), Modularization with interconnection
(sub divisions), Win-win incentives (motivate participants), sequencing
variety generation and variety reduction (try to surface all potentially
pertinent information), and flexible infrastructure (flexibility of
infrastructure). These seven principles try to modify the strategic planning
process towards a strategic thinking process, but it seems that, it tries to
program the strategic thinking process too; then it will not really harvest the
benefits of strategic thinking.
Methodology
This study is purely based on archival information of past studies &
publications. The paper takes the nature of a literature review on the topics
of strategic thinking and planning. But it is not merely a literature survey. In
fact, it describes the nature of strategic thinking and strategic planning
under different authors’ viewpoints and critically evaluate among different
ideas and findings of researches.
6
This paper takes the ideas of different well known writers in the field through
a comprehensive analysis of their publications and studies. As we described
in the first part of this paper, a brief introduction on the concepts of strategic
thinking and strategic planning is drawn in the background, and a critical
evaluation on the concepts has been given by using past studies under the
literature review section. In the discussion part, it will describe all the
elements which are critical to encourage a perfect strategic thinking practice
which is necessary to achieve and sustain competitive advantage in complex
business world. Furthermore, in the discussion, real world examples are
given as nature of case studies or incidents to elaborate the concept in more
meaningful way and recognize it in a practical manner.
7
Discussion
So far, we have investigated among the concepts of strategic planning and
strategic thinking, and have realized that the strategic thinking is far ahead
in strategic management process so as to achieve and sustain competitive
advantages in a highly competitive business environment. So it is important
to further study on the topic of strategic thinking, its context and the
contribution for a perfect strategy which can overcome most of the strategy
related problems in the business world.
Strategic thinking should be a continuous process rather than only an annual
strategic planning process. Whether a company has one person, a group, or
everyone doing strategic thinking, the important are that it is being done
continuously and that the opportunities, alternative strategies, or different
business models or periodically shared with other key people in the
company (Abraham, 2005)
According to the Mintzberg (1994), strategic planning often spoils strategic
thinking, causing managers to confuse real vision with the manipulation of
numbers. So this confusion lies at the heart of the issue: the most successful
strategies are visions, not plans. Therefore, as Mintzberg, planners should
make their contribution around the strategy – making process rather than
inside it. They should supply the formal analysis or hard data that strategic
thinking requires, as long as they do it to broaden the consideration of
issues rather than discover one right answer. This idea of Mintzberg gives a
tremendous value to the strategic thinking. The highly competitive business
world can not be programmed. There is no exact answer for a particular
issue which is viable long-lasting, the answer which works on today’s context
will not be viable on tomorrow. Therefore, a strategy must be a nature of
flexible and non-programmed.
Are inventions possible in the highly programmed strategic
planning process?
8
Invention takes a considerable value in the process of strategic thinking. As
Mintzberg highlighted, real strategic change requires inventing new
categories, and not rearranging old ones. The step by step highly
programmed strategic planning will not support to make inventions. In the
case of Polaroid camera, one day in 1943, Edwin Land’s three-year–old
daughter asked why she could not immediately see the picture he had just
taken of her. Within an hour, this scientist conceived the camera that would
transform his company (adopted from Mintzberg, 1994). In this case Land’s
vision was the synthesis of the insight evoked by his daughter’s question
and his vast technical knowledge.
The invention or different thinking goes also with the ‘blue ocean strategy’
(Kim & Mauborgne, 2004)
which introduce a new way
of acquiring rapid growth of
business in the modern
business world. The blue
ocean strategy thinks in a
different way to having
rapid growth and
sustainability by creating
uncontested market space,
make the competition
irrelevant, create and
capture new demand,
break the value cost
tradeoff etc. Cirque du
Soleil (Box 01) has been
successful in the industry
because of inventions. Do you think that highly programmed strategic
planning provides an appropriate platform to inventions? No, if it is so, the
management of Cirque du Soleil would struggle to penetrate the existing
9
BOX 01: THE STORY OF CIRQUE DU SOLEIL
Cirque du Soleil is Canada’s largest cultural exports company founded in 1984 by a group of street performers. Cirque has staged dozen of productions seen by some 40 million people in 90 cities around the world. In 20 years Cirque has achieved revenues that Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Baily- the world’s leading circus – took more than a century to attain. What is the secret that Cirque du Soleil had to have such growth even in an unlikely setting (steadily decreasing audience & increasing cost) for the industry? The tagline for one of the first Cirque production is revealing “we reinvent the circus”. Cirque did not make its money by competing within the confines of the existing industry or by stealing customers from Ringling and the others. Instead it created uncontested market space that made the competition irrelevant. It pulled in a whole new group of customers who were traditionally noncustomers of the industry- adults and corporate clients who had turned to theater, opera, or ballet and were, therefore, prepared to play several times more than the price of a conventional circus ticket for an unprecedented entertainment experience.
(Extracted from Kim & Mauborgne, 2004)
market and compete with other companies in the industry so as to
implement their existing plans. The strategic thinking approach only will
support this kind of inventions and, therefore, we can say that the blue
ocean strategy is also a one side of the strategic thinking and it proved a
path for business to overcome problems in modern complex environment.
Should we recognize emergent strategies?
According to Mintzberg (1994), a strategy can be deliberate as well as
emergent. Deliberate strategies can realize the specific intentions of senior
management. Emergent means that a convergent pattern has formed
among the different actions taken by the organization one at a time. As he
further described, strategies can develop inadvertently, without the
conscious intention of senior management, often through process of learning
and, as he believes, all viable strategies have emergent and deliberate
qualities. As Stacey (1996), the ability of people in groups, organizations and
societies to exercise foresight depends upon the dynamics of these groups.
Complex adaptive systems produce order of a changeable and diverse kind
that comes about in a spontaneous, emergent way. Such order has not been
programmed in and there is no blue print, grand design or plan. This
spontaneous self organizing activity, with its emergent order, is vital for the
continuing evolution of a system and its ability to produce novelty. A model
depicting the forms of strategy, developed by Mintzberg, is shown in figure
03.
10
Figure 03: Forms of Strategy Source: Mintzberg, 1994
BOX 02: NATIONAL FILM BOARD (NFB)
The NFB of Canada is a federal government agency, famous for its creativity and expert in the production of short documentaries. In an occasion, it founded a filmmaker on a project that unexpectedly ran long. To distribute his film, the NFB turned to heaters and so inadvertently gained experience in marketing feature-length films. Other filmmakers caught on to the idea, and eventually the NFB found itself pursuing a feature-film strategy- a pattern of producing such films. (Extracted from Mintzberg, 1987)
How we can justify the NFB (Box 02) case under the more deliberate
strategic planning approach? The strategy of making feature-length films
has come without the senior management involvement and without a proper
plan. But it has worked successfully in the market. So the strategy which has
been emerged is also being important and an organization should allow or
consider the emergent strategies as well and make a proper atmosphere to
grow this type or strategy.
11
Is explicit knowledge alone sufficient for a perfect strategy?
The knowledge both tacit & explicit plays an imperative role in strategic
thinking process. As
Brockmann & Anthony
(2005), explicit
knowledge is not enough
for making a perfect
strategy and it will cover
only a part of the required
knowledge for strategic
decision making. Tacit
knowledge is remarkable
to fill this gap. The tacit
knowledge is possessed
through experience,
intimacy and by
understands and it is
hidden and can not be easily accessed, therefore, can not be shared with
others. As Mintzberg (1987) explains, the kind of knowledge involved in the
case (Box 03) is not intellectual, not analytical reports or abstracted facts &
figures, but personal knowledge, intimate and understanding. Facts are
available to any one, this kind of knowledge are not. By the side of our topic,
what is the importance of knowledge in the process of strategic thinking? As
the example of Sam Steinberg, the both aspects of knowledge are
applicable; i.e., tacit as well as explicit. Then only an organization can make
a strategy which will more adoptable with the changing environment.
Is Organizational learning & knowledge management important?
“Our craftsman tries to make a freestanding sculptural form. It doesn’t work, so she rounds it a bit here, flattens it a bit there. The results look better, but still isn’t quite right. She makes another and another. Eventually, after days or months or year, she finally has what she wants. She is off on a new strategy”
12
BOX 03: SAM STEINBERGThe steinberg chain was built and run for more than half a century by a man named Sam Steinberg. In 1952, with arrival of the first shopping centre in Montreal, Steinberg realized he had to redefine his business almost overnight. He knew he needed to control those shopping centers and that control would require public financing and other major changes. So he reoriented his business. The ability to make that kind of switching in thinking is the essence of strategic management. And it has more to do with vision and involvement than it does with analytical techniques. Sam Steinberg was the epitome of the entrepreneur, a man intimately involved with all the details of his business, who spent Saturday mornings visiting his stores. As he told; “Nobody knew the grocery business like we did. Everything has to do with your knowledge. I knew merchandise, I knew cost, I knew selling, I knew customers, I knew everything, and I passed on all my knowledge; I kept teaching my people. That is the advantage we had. Our competitors could not touch us”.
(Extracted from Mintzberg, 1987)
As Mintzberg (1987) visualized above in his article- Crafting Strategy, it is
clear that any organization can develop and realize their strategies through
past experiences. So how it relates with strategic thinking? If the
organization has proper learning environment through its past strategies as
well as activities, it will provide a sound base for a better strategy in next
time. According to (Stacey, 1992), strategy making process is successful
when they are based on ‘designing actions on the based on new learning’
rather than following pre programmed rules. Strategic thinking is not an
intellectual exercise in exploring what is like to happen- it is using analogies
and qualitative similarities to develop creative new ideas.
BOX 04: Motorola Inc.Specific targets are indispensable if people are going to learn, change their behavior and improve their performance. Motorola Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois, has a specific goal: to provide customers what they want, when they want it, with Six Sigma quality and best-in-class cycle time. (Extracted from Taylor, 1997)
As shown in the box 04, Six sigma means 3.4 defects per million. Learning
and Kaizen- continuous improvement – have been the foundation of
Motorola’s successful drive to improve quality, and the company won the
first Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award in 1998. So it is clear that
successful strategies are made with proper organizational learning.
Knowledge management, on the other hand, also goes with the
organizational learning with respect to the strategic thinking process.
According to Tavakoli & Lawton (2005), strategic thinking is the cognitive
process that can and should precede strategic decisions and actions,
whether arrived at through planning or emergent action. Here, knowledge
management may be able to play a significant role in developing a core
competency in strategic thinking in organizations by identifying, capturing,
storing and transferring current and relevant experiences and insights
throughout the organization. To Drew (1999), building knowledge
13
dimensions in to the use of strategy tools is a first step towards developing
and implementing knowledge- based strategy.
How competencies affect strategic thinking?
In the process of strategic management, it is necessary to identify and
develop the competences our own. Then it should be leveraged with the
strategies. The strategic thinking process goes with the competencies and
leveraging it with the strategies. According to the Post (1997), competencies
and capabilities are not given to firm but need to be built from within it.
BOX 05: BaanAs early as 1981, Baan started to develop its industrial approach to software development. At a time when the market for customized software was very lucrative, the firm started to manufacture software as a product composed of generic components. The founder of the company, Jan Baan, believed that would disappear. Just as in other industries, customers would prefer standard products if available at the desired quality level. Software would become a commodity manufactured and distributed on the basis of industrial principles. The company incorporated acquired knowledge into its product during process of continuous innovation and improvement. The results of this effort were economies of scale, reduction of software delivery time and advanced reliable solutions. (Extracted from Post, 1997)
As studied by Post (box 05), Baan strove for competence building right from
the start. Initially, competence building was technology oriented. Later on, it
was also service oriented and distribution oriented. This case study shows a
firm can leverage competences, thus going through the evolution from a
domestic to a global player…
The effect of emotional intelligence
Emotional intelligence (EI) is generally accepted to be combination of
emotional and interpersonal competencies that influence our behavior,
thinking, and interaction with others (Macaleer & Shannon, 2002). As
described by Goleman (2002), emotional competencies such as self
awareness, accurate self assessment, self confidence, self control,
transparency, achievement, adaptability, initiative, organizational
awareness, conflict management are essential to be a good leader. As far as
14
we concern about a strategic management process, these qualities are
essential to build up a quality strategist. In this context, it is not limit for the
senior management but for rest of the employees of the organization,
because strategies can be emerged any place or level in the organization.
According to Graetz (2002), strategic thinking capabilities can be nurtured
and diffused through an organization; it will need business leaders with a
high degree of emotional intelligence to lead the way. So it is necessary to
an organization develop such emotional competences too to be a successful
strategy maker.
Scenario planning, culture, politics & strategic thinking
The case study, done by Graetz (2002), for the Communications Co.
illustrates, scenario planning is one tool that many organizations, committed
or redesigning the strategic planning process, are using with some access. It
requires both left- and right-brain thinking styles. The elements of left brain
thinking reflects the planning side of strategy making, while right-brain
thinking mirrors the thinking components of strategy making.
As Andersen (2000) found Autonomous actions, where managers are
authorized to make decisions without top management approval; have
positive performance effects in the dynamic and complex computer product
industry. Therefore a decentralized organizational setup will more helpful to
a strategic thinking climate.
Strong cultures can either enhance or inhibit the ability of organization to
develop and execute effective strategies, depending on the compatibility of
the culture with the chosen strategic directions. Organization culture of
shared attitudes, values and beliefs, the nature of this system will define
appropriate behaviors and shape the decision-making process of its senior
managers (Bonn & Christodoulou, 1996). There cannot be a transformational
(as opposed to incremental) change without major cultural repercussions.
Taking Hay (Major international human resource consulting firm) as an
example, it has been determined that if the strategic change is to succeed,
15
significant change should take place in the cultural beliefs and assumptions
of the organizations (Heracleous & Langham, 1996).
According to Peattie (1993), there are also political forces concerned with
internal rivalry and protecting parochial interests, personal power and
prospects. These call for caution and retention and selective presentation of
information. So the political power of the people, group, or senior
management of the organization will effect for the strategic direction of its
own.
Recommendations
Any business organization faces the challenge of achieving and sustaining
the competitive advantage in the modern dynamic business environment. In
this effort the strategic direction of the organization will be the key factor in
facing such challenges. This article recommends the way of strategic
direction that is suited for such organizations.
Formal planning alone is not the best way for managers develop strategy. If
it is so, the strategic direction will limit only a particular area and company
will miss the possible opportunities as well as not be able to successfully
face the future unexpected situations. Prepared information like facts,
figures, forecasts are necessary for strategy formulation; but managers need
intuitive understanding of the organization as well as its direction.
Strategy is not merely a plan for the future activities, but it reflects the past
learning and understandings too. Therefore organization should encourage
learning within the organization and align and apply learned knowledge with
its strategies rather preparing deliberate action plans for the future. And
also strategies are not always deliberate and they can emerge over time
when senior management as well as its employees innovate and respond to
their markets. So it is recommended to develop a proper atmosphere for
such innovations and emergent. Emergent things are viable, because they
are made naturally rather by an order. The strategies should not anyway be
16
rigid and inflexible. Because we can’t predict or forecast future hundred
percent accurately and strategies should, therefore, take the nature of
flexible, adoptable and applicable to any uncertain situation.
Furthermore, strategists should understand the context within which the
intended strategy will be implemented and controlled. A successful strategy
is actually an art which had been crafted by, or emerged within the overall
context of the organization. So, strategists should support to formulate these
strategies by providing information and creating suitable background while
in around the picture, not inside it.
Finally, the strategy making process is not a stand-alone function which is
purely done by senior management in a programmed manner but it should
be an integrated one which touches almost all the key elements such as
learning, experience, scenarios, knowledge (tacit/explicit), intimacy, culture,
innovations, understanding, participation, forecasting, political power etc.
Conclusion
The strategic direction of any organization should be able to face the
challenges forced by modern complex business world. The output of this
paper can answer this problem to most extent. A sound analysis on the
overall context of strategic thinking has been drawn in this paper so as to
exemplify an overall picture which should be synthesized in the process of
strategy formulation. Dealing with hard & soft information, maintaining a
proper balance between tacit & explicit knowledge as well as deliberate &
emergent approaches, judging against the programmed and flexible nature
of strategies, making associate with knowledge management activities in
the strategy formulating process, and associated concepts have been
basically covered in this paper.
Finally, this paper will assist strategists or organizations to mark the
boundary (actually widen) of their strategy incubation and thinking process.
17
References
1. Abraham, S. (2005). Stretching Strategic Thinking. Strategy &
Leadership, 33(5), 5-12.
2. Andersen, T.J. (2000). Strategic Planning, Autonomous Actions and
Corporate Performance. Long Range Planning, 33, 184-200
3. Bonn, I. & Christodoulou, C. (1996). From Strategic Planning to
Strategic Management. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 543-551
4. Bower, J.L. & Gilbert, C.G. (2007). How Managers’ Everyday Decisions
Create or Destroy Your Company’s Strategy. Harvard Business Review,
Feb 2007, 72-79
5. Brockmann, E.N. & Anthony, W.P. (2002). Tacit Knowledge and
Strategic Decision Making. Group & Organization Management. 27 (4),
436-455
6. Burgelman, R.A. & Grove, A.S. (1996). Strategic Dissonance. California
Management Review, 38(2), 8-28
7. Burgi, P. T & Roos, J. (2003). Images of Strategy. European
Management Journal, 21(1), 69-78
8. Burgi, P.T., Jacobs, C.D. & Roos, J. (2005). From Metaphor to Practice:
In the Crafting of Strategy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), 78-
94
9. Camillus, J.C. (2008). Strategy as a Wicked Problem. Harvard Business
Review, May 2008,99-106
10. Drew, S. (1999). Building Knowledge Management into Strategy:
Making Sense of a New Perspective. Long Range Planning, 32(1), 130-
136
11. Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (2003). Leadership at the Top: The
Need for Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. The International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(3), 193-210
12. Eisenhardt, K.M., Kahwajy, J.L. & Bourgeois, L.J. (1997). Conflict
and Strategic Choice: How Top Management Team Disagree. California
Management Review, 39(2), 42-62
18
13. Gilmore, W.S. & Camillus, J.C. (1996). Do Your Planning
Processes meet the Reality Test? Long Range Planning, 29(6), 869-879
14. Glaister, K.W. (1999). Strategic Planning: Still Going Strong?
Long Range Planning, 32(1), 107-116
15. Goleman, D. (1998). What Makes a Leader? Harvard Business
Review, November-December, 93-103
16. Goleman, D., Boyatzes, R. & Mckee, A. (2002). Primal
Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.27
17. Graetz, F. (2002). Strategic Thinking versus Strategic planning:
Towards Understanding the Complementarities. Management
Decision, 40(5), 456-462
18. Heracleous, L. & Langham, B. (1996). Strategic Change and
Organizational Culture at Hay Management Consultants. Long Range
Planning, 29(4). 485-494
19. Heracleous, L. (1998). Strategic Thinking or Strategic Planning?
Long Range Planning, 31(3), 481-487
20. Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1996). Linking the Balanced
Scorecard to Strategy. California Management Review, 39(1), 53-79
21. Kim, W.C. & Mauborgne, R. (2004). Blue Ocean Strategy.
Harvard Business Review, Oct 2004, 1-10
22. Law, K.S. & Wong, C.S. (2004). The Construct & Criterion Validity
of Emotional Intelligence and Its Potential Utility for Management
Studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 483-496
23. Liedtka, J.M. (1998). Strategic Thinking: Can it be Taught? Long
Range Planning, 31(1), 120-129
24. Lorange, P. (1998). Strategy Implementation: the New Realities.
Long Range Planning, 31(1), 18-29
25. Macaleer, W.D. & Shannon, J.B. (2002). Emotional Intelligence:
Hoes Does It Affect Leadership. Employment Relations Today, Autumn
29(3), 9-19
19
26. Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D.R. (2004). Emotional
Intelligence: Theory, Findings, and Implications. Psychological Inquiry,
15(3), 197-215
27. Meijer, E.M., Duin, P. & Abeln, M. (1998). Fun with Scenarios.
Long Range Planning, 31(4), 628-637
28. Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting Strategy. Harvard Business
Review, July- August 1987, 66-74
29. Mintzberg, H. (1993). The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning.
Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1994, 107-114
30. Mintzberg, H. (1993). The Pitfalls of Strategic Planning.
California Management Review, 32-47
31. Montgomery, C.A. (2008). Putting Back into Strategy. Harvard
Business Review, January 2008, 54-60
32. Morgan, M.J. (1993). How Corporate Culture Drives Strategy.
Long Range Planning, 26(2), 110-118
33. Morrison, J.L. (1994). From Strategic Planning to Strategic
Thinking. Horizon, 2(3), 3-4
34. Moyer, K. (1996). Scenario Planning at British Airways- A Case
Study. Long Range Planning, 29(2), 172-181
35. Peattie, K. (1993). Strategic Planning: It’s Role in Organizational
Politics. Long Range Planning, 26(3). 10-17
36. Porter, M.E. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review,
Nov- Dec 1996, 61-78
37. Post, H.A. (1997). Building a Strategy on Competences. Long
Range Planning, 30(5), 733-740
38. Power, P.G. (2003). Leadership for Tomorrow: Once More, With
Feeling. Mt Eliza Business Review, Summer/ Autumn 2003/2004, 43-
49
39. Simpson, D. (1998). Why Most Strategic Planning is a Waste of
Time and What You Can Do About It. Long Range Planning, 31(3), 476-
480
20
40. Sokol, R.J. (1993). Strategic Planning for Deregulation in a
Canadian Bank. Long Range Planning, 26(1), 67-75
41. Stacey, R. (1992). Managing the Unknowable. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
42. Stacey, R. (1996). Emerging Strategies for a Chaotic
Environment. Long Range Planning, 29(2), 182-189
43. Tavakoli, I. & Lawton, J. (2005). Strategic Thinking and
Knowledge Management. Handbook of Business Strategy, 6(1), 155-
160.
44. Taylor, B. (1997). The Return of Strategic Planning- Once More
with Feeling. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 334-344
45. Wilson, I. (1998). Strategic Planning for the Millennium:
Resolving the Dilemma. Long Range Planning, 31(4), 507-513
46. Zeidner, M., Matthews, G. & Roberts, R.D. (2004) Emotional
Intelligence in the Workplace: A critical Review. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 53(3), 371-399
21
