Strategy as Practice & Leadership - Coursework Example

STRATEGY AS PRACTICE & LEADERSHIP Surname Professor Management 4 July 2015 Strategy as Practice & Leadership - Introduction Mary Parker Follett’s observation that; “Managers must take people with their inheritance, their ‘tendencies’ their environment and then focus its attention on their inter-relatings” (1920) is a true definition of the role of leaders in understanding the unique characteristics and capabilities of their subjects. The definition of strategy as defined by Beech and Johnson (2005) is influenced by individual identity. The two explain that the individual identities of people which are always different and in most instances imposed upon them by others impact their actions. These individual identities usually change with time hence further impacting their actions. From a starting point on the study of Strategy as Practice & Leadership, it is important to note that individual experiences of agency which include their inheritance as tendencies as mentioned above are crucial components that need the utmost consideration of managers (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2003). This is because they describe who someone is and are directly related to how he or she acts and the consequences that his or her actions have. This paper contains a keen analysis of the different units that comprise a holistic evaluation of strategy in leadership and practice. It begins with a clear elucidation on the concepts of the practice perspective. Here, a brief overview of practices, practitioners and praxis is highlighted with a conceptual framework underpinning and linking some of the key issues in a strategy-as-practice research agenda. It then evaluates the different concepts of Complex Adaptive Systems, Complexities, and Uncertainties as well as the Impacts on Leadership drawing relevant comparisons and conclusions basing on the strategic perspective. Discussion Human actions, their inheritance, and ‘tendencies’ have a huge impact on the consequential strategic outcomes of an organization (Johnson et al., 2003). Strategy, according Johnson is something that members in an organization do rather than what the organization. Strategizing, in this case, is the act of performing an activity that is focused on an explicit goal which, in this case, is to understand the inter-relatings of unique members of an organization. Another significant aspect of the strategy-as-practice approach is its role in the contextualization of micro-actions (Whittington, 2006). There is need for managers to understand the micro phenomena of their subjects even in much wider social contexts. This is particularly important from the observation that people do not act in isolation but instead draw upon the modes that are regularly defined socially by the society and which therefore are resultant from the social institutions they belong to. Most of the social infrastructure from which these micro-actions are constructed like technologies, discourses and tools have macro and institutionalized properties which are in essence responsible for the transmission within micro-contexts (Jarzabkowski, 2004). The practice perspective is composed of both the micro and the macro situated way of doing things (the inter-relatings), meaning it is both individually and socially defined. It is this re-conceptualization of strategy as a practice of ‘doing’ at various social levels that will help in a closer understanding of solving some of the broader contextualization problems that are normally associated with micro-actions as in the case study above (Contu & Willmott, 2003; Jarzabkowski, 2005). Rouleau (2003) for instance explains that micro issues like gender have the ability to influence how strategists act and respond to the actions of other people. The manager in this case therefore needs to draw a correlation between the unique individual characteristics of his employees, which are their inheritances and tendencies in order to reach to a common ground, the inter-relatings from where he is able to draw solutions from. This can therefore complement the existent knowledge. For example, still on the gender sense, although research on managerial demographics reveals that most executive boards have few women members, the practice approach is able to reveal the why and how gendered workplace identities experiences can be anti-ethical to the experience of being a board member (Salvato, 2003) Impacts on Leadership: The Role of the Manager Leadership is a very crucial function in any organization, group, institution or business. Management and leadership essentially represent two different business concepts that are completely different yet closely related (Blackler, Crump & McDonald, 2000). Leadership involves the establishment of a clear vision and the consequent communication of the vision with others to help in the resolution of any conflicts and misunderstandings that may be present between the different individuals responsible for adhering to the requirements of the organizational vision (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2003). Responding to Complexity and Uncertainty Management consultants, as well as academics in business schools, are increasingly delving into the issue of uncertainty and complexity in the business environment. Organizations and especially leaders and managers have to practice agility in order to deal with these conditions. A leadership that is agile is resilient, entrepreneurial and is fast, swift and efficient in its response to change. Such a leadership focuses on all the relevant stakeholders rather than standardized offerings (Contu & Willmott, 2003). Management agility is therefore not only individually centered but is also equipped with a competitive advantage. Despite the recognition of uncertainty and complexity, most managers are still overwhelmed by the its design for a successfully establishment of its new conditions. There is still little reflection on what it means for managers to recognize complexity and uncertainties, which are in essence characterized by the conditions which the members in an organization act in to and what it symbolizes for the organizational leadership in the first place (McNulty, & Pettigrew 1999). Little enquiry has also been made on how individuals in an organization deal with complexity and uncertainty (McNulty, & Pettigrew 1999). The situation is however delicate especially because there is inadequate knowledge on the strength a management possesses as a result of the leadership style it perpetuates. A real and fully functional organization is essentially the network of relationships that exists between the different workers and those outside that are still formal to the organization. Such a kind of organization that nurtures the relationships of all the relevant stakeholders is often flexible, robust and productive (Pal and Pantaleo, 2005). Great managers are connected to their workers; they not only lead their employees but also channel their vitality to enable them achieve their goals and that of the organization. For such leaders, personal credibility with informal networks is if crucial importance to their success and they use their credibility for the reconstruction of their social networks. Connected managers who with moral and social connections are often trustworthy as they also trust and put their confidence in the abilities of their subjects. They furthermore unite all the relevant stakeholders on a common agenda as they encourage them through conversations and dialogue. Complex Adaptive Systems Complexity is resultant of the inter-connection, inter-relationship and inter-action units that exists in an organization (McNulty, & Pettigrew 1999). CAS are therefore dynamic and capable of adapting in and evolving with changing environments. A management systems is most of the time in a close link with different other related systems that constitutes its overall operations. Change in such a context can therefore be seen in its co-evolution within other systems as compared to an adaptation in a different and distinct environment (McNulty, & Pettigrew 1999). An agile manager as discussed above is responsive to complexities and uncertainties. The true significance of an agile manager the continual cycle of preemptive and reactive behaviors he establishes that are necessary to prevent disruptions to industry ecosystems. Agile managers therefore not only adapt, but they also aid in the development and innovation of breakthrough business models. Pal and Pantaleo (2005) explain that for a manager to sustain effective growth and gain competitiveness, he requires a cohesive collection of the right values, vision, and teams that are innovative and adaptive to infrastructure. Transformation can only be achieved through proper leadership to aid in the creation of a working community that is responsive to uncertainty and complexities (Clark, 2004). Breakthrough cultures have people who are open minded to change, they are collaborative with the needs and requirements of the organization and focus single-mindedly on the customer even across the boundaries of the organization. It is generally a culture that is innovative, top down and is oriented to learning and service. When an organization has an agile leadership, it uses holistic methods to integrate and promote supplier productions, relations, and business processes as well as product use and disposal and customer (Goldman et al., 1995). This can only be accomplished by the deployment of the necessary resources that are required regardless of physical location. Agile managers have an exemplary combination of possessing shifts to control forms and while at the same time supportive and motivating as well as trustworthy. Employees can only thrive on uncertainty and change rather than coping when they have the right leadership, leadership with equipped managers who are capable of constantly reinventing the company in the right direction. When a manager is agile, he is strategic as compared to tactical and dependent on the perceived value of customers on their services and goods (Goldman et al., 1995) argue that agile organizations are strategic rather than tactical, building on customer perceived value of products and services. This kind of leadership will allow for effective and functional decision-making that is operational and distributed even to employees. It has a flat and internal management hierarchy that allows for an open information flow that is not confined and secluded to only the managers. It furthermore allows for the formation of teams as the standard organizational structure throughout and not only when there are special projects to be undertaken. There is a spectrum of prescriptions and descriptions of agile management that range from top-down approaches to distributed approaches that rely on informal organization. Transformation, as mentioned ought to originate from the leaders who have the responsibility of preparing working vision statements (Jarzabkowski, 2005). They also have to be able to form teams that are innovative and adaptive, design desired behaviors from employees, create break through cultures that have open-minded people who embrace change and collaborate across boundaries (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Lastly, they ought to promote flat and functional leadership and organizational hierarchies that equally distribute decision making and responsibilities. . The Strategic Practice Perspective The strategy-as-practice perspective is a form of socially accomplished set activities that involve negotiations, interactions and strategies by a multiple set of actors (Jarzabkowski, 2005). Strategy is a specific type of activity connected with different practices like strategy workshops, planning and annual reviews together with their various associated discourses (Barry & Elmes, 1997; Hendry, 2000). Activity is strategic because it is a direct consequent of the competitive advantage, strategic outcomes, survival and directions of a firm even in instances when the consequences are not included in the formal and intended strategy (Johnson et al., 2003). Strategic activity is in fact consequential to the survival and direction of multiple levels of organizations, groups, industries, and supporting institutions that depend on the adopted analysis. When a manager strategizes therefore he is in essence constructing the flow of activity of interactions and actions of different practices and actors. Strategizing can only occur therefore at the collision of three important aspects of practice which are practices, practitioners and praxis. Practices, practitioners and praxis Many practice theorists have unsuccessfully attempted to identify the three as discrete and independent social phenomena but Reckwitz (2002) was able to provide a helpful summary that is currently being used to define each of them (De Certeau, 1984; Giddens, 1984) Praxis to begin with is an emphatic term that describes the complete human action. Praxis is essentially the activity flow that is accomplishes socially and is consequential to the survival and direction of organizations, groups and industries. It is composed of the interconnection between dispersed groups, individuals and actions that are economically, socially and politically embedded in the institutions whereby people contribute to and act from. Praxis is therefore an embedded concept that can be practiced at various levels of micro, institutional and dynamic shifts in the fluidity of interactions. It can for instance be practices at the institutional level as highly diffused activity like an acquisition or a merger behavior in an industry (Jarzabkowski, 2005). Furthermore, it is applicable at the micro-level which can be a group or individual who is engaged in an acquisition or merger activity It is therefore evident that praxis is an important consideration in the case of the manager attempting to understand the individual distinctive characteristics of the people he works with (Lowendahl & Revang, 2008). This is also because it examines the acquisition and merger of praxis as a socially accomplished activity that is strategically consequential and operates at different levels of practice and analysis over time. Practices on the other hand are the procedural, behavioral, discursive, cognitive and physical practices that are adapted, coordinated and combined for the description of practice. According to Reckwitz, it is defined as the behavior types that have been routinized and consist of different elements that are all inter-related to one another forming activities that are wholesome and mental. Managers out to use such practices intrinsically because they are connected to the ‘doing’ of an activity and hence are able to provide the procedural, cognitive, behavioral, physical and discursive resources that enable them to effectively interact with their employees and allow them to accomplish a collective activity socially. The employment of such resources in routinized ways enables the formation of patterns that can be studied to understand the construction of strategic activity. Managers can similarly also employ the different forms of language they find in their social interactive practices to accomplish any form of social restructuring of an organization that may be inevitable over time (Balogun & Johnson, 2004). They may also be able to rhetorically construct an understanding amongst the different contradictory strategies. Practices are generally variable and diverse and can be altered and combined depending on their uses and how they can alter the flow of activity (De Certeau, 1984). More materially represented practices may even have routinized properties in their employment but still contribute to different types of situations. There is therefore a need for a close examination of different practices, how they are drawn, how their use alters with time and the consequences that the patterns they create shape praxis at various levels. Practitioners are the individuals who draw practices. Practitioners have a close relationship with praxis and practices. This is because they get their agency through using different practices like societal behavior, knowledge, emotion and act as they adapt, combine and coordinate them to meet their needs and influence their society (Reckwitz, 2002). Understanding the role of the practitioner is crucial to framing the requirements of a manager in understanding the individual influences of his workers. Agency is a crucial component that is embodied as being a significant symbol to who a practitioner is and how an individual acts. It is also connected to the situation and context in which an agency is derived (Balogun et al., 2005). From a strategy perspective therefore, practitioners are important units of any analysis for study particularly because they are active participants in the very construction of any significant activity in an organization that is consequential to its survival. Practitioners have the ability of shaping a strategic activity through their actions and the definition of their role together with an additional aspect of the practices they employ in their actions. Conclusion For a successful organizational performance there is need for reliance on the proper behavior of both employees and managers. Managers who provide good and responsive leadership that is tailored to meet the needs of all the relevant stakeholders are able to transform their employees from mere workers needed to completing tasks to valuable team members who are significant for the growth and survival of the organization (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2003). It is therefore important for managers to possess appropriate leadership skills that can help foster a healthy manager employee relationship. This will help to instill an owner relationship mentality in the mindset of employees. Employees who possess such a direct owner-style relationship with their managers are usually more likely to improve their productivity and attitude. Leadership has a negative impact on the performance of an organization when for instance; managers are overly obsessed on achieving their own goals and dominant while overlooking the different tiny details that are required of every business organization (Alvesson & Karreman, 200). Details which according to the statement by Mary Parker, can include specifics like the inheritance and ‘tendencies’ of employees. Employees and managers have the responsibility of working together to achieve the goals of the company. Dominating leadership and managers have difficult and complicated business relationships and it is a common observation that most employees steer away from business with overly dominant managers who are ignorant to the needs of their workers. According to the statement by Mary therefore, it is only by taking time to understand the needs of his employees that the manager can be able to understand their unique characteristics. These can be their tendencies and inheritances which are micro-individual properties that closely relate to the socially defined macro-characteristics. It is only when these are correlated that inter-relating can be discovered and acted upon for the prosperity of the organization. References Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 36(2), 136–58. Balogun, J., Huff, A.S. & Johnson, P. (2003). Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategizing. Journal of Management Studies, 2003, 40, 197–224. Balogun, J., Jarzabkowski, P. & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing activity and practice. In V. Ambrosini & M. Jenkins (Eds), Advanced strategic management, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007. Barry, D. & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 429–52. Beech, N. & Johnson, P. (2005). Discourses of disrupted identities in the practice of strategic change: The mayor, the street-fighter, and the insider-out. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(1), 31–47. Blackler, F., Crump, N. & McDonald, S. (2000). Organizing processes in complex activity networks. Organization, 7, 277–300. Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. (1998), Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Clark, T. (2004) Strategy viewed from a management fashion perspective. European Management Review, 1(1), 105–11. Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, (3), 283–97. De Certeau M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Eden, C. & Ackerman, F (1998). Making strategy: The journey of strategic management. London: Sage. Gobillot, E. (2008) The Connected Leader: Creating agile organizations for people, performance, and profit, London: Kogan Page. Goldman, S., Nagel, R. & Preiss, K. (1995) Agile Competition and Virtual Organizations: Strategies for enriching the customer, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. & Putnam, L. (Eds). (2003). The Sage handbook of organizational discourse. London: Sage, 2003. Hambrick, D.C. & Mason, P.A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 1984, 9(2), 193–206. Hendry, J. (2000). Strategic decision making, discourse, and strategy as social practice. Journal of Management Studies, 2000, 37, 955–77. Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 2004, 25(4), 529–60. Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach. London: Sage, 2005. Jarzabkowski, P. & Fenton, E. (2006). Strategizing and organizing in pluralistic contexts. Long Range Planning, 39, in press. Lowendahl, B. & Revang, O. (2008). Challenges to existing strategy theory in a post-industrial society. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 755–74. McNulty, T. & Pettigrew, A.M. (1999). Strategies on the board. Organization Studies, 1999, 20(1) 47–74. Maitlis, S. & Lawrence, B. (2003). Orchestral manoeuvres in the dark: Understanding failure in organizational strategizing. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 109–40. Pal, N. & Pantaleo, D. (2005) The Agile Enterprise: Reinventing your organisation for success in an on-demand world, New York: Springer. Pye, A. (1995). Strategy through dialogue and doing: A game of ‘Mornington Crescent’? Management Learning, 1995, 26(4), 445–62. Reckwitz, A. Towards a theory of social practice: A development in cultural theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 2002, 5(2), 243–63. Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sense giving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1413–41. Salvato, C. (2003). The role of micro-strategies in the engineering of firm evolution. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 83–108. Sztompka, P. (1991). Society in action: The theory of social becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press, Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–34. Read More