Critical Analysis of “Strategy as Revolution”

Critical Analysis of “Strategy as Revolution”

nName

nInstitution

nDate

n

n“Strategy as Revolution”

nIntroduction

nThe formulation of a strategy in a business is one of the most essential factors that determine its long-term growth and development. Nonetheless, the way in which a company establishes the strategy and the type of strategy selected affects its success in the future (Hamel 1996). The paper discusses the critical analysis of “Strategy as Revolution”. In addition, the paper discusses the position of the article in the debate about process of strategy. Furthermore, it explains the main weaknesses and strengths of the article.

nDebates on Strategy as Revolution

nAccording to Lindgreen, Beverland and Farrelly (2010), the process of strategic planning takes place from top to down and involves objectives strategy formulation, situation analysis, objectives and missions. Furthermore, it also encompasses control and implementation (Lindgreen, Beverland and Farrelly 2010). Nonetheless, according to the article “strategy as Revolution” by Hamel (1996), it differs with this statement through an argument that strategies have to demonstrate the employees ideas at all levels in general. In addition, the article suggests that strategies must reflect employees from operational and tactical levels (Hamel 1996).

nFrench, Kelly and Harrison (2004) note that change is an essential component in successful strategic management. In this regard, they argued that operational strategic management have to establish appropriate changes into different parts of the business. Consequently, it would increase the competitive edge of the company (Kelly and Harrison 2004). Poister (2010) supports this idea that suggests that a firm has to introduce new idea through initiating appropriate changes into the existing business strategy (Poister 2010).

nMoreover, the article “Strategy as Revolution” supports ideas as suggested by Bisbe and Malagueño (2012) and Gimbert, Bisbe and Mendoza (2010). In particular, it notes that changes in the practices of a firm should be dramatic. Furthermore, the article specifies that the new viewpoints have to be extracted particularly from employees instead of deriving ideas from persons holding formal leadership positions (Hamel 1996).

nLindgreen, Beverland and Farrelly (2010) stresses the importance of strategic planning especially for managers (Lindgreen, Beverland and Farrelly 2010). On the other hand, the main perspective of “strategy as Revolution” is to advice managers to involve workers from lowest rank in the strategy formulation and planning (Hamel 1996).

nThe article “Strategy as Revolution” categorises firms into three groups in the business world. In this regard, they include the rule takers, the rule makers and the rule breakers who are referred to as industrial revolutionaries (Hamel 1996). According to this article the rule makers are people for contribute to the building of the industry at all times. They are the initiators of businesses and they provide protection of the business. On the other hand, the rule takers demonstrate the objectives and goals of the rule makers. They attempt to execute the objectives of business. Lastly, there are the rule breakers who represent persons who revolutionize the business or industry. In addition, they represent radical thinkers who transform business (Hamel 1996).

nAccording to French, Kelly and Harrison (2004) and Poister (2010) there are two levels of strategic planning i.e. bottom up and top-down strategies. The researchers noted that bottom-up ideas deals with the analysis of trends in customer behaviours and sales as core levels of strategy formulation (French, Kelly and Harrison 2004). Moreover, a top-down approach begins with researching for business environments. In this regard, it leads to establishment of targets and resource mobilization (Chen 2009). In this respect, the main viewpoint presented by “Strategy as Revolution” is similar to the bottom-up approach but it advances this idea to the next level. However, Bisbe and Malagueño (2012) argues that strategic planning must not involve of accomplishing incremental improvement. Instead, revolutionary approach should be used in order to accomplish sustainable competitiveness by renovating the industry (Bisbe and Malagueño 2012).

nMost importantly, the article “Strategy as Revolution” is very important because it has contributed to improvement of knowledge on advantages of bottom-up strategy as compared to top-down strategy in strategy formulation. It is credited to be one of the first articles to shed more light on the advantages of bottom-up approach as compared to top-down approach (Hamel 1996).

nStrengths of “Strategy as Revolution”

nThe article “Strategy as Revolution” has played a critical role in terms of strategic management in different ways. For instance, the main viewpoint of Hamel (1996) that he intends to communicate can be categorised into ten principles. In this respect, it makes the article easy to read and understand as well as executing the recommendations of that article (Hamel 1996).

nMoreover, Hamel (1996) explains how a business can accomplish sustainable competiveness by utilising practices of strategic planning in an appropriate manner. Since the publication of this article, it has led to emergence of company, which utilize revolutionary approaches to business (Hamel 1996). Furthermore, the article is best guidance when implementing the recommendations highlighted therein. Consequently, these recommendations would help firms in many ways rather than having a successive corporate strategy. In particular, involving employees from the lower levels in formulation of strategy enable a firm to strengthen their motivation levels. In addition, this will help a firm to effectively contribute to the accomplishment of organizational goals, mission and objectives (Hamel 1996).

nThe article offers best insights on how managers and entrepreneurs can use strategic planning in daily running of their businesses in order to focus on their objectives. In addition, the article suggests that since entrepreneurs are innovators they integrate the resource mobilization and utilize opportunities to implement crucial business ideas. They also formulate strategies in order to achieve specific objectives. An effective strategy is able to promote change and helps in decision-making (Hamel 1996).

nWeakness of the article

nAlthough the article has much strength in terms of giving recommendations to effective business, it also has certain weaknesses. For instance, Hamel (1996) suggest that senior managers need to gather the main ideas from employees at lower level during strategy formulation. Nonetheless, the author fails to explain how the ideas can be categorized because there could be thousands of ideas from the employees and executing all of them could be impractical (Hamel 1996).

nFurthermore, the author failed to strengthen the rationality of every principle as highlighted in the article through appropriate examples. Hamel (1996) highlighted the ten principles that are very crucial to be considered. Nonetheless, since these principles do not have practical example. It makes it difficult for them to make convincing points to some extent (Hamel 1996).

nConclusion

nThe long-term or short-term success of a business depends on the type of strategy that is selected and implemented. “Strategy as Revolution” recommends that senior management should consult employees in lower rank position when formulating a strategy. On the other hand, it challenges the top-down approach in strategy formulation. The author argues that this strategy is effective because it produces revolutionary and fresh ideas to the issues of sustaining long-term growth of the business (Hamel 1996). Nonetheless, although the article has some weakness, it offers valid ideas that can help to improve the performance of businesses.

nReferences

nBisbe, J. and Malagueño, R., 2012. Using strategic performance measurement systems for strategy formulation: Does it work in dynamic environments?. Management Accounting Research, 23 (4), 296-311.

nChen, M., 2009. Reflecting on the process: Building competitive dynamics research. Asia Pac J Manag, 27 (1), 9-24.

nFrench, S., Kelly, S. and Harrison, J., 2004. The role of strategic planning in the performance of small, professional service firms. Journal of Mgmt Development, 23 (8), 765-776.

nGimbert, X., Bisbe, J. and Mendoza, X., 2010. The Role of Performance Measurement Systems in Strategy Formulation Processes. Long Range Planning, 43 (4), 477-497.

nHamel, G., 1996. Strategy as Revolution. Harvard Business Review.

nLindgreen, A., Beverland, M. and Farrelly, F., 2010. From strategy to tactics: Building, implementing, and managing brand equity in business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 39 (8), 1223-1225.

nPoister, T., 2010. The Future of Strategic Planning in the Public Sector: Linking Strategic Management and Performance. Public Administration Review, 70, s246-s254.