Acting Strategically - Revision history

Paulreed: /* The Systems view */

2019-11-01T17:34:50Z

The Systems view

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:34, 1 November 2019
Line 30:		Line 30:
	[[author::Senge]] views systems thinking as a way to build learning organizations. The ‘Fifth Discipline’ describes systems thinking as reflecting on, describing and acting on the ‘big picture’ and looking beyond solutions to symptoms and quick fixes. The systems view may involve analysis to solve complex problems and making links between facets of the organization. This can take the form of ‘hard systems’ analysis common to the type that Fed-Ex employs through the use of simulations and other modeling techniques to solve connected problems such as optimization of routes using by combining, IT, engineering and mathematical expertise and functions.		[[author::Senge]] views systems thinking as a way to build learning organizations. The ‘Fifth Discipline’ describes systems thinking as reflecting on, describing and acting on the ‘big picture’ and looking beyond solutions to symptoms and quick fixes. The systems view may involve analysis to solve complex problems and making links between facets of the organization. This can take the form of ‘hard systems’ analysis common to the type that Fed-Ex employs through the use of simulations and other modeling techniques to solve connected problems such as optimization of routes using by combining, IT, engineering and mathematical expertise and functions.

	Although ‘hard systems’ analysis can provide quantifiable solutions it cannot easily take into account unquantifiable values such as cultures, opinions and politics. However the system’s view also encompasses the ‘soft system’ analysis like the type devised by Peter Checkland . He recommends viewing organizations processes in terms of rich pictures that pictorially show the links and relationships that exist and showing feedback loops in an organization. More importantly, it analyzes discontinuities between processes that provides the analysis the company needs to take action to resolve these discontinuities. [[McKinsey's 7S]]’s is a combination of soft and hard systems that also explores the interrelationships between hard and soft system attributes that enables the strategist to solve strategic problems. Although adherence to the 7’S framework cannot guarantee success; without understanding the relationship between the 7 systems an organization is more prone to strategic failure.		Although ‘hard systems’ analysis can provide quantifiable solutions it cannot easily take into account unquantifiable values such as cultures, opinions and politics. However the system’s view also encompasses the ‘soft system’ analysis like the type devised by Peter Checkland . He recommends viewing organizations processes in terms of rich pictures that pictorially show the links and relationships that exist and showing feedback loops in an organization. More importantly, it analyzes discontinuities between processes that provides the analysis the company needs to take action to resolve these discontinuities. [[McKinsey's 7s]]’s is a combination of soft and hard systems that also explores the interrelationships between hard and soft system attributes that enables the strategist to solve strategic problems. Although adherence to the 7’S framework cannot guarantee success; without understanding the relationship between the 7 systems an organization is more prone to strategic failure.

	==The Focus on [[Strategic Intent]]==		==The Focus on [[Strategic Intent]]==

Paulreed: /* The Systems view */

2019-11-01T17:32:08Z

The Systems view

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:32, 1 November 2019
Line 30:		Line 30:
	[[author::Senge]] views systems thinking as a way to build learning organizations. The ‘Fifth Discipline’ describes systems thinking as reflecting on, describing and acting on the ‘big picture’ and looking beyond solutions to symptoms and quick fixes. The systems view may involve analysis to solve complex problems and making links between facets of the organization. This can take the form of ‘hard systems’ analysis common to the type that Fed-Ex employs through the use of simulations and other modeling techniques to solve connected problems such as optimization of routes using by combining, IT, engineering and mathematical expertise and functions.		[[author::Senge]] views systems thinking as a way to build learning organizations. The ‘Fifth Discipline’ describes systems thinking as reflecting on, describing and acting on the ‘big picture’ and looking beyond solutions to symptoms and quick fixes. The systems view may involve analysis to solve complex problems and making links between facets of the organization. This can take the form of ‘hard systems’ analysis common to the type that Fed-Ex employs through the use of simulations and other modeling techniques to solve connected problems such as optimization of routes using by combining, IT, engineering and mathematical expertise and functions.

	Although ‘hard systems’ analysis can provide quantifiable solutions it cannot easily take into account unquantifiable values such as cultures, opinions and politics. However the system’s view also encompasses the ‘soft system’ analysis like the type devised by Peter Checkland . He recommends viewing organizations processes in terms of rich pictures that pictorially show the links and relationships that exist and showing feedback loops in an organization. More importantly, it analyzes discontinuities between processes that provides the analysis the company needs to take action to resolve these discontinuities. [[~~McKinseys 7 S~~]]’s is a combination of soft and hard systems that also explores the interrelationships between hard and soft system attributes that enables the strategist to solve strategic problems. Although adherence to the 7’S framework cannot guarantee success; without understanding the relationship between the 7 systems an organization is more prone to strategic failure.		Although ‘hard systems’ analysis can provide quantifiable solutions it cannot easily take into account unquantifiable values such as cultures, opinions and politics. However the system’s view also encompasses the ‘soft system’ analysis like the type devised by Peter Checkland . He recommends viewing organizations processes in terms of rich pictures that pictorially show the links and relationships that exist and showing feedback loops in an organization. More importantly, it analyzes discontinuities between processes that provides the analysis the company needs to take action to resolve these discontinuities. [[McKinsey's 7S]]’s is a combination of soft and hard systems that also explores the interrelationships between hard and soft system attributes that enables the strategist to solve strategic problems. Although adherence to the 7’S framework cannot guarantee success; without understanding the relationship between the 7 systems an organization is more prone to strategic failure.

	==The Focus on [[Strategic Intent]]==		==The Focus on [[Strategic Intent]]==
	This emphasizes that strategic thinking is not aimless but directed towards a defined purpose. The strategic thinking is also driven by the continuous reshaping of intent. For instance Honda’s entry into the US market was a deliberate strategy based on a rational economic calculation but also, according to [[author::Hamel]] and Prahalad it was exploiting and stretching its core competences in a new market. Hamel and Prahalad see the three attributes of strategic intent as destiny, discovery and direction. The concept of discovery (and also learning) highlights that strategic intent includes emergent strategy. Using this perspective it has been argued by Pascale that Honda’s entry into the US market was initially strategic thinking and acting based upon economic calculation but once in that market Honda needed to think flexibly and creatively about the realities of the market to frame their ongoing strategy.		This emphasizes that strategic thinking is not aimless but directed towards a defined purpose. The strategic thinking is also driven by the continuous reshaping of intent. For instance Honda’s entry into the US market was a deliberate strategy based on a rational economic calculation but also, according to [[author::Hamel]] and Prahalad it was exploiting and stretching its core competences in a new market. Hamel and Prahalad see the three attributes of strategic intent as destiny, discovery and direction. The concept of discovery (and also learning) highlights that strategic intent includes emergent strategy. Using this perspective it has been argued by Pascale that Honda’s entry into the US market was initially strategic thinking and acting based upon economic calculation but once in that market Honda needed to think flexibly and creatively about the realities of the market to frame their ongoing strategy.

Paulreed: /* A Definition of Acting Strategically */

2019-11-01T17:29:00Z

A Definition of Acting Strategically

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:29, 1 November 2019
Line 19:		Line 19:
	[[author::Liedtka]] selected five major attributes of strategic thinking and specific techniques that encourage this kind of thinking. Strategic thinking…		[[author::Liedtka]] selected five major attributes of strategic thinking and specific techniques that encourage this kind of thinking. Strategic thinking…

	1. takes a systems view		*1. takes a systems view
	2. requires strategic intent		*2. requires strategic intent
	3. means thinking in real time that links the past present and future		*3. means thinking in real time that links the past present and future
	4. is about developing hypothesis		*4. is about developing hypothesis
	5. is opportunistic		*5. is opportunistic

	==The Systems view==		==The Systems view==

Paulreed at 17:27, 1 November 2019

2019-11-01T17:27:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:27, 1 November 2019
Line 103:		Line 103:
	*Pascale Perspectives on Strategy The real story behind Honda’s success California Management Review 1984		*Pascale Perspectives on Strategy The real story behind Honda’s success California Management Review 1984
	*How to Build a Great Team Fortune May 2006		*How to Build a Great Team Fortune May 2006
	* The Innovator’s Dilemma Christensen 1997		*The Innovator’s Dilemma Christensen 1997
	* Culture and Competitive Evidence from mature UK Industries Journal of Management Studies, 26 1989		*Culture and Competitive Evidence from mature UK Industries Journal of Management Studies, 26 1989
	* Choosing strategies for change 1979 HBR March/April		*Choosing strategies for change 1979 HBR March/April
	* The Innovating Organization 2000 as quoted in Images of Strategy		*The Innovating Organization 2000 as quoted in Images of Strategy
	* Kotter Leading Change Why Transformation Efforts fail HBR Mar/April 1995		*Kotter Leading Change Why Transformation Efforts fail HBR Mar/April 1995

Paulreed at 20:51, 9 January 2013

2013-01-09T20:51:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:51, 9 January 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:
	* Understanding of risk		* Understanding of risk
	* Undertanding competitors reactions		* Undertanding competitors reactions
	* [[Kotters 8 steps for implementing strategy]]		* [[author::Kotter]][[Kotters 8 steps for implementing strategy\|'s 8 steps for implementing strategy]]
	* Pettigrew and Whip said you need a complementary mix of continuity and change and interweave past with present and future		* Pettigrew and Whip said you need a complementary mix of continuity and change and interweave past with present and future

Paulreed: /* An Action Plan for Acting Strategically */

2012-12-27T23:18:54Z

An Action Plan for Acting Strategically

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 27 December 2012
Line 92:		Line 92:
	Whereas ‘change agents’ either recruited to the organization or as management consultants generate short-term results some organizations take a long-term view to change management. Jack Welch of GE and Cor Boonstra of Philips are examples of leaders of organizations who see change as a journey rather than a destination. At the beginning of the 1990’s both companies were global and had a differentiated portfolio of companies. The first stage of the journey was the appointment of these charismatic leaders who began a process of competence development. Consequently, new capabilities, metaphors, market responsiveness initiatives were developed and driven from the top. Philip’s developed the metaphor ‘Let’s Make Things Better’. This initiated a conversation within the organization of how processes, products and design could be improved. One of the outputs of this transformational approach was an initiative called “One Philips” The initiative was not about technology or tactics but ‘strategic conversations’ about building the internal confidence of the employees, stimulate cross-functional/cross border co-operation to create new ways of working. The characteristic of the initiative was that the contribution could come from anywhere in the organization. It encouraged the exchanging of views, the debating of scenarios and the exploitation of strategic tensions to create new products such as the first affordable DVD-recorder. The strategic conversation used the medium of the internet and other collaboration technologies and culminated in one-day summits . More recently the metaphor has evolved to become ‘Sense and Simplicity’ This has a more outward looking customer focus. Philips now looks to consumers for its inspiration. The 8,000 R&D workers from all the six divisions work together in teams called theme teams who work towards creating technologies to enhance the customer’s experience of technology products by making them simple and intuitive to use. The key feature of this transformational change management initiative is the dynamism of the groups as they are assembled, re-configured and disbanded as the need arises.		Whereas ‘change agents’ either recruited to the organization or as management consultants generate short-term results some organizations take a long-term view to change management. Jack Welch of GE and Cor Boonstra of Philips are examples of leaders of organizations who see change as a journey rather than a destination. At the beginning of the 1990’s both companies were global and had a differentiated portfolio of companies. The first stage of the journey was the appointment of these charismatic leaders who began a process of competence development. Consequently, new capabilities, metaphors, market responsiveness initiatives were developed and driven from the top. Philip’s developed the metaphor ‘Let’s Make Things Better’. This initiated a conversation within the organization of how processes, products and design could be improved. One of the outputs of this transformational approach was an initiative called “One Philips” The initiative was not about technology or tactics but ‘strategic conversations’ about building the internal confidence of the employees, stimulate cross-functional/cross border co-operation to create new ways of working. The characteristic of the initiative was that the contribution could come from anywhere in the organization. It encouraged the exchanging of views, the debating of scenarios and the exploitation of strategic tensions to create new products such as the first affordable DVD-recorder. The strategic conversation used the medium of the internet and other collaboration technologies and culminated in one-day summits . More recently the metaphor has evolved to become ‘Sense and Simplicity’ This has a more outward looking customer focus. Philips now looks to consumers for its inspiration. The 8,000 R&D workers from all the six divisions work together in teams called theme teams who work towards creating technologies to enhance the customer’s experience of technology products by making them simple and intuitive to use. The key feature of this transformational change management initiative is the dynamism of the groups as they are assembled, re-configured and disbanded as the need arises.

	Initiatives such as these reflect the changing emphasis of change management. Firstly, the change of emphasis from a capital perspective and productivity improvement focus towards a capabilities perspective where the investment in human resources is the key driver of delivering change in the organization. Another feature is an acknowledgement that, especially in large companies, the leader cannot dictate change but can create an environment where they can orchestrate change by delegating innovative management throughout the organization. Consequently, the organization should configure its structure in order to deliver the strategy. This means flatter and less rigid organizational structures with more vertical and horizontal linkages between functions . In addition, decentralized structures that encourage devolved decision making and creative strategy responsibility. Pettigrew, Whittington et al found that companies that made a hold raft of complementary changes to structures, processes and organizational boundaries were more likely to better performers than companies that only made partial changes. Whipp and Pettigrew’s models for Managing Change for Competitive Success stresses the need for a balance of continuity and change and acknowledge that the present and past can be key indicators of the future. [[Kotters * steps for implementing strategy\|Kotter’s model Eight steps]] to transforming your organization uses a similar approach by highlight the holistic nature of change by establishing a sense of urgency, crating a vision and empowering others to act upon the vision and creating improvements which spur further changes.		Initiatives such as these reflect the changing emphasis of change management. Firstly, the change of emphasis from a capital perspective and productivity improvement focus towards a capabilities perspective where the investment in human resources is the key driver of delivering change in the organization. Another feature is an acknowledgement that, especially in large companies, the leader cannot dictate change but can create an environment where they can orchestrate change by delegating innovative management throughout the organization. Consequently, the organization should configure its structure in order to deliver the strategy. This means flatter and less rigid organizational structures with more vertical and horizontal linkages between functions . In addition, decentralized structures that encourage devolved decision making and creative strategy responsibility. Pettigrew, Whittington et al found that companies that made a hold raft of complementary changes to structures, processes and organizational boundaries were more likely to better performers than companies that only made partial changes. Whipp and Pettigrew’s models for Managing Change for Competitive Success stresses the need for a balance of continuity and change and acknowledge that the present and past can be key indicators of the future. [[Kotters 8 steps for implementing strategy\|Kotter’s model Eight steps]] to transforming your organization uses a similar approach by highlight the holistic nature of change by establishing a sense of urgency, crating a vision and empowering others to act upon the vision and creating improvements which spur further changes.

	Consequently by simultaneously analyzing context , process and content of the change process and interplay between these factors over time, the organization can seek to implement strategic plans that are ‘fit for purpose’, include the right participants and are delivered in a processual way.		Consequently by simultaneously analyzing context , process and content of the change process and interplay between these factors over time, the organization can seek to implement strategic plans that are ‘fit for purpose’, include the right participants and are delivered in a processual way.

Paulreed: /* An Action Plan for Acting Strategically */

2012-12-27T23:18:22Z

An Action Plan for Acting Strategically

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 27 December 2012
Line 92:		Line 92:
	Whereas ‘change agents’ either recruited to the organization or as management consultants generate short-term results some organizations take a long-term view to change management. Jack Welch of GE and Cor Boonstra of Philips are examples of leaders of organizations who see change as a journey rather than a destination. At the beginning of the 1990’s both companies were global and had a differentiated portfolio of companies. The first stage of the journey was the appointment of these charismatic leaders who began a process of competence development. Consequently, new capabilities, metaphors, market responsiveness initiatives were developed and driven from the top. Philip’s developed the metaphor ‘Let’s Make Things Better’. This initiated a conversation within the organization of how processes, products and design could be improved. One of the outputs of this transformational approach was an initiative called “One Philips” The initiative was not about technology or tactics but ‘strategic conversations’ about building the internal confidence of the employees, stimulate cross-functional/cross border co-operation to create new ways of working. The characteristic of the initiative was that the contribution could come from anywhere in the organization. It encouraged the exchanging of views, the debating of scenarios and the exploitation of strategic tensions to create new products such as the first affordable DVD-recorder. The strategic conversation used the medium of the internet and other collaboration technologies and culminated in one-day summits . More recently the metaphor has evolved to become ‘Sense and Simplicity’ This has a more outward looking customer focus. Philips now looks to consumers for its inspiration. The 8,000 R&D workers from all the six divisions work together in teams called theme teams who work towards creating technologies to enhance the customer’s experience of technology products by making them simple and intuitive to use. The key feature of this transformational change management initiative is the dynamism of the groups as they are assembled, re-configured and disbanded as the need arises.		Whereas ‘change agents’ either recruited to the organization or as management consultants generate short-term results some organizations take a long-term view to change management. Jack Welch of GE and Cor Boonstra of Philips are examples of leaders of organizations who see change as a journey rather than a destination. At the beginning of the 1990’s both companies were global and had a differentiated portfolio of companies. The first stage of the journey was the appointment of these charismatic leaders who began a process of competence development. Consequently, new capabilities, metaphors, market responsiveness initiatives were developed and driven from the top. Philip’s developed the metaphor ‘Let’s Make Things Better’. This initiated a conversation within the organization of how processes, products and design could be improved. One of the outputs of this transformational approach was an initiative called “One Philips” The initiative was not about technology or tactics but ‘strategic conversations’ about building the internal confidence of the employees, stimulate cross-functional/cross border co-operation to create new ways of working. The characteristic of the initiative was that the contribution could come from anywhere in the organization. It encouraged the exchanging of views, the debating of scenarios and the exploitation of strategic tensions to create new products such as the first affordable DVD-recorder. The strategic conversation used the medium of the internet and other collaboration technologies and culminated in one-day summits . More recently the metaphor has evolved to become ‘Sense and Simplicity’ This has a more outward looking customer focus. Philips now looks to consumers for its inspiration. The 8,000 R&D workers from all the six divisions work together in teams called theme teams who work towards creating technologies to enhance the customer’s experience of technology products by making them simple and intuitive to use. The key feature of this transformational change management initiative is the dynamism of the groups as they are assembled, re-configured and disbanded as the need arises.

	Initiatives such as these reflect the changing emphasis of change management. Firstly, the change of emphasis from a capital perspective and productivity improvement focus towards a capabilities perspective where the investment in human resources is the key driver of delivering change in the organization. Another feature is an acknowledgement that, especially in large companies, the leader cannot dictate change but can create an environment where they can orchestrate change by delegating innovative management throughout the organization. Consequently, the organization should configure its structure in order to deliver the strategy. This means flatter and less rigid organizational structures with more vertical and horizontal linkages between functions . In addition, decentralized structures that encourage devolved decision making and creative strategy responsibility. Pettigrew, Whittington et al found that companies that made a hold raft of complementary changes to structures, processes and organizational boundaries were more likely to better performers than companies that only made partial changes. Whipp and Pettigrew’s models for Managing Change for Competitive Success stresses the need for a balance of continuity and change and acknowledge that the present and past can be key indicators of the future. [[Kotters * steps for implementing strategy\|Kotter’s model Eight steps}} to transforming your organization uses a similar approach by highlight the holistic nature of change by establishing a sense of urgency, crating a vision and empowering others to act upon the vision and creating improvements which spur further changes.		Initiatives such as these reflect the changing emphasis of change management. Firstly, the change of emphasis from a capital perspective and productivity improvement focus towards a capabilities perspective where the investment in human resources is the key driver of delivering change in the organization. Another feature is an acknowledgement that, especially in large companies, the leader cannot dictate change but can create an environment where they can orchestrate change by delegating innovative management throughout the organization. Consequently, the organization should configure its structure in order to deliver the strategy. This means flatter and less rigid organizational structures with more vertical and horizontal linkages between functions . In addition, decentralized structures that encourage devolved decision making and creative strategy responsibility. Pettigrew, Whittington et al found that companies that made a hold raft of complementary changes to structures, processes and organizational boundaries were more likely to better performers than companies that only made partial changes. Whipp and Pettigrew’s models for Managing Change for Competitive Success stresses the need for a balance of continuity and change and acknowledge that the present and past can be key indicators of the future. [[Kotters * steps for implementing strategy\|Kotter’s model Eight steps]] to transforming your organization uses a similar approach by highlight the holistic nature of change by establishing a sense of urgency, crating a vision and empowering others to act upon the vision and creating improvements which spur further changes.

	Consequently by simultaneously analyzing context , process and content of the change process and interplay between these factors over time, the organization can seek to implement strategic plans that are ‘fit for purpose’, include the right participants and are delivered in a processual way.		Consequently by simultaneously analyzing context , process and content of the change process and interplay between these factors over time, the organization can seek to implement strategic plans that are ‘fit for purpose’, include the right participants and are delivered in a processual way.

Paulreed: /* An Action Plan for Acting Strategically */

2012-12-27T23:16:45Z

An Action Plan for Acting Strategically

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 27 December 2012
Line 92:		Line 92:
	Whereas ‘change agents’ either recruited to the organization or as management consultants generate short-term results some organizations take a long-term view to change management. Jack Welch of GE and Cor Boonstra of Philips are examples of leaders of organizations who see change as a journey rather than a destination. At the beginning of the 1990’s both companies were global and had a differentiated portfolio of companies. The first stage of the journey was the appointment of these charismatic leaders who began a process of competence development. Consequently, new capabilities, metaphors, market responsiveness initiatives were developed and driven from the top. Philip’s developed the metaphor ‘Let’s Make Things Better’. This initiated a conversation within the organization of how processes, products and design could be improved. One of the outputs of this transformational approach was an initiative called “One Philips” The initiative was not about technology or tactics but ‘strategic conversations’ about building the internal confidence of the employees, stimulate cross-functional/cross border co-operation to create new ways of working. The characteristic of the initiative was that the contribution could come from anywhere in the organization. It encouraged the exchanging of views, the debating of scenarios and the exploitation of strategic tensions to create new products such as the first affordable DVD-recorder. The strategic conversation used the medium of the internet and other collaboration technologies and culminated in one-day summits . More recently the metaphor has evolved to become ‘Sense and Simplicity’ This has a more outward looking customer focus. Philips now looks to consumers for its inspiration. The 8,000 R&D workers from all the six divisions work together in teams called theme teams who work towards creating technologies to enhance the customer’s experience of technology products by making them simple and intuitive to use. The key feature of this transformational change management initiative is the dynamism of the groups as they are assembled, re-configured and disbanded as the need arises.		Whereas ‘change agents’ either recruited to the organization or as management consultants generate short-term results some organizations take a long-term view to change management. Jack Welch of GE and Cor Boonstra of Philips are examples of leaders of organizations who see change as a journey rather than a destination. At the beginning of the 1990’s both companies were global and had a differentiated portfolio of companies. The first stage of the journey was the appointment of these charismatic leaders who began a process of competence development. Consequently, new capabilities, metaphors, market responsiveness initiatives were developed and driven from the top. Philip’s developed the metaphor ‘Let’s Make Things Better’. This initiated a conversation within the organization of how processes, products and design could be improved. One of the outputs of this transformational approach was an initiative called “One Philips” The initiative was not about technology or tactics but ‘strategic conversations’ about building the internal confidence of the employees, stimulate cross-functional/cross border co-operation to create new ways of working. The characteristic of the initiative was that the contribution could come from anywhere in the organization. It encouraged the exchanging of views, the debating of scenarios and the exploitation of strategic tensions to create new products such as the first affordable DVD-recorder. The strategic conversation used the medium of the internet and other collaboration technologies and culminated in one-day summits . More recently the metaphor has evolved to become ‘Sense and Simplicity’ This has a more outward looking customer focus. Philips now looks to consumers for its inspiration. The 8,000 R&D workers from all the six divisions work together in teams called theme teams who work towards creating technologies to enhance the customer’s experience of technology products by making them simple and intuitive to use. The key feature of this transformational change management initiative is the dynamism of the groups as they are assembled, re-configured and disbanded as the need arises.

	Initiatives such as these reflect the changing emphasis of change management. Firstly, the change of emphasis from a capital perspective and productivity improvement focus towards a capabilities perspective where the investment in human resources is the key driver of delivering change in the organization. Another feature is an acknowledgement that, especially in large companies, the leader cannot dictate change but can create an environment where they can orchestrate change by delegating innovative management throughout the organization. Consequently, the organization should configure its structure in order to deliver the strategy. This means flatter and less rigid organizational structures with more vertical and horizontal linkages between functions . In addition, decentralized structures that encourage devolved decision making and creative strategy responsibility. Pettigrew, Whittington et al found that companies that made a hold raft of complementary changes to structures, processes and organizational boundaries were more likely to better performers than companies that only made partial changes. Whipp and Pettigrew’s models for Managing Change for Competitive Success stresses the need for a balance of continuity and change and acknowledge that the present and past can be key indicators of the future. Kotter’s model Eight steps to transforming your organization uses a similar approach by highlight the holistic nature of change by establishing a sense of urgency, crating a vision and empowering others to act upon the vision and creating improvements which spur further changes.		Initiatives such as these reflect the changing emphasis of change management. Firstly, the change of emphasis from a capital perspective and productivity improvement focus towards a capabilities perspective where the investment in human resources is the key driver of delivering change in the organization. Another feature is an acknowledgement that, especially in large companies, the leader cannot dictate change but can create an environment where they can orchestrate change by delegating innovative management throughout the organization. Consequently, the organization should configure its structure in order to deliver the strategy. This means flatter and less rigid organizational structures with more vertical and horizontal linkages between functions . In addition, decentralized structures that encourage devolved decision making and creative strategy responsibility. Pettigrew, Whittington et al found that companies that made a hold raft of complementary changes to structures, processes and organizational boundaries were more likely to better performers than companies that only made partial changes. Whipp and Pettigrew’s models for Managing Change for Competitive Success stresses the need for a balance of continuity and change and acknowledge that the present and past can be key indicators of the future. [[Kotters * steps for implementing strategy\|Kotter’s model Eight steps}} to transforming your organization uses a similar approach by highlight the holistic nature of change by establishing a sense of urgency, crating a vision and empowering others to act upon the vision and creating improvements which spur further changes.

	Consequently by simultaneously analyzing context , process and content of the change process and interplay between these factors over time, the organization can seek to implement strategic plans that are ‘fit for purpose’, include the right participants and are delivered in a processual way.		Consequently by simultaneously analyzing context , process and content of the change process and interplay between these factors over time, the organization can seek to implement strategic plans that are ‘fit for purpose’, include the right participants and are delivered in a processual way.

Paulreed: /* References */

2012-12-27T23:14:44Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:14, 27 December 2012
Line 107:		Line 107:
	* Choosing strategies for change 1979 HBR March/April		* Choosing strategies for change 1979 HBR March/April
	* The Innovating Organization 2000 as quoted in Images of Strategy		* The Innovating Organization 2000 as quoted in Images of Strategy
	Kotter Leading Change Why Transformation Efforts fail HBR Mar/April 1995		* Kotter Leading Change Why Transformation Efforts fail HBR Mar/April 1995

Paulreed at 23:14, 27 December 2012

2012-12-27T23:14:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:14, 27 December 2012
Line 95:		Line 95:

	Consequently by simultaneously analyzing context , process and content of the change process and interplay between these factors over time, the organization can seek to implement strategic plans that are ‘fit for purpose’, include the right participants and are delivered in a processual way.		Consequently by simultaneously analyzing context , process and content of the change process and interplay between these factors over time, the organization can seek to implement strategic plans that are ‘fit for purpose’, include the right participants and are delivered in a processual way.

			==References==
			*Liedtka, J.M. (1998), “Linking Strategic Thinking with Strategic Planning”, Strategy and Leadership, 26(4), 30-35
			*Senge The Fifth Discipline 1990
			*Soft Systems Methodology 1990
			*Strategic Intent HBR 1989, 67,3
			*Pascale Perspectives on Strategy The real story behind Honda’s success California Management Review 1984
			*How to Build a Great Team Fortune May 2006
			* The Innovator’s Dilemma Christensen 1997
			* Culture and Competitive Evidence from mature UK Industries Journal of Management Studies, 26 1989
			* Choosing strategies for change 1979 HBR March/April
			* The Innovating Organization 2000 as quoted in Images of Strategy
			Kotter Leading Change Why Transformation Efforts fail HBR Mar/April 1995


	<comments/>		<comments/>