Strategy as Ethos - Revision history

Paulreed at 12:36, 13 October 2012

2012-10-13T12:36:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:36, 13 October 2012
Line 7:		Line 7:
	their responsibilities to a vast array of constituents, claiming that this		their responsibilities to a vast array of constituents, claiming that this
	stretches organisations too thin and hamstrings decision-making.		stretches organisations too thin and hamstrings decision-making.
	Strategy as Ethos applies [[Aristotle]]’s view that the man who tries to be friends		Strategy as Ethos applies [[author::Aristotle]]’s view that the man who tries to be friends
	with all will not be seen as a friend by any, implying that organisations		with all will not be seen as a friend by any, implying that organisations
	like people must make difficult choices about which relationships they		like people must make difficult choices about which relationships they

Paulreed at 14:38, 22 September 2012

2012-09-22T14:38:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:38, 22 September 2012
Line 17:		Line 17:
	*What sort of characters would our competitors be?		*What sort of characters would our competitors be?
	*How are we different from those characters?		*How are we different from those characters?
	*What sort of actions would this different character or ethos		*What sort of actions would this different character or ethos encourage us to take in order to be consistent with ourselves?
	encourage us to take in order to be consistent with ourselves?

	The framework most easily applied to analyse corporate ethos is the		The framework most easily applied to analyse corporate ethos is the

Paulreed: Created page with "Organisations will have a clearer understanding of the strategic choices they should make if they have a good understanding of the organisation’s ethos (defined as ‘the ch..."

2012-09-22T14:32:44Z

Created page with "Organisations will have a clearer understanding of the strategic choices they should make if they have a good understanding of the organisation’s ethos (defined as ‘the ch..."

New page

Organisations will have a clearer
understanding of the strategic choices they should make if they have a
good understanding of the organisation’s ethos (defined as ‘the
characteristic spirit, prevalent tone of sentiment, ‘genius’ or distinctive
spirit of a people or institution’). The concept is somewhat critical of
[[Stakeholder Analysis]]’ instruction to firms to outline
their responsibilities to a vast array of constituents, claiming that this
stretches organisations too thin and hamstrings decision-making.
Strategy as Ethos applies [[Aristotle]]’s view that the man who tries to be friends
with all will not be seen as a friend by any, implying that organisations
like people must make difficult choices about which relationships they
really care about and prioritise.

People can develop a clearer understanding of their company’s ethos
by thinking of it as if it were a living being, by asking questions like:
*If our organisation was a person, what sort of person would it be?
*What sort of characters would our competitors be?
*How are we different from those characters?
*What sort of actions would this different character or ethos
encourage us to take in order to be consistent with ourselves?

The framework most easily applied to analyse corporate ethos is the
[[Circle of Corporate Ethos]]. In keeping with [[author::Mintzberg]]’s emergence perspective or
the cultural school of strategy process this
framework suggests that if an organisation has a clear understanding
of its purpose, its particular values, and how employees should enact
these values, then the contents of its strategy should be easy to
determine. As a simple rule, those companies whose purpose, values,
actions and strategies fit well with one another and reinforce one
another are highly animated and orientated . Those whose purpose, values, actions and strategies do
not fit and reinforce, tend to lack in orientation and/or animation.

See also
[[Johnson & Scholes' Cultural Web]]
[[Category:Strategy]]