Most strategists would likely agree with the statement that company boards need to have a good understanding of corporate and business unit strategy in order to contribute to and…
Abstract
Purpose
Most strategists would likely agree with the statement that company boards need to have a good understanding of corporate and business unit strategy in order to contribute to and oversee decision making. Recent McKinsey research suggests, however, that a majority of senior executives do not believe the board members adequately understand company strategy. This paper aims to investigate what is the best way to educate a board so it will be knowledgeable about strategy.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper compares and contrasts two sets of best practices for educating a board so that its members can add greater value to strategy making – advice in the current McKinsey Quarterly and that of David Nadler, author of Building Better Boards.
Findings
The paper concluded that the prescriptions of the McKinsey authors Dennis Carney and Michael Patsalos‐Fox are helpful, but consultant David Nadler offers a more comprehensive explanation in Building Better Boards.
Practical implications
Some key practices worth considering: raise strategy's profile in board work. Surprisingly no US company has a board committee devoted to the formulation and review of strategy; populate the board with at least three to four members who have industry expertise in the core business and market conditions the company faces; and reform board processes. To keep pace with change, CEOs should lead regular strategy updates at least every other board meeting.
Originality/value
By synthesizing the practical suggestions from the two sources, companies can put together a package of best practices.
Details
Keywords
This article offers an action plan for CEOs who wish to constructively engage their boards in strategy development. In this approach, the board participates in the strategic…
Abstract
This article offers an action plan for CEOs who wish to constructively engage their boards in strategy development. In this approach, the board participates in the strategic thinking and strategic decision‐making processes, adding value but not infringing on the CEO’s and executive team’s fundamental responsibilities. More specifically, in value‐added engagement, the CEO and management lead and develop the strategic plan with directors’ input, and the board generally approves the strategy and the metrics to assess progress. The author details the five key elements critical to successful engagement of the board in strategy development: view strategy as a process, not an event; design parallel but lagged processes; inform and educate the board; collect and analyze director input; generate strategic alternatives. The recommended framework for engaging the board in strategy development is called the “strategic choice process”; it has six steps, with the CEO and his/her team leading the way.
Details
Keywords
During this past decade, we've done a lot of work with teams of people to help them think strategically, using an approach we call “collaborative strategy,” or “strategic choice.”…
Abstract
During this past decade, we've done a lot of work with teams of people to help them think strategically, using an approach we call “collaborative strategy,” or “strategic choice.” Our experience has led us to three major conclusions:
“An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come,” noted Victor Hugo. Change is definitely one of those unstoppable concepts. Certainly, no strategist…
Abstract
“An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come,” noted Victor Hugo. Change is definitely one of those unstoppable concepts. Certainly, no strategist reading this has sidestepped the need to manage or direct some kind of change.
This paper focuses on the concept of fit as a topic of research. The concept of fit has been viewed as an internal consistency among key strategic decisions or the alignment…
Abstract
This paper focuses on the concept of fit as a topic of research. The concept of fit has been viewed as an internal consistency among key strategic decisions or the alignment between strategic choices and critical contingencies with the environment (external), organization (internal), or both (external and internal). A number of research perspectives or approaches related to fit are presented.Research design problems are discussed: definition of terms, theoretical issues, and empirical issues. Emphasis is on how key variables or dimensions of fit are defined and measured in research.
A six-celled matrix is proposed as a conceptual scheme to distinguish different perspectives of fit and to portray congruence relationships more accurately. The matrix includes three common dimensions: strategy, organization, and environment. The matrix also suggests two levels of strategy—corporate or business—and three domains of fit—external, internal, or integrated. These suggest different research perspectives for the study of fit. Examples from the literature are provided to illustrate and support this conceptual scheme. Finally, implications for management and furtherstudy are outlined.
The key to effective management in times of tumult is organisation fit — the integration or congruence of the organisation. Tumult increases the need to manage the two major areas…
Abstract
The key to effective management in times of tumult is organisation fit — the integration or congruence of the organisation. Tumult increases the need to manage the two major areas of fit more closely — organisation domain and external environment. Fit must be considered with equal emphasis in the short, mid and long term. An on‐going, strategic assessment of organisational fit is needed. The nature of the change process and the change variables must be identified. There are six ways that management can intervene between change variables to enhance their fit and four organisation interfaces which are directed towards adaptation to the external environment. This multi‐level change typology identifies three methods of directly managing organisation fit — intrusion, interface and intervention. These methods are discussed and interventions and interfaces described.
Details
Keywords
Reviews the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoints practical implications from cutting‐edge research and case studies.
Abstract
Purpose
Reviews the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoints practical implications from cutting‐edge research and case studies.
Design/methodology/approach
We scan the top 400 management publications in the world to identify the most topical issues and latest concepts. These are presented in an easy‐to‐digest briefing of no more than 1,500 words.
Findings
Successfully negotiating our way through the minefield that is life comes down to choosing the correct pathways to take. Should we turn right, turn left or carry on straight ahead? If only we were blessed with the foresight to know. It's much the same in business, where choices made shape future performance and determine an organization's ability to seize new opportunities as they arise. Perhaps its no wonder that many companies view strategy development as one of their most important functions.
Practical implications
Provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world's leading organizations.
Originality/value
The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy‐to digest format.
Details
Keywords
Osvald M. Bjelland and Robert Chapman Wood
For half a century, experts have offered leaders a standard model of how to transform organizations. It involves unfreezing them, developing a clear picture of the future…
Abstract
Purpose
For half a century, experts have offered leaders a standard model of how to transform organizations. It involves unfreezing them, developing a clear picture of the future, managing to make the picture a reality, and then changing systems to support the new ways. However, studies have shown that transformation does not always follow this script. This paper aims to look at four alternatives.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper reviews more than 50 well documented transformations and compares them to both the standard model and non‐mainstream ideas about transformation
Findings
The paper offers a guide to five distinct, reproducible ways of radically altering organizations: the standard model process (“holism”), transformation through the ambidextrous form, transformation through acquisition/restructuring, the Collins “Good‐to‐great” process, an improvisational transformation process. Hybrid approaches are discussed.
Research limitations/implications
Providing a comprehensive guide to corporate transformation is a problematic undertaking. The authors could not review every case study of transformation, so they cannot say with certainty that their list of documented transformation methods is all‐inclusive. However, their survey gave them good reason to believe these are the five best‐documented transformation processes.
Practical implications
The paper explains the important advantages of each approach to transformation that make it appropriate for particular purposes.
Originality/value
When organizations need radical change, leaders need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of all five well‐documented alternative paths to transformation.