Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
According to Jarzabkowski, Balogun, and Seidl, (2007) the focal point of strategy studies in recent
times is focused on “strategy-as-practice or strategizing”. “The strategic outcomes are found in the
daily routine processes and practices of organizational activities” (Johnson, Melin and
Whittington, 2003). The concept of practice and practices as well as practitioners was a three based
research strategy presented by (Whittington, 2006). The concept of practice, practices and
practitioners also include the addition of strategy as practice. Whittington (2006), stressed the need
to know how strategic practices are established as well as how they are circulated outside and
within the organization. Stacey (2011) also noted in the same vain, that “Systems thinking
essentially seeks to understand phenomena as a whole formed by the interaction of parts.” (Stacey,
2011). For the purpose of this paper I will define the concept connected to the statement made by
Stacey on “Systems, Complexity perspective of a system, Complex adaptive systems (CAS)”, with
Perspective” “New Ways of Thinking About Strategy”, “Complex Adaptive Systems: Modelling
Complexity”, “The Practice Perspective”. The understanding of this will help to explore the
strategy concepts and its formation within the organization. Within the organization the focus will
be put on three main points. These points are models or designs perspective and framework couple
with leadership which are all needed to contrive exchange of parts. This understanding will help
in capturing clearly the notion behind “understand phenomena as a whole formed by the interaction
of parts.” which was opined by Stacey, which will then lead to the conclusion on the statement
made.
To start with, Riesman (1972), defined system as “a set of resources personnel, materials, facilities,
and/or information organized to perform designated functions, in order to achieve desired results”.
Professor Ackoff (2010), also takes a system to be a whole that is made up of a number of parts
usually more than two parts. These parts can usually impact on the properties or the whole
behavior. Ackoff (2010), also stated that, the classified properties of a system are “properties of
the whole”, that is not possessed by its parts (Ackoff, 2010). According to Barney (1992), the
organization is a social system that is made up of people which aspiration, couple with their egos,
and frustration among others. System thinking was designed by Barry Richmond as the way and
manner in which human beings think, learn and communicate (Richmond, 2005). St. Augustine’s
description of time is also deemed similar to the notion of system complexity. “What then is time
complexity? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain it to one that asks, I know not.”
Systemic approach in many organization takes into account social and political characteristics that
must be dealt with by the organization in terms of strategic definition. There is an accepted notion
that there is a social system that influences strategy before a rational decision. This is as a result
of contingencies and socio-political conditions. On this occasion, the atmosphere of relativist can
The approaches of strategic thinking and planning in line with the school of thought of
organizational strategy which are seen to belong to a “recognizable and planning environment”.
The definition of strategic planning was explained as part of school of Emran and
Emamgholizadeh, 2015 which is deemed effective in predicting "learning". The second approach
which is strategic thinking is said to be appropriate and agree with the idea of "strategic thinking"
unpredictable and high-evolution of recent time’s “pilotage” which is appropriate approach among
the approaches that gives the organization the needed advantage over its competitors which in
terms give the organization amass majority of the shares in the market. In the book entitled “Most
of the time” by Adrian Slutsky, stated that most small and new organization with effective and
innovative ideas and strategy possesses all the management skills in the "Strategic Thinking" of a
sector. As a result of strategic thinking, the manager is able to know the factors are effective and
will enable the organization to achieve its objectives as well as to know which of the factors are
not working and the reason for it not working. Strategic thinking also helps the organization to
create value for their customers. The organization also create recognize power through the view
into effective factors. It is a known fact that without the insight into the factors that effectively
create value, the resources of the organization cannot achieve the organizational success
(Emamgholi born, 2013, p. 201). Ohmae (1992), stated in his book "Strategic Thinking" that, if
the organization did not take notice of the fundamental issues in the organization, there will be
confusion and the result will not be attained. Strategic thinking give timely intervention to the
organization to understand the dealing and operation of its competitors, as it also help the
organization to know some existence opportunities their competitors are not aware of. For instance
the owner and founder of Amazon Jeff Bezos, recognized the fact that selling and distribution on
the internet does not only help to reduce cost but also help in creating features for buyers who are
not within the traditional market or distribution system. This help create value for the customer.
This value creating factor has increase the revenue of the Amazon to a staggering three billion
dollars within a short period of time. This increase in revenue has seen it being compared to major
players like 5 which comes to the table with more experiences. The adoption of strategic thinking
helps the organization in creating competitive advantage as a result of helping the organization to
recognize and strengthen activities that helps to create unique value for the organization’s
customers. The focus of this work is through the understanding and ideas of the market rules as
well as creative accountability. This focus is a unique identify in a very unstable and evolving
business environment. A mental model of was particularly created in a "simple and profound"
manner of rules. This rules will be the basis for how decisions are generally made in the
organization. Through strategic thinking, the organization will create commitment and motivation
for the stakeholders and the entire organization. The commitment and motivation is created
through a fascinating and simple power. According to Amiran (2014) "Henry Mintzberg" stated
that strategic thinking is and should be considered as an important aspect of the business. Gary
Hamel “describes it as the artistic architecture of strategy based on the creativity and understanding
of business”. Ralph Stacey says “strategic thinking is a planning on the basis of learning” (Khan
Buiki, 2009, p. 119). All these scholarly interpretations and meaning provided gives summary of
the approach. Hamel and Prahalad “consider strategic thinking as a particular method for thinking
that can also be considered as a strategy architectural skill”. Mintzberg also noted strategic thinking
task performance. He stated that “Strategic thinking can be considered as the basis for creating
new strategies which are able to change the rules of competition and provide a quite different
vision of the present situation”. Another scholar Liedtka, also stated that strategic planning that
helps to implement the strategies created by the organization by means of strategic thinking.
System Thinking
Midgley (2003), opined that “he field of applied systems thinking is concerned with “making a
difference in the world”. However, the human system description are mainly model of recent and
the desires to correctly form those systems. Also, the system models usually include a dimension
of idealistic representation that separate them from the normal practice. It was highlighted by
Ralph D. Stacey and other scholars (Stacey et al., 2000, Stacey, 2000, 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2004,
2006, 2007, Griffin, 2002), that system thinking does not account for the system changes in the
organizational interventions unproductively abstract away from the actual interactive processes
that give rise to organizational phenomena, such as emergent strategies and decisions”. They argue
specifically that system thinking exclude the freedom of human from the distinctive action of
human and trivialize the human interaction that goes on each day which plays major role in the
construction of reality of the organization. They ended their argument by stating that the
organization cannot be defined as a system. Stacey as well as other scholars in the quest to provide
alternative view to the thinking that the organization as a system presented a conceptualization of
organization by making use of the theories of George H. Mead. They also made use of the human
mind conceptualization as well as social and self-forms. The theory of “complex responsive
processes” by (Stacey et al, 2002) seeks the consequences of complexity science for the
management of the organizational. Stacey et al (2000), considers complexity sciences to assist the
organization to indicate the unforeseen nature of the organization and the individuals. The
intelligence by (Saarinen and Hämäläinen, 2004, Hämäläinen and Saarinen, 2006, 2007) just like
the perspective of the “complex responsive processes” desires to look at the main experiences of
humans and also to take into account the human interaction and at the same time adds to the
Stacey et al. (2000, see also Stacey, 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2007, Griffin, 2002) in relation to
strategic thinking stated that there must be a holistic approach in the manner the organization is
thought about to allow for contempaneous discourse on management. Stacey et al. also noted that
system thinking in all forms catagorise persons like scientists, managers among others as those
who sincerely observe the system as well as individuals who are been observed objectively.
Freedom has been granted to individuals to employ system thinking, however, some individuals
are seemed to be a subject to some laws systemically that the thinkers of the systems seeks to
identify. This objective discussions exempt the freedom of individuals that are present in human
action and as such incapable to explain how true new things emerges as a result persons practicing
the freedom they have in their everyday interactions. Stacey et al (2000), sees system thinking as
not helpful to the manager in their day to day management practice as they seek to get things done
in their respective organizations as they sees it as very insufficient in helping the managers. Stacey
et al (200), also noted that individuals are seen by individuals as information processors which
Chakravarthy and Doz (1992) opined that the principal difficulty that faces strategy process
research are to manage the 'central evolutionary and transformational processes' which allows the
firm to renew it self and not only trying to focus on one system of administration. The strategy
process challenge is most look at with two well established perspective. The first of these two
perspective is that of “strategic choice-a transformational process”. This perspective allows the
organization to adapt to some changes in the environment by a way of rational as well as intentional
restructuring (Zajac and Kraatz, 1993; Fombrun and Ginsberg, 1990; Zajac and Shortell, 1989;
Ginsberg, 1988; Thompson and Tuden, 1959). The last of the two perspectives is that of “ecology-
responds to the various changes in the environment. This reason for this total adaptation in the
environment is that the organization cannot adapt individually as it will face resource specificity
as well as institutional inertia (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Regardless of the two important
differences outcomes that has been predicted, the two perspective make the same proposition about
the dynamics of the system that both the entire organization or the single organization are all
motivated by the processes of negative feedbacks that predict the adaptation of the environment.
The change of success, thus, presumed to be a disposition aim at regularity, stability as well as
predictability. There are many established thoughts in the economics, sociology as well as
management literatures which makes presumptions about the dynamics of the system that are
Hyman (1987), Hampden-Turner (1990) and Quinn and Cameron (1988) noted that the
disarray and are developed as a result of political process (Pettigrew, 1985; Pfeffer, 1981) in a
manner that is dialectical (Pascale, 1990) and consistently display numerous crisis (Miller, 1990)
when the main focus of the organization is paradox. The manager of the organization is unable to
share thorough outcomes of long term intentions of the organization will adapt to in the
environment as a result of the nature of contradiction in the organization. These outcomes are
likely to come up due to the agents concern and in most cases arise from choices that are
In this aspect, the firm is presumed to be a system which is part of a broader organizational system
that comes up through the destruction process of creativity (Schumpeter, 1934) as well as the
organization itself (Hayek, 1948). These changed systems are very complex and difficult that the
agents in the organization cannot predict their future in a long-term. In lieu, the future of the
organization unpredictably emerges from agent’s interaction in a manner of disorder and non-
equilibrium. The free choice of individual plays a major part in the evolution of the system’s
As a major aspect of this theoretical paper. The multi-BU organizations constitute very high
performing as a result of being allowed and managed to work as “complex adaptive systems”.
Specifically, the BUs of the organization are seen as unique agents that are in a way is connected
through consistent human resources practice, common culture, as well as distinct collaborating
within Bus of the organization. When the connections to these uniquely agents are seen to be
moderate the organization is may perform highly. Also when there is an increase of
structures such as degree of centralization and formalization, scale of business units among others.
Even though there is evidential empirical study within the firm’s strategy and theory literatures
that does not use complexity theory in itself, the paper is nonetheless agrees largely with the
position of complexity theory. A typical example is the classical “study of strategy and structure
in diversified firms”. The classical study of strategy and structure describe how the centralized
function of DuPont hinders the organization’s ability to rapidly adapt to an evolving business
environment.
Researchers for many years has been trying find solution to how work can be strategized in the
organization. This solution they try to develop through the development of theories and empirical
researches (Mintzberg, 1994). Their efforts has yielded many strategy perceptions as well as its
working has been proponed. The perceptions derived are seeing strategy as “determination of the
basic long-term goals” couple with “adoption of courses of action” as well as “allocation of
resources” (Chandler, 1962) and “pattern in a stream of decisions” (Mintzberg & Waters, 1982).
According to Whitttington (2006), all the dominant or major theories are as the result that the
organization must possess strategy. The major focus of the dominant process is based on the idea
that the strategy must be design managers in senior level position and the implementation done by
the lower level managers. A practice perspective or approach has attracted a lot of interest in the
past decade by many researchers (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). The practice approach says that
strategy must be posed by the organization and do as opposed to the recent dominant idea
It has been said that looking at the strategy as the action of the organization members, brings to
the attention of the members in the organization who the strategy doers are (Jarzabkowski et al.,
2007). One major distinguish of researches with “practice view on strategy” is that a lot of the
people within the organization must be seen as strategic players in the new strategy perspectives
(Whittington, 2006; Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). The main idea of the strategy research is to divide
among the members of the organization which have the middle managers as well as the consultant
to the strategy (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009). Whittington (2006), noted that this middle managers
within the organization are seen as strategist and their role has been stated in the strategy as practice
studies. Many researches has tackled the strategic role played by the middle managers within the
firm (Floyd & Lane, 2000; Björnström & Räisänen, 2006). Many of these researches have direct
circuitous perspective of practice (Regnér, 2003; Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Mantere, 2005).
References
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager
Björnström, J., & Räisänen, C. (2006). From formulation to appropriation: The importance of
communication in strategy design and implementation. In Construction in the XXI Century: Local
and global challanges edited by Roberto Pietroforte, Enrico De Angelis and Francesco Polverino.
Chakravarthy, B. S., & Doz, Y. (1992). Strategy process research: Focusing on corporate self‐
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role
Fombrun, C. J., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Shifting gears: Enabling change in corporate
Saarinen, E., & Hämäläinen, R. P. (2007). Systems intelligence: Connecting engineering thinking
with human sensitivity. Systems intelligence in leadership and everyday life, 51-78.
Hämäläinen, R. P., & Saarinen, E. (2006). Systeemiäly 2006. Helsinki University of Technology.
Helsinki.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American journal
Hampden-Turner, C. (1990). Charting the Corporate Mind. Free Press/Macmillan, New York.
Hayek, F. A. (1948). The meaning of competition. Individualism and economic order, 92, 98.
Hyman, R. (1987). 'Strategy or structure? Capital, labour and control' Work, Employment and
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: The challenges of a practice
Jarzabkowski, P., & Paul Spee, A. (2009). Strategy‐as‐practice: A review and future directions for
Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003). Micro strategy and strategizing: towards an
Mantere, T. (2005). Evolutionary software engineering, a review. Applied Soft Computing, 5(3),
315-331.
Midgley, G. (2003). Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and
complexity for the philosophy of science. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 16(2), 77-97.
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic
Miller, D. (1990). The Icarus Paradox: How Excellent Organizations Can Bring about Their Own
Ohmae, K. (1992). The rise of the region state. Foreign Aff., 72, 78.
Pascale, R. T. (1990). Managing on the Edge: How Successful Companies use Conflict to Stay
Ahead. Viking Penguin, London. Pettigrew, A. (1973). The Politics of Organizational Decision
Quinn, R. E. and K. S. Cameron (1988). Paradox and Transformation. Ballinger/Harper & Rowe,
Regnér, P. (2003). Strategy creation in the periphery: Inductive versus deductive strategy
Stacey, R., D. (2001b) “The emergence of knowledge in organizations.” Emergence 2, (4): 23Ͳ39.
creation. Routledge.
Stacey, R. D. (2007a). Strategic management and Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge of
about the day to day practice of management in organizations.” European Business Review 19,
(4): 292Ͳ302.
Stacey, R. (2009). Complexity and organizational reality: Uncertainty and the need to rethink
Stacey, R. D. (2011). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change
and the Experience of Leading Organizations, by Griffin. D. and Stacey, R.D. (Eds.) Abingdon:
Routledge
Thompson, J., Hammond, P. B., Hawkes, R. W., Junker, B. H., & Tuden, A. (Eds.).
Whittington, R. (2006). Learning more from failure: Practice and process. Organization
Wiley, J. (2013). Ralph Stacey. Complexity and Organization: Readings and Conversations, 16,
74.
Zajac, E. J., & Shortell, S. M. (1989). Changing generic strategies: Likelihood, direction, and
Zajac, E. J., & Kraatz, M. S. (1993). A diametric forces model of strategic change: Assessing the