A Critical Application of Strategy Dichotomies Introduction The paper evaluates 3 strategy dichotomies contained in strategic thinking, strategy formation,

and strategy renewal perspectives. Strategic management is termed as the process that involves awareness of success of an institution in regard to its strategic threats and opportunities. In a rapidly changing environment, new technologies must be sought, formulated and implemented appropriately if an organization is to remain relevant. It is worth noting, though, that not all strategies need to be planned: some strategies emerge from formal planning process or as new ideas are implemented. Strategy thinking: Logic and Creativity Before organizations can implement any strategy, there is a lot of thinking that takes place. Thinking, precisely, takes place before and during strategy formulation and implementation. More often than not, rational thinking perspective demands consistent analysis, collection and processing of data in concert with evaluation of different options. Raymor (2007) argues that the main sub activities of strategy formulation as a logical strategy definition activity include identifying threats and opportunities with an organizations environment and calculating a reasonable estimate of cost. The ability to take advantage of apparent markets needs should be estimated with minimal subjectivity. The author further notes that this is a similar approach that was adopted by Warren Buffet, a renowned entrepreneur, who based examination of companies not on speculation perspective but from objective solid analysis of companies fundamentals. He rose above subjective and irrational emotions of the 1990s by not investing in what was being referred to as .com companies. The fate suffered by the companies proved that Warren was right (De Wit & Meyer, 2010) All strategies are directed not to the present but to the future. In other words, a strategy can be termed as the vision of an organization. Organizations that adopt generative reasoning point of view note that some analysis can be done, but those charged with the role of strategizing are supposed to instinctively judge which vision for the coming days has the highest probability of being created in the real sense. Such organizations also propose that great emphasis placed on rationality can actually thwart the principal objective of strategic reasoning to produce novel insight, new methods of defining difficulties and creative solutions (De Wit & Meyer 2010).

The most ideal example of innovative thinking is that of Apple Inc. which is recognized for its frame breaking approaches to both perceived and actual business opportunities. Everything at Apple is directed to promote creativity, spontaneity and innovation: employees at the organization are allowed up to 15 percent of their time to work on individual innovative ideas. Additionally, these ideas are supported both in cash and in kind. Ulwick and Greenwood (2000) notes that innovative insight is the capacity to merge, synthesize, or reshuffle previously unrelated phenomenon in a manner that allows organizations to reap more out of the emergent whole than they put in. According to the authors, this is what aids Apple to be triumphant by taking a technology from one section and applying it in another. Conversely, for a strategic decision making procedures, it is worthwhile to balance innovativeness and logic. It is rational to compare the two with the left and right parts of the human brain. The right side thinking, just as the human brain, is more insightful and extravagant. This side deals with such features as links and ideas, and images and concepts. Additionally, the right side is seasoned by emotion and colored by mood. (Bilton and Cunnings, 2010). The left side thinking, on the other hand, is logical and structured. De Wit and Meyer (2010), notes that no matter how difficult or unexpected a problem, a breakthrough to an ideal solution can only be possible through a collaboration of rational thinking and imaginative integration. Although entrepreneurs like Richard Branson are known for their creativity, this is how they solve unprecedented problems. Strategy Formulation: Deliberateness and Sense of Emergency The debate about reliability of rational and creative thinking rages on. Organizations that prefer logic mostly go for deliberate strategic planning simply because they contend that logical steps subsequently bring a sense of direction, dedication to a course of direction, harmonization of all efforts in a consistent pattern, optimal allocation of resources and aligning all organizational activities well in advance (De Wit and Meyer, 2010). Organizations that favor strategic incrementalism perspective suggest that organizations must always remain open to opportunities, flexible to all forms of renewal that may be necessary, learn by trial and error, possess entrepreneurial spirit, be aware of changes in social-cultural and political environments and act in accordance with these requirements (De Wit and Meyer, 2010). Pettigrew et al (2006) refers to the process of strategy formulation as crafting strategy. The authors note that strategies are both plan patterns from the past and plans for the future: planning does not always come before action; action can as well be used to initiate thought process. Additionally, the authors add that in order to develop strategy, there is need to craft both thought and action, control and learning, steadiness and renewal (Pettigrew, 2006). This interconnectedness can clearly be observed in the example given by De Wit and Meyer in PowerGen Case study.

Prior to the 20th century, PowerGen had a fully centralized planning process: corporate staffs were in charge of giving guidance, and then business plans were created, and reviewed before being integrated into a terse corporate plan. This plan, however, became redundant when market for electricity was liberalized. PowerGen needed a flexible plan that would allow it to cope with fierce competition that had become part and parcel of the electricity market. In the early 1990s the company was restructured and centralized planning was taken over by planning staff deployed in all business units. Planning became deliberate with commitment to a predetermined course and programming of all activities well in advance. Thus far, the guidelines took into consideration overall business and economic conditions, which offered credible alternative points of view of how the business and economic environments would affect the company in future (Pettigrew et al, 2006). Conversely, although events like capping were predetermined, they were not communicated well in advance to be taken into consideration as part of the context for PowerGens business plans, which definitely showed lack of flexibility on the part of the corporations planning process. In the mid 1990s, PowerGen went through a major restructuring in response to rapidly changing business environments. Within the new organizational structure, the companys head, CEO, was responsible for corporate strategy; the corporations managing director was responsible for reorganizing business units strategy, while the finance director was responsible for financial aspects of corporations plans. Having done this restructuring, PowerGen added incrementalism approach to their strategy formulation by constantly analyzing external economic and business environments and assessing all strategic options. The corporation still relied on scenarios, but they were detailed by a cross a cross functional team drawn from varied business units in consultations with outsourced experts. In the succeeding years, the corporation used deliberate strategizing. This strategizing involved long debates, brainstorming and lobbying between and among business units and planning staff. Still, the company still left room for flexibility and concerning emergent issues that could affect business units and that needed immediate attention. The company combined both short and long term strategic planning procedures for varied business units. Finally, the corporation transformed its strategic planning hierarchy from being explicitly centralized to a dispersed hierarchy. By 1999, strategic planning began at the bottom level of various business units and went to higher hierarchies for approval, unlike in the previous model that saw upper tiers dictate policies to lower levels of business units. In conclusion, it is worth noting that PowerGen took into consideration elements from both incrementalism and deliberateness perspectives and applied them to the companys advantage, which is undoubtedly a good example. As Johnson, Scholes and Whittington (2009) notes, planning is a crucial building block in an incessant stream of events that determine corporate strategy. Strategic Renewal: Markets and Resources

Ulwick and Greenwood (2000), notes that there are 3 main drivers of strategic renewal. The drivers suggested by the authors include, product life cycle shifts, industry discontinuities, and internal organization dynamics. The three drivers lead to the following scope of frame breaking renewal: adjusted power status, reformed organizational vision, mission and core values, and revised interaction models (Ulwick and Greenwood, 2000). The two authors contend that the most successful companies have relatively longer periods of evolution. This acts as a support for basic strategies. Such periods, however, are characterized by revolutionary renewals that restructure the entire organization. Classic examples of companies that have undergone revolutionary changes include Continental AG, and Honda among others. The mini case study of Continental AG described by De Wit & Meyer (2010) will be considered. In 1991, Continental Executive Board Chairman, Dr Von Gruenberg introduced a ten steps program aimed at transforming the company. The 10 points turned out to be revolutions in different areas. Pettigrew et al (2006), notes that before the implementation of the 10 points, the company was on the edge of three possible outcomes. First, the company was on the verge of collapse. Secondly, the company was on the brink of being taken over; and thirdly, the company was ready to go through a renewal. Under the patronage of Dr. Von Gruenberg, Continental AG began its renewal process. First of all, brand orientation was transformed into market orientation in order to give the market and customers undivided attention. Other strategies were formulated with a long term plan of helping the company become a dominant supplier of finished automotive systems. As it turned out, every step was deliberately planned. One of the most significant plans was to enhance entrepreneurship: evolution coupled with revolutionary renewal. For the company to achieve this objective, the board of directors designed a Junior Management Training Program that ran for roughly 10 years. The board launched a hunt for young managers who accepted and demonstrated the new entrepreneurial outlook. Meanwhile, the company relieved of their duties managers and even members of the board who were not compliant to the dictates of the new mindset. In order to achieve its renewal objectives, Continental AG went through four stages of rejuvenation. The first stage involved galvanization. In this stage, a team dedicated to renewal was constituted. The next stage involved simplification. In this stage, the business concentrated resources on a small and manageable agenda and thus increasing chances of recording positive results. The third step involved building. Building involves development of new capabilities. During this stage, Continental concentrated on manufacturing and developing innovative products a factor that made the company a significant player in the global automotive industry. The fourth stage is called leverage stage. In this stage, organizations are required to maintain momentum and amplify advantages. Continental leverage plans were achieved where the company acquired Teves. Acquisition of the new company helped the company increase its sales revenue and technological innovation

manpower of not less than 2,500 researchers and programmers. The renewal strategies employed by Continental were small but incremental. Ultimately, the strategy allowed a buildup of belief, routines, and most importantly, skills. Conclusion It is evident that the three dichotomies: strategy thinking, formulation and renewal are interrelated. In some organizations, contradictory perspectives are used alongside each other or even simultaneously. Some strategists have called it paradox whereby two conflicting perspectives appear to be true. This makes the task of strategists difficult as they need to take paradoxes and their complexities into consideration in order to be able to chart the right path.

References De Wit, R. & Meyer, R. (2010). Strategy: Process, Content, Context, An International Perspective. Stamford: Cengage Learning. Bilton, S. & Cunnings, S. (2010). Creative Strategy: Reconnecting Business and Innovation. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons. Ulwick, A. & Greenwood, J. (2000). Business Strategy Formulation: Theory, Process and the Intellectual Revolution. Charlotte: IAP Publishing. Pettigrew et al. (2006). Handbook of Strategy and Management. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Clegg, B. (2000) Instant Negotiation: Reaching Agreement with Others Now. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2009). Exploring Corporate Strategy with MyStrategyLab: Text and Cases. London: Pearson Education, Limited. Raynor, M. (2007). The Strategy Paradox: Why Committing to Success Leads to Failure, and what to Do about it. New York: Currency Doubleday.