“Strategy as Revolution” – a Critical Analysis
“Strategy as Revolution” – a critical analysis
Strategy formulation has been acknowledged as one of the most crucial factors of ensuring the long-term growth of the business. However, the manner in which strategy is formulated, and most importantly, the nature of the strategy chosen for the company determines its future position in the marketplace (Grant, 2005).
This article presents is a critical analysis of the article “Strategy as Revolution” published by Gary Hamel (1996) in Harvard Business Review. The article clarifies the position of the article within the wider debate about the processes of strategy and highlights the main strengths and weaknesses associated with the article.
The Placement “Strategy as Revolution” within Processes of Strategy Debates
The traditional strategic planning process as informed by NetMBA (2011, online) occurs from top to down and consists of mission, objectives, situation analysis, strategy formulation, implementation and control. However, Hamel’s (1996) “Strategy as Revolution” challenges this viewpoint by stating that strategies have to reflect the viewpoints of employees at all levels in general, and employees from tactical and operational levels in particular.
Azar and Brock (2010) specify change to be an integral part of effective strategic management. In other words, authors argue that effective strategic management has to introduce necessary changes into various aspects of the business that would contribute to the firm’s competitive edge. This viewpoint is further developed by Floyd et al (2011), who stress the importance of new ideas in terms of introducing necessary changes into the current business strategy.
“Strategy as Revolution”, on the other hand, confirms the both viewpoints formulated above, at the same time when specifying that changes to the business practices need to be dramatic, and the new ideas have to be derived mainly from employees other than those holding formal leadership positions.
Strategy formulation has been acknowledged as one of the most crucial factors of ensuring the long-term growth of the business. However, the manner in which strategy is formulated, and most importantly, the nature of the strategy chosen for the company determines its future position in the marketplace (Grant, 2005).
This article presents is a critical analysis of the article “Strategy as Revolution” published by Gary Hamel (1996) in Harvard Business Review. The article clarifies the position of the article within the wider debate about the processes of strategy and highlights the main strengths and weaknesses associated with the article.
The Placement “Strategy as Revolution” within Processes of Strategy Debates
The traditional strategic planning process as informed by NetMBA (2011, online) occurs from top to down and consists of mission, objectives, situation analysis, strategy formulation, implementation and control. However, Hamel’s (1996) “Strategy as Revolution” challenges this viewpoint by stating that strategies have to reflect the viewpoints of employees at all levels in general, and employees from tactical and operational levels in particular.
Azar and Brock (2010) specify change to be an integral part of effective strategic management. In other words, authors argue that effective strategic management has to introduce necessary changes into various aspects of the business that would contribute to the firm’s competitive edge. This viewpoint is further developed by Floyd et al (2011), who stress the importance of new ideas in terms of introducing necessary changes into the current business strategy.
“Strategy as Revolution”, on the other hand, confirms the both viewpoints formulated above, at the same time when specifying that changes to the business practices need to be dramatic, and the new ideas have to be derived mainly from employees other than those holding formal leadership positions.
References: ■Azar, O.H & Brock, D.M (2010) “The development of strategy process research and the most influential articles and authors” in Handbook of Research on Strategy Process, editors Mazzola, P & Kellermanns, F.W. ■Farjoun, M. (2002) “Towards an organic perspective to strategy” Strategic Management Journal, (23) Issue 7, pp. 561 – 594 ■Floyd, S.W, Cornelissen, J.P, Wright, M & Delios, A ■Grant, M. (2005) “Contemporary Strategy Analysis” John Wiley & Sons ■Hamel, G ■Jarzabkowski, P & Balogun, J. (2009) “The Practice and Process of Delivering Integration through Strategic Planning” Journal of Management Studies, Volume 46, Issue 8, pp. 1255 – 1288 ■Jarzabkowski, P & Spee, A.P ■Kaplan, R.S & Norton, D.P. (2001) “The strategy-focused organisation: how balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment” Harvard Business Press ■Schmidt, S.L & Treichler, C