The Main Discourses in Finlays Strategic Management - Case Study Example

The Main Discourses in Finlay’s Strategic Management Student’s Name: Code + Course name Professor’s name University City, State Date Discourse 1 The first discourse in Finlay (2000) is the coverage of individual and organizational knowledge without revealing their significance to the organization. While covering the topic, Finlay reiterates the essence of splitting tacit and explicit knowledge into individual and group knowledge. At the individual level, Finlay (2000) regards explicit knowledge as the formal theoretical knowledge that an individual’s brain contains. He extends further to highlight the example of accounting principles and the performance of specific spreadsheet operations as examples of individual explicit knowledge. On the other hand, Finlay identifies tacit knowledge to be either group knowledge (embedded knowledge) or individual knowledge (embodied knowledge) that individuals or members of the group gain from the hands-on-experience in the workplace. At the group level, Finlay refers to explicit knowledge as encoded knowledge and cites the examples of written down procedures and company spreadsheets. Rather than explaining the splitting of individual and organizational knowledge, a different meaning would entail explaining the relevance of such knowledge to the organization. Alternative Discourse The alternative presentation to the discourse of individual and organizational knowledge is the coverage of the importance of both explicit and tacit knowledge to the organization. A key concern is whether the knowledge emanates from an individual or a group. In splitting tacit and explicit knowledge on the individual and group basis, Finlay does not include the role that such knowledge plays towards enhancing organizational performance. The inability of people to understand the contribution of knowledge management towards organizational performance renders the mere description of the knowledge aspect of an organization unnecessary. As a result, the alternative discourse would entail discussing the role of knowledge management in the context of an organization as a prerequisite for sustainable strategic competitive advantage (Omotayo 2015). Since the success of the organization forms the basis of the topic, an appropriate discussion would entail reiterating the fact that the ability of the organization to attain competitive advantage depends on what it knows, its ability to use what it knows, and the speed with which the organization learns new things. Change in Understanding Rather than understanding the splitting of tacit and explicit knowledge under individual and group categories, using the alternative discourse that emphasizes the role played by the knowledge management aspect to the organizational learning process would enhance the understanding of the issue. The alternative discourse also enables the understanding of the difference between organizational learning and knowledge management concepts. As opposed to knowledge management that adopts a technology and practice-oriented stance, organizational learning focuses on the psychological and social processes of learning and their significance to the human resource department of the organization (Manikandan & Tatachari 2009). Therefore, communicating the role of knowledge management in organizational learning enables the reader to understand that the ability of modern organizations to attain competitive advantage depends on its ability to source and use its knowledge resources effectively and in a timely manner. Discourse 2 The discussion of systems thinking is the second discourse presented by the author. At the onset of the discussion, the author communicates the necessity of systems thinking in profound learning. Rather than concentrating on the strategic management aspect in the organizational context, Finlay mentions the reductionist thinking approach adopted in Europe and America and the holistic approach used in Asia. The author also mentions the problems associated with the reductionist approach since the whole exceeds the sum of the individual parts. The discourse is evident in the aspect of providing examples that would enhance the understanding of the reader about the topic. Rather than citing organization-specific examples, Finlay gives the example of the hand and its building blocks of nerves, molecules, and tissues. The implication of the out of context example to the reader is the possibility of the example to confuse the reader that does not understand the topic further. Alternative Discourse The alternative discourse to the presentation of system thinking in organizational learning is the use of appropriate components of the organization that are prerequisites to effective organizational learning. Therefore, rather than using the example of a hand and tissues and nerves, Finlay could have identified the prerequisite constituents of a learning organization that also suffice to be the building blocks behind the success of the organizational learning process. As a result, and bearing in mind the need to enhance the understanding of the reader, Finlay could have cited clarity of the mission and purpose as one of the building blocks. The other building blocks include the empowerment and commitment of leadership, experimentation and rewards, knowledge transfer, group and teamwork in problem solving (Goh & Ryan 2002). Citing these examples would enhance the understanding of the reader about system thinking and its role and implementation in organizational learning. Change in Understanding Citing the building blocks in organizational learning rather than using out of topic examples enhances the ability of the reader to understand the presentation of system thinking in organizational leaning. For instance, the clarity of the mission and purpose building block reiterates the need for a clearly articulated purpose in the individual units of the organization. Moreover, the reader would understand that leaders have the responsibility of organization’s goals towards learning. The reader would also understand that the design of the reward system to favor risk-taking and innovation is also essential towards providing an environment that encourages experimentation and innovation. The reader would also understand the need for focused, clear, and fact communication in organizational learning. Finally, the reader would understand the role of teamwork in dealing with emerging problems in the organization. Discourse 3 The handling of individual learning and the conditions associated with individual learning by the author presents the third discourse. While mentioning the conditions, the author mentions the need for providing the learning purpose as the first condition. In the explanation, the author simply mentions the need for the individual to have a purpose that coincides with the organization’s purpose and the role played by purpose in determining the required information within the organization. The author also mentions the need for education and training, the allocation of adequate time to conduct information research and process information into knowledge, the need for a proper autonomy level, and the essence of encouraging redundant information. The author cites an appropriate organizational-based example of a junior IBM executive and a chief executive. However, discussing the individual learning aspect without including the role that individual learning plays towards organizational performance is a mismatch to the strategic management topic. Alternative Discourse Rather than addressing individual learning from the point of mentioning the conditions that are necessary for effective individual learning in the organization, an alternative discourse would be the reiteration of the significance of individual learning to the entire process of organizational learning that in effect contributes towards competitive advantage. As an alternative towards enhancing the understanding of the material, a probable alternative would entail emphasizing on the specific role that the people aspect that constitutes individual learning play towards the entire organizational learning process. For instance, it is the responsibility of staff members to utilize their reflections in developing experience-based theories and engage in the continuous process of testing the theories with other colleagues in the workplace to contribute towards knowledge development (Serrat 2009). Change in Understanding The alternative discourse would enable the reader to understand the significance of the people aspect in individual learning. As a result, the reader would gain insights into the individual learning models such as adaptive, generative, and transformative. A focus on the people aspect of individual learning would also enable the reader to understand the ways of creating individual knowledge such as socialization, reflection, interaction, collaboration, externalization, as well as the role played by the knowledge repository system (Song et al. 2008). By so doing, the reader would understand that the individual knowledge gained by staff members emanates from their experience with approaches, tools, and methods of collaboration and learning. The outcome is the ability of the reader to understand that the combination of individual knowledge yields group knowledge that further translates into a learning organization. Discourse 4 The coverage of single-loop and double-loop learning is the fourth discourse presented by the author. The author attempts to distinguish single-loop learning from double-loop learning by highlighting the basic processes associated with each learning model. Finlay states that decisions made from single-loop learning emanate from within the mindsets of the decision-makers only. Such decisions result in evolutionary and incremental changes. On the other hand, Finlay mentions that double-loop learning results in revolutionary changes that transform the organization or some of its processes. Apparently, the distinctions are not clear from the perspective of a learner strategist. The lack of clarity in the explanations coupled with the failure of the author to recommend the best learning model that enhances the performance of the organization is the discourse presented by the coverage of the topic. Alternative Discourse The alternative discourse to the distinction between single-loop and double-loop learning would be the provision of a clear distinction that is easy to understand on the part of the reader. Mentioning that single-loop learning results in revolutionary and incremental decisions whereas double-loop learning yields revolutionary changes within the organization does not give a clear glimpse of the clear distinction between the two learning models. An alternative discourse would be the definition of single-loop learning as the problem-solving process that involves the consideration of the business environment by individuals; followed by a comparison between norms and data, and the implementation of a proper action. In essence, individuals simply identify the available options and utilize the best option to solve the problem. On the other hand, double-loop learning entails comparing the norm and the situation, questioning the appropriateness of the norm, and providing a justification of the effectiveness of the norm in solving the problem at hand (Kantamara & Vathanophas 2014). Apparently, the alternative discourse to the distinction between the two models of learning is easier to understand as compared to Finlay’s presentation of the difference. Change in Understanding It is evident that Finlay’s distinction between single-loop and double-loop learning models would make it difficult for the reader to understand. The alternative discourse would enable the reader to understand that individuals identify and amend errors to maintain the characteristics of the organization’s norms. However, the decision-making process relies on the identification and correction of errors by individuals in the workplace. Rather than maintaining the underlying norms, individuals question and modify the underlying policies, procedures, norms, and objectives under double-loop learning. The process results in changed firm-specific or knowledge-based competencies thereby enabling the organization to deal with the turbulence of the business environment. From the differences, the reader also understands that single-loop learning model is appropriate under a non-changing and normal business environment. However, in the event that the environment is turbulent and dynamic, then the adoption of double-loop learning model would be appropriate. Reference List Omotayo, F.O., 2015. Knowledge Management as an important tool in Organisational Management: A Review of Literature. Library Philosophy and Practice, p.1. Serrat, O., 2009. Building a learning organization. Kantamara, P. and Vathanophas, V., 2014. Single-Loop vs. Double-Loop Learning: An Obstacle or a Success Factor for Organizational Learning. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(7), pp.55-62. Manikandan, K.S. and Tatachari, S., 2009. A Synthesis of Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management Literatures. Song, J.H., Chermack, T.J. and Kim, H.M., 2008. Integrating Individual Learning Processes and Organizational Knowledge Formation: Foundational Determinants for Organizational Performance. Online Submission. Finlay, P.N., 2000. Strategic management: An introduction to business and corporate strategy. Pearson Education. Goh, S.C. and Ryan, P.J., 2002, April. Learning capability, organization factors and firm performance. In Third European conference on organizational knowledge, learning and capabilities (pp. 5-6). Read More