Strategy as Revolution by Gary Hamel - Literature review Example

? Article Review on Strategy as Revolution by Gary Hamel By of Institute Executive Summary This paper is a critical review on strategy as revolution as asserted by Gary Hamel in consideration of the dynamic business environment. It will explore and compare Hamel’s position on some aspects of what forms the best business strategy in the 21st century world where most of the traditionally held concepts have remained static to the detrimental of most organizations. Hamel argues in his article that while change may not be welcomed so easily, it should take the courage and initiative of the rule breakers or those in favor of new approaches to present clearly their positions to the senior management for subsequent adoption as policies. Worth noticing is that while Hamel encourages revolutionary approach in policy formulation and demand for change, he nevertheless points out that organizational hierarchy should be respected and a good method which incorporates everyone should be adopted as the best way forward. Introduction For a longtime, many business enterprises have been concerned about the direction of the business, normally employing the tested methodologies that work, or at least the ones that have been approved or put into practice by old establishments. Management is normally concerned with where the business is making an effort to get to in the long run, which, I must say, is not bad only that every other business has the same dream: direction. By the same token of concern for business direction, so are they also concerned about which market a business should venture into and what competition strategies are anticipated to work in their best interest? Not only will you find these businesses also doing research on what resources in terms of assets, facilities, technical competence and even finance, but also on what to expect in the external environment. Well planned, that is the trend, unaltered as propounded by many old theories of economics. This is not to dispute the validity of these theories, because when they were formulated, they laid the foundation of the current market scenarios that we see today. To put it differently, suffice it to say that this is what management has for a long time accepted as strategy. So then, what is strategy? Johnson and Scholes define strategy as the direction and scope an organization takes to achieve long term market goals. Strategy exists under different levels such as corporate strategy, business unit strategy and operational strategy. Article Critique Hamel (Hamel, 1996, p. 69) observes that in the recent past, business firms are all struggling to expand in what he terns as a fight for incrementalism. He also observes that in the current time and space, success is being achieved by how fast firms respond to customers' desires. In addition to this, Hamel also finds out that while this strategy is being adopted by firms, not all, business firms have earned themselves positions in the competitive market either as rule-makers or rule-breakers (Hamel, 1996, p.70; Choe Maker, 1995: 31). That either business firms set rules on how they want to operate in the market or as would be campaigned for, revolutionize the whole system of conformity to predetermined set of rules of the early economists. His view is both divergent and emergent in the sense that he deviates from the norms and presents emerging issues around strategizing in an organization. Anderson (1999, p. 217) and Beinhocker (1999, p. 98) agree with Hamel that organization change is fundamental for laying strategy. With this in mind, Hamel rightly argues that while rule-setters may survive now, rule-breakers, also known as revolutionaries, have a futuristic strategy that will propel them to be the market leaders in the future. He goes on to explore how organizations have conducted themselves towards success or stagnation and assesses this through what he classifies as the ten principles of liberating revolutionary spirit for the success of an organization (Hamel, 1996, p. 70). Like to Mintzberg (1994, p. 107), Hamel critiques strategic planning as weak in the sense that most strategic plans jus follow the predetermined procedures that had been laid down before. This, according to both Hamel and Mintzberg, is misplaced since the creativity aspect that would qualify it as strategic is already withdrawn and the product of such a plan bears conformity with the usual way of doing things. The point that is often overlooked is that new changes are often resisted as subversive. Even in organizations, Hamel observes that senior management has laxity when it comes to new ideas posed by their juniors, especially when they do not understand the concepts. However, Hamel correctly observes that most of the innovations have been achieved due to determination and deviation from fixed beliefs about conventions. Baden-Fuller and Stopford (1994) and Markides (1998, p. 28) also affirm and agree with Hamel that innovation should be adopted as a fundamental strategy for take off in the new face of dynamic external environment. For any fundamental change in an industry, managers should give a listening ear to what they normally rebuff as subversive Another point Hamel puts across is that the traditional boundaries should be broken and orthodox methods adopted given the dynamic business environment. Slater, (1999) and Jennings, (2000), concur with Hamel when their research point out to the fact that companies are slowly changing the strategic planning process. He claims that basis strategy from past experiences may not work well for an organization in the current economic position of global market (Hamel, 1996, p.74). Furthermore, it is observed that if not muffling of voices of revolutionists in an organization, every organization is not deficient of revolutionists that may initiate desired changes (Hamel, 1996. P. 75). He recommends that revolutionists be given a say in strategy making process. As a matter of fact, Hamel rightly notices that change is not usually the major problem. He observes that the fear of uncertainty, the fear to take risks, which is the very solid foundation of any progress, is the problem with managers. The same fear of change hinders managers from giving “radicals” responsibility and opportunity for dialogue, something which can affect a change process in company strategies (Hamel, 1996, p. 75 and Man and Grove, 1996). Moreover, Hamel also realizes that democratization deficiency in organization also pulls back progress on strategizing. That alienation of the young from fundamental decision making process about a future they have the biggest stake in paralyzes the realization of good strategies (Hamel, 1996, p.76) and is uninspiring to the juniors (Hamel, 1996, p. 78 and Pascale, 1999, p. 84 ). In like manner, change always come from the bottom and again Hamel correctly analyses that if senior management is continuously unwilling to listen to the lower management’s ideas, then good ideas will be killed in silence as it is considered safer for the sake of one’s job. However, he also advises the involving of senior management in desired changes deliberations. His advice is that management should see the world in a new perspective that deviates from old. He adds that to achieve diversity and unity, an all inclusive strategy making process should be adopted. Finally, Hamel concludes that involving of all stakeholders from the start of strategy-making process, will increase the ease of implementation as everyone involved in the implementation is well versed with the whole project. To conclude, Hamel not only proposes a deviation from some of the old systems and how to go about the deviations, but also puts his position and opinion about them in a clever way. Bibliography Hamel, G., 1996. Strategy as Revolution. Harvard Business Review, July-August. Pp. 69-82. Anderson P., 1999. Complexity theory and organizational science. Organization Science 10: 216-232. Beinhocker E.D., 1999. Robust adaptive strategies. Sloan Management Journal, Spring: 95-106. Mintzberg H. 1994a. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York: Free Press. Baden-Fuller C, Stopford JM. 1994. Rejuvenating the Mature Business: The Competitive Challenge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Markides, C., 1998. Strategic innovation in established companies. Sloan Management Review 39(Spring): 27-36. Pascale, R.T., 1999. Surfing the edge of chaos. Sloan Management Review, Spring: 83-94. Slater, R., 1999. Jack Welch and the GE Way. New York: McGraw Hill. Read More