Power and Cultural Schools of Thought

A stakeholder analysis is a process for providing insights into, and understanding of, the interactions between a project and its stakeholders. It is a powerful tool to help project members identify and prioritise stakeholders who can have an impact on project success. It can prompt thinking about the type of influence individuals have and in what way they might be an asset (or hindrance) to achieving successful outcomes. It is an essential starting place for understanding critical stakeholders and is the first step for developing engagement strategies for building and maintaining the networks that are necessary for the delivery of successful project outcomes.

Andrews, K., 2010. The Concept of Corporate Strategy, 3rd Edition. Financial Times Prentice Hall. [Accessed 13 April 2014]

Stakeholders are the people who matter to a system. Stakeholder power analysis is a tool which helps understanding of how people affect policies and institutions, and how policies and institutions affect people. It is particularly useful in identifying the winners and losers and in highlighting the challenges that need to be faced to change behaviour, develop capabilities and tackle inequalities.

Strategy-as-practice (S-a-P) is an approach to strategy concerned about what strategic actors actually do and the kinds of activities they do when they strategize (Jarzabkowski, 2003; Johnson, Melin & Whittington, 2003; Whittington, 1996, 2002). Strategy is complex, to illustrate the complexity of the concept of strategy table 1.1 is offered with selected definitions of strategy (Louw & Venter, 2013:9). According to Ehlers and Lazenby (2010:3), “A strategy can therefore be defined as an effort or deliberate action that an organisation implements to outperform its rivals” According to the history, the concept of strategy was in its origin associated with the military (Louw & Venter, 2013:11). “The word strategy has been handed down from the

There has been a large amount of research into what strategy is, since Michael Porter’s perennial work in the 1980s. Studies done on the execution of strategy have been far less numerous. However, there is one major understanding about the execution of strategy. The execution of strategy is a vital part of success in business. A summary of many myths surrounding various strategic executions will be outlined, along with their subsequent analyses.

For this paper, I am going to define strategy using Joint Pub 3.0’s definition: A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multi-national objectives. Using this definition of strategy, I’ll argue that Nightingale makes a valid claim when he states that the US is weak in formulating strategy by highlighting several aspects of strategic development where the US needs improvement. Nonetheless, let the record show that America’s success rate in conflicts in the last century is mixed, laying claim that the US may not be great at strategy development, however, it has done well enough to defeat some pretty ruthless villains ie., Hitler, Saddam, Milosevic, and Bin

Thinking about historical experiences and analyzing their current relevance appears to be an important component of strategy development. Having to balance between political demands and military necessity (i.e., Luttwak’s linear versus paradoxical logic) further complicates strategic art. Regardless, as Corbett, Slessor, Wylie, and Luttwak’s books demonstrate, strategic thinking evolves through an iterative process to arrive at new concepts the fit within the social, political, and economic contexts of the strategist’s time. Although these authors demonstrate the evolution of 20th Century strategic thought, they also show the continuity of themes regarding the achievement of control through economy of effort, consideration of non-military

Mintzberg (1984, pp. 69) suggests “the notion strategy is something that should happen way up there far removed from the details of running an organisation on a daily basis and is one of the great fallacies of conventional strategic

A method by which the strategy development can be explained is the “strategic lenses”. This method views strategy development as design, experience, ideas and discourse. Strategy as design means that it emerged through rational processes, whereas the experience lens sees the strategy as the outcome of individual and collective experiences. The lens “discourse” sees strategy as the result of communication and concepts. The last lens, which is the idea lens, is about the development of strategy as a result of innovation (Johnson et al, 2008).

“Strategy as Revolution” is also associated with a set of weaknesses that compromise the quality of the article. For instance, the author recommends top executives to gather the viewpoints of lower rank employees in terms of strategy formulation; however, Hamel (1996) fails to highlight the ways these viewpoints can be filtered taking into account the fact that there could be dozens if not hundred ideas and implementing all of them is not practical.

This paper begins with a summary view to develop the concept of strategy and why its implementation is difficult. The following sections then cover the core discussion of this paper to support the aforementioned

Throughout this paper I will be looking in-depth at two of the most well recognized strategic management theories, Intended Strategy and Emergent Strategy. I will be evaluating the suitability of the emergent and intended approaches to strategic management and measure the appropriateness of each theory using various academic models (such as PEST analysis, Porter's 5 Forces, Porter's Generic strategy) in order to consider the differing environmental contexts of my chosen organization - Oxfam.

As far back as history can be told mankind has struggled between balancing culture, power and politics. Many wars have been fought and many people have placed their lives on the line in order to stand up for what they believe in. The combinations of culture, power and politics have spilled over into the workplace. In today’s business environment individuals have much more to worry about than just completing their assigned tasks. Organizational culture, power and office politics influence day to day operations as well as govern the atmosphere within the organization. The amount of impact that power and politics have in the workplace, directly reflect the organization’s culture formally as well as informally.

Strategy can be defined as being different from one’s competitors, finding the race to operate and accomplished it. According to Michael Porter (1996), while becoming better at what you do is desirable, it will not benefit you in the long run because it is something other competitors can also do. Strategies for organizations are originally developed by Michael E. Porter in 1979 by introducing the five forces model. A company can identify the industry profitability and attractiveness by analyzing the five forces of Porter (Johnson et al., 2008). And then a reasonable strategy can be set up in line with the strengths and the weakness of an organization is able to create a plan for a stronger position for the organization within its

A strategy, according to Robbins and Barnwell (2002, p. 139) is “the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary to achieve the organisation’s goals”.