QUESTION 1: WHAT ARE THE MAIN PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN DESIGNING AN ORGANIZATIONS STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT ITS STRATEGY?

WHAT SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS APPLY WHEN SEEKING INNONATIVE STRATEGIES AND HOW ARE MANAGERS SELECTED AND MOTIVATED TO IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES? Introduction Organization has been defined in several ways. Leavitt (1962) defines it as a specific configuration of structure, people, task and techniques. Structure describes the form of departments, hierarchy and committees. It influences the organization's efficiency and effectiveness. People refer to the skills, attitudes and social interaction of the members of the organization. Task refers to the goals of the individual and the organization. Techniques refer to the methodical approach used to perform tasks. Organizational structure thus refers to the institutional arrangements and mechanisms for mobilizing human, physical, financial and information resources at all levels of the system. Designing organizational structures Some important considerations in designing an effective organizational structure are: Clarity: The structure of the organization should be such that there is no confusion about people's goals, tasks, style of functioning, reporting relationship and sources of information. Understanding: The structure of an organization should provide people with a clear picture of how their work fits into the organization. De-centralization: The design of an organization should compel discussions and decisions at the lowest possible level. Stability and adaptability: While the organizational structure should be adaptable to environmental changes, it should remain steady during unfavorable conditions.

Principles of organization structure Modern organizational structures have evolved from several organizational theories, which have identified certain principles as basic to any organization. 1. Specialization Specialization facilitates division of work into units for efficient performance. According to the classical approach, work can be performed much better if it is divided into components and people are encouraged to specialize by components. Work can be specialized both horizontally and vertically. Vertical specialization in a research organization refers to different kinds of work at different levels, such as project leader, scientist, researcher, field staff, etc. Horizontally, work is divided into departments like genetics, plant pathology, administration, accounts, etc. Specialization enables application of specialized knowledge which betters the quality of work and improves organizational efficiency. At the same time, it can also influence fundamental work attitudes, relationships and communication. This may make coordination difficult and obstruct the functioning of the organization. There are four main causal factors which could unfavorably affect attitudes and work styles. These are differences in: Goal orientation; Time orientation; Inter-personal orientation; and The formality of structure (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967).

2. Coordination Coordination refers to integrating the objectives and activities of specialized departments to realize broad strategic objectives of the organization. It includes two basic decisions pertaining to:
2|Page

Which units or groups should be placed together; and The patterns of relationships, information networks and communication (Anderson, 1988).

In agricultural research institutions, where most of the research is multidisciplinary but involves specialization, coordination of different activities is important to achieve strategic objectives. Efficient coordination can also help in resolving conflicts and disputes between scientists in a research organization. Hierarchy facilitates vertical coordination of various departments and their activities. Organizational theorists have over the years developed several principles relating to the hierarchy of authority for coordinating various activities. Some of the important principles are discussed below: Unity of Command: Every person in an organization should be responsible to one superior and receive orders from that person only. Fayol (1949) considered this to be the most important principle for efficient working and increased productivity in an organization. The Scalar Principle: Decision making authority and the chain of command in an organization should flow in a straight line from the highest level to the lowest. The principle evolves from the principle of unity of command. However, this may not always be possible, particularly in large organizations or in research institutions. Therefore Fayol (1949) felt that members in such organizations could also communicate directly at the same level of hierarchy, with prior intimation to their superiors. The Responsibility and Authority Principle: For successfully performing certain tasks, responsibility must be accompanied by proper authority. Those responsible for performance of tasks should also have the appropriate level of influence on decision making. Span of Control: This refers to the number of specialized activities or individuals supervised by one person. Deciding the span of control is important for coordinating different types of activities effectively.

3|Page

3. Departmentalization Departmentalization is a process of horizontal clustering of different types of functions and activities on any one level of the hierarchy. It is closely related to the classical bureaucratic principle of specialization (Luthans, 1986). Departmentalization is conventionally based on purpose, product, process, function, personal things and place (Gullick and Urwick, 1937). Functional Departmentalization is the basic form of departmentalization. It refers to the grouping of activities or jobs involving common functions. In a research organization the groupings could be research, production, agricultural engineering, extension, rural marketing and administration. Product Departmentalization refers to the grouping of jobs and activities that are associated with a specific product. As organizations increase in size and diversify, functional departmentalization may not be very effective. The organization has to be further divided into separate units to limit the span of control of a manager to a manageable level (Luthans, 1986). In an agricultural research institution, functional departments can be further differentiated by products and purpose or type of research. Departmentalization by Users is grouping of both activities and positions to make them compatible with the special needs of some specific groups of users. Departmentalization by Territory or Geography involves grouping of activities and positions at a given location to take advantage of local participation in decision making. The territorial units are under the control of a manager who is responsible for operations of the organization at that location. In agricultural research institutions, regional research stations are set up to take advantage of specific agro-ecological environments. Such departmentalization usually offers economic advantage. Departmentalization by Process or Equipment refers to jobs and activities which require a specific type of technology, machine or production process. Other common bases for departmentalization can be time of duty, number of employees, market, distribution channel or services.

4|Page

4. De-centralization and Centralization De-centralization refers to decision making at lower levels in the hierarchy of authority. In contrast, decision making in a centralized type of organizational structure is at higher levels. The degree of centralization and de-centralization depends on the number of levels of hierarchy, degree of coordination, specialization and span of control. According to Luthans (1986), centralization and de-centralization could be according to: Geographical or territorial concentration or dispersion of operations; Functions Extent of concentration or delegation of decision making powers.

Every organizational structure contains both centralization and de-centralization, but to varying degrees. The extent of this can be determined by identifying how much of the decision making is concentrated at the top and how much is delegated to lower levels. Modern organizational structures show a strong tendency towards de-centralization. 5. Line and Staff Relationships Line authority refers to the scalar chain, or to the superior-subordinate linkages, that extend throughout the hierarchy (Koontz, O'Donnell and Weihrich, 1980). Line employees are responsible for achieving the basic or strategic objectives of the organization, while staff plays a supporting role to line employees and provides services. The relationship between line and staff is crucial in organizational structure, design and efficiency. It is also an important aid to information processing and coordination. In an agricultural research organization, scientists and researchers form the line. Administrative employees are considered staff, and their main function is to support and provide help to scientists to achieve organizational goals It is the responsibility of the manager to make proper and effective use of staff through their supportive functions. The staff may be specialized, general or organizational (Anderson, 1988). Specialized staff conducts technical work that is beyond the time or knowledge capacity of top
5|Page

management, such as conducting market research and forecasting. General staff consists of staff assistants to whom managers assign work. Organization staff (such as centralized personnel, accounting and public relations staff) provides services to the organization as a whole. Their role is to integrate different operations across departments. Line and staff personnel have different functions, goals, cultures and backgrounds. Consequently, they could frequently face conflict situations. A manager has to use his skills in resolving such conflicts. Special considerations when seeking innovation strategy First, an innovation strategy needs to be truly inspiring and should describe a desirable future state for the company. This is a high bar as it rules out a single-minded focus on incremental add-ons to the business. Rather, it requires the organization to aim higher.The innovation strategy should be derived from the corporate strategy to clearly define how the organization sees opportunities for growth and makes explicit choices about the role of innovation. However, Opportunities and possibilities formulated in an innovation strategy should actually provide input and shape the overall corporate strategy. Second, the innovation strategy needs to be ambitious in terms of providing the basis to break away from the competition, beat the competition, and create new spaces. Too many innovation strategies tend to be me too (and mostly incremental). Even if executed according to plan, they fail to deliver the truly sustainable competitive advantages that can only be derived by performing above the overall market growth level and exceeding average profit margins. Again, the innovation strategy should aim higher and help the company outpace anybody else in a contested space. If the so-called strategy does not seek to push those boundaries, the strategy in all practicality is probably just a product roadmap of business extensions, not an innovation strategy. Third, the process of developing the strategy needs to be open.Open means bringing the outside in and working under the assumption that people may have insights that do not exist within a particular companys boundaries. It is often hard for companies to open up and avoid merely
6|Page

settling. At the same time, this should not be mistaken as an excuse for failing to come up with a great innovation strategy based on internal ideas and conviction. Being open is just a great way to raise the bar in terms of ambition and to more quickly get to more mature plans. By the way, as opening up the innovation pipeline is not just a matter of mindset, new technologies play an important role in making openness commercially feasible. Fourth, an innovation strategy must also be specific to the time in which it is developed, as it is grounded in the reality of a companys environment, and it reflects the available capabilities, technologies and gaps that may need to be filled. It is important to describe with great precision which specific innovation initiatives should be pursued, and where to invest and compete. Finally, an innovation strategy needs to be adaptive and to evolve over time, i.e. incorporate learning, allow adjustments to the desired course and maybe even allow an organization to cut its losses if required. This typically does not fit with the classic annual corporate planning cycle. An innovation strategy and the respective execution should be capable of adapting the moment there are new insights, even if that requires moving in multiple directions to raise the aspiration you had at the beginning. Innovation sometimes requires more time than originally estimated.

7|Page

QUESTION 2: DOES A SMALL COMPANY NEED A FORMAL STRATEGIC PLAN? WHY AND WHY NOT? Introduction Many small companies are aware of strategic planning but have a notion that it is only useful for larger businesses or organizations. Most entrepreneurs have their ideas and plans in their heads and since they are the ones running the business, they often feel there is no need to waste time putting it to paper. That kind of thinking can bring a small business down. Planning is essential to the success of small businesses. Small businesses need to recognize that in order to reach their desired level of success it is necessary to create a plan. Strategic planning According to Wikipedia, strategic planning is an organizations process of defining its strategy or direction and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy. In order to determine the future direction of the organization, it is necessary to understand its current position and possible avenues through which it can pursue particular courses of action. Strategic planning is also an organizational management activity that is used to set priorities, focus energy and resources, strengthen operations, ensure that employees and other stakeholders are working towards common goals, establish agreement around intended outcomes/results and assesses and adjust the organizations direct response to a changing environment. A strategic plan however is a document used to communicate with the organizational goals, the needed actions to achieve those goals and all of the other elements developed during the planning exercise. Key components of strategic planning The key components of 'strategic planning' include an understanding of an entity's vision, mission, values and strategies.
8|Page

Vision: outlines what the organization wants to be, or how it wants the world in which it operates to be (an "idealized" view of the world). It is a long-term view and concentrates on the future. It can be emotive and is a source of inspiration. For example, a charity working with the poor might have a vision statement which reads "A World without Poverty."

Mission: defines the fundamental purpose of an organization or an enterprise, succinctly describing why it exists and what it does to achieve its vision. For example, the charity above might have a mission statement as "providing jobs for the homeless and unemployed".

Values: beliefs that are shared among the stakeholders of an organization. Values drive an organization's culture and priorities and provide a framework in which decisions are made. For example, "Knowledge and skills are the keys to success" or "give man bread and feed him for a day, but teach him to farm and feed him for life". These example maxims may set the priorities of self-sufficiency over shelter.

Strategy: defines as a means to the end and these ends concerns the purpose and objectives of the organization. They are the things that businesses do, the path they follow, and the decisions they take, in order to reach certain points and levels of success. A strategy is sometimes called a roadmap - which is the path chosen to plow towards the end vision. The most important part of implementing the strategy is ensuring the company is going in the right direction - defined as towards the end vision.

Why small businesses need a formal strategic plan A strategic plan helps the various people and work units within an organization to align themselves with common goals. But perhaps most importantly, the strategic planning process provides managers, owners and entrepreneurs the necessary framework for developing sound business strategy. Also managers and business owners need a well-developed strategic plan in order to effectively establish expectations for their employees. Without a plan, expectations are developed in a void and there is little or no alignment with common goals and strategies. A good strategic plan looks

9|Page

out 2 to 5 years and describes clearly what market, product/service; pricing, marketing and other strategies will be followed. Another reason is that, during tough economic times, the need for a solid strategic direction and plan is even more pronounced because the margin for error generally becomes much smaller for most businesses. When the economy turns down, the absence of a well-designed and effectively implemented strategic plan will often be felt in a dramatic manner. Because sound goals, objectives, strategies, and tactics have not been integral to the daily operations, the business will not be well positioned to withstand the hits delivered by a struggling economy. Conversely, organizations with solid plans that are being implemented effectively stand a far better chance of surviving tough economic times. Why? Because sound strategic direction provided by a strategic plan lays a strong foundation that will support a business during these economic downturns. More so, all employees need to understand the guiding principles of the business and what everyone should be aiming to achieve. A strategic plan that is well developed, properly communicated, and carefully implemented can launch struggling or underperforming businesses to new heights. Furthermore, with a strategic plan in place, day-to-day decision making and problem solving will be directly related to long-range and short-term goals. Planning reduces stress by making decisions easier. When choices are made within the context of a strategic framework, the organizations direction is clearly defined. If there is no strategic framework, the future of the organization is in the hands of whoever is making choices. Strategic decision making and problem solving assure that the organizations vision will be achieved. Why small businesses do not need a strategic plan Strategic planning is inappropriate for small companies because: The strategic planning process is one which is very daunting and requires various data to arrive a comprehensive strategic plan. Most small business owners have no time and or the resources to invest in days of planning.

10 | P a g e

Also, developing a strategic plan requires senior managers to make time and spend days in meetings to formulate. This comes at a big cost for small businesses because most of the top team members usually lead their sales and marketing efforts and taking them off the road to sit in meetings for days formulating a strategic plan has immediate negative impact on revenues. More so, the payoff of strategic planning is often measured in millions of dollars rather than hundreds of dollars, so it makes no financial sense for small businesses to over invest in the effort. Furthermore, small business must continually adjust their strategy so the strategies they develop during a strategic planning session are usually short-lived. Most small businesses win because they are more nimble, quicker to seize unexpected opportunities than their larger competitors. Long term planning can slow them down and kill this advantage. Conclusion Despite the fact the one can somehow argue for the fact the small businesses might not necessarily need a strategic plan due to the cost and time involved in developing one I will conclude by saying that every business really needs a strategic plan no matter how small the business is. This is because the plan will keep the business focus and the objectives developed from the plan can serve as a guide for performance to be measured and monitored.

11 | P a g e

QUESTION 3: IN WHAT STRATEGIC CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD A LEADER BE DOMINANT AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD A LEADER WORK WITH A SHARED VISION? GIVE EXAMPLES TO SUPPORT YOUR VIEWS AND SHOW HOW OTHER FACTORS CAN ALSO INFLUENCE LEADERSHIP STYLE. Introduction Taking a team from ordinary to extraordinary means understanding and embracing the difference between management and leadership. Managers are facilitators of their team members success. They ensure that their people have everything they need to be productive and successful; that theyre well trained, happy and have minimal roadblocks in their path; that theyre being groomed for the next level; that they are recognized for great performance and coached through their challenges. Conversely, a leader can be anyone on the team who has a particular talent, who is creatively thinking out of the box and has a great idea, who has experience in a certain aspect of the business or project that can prove useful to the manager and the team. A leader leads based on strengths. A dominant leader is a leader who is in charge and has total authority and control over decision making. By virtue of their position and job responsibilities, they not only control the efforts of the team, but monitor them for completion often under close scrutiny. It is the most common form of leadership. This style is reminiscent of the earliest tribes and empires. Obviously, our historical movement toward democracy brings a negative connotation to autocracy, but in some situations, it is the most appropriate type of leadership. That, of course, doesnt mean a blank check to ignore the wellbeing of his subordinate. Circumstances where a leader should be dominant A dominant leadership is characterized by a clear line of authority that gives the leader the power of delegation and the power to control the subordinates level of participation in decision making process.

12 | P a g e

The dominant leadership style is best used in situations where control is necessary, often where there is little margin for error. When conditions are dangerous, rigid rules can keep people out of harms way. Many times, the subordinate staff is inexperienced or unfamiliar with the type of work and heavy oversight is necessary. Rigid organizations often use this style. It has been known to be very paternalistic, and in highlyprofessional, independent minded teams, it can lead to resentment and strained morale. Good fits for dominant Leadership:

Military Manufacturing Construction Its easy to see the immediate goal of this type of leadership: use your expertise to get the job done. Make sure that everyone is exactly where they need to be and doing their job, while the important tasks are handled quickly and correctly. In many ways this is the oldest leadership style, dating back to the early empires. Its very intuitive to tell people what needs to be done by when. It is difficult balancing the use of authority with the morale of the team. Too much direct scrutiny will make your subordinates miserable, and being too heavy handed will squelch all group input. Being an effective autocratic leader means being very intentional about when and how demands are made of the team. Here are some things to keep in mind to be an effective when acting as a dominant leader:

Respect your Subordinates: Its easy to end up as rigid as the rules you are trying to enforce. Its important that you stay fair and acknowledge that everyone brings something to the table, even if they dont call the shots. Making subordinates realize they are respected keeps moral up and resentment low; every functional team is built on a foundation of mutual respect.

13 | P a g e

Explain the rules: Your people know they have to follow procedure, but it helps them do a better job if they know why.

Be consistent: If your role in the team is to enforce the company line, you have to make sure you do so consistently and fairly. Its easy to respect someone objective, but hard to trust someone who applies policy differently in similar circumstances.

Educate before you enforce: Having everyone understand your expectations up front will mean less surprises down the road. Being above board from the outset prevents a lot of miscommunications and misunderstandings.

Listen, even if you dont change: We all want to feel like our opinions are appreciated, even if they arent going to lead to immediate change and being a leader means that your team will want to bring their opinions to you. Its important to be clear that they are heard, no matter the outcome. Circumstance where a leader should work with a shared-vision This leadership style is a very open and collegial style of running a team. Ideas move freely amongst the group and are discussed openly. Everyone is given a seat at the table, and discussion is relatively free-flowing. This style is needed in dynamic and rapidly changing environments where very little can be taken as a constant. In these fast moving organizations, every option for improvement has to be considered to keep the group from falling out of date. The democratic leadership style means facilitating the conversation, encouraging people to share their ideas, and then synthesizing all the available information into the best possible decision. The democratic leader must also be able to communicate that decision back to the group to bring unity the plan is chosen. When situations change frequently, democratic leadership offers a great deal of flexibility to adapt to better ways of doing things. Unfortunately, it is also somewhat slow to make a decision in this structure, so while it may embrace newer and better methods; it might not do so very quickly.
14 | P a g e

Democratic leadership style can bring the best out of an experienced and professional team. It capitalizes on their skills and talents by letting them share their views, rather than simply expecting them to conform. If a decision is very complex and broad, it is important to have the different areas of expertise represented and contributing input this is where democratic leader shines. Good fits for Democratic Leadership:

Creative groups (advertising, design): ideas need to flow in creative environments to find create new concepts and designs.

Consulting: when paid to explore problems and find solutions, your role will be to explore the possibilities in depth, and that means there has to be a great deal of exploration and open discussion.

Much of the Service industry: new ideas allow for more flexibility to changing customer demands.

Education: few places need to be open to different ideas than education, both by educators and their students.

How to be effective with this position:

Keep communication open: If the marketplace of ideas is going to be open for business,

everyone needs to feel comfortable enough to put their ideas on the table. The democratic leadership style thrives when all the considerations are laid out for everyone to examine.

Focus the discussion: Its hard to keep unstructured discussion productive. Its the

leaders job to balance being open to ideas and keeping everything on-topic. If the conversation begins to stray, remind everyone of the goal on hand and then steer it back. Make sure to take note of off-topic comments and try to return to them when they are pertinent.

Be ready to commit: In the democratic leadership style, you get presented with so many

possibilities and suggestions that it can be overwhelming and difficult to commit. But as the leader, when the time comes, you have to choose and do so with conviction. The team depends on the clear and unambiguous mandates to be committed.
15 | P a g e

Respect the ideas: You and your team might not agree with every idea, and thats ok. It is

important, however, that you create a healthy environment where those ideas are entertained and considered --not maligned-- or the flow of ideas will slow to a trickle.

Explain, but dont apologize: You want the advocates of the solutions that were not

selected to understand that their thoughts were considered and had validity, but that ultimately you had strong reasons to go a different direction. Its important that the decision be communicated, but you should not apologize for deciding on what you think.

16 | P a g e

QUESTION 4: IF EMERGENT APPROACHES TO CORPORATE STRATEGY HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANCE, WHY DO COMPANIES INSIST ON DEFINING AND STICKING RIGIDLY TO PRESCRIPTIVE CORPORATE OBJECTIVES A strategy is a set of guiding principles that, when communicated and adopted in the organization generates a desired pattern of decision making. A strategy is therefore about how people throughout the organization should make decisions and allocate resources in order to accomplish key objectives. Strategy is a series of plans and decisions developed to enable a company to reach goals and settle objectives. All organizations have a set of objectives that they are aiming to achieve and this is the case whether the organization is small, large, profit seeking or not. Virtually every organization will have a set of objectives that will require some form of strategic planning in order to achieve. Business strategy implicitly or explicitly draws on deliberate strategy, which means clear and fully formed intentions for where a business should go and how to get there. Most businesses accept and act on this by establishing very structured two-, three- and even five-year plans to expand market share or distribution. In some cases, discrete decisions made by numerous, midlevel employees unintentionally move an entire organization in a new direction, which results in an emergent strategy. Emergent strategies are characterized by patterns of actions within a business that occur without a clear relationship to, or even in spite of, the stated goals or mission of the business. The pattern typically becomes apparent only after the fact, but businesses often adopt the change as the new business strategy. A simple example of this might be a comic book shop owner setting a strategy for dominating comic book sales in given city. The manager, however, notes that profits from tabletop gaming products far exceed that of the comics and shifts resources to beef up gaming inventory. Profits rise and owner recasts the strategy to become the dominant gaming shop in a given city. In most cases, emergent strategies arise from individuals in an organization responding directly to market forces. Their decisions reflect shifts in consumer tastes, order sizes and practices of competitor businesses. In essence, the advantage of emergent strategy is that it leads a business
17 | P a g e

to provide what the market actually wants, rather than what the owner or executive thinks or believes the market wants. Effective emergent strategy does require that the organization maintain the flexibility, particularly at the owner or executive level, to embrace the new strategy. Advantages of emergent strategy Consistent with actual practice in organizations Considers people issues such as motivation Allows experimentation about the strategy to take place Opportunity for inclusion of culture and politics of organization Flexibility to respond to market changes

Criticisms of emergent strategy approach There is a danger of strategic drift as objectives is not clear It is more difficult to assess performance as targets are less well defined Impracticable to expect board members to allow business to function without objectives. Group resources need to be allocated between demands of competing operating companies. Removes aspects of rational thinking from decision making. Management control becomes unclear as actions to be undertaken are not planned in advance. By nature, emergent strategy occurs as part of ongoing organizational activity. While a business could forgo a deliberate strategy and rely on an emergent strategy to develop, the odds of such order manifesting from pure, unstructured business activities remains slim. As such, emergent strategy does not offer a genuine alternative to more traditional deliberate strategy, especially for new businesses operating on narrow margins. At best, it serves to complement and serve as a corrective measure for deliberative strategy.

Despite the significance of the emergence approach to corporate strategy, some companies do insist on defining and sticking rigidly to prescriptive corporate objectives because of the reasons discussed below.
18 | P a g e

Prescriptive strategic planning is the term given to a strategy whereby the objectives of the strategy are defined in advance and the main elements are designed and developed prior to the strategy implementation (Lynch, 2003). Businesses do insist on defining and sticking to rigid corporate objectives because clear objectives provide focus on the Business. A business is lost without goals and that is what corporate objectives are. Goals provide the clearest way to measure the success of the company. A company with clear established goals will know how well the company is doing at different stages to meet the overall objective of the company and provide focus. By stating or defining the company's goals in specific, measurable ways, it gives direction to the company's efforts and allows every person in the company the chance to work towards those goals. It is the main function of the business objectives to provide direction to the company to guide them towards whatever goal has been specified for whatever time period has been listed in the objective. Also, businesses do insist on defining and sticking to rigid corporate objectives because objectives can be translated into targets against which performance can be measured and monitored. These set targets monitored and measured ensures the organization does not veer off course and at each point in time can assess how well the organization is performing and what sets to take to ensure the organization performs better to achieve the overall corporate vision.

More so, businesses do insist on defining and sticking to rigid corporate objectives because resources can be allocated to specific objectives and efficiency can be judged. Because resources are usually scarce or never enough organizations have to plan on how to allocate these scarce resources to specific objectives to enable the business reach its full potential.

Furthermore, businesses do insist on defining and sticking to rigid corporate objectives because of cohesion. Business objectives allow everyone to be a cohesive unit and be on the same page. If the business objectives are written out and clear, then everyone will know what the goals are and be able to pursue them to the greater extent. Business objectives are a great tool for communication with the company and a way to make sure everyone is working together. In addition, some businesses do insist on defining and sticking to rigid corporate objectives because it gives complex information, defines and focuses business objectives, establishes
19 | P a g e

controls, and sets targets that performance can be measured. This approach makes it possible to organize complex activities and exercise a greater degree of control over different business units. For example, Tesco's planning process resulted in well-defined long-term goals and clear boundaries for its UK core business, retail service, non-food and international sectors. Last but not the least, businesses do insist on defining and sticking to rigid corporate objectives because the approach is logical and rational. The approach views strategy formulation and implementation as a logical, rational and systematic process. After analysis of the business and its environment, strategists set well-defined corporate and business objectives, formulate, select and implement strategies that will allow objectives to be achieved.

Conclusion For most companies that use strategy to help manage and improve their companys performance, strategy is a periodic deliberate planning process that is loosely tied to its day-to-day business and resource allocation processes. The basic premise of using strategy within a company is that the effective allocation of resources to the right areas of the company for the correct purposes will yield a stronger competitive position and provide overall better returns. The increasing pace of change in the business landscape, driven by the rapid cycling of consumer interests and technical innovation, suggest that tolerance for emergent strategy may need to become inherent for all businesses. Business owners and executives do need to remain cautious about reading emergent strategy into patterns of behavior. Shifts in the strategic position of the business due to mid-level decisions may come about as the result of poor or uninformed decision-making at that level. However, businesses do insist on defining and sticking to rigid corporate objectives because, the approach is logical, objectives allow the business to be cohesive. Also, businesses do insist on defining and sticking to rigid corporate objectives because objectives can be translated into targets against which performance can be measured and monitored.

20 | P a g e

QUESTION 5: WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS WITH USING ALLIANCES AND JOINT VENTURES IN INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT? HOW MIGHT THEY BE OVERCOME? Introduction Joint ventures and strategic alliances are a proven tactic for management to secure faster and lower risk growth. The alternatives are to grow organically (100% control but generally slower
21 | P a g e

growth); or with acquisitions (faster growth but demanding on capital and challenging to integrate post-acquisition and secure the forecast benefits).

Strategic alliances can be effective ways to diffuse new technologies rapidly to enter new market, to bypass governmental restrictions expeditiously and to learn quickly from the leading firms in the industry. However, strategic alliances are not simple or easy to create, develop and support. Strategic alliance projects often fail because of tactical errors made by management.

Joint ventures and strategic alliances allow faster growth by accessing markets and technology, and sharing and controlling risks. The main catalysts for the growth in such alliances are: the increasing internationalization of markets; the growing importance of innovation management (with rapid technology transfer and shorter product lives); and, the increasing costs of R&D (with the complexity of technology and convergence of it).

With such benefits, there are also potential downsides. 40% of joint ventures result in divorce within three years which is not necessarily a sign of failure. But, when joint ventures are not properly managed over their life time, then the exit costs can be huge.

For example, after ten years of operating in China with its local partner, the French company Danone accepted an exit settlement of 21% below its book value as payment by its local partner of $450m for the 51% majority ownership of their joint venture. The divorce took place because Danone accused its joint venture partner (Wahaha) of setting up at least 96 parallel companies, with production and sales networks that competed with the joint venture. Danone also believed its local partner was in breach of confidentiality agreements. While Danone controlled the joint venture at board level, the Chinese partner had almost total day-to-day control. It is essential that companies enter into strategic alliances arrangements with a comprehensive plan outlining detailed expectations, requirements and expected benefits.

Problems associated with using joint ventures and strategic alliance Lack of trust
22 | P a g e

Building trust is the most important and yet most difficult aspect of a successful alliance. Only people can trust each other, not the company. Therefore, alliances need to be formed to enhance trust between individuals. Many alliances fail due to the lack of trust causing unsolved problems, lack of understanding and despondent relationships. In many alliance cases one company will point the failure finger at the partnering company. Shifting the blame does not solve the problem but increases the tension between the partnering companies and often leads to alliance ruin. Lack of coordination between management teams

Action taken by subordinates that are not congruent with top-level management can prove particularly disruptive, especially in instances where companies remain competitors in spite of their strategic alliance. If it were to happen that one company would go off on its own and do its own marketing and sell its own product while in alliance with another company it would for sure be grounds for the two to break up, and they would most likely end up in a legal battle which could take years to solve if it were settled at all. Lack of clear goals and objectives

Many strategic alliances are formed for the wrong reasons. Some companies enter into alliances to combat industry competitors. The alliance may put the companies in the spotlight causing more competition. Many strategic alliances, although entered into for all the right reasons do not work. Dissimilar objectives, inability to share risks and the lack of trust lead to an early alliance demise.

Clash of cultures

Cultural clash is probably one of the biggest problems that companies in alliances face. These problems consist of language, egos and different attitudes to business can all make the going rough. The first thing that can cause problems is language barrier that a company might face. Also different cultures operate in different ways. When the partnering companies do not manage culture well it can also cause problems for the alliance. Difference in operating procedures and attitudes among partners
23 | P a g e

Other problems that occur between companies in trade alliances are different attitudes among the companies, one may deliver its goods or services behind schedule or do a bad job producing their goods and service which may lead to distrust among the two companies. When problems like this occur it usually makes the other company angry and this could lead to a takeover. An example is Publicis Communication and Foote, Cone and Belding (FCB) case. The deal was designed to fill strategic needs of each. An alliance in Europe would finally give FCB the international reach it needed while Publicis could use FCBs experience in North and South America to serve its multinational clients. The venture officially ended earlier after bitter and expensive divorce proceedings. True North Communications Inc., the holding company for Foote Cone and the worlds no.8 agency group is fighting off a $28-a-share hostile takeover attempt by its ex-partner Publicis which still owns 18.5 percent (Melcher and Edmundson, 1997) Future local or global competitor

One partner for example might be using the alliance to test a market and prepare the launch of a wholly owned subsidiary. By declining to cooperate with others in the area of its core competency, a company can reduce the likelihood of creating a competitor that would threaten its main area of business. Performance risk

Performance risk is the probability that an alliance may fail even when partner firms commit themselves fully to the alliance. The sources of performance risk according to a study by Das and Tend (1999) include environmental factors such as government policy changes, war and economic recession; market factors such as fierce competition and demand fluctuations; internal factors such as lack of competence in critical areas or sheer bad luck. How to overcome the problems associated with strategic alliance Senior management commitment

The commitment of the senior management of all companies involved in a strategic alliance is a key factor in the alliances ultimate success. Indeed for alliances to be truly strategic, they must have a significant impact on the companies overall strategic plans and must therefore be formulated, implemented, managed and monitored with a full commitment of senior
24 | P a g e

management. Without senior management commitment, alliances will not receive the resources they need. Senior management commitment to alliances is important not only to ensure the alliances receive the necessary resources but also to convince others throughout the organization of the importance of the alliance. Clearly defined, shared goals and objectives

In forming a strategic alliance the question must be asked: how integrated will the alliance be with the parent company? Some alliance are highly integrated with one or more of the parent organization and share such resources as manufacturing facilities, management staff and support functions . Top management must articulate a clear link between where it expects the industry s future profits pools will be, how to capture a large share of those and where if at all alliance fit in the plan (Ernst and Stern 1996). Developing key objectives and goals that reflect what both parties expect to gain is critical. Be sure that expectations are realistic in light of the resources both parties are willing to put forth, and make adjustments as needed. Nothing sours an alliance faster than the notion that one party is giving everything while the other is getting a free ride. Strategic alliances have to foster an environment in which both parties gain something; otherwise, they're not partnerships.

Build on Trust

Strategic alliances are built on trust, dedication and mutual interests. They require the respect and interaction of people in each organization. And, like good personal relationships, they require effort to build. Once they're in place, however, you can count on them.

Each party has to feel that he or she is giving something and getting something in return. If you haven't taken the time to think through how both sides will benefit, don't pursue an alliance at this time.
25 | P a g e

Evaluate Potential Partners

Even when you get a referral from a trusted advisor, researching a prospective partner is crucial. You must feel comfortable with the strategies and tactics of any company youre considering an alliance with. Find out about the business' key strengths, market position and if possible financial status. Once youve narrowed the field on paper, the detailed analysis begins. It's critical that you look objectively at management styles, work ethics and values, and identity where potential clashes could occur. Key questions to ask:

How are decisions made? How controlling is management of its employees? At what pace do employees work? How competitive or aggressive is the company?

Answering these questions honestly leads to a better match. Some companies, for instance, are known for their tight rein on employees or the long hours they keep; if your work style isn't similar to theirs, you could be headed for problems. It's also smart to get references from people who have worked with your potential strategic partner. This will also help overcome the problem where a partner can later become a local or global competitor.

Develop a Good Communications Process

Clear communication is important to creating an enduring partnership. Disappointments and misunderstandings can be avoided by establishing an effective process for working with your partner. The relationship must be developed to the point where both parties can be honest when evaluating progress and offering recommendations for improvement both of which should be done on a regular basis. For example: you might want to exchange weekly sales reports. And by learning and understanding the culture of the partners involved, they can communicate better. Define Roles and Responsibilities

Assess each company's strengths, and define responsibilities accordingly especially in the area of management. Many alliances fail because of poor management relationships, so document clearly what's expected. Be specific: decide how many people will be involved in the alliance
26 | P a g e

from each company and what their specific roles will be. Each party has to dedicate resources to the relationship, and both parties need someone within their organization who will champion the cause. Also consider all the accounting, tax and legal ramifications of the alliance. Form a game plan for how the alliance will operate from the beginning to the end of the relationship Conclusion Strategic alliances and Joint ventures are important tools for attaining and maintaining competitive advantage. In addition, strategic alliances concept is growing in appeal to organizations because of the cost savings achieved in executing operations. Though strategic alliances can pay off, no business should form partnership just because alliances are trendy. Companies sometimes enter into alliances without thoroughly analyzing their options. This is the primary reason why alliances fail so it is imperative that companies make sure that an alliance is the best option for their needs. Alliances entered into with comprehensive plan outline, detailed expectations, requirements and an expected benefit is likely to succeed.

QUESTION 6: WHY IS IT SOMETIMES DIFFICULT FOR AN ORGANIZATION TO ACT UPON THE CHANGES THAT IT SEES TAKING PLACE IN THE ENVIRONMENT? WHAT CAN IT DO TO OVERCOME SUCH PROBLEMS? GIVE EXAMPLES TO SUPPORT YOUR VIEWS. Organizational change occurs when a company makes a transition from its current state to some desired future state. Managing organizational change is the process of planning and implementing change in organizations in such a way as to minimize employee resistance and cost to the organization, while also maximizing the effectiveness of the change effort. Todays business environment requires companies to undergo changes almost constantly if they
27 | P a g e

are to remain competitive. Factors such as globalization of markets and rapidly evolving technology force businesses to respond in order to survive. Such changes may be relatively minor as in the case of installing a new software program or quite major as in the case of refocusing an overall marketing strategy. Organizations must change because their environments change. How to overcome change problems in an organization Build new relationships.

A crucial first step in any change process is to build relationships. It means forming relationships, organizing, and claiming collective responsibility for a given issue or situation. This can range from highly organized management meetings to a few teams getting together to discuss their concerns. In some cases, building new relationships may only be possible by fundamentally changing relationships that are already in place. The key is to develop a sense of group identity as well as a sense of agency. Being associated with, and committed to, others gives people a feeling that they are equal to their problems. It is therefore an essential prerequisite to bringing about desired changes.

Discuss and deliberate.

All effective change strategies hinge on discussion and deliberation. At a minimum, discussion allows the issues to be named and framed. It also helps individuals develop a shared perspective. As Robert Theobald points out, "most fundamental change activities break down because those involved in them do not take the time to gain a shared model of reality." At a more fundamental level, dialogue allows for what physicist David Bohme calls a "higher social intelligence." One of the chief obstacles to change, he says, is that "we've organized our societies by algorithms that is, by sets of rules by which we try to affect each other like parts of a machine. The result is that we can't talk with each other about things that are really important." Dialogue helps to eliminate false divisions among people, builds common ground, and allows for the emergence of a more systemic perspective.

Develop shared visions and goals.

28 | P a g e

Setting new directions for the future is one of the most powerful ways of effecting change. When people come together in such a way that their individual visions can start to interact, a creative tension is established that gives focus, direction, and context to changes as they occur. Some techniques for developing common visions include futures commissions, search conferences, and visioning meetings in which participants develop "best case" scenarios and articulate common goals. This process is very different from such perfunctory strategies as writing "vision" statements. It often involves a great deal of reflection, listening, and mutual understanding.

Foster social capital.

Robert Putnam and others have used the term "social capital" to denote the networks and norms of trust and reciprocity that characterize healthy social orders. The term suggests that capital can be measured in social as well as economic terms, that relationships have an inherent value. Scott Fosler, author of The Public/Private Partnership, has studied the nature of community collaboration in cities across the United States. "If you look back at what it was that was key in the development of civic and political institutions," he says, "it was trust that was based on personal relationships." Building networks and relationships within and between individuals and groups is not something that can be done overnight, but it is no doubt one of the most effective change strategies available to communities and organizations.

Ensure broad participation and diversity.

Fundamental change is impossible without the participation of everybody with a stake in the problem or issue. Without the full participation of all concerned, perspectives will be missing and there is a good chance that some of the issues involved will go unaddressed. Another aspect of this is the inherent value of diversity. Research in anthropology, sociology, and biology shows that homogeneity fosters stability, while diversity invariably produces change. It follows that planned change is best achieved by promoting diversity.

Determine leadership roles.

There are many types of leaders, from presidents and mayors to teachers, neighborhood activists, and even parents. But no matter what form they take they lend cohesion to a group and act as spark-plugs for change. Their vision, drive and personal commitment can be keys to galvanizing
29 | P a g e

a group into action. Leaders are also able to champion and protect those within groups who are most willing to risk change.

Identify outside resources.

Fundamental change tends to be difficult and painful and always involves uncertainty and risk. Since most communities and organizations that embark on the journey need outside help from foundations, consultants, civic organizations, trade associations, government departments, etc. they need to develop linkages to outside sources of capital and information. These linkages not only facilitate the process of change they often provide opportunities for lateral learning and growth.

Set clear boundaries.

When planning for specific kinds of change, it is important to operate within clearly defined boundaries for both psychological and practical reasons. Boundaries provide frameworks for measuring change and give focus and direction to one's efforts. They also provide a sense of what is feasible. On a practical level, clearly defined goals allow one to make realistic plans.

Draw on the examples of others.

Change takes place in an infinite variety of ways and there is no single strategy that will work for every individual or group. Still, those seeking to effect change may take comfort and inspiration from the examples of others. Not only does this provide mentors from whom they can learn, it offers them conviction that their goal is attainable.

Adopt a change mindset.

Nothing precipitates change like a crisis. Necessity, after all, is the mother of invention. The question is whether it is possible to adopt a crisis-perspective without a crisis, or at least a mindset that is constantly attuned to change. Many innovators and change agents insist that it is possible. What is required, they say, is a shift of perception from seeing change as disequilibrium to seeing it as a constant. Strategizing for change ultimately comes down to whether individuals are motivated to change, learn, and grow.

30 | P a g e

QUESTION 7: IF STRATEGIC CHANGE IS IMPORTANT, WHY DO SOME PEOPLE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT AND WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS FOR THE CHANGE PROCESS? HOW CAN THESE DIFFICULTIES BE OVERCOME GIVEN THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED. Introduction Organizational change is often stimulated by a major external force, for example, substantial cuts in funding, decreased market opportunity and dramatic increases in services. Typically, organizations undertake technical, structural or strategic shifts in the organization to evolve to a
31 | P a g e

different level in their life cycle, for example changing from a highly reactive organization to a more stable proactive environment Education and the media are transforming the expectations of the workforce, so that many employees are seeking different rewards from work and different kinds of relationships from those at work. To manage within the changing environment, a company must adapt, and adaptation means change. An organization cannot just replicate yesterdays practices and expect to achieve the success it has had in the past. Yesterdays assumptions and practices may no longer be valid and may no longer work. Consequently, if an organization wants to maintain its competitive advantage, deliver on strategic objectives, attract and retain the brightest minds, it must respond to new circumstances in a proactive, measured and agile manner. Despite the need for organizations to change in order to survive in business, people tend not to take kindly to change in any form. Why people resist change There are several reasons why changes might be resisted and certain circumstances where the implementation of change will have to be planned carefully and the needs of the people considered. Resistance is likely to be forthcoming where there are perceived flaws or weaknesses in the proposal. Change decisions may be by the strategic leader and then delegated for implementation. Managers who are closer to the market may have some justified reservations if they have not been consulted during the formulation process. Some resistance can also be expected where people have worked out ways of doing things which are beneficial to them in terms of their objectives and preferences. They may see change as a threat. Similarly when people have mastered tasks and feel in control of their jobs and responsibilities, they are likely to feel relatively safe and secure personally. The organization itself or particular managers may resist external pressures if the change involves considerable expense, investment in new equipment and the associated risks.
32 | P a g e

This issue can be exacerbated where there has previously been substantial investment in plant and equipment which technically is still satisfactory. Although demand may be falling there may be a reluctance to sell or close. More so, it is not unusual for people to have some fear of the unknown and to feel comfortable with situations, policies and procedures that they know. Awareness and understanding is therefore an important aspect of change. Furthermore, where particular policies, behavior patterns and the ways of doing have been established and accepted for a long time and in effect have become part of the culture of the organization, change will require careful implementation. The need for the change may not be accepted readily. Overcoming resistance to change Effective change occurs when managers and employees modify their behaviors in a desired way and when the important changes are lasting rather than temporary. Below are some ways of overcoming resistance to change. Education and communication

Communication the logic of a change can reduce employee resistance on two levels. First, it fights the effects of the misinformation and poor communication; if employees receive the full facts and clear up misunderstanding, resistance should subside. Second, communication can help see the need for change by packaging it properly. Participation

Its difficult to resist a change decision in which we have participated. Assuming participants have expertise to make a meaningful contribution; their involvement can reduce resistance, obtain commitment and increase the quality of the change decision. However, against these advantages are the negatives: potential for a poor solution and great consumption of time. Building support and commitment

When employees fear and anxiety are high, counseling and therapy, new-skills training or a short paid leave of absence may facilitate adjustment. When managers or employees have low
33 | P a g e

emotional commitment to change, they favor the status quo and resist it. So firing up employees can also help them emotionally commit to the change rather than embrace the status quo. Negotiation and agreement

Negotiation and agreement are normally linked to incentives and rewards. Where the resistance stems from a perceived loss as a result of the proposed change, this can be useful particularly where the resisting force is powerful. However, offering rewards every time changes in behavior are desired is likely to prove impractical. Manipulation and cooptation

Manipulation refers to covert influence attempts. Twisting facts to make them more attractive, withholding information and creating false rumors to get employees to accept changes are all examples of manipulation. If management threatens to close a manufacturing plant whose employees are resisting an across-the board pay cut, and if the threat is actually not true, management is using manipulation. Cooptation on the other hand, combines manipulation and participation. It seeks to buy off the leaders of a resistance group by giving them a key role, seeking their advice not to find a better solution but to get their endorsement. Conclusion The role of a manager in clarifying direction is even more important during times of change. It is the role of the direct supervisor to translate the change around the team into clear identifiable outcomes and expectations for individual roles. These outcomes need to be managed and supported throughout the change process. If anything, managers need to communicate more and meet more frequently with their team members during times of change to ensure staff members efforts stay focused and constructive towards the new change vision.

34 | P a g e

Reference
1.

David J. Collis and Cynthia A. Montgomery, 1997, Corporate Strategy: A Resource-Based Approach (Chicago: McGraw-Hill Higher Education).

2.

David J. Collis, Cynthia A. Montgomery , 2005 , Corporate Strategy, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill Irwin

3.

Dean Elmuti and Yunus Kathawala, 2001, An overview of strategic alliance, MCB University Press [ ISSN 0025-1747]

35 | P a g e

4.

Gary Hamel, 2000 Leading the Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press).

5.

Gerry Johnson, Kevan Scholes, Richard Whittington, 2009, Exploring Corporate Strategy, 8th edition, Pearson education

6.

John Thompson and Frank Martin, 2010, Strategic Management Awareness& Change, 6th Edition. South-Western, Cengage Learning.

7.

Kotter, JP and Schlesinger, LA, 1979, choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, March-April

8.

Leonard Goodstein, Timothy Nolan, and J. William Pfeiffer, 1992, Applied Strategy Planning: How to Develop a Plan That Really Works (New York: McGraw-Hill).

9. 10. 11.

Lynch, R. 2003. Corporate Strategy 3rd edition. FT Prentice Hall Mintzberg, H. 1994, The Rise and fall of Strategic Planning. FT Prentice Hall Robert W. Bradford, J. Peter Duncan, Peter Duncan, and Brian Tracey, 1999, Simplified Strategic Planning: A No-Nonsense Guide for Busy People Who Want Results Fast (New York: Chandler House Press).

12.

http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/strategy/the-emergent-way-how-to-achievemeaningful-growth-in-an-era-of-flat-growth#.UimVh9KppvA

36 | P a g e