...consistency flexibility, whether they believe process should be top down or bottom up. Ideally, all levels of management should share some common ground on strategy formulation, but a survey highlights where differences arise, especially from attitudes on these three philosophical areas. Understanding how differences arise can help top managers construct a more harmonious process.

**********

The strategy process can be complex, difficult to manage, and may be geared toward achieving satisfactory, workable solutions instead of optimizing firm performance through a maximizing approach. Although executives have at their disposal a wealth of information and research, strategic choices often reflect their disparate views on the nature of strategy and how it should be formulated (Beaver, 2003; Kotey and Meredith, 1997; Parnell, 2006; Smircich and Stubbart, 1985). Differences in perspective occur not only among individual managers, but also across groups of managers based on their experiences and job responsibilities (Marginson, 2003). Specifically, upper-, middle-, and lower-level managers may not share the same practical view of the strategy process due to differences in experience and responsibilities associated with their respective positions.

Three factors that influence strategic decision-making and are often viewed differently by managers at various organizational levels are addressed here: (1) management as an art or science, (2) strategic emphasis on consistency or flexibility, and (3) the strategy process as a top-down or a bottom-up approach. We suggest that a person's philosophy on these topics reflect a number of factors, including the person's management level in the organization. In this study, differences in predispositions are explored across management levels.

Identifying Executive Strategic Perspectives

Strategy formulation involves choices (Porter, 1985). The systematic collection of relevant information concerning an organization's environment is at best an inexact science. It leaves strategic managers with varying amounts of information and uncertainty associated with each strategic alternative. Executives often respond to this dilemma by making subjective decisions based on a limited view of the environment, that is, a personal working view of strategy and the strategy process that often leads to a workable, satisfactory approach rather than a maximizing one.

Acknowledging the role of the individual in the strategy process is not new. The personalities and self-interests of managers at middle and upper levels have been linked to strategy formulation in a number of studies (Guth and MacMillan, 1986; Walsh and Fahey, 1986). Specifically, strategy formulation is linked to the top executive's personal view of how the organization should function (Hambrick and Fredrickson, 2001). By its very nature, the notion of executive perspective implies the existence of competing ideals and multiple perspectives on an issue (see Barney 2001; Priem and Butler, 2001a, 2001b).

Appreciating the role of individual differences in the strategy process does not suggest rejection of a rational, objective perspective on strategy. The two perspectives can be compatible on two levels. First, whereas a rational perspective seeks an objective superior decision among alternatives, an "executive perspective" recognizes that a certain degree of subjectivity may also be involved in the process, wisdom presumed to be associated with the executive role of the decision maker. However, both views are concerned with decision-making that maximizes organizational performance over a given time. Second, while there may be multiple valid perspectives on a given strategic issue, a contingency approach may be appropriate, with a single perspective preferable in a particular situation. Within this context, there may be a rational perspective or a contingency perspective of strategy, whereby one executive perspective may be objectively superior to another in certain contexts. Hence, the acknowledgement of an executive perspective realm of strategy should not be misinterpreted as a value-neutral perspective.

There are a number of dimensions of strategic executive perspectives, but this paper focuses on three: (1) management as an art or science, (2) strategic emphasis on consistency or flexibility, and (3) strategy as a top-down or a bottom-up approach.

* Strategy as an art or a science

Traditionally, the strategy literature has emphasized a science/planning approach. Executives are encouraged to systematically assess the firm's external environment and strengths and weaknesses and then evaluate the pros and cons of myriad alternatives before formulating strategy. The search for causal relationships and objectivity are central to the planning model. As such, executives should be trained, highly skilled analytical thinkers capable of digesting a host of objective data and translating it into a desired direction for the firm.

With top managers having better education and training--often including post-graduate degrees like the MBA--there is considerable support for the belief that strategy formation is largely scientific. This supports the use of management tools, data processing, risk management, and modeling to arrive at the appropriate strategies. The goal of these strategies is to maximize success as measured by increases in profit, sales, and productivity and to minimize downside risks such as loss of market share, losses, and ultimate business failure. Proponents of scientific strategy formation contend that the business environment is largely objective, analyzable, and predictable.

Others, however, contend that uncertainties associated with strategy formation make it an art. It is difficult if not impossible to account for and control all the variables associated with business, especially those in the external environment. Following this logic, strategists should incorporate substantial creativity and intuition in the strategy formation process to design a comprehensive strategy for the firm (Ford and Gioia, 2000).

Mintzberg's (1987) notion of a craftsman--encompassing individual skill, dedication, and perfection through mastery of detail--challenged the scientific model and represented the artistic approach to formulation. The strategy artist senses and interprets the state of the organization, seeking to construct the strategy in the same way that a potter molds clay. The artist visualizes the outcomes associated with various alternatives and charts a course based on broad-based thinking, intuition, and imagination. Mintzberg's notions of deliberate and emergent strategies reflect differences between the strategies that emanate from the two schools of thought. Nonetheless, most scholars assume that deliberate strategies are preferred, and emergent strategies invariably result from ineffective planning or environmental unpredictability.

Although most scholars and practitioners acknowledge both art and science viewpoints, the assumption that executives act on this hybrid perspective remains largely unquestioned. The difference between the art and science interpretations of strategy formation is substantial, and the view of how the...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from SAM Advanced Management Journal
Corporate compliance with FASB and EITF: the continuing effects of tra..., March 22, 2007
Cultural barriers to improved organizational performance in Saudi Arab..., March 22, 2007

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.