Evaluate the suitability of the emergent and intended approaches to strategic management for Oxfam
Strategic Management
"Evaluate the suitability of the emergent and intended approaches to strategic management for Oxfam."
Dominic McDonnell - 2003870
Seminar Tutor - Dr. Karen Quine
Word Count - 2,194
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.
There are many devised explanations of strategy and one solid definition is hard to find. Johnson (2005) identifies strategy as 'the direction and scope of an organization over the long term' and also suggests the way a strategy is implemented depends very much on the industry they are in and what the vision is for an organization.
Two academic views on strategic management approaches are seen as more significant and well recognized than others in this field. These are iconic theories of Henry Mintzberg and Michael Porter who argue differing views on the most effective strategic management approach for an organization. Mintzberg (1987) suggests an 'emergent' approach is more effective while Porter (1979) emphasizes a very much 'intended' approach. The views of both Mintzberg and Porter have been the calling point for many organizations in their strategic management approach but there is ongoing deliberation over which theory is the most relevant and effective in today's environment (Moore 2011). Although many theorists have varying labels for these two strategies, for the clarity of this essay I will be referring to them throughout using the titles 'Intended' and 'Emergent' strategy.
"Evaluate the suitability of the emergent and intended approaches to strategic management for Oxfam."
Dominic McDonnell - 2003870
Seminar Tutor - Dr. Karen Quine
Word Count - 2,194
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.
There are many devised explanations of strategy and one solid definition is hard to find. Johnson (2005) identifies strategy as 'the direction and scope of an organization over the long term' and also suggests the way a strategy is implemented depends very much on the industry they are in and what the vision is for an organization.
Two academic views on strategic management approaches are seen as more significant and well recognized than others in this field. These are iconic theories of Henry Mintzberg and Michael Porter who argue differing views on the most effective strategic management approach for an organization. Mintzberg (1987) suggests an 'emergent' approach is more effective while Porter (1979) emphasizes a very much 'intended' approach. The views of both Mintzberg and Porter have been the calling point for many organizations in their strategic management approach but there is ongoing deliberation over which theory is the most relevant and effective in today's environment (Moore 2011). Although many theorists have varying labels for these two strategies, for the clarity of this essay I will be referring to them throughout using the titles 'Intended' and 'Emergent' strategy.
Bibliography: ALLEN, Katie (2010). The Bookseller. [online]. http://www.thebookseller.com/news/susan-hill-blasts-oxfam-bullies AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (2014) ARNOLD, James (2002). BBC News - Oxfam mixes business with charity. [online]. Last updated 28th March 2002 March. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1896045.stm BBC NEWS (2009) BODWELL, Wendy and CHERMACK, Thomas (2010). Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77. Fort Collins, Colorado State University. CHANDLER, Alfred (1962) DAFT, Richard L. (2010). Organization Theory and Design.. Mason, Ohio, South-Western Cengage Learning. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (2012) DYCK, Bruno and NEUBERT, Mitchell (2008). Management: Current Practices and New Directions. Boston, Cengage Learning. ECONOMIST (2014) FLOOD, Alison (2009). Guardian - Oxfam seeks peace with secondhand booksellers. [online]. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/nov/20/oxfam-secondhand-booksellers HAMEL, Garyl and PRAHALAD, C.K (1989) HUTCHISON-KRUPAT, Jeremy (2014). Strategic Resource Allocation: Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and the Value of Strategic Buckets. Management science , 376 (9755),. JOHNSON ET AL, Gerry (2005). Exploring Corporate Strategy. Mateu Cromo. LOMASH, Sukul (2003) LYNCH, Richard (2005). Corporate Strategy. Essex, Financial Times/ Prentice Hall. MILLAR, Michael (2012) MINTZBERG, Henry (1996). The Strategy Process. Pearson Education Limited, Essex. MINTZBERG, Henry, AHLSTRANGD, Bruce and LAMPEL, Joseph (2005) MINTZBERY, Henry (1987). The Strategy Concept I: Five Ps For. California Management Review, Fall, 11-21. MOORE, Karl (2011). Mintzberg 's Better Way to Do Corporate Strategy. [online]. http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlmoore/2011/06/21/emergent-strategy-demands-emergent-learning/ MOORE, Karl (2011) OXFAM (2014). Emergency Response. [online]. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what-we-do/emergency-response OXFAM (2014) OXFAM (2013). THE POWER OF PEOPLE AGAINST POVERTY - OXFAM STRATEGIC PLAN, 2013-2019. [online]. http://www.oxfam.org/en/countries/oxfam-strategic-plan-2013-2019-power-people-against-poverty PORTER, Michael (1985) PORTER, Michael (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for analyzing Industries and competitors. New York, The Free Press. PORTER, Michael (1979) TELEGRAPH (2012) TURNER, Paul (2002). Review of the UK economy in 2002. Economic Review , 20 (4), 2-10.