Journal Jou rnal of Manageme Management nt Develop Development ment The evolving role of strategic management development Paul Brown
Ar t i c l e in f or mat i o n:
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
To cite this document: Paul Brown, (2005),"The evolving role of strategic management development", development", Journal of Management Management Development, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp. 209 - 222 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710510584035
Downloaded on: 22 February 2015, At: 20:32 (PT) References: this document contains references to 29 other documents. To copy this document:
[email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 9372 times since 2006*
Users Users who downloaded this article also also downloaded: David Lamond, Lee D. Parker, Parker, Philip Ritson, (2005),"Fads, stereotypes and management gurus: Fayol and Follett today", Management Management Decision, Vol. 43 Iss 10 pp. 1335-1357 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740510634903 Marilyn M. Helms, Judy Nixon, (2010),"Exploring SWOT analysis – where are we now?: A review of academic research from the last decade", Journal of Strategy and Management, Vol. Vol. 3 Iss 3 pp. 215-251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17554251011064837 Uma D. Jogulu, (2010),"Culturally-linked (2010),"Culturally-linked leadership styles", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 Iss 8 pp. 705-719 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731011094766
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 601976 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
Ab o ut Emer ald w w w.emeral w.em eral d i ns i g ht .co .c o m Emerald Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
The evolving role of strategic management development
The evolving role of SMD
Paul Brown University College Northampton, Northampton, UK
Abstract ) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
209 Received May 2004 Accepted May 2004
Purpose – To validate conceptual frameworks for strategic management development. Also, to test the hypothesis that the objectives and design of a strategic management development programme need to match the organisation’s level of commitment to strategic management and the degree of maturity of its strategic management processes and competencies, in order that the programme can be effective in enhancing the strategic capability of the organisation. Design/methodology/approach – Earlier work by the author (based on literature review and one case study) had generated two conceptual models which could help in the understanding of strategic management development. One provides a life-cycle typology matching an organisation’s level of commitment to strategic management with the design of an effective strategic management development programme. The second provides a causal network showing how strategic management capability may be developed. In this paper case study research is reported from six organisations to provide data, which are mainly qualitatative, to test the hypothesis and conceptual models. Findings – Both the life-cycle typology and the conceptual models are supported by the further case study work. It was also found that the dominant strategy-making mode in the organisation can influence the potential for strategic management development. Where the command mode of strategy making is dominant the strategic aspects of a management development programme are inhibited because this is not consistent with the command culture. Research limitations/implications – The generalisability of the findings is constrained by the small sample size of six organisations. However, given the paucity of theory in the field of strategic management development, the findings contribute to the conceptual understanding of this subject. Originality/value – The models proposed give insights into the complexities of strategic management development and can be used to inform analysis and planning of more effective strategic management development interventions. Keywords Strategic management, Corporate strategy, Management development Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction For over 15 years it has been contended that management development (MD) has a strategic role to play in organisations. Constable and McCormick (1987) recommended that MD should be an integral part of strategic plans and strategic change. Cannon (1994) proposed that MD needed a renewed emphasis on its impact on corporate performance and improved competitiveness. Thomson et al. (1997) reported that MD was lagging behind and derived from change rather than helping to shape it, and was inadequately linked to organisational strategies. These UK findings were mirrored in US studies (e.g. McClelland, 1994; Seibert et al., 1995). Such findings drove attempts to identify “best-practice” in MD, especially for senior managers who were thought to be most able to influence strategy and performance (e.g. Cannon, 1995; Hussey, 1996; Bolt, 1993; Burack et al., 1997; Michael, 1993;
Journal of Management Development Vol. 24 No. 3, 2005 pp. 209-222 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0262-1711 DOI 10.1108/02621710510584035
JMD 24,3
210
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
Osbaldeston and Barham, 1992; Seibert et al., 1995; Horwitz, 1999; Boshyk, 2000; James, 2001). While considerable consensus emerged from such studies and there was a strong empirical and practitioner foundation, there was a paucity of conceptual frameworks and theory to help explain the phenomena described. The emphasis was on practice from well-known and well-regarded organisations which were thought to be doing something right. Such theory and conceptual frameworks as did exist were mostly from mainstream MD thinking, which did not necessarily emphasise the strategic contribution of MD. A few models were helpful in positioning different types of MD, some of which had a strategic role (e.g. Patching, 1998; Talbot, 1997). However, exploration of the contingency factors that might help determine which type of MD is best suited to a particular situation remained under-developed. This research was designed to make a contribution towards filling some of these knowledge gaps, thus increasing the understanding of whether and how MD can realise its strategic potential.
Strategic management development The writer has defined strategic management development (SMD) as: Management development interventions which are intended to enhance the strategic capability and corporate performance of the organisation.
Case study research (Brown, 2004) has demonstrated that SMD can act as a catalyst for change at a strategic level, contributing to the generation and adoption of new strategic management processes and strategies (as well as being associated with change management and strategy implementation) (see Figure 1). This causal network shows how strategic drift (the organisation getting more and more out of step with its environment, with accompanying organisational performance problems) can act as a trigger for the generation or renewal of a SMD programme (SMDP). This can help increase commitment to strategic management in the organisation, which can be seen as an intervening variable in the creation of new strategic management processes and competencies. Consequently the development of enhanced capability in strategic management occurs both directly from SMD and indirectly through the new strategic management processes. Strategic implementation teams, which may sometimes be a formal part of SMD (e.g. with delegates working on projects) both deploy and develop further the new strategic competencies. This model is probably most applicable in situations where commitment to, and capability in, strategic management are low – and at first the network of interrelationships is likely to be underdeveloped and incomplete. As the organisation gains in strategic maturity so the role and design of SMD might be expected to change. This analysis (see also Brown, 2004) gave rise to the main hypothesis for this research: The objectives and design of a strategic management development programme need to match the organisation’s level of commitment to strategic management and the degree of maturity of its strategic management processes and competencies, in order that the programme can be effective in enhancing the strategic capability of the organisation.
This hypothesis thus proposes that the matching of strategic management commitment and the capability to the design of the SMDP will allow the latter to
The evolving role of SMD
211
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
Figure 1. Causal network showing how strategic management capability may be developed
JMD 24,3
212
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I
complement, and encourage, the development of organisational and individual competencies in strategic management. This matching might, over time, evolve through a number of stages as shown schematically in Table I. It is also inferred in the hypothesis that the development of strategic management capability will lead to improvements in the corporate performance of the organisation. Table I builds on the ideas of Gluck et al. (1982) and Newkirk-Moore and Bracker (1998) as well as the research (Brown, 2003, 2004) described above. It is possible that an organisation with a low commitment to strategic management will be in a slow-changing environment, or in one that has only recently experienced an increase from low to higher levels of dynamism and/or complexity. Therefore as the level of environmental turbulence (dynamism and complexity) increases it is likely that the organisation will need to move to higher levels of commitment to strategic management and the life cycle sequence of Table I may be followed. An alternative explanation for low commitment to strategic management might be that such organisations have so far pursued strategies which are associated with lower levels of
Commitment to strategic management Low (level 1)
n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
Emerging (level 2)
Developed (level 3)
Mature (level 4)
Table I. Evolving role of SMD
Source:
a
Organisational features
Role of SMDP
Strategy “stuck” except for low levels of emergent/incremental change Strategic drift Little participation in strategy making Change projects rare/poorly handled
Introduce knowledge and language of strategic management Exploratory discussions on strategic direction “Forming” stage of teambuilding among senior managers Mutual support role for participants Forum for discussing proposals and recommending strategies Confronting issues: “storming” stage of teambuilding Recognition of need for strategic management competencies
Experimentation with mechanisms for strategic debate and decision making New language of strategic management Greater participation Uncertainty over strategic direction Dissatisfaction with current strategy, i.e. position or performance Embedding of mechanisms for strategic debate and decision making Consensus on strategic direction can be achieved Systems and processes adapted to facilitate strategic management High commitment to strategic management evident through culture and systems Continuous review of high-level strategies Effective implementation of strategy
Tuckman (1965)
a
Competencies in strategic management defined and being developed Cascading of organisational strategy to managers’ own units “Norming” stage of teambuilding Strategic implementation through project teams and cascading of change projects Succession planning and cascade development of strategic management competencies “Performing” stage of teambuilding
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
strategic management commitment and/or capability, for example, the reactor and defender styles of Miles and Snow (1978). In contrast the prospector and analyser styles (Miles and Snow, 1978) require stronger strategic management commitment and capability. That organisations may operate in similar environments, but have different levels of commitment to strategic management, was demonstrated in the case of small American banks studied by Newkirk-Moore and Bracker (1998). It was found that business performance was highest when levels of both commitment to the strategic planning process, and the frequency of strategic planning training, were high. The aim of this research, therefore, was to test the hypothesis and life-cycle model using a small number of case study organisations. There will be limitations to the generalisability of the funding because of the sample size. However, this methodology does allow the gathering of rich qualitative data, and the use of qualitative approaches to test theories has been defended by Van Maanen (1983) and Yin (1990).
Strategy-making modes Some explanation is now given of strategy-making mode, which was to emerge as an important variable in the study. Hart (1992) produced a typology of five strategy-making modes which has gained wide acceptance as a theoretical model. The typology has implications for SMD in outlining alternative processes for strategy formulation with which SMD might interact, and identifying strategy-making modes which engage multiple levels of management. In the Command Mode strategy is made by a strong individual leader supported by a few top managers. Analysis and option evaluation is used to provide deliberate, fully formed, ready to implement strategies. Other people in the organisation are “good soldiers” who execute the strategy. This might work in an industry environment that is relatively simple and hence can be understood by one or a few people. The organisation will probably be relatively small, so that one person can still maintain effective control. In the Symbolic Mode top management creates a clear and compelling vision, which gives meaning to the organisation’s activities and provides a sense of identity for employees. This long-term vision can be translated into specific targets and there is an implicit control system based on shared values. Speeches, persuasion, new projects and recognition provide focus and momentum to guide the creative actions of individuals. The flexibility of this mode is said to suit dynamic environments, and larger more differentiated organisations which may be growing or re-orienting through proactive strategies (such as prospector or analyser (Miles and Snow, 1978)). In the Rational Mode there is a more comprehensive system of formal strategic planning with written strategic and operating plans. There is upward sharing of data and a high level of information processing and analysis. Detailed plans and well-developed control systems are seen. It is likely to be found in larger firms defending established strategic positions in relatively stable environments (defender strategies). The Transactive Mode employs strategy making based on interaction and learning rather than the execution of a predetermined plan (which is precluded by the inability of top management to understand a complex environment fully). Features of this mode are cross-functional communication, feedback and learning, and dialogue with key
The evolving role of SMD
213
JMD 24,3
214
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
stakeholders, thus necessitating an iterative approach to strategy making. Initiatives such as just-in-time (JIT), total quality management (TQM) and customer focus provide vehicles for these transactions. Top management is concerned with facilitation and linking outcomes over time to determine strategic direction. This is said to suit large mature firms operating in complex environments, e.g. following analyser strategies aimed at incremental product or service improvement. Finally, the Generative Mode has features that were also highlighted in the work of Burgelman (1983), and Wooldridge and Floyd (1990). New ideas emerge upwardly from “intrepreneurship”. Top managers mainly encourage experimentation and select and nurture high-potential proposals. New strategies are germinated by separating innovative activity from the day-to-day work of the operating organisation. Product champions, who can link new ideas with organisational resources to make them a commercial reality, are important. The strategy is continuously adjusted to reflect the pattern of high potential innovations that emerge from below. This mode is said to suit turbulent environments, and prospector strategies in complex and fragmented markets. Hart’s later empirical work (Hart and Banbury, 1994) produced evidence that the more an organisation was able to develop competence in multiple modes of the strategy-making process, the higher its performance. Modes may combine sequentially, e.g. symbolic vision from senior management followed by generative invention and implementation from middle managers. These findings were theoretically associated with the resource-based view of strategy. Firms able to accumulate more complex resources and capabilities in strategy making should be more successful at sustaining competitive advantage than those firms with simpler or less-developed capabilities (Barney, 1991, cited in Hart and Banbury, 1994).
Research design To test the main hypothesis, and the associated model (Table I), it was necessary to extend the study beyond the single organisation of the original case study (Brown, 2004). It was decided to select a number of UK organisations which displayed a range of levels of commitment to strategic management (as indicated through the operationalisation of this concept in a pilot postal questionnaire) and which had senior MD programmes. Five organisations were selected for more detailed study using semi-structured interviews and company documentation. Anonymised details of these organisations, together with the organisation studied in the first case study, are shown in Table II.
Table II. Organisations included in the sample
Organisation
Sector
A B C D E F
Construction and engineering Defence systems Financial services Retail Telecommunications Education
Note:
a
Division of a larger corporation
Number of employees 23,000 11,500 13,000 4,500 5,000 1,200
a
In the interviews with senior human resource development managers, two sets of questions were asked to assess the organisation’s commitment to strategic management and to evaluate their SMDP (see Appendix). These data were supplemented by further information from the postal questionnaire and company documentation (e.g. annual report, web site, MD prospectuses). The results for one company will be described in detail to illustrate how the analysis of data helped identify strategy-making modes and position a company and its SMDP in a life-cycle stage of Table I.
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
Case study – company A Strategic planning in company A is well developed. There are clearly documented plans, at corporate and divisional level, covering a five-year period, which are revised annually. Corporate plans are produced by a central strategy team reporting to the chief executive. Each divisional plan is produced by the divisional senior management team (including the general managers of business units), which has someone with specific responsibility for strategy. That person and the divisional managing director present the strategic review to the main board. The strategy-making process has a strong upward (from divisions) thrust and a demand for entrepreneurship at business unit level, exhibiting features of Hart’s Rational and Generative modes. There are systems to support the strategic management process – the annual resource planning and development cycle provides a resource plan to link to the strategic plan (though it does not strongly incorporate human resource planning apart from senior management succession planning and “talent spotting”). The strategic process is supported by statements of mission, values and key strengths. Overall the organisation’s strategy is thought to be durable over time, and communication of it is good at corporate and business unit levels, but less so at divisional level where there is often uncertainty about “how the different business units fit together, what the synergies are, and where we should be looking to expand capability”. These organisational features provide evidence of progression to the highest level of commitment to strategic management (CSM) in Table I. The features of level 3 such as the embedding of systems for strategic debate and decision making, and systems and processes to facilitate strategic management, have been seen to exist. Indicative of level 4, there is a continuous (annual) strategic review and a high commitment to strategic management is apparent from – for example – the central strategic planning team and the divisional senior managers who have particular responsibility for strategic management. The company has reported impressive growth and strong and improving financial results – this may be taken as evidence of the effective implementation of strategy. There are some areas where improvements in commitment to strategic management might be sought but these shortcomings can be viewed in the context of the continuing development of strategic management, which was evident in the company. There are three different MD programmes that operate at senior or strategic level. The “core senior management programme” is targeted at those newly appointed to the senior management team of a business unit. Formal training inputs are phased to cover strategic management, implementation and control, while simultaneously each
The evolving role of SMD
215
JMD 24,3
216
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
delegate works on a strategic plan for his/her own business unit. This is then presented to the sponsoring senior management team. The strategic planning project is “fundamentally a learning process . . . but there should be some stuff in there that is really capable of being adopted”. However, because delegates are relatively new in post “there can be issues of people’s ability to get a platform or have the authority to take some of the ideas forward”. To help encourage the implementation of ideas there is a review after four to five months to look at progress made. There is no formal link between the project and the annual performance appraisal process. One of the benefits of the programme is in bringing delegates together from disparate parts of the company and “some of the best projects have actually looked at harnessing capabilities from different bits of the company to create a whole new business opportunity”. This programme clearly uses real strategic business issues as learning vehicles, and does sometimes produce direct business benefits from the projects. While the interaction between delegates is a key element this is not formalised within the structure of the programme – greater group involvement in the project work could be beneficial. Also greater linkages with the performance appraisal system might help provide support for the development and implementation of ideas. Another programme, attracting 400 middle managers, is clearly aligned to one of the main elements of the company’s strategy. Described as “more of an OD intervention”, the emphasis is on defined behavioural skills associated with building strategic partnerships with clients, change management and entrepreneurship. It is intended to break down internal barriers so that all of the company’s capability can be brought to bear on any particular client’s needs. Learning networks, line manager mentors and personal learning contracts are used. Participants work on live business issues with inter-module assignments and are encouraged on residential modules to experiment with new behaviour in a safe environment. When mapped against the SMDP dimension of Table I the requirements of level 3 are seen to have been met. The defining and developing of strategic management competencies (such as strategic partnership skills), and the cascading of organisational strategy to managers own units (in the core programme) are evidenced. There is less evidence that the use of MD for strategy implementation is strongly present, since the interventions described are mostly concerned with learning rather than real strategy implementation. Where real strategy implementation is attempted it is somewhat disconnected from the mainstream strategic management process and does not carry the full support of other senior managers and directors. Nevertheless, this programme does have a strong strategic focus, and strategic management competencies are being cascaded within the organisation – e.g. through the line manager’s coaching/mentoring role. Also, the company’s MD programmes do clearly support succession planning. In these respects a number of the hypothesised conditions for level 4 are met. Overall the programmes have some strong strategic roles, and advance beyond level 3, though not fully meeting the level 4 role of SMDP in the typology. The evaluation of the programmes indicated that they were successfully contributing to strategic capability.
Analysis Table III analyses possible objectives for MD programmes (derived from literature review) that were included in the postal questionnaire, sub-dividing them into those
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
Strategic
Functional
Developing abilities to manage change Developing abilities in strategic management Developing entrepreneurial behaviour Encouraging innovation and creativity Helping formulate or refine corporate strategy
Improving current job performance Developing managers to handle a bigger job Identifying high-fliers for succession planning
Helping the organisation achieve its strategic objectives Communicating and clarifying corporate strategy Shaping and modifying a culture Creating a common purpose Creating a cadre of change agents
Preparing managers for lateral moves Developing leadership ability Building teamwork and networks
The evolving role of SMD
217
Table III. Classification of objectives in SMDP
with a strategic emphasis and those with a more functional or operational emphasis. The interpretation of strategic used here has included change management, innovation/creativity and entrepreneurial behaviour as well as other strategic management aspects. It was evident from the interview analysis that some of the SMD programmes did not have a strong strategic focus, and this concept was operationalised as the SMD score. The SMD score (maximum 4.0) was derived from the postal questionnaire results to reflect the extent to which strategic objectives for the MD programme were set and achieved. This can be contrasted with the functional management development (FMD) score (maximum 4.0) which measured the extent to which functional/operational objectives were set and achieved. Table IV shows the results for each of these variables. The data indicate that for organisations B and C the programme was not designed to have a strong strategic effect. The other four organisations all scored above the midpoint on the scale for strategic objectives. The indication that in B and C the programmes did not have a strong strategic role was supported by the interview data. For B, the programme (which was organised at group level) was not deemed to be very successful and did not
Organisation
Strategic management development score
Functional management development score
A
2.6
2.8
B C
1.7 1.7
1.8 2.3
D
3.0
2.2
E F
2.6 2.4
3.2 2.0
Commitment Strategy-making to strategic SMDP modes management level Rational generative Rational Command rational Command rational Rational Symbolic rational
4
3/4
SMDP enhances strategic capability U
4 4?
1 1
£
4
2
£
2 1/2
2 1/2
£
U U
Table IV. Overall summary of results
JMD 24,3
218
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
have a direct strategic linkage to the division. In C each manager had an individually tailored development plan and there was little group activity. The diversity of individual programmes meant that there was not a common strategic focus in MD activities, and there was more emphasis on job performance and succession planning. It is also worth noting that only in the cases of D and F were the strategic scores higher than the functional scores, indicating that even A and E (as well B and C) were apparently placing greater emphasis on the functional objectives of their programmes. To assess the strategy making modes, level of commitment to strategic management, and SMDP level similar analysis to that described for organisation A was conducted. From the qualitative evaluation of the programmes (as illustrated with organisation A) it was concluded that those of A, E and F were contributing to the development of strategic capability in the organisation, but this was much less apparent in B, C and D.
Hypothesis testing Table IV provides a basis for testing the main hypothesis, by examining the relationship between the organisation’s CSM (CSM level) – and the design of the SMD programme (SMDP level). It has been seen that in the cases of two organisations (B and C) the senior MD programmes do not have strong strategic aims. For B, although the organisation has a strong commitment to strategic management, the MD programme was commissioned at group level and has no direct links with the division’s strategy. While this may not be an optimal situation, it seems that it is tolerated because the slow-changing environment in which B operates has not provided sufficient stimulus to move to a more strategic form of MD (as reflected in the low SMD score of 1.7). Thus there is mismatch between CSM and SMDP levels (shown as level 4 and level 1 respectively). However the SMDP at B is not considered to be very effective and would probably benefit from further development to a higher level on the typology. This is consistent with the hypothesis, i.e. because of the mismatch between CSM and SMDP levels the programme is not effective in enhancing strategic capability. In the case of C, the organisation apparently has a high CSM level. From the interview data many aspects of Level 4 were seen. However, because the dominant strategy-making mode is Command there is little participation by managers in the strategy formulation process. This aspect is therefore also absent from the SMDP which was judged to be at level 1. The programme does not have prominent strategic management aims and this is probably a reflection of the Command style. This situation may be acceptable because although the organisation’s environment is dynamic it is not especially complex. There is not a strong international dimension, and the organisation’s activities are focused in financial services rather than being diversified. Therefore the executive directors may be able to monitor environmental trends and competitive action and make the key strategic decisions needed. The evidence from C is that the hypothesis is supported. The Command strategy-making style is also exhibited by D. Again it was found that the senior MD programme does not contribute significantly to strategy formulation, which is consistent with the Command style. Hence although there is a high commitment to strategic management (Level 4) this is not reflected in the SMDP. Like C, D has apparently been able to prosper under a Command mode (and in both
cases this is accompanied by elements of the Rational strategy-making mode). D also has a relatively simple environment, uncomplicated by diversification and, to a more qualified extent, international considerations. (D does consider itself in competition with some prestigious overseas retailers). Where D does differ from C is in a desire to see some change in the strategy-making mode. There are demands for senior managers to be more innovative, and for better change management. This is moving the organisation to more Generative and Transactive modes. To support this the SMDP has a greater strategic emphasis, at least in its intent – as demonstrated by an emphasis on vision and strategic awareness in the programme, and by the high scores for strategic objectives (SMD score 3:0). However the SMDP does not connect closely with the strategic aims and business development processes of the organisation, and only very limited progress has been made in widening the strategic thinking capability in the organisation. Difficulty had been experienced in making managers more innovative, deriving from the historical hierarchical command culture which demanded compliance rather than creativity. The new strategy-making modes are far from embedded. Thus the level of SMD in the typology is low (level 2), still largely reflecting the Command mode, and the hypothesis is supported. The other three organisations, where the Command mode is less present, all demonstrate a fit between the CSM level in the organisation and the SMDP level, and the SMDP enhances strategic capability thus supporting the hypothesis. In the case of F the organisation is in transition from level 1 of commitment to strategic management to level 2. The SMDP was instrumental in facilitating this progression. E is demonstrating movement towards establishing strategic management in the organisation. It is already meeting the CSM level 2. The SMDP is at level 2, although is less influential in the evolution of commitment to strategic management than at F. There are some indications that this will change – greater connection between the SMDP and the organisation’s approach to strategic management is being mooted. However, it seems that there is some optionality about this. Progression to higher levels of commitment to strategic management may be helped by SMD, but SMD may be only one of a number of causal variables (as was illustrated in Figure 1). Indeed at F in the second year of the SMDP there was less emphasis on SMD, and other management processes (which are not explicitly part of the MD initiative) were employed to further the evolution of strategic management. In A, SMD is seen in its most mature form (of the organisations contained in the sample). Although not fully developed (there could be greater integration of projects with real strategy implementation), there is a strong strategic focus. The SMDP was positioned between levels 3 and 4, whilst the organisation’s commitment to strategic management was more fully at level 4. This analysis provides support for the hypothesis in all six cases. Also, it has been seen that where there is a strong element of the Command strategy-making mode in the organisation (as at C and D) the strategic aspects of the MD programme are inhibited because this is not consistent with the Command culture. In particular, it has been seen that in such cases the SMDP is unlikely to contribute to strategy formulation. ¼
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
Development of new capabilities in strategic management It has been noted that while SMD can play a significant role in the evolution of strategic management competencies and processes, other variables are involved and
The evolving role of SMD
219
JMD 24,3
220
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
may assume a more dominant role in that evolution. This was recognised in Figure 1 where new strategic management processes were seen to arise from the recognition of organisational performance problems, and from an increased commitment to strategic management. These effects were seen in several of the organisations including D and E. Other aspects of the causal network could be recognised in the case studies. At E strategic drift was a trigger for the decision to take an SMDP initiative. That strategic capability could develop through the work of implementation teams and other new strategic management processes was apparent at D. It is therefore concluded that the causal network (Figure 1) has further empirical support though the effects may only be partially apparent in any one organisation. The diagram does appear to be useful in portraying the non-linear and multiple cause relationships that might typically be found, but cannot claim to be exhaustive or totally accurate in any one case, because of the uniqueness of each set of social interactions.
Generalisability of the research Given the small sample size it is necessary to question the representativeness of the organisations studied and the generalisability of the findings. Within the small sample the hypothesis was not supported in two organisations because of the effect of another variable (mode of strategy making). It might be speculated that in a larger sample other independent variables may have been detected. All of the samples studied were large organisations based in the UK. No inferences can be drawn about whether small private sector companies, voluntary sector organisations, or non-UK organisations would have yielded similar results. The sample included only one public sector organisation, which may not be representative of that sector as a whole. Thus the generalisability of the results is limited. The results have, however, given valuable insights into the relationships explored. This new knowledge should be employed sensitively when considering its applicability to other organisations. The life-cycle model might be used to inform analysis and planning of MD, helping in the diagnosis of organisational needs and in the design of more effective SMD interventions. References Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management , Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120. Bolt, J. (1993), “Achieving the CEO’s agenda: education for executives”, Management Review , May, pp. 44-9. Boshyk, Y. (2000), Business-Driven Action Learning , Macmillan, Basingstoke. Brown, P. (2003), “Seeking success through strategic management development”, Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 292-303. Brown, P. (2004), “Strategic capability development in the higher education sector”, International Journal of Educational Management , Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 436-45. Burack, E., Hochwater, H., Mathys, W. and Nicholas, J. (1997), “The new management development paradigm”, Human Resource Planning , Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 14-21.
Burgelman, R. (1983), “A process model of the internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 28, pp. 223-44. Cannon, F. (1995), “Business-driven management development”, Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 26-31. Cannon, T. (1994), “The Cannon Working Party report”, Management Development to the Millennium, Institute of Management, Corby. Constable, J. and McCormick, R. (1987), The Making of Managers , BIM/CBI, London. Gluck, F., Kaufman, S. and Walleck, A. (1982), “The four phases of strategic management”, Journal of Business Strategy , Winter, pp. 9-21. ) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
Hart, S. (1992), “An integrative framework for strategy-making processes”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 327-51. Hart, S. and Banbury, C. (1994), “How strategy-making processes can make a difference”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 251-69. Horwitz, F. (1999), “The emergence of strategic training and development: the current state of play”, Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 23 No. 4/5, pp. 180-90. Hussey, D. (1996), Business-driven Human Resource Management , Wiley, Chichester. James, K. (2001), Leadership and Management Excellence; Corporate Development Strategies , Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership, London. McClelland, S. (1994), “Gaining competitive advantage through strategic management development (SMD)”, Journal of Management Development , Vol. 13 No. 15, pp. 4-13. Michael, J. (1993), “Aligning executive training with strategy”, Executive Development , Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 10-13. Miles, R. and Snow, C. (1978), Organisational Strategy, Structure and Process , McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Newkirk-Moore, S. and Bracker, J. (1998), “Strategic management training and commitment to planning: critical partners in stimulating firm performance”, International Journal of Training and Development , Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 82-90. Osbaldeston, M. and Barham, K. (1992), “Using management development for competitive advantage”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 18-24. Patching, K. (1998), Management and Organisation Development , Macmillan, London. Seibert, K.W., Hall, D.T. and Kram, K.E. (1995), “Strengthening the weak link in strategic executive development: integrating individual development and global business strategy”, Human Resource Management , Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 549-67. Talbot, C. (1997), “Paradoxes of management development – trends and tensions”, Career Development International , Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 119-46. Thomson, A., Storey, J., Mabey, C.L., Gray, C.W.J.A., Farmer, E.E. and Thomson, R. (1997), A Portrait of Management Development , Institute of Management, London. Tuckman, B. (1965), “Development sequence in small groups”, Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 63, pp. 384-99. Van Maanen, J. (1983), “Reclaiming qualitative methods for organisational research”, in Van Maanen, J. (Ed.), Qualitative Methodology , Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Woolridge, B. and Floyd, S. (1990), “The strategy process, middle management, involvement and organisational performance”, Strategy Management Journal , Vol. 11, pp. 231-41. Yin, R. (1990), Case Study Research: Design and Methods , Applied Social Research Methods Series, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
The evolving role of SMD
221
JMD 24,3
222
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
Appendix. Interview questions Commitment to strategic management .
How are strategic plans formulated?
.
Who is involved in the strategic planning process, and how?
.
How is the business and competitive environment monitored?
.
How are the plans structured, e.g. divisional, functional, SBU?
.
What is the scope of the plans? (For example financial, R&D, product/market development, operations, HR.)
.
How well are the plans communicated, and to who?
.
How useful are the plans?
.
How are the plans translated into action?
.
How is performance against the plan monitored and reviewed?
.
.
What systems and procedures are in place to support these strategic management processes? How has commitment to strategic management evolved in recent years?
Strategic management development programme .
What are the objectives of the programme? Who is it for?
.
What links are made to the business strategy, and how?
.
.
.
.
.
Is there a competency framework for strategic/senior management? (Obtain copy if possible.) Are there links with the performance management system? Describe the main elements of the programme. Elaborate on interesting aspects, e.g. project activities, strategic workshops. How are the CEO and board involved in the programme? How is the continuing development of strategic management competencies achieved? (For example after the programme.)
.
Do managers cascade aspects of the programme or projects in their own areas? How?
.
Has the programme led to any new strategic management systems in the organisation?
.
Has the programme contributed to strategy formation?
.
How has the SMDP evolved in recent years and why?
This article has been cited by:
) T P ( 5 1 0 2 y r a u r b e F 2 2 2 3 : 0 2 t A a i s e n o d n I n a k i d i d n e P s a t i s r e v i n U y b d e d a o l n w o D
1. Polboon Nuntamanop, Ilkka Kauranen, Barbara Igel. 2013. A new model of strategic thinking competency. Journal of Strategy and Management 6:3, 242-264. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 2. Denise Thursfield, Jean Kellie. 2013. Unitary practice or pluralist empowerment?. Personnel Review 42:4, 488-504. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 3. Ghulam Dastgeer, Atiq ur Rehman. 2012. Effectiveness of management development in Pakistani corporate sector. Journal of Management Development 31:8, 740-751. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 4. Wanda M. CostenRecruitment and Selection 379-387. [ CrossRef ] 5. David Gillingwater, Thomas GillingwaterA Neuroanatomical Approach to Exploring Organizational Performance 120-151. [CrossRef ] 6. Brian D'Netto, Fotini Bakas, Prashant Bordia. 2008. Predictors of management development effectiveness: an Australian perspective. International Journal of Training and Development 12:1, 2-23. [CrossRef ] 7. Paul Brown. 2006. Do senior management development programmes enhance strategic management capabilities?. Strategic Change 15:1, 37-45. [CrossRef ] 8. Shepherd DhilwayoEntrepreneurship and Competitive Strategy 351-376. [ CrossRef ] 9. Abdullah M BasahelAssessment of Strategic Information Systems Planning (SISP) Techniques from Requirement View 278-294. [CrossRef ]
