Organizational Resources and Capabilities

Organizational Resources and Capabilities

Student’s Name

Institution’s Name

Date

Organizational Resources and Capabilities: Applying Concepts and Tools

What are the differences between analytical/planned and emergent approaches?

There are various approaches towards a certain problem or strategy. Some approaches could fit in a given situation and not in another. Analytical/planned and emergent approaches have some differences as well as benefits and drawbacks. Analytical approach is that in which the vision, objectives and intentions of a firm are clearly stipulated and made known to the actors or staff as a way of realizing a certain outcome. It requires a clear vision, plans as well as formal controls aimed at enforcing them in a predictable environment. In this approach, external factors such as advancement in technology and change in government policy do not in any way distort the plan (Butler, 2009). Due to its rigidity and the fact that businesses have little control over the environment they operate in, a purely analytical approach is not desirable.

On the other hand, emergent approach is experienced where consistencies occur in behaviour or actions of a firm over a given period. The adoption of the actions or behaviour is usually not intended for instance those caused by the environmental factors surrounding an organization. Emergent approach is not as rigid as planned approach. Feedback is usually accepted from threats, opportunities and past actions. This means that the organization’s vision can be restructured considering various factors. Some of the basic characteristics of this approach are its flexibility to external factors as well as ease of adapting to turn threats into opportunities (Hill, Jones & Schilling, 2014). This is makes it more attractive and applicable especially considering the ever-changing business environment.

The above differences in the two approaches could be the reason as to why some firms choose one over the other. However, some opt for a blend of the two as a way of maximizing the benefits and dealing with the challenges in an effective manner.

To what extent does either (or a mix of these) reflect your practical experience?

To a great extent, my practical experience is reflected in the emergent approach. The business world is ever evolving and market forces keep on changing. The emergent strategies are usually as a direct response to market forces. These could be aspects such as changes in consumer preferences and practices of competing businesses. This means that emergent strategy allows a business to offer what is actually needed in the market. The flexibility to embrace new strategy for the benefit of the organization is a major plus for the emergent approach. It is however worth noting that a blend of both analytical and emergent approaches sounds more favourable. Initially, there is need for leadership to set up a vision that is supposed to direct its employees as well as a plan to accomplish the same. In addition, it is essential that the strategy is in a position to respond to external stimuli (Hill, Jones & Schilling, 2014). It is therefore advisable to adapt an all-inclusive approach, which is partially emergent and partially planned.

All in all, it is noteworthy that there is no collective consensus on the approach that is better than the other. This is more so since both have some benefits and drawbacks and thus, the decision of the most appropriate strategy formulation approach lies upon an organization’s leadership and management.

Which benefits do you see in each approach for managing a firm and for legitimizing your actions and gaining support from different stakeholders?

From the above approaches, there are various benefits for managing a firm as well as legitimizing actions and gaining support from stakeholders. The analytical approach has the benefit of clarity of purpose. Because the intentions of the management are clearly and unambiguously outlined, it becomes easier for stakeholders and other parties to understand and work toward a common goal. A sense of direction helps in achieving the desired outcome. When the analytical approach is successful or rather when the set goals of the strategy are achieved, the success goes a long way in legitimizing the implementation of the strategy (Bodwell & Chermack, 2010). It also gains stakeholders’ support.

The emergent approach is also not without some benefits when it comes to managing an organization as well as getting support from stakeholders. For instance, it provides a high degree of responsiveness and flexibility. It is therefore possible to adjust patterns according to realized outcomes associated with present actions. Its adoption thus offers the stakeholders with the required flexibility to fine-tune their behavioural patterns as dictated by the feedback obtained from different courses of action. The less rigid approach goes a long way in legitimizing the participant’s actions as they take pleasure in the advantage of experimenting with different courses of action with an aim of establishing the one that that may lead to the realization of anticipated objectives (Bodwell & Chermack, 2010).

From the above explanation, it is apparent that either approach could be beneficial to an organization in one way or the other. However, their level of success in their application largely influence legitimization of actions as well as support from different stakeholders.

References

Bodwell, W., & Chermack, T. J. (2010). Organizational ambidexterity: Integrating deliberate and emergent strategy with scenario planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 193-202.

Butler, B. (2009). Crisis Management and Security: Strategise versus Improvise in a Turbulent Environment. Crisis Management in the Tourism Industry: Beating the Odds?, 7.

Hill, C. W., Jones, G. R., & Schilling, M. A. (2014). Strategic management: theory: an integrated approach. New York: Cengage Learning.