Identifying Executive Strategic PerspectivesChoices between alternatives are the cornerstone of strategy formulation (Porter, 1985). The systematic collection of information concerning the organization's environment is an inaccurate science replete with contradictions and ambiguity that ultimately affect decisions. Executives usually respond to this problem by making subjective decisions based on limited objective evidence. It is not new to recognize the role of individuals in the strategy process. The personality, values, personal advantage, and attitudes of managers at middle and upper levels have been connected to strategy formulation in many studies (Guth & MacMillan, 1986; Parnell, Koseoglu, & Lester, 2010; Walsh & Fahey, 1986).Strategy formulation is connected to the top executive's perspectives of how the organization should function (Hambrick & Fredrickson, 2001). The concept of entails the existence of competing ideals and numerous perspectives on an issue (Barney 2001; Priem & Butler, 2001; Salaheldin, 2005).Recognizing the role of individual psychological differences in the strategy process does not overrule the value of a rational, objective perspective. Agreement between the two points of view can be seen at two levels. First, while a logical seeks to identify the best objective decision, an executive perspective recognizes that some degree of subjectivity, sound judgment, and experience may also be involved in the process. Both perspectives, however, are concerned with decision-making that maximizes the performance of the organization over a given period of time.Second, while there may be many valid perspectives on a given strategic issue, a contingency approach may be suitable. Within this context, there may be a rational or contingency of strategy, by which one executive's could be superior in certain circumstances. For this reason, the acknowledgment of such a domain of strategy should not be misunderstood as a value-neutral perspective.A number of dimensions of strategic executives may be identified, but this paper concentrates on three: (1) Strategic philosophy as an art or science, (2) strategic importance of consistency or flexibility, and (3) strategy as a top-down or a bottom-up approach.Strategic philosophy as an Art or a ScienceConventionally, the strategy literature has confirmed a science or planning approach to strategic decision-making. Executives are strongly recommended to objectively, methodically, and regularly assess the firm's strengths and weaknesses and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a large number of alternatives before formulating a strategy. Executives should be trained to become highly skilled critical thinkers who can understand and assimilate objective data and convert it into positive strategic action (Rajagopal, 2011).Top managers should be trained, highly educated, and capable of formulating strategies that are largely scientific. This training and education will help managers use appropriate tools, assess risk management, process data, and benefit from behavioral modeling to create an appropriate strategy, with the goal of maximizing success as measured by increases in revenues, productivity, and profits. Advocates of the scientific approach argue that the business environment is largely objective, analyzable, and predictable.Conversely, it is difficult to consider and control all the variables associated with a business firm, especially those in the external environment. So, strategies should invoke substantial creativity and intuition as part of an inclusive strategy formation process (Ford & Gioia, 2000).Mintzberg's (1987) notion of artistic and scientific perspectives on strategy is helpful in this regard. Strategic artists understand and interpret the organization state, and they attempt to craftstrategy in the same way that an artist molds clay. …
Read full abstract