Factors affecting strategic choice

Management Principles: A contemporary Edition for Africa P.J. Smit, T Brevis, G.J. De J. Cronje. M.J. Vrba, Juta and Company Ltd, Jan 1 2007

The choice of a grand strategy requires a clear decision that allows an organization to attain its goals. If an examination of the different strategies identifies a clearly superior strategy, the decision is relatively simple. However such clarity is the exception, which makes most decisions in this regard judgemental. Several factors influence the decision to implement a specific strategy.

Corporate Governance plays a major role in strategic planning and therefore in the choice of a strategy or combination of strategies. The King 2002 Report on Corporate Governance in South Africa acknowledges that there is a move away from the single bottom line (that is, profit for shareholders) to a triple bottom line, which embraces the economic, environmental and social aspects of a company's activities. The board is responsible for ensuring that the company has implemented an effective ongoing process to identify risk, measure its potential impact against a set of assumptions, and then activate what it believes is necessary to manage these risks proactively. The board should therefore decide on what risk that company is prepared to take and the risks it will not take in pursuance of its mission and long-term goals.

Top management's attitude to risk-and more specifically the chief executive officer's attitude strongly choices influences strategy selection. Where attitude favour risk, the range of strategic choices expands; where managemnet is risk-averse, strategic choices are limited, as risky alternatives are eliminated before strategic choices are made. Risk-averse managers will probably not be considered by a team of risk-averse managers.

The personality of a manager also affects the choice of a strategy. Kets de Vries argues that the inner theatre of a manager-in other words, the manager's personality has a direct influence on the choice of a strategy, the corporate culture, and even the structure of the organization. Pressures from an organization's mission, long-term goals, and culture heavily influence strategic

choice. The mission statement and all goals have to be analyzed to determine whether a specific strategy fits in with the direction and entire set of goals that management chooses. Furthermore, if a strategy is compatible with the norms and values (culture) shared by management and employees, the likehood of success is greater.

The success of an organization's strategies is also dependent on proper timing. A seemingly good strategy may be disastrous if undertaken at the wrong time. A construction company that decides to concentrate on the first-time home owner for the following two years may be detrimentally affected by a sharp increase in interest rates. The same strategy may be very successful if the organization decides to hold off entering this market until interest rates have settled down.

Transient Advantage : Harvard Business June 2013 Rita Gunther McGrath A competitive advantage begins with a launch process ,in which the organization identifies a n oppor tunit y an d mobilize s resource s t o capitaliz e o n it . I n

thi s phas e a compan y need s peopl e wh o ar e capabl e o f filling i n blan k

sheet s o f pape r wit h ideas , wh o ar e comfortabl e wit h experimentatio n an d iteration ,

an d wh o probabl y ge t bore d wit h th e kin d o f structur e re quire d

t o manag e a large , comple x organization . I n th e nex t phase , ramp up, th e busines

s ide a i s brough t t o scale . Thi s perio d call s fo r peopl e wh o ca

n assembl e th e righ t resource s a t th e righ t tim e wit h th e righ t qualit

y an d delive r o n th e promis e o f th e idea . Then , i f a firm i

s fortunate , i t begin s a perio d o f ex ploitation, i n whic h i t capture s profit

s an d share , an d force s competitor s t o react . A t thi s poin t a compan y

need s peopl e wh o ar e goo d a t M&A , analytica l deci sio n making , an d

efficiency . Traditiona l establishe d companie s hav e plent y o f talen t wit h thi s skil l set .

Often , th e ver y succes s o f th e initiativ e spawn s competition , weakenin g th e advantage .

S o th e firm ha s t o reconfigure wha t it' s doin g t o kee p th e advan -

tag e fresh . Fo r reconfigurations , a firm need s peopl e wh o aren' t afrai d t o radicall y

rethin k busines s mod el s o r resources . I n som e case s th e advantag e i s

completel y eroded , compellin g th e compan y t o begi n a disengagement proces s i n whic h resource

s ar e extracte d an d reallocate d t o th e next-generatio n advantage . T o manag e thi s process

, yo u nee d peopl e wh o ca n b e candi d an d tough-minde d an d ca n mak

e emotion all y difficul t decisions .