Bypassing the original question of why students are apathetic about strategy courses in favor of talking about capstones and knowledge management, may be a useful alternative.
When doing so, please consider the larger gap exhibited by leaders, managers, students and even some educators --- an inability to moderate greed or gain a fundamental respect of other's property. Also the next large gap --- naivety about systems, especially second and higher order systems, particularly those composed of frontal lobes.
Already Generation Y's proficiency in the digital world without concomitant respect for IP is wreaking financial havoc. What courses will educators include about axiology and what rubrics will enable educators to measure the effectiveness of what they profess? This can be illuminated by considering, as you observe all the businesses crashing around you, what responsibility for pilot training and the design of flight simulators educators must assume?
Onward,
Jack Ring
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy
Jim and Joop,
Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era. If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.
My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders. Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron. Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone. What do you think?
George
/jag
I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments. It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined. We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change." I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.
Musings from the peanut gallery,
Jim
James G. S. Clawson
Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
Darden GSB, University of Virginia
Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj
-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy
Dear Dundar,
Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
some may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.
Best regards,
Joop Remmé
0654761087
remme@knowdialogue.nl
remme@msm.nl
www.knowdialogue.nl
www.synmind.nl
www.msm.nl
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy
Joop:
I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
will do it for us, and we will not like it.
Dundar Kocaoglu
===========================================================
Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD; Fellow, IEEE
Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
and President and CEO, PICMET
Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA
+1 503-725-4660 - office
+1 503-725-4667 - fax
http://www.etm.pdx.edu/ and http://www.picmet.org/
============================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy
Dear colleagues,
Allow me to contribute my two cents.
In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
1) where are we?
2) where do we want to go?
3) how are we going to get there?
You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.
Of course, I welcome all comments.
Best regards,
Joop Remmé
remme@knowdialogue.nl
remme@msm.nl
www.knowdialogue.nl
www.synmind.nl
www.msm.nl
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy
Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
attention.
Jack writes in part:
> Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way
> of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
>
> Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
> Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
'hit
> them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
(with
> variety).'
The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
action." They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
"attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).
Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
leapfrog back to the West Coast." That strategy tied to 1974 and my
retirement from the Navy. My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast. So, I envisioned
a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary. The strategy worked as
envisioned - to a point. I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
Bethesda, MD. Once there, however, things changed. I fell in love with the
East Coast. Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.
My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
excruciating detail to quality as such. Nor does a plan have to fill
several three-ring binders to qualify as such. When I head out to Office
Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
plan. I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper. I have
some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
paper. Mission accomplished.
Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
meanings. So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
same for plans and planning. By golly, I think I will. For starters: A
plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
intended to achieve the goal(s). It doesn't even have to be written down.
Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
evaluations are all optional. It all depends on the scope and scale of the
effort.
Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post: The paper on strategy, its
definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
few months. It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
copyright notice whenever I do that. But, the basic paper has been out
there a while.
--
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
"Assistance at A Distance"
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
>
> Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
rather
> fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
not
> prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
>
> Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
first
> posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
the
> essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
> viscerally (aka' deep learning).
>
>
> On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to
> 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
> ahead in goals scored.
>
> In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
> RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
he
> could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than
> could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
> race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
> even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This allocation
> of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
of
> being during the course of action.
>
> The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
> which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
> being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic
> way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
>
> What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment
> for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
>
> cheers,
> Jack Ring
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <nickols@att.net>
> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
> Subject: Definition of Strategy
>
>
> >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
succinct
> >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
> >
> > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an
> > objective."
> >
> > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap
> > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action, with
> > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
> > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
> > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
> > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
> > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
> > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
> >
> > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
some
> > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;
> > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
> > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
> > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
is
> > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
> >
> > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
> > Consider the following definition of tactics:
> >
> > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
> > strategy."
> >
> >
> > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
> > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
> > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Fred Nickols
> > Managing Partner
> > Distance Consulting, LLC
> > nickols@att.net
> > www.nickols.us
> >
> > "Assistance at A Distance"
> >
> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> >>
> >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
> >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
didn''t
> >> ask
> >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
to
> >> craft
> >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get
> >> there
> >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
> >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
> >> cheers,
> >> Jack Ring
> >
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!