{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

In the setting and conveyance of the objective

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ces organizational performance. The five modes are present in the refined model as a result of the interaction between top management and organizational members. In the setting and conveyance of the objective function, the symbolic and command mode predominate, since the CEO offers a vision and sets the starting point of the strategy-making process. Through the participation of organizational members, the transactive mode appears, inasmuch as strategy is made on an iterative basis, involving organizational members in dialogue. The agreed on strategic objectives resonate with the rational mode, in which a plan is the guiding element. Strategic initiative development provides the basis to identify new innovative approaches or products, resembling the generative mode. This array of the different modes seems to be one way to combine strategy-making modes. Elaborating on the idea of combining modes, Miller (1993) and later Lumpkin and Dess (1995) assimilated simplicity to a combination of the command and symbolic modes. These two modes, in our model, are only the top-down sources of influence. For Lumpkin and Dess (1995), simplicity in strategy-making was positively associated with performance in early stages of company development, yet detrimental in late stages. If top-down sources of influences are kept as the sole foundation of strategy-making for long periods, and no interplay with organizational members takes place, it may be analogous to Burgelman (1991), where top-down forces are seen as merely maintaining the status quo. In fact, the sole effect of the command and symbolic modes resembles the concept of inertial force (Huff et al., 1992), as opposed to stress. However, the three other modes tend to, at least, counterbalance inertia. In our model, the five modes presented by Hart (1991) seem to be present. The interaction between modes in our framework permits different level perceptions to interact. This is significant since perceptions at different levels are dissimilar and diverse (Ireland et al., 1987), particularly perceptions of environmental uncertainty. Disagreement in managers’ perceptions regarding the need for change generates strategic role conflicts in individual managers (Floyd and Lane, 2000). Our model acknowledges the importance of these different perceptions and specifically indicates the possibility of sharing them through the interplay between levels, either during the setting of the agreed upon strategic objectives, or subsequently through middle and top management interplay in the development of strategic initiatives. Not only do perceptions vary among organizational members, but they also affect the capacity to generate commitment among organizational members. As suggested by Guth and MacMillan (1986), three perceptions of middle managers may hinder or favor strategic development. First, perceived inability to execute a proposed strategy; second, perceived probability that the strategy will work; and third, perception that outcomes will not satisfy individual goals. Any of thes...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online