This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
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
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
This document was uploaded on 02/26/2014 for the course BUSINESS Human reso at Silliman Institute.
- Spring '14