This work aims to show Strategic Thinking and its application in organizations, highlighting characteristics, purpose, approaches, importance, and main schools of thought. The methodology used was of the bibliographic type. Among the most relevant results was to show Strategic Thinking as an element of creativity in the organization from a common perspective for progress towards the future in a satisfactory way for all. As well as the different dilemmas of thoughts in the different focuses. The main conclusion is the fundamental application of Strategic Thinking as a tool in the face of competitiveness and essential for making strategic decisions.
Keywords: Strategic Thinking, organizations, competitiveness, decision making, tool.
ABSTRACT
This work aims to show strategic thinking and its application in organizations, highlighting features, purpose, approaches, importance and main schools of thought. The methodology used was the bibliographical type. Among the most important results it was to show the strategic thinking as an element of creativity in the organization from a common vision for progress towards the future in a manner satisfactory to all. And the different tradeoffs of different approaches thoughts. The main conclusion is the fundamental implementation of the Strategic Thinking as a tool essential to the competitiveness and to make strategic decisions.
Keywords: Strategic thinking, organizations, competitiveness, decision making, tool.
INTRODUCTION
According to Laukkanen (1994) (cited in Guerrero 2012), managerial thinking is the manager's beliefs about key phenomena and their effectiveness in relation to the strategy and operating situation. On the other hand, Morrisey (1996) (cited in Silvestri, 2010), defines strategic thinking as the coordination of creative merits within a common perspective, which allows a business or organization to move towards the future in a satisfactory way for all. It is convenient to remember, as expressed by Alvarado et al (2010), that the study of Strategic Thinking tends to be confused with the study of Strategic Planning.
In contrast to the definition of Strategic Thinking, according to the Chilean Budget Office (DIPRES) (2003), Strategic Planning is a process of systematic evaluation of the nature of a business, defining long-term objectives, identifying quantitative goals and objectives., developing strategies to achieve these objectives and locating resources to carry out these strategies.
In this frame of reference, and according to the work of Silvestri (2010), “Strategic thinking and managerial success in business organizations”, there is a high correlation between Strategic Thinking and Managerial Success, noting that both attitude, processes, tools and quality are key factors to achieve managerial success; oriented to the achievement of organizational objectives and its members.
PURPOSE
For García (2010), the purpose of strategic thinking is to help organizations in exploring future challenges, both foreseeable and unpredictable, rather than preparing them for a possible unique tomorrow. Consequently, according to Morrisey (2006) (cited in García, 2010) individual strategic thinking includes the application of judgment based on experience to determine future directions. In such a way, that the strategic thinking of the company is the coordination of several creative minds within a common perspective that allows a business to move towards the future in a satisfactory way for all.
From this perspective, Robert (2006) affirms that it is “the deliberate process through which the landscape is evaluated and corporate strategies are created that continuously take the competition by surprise and offer customers something that they cannot get anywhere else it is called, Strategic Thinking ”. And this can be carried out every day by the management teams of any type of company and in any industry.
STRATEGIC THINKING APPROACHES
According to García (2010), when talking about Strategic Thinking it is not a set of theories, but rather different points of view, which as creative thinking appear according to the context in which the organization operates, among They can cite the following:
Strategy Versus Resources
In the first place, Strategic Thinking can be seen privileging the vision, the mission and the objectives; then developing the strategic plan in an enunciative context of the vision that the organization has. These first steps constitute the foundation for determining the sufficient and necessary resources to proceed with their allocation and consequent execution.
Second, Strategic Thinking can be seen privileging the Resource factor. The premises that guide this approach refer to the fact that every organization or entity has a natural, intrinsic or implicit historical strategy that can be given by the way in which it allocates its physical, spatial or temporal resources, taking advantage of the opportunities that may arise, guidelines are set. to arrange and distribute resources and develop a series of decisions.
This last approach is aimed at those organizations with financial limitations and whose mission is historically established, for profit or not, and can be more effectively addressed, where the greatest effort must be made in a strategic allocation of resources for the efficient execution of its functions, resulting in its efficient and effective operation.
Centralized Versus Decentralized
In the centralized approach, planning is carried out from a select group of individuals with the capacity to formulate the mission, vision, objectives, plans, and resources. In other words, a leader or group formulates the strategic plan and it is executed by the lower layers. To ensure success in this approach, at least two conditions must be met. First, the organization must be able to communicate the actions to be executed at all levels involved and to be able to convert the plans into effective actions.
This approach is carried out in organizations of an autocratic, religious, military nature and, particularly, in family businesses in which no other way of planning is conceived. As has been the managerial thinking of some leaders of Latin American countries in the last 17 years, which have centralized power and decisions for their purposes, leading the economies of these countries to bankruptcy.
In the Decentralized approach, the organization formulates its plans at different levels, based on a mission and vision of the business, the different units or managements make their decisions. This approach is observed in cooperative-type organizations or with multiple geographical points of action, when the environment is constantly changing and local, historical or cultural characteristics are present.
Participatory planning
In the participatory approach, it is sought that the organization, at all its levels, participates and makes contributions to the definition of the mission, vision, objectives and goals that allow a commitment to guarantee compliance with the designed strategic plan. The focus is not on giving autonomy to lower-level management or units. Here, each of the members of the organization has the opportunity to express, individually or collectively, their point of view.
Therefore, this way of planning is only viable in environments where changes are not rapid, where the circumstances and factors involved remain stable for a sufficient time. The advantage is that, once the strategic plan is formulated, its execution is quick and there is a high probability of success, particularly due to the level of enthusiasm and commitment shown by the members. Sports, political and community organizations stand out in this type of approach.
MANAGEMENT TOOL BEFORE
According to Porter (1999), competitiveness is understood as the capacity of a public or private organization, profitable or not, to systematically maintain comparative advantages that allow it to achieve, sustain and improve a certain position in the socioeconomic environment. The foregoing implies that the comparative advantage of a company would be in its ability, resources, knowledge and attributes, among others, that said company has, the same ones that its competitors lack or that they have to a lesser extent than makes possible obtaining yields superior to those of those.
For Prahalad and Hamel (1990), the roots of competitive advantages lie in those hidden skills behind the product, which, just because they are not visible, are difficult to copy. These competencies are the consequence of the collective learning of the organization, a process that requires communication, involvement and a deep commitment to work across organizational boundaries. They are exclusive, sustainable over time and essential for the implementation of the strategic vision and for corporate survival in the short and long term.
In this regard, strategic thinking for competitiveness is the ability of managers to establish strategies in organizations that lead them to develop comparative advantages and position themselves in their respective markets by developing superior business resources that allow them total success in their market object, becoming a powerful management tool for organizations in the face of competitiveness.
IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGIC THINKING
According to Benítez and Córdova (2009), Strategic Thinking incorporates values, mission, vision and strategy that tend to be intuitive elements, based on feelings, rather than analytical, based on information. Agreeing on these elements among members of the management team is an essential prerequisite for effective planning. From this the importance of Strategic Thinking is inferred, and it lies in the fact that it is the foundation for making strategic decisions, without this foundation the subsequent decisions and actions may be fragmented and inconsistent for the good long-term performance of the company.
SCHOOLS OF STRATEGIC THINKING
For the purposes of this work, only some schools of Strategic Thinking will be mentioned, since for reasons of space and scope, each one of them will not be discussed in depth. To this end, following Benítez and Córdova (2009), the following can be mentioned:
Conceptual school, the school of strategic management also called design. Reflect on each situation and then create unique and creative strategies. Andrew along with Ansoff were the first to propose strategic thinking disciplines and are considered to be the founders of strategic direction.
Planning school. The planning school uses a highly formalized system for planning and executing the strategy, it is conceived as the common link between the activities, products and markets that define the businesses where the company already competes or intends to do so in the future.
Positionist school. The strategic positioning management school was introduced in the mid-1970s by Schendel, drawing on disciplines such as military history, industrial organization, and economics. Evaluates the elements that are available to compete and bring the organization to its best performance.
Entrepreneurial school. The business school was presented by Schumpeter. This strategy centralizes power in a charismatic, positive, and at the same time bold leader to intuitively decide the actions necessary to lead or improve the company.
Cognitive school. The American Simón presented the cognitive school in 1947 with a declaration of intent: "I'll see it when I believe it." Interpret reality according to the solution maps and interpersonal schemes that solve problems.
Assimilating school. The school of strategic learning management that Lindblom opened in 1959 is inspired by psychology, education, and mathematics. It proposes learning new tools to give meaning to the work of the company.
School of power. From 1971 Allison made known the school of strategic management of power, according to principles of political science and negotiation. Within groups, a leader must appropriate what is most valuable.
Cultural school. The school of cultural strategic management was introduced by Rhenman and Normann in the late 1960s in Sweden, drawing on elements of anthropology to interest people with social and spiritual sensitivity. Try to preserve and perpetuate organizational achievements.
Environmental school. The school of strategic environmental management released by Hannan and Freeman in 1977 points out that in human relationships "everything depends." And what does it depend on? The environment in which organizations operate and the adaptability of their components.
Configurator school. Finally, in 1962 Chandler presented the strategic management school called configuration, which proposes to group forces to revolutionize structures. This school, inspired by History, is recommended for organizations in constant change, companies that require revitalization or transformation. This school can use the nine schools previously presented and some of them are applied depending on the context and the situation of the company at a given time.
BASES OF STRATEGIC THINKING
The beginning of strategic thinking is based on the development to think strategically in sports, games, military campaigns, among others. Similarly, developing a strategy allows managers to develop approaches that help them meet the challenges posed by an often unpredictable future.
In this context, strategic thinking allows managers to identify the aspects that are critical to achieving success and to formulate questions whose answers will help them to meet the future needs of their customers, and make the best decisions under environments of uncertainty. To achieve the habit of strategic thinking, the manager must ask himself what will be the meaning for the future, of any event based on competitiveness, whether it is news about clients, suppliers, technology, economics, politics, social aspects or legal aspects. Analysis is the essential requirement to think strategically.
EVOLUTION OF STRATEGIC THINKING
A company's strategy can be basically offensive or defensive, changing from one position to another depending on market conditions. Among the latest and most relevant approaches to strategic thinking are the following:
From 1960-1979. Based on the influences of the competitive environment, the key aspect was the selection of the most attractive industries, segments or niches. Principles such as the influence of the competitive environment, control of strategic resources and mobilization of resources are considered. And strategic analysis tools were used, among which are the five competitive forces of Michael Porter, the matrix of the Boston Consulting Group, Mc. Kinsey, to analyze the strengths of the business, and Igor Ansoff Matrix, to analyze growth strategies.
From 1980-1997. Development of sustainable strategies in resources and unique skills of the organization, use strategic analysis tools such as the thinking model based on: resources, business, structure, systems and processes.
In 1995. Adam Brander-burger and Barry Nalebuff, professors at Harvard and Yale University, respectively, in their book Co-Oppetition broaden the focus of Michael Porter. They are based on principles such as: incorporating the analysis of complementors and cooperation, it argues that business is not only a competitive battle when portions of the market cake must be divided, but that there can also be cooperation when a new market is created. Example: Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola, compete, but cooperate with each other since both invest large sums in communication, which limits in some way the substitution of other traditional and non-traditional drinks; as they also cooperate in not reducing their prices, they avoid in some way destroying the profitability of the industry.
In 1997, George Day and David Reibstein propose, in their book Wharton on Dynamic Competitive Strategy, that both the creation and maintenance of competitive advantage are part of a continuous cycle, where the sources of advantage are the capacities and top assets. The strategic analysis tool used by these authors was: The «competitive advantage cycle model». They argue that reality says that some assets are inferior and others superior, and the challenge within that set of resources is to renew not only strategic thinking, but also investments.
From 2001-2004. The Delta model of Amoldo Hax defines the strategic positioning with respect to the client. It maintains three strategic options to relate to it and reduce imitation, how to improve the value of the product or service and the link with the client; provide you with a comprehensive solution; and further enhance the value and link to it, by giving you the ability to consolidate the system.
Consequently, the strategic analysis tools used are: Amoldo Hax delta model. A greater bond with the client, the possibility of being imitated is reduced, a clear example in this regard is Microsoft's Windows. A greater and better mix of products and / or services provides the customer with a comprehensive solution by complementing each other, and reducing the possibility of imitation. Example: Windows runs on DOS, and Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook and Explorer run on Windows and integrate Office. The system is consolidated and the possibility of imitation is reduced.
CONCLUSIONS
The competitive dynamics of organizations and markets shows a behavior according to which, those that best adapt to the environment will be those that will last over time. This is due, among other things, to the fact that they are the best equipped and prepared to face an environment of constant change and uncertainty. From this referential framework, Strategic Thinking, adds the creative minds of the organization to focus from a common perspective oriented to generate competitiveness strategies and positioning of the organization in the target market.
In relation to the Strategic Thinking approaches, it should be noted that the application of each approach is closely linked to the environment and context of each type of organization. In the same way, the approach must adapt to the organizational structure and nature, since there are differences between organizations with a vertical structure, such as those of a religious or military nature, with respect to companies with horizontal and network structures.
Regarding Strategic Thinking as a managerial tool in the face of competitiveness, it represents the most relevant characteristic of Strategic Thinking, given that by definition and purpose, it seeks to continuously surprise the competition and give a value offer to the client, which exceeds their expectations and which I can't find it anywhere else. In addition, it is a fundamental tool for making strategic decisions, essential in the planning process of the organization.
Finally, the schools of strategic thought respond to the vision and managerial thinking in the evolution of organizations, rather than managerial theories and paradigms, responding to challenges, making contributions to managerial thinking.
REFERENCES
- Alvarado, Y., & Paz, D. (2010). Elements of strategic thinking in cooperative companies. Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://www.scielo.org.ve/pdf/rcs/v16n3/art05.pdfBenítez, M., & Córdova, C. (2009). Trends in strategic thinking in decision-making in organizations. Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://ri.bib.udo.edu.ve/bitstream/123456789/533/1/TESIS_MByCC–%5B00480%5D–(tc).pdfGarcía, J. (2010). Strategic thinking: competitiveness tool for a managerial orientation of the new millennium. Universidad Del Zulia, 95–104. Retrieved from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3991509Porter, M. (1999). To be competitive. Deusto Editions. Madrid - Spain: Ediciones Deusto. Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). Competing for the future:Management strategy to create the markets of tomorrow. Madrid - Spain: Editorial Ariel. Robert, M. (2006). The power of strategic thinking. Mexico City - Mexico: McGraw Hill. Mexico Silvestri, K. (2010). Strategic Thinking and Managerial Success in Business Organizations. CICAG. Retrieved from
