NAME OF THE STUDENT
Strategic planning deals with the process of formulating strategy through laid down concepts, tools and processes. It is aimed at putting to an endorsement of strategic
thinking, operations as well as progressive learning. It thus ensures the vitality of an organization, its effectiveness and the capacity to add on to public value. Nevertheless, the modern strategic management practitioners are generally criticized for their focal point is on maximizing profits while other researchers have criticized its lack of relevance. This, to the modern society, is portrayed as a major problem mounting tension for this field to reevaluate its system of belief, assumptions and practices putting into consideration the greater social impact (Poister, 2010).
Strategic management on the other hand is an issue of making use of and coordinating all the resources as well as the venues laid at the disposal of the management. In the process, attentively progressing any given strategic agenda by enforcing a sort of an alignment that is omnidirectional among them. Whereas, strategy is defined as finding out the nature of both the enterprise along with the setting, modifying, and applying efforts to realize its goals (Elms, Brammer, Harris, & Phillips, 2010).
Formulation of new strategies by business people is as a result of the constant pressure to act in accordance with the demands laid down by the stakeholders. These strategies are aimed at improving the levels of value offered to the customers as well as the stakeholders. However, the execution of these strategies is coupled with several challenges that these business leaders have to face. Most of the businesses, according to results findings by previous researchers, experience between 60-70% failures to introduce new strategies in their businesses. This is as a result of inadequate planning, implementation among other reasons (Franken, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009).
Shareholders persistently exert pressure designed for acquiring greater profitability hence reasons for business owners to redefine previous strategies more frequently. However devastating it may sound, these changes in redefinition of strategies go in favor with the demands of the customers due to their changes in their priorities and needs. On the other hand, an increase in the complexity channels by organizations in attempts to produce products as well as services that cross multiple boundaries in relation to the geography and functions of the organization. Therefore, there remains higher chances to fail as a result of the facilities and workforce needed to be involved to realize the program of strategic management (Franken, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009).
In addition, the managers lack the technical knowhow on balancing between successful management of the business performance and carrying out multifaceted change programs. In relation to business performance is reward schemes that negatively influence the active participation required to create future organizations. The consistent pressure to highly perform from the stakeholders makes it impossible for the managers to dedicate adequate time, resources and exertion to an exclusive one type of demand (Franken, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009).
This attitude results to lesser involvement from the majority of the managers in the initial stages of these executions. This process of strategic management being complex needs large numbers to be involved in pursuit of fulfilling the urgency. Most of them will bear misinterpretations of the initial stages as unnecessary, bureaucratic and delayers of real action. However, for there to be commitment and effective accomplishment plans to change such involvement are crucial (Landrum & Edwards, 2011).
Some organizations find it difficult to secure the resources needed to implement the strategy. Bearing in mind that these changes are contemporaneous and the allocation of resources will have been put to effect, there occurs a limitation. As a result the managers end up competing for these resources and endeavoring to put them in their possession once they have their full dominance. This therefore does not benefit the organization but feeds to secure the selfish goals of the individual managers (Landrum & Edwards, 2011).
According to Bill Richardson, the United States Secretary for Energy, he hypothesizes that the emphasis laid by strategic management on productivity besides improvement had caused the increase in the tools along with techniques management. This has greatly resulted to outsourcing, benchmarking, and changes in the engineering systems and downsizing hence taking us a century back. The public managers therefore should connect strategic planning with the process of performance management in reaction to the ongoing pressure to be accountable and committed to manage results (Bamberger, 2010).
As far as the public sector is concerned, three transitions are essential to bring to fulfillment their set goals. The first step is to shift focus starting with strategic planning to strategic management. On the other hand moving to performance management from performance measurement and effectively linking the strategy with performance management (Landrum & Edwards, 2011).
In addition, business leaders should not center at making profit but rather creating value. This value is then distributed among several different parties that is; the employees, the lenders, the government and the owners. Among the employees are those that are salaried and others who receive wages. The lenders receive interest and the landlords on the other hand receive rent whereas the government receives taxes and the profit bearers are the business owners. The value created by firms is so much that the satisfaction of the customers is far much more than their paid price (Elms, Brammer, Harris, & Phillips, 2010).
Besides, a strategic management that is effective is concerned with keeping an eye on external forces and trends along with internal performance, refreshing intelligence and revision of strategy when needed and in the required format. There is also a greater need to move emphasis from the measurement of performance to its management. Reason being, the ubiquitous nature of the systems for performance measurement. In addition, real performance management improves performance while maximizing the public services benefits (Franken, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009).
A very inclusive approach is crucial to execute strategies thus a business leader should identify and list his priorities of a collection of several programs to deliver the required strategy. On the other hand the execution which involves an implementation of programs follows as the business follows up to improve the ways of identifying the programs that have been undertaken. A successful execution of strategies is caused by relating several business benefits with capabilities through portfolio configuration (Franken, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009).
These benefits include; terminating any ill-conceived programs of change during execution. This will keep away the business leaders with selfish motive to individually gain from the resources or profits made. It also enables easy management of unpleasant impacts during the delivering of change programs in operational change. In addition it is important for the management to work on increasing its confidence in the ability needed to convey change programs while maintaining control of those programs (Franken, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009).
Theodore emphasizes that the matter of urgency should be communicated to the entire business body including the owners, stakeholders and the workers for the execution of the change programs to be haste. Once the benefits have been realized there ought to be a reduction of actual cost to forecast cost by aligning financial statements with the priorities, proper funding on fresh strategic initiatives and through open budget proposals made by the operating units for advancing strategy (Franken, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009).
Consistency on key constituencies like oversight agencies, governing bodies, external communications, proposals and requests builds credibility and draws support from them. He adds that collaborative partnership with the contractors as well as the suppliers helps find solutions to performance problems. Theodore insists on the managing team providing training to the staff that offers services in order to increase quality and the initiatives on improving the productivity in order to prevail over performance deficiencies (Poister, 2010).
Conversely, even as strategic management provides necessary framework designed in support of successful performance management, in itself, performance management sometimes enriches strategic planning through clarifying strategy as well as finding strategy. For example an experience in the systems of performance management that is in continuity can inform the planners as regards the realistic opportunities, expectations and limitations encountered in strengthening the programs performance in their operating context. The performance reports also help in identifying strategies that tend to be effective in particular areas while identifying those that are not as well (Poister, 2010).
Nevertheless, performance management that is comprehensive needs to be oriented at the working level so as to advance the overall strategy of the agency. It is more essential for public sectors to bear in mind that transitioning to wide-ranging strategic management as well as performance management is very critical for the agencies due to the rapid changes and uncertainties that surmount most public administrators (Poister, 2010).
Bamberger, R. (2010). Strategic Petroleum Reserve. U.S.A: DIANE Publishing.
Elms, H., Brammer, S., Harris, J. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). New Directions in Strategic Management. Business Ethics Quarterly , pp. 401 -425.
Franken, A., Edwards, C., & Lambert, R. (2009). Executing Strategic Change. UNDERSTANDING THE CRITICAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS THAT LEAD TO SUCCESS , 51 (3).
Landrum, N. E., & Edwards, S. (2011). Is Strategic Management (still) Responsible for the Demise of Society? International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation , 3 (3), 62-68.
Poister, T. H. (2010). Th e Future of Strategic Planning in the Public Sector: Linking. Atlanta, Georgia: Georgia State University.