Complexity, strategic thinking and organisational change

Comparative considerations of strategy from complexity paradigm and Newtonian paradigm perspectives are discussed in the light of three ideological dispositions towards the future. We term them defensive, opportunist, and goal oriented. Over the years, the strategy literature has identified a number of strategic archetypes (e.g. Miller and Freisen, 1978). What is interesting from our point of view is the patterns of reasoning that underpin them. The study of ideology has identified qualitative patterns of reasoning which underpin different types of strategic decision in both the fields of politics and strategic management. This paper considers three patterns of reasoning and considers how they relate to the complexity and Newtonian paradigms

Thinking differently about strategy: comparing paradigms

Our paper shows that mainstream strategic thinking and research already challenges the established Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm. Newtonian thought is the customary mode of western thinking, but is that about to change? Some papers from a complexity standpoint have appeared in the mainstream journals but its precise implications and merits have yet to be systematically spelled out and debated. We aim to facilitate this debate by comparing the established Newtonian and emergent complexity paradigms, clarifying the implications of this new perspective for strategy research. We suggest that the complexity paradigm is better attuned to current strategic realities than its Newtonian-Cartesian counterpart

Lean Thinking: Theory, Application and Dissemination

This book was written and compiled by the University of Huddersfield to share the learnings and experiences of seven years of Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) and Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded projects with the National Health Service (NHS). The focus of these projects was the implementation of Lean thinking and optimising strategic decision making processes. Each of these projects led to major local improvements and this book explains how they were achieved and compiles the lessons learnt. The book is split into three chapters; Lean Thinking Theory, Lean Thinking Applied and Lean Thinking Dissemination

MAST: Mental Ambidexterity in Strategic Thinking

There are two fundamental ways to think about what strategy is. The first one is strategy as a plan of action for reaching one or several goals. The second one is strategy as discipline, a formalized body of knowledge. The latter can be understood as the set of governing ideas that guide managers in the identification of opportunities for value creation and the realization of that value. In the present article, we argue that these ideas tend to fall into two main paradigms, which come with two metaphors about managers: managers as commanders and managers as designers. We further argue that these represent two fundamental ways of thinking, which in turn become ways of ‘seeing’ and even feeling. Is one better than the other? We suggest that is not the right question to ask. Rather it is important to appreciate that these are worldviews that affect how we interpret our day-to-day reality and our ability to see opportunities. We introduce the notion of Mental Ambidexterity in Strategic Thinking (MAST) and define it as the ability to hold both views of the world—that of the commander and that of the designer— and play with them simultaneously, rather than focusing solely on one and rejecting the other. MAST is an individual level capability; it is a flexible, non-ideological and fluid mode of cognition. At the core, it is characterized by switching flexibility back and forth between rational decisionmaking among alternatives, and creation of new alternatives, between what is and what could be. We illustrate three principles – i) intellectual humility, ii) contingent thinking and iii) poke into ambiguity – that act as catalysts for individuals to develop MAST capabilities

The Local TV News Experience: How to Win Viewers by Focusing on Engagement

Offers television stations insights to help them engage their audiences, stimulate strategic thinking about their position and role in the market, and connect with viewers in ways that could lead to improved civic involvement

Are Self-regarding Subjects More Strategic?

To investigate the relationship between the depth of strategic thinking and social preferences we ask subjects in an experiment to perform dictator games and a guessing game. The guessing game measures depth of strategic thinking while dictator games control for social preferences. When performing a comparison within the same degree of strategic reasoning, self-regarding subjects show more strategic sophistication than other subjects.

Necessary and Not Sufficient: the State of Evaluation Use in Foundations

Over the last decade "strategic philanthropy" has dominated the thinking of many big and ambitious foundations. Theoretically, foundations of this kind not only provide grant support to nonprofits, but importantly, assess social problems, develop strategies to solve them, and track the results of their efforts over time