The Politics of Strategy Analysis and Choice

All organizations are political. Unless managed, political maneuvering consumes valuable time, subverts organizational objectives, diverts human energy, and results in the loss of some valuable employees. Sometimes political biases and personal preferences get unduly embed­ded in strategy choice decisions. Internal politics affect the choice of strategies in all organiza­tions. The hierarchy of command in an organization, combined with the career aspirations of different people and the need to allocate scarce resources, guarantees the formation of coali­tions of individuals who strive to take care of themselves first and the organization second, third, or fourth. Coalitions of individuals often form around key strategy issues that face an enterprise. A major responsibility of strategists is to guide the development of coalitions, to nurture an overall team concept, and to gain the support of key individuals and groups of individuals.

In the absence of objective analyses, strategy decisions too often are based on the politics of the moment. With development of improved strategy-formation analytical tools, political fac­tors become less important in making strategic decisions. In the absence of objectivity, political factors sometimes dictate strategies, and this is unfortunate. Managing political relationships is an integral part of building enthusiasm and esprit de corps in an organization.

A classic study of strategic management in nine large corporations examined the political tactics of successful strategists.9 Successful strategists were found to let weakly supported ideas and proposals die through inaction and to establish additional hurdles or tests for strongly sup­ported ideas considered unacceptable but not openly opposed. Successful strategists kept a low political profile on unacceptable proposals and strived to let most negative decisions come from subordinates or a group consensus, thereby reserving their personal vetoes for big issues and crucial moments. Successful strategists did a lot of chatting and informal questioning to stay abreast of how things were progressing and to know when to intervene. They led strategy but did not dictate it. They gave few orders, announced few decisions, depended heavily on informal questioning, and sought to probe and clarify until a consensus emerged.

Successful strategists generously and visibly rewarded key thrusts that succeeded. They assigned responsibility for major new thrusts to champions, the individuals most strongly identi­fied with the idea or product and whose futures were linked to its success. They stayed alert to the symbolic impact of their own actions and statements so as not to send false signals that could stimulate movements in unwanted directions.

Successful strategists ensured that all major power bases within an organization were rep­resented in, or had access to, top management. They interjected new faces and new views into considerations of major changes. This is important because new employees and manag­ers generally have more enthusiasm and drive than employees who have been with the firm a long time. New employees do not see the world the same old way; nor do they act as screens against changes. Successful strategists minimized their own political exposure on highly con­troversial issues and in circumstances in which major opposition from key power centers was likely. In combination, these findings provide a basis for managing political relationships in an organization.

Because strategies must be effective in the marketplace and capable of gaining internal com­mitment, the following tactics used by politicians for centuries can aid strategists:

  1. Achieving desired results is more important that imposing a particular method; therefore, consider various methods and choose, whenever possible, the one(s) that will afford the greatest commitment from employees/managers.
  2. Achieving satisfactory results with a popular strategy is generally better than trying to achieve optimal results with an unpopular strategy.
  3. Often, an effective way to gain commitment and achieve desired results is to shift from specific to general issues and concerns.
  4. Often, an effective way to gain commitment and achieve desired results is to shift from short-term to long-term issues and concerns.
  5. Middle-level managers must be genuinely involved in and supportive of strategic decisions, because successful implementation will hinge on their support.10

Source: David Fred, David Forest (2016), Strategic Management: A Competitive Advantage Approach, Concepts and Cases, Pearson (16th Edition).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.