business strategy and trying to establish whether this is good or bad may prove
to be a sorely tricky exercise to conduct
in practice, insofar as many employers and practitioners, taking heed of the
circumstance that strategy execution is of paramount importance for
organizational success, tend to prioritise the significance of strategy
implementation over the quality of its definition.
Whereas the concept of “good” can be subject to different appreciations by the different individuals eventually involved in the tricky strategy evaluation exercise, the ideas of “consistent”, “effective”, “winning” and “sustainable” more aptly represent the desired outcome and result an employer is expected to obtain from its business operations. Organizations do not merely need strategy as a good plan of action or as something nice-to-have, but need it to set guidelines and identify the direction enabling them to enhance their performance, increase revenues and profit, and ultimately being successful in their relevant market outperforming their competitors. Firms essentially need strategies to attain competitive edge and maintain it over time.
The end of the identification process leads to strategy formulation, which should aim at clearly stating the business intent in terms of the definition of the market(s) in which the organization has decided to compete, how to approach this and the position in the market the business aspires to occupy. Once strategy has been carefully and thoroughly identified and formulated, however, it will be sorely tricky to judge whether this is good or bad. By contrast, for difficult it may prove to be, it would be much worthier the efforts aiming at determining whether the identified strategy is clear, consistent, likely to be winning and over what length of time likely to be sustainable.
consistent, effective and well executed strategy cannot ensure of its own that employers
will be successful in the relevant markets these have decided to compete in.
Employers can indeed make plans, monitor and keep under constant control strategy
execution in order to ensure this to lead the organization where this intended to
go; notwithstanding, the identified direction could finally prove to be wrong.
This being the case, the pre-identified strategy will prove to be unproductive,
fruitless and unsuccessful.
Many industries, especially consumer electronics and more in general employers operating in sectors whose products are sensibly influenced by technological advances, might sometimes find it relatively straightforward to develop a new winning strategy, but are at the same time likely to be exposed to more serious threats in terms of strategy sustainability. Consequently, these types of firms need to more frequently assess and amend their strategies to ensure their survival prior to their success.
problem with a winning strategy is that, differently from consistency, business
leaders are able to find out whether a strategy is winning or otherwise
somewhat of retrospectively. It is in fact only after having implemented a
series of actions and activities that employers will be able to assess the
worth and value of their plan. Under some circumstances, employers might find
out that the pre-identified strategy is even detrimental to the same
preservation of the business operations when it is definitely too late to even
try to change or reverse the course of action, which may have already reached a
point of non-return. Being able to discern at an earlier stage whether a
strategy will prove to be winning or otherwise is an utterly difficult feat to
perform; employers typically find it out only by looking back on past events and
with the wisdom of hindsight.
The circumstance employers can assess the effectiveness of their strategies only retrospectively, nonetheless, should not be associated with the idea of emergent strategy. Supporters of the emergent strategy idea contend that the pace at which change occurs in the external environment accounts for employers being unable to formulate strategies and that these are thus only retrospectively identified. It is an axiomatic fact that the exogenous environment is changing at an increasingly rapid pace; notwithstanding, it cannot be backed the idea that employers are to some extent victim of the circumstances and have no influence at all over their strategies. Whether this should be the case, businesses would all point to the same direction and would find it harder to determine the reasons behind their and their competitors’ success and failure. Consumer electronics manufacturers, for instance, are arguably more exposed to change than the employers operating in other industries, but this does not entail by any means that these employers do not accurately and craftily devise their strategies.
The strategy developed and executed by the South-Korean giant has proved to be absolutely winning and sustainable; albeit this does not really necessary entail that no change of strategy has been implemented during these years. The secret of the success of the South-Korean electronics manufacturer should not be indeed regarded as a secret, Samsung success is clearly due to the strategy identified and pursued by Mr Yun, which proved in practice to be winning in combination with the radical cultural change simultaneously implemented.