Diversity in the strategy field

“Well! Evil to some is always good to others.” Although written several hundred years ago, and in an entirely different context to the subject matter of the diverse world of strategy, Jane Austen’s words ring true about the different views on, and approaches to the notion of building a strategy for a firm. Just as George Bernard Shaw promoted that “if you took all the economists in the world, and laid them end to end, they would never reach a conclusion”, (Mankiw, 2008, p34) this also seems to be the case for strategists, who each have their own view about the best way to strategise. The complex practice of theorising strategy has been emerging for the past 50 years (Johnson et al, 2008). Prior to this, strategy was studied through the means of case studies, and attempts were made to pinpoint and replicate the actions of firms who have succeeded, and to learn from those who have not been so successful due to strategic issues and problems. However, it became apparent that this was not the most efficient way to create a strategy for a firm, and so a range of perspectives and frameworks were devised as to how best project “the direction and scope of an organisation over the long term, which achieves advantage in a changing environment through it’s configuration of resources and competences with the aim of fulfilling expectations” (Johnson et al, 2008). The creation of a sound strategic plan for a firm is of huge importance, as decisions and missions made at top management corporate level have contagion effects (Johnson et al, 2008) on decisions and missions made at the business and operational levels of the firm (Quinn lecture notes, 2010). Just as there are many paradigms in the area of strategy research, many different definitions of what strategy actually is also exist. However, I believe the one which I have referred to above is one which encompasses effectively all the elements of strategic decisions. I also believe that this