What is the Future of Strategic Management?

The history of planning and creating strategies has a past of over half a century. Throughout this lifetime period we have witnessed both the evolution of theory and practice. The MBA study books in the last-third of the 20th century have with predilection exhibited this very process as a complex of monetary centered budget planning, forecast-based planning, strategic planning and strategic management. There might be a controversy existing about the naming, characteristics and timing of these different sections but there is an accordance that the changes that we have taken place in the last decade as a whole without a doubt can be derived from these very changes in the business environment or in some outstanding cases (like 9/11) they can be acknowledged as the ability of corporate foreseeing and the ability to adapt to the vision of the future. The main purposes of the research is to provide a summarized picture about the changing process of this procedure during last decades as far as the planning and creating strategies are concerned and also their milestones and periods. Try to explore and systemize the very aspects of these changes. The happenings of the first decade of the new millennium are outstandingly interesting if we consider their real effect on the theory and practice of strategic management. Let us remember the euphoria around the year 2000, the predictions of „new technologies”, „new economy”, „new organization” and „new leadership”. We have implied before on the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center which meant a new era, a new quality of international terrorism and its consequences (Afghanistan, Iraq). But the „product” of this decade is the strategic aim that companies focus on, which is the social responsibility regarding the unavoidance of the effects of climate change on the long run. During the research the big question has risen concerning how did the science of strategic management do as far as the predictions of the global monetary and economic crisis are concerned? And also its solutions this very science has to offer in order to handle and get over the crisis. Does it conclude from the answers given to the questions that a change in paradigms are necessary, a new quality is needed or may be we have come to a new crossroad of the development process that will take over strategic management? (...)

Individual decision-making by top executives as a valuable resource for strategic management – A resource-based view and dynamic capability approach

Strategy is highly important for organisational success and the achievement of competitive advantage. Strategy is dynamic and it depends on accurate individual decision-making from medium and high-level managers and executives. Since managers always formulate strategy, its formulation depends mostly on their assertive decisions. Making good decisions is a complex task, even more in today’s business world where a large quantity of information and a dynamic environment forces people to decide without having complete information. As Shafir, Simonson, & Tversky (1993) point out, "the making of decisions, both big and small, is often difficult because of uncertainty and conflict". In this paper the author will explain a basic theoretical framework about top manager's individual decision-making, showing how complex the process of making high-impact decisions is; then, he will compare this theory with one of the most important streams in strategic management, the Resource-Based View (RBV) of the firm. Finally, within the context of individual decision-making and the RBV stream, the author will show how individual decision makers in top management positions constitute a valuable, rare, non-imitable and non-substitutable resource that provides sustained competitive advantage.

Organizational ambidexterity as a new research paradigm in strategic management

Long-term survival and growth depends on the firm’s ability to exploit its current competencies while exploring fundamentally new ones. Finding the balance between exploration and exploitation is called ambidexterity in the literature. This paper is a comprehensive review of organizational ambidexterity theory. Creating and maintaining the capacity to simultaneously pursue these contradictory activities is an extremely difficult managerial challenge. Although, several aspects are well-researched, especially structural and leadership solutions in large, multinational enterprises, but little is known about: (1) how ambidexterity forms in earlier growth stages? (2) What are the key drivers and elements of organizational context that makes organizations able to become ambidextrous? (3) What is the role of different managerial levels in this formation process? Reviewing the literature, in this article the author would like to introduce the paradox of exploration and exploitation, the tensions and different aspects of ambidexterity, the fields current stage and some important research gaps.

Do institutions matter in business strategy? – The changing focus of strategic management to institutions: a literature review

The post-crisis managerial literature emphasizes the roles of institutional factors in any disruption of the ecosystem of market capitalism and puts it in the middle of its analytical framework. It has become clear that nowadays, scientific discussions about the measure of increase of direct state involvement in certain economic areas has become more relevant. The socio-economic model based on market coordination was no doubt shaken by the crisis in 2008 across the world and inspired various representatives of the scientific and political community to revise their theses on coordination mechanisms that support the way out of an economic downturn. This paper intends to give a brief summary of the two leading strategic management approaches (Porter’s five forces and the resource-based view of the firm) on institutions. The author’s aim is to demonstrate that incorporation of the institution-based view into the mainstream theories can enrich the analytical framework of strategic management by providing deeper understanding of the contextual factors that underpin interactions between institutions and organizations.

Sustainability, creativity and innovation in project management – Model development for assessing organizational performance through projects

Today a number of studies are published on how organizational strategy is developed and how organizations contribute to local and regional development through the realization of these strategies. There are also many articles dealing with the success of a project by identifying the criteria and the factors that influence them. This article introduces the project-oriented strategic planning process that reveals how projects contribute to local and regional development and demonstrates the relationship between this approach and the regional competitiveness model as well as the KRAFT concept. There is a lot of research that focuses on sustainability in business. These studies argue that sustainability is very important to the success of a business in the future. The Project Excellence Model that analyses project success does not contain the sustainability criteria; the GPM P5 standard consists of sustainability components related either to the organizational level. To fill this gap a Project Sustainability Excellence Model (PSEM) was developed. The model was tested by interviews with managers of Hungarian for-profit and non-profit organizations. This paper introduces the PSEM and highlights the most important elements of the empirical analysis.

Managing crisis

The traditional approach to crisis management suggest autocratic leadership, that has risks anyway (leader is the bottle-neck of problem solving, single-loop learning, crisis management is a matter of efficiency). However, managing nowadays crisis is rather effectiveness issue, and requires double-loop learning (second-order change) and leadership role in the sense of Kotter’s theory. Paper discusses the top-management’s leadership responsibilities, and their special tasks in the problem solving process of change. Inappropriate perception of leadership responsibilities and insisting upon first-order change strategy results in becoming part of the problem, rather that part of the solution of the problem.