Elemzés vagy megérzés: a stratégiai döntéshozatal gyakorlata Californiában és Magyarországon = Analysis or Intuition: Strategic decision making in California and Hungary

Stratégiai döntéseket jellemzően a vállalatok felsővezetői, vezérigazgatók és elnökök hoznak. Ennek szellemében 40 felsővezetőt kérdeztünk két nagyon különböző régióban (Kaliforniában és Magyarországon) egy összehasonlító kutatás keretében. A két országban tizenkét válaszadó vezérigazgató, elnök, alelnök, vagy felelős vezető volt (rájuk, mint Vezetőkre hivatkoztunk), miközben nyolcan alapítói és többségi tulajdonosai voltak saját vállalkozásuknak (őket nevezzük Vállalkozóknak). A kutatás három területre irányult: 1) Hogyan hoznak döntéseket a felsővezetők a valóságban a világ e két különböző táján; 2) Mennyiben különböznek - ha egyáltalán különböznek - a Vállalkozók és a Vezetők az alkalmazott döntéshozatali közelítésmódot tekintve, amikor az analitikus gondolkodást az intuícióikkal kombinálják; 3) Mik a hasonlóságok és a különbségek a menedzsment képességekben és a döntéshozatali rutinokban a Vállalkozók és a Vezetők között a vizsgált menedzsment kultúrákban. = Strategic decision making is usually conducted by a firm’s top management, led by the CEO or the President of the company. In keeping with this, 40 top level managers in two very different regions (California, USA and Hungary) were targeted in a comparative research study. In the two countries, twelve of the managers were CEOs, Presidents, Vice Presidents or Chief Officers (hereafter referred to as Executives) while eight were founders and majority owners of their own enterprises (hereafter referred to as Entrepreneurs). The research focused on the following 3 areas: 1) How top level managers really make strategic decisions in these two different parts of the world; 2) How Entrepreneurs and Executives differ, if at all, in their approach to strategic decision making when they combine analytical thinking with their intuition; 3) The similarities and differences in management skills and decision making routines between Entrepreneurs and Executives within the investigated management cultures.

Racionális és intuitív döntéshozók Kaliforniában és Magyarországon (Analysis or Intuition – Strategic decision making in California and Hungary)

Stratégiai döntéseket jellemzően a vállalatok felső vezetői, vezérigazgatók és elnökök hoznak. Ennek szellemében a szerző negyven felső vezetőt kérdezett meg két nagyon különböző régióban (Kaliforniában és Magyarországon) egy összehasonlító kutatás keretében. A két országban tizenkét válaszadó vezérigazgató, elnök, alelnök vagy felelős vezető volt (rájuk mint Vezetőkre hivatkoztunk), miközben nyolcan alapítói és többségi tulajdonosai voltak saját vállalkozásuknak (őket nevezzük Vállalkozóknak). A kutatás három területre irányult: 1) Hogyan hoznak döntéseket a felső vezetők a valóságban a világ e két különböző táján 2) Mennyiben különböznek – ha egyáltalán különböznek – a Vállalkozók és a Vezetők az alkalmazott döntéshozatali közelítésmódot tekintve, amikor az analitikus gondolkodást az intuícióikkal kombinálják 3) Mik a hasonlóságok és a különbségek a menedzsmentképességekben és a döntéshozatali rutinokban a Vállalkozók és a Vezetők között a vizsgált menedzsmentkultúrákban? ______ Strategic decision making is usually conducted by a firm’s top management, led by the CEO or the President of the company. In keeping with this, 40 top level managers in two very different regions (California, USA and Hungary) were targeted in a comparative research study. In the two countries, twelve of the managers were CEOs, Presidents, Vice Presidents or Chief Officers (hereafter referred to as Executives) while eight were founders and majority owners of their own enterprises (hereafter referred to as Entrepreneurs). The research focused on the following 3 areas: 1) How top level managers really make strategic decisions in these two different parts of the world; 2) How Entrepreneurs and Executives differ, if at all, in their approach to strategic decision making when they combine analytical thinking with their intuition; 3) The similarities and differences in management skills and decision making routines between Entrepreneurs and Executives within the investigated management cultures.

Analysis and intuition in strategic decision making. The case of California

Many management scholars believe that the process used to make strategic decisions affects the quality of those decisions. However several authors have observed a lack of research on the strategic decision making process. Empirical tests of factors that have been hypothesized to affect the way strategic decisions are made notably are absent. (Fredrickson, 1985) This paper reports the results of a study that attempts to assess the effects of decision making circumstances focusing mainly on the approaches applied and the managerial skills and capabilities the decision makers built on during concrete strategic decision making procedures. The study was conducted in California between September 2005 and June 2006 and it was sponsored by a Fulbright Research Scholarship Grant.

The responsibility of futurists in strategic foresight - Hungarian examples

The Futures Studies Department at the Corvinus University of Budapest conducted a few strategic foresight projects at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The goals of two projects were to increase the regional competitiveness of two towns in Hungary; whereas, two other projects dealt with the long-term, 15- to 20- year-long, macro-development opportunities of Hungary. They focused on defining social trends that influence the long-termdecision-making environment of the regions and the country. The two types of experience made it possible to enhance strategic foresight by defining the role and responsibility of professional futurists and average, everyday people.

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.

Dynamic capabilities and strategic paradox: a case study

Today’s business leaders must constantly review and develop their firm’s abilities to adapt to and benefit from external changes. Dynamic capabilities are the capacity of an organization to purposefully create, extend or modify its resource base. They enable it to exploit business, technological and market opportunities and adapt to market changes, an ability more often observed in highly dynamic industries, such as consumer electronics or telecommunications. Using the case study method, this article identifies dynamic capabilities in traditional, less dynamic industries when faced with a sudden drop of revenue. Four distinct routines emerge, namely structure and practices enduring time-sensitive strategic decision-making by the tice, and a culture encouraging learning and coevolving. Seemingly strategic paradox objectives encourage the management team to question the status quo and, when managed well, transform the tensions between old and new into an ability to advance superior ideas faster.