ASSIGNMENT- 2

Creativity and Strategic Implementation

PRIYANSHU TIWARI

20BBAH005

BBAH(6TH SEM)
 Introduction:
Creativity is considered to be essential for societal and economic growth. At the individual,
team, and organizational levels, creativity has been argued to be a key enabler and contributor
to performance, entrepreneurship, growth, and competitiveness. Creativity as a research area
has evolved over the years. Historically, it has its roots within the field of psychology, which
provided a foundation for conceptual and empirical work focused on factors that can enhance
or constrain creativity across all different areas (e.g., education, inventors). More recently, the
body of work on organizational creativity within management has been growing. Creativity has
been defined in two ways: as both a process and an outcome. It is believed that to produce
creative outcomes, it is important to first engage in certain cognitive and behavioral processes
(e.g., linking ideas from multiple sources, broad search) that can help enable individuals to be
more creative in their work. The creative process is an iterative process and involves finding and
solving new problems in different ways. Creativity as an outcome has been defined primarily in
management as the generation of ideas, solutions, or processes that are novel and useful.
Novelty and usefulness are both considered necessary conditions for something to be regarded
as creative, so even if an idea is very novel, if it is not also useful or feasible it would not be
considered creative. This definition differs from some work in psychology primarily focused on
brainstorming, where creative outcomes are often defined in terms of originality (i.e., novelty),
fluency (i.e., number of ideas), and flexibility (i.e., number of categories accessed). Individual
differences can predispose certain individuals to be more creative, and different factors in the
work context can facilitate or inhibit creativity: these personal and contextual factors can
interact to affect creativity. Creativity can potentially occur in all different kinds of jobs and at
all levels of the organization. Creative ideas or processes also can vary on a continuum from
being new but somewhat incremental to those that are radically new and different. Also, within
the organizational literature, creativity has been considered to be a necessary but insufficient
condition for innovations to occur. The primary distinction between how creativity and
innovation is defined is that when focusing on creativity the production of something that is
new and useful is stressed, while innovation emphasizes the implementation of new ideas or
procedures.
STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
Strategy implementation concerns the managerial exercise of putting a freshly chosen strategy
into action. It deals with the managerial exercise of supervising

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION AND CONTROL

The ongoing pursuit of strategy, making it work, improving the competence with which it is
executed and showing measurable progress in achieving the targeted results. Strategic
implementation is concerned with translating a strategic decision into action, which
presupposes that the decision itself (i.e., the strategic choice) was made with some thought
being given to feasibility and acceptability.

The allocation of resources to new courses of action will need to be undertaken, and there may
be a need for adapting the organization's structure to handle new activities as well as training
personnel and devising appropriate systems.

Relationship with strategy formulation

Many managers fail to distinguish between strategy formulation and strategy implementation.
Yet, it is crucial to realize the difference between the two because they both require very
different skills. Also, a company will be successful only when the strategy formulation is sound
and implementation is excellent.

There is no such thing as successful strategic design. This sounds obvious, but in practice the
distinction is not always made. Often people, blame the strategy model for the failure of a
company while the main flaw might lie in failed implementation. Thus, organizational success is
a function of good strategy and proper implementation.

Relationship with strategy formulation

Many managers fail to distinguish between strategy formulation and strategy implementation.
Yet, it is crucial to realize the difference between the two because they both require very
different skills. Also, a company will be successful only when the strategy formulation is sound
and implementation is excellent.

There is no such thing as successful strategic design. This sounds obvious, but in practice the
distinction is not always made. Often people, blame the strategy model for the Kailure of a
company while the main flaw might lie in failed implementation. Thus, organizational success is
a function of good strategy and proper implementation. Square A is the situation where a
company apparently has formulated a very competitive strategy, but is showing difficulties in
implementing it successfully.

This can be dive to various factors, such as the lack of experience (e.g. for startups), the lack of
resources, missing leadership and so on. In such a situation the company will aim at moving
from square A to square B, given they realize their implementation difficulties. Square B is the
ideal situation where a company has succeeded in designing a sound and competitive strategy
and has been successful in implementing it.

Square D is the situation where the strategy formulation is flawed, but the company is showing
excellent implementation skills. When a company finds itself in square D the first thing they
have to do is to redesign their strategy before readjusting their implementation/execution
skills.

Square C is denotes for companies that haven't succeeded in coming up with a sound strategy
formulation and in addition are bad at implementing their flawed strategic model. Their path to
success also goes through business model redesign and implementation/execution
readjustment.

Taken together all the elements of business strategy, it is to be seen as a chosen set of actions
by means of which a market position relative to the competing enterprises is sought and
maintained. This gives us the notion of competitive position.

It needs to be emphasized that 'strategy' is not synonymous with 'long-term plan' but rather
consists of an enterprise's attempts to reach some preferred future state by adapting its
competitive position as circumstances change. While a series of strategic moves may be
planned, competitors' actions will mean that the actual moves will have to be modified to take
account of those actions. in contrast to this view of strategy there is another approach to
management practice, which has been followed in many organizations. In organizations that
lack strategic direction there has been a tendency to look inwards in times of stress, and for
management to devote their attention to cost cutting and to shedding unprofitable divisions. In
other words, the focus has been on efficiency (i.e., the relationship between inputs and
outputs, usually with a short time horizon) rather than on effectiveness (which is concerned
with the attainment of organisational goals - including that of desired competitive position).
While efficiency is essentially introspective, effectiveness highlights the links between the
organization and its environment. The responsibility for efficiency lies with operational
managers, with top management having the primary responsibility for the strategic orientation
of the organization.

An organization that finds itself in cell 1 is well placed and thrives, since it is achieving what it
aspires to achieve with an efficient output/input ratio. In contrast, an organization in cell 2 or 4
is doomed, unless it can establish some strategic direction. The particular point to note is that
cell 2 is a worse place to be than is cell 3 since, in the latter, the strategic direction is present to
ensure effectiveness even if rather too much input is being used to generate outputs. To be
effective is to survive whereas to be efficient is not in itself either necessary or sufficient for
survival.

In crude terms, to be effective is to do the right thing, while to be efficient is to do the thing
right. An emphasis on efficiency rather than on effectiveness is clearly wrong. But who
determines effectiveness? Any organization can be portrayed as a coalition of diverse interest
groups each of which participates in the coalition in order to secure some advantage. This
advantage (or inducement) may be in the form of dividends to shareholders, wages to
employees, continued business to suppliers of goods and services, satisfaction on the part of
consumers, legal compliance from the viewpoint [of government, responsible behaviour
towards society and the environment from the perspective of pressure groups, and so on.

Even the most technically perfect strategic plan will serve little purpose if it is not implemented
effectively. Many organizations tend to spend an inordinate amount of time, money, and effort
on developing the strategic plan, treating the means and circumstances under which it will be
implemented as afterthoughts. Change comes through implementation and evaluation, not
through the plan. A technically imperfect plan that is implemented well will achieve more than
the perfect plan that never gets off the paper on which it is typed.

Successful strategy formulation does not guarantee successful strategy implementation. It is

always more difficult to do something (strategy implementation) than to say you are going to
do it (strategy formulation).

Although inextricably linked, strategy implementation is fundamentally different from strategy

formulation.

Strategy formulation concepts and tools do not differ greatly for small, large, for-profit, or non-
profit organizations. However, strategy implementation varies substantially among different
types and sizes of organizations. Implementation of strategies requires such actions as altering
sales territories, adding new departments, closing facilities, hiring new employees, changing an
organization's pricing strategy, developing financial budgets, developing new employee
benefits, establishing cost-control procedures, changing advertising strategies, building new
facilities, training new employees, transferring managers among divisions, and building a better
management information system. These types of activities obviously differ greatly among
manufacturing, service, and governmental organizations.

It is to be noted that the division of strategic management into different phases is only for the
purpose of orderly study. In real life, the formulation and implementation processes are
intertwined. Two types of linkages exist between these two phases of strategic management.
The forward linkages deal with the impact of strategy formulation on strategy implementation
while the backward linkages are concerned with the impact in the opposite direction.

Forward Linkages: The different elements in strategy formulation starting with objective setting
through environmental and organizational appraisal, strategic alternatives and choice to the
strategic plan determine the course that an organization adopts for itself. With the formulation
of new strategies, or reformulation of existing strategies, many changes have to be effected
within the organization. For instance, the organizational structure has to undergo a change in
the light of the requirements of the modified or new strategy. The style of leadership has to be
adapted to the needs of the modified or new strategies. In this way, the formulation of
strategies has forward linkages with their implementation.

Backward Linkages: Just as implementation is determined by the formulation of strategies, the

formulation process is also affected by factors related with implementation. While dealing with
strategic choice, remember that past strategic actions also determine the choice of strategy.
Organizations tend to adopt those strategies which can be implemented with the help of the
present structure of resources combined with some additional efforts. Such incremental
changes, over a period of time, take the organization from where it is to where it wishes to be.

It is to be noted that while strategy formulation is primarily an entrepreneurial activity, based

on strategic decision-making, the implementation of strategy is mainly an administrative task
based on strategic as well as operational decision-making. The next section focuses on the
various issues involved in the implementation of strategies.
ISSUES IN STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
The different issues involved in strategy implementation cover practically everything that is
included in the discipline of management studies. A strategist, therefore, has to bring a wide
range of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and abilities.

The implementation tasks put to test the strategists abilities to allocate resources, design
organisational structure, formulate functional policies, and to provide strategic leadership.

• The strategic plan devised by the organization proposes the manner in which the strategies
could De put into action. Strategies, by themselves, do not lead to action. *They are, in a sense,
a statement of intent.

Implementation tasks are meant to realise the intent. Strategies, therefore, have to be
activated through implementation.

• Strategies should lead to formulation of different kinds of programmes. A programme is a

broad term, which includes goals, policies, procedures,rules, and steps to be taken in putting a
plan into action. Programmes are usually supported by funds allocated for plan
implementation.

• Programmers lead to the formulation of projects. A project is a highly specific programme for
which the time schedule and costs are predetermined. It requires allocation of funds based on
capital budgeting by organizations. Thus, research and development programme may consist of
several projects, each of which is intended to achieve a specific and limited objective, requires
separate allocation of funds, and is to be completed within a set time schedule. Implementation
of strategies is not limited to formulation of plans, programmers, and projects. Projects would
also require resources. After resources have been provided, it would be essential to see that a
proper organizational structure is designed, systems are installed, functional policies are
devised, and various behavioral inputs are provided so that plans may work.

Given below in sequential manner the issues in strategy implementation which are to be
considered

 Project implementation
 Procedural implementation
 Resource allocation
 Structural implementation
 Functional implementation
 Behavioral implementation
It should be noted that the sequence does not mean that each of the above activities are
necessarily performed one after another. Many activities can be performed simultaneously,
certain other activities may be repeated over time; and there are activities, which are
performed only once. Thus there can be overlapping and changes in the order in which these
activities are performed.

In all but the smallest organizations, the transition from strategy formulation to strategy
implementation requires a shift in responsibility from strategists to divisional and functional
managers. Implementation problems can arise because of this shift in responsibility, especially
if strategic decisions come as a surprise to middle and lower-level managers. Managers and
employees are motivated more by perceived self-interests than by organizational interests,
unless the two coincide. Therefore, it is essential that divisional and functional managers be
involved as much as possible in the strategy-formulation process. similarly, strategists should
also be involved as much as possible in strategy implementation activities

Management issues central to strategy implementation include establishing annual objectives,

devising policies, allocating resources, altering an existing organizational structure,
restructuring and reengineering, revising reward and incentive plans, minimizing resistance to
change, developing a strategy-supportive culture, adapting production/operations processes,
developing an effective human resource system and, if necessary, downsizing. Management
changes are necessarily more extensive when strategies to be implemented move a firm in a
new direction.

Managers and employees throughout an organization should participate early and directly in
strategy-implementation activities. Their role in strategy implementation should build upon
prior involvement in strategy-formulation activities. Strategists' genuine personal commitment
to implementation is a necessary and powerful motivational force for managers and
employees. Too often, strategists are too busy to actively support strategy-implementation
efforts, and their lack of interest can be detrimental to organizational success. The rationale for
objectives and strategies should be understood clearly throughout the organization. Major
competitors' accomplishments, products, plans, actions, and performance should be apparent
to all organizational members. Major external opportunities and threats should be clear, and
managers and employees* questions should be answered satisfactorily. Top-down flow of
communication is essential for developing bottom-up support.