The emergence of strategic management is caused by objective reasons associated with an increase in the share of uncertainty and unpredictability of business conditions and the complexity of the external environment. The need for the survival and development of the organization in a rapidly changing socio-cultural and economic conditions required the improvement and modification of systems and management methods.
After analyzing the modification of management systems depending on the business environment in countries with market economies, the largest specialist in the field strategic management I. Ansoff identified three main characteristics of environmental instability that influence these changes: the degree of familiarity of events, the pace of change, and the predictability of the future. Each level of instability of the external environment corresponds to its own stage in the development of organization management systems. Table 1 shows the main stages in the development of systems and methods for managing an organization.
Table 1
Stages of development of systems and management methods
|
Options |
Control systems |
|||
|
Based on control |
Based on extrapolation |
Based on anticipation of change |
Based on flexible emergency solutions |
|
|
Organization management methods |
Financial planning (budgeting) |
Long term planning |
Strategic planning |
Strategic management |
|
Development period |
Late 1950s |
Early 1980s |
||
|
Objectives of management methods |
Budget execution and production programs |
Predicting the future |
strategic thinking |
Leveraging Change to Create Opportunities |
|
Management tasks |
Cost management |
Extrapolation of past trends and patterns |
Anticipating changes in environment |
Timely reaction to external changes |
|
Habituality of events |
Habitual |
Within experience |
unexpected |
brand new |
|
Predictability of the future |
repeating the past |
Predictable by extrapolation |
partly predictable |
unpredictable |
|
The pace of change |
Slower than organization response |
Comparable to organizational response |
Faster than organization response |
|
|
Cyclical |
real time |
|||
|
Management System Efficiency | ||||
|
Characteristics of the external environment | ||||
1. Management based on control (budgeting). A feature of budgetary and financial methods is their short-term nature and internal orientation. With this approach, the organization is considered as a closed system, and its goals and objectives are considered given and remain, like other conditions of activity, fairly stable for a long period of time. The management system under consideration is based on performance control, which includes: labor management (norms and standards labor processes), financial control, current budgeting, profit planning, management by objectives, project planning. Since norms and standards are based on past experience, control actions are more related to the past than to the future of the firm.
The first stage in the development of management systems is associated with the preparation of financial plans (“budgeting” - budgeting), which were limited only to annual financial estimates for items of expenditure for various purposes and current planning of production and economic activities. The budgets were:
1) for each of the major production and economic functions (R & D, marketing, production, capital construction, etc.);
2) for individual structural units within the corporation (branches, factories, etc.).
Their main task was to manage costs. Similar plans and their modifications still serve today as the main tool for allocating resources, as well as intra-company control over current financial, production and economic activities.
2. Extrapolation-based management (long-term planning) can be thought of as the response of firms to an accelerating rate of change in the environment, where a firm's sales forecast can be predicted by analogy with established trends in the past.
The main mechanism for implementing this management system is long-term planning , which suggests that the future can be predicted by extrapolating historical development trends. On the basis of sales targets, functional plans for production, marketing, and supply were determined. Then all plans were aggregated into a single financial plan corporations.
In our country, this approach was known as the “planning from the achieved” method, when production volumes were set from above, and not sales volumes. Like in a market economy.
3. Management based on the foresight of change (strategic planning). The classic of management science A. Fayol noted: “to manage is to foresee, and to foresee is almost to act.” As the crisis escalated and international competition intensified, extrapolation forecasts began to diverge more and more from real numbers. In conditions high level instability of the external environment and fierce competition, the only way to formally predict future problems and opportunities is strategic planning, the fundamental principle of which is to ensure the organization's adaptability to environmental changes.
The main difference between long-term and strategic planning is the interpretation of the future. In strategic planning, there is no assumption that the future must necessarily be a repetition of the past. The initial principle of planning is changing - to go from the future to the present, and not from the past to the future.
In the strategic planning system, extrapolation has been replaced by a detailed strategic analysis, which links the development prospects and the goals of the organization to each other to develop a strategy. In strategic analysis, special attention is paid to macroeconomic development factors, socio-demographic factors, and the latest technological developments.
This approach involves integrating financial and long term plans in the system of strategic planning, in which two groups of tasks are set. First, short-term, designed for the current implementation of programs, budgets, orienting the operational units of the organization in their daily work. Another group of tasks are strategic, which lay the foundations for future profitability. Such tasks do not fit well into the system of current operations and require a separate execution system built on project management. The strategic execution system also requires a separate, special control system.
4. Management based on flexible emergency solutions ( strategic management). According to the President IVM F. Carey, this is a system "focused on the market of tomorrow."
Management systems based on long-term and strategic planning have proved unsuitable for responding to events that are partly predictable but move too quickly to allow for early preparation and timely adoption of the necessary strategic decisions. In situations of instability, “anything can happen at any time.”
To cope with rapidly changing tasks, it is necessary to use a management system related not so much to determining the position (long-term and strategic planning), how much with timely real-time response to rapid and unexpected changes in the environment of the organization. Essentially, this is strategic management. as the most advanced stage of strategic planning, which, in turn, forms its essential basis. “Strategic planning is management according to plans, and strategic management is management according to results” (I. Ansoff).
Strategic management- this is a set of strategic management decisions that determine the long-term development of the organization, and specific actions that ensure the organization's quick response to changes in external factors, which may entail the need to revise the goals and adjust the general direction of development.
Thus, strategic management is characterized by the following factors:
quick dual reaction to changes in the external environment - long-term and operational at the same time (long-term is laid down in strategic plans, operational is implemented outside the planned cycle in real time);
in strategic management, not only ways of adapting to the external environment are considered, but also ways to change it (the management process must be proactive);
strategic management includes elements of all previous management systems.
Read also:
|
The concept of "strategy" entered the number of management terms in the 50s, when the problem of responding to unexpected changes in the external environment became of great importance. Following military usage, dictionaries still defined strategy as "the science of warfare, the art of combat", "the science and art of deploying troops for combat", "the highest field of military art"
It is believed that until the mid-70s of the XX century in the world economy there were the most favorable conditions for doing business. Most of the enterprises had their niche in the market and worked relatively calmly in it. Such a concept as fierce competition, the leaders were practically unfamiliar. All changes in the external environment occurred smoothly, and this made it easy to adapt to them. The main task of managers was to competently build such processes as short-term planning, distribution of tasks and control over their implementation.
By the end of the 70s of the XX century, due to the global oil crises, the situation in the world economy also changed. A new era has begun - an era of rapid change. Many processes that used to take decades began to take place in a matter of months. As a result, the conditions for doing business have changed dramatically. What used to be a huge profit has become a loss. Large enterprises began to "suffocate" in the new conditions, and unknown to anyone - became leaders in their markets. Companies are born and die.
It was at that moment that a new economic science called strategic management appeared. And its founder was a professor at Harvard University Michael Porter, which the in 1980 published a book Competitive strategy is a technology for analyzing industries and competitors. In his work, the author argued that in order to successfully conduct business in the new conditions, the manager, first of all, must set clear long-term goals, carefully develop a strategy for achieving them and put it into practice.
Increasing attention to strategic aspects - feature management in the 1970s, when "uncertainty elimination" was hailed as a critical success factor
However, the crisis of the early - mid-70s revealed the inconsistency of strategic planning under capitalism. By the very nature of the capitalist corporation, the manager is forced to give preference to current tasks at the expense of the future. The social position of the manager also prevents the resolution of this contradiction. As employees, most managers are not sure that their fate will be permanently connected with this company, so it is important for them to get the maximum profit and, therefore, the greatest remuneration from the board of directors as soon as possible.
This contradiction is reflected in the methods and forms of management, most of which are also aimed at solving current problems. Organizationally, strategic planning services were also disconnected from the current activities of companies.
This so-called "separation of strategy from tactics" led to the fact that in the event of a conflict between long-term development plans and short-term goals, current needs always prevailed. Therefore, the transition to strategic management at the turn of the 1980s was a foregone conclusion.
under the word "strategy" Porter meant a detailed written long-term development plan commercial enterprise, which must be developed for 5, 10 or 15 years, but it is possible for a longer period of time.
Thus, according to Porter, the term "strategic management" literally means "the practical activity of the leader in developing a strategy and managing an enterprise based on it."
Thus, we can summarize the prerequisites for the emergence of strategic management:
In the military sphere, the development strategy as an element of control has been known since ancient times, and in the field of business management (other socio-economic systems, the state), SU has become widespread in the second half of the 20th century. Among the reasons for this are:
1. A sharp increase in labor productivity.
2. Development of competition in the markets.
3. Achieving a high level of welfare of society in developed countries (satisfaction of primary processes), with outstripping growth of needs.
These features are characteristic of the so-called post-industrial era(information societies).
The development of these features in the economy are:
· Increasing degree of product differentiation (diversity).
· Significant growth in the share of services in the gross product.
Strengthening the intensity of competition and the complication of its structure, including due to the development of transport, communications and communications, as well as conservation technology commodity value product.
· Globalization of markets.
· Increasing impact of innovations on the competitiveness of products (especially radical ones).
· Strengthening the attention of the state and society to the activities of business and their impact on it.
The result of the impact of these prerequisites on the activities of the enterprise are:
1. Instability of the external environment.
2. High rates of change (acceleration).
3. Non-linear development of economic processes.
Thus, the formation of strategic management as an independent field of research and management practice has gone through four stages:
Budgeting and control. These managerial functions actively developed and improved already in the first quarter. 20th century A significant contribution to their development was made by the school of scientific management. The main premise of budgeting and control is the idea of a stable environment for the organization, both internal and external: the existing conditions of the company's activities (for example, technology, competition, the degree of availability of resources, the level of personnel qualification, etc.) will not change significantly in the future.
2. Long term planning. This method was developed in the 1950s. It is based on the identification of current changes in certain economic indicators activities of the organization and extrapolation of identified trends (or trends) into the future.
3. Strategic planning. Its widespread use in business practice begins in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This approach is based on identifying trends not only in the economic development of the corporation, but also in the environment of its existence.
4. Strategic management. As an independent discipline, it appears in the mid-1970s. It involves the establishment of clearly defined goals and the development of ways to achieve them based on the use of strengths organization and favorable opportunities of the environment, as well as compensation for weaknesses and methods of avoiding threats.
AT general idea strategic management represents the process that determines the sequence of actions of the organization for the development and implementation of the strategy. It includes setting goals, developing a strategy, defining necessary resources and maintaining relationships with the external environment that enable the organization to achieve its goals.
The emergence of strategic management is caused by objective reasons arising from changes in the nature of the environment for the activities of enterprises. This is due to the action of a number of factors. Let's consider the main ones. First group such factors due to global trends in the development of a market economy. These include: internationalization and globalization of business; the emergence of new unexpected business opportunities opened up by the achievements of science and technology; the development of information networks that make it possible for lightning-fast dissemination and receipt of information; wide availability modern technologies; role change human resources; increased competition for resources; accelerating environmental change.
Second group factors stems from those transformations in the system of economic management in Russia that took place in the process of transition to a market economy model, mass privatization of enterprises in almost all industries. As a result, the entire upper layer management structures, which was busy collecting information, developing a long-term strategy and directions for the development of individual industries and industries, was liquidated. You can have different attitudes towards the already non-existent sectoral ministries, planning bodies, but it cannot be denied that the latter, having a powerful network of sectoral and departmental institutions, carried out almost the entire amount of work on the development of promising directions for the development of enterprises, transformed them into promising current plans, which from above brought to the attention of the performers. The task of the management of enterprises was mainly to carry out operational functions to organize the fulfillment of tasks lowered from above.
As a result of the rapid elimination of this upper layer of enterprise management, combined with privatization, when the state refused to manage the vast majority of enterprises, all functions that were previously performed by higher bodies were automatically transferred to the management of associations and firms. Naturally, the mentality of leadership, all internal organization enterprises were in most cases unprepared for this kind of activity.
The third group of reasons the importance of strategic management at the present stage is associated with the emergence of a huge number of economic structures various forms property, when a large number of unprepared for the mass of their professional management activities workers, which predetermined the need for accelerated assimilation by the latter of the theory and practice of strategic management.
Fourth group of factors, which is also purely Russian in nature, is due to the general socio-economic situation that has developed in the transition period from a planned to a market economy. This situation is characterized, as is well known, by a massive decline in production, a painful restructuring of the economy, massive non-payments, inflation, growing unemployment and other negative factors. All this, regardless of the form of ownership, extremely complicates the activities of economic organizations, is accompanied by a growing wave of bankruptcies and other negative phenomena. Naturally, this predetermines the need for increased attention to the problems of strategic management, which in turn should ensure the survival of enterprises in extreme conditions. It is no coincidence that a number of authors put forward the thesis that in such a situation one should speak first of all about a survival strategy, and only then about a strategy.
In this regard, an important question seems to be when exactly the appeal to the strategy becomes vital. One of these conditions is the occurrence of sudden changes in the external environment of the firm. They can be caused by saturation of demand, major changes in technology inside or outside the firm, or the sudden emergence of numerous new competitors.
In such situations, the traditional principles and experience of the organization do not correspond to the tasks of using new opportunities and do not provide for the prevention of hazards. If an organization does not have a unified strategy, then it is possible that different departments will develop heterogeneous, contradictory and ineffective solutions. The sales service will fight to revive the old demand for the company's products, production units- make capital investments in the automation of obsolete industries, and the R&D service - to develop new products based on old technology. This will lead to conflicts, delay the firm's reorientation, and make it unrhythmic and inefficient. It may turn out that the reorientation started too late to guarantee the firm's survival.
Faced with such complexities, the firm must solve two extremely difficult problems: to choose the right growth planning from numerous alternatives and to direct the efforts of the team in the right direction.
Along with obvious advantages, strategic management has a number of disadvantages and limitations on its use, which indicate that this type of management, like all others, does not have the universality of application in all situations to solve any problems.
First, strategic management, by its very nature, does not, and indeed cannot, give an accurate and detailed picture of the future. The future desired state of the organization formed in strategic management is not a detailed description of its internal and external position, but rather a qualitative wish for the state in which the organization should be in the future, what position to occupy in the market and in business, what organizational culture to have , which business groups to join, etc. At the same time, all this together should be what will determine whether the organization will survive or not in the future in the competitive struggle.
Secondly, strategic management cannot be reduced to a set of routine procedures and schemes. He does not have a descriptive theory that prescribes what and how to do when solving certain problems or in specific situations. Strategic management is, rather, a certain philosophy or business ideology and management. And each individual manager understands and implements it largely in his own way. Of course, there are a number of recommendations, rules and logic diagrams for problem analysis and strategy selection, as well as the implementation of strategic planning and practical implementation of the strategy. However, in general strategic management - this is a symbiosis of intuition and the art of top management to lead the organization to strategic goals, high professionalism and creativity of employees, ensuring the connection of the organization with the environment, updating the organization and its products, as well as the implementation of current plans and, finally, the active involvement of all employees in the implementation of the organization's tasks, in search of the best ways to achieve its goals.
Thirdly, huge efforts and large investments of time and resources are required in order for the organization to begin the process of strategic management. It is necessary to create and implement strategic planning, which is fundamentally different from the development of long-term plans that are binding under any conditions. The strategic plan must be flexible, it must respond to changes inside and outside the organization, and this requires a lot of effort and a lot of money. It is also necessary to create services that monitor the environment and include the organization in the environment. Marketing, public relations services, etc. acquire exceptional significance and require significant additional costs.
Fourth, the negative consequences of mistakes in strategic foresight are sharply increasing. In an environment where completely new products are being created in a short time, when unexpected new opportunities Opportunities that have existed for many years are disappearing before our eyes, the price of retribution for incorrect foresight and, accordingly, for mistakes in strategic choice often becomes fatal for the organization. Especially tragic are the consequences of an incorrect forecast for organizations that carry out an uncontested way of functioning or that implement a strategy that cannot be fundamentally corrected.
Fifth, in the implementation of strategic management, the main emphasis is often placed on strategic planning. In fact, the most important component of strategic management is the implementation of the strategic plan. And this implies, first of all, the creation of an organizational culture that allows the implementation of a strategy, systems of motivation and organization of work, a certain flexibility in the organization, etc. At the same time, strategic management execution process has an active feedback effect on planning, which further enhances the significance of the execution phase. Therefore, an organization, in principle, will not be able to move to strategic management if it has a strategic planning subsystem, even if it is very good, and there are no prerequisites or opportunities for creating a strategic execution subsystem.
The evolution of intra-company management systems makes it possible to understand that successive systems correspond to a growing level of instability (uncertainty) of the external environment. Since the beginning of the century, two types of enterprise management systems have been developed: management based on control over execution (post factum) and management based on extrapolation of the past. To date, two types of control systems have developed:
The first, based on positioning (management based on anticipation of change, when unexpected phenomena began to arise and the pace of change accelerated, but not so much that it was impossible to determine the reaction to them in time). This type includes: long-term and strategic planning; control by choice strategic positions;
The second is related to timely response, giving a response to rapid and unexpected changes in the environment (management based on flexible emergency solutions). This type includes: management based on the ranking of strategic objectives; control by strong and weak signals; management in the face of strategic surprises.
Choice of combinations various systems for a particular enterprise depends on the conditions of the environment in which it operates. The choice of a system for determining positions is due to the novelty and complexity of the tasks. The choice of a timely response system depends on the pace of change and the predictability of tasks. The synthesis and integration of these management systems make it possible to form a strategic management method that most fully meets the conditions of flexibility and uncertainty of the external environment.
The emergence of strategic management in Russia is caused by objective reasons arising from changes in the nature of the environment for the activities of enterprises. This is due to the action of a number of factors. The first group of such factors is due to global trends in the development of a market economy. These include: internationalization and globalization of business; the emergence of new unexpected business opportunities opened up by the achievements of science and technology; the development of information networks that make it possible for lightning-fast dissemination and receipt of information; wide availability of modern technologies; changing role of human resources; increased competition for resources; accelerating environmental change. The second group of factors stems from those transformations in the system of economic management in Russia that took place in the process of transition to a market economy model, mass privatization of enterprises in almost all industries. As a result, the entire higher layer of management structures, which was busy collecting information, developing a long-term strategy and directions for the development of individual industries and industries, was eliminated. The third group of factors is associated with the emergence of a huge number of economic structures of various forms of ownership, when a mass of workers unprepared for professional management activities came into the business sphere, which predetermined the need for accelerated assimilation by the latter of the theory and practice of strategic management.
The fourth group of factors, which is also of a purely Russian nature, is due to the general socio-economic situation that has developed in the transition period from a planned to a market economy. This situation is characterized by a decline in production, painful restructuring of the economy, massive non-payments, inflation, growing unemployment and other negative phenomena. All this extremely complicates the activity of economic organizations and is accompanied by a growing wave of bankruptcies, and so on. Naturally, what is happening in the country's economy predetermines the need for increased attention to the problems of strategic management, which in turn should ensure the survival of enterprises in extreme conditions. It is no coincidence that a number of authors put forward the thesis that in such a situation one should speak first of all about a survival strategy and only then about a development strategy.
Recourse to strategy becomes vital when, for example, there are sudden changes in the firm's external environment. Their cause may be: saturation of demand; major changes in technology inside or outside the firm; the sudden emergence of numerous new competitors. In such situations, the traditional principles and experience of the organization do not correspond to the tasks of using new opportunities and do not provide for the prevention of dangers. If an organization does not have a unified strategy, then it is possible that its various departments will develop heterogeneous, contradictory and inefficient solutions: the sales department will struggle to revive the former demand for the company's products, the production departments will make capital investments in the automation of aging industries, and the R&D department will develop new products based on old technology. This will lead to conflicts, slow down the reorientation of the firm and make its work irregular and inefficient. It may turn out that the reorientation started too late to guarantee the firm's survival.
Page 3 of 17
Reasons for the emergence of strategic management.
The emergence of strategic management in Russia is caused by objective reasons arising from changes in the nature of the environment for the activities of enterprises. This is due to the action of a number of factors.
The first group of such factors is due to global trends in the development of a market economy. These include: internationalization and globalization of business; the emergence of new unexpected business opportunities opened up by the achievements of science and technology; the development of information networks that make it possible for lightning-fast dissemination and receipt of information; wide availability of modern technologies; changing role of human resources; increased competition for resources; accelerating environmental change.
The second group of factors stems from those transformations in the system of economic management in Russia that took place in the process of transition to a market economy model, mass privatization of enterprises in almost all industries. As a result, the entire higher layer of management structures, which was busy collecting information, developing a long-term strategy and directions for the development of individual industries and industries, was eliminated.
You can have different attitudes towards the already non-existent sectoral ministries, planning bodies, but it cannot be denied that they, having a powerful network of sectoral and departmental institutions, carried out almost the entire amount of work on the development of promising directions for the development of enterprises, transformed them into promising current plans, which from above brought to the attention of the performers. The task of the management of enterprises was mainly to carry out operational functions to organize the fulfillment of tasks lowered from above.
As a result of the rapid liquidation of the top layer of enterprise management, combined with privatization, when the state refused to manage the vast majority of enterprises, all functions that were previously performed by higher bodies were automatically transferred to the management of associations and firms. Naturally, the management and internal organization of enterprises turned out to be in most cases unprepared for such activities.
The third group of factors is associated with the emergence of a huge number of economic structures of various forms of ownership, when a mass of workers unprepared for professional management activities came into the business sphere, which predetermined the need for accelerated assimilation by the latter of the theory and practice of strategic management.
The fourth group of factors, which is also of a purely Russian nature, is due to the general socio-economic situation that has developed in the transition period from a planned to a market economy. This situation is characterized by a decline in production, painful restructuring of the economy, massive non-payments, inflation, growing unemployment and other negative phenomena. All this extremely complicates the activity of economic organizations and is accompanied by a growing wave of bankruptcies, and so on. Naturally, what is happening in the country's economy predetermines the need for increased attention to the problems of strategic management, which in turn should ensure the survival of enterprises in extreme conditions. It is no coincidence that a number of authors put forward the thesis that in such a situation one should speak first of all about a survival strategy and only then about a development strategy.
Recourse to strategy becomes vital when, for example, there are sudden changes in the firm's external environment. Their cause may be: saturation of demand; major changes in technology inside or outside the firm; the sudden emergence of numerous new competitors.
In such situations, the traditional principles and experience of the organization do not correspond to the tasks of using new opportunities and do not provide for the prevention of dangers. If an organization does not have a unified strategy, then it is possible that its various departments will develop heterogeneous, contradictory and inefficient solutions: the sales department will struggle to revive the previous demand for the company's products, the production departments will make capital investments in the automation of aging industries, and the R&D department will develop new products based on old technology. This will lead to conflicts, slow down the reorientation of the firm and make its work irregular and inefficient. It may turn out that the reorientation started too late to guarantee the firm's survival.
Faced with such difficulties, the firm must solve two extremely difficult problems: to choose the right direction of development from numerous alternatives and to direct the efforts of the team in the right direction.
However, it should be noted that, along with obvious advantages, strategic management has a number of disadvantages and limitations on its use, which show that this type of management, like others, does not have universal application for solving any problems in any situations.
First, strategic management, by its very nature, does not (and cannot) give an accurate and detailed picture of the future. The future desired state of the organization formed in strategic management is not a detailed description of its internal and external position, but a wish of what state the organization should be in in the future, what position to occupy in the market and in business, what organizational culture to have, in which business groups go in etc. . And all this together should determine whether the organization will survive or not in the future in the competitive struggle.
Secondly, strategic management cannot be reduced to a set of routine procedures and schemes. He does not have a descriptive theory that justifies what and how to do when solving certain problems or in specific situations. Strategic management is a certain philosophy or ideology of business and management, and each manager understands and implements it to a large extent in his own way.
Of course, there are a number of guidelines, rules and logics for problem analysis and strategy selection, as well as strategic planning and strategy implementation. However, in general, strategic management is a symbiosis of intuition and the art of top management to lead the organization to strategic goals, high professionalism and creativity of employees, ensuring the connection of the organization with the environment, updating the organization and its products, as well as the implementation of current plans and, finally, the active inclusion of all employees. in the implementation of the tasks of the organization, in the search for the best ways to achieve its goals.
Thirdly, it takes a lot of effort and a lot of time and resources to start the process of strategic management in an organization. It is necessary to create and implement strategic planning, which is fundamentally different from the development of long-term plans that are mandatory for execution in any conditions. The strategic plan must be flexible, responsive to changes within and outside the organization, which requires great effort and high costs. It is also necessary to create services that study the external environment. Marketing Services in modern conditions acquire exceptional significance and require significant additional costs.
Fourth, the negative consequences of mistakes in strategic foresight are sharply increasing. In a situation where completely new products are being created in a short time, new business opportunities suddenly appear and opportunities that have existed for many years disappear before our eyes. The price of retribution for incorrect foresight and, accordingly, for mistakes in strategic choice becomes often fatal for the organization. Especially tragic are the consequences of an incorrect forecast for organizations that carry out an uncontested way of functioning or implement a strategy that cannot be fundamentally corrected.
Fifth, in the implementation of strategic management, the main emphasis is often placed on strategic planning, while the most important component of strategic management is the implementation of the strategic plan. This implies, first of all, the creation of an organizational culture that allows the implementation of a strategy, systems of motivation and work organization, as well as a certain flexibility in the organization.
In strategic management, the execution process has an active feedback on planning, which further enhances the significance of the execution phase. Therefore, an organization, in principle, will not be able to move to strategic management, even if it has a very good strategic planning subsystem, but there are no prerequisites or opportunities for creating a strategic execution subsystem.
The evolution of intra-company management systems makes it possible to understand that successive systems correspond to a growing level of instability (uncertainty) of the external environment. Since the beginning of the 20th century, two types of enterprise management systems have been developed: management based on control over execution (post factum) and management based on extrapolation of the past. To date, two types of control systems have developed:
The first is based on positioning (management based on anticipation of change, when unexpected phenomena began to arise and the pace of change accelerated, but not so much that it was impossible to determine the reaction to them in time). This type includes: long-term and strategic planning; management through the choice of strategic positions;
The second one is connected with a timely reaction, giving a response to rapid and unexpected changes in the environment (management based on flexible emergency solutions). This type includes: management based on the ranking of strategic objectives; control by strong and weak signals; management in the face of strategic surprises.
The choice of combinations of different systems for a particular enterprise depends on the conditions of the environment in which it operates. The choice of a system for determining positions is due to the novelty and complexity of the tasks. The choice of a timely response system depends on the pace of change and the predictability of tasks. The synthesis and integration of these management systems make it possible to form a strategic management method that most fully meets the conditions of flexibility and uncertainty of the external environment.
