The Effect of Strategy Practices on Conflicts
Alakoski, Hannu (2013)
Kuvaus
Opinnäytetyö kokotekstinä PDF-muodossa.
Tiivistelmä
Aim
The objective of the research is to study the role of conflicts in strategizing and examine how the potential conflicts occur during strategizing in high empowerment conditions. The research questions are the following: Why might conflicts arise? How are strategizing practices affecting conflicts?
Framework
The theoretical framework of the study builds upon strategy as practice research direction’s premise viewing strategizing on micro level and focusing on human interaction. The framework consists of the task and affective conflicts, two strategy paradigms in strategy process research – the business policy paradigm and the learning paradigm, strategizing practices, strategy tools and actors involved in the strategizing.
Methodology
The study was conducted as a single-case study using semi structured interviews and observation of strategy work and implementation in the case company. The paradigm of the study is subjectivist approach to gain a proper insight on different perspectives of the strategy development process from different organizational levels and roles. The research design is based on abductive reasoning. The analysis method was systematic content analysis. And the unit of analysis was the strategizing process.
Findings and contribution
The conflicts in the organization were born in situations where there was a major difference in goal attainment, difference in opinions, differences in organizational cultures and old organizational structures. The type of conflict, task-related or affective, is dependent of the situation and the history of participants. In this case deeper perceived differences in goal attainment and organizational culture seemed to create potential for affective conflicts. The lack of major conflicts is explained by the high empowerment.
The reflective strategy practices affected to some extent the appearance of an escalated conflict in the strategy creation. However, in the implementation phase when the organization utilized reflective and routinized strategy practices there were not any conflicts.
As a rule of thumb, the more and clearer the strategy communication was, the less were there conflicts that were considered as negative forces. So the quantity and frequentness of the strategy communication is related to the existence of conflicts. The main contribution of the research is the relations between strategizing and conflicts, especially between strategy communication and different conflict types. The preliminary results may be used to conduct a quantitative study to verify or falsify the relations portrayed in these conclusions.
The objective of the research is to study the role of conflicts in strategizing and examine how the potential conflicts occur during strategizing in high empowerment conditions. The research questions are the following: Why might conflicts arise? How are strategizing practices affecting conflicts?
Framework
The theoretical framework of the study builds upon strategy as practice research direction’s premise viewing strategizing on micro level and focusing on human interaction. The framework consists of the task and affective conflicts, two strategy paradigms in strategy process research – the business policy paradigm and the learning paradigm, strategizing practices, strategy tools and actors involved in the strategizing.
Methodology
The study was conducted as a single-case study using semi structured interviews and observation of strategy work and implementation in the case company. The paradigm of the study is subjectivist approach to gain a proper insight on different perspectives of the strategy development process from different organizational levels and roles. The research design is based on abductive reasoning. The analysis method was systematic content analysis. And the unit of analysis was the strategizing process.
Findings and contribution
The conflicts in the organization were born in situations where there was a major difference in goal attainment, difference in opinions, differences in organizational cultures and old organizational structures. The type of conflict, task-related or affective, is dependent of the situation and the history of participants. In this case deeper perceived differences in goal attainment and organizational culture seemed to create potential for affective conflicts. The lack of major conflicts is explained by the high empowerment.
The reflective strategy practices affected to some extent the appearance of an escalated conflict in the strategy creation. However, in the implementation phase when the organization utilized reflective and routinized strategy practices there were not any conflicts.
As a rule of thumb, the more and clearer the strategy communication was, the less were there conflicts that were considered as negative forces. So the quantity and frequentness of the strategy communication is related to the existence of conflicts. The main contribution of the research is the relations between strategizing and conflicts, especially between strategy communication and different conflict types. The preliminary results may be used to conduct a quantitative study to verify or falsify the relations portrayed in these conclusions.