Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang
4 Cognitivist and humanistic psychology: the rational and the emotional individual
Chapter 4 Thinking in terms of strategic choice 83
psychology and they have enormous implications for how human agency, groups
and organisations are understood.
About the same time as the developments described above, Shannon and Weaver
(1949) published an important paper on the science of human communication. What
they proposed was a model of communication derived from telephony in which one
individual formulates an idea in the mind, translates it into language and then sends
it to another individual who receives the words and translates them back into the
idea. If the translation processes are accurate and there is no ‘noise’ in the transmission, the communication will be effective. If there is any failure of communication,
then the receiving individual sends a message or signal to the sender indicating a gap,
which the sender must then try to remove. This sender–receiver model is clearly a
cybernetic theory of communication and it has come to be the one underlying the
dominant discourse on organisations. Strategic choice theory, then, is built upon the
assumptions of cognitivist psychology and the accompanying sender–receiver model
Human beings are regarded, in strategic choice theory, as living cybernetic systems that can understand, design, control and change other cybernetic systems,
including their own minds. The implication is that an individual human can stand
alone as a system. Implicit in a cybernetic approach to human affairs, then, is the
assumption that humans are monads, that is, autonomous individuals who can exist
outside relationships with others, as we explored in Chapter 3, following the theories of Descartes and Leibniz. The individual is prior and primary to the group.
Again, there is the assumption, dominant in Western thinking, of the primacy of the
masterful, rational, autonomous individual. Box 4.2 summarises the main assumptions of cognitivism.
Humanistic psychology was developed mainly in the United States as a reaction to
what was felt to be the pessimism and conservatism of psychoanalysis. Humanistic
psychology takes a basically optimistic view of human nature and its perfectibility. One of its roots was in inspirational religious revivalism, and it saw the main
problem of human existence as the alienation of an individual from his or her true
self. From this perspective people can be motivated by providing experiences for
them in which they can experience more of their true selves. You see the influence
of these ideas in the theories of motivation of Maslow and Herzberg, mentioned
subsequently. The prescriptions for establishing visions and missions that inspire
people also arise from this kind of thinking about human nature.
So far, this chapter has reviewed the stages of formulation, evaluation and implementation of long-term strategic plans, which is the centrepiece of the theory of
strategic choice. However, those writing in this tradition also recognise that the factors of human motivation and leadership affect how an organisation’s strategy is
implemented. For example, Peters and Waterman (1982) questioned the rational
techniques of decision making and control reviewed in this chapter, pointing to their
limitations in conditions of turbulence. Instead, they emphasised human motivation,
values, beliefs and the importance of leadership. They stressed the importance of
working harmoniously together, and strongly sharing the same culture, values, beliefs
and vision of the future. Their prescriptions were to choose a vision of the whole
84 Part 1 Systemic ways of thinking about strategy and organisational dynamics
Cognitivism: main points on human knowing and
• The brain processes symbols (electrochemical pulses) in a sequential manner to form representations or internal templates that are more or less accurate pictures of the world. This means that the
brain is assumed to act as a passive mirror of reality.
• The world so pictured by the brain can be specified prior to any cognitive activity. This means that
the world being perceived would have particular properties, such as light waves, and it would be
these already existing real properties that would be directly registered by the brain. The world into
which humans act is found, not created.
• The templates formed are the basis upon which a human being knows and acts. Repeated exposure to the same light wave would strengthen connections along a specific neuronal pathway, so
making a perception a more and more accurate representation of reality. This would form the template, stored in a particular part of the brain, against which other light wave perceptions could be
compared and categorised, forming the basis of the body’s response. Representing and storing are,
thus, essentially cybernetic processes. There is a fixed point of reference, external reality, and negative feedback of the gap between the internal picture and this external reality forms a self-regulating
process that closes this gap. Knowing, knowledge creation and learning are essentially adaptive
feedback processes, as is communication between people.
• The biological individual is at the centre of the whole process of knowing and acting.
• Since all normal individuals have much the same biologically determined brain structures and all
their brains are processing symbolic representations of the same pre-given reality, there is no fundamental problem in individuals sharing the same perceptions. They share perceptions by communicating in what is essentially an engineering process of transmission.
organisation’s future, convert people to believing in it, promote internal harmony by
encouraging the strong sharing of a few cultural values, and empower people.
However, although critical of rational techniques, Peters and Waterman did not
depart in any way from cognitivist assumptions about human nature, or in any
essential way from the assumption that an organisation is a cybernetic system. This
is evident when they talk about charismatic leaders who choose a vision of the future
and certain core values that they then inspire others with, converting them into
believing the vision and the values. If anything, the autonomous individual becomes
even more heroic in their view of organisational change. The system is still cybernetic because it is controlled by referring to the vision and the values and damping
down any deviations from them. This way of thinking about organisations has persisted to the present day and can still be found in the work of prominent scholars,
particularly from US business schools (Schein, 2010).
A number of similar theories of motivation have been put forward in the management literature on how to secure consensus, co-operation and commitment.
For example, Herzberg (1966) pointed out that people are motivated to work in
co-operation with others by both extrinsic motivators such as monetary rewards
and intrinsic motivators such as recognition for achievement, achievement itself,
responsibility, growth and advancement. Intrinsic motivation is the more powerful
of the motivators and is increased when jobs are enriched – that is, when they are
brought up to the skill levels of those performing them.
Chapter 4 Thinking in terms of strategic choice 85
Maslow (1954) distinguished between: basic physiological needs, such as food
and shelter; intermediate social needs, such as safety and esteem; and higher self-
actualisation needs, such as self-fulfilment. Maslow held that, when the conditions
are created in which people can satisfy their self-actualisation needs, those people
are then powerfully motivated to strive for the good of their organisation.
Schein (1988) and Etzioni (1961) distinguished three categories of relationship
between the individual and the organisation. First, the relationship may be coercive, in which case the individual will do only the bare minimum required to escape
punishment. Second, the relationship may be a utilitarian one where the individual
does only enough to earn the required level of reward. Third, the relationship may
take a normative form where individuals value what they are doing for its own sake,
because they believe in it and identify with it. In other words, the individual’s ideology coincides with an organisation’s ideology. This provides the strongest motivator
of all for the individual to work for the good of an organisation.
Pascale and Athos (1981) stressed organisational culture as a result of their study
of Japanese management. They recognised that people yearn for meaning in their
lives and transcendence over mundane things. Cultures that provide this meaning
create powerfully motivated employees and managers.
What all these studies suggest is that an organisation succeeds when its people, as individuals, are emotionally engaged in some way, when they believe in
what their group and their organisation are doing, and when the contribution
they make to this organisational activity brings psychological satisfaction of some
kind, something more than simple basic rewards. Others have argued that people
believe and are emotionally engaged when their organisation has a mission or
set of values and when their own personal values match those of the organisation (Collins and Porras, 2002). Organisational missions develop because people
search for meaning and purpose and this search includes their work lives (Campbell and Tawady, 1990). To win commitment and loyalty and to secure consensus
around performing tasks it becomes necessary to promote a sense of mission. The
development of a sense of mission is seen as a central leadership task and a vitally
important way of gaining commitment to, loyalty for and consensus around the
nature and purpose of the existing business. An organisation with a sense of mission captures the emotional support of its people, even if only temporarily. A sense
of mission is more than a definition of the business: that is, the area in which an
organisation is to operate. A sense of mission is also to be distinguished from the
ideas behind the word ‘vision’ or ‘strategic intent’. The word ‘vision’ is usually
taken to mean a picture of a future state for an organisation, a mental image of
a possible and desirable future that is realistic, credible and attractive. The term
‘mission’ differs in that it refers not to the future but to the present. A mission is
a way of behaving.
The underlying assumption is that organisations succeed when individuals are
motivated to perform, as individuals. The humanistic psychology on which the
above writers draw accords the same primacy to the individual as cognitivism does.
The difference is that the former places much more emphasis on emotional factors,
predominantly of a positive inspirational kind. Note how leaders are supposed to
choose appropriate motivators.
Box 4.3 summarises the key assumptions upon which are built humanistic views
of knowing and communicating.
86 Part 1 Systemic ways of thinking about strategy and organisational dynamics
Humanistic psychology: main points on human
knowing and communicating
• The biological individual is at the centre of human experience and emotion and spirituality are fundamental to this experience.
• Each individual has a true self and is most motivated to act when such action realises the true self.
• Emotions, values and beliefs are fundamental and people work most effectively when they are in
harmony with each other. Rational choice is a limited aspect of human experience.
• People yearn for meaning and transcendence of the mundane.
• Organisations will be successful when people are emotionally engaged and inspired by visions and
a sense of mission and it is the role of leaders to choose these.
4.5 Leadership and the role of groups
From a strategic choice theory perspective, the primary focus is on the leader as one
who translates the directives of those higher up in the hierarchy into the goals and tasks
of the group. Leaders monitor the performance of the task in terms of goal achievement
and ensure that a cohesive team is built and motivated to perform the task. Leaders
supply any skills or efforts that are missing in the team and, most important of all, they
articulate purpose and culture, so reducing the uncertainty that team members face.
When leadership is defined in these terms, the concern is with the qualities leaders
must possess and the styles they must employ in order to fulfil these functions effectively
and efficiently. Those who have put forward explanations of this kind on the nature of
leadership have differed from each other over whether the effective leader is one who
focuses on the task, or one who focuses on relationships with and between people. A
related area of concern is whether the effective leader is one who is autocratic, or one
who delegates, consults and invites full participation. The question is which style of
leadership motivates people more and thus gets the task done better. Consider three
prominent theories: those of Fiedler (1967), Hersey and Blanchard (1988) and Vroom
and Yetton (1973). According to these theories, leadership styles are to be chosen by
the individual manager and, to be successful, a style that matches certain pre-given
situations must be chosen. The leader should arrive at the group with particular skills
developed beforehand. The required personality, skills and styles (or, as they are sometimes called, competences) are supposed to be identified in advance to suit a foreseeable situation. Here, leadership is about motivating people and the concern is with the
appropriate role of the leader in securing efficient performance of known tasks. Typologies of styles of leadership and management which are conducive to strategic change are
still prevalent in orthodox theories of management (Balogun and Hope Hailey, 2008).
The relevance of the group
A group is understood to be any number of people who interact with each other,
who are psychologically aware of each other and perceive themselves to be a group.
Formal groups in an organisation may be permanent – for example, the sales
department; or they may be temporary, as is the case when special task forces or
Chapter 4 Thinking in terms of strategic choice 87
multidisciplinary teams are appointed to deal with a particular task. Whether they
are temporary or permanent, formal groups have clear goals and tasks; it is the purpose of formal groups to find solutions to structured problems. They usually have
appointed leaders – leaders and managers have power given to them. However, they
may also be autonomous, self-managing or democratic work groups that elect their
own leader and design their own approach to a given structured task.
Within, alongside and across the formal groups, there is a strong tendency for
informal groups to develop. These may be horizontal cliques amongst colleagues on
the same hierarchical level, vertical cliques that include people from different hierarchical levels, or random cliques. Informal groups develop primarily because of proximity (Festinger et al., 1950): through the contacts people make with each other given
their physical location in relation to each other, the nature of their work and the
time pressures they are under. The immediate concern about these informal groups
is whether they will support or counter the operation of formal groups. The concern
is with motivating people to cohere into functional teams that will focus on clearly
defined tasks, not dissipate energies in destructive informal groups. The concern is
primarily with the authority, responsibility and performance of individual managers
in carrying out their pre-assigned tasks. From this perspective, the interest in groups
relates to the circumstances in which groups may be more effective than individuals.
The underlying assumption about the relationship between individuals and groups
in the notions reviewed in this section is that of the objective observer standing outside the system of groups and teams. The explicit or implicit prescription is that leaders and managers should take this position too, identify the nature of the situation
and select leadership styles and motivational factors that are appropriate in the sense
that they fit the situation. In essence, this amounts to installing appropriate feedback
loops in the organisation so that it operates like a cybernetic system.
As far as the relationship between individuals and groups is concerned, again it is
clear how the primacy of the individual is assumed. Groups are made up of individuals and these groups then affect those individuals, meeting some of their needs but
deskilling them in other ways. In order to prevent adverse effects of groups on individuals, leaders need to pay attention to factors to do with the environment of the
group, its composition in terms of members and their sensitivity to group dynamics.
Formal groups are to be preferred over informal ones. It is recognised that informal
groups are inevitable but the mainstream view seems to be that they threaten control. This attitude towards groups reflects cognitivist and humanistic assumptions.
4.6 Key debates
Previous sections of this chapter have provided a very brief description of key
aspects of strategic choice theory in order to bring out its underpinning way of
thinking. This section explores some of the key debates that have arisen in the development of the theory. These debates, which have not questioned the underlying way
of thinking with its taken-for-granted assumptions about organisations and human
interaction, have had to do with:
• whether strategy determines organisational structure or whether it is structure
that determines strategy;
88 Part 1 Systemic ways of thinking about strategy and organisational dynamics
• whether market position or the resource base of an organisation determines its
• what the limitations of strategic choice are, particularly when it comes to uncertainty and the impact of cognitive frames in interpreting situations, leading to
questioning the very possibility of strategic choice;
• process versus content leading to an emphasis on learning rather than simple
A brief indication of some of these debates is provided in this section.
Market position and the resource-based view of strategy
Previous sections have described strategic choice as the choice of the overall direction and shape of a whole organisation and its parts for some long time period into
the future. The central purpose of the choice is to secure sustainable competitive
advantage for the whole organisation and this choice was thought to be the single
most important cause of successful performance. Furthermore, it was held that
the choice of market position was the single most important cause of competitive
advantage. This view was based on neo-classical economic theory, particularly theories to do with industry structure. The idea was that managers needed to analyse
and understand the structure of their industry or market and select strategies that
were appropriate to that structure.
Others, however, also drawing on neo-classical economics, argued that market
position alone was not the cause of competitive advantage and took a resourcebased view of strategy. Here a firm is viewed as a blend of resources that enable
certain capabilities, options and accomplishments (Wernerfelt, 1984), which determine competitive advantage far more than market position. One firm outperforms
another if it has superior ability to develop, use and protect core competences and
resources, which are the foundations for creating the future (Hamel and Prahalad,
1990, 1994). Internal capabilities are what enable a firm to exploit external opportunities, and competitiveness is a function of the exploitation and leveraging of these
internal resources. Strategies are designed to capitalise on core competences and distinctive assets form the basis of creating a sustainable competitive advantage. Complementary interdependence makes a firm’s capabilities difficult to imitate. Resource
and competence are built up historically, evolving in a continuous way with cumulative effects. Capabilities are building blocks that can be combined in mutually
reinforcing ways into unique capacities and the different unique combinations lead
to different unique futures. To prevent imitation, attention is focused on intellectual
capital, firm-specific practices, relationships with customers and other intangible
ways of working together. Strategic intent relates to choices about competences to
secure a desired future and success comes from focusing attention on a few primary
Hamel and Prahalad (1989) also stress the role of organisations in creating
their own environments instead of simply adapting to them. They have studied
a number of global companies in North America, Europe and Japan, and they
suggest that what distinguishes the noticeably successful (Honda, Komatsu and
Canon, for example) from the noticeably less so (General Motors, Caterpillar
and Xerox, for example) are the different mental models of strategy guiding their
Chapter 4 Thinking in terms of strategic choice 89
respective actions. This research questions one of the basic tenets of strategic
choice: namely, the notion that successful organisations are those that fit, or adapt
to, their environments.
Hamel and Prahalad found that the less successful companies follow strategic
choice prescriptions and so seek to maintain strategic fit. This leads them to trim
their ambitions to those that can be met with available resources. Such companies
are concerned mainly with product market units rather than core competences. They
preserve consistency through requiring conformity in behaviour, and they focus on
achieving financial objectives. These companies attempt to achieve their financial
objectives by using generic strategies, selected according to criteria of strategic fit, in
order to secure sustainable competitive advantage. Hamel and Prahalad report that
this approach leads to repetition and imitation.
By contrast, Hamel and Prahalad found that successful companies focus on leveraging resources – that is, using what they have in innovative ways to reach seemingly
unattainable goals. The main concern of these companies is to use their resources
in challenging and stretching ways to build up a number of core competences. Consistency is maintained by all sharing a central strategic intent, and the route to this
successful state is accelerated organisational learning, recognising that no competitive advantages are inherently sustainable. Here, managers are not simply matching their resources to the requirements of the environment, leaving to others those
requirements their resources are incapable of delivering. Instead, managers use the
resources they have creatively, they create requirements of the environment that
they can then meet, they push to achieve stretching goals and so they continually
renew and transform their organisation. They question the idea of adapting to the
environment, proposing instead creative interaction and stressing the importance of
local learning, so suggesting a shift from classical strategic choice theory towards
the perspective of strategy as a learning process, a theme which will be taken up in
While these authors question some assumptions of strategic choice theory, they
preserve others. In particular, they continue to see organisational success as flowing
from clear, prior, organisation-wide intention. They stress what they call strategic
intent, a challenging, shared vision of a future leadership position for the company.
This strategic intent is stable over time. It is clear as to outcome but flexible as to the
means of achieving that outcome. It is an obsession with winning, and winning on a
global scale cannot be secured either through long-term plans or through some undirected process of intrapreneurship or autonomous small task forces. Instead, success
is secured by discovering how to achieve a broad, stretching, challenging intention to
build core competences. However, in stressing intention, harmony and consistency,
the resource-based view falls within strategic choice theory.
Uncertainty and the limitations to strategic choice
It has already been pointed out that cybernetic control depends on the possibility
of making reasonably reliable forecasts of action outcomes and time lags involved
at the required level of detail and over the required time span. When this is not
possible, cybernetic control may still be effective if small and essentially random
actions by the organisation can be relied upon to cancel out small and essentially
random changes in the environment – the law of requisite variety. In other words,
90 Part 1 Systemic ways of thinking about strategy and organisational dynamics
cybernetic systems require a fairly high degree of certainty about environmental
change, either in the sense that a specific cause can be related to a specific effect or
in the p
robabilistic sense of small changes cancelling out. This is the same as saying
that cybernetic systems function effectively when they operate in rather repetitive
Many writers on strategic management have, of course, been well aware of the
uncertainty, ambiguity and conflicting goals that managers have to deal with and
have developed different ways of understanding the nature of strategic choice.
One influential example is the notion of logical incrementalism, which will be
discussed in Chapter 7. Logical incrementalism represents a move from the more
mechanistic view of classical strategic choice theory towards an understanding of
strategy as a continual process of small incremental changes within an overall,
The view that competitive advantage could be sustained for long time periods
was criticised by some who pointed to the rapid change in competitive conditions.
They held that hyper-competition made it impossible to sustain competitive advantage for any length of time. Those taking this view argue that hyper-competition
requires a new view of strategy (D’Aveni, 1995). From this perspective, one firm
outperforms another if it is adept at rapidly and repeatedly disrupting the current situation to create a novel basis for competing. Hyper-competition requires
a discontinuously redefined competitive advantage and radical changes in market
relationships. Success is built not on existing strengths as in the resource-based
view, but on repeated disruptions. This enables a firm to continuously establish
new but temporary competitive advantages. Tactical actions keep competitors
off-balance. Competitive advantage is temporary and firms destroy their own and
others’ competitive advantage. Organisation units and actions are loosely coupled
and competition requires aggressive action unconstrained by loyalty and compassion. Successful strategies rely on surveillance, interpretation, initiative, opportunism and improvisation.
The writers in the organisational evolution tradition (Hannan and Freeman,
1989) went even further and questioned the ability of managers to choose the state
of their organisation in any way. They took a neo-Darwinian view and held that
organisations changed through random events that were then selected for survival
by competitive selection.
Process versus content
Another debate arose between those who argued that strategy research focused
too much on the content of generic strategies required to produce successful performance. Arising from the discussion of the limits to rationality, some argued
for looking at how managers actually made strategy. They called for a focus on
how strategies were constructed, the process, rather than what they consisted of,
the content. The whole question of process will be considered in Chapter 7. This
emphasis on process was taken up by some as a move from simple choice to a view
of strategy as a learning process. For example, Mintzberg (1994) made a direct call
for a move from strategic choice and long-term planning to an understanding of
strategic management as a process of learning. This perspective will be explored in
Chapter 4 Thinking in terms of strategic choice 91
4.7 How strategic choice theory deals with the four key questions
The purpose of this section is to reflect upon the underlying assumptions and reasoning processes of strategic choice theory, including the debates it has led to, in
order to identify what it focuses attention on and the extent to which it helps to
make sense of one’s experience of life in organisations.
In Chapter 2 we indicated that we would evaluate each perspective of strategy
according to four key questions:
1.What theory of human psychology – that is ways of knowing and behaving – does
strategic choice theory assume (including the relationship between individual and
group and the extent to which they are concerned with questions of emotion and
2.How does the theory understand the nature of human action and interaction?
3.What methodology does strategic choice theory assume (the spectrum of realist
through to social constructionist)?
4.How does strategic choice theory deal with contradictions?
Q1 The nature of human knowing and behaving
This chapter has indicated how strategic choice theory is built on a particular view
of human nature. It is assumed that individuals are essentially cybernetic entities.
They make representations of a pre-given reality taking the form of regularities
built up from previous experience and mentally stored in the form of sets of rules,
or schemas, cognitive maps or mental models. Through experience they make more
and more accurate representations, more and more reliable cognitive maps. This
process is essentially one of negative feedback in which discrepancies between the
cognitive map and external reality are fed back into the map to change it, closing
the gap between it and reality. Strategic choice theory pays very little attention to
emotion and the impact that this might have on how an organisation functions. To
the extent that this theory does pay attention to emotion, it does so from a humanistic psychology perspective in which individuals are motivated by opportunities
to actualise their true selves. Little attention is paid to the notion that unconscious
processes might influence how people perceive and know anything.
So, when it comes to the micro level, strategic choice theory alternates between
two views of human nature, the cognitivist and the humanistic. The former tends to
be predominant when the theory focuses on control systems and the latter when it
focuses on motivation, leadership and culture. The way both are used, however, has
an element in common. It is implicitly assumed that the individual members of an
organisation are all the same and that interactions between them are all the same.
It is assumed that everyone responds in the same way to the same motivational factor, for example. Another example is the implicit assumption, when talking about
leadership styles, that everyone will respond in the same way to a given leadership
style. Differences between individuals, and deviant and eccentric behaviour, have
no role to play in how an organisation evolves. Indeed, they are seen as dangerous
disruptions to be removed by more controls or additional motivators. The emphasis
92 Part 1 Systemic ways of thinking about strategy and organisational dynamics
is on everyone sharing the same values to produce uniformity and conformity. The
very way members of an organisation are referred to as ‘the staff’, or ‘the management’, indicates how differences within the categories are obliterated while differences between them are highlighted.
There is an important consequence of this ignoring of individual differences and
deviant behaviour that will be taken up in Part 3. Systems in which the entities and
their interactions are all the same cannot spontaneously generate anything new. For
strategic choice theory this means that the only possible explanation of creativity is
located in the individual’s intention to do something creative. How individuals do
this is not explained in strategic choice theory. It is simply assumed.
Individuals feature in strategic choice theory primarily in terms of how they affect
the organisation as a whole. Individuals make the choices and do the controlling.
Individuals appoint people to roles and they put them into teams. They set targets
for those teams and motivate, reward or punish people according to performance.
An individual forms a vision and individuals articulate missions for others. Power
is not a nuanced concept but is simply possessed by individuals who exert it over
other individuals, who presumably have less or no power. In this way the individual
is consistently held to be prior and primary to the group. While the organisation
as a system is understood to be driven by formative causality, a different theory of
causality applies to the humans who design it. This is the rationalist causality of the
autonomous individual choosing goals and actions.
The point we are making here is that strategic choice theory implicitly makes
a number of important assumptions about human beings that should not be mistaken for the ‘truth’. They are all assumptions that can quite properly be contested and, when they are, the whole of strategic choice theory is questioned too
(see Part 3).
Q2 The nature of action and interaction: theories of causality
In strategic choice theory, interaction is understood in systemic terms, where the
entities comprising the system are organisations that interact with each other in
industry groupings, or markets. An organisation is also thought of as a system that
consists of people grouped into divisions, subsidiary companies, departments, project teams and so on, all of which interact with each other to form the organisational
system. The immediate consequence is a tendency to reify: that is, to think of an
organisation and a system as a thing.
The concept of a system in strategic choice theory is a very specific one. It is a
cybernetic system: that is, a goal-driven, self-regulating system. The self-regulation
takes the form of a negative feedback process through which an organisation adapts
to its environment, that is, its markets. Negative feedback is a process of referring
back to a fixed point of reference established outside the organisation. The market
demand to which the organisation must adapt provides the fixed point of reference.
The negative feedback works through the system, taking account of the difference
between its offering and that demanded by the market, so as to remove the difference. The organisation is itself also a cybernetic system consisting of groups of
people. The fixed points of reference for these groups are the goals and targets
set for them by their manager. Negative feedback operates by taking account of
the difference between performance and targets, so as to remove the difference.
Chapter 4 Thinking in terms of strategic choice 93
Uncertainty, ambiguity and conflict are supposed to be dealt with largely by more
elaborate negative feedback loops. Thinking about motivation, political activity and
culture change is all in terms of negative feedback loops. Note how strategic choice
theory takes no account of the effect of positive or amplifying feedback loops in
The result is a theory that focuses primarily on the macro level with very little attention to micro-interactions or micro diversity. In other words, differences
amongst the system entities are averaged out. Interactions between the entities are
assumed to be average, or at least normally distributed around the average. This
allows the cyberneticist to disregard the dynamics of interaction between the entities
of which the system is composed and concentrate on the system as a whole. The focus
is then on the regularities in the system’s responses to changes in its environment.
The system responds to differences between externally imposed goals and its actual
behaviour. Or, it responds to differences between an expectation, or prediction, of
some state it should achieve and what it actually does. In organisational terms, the
focus of attention is on how the whole organisation responds to the actions of other
whole organisations that constitute its environment. Little attention is paid to the
differences in the people that belong to the organisation or the nature of their interactions with each other.
A single, whole organisation is the primary unit of analysis. Intention, or choice,
is related to this whole. By focusing attention on a single organisation, ‘the organisation’, strategic choice theory tends to ignore the fact that other organisations are
making choices too. What happens to one depends not only on what it chooses but
also on what all the others are choosing too. You can see the importance attached
to a single organisation making choices for the whole in the emphasis placed on:
strategic intent, choosing a vision, choosing financial targets, choosing a culture,
choosing strategic management styles and so on. The possibility of making such
choices successfully depends heavily on the ability to predict at rather fine levels of
detail and over rather long time spans. That in turn depends upon the possibility of
identifying causal links between action and outcome at a rather fine level of detail
over rather long time spans.
For example, to achieve financial targets, investments must be chosen to deliver
those targets. The discounted cash flow method prescribed for choosing between
alternative investments requires the forecasting of detailed cash flows over periods
as long as 25 years. Whether an investment is a success or not depends on the fine
detail of what it costs and what revenues it generates over many years, once it is in
operation. Forecasts at a coarse level of detail, or for short time periods, will not
capture the factors upon which success depends. The choice cannot then be made as
prescribed, which is to make the choice in a rational way that takes account of the
actual factors that lead to success. Success will not be the result of rational choice
but will depend on the chance capturing of the most important factors in the coarse
Strategic choice theory takes a particular view of organisational dynamics. Since
it is a cybernetic theory, the dynamics are those of a move to stable equilibrium.
Success is equated with stability, consistency and harmony. Instabilities arise largely
in the organisation’s environment.
Strategic choice theory is usually formulated in a way that focuses on the interaction between components and so ignores the richness of human relationships.