IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING Strategic planning is a major asset and it plays a very important role in the strategic management . It is an overview or framework for a manager to make the activities of management in an organisation ( Mumtaz Began , Norasiken , Norhayati , 2002 ) . Planning also helps a manager to make judgments and decisions related to the future direction of the organisation. There is some interest in the organisation 's strategic planning that can be produced here include: 1. Better Management With strategic planning, managers will be able to establish a clear and comprehensive concept for an organisation.
Stahl and Grigsby (1992) noted, strategic management becomes very necessary as it helps an organisation’s management to identify and be sensitive to environmental forces and develop the organisation’s resources meant to address organisational problems, demands and challenges whilst taking into account the threats and opportunities existing in the market place or industry. Therefore, Stahl and Grigsby (ibid.) imply that managers need to engage in the ongoing process of evaluating their organisation’s internal and external environments and intervene, if necessary, by initiating strategic change that may lead to organisational change and development. 2.4.0 THE ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE PROCESSES From the discussion above, strategic analysis is important in the process of initiating organisational change and development. Greenberg and Baron (1997) contend that this is so because the issues highlighted are actually the forces that lead to a change in organisational strategy, structure and design, technology and operations, and change in people or employees and employers.
Generally, strategic management is based on setting an organization‘s long-term development direction. The main business objective of this is to achieve a competitive advantage over other organizations by properly controlling resources and maximizing competencies within the organization. The culture of the business, the skills
In this type of leadership employees are less involved and most of the decisions are made by the management. Vugt et al. (2004) stated that in autocratic leadership style, employees are not involved in decision making, it is only leaders who decide what to do and how to do. While in democratic leadership, leaders allow employees to involve in decision-making process. Their involvement can be participative or consultative.
Even though this style of leadership may be considered archaic, it still offers many benefits to current teams and their goal-achieving processes. The major pros of the autocratic leadership style, as stated by Joseph (n.d.) are: - Quick decision-making processes. Since the leader is the only one who makes decisions through this style of leadership, there is no waste of time. The leader is the sole responsible for the decision made and therefore it can be made quickly in order to keep up with the competition or prevent problems. - There is close oversight of subordinates.
This leadership style promotes team work and on good interpersonal relations. The leader does not interfere with the events, thus the subordinates do what they want. There is autonomy among the members of the organization, thus they have complete freedom to make decisions. Thus, this type of leadership was ineffective when measured in hierarchal organizations (Edward & Gill, 2012). According to researches, laissez-faire leaders do not influence their subordinates and do not demonstrate abilities to lead, but rather demonstrate a lack of leadership (Northuose .2011).
After it, the link between the strategic management and leadership is developed, and the impact of both domains on the strategic directions is evaluated. Then the adoption of the leadership styles as per the situations is analyzed. The second section starts from here, and it reflects the impact of the major theories of leadership and strategic management on the direction
Kurt Lewin Kurt Lewin and his colleagues did an experiment in 1939 on leadership decisions and identified three different styles of leadership. These three styles, mentioned below revolve around decision making. 1. AUTOCRATIC An autocratic leader takes decisions without consulting others in the team. This causes the highest level of discontent in his sub-ordinates.
According to Treviño & Brown, 2005 “Ethical leaders are thought to be moral persons because they are honest and trustworthy, take good care of their people, and do the right things in both their personal and professional lives. They make decisions based on values and ethical decision rules, and they are fair and concerned about stakeholders’ interests and long-term outcomes”. Ebbers did not display nor demonstrated any of the above characteristics of ethical leaders, he rather displayed unethical characteristics which was not obvious but was later exposed and the outcomes was in different forms of scandals. Yes, Ebbers could have used characteristics of ethical leaders to accomplish a successful results and outcomes
In contrast,the poor ones tend to stick with only one unique style and that is often Autocratic. Authoritarian or Autocratic Leadership I want both of you to. . . This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want and how they want it to be done, without getting the opinions of their employees.