DSpace at Khazar University

strengths, customer needs and competitors' capabilities that are implicit and never
discussed. If strategy-making is left entirely to this group, there is a danger that the
quality of debate and the challenging of assumptions that are required to produce highquality
strategic thinking will not take place. The resulting strategy is most likely to be
some incremental adjustment to existing patterns of activity. Even if analytical
processes are used, there is a danger that the results of analysis will be used selectively
to justify the strategy that has emerged from past ad hoc, incremental decisions.
So we have a dilemma. If the strategy is left to "objective outsiders" - for
example, the staff in the strategic planning department or external consultants - the
quality of the strategy may be high but the chances of it being implemented may be low.
However, if the members of the executive team construct the strategy, there is a danger
that they may generate a large degree of commitment to the "wrong" strategy. What is
required are processes that mitigate the dangers of paradigm dominated thinking, but
that capitalize on the benefits of involvement. Such processes should lead to high levels
of commitment towards a sound strategic direction.
Triggering change
We can refer to our culture model set out to explore some issues in the change
process. We have reproduced the model.
Relationship 1 between the external environment and the organization is most
keenly felt by "boundary spanning" staff like sales people.
External influences often, early signals of the need for change are picked up by
these staff. They sense that the existing products and services are becoming
uncompetitive, or they start to encounter a new player in the market. However, often
these signals fail to reach top managers early enough, or even if they do, the messages
contained within them lose some of their impact as they are reinterpreted to justify the
current ways of doing things. It is often only when a crisis is precipitated, usually in the
form of a serious deterioration in performance (Relationship 2), that senior executives
grasp the nettle of change. However, this may be too late to save the firm. The usual
action that flows from this realization is cost-cutting in all its various forms: the crisis
leads to staff lay-offs, delaying, downsizing, drastic trimming of the softer budgets like
training, research and development, and even to plant closures. These cuts are easy to
80