As Bueno, Morcillo and Salmador (2005) state, strategic management focuses on the study of two fundamental aspects: the content of the strategy and the process through which this content is formed (Lynch, 1997), a dichotomy that Schendel (1992) highlights as relevant in the field of research as it helps to delimit the object of study within this discipline.
Thus, on the one hand, this discipline focuses on studying the content of the strategy, i.e., what is ‘intended by the company’ or the ‘pattern of behaviour followed by the firm’. From this point of view, it deals with issues such as the definition of strategy, the understanding of the elements that comprise the strategy to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage, the definition of the company’s field of activity, how to compete in the different markets in which the different business units are present, etc.
On the other hand, this discipline focuses on studying the strategic process or strategy formation process, which refers to the way in which the strategy that a company is actually following gets formed, taking into account that this can be the result of multiple actions, both deliberate (actions carried out consciously and intentionally with the aim of creating strategy) and emergent (actions carried out unconsciously and unintentionally with the aim of creating strategy).
A series of circumstances currently converge to justify the great interest in the study of the strategic process:
– The great importance of the strategic process in environments of strong strategic challenge (very hostile and dynamic environments) that are common in most sectors of the current economy. Most companies are currently immersed in turbulent and hostile environments in which there is little stability and conditions change frequently. It is essential for these firms to establish and promote a series of strategic processes that facilitate the rapid generation of new strategies allowing an adequate response to the frequent opportunities and threats that arise in said environment.
– The relative scarcity of theoretical and empirical studies on the strategic process.
– The need for a generally applicable model of the strategic process that incorporates and integrates the various existing theories and typologies, and facilitates the tasks of defining and analysing the company’s strategic processes.
This has in fact been noted by several authors, e.g.:
Hamel (1998) claims that today’s competitive environment is very different from the one that gave rise to the concept of strategy more than thirty years ago. The important changes that have taken place in the environment have led to a devaluation of traditional strategic concepts, and new concepts have emerged, mainly in terms of the content of strategy. While there has been significant innovation with respect to the content of strategy (new concepts of competences, knowledge management, coalitions, networks, etc.), there has been no corresponding innovation with respect to the process of strategy creation. Thus, in recent years, strategists may have much to say about the context and content of strategy, but little of interest to say about the task of strategy making. The strategy industry (academics, business school professors, consultants, planners, etc.) has a major problem: it does not have a theory of strategy creation and it does not know where bold new value-creating strategies come from, although of course everyone knows a good strategy when they see one, after the event. Hamel also highlights the importance of the strategic process in today’s competitive environment, commenting that strategic thinking has never been more necessary than in these turbulent times.
Bueno, Casani and Lizcano (1999) state that, as reported in the special issues of the Strategic Management Journal, the strategy formation process followed in companies has been much less studied theoretically than the other aspect referred to in the study of strategy, its content, and it is desirable to have more empirical evidence in this respect. Therefore, they consider it very necessary to deepen this field of research. They add that, as there are no general models of recognized validity allowing the establishment of methodologies for strategy formation in the firm with any guarantee of success, a broad process of reflection has arisen among academics, consultants and company professionals on the importance of strategic thinking and the different paths that the strategic process can take.
Bueno, Morcillo and Salmador (2005) also stress the importance of the analysis of the strategic process as opposed to the study of aspects related to strategy content, especially in environments with strong strategic challenges.
Finally, as Hart (1991) comments, it should be noted that, in recent decades, many theories and typologies have been proposed regarding the strategy-making process, but there is still a lack of an integrative model that reconciles the postulates of the different competing schools of thought. Hart also cites another of the traditional gaps in this field of study, namely the scarcity of empirical studies to validate the proposed theories.
If you are interested in going deeper into the strategic process, allow me to recommend you: - Book: "The strategic process of the firm: Theory and cases" (Roch, 2024). - Courses and consulting program on the strategic process.
