The following is a description of the “Integrative model of the strategic process” (Roch, 2016 and 2020). In the book “The strategic process of the firm: Theory and cases” (Roch, 2024) is included a detailed description of this model.
It is a model of general application, descriptive in nature, which attempts to include and integrate the different forms that the strategy formation process can take, incorporating the most relevant theoretical contributions in this regard.
With the development of this model, the aim has been to create a practical tool that will allow all those interested in this type of issues (managers, strategic planners/analysts, consultants, teachers, researchers, etc.):
– To be aware of the main typologies that exist around the strategy formation process.
– To analyze, in detail, the strategic processes that are developed in any company.
This model is composed of two tools or models that serve different purposes:
1. Theoretical Model.
This tool, which is of a theoretical nature, shows the various forms that the company’s strategic process can take, taking into account the most relevant theoretical contributions in this regard.
2. Empirical Model.
This tool, with its empirical nature, is particularly suitable for describing and representing any type of strategic process that may occur in reality in any company, making it possible to reflect, accurately and in detail, how these processes unfold over time. As a consequence, it can be a useful tool for the analysis and monitoring of the strategic processes that are developed within companies.
Although it may seem obvious, it is important to emphasize that the concepts and variables reflected in both models have been arranged according to the point of view of the company’s top manager(s): those people with ultimate responsibility for strategy and the strategic process. From that point of view, for instance, strategic initiatives developed at the lower levels of an organization are part of ‘bottom-up’ emergent processes, as reflected in the model. If, on the contrary, the point of view of the people leading these initiatives were taken as the reference, these processes would have a much more deliberate character.
Each of these tools or models is presented below.
1. THEORETICAL MODEL
Figure 9.1 shows an abbreviated or schematic representation of the ‘Theoretical Model’. As can be seen, the strategic process is broken down into two sub-processes: a deliberate and an emergent one. And the result (type of strategy) that can be obtained as a consequence of this process is included: premeditated strategy, unrealized strategy, deliberate strategy, emergent strategy, etc.
Source: Roch (2024).
The ‘Deliberate Subprocess’ is composed of all those actions of a deliberate nature that can be developed within a strategic process; in other words, by all those actions that can be developed within a deliberate kind of strategic process.
Deliberate strategic processes are characterized by a clear separation between strategy formulation and implementation. From the formulation, the ‘Premeditated Strategy’ is obtained, which should be implemented in the organization. As a consequence of the implementation of the premeditated strategy, and as a final result of the deliberate process, the ‘Deliberate Strategy’ appears (located inside the downward-pointing arrow), which refers to the part of the strategy actually followed by the organization that corresponds closely to the intentions or plans foreseen by the premeditated strategy; and so does the ‘Unrealized Strategy’ (located in the rightward-pointing arrow), which refers to the intentions or plans foreseen in the premeditated strategy that fail to be realized.
The ‘Emergent Subprocess’ is composed of all those actions of an emergent nature by which non-premeditated strategies can be formed or which develop outside the deliberate process.
As can be seen in Figure 9.1, three different types of emergent processes can develop, depending on where the actions arise:
- ‘Top-down’ emergent actions.
- ‘Bottom-up’ emergent actions.
- ‘Joint’ emergent actions (top + bottom).
The ‘Emergent Strategies’ obtained as a consequence of these processes are shown within the downward-pointing arrow, and the “incipient emergent strategies that fail to be realized” are placed within the leftward-pointing arrow.
It should be borne in mind that the process by which a strategy is formed may change its typology over time (e.g., from emergent to deliberate, or vice versa, or follow some other sequence). This aspect is reflected in the reference figure by the two-way horizontal arrows located both between the different types of emergent actions and between the emergent and deliberate subprocesses.
On the outer right and left side of the figure is a set of arrows representing the influence that power or politics and organizational culture can have on the development of the strategic process.
Finally, as a final result of the different strategic processes that can be developed in the company, the strategies actually realized (‘Realized Strategies’) appear, as an aggregate of the strategies actually followed by the organization which faithfully correspond to the intentions or plans envisaged in the premeditated strategies (‘Deliberate Strategies’) and the strategies actually followed by the organization that were generated through emergent processes (‘Emergent Strategies’), as can be seen in the figure.
The complete representation of the deliberate and emergent subprocesses of the ‘Theoretical Model’ is shown and described below.
Deliberate Subprocess
Figure 9.2 shows the complete representation of the ‘Deliberate Subprocess’. This is composed of all those actions that can be developed within a strategic process of a deliberate type.
Source: Roch (2024).
The deliberate strategic process is characterized by a clear separation between strategy formulation and implementation or, in other words, between thought and action. As can be seen in the figure, each of these main stages (Formulation (thinking, analysis and formulation) and Implementation (implementation and control)) can be carried out formally, as in the case of Strategic Planning, or informally as, for example, in the case of the strategic process promulgated by the Design School.
The representation shows the different actions that can be developed in a deliberate strategic process: strategic thinking (determination of the vision, mission, etc.), strategic analysis and formulation, strategic programming, and strategic implementation and control. As has been done with the actions of ‘strategic implementation and control’, which are presented together because they are usually associated, the same has been done with the ‘strategic analysis and formulation’, whose actions will also usually be associated, since the purpose of the analysis is decision making (formulation) with respect to the strategic issue being analyzed, or in other words, decision making (formulation) with respect to a strategic issue will usually be accompanied by a prior analysis of that issue.
Each of these actions or activities can be carried out by different participants depending on the specific characteristics of the strategic process in question. Thus, for instance, the activity of strategic analysis can be carried out solely by the organization’s leader, as promulgated by the Design School, or by strategic planners or analysts, according to the models proposed by the Planning or Positioning schools, etc.
Following the same philosophy as the ‘Dynamic Model of the Strategic Process’ (Bueno, Casani and Lizcano, 1999a and 1999b), a circular (non-linear or sequential) structure has been adopted where the arrows have a double direction, there is no predetermined beginning or end, nor any predefined sequence, nor is there a need to develop all the actions or activities (thinking, analysis and formulation, programming, implementation and control). Thanks to these characteristics, this structure is capable of incorporating and integrating the various forms that can be taken by the deliberate strategic process.
As a result of the development of the main stage or the action of strategic formulation, the ‘Premeditated Strategies’ or ‘Intended Strategies’ are obtained, expressed in general terms, or the ‘Planned Strategies’ in the event that the strategic programming activity has also been carried out.
The outcome of the development of the main stage or the action of strategic implementation, the purpose of which is to carry out the premeditated strategies, is the appearance of ‘Deliberate Strategies’, that refer to the part of the strategies actually followed by the organization that corresponds faithfully to the intentions or plans envisaged in the premeditated strategies, and also of ‘Unrealized Strategies’, which refer to the intentions or plans envisaged in the premeditated strategies that fail to be realized.
The development of the strategic process in any organization can be influenced, to a greater or lesser extent, by the power/politics or influence exercised by certain individuals or interest groups over others with different perceptions and/or interests, in order to try to carry out those strategies that are consistent with their specific perceptions and/or interests. It can also be influenced by organizational culture, i.e., by the set of beliefs, assumptions and values shared by the members of the organization. The possible influence of these two aspects on the strategic process is reflected in the reference figure by a set of arrows on the outer right side.
Finally, it is important to note that the process by which a strategy is formed can change its typology over time, for example, from initially emergent to subsequently deliberate, or vice versa, or developing in any other sequence. This possibility is reflected in the figure by three two-way horizontal arrows that are located between the Deliberate Subprocess and the Emergent Subprocess (see the outer left side of the figure).
Emergent Subprocess
Figure 9.3 shows the complete representation of the ‘Emergent Subprocess’. This subprocess is composed of all those actions that can be developed within a strategic process of an emergent type.
Source: Roch (2024).
As shown in this figure, three different types of emergent strategic processes can be developed depending on where the actions arise, or in other words, who the protagonists of these actions are:
- Emergent actions arising from the top, namely, involving the top management of the company: Top-down emergent process.
- Emergent actions that arise from below, i.e., that have people at lower hierarchical levels as protagonists (employees, line managers, etc.): Bottom-up emergent process.
- Joint emergent actions (top + bottom). Emergent actions carried out jointly by top management and others at lower hierarchical levels: ‘’Democratic’ type emergent process.
Each of these strategic processes is described below.
– Top-down emergent process.
As shown in Figure 9.3, in order to represent this process, the actions of strategic thinking, strategic analysis and formulation, and strategic implementation and control have been used. These are also used in the Deliberate Subprocess (see Figure 9.2).
According to this process, the ‘Analysis’ activity (strategic analysis) represented in the figure would correspond, first, to the analysis of the events, and then to the analysis of the feedback of the actions taken (learning). Thus, once the events have been analyzed (‘Analysis’), a decision would be made (‘Formulation’) and, as indicated by the arrow coming out of the ‘Analysis and Formulation’ activity, the actions decided upon would then be carried out (‘Implementation’), obtaining the feedback of these actions (‘Control’) which, as indicated by the return arrow, would be analyzed, resulting in learning taking place (‘Analysis’).
Finally, the strategic thinking activity (‘Thinking’) will be developed when the company’s vision, mission, values or overall objectives are refined or modified based on the change of perception of top management as a consequence of the strategic learning experienced in this emergent process.
As a result of this process, ‘Emergent Strategies’ may be generated, or, on the contrary, the incipient behavioral patterns may not be consolidated, or the new strategic concepts, ideas, visions or decisions may ultimately not influence the organization’s strategy.
– Bottom-up emergent process.
As can be seen in Figure 9.3, this process has been represented in a broad and flexible way (‘Bottom-up emergent actions’), in order to be able to cover any type of bottom-up emergent strategic process that may be developed.
As a result of this process, ‘Emergent Strategies’ may be generated, or, to the contrary, new strategic ideas or initiatives, or incipient new patterns, may ultimately not influence the organization’s strategy.
– ‘Democratic’ type emergent process.
As shown in Figure 9.3, this process has been represented in a broad and flexible way (‘Joint emergent actions’), to be able to cover any kind of ‘democratic’ type emergent strategic process that may develop.
The result of this process may be ‘Emergent Strategies’, or, to the contrary, new strategic concepts, ideas, visions or decisions, or incipient new patterns, may ultimately fail to influence the organization’s strategy.
Having described the three different types of emergent strategic processes that exist in this model, it is important to note two aspects that can affect the development of these processes, as is the case with the processes included in the Deliberate Subprocess.
The first aspect refers to the influence that power or politics and organizational culture can have on the development of these strategic processes, as reflected in the figure by the set of arrows on the outer left side.
The second aspect refers to the possibility that the process by which the strategy is formed may change its typology over time. This possibility is reflected in the figure by three two-way horizontal arrows located both between the different types of emergent processes and between the emergent and deliberate subprocesses.
Figure 9.4 shows the complete representation of the ‘Theoretical Model’, which is obtained by putting together the complete representations of the two subprocesses that comprise it (‘Deliberate Subprocess’ and ‘Emergent Subprocess’).
Source: Roch (2024).
To the right of this figure, and encompassing the entire strategy process, a key is included behind which the following text is shown: ‘Individual and collective cognitive and learning process’. This is intended to emphasize that, from a general point of view, the strategy formation process is a process of knowledge creation and distribution and a learning process, both at the individual and collective level.
Lastly, the final result of the different strategic processes that can be developed in the company are the strategies actually realized (‘Realized Strategies’), as an aggregate of the strategies actually followed by the organization that correspond faithfully to the intentions or plans envisaged in the premeditated strategies (‘Deliberate Strategies’) and the strategies actually followed by the organization that have been generated through emergent processes (‘Emergent Strategies’), as can be seen in the figure below.
The next blog entry (Entry 41) will complete the description of the “Integrative model of the strategic process” (Roch, 2016 and 2020).
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.
