AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR STRATEGY-MAKING PROCESS

STUART L. HART
There has been extensive conceptual development in the area of strategy-making process but keeping in
mind that these literatures produced competing or overlapping typologies. The proposed integrative
framework builds upon the current typologies but previous literature had a directed focus on either top
managers or organizational members, not on how the roles interrelate. From the previous literature it can
be noted that the top management act as commanders where the strategy is made and formulated by top
management and issued to the rest of the organization. Where the strategy coming from below is merely
recognized by the top. The role played by the organizational members is of a good soldier. In which
members execute the plan formulated by top managers to that of an entrepreneur, in which members are
expected to behave freely in the pursuit of new initiatives.
In this article Stuart L. Hart introduced five strategy-making modes: command, symbolic, rational,
trans active, and generative. In command mode, top management formulate the strategy and organizational
members execute it. The top manager is the commander in this mode of strategy making, and organizational
members are good soldiers who execute the strategy as it is articulated by the top. The article suggest that
the command mode will be most prevalent among small organizations in relatively simple environment.
Furthermore, the command mode will be associated with higher performance in these situations.
The second mode describes the symbolic mode of strategy making, whereby the leaders attends
primarily in articulating a mission and creating a vision and common perspective that help guide the actions
of organizational members towards a common goal. The cooperate vision gives meaning to the company’s
activities and provides a sense of identity for employees; it defines the basic philosophy and values of the
firm. The role of top management in the symbolic mode is to motivate and inspire organizational members
through speeches, persuasions, slogans, new projects and recognition. Top management provides the
necessary focus and momentum to guide the creative actions of the organizational players. In this way
symbolic mode creates an implicit control system which is based on shared values. The symbolic mode will
be most prevalent among either rapidly growing firms following proactive strategies in dynamic, high-
velocity environment as it will give higher performance in these situations.
The third mode where formal planning systems and hierarchical relationships predominate,
describes a rational mode of strategy making in which strategy making is seen as the execution of plans
produced through comprehensive analysis and systematic procedures. Top management determine strategic
direction through a formal planning process that entails extensive data collection and highly structured
organizational member’s involvement. The rational mode will be most prevalent among large, steady
growing firms, defending established strategic positions in relatively stable environments.
The fourth mode describes the trans active mode in which organizational members move to yet a
higher level of involvement in the strategic process. In such a case, top manager’s primary role is to facilitate
the interactive process of strategy formation; the content of strategy emerges through transaction among
organizational members, suppliers, customers and key stakeholders. In simple words trans active mode is
strategy making on interaction and learning rather than the execution of a plan. Some ongoing dialogues
with key stakeholders, employees, suppliers, customers and regulatory authorities. Communication is the
back bone of this strategy. Taking feedback from them and improve accordingly. The trans active mode
will be most prevalent among large firms following "analyzer" strategies in mature industries characterized
by heterogeneity and complex interactions among suppliers, customers and other stakeholders.
 Finally, the fifth strategy making mode is the generative mode. The generative mode of strategy-
making is dependent upon the autonomous behavior of organizational members. Strategy is made via
intrapreneurship. New product ideas emerge upward, and employee initiative shapes the firm's strategy. In
this case, top managers are primarily involved in selecting and nurturing high-potential proposals that
emerge from lower management or employees. Established firms make innovations by behaving more like
small entrepreneurial ventures. The biggest strength of this mode may also be its greatest weakness. Top
management exercises very little strategic control over the organization, making it difficult to engage in
any large-scale developments that require central coordination or "synergy" across organizational units.
The generative mode will be most prevalent among firms competing in turbulent (complex and rapidly
changing) business environments, where prospecting is important to competitive success.
Stuart L. Hart Suggest that the command and generative mode is not a better approach for any
organization because the top management prescribes desired behavior by dictating strategy from the top
down, leaving little role for organizational members except as implementers. Organizational members
behave more like "sheep" than like active participants in the strategic process. On the other extreme level,
in generative mode, top management abdicates strategic control by endorsing and sponsoring projects
proposed from the bottom up and adjusting strategy accordingly. Strategy results from the action of "wild
ducks"-the independent initiatives of internal entrepreneurs. The symbolic, rational, and trans active modes
of strategy making will be more predictive of high performance than will the command and generative
modes.