Strategic Planning in the Small Business

Unit 1 HO 1-5 (continued)

18 Part I The Concepts and Techniques
of Strategic Management

approving the strategic

plans developed in various parts of the company.

The

value added by strategic planners comes

in their facilitating and coordinating the

strategic planning efforts

of line managers, helping managers at all levels

crystalize

the strategic issues that ought to be addressed. providing

information.

helping with the analysis of industry and competitie

conditions if asked, and

generating nformation on the compan. 's strategic performance.

But strategic

planners should

not be charged %kithrnking strategic decisyions, preparing

de­

tailed strategic plans

(for someone else to implement). or making strategic

action

recommendation,,

that usurp the strateg3 -making responsibilities of managers

in

charge of major operating units.

When strategic planners are asked to

go beyond the functio, of providing

specialized staff assistance and to

prepare a comprehensie stralegic plan for top

management's

consideration, either of tso adverse consequences may

occur. One

is that some managers

will gladly toss the tough strategic problems in their

areas

onto the desks of strategic planners

to let the planners do Lheir strategic thinking

for them. The planners.

not knowing as much about the situation as the managers.

are in a weaker position to design a workable action

plan. and in any event, the\

cannot be held responsible for

implementing \shat the3 recommend Puttine

responsibility for strategy-making

into the hands of pl.inners and responsibility for

implementation

into the hands of line managers makes it hard

to fi\ accountabilht.

for unacceptably

poor strategic results. It also deludes senior managers

into

thinking they don't have to be personall\ involved in leading

the organization

down a :lear-cut path

and crafting a strategy capable of generating above-average

resu!s. The hard truth

is that strategy-making is simpl. not a staff function. nor

Is

it

something that can be handed off to an advisor%committee

of lower-ranking

managers.

The

second adverse consequence of having strategic planners

take a lead

strategy-making role is that line managers

have no o\%nership stake in the plan.

When senior and middle managers

have no personal stake in. or real emotional

commitment to.

the strategic agenda proposed by the planners. they are

prone to

give lip

service to the plan, make a few token implementation efforts,

then quickl.

get back to "business as usual"

knowing that the formal written plan concocted

by the planners does

not represent their own "real" managerial agenda.

The

written strategic plan. because it lacks credibility

and true top-management com­

mitment, soon becomes a paper document

collecting dust on managers' shelves.

The end result is that few

managers take the wotk product of the strategic

planning staff seriously

enough to pursue wholehearted implementation-plan­

ning is viewed as just anothe, bureaucratic

exercise.

Either

consequence renders formal strategic planning efforts

ineffective and

opens the door for a strategy-making

vacuum conducive to organizational drift or

to fragmented, uncoordinated

strategic decisions. The odds are then heightened

that the organization will have no strong strategic

rudder and insufficient top­

down direction.

'he flaws in having staffers or advisory committees

formulate

strategies for areas they do not manage are: (I) they

cannot be held strictly

accountable if their recommendations don't

produce the desired results (since

93