All information, views and ideas shared and or expressed here, are personal and private, and do not reflect on any institution that I may or may not be affiliated to.
On-line retailers; All these Book Sellers carry my book.
This book is one of a kind in that it has everything in it pertaining to strategy; stuff you wont find in your university books, ideal for management students, entrepreneurs, leadership development, change management, disaster management, teambuilding, project teams, and anyone looking for new and radical ways to inspire young leaders, as well as combine their revolutionary ideas with the old school, it deals with the cardinal 34 aspects of strategy. Starting from the sociological approach right through to strategy design, delivering with a business plan. Then taking you to implementation, with critical thinking and strategy engineering, dealing with military precision practices, the likes of CAPS.. It is dated and both inspirational, a must have. If you are serious about mastering strategy, then this is the one book you must have…
Selling for around $25 (Dollars US), check online some stores have specials, and will be local as well, the eBook sells at around$3.99.
Whats it all about?
Its all about breaking with tradition; and Revolutionizing Strategic Management.
With A Matrix of 32 different fields of strategy; all in one book.
This is a first of its kind managerial book. It dares to Define true Radical and Revolutionary Strategic Management Competencies and Principles, by Applying both the Sociological and Military Approach towards developing and executing any plan of strategy perfectly. It gives you the edge, the inside track, of all the great leaders secrets, and knowledge, you could become the case study, and not always just have to follow it…
Great leaders had great inspiration, that comes from radical and revolutionary ideas, principles, and practices, all meshed into a capability for considerable insight, here we have exactly that… just waiting for you…
We all have “strategic fall out points”. Mainly, it is because of the nature of our strategic reality changing still even today, the way we have to do things keeps changing. You can’t really compete in the world if you don’t understand it, and how change changes things.
Consequently “Strategic fall out points” occur where we do things in an “unorthodox” or radically different manner from the set norm, as taught academically, to stay both efficient and effective.
Even academic and qualified people also, deviate from certain “set piece” applications and taught theory, and then they fall out on that point, with the strategic norm…that is.
Surely no one is still “brave” enough to say that “one size strategy fits all” anymore – when looking at strategy from a academic perspective, no one set perspective can set the tone for all the practice of strategy existing, for all types of business and projects today still, which can be used throughout all industries and across the globe. No, even strategy and how it’s done traditionally has changed, strategy today is now more concerned with people… than at any other time in our human history…
The term “generic strategy”
“Generic strategy” in the true sense and essence of it, is very much part and parcel of our everyday life and has a life and purpose of its own. Just like fire it gives energy off and fuels what is to come.
“Generic strategy” is that significant and pivotal to our existence, it is the “carbon atom”, of strategy.
So-much-so that it is hardwired into our DNA – it is our very own human operating “software”, if that makes better sense – it is strategy operating at the core, making us fit for survival and co-existing. Without it we would have acted purely instinctive, animalistic even some believe.
The popular Porter model by the same name, generic strategy, is not in discussion here.
No, the term “generic strategy” embraces everything strategic, human, and instinctive; allow me a few minutes to explain, it does not only infer an exclusive one model definition. Strategy as a rule simply cannot exist if not for generic strategy existing originally.
To explain this statement, we need to start with linguistics first and then build up the concept.
All strategic concepts are defined by “CAPS”:
Starting off and borrowing from the Latin here; the word “Generic” infers “genus”, to mean a kind or species, otherwise when translated into the English, we get something of a general occurrence/ application -having a wide or general application then – also when used in conjunction with explaining behavior, it means to explain common exhibited traits very specific to a group or a class of people, species, clan or society, describing their nature, (as a basic mannerism) or a way of dealing with things. Continue reading
How we perceive leaders, and their characteristics, is how we will formulate a leadership role and function. It is seldom based on facts, in the main it’s more of a personal flavour we can or want to associate with, perception is seldom informed, and it is a condition, of conditioning. We see leaders the way they are portrayed in the media, by comrades, equals, friends, family, piers, and because of their status.
Therefore; developing leaders is no easy task. As we first have to change people’s perception about what leadership is, it is not a charismatic outlook, a fairy-tale, or a comic book hero. Leaders are fallible, mortal, and have a history each. This binds them, good and bad.
Leadership therefore is not a condition, a state of existence that is effective at a certain point of its life cycle, in performing specific and required functions, of whatever nature required well. No, leadership is a chosen action that is circumstantial, a leader does not lead daily, or every waken moment, no, it’s by choice. We make a conscious decision to act the part, and take the lead, and direct, command, and organise. It takes very little talent, but it does stake a lot of is confidence that comes from experience.
It never ends there either. Looking for the right raw material and trying to mould someone into a leader has proven to be a hit and miss affair. As leadership requirements differ from day-to-day, from situation to situation, and so I can site many instances. The crux of this matter is; it is never just that one thing, or two, or three or even a list, which will guarantee a good profile of leadership ability ever.
Psychology, science and academia even military tradition have also given it a go, and still, there is no one size fits all.
Part one; the current situation as it exist now
True leadership development requires very specific skills and structure, it is “truly” a matter of specifics, not “mere semantics”, the likes we have practiced and experienced at business school thus far.
Command and control have been written about for ages, and at the risk of writing yet another stereo type piece. I assure you it’s not. Management is complex and subtle, it’s challenging and diverse, and it’s also planned and specific.
However, it’s all to do with the people, and how we get them to navigate, assimilate, understand and act on these elements, that make the difference, it’s all about leadership style, and management.
This article deals with the challenges we face in leadership, and leadership shortages, training, development, and style. The challenge of addressing the shortage of great leadership in society is a huge problem. The chasm between academic qualification and doing the real job, have become huge. Lots if not most of what is learned previously is now wasted material, as there is no connection any-more between theory and practice, and between management and leadership either it seems.
By having only focused on the traditional route of developing future leaders for far too long, we have missed the cardinal truth about leadership development and its requirements for this day and age.
We have failed, they come out of the box (university) – (maybe this is why people say “think outside the box” – because they realise that the box (university) is running pretty empty on current reality and truth – wink -) with their expiry dates passed already; now it’s time to shift that emphasis and explore radical and revolutionary new insight that could change the way we manage, and train managers forever.
By only shifting the business leadership style with a paradigm to that of “commanders”, we could change the entire paradigm, and the outcome, of what future leaders should look like, some believe that we have migrated away from command, because it became un-popular, not dysfunctional.
Now there is a clear move back again, but what will we find, or will we raise the phoenix, and give it a new design, one that fits. This would imply changing the emphasis of command and control. Starting with the training, today it is a job for people who have been there – teaching leadership is no longer an academic license, people in the know, that have mastered both leadership and management, as well as command and control need to take the lead here, and not the university prof, or slick consultant, no these types with their “white coats and thick glasses” need to stand aside now, and make way for the man in “overalls” to teach leadership styles.
They can still teach us the likes of business dynamics and acumen – business wisdom. However, I believe that leaders need to be forged and shaped in the heat of battle, and then only “tempered” with business wisdom, and polished with the skills I will discuss here.
The question of leadership models and a future focused leadership career path is on everyone’s lips, as we have a leadership in decline crisis now the world over, and it’s not improving. Still there is just talk and no active turnaround strategy yet?
Some believe we are suffering this effect directly as a result of us having moved away from hard – command and control models, to soft and fluffy, “ cheer-leading” models of management.
We see it daily – all our leaders are just not high calibre people. And no, we cannot measure them against anything we have had so far either, if we keep doing things in the same fashion, we will keep getting the same results. In this instance; out dated leaders, with wrecked leadership skills and models will keep appearing if we don’t change the way we see, and bring about leaders, it needs to be a holistic approach, from the cradle to the grave. Otherwise we will keep having a leadership crisis. Allow me to explain…
We are our own worst enemy
How many times have you heard that? Indeed it true, we are our own worst enemy, especially when it comes to neglecting to think about or do certain things that we don’t want or like, somehow we almost instinctively steer away from that which we don’t like or want. However, it’s not always ideal, especially where its things we have to deal with, then simply avoiding them does not mean they don’t exist any more, or will go away, we have all I am sure practiced this behaviour, when we start using avoidance, or denial, then we are in fact just poisoning our mental well-being (or capacity).
Everyone learning, teaching and or practicing strategy has a working concept of what strategy should look like in their minds. This is not always clear to others, as strategy is “multiple-discipline”.
With the result that there are as many forms of strategy, as what there are languages spoken.
However, it’s always important to continue to develop, and expand on this core knowledge, for knowledge is power. We have to continue asking the basic frame work questions, to test them, to see if they are all still valid. Back to basics, for if the structure is strong so will be the framework that we build upon.
Risks are not just about identifying events that, when triggered, could cause problems, even all the defects, and operational issues like none performance, shortage or scarcity of some resource, all the obvious things we were taught that create risk, yes still valid, but now there is more to consider when talking risk. The SWOT analysis is just not good enough; we require some sociological scanning…
The environmental scan is the second tool to use with RISK analysis; for today deeper and unseen aspects prevail, that also impact our risk factors and profile; it could start with any underlying philosophy being promoted, even our way of thinking could be contaminated, anything that rides the strategic train of thought with us, and then takes over at some point from rational and tips us towards the emotional, or abstract side of reasoning. Aha, so risk is not just measurable, tangible, foreseeable, and obvious, it’s also hidden in our metal make-up…and very much so.
Hence, risk identification should also include the people involved in our teams, profile them; for their bias, fears and then most important their ideology. Yes, the very way we are trying to solve a problem, is directly linked to how we are positioned, toward our environment, how we understand it, operate in it, and control it, is strongly influence by our ideology, things we believe in. This aspect could become the actual risk, sometimes only later on, and even a threat to the entire scheme, greater that the initial problems we foresee now… itself.