Introduction

According to Jarzabkowski, Balogun, and Seidl, (2007) the focal point of strategy studies in recent

times is focused on “strategy-as-practice or strategizing”. “The strategic outcomes are found in the

daily routine processes and practices of organizational activities” (Johnson, Melin and

Whittington, 2003). The concept of practice and practices as well as practitioners was a three based

research strategy presented by (Whittington, 2006). The concept of practice, practices and

practitioners also include the addition of strategy as practice. Whittington (2006), stressed the need

to know how strategic practices are established as well as how they are circulated outside and

within the organization. Stacey (2011) also noted in the same vain, that “Systems thinking

essentially seeks to understand phenomena as a whole formed by the interaction of parts.” (Stacey,

2011). For the purpose of this paper I will define the concept connected to the statement made by

Stacey on “Systems, Complexity perspective of a system, Complex adaptive systems (CAS)”, with

special attention to “Approaches to Strategic Thinking”, “Systems Thinking”, “Complexity

Perspective” “New Ways of Thinking About Strategy”, “Complex Adaptive Systems: Modelling

Complexity”, “The Practice Perspective”. The understanding of this will help to explore the

strategy concepts and its formation within the organization. Within the organization the focus will

be put on three main points. These points are models or designs perspective and framework couple

with leadership which are all needed to contrive exchange of parts. This understanding will help

in capturing clearly the notion behind “understand phenomena as a whole formed by the interaction

of parts.” which was opined by Stacey, which will then lead to the conclusion on the statement

made.

To start with, Riesman (1972), defined system as “a set of resources personnel, materials, facilities,

and/or information organized to perform designated functions, in order to achieve desired results”.
Professor Ackoff (2010), also takes a system to be a whole that is made up of a number of parts

usually more than two parts. These parts can usually impact on the properties or the whole

behavior. Ackoff (2010), also stated that, the classified properties of a system are “properties of

the whole”, that is not possessed by its parts (Ackoff, 2010). According to Barney (1992), the

organization is a social system that is made up of people which aspiration, couple with their egos,

and frustration among others. System thinking was designed by Barry Richmond as the way and

manner in which human beings think, learn and communicate (Richmond, 2005). St. Augustine’s

description of time is also deemed similar to the notion of system complexity. “What then is time

complexity? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain it to one that asks, I know not.”

The Approach of Strategic Planning and Strategic Thinking

Systemic approach in many organization takes into account social and political characteristics that

must be dealt with by the organization in terms of strategic definition. There is an accepted notion

that there is a social system that influences strategy before a rational decision. This is as a result

of contingencies and socio-political conditions. On this occasion, the atmosphere of relativist can

be seen through the ways of strategy and goals.

The approaches of strategic thinking and planning in line with the school of thought of

organizational strategy which are seen to belong to a “recognizable and planning environment”.

The definition of strategic planning was explained as part of school of Emran and

Emamgholizadeh, 2015 which is deemed effective in predicting "learning". The second approach

which is strategic thinking is said to be appropriate and agree with the idea of "strategic thinking"

environment which is also seen as to be unpredictable as well as incomprehensible. The

unpredictable and high-evolution of recent time’s “pilotage” which is appropriate approach among
the approaches that gives the organization the needed advantage over its competitors which in

terms give the organization amass majority of the shares in the market. In the book entitled “Most

of the time” by Adrian Slutsky, stated that most small and new organization with effective and

innovative ideas and strategy possesses all the management skills in the "Strategic Thinking" of a

sector. As a result of strategic thinking, the manager is able to know the factors are effective and

will enable the organization to achieve its objectives as well as to know which of the factors are

not working and the reason for it not working. Strategic thinking also helps the organization to

create value for their customers. The organization also create recognize power through the view

into effective factors. It is a known fact that without the insight into the factors that effectively

create value, the resources of the organization cannot achieve the organizational success

(Emamgholi born, 2013, p. 201). Ohmae (1992), stated in his book "Strategic Thinking" that, if

the organization did not take notice of the fundamental issues in the organization, there will be

confusion and the result will not be attained. Strategic thinking give timely intervention to the

organization to understand the dealing and operation of its competitors, as it also help the

organization to know some existence opportunities their competitors are not aware of. For instance

the owner and founder of Amazon Jeff Bezos, recognized the fact that selling and distribution on

the internet does not only help to reduce cost but also help in creating features for buyers who are

not within the traditional market or distribution system. This help create value for the customer.

This value creating factor has increase the revenue of the Amazon to a staggering three billion

dollars within a short period of time. This increase in revenue has seen it being compared to major

players like 5 which comes to the table with more experiences. The adoption of strategic thinking

helps the organization in creating competitive advantage as a result of helping the organization to

recognize and strengthen activities that helps to create unique value for the organization’s
customers. The focus of this work is through the understanding and ideas of the market rules as

well as creative accountability. This focus is a unique identify in a very unstable and evolving

business environment. A mental model of was particularly created in a "simple and profound"

manner of rules. This rules will be the basis for how decisions are generally made in the

organization. Through strategic thinking, the organization will create commitment and motivation

for the stakeholders and the entire organization. The commitment and motivation is created

through a fascinating and simple power. According to Amiran (2014) "Henry Mintzberg" stated

that strategic thinking is and should be considered as an important aspect of the business. Gary

Hamel “describes it as the artistic architecture of strategy based on the creativity and understanding

of business”. Ralph Stacey says “strategic thinking is a planning on the basis of learning” (Khan

Buiki, 2009, p. 119). All these scholarly interpretations and meaning provided gives summary of

the approach. Hamel and Prahalad “consider strategic thinking as a particular method for thinking

that can also be considered as a strategy architectural skill”. Mintzberg also noted strategic thinking

as a foundation to create “rule-breaking strategies”; as it serves as a planning processes for easy

task performance. He stated that “Strategic thinking can be considered as the basis for creating

new strategies which are able to change the rules of competition and provide a quite different

vision of the present situation”. Another scholar Liedtka, also stated that strategic planning that

helps to implement the strategies created by the organization by means of strategic thinking.

System Thinking

Midgley (2003), opined that “he field of applied systems thinking is concerned with “making a

difference in the world”. However, the human system description are mainly model of recent and

the desires to correctly form those systems. Also, the system models usually include a dimension

of idealistic representation that separate them from the normal practice. It was highlighted by
Ralph D. Stacey and other scholars (Stacey et al., 2000, Stacey, 2000, 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2004,

2006, 2007, Griffin, 2002), that system thinking does not account for the system changes in the

organization. Stacey et al (2000), “argue that systemic accounts of organizations and

organizational interventions unproductively abstract away from the actual interactive processes

that give rise to organizational phenomena, such as emergent strategies and decisions”. They argue

specifically that system thinking exclude the freedom of human from the distinctive action of

human and trivialize the human interaction that goes on each day which plays major role in the

construction of reality of the organization. They ended their argument by stating that the

organization cannot be defined as a system. Stacey as well as other scholars in the quest to provide

alternative view to the thinking that the organization as a system presented a conceptualization of

organization by making use of the theories of George H. Mead. They also made use of the human

mind conceptualization as well as social and self-forms. The theory of “complex responsive

processes” by (Stacey et al, 2002) seeks the consequences of complexity science for the

management of the organizational. Stacey et al (2000), considers complexity sciences to assist the

organization to indicate the unforeseen nature of the organization and the individuals. The

perspective of Stacey et al posed fundamental difficulties to system thinking. The system

intelligence by (Saarinen and Hämäläinen, 2004, Hämäläinen and Saarinen, 2006, 2007) just like

the perspective of the “complex responsive processes” desires to look at the main experiences of

humans and also to take into account the human interaction and at the same time adds to the

building upon system thinking.

Stacey et al. (2000, see also Stacey, 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2007, Griffin, 2002) in relation to

strategic thinking stated that there must be a holistic approach in the manner the organization is

thought about to allow for contempaneous discourse on management. Stacey et al. also noted that
system thinking in all forms catagorise persons like scientists, managers among others as those

who sincerely observe the system as well as individuals who are been observed objectively.

Freedom has been granted to individuals to employ system thinking, however, some individuals

are seemed to be a subject to some laws systemically that the thinkers of the systems seeks to

identify. This objective discussions exempt the freedom of individuals that are present in human

action and as such incapable to explain how true new things emerges as a result persons practicing

the freedom they have in their everyday interactions. Stacey et al (2000), sees system thinking as

not helpful to the manager in their day to day management practice as they seek to get things done

in their respective organizations as they sees it as very insufficient in helping the managers. Stacey

et al (200), also noted that individuals are seen by individuals as information processors which

according to pre-described rules respond to their environment.

Complexity Perspective: New Ways of Thinking about Strategy

Chakravarthy and Doz (1992) opined that the principal difficulty that faces strategy process

research are to manage the 'central evolutionary and transformational processes' which allows the

firm to renew it self and not only trying to focus on one system of administration. The strategy

process challenge is most look at with two well established perspective. The first of these two

perspective is that of “strategic choice-a transformational process”. This perspective allows the

organization to adapt to some changes in the environment by a way of rational as well as intentional

restructuring (Zajac and Kraatz, 1993; Fombrun and Ginsberg, 1990; Zajac and Shortell, 1989;

Ginsberg, 1988; Thompson and Tuden, 1959). The last of the two perspectives is that of “ecology-

an evolutionary process of competitive selection”. In this perspective the entire organization

responds to the various changes in the environment. This reason for this total adaptation in the

environment is that the organization cannot adapt individually as it will face resource specificity
as well as institutional inertia (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Regardless of the two important

differences outcomes that has been predicted, the two perspective make the same proposition about

the dynamics of the system that both the entire organization or the single organization are all

motivated by the processes of negative feedbacks that predict the adaptation of the environment.

The change of success, thus, presumed to be a disposition aim at regularity, stability as well as

predictability. There are many established thoughts in the economics, sociology as well as

management literatures which makes presumptions about the dynamics of the system that are

different from the two fundament perspective discussed previously.

The new perspective of Paradox, Contradiction and Non-equilibrium

Hyman (1987), Hampden-Turner (1990) and Quinn and Cameron (1988) noted that the

organization is deemed to be non-equilibrium systems in addition to dynamics that are importantly

disarray and are developed as a result of political process (Pettigrew, 1985; Pfeffer, 1981) in a

manner that is dialectical (Pascale, 1990) and consistently display numerous crisis (Miller, 1990)

when the main focus of the organization is paradox. The manager of the organization is unable to

share thorough outcomes of long term intentions of the organization will adapt to in the

environment as a result of the nature of contradiction in the organization. These outcomes are

likely to come up due to the agents concern and in most cases arise from choices that are

intentionally made (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985).

Spontaneous self-organization and creative destruction

In this aspect, the firm is presumed to be a system which is part of a broader organizational system

that comes up through the destruction process of creativity (Schumpeter, 1934) as well as the

organization itself (Hayek, 1948). These changed systems are very complex and difficult that the
agents in the organization cannot predict their future in a long-term. In lieu, the future of the

organization unpredictably emerges from agent’s interaction in a manner of disorder and non-

equilibrium. The free choice of individual plays a major part in the evolution of the system’s

creativity and unpredictability.

Organization as a Complex Adaptive System

As a major aspect of this theoretical paper. The multi-BU organizations constitute very high

performing as a result of being allowed and managed to work as “complex adaptive systems”.

Specifically, the BUs of the organization are seen as unique agents that are in a way is connected

through consistent human resources practice, common culture, as well as distinct collaborating

within Bus of the organization. When the connections to these uniquely agents are seen to be

moderate the organization is may perform highly. Also when there is an increase of

unpredictability in the business environment, there is a desirable amount of decrease in the

structures such as degree of centralization and formalization, scale of business units among others.

Even though there is evidential empirical study within the firm’s strategy and theory literatures

that does not use complexity theory in itself, the paper is nonetheless agrees largely with the

position of complexity theory. A typical example is the classical “study of strategy and structure

in diversified firms”. The classical study of strategy and structure describe how the centralized

function of DuPont hinders the organization’s ability to rapidly adapt to an evolving business

environment.

The Practice Perspective

Researchers for many years has been trying find solution to how work can be strategized in the

organization. This solution they try to develop through the development of theories and empirical

researches (Mintzberg, 1994). Their efforts has yielded many strategy perceptions as well as its
working has been proponed. The perceptions derived are seeing strategy as “determination of the

basic long-term goals” couple with “adoption of courses of action” as well as “allocation of

resources” (Chandler, 1962) and “pattern in a stream of decisions” (Mintzberg & Waters, 1982).

According to Whitttington (2006), all the dominant or major theories are as the result that the

organization must possess strategy. The major focus of the dominant process is based on the idea

that the strategy must be design managers in senior level position and the implementation done by

the lower level managers. A practice perspective or approach has attracted a lot of interest in the

past decade by many researchers (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). The practice approach says that

strategy must be posed by the organization and do as opposed to the recent dominant idea

(Jarzabkowski, 2004; Whittington, 2006).

It has been said that looking at the strategy as the action of the organization members, brings to

the attention of the members in the organization who the strategy doers are (Jarzabkowski et al.,

2007). One major distinguish of researches with “practice view on strategy” is that a lot of the

people within the organization must be seen as strategic players in the new strategy perspectives

(Whittington, 2006; Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). The main idea of the strategy research is to divide

among the members of the organization which have the middle managers as well as the consultant

to the strategy (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009). Whittington (2006), noted that this middle managers

within the organization are seen as strategist and their role has been stated in the strategy as practice

studies. Many researches has tackled the strategic role played by the middle managers within the

firm (Floyd & Lane, 2000; Björnström & Räisänen, 2006). Many of these researches have direct

circuitous perspective of practice (Regnér, 2003; Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Mantere, 2005).
References

Ackoff, R. L. (2010). Differences That Make a Difference: An annotated glossary of distinctions

important in management. Triarchy Press Limited.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager

sensemaking. Academy of management journal, 47(4), 523-549.

Barney, J. B. (1992). Integrating organizational behavior and strategy formulation research: A

resource based analysis.

Björnström, J., & Räisänen, C. (2006). From formulation to appropriation: The importance of

communication in strategy design and implementation. In Construction in the XXI Century: Local

and global challanges edited by Roberto Pietroforte, Enrico De Angelis and Francesco Polverino.

Chakravarthy, B. S., & Doz, Y. (1992). Strategy process research: Focusing on corporate self‐

renewal. Strategic management journal, 13(S1), 5-14.

Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American

enterprise. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, 4(2), 125-137.

Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role

conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of management review, 25(1), 154-177.

Fombrun, C. J., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Shifting gears: Enabling change in corporate

aggressiveness. Strategic Management Journal, 11(4), 297-308.

Saarinen, E., & Hämäläinen, R. P. (2007). Systems intelligence: Connecting engineering thinking

with human sensitivity. Systems intelligence in leadership and everyday life, 51-78.
Hämäläinen, R. P., & Saarinen, E. (2006). Systeemiäly 2006. Helsinki University of Technology.

Helsinki.

Hämäläinen, R. P., & Saarinen, E. (2004). Systeemiäly-Näkökulmia vuorovaikutukseen ja

kokonaisuuksien hallintaan. Systeemianalyysin laboratorio, Teknillinen korkeakoulu.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American journal

of sociology, 82(5), 929-964.

Hampden-Turner, C. (1990). Charting the Corporate Mind. Free Press/Macmillan, New York.

Hayek, F. A. (1948). The meaning of competition. Individualism and economic order, 92, 98.

Hyman, R. (1987). 'Strategy or structure? Capital, labour and control' Work, Employment and

Society, 1, (1), pp. 25-55.

Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: The challenges of a practice

perspective. Human relations, 60(1), 5-27.

Jarzabkowski, P., & Paul Spee, A. (2009). Strategy‐as‐practice: A review and future directions for

the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 69-95.

Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003). Micro strategy and strategizing: towards an

activity‐based view. Journal of management studies, 40(1), 3-22.

Mantere, T. (2005). Evolutionary software engineering, a review. Applied Soft Computing, 5(3),

315-331.

Midgley, G. (2003). Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and

complexity for the philosophy of science. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 16(2), 77-97.
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic

management journal, 6(3), 257-272.

Miller, D. (1990). The Icarus Paradox: How Excellent Organizations Can Bring about Their Own

Downfall. Harper Business, New York.

Ohmae, K. (1992). The rise of the region state. Foreign Aff., 72, 78.

Pascale, R. T. (1990). Managing on the Edge: How Successful Companies use Conflict to Stay

Ahead. Viking Penguin, London. Pettigrew, A. (1973). The Politics of Organizational Decision

Making. Tavistock Publications, London.

Pettigrew, A (1977). 'Strategy formation as a political process', International Studies of

Management and Organisation, 7, (2), pp. 78-87.

Pettigrew, A. (1985). The Awakening Giant. Blackwell, Oxford.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.

Quinn, R. E. and K. S. Cameron (1988). Paradox and Transformation. Ballinger/Harper & Rowe,

New York. Schein, E. H.

Regnér, P. (2003). Strategy creation in the periphery: Inductive versus deductive strategy

making. Journal of management studies, 40(1), 57-82.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). Change and the Entrepreneur. Essays of JA Schumpeter.

Stacey, R., D. (2001b) “The emergence of knowledge in organizations.” Emergence 2, (4): 23Ͳ39.

Stacey, R. (2003). Complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and knowledge

creation. Routledge.
Stacey, R. D. (2007a). Strategic management and Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge of

Complexity to Ways of Thinking about Organizations. London: Routledge,

Stacey, R. D. (2007b). “The challenge of human interdependenceͲ Consequences for thinking

about the day to day practice of management in organizations.” European Business Review 19,

(4): 292Ͳ302.

Stacey, R. (2009). Complexity and organizational reality: Uncertainty and the need to rethink

management after the collapse of investment capitalism. Routledge.

Stacey, R. D. (2011). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics. The challenge of

Complexity. 6th. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

Stacey, R. D. (2011). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change

processes. Strategic management journal, 16(6), 477-495.

Stacey, R. D. and Griffin, D. (2002). “Introduction: Leading in a complex world.” In Complexity

and the Experience of Leading Organizations, by Griffin. D. and Stacey, R.D. (Eds.) Abingdon:

Routledge

Thompson, J., Hammond, P. B., Hawkes, R. W., Junker, B. H., & Tuden, A. (Eds.).

(1959). Comparative studies in administration (Vol. 1). University of Pittsburgh Pre.

Whittington, R. (2006). Learning more from failure: Practice and process. Organization

Studies, 27(12), 1903-1906.

Wiley, J. (2013). Ralph Stacey. Complexity and Organization: Readings and Conversations, 16,

74.
Zajac, E. J., & Shortell, S. M. (1989). Changing generic strategies: Likelihood, direction, and

performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 10(5), 413-430.

Zajac, E. J., & Kraatz, M. S. (1993). A diametric forces model of strategic change: Assessing the

antecedents and consequences of restructuring in the higher education industry. Strategic

Management Journal, 14(S1), 83-102.