Most businesses exist to make money. Even Universities do not merelywant to break even financially, but also desire to have some money in reserve in order to continuously eater for disasters, and also for growth. South African Express Airways puts their mission succinctly « ...providing best service to our customers, while optimizing profit"
("Indwe Magazine", July 2005, pg. 100). See also, www.flvsax.com. These are the ultimate goals for virtually any organization. Inordertomove towards or to achieve this ultimate goal, an organimion develops a vision (the what) which usually focuses on the aspirations of the organization, the purpose of existence, and the future of the organi7Jltion, and practically includes unmet needs in the market that the organi7Jltion exists to satisfy. Developing a mission statement subsequently gives birth to a mission (the how) which is the strategic plan for realizing the vision.. The strategic plan, sometimes known as corporate strategy, is "concerned with an organisation's basic direction forthe future: itspurpose, its ambitions, its people, and howitinteractswith the world in whichitoperates" (Lynch, 2000: 5).
Lynch (2000) advocatesthateveryaspect ofthe organi7Jltion plays, or should play a role in the strategy. There seemstobe a comprehensive and systemic paradigm in how Lynch addressesthe issue of corporate strategy. One of the focus areas of the research in this study was to explore, in a service environment, how corporate strategy is understood, implemented, interpreted, and filters through every aspect of the organimion.. This research approach adopted Kaplan& Norton's balanced scorecard in terms of corporate strategy. Kaplan & Norton (Gem.mel, 2003: 375) developed a balanced score card approach which looked at the strategy systemically, with regard to its effect on financial
aspects, customers' views, internal business processes, innovation, learning andgrowth.
When fully deployed, the balanced score cardisintended to transform strategic planning from a separate TnaMgement exercise into the nervecenterofthe enterprise, as explained by Pearce& Robinson (2003: 337).
The conventional pyramid style of management hierarchy
Middle Management
ower Management/Supervisory Level
Figure 7
Conventional management hierarchy
Source: Adapted from Robbins& Dicenzo (2001: 4).
Conventional organizations have structures which serve managing hierarchy, with levels of management, and different functions that follow Adam Smith's specialization classical philosophy. Generally in hierarchical organizational structures, there are three management levels through which a corporate strategy gets filtered. See figure 7 above.
There is first line management (i.e. supervisors), middle management (i.e. managers, directors, HODs, Deans), and a top management level (Le. managing directors, chief executive officers, Vice-Chancellors). The first level deals with "day.to day activities, and supervising operative employees" (Robbins & Decenzo, 2001: 4). The first level of management is the closest to the frontline staff who literally deliver the service. The middle management level "are typically responsible for translating the goals set by top management into specific details that lower level managers can perform"(Robbins &
Decenzo, 2001: 4). This level is very crucial in terms of strategy interpretation and implementation, as well as decision-making. A lot ofunhappy customers often ask to see these people. Top management level "are responsible for making decisions about the direction of the organization and establishing policies that affect all organization members" (Robbins Decenzo, 2001: 4).
Organisations develop different kinds of strategies depending on the management paradigm. Mintzberg 1985 (Stacey, 1993: 70 - 71) identified eight types of strategies, namely: (i) Planned: top management draw up formal plans, articulate the intentions, and exert control by monitoring outcomes against plans, (ii) Entrepreneurial: a leader personally controls the organization and strategies for himJher, (iii) Ideological: strategies are based on collective beliefs, and control is through indoctrination and socialization, (iv) Umbrella: the leaders define overall targets and set the boundaries for lower level managers, and control is exerted through monitoring outcomes against targets, and behaviour against boundaries, (v) Process: leaders control the process of strategy through setting timetables and exercising a final veto, (vi) Unconnected: no central intention, and groups produce contradicting strategies, (vii) Consensus: people converge on a common theme and agree on strategies as they emerge without central managers' prior intention, (viii) Imposed: environment dictates what has to be done. There isn't one best strategy that fits all organizations and contexts, but a combination can be found in most organizations and others do follow onetype.
Once the organization has decided on a corporate strategy it then develops functional strategies, such as a strategic human resources plan, which, according to Greer (2001:
123) deals with the effective use of people to meet organizations' strategic requirements and objectives. Other functional strategic plans include financial strategy, operations strategy, sales& marketing strategy. MichaeI Porter is a well-known author of marketing strategy paradigms. He advocated competitive strategies. Stacey (1993) discusses two types of dominant management paradigms. He says that one management paradigm focuses its strategies on adapting the organization within the environment. Stacey says that such a paradigm must be questioned. Such a paradigm is concerned with "clear cut links between cause and effect assumed to generate behaviour that is predictable... "
(Stacey, 1993: 100).
The second or new paradigm, according to Stacey, sees the dynamics of organizations, andit sees irregularity, contradiction, and creative tension as the essence of the successful organization. Hamel & Prahalad (Stacey 1993) argue that less-successful organizations follow the conventional strategy that seeks to maintain strategic fit, and as a result, organizational ambitions are trimmed down to match the available resources.
Hamel & Prahalad (Stacey 1993) further explain that unconventional strategies for successful organizations focus on leveraging resources innovatively, and "use their resources in challenging and stretching ways to build up a number of core competencies"(pg.1 01).
The hierarchical view of levels of management discussed here aim at providing a general management model for most organizations. Top management's conceptual philosophies and ideologies such as the ones discussed by Stacey (1993) are expected to filter through such a typical structure. On the contrary, front-line staff-customer interaction experience is not usually communicated to senior management, except if an organization follows Mintzberg's consensus strategy.
Practically, there is less implementation of consensus approach, however modem organizations may seem, and as a result, management and employees are usually on two opposite extremes in terms of their paradigms - which generates a whole lot of interconnected loops of problem situations, or complexities that reinforce one another, and when symptoms surface, people naturally address these symptoms, instead of the underlying causes of problems. The research conducted for this study looked at the congruency in thinking and understanding of the university strategy as seen by management and front line staff. The findings are reported and discussed in Chapter Four ofthis dissertation.