Paper Summary:

This paper examines how there are countless definitions and variations on the subject of strategic management in not only in what it entails but in also what strategy is. It discusses how there appears to be a gap between academic research and practitioner on the definition of strategic management due to the fact that the term strategy is generic, encompassing a myriad of different models, tools and techniques, which apply to different organizations in different ways. It attempts to investigate whether there is any need to bridge this gap or indeed whether or not it can be bridged, given that no one really can provide a universal definition on the subject of "strategy".

From the Paper:

"At the heart of the theory-practice gap syndrome, which has forced management to turn to other sources to aid with the organization's development, as mentioned previously is the fact that interests of academics and practitioners are essentially different, and consequently consultancy theory such as the model proposed by Lippitt and Lippitt (1978) (discussed by Pellegrinelli 2002) assumes that consultants are able to translate theory into applicable practice. However. Williams (2003) argues that consultants may only tell managers what they actually want to hear, and Kaarst-Brown (1999) adds that the simple arrival of a consultant, acts as an indicator of change to come."

Visitors who viewed this Essay also liked these:

• Research Paper # 83712 : "Strategic Management"
• Article Review # 90199 : "Strategic Management"
• Essay # 32517 : "Strategic Management"
• Business Plan # 32055 : "Strategic Management: Philosophy or Management Technique?"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: