Page 335 -

CHAPTER 9 • STRATEGY REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND CONTROL 301

Others say the switch will help U.S. companies raise capital abroad and do business
with firms abroad. Perhaps the biggest upside of the switch is that IFRS rules are more
streamlined and less complex than GAAP. Lenovo, the China-based technology firm that
bought IBM’s personal computer business, is a big advocate of IFRS. Lenovo’s view is that
they desire to be a world company rather than a U.S. or Chinese company, so the faster the
switch to IFRS, the better for them. The bottom line is that IFRS is coming to the United
States, sooner than later, so we all need to gear up for this switch as soon as possible. 13

Twenty-First-Century Challenges in Strategic
Management
Three particular challenges or decisions that face all strategists today are (1) deciding
whether the process should be more an art or a science, (2) deciding whether strategies
should be visible or hidden from stakeholders, and (3) deciding whether the process should
be more top-down or bottom-up in their firm. 14

The Art or Science Issue
This textbook is consistent with most of the strategy literature in advocating that strategic
management be viewed more as a science than an art. This perspective contends that firms
need to systematically assess their external and internal environments, conduct research,
carefully evaluate the pros and cons of various alternatives, perform analyses, and then
decide upon a particular course of action. In contrast, Mintzberg’s notion of “crafting”
strategies embodies the artistic model, which suggests that strategic decision making be
based primarily on holistic thinking, intuition, creativity, and imagination. 15 Mintzberg
and his followers reject strategies that result from objective analysis, preferring instead
subjective imagination. “Strategy scientists” reject strategies that emerge from emotion,
hunch, creativity, and politics. Proponents of the artistic view often consider strategic plan-
ning exercises to be time poorly spent. The Mintzberg philosophy insists on informality,
whereas strategy scientists (and this text) insist on more formality. Mintzberg refers to
strategic planning as an “emergent” process whereas strategy scientists use the term
“deliberate” process. 16
The answer to the art versus science question is one that strategists must decide for
themselves, and certainly the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. In deciding
which approach is more effective, however, consider that the business world today has
become increasingly complex and more intensely competitive. There is less room for error
in strategic planning. Recall that Chapter 1 discussed the importance of intuition and expe-
rience and subjectivity in strategic planning, and even the weights and ratings discussed in
Chapters 3, 4, and 6 certainly require good judgment. But the idea of deciding on strategies
for any firm without thorough research and analysis, at least in the mind of this writer, is
unwise. Certainly, in smaller firms there can be more informality in the process compared
to larger firms, but even for smaller firms, a wealth of competitive information is available
on the Internet and elsewhere and should be collected, assimilated, and evaluated before
deciding on a course of action upon which survival of the firm may hinge. The livelihood
of countless employees and shareholders may hinge on the effectiveness of strategies
selected. Too much is at stake to be less than thorough in formulating strategies. It is not
wise for a strategist to rely too heavily on gut feeling and opinion instead of research data,
competitive intelligence, and analysis in formulating strategies.

The Visible or Hidden Issue
An interesting aspect of any competitive analysis discussion is whether strategies them-
selves should be secret or open within firms. The Chinese warrior Sun Tzu and military
leaders today strive to keep strategies secret, as war is based on deception. However, for a
business organization, secrecy may not be best. Keeping strategies secret from employees
and stakeholders at large could severely inhibit employee and stakeholder communication,
understanding, and commitment and also forgo valuable input that these persons could