What is the Future of Strategic Management?

Tamás Mészáros, András Bálint

Abstract
The history of planning and creating strategies has a past of over half a century. Throughout
this lifetime period we have witnessed both the evolution of theory and practice. The MBA study
books in the last-third of the 20th century have with predilection exhibited this very process as a
complex of monetary centered budget planning, forecast-based planning, strategic planning and
strategic management. There might be a controversy existing about the naming, characteristics and
timing of these different sections but there is an accordance that the changes that we have taken place
in the last decade as a whole without a doubt can be derived from these very changes in the business
environment or in some outstanding cases (like 9/11) they can be acknowledged as the ability of
corporate foreseeing and the ability to adapt to the vision of the future.
The main purposes of the research is to provide a summarized picture about the changing
process of this procedure during last decades as far as the planning and creating strategies are
concerned and also their milestones and periods. Try to explore and systemize the very aspects of
these changes. The happenings of the first decade of the new millennium are outstandingly interesting
if we consider their real effect on the theory and practice of strategic management. Let us remember
the euphoria around the year 2000, the predictions of „new technologies”, „new economy”, „new
organization” and „new leadership”. We have implied before on the destruction of the twin towers of
the World Trade Center which meant a new era, a new quality of international terrorism and its
consequences (Afghanistan, Iraq). But the „product” of this decade is the strategic aim that companies
focus on, which is the social responsibility regarding the unavoidance of the effects of climate change
on the long run. During the research the big question has risen concerning how did the science of
strategic management do as far as the predictions of the global monetary and economic crisis are
concerned? And also its solutions this very science has to offer in order to handle and get over the
crisis. Does it conclude from the answers given to the questions that a change in paradigms are
necessary, a new quality is needed or may be we have come to a new crossroad of the development
process that will take over strategic management?
The research in the professional literature – from the perspective of methodology - qualifies
for a kind of processing... References used here are studies published in leading strategic journals
during the past decade, selected through personal reflection on taste, field of interest and the earlier
activities of the researcher.
Studying a part of the international literature of the first decade of the 21th century, we can
draw the conclusions that the predictions regarding overwhelming results and a new evolutionary
phase have not really occurred. In other words, we could say that strategic management as a theory
and practice which boosted in the 1980’s did not hand over its place to a system of „similar strength”.
Next to all this, the evolutionary process never stopped, in the aspects of the strategy the environment
is intact and because of the conditions of the competition new values, motivations have been
integrated.
We can clearly state that corporate strategies which were mainly based on growth and the
theories and methodology „serving” these strategies have failed to prepare the business world of the
2008 global monetary and economic crisis that spread very fast and also failed to prepare these
company strategies to be able to give strategic answers. The auditing scandals of the last 10-15 years
did not result in a change to think strategically alternatively. However, the good news is that the
failures did not turn away researchers and managers from the strategic management.

Keywords: Planning, strategic planning, strategic management, development of strategic thinking

JEL Classification: M10

Introduction and research objectives

The category “strategic management” has been in common usage for a rather long period of
time. It is thought to have been first used in 1973 in a scientific conference held at (Tari, 1976). As
indicated by a study on this subject, the term customarily used at that time in the scientific literature
related to enterprise future was “planning”, which was replaced in the mid 80s by "strategy", a
category which has been in fashion ever since. (Vanderbilt University, US)

Table 1: The ranking of planning and startegy as key words in LPH abstracts
Years 1968- 1971- 1975- 1979- 1983- 1987- 1991- 1995- 1999- 2003-
Planning 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 6 15 40
rank
Strategy - 11 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
rank
Cummings, S. –Daellenbach, U. (2009): A Guide to the Future of Strategy, The History of Long Range Planning
. In Long Range Planning 42 (2009) p. 246

The above study analyzed by different methods (e.g. text data mining) the abstracts of 2366
articles from the international journal Long Range Planning (LRP). The scope of the analysis, referred
to several times in this study as well, covered the articles published until the end of 2006.
This seemingly formal change in terminology shown in Table 1 is, in fact, indicative of a
highly substantial evolutionary process. It can namely be no longer disputed that the subject, focal
points, time horizon and methods, i.e. the entire way of thinking about enterprise future have
significantly changed over the past decades. This is true in both theoretical and practical terms. What
is more, practice has often preceded theory, which has raised the relevant empirical evidence to the
standard of theoretical research.
This evolutionary process is vividly demonstrated by the diagram developed by McKinsey &
Company, Inc (Figure 1), which was published in the Handbook of Strategic Planning as well.
(Gardner, R.J. et al., 1986, p. 25).
 Figure 1: Evolution of Strategic Management, McKinsey & Company Inc .

The process, phases and categories of the evolution of planning or, from another approach, of
the “development” of strategic management shown in the diagram have been adopted by several
researchers, while many others have come to parallel or very similar conclusions on a different basis.
According to the author’s own words, the study published in 1986 by Bernard Taylor, former
editor-in-chief of Long Range Planning (Taylor, B. 1986) describes the individual phases and
characteristics of strategic management on the basis of about a thousand articles discussing enterprise
strategy. , however, attempts to define the various evolutionary periods and to draw up in a fairly
concise manner the factors (environmental constituents) that may induce changes in the area of
strategic thinking and planning in the individual periods concerned. Taylor’s model is shown in Table
2.

Table 2: The evolution of strategic thinking (Taylor’s model)

Basic constituents of the environment in certain Changes in planning and main elements of
periods certain phases
1965-1973: stability and growth 1965-1975: forecast-based planning
 predictable growth  five-year budgets
 social responsibility  detailed operational plans
 branch-oriented planning  strategies for growth and diversification
 broad-scale participation in planning
1974-1979: enterprises under pressure 1975-1980: strategic planning
 energy crisis  new types of corporate strategy
 information planning  development of strategic business units
 quality of working life (SBUs)
 civil rights and women’s rights  exploratory forecasting
 environmental protection  planning and simulation of social
changes
  alternative strategies
1980-1984:cutback and rationalisation 1980-1986: strategic management
 unemployment  top management in charge of strategy
 change management  business approach
 competing and co-operating with Japan  strategic change management
 cutback in public services  staff motivation
1984 onwards: revival or continued decline  technology development
 privatisation and deregulation  visible leadership by top management
 achieving market positions in emerging
technologies
 role of company cultures
 harnessing information technology
 redesigning of public services

In addition to the denominations of the individual periods being similar to the McKinsey
model, the contents of the table created by the author are also very close to MicKinsey’s solutions. It is
clearly demonstrated at the same time that the evolutionary process is basically a kind of adaptation of
one’s thinking about the future to the changing environmental factors. The main characteristics of
changes in planning can be concluded from the way the business environment is changing from period
to period.
In summary, if the evolutionary process is studied as from the end of World War II, it
becomes evident that formal planning appears first in the form of budget planning focusing on short-
term budgets. Formal planning becomes more widespread in the 1950s, when the environmental
impacts affecting the companies in the developed market economies, with particular respect to the
USA, reached a critical mass forcing the corporate managements to transform their decision-making
systems. This complicated system of decision-making was then transformed into corporate planning
((Mohay, Gy. 1987). Decisions about the production and sales Programmes as well as about the
resources required thereto were made on the basis of the short-term financial (profitability and
liquidity) impacts of these factors. As from the second half of the 1950s, the markets started to boom.
The demand deferred during World War II was to be gradually felt, yet the capacities on the offer side
could not yet keep step with the needs. Formal forecast-based planning is, consequently, the product of
the prosperity marking the 1950s and the 1960s. This period was characterized by rapid and steady
economic growth, diverting the corporate managers’ attention to the longer-term future.
The slowdown of economic growth at the beginning of the 1970s, the oil crisis emerging in
1973, and the continued decline of the role of industry created a totally new environment for the
companies. The capacities rapidly developed during the period dominated by demand caused
increasing sales difficulties and edging market competition. Looking ahead was motivated, in addition
to the companies’ future aspirations, by the need of getting to know the competitors' behavior and, in
general, the competitive situation and the development of the entire industrial sector. All this
represented a long leap in corporate thinking as well. This period of development, lasting until the
early 1980s, is called strategic planning. (Let us remember that this is a transitional period as the
category of planning was going to last longer)
In the 1980s, practically as a consequence of the second oil crisis (1978-1979), the state
becoming more stringent in economic terms (cutback in public services) started to withdraw from the
markets (privatization and deregulation), while it was increasingly important to achieve competitive
market positions in emerging technologies, with special respect to the rapidly growing information
technology. This development has a significant impact on the strengthening of globalization.
Empirical research studies analyzing the reasons of corporate excellence and corporate failure show
that different strategies can all turn out to be winning in a specific sector while roughly the same
strategy can result in failure in one case and in success in another. Strategic planning is, therefore,
important but it is by itself not a decisive element of final performance. It is much more essential
whether the management is able to organize and control the implementation of corporate strategy,
creating and running a proper organization of duly skilled human resources and an incentive system
guaranteeing the achievement of the strategic objectives, i.e. whether it is able to introduce an
effective strategic management system at the company.
This is, namely, Phase IV of the evolutionary process, which is the product of the 1980s,
regarding the conscious management of the future as the main corporate value.
Grant’s explanation is rather remarkable in this respect. “The reason that strategic
management has displaced the terms long-range planning and corporate planning is partly to
disassociate strategy from planning, but also to emphasize that strategy making is a central component
of what managers do. Viewing strategy making as a part of the management process helps us to see
that strategy plays multiple roles within organizations.” (Grant, R. 2008, p. 25)

Research results (findings)

Let us now get back to Taylor’s model, posing the question of how the evolutionary process
continued in the past two to two and half decades or, to put it in another way according to the author’s
logic, whether there have been any incidents, events and processes as a consequence of which the
strategic management system (briefly described here) has undergone considerable changes? If so, has
the extent of changes achieved the threshold of a new quality, i.e. a new phase of the evolutionary
process?

Table 3: The continuation of Taylor’s model

Basic constituents of the environment in certain Changes in planning and main elements of
periods certain phases
1990-2000: global competition and growth mania 1986-2000: changing philosophies of planning
powered by new technologies and changing strategic focuses
o global restructuring o global competition strategies (outside
o single-pole world in…)
o new powerhouses in Asia o resource and competence based strategies
o supranational organisations (inside out…)
o globalisation of markets and corporations o doing away with formal planning
o shareholder value – M&A o growth strategies focusing on shareholder
o IT – internet and other technologies – value
dotcom balloon o “Strategy: The End of the Game” (Evans,
P 2000)
Source: complied by the authors

Summarising briefly the environmental constituents listed in the above table, it is to be

established that, first of all by the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a single-pole world has
developed. In Asia, the so-called ”Little Tigers” started to grow at a rapid pace parallel with Japan, yet
the growing intensity of global competition can be clearly felt as a general tendency even in the face of
this local development. Due partly to the above tendencies and partly to the new potentials offered by
the development of information technology, companies became increasingly globalised in order to
maximise their shareholder value as the ideology and ultimate goal of corporations in these periods.
Growth was realised by means of massive acquisitions and fusions. Certain advanced technology
sectors (such as IT, telecommunications, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and alternative energy)
started to develop rapidly along with the expansion of the Internet and e-trade, with a group of
Internet-based corporations inflating the ”dot-com bubble” as they experienced their stock prices
rising to extraorbitant levels..
There have been significant changes in the general system of strategic management as well,
due first of all to the need of its adaptation to the level of environmental turbulence.
• In the early 1980s, Michael Porter’s competitive strategy theory was being turned into
practice, with the author himself expanding its validity to global markets as well. (Porter, M. 1986)
• The early 1990s produced two theoretical studies (Prahalad, C. K. – Hamel, G. 1990; Grant, R.
1991) that propose to focus on the company’s own fundamental capabilities and resources (inside
out…) rather than to conclude the corporate strategy from analysing the competitive position of the
company from an external perspective. Robert Grant, one of the most frequently quoted authors in this
subject, explains his proposition as follows: “Increasing emphasis on the role of resources and
capabilities as the basis for strategy is the result of two factors. First, as firms’ industry environments
have become more unstable, so internal resources and capabilities rather than external market focus
has been viewed as a securer base for formulating strategy. Second, it has become increasingly
apparent that competitive advantage rather than industry attractiveness is the primary source of
superior profitability.”(Grant, R. 2008, p.125)
• In parallel, the opponents of formal planning have also raised their voices with reference to the
rapid changes in environmental conditions. As a ”peak” in this process, Henry Mintzberg published
an article in Harvard Business Review under the title “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning”
(Mintzberg, H. 1994)
One of the most essential sentences of this publication emphasises the following: "Three
decades of experience with strategic planning have taught us about the need to loosen up the process
of strategy making rather than trying to seal it off by arbitrary formalisation.” (Mintzberg, H. 1994. p
114)
In another important book written by Mintzberg together with two co-authors (Mintzberg, H.
et al.1998), we are advised not to seek a unified system, philosophy or even any definition of strategic
management as the various solutions can be classified into at least ten schools of corporate philosophy,
which are explained by them in detail.
It is to be noted here that this thinking was based on the concept that the ultimate goal of a
company is to increase the shareholder value, to which end an unprecedented tide of acquisitions and
fusions was seen. The stock market speculations and the major company bankruptcies, similar to the
manipulations preceding or directly causing these failures, were partly due to the above. The
theoretical bases of this subject were laid down by Alfred Rappaport in his book published in 1986.
The emergence of new technologies, with particular respect to the rapid expansion of the
Internet, has created new conditions in the field of strategic management as well. The impact of these
changes were considered by some analysts strong enough to wipe out all paradigms existing in this
area, including the process-based model of the Harvard school, Porter’s competitive strategy theory,
and the solution focusing on fundamental internal capabilities and resources. In the opinion of Philip
Evans (2000), rules of thumb rather than paradigms are needed in the era of the Internet.
This extreme standpoint should be viewed in the context of the debates about a “new
economy” as a phenomenon and an economic system anticipated in the euphoria of the new
millennium. Porter puts things in the right place by soberly establishing the following: “Only by
integrating the Internet into overall strategy will this powerful new technology become an equally
powerful force for competitive advantage.” (Porter, M. 2011, p. 78)
Now let us see what the first decade of the 21st century has brought along.

Table 4: The continuation of Taylor’s model II.

Basic constituents of the environment in certain Changes in planning and main elements of
periods certain phases
2000-2010: global rearrangement as well as 2000-2008: surviving strategic paradigms,
world financial and economic crisis strategic innovation, and adaptation
 bursting of the dot-com bubble  2001: “Do we need a strategy at all?”
 11 September 2001: World Trade Center
towers collapse, terrorist attacks in o changing objectives, values, and methods:
Washington, Madrid and London o new business models
 Afghanistan – Iraq: wars o CSR and business ethics
 corporate scandals following Enron’s o competing for standards
collapse o winner-takes-all markets
o global strategies
  soaring technologies (Grant, R. 2008, p.18)
 growing influence of China, India, o “green strategies"
Russia, and Brazil on global markets o strategies for managing crisis (?!)
 explosion in energy prices
 climate change and global warming
 corporate social responsibility
 financial and economic crisis
* This question was put by the editors of European Business Forum to internationally recognized experts in
autumn 2001

As indicated by the above table, the first decade of the new century was rich in processes and
results that significantly affected corporate management thinking, including the system of strategy
making. The scope of this study does not allow a detailed explanation but it should be noted that the
soaring of technologies as well as the emergence of Facebook, Twitter and Wikileaks all fall into this
period of time. The oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has had grave financial consequences of a multi-
billion dollar scale, while its impacts on the environment as well as on corporate social responsibility
are even more significant.
Looking at the other side of the problem, it was indeed justified to ask right at the beginning of
the decade, after the bursting of the dot-com bubble and the horrible terrorist attacks of September 11,
whether there was any need for a strategy. (European Business Forum, 2001, Issue 8, winter 2001/2, p.
7) Certainly, the answers were unanimously positive, which fact is perhaps best reflected by Porter’s
claim that this is when corporations most need to have a strategy; they only have to scrape off the
sediments deposited on it through boom times. (Porter, M. 2001)
Robert Grant, another outstanding figure of strategic management, analyses two important
motives in addition to the events influencing the changes (see left side of Table 4). (Grant, R. 2008)
He points out that significant damage has been caused to the development of strategy making
by the massive attacks against formal planning. Such damage includes, in his opinion, the cutback on
planning capacities and the slowdown in strategic innovation. Another phenomenon inducing changes
was the maximisation of shareholder value as the ultimate corporate goal being driven into the
background as a result of huge company scandals in the first decade of our century. The stakeholders’
expectations, business ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility have consequently become more
pronounced when setting the strategic objectives. As further explained by the author, the strategies are
aimed at developing new business models, at winning the competition for standards, and at adapting to
the winner-takes-all markets.
Porter has also made his voice heard in the subject of corporate social responsibility (Porter,
M. 2006) as well as in analysing the impacts of climate change. We may, perhaps, give credit to his
forecast whereby these impacts will be even stronger than those of the emergence and expansion of the
Internet. (Porter, M. 2007)
A similar forecast is provided by former US President Bill Clinton in his article published in
Harvard Business Review (Clinton, B. 2009), pointing out that ”Just as information technology
exploded in the 1990s, green technology is set to be the next major growth sector.”

Discussion
Towards the end of the decade, which had been rather hectic and turbulent even until then, the
world was faced with a financial and economic crisis that, according to our present knowledge, could
only be compared to the period of 1929-1933 in terms of its scope and effects. “The current crisis is
like a massive earthquake”. This simile can be read in an article of MIT Sloan Management Review
(Makridakis, S. et al 2010, p. 87), with the authors explaining their statement from two aspects. Not
only are its weight, duration and impacts equal to those of an earthquake but it is just as incalculable as
that. “Why forecasts fail. What to do instead.” These are rightful questions, proving in detail, from
the US President’s statement through the International Monetary Fund to other official bodies, that just
a couple of months before the stock market crash of 11 October 2008 there was no sign of the crisis
felt, and the individual economies even made optimistic statements about the future. Yes, indeed, it
was the second time within a decade when it could be rightfully asked whether there was any need for
a strategy. Who was at that time namely interested in the corporate strategy of Lehman Brothers
terminating its operations from one day to the next? The banks and automobile manufacturers queuing
up for tens of billions of dollars in state aid did not proudly flourish their former plans either, and even
the giant corporations benefiting from the steadily rising oil prices were forced to find new growth
paths as a result of the drastic price reduction.
Similar to the US President and the IMF, the “gurus” of strategic management foresaw no sign
of the crisis either. In the sixth edition of his book published in 2008 and referred to at several points
in this article as well, Grants discusses the future in a separate chapter entitled “New Direction in
Strategic Thinking”. One of the most remarkable statements in his book is the application of the
complexity theory in strategic management. “If business is a complex system, then it is inherently
unpredictable – not only is it impossible to forecast the business environment, but managers cannot
predict what the outcomes of their action will be. The concept of the CEO as a peak decision maker
and strategy architect is not only unrealistic, it is undesirable… The critical issues are how they can
select the structures, systems and management styles that will allow these self-organizing properties to
generate the best outcomes?” (Grant, R. 2008, p. 451) Let us remember that the same categories are
shown in Figure 1 among the major characteristics of the various evolutionary phases of strategic
management. There is consequently nothing new under the sun in this respect, and Grant finds it
important to describe another way of strategic thinking, i.e. the back-to-basics approach as well. The
essence of this strategy lies in introducing revolutionary new business models, i.e. financial
engineering and internet economics. Individual strategies are needed, where strategic fit, i.e. tailoring
the corporate strategy to the specific circumstances, competitive situation, resources and capabilities of
the individual firms can be enforced. (Grant, R. 2008, p. 449)
The study published in LRP and referred to before was not limited to analyzing the past but it
also addressed the main trends of changes in strategic thinking as part of the “Discussion” series. The
authors establish right at the beginning of the article that “strategic management does not lend itself to
long lasting techniques, methods or specific approaches – no particular tool or prescription has stood
the test of time”. (Cummings, S. et al. 2009, p. 256)
Having regard to the aforesaid, the main future trends are as follows:
1. Centered eclecticism, which means taking a common standpoint in certain fundamental issues
(such as organization, process, and changes) while maintaining a diversified approach as well.
2. “The strategist as a politician will have to discern or negotiate a mutually agreeable position,
and learn to lead from the middle and create a co-operative competitive advantage.”
3. Strategy as aesthetics, which means that strategy making is an individual process rather than
simply copying the best practices. There is, namely, no one best way.
4. Back to the future – appreciation of the role of perceptions of the future in strategy
5. The past is no straw man, i.e. it is worth appreciating and properly valuing the past results of
strategic management as they are not just reflections of the properties of an “irresponsible person”.
(Cummings, S. et al. 2009, p. 257)
These two forecasts, while offering a lot of remarkable thoughts, have perhaps proven that
there were no warnings, calls for finding new directions, or other references in the strategic
management literature to trends suggesting strategic preparations for a crisis situation during the years
directly preceding the crisis. No radical changes were proposed in the subsequent analyses either. All
experts addressing this subject emphasize the importance of strategic management in an unstable
environment. At the same time, it is very important to avoid the “tyranny of the present” as a different
approach, a significantly larger set of forecasts than traditionally applied, and supplementing the usual
methods with open, inductive and creative techniques are needed to get prepared for cases in respect
of which the only thing we know is that they might occur. (Marren, P. 2009)
It has been proposed to change the name of “rational economics” to “behavioral economics”.
The crisis has namely shaken two fundamental dogmas of standard economic theory, i.e. that people
are able to always make rational decisions and that the invisible hands of the market will correct any
deviations. Behavioural economics is therefore based on the hypothesis that people are fundamentally
irrational and they are motivated by subconscious cognitive distortions. (Ariely, D. 2009) This can
already be regarded as a more marked conclusion but it does not exert any explicit impact on strategic
management.
The same is true for the so-called “crisis exit strategy” of the companies suffering from the
impacts of the crisis. The leading journals in this subject are also rather poor is offering relevant
solutions. Not only are they lacking any significant theoretical conclusions, but they do not give any
substantial practical advice either other than to get prepared for the post-crisis period already during
the crisis.

Conclusions
The first decade of the 21st century has not brought revolutionary change in the field of
corporate strategy creation. We can state as well that on the basis of classic planning evolution cycles
we cannot speak about a new development phase. Strategic management – with solid foundations in
theory and practice set in the 1980s – was not replaced by a similarly strong and effective system.
Nevertheless, we can assert that the process of evolution concerning planning, future creation
never stopped. More and more values and motivations have been integrated into the start off and focus
points of strategy, which due to their scaling separately, but mainly jointly have made the process of
strategy formulation more complicated, thus giving enough research homework to the professionals,
forcing the managers into additional “artistic stunts”.
Corporate Social responsibility and business ethics, competition for standards (competition of
standards), the winner takes it all, global strategies (Grant, R. M., 2007). Yes, the change triggered by
IT, globalization, people and environment – including climate change as an even bigger impact – has
delivered, or strengthened previously existing values and has altered the conditions and method of
competition.
Perhaps we can assert at the same time that strategy formulation itself, besides the surfacing of
those regarded elements, will be based on an analysis of outside market positions, internal resources
and capabilities henceforward. From the aspect of “evolution” it could be considered striking – even if
only in some of its elements – that there is a return to the formal attributes of planning and strategy
formulation. In opposition to the strong undercurrent of the 90s denying the necessity and possibility
of formal strategies, after the turn of the century it is recommended both in theory and in practice that
companies internally strengthen the functions and organizational framework of strategic planning.
The global crisis in 2008-2009 caught the business world unaware. Once again it was proven
true that forecasts are unable to handle a great many parts of the insecurities of the environment. For
the time interval of a forecast it is possible to draw some conclusions from a study dealing with the
crisis: his opening remark: “as the Reader is reading these lines the National Bureau of economic
Research probably declares the situation as crisis” (Kambil, A., 2008, p.1.). This article was published
in issue 5 of the year. At the same time – our subject respectively – it is a positive development that
we do not hear voices calling for a burying of strategy or a rejection of the possibility of strategic
planning. Indeed, in most of the studies it is unavoidable that already the treatment of the crisis, but
especially the preparation for the post-recovery phase – though based on new wave thinking – but
along elaborated strategies should be realized. Altogether it is also apparent reality that the
professional literature does not provide enough munitions for the practice; what sort of new strategies
are needed and how can they be developed?
Naturally, there are also further questions remaining open:
 Does the role of the state in the market economy change, does ownership structure change,
and along with it the ownership value rate and attitude change or alter (and to what extent?),
 Does the global economy change with accelerating pace (e.g. USA-China economic situation)
demand changes and which of these changes are from multinational companies and which
from suppliers?
 Are novelties appearing in the relationship of the monetary world to the real sphere?
 How should companies adapt to the scarcity of resources; are new elements coming up in the
fight for comparative advantages?
  How does the world change sector-specifically (e.g. deteriorating industry sectors), and what
comes instead? - and how can all those already successfully performing SMEs in many
countries hang onto employees as well as remain significant determinants of employees?
Lack of formative definition: we can read in the study entitled “What is strategic management
exactly? (Nag, R., et al 2007). That it is such a young area of science that it is missing an evolved
definition. Not only does this opinion open, or continue the ever-green debate, but similarly, there are
plenty if critiques of the intersection between theory and practice, or the false perceptions of Business
Schools or the negative and benevolent features of formal planning as there were 10-20-30 years ago.
Nag and his associates’ important conclusion gives however reason for optimism, by saying that
strategic management is characterized by colorfulness, so, this way it remains attractive to managers.
We have all the reasons to keep it that way. The same finding is confirmed by the experts dealing with
the future when they offer or forecast back-to-basics or back-to-future solutions. Let us repeatedly
emphasize the strange yet highly illustrative statement that the past is no straw man whom we shall not
trust, i.e. the evolutionary results of strategic planning can become useful in the future as well.

References
Arely, D. (2009). The End of Rational Economics, Harvard Business Review July-Aug. 2009. pp. 78-84.
Clinton, B. (2009): Creating Value in an Economic Crisis Harvard Business Review September 2009. pp. 70-71.
Cummings, S. - Daellenbach, U. (2009) : A Guide to the Future of Strategy; The History of Long Range
Planning. In: Long Range Plannig 42 (2009) pp. 234 – 273.
Gardner, R.J – Rachlin, R- Sweeny, H. W. A editors (1986): Handbook of Strategic Planning. John Wiley &
Sons
Grant, M.R. (2008): Contemporary strategy analysis, Blackwell Publishing, sixth edition.
Grant, M. R. (1991): The Resource-based Theory of Competitive Advantage, Implication for Strategy
Formulation, California Management Review Vol- 33 Spring 1991, pp. 114-135.
Evans, P. (2000): Strategy – the End of the Game. Journal of Business Strategy. Nov/Dec. 2000 pp. 12-18.
Kambil, A. (2008) : What is Your Recession Playbook? Journal of Business Strategy 2008 (29)/5 pp. 50-52.
Makriadisz, S. Hogath, R. N. Gaba, A. (2010): why Forecast Fail. What to do Instead? MIT Sloan Management
Review 2010(51)/2 pp. 83-90.
Marren, P. (2009): Think Thinable. Jounal of Business Strategy 2009 (30)/6. pp. 69-71.
Mintzberg, H. (1994): The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning Harvard Business Review, 1994.
januray/February, pp. 107-114.
Mintzberg, H. - Ahlstrand, B. – Lampel, J. (1998) : Strategy Safari – A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of
Strategic Management, Prentice Hall Europe.
Mohay, Gy.(1989): A vállalati tervezéstől a stratégiai módszerekig. Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó (1989).
Nagy, R., Donald, H.C., Min-Jer Chen (2007): What is Strategic Management really? Inducative derivation of a
consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal 2007/9, Published online 22. Mar. 2007. pp.
935-955.
Porter, M. E. (1986): Competition in Global Industry. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Prahalad C.K. – Gary Hamel: (1990) The Core Competence of the Corporation, Harvard Business Review,
May/June pp. 79-91.
Rappaport, A. (1986): Creating Shareholders Value: The New Standard for Business Performance. New York:
Free Press.
Tari, E (1996): A startégiai menedzsment elméletének és gyakorlatának fejlődéstörténete a piacgazdaságban in:
Antal, M.Z. – Balaton, K.- Tari, E. Drótos, Gy. Fejezetk a stratégiai menedzsment témaköréből Egyetemi
jegyzet, Budapesti Közgazdaságtudományi Egyetem [Link].3-33.
Taylor, B. (1986): Corporate Planning for the 1990s; The New Frontiers, Long Range Planning 1986/6
Porter, M. (2001) : A Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review, March. 2001 pp. 63-79.
Porter, M. (2001/6) : Now is the Time to Rediscover Strategy; European Business Forum 8. issue. 2001/2 winter,
pp. 20-21.
Porter, M. (2006): Strategy and Society. Harvard Business Review December 2006 pp 78-92
Porter, M. (2007) : A Strategic approach to climate. Harvard Business Review, October. 2007. pp..22-26
Author(s) contact(s)
Tamás Mészáros professor of strategy
1093 Budapest, Fővám square 8., Hungary
00-36-1-482-5332
[Link]@[Link]

Andras Balint senior lecturer

1093 Budapest, Fővám square 8., Hungary
00-36-1-482-5481
andras.balint2@[Link]