Myths, Fallacies, Artifacts in Strategy Development

Shahab Sabahi
Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

This piece is a part of my discussion on "Creating  body of knowledge for strategy" in Society of Strategic Planning. It just reflects a pure view through the lens of Philosophy of Science. It should not be regarded as an educational expert view. (part of critical thinking development discourse)

To avoid ambiguity, I first make concept clearance and set the context in my discussion and then proceed to make my points which agree with Dr. Pierre's original thought (Myth, fallacies and irrelevant fact of strategies as a pure science).

From an international development perspective (not firm strategy) and the basic platform of philosophy of science, I initially state problems and explain in brief where the contradictories stem from.

1. It fails to draw a fine line between short and long term (cause objectivity). No solid guiding principle for defining short and long range. It causes a conflicting between the short term view (performance) and long term (value creation). If the concept of short/long borrowed from economics there would be a conceptual contrary. (i think that it must be valid even for corporation strategy as it is for state),

2. There is no evidence that strategic planning actually improves performance (only case studies) so it leads to inductive reasoning (probability).More than fifty casualty analysis articles have been published which proposed different methodologies to gauge the contribution of strategic plan in success of a company. Yet consensus has to be reached (Strategic Management Journal)....I agree this is not a fallacy and is progressive debates ....But as i mentioned in my earlier comment the result of debate whatever would be, just acceptable as inductive reasoning (nature of strategy),

3. Strategic planning attempts to control (deterministic) the future by employing forecasting techniques. Strategic planning requires quantitative data which limited in scope, aggregated, and uncertain to be useful in effective strategy formulation (limitation to develop theoretical bases). It stems from philosophical debate between dynamists and progressive advocates. I do not think it could be discussed without settling a common ground for what school of thoughts we would like to subscribe to. (just punching air),

4. Strategic planning frequently focuses exclusively on strategy formulation, the success for implementation rests upon people who had nothing to do with creating those plans (Subjectivity conflicts Objectivity). Strategy, strategic thinking, strategic planning and performance plan etc help to prioritize our actions (a wonderful approach to solve the long dilemma of value judgment) and support efficient resource allocations (through process which are known)However it contradicts Agent-base theory which is used in development of strategy (EU social science journal, if i my mind goes right),

5. To have a robust analysis, analysis should not be synthesis. However strategic planning analysis in its interaction with strategy is often synthesized (if we do not accept dialectic!!!),  

6. Strategic planning is rather a tool of formal analysis while strategy requires creative synthesis. It is another source of fallacies (a reality),

5 and 6 i have personally no problem with dialectic process as way to develop knowledge....But if one subscribes to intuitivist school of thought (philosophy of science) it would have a hard time to convince its research results