Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reaching Goals with Structured Strategic Plans

A Fresh Approach to an Annual Leadership Dilemma

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Systems Sciences

Abstract

Planning (in general) and strategic planning (in particular) are mainstays of the business world. While significant time and effort are placed into the creation and execution of those plans, the results are not impressive. A growing body of research suggests that the benefits of strategic planning are minimal. Even generally accepted methods, such as SWOT analysis, may be detrimental to company performance in some circumstances (Hill and Westbrook, Long Range Plan 30:46–52, 1997).

Because our world is made of systems (economic, industrial, organizational, etc.), the problems and opportunities of that world can be better understood and addressed by plans which are themselves more systemic. In our research and consulting experience, however, most plans are not highly systemic and so they are not highly useful for reaching goals. Instead, plans are typically based on simple, linear, assumptions which fail to account for the many variables of this complex world, so leaders may be moving effectively forward in the wrong direction.

Metaphorically, the plan is a map that leaders use to guide their organizations. Today, however, most leaders have only a small scrap of a much larger map. As a result, decisions based on those plans often lead to unanticipated and unwanted consequences instead of the anticipated success. What they really need is a highly reliable GPS.

This chapter draws on advances in the science of conceptual systems to understand why some plans succeed while others fail. We use Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) and related tools to evaluate and improve the systemic structure of strategic plans to improve their chances for successful implementation and reaching organizational goals.

While the chapter is focused on business operations and management, the methods presented here will also be applicable to nonprofit and NGOs, academic and research institutions, government agencies, collaborative megaprojects, and the stakeholders invested in them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ambrose D (1996) Unifying theories of creativity: metaphorical thought and the unification process. New Ideas Psychol 14:257–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff HI, Sullivan PA (1993) Optimizing profitability in turbulent environments: a formula for strategic success. Long Range Plan 26:11–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur JB, Huntley CL (2005) Ramping up the organizational learning curve: assessing the impact of deliberate learning on organizational performance under gainsharing. Acad Manag J 48:1159–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby WR (2004) Principles of the self-organizing system. Emerg Complex Organ 6:103–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (1976) Structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschken HL (1994) Organizational performance and multiple constituencies. Public Adm Rev 54:308–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1998) Competing on the edge: strategy as structured chaos. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM (2011) Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: a guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement, 4th edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM, Ackermann F, Eden C, Finn CB (2004) Visible thinking: unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch GF, Batchelor JH, Heller NA, Shaw J, Kendall W, Turner B (2014) Experiential learning – what do we know? – a meta-analysis of 40 years of research. Dev Bus Simul Exp Learn 41:279–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera D, Colosi L (2008) Distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives (DSRP): a theory of thinking and of things. Eval Program Plann 31:311–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camillus JC (2008) Strategy as a wicked problem. Harv Bus Rev 86:98

    Google Scholar 

  • Carolan MS (2006) Science, expertise, and the democratization of the decision making process. Soc Nat Resour 19:661–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casson M (2005) Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm. J Econ Behav Organ 58:327–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler AD (1990) Strategy and structure: chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise, vol 120. MIT press

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler AD (1992) Organizational capabilities and the economic history of the industrial enterprise. J Econ Perspect 6:79–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (2012) Four conditions for serious systems thinking and action. Syst Res Behav Sci 29:465–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier R (2000) Situational leadership and performance coaching. In: Goldsmith M (ed) Coaching for leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman HJ (1999) What enables self-organizing behavior in business. Emergence 1:33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotae CE (2015) Regional performances in the context of a transition towards the circular economy: structuring the assessment framework. Ecoforum 4:140–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Cua KO, McKone KE, Schroeder RG (2001) Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance. J Oper Manag 19:675–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curseu P, Schalk R, Schruijer S (2010) The use of cognitive mapping in eliciting and evaluating group cognitions. J Appl Soc Psychol 40:1258–1291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning S (2005) The leader’s guide to storytelling: mastering the art and discipline of business narrative, vol 269. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Dent EB, Umpleby S (1998) Underlying assumptions of several traditions in systems theory and cybernetics. In: Trappl R (ed) Cybernetic and systems ‘98. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, Vienna, pp 513–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, Nacke L (2011) From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”. In: Paper presented at the MindTrek’11, Tampere, Finland, September 28–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson RG (2004) Strategic development and SWOT analysis at the University of Warwick. Eur J Oper Res 152:631–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ference G (2001) Improving organizational performance: using survey-driven databases. Cornell Hotel Restaur Admin Q 42:12–27

    Google Scholar 

  • French WL, Bell CH (1995) Organization development: behavioral science interventions for organizational improvement, 5th edn. Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • George-Walker LD, Tyler MA (2014) Collaborative concept mapping: connecting with research team capacities. Educ Res Int 2014:10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/836068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goltz SM (2017) Enhancing simulation learning with team mental model mapping. Manag Teach Rev 2:211–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory A (2007) A systems approach to strategic management. In: Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the ISSS-2007, Tokyo, Japan, vol 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesketh A, Fleetwood S (2006) Beyond measuring the human resources management-organizational performance link: applying critical realist meta-theory. Organization 13:677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill T, Westbrook R (1997) SWOT analysis: it’s time for a product recall. Long Range Plan 30:46–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson A (2012) A transdisciplinary world model. Syst Res Behav Sci 29:517–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston R (1999) Self-organizing systems theory: historical challenges to new sciences. Manag Commun Q 13:119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston D, Wright B, Wallis SE (2017) Re-structuring evaluation findings into useful knowledge. J Multi-Disciplin Eval 13:30

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakubowski M (2014) Gamification in business and education – project of gamified course for university students. Dev Bus Simul Exp Learn 41:339–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski P (2004) Strategy as practice: recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use. Organ Stud 25:529–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaner S (2014) Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996) Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly GA (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenyon-Rouvinez D (2001) Patterns in serial business families: theory building through global case study research. Fam Bus Rev 14:175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobe K, Schwinn R (2017) Small business GDP 1998-2014 US small business administration office of advocacy SBA research paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Kor YY, Mahoney JT (2004) Edith Penrose’s (1959) contributions to the resource-based view of strategic management. J Manag Stud 41:183–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin RL (2014) The big lie of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, January/February

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieson GL (2008) Playing with CARS: a pluralist approach to supporting executive decision-making. In: Dennard L, Richardson KA, Morçöl G (eds) Complexity and policy analysis: tools and concepts for designing robust policies in a complex world. ISCE Publishing, Goodyear

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath JE (1997) Small group research, that once and future field: an interpretation of the past with an eye to the future. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 1:7–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller CC, Cardinal LB (1994) Strategic planning and firm performance: a synthesis of more than two decades of research. Acad Manag J 37:1649–1685

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1994) Rise and fall of strategic planning. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen NC, Graham D, Ross H, Maani K, Bosch O (2012) Educating systems thinking for sustainability: experience with a developing country. Syst Res Behav Sci 29:14–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson EE, Eoyang GH (2001) Facilitating organizational change: lessons from complexity science. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Panetti E, Parmentola A, Wallis SE, Ferretti M (2018) What drives technology transitions? An integration of different approaches within transition studies. Tech Anal Strat Manag (online):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1433295

  • Penrose ET (2009) The theory of the growth of the firm, 4th edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter TM (1996) Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad CK, Hamel G (1994) Strategy as a field of study: why search for a new paradigm? Strateg Manag J 15:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad CK, Hamel G (2006) The core competence of the corporation. In: Strategische unternehmungsplanung—strategische unternehmungsführung. Springer, pp 275–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretorius M, Millard SM, Kruger ME (2006) The relationship between implementation, creativity and innovation in small business ventures. Manag Dyn 15:2–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards D (1990) Is strategic decision-making chaotic? Behav Sci 35:219–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russom P (2011) Big data analytics. TDWI Best Practices Report, Fourth Quarter 19:1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge P, Kleiner K, Roberts S, Ross RB, Smith BJ (1994) The fifth discipline fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Currency Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun MF (2001) Unbounded rationality. Group Decis Negot 10:97–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw DR, Allen TF (2012) A systematic consideration of observational design decisions in the theory construction process. Syst Res Behav Sci 29:484–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slawski C (1990) A small group process theory. In: Banathy BA, Banathy BH (eds) Toward a just society for future generations – 34th annual meeting of the International Society for Systems Sciences, Portland, Oregon, USA, July 8–13, pp 872–878

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith TS, Stevens GT (1996) Emergence, self-organization, and social interaction: arousal-dependent structure in social systems. Sociol Theory:131–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon GT (2006) Are we teaching small business management to entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship to small business managers? (USASBE White Paper Series)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey RD (1996) Complexity and creativity in organizations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Suedfeld P, Rank AD (1976) Revolutionary leaders: long-term success as a function of changes in conceptual complexity. J Pers Soc Psychol 34:169–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suedfeld P, Tetlock PE, Streufert S (1992) Conceptual/integrative complexity. In: Smith CP (ed) Handbook of thematic content analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 393–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Tait A, Richardson KA (2011) Guest editorial: from theory to practice. E:CO 13:v–vi

    Google Scholar 

  • Umpleby S (1997) Cybernetics of conceptual systems. Cybern Syst 28:635–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL (1971) Nominal versus interacting group process for committee decision-making effectiveness. Acad Manag J 14:203–212

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy L (1972) The history and status of general systems theory. Acad Manag J 15:407–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2008a) From reductive to robust: seeking the core of complex adaptive systems theory. In: Yang A, Shan Y (eds) Intelligent complex adaptive systems. IGI Publishing, Hershey, pp 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2008b) Seeking the robust core of social entrepreneurship theory. In: First international conference on social entrepreneurship, systems thinking, and complexity, Garden City, NY, April 24–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2008c) Validation of theory: exploring and reframing Popper’s worlds. Integral Rev 4:71–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2009a) Seeking the robust core of organisational learning theory. Int J Collab Enterp 1:180–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2009b) Seeking the robust core of social entrepreneurship theory. In: Goldstein JA, Hazy JK, Silberstang J (eds) Social entrepreneurship and complexity. ISCE Publishing, Litchfield Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2010a) The structure of theory and the structure of scientific revolutions: what constitutes an advance in theory? In: Wallis SE (ed) Cybernetics and systems theory in management: views, tools, and advancements. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 151–174

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2010b) Towards developing effective ethics for effective behavior. Soc Responsib J 6:536–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2010c) Towards the development of more robust policy models. Integral Rev 6:153–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2011) Avoiding policy failure: a workable approach. Emergent Publications, Litchfield Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2012) The right tool for the job: philosophy’s evolving role in advancing management theory. Philos Manag 11:67–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2014) Existing and emerging methods for integrating theories within and between disciplines. Organ Transform Soc Chang 11:3–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2015a) Are theories of conflict improving? Using propositional analysis to determine the structure of conflict theories over the course of a century. Emerg Complex Organ 17:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2015b) Integrative propositional analysis: a new quantitative method for evaluating theories in psychology. Rev Gen Psychol 19:365–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2016) The science of conceptual systems: a progress report. Found Sci 21:579–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2018) Actionable knowledge mapping to accelerate interdisciplinary collaborations for research and practice. In: International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), Corvallis, OR, July 22–27, p 14

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE (2020) The missing piece of the integrative studies puzzle. Interdiscip Sci Rev 44:402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE, Johnson L (2018) Using integrative propositional analysis to understand and integrate four theories of social power systems. J Policy Complex Syst 4:169–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE, Valentinov V (2016a) The imperviance of conceptual systems: cognitive and moral aspects. Kybernetes:45

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE, Valentinov V (2016b) A limit to our thinking and some unanticipated moral consequences: a science of conceptual systems perspective with some potential solutions. Syst Pract Action Res 30:103–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE, Wright B (2015) Strategic knowledge mapping: the co-creation of useful knowledge. In: Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning (ABSEL) 42nd annual conference, Las Vegas, CA, March 4–6. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis SE, Wright B (2016) Integrative propositional analysis: the missing link for creating more effective laws. Sci Laws J 2:10–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Wamba SF, Akter S, Edwards A, Chopin G, Gnanzou D (2015) How ‘big data’can make big impact: findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study. Int J Prod Econ 165:234–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warfield JN (2003) A proposal for systems science. Syst Res Behav Sci 20:507–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbord MR, Janoff S (2000) Future search: an action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities, 2nd edn. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler MN (2001) The who, what and why of knowledge mapping. J Knowl Manag 5:249–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong EM, Ormiston ME, Tetlock PE (2011) The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Acad Manag J 54:1207–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright B, Wallis SE (2015) Using Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) for evaluating entrepreneurship theories. SAGE Open July–September:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015604190

  • Wright B, Wallis SE (2019) Practical mapping for applied research and program evaluation. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory, Petaluma, CA, USA

    Steven E. Wallis

  2. Adjunct Faculty, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Kent E. Frese

Authors
  1. Steven E. Wallis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kent E. Frese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven E. Wallis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Leadership and Management, Saybrook University, Ashland, KY, USA

    Gary S. Metcalf

  2. Grad Sch of Decision Sci & Tech, Tokyo Institute of Technology Grad Sch of Decision Sci & Tech, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Kyoichi Kijima

  3. CABSSS, Tokyo Institute of Technology CABSSS, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan

    Hiroshi Deguchi

Section Editor information

  1. School of the Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Shankar Sankaran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Wallis, S.E., Frese, K.E. (2020). Reaching Goals with Structured Strategic Plans. In: Metcalf, G.S., Kijima, K., Deguchi, H. (eds) Handbook of Systems Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0370-8_64-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0370-8_64-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0370-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0370-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation