IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v15y1969i8pb403-b414.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Richard O. Mason

    (Graduate School of Business Administration, University of California, Los Angeles)

Abstract

This paper develops a new approach to the planning process. It begins by examining the critical role played by the planner's assumptions. Two criteria for a good planning technique are suggested by this examination: (1) It should expose the assumptions underlying a proposed plan so that management can reconsider them and (2) it should suggest new and more relevant assumptions upon which the planning process can proceed. Existing techniques often fail these criteria. Consequently a dialectical approach is presented which, it is proposed, satisfies the stated criteria. The realm of corporate strategic planning was chosen as a testing ground for the new approach. Evidence obtained in a field study/experiment concerning RMK Abrasives' strategic planning problem is cited in support of the method and its ability to reveal assumptions. 1

Suggested Citation

  • Richard O. Mason, 1969. "A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(8), pages 403-414, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:15:y:1969:i:8:p:b403-b414
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.15.8.B403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.15.8.B403
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.15.8.B403?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bergadaa, Michelle, 1999. "Strategic Decisions and Implementation: Prodin(TM), a Prospective Dialectic Interpersonal Method," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 211-220, June.
    2. Giovanni. Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2004. "50th Anniversay Article: The Strategy Field from the Perspective of Management Science: Divergent Strands and Possible Integration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1309-1318, October.
    3. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    4. Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
    5. Ian Mitroff & Thomas V. Bonoma, 1978. "Psychological Assumptions, Experimentation, and Real World Problems," Evaluation Review, , vol. 2(2), pages 235-260, May.
    6. Heinz K. Klein & Rudy Hirschheim, 2001. "Choosing Between Competing Design Ideals in Information Systems Development," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 75-90, March.
    7. Heffron, Raphael J., 2013. "The application of contrast explanation to energy policy research: UK nuclear energy policy 2002–2012," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 602-616.
    8. Kasanen, Eero & Wallenius, Hannele & Wallenius, Jyrki & Zionts, Stanley, 2000. "A study of high-level managerial decision processes, with implications for MCDM research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 496-510, February.
    9. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    10. Ng, K. Yee & Van Dyne, Linn, 2001. "Individualism-Collectivism as a Boundary Condition for Effectiveness of Minority Influence in Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 198-225, March.
    11. Anselm Schneider, 2015. "Reflexivity in Sustainability Accounting and Management: Transcending the Economic Focus of Corporate Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 525-536, March.
    12. Henderson, John C. & Rockart, John F. & Sifonis, John G., 1984. "A planning methodology for integrating management support systems," Working papers no. 116. Working paper (S, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    13. Mike Metcalfe, 2013. "A Pragmatic System of Decision Criteria," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 56-64, January.
    14. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    15. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    16. Kris De Jaegher, 2022. "Threat of Sabotage as a Driver of Collective Action," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(647), pages 2339-2365.
    17. Richard P. Nielsen & Christi Lockwood, 2018. "Varieties of Transformational Solutions to Institutional Ethics Logic Conflicts," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 45-55, April.
    18. Reihlen, Markus & Ringberg, Torsten, 2013. "Uncertainty, pluralism, and the knowledge-based theory of the firm: From J.-C. Spender’s contribution to a socio-cognitive approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 706-716.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:15:y:1969:i:8:p:b403-b414. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.