O paradoxo da estratégia (parte V: compromissos vs incerteza)

Continuado daqui.
.
Continuando com as ideias de Ghemawat no livro “Commitment – The Dynamic of Strategy”:
.
“Commitment is mostly concentrated in a few choices” (estratégia é escolher, não se pode ir a todas)
…
“choices that individually embody significant commitment are crucial in the sense that they have the most potential to influence the organization’s future opportunities” (não estamos a falar de escolhas obtidas por consenso ou por brainstorming, estamos a falar de uma concatenação de escolhas que constituem um encadeamento lógico num mapa da estratégia e resultam num caminho para o futuro)
…
“commitment choices can be counted on to have a disproportionately large impact on future performance. This extra impact demands extra attention, in the form of in-depth analysis.”
…
“strategic choices demand cost-benefit analysis”
…
“strategic choices should always be analyzed in terms of their implications for competitive positions in individual product markets”
.
O dilema dos gestores resulta da necessidade de assumir compromissos perante um futuro sempre incerto, daí resulta o paradoxo da estratégia, ou como refere Michael Raynor no livro "The Strategy Paradox":
.
“A successful strategy allows an organization to create and capture value. To create value, a firm must connect with customers. For a firm to capture value, its strategy must be resistant to imitation by competitors. Satisfying customers in ways competitors cannot copy requires significant commitment to a particular strategy, that is, strategic commitments, to unique assets or to particular capabilities.
.
Commitments are a powerful determinant of success because they make a strategy difficult to imitate. To reduce strategic risk, many firms invest only in what has been shown to work. Since these latecomers wait while some firms – the lucky ones – make what happen to be the right commitments, lucky firms enjoy a period of relatively little competition: it takes time to replicate capabilities so painstakingly created.”
…
“The downside of commitment is that if you make what happen to be the wrong commitments, it can take a long time to undo them and make new ones.”
...
“The strategy paradox, then, arises from the collision of commitment and uncertainty. The most successful strategies are those based on commitments made today that are best aligned with tomorrow’s circumstances. But no one knows what those circumstances will be, because the future is unpredictable. Should one have guessed wrong and committed to the wrong capabilities, it will be impossible to adapt – after all, a commitment that can be changed was not much of a commitment.”
…
“The strategy paradox is a consequence of the conflict between a commitment and strategy uncertainty. The answer to the paradox lies in separating the management of each, charging some with the responsibility of delivering on the commitments the organization has already made, and others with the task of mitigating risk and providing exposure to promising opportunities”
.
A receita de Raynor para a solução do paradoxo pode funcionar em corporações, agora para as PME's... tenho dúvidas sobre a sua aplicabilidade.
.
A série concluiu-se amanhã com uma outra alternativa de solução.