Get documents about "Proposal for New Course
Document Sample
ORLD 5054 Strategy Development as a Learning Process in Organizations
Fall 2004
Professor: Lyle Yorks
Office: 210a Zankel
Phone: (212) 678 3820
E-Mail: ly84@columbia.edu
Office Hours: Wednesday 7:00 to 5:00; Thursday 5:00 to 7:00
Course Objectives:
The purpose of this course is three fold: 1) to provide graduate students with a
good foundation for understanding the concept of strategy and strategic thinking as it
applies to organizations (private and public, for profit and not-for-profit) and individual
action for effective performance within organizational settings; 2) to expose students to
models and processes for understanding the emergence of strategy as processes of
individual, group, and organizational learning; and 3) to develop an understanding of how
to develop the linkages between learning, human resource development, and knowledge
management with organizational strategy. Students participate in a number of
experiential activities designed to make the strategy concept applicable to their particular
organizational setting. Accordingly students should leave the course with:
• the ability to demonstrate strategic thinking;
• being able to demonstrate the use of one or more models of facilitating
strategic thinking as a learning process;
• an understanding of how to couple HRD initiatives to organizational strategy
for purposes of enhancing strategic success.
Course Description:
This course provides graduate students with a comprehensive view of
organizational strategy from a learning perspective. The position taken is that strategy is
an emergent phenomenon that continually undergoes adjustments as the task environment
of the organization changes. Accordingly, development of strategy is viewed as a
problem of organizational learning and the development of effective strategy that is
supported by members of the organization as a learning challenge for the organization.
The course provides students with an opportunity for developing a strategic perspective,
examining various models for facilitating the development of strategic initiatives through
learning inventions, and developing an understanding of how to link human resource
development and organizational learning practices to strategic initiatives. Extensive
group discussion will focus on how strategic thinking relates to both the development of
emergent strategy and the linkage of learning initiatives to the organizational strategies.
Text and Readings:
Pietersen, W. (2002). Reinventing Strategy: Using Strategic Learning to Create and
Sustain Breakthrough Performance. New York: Wiley Books
Additionally, the following articles are downloadable from the Harvard Business School
Publishing Web Site for a fee:
de Geus, A. 1988. Planning as learning, Harvard Business Review, 66 2), 70-74.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. 1989. Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, May-
June: 63-76.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. 1993. Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harvard Business
Review, 79(3) 75-84.
Hinterhuber, H. & Popp, W. 1992. Are You a Strategist or Just a
Manager? Harvard Business Review, January-February, 105-113.
Isenberg, D.J. 1987. The tactics of strategic opportunism. Harvard Business Review,
65: 92-97
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. R. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard—Measures that Drive
Performance, Harvard Business Review, 70(1)
Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D. R. Double-Loop Management: Making Strategy A
Continuous Process. Balanced Scorecard Report, Reprint No. B0007A
Mintzberg, H. 1994. The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review,
72(1).
Mintzberg, H. 1987. Crafting Strategy, Harvard Business Review, 65(4): 66-75.
Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G. 1990.The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard
Business Review, 68(3): 79-91.
Porter, M. 1997. How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy, Harvard Business Review,
75(4).
Porter, M. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review. 74(6):
Wack, P. Scenarios: Uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review, 63(5): 72-79.
Additional suggested readings.
Barney, J.B. 1991a. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17:99-129
Barney, J. B. 1991b. Types of competition and the theory of strategy: Towards an
integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 11: 791-800.
Bartlett, C. A., Ghoshal, S. 2002. Building Competitive Advantage Through People.
Sloan Management Review. Winter, 34-41.
Bartunek, J. 1984. Changing interpretative schemes and organizational restructuring:
The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 355-
372.
Beer, M. & Eisenstgat, The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation
and Learning. Sloan Management Review.
Burgelman, R.A. 1983. A model of the interaction of strategic behaviour corporate
Context, and the concept of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8:
61-70.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Making fast decisions in high velocity environments.
Academy of Management Journal, 32: 543-576.
Eisenhardt, K. Kahwajy, J., & Bourgeois, L. J. Conflict and Strategic
Choice: How Top Management Teams Disagree. (On Reserve)
Leavy, B. 1998. The concept of learning in the strategy field.. Management Learning, 29,
pp. 447-466.
Lorange. P. & Murphy, D.C. 1983. Strategic and human resources: Concepts and
practice. Human Resource Management. XXII: 111-133.
Marshall, R.B., & Yorks, L. 1994. Planning for a restructured, revitalized organization.
Sloan Management Review. 35(4): 81-91.
Osono, E. The Strategy Making Process as Dialogue, (On Reserve)
Yorks, L. (2004). Strategy Making as Learning, Ch 3, L. Yorks, Strategic Human
Resource Development. Southwestern.
Course Requirements:
Two major papers are required in the course. The purpose of the first paper is to have
students demonstrate familiarity with the core issues of strategy development from an
emergent organizational learning perspective. The purpose of the second paper is for the
student to demonstrate his or her ability to apply the basic concepts of strategic thinking
to his or her area of practice. In addition students are expected to actively participate in
assigned class activities that help clarify the concepts and competencies being presented
in the course. These will include certain "mini-assignments" that will provide "data" for
class discussion and help with the second paper assignment. These assignments must be
completed in a satisfactory way and are considered part of the class participation
component of the course grade.
First Paper: Core Issues in Strategy Development
In writing the paper be sure to address the following:
1) How you define strategy;
2) What is meant by emergent strategy;
3) How strategic intent influences performance
4) The links between strategic intent and learning
5) The implications of your arguments above for your own
organization (or an organization with which you are familiar)?
Be sure to ground your writing in the literature and class discussions.
Length guidelines: approximately 15 to 20 pages. See expectations below. Due: Oct 27
Second Paper: Application to a Field Setting
In many ways this paper is an extension of the first. Consider an organization with
which you are familiar. Propose a process for making strategy in that setting. Provide
some "data" points to illustrate your thinking. You will want to work on this paper in
parallel with the first paper and utilize the mini-assignments worked on throughout the
semester. This paper will include:
1) Overview of positioning the process as a learning strategy
2) Inhibiting and facilitating factors in the setting
3) Discussion of emergent strategy and how it is/can be detected
4) Possible alternative futures
5) The process for working with strategic development teams
6) An "enrollment" process for developing political support
7) Reflections of what you have learned from applying the concepts
Approximate length: 15 pages Due date: Dec. 15
Grading:
The above papers will provide me with approximately 30-40 pages of thoughtful
professional work. Along with your participation in class activities and discussion will
provide me with a basis for assessing your general knowledge of the field and
understanding of core issues. Final grades will be determined as follows:
First Paper: 35% of final grade
Second Paper: 35% of final grade
Class participation: 30% of final grade
See “Expectations” section of the syllabus for further discussion of performance
expectations and grading standards.
Course Outline:
Introduction and course overview. Sept. 8
The concept of strategy and strategy thinking. Sept. 15 & 22
Readings:
Pietersen, Chaps. 2 & 3
Barney, 1991a Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage
Journal of Management, 17:99-129
Barney, 1991b Types of competition and the theory of strategy.
Academy of Management Review, 11: 791-800.
Hamel & Prahalad. Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, May-
June: 63-76.
Hinterhuber, H. & Popp, W. (1992). Are You a Strategist or Just a
Manager? Harvard Business Review, January-February, 105-113.
Porter, What is strategy? Harvard Business Review. 74(6)
Prahalad. & Hamel The Core Competence of the Corporation. . Harvard
Business Review, 68(3): 79-91.
The Art of Good Strategy Making. Sept. 29 & Oct. 6
Readings: Chapter to be distributed in class.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. 1993. Strategy as stretch and leverage.
Harvard Business Review, 79(3) 75-84.
Kisenhardt, K. Kahwajy, J., & Bourgeois, L. J. Conflict and Strategic
Choice: How Top Management Teams Disagree. (On Reserve)
Detecting Emergent Strategizing. Oct. 13
Readings:
Pieterson Chapt. 4 & 5
Mintzberg. Crafting Strategy, Harvard Business Review, 65(4): 66-75.
Mintzberg The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning Harvard Business
Review, 72(1).
Osono, E. The Strategy Making Process as Dialogue, (On Reserve)
Developing Strategic Intent: Exploring competencies and building the performance
model. Oct. 20
Readings:
Pietersen, chapt 6
Hamel & Prahalad, Strategic intent, Harvard Business Review, May-
June: 63-76.
Strategy Development as Organizational Learning Oct. 27 & Nov. 3
Readings:
de Geus, Planning as learning Harvard Business Review, 66, (2), 70-
74.
Eisenhardt, Making fast decisions in high velocity environments
Academy of Management Journal, 32: 543-576.
Leavy, B. 1998. The concept of learning in the strategy field.
Management Learning, 29, pp. 447-466.
Wack, Scenarios: Uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review,
63(5): 72-79.
Yorks, L. (2004). Strategy Making as Learning, Ch 2, L. Yorks,
Strategic Human Resource Development. Southwestern.
Nov 17th No Class Meeting
Managing Alternative Futures through Strategic Adaptability and Opportunism. Dec. 1
Readings:
Isenberg, The tactics of strategic opportunism, Harvard Business
Review, 65: 92-97
Strategy Making Closure and Implementation. Dec. 8
Readings:
Pietersen, Chapt. 7 & 8
Beer, M. & Eisenstgat, The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation
and Learning. Sloan Management Review.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. R. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard—
Measures that Drive erformance, Harvard Business Review, 70(1)
Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D. R. Double-Loop Management: Making
Strategy A Continuous Process. Balanced Scorecard Report,
Reprint No. B0007A
Kaplan & Norton, Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic
management system.
Kaplan & Norton, Double-Loop Management: Making Strategy A
Continuous Process.
Linking Human Resource Development to Strategy. Dec. 15
Readings: Pietersen, Chap. 11.
Bartlett, C. A., Ghoshal, S. Building Competitive Advantage
Through People. Sloan Management Review. Winter
2002. 34-41.
Lorange & Murphy, Strategy and human resources: Concepts
& practice. Human Resource Management. XXII: 111-
133.
Marshall & Yorks, Planning for a restructured, revitalized
Organization. Sloan Management Review. 35(4): 81-91.
General course expectations
The following are the instructor’s general expectations about student participation
in the course:
o Students are to come to class prepared for the discussions, by having done
all requisite reading in advance.
o Active class participation is expected of all students. Students are strongly
encouraged to provide relevant information from their own experiences or
other materials they have read; probe for clarification; make connections
among the readings; and integrate ideas. The quality of participation, not
the just the quantity, will be assessed.
o Students are to attend all classes. Students are to give advance notice, if
possible, of any expected absence or provide immediate follow-up, if they
are unexpectedly absent. Students who miss more than two classes will
be asked to complete additional assignments in order to gain additional
experience.
o If as student misses a class, he or she is responsible for obtaining all notes
and materials.
o Assignments are to be completed on time.
o The quality of the writing and as well as the content will be assessed for
this course. All students are advised to carefully proofread all grammar
and spelling prior to turning in assignments. If a paper does not meet
course expectations, the student will be asked to rewrite the paper. All
students have the option of not doing the rewrite and accepting a lesser
grade.
o There are several style features that are required
--all papers must be paginated
--all paragraphs must be indented 5-7 spaces
--subheadings should be used to break up topics in the paper, helping
to organize the flow and facilitate reading
--citations and references should follow APA guidelines
o Group discussions are an integral part of the course. Students will be
assessed on their ability to participate in and facilitate good group
dynamics, throughout small group and whole class discussions. This
includes respectful listening, support and encouragement of all colleagues,
as they test out ideas and opinions in an academic learning environment.
Grading criteria
Grade will be assigned to papers based on the following criteria, adapted from one
used by other faculty in the department. It should help to clarify my expectations for
your writing.
A paper An “A” paper is rich in content and quality of writing. It is meaty and
dense with information. It makes all points well, and is thought
provoking. It is complete and integrates all the ideas raised, rather than
leaving tangents unresolved. It is presented in a cogent manner, with an
engaging opening paragraph, good transitions, and tight, fresh and cogent
phrasing. It has careful organization and development, with a clear
beginning, middle and conclusion.
B paper A “B” paper provides substantial information and is well written. Its
points are logically ordered, well developed and unified around a clear
organizing principle. It has a well developed beginning and conclusion. It
is concise, with some of the finesse of an “A” paper, and is somewhat
successful in convincing a reader of its points.
C paper A “C” paper is generally competent in meeting the specifications of the
assignment and having few mechanical errors. Its content is thin,
commonplace, and too dependent upon vague generalities. The writing is
uneven, without a well-developed beginning and conclusion, and has
choppy sentences, with repetitions and redundancies. It lacks intellectual
rigor, and is mediocre in establishing a stand on an issue. It leaves many
ideas dangling and is not very successful in convincing the reader.
D paper A “D” paper is ineffective in how it develops a subject and is written. It is
often a summary of information rather than an analysis of information, and
may miss parts of the required assignment. The sentences and overall
organization are frequently awkward and ambiguous. There may also be
frequent grammar and spelling errors.
Related docs
