Šiuolaikinės strateginio valdymo problemos: socialinių ekonominių bei technologinių pokyčių įvertinimas

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjamos šiuolaikinės strateginio valdymo problemos, analizuojamos per pastaruosius 20 metų išryškėjusios strateginio valdymo mokyklos bei požiūriai. Analizė siejama su Lietuvos verslo organizacijų vykdoma valdymo reorganizacija, įsivyravusių valdymo metodų vertinimu. Atskleidžiamos sąlygos ir priežastys, kurios leidžia atskirti strateginį planavimą nuo strateginio valdymo organizacijų lygyje. Parodoma, kaip socialiniai, ekonominiai bei technologiniai pokyčiai įtakoja strateginio valdymo tobulinimą organizacijose, vis naujesnių koncepcijų atsiradimą. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Pokyčiai; Pokyčių keblumai; Problemos; Strategijos formavimas; Strateginis valdymas; Vadybos mokyklos; Įvertininmas; Assesment; Changes; Problem of changes; Problems; Schools of management; Strategic management; Strategy formation.

ENThe present article analyses problems of modem strategic management, a critical approach towards schools of management within recent 20 years and conceptions is being presented. The analysis encompasses management reorganisation carried out by Lithuanian business organisations as well as critical evaluation of predominant management methods. Conditions and reasons allowing to separate strategic planning from strategic management in the level of organiztions are being revealed. A thorough analysis of how social, economic and technological changes influence perfection of strategic management in organizations as well as rise of new conceptions is being shown. The article states, that logic of strategic management schools go in conflict with each other in a sphere of preconceived consideration of strategy. Some schools, such as designing, planning, positional, strictly approve preconceived consideration and description of strategies, while learning school is for strategic formation in a course of a process. In reality strategies can seldom be strictly planned or made only in a course of a process. It is more usual, that they take different intermediate positions. When strategies are created systematically, there is no time for learning, while when they are created in process, the process itself remains without control. The problem of collective interaction seems to be one of those to be differently treated by schools of strategic management. Designing and entrepreneurial schools acknowledge a manager as the only strategist. Learning, government and cultural schools consider formation of strategy being a collective process. Approach of external environment, cognitive, positional and planning schools towards this problem are even more interesting- they consider external environment to be essential point of strategy formation.It is practically problematic to define to what extent the scope of strategy formation is individual, technical, physiological or collective. The problem of changes is one of the most complex. Various schools of strategic management treat the essence of changes, their origin and sources quite differently. In general, a concept of strategy is being connected with stability. Organizations, striving for stability, are forced to create strategics as well as implement them. Proceeding towards developed strategy, a process of transformation is taking place in a course of which the organization gets adapted to the new external conditions. However, not all schools are inclined to interpret strategic process in such a way. Planning schools ascertain that the organization is capable to maintain stability and carry out changes at the same time, having thoroughly planned things ahead, including innovations. Majority of other schools keep to one of the two positions', either the organization is constantly involved in implementation of innovations or it changes very seldom, sometimes does not change at all. For example, learning and government schools ascertain constant change of strategy. While schools of external environment, cultural and partially cognitive schools consider that changes are occurring very rarely. Having consolidated in their ruches, the organizations create their structure and culture. Later they are not in a position to abandon these things. However, in reality not only extremities do exist. According to their approach towards the essence of changes, the organizations are positioned in a scale from those acknowledging very rare to constant changes. Learning and partially planning schools acknowledge gradual, step-by-step changes. Meanwhile, configuration and designing schools are inclined to acknowledge the nature of essential changes.Government school, using political methods, analyses the nature of separate or gradual transformations, stipulated by the deepness of the conflict. The rest schools take intermediate position with a certain deviation to one or another side. The application of quantum physics for genesis of changes is very interesting in this case. It is considered, that gradual changes are constantly taking place in organization and only sometimes the policy is changed cardinally and revolutionary changes take place. The diversity is characteristic not only to the nature of changes, but also to their sources. The ideas of changes appear during the processes of learning, thinking, problem analysis or discussion, as well as during other processes. Strategic management schools explain the space of strategic choice in fairly different ways. Some of them, such as external environment schools and close to them according this attitude cognitive and entrepreneurial school, keep to a very comfortable voluntarist position. Learning and government schools, which acknowledge partial restrictions, represent balanced standpoint. Finally, creating the strategy it is impossible to find a unanimous opinion concerning the need for thinking. For example, learning school advocates logics, stating that organization's success is predetermined by action. The threat appears, that exaggerated intellectual efforts and too deep analysis paralyse the preparation for action. The standpoint of cognitive school is more balanced and it coordinates the activity and thinking in the process of strategy creation. It is very important, that being fascinated by the process of strategy formation, one shouldn't loose the control of this process. [From the publication]