Giddens Theory of Social Practices | Analysis

Giddens Theory of Social Practices | Analysis The aim of this paper is to critically evaluate the rationale behind Giddens theory of social practices and offer in depth of complexity and its complex adaptive systems in relation to managing strategic discourse. Several views and ideas have been expressed by many authors and practitioners concerning complexity and strategy. Therefore the scope of the paper is limited to how strategy evolves in a complex adaptive system. In this context, complexity will be explained, highlight on core competencies and resource-based view of the firms; then debate on strategy while discussing the characteristics of strategic thinking and planning and those involved in it. The paper is concluded having critically analysed the kind of leadership style suited for managing diverse human behaviour and its surroundings during the strategic actions. Mitleton-Kelly (2002) linked social practices to a self-organisational context, whereby group of individuals suddenly congregate to perform a task, the group decides on what to do, why they should perform that task, who will be involved and how will it be done. So there is an interdependency and inter-connectivity among the entities involved (Kauffman, 1993). According to Wenger and Snyder (2000) social practices evolve from community of practice which shows how people interact with their surroundings and solving problems through human relationships. So Giddens (1979) opine that â€Å"social practices are situated activities† brings to bare the social interaction of human actions within a structure and the system. According to Cooper et al. (1992) the increasing competition, rise of global markets and growing economic integration has brought dramatic change in industrial developments and management. And these have increased uncertainty, greater conflict and even complexities running across all organisations. Citing example is conflicts between profit maximization within the industry an organisation operates and care for the environment. This is causing organisations to constantly redefine their mindsets (Senge, 1990) to radically rethink of how to gain competitive advantage in the dynamic business environment (McHardy, 1997). Mitleton-Kelly (2001, p. 3) viewed organisational complexity as: â€Å"being associated with the intricate inter-relationships of individuals, of individuals with artefacts (such as IT) and with ideas, and with effects of inter-actions within the organisation, as well as between institutions within a social ecosystem†. Holland (1975) who impelled Complex Adaptive System (CAS) viewed it as â€Å"non-linear systems whose behaviour is determined by the interaction of its adaptive parts†. The interaction is between the organisation and its environment (Sherif, 2006). Cilliers (2000) stated that the non-linearity of the interactions in a system is a precondition for complexity. According to Mitleton-Kelly (2001) the ideology on strategy and changes in management is due to the fact that organisations is observed as a complex evolving systems whereby the interacting agents changes with time (Cillier, 2000). Today, businesses faces more challenges because of the intricacy global network of organisations which propels managers to take pragmatics decisions (Pathak, et al., 2007). According to Choi and Hong (2002) the structural complexities of the supply chain interconnectedness and ability for an organisation to rapidly learn and get acclimatized to the dynamic environment to ensure long-term survival (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1998) has been the embryonic themes that managers usually encounter in decision making. Amaral and Uzzi (2007) commented on the complexity in the managerial context, stating that complex systems occurs when more interacting agents are impel to act on their limited resources and local information. The agents may be individuals, group, specialized knowledge, organisations, industries, etc, (Holland and Miller, 1991: Allen, 1997). Author such as Kanter (1989) acknowledged the significance for an organisation to endeavour to do more with less, stating that â€Å"the imperative to do more with less is a common management theme across a range of industries†. Thus becoming productive and efficient with fewer resources. According to Bovaird (2008) the complexity theory which demonstrates the concept of planning in an open system is abstractly embedded with elemental difficulties. The implementation of CAS oriented approach and behavioral adaptive system helps organization to improve their decision making that will increase the efficiency and the awareness of competition and as much as preparing for external uncertainties (Abell et al. 1999). Example of a company that have benefited from implementing the CAS principles into their operational activities include; Boeings move which reduced its risk of expensive tumble supply networks delays by redesigning of the 787 Dreamliner supply network. Equally, companies such as Nokia, quickly learn to be adaptive in their behaviour in ‘hyper-competitive environment. In the case of Nokia and Ericsson, a fire outbreak to their sole supplier (Philips) for particular chip interrupted the supply of chips to both manufactures. Whiles Ericsson suffered an estima ted loss of $2.34 billion, Nokia quickly connected with Philips to create an alternative supply options that will ensure regular supply of the chips to Nokia (Sheffi and Rice, 2005). Barney (1991) identified the economic and ‘hyper-competitive environment as drivers of resource-base viewed which requires strategic and self-management of the cost and scarcity of resources (Griffiths, 2004) so as to generate superior returns (Priem and Butler, 2001). So the hyper-competitive environment also influences the frequency and level of strategic activities (Eisenhardt and Santos, 2002). Mintzberg (1987) defined strategy in five terms: plan; ploy; pattern; position; and perspective. Similarly, Abraham (2005) viewed strategic thinking as identifying possible business models that results in customer value. According to Pryor et al. (1998) the traditional way of strategic planning was familiarize to quantitative analysis where the strategies were planned based on results or analysed data without strategically thinking of the implementers (low level employees) of the strategic plan. Mintzberg (1994) and Boar (2000) distinguish strategic planning or action as the progeny of strategic thinking. Thus, whereas the thinking involves synthesis encouraging intuitive, innovative and creative thinking at all levels of the organisation, the planning is concern with analysis establishing and formalising systems and procedures (Heracleous, 1998). This is shown in figure 1. Mintzberg (1994) and Boar (2000) concluded that good strategic planning can only be implemented after strategic thinking had occurred. Mitleton-Kelly (2001) express that the ideology on strategy and changes in management is due to the fact that organisations is observed as a complex evolving systems whereby the interacting agents changes with time (Cillier, 2000). Kauffman (1997) and Maturana (1997) argue that strategies should be designed as an adaptive move towards the changing business environment. However, adaptive organisations encounter conflicting constraints within their internal organisation an d the environment within which it interacts. This Kauffman refers to as ‘complexity catastrophe (Kauffman, 1993). Kauffman and Macready (1995) identified Information Technology (IT) and the growing of social network as the major constraints to adaptive system. Therefore, modelling of complexity requires the strategist and practitioners to model organisations especially how human and structural capitals interact with the use of IT systems as well as modelling of the environment to overcome the complexity catastrophe (Sanderson, 1998). Masaaki Imai, a leading Tokyo based management consultant argued that identifying an organisations resource-based view such as its resources and capabilities is critical in determining its strategic action (Imai, n.d). In support of this, Hitt et al. (2009) express that a firms chosen business strategy should be made to exploit its core competences relative to the anticipated opportunities in the external environment. According to Porter (1996) an organisation will survive in this dynamic business environment when it is able to differentiate its strategy by creating its core competency that gives the organisation a competitive advantage over its competitors. Porter re-emphasise that an organisation can boast of good strategy only when its difficult for its competitors to catch up/imitate what it does. He argued that a business model that does not offer an organisation a sustainable competitive advantage is not a good strategy since its competitors can offer the same product to the ma rket. Bonn (2001) suggested three core attributes as the prerequisite for the successful occurrence of strategic thinking. These include recognising the linkages and complexity of the relationships existing between an organisation and its environment in a holistic way, creativity by reviewing the old ideas and practices and merging it with new ideas and having a vision for the organisation. Nonetheless, a viable vision and mission of an organisation should be flexible so as to conform to an ever-changing business environment (Wilson, 1998). Besides the outcome of managing the firms tangible and intangible resources will be the firms strategic competitiveness (Hitt et al., 2009). The diagram illustrates the outcome of strategic actions. According to Abraham (2005) the strategy is all about winning and can only be achieved through strategic thinking and planning. Strategic processes have shifted from the processes of strategic learning by organizations (Crossan and Berdrow, 2003) to an increasing strategy as a social practice (Jarzabkowski, 2005). Similarly, Eisenhardt and Brown (1998) argue that modern strategy has shifted from the traditional way of building long-term defensible positions to a continuous adaptation and improvement into the business environment. Abraham (2005) pointed out that differentiation in terms of finding a technique/innovative way to obtain a sustainable competitive advantage (increasing customer value and profit) is one of the challenges of strategic thinking. However, Sanderson (1998) claim that in this modern era, the ability for an organisation to manage knowledge and the resultant changes in organisation is the main key to think of and obtain strategic advantage and become successfully competitive. On the other hand, the complex changes and continuous quest to gain competitive advantage (Abraham, 2005) has led to the growth of co-operation such as strategic alliances and joint venture to respond to the hostile and turbulent environment (Sanderson, 1998). In a keynote speech by the president and chief operating officer of Coca Cola Company Munich, Kent (2008) stated that the sustainable future of an organisation is not achievable without sustainable leaders and leadership. Moreover sustainable leadership will necessitate organisations to build strong culture of sustainability. Leadership plays a major role in affecting decision processes (Chung and McLarney, 1999) since members within a structure mostly depends on powerful leaders to initiate decisions (Schneider and Shrivastava, 1988). According to Hambrick and Mason (1984) strategy is usually made and executed at the upper hierrarchial levels. Thus the most strategists within an organization is the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and their top management teams and the board of directors of which Whittington (2006) classified them as practitioners. Simultaneously, their profession which includes writing, presenting, communicating, meetings, consulting, etc also requires certain practices such as thinking, analyzing and acting (Angwin et al., 2009). However, Macus (2008) perceive the boards as a strategic resource of an organization that influences its performance. Figure 3 illustrates strategic as practice approach. Boar (2000) stated that a strategist thinks about many issues in multiple dimensions at many levels of abstraction and detail over time (past, present and future) whiles the planning or action processes of the strategy requires cost and time of which all strategists must take that into consideration (Linn, 2008). So the role of strategists is to instill a sense of vision that the staffs of the organisation will work towards (Hamal and Prahalad, 1993) and not to specify every move in advance. According to Simpson (1998) strategy is centered towards the future, hence an effective and efficient strategists is to understand the history of the organisation, its leadership and the industry it operates, then study the successful and unsuccessful initiative the organisation has engaged over the past 5-10 years as well as to enable plan for the future years. In the situation whereby different entities engage in an interaction to undertake a project, a complex inter-relationship is created (Mitleton-Kelly 2001). In this case, a consultant can be hired to help both entities in strategising the planning of the project in order to reap mutual benefit ( ). Also the transfer of knowledge and information to accomplish any task is determine by the level of connectedness and relationship within the actors (Kauffman, 1993). However, Mitzberg (1994 ) criticize the proponents of strategic planning stating that it is deceptive for strategists who are detached from the business operations to f orecast occurrences for an organisation and its industry of operation and that formalising procedures to produce strategy is also a fallacy instead of operationalising on already existing strategies. Equally Collins and Parcas (1994) argue it is a myth that â€Å"successful companies make their best moves by brilliant and complex strategic planning†. Instead the moves made by visionary companies is through series of experiments, trials and error and then take opportunity on those that work perfectly for them. In view of this, Mitleton-Kelly (2001) also stated that trying different strategies exposes organisations to risk. Wenger and Snyder (2000) suggested setting up of â€Å"communities of practice† as one of the best structures for developing strategic thinking. This structure creates thinking environment which involves experienced managers and employees from different sectors and geographical areas to share their skill, knowledge and experiences to develop strategies or business models that influences the future of the company considering the three timing dimensions- past, present and future (Boar, 2000). This structure is similar to the multi-disciplinary project team. Bonn (2001) identified strategic forum as another structures for developing strategic thinking. She argued that this proactive approach should involve successful managers with a proven track record in their own disciplines to focus on areas that will benefit the long-term health of the organisation. According to Kennedy (2005) the diverse cultural values of employees makes managers grapple with complex issues and systems which requires many intangible aspects as tangible ones. Mantere and Whittington (2007) stated that understanding human behavior in a system is really complex. MacGregor‘s (1960) classical division in management theories distinguishes human beings into Theory X and Y. The former are the individuals who are self-interested, work-avoiding and passive whiles the later refers to those who are responsible, communitarian and willing to learn. McGregor (1960) re-emphasize that strategic action will successfully be implemented only when the managers are able to determine the behaviours of the subordinates, the value system and their confidence in the subordinate (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1958) and influence them to achieve positive result. Argyris (1956) argue that subordinates who are immature (Theory X) requires an autocratic leadership style whereas the matured ones (Theory Y) require a democratic leadership style. Morison (1967) on the other hand re-emphasized that organisation whose management flexibly gives its staff lot of latitude to plan strategically are better-off than organisations whose managers are autocratic in making decisions. In view of this, Fiedlers (1967) contingency model suggest that the ability of the managers is to carefully assess the situation and choose a suitable dominant style to improve their leadership role in revitalizing the vision of the organization. However, Calder et al. (1977) argued that despite complexity involves managing human being; the existence of leadership is only a perception. Simpson (1998) identified communication, performance measures, reward systems and training programs as the main driving force that influences strategic actions. Effective communication through knowledge and information sharing in an organisation will enable the strategy to be acted upon in the appropriate direction. Hopkins and Hopkins (2002) stated that interactions among group of people simultaneously influences their group actions and is observed as the key predictor of group performance (Kanki et al., 1991). Tziner and Vardi (1983) pointed out â€Å"higher quality of problem solving, greater productivity and efficiency, better achievement and greater group satisfaction† as the benefits of smooth interactions among members of a group. However, Ziegler et al. (2000) argues that the effectiveness of group interaction can be negatively affected (Steiner, 1976) in the situation whereby a single person is dominating a group interaction to solve complex task. Simpson (1998) conti nue to express that measuring the performance of the executed plan will assist the organisation to spotlight on the most important whiles improving upon the performances. Rewards and compensation on the other hand motivates the staffs to make the strategic plan a reality by achieving positive results. Moreover the organisation should organise training programs to psychologically work on the staffs attitudes and skills whiles executing the strategic plans. Furthermore, Stasser et al. (1989) made an interesting comment that most of the best contribution and supports to solutions or complex task is normally generated from ad hoc informal board interactions which occurs outside committee or board meetings among the directors. Ruppert (2009) also emphasise that informal discussion among board members, top management and stakeholders, occurs at the golf course, spending sometime at the beach, pub or restaurant when drinking beer. According to Coutts et al. (2005) the aforementioned places by Ruppert (2009) leads to social development and contributes to team performance within an organisation. DAvani and MacMillan (1990) suggest that managers should not dwell much on previous success because of the dynamic business environment as it is easy for such managers to fall prey to what Duhaime and Schwenk (1985) term as â€Å"illusion of control†. In addition Ansoff (1984) argue that general managers who perform satisfactorily and succeed in an environment does not give them the assurance of succeeding on a different environment where there is lower or higher level of business turbulence (cited in Mantere and Whittington, 2007). According to Linn (2008) one of the concepts that organisations must consider during strategic planning processes is the SWOT analysis. This gives detailed account of the organisation strengths and weaknesses as well as the opportunities and threats of the competitive environment. Mantere and Whittington (2007) claim that the SWOT analysis is one of the most popular strategic tool that has been adopted as business policy to flexibly develop and sha pe strategists and practitioners. The outcome of strategic actions from interacting with the environmental forces provides the platform for organisational learning when the experiences of these outcomes is then feed back into the scanning and interpretation processes (Chung and McLarney, 1999). In support of this, Ashby (1969) re-emphasise that an organisation can survive in a complex system by exploring its space of possibilities thus continuously scanning the landscape and encouraging alternative strategies. On the other hand, the feedback helps in identifying ones strength and specifity of asset (Sherif, 2006). Furthermore, Prigogine and stengers (1985) claim that feedback from implemented strategic plans either being positive or negative helps to create stability in complex system through a precise prediction of the agents behaviour and planning accordingly (cited in Mtleton-Kelly, 2001). Strategic processes have some shortcomings (Tavakoli and Lawton, 2005). The authors argue that normally the knowledge and experience of the front line employees are not incorporated into the information gathered during the strategic thinking process. On the other hand, the authors argue that the absence of the senior management may also mismatch the mission of the organisation. Even though strategic planning usually occurs at the top of organizations (Christensen et al., 1982), Bourgeois and Brodwins (1984) claim that organizations perform better when strategic thinking and planning is delegated downwards so as to benefit from the information gathered at frontline. Moreover, Hambrick (1987) argue that strategic success is assured when the entire top management team share common values and posses qualities that robustly fits into evolving competitive environment. To conclude strategy is recognized as an organizational phenomenon which is significant for organizational performance and growth. Strategic practices never ends so long as there continue to be complex evolving system hence understanding the nature of complex system is important. Therefore adapting to such systems which has been challenged by practitioners requires good leadership that will promote knowledge sharing and learning in engaging into strategic thinking and planning. Finally in solving a chosen set of problem(s), strategists must sample its strategic ideas and apply the ideas from the past, present towards the future so as to fit into the organizations vision. REFERENCES Abell, B., Serra, R., and Wood, R. (1999) Strategic thinking and the new science 9Book Review), Emergence, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 71-79. Abraham, S. (2002) Talking Strategy: Dan Bane, CEO of Trader Joes, Strategy Leadership, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 30-32. Abraham, S. (2005) Stretching strategic thinking, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 5-12. Allen P.M. (1997) Cities and Regions As Self-Organising Systems: Model of Complexity, Environmental Problems Social Dynamics Series, Vol.1. Amaral, L.A.N. and Uzzi, B. (2007) Complex systems-A new paradigm for the integrative study of management, physical and technology systems, Management Science, Vol. 53, pp. 1033-1035. Angwin, D., Paroutis, S. and Mitson, S. (2009) Connecting Up Strategy: Are Senior Strategy Directors A Missing Link? California Management Review, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 74-94. Argyris, C. (1976) Leadership, Learning and Changing the Status Quo, Organisation Dynamics, Vol. 5. Ashby, W.R. (1969) ‘Self-regulated and Requisite Variety in Systems Thinking, 1st Edition, Penguin. Barney, J.B. (1991) Firms resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 99-120. Boar, B. (2000) Strategic Thinking in Hyper-Competitive Markets, Handbook of Business Strategy, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 183-186. Bonn, I. (2001) Developing strategic thinking as a core competency, Management Decision, Vol. 39, No. 1. Bourgeois, L.J. and Brodwin, D.R. (1984) Strategic implementation: five approaches to an elusive phenomenon, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 241-264. Bovaird, T. (2008) Emergent strategic management and planning mechanisms in complex adaptive systems: The case of the UK Best Value initiative, Public Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 319-240. Brown, S.L., and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1998) Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Harvard Business School Press: Boston. Calder, B.J. (1977) An attribution Theory of Leadership, in Staw, B.M. and Salanck, G.R. (Eds), New Directions in Organisation Beahaviour, St. Clair Press: Chicago. Choi, T.Y and Hong, Y. (2002) Unveiling the structure of supply networks: Case studies in Honda, Acura and Daimler Chrysler, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19, pp. 351-366. Christensen, C.R., Andrew, K.R., Bower, J.L. and Hamermesh, R.G. (1982) Business Policy, Text and Cases, 5th Edition, Irwan Inc. Chung, E. and McLarney, C. (1999) When giants collide: strategic analysis and application, Management Decision, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 233-247. Cilliers, P. (2000) Rules and complex systems, Emergence, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 40-50. Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1994) Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, HaperBusiness: New York. Cooper, J. Browne, M. and Peters, M. (1992) European Logistics: Markets, Management and Strategy, 1st Edition, Blackwell: Padstow. Crossan, M.M. and Berdrow, I. (2003) Organisational Learning and Strategic Renewal, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 1087-1105. Coutts, L.M., Gruman, J.A. and Schneider, F.W. (2005) Applied Social Psychology, SAGE publishing: Thousand Oaks, CA. DAvani, R.A. and MacMillan, I.C. (1990) Crises and the content of managerial communications: a study of the focus of attention of top managers in surviving and failing firms, Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 634-657. Duhaime, I.M and Schwenk, C.R. (1985) Conjectures on cognitive simplification in acquisition and divestment decision making, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 287-295. Eisenhardt, K.M. and Brown, S.L. (1998) Competing on the edge: strategy as structured chaos, Long Range Planning, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 786-789. Eisenhardt, K. and Santos, F.M. (2002) Knowledge-based view: a new theory of strategy. In Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H. and Whittington, R. (Eds) Handbook of Strategy and Management. Sage: London. Fiedler, F.E. (1967) A theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill: New York. Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis, University of California Press: California. Graetz, F. (2002) Strategic thinking versus strategic planning: towards understanding the complementarities, Management Decision, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 456-462. Griffiths A. and Wall, S. (2004) Applied Economics, 10th Edition, Harlow: Prentice Hall. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1993) Strategy as stretch and leverage, Harvard and Business Review, March-April, pp. 75-84. Hambrick, D.C (1987) The top management team: key to strategic success, California management Review, Vol. 30, pp. 88-108. Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984) Upper Echelons: The Organisation as a reflection of its Top Managers, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 193-206. Heraculeous, L. (1998) Strategic thinking or strategic planning, Long Range planning, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 481-487. Holland, J.H. (1975) Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, The MIT Press, Cambridge, M.A. Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R. and Hoskisson, R.E. (2009) Strategic Management: competitive and globalisation (concepts cases), 8th Edition, Cengage Learning. Holland, J.H. and Miller, J.H. (1991) Artificial adaptive agents in economic theory, American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 365-370. Hopkins, W.E. and Hopkins, S.A. (2002) Effects of Cultural Re-composition on Group Interaction Processes, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, pp. 541-553. Imai, M. (n.d) Look at your company from outside-in as well as inside-out. [Online] available at: http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/mgmt_stategic_resource-based.html [Accessed on 25/04/10]. Jarzabkowski, P. (2005) Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach, Sage: London. Kanter, R. M. (1989) When Giants Learn to Dance, 1st Edition, London: Simon Schuster. Kanki, B.G., Folk, V.G. and Irwin, C.M. (1991) Communications Variations and Aircrew Performance, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 149-162. Kaufman, S.A. (1993) The Origins of Order: Self Organisation and Selection in Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Kauffman, S. (1997) Complexity and Technology Conference, London, 11th March. Kauffman, S. and Macready, W. (1995) Technological Evolution and Adaptive Organisations, Complexity Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 26-43. Kennedy, B. (2005) A cystems approach to training and complexity, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 509-521. Kent, M. (2008) Keynote Speech by Muhtar Kent at the CIES World Food Business Summit. [Online] available at: http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/presscenter/viewpoints_kent_cies.html [Accessed on 21/04/10]. Linn, M. (2008) Library Strategies: Planning strategically and strategic planning, The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 20-23. Macus, M. (2008) Board Capability: An Interactions Perspective on Board of Directors and Firm Performance, International Studies of Management and Organisation, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 98-116. MacGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill: New York. McHardy, P. (1997) Mental Modelling complexity in EC value chains, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 111-121. Maturana, H. (1997) Workshop at the open university, March. Mentere, S and Whittington, R. (2007) Becoming a strategist: senior manager trajectories. Paper presented at the 23rd EGOS Colloquium Beyond Waltz Dances of Individuals and Organisation 5-7 July. Mintzberg, H. (1987) Five Ps for strategy, in Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J.B. (Eds), Readings in the Strategy Process , 3RD Edition., Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J, pp. 10-17. Mintzberg, H. (1994) Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Prentice Hall, New York. Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2001) Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives of Organisations: The application of complexity theory to organizations, London School of Economics, 29 June. Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2002) Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives of Organisations: The application of complexity theory to organizations. London School of Economics, June. [Online] available at: http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/events/PDFiles/publication/Ten_principles_of_complexity_enabling_infrastructure.pdf [Accessed on 18/05/10]. Morison, S.E. (1967) History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: Vol IV, Coral Sea, Midway and Submarine Actions, May 1942-August 1942, Little, Brown Co. Boston, MA. Pathak, S.D., Day, J.M., Nair, A., Sawaya. W.J. and Kristal, M.M. (2007) Complexity and Adaptivity in Supply Networks: Building Supply Network Theory Using a Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective, Decision Sciences, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 547-580. Porter, M. (1996) What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review 74, November-December, pp. 61-78. Priem, R. and Butler, J.E. (2001) Is the resource-based â€Å"view† a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 22-40. Pryor, M.G., White, J.C. and Toombs, L.A. (1998) Strategic Quality Management: A strategic, system approach to continuous improvement, Thompson Learning. Ruppert, B. (2009) Beer The Key Ingredient to Team Development. SANS Institute Reading Room site. [Online] available at: http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/leadership/beer-key-ingredient-team-development_33104 [Accessed on 17/05/10]. Sanderson, S.M. (1998) New approaches to strategy: new ways of thinking for the millennium, Management Decision, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 9-13. Schneider, S.C. and Shrivastava, P. (1988) Basic assu Rationalism in Architecture: 18th and 20th Century Rationalism in Architecture: 18th and 20th Century Introduction Rationalism began as a 17th century ideology that led to the Enlightenment, a period in history where reason was the primary instrument for justifying and understanding the hows and whys of things and circumstances. The Enlightenment was a time where concrete evidence through scientific research flourished and Rationalism influenced all field of endeavors and even simple daily tasks.[1] In layman terms, to be rational is to be understandable, measurable or definite. Using this as premise, Rationalism in architecture therefore pertains to accuracy in designing and building the height, breadth or depth of a structure. Architectural Rationalism was a solid evidence of the Enlightenment influence in the field of architecture. It continues to persist in the modern world as an independent art movement though much of the modern Rationalist designs have little resemblance to Enlightenment architecture. Henceforth, this essay attempts to contextualize Rationalism by differentiating its two variants: 18th century Rationalism and the recent 20th century development. The similarities and differences of their respective designs and, if possible, functions are noted to give us an idea on how Rationalism has evolved as an architectural ideology. The essay also includes discussions on sub-movements, their pioneers and their trademarks. 18th Century Rationalism The Enlightenment Architectural Rationalism was focused on being symmetrical, having accurate measurements of classic shapes, and functionality. It clearly reflected the spirit of the times where science, mathematics and logic were at the peak of their influence. Neoclassicism was a widespread movement under the Rationalist wing. It was established in reaction to the flamboyant and seemingly excessive Baroque and Rococo styles. During the neoclassicist boom, many artworks and structural designs of the classical Graeco-Roman era were recalled together with the architectural works of Italian Andrea Palladio.[2] The movement was named neoclassical, as opposed to pure classicism, as not every classical design was applied therein. Neoclassicists only selected from the wide array of designs those feasible to society. Neoclassicist designs were characterized as follows: symmetry, columns that functioned as support, minimalistic design composed of basic geometric shapes, and an overlaid triangular gable commonly known as pediment. The symmetry, functionality, and geometrical aspects of the neoclassicist movement were defining characteristics of the Rationalist ideology.[3] The Pediment[4] A Column[5] Existing in the 16th century towards the culmination of the Renaissance period, Andrea Palladio was the first known architect to revive and apply the classical designs of Graeco-Roman society in many villas, palaces and basilicas. His architecture became an essential foundation of Enlightenment Architecture. As a dedicated follower of Vitruvius and his timeless principle of firmitas, utilitas, venustas, Palladio carefully ensured that his structural designs were durable, useful, and attractive as stipulated by Vitruvius in his ten-volume masterpiece De Architectura. Palladio was also particular about proportions and putting a purpose on every structural component.[6] For instance, a portico or terrace must be utilized in such a way that the surrounding scenery was seen in its full glory. He wanted geographical attributes of the estate to match with the houses structural design. The palazzos, villas and basilicas he designed displayed the intermingling values of beauty and the social environment and position of their respective owners. An urban palazzo was different from a provincial palazzo; likewise, an agricultural villa was different from a residential villa. Palladio designed structures according to their context.[7] Palladio had contributed several design innovations in public buildings and churches. Most Palladian works were made of affordable materials, usually stucco, traditionally made with lime, sand and water, to cover and bind bricks. His urban structures for prestigious Venetian owners had high classical porticos with pediments that extended as far as the second floor and were supported by giant colonnades. These porticos were raised above ground level and on the same level as the rest of the ground floor. This raised floor called piano nobile, was reused in later variations of neoclassical architecture. Palazzo Chiericati in the city of Vicenza was a fine example of this urban structure.[8] Palazzo Chiericati (1550-1557)[9] Rural villas were rather different. Instead of the piano nobile, there was an elevated podium bordered by lower service wings, connected with an elegant curving flight of stairs. The owner maintained residence at the elevated portion. Villa Foscari (also La Malcontenta) was among the mid-16th century designs of Palladio that employed this renowned building format. Villa Foscari (1559)[10] The 1570 publishing of Palladios work Quattro Libri dellArchitettura (The Four Books of Architecture), stretched his influence far beyond his home country Italy. Palladios architectural drawings and discussions contained in the book set the stage for neoclassicist expansion in the key European countries of France, Britain, Ireland, Spain and Germany.[11] Even more remarkable was his influence in colonial and post-colonial America, where his designs were replicated in the houses of well-known families, state buildings and even the private abode of Thomas Jefferson, the freedom President.[12] Along with Palladios treatise, the unearthing and discovery of Pompeii and Herculaneum, Roman towns destroyed by volcanic eruption during the classical period, was thought to inspire the interior designs of 18th century European houses and edifices.[13] The Ruins of Pompeii[14] Interior View of a Herculaneum House[15] In Europe, neoclassicist architecture developed at different paces. Some sources estimated that the movement reached its peak in France with Étienne-Louis Boullà ©e and Claude Nicolas Ledoux. The two architects followed principles of rationality into their Graeco-Roman inspired designs. Boullà ©e was known for fusing geometry with the standard classics. This original neoclassical deviation might have been influenced by his work as an educator and philosopher at École Nationale Des Ponts et Chaussà ©es. Like most neoclassicists, his designs were minimalistic, devoid of ornamentation, bold enough to repeat certain structural components, especially if they were functional (i.e. columns), and sought to emphasize the purpose of the structure and its parts. Boullà ©e also proposed a cenotaph, an approximately 500-foot sphere rooted on a round foundation, for the English scientist Isaac Newton. This was not feasible to build but as a professional engraving, the style gained prom inence. Boullà ©es works were later revived by 20th century Rationalists and more popularly by renowned Modernist architect, Aldo Rossi. Contemporary architects found his designs unique and very inventive although some would consider them illusions of grandeur. The Hà ´tel Alexandre in Paris, known for its flanking courtyard doors and Corinthian columns, was one of Boullà ©es surviving works.[16] Cenotaph for Newton (1784)[17] Hà ´tel Alexandre (1763-66)[18] Like his compatriot, Ledoux was very idealistic in his architecture, always wanting to build with a purpose. For this he and Boullà ©e were branded Utopians.'[19] Ledoux designed many theatres, hotels, residential homes, and buildings, supplied with rotundas, columns and domes from the Graeco-Roman period. His known architectural innovation was the architectonic order, best exhibited through his design on the Royal Saltworks at Arc-et-Senans. He was appointed Royal Architect for the express purpose of building a structural design for efficiently extracting salt. The Royal Saltworks became a significant example of 18th century Architectural Rationalism for its extensive use of geometry and logical arrangement of shapes to facilitate the extraction and transportation processes. Another design was drawn after the first was disapproved.[20] Facade of the Royal Saltworks, France[21] Aerial View of Ledoux Second Design (1804)[22] There were many other prominent figures under the neoclassical movement but few were as Utopian as the works of Boullà ©e and Ledoux. French writer-teacher-architect Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand influenced several German Rationalists by adding principles of economy and convenience to the existing architectural Utopia.[23] The later renditions of neoclassicism in Britain, America, and Spain disregarded the attachment to symmetry and geometry that Palladio himself and the French neoclassicists were very particular. However, they did retain much of the functionality aspect. For example, neo-Palladian British architects William Kent and Indigo Jones invented the flanking wings to give more space in the house interior.[24] This concern for utilizing space was still an archetype of 18th century Rationalism. 20th Century Rationalism 20th century Rationalist architecture was interchangeably called Neo-Rationalist. Although the designs were different from 18th century rationalism, neo-Rationalists continued to practice important principles of Rationalist Architecture. The simplistic form and ornamentation was still retained; the functionality aspect became known as theme. In fact, as many historians claimed, neo-Rationalism was an evolution of 18th century Enlightenment Architecture.[25] The need to justify architectural works remained strong as it had then. The Enlightenment brought about the Industrial Revolution around 18th-19th centuries. The effects lasted and were carried over to the 20th century, where industrialization became a fad. Economic advancement was no longer associated with brick and wood but with new elements like steel, iron and glass. As industrialization reached its peak in the 20th century, the growing importance of machinery led to the development of an industrial architecture, composed of t hose new elements.[26] Modernism was the dominant rationalist movement of the 1900s. It basically aimed to employ new materials suited to the spirit of industrialization and free architects from the bondage of styles, which curtailed individual touches. The works of early Modernists Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius in Germany and Frenchman Le Corbusier were mostly products of socio-political revolutions. Following World War I, the German Modernist ventured into new structures that meet social needs.'[27] The Bauhaus design school resulted from this venture. Bauhaus became identified as the International Style, adopted by many Modern structural designs in various countries.[28] The following are famous examples of Bauhaus architecture: The UN New York Base by Le Corbusier[29] The Gropius Residence in Lincoln[30] The International Style was characterized by rational principles of minimalism and functional design and structure. Neoclassical pediments, columns and flanking wings were replaced by rectangular shapes of concrete cement, steel, and other new elements. There were hardly traces of particular cultures or social context and a neutral architecture that was universally applicable prevailed.[31] Modernists like Frank Lloyd Wright tried to balance nature and structural designs.[32] Later, Postmodernist movements emerged to deconstruct the universality of Bauhaus and infuse local identities into modern architecture so it can connect with peoples sentiments.[33] Aldo Rossi, Italian theorist-architect-designer-artist, was among the celebrated Postmodernists. His valuable contribution to urban architecture was building contemporary structures without neglecting the historical value of the city or site where it would be built. He stressed the social significance of monuments and cemeteries and also advocated that structures be strong enough for succeeding generations to witness.[34] San Cataldo Cemetery expanded by Rossi (1971)[35] Bonnefanten Museum, Maastricht by Rossi (1990-1994)[36] Conclusion 18th and 20th century Architectural Rationalists are linked by the ancient principles of utilitas, firmitas, venustas. Their respective movements were generally non-ornamental and useful in structure, design and theme. In the area of symmetry, the use of geometrical shapes, and projecting cultural and individual sentiments, the two Rationalist regimes differ. 18th century Rationalists were unified in advocating truth and beauty in architecture while neo-Rationalists had individual contradictions.[37] Nevertheless, both strands justified Architectures major roles in society and in peoples lives. Sources [1] Hackett Lewis. (1992) The age if enlightenment, History World International at http://history-world.org/age_of_enlightenment.htm [2] Steve Fallon Nicola Williams. (2008) Paris: city guide, United Kingdom, Lonely Planet Publications, p. 48. [4] University of Pittsburgh at http://www.pitt.edu/~medart/menuglossary/pediment.htm [5] Old House Web at http://www.oldhouseweb.com/architecture-and-design/greek-revival-1820-1850.shtml [6] Bernd Evers, Christof Thoenes Kunstbibliothek. (2003) Architectural theory: from the renaissance to the present, Germany, TASCHEN pp. 6-7. [7] Sam Smiles Stephanie Moser. (2005) Envisioning the past: archaeology and the image, Maine, Blackwell Publishing pp. 98-114. [8] Douglas Lewis, Andrea Palladio International Exhibitions Foundation. (1981) The drawings of Andrea Palladio, Texas, The Foundation, pp. 158-163. [9] Essential Architecture at http://www.essential-architecture.com/STYLE/STY-E14.htm [11] Caroline Clifton-Mogg. (1991) The neoclassical source book, New York, Rizzoli, pp. 88-175. [12] David Watkin. (2005) A history of western architecture, London, Laurence King pp. 114-513. [13] H. Keethe Beebe. (1975) Domestic Architecture and the New Testament, The Biblical Archaeologists, volume 38, number 3/4, pp. 89-104. [14] Virtual Tourist at http://cache.virtualtourist.com/1898061-Pompeii-Pompeii.jpg [16] Helen Rosenau. (1976) Boullà ©e visionary architecture, New York, Harmony Books pp. 1-27. [19] Barry Bergdoll. (2000) European architecture, 1750-1890, New York, Oxford University Press p. 97. [20] Elizabeth Basye Gilmore Holt. (1966) From the classicists to the impressionists: art and architecture in the nineteenth century, Connecticut, Yale University Press pp. 227-311. [21] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/203 [23] Joy Monice Malnar Frank Vodvarka. (2004) Sensor design, Minneapolis, The University of Minnesota Press p. 8. [24] Inigo Jones, William Kent. (1727) The designs of Inigo Jones: consisting of plans and elevations for publick, England, W. Kent pp. 1-73. [25] Christopher Crouch. (2000) Modernism in Art Design and Architecture, New York, St. Martins Press pp. 1-10. [26] Industrial architecture, EncyclopÃÆ' ¦dia Britannica Online at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/286910/industrial-architecture [27] Richard J. Evans. (2003) The coming of the third reich, New York, The Penguin Press, pp. 122-123. [28] Henry Russell Hitchcock Philip Johnson. (1997)The International Style, New York, W. W. Norton Company, pp. 1-5. [29] International Style at http://architecture.about.com/od/20thcenturytrends/ig/Modern-Architecture/International-Style.htm [30] The Digital Archive of American Architecture at http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/gropius.html [31] Hazel Conway Rowan Roenisch. (1994) Understanding architecture: an introduction to architecture and architectural history, London, Routledge pp. 22-24. [32] Kathleen Karlsen. Saving Civilization Through Architecture Rationalism and the International Style, at http://ezinearticles.com/?Saving-Civilization-Through-ArchitectureRationalism-and-the-International-Styleid=888138 [33] Hazel Conway Rowan Roenisch. (1994) Understanding architecture: an introduction to architecture and architectural history, London, Routledge pp. 22. [34] Terry Kirk. (2005) The architecture of modern Italy, volume 2: visions of utopia 1900-present, New York, Princeton University Press pp. 208-214. [35] Cornell University Blog at http://blogs.cornell.edu/tim/2008/09/21/cities-sites/ [36] Brian Rose at http://www.brianrose.com/portfolio/bonnefanten/bonnefan.htm [37] Sarah Williams Goldhagen. Ultraviolet: Alvar Aaltos embodied Rationalism, Harvard Design Magazine at http://www.sarahwilliamsgoldhagen.com/articles/Ultraviolet.pdf