The final strategy-evaluation activity, taking corrective actions, requires making changes to reposition a firm competitively for the future. Examples of changes that may be needed are altering an organization’s structure, replacing one or more key individuals, selling a division, or revising a business mission. Other changes could include establishing or revising objectives, devising new policies, issuing stock to raise capital, adding additional salespersons, allocating resources differently, or developing new performance incentives. Taking corrective actions does not necessarily mean that existing strategies will be abandoned or even that new strategies must be formulated.
The probabilities and possibilities for incorrect or inappropriate actions increase geometrically with an arithmetic increase in personnel. Any person directing an overall undertaking must check on the actions of the participants as well as the results that they have achieved. If either the actions or results do not comply with preconceived or planned achievements, then corrective actions are needed. No organization can survive as an island; no organization can escape change.
Taking corrective actions is necessary to keep an organization on track toward achieving stated objectives. In his thought-provoking books, Future Shock and The Third Wave, Alvin Toffler argued that business environments are becoming so dynamic and complex that they threaten people and organizations with future shock, which occurs when the nature, types, and speed of changes overpower an individual’s or organization’s ability and capacity to adapt. Strategy evaluation enhances an organization’s ability to adapt successfully to changing circumstances. Brown and Agnew referred to this notion as corporate agility. Taking corrective actions raises employees’ and managers’ anxieties. Research suggests that participation in strategy-evaluation activities is one of the best ways to overcome individuals’ resistance to change. According to Erez and Kanfer, individuals accept change best when they have a cognitive understanding of the changes, a sense of control over the situation, and an awareness that necessary actions are going to be taken to implement the changes.
Strategy evaluation can lead to strategy-formulation changes, strategy-implementation changes, both formulation, and implementation changes, and no changes at all. Strategists cannot escape having to revise strategies and implementation approaches sooner or later. Hussey and Langham offered the following insight on taking corrective actions:
Resistance to change is often emotionally based and not easily overcome by rational argument. Resistance may be based on such feelings as loss of status, implied criticism of present competence, fear of failure in the new situation, annoyance at not being consulted, lack of understanding of the need for change, or insecurity in changing from well-known and fixed methods. It is necessary, therefore, to overcome such resistance by creating situations of participation and full explanation when changes are envisaged. Corrective actions should place an organization in a better position to capitalize upon internal strengths; to take advantage of key external opportunities; to avoid, reduce, or mitigate external threats; and to improve internal weaknesses. Corrective actions should have a proper time horizon and an appropriate amount of risk. They should be internally consistent and socially responsible. Perhaps most importantly, corrective actions strengthen an organization’s competitive position in its basic industry. Continuous strategy evaluation keeps strategists close to the pulse of an organization and provides information needed for an
effective strategic management system.