After reading what precisely the article expounds and analyses, revolution stays as the core of strategy. 'The article 'Strategy as Revolution' clarifies the role revolution plays in the markets and declared ten principles to help a company discover revolutionary strategies and put into practice. All the third kinds of companies mentioned in the article have opportunities to reach what they want, however, the different roles determine the market hierarchy. 'In a growing number of industries, innovation is increasingly disrupting existing patterns of competition(Andersen & Strandskov, 2008),' just like what Gary Hamel (2000) said, the simple phrase, 'Familiarity is the enemy'(Chris Lauer , 2008).
The title should have been transposed: Revolution as Strategy - the argument being that, if strategy is not revolutionary, it is not strategic.(Robert Heller 2006)' It specifies what a critical part revolution has played in modern society in strategy. Therefore, this essay will critically review 'Strategy as Revolution'. At first, the article will be placed in a appropriate debate with theoretical underpinning arguments. The following will address the strengths and weaknesses of this article. According to all the previous, reach a conclusion on 'Strategy as Revolution' ultimately.
We know that it is difficult to break rules and that is why revolutionary strategies keeps impacting on markets or industries to great extent. The assessment of revolution contributes to appropriately placing the article into a debate whether it is organization or environment driven.
On one hand, as the principle Hamel mentioned in this article, revolutionaries exist in every company. The first deep thought that spawned his 'Leading the Revolution' was that, ultimately, 'a company cannot rely on outsiders to generate the fundamental perspective on what new strategies, new growth trajectories, and new experiments they should conduct. That has to come from the sweat, blood, and imagination of the people in that organization(Gary Hamel, 2001) '. This undoubtedly approves that employees who break with conventions and challenge the industry boundaries in a organizations which would be good at listening and have open mind. 'Only with strong and persistent managerial intervention could an organization succeed in embracing how this technology would lead to the development of new features in the product(Gilbert & Bower, 2002).'
On the other hand, 'strengthening connections with external stakeholders can provide new sources of innovation to leverage for the firm's competitive advantage (Dundon & Pattakos, 2001)'. All the groups, no matter the customers or the partners even competitors contribute to influence an organization to engender a new idea or adopt a revolutionary standard or product to the whole industry. 'As fewer and fewer people accept the new product or technology, a perverse cycle of containment inevitably kicks in(D'Aveni, 2002).' Therefore, the revolutionary strategies should never stay in an organization, on the contrary, revolution needs examination by market or industry, namely, the external environment. In reverse, environment will dominate the trend of revolution and bring payback.
'In order for firms to be successful, they must constantly be gauging their internal performance while also scanning the external environment, looking for the next opportunities, threats, and challenges that are ever changing each day(Park, Lee, Turner & Kilbourne, 2011 )'.
Strengths and Weaknesses
First of all, this article enlightens companies to deliberate revolutionary strategies and break with conventions. To some extent, the blue ocean strategy share the same core with revolutionary strategy. Revolutionary, 'in sharp contrast to companies playing by traditional mles, never use the competition as a benchmark(Kim & Mauborgne 2004)'. Generally, the article rethinks the business patterns of...