Richard Branson
This essay, in part, is set out to investigate how, and to what extent Richard Branson's strategic methods relates to De Wit and Meyer's (2004) description of generative reasoning perspective and rational reasoning perspective. An analysis-based comparison between generative reasoning perspective and rational reasoning perspective will present arguments on how the methodologies between the two types of strategic thinking perspectives fuels the debate over which approach to strategy may not only more effective, but also correlates to Branson's own strategic thinking method.
Secondly, a discussion on whether Richard Branson is a characteristic "design thinker" as described by Liedtka will be put forth as well as an examination as to what extent Branson fits the characteristics of a "design thinker".
Finally, a descriptive analysis of the three reasoning perspectives (generative / rational / design thinking) will show the underlying characteristics of each strategy and how with the use of significant theoretical models will help elaborate the relationship that each possess communicatively.
To understand the assumptions and characteristics involved with the generative reasoning perspective (GRP), one must first define it. In the GRP, emphasis is placed on the "wicked" nature of strategic problems (Rittel, 1972; Mason and Mitroff, 1981). It is argued that strategic problems cannot be easily and objectively defined, but that they are open to interpretation form a limitless variety of angles (De Wit and Meyer, 2004). This view on GRP brings up various distinctive traits which are associated with how one may categorize it.
With the use of Table 1 (Appendix 1), characteristics on GRP can be recognized. With this information, we can start to identify what extent Branson fits in with the GRP model. Arguably, GRP is seen as more of an abstract way of thinking whereby decisions are not based on any direct factual information. With this understanding, Branson
Secondly, a discussion on whether Richard Branson is a characteristic "design thinker" as described by Liedtka will be put forth as well as an examination as to what extent Branson fits the characteristics of a "design thinker".
Finally, a descriptive analysis of the three reasoning perspectives (generative / rational / design thinking) will show the underlying characteristics of each strategy and how with the use of significant theoretical models will help elaborate the relationship that each possess communicatively.
To understand the assumptions and characteristics involved with the generative reasoning perspective (GRP), one must first define it. In the GRP, emphasis is placed on the "wicked" nature of strategic problems (Rittel, 1972; Mason and Mitroff, 1981). It is argued that strategic problems cannot be easily and objectively defined, but that they are open to interpretation form a limitless variety of angles (De Wit and Meyer, 2004). This view on GRP brings up various distinctive traits which are associated with how one may categorize it.
With the use of Table 1 (Appendix 1), characteristics on GRP can be recognized. With this information, we can start to identify what extent Branson fits in with the GRP model. Arguably, GRP is seen as more of an abstract way of thinking whereby decisions are not based on any direct factual information. With this understanding, Branson
References: Rittel, H. (1972) ‘On the Planning Crisis: System Analysis of the "First and Second Generations" ', Bedriftsokonomen, No. 8, pp. 390-396. Mason, R.O., and Mitroff, I.I. (1981) Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions, Wiley, New York. Branson, R., (1998) Losing My Virginity, London, Virgin Publishing. Pitts, E., (2005) You may be securely leading your market, but are you falling behind yourself? Harvard Business Review. Andrews, K. (1987) The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Irvin, Homewood. Simon, H.A. (1987) ‘Making Management Decisions: The Role of Intuition and Emotion ', Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1, No 1, pp.57-64. Liedtka, J., (2000) ‘In defense of strategy as design ', California Management Review, Vol. 42, No.3, Spring, pp. 8-30. Salner, M (1986) ‘Adult Cognitive and Epistemological Development in Systems Education ' in Systems Research, vol.3, No.4, pp.225-232