Review on 'Strategy as Revolution'
Introduction
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.
Debate
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
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.
Debate
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