برنامه ریزی استراتژیک —مقایسه تولید فناوری ساده و پیشرفته شرکت های کوچک

This paper contends that firms can be classified according to the level of technology deployed in their products and processes into two main types: high and low technology firms. The paper further contends that the level of technology deployed will impact on the overall strategic planning process and its main drivers: leadership and organisational culture resulting in differing levels of corporate performance. Based on a nation-wide sample of 194 Managing Directors and Chief Executives of small and medium sized manufacturing firms, this study found that high technology firms tend to emphasise transformational and human resources leadership styles. Both of these leadership styles correlate positively with strategic planning and with the majority of performance indicators used. On the other hand, low technology firms emphasise transactional leadership, which correlates with internal strategy characteristics and short-term performance indicators. Similar results were obtained when culture styles were correlated with strategy and performance indicators in both types of firms. Finally, the overall performance of both types of firms indicates that high technology firms performed better than low technology firms. The findings suggest that low technology firms can achieve a similar confidence in facing the external environment as high technology firms by changing their strategic planning, leadership and organisational culture emphasis.

Managing Directors face increasingly dynamic, complex and unpredictable environments where technology, the nature of competition, globalisation, industry boundaries and the rules of the game are changing dramatically (Hitt et al., 2001). The degree and complexity of change in the current economic environment is driving firms to seek new ways of conducting business to create wealth (Stopford, 2001). But change need not be detrimental—it can also be opportunities that firms should seek to exploit (Shane and Venkatraman, 2000). Hitt et al. (2001) contend that the deployment of new technology is the key to grasp such opportunities. Already, small and medium sized firms (SMEs) are embracing new and high technology (Sampler, 1998). Technology has altered ‘the fundamentals of design, manufacture, distribution and organisation alike’ (Peters, 1989, p. 19), and has resulted in a transformation of economic and social life. In a later work, Peters (1997) suggests that the organisation of the past has changed and with it has gone the accepted features of the traditional firm, such as stability, predictability and certainty. As an example of the rapid rate of change, Scott (2000) states that the average product life cycle has halved over the past 10 years. New technology is continually advancing and is likely to affect all aspects of firm performance; for example, research and development, design services and the drivers of strategic planning. Its impact is seen not only on issues such as greater efficiency in production, but also on corporate structures, communication and creativity. This suggests that technological change is a critical factor in gaining/retaining/sustaining competitive advantage. Accordingly, the authors contend that the strategic planning processes of high technology firms will differ from those of low technology firms. In addition, the emphasis placed on the drivers of strategic planning: organisational culture and leadership, will also differ.

This paper presents the findings of an empirical study that compared high and low technology firms and their respective emphases on the attributes of strategic planning, leadership and organisational culture. The study found that high technology firms have a more external orientated strategic outlook, leadership style and culture ethos. The findings suggest that this leads to greater overall performance. This finding, if repeated in other studies, has profound implications for policy makers and small business advisers and confirms significant differences between both types of firms. The study has some limitations. For example, it assumed that SIC 37 and 38 were internally homogeneous and did not evaluate the sub-sectors. This assumption should be tested in future studies. Secondly, future research should consider a more in-depth approach. It would have been beneficial to augment the quantitative data with qualitative in depth case studies or an ethnographic approach. This study focuses on the managerial processes used in the formulation and deployment of the strategic planning process and does not focus on entrepreneurial styles of management or the personal characteristics of the Managing Directors. Arguably the individual entrepreneurial management style could potentially influence the culture, leadership and strategic planning processes of both high and low technology firms. Other factors such as the educational and social background of the Managing Director could also be potential influences.