Given two ways of starting a firm’s strategic planning, namely, starting with setting a vision and mission and then analyzing the environment and vice versa, the advantages and disadvantages of each can be identified. Although these two approaches are different, their effectiveness depends on similar conditions. Thus, analyzing them in similar situations will be possible to determine their advantages and disadvantages.
First Approach Advantage and Disadvantage
Using the first approach, the firm will live up to its principles regardless of the situation. This advantage means the company will achieve the set task without deviating from its policy by a single step (Arend et al., 2017). However, at the same time, the disadvantage is that the campaign may not meet the requirements of the market, thereby the company will spend more resources to solve the problem.
Second Approach Advantage and Disadvantage
The second approach starts with analyzing the environment, that is, the market. This approach allows one to take a deeper look at the current situation and consider external factors that may influence the decision. This approach also provides an opportunity to adopt a more balanced mission for the entire company, significantly reducing the risk of failure (Arend et al., 2017). The disadvantage, in this case, will be the theoretically possible non-compliance with the principles on which the company is based.
One can conclude that both methods can be used in strategic planning. Nevertheless, at the same time, the second method shows itself to be more stable than the first since the company will suffer fewer losses by adhering to it, even if the first method were to be used wiser. In defense of the first method, one can say that sometimes it is still worth sticking to the company’s ideas because this will help preserve its face and standards.
Arend, R. J., Zhao, Y. L., Song, M., & Im, S. (2017). Strategic planning as a complex and enabling managerial tool. Strategic Management Journal, 38(8), 1741-1752.