Enriching and Deepening Strategic Management through Case Methodology: A Conceptual Approach

This study examines the role of case methodology in enhancing and enriching the pedagogy of business policy/strategic management. It advocates the need to intensify the use of case methodology in the teaching and learning of strategic management in tertiary institutions and business schools where the course is tenable. The study adopts a post-positivist approach and employs descriptive and exploratory research design which relies heavily on secondary data and historical orientation. The study stresses that the use of case method based on proxies such as heuristics, simulation and case writing could have positive relationship with deepening and enriching the pedagogy of strategic management in-situ in the classroom context subject, of course, to empirical operationalisation. Specifically using general systems theory, complexity theory and chaos theory to anchor the study highlights the relevance of case methodology to all aspects of strategic management viz: strategic intent, strategy formulation, strategy implementation, strategy evaluation and control as it could assist students as future strategists to develop their competencies to fit answers to practical strategic problems in the future. Therefore, the study likening cases in strategic management to cadaver used for training in medical sciences, strongly recommends that sufficient time be allocated to lecture periods for strategic management to afford learners opportunity to find solutions to real-life strategic problems reported in specific cases. The recommendation lends credence to the hands-on experience students stand to gain with continued practice over time especially by institutions in the developing economies

Introduction:-

The popular notion that there is no ”one best way” in management does not only apply to structuring, leading and managing people in organisations, but also positioning a theoretical and/or conceptual argument which in the process warrants emphasis on some aspects and de-emphasis on others (Barney, 2001). This lends credence to and provides inspiration for the post positivist approach followed in this research paper. Strategic management as a course is a critical stage and turning-point in the life of an average business education student at both undergraduate and graduate levels worldwide. It occupies this pride of place because it is considered a capstone course in the curriculum of business education since its inception in 1911 at Harvard Business School as business policy and had since then evolved, over time to be accorded the present status as strategic management (Kazmi, 2002; Grant, 2008). Over the years, business policy and strategic management course is taught to final year undergraduate students in tertiary institutions and business schools across the globe. The decision to teach this course during the terminal year of undergraduate programme deliberately underscores the importance attached to strategic management as it encapsulates and integrates the body of knowledge gained from all the major disciplines in the business education programme offered in tertiary institutions and business schools viz: accounting, finance and banking, management, marketing and hospitality management and tourism (Pearce & Robinson, 1991, 2003; Kazmi, 2002; David, 2013). It could safely be described as the centre of gravity and cornerstone programme as far as business education is concerned globally. Critical however to the successful and impactful teaching and learning of strategic management are the pedagogical tools and lecture periods allocated to it which vary from one institution to another. Ideally, the methods often adopted in the teaching of the course in other climes especially at Harvard where it originated, were basically both theoretical and quasipractical using case studies (Kazmi, 2002; Wheelen & Hunger, 2010). The raison de’tre behind the use of case studies to orchestrate the teaching and learning of strategic management is to help to simulate more or less real-life business problems in the classroom with a view to sharpening the understanding of the learners to learn and discover facts of real-life business problems personally which can best be described as heuristic i.e., learning by doing (Thompson & Strickland, 2003, 2007; Wheelen & Hunger, 2010; David, 2013). However, available empirical evidence has shown that the ratio of usage to non-usage of case study in the classroom in India stood at 50:50, (Kazmi, 2002). This ratio may not obtain or apply in Nigerian tertiary education context where orientation towards the teaching of the course is fundamentally theoretical in most cases. Urieto (1997) buttresses “the criticism of our educational system often voiced by the private and public sectors is that university graduates entering various areas of business are not adepts at problem-solving.” The lack of application of case methodology to the teaching cum learning of strategic management does somewhat pose great challenge to students. It inhibits the mastery of the practical nitty-gritty of the course for eventual application to solve real-life business problems upon graduation. Here lies the burden and lacuna of this study as vividly captured by Thompson & Strickland (2003, 2007) thus: “a student of business with tact, absorbed many answers he lacked. But on acquiring a job, he said with a sob, ‘how does one fit answer to the fact’.” Context/Grounding Strategic management seeks to equip learners and graduates of tertiary institutions and business schools with all-round knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSAs) as well as the right analytical frame of mind preparatory to future and/or current applications to solve myriads of strategic problems and challenges of global dynamics and diversity confronting business organisations on the daily basis (Kazmi, 2002; Grant, 2007). The use of case studies in the course of teaching was supposed to enhance the achievement of this lofty aim as the specific learning outcome (Urieto, 1997; Nkuda, 2018). Incidentally, this is often not the case resulting in wrong solutions being proffered to real-life strategic business problems. The application of case study to the teaching and learning of strategic management could be likened to what obtains in the physical sciences where medics and engineering students are exposed to frequent and rigorous practical sessions which span the course of their programmes. During this formation period, specimens such as cadaver and metals are used to experiment coupled with practical gains of internship and Students’ Industrial Work Experience Schemes (SIWES) which students are compulsorily made to undertake as the case may be. Extrapolating that analogy to the field of social science and management sciences in particular, it is a well known fact that in the eye of the law, business organisations are contemplated as legal and artificial persons that can sue and/or be sued (Adesanya & Oloyede, 1978; Gower, Cronin, Easson & Charlton, 1979; Nwinee, 2011). Therefore, just as wrong medical diagnosis could lead to wrong prescription and possible death of patients as Nosa Basuaye – A Hematologist and Foremost Stem Cell Transplantologist in Nigeria - speaking on Good Morning Nigeria hosted by (Osadalor & Umeayo, 2018) linked increase in sickle cell anemia partly to the increase in false laboratory result of patient’s genotype. Similarly, strategic problems of business organisations to which strategists provide wrong and unviable strategic solutions can as well undermine the survival and growth of the business organisations concerned. This negative scenario and narrative may continue eternally if the students of strategic management as future strategists are not given the right training and preparation to be able to cope with the challenges that lie ahead. Thompson & Strickland (2003, 2007) vividly capture the experience of a fresh and inexperienced graduate of strategic management thus: “A student of business with tact, absorbed many answers he lacked. But on acquiring a job, he said with a sob ‘how does one fit answer to the fact?’ ” Failure to realise this subtle and yet important fact amidst the complexity of business environment might have accounted, in part, for either the outright mortality of some industrial outfits in the past or current decline in industrial production capacity of other business organizations in automobile, textile, aviation, agriculture and manufacturing sectors of Nigerian economy (Reeves, Levin & Ueda, 2016; Ewuzie, 2017; Obi, 2018; Hassan, 2018). As a result, the dismal performance of industrial sector due partially to lack of seasoned human resource in critical areas such as strategic management has contributed to the trail-blazing and unprecedented unemployment rates in the country put at 9.9 % in 2015 (Onuchuku, 2016), 13.9 % in 2016 (Nwinee, 2017) and 18.8% as at the third quarter of 2017 (Anonymous, 2017; Obi, 2018). It further highlights and explains why the lack of exposure of business students (future strategists) in-situ to real-life business problems which beset business organisations on ongoing bases has caused them to be tagged half-baked and misfit on graduation being unsuitable for and un-fit to discharge their future endeavours. The observed non-usage of case methodology in the teaching and learning of strategic management creates a problem as it fails to stimulate and sharpen the intellectual acuity and mental agility of the students to develop the mindset of thinkingout-of-the box to provide creative and innovative solutions to organisations’ problems. Urieto (1997) corroborates that they lack analytical ability and are incapable of thinking creatively. This is more so when cognisance is taken of the fact that business entities as systems likened to biological organisms are subject to and constrained or buffeted by the forces of entropy constantly in operation (Grant, 2008). The real challenge, undeniably, remains yet in the ability of strategic managers and prospective strategists (students) to appropriately diagnose business problems as do medical doctors and then proffer viable solutions to safeguard business organizations against entropy and possible collapse under the weight of such problems. Theoretical Framework Although as indicated earlier on there was no general theory of strategic management at the outset, the research in the strategic management area had since and over the years, progressed and advanced resulting in some theories such as: profit-making and competition-based theory, the resourcebased theory, the survival-based theory, the human resourcebased theory, the agency theory, the contingency theory, industry organisation theory, organizational learning theory, dynamic capability theory, strategic choice perspective theory, institution theory etcetera (Raduan, Jegak, Haslinda & Alimin, 2009; Nkuda, 2017). However, the baseline theories used to ground this study include: the general systems theory, complexity and chaos theories as elucidated below: General Systems Theory: The general systems theory is intimately and creditably ascribed to Ludwig Von Bertalanffy based on his article published in 1951 on the subject. Together with Miller and Rice, he approximates a business organisation to a biological organism with parts (sub-systems) which work independently and at times, inter-dependently to achieve the overall goal and functioning of the system as a whole (Raduan et al, 2009; Sapru, 2013; Probert, 2014; Nkuda, 2017). This goes to corroborate why Barnard (1938) views business organisations as cooperative social systems. The notion of applying systems theory to business organisations accentuates the fact that a given problem in any part of the system automatically triggers ripple effects on the entire system. This point becomes truer and more palpable when ill-equipped and trained strategists with no prior exposure to real-life business problems via case studies in strategic management make wrong decisions or proffer wrong solutions to strategic problems of business organizations (Thompson & Strickland, 2003). The whole essence of using the case methodology as stated earlier on, is to put learners in the driver’s seat in trying to solve real-life business problems based on the understanding of the systems perspective of business expressible in terms of their sub-systems and chain of mutual interactions among themselves and the operating business environment (Pearce & Robinson, 1991, 2003; Kazmi, 2002; Thompson & Strickland, 2003, 2007; Sapru, 2013; David, 2013). Complexity Theory: Notably and characteristically, business organizations depending on their respective sizes, ages of development and strategic typology as either prospectors, defenders, analysers , reactors or any combination of these, are complex in nature, Miles & Snow (1978) cited in (Armstrong, 2009; Ivancic, Mencer, Jelenc & Dulcic, 2017). The complex nature of most business organisations causes the decision-making mechanism to become somewhat slow and hampered. Thus, the complexity theory comes to the rescue. Complexity theory was propounded by the founder of Sante Fe Institute, George A. Cowan in New Mexico in the 1980s precisely 1984 (Gare, 2000). It relies and thrives on open systems and stipulates that a few broad principles and directives be developed to guide decentralized decisionmaking in order to enthrone and promote strategic adaptation in relation to the dynamic and ever-evolving business environment which is always in the state of flux (Aluko, Odugbesan, Gbadamosi & Osuagwu, 2004; Kazmi, 2002; Thompson & Strickland, 2003, 2007; Grant, 2008; Wheelen & Thomas, 2010; David, 2013). In his review of Niklas Luhman’s book, Probert (2014) describes this process as loose coupling. Admittedly, the application of simple principles and directives such as: be number 1 or 2 in your industry, achieve six-sigma quality, simplicity of procedures, selfconfidence to ensure effective implementation, empowerment of middle and first level managers and provision of performance incentive packages were ingeniously combined and adopted by Jack Welch as the Chief Executive Officer of General Electric at a time. This approach enabled the world’s biggest and most complex business entity to record excellent and superior financial performance (Grant, 2008). This underscores a classic example of the application of complexity theory to complex adaptive systems which exhibit common feature such as: unpredictability and self-organisation, (Kazmi, 2002; Alan Turing (n.d) cited in Oestreicher, 2007; Grant, 2008). The feature of unpredictability of complex adaptive systems states that although they are bereft of stable equilibria, they however, are driven by exogenous forces which are subject to the operation of power-law distribution of which small changes are capable of triggering both small effects at one time and major consequences at another. While the characteristic of self-organisation likens business organisations to biological organisms such as: bee colonies, shoals of fish, ecosystem, trading in stocks on the stock exchange that are capable of adapting to change in orderly manner without any guide, creating structures and systems depicting identity in intent and sense-making (Madsbjerg & Rasmussen, 2014), relationships, inertia and chaos (Kazmi, 2002; Alan Turing cited in Oestreicher, 2007). The sense of emergent global order introduced and evident in the crowd behaviour of these biological and economic phenomena underlines the operation of complex adaptive systems (Gare, 2000; Grant, 2008). In order to safeguard business organisations against premature death, the need for strategists to adapt their organizations to the ever-increasing complexity of the environment cannot be over-emphasised (Reeves, Levin & Ueda, 2016). Chaos Theory: This theory was advanced by Edward Lorenz of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Mitchell Jay Fiegenbam in 1961 (Kazmi, 2002; Oestreicher, 2007). The theory holds and advances that at the base of any adaptive complex system like business organisations, environment or biological systems lies a set of rules that provide dynamic order to the superficial complexity of the system. The theory takes into account the fact that a business organisation is not a linear system whose mode of operation engenders a simple cause and effect relationship. Rather, it is a complex adaptive system which is dynamic in nature and as such, operates in a non-linear pattern or manner (Kazmi, 2002; Oestreicher, 2007). Hence, chaotic models based on mathematical equations are developed to help explain and interpret the behaviours of non-linear and dynamic systems which as social systems should be maintained at the edge of chaos that is between too much and too little authoritarian control (Oestreicher, 2007). Chaos as a phenomenon cuts across economic, biological, sociological, ecological and meteorological spectra (Kazmi, 2002). The bottom-line of the chaos theory to strategic management is that given the dynamic nature of environment in which most business organizations operate, it would amount to suicide for any business organisation to remain static. Rather, it is strategically expedient and advisable for business organizations that intend to survive and grow over time, to be less internally focused, but should be much more externally focused to be able to innovate, reinvent on the long-term and adapt to the ever-changing environment (Drucker, 1999; Kazmi, 2002; Bertolini, Duncan & Waldeck, 2015). Over all, cases which convey real-life strategic problems to which these theories may apply should be demonstrated and orchestrated in the classroom setting for the budding students-strategists to come to terms with through learning by doing and thus, garner some modicum of hands-on experience. Conceptual Framework The discourse under this sub-head focuses strictly on the concepts that make up the schema depicted below which include: case methodology, case writing, heuristics, simulation, strategic management process, strategic intent, strategy formulation, strategy implementation, strategy evaluation and control as well as the nexus between case methodology and strategic management.