Without effective management the resources will remain as resources cannot be

converted into productive utilities - Do you agree? Give reasons

oordination is considered as the essence of  management because of the following

reasons :  

Coordination is needed to perform all the functions of Management

In planning , coordination is required between the objectives and available

resources.

Organising is ineffective there is lack of coordination between different

departments and divisions.

In staffing , coordination is required between the required skills and abilities of an

individual who is selected to perform a job.

Directing, is impossible and of no worth, if there is lack of coordination between

superiors and subordinates.

In controlling, coordination helps in ensuring that actual results are fruitful.

Coordination is needed at all levels of Management  

(i)Top level : The top level coordinates activities of the whole organisation keeping
in view the desired goals.

(ii) Middle level : The middle level managers coordinate the activities of different
departments.

(iii) Lower level : The lower level coordinates the activities of the workers for
achieving goals.

Read more on Brainly.in - https://brainly.in/question/3959621#readmore

Management is said to have universal application. How do you justify the
Universality of Management? Give examples to illustrate your arguments.
Management is Universal Process and Phenomenon (Explained)

Managing is necessary whenever one needs to get things done.

It may be called the practice of consciously and continually shaping organizations.

Every organization has people who are assigned the responsibility of serving the
organization to achieve its goals.

Those people are called managers.

No organization can carry on its business without management, which is in turn

supervised by managers.

Management is a universal phenomenon in the sense that it is a common and

essential element in all enterprises. Every group effort requires setting
objectives, making plans, handling people, co-coordinating and controlling
activities, achieving goals and evaluating performance directed towards
organizational goals.

These activities relate to the utilization of 4 types of inputs or resources from the
environment—human, monetary, physical, and informational.

Human resources include managerial talent, labor, and so forth. Monetary

resources are the financial capital the organization uses to finance both ongoing
and long-term operations.

Physical resources include raw materials, office and production facilities, and
equipment. Information resources are data and other kinds of information utilized
by the organization.

The job of the manager is to combine and coordinate these resources to achieve
the organization’s goals.

If we see our society closely, we will found management practices are being used
everywhere, our praying place, social parties, transport system, schools and.

Why Management is Universal Process and Phenomenon

 The concept of universality of management has several implications.

1. First, managerial skills are transferable from one person to another.

2. Secondly, management skills can be transferred from one organization to

another.

3. Thirdly, managerial skills can be important and exported from one country
to another.

4. Fourthly, this principle of universality serves as the basis of a general theory

of management -a set of common principles.

Some experts support the universality of management on the group that whatever
the situation and whatever the level of management, the management function is
common.

Any manager must, one time or the other, perform the same managerial
functions.

A set of common principles or a general theory of management underlies all

organizations F.W. Taylor said that the fundamental principles of scientific
management apply to all human activities from our simplest individual acts to
work of our great corporations.

According to Koontz and O’Donnell,” Management fundamentals have universal

application in every kind of enterprise and at every level of the enterprise.”

According to Fayol,” Acting in their managerial capacity, president, college

deans, bishops, and head of government agencies, all do the same things.”

But, on the other hand, many other experts oppose the universality of management.

According to Peter Drucker “The skills, the competence, the experience of

management cannot, as such, be transferred and applied to the organization and
running of other institutions. A career in management is, by itself, not preparation
for major political office or leadership in the armed force, the church or a
university.”
According to C.Mc Millan and R.W. Gonzalez,” Management philosophy is
culture-bound and it is not universally applicable. External forces affect
management philosophy.”

Similarly, in a study of 3600 managers in fourteen countries, it was found that

variations in managerial behavior patterns were due to identifiable cultural
differences.

Reasons Why Management is Universal

Emphasis on Management Process

Management is required in all organizations.

The managerial function of planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling

are found in any enterprise.

According to Koontz and O’ Donell,” as a manager, each must at one time or

another, carry out all the duties characteristic of managers. This is the principle of
universality of the managerial function.”

The distinction between Management Fundamentals and Management Techniques

Management fundamentals should be distinguished from management techniques.

A specific technique or approach of management may differ from culture to culture

or from country to country but management fundamentals are universally
applicable.

According to Koontz and O’Donnell, identical concepts, theories, and principles

apply with equal force in widely different environments. Variation in culture may
affect the application of management fundamentals but the fundamentals are
having the universality of application.

The distinction between Management Fundamentals and Management Practices

Management theory and principles must be distinguished from management

practices. The practices may vary but fundamentals are always the same.
For example, an automobile designed for use in deserts or jungles will be different
from that designed for the high-speed superhighway.

But the principles and theories of physical science used for designing both the
types of automobiles remain the same.

Managers shift from one industry to another. Such a shift indicates that the skills
and principles of management are universal, only practices change.

Transferability of Management Principles and Skills

The principal, concept, and skills of management are universal because managers
may shift from one country to another, from one industry to another, and from one
type of organization to another.

He has regarded that such a shift in an indication of this fact that the general skills
and principles of management are at work.

Arguments Against the Universality Management

Differences in objectives

The objectives of business enterprises differ from those of religious, political and

educational institutions. Therefore, an efficient business executive cannot
necessarily be a good vice-chancellor.

No individual can be an equally successful manager in academic, military and

business organizations because the objectives that underlie each are different.

Differences in philosophies

The business organization has a different philosophy than non-business

organizations. even two business concerns may have different philosophies.

For example, one may seek quick gains while the other may aim at long-term
growth. These differences in philosophy exert significant influences on
organization structure, communication patterns, and employees’ morale.

As a result, a different type of management is required in each case.

Management is Culter-bound

The applicability of management principles is limited by a particular cultural

situation.

Winston Oberg feels that if the ground rules under which the manager operates are
different in different cultures (countries) then it is useless to search for a
common set of strategies of management.

Farmer and Richman have concluded through their study on comparative

management that if a country has a strong traditional, religious and cultural bias
towards non-scientific behavior, it will be difficult to introduce modern
management methods which are based on the same type of predictive and the
rational view of the world as are the more purely technical devices.

Conclusion

An analysis of the arguments for and against the universality concept explains that
the science of management and its principles and function are universally
applicable.

Irrespective of differences in the types of organization, objectives, goals,

philosophies, and culture; management is a universal process.

Hence managerial skills are transferable and universally acceptable.

The concept of universality of management is also applicable to all levels of

managers within an organization who participates in the coordination of
resources and the enterprise of one or all of the managerial functions.

The concept of universality implies that management and activities are transferable
from one organization to another.

This mainly happens in the case of military people who often join the industry after
retirement. There is, of course, an instance where such transfers have not been
successful.

At last, no doubt, management is universals because its basic function is acceptable

to all and applicable anywhere.
For example, my father makes a plan, my teacher makes a plan, a captain of a
sports team makes a plan, a businessman makes a plan, an entrepreneur makes a
plan, a professional (doctor, chartered accountant.etc) makes a plan, and even you
and I make plans.

All of the above use other managerial functions as planning time to time to achieve
their desired goals.

Now, it is clear that the functions and principles of management are universal, but
according to the nature, size and another background of organizations, their
application will differ according to circumstances.

So, no doubt that management is universal. But the practice of it is different in

situations, positions, society.

Universality of Management: Arguments for and Against this Concept!

There has been and still is considerable controversy about the universality of
management process and functions. The area of management has a worldwide
command and acceptability. Scholars have different views about whether
management knowledge is applicable everywhere or not. If are the management
knowledge has universal approach then it can be communicated through persons
going from one country to another, persons from developing countries going to
developed countries and going back after learning management principles or by
organising management development programmes in developing countries.

Some scholars opine that management principles and processes have universal
application. They feel that managerial principles can be applied in all types of
business organisations and in every country. There are different views of
management thinkers about universality of management. Authors like Henry
Fayol, Taylor, James Lundy, Louis Allen, Dalton F. Mc Farland and Koontz and
O’ Donnell are of the view that management has universal application. But there
are others who do not subscribe to the view of universality of management. They
include Joan Woodward, Ernest Dale, Peter Drucker, W. Oberg.

Arguments for Universality:
The supporters of this view say that basis of management are the same and can be
found in all types of organisations situated in any country.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

These scholars give the following arguments:

1. Management Process is Universal:
The fundamental functions of management like planning, organising, staffing,
leading and controlling are basic and are performed by every manager in all
organisations. The management process is similar among managers. In the words
of Fayol, “There is a universal science of management applicable alike to
commerce, industry, politics, religion, war or philanthropy.

2. Management Knowledge is Universal:

Management uses are as follows:
The supporters of this view say that basis of management are the same and can be
found in all types of organisations situated in any country.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

These scholars give the following arguments:

1. Management Process is Universal:
The fundamental functions of management like planning, organising, staffing,
leading and controlling are basic and are performed by every manager in all
organisations. The management process is similar among managers. In the words
of Fayol, “There is a universal science of management applicable alike to
commerce, industry, politics, religion, war or philanthropy.

2. Management Knowledge is Universal:

Management uses are as follows:
ADVERTISEMENTS:

(i) Management is Culture-Bound:

It is argued that different countries have different cultures and varying levels of
economic development. Culture consists of attitudes, beliefs and values of a
society. There are differences in personality traits and educational, social, political
and economic standards are also different. Since management is people oriented
there is always a possibility that application of management principles will be
affected by these factors. When the ground rules under which a manager operates
are different in different cultures then common strategies of management will not
be possible.

(ii) Different Objectives:

The objectives of an enterprise determine the type of management required.
Different enterprises have different objectives so these managerial needs are linked
to these objectives. According to Peter Drucker, the skills, the competence, and the
experience of management cannot as such be transferred and applied to every type
of institution. Only analytical and administrative types of skills and abilities can be
transferred. Thus, management principles cannot be applied universally.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(iii) Differences in Philosophies:

There are differences in philosophies of different organisations. Philosophies refer
to those general concepts and integrated attitudes that are basic to an enterprise.
Managers operate with a specific philosophy in a particular enterprise. This
philosophy can be different even in same type of enterprises. These philosophies
require different kinds of managerial techniques. Earnest Dale says, “No individual
could be a good manager in religious, academic, military and business institutions
of both communist and democratic countries, because the philosophies that
underlie each, are very different and one person could not encompass so much.”

Since philosophies exert different influences on managerial working there cannot

be any principles which can have universal application. Common laws, principles
and concepts tend to be true in all managerial problems. Management principles
can be applied in all types of organised human endeavours. In the words of F.W.
Taylor, “The fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable to all
kinds of human activities from our simplest individual acts to the work of our great
corporations.”

Some people do not distinguish between management fundamentals and

techniques. They oppose universality of management on the basis of techniques of
management. Management techniques are the tools for performing managerial
functions. Management techniques can differ from person to person, organisation
to organisation or from country to country but basic principles and theories remain
the same.

3. Management Skills and Principles are Transferable:

ADVERTISEMENTS:
Management skills and principles are transferable from one person to another,
from one organisation to another, from one country to another. When skills and
principles can be transferred then it has universal applicability. Managers can be
developed through education and training. This knowledge can be acquired by any
one and anywhere so it is not related to particular caste, creed or country. All this
is possible only if management is universal in nature.

Arguments against Universality:

Some experts feel that management principles and knowledge do not have
universal application due to cross- cultural differences. They are also of the view
that same management skills cannot be applied in all situations and fields and the
skills are not transferable.

Following arguments are given to show that management does not have
universal application:
1. Difference in Objectives:
Peter Drucker is of the view that, “the skill, the competence, the experience of
management cannot, as such be transferred and applied to the organisation and
running of other institutions. A career in management is, by itself, not a
preparation for major political office or for leadership in armed forces, the church
or a university.” There is a difference in objectives of the organisations. Business
organisations exist to maximise profitability whereas social organisations like
clubs, educational institutions have social service as the objective. Different
organisations with separate objectives will have to be managed differently.

2. Difference in Philosophies:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
There is a feeling that same person may not prove to be a good administrator in
different organisations. The management of a business enterprise, a church, a
hospital, a military academy may riot be the same because of their different
philosophies. Even in the same category, the philosophy of enterprises may be
different. One enterprise may aim to go for quick profits while the other may aim
at long-term returns. The philosophies will exert different influences on
productivity, organisation structure, pattern of communication, delegation of
authority etc.

3. Difference in Culture:
Some authors are of the opinion that cultural backgrounds of managers do have an
influence on their working. Gonzale and Mc Millan concluded in their study that
‘management philosophy is culture- bound.’ They were also of the opinion that
external environmental forces affect the management philosophy. W. Oberg also
came to the conclusion that the applicability of management principles is limited to
a particular culture.

The managers from traditional, religious and cultural bias societies will not have
that scientific temperament which the managers from liberal social background
may have. The differences in cultural backgrounds also limit the universality of
management.

A Critical analysis of the above arguments brings out that every type of
organization require management. Managerial functions like planning, organizing,
staffing and controlling are to be performed in all types of organizations. The
objectives of enterprises may differ but the type of situations to be dealt with by
them are the same? Managers shift from one enterprise to another because they
have general managerial skills and principles of management work are similar. It is
obvious that principles, concepts and skills are universal, only practices change. It
can be concluded that basic principles and functions of management are universal
in nature. These can be applied in every type of organisation and in every country.

Management is the process of managing something.

It can be an event, or get together or anything.

Management has it's applications universally.

Mother's manage their homes.

Without them, we won't be able to find anything in there.

Bosses manages office.

They tell us how to do the task, when to submit the task in order to get the
maximum outcome.
College students organise events in order to enhance their management skills.

Hence, one can use their management skills anywhere.

Using practical examples, outline the argument for

the statement, “management is a universal process
and its skills and understanding are transferable
from one company to another and from one culture
to another.” Management is a broad and intrinsic
aspect of business. The basic aspects of
management that is, directing, organizing,
coordinating, staffing, planning and cooperating
transcend all cultural and organizational boundaries.
There are, however, fundamental differences in the
manner in which these activities are carried out.
Questions have been raised as to whether one type
of management style can be effectively and
efficiently transferred from one company to another
while maintaining optimum performance. A new
method of…show more content…
There are different approaches to management in different cultures. In collectivist cultures such as
Taiwan where there is a high power distance, task oriented behavior may have a stronger positive
impact than in individualistic. Low power distance cultures may view Japanese method f
management as punitive even though it my work in the Japanese context. Japanese managers
minimize on status symbols and encourage supportive behavior. They encourage their employees
to work as a group and work for the greater good of the group rather than that of an individual. In a
recent study carried out to analyze how culture affects the performance of subordinates, it was
found that American subordinates performed better when a Japanese manager is friendly and
supportive but were worse off if an American manger acted in the same way. This is perhaps
because they think the manager is only being friendly to get ahead in his career and not looking
into the interests of his subordinates. Culture affects how employees perceive leader style. In order
for any management system to be effective, the managers must be aware of these differences and
express their behavior in a culturally specific way in order to be effective. Management style must
be understood in terms of its general structure and its expression in certain cultures. For example,
both American and Chinese leaders may agree that being supportive is important to the success of
any business. They
Is the manager’s job universal?  Are  the  principles of management universally
applicable?  It has already been stated that managing is found in all types, functions,
levels and sizes of organisations. Management can be applied to all organised human
efforts whether they are in business, government, educational, social, religious or other
fields. Universality of management suggests that the manager uses the same managerial
skills and principles in each managerial position held in various organisations.
Accordingly an industrial manager could manage a philanthropic organisation, a retired
army general could manage a university, a civil servant could manage an industrial
organisation, and so on.
Universality implies transferability of managerial skills across industries, countries. It
means that management is generic in content and is applicable to all types of
organisations. Lawrence A. Appley declared that ‘He who can manage, can manage
anything.’ Let us examine the factors that have contibuted to the universal application of
management in every level of organisation and at every level of organisation.
Arguments for Universality
1.         Same functions. Quite often it is erroneously thought that management exists
only in a business and not in other enterprises. The fact is, however, that when acting in
their respective managerial capacities not only the company president but also the office
supervisor perform the fundamental functions of management. The difference lies in
such things as the breadth of the objectives, the magnitude of the decisions taken, the
organisation relationships affected, and so on. Managers perform essentially the same
functions irrespective of their level in the organisation, industry or country.
2.         Universal principles. Classical writers (Fayol, Urwick and others) believed that
there are certain principles in management which are universally applicablee. These are
the principles of departmentation, principles of division of labour, principle of span of
control, the scalar principle, principle of unity of command, etc. Such principles as one
man one boss, division of work to improve speed and efficiency, limiting the number of
persons to be supervised so that managers can concentrate on exceptional problems, the
principles governing motivation theory have certainly proved their worth up to a point,
and these principles have been translated into practice for a long time. These principles
have found universal expression of the nature and level of management in
organisations.
3.         Fundamentals are same,  the techniques employed and practices followed are
different. Managing occurs in parks, ranches, hospitals, farms, universities, cities,
police, agencies, churches, airports and community organisations, industries, and so on.
The fundamentals governing the management of a business, a church or a university are
same: the difference lies in the techniques employed and practices followed. All
managers arc accountable for performance of other people: they plan, make decisions,
organise work, motivate people and implement controls and so forth. In order to
accomplish things, the techniques employed might differ depending on situational
factors like : culture, tradition, attitude, etc. Same is the case with management
practices. An automobile designed for use in deserts or jungles will be markedly
different from the one that is designed for city traffic. The design principles governing
both models are the same. The generic content of management fundamentals is such
that they can be applied universally : practices and techniques employed may differ
depending on the nature of industry, the organisational level where these are applied,
etc.
4.         Practical evidence. Managing is found in all types, functions, levels and sizes of
organisations. The fact that managers regularly move from public to private sector
organisations bears ample testimony to the fact that management concepts are universal
across organisational types. For example, D. D. Ensenhower went from a general in the
U.S. Army to President of Columbia University and to President of the United States.
Again Sri P.L. Tandon. the former Chairman of Hindustan Lever Ltd, has managed the
PNB, STC and the NCAER successfully during his tenure as the Chairman in these
organisations. The basic concepts of management propagated by American writers have
found expression even in communist countries. According to Drucker. “the rapid
development of Brazil, the rapid development of non-communist countries, that is,
of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan, the rapid development of so poor and backward
a peasant country as Iran are all traceable to the impact of management”.
Arguments Against Universality
1.         Complete substitutability is impossible.  It is true that the manager’s job becomes
most universal in content at the upper echelons of organisations. The higher one moves
in an organisation the more he or she performs the generic functions of management
planning,  organising, leading and controlling and the less he or she is involved in day-
to-day technical matters. The relationship between performance and functions
entrusted becomes more intense as one moves lower down the order. For example, the
success of a drilling supervisor of an oil rig depends to a large extent on his technical
knowledge of drilling. On the other hand, the president of an oil company does not need
to have much of the technical intricacies of drilling for oil or how to refine it. Before
tossing the ‘universality argument’, we must apply brakes and qualify the statement.
Generic in content does not imply complete substitutability.
2.         Organisational philosophies differ. Universality presupposes the existence of
predictability regarding the outcome of management actions. A manager working in
Firm A must be able to predict the likely consequences of his actions in Firm B where he
is likely to join. He may have to face insurmountable difficulties in case the underlying
philosophies of these organisations were to differ. For instance, in one organisation the
emphasis is on profit maximisation and in the other the emphasis is on social
responsibilities. Such conflicting demands affect managerial actions and what a
manager could apply with success in one organisation may not find a meaningful
expression in the other organisation where the underlying philosophy is different. As
pointed out by Dale,  no individual could be a good administrator in religious, academic,
military, and business institutions of both communist and democratic countries because
the philosophies that underlie each are drastically different and one person could not
encompass so much.
3.         Universality of principles: A Ridiculous Statement? Classical management
principles were written by practitioners in management and were based on personal
experience and limited observation only. They have only tried to pass on their ideas as
universal truths. In the absence of a rigorous scientific basis, no wonder, Simon dubbed
the principles as proverbs, comparable to folklore and folk-wisdom. Moreover, these
principles are vague and too general and , as a result, are very difficult to apply to a
specific organisation. They often overlap and are sometimes incompatible with one
another. The terminology ‘universal principles’, ‘universal truths’ is quite unfortunate.
4.         Management is a product of the culture. Managers have to operate within the
broad constraints operating in an economy: culture, tradition, organisational
philosophies, etc. Managerial behaviour in a deeply traditional, religious economy is
bound to be different from the advanced and scientifically-oriented economy. It is
fruitful to search for a common set of ‘principles’ or ‘absolutes’ or ‘determinate
solutions’ where managers have to operate in highly diverse cultures. A career in
management is, by itself, not a preparation for major political office....or for leadership
in the armed forces, the church or a university.
The writers who argue that management principles are culture bound seem to ignore
that the fundamentals governing the management of enterprises in India, Japan, U.S.A.,
and Brazil are the same. and they are applicable and adaptable in various cultures.
Otherwise, it would not have been possible for Indian Managers doing successful
business in Great Britain. Chinese management thinkers teaching in America, and
Japanese managers working successfully in Brazil and Hong kong. The universality of
management thesis is well supported by several research studies by Hair, Porter,
Negandhi and Richman etc. According to these researchers, cultural and situational
factors may influence the way in which a manager discharges his functions but the
fundamentals of management remain unchanged..
The following are the arguments forwarded by the
supporters of universality concept:
1. The process of management is common to
all types of human activities:
It is argued that management is found in all organised
activities. The process of management involves planning,
organising, staffing, directing and controlling functions are
found in any enterprise belonging to any part of the world.

Managers or administrators of any organisation perform

these functions without any difference. They plan, direct,
organise and control the activities of their subordinates.
H.H.Albers writes :—”The management process is a
necessary feature of all organised activity Although the
purpose of organisation differ, the management process
remains constant, it is present in factories, banks, retail
establishments, military organisation, churches, universities
and hospitals.”

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The same principle applies to the functional area of

specialisation, such as production management, marketing
management and financial management.
2. Management fundamentals and Management
Techniques are Different:
A distinction needs to be made between management theory
and principles, and management techniques and approaches,
because it is a particular technique that varies. Managerial
approaches may differ from culture to culture and from
country to
country, but management fundamentals are universally
applicable.

According to Mary Caushing Niles, “While practices and

applications will vary widely from one situation to another,
fundamental concepts and principles of management and of
humans remain much the same even when they take effect
in different combinations.
3. Management Fundamentals and
Management Practices are different:
Supporters of universality concept feel that fundamentals are
the same, only practices differ. Management is both a
science and an art. The most productive art is always based
on an understanding of the science underlying it. Thus
science and art are complementary.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The art of managing or the practice of managing makes use

of organised knowledge (Science). Science is truth. However,
its practice is subject to variations under different conditions,
Koontz and O’Donnell agree that application of management
fundamentals may vary in different situations cultures, not
the fundamentals themselves.

4. Transferability of management principles

and skills:
McFarland has argued that principles, concepts and skills of
management are universal. Managers may shift from one
company to another, from one industry to another and from
one type organisation to another. He has regarded that such
shift is an indication of this fact that the general skills and
principles of management are at work.

In his own words, “The knowledge of management principles

and skills in managing enables the executive to learn specific
applications and problems as he applies his skills to the new
settings.”

. Strategic planning means planning for strategies and implementing them to

achieve organisational goals.
Strategic planning helps in knowing what we are and where we want to go so that
environmental threats and opportunities can be exploited, given the strengths and
weaknesses of the organisation.
It starts by asking oneself simple questions like- What are we doing? Should we
continue to do it or change our product line or the way of working? What is the
impact of social, political, technological and other environmental factors on our
operations? Are we prepared to accept these changes etc.?
Abstract Strategic planning is a management technique that helps organizations set
future goals and objectives to achieve more stable and predictable growth.
Strategic planning also identifies the actions required to reach these goals. With
another parlance, it is a methodology by which a specific roadmap is recognized
for growing a doable, coherent and strong business or organization. The concept of
strategic planning, on the other hand, is defined as an instrument that allows
making long-term plans in consideration of the risks and opportunities faced by the
organization, and improving efficiency by acting in line with these plans. The
selected sample business is a European Café/fast food restaurant. This paper
outlines and discusses the importance of executing and crafting a strategic plan for
the success of the selected businesses. As a strategic plan should comprise mission
and vision statements, first, it highlights the importance of a mission statement for
the company; explains how the mission will be essential to the company’s success.
Then, it emphasizes how the vision statement supports the company’s mission.
This report determines the five key objectives for the company encompassing
operational, financial, and human resource aspects of the business, and additionally
justifies why each of these objectives is essential to the success of the business and
how they support the mission and vision statementsportance of Strategic
Management in an organization

Jun 06, 2016

Importance Of Strategic Management

Planning or designing a strategy involves a great deal of risk and resource

assessment, ways to counter the risks, and effective utilization of resources all
while trying to achieve a significant purpose.

An organization is generally established with a goal in mind, and this goal defines
the purpose for its existence. All of the work carried out by the organization
revolves around this particular goal, and it has to align its internal resources and
external environment in a way that the goal is achieved in rational expected time.

Undoubtedly, since an organization is a big entity with probably a huge underlying

investment, strategizing becomes a necessary factor for successful working
internally, as well as to get feasible returns on the expended money.
Strategic Management on a corporate level normally incorporates preparation for
future opportunities, risks and market trends. This makes way for the firms to
analyze, examine and execute administration in a manner that is most likely to
achieve the set aims. As such, strategizing or planning must be covered as the
deciding administration factor.

Strategic Management and the role it plays in the accomplishments of firms has
been a subject of thorough research and study for an extensive period of time now.
Strategic Management in an organization ensures that goals are set, primary issues
are outlined, time and resources are pivoted, functioning is consolidated, internal
environment is set towards achieving the objectives, consequences and results are
concurred upon, and the organization remains flexible towards any external
changes.

As more and more organizations have started to realize that strategic planning is
the fundamental aspect in successfully assisting them through any sudden
contingencies, either internally or externally, they have started to absorb strategy
management starting from the most basic administration levels. In actuality,
strategy management is the essence of an absolute administration plan. For large
organizations, with a complex organizational structure and extreme regimentation,
strategizing is embedded at every tier.

Apart from faster and effective decision making, pursuing opportunities and
directing work, strategic management assists with cutting back costs, employee
motivation and gratification, counteracting threats or better, converting these
threats into opportunities, predicting probable market trends, and improving overall
performance.

Keeping in mind the long-term benefits to organizations, strategic planning drives

them to focus on the internal environment, through encouraging and setting
challenges for employees, helping them achieve personal as well as organizational
objectives. At the same time, it is also ensured that external challenges are taken
care of, adverse situations are tackled and threats are analyzed to turn them into
probable opportunities.