The case of Merck shows that a successful company should introduce innovative approaches and methods in planning and strategic thinking in order to compete on the market. The process of the strategy itself is instructional, exemplary for decision-making throughout the company. While the fullest involvement possible is the preferred course (better decisions and better support for the decisions), even that is not absolute and may be achieved in either an open process or a closed process. Those words are not intended as judgmental.
“The new strategy, dubbed “Plan to Win,” called for fundamental changes to Merck’s business model. It involved creating a global human health organization—that is, bringing together Merck’s previously independent regions”.
These strategies indicate the range and the method of involving individuals within (and outside) the organization in the planning process. Typically, Merck opted for a closed process; that is, the process of developing strategies is accomplished by the strategic officers–the board, senior executives, and managers; and the action planning is done by those in operational responsibilities (at one time long ago, that process was referred to as “top-down–bottom-up”).
Merck understands the strategic planning process as the plan developed–the means, the methods, and the sequence of planning activities. In the mission statement, developed during strategic planning, there are three parts: identity, purpose, and means. Taken together, within the context of the plan, they are the expression of the system’s reason for existence. However, purpose is not only central to the statement of mission, it is central to the overarching intent of organization. Without pervasive strategic intent the structural and operational integrity of organization is impossible.
For Merck, mutual purpose is found only in common benefit. This is the point at which whole-context organization most radically departs from traditional organization. For decades now, the most astute critics of corporation-model organization have observed that in it there is a fundamental irreconcilable conflict between the goals of the corporation and the interests of the people in it. The problem is inherent in the construction of the corporated system. The only purpose of the corporation is economic, that is, to increase the financial wealth of stockholders. So the adversarial dichotomy of the corporation is, in effect, built into the system. Internal conflict is always counterproductive, and a conflict of this magnitude–one that is fundamental to the system itself–is ultimately destructive.
The whole-context organization is realized only when there is perfect harmony between the strategic intent of the system and the personal interests of those who make up the system. It is a simple matter: either the system will serve those who constitute it, or they will be forced to serve it. There is no purpose in servitude–only despair or dreams. Only then can it become strategic intent, the ultimate expression of the mission. Unless and until the mission statement is translated into strategic intent, it is just so many fancy words emblazoned on a plaque in the foyers of administration buildings.
The dimensions taken into account are intent risks, delivery risks, people risks, If action is not the practical expression of purpose, then it is something else altogether.
“Merck proceeded by adding to its strategy execution capability”.
Critics admit that the lack of purpose results in either malaise or panic. One eschews doing anything; the other is given to frenzy. Lost does not mean not knowing where one is or where one is going. By strict definition, action is impossible. Recently, an outstanding collegiate football coach was asked by a reporter to explain how he won so many championships, conference and national.