My research views the different aspects of our thought process and how that correlates with our cognitive abilities to interpret and implement solutions in a strategic manner. Strategy is three-dimensional that is composed of the process, content and context, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Each dimension identifies different elements of strategy providing a circular structure that flows in a synergistic manner. Strategy process defines the who, where and when aspect of strategy which provides a platform for interlinking the content and context, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Content is noted as the defining element of the process and context establishes the meaning behind the strategy, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Each demission provides a clear vison of the interrelated
…show more content…
According to the author, three dimensions of strategy are readily identifiable in all situational issues, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). By understanding the three dimensions to include process, content and context, we are able to grasp the problem from every angle, defining areas of concern and implementing strategic thought processes in developing a viable solution, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). As we view each dimension, we identify specific elements that each dimension addresses. Strategy process determines the who, where and when regarding the actual strategy itself, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Strategy content determines the essence or the defining element of the process of what the strategy is based on, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). The last process is strategy context, which applies meaning to the content and context, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). The author reestablishes the importance of these dimensions as being one with strategy not an independent mechanisms of strategy, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). The strategy process is depicted in a circular pattern identifying three areas of involvement. The circular pattern demonstrates the continuous flow of the process, starting with the thinking, forming and change, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Each aspect of the circle identifies with the initial development to final progression being strategic …show more content…
Both cognitive abilities are deemed necessary, yet difficult to implement effectively, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). I feel that the answer to this dilemma could possibly be to view the problem logically then interject creativity to develop a solution. To blend the two skills simultaneously is not realistic, based on our limited capacity to process and store information. Our logical interpretation can balance our creative intuition thus developing a more comprehensive, yet practical approach in formulating a rational solution. This brings us to another controversy regarding rational versus strategic reasoning, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Strategic reasoning aligns with logical thinking, therefore viewing a situation in a decisive, fact-oriented manner, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Through strategic reasoning, the strategy process is developed from copious amounts of data that is analyzed to isolate the problem, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Once identified all aspects of the problem are viewed from a logical perspective in order to develop a sound solution. The author provides an excellent example of a strategist, by comparing their thinking skills to a grand master chess player, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). This comparison brings clarity to how I picture a strategist, always thinking several moves ahead by successfully analyzing every possible
According to the author, three dimensions of strategy are readily identifiable in all situational issues, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). By understanding the three dimensions to include process, content and context, we are able to grasp the problem from every angle, defining areas of concern and implementing strategic thought processes in developing a viable solution, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). As we view each dimension, we identify specific elements that each dimension addresses. Strategy process determines the who, where and when regarding the actual strategy itself, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Strategy content determines the essence or the defining element of the process of what the strategy is based on, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). The last process is strategy context, which applies meaning to the content and context, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). The author reestablishes the importance of these dimensions as being one with strategy not an independent mechanisms of strategy, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). The strategy process is depicted in a circular pattern identifying three areas of involvement. The circular pattern demonstrates the continuous flow of the process, starting with the thinking, forming and change, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Each aspect of the circle identifies with the initial development to final progression being strategic …show more content…
Both cognitive abilities are deemed necessary, yet difficult to implement effectively, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). I feel that the answer to this dilemma could possibly be to view the problem logically then interject creativity to develop a solution. To blend the two skills simultaneously is not realistic, based on our limited capacity to process and store information. Our logical interpretation can balance our creative intuition thus developing a more comprehensive, yet practical approach in formulating a rational solution. This brings us to another controversy regarding rational versus strategic reasoning, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Strategic reasoning aligns with logical thinking, therefore viewing a situation in a decisive, fact-oriented manner, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Through strategic reasoning, the strategy process is developed from copious amounts of data that is analyzed to isolate the problem, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). Once identified all aspects of the problem are viewed from a logical perspective in order to develop a sound solution. The author provides an excellent example of a strategist, by comparing their thinking skills to a grand master chess player, (Wit, & Meyer, 2010). This comparison brings clarity to how I picture a strategist, always thinking several moves ahead by successfully analyzing every possible