The article “Hustle and Strategy” starts by challenging the view of theologians on the subject of strategy. Radical theologians view strategy as the act of outdoing rivals in the game of gaining enduring benefits (Bhide 1986, p. 50); Bhide dismisses this point of view by approaching the definition of strategy more judiciously, and with a more permissive perspective. The writer takes a staunch stand, which antagonizes the opinion by hardline theologians that allegedly disregard the significance of hustle and strategy. The purpose of this review is to evaluate critically the article Hustle and Strategy in the context of general debates on strategy, classification in the existing schools of strategic thought, and draw conclusions.
The position of the article in the wider debates about the processes of strategy, for example, does the article offer a prescriptive or emergent approach to strategy
The definition of strategy differs considerably considering diverse cultures (Porter 1996). Approach to strategy can be either prescriptive or emergent, each of which has salient features that makes it distinguishable from the other. The prescriptive approach is more conservative while the emergent approach is more liberal and contemporary. The view supported by Bhide in the article “Hustle and strategy” is characteristically emergent in nature. The writer supports the role of adapting strategy in business management instead of following stringent laid down procedures that introduce bureaucracy. Bureaucratic management is growing increasingly irrelevant in the contemporary business environment (Bhide 1986, p55). In the traditional approach, strategy involves limiting the competitor’s influence in market; a strategy requiring capital input without guaranteed returns. In large and diverse market systems such as financial institution networks, the practicability of this strategy is markedly contestable considering the urgency of the financial transactions. Managers are thus faced with the challenge to substitute conservative strategies with technological innovation that can create customer tailored services to maintain their competitive edge (Bhide 1986, p64).
Whittington’s four schools of strategy the article belongs
Whittington, in his book on business strategy, puts forth four schools of thought on the subject: the classical planning approach, the evolutionary approach, the processual approach, and the systematic approach. The four theories counter different business situations.
The theory by Bhide in the Hustle and strategy supports the evaluation of the effectiveness and the efficiency of the various sections of the management structure to establish whether each has delivered on its role (Bhide 1986, p.57). The approach, therefore, according to Whittington’s classification falls under the evolutionary approach. An important thing to note is that the theories are not perfect fits for all situations, and consequently some feature may appear to spill into other theories although in lesser magnitude. The article, in this regard, also exhibits features of the systematic approach, which takes notice of the international significance to the business world behaviors (Cuizon 2009).
Strengths of the article
The article advises on the hustle technique, which is a comprehensive result based strategy involving evaluation of the realizable business objectives that each individual manager can deliver from their individual capacities and assigned roles. The environmental based and user-based approach is critical in modern day consumer markets where customer needs change on day-to-day basis (Porter 1996).
The research in the articles draws attention to the mistakes the financial sector stakeholders make in their profitability strategies. The errors come through indiscriminate, unevaluated elimination of services to customers and lack of solid appraisal programs for performance driven staff of the organization (Bhide 1986, p.64).
The article gives substantial content in which the proposed strategy does not work. The exceptions offer for a more objective reading of the article using practical real life examples. In particular, the expose underscores the importance of long-term strategy in maintaining competitive in the long-run (Bhide 1986, p.63).
Weaknesses of the article
The article concentrates on one kind of scenario to back its hustle and strategy line of reasoning, the financial sector. The restrictive case is despite the fact that the article highlights several cases where the traditional prescriptive strategy might show more irrefutable outcomes such as in the manufacturing sector. The reason, according to Bhide, for the volatility of the financial sector is the easy supplication of the financial sector strategies by rival firms. The same does not apply to the manufacturing organizations (Bhide 1986, p64).
Convincing and unconvincing elements of the article and reasons for the conclusions
The article is convincing in its evenhanded approach discussion on strategy. The author appreciates the benefits that the prescriptive strategic methodology, and even recommends it for some cases on the basis of factual evidence.
The article is not as articulate in persuading the reader on the effective of the strategy to other areas of business where different competitive environments are likely to be experienced.
Comparison and contrasting of the article with relevant research in strategy
The article agrees with most sources on the topic of strategy. Some sources seem to have a broader view of the subject, which recognizes the applicability of each of the approaches outlined in various sources on the issue. Some authors seem to take more hardline classical view of the topic, and disrepute the main stand in the articles Hustle and strategy.
Conclusions drawn from the comparison
Business strategy can be formulated from salient principles that emerge from the article “Hustle and Strategy": for instance there is the offer of pragmatic perception guidance to understanding tactics of developing contemporary business strategy. Bhide, using the financial sector, demonstrates convincingly that strategy needs to be more adaptive to the existing environmental conditions. Therefore, the rigid traditional approach to the concept of strategy needs to be more sympathetic to the emergent views on strategy.