It is important to note that chapter 3 of “Strategic Human Resource Management” by Mello presents invaluable information on key models of strategy with their corresponding specificities and intricacies in regard to conceptual frameworks of management. There are two key models of strategy, which are the industrial organization model, or I/O and the resource-based view, or RBV. Although both perspectives are supported by evidence and mutually unexclusive, a critique point can be made that these two concepts do not need to be contradictory. It is possible that any form of strategic decision of an organization should undergo both lenses of evaluation in order to arrive at a plausible solution. RBV might be the first step, whereas I/O is the second step or vice versa. For example, the chapter emphasizes that these two approaches are distinct, but in practice, it is most likely that they are merely different steps of a single strategic decision-making process. An organization might first evaluate the external factors on the basis of which internal resources are factored in, where the most realizable solution is determined.
Moreover, the chapter addresses the market and economic trend analysis as important elements of strategic management, which are subsequently followed by organizational self-assessments in terms of key strengths and weaknesses. The specific point was stated in regard to weakness minimization alongside strength capitalization. However, one might argue that allocating organizational resources and efforts to weakness minimization can be counterproductive to the overall goal since it will not help a company or enterprise to be able to achieve the top leadership in its market. For example, for a long time, Apple’s smartphones tended to have lower megapixel values in their cameras compared to its Android-based competitors, such as Samsung. However, Apple did not attempt to minimize this possible weakness but focused on its strength, allowing it to be a market leader. Similarly, Apple computers evidently are not the top performance piece of equipment in the market, but it is still popular because the company focuses on its strengths rather than weaknesses. The strategic decision of Apple in regard to its computers is that they are secure, user-friendly, and isolated from the rest.
The chapter additionally outlines the notion that the main reason why organizational effectiveness becomes problematic is due to employees not understanding the organizational strategies or missions. However, one might argue that employees have no direct interest in these statements or plans but are rather incentivized by other factors, such as compensation, work environment, and leadership. It is possible that innovation, creativity, efficiency, and effectiveness of employees are a byproduct of a proper combination of the previously mentioned factors.
A professional individual working in a welcoming condition with an appropriate level of workload and satisfactory compensation might be more willing to be more effective and creative than someone whose pay is low and whose workload is excessive. Therefore, employees’ understanding or not understanding an organizational mission or strategy is most likely not the issue but rather other factors. For example, Amazon is the leading retail company due to its extreme levels of efficiency, but its warehouse workers are put under a severe level of stress and pressure, which means that their understanding of Amazon’s strategy is irrelevant. The company imposes low pay and a high workload on these employees because they do not perform creative work, which is why they are practically borderline abused. Thus, innovation and creativity are most likely a matter of work conditions and terms rather than sharing organizational vision or strategy. These notions are only relevant and useful for the management and shareholders.