Discussion Questions

1) Structural contingency vs. Complexity science

Structural contingency and complexity science theory provide various implications of the importance of strategic planning. Structural contingency theory highlights the adjustments to accomplish organizational fit with an evolving setting and sees strategic planning as a method to guide the company’s path. A structural contingency point of view would provide focus to evaluating the suitability between company structures and their environment. Specifically, it checks whether the data processing capacities of the companies and network of companies match the level of uncertainty in the particular setting. It helps ensure that company structures have the requisite variety provided the instability in the setting. Structural contingency theory aids in establishing adequate flexibility in the company structures to manage the quickly developing setting. 

Complexity science theory, on the other hand, states that planning is mainly useless in altering environments. While acknowledging the overwhelming forces assisting the previous system, the idea would allow one to analyze the sources of novelty – the small differences that created a huge difference in generating the new system, compared to the attributes that enable systems to remain in substandard remedies and methods.

Complexity science theory tackles how the histories of the organizations and the norms of culture are utilized to produce instead of restrict the existence of new trends. It gives details on the changing exchanges and gaps that allowed self-organize remedies to happen. It discusses the extent to which questions that are important in breaking the structure from past trend are determined and met.

• Which of the two views do you feel is correct and “why”?

I believe that structural contingency is more correct than complexity science theory. I still think that strategic planning is still essential in the proper operations of companies, including healthcare companies. In truth, there is huge variation in the way healthcare companies create their strategic plans. Some merge the strategic planning aspect with marketing, others designate the role to a planner, and others designate the task for strategic planning among the entire top leadership group. While it may be true that there is minimal standardization in the manner that healthcare companies perform their planning, it is clear to me that strategic planning can help contribute to benefits in performance for healthcare companies. Juts like most management procedures, proof of the efficiency or importance of strategic planning is not hard to find.

• Describe how your thoughts about strategic planning may or may not have been impacted by this article.

My thoughts regarding strategic planning were only validated by this article. The interviews of heads of 20 healthcare companies Minnesota and San Antonio, Texas only indicated what I already knew, that strategic planning was an ordinary and important attribute in healthcare companies. Respondents stated the necessity to consistently update strategic plans, include doctors and the management board, and merge strategic plans with other company schemes. I have always believed that that strategic planning can lead to improved company focus, manages shareholder involvement and dedication, and results to accomplishment of strategic objectives. These beliefs of mine were completely supported and validated by the findings of this study. I also support the fact that there has to be more studies needed to be done in this matter to refute the claims and criticisms being brought about by complexity science theory.

REFERENCE

Begun, J. W., Kaissi, A.A. & Sweetland, D.L. (2005). “An exploratory study of healthcare strategic planning in two metropolitan areas.” Journal of Healthcare Management, 50(4), 264275.