Defining the Problem

The ontological shift outlined above may, as such, correspond to a sequential process of historical development (that is, as in the narrative cited above: from long-range planning, to continuous adaptation) — though it may additionally correspond to distinct, albeit contradictory assumptions simultaneously held by individual members of a given organization or participants in a strategy process. Moreover, the shift as we have portrayed it here may not necessarily signal a stark, either/or choice. Indeed, even if we proceed from a complex adaptive systems perspective, pockets of stability can and do emerge, and within these pockets regular patterns unfold that can be anticipated with a significant degree of accuracy. And yet at the same time, not only can these patterns change, but our capacity to anticipate them can also change. Thus by tracing this ontological shift, we have tried simply to illustrate how the challenge of preparedness takes shape in the context of contemporary strategic management research and practice, and to show that the difference between these two sets of assumptions raises a series of questions that are of the utmost importance to the practicing manager who deals with unexpected change.