Reflexive-Dynamics: On the Uses of the Terms ‘Strategy’ and ‘Strategic’ in Case Teaching

Why is the term ‘strategic’ over-used in case teaching? What, furthermore, is the difference between the use of the term ‘strategic’ as an adjective and the term ‘strategy’ as a noun? How will differentiating between these terms help to understand the pedagogical assumptions in the case method? These then are the questions that are addressed in this perspective essay. The main argument here is that misperceptions about the use of the term ‘strategic’ mediate not only the process of teaching via the case method, but also make it difficult to understand the ‘economic sources of strategy’ as an academic discipline. These misperceptions will not only lead to speculation about the cognitive style of CEOs during case analysis, but also expect students to understand those aspects of the functioning of top management which may not be familiar even to the CEOs themselves. Furthermore, decision making in strategic contexts is not as linear as it used to be in firms that are awash with information in the knowledge-based era. It is therefore important to appreciate how the articulation of ‘strategic intent’ by a top decision maker can introduce a process of ‘reflexive dynamics’ that makes it difficult to differentiate between the ‘cognitive’ and ‘manipulative’ functions of language. It is important then to differentiate rigorously between ‘announcing’ and ‘articulating’ a strategy and not reduce the reflexive dynamics of the latter to the former.