Strategic Dissonance

The article talks about the Strategic Dissonance and how it is common in the fast-paced technology industry. The authors provide the example of Intel and how it had a position in the market as a consumer company but counter to this it released chips with known flaws like an OEM manufacturer. This point is known as the “strategic inflection point”, the point where industry dynamics fundamentally change. How firms recognize and negotiate these strategic inflection points determines how long and how profitable they will endure.

Intel did a fairly good job with the chip situation and recognized “strategic dissonance”. Some senior managers raised their voices and this created discussions around conflicting strategies. Intel had conducted a very successful marketing campaign targeted at end-users called ‘Intel Inside’. But by releasing flawed chips into the market it was going counter to its end-users promise of quality. Intel by realizing that the strategic inflection point had been reached choose to replace all flawed chips no questions asked. This is defined as “strategic recognition” and is crucial to the survival of technology companies. They must foster a culture of different views and enable channels for discussion.

Debate must be encouraged but also skilled management knows when to end debates and pursue action. Technology firms must avoid two clear traps, first is not having any debate so nobody ever challenges the status quo. Second is keep debating endlessly and zero action. The authors stressed the strong role of internal selection which, channels resources away from areas that are becoming less profitable to those that are thriving. Puts the burden of proof on those managers who want to forgo immediate profits for strategic objectives. Top managers need to support initiatives of strategic recognition.