WEEK #: SETTING DIRECTION 1
Week 2 Discussion: Setting Direction, Advantages / Disadvantages, and
Decision Models
Kelli Ware
School of Business, Liberty University
August 31, 2025
Introduction
Strategic direction setting is pivotal to the sustainability and scaling of any successful
business. Not only does it map out its course, but it solidifies its long-term trajectory. A
wellcrafted mission and vision statement is integral to providing clarity and engendering
organizational loyalty from those who will be charged with making the vision manifest. As
Habakkuk 2:2 instructs us, we are to write the vision and make it plain so those who read it can
run with it (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). Keller (2014) champions the concept of work
WEEK #: SETTING DIRECTION 2
being a partnership with God in cultivating community and meeting the needs of our fellow
man. As such setting company direction using strategy must encompass clarity, competitiveness,
and causativeness (Gamble, 2023). In this discussion post the process of strategic direction
setting, using leverage as a key advantage, and decision models to support the direction set will
be outlined.
Process: Setting the Company’s Direction with Strategy
At the heart of any direction setting process is its strategic vision which encompasses the
fleshing out of why the company exists and serves as the North Star for the company’s
operations. Per Gamble (2023) the company’s mission must be precise, forward-looking,
specific, motivational, and distinctive so that the direction is not only clear but garners buy-in
from those responsible for carrying it out. Keller (2014) points out that a vague vision or a vision
that is too broad becomes fruitless.
The first step in using strategy to set the company’s direction is to set the foundation by
drafting the mission statement and core principles that will serve as the guide for all decisions
to be made concerning the business (Gamble, 2023). To do so, incorporating the use of a SWOT
analysis will facilitate the proper assessment of internal strengths and weaknesses (Gamble,
2023), and the use non-utopian unreal scenarios (NUUS) to enhance the company’s ability to
prepare to pivot in case of another potential pandemic situation (Márquez et al., 2024). The
statements should be communicated effectively and engender commitment to where the
company is headed (Gamble, 2023). The next step in strategic direction setting is establishing
objectives that are orchestrated by the vision that encompasses the scope of operations and the
milestones that are to be reached along the way (Gamble, 2023). Integrating scenario-based
objectives as outlined NUUS approach helps decision-makers to set benchmarks that can be
used in later steps to perform sustainability testing (Márquez et al., 2024). Once the vision and
objectives are solidified, the phase is to craft the tactical plans that will move the company
forward in the direction that has been set. The plan should highlight how the company will
WEEK #: SETTING DIRECTION 3
remain competitive, agile, and distribute resources (Gamble, 2023) while identifying potential
contingencies for unexpected interruptions (Márquez et al., 2024). The final stage of setting
strategic direction is to execute the plan, test the results against the benchmarks set is stage 2,
perform iterative evaluations to ensure consistency with the company vision and milestones
(Gamble, 2023).
Strategic Thinking: Key Advantage
A key advantage in strategy formulation according to Rumelt (2011) is the use of
leverage to anticipate potential outcomes, gain insight into the most impactful aspects of a
condition, and to make minimal effort that has monumental impact. Critical to the benefits of
leverage is anticipation which facilitates forecasting and preparing for competitor and consumer
behaviors, market dynamism, and changes in the external ecosystem (Rumelt, 2011). Leverage
also mitigates resource waste by utilizing pivot points to identify competitor vulnerabilities,
ensure resource allocation is adjusted quickly when necessary to garner quick wins, build
momentum and increase market share (Rumelt, 2011). Another advantage inherent in using
leverage is concentration which involves the pooling of resources in the most optimal areas,
allowing it to exploit resource limitations of smaller business and maximize the benefits of
introducing ground breaking innovation that allow it to outperform larger rivals that cannot
pivot as quickly within the market (Rumelt, 2011). In doing so organizations commodify their
positioning and increase their bargaining and negotiating leverage within the market (Gamble,
2023 & Rumelt, 2011). Leverage also increases profitability through cost efficiency, builds
barrier to entry making it difficult for competitors to duplicate their processes, and uses
anticipation to pivot and the precise moment which enhances adaptability (Rumelt, 2011).
Decision Model
In strategic direction setting, the aforementioned decision models as depicted by
Krogerus and Tschäppeler (2017) which were “gap-in-the-market” and the “theory of
unconscious thinking” remain relevant as they align with the primary mission of my company
WEEK #: SETTING DIRECTION 4
which is to allow God to guide our steps and that our work serves humanity. Keller (2014)
asserts that God’s intention for work should be viewed as a calling that contributes to the good
of all and not individual increase. Considering that competitiveness must be accounted for in
strategic direction setting, the “gap-in-the-market” approach requires understanding of where
your competitors are in the market so that you can position your company to occupy a niche
that has been disregarded (Krogerus and Tschäppeler, 2017). The “theory of unconscious
thinking” says that rational thinking should be halted in order to connect with your innermost
self which aligns with Keller’s (2014) stance on work being God led and not self-directed.
Because forward thinking is requisite to successful strategic direction orientation, I am
considering incorporating Krogerus and Tschäppeler’s (2017) decision model on deciding in the
future which leans into embracing digital tools such as artificial intelligence and big data
analytics to support effective decision making. Adding this decision model would enhance the
decision-making outcomes of the two already in use. To ensure the cohesion of the three
decision models, I would apply the decision-making trial researched by Shiue et al. (2021) to
identify and map relationships among factors inherent in each model to de-conflict criteria and
ensure alignment with the strategic direction set for the company.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as established by this discussion post setting organizational direction using
strategic management processes must encompass clarity, distinctness, foresight, and agility
(Gamble, 2014). The company can position itself competitively if it employs internal and
external analyses to set the correct mission-oriented objectives (Gamble, 2023), integrates
decision models that support its aim (Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2017), and uses leverage to
outpace and outperform its industry competitors (Rumelt, 2011). The successful execution of
setting organization direction using strategy is hinged on continuous evaluation and strategically
informed decision-making (Gamble, 2023). Moreover, aligning strategic decision-making with
WEEK #: SETTING DIRECTION 5
God’s perspective of work as Keller (2014) contends, enhances the strategic direction from
profit-seeking to service-driven.
References
Gamble, J. E. (2023). Essentials of strategic Management: The quest for competitive advantage
(8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781266496622
Keller, T. (2014). Every good endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God’s Work. Penguin.
Krogerus, M., & Tschäppeler, R. (2017). The decision book: Fifty models for strategic thinking.
Profile Books.
Márquez, F. O. S., Ortiz, G. E. R., & Landaeta, D. Y. P. (2024). Expanding strategic vision: The role
of Non-Utopian Unreal Scenarios in decision-making. Decision Analytics Journal,
100536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2024.100536
Rumelt, R. (2011). Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: The difference and why it matters. Profile
Books.
Shiue, W., Liu, J. Y., & Li, Z. Y. (2021). Strategic multiple criteria group decision making model for ‐
continuous auditing system. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 28(5– 6), 269–
282. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1758
Annotated Bibliography
Márquez, F. O. S., Ortiz, G. E. R., & Landaeta, D. Y. P. (2024). Expanding strategic vision: The role
of Non-Utopian Unreal Scenarios in decision-making. Decision Analytics Journal,
100536.
Summary of Key Points
This peer reviewed article authored by Márquez et al. (2024) puts forth the
NonUtopian Unreal Scenarios (NUUS) concept that amplifies antecedent scenario-based
planning methodologies using unlikely yet potentially plausible scenarios that have
inherently high magnitudes of impact. The researchers argue that traditional approaches
WEEK #: SETTING DIRECTION 6
lack sufficiency in capturing the full range of forecastable future outcomes leaving
organizations blindsided and ill-prepared (Márquez et al., 2024). Drawing on the
historical COVID-19 pandemic as a real-life case study to support their argument their
study displays how NUUS expands strategic forecasting, enhances organizational
readiness and risk management, and supports strategic direction setting and
decisionmaking in dynamic business ecosystems (Márquez et al., 2024).
Evaluation of the Quality of the Publication
The article presents a straightforward argument that is supported by historical
events, a well investigated literature review in addition to mathematical modeling that
solidifies the stance of the researchers. The study lays out a clearly articulated definition
of what NUUS is, how it was researched and implications if applied in academia as well
as in business. Furthermore, the findings suggest that NUUS is more reliable as a
strategic planning resource than traditional planning and the integration of Game Theory
proffering a more robust framework that more adequately addresses potential future
disruptions (Márquez et al., 2024). Finally, the article also puts forth managerial
implications for decision-makers to consider in their strategy planning endeavors.
Evaluation of the Quality of the Authors
The authors have diverse backgrounds in administrative fields two researchers
achieving doctoral level and the other achieving masters level education prior to the
publication of this article. The diversity in their backgrounds and antecedent academic
accomplishments strengthened the interdisciplinary quality and credibility of this article.
Where This Fits into the Discussion
This scholarly article aligns with and strengthens the discussion surrounding
strategic direction setting by expanding the considerations a company must include in
their decision-making. It also adds credibility to the argument that company leaders
must be prepared for unconventional and unplanned interruptions in operations.
WEEK #: SETTING DIRECTION 7
Moreover, it reinforces the necessity for organizational pliability and the implementation
of enhanced readiness measures.
Shiue, W., Liu, J. Y., & Li, Z. Y. (2021). Strategic multiple criteria group decision making model for ‐
continuous auditing system. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 28(5–
6), 269–282.
Summary of Key Points
The authors of this peer reviewed article suggest a hybrid multiple criteria group
decision-making model (MCGDM) that encompasses continuous auditing systems to
aggregate data. The decision model integrates the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation
Laboratory technique which continually aggregates, analyzes, and arranges data that
supports more accurate decision-making. The researchers performed an empirical
analysis input received from 138 surveys to prove the applicability of their model. The
results proved that continuous auditing enhances forecasting, decision making, and
governance.
Evaluation of the Quality of the Publication
The research performed is logically organized and offers a robust explanation of
the decision-making model that assess causal relationships between factors and
subfactors and is supported by an in-depth literature review and an empirical analysis
that reveals the applicability of the proposed model. While the empirical data sheds light
on how to apply the decision model, the article lacks managerial implications that would
encourage decision-makers to choose to integrate their model in their direction setting
process.
Evaluation of the Quality of the Authors
The three authors are international scholars with cross-disciplinary perspectives,
and this is the first article that they have published. Their peer reviewed research has
been cited 6 times since being published in 2021. The authors show tremendous
WEEK #: SETTING DIRECTION 8
credibility in getting their article reviewed and published in a journal with global impact
on the business sector.
Where This Fits into the Discussion
This scholarly article contributes the discussion on direction setting by enriching
the decision model topic by offering an alternative approach that facilitates continual
evaluation and adjustment through auditing which is imperative is strategic
management. The MCGDM methodology reflects how the use of multiple criteria
approaches can be leveraged to strengthen strategic decision-making by clearly
identifying priorities and causal relationships that may impact operational efficiency. It is
complementary to Gamble’s (2023) SWOT analysis assertion and Márquez et al.’s (2024)
NUUS model by supporting advance auditing and evaluation of implemented strategies.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
