Reference no: EM13320594

As you have mentioned the relative strengths of the Top Down perspective and this strategy is older and more widely used method, it's more recongnised as an effective approach. It is more structured and usually supported with a controlled style of management. For Example, having structures emplace as most educational institutes have, this style of operations management effectively uses this system. Educational systems are changing, as we endeavor to integrate in our teaching strategies that encourage discussions about power, context, discourses, inequalities, and diversity in management and organizational communication. This type of thinking enables teacher's students to have a voice and challenge the system (Cockburn-Wootten, Cockburn, 2011). So the idea of a Top Down strategic is always challenged in the educational field as there are many different models and theories of education in its continuous development.

To challenge this process it can take extensive time with a small-scale business result. There is large amount of activity for not much result. Sometimes middle management can be unclear of the long-term goal, with roles of authority unclear and jumbled. It can be challenging with little reward and sometimes no improvement actioned. Using my educational institute as an example, this style of management is common practice, as the teachers rely on experience and knowledge within the profession.

This is particularly evident in institutes that are for profit. For example, the selection of Information Computers Technology (ICT) is critical however it demonstrates a top down business models as they are often heavily weighted towards service-oriented revenue such as implementation, training and ongoing professional development.

According to Filiev (2008) companies that switched from the traditional top-down management style to bottom-up management are some of the world's biggest corporations in the world, such as Toyota and IBM implemented bottom-up management style elements in some of their departments. This can give more attention into developmental research that fits into a market requirement perspective to keep up with competitors.

And here is the question:

What real strategically advantage does the top down effect have over bottom up? Apart from cost implementation set up, and hierarchal control? Do you think strategic focuses change causing the top down process to be inefficient?