i. Proprietary nature of the strategy: The wider the dissemination of information concerning strategic decisions, competitive moves, or shifting emphasis, the greater the likelihood that it will reach a competitor, who could subvert the move, decision, or shift. A strategy which will provide or exploit an unpublicized advantage may be best kept undisclosed. The advantages of organisational commitment would be offset by the loss of surprise. If the strategy will divulge proprietary information, it should be shard only on need-to-know basis.

ii. Political impact of strategy: It is not always possible to achieve consensus concerning the appropriate strategic directions for an organisation. If a number of top level managers participate in the formulation process, it is not unlikely that there will be differences of opinion about the final choice. In an organisation in which relationships are strained, factions may form around strong individuals, and the strategy may be judged and supported according to who is backing it rather than upon its own merits. In such a situation, it may be more efficient to communicate the strategy piecemeal rather than as a whole. Strategy communication that sparks infighting will hinder implementation more than it will help.

iii. Expectation aroused by strategy: The announcement of a strategy gives all organisational stakeholders a means of evaluating operations and performance. It also raises and defines expectation about the future of the organisations which may prove embarrassing to management if unforeseen circumstances arise and diminish performance. For this reason, many public announcements of strategy are retrospective, indicating what has been attempted and how well the objectives have been met. An organisation which announces strategy prospectively is subject to criticism from security analysts, to fluctuation in share prices, to government scrutiny, and to buyer and supplier moves, as well as union responses that may be generated by stakeholders.

iv. Motivational impact of strategy: A clear statement of strategy may either inspire or demoralize. The effect of a given communication must be considered in light of the personal implications for the individuals required to implement it. Growth strategies have enjoyed popularity because, among other things, the rewards – both financial and career – are perceived as greater for all concerned. Retrenchment strategies are full of financial and personal unpleasantness even though they may be necessary to maintain long-term viability. Unfortunately, good managers may be tempted to leave at the time they are most needed. At the corporate levels, considerable differences may exist among the strategies of various business units. These differences may make some units much more attractive than others. The use of the term “dog” with the attendant divestiture strategy is likely to have negative effects on unit morale. If communicating strategy is more likely to reduce morale or drive away good managers than to inspire action, a comprehensive strategy announcement is usually undesirable.

v. Decisional impact of strategy: Strategy is often an evolving understanding of where the organization is going and of how to get there. An announced strategy brings closure to the formulation question and focuses on implementation. This closure is not always desirable, because lower levels of management can make significant contributions to the strategy as they work through the implementation process. Therefore, before top management announces a strategy, it should be certain that closure of formulation is desired.                                                                                                                                                 (Any 4 points)