Reading Comprehension

Why firms adhere to or deviate from their strategic plans is poorly understood. However, theory and limited research suggest that the process through which such plans emerge may play a part. In particular, top management decision-sharing consensus-oriented, team-based decision-making-may increase the likelihood that firms will adhere to their plans, because those involved in the decision-making may be more committed to the chosen course of action, thereby increasing the likelihood that organizations will subsequently adhere to their plans.

However, the relationship between top management decision-sharing and adherence to plans may be affected by a firm's strategic mission (its fundamental approach to increasing sales revenue and market share, and generating cash flow and short-term profits). At one end of the strategic mission continuum, "build" strategies are pursued when a firm desires to increase its market share and is willing to sacrifice short-term profits to do so. At the other end, "harvest" strategies are used when a firm is willing to sacrifice marked share for short-term profitability and cash-flow maximization. Research and theory suggest that top management decision-sharing may have a more positive relationship with adherence to plans among firms with harvest strategies than among firms with build strategies. In a study of strategic practices in several large firms, managers in harvest strategy scenarios were more able to adhere to their business plans. As one of the managers in the study explained it, this is partly because typically all a manager has to do [when implementing a harvest strategy] is that which was done last year." Additionally, managers under harvest strategies may have fewer strategic options than do those under build strategies; it may therefore be easier to reach agreement on a particular course of action through decision-sharing, which will in turn tend to promote adherence to plans. Conversely, in a "build" strategy scenario, individual leadership, rather than decision-sharing, may promote adherence to plans. Build strategies-which typically require leaders with strong personal visions for a firm's future, rather than the negotiated compromise of the team-based decision-may be most closely adhered to when implemented in the context of a clear strategic vision of an individual leader, rather than through the practice of decision-sharing.

Which of the following best describes the function of the first sentence (in bold) of the second paragraph of the passage?
A. To answer a question posed in the first sentence of the passage about why firms adopt particular strategic missions
B. To refute an argument made in the first paragraph about how top management decision-making affects whether firms will adhere to their strategic plans
C. To provide evidence supporting a theory introduced in the first paragraph about what makes firms adhere to or deviate from their strategic plants
D. To qualify an assertion made in the preceding sentence about how top management decision-making affects the likelihood that firms will adhere to their strategic plans
E. To explain a distinction relied on in the second paragraph regarding two different kinds of strategic missions


So close options... Options [spoiler]A/B/C/D[/spoiler] are real close..
I want to how to eliminate each of them..
OA is D.. OA looks convincing but I cud not eliminate other options..

adi_800 wrote:Which of the following best describes the function of the first sentence (in bold) of the second paragraph of the passage?
A. To answer a question posed in the first sentence of the passage about why firms adopt particular strategic missions
B. To refute an argument made in the first paragraph about how top management decision-making affects whether firms will adhere to their strategic plans
C. To provide evidence supporting a theory introduced in the first paragraph about what makes firms adhere to or deviate from their strategic plants
D. To qualify an assertion made in the preceding sentence about how top management decision-making affects the likelihood that firms will adhere to their strategic plans
E. To explain a distinction relied on in the second paragraph regarding two different kinds of strategic missions


So close options... Options [spoiler]A/B/C/D[/spoiler] are real close..
I want to how to eliminate each of them..
OA is D.. OA looks convincing but I cud not eliminate other options..

Hi-- I prepared a short summary -

Author asks a question - why deviation?
conditions where the likelihood of deviation is low - decision shaing, team based approach.. blah blah.

Process through which such plans are made may play a part.

Next para- Tries to find the answer of the question asked in the 1st para. i.e why deviation?

Ans - due to firm's different strategic mission..

---

Now, let's review all options -

A is a very close option, I agree. But, the author does not say why firms choose any strategic missions, in the first paragraph. Author is simply giving few examples where the possibility of deviation is low - "decision shaing, team based approach"

Option B is easy to elimate. Author is nowhere trying to refute any argument. He is simply analysing different strategies in the second para, namely - 'build' and 'harvest'

option C - Author is not providing any evidence supporting a theory in the first paragraph. Simply asking a question and then giving a possible scenario where such deviations will be less.

option D -- the correct answer. Read the summary I made. That will answer your question. He

Option C -

here is my summary:

para 1:
firms deviate from plans for poorly understood reasons;

theory/research indicate: adherance is more if team is involved in decision making;

para2: firms stategic mission governs the decision making procession;

two type strategies
1. build strategy (long term strategy) - management vision plays key role; they don't compromise vision by negotions with team;
2. harvest stragey( read as: reap as much as possible): work closely with team to get the best ASAP;

analysis:
For the question posed indirectly in the first line of the first para, answer is in the first para it self;
i.e. they deviate from the plans because - the plan doesn't have consenses from team.

second para is merely expanding why or when firms may involve or not involve the team. This not the evidence for the theory. The evidence should prove why a theory is correct.

The key word "However" indicates that its continuation of the previous argument/thery i.e. expanding/qualifing.