Should Christian leaders then frame the problem different, defining a distinctive set of actions for a strategy which includes peace, love, and focus on God because of their Christian worldview and their desire for stewardship?

We can understand and study the innerouter environment through reason and our senses. We can see, weighi, compare, smell and touch things in the emironment. However, because all of life belongs to God, He defines the presuppositions We hold as we encounter our study of both en: Vironments (Bahnsen, 1908; 2 Corinthians 10.5; Hebrews 412 ) Bablicul pence will unify all the interests of fime and the environment. This makes Bublical peraet an owending Christian concern. As a rexull. Chrisian stralegists should wark hard to brang peace inlio their oreanilyation. II solves the problem of disumity that is oflen found at werk and in file field of stralcegy Both are splintered Whe atte conerned w ith comtralline the externat ceminument and those concernsd with the trie of under: salesperson or marketer, the technician-skilled or semi-skilled employee, and the engineer-the idea employee, Managers pay close attention to what is going on inside the organization. Their concerns are efficiency and effectiveness. The sales person's interests respond to the cutside of the organization. He or she needs to understand the outside markets and customers in order to sell the goods and services to them. Both manag. ers and salespersens have formal roles and their skills can be applied to any erganization. These two actors in the oxganiration, managers and salespouple, have concerns idenified in the first five schools of strategy in table I. When these people are ("Iristians, they may emplinatee other concerns such as the mporlance of stewardichip truliful comminication and showing lowe to that natuhat these ators bare established encins to decom plivh work and they werk then by mantaninge ABSTRACT Strategic decision makers have a set of beliefs, a worldview, that frame what reality is for them. Using this framework, they set strategic goals which, in turn, form a set of primary actions that define the strategic options of the firm. Therefore, we should be able to recognize various schools of strategy as defined by distinctive sets of beliefs in theory and practice. The paper argues that this is the case and that we should then be able to define at least one possible Christian school of strategy, framed by a Christian set of beliefs. A Christian school of strategy should assist all strategists in achieving their purposes in ways that are lifeenhancing for their organizations. HOW A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW DEFINES STRATEGY The goal to integrate Christian principles into an understanding of strategy can be done at different contextual levels. For example, Martinez (2003) proposed a Christian framework for analyzing business principles which began with an examination of leading textbooks available to Christian business teachers -his context is these textbooks. This paper acknowledges Martincz's framework and seeks integration for the same reason, but uses a different integrative contextual level the worldview of the strategist. This paper seeks to deepen understanding of strategic worldviews in order to frame at least one possible Christian school of strategy. Current textbooks state the issues of strategic management from a specific understanding of strategy. Is it possible to uncover another understanding of strategy that is based on a Christian worldview and is more life-enhancing to an organization? A biblical integration that begins at the worldview contextual level is important for Christian business students to pursue. It is critical to understand worldviews in order to have consistent suceess in strategic decision-making. Said differ- idea that the strategist selects about reality. Again, theorists absolutize this idea and dogmati. eally believe and teach that this idea of reality defincs what is most important about organizational suecess (Mintaberg, et.al, 1998). Different ideas lead to different aims for the strategist and to a distinctive set of actions. For example, these in the Planning School. who define strategy as a plan, belicve that a ra* tional person can "prediet the course of its enVironment, and control it, or simply to assume its stability" (Mintsberg et al, 1998, p. 67), that quality is in the process, not in the person, and that we soudd think firs, then act The theorists and practitioners' purpose in this school is to put qualify in the process through conirul. Although the Panning School's main deat schode, theorits and practitioners pactage if as is distinctive xed of heliel There buliels differ from those of the other schouls, in fich they are com pletely apposile from the beliels of those exporred Ak tran in lithe 1 Nitions. need to interpret reality. With these premises, they necessarily frame the strategic problem to solve. From this frame, they draw inferences and conclusions about the problem that fits within the frame and follows their premises (Argyris, 1982). In other words, they interpret their environment and the organizational situations differently according to worldview presuppositions. Thus, they solve different issues. At the end, strategists in the different sehools define strategy distinetively and recommend different actions. Looking at Table 1, we recognize how each school develops distinetive sets of primary ac: tons that those in each school call strategy. As can be observed, some of these sels of primary tetwons share common tasks, but as a whole they represent distinctive processes for instance, for thoxe in the Pannang School, the plan is the strat eyy. The plan is desinged to form comprchenave and delibotate plans, procedures, trantay and cully than the flanane Schowl controt all these in and around the oryankathen double-foop learning will open up communications. 2. Teach and practice peacemaking (Sande, 2004) or conflict resolutions. Peacemaking will also allow rich communication. 3. Teach and practice collaborative team skills (Miller, 2005), Collaborative team skills will help employees understand and build their speaking and listening skills that cover all four fronts of life: inside outside, past and future. 4. Teach and practice Komona (Walker, 2008), through which employecs can par: ticipale in communion and community. practice compassion, and practice what is right: 5 Teach and practice ereativity (de Bono, 1970) Crealivily allows organizations to detect what is cuifintly lacking son that it can mone forward inta the future What is common in all the suguestions is lesching According to Rosenstock-lluexiy (1970), leaching becomes necessary as we seck peace. Peace requires thai strategists learn from expericnee what actually creates peace. In karn ing what ereates peace employeces do not require formal instruction on the variety of theories aralable, bat father should be taught what theo fles have besn dileady tried and how ihey worked or noi worked the type of tetuhing responds to the milicu of rat and serious oreaturational lite (Kimenstodik Huessy, 1954) What is ( Thristian in this primary set of tian worldhew and the recogation tif Ciod is of Hein peace to ourselves and our organizations. Those who belong to Christ and have peace in Him are free to work towards the redemption of all things. However, those who do not have Christ's peace can still work at creating a peaceful environment and have a measure of success. Just as we all enjoy the good things that God has created for us, we can all enjoy peace and its reward (Matt S.45) CONCLUSION A Christian worldview should define at least one distinctive school of strategy. If we accept the work of Mintzberg et al. (1998), we find there are schools of strategy that reflect distinctive un derstandings of what is important in the reality of an organization. With these understandinge. each school frames the work of the strategists. In other words, an understanding about what is most important about reality neccsanty leads to a dis: tinctive set of actiens; change this understanding. and the set of actwons atro change: Since Christanty gives ws a different under standing of what is important, it is possible to ditonty at leas one distinctive (Chratian school of strategy. The Peace Schoos of strategy's under stinding ahout out reality can fead to a distine tive purpese and set of promary activites that define: the stratege options These options should contribute not only to Christans but to all strate grats as they sedk the hest for their organization Since the paper only theused on defineng one Werks out the various alratege umpticatents. To dhe new products, new production methods and new techniques to cut costs. These two actors, techni= cians and engineers, add the time perspective to work and have concerns related to some of the schools in the bottom five of Table 1. When these people are Christians, they may add other con: eerns, such as the promises made in the past that organizations need to keep, and future possibilities opened to them because Christ redecmed the world When nol well understood, the interests of the four actors may cause much trouble for the organization. Salespeople conlinally try to sell what their customers will buy, while the engineer'sinand thal they can suppent Techncians understand Bulled work which has Iaken ycars to sharpen xo that they can continue to have woth. On the to respond to the salesperans" cominumicaliont With the demand of the market, they are woots Ing hard at changing Bul changet threateras the QI course the different interests are not the only their work's implications on business and strategic communication (Clifton, J. 2006; van der Merwe, Chermack, et al, 2007) teach us about how we implement peaceful change. Finally, no doubt we can find other Christian frameworks to define other Christian schools of strategy. Although the discussion in this paper should add to the general understanding of strategie thinking, planning and doing, the challenge for us is to make any of these frameworks workable. In this respect, Nintxberg (2004) teaches us that it takes many years of hard, detarled work to populanze a theory based on an unpopthar philosophy In culf case, for practitioners to im: plement the Peace Schogl of Strategy, we need cxiensive schotarly work on its implieations in all areas of siraleny. ENDMOTES differently based on the liferature from cach schod (see Table 1) Iach delinition has thes In common it defines a set of actions that the leader muat purstae to achicke a specilic gotal of Purpexe in actuations limited by xcarcily Pet: It al the beginning: ichinals a Christian scholar, moved him to the religion department. Because he did not want to be in the religion department, he moved on from Harvard and spent most of his teaching career at Dart: mouth. Dartmouth allowed him to teach social philosophy. His concerns for Christ and for life also led him to get involved in solving problems in industry. In Germany he worked for a Damiler Benx factory, and in the United States he founded a camp to bring together the various people that make up industry so that they learn how to work together. II is deas about this camp. Camp William James, were later drectly instrumental In the creation of the Peace Corps (Rosenstock Ifersy , 2001) In his many books and tranxeribed lectures, he has a lot to say about work and the 5. We probably share the same idea with sone Jewish thinking See for instance the work of frama Rovenfwems 6. Adans (IGAs) agrees that thas type of chantee that helpis wis work al potee. REFERENCES tus Aitentisis Bulimen ti i Batimain of i guides us to integrate the life-giving attributes of the other schools. Because it correctly views reality, it takes into consideration all other means of making organizational decisions. Its inclusive: ness will help Christian strategists work with everyone to help the organization succeed. The result of a wiser strategist will be wiser decisions. L. ct us now turn to the argument based on the stated four propositions. In the following section, I will use Mintzberg's Ten Schools of Strategy to enlarge upon the first two propositions. MINTZBERG'S TEN SCHOOLS OF STRATEGY Henry Mintaberg dewaloped ten schools of strategie formulation (Minibberg, 1990; Mint: pere. Ahaltrand, and Lampel, 1998) that, I argue, are hased on worldvews I chose to the this scholar s work for several reasons. He holds high eredibility in the field as a world renowned theoriat on strategy and management (Bernhut 2000, Prusak and Davenport, 2003. Kennedy 2004). More importantly, has written protifically aboul strategy, which allows us to understand the origins of his ricws. He has alon writen conts cally about the vatous schools of strategy Itis writings in total give insight into what lead: work, we will examine Proposation 1 and 2 Propoxition I: Schools of Strategy Differentiate Based on a Main Idea About Reality and the Purphe for Their Strategy. core beliefs about human nature, the world, and how things work. Specifically, following the idea of worldviews, an overriding idea about reality sets each of the schools apart and supports the schools' theories. There are many aspects of reality, and theorists tend to latch onto one idea which becomes their starting point for defining the truth about reality (Dooyeweerd, 1997). Dooyeweerd calls it the Ar chimedean point, the standpoint that we use as a lever to lift up all other ideas about reality. Philosophers and theorists take and absolu: trie this "Archimedean point," making if the enly idea that ean best deseribe or make proper sense of reality. "It appears again and again," concludes Dooyeweerd, "that this dogma impedes mutual understanding among philosophic schools that prowe to be fundamentally opposed in their true (though hidden) starting point" (Dowyeweerd. 1997, p. 36) "In a debate among these schools one recetwes the impression that they are feason ing at croses parposes, because they are not able to find a way to penctrate to esch other's starting parat" (p 37). Phitusephors debate at the highest tevels of thought and theorsis of all kinds, in duding strategy theorats continue these debates At all levels (Mintrotes 1994) From that Archmedean pornt theorws form an intarreluted sat of helicls that frame as situation prothlers and passible solutions (Peatry, 2004 Mentherg and colleagues (1908) conchide that sence, they refuse to make peace with the other concerns. Even if decision makers understand the need to unify all the concerns, they often fall short. For example, Mintberg and his colleagues (1998) attempt to unify the ten schools of thought, but encounter limitations because of inconsistencies in Horldviews". Mintzberg concludes, "Like many other safaris, we cannot deliver quite as much as We may seem to promise" (p. 350). Why not? He cominues, quoting Ornstein, Without the defelopment of an oretall perypective, we remain Las in coif individual infertigations " (p 350). According to Mintatherg, It takes a different mode of know ledge to unify or tee the whole elephant that makes sirategie manayement He cannot show it to us we hate to find it earchlves: Peace and a (hristian school of strategy. He have sugeosted that peace makex it posstilis: to unity the whole of realify As we dractiss thes In more depth, we need to ask what matels the Our purpoxe in asking this question is to mowe lowad developing a school of stratedy that will (ii) nor to sticceed to give us peace (Matt. 28:16-20; John 12:32) "The vision of wholeness, which is the supreme will of the biblical God, is the outgrowth of a covenant of shalom (see Exekiel 34.25), in which persons are bound not only to God but to one another in caring, sharing, rejocing community with none to make them afraid" (Bruggermann. 2001, p. 15) Four fronts of reality. Utilizing this defins: tron of peace Rosenstock-lluessy's (1970) suggests that in order to unify all of reality and to work at peace, decision makers must understand four key tronts: inside and cutside environments and past and foture lifetmes These wetes are ake found in the Mintaberg schools of strategy formalion The inside and ontade envirommental Panning School: and the past and future Inne is ind Confimuration Swhank In the foum tronts of reality the strategat applies to plants and antuals as well as to nont What gists wh horith 1047 Dew double-loop learning will open up communications. 2. Teach and practice peacemaking (Sande, 2004) or conflict resolutions. Peacemaking will also allow rich communication. 3. Teach and practice collaborative team skills (Miller, 2005). Collaborative team skills will help employees understand and build their spesking and listening skills that cover all four fronts of life: insideloutside, past and future. 4. Teach and practice Koinonia (Walker, 2008), through which employees can participate in communion and community, practice compassion, and practice what is right 5. Tesch and practice creativity (de Bono, 1970). Creativily allows organizations to detect whit is currently lacking on that it can mowe forward into the future. What is common in all the sugpestions is teaching According to Roxenxtock lluesty (1970), leaching becomes necessary as we seck peace. Peace requires that strategists learn from experience whal actually creates peace. In tearn. ing what creates peace, employees do not require formal instruction on the variety of theores arallable, but rather should be taught what theo:thes have bect already tried and how they worked of not worked This type of teaching tesponds to the mileu of real and serous oryanizational life What is Claristian in this primary set of actions? The primary set of actions sagecsted whove retted the all inclustreness of the Christian worlduses and the recogerition of Giod s of der as determiner of what sa neth gond and of them peace to ourselves and our organizations. Those who belong to Christ and have peace in Him are free to work towards the redemption of all things. However, those who do not have Christ's peace can still work at creating a peaceful environment and have a measure of success. Just as we all enjoy the good things that God has created for us, we can all enjoy peace and its reward (Matt S:45). CONCLUSION A Christian worldview should define at least one distinctive school of strategy. If we accept the work of Mintzberg, et al. (1998), we find there are schools of strategy that reflect distinctive understandings of what is important in the reality of an organization. With these understandings, each school frames the work of the strategists. In other words, an understanding about what is most important about reality necessarily leads to a dis: tinetwe set of actions; change this undersanding. and the set of actions also change. Since Christianty gives us a different under: standing of what is important, It is possible to Identify at least one distinctive Christian school of stratugy. The Peace Selool of strategy's under: standing ahout our reality can fead to a distme twe purpose and set of primary activites that debine the stratege options. These options should contribute not onily to Chrstans but to all strate gests as they seck the hest for their organization Since the proper only focused on defining ene prosible Christan School of strategy, we nowd further study on faw the Feace Schood of siralegy works out the various sifatege implications. To dh that we nod additiknal coamunation of space and trane as defined in thes article for coumple in what ently, what strategists know about a situation is eritieal when analyzing the complexities inherent in developing strategy. If the decision makers have insufficient, incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant information about the situation, they may come up with a solution but the probability is that if will be an insufficient solution or a solufon to the wrong problem. This leads, eventually, to fallure. Fature teaches "how human planning Ind decision making procexses can go awry if we do not pay enough aftention to posable side efficets Ind tong-term reperctistons, if we apply corrective mencires too aggresively or too timudly, or if waig: nore prentes we hould have consdered" (Dorner, 100(p2) How do strategists know what premises to cinsidered depend on the matdrewy of the dect Stan maler (Bahnsen, 1998, Kuhn, 1962. Kuyper. III stluations limilud by satcily ferent and distinct aims, goals, and purposes. Different worldviews lead to different strategies that frame the problem and the types of actions to solve the problem (Rosenstock-Huessy, 1954). In fact, meta-studies of the strategy literature have uncovered at least ten distinctre schools of thought on strategy (Mintaberg. 1990, Mint: xberg. Ahsltrand, \&Lampel, 1998; French, 2009) differentiated by what strategists believe to be most important about reality, the purposes, goals or aims for strategy, and the different types of action to achieve the aims. These sehools are distinctively different because each is based on a distinctive worldview. But none of these schools suggested by Minizberg or others are based on a (Tuistian worldvew (See Table I) Should Christan leaders then frame the problem differently, defining a distinetive set of actroms for strategy hectuse of ther Christian paper. Tis anghelf this question, the paper argues a matn ides alrout foality and the parpose the thut sitatuay timelive qut af actions sat of bulictis ahout foulty and a preserip According to Rosenstock-Huessy (1970), it is a rich communication process that enhances peace in an organization. Creating a peaceenhancing communication process requires that strategic managers pay attention to four elements of communication. As I describe the elements, this issue will become clearer. The four necessary elements of communication are as follows: 1. Freedom for all the actors in the organization to speak up passionately about their interests. Salespersons will thrive in this freedom as they are allowed to speak up for the interests and real needs of their cus: tomers. 2. Unanimily within the organization based on mutual goals. Managers will rexpond well to unanimity as they seck to unify, simplify and integrate all interests inside the creanization: 3. A formal process that includer set prom cedures operational procesxes, cultural rituals and keeping promiser. Techmeians and support stalf will respond well to this firmal proces: 4. Comserxty forwaddouking thriking that Allows the ofganization to charige, mowe to conate a succesesful future, and allow fior contirolled plans Linginers will respond Well to this type wf thinking as they seck to mowe the organization forward Concretely, employees create peace when they listen and are allowed to speak in earnest with each other. Creating peace requires that employees have the courage to name people and problems when necessary. It requires employees to risk opening up to commitment and asking others to commit to action. Creating peace also requires employees to listen, for listening is "the ait of valuing someone else's words, thoughts, ideas, worries, and concerns above your own" (Walker, 2008, p.188). When employees throughout the organization talk and listen to each other, they take action, willing to wrestle with the consequences and ereating all the other means that make it possible for them to come together and unify their interests. The peace they create allows them to achieve much, even momentous things (Roscnstock-1tucssy, 1970) Creating peace in the organization. Ifow do We actually accomplish there clements of com muncation' Let me sugest five primary actions organizations can take to make peace possible There ruegotions come from vartous theorists and pratitumers and are pat toyether here as a set of actions 1. Teach and practice double toep tearning Argyris (1982) suggests that a tack of causes the friction that stows and exon have a different set of primary actions. For them, strategy implies a time perspective. The purpose for these strategists is to consider the process of the lifespan of their organization. To consider this lifespan they need to understand what is happening to all the elements that make up an organization during its life time. According to Mintberg (1989), the elements include the operating core, the techno-structure, the stopport staft, the strategic apex and the rdeology. Depending on the type and life process of an organization, these clements configure the organization differently. Sirategy for those in the Configuration School is a process of siabilizing the organization at every stage of ils transformation. Fo form strategres, they need to undersiand when their organizition 18 leaping from one stale of being to another and when they need to find ways to statulize the orag nizalimal dirction Lading at Table I, a question may be raised why could strategy nor include all the types of action found in all these schowlin? The answer is that sirategats begin with a problem which they interpret through theif packated set of beliefic of parlidxacy Thoy cannit casily leave this weh of lein they select only those actoons that are onlier Interpictation of whil it riost iniportant about cxplore this question of SIRAIHGY? Proposition 3: Christianity Orfers Strategiofs a Different het of Beliefs Ahout Reality and at Prescription for the sirategic Probilem. One possible core reality that I propose looks at how the truth in Chrisf defines the reality or order that God created. The order that God ere: ated was marred, disjointed, and broken by rebellion and than redeemed by Christ and made whole again through His death and resurrection (Colossians 1:15-23). Because we begin with God's reality, instead of excluding any of the various concerns from all the schools of strategy. we can unify the "sovereignty dictated order of life" (Kline, in Rushdoony, 1973, p.8, Deut. 4.5. 8; Psalm 19, Col 115-23). This becomes what is most important about reality. As in all the other schools briefly dexcribed in Table 1 , if Christian strategists affirm a uni fied, complete, redecmed reality as most impor: tant thing. they can frame their problem as the process of unif rine of completing feality in ways that will make an organizalion fruntful. If is it siluteylat we aswme that find created tomedher under Christ" (I ph I IO) we need to deal wilh all the eomplex concerms ahout the outsde them We can acknowldedge that wath schood has