Search results

Times change and, with them, our approaches to strategy and its execution. In the 1970s, strategic planning was the corporate mantra in most companies. But as we moved into a new decade, strategic planning was tarred with the brush of “failure to implement.” In the 1980s, the corporate and consulting world was a‐buzz with strategic management—the new and improved version of setting direction and creating shareholder wealth. Now, in the 1990s, the focus is strategic leadership.

Turkey's European Union (EU) candidacy process, unlike other candidate countries, is a unique case in terms of the length of the process and the tensions experienced in the process. With the start of membership negotiations in 2005 and the increase in Turkey's obligations in the process, disruptions began to emerge and the anticipated progress could not be achieved. In this period, the EU's view of Turkey began to transform. It emerged as a reflection of this view with the privileged partnership proposals put forward in the mid-2000s. This study discusses how Turkey–EU relations have been shaped since 2005 when Turkey started membership negotiations and how the EU positions Turkey in light of current developments. In this context, the Strategic Compass document, which is aimed to shape the next 10 years of the EU, has been examined and focused on how Turkey is handled in the document. In the study, it has been revealed that the EU does not consider Turkey as a candidate country, but with a functionalist approach, depending on certain preconditions, as a partner with which it can make progress in areas of common interest.

Describes the Strategic Leadership Star, which provides a logical framework which unifies the myriad of tools and techniques that are proliferating under the TQM “umbrella”, change‐management practice and modern strategic thinking. The central focus of all of these is superior performance in the creation of “value to the customer”. Consequently, customer value lies at the heart of the star. The first three points of the star – “define your purpose”, “face the customer” and “focus on essentials” ‐cover tools and techniques related to strategy formulation. These include vision, intent, mission, process streams, core competences and capabilities. The final two points ‐“create a challenge” and “trigger enthusiasm” – relate to strategy implementation. They lead back to the first point, fulfilment of the fundamental purpose, through such things as: stretch, creative tension, benchmarking, systems thinking and transforming leadership. Thus, the Strategic Leadership Star looks at strategy making from a leadership perspective. Strategic leadership requires equal attention to both path‐finding and culture‐building. This means that, in performing the strategic leadership role, strategy formulation and strategy implementation are no longer sequential and separate but are subsumed in the complementary leadership activities of strategic leadership. By following the star – i.e. using it as a daily guide to behaviour – the management of an organization would simultaneously be performing their strategic leadership role and ensuring its strategic success.

For many companies, dealer networks are the key to success. Networks provide the critical access to companies' markets. Yet, too often, companies have not expended the effort to incorporate this critical link into their own elaborate strategic plans.

In this study I revisit the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, in order to gain additional perspective on the relationship between organizational decision making and crisis outcomes. This exercise is an historical “counterfactual” or “what if” excursion, using recently declassified documents and simulated exchange calculations, from which I hope to draw three principal benefits. First, the study may shed some additional light on why Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was willing to take such a dangerous gamble. Second, our counterfactual crisis suggests that the risk of inadvertent war, so much written about in connection with Cuba, 1962, was less important than the risk of a deliberate, but miscalculated, escalation. Third, the balance of command and control vulnerability might have mattered more to crisis‐ridden US leaders than the balance of strategic nuclear forces. If so, it helps to explain the apparent reluctance of US leaders to employ highly coercive forms of nuclear brinkmanship.

The purpose of this research is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the EU's public diplomacy – towards both domestic and external audiences – during times of crisis. The EU's public diplomacy is examined across six major crises: the Eurozone crisis (2008), the Ukrainian crisis (2014), the migrant crisis (2015), the Brexit referendum (2016), the new transatlantic relationship (2017) and the COVID-19 pandemic (2020). The goal of examining these crises in conjunction is to derive policy-relevant insights.

This article adopts a problem-driven approach – the problem being how successful is the EU at public diplomacy during times of crisis – that draws theoretical and empirical insights from Communication Studies, International Relations and EU studies via a “strategic narratives” framework. It situates the EU as a unique public diplomacy actor, one which is becoming more prominent due to the mediatisation of diplomacy, especially driven by the advent of cyberspace.

The article finds that the EU has been experiencing a cycle of crises that have affected the political, economic, symbolic and social foundations of the common project. The EU has had some notable success – such as restoring confidence at the height of the Eurozone crisis – and some notable challenges – such as effectively combatting disinformation. Regardless, the EU has the potential to better manage these and future crises by engaging in an effective public diplomacy strategy that tells a shared European story that informs and inspires people, both domestically and externally.

The article offers an original examination of the EU's public diplomacy response to six different crises. It looks at different types of crises and utilises concepts from different social science perspectives. It offers novel strategic and policy recommendations.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the trend of transatlantic strategic convergence and policy coordination in response to Chinese trade practices and technological competition, specifically in the critical minerals sector.

The research draws on primary and secondary source material to identify evidence of and examine the drivers, manifestations and prospects for effective US-European efforts to advance the shared aim of reducing vulnerabilities in critical minerals supply chains.

The interests of the USA and Europe would be best served by prioritizing their own security, diversification and resilience strategies while seeking areas of common ground and constructive engagement with China.

The research offers a fresh perspective on the growing alignment and persistent gaps in US and European perspectives on China’s rising influence and assertive behavior.

The research highlights the vital role of critical minerals in national security, economic competitiveness, technological advancement and sustainable resource management. It underscores the shared recognition on both sides of the Atlantic that securing a stable supply of critical minerals – essential for maintaining strategic capabilities, driving innovation and ensuring long-term economic prosperity – necessitates tighter transatlantic coordination as well as constructive engagement with China.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.