In the context of this theory, the most important consideration within the context ‘strategy’ is that an organisation always has and must have a great many of them, that these are in competition with each other, oppose each other, and are represented, officially and unofficially, by many stakeholders. The idea of a single purpose, which dominates everything, directs the organisation, and is pursued with efficient means, is the pipe dream of an economy which is attached to a rationality paradigm.
Here, we follow the definition of the term by S. Kuehl: Strategy is a search process to find suitable means for a previously defined purpose. This definition allows us to do justice to the diversity of processes in organisations. In particular, it allows us to understand the guiding processes, advocated here, as strategic areas, in which decisions are made about means in order to pursue a purpose. Thus, the term strategy is also separated from the planning paradigm, which relies on the establishment of actions. Instead, strategies become expectations in organisations, which, in the case of a deviation, can brush off requirements for justification.
This understanding of strategy is compatible with dilemmas, ambiguities, goal conflicts, hierarchy conflicts, implementation difficulties and the entanglements of guiding processes, because the organisation does not think mechanically, and it allows a rational design to appear conceivable as well (factual dimension). Therefore, strategy becomes a viewpoint-dependent term (social dimension), as the determination about what is a purpose and what is a means is dependent upon the context or the position of the organisation. Ultimately, strategy is, in particular, also a time-related concept, as means cannot be determined without consistent referral to changes in the organisation and its environment. Thus, strategy must become an ongoing activity for many inside organisations and can no longer be worked out in an annual conclave by management.