According to Shrivasthava, strategy is sustained as an ideology because the five criteria that can identify an ideology are satisfied by his strategy. By referring to published work on strategic management it is clear that in an organization “what the management feels good will be good for all the others”. It is also evident from previous studies that the contestability is not only rejected for the industry but is also rejected for the market and the company. Actually the ideals of productivity and efficiency stay challenging and unsupported and so the “normative idealization of goals” is questioned in the stakeholder research that has started recently. The industry and environment status quo is left because of the cultural and social factors of the individual activities.
On the other side, of Srivathsava’s view is that different ideologies deal with the thriving of stakeholders as well as the notion of praxis. His policy look over the praxis is differentiated from that of Porter’s five force frame work which identify different parameters to increase the profits of a company. Since the line which Porter is very thin which are successful and applicable for only senior manager. Knights argue that imperialism is a one kind of strategy which wraps the managerial authority which is widely suitable for the cultural science of independence. Knights clarifies that it is difficult to follow Porter but still the generic strategies ratified address the financial sector for many senior level managers.
To make generic strategies work, managers should apply ‘reality checks’ which can be done by ‘forgetting, neglecting or denying the subjectivity’. Though the Porter’s agenda is difficult to implement for each and every business, still every one follows it because the idea of ‘unequal power’ extracted from ‘specialist knowledge’ is backed by senior level managers throughout the world. Knights clarifies porters philosophy, praises it for its management accuracy that this gives ‘some illusion of control, legitimacy and security in the face of uncertainty’. Though Beeby argues this is a parable, still, this ideology is considered to be ‘strategic management’.