Introduction
Strategy acts as one of the most significant factors leading organizations to success. In terms of strategic thinking, both Save the Children and the Obama campaign may be characterized as excellent strategists. It seems also critical to compare and contrast the mentioned initiatives regarding strategic acting and learning.
Strategic Thinking
Save the Children organization focuses on the future and the context needed to improve the lives of children in the US and worldwide. Declaring that every child deserves a future, it aligns goals and purposes with capabilities and competencies that are necessary for a long-term perspective. Similarly, the Obama campaign embraces US organizations by sharing the vision and growing leadership. In the video, the ex-president emphasizes that it is of great importance to maintain collaboration between states and aim at the common goals. Most importantly, the strategic thinking of the given initiatives is alike in calling people to integrity. Obama claims that all people regardless of their age, race, sexuality, etc. are equal, while Save the Children also encourages readers to join the initiative and help children together using donating, volunteering, and other ways.
Acting
Obama’s campaign’s strategic actions are much more pronounced and powerful rather than those of Save the Children. For example, the ex-president acts quite convincingly based on the stated goals and the context in proposing the shift from the old system to a new one. He believes that his actions are supported by his representatives and people. Obama notes his chief strategist as a person who contributed a lot to the promotion and triumph of his campaign. This action seems to be attractive and thought-provoking, thus leading to overall recognition. On the contrary, Save the Children‘s strategic actions are not so impressive. Even though the organization identifies itself as an active promoter and enumerates its projects on the official website, it seems that its strategic acting is still weak. Indeed, the organization focuses more on the operational points rather than strategic ones. Contrasting Obama’s strategic acting and the one presented by Save the Children, one may notice that the first is more effective and engaging, while the latter pays more attention to administrative goals and the resolution of current tasks rather than setting the perspectives.
Learning
To compare the Obama campaign and Save the Children network in terms of strategic learning, it is important to consider any changes in the system. As for Obama, he clearly states that there is a need to establish the integrity of Republican and Democratic parties and eliminate politic immaturity and pettiness. The above may be regarded as the change in the system and strategic learning initiative. Also, the ex-president mentions David and Goliath story to illustrate how a weak yet brave warrior overcame a strong enemy. Correspondingly, he applies the mythological images to introduce change and empower Americans. Likewise, the Obama campaign, Save the Children implements the elements of strategic learning by transforming children’s support into something integral and fundamental. Claiming that children determine the future and calling to invest in them, the organization pays great attention to the environment and the existing conditions and strives to change them for the better. The review of annual press releases and projects the organization is involved in shows a strong ability to Save the Children to apply strategic learning.
Conclusion
To conclude, both Save the Children and the Obama campaign may be characterized as highly capable of strategic learning. It is also important to mention that both initiatives stress the importance of people’s voices and efforts in enhancing the contemporary state of affairs and achieving better conditions. Unlike Save the Children, Obama’s campaign strategic action is stronger and more evident.