A Critical Review of "The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning"
Contents
Page Introduction Placing the article in wider literature debate Underlying theoretical assumptions Strengths and Weaknesses Concluding remarks References 2 2 3 4 5 6
Introduction In today’s modern society shaped by economic and social challenges, business strategy has never been more important. A rethink of theoretical management practices is ‘fundamental’ to establishing innovative strategic design to cope with these challenges. (Hahn et al, 2010). This is not a new idea, in fact, in 2009, Guerrera challenged Michael Porter’s underlying premise that businesses are there to make money while Figge and Hahn (2008) go as far as to accuse such strategies of ‘aggravating’ the current economic situation. Henry Mintzberg’s assessment of strategic planning can be associated with Whittington’s Processual school of strategy (2002). This literature review places the article in the wider context of the prescriptive – emergent debate and compares Mintzberg’s arguments with those of other influential strategists including Michael Porter and Peter Drucker. Secondly, by identifying Mintzberg’s theoretical underlying assumptions, we present a critical assessment of the underpinning arguments and challenge the drawn conclusions. By looking at the overall strengths and weaknesses of the article, we will critically review its position amongst wider academic literature. We will conclude with some managerial implications and proposals for the ongoing research agenda.
The debate Mintzberg’s article contributes to a well documented academic debate about the formulation of successful business strategy. Porter (1979) and Ansoff (1968) are known for their support for prescriptive methods: analysing the current business environment for opportunities of competitive advantage and developing a structured plan to achieve these goals. The challenging view, of course, is the idea of strategy emerging from within the organisation as it interacts with its environment. Mintzberg
Page Introduction Placing the article in wider literature debate Underlying theoretical assumptions Strengths and Weaknesses Concluding remarks References 2 2 3 4 5 6
Introduction In today’s modern society shaped by economic and social challenges, business strategy has never been more important. A rethink of theoretical management practices is ‘fundamental’ to establishing innovative strategic design to cope with these challenges. (Hahn et al, 2010). This is not a new idea, in fact, in 2009, Guerrera challenged Michael Porter’s underlying premise that businesses are there to make money while Figge and Hahn (2008) go as far as to accuse such strategies of ‘aggravating’ the current economic situation. Henry Mintzberg’s assessment of strategic planning can be associated with Whittington’s Processual school of strategy (2002). This literature review places the article in the wider context of the prescriptive – emergent debate and compares Mintzberg’s arguments with those of other influential strategists including Michael Porter and Peter Drucker. Secondly, by identifying Mintzberg’s theoretical underlying assumptions, we present a critical assessment of the underpinning arguments and challenge the drawn conclusions. By looking at the overall strengths and weaknesses of the article, we will critically review its position amongst wider academic literature. We will conclude with some managerial implications and proposals for the ongoing research agenda.
The debate Mintzberg’s article contributes to a well documented academic debate about the formulation of successful business strategy. Porter (1979) and Ansoff (1968) are known for their support for prescriptive methods: analysing the current business environment for opportunities of competitive advantage and developing a structured plan to achieve these goals. The challenging view, of course, is the idea of strategy emerging from within the organisation as it interacts with its environment. Mintzberg
References: Acur, N. and Bititci, U. (2004) ‘A balanced approach to strategy process’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24(4), p388-408. Adcroft, A. and Willis, R. (2000) ‘Innovation or Optimisation: Facing up to the challenge of the global economy’ in Barry, J. Chandler, J. Clark, H. Johnston, R. and Needle, D. (Eds) Organisation and Management: A critical text, Reading, UK: International Thomson Business Press. Ansoff, H. I. (1968) Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Bryson, J. (2004) Strategic planning for profit and non-profit organizations, [3rd edition]. San Francisco: Wiley Carr, A. Durant, R. And Downs, A. (2004) ‘Emergent strategy development, abduction, and pragmatism: New lessons for corporations’, Human Systems Management, Vol. 23, p.79-91. Chandler, A. (1977) The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Drucker, P. (1994) ‘The theory of business’ Harvard Business Review, September – October 1994, p72-84. Eisenhardt, K. and Sull, D. (2001) ‘Strategy as simple rules’, Harvard Business Review, January 2001, p107-116. Freeman, J. and Boeker, W. (1984) ‘The ecological analysis of business strategy’, California Management Review, Vol. 26 (3), p73-86. Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2008). ‘Limits of shareholder value to achieving global Sustainability’. In C. Wankel & J. A. F. Stoner (Eds.), Innovative approaches to global Ssustainability (p. 63-81). New York: Macmillan. Grant, R. (2003) ‘Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 (6), p. 491–517. Guerrera, F. (2009) ‘Welch denounces corporate obsessions’. Financial Times, USA Edition 1, First Section. Hahn, T. Kolk, A. and Winn, M. (2010) ‘A new future for business? Rethinking management theory and business strategy’, Business & Society, Vol. 49 (3), p386-401. 5 Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1989) ‘Strategic Intent’, Harvard Business Review, MayJune 1989, p63-76. Hamel, G. (2006) ‘The how, what and why of management innovation’ Harvard Business Review, February 2006, p72-84. Henderson, S. and Blackman, D. (2001) ‘Does A Learning Organisation Facilitate Knowledge Acquisition And Transfer?’, Electronic Journal of Radical Organization. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.107.8477&rep=rep1&type=pdf. [Accessed: 03/11/10] Hodgkinson, G. Whittington, R. Johnson, G. and Schwarz, M. (2006) ‘The Role of Strategy Workshops in Strategy Development Processes: Formality, Communication, Co-ordination and Inclusion’, Long Range Planning, Vol.39 (5), p. 479-496. Johnson, J. Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2008) ‘Strategic Capability’ In Exploring Corporate Strategy. England: Prentice Hall. Chapter 3, p95-126. Johnson, M. Christensen, C. and Kagermann, H. (2008) ‘Reinventing Your Business Model.’ Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 (12), p50-59. Kleiner, B. (1998) ‘Macroergonomic analysis of formalization in a dynamic work system’, Applied Ergonomics, Vol.29 (4), p. 255-259. Kuratko, D. and Audretsch, D. (2008) ‘Strategic Entrepreneurship: Exploring Different Perspectives of an Emerging Concept’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 (1) p.1-17. Laszlo, A. Laszlo, K.C. and Johnsen, C. (2009) ‘From High-Performance Teams to Evolutionary Learning Communities: New pathways in organizational development.’ Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, Vol. 6 (1) p29-48. Levinthal, D. and March, J. (2007) ‘The myopia of learning’. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 (S2), p95-112. Matlay, H. and Hyland, T. (1998) ‘Lifelong Learning and the New Deal Vocationalism: Vocational Training Qualifications and the Small Business Sector’, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 46 (4), p399-414. Mintzberg, H. (1975) ‘The manager’s job; folklore and fact’ Harvard Business Review, JulyAugust 1975, p49-61. Mintzberg, H. (1987) ‘Crafting strategy’ Harvard Business Review, July-August 1987, p6675. McKiernan, P. (1997) ‘Strategy Past; Strategy Futures’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 (5), p. 790-798. 6 Ocasio, W. and Joseph, J. (2008) ‘Rise and Fall - or Transformation?: The Evolution of Strategic Planning at the General Electric Company, 1940–2006’, Long Range Planning, Vol.41 (3), p. 248-272. Oliver, J. (2006) ‘Developing a service management strategy facilitated by action learning: an empirical study from the UK health & fitness industry’, Action Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 3(2), p. 213–220. Porter, M. E. (1979) ‘How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy’, Harvard Business Review, March - April. Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1990) ‘The competitive advantage of nations’, Harvard Business Review, March – April, p. 73-93. Schein, E. H. (1993) ‘On dialogue, culture and organizational learning’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22. Snyder, W. and Cummings, T. (1998) ‘Organization Learning Disorders: Conceptual Model and Intervention Hypotheses’, Human Relations, Vol. 51 (7) p. 873-895. Taylor, F. W. (1911) Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Row. Cited in: Fischer, F. and Sirianni, C. [Ed.] (1994) Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, p. 44-55. Wernerfelt, B. (1984) ‘A resource-based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 (2), p171-180. Whittington, R. (2002) What is Strategy – and does it matter? London: Thomson Learning. 7