An Analysis of Deliberate and Emergent Strategies Relative to

Developments In Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 23, 1996
An Analysis of Deliberate and Emergent Strategies Relative to
Porter’s Generic Differentiator and Cost Leader:
A Bias and Variance Modeling Approach
Joseph N. Roger, Northeastern State University relative to Porter’s generic differentiator and cost leader within the confines of a controlled business simulation through the use of Bowman’s managerial coefficient. The intent is not to produce conflict; instead, it is to seek the truth. INTRODUCTION
Background
This study is a response to a scholarly debate that took place in the Strategic Management Journal between Henry
Mintzberg (1990, 1991) and Igor Ansoff (1991) concerning their theories of emergent versus deliberate strategies. Prior to the debate, Mintzberg and Waters (1985) indicated an interest in knowing whether “... cost leadership strategies might prove more deliberate (specifically, more often planned) ..“ or “... differentiation strategies more emergent.”
Therefore this study considers how deliberate and emergent strategies relate to Porter’s (1985) generic differentiator and cost leader.

The Elements
The Design School.
The design school and its derivative, the planning school, are represented here by Andrews and Ansoff respectively.
Mintzberg’s bone of contention seems to lie at the heart of these two schools. Specifically related to the current debate, these schools promote strategy formulation based on planning and analysis prior to implementation (Mintzberg,
1990). However, the design school does recognize that some revisions to the original strategy may be required due to and guided by operational feedback (Andrews, 1987).

Chronological Overview of the Debate
Henry Mintzberg (1990) began the debate with a discussion and critique of the ‘design school’ generally associated with the Business Policy group at the Harvard Business School.
Igor Ansoff (1991) countered with a defense of

References: variability. Like Remus’ earlier study (1978), this seems to indicate that these players were performing as a group. Ansoff, H. I. (1991. Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s ‘The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises 72 Developments In Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 23, 1996 Bowman, E. H. (1963) Consistency and Optimality in Managerial Decision-Making Management Science Mintzberg, H. (1978) Patterns In Strategy Formation. Mintzberg, H. (1987) Crafting Strategy Management Science 24 (9): 934-948. Cone, P. R, et al (1971). Executive Decision Making Through Simulation 2nd ed Mintzberg, H. (1990) The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management Strategic Frazer, J. R. (1976) “Inventory Simulation--A Time-Sharing Television Output Simulation,” in Simulation Mintzberg, H. (1991) Learning 1, Planning 0: Reply to Igor Ansoff Fulmer, J. L. (1963) Business Simulation Games Cincinnati: SouthWestern Publishing. Mintzberg, H. and J. A. Waters (1982) Tracking Strategy in an Entrepreneurial Firm 25 (3): 465-499. Goold, M. (1992) Design, Learning and Planning: A Further Observation on the Design School Debate. Mintzberg, H. and J. A. Waters (1985) Of Strategies Deliberate and Emergent Strategic Management Goosen, K. R. (1976) “Guidelines for the Future Development of Business Games,” in Simulation Parrish, L. G. (1976) A Business Simulations: Competition or Learning,” in Simulation Games and Hemmasi, M, L. A. Graf, and C. E. Kellogg (1989) A Comparison of the Performance, Behaviors, and Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive Advantage New York: The Free Press. Remus, E. R. (1978) Testing Bowman’s Managerial Coefficient Theory Using a Competitive Gaming Herbert, T. T. and H. Deresky (1987) Generic Strategies: An Empirical Investigation of Typology Validity and Roge, Joseph N. (1995) A Simulation Based Analysis of the Value of Information in the Hrebiniak and Joyce