Strategy schools academic literature essay - www.topgradepapers.com

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY
www.TopGradePapers.com

Introduction
The ideas of various scholars who have addressed the issues of strategic management by
developing models or “Schools” of thought have been extensively researched and justified in
(Steven French 2009a), but all these schools have been developed in a Modernist/Functionalist

rs
epistemology. The theory underlies the ideas of these Classical Schools of strategic thinking in
the business environment can be traced back to classical and neo-classical economic thinking,

pe
which depends on the body of theory that is described by concepts of linearity, stability, and
predictability. These macroeconomic concepts fit within a microeconomic view of a firm as a
cybernetic system (Masuch, 1985; Morgan, 1986; Dixon et al., 2004) Classical and
contemporary schools are two out of the four of schools of strategic management. They are the

Pa
opposing schools based on the criteria of historical and future trends in strategic management.
The classical school of strategic management gathers premises of the founders of strategic
management as a scientific field. Although the premises are shaped about eighty years ago, they
represent the cornerstone of the field still valid today. The premises have been developed though
de
out the years and almost each of contemporary premises can be traced back to those years or is
formed as the opposing premise of the one dating in the past (Steven French 2009d). Let’s
discuss these schools of thoughts with relevance to critical analysis.
ra

The Design School
pG

“Look before you leap”
Strategy Systems as Processes of Conception
Among the schools of strategic thinking, this one explains all prescriptions in the field. The
design school suggests a very simple model that shows an essential fit between external threat
To

and opportunity and internal distinctive competence. Strategy formation is a premeditated course
of action of conception designed by the CEO, who decides the scale or guidelines of the
company, perhaps in terms of a mission vision statement company cultures and its core values,
The CEO look at the external environment with respect to company’s position and try to bring
maximum value to shareholders by using company strengths and available opportunities to take
corrective action against the company weakness and external threats. He sets objectives for
others to achieve and implement. The firm is a cybernetic system. However this is a theoretical

1



concept, it is not essentially formalized, and the responsibility of management is to effectively
and efficiently plan. The model of strategy is not formalized so it is important that it remains
relatively simple. No theory of strategy creation is impending from the Design School. The
repercussion is that a “think-tank” approach to the directions given by the chief executive, will

rs
articulate strategy. The base line for this school is architecture as a metaphor. It is more useful in
relatively stable environment. This model is to be kept simple and informal and hence the
strategies produced should be unique, simple and explicit (Richard A. Swanson et al. 2001).

pe
Further, these strategies should be fully formulated before they are implemented. The chief
executive is the main strategist. The school suggests that strategy systems are processes of
conception. The strategies formulated are clear and unique. Thus the strategy of the organization

Pa
is designed to represent the best possible fit. It falls in Prescriptive school category.

The Planning School
“A stitch in time saves nine”
de
Strategy Systems as Formal Processes
The philosophy of the Planning School emerged directly as an extension of the thoughts of the
Design School. The basic difference is the move away from simple, conceptual, informal plans
ra

to more sophisticated, state of art, deliberate, highly formalized plans, developed by a team of
specialized planners whose job is to bring the scattered ideas in to refined course of action . The
“era” of the specialist strategic planner happened together with the market favoring the planning
pG

model of strategy formulation (Steven French 2009b). Its main roots underlay in systems
thinking and cybernetics. The strategy is broken into set of steps, which comprises from the
analysis of the situation to the execution of strategy. These processes give clear direction and
enable firm resource allocation. Chief executive has the core responsibility for the complete
To

process and the execution responsibility rests with staff planners. Strategies are made explicit so
that they can be implemented through detailed attention to objectives, budgets, programs and
operating plans of various kinds. The base disciplines are some links to urban planning,
cybernetics and system theory. The strategy may become too static as the predicting is difficult.

2



The Positioning School
“Nothing but the facts, ma’am”

rs
Strategy Systems as Analytical Processes

Advocator to the ideas of the Positioning School, also accept most of the building blocks of the

pe
Design School and the Planning School but add two cautions of their own. First, more stress is
given to the importance of the strategic ideas, not just to the process & procedures by which they
are formulated, and, second, by focal pointing and focusing on the content of strategies, the

Pa
prescriptive side of the field is opened up to substantial investigation. Its roots lie in economics
and military history. The strategy systems focus on strategies that are generic, especially
common and identifiable. So the market is to be economic and competitive. (Steven French
2009c). It places the business within the context of industry and looks for the ways enterprise
de
can improve its strategic positioning within that industry. This school made Strategic
Management into a science, enabling future progress. In the early 1980s, with Modernist ideas of
the Planning School firmly deep-rooted, and “management” theorists generally influencing ideas,
ra

business strategy was suddenly re-directed by the influence of Industrial Organization (IO)
economists
fettered to the equilibrium assumption. IO is a branch of economics that study the behavior of
pG

firms within industry groups, upholding that a firm’s performance depends on the interactive
relationship between the number and distribution of firms in a market and the behavior they
exhibit (Shivasharan and Shashidhar, 2005). It focuses on hard economic facts and it is more
useful in early stage of strategy development. The strategy formation process places the business
To

within the context of the industry and finds out ways how organization can improve its
competitiveness in the industry. This school neglects power, politics, culture and social elements.
It is also a Prescriptive school.

The Entrepreneurial School
“Take us to your leader”
Strategy Systems as Visionary Processes
3



According to this school, the strategy systems are semiconscious and are rooted in the experience
and intuition of the leader. Leader has being through such situation and he uses his intuition and
come up with new ideas. The strategy systems are processes existing mainly in the mind of
leader. Strategies are relating to a sense of long term direction mission, vision, culture and core

rs
values of the organization (Steven French 2009b). The school focuses on the intrinsic and
inherent mental states and processes such as intuition, judgment, wisdom and experience
(Ahlstrand, B 1998). The leader is responsible to promote the vision on his own and also

pe
responsible for maintaining control of implementation processes. So, entrepreneurial systems
tend to be both Deliberate and Emergent. A sound vision and a visionary leader can cohesively
sail organization through muddy waters when organization is going through its difficult years

Pa
(Mintzberg, Lampel, 1998). These strategies best work out where the companies are owned and
managed by a single individual. Entrepreneurial strategy systems are argued to tend to take the
form of niche strategy, one or more patches of a market position protected from the forces of
outright competition. But the question still exits how can you find the right leader with all the
de
needy qualities?

The Cognitive School
ra

“I will see it when I believe it”
Strategy Systems as Mental Processes
pG

Its main roots lye in psychology (cognitive) and strategy systems are prescribed to be cognitive
processes that come in strategist’s mind. Strategies emerge in the form of concepts, maps,
schemes and frames. These inputs flow through all sorts of distorting filters before they are
decoded by the cognitive maps (Chaffee, 1985). Its main focus is on how people perceive pattern
To

and process information. It purely focuses on what is happening in the mind of strategist and
how that happening is being processed. It stresses the creative side of the strategy process. This
is very useful to explain why our minds are imperfect (Mintzberg, H. 1990). As concepts,
strategies are difficult to attain in the first place, considerably less than optimal when actually
attained and subsequently difficult to change when no longer viable (Richard A. Swanson 2001).
In this regard various forms of cognition have an influence on how strategy systems are said to
function, such cognition as confusion, cognition as information processing, cognition as

4



mapping, and cognition as concept attainment. This approach, based upon the science of brain
functioning, regards strategy formation as a mental process, and analyzes how people perceive
patterns and process information. It is not very practical beyond the conceptual stage and
currently not very useful to guide collective strategy process. School category is Descriptive.

rs
The Learning School
“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”

pe
Strategy Systems as Emergent Processes

Its main roots are also in psychology, strategy systems are processes of learning over time in

Pa
which formulation and implementation activities are intertwined and indistinguishable in nature.
Many firms have learnt and are now discovering that strategy is about redefining and re-shaping
the industry in which they will compete according to the environment. They suggest that a
strategy is as much a state of mind within an organization – a Post-modern concept – as it is a set
de
of actions in the market place – a Modernist concept. Product advantages are surprisingly
fleeting. Intellectual capital such as patent, copy writes are the eventual leverage point and it is
extremely difficult to imitate strategy analysis, irrespective of the tools, techniques and method
employed. Strategy must be focused upon understanding and challenging how managers think.
ra

The intellectual ability of the managerial resources of a firm is the key to competitive advantage.
The environment of the enterprises is complex and of unpredictable nature (Steven French
pG

2009b). As world does not allow strategies to be developed all at once hence, strategies emerge
in small steps throughout the journey of enterprise (Jelenc 2009). It offers solution to complexity
and unpredictability in strategy formation. It produces strong strategies in complex situations
with continuous change. The learner may be the collective system of the enterprise or leader
may be the main leader. This implies that there are many potential strategies in most enterprises
To

(Lampel, 1998). The learning is a process proceeding in emergent fashion, through behaviour
that stimulates thinking retrospectively, so that sense can be made of action. Thereby, the role of
leadership becomes not to preconceive deliberate strategies, but to manage the process of
strategic learning, from which novel strategies can emerge. The base discipline perhaps links to
learning theory in psychology and education; chaos theory. The champions to this school are
people inclined to experimentation, ambiguity and adaptability. This strategy is not useful at all

5



in crises. Also there are costs associated with learning. You should not cross a chasm by taking
small steps. The school category is Descriptive.

The Power School

rs
“Look out for number one”
Strategy Systems as Processes of Negotiation

pe
Its roots are in politico-logy (the study of politics), and strategy systems are described to be
shaped by politics and power. Strategies formulated under this are tend to be emergent in nature
and takes the forms of positions and ploys. It can be divided into Micro Power and Macro Power

Pa
(Mintzberg, Lampel, 1998). In micro power, strategies are made through interplay, persuasion,
bargaining, direct confrontation and shifting coalitions. On other hand, Macro power sees the
enterprise as promoting its own welfare by making corporations with other enterprises. Strategies
are developed as a process of negotiation between power holders within the company and its
de
external stakeholders (Whittington, 1993). It can help the strongest people to survive in the
corporate jungle. It also ensures that all aspects of an issue are fully debated. It also can help to
reduce resistance after a decision is made. Its base line is political science. But it uses a lot of
energy, causes wastage and is costly. Further, more badly, it can lead to having no strategy or
ra

just doing some tactical maneuvering (Steven French 2009e). It overstates the role of power in
strategy formation. The school category is Descriptive.
pG

The Cultural School
“An apple never falls far from the tree”
Strategy Systems as Collective Processes
To

Its roots in anthropology describes the strategy systems as processes of social interaction, that
base on beliefs and understandings shared by members of enterprise (Henry Mintzberg 1990).
These beliefs are acquired by acculturation and socialization which are largely nonverbal. Hence
the members describe only those beliefs that underpin their culture; while the origin and
explanations may remain obscure (H. Igor Ansoff 1991). It views the strategy formation process
as a collective and cooperative process. The strategy formulated is a reflection of corporate

6



culture of organization. Its emphasis is on crucial role that social processes beliefs and values are
playing in decision making and in strategy formation. The champions include the people who
like the social, the spiritual and the collective environment (Steven French 2009g). It has the
limitation of resistance to change and gives few clues on how things should unfold. The school

rs
category is Descriptive.

The Environmental School

pe
“It all depends”
Strategy Systems as Reactive Processes

Pa
This school has its roots in biology, strategy systems are described to react in natural manner
with the corporate external environment. The external context is the central factor in strategy
making processes. The strategy formulated is a response to the challenges that were imposed by
external environment. If the enterprise does not respond to external forces, that enterprise will
de
not be selected out (Steiner, George Albert1979). In the long run, enterprises end up clustering
together in distinct ecological-type niches, positions where they remain until resources become
scarce or conditions too hostile (Mintzberg et al. 1998). The champions include population
ra

ecologists, some organization theorists and positivists in general. In the long run, it gives the
central role in strategy formation to the environment. As the dimensions of the environment are
vague and aggregated, it becomes less useful for strategy formation. It is unrealistic that it denies
pG

real strategic choice that an organization may have. The school category is Descriptive.

The Configuration School
“To everything there is a season”
To

The base line of this school is History. This school underlay that strategy formation is a process
of changing organization from one type of decision making structure to another. It says that with
the time organization need to adopt the change and it has to move its direction towards the
competitive position (Steven French 2009b). It matches the organizational shape with strategy as
they are closely integrated. Organizations have some stable configurations in its characteristics,
which cause to create particular strategies (Kippenberger, T. 1998). But these stability periods

7



are interrupted by some processes of transformation. So these strategies do not work for
organizations in long run (Lampel, 1998). Key to success in strategic management is to sustain
stability or adapting to strategic changes. Therefore, strategy formation itself has configurations.
The champions include lumbers and integrators in general and as well as change agents. In

rs
reality organizations do not have a limited number of valid configurations; also patterns in the
eye of beholder are not limited. If reality is prescribes by using configuration, it will distort the
reality in order to explain it.

pe
CONCLUSION:

Pa
In each of these schools, the strategy formation process is something like “black box”
because no one of these schools is able to outline that how an individual or organization will leap
from the collection of information to the conceptualization of alternative courses of action.
de
In the final analysis, just as none of the blind men's descriptions of the elephant was completely
adequate, yet each contained elements of truth, none of these 10 approaches is complete in and of
itself, either. Each offers some useful concepts, and some strong points to aid understanding, but
ra

has its disadvantages or limitations as well, likely: as there is still room for more classifications
of strategy formation and the complexity of these schools, at a glance, may scare the strategist.
But at the same point it can’t be denied that these approaches have also helped the strategists in
pG

like Illumination of origins and characteristics of the different schools of thoughts in strategy
formation and understanding and appreciating differences between strategy formations.
To

8



REFERENCES

rs
1. Steven French. (2009a). Critiquing the language of strategic management. The Journal
of Management Development, 28(1), 6-17. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from
ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1611833551).

pe
2. Steven French. (2009b). Re-thinking the foundations of the strategic business
process. The Journal of Management Development, 28(1), 51-76. Retrieved September
13, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1611833581).

Pa
3. Shivasharan, N.S. and Shashidhar, P. (2005), “Research in strategic management: a
theoretical exposition”, available at:
de
www.smfi.org/convention/researchxseminar/shivasharanx&xshashidhar.pdf

4. Steven French. (2009c). Exploring the house built on sand. The Journal of Management
Development, 28(1), 38-50. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global.
(Document ID: 1611833571).
ra

5. Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organization, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

6. Masuch, M. (1985), “Vicious circles in organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 30, March, pp. 14-33.
pG

7. Dixon, J., Dogan, R. and Kouzmin, A. (2004), “The dilemma of privatized public
services: philosophical frames in understanding failure and managing partnership
terminations”, Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-46.
To

8. Steven French. (2009d). Cogito ergo sum: exploring epistemological options for
strategic management. The Journal of Management Development, 28(1), 18-37.
Retrieved September 13, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document
ID: 1611833561).

9. Steven French. (2009e, April). The inductive frame. Journal of Management
Development, 28(3), 225-241. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from Business Source
Premier database.

9



10. Steven French. (2009f, April). Action research for practising managers. Journal of
Management Development, 28(3), 187-204. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from
Business Source Premier database.

11. Steven French. (2009g, April). The deductive frame. Journal of Management

rs
Development, 28(3), 242-266. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from Business Source
Premier database.

12. Jelenc, Lara(2009), categorizing the field of strategic management

pe
http://crosbi.znanstvenici.hr/prikazi-rad?chset=ASCII&lang=EN&rad=410515 , accessed
at 31/08/2009

13. Ansoff, H.I., (1991 ) Strategic Management Journal “Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s The

Pa
Design School: Reconsidering The Basic Premises of Strategic Management” , Vol. 21,
pp. 98-112
de
14. Kippenberger, T. (1998), “How strategy is formed? Ten schools of thought”, The
Antidote, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 11-14.

15. Mintzberg, H. (1990), “Strategy formation: ten schools of thought”, in Fredrickson, J.
ra

(Ed.), Published By: KnightRidder

16. Henry Mintzberg (1990) The Strategic Management Journal “Design School:
pG

Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management”, John Wiley & Sons

17. Henry Mintzberg (1994), The fall and rise of strategic planning Harvard Business
Review, vol 72 no 1, pp. 8
To

18. Richard A. Swanson, Elwood F. Holton (2001), Foundations of human resource
development, berrett-koehler publishers, Inc.

19. H. Igor Ansoff (1991) Critique of Henry Mintzberg's The design school: Reconsidering
the basic premises of strategic management’ available at

10



http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113455268/abstract (accessed: 30 August
2009)

20. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari A Guided Tour Through

rs
the Wilds of Strategic Management, http://www.bizsum.com/strategysafari.htm, accessed
at 29/08/2009.

pe
21. James L. Haye ,"Effective managers live in the present – but concentrate on the future."
available at
http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/mgmt_inex_stategy_10schools.html,

Pa
accessed at 31/08/2009

22. Henry Mintzberg, Bruce Ahlastrand (1997), Categorizing the field of strategic
management
de
http://www.12manage.com/methods_mintzberg_ten_schools_of_thought.html , accessed
at 27/08/2009
ra

23. Bill Richardson (1994), Comprehensive Approach to Strategic Management,
http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.scu.edu.au_Insight_ViewContentServlet_conten
pG

tType=Article&Filename=_published_emeraldfulltextarticle_pdf_0010320805.pdf,
accessed at 28/08/2009

24. Steiner, George Albert 1979: Strategic Planning, What Every Manager Must Know, The
To

Free Press, New York

25. Chaffee Ellen Earle (1985), Three Models of Strategy, Academy of Management Review,
Vol.10, No.1, pp. 175-182

26. McKiernan Peter (1997), Strategy past: Strategy futures. Oxford: Long Range Planning,
Vol.30, no. 5, pp.22-23

11



27. Ansoff, Igor (1987), The evolution of corporate planning, working paper, Graduate
School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University

rs
28. Mintzberg Henry (1994), The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for
planning, plans, planners, Free Press (New York and Toranto)

pe
29. Hamel, G.(1996), The core competences of the corporation, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 23, pp. 232

Pa
30. Whittington, R (1993), What is Strategy and Does It Matter? London: Routledge
de
ra
pG
To

12


Strategy schools academic literature essay - www.topgradepapers.com

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Strategy schools academic literature essay - www.topgradepapers.com

Similar to Strategy schools academic literature essay - www.topgradepapers.com (20)

More from Top Grade Papers

More from Top Grade Papers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Strategy schools academic literature essay - www.topgradepapers.com