Mintzberg’s Strategy Concept is a highly
complex composition which sets out to challenge, educate, change and arguably more. The general philosophy of the human mind abides by the notion of a
single underlying meaning for any given word; to think a single term has not
one, not two but many different (and) yet some correlating definition’s seems
byzantine and to some extent difficult to assimilate. The article challenges
this ideology as Mintzberg makes it his purpose to define strategic management
as a concept which is free of any single given meaning. The article proposes to
educate practitioners, researchers and others in the field of strategy and
strategic management as Mintzberg deploys five individualistic elements of
which all form the concept of strategy. The conscious objective of the article
is to clear through the disarray in the sphere of the discipline which has
emerged as a result of the contrasting and imprecise interpretation of the
uses, meaning and definition of strategy. The core motivation of the article is
to articulate the different ways strategy can be perceived as well as
conceived. Furthermore the article seeks to find a common ground between
strategy gurus of both sides by trying to insinuate the following: no single
definition of strategy is right and neither is any single definition wrong,
strategy is nothing yet strategy is everything and finally; although strategy is
physically unseen and in the air (intangible) it is the blood, brain and soul
of a firm (organisational mind). Mintzberg seeks to prove this notion and
change the thinking and stale ideology of those in the field of Strategy and
Strategic Management as Mintzberg presents Strategy as five separate elements:
a plan, a ploy, a pattern, a position and a perspective. In hindsight the
article is a presentation of the various forms of strategy, both tangible and
intangible, both deliberate and emergent and both intended and unintentional.
The contribution of the article to the subject area.
Variance and contention amongst
practitioners and researchers has always been a norm within the sphere of
strategy and strategic management. While some highly regard one academic,
others may differ. However Henry Mintzberg was, and has remained widely
accepted and regarded as highly renowned scholar. Furthermore with negligible criticism
Mintzberg’s work has always been staged and globally appreciated. Since
Mintzberg delved into the field of Strategy his academic research and exploration
in the discipline has been coherent. Mintzberg has remained extremely open and
logical in his articles, developing complex arguments in the most realistic and
straight forward conventions by means of utilising real life examples and
proven theories in his explanations. In wider context this particular article
of Mintzberg; shows similarity to the work of other famous academics, though the
article also challenges the views, theories and studies by others. In a similar
manner the article has been applaud by many strategy theorists as well being
critically rejected by some. Similar to
Mintzberg, Whittington explains strategy can be used and viewed in various
different ways. He explains this by introducing four separate perspectives on strategy:
‘the classical perspective, the evolutionary perspective, the processual
perspective and the systemic perspective’ (Whittington:1993). However Mintzberg’s
(The Strategy Concept) article was released in the 1980’s, a time where many
academics had a specific view on strategy. While Mintzberg argues strategy can
be deliberate as well as intended, he also shows strategy being emergent and
unintentional; he raises this point in the article by asking “do people always
say what they mean, or mean what they say”? However on the other hand Porter
argues a view completely contrary to that of Mintzberg’s. Porter explains strategy
can only be defined as strategic, if it involves consciously doing something which
is different or better than rivals. In his article ‘What is strategy? (Harvard
Business Review, Nov-Dec 1996) Porter states “Competitive
strategy is about being different” (Porter: 1996). Porter’s views on strategy are
based upon intentional, intended and deliberate decisions and actions which are
not only different from competitors but marginally better; something which
Mintzberg is in clear argument with. Arguments between the emergent school of
strategy and deliberate school have been ongoing for a long time, in fact Hamel
beautifully states “strategy didn’t start with Igor Ansoff, neither did it
start with Machiavelli. It probably did not even start with Sun Tzu. Strategy
is old as human conflict” (Hamel G, 2001, p4-10). The contribution of the article
as a single piece of Mintzberg’s work is evident through the way the discipline
has shown change. Prior to the release
of the article strategy was very much seen as a defined and existent way to
enrich the best out of an organisation, in fact it was seen more or less as a
business ‘tactic’. This is evident by the advice given by Sun Tzu (Sunzi) as he
famously stated “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory;
Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat” (Sunzi and Griffith, 1971).
However post the release of this article the emergent philosophy behind
strategy has become widely known and is no longer seen as inferior. More and
more academics have used and been influenced by Mintzberg’s work, moreover
academics now even share a similar ideology of strategy to that of Mintzberg’s;
this is evident as famous Economist Markides states “Nobody knows what strategy
is” (Markides, C 2004). Furthermore it can be argued the article has influenced
academics as post the release of the article many scholars have come to
agreement that strategy is a lot more than a single definition. This is evident
as Bryson states “strategy is defined as a pattern, of purposes, policies,
programmes, actions, decisions, or resource allocations that define what an
organisation is, what it does, and why it does it” (Bryson, 1995, p.32). Mintzberg’s
contribution to the sphere of strategy is evident through the way academics now
view strategy which indicates a change in ideology therefore the article is
successful in what it was seeking to achieve.
The findings and conclusions of the article.
The findings and conclusions of the
article somewhat derive from its purpose. As explained the purpose of the
article was to de-clutter the confusion in around the sphere of strategy. Mintzberg
uses the article to show strategy is free of any given single meaning as it can
be described and explained in various different methods. This is evident as
most academics have there on viewpoint on strategy. For example Johnson & Scholes
define strategy as “the direction and scope of an organisation over the long
term” (Johnson
and Scholes, 1999) yet Rumelt explains “Strategy is creating situations for
economic rents and finding ways to sustain them” (Rumelt: 1982). Both the definitions
of strategy are politically correct yet verbally different; and this is the
notion Mintzberg tried to clarify. Mintzberg explains this artefact through the
findings of the following quote:
“Gradually the successful approaches
merge into a pattern of action that becomes our strategy…we certainly don’t
have an overall strategy on this”. (Homewood et al 1982)
If one defines strategy with a single
meaning, then the above quote is not only inconsistent but it is impossible to
ascertain what the author is trying to suggest. In fact one can go as far as
saying the quote does not make sense. Therefore Mintzberg’s uses the concept of
the ‘Five Ps’ to show the inner realm of the term strategy and at the same time
shows the immediate need for eclecticism (differentiation) in definition . To
further conclude, the article uses McDonalds as a prime example as the ‘Egg
McMuffin Syndrome’ shows Mintzberg’s ideology as a working piece.
This is
evident as the article explains how the five concepts of strategy are
interrelating and in some respects bounce of one another. For example McDonald’s
is ‘positioned’ in a typically fast food market; the introduction of a
breakfast item did not only fit in with the current ‘pattern’ of products that
McDonalds offer but it also formed part of the overall ‘plan’ as McDonalds aims
to sell food which is quick to produce, high in taste, marginally profitable
and most importantly the whole operation is reliant on the intense productivity
of its human resources. Mintzberg explains all these areas form the overall
strategy of McDonalds and no single area has precedence over the other as
conclusively they form the ‘perspective’ that individuals have of McDonalds. Now,
the thought of McDonalds introducing “McDuckling a l’Organge” is quite clearly
impossible as the item does not meet the requirements of McDonalds market
‘position’, it does not fit in with the current ‘pattern’ of products, it does
not follow the company’s ‘plan’ and most importantly it completely clashes with
the ‘perspective’ people have of McDonalds.
In hindsight the article concludes whether
it’s a plan, a ploy, a position, a perspective or even a pattern; it is all a
form of strategy, if anything they all intertwine and influence one another;
however while some elements of strategy can easily change, others are a lot
more difficult to change as they are embedded within the roots and culture of
an organisation therefore one must be very careful when implementing strategy.
Critical appraisal
The 20th century saw real
misunderstanding of the term strategy; with this in mind Mintzberg’s article (Concept
of Strategy) truly does bring light upon the matter; therefore in this respect
the relevance and validity of the article is truly exceptional. The article
remains easy to read, easy to understand and fairly easy to apply. This is
evident from the way businesses see strategy today. While Tesco “ploys” land
banking to scare away competition (Financial Times, 2014) Wal-Mart has
discovered “patterns” in buyer behaviour such as the unconventional selling
combination of “beer and nappies” on Friday evenings. Furthermore “positioning”
alcohol in the children & babies section during the latter hours on Friday
has become part of Wal-Mart’s countrywide “plan” (Rao, 1998). In the
same way IKEA challenged peoples “perspective” of home décor being expensive by
creating stores comparable to design studios which eliminated the need on an
interior designer and further introduced
‘flat pack do it yourself’ furniture which eliminated the need of a builder;
making home décor not only cheap but also fun (Pelsmacker et al 2005).
Taking
into account the article was published in 1987 and almost 30 years on; modern
day businesses are using strategy the way in which Mintzberg explained back
then, truly shows Mintzberg has made a major contribution
to the sphere of strategy and not only this his work has become a major source
of reference for mainstream businesses.
While some feel competitive advantage is
strategy others argue it plays a major role in and around strategy; the article
being solely about strategy, one may feel Mintzberg should have clarified
differences (if any) or similarities (if any) between the two. However Klein
(2001) does mention “strategy texts books tend not to define competitive
advantage, even though they use the term liberally”.
As a whole it is evident the article has
been accepted and considered widely; not only by looking at the number of times
it has been cited but by the fact that other academics and strategy professors
feel Mintzberg really has “found his place” in the field of strategy (Pettigrew
et al 2002:12). Finally it feels Mintzberg’s ideology behind strategy really
has been accepted over Porter’s as Karl Moore concludes “I think that Henry’s
ideas have pulled ahead of Michael’s” (Moore, 2011).
“Hena ta panta”
(change was impossible) – (Parmenides )………..“The sun is new everyday.
Everything changes”. (Heraclites )
