Pescriptive versus emergent
Contents
Introduction 2
Placing the article in wider literature debate 2
Strengths and Weaknesses 3
Conclusion 4
Works Cited 5
Introduction
When described with historical perspective since it arrived in the mid 1960s, strategic or prescriptive planning has been embraced as a way of “outflanking competitors with big plays that yield long term rent from a sustainable advantage” (Bhide, 1986). Although it faltered in the 1980s and 1990s mainly due to the unstable economy in that period and the rise of emergent strategy, it is still being practised today (John A Pearce II, 1987). Emergent strategy is the view that “strategy emerges as intentions collide with a changing reality” (Moore, 2011). This literature review places the article ‘Crafting strategy’ (Mintzberg, 1987) in the wider context of prescriptive and emergent debate followed by strengths and weakness of the article.
Placing the article in wider literature debate
In ‘Crafting strategy’ Mintzberg distinguishes between planning strategy and crafting strategy. Mintzberg view on strategic planning is clear. “Strategic planning isn’t strategic thinking. One is analysis and the other is synthesis” (Mintzberg, 1994). According to Mintzberg the current practise of strategic planning ‘separates thinking from doing’. He claims the current implementation of strategic planning can be best described as strategic programming, “the articulation and elaboration of strategies, or visions that already exists” (Mintzberg, 1994) thereby limiting intuition and creativity. Mintzberg idea on strategic planning is further emphasised by Brian Boyd who suggest prescriptive strategy limits organisation creativity and innovative skills (Boyd, 1991). Psychologist on prescriptive planning says “Articulation of strategy locks it into place, thereby impeding willingness to change it” (Kiesler, 1971). The fact is that organisations who implement prescriptive strategy plan not to be flexible but to realize detailed intentions.
Introduction 2
Placing the article in wider literature debate 2
Strengths and Weaknesses 3
Conclusion 4
Works Cited 5
Introduction
When described with historical perspective since it arrived in the mid 1960s, strategic or prescriptive planning has been embraced as a way of “outflanking competitors with big plays that yield long term rent from a sustainable advantage” (Bhide, 1986). Although it faltered in the 1980s and 1990s mainly due to the unstable economy in that period and the rise of emergent strategy, it is still being practised today (John A Pearce II, 1987). Emergent strategy is the view that “strategy emerges as intentions collide with a changing reality” (Moore, 2011). This literature review places the article ‘Crafting strategy’ (Mintzberg, 1987) in the wider context of prescriptive and emergent debate followed by strengths and weakness of the article.
Placing the article in wider literature debate
In ‘Crafting strategy’ Mintzberg distinguishes between planning strategy and crafting strategy. Mintzberg view on strategic planning is clear. “Strategic planning isn’t strategic thinking. One is analysis and the other is synthesis” (Mintzberg, 1994). According to Mintzberg the current practise of strategic planning ‘separates thinking from doing’. He claims the current implementation of strategic planning can be best described as strategic programming, “the articulation and elaboration of strategies, or visions that already exists” (Mintzberg, 1994) thereby limiting intuition and creativity. Mintzberg idea on strategic planning is further emphasised by Brian Boyd who suggest prescriptive strategy limits organisation creativity and innovative skills (Boyd, 1991). Psychologist on prescriptive planning says “Articulation of strategy locks it into place, thereby impeding willingness to change it” (Kiesler, 1971). The fact is that organisations who implement prescriptive strategy plan not to be flexible but to realize detailed intentions.
Cited: Adcrof (Adcroft, 2009) also emphasises purely emergent strategy would be “a trial and error driven activity where intuition is wrong as often as it is right, which gives rise to levels of risk that may be unacceptable” Conclusion