Henry Mintzberg Essay

Business dodging1.0 IntroductionIn the recent age the suck ups of strategicalal attention has changed signifi rout outtly. It has been critically studied and classified as a field of managerial practice that should gestate been given more thought. (Knights and Morgan, 1991) at that place atomic number 18 deuce essential parts to system, actions that are aforethought(ip) forwards and developed carefully according to many factors once implemented. A square-toed dodge created and implement to a company would give a warring advantage oer otherwise companies. This report will address the site of the article in a wider debate as different scholars have different opinions in strategy. It will discuss about the theoretical underpinnings, strengths and impuissance in enthalpy Mintzbergs article Crafting Strategy.2.0 Position and Theoretical Underpinnings jibe to Levy, Alvesson and Willmott most of the current thought is anchored by the work of Michael Porter and Henry Mintzber g. (Levy, Alvesson and Willmott, 2003) Henry Mintzbergs Crafting Strategy is based on research that was conducted over numerous years that focalisationed on several organisations that have interpreted various decisions over a period of time. The decisions made by organisations were interpreted into account and put together as different slips of strategy. His thesis was the crafting orbit better captures the process by which effective strategies to come to be. However the grooming image, long popular in the literature, distorts these processes and thereby misguides organisations that embrace it unreservedly. (Mintzberg, 1987)The article appears to management on an emergent approach to strategy. Mintzberg states, a key to managing strategy is the susceptibility to detect emerging patterns and supporter them take shape. This is suggested through the fact that the graphic symbol of a manager is not just to preconceive specific strategies thoalso to recognize their emergence els ewhere in the scheme and interpose when appropriate (Mintzberg, 1987). One of the earlier influential writers of strategy Philip Selznick who supported this possible action wrote about the character of an organization being separate and integrates commitments to ways of performing and responding. (Selznick 1957) Ghosal, Barlett et al also suggest this point by mentioning its the focus in traditional strategy on value appropriation instead then value creation. (Ghosal, Barlett et al, 1999)Mintzbergs theory captures a mix of Richard Whittingtons continent and processual school of strategy. This is modelled in the article as the potter is characterized as a craftsman strategist. In Whittingtons model developing and delimitate falls under Michael Porters classical flip over approach to strategy and opinion lies within Henry Mintzbergs approach to emergent strategy. In the view of strategy Porter (1980 1985), Andrews (1971) and Chandler (1962), the prescriptive approach to strate gy is shown for its dependence on analysis and prep. This is also view is also supported by Graetz who suggests that strategic thinking is already considered necessary process closely nexused to strategic planning. (Graetz, 2002) Wilson goes elevate by mentioning, strategic thinking should replace strategic planning. (Wilson. L., 1994) Heracleous proposes that strategic planning and strategic thinking is two distinct but related processes, strategic planning is analysis and strategic thinking involves synthesis. (Heracleous, 1998) Many scholars including Mintzberg who emphasizes heavy on the processes of learning, compromising and adjustment is that strategy is a process. He suggests that the planning and then implementing strategy is unsustainable for long term. (Mintzberg, 1990) In 1994 Mintzberg provided some evidence of the also-ran of planning.3.0 StrengthsMintzbergs does identify there is no such thing as purely deliberate strategy or purely emergent one. This is further evince when he states all strategy making walks on two feet, one deliberate and the other emergent. This suggest that deliberate and emergent is intertwined which is emphasized when Mintzberg mentions, deliberate and emergent strategy form the end points of a continuum along which the strategies that are crafted inthe real world whitethornbe found. (Mintzberg, 1987) Mintzberg treated strategy differently from traditional literatures that entirely focused on one type of strategy.While other scholars associated themselves in four schools of strategy Henry Mintzberg delineate ten schools of strategy. (Mintzberg, 1998) Crafting Strategy is positioned in the learning and design school. In this he suggested strategy as a ploy, which gives company a warlike advantage, as the strategy is misleading therefore, unpredictable thus competitors are ineffectual to know what the company is planning. This is supported by Rumelt who mentions one persons strategies are anothers tactics that wha t is strategic depends on where you sit. (Rumelt, 1979)Crafting strategy shows flexibility and therefore makes it more prepared to implement. Henry Mintzberg states strategies can be form as well as formulated. (Mintzberg 1987) It suggests that there is no example approach to strategy thus every company or single(a) can use it as it is tailored to the company needs. According to Kipping as it is flexible it allows freedom to craft their best strategy (Kipping, 2010)3.1 WeaknessIn this article Henry Mintzberg based his research on mass performance companies such as Honda, Volkswagenwerk and General Motors. His conclusions about strategy derived from assessing these major companies may not be applicable to other companies as some managers are not competent to the strategy. This is mentioned by Noe who states emergent strategiesrely on the organizations ability to learn from the actual experiences of employees at all take aims (Noe et al., 2003)Whittington states mechanisms enco unter that the strategy process remains objective rather than being captured by a particular management faction. This suggests that managers are able to draw from large and less detectable sources of power. (Whittington, 1993). Mintzberg argues that the reality of strategy is not a planned organizational phenomenon but better characterized as an emergent. (Mintzberg et al., 1998) However Mintzberg fails to address these surplus conditions suggested by Whittington thatare thought to be potentially vital points in strategic management.Stoney mentions that In the strategic management model, responsibility for corporate level decision-making rests with a core or strategic elite who are dismissed from the day-to-day responsibilities of operational activities, these being devolved to the lowest possible level of control. (Stoney 1998) support by Anthony and Dearden mentioning that strategic planning is a function in the decision maker level that is designed to ensure that the directio n is followed as set. (Anthony & Dearden 1976) This will help companies maintain a competitive advantage however as it is only based on executive level views lower ranked ply in the companies is ignored. This is suggested by Alvesson and Willmott who states, broader power relations privilege the interests and viewpoints of some groups eon silencing and marginalizing others. (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996) Henry Mintzberg himself mentions this view by stating senior management sets of broad guidelines and the leaves specifics to other lower down in the organization. (Mintzberg ,1974)As a few of Mintzbergs theory is based on the processual school of strategy in Whittingtons model Levy, Alvesson and Willmott mentions it provides a sceptical perspective on established classical and rational perspectives. (Levy, Alvesson and Willmott, 2003) However it fails to explore in a wider perspective of control or analyze the managerial assumptions. Alvesson and Willmott further states that in t he processual school of strategy, Mintzbergs view of power fails to look within an intra-organizational perspective that eschews consideration of broader kindly and political structures. (Alvesson and Willmott, 1966) This suggests that Mintzberg does not take into consideration many other factors that may be important to his view of strategy.4.0 ConclusionMintzberg does appear to focus most of his ideas towards emergent strategy however he does address that there can be no such thing as just deliberate or emergent strategy. (Mintzberg 1987) They both need to intertwine in crop for the strategy to work. Crafting strategy is based on long-term learning, errors become opportunities and limitations perplex creativity(Mintzberg 1987) This is what causes the moulds streams of decision into patterns as suggested by Hedbery and Jonsson. (Hedbery and Jonsson, 1977)5.0 ReferencesAlvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996) Making Sense of counsel A hypercritical Introduction. London Sage.Andrews , K.R. (1971) The invention of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, IL Irwin.Anthony, R & Dearden, J. (1976), trouble control systems. Illinois Homewood Richard D Irwin. B. Hedbery and S. A. Jonsson, Strategy Formulation as a Discontinuous Process, International Studies of Management and Organisation, 7/2 (1977) 90 Chandler, A.D. (1962) Strategy and Structure Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA MIT Press.David Ley, Mats Alvesson, Hugh Willmott. (2003). Critical Approaches to Strategic Management. In Mats Alvesson, Hugh Willmott Studying management critically. Cornwall Sage Publications. 92-110.Graetz, F. (2002). Strategic thinking versus strategic planning towards understanding the complementaries. Management Decision, 40 (5), pg 456-462.Ghoshal, S., C. A. Barlett, et al. (1999). A rude(a) Manifesto for Management. Sloan Management Review 40 (3) 9-20.Heracleous, L. (1998). Strategic thinking or strategic planning? Long Range Planning, 31 (3), pg 481-487. Kipping. M. & Caillutet, L. (2010) Mintzbergs Emergent and Deliberate Strategies Tracking Alcans Activities in Europe, 1928-2007, Business History Review, 8 (4), pp.79-104. Knights, D. and Morgan, G. (1991) Corporate strategy, organisations, and subjectivity A critique. Organisation Studies. 12(2) 251-73.Mintzberg, H. 1987. Crafting Strategy. Harvard Business Review 65 (July August) 66-75.Mintzberg, H. (1990) The design school Reconsidering the basic premise of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal. 11 171-95.Mintzberg, H. (1994) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York Free Press.Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2003) gentlemans gentleman Resource Management Gaining a belligerent good, 4th ed, New York McGraw-Hill.Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York Free Press.P. Selznick, Leadership in Administration A Sociological Interpretation (New York, NY Harper & Row, 1957) p.47. A subsequent paper by the author (in process) on the design school of strategy formation shows the link of Selznicks early work to the writings of Kenneth Andrews in the Harvard policy textbook. K.R. Andrews, The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Revised Edition (Homewood, IL Down Jones-Irwin, 1987).Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York Free Press.R. P. Rumelt, Evaluation of Strategy possible action and Models, in D.E. Schendel and C. W. Hofer, eds., Strategic Management A New View of Business policy and Planning (Boston, MA Little Brown, 1979), pp.196-212.Stoney, C. (1998) Lifting the lid on strategic management A sociological narrative. Electronic Journal of Radical Organization Theory 4(1).Whittington, R. (1993) What is Strategy and Does it Matter? London Routledge.Wilson. L. (1994). Strategic planning isnt perfectly It changed. Long RangePlanning, 27 (4), pg 12-24.