Reflecting on the Strategy Formation Process

Reflecting on the Strategy Formation Process

Article Overview

The article is a review of the strategy process by Henry Mintzberg and Joseph Lampel. Managers see the strategy process in a different way from how consultants perceive it (Mintzberg & Lampel, 1999). While managers try to be reactive, consultants are proactive, forecasting future growth and planning how to get there. On the other hand, managers analyze the current external and internal business environment and respond to the changes in these environments. The focus of the article is to evaluate how the strategy process has evolved over time by analyzing ten different schools of strategy formulation. The authors observe that over the years, the strategy process has changed with new perspectives arising, which has helped to broaden the concept. The articles further explore how the different schools have led to the perception of strategy formulation as either comprised of many processes or as a single process made up of many parts.

According to the article, some schools are intertwining as to the evolution of strategy formation, while others present a clear and straight forward view of strategy formulation. The cross-breeding may seem to academicians as confusion, but to scholars and researchers, it is an advancement and a growth in the field of strategic management (Mintzberg & Lampel, 1999). The design school of strategy formation that arose in the 1970s and aimed at developing strategies that will achieve a strategic fit between the internal and external business environments. It involved the formulation of simple but clear strategies that other members of staff could easily follow. The positioning school was dominant in the 1980s and adopted an analytical perspective to positioning the firm strategically within the industry and in the market.

A different approach to strategy formation arose with the entrepreneurial school, which was based on the intuition of managers in formulating strategies (Mintzberg & Lampel, 1999). This thought focused on particular concepts such as market niche or turnaround strategies with the help of a transformational leader. The role of leadership was of great emphasis on where the leader formulated and implemented his vision. The cognitive school thought of strategy formation as a mental process, where cognition was important for strategy formation. It depends on information processing and concept attainment. Strategy formation is emergent and can be found everywhere within the organization (Mintzberg & Lampel, 1999). This is in line with the learning school, which pointed out that both strategy formulation and implementation are intertwined.

Strategy formation can be viewed as a process of negotiation, according to the power school. Within the organization, strategy formation involves the use of persuasion, confrontation, and bargaining in the division of power (Mintzberg & Lampel, 1999). Outside the organization, strategies are aimed towards dominating competitors, partners, and alliances. The cultural school presents strategy formation as a social process. It emphasizes culture is the most crucial factor in strategy formulation and implementation. To enhance a supportive culture, therefore, a company must encourage coordination and integration. Although the environmental school was based on responding to environmental constraints, which is not I line with the definition of strategic management, it is still relevant in that it emphasizes the importance of environmental analysis in strategy formation.

Finally, the configuration school adopted and integrated and transformative approach to strategy formation. Organizations are integrative, consisting of different cultures and behaviors (Mintzberg & Lampel, 1999). At the same time, this integrated approach appreciates the role of the other schools and their relevance in different contexts. It also views organizations to be in dramatically transformative states that require change management. It emphasizes the role of consultants and practitioners in strategy formation.

Application

The findings from this article give me several insights into how I can formulate and implement strategies for business growth and responsiveness. Each school of strategy formation has an important point that can help me formulate desirable and competent strategies for my Automotive Paint and Body Shop. All the ten schools of strategy formation center their arguments on the resources, methods, tactics, and ways of arriving at strategies that can be implemented and which align with the vision and mission of the business. Since each school presents unique insights that are significant to strategy formation, I would adopt an integrated approach to the presented perspectives of strategy formation.

Some of the schools like the environmental school, culture school, design school, cognitive school, and positioning and configuration schools are of more value to my business. The automotive paint and body business enjoys some stability and, at the same time, requires continued innovations to improve the design, style, and models of automotive bodies. In that sense, ideas from the configuration school which emphasize constant transformation with the help of practitioners and consultants are important. At the same time, the positioning of the company in the market through branding and differentiation strategies is critical for the business (Lafley & Martin, 2013).

In formulating strategies for my business, I will need to be analytical and informally intuitive. Cognition is very important if I were to develop sound and practical strategies. The design school will help me in designing simple but clear strategies that will help me reduce the weaknesses of my business and exploit opportunities in the market. The environmental school will help me adopt a contingency management approach to managing environmental factors. When it comes to gaining the support of my staff, the cultural school is of primary consideration. Concepts form the culture school will help me build a supportive culture that will enhance the implementation of formulated strategies (Lafley & Martin, 2013).

References

Lafley, A. G., & Martin, R. L. (2013). Playing to win: How strategy really works. Harvard Business Press.

Mintzberg, H., & Lampel, J. (1999). Reflecting on the strategy process. Sloan management review, 40, 21-30.