Mintzberg's Emergent, and Deliberate Strategies - Coursework Example

?Strategic Management Kipping, M and Cailluet, L, Mintzberg's Emergent, and Deliberate Strategies: Tracking Alcan's Activities in Europe, 1928–2007. Business History Review, 84, pp 79­104 doi: Retrieved from: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0007680500001252 The paper focused in evaluating the impact of emergent and deliberate strategies since the inception of Canadian Aluminum Alcan Company to the time of writing this article. Henry Mintzberg places company strategies on a scale that ranges from those that occurs from deliberate internal decisions and those that occurs as a result of external forces. The authors aim is to use the strategies of the Canadian aluminum producer Alcan based in Europe, from its source when it separated from Alcoa, in 1928, up to the moment Rio Tinto acquired it in 2007. In this entire period, the Canadian Aluminum company shifted its strategies from immediate to deliberate strategies. However, its external factors were very influential on the decisions made. As the company continued centralizing its structures, it relied on deliberate strategies. The authors have a high credibility in that, they are attempting to evaluate whether the growth of a company depends on either deliberate or emergent strategy. Their credibility is evident since they try to apply what Henry Mintzberg had already introduced. Other scholars have reviewed the source of their information. In their findings, they disclose that emergent and deliberate strategies vary in their continuum. The authors research and findings support the research topic, that their exist similarities and differences between the emergent and the deliberate strategies. I endorse their conclusion on the ground that, the two strategies cannot be equally exclusive since either occurs because of varied factors. Mintzberg, H., Waters, A. J, 1985, Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent: John Wiley & Sons, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1985), pp. 257-272. Accessed: 02/06/2010 17:24 Web: Retrieved: from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486186 The main purpose of this paper is to enlarge our thinking capacity about the formation of strategy. The article also widens our perceptions that may remain confined unaware that there is a great difference between the deliberate and emergent strategies. The article is relevant to the research topic since it supports that there is a sharp dichotomy between the deliberate and emergent strategies. Some of the features that I consider useful in supporting the research topic is when the authors confirms that the two strategies are like two end points of a scale upon which the organizations base their strategies. In presenting their credibility, the authors come up with a notion that and some other fundamental issues linked to strategic decisions. In their conclusion, they disclose the various types of strategies that concealed in research. In extent, these may compromise the validity and reliability of their research since most of the strategies unearthed are not peer reviewed. The strategies uncovered in research include; planned, entrepreneurial, ideological, umbrella, process, unconnected, consensus and imposed strategies. Even though, I support their research that there is a great comparison between the emergent and deliberate strategies, I am not quite certain about the other strategies they introduce and consider that they also vary. Mintzberg, H, 1990, Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management, John Wiley & Sons, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Mar. - Apr., 1990), pp. 171-195. Accessed: 30/07/2010 04:57. Web: Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486485 Among the opinions held by particular groups on the formation of strategy, there is one that lies beneath the descriptions in the area of study, and that is the design school. The main purpose of this paper is to suggest on a simple model, which evaluates the process, as a design to accomplish a fundamental anchor between external forces and opportunity and interior distinct competence. There are distinctive features in this model that supports the research topic. The authors suggest that, for the model to function it must have some few premises, which include; the process must be deliberately controlled throughout by the executive officer. In addition, according to the premise, the model must be simple and unceremonious. Together with that, the model must be exceptional, precise, and uncomplicated. Lastly, full formulation of the strategies is fundamental before implementation takes place. We see some credibility when the author discuses the model and thereafter criticizes it, and the criticism particularly focuses on the challenges involved in the cognizant evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, in the effort of enhancing the strategies and the isolation amid formulation and performance. In an effort to achieve this, it raises some doubts on several of the firm ideas in the study of strategic management and method of teaching. Based on the author’s suggestions on design schools, it becomes impossible to verify the validity of his work, considering that the papers bases most of the arguments on propositions. In his conclusion, the author suggests incorporating the strategy scale opinion for teaching Strategic Management courses at schools. I reached at a conclusion that formation of strategy is not a fixed thing neither a linear process, but it is a flexible and subject to changes upon exposure to varied circumstances, for instance, overall design, the ecological environment, the mindset of the executive manager and so forth. Marius P, Rachel M, 2011, "Strategy making: the approach matters", Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 32 Issue: 4 pp. 25 – 31. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02756661111150945 This is the moment that businesses that require to enhance their strategies. In order to achieve it, they must consider choosing an effective strategy. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how strategy making occurs on the scale of deliberate practice against the emerging strategy. In their approach, the authors used compressive interviews in approaching the CEOs and questionnaires in reaching out to the managers in the same company. The techniques the authors used in discovering the strategy making approaches that the company uses helped in meeting the expectations of the research topic. Some of the specific features that of the study that was useful is when authors noted that in construction of the strategy making, there are some concepts required, which includes; : “performance consensus”, “ends and means specificity” in addition to “ends and means flexibility”. In their conclusion, the authors linked “ends and means specificity’ with a deliberate strategy technique and, “ends and means flexibility” with the emerging strategy technique. Performance consensus was unbiased and therefore, favored both sides. From my observations, it is fundamental for managers to know a suitable strategy making approach as this makes their role flexible. It is advisable to incorporate various strategies, but one should be keen on their impacts. Ansoff, H.I, Critique of Henry Mintzberg's 'The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management, Accessed: 30/07/2010 Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 6 (Sep. 1991), pp. 449-461, John Wiley & Sons, Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486480 The purpose of the paper is to review Henry Mintzberg's 'the Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management. The author criticizes this model based on two criteria. The first criticizing criterion is linked to practical reliability and factual authenticity. This critique is unbiased on both criteria. Ansoff criticizes the fundamental principles of strategic management that Mintzberge proposes using practical reliability and factual authenticity. In concluding, the author disclosed that the design school model is deficient practically and the illustrative and descriptive assertions used by Mintzberge varies based on facts apparent in the modern practice of strategic management. The disparity occurs because of the following factors; there is no consistency in Mintzberg’s presentation. In addition, the strategic definition that Mintzberg uses varies with the modern practice of management, and he fails to distinguish between the prescriptive and expressive statements. Read More