Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management - Coursework Example

“Performance consensus ends and means specificity as well as ends and means flexibility.” According to the writers, deliberate strategy is linked with “ends and means specificity” whereas “ends and means flexibility” inclines towards emerging strategy. “Performance consensus” according to the journal is a neutral factor that is crucial to both strategic approaches. The size of the firm, the influence of the CEO and the uncertain operational environment of the company restrain the strategy-making approach of the firm.

Before settling on any particular strategy, it is important to conduct a cost-benefit analysis so as to determine the combined possible benefits of both rather than focus on one strategy. The dynamic business world demands that organizations utilize emergent strategy, which makes performance consensus a significant success driver in the implementation thereof. In concurrence with the journal, it is true that utilizing the relevant strategy ensures the flexibility of managers. The article facilitates the process of strategy formulation in firms by providing adequate information needed for the entire process.

Mintzberg, H 1990, “The design school: reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, PP 171-195.Henry Mintzberg in his work, “The design school: reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management,” presents the idea of The Design School as the fundamental principle of strategic management. According to Mintzberg, the “design school”, suggests a simple model that aids in evaluating the link between external threat and the internal opportunity as well as the underlying organizational competencies.

The author critically examines the design school model exposing its strengths and weakness. According to this design, leadership in an organization has the responsibility of determining organizational goals and essential tasks that must be undertaken to achieve the desired position of the firm. In this school of thought, the following premises hold: strategy formulation should be a managed and cognizant process. Second, the main strategist is the CEO, the model used must be straightforward, the strategy should be exclusive, the strategies should be communicated and they become implemented after complete formulation.

The authors argue that the design school model is riddled with false assumptions and is often out of context. Both relevant structure and strategy determine organizational success. Despite many criticisms about the design school model, it still remains popular with many organisations and provides a useful understanding of managerial concepts and practices. However, it is most likely to be outdated, particularly concerning the modern business application.Ansoff, H 1991, “Critique of Henry Mintzberg's 'The design school: reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.

12, PP 449-461.Ansoff in 1991 assessed Mintzberg’s (1990) critique of the ‘design school’ of strategic management based on two conditions: procedural reliability and factual authenticity. In his work, Mintzberg critique lacks both criteria. His own suggestion for the fundamental philosophy of strategic management falls in the same analytical criteria. According to Ansoff, Mintzberg’s clarification lacks methodology and his descriptive, as well as prescriptive affirmations, are contradictory to the contemporary management practices.

This variance evolves from numerous factors as Ansoff explains. Mintzberg had no consistency in his presentation, his definition of strategy falls quite out of place in relation to modern management practice and his inability to distinguish between prescriptive and descriptive proclamations as well as failure to elucidate his circumstance of prescriptions. Assessing current results of successful behaviour studies, Mintzberg’s model or framework, however, criticized, still provides a valuable prescription for successful strategic behaviour.

Kipping, M. & Cailluet, L 2010, “Mintzberg's Emergent and Deliberate Strategies: Tracking Alcan's Activities in Europe 1928-2007,” Business History Review, Vol. 84 PP 99-104.This article examines the development of Alcan originated from Mintzberg’s Emergent and Deliberate Strategies. Alcan is a giant Canadian aluminium manufacturer, in Europe. According to the article, the company made use of this strategy right from 1928 up to 2007 when it was acquired by Rio Tinto. As it advanced through the period before its acquisition, Alcan transited from emergent to more deliberate strategies.

However, external environmental factors continued to influence its decisions significantly. Alcan’s organisational structure increasingly became centralized which, matched its transition to dependence on deliberate strategies. The study examines numerous primary and secondary sources of information to assess the features of the company’s European strategies and track their development roots. The article concludes that a mixture of both emergent and deliberate strategy is crucial for organisational success.

This article exposes how important a company’s organisational structure and its strategic approach determines greatly the extent of growth and development.Mintzberg, H & Waters, JA 1985, “Of Strategies Deliberate and Emergent,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6, PP 257-272.This article explores deliberate and emergent strategies, which influence the possible moves by a firm. It looks at the complexity and numerous strategy formulation processes through comprehensive analysis and assessment of the theory of deliberate and emergent strategies.

In their daily operation, organisations often utilize either deliberate or emergent strategies or even integration of both. From the article, these strategies are, however, common with giant organisations with gigantic operations. Deliberate and emergent strategies are focus oriented strategies and dictate policy choices as well as initiatives by organisations. This article is precisely useful for organisational leaders because it elucidates the concept of the origin of strategy. Many strategies are associated with managers’ plan for the future of their organisations.

However, the concept of strategy evolution and development still demand more research to be done from a wider perspective.