Positioning School: the Analytical Process of Strategy Formation - Case Study Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: PART A: Positioning School The Positioning School examines the analytical process of strategy formation. Although it adopted most of the premises used in the planning and design schools as well as their key models, the Positioning School concentrated more on the significance of strategies themselves rather than their process of formulation. A number of Scholars and Consultants have studied and prescribed critical strategies to organizations in terms of the contexts in which can work best. This provides a clear explanation of how the Positioning School adopted the name Strategic Management. Today, it is relevant to argue that conferences have flourished, courses increased, more journals developed and consulting firms which are collectively referred to as ‘strategy boutiques’ have expanded the strategy industry. Approach of the Positioning School It is notable that the Positioning School was developed from the ideas of the planning and design schools. However, the subtle differences increased the reorientation of the literature since the school was based on a simple and revolutionary idea. Whereas the planning and design schools did not put limits on the kind of strategies that were appropriate for certain situation, the Positioning School emphasized on the need to develop certain strategies as desirable positions within the economic marketplace of a given industry. It is important to note that such positions could be defended against competitors. This clearly indicates that firms which take such positions are strategically positioned to acquire higher profits compared to other firms within the same industry. Therefore, the Positioning School encourages firms to develop strategies that can enable them to be considered as reservoir of resources to expand and consolidate strategic positions. The accumulation of this logic across industries has made the Positioning School to emphasize on the development of basic strategies, for instance, product differentiation and the focused market scope that are commonly referred to as generic strategies. History or basis of where the Positioning School originates The origin of the Positioning School can be described based on the three different waves which include the early military literature, the essential consulting of the 1970s as well as the contemporary work on the empirical propositions. The first wave provides the view that the Positioning School traces its origin in the military maxims. It has been argued that since the Positioning School accentuates on developing specific strategies which can be considered as tangible positions within the competitive contexts. The writings were codified to express the commonsense wisdom on the ideal conditions in which an enemy could be attached so as to defend the other entity’s position. In a similar way the military writers did, today’s business writers of the Positioning School are required to apply the tactics. The military writers described important strategies prior to matching them to the ideal conditions. However, their work did not involve statistical data but concluded on the basis of imperative terms. In the second wave, it is quite clear that the Positioning school has been bespoken for the consultants. This means that they can arrive at a conclusion without necessarily having the business knowledge and analyze the data as well as juggle the generic strategies on a chart to provide a report. Although the writers in this wave were systematic scholars of experience, their interpretations were narrow and focused more on the marketing purposes. This suggests that the need for marketing share seemed the overriding imperative as it is reflected in the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) which focused on only two techniques of growth-share matrix and experience curve. The third and final wave involved systematic empirical investigation for the linkage between external conditions and the internal strategies as reflected in the Porter’s Competitive Strategy (MintzBerg et.al 89). Advantages and Disadvantages The Positioning School supports a more dynamic process to avoid focusing on the orderly and static one. It is apparent that the school has modified the planning school where the role of the planner has been shifted to an analyst. Based on the practical terms, the approach of planning school did not work to create strategies but those of the analysis have informed the process in a more significant manner. Researchers argue that the Positioning School would be improved to position the CEOs as the organization’s chief strategists (MintzBerg et.al 124). However, the Positioning School raises various concerns about its focus which proves to be narrow. The selection of strategies can as well be biased since cost leadership strategies can be backed up easily compared to the strategies of the quality differentiation. Other concerns that limit the functioning of the Positioning School involves its narrow context, the processed used is static to calculation of strategies rather than reaching out to learn. The school also has a narrow focus which makes strategy itself as a major concern because it is perceived as a generic position rather than a unique perspective. Examples of Positioning School applications The various research activities of the Positioning School can be linked so as to position the efforts of the school. For example, research is concerned with the single factors against the clusters of factors as well as with the static conditions against dynamic ones. In this case, single factors are considered in static conditions where particular conditions can be linked to particular conditions such as in diversification to the industry maturity. On the other hand, clusters of factors can be used in static conditions where delineation of clusters of strategies involves linking generic industries. Whereas, in dynamic conditions the single factors can be considered to determine particular strategic responses such as turnarounds to the external changes, clusters of factors can be used to track sequences of the clusters of strategies as well as conditions over time. PART B: Learning School The Learning School examines the process of strategy formation as an emergent one. The school suggests the need for strategists to learn over time so as proceed in strategic management. In the Learning School, strategies emerge as people in the sense that they at times act individually but often work collectively. This implies that they learn about a situation and their organization’s approach of dealing with it, converging on certain patterns of behavior that work best. Approach of the Learning School Researchers who supported the learning approach discovered that when important strategic redirection took place, often its origin could not be traced from the formal planning efforts. Instead strategies were developed based on the little actions as well as decisions made by different people. Such small changes if considered over time often resulted in major shifts in the strategic direction. People became well-informed anywhere within the organization that could add to the strategy process. History or basis of where the Learning School originates The emergence of a learning model helps to explain the origin of the Learning School. The Disjointed incrementalism describes policy making as the serial, counteractive and fragmented process through which decisions are initially made to solve problems rather than to focus on the exploitation of opportunities. On the other hand, logical incrementalism considers development of strategies in the organizations as integrated conceptions. This provides the view that real strategies evolve as the internal decisions as well as external events which flow together so as to create a new and widely shared agreement to undertake action by relevant members at the top management level. Based on strategic venturing, other writers describe how the notion for strategic change take place as ventures or suggestions made by specific strategic actors who may not necessarily be in the senior management positions. The new direction for Learning School suggests that manager should consider strategy as the intimately associated approach of learning. Advantages and Disadvantages The ideas of the Learning School are significant because the central managers may have the capability to formulate strategies. However, the political realities may the implementation of such strategies be through a process of the collective agreement or collective learning (MintzBerg et.al 238). It can not be doubted that learning is currently on the increase in vogue, and thus the danger of reaching the opposite extreme. This can cause the disintegration of strategies in cases of no strategy, lost strategy and wrong strategy. It can be argued that overemphasizing on learning may work to weaken a coherent and perfectly practicable strategy to cause strategic drift. Furthermore, learning through an incremental manner may encourage the development of strategies not intended which positions the organization into an undesirable state. Examples of Learning School applications A shift from the organizational learning to learning organization provides a clear example of how the ideas of the Learning School have been used. Long and active literature has examined organizations as learning systems, and thus learning has been analyzed from a process perspective focusing more on the management of change than strategy. It is quite common to see dynamic notions that explain the different facets of decision-making and change in the research on organizational learning. PART C: Critical analysis and criticisms of each school It is quite clear that the Positioning School focused more narrowly on the ability to be specific. This implies that firms must apply a close-ended approach in their selection of the generic strategic positions. Although the Positioning School retained the idea that strategy precedes the structure, another form of the structure related to industry should be considered which implies that industry structure should guide the strategic position of the organization. In the Positioning School, Strategic Management can be viewed as management of change, while in the Learning School it is perceived as management by change. It is notable that the Positioning School focused on how to formulate strategies, a different case with the Learning School where the fundamental question involves determining how strategies form within the organizations. Based on the above discussion on the different approaches used in the two schools, it is relevant to point out that strategy formation should be considered as a process of through which collective learning plays an integral role. This is because at no point in the Learning School was the central authority required to impose strategy on the entire organization. Work Cited MintzBerg, Henry; Ahlstrand, Bruce & Lampel, Joseph. Strategy Safari: Your Complete Guide through the Wilds of Strategic Management, Second Edition. Prentice Hall.2001. Read More