Strategy Formation

What to consider when ‘crafting’ strategies?

Andy Weeger

Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences

September 3, 2024

Learning outcomes

After this session, you should have a solid understanding of

  • how strategies do seem to be made (i.e., the descriptive side of the field of strategic management);
  • what differentiates a good strategy from a poor strategy;
  • the differences between deliberate and emergent strategies;
  • the arguments for incrementalism and strategy making as a crafting and learning process;
  • how strategy can be understood as an interplay between actions and ideas, and between experience and inspiration;
  • the importance of collective intuition, quick conflict, disciplined pace of decision making, and defusing wasteful political behavior;
  • and implications for the strategic management process.

Reflection

What is strategy?

Prologue

[Good strategy] does not pop out of some strategic-management tool, matrix, triangle, or fill-in-the-blanks scheme. Instead, a talented leader has identified the one or two critical issues in a situation—the pivot points that can multiply the effectiveness of the effort—and then focused and concentrated action and resources on them. R. Rumelt (2011)

Good vs. poor strategy

Reflection

Turn to your neighbor and, in eight minutes, identify the key features of a good strategy and a poor strategy, using what you have learned so far as your reference point.

Prepare to present and discuss your findings.

Hallmarks of a good strategy

According to R. P. Rumelt (2012) a good strategy …

  • identifies the critical issues in a situation,
  • focuses and concentrates action and resources on these issues,
  • acknowledges the challenges that arise in solving the issues,
  • provides an approach to overcome the challenges.

Good strategies tend to look simple and obvious in retrospect.

Hallmarks of a poor strategy

According to R. P. Rumelt (2012) key hallmarks of poor strategy are:

  • Failure to face the challenge.
  • Mistaking goals for strategy.
  • Bad strategic objectives.
  • Fluff 1.

Ignores the power of choice and instead tries to reconcile a variety of conflicting demands.

Reasons for poor strategy

Poor strategy has many roots, but the key ones are: the inability to choose, and template-style planning R. P. Rumelt (2012).

The kernel of good strategy

At its core, strategy is always the same: discover the crucial factors in a situation and design a way to coherently coordinate and focus actions to deal with them.

Reflection

Form small groups and take 10 minutes to consolidate your answers to my questions on Mintzberg (1978).

  • Why and how does Mintzberg challenge the prevailing view of strategic planning (i.e., strategy formulation) as the primary approach to strategy formation?
  • How does Mintzberg propose to think of strategy formation instead?
  • Which patterns of strategy formation has Mintzberg identified? Can you provide examples of organizations that might employ each of these patterns?
  • Why and how can the aggressive, proactive strategy-maker as well as contingency planning be risky for organizations, particular in turbulent environments?
  • What practical implications can you draw from Mintzberg’s insights for organizations’ strategic management practices?

Strategy formation

A strategy is not a fixed plan, nor does it change systematically at pre-arranged times solely at the will of management. Mintzberg (1978).

Definition

Strategy formation refers to the process of crafting strategies that revolve around the interplay of the environment, the organizational operating system, and leadership.

Mintzberg (1978)

Strategy and strategic change

Strategy: consistent behaviors by which the place in the environment is established. Strategic change: responses to environmental change, limited by the organizational operating system and mediated by leadership.

Mintzberg (1978)

Types of strategies

Intended strategies
and emergent strategies.

Figure 1: Types of strategies according to Mintzberg (1978)

Crafting strategies

The process by which effective strategies are created is better captured by thinking of strategy as a craft, rather than as a planning process (Mintzberg 1987).

Why does strategy as a craft better reflect the process by which strategies are formed?

Tenets

Like potters at the wheel, organizations must make sense of the past if they hope to manage the future. Only by coming to understand the patterns that form in their own behavior do they get to know their capabilities and their potential. Thus crafting stategy, like managing craft, requires a natural synthesis of future, present and past. Mintzberg (1987)

  1. Strategies are both plans for the future and patterns from the past.
  2. Strategies need not be deliberate—they can also emerge, more or less.
  3. Effective strategies develop in all kinds of strange ways.
  4. Strategic reorientation2 happen in brief, quantum leaps.
  5. Managing strategy is to craft thought and action, control and learning, stability and change.

Capabilities

Knowing the business,
managing stability,
managing patterns,
detecting discontinuity,
and reconciling change and continuity (Mintzberg 1987)

Conclusions

Strategies have a life cycle, which is coined by waves of change and continuity.

Thus, a strategy cannot be a fixed plan, or being updated at a predetermined time.

Overall, the dichotomy between formulation (with a focus on the strategy-maker) and implementation (with a focus on the subordinates who implement) makes little sense (Mintzberg 1978).

Review and consolidation

The following questions are designed to review and consolidate what you have learned and are a good starting point for preparing for the exam.

  • How do good strategies differ from bad strategies?
  • What do the hallmarks of a good strategy imply for the strategic management process?
  • Why does Mintzberg speak of strategy formation or crafting rather then strategy formulation?
  • Why and how does cognition play a significant role in strategy formation?
  • What is the role of informal processes in strategy formation? Can you provide examples from real-world organizations where strategies emerged through informal interactions or learning from experience?
  • How might the patterns of strategy formation affect the execution of strategies within organizations?
  • Why can it be assumed that a purely emergent strategy is as rare as a purely intentional strategy?
  • What do the tenets of seeing strategic management as an art and craft imply for strategic management?
  • Discuss the following statement: Strategy seldom comes out of a structured process. It’s a mix of deliberate and emergent strategies and in practice in management learning by doing often is more important than planning. What does it imply for the process and the capabilities required to craft effective strategies?
  • Firms that are successful in making high-quality strategic decisions on a frequent basis have following capabilities: (1) building collective intuition that enhances the ability of top management to spot threats/opportunities sooner and more accurately; (2) stimulating quick conflict to improve the quality of strategic thinking without sacrificing significant time; and (3) defusing political behavior that creates unproductive conflict and wastes time. Why are these capabilities critical for effectively crafting successful strategies? Having a look at Eisenhardt (1999) will help to answer the question.
  • The “Honda Effect” is a term often used to describe the business success and impact of the Japanese automaker Honda in the United States, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., in Pascale (1996)). Research on that effect and explain the difference views of strategy that manifested in the approaches of American and Japanese automakers at the time.

Homework

Read Barnett and Salomon (2012) and make notes on following questions:

  • What are the primary objectives of Barnett and Salomon’s study regarding CSR and financial performance?
  • How do the authors measure CSR and financial performance in their study?
  • What are the main findings of the study regarding the relationship between CSR and financial performance?
  • Were there any unexpected or counterintuitive results in the research findings? How do these findings contribute to the understanding of CSR in strategic management?
  • How can the findings of this study inform strategic management practices?

Q&A

Literature

Barnett, Michael L, and Robert M Salomon. 2012. “Does It Pay to Be Really Good? Addressing the Shape of the Relationship Between Social and Financial Performance.” Strategic Management Journal 33 (11): 1304–20.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1999. “Strategy as Strategic Decision Making.” MIT Sloan Management Review 40 (3): 65.
Mintzberg, Henry. 1978. “Patterns in Strategy Formation.” Management Science 24 (9): 934–48.
———. 1987. “Crafting Strategy.” Harvard Business Review, 66–75.
Mintzberg, Henry, and James A Waters. 1985. “Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent.” Strategic Management Journal 6 (3): 257–72.
Pascale, Richard T. 1996. “The Honda Effect.” California Management Review 38 (4): 80–91.
Rumelt, R. 2011. Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters. Profile.
Rumelt, Richard P. 2012. “Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters.” Strategic Direction 28 (8).

Footnotes

  1. Entertainment or writing perceived as trivial or superficial.

  2. Strategic reorientation means that organizations may undergo rapid and substantial changes in their strategic direction in response to major internal or external events, such as market disruptions, technological advancements, or shifts in leadership. These quantum leaps can be seen as moments when an organization fundamentally rethinks and realigns its strategy to better fit its environment or to capitalize on new opportunities.