prescriptive and descriptive schools

Student name
Course name
Date
Strategic Management
The necessity of strategic planning for businesses in all economic categorizations cannot be underestimated. Depending on the nature of the business, differing priorities are placed on the processes and evaluation of the implementation of strategic management. While some businesses hire the consultation services of professionals to better define and organize these strategies, other companies never directly address the issues at all. The latter group of companies then becomes vulnerable to failure in the marketplace without benefit of the information as to why this is occurring. According to Kilpatrick and Johnson (1999), “The importance of the strategy process is to help an organization develop a philosophy, process, and procedures for being more efficient and effective in its environment while carrying out its purpose with a sense of vision and values” (p. 638). Whether a company deliberately implements strategic planning, these processes are occurring nonetheless. It is the suggestion of experts in field that companies that do not “develop them from a more formal process in a deliberate and knowing manner, generally react poorly to rapid changes in their environments” (Kilpatrick & Johnson 1999, p. 639).
As a preface to implementing any of the schools of strategic management, work must be done within the business to define certain components necessary for success. The overall guiding principle that should be clearly defined is the company’s vision. It is recognized that every organization must have a clearly defined vision that can be accurately and definitively expressed within the organization to employees as well as to the community at large. This includes the larger circle of business interactions that a company has with suppliers, consumers, and the public at large. This vision is the foundation that reflects a company’s core ideals and is expressed in the form of a mission statement.
Collins and Porras (1996) state that a company’s “core ideology and visionary goals generally consist of three components: 1) Core values to which the company is committed 2) Core purpose of the company, and 3) Visionary goals the company will pursue to fulfil its mission” (n. p.). These are the components that remain, for the most part, unchanged as the company progresses with its business practices. The strategies for attaining the vision that is articulated in the mission statement are the elements that are adjusted over time and in response to changing economic climates.
However, there are examples of companies that have adjusted their mission statements in the face of dramatic impact from scientific advancement. As delineated by Collins and Porras (1996), the chemical manufacturing company, Merck, experienced such a shift. In order to refocus the mission of the company, the owner established a research facility and expressed the new mission as follows: “We believe that research work carried on with patience and persistence will bring to industry and commerce new life; and we have faith that in this new laboratory…science will be advanced, knowledge increased, and human life win ever a greater freedom from suffering and disease” (n. p.). These expressions of vision via mission began the path of placing Merck in the position of becoming one of the leading drug companies in the world.
Another example of the importance of framing and revising company vision and the resultant mission statements is evidenced in the Ford Motor Company. The invention of the automobile and Henry Ford’s brilliant conception of the assembly line was guided by Ford’s vision and mission in the early years of automobile transport. “I will build a motor car for the great multitude…It will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one…When I’m through…everyone will have one” (Collins & Porras 1996, n. p.). With these words, Ford redefined not only the company’s mission but its strategic planning as well. Once these shifts occur, a declarative plan is necessary for the company to achieve success. The integral part of this declarative plan is in the realm of strategic management, which contains several key elements that must be addressed in the form of goals and objectives.
A particularly challenging pursuit occurs when companies are developing goals and objectives in order to realize their vision and mission. There are obviously any numbers of objectives that can be presented and considered along with an almost infinite number of ways to evaluate the outcomes. Generating consensus among the decision-makers can be time and resource consuming. Therefore, the use of strategic management techniques and philosophies are required at this stage. For example, the Balanced Scorecard framework suggested by Bianchi (2004) serves the function of “linking objectives, initiatives and measures to an organisation’s vision and strategy” (p. 178). According to Bianchi (2004), “The Balanced Scorecard translates a business’s vision and strategy into objectives and measures across four balanced perspectives: financial performance, customers, internal business processes, and organisational growth, learning and innovation” (p. 178).
This popular format includes the intangible assets of a company that are often overlooked by the decision-makers at the management level. This can be viewed in a critical manner as consumptive of company resources due to the fact that this type of strategy requires large amounts of time to evaluate. Additionally, this strategy requires the support and implementation of all employees participating in the process. In order to achieve this additional training and means of evaluation have to be developed. Another criticism of the Balanced Scorecard approach is that there are likely to be an unwieldy number of measures to be included due to the large number of participants. This is a potentially negative side effect of the inclusive nature of the strategy. Lastly, there is a risk of loss of information flow to the management teams since “all key indicators of business performance (and their linkages) [are gathered] into one management tool” (Bianchi 2004, p. 179).
When companies approach the processes of strategy making they base their selections upon two major perspectives: prescriptive or descriptive (Willauer 2005). “While the prescriptive schools prescribe ideal strategic behavior, the descriptive schools describe how individuals actually make strategies” (Willauer 2005, p. 12). This author places the Design School, Planning School, and Positioning School within the prescriptive category. The Entrepreneurial School, Cognitive School, Learning School, Power School, Environmental School, and the Cultural School fall within the category of descriptive schools (Willauer 2005).
Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel (2005) add a tenth school to the prescriptive and descriptive schools of strategic management by including the Configuration School. This tenth school is described by the authors as offering “the possibility of reconciliation, one way to integrate the messages of the other schools” (p. 302). This is a perspective that allows for the possibility that change promotes stability. “Strategy itself is not about change at all, but about continuity – whether as deliberate plan to establish patterns of behavior or as emergent pattern by which such patterns get established” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, p. 302).
Of the more useful concepts in the Configuration School as defined by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel are those of stages and patterns of development that occur during the life cycle of businesses. The types of stages – development, stability, adaptation, struggle, and revolution – occur in four sequence patterns over time – periodic bumps, oscillating shifts, life cycles, and regular progress (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, pp. 311-312).
Many critiques of the Configuration School point out the strengths and weaknesses of this theory. Miller (2003) presents both viewpoints. He states that configuration is the “essence of strategy” (p. 970) and these patterns over time indicate that businesses indeed have an overall strategy. Miller (2003) also states that the configuration school “makes imitation more difficult and allows the organization to react more quickly” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, p. 316) when the economy or the dynamic of the company fluctuates.
Miller (2003) then balances his critique by revealing some of the deficiencies of the Configuration School. One of the weaknesses he presents is that this process simplifies things for the management to the point of detrimental outcomes for the company. “Simplicity is dangerous because it can blind managers and tether their organizations to a confining set of skills, concerns, and environmental states” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, p. 316). This singularity can result in a series of failures if not attended to appropriately via implementation of some of the other schools.
The research conducted by Miller on the Configuration School strategic management plan found indices of the dangers resulting from these deficiencies. Companies such as IBM, Disney, P & G, General Motors and others have all experienced the “trappings” of the four “trajectories” defined by Miller (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, p. 316). The first of these is termed a “focusing trajectory” that affects the “craftsmen,” or highly skilled workers, working in an environment that runs smoothly. The danger is that these workers will turn into “rigidly controlled, detail-obsessed tinkerers” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, p. 316). Clearly, this affects a company’s ability to address change and will result in the inability to recognize creative and unorthodox thinking and problem solving skills.
The second danger to over-simplification is termed “venturing trajectory” by Miller (2003). This transforms “entrepreneurial builders” who possess the qualities of creativity and imagination into “impulsive, greed imperialists” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, p. 316). When this occurs, the managers make decisions that strain the financial and personnel resources at their disposal to the point of breaking. This often occurs when businesses expand into territories, be they products, services, or geographic regions, where they are ill equipped to successfully convert the efforts into achieving company goals and objectives. These may be measured financially or otherwise with the resultant damage carrying the possibility of endangering the viability of the whole.
The third trajectory that can turn success into failure in the Configuration School proposed by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel (2005) is the “inventing trajectory.” The effect of this path is that it transforms “pioneers” into “escapists” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, p. 316). According to Miller (2003) these employees are the individuals that operate in “unexcelled R & D departments, flexible think-tank operations, and state-of-the-art products” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, p. 316). These are truly the gifted thinkers and doers behind the operations of many companies. They are the individuals who are at the cutting edge of technology, service, and product development that are valued for their ability to “think out of the box.” If they succumb to the “utopian escapist” role proposed by Miller (2003), then the company is subject to the chaotic and grandiose behaviours of those willing to sacrifice any amount of resources to reach a goal. There is even the danger of the pursuit itself becoming the main goal. This is clearly a danger to the company and its future.
The final trajectory that poses a threat to the success of a company implementing the use of the Configuration School strategic management approach is the “decoupling trajectory” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, pp. 316-317). The “salesmen” in these businesses end up becoming “drifters” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, p. 316). This can occur for companies who have spent time and effort developing successful branding, products, customer loyalty, and sales volumes across large market shares. They become so focused on sales and promoting simply the consumption of their goods, that they sacrifice design and quality. This will produce a “stale and disjointed line of ‘me-too’ offerings” (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 2005, p. 316) in place of their former quality.
While the Configuration School has its strengths these are considerable deficits that must be carefully monitored by management. Additionally, the other schools have limitations in their implementation as strategic management plans. For example, the systematic manner in which the Positioning School approach mainly favours a focus on the economic data. While the numbers are easily calculated and the data is irrefutable, this school neglects the social, intangible components of a company. This is representative of the general category prescriptive perspective and, like the Configuration school, has its place at certain points and in certain circumstances of a company’s life cycle.
The descriptive schools also have their limitations. The Entrepreneurial school is quite effective at motivating others via the use of a charismatic leader. This person is the “captain of the ship” in whom all the “passengers” entrust their course and speed (Hamel 2002). The danger here is that the once the leader is found they will adhere to the course regardless of new or changing information. This can result in unpreparedness for change and inability to successfully address the unexpected challenges that will undoubtedly arise during the company’s life cycle. This can be contrasted to the Learning school, which depends on the learning cycle of all participants. This “lessons learned” approach is viewed as a series of steps that will equal the desired outcomes once completed – a sort of “learn as you go” approach. The danger here is that there can aimless and directionless efforts that result in nothing other than time and resources expended (Mulcaster 2009).
A similar danger can be found in the Power school of strategic management. Although this approach encourages the spirit of competition among the power bases and can result in presenting the best ideas in contrast to each other, there are inherent downfalls to this approach. What is intended to be strategy is reduced to mere political manoeuvrings. In this manner, resources are wasted and the outcomes can be divisive. Again, the choice to use this strategy should be carefully weighed against the desired goals and objectives.
The cognitive school approach considers the patterns of thought processes and values the ability to represent this information in the form of well-organized maps and plans. While there is great usefulness for this approach at certain points in the company’s growth process, it can also be very limiting. The need for creativity and a grasp of the more ethereal concepts of business will not be successfully addressed with the cognitive school approach (Mulcaster 2009).
The final two schools posited by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel (2005) are the Cultural and Environmental schools. While possessing different characteristics, they have a commonality in that they place value on elements that outside the individual. The first school, Cultural, seeks the input of various departments within the company in the implementation of strategic management. There is the desire to encourage and promote a “corporate culture” with its own set of company values (Hamel 2002). Many companies have successfully created this and marketed it to the public. For example, Starbucks presents itself in such a way as to attract the targeted demographic of 20-somethings who are educated, modern, and on the creative fringe. Another example of the successful use of a Cultural school approach is seen with Disney. Their mission statement is simply one word – happiness. To the consumer, this is evident in all their business strategies. The danger with attempting to emulate these two successful companies is that it can stagnate simply as the status quo in the wrong hands.
The final school, Environmental, also focuses on externalities. Only with this approach, the environment is considered as an internal player (Mulcaster 2009). This is perhaps that antithesis of the prescriptive category. The environment is abstract in concept and ultimately immeasurable in any meaningful way. This can have the deleterious effect of aimless wondering in search of solutions and/or plans that will never come to fruition.
The choices companies use to determine what type of strategic management approach to implement should address suitability, feasibility and acceptability according to Johnson and Scholes (2006). Suitability addresses the question of whether the chosen strategy will work within the company. This will include the evaluation of economic factors as well as whether the company has the capacity to implement the strategies. The second element, feasibility, deals with the availability of resources. These resources include finances, personnel, time and the work that will be required to complete the development and implementation of the strategies. The last element, acceptability, is the consideration that concerns an analysis of what is to be accomplished in terms of the expectations of participants and others affected by the choice.
While these are the general principles that guide the decision making process for strategic management, there are other important considerations that should be included. Whittington and Mayer (2002) posit that there are now more influences to these decisions influenced by the management patterns of history and the need to look to the future. “Time and place are a constant reminder of the rise and fall of managerial practices and the patterns of organizational behaviour associated with those practices” (Pettigrew, Thomas & Whittington 2002, p. 15). The authors continue this point with examples of the angst felt by companies in the United States in the 1980s. Japanese manufacturing was dominating the globe, and U. S. corporations seemed at a loss for making the necessary adjustments for strategic management changes. Again in the 1990s, international economic situations cemented the need to alter the manner in which the choices for strategic management were made.
At the start of the 21st century, businesses around the world came to realize the accuracy of the theories proposed by Pettigrew, Thomas & Whittington (2002). “Variation in governance arrangements across different societies, divergent forms of capitalism throughout the world, and new forms of organizing in Europe and Japan indicate how and why national cultures and institutions can shape the strategy and behaviour of corporations” (Pettigrew, Thomas & Whittington 2002, p. 15). It is now the focus of the most effective strategic management techniques to consider the contextual influences when forming strategies for the management and growth of their companies.
Additionally, Pettigrew, Thomas & Whittington (2002) posit that the previous patterns of strategic management addressed prior will proceed at a different pace and intensity than in the past. “Instead of long, stable periods in which firms can achieve sustainable competition advantages, the hyper-competitive context allows only short periods of advantage, punctuated by frequent interruption” (Pettigrew, Thomas & Whittington 2002, p. 16). This will require greater flexibility and a resource of on demand creativity to meet the challenges for the future. If the authors are correct, companies who are functioning under some of the schools above will not fare well in the emerging climate since many are not well suited for adapting quickly to change. It is additionally possible that challenging economic conditions such as the ones occurring in the present time will incrementally affect the success rate of these companies as well.
A company’s willingness and ability to make the correct choices for implementing strategic management techniques will be in direct proportion to the their ability to succeed. If Kilpatrick & Johnson (1999) are correct in their theory that those companies who do not actively and directly develop, implement, and evaluate strategic management techniques are unsuccessful, then all companies should adjust accordingly. There will be less time and opportunity to “rest upon laurels” and a greater pressure to proactively address the business issues of the new millennium. What was once a process that occurred within the company at a rate determined by management must now be addressed with a broader view of international economics and a worldwide marketplace. This will require a more careful analysis of vision, mission, objectives and goals as they relate to the reality of these changes in the markets. The processes of the “new” strategic management plan must become part of the daily business practices of every company. In this way, the limitations of the various schools will be minimized and the strengths will be maximized. The results will be dynamic and participatory companies that are built and grown upon a vision and mission based foundation of stability and viability, which will in turn have a positive effect on each particular business, its local community, all of the stakeholders, as well as the economies of the world.

Bibliography

Bianchi, P. 2004, The Economic Importance of Intangible Assets, Ashgate Publishing, England.

Collins, J. C. & Porras, J. I. 1996, Building Your Company’s Vision, President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Hamel, G. 2002, Leading the Revolution, Plume (Penguin Books), New York.

Kilpatrick, A. O. & Johnson, J. A. 1999, Handbook of Health Administration Policy, Marcel Dekker, New York.

Miller, D. 2003, “An Asymmetry-Based View of Advantage,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 24 no. 10, pp. 961 - 976.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. & Lampel, J. 2005, Strategic Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management, Free Press, New York.

Mulcaster, W.R. 2009, "Three Strategic Frameworks", Business Strategy Series, vol. 10 no. 1, pp. 68 – 75.

Johnson, G & Scholes, K. 2006, Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice Hall, New York.

Pettigrew, A. M., Thomas, H. & Whittington, R. 2002, Handbook of Strategy and Management, Sage Publications.

Whittington, R. & Mayer, M. 2002, The European Corporation: Strategy, Structure, and Social Science, Oxford University Press.

Willauer, B. 2005, Consensus as Key Success Factor in Strategy Making. Alle Rechte vorbehalten, Wiesbaden.