CONTRIBUTION AND CONTEXT OF THE POSITIONING SCHOOL
We conclude that, with its emphasis on analysis and calculation, the
positioning school has reduced its role from the formulation of strategy
to the conducting of strategic analyses in support of that process (as it
proceeds in other ways). Strategy making, as we continue to describe it
in this book, is a far richer as well as messier and more dynamic process
than the rather orderly and static one depicted in this school. Thus,
the role of positioning is to support that process, not to be it. This
school has added content to the planning school—no small achievement—
while shifting the role of planner to that of analyst. In practice,
of course, the techniques of planning never really worked for strategy
making, while those of analysis have been able to inform the process
significantly.
Strategy analysis would appear to be appropriate for strategy making
where conditions are sufficiently established and stable to offer appropriate
data which can be analyzed at a single center. Such analysis should,
however, never be allowed to dominate the process. A host of soft factors
always have to be considered alongside the hard ones. In other
words, no Gresham-like law of strategy analysis can be allowed to operate,
in practice or in research, whereby the hard data inputs drive out
the soft ones, and whereby a portfolio of positions drives out thinking
about integrated perspective. Where analyzing the numbers or even
reading the results have stopped strategists, or researchers, from getting
into the tangible world of products and customers, then the positioning
school has done strategic management a disservice.
Otherwise, the positioning school must be counted as having made
a major contribution to strategic management. This school has opened
up tremendous avenues for research and has provided a powerful set of
*Used with the permission of Bill Andrews.
122 STRATEGY SAFARI
concepts for practice. But people must build from these, developing a
synthesis that encompasses a broader perspective within this school of
thought and, more importantly, finding ways to combine it with the
views of the other schools. In other words, the positioning school must
use its powerful foundation not to restrict strategic vision but to enlarge
it.
THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SCHOOL
STRATEGY FORMATION AS A
VISIONARY PROCESS
The soul... never thinks without a picture.
—Aristotle
From the schools of prescription, we now move toward those of description,
which seek to understand the process of strategy formation
as it unfolds. We begin, however, with a school that stands in
between, and takes a view not entirely different from that of the design
school.
The design school, if not the planning and positioning schools, took
formal leadership seriously, rooting strategy formation in the mental
processes of the chief executive. That person is the "architect" of strategy.
But the design school stopped short of building a cult around that
leadership. Indeed, by stressing the need for a conceptual framework,
and by dismissing intuition, it specifically sought to avoid the softer,
more personalized and idiosyncratic elements of leadership.
The entrepreneurial school has done exactly the opposite. Not only
has this school focused the strategy formation process exclusively on
the single leader, but it has also stressed the most innate of mental
states and processes—intuition, judgment, wisdom, experience, insight.
This promotes a view of strategy as perspective, associated with
image and sense of direction, namely vision. In our Strategy Safari, we
might think of this school as the rider on the elephant.
Here, however, the strategic perspective is not so much collective or
cultural, as in some of the other schools to be discussed, as personal,
the construct of the leader. Consequently, in this school the organization
becomes responsive to the dictates of that individual—subservient
to his or her leadership. And the environment, if not exactly
subservient, becomes the terrain on which the leader maneuvers with
some ease, at least in terms of directing the organization into a protective
niche.
The most central concept of this school is vision: a mental representation
of strategy, created or at least expressed in the head of the leader.
That vision serves as both an inspiration and a sense of what needs to be
done—a guiding idea, if you like. True to its label, vision often tends to
be a kind of image more than a fully articulated plan (in words and numbers).
That leaves it flexible, so that the leader can adapt it to his or her
experiences. This suggests that entrepreneurial strategy is both deliberate
and emergent: deliberate in its broad lines and sense of direction,
emergent in its details so that these can be adapted en route. The accompanying
box develops the metaphor of strategic thinking as "seeing."
Origins In Economics
In one sense, the entrepreneurial school, like the positioning school,
grew out of economics. The entrepreneur figures prominently in neoclassical
economic theory. His or her role, however, was confined to
deciding what quantities to produce and at what prices. Competitive
dynamics took care of the rest. The rise of large companies forced
economists to modify economic theory, giving birth to oligopoly theory
(which forms the foundation of the positioning school). But even
here, the entrepreneur still had little more to do than calculate prices
and quantities.
There were economists, however, who considered this narrow view
of the entrepreneur to be a major failure of economics. Karl Marx,
oddly enough, was one of them. He lavished praise on entrepreneurs as
agents of economic and technological change, but was highly critical
of their impact on society at large. The seminal figure who brought the
entrepreneur into prominence in economic thought was Joseph
Schumpeter. To him, it was not maximization of profits that explained
corporate behavior so much as attempts
. . . to deal with a situation that is sure to change presently—an attempt by
these firms to keep on their feet, on ground that is slipping away from
under them. In other words, the problem that is usually being visualized is
how capitalism administers existing structures, whereas the relevant problem
is how it creates and destroys them. (1950:84)
Accordingly, Schumpeter introduced his famous notion of creative
destruction. This is the engine that keeps capitalism moving forward,
and the driver of that engine is the entrepreneur. For Schumpeter, the
entrepreneur is not necessarily somebody who puts up the initial capital
or invents the new product, but the person with the business idea.
Ideas are elusive, but in the hands of entrepreneurs, they become pow126
STRATEGY SAFARI
STRATEGIC THINKING AS "SEEING"
(by Henry Mintzberg, adapted from an article in Nasi, 1991)
If strategies are visions, then what role does seeing play in strategic thinking?
Three pairs of factors are presented below, together with a seventh
that knits them together into a framework of strategic thinking.
Almost everyone would agree that strategic thinking means seeing
ahead. But, you cannot see ahead unless you can see behind, because any
good vision of the future has to be rooted in an understanding of the past.
Many people also claim that strategic thinking is seeing above. It is as if
strategists should take helicopters, to be able to see the "big picture," to
distinguish "the forest from the trees." But can anyone really get the big
picture just by seeing above? The forest looks like a rug from a helicopter.
Anyone who has taken a walk in a forest knows that it doesn't look much
like that on the ground. Forestry people who stay in helicopters don't understand
much more than strategists who stay in offices.
Finding the diamond in the rough might be a better metaphor. Strategic
thinkers have to find the gem of an idea that changes their organization. And
THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SCHOOL 127
that comes from a lot of hard and messy digging. There is no big picture
ready for the seeing; each strategist has to construct his or her own. Thus,
strategic thinking is also inductive thinking: seeing above must be supported
by seeing below.
i
Seeing below.
You can, however, see ahead by seeing behind and see above by seeing
below and still not be a strategic thinker. That takes more—creativity for
one thing.
Strategic thinkers see differently from other people; they pick out the
precious gems that others miss. They challenge conventional wisdom—the
industry recipe, the traditional strategy—and thereby distinguish their organizations.
Since creative thinking has been referred to as lateral thinking,
this could be called seeing beside.
Seeing beside.
But there are many creative ideas in this world, far more than it can handle—
just visit any art gallery. And so, beside seeing beside, strategic
thinkers have to see beyond. Creative ideas have to be placed into context,
to be seen in a world that is to unfold. Seeing beyond is different from seeing
ahead. Seeing ahead foresees an expected future by constructing a
framework out of the events of the past—it intuitively forecasts discontinuities.
Seeing beyond constructs the future—it invents a world that would
not otherwise be.
s
Seeing beyond.
(continued)
128 STRATEGY SAFARI
STRATEGIC THINKING AS "SEEING" (continued;
But there remains one last element. What is the use of doing all this seeing—
ahead and behind, above and below, beside and beyond—if nothing
gets done? In other words, for a thinker to deserve the label strategic, he or
she must also see it through.
Seeing it through.
Put this all together and you get strategic thinking as seeing.
Strategic thinking as seeing.
erful as well as profitable. For those, like economists, who focus on the
tangible parts of business, such as money, machinery, and land, the
contribution of the entrepreneurs may seem baffling. Vision and creativity
are less evident. Schumpeter sou
CONTRIBUTION AND CONTEXT OF THE POSITIONING SCHOOLWe conclude that, with its emphasis on analysis and calculation, thepositioning school has reduced its role from the formulation of strategyto the conducting of strategic analyses in support of that process (as itproceeds in other ways). Strategy making, as we continue to describe itin this book, is a far richer as well as messier and more dynamic processthan the rather orderly and static one depicted in this school. Thus,the role of positioning is to support that process, not to be it. Thisschool has added content to the planning school—no small achievement—while shifting the role of planner to that of analyst. In practice,of course, the techniques of planning never really worked for strategymaking, while those of analysis have been able to inform the processsignificantly.Strategy analysis would appear to be appropriate for strategy makingwhere conditions are sufficiently established and stable to offer appropriatedata which can be analyzed at a single center. Such analysis should,however, never be allowed to dominate the process. A host of soft factorsalways have to be considered alongside the hard ones. In otherwords, no Gresham-like law of strategy analysis can be allowed to operate,in practice or in research, whereby the hard data inputs drive outthe soft ones, and whereby a portfolio of positions drives out thinkingabout integrated perspective. Where analyzing the numbers or evenreading the results have stopped strategists, or researchers, from gettinginto the tangible world of products and customers, then the positioningschool has done strategic management a disservice.Otherwise, the positioning school must be counted as having madea major contribution to strategic management. This school has openedup tremendous avenues for research and has provided a powerful set of*Used with the permission of Bill Andrews.122 STRATEGY SAFARIconcepts for practice. But people must build from these, developing asynthesis that encompasses a broader perspective within this school ofthought and, more importantly, finding ways to combine it with theviews of the other schools. In other words, the positioning school mustuse its powerful foundation not to restrict strategic vision but to enlargeit.THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SCHOOLSTRATEGY FORMATION AS AVISIONARY PROCESSThe soul... never thinks without a picture.—AristotleFrom the schools of prescription, we now move toward those of description,which seek to understand the process of strategy formationas it unfolds. We begin, however, with a school that stands inbetween, and takes a view not entirely different from that of the designschool.The design school, if not the planning and positioning schools, tookformal leadership seriously, rooting strategy formation in the mentalprocesses of the chief executive. That person is the "architect" of strategy.But the design school stopped short of building a cult around thatleadership. Indeed, by stressing the need for a conceptual framework,and by dismissing intuition, it specifically sought to avoid the softer,more personalized and idiosyncratic elements of leadership.The entrepreneurial school has done exactly the opposite. Not onlyhas this school focused the strategy formation process exclusively onthe single leader, but it has also stressed the most innate of mentalstates and processes—intuition, judgment, wisdom, experience, insight.This promotes a view of strategy as perspective, associated withimage and sense of direction, namely vision. In our Strategy Safari, wemight think of this school as the rider on the elephant.Here, however, the strategic perspective is not so much collective orcultural, as in some of the other schools to be discussed, as personal,the construct of the leader. Consequently, in this school the organizationbecomes responsive to the dictates of that individual—subservientto his or her leadership. And the environment, if not exactlysubservient, becomes the terrain on which the leader maneuvers withsome ease, at least in terms of directing the organization into a protectiveniche.The most central concept of this school is vision: a mental representationof strategy, created or at least expressed in the head of the leader.That vision serves as both an inspiration and a sense of what needs to bedone—a guiding idea, if you like. True to its label, vision often tends tobe a kind of image more than a fully articulated plan (in words and numbers).That leaves it flexible, so that the leader can adapt it to his or herexperiences. This suggests that entrepreneurial strategy is both deliberateand emergent: deliberate in its broad lines and sense of direction,emergent in its details so that these can be adapted en route. The accompanyingbox develops the metaphor of strategic thinking as "seeing."Origins In EconomicsIn one sense, the entrepreneurial school, like the positioning school,grew out of economics. The entrepreneur figures prominently in neoclassicaleconomic theory. His or her role, however, was confined todeciding what quantities to produce and at what prices. Competitivedynamics took care of the rest. The rise of large companies forcedeconomists to modify economic theory, giving birth to oligopoly theory(which forms the foundation of the positioning school). But evenhere, the entrepreneur still had little more to do than calculate pricesand quantities.There were economists, however, who considered this narrow viewof the entrepreneur to be a major failure of economics. Karl Marx,oddly enough, was one of them. He lavished praise on entrepreneurs asagents of economic and technological change, but was highly criticalof their impact on society at large. The seminal figure who brought theentrepreneur into prominence in economic thought was JosephSchumpeter. To him, it was not maximization of profits that explainedcorporate behavior so much as attempts. . . to deal with a situation that is sure to change presently—an attempt bythese firms to keep on their feet, on ground that is slipping away fromunder them. In other words, the problem that is usually being visualized ishow capitalism administers existing structures, whereas the relevant problemis how it creates and destroys them. (1950:84)Accordingly, Schumpeter introduced his famous notion of creativedestruction. This is the engine that keeps capitalism moving forward,and the driver of that engine is the entrepreneur. For Schumpeter, theentrepreneur is not necessarily somebody who puts up the initial capitalor invents the new product, but the person with the business idea.Ideas are elusive, but in the hands of entrepreneurs, they become pow126STRATEGY SAFARISTRATEGIC THINKING AS "SEEING"(by Henry Mintzberg, adapted from an article in Nasi, 1991)If strategies are visions, then what role does seeing play in strategic thinking?Three pairs of factors are presented below, together with a sevenththat knits them together into a framework of strategic thinking.Almost everyone would agree that strategic thinking means seeingahead. But, you cannot see ahead unless you can see behind, because anygood vision of the future has to be rooted in an understanding of the past.Many people also claim that strategic thinking is seeing above. It is as ifstrategists should take helicopters, to be able to see the "big picture," todistinguish "the forest from the trees." But can anyone really get the bigpicture just by seeing above? The forest looks like a rug from a helicopter.Anyone who has taken a walk in a forest knows that it doesn't look muchlike that on the ground. Forestry people who stay in helicopters don't understandmuch more than strategists who stay in offices.Finding the diamond in the rough might be a better metaphor. Strategicthinkers have to find the gem of an idea that changes their organization. AndTHE ENTREPRENEURIAL SCHOOL 127that comes from a lot of hard and messy digging. There is no big pictureready for the seeing; each strategist has to construct his or her own. Thus,strategic thinking is also inductive thinking: seeing above must be supportedby seeing below. iSeeing below.You can, however, see ahead by seeing behind and see above by seeingbelow and still not be a strategic thinker. That takes more—creativity forone thing.Strategic thinkers see differently from other people; they pick out theprecious gems that others miss. They challenge conventional wisdom—theindustry recipe, the traditional strategy—and thereby distinguish their organizations.Since creative thinking has been referred to as lateral thinking,this could be called seeing beside.Seeing beside.But there are many creative ideas in this world, far more than it can handle—just visit any art gallery. And so, beside seeing beside, strategicthinkers have to see beyond. Creative ideas have to be placed into context,to be seen in a world that is to unfold. Seeing beyond is different from seeingahead. Seeing ahead foresees an expected future by constructing aframework out of the events of the past—it intuitively forecasts discontinuities.Seeing beyond constructs the future—it invents a world that wouldnot otherwise be.sSeeing beyond.(continued)128 STRATEGY SAFARISTRATEGIC THINKING AS "SEEING" (continued;But there remains one last element. What is the use of doing all this seeing—ahead and behind, above and below, beside and beyond—if nothinggets done? In other words, for a thinker to deserve the label strategic, he orshe must also see it through.Seeing it through.Put this all together and you get strategic thinking as seeing.Strategic thinking as seeing.erful as well as profitable. For those, like economists, who focus on thetangible parts of business, such as money, machinery, and land, thecontribution of the entrepreneurs may seem baffling. Vision and creativityare less evident. Schumpeter sou
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..