Mintzberg (1994)

[Miina Hunker]

IanWilson in the leadarticle argues convincingly that in this period of rapid change we should shift fromstrategic planning to strategic thinking and strategic management. Henry Mintzberg (1994),in an article appearing in the latest issue of the Harvard Business Review titled"The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning," states that the label strategicplanning should be dropped because strategic planning has impeded strategic thinking.Mintzberg's argument is as follows:strategic planning is about analysis (i.e., breaking down a goal into steps, designing howthe steps may be implemented, and estimating the anticipated consequences of each step).Strategic thinking is about synthesis, about using intuition and creativity to formulatean integrated perspective, a vision, of where the organization should be heading. Theproblem is that strategic planning proponents believe that analysis encompasses synthesis;that in the best practice, strategic planning, strategic thinking, and strategy making aresynonymous. This belief, in turn, rests on the assumptions that prediction is possible andthat the strategy-making process can be formalized.Mintzberg argues, and Wilson wouldprobably agree, that predicting seasons of the year is simple, but predictingdiscontinuities, such as a technological innovation, is difficult, if not impossible.Moreover, Mintzberg maintains, formalizing a strategy implies a sequence from analysisthrough procedure to action. Certainly we do think in order to act; but also we sometimesact in order to think. We experiment; those experiments that work converge into patternsthat become strategies. To Mintzberg, the essence of strategy making is the process oflearning as we act. Formal systems can never internalize, comprehend, or synthesize hardinformation. Thus planning can not "learn." Mintzberg says, "Strategies candevelop inadvertently, without the conscious intention of senior management, often througha process of learning. . . . Learning inevitably plays a, if not the,crucial role in the development of novel strategies (p. 111)." Mintzberg sees strategic planning aspracticed, as strategic programming—articulating and elaborating strategies thatalready exist. When managers comprehend the difference between planning and strategicthinking, it is possible to return to what the strategy-making process should be:"capturing what the manager learns from all sources (both the soft insights from hisor her personal experiences and the experiences of others throughout the organization andthe hard data from market research and the like) and then synthesizing that learning intoa vision of the direction that the business should pursue (p. 107)." Mintzberg does not mean get rid of theplanners. Instead, those with planning responsibilities should make their contributionaround the strategy-making process rather than inside it. Planners should supply the datathat strategic thinking requires, should act as catalysts who support strategy-making byaiding and encouraging managers to think strategically, and should help specify theimplementation steps needed to carry out the strategic vision. Mintzberg distinguishes between plannersand managers. Planners do not have authority to make commitments, nor do they havemanagers' access to that "soft" information critical to strategy making.Managers are under time pressure to make decisions, to act, not reflect; they may overlookimportant analytical information. Planners have the time and the inclination to analyze.Their role should be to pose the right questions rather than to find the right answers,opening complex issues for thoughtful consideration. Planners should function as strategyfinders, analysts, and catalysts. Planners should encourage managers to think about thefuture in creative ways, to question conventional wisdom, to raise difficult questions, tochallenge conventional assumptions, and to help themselves out of conceptual ruts.Mintzberg cites Arie de Geus (1988), onetime head of planning at Royal Dutch Shell, in aclassic article titled "Planning as Learning," as arguing that the real purposeof planning is to change the mental models that decision makers carry in their heads.What are the implications of the Wilsonand Mintzberg arguments for college and university leaders? First, presidents,chancellors, provosts, and deans should focus on strategic thinking and strategicmanagement, on developing a shared vision for their school. Their colleagues with"planning" either in their title or in their assigned responsibilities shouldfunction in the role of planners as described by Mintzberg. They should not be told,"Draft the plan." Such commandments usually result in another document for thearchives.There are a number of tools available toplanners to assist them in helping senior administrators think strategically. Ian Wilsonpoints to visioning and scenarios. Perhaps Ian will present a seminar through the UNCInstitute for Academic and Professional Leadership on these topics. On the Horizon itself can serve asa tool. Our editorial board is charged with identifying signals of change in specificsectors of the macroenvironment (social, technological, economic, environmental, andpolitical) and suggesting their implications for higher education. Our lead articles focusmore broadly on what is on the horizon that can affect colleges and universities, as doour pieces in Commentary. The Situation Room focuses on emerging issues and on issuesmanagement techniques. We have begun a new section in this issue: The Internet. In thenext issue, we will began another section: Methods and Techniques. In the April issue forexample, Mark Champion and James Rieley will describe their experience with environmentalscanning and with Hoshin planning respectively as two approaches to effective planning. If you wish to contribute an article,please send me a 800-1200 word manuscript for our review. As always we welcome yourcomments and suggestions as to how we can make On the Horizon more useful to you.

LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.

I have taken to thinking of Patterns as 'the way we do things around here' and so would be essentially related to organizational culture. That's what I thought it meant; and in ITIL, it probably does. However, I have taken a bit of trouble to find the Mintzberg reference.

Here it is ....

For Mintzberg (1994) strategy is a word that we define differently than we practice. For many, the definition of strategy is "a plan," but in actuality strategy appears as a pattern that blends intended responses with responses that emerge out of the changing environment. (The power and importance of emergent strategy increases when compared to the fact that less than ten percent of intended strategies are successfully implemented.)

Strategy may appear as a plan to some, but to others the term is used to describe a position, "namely the determination of particular products in particular markets" . For others, strategy implies a perspective or concept of doing business. This last often speaks volumes to the organization's values and culture.

Less positively in his list of "p" terms to define strategy, Mintzberg suggests that strategy is used to mean ploy, or a "specific maneuver intended to outwit an opponent or competitor"

So, as you can see, in Mintzberg's mind the 4th P was actually Ploy. Now to me, that makes much more sense in terms of strategy. A ploy is an attempt to gain a competitive advantage by means of taking some identifiable action.

As you can also see, Mintzberg does refer to Patterns, but his meaning is slightly different to ITIL's, in that he is contrasting emergent strategy with planned strategy in his use of the term.

This does not represent a great problem, as such, but perhaps it does help alittle to understand why people tend to struggle with the concept of Patterns being an intended strategy.

3a8082e126