The concept of strategic management is
concerned with how organisations ensure their survival in the market and how
they achieve their goals (Drejer, 2002). The strategic management concept is
wide and complex and has in most cases not been comprehensively defined using
any of the concepts developed in the market. Each of the strategic management
concepts provides insights into specific dimensions. For instance, the
Mintzberg’s 5 Ps concepts provide insights on strategy by exploring alternative
ways of viewing it (Drejer, 2002). Other strategic development models such as
the Ansoff Matrix are dedicated to the growth of the organisation and how
growth strategies can be implemented (Grant, 2007). The Core Competencies model
and the resource based view perspectives are on the other hand focused on the
internal analysis of the organisation with the aim of establishing which
resources can be used by the organisation to gain a competitive advantage in
the market (Grant, 2007). Other concepts provide detailed analyses of the
levels of strategy in the organisations with proper emphasis on the importance
of each level of strategy and how organisations enhance their effectiveness.
The same applies to the various models (Porter’s 5-forces model and the PESTEL
model) which have been dedicated to the analysis of the external environment
with an aim to establish the strategic position of the organisation and how the
organisation can thrive in such environments (Haberberg and Rieple, 2007). The
Mintzberg’s 5 Ps for strategy provide useful insights that a strategic manager
could use in the strategic management process and ensure successful achievement
of the desired goals. The following sections of the paper are dedicated to the
study of concept with a view to determine whether or not it presents a complete
view of the strategic management of organisations.
Mintzberg’s 5 Ps for strategy are
alternative approaches to strategy and provide useful insights on the practical
dimensions of the strategic management process (Mintzberg, 1987). The 5 Ps can
be listed as Plan, Ploy, Pattern, Position, and Perspective and are as
explained below:
The view of strategy as a plan implies
that strategic is a consciously intended and developed deliberately as a means
of dealing with a given desire or in reaction to a set of factors (Mintzberg,
1987). This implies that the strategies are devised well before the actions are
implemented and that they are intentionally derived. Mintzberg also held the
view that strategy can be a ploy; where a ploy means a manoeuvre aimed at
outwitting the competition. This view requires that the strategic manager has a
good idea of what the competition is planning and then taking pre-emptive
measures to ensure that their organisations are not adversely affected by such
moves (IFM, 2011). For instance, a firm could buy patent rights to stop a rival
from using the same technologies to launch new products in the market. The
third P refers to Pattern and it implies that organisations can unconsciously
implement a strategy by consistently repeating the same activities which end up
providing them with a strategic advantage (IFM, 2011). Unlike the plan, these
are unintentional and are realised after the patterns have been effectively
implemented.
The view of strategy as a position
refers to the idea of establishing the environmental factors and establishing
the position of the organisation in the environment (Mintzberg, 1987). This
implies that the environmental factors that are relevant to an organisation
must be analysed and actions to ensure survival or success devised
appropriately. According to Mintzberg, strategy can also be viewed as a
perception (Mintzberg, 1987). This implies that the strategy defines how the
organisation perceives the world and it is comprised of the shared visions of the
members of the organisations as expressed by their goals and objectives
(Wheelen, 2008).
Insights into the completeness of
the Mintzberg’s 5 Ps for strategy in strategic management
The concept of strategic management is
too wide to b covered comprehensively by a single model. The Mintzberg’s model
paints an incomplete perspective of the planning process by failure to mention
the importance of the various levels of strategic management. The organisation
can have strategic management conducted at the corporate level, business unit
level and the operational levels (Wheelen, 2008). The corporate level
strategies deal with the overall vision of the organisation while the technical
level of strategy translates these overall visions into actionable steps (Grant,
2007). The functional strategies on the other hand translate the resultant
strategies into routine activities within the organisation (Wheelen, 2008). The
strategic management process which starts from the analysis of the environment
to the generation of strategies and the implementation of the same has not been
mentioned comprehensively.
While satisfying the threshold of
providing the basic information, the Mintzberg’s model fails paint a complete
picture on the various strategic options available to the organisation and the
circumstances under which each of the strategies can be made more effective.
The Porter’s generic strategies concept makes a determination of the most
suitable strategies that organisations can take when faced with different conditions
(Johnson, Whittington and Scholes, 2011). For instance, an organisation with
ways of minimising its production cost is better off embracing the cost
leadership strategies while one with access to superior technologies would be
better off pursuing the product differentiation strategy (Johnson, Whittington
and Scholes, 2011). One with neither of the two advantages on the other hand
should embrace the concept of value addition through branding and marketing to
create a brand premium for its products (QuickMBA, 2011). This model goes on to
demonstrate how effectively organisations can compete irrespective of their
weaknesses.
The Mintzberg’s model also makes a brief
mention of the importance of evaluating the environment when coming up with
strategies. However, this brief mention is insufficient in providing a reliable
framework within which the organisation can thoroughly evaluate the environment
and come up with corresponding strategies. The PESTEL model and the SWOT
analysis models come in handy to compensate this deficiency. The PESTEL model
is useful in analysing the macro environment and basically describes the
conditions in the national economy (De Wit and Meyer, 2010). In the
increasingly globalised world, the model can be applied to the analysis of the
global economy (De Wit and Meyer, 2010). The PESTEL model analyses factors such
as the Political factors (which describe issues relating to governance and the
political forces in an economy); economic factors (referring to issues such as
economic growth, purchasing power of customers and others); socio-economic
factors (describing demographic structures, tastes and preferences, societal
dominant concerns, as well societal perceptions towards organisations);
technological factors (describing the level of technological advancement in an
economy); environmental factors , and the legal factors-describing the existing
laws that affect the conduct of business (De Wit and Meyer, 2010). The analysis
of these factors enables the formulation and implementation of strategies that
can easily help in the achievement of the organisational goals.
The Mintzberg’s model has also been
variously faulted on its emphasis on the monitoring of the competitors’
movements without paying attention to other factors in the industry. Strategic
management experts propose the use of a more balanced approach of industry
analysis which considers the actions of the competitors are just one of the
components of the industry (Grant, 2007). One such strategic tool is the
Porter’s 5 forces model for the analysis of the industry. This model helps in
analysing the industry and it focuses on the level of rivalry among the
competitors, the threat of entry into the industry, the threat of substitutes
for the organisation’s products and services, the buyer power, and the supplier
power (Wheelen, 2008). This balanced view ensures that the organisation can
come up with reliable strategies that have factored in all the relevant
elements in the industry in question. Whereas the Mintzberg’s model does not
disallow the use of this comprehensive approach, it provides scanty details
which paint an incomplete view on how the ‘position’ of the organisation should
be analysed.
The Mintzberg’s model fails to pursue
the question of core competencies in a manner that creates a better
understanding of the same. The resource based view of the organisation uses the
VRIN framework to explain how the organisation can ensure that their core
competencies are used in creating a competitive advantage for the organisation
(Drejer, 2002). According to the VRIN framework, the resources possessed by the
organisation must be valuable, inimitable, rare, and non-substitutable for them
to be used to create a competitive advantage (Drejer, 2002). Being valuable
implies that the benefit offered by a resource must be higher than the cost of
acquiring or maintaining it while being rare implies that the resource is not
easily available. Inimitability implies that the resource in question cannot be
replicated by competition while the non-substitutable attribute implies that
the functionality of the given resource cannot be achieved by the use of other
resources at the disposal of the competition (Barney, 2010).
Mintzberg’s 5 Ps for strategy cannot
stand alone when it comes to the analysis of the strategic capabilities of the
organisation. Models such as the SWOT analysis model must be used in order to
ensure that the organisation is well equipped in determining its internal
strengths and weaknesses and how these can be exploited to advance
organisational goals (Barney, 2010). An organisation’s strengths are the
internal capabilities that can be harnessed to yield a strategic advantage for
the organisation. Weaknesses on the other hand are factors that make the
organisation vulnerable to the competition. The knowledge of strengths and
weaknesses enable the organisation in question to come up with strategies that
harness potential from their strengths while diminishing the impact of their
weaknesses (Haberberg and Rieple, 2007). Such knowledge also enables the
organisations to come up with ways of either eliminating their weaknesses or
turning them into sources of strength (Haberberg and Rieple, 2007). For
instance, an organisation whose weakness is the reliance on the use of natural
hands may suffer from its ability to automate its processes and reap the
benefits of scale. However, such an organisation can make use of this expertise
to come up with unique designs that sell at a premium and hence generate
remarkable profit margins. The SWOT analysis model is also important in
identifying the opportunities and threats in the environment where the
organisation can either make use of their strengths to exploit the arising
opportunities or come up with ways of minimising the damage brought about by
arising threats (Barney, 2010).
As can be seen from the alternative
views of strategy and the strategic management process, there are several
points of view that have not been factored in or completely ignored by the
Mintzberg’s 5 Ps for strategy. This is not to say that the Mintzberg’s model is
not useful in strategy. Contrary to this, it must be appreciated that this
model provides useful insights on strategy and how organisations can pursue
strategic management to enhance their survival in the market. With an emphasis
on the five elements of Plan, Ploy, Patterns, Position and Perception; the
model covers the main aspects of strategy and the strategic management process.
However, these processes have been mentioned in brief and in a manner that
fails to bring out the complexity of the specific dimensions. For instance, the
analysis of an organisation’s resources must be done comprehensively and this
may be difficult to achieve in the absence of the relevant strategic models
such as the SWOT and the VRIN frameworks. The same applies to the analysis of a
firm’s environment where it is necessary to follow the provided frameworks to
ensure that such an analysis is comprehensive and reliable.
In conclusion, it must be appreciated
that the Mintzberg’s model provides great insights into strategy and the
strategic management process. However, the picture painted by the same is
largely incomplete and other strategic concepts must be pursued to bridge the
information gap.
Barney, J.B., 2010. Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage. 3rd Ed.
Boston: Prentice Hall
De Wit, B., Meyer, R., 2010. Strategy: Process, Content, Context: An International Perspective. 4th
Ed. Cengage Learning
Drejer, A., 2002. Strategic Management and Core Competencies: theory and application.London:
Quorum Books
Grant, R.M., 2007. Contemporary Strategy Analysis: text and cases. 7th Ed.
Chichester: J Wiley & Sons
Haberberg, A., Rieple, A., 2007. Strategic Management Theory and Application.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
IFM, 2011. Mintzberg’s
5 Ps for strategy. (Online) Available at:
http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/dstools/paradigm/5pstrat.html (Accessed 14
November 2011)
Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., 2011. Exploring strategy: Text and Cases. 9th
Ed. Harlow: Pearson
Mintzberg, H., 1987. The Strategy Concept 1: Five Ps for Strategy. (Online) Available
at:
http://www.mbakku.com/STD/CourseSyllabus1-52/1_52/sm-Tanai/5ps%20of%20strategy.pdf
(Accessed 14 November 2011)
QuickMBA, 2011. Porter’s
Generic Strategies. (Online) Available at:
http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/generic.shtml (Accessed 14 November 2011)
Wheelen, T.L., 2008. Strategic Management and Business Policy Concepts. 11th
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
This blog post critically discusses the assertion that Mintzberg's 5 Ps for strategy (1987) presents an incomplete view of the Topic of strategic management.
ReplyDelete