Nevertheless, Mintzberg’s model for strategy seems to contribute to the understanding of strategy in a significant way. With this approach, one can synthesize existing psychological, sociological, and decision processes literature in such a way that it is included in one’s understanding of the direction of the firm in a powerful way. It is easy to see, for example, how Kahneman and Tverssky’s idea of bounded rationality would play a role here, or Simon’s ideas of routines, internalized decision processes, etc. Further, the approach, as seen in the two examples given of Volkswagon and Vietnam, can be used to shed light on a long term evolution of an organizations interaction with a goal/problem. On the other hand, for all its power, this approach seems to have some serious methodological dilemma’s, even besides the more abstract problem mentioned earlier. The examples given are based on interpretation and speculation more than formalized or reproducible evidence. The authors seem to rely on their own integrity and intelligence to reach the correct interpretation of conscious and unconscious organism strategy. While these authors may have our respect, it is a dangerous methodology to use broadly since it provides little guidance on how and what to see as strategy. Indeed the declared strategy would often be seen as irrelevant in this analysis if actions did not back it up. The explicit research design seems not just flawed, but almost wholly lacking. On the other hand, the authors are not claiming to have finished the analysis of this methodology, just to have raised it as powerful – they cannot be expected to both raise it and fully develop it simultaneously. Since the paper’s publication, others, such as those in R-K modeling, inspired by this paper, could have attempted to fill in these methodological gaps.
Mintzberg presents us with a powerful, dynamic, and promising framework within which to see strategic moves. The descriptive nature of this framework presents some difficulties mentioned above, but provides a powerful objectivity and convergence that may be the root of an objective framework to view strategic moves that circumnavigates the mainstream normative quagmire. Wittgenstein might have admired Mintzberg’s attempt, because perhaps the student of strategy’s job is like the student of philosophy’s job, and “it can never be our job to reduce anything to anything, or to explain anything. Philosophy [and the study of strategy] really is ‘purely descriptive’” (Blue Book p18).
About the Author
Phin Upham is a New York City based investor, who is a frequent contributor to blogs like VentureCapMonthly.com. He is a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Click here to read more articles by Phin Upham.
