1) Is it truly possible for a firm to have a strategy in the absence of intention?

In todays world strategy plays a dynamic role in the growth and development of new and
existing firms. Strategy is used in many ways to compete in the markets and set a company apart
from another in how they intend to conduct their business. These intended business strategies are
molded upon the success of the firm and the outcomes they achieve, however is the strategy of a
firm really based on intention or can strategy be utilized or even sustained in its absence.
There are many ways to describe strategy in today's society. Strategy can be a plan, a
method, or sequence of maneuvers used to obtain a desired outcome. But can these plans or
methods survive without a desired intent or intention? In the case study provided by Henry
Mintzberg, strategy is broken down into five different concepts, as a plan, ploy, pattern, position,
and perspective. In each of these concepts, strategy is conceived with and without intention,
though the underlying fact remains that at some point an intention was developed prior to the
conception of a strategy.
For example, Mintzberg mentions a quote about GM's strategy to dabble in all aspects of
a market till it sees a potential gain. He further questions this practice as a pattern or behavior of
the corporation and not an actual strategy. Here we can see that GM did indeed have an intention
prior to this strategy of watching the market before it's direction is conceived. It may have started
out as a behavior or pattern, but once acted on as a common practice to procure a direction
became an intention. Without this intention, there could not be a future idea or action plan, both
describing a "Strategy", for GM to follow.
Let's take a look at the behavior of a firm on how it is conducting its business. On a day
to day operation, a firm may take a course of action that allows it to obtain its goals. Without
consciousness, the firm may act in a new manner that leads to the desired outcome with
additional benefits. Here a change in behavior or pattern has led to an unrealized market strategy
or new pattern resulting in new benefits for the firm. This may seem as though it was not the
intention of the firm, but indeed was conceived due to a prior intention, to obtain firm goals. This
prior intention or pattern to achieve a desired outcome was ultimately the underlying factor in a
new strategy.
The purpose or desire of a firm can exist solely in the absence of strategy. The want to
compete and obtain a goal may develop patterns and an overall process that a firm may use to
reach these goals, though at its core an intention was first developed. The process or patterns of
actions, and even behaviors are all part of a way to reach that goal, but all start with the intention
of obtaining a desired outcome. It is this desired outcome that can develop a strategy or even a
strategy that can help develop an outcome, but is all based on the initial intention. Thus a strategy
cannot be formed or realized in the absence of intention.

2) The author says that it pays to manage the details and let the strategies emerge. What is
your opinion?

TEAM #1

TEAM REPORT #1

9/13/16

The management of strategy orientation and the establishment of direction for an

organization on whether to manage the details of strategy or look at an overall picture is
dependent on several different business factors:

Competitive environment and position

Internal factors
Organizational resources
Core competencies

These factors do not dominate the scale in deciding which direction an organization
should take, rather it is the combination of these elements that create the decision. In my
opinion, managing the details and letting the strategies emerge is successful in a slow paced low
competition business environment. In this case, where the environment is not constantly
changing, it would be worthwhile to focus on the short term view. The short term view is
dominated by the management of the details of the daily operation. This results in the
formulation of a strategy created by the pattern of a historical stream of actions. This type of
direction that is formulated through the past actions works well for a niche market or for a
demand that lacks customization and flexibility but is not ideal for more competitive and fast
passed markets.
When customer demand is rapidly changing, and competition is fierce, paying too much
attention to the details and just waiting for the strategy to emerge is a recipe for failure. In this
type of environment, it is important not to get dragged into the details but instead remain focused
on the bigger picture and broader direction of the market.
A good example of this that I think of is the old mechanical typewriter market. During
that time there were many manufacturers and suppliers of typewriters, one of which was IBM.
Most companies were so focused on the production of mechanical typewriters that they failed to
be strategically prepared to accommodate for the new digital age. IBM on the other hand was
not just paying attention to the details and waiting for a strategy to emerge, rather they looked
ahead and created a strategy, which differentiated them from their competition and allowed them
to succeed. If IBM were emerged in the details like the rest of the mechanical typewriter
manufacturers, they would have also had the same perspective as them, which would add little
value or competitive advantage. IBM stepped back and was able to see everything from a
different perspective. As a result of this new perspective, IBM was able to create a strategy from
a greater distance, a higher altitude, and was able to see more. This allowed them to catch
mistakes, discover, and add aspects to their strategy that their competition did not have. This
broader view allowed IBM to survive by gaining a tremendous advantage over their competition
that went out of business.
In my opinion, the best method is to be flexible with the strategy formulation and
implementation. While it is important to be disciplined in creating and following a preplanned
strategy, it is equally important to be flexible enough to recognize and adopt emerging strategies
as you move forward.

TEAM #1

9/13/16

TEAM REPORT #1

3) In what ways are the five Ps of strategy related? Does the authors answer to this make
sense? Are there other ways that they fit together?
Mintzberg begins the article by stating that though strategy has traditionally been defined
by a single definition, it needs to be recognized explicitly by its multiple definitions as plan,
ploy, pattern, position and perspective. His explanation of strategy defined as plan, ploy and
pattern is satisfactory. It is clear why a strategy can be a plan or ploy to achieve a set goal.
Additionally, he explains that strategies need to incorporate the resulting effect and as such it can
be realized as a pattern. For example, a business approaches become a pattern of action that
becomes their strategy. In my opinion, Mintzberg provides sufficient interrelations between the
various Ps of strategy which are quite convincing. Perspective can be seen as plan but also as
giving rise to plans. Similarly, patterns can give rise to plans with an overall perspective.
Furthermore, Hedberg and Jonsons notion of strategies being an integrated set of an
ideas and constructs is proof that perspectives can mold decisions in to a stream of patterns.
Mintzberg illustrates how perspective, plan, ploy pattern and position can all be interrelated by
means of conventional hierarchy, formalizing on emergent strategy within a perspective, pattern
producing perspective and perspective constraining a shift in position. He does so with the well
explained examples of Hondas motorcycle market in America and McDonalds Egg McMuffin
product.
In summary, Mintzberg adequately explains how the five Ps of strategy are inter-related.
While each part of plan, ploy, pattern, position and perspective refer back to the core meaning of
strategy; it is important to realize how each of the five Ps can give rise to a novel core strategy
for a corporation. By that, I mean to say that patterns can give rise to different perspectives
which can lead to changes in market position and therefore a new plan/ploy or strategy.
Lastly, I believe it is best to see the five 5 Ps as being interrelated by web rather than in a
hierarchical manner as depicted by Mintzberg. This view better describes how each definition
can have an impact on the
other and as a result
impact the overall strategy.
Plan

Positio

Ploy

Strateg
y

Patter

Perspectiv

TEAM #1

TEAM REPORT #1

9/13/16

4) Author claims that operational effectiveness is not strategy. What does the author mean
by that?
Porter describes operational effectiveness (OE) as performing all of the roles that make
competitive advantage (creating, producing, selling, and delivering a product or service) better
over time. Porter cites Japanese auto manufacturing as one example of the positive effect a focus
on continuous improvement can have on becoming more efficient and lean. He goes on to
explain that operational effectiveness is a process that can be emulated; thereby losing the
competitive advantage it once provided. This has played out in the American automotive industry
as they shifted towards more of a Just in Time build and delivery model to reduce waste and cost.
Additionally, their focus on quality has helped to erode the gap seen most prevalently between
the Asian and American auto companies in the 1980s and 1990s. This example demonstrates the
fleeting and relatively short term nature of operational effectiveness.
Porter explains that strategic positioning creates an advantage over competitors that can
be longer lasting by preserving what is unique about a firm. This uniqueness must fit within the
firm's culture and vision to be successful over the competition. OE is generally not enough to
create long term advantage for a firm because it can be so quickly copied. Drivers of this listed in
the article include the proliferation in use of consultants and outsourcing to third party offshore
companies. Strategy is defined as what differentiates companies from others in the marketplace.
The example provided is Southwest, who actually provides different services than its competitors
(flying short routes and avoiding major airports). Other companies listed in the article that
employ different strategies than their competitors include Ikea, Vanguard and Jiffy Lube.
Given that the main differentiator between operational effectiveness and strategy is
uniqueness, there are several other companies that employ a unique strategy within their
industry. One that has grown in prominence in recent years is Home Goods. Home Goods has a
unique strategy in the marketplace. They buy remnants from other retailers and sell them at a
discounted price. They employ a marketing communications plan that highlights their strategy
and encourages customers to come treasure hunting versus buying from a furniture and
accessories retailer who stocks large quantities of the same few products.

5) Does the reading offer a coherent account of competitive advantage? What does the
author have to say about the limitability of strategy?
Yes, it does. The article explains in a well-structured way why having competitive
advantage and operational effectiveness today is not enough for a company to be successful. Best
practices can be easily copied by competitors in the same industry. The more benchmarking
companies do, the more similar they become among each other making it more difficult for them
to stay ahead of the game. The key is to create strategic positioning to achieve sustainable
competitive advantage, by doing different activities from competitors or doing similar activities
in different ways.

TEAM #1

TEAM REPORT #1

9/13/16

According to the author, rivals can quickly copy any best practices from other companies,
making their competitive advantage just a temporary phase. On the other hand, having
operational effectiveness is also not sufficient since companies often fail to reflect their gains on
productivity, quality and cycle time into profitability, mainly because companies confused
operational effectiveness with strategy.
The article talks about how Japanese companies two decades ago achieved excellent
operational effectiveness but since they lack of a solid strategy they were not able to sustain their
competitive advantage in the long run. Honda, for instance, took a remarkable risk when
introducing a cheaper version of the Civic in the United States due to the pressure the company
was getting to reduce cost and maintain their operational effectiveness.
What does the author have to say about the limitability of strategy? (Porter)
Strategic position refers to the process of choosing what activities the company will
perform and how these activities will relate among them. By having these trade-offs, companies
are limiting what they can do; the difference here is that they do it on purpose and with a welldefined strategy in mind.
By choosing the right activities to perform and their relationship, the company will create
a strategic position with activities that fit and reinforce each other. This particular set of activities
among the different department in the company will create its sustainable competitive advantage,
making it difficult for its competitors to copy it. Rivals will only see some of the activities
outputs from the outside, but the whole system and its interaction will remain within the
company.