Planning strategy was once predominant in the 1960s and 1970s. Although it faltered in the 1980s and 1990s, it still continues to be a significant influence today. While the fact that many industries continued to experience turbulent was the main reason of the fall of planning strategy, it also accounted for the rise of the emergent strategy. Entrepreneurial organizations increasingly rely on emergent strategy development rather than formal planning processes (Fletcher & Harris, 2002). This literature review will attempt to discuss the debate over the prescriptive and emergent approaches for developing strategy followed by the main strengths and weaknesses of the article.
The article uses experiences of a craftsman and a potter to develop an argument that the crafting image better captures the process by which effective strategies come to be than the formal planning (Mintzberg, 1987). Mintzberg stresses a strategy is actualized through the processes of learning, negotiation, and proposes that the distinction between planning and implementation is untenable (Mintzberg, 1990).
“Openness of emergent strategy enables management to act before everything is fully understood-to respond to an evolving reality rather than having to focus on a stable fantasy.” (Mintzberg, Waters 1985). Emergent strategy is therefore described as a trial and error approach which allows amendments, rather than one fix objective, as in prescriptive strategy (Downs et al 2003). Mintzberg thus believes that the errors made when crafting strategies could become opportunities (Mintzberg 1987). As seen in the example of Honda, emergent strategy works well in uncertain times and more difficult market conditions. Also, It can be perceived that emergent strategy allows a more flexible approach than the planning system as a whole, it allows for a more creative and responsive process. Idenburg (1993)