…the history of strategy as a struggle between two definitions, strategy as positioning and strategy as organizational learning. The positioning school, led by Harvard’s Porter, sees strategy making as the choice of where you want to compete, in what industry and from what spot within that industry, and how—on price, with distinctive products, or by finding a niche. The organizational-learning school, by contrast, maintains that no company that’s already up and running can choose its strategy as if it had a blank slate. Almost gleeful in its derision of the positionists—at least its leading spokesman, McGill’s Henry Mintzberg is—the learning school also argues that virtually no strategy ever works as originally planned. The point, they say, is for the company to set off in one direction, learn from the response it gets from markets and competitors, and then adjust accordingly.
Get Infrequent Email Updates
- RT @auren: Agreed. Turns out that most things that deal with people are harder than math. https://t.co/yBzAqDsXGZ, Mar 21
- @romanmars Why? Seems like this diminishes the knock-on effect from other entrepreneurs who would want to copy Uber and grow in Oakland..., Mar 20
- @patrickc It's a good essay indeed. I cite it in my own spin on the topic -- "Happy Ambition and Status Cocaine": https://t.co/gQjOfjuuOU, Mar 20
Subscribe to BlogGet posts sent to you by email when they're published.