Is It Truly Possible for a Firm to Have a Strategy in the Absence of Intention?

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

In today’s 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.

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

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.