Mintzberg Schools - Strategy Safari

971 Words4 Pages
It can be argued that some of Mintzberg schools are more analytical in their focus, whilst others are more organizational in their focus. Which school focus on analysis, which focus on the organization? Why? I will start by introducing the Mintzberg schools that are more analytical and continue with the ones that are more organizational in their focus. In the case of most schools it was easy to define which focus they had but some of them have significant characteristics of both focuses, and not all of them fit very well with either focus. The design school discusses internal capabilities and external possibilities of the organization and analysing them to determine a suitable strategy. The SWOT-analysis is related to this school. It has therefore a more analytical focus. The analysis made on the organization and its environment result in alternative strategies. According to the basic design school model “once alternative strategies have been determined, the next step in the model is to evaluate them and choose the best one” (Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. & Lampel, J., 2001) Formal analysis is the central issue in the planning school. Also this school focuses clearly on analysis. Mintzberg et al (2001) states that planners “can act as analysts”. The planners are analysts, which can be either ‘left-‘ or ‘right-handed’. The planning is a mechanical process with steps, checklists and techniques. It is a more machine like and formal school than the design school. The perhaps most analytical school is the positioning school as it also according to Mintzberg et al (2001) defines strategy formation as an analytical process. Already the definition by the book tells that it is analytical and as they mention in their critique the focus is very narrow. This school focuses on different analysis such as Porter’s five forces and competitive advantage. It stresses that
Open Document