Search results

The purpose of this paper is to contest Mintzberg's influential “five Ps for strategy”. It exposes the negative side effect of these “five Ps” and urges a rethinking of the concept of strategy. It also points to an alternative direction for further research building on a more robust definition of strategy that does not aim to combine the five Ps but to focus instead on, and to draw boundaries around, the substance of strategy.

The key arguments of Mintzberg's article are critically evaluated and alternative arguments are advanced.

None of the “five Ps for strategy” satisfies the criteria of a good definition. However, their impact is still evident, especially the definition of “strategy as pattern” and the idea that any decision can be “more or less” “strategic”. The “five Ps” have served their intent at the time, and their impact now is more negative than positive.

The “five Ps” are no longer useful in advancing the descriptive or prescriptive purposes of the strategy field. Researchers need to rethink the concept of strategy.

Leaders should not be confused by the “five Ps”. Instead, they should look for more rigorous and relevant definitions that help them think through their dynamic and uncertain environment.

This paper is probably the first to specifically contest the five definitions of strategy offered by Mintzberg and the argument behind them.

The confusion over what counts as “strategic” is widely acknowledged to be a problem for both research and practice. The paper aims to develop a robust definition of “strategic decisions” and a classifying tool that distinguishes them from grand tactical, tactical, and other organizational decisions.

An extensive literature review focused on the leading journals is carried out. Articles having “strategic decision” in the abstract are retrieved from EBSCO Host and ProQuest One Academic databases. Definitions of “strategic decisions” are critically assessed and classified to form the trigger and basis of the development of new definition.

The literature review identifies five approaches by which strategic decisions are defined, and their limitations are exposed. The proposed definitions of “strategic,” grand tactical, and tactical decisions, and the novel classification tree, used to distinguish those decisions, are shown to be more accurate and robust than those previously offered in the literature.

New definitions of “strategic,” grand tactical, and tactical decisions are offered; and a new classifying tool is developed.

To unravel three strategy-related concepts, frequently confused as one, by introducing the new concept of nonstrategy and proposing a novel threefold classification of strategy, nonstrategy and no strategy.

Building on some key insightful definitions of strategy, the paper infers five essential attributes of strategy. These, in turn, are used to introduce the new concept and classification.

The paper makes clear distinction between the different concepts of strategy, nonstrategy and no strategy that are usually confused in the literature.

The paper calls for a reexamination of what strategy is, how it can be better operationalized, how it should be distinguished from nonstrategy and no strategy and how strategy evolution and drift can be tracked.

The paper clarifies what constitutes strategy, gives practitioners directions on how to strategize and warns against the potential of malpractice that produces nonstrategy.

The introduction of the new concept of nonstrategy and the development of a new classification that distinguishes three concepts that are usually confused as one.

The concept of strategy has lost its meaning. It is widely inflated and conflated with related notions and the consequences of that are unsettling for both practice and research. The purpose of this paper is to restore the lost meaning of strategy.

The paper exposes the inadequacy of the current definitions of strategy. It, then, suggests a more robust one based on a list of necessary dimensions of a good definition derived from an extensive review of the literature and ends with triggers for further reflection.

The multidimensionality of the proposed definition better reflects the complex nature of the strategy concept and restores its lost meaning. This makes it more robust than previous definitions in protecting the integrity of the concept of strategy from the creeping of insignificant concerns and “surplus” meaning.

The new definition offers a new angle from which to reexamine the relationships between a number of usually paired concepts such as intention and action, planning and emergence, control and learning and formulation and execution.

The newly proposed definition has the potential to trigger creativity and to limit the practice of bad strategy.

The proposed definition raises the standard of what strategy is, avoids the sources of confusion, and reduces the chances of ascribing surplus meaning to the strategy concept.

The purpose of this paper is to argue for the need to redefine a mission statement, to develop a clearer definition and show its advantages and limitations.

The paper shows the literature's lack of agreement on the definition of the mission statement and whether it should be defined as a stand‐alone statement or as a broader model. It then demonstrates the discrepancy between these definitions and the actual mission statements of exemplary organizations. This is followed by proposing a new definition of a mission, demonstrating how it is rooted in good practice, and presenting its benefits and limitations.

There are found to be widely varied definitions and models of the mission statement. These are typically complex (composed of many parts) and are not reflected in the mission statements of many exemplary organizations. The need is clear for a more focused definition.

The basic argument is mainly built on conceptual discussions and unsystematic evidence. Therefore, there is a need for more empirical studies to substantiate that argument. The paper discusses the research implications of the proposed definition.

The proposed definition of the mission statement may prove helpful both conceptually and practically. This definition focuses the attention of practitioners on purpose and commitment independent from other related concepts. The paper shows the impact of the proposed definition on the process, participants, and outcome of developing a mission statement.

The paper offers a focused definition of mission statement and shows its relevance to both theory and practice.

The purpose of this paper is to show how to construct a strategy canvas for a business school based on students' perceptions of the importance of critical value dimensions of its undergraduate offering(s) and its comparable performance on each. This can be used in evaluating the school's extant strategy and in developing a new innovative one.

A survey research is used to solicit and measure students' perception. This is then subjected to proper statistical analysis to draw conclusions, which are then used to construct the strategy canvas.

The findings show the strengths and weaknesses of the school's current strategy profile. They suggest how to use resources to improve performance on critical value dimensions and trigger thinking on new innovative dimensions.

Limitations include the focus on one constituent (students) of the business school, and the choice and size of the sample.

The use of students' perception to construct a strategy canvas proved to be useful and revealing. It shows how the strategy profiles of competitors compare and where to look for further information. This process helps create, evaluate, and develop new strategic insights.

The paper endeavors to use the rigor of survey analysis to provide valid and reliable information on the basis of which to construct a strategy canvas. This, perhaps, represents the first attempt to bring this combination to the context of higher education management.

The aim of the paper is twofold: to question the current use of the extant competitive strategy frameworks imported from the context of the business firm; and to call for innovative frameworks that are more faithful to the nature, purpose, and needs of business schools.

An extensive literature review is undertaken in the field of business school competitive strategy. This literature is then evaluated to see how sensitive it is to the specific context of the business school. Inferences are then drawn and the paper is structured to make the case for the need to rethink the current approach to business school strategy.

The application of the current dominant approach in the competitive strategy literature, which prioritizes value capture over value creation, is questionable in the context of business school strategy. There are deep and multiple differences between business firms and business schools. These differences call for shifting the focus toward value creation and emphasizing the social mission of business schools.

The paper focuses only on undergraduate education. Extending the argument to include other activities of business schools requires further research.

Business school strategy researchers and practitioners are encouraged to alter their current approach to be less occupied with competition and more concerned with value creation for students, stakeholders, and society at large.

The paper represents an early call for strategists and researchers to rethink their current dominant approach of applying the extant business strategy literature to business schools. It makes the case for the necessity of taking into account the deep and multiple differences between business firms and business schools.

This paper aims to expose the underlying reasons behind the failure of the mission statement to have a significant impact on performance and to recommend ways forward.

A comprehensive literature review is conducted and common themes and trends are revealed. These are then discussed under four major domains of the mission statement: definitions, functions, focus, and form. The impact of the mission statement on performance is then discussed. Examples of mission statements of some prominent organizations are provided to substantiate arguments. The paper ends with conclusions and recommendations.

The paper reveals the contradictions and confusion that beset research in this area. It demonstrates how concepts such as mission, vision, values, identity are mixed up with one another, leading to a slow progress in research and underutilization of the power of mission in practice.

The paper recommends theoretical focus and practical flexibility. Theoretically, it suggests conceptual distinction between mission, vision, values, and other related concepts. Once this is done, it suggests the use of a “guiding statement” to flexibly describe any statement that integrates more than one of the above mentioned concepts in practice. The paper offers no empirical evidence of the usefulness of its recommendations.

The paper reveals the sources of ineffectiveness of the mission statement. The recommendations may help to minimize the confusion surrounding the functions, focus, and form of the mission statement. This may also help to advance the research in this area and inform the practice in the field.

The paper critically reads the literature to uncover the contradictions and confusion besetting research in this area and makes original recommendations.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, to propose a new metaphor, student‐as‐aspirant, which captures well the educational role of students, professors, and business schools. Second, to develop the strategic implications of this metaphor for the management of business schools.

A thorough review of relevant literature is conducted and the underlying assumptions of previously suggested metaphors are exposed and challenged. The new metaphor has subsequently been developed based on a broader typology of business offerings.

The paper shows that the extant metaphors are inappropriate for they misrepresent the nature of learning as the core of business schools' offerings to their students. It concludes with the advantages of the student‐as‐aspirant metaphor.

Limitations are centred on the difficulties faced by students, professors, and business schools in adopting the metaphor.

The metaphor has strategic implications ranging from stakeholders' expectations, to governance, structure, and strategy of business schools.

The paper is the first to use a typology of four distinct business offerings to propose a new metaphor that sensibly flows from the nature of the transformative learning as the core offering of business schools.

There is vast literature and widely different views on strategy. This necessitates an organizing framework that smoothly integrates and places different conceptualizations of strategy in the proper perspective. The purpose of this paper is to clear possible confusion about the concept of strategy and help navigate the different streams of the strategy river with confidence and ease.

A comprehensive review of strategy literature is undertaken and the underlying principles and governing ideas are extracted. These are reconstructed to form the basis of the “strategy frame”.

The “strategy frame” produced the four Es of strategy, which represent the strategic thinking drivers behind the different conceptualizations of strategy. The framework attempts to address all major strategy issues and to combine different schools of thought spanning the spectrum of strategy dimensions, tensions, and paradoxes. It interweaves competing schools of thought in the strategy field and conceptualizes them as continuums to illustrate their interplay.

The conceptual nature of the “strategy frame” makes it less useful in answering the questions it helps raise. As such, it is so broad to be used for working out detailed strategies.

The “strategy frame” helps strategists take a bird's eye view to identify critical strategic issues and put them in the proper context of their organization's capacity as it relates to its environment.

The paper attempts to deal with the basic tensions and paradoxes in strategy field in order to develop a hopefully useful framework, which is able to relate them in an integrative way.