Who systematized the schools of strategic management. Strategy formation is a process of social interaction based on common beliefs and understanding among members of the organization

Strategy building as a mental process

If we really want to understand what a strategic vision is, how strategy is formed under the influence of various circumstances, we will have to make an attempt to penetrate the mind of the strategist. This is what the cognitive school insists on (it is also the school of cognition), whose supporters, relying on cognitive psychology, analyze the strategic process from the point of view of human cognitive abilities.

In the last ten to fifteen years, this school has attracted the attention of a number of well-known researchers, collaborating with representatives of other areas (for example, with the school of positioning on issues of cognition in strategic groups and business sales strategies of companies (divestments)). M. Lyles' review notes that this area of ​​strategic management research gained particular popularity in the 1980s. (Lyles, 1990).

The works that we will turn to form not so much a single scientific school as a collection of unrelated studies, which does not prevent, however, from combining them into one direction. If their authors successfully cope with this task, it is quite possible that both the teaching and practice of strategic management will soon change.

Only God knows what was going on in the minds of managers before the appearance of these works - a whole wave at the same time. Researchers were more interested in the requirements for thinking and the conditions for its implementation (for example, what does a strategist need to know?) than in the thought process itself. And despite all the efforts of the school of knowledge, we are still far from understanding those complex and creative acts that result in strategies.

This is why strategists are mostly self-taught: they build, largely through acquired experience, their own knowledge structures and mental processes. Experience forms the circle of their knowledge, which in turn determines the actions of individuals, which enriches them with new experience. The research of the cognitive school is based on this dualism, and it becomes the starting point for its two completely different branches.

The first, more positivist, interprets the processing and structuring of knowledge as an attempt to create some kind of objective (film) picture of the world, when cognitive abilities are considered as a kind of movie camera. Peering into the world, at the will of the operator, she enlarges or reduces images, which, according to cognitive scientists, do not completely convey objective reality.

Another branch insists on the subjectivity of knowledge, considering strategy as an interpretation of the world. The mental gaze rushes inward to understand how the mind forms opinions regarding what it sees - events, symbols, customer behavior, etc. Thus, if the first branch perceives cognition as the reconstruction of the world, then the second, removing this prefix, believes that knowledge creates the world.

Notice how this chapter fits into the book: it bridges the gap between the objectivist schools of design, planning, and positioning and the subjectivist schools of learning, culture, power, environment, and configuration. In accordance with this division, we begin our consideration of the cognitive school with its objectivist branch, namely with research on (1) the bias of knowledge or the limits of the cognitive abilities of a strategist, (2) strategic cognition from the point of view of information processing and (3) the structuring of knowledge by the mind. Then we will turn to the subjectivist branch, to the interpretation of strategic cognition as a design process, and finally we will talk about the shortcomings of the cognitive approach as a system of views on strategic thinking.

Confusion in the process of cognition
Scientists have long been fascinated by the quirkiness of information processing and decision-making and, above all, by the biases individuals exhibit in it. Management scholars are particularly inspired by the brilliant work of Herbert Simon (1947, 1957; March and Simon, 1958), a political scientist who worked for many years in the business school and then in the psychology department of Carnegie University and received the 1978 Nobel Prize in Economics. G. Simon promoted the idea of ​​the greatness and complexity of the world, in comparison with which the human brain and its information processing abilities appear negligible. Decision making is thus not a rational process, but a futile attempt at rationality.

Influenced by the work of G. Simon, numerous studies appeared on the dominant tendencies in human thinking (see in particular, Tversky and Khaneman, 1974), the results of which are summarized in the work of S. Makridakis (1990) and are briefly presented in table. 6.1. All these studies are of undoubted importance for understanding the strategic process, because they are focused on finding answers to questions about why, for example, human consciousness first of all “snatches” and “assimilates” facts that confirm (but do not deny) the already established belief system, why our mind prefers to “use” recently received rather than long ago received information, why we so easily accept wishful thinking, etc. In his review, S. Makridakis pays considerable attention to what he calls “unfounded opinions or truisms." For example, he writes:

We are raised in a culture in which the truth of certain statements is never questioned, even though it should be. For example, we believe that the more information we have, the more informed decisions we will make. Empirical evidence does not support this conventional wisdom. In fact, an increase in the amount of information simply increases our conviction that we are right, without in any way affecting the correctness of the decision itself... Very often, huge amounts of information are redundant and do not have the slightest value for the decision-making process (38).

Table 6.1. Trends in decision making
Source: Makridakis, 1990:36–37

Trend type	Description of the trend
Finding supporting data	Willingness to collect facts in favor of certain conclusions and neglect of other facts that threaten these conclusions
Inconsistency	Failure to apply the same criteria in similar situations
Conservatism	Inability to change (or gradually change) one's own opinion when new information/facts appear
Novelty	The most recent events dominate over older ones that are no longer of interest or are ignored
Availability	Tendency to rely on isolated events that are easily recalled in memory to the detriment of other relevant information
Binding	Forecasts are overly influenced by initial information, which is considered the most significant
Deceptive Relationships	Belief in the obviousness of certain patterns and/or a causal relationship between two variables that are not actually related to each other
Selective perception	People tend to see problems through the lens of their own position or experience
Regression dependence	The sustained growth [observed in some phenomena] may be explained by randomly selected causes which, if the explanation turns out to be correct, increase the likelihood of a subsequent decline. Conversely, a prolonged downturn may [increase] the chances of [subsequent] growth
Explaining success and failure	Success is attributed to skill, and failure is attributed to bad luck or someone else's (not one's) mistake. This prevents a person from learning from failures and realizing their own mistakes.
Optimism, wishful thinking	A person’s desired outcome influences his or her prediction of that outcome.
Underestimating the unknown	Excessive optimism, misleading correlations, and the need to reduce anxiety lead to an underestimation of future uncertainty.

Analogies and metaphors, which, as we saw in the previous chapter, can enrich thinking, often have the opposite effect, simplifying and narrowing the scope of the search for solutions (Schwenk, 1988; Steinbruner, 1974). A. Duhaime and K. Schwenk (1985) tried to answer the question of how these and other distortions affect decisions about the acquisition of companies and divestments (sale of a business):

1. Thinking by analogies. The authors give an example when “company management plans to acquire a company that, “like the fourth leg of a stool,” will maintain a high level of profit. This image, or analogy, tells managers that the business of the takeover candidate has nothing in common... with the current activities of the company..." (289).
2. The illusion of power. “Decision makers often overestimate their own influence over the consequences of the purchase and may believe that under their leadership the firm will successfully cope with problems should they arise” (289). This approach, although it reduces concerns about the decision being made, is fraught with problems.
3. Escalation of participation. Escalation of involvement “involves a sustained increase in capital investment under pressure from unsatisfactory performance” (291). B. Staw (1976) develops this approach in the article “Knee-deep in the Troubled Waters of Missouri,” dedicated to the history of how, despite constant setbacks, the US government was drawn deeper and deeper into the Vietnam War.
4. Consider one possible outcome. “There is evidence that if divestment is considered as one of the possible outcomes of the “fate” of an unprofitable business, then this option may soon turn into the only alternative considered... Thus, decision makers reject in advance alternative options that are undesirable for them, which is significant relieves the pressure that is inevitable in a poorly structured decision-making process” (292).

There are many facts known that confirm the hypothesis according to which organizations that are locked into a certain pattern of behavior based on a certain vision of the situation act less and less effectively. In other words, the motto of the cognitive school (both of its branches, as we will see later) can be the words: “I will see it when I believe in it.”

Indeed, activity can also influence understanding. Recall Kiesler's (1971) insight that the very act of defining a precise approach to a problem generates resistance to changing it (see Chapter 2). Compare this behavior with the behavior of people who do not discuss their upcoming actions. In other words, a person who has clearly formulated a strategy is psychologically opposed to changing it. K. Kiesler's experiments concerned one person, a single mind; Imagine what will happen in the multitude of consciousnesses that make up the organization. Hence the popular term “groupthink” (Janis, 1972). “Often the strongest resistance to beneficial change comes from the most loyal, well-meaning members of an organization” (Reger et al., 1994:567).

Of course, every strategist has his own individual cognitive style, so psychologists who study such characteristics of human behavior as “cognitive complexity” and “openness to new ideas” make significant contributions to our understanding of the process of creating strategies. Perhaps the most famous method is the personal classification method of I. Myers-K. Briggs (Myers, 1962) based on the typology of Carl Jung. The authors formulate four pairs of opposing dimensions:

Extroversion (a person is prompted to action by the external world) - Introversion (actions are taken under the influence of the individual’s inner world).

Sensing (consciously perceived and rationally processed information) - Intuitive (INtuition) (information as a result of an attempt to comprehend the most important principles).

Thinking (decisions are based on an analysis of the situation) - Feeling (decisions are made based on individual feelings).

Rational (Judgement) (pre-planned, orderly, controlled lifestyle) - Irrational (Perception) (spontaneity, flexible lifestyle).

By combining the characteristics, we get sixteen cognitive types or styles. For example, the ESTJ (Extraverted Thinking and Understanding) type includes people with a logical, analytical, objective, critical mindset; those who can be convinced solely with the help of reasonable arguments... They like to systematize facts... But at the same time, “when making decisions, they often take risks without burdening themselves with a thorough analysis of the situation” (10). In contrast, ESFP (extraverted sensing and sensing) individuals are “friendly, adaptable realists... trusting only what they see with their own eyes, hear with their own ears, know first-hand... Their flexibility helps them solve problems... [but ] they don’t always follow standard procedures or take the easy route…” (19). If these two definitions resemble the strategists of the positioning and learning schools, respectively, then the individual style of the strategist can help us better understand different approaches to strategy building.

Cognition as information processing

In addition to tendencies, or inclinations, a significant influence on individual cognition is exerted by a collective information processing system called an organization. Managers are information workers. They obtain information for themselves, their colleagues and higher managers, which creates all sorts of problems in organizations, especially large ones. Top managers do not have enough time to personally deal with all issues, so they are forced to generalize and group the information they receive as much as possible, which can lead to distortions (especially since the original data is not entirely reliable anyway). If the initial information was influenced by all the trends mentioned above, then one can only guess how objective it will appear before the “boss”. It is not surprising that senior managers often become hostages to the organization's dominant information processing system.

In accordance with the model of “parallel” information processing by P. Corner, A. Kinicki and B. Keats, people and organizations process information using the same principles (Corner, Kinicki, Keats, 1994). Information processing begins with concentration of attention, then it is encoded, memorized, and information search occurs; the culmination of the process is the selection of information and completion - the evaluation of the result obtained (see Fig. 6.1).

ATTENTION. At the attention stage, the data that will be processed is determined (a kind of secretary who selects incoming correspondence in order of urgency, delaying some messages and immediately delivering others).

CODING. Coding gives meaning to data because it is a search for matches between information and existing categories, for example, that someone is a “customer” rather than just a “visitor.” Of course, such categories are often a source of bias, since they do not take into account nuances, and any of them risks becoming a stereotype. The main thing for the entire information processing process is the structure of general knowledge, thanks to which a single frame (scheme) of interpretation becomes dominant. P. Korner and his co-authors distinguish two types of “agreement frames”: newly emerging and entrenched. “Emerging frames are constructed in a particular way so that a new problem or issue can be addressed.” Forming them takes time and takes up cognitive energy, but once frames are built, a person receives a strong incentive to continue using them. Thus, the emerging frame gradually turns into an established one. Later, it can be used “automatically when interpreting strategic information, regardless of its relevance. In this case, before building a new frame, the top management team will have to somehow get rid of the old one” (300).

STORE/SEARCH. The cognitive process begins with the work of memory. If we talk about an individual person, then his memory is a network of associative connections between various units of information. In organizations, these connections are connected to patterns of behavior, rules, procedures, regulations and technologies. A person and an organization are connected by socialization, when a company voluntarily and forcibly encourages an individual to accept its existing practices. Later, this practice becomes part of the person’s own memory and his cognitive abilities are “tuned to the organizational wave.”

CHOICE. Choice is a complex process of moving forward and retreating, moving from one stage to another, until a firm decision is made. Often it seems as if a decision has been “made”, but in reality it always arises unexpectedly. A category such as “decision” helps both determine further actions and continue collecting information, but it cannot be considered in isolation from others (see “How is a decision made?”).

RESULT. Receiving the results of information processing means the beginning of the feedback process. Individuals and organizations recognize the value of their choices and connect this understanding to ongoing information processing—namely, the attention, encoding, storage, and retrieval associated with the next choice.

Rice. 6.1. Model of parallel information processing when making strategic decisions

1.	School of Design- process of comprehension (Harvard model) (introduction of strategic management - ensuring correspondence between external opportunities and internal potential of the enterprise - methodology for conducting swot analysis) Andrews, Ansoffa.	Criteria: 1) Consistency - the strategy should not be based on conflicting goals and programs; 2) Coherence - the strategy must provide for a response to the external environment and changes in it; 3) Advantages - the strategy should be aimed at developing and maintaining a competitive advantage; 4) Feasibility - the strategy must be based on available resources.
2.	School of Planning- formal process (I. Ansoff, G. Steiner)	-recognizes most of the starting points of the design school; -the process of strategic planning begins with determining the initial goals of the enterprise; - an analysis of resource potential and the external business environment is carried out; - the synergistic effect must be taken into account, - the strategic development plan of the enterprise must contain a financial and administrative strategy, - feedback that ensures the interactivity of the procedure for forming a strategic plan, and the continuity of its implementation is introduced.) The concept of diversification is introduced - the entry of an enterprise into a new industry. Basic theoretical principles: -the process of developing a strategy does not end with some immediate action, but ends with determining the direction of development; -the developed strategy should be used to develop subsequent strategies; -the need for this strategy disappears if the real course of events leads to a real future; -in the process of formulating a strategy, it is impossible to foresee everything, since you have to use general information. As information becomes more refined, the strategy can also be refined. Administrative strategy implies a strategy for changing the organization itself (its structure)
3.	Positioning School- analytical process	Three waves of development: 1. Early works on military strategies 2. “Consulting imperatives” (growth-market share model, experience curve, pims model) 3. Works on empirical assumptions (Porter’s work) The transition from qualitative to quantitative indicators, development of models (60s). The development of tools went in two directions: matrix methods (generalize quantitative characteristics) and dynamic models (consider the development of a system of dynamics).
4.	School of Entrepreneurship- the foresight process considers the development of company development strategies not as a collective process, but as the individual creativity of the manager	Fundamental provisions: 1. The development strategy of any company exists in the mind of its leader in the form of a unique perspective 2. The process of forming the development of a company is based on the life experience and intuition of its leader, regardless of whether the idea of ​​the strategy is born in his mind or he perceives it from the outside 3. Strategic foresight is characterized by flexibility, and entrepreneurial strategy is both thoughtful and unexpected. 4. Entrepreneurial strategy is, to a certain extent, protected from the influence of direct competition in a market niche. The cognitive school - mental process - analyzes the strategic process from the point of view of human cognitive abilities. Global firms model and structure their environment. Fundamental provisions: 1. The process of strategy formation is considered as a process of cognition occurring in the mind of the strategist 2. Strategy is a perspective that reveals ways of obtaining information from the environment 3. Information from the environment is an interpretation of the world that exists only in the form in which it is perceived.
5.	Cognitive school- mental process - analyzes the strategic process from the point of view of human cognitive abilities (considers the process of developing a strategy as a thinking process). Global firms model and structure their environment.	Fundamental provisions: 1. The process of strategy formation is considered as a process of cognition occurring in the mind of the strategist 2. Strategy is a perspective that reveals ways of obtaining information from the environment 3. Information from the environment, before it is deciphered using cognitive maps, passes through all sorts of distorting filters, or (according to the “objective” branch) is an interpretation of the world, which exists only in the form in which it is perceived. 4. Strategies are “born in pain.” Changing strategies presents significant challenges.
6.	School of Power- negotiation process - interprets the process of developing a company’s development strategy as a negotiation process	Fundamental provisions: 1. Development of a company's development strategy should be considered as a learning process 2. Learning should be developmental in nature through behavior that promotes retrospective thinking. 3. Successful strategic initiatives in the strategy development process form operational experience. 4. The role of the head of the company is to manage the process of strategic learning. 5. Strategies initially appear as patterns of action from the past, which then develop into plans for the future. Decision making comes from below. Japan. It is assumed that the school does not wait for it to grow, creating competitive advantages from the very beginning.
7.	School of Training- developmental process - considers the process of developing a company's development strategy as a developing process	1. The process of forming a development strategy for any organization is determined by the action of political forces, both within it and in the environment external to it 2. Power structures at the organizational level consider the process of developing a strategy as an interaction based on methods of persuasion negotiations 3. Power structures at the macro level consider the organization as striving for its well-being through control of market agents or through cooperation with them
8.	School of Culture- collective process	1. According to ideas, the process of strategy formation is considered as a process of social interaction based on beliefs and understandings common to members of the organization 2. The beliefs of each individual are the result of the processes of familiarization with a particular culture 3. Members of the organization are able to decide on the parts to characterize the beliefs on which their culture is based 4 The main characteristic of the development strategy of a cultural school organization is considered to be its predestination 5. Culture, including ideology, contributes to strategic changes and the preservation of the current strategy
9.	School of External Environment- reactive process	1. the external environment of the organization is considered as the main element of the process of forming an organizational strategy. 2. The organization must respond adequately to changes in the external environment. 3. The leadership of the organization is considered as a passive element of the strategic process, the main element of which is to ensure the organization’s adaptation to the action of external forces.
10.	School configuration- transformation process	1. is based on the two most important provisions of configuration and transformation. In this case, configuration is understood as stable structures and the external environment, and transformation is the process of developing a company’s development strategy. The development of an organization is divided into stages: 1. stage of development 2. Stage of stability 3. stage of adaptation 4. stage of struggle 5. stage of Revolutions Stages of development replace each other according to certain patterns Periodic shake-ups Shifts Life cycles Regular process

All schools are divided into 3 groups.

Cognitive school

A separate decision maker (DM) is identified. The school considers how decision making is influenced from outside.

Periods are distinguished:

1) the period of initial understanding of the strategy,

2) a period of rethinking the adopted strategies,

3) period of getting used to them.

The cognitive school proposed parallel information processing model in the process of making strategic decisions. According to it, people and organizations process information using the same principles. There are 2 streams of information:

information for the manager (individual perception)

information for managers (cognitive perception)

1- Common sense.

2- Classification

3- Socialization

Main stages of information processing:

1. Concentration of attention (the data that will be processed is determined);

2. Coding (all information is divided according to classification criteria, connections are established)

3. Memorization and retrieval (if information is well organized, then it becomes part of the memory);

4. Choice (selection of the necessary information to make a decision).

Trends in decision making.

1) Inconsistency - failure to apply the same criteria in similar situations;

2) Search for supporting data - willingness to collect facts in favor of certain conclusions and neglect of other facts that threaten these conclusions;

3) Newness - the most recent events dominate over older ones that are no longer of interest or are ignored;

4) Selective perception - people tend to see problems through the prism of their own position or experience;

5) Explaining success and failure - success is attributed to skill, and failure is attributed to bad luck or someone else's mistake. This does not allow a person to learn from failures and realize their own mistakes;

6) Underestimation of the unknown - excessive optimism, deceptive correlations, the need to reduce anxiety lead to an underestimation of future uncertainty.

Classification of decision making in terms of analogies:

1. Thinking by analogies (if strategic analysis is carried out);

2. Illusion of power (those who make decisions overestimate their power and do not take into account circumstances that interfere with success),

3. Escalation of participation (involves a continued increase in capital investment under pressure from unsatisfactory performance results),

4. Consider one possible outcome.

Study and analysis of the decision-making process, from the point of view of the formation of this decision, and identification of factors that influence decision-making, modern technologies of strategic management, which are called intellectual models.

Intuitive

Extraversion – based on external factors

Introversion - based on one's own motives

Rational - on the goal

Irrational – spontaneously

The cognitive type of behavior of the decision maker determines those factors that most influence the choice of alternative. Based on the ideas of the cognitive school, the science of canitology was formed. The first cognitive research center was opened at Harvard in 1960.

Types:

1) Cognitive map – reflects the relationship, tasks with influencing factors. Implemented in the form of strategic maps (reflecting cause and effect relationships), based on process analysis, we obtain a forecast for the development of a specific situation. This approach has no limitations. The use of this method, on the one hand, increases the validity of decisions, on the other hand, leads to the development of stereotypes. In management practice, expert systems, which are a form of artificial intelligence, are becoming widespread.

The evolution of competitive advantage

Simple competencies- this is a way of using knowledge, the ability to use it better than others, to produce a product at the level of others.

Key competencies are a combination of simple competencies. These unique abilities cannot be copied. Knowledge of these competencies is necessary to develop enterprise strategy.

Dynamic capabilities – capable of creating new core competencies

Lecture 5

System-forming factor:

Time is a hierarchy

Space – structural divisions, partly hierarchy.

Economy Environment - types of activities

To carry out strategic changes, investments are always needed (project - program)

For each project, a business plan is developed, which is an element of the strategic plan being developed. A control system is created to manage this process. The purpose of the system is to organize processes.

Such activities can be effectively implemented if similar projects are combined and investment programs are formed.

For the planning system to work effectively, it must work as a single whole.

Due to the complexity of planning problems, only general approaches and concepts have been developed that can be used when developing a specific plan.

Structural divisions in strategic planning are business units, each of which implements its own competitive strategy

Each planning level has its own structural divisions. You need to know what sections the strategic plan consists of, content and main indicators, product mission, strategic analysis.

Strategic organizational plan – strategic change plan

A strategic decision always involves great risk. Risk assessment contains an individual approach

The development of a strategic plan requires highly qualified personnel, professional knowledge and knowledge of the enterprise. Calculation and optimization of investment projects and programs are required, as well as the mandatory use of modern computer models.

Another problem is related to information support. Ideally, an enterprise should have a corporate information system

"Schools of Strategy" is an excellent book written by a specialist for specialists. It will not seem simple to an ordinary strategic leader of a corporation (director). At the same time, the book is the best publication, which not only examines almost all areas of strategic management, but also provides a synthesis. The book is a wonderful help for undergraduates, graduate students and others who want to write a modern work on strategic management. It is very useful for strategic management teachers (helps develop an understanding of strategic management beyond SWOT analysis and mission). Most standard Russian consulting companies may need to buy it in large quantities (and read it, of course) to understand the differences between strategic management and what they sell to clients.

Chapter 1. SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT ENTERS THE ARENA

ELEPHANT STUDY

Six sages from Hindustan,
Feeding the love of knowledge,
Let's go to the elephant
(even though they were all blind)
To test your theories.

One buried his face
Into the rough side of an elephant
And, falling, he exclaimed:
"Oh, Lord, you made me understand,
Truly, an elephant is a strong wall!”

The second, feeling the tusk, shouted:
"It's absolutely clear to me!
A wonderful elephant in my hand -
Nothing else
Like a smooth and sharp spear!"

And the third, approaching the elephant,
He grabbed his trunk
Tossed aside:
And he said: “Undoubtedly,
An elephant and a snake are one and the same."

The fourth one ran up to the elephant,
Knee, hands clasped,
He said: “Well, what’s the point of arguing?
So straight and even
Maybe just a tree."

There's a fifth one, he managed to reach his ear
Jump to the top, shouted:
"Any blind man will tell you -
There is no doubt:
An elephant looks like a fan."

Sixth slowly
Got to the tail
And he said: “A rope, and that’s all.”
An elephant can't
Be something else."

So the sages from Hindustan
In heated debate
They stood firm on their position.
Everyone was right about something
But everyone was wrong.

Morality
So often in disputes people, their truth
Trying to prove, they do not listen to each other.
And the parable of the elephant -
Just a small example
General misunderstanding.

Let's imagine that we are the same blind people, and building a strategy is our elephant. Not being able to see the “beast” in its entirety, we grab the ear, trunk, leg of the “elephant” and hold on to it, being “blissfully unaware” of the object as a whole. But even when we gradually learn that our “experimental subject” consists of separate parts, and we try to “put” them together, we will not get an elephant. The whole is by no means the simple sum of its parts. But knowledge of the whole one way or another presupposes analysis, comprehension of the interactions of all its elements.
The next ten chapters describe the ten parts of the beast called "strategy formation", each of which represents one of the "schools of thought." The main chapters are preceded by the first, in which you will get acquainted with all the schools and the very concept of strategy, and the final one returns us to the object of study as a whole.

In the article "The Magical Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity to Process Information," psychologist George Miller asks why we like to group things in sevens: the seven wonders of the world, the seven deadly sins, the seven days of the week (Miller, 1956 ). According to the author, this reflects the structure of our cognition: seven is the number of “portions” of information that a person can easily retain in short-term, “operative” memory. Three wonders of the world will be forgotten faster than they will be remembered, and the need to keep in mind, for example, eighteen wonders is depressing. But those who are interested in strategy, of course, are not mere mortals - at least in their cognitive abilities, and therefore must be able to comprehend more ideas than, say, the magical seven plus two. Accordingly, our book presents ten schools of strategy formation.
Leaving aside cognitive abilities and looking at the body of scientific literature, we find ten different points of view, most of which are reflected in practical management. Proponents of each hold unique views on the same basic aspect of the strategy process. But in a certain sense all these theories are limited and distorted. On the other hand, the views of each of the representatives of the various schools of strategy are very interesting. The elephant is not only composed of a trunk, but it certainly has a trunk, and it would be very difficult to describe the animal as a whole without mentioning such an essential part of it. Typically, one of the consequences of blindness is the enhancement of other senses to such an extent that a person is able to live without the help of a sighted person.

SCHOOLS. Each of the following chapters presents - from their own perspective - one school of strategy. We then provide a critical assessment of the views under consideration, emphasizing their limitations and value. Listed below are the scientific schools offered to your attention and the definitions that best describe the vision of their supporters of the strategic process:

1. School of Design comprehension 2. School of Planning: strategy formation as formal process 3. Positioning School: strategy formation as analytical process 4. School of Entrepreneurship: strategy formation as a process foresight 5.Cognitive school: strategy formation as mental process 6. School of Training: strategy formation as developing process 7. School of Power: strategy formation as a process negotiations 8. School of Culture: strategy formation as collective process 9. School of external environment: formation of strategy as reactive process 10. School configuration: strategy formation as a process transformation

Our ten schools can in turn be divided into three groups. The first three schools are prescriptive in nature - their adherents are more interested in how strategies should be formed, rather than how they are actually developed. Attention of supporters of the first of the schools, on the basis of which in the 1960s. two others were formed, concentrates on building a strategy as a process of informal design (in the sense of construction, design, modeling), and in essence - a process of comprehension and elaboration. The second school, which flourished (in the form of a wave of publications and practitioners turning to it) in the 1970s, formalized the first theoretical “escapes.” It views strategy creation as a relatively isolated, systematic process of formal planning. Supporters of the third perspective school, which joined the first two in the 1980s, are concerned not so much with the process of forming strategies as with their actual content. The school is called the school of positioning, since the attention of its teachers and students is concentrated on choosing the strategic market positions of the company.
The following six schools examine specific aspects of the strategy formulation process. Their proponents are not so much interested in prescribing ideal strategic behavior as in describing the actual processes of strategy development.
In an effort to connect strategy with entrepreneurship, some well-known authors have viewed the process of strategy creation as an attempt to penetrate the future, an insight that visited an outstanding manager, and his taking of risks. But if strategy is presented as an individualized vision, then its formation should also be considered as a process of comprehending ideas and principles taking place in the human head. Accordingly, although not the largest, but a very important cognitive school has arisen, which, based on the logic of cognitive psychology, is trying to penetrate the consciousness of the strategist.
The following four schools, in explaining the principles of strategy, have tried to rise above the individual level; they turn to other forces and actors. According to supporters of the learning school, the world is too complex, so building a strategy from the first step to the end is pointless, unlike, for example, plans. Strategies should be developed gradually, step by step, as the organization develops and “learns.” In the same vein, but from a different angle, the school of power views the formation of strategy. Its representatives view strategy as a process of negotiations between conflicting groups within an organization or between an organization and its opposing environment. According to another scientific school, the principles of strategy formation are determined by the culture of the organization and, therefore, the strategic process is a collective process. Finally, environmental school theorists believe that strategy formation is a reactive process, initiated not from within the organization, but under the influence of external circumstances. Accordingly, they try to comprehend the external pressure experienced by the organization.
There is only one school in the last group, but it actually absorbs all the other approaches. We call this school the school of configuration. Its representatives strive to combine the disparate elements of our “elephant” - the process of building a strategy, the content of the strategy, the organizational structure and its environment - into separate, sequential stages of the organization’s life cycle, for example, growth or stable maturity. But if an organization enters, for example, a state of stability, then developing a strategy involves analyzing the transition from one state to another. This means, on the other hand, this school, drawing on the rich literature and practice of “strategic change,” describes strategy formation as a process of transformation.
The emergence of schools of strategies is largely associated with various stages of development of strategic management. Some have survived their heyday and are in decline, others are only “gaining momentum”, others are “making their way to the surface” in the form of thin but important “trickles” of publications and reports on the practical application of the proposed concepts. We will talk about the views of supporters of each school and offer our own view of their development, strengths and weaknesses. In the final chapter you will be introduced to summary comments.
You can get additional information about each of the schools we mentioned in specialized literature: academic collections, magazines for practical managers, monographs. In addition, most of the methods proposed in publications are used in practice by organizations and consulting firms. Practitioners read literature on management, authors of scientific articles analyze practical experience. Therefore, our description of strategy schools is based both on theoretical publications and on a generalization of practical experience.

The extensive literature on strategic management (the number of works that the authors of this book studied is close to two thousand) is growing “day and night.” Of course, not all new publications are directly related to strategic management. On the other hand, understanding the strategy development process is unthinkable without studying books and articles devoted to various areas of scientific knowledge.
William Starbuck wrote that discussing “all aspects of an organization in need of change means considering everything that has ever been written about organizations” (Starbuck, 1965:468). Moreover, this is even an understatement, because the last word in the quotation should be read as “collective systems of all types.”
If you are interested in strategy as a search for an organization's possible market position ("niche"), you will be very interested in the work of biologists on the adaptation of species (for example, on "periodically disturbed equilibrium"). Historians' reflections on various periods of social development (say, revolutions) help explain the various stages of formation of organizational strategies (for example, “transforming a struggling company” as a form of “cultural revolution”). Developments in quantum mechanics and mathematical theories of chaos may provide clues to understanding changes in organizations. And there are many such examples. Add to this all the literature that is usually classified as organizational studies - psychological (on the process of cognition and leadership charisma), anthropological (on cultural diversity), economics (on industrial organizations), urban planning (on formal planning processes), scientific-political (about the principles of public policy), military-historical (strategies in conflict conditions), etc. - and we will receive extensive material that reflects all existing points of view. Strategy formation is not limited to foresight, prioritization and alignment of forces. In this process, it is important to take into account crisis situations, political preferences, the principle of periodically disrupted equilibrium, and social revolutions.
We review this kind of literature using its own terms. However, we did not set out to give a comprehensive overview of it. (Our desire to write “extra” thousands of pages is no more than your desire to read them.) In other words, we offer to your attention not a review of the literature, but a review of the topic. We have made an attempt to highlight the most important scientific sources and practice - in order to clearly highlight different points of view, directions, trends. Therefore, the quotes that we provide serve either as a key to understanding an idea or as an illustration of a set of sources. We apologize to all those authors and consultants who were not mentioned in our book; For our part, we hope that we have not missed any significant directions.
We consider it our duty to note the following. We are depressing by the tendency in modern management literature towards popular, latest fashion trends. This not only disadvantages wonderful old authors, but, even sadder, it does a disservice to readers, who are often offered worthless new ones instead of worthwhile old sources. In the book brought to your attention, the authors tried to maintain a balance, to combine a review of the evolution of views on the problem and an analysis of the latest scientific and practical trends. We are convinced that ignoring an organization's past can cause irreparable damage to its strategic development in the future. The same is true for the topic of strategic management in general. Those who neglect past experience, classical works, take risks, as it seems to us, completely unreasonably. Time has the same effect on strategic management literature (and management practice) as it does on wine in a barrel: it puts everything in its place and shows what is worth what.

The word “strategy” has long gained popularity; modern managers use it freely and with visible pleasure. Among other things, for them it denotes the highest manifestation of management activity. Over the past two decades, the topic of strategy has been widely developed in scientific research, and lectures on strategic management usually crown courses in business schools. The word "strategy" is a very important word. But what does it really mean?
It is human nature to define ourselves in terms of concepts. The introductory chapters of most standard textbooks provide a definition of strategy that goes something like this: “Top management's plans for achieving long-term results consistent with the goals and objectives of the organization” (Wright et al., 1992:3). Generations of students dutifully memorized such definitions and then used them to write thousands of reports for their companies. We do not propose one simple definition, but we do argue that strategy (not to mention the ten schools of thought on strategy) requires several—namely five—definitions (Mintzberg, 1987).
Ask someone to explain what strategy is, and you will almost certainly hear in response that strategy is a plan, or something like that - a guide, a guideline or direction for development, a road from the present to the future. Then ask the same person to describe the strategy that his or her organization or major competitor has actually pursued for the past five years—not stated strategic principles, but actual behavior. Most people will readily answer your question, completely oblivious to the fact that their answer differs significantly from their definition of strategy.
It turns out that “strategy” belongs to those words into which we, when defining them, put one meaning, and when using them, another. Strategy is a principle of behavior or following a certain model of behavior. A company that consistently delivers the most expensive products in an industry is pursuing what is generally called a high-performance strategy, just as a person who takes on the most difficult tasks is said to be pursuing a high-risk strategy. In Fig. 1.1 compares strategy as a plan (preliminary forecasting) and strategy as a principle of behavior (taking into account past behavior).
So, both formulations are completely equal: organizations develop plans for the future and derive principles of behavior from their past. We will call one the planned (predetermined, pre-planned) strategy, and the other the implemented one. An important question arises: does the implemented strategy always “grow” beyond the intended one? (It is obvious from experience that pre-developed strategies do not always turn into implementable ones.)
The answer to this question is simple. Just ask your interlocutors, who enthusiastically describe their (implemented) strategies, what happened to the strategies they planned five years ago. Some will argue that the planned plans were not only fully implemented, but also exceeded. Let us doubt the sincerity of such an answer. Others will report that the actual strategic actions had nothing to do with the intended goals. This means that their actions were contrary to the adopted strategy. As our experience shows, the overwhelming majority of respondents give an intermediate answer - some things came true, but some did not. They did not deviate from their goals, but they did not go out of their way to achieve them. Among other things, flawless execution requires brilliant foresight, not to mention not being subject to unforeseen circumstances, although in any case there are rough edges. In the real world, both forecasting and the need to adapt are inevitable.
As Fig. 1.2, fully realized intentions can be called well-thought-out strategies. Those that were not implemented at all will be called unrealized strategies. For example, the planning school recognizes both of these categories, naturally giving preference to the first. But there is a third case - the emergence and development of a new strategy, when an unplanned model of behavior is implemented. The steps taken, one after another, eventually line up into a certain sequence or principle. For example, instead of sticking to a (planned) diversification strategy, the company simply makes isolated decisions, moving forward step by step, “testing” the market. First, it acquires a city hotel, then a restaurant, then a hotel in a resort area, then another city hotel with a restaurant, then a third, etc. until a new diversification strategy is built - city hotels with restaurants.
So, few, if any, strategies turn out to be perfectly thought out. No less rare are exclusively new strategies. In the former there is no room for learning, in the latter there is no control. Any real-world strategy must include both: control and opportunities for learning. In other words, it is necessary not only to formulate strategies, but also to form them. For example, building an “umbrella” strategy implies developing a global plan (to become a market leader), and the details (when, where, how) are supposed to be dealt with “in the process.” Thus, new strategies are not necessarily bad, and well-thought-out ones are not always good. Visionary strategists skillfully combine both types of strategies. In such people, the combination of the ability to foresee with the ability to respond to unexpected circumstances is especially valuable.
To “plan” and “principle of behavior” you can add two more words starting with the letter “p”. Several years ago, the McDonald's restaurant chain introduced a new product called Egg McMuffin - a traditional American breakfast. It was assumed that the new offer would attract visitors to McDonald's restaurants in the morning. When asking people whether the Egg McMuffin is a strategic change for McDonald's, we will get two possible answers: “Yes, absolutely; the new product gave the company access to the breakfast market" and "Come on, it's still the same junk - McDonald's style, only in new packaging." In our opinion, the differences in answers are caused by the way these people define the content of the strategy for themselves.
There is a view that strategy is a position, namely the placement of certain products in specific markets, such as the Egg McMuffin product in the breakfast market. As Michael Porter reiterated recently, “strategy is the creation, through a variety of actions, of a unique and valuable position” (Porter, 1996:68). There is also an opinion that strategy is a perspective, i.e. the main way of operating of an organization (for example, McDonald's), or, in the unforgettable expression of Peter Drucker, it is the “theory of business” of a given organization (Druker, 1970:5; 1994) As can be seen from Fig. 1.3, strategy as a position is a look down at the "x" mark indicating the place where the product meets the buyer, and outward - at the external market. On the other hand, as a perspective, strategy is turned inward - inside the organization, more precisely, in the thoughts of strategists, but at the same time upward - into the great future of the enterprise.
Again, we cannot reject either of the two definitions. The success of Egg McMuffin depends on the extent to which the new position fits with McDonald's existing perspective. Apparently, the company's leaders are well aware that they cannot simply ignore the prospect. Changing the position within a given perspective is quite easy; but changing the perspective, even while maintaining the position , is another matter (Swiss watchmakers, who had to master the technology of producing quartz watches, will confirm this to you.)
Thus, we have four different definitions of strategy. The fifth is also quite common: strategy is a deft technique, a special “maneuver” undertaken with the aim of outwitting an opponent or competitor. Imagine how a boy jumps over the fence, wanting to lure another - a terrible bully - into his yard, where a Doberman is strolling, always ready to rush to protect its owner. In the same way, a corporation, in pursuit of the impression of its grandiose plans, announces the acquisition of a number of land plots, but in fact it seeks to force a competitor to abandon the construction of a new plant. The strategy it implements (as a plan, that is, as an implemented intention) involves exclusively putting pressure on a competitor, and not real expansion, and therefore is considered as a technique.
Five definitions and ten schools. As we see, the connections between them are not constant, although some schools have their own preferences: for example, plan - from the planning school, market position - from the positioning school, perspective - from the entrepreneurship school, the principle of behavior - from the teaching school, reception - partly - at the school of power.
There is no simple definition of strategy, yet we need to develop common ground on a number of fundamental issues (see Strategy: Areas of Agreement).

Any discussion about strategy inevitably ends in a draw, because for every strategic advantage there is a weakness or disadvantage:
1. "Strategy sets direction."
Advantage. The main point of strategy is to show the organization a reliable course of development in existing conditions.
Flaw. A strategic course can, like blinders, cover up potential dangers. Following a predetermined course in unfamiliar waters is a sure way to “encounter” an iceberg. Direction is of great importance, but sometimes it is more advisable to slow down, look carefully, but not very far ahead, paying attention to what is happening to the sides in order to change behavior at the right moment.
2. "Strategy coordinates efforts."
Advantage. Strategy promotes coordination of activities. In the absence of a strategy, chaos reigns in the organization when management “pulls the cart” in different directions.
Flaw. Excessive coordination of efforts leads to the reign of "group think" and the loss of peripheral vision, through which we often notice new opportunities. The adopted strategy dominates the organization, permeating its every cell.
3. "Strategy characterizes the organization."
Advantage. Strategy outlines the nature of the organization and demonstrates its distinctive features. Strategy provides not only a key to the overall understanding of the organization, but also a convenient opportunity to understand how it “does business.”
Flaw. Defining an organization in terms of its strategy can be overly simplistic, even to the point of using stereotypes, thereby overlooking the scope and complexity of the system.
4. "Strategy provides logic."
Advantage. Strategy eliminates uncertainty and provides order. In this sense, it is akin to a theory that simplifies and explains the world and facilitates the operation of the cognitive structure.
Flaw. Ralph Waldo Emerson said that “foolish logic is a ghost that haunts narrow-minded people.” Creativity does not tolerate consistency - the creator finds new combinations of phenomena hitherto considered incompatible. Any strategy, like any theory, is a simplification that inevitably distorts reality.
When we have strong confidence in our actions, we tend to achieve very good results. This is precisely the role of strategy for an organization: with its adoption, the main problems are removed and people, having decided on the main thing, instead of discussing the choice of the best market, pay attention to the details - the choice of specific goals or areas of customer service. Even senior managers must devote a significant portion of their working time to managing the organization in this context; they cannot, they simply do not have the right to constantly doubt.
Often from the pages of books we see the image of a manager-strategist, a kind of thinker who harbors grandiose plans, while taking care of the small details is entrusted to someone else. But the responsibilities of a manager for the most part consist of working with details, although, of course, at a high level. He is obliged to use all means available to him as the head of the organization to strengthen the existing perspective (and “culture”), develop contacts in order to obtain important information, negotiate and conclude agreements to strengthen the gained positions, etc.
In this case, the problem lies in changes in surrounding circumstances over time - the external environment is destabilized, familiar niches disappear, and new opportunities open up. Everything that was constructive and effective in the adopted strategy turns over time almost into its opposite. This is why, despite the fact that the concept of strategy is associated with stability, a lot of research focuses on change. But while formulas for strategic change are easy to come by, managing them, especially when change involves new perspectives, is very difficult. The very promotion of strategy implementation and its main function - protecting the organization's employees from strife - presupposes their ability to respond to changes in the external environment. In other words, transformation is very expensive, especially when it is not just about upgrading outdated equipment, but about changes in the usual way of thinking. As intellectual constructs, strategies sometimes make it very difficult for the management of an organization to realize the fact that its views and plans have lost relevance. In our opinion, strategies serve the same function for an organization as blinders do for horses: they prevent them from going astray, but they hardly allow them to see what is going on around them.
All of the above finally convinces us of the vital importance for an organization of both the presence of a strategy (and strategic management) and its absence (see the box “The absence of a strategy is a good thing”).

Strategic management, like marketing and finance, has rightly received the status of an independent scientific discipline. Academic journals on strategic management are published, “clubs” of strategists operate, and scientific conferences are held. The beginning of research on this topic is usually attributed to the mid-1960s, but sometimes it is also referred to as 1951, the year William Newman’s book was published. But much earlier, works on military strategic construction appeared (for example, the “out of print” of the famous treatise on the art of war by Sun Tzu dates back to the 5th century BC). Since the early 1980s. The range of literature on strategic processes began to expand rapidly.
Strategic management courses typically focus on the rational and directive sides of the process (schools of design, planning, and positioning). Strategic management is presented as a cyclical process consisting of three distinct but sequential phases - formulation, implementation and control. This theoretical approach is also reflected in the practice of planning departments of commercial and government organizations and consulting firms.
The authors of the book brought to your attention, deviating from the traditional approach, strive to “write” a more balanced picture of strategic management, but reflecting all the significant contradictions and disagreements. It devotes significant space to non-rational/non-prescriptive schools. Representatives of some of them are very pessimistic about the possibility of formal strategic intervention. We have upset the balance only in one thing - in the critical assessment of various schools. The dominant position in the literature and practice of strategic management completely undeservedly belongs to promising schools, and therefore we consider it appropriate to dwell in more detail on the ideas they propose, often accepted as immutable truths. Of course, we give a critical review of all ten areas, since each of them has its own weaknesses. But when a person is at one end of a see-saw board, it is useless to try to balance it by sitting in the middle. In other words, balance in critical commentary will contribute to maintaining the overall imbalance in the literature and practice of strategic management.
The strategic failures of the largest corporations are largely due to the actions of “hordes” of business school graduates who took a rather superficial course in strategic management. The authors of this book want to show their readers - students and managers - the full range of existing points of view. As S. Hart noted, “the most successful companies use various, even directly competing, theories in shaping their strategy. Such companies can at the same time adhere to a rigid plan and act according to circumstances, regulate, control the actions of employees and allow their participation in management, empower them, make long-range plans and pay attention to detail" (Hart, 1991:121). F. Scott Fitzgerald put it even more bluntly: “Intelligence is tested by the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time and still act effectively.” Of course, in order to be a true strategist, the ability to take into account opposing views is not enough; one must, as J.C. Spender argues, be able to synthesize them (Spender, 1992). So, dear reader, you will have to manage all ten points of view at the same time!
In the field of strategic management, such a synthesis is already overdue. As we will see later, in some cases the latest experience contradicts all existing schools. It would seem that this could bring confusion into our thinking. In fact, the schools we are considering will help to see how all the most important aspects of strategy formation are combined in recent practice. We admire the achievements of many modern managers and illustrate our narrative, where possible, with relevant examples. Well, it seems that strategic management is coming of age.
But synthesis is “in general” impossible. The “reaction” must take place in the head, your head, reader. For our part, we promise all possible assistance. Everyone knows what an elephant looks like, but how often do we describe it in parts? The same is true for verbal description: words form lines, chapters form a book.
So here we go!

In the process of evolution of scientific ideas about strategic management, a number of schools have emerged, namely:

– design school (strategy as comprehension);

– school of planning (strategy as a formal process);

– school of positioning (strategy as an analytical process);

– school of entrepreneurship (strategy as foresight);

– cognitive school (strategy as a mental process);

– school of learning (strategy as a developing process);

– school of power (strategy as a process of negotiation);

– school of culture (strategy as a collective process);

– school of external environment (strategy as a reactive process);

– school of configuration (strategy as transformation).

School design represents the most common approach when building a strategy - an attempt to achieve a match between internal and external capabilities. One of the most famous methods of this school is SWOT analysis - an assessment of the strengths (Strenghts) and weaknesses (Weaknesses) of an enterprise in combination with existing opportunities (Opportunities) and threats (Threats). This school views strategy as a conceptual framework, a theoretical development based on careful elaboration and formalization. Strategy implementation is clearly separated from its modeling: implementation begins only after the final formulation of a unique and simple strategy is completed.

The founder of the school planning is I. Ansoff, whose publications in 1965 marked the beginning of this direction. It became widespread in the 70s. XX century A feature of the planning school is the presence of a number of procedures used to quantify and justify the goals and objectives of the enterprise. In addition, forecasting of the state of the external environment in the future and internal auditing of the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the enterprise are carried out based on the formalization of data in the form of structured arrays. Strategy justification includes calculating the effectiveness of investments, assessing competitive strategies and analyzing risks. This is followed by the development of functional strategies and the formation of long-term, medium-term and short-term strategic plans.

The main achievements of the planning school are the method of scenario planning and strategic control. Strategic planning is based on the assumption that it is possible to foresee changes in the external environment or to have levers to control them. If this premise is not met, this approach can lead the enterprise to undesirable consequences, including bankruptcy.

The founder of the school positioning is Michael Porter, and the main idea of ​​the school, which gained wide popularity in the 80s. XX century, is the assertion of the existence of a limited number of strategies for a specific situation within a certain industry. Rational application of these strategies will allow the enterprise to take a favorable market position, which will provide protection from competitors and the opportunity to grow and strengthen the position of the enterprise.

M. Porter developed a model of five forces of competition (the threat of new competitors, the influence of suppliers, the influence of consumers, the threat of substitute products and competition between enterprises within the industry), under the influence of which the enterprise operates and its strategy is determined. M. Porter identified two types of competitive advantages: low costs and differentiation, which, combined with the size of the target market segments, make it possible to determine a competitive strategy.

School entrepreneurship The strategic process is represented as the activity of the manager (or owner) of the enterprise, which is based on his entrepreneurial intuition, practical experience, rationality and wisdom. The central element of the entrepreneurship school model is the vision, the mental representation of the enterprise, formulated or displayed in the mind of the manager. The manager promotes his concept by personally monitoring its implementation and taking corrective actions if necessary. The advantages of this approach are flexibility in relation to the consumer and speed of response to changes in the external environment.

Cognitive school. According to its supporters, events of objective reality are associated in the mind with a certain knowledge scheme, which is associated with certain expectations of the decision maker. Strategies originate in the form of frames that impose certain restrictions and form requirements for information about the external environment and methods of obtaining it. The process of developing a strategy is perceived as achieving understanding.

According to the school training, strategies arise when people, acting individually or collectively, when studying the current situation, come to an effective pattern of behavior. The complex and unpredictable nature of the organization's external environment prevents the exercise of balanced control; strategy development must first take the form of a learning process - at least during the period when strategy formulation and implementation become inseparable. It is important to train not only the manager, but also the entire team of the organization - many can be potential strategists. Strategic initiatives are carried out by those who have the ability and resources to learn. Successful initiatives can develop into a pattern, that is, an evolving strategy. The role of management is to drive the strategic learning process.

School authorities represents approaches to strategy formulation similar to political processes. Strategy, shaped by power and political forces, tends to take the form of a position or stratagem rather than a perspective. At the micro level, strategy creation is seen as an interaction based on methods of persuasion, negotiation, and sometimes outright confrontation, in the form of political games around intersecting interests and emerging coalitions, none of which has a dominant position for a long period. At the macro level, the focus is on the organization as it moves toward achieving its goals:

· through control over the actions of other market participants;

· through cooperation with them;

· through the use of power levers of the organization.

At the same time, companies rely on both strategic maneuvering and strategic alliances and network structures.

Developing a strategy from the point of view of school representatives culture, is a process of social interaction based on common beliefs and understanding among members of the organization; management of collective cognition. Strategy takes the form first of all of a perspective, and only secondarily of a position reflected in models. Culture and especially ideology promote not strategic change, but the preservation of the current strategy; at best, they allow for adjustments within the overall strategic perspective of the organization.

This approach is most appropriate for the period of implementation of a successful strategic perspective, as well as for the period of restructuring, when a new perspective is collectively created.

School external environment believes that management's tasks are to identify external forces and ensure the organization's adaptation. Organizations gather together in specific niches of an ecological type, where they remain until their resources are exhausted or the hostility of the environment becomes excessive. Then the organizations cease to exist.

According to school representatives configurations, the effective functioning of an enterprise is possible only with a combination of various organizational features that complement each other. For example, management style – organizational structure – management methods. The main goal of strategic management is to maintain the stability of the enterprise for a relatively long time or to ensure changes that are consistent with the strategy of the enterprise.

The above distinction between schools is largely theoretical. But each school has its own advantages, limitations and features. And their theoretical understanding makes it possible to develop and implement real enterprise strategies. For the successful functioning of an enterprise, it is necessary to use a set of methods and tools offered by schools, which, complementing each other, will form a strategic management system.

Any strategy is always associated with the creation and implementation of changes and implies an unconditional focus on the future, and not on the past or present. Focusing on the future means understanding how the economy in the future will differ from the present, what new products may appear in the future, what new technologies may be introduced, and how competitors will act differently in the market. The strategy must reflect how the organization can identify competitors, that is, how to act faster, bigger and wiser than them.

There are five “P” strategies:

1. Strategy is a plan or guideline for development, or a road from the present to the future.

2. Strategy is a principle of behavior or following a certain model of behavior.

3. Strategy is the position, the placement of certain products in competitive markets.

4. Strategy is a perspective, the main way of action of an organization.

5. Strategy is a clever technique, a special “maneuver” with the goal of outwitting an opponent or competitor.

The evolution of strategy schools unites ten well-known schools: the design school, the planning school, the positioning school, the entrepreneurship school, the cognitive school, the learning school, the power school, the cultural school, the external environment school, and the configuration school.

1.Design school. The main idea of ​​the design school is the consistency of the internal and external capabilities of the organization, the use of its competitive advantages, the analysis of SWOT (strengths and weaknesses of the organization, opportunities and threats). The motto of this school is “establishing conformity.” Strategy is viewed by representatives of this school as a deliberate process of conscious thinking.

2. School of planning. Views strategy formation as a formal process. The greatest influence on the formation and development of this school was exerted by Igor Ansoff, outlining its main provisions in the book “Corporate Strategy”, published in 1965.

3.Positioning school. This school argues that for each industry there are a limited number of strategies that can produce the desired results, that is, key strategies. A significant contribution to the development of this school was made by M.Porter with his book Competitive Strategy, published in 1980.

4.School of Entrepreneurship. Studies strategy as a process of foresight that arises in the mind of the head of an organization (the manager is perceived as a leader).

5.Cognitive school. Proponents of this school analyze the strategic process from the point of view of human cognitive abilities. According to representatives of this school, strategies originate as perspectives in the form of concepts, maps, and diagrams that involve obtaining information from the environment.

6. School of training. This school is based on descriptions of the external environment of the organization. The best “learner” in an organization should be its leader. The learning process must be evolving. Strategic initiatives are carried out by those who have the ability and resources to learn.

7. School of power. Interprets the process of strategy formation as an open struggle for influence, with special emphasis on the importance of using power and political methods. By the term power, representatives of this school designate influences that go beyond the boundaries of pure economics (including economic power).

8. School of culture. Considers the construction of strategy as a collective process, calling the source of strategy formation the social power of culture. Representatives of this school associate organizational culture with collective cognition.

9. School of external environment. Approaches strategy building as a reactive process. This school seeks to balance the general idea of ​​strategy formation taking into account changes in the external environment, management opinions and the state of the organization itself.

10. School of configuration. This school is ready for the general reconciliation of all other schools, believing that configuration (change in the state of the organization) should be followed by transformation (transition of the organization to a new state).

The listed schools, in turn, can be divided into three groups (considering that all schools cover the same period of time - from 1960 to 1995). The first three schools are prescriptive in nature - their adherents are more interested in how strategies should be formed, rather than how they are actually developed.