Mintzberg (1978) proposes that the commonly used definition of strategy be called ‘planned strategy’ and introduces the new definition of ’emergent strategy’ as a pattern of behavior in a stream of actions, in the absence of or in spite of prior intentions. Consistent with the above, a deliberate process of strategy creation can be defined, corresponding to the traditional, conscious and intentional process, that gives rise to planned or intended strategies, deliberate strategies (realized intentions) and unrealized strategies (unrealized intentions), and an emergent process of strategy creation that gives rise to emergent strategies.
While the planned strategy focuses on control, in other words, on ensuring that the directive intentions are carried out as specified, the emergent strategy puts the emphasis on learning, i.e. on the confrontation between thought and action, when participants reflect on what they do (analysis and formulation → action → feedback (control) → learning (analysis of the feedback)), so that over time a pattern of behavior converges on the developed stream of actions that constitutes the strategy (emergent strategy) (Mintzberg et al., 1998).
The emergent strategy may come from the activities of an individual leader or a small management team, but it often has other types of actors: individual participants or groups of people from any part of the organization (Mintzberg et al., 1998).
Mintzberg and McHugh (1985) establish an interesting analogy in this respect, defining a ‘grass-roots model’ of strategy formation (bottom-up emergent process) as opposed to the ‘hothouse model’ (deliberate process) of the Prescriptive Schools. In the former, strategies initially grow like weeds in a garden, taking root in all sorts of places. Some of them can proliferate, influencing the behavioral pattern (strategy) of the organization. In this context, leading is about creating the right climate within which a wide variety of strategies can originate and grow (flexible structures, creative staff, tolerant ideologies, etc.), observing what arises, not being too quick to cut off or eliminate the unexpected, and intervening when appropriate, eliminating or encouraging incipient emergent strategies.
Finally, it should be noted that in some types of organizations (highly decentralized, lacking leadership, without clearly defined strategies, etc.) incipient emergent strategies that arise from the bottom-up can be realized without needing to be incorporated into the formal planning system or, more generally, into the deliberate process of strategy making (Mintzberg and McHugh, 1985).
The following table and figure respectively describe and represent the emergent strategic process according to Mintzberg when the protagonists are top managers (‘top-down’ emergent process). In this case the strategic process consists of a stream of actions that are carried out incrementally and iteratively as top managers respond to the unexpected events that occur, from which they learn as a consequence of the confrontation between thought and action (analysis and formulation → action → feedback (control) → learning (analysis of the feedback)), so that over time they converge on a pattern of behavior that constitutes the strategy (emergent strategy).
Table. Description of the ‘top-down’ emergent strategic process according to Mintzberg
Figure. Representation of the ‘top-down’ emergent strategic process according to Mintzberg
NOTE: In the book “The strategic process of the firm: Theory and cases” (Roch, 2024) there are more case studies than those included in this blog.
If you are interested in going deeper into the strategic process, allow me to recommend you: - Book: "The strategic process of the firm: Theory and cases" (Roch, 2024). - Courses and consulting program on the strategic process.
