A Study of Two Strategy Schools: Comparison across Three Dimensions
Course: OM8012 – Strategy
Instructor: Dr. Charles Grantham
The purpose of this paper is to examine two of the ten strategy schools reviewed in Strategy Safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management and to compare them across the three dimensions: root, content and process, and contextual. The schools chosen for this paper were the Learning School and the Configuration School.
As the paper develops, it will include analysis on how each of the two strategy schools views:
* How risk, uncertainty, and effective resource allocation are best managed.
* How market structure influences strategic options.
* How fast-moving environments are best approached.
A Short Introduction of each School
The Learning School (LS) is the first of the two schools to be analyzed in this paper. The LS appears to be structured as a body of knowledge whose approach is growth oriented and achieves that growth through a combination of thought and effort. It is also not bound by organizational definitions and believes that strategists exist anywhere in the business, rather than where an organizational chart defines them to exist (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 2005).
The Configuration School (CS) is the second of the two schools. The CS seems to be a combination of academic and descriptive characteristics and considers organizations as groups of behaviors and characteristics. The CS combines organizational behavior, change, and transformation, making it very powerful as a strategy tool (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 2005).
The Dimensions, briefly explained.
As originally noted, there are three dimensions to be considered in this review. Dimensions themselves are a set of constructs which allow a variety of elements to be identified about the company, groups, organizations, process, and so forth (Strijker &...