Porter vs. Mintzberg

Porter vs. Mintzberg

This week we see two very different perspectives on strategy as highlighted by Porter and Mintzberg. In a nutshell, Porter would have you choose one of three generic strategies (Cost Leadership, Differentiation, or Focus) and analyze your organization in order to know which strategy to best choose. Mintzberg on the other hand would have you start down a path toward a strategy but not have it planned out. Basically, we would see where the road would take us. Evaluate the patterns of actions that are taken in response to certain circumstances and see the strategy that emerges from those actions. 

For me, I see myself initially drawn to the teachings of Porter more than Mintzberg. This is simply because I prefer structure, detail and an "equation" to follow and Porter's theory lends itself to this nicely. However, I am also drawn to Mintzberg's teachings. As my Myers-Briggs test would reflect, the Protagonist is well suited for Mintzberg's theory. Protagonists can change environments easily, learn quickly to adapt, and listen to others to seek answers or feedback. I enjoying seeing the patterns emerge in business and structuring my goals and objectives around those patterns.

My question would be, why can't we use both? I think that it is short sighted (at best) to think that the teachings of Porter and Mintzberg are mutually exclusive. In fact I see one overarching theme in both theories: you must know yourself as an organization. Porter explains that "it is vital that you take your organization's competencies and strengths into account" when choosing which strategy to pursue (Mind Tools Content Team, n.d.). Likewise, Mintzberg states that you must "knowing[ing] the organization's capabilities well enough to think deeply enough about its strategic direction" (Mintzberg, 1987). Because of this, I would argue that these theories are not entirely different. They are seemingly in a relationship where one is a predecessor to the other. 

While I agree with Mintzberg that an "organization can have a pattern (or realize a strategy) without knowing it." (Mintzberg, 1987), I do not believe that this is the norm. Some "happy accidents" do exist, but I believe what Mintzberg is detailing is more around flexibility of thought. I would argue that a plan - however rudimentary - should be formed first. The assessments that are proposed by Porter allow for this beginning company knowledge valuation and plan to come together. Once we begin executing to the plan however, I believe that Mintzberg would come into play to allow for the plan to be altered and redirected if necessary. 

Especially in this day and age where the pace of business is incredibly fast, if you are not flexible, you will not survive. A "5 year plan" is not practical. It is more adequate to say, 'this is my plan right now' and then look for changes inside and outside the organization that might cause a need for course correction. This is what I believe is the real challenge. Mintzberg hit on this when he said that there are often mainly levels of company hierarchy between the strategy maker and the strategy executor (Mintzberg, 1987). How do we lessen the gap in organizations in order to allow for the patterns to be seen and the course to be corrected? This will be touched on in my special project.

As far as KM strategy goes, I believe that KM happens organically. As humans, we innately want to share with others. Only when other obstacles get in the way is knowledge hindered or hoarded. We see this when we look at small businesses who might not have procedures for KM necessarily, but it is still there. The farmer who teaches his son how to plow fields, the administrative assistant that bullet points her daily activities to be used when she is out of the office, or the the dance instructor that jots down notes about a performance to help improve her students. All of it is KM in some form. It doesn't have to be formal, but as business grows, the KM strategy should be developed and formalized. As Rumelt states in his article on The Perils of Bad Strategy, choice and decision are necessary or a weak strategy will result (2011). Due to the organic nature of KM, if the organization doesn't make a choice - someone will. This choice might not be in line with the company goals, it may not be robust enough to support the organization, and inconsistencies might be seen from location to location, department to department, and person to person making it very difficult to utilize, maintain and retain the knowledge. It is because of this that I believe a KM strategy is just as important as a business strategy and needs to be just as flexibly minded. 

References:

Mind Tools Content Team. (n.d.). Porter's generic strategies choosing your route to success. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_82.htm

Mintzberg, H. (1987, July). Crafting strategy. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1987/07/crafting-strategy

Rumelt, R. (2011, June). The perils of bad strategy. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-perils-of-bad-strategy