Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning [Hardcover]

The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning is no exception. It is a book about finding a general theory of strategic planning which, given that the search is rooted in Mintzberg's observations of what actually happens in the real world, has the potential for practical application.

His perspectives make one's understanding of the subject more complete; they promote one's ability to balance a potentially narrow view of the world with something richer. It doesn't really matter whether you think Mintzberg right or wrong, spot-on or off-beam, at least you have an alternative view. There are so many tidbits in his books that you invariably pick up something of worth.

From my own perspective, having read through (and intending to continue to read) the book on many occasions in my own attempts to implement some strategic planning concepts, I draw my own conclusions about two of Mintzberg's perspectives which I feel are worth commenting on.

Firstly, he takes the unique view of dividing the conventional planning model vertically along budget, objective, strategy and program lines (rather than cascading traditionally through corporate, business and functional lines down to actions). I have found, after much toying with this perspective, that it amounts to an hypothesis on how strategic planning actually works, and nothing more. His book focuses on expounding that exploratory hypothesis and, to some extent, because he focuses so heavily on it and because it is such a novel way of looking at things, it actually tends to make one forget that it is only a hypothesis. After many readings, I'm not sure how much the perspective enlightens and how much it obscures - that is the nature of hypotheses.

Secondly and finally, Mintzberg provides his own outline of how to pursue strategic planning using a three step model. Alas, and disappointingly, the model provides little practical guidance at the end of the day. It is far too vague, far too removed from everyday requirements. It also suffers from the absence of an actual example of its application. Then again, that's not what the book was about - although I was hoping.

Thank you Henry Mintzberg for the insight. The book is worth every cent for that alone.

Dr. Michael Beitler
Author of "Strategic Organizational Change"

Before you dismiss this point as being merely of academic interest, consider several of Mintzberg's more telling points: Forecasting is seldom accurate for long; creating intense alignment in the wrong direction can make a company vulnerable to sudden shifts in the market; formal staffs can simply create political games; and thinking that is not linked into the important processes of the company will have limited impact. If those points are right, what does it mean about how work should be performed in your organization?

Having been there and done that as both a strategic planner in the early 1970s and a strategy consultant before that, I recognize the disease as he diagnoses it. In fact, many of the people he quotes and evaluates are people I know. I also saw many of the companies improve themselves by doing less planning.

You can only cover so much in one book, but the potential of strategic work is to improve significant communications, thinking and action in the enterprise. That can help eliminate the significant stalls that delay progress. If Professor Mintzberg decides to do a second edition of this book, I hope he will do more with those subjects.

What has been disappointing to me and others who are familiar with the problems that strategic planning has experienced is the lack of alternatives being proposed. Mintzberg has proposed one, but it is pretty primitive. It just gets rid of some of the wasted motion in strategic planning, without building on success.

One of the few advanced processes that I know of is one that I co-authored in the soon-to-be-published, The Irresistible Growth Enterprise. If you are interested in that subject, take a look at that book's introduction.

I was pleased to see Mintzberg challenge Michael Porter to choose a method for selecting among paths for a business or company. When I first read Porter, I felt he waffled on that point, too. My research and experience strongly suggest that paths that leave you better off regardless of the unexpected changes you could experience work best. To locate those paths can be made systematic, as a way of helping people apply both analysis and intuition to finding better alternatives. That is what strategic planning should have focused on. I agree with Mintzberg in assigning importance to the generation of new and better alternatives as one potential benefit of strategy work, whether done by the line executive, a staff person, a consultant, or all of the above together.

I especially liked his awareness of the need for commitment. Involvement is a necessary part of gaining commitment, and the strategy processes that many use misses that important connection.

The book could have been improved, however, by doing some field work with companies which developed strategies that prospered well beyond their peers and seeming potential. What did they do that helped to create these results? Or was it a case of a stopped clock being right twice a day? Without answering that question, Mintzberg leaves us back in the pre Frederick Taylor days, except with a better idea of what does not work.

I have done substantial unpublished research on just that question. It is clear that there are several models that companies have used successfully to develop better strategies, implement them well, adapt to changes in a timely manner, and build systematically on success. I suggest you consider Clear Channel Communications as a company that focuses on rethinking the basic business model, Southwest Airlines as a company that achieves a superior cost position and efficiently transfers benefits from that to all stakeholder groups, and Linear Technology as a company that follows a strategy that should allow it to prosper regardless of the shifts in things it cannot stop or control.

No review of this book would be complete without noting that Mintzberg's persistent skepticism makes for some pretty humorous reading (unless you are one of the writers or planners he is questioning). Be sure you take time to enjoy the subtle humor in his writing.

Well done, Professor Mintzberg! I think this is the best work about how managers should manage their fundamental thinking that I have seen in the last 20 years.

You should be sure to read this book both to understand the lessons of strategic planning and what that implies for other thinking processes in your enterprise. You management education will not be complete until you do.