Emergent strategy
Dennis P. Slevin and Jeffrey G. Covin
Emergent strategy can be defined as internally consistent patterns of competitive actions and reactions that spontaneously arise over time as organizations navigate within their operating environments. This definition recognizes that emergent strategies may occupy one end of a deliberate–emergent continuum which represents different fundamental behaviors concerning the strategic process (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). Deliberate strategies involve a well articulated and formalized planning process. Commonly with deliberate strategies, assumptions are checked; SWOT analyses are conducted; specific plans are formulated; and then the organization tracks its performance according to plan. Deliberate strategies reflect a Newtonian philosophical approach to the universe and are characteristic of much of the scholarly thinking concerning strategic planning in the 1960s and 1970s (Newman and Logan, 1971; Ansoff, 1965; Steiner, 1969; Andrews, 1971).
Emergent strategies, in contrast, are more sporadic, short time frame, reactive, and opportunistic responses to environmental conditions. Mintzberg and Waters have suggested a five part model in which intended strategy eventually develops into realized strategy (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985; Mintzberg, 1994). The starting point is the intended strategy, but things do not always go as planned and unrealized strategies drop off the intended strategic menu. This generates the deliberate strategy of the firm, which is then augmented by the emergent strategy, and the confluence of deliberate strategy and emergent strategy results in the realized (actual) strategy of the firm.
In the simplest of worlds the intended strategy would become the realized strategy, and life would be mechanistic and predictable. In the most complex and challenging of worlds there might not even be an intended strategy, but merely an emergent strategy in response to variously anticipated environmental and competitive challenges. Mintzberg and Waters (1985) suggest not only a deliberate–emergent strategy continuum, but also the fact that various strategy types can exist within this continuum. These include planned, entrepreneurial, ideological, umbrella, process, unconnected, consensus, and imposed strategy types.
The propensity of firms to exhibit emergent strategies will likely be related to the extent to which those firms seek to recognize and exploit entrepreneurial opportunity. For example, high growth new ventures often follow emergent strategies to cope with the high rates of change they are facing. It has been proposed that ‘‘time . . . exerts unrelenting forward pressure on successful entrepreneurial ventures for continuous adaptation’’ (Slevin and Covin, 1997a: 58). Emergent strategy can enable new ventures to meet the needs of continuous adaptation. Likewise, long established firms that wish to engage in entrepreneurial activity must similarly cope with rapid change via emergent strategic processes. However, the need for and potential benefit of emergent strategy may be somewhat diminished, in a relative sense, among firms that are generally less inclined to act entrepreneurially. This is so because the absence of an entrepreneurial orientation among such firms will correspond with less felt need for strategic responsiveness, as enabled through emergent strategy, to recognized entrepreneurial opportunities.
The Word ‘‘Emergent’’
‘‘Emergent’’ is an interesting word because it captures some of the spontaneity and reactivity of the strategy formation (vs. formulation) process. The word ‘‘emergent’’ is often used in the context of budding flowers or sprouting trees. Synonyms include ‘‘appearing,’’ ‘‘budding,’’ ‘‘coming,’’ ‘‘developing,’’ ‘‘efflorescent,’’ ‘‘emanant,’’ ‘‘emanating,’’ ‘‘emerging,’’ ‘‘issuing forth,’’ ‘‘outgoing,’’ and ‘‘rising.’’ However, as a word, it may not capture much of the desperation that often accompanies firms’ efforts to reorient their strategic focus. It would be interesting to find some label that more accurately denotes the reactivity and spontaneity of the emergent strategy process. Perhaps the expression ‘‘responsive strategy’’ captures more of the characteristics, or at least additional connotations, of the phenomenon.
Nonetheless, it appears as though ‘‘emergence’’ is increasingly recognized as a useful construct in strategic management and organizational behavior research. As Goldstein (1999: 68) suggests: ‘‘Emergence is not an entirely new topic. Conceptual constructs resembling emergence can be found in Western thought since the time of the ancient Greeks, and have at times had significant impact on intellectual culture. How ever, emergence is emerging today as a construct of complex, dynamical systems.’’ Certainly, the prior observations on the relevance of emergent strategy for entrepreneurial firms would support this contention.
Defining the Emergent-to-Planned Strategy Continuum
Percy W. Bridgman (1927), a US physicist and the father of operationalism, suggested that concepts are defined by the behaviors used to measure them. In this spirit, it may be useful to specify items that have been used in empirical research to measure the Emergent to Planned Strategy Scale (Slevin and Covin, 1997b). The following items are all measured on a seven point ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree’’ Likert scale.
- We typically don’t know what the content of our business strategy should be until we engage in some trial and error actions. (Re verse scored)
- My business unit’s strategy is carefully planned and well understood before any significant competitive actions are taken.
- Formal strategic plans serve as a basis for our competitive actions.
- My business unit’s strategy is typically not planned in advance, but, rather, emerges over time as the best means for achieving our objectives become clearer. (Reverse scored)
- Competitive strategy for my business unit typically results from a formal business planning process (i.e., the formal plan precedes the action).
It appears clear from the above items that there are two ends of the continuum:
Deliberate: Environmental analysis Formulation
Implementation Evaluation and control
Emergent: Purposefully maneuver toward desired end
state Evaluate progress Incrementally
adapt Purposefully maneuver toward desired
end state
There is no reason to believe that the firm must stay at either the deliberate or the emergent end of the strategy continuum. It makes sense that one could start with a deliberate planning process based on core competencies and resources of the firm and then apply emergent ‘‘patches’’ as needed to respond to environmental exigencies. These emergent ‘‘patches’’ could be metaphorically compared to the numerous software patches that we work with as we engage our computer systems. The entire software system is not rewritten, but rather a ‘‘patch’’ is applied to cope with a virus or some other environmental contingency. Other conditions may call for the development of a much more comprehensive emergent strategy. Moreover, there is no reason to suggest that deliberate and emergent strategic planning processes cannot exist simultaneously in the same firm. According to Mintzberg (1994: 111): ‘‘All viable strategies have emergent and deliberate [i.e., planned] qualities, since all must combine some degree of flexible learning with some degree of cerebral control.’’ In a recent emergent strategy 59 study, Fletcher and Harris (2002) used participants in a Graduate Enterprise Programme in the UK to determine their frequency of participation in deliberate versus emergent planning processes. The results, in brief, suggest ‘‘the emergent category appeared most frequently (95 instances within 24 of the 25 firms), followed by planning (53 instances within 20 firms). The integrated category occurred less frequently (36 instances in 15 firms), while the ‘neither planning nor integrated’ category appeared in only 16 instances and 10 firms’’ (Fletcher and Harris, 2002: 304).
These results and intuition suggest that firms cycle on the deliberate–emergent strategy continuum and that strategic processes at both ends of the continuum can possibly occur simultaneously (Fletcher and Harris, 2002: 304). An important matter, regardless of whether the strategy is deliberate or emergent, is the issue of consistency. It makes sense to argue that the essence of most good strategies is consistency in decisions concerning markets, customers, pro duction, design, service, and so on (Argyreis and McGahan, 2002). As noted by Mintzberg (1987: 29), ‘‘strategy is a concept rooted in stability.’’
Research into the phenomenon of emergent strategy might productively focus on the following questions.
What are the organizational architecture attributes that enable companies to effectively carry out emergent strategies? Organizational architecture is the conduit through which strategies are enacted, so architectures must be created with the needs of strategy in mind. Given the increasingly recognized need for companies to exhibit strategic flexibility (Eisenhardt and Brown, 1999), contributing to a better under standing of how organizational architecture facilitates or inhibits the exhibition of emergent strategy should be a high priority for research ers.
How can emergent strategy be harnessed or directed to best leverage entrepreneurial opportunities? Entrepreneurial opportunities are often autonomously and serendipitously recognized by an organization’s members (Burgelman, 1984). The effective exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities would, therefore, seem to be dependent upon the organization’s ability to craft an emergent strategy designed with the objective of entrepreneurial growth in mind. Studies of how the most innovative companies exhibit strategic responsiveness to recognized entrepreneurial opportunities are suggested.
How is emergent strategy managed from an organizational level perspective? Relevant challenges here would include determining (1) how the control function is manifested in firms whose strategies are emergent; (2) how the parameters of acceptable or desirable strategic behaviors are communicated within firms with emergent strategies; and (3) how the pattern of strategic behavior that represents emergent strategy is established and sustained over time.
Bibliography
Andrews, K. (1971). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Argyreis, N. and McGahan, A. M. (2002). An interview with Michael Porter. Academy of Management Executive, 16 (2): 43 52.
Bridgman, Percy W. (1927). The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan.
Burgelman, R. A. (1984). Managing the internal corporate venturing process: Some recommendations from practice. Sloan Management Review, 25 (2): 33 48.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Brown, S. L. (1999). Patching: Restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets. Harvard Business Review, 77 (3): 72 82.
Fletcher, M. and Harris, S. (2002). Seven aspects of strategy formation: Exploring the value of planning. International Small Business Journal, 20 (3): 297 313.
Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1 (1): 49 73.
Mintzberg, H. (1987). Strategy concept II: Another look at why organizations need strategies. California Management Review, 30 (1): 25 32.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72 (1): 107 14.
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6: 257 72.
Newman, W. A. and Logan, J. P. (1971). Strategy, Policy, and Central Management. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publications.
Slevin, D. P. and Covin, J. G. (1997a). Time, growth, complexity, and transitions: Entrepreneurial challenges for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 22 (2): 53 68.
Slevin, D. P. and Covin, J. G. (1997b). Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of context. Journal of Management, 23 (2): 189 209.
Steiner, G. A. (1969). Strategic Planning: What Every Manager Must Know. New York: Free Press.
Tags