Article,
Critique of Henry Mintzberg's `The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management'
Strat. Mgmt. J., 12 (6): 449--461 (September 1991)
DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250120605
Abstract
Mintzberg's (1990) critique of the ‘design school’ of strategic management
is evaluated on two criteria: methodological soundness and factual
veracity. The critique is found to be deficient on both criteria.
Mintzberg's own proposal for the basic principles of strategic management
is critiqued using the same criteria. It is found that the exposition
is deficient methodologically and that Mintzberg's descriptive and
prescriptive assertions are at variance with facts observable in
the current practice of strategic management. The variance is found
to be due to several factors: lack of coherence in Mintzberg's presentation;
his use of a definition of strategy which is at variance with the
current practice of management, his failure to differentiate between
prescriptive and descriptive statements; and his failure to define
the context for his prescriptions. Using recent empirical research
results on strategic success behaviors, Mintzberg's model is placed
in a limited but important context in which it is a valid prescription
for successful strategic behavior.
