ABSTRACT
In addition to recognizing the crucial role that managers play in shaping the destinies of organizations, it is important to acknowledge and to take into account other influences on strategy formation. Looking at strategy-making processes more generally, Mintzberg and Waters (1985) identified two dominant strategic patterns, which they subsequently termed 'deliberate strategy' and 'emergent strategy'. Deliberate strategy, as its name implies, advocates purposeful and planned actions using careful and logical analysis upon which impartial decision-making can be applied. Emergent strategy, on the other hand, incorporates the view that some (indeed many) organizations do not articulate and formulate strategy through formal processes, even though they have coherent business strategies. In this explanation of strategy formation, strategy is crafted rather than planned and is discernible as a pattern in a stream of actions. This is a useful definition for organization analysts as it allows strategy to be inferred from actions; the analyst is more likely to notice actions than to be present at the decision-making that provoked those actions. It also allows us to propose theories that account for these actions, and if the theories withstand scrutiny, they can be used to develop explanations that enable us to understand strategy formation processes. Yet it is also the case that theories of strategy making processes should be treated cautiously because they may be consistent with the facts but may not be true explanations. Mintzberg et al. (1996), for example, have shown how Pascale's analysis of Honda's entry into the US motor cycle market gave a completely different interpretation to events than did the Boston Consulting Group working from a rational planning/positioning perspective (Pascale, 1996).
