Could someone please help me with a reply to my classmate response.
Here is the topic of the discussion: The “5 P’s of Strategy” capture the complexity of defining Strategic Management. Select ONE of the “5 P’s” – (1) explain why you selected that particular concept, i.e., why do you believe it is important to the overall strategic management process and (2) explain whether that particular concepts requires more of a perspective of art or science from the strategic leaders point of view.
Here is my post to thetopic discussion:
The 5 P's of procedure are - Plan, Ploy, Pattern, Position, Perspective
As a Plan, procedure should be produced ahead of time and with reason.
As a Ploy, procedure is a methods for defeating the opposition.
With procedure as a Pattern, we figure out how to welcome that what was effective in the past can prompt accomplishment later on.
With Position, procedure is about how the association identifies with its aggressive condition, and what it can do to make its items one of a kind in the commercial center.
Point of view underlines the considerable impact that hierarchical culture and aggregate reasoning can have on vital basic leadership inside an organization.
The P that is essential to general key administration process is "Position".
"Position" is an essential method to characterize a technique. In alternate words, it relies upon how you choose to position yourself in the commercial center. Along these lines, methodology causes you investigate the best-fit between your association and your condition, and it encourages you to build up a reasonable upper hand in the market.
This is critical in light of the fact that, without knowing your situation in showcase, you can't begin chipping away at your shortcoming and begin enhancing them, improving you qualities, investigating your chances and remain careful about the potential dangers. (Mintzberg, H. , 1987)Henceforth, position as a system is vital in general key administration process.
Here is our conversation:
My classmate: What Mintzberg is saying is that a firm can see itself solely as its position in the market place. This is true in highly competitive markets. For example, Delta Airline positions itself as the largest in the US and a global competitor whereas Ryan Air positions its a the low cost provider on air travel in Europe. These respective positions simplify the world for both firms because it limits the amount of stuff they need to worry about.
My reply: I actually agree partially, but when we talk about position in strategy, we should understand what the organization thinks about its position in the market. Position here is not a relative term, rather it is the place that the organization has made for itself. For example if we look at Apple we will see that the position apple has in the industry is something everyone wants to achieve. Apple also formulate its strategy based on the position it holds in the market because Apple is aware that a minor mistake will make them lose the position it has reached. Hence, rather than considering it as something relative, position can be considered as the place where an organization understands and evaluates and distinguishes it from the total industry.
My classmate response: Remember that Mintzberg's 5 P's are simply different definitions of strategy. He doesn't argue that strategic managers choose one over the other but that students of strategy, like you and me, can use any one of the P's to understand what a firm is doing strategically. Using Apple as an example, I would suggest that Pattern fits their behavior well. Apple is driven by product innovation, be it Apple Music, iPhone X or iMacs. We can see a pattern repeated where Apple develops new products, marketing buzz is created, the product is launched in scarcity and demand is generated. That is a consistent pattern and while it's long term viability can be disputed, it worked in the past and they will continue this pattern until it losses utility. I hope this makes sense, if not continue the conversation.