Assume you are the new CEO of the Delta Phi Corporation. When the Board of Directors appointed you CEO, they indicated that a strategy for the next decade should be developed. In your discussion post, indicate (based on the readings, not just personal opinion) how you would think about the task of formulating a strategy for the company looking at the decade ahead. Special attention should be given to how the different views of strategy by Porter and Mintzberg would influence your approach.LIST ALL REFERENCES There are two people, and only two, whose ideas must be taught to every MBA in the world: Michael Porter and Henry Mintzberg. This was true more than 25 years ago, when I did my MBA at USC. These are two academics who have had real impact for a long time. Part of their success, beyond having big relevant ideas, is due to their clear and concise writing skills (There is certainly a lesson in there for many of us business school academics). Both have been very influential in the study of strategy, an area of considerable interest to many Forbes readers. You can contrast their two views as Porter’s taking a more deliberate strategy approach while Mintzberg’s emphasize emergent strategy. Both are still taught, in fact, I taught Porter’s 3 Generic Strategies and his 5 Forces Model not two weeks ago in an undergraduate strategy course at McGill. Which is most useful today? The world of deliberate strategy is one that I remember well from my days as a corporate manager at IBM and then as an executive teacher at Oxford and LBS. It was a world of strategy planning weekends at posh hotels in the English countryside, where we sat in rooms discussing the 5 Forces in our particular industry and what would we change in the model if we had a fairy\'s magic wand. The output was 3 ring binders in North America and 2 ring binders in Europe. This worked well in its day, back in the 80s and part of the 90s, wonderful times now looking back on it, when the past was quite helpful in predicting the future. However, the nature of the world today no longer lends itself, by in large, to this type of strategy. Emergent strategy is the view that strategy emerges over time as intentions collide with and accommodate a changing reality. Emergent strategy is a set of actions, or behavior, consistent over time, \"a realized pattern [that] was not expressly intended\" in the original planning of strategy. Emergent strategy implies that an organization is learning what works in practice. Given today’s world, I think emergent strategy is on the upswing. Here’s why. But first, in the interest of transparency, I have worked closely with Henry co-directing and co- teaching on Leadership Programs at McGill, where we are both on the faculty, for more than a decade. In fact, many times, I have presented key parts of Porter’s ideas on strategy for a couple of hours and then Henry presents his ideas as a contrast to Michael’s. We started doing this tag team effort about 11 years ag.

1. Assume you are the new CEO of the Delta Phi Corporation. When the Board of Directors
appointed you CEO, they indicated that a strategy for the next decade should be developed. In
your discussion post, indicate (based on the readings, not just personal opinion) how you would
think about the task of formulating a strategy for the company looking at the decade ahead.
Special attention should be given to how the different views of strategy by Porter and Mintzberg
would influence your approach.LIST ALL REFERENCES
There are two people, and only two, whose ideas must be taught to every MBA in the world:
Michael Porter and Henry Mintzberg. This was true more than 25 years ago, when I did my
MBA at USC. These are two academics who have had real impact for a long time. Part of their
success, beyond having big relevant ideas, is due to their clear and concise writing skills (There
is certainly a lesson in there for many of us business school academics).
Both have been very influential in the study of strategy, an area of considerable interest to many
Forbes readers. You can contrast their two views as Porter’s taking a more deliberate strategy
approach while Mintzberg’s emphasize emergent strategy. Both are still taught, in fact, I taught
Porter’s 3 Generic Strategies and his 5 Forces Model not two weeks ago in an undergraduate
strategy course at McGill. Which is most useful today?
The world of deliberate strategy is one that I remember well from my days as a corporate
manager at IBM and then as an executive teacher at Oxford and LBS. It was a world of strategy
planning weekends at posh hotels in the English countryside, where we sat in rooms discussing
the 5 Forces in our particular industry and what would we change in the model if we had a
fairy's magic wand. The output was 3 ring binders in North America and 2 ring binders in
Europe. This worked well in its day, back in the 80s and part of the 90s, wonderful times now
looking back on it, when the past was quite helpful in predicting the future. However, the nature
of the world today no longer lends itself, by in large, to this type of strategy.
Emergent strategy is the view that strategy emerges over time as intentions collide with and
accommodate a changing reality. Emergent strategy is a set of actions, or behavior, consistent
over time, "a realized pattern [that] was not expressly intended" in the original planning of
strategy. Emergent strategy implies that an organization is learning what works in practice.
Given today’s world, I think emergent strategy is on the upswing. Here’s why.
But first, in the interest of transparency, I have worked closely with Henry co-directing and co-
teaching on Leadership Programs at McGill, where we are both on the faculty, for more than a
decade. In fact, many times, I have presented key parts of Porter’s ideas on strategy for a couple
of hours and then Henry presents his ideas as a contrast to Michael’s. We started doing this tag
team effort about 11 years ago and it has become increasingly easy for Henry to shoot me down
in the last few years. And the executives in the class agree with Henry.

2. It seems the relatively stable world of (at least part of) my corporate career has gone the way of
the dodo. At times, it seems the world‘s gone nuts. Let me count the ways: Japan, the PIGS,
9/11, Hurricane Katrina, SARS, the financial collapse of 2008 and 2009, the BP oil spill, and
many more examples. As one writer put in it this weekend’s Sunday New York Times, “For a
moment, all the swans seemed black.” However, as my friend Dick Evans, ex-CEO of Alcan,
pointed out that my memory was being a bit selective, as it was not only recently that stability
seems to have gone out the window. He reminded me of the time he was stationed “in Africa
experiencing 3 coups – and then back in the USA in the midst of the junk bond raiders, a
wrenching manufacturing recession and the fall of the Iron Curtain – not to mention personally
experiencing the Loma Prieta earthquake. All of these seemed pretty “black swanish” to me at
the time!” Fair point, nevertheless, it seems that strategy has shifted in the last decade to where
the planning school no longer has the street cred it once had. It is precisely because we cannot,
try as we may, control the variables that factor into business decisions that Mintzberg’s emergent
strategy is so useful.
Porter’s ideas are still relevant, my colleagues and I still teach them, so I still believe in them and
when I talk to corporate CEOs they still use them as part of their strategy planning thinking. But
they are getting a bit long in the tooth for today’s different world. Henry’s emergent strategy
ideas simply seem to be more relevant to the world we live in today – they reflect the fact that
our plans will fail. This is not to say that planning isn’t useful, but other than some long term
technology plans, the day of the 5 year and even 2 year plans has faded and emergent strategy is
the reality in most industries that I work with. You must be much more fleet of foot, strategic
flexibility is what we are looking for in most industries. The boundaries are more fluid now. For
many, albeit not all, knowing what industry you are in is not as clear cut as it once was. This
makes industry analysis less easy. The value chain is now shared across firm boundaries and at
times, in part, in common with competitors.
Though I think that Henry’s ideas have pulled ahead of Michael’s, I very much keep on an eye
on Porter’s thinking. I interviewed him recently for a weekly videocast I do for the Globe and
Mail, Canada’s National Newspaper, because his new ideas are very much current. Interestingly
both Porter and Mintzberg started to put a great deal of their attention on Health Care about 8-10
years ago. They approach the topic differently. Porter is in the U.S. and Mintzberg in Canada,
which have quite different health care systems, yet when I realized this it was clear signal to me
that this is an area that I should pay attention to. The other thing Porter has been working on,
Corporate Social Responsibility, suggests a fairly fundamental change in how corporate
American runs itself. Meanwhile, Henry is working on Rebalancing Society...radical renewal
beyond Smith and Marx.
So when it comes to Strategy I think Henry’s ideas are au courant. Yet when I consider their

3. most recent respective work I see that they are looking at two not dissimilar topics, albeit in
different ways. We are indeed fortunate that these two outstanding minds are still at it when
many others are retired. Still two, too very much keep an eye on!
This new Forbes.com column is called Rethinking Leadership. What I will do one week is to
feature video interviews with top business professors from the world’s leading business schools
on their latest thinking, how they are rethinking what we teach in B-schools. The other week I
will write an on-line column like this one. A key theme is to ruminate on how younger people,
what I call the PostModern Generation, want to be worked with. A book I am working on is
entitled: PostModern Management: Leading, ManagingWorking With Under 35s The Way They
Want To Be Worked With. They don’t want to be lead or managed, those words are too strong
for them, they want to be worked with, more on that soon.
Solution
Becoming the new CEO of the Delta Phi Corporation and being designated to build up a strategy
for the next ten years, I would plan to explore the perspectives of Porter and Mintzberg in
developing procedure. In my opinion, Porter and Mintzberg are both significant individuals with,
regards to strategic planning. There are takeaways posed by both individuals. With Porter, there
are the three non-specific procedures and the five strengths and forces; and with Mintzberg, there
are the five Ps of strategy and the emergent system that I would think about. The three generic
strategies from of Cost Leadership, Differentiation, and Focus from Porter should be considered
when creating a strategy, as this will be of assistance on the financial aspect of Delta Phi
Corporation and how the business will do fiscally. The five forces tool is valuable in helping me
as CEO to comprehend both the quality of the company's current competitive position, and the
strength of a position we are thinking about moving towards. Utilizing this will help Delta Phi
Corporation keeps its upper hand and beat the opposition. Mintzberg gives us the five Ps of
Procedure, which are plan, ploy, pattern, position, and perspective (Bateman, Snell, and
Konopaske, 2017). As indicated by the developing strategy, it rises over a period of time. This is
something that the company would need to examine in order to create an efficient strategy that
would uphold the throughout the next decade.
Delta Phi Corporation will use Porter's techniques for the finance part, while remaining
competitive, however the company will utilize Mintzberg's systems to appropriately arrange
their best courses of action. The three generic procedures can aid in examining the operation cost
and identify the type of structure that is required in order to move in the most beneficial
direction. Other strategies will be utilized to map out the approach the organization needs to go
in and what steps will be taken to accomplish those objectives. When developing my strategy, I

4. would think about the current position and the vision to where to company needs to be and how
to get there, the vital individuals involved, and tracking progress en route. I think by using the
techniques given by Porter and Mintzberg, the strategy planned for Delta Phi will be one that is
fruitful and place the company on track for positive longevity. It is also critical for Delta Phi to
remain aware of societal changes and technical innovations when building up these strategies.
Reference:
Bateman, T. S., Snell, S. A., & Konopaske, R. (2017). Management: Leading and collaborating
in a competitive world 12e. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
MINTZBERG, H. and Waters, J. Strategic Management Journal (pre-1986); Of Strategies,
Deliberate and Emergent ; Jul-Sep 1985; 6, 3; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 257
Porter’s Five Forces: Assessing The Balance of Power in a Business Situation (2017).