Premium
Learning to plan and planning to learn: resolving the planning school/learning school debate
Author(s) -
Brews Peter J.,
Hunt Michelle R.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
strategic management journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 11.035
H-Index - 286
eISSN - 1097-0266
pISSN - 0143-2095
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199910)20:10<889::aid-smj60>3.0.co;2-f
Subject(s) - incrementalism , strategic planning , plan (archaeology) , flexibility (engineering) , strategic human resource planning , rational planning model , process management , environmental design and planning , business , operations management , land use planning , economics , management , marketing , engineering , political science , geography , archaeology , politics , law , civil engineering , land use
This paper resolves the long‐standing debate between the two dominant process schools in strategy. Analysis of the planning practices of 656 firms shows that formal planning and incrementalism both form part of ‘good’ strategic planning, especially in unstable environments. Environment neither moderates the need for formal planning nor the direction of the planning/performance relationship, but does moderate firm planning capabilities and planning flexibility. In unstable environments planning capabilities are far better developed and formal plans more amenable to change. The planning/performance relationship is, however, moderated by planning duration: at least four years of formal planning are required before external performance associations are noted. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.