Strategic Management: Evolutionary, Processual, and Classical

This essay provides a detailed analysis of strategic management, focusing on the comparison of three primary schools of thought: evolutionary, processual, and classical approaches. The essay begins with an introduction to strategic management and its diverse applications. It then delves into a comparative study of the evolutionary and processual schools, highlighting their key differences and similarities as proposed by Whittington. The evolutionary school emphasizes adaptation to a changing economic environment, mirroring Darwinian principles of survival, while the processual school focuses on the importance of context and ongoing processes within an organization. The essay then examines the challenges each school poses to the classical school of strategy, which is centered on rational planning and profit maximization. Furthermore, the essay discusses the points of disagreement within the strategic process and concludes with a summary of the key findings. The content covers the core arguments of each school, their strengths and weaknesses, and their relevance in modern business contexts. The essay provides a comprehensive overview of strategic management theories, making it a valuable resource for students studying leadership and management.

Running head: STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Strategic Management
Name of the Student:
Name of the University
Author Note:

1STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1
Differences between the Evolutionary and Processual School of Strategy......................2
Similarities between Evolutionary and Processual School of Strategy.............................5
Challenges of Each School to Whittington Classical School of Strategy..........................6
The point of disagreement of the strategic process.........................................................9
Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 10
References:....................................................................................................................11

2STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Introduction
The article focuses on the evaluation of strategic management. The article is a
critical evaluation of the main similarities, and differences between the evolutionary and
processual approach of strategy put forward by Whittington. There is however a
background behind the existence of all strategies. Most of the companies aim at making
profit and growing bigger following a particular strategy. As the path towards growth is
different for every company, so their strategies too vary. This led to the formulation of
diverse strategies by the companies for serving their individual needs. The formulation
of these strategies takes place in different ways that includes emergent, deliberate, or
deliberately emergent and viewed from a process-oriented perspective or outcome
oriented perspective. Richard Whittington thus, took a western viewpoint, enabled in
collating several theories on strategy, and segregated them in four groups following
particular approaches. In this report, the evolutionary and processsual theory of
Whittington finds a description along with a mention of the similarities and differences
between both the approaches mentioned. The report also discusses about the classical
approach of strategy. There is also discussion on how convincing each of the
approaches is to the classical school of thought as described by Whittington.
Differences between the Evolutionary and Processual School of Strategy
Evolutionary School of Strategy
The Evolutionary Approach of Whittington depends on a belief that there is
constant change in the economic environment. Similar to the theory of Darwin that
focuses on the survival of the fittest this theory also focus on the role played by strategy

3STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
in responding to the environment for the matter of survival and maximizing profit. There
is however, the prevalence of unpredictability in the market for making huge
investments in the strategic plans but evolutionist holds a different value. They however
believe high efficiency and profitability are necessary of a firm’s survival, which helps in
cost reduction, efficiency increment can open to options (Whittington, 2002).
Competition will however determine the survival of the fittest. On the other hand,
companies that do not undergo change on an immediate basis in the face of
competition are bound to face extinction. This gives rise to the emergence of successful
strategies through the process of natural selection that enables an organization to fit
better in their economic environment. However, the proponent of evolutionary school
put forward the idea that success of an organization depends more on its environment
rather than on the managers. The differentiation argued by the evolutionist on grounds
of the Porter’s theory. They mention that the key to success for a company lies in
providing something unique and valuable to the buyers at a lower price and is a key to
company’s success without which they would not be able to survive until they prove to
be unique and is a position to outperform their competitors. In this approach, the one
strategy that would not prove to be rational for the managers would be expensive
investments since the new competitors would provide a push in the market with the
launch of the new product or service that also leads to the emergence of small products
that might prove to be more efficient. In this respect, Whittington put forward the
example of Sony that launched different versions of Walkman in 1980 s where the
market decided on the models that survived and the ones that succumbed to failure
(Dopfer 2012). Thus, environment plays a vital role for deciding on a strategy which

4STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
might be appear questionable when considered alone leaving aside the organizational
resources.
Processual School of Strategy
The processual approach helps in highlighting the context importance while
examining the unfolding processes that leads to change. This theory does not believe in
following concrete steps for bringing in change (Tansey, Spillane and Meng 2014).
Change is a continuous thing without any finite end. In addition, change is also
considered as a process that is messy as it is represented by the organizational culture,
history and internal politics. Thus to plan a strategy through this approach there is a
necessity of taking in to account the political, psychological and behavioral
relationships. This approach considers the organizations as messy or sticky phenomena
that give rise to strategies that leads to more confusion (Tavakoli, Schlagwein and
Schoder 2015). This approach influences cognitive limitations through bounded
rationality. This approach to strategy considers skill, dedication, perfection and sense of
involvement through commitment and experience. The strategy for this approach
discovered through action. This approach of strategy also shows that there exist
persisting goals in an organization.
The emergence of the processual approach to strategy depends on day-to-day
operations of market processes and the organizational strengths. The strategy under
this approach designed following an incremental process that is similar to Lewin’s
Leadership style. This approach followed here is a bit messy since strategies emerges
taking into consideration the individuals present in an organization who seeks to include

5STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
personal objectives as part of organizational goals (Baird 2014.). In this approach, it
becomes difficult for the top management for handling the micro strategies that arises
due to everyone’s creation of personal strategy based on daily activities. The strategy
initiated through this approach also lacks a direction since no one knows the strategy
followed by the firm (Vaara and Whittington 2012.). Another limitation comes with the
strategy that is the choice of strategy adopted and the insecurities with which the
managers perform in case when the strategy formulation follows a bottom up approach.
The Processual school adopts pluralistic approach that focuses on the fact that a
business possesses other goals in addition to making profit. This approach considers
strategist as the individuals possessing interest in satisfying themselves rather than
considering those fighting endlessly for reaching an optimal solution. Thus,
Processualist does not overview firms as united in optimization of a single utility but as
coalition of individuals who put forward their personal objectives towards the
organization(da Silva Castelhano 2012). Thus, this approach believes that focusing
solely on the profits might lead to the ignorance of the firm’s internal working. Moreover,
there is also a persistent belief that firms build up organizational slack for buffering them
against the need of any strategic change. This implies that a firm either sacrifices or
delivers enough profits for ensuring everyone’s happiness rather than concentrating on
maximization of profit.
Similarities between Evolutionary and Processual School of Strategy
Here both the evolutionary and the processual approach of strategy are
appropriate for industries that are in flux and in their early stage (Karami 2012). In

6STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
addition, the evolutionary and processual approach criticizes the deliberate and formal
long term planning which not only inadaptable and overtly rigid. Both the processes
imply that futuristic forecast for 3 to 5 years is no longer possible. This finds an
explanation by considering the case of iPhone that first sold in the year 2007. This
smart phone induced a revolution that brought a change in the entire market that not
only included the providers and retailers of cellphone but also affected many industries
casually. The rise in popularity of smart phones implied rise in mobile web traffic and an
enhanced demand for websites that provided information on iPhone (Contrafatto and
Burns 2013). However, the business strategy put forward in the year 2006 did not have
the concept about how the technological breakthrough will bring about a change and
therefore did not include plans for developing a mobile site or application or involve
employment of mobile developers. The smartphone gave way to flourishing businesses
with a brand new many could not predict set of opportunities. The new market allowed
the emergence and survival of the stronger performers and filtering out the weak. In this
respect, more adaptable and creative strategy considers logical reasoning as a
hindrance than of help. Thus in the context of evaluation and processual approach,
creation of long-term rigid plan for the firm under discussion will trap the firm within
current orthodoxy.
Challenges of Each School to Whittington Classical School of Strategy
Most organizations guided towards maximizing the return on investment.
Therefore, Whittington compiled the assumption of profit maximizing within the strategy
through the process of rational planning. The person responsible for controlling and
formulating the strategy is the CEO of the organization. Thus, (Reeves, Love and

7STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Tillmanns 2012) stated that responsibility of consciousness and control within the
organization must depend on the chief executive officer also referred as the strategist.
Thus, strategic formulation described as a formal process that deals with planning,
analysis and commanding.
The classical school follows a straight down approach and makes an assumption
that business environment is not only predictable but also attempts on designing the
logical and rational methods and approaches for enabling the organization in achieving
its objectives and goals. Strategy is something that is controlled, formulated and
planned by top management and then communicated down organization’s hierarchical
structure (Cimbala 2012). The implementation of strategy at different levels determined
as per the pre defined parameters without questioning adequacy and suitability. The
Classical approach appears to the ideal for mature and stable industries since the
industry has an influence on individual organizational performance.
Thus, classicists help in developing strategy through analysis of the strengths
and opportunities of the firm. This attempt of the classicist makes them oversee the
dynamic environment that involves most firms (Teece 2016). The emergent approach
however views strategy as incremental that reveals a pattern following a stream of
decisions where implementation and formulation takes place on a simultaneous basis.
The classical and evolutionary approaches coincide since both focus on the
maximization of profits. In contrast, the pluralistic approach of Processual school of
strategy however helps in recognizing other outcomes than focusing on profit
(Boddewyn 2015). Thus, Evolutionary and Processual approaches consider the strategy

8STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
process as emergent while the strategy adopted following the classical approach is
deliberate.
Both the classical and evolutionary schools identify profit maximization as its
desired outcome. The classical school depends on the rationality factor in achieving it
(Cressman 2013). Similar is the case of with evolutionary school that also moves along
the similar path since it remains less confident about the management’s ability to plan.
To follow the path of profit maximization the evolutionary perspective focuses on the
Darwinian market.
Thus, for valuing profit as ubiquitous firms goal helps in demonstration of
ignorance towards the organizational culture that is contemporary. Initially business
meant only profit firms however; in modern society, there has been a rise of the
nonprofit that contributed around forty percent of revenue increase (Markard, Raven
and Truffer 2012). In such cases, it would be oxymoronic in suggesting a profit
maximizing nonprofit firm. Thus, strategic management ensures consideration of criteria
more than profit for driving the business that ensures consideration of the processual
school of thought.
The Classical strategist follows rational analyses while Processual follows
routines and rules that are already a part of the organization along with the cognitive
biases and objectives of the individuals for deciding on the common goals. The
Processual approach put emphasis on the internal development thereby building on the
core competencies of the company. As Nixon and Burns (2012) explained it, this
approach helped in explaining that using non-imitable and valuable resources

9STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
considered the effective way in outperforming the competitors. However, the most
effective resource that a firm can possess is knowledge since it is not only impossible to
trade in the market but also manage. This is because knowledge is something gained
through experience or learning thereby making harder to imitate by the competitors.
However, the Classicist approach began with strategy formulation and then
considering their implementation. In contrast to this, however, the Processualists
discover strategy by action. According to Vaara and Whittington (2012) a resource
based view is vital for the approach because no matter the opportunities existent in the
market organization that lacked the required resources and skills will inevitably fail. The
processual approach thus emphasizes more on the insights of organization compared
to the external foresight.
However, failing to undertake periodic access to present environmental fit will
cause strategic drift as strategies have become irrelevant and dated. Thus, a firm that
undergoes a drift strategically is quite similar to metaphorical frog in the hot water. The
frog will jump off the container if the tossed in the boiling water (Cressman 2013).
However in this case of there when there is an incremental increase in heat then the
frog will die slowly. In this regard, therefore a firm that imposes a resistance to change
represents a naive swimming in hot water with denial and apathy of their own.
The point of disagreement of the strategic process
Classical strategist views the emergent process as unconfident and wary while
the Processual and Evolutionary strategists’ views deliberate process as naïve. Long

10STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
term deliberate has been relevant in the mid 20th century however with recent
technological, social and environmental shift the traditional ways for deliberate planning
has become obsolete. Thus, today’s competitive and overpopulated markets cannot act
as ideal homes for undertaking long term strategy. In aviation industry however, there is
great prudence in exercising strategic decision making and resource allocation thereby
implying the need for an appropriate deliberate planning approach. Thus, Reeves, Love,
and Tillmanns (2012) discusses that there are existence of certain industries that will
favor particular strategies forever among which the most effective ones are a
combination of the emergent and deliberate processes. This is however observed in the
case of formation of the strategic groups there are certain groups of organizations that
are believed to possess similar strategies.
There are however numerous ideas that helps in understanding the real definition
of strategy. Thus, strategy defined as a long term direction followed by an organization
for achieving its success. The long term planning necessary for reaching the desired
goals of the firm and the ways of using the available resources determines the best
ways in achieving the goals. In this respect, Whittington four approaches put forward
the different styles and ways considered. Thus, anyone can relate to any of the
perspectives since they are broad and there remains no clear line relationship existing
between them.
Conclusion
The article ends with a discussion on the point of disagreement of the strategic
process. In the article there are discussions about three of Whittimgton’s four

11STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
classifications. The article thus discusses about the Evolutionary, Processual and
classical approach to strategy. One can find a discussion on Evolutionary and
Processual approaches and the differences that exist between them. The article also
points out the differences between both the approaches. The article also discusses how
convincing is the challenges of each of the approach to the convincing approach. Thus
by going through the article one can find that Whittington’s classification has led to
simpler ways for contrasting and comparing different views. However, the important
aspect to be learnt from the article is that the elements from each of the approaches
considered important for producing and describing a strategy. Thus, the important,
practical and conceptual issues focus on the interdependence and interaction of
differing schools. Based on the critical evaluation of the article one can understand how
a strategy is decided upon. Therefore, the managers can capitalize on such knowledge
for ensuring the ideal decision for the organization.