First of all, it must be stressed that, in spite of the huge literature, there is no single, universally accepted definition of strategy. Different authors, planners and managers use it differently. Nor is there a single standard approach to strategic thinking, planning or management (Mintzberg 1994), even if the classical strategic planning based approach has been in many spheres of policy-making. Before dealing in more detail with classical, processual and communicative/networked approaches, some basic definitions is clarified.
Henry Mintzberg provides a very basic distinction between intended strategies and realised strategies. According to him, it is also possible to distinguish deliberate strategies, where intentions that existed previously are realised, from emergent strategies, where patterns are developed in the absence of intentions, or despite them. Thus, strategies may go unrealised, while patterns may appear without precondition. For a strategy to be truly deliberate would seem to be unlikely. Precise intentions would have had to be stated in advance by the leadership of the organisation, these would have had to be accepted as is by everyone else, and then realised with no interference from market, technological or political forces. A truly emergent strategy is again unlikely, requiring consistency in action without any hint of intention. (Mintzberg 1992, 12-14.)
Strategy can basically be seen as a guiding pattern for the everflowing stream of single actions and decisions. It gathers them under the same “umbrella” and leads them in the right direction. According to this definition, strategy is consistency in behaviour, whether intended or not intended. Intended strategies can be used as mirrors to guide consistency of behaviour, to make emergence a ...