Learning to plan and planning to learn: resolving the planning school/learning school debate

Peter J. Brews and Michelle R. Hunt

Strategic Management Journal, 1999, vol. 20, issue 10, 889-913

Abstract: 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.

Date: 1999
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (52)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199910)20:103.0.CO;2-F

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:stratm:v:20:y:1999:i:10:p:889-913

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0143-2095

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Strategic Management Journal from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().