Introduction

The concept of strategy is a complex topic open to interpretation with various interpretations of
strategic principles. This analysis will evaluate the ideas of the article “Strategy as Revolution” by
Hamel (1996) and comparisons will be made to other work in the field to gauge the article’s position
within the wider debate. The analysis will also highlight assumptions of the article and evaluate
strengths and weaknesses.

Fitting within the wider debate

Hamels article fits within the strategy procedures debate which centres around how strategy should
be developed. The two ends of the spectrum are prescriptive and emergent strategy. The procedural
strategy supported by Porter (1979) encompasses analysis of the market to find a competitive edge
and creating clear organised plans to obtain predefined goals. Emerging strategy acknowledges that
uncertainties exist within the market and the process involves trial, experiment and discussion;
ultimately focusing on experimentation rather than the end goal (Downs, et al., 2003).

For prescriptive strategies, leaders at the heart of authority create strategic plans to be
implemented without distortion (MIintzberg & Waters, 1985). Hamel opposes this view, holding the
idea that competitive success is achieved through challenging existing norms [pg.70]. Hamel exerts
that strategy made solely by senior managers, who are more likely to be conservative, will not lead
results; instead Hamel signifies the importance of including all levels of employees in the strategy
process.

(Skinner, 1969) proposed a top-bottom process of strategy which involves “formulation and
implementation” of strategy by senior managers. Hamel recognises the flaws of both the top-bottom
and bottom-top approaches as lacking diversity of thought and unity of purpose respectively;
instead Hamel proposes unifying the top and bottom.

(Martin, 2014) asserts that managers too often afraid of the unpredictability of the future so they
rely on prescriptive methods which involve “technocratic” planning and reliance on past experience.
(Mintzberg, 1987) has even stated that prescriptive strategies stop learning after strategy is
formulated while emergent strategies encourage learning. Similarly, Hamel exerts that senior
executives cannot learn much from each other and even argues that rapidly changing industries are
making experience “irrelevant” and “dangerous” [pg74].

(Ansoff, 1965) proposed strategic planning in the form of “synoptic planning” using rational planning
to maximise goals. In contrast, incrementalism acknowledges the dynamic and complex nature of
strategy and focuses on achieving many goals small adaptive changes (Methe, et al., 2000) . Hamel
equates strategic planning with programming and suggests that the simplistic and ritualistic nature
of planning will fail to produce strategic innovation [pg71]. Although Hamel also acknowledges the
fast changing industries, to Hamel forming strategy is an art which is accomplished by innovation
such as challenging exist norms.
Strengths and weaknesses
Hamel presents the idea of revolution being the way forward to strategic innovation and describes
such companies as rule breakers who challenge the preconceptions of the industry. The Body Shop,
which was stated in the article, challenged industry to create ethical and sustainable products which
lead to its success (The Body Shop, 2015). The strength of the article that there are clear modern
examples where revolutionary strategies have enabled success however Hamel doesn’t cover the
risk which can be illustrated through recent activities of the company UBER. UBER revolutionised the
taxi industry but have recently faced a ban in London due to security and safety concerns (Titcomb,
2017). This suggest the possibility of major consequences from revolution and to present balance
Hamel should have acknowledged such cases.

Hamel pushes the idea of emergent strategies but fails to address the difficulties of using this
depending of the company size. For example, large corporations have obligations to shareholders
which presents risk. Large companies which requires significant financial backing may find difficulty
gaining approval without any clear strategic plan.

A positive aspect of Hamel’s article stems from the acknowledgement of the irrationality of the
world. This irrationality is witnessed as Hamel discusses internal the flaws of managers such as
bureaucracy such as inhibiting the acceptance of new ideas and provides advice to facilitate change.
Further work by Hamel (Hamel, 2006) on “management innovation” explores principles for
management to encourage company innovation with company examples where appropriate.
Although “Strategy as Revolution” focuses on creation of strategy the two articles synergize to link
strategy and management despite some repetition of views shared between both.

The work of Porter(1996) mentions the role of managers several times but unlike Hamel, Porter does
not fully explore the imperfections of managers to the same extent. This builds on the strength of
the article as Hamel fully acknowledges the flaws of managers while to Porter managers seem to
have limited flaws.

One main criticism of the article is that Hamel presents a one sided approach with little mention of
either the counter views or the disadvantages. For example, “The machine that changed the world”
by Womack, Jones and Roos explains how incremental optimisation approaches of management
drove the success of the Japanese manufacturing industry (Womack, et al., 1990). Hamel does not
elaborate on how innovation could benefit such an industry where all competitors have similar
processes. Although Hamel presents an interesting argument for innovation, more detailed case
studies for several industries could have been included to drive home the point.
Conclusion

“Strategy as Revolution” heavy favours emergent approach to strategy which is shown by Hamel’s
disregard towards strategic planning , emphasis on collaboration between all level of employees and
views on innovation within an rapidly changing world. The article cannot be thought of as pure
emergent because as Mintzberg has stated that this would imply action with no intention. Instead
Hamel has explored some intentions such as the desire to challenge and replace existing norms
within the industry.

The main strengths of the article are shown by how revolutionary companies have become
successful within their industries. Also, Hamel acknowledges the potential imperfections of
managers which offers a unique viewpoint compared to other writers such as Porter. In terms of
flaws, Hamel neither explores the risks of revolution nor present analysis using case studies.