A critical examination of the central contributions of Michael Porter to the development of management thought
and Sharp went against Hooley’s findings and felt that Porter’s generic competitive strategies were of little use in the interpretation of the clusters identified. Further they felt it provided no evidence that these generic strategies were routes to superior profit.
Porter’s later work too has been criticised. It has been suggested by many that Porter developed a ‘theory of strategy’. However, economists and marketers tend to dispute this (Harfield, 1998, p.1). Foss (1996) used Porter as an example of the field becoming too pluralistic and that the later Porter is adding nothing to the ‘foundations’ of the field (Harfield, 1998, p.1). Hammonds believes that strategy has suffered simply because people tried it, had problems with it and turned instead to the fads of the time. While many people acknowledge Porter’s contributions but found them extremely difficult to implement. There has been a view that if you had a strategy it was rigid, inflexible and out of date by the time that you used it. In an increasingly changing technological environment these issues were extremely important. Although Porter always pointed out that ‘technology changes, strategy doesn’t’ a lot of organisations got very confused about strategy and how to address it. Mintzberg (1990) and Bartlett and Ghoshal (1991) criticised Porter for narrowing the focus of strategic management by focusing on the industry and the situation confronting the firm regarding the position. Mintzberg also felt that the scientific approach to strategic management felt so wrong and that many managers favour intuition when making strategies (Mintzberg, 1994, p.109).
Finally Porter acknowledged that there are four principle issues that challenge a theory of strategy (Porter, 1991, p. 84-85). The four principles issues include: approach to theory building; chain of causality; time horizon and empirical testing. The main problem behind these issues is that they are all situation/organisation specific where as Porter’s frameworks and models are generic and suited to all. Therefore a company can not simply implement Porter’s ideas without being faced with some seriously difficult questions.
Porters theories do not relate to practice as well as they do to theory for many. However, despite these criticisms Porter was amongst the first with the ability to analyse management in the competitive economic context. His highlighting the need to focus on external entities confronting organisations and how to gain a competitive edge in business has lead to scholarly thought and critical review of business, profit and context. The implementation of his theories and strategies by business has assisted many in the western world to gain the competitive edge for their company. As is always the case theories will continue to be critically examined and evolved within the changing economic context. At this stage, despite criticism, Porters contribution to management theory continues to have relevance for many in business practice.
Bibliography
Dawes, J & B Sharp (1996) ‘Independent Empirical Support for Porter’s Generic Marketing Strategies?: A re-analysis using correspondence analysis’ Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, 1: pp. 36-53. Downloaded from web site on 20/04/01: http://msc.city.unisa.edu.au/msc/JEMS/Pubs/jems/Hooley/Hooley.html
Foss, N.J. (1996) ‘Research [next page]