Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to contest Mintzberg's influential “five Ps for strategy”. It exposes the negative side effect of these “five Ps” and urges a rethinking of the concept of strategy. It also points to an alternative direction for further research building on a more robust definition of strategy that does not aim to combine the five Ps but to focus instead on, and to draw boundaries around, the substance of strategy.

Design/methodology/approach

The key arguments of Mintzberg's article are critically evaluated and alternative arguments are advanced.

Findings

None of the “five Ps for strategy” satisfies the criteria of a good definition. However, their impact is still evident, especially the definition of “strategy as pattern” and the idea that any decision can be “more or less” “strategic”. The “five Ps” have served their intent at the time, and their impact now is more negative than positive.

Research limitations/implications

The “five Ps” are no longer useful in advancing the descriptive or prescriptive purposes of the strategy field. Researchers need to rethink the concept of strategy.

Practical implications

Leaders should not be confused by the “five Ps”. Instead, they should look for more rigorous and relevant definitions that help them think through their dynamic and uncertain environment.

Originality/value

This paper is probably the first to specifically contest the five definitions of strategy offered by Mintzberg and the argument behind them.

中文翻译：

---

质疑 Mintzberg 的五个 P 战略：是时候召回产品了

目的

本文的目的是对 Mintzberg 具有影响力的“战略的五个 Ps”提出质疑。它暴露了这些“五个 P”的负面影响，并促使人们重新思考战略概念。它还指出了进一步研究的替代方向，该方向建立在更稳健的战略定义之上，其目的不是将五个 P 结合起来，而是关注战略的实质并划定界限。

设计/方法/途径

对明茨伯格文章的关键论点进行了批判性评估，并提出了替代论点。

发现

“战略的五个 P”中没有一个满足良好定义的标准。然而，它们的影响仍然很明显，尤其是“战略即模式”的定义以及任何决策都可以“或多或少”具有“战略性”的想法。“5P”在当时起到了作用，现在的影响是消极多于积极。

研究局限性/影响

“五个 P”在推进战略领域的描述性或规范性目的方面不再有用。研究人员需要重新思考战略的概念。

实际影响

领导者不应被“五个 P”所迷惑。相反，他们应该寻找更严格和相关的定义，以帮助他们思考动态和不确定的环境。

原创性/价值

这篇论文可能是第一个专门对明茨伯格提供的五种战略定义及其背后的论点提出质疑的论文。