please rewrite this with no plagarism.
In strategic management, several schools of strategy have raised a significant debate and after more emphasis, three schools were chosen as the main schools of strategy. These strategies include planning, designing, resource-based, position, cognitive entrepreneurial, among others (Bindra et al., 2019).
The school planning is a school of thought that emphasizes the need of an organization to ensure that the organization’s strategy is in line with its business environment. The organization’s strategy has to be in accord with the environment in which it chooses to operate its business activities. A thorough evaluation and analysis of the internal and external environments are in the front line when applying the planning strategy. Moreover, planning a school of thought habitually requires details that will enable the organization to remain complex even in market conditions that require flexibility. For instance, an organization cannot supply pig products to a Muslim populated area simply because the product sales will be low due to the culture of the environment. The planning school is based on attaining a balance and fit between the organizational environment and structure. Planning school checks on the past market trends, the forecasts of the business environment, and the stability structures.
Resource-based school of strategy stresses using organizations’ capabilities and resources to achieve the main capability that no competitor can imitate. Furthermore, the resource base school states that if an organization distinguishes its internal potential, such as having the ability to have productive machinery from within the organization that will deliver services and products to consumers, thus a greater advantage for the organizations in the business market (Bindra et al., 2019). This school of thought believes that the organization’s competitive advantage is based on its available resources, how competent the business is, and its capabilities. Southwest Airlines is a good example of an organization that applies a resource-based strategy because its strategies are valuable, rare, hard to imitate, and cannot be substituted. When analyzing the strategies of an organization, common resources like cars and cash are valuable but are not considered strategic resources.
The positional school of strategy aims at the analytical and rational approach when coming up with a strategy. This school of thought places organizations’ products in a favorable environment in the business market. The positional school of thought focuses on the performance of an organization and its decision-making prowess. This school of thought applies the principles of designing and planning only that positional school strategy emphasizes futuristic, identifiable, investigative, specific, and substantial strategies. Positioning school of thought urges that organizations’ strategies should and bust be based on the current and future competitors to come. For instance, in positioning school, the organization should set strategies such as how their products used to sell out before, and come up with good strategies on how to change their products in the future to fit the gradually changing business markets just like the Nike Company. Here, competition and positions are evaluated based on economic concepts such as differentiation of products, cost leadership, and focus. It is a school of thought that is controlled by economics.
All these three schools of strategy are essential for every organization’s future and current position in the business market. Every organization needs a strategic plan to produce quality products and gain profits at the same time and use the available resources. Any organization with a poor planning strategy is prone to collapse or have little growth compared to organizations with strategic planning. Technological organizations ought to have better planning, position, and resource-based strategies to curb the digital world’s urgent and rapid changes.
Bindra, S., Parameswar, N., & Dhir, S. (2019). Strategic management: The evolution of the field. Strategic Change, 28(6), 469-478.