Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Logical Incrementalism

In the 1950s, Charles Lindblom studied decision-making processes in public administration. He observed that the objective was rarely to achieve a long-term strategy. Decisions were primarily made to solve short-term problems. In many instances, there was no connection at all between the decisions. Many actors were involved and there was no central coordination. Lindblom refers to such decision-making processes as “disjointed incrementalism.” In the late 1970s, James Brian Quinn began a large research project that documented the processes used to formulate and implement strategy in 10 large and diversified firms. The sample included firms from a variety of industries and countries (e.g., Chrysler, Exxon, General Mills, Pilkington, Pillsbury, Xerox). The result of Quinn’s research project was a landmark book titled Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. Like Lindblom, Quinn found that decision-making processes were incremental. Unlike Lindblom, however, he did not conclude that they were disjointed. According to Quinn, top executives in firms do not “muddle”; they seem to direct decision-making processes toward a long-term goal. Because of this underlying logic, he coined the expression: logical incrementalism. In 1980, Quinn defined logical incrementalism as an approach in which a manager “probes the future, experiments, and learns from a series of partial commitments rather than through global formulation of total strategies” This entry presents the fundamentals of the concept and concludes with an assessment of its validity and its impact on the management literature.

Fundamentals

Two major approaches are generally used to describe how managers formulate and implement strategy: the formal planning approach and the power-behavioral approach. Logical incrementalism is different from the formal planning approach. In the formal planning approach, the full strategy is formulated before it is implemented. Thus, the formulation and implementation of strategy are sequential activities. In logical incrementalism, strategy formulation and strategy implementation take place simultaneously. In addition, logical incrementalism emphasizes qualitative and organizational factors, whereas the formal planning approach focuses on quantitative analysis. The underlying rationale is that quantitative analysis is less useful for nonroutine activities (such as the development of a new strategy) than for routine activities. Logical incrementalism is also different from the power-behavioral approach. The power-behavioral approach focuses on negotiation processes and the practice of “muddling” in public administration. While logical incrementalists negotiate with stakeholders, they also have a clear sense of direction.

As Quinn made clear, successful strategies are rarely brought about deliberately through a process of formulation followed by implementation. They often emerge over time as managers proactively develop a course of action and reactively adapt to unfolding circumstances. The implications are straightforward. Instead of setting a course of action in advance, managers should proceed incrementally. Initially, the strategy is likely to be broad and vague. As more information becomes available, it will become more precise. Interestingly, there are two potential uses of logical incrementalism. Although logical incrementalism can be used as a process to formulate a strategy, it can also be used as a process to implement a strategy that already exists in the mind of top managers. In that case, the implementation of strategy (rather than the formulation of strategy) is incremental.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading