Henry Mintzberg’s celebrated critique of the “design school” argued that strategy is the best thought of as adaptive, bottom-up, and based on dispersed knowledge and learning. Yet Mintzberg’s account lacks a clear and comprehensive theoretical underpinning, especially regarding how to guide emergent strategy in dynamic environments, and leverage it to exploit value creation. We provide this foundation by showing how Mintzberg’s critique of planning and design at the level of organizational strategy is in key ways anticipated by F.A. Hayek’s critique of planning and design at the societal level. Both writers are critical of rationalist epistemology and instead stress experiential knowledge, fallibility, and unanticipated social consequences. Hayek also extends Mintzberg’s work by showing how rules in the firm capture adaptive, experiential, tacit, and dispersed knowledge in the context of dynamic environments. A framework of rules thus creates inimitable and non-substitutable resources that enable the firm to fully exploit its competitive advantage.

亨利·明茨伯格对“设计学派”的著名批评认为，战略是自适应的、自下而上的、基于分散的知识和学习的最佳思想。然而，明茨伯格的描述缺乏清晰而全面的理论基础，尤其是关于如何在动态环境中指导紧急战略，并利用它来利用价值创造。我们通过展示明茨伯格在组织战略层面对规划和设计的批评如何在关键方面以 FA 哈耶克在社会层面对规划和设计的批评所预见的方式提供了这一基础。两位作者都批评理性主义认识论，而是强调经验知识、易错性和意料之外的社会后果。哈耶克还通过展示公司中的规则如何捕捉适应性的、经验的、默会的、以及在动态环境中分散的知识。因此，规则框架创造了不可模仿和不可替代的资源，使公司能够充分利用其竞争优势。