Several writers view corporate strategy as the partial resolution of organizational issues through a highly political process (Pettigrew 1977; Mintzberg and Waters 1985). Strategic negotiations are very much contextually based, as strategy is viewed as the flow of actions and values embedded in a context.
The strength of a negotiation approach is that it recognizes the power is shared in most public situations; no one person, group, or organization is "in charge," and cooperation and negotiation with others is often necessary in order for people, groups, and organizations to achieve their ends.
The main weakness of negotiation approaches is that although they can show planners how to reach politically acceptable results, they are not very helpful in assuring technical workability or democratic responsibility of results (Fisher and Ury 1981).
The incremental approach is identified with Quinn (1980) through the influence of Lindblom (1959). Logical incrementalism is a process approach that, in effect, fuses strategy formulation and implementation. Incremental approaches view strategy as a loosely linked group of decisions that are handled incrementally. Decisions are handled individually below the corporate level because such decentralization is politically expedient.
The strengths of the approach are its ability to handle complexity and change, its emphasis on minor as well major decisions, its attention to informal as well as formal processes, an its political realism.
The major weakness of the approach is that it does not guarantee that the various loosely linked decisions will add up to fulfilment of corporate purposes.