Two approaches to strategy have been discussed to elucidate the process of strategy development. As the purpose of the strategy in business is important and cannot be overemphasized, so much more is the process by which strategy is developed and identified. A manager must always deal with the four components of a strategy as identified by Crossan et al. (2002), and these are the goals, product market focus, value propositions, and core activities. How the manager tackles these four components in order to craft a strategy that aims to deliver the company bottom line represents how he approaches strategy development. Accordingly, there are many arguments about how strategy should be developed. Crossan et al (2002) observed two contentious issues surrounding strategy formulation, and these are whether strategy should be approached clinically, as in a well defined, analytical process, or experientially, as in trial and error process guided by a set of patterns from past experiences. Crossan et al (2002) referred to these approaches as intended strategy referring to the former, and emergent strategy referring to the latter.It operates with some sort of precision to everything that it does, guided by rules and policies, and where decisions are centrally made by a select few. One can naturally expect that in organizations engaging in a planned approach to strategy, there is no room for spontaneous action and innovation, guided by creativity and out-of-the-box thinking. As has been discussed, Mintzberg (1998, cited by Crossan et al., 2002) has been mentioned to have seen problems in the operationalization of planned strategies.