strategic mgt. overview

8/8/2019 Strategic Mgt. Overview

1/16

Mapping Strategic Management ResearchHoward ThomasUniversityof Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign

DURING he ast wodecades,n particular,here as evelopedsubstantialodyof literature n the fieldsof strategicmanagement,trategicplanning, orporate nd businessolicy, nd related opics.This literatureowesmuch o the prior writingsof Alfred Chandler 10] and the decadesof casewriting and research ndertaken t Harvard Businesschoolbymany earnedprofessors.ndeed, Harvard's raditionof leadershipn thisfield dates rom 1914 when it first introduced course equirement orbusinessolicy nto the businesschoolprogram.The term strategicmanagements of relatively ecentorigin 49] andiscurrently he acceptederm for thefieldsof businessolicy ndplanning.However,as a separate ield of study, t is still at a fairly young andrelativelyevolutionary tage.As a result, many definitions f strategyabound, and the terms "strategicplanning,""policy,"and "strategicmanagement" ften mean preciselyhe same hing to differentauthors.Whilstconflictaboutdefinitions, onfusion nd an abundance f jargoncharacterizecientific ndeavor n an emerging ield [32] this paperwillfocuson the followingdefinitions f strategy.

ON THE MEANING OF STRATEGY

Chandler's 10, p. 13] definition s perhaps he fundamentalcontri-butionto corporate trategy:The determinationof the basic ong-term goalsand the objectives fan enterprise,and the adoptionof courses f actionand the allocationof resources ecessaryor carryingout thesegoals.This was amendedand amplifiedby Andrews 3, p. 28] with the

followingwell-acceptedefinition.Corporatestrategys the patternof major objectives, urposes r goalsand essential oliciesor plans or achieving hosegoals,stated n such

13


2/16

a way as to define what businesshe company s in or is to be in andthe kind of company t is or is to be.Andrewsand Chandler'sdefinitions efine strategy n termsof inten-

tions. Mintzbergand Waters 39, p. 466] argue that organizationsmaysometimes ursue strategies hey never intended. Hence, they proposethat the usualdefinitionof strategybe called"intendedstrategy"and thatstrategy n generaland "realized strategy"be defined as "a pattern in astream of decisions actions)."Strategicmanagementwill be interpreted n relation o Schendel ndHofer's [49] paradigm see he Chart). This paradigmconceives f themanagement f strategyas consisting f the followingstepsand tasks;namely,goal formulation,environmental nalysis, trategy ormulation,strategyevaluation,strategy mplementation nd strategycontrol. Whileother paradigms avebeensuggested8, 19] it is contendedhat Schendeland Hofer's paradigm is a practical and useful framework (albeit aconceptualization f strategicmanagement s institutionalized ntrepre-neurship)with which to consider he research iterature in strategicmanagement.From this, it follows hat the objectives f this paper are(1) to reviewand classifyhe researchiterature n strategicmanage-

ment;(2) to makea plea for the adoptionof "mixed scanning" erspectivesfor future research in the field;(3) to examine heoryand suggesthat theorydevelopmenthould ethe most mportantaim for research;(4) to draw somebroadconclusionsbout he field and future researchdirections.

LITERATURE IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENTIt would be impossible ithin the scopeof this paper to attemptanexhaustiveeviewof the "stateof the art" of strategicmanagementesearch(although omeof the more usefulperiodicals re shown n Appendix1.)Indeed, he 1977 PittsburghConference n strategicmanagementSchen-del andHofer [49]) used he organizing aradigm f the Chart o categorize"the state of the art" in the field. Also, a more recent conference inArlington (February1983) on "SignificantDevelopmentsn StrategicManagement"has providedan update of the themespresented n theSchendel and Hofer book.Instead, in this section he researchenvironment and the differingviewpointseldby strategy cademicsill be examined. his perspectiveis taken becauset will be argued using he information n Appendix2)that, while he field is developing trongly,t suffersrom an identitycrisis

14


3/16

about its paradigmsand lack of consensus bout appropriate researchdirections and traditions.If a panelof leadingexperts n the field were to review t, there wouldprobablybe consensushat none, or very few,of the set of socialscientistson a business chool aculty really sympathizewith the policyarea or evenunderstandwhat it is about. In essence, olicy s seenas an anomalybyacademicsbecauseacademics re, by definition, experts or specialistswhereaspolicy is concernedwith the issues,questions, nd problemsassociated ith general management.Policy,as a field, is, therefore, theantithesis of their need for orderliness and structure and their belief in

researchmethodologygrounded n the tradition of socialscience esearchmethods.Consequently, olicy researchersmust contendwith a lesswellostruc-tured environment.Further, Bower [8, p. 632] pointsout policy facultyand researchers lack a critical mass in most research institutions.Only someof the facultywho teach he policycourse egardpolicyastheir field, and only someof the faculty have studiedpolicy and itsliterature n a systematic ay.Rarelydoes he group eaching olicyata particular school nclude more than two or three full-time committedfaculty.Leadingpolicyacademicsertainlydisagree bout he contentof policyand relevantareasof research.Bower [8, p. 630] somewhatrreverentlyquotesa gentlemanby the name of Paul Cook who took part in a 1963business olicyconference t Harvard in the followingmanner:Paul Cook argued hat the way one determined he subjectmatter ofpolicy was to gather together all the messy, nsolved,and perhapsundefined roblems f importance haracterizingusiness anagement."As soon as a problem was understood," aid he, "it was quicklyincorporatedas part of the subjectmatter for one of the functionaldisciplines."One implicationof Cook'sstatement asBowercomments,t is correctbut exaggerated) s that policy shouldprobablyconcentrateon thoseverydifficult, messy, mbiguous, nd ill-structuredproblems nvolved n for-mulating nd mplementing orporate nds ndaim to provide reasonablemodel of thinkingabout thosevery muddledand ambiguous ituations.tis far too easy for researchers o examine those more well-structuredquestions nd problems hat havealreadybeenwell treatedby researchersin policyand other disciplines.Bower 8, p. 632] argues hat a definitionof strategy, uchasAndrews'[3], is a much more usefulorganizingparadigm or the field since t takesa holisticperspective.Once strategicmanagement aradigms suchas

15


4/16

Schendeland Hofer's [49] versionshown n the Chart) treat corporatestrategyas consisting f severalparts- goal formulation,strategy or-mulation, strategyplanning,and so on- then Bower argues hat re-searchersmay be trapped nto studying ne of thesepartsas if it existedin the firm as a separate ctivity.Appendix 2 throws urther insightupon this issue.The articlesofAnshen nd Guth [4], Bower 8], Jemison 25], and Saunders nd Thomp-son [48], which discuss trategiesor research n policy,were chosen oprovidevaryingdefinitions f what policy esearchs, or indeed,shouldbe.Anshenand Guth [4] state hat the policyarea "lagsall others n thedevelopment f a body of theory and formal analytic echniques"4, p.

499]. They argue that this lack of theory and formal analytic echniquesrequires hat at least our basicalternative esearch trategies e adoptedto improvethe researchcapitalof the field. They suggesthat thesestrategieshouldbe as follows.First,the studyof science nd art in policyformulation.Second, he designand useof analyticconcepts nd opera-tional approaches. hird, the studyof historical elationshipsnd imple-mentationproblems.Fourth, the examinationof the interfaceof policyformulationwith socialproblems nd with other institutions.Bower [8, p. 632] argues hat research n policyshouldconcentrateupon he life and death ssues f concern o the top management f firms.In the 1980senvironment, e believeshat much greaterattentionmustbe directed owardscorporatemanagement f the boundaries nd inter-facesbetweenbusiness nd government. n addition, many corporateproblems ow havea multinationalocus nvolving ompetition nd mar-keting on a globalscale.Bower wants esearch n this field to be moreexploratory nd long-range nd seek o identifynew problems,with albeitsmallcase-studyype samples,n painstaking ut scholarlymanner.Hisresearch trategy s to attack"the elephants" nd enrich he field ratherthan pursue "the ants" by looking at well-structured roblems and"estimating 2 on relationshipshat havebeenrecognizedo be true sincebiblical imes" 8, p. 637]. He also ecognizeshat this research trategyraises he questions f rewards or policyacademics. ut anotherway,canpolicy esearcherse promoted y doingcase tudies nd action esearch?Jemison 25, p. 601] states hat "strategicmanagement as reachedthe pointwhere ntegrativeesearch pproachesre necessaryor continuedprogressn the field."He advocateshe developmentnitiallyof mid-rangetheories hat draw from, and attempt to integrate,disciplines uch asmarketing, dministrative ehavior, nd economicshat contribute o ourunderstanding f strategicmanagement. uch mid-range heories henform the basis rom whichricher integrative,hypothesis-testingesearchwill, hopefully merge.He suggestshat opportunitiesor research ross-

16


5/16

fertilizationexist n the areasof joint evolutionof industries,markets,andorganizations,n content and process esearch ntegration,and in thedomainof interorganizational nalysis.Saundersnd Thompson48] analyzed apers ubmittedor the 1979Academyof ManagementMeetings n Atlanta in termsof the Schendel/Hofer classificationf the field.Thirty-fivepercentof the submitted apersaddressedssuesn category1, the process f strategy ormulation %being about formulationand about content).Thirty percent of thepapers ell in category2 (% beingabout environmentalnalysis nd beingaboutgoal ormulationand structures) nd 25 percentof the papersfell in category5 (fully 80 percent of them being about the strategicmanagement rocess). f the residual15 percent, addressedmplemen-tation, addressedormal planning,and Vsgeneralmanagementssues.Overall, only 20 percent of the paperssubmitted nvolved heorytesting,and 60 percent were conceptual iecesdirected towards heorybuilding.The residual20 percentwere empiricalpapersdirected owardstheory building.Saunders nd Thompsonstate 48, p. 128] that

As might be expected,smaller-scalenvestigative ndertakingsypifythe mix of topics,since he narrowercompass f "elements" esearchmakes t simplerand more straightforwardhan 'process'esearch.This simplicityalsomakes t attractive or policy researchers imingfor a smoothpromotionpath. Further, in comparingconceptualwithempiricalresearch 48, p. 129] they speculate hat "a turn away (inresearch) rom feeble attemptsat the insight type and toward hardexamination f applicable ata n an empirical ramework swhat s needednow."They argue hat important nd valuable onceptualapers re fewand far between.None of the four authorsdepicted n Appendix2 believe hat research

in policy s impossible. owever, hey differ in two respects. irst, theyusevaryingdefinitions f what policy esearchs. Second, hey emphasizethe importanceof different aspects f the field.Bower would argue for the bestpossibleield researchnvolvingcaseinquiry nto the behaviorof practitionersollowedby conceptualizationfthis behavior.This would be carried out in a scholarlymanner usingcarefullyspecified ules of evidence.The aim is to achievea careful,accurate escription f important ssues, roblems, nd phenomenan thebroadgeneralmanagementield, with particular mphasisn managementin a "boundary-spanning"ole operatingbetween he intra-organization,government,and multinational environments.Saundersand Thompsonbelieve hat methodologicalndempiricalesearchreas hould e emphasized.They favor modelbuilding,hypothesisesting, nd newmodelsnd techniques

17


6/16

for strategyesearch. nshenand Guth prescribea mix of empiricalestingand explanatory,onceptualesearch n a broader strategiccanvas nearerandcloser o Andrews'holistic trategy efinition)witha clearaim directedtowardshe promotion f richer heorybuilding nd developmentor thefield.Jemison,n manyrespects, choeshe position akenby AnshenandGuth but with strongemphasisn the need or integrative, ulti-disciplinaryresearch in the field.

Perhapshe only strongconsensusetween heseauthorswouldbetheir lack of interest n well-writtenbut rather empty papers ull ofconjecture nd plausible tatementsncapable f being testedor furtherresearched. uchofferingsypically manaterom practitioners,onsult-ants, and less esearch-orientedcademics.n addition, hey might allagree hat a mix of exploratoryheorybuildingwith scientific ypothesistesting esearch ouldbe worthwhileor theorydevelopment.hey wouldcertainlynot agree on the "weightings"which shouldbe given to thevariouselements f the mix and this is a reasonable xpectation. s longas he conduct f researchnvolves lternative erspectivesnd viewpoints,the future diet of researchableopicss likely o be muchmoreextensive,well constructed, and valuable."MIXED SCANNING" AND STRATEGY RESEARCH

It is a continuing ifficulty n the managementesearchield that thesame,or related,aspects f management ractice anbe examined hroughsucha wide variety of disciplinary lenses." he variety doeshave itsadvantagesn aiding the understanding f complexsituations, ut it hasprobablyalso added someconfusiono the study of policy,strategyformulation,and planning.The viewpoints vailable nclude,at one ex-treme, one that regardsstrategicdecision-makings an instanceof orga-nizational olitics,o be understoodntirely n termsof the relativepowerpositions nd politicalploysof a set of influential actors."At the otherextreme, s a viewpointbasedon a comprehensivelyationalmodel ofdecision-making,hichcan be facilitated y such echniquess decisionand risk analysis22, 40]. Intermediatestances an be adopted,as forexample, he "mixedscanning" pproach f Etzioni 16].The practicalmanager,nvolved n someaspect f strategy r policy,canprobably hink of instancesn whichone or the other of thesemodelsis a good fit, and yet discussionften proceeds n the linesof rejectingoneof themon the basishatcontrarynstancesanbe found.The matteris further confounded y the differentpositions, escriptive,xplanatory,or normative,whichprotagonistsositionsake up.The stance dopted ere sbothexplanatory ndnormative.t attemptsto demonstrate that a useful measure of reconciliation can be achieved

18


7/16

amongst he variousviewpoints, nd that this has both theoreticalandpractical dvantagesn regard o theadvancementf strategicmanagement.In developinghis heme, t is necessaryo breakaway rom the assumptionwhich s often implicitlymade,that is, that a corporatebody "thinks" and"acts" ike a person.Froman externalvantage oint,a companymay ookto havea corporate ersona, ut this s an outcome, ot a description fhow its strategys formed.Partly n order to ensure hat no such mplicitassumptions made,but mainlybecause f the existence f situationsnwhichpolicy s formedby several odies, ften ncluding overnment,hediscussion ill be set in a multi-organizationalramework.Therefore, n thispart of the paper,a "mixedscanning" erspectivefor strategicmanagementesearchs presented.t involves xamining hecontributionof the alternative disciplinary lenses"and approachesotheorybuilding n StrategicManagement. ppendix3 givesa listingofalternative erspectives,nd the researchers hosework is mostcloselyassociated ith thoseperspectives.The fields of economics,inance, and analytic modelingproviderationalisticperspectivesor the strategyprocess.For example, Porter'sinfluential olumeon competitive trategy rovidesrameworksor anal-yzing the effects of different market conditionssuch as differentiatedoligopoly n corporate trategies nd anticipated trategic ositions.42].

The other modelsisted, or example,PIMS, Experience urves, ndBCG, involveempirical esearch singdatabaseso investigateelationshipsbetweensuch variablesas profitabilityand market share, accumulatedexperience nd cost,and growth and market share.Marketingprovides iewpoints, oncepts,nd methodologiesor stra-tegicmanagement. iggadike tatest in the following erms 6, p. 621]:Theory buildingcontributions re few. The marketingconceptstressesthat customers re the focalpoint of strategy... egmentation artitionscustomersnto groupswith commonneedsand the positioning onceptframesstrategicchoiceas decisions bout which segmentso serveandwith whom to compete.An emerging heory of market evolutionhelpsdynamicanalysis f customers, ompetitors, nd strategic hoices.Therefore, the marketingdiscipline iewsstrategy sbeinga market-driven phenomenon nd, consequently,rovides oolsfor customer ndcompetitiveanalysis.The historical asestudyapproach o strategy esearchhasa processorientation and involves the examination of observational data, drawn

from various ources,oncerninghe organizationalatterns nd strategiesthat evolveover a long-termhistoricalime horizon.Chandler's xtensivehistorical esearch ieldedconceptualheories elatingstrategy, tructure,and environment, amely, hat "a company's trategyn time determined19


8/16

its structure"10, p. 476). This theme ed to a stream f moreempiricalhypothesis-testingesearch n strategy nd structurebestexemplified yRumelt [46].Political scientists uch as Lindblom [34] and Allison [2] examinepublicpolicymaking rocessesnd suggest lternativemodelsof policy-making basedon concepts uch as adaptation "muddling hrough"),rationalism, rganizationalrocesses,nd bureaucraticoliticalperspec-tives.Researchersn psychologyHogarth [23]) have identifiednumerousinformation rocessingimitations ndbiasesn humanudgment.Hogarthand Makradakis 24] have argued hat many of thesemay apply o tasksperformedn forecastingndstrategic lanning. or example,he existence

of the judgmental bias of "illusion of control" (Langer [29]) can beinterpreted o suggesthat thosestrategistsnvolved n the activities fstrategic lanning nd managementmayact under he "illusion" hat theyhave somedegree of control over an uncertain uture. Other sources fjudgmentalbiassuch soverconfidencen udgment, ailure o seekpossiblecontradictory vidence, nd accumulation f redundant nformationarealsosuggestedspotentially eriousn the contextof managerialudgmentabout corporatestrategicdirection.Organizationtheoristshave studied such processquestions s thestructuring f organizationsnd organizational owerand haveprovidedmodels or use in the policy iterature. For example,Kotter's studyofeffectivegeneral managers,using painstakingield researchand diaryapproaches, howshem to be more informal, esssystematic,nd moreadaptive hen a proponentof rationalmodelsor formal planningsystemswould assume 28]. Careful studiesof this type can, therefore, enrichplanningsystemsesearch nd suggest reas or improvementn planningsystems esign.Process raining research n strategicdecision-makings a traditionthat started t CarnegiewithCyert,Simon, ndTrow'sstudy 14] nvolvingthe observation f a business ecision nd has continued hrough Mintz-berg'sstudies38] on patterns n strategy ormulation. he traditionofall thesestudiess careful observation f unstructured ecisionprocesses(sometimessinga historical erspective) ith a view to cataloging ndinterpreting he strategic ecision rocesses.his interpretive rocesseadsto conceptualizationnd emergent hemessuchas the observationhatstrategy ormulationover time appears o follow life cycleand changecyclepatterns n organizations.The policy dialogue ens is the theme that serves o integrate hecontributions f variousdisciplines nd approacheso strategicmanage-ment. By "mixed scanning" f thesealternativeperspectives, usefulmeasure f reconciliation mongst he various iewpointsn a management

2O


9/16

team can be achieved hrough a process f continuous olicy dialogue.This involves he useof a consensusrocess uchas strategic ssumptionsanalysis 36] to generate meaningfuldebate and, thereby, to resolveinconsistenciesn alternativeanalyses, iewpoints, nd policyassumptions.In our view the taskof policyplanningand strategy houldnot consistof attempting to demonstrate he superiorityof one approachorframework for all situationsbut rather of showing heir mutual de-pendency....Whatever methods are used they should alwaysaid inchallengingstrategicplanning assumptions.THEORY IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND POLICY

Anshen and Guth [4] earlier pointed to the need for theory devel-opment in the field of strategicmanagement.However, ust as Koontz[27] noted hat therewasno general heoryof management,o t is equallyunlikely hat sucha theorywill be found n the strategyield.This suggeststhat theory searchshouldbe directed towardscontingencyheoriesandtheoreticalmodelswith which to analyzepolicy questions.It seems hat two elements,namely,potentialalternativecourses factionand the existence f a preferenceorderingon outcomes, efine hestructureof policymaking r strategy.Making policyor corporatestrategyconsists f choosing mongalternativecourses f action hat, it is believed,will attain the most preferred outcome taking accountof all the costsinvolved n decision-making.)t follows, herefore, that prediction f theoutcomeof alternativecourses f action s an integralpart of the strategy-making process.However, prediction requires theory or theories thatcausally elate action to outcome.Suchtheoriesare a necessary onditionfor selectingpolicies ndependentof(1) the ability(or lack thereof) to quantifyoutcomes,(2) the level of uncertainty hat existsabout outcomes, nd

(3) the nature of the preferenceordering.What then are the characteristicsf theory n thisarea and how mighttheory develop?First, some of the theory base will, and ought to, bederived from the alternative theories, rameworks,and lensesdevelopedin other disciplines. or example, he rapid acceptance, nd pervasivepopularityof Porter's competitivestrategymaterial [42], attests o thepolicy area'svoracious ppetite for good derivative heory obtained romthe industry nd marketanalysisesearchradition n microeconomicsndindustrialorganization.Second, heory development eeds o incorporateboth rational/analytical nd behavioral/political erspectives.hird, sincepolicyand strategyproblems re complex nvolvingmany variables ndconsiderable mbiguity, heory developmentwill be slow. t is more likelythat useful theory will emerge from inductive,creative, ntensive ield

21


10/16

researchmodels suchas those using historicaland process-tracinger-spectives). he important ssues nd problemswould first be explained, nan inductiveprocess, rom field data, which might in turn lead to thedeductive estingof somepropositionserived rom the set of inductivegeneralizations.ourth, contentstudiesmay alsobe undertaken o throwlight upon strategiesn specific pplication ontexts.Whilst theseare morelimited n scope,hey are more specific nd generally asier or researchersto undertake.

Finally, it would appear that the most fruitful paths for theorydevelopment re either throughadaptationof theories rom other disci-plines o the policy context or by performing nductive ield-like studiesthat will generatehypothesesor specific estingthrough successivee-ductivephases f the researchprocess.CONCLUSIONS, CURRENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

There is little doubt that the strategicmanagementield will continueto growanddevelopn the future.This ispartiallybecause f the AmericanAssembly f CollegiateSchools f Business'AACSB) requirementsorundergraduate nd graduate olicycoursesn businesschoolshat generatedemand or newpolicyarea aculty andhence acilitate ntryof committedresearchersnto the profession). erhaps more importantreason s theincreasingcorporate awareness f a messy,politicizedenvironment nwhich the menu of options s both limited and complexand in whichgovernment nd globalcompetition re increasinglymportant orces.Sincestrategy'sare is complex, ll-structuredproblems, t is useful ocast he strategicmanagement rocess s involvingelements f a complexinquiry system asedupon the examination f alternativeperspectivesnda "simulation"of entrepreneurialactivity through institutionalizinghestrategy-makingrocess. herefore, a top managerneeds o first build hisstrategic genda hrough careful nquiry and examination f his problemsin termsof alternative mixedscanningrameworks" socalled theories").Armed with an adequate strategicproblem formulation, he can thendetermine he meansof achieving nd implementing trategic gendas yexaminingprocess spectsn terms of an organizingparadigmsuchas inthe Chart. That is, he shouldexamine he degree o which his strategychoicewould be consistent ith the pressures f the external environment,the corporation's oalsand resources,he risk-takingpropensities f thecorporation,and the culture and value systems mbeddedwithin theorganization.If the previously rticulated iewof the strategicmanagement rocessisaccepted,hen t wouldappear hat there sa need o continually evelopthe theory base of the field (usingalternativeperspectives)nd design

22


11/16

strategicnquiry systemshat adequatelymodel he managerial rocessesof debateand dialogueprior to choiceand action.Appendix IUseful StrategicManagementPeriodicalsAcademyf ManagementournalAcademyf Management eviewAdministrative cience uarterlyBusinessnd SocietyBusiness HorizonsCaliforniaManagement eviewHarvard Business ReviewJournal of BusinessJournal of BusinesstrategyJournal of GeneralManagementJournalof Management tudiesLong-Range lanningManagement ecisionOmegaOrganizational ynamicsPolicySciencesPolicyStudiesournalSloanManagement eviewStrategic anagementournalAppendix IIStatements bout ResearchAreas n StrategicManagementAnshen nd Guth 4, pp. 507-511](Broadmulti-disciplinaryesearch anvas)1. Scienceand Art in Policy Formulation(Examination f the bounds f rationality n policy ormulation)Empiricalstudyof top management ecisionso delineate imits of rationality n suchdecisions.Conceptual evelopment f multi-disciplinaryheoryof the policy ormulation rocess.Construction f mathematicalmodels/simulationsf the policy ormulationprocess.Studyof the "art" componentsf policy ormulation.2. Design and Test of Analytical Conceptsand Operational ApproachesStudyof decision euristicsn unstructured ituations.Strategicplanningsystemsn rapidlychanging nvironments.Socialperformancemeasurement f organizations.MI$ for policy ormulationand implementation.Strategy nd organizationalesign.Performancemeasurement ystems.Designof strategy ormulation rocessesor strategic ecision-making.3. Historical Relationshipsand Implementation Problems(List of relationshipsor empirical tudy)Environmentsets n relation to successful/unsuccessfulrganizations.Management alues n relation o strategic hoice.

23


12/16

Organizational trategies s. organizational tructures.Organizationalstructures s. measures f performance.Organizationalevels n relation o measures f performancen differentorganizationalstructures.

Leadership tyles s. strategy nd organizationalorm.4. Interface of BusinessPolicy Formulation with Social Problems and Other InstitutionsInterorganizationalnalysis ower8, p. 636] (business/governmentulti-nationaloci)1. Managementproblemsof rapid growth and their socio-economicmplications.2. Managementproblemsof declining ndustriesand regions.$. Top management f large complex irms -- studiesof entrepreneurs nd strategists-what are the administrativeaspects f complexstrategy?4. What doesportfolio managementmean or large companies?Why do CEO's ntroducesuch systems?5. Can anything be said about the mix of large and small firms from a business olicyperspective?6. Depth studiesof particular regionaland environmentalproblems.7. Global industries.Jemison25] (Integrative,multi-disciplinaryocus)1. Determination of the relationship among the evolution of industries, markets andorganizations.2. Methods or integration of process nd contentstrategicmanagement esearch.3. Examination of the relationshipsbetween,and influence of, inter-organizationalanalysison strategy ormulation.Saunders nd Thompson48, p. 122] (Slight amendmentby Saunders nd ThompsonofSchendeland Hofer [49]1. Strategy Formulation ProcessStrategyConceptStrategy FormulationStrategyEvaluationStrategyContent2. Strategy Formulation Elements Goal Formulation/StructuresSocialResponsibilityEnvironmentalAnalysisPublicPolicy$. Strategy Implementation ProcessStrategy mplementation4. Strategy mplementation ElementsFormalPlanningSystemsStrategic Gontrol5. StrategyManagementProcessStrategyManagementProcess Boards of DirectorsGeneral ManagementRoles6. OtherEntrepreneurship nd new ventures Multi-business/multi-cultural formsStrategicmanagementn not-for-profitorganizations Research methods

24


13/16

Appendix IIICategorization f AlternativeLenses nd Approachesor StrategyResearchLenses/Approaches Research TraditionHistory CaseDevelopment

Mappingof corporatestrategyover long-term historicalperspectiveMapping ndustrychangesover timeEconomics Industrial Organization/Microeconomic nalysisStrategy/StructurePerformanceFinance PortfolioTheoryCapital AssetPricingFinancialStatementAnalysis

Marketing Product ife CycleSegmentationPlanningPoliticalScience Studyof PolicymakingProcesses in GovernmentLaboratoryExperimentationPsychology in JudgmentResearchOrganizational Organizational tructureBehavior Power n OrganizationsStudiesof General ManagersStrategyTypes and StructureEnvironments nd Organizations

LeadershipResearchAdministrative BehaviorAnalyticalModeling Decision nalysisModellingPIMS (Profit Impact onMarket Strategies)ExperienceCurve AnalysisBCG Portfolio MatrixProcess racing in Mappingand TrackingStrategicDecision-Mak- StrategyProcessesingPolicyDialogue Conflicting ssumptionsin DecisionMaking

References

[10,[12]

[42, 43]

[46][13][35, 47][181[561[341[21[]71[23, 24,29, 54][53][4U[281[37][55][26][40, 45,

[5Ol[20][21][14][7, 38, 44][36]

REFERENCES1. D. F. Abell, andJ. S. Hammond.Strategic arketPlanning. Englewood liffs,NJ,1979).2. G. T. Allison,Essencef DecisionBoston: ittle, Brown, 1971).3. K. Andrews,TheConceptf CorporatetrategyHomewood,L: Irwin, 1971).4. M. Anshen, nd W. D. Guth. "Strategiesor Researchn PolicyFormulation,"JournalofBusinessOctober1973),pp. 449-511.5. H. I. Ansoff,CorporatetrategyNew York: McGraw-Hill,1965).6. E. R. Biggadike, The Contributions f Marketing o StrategicManagement,"AcademyfManagementeview, ol. 6, No. 4 (1981), pp. 621-32.7. J. L. Bower,ManagingheResourcellocationrocessCambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress,1970).

25


14/16

8. ., "Business olicy n the 1980's,"Academyf Managementeview, ol. 7,No. 4 (1982), pp. 630-38.9. R. E. Caves, IndustrialOrganization, orporateStrategy, nd Structure:A Sur-vey,"Journal f Economiciterature, ol. 18, No. 1 (1980), pp. 64-92.10. A.D. Chandler, r., Strategynd Structure: haptersn theHistory f IndustrialEnterpriseCambridge,MA: The MIT Press,1962).11. , The VisibleHand: TheManagerialRevolutionn American usiness(Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press,1977).12. Arthur Cole, Businessnterprisen itsSocial ettingCambridge,MA, 1959).13. T. E. Copeland nd J. E Weston. inancialTheory nd CorporateolicyReading,MA: Addision-Wesley,979).14. R. M. Cyert, H. A. Simon, and D. B. Trow, "Observationof a Business eci-sion," ournal of Business,ol. 29 (1956), pp. 237-48.15. N. K. Dhallaand S. Yuspeh. Forget he Product-Life ycleConcept," arvardBusinesseview, ol. 54, No. 1, pp. 102-12.16. A. Etzioni, "Mixed Scanning: Third Approach o Decision-Making,"ublicAdministrationeviewDecember 1967), pp. 385-91.17. B. Fischoff, HindsightForesight: he Effectof OutcomeKnowledge n Judg-ment under Uncertainty,"ournalof Experimentalsychology:umanPerceptionndPerfor-mance, ol. 1, No. 2 (1975), pp. 228-99.18. G. Foster, inancialStatementnalysisEnglewood liffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall,1978).19. P.M. Greenwood nd H. Thomas."A Reviewof AnalyticalMethods n StrategicPlanning,"Omega, ol. 9, No. 4 (1981),pp. 397-417.20. B. Hedley,"A FundamentalApproach o StrategyDevelopment," ongRangePlanning December1976), pp. 2-11.21. , "A FundamentalApproach o StrategyDevelopment," ongRangePlanning December1976), pp. 2-11.22. D. B. Hertz and H. Thomas.RiskAnalysis nd itsApplicationsChichester, ng-land: Wiley, 1983).23. R. M. Hogarth,Judgmentnd Choice:hePsychologf DecisionChichester, ng-land: Wiley, 1980).24. , and S. Makradakis. Forecasting nd Planning:An Evaluation;'Management cience,ol. 27, No. 2 (February 1981), pp. 115-39.25. D. B. Jemison, The Importanceof an IntegrativeApproach o StrategicMan-agementResearch," cademyf Managementeview, ol. 6, No. 4 (1981a),pp. 601-08.26 , "The Contributions f AdministrativeBehavior o StrategicMan-

agement,"Academyf Managementeview, ol. 6, No. 4 (1981b), pp. 633-42.27. H. Koontz,"The Management heory JungleRevisited," cademyfManagementRev/ew, ol. 5, No. 2 (1980), pp. 175-87.28. J.P. Kotter, The GeneralManagersNew York: The Free Press,1982).29. E.J. Langer,"The Illusionof Control," ournalof Personalitynd Social sychology,Vol. 32, No. 2 (1973), pp. 311-28.30. P. R. Lawrenceand D. Dyer.RenewingmericanndustryNew York: The FreePress, 1983).31. P. R. Lawrence ndJ. Lorsch.Organizationnd EnvironmentHomewood,L:Irwin, 1967).32. M. Leontiades, The ConfusingWordsof Business olicy,"Academyf ManagementReview, ol. 7, No. 1 (1982), pp. 45-48.33. T. Levitt, "Exploit the Product-LifeCycle,"HarvardBusinesseview, ol. 43, No.6 (1965) pp. 81-94.

26


15/16

34. C. E. Lindblom, "The Scienceof 'Muddling Through'," PublicAdministrationReviewSpring 1959), pp. 79-88.35. H. Markowitz, Portfolio electionNew York: Wiley, 1959).36. R. O. Mason and I. I. Mitroff. Challenging trategic lanningAssumptionsNewYork: Wiley, 1981).37. R. E. Miles and C. S. Snow.Organizationaltrategy,tructurend ProcessNewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1978).38. H. Mintzberg,"Patterns n StrategyFormation,"Managementcience,ol. 24(May 1978), pp. 934-48.39. ., andJ. A. Waters,"Tracking Strategy n an Entrepreneurial irm,"AcademyfManagementournal,Vol. 25, No. 3 (1982), pp. 465-99.40. P. G. Moore and H. Thomas, TheAnatomy f Decisions.London: Penguin, 1976).41. J. Pfeifer, Pawer n OrganizationsPitman, 1982).42. M. E. Porter,CompetitivetrategyNew York: The Free Press,1980).43. ., "The Contributionsof Industrial Organization o StrategicManagePment," Academyf Management eview,Vol. 6, No. 4 (1981), pp. 609-20.44. J. B. Quinn, Strategiesor ChangeHomewood, L: Irwin, 1980).45. H. Raiffa,DecisionnalysisReading,MA: Addision-Wesley,968).46. R. Rumelt,Strategy,tructure nd EconomicerformanceCambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress,1974).47. M. S. Salterand W. A. Weinhold,Diversificationhrough cquisitionNew York:The Free Press, 1979).48. C. B. Saundersand J. C. Thompson, "A Survey of the Current State of BusinessPolicyResearch," trategic anagementournalVol. 1 (1980), pp. 119-30.49. D. E. Schendel nd C. W. Hofer, eds.Strategic anagement: NewViewof BusinessPolicy nd Planning Boston:Little, Brown, 1979).50. S. Schoeffier, . D. Buzzell,and D. E Heany,"Impactof StrategicPlanningonProfit Performance," arvardBusinesseview, ol. 52a (1974), pp. 137-45.51. C. R. Schwenkand H. Thomas, "Formulating he Mess:The Role of DecisionAids in ProblemFormulation,"Omega, ol. 10, No. 2 (1983), pp. 1-14.52. H. Thomas,"StrategicDecisionAnalaysis:he Role of AppliedDecisionAnaly-sis n the StrategicManagementProcess," trategic anagementournal,1983 (forthcom-ing).53. J. D. Thompson,Organizationsn Action New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).54. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. Judgment nder Uncertainty:Heuristics ndBiases," cience,ol. 185 (27 September1974), pp. 1124-31.

55. V. Vroom and P. W. Yetton.Leadershipnd Decision-MakingPittsburg:Universityof Pittsburg Press, 1973).56. Y. Wind, "Issues nd Advancesn Segmentation esearch,"ournalofMarketingResearch,ol. 15, No. 3 (1978), pp. 317-37.

27


16/16

ChartSTRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PARADIGM

(Adapted from Schendel and Hofer, 1979)

Goatormulation

StrategyFormulation

GoalStructure

StrategyEvaluation

StratontrolPerformance

Evaluation

StrategyImplementation

.InwronmentalIndustryAnalysis StrategicPlanning

28

strategic mgt. overview

Documents