substantial body of literature in the fields of strategic management, strategic planning ... (4) to draw some broad conclusions about the field and future research.
Mapping StrategicManagement Research Howard Thomas Universityof Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign
DURINGthelasttwodecades, in particular, therehasdeveloped a substantial bodyof literaturein the fieldsof strategicmanagement, strategic planning,corporateand business policy,and relatedtopics.This literature owesmuchto the prior writingsof Alfred Chandler[10] and the decades of casewritingand researchundertakenat Harvard Business Schoolby manylearnedprofessors. Indeed,Harvard'straditionof leadershipin this field datesfrom 1914 when it first introduceda courserequirementfor business policyinto the business schoolprogram. The term strategicmanagement is of relativelyrecentorigin[49] and iscurrentlytheaccepted termfor thefieldsof business policyandplanning. However,as a separatefield of study,it is still at a fairly young and relativelyevolutionarystage.As a result, many definitionsof strategy abound,and the terms "strategicplanning,""policy,"and "strategic management"often mean preciselythe samething to differentauthors. Whilstconflictaboutdefinitions,confusionand an abundance of jargon characterize scientificendeavorin an emergingfield [32] thispaperwill focuson the followingdefinitionsof strategy. ON
THE
MEANING
OF
STRATEGY
Chandler's[10, p. 13] definitionis perhapsthe fundamentalcontributionto corporatestrategy: The determinationof the basiclong-termgoalsand the objectivesof an enterprise,and the adoptionof coursesof actionand the allocation of resources necessary for carryingout thesegoals.
This wasamendedand amplifiedby Andrews[3, p. 28] with the followingwell-accepted definition. Corporatestrategyis the patternof major objectives, purposes or goals and essentialpoliciesor plansfor achievingthosegoals,statedin such 13
a way as to define what businessthe companyis in or is to be in and the kind of companyit is or is to be.
Andrewsand Chandler'sdefinitionsdefine strategyin termsof intentions. Mintzbergand Waters[39, p. 466] argue that organizations may sometimespursuestrategiesthey never intended. Hence, they propose that the usualdefinitionof strategybe called"intendedstrategy"and that strategyin generaland "realized strategy"be definedas "a pattern in a stream of decisions(actions)." Strategicmanagementwill be interpretedin relationto Schendeland
Hofer's [49] paradigm(seethe Chart). This paradigmconceives of the managementof strategyas consistingof the followingstepsand tasks; namely,goal formulation,environmentalanalysis,strategyformulation, strategyevaluation,strategyimplementationand strategycontrol. While otherparadigmshavebeensuggested [8, 19] it is contendedthat Schendel and Hofer's paradigm is a practicaland useful framework (albeit a conceptualization of strategicmanagementas institutionalizedentrepreneurship)with which to considerthe researchliterature in strategic management.
From this, it followsthat the objectivesof this paperare (1) to reviewand classify the researchliteraturein strategicmanagement;
(2) to makea pleafor the adoptionof "mixedscanning"perspectives for future research in the field;
(3) to examinetheoryandsuggest that theorydevelopment shouldbe the mostimportantaim for research; (4) to draw somebroadconclusions aboutthe field and future research directions. LITERATURE
IN
STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT
It wouldbe impossible within the scopeof this paper to attemptan exhaustive reviewof the "stateof the art" of strategicmanagement research (althoughsomeof the more usefulperiodicals are shownin Appendix1.) Indeed,the 1977 PittsburghConferenceon strategicmanagement (SchendelandHofer [49])usedthe organizingparadigmof the Chartto categorize "the state of the art" in the field. Also, a more recent conference in
Arlington (February1983) on "SignificantDevelopments in Strategic Management"has providedan update of the themespresentedin the Schendel
and Hofer
book.
Instead, in this sectionthe researchenvironmentand the differing
viewpoints heldby strategyacademics will be examined.This perspective is taken becauseit will be argued(usingthe informationin Appendix2) that, whilethe field is developingstrongly,it suffersfrom an identitycrisis 14
about its paradigmsand lack of consensusabout appropriate research directions
and traditions.
If a panelof leadingexpertsin the field wereto reviewit, there would probablybe consensus that none, or very few,of the setof socialscientists on a businessschoolfacultyreally sympathizewith the policyarea or even understandwhat it is about. In essence,policyis seenas an anomalyby academicsbecauseacademicsare, by definition, experts or specialists whereaspolicy is concernedwith the issues,questions,and problems associated with generalmanagement.Policy,as a field, is, therefore, the antithesis
of their
need for orderliness
and structure
and their
belief
in
researchmethodologygroundedin the tradition of socialscienceresearch methods.
Consequently, policy researchersmust contendwith a lesswellostructured environment.Further, Bower [8, p. 632] pointsout policy faculty and researchers
lack a critical
mass in most research
institutions.
Only someof the facultywho teachthe policycourseregardpolicyas their field, and only someof the facultyhave studiedpolicy and its literaturein a systematic way.Rarelydoesthe groupteachingpolicyat a particular schoolinclude more than two or three full-time committed faculty.
Leadingpolicyacademics certainlydisagreeaboutthe contentof policy and relevantareasof research.Bower [8, p. 630] somewhatirreverently quotesa gentlemanby the name of Paul Cook who took part in a 1963 business policyconferenceat Harvard in the followingmanner: Paul Cook arguedthat the way one determinedthe subjectmatter of policy was to gather together all the messy,unsolved,and perhaps undefinedproblemsof importancecharacterizing business management. "As soon as a problem was understood,"said he, "it was quickly incorporatedas part of the subjectmatter for one of the functional disciplines."
One implicationof Cook'sstatement(asBowercomments,it is correct but exaggerated)is that policyshouldprobablyconcentrateon thosevery difficult, messy,ambiguous,and ill-structuredproblemsinvolvedin formulatingandimplementing corporateendsandaim to providea reasonable modelof thinkingaboutthosevery muddledand ambiguoussituations.It is far too easy for researchersto examine those more well-structured questions and problemsthat havealreadybeenwell treatedby researchers in policyand other disciplines. Bower[8, p. 632] arguesthat a definitionof strategy,suchasAndrews' [3], is a much more usefulorganizingparadigmfor the field sinceit takes a holisticperspective.Once strategicmanagementparadigms(suchas
15
Schendeland Hofer's [49] versionshownin the Chart) treat corporate strategyas consistingof severalparts- goal formulation,strategyformulation,strategyplanning,and so on- then Bower arguesthat researchers may be trappedinto studyingone of thesepartsas if it existed in the firm asa separateactivity. Appendix2 throwsfurther insightupon this issue.The articlesof Anshenand Guth [4], Bower[8], Jemison[25], and Saundersand Thompson [48], whichdiscussstrategiesfor researchin policy,were chosento providevaryingdefinitionsof what policyresearchis, or indeed,should be.
Anshenand Guth [4] statethat the policyarea "lagsall othersin the developmentof a body of theory and formal analytictechniques"[4, p. 499]. They argue that this lack of theory and formal analytictechniques requiresthat at leastfour basicalternativeresearchstrategies be adopted to improvethe researchcapitalof the field. They suggestthat these strategies shouldbe asfollows.First,the studyof scienceand art in policy formulation.Second,the designand useof analyticconceptsand operational approaches. Third, the studyof historicalrelationships and implementationproblems.Fourth, the examinationof the interfaceof policy formulationwith socialproblemsand with other institutions. Bower [8, p. 632] arguesthat researchin policyshouldconcentrate uponthe life and deathissues of concernto the top management of firms. In the 1980senvironment,he believesthat muchgreaterattentionmust be directedtowardscorporatemanagementof the boundariesand interfacesbetweenbusinessand government.In addition, many corporate problemsnow havea multinationalfocusinvolvingcompetitionand marketing on a globalscale.Bower wantsresearchin this field to be more exploratoryand long-rangeand seekto identifynewproblems,with albeit smallcase-study type samples,in painstakingbut scholarlymanner.His researchstrategyis to attack"the elephants"and enrichthe field rather than pursue "the ants" by looking at well-structuredproblems(and "estimatingR2 on relationships that havebeenrecognizedto be true since biblicaltimes"[8, p. 637]. He alsorecognizes that thisresearchstrategy raisesthe questions of rewardsfor policyacademics. Put anotherway,can policyresearchers be promotedby doingcasestudiesandactionresearch? Jemison[25, p. 601] statesthat "strategicmanagementhasreached thepointwhereintegrativeresearch approaches are necessary for continued progress in the field."He advocates the development initiallyof mid-range theoriesthat draw from, and attempt to integrate,disciplinessuch as marketing,administrative behavior,and economics that contributeto our understandingof strategicmanagement.Such mid-rangetheoriesthen form the basisfrom whichricher integrative,hypothesis-testing research will, hopefullyemerge.He suggests that opportunities for researchcross16
fertilizationexistin the areasof joint evolutionof industries,markets,and organizations,in content and processresearchintegration,and in the domainof interorganizational analysis. Saunders andThompson[48] analyzedpaperssubmitted for the 1979 Academyof ManagementMeetingsin Atlanta in termsof the Schendel/ Hofer classification of the field.Thirty-fivepercentof the submittedpapers addressed issuesin category1, the processof strategyformulation(% being about formulationand ¬ about content).Thirty percent of the papersfell in category2 (% beingaboutenvironmental analysisand ¬ beingaboutgoalformulationand structures)and 25 percentof the papers fell in category5 (fully 80 percent of them being about the strategic management process). Of the residual15 percent,¬ addressed implementation, ¬ addressed formal planning,and Vsgeneralmanagement issues. Overall, only 20 percent of the paperssubmittedinvolvedtheory testing,and 60 percent were conceptualpiecesdirected towardstheory building.The residual20 percentwere empiricalpapersdirectedtowards theory building. Saundersand Thompsonstate[48, p. 128] that As might be expected,smaller-scale investigativeundertakingstypify the mix of topics,sincethe narrowercompass of "elements"research makesit simplerand more straightforward than 'process'research.
This simplicityalsomakesit attractivefor policyresearchersaiming for a smoothpromotionpath. Further, in comparingconceptualwith empiricalresearch[48, p. 129] they speculatethat "a turn away (in research)from feeble attemptsat the insight type and toward hard examination of applicable datain an empiricalframeworkiswhatisneeded now."They arguethat importantand valuableconceptual papersare few and far between.
None of the four authorsdepictedin Appendix2 believethat research in policyis impossible. However,they differ in two respects.First, they usevaryingdefinitionsof whatpolicyresearchis. Second,theyemphasize the importanceof different aspectsof the field. Bower would argue for the bestpossible field research involvingcase inquiryinto the behaviorof practitioners followedby conceptualization of this behavior.This would be carried out in a scholarlymanner using carefullyspecifiedrules of evidence.The aim is to achievea careful, accuratedescription of importantissues, problems,and phenomenain the broadgeneralmanagement field,withparticularemphasis on management in a "boundary-spanning" role operatingbetweenthe intra-organization, government,and multinational environments.Saundersand Thompson believethat methodological andempirical research areasshouldbe emphasized. They favor modelbuilding,hypothesis testing,and newmodels and techniques 17
for strategy research. Anshenand Guth prescribea mix of empiricaltesting and explanatory, conceptual research on a broader strategiccanvas(nearer andcloserto Andrews'holisticstrategydefinition)witha clearaim directed towardsthe promotionof richertheorybuildinganddevelopment for the field.Jemison,in manyrespects, echoesthe positiontakenby Anshenand Guthbut with strongemphasis on the needfor integrative, multi-disciplinary research in the field.
Perhapsthe only strongconsensus betweentheseauthorswouldbe their lack of interestin well-writtenbut rather empty papersfull of conjectureand plausiblestatements incapableof being testedor further researched. Suchofferingstypicallyemanatefrom practitioners, consultants, and lessresearch-oriented academics. In addition,they might all agreethat a mix of exploratorytheorybuildingwith scientific hypothesis testingresearchwouldbe worthwhilefor theorydevelopment. They would certainlynot agree on the "weightings"which shouldbe given to the variouselementsof the mix and this is a reasonable expectation.As long asthe conductof researchinvolvesalternativeperspectives andviewpoints, the future diet of researchable topicsis likelyto be muchmoreextensive, well constructed, and valuable. "MIXED
SCANNING"
AND
STRATEGY
RESEARCH
It is a continuingdifficultyin the management researchfield that the same,or related,aspects of managementpracticecanbe examinedthrough sucha wide variety of disciplinary"lenses."The varietydoeshave its advantagesin aiding the understandingof complexsituations,but it has
probablyalso added someconfusionto the studyof policy,strategy formulation,and planning.The viewpointsavailableinclude,at one extreme, one that regardsstrategicdecision-making as an instanceof organizationalpolitics,to be understood entirelyin termsof the relativepower positions and politicalploysof a set of influential"actors."At the other extreme,is a viewpointbasedon a comprehensively rationalmodel of decision-making, whichcan be facilitatedby suchtechniques as decision and risk analysis[22, 40]. Intermediatestancescan be adopted,as for example,the "mixedscanning"approachof Etzioni[16]. The practicalmanager,involvedin someaspectof strategyor policy, canprobablythink of instances in whichone or the other of thesemodels is a good fit, and yet discussion often proceedson the linesof rejecting
oneof themon thebasisthatcontraryinstances canbe found.The matter is further confounded by the differentpositions, descriptive, explanatory, or normative,whichprotagonists positionstake up. The stanceadoptedhereisbothexplanatory andnormative.It attempts to demonstrate
that a useful measure
18
of reconciliation
can be achieved
amongstthe variousviewpoints,and that this has both theoreticaland practicaladvantages in regardto theadvancement of strategicmanagement. In developing thistheme,it is necessary to breakawayfrom the assumption whichis often implicitlymade,that is, that a corporatebody "thinks"and "acts"likea person.Froman externalvantagepoint,a companymaylook to havea corporatepersona,but thisis an outcome,not a description of how its strategyis formed.Partlyin order to ensurethat no suchimplicit assumption is made,but mainlybecauseof the existenceof situations in whichpolicyis formedby severalbodies,oftenincludinggovernment, the discussion will be set in a multi-organizational framework. Therefore,in thispart of the paper,a "mixedscanning"perspective for strategicmanagement researchis presented.It involvesexaminingthe contributionof the alternativedisciplinary"lenses"and approachesto theorybuildingin StrategicManagement.Appendix3 givesa listingof alternativeperspectives, and the researchers whosework is mostclosely associatedwith thoseperspectives. The fields of economics,finance, and analytic modelingprovide rationalisticperspectives for the strategyprocess.For example,Porter's influentialvolumeon competitivestrategyprovidesframeworks for analyzing the effectsof different market conditionssuch as differentiated oligopolyon corporatestrategies and anticipatedstrategicpositions.[42]. The other modelslisted,for example,PIMS, ExperienceCurves,and BCG, involveempiricalresearchusingdatabasesto investigate relationships betweensuchvariablesas profitabilityand market share,accumulated experienceand cost,and growthand market share. Marketingprovidesviewpoints,concepts, and methodologies for strategicmanagement.Biggadikestatesit in the followingterms[6, p. 621]: Theory buildingcontributionsare few. The marketingconceptstresses that customersare the focalpoint of strategy...Segmentationpartitions customersinto groupswith commonneedsand the positioningconcept framesstrategicchoiceas decisionsaboutwhich segmentsto serveand with whom to compete.An emergingtheory of market evolutionhelps dynamicanalysisof customers,competitors,and strategicchoices.
Therefore,the marketingdisciplineviewsstrategyasbeinga marketdriven phenomenonand, consequently, providestoolsfor customerand competitiveanalysis. The historicalcasestudyapproachto strategyresearchhasa process orientation and involves the examination of observational data, drawn
from varioussources, concerning the organizational patternsandstrategies that evolveover a long-termhistoricaltime horizon.Chandler'sextensive historicalresearchyieldedconceptualtheoriesrelatingstrategy,structure, and environment,namely,that "a company's strategyin time determined 19
its structure"(10, p. 476). This themeled to a streamof moreempirical hypothesis-testing researchon strategyand structurebestexemplifiedby Rumelt [46]. Political scientistssuch as Lindblom [34] and Allison [2] examine
publicpolicymaking processes and suggestalternativemodelsof policymaking basedon conceptssuchas adaptation("muddlingthrough"), rationalism, organizational processes, and bureaucratic politicalperspectives.
Researchers in psychology (Hogarth [23]) have identifiednumerous informationprocessing limitations andbiases in humanjudgment.Hogarth and Makradakis[24] havearguedthat many of thesemay applyto tasks performedin forecasting andstrategicplanning.Forexample,the existence of the judgmental bias of "illusionof control" (Langer [29]) can be interpretedto suggestthat thosestrategists involvedin the activitiesof strategicplanningandmanagement mayact underthe "illusion"that they have somedegree of control over an uncertainfuture. Other sourcesof judgmentalbiassuchasoverconfidence injudgment,failureto seekpossible contradictoryevidence,and accumulation of redundantinformationare alsosuggested aspotentiallyseriousin the contextof managerial judgment about corporatestrategicdirection. Organizationtheoristshave studied such processquestionsas the structuringof organizations and organizational powerand haveprovided modelsfor use in the policyliterature. For example,Kotter's studyof effectivegeneralmanagers,using painstakingfield researchand diary approaches, showsthem to be more informal,lesssystematic, and more adaptivethen a proponentof rationalmodelsor formalplanningsystems would assume[28]. Careful studiesof this type can, therefore, enrich planningsystems researchand suggest areasfor improvementin planning systemsdesign. Processtraining researchin strategicdecision-making is a tradition that startedat CarnegiewithCyert,Simon,andTrow'sstudy[ 14]involving the observationof a business decisionand hascontinuedthrough Mintz-
berg'sstudies[38] on patternsin strategyformulation.The traditionof all thesestudiesis careful observationof unstructureddecisionprocesses (sometimes usinga historicalperspective) with a view to catalogingand interpretingthe strategicdecisionprocesses. This interpretiveprocess leads to conceptualization and emergentthemessuchas the observationthat strategyformulationover time appearsto follow life cycleand change cyclepatternsin organizations. The policydialoguelens is the theme that servesto integratethe contributionsof variousdisciplines and approaches to strategicmanagement. By "mixed scanning"of thesealternativeperspectives, a useful measureof reconciliation amongstthe variousviewpointsin a management 2O
team can be achievedthrough a processof continuouspolicy dialogue. This involvesthe useof a consensus processsuchas strategicassumptions analysis[36] to generate meaningfuldebate and, thereby, to resolve inconsistencies in alternativeanalyses, viewpoints,and policyassumptions. In our view the taskof policyplanningand strategyshouldnot consist of attempting to demonstratethe superiorityof one approachor framework for all situationsbut rather of showingtheir mutual dependency....Whatever methodsare used they should alwaysaid in challengingstrategicplanning assumptions. THEORY
IN
STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT
AND
POLICY
Anshen and Guth [4] earlier pointed to the need for theory development in the field of strategicmanagement.However,just as Koontz [27] notedthat therewasno generaltheoryof management, soit isequally unlikelythat sucha theorywill be foundin the strategyfield.This suggests that theory searchshouldbe directedtowardscontingencytheoriesand theoreticalmodelswith which to analyzepolicyquestions. It seemsthat two elements,namely,potentialalternativecoursesof actionand the existenceof a preferenceorderingon outcomes,definethe structureof policymakingor strategy.Making policyor corporatestrategy consists of choosingamongalternativecoursesof actionthat, it is believed, will attain the most preferred outcome(taking accountof all the costs involvedin decision-making.) It follows,therefore, that prediction of the outcomeof alternativecoursesof actionis an integralpart of the strategymaking process.However, prediction requires theory or theories that causallyrelate action to outcome.Suchtheoriesare a necessary condition for selectingpoliciesindependentof (1) the ability(or lack thereof)to quantifyoutcomes, (2) the level of uncertaintythat existsabout outcomes,and (3) the nature of the preferenceordering. What then are the characteristics of theoryin thisareaand how might theory develop?First, some of the theory base will, and ought to, be derived from the alternative theories,frameworks,and lensesdeveloped in other disciplines.For example,the rapid acceptance,and pervasive popularityof Porter'scompetitivestrategymaterial [42], atteststo the policyarea'svoraciousappetitefor good derivativetheory obtainedfrom the industryand marketanalysis researchtraditionin microeconomics and industrialorganization.Second,theory developmentneedsto incorporate both rational/analyticaland behavioral/politicalperspectives. Third, since policyand strategyproblemsare complexinvolvingmany variablesand considerable ambiguity,theory developmentwill be slow.It is more likely that usefultheory will emerge from inductive,creative,intensivefield
21
researchmodels(suchas thoseusing historicaland process-tracing perspectives). The important issuesand problemswould first be explained,in an inductiveprocess,from field data, which might in turn lead to the deductivetestingof somepropositions derivedfrom the set of inductive generalizations. Fourth, contentstudiesmay alsobe undertakento throw light upon strategiesin specificapplicationcontexts.Whilsttheseare more limitedin scope,they are more specificand generallyeasierfor researchers to undertake.
Finally, it would appear that the most fruitful paths for theory developmentare either throughadaptationof theoriesfrom other disciplinesto the policycontextor by performinginductivefield-likestudies that will generatehypothesesfor specifictestingthrough successive deductivephasesof the researchprocess. CONCLUSIONS,
CURRENT
AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
There is little doubtthat the strategicmanagementfield will continue to growanddevelopin the future.This ispartiallybecause of the American Assemblyof CollegiateSchoolsof Business' (AACSB)requirementsfor undergraduateandgraduatepolicycourses in business schools that generate demandfor newpolicyareafaculty(andhencefacilitateentryof committed researchersinto the profession).Perhapsa more importantreasonis the increasingcorporate awarenessof a messy,politicizedenvironmentin which the menu of optionsis both limited and complexand in which governmentand globalcompetitionare increasingly importantforces. Sincestrategy'sfare is complex,ill-structuredproblems,it is usefulto castthe strategicmanagementprocessas involvingelementsof a complex inquirysystembaseduponthe examinationof alternativeperspectives and a "simulation"of entrepreneurialactivity through institutionalizingthe strategy-making process.Therefore, a top managerneedsto first build his strategicagendathrough carefulinquiryand examinationof his problems in termsof alternative"mixedscanningframeworks"(socalled"theories"). Armed with an adequatestrategicproblem formulation, he can then determinethe meansof achievingand implementingstrategicagendasby examiningprocessaspectsin termsof an organizingparadigmsuchas in the Chart. That is, he shouldexaminethe degreeto whichhis strategy choicewould be consistentwith the pressures of the external environment, the corporation'sgoalsand resources,the risk-takingpropensitiesof the corporation,and the culture and value systemsembeddedwithin the organization. If the previously articulatedviewof the strategicmanagement process isaccepted,thenit wouldappearthat thereisa needto continuallydevelop the theory base of the field (usingalternativeperspectives) and design
22
strategicinquirysystems that adequatelymodelthe managerialprocesses of debateand dialogueprior to choiceand action. Appendix I
UsefulStrategicManagementPeriodicals Academy ofManagement Journal Academy ofManagement Review Administrative Science Quarterly Business and Society Business Horizons
CaliforniaManagement Review Harvard
Business Review
Journalof Business Journalof Business Strateg•y Journalof GeneralManagement Journalof Management Studies Long-Range Planning ManagementDecision Omega Organizational Dynamics PolicySciences PolicyStudies Journal SloanManagementReview Strategic Management Journal
Appendix II StatementsAbout ResearchAreasin StrategicManagement Anshenand Guth[4, pp. 507-511] (Broadmulti-disciplinary researchcanvas) 1. Scienceand Art in Policy Formulation
(Examinationof the boundsof rationalityin policyformulation) ßEmpiricalstudyof top managementdecisions to delineatelimits of rationalityin such decisions.
ßConceptualdevelopment of multi-disciplinary theoryof the policyformulationprocess. ßConstructionof mathematicalmodels/simulations of the policyformulationprocess. ßStudyof the "art" components of policyformulation. 2. Design and Test of Analytical Conceptsand Operational Approaches ßStudyof decisionheuristicsin unstructuredsituations. ßStrategicplanningsystems in rapidlychangingenvironments. ßSocialperformancemeasurementof organizations. ßMI$ for policyformulationand implementation. ßStrategyand organizational design. ßPerformancemeasurementsystems. ßDesignof strategyformulationprocesses for strategicdecision-making. 3. Historical Relationshipsand Implementation Problems (Listof relationships for empiricalstudy) ßEnvironmentsetsin relationto successful/unsuccessful organizations. ßManagementvaluesin relationto strategicchoice.
23
ßOrganizationalstrategiesvs.organizationalstructures. ßOrganizationalstructuresvs. measuresof performance. ßOrganizationallevelsin relationto measures of performancein differentorganizational structures.
ßLeadershipstylesvs. strategyand organizationalform. 4. Interface of BusinessPolicy Formulation with Social Problems and Other Institutions
Interorganizational analysis Bower[8, p. 636] (business/government multi-national foci) 1. Managementproblemsof rapid growth and their socio-economic implications. 2. Managementproblemsof decliningindustriesand regions. $. Top managementof largecomplexfirms -- studiesof entrepreneursand strategists-what are the administrativeaspectsof complexstrategy? 4. What doesportfolio managementmeanfor largecompanies? Why do CEO'sintroduce such systems?
5. Can anything be said about the mix of large and small firms from a businesspolicy perspective?
6. Depth studiesof particular regionaland environmentalproblems. 7. Global
industries.
Jemison [25] (Integrative,multi-disciplinary focus) 1. Determination of the relationship among the evolution of industries, markets and organizations. 2. Methodsfor integrationof processand contentstrategicmanagementresearch. 3. Examinationof the relationshipsbetween,and influenceof, inter-organizational analysison strategyformulation. Saunders and Thompson [48, p. 122] (Slight amendmentby Saundersand Thompsonof Schendeland Hofer [49] 1. StrategyFormulation Process ßStrategyConcept ßStrategy Formulation ßStrategyEvaluation ßStrategyContent 2. Strategy Formulation Elements ßGoal Formulation/Structures
ßSocialResponsibility ßEnvironmentalAnalysis ßPublicPolicy $. Strategy Implementation Process
ßStrategyImplementation 4. StrategyImplementation Elements ßFormalPlanningSystems ßStrategic Gontrol
5. StrategyManagementProcess ßStrategyManagementProcess ß Boards of Directors
ßGeneral ManagementRoles 6. Other
ßEntrepreneurshipand new ventures ß Multi-business/multi-cultural forms
ßStrategicmanagementin not-for-profitorganizations ß Research
methods
24
Appendix III
Categorization of AlternativeLensesand Approaches for StrategyResearch Lenses/Approaches
Research Tradition
References
History
CaseDevelopment Mappingof corporate strategyover long-
[10, [12]
term
historical
perspective
Mappingindustry Economics
changesover time IndustrialOrganization/
[42, 43]
Microeconomic Analysis Strategy/Structure Performance
Finance
PortfolioTheory CapitalAssetPricing FinancialStatementAnalysis
Marketing PoliticalScience
ProductLife Cycle Segmentation Planning
[561
Studyof Policymaking
[341 [21 []71 [23, 24, 29, 54] [53] [4U [281 [37]
Processes in Government
Psychology Organizational Behavior
LaboratoryExperimentation in JudgmentResearch OrganizationalStructure Powerin Organizations Studiesof GeneralManagers StrategyTypes and Structure Environmentsand Organizations LeadershipResearch Administrative
AnalyticalModeling
Behavior
DecisionAnalysis Modelling PIMS (Profit Impact on Market Strategies) ExperienceCurveAnalysis
PolicyDialogue
[55] [26] [40, 45,
Mappingand Tracking StrategyProcesses
[5Ol [20] [21] [14] [7, 38, 44]
Conflicting Assumptions
[36]
BCG Portfolio
Process Tracing in StrategicDecision-Making
[46] [13] [35, 47] [181
Matrix
in DecisionMaking REFERENCES
1. D. F. Abell, andJ. S. Hammond.Strategic MarketPlanning.(EnglewoodCliffs,NJ, 1979).
2. G. T. Allison,Essence of Decision (Boston:Little, Brown, 1971). 3. K. Andrews,TheConcept of Corporate Strategy (Homewood,IL: Irwin, 1971).
4. M. Anshen,and W. D. Guth. "Strategies for Research in PolicyFormulation," JournalofBusiness (October1973),pp. 449-511. 5. H. I. Ansoff,Corporate Strategy (New York: McGraw-Hill,1965). 6. E. R. Biggadike,"The Contributions of Marketingto StrategicManagement," Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1981), pp. 621-32. 7. J. L. Bower,ManagingtheResource Allocation Process (Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress,1970).
25
8. ., "Business Policyin the 1980's,"Academy ofManagement Review,Vol. 7, No. 4 (1982), pp. 630-38.
9. R. E. Caves,"IndustrialOrganization,CorporateStrategy,and Structure:A Survey,"Journalof Economic Literature,Vol. 18, No. 1 (1980), pp. 64-92. 10. A.D. Chandler,Jr., Strateg•y and Structure: Chapters in theHistoryof Industrial Enterprise(Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press,1962). 11. , The VisibleHand: TheManagerialRevolution in AmericanBusiness (Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress,1977). 12. Arthur Cole,Business Enterprise in itsSocialSetting(Cambridge,MA, 1959). 13. T. E. CopelandandJ. E Weston.FinancialTheoryand Corporate Policy(Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley, 1979). 14. R. M. Cyert, H. A. Simon,and D. B. Trow, "Observationof a BusinessDecision,"Journal ofBusiness, Vol. 29 (1956), pp. 237-48.
15. N. K. Dhallaand S. Yuspeh."Forgetthe Product-LifeCycleConcept," Harvard Business Review,Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 102-12. 16. A. Etzioni,"Mixed Scanning:A Third Approachto Decision-Making," Public Administration Review(December 1967), pp. 385-91. 17. B. Fischoff,"HindsightForesight:The Effectof OutcomeKnowledgeon Judg-
mentunder Uncertainty," JournalofExperimental Psychology: HumanPerception andPerformance,Vol. 1, No. 2 (1975), pp. 228-99. 18. G. Foster,FinancialStatement Analysis (EnglewoodCliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall,1978). 19. P.M. Greenwoodand H. Thomas."A Reviewof AnalyticalMethodsin Strategic Planning,"Omega, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1981),pp. 397-417. 20. B. Hedley,"A FundamentalApproachto StrategyDevelopment,"LongRange Planning(December1976), pp. 2-11. 21. , "A FundamentalApproachto StrategyDevelopment,"LongRange Planning(December1976), pp. 2-11. 22. D. B. Hertz and H. Thomas.RiskAnalysisand itsApplications (Chichester,England: Wiley, 1983). 23. R. M. Hogarth,Judgment andChoice: ThePsycholog• ofDecision (Chichester, England: Wiley, 1980). 24. , and S. Makradakis."Forecasting and Planning:An Evaluation;' Management Science, Vol. 27, No. 2 (February 1981), pp. 115-39. 25. D. B. Jemison,"The Importanceof an IntegrativeApproachto StrategicManagementResearch,"Academy of Management Review,Vol. 6, No. 4 (1981a),pp. 601-08. 26 , "The Contributionsof AdministrativeBehaviorto StrategicManagement,"Academy ofManagement Review,Vol. 6, No. 4 (1981b),pp. 633-42. 27. H. Koontz,"The ManagementTheoryJungleRevisited,"Academy ofManagement Rev/ew, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1980),pp. 175-87. 28. J.P. Kotter,TheGeneralManagers(New York: The Free Press,1982). 29. E.J. Langer,"The Illusionof Control,"Journalof Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1973), pp. 311-28. 30. P. R. Lawrenceand D. Dyer.Renewing American Industry(New York: The Free Press, 1983).
31. P. R. LawrenceandJ. Lorsch.Organization andEnvironment (Homewood,IL: Irwin, 1967). 32. M. Leontiades,"The ConfusingWordsof Business Policy,"Academy ofManagement Review,Vol. 7, No. 1 (1982), pp. 45-48. 33. T. Levitt, "Exploit the Product-LifeCycle,"HarvardBusiness Review,Vol. 43, No. 6 (1965) pp. 81-94.
26
34. C. E. Lindblom, "The Scienceof 'Muddling Through'," PublicAdministration Review(Spring 1959), pp. 79-88. 35. H. Markowitz, PortfolioSelection (New York: Wiley, 1959). 36. R. O. Masonand I. I. Mitroff. Challenging Strategic PlanningAssumptions (New York: Wiley, 1981). 37. R. E. Miles and C. S. Snow.Organizational Strategy, Structure andProcess (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978). 38. H. Mintzberg,"Patternsin StrategyFormation,"Management Science, Vol. 24 (May 1978), pp. 934-48. 39. ., andJ. A. Waters,"Tracking Strategyin an EntrepreneurialFirm," Academy ofManagement Journal,Vol. 25, No. 3 (1982), pp. 465-99. 40. P. G. Moore and H. Thomas, TheAnatomyof Decisions. (London: Penguin,1976). 41. J. Pfeifer, Pawerin Organizations (Pitman, 1982). 42. M. E. Porter,Competitive Strategy (New York: The Free Press,1980). 43. ., "The Contributionsof Industrial Organizationto StrategicManageP ment," Academy of Management Review,Vol. 6, No. 4 (1981), pp. 609-20. 44. J. B. Quinn, Strategies for Change(Homewood,IL: Irwin, 1980).
45. H. Raiffa,Decision Analysis (Reading,MA: Addision-Wesley, 1968). 46. R. Rumelt,Strategy, Structure andEconomic Performance (Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress,1974). 47. M. S. Salterand W. A. Weinhold,Diversification through Acquisition (New York: The Free Press, 1979). 48. C. B. Saundersand J. C. Thompson, "A Surveyof the Current State of Business
PolicyResearch," Strategic Management JournalVol. 1 (1980),pp. 119-30. 49. D. E. Schendeland C. W. Hofer, eds.Strategic Management: A NewViewof Business Policyand Planning(Boston:Little, Brown, 1979).
50. S. Schoeffier, R. D. Buzzell,and D. E Heany,"Impactof StrategicPlanningon Profit Performance," HarvardBusiness Review,Vol. 52a (1974), pp. 137-45. 51. C. R. Schwenkand H. Thomas, "Formulatingthe Mess:The Role of Decision Aids in ProblemFormulation,"Omega,Vol. 10, No. 2 (1983), pp. 1-14. 52. H. Thomas,"StrategicDecisionAnalaysis: The Role of AppliedDecisionAnalysisin the StrategicManagementProcess," Strategic Management Journal,1983 (forthcoming).
53. J. D. Thompson,Organizations in Action(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967). 54. A. Tverskyand D. Kahneman."Judgmentunder Uncertainty:Heuristicsand Biases," Science, Vol. 185 (27 September1974), pp. 1124-31. 55. V. Vroom and P. W. Yetton.Leadership and Decision-Making (Pittsburg:University of Pittsburg Press,1973).
56. Y. Wind, "Issuesand Advancesin Segmentation Research," JournalofMarketing Research, Vol. 15, No. 3 (1978), pp. 317-37.
27
Chart
STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT
PARADIGM
(Adapted from Schendel and Hofer, 1979)
Goat Strate
Formulation
Goal Structure
Strategy
Strategy
Evaluation
Formulation
Enwronmental
.I
Industry Analysis
28
Control
Performance Evaluation
Strategy Implementation
Strategic Planning
