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
Strategy
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)

Empiricalstudyof top managementdecisions
to delineatelimits of rationalityin such
decisions.

Conceptualdevelopment
of multi-disciplinary
theoryof the policyformulationprocess.
Constructionof mathematicalmodels/simulations
of the policyformulationprocess.
Studyof the "art" components
of policyformulation.
2. Design and Test of Analytical Conceptsand Operational Approaches
Studyof decisionheuristicsin unstructuredsituations.
Strategicplanningsystems
in rapidlychangingenvironments.
Socialperformancemeasurementof organizations.
MI$ for policyformulationand implementation.
Strategyand organizational
design.
Performancemeasurementsystems.
Designof strategyformulationprocesses
for strategicdecision-making.
3. Historical Relationshipsand Implementation Problems
(Listof relationships
for empiricalstudy)
Environmentsetsin relationto successful/unsuccessful
organizations.
Managementvaluesin relationto strategicchoice.

23

Organizationalstrategiesvs.organizationalstructures.
Organizationalstructuresvs. measuresof performance.
Organizationallevelsin relationto measures
of performancein differentorganizational
structures.

Leadershipstylesvs. 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
StrategyConcept
Strategy Formulation
StrategyEvaluation
StrategyContent
2. Strategy Formulation Elements
Goal Formulation/Structures

SocialResponsibility
EnvironmentalAnalysis
PublicPolicy
$. Strategy Implementation Process

StrategyImplementation
4. StrategyImplementation Elements
FormalPlanningSystems
Strategic Gontrol

5. StrategyManagementProcess
StrategyManagementProcess
Boards of Directors

General ManagementRoles
6. Other

Entrepreneurshipand new ventures

Multi-business/multi-cultural forms

Strategicmanagementin not-for-profitorganizations
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., Strategy
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