Sie sind auf Seite 1von 24

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1355-2554.htm

Entrepreneurial strategy making in Small tourism


strategy
tourism organisations: making: a
review
a systematic review and future
research agenda
Arthur Kearney Received 9 November 2019
Revised 24 February 2020
Port of Waterford, Waterford, Ireland and 27 July 2020
School of Business, WIT, Waterford, Ireland 9 November 2020
17 November 2020
Denis Harrington Accepted 18 November 2020
School of Business, WIT, Waterford, Ireland, and
Tazeeb Rajwani
Department of Strategy and International Business, University of Surrey,
Guildford, UK

Abstract
Purpose – Using a state of the art CIMO literature review the paper develops a framework of the relationship
between strategy making in the small tourism firm context and four performance outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses the CIMO literature review method, adapted from the
wider management literature to structure and integrate the existing fragmented literature base.
Findings – Premised on the literature review, a framework of the relationship between strategy making and
firm performance in context is posited. Emerging from a dominant owner/manager in a deeply embedded
context strategy making influences firm performance across four dimensions. The influence is dynamic,
continually subject to modification in a changing environment often mediated through emerging technology.
Research limitations/implications – The CIMO method provides an integrated framework of the
relationship between strategy making and small firm performance in context hence overcoming limitations of
the fragmented nature of the research landscape. Emerging from the review key future research trajectories is
posited.
Practical implications – While highlighting the relationship between strategy making and performance, the
proposed framework implies owner/managers play the key role in strategy making with opportunities and
challenges in modifying existing strategy making emerging from owner/manager embeddedness.
Opportunities for improved policy interventions are posited.
Originality/value – The paper applies the systematic review to the relationship between strategy making
and the small tourism firm.
Keywords Enterprise, Strategy, Tourism
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
Strategy making is argued to comprise an important dimension in the effort to assist small
tourism firm owner/managers to become more entrepreneurial (Solvoll et al., 2015; Harrington
et al., 2014; Harrington and Ottenbacher, 2011; Baggio and Cooper, 2010). Alvarez and Barney
(2007) argue that strategy making supports entrepreneurial action in enabling owner/
managers to discover and create new resources. While acknowledging the importance of
strategy making as a discovery process, Foss and Klein (2017) contend the greater
importance of strategy making as a creative process supporting entrepreneurial change.
Integrating strategy and entrepreneurship, it is argued that small firm strategy making International Journal of
enables strategic entrepreneurship, where the firm is a vehicle for the enactment of the vision Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research
of the owner/manager (Klein et al., 2012; Kuratko and Audretsch, 2009; Langlois, 2007). © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-2554
Improved understanding of such enactment is argued to require analysis of aspects of small DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-11-2019-0627
IJEBR firm strategy making viewed as problem solving and opportunity discovery (Hsieh et al.,
2007); liminality (Gross and Geiger, 2017); alertness (Bostaph, 2013) and entrepreneurial
judgement (Foss et al., 2019).
Previous studies reflect an interest in the area of strategy making in the small tourism
firm. In the hospitality context, West and Olsen (1989) examine strategy making from the
perspective of business environment scanning and industry structure and propose a
corporate level model. While Stokes (2008), in an Australian events tourism context, combines
a case study methodology with the theory of Mintzberg to study to emergence of strategy
making in a stakeholder context where public policy makers play an important role. Strategy
making is argued to emerge as market led; community led; destination led or in synergistic
form. Harrington (2005) proposes a typology of strategy making in the food service context
based on previous research with a research question addressing the “who” and “how” of
strategy making. Similarly, Harrington et al. (2014) in a review of strategic management
research in the hospitality context note the growing volume of the literature combined with
the need for new studies of specific topics, such as strategy making. As this field is seen to be
fragmented, our study widens the scope of strategy making by considering reviews in the
tourism and hospitality field focused on entrepreneurship (Solvoll et al., 2015; Li, 2008) and
innovation (Gomezelj, 2016; Martin-Rios and Ciobanu, 2019; Rodriguez-Sanchez et al., 2019).
Over the last 40 years, strategy scholars have researched the strategy-making processes of
firms and their impact on firm performance (e.g. Miller and Friesen, 1977; Hart and Banbury,
1994). However, the resulting literature tends to focus on strategy development to either
predict, explain or influence of strategy making processes in large firms or in small firms
(O’Gorman and Doran, 1999). Thus, we attempt to integrate the different perspectives by
mapping the intellectual terrain and bridge the strategy making literature with the tourism
literature. Therefore, the research question for this study is: What is the relationship between
strategy making and small tourism firms?
This review provides two contributions to strategy making literature. First, the need for
small tourism firms to better understand and engage with strategy making is argued across a
number of domains in including the academic (Harrington et al., 2014; Harrington and
Ottenbacher, 2011) policy maker (Cunha et al., 2018; Dredge and Jenkins, 2012; Dredge, 2006)
and the domain of management practice (Crick and Crick, 2016; Morrison, 2006). The small
tourism firms are very important to many economies around the world the systematic review
brings this to the fore. By investigating previous studies, the review helps to develop fruitful
future provisions and promising research themes to help future researchers doing research
into strategy making with emphasis on entrepreneurship and the tourism industry.
Consequently, the review concentrates on the developed world due to the common features
and to provide more accurately the key constructs to help scholars with generalizability.
Indeed, these common features include government support, infrastructure, technology,
levels of human capital and management capability (Thomas et al., 2011). The review
contributes specifically to the entrepreneurship literature and builds on Rodriguez-Sanchez
et al. (2019)’s argument for deeper investigation of how contextual strategy making emerges
shaped by entrepreneurial owner/managers. Similarly, Nordin and Hjalager (2017) argue that
future strategy making research will contribute to linking existing understanding of how
small tourism firm entrepreneurs develop the innovation process. Finally, from an
entrepreneurship perspective, the review improves uniquely contextual understanding of
small tourism firm strategy making where strategy making encompasses entrepreneurial
problem solving (Solvoll et al., 2015; Hsieh et al., 2007), and how owner/managers can develop
a strategy making underpinning radical improvement in competitiveness manifest as
strategic entrepreneurship (Teixeira et al., 2019; Foss and Klein, 2017).
Second, there is a need for a review that collects and systematically evaluates the current
intellectual terrain in entrepreneurship and tourism journals together. Thus, using the CIMO
method helps to generate greater insight through explicating the context (C), the Small tourism
interventions (I) used by the firms, the mechanisms (M) underlying the performance strategy
outcomes and the outcomes (O) of those interventions or strategies. Since prior studies on
strategy making are fragmented, and researchers have adopted different definitions,
making: a
boundary conditions, theories and methodological approaches, our study tries to provide a review
consolidation of the findings and a framework of what is known about strategy making.
Specifically, the review examines the journal outlets, theories, content and research methods
to help future scholars navigate this important field.
The paper is organised with the methodology explained in the next section. This is
followed by our findings. Finally, the review provides future research opportunities and
conclusions.

Methodology
The method deployed was that of the systematic review of literature using the CIMO
approach based on Denyer et al. (2008) and Tranfield et al. (2003). The CIMO approach
detailed the components of the formulated research question. Context investigated which
individuals, relationships, institution settings or wider systems were studied. Intervention
detailed the action being studied. Mechanisms evaluated the theories used to explain the
relationship between interventions and outcomes. While the outcomes were the effects of the
intervention and allowed evaluation of intended and unintended effects (Denyer and
Tranfield, 2009, p. 682). This approach had been followed in previous work in medical science
and was argued to provide a systematic and transparent means of informing academic
research, policy formulation and management practice through providing a more complete
and evidence-based approach to the review of the literature (Tranfield et al., 2003).
Accordingly, Kraus et al. (2020) highlighted the benefits of the CIMO review in an
entrepreneurship context as removing the author from article selection, enabling the
generation of new theory, limiting “grey literature”, aiding reproducibility and providing a
rugged design to a previously fragmented literature.

Database and journal selection


Specifically, the review followed the approach to the CIMO review taken in Rajwani and
Liedong (2015). As highlighted by these scholars and Tranfield et al. (2003), the review
searched the EBSCO database for key papers using keywords. Following the methodology of
Pittaway et al. (2004) and Lawton et al. (2013), we searched the databases EBSCO. This
database is one of the most comprehensive databases with majority of the business
literatures in the strategy, entrepreneurship and management fields. The following
keywords, terms and phrases were utilised from the strategy making literature:
(1) strategy making, (2) SME’s and (3) tourism firms. Drawing on several seminal studies
the different terms, keywords and phrases used to describe how strategy making takes places
in SMEs were identified. Search strings were created through a combination of the identified
search terms (see Table 1).
Operationalising the search strings resulted in 1,266 articles. To ensure that only key
articles were reviewed, the papers were evaluated in a four-stage process (Rajwani and
Liedong, 2015). First, titles were reviewed to ensure suitability to research question. This cut
the number of articles to 550. Second, abstracts were read to identify articles with relevant
themes. This cut the number to 210. Third full texts of the remaining papers were read to
investigate the key themes and relationships amongst the themes. This cut the number to 110.
At the final stage quality criteria ranked the reviewed articles. The quality criteria focused on
high ranking journals. The decision to focus on highly ranked journals was consistent with
IJEBR the suggestion of Short (2009) and prior systematic reviews in the field of management (Zott
et al., 2011; Terjesen et al., 2016; Pittaway et al., 2004) to ensure high quality of review. The
final sample comprised 76 articles. All the papers were published in the last 30 years. The 30
year timeframe situated the literature historically helping ensure seminal texts, theories and
wider perspectives were taken (Poulson and Wallace, 2004). In the tourism context, the
timeframe took account of the emergence of tourism as a discipline of study, and specifically
the emergence of central areas such as entrepreneurship, stakeholder theory and strategic
management in context.
These key papers were from leading journals ranked on the ABS rankings (see Table 2).
The focus helped ensure the internal and external validity of the key articles (Morris et al.,
2009). Here the advice of Mellahi et al. (2016) proposes the deeper theoretical insight and
integration possible from basing a systematic review from leading journals. To enable the
inclusion of articles which support the review, but which were published in less highly ranked
journals, the approach of Zhang and Banerji (2017) was followed. They advocated the
inclusion of papers used in cited papers in order to broaden the study.
The CIMO conceptual framework was used to organise the emergent findings from the
literature review. The framework organised the findings on the basis of insight gained into
the nature of the context of small tourism firm strategy making; the nature of small tourism
strategy making interventions; the insight gained into strategy making in the small tourism
firm from the different theoretical lenses developed in studies and the nature of outcomes of
small tourism firm strategy making. One person was used in this part of the systematic
review process to ensure consistency.

Scoping review and emergent findings


Following the CIMO framework, the findings are presented, beginning with findings in terms
of the unique small tourism firm context. Second the strategy making interventions employed
by small tourism firms are outlined. Third the theoretical mechanisms found in the studies
are explored. Finally the findings regarding outcomes are presented.

Business source complete


“strate*” and “tourism” and “small” and “profitability” 18 results
“strate*” and “tourism” and “small” and “lifestyle” 12 results
“strate*” and “tourism” and “small” and “sustainable” 65 results
“strate*” and “tourism” and “small” and “green” 22 results
“planning” and “tourism” and “small” 54 results
“plan*” and “tourism” and “small” 161 results
Wiley online
“strategy” and “tourism” and “small” 66 results
Science direct
“strategy” and “tourism” and “small firm” 736 results
Emerald
“strategy” and “tourism” and “small firm” 14 results
Total number 1266
Additional criteria of “hospitality” and “innovation” used in search
Yielded 116 extra articles:
Four stage process:
Suitability to research question: reduced to 550 articles
Table 1. Reading of abstracts for relevant themes: reduced to 210 articles
Operationalisation of Reading of full texts for investigation of key themes and relationships: reduced to 110 articles
search strings Quality criteria applied leaving 76 articles
Annals of tourism research
Small tourism
strategy
Journal of Sustainable Tourism making: a
International Journal of Hospitality Management
Journal of Small Business Management review
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Tourism Management
International Journal of Hospitality Management
Annals of Tourism Research
Tourism and Hospitality Research
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Management
International Journal of Business and Economic Development
International Journal of Tourism Research
Current Issues in Tourism
Tourism Planning and Development
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research
Journal of Business Venturing
International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
Journal of Irish Geography
Tourism Geographies
Journal of Rural Studies
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Sociologia Ruralis
Strategic Change
Tourism Recreation Research
The Journal of Business Strategy Table 2.
The Service Industries Journal Journal selection

Initially a scoping review was carried out in order to assess the size of the literature base and
to delimit the subject area. Following the work of Foss and Saebi (2015), the scoping review
sought to critically evaluate existing descriptive approaches to the literature, where the focus
is on classification. In seeking a more critical evaluation of the literature, the scoping review
sought to establish boundaries and to gain clearer understanding of the nature of strategy
making interventions in the small tourism firm context.
The key themes emerged with the lead author identifying major themes (Mellahi et al.,
2016). The major themes were then subject to discussion and critique with the other authors.
The review process further developed the discussion and critique and enabled the synthesis
of minor themes and the emergence of themes previously merged. Central to the identification
of the themes was a concern to achieve a level of integration across the multifaceted
theoretical and disciplinary foundations of reviewed studies (see Table 3).

Findings
Context for strategy making in the small tourism firm. Place. The context provided by place is
found to influence small tourism strategy making in a number of ways. Cawley and Gilmoor
(2008), in a study of wider stakeholder influence on regional tourism, find that local
stakeholder links are a key driver of an emergent strategy making which proves resilient over
long periods of time in effectively responding to environmental change. More recently,
McCamley and Gilmore (2017) concur on the emergence of locally situated strategy making,
yet advance understanding in highlighting how learning mechanisms are the vital influence
on small tourism strategy making. The impact of place on strategy making is not always
IJEBR

Table 3.
Table of literature
Context Aim Sector Firms Sample/method Analysis Findings

Baldacchino (2015) To critically evaluate how food and culture might Islands of North Small Conceptual Impact of place can constrain strategy
enable rural development Atlantic making
Mottiar (2016) To explore motivation for entrepreneurship as Rural Ireland Entrepreneurially Two case studies Local embeddedness a source of dynamic
locally motivated owned Mixed method strategy making
Craig and Lindsay To apply the Timmon’s model of entrepreneurship Australia Small Single case study Negative impact of family embeddedness
(2002) to family business Interviews with owner/ on strategy making- risk aversion
managers and outside
management
Peters and To analyse impact of entrepreneurial orientation on SME Interviews Narrative analysis Family impact encourages innovation and
Kallmuenzer (2018) performance on tourism firms stimulates new forms of strategy making
Hallak, Assaker and To investigate the relationship between family and Regional South Small 158 and 143 family/non- Structural equation Governance and ownership profiles in
O’Connor (2014) non-family tourism business between Australia family survey modelling family firms shape strategy making
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and performance of process
firm
Dredge (2006) Investigate the role of government in public private Lake McQuarie Small Case study Policy makers can shape innovation in
partnership Australia strategy making where local interests
considered
Thomas and To evaluate how micro business might impact on Bradford England Micro firms Case study Thematic Strategy making influenced by conflict
Thomas (2006) policy making between local policy makers and firms
Page et al. (2017) To explore wellness tourism potential Bournemouth Small Case study SPSS used Highly developed human capital in tourism
England To Aid themes regions allows policy makers to bridge
strategy making innovations
Alford and Page To explore technology strategies Tourism Small firms 24 Interviews Thematic analysis Potential for technology to enable effective
(2015) strategy making, yet limited by managerial
capability
Pena et al. (2011) To propose and validate a model of market Spain Small firms 10 interviews Content analysis of Market orientation enables technological
orientation for the rural tourism sector interviews change towards innovative strategy
Tourism Testing of adopted making
quantitative model
Zach et al. (2020) To explore impact of disruptive innovation on Industry wide Market valuation model Radical technological change forces
incumbent firms before and after strategy making innovation
innovation
Huang et al. (2020) To analyse factors driving Airbnb discontinuance Industry wide Small Analysis of online Inductive Radical technological change impacts
impact on small customer reviews qualitative content negatively on strategy making, disrupting
analysis existing routines
Getz and Nilsson To explore strategic responses to seasonality Bornholm Small firms Multi method Seasonality a negative impact on strategy
(2004) Denmark Interview and making. Strategy making reduced to
questionnaire coping and defensive mechanisms
Cuccia and Rizzo To explore seasonality in a tourism location Sicily Small Sicily case study using Seasonality encouraging defensive
(2011) longitudinal statistical routines, long term change possible on if
data infrastructure and policy changes

(continued )
Context Aim Sector Firms Sample/method Analysis Findings

Martin and Martinez To investigate the factors conditioning tourism Two regions of Small Survey in two seasonal
(2019) entrepreneur decision making Spain locations
Multi stage sampling
Morrison and To explore motivations of tourism owner/managers Glasgow Scotland Small urban Multiple case studies Strategy making constrained by limited
Teixeira (2004) resources
Komppula (2014) To increase understanding of role of entrepreneurs Rural Finland Small entreprenurial Case study Entrepreneurial capabilities of owner/
in rural tourism development Six case studies managers enliven creative strategy making
Nine interviews with
policy makers
Hjalager and To identify innovation gaps in rural tourism Rural festivals Small Sample of data from 315 New industry sub-sectors encourage
Kwiatowski (2018) Denmark festivals creative strategy making
Morrison (2006) To explore entrepreneurship in context Britain Small and generally Literature review Resource poverty constrains strategy
resource poor making
Cawley and Gilmoor To develop a model of integrated rural tourism West of Ireland Small Case study Strategy making requires stakeholder
(2008) interaction
McCamley and To examine co-operation across regional tourism Northern Ireland SME Case studies Thematic Strategy making hindered by policy and
Gilmore (2017) firm goals diverging
Schmallegger et al. To investigate the development of innovative Rural Australia Small Case study Strategy making innovated by external
(2011) capabilities in a small firm cluster entrepreneurs, constrained by local
government

Intervention Aim Sector Firms Sample/Method Analysis Findings

Yachin and To explore rural micro firm interaction Rural tourism Micro firms 18 Thematic Spatial bricolage encourages resource re-
Ioannides (2020) with environment interpretation
Interview Tension of informal and formal strategy making
Martin-Rios and To propose a model of hospitality Hotel sector All sizes Data from 2010–2012 Statistical Hospitality an area of low innovation
Ciobanu (2019) innovation strategy CIS Regulatory pressures on strategy making
Survey
Kelly et al. (2020) To explore adaptive capability Tourism Micro firm Interview Nvivo enabled Adaptive capabilities differentiate firms from
development in pursuit of the senior Senior tourism sectoral rivals
tourism market
Nordin and To explore the strategic innovation Hotel (Ice hotel) Single small firm Single case Process comprises science- but also practice in
Hjalager (2017) process doing, using and interacting
Floysand and To critically evaluate embeddedness Stryn Norway Social field mapping Social field theory Stakeholder context required capability in
Sjoholt (2007) using social field theory Case study “untraded asset” management supportive of
strategy making
Ateljevic (2007) To explore management practices New Zealand Urban Small Survey (317) and 57 Complex nature of strategy making
and Rural interviews

(continued )
strategy
Small tourism

review
making: a

Table 3.
IJEBR

Table 3.
Intervention Aim Sector Firms Sample/Method Analysis Findings

Novelli et al. (2006) To explore strategies in a tourism cluster Tourism Sussex Small and Single case study of Documentary/interviews/ Strategy making is shaped by network
U.K. medium-sized cluster in seaside focus groups membership- strategy making can change
firms resort
Lashley and To explore micro hotel entrepreneurship Hotel micro firms Hotel micro 120 semi structured Informed by literature review Limited strategy making capabilities,
Rowson (2010) firms Blackpool telephone interviews circumscribed by lifestyle objectives. Strategy
making focused on short term
Haber and Reichel To explore small venture performance in Small tourism 305 Based on performance Impact of human capital and managerial
(2007) tourism using resource based theory Interviews face to face instrument developed in pilot capability on strategy making performance
study
Lerner and Haber To investigate impacts on small tourism Small firms, Israel Small firms, Survey Factor analysis Limited managerial capabilities, strategy-making
(2001) firm performance Israel often operational “fire fighting”
Stokes and Lomax To explore word of mouth marketing in Small hotel Small Single case Effective form of marketing, importance of owner/
(2002) context manager interventions in changing strategy
Peters (2005) To evaluate entrepreneurial leadership Small tourism Alpine Small Survey Context encourages creative and inclusive
skills of owner/managers strategy making
Carlsen et al. (2008) To explore lifestyle motivation Small tourism firms Literature Review Lifestyle motivation impacts on strategy making
as a creative force
Stokes and Lomax Stokes and Lomax (2002) To explore word of Small hotel Single Case study Effective form of marketing, importance of owner/
(2002) mouth marketing in Case manager interventions in changing strategy
context

Mechanism Aim Sector Firms Sample/Method Analysis Findings

Baggio and To evaluate knowledge sharing in Elba Italy Case study Numerical Effective strategy making can be limited or
Cooper (2010) tourism neworks Numerical simulation developed in stakeholder ties
Floysand and To critically evaluate embeddedness Stryn Norway Social field mapping Social field theory Stakeholder context required capability in
Sjoholt (2007) using social field theory Case study “untraded asset” management supportive of
strategy making
Copp and Ivy To investigate role of networking in Slovakia Case study Strategy making shaped by knowledge
(2001) business development in transition creation and hoarding in networks
economy
Skokic and To explore informal and formal Slovenia Small hotels In depth interviews Owner/manager central to overcoming
Morrison (2015) networking of small hotel managers barriers in stakeholder ties, and in creative
strategy making
Alsos et al. (2015) To investigate role of identity on Norway start ups Experimental design Combines mixed methods Effectuation theory supports creative
entrepreneurial behaviour in tourism strategy making
Nordin and To explore processes underpinning Ice hotel Small firms Case study Science, Technology, Innovation (STI) Strategy making emerging from management
Hjalager (2017) tourism innovation and Doing, Using and Interacting (DUI) practice
frameworks frame analysis

(continued )
Mechanism Aim Sector Firms Sample/Method Analysis Findings

Skokic et al. (2016) To explore factors stimulating hotel Hotel Small firms 37 interviews Entrepreneurial leadership shaping creative
entrepreneurship Slovenia leadership
Crick and Crick To explore the emergence of Small tourism Small firms Two case studies Thematic analysis Supports above
(2016) resilience firms U.K
Rodriguez- To explore “innovation journey” of Spain Small firms 24 cases Narrative analysis Entrepreneurial leadership impact on human
Sanchez et al. entrepreneurs Tourism resources of firm and link to a more creative/
(2019) open strategy making
Di Domenico and To explore business choices of farm UK Small firms Multi embedded case Software facilitated analysis based on Owner/manager identity and resistance or
Miller (2012) families into tourism Yorkshire study literature, inductive recursive approach openness to change impact on strategy
East Anglia 16 case making
Kneafsey (1998) To explore participation in cultural Rural Brittany Small Case study Identity conflict impact on strategy making-
economy strategy making as challenging from identity
perspective
Sweeney et al. To take critical theory view of role of Edinburgh Small Hospitality Case studies Photo elicitation theory/narrative Identity shapes strategy making in ways not
(2018) identity in strategy Scotland analysis understood by management theory
Vik and McElwee To explore motivation for Farm tourism Small firms 1607 survey Multinomial logistic regression Owner/manager identity bound up with asset
(2011) diversification into tourism Norway identity discourages risk in strategy making
Hjalager (2010) To review tourism innovation Industry wide All size firms Literature review Potential for management innovation in
research strategy making
Gomezelj (2016) To identify the state of academic Industry wide All size firms Literature review Limited investigation of strategy making as a
research in tourism and hospitality form of management innovation in small
tourism firms
Dwyer et al. (2014) To understand drivers of strategic Tourism Small firms Re-examine survey data Importance/performance analysis Strategic flexibility of owner/manager
flexibility Slovenia from 163 stakeholders enables openness to networks and enables
strategy making to change
Denicolai et al. To propose a model of tourism based Italy Small firms 7 cases Cluster analysis Dynamic capabilities enable strategy making
(2010) on dynamic capabilities Cultural sector 20 interviews 460 survey to change
Peters et al. (2011) To contrast market view and RBVof Cultural tourism Small firms 38 interviews with Thematic analysis Resource based theory enables intangible
firm in cultural tourism stakeholders and owner/ resources to be leveraged by strategy making
managers
Kelliher and Reinl To propose a resource based view of Tourism Micro firms Conceptual Structured according to resource criteria Entrepreneurial strategy making centred on
(2009) the micro firm framework owner/manager enables overcoming resource
poverty
Baum (2015) To revisit a 2007 review of HRM in Industry wide Focus on small Review Barriers to involvement in strategy making
tourism firms in sections for employees remain

(continued )
strategy
Small tourism

review
making: a

Table 3.
IJEBR

Table 3.
Mechanism Aim Sector Firms Sample/Method Analysis Findings

Tejada and To examine non technological Andalusia Spain SME Survey 125 Logistic regression Diverse innovation inputs to strategy making
Moreno (2013) innovation hotel
Stamboulis and To evaluate emergence of experience International Small business Case studies Strategy making challenged by need for
Skyannis (2003) tourism paradigm change from endowment tourism to
experience tourism

Outcome Aim Sector Firms Sample/Method Analysis Findings

Barbieri and To investigate factors influencing revenue Farm tourism North America 449 firms Econometric model using regression Strategy making guided by objective of
Mshenga (2008) levels Web survey revenue
Martinez-Roman To propose a two stage model of Andalusian SME Andalusian SMEs Positive outcomes in product/process
et al. (2015) innovativeness Tourism Statistical testing on innovation improves performance
linear model
Bredvold and To explore lifestyle entrepreneurship using Sweden Small firms Interviews Narrative analysis Strategy making inextricably bound into
Skalen (2016) narrative theory owner/manager identity
Kelliher, Kearney To propose a dynamic managerial Industry wide Micro firm Conceptual Strategy making enabled by dynamic
and Harrington capabilities framework of micro firm managerial capabilities
managerial capability
Horobin and Long Yorkshire Small firm 54 structured Structured by literature review Limited understanding of sustainability can
(1996) England stakeholders interviews purposive lead to strategy making decay
sampling
de Lange and To explore the relationship between social Canada Small firms Case study Analysis grounded in Canadian Positive impact strategy making on firm level
Dodds (2017) entrepreneurship and sustainable tourism context, to use context as outcomes where social enterprise motivates
representative of Canada sustainability
McAreavey and How can sustainable development Northern Small firms Case study Strong stakeholder influence on strategy
McDonagh (2011) contribute to rural development Ireland making where sustainability drives firm
Bressan and To explore sustainable innovation Italy Small an micro 25 Interviews Lifestyle impacts positively on innovative
Pedrini (2020) strategy making for sustainability
Ateljevic and To explore objectives of lifestyle Tourism New Small Cohort Lifestyle entrepreneur develop complex
Doorne (2000) entrepreneurs Zealand objectives including financial and innovsation
outcomes
positive, with Baldacchino (2015) contrasting how place both stimulates strategy making Small tourism
innovation, and yet for other firms is a source of decay in strategy making capacity. Mottiar strategy
(2016), while stressing the importance of motivated entrepreneurs in strategy making,
contend that the impact of local embeddedness on the entrepreneur provides an input to a
making: a
more dynamic strategy making. review
Family. The influence of the family on small tourism firm strategy making is stronger than
in generic small firms, due in many cases to the household being the centre of the tourism
service. Craig and Lindsay (2002) contend the impact of the family on strategy making is
quite negative, with risk aversion from fear of loss of family assets leading to a defensive and
reactive strategy making. Getz and Carlsen (2000) concur that while family impact on
strategy making implies a cautious approach, such an approach is not averse to profit making
and is long-term in nature. In contrast, Kallmuenzer (2018) finds that the impact of family on
small tourism firms can shape a proactive and innovative strategy making. Hallak et al. (2014)
contrasting family and non-family small firms in tourism, arguing that strategy making
differences emerge from contrasts in the governance, ownership and succession planning
between the two types of firm. They note the differences between tourism firms and non-
tourism firms, with tourism firms more deeply embedded in families as family members take
personal service role a firm which is situated in the household.
Government influence. Government influence on strategy making is stronger in the
tourism industry than in other industries. Thomas and Thomas (2006) depict a complex web
of interaction between local policy makers and small tourism firms, with strategy making
emerging from conflicts between policy makers and owner/managers. Schmallegger et al.
(2011) infer that local government actively constrains the entrepreneurial strategy making of
owner/managers through high regulation. While recognising the potential for conflict
between policy and small tourism firms, Dredge (2006) finds that strategy making can take
innovative forms where policy makers take account of the local context of the small tourism
firms. More recently, Page et al. (2017) argue that in highly developed tourism regions, policy
makers act to bridge relationships between stakeholders and to lay the ground for innovative
strategy making. Such strategy making is found to depend heavily on the capability and
motivation of owner/mangers to interact with and enact the potential in the bridged
relationships.
Technological change. Technological change has impacted profoundly on the small
tourism firm by opening the firm to a global market and enabling technological mediation of
market relationships. From a strategy making perspective, Alford and Page (2015) argue that
while technology motivates a more entrepreneurial strategy making, yet such motivation is
hampered by deficits in managerial and technical capabilities. Pena et al. (2011) highlight the
importance of market orientation in supporting technological change in enabling a more
entrepreneurial strategy making. The potential for radical change from technology, in effect
in creating a genuinely entrepreneurial strategy making, is maintained by Zach et al. (2020)
and Osiyevskyy and Dewald (2015). However, Huang et al. (2020) caution that entrepreneurial
strategy making emerges slowly in the small tourism firm, and that high levels of
technological disruption can negatively impact on existing strategy making processes.
Seasonality. Getz and Nilsson (2004) find that seasonality impacts negatively on
entrepreneurial strategy making, with small tourism firms adopting a strategy making which
takes the form of coping or defensively combating environmental change. Cuccia and Rizzo
(2011) find that strategy making at the level of the small tourism firm is limited in power to
overcome seasonality, depending instead on long term changes in policy and the wider
tourism infrastructure. Recently, Martin and Martinez (2019) challenge both views and argue
that entrepreneurial strategy making enables owner/managers to benefit from closing down.
During shut down periods the owner/mangers pursue alternative creative careers/leisure
IJEBR time and, it is argued, strategy making emerges from the owner/manager in a more creative
way as a result.
Resource poverty. Strategy making is argued to comprise at best a limited form of
planning, often obscured by limited resources in a challenging business environment
(Morrison, 2006; Morrison and Teixeira, 2004). In contrast, Komppula (2014), while
acknowledging the limited resource base of the small tourism firm, suggests
entrepreneurial capabilities of the owner/manager ignite a strategy making which is
reminiscent of arguments by Alvarez and Barney (2007) that entrepreneurial strategy
making is creative in seeing new possibilities for resources, as opposed to discovering
inherent resource values. Taking a longitudinal perspective, Teixeira et al. (2019) again
acknowledge resource poverty, yet present strategy making as a dynamic process altered
over the course of stages of small tourism firm life cycle development. Supportive of new
perspectives on resource poverty are arguments for new sub-sectors in tourism such as
wellness, heritage and nature tourism (Hjalager and Kwiatkowski, 2018), where
entrepreneurial strategy making comprises an entrepreneurial creativity, and yet a
nuanced understanding of the new emerging industry sector.

Interventions for strategy-making in small tourism firms


Formal and informal interventions
Strategy-making interventions in context are characterised by a tension between formal
interventions and informal interventions (Yachin and Ioannides, 2020). Formal interventions
are driven by a range of influences, for example, pressure from regulatory authorities
(Martin-Rios and Ciobanu, 2019) and pressure from lenders (Ateljevic, 2007). Characteristics
of formal interventions include regular timing, hierarchical influence and emergence through
highly legitimised interactions (Kelliher and Reinl, 2009). In contrast, informal interventions
emerge irregularly (Novelli et al., 2006), often at operational level (Nordin and Hjalager, 2017)
and through interactions which are not formally legitimised (Floysand and Sjoholt, 2007).
Informal interventions are enacted in the capabilities of the firm and are argued to enable
entrepreneurial strategy-making through continuous adaption to environmental change
(Kelly et al., 2020).

Ownership interventions
Second, strategy making emerges from the operational work of the owner/manager, with the
potential for entrepreneurial strategy making to emerge as the owner/manager reflects on
strategy/making opportunities and new means of implementing strategy making from the
uniquely dual role as manager and operational employee (Hjalager and Kwiatowski, 2018). In
contrast, the heavy involvement of the owner/manager in the operational work of the small
tourism firm is argued to create a strategy making where “firefighting” supersedes
entrepreneurial strategy making (Lerner and Haber, 2001). Similarly, and contextual to the
tourism industry, the deep interaction of the owner/manager with people can lead to a
strategy making centred on operational needs, eschewing long-term planning (Lashley and
Rowson, 2010).

Creative interventions
The final intervention is creative in nature with strategy making taking the form of an
entrepreneurial intervention in the firm (Haber and Reichel, 2007). Creative approaches make
more dynamic strategy making possible (Peters, 2005). Such dynamic strategy making
improves marketing (Stokes and Lomax, 2002) and new value creation (Paget et al., 2010). The
potential in creative interventions of owner/managers to strategy making in context are
highlighted as moving strategy making beyond mere financial discipline (Carlsen et al., 2008; Small tourism
Peters, 2005). A diversity of approaches is possible ranging from creativity infused into strategy
strategic marketing (Stokes and Lomax, 2002) and identification and exploitation of new
value creation opportunities (Paget et al., 2010; Haber and Reichel, 2007).
making: a
review
Mechanisms for strategy making in the small tourism firm
Stakeholder theory
Baggio and Cooper (2010) conceptualise strategy making as emerging in the context of a
broad network of stakeholders characterised by a common interest in a destination. Under
this perspective, strategy making is continually challenged, and perhaps limited, by
interaction with destination stakeholders. Floysand and Sjoholt (2007) critique purely
economic perspectives on how strategy making emerges from stakeholder ties and
recommend greater focus on how “untraded assets” (p. 205), common to small tourism firms,
influence strategy making. Studying the impact of stakeholder ties on tourism development
in a major national economic transition, Copp and Ivy (2001) argue that strategy making is an
emergent dynamic process, characterised by both the sharing of knowledge across
stakeholder boundaries, but also by a level of knowledge hoarding necessary for exploitation
of assets. Both informal and formal ties are argued to help absorbing ideas and enhancing
strategy making (Baggio and Cooper, 2010). Once absorbed new ideas place owner/managers
in a position of “liminality” (Gross and Geiger, 2017, p. 185) with the centrality of the owner/
manager in overcoming barriers to change emerging (Skokic and Lynch, 2015).

Entrepreneurship theory
Alsos et al. (2015) using the effectuation theory approach from the wider entrepreneurship
literature, posit a strategy-making which is practically rooted in the day-to-day
operations of the small tourism firm, and yet recognises opportunities in resources
which are not economically valued. Nordin and Hjalager (2017, p. 345) build on the
effectuation approach “doing, using and interacting, arguing strategy is a form of
practice embedded in both the small tourism firm and the local environment”. Focusing
on the “entrepreneurial firm” (Langlois, 2007, p. 1107), small tourism firm strategy
making is infused with a dynamic from owner/manager leadership (Skokic et al., 2016;
Crick and Crick, 2016). Such a dynamic in strategy making is not simply cognitively
driven, but shaped by the leadership and human influence of the owner/manager in
influencing social aspects of the small tourism firm, notably of significance in the tourism
sector where numbers employed are relatively large (Rodriguez-Sanchez et al., 2019).

Identity
Strategy making is shaped by owner/manager identity as the owner/manager either
resists or enables change driven by aspects of identity (Di Domenico and Miller, 2012).
Change in owner/manager identity through participation with customers and guests
enhances strategy making, but in deeper and a manner misunderstood by management
theory (Sweeney et al., 2018). Kneafsey (1998) argues that divergence between aspects of
owner/manager identity and the demands for change required to serve the tourism
industry imply the nature of strategy making emerges from a level of identity conflict.
Where identity is bound to a property or other asset ownership existing outside a purely
business investment relationship, owner/manager identity is argued to constrain
strategy making by limiting risk and asset growth (Vik and McElwee, 2011).
IJEBR Innovation
Hlalager (2010) highlighting the labour intensive nature of small tourism firms, argues the
importance of viewing strategy making as containing the potential for management
innovation. In a literature review, Gomezelj (2016) reflecting further on the potential for
management innovation, notes the limited investigation of what is an emerging concept in
larger firms in small tourism firms. Looking at the interaction of management and a wider
network, Novelli et al. (2006) posit that strategy making is not simply a portal for innovation,
rather an entrepreneurial process continually infused with change from network interaction.
Necessarily, the role of the owner/manager in such strategy making appears to reflect one of
being open to creativity (Tejada and Moreno, 2013; Atejlevic and Doorne, 2000), and yet
strategically flexible (Dwyer et al., 2014). Innovation in strategy making is ultimately argued
to position small tourism firms towards a paradigm shift from a traditional economy to a
future based experience (Stamboulis and Skyannis, 2003).

Resource based and capability theories


Haber and Reichel (2007) argue that more advanced forms of small tourism strategy making
emerge through the interaction of management capability and resources in which the firm
and owner/manager are embedded. Simiarly, Denicolai et al. (2010) acknowledge the
importance of resources in small tourism firm strategy making, yet contend the greater
importance of dynamic capabilities through which the small tourism firm engages with
stakeholders in a destination context. In the context of the tourism micro firm, Kelliher and
Reinl (2009) argue such firms can overcome resource poverty, where an entrepreneurial
strategy making is developed centred on the owner/manager’s developing competence to
exploit resources. Nonetheless, Peters et al. (2011) argue the resource based view provides
small firms with a potential for strategy making which can leverage intangible resources
such as cultural heritage, though strong vision and network management capabilities are
required. Finally, Baum (2015) expresses concern at the limited involvement of human
resources in the strategy making of the small tourism firm, perhaps hinting at opportunities
for a more open and effective strategy making.

Outcomes of strategy making in the small tourism firm


The studies reviewed posit three major outcomes from strategy making in the small tourism
firm context. First, strategy making is argued to support profit as an outcome, with Barbieri
and Mshenga (2008) providing an example where strategy making is guided by revenue
management. More innovative forms of strategy making are also argued to support the profit
outcome (Martinez-Roman et al., 2015; Sundbo et al., 2007).
Secondly, strategy making is linked to lifestyle outcomes. Lashley and Rowson (2010)
support a view strategy making as an incremental and informal process, almost pre-
determined towards the achievement of lifestyle outcomes often not conducive with firm
survival. In contrast, Carlsen et al. (2008) and Ateljevic and Doorne (2000), while strongly
supporting the view that strategy-making supports lifestyle motivations, see a more
entrepreneurial and even innovative strategy making process in place. Emerging from the
core identity of the owner/manager, lifestyle outcomes are held to be fundamental to the
direction of strategy making in context (Bredvold and Skalen, 2016).
Third, small tourism firm strategy-making enables the outcome of sustainability.
Sustainability is understood in a wide sense of including a sustainable competitive advantage
emerging from effective resource management (Kelliher et al., 2018), and yet encompassing
sustainability in enabling the reaching of ecological goals (Bressan and Pedrini, 2020). For
example, Horobin and Long (1996), while clarifying the role of strategy-making in enabling
the achievement of sustainability outcomes, nonetheless point to deficits in how owner/ Small tourism
mangers of small tourism firms understand sustainability outcomes. From this perspective strategy
strategy making, instead of becoming entrepreneurial, may simple be temporarily challenged
by a new perspective, which fades with time. More recently, de Lange and Dodds (2017) argue
making: a
that sustainability outcomes emerge from social entrepreneurship in tourism, with greater review
understanding of sustainability enabling more dynamic and creative strategy making.
McAreavey and McDonagh (2011), evaluating the potential for sustainable rural tourism,
outline the importance of sustainability as an outcome at firm level, yet an outcome emerging
from a strategy-making process with deep and wide stakeholder input.

Review of methods
Geographically there is a preponderance of studies from Great Britain and Ireland, perhaps
reflecting the research interest in tourism in the countries and the common English language.
A similar rationale may underpin the clusters of studies located in Scandinavia, New Zealand
and Australia. The importance of tourism in countries such as Spain, Italy and France,
notably Spain accounts for the location of other studies. In terms of analytical approach,
studies are dominated by limited or in some cases absence of a theoretical approach leading to
limited forms of data analysis. Across the survey based studies there is a range of sample size
and statistical analysis, for example the study of Vik and McElwee (2011) using multinomial
logistic regression with a sample of 1,607 to less developed studies, . Qualitative studies use
both interview and case study approaches with a large range of sample size and
sophistication of analysis. More recently, the emergence of new theoretical frameworks and
methods is evident. For example the photo-elicitation/narrative analysis of Sweeney et al.
(2018) and the theoretical framework driving data analysis in Nordin and Hjalager (2017)
linking practice and theory. Exploration of strategy making in emerging contexts, for
example the micro firm sector in Komppula (2014), utilises limited samples and standard in
depth interview techniques, yet exhibits a level of sophistication in the sample chosen and the
range of questions posed.
Preceding the discussion the major findings are set put at Figure 1 below.
The review synthesizes the thematic findings in Figure 1 that captures the key findings
from the CIMO analysis.

Discussion and future research trajectories


Context
Clear evidence highlights the importance of local stakeholders in influencing contextual
strategy making. Yet entrepreneurial strategy making may not emerge in such contexts.
Baggio and Cooper (2010), for example, note how stakeholder constraints act to limit
entrepreneurial strategy making. Future research acknowledging such constraints is

Context Interventions Mechanisms Outcomes

Place Family Informal Stakeholder theory Operating


Seasonality interventions Entrepreneurship performance/ profit
Ownership theory
Government Figure 1.
Resource-based and Lifestyle outcome
Technology Change Creative Conceptual framework
capability theory Sustainability for investigating
Resource poverty strategy making-small
Identity
firm relationships
Innovation
IJEBR necessary as a means to investigating mechanisms through which entrepreneurial strategy
making might overcome the constraints. One theoretical mechanism offering promise in this
area emerges from the work of Floysand and Sjoholt (2007), who propose that inherent in
stakeholder ties are “untraded assets” (p. 205).
Research into the family context of strategy making suggests entrepreneurial strategy
making can be leveraged by owner/manager centric appropriation mechanisms (Getz and
Carlsen, 2000), with effective strategy making dependent on a dynamic between the owner/
manager and the family context (Kallmuenzer, 2018). However, the research base in the small
tourism firm context is limited by failures to engage with how the long-term orientation of the
family firm and factors inherent in the nature of family ownership may shape strategy
making in context. Hence future research is encouraged, perhaps initially building on theories
and models from family business research in lager firms.
In the policy context, Page et al. (2017) demonstrate the emergence of entrepreneurial
strategy making in a context where policy ties are saturated in knowledge conducive to
innovating strategy making. Future research can build on this study, in examining how small
tourism firms access such ties from the perspective of entrepreneurial strategy making and
further how the translation process from policy ties to owner/manager works.

Interventions
While recent work by Yachin and Ioannides (2020) highlights the importance of the tension
between formal and informal strategy making mechanisms in shaping the small tourism firm,
the limiting of the study to resource base theory suggests future studies using alternative
theories might further inform how the formal/informal tension influences the small tourism
firm. One such example, suggested by the work of Kelliher et al. (2018) is possible taking a
dynamic capabilities view.
Emphasis on creative strategy making, for example Haber and Reichel (2007) highlights
the potential in the emergence of new modes of strategy making. Future research can build on
existing studies through deeper investigation of how strategy making in context might
become more entrepreneurial, taking as a starting points some of the wider literature in the
entrepreneurial strategy making domain.

Mechanisms
A recent edited book dramatically argues the pivotal role played by a dynamic strategy
making in enabling small firms to thrive amidst unprecedented change from diverse
areas such as sustainability, technological innovation and globalisation (Fayos-Sola and
Cooper, 2019). The growing importance of entrepreneurship in igniting and creating a
dynamic strategy making is pointed to across a number of studies. Hence, while policy
makers must continually focus on lubricating links between stakeholders to support
dynamic strategy making (Valente et al., 2015; Novelli et al., 2006), they are
simultaneously alerted to identifying entrepreneurs and supporting entrepreneurial
strategy making. The research base on small tourism firm strategy making informed by
innovation theory contains potential for greater focus on how innovation is not simply an
outcome, rather that innovation occurs as owner/managers experiment with new modes
of entrepreneurial strategy making (Hjalager, 2010). Dynamic strategy making is then
emergent from owner/manager strategic flexibility (Dwyer et al., 2014; Atejlevic and
Doorne, 2000). Future research investigating dynamic strategy making is encouraged by
insights from the wider literature on entrepreneurial strategy making. For example,
studies exploring the role of opportunity identification (Hsieh et al., 2007); alertness
(Bostaph, 2013) and entrepreneurial judgement (Foss et al., 2019) are recommended in the
small tourism context.
Efforts to overcome the impact of resource limitations on strategy making (Morrison, Small tourism
2006) are evident in studies taking entrepreneurial, stakeholder and lifestyle motivation strategy
theory bases. While progress towards a more entrepreneurial view of strategy making is
apparent, for example Denicolai et al. (2010), future research building on capability theory
making: a
provides one means of enabling researchers to understand not simply the possibilities review
inhering in resources. The work of Kelliher et al. (2018) exemplifies the potential of an
approach rooted in dynamic managerial capabilities. It is aspired that a capabilities
perspective will enable understanding of the enacting of more entrepreneurial strategy
making. The relevance of this research will go outside purely academic research and inform
debates in policy, practice and education.
In arguing the importance of social entrepreneurship in enabling more entrepreneurial
strategy making for sustainable small firms, de Lange and Dodds (2017) point to aspects of
social entrepreneurship such as creativity, novelty and risk orientation as significant.
McAreavey and McDonagh (2011) suggest the importance of social enterprise as a means of
better aligning and developing rural tourism resources in an entrepreneurial strategy making
with a purpose of ecological sustainability. However, relatively little is known about how
diverse forms of social enterprise may influence strategy making in different ways. Further,
existing studies portray a bias of the successful leading to future research benefitting from
examination of the barriers to more entrepreneurial strategy making.

Outcomes
The literature provides evidence that strategy making shapes the profit outcome, but further
builds on the link between more innovative forms of strategy making and better profit
outcomes. Opportune in future research is the possibility for research into how more recent
innovations in strategy making might (Rodriguez-Sanchez et al., 2019; Nordin and Hjalager,
2017) shape profit making, as a seminal study in this area is not quite dated (Sundbo et al.,
2007). Examination of the links between strategy making and lifestyle shaped outcomes
presents a dichotomous scenario, where lifestyle motivations present opportunities for a
more entrepreneurial strategy making and yet can stifle such entrepreneurial focus. Future
research in this area is necessary.
Given the current emphasis on sustainability at policy and even practice level there is
considerable scope for future research into linkages between strategy making and
sustainable outcomes. Recent studies by Kelliher et al. (2018) and Bressan and Pedrini
(2020) highlight the need for future research to investigate how strategy making might
become a means of synthesising economic sustainability with environmental sustainability,
reflecting research in these domains emerging in the context of larger firms.

Methods
In a previous review, Li (2008) highlights the lack of sophisticated methodological techniques in
the tourism sector. The present review diverges somewhat from their findings with a number of
studies relying on sophisticated methodological approaches. For example Di Domenico and
Miller (2012) use extensive case studies contextually justified and supported by an inductive
analysis using computer software. Similarly Rodriguez et al. (2019) use extensive longitudinal
case studies rooted in narrative analysis. Sweeney et al. develop narrative theory based on
photo-elicitation to suggest strategy making is more emergent and less planned than argued by
business theory to date. There is much opportunity for future research here in placing strategy
making in the wider management literature on narrative research. Quantitative studies, for
example Vik and McElwee (2011) use a large survey driven by multinomial regression. There
are sophisticated theoretical papers, for example Kelliher et al. (2018), where developed
management theory is contextualised in a tourism setting. However, methodological limitations
IJEBR are evident with a number of research trajectories emerging. The failure to agree on a common
understanding of entrepreneurial strategy making suggests opportunities in developing a
measurement scale and quantitatively investigating the concept in tourism industry sectors
and contexts. Qualitative research trajectories emerge from existing studies, for example,
Szivas (2001), with opportunity for methodological refinement and innovation exploring the
emergence of entrepreneurial strategy making through longitudinal analysis is supported by
diary based or action research. The existing studies are limited in often failing to be guided by a
theoretical base in their analysis. Hence there are ample opportunities to enhance future
analysis using grounded theory and hermeneutic analysis. Finally, existing studies provide
limited definitions of small tourism firms and future research might overcome the limitations by
examining the emergence of strategy making where the size and context of firm is clearly
defined.

Entrepreneurial strategy making in small firms: tourism context


The present review highlights many deficiencies in the field, encouraging future research as a
means of exploring gaps and improving strategy making practice. This approach assumes
entrepreneurial strategy making can be distilled outside the tourism context and applied in
context. Contrariwise the emergence of entrepreneurial strategy making in the tourism
context may improve strategy making in the wider domain of small firms and even suggest
new research opportunities. One such research stream emerges from the lifestyle outcome of
tourism firms, where entrepreneurial strategy making acknowledges the diverse and
complex nature of the firm and outcomes. Diverging from Beaver (2007), recent emphasis in
entrepreneurial strategy making as effectuation (Nordin and Hjalager, 2017) in small firms
suggests the benefit of incorporating insights from the small tourism context to the wider
small firm. Similarly the work of Langlois (2007) situates effective entrepreneurial strategy
making in the “entrepreneurial firm” context, and given instances in the tourism literature
where the firm serves as a vehicle for creative entrepreneurship (Gomezelj, 2016; Skokic et al.,
2016), there are opportunities for wider small firms to benefit from research in the tourism
context.

Conclusion
The aim of the present review was to answer the research question: What is the relationship
between strategy making and small tourism firms? Framing a structured review using the
CIMO approach seminal studies in the highlight how context, interventions, theoretical
mechanisms and outcomes shape a strategy making unique to the small tourism firm context.
Nevertheless, change in the sector is highlighted as encouraging a more entrepreneurial
strategy making in recent times. Future research trajectories are encouraged across the four
dimensions of CIMO and from a methodological perspective.
A number of limitations to the present review are apparent. The search is guided by high
ranking ABS journals, and hence new emerging from lower ranking and sometimes industry
specific journals might novel perspectives in contextual strategy making. The review focuses
entirely on the developed world, and in doing so neglects both the differences in strategy making
in the less developed world but also perhaps an increased commonality across small tourism
firms due to globalisation. As with any theoretical approach use of the CIMO framework imbues
the review with limitations. Pandza and Thorpe (2010) critical structured reviews of literature
argue that CIMO limits the study to a few organisational issues which are empirically accessible.
Finally, in some reviewed paper, there is only a limited addressing of the four CIMO contexts,
resulting in limited understanding of the generative mechanism between the intervention and
outcome.
References Small tourism
Alford, P. and Page, S. (2015), “Marketing technology for adoption by small business”, The Service strategy
Industries Journal, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 11-12.
making: a
Alsos, G., Clausen, T., Hytti, U. and Solvoll, S. (2015), “Entrepreneurs social identity and the preference review
of causal and effectual behaviours in start-up processes”, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 234-258.
Alvarez, S. and Barney, J. (2007), “Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial
action”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-26.
Areavey, R. and McDonagh, J. (2011), “Sustainable rural tourism: lessons for rural development”,
Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 175-194.
Ateljevic, J. (2007), “Small tourism firms and management practices in New Zealand: the centre state
macro region”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 307-316.
Ateljevic, I. and Doorne, S. (2000), “‘Staying within the fence’: lifestyle entrepreneurship in tourism”,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 378-392.
Baggio, R. and Cooper, C. (2010), “Knowledge transfer in a tourism destination: the effects of network
structure”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 1757-1771.
Baldacchino, G. (2015), “Feeding the rural tourism strategy? Food and notions of place and identity”,
Scandinavian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 223-228.
Barbieri, C. and Mshenga, P. (2008), “The role of the firm and owner characteristics on the
performance of agritourism farms”, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 166-183.
Baum, T. (2015), “Human resources in tourism: still waiting for change- A 2015 reprise”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 50, pp. 204-212.
Beaver, G. (2007), “The strategy payoff for smaller enterprises”, The Journal of Business Strategy,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. pp11-18.
Bostaph, S. (2013), “Driving the market process: “Alertness” versus innovation and “continuous
destruction””, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 421-458.
Bredvold, R. and Skalen, P. (2016), “Lifestyle entrepreneurs and their identity construction: a study of
the tourism industry”, Tourism Management, Vol. 56, pp. 96-105.
Bressan, A. and Pedrini, M. (2020), “Exploring sustainable-oriented innovation within micro and small
tourism firms”, Tourism Planning and Development, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 497-514.
Carlsen, J., Morrison, A. and Weber, P. (2008), “Lifestyle oriented small tourism firms”, Tourism
Recreation Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 255-263.
Cawley, M. and Gillmor, D. (2008), “Integrated rural tourism: concepts and practice”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 316-337.
Copp, C. and Ivy, R. (2001), “Networking trends in small tourism businesses in post socialist Slovakia”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 345-353.
Craig, J. and Lindsay, N. (2002), “Incorporating the family dynamic into the entrepreneurship process”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 9 No.4, pp. 416-430.
Crick, J. and Crick, D. (2016), “Developing entrepreneurial resilience in the UK tourism sector”,
Strategic Change, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 315-325.
Cuccia, T. and Rizzo, I. (2011), “Tourism seasonality in cultural destinations: empirical evidence from
Sicily”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 589-595.
Cunha, C., Kastenholz, E. and Carneiro, M. (2018), “Lifestyle entrepreneurs: the case of rural tourism”,
in Carvalho, L., Rego, C., Lucas, M., Sanchez-Hernandez and Noronha, A. (Eds), Structural
Change in Dynamic Territories, Springer, London, pp. 175-188.
de Lange, D. and Dodds, R. (2017), “Increasing sustainable tourism through social entrepreneurship”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 1977-2002.
IJEBR Denicolai, S., Cioccarelli, G. and Zucchella, A. (2010), “Resource based local developed and networked
core competences for tourism excellence”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 260-266.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009), “Producing a systematic review”, in Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A.
(Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organisation Research Methods, Sage, London, pp. 671-679.
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D. and Van Aken, J. (2008), “Developing design propositions through research
synthesis”, Organisation Studies, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 393-493.
Di Domenico, M. and Miller, G. (2012), “Farming and tourism enterprise: experiential authenticity in
the diversification of independent small-scale farming”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 285-294.
Dredge, D. (2006), “Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 269-280.
Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (2012), “Australian national tourism policy: influences of reflexive and
political modernisation”, Tourism Planning and Development, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 231-251.
Dwyer, L., Cvelbar, L. and Edwards, D. (2014), “Tourism firms’ strategic flexibility: the case of
Slovenia”, Tourism Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 377-387.
Fayos-Sola, E. and Cooper, C. (2019), The Future of Tourism: Innovation for Inclusive Sustainable
Development, Palgrave MacMillan, London.
Floysand, A. and Sjoholt, P. (2007), “Rural development and embeddedness: the importance of human
relations for industrial restructuring in rural areas”, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 47 No. 3,
pp. 205-227.
Foss, N. and Klein, P. (2017), “Entrepreneurial discovery or creation? In search of the middle ground”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 720-733.
Foss, N. and Saebi, T. (2015), “Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: how far have
we come and where should we go”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 200-227.
Foss, N., Klein, P. and Bjornskov, N. (2019), “The context of entrepreneurial judgement: organisations,
markets and institutions”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 1197-1213.
Getz, D. and Carlsen, D. (2000), “Characteristics and goals of family and owner operated firms in the
rural tourism and hospitality sectors”, Tourism Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 547-560.
Getz, D. and Nilsson, P. (2004), “Responses of family business to extreme seasonality in demand: the
case of Bornholm Denmark”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 17-30.
Gomezelj, D. (2016), “A systematic review of research on innovation in tourism and hospitality”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 516-558.
Gross, N. and Geiger, S. (2017), “Liminality and the entrepreneurial firm: practice renewal during
periods of radical change”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 185-209.
Haber, S. and Reichel, A. (2007), “The cumulative nature of the entrepreneurial process: the
contribution of human capital, planning and environmental resources to small venture
performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 119-145.
Hallak, R., Assaker, G. and O’Connor, P. (2014), “Are family and non-family tourism businesses
different? An examination of the entrepreneurial self-efficacy-entrepreneurial performance
relationship”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 388-413.
Harrington, R. (2005), “The how and who of strategy making: models and appropriateness for firms in
the hospitality and tourism industries”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 372-395.
Harrington, R. and Ottenbacher, C. (2011), “Strategic management”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 439-462.
Harrington, R., Chathoth, P., Ottenbacher, M. and Altinay, L. (2014), “Strategic management research Small tourism
in hospitality and tourism: past, present and future”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 778-808. strategy
Hart, S.L. and Banbury, C. (1994), “How strategy-making processes can make a difference”, Strategic
making: a
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 251-269. review
Hjalager, A. (2010), “A review of innovation research in tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Hjalager, A. and Kwiatkowski, G. (2018), “Entrepreneurial implications, prospects and dilemmas in
rural festivals”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 63, pp. 217-228.
Horobin, H. and Long, J. (1996), “Sustainable tourism: the role of the small firm”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 15-19.
Hsieh, C., Nickerson, J. and Zenger, T. (2007), “Opportunity discovery, problem solving and a theory of
the entrepreneurial firm”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 1255-1277.
Huang, D., Coghlan, A. and Jin, X. (2020), “Understanding the drivers of Airbnb discontinuance”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 80.
Kallmuenzer, A. (2018), “Exploring drivers of innovation in hospitality family firms”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 1978-1995.
Kelliher, F. and Reinl, L. (2009), “A resource based view of micro firm management practice”, Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 521-532.
Kelliher, F., Reinl, L., Johnson, T. and Joppe, M. (2018), “The role of trust in building micro firm
network engagement: a multi case study”, Tourism Management, Vol. 68, pp. 1-12.
Kelly, N., Kelliher, F., Power, J. and Lynch, P. (2020), “Unlocking the niche potential of senior tourism
through micro firm owner-manager adaptive capability development”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 79.
Klein, P., Barney, J. and Foss, N. (2012), “Strategic entrepreneurship”, available at: https://ssrn.com/
abstract52137050 (accessed 27 August 2012).
Kneafsey, M. (1998), “Tourism and place identity: a case study in rural Ireland”, Journal of Irish
Geography, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 111-123.
Komppula, R. (2014), “The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for
a rural tourism destination- a case study”, Tourism Management, Vol. 40, pp. 361-371.
Kraus, S., Breier, M. and Dasi-Rodriguez, S. (2020), “The art of crafting a systematic literature review
in entrepreneurship research”, International Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 1023-1042.
Kuratko, D. and Audretsch, D. (2009), “Strategic entrepreneurship: exploring different perspectives of
an emerging concept”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Langlois, R. (2007), “The entrepreneurial theory of the firm and the theory of the entrepreneurial firm”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 1107-1124.
Lashley, C. and Rowson, W. (2010), “Lifestyle businesses: insights into Blackpool’s hotel sector”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 511-519.
Lawton, T., McGuire, S. and Rajwani, T. (2013), “Corporate political activity: a literature review and
research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 86-105.
Lerner, M. and Haber, S. (2001), “Performance factors of small tourism ventures: the interface of
tourism, entrepreneurship and the environment”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 77-100.
Li, L. (2008), “A review of entrepreneurship research published in tourism and hospitality
management journals”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1013-1022.
Martin, J. and Martinez, J. (2019), “Entrepreneurs’ attitudes towards seasonality in the tourism sector”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 432-448.
IJEBR Martin-Rios, C. and Ciobanu, T. (2019), “Hospitality innovation strategies: an analysis of success
factors and challenges”, Tourism Management, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 218-229.
Martinez-Roman, J., Tamayo, J., Gamero, J. and Romero, J. (2015), “Innovativeness and business
performance in tourism SMEs”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 54, pp. 118-135.
McCamley, C. and Gilmore, A. (2017), “Aggravated fragmentation: a case study of SME behaviour in
two emerging heritage tourism regions”, Tourism Management, Vol. 60, pp. 81-91.
Mellahi, K., Frynas, J.G., Sun, P. and Siegel, D. (2016), “A review of nonmarket strategy literature:
towards a multi-theoretical integration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 143-173.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1977), “Strategy making in context: ten empirical archetypes”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 253-279.
Morris, H., Harvey, C. and Kelly, A. (2009), “Journal rankings and the ABS quality guide”,
Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 1441-1451.
Morrison, A. (2006), “A contextualisation of entrepreneurship”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 192-209.
Morrison, A. and Teixeira, R. (2004), “Small business performance: a tourism sector focus”, Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 166-173.
Mottiar, Z. (2016), “The importance of local area as motivation for cooperation among rural tourism
entrepreneurs”, Tourism Planning and Development, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 203-218.
Nordin, S. and Hjalager, A. (2017), “Doing, using and interacting: towards a new understanding of
tourism innovation processes” in Kiralova, A. (Ed.), Driving Tourism Through Creative
Destinations and Activities, pp. 165-180.
Novelli, M., Schmitz, B. and Spencer, T. (2006), “Networks, clusters and innovation in tourism: a U.K.
experience”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1141-1152.
Osiyevskyy, O. and Dewald, J. (2015), “Inducements, impediments and immediacy: exploring the
cognitive drivers of small business managers’ intentions to adopt business model change”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 1011-1032.
O’Gorman, C. and Doran, R. (1999), “Mission statements in small and medium-sized businesses”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 59-66.
Page, S., Hartwell, H., Johns, N., Fyall, A., Ladkin, A. and Hemingway, A. (2017), “Case study: wellness
tourism and small business development in a U.K. coastal resort: public engagement in
practice”, Tourism Management, Vol. 60, pp. 466-477.
Paget, E., Dimanche, F. and Mounet, J. (2010), “A tourism innovation case: an actor network
approach”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 828-847.
Pandza, K. and Thorpe, R. (2010), “Management as design, but what kind of design? An appraisal of
the design science analogy for management”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp.
171-186.
Pena, A., Jamilena, D. and Molina, M. (2011), “Impact of market orientation and ICT on the
performance of rural smaller service industries”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49
No. 3, pp. 331-360.
Peters, M. (2005), “Entrepreneurial skills in leadership and human resource management evaluated by
apprentices in small tourism businesses”, Education and Training, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 575-591.
Peters, M. and Kallmuenzer, A. (2018), “Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: the case of the
hospitality industry”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. pp21-40.
Peters, M., Siller, L. and Matzler, K. (2011), “The resource-based and the market-based approaches to
cultural tourism in Alpine destinations”, The Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 7,
pp. 877-893.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D. and Neely, A. (2004), “Networking and innovation: a Small tourism
systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 137-168. strategy
Poulson, L. and Wallace, M. (2004), Teaching and Learning, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
making: a
Rajwani, T. and Liedong, T. (2015), “Political activity and firm performance within nonmarket
review
research: a review and international comparative assessment”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 273-283.
Rodriguez-Sanchez, I., Williams, A. and Brotons, M. (2019), “The innovation journey of new to tourism
entrepreneurs”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 877-904.
Schmallegger, D., Taylor, A. and Carson, D. (2011), “Rejuvenating outback tourism through market
diversification: the case of the Flinders ranges in South Australia”, International Journal of
Tourism Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 384-399.
Short, J. (2009), “The art of writing a review article”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 1312-1317.
Skokic, V. and Morrison, A. (2015), “Entrepreneurial networks as culturally embedded phenomena”,
International Journal of Business and Economic Development, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Skokic, V., Lynch, P. and Morrison, A. (2016), “Hotel entrepreneurship in a turbulent environment”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 53, pp. 1-11.
Solvoll, S., Agnete, G. and Bulanova, O. (2015), “Tourism entrepreneurship: review and future
directions”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 15, pp. 120-137.
Stamboulis, Y. and Skyannis, P. (2003), “Innovation strategies and technology for experienced-based
tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 35-43.
Stokes, D. (2008), “Tourism strategy making: insights to the events tourism domain”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 252-262.
Stokes, D. and Lomax, W. (2002), “Taking control of word-of-mouth marketing: the case of an
entrepreneurial hotelier”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 349-357.
Sundbo, J., Orfila-Sintes, F. and Sorensen, F. (2007), “The innovative behaviour of tourism firms:
comparative studies of Denmark and Spain”, Research Policy, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 88-106.
Sweeney, M., Docherty-Hughes and Lynch, P. (2018), “Lifestyling entrepreneurs sociological
expressionism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 69, pp. 90-100.
Szivas, E. (2001), “Entrance into tourism entrepreneurship: a UK case study”, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 163-172.
Teixeira, R., Andreassi, T., Koseoglu, M. and Okumus, F. (2019), “How do hospitality entrepreneurs
use their social networks to access resources: evidence from the lifestyle of small hospitality
resources”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 158-167.
Tejada, P. and Moreno, P. (2013), “Patterns of innovation in tourism smack and medium-sized
enterprises”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 749-758.
Terjesen, S., Hessels, J. and Li, D. (2016), “Comparative international entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 299-344.
Thomas, R. and Thomas, H. (2006), “Micro politics and micro firms: a case study of tourism policy
formation and change”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 100-114.
Thomas, R., Shaw, G. and Page, S. (2011), “Understanding small firms in tourism: a perspective on
research trends and challenges”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 963-976.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of a systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
IJEBR Valente, F., Dredge, D. and Lohmann, G. (2015), “Leadership and governance in regional tourism”,
Journal of Destination Management and Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 127-136.
Vik, J. and McElwee, G. (2011), “Diversification and entrepreneurial motivations of farmers in
Norway”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 390-410.
West, J. and Olsen, M. (1989), “Environmental scanning, industry structure and strategy making:
concepts and research in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 283-298.
Yachin, M. and Ioaniddes, D. (2020), “Making do in rural tourism: the resourcing behaviour of tourism
micro firms”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1003-1021.
Zach, J., Nicolau, J. and Sharma, A. (2020), “Disruptive innovation, innovation adoption and incumbent
market value: the case of Airbnb”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 80.
Zhang, W. and Banerji, S. (2017), “Challenges of servitization: a systematic literature review”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 65, pp. 217-227.
Zott, C., Amit, R. and Massa, L. (2011), “The business model: recent developments and future
research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1019-1042.

Corresponding author
Arthur Kearney can be contacted at: arthur.kearney@wit.ie

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen