Mapping StrategicManagement Research

Howard Thomas
Universityof Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign

DURINGthelasttwodecades,
in particular,
therehasdeveloped
a
substantialbodyof 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 fundamentalcontri-

butionto corporatestrategy:
The determinationof the basiclong-termgoalsand the objectivesof
an enterprise,and the adoptionof coursesof actionand the allocation
of resourcesnecessary 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 inten-
tions. 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
conceptualizationof strategicmanagementas institutionalizedentrepre-
neurship)with which to considerthe researchliterature in strategic
management.
From this, it followsthat the objectivesof this paperare
(1) to reviewand classify the researchliteraturein strategicmanage-
ment;
(2) to makea pleafor the adoptionof "mixedscanning"perspectives
for future research in the field;
(3) to examinetheoryandsuggestthat 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

exhaustivereviewof the "stateof the art" of strategicmanagementresearch
(althoughsomeof the more usefulperiodicals are shownin Appendix1.)
Indeed,the 1977 PittsburghConferenceon strategicmanagement (Schen-
delandHofer [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 lesswellostruc-
tured 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 systematicway.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
businesspolicyconferenceat 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 businessmanagement.
"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 for-
mulatingandimplementing 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,strategyfor-
mulation,strategyplanning,and so on- then Bower arguesthat re-
searchers 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 Thomp-
son [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
strategiesshouldbe asfollows.First,the studyof scienceand art in policy
formulation.Second,the designand useof analyticconceptsand opera-
tional approaches. Third, the studyof historicalrelationships and imple-
mentationproblems.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 inter-
facesbetweenbusinessand government.In addition, many corporate
problemsnow havea multinationalfocusinvolvingcompetitionand mar-
keting 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 opportunitiesfor researchcross-

16
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 classificationof 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 implemen-
tation, ¬ 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-scaleinvestigativeundertakingstypify
the mix of topics,sincethe narrowercompassof "elements"research
makesit simplerand more straightforwardthan '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
examinationof applicabledatain 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 practitionersfollowedby 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
andempiricalresearchareasshouldbe emphasized.
They favor modelbuilding,hypothesis testing,and newmodels and techniques

17
for strategy
research.Anshenand Guth prescribea mix of empiricaltesting
and explanatory,conceptual
researchon 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, consult-
ants, 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 researchinvolvesalternativeperspectivesandviewpoints,
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,aspectsof 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 ex-
treme, one that regardsstrategicdecision-making as an instanceof orga-
nizationalpolitics,to be understood entirelyin termsof the relativepower
positionsand 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 discussionoften proceedson the linesof rejecting
oneof themon thebasisthatcontraryinstances canbe found.The matter
is further confoundedby the differentpositions,descriptive,
explanatory,
or normative,whichprotagonists positionstake up.
The stanceadoptedhereisbothexplanatory andnormative.It attempts
to demonstrate that a useful measure of reconciliation can be achieved

18
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-organizationalframework.
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 anal-
yzing 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 stra-
tegicmanagement.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 market-
driven phenomenonand, consequently, providestoolsfor customerand
competitiveanalysis.
The historicalcasestudyapproachto strategyresearchhasa process
orientation and involves the examination of observational data, drawn
from varioussources, concerningthe 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-testingresearchon strategyand structurebestexemplifiedby
Rumelt [46].
Political scientistssuch as Lindblom [34] and Allison [2] examine
publicpolicymakingprocesses
and suggestalternativemodelsof policy-
making basedon conceptssuchas adaptation("muddlingthrough"),
rationalism,
organizational
processes,
and bureaucraticpoliticalperspec-
tives.
Researchers in psychology (Hogarth [23]) have identifiednumerous
informationprocessing limitationsandbiases in humanjudgment.Hogarth
and Makradakis[24] havearguedthat many of thesemay applyto tasks
performedin forecastingandstrategicplanning.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 managerialjudgment
about corporatestrategicdirection.
Organizationtheoristshave studied such processquestionsas the
structuringof organizationsand 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 businessdecisionand 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 interpretiveprocessleads
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 strategicmanage-
ment. 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 de-
pendency....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 devel-
opment 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 predictionof the
outcomeof alternativecoursesof actionis an integralpart of the strategy-
making 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 per-
spectives).
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 disci-
plinesto the policycontextor by performinginductivefield-likestudies
that will generatehypothesesfor specifictestingthrough successivede-
ductivephasesof 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 businessschools 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
AcademyofManagement Journal
AcademyofManagement Review
Administrative
Science
Quarterly
Business
and Society
Business Horizons
CaliforniaManagement
Review
Harvard Business Review
Journalof Business
Journalof Business
Strateg•y
Journalof GeneralManagement
Journalof Management Studies
Long-Range Planning
ManagementDecision
Omega
OrganizationalDynamics
PolicySciences
PolicyStudies
Journal
SloanManagementReview
Strategic
Management Journal

Appendix II
StatementsAbout ResearchAreasin StrategicManagement
Anshenand Guth[4, pp. 507-511]
(Broadmulti-disciplinary
researchcanvas)

1. Scienceand Art in Policy Formulation

(Examinationof the boundsof rationalityin policyformulation)
ßEmpiricalstudyof top managementdecisions to delineatelimits of rationalityin such
decisions.
ßConceptualdevelopment of multi-disciplinary
theoryof the policyformulationprocess.
ßConstructionof mathematicalmodels/simulationsof the policyformulationprocess.
ßStudyof the "art" componentsof policyformulation.
2. Design and Test of Analytical Conceptsand Operational Approaches
ßStudyof decisionheuristicsin unstructuredsituations.
ßStrategicplanningsystems in rapidlychangingenvironments.
ßSocialperformancemeasurementof organizations.
ßMI$ for policyformulationand implementation.
ßStrategyand organizational design.
ßPerformancemeasurementsystems.
ßDesignof strategyformulationprocesses for strategicdecision-making.
3. Historical Relationshipsand Implementation Problems
(Listof relationshipsfor empiricalstudy)
ßEnvironmentsetsin relationto successful/unsuccessful organizations.
ßManagementvaluesin relationto strategicchoice.

23
ßOrganizationalstrategiesvs.organizationalstructures.
ßOrganizationalstructuresvs. measuresof performance.
ßOrganizationallevelsin relationto measures of performancein differentorganizational
structures.

ßLeadershipstylesvs. strategyand organizationalform.

4. Interface of BusinessPolicy Formulation with Social Problems and Other Institutions
Interorganizational
analysis Bower[8, p. 636] (business/government
multi-national
foci)
1. Managementproblemsof rapid growth and their socio-economic implications.
2. Managementproblemsof decliningindustriesand regions.
$. Top managementof largecomplexfirms -- studiesof entrepreneursand strategists--
what are the administrativeaspectsof complexstrategy?
4. What doesportfolio managementmeanfor largecompanies? Why do CEO'sintroduce
such systems?
5. Can anything be said about the mix of large and small firms from a businesspolicy
perspective?
6. Depth studiesof particular regionaland environmentalproblems.
7. Global industries.

Jemison[25] (Integrative,multi-disciplinary
focus)
1. Determination of the relationship among the evolution of industries, markets and
organizations.
2. Methodsfor integrationof processand contentstrategicmanagementresearch.
3. Examinationof the relationshipsbetween,and influenceof, inter-organizational
analysison strategyformulation.

Saunders and Thompson[48, p. 122] (Slight amendmentby Saundersand Thompsonof

Schendeland Hofer [49]
1. StrategyFormulation Process
ßStrategyConcept
ßStrategy Formulation
ßStrategyEvaluation
ßStrategyContent
2. Strategy Formulation Elements
ßGoal Formulation/Structures
ßSocialResponsibility
ßEnvironmentalAnalysis
ßPublicPolicy
$. Strategy Implementation Process
ßStrategyImplementation
4. StrategyImplementation Elements
ßFormalPlanningSystems
ßStrategic Gontrol
5. StrategyManagementProcess
ßStrategyManagementProcess
ß Boards of Directors
ßGeneral ManagementRoles
6. Other
ßEntrepreneurshipand new ventures
ß Multi-business/multi-cultural forms
ßStrategicmanagementin not-for-profitorganizations
ß Research methods

24
Appendix III
Categorization
of AlternativeLensesand Approaches
for StrategyResearch

Lenses/Approaches Research Tradition References

History CaseDevelopment
Mappingof corporate [10,
strategyover long- [12]
term historical
perspective
Mappingindustry
changesover time
Economics IndustrialOrganization/ [42, 43]
Microeconomic Analysis
Strategy/Structure
Performance [46]
Finance PortfolioTheory [13]
CapitalAssetPricing [35, 47]
FinancialStatementAnalysis [181
Marketing ProductLife Cycle
Segmentation [561
Planning
PoliticalScience Studyof Policymaking [341
Processes in Government [21
LaboratoryExperimentation []71
Psychology in JudgmentResearch [23, 24,
29, 54]
Organizational OrganizationalStructure [53]
Behavior Powerin Organizations [4U
Studiesof GeneralManagers [281
StrategyTypes and Structure [37]
Environmentsand Organizations
LeadershipResearch [55]
Administrative Behavior [26]
AnalyticalModeling DecisionAnalysis [40, 45,

Modelling
PIMS (Profit Impact on
Market Strategies) [5Ol
ExperienceCurveAnalysis [20]
BCG Portfolio Matrix [21]
ProcessTracing in Mappingand Tracking [14]
StrategicDecision-Mak- StrategyProcesses [7, 38, 44]
ing
PolicyDialogue Conflicting
Assumptions [36]
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 Sur-
vey,"Journalof Economic Literature,Vol. 18, No. 1 (1980), pp. 64-92.
10. A.D. Chandler,Jr., Strateg•yand 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 Enterprisein 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 BusinessDeci-
sion,"Journal ofBusiness,Vol. 29 (1956), pp. 237-48.
15. N. K. Dhallaand S. Yuspeh."Forgetthe Product-LifeCycleConcept,"
Harvard
BusinessReview,Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 102-12.
16. A. Etzioni,"Mixed Scanning:A Third Approachto Decision-Making,"
Public
AdministrationReview(December 1967), pp. 385-91.
17. B. Fischoff,"HindsightForesight:The Effectof OutcomeKnowledgeon Judg-
mentunder Uncertainty," JournalofExperimentalPsychology:
HumanPerception andPerfor-
mance,Vol. 1, No. 2 (1975), pp. 228-99.
18. G. Foster,FinancialStatementAnalysis(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,Eng-
land: Wiley, 1983).
23. R. M. Hogarth,Judgment andChoice:ThePsycholog• ofDecision
(Chichester,Eng-
land: 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 StrategicMan-
agementResearch,"Academy of Management
Review,Vol. 6, No. 4 (1981a),pp. 601-08.
26 , "The Contributionsof AdministrativeBehaviorto StrategicMan-
agement,"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,"HarvardBusinessReview,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 StrategicPlanningAssumptions (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 AppliedDecisionAnaly-
sisin the StrategicManagementProcess," Strategic
Management Journal,1983 (forthcom-
ing).
53. J. D. Thompson,Organizationsin 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 Control

Goal Performance
Structure Evaluation

Strategy Strategy Strategy

Formulation Evaluation Implementation

Enwronmental

.I
Strategic
Industry
Planning
Analysis

28