Trinity College Dublin

Reasons for the Fragmentation in the Strategy Field

Author: Elizabeth Luger

Table of Content

1. Introduction 4

2. Historical Development of the Strategy Field 4

3. Classifications and Different Perspectives of Strategy 7

3.1. Classifications 7

3.1.1. The 10 Schools of Strategy by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel 7
3.1.2. The Four Generic Approaches by Whittington 8

3.2. Three Very Different Perspectives on Strategy 8

3.2.1. Economics and Strategy 8
3.2.2. Psychology and Strategy 11
3.2.3. Sociology and Strategy 11

4. Reasons for the Fragmentation of the Strategy Field 13

4.1. Applicability of Theories 13
4.2. Target Groups 13
4.3. Changing Business World 13
4.4. Quality Management 14

5. Conclusion 14

Bibliography 15

1. Introduction

The question to examine in this essay has evolved from a statement made by Elfring and Volberda (2001, p.1) which reads as follows: “In the evolution of strategy research, a diversity of partly competitive and partly supplementary paradigms have emerged.” The task is now to look behind the statement and to ask why this fragmentation happened and how we can make sense of all these different perspectives. Firstly, it is important to examine the roots of the strategy field in order to understand why strategy matters at all and why academics spend so much time and effort on defining their view of “the right” corporate strategy. Following this, I will give an overview of the most common perspectives and schools which emerged along the way. Finally, I will conclude with the reasons behind this diversification and give an outlook into the future of the strategy research. 

Before starting up it is essential to underline the fact that there is no such thing as the “one and only” strategy which has developed over time but that with practically every new decade (starting with the 1960’s) there was a new focus and a new way of seeing strategy. The field of strategy is one of the most integrated research areas which exists and for that reason scientists from many different academic backgrounds contributed to the mainstreams of strategy. The point that Elfring and Volberda (2001, p.2) argue is to walk away from inventing new directions and rather look back to pull ideas together for creating a new academic basis to build on.

2. Historical Development of the Strategy Field

This fist part of the essay will examine the question why academics started to get interested in the strategy field in first place and why this interest has even increased in the last two decades. Before taking the word strategy into the business vocabulary the term was rather used in the military language which dates back to the ancient Greece or China (Ansoff 1965). Back then it was all about knowing your enemies and reacting faster than them – in some ways this sounds familiar.

Looking at our century through out the literature (e.g. Hussey 1990 p.3, Volberda, H. and Elfring T. 2001 p.3 and Johnson and Scholes 2002 p.23) it is agreed that the roots of strategic research on an academic level can be traced back to the 1960’s on the basis of the readings from Ansoff (1965), Andrews (1960 in Segal-Horn 1998) or Chandler (1962). These authors realized that planning was “the” issue of the time and that companies would have to look ahead of their annual budget. Jones (in Segal-Horn 1998, p.410) brought up another interesting approach which assumes that the equivalence of “strategic” and “important” in the English language contributed to the power which the field gained very quickly. Back then we can also find the starting point of academic journals and societies that focused on the relevance of strategy in the business environment. The fact that after WWII firms started to grow faster than their internal structure and that the manufacturing sector produced the biggest numbers lead to the question of strategic planning.

[...]