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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Historical Development of the Strategy Field
3. Classifications and Different Perspectives of Strategy
3.1. Classifications
3.1.1. The 10 Schools of Strategy by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel
3.1.2. The Four Generic Approaches by Whittington
3.2. Three Very Different Perspectives on Strategy
3.2.1. Economics and Strategy
3.2.2. Psychology and Strategy
3.2.3. Sociology and Strategy
4. Reasons for the Fragmentation of the Strategy Field
4.1. Applicability of Theories
4.2. Target Groups
4.3. Changing Business World
4.4. Quality Management
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Research Focus
This essay explores the underlying reasons for the increasing fragmentation within the field of strategic management. By examining the historical evolution of strategy research and analyzing various theoretical perspectives, the study aims to clarify why multiple, sometimes competing, paradigms have emerged and how these diverse viewpoints can be synthesized into a coherent academic foundation.
- Historical evolution of the strategy field from its military roots to modern business application.
- Classification of strategy research through key frameworks like Mintzberg's 10 Schools and Whittington's generic approaches.
- Analysis of core disciplinary influences including Economics, Psychology, and Sociology.
- Examination of external factors contributing to research fragmentation, such as changing business environments and target audiences.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2.1. Economics and Strategy
Firstly, I will examine the influences that economics had on the field as I want to stick to a more or less chronological flow of their appearance. In the work of Douma and Schreuder (1998) is stated that the economic contributions focus more on the content than on the carrying out or controlling of strategies. The first authors in this field try to explain situations with the help of micro- and/ or macroeconomic equations in order to gain legitimacy for their theory. Efficiency, markets, competition, costs and industry are few of the most important terms used throughout the literature.
At that time it was all about business policy and companies changing according to external factors and therefore the firm itself remained for a long time just a black box when nobody knew what was going on inside. Many theories are also based on the paradigm that an all firms inside an industry are made up the same way which we know today is not at all the case. Compared to the sociological view this way of seeing strategic management is a very hard one and leaves out completely the human factor in business. Not everything can have a value which can appear in on a balance sheet in the end of the year. But all this does not mean that methods developed like Porter’s 5 forces are not of use anymore today.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the central research question regarding the fragmentation of strategy research and outlines the essay's approach to reviewing key perspectives.
2. Historical Development of the Strategy Field: Tracks the transition of strategy from military concepts to modern strategic planning and management, highlighting influential early authors.
3. Classifications and Different Perspectives of Strategy: categorizes diverse research streams using frameworks and analyzes the specific roles of economic, psychological, and sociological viewpoints.
4. Reasons for the Fragmentation of the Strategy Field: Discusses the drivers behind the field's diversification, including varying definitions, target groups, and the dynamic nature of the business environment.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the need for integration and flexibility within strategy schools, suggesting that multiple perspectives can coexist depending on the specific application.
Keywords
Strategic Management, Fragmentation, Strategy Research, Economic Perspective, Psychology, Sociology, Mintzberg, Whittington, Corporate Planning, Competitive Advantage, Resource-Based View, Cognitive School, Organizational Cognition, Strategy Schools.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The work investigates why the field of strategic management has become increasingly fragmented over time and how researchers can synthesize these disparate perspectives.
What are the core theoretical themes explored?
The paper covers the historical development of the field, major classification models, and the distinct influence of economics, psychology, and sociology on strategic thought.
What is the central research question?
The primary research question asks why a diversity of partly competitive and partly supplementary paradigms has emerged in strategy research and how these can be reconciled.
Which methodology is applied in the essay?
The author employs a literature-based review and analysis, mapping historical developments and comparing established classification frameworks by authors like Mintzberg, Whittington, and others.
What does the main body discuss?
It provides a historical overview, details the three mainstreams (economics, psychology, sociology), and identifies key drivers for fragmentation such as changing business conditions and varying target audiences.
How can this work be categorized by keywords?
Key terms include Strategic Management, Fragmentation, Strategy Research, Economic/Psychological/Sociological perspectives, and specific models like the Resource-Based View.
How does the author interpret the economic view of strategy?
The author notes that while the economic view provides legitimacy through formal models, it often treats the firm as a "black box" and neglects internal human factors, leading to a recent evolution toward the Resource-Based View.
What role does the "cognitive school" play in the author's argument?
The cognitive school represents the shift from objective content to the process of how strategists perceive, judge, and develop strategies, highlighting the limitations of human cognition.
- Citation du texte
- Elisabeth Luger (Auteur), 2003, Reasons for the Fragmentation in the Strategy Field, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/21768
