A (Re)view of the Philosophical Foundations of Strategic ...

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 00, 1–43 (2020)DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12244

A (Re)view of the PhilosophicalFoundations of Strategic Management

Rodrigo Rabetino ,1 Marko Kohtamäki 1,2,3 and Juan S. Federico 4

1School of Management, University of Vaasa, PO Box 700, Vaasa, FI-65101, Finland, 2USN Business School,University of South-Eastern Norway, PO Box 700, Vaasa, FI-65101, Finland, 3Luleå University of Technology,

Entrepreneurship and Innovation, PO Box 700, Vaasa, FI-65101, Finland, and 4Institute of Industry, UniversidadNacional de General Sarmiento, Juan María Gutiérrez 1150 (1613), Los Polvorines, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Corresponding author email: [email protected]

This paper aims to review how different approaches to social inquiry (e.g. positivist,postpositivist, interpretive, postmodernist and critical theory) have been used in strat-egy research and how these main paradigms engage with strategy. In a fragmented do-main, debates typically match paradigms to schools of thought and use the paradigmconcept, sometimes even promiscuously, to examine the underlying premises of dif-ferent theories. Thus, scholars tend to overlook the debate on philosophical meta-theoretical assumptions (ontological, epistemological and methodological) and preferonto-epistemological approaches that are considered to be ‘normal science’, which un-derestimate the contributions of certain less traditional streams of research. This re-view offers a fresh view of the philosophical foundations of the strategic literature bycombining author co-citation and content analysis of a sample of academic sources andanalyses both the meta-theoretical assumptions and the basic paradigmatic assump-tions for central constructs that strategy researchers attach to their frameworks (e.g.strategy, environment, firm and strategist). This endeavour enables scholars who workin a multidisciplinary field to gain a better understanding of the philosophical beliefs,principles and conventions held by different research communities and theoretical ap-proaches. Exposing the underlying assumptions, as is done in this study, is a key stepin theory development. Hence, this review can help researchers, young scholars anddoctoral students navigate a confusing research landscape, problematize the existingliterature and set new research questions.

Introduction

Originating in the early 1960s, strategic manage-ment was widely accepted as a scientific field bythe 1980s, when economists controlled the arena.Although the field has witnessed dramatic and suc-cessful progress since then (Hitt et al. 2004; Leibleinand Reuer 2020), the continuous alternation of dom-inant schools of thought and refocusing of the fieldhave led to polarization and fragmentation (Durandet al. 2017; Sanchez and Heene 1997; Stonehouseand Snowdon 2007), which has shaped the accumu-lation of knowledge (Camerer 1985; Carlson andHatfield 2004; Summer et al. 1990). To study theevolution of the field, scholars have proposed clas-

sifications of schools or models of strategy (Chaffee1985; French 2009; Knights and Morgan 1991;Martinet 1997; Mintzberg and Lampel 1999;Rouleau and Seguin 1995; Whittington 1993).Scholars have also introduced concepts from thephilosophy and sociology of science, includingdominant designs (Herrmann 2005), the Lakatosianidea of a research programme (Farjoun 2002; Teece1990) and especially the Kuhnian paradigm concept(Ansoff 1987; Camerer 1985; Combe 1999; Dagnino2016; Prahalad and Hamel 1994; Rasche 2008;Sanchez and Heene 1997; Schendel 1994).

Following Kuhn’s (1970) conceptualization ofparadigms, strategic management has been rec-ognized as a multiparadigmatic body of research.

This is an open access article under the terms of the CreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, whichpermits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and nomodifications or adaptations are made.© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and JohnWiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,Malden, MA 02148, USA

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8567-2559

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2094-7974

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8027-0518

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1111%2Fijmr.12244&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-10-16

2 R Rabetino et al.

As Calori (1998, p. 284) suggests, one ‘unifyingparadigm’ does not exist, whereas the combinationof interdisciplinary roots and theoretical incom-mensurability has made it doubtful that a singledominant or unifying ‘paradigm will ever govern thefield’ during a period of normal science (Leibleinand Reuer 2020; Schendel 1994, p. 2). Althoughmany strategy scholars consider the paradigmaticdiscussion to be overly ambitious (Volberda 2004)or do not see Kuhn’s (1970) revolution-driven ideaas the best framework for understanding the sci-entific progress of the strategy field (Durand et al.2017; Rumelt et al. 1994), Kuhn’s (1970) modelremains highly influential in management research(Shepherd and Challenger 2013). Indeed, not onlyis the paradigm concept popular in strategy de-bates (Ansoff 1987; Camerer 1985; Combe 1999;Dagnino 2016; Prahalad and Hamel 1994; Rasche2008; Sanchez and Heene 1997; Schendel 1994),but the presence of multiple paradigms in strategyresearch has also guided the process of knowledgeaccumulation (Carlson and Hatfield 2004).

However, most previous paradigmatic discussionsin the strategy field typically match paradigms totheories or schools of thought while understand-ing the paradigm concept in the Kuhnian sense.Moreover, the paradigmatic debates among strategicmanagement scholars are quite scattered, althoughsuch debates in organization science have been in-tense and have led to controversies that took theform of paradigm wars between the late 1980s andmid-1990s (Cannella and Paetzold 1994; Donald-son 1999; Jackson and Carter 1993; Pfeffer 1993;Willmott 1993). Earlier studies tend to overlook thedebate on philosophical meta-theoretical assump-tions (ontological, epistemological and methodolog-ical) and undervalue less traditional streams of re-search. These circumstances have led to a state of‘resounding silence’ (Whipp 1999, p. 19) and callfor an ‘explicit philosophical debate in strategy lit-erature’ (Mir and Watson 2001, p. 1170), particularlymore post-Kuhnian paradigmatic explorations, whichaccept ‘multiparadigmaticism’ (McKelvey 1997) inthe preparadigmatic social fields (Burrell and Mor-gan 1979; Cunliffe 2011; Deetz 1996; Gioia and Pitre1990; Morgan and Smircich 1980).

Following Rasche’s (2008, p. 35) call for an ap-proach that combines the ideas of Kuhn (1970)and Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) notion of meta-paradigms, this paper scrutinizes the strategy re-search by identifying its main scholarly communitiesand deconstructing the meta-theoretical premises and

underlying assumptions embedded in the most pop-ular theories in the field. Although taxonomies haveevolved to reflect the evolution of social paradigms,the social sciences have typically been organizedaround contending paradigms such as positivist,postpositivist, interpretive, postmodernist and criti-cal theory (Guba and Lincoln 1994; Lincoln et al.2018). This paper aims not to discuss these socio-logical paradigms deeply, which many experts havealready done (Cunliffe 2011; Deetz 1996; Gephart2004; Hassard and Cox 2013), but rather to re-view how different approaches to social enquiry havebeen used in strategy research and how the mainparadigms engage with strategy.

To achieve its goal, the paper first builds aparadigmatic interpretation of the strategy field bycombining author co-citation and content analysis ofa sample of academic sources. Next, after isolatingscientific communities, the study intends to isolatetheories, discuss their underlying assumptions andilluminate four onto-epistemological spaces concep-tualized as meta-paradigms. Thus, the contribution ofthis review to the strategic management literature istwofold. First, it offers a fresh view of the philosoph-ical foundations of the strategic literature by recog-nizing and describing the four main meta-paradigmsin strategic management. Second, it scrutinizes thebasic model problems and meta-theoretical assump-tions (ontological, epistemological and methodolog-ical) of the main strategy meta-paradigms. Thisendeavour enables scholars who work in a multi-disciplinary field to gain a better understanding ofthe philosophical beliefs, principles and conven-tions held by different research communities andtheoretical approaches. Exposing the underlyingassumptions, as is done in this study, is a key step intheory development (Alvesson and Sandberg 2011;Makadok et al. 2018). Hence, this review can help re-searchers, young scholars and doctoral students nav-igate a confusing research landscape, problematizethe existing literature and set new research questions.

The paradigm concept inorganizational inquiry

In organizational inquiry, ‘the term paradigm hasbecome promiscuous’ (Johnson and Duberley 2000,p. 88) and ‘holds different meanings to different re-searchers’ (Carlson and Hatfield 2004, p. 274). Theseviews are not surprising, particularly consideringboth the lack of clarity of Kuhn’s paradigm concept

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management andJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd.

A (re)view of the philosophical foundations of strategic management 3

(McKelvey 1999; Pinder and Moore 1980) and thefact that Kuhn himself uses the term ‘paradigm’ inover 20 senses (Masterman 1970; McKelvey 1999;Morgan 1980). Morgan (1980, pp. 606–607) groupsthese uses into three broad categories: first, ‘as acomplete view of reality’; second, ‘as relating to theconcrete use of specific kinds of tools and text for theprocess of scientific puzzle solving’; and third, ‘asrelating to the social organization of science in termsof schools of thought connected with particular kindsof scientific achievements’. Similarly, Carlson andHatfield (2004) conclude that the term ‘paradigm’ instrategy research alternatively refers to the specificphenomena that must be studied, the specific theoryor hypothesis being used to explain the relevantfindings, and the methodological approach used toconduct the research.

Organizational and strategy scientists typicallyrefer to the concept of paradigm and associate it withthe idea of a school of thought or even theory. Davis(2010) concludes that the main theories from the1970s (a handful of paradigms) still dominate the re-search in organizational theory, whereas Donaldson(1995, p. 4) considers these alternative organiza-tional theories to be antithetic and incommensurable‘paradigms in the Kuhnian sense’, which have theirown axioms and theoretical ideas, language and setof supporters that form a scholarly community. Asimilar position is taken by Aldrich (1988) in hisparticipation in the paradigmatic debate.

Most previous paradigmatic discussions in thestrategy field have also matched paradigms to the-ories or research streams (Dagnino 2016; Furreret al. 2008; Gavetti and Levinthal 2004; MacIn-tosh and MacLean 1999; McKiernan 1996; Teeceet al. 1997). Following a ‘balanced pluralism’ view– such as that advocated by Foss (1996a, p. 4) –paradigms are understood as different ‘theoreticalalternatives’ that use models drawing on differentcore assumptions to examine the same phenomenon.While using paradigms in the ‘Kuhnian’ sense,strategy researchers typically examine the corepremises included in the model problems of differenttheories. These scholars focus mainly on the discus-sion of incommensurability, alternately calling foreclecticism and pluralism (Foss 1996a; Mahoney1993; Schoemaker 1993; Thomas and Pruett 1993),integration (Combe 1999; Durand et al. 2017)and cross-fertilization (Mahoney 1993; McKier-nan 1997; Montgomery 1988; Seth and Thomas1994). Moreover, like organizational inquiry, strat-egy research has traditionally been dominated by

the positivist (functionalist–managerialist) approach(McKelvey 1997, 2003), which sees strategy asrational planning and control (formulated and im-plemented by functional managers). Consequently,previous studies tend to overlook the debate onphilosophical meta-theoretical assumptions (onto-logical, epistemological and methodological) whenaddressing the paradigmatic discussion and typicallyprefer approaches that are considered to be ‘normalscience’, which underestimate the contributions ofcertain less traditional, that is nonpositivist, streamsof research (Carter et al. 2010; Pettigrew et al. 2002).

The concept of paradigms remains influentialin management research (Shepherd and Challenger2013), whereas the paradigmatic discussion is stilla powerful tool (Hassard 2016) to understand thephilosophical foundations of the strategy field. Itidentifies the lack of a single disciplinary matrix(Kuhn 1970) and emphasizes the roots of incommen-surability. Although Kuhn’s (1970) model may bebetter suited to natural sciences and has been harshlycriticized (McKelvey 1999), later paradigmatic de-velopments accept the compatibility between in-commensurability and the simultaneous existence ofseveral paradigms in (preparadigmatic) social fields(Johnson and Duberley 2000). For instance, Burrelland Morgan (1979) abstract the paradigm concept asa set of assumptions related to ontology, epistemol-ogy, human nature and methodology. Using a four-quadrant matrix scheme outlined by two fundamen-tal debates in its axes (the objectivist vs. subjectivistphilosophy of science and the sociology of regulationvs. the sociology of change), these authors suggestthe simultaneous existence of four meta-paradigms insocial fields: functionalist (objective–regulation), in-terpretive (subjective–regulation), radical humanism(subjective–radical change) and radical structuralism(objective–radical change).

Although the framework of Burrell and Morgan(1979) has been ‘critiqued’ (Willmott 1993), it hasalso been ‘defended’ (Jackson and Carter 1991,1993). Many scholars have organized the socialsciences around paradigms following the legacies ofBurrell and Morgan’s (1979) classification (Baronov2016; Blaikie 2007; Blaikie and Priest 2017; Cunliffe2011; Deetz 1996; Gephart 2004; Johnson and Du-berley 2000; Lincoln et al. 2018; Scherer et al. 2015).Consequently, Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) frame-work remains a reference (Cunliffe 2011, p. 649) andconstitutes ‘a good map to navigate the theory plu-ralism of strategy…’ (Scherer 1998, p. 153). How-ever, the methods of philosophically theorizing in

© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and JohnWiley & Sons Ltd.

4 R Rabetino et al.

organization theory have changed since Burrell andMorgan’s (1979) model was first introduced, whichhas eroded the subjectivity–objectivity division andstimulated the legitimation of not only a number ofsynthetic perspectives – such as the structurationtheory and critical realism – but also the postmodernturn (Hassard 2016; Hassard and Cox 2013).

In this advancement, some paradigms have shownconfluence (Lincoln et al. 2018). As a result,the boundaries between some of the traditionalparadigms became conceivable only for analyticalconvenience. Thus, the blurring of boundaries be-tween the interpretive and critical approaches to so-cial inquiry (Prasad and Prasad 2002) resulted inthe critical ethnography and critical hermeneutic po-sitions, among others (Prasad 2005). Moreover, so-called ‘post traditions’ also have strong connectionsto and affinities with critical traditions (Prasad 2005;Willmott 2005), which has led some scholars totreat them as part of the same group (Alvesson andDeetz 2000, 2006). Consequently, the work of Bur-rell and Morgan (1979) has been extended (Gioia andPitre 1990; Morgan and Smircich 1980) and revisited(Cunliffe 2011; Deetz 1996; Hassard and Cox 2013).

This paper adopts a definition that describesparadigms ‘… as universally recognized scientificachievements that provide model problems and so-lutions by referring to a certain methodology andmeta-theoretical assumptions’ (Rasche 2008, p. 35).Accordingly, this study analyses both the meta-theoretical assumptions (ontology, epistemology, hu-man nature and methodology) and Kuhn’s (1970)basic paradigmatic assumptions regarding centralconstructs (e.g. strategy, environment, firm andstrategist) that strategy researchers attach to theirframeworks to determine the model problem and itssolution. In this way, this study takes the followingparadigms as a starting point: positivist, critical re-alist, interpretive, critical theory and postmodernist(Table 1).

Methodology

The present paper follows a multiple-step researchprocess to isolate the main paradigms in strategy re-search. The process starts from a systematic litera-ture review methodology (Tranfield et al. 2003) andincludes multiple steps. The first step follows Kuhn(1970, p. 176), who suggests that ‘scientific com-munities can and should be isolated without priorrecourse to paradigms; the latter can then be dis-

covered by scrutinizing the behaviour of a givencommunity’s members’. Citation patterns were sug-gested as a potential approach to detecting paradigms(Nerur et al. 2008). Thus, a dataset of relevantarticles was identified, and the related bibliomet-ric information was downloaded to conduct a co-citation analysis to recognize these invisible colleges(Vogel 2012) that share ‘formal and informal com-munication networks, including those discovered incorrespondence and in the linkages among citations’(Kuhn 1970, p. 178). Based on the resulting co-citation network, the main theories in strategic man-agement were identified, and basic assumptions ofthese theories were isolated (based on the contentanalysis of key sources). The next step includes ananalysis that groups the main theories into meta-paradigms based on their onto-epistemological as-sumptions.

In this context, the data collection follows a two-step approach. First, the bibliometric information ofthe 2774 articles published in the Strategic Manage-ment Journal (SMJ) since 1980 was first downloaded(available in Elsevier’s Scopus database on 19 August2019). To guarantee plurality, the main keywords inthese articles (Table 2) were used to identify a secondsample of 3330 articles from the journals included inthe Academic Journal Guide 2018 (AJG3, AJG4 andAJG4* journals) by introducing selected keywordsinto Elsevier’s Scopus search engine.

A co-citation analysis was conducted to repre-sent the intellectual structure of the field. Co-citationanalysis has been used to analyse both the entire fieldof strategic management (Nerur et al. 2008; Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro 2004) and different the-ories within the field, such as the resource-based view(Acedo et al. 2006) and the dynamic capabilities ap-proach (Di Stefano et al. 2010; Vogel and Güttel2013). Following Nerur et al. (2008), we chose au-thor co-citation analysis because it best representsthe social construction of the research field (Zupicand Cater 2015). By analysing the number of timesthat a pair of authors are cited together in the samedocument, the method aims to identify not only con-tributors who offer similar ideas but also boundary-spanning scholars (Nerur et al. 2008). Using theVOSviewer software (van Eck et al. 2010), the co-citation analysis is based on the core 750 authors whomeet the threshold of 100 citations. This threshold isthe optimal solution for coping with the trade-off be-tween accuracy and clarity in the resulting picture.

Next, a set of substantive keywords was isolatedto find relevant articles regarding paradigms in the


A (re)view of the philosophical foundations of strategic management 5Ta

ble

1.Pa

radi

gms

inor

gani

zati

onal

inqu

iry

Posi

tivis

tIn

terp

retiv

ePo

stm

oder

nist

Para

digm

Fun

ctio

nali

st,m

oder

nist

,po

sitiv

ist

Cri

tica

lrea

list

Con

stru

ctio

nist

,int

erpr

etiv

e,ph

enom

enol

ogic

alC

riti

calt

heor

yD

econ

stru

ctio

nist

,nih

ilis

t,po

stm

oder

nist

Ont

olog

yR

eali

stC

riti

cal(

dept

h)re

alis

tN

omin

alis

tId

eali

st(t

hedo

min

antn

otth

eon

lyon

e)R

elat

ivis

t/id

eali

st

Rea

lity

An

appr

ehen

dabl

e,si

ngul

ar,r

eala

ndco

ncre

tere

alit

y(C

unli

ffe

2011

;G

epha

rt20

04).

Str

atifi

ed(c

oncr

ete)

real

ity

cons

isti

ngof

intr

ansi

tive

enti

ties

that

exis

tin

depe

nden

tlyof

our

hum

ankn

owle

dge,

‘may

notb

eob

serv

able

and

may

beco

mpr

ehen

ded

diff

eren

tlyby

diff

eren

tpe

ople

(i.e

.tra

nsit

ive)

acco

rdin

gto

the

vary

ing…

conv

enti

ons

depl

oyed

thro

ugh

thei

rhu

man

agen

cy’

(Joh

nson

and

Dub

erle

y20

00,p

.154

).

Loc

alan

dsp

ecifi

c,sy

mbo

lica

lly(e

thno

met

hodo

logy

)or

soci

ally

(her

men

euti

c,et

hnog

raph

y,ph

enom

enol

ogy)

cons

truc

ted

real

itie

s.S

ocia

lrea

lity

isth

epr

oduc

tof

its

inha

bita

nts

(Bla

ikie

2007

,p.1

31).

(Adi

scur

sive

)re

alit

yis

inde

pend

ento

fhu

man

subj

ectiv

ity,

buta

prio

rico

gnit

ive

prin

cipl

essh

ape

real

ity,

and

inte

rest

and

soci

ocul

tura

lfac

tors

infl

uenc

ese

nsor

yex

peri

ence

(Joh

nson

and

Dub

erle

y20

00,p

.117

).O

bser

vati

onal

lang

uage

isno

tth

eory

-neu

tral

and

isce

ntra

lto

the

form

atio

nof

subj

ectiv

ity

(Joh

nson

and

Dub

erle

y20

00,

p.13

3).

Part

icul

arm

eani

ngfu

lver

sion

sof

real

ity

are

cert

ified

and

soci

ally

cons

truc

ted

by‘h

isto

rica

llyan

dso

cial

lyco

ntin

gent

disc

ours

es’

(Joh

nson

and

Dub

erle

y20

00,

p.10

1).

Epi

stem

olog

yPo

sitiv

ist

Neo

-rea

lism

/(in

conc

lusi

ve)

fall

ibil

ism

Con

stru

ctio

nist

Ara

nge

exis

ts(B

laik

ie20

07,p

.18

0),f

rom

cons

truc

tion

ism

(mai

nly)

toco

nven

tion

alis

m,

empi

rici

sman

dra

tion

alis

m.

Rel

atio

nist

Met

hodo

logy

and

met

hodo

logi

cal

appr

oach

es

Ded

uctiv

eR

etro

duct

ion

Inte

rpre

tive

Inte

rpre

tive

Refl

exiv

e

Sur

veys

,obs

erva

tion

s,co

ded

inte

rvie

ws,

case

stud

ies,

focu

sgr

oups

,gr

ound

edth

eory

,act

ion

rese

arch

Obs

erva

tion

alda

ta,

inte

rvie

ws,

case

stud

ies

Obs

erva

tion

alda

ta,

herm

eneu

tics

,int

ervi

ews,

case

stud

ies

Text

uald

ata,

narr

ativ

es,d

isco

urse

anal

ysis

,dec

onst

ruct

ion.

Eth

nogr

aphy

ispo

pula

rw

ith

som

epo

stm

oder

nist

s(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

,p.1

06).

Fouc

ault

’sge

neal

ogy

type

ofan

alys

is.

Kno

wle

dge

Em

piri

cal-

anal

ytic

know

ledg

epr

oduc

tion

.K

now

ledg

eis

acce

pted

orre

ject

edba

sed

onit

sco

rres

pond

ence

wit

hth

efa

cts

(dat

a)se

enin

the

obje

ctiv

ely

mea

sure

dw

orld

(cor

resp

onde

nce

theo

ryof

trut

h)(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

).

Soc

ially

cons

truc

ted

know

ledg

e.D

isco

urse

infl

uenc

esth

eco

mpr

ehen

sion

ofre

alit

y(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

,pp.

152–

53).

‘Aco

rres

pond

ence

theo

ryof

trut

his

ulti

mat

ely

unat

tain

able

’(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

,p.1

75).

Kno

wle

dge

isva

lue-

free

(Sch

erer

etal

.201

5,p.

39);

thro

ugh

soci

alin

tera

ctio

nan

dth

em

edia

tion

ofla

ngua

ge,c

once

pts

and

mea

ning

sm

ustb

ede

rive

dfr

omso

cial

acto

rs’

conc

epts

and

mea

ning

s(B

laik

ie20

07,

p.13

1).

Val

ue-l

aden

know

ledg

e(S

cher

eret

al.2

015,

p.39

),re

sult

ing

from

‘neg

otia

ted

rati

onal

cons

ensu

s’(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

,p.1

48),

‘im

plic

itin

hum

anco

mm

unic

atio

n’(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

,p.1

21).

‘Aco

nsen

sus

theo

ryof

trut

h’(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

,p.

148)

.

Kno

wle

dge

isre

lativ

ean

da

valu

e-la

den

ling

uist

icen

tity

(soc

ially

)co

nstr

ucte

dth

roug

hla

ngua

ge(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

,pp.

95–9

6)an

dop

ento

reco

nstr

ucti

on(B

laik

ie20

07,p

.49)

.

(Con

tinu

ed)


6 R Rabetino et al.

Tabl

e1.

Con

tinu

ed

Posi

tivis

tIn

terp

retiv

ePo

stm

oder

nist

Para

digm

Fun

ctio

nali

st,m

oder

nist

,po

sitiv

ist

Cri

tica

lrea

list

Con

stru

ctio

nist

,int

erpr

etiv

e,ph

enom

enol

ogic

alC

riti

calt

heor

yD

econ

stru

ctio

nist

,nih

ilis

t,po

stm

oder

nist

Hum

anna

ture

Det

erm

inis

tW

eak

volu

ntar

ism

Vol

unta

rist

Vol

unta

rist

Dec

onst

ruct

ioni

stIn

quir

eran

dth

eli

nkbe

twee

nre

sear

cher

(sub

ject

)an

dre

sear

ched

(obj

ect)

Res

earc

her

isan

‘out

side

r’,a

‘det

ache

dob

serv

er’

(Bla

ikie

and

Pri

est2

017,

p.46

).T

here

issu

bjec

t–ob

ject

inde

pend

ence

(Car

tesi

andu

alis

m)

and

obse

rvat

ion,

and

the

crit

eria

for

choo

sing

wha

tto

obse

rve

and

how

toob

serv

eit

are

obje

ctiv

e,va

lue-

free

,th

eory

-neu

tral

and

poli

tica

llyne

utra

l(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

).

Res

earc

her

isa

‘refl

ectiv

epa

rtne

r’,b

oth

‘ins

ider

and

outs

ider

’(B

laik

iean

dP

ries

t201

7,p.

46).

Res

earc

hers

are

‘ins

ider

s’,

‘em

path

etic

obse

rver

s’,

‘fai

thfu

lrep

orte

rs’

(in

the

case

ofcr

itic

aldi

scou

rse

anal

ysis

,thi

sch

arac

teri

stic

may

appl

yin

term

sof

data

butn

otin

term

sof

mea

ning

)an

d‘m

edia

tors

ofla

ngua

ges’

(Bla

ikie

and

Pri

est2

017,

p.46

).

Aco

-con

stru

ctor

ofkn

owle

dge

(Lin

coln

etal

.201

8).T

here

lati

onsh

ips

are

‘nev

erst

able

orfi

xed

and

are

med

iate

dby

the

soci

alre

lati

ons

ofca

pita

list

prod

ucti

onan

dco

nsum

ptio

n’(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

,p.

132)

.

Res

earc

her

isa

‘sit

uate

dsp

eake

r’.R

eade

rsha

veth

eir

own

‘ass

umpt

ions

’(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

,pp.

108–

109)

.The

subj

ecti

sde

cent

red

thou

ghsh

ared

disc

ours

es(J

ohns

onan

dD

uber

ley

2000

,p.1

01).

Phi

loso

phic

al/

soci

olog

ical

root

sC

ompt

e,D

urkh

eim

(pos

itiv

ism

),(e

arly

)W

ittg

enst

ein

(log

ical

posi

tivis

m),

Popp

er(c

riti

calr

atio

nali

sm)

Cri

tica

ldis

cour

sean

alys

is(F

airc

loug

h,W

odak

)Po

stm

oder

nism

(Lyo

tard

,B

audr

illa

rd),

post

stru

ctur

alis

m(D

erri

da,F

ouca

ult)

,(la

te)

Wit

tgen

stei

n,B

ahkt

in

Str

uctu

rati

onth

eory

(Gid

dens

and

Bou

rdie

u),a

ctor

netw

ork

theo

ry(L

atou

r)C

riti

calr

eali

sm(s

truc

tura

lism

ofB

hask

ar,A

rche

r)P

heno

men

olog

y(H

usse

rl),

ethn

omet

hodo

logy

(Gar

fink

el),

soci

alco

nstr

ucti

on(S

chut

z,B

erge

r,L

uckm

an)

Cri

tica

leth

nogr

aphy

and

crit

ical

herm

eneu

tics

(Hab

erm

as,

Ric

oeur

)an

dth

eFr

ankf

urt

scho

ol(M

arcu

se,A

dorn

o,H

orkh

eim

er)

Post

colo

nial

ism

(Sai

d,S

piva

k),

late

Fouc

ault

Sour

ce:

Bas

edon

Bar

onov

(201

6),B

laik

ie(2

007)

,Bla

ikie

and

Pri

est

(201

7),C

unli

ffe

(201

1),H

assa

rdan

dC

ox(2

013)

,Joh

nson

and

Dub

erle

y(2

000)

,Lin

coln

etal

.(20

18),

Pra

sad

(200

5)an

dS

cher

eret

al.(

2015

).



Tabl

e2.

Key

wor

dsus

edin

the

sear

chst

ring

ST

EP

1K

eyw

ords

‘Str

ateg

icP

lann

ing’

,‘C

ompe

titi

on’,

‘Res

ourc

e-ba

sed

Vie

w’,

‘Res

ourc

e-ba

sed

The

ory’

,‘In

dust

rial

Org

aniz

atio

n’,‘

Com

peti

tive

Adv

anta

ge’,

‘Str

ateg

icM

anag

emen

t’,‘

Cor

pora

teG

over

nanc

e’,‘

Str

ateg

y’,‘

Str

ateg

icA

llia

nces

’,‘C

orpo

rate

Str

ateg

y’,‘

Dyn

amic

Cap

abil

itie

s’,‘

Str

ateg

icG

roup

s’,‘

Firm

Str

ateg

y’,‘

Str

ateg

icC

hang

e’,‘

Com

peti

tive

Dyn

amic

s’,‘

Bus

ines

sM

odel

’,‘A

bsor

ptiv

eC

apac

ity’

,‘C

ompe

titiv

eIn

tell

igen

ce’,

‘Upp

erE

chel

ons’

,‘S

trat

egic

Dec

isio

nM

akin

g’,‘

Firm

Cap

abil

itie

s’,‘

Org

aniz

atio

nalC

apab

ilit

ies’

,‘S

trat

egic

Dec

isio

ns’,

‘Com

peti

tive

Str

ateg

y’,‘

Cor

pora

teS

trat

egie

s’,‘

Str

ateg

icA

llia

nce’

,‘In

tern

atio

nalS

trat

egy’

,‘S

trat

egy

Impl

emen

tati

on’,

‘Str

ateg

yP

roce

ss’,

‘Str

ateg

yR

esea

rch’

,‘R

esou

rce-

base

dV

iew

ofth

eFi

rm’,

‘Str

ateg

yFo

rmul

atio

n’,‘

Str

ateg

yFo

rmat

ion’

,‘B

usin

ess

Str

ateg

ies’

,‘K

now

ledg

e-ba

sed

The

ory’

,‘S

trat

egy-

as-p

ract

ice’

,‘S

trat

egy

asP

ract

ice’

ST

EP

2K

eyw

ords

Pri

mar

yS

uppl

emen

tary

‘nor

mal

scie

nce’

,‘sc

ient

ific

revo

luti

on’,

‘inc

omm

ensu

rab *

’,‘p

hilo

soph

yof

scie

nce’

,‘p

hilo

soph

ical

’,‘e

pist

emol

ogy *

’,‘o

ntol

og*’

,‘sc

hool

sof

thou

ght’

,‘st

rate

gypa

radi

gms’

,‘pa

radi

gms

inst

rate

gic

man

agem

ent’

,‘pa

radi

gms

inst

rate

gy’,

‘par

adig

m(s

)’

‘str

ateg

icbe

havi

o *’,

‘str

ateg

icm

anag

emen

t’,‘

stra

tegi

cm

anag

emen

tres

earc

h’,‘

busi

ness

poli

cy’,

‘str

ateg

yre

sear

ch’,

‘str

ateg

icth

inki

ng’


8 R Rabetino et al.

strategic management field (Table 2). We searchedfor (published and in-press) articles from AJG3,AJG4 and AJG4* journals by entering selected key-words in the search engine of Elsevier’s Scopus. Toavoid obtaining unrelated articles, we required itemsto contain a minimum of one of the selected primarykeywords in its title, keywords or abstract. To ensurethe articles’ substantive relevance, we also requiredthat each article include a minimum of one of theselected supplementary words in their text (Newbert2007).

The first round of searching returned 1625 hits.Next, articles from unranked or low-ranked journals(AJG1 and AJG2) were excluded. After scanningfor relevance by reviewing the abstracts, 230 articleswere preselected. The selection criteria included ar-ticles that (1) explain the historical evolution of thestrategic management field, (2) discuss or bridge dif-ferent schools or paradigms in the field, (3) discusscontributions from another field to strategic manage-ment or (4) focus on the research agenda at variousmoments in time. Other major databases were used toidentify missing articles, such as ABI Inform Com-plete, Ebsco, Emerald, Sage Journals, Springer andTaylor & Francis Online. After adding 70 new items,the final sample comprised 300 AJG3, AJG4 andAJG4* articles. AJG1 and AJG2 journals, books andbook chapters were excluded from the search. Never-theless, some articles from low-ranked or unrankedjournals and several books were considered becausethey explicitly discuss the foundations of the strat-egy field (e.g. Kay et al. 2003; Pettigrew et al. 2002;Rumelt et al. 1994; Whittington 2010).

Paradigms in strategic management

Business strategy emerged as a research arena in the1960s (Rumelt et al. 1994). Andrews (1971), Ansoff(1965) and Chandler (1962) are considered to be thefounding fathers of the strategy field (Furrer et al.2008). Their classic models are jointly referred to asthe ‘business policy and planning’ research and rep-resent the origins of the so-called design and plan-ning strategy schools. In the 1960s, strategy researchwas normative, and generalizations emerged fromcase studies and were translated into practice due tothe intervention of large consulting firms (Ghemawat2002; Rumelt et al. 1994). The 1970s witnessedthe slow takeover of the field by research rootedin organization theory, sociology and political sci-ence, which was conceptually based on various the-

ories such as population ecology (Hannan and Free-man 1977), contingency theory (Burns and Stalker1961; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967) and resource de-pendence theory (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Newinsights into organizational economics also enteredthe strategy discussion. In particular, transaction costeconomics (Williamson 1975) and agency theory(Fama and Jensen 1983; Jensen and Meckling 1976)influenced the development of strategy inquiry. The‘brewing’ studies (Hatten and Schendel 1977; Hattenet al. 1978) linked organizational resource choicesand firm performance by emphasizing the impor-tance of firm heterogeneity and conduct and the rel-evance of environmental factors. Moreover, schol-ars from Harvard’s Economics Department (Cavesand Porter 1977; Hunt 1972) who were linked tothe IO tradition reinterpreted the structure–conduct–performance (SCP) paradigm of Bain (1951, 1956)and Mason (1939).

Influenced by IO research, the positioning ap-proach (Buzzle et al. 1975; Gale and Branch1982; Henderson 1970) – particularly Porter’s (1980)framework – became dominant in the 1980s and early1990s (Prahalad and Hamel 1994, p. 15). Firm per-formance was assumed to rest on a firm’s capacity tocreate and sustain a competitive advantage with re-spect to its competitors in the same industry or, thatis, on how well the firm positions and differentiatesitself in the industry (Hoskisson et al. 1999, p. 426).The resource-based view (RBV) (Barney 1991; Pe-teraf 1993; Wernerfelt 1984), which emerged in thelate 1980s, implied a refocus on the firm (Hoskissonet al. 1999, p. 241). The RBV argues that a firm’sunique resources and capabilities explicate the pos-session of a competitive and sustainable advantageover competitors (Barney 1991). Additionally, draw-ing on Polanyi’s (1962, 1967) distinction between ex-plicit and tacit knowledge, the knowledge-based view(KBV) brought other discussions to the field, includ-ing ideas such as organizational learning, knowledgecreation and knowledge management (Cohen andLevinthal 1990; Grant 1996; Kogut and Zander 1992;Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Finally, the dynamic ca-pability view (DCV) (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000;Helfat et al. 2007; Teece et al. 1997) incorporated thecontributions of the ‘Kirznerian, Schumpeterian, andevolutionary theories of economic change’ (Teece2007, p. 1325).

Strategy scholars typically differentiate betweenthe research on the strategy content and the researchon the strategy process; the former focuses on link-ing decisions and structures to outcomes, and the



latter focuses on activities that drive and sustain thestrategy (Huff and Reger 1987). After its initial dom-inance in the 1960s, the strategy process researchdeveloped in the shadow of the above-describedeconomics-based strategy content research. From thelate 1970s to the early 1990s, strategy process re-search was dominated by simple and holistic (Bower1970; Galbraith 1977; Miles and Snow 1978; Vande Ven et al. 1989) studies grounded in contingencytheory and the concept of ‘fit’ (Chakravarthy andDoz 1992, p. 8). These empirical studies integrate abody of research that gained momentum (Donaldson1987; Fredrickson 1986; Hinings and Greenwood1988; Miller 1986, 1987; Miller and Friesen 1984;Mintzberg 1979; Tushman and Romanelli 1985) andpersisted even later (Amburgey and Dacin 1994;Miller 1996; Short et al. 2008). In addition, a groupof cognition scholars (Walsh 1995) built on the worksof the Carnegie tradition (Cyert and March 1963) andapplied ‘cognitive and social psychology to strategicmanagement theory and practice’ in what Powellet al. (2011) call the ‘behavioral strategy’ school.Cognitive theories focus on ‘knowledge structures,memory, attention, attribution, and problem solving’(Huff et al. 2000, p. 29).

The late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed a reduc-tion in the traditional process research on strategicplanning (Whittington and Cailluet 2008), whereas agroup of scholars (Burgelman 1991; Chaffee 1985;Mintzberg 1994; Pettigrew 1992; Quinn 1989; Vande Ven 1992) introduced new ‘perspectives based onpolitics, sociology and organization theory’ (Booth1998, p. 257). This evolution involved a departurefrom the prescriptive planning and design schoolsand a conceptual migration toward a greater recogni-tion of the role of context, values, culture and politicsin strategic thinking (Ezzamel and Willmott 2004, p.44). Introduced in the 1970s, the role of the emergentapproach was particularly relevant, whereas a setof publications by Johnson (1987), Pettigrew (1985,1992, 1997) and Van de Ven (Van de Ven 1992; Vande Ven et al. 1989) can also be viewed as the seeds ofa fresh approach within the strategy process tradition.Thus, European academics noted the need to move‘beyond economics towards sociology’ with a plural-ist ‘post-Mintzberian’ agenda (also see Jarzabkowskiand Whittington 2008; Vaara and Whittington 2012).Thus, the strategy-as-practice (s-as-p) strand of re-search became the most recent approach to extendthe traditional strategy process views.

The largest part of the above consummated strat-egy content and process research has its origins in

informal collegial networks (Crane 1972) that facil-itate the organization and intellectual advancementof a scholarly domain (Vogel 2012). Through so-cial processes, the members of a scientific commu-nity contribute to building and legitimating the fieldof knowledge (Hambrick and Chen 2008; Whitley1984a). Scholarly communities, their key membersand their theoretical underpinnings and behaviourmust be identified before isolating paradigms (Kuhn1970).

Structuring strategic management research

Based on the author co-citation analysis, this paperbroadly overviews the intellectual structure of thefield after 50 years of evolution to isolate differentscholarly communities in strategy research. The co-citation network exposes four scholarly communities(Figure 1). At the top is (1) the literature on topmanagement teams and corporate governance (e.g.Hambrick, Hitt, Zajac). At the bottom is the researchon (2) the strategy process and strategic decision-making (right-hand side, e.g. Eisenhardt, Miller,Mintzberg), (3) competitive strategy and competi-tive advantage (middle, e.g. Barney, Porter, Teece)and (4) international business and strategic alliances(left-hand side, e.g. Gulati, Kogut, Singh). Commu-nities 1 and 4 focus on corporate strategy, commu-nity 2 focuses on competitive strategy and commu-nity 3 brings together studies with these two focuses(Feldman 2020). Although these communities in-volve diverse research streams, the network showingthe communities was selected for the sake of clarity.These communities are separated by structural holesbut bridged by ‘boundary-spanning’ (Nerur et al.2008) members (e.g. Barney, Eisenhardt, Hambrick,Hitt, Kogut, March, Pffefer, Williamson).

Theories and their basic assumptions

In accordance with the historical evolution of thestrategy domain, an analysis of the intellectual struc-ture of the strategy field reveals the multidisciplinaryroots of the strategic management field. Numeroustheories have been used, many of which were bornwithin the strategic management field, while othertheories were borrowed from other disciplines (Ken-worthy and Verbeke 2015). Although a co-citationanalysis reveals the use of a large number of theories,not all have the same degree of popularity (see TableA1 in the Appendix for a comprehensive list). Ken-worthy and Verbeke (2015, p. 181) recently identified


10 R Rabetino et al.

Figure 1. The intellectual structure of the strategy field [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

194 theories in strategic management but found that‘only ten theories were tested more than ten times’.

As shown in Table 3, some theories are more pop-ular and are used by different communities. The co-citation network yields evidence of two types of the-ories (for more details on the interpretation of theco-citation network, see Table A1 in the Appendix).First, ‘exogenous theoretical influences’ (Nerur et al.2008) from organization economics are commonlyused as conceptual apparatuses to build frameworksand to test particular hypotheses (e.g. agency theory,transaction cost economics, population ecology, in-stitutional theory and resource dependence theory).Second, endogenous theories were developed withinthe strategic management field, such as the SCPframework (IO), RBV, KBV, DCV, the competitivedynamics approach and the strategy process streamof research.

The above-listed theories coincide with the theo-ries pointed out by previous review studies as the

most relevant in strategic management (Furrer et al.2008; Kenworthy and Verbeke 2015; Nerur et al.2008; Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro 2004).However, understanding the manner in which re-searchers construct the ‘world of strategy’ based onthe different assumptions that they attach to theirstrategic realities (Rasche 2008, p. 3) is a neces-sary step in the identification of paradigms. Accord-ingly, Table 3 summarizes the basic assumptions in-cluded in the ‘Kuhnian’ model problem of the above-identified approaches to strategy (Tables A2 and A3in the Appendix offer an in-depth look at the basic as-sumptions that underlie the endogenous approaches).

Meta-paradigms and their assumptions

Until the publication of the foundational studies byAnsoff (1965), Chandler (1962) and Learned et al.(1965), strategy was characterized by pragmatic real-ism over abstraction, and normative generalizations



Tabl

e3.

Mai

nap

proa

ches

inst

rate

gic

man

agem

entr

esea

rch

Bas

icas

sum

ptio

ns

Type

ofap

proa

chC

once

ptua

lap

proa

ch

Exa

mpl

esof

auth

ors

appl

ying

the

appr

oach

indi

ffer

entc

lust

ers

ofth

eco

-cit

atio

nne

twor

k

Wha

tthe

prob

lem

mod

elis

desi

gned

toun

ders

tand

The

unit

ofan

alys

isT

hefi

rmH

uman

beha

viou

r/th

est

rate

gist

The

cont

ext/

envi

ronm

ent

Exo

geno

usap

proa

ches

Beh

avio

ural

theo

ryof

the

firm

Clu

ster

2:C

yert

,Mar

ch,S

imon

The

soci

opol

itic

alre

quir

emen

tsfo

rco

llec

tive

outp

uts

The

orga

niza

tion

Coa

liti

onof

dive

rse

inte

rest

san

dgo

als

Sel

f-in

tere

st,r

isk

aver

se,b

ound

edra

tion

alit

y,sa

tisfi

cing

Wea

kde

term

inis

m*,

exce

eds

hum

anco

mpr

ehen

sion

Sen

sem

akin

gan

dco

gnit

ive

sche

ma

Clu

ster

2:W

eick

,Gio

ia,H

uff,

Reg

er,D

utto

n,C

hitt

iped

di,

Lan

t

How

doin

divi

dual

san

dgr

oups

reco

gniz

ean

din

terp

rets

tim

uli

and

gene

rate

inte

rpre

tati

ons?

(p.

21)

Soc

ialp

roce

sses

Net

ofac

tivit

ies

Sub

ject

ive,

soci

ally

cons

truc

ted

men

tal

mod

els

Ena

cted

,soc

ial

sett

ing,

sour

ceof

phys

ical

stim

uli(

p.21

)

Con

ting

ency

theo

ryC

lust

er2:

Cha

ndle

r,B

urns

,S

talk

er,L

awre

nce,

Lor

sch,

Tho

mps

on,G

albr

aith

,Per

row

,M

iles

,Sno

w,B

ower

Clu

ster

4:K

otab

e,Jo

shi,

Mur

ray

How

orga

niza

tion

alsu

cces

sis

obta

ined

bym

axim

izin

gth

eco

ngru

ence

betw

een

ase

tof

(con

ting

ent)

stru

ctur

alfa

ctor

s(e

.g.o

rgan

izat

iona

lsi

ze,t

echn

olog

y)to

conf

orm

toen

viro

nmen

tal

dem

ands

The

orga

niza

tion

(aco

llec

tive

enti

ty)

purs

uing

afi

tbe

twee

nit

sst

ruct

ure

and

the

envi

ronm

ent

Top-

dow

nco

ntin

gent

desi

gn(a

coll

ectiv

een

tity

)

Dep

erso

nali

zati

on@

,ra

tion

alit

yO

bjec

tive,

com

plex

,de

term

inis

m

Res

ourc

ede

pend

ence

theo

ry

Clu

ster

2:P

feff

er,S

alan

cik,

Clu

ster

1:H

illm

an,C

anne

lla,

Dai

ly,D

alto

n,E

llst

rand

Clu

ster

4:H

arri

gan,

Hei

de,

Inkp

en,B

eam

ish,

Gho

badi

an

How

toco

ordi

nate

the

reso

urce

allo

cati

onan

dpr

otec

tthe

orga

niza

tion

from

the

stak

ehol

ders

(tas

ken

viro

nmen

t)th

atco

ntro

lthe

reso

urce

sth

atar

ecr

itic

alfo

rth

eor

gani

zati

on’s

surv

ival

Inte

rdep

ende

nce

amon

gan

dex

chan

ges

betw

een

orga

niza

tion

s(a

ndta

ctic

sto

redu

cede

pend

enci

esan

dun

cert

aint

y)?

Coa

liti

onof

pow

erho

lder

sS

ubje

ctiv

e,m

enta

lm

odel

s‘d

eter

min

edby

the

foca

lor

gani

zati

onw

ithi

nw

hich

man

ager

sop

erat

e’(p

.219

)++

Wea

kde

term

inis

m,

notg

iven

real

ity

(per

ceiv

eden

viro

nmen

t)*,+

+

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Bas

icas

sum

ptio

ns

Type

ofap

proa

chC

once

ptua

lap

proa

ch

Exa

mpl

esof

auth

ors

appl

ying

the

appr

oach

indi

ffer

entc

lust

ers

ofth

eco

-cit

atio

nne

twor

k

Wha

tthe

prob

lem

mod

elis

desi

gned

toun

ders

tand

The

unit

ofan

alys

isT

hefi

rmH

uman

beha

viou

r/th

est

rate

gist

The

cont

ext/

envi

ronm

ent

(Neo

)ins

titu

tion

alth

eory

Clu

ster

2:S

udda

by,H

inin

gs,

Gre

enw

ood

Clu

ster

3:D

iMag

gio,

Row

an,

Mey

er,S

cott

,Tol

bert

,Dob

bin,

Goo

dste

in,L

ouns

bury

Clu

ster

4:K

osto

va,Z

ahee

r,Pe

ng,

Rot

h,D

acin

How

orga

niza

tion

sar

esh

aped

and

adap

ted

inre

spon

seto

inst

itut

ions

(see

king

soci

alle

giti

mac

y)an

dho

win

stit

utio

nsad

apto

ver

tim

e ***

Inst

itut

ions

asa

sour

ceof

‘iso

mor

phic

’be

havi

our

Ara

tion

aliz

edsy

stem

Nor

mat

ive

rati

onal

ity

Det

erm

inis

m

Popu

lati

onec

olog

yC

lust

er2:

Ald

rich

Clu

ster

3:H

anna

n,Fr

eem

an,

Car

roll

,Bar

nett

Dem

ogra

phic

,ec

olog

ical

and

envi

ronm

enta

lpr

oces

ses

for

part

icul

aror

gani

zati

onal

popu

lati

ons+

+

Org

aniz

atio

nal

popu

lati

ons

An

‘ine

rtia

l’ac

tor

(str

uctu

rali

nert

ia)

Low

purp

osiv

eac

tion

,of

ten

self

-int

eres

t++

Obj

ectiv

e,de

term

inis

m,

Dar

win

ist

(sel

ecti

on)

Tra

nsac

tion

cost

sec

onom

ics

Clu

ster

3:W

illi

amso

nC

lust

er1:

Wie

rsem

aC

lust

er4:

Rug

man

,Hen

nart

,B

arke

ma,

Teng

,Das

,Dye

r,G

omez

-Cas

eres

,Bea

mis

h,B

uckl

ey

Cho

ice

betw

een

mar

kets

and

hier

arch

ies

Firm

-lev

eldy

adic

tran

sact

ions

Ago

vern

ance

stru

ctur

e(h

iera

rchy

)##

Opp

ortu

nism

,bo

unde

dra

tion

alit

y##an

dri

skne

utra

lity

Obj

ectiv

e,gi

ven,

one-

for-

all,

unce

rtai

n,co

mpl

ex

Age

ncy

theo

ryC

lust

er1:

Gom

es-M

ejia

,L

ubat

kin,

Can

nell

a,H

ill,

Shl

eife

r,V

ishn

y,C

erto

,D

alto

n,E

llst

rand

,Fam

a,D

emse

tz,J

ense

n,M

eckl

ing

Clu

ster

4:G

ulat

i,S

ingh

,Reu

er,

Mil

ler

How

tow

rite

effi

cien

tco

ntra

cts

that

cont

ain

the

righ

tin

cent

ives

and

cont

rol

mec

hani

sms

toal

loca

tede

cisi

onri

ghts

,red

uce

info

rmat

ion

asym

met

ries

and

forc

eag

ents

toac

tin

the

prin

cipa

l’sbe

stin

tere

st

Con

trac

tbet

wee

npr

inci

pal

(sha

reho

lder

/boa

rd)

and

agen

t(m

anag

er)+

.Par

tial

goal

confl

ict?

Ane

xus

ofco

ntra

cts

(sep

arat

ion

ofow

ners

hip

and

cont

rol)

Bou

nded

rati

onal

ity,

self

-int

eres

t,ri

skav

ersi

on+

Unc

erta

in,

asym

met

rica

lin

form

atio

n(i

nfor

mat

ion

asa

purc

hasa

ble

com

mod

ity)

?

(Con

tinu

ed)


A (re)view of the philosophical foundations of strategic management 13Ta

ble

3.C

onti

nued

Bas

icas

sum

ptio

ns

Type

ofap

proa

chC

once

ptua

lap

proa

ch

Exa

mpl

esof

auth

ors

appl

ying

the

appr

oach

indi

ffer

entc

lust

ers

ofth

eco

-cit

atio

nne

twor

k

Wha

tthe

prob

lem

mod

elis

desi

gned

toun

ders

tand

The

unit

ofan

alys

isT

hefi

rmH

uman

beha

viou

r/th

est

rate

gist

The

cont

ext/

envi

ronm

ent

End

ogen

ous

appr

oach

esB

usin

ess

poli

cyan

dpl

anni

ng(d

elib

erat

est

rate

gypr

oces

s)

Clu

ster

2:A

nsof

f,A

ndre

ws

‘How

plan

ning

prac

tice

sar

esu

ppos

edto

arra

nge

the

func

tion

sof

anor

gani

zati

onto

achi

eve

long

-ter

mgo

als’

(p.4

0)*

The

orga

niza

tion

Aco

llec

tion

offu

ncti

ons

Inte

nded

rati

onal

ity

Obj

ectiv

e,gi

ven,

one-

for-

all,

dete

rmin

ism

Str

ateg

ypr

oces

s(e

mer

gent

,pr

oces

sual

)

Clu

ster

2:M

intz

berg

,Qui

nn,

Bur

gelm

an,F

loyd

,Woo

ldri

ge,

Pett

igre

w

How

stra

tegy

crea

tion

take

sth

efo

rmof

ale

arni

ng/p

olit

ical

proc

ess

over

tim

e

Pro

cess

esof

stra

tegy

form

atio

nA

syst

emsh

aped

byco

ntex

t,va

lues

,cu

ltur

ean

dpo

liti

cs

Bou

nded

rati

onal

ity

(em

erge

nt)

Wea

kde

term

inis

m,

eith

erob

ject

ive

(em

erge

nt)

orno

tgi

ven

(pro

cess

ual)

Str

ateg

yas

prac

tice

Clu

ster

2:Jo

hnso

n,W

hitt

ingt

on,

Jarz

abko

wsk

i,L

angl

ey,V

aara

,B

alog

un,R

oule

au,S

eidl

,S

amra

-Fre

deri

cks

How

orga

niza

tion

spr

acti

cest

rate

gyas

anin

terp

lay

betw

een

mic

roan

dm

acro

,doi

ngs

and

sayi

ngs

Mic

ro-l

evel

prac

tice

san

dth

est

rate

gizi

ngw

ork

Net

ofm

icro

prac

tice

san

ddi

scou

rses

Sub

ject

ive,

soci

ally

cons

truc

ted

Mic

ro–m

acro

inte

ract

ion

Posi

tion

ing

appr

oach

Clu

ster

3:Po

rter

,Bai

n,C

aves

,S

cher

er,M

cGah

anC

ompe

titiv

ead

vant

age

(Cha

mbe

rlai

nre

nts)

byan

alys

ing

the

indu

stry

stru

ctur

ean

dpo

tent

ialg

ener

icst

rate

gies

*

Indu

stri

alst

ruct

ure

(tha

tdic

tate

sth

ede

libe

rate

stra

tegy

-gen

eric

posi

tion

s),

firm

and

prod

ucts

#

Bla

ckbo

xm

etap

hor##

Rat

iona

lity

,co

nsci

ous,

profi

tmax

imiz

er

Obj

ectiv

e,ce

rtai

n,gi

ven,

effi

cien

tm

arke

ts(e

quil

ibri

um),

mod

erat

ede

term

inis

m*

Com

peti

tive

dyna

mic

sC

lust

er3:

Che

n,G

rim

n,S

mit

hT

heti

min

gof

com

peti

tive

mov

esba

sed

onth

edi

ffus

ion

ofin

form

atio

n

Act

ions

(att

acks

)an

dre

spon

ses

(cou

nter

atta

cks)

An

act-

resp

onse

gam

epl

ayer

who

cond

ucts

info

rmat

ion

proc

essi

ng

Rat

iona

lity

Info

rmat

ion

rich

,O

bjec

tive

Res

ourc

e-ba

sed

view

aC

lust

er3:

Wer

nerf

elt,

Bar

ney,

Pete

raf,

Mah

oney

,Pen

rose

Clu

ster

4:D

assa

uge,

Cap

ron,

Bir

kins

haw

,Pen

g,D

as,T

eng

Com

peti

tive

adva

ntag

e(R

icar

dian

quas

i-re

nts)

obta

ined

byan

alys

ing

afi

rm’s

reso

urce

san

dco

mpe

tenc

es*

Bun

dles

ofre

sour

ces

and

capa

bili

ties

(in

part

icul

arV

RIN

/O)

Ase

tof

reso

urce

san

dca

pabi

liti

esIm

perf

ect(

boun

ded)

rati

onal

ity

(and

unce

rtai

nty)

Obj

ectiv

e,m

oder

ate

dete

rmin

ism

*,ef

fici

enta

ndw

ell-

defi

ned

mar

kets

(equ

ilib

rium

)bu

tno

tful

lytr

ansp

aren

t###

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Bas

icas

sum

ptio

ns

Type

ofap

proa

chC

once

ptua

lap

proa

ch

Exa

mpl

esof

auth

ors

appl

ying

the

appr

oach

indi

ffer

entc

lust

ers

ofth

eco

-cit

atio

nne

twor

k

Wha

tthe

prob

lem

mod

elis

desi

gned

toun

ders

tand

The

unit

ofan

alys

isT

hefi

rmH

uman

beha

viou

r/th

est

rate

gist

The

cont

ext/

envi

ronm

ent

Kno

wle

dge-

base

dvi

ewb

Clu

ster

2:S

pend

er,S

chön

,A

rgyr

is,D

ugui

d,B

row

n,N

onak

a,Ta

keuc

hiC

lust

er3:

Gra

nt,N

onak

a,Z

ande

r,C

ohen

,Lev

inth

al,

Arg

ote,

Lev

itt,

Szu

lans

ki,

Epp

le,R

osen

kopf

Clu

ster

1:L

ubat

kin

Clu

ster

4:K

ogut

,Kal

e,S

ingh

,B

arke

ma,

Del

ios,

Park

he,

Mak

ino,

Cha

ng,I

nkpe

n,B

eam

ish,

Lyle

s,K

hann

a,M

udam

bi,S

han

Com

peti

tive

adva

ntag

e(R

icar

dian

rent

s)ob

tain

edby

anal

ysin

gho

wfi

rms

can

appl

y,in

tegr

ate

and

prot

ectk

now

ledg

e

Kno

wle

dge

(in

part

icul

arta

cit)

and

the

proc

ess

ofkn

owle

dge

crea

tion

inor

gani

zati

ons

orre

leva

ntun

its

(in

the

past

,in

divi

dual

s)an

din

netw

orks

and

com

mun

itie

sof

prac

tice

Aco

gnit

ive

syst

emB

ound

edra

tion

alit

yM

oder

ate

dete

rmin

ism

,ef

fici

enta

ndw

ell-

defi

ned

(equ

ilib

rium

)m

arke

ts##

#

Org

aniz

atio

nal

lear

ning

The

role

ofex

peri

ence

asan

enab

ler

ofch

ange

sin

the

orga

niza

tion

’skn

owle

dge,

whi

chm

ay‘m

anif

esti

tsel

fin

chan

ges

inbe

lief

s/co

gnit

ion,

rout

ines

,or

acti

ons/

beha

vior

’+++

Are

posi

tory

ofkn

owle

dge

Bou

nded

rati

onal

ity

Mod

erat

ede

term

inis

m

Dyn

amic

capa

bili

ties

Clu

ster

3:Te

ece,

Pis

ano,

Shu

en,

Hel

fat,

Mit

chel

lC

lust

er4:

Gul

ati,

Kal

e,S

ingh

Com

peti

tive

adva

ntag

e(S

chum

pete

rian

rent

s)ob

tain

edby

anal

ysin

gho

wfi

rms

can

deve

lop

the

reso

urce

/cap

abil

ity

base

whi

lem

atch

ing

itto

(fas

t)ch

angi

ng(d

ynam

ic)

envi

ronm

enta

lco

ndit

ions

Pro

cess

,pos

itio

ns,

path

s#d

Ada

ptiv

een

tity

Rat

iona

lity

#E

ndog

enou

sin

dust

rial

stru

ctur

e,fi

rms

have

alo

wca

paci

tyfo

r‘s

hort

-run

’st

rate

gic

reor

ient

atio

n#

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Bas

icas

sum

ptio

ns

Type

ofap

proa

chC

once

ptua

lap

proa

ch

Exa

mpl

esof

auth

ors

appl

ying

the

appr

oach

indi

ffer

entc

lust

ers

ofth

eco

-cit

atio

nne

twor

k

Wha

tthe

prob

lem

mod

elis

desi

gned

toun

ders

tand

The

unit

ofan

alys

isT

hefi

rmH

uman

beha

viou

r/th

est

rate

gist

The

cont

ext/

envi

ronm

ent

Upp

erec

helo

nsth

eory

Clu

ster

1:H

ambr

ick,

Mas

on,

Fink

elst

ein,

Car

pent

erT

hein

flue

nce

ofth

epe

rson

ally

bias

edin

terp

reta

tion

and

char

acte

rist

ics

ofth

eup

per

eche

lons

onth

est

rate

gic

beha

viou

ran

dpe

rfor

man

ceof

the

firm

s

Top

man

agem

ent

team

san

dth

eir

char

acte

rist

ics

Refl

ecti

ons

ofth

eir

top

exec

utiv

esB

ound

edra

tion

alit

yW

eak

dete

rmin

ism

,ex

ceed

shu

man

com

preh

ensi

on

Evo

luti

onar

yth

e-or

y/Te

chno

logi

cal

chan

ge

Clu

ster

3:N

elso

n,W

inte

r,S

chum

pete

r,D

osi,

Utt

erba

k,H

ende

rson

,Tus

hman

,R

osen

bloo

m,A

bern

athy

,C

lark

,Lan

gois

The

dyna

mic

proc

ess

byw

hich

firm

beha

viou

ran

dm

arke

tout

com

es(a

ndS

chum

pete

rian

rent

s)ar

ejo

intly

dete

rmin

ed

Rou

tine

sA

sour

ceof

(rou

tini

zed)

know

ledg

e,in

clud

ing

the

capa

city

toch

ange

rout

ines

Opt

imiz

ers,

cw

eak

rati

onal

ity##

,le

arni

ngca

pabi

liti

es

Sel

ectiv

e,co

dete

rmin

ed,

one-

for-

all*

Sour

ce:

The

orie

san

dau

thor

sid

enti

fied

base

don

the

co-c

itat

ion

netw

ork.

Con

cept

ual

inpu

tsco

me

mai

nly

from

anad

apta

tion

ofth

eta

bles

deve

lope

dby

Huf

fet

al.

(200

0,pp

.6–

21)

and

draw

onM

occi

aro

Li

Des

tri

and

Dag

nino

(200

5)##

#,E

isen

hard

t(1

989)

+ ,Ja

ffe

(200

1)++

,Joh

nson

etal

.(20

07)*

*,R

asch

e(2

008)

*,A

rgot

e(2

011)

+++ ,

Set

han

dT

hom

as(1

994)

##,S

cott

(198

7)**

*,D

onal

dson

(199

9)@

and

Teec

eet

al.(

1997

)#,H

eet

al.(

2020

)? .aG

avet

tian

dL

evin

thal

(200

4,p.

1311

)di

stin

guis

hbe

twee

nth

e‘h

igh-

chur

ch’

(e.g

.B

arne

y19

86)

and

‘low

-chu

rch’

(e.g

.D

ieri

ckx

and

Coo

l19

89)

vari

ants

ofth

eR

BV.

The

‘hig

h-ch

urch

’gr

oup

mai

ntai

nsth

ene

ocla

ssic

al‘p

ostu

late

sof

rati

onal

choi

cean

dm

arke

teq

uili

briu

m’,

whe

reas

the

‘low

-chu

rch’

grou

pre

ject

sth

ese

supp

osit

ions

and

intr

oduc

esin

sigh

tsfr

omth

ebe

havi

oura

lpe

rspe

ctiv

e.Fo

ra

rece

ntde

tail

eddi

scus

sion

onth

eev

olut

ion

ofth

eba

sic

assu

mpt

ion

ofth

eR

BV,

refe

rto

Foss

and

Hal

lber

g(2

017)

.b

The

list

edba

sic

assu

mpt

ions

hold

only

for

the

stat

icve

rsio

nof

the

KB

V.cO

ver

the

year

s,th

efo

cus

ofth

eth

eory

was

scal

edup

toa

syst

em-l

evel

focu

sfo

rap

plic

atio

nat

diff

eren

tlev

els

ofan

alys

is(T

eece

2020

).d

Nel

son

and

Win

ter

(19

82)

assu

me

that

‘eco

nom

icac

tors

are

rati

onal

’(H

uff

etal

.200

0,p.

29);

how

ever

,lat

erde

velo

pmen

tsin

trod

uced

boun

ded

rati

onal

ity.



Figure 2. Onto-epistemological positions in strategy research [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

were proposed based on the case studies of organiza-tional success. Although ‘[in] the 1960s, there was amore coherent and widely accepted set of premises,assumptions, instruments, and techniques that werewell known as the business policy framework’(Scherer 1998, p. 148), the strategy field was ‘strivingfor status’ ‘until about 1980’ (Hambrick and Chen2008, p. 38). Certainly, there are conceptual differ-ences in the three foundational works. Ansoff andAndrews were influenced by Chandler’s strategy–structure model (Harris and Ruefli 2000) and fo-cused on the development of tools and best prac-tices through the application of an inductive researchmethodology (essentially, case studies), and the workof Chandler and Ansoff was ‘notable for its ratio-nalism and driving economic determinism’ (Whipp1999, p. 11). Indeed, Chandler’s (1962) empiricistand positivistic approach (Amitabh and Gupta 2010)was designated the cornerstone of Cartesian philoso-phy in the field of strategy (Clegg et al. 2004, p. 22).

After a shift towards a more rigorous conceptu-alization of science in the 1970s, which includedtheory borrowing from organization theory, sociol-ogy, political science and organizational economics,strategic management became accepted as a scien-tific field in the early 1980s. Donaldson (1995, p.

23) acknowledges the paradigmatic differences be-tween organizational economics and organizationalsociology (in terms of their core theoretical storiesand propositions, language and methods). Regard-less, the move towards a new research style involveddeductive (rather than inductive) methods for test-ing hypotheses, large databases, multivariate statis-tical methods, econometric analysis and the predom-inance of Popper’s falsification philosophy (Rumeltet al. 1991, p. 8), which currently dominates the field(Foss and Hallberg 2017).

Considering a paradigm to be a complete view ofreality (Morgan 1980), the analysis moves from theo-ries (and their basic assumptions) to paradigms basedon meta-theoretical assumptions (ontology, episte-mology, human nature and methodology). The anal-yses confirm the dominance of a group of theo-ries, which, based on their basic assumptions, exposefour meta-paradigms. The main meta-paradigmsare (1) contemporary positivism (a realist, posi-tivistic and functionalist paradigm), (2) contempo-rary realism, (3) interpretive paradigms (hermeneu-tic/interpretive/social constructionism) and (4) criti-cal postmodernism (Figure 2). Next, this paper re-views how different academics engaged with thesemeta-paradigms considering the previously recog-



nized post-Burrell and Morgan paradigmatic conflu-ence (Cunliffe 2011; Hassard and Cox 2013; Prasad2005; Willmott 2005).

The contemporary positivist meta-paradigm. Fol-lowing Scherer and Dowling (1995), the first meta-paradigm is labelled ‘contemporary positivism’. Thisparadigm embodies ‘the dominant linear and ratio-nal approaches to strategy’ (Booth 1998, p. 258).By drawing on the hypothetical–deductive tradition(Martinet 2008), corporate strategy models ‘reliedon the Cartesian paradigm’ (Calori 1998, p. 285),employed static assumptions from neoclassical eco-nomics and the IO tradition as the primary con-ceptual framework (Chakravarthy and Doz 1992)and reduced contexts to a set of contingent vari-ables (Martinet 2008). Smircich and Stubbart (1985,p. 724) note that in mainstream strategic manage-ment research, ‘the objective environment [as as-sumed by strategic choices and environmental deter-minists] may be accurately [rationality] or inaccu-rately perceived [bounded rationality], but in eithercase, the task of strategic managers is to maintaincongruence between environmental constraints andorganizational needs’ (text in italics added). Single-reality organizations, their resources and their (de-terministic) environments are conceived as givenand detached entities; they are external to both re-searchers and strategies, their relationships followquasi-universal fixed causal laws that apply acrosstime and space, and they can be studied by applyingthe methods of natural science (Blaikie 2007; Schererand Dowling 1995). Because of the dominance of thisworldview, the strategic management field has beendescribed as prematurely stuck in a ‘normal sciencestraightjacket’ (Bettis 1991, p. 315).

Although the underlying sets of core assumptionsattached to the model problems of the schools in-cluded in this paradigm reveal some differences inscholars’ strategic realities, these contemporary pos-itivist traditions share or at least do not challengea conventional understanding of strategizing. Giventhe many nuances discussed by Donaldson (1996),who concludes that contingency theory is the onlyfully positivist perspective if a strict approach isadopted in the assessment, these approaches buildon a few taken-for-granted implicit assumptions(Rasche 2008). First, the ideas of fit and adaptationview the ‘organization and environment as two sep-arate entities’ (Rasche 2008, p. 4), rest on the as-sumption of a ‘given’, ‘objective’ and ‘unique’ (one-for-all) environment and accept the existence of (a

certain level of) environmental determinism. Sec-ond, the existence of linear, rational and deliberatethinking requires the separation of strategy formu-lation (the CEO/planners) and strategy implemen-tation (middle management) into two different en-tities (Rasche 2008). Third, the ‘fullness of strate-gic rules and resources’ indicates the existence of‘generalizable’ and ‘decontextualized’ solutions tostrategic research problems (Rasche 2008), such asAndrews’ (1971) SWOT analysis, Barney’s (1991)VRIN/O analysis and the generic strategies of Milesand Snow (1978) and Porter (1980).

The underlying ‘realistic’ ontological assumptionsand modernist/positivist epistemology are at the coreof many approaches to and theories of the firmthat have influenced strategic management researchsince the late 1970s (Burrell and Morgan 1979;French 2009; Johnson and Duberley 2000). Thisworldview follows what Burrell and Morgan (1979)call the subject–object model of inquiry (Schererand Dowling 1995) and other modes of explana-tion, such as functionalism and rational choice theory(Scherer 2005). Relevant examples are transactioncost economics, agency theory (from organizationaleconomics) and Miles and Snow’s (1978) typologyof strategic action (Mir and Watson 2000). Thisparadigm also encompasses diverse strategy con-tent approaches, such as the positioning school andPorter’s strategy typology, the RBV approach (Ezza-mel and Willmott 2008; Mir and Watson 2000), com-petitive dynamics, strategy–structure streams (whichoriginated from Chandler’s contingent approach) andthe configurational approach (Ezzamel and Will-mott 2008). For example, Porter’s economic theoryof strategy builds on a realist ontology and a pos-itivist epistemology, assumes (moderate) determin-ism (with only a minor opportunity to change struc-ture through conduct) and uses a nomothetic method-ology that combines modelling with case studies(Hoskisson et al. 1999; Rasche 2008; Smircich andStubbart 1985). Although the RBV was consideredto be a new paradigm (Rasche 2008; Rouse and Dael-lenbach 1999), Booth (1998, p. 258) concludes that‘there are no apparent ontological, epistemological ormethodological differences’ between proponents ofthe RBV and the ‘hitherto dominant “design”, “plan-ning” and “positioning” schools’. French (2009, p.64) expresses a similar viewpoint and concludes thatthe ideas of the RBV ‘remain firmly bounded in thelinear Modernist paradigm’. Above all, the content-driven approaches to strategy share ‘assumptions ofeconomic rationality and Newtonian conceptions of



equilibrium and stability’ (MacIntosh and MacLean1999, p. 298).

Although Furrer et al. (2008, p. 4) conclude thatthe strategy process and content approaches drawon ‘very different ontological and epistemologicalperspectives’, many strategy process approaches arepart of the positivist paradigm. Examples includethe planning and design schools (Ezzamel and Will-mott 2008), which gather a number of positivist em-pirical process studies that were conducted in thelate 1970s and early 1980s (Lorange 1980; Lorangeand Vancil 1977; Steiner 1979; Vancil and Lorange1975) and Van de Ven’s dialectic studies on the strat-egy process (Sminia 2009). Although it has been de-scribed as embracing empirical realism as a researchorientation (Sminia 2009), strategy as an emergentprocess (Mintzberg and Waters 1985) is a differentcase and has been classified as part of the interpre-tive paradigm (Rantakari and Vaara 2016). In anycase, according to Knights and Mueller (2004, p. 57),the classic process school is unable to problematize‘the clear cut separation between planning and im-plementation or between organization and environ-ment’. In addition, although strategies are decided,there is ‘a failure to theorize the changing identitiesof corporate decision makers’. Therefore, Knightsand Morgan (1991, p. 267) conclude that ‘despitecriticisms of linear explanations of social and orga-nizational practices’, process theory ‘has a leaningtoward causal analysis that prevents it from followingthe full logic of a hermeneutic epistemology’ and the-orists ‘still cling to certain positivist attempts to iden-tify and perhaps measure causal processes…’. Theremaining paradigms were developed in response tothe dominant rational models (Calori 1998).

The contemporary realist meta-paradigm. The nextmeta-paradigm is labelled ‘contemporary realism’.According to Cunliffe (2011), contemporary realistsare a broad group, which in the case of strategy in-quiry includes approaches with objectivist ontologyand subjectivist epistemology, such as critical real-ists (Miller and Tsang 2010) and strategy pragmatism(Powell 2002, 2003). Cunliffe (2011) also includesseveral other approaches in this meta-paradigm, suchas critical theory and (anti-essentialist) actor networktheory (ANT). However, due to the manner in whichtheir ideas have been used in the field of strategicmanagement, this paper focuses only on the criticalrealist philosophical position (and the related workof certain process theorists). For instance, althoughthe present study acknowledges that different au-

thors view ANT as a poststructural position (Hassardand Cox 2013), strategy contributors to ANT are in-cluded in the ‘transition zone’ between the criticalrealist and interpretative worldviews. Instead, somediscursive forms of critical realists are clustered inthis study with critical scholars as part of the ap-proach called critical postmodernism (Alvesson andDeetz 2006).

Among the contemporary realist approaches, inter-est in critical realism has been increasing (Miller andTsang 2010). Critical realism is ‘a meta-theoreticalparadigm focused on explanations of the underly-ing “generative mechanisms or structures” that shapecorporate agency and the social relations that it re-produces and transforms’; it emerged in oppositionto the ‘radical or strong social constructionist pro-gramme’ that has underpinned the ‘linguistic turn’(Reed 2005, p. 1623). However, these philosophicalpositions do not fully represent irreconcilable pro-grammes. Indeed, Reed (2009, p. 97) identifies threecritical realist research streams that have influencedcritical management studies (CMS). First, an ethno-graphic stream focuses on micropolitical power re-lations. Second is a research stream ‘combining his-torical, comparative and discursive forms of analy-sis’. Third, a final stream studies ‘organizational dis-courses and ideologies’ and the ‘performative impactof discursive practices’ followed by the contributorsto Fairclough’s (2005) critical realist approach – thatis critical discourse analysis (CDA).

Starting in the early 1990s, critical realism (Archer1995; Bhaskar 1986) became an alternative approachto organization and management research (Fleet-wood 2005; Miller and Tsang 2010; Reed 2005). De-parting from Giddens, Bhaskar ascribes ‘primacy tostructure rather than structuration’ and criticizes Gid-dens ‘for being too voluntaristic’ (Pozzebon 2004, p.251). Thus, compared to Giddens’ structuration ap-proach, ‘Bhaskar’s realist ontology produces a cat-egorical distinction between human action and so-cial structure, seeing them as fundamentally differ-ent’ (Pozzebon 2004, p. 250). Although there arefewer adherents of Bhaskar than adherents of Gid-dens, the critical realist approach has gained supportin the strategic management field but still remainsunderrepresented among strategy studies (Kwan andTsang 2001; Mahoney and Snyder 1999; Miller andTsang 2010; Tsang and Kwan 1999). For instance,in certain cases, s-as-p scholars have also applied thecritical realist approach (Herepath 2014; Whittington1989).



The interpretive meta-paradigm. The third meta-paradigm comprises studies that adopt an interpretiveposition or follow different degrees of constructivistengagement. As noted by Mir and Watson (2000),a trace of a constructivist position can further befound in studies by diverse scholars across the strat-egy communities discussed in this study (Burgelman1983; Doz 1996; Hamel and Prahalad 1989; Kogutand Zander 1992). Indeed, strategy scholars intellec-tualize the interpretive paradigm as built on a spec-trum of various onto-epistemological positions thatrange from hermeneutics, phenomenology and eth-nomethodology to the Giddesian structuration theory(ST) and Bourdeausian praxeology (these last twoapproaches are located at the intersection of meta-paradigms). This diversity has been acknowledgedby Mir and Watson (2001, p. 1173) and Kwan andTsang (2001, p. 1164), who recognize perspectivesthat range from realism to relativism. In the abovespectrum, located in the ‘transition zone’ (Gioia andPitre 1990) between the contemporary realist and in-terpretative philosophical positions, one finds con-structivist studies that adopt a ‘moderate construc-tivism’ compatible with realism (Blaikie 2007; Kwanand Tsang 2001). Resulting from strategy scholars’use of different approaches to social enquiry, thisview was considered to be an approach that ‘can beaccommodated within a critical realist framework’(Kwan and Tsang 2001, p. 1163).

Drawing on an idealist ontology (with a kernel ofsubtle realism) and a constructionist epistemology(Blaikie 2007, p. 157), the Giddesian ST approachcould be located in the ‘transition zone’. By assum-ing ‘methodological individualism’ and ‘a Cartesiansplit between the mental and the physical’, thisepistemological ‘building worldview’ relies on aninterpretive approach. Among its premises, this viewassumes that ‘knowledge is construed as the abilityto represent the world around us in the mind in theform of mental images’ and sees ‘strategy makingas a deliberate, intentional and goal-driven activity’.In addition, this view assumes that ‘the individualand society are construed as self-contained entitiesinteracting externally with each other’ (Chia andRasche 2010, p. 34).

Through Giddens, the structurationist perspective‘was already influential in management and organi-zation studies, particularly as encapsulated in “pro-cessual” approaches’ (Johnson et al. 2007, p. 15),as shown by Pozzebon’s (2004) review. For instance,being influenced by the work of Giddens and sub-scribing to the social constructionist worldview, Pet-

tigrew’s (1997) processual analysis has been de-scribed as adopting a critical realist research orien-tation (Sminia 2009; Sminia and de Rond 2012). Agerm of a constructivist position can also be foundin the scaffolding of institutional theory (Scott 1987)and new institutionalism, for instance, through Gid-dens’ ideas (Edwards 2016) and Bourdeau’s influ-ence (Dimaggio and Powell 1991). The article byOakes et al. (1998) is an example of strategy research(Prasad 2005). In addition, some s-as-p studies haveused the institutional macro-mechanisms that under-lie behaviours to understand the interplay between in-dividual activities at the micro-level, the organizationat the meso-level and the organizational field at themacro-level (Suddaby et al. 2013).

The Giddesian ST is particularly present in the‘conventional distinction between praxis and prac-tice’ (Whittington 2010, p. 119) and constitutes, withthe Bordieusian praxeology (Bourdieu 1977, 1990)and de Certeau’s theory on practice (de Certeau1984), a central component of the conceptual scaf-folding of the first generation of s-as-p studies thatfocus on social practices and on how managers ac-tually implement strategy, or the ‘doings’ in strat-egy (Whittington 1996, 2003, 2018). Indeed, ST be-came a key approach to study the interplay betweenmicro-activities and macro-outcomes and abandonthe dichotomist view on the structure–action debate(Seidl and Whittington 2014). Whittington (2010)shows how insights from the Giddesian approachhave been extensively applied (Kaplan 2008; Man-tere 2008; Paroutis and Pettigrew 2007) and com-bined with other theories, such as dynamic capa-bilities (Salvato 2003), sensemaking (Balogun andJohnson 2005; Rouleau 2005) and institutional the-ory (Jarzabkowski 2008).

Many s-as-p studies have also followed the in-terpretive paradigm (Ezzamel and Willmott 2008)to create different understandings of practice andstrategy based on social constructionist epistemology(Balogun 2005; Wolf and Floyd 2013) and on ‘in-timate methodologies’ (e.g. ethnographic methods),whereas other studies use alternative epistemologi-cal approaches (Chia and Rasche 2010) or differentdegrees of constructivist engagement (Grand et al.2010). The interpretive onto-epistemological posi-tion is maintained by the work of different scholarsinvolved in decision-making and strategy process re-search, which ‘emphasizes interpretative approachesto managerial cognition and enactment’ (Booth 1998,p. 259). Favouring the idea of a ‘socially createdsymbolic world’ that abandons ‘concrete, material



organizations/environments’ (Smircich and Stubbart1985, p. 727), ‘interpretive research uncovers, de-scribes and theoretically interprets actual meaningsthat people use in real settings’ (Gephart 2004, p.457). Illustrations can be found in cognitive andsensemaking studies (Barr et al. 1992; Gioia andChittipeddi 1991; Weick et al. 2005), although sense-making scholars have mixed onto-epistemologicalassumptions and oscillate and act over time like ‘…interpretivists, functionalist, radical humanists, andradical structuralist’ (Weick 1995, p. 35). Some s-as-p scholars have used the Weickian idea of sense-making to scrutinize strategizing processes from thebottom up, where middle managers’ cognition playsan active role in retrospectively and prospectivelyconstructing the emergent strategic logic of an orga-nization through collective and socially constructedprocesses of shared understanding and sensemaking(Rouleau 2005; Rouleau and Balogun 2011).

Other s-as-p studies that apply Vygotsky’s (1978)activity theory and the situated learning approach(Lave and Wenger 1991) are also part of the inter-pretive paradigm (Jarzabkowski 2003, 2005; Mietti-nen and Virkkunen 2005; Orlikowski 2002). Increas-ingly popular among scholars in the social practicestream of s-as-p (Balogun et al. 2015; Denis et al.2007) is the ANT approach (Callon 1986; Latour1987), which ‘adopts a semiotic of materiality’ toexamine the link between ‘human and non-humanactors’, where non-human actors are referred to as‘objects’ (Cunliffe 2011, p. 655). Along with tech-nology studies in information systems research andthe activity theory of Vygotsky and Leontiev, the La-tourian ANT provides the philosophical foundationsfor a corpus of scholarship known as sociomateriality(Jarzabkowski and Kaplan 2015; Kaplan 2011; Or-likowski 2007). This stream of research understandsrelations as the primary explanatory means of theinquiry, challenging the ontological assumption oftechnology–human separation, advocating for a re-lational ontology (Orlikowski and Scott 2018) andstudying how technologies affect organizations andtheir strategizing sociomaterial practices.

The critical postmodernist meta-paradigm. Thelast onto-epistemological space embraces the workof critical and postmodernist intellectuals (includ-ing poststructuralism). The critical research on strat-egy typically builds on the work of scholars fromthe so-called Frankfurt School and many postmod-ernist intellectuals. Accordingly, the last paradigm islabelled critical postmodernism (Boje 1995; Gephart

2004) and comprises ‘critical and postmodern ap-proaches to strategy’ (Booth 1998, p. 259). Criti-cal postmodernism ‘describes dominant and subor-dinated meanings, displays the power implicationsof meanings, and encourages critical reflexivity tomake people aware of the constraints on their ownmeanings and actions. Critical reflexivity providesa means for emancipation from structures of domi-nation’ (Gephart 2004, p. 457). Nevertheless, someconnections exist (in a transition zone) with the thirdparadigm. For instance, Gomez (2010) discusses howthe Bourdieusian structuration-like approach (Bour-dieu 1977, 1990), which ascribes to a (structural)constructivist epistemology, can be combined withthe critical position and is an alternative option fordiscussing the primacy of agency or structure inshaping human behaviour that has also been usedin s-as-p research (Chia and Holt 2006; Chia andMacKay 2007).

Indications of the application of the critical post-modernist approach to strategy can be traced back tothe early 1990s and are based mainly on the workof many critical organization theorists (Alvesson andWillmott 1995; Barry and Elmes 1997; Booth 2000;Knights and Morgan 1991; Knights and Mueller2004; Thomas 1998). Phillips and Dar (2009) dis-tinguish four perspectives, namely, strategy as polit-ical economy at the macro level of analysis, strat-egy as ideology at the macro level, strategy as dis-course at the meso/micro level and strategy as prac-tice at the micro level. The two ‘macro-level’ strandsare the least exemplified in strategy research. Strat-egy as political economy constitutes an alternativeline of inquiry to criticize strategic thinking basedon the Gramscian (historical–materialist hegemonic)perspective (Gramsci 1971), which emphasizes theimportance of the economic context and advocatesfor the indivisibility of markets and politics in re-gard to understanding strategy and intrinsic asym-metrical power relations (Levy et al. 2003). Inspiredby the structuration theory of Giddens (1979), Levyet al. (2003) define a ‘modernist study’ of Shri-vastava (1986) that is among the best-known usesof the notion of strategy as an ideology in strate-gic management; accordingly, strategy is defined asan instrument that serves the interest of strategizing(top) managers. Later, Thomas (1998) also definesthe strategy field as an ideological mélange.

The strategy-as-discourse stream typically repre-sents the postmodern worldview based on a ‘Fou-cauldian’ genealogical ontology (Ezzamel and Will-mott 2008; Hardy and Thomas 2014; Knights and



Morgan 1991; Sminia 2009). However, this perspec-tive covers a spectrum of onto-epistemological po-sitions oriented towards a subjectivist epistemology(Chia and Rasche 2010) and involves different ap-proaches that emphasize the use of the discourseanalysis method based on different discursive the-ories (Balogun et al. 2014; Vaara 2010). In agree-ment with the radical humanism paradigm (Burrelland Morgan 1979) and inspired by Foucault’s work,Alvesson and Deetz’s (2006) so-called critical man-agement studies (CMS) challenge the ‘authority ofmanagerialism’ and identify ‘discourse as a coher-ent system of knowledge that rules in certain ways ofthinking, doing, and being’ (Phillips et al. 2008, p.778).

In the early 2000s, different discourse approacheswithin the ‘linguistic turn’ in social sciences wereseen as both an important avenue for expandingthe s-as-p research agenda (Seidl and Whittington2014, p. 1408) and ‘building a distinctive identity’(Vaara and Whittington 2012, p. 290). At the mi-cro level of analysis (though evolving towards themacro–micro connection) and out of the traditionalscope of the conventional CMS, this research blendscognitive approaches to discourse analysis with s-as-p research (Phillips and Dar 2009) and empha-sizes the performative role of discourse and organiza-tions as polyphonic entities, which leads to the pres-ence of various voices that compete for power. Thus,this approach may enable a critical understanding ofhow strategy discourse creates ‘regimes of truth andpower positions’ (Vaara 2010, p. 30). This discourse-oriented stream of s-as-p research also involves sev-eral methodological positions.

By embracing ethnomethodology to analyse prac-tices through conversation analysis (CA), Samra-Fredericks (2005) builds on Habermas’ (1979, 1984)work to understand how speaking privileges allowstrategy makers to collaboratively construct power(Nicolini 2012). Moreover, influenced by Foucault(Phillips et al. 2008), other scholars (Vaara et al.2010) follow Fairclough’s (1992) critical discourseanalysis (CDA) and take a critical realist stancetowards the analysed text, which moves the in-quiry away from the relativist discursive form (Vaara2010). Thus, CDA views the use of language ‘asa form of social practice’ that ‘is shaped and con-strained by social structures’ and ‘simultaneouslyshapes the structures that constrain it’ (Phillipset al. 2008, p. 771). Instead, by applying rhetori-cal analysis, Suddaby and Greenwood (2005) buildon the neo-institutional approach to discuss alterna-

tive strategies of legitimacy. Finally, narrative anal-ysis (Bakhtin 1986; Boje 2001, 2008; Czarniawska2004) is an alternative fertile approach that exploresstrategizing based on storytelling (Vaara 2010). A pi-oneering example in the strategy context is the workof Barry and Elmes (1997), and narrative analysis hasalso gained interest among s-as-p scholars in recentyears (Fenton and Langley 2011; Küpers et al. 2013;Vaara and Tienari 2011).

Other alternatives were also explored. Building onthe Heideggerian phenomenology and breaking withthe traditional actor-centred approach embedded inthe ‘first generation’ of s-as-p studies (Nicolini 2012,pp. 21–22), scholars such as Chia, Holt and MacKay(Chia and Holt 2006; Chia and MacKay 2007) sup-port the adoption of what Nicolini (2012) refers toas the ‘strong’ approach to s-as-p. Under this world-view, ‘identities and characteristics of persons arenot deemed to pre-exist social interactions and so-cial practices’ and ‘social practices themselves aregiven primacy over individual agency and intention’(Chia and Rasche 2010, p. 34). Some s-as-p stud-ies have also applied the idea of language games(Wittgenstein 1951), which see strategy as emergingfrom coupled language games governed by context-specific norms and where vocabularies and mean-ings are considered context-specific and not transfer-able to other contexts and discourses (Mantere 2013;Seidl 2007). Finally, although less prevalent, Der-rida’s (1972) deconstruction was also applied to strat-egy research; Rasche (2008) is an example of the useof this way of thinking.

Discussion and conclusions

The strategy field has been opening up for the last20 years, which has resulted in many fresh researchtopics and concepts and the acceptance of several dif-ferent philosophical assumptions and methodologies.Methodologies such as action research, ethnographicresearch, narrative and discourse analysis, and in-terventionist studies have increasingly been utilized.Although our initial assumptions pointed to theexistence of a multidisciplinary and multiparadig-matic field, positivist research, quantitative and (toa small extent) qualitative, has strongly dominatedthe strategy field and kept the research domain in its‘straitjacket’ (Bettis 1991) for decades. Indeed, manyscholars still consider strategic management as a sin-gle paradigm and suggest that theory is science onlyif it meets ‘Popper’s falsifiability criterion’ (Bettis



and Blettner 2020, p. 85). These circumstances callfor a deeper philosophical debate.

In this context, the present review sets out tounderstand how different approaches to social en-quiry have been used in strategy research and howthe main paradigms engage with strategy. The keytasks include the delimitation of the key onto-epistemological spaces and the recognition of thedifferent philosophical positions within them. Thesetasks mean not only understanding how the spacescould be delimited based on pre-existing paradig-matic discussions, but also understanding how theparadigmatic discussion has advanced in the field oforganizational inquiry; this debate was established inthe field over a decade ago, in contrast to the field ofstrategic management.

Unlike most previous paradigmatic discussions inthe strategy field that matched paradigms to theo-ries or schools of thought, this review considers aparadigm to be a complete view of reality (Mor-gan 1980). As a result, four onto-epistemologicalspaces conceptualized as meta-paradigms emergedfrom the analysis, which were labelled contempo-rary positivist, contemporary realist, interpretive andcritical postmodernist. The first meta-paradigm – thecontemporary positivist – is the dominant view instrategy. It embraces approaches that share realistontological assumptions and the modernist/positivistepistemology and a few taken-for-granted underly-ing assumptions such as the ideas of fit and adapta-tion view, which reduce the context to a set of con-tingent variables. Thus, organizations, their resourcesand their (objective, unique and deterministic) envi-ronments are conceived as given and detached enti-ties; their relationships follow quasi-universal fixedcausal laws that apply across time and space.

The second meta-paradigm is the contemporaryrealist, which comprises approaches with objectivistontology and subjectivist epistemology, such as crit-ical realists and strategy pragmatism. In particular,critical realism focuses on explanations of the un-derlying structures (mechanisms) that form agencyand the social relations that it reproduces and trans-forms. Third, the interpretive paradigm builds on aspectrum of various onto-epistemological positionsand is maintained by scholars with different degreesof constructivist engagement that leave behind mate-rial and concrete organizations/environments and useintimate methodologies. This meta-paradigm coverspositions ranging from hermeneutics, phenomenol-ogy and ethnomethodology to Giddesian structura-tion theory (ST), as well as cognitive studies and

new institutionalism. Finally, the critical postmod-ernist meta-paradigm embraces the work of criticaland postmodernist intellectuals (including poststruc-turalism). Thus, the fourth meta-paradigm covers aspectrum of onto-epistemological positions orientedtowards constructivist and subjectivist epistemolo-gies and involves several methodological positions,many of which embrace ethnomethodology or phe-nomenology and emphasize the use of the discourseanalysis method.

Considering the above meta-paradigms, thepresent discussion section addresses the followingquestions: (1) What is the degree of maturity of thephilosophical debate in the strategy research? (2)How can scholars incorporate the findings of thepresent review in the future development of strategyresearch?

The meta-paradigms and philosophical debate in thefield

Each of the four onto-epistemological spaces (meta-paradigms) covers several coexisting positions. Con-sequently, different ‘paradigms’ (as traditionally de-fined in the strategy field) might emerge through thedissection of each meta-paradigm if one applies themodel problem type of the definition (Rasche 2008),accepts the idea of weak incommensurability (Booth1998) and equates the concept of paradigms to theo-ries (Davis 2010; Donaldson 1996). Taking the con-temporary positivist paradigm as a case in point, thedissection requires an exploration of the differencesbetween the strategy process and content approaches,which ‘address different phenomena’, and entails adistinction between content theories (e.g. the market-and resource-based views) that ‘address the same ex-planandum phenomenon using widely explanatoryapparatuses’ (Foss 1996a, p. 4). In this context, theanalyst faces a ‘superficial’ pluralism because thereis a convergence in which most of the paradigmsfavour ‘almost the same dominant meta-theoreticalassumptions… largely stemming from the function-alist roots of the field’ (Rasche 2008, p. 98). Thedesignation of schools with similar meta-theoreticalworldviews as alternative paradigms may lead schol-ars to consider ‘readjustments within functionalism’(Johnson and Duberley 2000, p. 88) as paradigmshifts (see Campbell-Hunt 2000, p. 127; Furrer et al.2008, p. 11; Løwendahl and Revang 1998, p. 767;Teece et al. 1997, p. 510).

The remaining three meta-paradigms could alsobe divided into different positions. For instance, the



contemporary realist meta-paradigm could be di-vided into critical realism and pragmatism and thecritical postmodernist meta-paradigm into postmod-ernist, poststructuralism, feminist and postcolonial-ism. Moreover, the interpretive meta-paradigm buildson a spectrum of various onto-epistemological po-sitions that encompass traditions that range fromhermeneutics, phenomenology and ethnomethodol-ogy to the Giddesian structuration theory (ST), whichare all recognized as paradigms by Blaikie (2007, p.27).

As a result, the four meta-paradigms can be dis-sected into many paradigms, whose number, in tak-ing the exercise to the limit, would equal the to-tal number of strategy schools or even theories. AsEckberg and Hill (1980, p. 123) conclude, ‘the so-ciological pie can be sliced in many ways’. Evenwhen strategy theories are considered paradigms,there has only been a scattered philosophical de-bate in the strategy field, and a ‘paradigm war’ hasnot occurred. Given that the rational and emergenttraditions are built on very different sets of basicassumptions, the debate between them in the early1990s (Ansoff 1991; Mintzberg 1990a,b, 1991) notonly is a case in point but also shows that these al-ternative streams have an ‘inability to satisfactorilycommunicate’ (Foss 1996a, p. 6). Another exampleis the debate on the fundamentals of resource-basedtheory (Barney 2001a; Priem and Butler 2001a,b).Feldman (2020) provides another illustration basedon the debate between academics from the IO andRBV traditions, which materialized in a series ofvariance decomposition studies looking for evidenceon the importance of industry and business unit ef-fects on company performance. These debates re-semble, for instance, the debate on organizational in-quiry between the ‘environmental determinism’ pro-posed by contingency theorists and population ecol-ogists (Aldrich 1979; Dess and Beard 1986) andthe ‘managerial voluntarism’ proposed by strategicchoice scholars (Child 1972, 1997; Friend and Hick-ling 2005). Of course, there have been discussionsat the philosophical level (Durand 2002; Kwan andTsang 2001; Mir and Watson 2000, 2001; Powell2001, 2002), but most of them took place within themeta-paradigms rather than between them.

In any case, the coexistence of alternativeparadigms introduces another difficult-to-resolve de-bate that has been taking place in organizational in-quiry around the concept of incommensurability. Thedebate on incommensurability remains problematic,reveals no consensual solution and exposes an in-

finite regression of arguments. As in organizationstudies, the controversies over incommensurability instrategy research find different postures (Shepherdand Challenger 2013). Isolationists aim to safeguardtheoretical pluralism through an isolated evolutionof incommensurable paradigms, whereas paradigmselection is a choice of belief that accepts the in-solvability of incommensurability that comes from astrong commitment to ontological and epistemolog-ical assumptions (Jackson and Carter 1991). Schol-ars have also proposed a back-to-basics approach(Camerer 1985; Donaldson 1996) that empowers thehegemony of the functionalist paradigm (Scherer andDowling 1995; Scherer and Steinmann 1999) and therole of scientific gatekeepers to ensure the integrationand congruence of the scientific field (Pfeffer 1993).

Pluralists instead support a multiparadigmaticstate and call for a dialogue in which all voices canbe heard as a necessary condition for knowledge ac-cumulation (Foss 1996b; Mahoney 1993; Pettigrewet al. 2002; Rumelt et al. 1994; Schoemaker 1993;Spender 1992; Thomas and Pruett 1993). By accept-ing incommensurability and rejecting isolationism,this position is a midpoint between the relativismof anything goes and the dogmatism of back-to-basics and creates a level of consensus among strate-gic management scholars (Scherer 1998; Schererand Dowling 1995). Similarly, advocates of inte-gration (Combe 1999; Cravens et al. 1997; Durandet al. 2017; Hart 1992) consider the sum of multi-ple paradigms to be better than a single paradigm.Critiques of this approach claim that this integrationincludes the sum of the gaps in each paradigm andthus yields a sum worse than its separate perspectiveswhile providing little rationale for which paradigmsto integrate and neglect to address the reconcilabil-ity of incommensurable perspectives, which leavessubstantial space for subjectivity and insufficient rec-ommendations for reasoning (Scherer 1998). Integra-tionist efforts exist, but they typically integrate theo-ries within the positivist paradigm (Foss 1999). In-deed, the meta-paradigms and the in-depth examina-tion of the underlying and meta-theoretical assump-tions of the main approaches may provide a soundconceptual base to think about integration in a mul-tiparadigmatic field in which onto-epistemologicalboundaries are vanishing.

In summary, meta-paradigms have evolved in iso-lation, with only a small number of concrete bridges.As noted by Davis (2010), in organizational inquiry,strategy meta-paradigms do not compete with oneanother to account for the same regularities or events,



which leads to the fragmentation of the strategy do-main (Leiblein and Reuer 2020). Despite the cleardominance of the positivist paradigm, the above situ-ation has resulted in a ‘fragmented adhocracy’ (Whit-ley 1984b) that comprises sharply bounded commu-nities that draw on different disciplines, assumptionsand terminologies, which may hinder the integrationof the results (Whitley 1984a). Given these circum-stances, recognizing that supposedly different ap-proaches share some meta-theoretical worldviews isthe first step to finding bridges and dialogues withinthe same meta-paradigm. Thus, the acknowledge-ment of areas of dialogue between meta-paradigms(or theories with different meta-theoretical assump-tions) constitutes a relevant implication resultingfrom the identification of the meta-paradigms.

Looking to the future

The findings of this review not only provide supportfor scholars and doctoral students by helping themnavigate the foggy path of the philosophy of sci-ence in a puzzling research landscape but also canbe used as a tool to extend strategy research. Opento multidisciplinary ideas, ‘the field of strategic man-agement is defined not by any particular theoreticalparadigm’ (Makadok et al. 2018, p. 1530) but ratherby a few main canonical questions about differencesin firms’ behaviour and performance, and the role ofand value added by firms’ top (and middle) manage-ment (Leiblein and Reuer 2020; Rumelt et al. 1994).Under these circumstances, most conceptual contri-butions in strategic management do not initiate a rad-ical paradigm shift but rather illuminate and advancetheories (either received or imported). Different onto-epistemological positions will continue to coexist,and ways to create synergies that result in better an-swers to current and future canonical questions mustbe found.

Looking ahead, there is an opportunity to fur-ther explore some avenues already proposed byresearchers in organization studies and strategy.Examples range from replacing paradigms withdiscourses (Deetz 1996) to looking for spaces fordialogue (Gioia and Pitre 1990) and trading zones(Booth 2000). They also include creating a refer-ence system that acts as a democratically createddictionary (McKinley and Mone 1998) and adoptinga Campbellian realist philosophical position (McK-elvey 1999), which is aligned with the constructivistposition of Mir and Watson (2000) and occupies aspace characterized by ontological realism and epis-

temological relativism. Alternatively, Rasche (2008,p. 49) suggests the ‘loose coupling’ approach, whichallows researchers ‘to accept the logic of differentparadigms (and thus incommensurability) withoutlosing sight of the whole’. Finally, Drnevich et al.(2020, p. 39) advocate for the strategy field’s return toits primary focus on management practice that leadsto ‘scientifically rigorous and practically relevantresearch that both develops new theoretical contri-butions and bridges the theory–practice gap’. Theseauthors strongly encourage researchers to adoptan abductive ‘problem-focused scholarly discoverylogic’ embracing the philosophy of pragmatism(Dewey 1938) and theoretical and methodologicalpluralism, including more qualitative and processresearch (such as research that was conducted in the1960s and 1970s, in the early stages of the field’sdevelopment).

Most conceptual contributions in strategic man-agement typically occur in a theoretical space andfrom incremental changes in elements of the theo-rizing process (Makadok et al. 2018). Therefore, ex-posing and discussing the assumptions in strategicmanagement may serve as a guide for future concep-tual development. Consequently, the present studycan inform theorizing in diverse manners. First, in theconstruction of new research questions (or the mod-ification of existing ones). Alvesson and Sandberg(2011) introduce problematization, a concept thataims to construct research questions from existing lit-erature by identifying and challenging the taken-for-granted assumptions underlying the prevailing theo-ries through dialectical interrogation. Stimulated bythe paradigm debate, these authors recognize dif-ferent types of assumptions open to problematiza-tion. For instance, the in-home unproblematic as-sumptions shared within a research stream, rootmetaphors or broader images about the subject mat-ter, paradigmatic assumptions (ontology, epistemol-ogy and methodology), ideology (moral-, political-and gender-related) and field assumptions shared bymany research streams (within a paradigm or evenacross paradigms, e.g. rationality vs. bounded ra-tionality). Although impactful theories most typi-cally originate from challenging any of the latterthree types of broader assumptions, challenging thesetypes of premises is difficult and requires deepnessand precision. Although some approaches to inquiry,such as social constructionism, postmodernism andcritical theory, often favour problematization (Alves-son and Sandberg 2011), problematization is not thedominant methodology in strategy research.



Second, even in cases where the research ques-tions do not emerge from problematization, under-standing the assumptions underlying theories playsa crucial role in determining their boundary con-ditions, which defines when a theory does or doesnot work and opens up opportunities for conceptualdevelopment. Mastering these core assumptions isneeded to expose internal inconsistencies betweenassumptions in one theory, identify logical incon-sistencies between theories, and relax or restrict theunderlying assumptions of one approach to apply itmore broadly or to obtain more specific implications(Makadok et al. 2018). Thus, the core assumptionsaffect boundary conditions and, consequently, deter-mine outputs. ‘The more specific the assumptionsand boundary conditions become, the more specificthe output can be’ (Makadok et al. 2018, p. 1539).For instance, claim that research on s-as-p must as-sume a ‘post-processual stance’ that ‘goes beyondthat of a sympathetic extension of the strategy pro-cess perspective’. Such a stance must (1) place onto-logical primacy on practices rather than actors, (2)philosophically privilege practice complexes ratherthan actors and things as the locus of analysis and (3)make the locus of explanation the field of practicesrather than the intentions of individuals and organi-zations.

Making explicit the underlying assumptions alsodetermines many other elements of the theorizingprocess (Alvesson and Sandberg 2011), whereas acontribution may come from adapting the assump-tions to apply a given theory at a different level orcontext than it originated or to understand a differ-ent phenomenon. The assumptions underlying main-stream strategic management theories were devel-oped in the past. This situation calls for further con-ceptual development to better understand contempo-rary strategic management and to address novel phe-nomena such as those emerging from the increasinglyrapid changes in the economic, political, social andtechnological environments (He et al. 2020; Teece2020). Finally, a phenomenon can be addressed withdifferent onto-epistemological approaches (e.g. usingdifferent philosophical assumptions). For instance,Wenzel et al. (2020) use a constructivist/processualapproach grounded on a practice perspective to il-luminate the dynamics within dynamic capabilities,a conception of organizational routines that usuallyimplicates a positivist/entitative onto-epistemology.

Limitations

The ambitious scope of the present study also im-plicates limitations. Specifically, a thorough and ex-haustive analysis and discussion of each sociologi-cal paradigm and all strategy theories is unmanage-able in a limited space and goes beyond the objec-tives of this paper. Given the need to condense theanalysis, the paradigmatic representation is not un-equivocal, can be overly simplistic and may neglectrelevant differences between different schools withinthe meta-paradigms. This limitation may diminishthe importance of or exclude pertinent approaches.For instance, the systemic and processual-orientedchaos theory (Levy 1994; Stacey 1995) and the mi-crofoundations stream (Abell et al. 2008; Felin et al.2015) offer distinctive premises and explicit, consis-tent and articulated ‘core logics’ (Lengnick-Hall andWolff 1999, p. 1110). Likewise, other approaches,such as the ‘pragmatist’ stakeholder theory (Freeman1984), game theory and social capital theory, may de-serve a more detailed analysis. Presumably, there arealso some limitations to our classification of scholarsinto theories, schools and paradigms. These classifi-cations are influenced by the authors’ interpretations,preferences and (lack of) knowledge and skills. Wehope that the paper will encourage a debate that isnot limited to scholars who may be (or feel) inappro-priately classified.

Appendix

The above-listed theories coincide with the theo-ries pointed out by previous review studies as themost relevant in strategic management (Furrer et al.2008; Kenworthy and Verbeke 2015; Nerur et al.2008; Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro 2004).However, understanding the manner in which re-searchers construct the ‘world of strategy’ based onthe different assumptions that they attach to theirstrategic realities (Rasche 2008, p. 3) is a neces-sary step in the identification of paradigms. Ac-cordingly, Table 3 summarizes the basic assump-tions included in the ‘Kuhnian’ model problem ofthe above-identified approaches to strategy (TablesA2 and A3 in the Appendix offer an in-depth look atthe basic assumptions that underlie the endogenousapproaches).



Tabl

eA

1.B

rief

inte

rpre

tati

onof

the

co-c

itat

ion

anal

ysis

Clu

ster

Focu

sS

trea

ms

Mai

nto

pics

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

auth

ors

from

the

co-c

itat

ion

netw

ork

Mai

nth

eore

tica

lund

erpi

nnin

gs

#1C

orpo

rate

gove

rnan

cean

dst

rate

gy,s

trat

egic

lead

ersh

ipan

dco

rpor

ate

stra

tegy

Cor

pora

tego

vern

ance

Ow

ners

hip

stru

ctur

ean

ddi

vers

ifica

tion

;exe

cutiv

eco

mpe

nsat

ion;

boar

dm

onit

orin

gan

din

cent

ives

;the

role

,co

mpo

siti

on,n

umbe

ran

dst

ruct

ure

ofth

ebo

ard

ofdi

rect

ors.

All

wit

ha

spec

iale

mph

asis

onth

eir

impa

cton

perf

orm

ance

.

Alc

hian

,Dem

setz

,Fam

a,Je

nsen

,M

eckl

ing,

Dai

ly,C

erto

,Dal

ton,

Can

nell

a,H

ambr

ick,

Zaj

ac,

Wes

tpha

l,C

arpe

nter

,Hil

lman

,G

ómez

-Mej

ia,L

ubat

kin

-A

genc

yth

eory

-R

esou

rce

depe

nden

ceth

eory

-In

stit

utio

nalt

heor

y

Rin

dova

-C

ogni

tive

pers

pect

ives

Don

alds

on,D

avie

s-

Ste

war

dshi

pth

eory

Eth

ics

inco

rpor

ate

gove

rnan

ce.

Free

man

,Don

alds

on,M

itro

ff,

Pre

ston

-S

take

hold

erth

eory

Str

ateg

icle

ader

ship

and

stra

tegi

sts

atth

eup

per

leve

l

The

role

,cha

ract

eris

tics

(age

,co

mpo

siti

onan

dsi

ze)

and

beha

viou

r(e

xper

ienc

es,

know

ledg

e,va

lues

,cog

niti

on,

bias

esan

dfe

elin

gs)

ofto

pm

anag

emen

ttea

ms

and

top

exec

utiv

esin

expl

aini

ngor

gani

zati

onal

beha

viou

ran

dst

rate

gyan

dou

tcom

es.

Fink

elst

ein,

Ham

bric

k,M

ason

,C

arpe

nter

,Can

nell

a,S

ande

rs-

Str

ateg

icch

oice

appr

oach

-B

ehav

iour

alth

eory

and

beha

viou

rals

trat

egy

-U

pper

eche

lons

theo

ry

Cor

pora

test

rate

gyT

heli

nkam

ong

stra

tegy

,str

uctu

rean

dpe

rfor

man

ceat

the

corp

orat

ele

vel.

The

effe

cts

ofor

gani

zati

onal

stru

ctur

ean

ddi

vers

ifica

tion

stra

tegi

eson

firm

perf

orm

ance

.

Hit

t,H

oski

sson

,Boy

d,D

acin

,A

rreg

le,L

evit

as-

Res

ourc

e-ba

sed

view

and

orga

niza

tion

alle

arni

ng-

Con

ting

ency

theo

ry-

Sta

keho

lder

theo

ry-

Tra

nsac

tion

cost

sth

eory

-In

stit

utio

nalt

heor

y#2

Str

ateg

icde

cisi

on-m

akin

gan

dst

rate

gypr

oces

sS

trat

egy

proc

ess

Str

ateg

ypr

oces

s,co

ntex

tual

infl

uenc

esan

dm

anag

eria

lage

ncy.

And

rew

s(d

esig

nsc

hool

),A

nsof

f(p

lann

ing

scho

ol),

Lor

ange

,V

anci

l,S

tein

er

-R

atio

nal(

deli

bera

ted)

stra

tegy

proc

ess

Min

tzbe

rg,Q

uinn

,Wat

ers

-S

trat

egy

asan

emer

gent

proc

ess

Bow

er,B

urge

lman

-It

erat

edpr

oces

sof

reso

urce

allo

cati

on

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

eA

1.C

onti

nued

Clu

ster

Focu

sS

trea

ms

Mai

nto

pics

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

auth

ors

from

the

co-c

itat

ion

netw

ork

Mai

nth

eore

tica

lund

erpi

nnin

gs

Cha

ndle

r(S

SP

),B

urns

,Sta

lker

,L

awre

nce,

Lor

sch,

Tho

mps

on,

Gal

brai

th,B

ower

,Mil

es,S

now

,M

ille

r,Fr

iese

n,D

ess,

Rom

anel

li,

Hre

bini

ak,V

ande

Ven

-C

onti

ngen

cyth

eory

,the

conc

ept

of‘fi

t’an

dth

eco

nfigu

rati

onal

view

ofst

rate

gy

Aho

list

icm

ulti

-pro

cess

and

mul

ti-l

evel

expl

anat

ion

toun

ders

tand

the

link

betw

een

proc

ess

and

outc

ome.

Pett

igre

w-

The

proc

essu

alap

proa

ch

Str

ateg

yas

aba

rgai

ning

proc

ess.

Chi

ld-

Str

ateg

icch

oice

The

role

ofm

iddl

em

anag

emen

t.F

loyd

,Woo

ldri

dge

-P

roce

ssap

proa

chS

trat

egy-

as-

prac

tice

(s-a

s-p)

‘Soc

ialp

ract

ice’

stre

am(p

olit

icki

ngpr

acti

ces)

,Sen

sem

akin

g,S

ocio

mat

eria

lpra

ctic

es,a

ndP

ract

ice-

driv

enin

stit

utio

nali

sm.

Whi

ttin

gton

,Jar

zabk

owsk

i,B

alog

un,

John

son,

Mel

in,L

angl

ey,R

oule

au-

AN

T-

Str

uctu

rati

onth

eory

and

prax

olog

y-

Sen

sem

akin

gD

iscu

rsiv

eas

pect

sof

prac

tice

.V

aara

,Ves

a,T

iena

ri,

Sam

ra-F

rede

rick

s-

Cri

tica

lthe

ory

and

crit

ical

disc

ours

eS

trat

egic

deci

sion

-m

akin

gB

ound

edra

tion

alit

y.C

yert

,Mar

ch,S

imon

-B

ehav

iour

alth

eory

Dec

isio

n-m

akin

gan

dch

oice

,the

appl

icat

ion

ofco

gnit

ive

and

soci

alps

ycho

logy

tost

rate

gic

man

agem

ent.

Huf

f,B

arr,

Sti

mpe

r,Po

rac,

Reg

er,

Fieg

enba

um-

Dec

isio

nm

akin

gan

dch

oice

Wei

ck,G

ioia

,Chi

ttip

eddi

,Dut

ton,

Tho

mas

,Rob

erts

-S

ense

mak

ing

and

iden

tity

(sch

ema,

imag

es)

Kah

nem

an,T

vers

ky,B

rom

iley

-P

rosp

ectt

heor

yL

oval

lo,S

hwen

k-

Beh

avio

ural

deci

sion

theo

ryS

tubb

art,

Dan

iels

,Hod

gkin

son,

John

son

-M

anag

eria

lcog

niti

on

Oca

sio

-A

tten

tion

Sta

w-

Esc

alat

ion

Sal

anci

ck,M

eind

l-

Att

ribu

tion

Daf

f,A

rgyr

is,D

unca

n,W

eiss

,W

eick

,Lev

itt,

Mar

ch-

Org

aniz

atio

nall

earn

ing

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

eA

1.C

onti

nued

Clu

ster

Focu

sS

trea

ms

Mai

nto

pics

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

auth

ors

from

the

co-c

itat

ion

netw

ork

Mai

nth

eore

tica

lund

erpi

nnin

gs

#3T

hesu

bjec

tsof

stra

tegi

cde

cisi

ons,

reco

gniz

ing

com

peti

tive

adva

ntag

eas

the

secr

etto

succ

ess.

Mar

ket-

base

dvi

ewFi

rm’s

mar

ketb

ehav

iour

and

posi

tion

ing

asso

urce

sof

com

peti

tive

adva

ntag

e.

Port

er,C

aves

,Hun

t,B

uzzl

e,B

radl

ey,

Sul

tan,

Gal

e,H

ende

rson

-IO

(SC

P)

and

the

posi

tion

ing

appr

oach

Sm

ith,

Gri

mm

,Gan

non,

Che

n,D

’Ave

ni-

Com

peti

tive

dyna

mic

san

dhy

per-

com

peti

tion

Bur

gelm

an,B

arne

tt,L

evin

thal

-E

colo

gica

lapp

roac

hes

(par

tial

adju

stm

ent)

Res

ourc

e-ba

sed

view

Firm

’sun

ique

reso

urce

san

dca

pabi

liti

esas

sour

ces

ofco

mpe

titiv

ead

vant

age.

Bar

ney,

Pete

raf,

Wer

nerf

elt

-R

esou

rce-

base

dvi

ew

Kno

wle

dge-

base

dvi

ewC

ohen

,Lev

inth

al,G

rant

,Kog

ut,

Zan

der,

Non

aka,

Take

uchi

-K

now

ledg

e-ba

sed

view

Dyn

amic

capa

bili

ties

view

Teec

e,E

isen

hard

t,M

arti

n,H

elfa

t-

Kir

zner

ian,

Sch

umpe

teri

anan

dev

olut

iona

ryth

eori

esof

econ

omic

chan

geTe

chno

logi

cal

inno

vati

on,

know

ledg

eac

quis

itio

nan

dth

ene

wco

mpe

titi

onsc

hool

Sou

rces

ofin

nova

tion

,tec

hnol

ogic

alco

mpe

tenc

es,t

raje

ctor

ies

ofca

pabi

liti

esde

velo

pmen

t,ab

sorp

tive

capa

city

,dom

inan

tde

sign

s.

Nel

son,

Win

ter,

Lev

inth

al,C

ohen

,Pa

vitt

,Hen

ders

on,C

lark

,Bal

dwin

,C

ockb

urn,

Utt

erba

ck,S

uáre

z,Tu

shm

an,A

lber

tany

,Lan

gois

,C

hris

tens

en,v

onH

ippe

l

-E

volu

tion

ary

theo

ryof

the

firm

-In

stit

utio

nalt

heor

y-

Sch

umpe

teri

anth

eory

#4B

usin

ess/

corp

orat

ein

tern

atio

nals

trat

egy

form

ulat

ion

and

impl

emen

tati

on,

deci

sion

-mak

ing

and

poli

tica

lris

k,an

dst

rate

gic

netw

orks

and

alli

ance

s

Glo

bals

trat

egy

and

inte

rnat

iona

lm

anag

emen

t

Inte

rnat

iona

liza

tion

stra

tegy

,in

tern

atio

nald

iver

sifi

cati

on,e

ntry

deci

sion

san

den

try

mod

es,

orga

niza

tion

alm

odel

s,H

Q–s

ubsi

diar

yre

lati

ons,

inte

rnat

iona

ljoi

ntve

ntur

es,a

ndm

erge

rsan

dac

quis

itio

ns.

Joha

nson

,Vah

lne

-In

tern

atio

nali

zati

onpr

oces

s(U

ppsa

la)

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

eA

1.C

onti

nued

Clu

ster

Focu

sS

trea

ms

Mai

nto

pics

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

auth

ors

from

the

co-c

itat

ion

netw

ork

Mai

nth

eore

tica

lund

erpi

nnin

gs

Dun

ning

-E

clec

tic

theo

ry(I

O)

Bar

kem

a,H

enna

rt.B

uckl

ey,C

asso

n,R

ugm

an,V

erbe

cke,

Luo

,Bar

tlet

t,G

osha

l

-T

rans

acti

onco

stec

onom

ics

Cap

ron,

Dus

saug

e,M

itch

el,P

eng,

Was

smer

,Luo

,Bir

kins

haw

-R

esou

rce-

base

dvi

ew

-Kog

ut,Z

ande

r,M

adho

k,B

arke

ma,

Ver

meu

len,

Inkp

en,D

elio

s,B

eam

ish,

Zol

lo

-K

BV

/org

aniz

atio

nall

earn

ing

Inkp

en,B

eam

ish,

Har

riga

n,Pe

ng-

Res

ourc

ede

pend

ence

theo

ryK

hann

a,K

osto

va,R

oth,

Zah

eer,

Dac

in,P

eng,

Pale

pu-

Inst

itut

iona

lthe

ory

Bar

tlet

t,G

osha

l-

Con

ting

ency

theo

ryL

i,Z

hou,

Sha

o,Z

hang

,Pez

eshk

an-

Soc

ialn

etw

ork

theo

ryS

trat

egic

netw

orks

and

alli

ance

sN

etw

ork

stru

ctur

e,ne

twor

kpo

siti

onan

dpe

rfor

man

ce,t

iede

nsit

yan

dne

twor

kst

ruct

ure,

trus

tand

part

ner

sele

ctio

n,an

dco

oper

atio

nan

dle

arni

ng.

Dye

r,G

ulat

i,H

enna

rt,D

as,T

eng

-T

rans

acti

onco

stec

onom

ics

Bur

t,C

olem

an,K

oka,

Das

,Ten

g-

Soc

ialc

apit

alth

eory

Dye

r,S

ingh

,Gul

ati,

Kal

e,A

huja

,Z

ahee

r,D

as,T

eng

-R

BV

+dy

nam

icca

pabi

liti

es

Reu

er,S

ingh

,Zol

lo,I

nkpe

n,K

ogut

,Z

ande

r,K

ale,

Sin

gh-

KB

V/o

rgan

izat

iona

llea

rnin

g

Pha

rke,

Ros

enth

al,C

hand

ram

-G

ame

theo

ry(+

tran

sact

ion

cost

s)D

yer,

Sin

gh-

The

rela

tion

alvi

ew



Tabl

eA

2.T

heba

sic

prem

ises

ofth

em

ain

stra

tegy

cont

entt

radi

tion

s

Sch

ool

The

posi

tion

ing

scho

ola

The

com

peti

tive

dyna

mic

appr

oach

bT

here

sour

ce-b

ased

view

cT

hedy

nam

icca

pabi

liti

esvi

ewd

Bas

icas

sum

ptio

ns(i

)In

dust

ryst

ruct

ure

dete

rmin

esco

mpe

titi

onan

dpr

ofita

bili

ty(i

npa

rtic

ular

,mar

keti

mpe

rfec

tion

sar

eus

edto

unde

rsta

ndpr

ofita

bili

ty).

The

cent

ralc

once

rns

are

exis

ting

stru

ctur

alco

ndit

ions

and

com

peti

tors

’po

siti

onin

g.(i

i)S

trat

egie

sar

ege

neri

can

dta

ngib

lein

the

mar

ket.

(iii

)M

arke

trat

iona

leis

high

lyec

onom

ical

(effi

cien

tand

wel

l-de

fine

dm

arke

ts,

equi

libr

ium

).(i

v)T

hest

rate

gyfo

rmul

atio

npr

oces

sin

volv

esan

anal

ytic

al(p

rim

arily

quan

tita

tive)

appr

aisa

lof

com

peti

tors

and

the

indu

stry

asa

who

le.

(v)

The

role

ofth

e(r

atio

nal)

anal

ysti

scr

ucia

l.(v

i)(E

xoge

nous

)in

dust

rial

stru

ctur

edi

ctat

esco

rpor

ate

stra

tegy

.(v

ii)

The

corp

orat

est

rate

gyis

then

tran

slat

edin

todi

visi

onal

stra

tegi

es,

whi

ch,i

ntu

rn,d

eter

min

eth

eor

gani

zati

onal

stru

ctur

esm

ost

suit

able

for

acco

mpl

ishi

ngth

ein

tend

edre

sult

s.(v

iii)

The

reex

ists

ash

ort-

run

capa

city

for

stra

tegi

cre

orie

ntat

ion.

(i)

Man

ager

sar

ehy

per-

rati

onal

.(i

i)Fi

rms

and

prod

ucts

are

the

core

unit

sof

anal

ysis

;ind

ustr

ies

are

nota

core

unit

beca

use

the

role

ofth

ein

dust

rial

stru

ctur

eis

endo

geno

us.

(iii

)C

ompe

titi

onis

rapi

dly

chan

ging

and

agil

e/pr

oact

ive,

and

effe

ctiv

ere

spon

ses

toth

ese

chan

ges

dete

rmin

efi

rmpe

rfor

man

ce.

(iv)

Com

pani

esha

vea

high

capa

city

for

‘sho

rt-r

un’

stra

tegi

cre

orie

ntat

ion.

(v)

Alt

houg

hth

ero

leof

mar

ketp

ower

isem

phas

ized

,the

focu

sis

onst

rate

gic

acti

ons

and

resp

onse

s,w

hich

repl

ace

gene

ric

stra

tegi

esan

dde

term

ine

the

rela

tion

ship

betw

een

stra

tegy

and

stru

ctur

e.(v

i)C

ompe

titiv

ead

vant

ages

are

not

sust

aina

ble

inth

elo

ngte

rmbu

trat

her

are

tran

sien

tand

tim

e-de

pend

ent

(tra

nsit

ory

and

ephe

mer

al).

Tem

pora

ryad

vant

ages

resu

ltfr

omco

ntin

uous

and

nonl

inea

rdi

srup

tion

and

dise

quil

ibri

um,w

hich

mus

tbe

deli

bera

tely

crea

ted

byco

mpa

nies

.

(i)

The

econ

omic

acto

ris

boun

dedl

yra

tion

alan

da

util

ity

max

imiz

er.

(ii)

Sim

ilar

tone

ocla

ssic

alec

onom

ics,

econ

omic

(com

peti

tive)

equi

libr

ium

isa

benc

hmar

kfo

rw

elfa

rean

alys

is(w

ell-

defi

ned

and

effi

cien

tm

arke

ts).

(iii

)Fi

rms

are

hete

roge

neou

s;re

sour

ces

and

capa

bili

ties

are

ofte

nas

ymm

etri

cally

dist

ribu

ted

and

are

notp

erfe

ctly

mob

ile

acro

ssfi

rms.

Res

ourc

ehe

tero

gene

ity

isa

func

tion

ofth

efi

rm’s

hist

ory

(pat

hde

pend

ence

)an

dm

aybe

long

last

ing

(sus

tain

edov

erti

me)

.(i

v)V

alua

ble

(rar

e,im

perf

ectly

imit

able

and

subs

titu

tabl

e)re

sour

ces

and

capa

bili

ties

allo

wfi

rms

toge

nera

tea

sust

aina

ble

com

peti

tive

adva

ntag

e.(v

)T

hero

leof

the

indu

stri

alst

ruct

ure

isen

doge

nous

.(v

i)T

heva

lue

ofco

mpa

nies

’re

sour

ces

and

capa

bili

ties

isde

term

ined

byth

em

arke

tco

ntex

twit

hin

whi

chth

ese

com

pani

esop

erat

e.M

arke

tco

ntin

uity

and

pred

icta

bili

tyar

etw

oba

sic

assu

mpt

ions

.

(i)

Man

ager

sar

era

tion

al.

(ii)

Dif

ficu

lt-t

o-im

itat

ean

ddi

fficu

lt-t

o-re

plic

ate

dyna

mic

capa

bili

ties

allo

wfi

rms

toge

nera

tea

sust

aina

ble

com

peti

tive

adva

ntag

e.(i

ii)

Dyn

amic

capa

bili

ties

are

high

lyfi

rm-s

peci

fic,

shap

edby

the

firm

’sas

setp

osit

ions

and

mou

lded

byit

sev

olut

iona

ryan

dco

-evo

luti

onar

ypa

ths.

(iv)

Alt

houg

hth

eul

tim

ate

unit

ofan

alys

isco

mpr

ises

‘pro

cess

es,

posi

tion

san

dpa

th’,

the

DC

V’s

mai

nco

ncer

nis

‘ass

etac

cum

ulat

ion,

repl

icab

ilit

yan

din

imit

abil

ity’

.(v

)T

hero

leof

the

indu

stri

alst

ruct

ure

isen

doge

nous

.(v

i)C

ompa

nies

have

alo

wca

paci

tyfo

r‘s

hort

-run

’st

rate

gic

reor

ient

atio

n.

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

eA

2.C

onti

nued

Sch

ool

The

posi

tion

ing

scho

ola

The

com

peti

tive

dyna

mic

appr

oach

bT

here

sour

ce-b

ased

view

cT

hedy

nam

icca

pabi

liti

esvi

ewd

(vii

)B

arri

ers

toim

itat

ing

ava

luab

lere

sour

cede

term

ine

the

sust

aina

bili

tyof

abov

e-no

rmal

retu

rns

and

are

afu

ncti

onof

the

degr

eeof

unob

serv

abil

ity

ofth

ese

reso

urce

s.(v

iii)

Mar

kets

can

vary

inth

eir

com

peti

tiven

ess,

and

info

rmat

ion

can

chan

gein

term

sof

how

itis

diff

used

acro

ssa

mar

ket,

butfi

rms

mus

tacq

uire

need

edre

sour

ces

and

capa

bili

ties

inim

perf

ectly

com

peti

tive

mar

kets

whe

nse

ekin

gec

onom

icre

nts.

(ix)

Som

ere

sour

ces

and

capa

bili

ties

are

inel

asti

cin

supp

ly.O

ccas

iona

lly,t

hem

arke

tsfo

rth

ese

reso

urce

sdo

note

xist

due

toso

cial

com

plex

ity

(the

yca

nnot

bebo

ught

and

sold

)an

dbe

caus

eth

eyar

eof

ten

path

depe

nden

tan

dca

nbe

deve

lope

don

lyov

erlo

ngpe

riod

s.

Sour

ce:

Bas

edon

a Min

tzbe

rg(1

990a

,p.1

27),

Ria

lp-C

riad

o(2

003,

p.20

1),F

oss

and

Ishi

kaw

a(2

007)

and

Teec

eet

al.(

1997

,p.5

27).

bTe

ece

etal

.(19

97,p

.527

),C

hen

and

Mil

ler

(201

2,p.

139)

,Len

gnic

k-H

alla

ndW

olff

(199

9)an

dD

’Ave

niet

al.(

2010

).cG

odfr

eyan

dH

ill(

1995

),B

arne

y(2

001b

),M

ahon

eyan

dPa

ndia

n(1

992)

,Tee

ceet

al.(

1997

),K

raai

jenb

rink

etal

.(20

10)

and

Foss

and

Ishi

kaw

a(2

007)

.d

Teec

eet

al.(

1997

,p.5

27).



Tabl

eA

3.T

heba

sic

prem

ises

ofth

em

ain

stra

tegy

proc

ess

trad

itio

ns

Sch

ool

And

rew

s(1

971)

and

the

desi

gnsc

hool

aA

nsof

f(1

965)

and

the

plan

ning

scho

ola

Str

ateg

yas

anem

erge

ntpr

oces

sbT

hepr

oces

sual

appr

oach

cS

trat

egy-

as-p

ract

ice

appr

oach

d,e

Bas

icas

sum

ptio

ns(i

)S

trat

egy

form

ulat

ion

isa

rati

onal

,con

scio

usan

dco

ntro

lled

proc

ess.

(ii)

The

gene

ralm

anag

eris

enti

rely

resp

onsi

ble

for

this

proc

ess.

(iii

)T

hem

odel

ofst

rate

gic

form

ulat

ion

shou

ldbe

assi

mpl

ean

din

form

alas

poss

ible

.(i

v)T

hest

rate

gies

shou

ldbe

uniq

ue(h

ighl

yfi

rmsp

ecifi

c)an

dth

ere

sult

ofa

sing

ular

crea

tive

proc

ess.

(v)

Str

ateg

ies

shou

ldbe

expl

icat

edan

dar

ticu

late

d.(v

i)T

hest

rate

gies

can

beim

plem

ente

don

lyaf

ter

they

are

fully

form

ulat

ed.

(i)

Str

ateg

yfo

rmul

atio

nis

ara

tion

alan

dfo

rmal

proc

ess

divi

ded

into

seve

rals

tage

s,ea

chof

whi

chis

clea

rly

iden

tifi

edby

cont

rol

syst

ems

and

supp

orte

dby

plan

ning

tech

niqu

es.

(ii)

The

gene

ralm

anag

eris

resp

onsi

ble

for

the

form

ulat

ion

proc

ess,

but

duri

ngim

plem

enta

tion

,re

spon

sibi

lity

issh

ared

wit

hth

epl

anne

rs.

(iii

)T

hest

rate

gies

shou

ldbe

high

lyex

plic

ated

,in

clud

ing

obje

ctiv

es,

goal

s,ac

tivit

ies

and

budg

ets.

(iv)

For

apl

anto

besu

cces

sful

,ast

able

envi

ronm

enti

sne

eded

.

(i)

The

com

bina

tion

ofco

mpl

exan

ddy

nam

icor

gani

zati

onal

envi

ronm

ents

and

the

need

for

inte

rnal

diff

usio

nof

basi

ckn

owle

dge

rega

rdin

gho

wto

craf

tast

rate

gyex

clud

esth

epo

ssib

ilit

yof

exer

ting

deli

bera

teco

ntro

l.T

here

fore

,st

rate

gycr

eati

onm

ust

take

the

form

ofa

lear

ning

proc

ess

over

tim

ew

here

inth

efo

rmat

ion

ofth

est

rate

gyan

dit

sim

plem

enta

tion

gene

rally

beco

me

indi

stin

guis

habl

epr

oces

ses.

(ii)

Alt

houg

hth

ele

ader

mus

tlea

rn–

and

occa

sion

ally

he/s

heis

the

pers

onw

hotr

uly

lear

ns–

itis

com

mon

for

the

syst

emas

aw

hole

tole

arn;

cons

eque

ntly

,the

rear

em

any

pote

ntia

lst

rate

gist

sin

mos

tor

gani

zati

ons.

(iii

)T

his

lear

ning

emer

ges

thro

ugh

beha

viou

rth

atst

imul

ates

retr

ospe

ctiv

eth

inki

ng.

(i)

‘Soc

ialr

eali

tyis

nota

stea

dyst

ate’

;rat

her,

itis

‘ady

nam

icpr

oces

s’th

at‘o

ccur

sra

ther

than

mer

ely

exis

ts’

(199

2:8)

.(i

i)‘T

heso

cial

proc

ess

isco

nstr

ucte

d,cr

eate

dby

hum

anag

ents

–in

divi

dual

orco

llec

tive

–th

roug

hth

eir

acti

ons’

(199

2:8)

.(i

ii)

‘Soc

iall

ife

isa

proc

ess

ofst

ruct

ural

emer

genc

evi

aac

tion

s,an

dth

ete

nsio

nbe

twee

nac

tion

san

dst

ruct

ures

isth

eul

tim

ate

mov

ing

forc

eof

the

proc

ess’

(199

2:8)

.(i

v)‘A

ctio

noc

curs

inth

eco

ntex

tof

enco

unte

red

stru

ctur

es’

(199

2:8)

.(v

)‘A

ctio

nsdr

ive

proc

esse

s,bu

tpro

cess

esca

nnot

beex

plai

ned

mer

ely

byre

fere

nce

toin

divi

dual

orco

llec

tive

infl

uenc

e’(1

997:

338)

;th

us‘c

onte

xtan

dac

tion

are

also

inse

para

bly

inte

rtw

ined

’(1

997:

340)

.

(i)

Str

ateg

yis

ash

ared

soci

alpr

acti

ceun

dert

aken

bype

ople

.(i

i)S

trat

egy

isac

com

plis

hed

thro

ugh

the

labo

urof

stra

tegy

,na

mel

y,st

rate

gypr

axis

wit

hin

afl

owof

mul

ti-l

evel

activ

ity

(mic

ro,m

eso,

and

mac

role

vels

).(i

ii)

Str

ateg

yw

ork

isco

nduc

ted

thro

ugh

soci

al,s

ymbo

lic

and

mat

eria

ltoo

lsca

lled

prac

tice

s.(i

v)S

trat

egy

prac

titi

oner

s(p

erso

nsor

grou

ps)

are

livin

gbe

ings

who

perf

orm

the

stra

tegy

wor

kan

dw

hose

feel

ings

,goa

lsan

dm

ulti

-lev

elac

tion

san

din

tera

ctio

nssh

ape

both

legi

tim

ate

prax

isan

dpr

acti

ces

and

stra

tegy

.(v

)W

hile

trea

ted

as‘d

iscr

etel

ybo

unde

den

titi

es’

(Gol

sork

hiet

al.2

010,

p.7)

,in

divi

dual

s‘a

rede

emed

tobe

cons

ciou

s,de

libe

rate

,goa

l-or

ient

edan

din

tent

iona

lin

thei

rac

tion

s’(C

hia

and

Mac

Kay

2007

).

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

eA

3.C

onti

nued

Sch

ool

And

rew

s(1

971)

and

the

desi

gnsc

hool

aA

nsof

f(1

965)

and

the

plan

ning

scho

ola

Str

ateg

yas

anem

erge

ntpr

oces

sbT

hepr

oces

sual

appr

oach

cS

trat

egy-

as-p

ract

ice

appr

oach

d,e

(iv)

The

role

ofle

ader

ship

isno

tto

conc

eive

deli

bera

test

rate

gies

but

tole

adth

epr

oces

sof

stra

tegi

cle

arni

ng.

(v)

Bas

edon

the

abov

e,st

rate

gies

firs

tem

erge

aspa

tter

nsfr

omth

epa

stan

don

lyth

erea

fter

mig

htev

olve

into

deli

bera

tepl

ans

for

the

futu

re(a

nd,u

ltim

atel

y,as

broa

der

pers

pect

ives

).

(vi)

‘Soc

ialp

roce

sses

are

deep

lyem

bedd

edin

the

cont

exts

that

prod

uce

and

are

prod

uced

byth

em’

(199

7:34

0).

(vii

)‘C

onte

xts

are

shap

ing

and

shap

ed’

and

‘act

ors

are

prod

ucer

san

dpr

oduc

ts’

(199

7:33

8).

(vii

i)T

he‘i

nter

chan

gebe

twee

nag

ents

and

cont

exto

ccur

sov

erti

me

and

iscu

mul

ativ

e’(1

997:

339)

and

even

tsar

ete

mpo

rally

inte

rcon

nect

ed.

(ix)

‘The

lega

cyof

the

past

isal

way

ssh

apin

gth

eem

ergi

ngfu

ture

’(1

997:

339)

.(x

)‘T

raje

ctor

ies

ofst

rate

gypr

oces

ses

are

prob

abil

isti

can

dun

cert

ain

beca

use

ofch

angi

ngco

ntex

tand

hum

anac

tion

’(1

997:

341)

.

(vi)

‘Ind

ivid

uala

genc

yis

give

non

tolo

gica

lpr

imac

yov

erac

tivit

ies,

proc

esse

san

dpr

acti

ces’

(Chi

aan

dM

acK

ay20

07).

(vii

)‘C

hang

eis

cons

truc

ted

asan

epi-

phen

omen

onof

soci

alen

titi

es’

(Chi

aan

dM

acK

ay20

07).

(vii

i)T

heex

iste

nce

‘of

“the

oret

ical

holi

sm”

inte

rms

ofex

plan

ator

yef

fica

cy’

(Chi

aan

dM

acK

ay20

07).

Sour

ce:

Bas

edon

aM

intz

berg

(199

0a,p

p.11

3–11

9),R

ialp

-Cri

ado

(200

3,pp

.193

–195

)an

dR

ialp

-Cri

ado

etal

.(20

10,p

p.11

0–11

1).

bM

intz

berg

(199

0a,p

p.15

4–15

5),R

ialp

-Cri

ado

(200

3,p.

206)

and

Min

tzbe

rget

al.(

1998

,pp.

226–

294)

.[A

ltho

ugh

this

pers

pect

ive

istr

eate

das

asi

ngle

pers

pect

ive

here

,tw

odi

ffer

entb

ranc

hes

coul

dbe

iden

tifi

ed:l

ogic

alin

crem

enta

lism

(Qui

nn19

89)

and

the

lear

ning

scho

ol(M

intz

berg

etal

.199

8).]

cPe

ttig

rew

(199

2,19

97).

dW

hitt

ingt

on(2

007,

2004

),Ja

rzab

kow

skia

ndS

pee

(200

9),V

aara

and

Whi

ttin

gton

(201

2),G

olso

rkhi

etal

.(20

10)

and

Chi

aan

dM

acK

ay(2

007)

.eT

hese

assu

mpt

ions

are

gene

ral,

and

unab

leto

cove

rpr

oper

lyth

eon

to-e

pist

emol

ogic

alnu

ance

sw

ithi

nth

eS

AP

rese

arch

.



ReferencesAbell, P., Felin, T. and Foss, N.J. (2008). Building micro-

foundations for the routines, capabilities, and perfor-mance links. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29,pp. 489–502.

Acedo, F.J., Barroso, C. and Galan, J.L. (2006). Theresource-based theory: Dissemination and main trends.Strategic Management Journal, 27, pp. 621–636.

Aldrich, H.E. (1979). Organizations and Environments. En-glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Aldrich, H.E. (1988). Paradigm warriors: Donaldson versusthe critics of organization theory. Organization Studies, 9,pp. 19–25.

Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2000). Doing Critical Manage-ment Research. London: Sage.

Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2006). Critical theory andpostmodernism approaches to organizational studies. InClegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Nord, W. R.(eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies. Lon-don: Sage, pp. 255–283.

Alvesson, M. and Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating researchresults through problematization. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 36, pp. 247–271.

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1995). Strategic manage-ment as domination and emancipation: From planning andprocess to communication and praxis. In Shrivastava, P.and Stubbart, C. (eds), Advances in Strategic Manage-ment, vol. 12A: Challenges from Outside the Mainstream.Newton, MA: JAI Press, pp. 85–112.

Amburgey, T.L. and Dacin, T. (1994). As the left foot fol-lows the right? The dynamics of strategic and structuralchange. Academy of Management Journal, 6, pp. 1427–1452.

Amitabh, M. and Gupta, R.K. (2010). Research in strategy–structure–performance construct: Review of trends,paradigms and methodologies. Journal of Managementand Organization, 16, pp. 744–763.

Andrews, K.R. (1971). The Concept of Corporate Strategy.New York: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Ansoff, I. (1965). Corporate Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ansoff, I. (1987). The emerging paradigm of strategic be-haviour. Strategic Management Journal, 8), pp. 501–515.

Ansoff, I. (1991). Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s ‘The de-sign school. Reconsidering the basic premises on strate-gic management’. Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp.449–461.

Archer, M.S. (1995). Realist Social Theory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: Past,present and future. Management Learning, 42, pp. 439–446.

Bain, J.S. (1951). Relation of profit rate to industry concen-tration: American manufacturing 1936–1940. QuarterlyJournal of Economics, 65, pp. 293–324.

Bain, J.S. (1956). Barriers to New Competition: Their Char-acter and Consequences in Manufacturing. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Es-says. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Balogun, J. (2005). From intended strategies to unintendedoutcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking.Organization Studies, 26, pp. 1573–1601.

Balogun, J., Best, K. and Lê, J. (2015). Selling the object ofstrategy: How frontline workers realize strategy throughtheir daily work. Organization Studies, 36, pp. 1285–1313.

Balogun, J., Jacobs, C.D., Jarzabkowski, P.A., Mantere, S.and Vaara, E. (2014). Placing strategy discourse in con-text: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power. Journalof Management Studies, 51, pp. 175–201.

Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategiesto unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipientsensemaking. Organization Studies, 26, pp. 1573–1601.

Barney, J.B. (1986). Types of competition and the theory ofstrategy: Toward an integrative framework. The Academyof Management Review, 11, pp. 791–800.

Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competi-tive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, pp. 99–120.

Barney, J.B. (2001a). Is the resource-based “view” a use-ful perspective for strategic management research? Yes.Academy of Management Review, 26, pp. 41–56.

Barney, J.B. (2001b). Resource-based theories of competi-tive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27, pp. 643–650.

Baronov, D. (2016). Conceptual Foundations of Social Re-search Methods (2nd edn). New York: Routledge.

Barr, P.S., Stimpert, J.L. and Huff, A.S. (1992). Cogni-tive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal.Strategic Management Journal, 13, pp. 15–36.

Barry, D. and Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward anarrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of Man-agement Review, 22, pp. 429–452.

Bettis, R.A. (1991). Strategic management and the straight-jacket: An editorial essay. Organization Science, 2, pp.315–319.

Bettis, R.A. and Blettner, D. (2020). Strategic reality today:Extraordinary past success, but difficult challenges loom.Strategic Management Review, 1, pp. 75–101.

Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific Realism and Human Emanci-pation. London: Verso.

Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to Social Enquiry (2nd edn).Cambridge: Polity Press.

Blaikie, N. and Priest, J. (2017). Social Research: Paradigmsin Action. Malden, NJ: Polity Press.

Boje, D.M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organiza-tion: A postmodern analysis of Disney as Tamara-land.Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 997–1035.

Boje, D.M. (2001). Narrative Methods for Organizationaland Communication Research. London: Sage.



Boje, D.M. (2008). Storytelling Organizations. London:Sage.

Booth, C. (1998). Beyond incommensurability in strategicmanagement: A commentary and an application. Organi-zation, 5, pp. 257–265.

Booth, C. (2000). The problems and possibilities of reflexiv-ity in strategy. Electronic Journal of Radical OrganizationTheory, 4.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Oxford: PolityPress.

Bower, J.L. (1970). Managing the Resource Allocation Pro-cess: A Study of Corporate Planning and Investment.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Burgelman, R.A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship andstrategic management: Insights from a process study.Management Science, 29, pp. 1349–1364.

Burgelman, R.A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology ofstrategy making and organizational adaptation: Theoryand field research. Organization Science, 2, pp. 239–262.

Burns, T. and Stalker, E. (1961). The Management of Inno-vation. London: Tavistock.

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigmsand Organisational Analysis (10th edn). Aldershot: Ash-gate.

Buzzle, R.D., Bradley, T.G. and Sultan, R.G. (1975). Marketshare: A key to profitability. Harvard Business Review,53, pp. 97–106.

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of transla-tions: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen inSt Brieuc Bay. In Law, J. (ed.), Power, Action, and Belief:A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.

Calori, R. (1998). Philosophizing on strategic managementmodels. Organization Studies, 19, pp. 281–306.

Camerer, C.F. (1985). Redirecting research in business pol-icy and strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 6, pp. 1–15.

Campbell-Hunt, C. (2000). What have we learned aboutgeneric competitive strategy? A meta-analysis. StrategicManagement Journal, 21, pp. 127–154.

Cannella Jr, A.A. and Paetzold, R.L. (1994). Pfeffer’s bar-riers to the advance of organizational science: A re-joinder. Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 331–341.

Carlson, K.D. and Hatfield, D.E. (2004). Strategic manage-ment research and the cumulative knowledge perspec-tive. In Ketchen Jr., D.J. and Bergh, D.D. (eds), ResearchMethodology in Strategy and Management, vol. 1 (pp.273–301). Bingley: Emerald.

Carter, C., Clegg, S.R. and Kornberger, M. (2010). Re-framing strategy: Power, politics and accounting. Ac-counting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23, pp.573–594.

Caves, R. and Porter, M.E. (1977). From entry barriers tomobility barriers: Conjectural decisions and contrived de-

terrence to new competition. Quarterly Journal of Eco-nomics, 91, pp. 241–261.

Chaffee, E.E. (1985). Three models of strategy. Academy ofManagement Review, 10, pp. 89–98.

Chakravarthy, B.S. and Doz, Y. (1992). Strategy processresearch: Focusing on corporate self-renewal. StrategicManagement Journal, 13(, pp. 5–14.

Chandler, A.J. (1962). Strategy and Structure. Chapters inthe History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cam-bridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Chen, M.-J. and Miller, D. (2012). Competitive dynamics:Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. TheAcademy of Management Annals, 6, pp. 135–210.

Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2006). Strategy as practical coping: AHeideggerian perspective. Organization Studies, 27, pp.635–655.

Chia, R., and Mackay, R.B. (2007). Post-processual chal-lenges for the emerging strategy-as-practice perspective:Discovering strategy in the logic of practice. Human Re-lations, 60, pp. 217–242.

Chia, R. and Rasche, A. (2010). Epistemological alternativesfor researching strategy as practice: Building and dwellingworldviews. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., andVaara, E. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Strategyas Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.34–46.

Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment andperformance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6,pp. 1–22.

Child, J. (1997). Strategic choice in the analysis of action,structure, organizations and environment: Retrospect andprospect. Organization Studies, 18, pp. 43–76.

Clegg, S.R., Carter, C. and Kornberger, M. (2004). Get up, Ifeel like being a strategy machine. European ManagementReview, 1, pp. 21–28.

Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 128–152.

Combe, I.A. (1999). Multiple strategy paradigms: An inte-grational framework. Journal of Marketing Management,15, pp. 341–359.

Crane, D. (1972). Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledgein Scientific Communities. Chicago, IL: Chicago Univer-sity Press.

Cravens, D.W., Greenley, G., Piercy, N.F. and Slater, S.(1997). Integrating contemporary strategic managementperspectives. Long Range Planning, 30, pp. 474–506.

Cunliffe, A.L. (2011). Crafting qualitative research: Morganand Smircich 30 years on. Organizational Research Meth-ods, 14, pp. 647–673.

Cyert, R. and March, J. (1963). A Behavioural Theory of theFirm. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in Social Science Re-search. London: Sage.

Dagnino, G.B. (2016). Evolutionary lineage of the dominantparadigms in strategic management research. In Dagnino,



G. B. and Cinici, M. C. (eds.), Research Methods forStrategic Management. New York: Routledge, pp. 31–62.

D’Aveni, R.A., Battista Dagnino, G. and Smith, K.G. (2010).The age of temporary advantage. Strategic ManagementJournal, 31, pp. 1371–1385.

Davis, G.F. (2010). Do theories of organizations progress?Organizational Research Methods, 13, pp. 690–709.

de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. PaloAlto, CA: University of California Press.

Deetz, S. (1996). Crossroads – describing differences in ap-proaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell andMorgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7, pp.191–207.

Denis, J.-L., Langley, A. and Rouleau, L. (2007). Strategiz-ing in pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoretical frames.Human Relations, 60, pp. 179–215.

Derrida, J. (1972). Positions. Paris: Minuit.Dess, G.G. and Beard, D.W. (1986). Dimensions of organi-

zational task environments. Administrative Science Quar-terly 29, pp. 52–73.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York:Henry Holt & Co.

Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M. and Verona, G. (2010). Dynamiccapabilities deconstructed: A bibliographic investigationinto the origins, development, and future directions of theresearch domain. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19,pp. 1187–1204.

Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulationand the sustainability of competitive advantage. Manage-ment Science, 35, pp. 1514–1514.

Dimaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991). Introduction. InPowell, W. W. and Dimaggio, P. J. (eds.), The New Insti-tutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: Uni-versity of Chicago Press, pp. 1–38.

Donaldson, L. (1987). Strategy and structural adjustment toregain fit and performance: In defence of contingency the-ory. Journal of Management Studies, 24, pp. 1–24.

Donaldson, L. (1995). American Anti-management Theoriesof Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Donaldson, L. (1996). For Positivist Organization Theory.London: Sage.

Donaldson, L. (1999). The normal science of structural con-tingency theory. In Clegg, S. R. and Hardy, C. (eds.),Studying Organization: Theory and Method. London:Sage, pp. 51–70.

Doz, Y.L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategicalliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strate-gic Management Journal, 17, pp. 55–83.

Drnevich, P.L., Mahoney, J.T. and Schendel, D. (2020). Hasstrategic management research lost its way? StrategicManagement Review, 1, pp. 35–73.

Durand, R. (2002). Competitive advantages exist: A critiqueof Powell. Strategic Management Journal, 23, pp. 867–872.

Durand, R., Grant, R.M. and Madsen, T.L. (2017). The ex-panding domain of strategic management research and thequest for integration. Strategic Management Journal, 38,pp. 4–16.

Eckberg, D. and Hill, L. (1980). The paradigm conceptand sociology: A critical review. In Gutting, G. (Ed.),Paradigms and Revolutions: Appraisals and Applicationsof Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science. Notre Dame, IN:University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 117–136.

Edwards, T. (2016). Institutional theory. Reflections on on-tology. In Mir, R., Willmott, H., and Greenwood, M..(Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Or-ganization Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 1261–1273.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment andreview. Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 57–74.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabili-ties: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21,pp. 1105–1121.

Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H. (2004). Rethinking strategy:Contemporary perspectives and debates. European Man-agement Review, 1, pp. 43–48.

Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H. (2008). Strategy as discoursein a global retailer: A supplement to rationalist and inter-pretive accounts. Organization Studies, 29, pp. 191–217.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cam-bridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (2005). Discourse analysis in organizationstudies: The case for critical realism. Organization Stud-ies, 26, pp. 915–939.

Fama, E. and Jensen, M.C. (1983). Agency problems andresidual claims. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, pp.327–349.

Farjoun, M. (2002). Towards an organic perspective on strat-egy. Strategic Management Journal, 23, pp. 561–594.

Feldman, E.R. (2020). Corporate strategy: Past, present, andfuture. Strategic Management Review, 1, pp. 179–206.

Felin, T., Foss, N.J. and Ployhart, R.E. (2015). The micro-foundations movement in strategy and organization the-ory. Academy of Management Annals, 9, pp. 575–632.

Fenton, C. and Langley, A. (2011). Strategy as practice andthe narrative turn. Organization Studies, 32, pp. 1171–1196.

Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in organization and manage-ment studies: A critical realist perspective. Organization,12, pp. 197–222.

Foss, N.J. (1996a). Research in strategy, economics, andMichael Porter. Journal of Management Studies, 33, pp.1–24.

Foss, N.J. (1996b). Knowledge-based approaches to the the-ory of the firm: Some critical comments. OrganizationScience, 7, pp. 470–476.

Foss, N.J. (1999). Research in the strategic theory of thefirm: ‘Isolationism’ and ‘integrationism’. Journal of Man-agement Studies, 36, pp. 725–755.



Foss, N.J. and Hallberg, N.L. (2017). Changing assumptionsand progressive change in theories of strategic organiza-tion. Strategic Organization, 15, pp. 410–422.

Foss, N.J. and Ishikawa, I. (2007). Towards a dynamicresource-based view: Insights from Austrian capital andentrepreneurship theory. Organization Studies, 28, pp.749–772.

Fredrickson, J.W. (1986). The strategic decision process andorganizational structure. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 11, pp. 280–297.

Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stake-holder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

French, S. (2009). Re-thinking the foundations of the strate-gic business process. Journal of Management Develop-ment, 28, pp. 51–76.

Friend, J. and Hickling, H. (2005). Planning Under Pres-sure: The Strategic Choice Approach (3rd edn). Amster-dam: Elsevier.

Furrer, O., Thomas, H. and Goussevskaia, A. (2008). Thestructure and evolution of the strategic management field:A content analysis of 26 years of strategic managementresearch. International Journal of Management Reviews,10, pp. 1–23.

Galbraith, J. (1977). Organization Design. Boston, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Gale, B.T. and Branch, B.S. (1982). Concentration ver-sus market share: Which determines performance andwhy does it matter? Antitrust Bulletin, 27, pp. 83–105.

Gavetti, G. and Levinthal, D.A. (2004). 50th Anniversary ar-ticle: The strategy field from the perspective of manage-ment science: Divergent strands and possible integration.Management Science, 50, pp. 1309–1318.

Gephart, R. (2004). From the editors. Qualitative researchand the Academy of Management Journal. Academy ofManagement Journal, 47, pp. 454–462.

Ghemawat, P. (2002). Competition and business strategy inhistorical perspective. Business History Review, 76, pp.37–74.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory:Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking andsensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 12, pp. 433–448.

Gioia, D.A. and Pitre, E. (1990). Multiple perspectives ontheory building. Academy of Management Review, 15, pp.584–602.

Godfrey, P.C. and Hill, C.W.L. (1995). The problem of un-observables in strategic management research. StrategicManagement Journal, 16, pp. 519–533.

Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. and Vaara, E. (2010).Introduction: What is strategy as practice? In Golsorkhi,D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., and Vaara, E. (Eds.), Cam-bridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–30.

Gomez, M.-L. (2010). A Bordieusian perspective on strate-gizing. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., and Vaara,E. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–153.

Gramsci, A.F. (1971). Selection from the Prison Notebooks.New York: International Publishers.

Grand, S., Rüegg-Stürm, J. and von Arx, W. (2010).Constructivist epistemologies in strategy as practice re-search. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., andVaara, E. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Strategyas Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,pp. 63–78.

Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory ofthe firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp. 109–122.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigmsin qualitative research. In Orma, N., Denzin, K.. and Lin-coln, Y. S. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Lon-don: Sage, pp. 105–117.

Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution ofSociety. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action.Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.

Hambrick, D.C. and Chen, M.J. (2008). New academic fieldsas admittance-seeking social movements: The case ofstrategic management. Academy of Management Review,33(, pp. 32–54.

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989). Strategic intent. Har-vard Business Review, 67, pp. 63–76.

Hannan, M. and Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecologyof organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, pp.929–964.

Hardy, C. and Thomas, R. (2014). Strategy, discourse andpractice: The intensification of power. Journal of Man-agement Studies, 51, pp. 320–348.

Harris, I.C. and Ruefli, T.W. (2000). The strategy/structuredebate: An examination of the performance implications.Journal of Management Studies, 37, pp. 586–603.

Hart, S.L. (1992). An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. Academy of Management Review, 17,pp. 327–351.

Hassard, J. (2016). Paradigms, the philosophy of science andorganization studies. In Mir, R., Willmott, H., and Green-wood, M. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophyin Organization Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 1018–1034.

Hassard, J. and Cox, J.W. (2013). Can sociologicalparadigms still inform organizational analysis? Aparadigm model for post-paradigm times. OrganizationStudies, 34, pp. 1701–1728.

Hatten, K.J. and Schendel, D.E. (1977). Heterogeneitywithin an industry. Journal of Industrial Economics, 10,pp. 399–411.

Hatten, K.J., Schendel, D.E. and Cooper, A.C. (1978). Astrategic model of the U.S. brewing industry: 1925–1971.Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp. 592–619.



He, Q., Meadows, M., Angwin, D., Gomes, E. and Child,J. (2020). Strategic alliance research in the era of digi-tal transformation: Perspectives on future research. BritishJournal of Management, 31, pp. 589–617.

Helfat, C.E., et al. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: Under-standing Strategic Change in Organizations. London:Blackwell.

Henderson, B.D. (1970). The product portfolio. PerspectivesNo. 66, Boston, MA.: The Boston Consulting Group

Herepath, A. (2014). In the loop: A realist approach to struc-ture and agency in the practice of strategy. OrganizationStudies, 35, pp. 857–879.

Herrmann, P. (2005). Evolution of strategic management:The need for new dominant designs. International Jour-nal of Management Reviews, 7, pp. 111–130.

Hinings, C.R. and Greenwood, R. (1988). The Dynamics ofStrategic Change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hitt, M.A., Boyd, B.K. and Li, D. (2004). The state of strate-gic management research and a vision of the future. Re-search Methodology in Strategy and Management, 1, pp.1–31.

Hoskisson, R., Hitt, M.A., Wan, W. and Yiu, D. (1999). The-ory and research in strategic management: Swings of apendulum. Journal of Management, 25, pp. 417–456.

Huff, A. and Reger, R. (1987). A review of strategic processresearch. Journal of Management, 13, pp. 211–236.

Huff, A.S., Huff, J.O. and Barr, P.S. (2000). When FirmsChange Direction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hunt, M. (1972). Competition in the Major Home Appli-ance Industry, 1960–1970. Boston, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Jackson, N. and Carter, P. (1991). In defence of paradigmincommensurability. Organization Studies, 12, pp. 109–127.

Jackson, N. and Carter, P. (1993). “Paradigm wars”: A re-sponse to Hugh Willmott. Organization Studies, 14, pp.721–725.

Jaffe, D. (2001). Organization Theory: Tension and Change.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jarzabkowski, P.A. (2003). Strategic practices: An activitytheory perspective on continuity and change. Journal ofManagement Studies, 40, pp. 23–55.

Jarzabkowski, P.A. (2005). Strategy as Practice: An Activity-Based View. London: Sage.

Jarzabkowski, P.A. (2008). Shaping strategy as a structura-tion process. Academy of Management Journal, 51, pp.621–650.

Jarzabkowski, P.A. and Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of ra-tionality” in practice. Strategic Management Journal, 36,pp. 537–558.

Jarzabkowski, P.A. and Spee, A.P. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: A review and future directions for the field. Inter-national Journal of Management Reviews, 11, pp. 69–95.

Jarzabkowski, P.A. and Whittington, R. (2008). Hard to dis-agree, mostly. Strategic Organization, 6, pp. 101–106.

Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of thefirm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownershipstructure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, pp. 305–360.

Johnson, G. (1987). Strategic Change and the ManagementProcess. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L. and Whittington, R.(2007). Strategy as Practice: Research Directions and Re-sources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2000). Understanding manage-ment research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making underuncertainty. Organization Science, 19, pp. 729–752.

Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry intothe epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making.Organization Science, 22, pp. 320–346.

Kay, J., McKiernan, P. and Faulkner, D. (2003). The his-tory of strategy and some thoughts about the future. InFaulkner, D. and Campbell, A. (eds.), The Oxford Hand-book of Strategy, vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press,pp. 21–46.

Kenworthy, T.P. and Verbeke, A. (2015). The future of strate-gic management research: Assessing the quality of theoryborrowing. European Management Journal, 33, pp. 179–190.

Knights, D. and Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, or-ganizations, and subjectivity: A critique. OrganizationStudies, 12, pp. 251–273.

Knights, D. and Mueller, F. (2004). Strategy as a ‘project’:Overcoming dualisms in the strategy debate. EuropeanManagement Review, 1, pp. 55–61.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm,combinative capabilities, and the replication of technol-ogy. Organization Science, 3, pp. 383–397.

Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.C. and Groen, A.J. (2010).The resource-based view: A review and assessment ofits critiques. Journal of Management, 36, pp. 349–372.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions(2nd edn). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Küpers, W., Mantere, S. and Statler, M. (2013). Strategy asstorytelling: A phenomenological collaboration. Journalof Management Inquiry, 22, pp. 83–100.

Kwan, K.M. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2001). Realism and con-structivism in strategy research: A critical realist responseto Mir and Watson. Strategic Management Journal, 22,pp. 1163–1168.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Boston, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legit-imate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization andEnvironment: Managing Differentiation and Integration.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.



Learned, E.P., Christensen, C.R., Andrews, K.R. and Guth,W.D. (1965). Business Policy: Text and Cases. Home-wood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Leiblein, M.J. and Reuer, J.J. (2020). Foundations and fu-tures of strategic management. Strategic Management Re-view, 1, pp. 1–33.

Lengnick-Hall, C.A. and Wolff, J.A. (1999). Similarities andcontradictions in the core logic of three strategy researchstreams. Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp. 1109–1132.

Levy, D. (1994). Chaos theory and strategy: Theory, applica-tion and managerial implications. Strategic ManagementJournal, 15, pp. 167–178.

Levy, D., Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (2003). Criticalapproaches to strategic management. In Alvesson, M.and Willmott, H. (eds.), Studying Management Critically.London: Sage, pp. 92–110.

Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A. and Guba, E.G. (2011).Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerg-ing confluences, revisited. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln,Y.S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 97–128.

Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A. and Guba, E.G. (2018).Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emergingconfluences, revisited. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S.(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (5thedn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 108–150.

Lorange, P. (1980). Corporate Planning. An Executive View-point. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lorange, P. and Vancil, R.F. (1977). Strategic Planning Sys-tems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Løwendahl, B.R. and Revang, Ø.. (1998). Challenges to ex-isting strategy theory in a postindustrial society. StrategicManagement Journal, 19, pp. 755–773.

MacIntosh, R. and MacLean, D. (1999). Conditioned emer-gence: A dissipative structures approach to transforma-tion. Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp. 297–316.

Mahoney, J.T. (1993). Strategic management and determin-ism: Sustaining the conversation. Journal of ManagementStudies, 30, pp. 173–191.

Mahoney, J.T. and Pandian, J.R. (1992). The resource-basedview within the conversation of strategic management.Strategic Management Journal, 13, pp. 363–380.

Mahoney, J.T. and Snyder, R. (1999). Rethinking agency andstructure in the study of regime change. Studies in Com-parative International Development, 34, pp. 3–32.

Makadok, R., Burton, R. and Barney, J. (2018). A practicalguide for making theory contributions in strategic man-agement. Strategic Management Journal, 39, pp. 1530–1545.

Mantere, S. (2008). Role expectations and middle managerstrategic agency. Journal of Management Studies, 45, pp.294–316.

Mantere, S. (2013). What is organizational strategy? Alanguage-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 50,pp. 1408–1426.

Martinet, A.C. (1997). Pensée stratégique et rationalités: Unexamen épistémologique. Management International, 2,pp. 67–76.

Martinet, A.C. (2008). 50 ans de recherche en stratégie: Nor-malisationou pluralisme épistémologique. Finance Con-trôle Stratégie, 11, pp. 39–66.

Mason, E.S. (1939). Price and production policies of large-scale enterprise. American Economic Review, Suppl., pp.61–74.

Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. InLakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and theGrowth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 59–89.

McKelvey, B. (1997). Quasi-natural organization science.Organization Science, 8, pp. 351–380.

McKelvey, B. (1999). Toward a Campbellian realist organi-zation science. In Baum, J. A. C. and McKelvey, B. (eds.),Variations in Organization Science: In Honor of DonaldT. Campbell. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McKelvey, B. (2003). From fields to science: Can organi-zation studies make the transition? Point/Counterpoint:Central Debates in Organisation Theory, 2,pp. 47–67.

McKiernan, P. (1996). Historical Evolution of StrategicManagement. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.

McKiernan, P. (1997). Strategy past; strategy futures. LongRange Planning, 30, pp. 790–798.

McKinley, W. and Mone, M.A. (1998). The re-constructionof organization studies: Wrestling with incommensurabil-ity. Organization, 5, pp. 169–189.

Miettinen, R. and Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic objects,artifacts and organizational change. Organization, 12, pp.437–456.

Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational Strategy,Structure and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, D. (1986). Configurations of strategy and structure:Towards a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 7,pp. 233–249.

Miller, D. (1987). The genesis of configuration. Academy ofManagement Review, 12, pp. 686–701.

Miller, D. (1996). Configurations revisited. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 17, pp. 505–512.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1984). Organizations: A Quan-tum View. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Miller, K.D. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2010). Testing managementtheories: Critical realist philosophy and research methods.Strategic Management Journal, 32, pp. 139–158.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structure of Organizations. En-glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (1990a). The design school: Reconsideringthe basic premises of strategic management. StrategicManagement Journal, 11, pp. 171–195.

Mintzberg, H. (1990b). Strategy formation: Schools ofthought. In Fredrickson, J. W. (ed.), Perspectives onStrategic Management. New York: Harper Business, pp.105–235.



Mintzberg, H. (1991). Research notes and communications.Learning 1, planning 0. Reply to Igor Ansoff. StrategicManagement Journal, 12, pp. 463–466.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning.Harvard Business Review Jan/Feb, pp. 107–114.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998). Strat-egy Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wild of StrategicManagement. New York: Free Press.

Mintzberg, H. and Lampel, J. (1999). Reflecting on the strat-egy process. Sloan Management Review, 40, pp. 9–20.

Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. (1985). Of strategies, deliber-ated and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, pp.257–272.

Mir, R. and Watson, A. (2000). Strategic management andthe philosophy of science: The case for a construc-tivist methodology. Strategic Management Journal, 21,pp. 941–953.

Mir, R. and Watson, A. (2001). Critical realism andconstructivism in strategy research: Toward a syn-thesis. Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 1169–1173.

Mocciaro Li Destri, A. and Dagnino, G.B. (2005). The de-velopment of the resource-based firm between value ap-propriation and value creation. In Szulanski, G., Porac, J.,and Doz, Y. (Eds.), Strategy Process. Advances in Strate-gic Management, vol. 22. Bingley: Emerald Group, pp.317–360.

Montgomery, C.A. (1988). Guest editor’s introduction to thespecial issue on research in the content of strategy. Strate-gic Management Journal, 9, pp. 3–8.

Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solv-ing in organization theory. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 25, pp. 605–622.

Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitativeresearch. Academy of Management Review, 5, pp. 491–500.

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982). An Evolutionary The-ory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Nerur, S.P., Rasheed, A.A. and Natarajan, V. (2008). The in-tellectual structure of the strategic management field: Anauthor co-citation analysis. Strategic Management Jour-nal, 29, pp. 319–336.

Newbert, S.L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestionsfor future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28,pp. 121–146.

Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice Theory, Work, and Organiza-tion. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creat-ing Company. New York: Oxford University Press.

Oakes, L.S., Townley, B. and Cooper, D.L. (1998). Businessplanning as pedagogy: Language and control in a chang-ing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly,43, pp. 257–292.

Orlikowski, W.J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting acollective capability in distributive organizing. Organiza-tion Science, 13, pp. 249–273.

Orlikowski, W.J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploringtechnology at work. Organization Studies, 28, pp. 1435–1448.

Orlikowski, W.J. and Scott, S.V. (2018). Sociomateriality:Challenging the separation of technology, work and or-ganization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, pp.433–474.

Paroutis, S. and Pettigrew, A.M. (2007). Strategizing in themulti-business firm: Strategy teams at multiple levels andover time. Human Relations, 60, pp. 99–135.

Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advan-tage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Jour-nal, 14, pp. 179–191.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1985). The Awakening Giant. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1992). The character and significance ofstrategy process research. Strategic Management Journal,13, pp. 5–16.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1997). What is a processual analysis?Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13, pp. 337–348.

Pettigrew, A.M., Thomas, H. and Whittington, R. (2002).Strategic management: The strengths and limitations of afield. In Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H., and R. Whittington(Eds.), Handbook of Strategy and Management. London:Sage, pp. 3–30.

Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizationalscience: Paradigm development as a dependent variable.The Academy of Management Review, 18, pp. 599–620.

Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978). The External Controlof Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective.New York: Harper & Row.

Phillips, N. and Dar, S. (2009). Strategy. In Alvesson, M.,Bridgman, T., and Willmott, H. (eds.), The Oxford Hand-book of Critical Management Studies. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, pp. 512–533.

Phillips, N., Sewell, G. and Jaynes, S. (2008). Applying crit-ical discourse analysis in strategic management research.Organizational Research Methods, 11, pp. 770–789.

Pinder, C.C. and Moore, L.F. (1980). The inevitability ofmultiple paradigms and the resultant need for middlerange analysis in organization theory. In Pinder, C. C. andMoore, L. F. (Eds.), Middle Range Theory and the Studyof Organizations. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 87–100.

Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. New York: Dou-bleday.

Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: FreePress.

Powell, T.C. (2001). Competitive advantage: Logicaland philosophical considerations. Strategic ManagementJournal, 22, pp. 875–888.



Powell, T.C. (2002). The philosophy of strategy. StrategicManagement Journal, 23, pp. 873–880.

Powell, T.C. (2003). Strategy without ontology. StrategicManagement Journal, 24, pp. 285–291.

Powell, T.C., Lovallo, D. and Fox, C.R. (2011). Behavioralstrategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32, pp. 1369–1386.

Pozzebon, M. (2004). The influence of a structurationistview on strategic management research. Journal of Man-agement Studies, 41, pp. 247–272.

Prahalad, C. and Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a field ofstudy: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic Man-agement Journal, 15, pp. 5–16.

Prasad, A. and Prasad, P. (2002). The coming of age of inter-pretive organizational research. Organizational ResearchMethods, 5, pp. 4–11.

Prasad, P. (2005). Crafting Qualitative Research: Working inthe Postpositivist Traditions. New York: Routledge.

Priem, R.L. and Butler, J.E. (2001a). Is the resource-based“view” a useful perspective for strategic management re-search? Academy of Management Review, 26, pp. 22–40.

Priem, R.L. and Butler, J.E. (2001b). Tautology in theresource-based view and the implications of externally de-termined resource value: Further comments. Academy ofManagement Review, 26, p. 57.

Quinn, J.B. (1989). Strategic change: Logical incremental-ism. Sloan Management Review, 30, pp. 45–60.

Ramos-Rodríguez, A.R. and Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004).Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic man-agement research: A bibliometric study of the StrategicManagement Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic ManagementJournal, 25, pp. 981–1004.

Rantakari, A. and Vaara, E. (2016). Resistance in organi-zation strategy-making. In Courpasson, D. and Vallas, S.(Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Resistance. London: Sage,pp. 208–223.

Rasche, A. (2008). The Paradoxical Foundations of StrategicManagement. Leipzig: Physica-Verlag.

Reed, M. (2005). Reflections on the “realist turn” in organi-zation and management studies. Journal of ManagementStudies, 42, pp. 1621–1644.

Reed, M. (2009). Critical realism in critical managementstudies. In Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T., and Willmott,H. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Critical ManagementStudies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 84–112.

Rialp-Criado, A. (2003). Fundamentos teóricos de la or-ganización de empresas: Un enfoque interdisciplinar.Madrid: Pirámide.

Rialp-Criado, A., Galván-Sánchez, I. and Suárez-Ortega,S.M. (2010). A configuration-holistic approach to born-global firms’ strategy formation process. European Man-agement Journal, 28, pp. 108–123.

Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemak-ing and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret andsell change every day. Journal of Management Studies,42, pp. 1413–1441.

Rouleau, L. and Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strate-gic sensemaking, and discursive competence. Journal ofManagement Studies, 48, pp. 953–983.

Rouleau, L. and Seguin, F. (1995). Strategy and organizationtheories: Common forms of discourse. Journal of Man-agement Studies, 32, pp. 101–116.

Rouse, M.J. and Daellenbach, U.S. (1999). Rethinking re-search methods for the resource-based perspective: Isolat-ing sources of sustainable competitive advantage. Strate-gic Management Journal, 20, pp. 487–494.

Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.E. and Teece, D.J. (1991). Strate-gic management and economics. Strategic ManagementJournal, 12, pp. 5–29.

Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.E. and Teece, D.J. (1994). Fun-damental Issues in Strategy: A Research Agenda. Boston,MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Salvato, C. (2003). The role of micro-strategies in the engi-neering of firm evolution. Journal of Management Stud-ies, 40, pp. 83–108.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2005). Strategic practice, “discourse”and the everyday interactional constitution of “power ef-fects”. Organization, 12, pp. 803–841.

Sanchez, R. and Heene, A. (1997). Reinventing strategicmanagement: New theory and practice for competence-based competition. European Management Journal, 15,pp. 303–317.

Schendel, D.E. (1994). Introduction to the Summer 1994special issue – ‘Strategy: Search for new paradigms’.Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp. 1–4.

Scherer, A.G. (1998). Pluralism and incommensurability instrategic management and organization theory: A problemin search of a solution. Organization, 5, pp. 147–168.

Scherer, A.G. (2005). Modes of explanation in organizationtheory. In Knudsen, C. and Tsoukas, H. (Eds.), The Ox-ford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, pp. 310–344.

Scherer, A.G., Does, E. and Marti, E. (2015). Epistemol-ogy. In Mir, R., Willmott, H., and Greenwood, M. (Eds.),The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in OrganizationStudies. New York: Routledge, pp. 33–50.

Scherer, A.G. and Dowling, M.J. (1995). Towards a recon-ciliation of the theory-pluralism in strategic management– incommensurability and the constructivist approach ofthe Erlangen school. Advances in Strategic Management,12, pp. 195–247.

Scherer, A.G. and Steinmann, H. (1999). Some remarks onthe problem of incommensurability in organization stud-ies. Organization, 20, pp. 519–544.

Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993). Strategic decisions in organiza-tions: Rational and behavioural views. Journal of Man-agement Studies, 30, pp. 107–129.

Scott, W.R. (1987). The adolescence of theory institutional.Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, pp. 493–511.

Seidl, D. (2007). General strategy concepts and the ecologyof strategy discourses: A systemic-discursive perspective.Organisation Studies, 28, pp. 197–218.



Seidl, D. and Whittington, R. (2014). Enlarging the strategy-as-practice research agenda: Towards taller and flatter on-tologies. Organization Studies, 35, pp. 1407–1421.

Seth, A. and Thomas, H. (1994). Theories of the firm: Im-plications for strategy research. Journal of ManagementStudies, 31, pp. 165–192.

Shepherd, C. and Challenger, R. (2013). Revisitingparadigm(s) in management research: A rhetorical anal-ysis of the paradigm wars. International Journal of Man-agement Reviews, 15, pp. 225–244.

Short, J.C., Payne, G.T. and Ketchen Jr, D.J. (2008). Re-search on organizational configurations: Past accomplish-ments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 34,pp. 1053–1079.

Shrivastava, P. (1986). Is strategic management ideological?Journal of Management, 12, pp. 363–377.

Sminia, H. (2009). Process research in strategy formation:Theory, methodology and relevance. International Jour-nal of Management Reviews, 11, pp. 97–125.

Sminia, H. and de Rond, M. (2012). Context and actionin the transformation of strategy scholarship. Journal ofManagement Studies, 49, pp. 1329–1349.

Smircich, L. and Stubbart, C. (1985). Strategic managementin an enacted world. The Academy of Management Re-view, 10, pp. 724–736.

Spender, J.C. (1992). Strategy theorizing: Expandingthe agenda. Advances in Strategic Management, 8,pp. 3–32.

Stacey, R.D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alterna-tive perspective for strategic change processes. StrategicManagement Journal, 16, pp. 447–495.

Steiner, G.A. (1979). Strategic Planning: What Every Man-ager Must Know. New York: Free Press.

Stonehouse, G. and Snowdon, B. (2007). Competitive ad-vantage revisited: Michael Porter on strategy and compet-itiveness. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, pp. 256–273.

Suddaby, R. and Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strate-gies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50,pp. 35–67.

Suddaby, R., Seidl, D. and Lê, J.K. (2013). Strategy-as-practice meets neo-institutional theory. Strategic Organi-zation, 11, pp. 329–344.

Summer, C.E. et al. (1990). Doctoral education in the fieldof business policy and strategy. Journal of Management,16, pp. 361–398.

Teece, D.J. (1990). Contributions and impediments of eco-nomic analysis to the study of strategic management. InFredrickson, J. W. (Ed.), Perspectives on Strategic Man-agement. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 39–80.

Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The na-ture and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise per-formance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, pp. 1319–1350.

Teece, D.J. (2020). Fundamental issues in strategy: Time toreassess? Strategic Management Review, 1, pp. 103–144.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capa-bilities and strategic management. Strategic ManagementJournal, 18, pp. 509–533.

Thomas, H. and Pruett, M. (1993). Introduction to the spe-cial issue: Perspectives on theory building in strategicmanagement. Journal of Management Studies, 30, pp. 3–10.

Thomas, P. (1998). Ideology and the discourse of strategicmanagement: A critical research framework. ElectronicJournal of Radical Organization Theory, 4.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003). Towards amethodology for developing evidence-informed manage-ment knowledge by means of systematic review. BritishJournal of Management, 14, pp. 207–222.

Tsang, E.W.K. and Kwan, K.-M. (1999). Replication andtheory development in organizational science: A criticalrealist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24,pp. 759–780.

Tushman, M.L. and Romanelli, E. (1985). Organization evo-lution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and re-orientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, pp.171–232.

Vaara, E. (2010). Taking the linguistic turn seriously: Strat-egy as a multifaceted and interdiscursive phenomenon. InJoel, A.C.B. and Lampel, J. (eds), Advances in strategicmanagement vol. 27. Bingley: Emerald Group, pp. 29–50

Vaara, E., Sorsa, V. and Pälli, P. (2010). On the force po-tential of strategy texts: A critical discourse analysis of astrategic plan and its power effects in a city organization.Organization, 17, pp. 685–702.

Vaara, E. and Tienari, J. (2011). On the narrative con-struction of multinational corporations: An antenarrativeanalysis of legitimation and resistance in a cross-bordermerger. Organization Science, 22, pp. 370–390.

Vaara, E. and Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice:Taking social practices seriously. The Academy of Man-agement Annals, 6, pp. 285–336.

Van de Ven, A.H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategyprocess: A research note. Strategic Management Journal,13, pp. 169–188.

Van de Ven, A.H., Angle, H.I. and Poole, M.S. (1989).Research on Management of Innovation: The MinnesotaStudies. New York: Harper & Row.

van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R. and van den Berg, J.(2010). A comparison of two techniques for bibliometricmapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal ofthe American Society for Information Science and Tech-nology, 61, pp. 2405–2416.

Vancil, R.F. and Lorange, P. (1975). Strategic planning in di-versified companies planning process. Harvard BusinessReview, 53, pp. 81–90.

Vogel, R. (2012). The visible colleges of management andorganization studies: A bibliometric analysis of academicjournals. Organization Studies, 33, pp. 1015–1043.

Vogel, R. and Güttel, W.H. (2013). The dynamic capabilityview in strategic management: A bibliometric review. In-



ternational Journal of Management Reviews, 15, pp. 426–446.

Volberda, H.W. (2004). Crisis in strategy: Fragmentation, in-tegration or synthesis. European Management Review, 1,pp. 35–42.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development ofHigher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press.

Walsh, J.P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition:Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Sci-ence, 6, pp. 280–321.

Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005). Or-ganizing and the process of sensemaking. OrganizationScience, 16, pp. 409–421.

Wenzel, M., Danner-Schröder, A. and Spee, A.P. (2020). Dy-namic capabilities? Unleashing their dynamics througha practice perspective on organizational routines. Jour-nal of Management Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620916549.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm.Strategic Management Journal, 5, pp. 171–180.

Whipp, R. (1999). Creative deconstruction: Strategy and or-ganizations. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., and Walter, R. N.,(Eds.), Managing Organizations. London: Sage, pp. 11–25.

Whitley, R. (1984a). The fragmented state of managementstudies: Reasons and consequences. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 21, pp. 331–348.

Whitley, R. (1984b). The development of management stud-ies as a fragmented adhocracy. Social Science Informa-tion, 23, pp. 775–818.

Whittington, R. (1989). Corporate Strategies in Recessionand Recovery: Social Structures and Strategic Choice.London: Unwin Hyman.

Whittington, R. (1993). What is Strategy: And Does it Mat-ter? London: International Thomson Business Press.

Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long RangePlanning, 29, pp. 731–735.

Whittington, R. (2003). The work of strategizing and orga-nizing: For a practice perspective. Strategic Organization,1, pp. 117–125.

Whittington, R. (2004). Strategy after modernism: Recover-ing practice. European Management Review, 1, pp. 62–68.

Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy practice and strategy pro-cess: Family differences and the sociological eye. Organi-zation Studies, 28, pp. 1575–1586.

Whittington, R. (2010). Giddens, structuration theory andstrategy as practice. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl,D., and Vaara, E. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strat-egy as Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,pp. 109–126.

Whittington, R. (2018). Greatness takes practice: On prac-tice theory’s relevance to “Great Strategy”. Strategy Sci-ence, 3, pp. 343–351.

Whittington, R. and Cailluet, L. (2008). The crafts of strat-egy. Long Range Planning, 41, pp. 241–247.

Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysisand Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.

Willmott, H. (1993). Breaking the paradigm mentality. Or-ganization Studies, 14, pp. 681–719.

Willmott, H. (2005). Organization theory as a critical sci-ence: The case of “new organizational form”. In Knud-sen, C. and Tsoukas, H. (Eds.), Organization Theory asScience: Prospects and Limitations. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, pp. 88–112.

Wittgenstein, L. (1951). Philosophical Investigations. Ox-ford: Basil Blackwell.

Wolf, C. and Floyd, S.W. (2013). Strategic planning re-search: Toward a theory-driven agenda. Journal of Man-agement, 43, pp. 1754–1788.

Zupic, I. and Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods inmanagement and organization. Organizational ResearchMethods, 18, pp. 429–472.


https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620916549

https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620916549

A (Re)view of the Philosophical Foundations of Strategic ...

Documents

Transcript of A (Re)view of the Philosophical Foundations of Strategic ...