Towards An Organic perspective on strateg. The Mechanistic perspective, страница 31

[3] We see global strategic management as a distinctive but integral part of strategy and strategic management. Therefore, the organic perspective also pertains to globalization and related issues.

[4] Our work follows the trail of prior works that stressed the importance of dynamics, process, integration, and mutual determination (e.g., Bourgeois, 1984; Haspeslagh and Jemison, 1991; Porter, 1991), or that infused prescriptive frameworks with descriptive ideas (e.g., Quinn, 1980; Bowman and Hurrey, 1993; MacIntosh and MacLean, 1999). In addition, it is both complementary and orthogonal to panoramic views of the field of strategy (Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece, 1994; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel, 1998; Ghemawat, 1999). We differ from these prior contributions in that we do not simply provide a review, explain a particular phenomenon (e.g., acquisitions), develop a singular model, or advocate a particular theoretical viewpoint (e.g., complexity theory). Rather, we make sense of the field’s evolution by using epistemological as opposed to chronological, theoretical or conceptual lenses, focus on development and not merely advocacy, provide a perspective on broad issues, and highlight both time and integration. Moreover, though we provide a broad review of the field, it is not meant to be exhaustive and fully representative, but rather to present certain developments we see as central, and serve as a logical step for developing the new perspective. We do not intend to propose a fully developed new theory of strategy or strategy phenomena either. Rather, we aim to illustrate one way in which the consistent use of a small set of epistemological assumptions can aid in developing more compatible and relevant concepts and models for strategy research and practice. To this end we sketch a preliminary, yet self-contained, structure upon which future extensions can be made.

[5] Van de Ven and Poole (1995) present another approach to model building that bears some similarities to ours. They extract four process models from existing studies and show how they can be used to generate new applications.

[6] Another important stream of research is Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) (e.g., Williamson, 1975). Although the theory is not considered as one of the founding models of strategy in looking at a firm’s resources, boundaries, and structure, it has significantly contributed to each of the three streams discussed here. More recent work has attempted to apply the theory to more central concerns of the field (e.g., Williamson, 1999).

[7] The hierarchical and recursive nature of strategy implies that a strategy can be viewed as a part of another strategy, as a standalone concept, or as including other strategies. This may require

[8] Our concept is generally consistent with other frequently used definitions of strategy such as Mintzberg’s position, ploy (included as a move in our terminology), perspective, plan, and pattern (5 P’s), and adds path as a sixth P strategy.

[9] Firm strategy as defined before includes both planned and actual coordinated goals and actions (realized strategy). Consistent with most explanatory models and empirical research in the field, strategy is defined in the OESP model as a firm’s realized strategy. In our subsequent discussion of the strategic management process, planned and realized strategies are treated separately.

[10] The model is not a theory in the usual sense but rather a frame to link lower-level models and theories. To keep it general, we deliberately avoided the use of more specific constructs such as sustained competitive advantage, industry, and capability (e.g., Teece et al., 1997), or overly strong and restrictive assumptions and views (such as a fine-grained theory of the firm). Nor do we formally state specific propositions. The focus on higherlevel constructs and relationships sacrifices some specificity but is necessary to accommodate diverse models, levels of strategy, and disciplinary orientations, and to fit more finegrained constructs and relationships into one whole.