Towards An Organic perspective on strateg. The Mechanistic perspective, страница 20

A final key implication is that strategic management when continuously practiced may develop to be a core firm capability. A firm may particularly excel at the strategic management of alliances, or become adept at more recurrent tasks: managing formulation and implementation in parallel, switching and resolving conflicts between different modes of strategy formation, and learning across cycles. Generalizing related suggestions (e.g., Hart and Banbury, 1994; Teece et al., 1997), strategic management rather than one-time strategies may have more enduring effects on the firm’s long-term performance.

Summary of the organic perspective’s epistemological underpinning and their manifestations

Like the mechanistic perspective it seeks to extend, the organic perspective offers a coherent view of core strategy issues. For example, the view of strategy as affecting the firm’s environment is also reflected in the reciprocal causality between the main constructs in the OESP model, and in the role of strategy formulation and realization. The idea of continuity and path dependence is evident in the attention given to future strategies in the organic model of strategic management. Also, the unified view of constructs and relationships in the OESP model helps better link the different subprocesses of strategic management. This internal consistency is enabled by the shared epistemological assumptions on time, flow, and the coupling of constructs. It puts conceptual, theoretical, and prescriptive models of strategy on an equal epistemological footing and encourages their crossfertilization. Panel B of Table 1 summarizes the content, influences, and context of the organic perspective on strategy. Taken together, the table’s two panels demonstrate how each set of epistemological assumptions provides coherence within each of the perspectives, and how the differences in the sets often yield distinct views on the same core issues.

DISCUSSION

Summary and contributions

The key drive behind writing this paper was the growing awareness that mechanistic models and ideas are losing their potency, while organic ideas have not gone far enough to renew them or to provide an alternative and more current perspective. One potential remedy is the development of a different overriding perspective that will help renew and integrate existing ideas and stimulate new ones. To that end we focused first on uncovering epistemological assumptions that have been used throughout the field’s evolution, and second on selectively using organic assumptions to develop an internally consistent set of concepts, explanatory and prescriptive models. This focus reflects our belief that it is through the reexamination of epistemological foundations that long-term progress in the field can be made: a fruitful way to change entrenched views is to recognize the way we think.

Each pillar of the organic perspective, developed in this paper, offers a distinctive view on the field’s main issues as well as new directions that can be explored. First, the organic concept of strategy stresses action, coordination, and adaptation. It suggests that prior notions of strategy such as position and a pattern may have much more in common than previously suggested. It particularly highlights the need to better understand the variety of coordinating mechanisms, the ways they combine or conflict in practice, and the contexts in which they are most effective. Second, the OESP model shows how different lower-level models stem from a more integrated and dynamic overview of the field’s main constructs and relationships. The model can be extended by examining less researched linkages, using process models (e.g., dialectics) to explain such issues as advantage creation, attending to history, multiple causes and change, and dealing with specific concerns of strategy like positioning or scope decisions. Finally, the organic model of strategic management highlights the recurrent and integrated aspects of the process and suggests a more holistic view of strategy itself. It urges us to better understand how strategy emerges and is enabled, and how the external and internal aspects of managing change are actually integrated.