This fragmentation has close parallels in the design model. Despite the recognition that strategy formulation and implementation are interrelated (Andrews, 1971), the design model describes them as separate activities (Mintzberg et al., 1998). Strategy implementation has been viewed as administrative rather than analytic activity involving choice, and external aspects of managing change (e.g., Chen, 1996) have been treated separately from internal ones (e.g., Quinn, 1980).
Panel A of Table 1 summarizes the underlying influences and context of the mechanistic perspective. It then focuses on the mechanistic epistemological assumptions and their imprints on the way the perspective approaches each of the field’s main concerns.
Alongside the progress made in the field in particular content areas grew several streams of ideas that questioned, complemented, and partially adapted the prevailing approaches at a more fundamental level. Particularly challenging and extending in their impact on the core assumptions of the mechanistic perspective on time, flow, and coupling, and its predominately rational and prescriptive tone, were research on strategy processes, evolutionary and process models, models highlighting interaction, and integrative research.
Complementing the focus of mechanistic models on strategy as a fully blown and perfectly realized ‘product’, grew streams of research that focused on the processes of strategy formation and implementation. These topics were by and large studied by behavioral and organizational theory researchers and had a more descriptive and dynamic tone (Hirsch, Friedman, and Koza, 1990; Schendel, 1994; Mintzberg et al., 1998). Complementing the SSP model, studies of strategy implementation and strategic change have focused on the administrative actions and processes involved in initiating, developing, and institutionalizing strategy-related changes. Joining earlier organizational development approaches to management of change (e.g.,
Lewin, 1951), works such as Quinn (1980), Pettigrew (1985), and Baden-Fuller and Stopford (1994) have dealt with the political, cultural, and psychological aspects of strategic transformation. These and related studies have highlighted the difficulties of realizing intentions, the interactive nature of internal change, and the importance of realistic and people-sensitive strategic initiatives (Ansoff, 1984).
A more direct challenge to mechanistic ideas came from studies of strategic choice and strategy formation. Most research underlying the mechanistic view is guided by the concept of a decisionmaking process based on a planned and rational unitary actor model (Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece, 1994). In this model, decision-making processes are viewed as black boxes that have no consequences for the decision itself (Simon, 1986). The choice is guided by the comparison of discrete alternatives (Pettigrew, 1992; March, 1994; Dosi et al., 1997). By contrast, strategic decision making and cognitive research (e.g., Mintzberg, Raisinghani, and Theoret, 1976; Reger and Huff, 1993) have suggested that the decision-making process matters to the plans and decisions reached (Simon, 1986). Sociopolitical influences such as negotiation and procedural justice, learning, and other information processing activities can affect the kinds of strategies and plans selected, and consequently also affect performance outcomes (e.g., Hart and Banbury, 1994). Choices are viewed as nested (e.g., March, 1994) and multistaged (Brehmer, 1992) rather than discrete, and choice sets can be modified endogenously (Kleindorfer, Kunreuther, and Schoemaker, 1993).
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.