Towards an Organic Perspective on Strategy

Author(s): Moshe Farjoun

Source: Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 7 (Jul., 2002), pp. 561-594
Published by: John Wiley & Sons
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3094444
Accessed: 07/10/2010 09:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jwiley.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

John Wiley & Sons is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Strategic
Management Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
 Strategic ManagementJournal
Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
Published online 28 March 2002 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smj.239

ON
TOWARDSAN ORGANICPERSPECTIVE
STRATEGY
( MOSHE FARJOUN*
Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration, Tel Aviv University,
Ramat Aviv, TelAviv, Israel

The strategyfield's core issues the concept of strategy,causal models relatingstrategy

to other constructs,and modelsof strategicmanagementand choice have been previousla,y
addressedby two key progressions.The mechanistic perspective based on disciplinary-based
theories,the designmodel,and a viewof strategyas a plannedposture,has provideda unified
view, but a narrowand increasinglyless pertinentone. The adventof organic developments
that includedstrategyprocess research,evolutionarxand processmodels,and interactiveand
integrativeviews, has providedrichnessand pertinence,but not a unifiedperspective.These
two progressionsmarkedan epistemologicalshiftfrom mechanisticto organicassumptions:
from discreteto incessanttime,from directionalto interactiveflow, and from diffierentiated
to integratedconstructsand models.Buildingon this shift, this paper proposesan organic
perspective thatcombinestheinsightsandcoherenceof themechanistic perspectivewiththemore
relevantorganicideas. It makesaxseof the organicassaxmptionsto advancea view of strategv
as an adaptivecoordination,introducethe Organization-Environment-Strategy-Performance
(OESP) integrativetheoreticalmodel,and presentan organic modelof strategicmanagement.
Theorganicperspectiveprovidesa basisfor an upgraded,moreunified,andbetter-attuned view
on strategy'score issues.Copyright t 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION Rumelt, 1991). Strategy itself has been mainly

viewed as a postureand a plan. The design model
What is strategy? What is strategy related to, and the SWOT(strengths,weaknesses,opportuni-
and how? How is strategy selected and man- ties, and threats)(Andrews, 1971; Barney, 1997)
aged? How should it be? These core questions modelhavebeenusedas the mainmodelsof strate-
have been addressedby two broad progressions, gic managementandstrategicchoice, respectively.
distinguishedmore by epistemologicaldifferences We call this first developmentthe mechanistic
than by chronologicalorder. The first develop- perspective,for it provides a set of conceptual,
ment consisted of several disciplinary-basedand explanatory,and prescriptivemodels that are uni-
stand-alonemiddle-rangetheories,mainlythe SCP fied by the Newtonianmechanisticlogic as their
(Structure-Conduct-Performance),SSP (Strat- sharedepistemologicalbasis.
egy-Structure-Performance) andRBV (Resource- The mechanisticperspective remains vital to
Based View). These theorieswere used to explain the developmentof strategy research, teaching,
variations in strategy and performance (e.g., and practice. It has establishedthe centralityof
key constructs, questions, and theoretical rela-
Key words: concept of strategy; strategic management; tionships, and its prescriptiveorientationreflects
strategy research; synthesis; process the field's commitmentto help firms improve
*Correspondence to: Moshe Farjoun, Leon Recanati Graduate
School of Business Administration,Tel Aviv University, Ramat theirfunctioningand performance,and to address
Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. managerialconcerns.Most significantly,aided by

Copyright t 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 14 September 1999
Final revision received 25 October 2001
562 M. Farjoun
shared assumptions,its concepts, theories, and
models have mutuallyreinforcedone another,and
facilitatedbetter communication,generation,and
exchangeof ideas. Yet, despite its many contribu-
tions andachievements,the tenetsof the mechanis-
tic perspectivehave been increasinglyquestioned.
Its simpleassumptions,bettersuitedto a relatively
stableandpredictableworldandto the earlystages
of the field's development,seem to be at odds
with the more complex and constantlychanging
observedbehaviorof individuals,firms,and mar-
kets. Furthermore, criticshave describedit as static
(e.g., Pettigrew,1992), linear(e.g., Hendersonand
Mitchell, 1997), and fragmented(e.g., Schendel,
1994).
Promptedby the limitationsof the mechanis-
tic perspective, and inspired by the advent of
new ideas in the social and naturalsciences, the
field's second broad progressionsaw the emer-
gence and spread of organic developments.Key
developmentsincluded researchon strategyfor-
mation and implementation(e.g., Quinn, 1980;
Mintzbergand Waters, 1985), evolutionaryideas
and process models (e.g., Nelson and Winter,
1982; Van de Ven, 1992; Barnettand Burgelman,
1996), the recognitionof reciprocaland interac-
tive relationshipsbetween strategyand othercon-
structs(e.g., Tirole,1989;HendersonandMitchell,
1997), and integrativeresearch(e.g., Baden-Fuller
and Stopford,1994). These researchstreamshave
introducedmore dynamic and eclectic views of
key constructs,offerednew views of strategyfor-
mation, highlighted the importanceof strategy
processes especially againstrationalunitaryactor
models, and portrayeda more complex view of
causality. Moreover,they have shifted the focus
fromstrategicchoice to strategicchange,andgiven
much more recognitionto 'soft' variablesand to
the messy side of reality.
Collectively, the organic developmentsrepre-
sentedan importantshift in the underlyingepiste-
mologicalassumptionsof the mechanisticperspec-
tive concerningtime, flow, and coupling within
and across models. First, the view of time in the
mechanisticperspectiveis discrete or synchronic:
it focuses on a single occurrenceof a set of givens
at a particulartime. As a result, it is essentially
timeless:it pays little attentionto past and future,
process,lags andduration,andthe creationof new
entities.By contrast,organicideas adoptan inces-
sant and diachronicconceptof time:conceptsand
relationshipsare partof continuousprocessesand
Copyright t 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
iteratedsequences,and entities are createdrather
than given.' Second, the mechanisticperspective
contrastswith organicideas in its directionalview
of flow. It often presentsa linear and sequential
view of events and causality,andhighlightsdeter-
ministiccauses of behavior(Bourgeois,1984). By
implication,it pays less attentionto interaction,
feedbackand to multiple,reciprocal,and endoge-
nous influences.Lastly, althoughearly concepts
of strategyemphasizedits integrativenature(e.g.,
Andrews, 1971), the mechanisticperspectiveis
characterizedby internaldifferentiation:the con-
structsin bothexplanatoryandprescriptivemodels
are more developedand betterspecifiedthan the
relationshipsthathold them together.By contrast,
organicideas emphasizeintegrated(i.e., problem-
centered,multileveland relational)views of strat-
egy phenomenaand concepts.
The move to organic epistemologicalassump-
tions offers several advantagesto the field of
strategy.First, it reflects a growing appreciation
of the complexity and interdisciplinarynatureof
strategy.Second, it maintainscontinuitysince it
builds on, ratherthan rejects, lower-level mech-
anistic conceptions(Boulding, 1956). Finally, as
changes, conflict, and interdependenceare the
chief concernsof modernfirmsand strategyitself,
organicassumptionsseem to hold a naturalappeal.
Nonetheless,organicdevelopmentshavebeenonly
partiallyassimilatedinto the mainstreamof the
strategyfield. Furthermore,the field has experi-
enceda growingseparationbetweenprevalentana-
lytic andprescriptivemodelsandthe new concepts
and descriptiveideas.
Against this backdrop,and to capitalizeon the
relative strengthsof the two progressions,this
paper outlines an organic perspective on strat-
egy core issues.2Being organic,the new perspec-
tive derives its internalconsistencyfrom organic
epistemologicalassumptionson time, flow, and
construct coupling. Paralleling the mechanistic
' A continuousview of timeaccommodates bothcontinuousand
discontinuousnotionsof change.
2Burns and Stalker(1961) originallyused the terms mecha-
nistic andorganicto distinguishbetweendifferentorganization
structuresand managementstyles requiredto cope with differ-
ent environments.We borrowthe termsto suggestthatdifferent
contextscall for differentclustersof conceptual,explanatory,
prescriptive,
andmethodological models.Wetoo view the terms
as describingpointson a continuumratherthana dichotomy
of puretypes.We findthe termorganicparticularly suitableto
our purposessince it combinesnotionsof process,unity,and
vitality.
Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
 Towardsan Organic Perspective on Strategy 563

perspective,it providesa unifiedset of conceptual, ideas and applications.Once the organic set of
explanatory,and prescriptiveelements. Particu- assumptionson time, flow, andcouplinghavebeen
larly,it introducesa conceptof strategyas an adap- isolatedfrom their originalcontributionsthey can
tive coordinationof goals and actions. It presents be appliedand recombinedin ways otherthanthe
the Organization-Environment-Strategy-Petfor- one describedhere.5
mance (OESP) model, an integrativetheoretical We begin by describing the mechanisticper-
structurethat links different middle-rangetheo- spective on strategy.We then introduceorganic
ries andsynthesizesmechanisticandorganicideas. thinkingby discussing the developmentof perti-
Lastly, it includesan organic model of the strate- nent researchstreams.The bulk of the paper is
gic managementprocessin whichthe iterativeand devotedto buildingon these two developmentsto
integrativequalities of the process are stressed. proposea three-pillaredfoundationfor an organic
These three parts of the organic perspectiveare perspectiveon strategy.In conclusion, we sum-
internallycompatible,representthe field's con- marizethe contributionsandpotentialimplications
tinuity and progress, and are better suited to a of the new perspective,and proposeavenues for
morecomplex,interconnected,uncertainandever- futurework.
changingworld.3
The developmentof an organicperspectivecan
contributeto the field in several respects.4First, THE MECHANISTICPERSPECTIVE
withoutsacrificingkey insights and contributions
of the mechanisticperspectiveand its attentionto The mechanisticperspective consists of a con-
prescription,an organicperspectivecanhelp renew cept of strategy,relatedexplanatorymodels, and
mechanisticconceptsandmodelsby aligningthem managerialframeworks.Thesethreeelementshave
with organicthemes. Second, an organicperspec- commonepistemologicalassumptions.
tive can integratevarious research streams that
share its epistemologicalorientation,and foster
cross-fertilizationof conceptual,theoretical,and A concept of strategy
analyticmodels. Lastly,beyondrenewaland inte- In the mechanisticperspective,strategyis mainly
grationthe organicperspectivecan stimulatenew viewed as a posture a relatively stable config-
uration a fit or alignment between mutually
3Wesee globalstrategicmanagement as a distinctivebutintegral supportingorganizationalelements,such as activi-
partof strategyandstrategicmanagement. Therefore,theorganic
perspectivealso pertainsto globalizationandrelatedissues. ties and organizationalstructure,and environmen-
40ur work follows the trail of priorworks that stressedthe tal elements,such as a customergroup.Two main
importanceof dynamics,process,integration, andmutualdeter- types of strategyposturesareposition (e.g., differ-
mination(e.g., Bourgeois,1984;HaspeslaghandJemison,1991; entiationstrategy)andscope (e.g., verticalintegra-
Porter, 1991), or that infused prescriptiveframeworkswith
descriptiveideas(e.g., Quinn,1980;BowmanandHurrey,1993; tion) (Chandler,1962;Rumelt, 1974, 1984;Porter
MacIntoshandMacLean,1999).In addition,it is bothcomple- 1980, 199l; Wernerfelt,1984). Strategypostures
mentaryandorthogonalto panoramicviews of the fieldof strat- have been the traditionalfocus of research on
egy (Rumelt,Schendel,andTeece, 1994;Mintzberg,Ahlstrand,
andLampel,1998;Ghemawat,1999).Wedifferfromtheseprior strategicgroups (e.g., Cool and Schendel, 1988),
contributions in thatwe do not simplyprovidea review,explain diversification(e.g., Montgomery,1982),andstrat-
a particularphenomenon(e.g., acquisitions),developa singular egy-structure (e.g., White, 1986). In addition,
model,or advocatea particular theoreticalviewpoint(e.g., com-
plexitytheory).Rather,we makesense of the field's evolution early treatmentsof strategy, rooted in strategic
by using epistemologicalas opposedto chronological,theoreti- planningmodels, have viewed it primarilyas a
cal or conceptuallenses,focus on developmentandnot merely rationalplan. In this view, which still guidesmuch
advocacy,providea perspectiveon broadissues, and highlight
bothtimeandintegration. Moreover,thoughwe providea broad of the thoughtin the strategyfield, action is pur-
reviewof the field, it is not meantto be exhaustiveand fully posive and prospective,and strategiesare realized
representative,butratherto presentcertaindevelopmentswe see as planned (Mintzberg,Ahlstrand,and Lampel,
as central,and serve as a logical step for developingthe new
perspective.We do not intendto proposea fully developednew 1998).
theoryof strategyor strategyphenomenaeither.Rather,we aim
to illustrateone way in whichthe consistentuse of a smallset of
epistemological assumptionscanaidin developingmorecompat- 5Van de Ven and Poole (1995) presentanotherapproachto
ible andrelevantconceptsandmodelsfor strategyresearchand modelbuildingthatbearssomesimilaritiesto ours.Theyextract
practice.To thisend we sketcha preliminary, yet self-contained, four processmodelsfrom existingstudiesand show how they
structureuponwhichfutureextensionscan be made. can be usedto generatenew applications.

Copyright
t 2002JohnWiley& Sons,Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
564 M. Farjoun

Explanatory models of strategy attributesthataffectstrategyandperformance.The

RBV sees certainresourceattributes,such as inim-
Two concerns of mainstreamstrategy research itability, uniqueness,and flexibility, as enabling
are to explain what determinesfirm performance, certainstrategies(e.g., cost leadership),and con-
and to identify what affects firm strategy.Three tributingto sustainedcompetitiveadvantage(Pen-
research programshave been particularlyinflu- rose, 1959;Wernerfelt,1984;Barney,1991;Teece
ential in addressingthese questions. The Struc- etal., 1997).6
ture-Conduct-Performance (SCP)paradigm(e.g., Collectively,thesedifferentmodelsof the mech-
Bain, 1956) and its derivative,the industrystruc- anisticperspectivesee firmperformanceas affected
ture model (Porter,1980), view the externalenvi- by the environmentand by firmstrategyandother
ronmentas a key determinantof strategyand per- internalattributes,such as resourcesand organi-
formance.In the SCP model, the main causality zationalstructure.Strategyitself is influencedby
flows from industry structuralvariables to firm internal firm attributesand by attnbutes of the
conduct(i.e., strategy)and then to firmand indus- environment.Thisbasiccausalmodeldescribesthe
try performance.Porter'smodel retainedthe basic main relationshipsbetween central constructsin
flow of the SCP but, ratherthan focusing on the strategyresearch:organizationalresources,envi-
industry,used the model to discuss the strategies ronment, strategy, organizationalstructure,and
open to the firm (e.g., positioning strategies)to performance.It also informscorrespondingmodels
improveits performance. of strategicmanagementand choice.
The Strategy-Structure-Peormance(SSP)
paradigm highlights the significance of factors
complementaryto strategy,such as organizational The design approach to strategic management
structure, to firm performance.Originating in and choice
Chandler's (1962) classic study of the growth What implicitlyprovidedthe glue for integrating
of large American firms, the model proposes different causal models of strategy was the
that different growth strategies are driven by design model, a prescriptiveframeworkwidely
the accumulation and deployment of internal used as a guide for practice and teaching
resources,and are matched by differentinternal (Andrews,1971;Porter,1980;Barney,1997).The
structuralarrangementssuch as the functional frameworkdescribes the strategic management
and multidivisional organizational structures. process- the actual steps and subprocessesof a
Chandler'stheoreticalmodel particularlyimplied firm'sstrategythatneedto be managedto maintain
that the match between strategy and structure or improvethe firm'sperformance.In the standard
results in better performance.This proposition design model, the strategicmanagementprocess
has guided subsequent studies (e.g., Stopford generally consists of two main subprocesses:
and Wells, 1972; Rumelt, 1974; Franko, 1976; strategyformulationand strategyimplementation.
Miles and Snow, 1978), has been integrated The strategw} formulationsubprocessis concerned
into contingencyresearchin organizationaltheory with analyses of the external and internal
(e.g., Galbraithand Nathanson, 1978), and has environmentand the choice of strategy at the
been extendedby configurationtheoriststo other corporate,business,andfunctionallevels. Strategy
organizationalprocesses(e.g., Miller and Friesen, implementationcomprises a series of primarily
1978). This literatureprovides a causal model administrative activitiesandincludesthe designof
that relates strategy,organizationalstructure(and organizationalstructureand processes (Chandler,
processes),and performance. 1962), and the absorption of policy into the
A related and more recently embracedmodel organization's social structure(Selznick, 1957:
is the Resource-BasedView (RBV). Anticipating 91-107).
Chandler'swork, early work in RBV delineated
a process theory of the role of resourcesin firm
Another importantstream of researchis TransactionCost
growth(Penrose,1959). Severalmorerecentvari- 6Economics (TCE)(e.g., Williamson,1975).Althoughthe theory
ants of the model have been proposed(e.g., Wer- is not consideredas one of the foundingmodelsof strategyin
nerfelt, 1984;Teece, Pisano,and Shuen, 1997), all lookingat a firm'sresources,boundaries,and structure,it has
significantlycontributedto each of the threestreamsdiscussed
of whichcomplementthe externalview of the SCP here. More recentwork has attempted to apply the theoryto
by their mirroremphasison internalfirm-specific morecentralconcernsof the field (e.g., Williamson,1999).
Copyright (C)2002 John Wiley & Sons. Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594(2002
 Towardsan OrganicPerspectiveon Strategy 565

Each of the main researchprogramsreviewed (e.g., Porter, 1980) and of internal resources (e.g.,
has contributedto the design model. Derived Barney, 1991). A prime reason for this coher-
from the SCP are the five forces model and ence is the shared but largely implicit views on
its dynamic counterpart-the industrylife cycle time, flow, and coupling. These were influenced
model -which became the dominantmodels for to a large extent by Newtonian mechanics and its
analyzingthe externalenvironment(Porter,1980). application to microeconomics, and by the ideas
The SSP has provided a theoretical basis for prevailing in the behavioral and economic disci-
the formulation-implementation link in the design plines when the formal study of business strategy
model. In addition,by focusing on internalfirm began.
attributes,the RBV model,togetherwith the value
chain model of firm workflow activities (Porter,
1985, 1996), has become a standardtool for ana- Conceptof time:discrete
lyzing the internal(i.e., organizational)side in the
In the mechanistic perspective firm strategy, the
design model (Barney,1997). environment, and the firm's stock of resources,
The SWOTmodel is often used to prescribethe structure, and work flow technology are often
strategicchoice (i.e., strategyformulation)partof treated as given discrete categories or states that
the design model. In this model, strategy needs coalesce to create static efficiency (e.g., economies
to match the firm's internalresources and dis- of scale), fit, and configuration (e.g., Galunic and
tinctive competencieswith environmentaloppor- Eisenhardt, 1994). Strategic management is viewed
tunities and threats,so as to better meet overall as a one-time sequence of formulating and imple-
goals and objectives (Andrews, 1971). The deci- menting a single choice rather than a continuous
sion rule used is to choose a strategythat capital-process. Strategy-making mechanisms are assumed
izes on the firm's strengths,fixes its weaknesses, to be in place, and learning, history, and processes
exploits its opportunities,and defends or neu- are downplayed. Strategy formulation and imple-
tralizes threats(Barney, 1997). Strategyneeds to mentation activities are condensed in time and their
exhibitexternal consistency firmresourcesneed duration is inconsequential. The choice part of the
to be matchedwith environmentalopportunities, model often involves once-and-for-all choices for
and internal consistency- a fit between strategywhich past and subsequent choices are not con-
and organizationalelements. In addition,strategy sidered, and where there is no distinction between
needs to be in line with managerialvalues and initiation of a new alternative and the continuation
with societalexpectations(Andrews,1971;Porter, of an existing one (March and Simon, 1958).
1980). The differentresearchprogramsreviewed The discrete view of time is also evident in
have also provided support for these different the research models being used. Most mechanis-
forms of fit (e.g., Chandler,1962). tic studies use variance models, cross-sectional
in design. Variance models are concerned mainly
with what the relative explanatory power of differ-
Common epistemologicalunderpinnings
ent determinants of abstract entities (i.e., strategy
Despite differences in content and emphasis, and performance) are ratherthan how these entities
the field's main issues- the nature of strategy, are formed (Mohr, 1982). Although process expla-
its relations, and the ways it is managed and nations featuring the role of history and learning
selected- are addressedin the mechanisticper- were central in the founding of the main theo-
spective in a consistentand mutuallyreinforcing ries (e.g., Selznick, 1957; Penrose, 1959; Chandler,
manner.A view of strategyas a positionor posture 1962), they have been largely neglected by subse-
implies that strategicchoice is mostly a selection quent research.
amongstaticconfigurations.Furthermore, the view Underlying this particular view of time and the
of strategy as mainly determinedby the indus- focus on variance models is the idea of eXcient
try environment,implicit in the SCP, is paral- historicalprocess an evolutionary process that
leled in the design model by the relativeneglect moves rapidly to a unique steady-state equilibrium
of strategies that change the environment(e.g., solution, conditional on current environment con-
Child, 1972). Finally,the SWOTmodel of strate- ditions, and thus independent of the historical path.
gic choice is now characteristicallyaccompanied A static alignment at a given time is the product of
by explanatorymodelsof the externalenvironment a rapid optimizing process. The process is assumed
Copyright (C)2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
566 M. Farjoun

to lead to improvementof fit and ultimatelyto the and reciprocal causality between these distinct
one most suitable(March,1994). elements(Hendersonand Mitchell, 1997).
This fragmentationhas close parallels in the
designmodel.Despitethe recognitionthatstrategy
Concept offlow:
directional formulationand implementationare interrelated
In early versionsof the main underlyingresearch (Andrews, 1971), the design model describes
programscausalityran from environmentto strat- them as separate activities (Mintzberg et al.,
egy and performance(in the SCP model), from 1998). Strategyimplementationhas been viewed
strategyto structure(and performance)in the SSP as administrativerather than analytic activity
model, and from resources to strategy and per- involvingchoice,andexternalaspectsof managing
formancein the RBV model. Moreover,as pos- change (e.g., Chen, 1996) have been treated
tures,strategiesaremainlyresponsesto given con- separatelyfrom internalones (e.g., Quinn, 1980).
straintsratherthan means to influence them or Panel A of Table 1 summarizesthe underlying
createnew environments(Porter,1980).Addition- influencesand contextof the mechanisticperspec-
ally, at its core, positioninganalysisoften assumes tive. It then focuses on the mechanisticepistemo-
no responses from competitorsand other play- logical assumptionsand theirimprintson the way
ers (Ghemawat,1991), and value chain analysis the perspectiveapproacheseach of the field's main
largelyrepresentssequentialinterdependence (Sta-concerns.
bell and Fjeldstad,1998). The sequentialflow of
the design model and the view of strategicchoice TOWARDSAN ORGANIC
also illustratedirectionality.Feedbackloops are PERSPECTIVE:PRIOR ORGANIC
either implicit, as from implementationto for- DEVELOPMENTS
mulation, or absent, as in the case of perfor-
mance influenceson other elements.Choice con- Alongsidethe progressmadein the fieldin particu-
stitutesa constrainedoptimizationproblemwhere lar contentareasgrew severalstreamsof ideasthat
the choice set is exogenous and given (Porter, questioned,complemented,and partiallyadapted
1991). the prevailingapproachesat a more fundamen-
tal level. Particularlychallengingandextendingin
Coupling within and across models: diffierentiated theirimpacton the core assumptionsof the mecha-
nistic perspectiveon time, flow, and coupling,and
Because of their disciplinaryand historicalroots, its predominatelyrationaland prescriptivetone,
the main models have been developed from the were researchon strategyprocesses,evolutionary
ground up as fragmentedmiddle-rangetheories and process models, models highlightinginterac-
ratherthan as lower-leveltheoriesstemmingfrom tion, and integrativeresearch.
an integratedoverviewof strategy.Moreover,each
of the researchprogramshas focused on a dif-
ferent element of the strategy picture: environ- Strategy processes
ment,resources,and organizationalstructure.This Complementingthe focus of mechanisticmodels
division of labor between programsof research on strategyas a fully blown andperfectlyrealized
has facilitatedscientific progress- but at a price 'product',grew streamsof researchthatfocusedon
(Schendel,1994). The SCP and the industrystruc- the processesof strategyformationand implemen-
ture model have been criticizedfor lackinga the- tation.These topics were by and large studiedby
ory of the firm's organization(Teece, 1984) and behavioraland organizationaltheory researchers
as generally ignoring the inner context of strat- and had a more descriptive and dynamic tone
egy (Pettigrew, 1987). The SSP has been criti- (Hirsch, Friedman,and Koza, 1990; Schendel,
cized for not payingattentionto competition(Gal- 1994;Mintzberget al., 1998). Complementingthe
braithand Nathanson,1978), andresearchin RBV SSP model,studiesof strategyimplementation and
has only recently begun to explore the mutual strategicchange have focused on the administra-
dependenceof internalresourcesand competition tive actions and processes involved in initiating,
(Levinthal and Myatt, 1994; Priem and Butler, developing,and institutionalizingstrategy-related
2001). By and large,theoreticaldifferentiationhas changes. Joining earlier organizationaldevelop-
considerablyhamperedthe recognitionof multiple ment approachesto managementof change (e.g.,
Copyright (C)2002 John Wiley & Sonst Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2Q02)
 o

Table 1: Contrastingthe mechanistic and organic perspectives

s Epistemological assumptions provide unity within each perspective and distinct views on the strategy field's core issu

8 Panel A Panel B
_

or
3
Mechanistic
perspective Organic
pers
3
D
Context: stable and predictable environment, early stages of the field's Context: dynamic and uncertainenvironment, advan
development development
Ct
Key influences: Newtonian mechanics logic and ideas prevailing in the Key influences: new ideas in naturaland social scien
3
behavioral and economic disciplines at the field's formation (strategy process research, evolutionary and proces
r research) and selected key mechanistic ideas

Unifying epistemological assumptions Unifying epi

Discrete Directional Differentiated Incessant time: Int

time: flow: constructs: Diachronic-focus
Synchronic-a Linear, deterministic Narrowly defined on sequences, Re
single and sequential view and poorly history, evolution, int
occurrence of of events and integrated voluntarismand the fee
Strategy's Main
glvens at a causality constructs creation of new
Concerns: point in time entities

What is strategy? A plan and a Static alignment A response to Restricted view Co-aligning planned Continuous Adap
posture constraints or actual co-alignment and infl
coordination of dynamic balance. env
goals and actions Includes states and
trajectories.Active

Explanatory SCP, SSP, RBV Static constructs. Linear flow. Single Disciplinary-based Organization- History and Multi
(causal) models Reductionism. causes and middle-range Environment- (co)evolution. Self- Co
Variance determinism theories. Key Strategy-Perfor- influences. Paths. Str
models (why concepts narrowly mance (OESP) Process models. How env
questions). defined and poorly and why questions. Per
Efficient history connected Imperfect adaptation ind
Ce Model of the Design model; Static constructs. Sequential activities of Separationof The organic model Continuous process. Feedb
:N strategic SWOT; One-time formulation and formulation and of strategic Process needs to be str
management Rational choice. Static implementation. implementation. management created and facilitated Dia
process Unitary alignment. A Internaland (i.e., recurrentmode). for
:N

Actor given process external aspects of Highlights learning rea

:9
managing change and duration fac
. .
are unlinked Beh
crz
-
dec
I

Q
o
-
568 M. Farjoun
Lewin, 1951), works such as Quinn (1980), Pet-
tigrew (1985), and Baden-Fullerand Stopford
(1994) have dealt with the political, cultural,and
psychologicalaspects of strategictransformation.
These and related studies have highlighted the
difficultiesof realizing intentions,the interactive
natureof internalchange, and the importanceof
realistic and people-sensitivestrategic initiatives
(Ansoff, 1984).
A more direct challenge to mechanisticideas
came from studiesof strategicchoice and strategy
formation.Most researchunderlyingthe mecha-
nistic view is guidedby the conceptof a decision-
making process based on a plannedand rational
unitaryactormodel (Rumelt,Schendel,andTeece,
1994). In this model, decision-makingprocesses
are viewed as black boxes that have no conse-
quencesfor the decision itself (Simon, 1986). The
choice is guided by the comparisonof discrete
alternatives(Pettigrew,1992; March, 1994; Dosi
et al., 1997). By contrast,strategicdecision mak-
ing and cognitive research(e.g., Mintzberg,Rais-
inghani,andTheoret,1976;RegerandHuff, 1993)
have suggested that the decision-makingprocess
mattersto the plansanddecisionsreached(Simon,
1986). Sociopoliticalinfluences such as negotia-
tion and proceduraljustice, learning, and other
informationprocessing activities can affect the
kinds of strategiesand plans selected, and con-
sequentlyalso affect performanceoutcomes(e.g.,
Hart and Banbury, 1994). Choices are viewed
as nested (e.g., March, 1994) and multistaged
(Brehmer,1992) ratherthan discrete, and choice
sets can be modifiedendogenously(Kleindorfer,
Kunreuther,and Schoemaker,1993).
Otherstudieshave highlightedthe role of vision
and cognition, and of other cultural,social, and
political influences in strategy folllwation(e.g.,
Chakravarthyand Doz, 1992; Pettigrew, 1985).
They emphasizedthe incrementalnatureof deci-
sion making,initiallyas a disjointedprocess(Lind-
blom, 1959), and subsequentlyas a more inte-
gratedone (Quinn, 1980). Quinn's (1980) model
particularlyblendeddescriptiveideas of an incre-
mental and nonlinear process with the logical
and prescriptive marks of more rational mod-
els. Bower (1970) and Burgelman(1983) added
a view of strategyformationas dialectic involv-
ing rationalizationand structuringby top manage-
mentand strategicinitiativesof lower levels in the
organization(Noda and Bower, 1996).
Copyright (D 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
A relatedbranchof strategyinquiryhas high-
lighted the significantrole of strategicleadership
in the strategicmanagementprocess (e.g., Ham-
brick and Mason, 1984). This streamof research
has highlightedthe role of the CEO, board, and
top managementin formulatingand implement-
ing strategies(e.g., McNultyandPettigrew,l999).
It served as a counterpartto the mechanisticand
rationalviews of strategy making by highlight-
ing humanengagementandmultiparty(e.g., board,
consultants)interactionin these processes,andthe
critical role of strategicleaders in mediatingthe
firm's internaland externalcontexts.
A final and most significantdevelopmentalong
these lines suggests that realized strategies can
be a result of prior plans but can also be an
emergentstreamof actions recognizedas a pat-
tern after the fact (Mintzbergand Waters,1985).
Ratherthenbeing distinctprocessesas depictedin
the design approach,formulationand action (i.e.,
implementation)are better viewed as constantly
coevolving: following and affecting each other
througha process of strategiclearningand con-
trol.Good strategiescan be formedanddiscovered
by experimentingandobservingthe organization's
actionsratherthanby conductingformalanalyses
of strengthsand opportunities(Mintzbergetal.,
1998). In contextswhere plans provedinadequate
at times, such as in an increasinglyturbulentenvi-
ronment,the conceptof emergentstrategyoffered
a viable alternative.
Ultimately,these various contributionsuncov-
ered a persistenttension in the field: strategyis
an attemptto constructa rationaland predictable
world in the face of a reality that quite often
resists it.
Process approaches and models
A secondorganicdevelopmentstems not so much
from dealing with topics largely ignored by the
mechanisticapproaches,but ratherfrom a differ-
ent orientationto process and time. It particularly
includes the rise of new evolutionarymodels of
the strategyprocess, and the growing interestin
viewing strategy in dynamic and process terms
(Porter,1991; Melin, 1992; Academyof Manage-
ment, 1997). Inherentto models of evolutionary
processes is the idea that 'historymatters' (Nel-
son and Winter,1982; North, 1991; March,1994;
Arthur,1995). Some of these models suggest that
particularpathsmay influenceoutcomesexamined
Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
 Towardsan OrganicPerspectiveon Strategy
at a particulartime, and that history does not
necessarilywork efficiently to producethe opti-
mal configurationsand alignmentssuggested by
the mechanisticviews. In contrastto the traditional
modelof the environment(e.g., industrystructure),
more attentionis given to marketprocesses(Nel-
son and Winter, 1982; Dosi etal., 1997). Static
conceptionsof resourceshave been augmentedby
models that highlight process and learning(e.g.,
McGrath,MacMillan, and Venkataraman,1995;
Teece et al., 1997). Similarly,studiesof organiza-
tional structurehave shiftedthe focus to its evolu-
tionarynature(e.g., GalunicandEisenhardt,1995),
andto organizing the processualqualityof orga-
nizationalsystems and participants(e.g., Weick,
1969; Pettigrewand Fenton,2001).
A relateddevelopmentis the adventof action-
based notions of strategy.In the new evolution-
ary and process models, strategy involves more
than a static position in the marketplace(Inkpen
andChoudhury,1995), andincludespaths,moves,
and actions (Pettigrew, 1992). Models of strate-
gic interaction(Chen, 1996), real options (e.g.,
Bowman and Hurrey, 1993), commitment(Ghe-
mawat, 1991), and dynamic capabilities (Teece
et al., 1997) still see strategyas being subjectto
planning,but highlight its continuousand path-
dependentnature. By highlightingthe idea that
firms need to conduct experimentsand not only
analysisandplanning,recentapproacheshave fur-
ther promoted a more active view of strategy
(e.g., Miller and Chen, 1996; Brown and Eisen-
hardt,1998).
Process models and designs have moved the
focus from what determinesstrategyand perfor-
mance to how they are determined(Mohr, 1982).
The new models do not necessarilyrejectthe idea
of steady states and strategicpositions but rather
seek to explain firm success and failureby look-
ing at historicaldevelopments,and observingthe
pace and path of change (Hodgson, 1993; Bar-
nett and Burgelman,1996). They examine how
initialconditions,timing,managerialchoices,deci-
sive moments,learning,and path-dependentpro-
cesses enable and constraincurrentstates and in
turn provide platforms for future developments
(Doz, 1996;Mitchell, 1989;LiebermanandMont-
gomery, 1998).
Interaction
With the growing appreciationof interactionand
reciprocalcausation of key constructs,feedback
Copyright (D 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
569
loops havebeen addedin eachof the mainresearch
programsof the mechanistic perspective. They
accounted for firm conduct and firm structure
effects on industrystructure(Caves etal., 1980;
Caves, 1980;Porter,1991), highlightedthe effects
of organizationstructureon strategy (Hall and
Saias, 1980), and recognizedthe effects of strat-
egy and environmenton resources(Porter,1991;
Rumelt et al., 1994). These latter new linkages
in particularhave pointed to new connections
across the original models. The focus on strate-
gic (external) interactionis also the main fea-
ture of the game theoreticalmodels in the new
Industrial-Organization (I-O) economics (Tirole,
1989; Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996). Mod-
els admittinginteractionview capabilities,com-
petition, and performanceas both affecting and
being affectedby strategy,and are less concerned
with the differential contributionsof resources
and environmentto performance(e.g., Hender-
son and Mitchell, 1997). Differences between
firms are traceablenot only to their contempo-
raryconditions,but also to the historyof interac-
tions betweenthem and with otheractors(March,
1994).
Reciprocal causality has also penetratedthe
design model of the strategic managementpro-
cess. It is implicit in the notion of dynamic fit
(Itamiand Roehl, 1987). It is also evident in the
dialectic view of formulationand implementation
(Burgelman,1983; Mintzbergand Waters,1985).
Finally,it is representedin the renewedinterestin
internalfirmattributes,such as organizationstruc-
ture, culture,and decisionprocesses,as important
influenceson, ratherthan derivativesof, strategy
formulation(Barneyand Zajac, 1994).
Integrative works
A final set of organicdevelopmentshas helped to
counteractthe growingproliferationof alternative
views and approachesto strategy,and to emulate
earlier works that provided a more holistic pic-
tureof strategy(e.g., Chandler,1962). In addition
to the integrationgainedby the increasedrecogni-
tion of reciprocalcausation,integrativeworkshave
offeredmore eclectic views of concepts and phe-
nomena,linkedpreviouslydisconnectedconstructs
and levels of analysis,andattemptedto furtherthe
bridgingof fragmentedmodels.
Examples of such integrative work are the
developmentof comprehensivemodelsof business
Strat. Mgmt. J.. 23: 561-594 (2002)
570 M. Farjoun
phenomenasuch as acquisitions(Haspeslaghand
Jemison, 1991) or turnaround(Baden-Fullerand
Stopford,1994). Also includedis the workof con-
figurationtheorists(e.g., MillerandFriesen,1978),
which extended earlier notions of alignmentto
show how environment,strategy, structure,and
other organizationalattributescoalesce into dis-
tinctandepisodicallychangingarchetypes.Finally,
several works have explorednew ways to merge
behavioraland economic approaches(Barneyand
Ouchi, 1986), to bridge across multiple levels
of analysis (Pettigrew, 1985), and to integrate
prescriptiveand descriptive models (e.g., Bow-
man and Hurrey,1993; MacIntoshand MacLean,
1999).
Common epistemological underpinnings
Although some of these organic developments
came from within the field, others were influ-
enced by advancesin the naturalsciences,particu-
larly in modernphysics (McKelvey, 1997; Mac-
Intosh and MacLean, 1999), and in the social
sciences (e.g., Adam, 1990; Sztompka,1993) as
exemplified by evolutionaryideas in economics
(Hodgson, 1993), and by the move in organiza-
tional theory from rational to naturalviews on
organizations(Scott, 1995) and towards process
models (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). Com-
mon to these diversedevelopmentsin the organic
wave is a shift in the underlyingepistemologi-
cal assumptionsrelated to time, flow, and cou-
pling found in the mechanisticperspective.The
new ideas have emphasizedtime as incessant and
diachronic:concepts and relationshipsare partof
continuous processes and dynamic phenomena,
and entities are not fixed but are rathercreated
and changed. History matters in the sense that
prior events and developmentscondition current
choices, and action, human agency, and social
processes are central. In the organic view inter-
action and multiple and mutual influences are
highlighted;there is more room for actors' dis-
cretionandfor endogenousdevelopments.Finally,
the new ideasemphasizeinterdisciplinary andinte-
grated views of strategy phenomenaand con-
cepts, particularlydepicting and explainingphe-
nomena,while being sensitiveto theirinterdepen-
dent social, economic, and informationalaspects,
and highlightinglinkageswithin and acrosslevels
of analysis.
Copynght (C)2002 John Wiley & Sons. Ltd.
TOWARI)SAN ORGANIC
PERSPECTIVE:THREE PILLARS
If the mechanisticperspectiveprovideda shared
epistemologicalbase, the advent of the organic
developmentshas broughtthe field muchmorerel-
evant and enrichedapproachesto its core issues.
Despite the growing recognitionin the field of
the relevanceand utilityof the organicideas, they
have not managedto changethe mechanisticper-
spective's more secure yet increasinglyfractured
'deep structure'.Consequently,the field's transi-
tion away fromfragmentation, stasis, and linearity
has remainedincompleteand uneven.
For example, Porter's (1996, 1997) reflection
on the conceptof strategy,which includesseveral
dynamicextensions, still retains a view of strat-
egy as a plannedand stableposition,and suggests
a linear causal flow running from environment
to position(i.e., strategy)to internalorganization.
Similarly,SWOT analysis, rooted in mechanistic
ideas, still remainsa primaryconsultingtool (Hill
and Westbrook,1997) and serves as an organiz-
ing frameworkfor researchand teaching(Barney,
1997). Organicideas have made more mark on
the mechanisticperspective'sconcept of strategy
andtheoreticalmodelsthanon its analyticmodels.
Moreover,the independentand disciplinaryroots
of the mainmechanisticmodelshave left linkages
across models less specified. Against this back-
drop, an organic perspectivecan furtherexploit
the generativepower of the organicassumptions
to facilitate the transitionto more dynamic and
integratedapproachesto the field's core issues.
We proceed by developing three related build-
ing blocks that parallelthe main elementsof the
mechanisticperspective:a conceptof strategy,an
integrativetheoreticalmodel, and a model of the
strategicmanagementprocess.
A concept of strategy
A natural starting point and a linchpin to the
other two pillarsof the organicperspectiveis the
concept of strategy.Extendingearlierdefinitions
(Chandler, 1962; Andrews, 1971; Porter, 1980;
Quinn, 1980; Mintzbergand Waters,1985; Itami
and Roehl, 1987; Bowman and Hurrey, 1993;
Brown and Eisenhardt,1998), we define a firm's
strategyas the pZannedor actual coordinationof
the firm's major goals and actions, in time and
space, that continuouslyco-align thefirm with its
Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
 Towardsan OrganicPerspectiveon Strategy 571

environment.The firm's strategyco-aligns it with chain, higher levels in the hierarchychange less
the environmentby building on and modifying frequently.Theyprovidedirection,integration,and
the firm'sinternalattributesand forces to respond consistencyfor lowerlevels, whichconstitutemore
to, and influence, environmentalconditions and detailedmeansand actionsfor reachingends. Yet,
developments.In short, strategyis co-aligningor despite this hierarchy,the relationshipbetween
adaptivecoordination.This definitionestablishes strategyand tactics is dialecticalratherthan lin-
three interrelatedpoints: strategyemphasizesthe ear: availablemeans constrainstrategy(Harkabi,
firm'sbehaviorover time andincludesmajorgoals 1997) and lower-level managerialinitiativescan
and actions;it includescoordinationin space and converge into and shape higher-level strategies
time, of which planned coordinationis just one (Bower, 1970; Burgelman,1983).8
special case; and it deals with adaptation,which
includes both respondingto and influencingthe Plannedand actual coordination
environment.Each of these points is elaborated
below. Coordinationis a term used to distinguishstrat-
egy from random behaviors and completely
autonomousactions(e.g., Quinn, 1980;MacCrim-
Goals and actions mon, 1993). Strategycoordinatesgoals andmeans,
Strategyincludes both goals and actions (Chan- internal resources and administrativeinfrastruc-
dler, 1962; Andrews, 1971; Porter, 1980). Goals ture, specific courses of actions, and internaland
'state what is to be achieved and when results external aspects of managing change. A firm's
are to be accomplished,but do not state how coordinatedaction (i.e., realized strategy) can
the results are to be achieved' (Quinn, 1980). be based on a mix of coordinatingmechanisms
Actions are a general label for bundles, sets, (Thompson,1967). It can be recognizedretrospec-
or sequencesof resourcedeployments,initiatives, tively as a patternin a streamof actions(Andrews,
responses,moves, deals, investments,and devel- 1971; Quinn, 1980; Mintzbergand Waters,1985).
opments.They include firm 'conduct'or external Coordinatedaction can be guided by a plan (i.e.,
actions as viewed in the intendedstrategy)in which long-termgoals, inten-
(i.e., interorganizational)
SCP and in the new industrialorganizationlit- tions, and means are specifiedpriorto actions. It
erature(e.g., Shapiro, 1989), political and legal can be centralizedand stem from core manage-
actions,and majorinternaladministrativeactions. rial values or from a guiding sense of purpose.
This part of the definitionemphasizes what the Alternatively,it can be based on improvisation,
firmdoes over time: its actionsand behaviors. mutualadjustmentto internaland externaldevel-
Goalsandactionscorrespondto threetraditional opments, or the (unexpected)interactionof agents
elementsof strategycontent(i.e., strategicchoice): (e.g., individuals) respondingto simple rules.9
goals (e.g., vision), postures (e.g., scope or com- Strategy also includes both the firm's loca-
petitiveposition),andmoves (e.g., joint ventures). tion and direction within the environment.Spa-
These elements constitutea means-ends hierar- tial coordination, or strategy states, and tempo-
ral coordination, or strategy paths, are therefore
chy (Simon, 1976), in which posturesare inter-
complementaryfacets. Strategystates (i.e., pos-
mediate goals coordinatedby higher-levelgoals
tures) representa view of the firm's coordinated
(e.g., profitability)and major policies that affect
the firm's overall directionand viability (Quinn,
1980). Postures,in turn, guide lower-level poli- us to view strategyalso in relationto otherpotentiallyrelated
strategies.
cies and actions, such as new productdevelop- 8 We see the idea that goals alwaysdictateeverythingelse as
ment and human resource management(Porter, misguided.Rather,in some circumstances,intentionscan be
1980). Specific moves are meansto achieve goals more malleablethanresourcestocks or environmentalcontin-
we view goalsnot only as constraintson
Consequently,
directly or indirectlythroughthe creation,suste- gencies.
subsequentdecisionsandstrategiesbutalso as variables.
nance,and changeof postures,or throughchanges 9 Wepreferto emphasizecoordinationandintegrationratherthan
in the firm's resourcemix.7 In this means-ends patternas a distinguishingcharacteristicof strategy.Patterns
in action can generally result from three sources: random
action,accumulation path-dependent,
of incremental, andlocally
7The hierarchicalandrecursivenatureof strategyimpliesthata adaptiveindividualsteps(suchas experiments),or granddesign.
strategycan be viewedas a partof anotherstrategy,as a stand- In our view, a patterncreatedby randomactions,even one that
aloneconcept,or as includingotherstrategies.Thismayrequire helpsthe firmadapt,does not constitutea strategy.

Copyright (C)2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
572 M. Farjoun

resource deploymentsand its state of alignment content (goals and actions), mode of behavior
with the environmentfrozen at a point in time. (coordinated), and context (adaptation).Goals
Strategypaths andtrajectoriesrepresentthe devel- and actions define what is included in strategy.
opmentover time of coordinatedactionsequences Coordinationdistinguishes strategy from other
or moves. Both states (e.g., a firm's international
noncoordinatedbehaviors even those that are
diversityposture)and paths(e.g., a firm'sinterna-adaptive yet allows for multiple forms of
tionalizationpath) are a confluenceof the firm's coordinationto be included. Lastly, adaptation
designedand emergentstrategies. suggests that not all coordinatedbehaviors are
included (Meyer, 1991). It therefore provides
Continuousco-alignment external anchoring to otherwise closed-system
forms of coordination.
The firm'sinternallycoordinatedgoals andactions The definition also blends mechanistic and
are anchored in its continuous co-alignment organicideas. It includesmechanisticconceptions
with its environment(Thompson, 1967; Porter, of strategy as postures, states, and plans.
1991). Co-alignmentis viewed both as a process However, by integrating organic ideas, such
and as a relatively constant and superordinate as emergent strategy, it portrays strategy as
goal, coordinatingother intermediategoals and less rigid, linear, static, individualistic, and
lower-level actions, but not necessarily as an prospective.The definitionfurtherutilizesthethree
outcome obtained. Co-alignment is sustained definingcharacteristicsof the organicperspective.
through actions aimed at creating, (re)defining Particularly,it emphasizes incessant adaptation
and integratingthe firm's domains, throughthe and temporal and emergent coordination;it is
firm's navigationand (re)positioningwithin each interactive and emphasizesmutual and dialectic
domain, and through changes in the firm's influences;and it integrates externaland internal
resource mix, which supports,and is influenced actions,multiplecoordinationmodes and multiple
by, the firm's domain and navigationstrategies. strategylevels.l°
In contrast to steady-state alignment, the co-
alignment process is ongoing and dynamic and
consistsof a seriesof ever-changinggames(Porter, The OESP explanatory model
1991).
Key to the notion of co-alignmentis the idea The second pillar of the organicperspective,and
of mutual influence.The firm both adaptsto its parallelto the mechanisticperspective's maintheo-
context, and at times adapts the context to it reticalmodels,is the Organization-Environment-
(Pfeffer and Salancick, 1978; Bourgeois, 1984; Strategy-Performance(OESP) model, a meta-
Itami and Roehl, 1987; Porter, 1991). The firm theoreticalframework.The purposeof the model
needs to manage that is selectively identify, is to organizeandsynthesizeexistingmiddle-range
respond to, and influence, internaland external theoretical models and to stimulate the devel-
constraints historical,organizational,and envi- opment of new ones. In addition, the model,
ronmentalactors, attributes,forces, and develop- describedin Figure 1, aims to inform and rein-
ments which define and limit for a meaningful force analyticmodelsof strategicmanagementand
period of time what it can successfully achieve choice. We next describethe majorconstructsin
(Pettigrew, 1987; Ghemawat, 1991). It needs to the OESP model, their key relationships,and the
strikea dynamicbalance in allocatingits resources main implicationsof the model.
between responsive and defensive actions, and
more entrepreneurialones such as innovating,
influencingsources of uncertainty(e.g., govern- Major constructs in the OESPmodel
ment regulations),and changing the rules of the In additionto the already-defined conceptof strat-
game (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996). egy, the othermajorconstructsin the OESP model

Summaryand contributionof the definition 10Our concept is generallyconsistentwith other frequently

used definitionsof strategysuch as Mintzberg'sposition,ploy
The three elements of the definition clearly (includedas a move in our terminology),perspective,plan,and
establish strategyat the intersectionof a specific pattern(5 P's), andaddspathas a sixthP strategy.
Copyright (C)2002 John Wiley & Sons. Ltd. StscAt. Mgt?lt. J.. 23:561-594(2002
 . ructure:9
,hlp, *9 Quality
Info of *short-and
iz ;/ long- ... .. ** **- .t and
' perfor

ow
5 . Firm Strategy .
. XI .
g The FIrm'scoordinated _ .
o
majorgoals and actions, in w :
3
FirmOrganization * time and space, that *' *
_.
t h) * continuouslyco-align the ^ t
r HIrm wlth ItSenvlronment er!
Resources(and technology): < 9 *9999999999999999999999FJ
Ct
o resources,relationships,worl
k-flow _ v .
J
technology. X. X w
r
L Administrativeand social St
Organizationalstructureand
processes (strategymaking, \ FirmPerformance* 4 g
organizing,strategicleaders
processing,etc.).
*- tor r_alinrormt bv k)

J
_______________ KeContributions
l | _________________ 4 _____ ________________________________________s___________ |

Relationshipshighlightedin j Keyorganicdevelopments: j Broader,mu

themechanisticperspective: j > > (self-influences) j Extensiono
' *' ' to less resea
Model Representation ' Model Representation Model Representation '
in OESP ' j Emphasiso
' SCP(New linkages) S-E, P-E Managementof S-O, O-S '
SCP E-S-P j internalchange** ! Accom
| l Highlightin
SSP S-O-P | SSP(New linkages) O(structure)-S Strategic(external) E(strategies)-S-Pj relationship
@ interaction** S-E(.strategies)-P' strategy-en
RBV O-S-P ' RBV (New linkages) S-O(resources) @
j P-O(resources) Self-influences** o O SS EE ' Descrlbing
. . ' ' ' multiplecausal
ce | (as m evolutlonary P-P ,
j Cross-modellinkages O (structure, andoptions models , Accommod
z resources)-E, and in emergent !
i P-S strategy). Arrowslinking differentconstruc
' Strategicdecision making varianceandprocess models
i & formation(e.g. O (process)-S * Constructsin the OESP includ
.strategicleadership)** representationsand indicateboth
. .

Process models
ch
-

I
D Figure 1. The Organization-Environment-Strategy-Performance(OESP) mode! Key contributionsof the mechanistic and or
- s

- /
574 M. Farjoun

are firm organization,firm environment,and firm structure)andinformal(e.g., culture,politics,con-

performance.11 trol) mechanisms and organizing activities for
allocating,coordinating,and mobilizing decision
Firmorganization. Firm organizationincludes authority,resources,and rewards(Penrose, 1959;
the actual and potential internalmeans, mecha- Chandler,1962; Galbraithand Nathanson,1978;
nisms, institutions,developments,and forces that Miles and Snow, 1978). In particular,we stress
induce, enable, modify, and carry out the firm's the processes, such as formulation,and emer-
strategy. These elements are not simply viewed gence, by which strategiesare created,realized,
as tools but also as part of an open system that and managed,and the processes by which infor-
has organic qualities such as emergence, infor- mationis created,acquired,developed,maintained,
mal relationships,and indeterminacy.Firm orga- organized,disseminated,transmitted,and commu-
nizationparticularlyincludes the states and paths nicated (e.g., Huber, 1991). Also included are
(i.e., history) of (a) resources (and technology), the nature, attributes,connections, core values,
and (b) administrativeand social structure.These beliefs, ideology, and behaviorof strategiclead-
two categoriesare viewed as mutuallysupporting ers and key decision-makersin the organization
and as distinctfrom strategy,whose main role is (Selznick, 1957; Porter,1980; Collins and Porras,
to mediate and guide firm-environmentinterac- 1994).
tions. Each of the categoriesis viewed as an open These two categoriesof firm organizationare
subsystemthat interactswith relatedelements in consistent with and extendthe view of the firmas
the environmentthroughresourceexchange,com- a pool of resources embeddedin an administrative
munication,and other relationshipsand boundary framework (Penrose, 1959;Chandler,1962).They
. .

actlvltles.
.

reflect the respective emphasesof behavioraland

Resources(andtechnology) we includeunder economic models, and include their common
this general heading internal means and devel- aspects, such as technology and information,as
opments that can be drawn upon to accomplish well as their distinctive technologicaVeconomic
the firm's goals, and especially those uniquefea- vs. social contributions.The categorieschosen
tures called the firm's distinctivecompetencies may have some conceptual overlap, yet they
(Selznick, 1957). We break down the general broadlyrepresentthe richnessand complexityof
headinginto the following: resources the finan- organizationswith their formaland informal(i.e.,
cial, physical, informational,and organizational sociopolitical), human, technological,economic,
resources,and the humanresourcessuch as expe- informational,and relationalaspects.
rience, skills, motivation, and behaviors associ-
ated with individualsin the organization(Penrose, Firm environment(s). Although at times the
1959; Barney, 1991); relationships the formal physical environmentcan be an importantcon-
and informalrelationships,such as contracts,trust, siderationfor the firm, it is useful to view the
loyalty, legal rights, and social capital that bind environmentas consistingprimarilyof otheractual
the firmwith variousactorsand stakeholders;and and potentialactorsand theiractions(Bain, 1956;
workfow technology the variousactivitiesand PfefferandSalancik,1978;Porter,1980;Branden-
operationsin which resourcesare employed,and burgerand Nalebuff, 1996). Actors can represent
the way work is done (Porter,1985). differentlevels of analysis.They can includeindi-
Administrative and social structurerepresents viduals, groups, organizations,or a set of indi-
the ways in which means are administeredand viduals and organizations(i.e., ecology) such as
relationshipsare regulatedamong the firm's par- a strategic group (Caves and Porter, 1977), an
ticipants.These include the organization's struc- industry(Porter, 1980), a field (Scott, 1992), a
tureandprocesses the formal(e.g., governance distributionchannel(Sternand El-Ansary,1988),
a network(Thorelli,1986), an ecosystem(Moore,
1993),or a valuenet (Brandenburger andNalebuff,
IIFirm strategyas definedbefore includesboth plannedand political, eco-
actualcoordinatedgoals and actions (realizedstrategy).Con- 1996). The environment includes
sistentwith mostexplanatorymodelsandempiricalresearchin nomic, social, institutional,inforrnational,techno-
the field, strategyis definedin the OESP model as a firm's logical, and demographicaspects,conditions,and
realized strategy.In our subsequentdiscussionof the strategic
management process,plannedandrealizedstrategiesaretreated developments. The firm'senvironmentparticularly
separately. includesactors'resources,technologies,strategies,
Copyright (D 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
 Towardsan OrganicPerspectiveon Strategy 575

relationshipsand interactions,and performances, such as goals and strategyhave been consolidated

and external developments, forces, events, and into fourbroader,higher-level,logical counterparts
discontinuitiesthat may affect them and the focal (e.g., strategy),and their dynamic and unfolding
firm. Finally, environmentincludes past and cur- naturehas been highlighted.In addition,relation-
rent environments,and future environmentsin ships between key constructswere consolidated
which the firm may potentiallyoperateeither as into more coarse-grainedlinkages,and definedso
a result of its own initiativesor the result of the as to emphasize temporallinkages and process
in1t1at1vesof otheractors.
. . .

themes and questions. Each of the constructsis

As with the otherconstructs,the environmentis also describedby its state (e.g., initialconditions)
viewed both as a state and a path. This reflects, andevolutionarypath.It also influencesitself over
for example,the complementarynotionsof indus- time:being influencedby its previoushistory,and
try structureand industryevolution, the current influencingits futurepathandstate(Monge,1990).
compositionof actorsandtheirexit and entrypat- Furthermore, to providecompatibilityof its parts
terns,the currentposturesof differentactors,and and be consistent with underlyingresearchpro-
the ways these postureshave been formed.Addi- grams,the modeldeliberatelyremainsat a general
tionally,the environmentis viewed as influencing level of abstraction.Yet, reciprocalinfluencesalso
its own path. This view of environmentincludes operatewithineach of the main constructs.l2
dynamic features, integrates various behavioral Each constructin the model can affect each of
and economic conceptionsof its compositionand the othersin spaceandtime,bothdirectlyandindi-
character,andattendsto multiplelevels of analysis. rectly,throughorjointly with otherconstructs,and
can serve as a startingpoint for causal sequences.
Firmperformance. Firmperformanceindicates Constructsare not requiredto evolve at the same
the qualityof the firm's continuousco-alignment rate,andtheirreciprocalrelationshipsdo not imply
with the environment(Chakravarthy,1986). This equalmagnitudeor simultaneityof influence.This
parametercan be representedby growth, prof- quality enables the understandingof partsof the
itability, survival, and other standardindicators, model withoutnecessarilystudyingall constructs
and by nonfinancialindicators.Dependingon the at the same time. Particularly,the model can be
context, firm performancemay include indica- used to examine specific dyadic relationshipsas
tors in multiple levels of analysis (e.g., business well as more complex causal relationshipssuch
unit). Althoughit is often describedin reference as positive and negative feedbackloops (Arthur,
to a particularpoint in time (Dosi et al., 1997), 1995).
it also needs to capturedevelopmentand change To simplify, Figure 1 describes the model as
over time and reflectdifferenttime scales. Partic- fully endogenous. Although the model is inter-
ularly,static efficiencycan lead to maladjustment nally determined,history and environmentcan
in the long run (Ghemawatand Ricart i Costa, be defined in such a way as to make parts of
1993;Miller, 1990), and short-termmisfitmay be them exogenous.Moreover,some interactionsare
neededto attainlong-termdynamicfit (Itamiand assumedto be the resultof randomprocessesand
Roehl, 1987). Therefore,firm performancemay chance events. Furthermore,the strengthof the
particularlyneed to attend to conflicting short- relationshipsbetweenconstructs,such as the rela-
term and long-termalignments.It needs to reflect tive influenceof environmenton performance,may
both the qualityof the firm's exploitationof cur- vary in differentsettings.
rent resources and its capacity to generate new
ones (LevittandMarch,1988;SanchezandHeene,
1997). 12 The modelis not a theoryin the usualsensebutrather
a frame
to link lower-levelmodelsandtheories.To keep it general,we
deliberatelyavoidedthe use of morespecificconstructssuchas
Flowandrelationships in theOESPmodel sustainedcompetitiveadvantage,industry,and capability(e.g.,
Teeceet al., 1997),or overlystrongandrestrictiveassumptions
In the OESP model, which is described in the and views (such as a fine-grainedtheoryof the firm).Nor do
upper part of Figure 1, firm organization,firm we formallystate specific propositions.The focus on higher-
environment,firm strategy,and firm performance level constructsand relationshipssacrificessome specificity
but is necessaryto accommodatediverse models, levels of
arecausallyrelatedone to another.In the transition strategy,and disciplinaryorientations,and to fit more fine-
from priorwork to the currentmodel, constructs grainedconstructsandrelationships intoone whole.

Copyright t 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
576 M. Farjoun
The model assigns particularimportance to
history in the way it defines constructs and
relationships.History influences but does not
determine currentand future states of each of
the variables.Systems are distinguishednot only
from events outside them but also from events
occurringprior to them and subsequentto them
(Fuller, 1982). Therefore,context is definedboth
in space and in time. The model also assumesthat
agentsintendto choose and act rationallyand that
theiractions are for the most partprospectiveand
purposive.Yet it recognizesdeviationsfromratio-
nal behaviorsuch as those stemmingfrom agents'
cognitive limits, the means-ends uncertaintyin
the informationenvironment(Marchand Simon,
1958),andotherconstraintson efficientadjustment
(e.g., inertia).More generally the model extends
the idea of rational planned action by opening
the 'blackbox' to admitothercognitive,affective,
social, and politicalinfluences.l3
In the OESP model the interactionbetweenthe
constructscan be designed, evolving, or random,
but it is best capturedby the notionof continuous
co-alignment.As suggested by the definitionof
strategyas adaptivecoordination,two facetsof this
process are particularlyimportant.In its external
interactionsthe firm, guided by its strategy,both
respondsto and shapes the state and path of its
environment.Internalinteractionsariseas strategy
is derivedand enabledby organizationalelements
and in turnshapestheircompositionand develop-
ment.Both externalandinternalinteractionsaffect
the firm's performanceand in turnare influenced
by it. Firmstrategybothmediatesbetweeninternal
and externalforces and in itself serves as a force
that influencesthese other forces. It respondsto
changes and createschanges.
This co-alignmentprocess can also be appre-
ciated from the viewpoint of other actors. The
firm co-aligns itself with the ecology of other
co-adaptingindividualsand organizations(March,
1994). Other actors exchange resourceswith the
focal firm, and interactwith its strategy,organi-
zation, and performance.Because the focal firm
places constraintsupon otheractors,they too may
respondto and influencethese constraints.Actual
'RAlthough we use such abstractionsas firm, environment, partiallyresearched.For example,ratherthan the
strategy,coordination,action,andadaptationto describemacro traditionalfocus on firmperformance
structuresand processes, we fully recognizethat ultimately
they includeand are carriedout by humanbeings and micro
processes.
Copyright t 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
firmperformanceis thus influencedby the quality
of otheractors'co-alignmentefforts.
Implicationsand contributionsof the OESPmodel
The lower part of Figure 1 summarizesthe key
contributionsof the mechanisticandorganicmod-
els on which the model is built and which it
extends. At its most rudimentarylevel the OESP
model includes and unifies the main constructs,
relationships,and models of the mechanisticper-
spective.It still maintainssome of the mainmech-
anisticideas thatare centralto traditionalthinking
in strategy,such as notions of steady states and
strategypositions.Forexample,even if one rejects
equilibriumas an empirical phenomenonthese
notionsremainusefulfor theoreticalandempirical
research,and for simplified planning and com-
munication(Ghemawat,1991; Porter,1991). The
figureparticularlyshows the mechanisticperspec-
tive's broad agreementon key constructs,high-
lights its predominantlylinear flow (from orga-
nizationand environmentto strategyand perfor-
mance),the centralityof the strategy-performance
link (appearingin all main mechanisticmodels),
and the fragmentednatureof its main models.
Organic ideas in turn extend familiar con-
structs and relationshipsthroughtheir emphasis
on dynamic notions of constructsand relation-
ships, reciprocalcausation and interaction,and
integrationacross and within constructs.Particu-
larly emphasizedare the processes and historical
paths linking differentconstructs,self-loops, and
causalrelationshipsbetweenseveralconstructsand
across time. Additionally,each of the different
linkagesin the model can be used to addressvari-
ance and processquestions.Therefore,the central
questions of the field are viewed in the model
as dealing with both how firm strategyand firm
performanceare determinedand with what the
determinantsare.
The OESP modelgoes beyondmerelyrenewing
existing key mechanisticand integratingorganic
models and emphases.By isolating and applying
key organic assumptionson time, flow and cou-
pling, the OESP modeloffers severaldistinctcon-
tributions.First, it highlightsseveraldyadic rela-
tionshipsthathave been ratheroverlookedor only
as the field's
ultimatedependentvariable,in the OESP model
it is viewed as a means (independentvariable)
Slral. Mgmt. J.. 23: 561-594 (2002)
 Towardsan OrganicPerspectiveon Strategy
for achieving a constantly changing dependent
variable long-termperformance.Furthermore,
the model suggests that performancecan affect
each of the other constructs.It can affect firm
organization,for example, by changing internal
political processes or cause-effect beliefs. It can
affect environment,as by changingresourcedis-
tributions,signaling growth and profit potential,
allowing comparison,and otherwiseaffectingac-
tors' behavior (e.g., March and Sutton, 1997).
Finally,it can affectstrategyon a continuousbasis,
or throughuniquehistoricaleventssuch as a firm's
near-deathexperience.
Another acknowledgedbut mostly overlooked
relationshiphighlightedin the model is the effect
of strategyon environment(and indirectlyon per-
formance). Hardly treated by any of the origi-
nal mechanisticmodels, but highly complemen-
tary to them, this set of relationshipshas to some
extent been examinedby the new industrialorga-
nization research (e.g., Tirole, 1989). Although
the environmentis generallyexpected to exert a
strongerinfluenceon firmsthan in reverse,firms
still have considerableand often overlookedlati-
tude. In line with the organicconceptof strategy,
this latitude includes strategies that create new
industries,establish technologicalstandards,and
otherwisegenerate'creativedestruction'(Schum-
peter, 1942).
Additionally, the OESP model specifies the
existence of direct casual flows between firm
organization and environment (and their sub-
constructs).Theselinkagesrepresentthe basic idea
that firms and their attributesare parts of the
environment,and are linked to it by exchanges
of resources and information and by various
relationshipsand institutions.For example, firm
resourcesaffect and are affected by competitors,
customers,and local environment(Levinthaland
Myatt, 1994; Porter,1991), organizationstructure
can affect competitors' behavior and industry
structure (e.g., Caves, 1980), and perceptions
of key individuals within the firm affect the
environment viewed by the firm directly, or
indirectlythroughorganizationalstructure(March
and Simon, 1958). These linkagesare particularly
relevant given the advent of relationalviews of
competitiveadvantageand the greaterrecognition
that key firm resources may reside in a firm's
externalnetwork(e.g., Dyer and Singh, 1998).
A second distinctive feature of the OESP
model is that it stresses the too often ignored
Copyright (C)2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
577
self-influences in each construct's development
path. It specifically considers firm performance
effects on its own development (Barnett and
Hansen, 1996), such as when currentcustomers
help generatenew customers(Arthur,1995) and
currentsuccesses lead to future failures (Miller,
1990). Additionally, it includes the effects of
strategyupon itself such as when early choices
constrain or enable future ones (e.g., Nelson
and Winter, 1982; Bowman and Hurrey, 1993;
Ghemawat,1991).
A third distinctfeatureof the OESP model is
in extendingdyadicrelationshipsto describea net-
workof potentialrelationshipsandmultiplecausal
influences. One example of this feature of the
model is the existence of multiple causal influ-
ences on firm performance.The notion of strat-
egy is invoked to explain systematicdifferences
in performancethat are based on the firmcoordi-
nated (i.e., systemic) adaptiveaction. The effects
of strategyon performancecan be director indirect
throughchanges in organization,such as changes
in resourcemix, andchangesin environment,such
as the reactionof competitors.At the same time
firm performancecan be affected by factors not
necessarily mediatedby strategy, such as supe-
rior resources,unfavorableenvironment,history,
and unintendedor uncoordinatedactions outside
of strategy(suchas luck).Consequently,the model
clearly separatesbetween firmresourcesand firm
strategyas two relatedbut differentformsof firm-
specific effects on performance.Firm resources
and structuremay affect performancedirectlyand
not only throughthe specific positions and paths
or as a resultof managerialdesign.l4
Another example of the network of relations
exposed by the OESP model is the integration
of organization(i.e., resourcesand administrative
and social structure) the traditionalfocus of the
resource-basedview with the main constructs
'4Prior to the emergence of the strategy field, theories in indus-
trial organization economics, such as the SCP, ascribed firm
performancemainly to attributesof the environment. A common
distinction made in this literatureis between structuralvariables
that can have independent effects on performance, and strate-
gic variables. For example, in entry barriers,structuralvariables
are resources such as scale of production, reputation,and know-
how, and strategic variables are actions taken by incumbents
such as entry-deterringstrategies. Similarly, organizationtheory
models, such as early contingency research, have viewed per-
formance as being affected directly by organizational attributes
such as organizational structure.These direct linkages between
organization,or environment, and performanceare relevant both
to the strategy field and to the disciplines.
Slral. Mgml. J., 23: 561-594 (2002
578 M. Farjoun
of the SCP model (E, S, and P in our model).
Takenalone, the SCP mainly focuses on a single
industryandthereforeon business-levelstrategies.
By contrast,the inclusion of organizationin the
model helps view firm-specificresources as not
only alternativesources of business unit perfor-
mance but also as potential means to affect the
choice of potential environments.Consequently,
by accommodatingmultipleproductor geographic
markets (i.e., environments)the model can also
deal with corporate-level issues, such as location
choices and global coordination.
A fourthandrelatedfeatureof the OESPmodel
is its accommodationof interactions.The model
suggests that performancecan be influencedby
interactionsbetween strategy, environment,and
organizationthat are remote from performance
in time and in the causal chain (e.g., Henderson
and Mitchell, 1997). For example, the firm's
current strategy may be a result of its past
performance,which in turn was determinedby
past statesandpathsof the firm'sorganizationand
environment,which in turn co-determinedeach
otherin the past (e.g., Webband Pettigrew,1999).
Alternatively, past strategy may have created
a favorable environment that enables current
strategies.
To furtherillustratethe applicabilityanddistinc-
tiveness of the OESP model, we chose Chand-
ler's ( 1962) 'Strategy and Structure'study and
some of the subsequentstudies it inspired(e.g.,
Amburgeyand Dacin, 1994). The original study
is important,widely recognizedand containsrich
evidence. However,the main reasonfor its selec-
tion is that the dominantview expressedthrough-
out the study, as well the commonway in which
it has been subsequentlyinterpreted,are in the
spirit of the mechanisticperspective.Highlight-
ing the less familiarorganicaspectsof the study,
containedin the originalnarrativeand theoretical
propositionsand in subsequentstudies, serves to
providedifferentand complementarylenses. Sup-
plementingFigure 1, the Appendixlists the main
aspects of the mechanisticperspectivestressedin
the study and provides illustrationsfor each of
the distinctive features of the OESPmodel. As
the Appendixshows, the OESPprovidesa more
dynamic,integrated,and interactiveview thanthe
one drawn from a mechanisticperspective.For
example, it drives home the point that firm coor-
dinated actions (e.g., structuraladjustment)are
not instantaneouslyand flawlessly achieved;they
Copyright (C)2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
triggerresponsesfrom other actorsthat affect the
firm's performanceand are themselves products
of historical and contextual influences and tra-
jectories. Moreover, to a large extent the real-
ized strategiesof Chandler'sfourfocal firmswere
uniquein their respectiveindustriesand potential
sources of unique competitivecapabilities.Nev-
ertheless,therewere differenttrajectoriesthat led
to a similarstructuralsolution,and once in place
imitationpotentiallyerodedthe benefitsof distinc-
tiveness. The OESP model's synthesisand exten-
sion of individualorganicdevelopmentsportraysa
more complex and rich pictureof strategyand its
relationshipswith organization,environmentand
performance,and enables the generationof new
relationshipsand insights.
The organic model of the strategic
management process
The thirdand final pillar of the organicperspec-
tive is an organicmodel of strategicmanagement.
Based on our concept of strategyand the OESP
model, the organic model revisits and extends
the traditionaldesign model.l5Strategicmanage-
ment is defined here as the superordinateand
continuousorganizationalprocessfor maintaining
and improvingthefirm's performanceby manag-
ing, that is, enabling,formulating,and realizing,
its strategies.In this definition,strategicmanage-
ment is viewed as a process,a progression,which
includesthe sequenceof events andactivitiesover
time (Pettigrew, 1992; Van de Ven and Poole,
1995). We view strategicmanagementas consist-
ing of a one-timemode dealing with a particu-
lar strategyor a single strategicdecision and a
recurrentmode dealingwith a continuousstream
of strategiesand decisions. It is inherentlypre-
scriptive:it deals with those aspects that can be
shaped by managerialinitiatives. Figure2 pro-
vides a summaryform of the elements and flow
of the model. Figure3 de-aggregatesthe organic
modelof strategicmanagementandlists its distinct
emphases.
'5Althoughwe describea generalmodel, we recognizethat
differentorganizational,national,and industrialcontextsmay
call for differentkindsof strategicmanagement processesand
thereforemaychangetherelativeweightof someof theelements
(e.g., plannedvs. emergentstrategy).
Strat. Mgmt. J., 23:561-594(2002
 Towardsan OrganicPerspectiveon Strategy 579

* Strategyincludes goals,
postures and moves

Figure 2. An organic model of the strategic management process: a summary form

Elementsof the strategicmanagementprocess suggests the need to evaluate the adequacy of

strategyas well as new alternatives;and
current
Strategyformulation. This subprocessis most it highlightsthe need to conduct implementation
closely associated with the traditionalnotion of planning when such planning is deemed possi-
strategycontentandformulation(Andrews,1971), ble. Moreover,because of the 'wicked' natureof
and with coordinationby plan (Thompson,1967). strategicissues (e.g., Mason and Mitroff, 1981),
It thereforeincludesthe familiarelementsof scan- formulationincludesnotjust analysisandsynthesis
ning, problem finding, analysis and evaluation, but also invention,intuition,persuasion,andnego-
interpretation,and choice. Our model extends tiationand does not necessarilyfollow a predeter-
the traditionalview in several ways. It specifi- mined sequenceof steps.
cally emphasizesthe planningof alternativestrate- With the appropriateadjustmentsthese main
gic trajectories, such as in new market entry activities of strategy formulation need to be
(e.g., Bogner, Thomas, and McGee, 1996); it consideredregardlessof strategylevel (a goal, a
Copyright t 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
580 M. Farjoun

discreteposturesuch as a genericstrategy,a single throughits effects on organizational(e.g., orga-

move or a sequenceof moves), and regardlessof nizationalstructure)and environmentalelements
organizationallevel (e.g., corporate).Specifically,(e.g., industrystructure).Second, an alternative
choice and implementationplanning are viewed and complementarypath to strategyrealizationis
as naturalcomplementarypartsof the same inte- an emergentstrategythat can be interwovenwith
grated whole the strategic plan or logic. This the formulationprocess or bypass it altogether.
means,for example,thatthe selectionof a 'related' Emergentstrategycan be basedon othercoordinat-
diversificationstrategy(Rumelt, 1974) is incom- ing mechanismssuchas core values,simple 'rules'
plete if structuralcoordinatingmechanisms,link- and the like, and on the interactionbetween top
ages between activities, sequencing of internal management'sperspectiveand lower-level man-
and externalchanges, and other steps needed to agement'sfeasibilityassessment.Realizedstrategy
implementthe selection, are not consideredtoo. takesits finalform-a particularmix of coordinat-
Similarly, multipointcompetitionhas a potential ing measures throughreal-time mutual adjust-
performanceeffect only if it is complemented ment to organizationaland environmentalforces
by the requisite cross-unit communicationand and performancesignals. Third, the flow cycles
integration. backin thatperformanceinfluencesorganizational
and environmentalelements and realized strat-
Strategyrealization/implementation. This sub- egy, and joins them as new informationalinputs
processdeals with the realizationof selectedgoals, to strategyformulation.In the one-time mode of
posturesand moves, and complementarychoices strategy,both performanceand realized strategy
(such as organizationalstructure).When it is shapefuturechoices throughlearningandthe pro-
ot lnputs stemmlngtrom emerglng strat-
.

vlslon
. , . . ,
.

guided by a plan (and hence viewed as imple-

mentation),it includes the execution of strategy, egy or strategyexperiments.In the cycle, thought
its refinementto lower-levelsteps, and the execu- and action continuouslyandreciprocallyfeed each
tion of organizationalchoices thatextendthe cho- other. 16

sen strategy.The notionof realizationparticularly The recurrentmode of strategicmanagement

suggeststhatstrategymay not be a resultof delib- reflects the idea that strategicmanagementis not
erateplanningbutcan also emerge(Mintzbergand a given process but one that needs to be ini-
Waters,1985). Strategyrealization/implementation tiated, cultivated and occasionally modified,and
also includes more traditionalaspects of man- is ongoing: its uses are not confined to a sin-
aging internal change such as communication gle cycle or a particularstrategy.Three tasks of
and supportbuilding. However, it also includes strategicmanagementare particularlypertinentto
the action-interactionsequencesof managingthe its continuousnature.First, facilitating theformu-
external context of strategic change, especially lation of strategies, for example, by establishing
by
the realization of strategic trajectoriesand the marketand competitiveintelligencedevices or
absorptionof strategyinto the firm'sexternalcon- managing the formulation process itself: staffing,
text. hiring externalconsultants,dividing responsibili-
ties between managementand board, and estab-
lishing the desired degree of decision conflict.
One-timeand recurrentmodesof the strategic Second, facilitating the emergenceof strategies,
managementprocess for example, by encouragingbottom-upcontri-
The strategicmanagementprocess consists of an butions,cultivatingsupportiveorganizationalcul-
ongoing cycle of activities, which are reciprocal ture, rewardingrich communicationflows, and
and in reality may temporallyoverlapand not be the like. Third, enhancing the implementability
clearly demarcated.
As described in Figure3 the one-time mode 16 Strategic leaders play an importantbut not unlimited role in
of the process, dealing with a specific strat- the strategic management as process. In contrast to their depiction
in the mechanistic view rational analyzers, we view their
egy or decision, is adequatelycapturedin the role as combining social and analytical facets and particularly
flow of the traditionaldesign model. Added in as subject to constraintson rationalityand adjustment.Moreover,
behaviors, such as using externalconsultants
the organic view are several emphases. First, leaders' actions andfeasibility
to test the political of potential directions, or creating a
the chosen strategy guides strategy execution, sense of confidence through symbolic actions, often accompany
which affectsperformancedirectly,and indirectly, or precede analysis.
Copyright (O2002 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
 - Other: - - * ............ .... >

.
q
5
_F
Internal
influencesupon f22
o
and during
o
strategy
'_
formulation
oD5

Selectinga
V) strategythat
0:
upon realization
r provldesa
L
matchbetween
organization
and environment

Internal
considerations
and influences
(interactions)
upon and during
strategy
realization
(implementation _
and emergence)
Strategicmanagementas a
capabilityand as facilitating
and improvingtheformulation,
emergenceand
implementabilityof strategies
Feedback,
cT
revl.slon,
learning,control

Linkagesemphasizedin the design model Addedempha.sesin the organic model 8 Strategyincludesgoals, posturesand m

Primary: * * tD
-

g Figure3. An organicmodelof the strategicmanagement

process:de-aggregated
formanddistinc
-
582 M. Farjoun

of strategies, throughdelegating responsibilities, suggests that strategy formulationbroadly deals

encouragingparticipation,and strengtheningthe
firm's capacity for change, for example. These
three tasks influence the first-order,more fre-
quentlyrepeatedactivitiesof formulationandreal-
ization. They can also be revisited under special
circumstances.For example,the firmmay need to
take action throughdouble-looplearning(Argyris
andSchon, 1978)uponlearningof consistentprob-
lems in a major aspect of its strategicmanage-
ment: the firm's response may be too slow due
with the sensing, evaluating, and planning of
externaland internalchangeratherthanmorenar-
rowly with making choices. Strategyrealization
then deals with the realizationof change,planned
or emergent.Finally, the role of recurrentstrate-
gic managementis to facilitate the emergence,
planning,and realizationof change,as well as to
evaluate and integratethese facets of managing
change.
Second, the idea that strategyaffects its own
nputs (1.e., organ1zat1onand env1ronment)may
. . . . .

to a lengthyimplementationprocessor it may not

have the right mechanismsto encouragecreative suggest that the process and effects of strategy
strategies. realization need to be recognized at formula-
tion: strategyneeds to be plannedwith its effects
Implicationsof the organicmodelof strategic in mind. Particularly,during strategyexecution,
management additionalchanges may take place, and strategy
itself may affect these changes in part.Since the
Rooted in organicnotionsof time, interactionand firm's actions change the natureof the problem
integration,and as shown in Figure3, the organic it faces, the firm needs to select a realizable
modelof strategicmanagementemphasizesseveral strategy one that will provide a good dynamic
themes.We focus on four in particular. match between organizationaland environmen-
First, a key feature of the model is that firm tal attributesif and when it is implementedand
organizationand firm environmentinteractwith sustained.
each of the subprocessesof strategic manage- An examplefrom a familiarcontext may illus-
ment.The roles of differentelementsof the firm's tratethis point.Whenthe traditionalchoice model
environmentand firm organizationare not con- is applied, a firm consideringentry into a new
fined to being inputs to strategy,but extend to industryneeds to evaluate the structureof that
being a context for facilitatingstrategy,interact- industryvis-a-vis the firm's availableresources.
ing with the actual process of realization,and We proposeto considerhow industrystructureand
partly being products of strategy itself. Specif- firmresourcesmightlook if and whenento occurs
ically, external action-interactionsequences are and is completed:what changeswill occurbefore
importantin strategyrealizationat the same time and during formulationor execution (e.g., the
that internalsocial, cognitive, cultural,and politi- simultaneousentry of other firms),what changes
cal processes play a role in strategyformulation. will be producedby the entry (e.g., migrationof
Furthermore, administrativeissues and implemen- customers),whatresourceswill be consumeddur-
tation may requireformulationand planningtoo, ing the process (e.g., managerialattention),what
and content issues need to include the choice of implementationcapabilitythe firm has (e.g., how
strategic moves and paths (see also Inkpen and efficientthe entryprocessis likely to be), andhow
Choudhury,1995). Each of the strategicmanage- internalandexternalstakeholdersmightsupportor
ment subprocessescombinesboth social and ana- interferewith execution (e.g., reactionof incum-
lytic considerations.A moreholistic view of strat- bents, and employee support).
egy replacesthe conventionaldistinctionbetween Moreover,the potentiallypath-dependent nature
contentand process. of strategysuggests that the evaluationof alter-
The integrationof organizationand environ- native strategies needs to consider their impact
ment into each of the subprocessessuggests a on subsequentstrategies,for example, the ease
view of strategic managementas a process of of transitionfrom one alternativeto a fall-back
managing change (or persistence).It thus high- alternative.Beyond the question of how current
lights human engagement,the particularrole of strengths,weaknesses, opportunities,and threats
strategicleaders,and the particularconsiderations (SWOT) affect the choice of a currentstrategy,
associatedwith change such as lags, timing,dura- an equally importantconsiderationmight be the
tion, momentum,inertia, and abortiveefforts. It extentto which an executedstrategyimprovesthe
Copyright (C)2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J.. 23: S61-S94 (2002)
 Towardsan OrganicPerspectiveon Strategy
futureSWOTof the firm.The view of strategyas
creatingand affectingits own inputsalso suggests
the need for backwardand interactivereasoning,
which is not an integralpartof the SWOTmodel
(Hill and Westbrook,1997).l7
A third implicationof the organicmodel sug-
gests that strategyformulation,the main focus of
strategyresearchand teaching, may have a less
significantrole in the overall strategic manage-
ment process and in affecting performanceout-
comes than traditionallyconceived. This can be
appreciatedthroughthe use of backwardreason-
ing. As Figure2 indicates,what may eventually
affect a firm'sperformanceis its realizedstrategy.
Therefore,a main managerialquestion becomes
how to generatethe most effective realizedstrate-
gies. This comes down to either implementing
a previouslyformulatedstrategy,or realizing an
emergentstrategy.Furthermore, bothplanned(and
subsequentlyimplemented)and emergentstrate-
gies are supportedby more basic and recurrent
strategicmanagementactivities.Consequently,the
firm may need to either plan well or create the
organizationnecessary to implementeffectively,
or respond effectively, throughemergent strate-
gies. Thus, given the potentialeffects of imple-
mentation,emergentstrategies,and strategicman-
agement's basic functions, the traditionalatten-
tion given to choice and formulationmay be
disproportionate.
A finalkey implicationis thatstrategicmanage-
mentwhen continuouslypracticedmay developto
be a core firmcapability.A firmmay particularly
excel at the strategic managementof alliances,
or become adept at more recurrenttasks: man-
aging formulationand implementationin parallel,
switchingandresolvingconflictsbetweendifferent
modes of strategyformation,and learningacross
cycles. Generalizingrelatedsuggestions(e.g., Hart
and Banbury,1994; Teece et al., 1997), strategic
managementratherthan one-time strategiesmay
have moreenduringeffectson the firm'slong-term
performance.
'7Familiarplanningtools such as the industrylife-cycle and
scenarioplanningoften imply the design of strategiesaround
externalgivens. They do not usuallyconsiderchangesin the
environment producedby strategyitself.Theneedto choosethe
best strategygiven the strategiesof otherplayersis implicitin
thegame-theoretic notionof theNashequilibrium. Thisnotionis
extendedhereto includeactionsandresponsesof internalactors.
Copyright C) 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
583
Summary of the organic perspective's
epistemologicalunderpinningand their
manifestations
Likethe mechanisticperspectiveit seeks to extend,
the organicperspectiveoffers a coherentview of
core strategyissues.Forexample,the view of strat-
egy as affecting the firm's environmentis also
reflected in the reciprocalcausality between the
main constructsin the OESP model, and in the
role of strategyformulationand realization.The
idea of continuityand pathdependenceis evident
in the attentiongiven to future strategiesin the
organicmodel of strategicmanagement.Also, the
unifiedview of constructsand relationshipsin the
OESP model helps better link the differentsub-
processes of strategicmanagement.This internal
consistencyis enabledby the sharedepistemolog-
ical assumptionson time, flow, and the coupling
of constructs.It puts conceptual,theoretical,and
prescriptivemodels of strategyon an equal epis-
temological footing and encouragestheir cross-
fertilization.Panel B of Table 1 summarizesthe
content,influences,andcontextof the organicper-
spective on strategy.Taken together,the table's
two panels demonstratehow each set of episte-
mological assumptionsprovidescoherencewithin
each of the perspectives,and how the differences
in the sets often yield distinctviews on the same
core issues.
DISCUSSION
Summary and contributions
The key drive behind writingthis paperwas the
growing awarenessthat mechanisticmodels and
ideas are losing theirpotency,while organicideas
have not gone far enough to renew them or to
provide an alternativeand more currentperspec-
tive. One potentialremedyis the developmentof
a differentoverridingperspectivethat will help
renew and integrateexisting ideas and stimulate
new ones. To thatend we focused firston uncov-
ering epistemologicalassumptionsthat have been
used throughoutthe field's evolution, and sec-
ond on selectively using organic assumptionsto
develop an internallyconsistentset of concepts,
explanatoryand prescriptivemodels. This focus
reflectsour belief thatit is throughthe reexamina-
tion of epistemologicalfoundationsthatlong-term
progressin the field can be made:a fruitfulway to
Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
584 M. Farjoun
change entrenchedviews is to recognizethe way
we think.
Each pillar of the organic perspective,devel-
oped in this paper, offers a distinctive view on
the field's main issues as well as new directions
that can be explored.First,the organicconceptof
strategy stressesaction,coordination,and adapta-
tion. It suggeststhatpriornotionsof strategysuch
as position and a patternmay have much more in
commonthanpreviouslysuggested.It particularly
highlightsthe need to betterunderstandthe variety
of coordinatingmechanisms,the ways they com-
bine 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 integratedand dynamic
overview of the field's main constructsand rela-
tionships.The model can be extendedby examin-
ing less researchedlinkages,using processmodels
(e.g., dialectics) to explain such issues as advan-
tage creation,attendingto history,multiplecauses
and change, and dealing with specific concerns
of strategy like positioning or scope decisions.
Finally,the organicmodelof strategicmanagement
highlightsthe recurrentand integratedaspects of
the process and suggests a more holistic view of
strategyitself. It urgesus to betterunderstandhow
strategyemergesandis enabled,andhow the exter-
nal and internalaspects of managingchange are
actuallyintegrated.
We see the paper'schief contributionin propos-
ing an extensionand alternativeto the mechanistic
perspectiveand one that potentiallyoffers a more
dynamic, integrative,and appropriateframework
for the phenomenaand questions of interest to
the field. The focus on organicideas as desirable
for the field's developmentis meantto reducethe
perceivedasymmetrybetween their potentialand
actual use, and to suggest that relying solely on
mechanisticideas may lead into a blind alley. The
organicperspective provides a coherentyet dis-
tinctview on the field's core concernsanda means
to generate and exchange ideas, facilitate inter-
disciplinarywork, and increase the compatibility
betweenwhat we study,teach, and practice.
The organicperspectiveis consistentwith prior
advocatesof integration(e.g., Barney and Zajac,
1994) and dynamics (Porter, 1991). Yet it also
extends these works. It gives a more concrete
meaning to the notion of dynamics by com-
bining issues related to time, such as process
and history, with those related to flow, such
Copyright t 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
as interactionand feedback. It furtherprovides
substanceto the notion of integrationby offer-
ing broadlydefined constructs,establishingtheir
and showinghow diversemod-
interrelationships,
els can be unified. Moreover,it joins prior pro-
posals to combineboth dynamicsand integration
(e.g., Bourgeois,1984;BowmanandHurrey,1993;
MacIntosh,and MacLean, 1999). It particularly
puts to use, updates,and elaboratesthe work of
Bourgeois(1984), amongthe firstto highlightthe
need for the field to move from mechanisticto
organicviews.'8
Though they provide differentperspectiveson
the same issues, there are many ways in which
organic and mechanisticideas complementeach
other. Particularly,the questions of how a par-
ticular firm succeeded or failed, and what were
the contributinghistoricalconditions and devel-
opments, go hand in hand with the question of
whetherits fortunescame aboutbecauseof a bril-
liant strategy,superiorresources,favorableenvi-
ronment,or pure luck. Moreover,rationalanal-
ysis is incomplete if it fails to account for the
social natureof reality. In turn,the use of anal-
ysis and logical baselinescan informattemptsto
influenceor developactualbehaviorof individuals
and social systems.
The organic perspective also offers several
implications for the development of practice.
When employed as a way of thinking, it
encourages managersto think and act in ways
thataremoreallocentric,holistic,process-oriented,
entrepreneurial,and creative. It sensitizes them
to issues of timing, critical interventionpoints,
interaction, and the recognition of temporal
patternsand sequences.However, unless organic
ideas are supplementedby the applicableanalytic
models, strategic analysis and managementrisk
becoming exclusively an art. Although good
l8 A similar progression to a more organic view can be found
in models of human behavior. A major debate in the fields
of psychology and organization behavior has focused on the
relative primacy of personality and situational determinants
in explaining individual behavior. Although neither position
completely negates the other, internal views see people as being
motivated by inner drives (Freud, 1964) or traits (Allport, 1961),
while external models (e.g., Skinner, 1953) view humanbehavior
as primarilycaused by external stimuli. A third and more recent
perspective explains human functioning in a more dynamic and
integrated manner. In social cognition theory (e.g., Bandura,
1986), human behavior is explained in terms of a model of triadic
reciprocity in which behavior, cognitive and other personal
capabilities, and environmental events interactively influence
each other.
Strat. Mgmt. J.. 23: 561-594 (2002)
 Towardsan Organic Perspective on Strategy 585

beginningshave been made by options thinking, benefit from using multiple time frames, com-
new analytic models that can help strategic parative(historical)research,simultaneousexplo-
managers better deal with uncertainty, rapid rationof differentlevels of analysis,and multiple
change, and turning points are badly needed. theoreticallenses. Clearly,such a researchagenda
Traditionalanalytic tools can also be improved. is more demandingand thereforeit may be better
For example, models of internalanalysis should approachedin researchprograms,in large, book-
move beyond the analysis of resources and length studies, and in periodical reviews rather
activities to include other organizationalaspects, than in the usual single-studyformat.However,it
and to highlight the role of organization as is likely to betterplacetheoreticalideas andempir-
a context, process, and product of strategy. ical observationsin a broaderand more temporal
Similarly,models that integratesociological and context.
economicaspectsof the environment,or thatmove
beyond traditionallife-cycle conceptions of its Historyandprocess research
evolution,are lacking.Moreover,althoughSWOT
The organic perspectivehighlights the historical
analysisis still useful, it can no longer serve as a
primarymodel to guide strategicchoice (Hill and dimension of strategy-relatedphenomena. As
Westbrook,1997). illustratedin Chandler's(1962) research,the nature
What general directions for a new research of historicalperspectivemakesit morelikely to be
agenda for the field of strategy can be derived eclectic, integrative,and sensitiveto time, interac-
from the organic perspective?We divide these tion, context,and multiplelevels of analysis.Case
into conductand substanceimplicationswhile rec- historiesof firms and industriesthat were instru-
ognizing that some implicationscontain a little mentalto the field's early developmentare some-
of both. times labeled 'prescientific'(e.g., Rumelt etal.,
1994). However, a renewed interestin historical
and clinical researchis not a sign of regression
Conduct implications but of the field's maturity.The benefitsof such an
approachare too great to be ignoredby strategy
Variableresolution researchers.New historicalresearchis likely to be
differentfrom earlierwork since it can now build
A betterunderstanding of strategy-relatedphenom- on the cumulativeprogressmadein the field. First,
ena is unlikely to be gained by attendingto a it can use both qualitativeand dynamicstatistical
single theoreticalperspective, level of analysis, modeling. Second, it can use a better-developed
context, or time frame. Thus for example, the theoreticalbase to frame the analyses. Third, it
factors associated with the success of a single can be moresensitiveto readinghistoryforwardas
strategicdecision, the tenure of a specific exec- opposedto retrospectively,thus providinga better
utive team, or firm survival across several gen- appreciationof how firmsandmanagerscope with
erationsof technologicalbreakthroughscan vary uncertainty,multiple trajectories,lags, and dead
widely (see Zaheer, Albert, and Zaheer, 1999, ends. Fourth,it can examine the developmentof
on the issue of time scale). Furthermore,what firms,industries,andstrategiesbeforetheybecome
may be optimal at a collective level may not full-blownentities and thus add more knowledge
be optimal at the unit level. Progress is more on their early emergence,variation,and selection
likely to be made by using researchwith different (see, for example, Aldrich, 1999). A revival of
degrees of resolution. By employing both fine- 'neo-historical'researchin strategymay thus ben-
grainedandcoarse-grainedapproachesalternately, efit from the path-dependent intellectualevolution
a more holistic appreciationof strategyissues can of the field itself.
emerge. The content and spirit of the organic perspec-
Much progress has been made in the study tive requirethe use of longitudinalresearchandof
of highly specific phenomena such as acquisi- less acceptedmethodssuch as sequencemodeling,
tions and multipointcompetition.Attentionat the ethnography,and case histories. Cross-sectional
level of individualsand to micro phenomenacan studies can be useful but they cannot remain
also make new and importantadvances. At the the predominantmode of analysis (Bowen and
other end of the spectrum,strategyresearchcan Wiersema,1999). Processmodels look at different
Copyright i) 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
586 M. Farjoun

issues than variancemodels and thereforepoten- the search for common ground that combines
tially produce different observations. Although strengthsand minimizes weaknesses, and in the
therearedifferentopinionswith regardto the need case of dialectics the use of differencesand ten-
to integratevarianceand processapproaches(e.g., sions betweencompetingperspectivesto produce
Langley, 1999), we certainlysee the use of pro- new understandings(Morgan, 1983: 377-382).
cess models as appealingin severalrespects.First, One illustrationthat invites cross-fertilizationis
by disaggregatingtime, they introduceuniquepos- the theme of integratedmanagementof change.
sibilities for path and sequence to affect final Insights gained from behavioral models about
outcomes. Second, process models may be bet- how to initiate and institutionalizechange can
ter sultes to galn lnslgzts lnto ( uratlon varl- be synthesizedwith those coming from economic
. . . . . . .

ables in general and into sustainedperformance models, such as strategicinteractionand options

in particular.Third,by their greatersensitivityto theory. Although they originatein differentdis-
multiple trajectories,process models and studies ciplines, these models deal with similar issues:
are more likely to reveal sources of both success managinguncertainty,overcomingresistanceand
and failure.l9 inertia, coalition formation,and communication.
As anotherillustration,models of learning and
experimentation traditionallydealt with by behav-
Interactionand managerialdiscretion ioral analystscan examine,for instance,what the
The interactiveview of flow in the organicper- most effective experimentationstrategiesin dif-
spective has several implications.First, as sug- ferentcontextsmay be (e.g., Mosakowski,1997),
gested by others (e.g., Rindova and Fombrun, and more generallybecome the focus of analytic
1999) there is a need to go beyond stating the approaches.
existence of mutual influences to specifying the
exact mechanismsby which interactionoccurs. Languageand communication
Second, if we take seriously the idea that firms
and environmentsinfluenceeach other,then it fol- As pointedout by others(e.g., Weick,1969),atten-
lows thatsome of the firm'sresourcesandunique- tion to process and interactionrequiresthe use
ness is due to its embeddednessin a particular of dynamicvocabulary.Foundationalwork in the
industrynetwork,geography,and historicalcon- mechanisticperspectivecoming from both eco-
text. In turn,the firm'sresourcesand actionsmay nomics and organizationtheory has focused for
affect industryattributes,such as entry barriers. too long on structuralfeatures of markets and
Moreover,both firms and industriesare subject organizations.The trend towards more dynamic
to emergentand selection processes that are less analyses that came with the organic develop-
likely to be influencedby managers,if at all. The ment may requirea greaterattentionto the rep-
issue thenbecomesnot so muchwhetherthe indus- resentationand communicationof dynamicideas.
try or the firmis a more importantdeterminantof One approachis to use verbs, such as organiz-
firmperformance,but ratherwhat discretionman- ing and strategizing,to highlight micro actions
agers and other employees have in affecting the andhumanprocessesandpractices.Modelingpar-
firm'sinternalor externalcontext,and underwhat ticular aspects of time such as pace and dura-
conditions. tion may be anotherstrategy(e.g., Monge, 1990).
Finally, the use of visual vocabularyto convey
process and interactionmay also be beneficial.
Integration These differentforms of presentingand commu-
We see synthesis and dialectic as particularly nicatingideas can complementthe use of organic
useful strategiesto integratedifferenttheoretical epistemologicalassumptionson time, flow, and
perspectivesand researchtraditions(e.g., in the coupling.
United Statesand Europe),or differentfacets of a
phenomenon.In the case of synthesisthis involves Substance implications

Using the analogy of language,the organicper-

19For an excellent introductionto the conduct of process research
and to pertinentfoundational work on time in the social sciences
see Pettigrew (1997).
Copyright t 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
spective generallydoes not include specific sen-
tences and a rigid syntax, but ratherproposes a
Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
 Towardsan OrganicPerspectiveon Strategy 587

sharedbase of key assumptions,concepts,relation- examples see Moldoveanu,2001). Although not

ships, and themes upon which a varietyof stories
can be told. What are some of the researchable
questionsconsistentwith the organicperspective
that can be pursuedwith the stylistic and method
themesdiscussedabove?
simple to design, studiesthat look simultaneously
at the two classes of units of analysis can shed
light on how micro and macro processes inter-
act and enhancecross-fertilizationof disciplinary-
based ideas.

Dynamicdecisiontasks Imperfectadaptationand inefyiciency

Strategic decisions are dynamic decision tasks.
Takingtime into accountcan be eitherin termsof
consideringthe durationneededto makethe deci-
sion, the optimaltime to make a decision, or the
changesin the decision structureover time (Arieli
and Zakai, 2001). These aspects are relatively
neglected in strategyresearchand in models of
strategicchoice and management.Particularly,the
rational unitary actor model used in the mech-
anistic perspective is largely insensitive to the
notion of time. The best-knownmodel of orga-
nizational decision making that does take time
and timing seriously into account, the garbage
can' model (Cohen, March,and Olsen, 1972), is
mainlya descriptivemodel of organizationalanar-
chy. Is it possible to come up with otherstrategic
decision-makingmodels, descriptiveor prescrip-
tive, thatwill takeinto accountcontinuouschanges
in resources,interests,competitiveresponses,and
otherfactors,includingthose happeningwithinthe
decision makingperiod?
Muchof the empiricalresearchon strategyis often
criticizedfor being outcomebased and confining
itself to instancesof success (e.g., Carroll,1993).
The focus of the organicperspectiveon process
andpathenablesa betterappreciationof imperfect
adaptiveprocesses and instances of inefficiency,
mistakes,and failures.One remedyfor the poten-
tial existenceof a bias may involve sampleselec-
tion. However,severalmore substantivequestions
remainto be addressed.Forexample,in whatways
are the prerequisitesand contributingprocesses
for firm survival differentfrom those contribut-
ing to sustainedexceptionalperformance?What
are the implicationsof the differencein the time
framesinvolved in firms sustainingsuperiorper-
formanceas opposedto experiencingdecline and
bankruptcy? In whatways, if at all, arethe sources
and developmentof strengthsdifferentfrom those
of weaknesses?
Theeconomicsof firm's transitions

Dual classes of unitsof analysisand their Anotherareaof researchthatis consistentwith our

interaction emphasis on process is the efficiency by which
firms change their strategy, structure,products,
An importantdistinctionin processandevolution- technology,and the like. The mechanisticempha-
ary analysisis betweenboundedentities (individ- sis on staticefficiency,evidentin frameworkssuch
uals, work units, firms, groups)that strategically as the value chain,have precludeda betterunder-
interact,andthe units (such as routines,strategies, standingof how efficient firms are in their tran-
rules,institutions,transactions,competencies)car- sitions. Issues such as how efficientlyfirmsmove
riedby these entities(e.g., Baumand Singh, 1994; from one position to another,and from one mar-
Aldrich, 1999). An advantageof makingthis dis- ket to another,or how adept they are in imple-
tinctionis thatone can learnaboutthe development menting acquisitions,alliances or organizational
processes of a unit from one class by examining changes,are not adequatelycapturedby the notion
how unitsfromthe otherclass develop.For exam- of switchingcosts either. Among other concerns
ple, as shown in the work of Nelson and Winter of the field, the analysisand measurementof the
(1982), the evolutionof routinescan shed light on economics of transitionscan improvethe under-
firmand industryevolutionas well as be informed standingof sources of firm success and failure,
by this evolution.Otherdomainsof inquiry,par- extend traditionalstatic frameworksof compara-
ticularlyrelevantto the strategyfield, may include tive analysis of competitorsand other interacting
the diffusion of strategies,the evolution of net- actors, improve the analysis of various decision
works, and the relationshipsbetween institutions alternatives,and strengthenthe links betweencon-
(e.g., norms, conventions)and rivalry (for other cerns of strategyformulationand realization.
Copyright t 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
588 M. Farjoun

Multipleand inconsistentgoals in unison. It thereforebuilds on the strengthsof

Most mechanisticmodels convenientlyadopt the the two priordevelopments:it betterharmonizes
classic economic model of profit-maximizing strategic models and constructswith one another,
firms. However, in reality and even when and with the new realities.
a long-term unitary strategy exists, managers
often pursue several and at times inconsistent
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
goals and objectives. In particular,tensions arise
between profitabilityand growth and between I thankthe anonymousreviewersof
the paperfor
short-termand long-termperformance.What are
their constructiveand thoughtfulcomments.An
the implications of using multiple and partly
earlierversion of the paperwas presentedat the
inconsistentperformancecriteriain both empirical
Fourth Conferenceon Competence-BasedCom-
researchand strategicmanagementmodels?How
petition (Oslo, Norway). I thank the conference
do we treata firm'sactionsthatmaybe appropriate
participantsas well as Ron Sanchez, Eli Segev,
for the short run and not the long run or
and Gerda Kessler for their contributionsto the
conversely? These issues, and particularlythe
developmentof the paper.
temporal tension between static and dynamic
efficiency, are centralto the practiceof strategic
managementand should get a more centralstage REFERENCES
in strategyresearchand in strategicthinking.
These research directions are but a few of Academy of Management Annual Meetings. 1997.
those that can build on the organic perspective. Special session on strategy process research. Boston,
A sustainedeffort in each of them is likely to MA.
enhance progress on the field's core questions. Adam B. 1990. Time and Social Theor>7.Polity Press:
Cambridge, U.K.
Many aspects of the organicperspectiveare con- Aldrich EH. 1999. Organisations Evolving. Sage: Thou-
tainedin earlierstudiessuch as Chandler's(1962). sand Oaks, CA.
Severalrecentstudiestoo, such as Garudand Van Allport GW. 1961. Pattern and Growth in Personalitw.
de Ven's (1992) on internalcorporateventuring, Holt Rinehart & Winston: New York.
LevinthalandMyatt's(1994) on competenciesand Amburgey TL, Dacin T. 1994. As the left foot follows the
right?The dynamics of strategicand structuralchange.
competition,RindovaandFombrun's(1999) inter- Academx of ManagementJousnal 37(6): 1427- 1452.
active model of competitiveadvantage,and Hol- Andrews KR. 1971. The Concept of Corporate Strategw.
brook et al.'s (2000) on the evolution of firms' Dow Jones-Irwin: New York.
differences,nicely illustratethe perspective'scon- Ansoff HI. 1984. 177lplantingStrategic Management.
tent and spirit.If successful,these individualcon- Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Argyris C, Schon DA. 1978. Orgas1inationalLearning:
tributionsand other new researchcan become an A Theor of Action Perspectile. Addison-Wesley:
integralpart of a more unified and better-attuned Reading, MA.
Organlcperspectlveon strategyresearch,teaching, Arieli D, Zakai D. 2001. A timely account of the role
. .

and practice. of duration in decision making. Acta Psvchologica

A FINAL WORD
Almost from its inception,the strategyfield has to
a great extent relied on a mechanisticperspective
on strategy.This perspective,unifiedby an epis-
temologicallycoherentbase, has graduallymoved
out of alignmentwith its context. The advent of
organicdevelopments,in turn,has broughtbetter
externalalignmentbut not a unifiedapproach.The
proposedorganic perspectiverelies on the three
I's (incessant,interactive,and integrated)instead
of the three D's (discrete, directional,and dif-
ferentiated)and addressesthe field's core issues
Copyright (C)2002 John Wiley & Sons. Ltd.
108(2): 187-207.
Armour H, Teece D. 1979. Organizational structureand
economic performance.Bell Journal of Economics 10:
106- 122.
ArthurB. 1995. Increasing Returnsand Path Dependence
in the Economw. University of Michigan Press: Ann
Arbor, MI.
Baden-Fuller C, Stopford JM. 1994. Rejuvenating the
Mature Business. Harvard Business School Press:
Boston, MA.
Bain JS. 1956. Barriers to Nee Competition. Harvard
University Press: Cambridge, MA.
BanduraA. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and
Action: A Social Cognitile Theor. Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Barnett WP, Burgelman RA. 1996. Evolutionary per-
spectives on strategy. Strategic ManagementJournal
Summer Special Issue 17: 5-19.
Stl^at. Mgmt. J.. 23: 561-594 (2002)
 Towardsan OrganicPerspectiveon Strategy
Barnett WP, Hansen MT. 1996. The red queen in orga-
nizational evolution. StrategicManagementJournal,
Summer Special Issue 17: 139- 157.
Barney JB. 1991. Firm resources and sustained com-
petitive advantage. Journal of Management17(1):
99- 120.
Barney JB. 1997. Gainingand SustainingCompetitive
Advantage.Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Barney JB, Ouchi WG (eds). 1986. Organizational
Eco-
nomics:Towarda New Paradigmfor Understanding ChakravarthyBS. 1986. Measuring strategic perfor-
and StudyingOrganizations.Jossey-Bass: San Fran- mance. StrategicManagement
cisco, CA.
Barney JB, Zajac EJ. 1994. Competitive organizational
behavior: towards an organizationally-based theory
of competitive advantage. Strategic Management
Journal,Winter Special Issue 15: 5-9.
Baum JAC, Singh JV (eds). 1994. Evolutionary Dynam-
ics of Organizations.Oxford University Press: New
York.
Bogner WC, Thomas H, McGee J. 1996. A longitudinal
study of the competitive positions and entry paths of
European firms in the U.S. pharmaceutical market.
StrategicManagement Journal17(2): 85- 107.
Boulding KE. 1956. General systems theory: the skeleton
of science. Management Science2: 197-208.
Bourgeois LJ. 1984. Strategic management and deter-
minism. Academyof ManagementReview 9(4):
586-596.
Bowen HP, Wiersema MF. 1999. Matching method
to paradigm in strategy research: limitations of
cross-sectional analysis and some methodological
alternatives. Strategic ManagementJournal 20(7):
625-636.
Bower JL. 1970. Managingthe ResourceAllocationPro-
cess: A Studyof CorporatePlanningand Investment.
GraduateSchool of Business Administration,Harvard
University: Boston, MA.
Bowman EH, Hurrey D. 1993. Strategy through the
options lens: an integrated view of resource
investments and the incremental-choice process.
Academyof Management Review 18(4): 760-782.
BrandenburgerAM, Nalebuff BJ. 1996. Coopetition.
Doubleday: New York.
Brehmer B. 1992. Dynamic decision making: human
control of complex systems. Acta Psychologica81:
211-241.
Brown SL, EisenhardtKM. 1998. Competingon the
Edge.Strategyas Structured Chaos.HarvardBusiness
School Press: Boston, MA.
Burgelman RA. 1983. A model of the interaction of
strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept
of strategy. Academyof ManagementReview 8(1):
61 -70.
Burns T, Stalker GM. 1961. The Management of
Innovation.Tavistock: London.
Carroll GR. 1993. A sociological view of why
firms differ. StrategicManagementJournal 14(4):
237-249.
Caves RE. 1980. Industrial organization, corporate
strategy and structure.Journalof EconomicLiterature
XVIII: 64-92.
Copyright t 2002 John Wiley & Sons. Ltd.
589
Caves RE, Porter ME. 1977. From entry barriers to
mobility barriers.Quarterly
Journalof Economics91:
241 -261.
Caves RE, Porter ME, Spence M, Scott JT. 1980.
Competitionin theOpenEconomy:A ModelAppliedto
Canada.HarvardUniversity Press: Cambridge, MA.
Chandler AD Jr. 1962. Strategyand Structure:Chapters
in theHistoryof theAmericanEnterprise.MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA.
Journal7(5): 437-458.
ChakravarthyBS, Doz Y. 1992. Strategy process re-
search: focusing on corporate self-renewal. Strategic
ManagementJournal, Summer Special Issue 13:
5-14.
Chen M-J. 1996. Competitor analysis and interfirm ri-
valry: toward a theoretical integration. Academyof
Management Review21(1): 100- 134.
Child J. 1972. Organizationalstructure,environment, and
performance: the role of strategic choice. Sociology
6(1): 1-22.
Cohen MD, March JG, Olsen JP. 1972. A garbage can
model of organizationalchoice. Administrative Science
Quarterly17: 1-25.
Collins JC, Porras JI. 1994. Built to Last: Successful
Habitsof VisionaryCompanies.HarperBusiness: New
York.
Cool K, Schendel D. 1988. Performance differences
among strategic group members. StrategicManage-
mentJournal9(3): 207-223.
Dosi G, Malerba F, Marsili O, Orsenigo L. 1997. Indus-
trial structuresand dynamics: evidence, interpretations
and puzzles. Industrialand CorporateChange 6(1):
3-23.
Doz YL. 1996. The evolution of cooperation in strategic
alliances: initial conditions or learning processes?
StrategicManagement Journal,Summer Special Issue
17: 55-81.
Dyer JH, Singh H. 1998. The relational view: coopera-
tive strategy and sources of inter-organizationalcom-
petitive advantage. Academyof ManagementReview
23(4): 660-679.
Fligstein N. 1991. The structuraltransformationof Amer-
ican industry:an institutionalaccount of the causes of
diversification in the largest firms, 1919- 1979. In The
NewInstitutionalism in Organizational Analysis,Pow-
ell WW, DiMaggio PJ (eds). University of Chicago
Press: Chicago, IL; 311 -336.
Franko LG. 1976. The European Multinationals:A
Renewed Challenge to Americanand British Big
Business.Greylock: Stamford, CT.
Freud S. 1964. NewIntroductoryLectureson Psychoanal-
ysis. In Standardedition (Vol. 22). Hogarth: London
(first German edition published 1933).
Fuller RB. 1982. Synergistics: Exploration in the
Geometryof Thinking.Macmillan: New York.
GalbraithJR, Nathanson DA. 1978. StrategyImplemen-
tation:The Role of Structureand Process. West: St
Paul, MN.
Galunic DC, Eisenhardt KM. 1994. Renewing the strat-
egy-structure-performance paradigm. In Research
in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 16, Cummings LL,
Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
590 M. Farjoun
Staw BM (eds). JAI Press: Greenwich, CT;
215-255.
Galunic DC, Eisenhardt KM. 1995. The evolution of
intracorporate domains: divisional charter losses
in high-technology, multidivisional corporations.
Organization Science 7(3): 255-282.
Garud R, Van de Ven AH. 1992. An empirical evaluation
of the internal corporate venturing process. Strategic
Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 13:
93-109.
Ghemawat P. 1991. Commitment: The Dynamic of
Strategy. Free Press: New York.
Ghemawat P. 1999. Strategyand the Business Landscape:
Textand Cases. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Ghemawat P, Ricart i Costa JE. 1993. The organizational
tension between static and dynamic efficiency.
Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue
14: 59-73.
Hall DJ, Saias MA. 1980. Strategy follows structure!
Strategic Management Journal 1(2): 149- 163.
Hambrick DC, Mason PA. 1984. Upper echelons: the
organization as a reflection of its top managers.
Academy of Management Review 9: 195-206.
Harkabi Y. 1997. Warand Strategy (6th edn). Ministry
of Defense: Tel Aviv, Israel.
Hart S, Banbury C. 1994. How strategy making process
can make a difference. Strategic ManagementJournal
15(4): 251-269.
Haspeslagh PC, Jemison DB. 1991. Managing Acquisi-
tions: Creating Value through Corporate Renewal.
Free Press: New York.
Henderson R, Mitchell W. 1997. The interactions of
organizational and competitive influences on strategy
and performance. Strategic Management Journal,
Summer Special Issue 18: 5-13.
Hill T, Westbrook R. 1997. SWOT analysis: it's time for
a product recall. Long Range Planning 30(1): 46-52.
Hirsch PM, Friedman R, Koza MP. 1990. Collaboration
or paradigm shift? Caveat emptor and the risk of
romance with economic models for strategyand policy
research. OrganizationScience 1(1): 87-97.
Hodgson GM. 1993. Economics and Evolution. Polity
Press: Cambridge, UK.
Holbrook D, Cohen WM, Hounshell DA, Klepper S.
2000. The nature, sources, and consequences of firm
differences in the early history of the semiconductor
industry. Strategic Management Journal 21(10-11):
1017- 1041.
Huber GP. 1991. Organizational learning: the contribut-
ing processes and the literatures.OrganizationScience
2: 88-115.
Inkpen A, ChoudhuryN. 1995. The seeking of strategy
where it is not: toward a theory of strategy absence.
Strategic Management Journal 16(4): 313-323.
Itami H, Roehl TW. 1987. Mobilizing Invisible Assets.
HarvardUniversity Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kleindorfer PR, KunreutherHC, Schoemaker PJH. 1993
Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspective. Cam-
bridge University Press: New York.
Langley A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process
data. Academy of Management Review 24(4):
691 -710.
Copynght (¢ 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Levinthal D, Myatt J. 1994. Co-evolution of capabilities
and industry:the evolution of mutual fund processing.
StrategicManagementJournal,Winter Special Issue
15: 45-62.
Levitt B, March JG. 1988. Organizational learning. An-
nualReviewof Sociology14: 319-340.
Lewin K. 1951. Field Theoryin Social Science. Harper:
New York.
Lieberman MB, Montgomery DB. 1998. First-mover
(dis)advantages: retrospective and link with the
resource-based view. StrategicManagementJournal
19(12): 1111-1125.
Lindblom CE. 1959. The science of muddling through.
PublicAdministration Review 19(2): 79-80.
MacCrimmon KR. 1993. Do firm strategies exist?
StrategicManagementJournal,Winter Special Issue
14:113-130.
MacIntosh R, MacLean D. 1999. Conditionalemergence:
a dissipative structures approach to transformation.
StrategicManagement Journal20(4): 297-316.
March JG. 1994. The evolution of evolution. In
Evolutionary Dynamicsof Organizations, Baum JAC,
Singh JV (eds). Oxford University Press: New York;
39-49.
March JG, Simon HA. 1958. Organizations. John Wiley:
New York.
March JG, Sutton RI. 1997. Organizationalperformance
as a dependent variable. Organization Science 8(6):
pp. 698-706.
Mason R, Mitroff I. 1981. ChallengingStrategicPlan-
ningAssumptions . Wiley: New York.
McGrath RG, MacMillan IC, VenkataramanS. 1995
Defining and developing competence: a strategic pro-
cess paradigm..StrategicManagement Journal16(4):
251 -275.
McKelvey B. 1997. Quasi-naturalorganization science.
Organization Science8(4): 352-379.
McNulty T, Pettigrew A. 1999. Strategists on the board.
Organization Studies20(l ): 47-74.
Melin L. 1992. Internationalizationas a strategy process.
StrategicManagementJournal,Winter Special Issue
13: 99-118.
Meyer AD. 1991. What is strategy's distinctive compe-
tence? Journalof Management17: 821 -833.
Miles RE, Snow CC. 1978. OrganizationalStrategy,
Structure,and Process.McGraw-Hill: New York.
Miller D. 1990. The IcarusParadox. Harper Business:
New York.
Miller D, Chen M-J. 1996. The simplicity of competitive
repertoires:an empirical analysis. StrategicManage-
mentJournal17(6): 419-439.
Miller D, Friesen PH. 1978. Archetypes of strategy
formulation.Management Science24(8): 921-933.
Mintzberg H, AhlstrandB, Lampel J. 1998. TheStrategy
Safari:A GuidedTourthroughthe Wildsof Strategic
Management.Free Press: New York.
Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D, Theoret A. 1976. The struc-
ture of unstructureddecision processes. Administrative
ScienceQuarterly21: 246-275.
Mintzberg H, Waters JA. 1985. Of strategies, deliberate
and emergent. StrategicManagementJournal 6(3):
257-272.
Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
 Towardsan OrganicPerspectiveon Strategy
Mitchell W. 1989. Whether and when: probability and
timing of incumbents' entry into emerging industrial
sub-fields. AdministrativeScience Quarterly34(2):
208-230.
Mohr LB. 1982. ExplainingOrganizationalBehavior.
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.
Moldoveanu M. 2001. Evolution(s). Paper presented at
the 17th Colloquium of the European Group of
OrganizationalStudies (EGOS): Lyon, France.
Monge PR. 1990. Theoretical and analytical issues
in studying organizational processes. Organization
Science 1(4): 406-430.
Montgomery C. 1982. The measurement of firm
diversity: some new empirical evidence. Academyof
Management Journal25: 299-307.
Moore JF. 1993. Predators and prey: a new ecology of
competition. HarvardBusinessReview71(3): 75 -86.
Morgan G (ed.). 1983. BeyondMethod:Strategiesfor
SocialResearch.Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mosakowski E. 1997. Strategy making under causal
ambiguity: conceptual issues and empirical evidence.
Organization Science8(4): 414-442.
Nelson RR, Winter SG. 1982. An EvolutionaryTheory
of Economic Change. Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Noda T, Bower JL. 1996. Strategy making as iterated
processes of resource allocation. StrategicManage-
mentJournal,Summer Special Issue 17: 159-192.
North DC. 1991. Institutions,InstitutionalChangeand
EconomicPerfiormance. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK.
Penrose ET. 1959. TheTheoryof the Growthof the Firm.
Basil Blackwell: London.
Pettigrew AM. 1985. The AwakeningGiant:Continuity
and Changein ImperialChemicalIndustries.Basil
Blackwell: Oxford.
Pettigrew AM. 1987. Researching strategic change. In
TheManagementof StrategicChange,Pettigrew AM
(ed.). Basil Blackwell: Oxford, UK; l-13.
Pettigrew AM. 1992. The character and significance
of strategy process research. StrategicManagement
Journal,Winter Special Issue 13: 5- 16.
Pettigrew AM. 1997. What is processual analysis? Scan-
dinavianJournalof Management13(4): 337 -348.
Pettigrew AM, Fenton EM (eds). 2001. The Innovating
Organization.Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pfeffer J, Salancik GR. 1978. The ExternalControlof
Organizations.Harper& Row: New York.
Porter ME. 1980. CompetitiveStrategy:Techniques for
AnalyzingIndustriesand Competitors.Free Press:
New York.
Porter ME. 1985. CompetitiveAdvantage.Free Press:
New York.
Porter ME. 1991. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy.
StrategicManagementJournal,Winter Special Issue
12: 95-117.
Porter ME. 1996. What is strategy? HarvardBusiness
Review71(6): 61-78.
Porter ME. 1997. Response to letters to the editor.
HarvardBusinessReview72(2): 162- 163.
Copyright t 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
591
Priem RL, Butler JE. 2001. Is the resource-basediview' a
useful perspective for strategic management research?
Academyof Management Review26(1): 22-40.
Quinn JB. 1980. Strategiesfor Change:Logical Incre-
mentalism.Richard D. Irwin: Homewood, IL.
Reger RK, Huff AS. 1993. Strategic groups: a cognitive
perspective. StrategicManagementJournal 14(2):
103- 124.
Rindova VP, FombrunCJ. 1999. Constructing compet-
itive advantage: the role of firm-constituent interac-
tions. StrategicManagement Journal20(8): 691 -710.
Rumelt RP. 1974. Strategy, Structureand Economic
Performance.Harvard University Press: Cambridge,
MA.
Rumelt RP. 1984. Toward a strategic theory of the firm.
In Competitive StrategicManagement,Lamb K (ed.).
Prentice-Hall:Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 556-570.
Rumelt RP. 1991. How much does industry matter?
StrategicManagement Journal12(3): 167-185.
Rumelt RP, Schendel D, Teece D. 1994. Fundamental
Issues in Strategy.Harvard Business School Press:
Boston, MA.
Sanchez R, Heene A. 1997. Reinventing strategic man-
agement: new theory and practice for competence-
based competition. EuropeanManagementJournal
15(3): 303-317.
Schendel D. 1994. Introductionto iiCompetitive organi-
zational behavior: toward an organizationally-based
theory of competitive advantage." StrategicManage-
mentJournal,Winter Special Issue 15: 1-4.
SchumpeterJA. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism,andDemoc-
racy. Harper& Row: New York.
Scott RW. 1992. The organization of environment: net-
work, cultural, and historical elements. In Orga-
nizational Environments:Ritual and Rationality,
Meyer JW, Scott WR (eds). Sage: Thousand Oaks,
CA; 155-178.
Scott RW. 1995. Institutionsand Organizations.Sage:
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Selznick P. 1957.. Leadershipin Administrative Frame-
work.Harper& Row: New York.
Shapiro C. 1989. The theory of business strategy. RAND
Journalof Economics20: 125- 137.
Simon HA. 1976. AdministrativeBehavior (3rd edn).
Macmillan: New York.
Simon HA. 1986. Rationality in psychology and
economics. Journalof Business59(4): 209-223.
Skinner BF. 1953. Science and Human Behavior.
Macmillan: New York.
Stabell CB, Fjeldstad OD. 1998. Configuring value
for competitive advantage: on chains, shops, and
networks. Strategic ManagementJournal 19(5):
413-437.
Stern LW, El-Ansary AI. 1988. MarketingChannels.
Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Stopford JM, Wells LT Jr. 1972. Managingthe Multina-
tionalEnterprise.Basic Books: New York.
Sztompka P. 1993. The Sociology of Social Change.
Blackwell: Oxford.
Teece DJ. 1984. Economic analysis and strategic
management. CaliforniaManagementReview 26(3):
87-110.
Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
592 M. Farjoun
Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic capabili-
ties and strategic management. StrategicManagement
Journal18(7): 509-533.
Thompson JD. 1967. Organizations in Action.McGraw-
Hill: New York.
Thorelli HB. 1986. Networks: between markets and
hierarchies. Strategic ManagementJournal 7( l ):
37-51.
Tirole J. 1989. The Theorvof IndustrialOrganization. Williamson OE. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies:
MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Van de Ven AH. 1992. Suggestions for studying strategy
process: a research note. Strategic Management Williamson OE. 1999. Strategy research:governance and
Journal,Summer Special Issue 13: 169-182.
Van de Ven AH, Poole MS. 1995. Explaining develop-
ment and change in organizations. Academyof Man-
agementReview20(3): 510- 540.
Webb D, Pettigrew A. 1999. The temporal development
of strategy: patterns in the U.K. insurance industry.
Organization Science 10(5): 601-621.
Copyright (C)2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Weick KE. 1969. TheSocial Psychologyof Organizing.
Random House: New York.
WernerfeltB. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm.
StrategicManagement Journal5(2): 171-180.
White RG. 1986. Generic business strategies,
organizational context and performance: an empiri-
cal investigation. StrategicManagement Journal7(3):
217-231.
Analxsis and AntitrustImplications. Free Press:
New York.
competence perspectives. StrategicManagement Jour-
nal 20( 12): 1087- 1108.
Zaheer S, Albert S, Zaheer A. 1999. Time scales and
organization theory. Academyof Management Review
24(4): 725-741.
Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 561-594 (2002)
.

5 APPENDIX:CHANDLER'SSTRATEGYAND STRUCTURESTUDY REVISITED

, (Based on Chandler(1962), Rumelt(1974), Williamson(1975), ArmourandTeece (1979), Hall and Saias (198
5
3
and Fligstein( l 991))
_.

< MechanisticThemes
O The study connects the main constructsof interestto strategyresearchin the following (primarilylinear) wa
= the environment(E) and the resourcesof the organization(O), influencethe strategy(S) chosen and this in t
c. structure(O). Subsequently,the evolutionof the environmentand resourcesbringsabouta new strategyand a n
Chandler'sbook (p. 314), strategy-structure (S-O) mismatchresultsin inefficiency(P). This proposition,as well
link, were subsequentlyexaminedby others (e.g., Rumelt(1974)). Furthermore,firms in some industrieswe
others(E-S) or adoptcertainstructures(E-O)(Williamson,1975:141).Chandleralso tends to view strategyas a
strategicmanagementprocessas a formaland analyticalprocessdirectedby a dominantleader.These aspect
the case of Du Pont's diversificationand structuredecisions(p. 80) and in the organizationstudyat GM.
Organic Themes and Distinctive Features of the OESP model

Illustration in Chandler's Work and Selected Subsequ

OESP: Views of strategy and * In StandardOil, structuraladjustmentand strategic expansion came in a more
Organic strategy making: way. Change did not follow an explicitly defined plan (p. 172). Emergent stra
Themes Strategy as interactive, experiences with prior anti-competitionstrategies showed their limitations and
dynamic, learned, (p. 33). Evolutionarystructuralchange. Endogenous growth creates unexpecte
integrative, inventive, and * Sears' revo]utionarystrategy in direct retailing (p. 233).
emergent. * Goals-Strategy-Structurecoordination;strategy adaptationto changes in econo
Strategy as adaptive * Individuals (e.g., consultants) and strategic leaders play a central role in strate
coorolnatlon.
. * .

(p. 283).
Strategy making as social, * Benchmarkingand learning from other firms (p. 95).
intuitive, interpretive,and * Executives' sense making of recent performanceproblems (p. 98).
continuous. * Conflict in decision making at Sears (p. 247).
* Multi-divisional structurefacilitates strategy formation.
New linkages in SCP, * Strategy grows out of structureand in turn leads to its modification (Hall and
SSP, RBV * Strategy affected by those in power and their perceptions (Fligstein, 1991).
Organic developments * Process of structuralchange-internal conflicts and politics, study committees,
(s.d.m, s. Ieadership, (p. 303).
managementof change, * Competitive imitation and responses to structuralchange (p. 380).
strategic interaction). * The essential reshaping of administrativestructurenearly always had to wait f
(p. 381). Family held firms were slower to change both structureand strategy.
c
.
(Continued)
5

Illustrationin Chandler'sWork and SelectedSubsequ

o
o

5 OESP: Integrated Constructs * Strategyincludesbothgoals and actions(p. 13), Environment includeseconom

Distinctive as social institutionalones (e.g., Fligstein,1991),Structureincludesculture,po
D
-
Features 1980).Performanceincludesshort-runand long-runconsiderations.
C
Self-inf uences * Momentum in structuralor strategychanges(Amburgey and Dacin,1994);Per
V:
for growth(p. 383).
o
3 Path dependence and * Historicalcontext(e.g., ]920) providedopportunities (Fligst
for diversification
r history * HistoryaJfectsstrategythrl)ughstructure.
c
* Warexperiencein explosivesaJfectsdiversification pathat Du Pont.
* Thewayin whichitsfoundersor theirfamiliesmaketheirtermswiththe admi
large-scaleenterpriseis crucialto the laterhistoryof a frm (p. 381).
Imperfectadaptation * Organizational anarchyandimperfectcoordination: eachfunctionaldepartme
* Functionalstructureimpedesmanagers'strategicviewand channelstheiratte
* Biasesin identifyingcapabilitiesat Du Pont (p. 112).
* Sears' Woodstrategy:generaldirectionis correctbutmanymistakeshappeno
* Delaysbetweenintroduction of strategyand adoptionof structure(p. 135).
* Indicationof inertiain structuraladoptionat Du Pont (p. 101).
Process models (how * Processof growthis endogenousand emergent exploitingresourcesas a dyn
questions) strategyand structure(p. 384).
* Structure'sinXquence on strategyis mediatedby its inXquence on thestrategicde
roles,skillsandperceptionsof top management (Amburgey andDacin,1994).
* StructuraldiJfusionas a process(ch. 7).
A network of relations, * Currentlevel of diversification (S) andgrowth(P) affectsstrategy(S) and stru
interactions, equifinality Dacin,1994).
and multi-causality * Familyheldfirmsslow to changestrategiesbutalso lackof strategicdecision
* Equifinality:diJferentroutesto the innovationof multi-divisionalform.
* Structureat Jerseya resultof historicalevolution,personalpreferences,legal r
(p. 165).
* Structureand strategyare affectedby legitimizingnorms,imitationandfashio
ce Amburgey and Dacin, 1994)
* As morefirmsadoptedthestructure,the linkbetweenstructureadoptionandpe
and Teece,1979)
* Mutuallearningbetweenthefocal four f rmsandotherf rms(p. 17).
Strategy eJ%ectson * Sears'entryto directretailingrevolutionizes the industry(p 233).
environment
n Performance as indepen- (Amburgey
Decliningproftabilityat base industrypushesfor diversification an
-

I dent variable Performancerecordof unrelateddiversification has inXquencedsubsequentchoi

n
v: Depressionas an externalshockinXquencing choicesof strategy(Fligstein,199
- >
. Basic reorganizationsin Du Pontand GMcameaftermajorfinancialcrisis.
o
o
-