Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T13:20:02.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research in strategy–structure–performance construct: Review of trends, paradigms and methodologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Manu Amitabh  and
Rajen K Gupta
Manu Amitabh
Affiliation:
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India
Rajen K Gupta
Affiliation:
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With rising unpredictability of the business environment, the strategy–structure–performance construct is being questioned afresh. But cutting edge research evidence is still difficult to come by. One of the possible reasons is that few researchers are adopting new and innovative methodologies. This paper carries out a paradigmatic and methodological review of research on the topic for the last 10 years after classifying published research into three broad categories of enquiry. The study finds that contrary to expectations, the logical positivistic/empiricist paradigm of enquiry into the one way linear causality in the strategy–structure–performance relationship was still the favorite among researchers and may explain the lack of breakthrough contribution of recent research. This paper makes a case for more research on the challenging two-way causality using innovative designs and archival data, and suggests some future directions for research.

Keywords

strategy–structure–performance constructstrategy–structure fitresearch paradigmsmethodology reviewcontingency variables
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 16 , Issue 5 , November 2010 , pp. 744 - 763
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acar, W., Keating, R. J., Aupperle, K. E., Hall, W. W., & Engdahl, R. A. (2003). Peering at the past century's corporate strategy through the looking glass of time-series analysis: Extrapolating from Chandler's classic mid-century American firms. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1225–1254.Google Scholar
Amburgey, T. L., & Dacin, T. (1994). As the left foot follows the right? The dynamics of strategic and structural change. Academy of Management Journal, 6, 1427–1452.Google Scholar
Andrews, K. R. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy. New York: Dow Jones-Irwin.Google Scholar
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for creating business knowledge (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B. (1992). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.Google Scholar
Bettis, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16(special issue), 7–20.Google Scholar
Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the resource allocation process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bowman, E. H., Singh, H., & Thomas, H. (2002). The domain of strategic management: History and evolution. In Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H., & Whittington, R. (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 31–51). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Burton, R. M., & Kuhn, A. J. (1979). Strategy follows structure: The missing link of their intertwined relation. Durham, NC: Duke University Working Paper.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. (2002). [Interviewed by Rodrigues, J. N.]. Strategy-structure redux. Business Strategy Review, 13(3), 20–27.Google Scholar
Channon, D. (1973). The strategy and structure of British industry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 1–22.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. K., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1991). Thinking strategically: The competitive edge in business, politics and everyday life. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. (1982). Divisionalization and diversification: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 909–914.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. (1987). Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In defence of contingency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 24(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. (1996). For positivist organization theory: Proving the hard core. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Strategy-structure redux. Business Strategy Review, 13(3), 20–27.Google Scholar
Engdahl, R. A., Keating, R. J., & Aupperle, K. E. (2000). Strategy and structure: Chicken or egg? (Reconsideration of Chandler's paradigm for economic success). Organization Development Journal, 18(4), 21–33.Google Scholar
Fouraker, L. E., & Stopford, J. M. (1968). Organizational structure and the multinational strategy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 47–64.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, J. W. (1986). The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academy of Management Journal, 11, 280–297.Google Scholar
Galan, J. I., & Sanchez-Bueno, M. J. (2009). The continuing validity of the strategy-structure nexus: New findings 1993–2003 [Research notes and commentaries]. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1234–1243.Google Scholar
Galbraith, D., & Nathanson, A. (1978). Strategy implementation: The role of structure and process. St Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J., & Kazanjian, R. (1986). Strategy implementation: Structure, systems, and process. New York: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1994). Renewing the strategy-structure-performance paradigm. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 16, pp. 215–255). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1229–1249.Google Scholar
Geiger, S. W., Ritchie, W. J., & Marlin, D. (2006). Strategy/structure fit and firm performance. Organization Development Journal, 24(2), 10–22.Google Scholar
Grinyer, P., Yasai-Ardekani, M., & Al-Bazzaz, S. (1980). Strategy, structure, environment, and financial performance in 48 United Kingdom companies. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 193–220.Google Scholar
Hall, D. J., & Saias, M. A. (1980). Strategy follows structure. Strategic Management Journal, 1, 149–163.Google Scholar
Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the revolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, R., & Shergill, G. (1992). The relationship between strategy-structure fit and financial performance in New Zealand: Evidence of generality and validity with enhanced controls. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 95–113.Google Scholar
Hamilton, R., & Shergill, G. (1993). The logic of New Zealand business: Strategy, structure, and performance. Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Handy, C. (1995). The age of unreason. London: Arrow Business Books.Google Scholar
Harris, I. C., & Ruefli, T. W. (2000). The strategy/structure debate: An examination of the performance implications. Journal of Management Studies, 37(4), 587–603.Google Scholar
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2001). Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing.Google Scholar
Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (1993). Exploring corporate strategy (pp. 10–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meredith, J. R., Raturi, A., Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Kaplan, B. (1989). Alternative research paradigms in operations. Journal of Operations Management, 8(4), 297–326.Google Scholar
Michael, S., Storey, D., & Thomas, H. (2002). Discovery and coordination in strategic management and entrepreneurship. In Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 45–65). Cornwall, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Miller, C. C., & Glick, H. W. (2006). Assessing the external environment: An enrichment of the archival tradition. In Ketchen, D. J. & Bergh, D. D. (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 3, pp. 97–122). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1987). Strategy making and structure: Analysis and implications for performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 7–32.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1996). Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 505–512.Google Scholar
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Structural change and performance: Quantum versus piecemeal-incremental approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 867–892.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24, 934–948.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structure of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: The complete guide through the wilds of strategic management. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (1991). Why do firms differ, and how does it matter. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 61–74.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, M. (1999) quoted in Sarasvathy, S. (1999). Report on seminar on research perspectives in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 1–57.Google Scholar
Penrose, E. T. (1959). A theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pitts, R. A. (1980) Towards a contingency theory of multibusiness organization design. Academy of Management Review, 5, 203–210.Google Scholar
Porac, J., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonomic mental models in competitor definition. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 224–240.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industry and competitors. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, J. N. (2002). Strategy-structure redux. Business Strategy Review, 13(3), 20–27.Google Scholar
Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, structure and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sachan, A., & Datta, S. (2005). Review of supply chain management and logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 35(9), 664–705.Google Scholar
Saloner, G. (1991). Modelling game theory and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 123, 119–136.Google Scholar
Sharma, D. (2007). Marketing strategy, marketing organization design and performance of businesses in India. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India.Google Scholar
Smith, K., & Grimm, C. (1987). Environmental variation, strategic change and firm performance: A study of railroad deregulation. Strategic Management Journal, 8(4), 363–376.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (1980). The Strategy and structure of top 100 Japanese industrial enterprises 1950–1970. Strategic Management Journal, 1(3), 265–291.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. (2007). Theoretical pluralism and multidisciplinary traditions. In Jenkins, M., Ambrosini, V., & Collier, N. (Eds.), Advanced strategic management: A multiperspective approach (Foreward) (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahnemann, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59(4), 251–278.Google Scholar
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.Google Scholar
Werther, W. B. (1999, 03/April). Structure-driven strategy and virtual organizational design. Business Horizons, 13–18.Google Scholar
Whittington, R., & Mayer, M. (2000). The European corporation: Strategy, structure and social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Yadav, V., & Gupta, R. (2008). A paradigmatic and methodological review of research in outsourcing. Information Resources Management Journal, 21(1), 27–43.Google Scholar
Yin, X., & Zajac, J. (2004). The strategy/governance structure fit relationship: Theory and evidence in franchising arrangements. Strategic Management Journal, 25(4), 365–383.Google Scholar
Zikmund, W. G. (1984). Business research methods (5th ed.). New York: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2005). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Insead-Wharton Alliance Centre Working Paper Retrieved 12 05, 2007, from http://wwwinseadedu/alliance/research_center/publicationscfmGoogle Scholar