CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The essence of organizational strategy is rooted in the
foundation of organizational action.
Therefore, a central
characteristic of those theories that attempt to explain the
strategic behavior of organizations is their perspective on
action. Van de Ven and Astley (1981, pp. 429-433) and Astley
and Van de Ven (1983, pp. 246-247) draw a distinction between
deterministic and voluntaristic perspectives on organizational
action.
These two perspectives are quite well represented in
the organizational literature.
However, Pfeffer (1982, p. 5)
argues that a third perspective that rejects the stimulusresponse perspectives of determinism and voluntarism in favor
of
an
"unfolding
Consequently,
perspectives
process"
Pfeffer
(1982,
perspective
pp.
5-10
also
)
exists.
offers
three
on action that are labeled as the intendedly
rational, situational, and emergent perspectives.
The study at hand proposes that the process by which an
organization' s strategy emanates can be classified according
to three models of action that are derivatives of Pfeffer's
three perspectives on action: the traditional, dialectic, and
spontaneous approaches to strategic management.
Inasmuch,
29
this chapter proceeds to analyze the competing models of
strategic management in order to understand the underlying
premises that may facilitate or hinder the models' abilities
to accurately portray the process by which strategy emerges.
The first part of the chapter probes the traditional
model that focuses
on
a
formal
approach to
strategic
management.
The second part of the chapter then examines the
spontaneous
model
that
strategic management.
advances
an
informal
approach
to
The third part of the chapter analyzes
the dialectic model that conditionally mediates the formal and
informal influences of the strategic management process. Each
of these discussions contains a survey of the theoretical
foundations that underlie the strategic model as well as an
inspection of the premises that underlie the model's approach
to strategic management.
After presenting these three models, the chapter returns
to the Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) framework.
The traditional,
spontaneous, and dialectic models are respectively tied to
quadrant III, high choice and low determinism; quadrant IV,
low choice and low determinism; and quadrant II high choice
and high determinism.
Moreover, the argument is advanced that
the remaining quadrant of low choice and high determinism is
predisposed
to
a
culturally-based
configuration of
preceding three modes of strategic management.
the
30
The Traditional Model
The
origins
of
the
traditional
model
of
strategic
management are found in the seminal studies of industrial
organization.
These studies give great
logical order of organizational action.
emphasis
to the
The intent of this
logical framework is to create the "rational" organization.
Having perceived a rational nature to organizational action,
some scholars
(Scott,
1981,
Chapter 3)
refer to
this
progenitor of the traditional model as the "rational systems"
perspective.
The Rational Systems Perspective
The rational systems perspective is exemplified by the
machine metaphor of organizational action. In the same sense
that a machine is an interrelated union of parts with narrowly
defined
functions that
obediently
and
efficiently
submit
toward an overarching purpose, the organization depicted by
the rational systems perspective is similarly constructed of
organizational structures and systems that are intended to
efficiently achieve prescribed outcomes.
Definition
The rational systems perspective defines an organization
as "a collectivity oriented to the pursuit
of relatively
specific goals, and exhibiting a relatively highly formalized
social structure"
(Scott, 1981, p. 21).
This definition
31
features two characteristics of particular significance to the
rational
systems
perspective.
These
two
characteristics
concern the clarification of organizational purposes and the
formalization of organizational actions.
In
regards
to
the clarification of
organizational
purposes, the definition indicates that the ends being pursued
are explicit and specific.
Goals provide the value premises
from which alternative courses of action can be prioritized.
Without clear preferences for the ordering of alternatives,
rational decisions do not exist.
In addition to establishing
decision criteria, goals construct the framework around which
the activities of the organization are planned.
Organizations
are, in essence, a hierarchy of objectives. Hence, the more
explicit and specific the goals are, the more rational the
organization is.
The characteristic of formalization is equally central to
the
rational
systems
perspective.
In
this
instance,
formalization refers to the specificity of rules. Inasmuch,
the rational systems ' definition notes that, in addition to a
clarification
of
ends,
rational
organizations
require
a
formalization of means. Formalization is desirable because
behavior is made more predictable through standardization and
regulation. Moreover, formalization makes more explicit- -and
thereby more controllable--the structure of relationships and
the system of principles that govern behavior. Likewise, the
more explicit and specific the rules are, the more rational
-
-
-
32
the organization is.
Schools of Thought
The
rational
traditional
model
systems
of
perspective,
strategic
derived from a unitary view.
from
management
which
draws,
the
is not
Rather, the rational systems
perspective is derived from a set of varied and historically
distinct positions that are described here as schools of
thought.
These
schools
of
thought
include
scientific
management, classical management, and decision theory.
As
the
generally
regards
industrial
recognized
to
the
revolution
that
management
took
organizations
of
shape,
must
operations.
society
change with
Some
scholars
(Taylor, 1911) believed that this change could only come from
the application of the scientific method' s logical framework
to
management
management.
problems- -hence,
the
label
scientific
The basis of this philosophy is to scientifically
analyze tasks performed by individual workers in order to
discover how to produce a maximum output with a minimum input
of resources.
Changes at the individual level of operations are a
consequence of changes in management practice.
scientific management
movement
Advocates of
asserted that too much of
management's work was being left to the workers. Operating
decisions were being made by workers who drew upon personal
preferences and rules of thumb.
Proponents of scientific
33
management contended that workers should not have to make
management's
The use of the scientific method
decisions.
would direct the manager to the most efficient way that work
should
performed. Therefore,
be
management' s
job was
to
establish standards and methods of work.
Taylor's work on scientific management presents a view of
the manager' s work which has had a profound impact on the
rational
systems
traditional
model
perspective,
and has
of
management.
strategic
extended
into the
Taylor' s
principles advance that management should 1) study each job
through application of the scientific method and determine the
standards
of
performance
related
to
the
best method
of
operations, rather than operating through rules of thumb;
2)
select and train workers who are capable of performing the
designated
tasks,
and develop cooperation arising
from
a mutual
dependence between management and workers, instead of
encouraging individual efforts of workers; 3) monitor work to
make sure employees are performing according to prescribed
standards;
and
4)
assume
all planning and
organizing
responsibilities, instead of allowing workers to choose their
own methods (Taylor, 1911, pp. 36-37).
Whereas
focuses
on
individual
the
scientific
increasing
employees,
management
school of
productivity through
the
classical
the
management
thought
work
of
school
is
concerned with how the organization as a whole should be
managed.
Conceptual
development
of
principles
of
34
administration
and
bureaucracy
are the
classical management school of thought.
most
strongly
associated
with
the
hallmarks
of
the
These principles are
works
of
Fayol (1949
translated) and Weber (1947 translated) respectively.
Fayol' s (1949 translated) most fundamental contribution
is that of identifying the functions of the manager. Fayol
asserts
that
functions
the
of
concept
planning,
of management
organizing,
encapsulates
commanding
the
employees,
coordinating activities, and controlling performance
(1949,
Chapter V) . The greatest emphasis is placed on the functions
of planning and organizing, since the other functions conform
to the framework designed by planning and organizing.
Building
proposes
Among
upon
these
14
principles
these
principles
functions
of
of
management
are
several
management,
(1949,
that
these principles
right
to give
necessary for
Chapter IV).
have
relevance to the rational systems perspective.
Fayol
particular
The first of
is that of authority which states that the
orders
the
and
the power
conducting
of
to exact
obedience
managerial work.
is
Another
principle indicates the need for a scalar chain of hierarchal
order
which
reporting.
establishes
Along
this
formal
hierarchal
lines
order,
of
the
authority
principle
and
of
centralization states that authority should be concentrated at
the top of the scalar chain.
Within this hierarchal
order,
individual interests must be subordinated to the common good
of the organization.
The initiative of employees should be
35
constrained within the bounds of authority.
Like Taylor, Weber
(1947 translated)
reasons that an
organization operates best . with definite, predictable methods,
logically determined and established as rules. Like Fayol' s
contributions
translated)
system
of
to
the
classical
school,
concept of bureaucracy
supervision
and
Weber' s
(1949
exemplifies an orderly
subordination.
To
Weber,
bureaucracy is a specific type of administrative structure
which uniformly and consistently provides a rational system of
order through strict rules and impersonal conduct.
Weber' s conceptualization of bureaucracy contains several
characteristics
systems
that
perspective.
have
significance
for
the
rational
These characteristics consist of a
formal system of rules, impersonality, division of labor,
hierarchal structure, authority structure, career commitment,
and rationality (1947, pp. 329-341).
Hence, Weber's view of
bureaucracy as the ideal type of organization in conjunction
with Fayol' s view of management' s foremost principles have
resulted in the classical school of thought that has produced
a lasting effect on the management of organizations.
From the decision theory school of thought, Simon (1957)
as well as March and Simon (1958) elaborate on the concepts of
administrative principles and bureaucracy. From the viewpoint
of these scholars, a formalized structure supports rational
decision
making
by
subdividing
responsibilities
among
participants and providing them with the necessary means to
36
accomplish
these
The
responsibilities.
organization's
hierarchy is viewed as a formalized arrangement of ends-means
chains that promote consistency of decisions and activities
throughout
the
organization.
This
conceptualization
emphasizes the classical school's assumption that individuals
who work in rational organizations behave rationally. March
and Simon's (1958) conceptualization adds a new consideration
that acknowledges that the rationality of human beings is
limited.
Simon
assumption
optimize
observes
that
the
classical
of an "economic man"
decisions
school' s
earlier
rationally attempting
is impractical
in real
to
administrative
situations; therefore, Simon proposes an "administrative man"
who is "intendedly rational."
This school of thought suggests
that managers seek to be rational, but within the limits of
human
capabilities.
Thus,
the
manager
usually
seeks
a
satisfactory, but not necessarily optimal solution.
This administrative behavior school of thought suggests
that
individuals generally make decisions by examining a
limited set of possible alternatives, rather than by examining
all available options.
Moreover, decisions are made by using
a limited set of criteria drawn from the decision maker's own
set of rules and experiences.
The decision-ma king process is
nonetheless rational, even if somewhat less methodologically
rigid than earlier conceptualizations of the rational systems
perspective.
37
Summary
The preceding survey of the rational systems perspective
and its associated schools of thought reveals the foundation
upon which the traditional model of strategic management is
grounded.
The fundamental characteristics
of the rational
systems perspective that prevail in strategic management' s
traditional model are conspicuously rational with a formal and
controlling
nature.
The following section introduces
traditional model of strategic management,
the
and probes the
approach' s essential qualities.
The Traditional Approach To Strategic Management
The traditional model of strategic management is based on
the rational systems perspective that draws more generally on
the scientific method.
Some scholars have used the scientific
method quite literally in their descriptions of organizational
strategy.
Landau (1973) contends that policies are translated
into the equivalent of theories, plans to models, and programs
to experiments.
This notion of the scientific method has
given rise to the principles of scientific management through
which organizational processes are systematically controlled
for achievement of objectives. In accordance with scientific
principles,
the
traditional
extraneous influence.
the
informal
model
attempts
to
control
The organization's untamed culture- -or
organization- -is
seen
as
the
irrational;
therefore, the challenge is to control culture rationally
38
(Green, 1988, p. 121).
Characteristics of the Traditional Model
The traditional model of strategic management specifies
a series of tasks to be performed by management.
These tasks
include the development of a mission statement, setting of
objectives, formulation of a strategy, implementation of the
strategy,
and
monitoring
performance
to
detect
needed
strategic adjustment (Schendel & Hofer, 1979; also see Certo
& Peter, 1991; Digman, 1990; Montanari, Morgan & Bracker,
1990; Pearce & Robinson, 1991; Thompson & Strickland, 1990;
Wheelen & Hunger, 1990).
The
underlying tone of this model
is formal, systematic control (Paul, Donovan & Taylor,
1978, p.
124) .
Under
such a system,
power
and
communication
are
hierarchial. The formal strategic plan is seen as the most
powerful of communication device since it is explicit (Scholz,
1987, p. 84).
Management
Increasingly, the top-management team (Ancona & Nadler,
1989) assumes the responsibility to determine the direction in
which organizational resources will be marshalled, thereby
determining the organization' s strategy. According
traditional
model,
management
defines
to the
the organization' s
mission and sets the organizational objectives that will be
used as the criteria in the making of decisions throughout the
39
organization.
As strategies are drafted, the process may be
comprised of a lone master strategist CEO, a collaborative
effort on the part of the management team, the delegation of
responsibility
of
to
responsibility
a planning
to
a
staff,
champion
or
within
the
the
delegation
organization
(Brodwin
& Bourgeois, 1984) . Yet, regardless of which of these options
is employed, the dominant theme that underlies the traditional
model is formal, systematic control. External and internal
information is sieved by management in an effort to formulate
strategies that optimize strategic success.
In essence, once the strategy
remains
is
to
ensure
is drafted,
according
execution
all that
to
plan.
If the right structure is
Implementation becomes mechanical.
in place and the right reward systems are being offered, then
organization
members
will
be
adequately
supported
and
motivated to take operational actions that are congruent with
strategic
objectives.
additional
information
As
implementation
regarding
external
takes
and
place,
internal
environments is fed back to management for further adjustment
to strategies.
Premises of the Traditional Model
Although the simplicity and logic of this model
strong
appeal,
management
implications
the
carries
for
traditional
some
approach
assumptions
viability.
A
that
major
to
have
has
strategic
serious
assumption
is
40
management' s ability to process a seemingly endless amount of
information relevant to the formulation of strategy (Paul,
Donovan & Taylor, 1978, p. 126)
affects
strategic tasks
organization' s values.
This assumption directly
such as
the
development
of
an
Attempting to identify the value set
of an individual is difficult enough, but the task becomes
exponentially more difficult as that value set must encompass
a collectivity of individuals.
The traditional model makes another assumption that helps
to alleviate this burden.
The traditional model assumes that
all organizational members work as a unified hierarchy toward
overarching organizational aims (Green, 1988, pp. 121-123).
To work as a unified whole, organizational members must by
necessity
commit
to
the
value
organization 's
system.
Therefore, management decides on what values to instill in
statements
of
organizational mission so
between
to
form
organization
am
appropriate
strategic
environment.
However, this dependence on management' s ability
to process the relevant
match
as
and
information and to determine the
correct set of values seems to suggest, in light of bounded
rationality, that these managerial abilities may be limited
(Simon, 1957, pp. 38-41). Green
(1988, p. 123) argues that
differing value structures among organizational members makes
management' s attempt to dictate values a futile endeavor.
This same argument can also be made for the strategic
task of setting organizational objectives.
Given the myriad
41
of possible objectives that could be targeted, management may
not select a set of objectives that appropriately fix the
organization on a course toward competitive advantage.
Another fundamental premise of the traditional model is
that a formally structured approach to the formulation of
strategy is desirable. The formal nature of such a process
encourages a methodical approach to the gathering, organizing,
and processing of information, and also provides a rationale
for the decided upon strategy. However, the rigidity of a
formal
planning
system
can
also
be
counteractive.
The
existence of organizational strengths and weaknesses as well
as environmental opportunities and threats that somehow do not
register in the mechanistic categories of a formal planning
system will be overlooked or ignored.
As with the task of formulating strategy, the task of
implementing strategy is strongly affected by traditional
model premises of control (Paul, Donovan & Taylor, 1978, p.
127) . Once
the
strategy
has
been
determined
with
the
appropriate supporting systems operating, management need only
to control the system in order to implement the strategy.
This assumption that control of the organization' s systems is
critical
to achieving
results
serves to constrain and/or
punish behavior that is defined by the system as being deviant
and therefore, dysfunctional. However, deviant behavior may
not be dysfunctional when that behavior is directing attention
and effort at addressing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
42
and threats that were overlooked, ignored, underestimated,
overestimated,
or
operationalized
ineffectively
or
inefficiently by the formal planning system.
This tendency to inhibit unplanned behavior can lead to
implementation problems. Green (1988, p. 124) contends that
formal systems are not enough to ensure implementation due to
an unseen need for change, or political resistance to change.
Alexander (1985) presents ten implementation problems that at
least 50% of the organizations in his study experienced. The
source of these problems seems to be found in assumptions of
the traditional model.
implementation
these
Peters
problems
(1978, p. 8) would explain
as
being
caused
by
an
underestimation of time requirements, an overdetermination on
management' s abilities as we11· as on formal planning and
control systems, and an underdetermination of organizational
members'
capabilities.
Since
management
dictates
the
those
responsible
strategy,
determines
and
for operational
implementation have minimal ownership of the strategy and
outcomes. Therefore, minimal attention and effort are given
by
those
responsible
for
operational
implementation
to
bridging the problematic gaps.
Summary
The
traditional
model
of
strategic
management
is a
logical and systematic approach to strategy formulation and
implementation. The simplifying reductionist approach of this
43
model has assuredly been a strong factor in this model's
widespread appearance in the strategic management literature.
Yet,
in
spite
of
the
pervasiveness in
application of the traditional
the
literature,
model has been criticized
because of the model's inflexibly bureaucrati c practices which
do not respond quickly to change. Yet again, Landau (1973)
would contend that these failures of the traditional model
occur because organization's are not bureaucratic
enough.
Nevertheless, due to a logical and controlling nature, the
traditional model shows some promise as a paradigm by which
management
may
attempt
to
create
and
execute
the
organization' s strategy.
The Spontaneous Model
The spontaneous model of strategic management descends
from a body of seminal literature that originally surfaced as
a repercussion to the assumptions of the "rational" management
movement.
This literature posits that organizations are more
than a set of formally mandated rules.
are collectivities
personal interests;
Indeed, organizations
of human beings who work according to
yet,
these
self-interests
are
best
explained through social needs rather than economic needs.
Even though this stream of literature has its beginnings in
the perceived failings of rational management, the theories
developing from this more humanistic literature have grown
into a perspective of their own.
Some scholars (Scott, 1981,
44
Chapter 4) have labeled this collection of views the "natural
systems" perspective.
The Natural Systems Perspective
The natural systems perspective can be typified by using
the metaphorical case of a living organism. Not unlike the
spontaneous manner by which life forms come into being and
attempt to exist, organizations
are growing and evolving
systems formed of interlocking but ever-changing interests,
values, and behaviors of individual members. Organizations
exhibit a perspective of action that is naturally purposeful
and without formal design.
Definition
According to
the
natural
systems
perspective,
"an
organization is a collectivity whose participants are little
affected by the formal structure or official goals but who
share a common interest in the survival of the system and who
engage in collective activities, informally structured, to
secure this end" (Scott, 1981, p. 22).
This definition of an
organization explicitly diverges from that of the rational
systems
perspective. The
perspectives
dimensions
along
differ are at the fundamental
which
the
two
level of both
philosophies. These dimensions are the nature of goals and
the formality of structures and systems for accomplishing
goals.
45
Concerning the nature of goals, this definition offers
that organizations are more than instruments for attaining
narrowly defined goals. Organizations are multifaceted social
systems.
As complex social systems, organizations experience
a variety of needs.
of
the
One of these needs is the accomplishment
organization's
authorized
goals
which
aids
the
organization in adapting to environmental influences; however,
another type of need is the satisfaction of desires that are
internal
to
the
organization.
Given
the
requirement
of
attending to these powerful and sometimes opposing needs, the
primary purpose of the organization becomes survival.
The
drive
operational
for
concerns
distortion
of
Therefore,
the
the
survival
produces
that
result
may
organization's
natural
systems
an
in the
formally
perspective
emphasis
on
neglect
or
stated
goals.
observes
the
distinction between an organization 's announced goals that are
officially
sanctioned
and actual goals that are revealed
through the actions of organizational members.
In addition to organizational ends, the definition also
addresses the composition of organizational means. If this
definition suggests that organizations are more than devices
for pursuing artificially designed goals, then this definition
also emphasizes that organizations are more than a set of
prescribed rules for achieving those goals.
Organizations are
formed of individuals who have personal values, expectations,
agendas, and abilities.
This quality of organizations gives
46
substance to the notion of social forces that informally
influence behavior.
As the formal nature of the rational organization has
raised doubts as to its effectiveness, increased attention has
been given to the concept of the informal organization. In
this sense, the formal nature of organizational action is
described as the normative structures and systems designed by
management.
behavior
Formal structures and systems are those norms and
patterns
that
exist
without
regard
to
the
characteristics of the individual participants. Conversely,
the
informal
organization
is described
as
the operative
structures and systems that enable the uninhibited behavior of
participants. Informal structures and systems, therefore, are
those
based
on
the
characteristics
or
resources
of
the
deny
the
individual participants.
The
natural systems
perspective does
not
existence of highly formalized structures and systems within
organizations; however, this perspective does question the
importance
and
impact of these
behavior of participants.
systems
perspective
is
formal approaches
on the
The quintessence of the rational
that
behavior is
conducted and
regulated through informal structures and systems.
Schools of Thought
The
natural
systems
perspective,
from
which
the
spontaneous model of strategic management is drawn, springs
47
from a diverse array of empirical and theoretical works. The
common thread throughout the schools of thought which comprise
the literature of the natural systems perspective, however, is
an inherently spontaneous quality of organizational action
through which organizational members instinctively function.
The specific schools of thought selected for review are the
human
cooperative
systems,
and
institutional
relations
, schools.
The human relations movement provided an impetus for the
natural systems perspective.
The Hawthorne studies
(Mayo,
1945; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939) are generally considered
to be the initiation of the human relations movement. Several
findings of the Hawthorne studies conducted at the Hawthorne
plant of AT&T's Western Electric Company challenge some basic
assumptions of scientific management.
point
to a complex model
The Hawthorne
of worker motivation
studies
based
on a
social-psychological conceptualization rather than an economic
conceptualization of human behavior.
The first of these findings was that, although changes in
task conditions such as lighting had no effect on productivity
of the participants
being observed,
the reactions of the
participants to being observed had a significant affect on
productivity.
to
be
The presence of this condition which has come
known as the
participants'
"Hawthorne Effect"
level of productivity
complex socio-emotional reaction.
was
suggests that the
the
result
of
a
Because the participants
48
had been singled out for special study, they had developed a
group pride that motivated them to improve their performance.
This observation provides a basis for concluding that the
human factor has a profound effect on organizational behavior.
A
second significant finding
Hawthorne
studies
organization. The
was
the
discovered during the
importance
of
the
informal
researchers established a piecework pay
system for the group working in the bank-wiring room.
pay
system
was
expected
to
encourage
higher
This
levels
of
productivity with the inducement of greater economic benefit
to the workers.
However, the researchers observed an informal
organizational structure that enforced expected standards or
norms of behavior that discouraged variation in the level of
productivity.
In effect, the group's informal
organization
established a level of acceptable output for members.
Generalizing
from the Hawthorne
studies, members
of
organizations do not behave as "rational" economic beings, but
rather as complex social beings with multiple values and
motives.
These values and motives are as much- -if not more- -a
reflection of feelings as they are reasoning. Finally, the
Hawthorne study intimates that organizational members do not
work as isolated individuals; they perform as interrelating
members of social groups exhibiting commitments and loyalties
beyond personal self-interests.
The
theoretical
work
of
Barnard
(1938)
also
takes
exception with the classical school of management by proposing
49
a theory of cooperative systems.
Barnard views organizations
as social systems that require employee cooperation.
Barnard
advocated that the classical concept of authority which takes
for granted the acceptance of top-down control needs revision.
The
acceptance
of
authority
by
members
is
essential
to
management effectiveness. Therefore, managers must encourage
cooperative efforts to garner acceptance of their authority.
This concept of acceptance suggests that organizational
members can exert a will of their own on the organization,
thereby urging the natural systems perspective.
with
the
Barnard's
framework
work
of
the
addresses
natural systems
the
two
In harmony
perspective,
fundamental
issues
of
organizational survival and of the informal organization.
In Barnard' s
organization
is
point
of
dependent
interdependent conditions:
view,
upon
the
two
survival
of
interrelated
an
and
effectiveness, the accomplishment
of the cooperative purpose; and efficiency, the satisfaction
of individual motives (1938, pp. 60-61) Barnard acknowledges
that the primary goal of organizations is to survive.
And to
survive, the organization must satisfy internal as well as
external needs.
With regards to these needs and their manner of being
met,
Barnard
identifies
organizations: the
organization.
formal
two
components
organization
and
of
the
social
informal
Barnard defines the formal organization as "a
system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two
--
50
or more persons" (1938, p. 73).
The informal organization is
defined by Barnard as "the aggregate of the personal contacts
and interactions and the associated groupings of people [whose
relationships are not a part of or governed by the formal
organization ]" (1938, p. 115). Barnard' s conceptualization
contends that the informal organization is not a subordinate
part
of the formal organization,
coexisting
occurrence
that
has
but
rather
great
a separate,
significance
for
organizational performance.
Since their inception in the Hawthorne studies and the
theory of cooperative systems, the foundational concepts of
operative goal orientation and informal organization have been
extended
through many studies including studies of group
dynamics and leadership.
which
contributes
perspective
is
One particular extension, however,
substantially
the
work
of
to
the
Selznick
natural
(1948;
systems
1957)
on
institutional theory.
Selznick views organizations as adaptive organisms shaped
in reaction to the characteristics of participants as well as
to influences from the external environment. In the face of
hostile environments, organizational members may disregard or
modify professed goals in an effort to increase their own
security. This view of organizations seeks to explain the
processes that underlie changes in organizational goals.
Selznick recognizes that survival is a goal of uppermost
concern,
and proposes
that
survival
is
an
extension
of
51
maintaining values
survival
and
becomes
a
distinctive
matter
of
Therefore,
identity.
"institutionalizing"
the
organization's values and character. To institutionalize is
to "infuse with value beyond the technical requirements of the
task at hand (Selznick, 1957, p. 17) .
According to Selznick, the process of institutionalizing
involves the informal emergence of interest groups within the
organization
values.
that
However,
espouse
and
support
various
competing
Selznick contends that, to be effectively
institutionalized, organizations require the talents of an
institutional leader to harmonize the diverse interests of
these varied coalitions.
Selznick states, "The main practical
import of this effort is that policy will gain spontaneous and
reasoned support" (1957, p. 150) .
Summary
The preceding survey of the natural systems perspective
and
of
the
literature
recapitulates the
from
origins
selected
of the
schools
of
spontaneous
thought
model of
strategic management. The cardinal elements of the natural
systems perspective that continue to live in the spontaneous
model
of
strategic
emergence
of
succeeding
section
management
both
strategic management,
arise
from
organizational ends
introduces
the
an
and
spontaneous
instinctive
means.
model
The
of
and examines the components of that
model to enhance understanding of its potential viability as
52
a mode of strategy formulation and implementation.
The Spontaneous Approach To Strategic Management
Arising
from
the
natural
systems
perspective
organizational action, the spontaneous model
management exhibits
an
of
of strategic
improvisational perspective of the
manner by which strategy emerges.
In
sharp contrast to
the orderliness of the traditional model, the spontaneous
model of strategic management thrives on chaos. Some (Cohen,
March & Olsen, 1972, p.l) refer to organizations that
exemplify the spontaneous model as "organized anarchies."
Rather than being goal directed, rational, and
mechanistic, organizations are best described as being
"quirky and merky"
The
spontaneous
(Deal & Kennedy, 1983, p. 498).
model
argues
that
strategies
are
formulated and implemented through heterarchal processes,
rather than through the hierarchal process of the traditional
model. Whereas the traditional model uses formal planning
processes
to control the culture of an organization,
the
spontaneous approach treats the uninhibited, natural culture
as the process by which strategy emerges.
Therefore, instead
of being created and executed through a controlled, linear
sequence of formal tasks, strategy is manifest as informal
activity--uninhibited culture.
53
Characteristics
of the Spontaneous Model
The spontaneous model of strategic management advances
the notion that strategy emerges from the pattern of unfolding
decisions made and interactions engaged in by the informal
organization.
To the extent that the traditional model of
strategic management
mission
is comprised of tasks, i.e. , develop
statements, set objectives,
formulate strategies,
implement strategies, and monitor results; the spontaneous
model takes shape in the form of relationships,
i.e.,
the process of connecting people though information
(Wheatley, 1992, p. 38).
emerges
Strategy
through a fluid process of interrelationships
among
organizational members, instead of appearing by means of a
discretely ordered sequence of well- defined constructs.
The spontaneous model embraces the concept of "huddling."
Herein, huddling
is a "temporary, intimate, work-oriented
encounter between two or more people. Huddlers draw together
informally
and
confer, 'nestling'
to
get
results
where
organizations fail. A huddle is the source of considerable
information, the locus of significant decision, the setting
for power transactions, the place where many responsibilities
get defined, and the impetus for motivating people to get
things done" (Merrell, 1979, p. 6).
conceptualization
of
strategy
The spontaneous model' s
emergence
suggests
that
utilizing personal skill development through huddling with
respect to interpersonal and group communication skills is
54
essential, since the power of individuals to act autonomously
implies an equally powerful social force that facilitates the
ability of individuals to create and share organizational
vision with other members.
This
spontaneous
process
appears
chaotic,
since
the
strategy is not arrived at deductively with a formal hierarchy
of goals and roles.
Instead, the strategy is arrived at
inductively through the collective of innately shared values
among individual members. Barnard (1938, Chapter IX) speaks
of the informal organization as the indefinite and shapeless
interactions of society.
The informal organization performs
via unconscious processes- -as
opposed to
the
conscious
processes of the formal organization. Peters (1978, p. 14)
proposes
that
organizations operate
concepts of unconscious processes
on
inertia.
These
and inertia seem to be
referring to what could be called the innate culture of an
organization. This conceptualization of uninhibited culture
offers that culture is not an artifact to be developed and
installed by management- -culture evolves as individuals carry
out their
daily
work
(Deal
&
Therefore,
from the standpoint
Kennedy, 1983 ,
p. 502).
of the spontaneous model,
culture can be considered as the interlocking behaviors of the
members of a collectivity (Weick, 1969) .
As
chaos
theory illustrates,
this
seemingly
emergence of strategy actually does have an order.
chaotic
That order
is created through shared meanings within the innate culture
55
of the informal organization.
As organizational members go
about making decisions and engaging in ordinary interactions,
strategy is being implemented. As strategy is implemented
through these nondirected processes, strategy is also being
formulated.
Framed in the spontaneous model,
strategy is
manifest as what the organization does posteriori as opposed
to what the organization says a priori.
Premises of the Spontaneous Model
Like all models,
the spontaneous model
of strategic
management embraces some specific assumptions that influence
the extent to which this model can accurately portray the
process
of
strategy
emergence.
The
most
fundamental
assumption of the spontaneous model is that the members of a
collectivity are able to informally arrive at shared meanings.
This concept of shared meaning suggests a certain level of
coherence which is organically formed.
Shared meanings among
members give rise to a common agreement as to the accepted
methods
of
information
gathering,
reasoning,
and
taking
action . Even so, the assumption has implications for members
being blinded to the need for change due to an informally
implanted cultural bias, not unlike the managerially implanted
cultural bias discussed with the traditional model.
This assumption of shared meaning has significant impact
on the manner by which values and objectives are agreed upon.
The process is entirely informal.
Values and objectives are
56
emergent rather than imposed, and are best understood
retrospect
of
decisions. In other words,
objectives
of
the
autonomously make
decisions
and
organization
are
the values
revealed
sense of the environment
actions.
However,
by
its
reflective nature, the spontaneous model
as
in
and
members
through their
autonomous
and
lends itself to
after-the-fact rationalization of strategic choices.
These strategic
choices are themselves based on the
spontaneous model's assumption that the informal organization
can adequately process information through an informal and
unstructured
approach
implementation.
management
to
strategy
formulation
The model does not, however,
makes no formal plans.
Brunsson
and
assume that
(1989, p.
7)
argues that in some organizations formal processes exist for
political purposes, i.e., to show the organization acts with
"rationality, decency, and fairness," while informal processes
actually "generate coordinated action. " The spontaneous model
merely suggests that these efforts at formal planning have
no--or
relatively
strategy-in-use.
little--effect
on
the
organization's
Schwartz and Davis (1981, p. 37) submit that
the risk surrounding organizational change arises from the
immutability
5
of
culture.
Since
culture
is unchangeable,
formal strategy must adapt to the culture in order to even
5
In this framework of the spontaneous model, this usage of
the term "immutable" means the inability to be changed by
formal processes.
57
have
the
appearance
of
an
effect. Therefore,
without
a
hierarchally imposed set of objectives or strategies, the
strategy- in-use becomes
the shared ways
respond to environmental perceptions.
process
of
strategy
experienced
making
in which members
Again, this collective
appears
chaotic. If
actually
in practice, this chaos may induce a sort of
"paralysis of action" brought about by the inability to make
choices
which
(Barnard, 1938, p.
is
drawn
from
organization
can make
information
is
perspectives,
the
118) . Although,
assumption
sense of
that
themes,
and
i• e
that
the inference
the
informal
act on environmental
•
patterns
I
and/or
will emerge from the. variety of individual
decisions and actions.
With regards to implementation, the issue of control or
the
seeming
lack
spontaneous model.
of
it
is a central
assumption
to the
The question could easily be asked who
guards the guardians? In essence, this model advocates that
work in organizations is accomplished entirely through the
informal organization.
process
by
use
of
Therefore, any attempt to control this
formal systems
will
only
result in
unfulfilled potential of the informal organization and, in
turn, sub-par performance.
Peters (1978, p. 20) writes of how
organizations experience a growth in performance
during a
period of transition from one form of structure to another,
after
which
results
will
plateau
or
decline.
Perhaps,
increased performance during the periods of flux is because of
58
the unrestrained nature of the informal organization.
Additionally,
an equally potent
explanation
for the
success of an organization is the informal organization' s
exercise
of
leadership.
requires management,
Whereas
the
the
informal
formal
organization
organization
is better
served by leadership (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 60) The spontaneous
model would indicate that the most prevalent and effective
type
of
leader is
leader" described as
an
indispensable person who is there when they are needed
(De
Pree, 1987, p. 46).
a "roving
Roving leadership is an essential part of
the participative process in which organizational members take
ownership of
problems
and influence
the
employment of
resources for solving those problems.
The behavior of members
is checked by mutual accord
rather than by command or rule (Deal & Kennedy, 1983, p. 502).
The informal network watches over the values and substance of
the organization.
Within the assumptions of the spontaneous
model,
efforts
continual
among members
to establish
and
reinforce credibility perform the function of control. The
informal
organization
hinges
on trust
and
confidence
in
other's abilities to carry through on commitments (Pacanowsky,
1988).
De Pree (1987, p. 37) refers to these commitments as
convenantal
relationships
credibility
that
transcend
that
the
derive
from
contractual
intimacy
and
relationships
employed by the traditional model. If credibility does not
exist for a particular member, that member is then effectively
59
"controlled" by
the
interactions of
other organizational
members.
Summary
The spontaneous model
extreme
contrast
to the
of strategic management
traditional
is in
model. In fact,
the
spontaneous model should probably not even be attached to the
more traditional term "strategic management".
The use of the
term strategic management suggests too much of a hierarchal
control.
Instead,
the
spontaneous
model
might
be
best
associated with a term such as "strategic empowerment".
In
this sense, strategic empowerment suggests that members have
empowered themselves through shared meanings discovered in the
organizing processes that shape the organization's strategy.
Thus, strategy is shaped and acted upon by the decisions and
interactions of members as they engage in routine activities.
In this way, strategy is synonymous with the autonomously
enacted culture of the organization.
Perhaps though, the greatest argument for advancing the
spontaneous
odel as the strategy- in-use is also the toughest
argument against this model as an accurate representation of
the
origin
of
an
organization's
strategy. Although
the
concept of empowerment is at the heart of this model, not all
members want or will accept empowerment.
60
The Dialectic Model
The dialectic model of strategic management is gleaned
from scholarly work that recognizes a need for balance between
formal and informal organizational action.
According to this
literature,
formal and
coexist, but
inherently
in opposition
informal
action
to each other.
are
Nevertheless,
a
product of organizational action emanates from the dialectic
occurring between the formally sanctioned actions which are
accepted and rejected and the informally practiced activities
which are accepted and rejected. As a result of perceiving
this dialectic nature which indicates that organizational
processes are subsystems within social systems, some scholars
(Scott, 1981, Chapter
5) speak of this viewpoint
as the
loosely coupled perspective of open systems.
The Loosely Coupled Systems Perspective
The loosely coupled systems perspective is represented by
the metaphor
of
organizations
as open
systems.
Boulding
(1956) identifies several classifications of systems in which,
if
considered
incorporates
hierarchally,
the
features
of
each
the
higher
lower
level
level
system
systems.
Approaching the highest level system is the social system of
which social organizations are an example. At a lower level
of the systems classification is the open system which would
delineate social organizations as being interactive with their
environments.
The interactive nature of such an open system
--------1
61
is best
described
as loosely coupled, rather than being
tightly coupled as is the case with closed systems, e.g., the
rational
systems
perspective
and
the
natural
systems
perspective.
Definition
As an open system, "an organization is a coalition of
shifting interest groups that develop goals by negotiation;
the
structure
of
the coalition,
its activities
and
its outcomes
are strongly influenced by environmental
(Scott, 1981, p. 22-23). This
factors"
definition suggests that the
open system level of social systems allows for the analysis of
organizations from a variety of perspectives. The open system
level
of analysis
can be
concerned with
the
external environment
as between competitive forces and organizational strategic
content, or with the internal environment as between formal
and informal organizational processes.
The perspective that
best expresses the dialectic between formal and informal
organizational processes is the loosely coupled perspective.
One of the main contributions of the loosely coupled
perspective is the recognition that many systems- -especially
social
systems- -contain
propelled by
elements
autonomous actions while being
interactions. From
organizational members
have great
that
are
compelled
simultaneously
by dependent
the natural systems perspective,
latitude for autonomous behavior.
Yet, from the rational systems perspective, the
62
autonomous behavior of organizational members has little if
any
impact in
unilaterally
changing the
organization's
superstructure.
Hence,
from
the
loosely
coupled
perspective,
organizations are viewed not as a hierarchal machine nor as an
organic entity, but as a loosely linked coalition of shifting
interest
groups.
As
one
group
grows
to
dominance
and
establishes formal organizational ends and means, other groups
form as antagonists and pursue informally acknowledged ends
and means. Therefore, a dialectic takes place between the
formal power of the dominant coalition and the informal power
of the recessive coalition, which results in a synthesis of
the two powers.
Schools of Thought
The loosely coupled systems perspective, from which the
dialectic model of strategic management draws, is primarily
composed of critical works.
The literature constituting the
schools of thought which represent the loosely coupled systems
perspective are concerned with the inherent tension between
formal and informal organizational processes. The following
discussion focuses
on
two
positions designated as
the
structuralist and structuration schools of thought.
The structuralist school of thought combines the rational
systems perspective and the natural systems perspective to
create a synthesized view.
Etzioni
(1964) argues from the
--
63
viewpoints
of
Marx (1954
tr}
and
Weber (1947
tr}
that
regardless of the best efforts of managers and workers, their
economic and social interests are inevitably in conflict.
Thus,
power and
control become the
central issues
of
organizational action.
Etzioni' s view
gives
equal
attention
informal structures of power and control.
to
formal
and
The primary focus
is on the interactions and accompanying tensions that occur
between the formal and informal structures.
the
basic
organizational dilemma
the
Etzioni takes as
inevitable
strains
between organizational needs and personal needs, rationality
and nonrationality, discipline and autonomy, and formality and
informality. The thesis to this school of thought is that
these conflicts can be reduced but not diminished.
Moreover,
Etzioni' s structuralist school of thought gives credence to
the position that the rational systems perspective and the
natural systems perspective are complementary.
The structuration school of thought presented by Giddens
(1976; 1984) also begins with the premise that tensions exist
between the actions of members and the structural features of
the
organization.
Members
of
organizations
are
active,
reflective thinking human beings who possess the power to
choose how to behave. Yet, the structures of social systems
both enable and constrain how humans choose to interact.
Herein, certain coalitions of the organization' s membership
are at an advantage for articulating policies due to the
64
structures of power and control, whereas other coalitions are
placed at a disadvantage.
Growing from this first tension, however, is a second
tension
concerning
stability
and
structures of power and control.
organizational
change
related
to
the
Rather than considering
action to be determinate
or emergent, the
structuration school of thought attempts to account for action
as a product of the tensions between both forces.
of
thought
distinguishes
Systems are the
organizations.
between
empirical
Structures
organization
to
create
relationship
between
systems and structures.
patterns of
are
the
the
systems.
systems
This school
behavior within
rules
and
used
The
by
the
interactive
structures
is
what
constitutes structuration. Specifically, "Structuration is
the
process
through
of producing
members'
and
application
reproducing
of
social
generative
systems
rules
and
resources ' (Poole, Seibold & McPhee, 1986, p. 247).
Therefore,
as organizational
member s act on certain
formally prescribe d or informally ascribed rules, these rules
become reified.
As rules are not acted upon, organizational
members
the
change
rules
by
which
they
interact.
The
structuration school of thought has particular significance to
the loosely coupled systems perspective in that formal and
informal structures are concurrently being acted upon, serving
to
produce
processes.
and
reproduce
organizational
standards
and
65
Summary
The preceding presentation of the loosely coupled systems
perspective along with the presentation of affiliated schools
of thought furnish the foundation upon which the dialectic
model of strategic management is based. In particular, the
dialectic model of strategic management draws from the loosely
coupled
exists
systems
among
perspective
an ever-present
organizational
processes. The
tension
next
that
section
introduces the integral aspects of the dialectic model, and
analyzes the premises that influence the model' s viability as
an effective mode of strategic management.
The Dialectic Approach To Strategic Management
Alongside the two approaches of the traditional model and
the spontaneous model is a third competing explanation for the
manner
by
which
strategy
emerges.
This
third
approach
signifies the loosely coupled perspective of organizational
action, and can be described as a dialectic model of strategic
management.
Mintzberg (1987a; 1987b) contends that in some
instances the exclusive presence of either "deliberate'' or
•emergent"
processes is
strategy.
insufficient to produce
a viable
Therefore, Mintzberg describes a more
apt strategic process that is manifest
tension between
through
the
the presence of both "deliberate"
and •emergent" organizational action.
This dialectic model
proposes that strategy emerges as a synthesis from the
friction between formal and informal
66
strategic processes.6 The process is neither controllable as
with
the
traditional
model
nor uninhibited
spontaneous model; rather, the process
as with
the
is one of managed
culture wherein strategy is negotiated.
Characteristics
of the Dialectic Model
Under the dialectic model of strategic management, formal
and
informal
strategy
management is
occupied
processes
with
are
fully
formally
at
work. Top
developing
mission
statements, setting objectives, and drafting strategies.
membership
informally
However,
of the organization
organizing
and
The
is also at the same time
enacting
a
rather than being carried out
natural
oblivious
culture.
to the
existence of the other, each of these two dimensions, the
formal and the informal, draws from and contributes to the
other.
The
dialectic
model suggests
that
organizational
activities will produce and reproduce organizational processes
(Giddens, 1976; McPhee, 1985; Poole, Seibold & McPhee, 1986).
The formal activities of the formal organization' s planning
6
Mason and Mitroff
(1981)
advance an approach to
strategic problem solving which they refer to as the
"dialectical inquiry system.•
This system (not to be
confused with the dialectic model noted by this study) is a
formal approach to the surfacing and testing of strategic
assumptions.
Nevertheless, even through conducted with formal rigor, the
dialectical inquiry system as a conceptual framework does
intimate the confrontational nature which can exist between
formal and informal processes.
67
process and the informal activities displayed by the informal
organization' s patterns of behavior create a composite means
of strategy creation and strategic action.
formal
strategic
planning
process
and
By acting out the
by acting
on
the
formally articulated strategy that is derived from the formal
process, members of the organization reify that means of
formulating and implementing
strategy.
Similarly,
by not
subscribing to certain aspects of the formal planning process
or of the content coming from that formal process, members of
the organization effectively operate to change or reproduce
the organization' s strategy-making processes.
Concurrently, informal strategy processes have an affect
on
the
formal
planning
processes.
As
behaviors
of
the
informal organization are formally recognized and found to be
effective, the formal organization reifies these informal
strategies
and
incorporating
the
informal
these previously
strategy
unofficial
processes
activities
by
into
official plans and procedures. Yet, as informal strategies
and
strategy
processes
remain
foreign
to
the
formal
organization, regardless as to the effectiveness of these
strategies and processes, the formal organization will not
condone
such actions which are considered
destructive to the official status quo.
disruptive
and
68
Premises of the Dialectic Model
As with the previously discussed models, the dialectic
model
of
strategic
management
operates
under
certain
assumptions that have strong bearing with regards to the
extent that this model accurately captures the process by
which strategies emerge.
Here again, the manner in which
information is processed reappears as a core assumption.
The
dialectic model of strategic management encourages, in the
ideal form, utilization of all organizational capabilities,
both formal and informal, to create organizational strategies.
Thereby,
the
organization
employs
greater
interpretive
complexity to translate environmental complexity.
Even while
utilizing a richer combination of interpretive capabilities,
the organization will no doubt still operate from a bounded
rationality and cultural bias; the attempt to involve various
and diverse dimensions in the task of environmental scanning
seems
to make
substantial
advances
toward
more
complete
information processing.
This form of information processing has implications for
the
way
by
which
values
and
objectives
become
known.
Management drafts statements of mission and objectives based
on
management' s
interpretation
of
the
organization' s
environment, both internal and external (Green, 1988, p. 126) .
Members of the organization
then act on these values and
objectives based on these member's interpretations of the
internal and external environment.
By acting on certain
69
values and objectives, members assign meaning to and thereby
strengthen the charter of these strategic constructs.
Those
values and objectives not given meaning by organizational
members become null and void.
Another assumption underlying this model of strategic
management involves the amount of structure needed in the
collecting and processing of strategic information. Whereas
the structure of the traditional model is tight and the
structure of the spontaneous model is loose, the structure of
the dialectic model has properties that are simultaneously
tight and loose
(Peters & Waterman,
1982, Chapter 12).
Management utilizes formal planning systems in order to make
sense of environmental conditions. By nature, these formal
planning
systems
are
tightly
structured,
scanning
the
environment for certain predetermined classificatory signals
that can be processed systematically. On the other hand, the
informal organization utilizes a loosely structured process of
environmental sense making.
individually,
and
Members gather information
process
collectively interpret meaning
informal
organization
has
as
they
through interactions.
The
that
no
information
predetermined
method
of
information collection or processing.
Through
this dual approach to structure, a friction
occurs. In the
ideal
form
of
the
dialectic
model,
this
friction brings about a synthesized or "negotiated" strategy.
However,
this notion of a negotiated
strategy
implies a
70
willingness
on
organizations
behalf of the
to
negotiate.
formal
Without
and the
this
informal
willingness,
strategy would seem, by necessity, to emerge from either the
traditional model or the spontaneous model.
The notion of negotiation not only raises the issue of
willingness, but also abilities. Power to negotiate becomes
an important assumption . In the dialectic model of strategic
management, control over the strategy emergence process is
handled through a balance of power between the formal and the
informal organizations. Management has the "legal" power to
create
systems
of
formalization
and
socialization.
By
introducing formal strategies and socializing employees into
a "corporate way of thinking," management
is, in essence,
setting boundaries to the organization. The ability to set
such boundaries
can place
management
in a very
powerful
position.
These boundaries,
published
rules or policy, act as a guide to appropriate
organizational behavior.
a
welcome
tool
for
which are operationalized
as
Even though formal policies can be
standardization and
regulation,
the
formalization and socialization of such policies can serve to
constrain organizational responsiveness
in undesired ways.
Under these conditions, boundaries become barriers.
The informal organization balances this legal power of
management with the innate power to produce and reproduce
policies through informal interactions. The metaphor of the
spider' s web seems especially appropriate (Geertz, 1973).
As
71
the
informal organization
interactions, this
constructs
of
web
management'
spins a
is
web
anchored
of meaning and
to
s device.
certain formal
However,
not all
of management' s formal policies are seen as appropriate
anchoring devices. Therefore,
anchor the web
the informal organization will
to those
of
management' s
policies
that do seem appropriate, and if necessary, go beyond
those policies to find more suitable anchors.
The
dialectic model of strategic management suggests, though,
that management recognizes the innate power of
organizational culture, and will attempt to shape the
culture in order to create and execute strategy (Green, 1988, p.
123; Schwartz & Davis, 1981; p. 31). Whereas the traditional
model is one of controlled culture and the spontaneous
model is one of uninhibited culture, the dialectic model
strategic management portrays a managed
culture (Green, 1988, p.
121; Peters, 1978, p. 8; Tichy, 1982, p. 71). Bettinger
advances that
the
of
challenge
is
(1989)
to strategically
manage the organization' s culture to tap its strengths in
order to achieve superior performance, and
to identify
its weaknesses in time to overcome them before they can do
serious damage.
Sometimes
the
most
come in the form of a strong culture.
culture can be a
serious of weaknesses can
That
is, a
strong
powerfullyresistant force to strategic change
(Schwartz & Davis, 1981, p. 31).
A
strong culture can
torpedo strategic thought and action; therefore, culture
should not be left to evolve, but
instead culture
--
72
should be managed by focusing on central, functional values
(Reimann & Wiener, 1988) .
Summary
The dialectic model of strategic management argues for
the emergences of strategy from the friction between the
formal
and
the
informal
organizations. This
friction
is
fueled by differences in the way information is gathered and
processed, in the degree of tight and loose structures, and in
the use of legal versus innate power. The richness in this
model of strategic management is found in the formation of a
composite of formal strategy processes and informal strategy
processes.
However, a substantiative disadvantage that could
arise from this model as it appears in use is that rather than
emerging
from
a
composite, strategy
may
emerge from
a
compromise that does not draw from the full potential of the
model.
The Need
for Requisite Variety
The Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) framework presented in
Chapter One has been offered
paragon of strategic content.
by
its conceptualizers as a
The developers submit that the
four quadrants of the framework correspond to Porter's (1980)
and Miles and Snow's (1978) generic strategies.
Quadrant I,
low strategic choice and high environmental determinism, is
representative of an organization that would dominantly employ
73
Quadrant II,
a "low cost producer" or "defender" strategy.
high
strategic
choice
and
high
environmental
determinism,
would depict an organization that dominantly employs a "focus"
or "analyzer" strategy. Quadrant III, high strategic choice
and low environmental determinism, illustrates an organization
that dominantly pursues a "differentiation"
or "prospector"
strategy. Finally, Quadrant IV, low strategic choice and low
environmental
determinism,
exemplifies what Porter
portrays
an
organization
(1980) refers to as being
that
"stuck in
the middle" and what Miles and Snow (1978) refer to as being
"reactors."
However,
whereas
this
framework
has
functioned
as
a
template for the study of strategic content, the Hrebiniak and
Joyce
(1985) framework would seem equally suited to function
aa a useful
manner
as
archetype
strategic
of
strategic
content
is
processes. In the
related
to
the
same
trade-offs
between managerial and environmental influence, the strategic
process of an organization are associated with the interaction
between manager ial and environmental forces (e.g., Lawrence &
Lorsh, 1967) .
Hence, the modes of strategic management that have been
presented in this chapter directly correspond to three of the
quadrants forming the Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) framework.
Quadrant III, high strategic choice and low environmental
determinism, suggests a condition in management has a strong
influence
on
organizational
performance.
Management' s
74
considerable level of influence is further enhanced by the
absence of environmental
complexity.
In this context, the
organization is able to maintain a linear, hierarchal process
of strategic action.
strategic management
Therefore, the traditional model of
would
correspond
to the dynamics of
quadrant III.
As the environment becomes more complex and exerts an
influence equal to that of management--such as is depicted in
quadrant II, confusion arises within the organization. The
organization struggles in its attempt to come to grips with
what is controlled by management versus what is controlled by
the environment.
Opposing organizational factions take shape,
with differing views of the organization's problems and how to
solve them.
Consequently, the organization' s strategy results
from a process of perceptual
tensions between
position
and
of
the organization
the formal
the challenges to that
position by informally recognized positions. Therefore, the
dialectic model of strategic management corresponds to the
dynamics of quadrant II.
Under
circumstances
in which
management is
able
to
exercise little influence despite the presence of an equally
benign environment, such as is presented in quadrant IV, the
organization' s strategy is shaped through the emergent pattern
of
activities
Therefore,
the
engaged
in
spontaneous
by
model
organizational
of
strategic
members.
management
exemplifies the process of strategic action in quadrant IV.
75
Quadrant I of the Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) framework
presents a circumstance of low strategic choice and high
environmental determinism.
This
relationship
reveals
a
setting in which the organization's performance is controlled
by external
forces.
With external forces increase in the
extent to which they determine organizational performance, the
perceived
complexity
of
the external
environment
by the
organization also increases.
The concept of environmental complexity suggests that the
external environment places an expanding variety of demands on
the organization. An expanding variety of external demands
necessitates that an organization must match the external
complexity with . a requisite variety of internal processes.
This assertion is supported by Ashby's
(1969, p. 135) law
which stipulates that "only variety can [conquer] variety."
Consequently,
to
survive,
the
variety
of
organizational
processes must be as extensive as the variety of environmental
demands.
This
reasoning
leads
to
the
conclusion
that
an
organization that embodies the conditions of quadrant I, low
strategic choice and high environmental determinism, would be
predispo sed to a complex configuration of strategic management
processes.
Specifically,
an
environmentally
determined
organization would utilize a complex, culturally configured
set of traditional, spontaneous, and dialectic processes.
76
Conclusion
This chapter has proposed three models of the strategic
management
process. These
three
models
are
presented
as
paradigms that are distinctly separate from each other with
regards
to
their
perspectives
traditional model
planning.
from
on
strategic
action. The
relies on a formal process of rational
The spontaneous model exhibits action which springs
natural
and
emergent
behavior. The
dialectic
model
advances a perspective of organizational action that results
from
the
inherent
tension
between
formal
and
informal
processes.
Although each of these strategic modes holds a distinct
perspective on action and is therefore amenable to application
under contingent conditions, the assertion is made that all
three
modes
would
environmentally
be
present
determined
within
the
organization.
context
The
of
an
reasoning
suggests that the complexity gained from the simultaneous
presence of the traditional, spontaneous, and dialectic modes
would offer a requisite variety to the organization's internal
processes that would match the complex variety of the external
forces.
This study poses two related research questions. First,
given the trade-offs along the dimensions of strategic choice
and environmental determinism, by what mode(s) of strategic
management does strategy emerge?
first
question
is
culturally
Further,
derived,
given that the
how
does
the
77
organization's culture create and maintain the observed strategic process? The next chapter
presents the methods of the study, revealing the study's subject organization and research
design.