CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The ongoing debate in the strategic management literature as to whether environmental domain an organization' s strategy determinism for ability organization's influenced by or strategic choice is a valuable investigation. management's is This to strategic debate achieve vision a and raises issues " f it " between environmental of the forces external to the organization. However, as Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) contend, the placement of these two differing viewpoints on opposing extremes of a single continuum seems to overly simplify understanding the issues, of the and complex thereby shields interrelationships a richer between determinism and choice. Instead of placing environmental determinism and strategic choice on opposite ends of one continuum, Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) treat determinism and choice as two distinct variables. These two variables are used to form the two dimensions of a matrix with high and low indicators on both dimensions. The matrix, shown in Figure 1.1, produces four quadrants which combinations. represent Quadrant I four determinism/choice (high determinism/ low choice) 2 HIGH Quadrant III Quadrant II LOW Quadrant IV Quadrant I STRATEGIC CHOICE LOW HIGH ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM Figure 1.1 Hrebiniak and Joyce Framework Manage- rial represents a fatalistic perspective of adaptation. choice is minimal; yet, those choices that do exist are directed at the means used to accomplish environmentally determined ends. organizational determinism/high choice) is the Quadrant converse of design, whereby management Quadrant III I. Adaptation is by experiences a maximum and degree of strategic choices. (low number Strategy decisions concern the defining of organizational ends as a primary and the charting of means as a secondary focus. Quadrant II (high determinism/high choice) depicts a situation in management exercises a considerable amount despite substantial environmental constraints. decisions of situation IV discretion are primarily concerned with means (low in which which Strategic and secondarily concerned with ends. Quadrant focus determinism/ low management choice) displays Finally, identifies a little or no 3 discretion despite a Strategy benign environment. synonymous with is management's consequently, operations; decisions are not dominantly focused on either ends or means. Instead, management vacillates between ends and means. In addition to the notable summation that adaptation is an interactive function of determinism and choice, this theoretical rendering of the debate concerning determinism versus strategic choice suggests that the process of strategy formulation and implementation should differ within the context of each quadrant. Although determinism presumes a dominant reactive nature by the organization, and strategic choice focuses on organization, a dominant both phenomena proactive nature require the by the formulation and implementation of strategies via people and processes forming the organization. In essence, the Hrebiniak and Joyce schema indicat s that organizations in Quadrant III are candidates for formal strategic planning systems which use the logic of synoptic formalism (e.g., Andrews, 1971); organizations in Quadrant II are prone to utilize a more flexible approach to formulating strategy which draws on the concept of logical incrementalism (e.g., Quinn, 1980); organizations in Quadrant IV are disposed to seemingly random strategic efforts which are exemplified by a "muddling through" (e.g., Lindblom, 1959) or "garbage can" logic (e.g., Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972); and organizations in Quadrant I could presumably formulate strategy by realizing any of the previously suggested logics, 4 since predominant external controls apparently render internal efforts at strategic choice impotent. Purpose of the Study Theoretical work such as that by Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) provides a useful framework by which strategy processes can be conceptualized; however, in-depth research that substantiates these conceptualizations is lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to contribute to the strategic management literature by exploring the nature and context of strategy formulation and implementation processes. Specifically, a common denominator among organizational processes in informality. general is the In polarity of formality and particular, this same polarity is present within the literature on strategic processes. Lorange (1980) argues for a formal strategic planning process. Such a formal process comprises hierarchal levels of planning, specific activities for analysis at these levels, and prescribed roles for performing the formulation and implementation activities. However, in opposition to the formal approach to strategic management, Wrapp (1967, p.91 ) proclaims that "Good managers don't make policy decisions." From emerging through this viewpoint, strategy is implicit, via surreptitious actions that are formulated organizational and implemented members' informal behaviors. Finally, mediating these two divergent points, Burgelman (1983) offers a model of a mixed strategic 5 process. On the one side, this model represents the of the concept. formal processes On a second impact on the organization' s strategic side, the model recognizes the simultaneous impact of the informal or autonomous processes on the organization' s strategic concept. These viewpoints are representative of the array of conceptualizations under consideration by researchers with regards to formal and informal Yet, influences. the literature's discussion of formal and informal influences on the strategy formulation and primarily theoretical. implementation process is Therefore, a more precise description of this study's purpose is to explore the impact of formal and informal strategy processes on an organization' s strategy- in- use. attempts this to identify the contextual that organization's approaches. Furthermore, would adoption conditions contribute to of any of study these By doing so, this study takes an theoretical steps toward offering support for extant theoretical developments as well as toward contributing original insights on the strategy process. Research Problem The stream of literature concerned with the processes by which business strategies are formulated and implemented has a dominant overtone of formalized planning. The emphasis on these formalized processes is no doubt due to the desire amohg 6 managers to control or feel a organizational change and destiny. sense of controlling Authors such as Thompson and Strickland (1990, p. 4) advocate that a strong association exists between the ability of managers implement strategies and to formulate and the presence of good management. Yet, other authors such as Weick (1985, p. 383) suggest that substitution formal for an planning is merely organization' s a managerial culture. formalized planning processes impede the Thus, natural formulation and implementation of strategies that occur by means of social interaction. Still, other authors such as Peters and Waterman (1982, p. 104) note that organization's an culture is a strong force in the strategy formulation and implementation process, but managers are able to shape strategy by managing the culture. These differing theoretical perspectives of controlled culture versus uninhibited culture versus managed culture raise origin questions about the strategy. The traditional of an organization' s theory of strategic management holds that strategies are a managerial device synonymous with organizational structures and systems. A spontaneous approach to strategic management theory would, however, take a more chaotic view of strategies as being the unaffected autonomous behaviors of organizational members coordinated through the shared interpretations of organizational meanings. Another approach to strategic management theory is offered by the dialectic theory of strategic management in which the 7 frictional interactions of formal and informal organization processes produce and reproduce the organizational structures and systems that create and execute the strategies. These three models of strategic management further support by other theorists. are given Allison (1971) presents a theoretical framework of decision making which describes three models. Allison's three models are labeled Model I: The Rational Actor (Traditional Model), Model II: Organizational Process (Spontaneous Model) , Politics Model) . (Dialectic and Model Decision III: Governmental making under the Rational Actor model occurs through a "rational" (1971, p. 5) deduction of represents decision organizational events. The making "procedures" Organizational Process as the trends model arising from (1971, p. 6). The Governmental Politics model of decision making depicts the essence of decision as being the "relative power and skill" (1971, p. 7) among players of the game. In addition, Bolman and Deal (1991) propose several "frames" which correspond to this study' s three models of strategic management. 1 Bolman and Deal submit The Structural 1 Bolman and Deal (1991) present a total of four frames: The Structural Frame, The Human Resource Frame, The Political Frame, and The Symbolic Frame. The first three of these frames bear an explicit relationship to the three models of strategic management. The fourth frame, however, depicts organizations as cultures which are propelled by rituals, ceremonies, stories, myths, and heros. Since each of the first three frames encompasses distinctive cultural perspectives, this fourth frame is not treated in this review as a single framework which is mutually exclusive of the other --- -------------- - ----- ------------ -I 8 Frame The Model), (Traditional (Spontaneous Model) , and The Human Political Resource Frame Frame (Dialectic Model) . The Structural Frame emphasizes organizations as formal hierarchies of rules and roles. The Human Resource Frame is based on the premise that organizations are formed of individuals who have needs, feelings, and prejudices. And the Political Frame views different interest organizations groups compete as for arenas power in and which scarce resources. These\ various models have an influence on the way in which straegy processes are conceptualized and utilized. Moreover, the process by which strategy is formulated and implemented has great implications for the perplexing concept of organizational change. By nature, competitive environments are dynamic, thereby creating incentives and pressures for organizational adaptation. 2 Therefore, when competitive environments are perceived as being conducive to or requiring "new" strategies, how do these strategies become manifest? Do three. Rather, this fourth frame is considered to have an implicit relationship with the three models of strategic management. 2 This usage of the term "adaptation" does not intend to suggest that an objective environmental reality necessarily exists to which organizations must conform. The opposite may very well be the case in which environments are the subjective interpretations of organizational members. However, in either or any case, an environment is perceived and in some way responded to. These responses are what is referred to here as adaptation. 9 strategies emerge from the formal planning processes conducted by top management? Do strategies emerge from the informal, though interlocked interactions of organizational members? Or, perhaps, do strategies emerge as a result of the conflict between formal and informal processes? a particular process implementation, this of Upon the discovery of strategy study is, then, formulation and concerned the question of why does this strategic process exist? examines \ these questions in an effort with This study to gain a richer appreciaJion for the complex and perplexing nature of the processes employed in the formulation and implementation of an organization's strategic content- -and more importantly the organization's strategy- in-use. Definitions The preceding discussion of the study's purpose and research problem introduces terminology of critical importance to the study. Specifically, two terms that invite further clarification are strategy and culture. The term "strategy" is used in this organizational context, study action. organizational as a conceptual Referred action to is focal within manifest organization interfaces with the environment. these strategic actions taken by a in point of strategic how an Furthermore, organizations can be discerned as attempts at sense making (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). The term "culture" is used to describe the three proposed 10 modes of strategic processes: traditional, dialectic, and spontaneous. What is Strategy? Before attempting to analyze the means by which an organization's strategy may emerge, the subsequent discussion should be grounded in the conceptualization of what a strategy is. the HofeTI and Schendel (1978, pp. 4&12) define strategy as "matci" an organization achieves between the internal allocation of goal-directed resources (Chandler, 1962, p. 16) and opportunities and threats created by the environment (Learned, et al., 1965, p. 170). external The use of the term "match" suggests a certain degree of interaction between the organization and environment. Therefore, a strategy is, in essence, the way in which an organization interfaces with its environment. This definition implies that strategies may be explicit or implicit, but nevertheless, all organizations have strategies because they are social systems that must interface with their environments. Given this conceptualiz ation of strategy, the key inquiry of this study is how do strategies emerge and become manifest? Mintzberg (1987) sheds a helpful light on this question by proposing the five P's of strategy: position, plan, ploy, pattern, and perspective. Mintzberg proposes these five P's as a method of classifying the various usages of the term "strategy." When referred to as a position, strategy is 11 determined by forces outside of the organization. For example, a particular industry structure will determine what strategies are feasible. In the strictest sense of strategy as a position, the organization is not seen as being capable of conscious choice or adaptation, but rather is considered to be akin to an orbiting object that can change position only as a consequence of gravitational- -or in this case, economic- 1 laws. 1 When spoken of as a plan, strategy is considered to be a formally prepared, internally generated document. For example, a company will have an annually scheduled period in which various levels of management will participate by preparing five-year forecasts for their particular area of stewardship. These forecasts begin at the lowest levels of the organization and "snowball" with additions and deletions until reaching top management where the formal strategy is drafted. This strategy is then articulated back down the ranks, typically in the form of objectives. As a ploy, strategy takes on game-playing connotations. In this sense, executed by strategy top is a bluff management in an that is devised attempt to and provoke competitors (or any other stakeholders) into either making or not making a certain move. For example, the knowledge that certain companies are considering entry into a particular industry may cause a company that is already in that industry to send signals of such efforts as drastic capacity expansion. 12 These signals, whether truthful or not, are intended to stop the entry of competing companies into the industry. The fourth P, pattern, suggests that strategy is determined over time by the nature of decisions and actions throughout the organization. Strategy is realized through a consistency of behavior . This consistent behavior may or may not be guided by a master plan, but, regardless, some distinct pattern of behavior emerges. As an example, a company may, by nature of members' decisions and actions, place more emphasis on a specific market (i.e., fast food market) and thereby become associated with that specific market (i.e., fast food company with a fast food strategy) . Finally, through the use of strategy as perspective, strategy is thought of as an ingrained way of perceiving the world. Strategy, then, is a shared worldview that permeates the organization. For example, a company's members may share the perception that innovation is highly valued. Therefore, the company's ideology celebrates creativity and entrepreneurship which thereby exemplify the organization's strategy. Each of these varied uses of the concept of strategy is a viable definition. However, the appropriate use of any one of these definitions appears to be dependent on the means by which strategy emerges. The notion of strategy as position would be embraced by a fatalist model of strategic management, since organizational conduct or strategy emerges from the fate ------------ 13 of that organization' s position within the industry structure. The concept of strategy as a plan would be embraced by the traditional model since a plan of strategy emerges from a formal and controlled process. The traditional model could also accept the concept of ploy as a strategy in so far as the ploy emerges from a formal process of strategy formulation and implementation. Ploys, however, could also arise out of informal- -as well as a combination of formal and informal- processes. Therefore, strategy as ploy could also be manifest through either the spontaneous model or the dialectic model depending on the degree involved. Furthermore, the dialectic model would also fully embrace the concept of of formal to informal processes strategy as pattern due to the implication that patterns emerge from informal decisions and behaviors which when detected may become a part of the formal plan. Finally, the spontaneous model acknowledges the organization's strategy as perspective which suggests that strategy is encapsulated in the organization's worldview. In light of these definitions, any given organization could conceivably have two strategies: the ideal and the real (Barrett, 1991, p. 32) More specifically, these concepts of ideal and real could be described as the espoused strategy and the strategy-in-use. 3 An espoused strategy is by definition 3 Argyris and Schon (1974: 7) introduce the terminology of "espoused theory" and "theory-in-use." Argyris and Schon' s usage of these phrases suggests that individuals operate from "theories of action" in their interpersonal behavior. ·r - - - - - 14 a formal articulation of an organization' s strategic content. An organization' s strategy- in-use, however, is the embodiment of that organization' s actual strategic content. At times, these two strategies may be quite different. One explanation for any differences between an espoused strategy and a strategy-in-use could be that the formal tasks of strategy implementation have been executed poorly, thereby deviating from the true intent of the espoused strategy. Yet, another equally between viable explanation for differences the espoused strategy and the strategy-in-use is that informal processes have interceded, which, in effect, formulate the actual strategy as implementation occurs. study is concerned with detecting Consequently, this any gaps between the espoused strategy and the strategy-in-use. As these gaps are discovered, the study then seeks to explore the degree to which these gaps are created through formal and/or informal strategy processes. This method of investigation leads to the detection of particular modes of strategic processes. What is Culture? Organizations are dynamic phenomena. Whether actual or perceived, change is externally and internally ubiquitous. In an attempt to create order out of this array of ever changing The present study contends that the concept of "theories of action" can also be applied to organizational behavior. In this manner, theories of action are synonymous with organizational strategy. Hence, the phrases "espoused strategy" and "strategy- in-use" are substituted. 15 events, human nature responds through the employment of "sense- making practices" (Gephart, 1978, p. 553). When these sensemaking practices are acted upon by multiple individuals, as in an organization, the shared meanings constructed by organizational members constitute an organization' s culture. This conceptualization of culture suggests that every organization has a unique way of doing things. Some (Smircich, 1985) extend the concept of sense making to that of "organization making." The organization' s culture paradigm- -a set serves as a This interpretation leads to of of beliefs that guide culture as a action. paradigm the proposition that the modes by which strategy emerges will be influenced by the beliefs and actions that constitute that particular organization's paradigm. Schein (1985) organization' s presents culture, when a framework viewed as in a which an paradigm, is comprised of three levels: artifacts, values, and assumptions. Of these three, artifacts are the most outward and apparent. Artifacts are the verbal, manifestations of the paradigm. the language, stories symbolic, and behavioral Verbal artifacts consist of and myths shared by organizational members. Symbolic artifacts are found in an organization' s art, e.g. , working attire, facility layout, and products. Behavioral artifacts are represented in such forms as observed operating procedures and interpersonal interactions. Artifacts are the most tangible of the three cultural levels, 16 but artifacts are merely the surface manifestations of more deeply held premises organization. As within behavioral the membership representations of the of members' sense-making practices, artifacts display what has been termed as an organization's style or climate. However, artifacts on their own do not express the meaning that underlies their presence. In order to discern the shared meaning of these cultural artifacts, one must investigate below the surface in an attempt to discover values and assumptions. Whereas artifacts answer the question of what things are done, values answer the question of why things are done. Values are less tangible than artifacts, but are nonetheless manifestations of the organization' s culture or paradigm. This level of the organization' s culture described as a form of a causal map. is perhaps best This causal map reflects the organization's ideals, standards, and objectives, as well as a complex network of hypothesized to organizational assist aims. interrelating or The resist factors which the relative achievement importance are of and impactfulness ascribed to the various factors of the causal map incorporate the organizational membership's values. Hence, the sense-making practices revealed through expression of values is representative of what has been referred to as an organization's ideology, philosophy, charter, or credo. Yet, values are organization's culture. still not the essence of an Found at the innermost core of an 17 organization's culture are shared assumptions. Assumptions, therefore, are the driving force that underlies values and artifacts. Cultural assumptions are the collective tacit learning of organizational members. As causal maps are formed by and shared among organizational members, the hypotheses, by which the membership' s values are tested, are either confirmed or rejected. As the membership's shared values are repeatedly confirmed, basic assumptions about the nature of being are acquired. This tacit learning, however, unconscious to members of the organization. is typically These assumptions are deeply held and go unquestioned- -except during periods of crisis or violation. Therefore, assumptions are quite stable and difficult to change, rendering them equally difficult to conceal. Again, these three levels of culture comprise a paradigm which constitutes "the way things are done." With particular respect to the purpose and research problem of this study, the way an organization' s strategy emerges is indicative of and guided by an organization's distinctive cultural paradigm. This study proposes three different approaches to the emergence of strategy within an organization: traditional, dialectic, and spontaneous. However, this discussion of culture suggests that these three approaches may be much more than academically concocted categories. These three approaches to the formulation and implementation of strategy are actually manifest in organizations as cultural paradigms. 18 As cultural paradigms, these three differing modes of strategic processes guide the way by which an organization's strategy- in-use comes into existence. 4 Each paradigm comprised of artifacts, values, and assumptions. is Therefore, this study explores the process of strategy emergence as a cultural phenomenon, and attempts to explain the context of the cultural paradigm by which strategy emerges through various modes. Importance of the Study As a field of study is advanced through the development of constructs, variables, and models, a form of intellectual convergence takes place. Kuhn (1962) refers to this type of intellectual development as the scientific paradigm. This concept of a paradigm suggests that a field of study forms around epistemological, ontological, standards (Guba, conceptualization 1991) of . In paradigmatic and keeping methodological with this development, the contribution of a study is evaluated according to the extent that the study either validates/ extends or refutes/shifts the dominant paradigm. Although in a strict sense the presence of a paradigm in 4 Schein (1985: 18) describes the concept of core assumptions as being congruent with Argyris and Schon's (1974) concept of theories- in-use. Hence, the concept of core assumptions would also be congruent with the concept of strategy-in-use as denoted in this study. 19 the field of strategic management is questionable, some scholars (Guth, 1992) are advocating movement toward more of a paradigmatic state. Such advocacy has led to considerations of what constitutes an appropriate research agenda for the field. If ascertaining an appropriate research agenda is possible, then one measure of a study's importance is the extent to which the issues pertinent to the prescribed research agenda are addressed. Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece (1992) present five questions that are advanced as being significant and contemporary in their importance to the field of strategic management. Three of these five questions are directly addressed by the studyat-hand. The first of these questions asks "Why do firms differ" rooted (p. 7)? in the The concept of competitive view that heterogeneity advantage exists is among organizations- -even within the same industry (Rumelt, 1987, p. 141; see also Bain, 1956; Barney, Therefore, understanding why translating that knowledge 1991; Porter, heterogeneity 1979). occurs into how heterogeneity and can be achieved is of central concern to the field of strategic management. Rumel t, Schendel, and Teece offer several subsidiary questions intended to expand the scope of this first fundamental question. One of these questions has particular relevance to the present study: "Are the most important impediments to equilibration rooted in market phenomena (e.g., 20 first-mover advantages), or are they chiefly rooted [in] internal organizational phenomena (e.g., cultural differences or learning)" (p. 8)? The study-at-hand recognizes the incentives and pressures that can reverberate throughout the environment. Yet, this study also postulates an equally- - if not more- -pivotal explanation which is found in the for strategic heterogeneity cultural paradigms through whic h organizations interpret these environmental incentives and pressures. In taking this position, this study supports the alternative argument proposed by Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece that heterogeneity may be created and sustained through organizations ' differing conceptual views, theories or causal maps, organizational processes, and levels of organizational learning (p. 7) . The second fundamental question of contemporary significance to the field of strategic management is presented as "How do firms behave" (p. 8)? This question brings to the forefront issues of rational, natural, and loosely coupled action. Although much of the literature has emphasized the rational nature of strategic action, the unimpressive empirical results of such action have opened the field to alternative explanations. In addition, the search for alternative descriptions of behavior is encouraging a richer understanding of the cultural learning processes which underlie behavior. Again, Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece offer several 21 subsidiary questions that cast spotlights on more specific aspects of this second fundamental question. of two of these questions yields an The amalgamation area of strategic importance which is distinctive to the study-at-hand. This subquestion asks "What are the foundational assumptions which differentiate among various models of firm behavior; and do predictable biases in firm or organizational behavior emanate from these foundational assumptions" (p. 8)? In response to this inquiry, this study proposes a collection of models, each containing a distinctive array of assumptions that reveal different perspectives on action. These models also expose certain biases which are inherent to the models' distinctive cultural paradi ms. Perhaps though, the most directly integrated and important question which has relevance to the present study is the third question posed by Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece. This fundamental question queries "How are policy outcomes affected by the policy process" (p. 9)? The strategy literature has, for much of its existence, treated strategic content and strategic process as being two distinctly separate concerns. Hence, this question suggests that content and process should be approached as being integrated 606) . process Certainly, (Jemison, 1981, pp. 605- from a systems perspective, are related. content and Taken a step further, however, the relationship shifts from being interactive, whereby the two issues are distinctly separable but impact each other, to ------ ------------------ 1 22 being interdependent, whereby content and process are inseparable as they emanate from a common cultural paradigm. The authors further delineate this third fundamental question by posing several subquestions which have a bearing on the present study. One of these subquestions inquires, "What are the basic modes of policy formulation" (p. 9)? Investigation into this question would imply the development of a taxonomy of strategic modes. attempts to offer such a taxonomy The by present study proposing the traditional, spontaneous, and dialectic models of strategic management. A second subquestion of this third fundamental question asks "In what ways, if any, should the nature of the problem, the nature of the, organization, a,nd other situational factors influence the choice of a policy formulation process" (p. 9)? The study-at-hand directly addresses this question- -albeit from a descriptive viewpoint rather than from a prescriptive viewpoint. Instead of being concerned with the extent to which process should be influenced by various factors, the study examines the actual ways in which processes are created and maintained by the particular cultural paradigm of the organization under examination. However, turning back to the concept of a paradigm for the field of strategic management, Daft and Buenger (1990) caution scholars as to the perils of adopting a paradigm prematurely. convergence Based onto a on the single strategy field's assumption set; "premature premature 23 rationalization of research methods and procedures; and premature adoption of normative research approaches to achieve applied results," the authors are led to the conclusion that the field of strategic management nowhere" (p. 82) of assumptions is "a fast train headed The authors contend that a restrictive set leads to a single mind-set that reduces competition among ideas; the emphasis on scientific procedures inhibits the drive for theoretical understanding; stress on performance criteria as the primary and the focus of research interest restricts the range of phenomena that can be studied and the opportunity to find new theoretical solutions (p . 9 7 ) The researchers intimate that more research under these conditions will result in less knowledge. In response to these conditions, Daft and Buenger call for a research agenda which provides balance to the field. Central to their proposed agenda is the encouragement of divergent thinking (p. 100) Hence, the views of Kuhn's (1962) convergent approach as represented in the field of strategic management through the foundational questions proposed by Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece (1992) and of Daft and Buenger's (1990) divergent approach to the study of strategic conversation research. bear about management reveal the direction of a strategic continuing management Movements toward either convergence or divergence advantages convergence tends as well to as produce disadvantages. exclusionary Although thinking, 24 convergence also assists in achieving efficiency with respect to the definition models. of specific constructs, variables, Conversely, effectiveness with divergence respect produce useful theory. is concerned to the paradigm's and with ability to Still, though, divergent thinking can tend to spread intellectual resources thin. In an effort to make a contribution to the strategic management literature, this study strikes a balance between convergence and divergence. The study accepts the proposed questions of Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece (1992) as significant areas for inquiry. However, questions from the study divergent philosophical, approaches these conceptual, and methodological directions as encouraged by Daft and Buenger (1990). Philosophically, the study explores a varied array of modes by which strategy emerges. Each of these modes exhibits underlying assumptions about the nature of the organization and the environment that provide contrast and diversity. Conceptually, this study offers the development of theoretical insights that would be of substantial benefit to a diverse audience including both academicians and practitioners of management. Methodo logically, the study pursues a qualitative approach that in itself is diverse from the dominantly performance based research in the field. Furthermore, the use of qualitative methods also provides diversity of theoretical interpretation and formation through its ability to capture a greater richness and complexity in the on-going strategic - - -- - 25 decisions and actions of organizations. Overview of the Dissertation This chapter has established the foundation upon which this dissertation' s study is based. The field of strategic management emerges has advanced various concepts of how strategy in organizations. These concepts consist of the traditional, spontaneous, and dialectic models of strategic management. The traditional approach to strategic management advances a model of strategy emergence that is representative of management' s formal efforts to install a controlled culture. The spontaneous model of strategic management promotes a model of strategy emergence that emanates from informal processes, the organization' s dialectic approach uninhibited to strategic culture. management Finally, proposes the that strategy emerges from a managed culture in which tensions exist between formal and informal organizational processes. These three models are representative of distinct paradigms which correlate to three of the quadrants in the Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) framework. The traditional model relates to the condition of high levels of strategic choice and low levels of environmental determinism. The spontaneous model matches the quadrant of low levels of strategic choice and low levels of environmental determinism. The dialectic model corresponds to the intersection between high levels of ------ -- - - - -------------- ,, 26 strategic choice and high levels of environmental determinism. The remaining quadrant of the Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) framework exemplifies an organization that exercises a low level of strategic choice under circumstance of a high level of environmental influence. described by strategic management literature determined. this quadrant The Reasoning would has type been as of organization classified in the being environmentally that an organization suggest operating within the constraints of considerable external demands would attempt a complex combination of strategic processes to coherently interpret its complex environment. Therefore, this chapter suggests that the condition of low strategic choice and high environmental result in a culturally based determinism would compound of traditional, spontaneous, and dialectic modes of strategic management. Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature from which these modes of strategic management derive. The three principal modes of strategic management, i.e., traditional, spontaneous, and dialectic, are grounded in three separate perspectives of organizational action, i.e., rational systems, natural systems, and loosely coupled systems, respectively. Upon reviewing the existing literature, Chapter 2 explores the reasoning by which these modes of strategic management are combined in the environmentally determined organization. Chapter 3 discusses the study's research methods. This study is fundamentally concerned with two research questions. 27 First, by what mode or combination of modes does an organization' s strategy emerge? This question, however, is contextually based. Therefore, the second question gives rise to the further question of how does the organization' s culture create and management? maintain the observed mode(s) of strategic Since these questions are rooted in the unique processes and culture of a particular organization, the study is framed in terms of an ethnographic design. Chapter 4 depicts the results of the study. This chapter offers an interpretation of the subject organization' s modes of strategic management. conceptualization organization modes in that would use the Support an is found environmentally a complex combination process of strategy of for the determined strategic formulation and implementation. Chapter 5 concludes the dissertation with a discussion of the study's implications.