513.full

8/10/2019 513.full

1/14

y of Managemen i Review, 1984, Vol. 9, No. 3, SI3-S25.

Exploring the Concept of

in Strategic Management^

N. VENKATRAMAN

JOHN C. CAMILLUS

University of Pittsburgh

Although the concept of fit appears to be a central theme in strategy

literature, it has

been in dequ tely

defined

s

it

rel tes

to

str tegic

manage-

ment. A conceptualschemebased on twounderlying dimensionsthecon-

ceptualization of fit and the dom ain o f fit is proposed to highlight dif-

ferences am ong six schools of thought. Use of the classificatory scheme

for

ddressing

theoretical and

m n geri l issues while

emp loying the con-

cept of fit in strategy

rese rch

is

discussed

The concept of fi t, rooted in the population

the use of con tinge ncy concepts in relation to

Kahn, 1966; Thom pson,

and in the formulation of business strategy

However, the concept of fit has not been adequate-

ience streams. Van de Ven, in reviewing Ald rich's

rent conceptual meanings of f it , each of which

to strategic managem ent.

'Th e paper has benefited from discussions with Ari Ginsberg;

Relevance of Fit in

Strategic Management

Fit is considered fundamental to strategic manage

ment for four reasons. First, the field of business po

icythe initial strategy paradigm (Schendel & Hofe

1979,

p. 8)is rooted in the concept of m atch ing

or ali gn ing organizational resources with env

ronmental opportunities and threats (Andrews, 1971

Chandler, 1962). The underlying role of fit is hig

lighted in the following statement by Andrews:

The ability to identify four components of strategy

(1) mark et opp ortu nity , (2) corp orate comp etences

and reso urces, (3) personal values and aspira t ions,

and (4) acknow ledged obligat ions to segments of

society other than stockholders

is nothing compared

to the art of reconciling their implications in

final

choice of purpose

(1971, p. 38, emphasis added) .

Subsequent conceptualizations of strategy have em

phasized the requirement of matching various com

ponents related to strategy.

Second, being a relatively new area of inquir

strategic management borrows concepts and researc

methods from related disciplines (Harrigan, 1983

Specifically, three disciplinesindustrial organiz

tion (IO) economics (Porter, 1981), administrativ

behavior (Jemison, 1981b), and marketing (Bi

gadike, 1981)are identified as being closely tied

strategic management (Jemison, 1981a). Because th

concept of fit is dominant in the parent discipline

especially in organization theory and IO economic

5

8/10/2019 513.full

2/14

it assumes significance while developing and testing

theories of strategy.

Third, subsequent to Hofer's (1975) call for

contingency-based empirical research on strategy,

many studies have either implicitly or explicitly

employed the concept of fit. Strategy research studies

have explored the roles of a variety of contingency

influences on strategy formulation. (See Ginsberg

Venkatraman, 1983, and Steiner, 1979, for recent

reviews of strategy studies employing the contingency

theory perspective.) Most contingency-theory based

studies have generally explored the concept of fit in

terms of bi-variate relationships, but recent views

argue for achieving con gru enc e among a larger set

of elements (Nightingale & Toulouse, 1977) and to

arrive at ge sta lts (Miller, 1981; Miller Friesen,

1978).

Fourth, fit has been used as a normative concept

by many consultants to highlight the importance of

synchronizing complex organizational elements for

effective implementation of the chosen strategy

(Stonich, 1982) and to argue that congruence am ong

seven elements (strategy, structure, systems, style,

staff, shared values, and skills) is a prerequisite for

organizational success (Peters & Waterman, 1982).

Because strategy concepts and strategy researchers

have been under attack recently for prescribing

prematurely without adequate theoretical and em-

pirical support (Lamb, 1983; Mintzberg, 1977) it is

necessary to understand the concept of fit as it relates

to strategy/?nor to its use as a normative concept,

in this vein, Galbraith and Nathanson lament that

although the concept of fit is a useful one, it lacks

the precise definition needed to test and recognize

whether an organization has it or no t (1979, p. 266);

and Van de Ven observed that con siderably more

theoretical work is needed to incorporate 'fit' into

a theory of organiza tions (1979, p. 324). The pre-

sent paper is offered as an initial attempt to classify

thedifferent perspectives on the use of the concept

of fit in strategic mana gemen t

Toward s Developing a onceptual Scheme

The concept of fit appears to be relevant in

strategic management from a variety of perspectives.

However, the development of a scheme powerful

enough to compare and contrast all the differing

perspectives may be a difficult task. Nevertheless, this

paper makes an initial attempt towards such a con-

ceptual scheme for classifying major schoo

thought. Two dimensions underlie the prop

scheme: (1) the conceptualization of fit in stra

management and (2) the domain of fit.

onceptualization of Fit

Although strategy has been conceptualized in

ferent ways, one fundamental distinction und

most conceptualizationsis the focus onxht

c

of strategy (what should be done) or on

th t

pr

of strategy making (how it is to be developed

One of the well-accepted theories in this disci

is that strategy involves the matching or the a

reconciling the various components of the str

mix (Andrews, 1971). According to this view, th

tern of matching the different elementssome w

the organizational bound aries (competences an

sources) and others dealing with the environmen

portunities and threats)is viewed as strateg

This classical view of strategy is consistent wi

open system perspective in organization theory

& Kahn, 1966; Th om pso n, 1967). Such a vie

led strategy to be conceptualized as a patte

stream of decisions taken to achieve the

favorable match or alignment between the ext

environment and the organization's structure

process (Miles

Snow, 1978; Mintzberg, 1978

cent strategy researchers also subscribe to the

of strategy as the process of matching environ

and organization on an ongoing basis (Chakr

thy, 1982; Jauch

Osborn, 1981; Lawrence

1980;

Thorelli, 1977).

In contrast, those focusing on the conte

strategy attempt to specify the strategic actions

taken to match different environmental condit

For example. Chandler (1962) outlines four

strategies(a) expansion of volume; (b) geogr

dispersion; (c) vertical integration; and (d) div

ficationto respond effectively to market oppo

ties.

Following Chandler (1962), many schemes

focused on the contentfor example, the pro

mission matrix

Ansoff,

1965) and the va rious

gorizations of ge ne ric strategies (Glueck,

Hofer & Schendel, 1978; Porter, 1980).

The first set of researchers view strategy as th

cesso f ligningorganization and environment

as patterns of interactions as noted by Thore lli

or as a fluid to be worked with rather than a

to be actualized suggested by Evered, 1983).

514

8/10/2019 513.full

3/14

ategy becomes

the pattern

of

interactions

in which

egy as one of the system elements to be fit ted

con-

is, on the elements to be fitted

on is labeled con cep tualiza tion of fit in

The other dimension addresses thedomain of fit.

ause strategic m anagement presently serves as a

81a), the field is marked by great diversity in con-

terminology and methods of inquiry. Conse-

content issues

and organization theory is

process

issues (Jemison,

In addition, some strategy researchers focus ex-

strategy is to be ahgned primarily with external

product life cycle (Hofe r, 1975) or m arket

Galbraith & Nathanso n, 1978, 1979); manage-

t systems (King, 1978; Lorange Vancil, 1977);

Davis, 1981;

The paradigmatic differences among researchers

formulation-implementation distinction prevalent i

strategic management. Thus, while exploring strateg

concepts, it is essential to delineate clearly the do

main of the elements considered by various stream

Three categories of the dom ain internal, ex terna

and integratedcan be distinguished using th

classical organization-environment juxtaposition

These three categories constitute the dimension la

beled domain of fit.

Proposed

Conceptual Scheme

These two dimensionsconceptualization of f

and domain of fitare combined to develop

celled

m atrix. As Figure 1 indicates, each ce

represen ts a qualitatively different perspective of f

in strategic management and explores differen

themes rooted in different contributing stream s. Th

power of this conceptual classifications scheme

such that most major, if not all, streams of strateg

literatu re can be classified into one of these six cell

The following description of the cells highlights th

different perspectives of fit in strategic managemen

and thus provides further justification for the use o

these two dimensions.

Differing Perspectives of Fit

Cell 1: Strategy Formulation School

Grounded in the IO paradigm, cell I views a firm

performance in the marketplace as critically depen

dent on the characteristics of the industry environ

ment in which it competes. Hence, it focuses primar

ly on the fit between strategy and external element

The classical IO paradigm (Bain, 1956) accorded n

significance to firm conduct (i.e., strategy), in th

conduct merely refiected the environment. Howeve

recent attempts at cross-fertilization between strateg

and IO economics (Porter,

1981;

Scherer, 1980) hig

light the conceptual underpinings of this cell. For ex

ample, strategic decisions to erect barriers to ne

competition (Yip, 1982) as well as decisions to re

pond effectively to declining demand (Harrigan

1982) refiect the need to fit strategy and environmen

In addition to the above studies focusing on re

sponses to different kinds of barriers, others have a

tempted to test for external fit by operationalizin

environment in terms of market structural element

Two sets of studies (at the IO -strategy interface) a

particularly relevant to this cell. The studies o

5 5

8/10/2019 513.full

4/14

Figure 1

Proposed Conceptual Scheme to Distinguish Different Perspectives of Fit

7 ) STRATEGY FORMULATION SCHOOL

KEY ISSUES

TH EM E: Aligning strategy with

the environmental

conditions

CONTRIBUTING STREAMS:

IO strategy interface

Business policy/strategic man-

agement

EXEMPLARY STUDIES

Bain, 1956

Bourgeois, 1980

Chandler, 1962

Christensen & Mont-

gomery, 1981

Hatten & Schendel, 1977

Hedley, 1977

Hofer, 1975

Porter, 1979, 1980

Rumelt, 1982

Scherer, 1980

Yip,

1982

(T ) STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION SCHOOL

KEY ISSUES

THEME: Tailoring administra-

tive and organization-

al mechanisms in line

with strategy


Business policy

^Normative strategy literature

EXEMPLARY STUDIES

Chandler, 1962

Channon, 1971

Galbraith & Nathanson,

1978,

1979

Grinyer & Yasai-

Ardekani, 1981

Gupta & Govindarajan,

1982

King, 1978

Lorange & Vancil, 1977

Rumelt, 1974

Stonich, 1982

Waterman, Peters. &

Phillips, 1980

, ^ INTEGRATED FORMULATION-

\i

IMPLEMENTATION SCHOOL

KEY ISSUES

TH EM E: Strategic management

involving both for-

mulation and imple-

mentation and cover-

ing both organiza-

tional and environ-

mental decisions



agement

Markets and hierarchies pro-

gram

EXEMPLARY STUDIES

Andrews, 1971

Caves, 1980

Chandler, 1962

Grinyer, Yasai-Ardekani,

& Al-Bazzaz, 1980

Hitt, Ireland, & Palia,

1982

Jemison, 1981a

Miles & Snow, 1978, 1980

White & Hammermesh,

1981

Williamson, 1981

,^T\

INTERORGANIZATIONAL

yzJ (STRATEGY) NETWORKS SCHOOL

KEY ISSUES

THEME: Strategy analysis at

me collective level,

emphasizing interde-

pendence of strategies

of various organiza-

tions vying for re-

source allocation


Interorganizational networks

Resource-dependency themes

Constituency analysis

EXEMPLARY STUDI

Aldrich, 1979

nsoff

1982

Fombrun & Astley, 198

Khandwalla, 1981

Pennings, 1981

Pfeffer & Salan cik, 197

( 7 ) STRATEGIC CHOICE SCHOOL

KEY ISSUES

THEME: Managerial discretion

moderating the de-

term inistic view re-

garding decisions on

organizational mech-

anisms


Contemporary organization

theory

Business policy-organization

theory interface

EXEMPLARY STUDI

Child, 1972

Montanari, 1978

(See: Fry, 1982, and G

braith & Natiianson,

1978,

for reviews.)

(e )

OVERARCHING GE STA LT SCHOOL

KEY ISSUES

THEME: Broadly configuring

organization and en-

vironment, emphasiz-

ing interdependence

but no t causation


Organization theory


agement

Population ecology-based con-

cepts

EXEMPLARY STUDI

Chakravarthy, 1982

Hrebiniak, 1981

Jauch & Osborn, 1981

Lawrence & Dyer, 1980

Thompson, 1967

Thorelli, 1977

Van de Ven, 1979

CONTENT OF FIT PATTERN OF INTERACTIONS

(Elements to be Aligned with Strategy) (Process of Arriving at Fit)

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF FIT

on Strategic groups, especially the Purdue studies

(Hatten

Schendel, 1977; Schendel

Patton, 1978),

which highlighted the need to formulate differential

strategies according to the conditions stipulated by

the strategic groups and not the entire industry, is

the first set. The second set of studies, especiall

Christensen and Montgomery

1981)

an d

Ru

(1982),

related diversification strategy and m

structural variables to explain performance

ferences. Their contention is that the relation

516

8/10/2019 513.full

5/14

on to these IO-related studies, others also

product life cycle (PLC) stage and strategy the

sborn, and Glueck (1980) empirically estab-

The business portfolio models are based on the re-

In such a perspective, organizational elements

, 1982; Hedley, 1977; MacM illan, Ham brick, &

ate mostly to their relative neglect of the organiza-

n addressing complex organizational problems.

Perhaps a framework that best illustrates the theo-

the one proposed by Por ter (1979). It aids in bo th

Although many studies have adopted the focus of

n strategy and environmental dimensions? Most

ssical studies have assumed a re ac tiv e perspec-

onmental conditions but recent thinking is to at-

strategy. For example, the updated structure-con

duct-performance (S-C-P) paradigm (Porter, 1981

Scherer, 1980) recognizes the two-way interaction be

tween market structure and firm conduct. The con

temporary view in organization theory and strategi

management is that organizations en ct their en

vironments (Weick, 1979) or

define

their domai

(primary strategy) and subsequently

n vig te

in th

chosen domain according to their secondary strategy

(Bourgeois, 1980).

Cell : Strategy Implementation School

Cell 2 focuses on the alignment between strategy

and internal elements, with almost no direct referenc

to the influences external to the orga nization. A do

minant theme in this cell is the strategy-structure fit

Many researchers have attempted to test empirically

Chandler's proposition regarding this fit in differen

settings (Channon, 1971; Pooley-Dias, 1972; Than

heiser, 1972). Studies also have refined the classifica

tions of strategy and structural form (Wrigley, 1970

and related this fit to performance (Rumelt, 1974)

In addition , some have argued that this linkage is no

direct, but is moderated by size (Grinyer & Yasai

Ardekani, 1981), and tbat this fit should be viewed

along a bi-directional pattern (Burgelman, 1983; Hal

& Saias, 1980).

However, strategy implementation is more than th

fit between strategy and structure. Careful attentio

needs to be focused on the fit between strategy an

other key organizational elements, as noted b

Camillus (1982), while presenting an alternativ

strategic management paradigm rooted in the ad

ministrative systems perspective. For example, Nor

burn and Miller (1981) and Kerr and Snow (1982

argue for a fit between strategy and reward systems

and Schwartz and Davis (1981) highlight the need t

ensure a strategy-organizational culture fit. Th

linkage between strategy and managerial character

isticsconceptually explored by Hambrick an

Mason (1984), Leontiades (1982) and Wissema, Va

der Pol, and Messer (1980)has been the subject o

a recent empirical investigation (Gupta Govindar

jan, 1984). Along the same lines, the fit betwee

strategy and management design has been subjecte

to empirical testing by Horowitz and Thietart (1982

The above studies argue for a fit between strateg

andone otherelement in a bivariate manner, but r

cent writings have argued that effective strategy im

plementation requires congruence among a larger a

7

8/10/2019 513.full

6/14

ray of internal elements and strategy (Galbraith &

Nathanson, 1978; Stonich, 1982; Waterman et al.,

1980).

An important assumption underlying most strategy

studies in this cell is that strategy is the overriding

concept and implementation elements are derived in

the context of the given strategy. Stated differently,

a one-way fit from strategy to organizational confi-

gurations was assumed. This continues to be the

dominant theme in discussions of strategy imple-

mentation, but organizational variables do influence

strategy (Burgelman, 1983; Miller, Kets de Vries,

Toulouse, 1982). Although this cell has been labeled

strategy implem entation view . this caveat needs

to be noted.

Cell 3: Integrated Formulation-Implementation

School

As can be noted from the above discussion and Fi-

gure 1, the first two cells focus on different, albeit

limited, facets of organizational activities. The theo-

retical support for integrating the two cells is derived

from at least three perspectives. First, based on the

arguments extended by Andrews (1971), Bourgeois

(1980),

and Quinn (1980), there are merits in inte-

grating formulation and implementation. Second, as

argued by Jemison

(1981

a) , an integrative approach

to strategic management research spanning discipli-

nary boundaries provides a more comprehensive

view. Third, in attempting a synthesis in organiza-

tion theo ry. Miles and Snow (1980) argue that an or-

ganization continually tries to achieve a fit between

itself and the environment (alignment) and among

its internal structures and management processes

(arrangement).

Additional arguments for adopting an integrated

fit perspec tive can be found . For exam ple. Caves

(1980) conceptually explores the link among market

structure, corporate strategy, and organizational

struture to view microeconomic concepts in a broader

perspective. W hite and Ham merm esh's (1981) model

of the determinants of firm performance uses over-

lapping and common explanatory variables from IO

conomics, organization theory, and business po-

licynamely, business position, industry environ-

ent, strategy, and environment. The markets and

ierarchies stream of literature (Williamson, 1981)

In co ntrast to the previous two cells, the bod

empirical studies in this cell is recent, limited,

of an exploratory nature. Although Lenz's s

(1980) of integrated fits is in a single-industry

text (savings and loan associations), some

adopted a multi-industry focus. For example,

rigan's (1980) study relates exit decision to inte

organizational characteristics (e.g., strategic exit

riers) and industry structural traits. Grinyer e

(1980) relate strategy to both organizational st

ture and the environment to establish performa

differences attributable to this fit across differen

dustry types. Hitt et al. (1982a), and Hitt, Irel

and Stadter (1982b) relate grand strategy to both

dustry type and functional importance to explore

performance differences attributable to integrated

Content of Fit Perspectives

By way of summarizing the content of fit pers

tive (i.e. , cells 1 through 3), the classical busi

policy paradigm underscores the interdepende

between formulation and implementation. Howe

an integrated view has not yet served as the basis

empirical research. The domain of fit dimension

gests that this is due partly to the paradigmatic

ferences among strategy researchers. If strat

management has to develop its own body of the

tical concepts, it must surely integrate formula

and implementation.

The need to adopt an integrated view also is

ported by an analysis of performance differences

tributable to fit in these three cells. For example

a study rooted in cell 1, Prescott (1983) noted

his strategic fit model revealed that the interac

of competitive environment and competitive stra

groups with a consistent fit outperfomed those w

an inconsistent fit by an average of 10 percen

points in return on investment (ROI)measures. T

were significant variances, however, within strat

groupsvariances that may be due to the rela

neglect of implementation variables (cell 2).

The performance differences attributable to in

nal fit can been seen in an em pirical test of on

Chandler's propositions. In support of Chand

proposition that grow th without structural ad

ment can lead only to economic inefficiency (1

p. 16). Armour and Teece (1978) establishe

positive relationship between multidivisional st

ture (M-Form) and profitability, using a sampl

firms in the petroleum industry. Thus, with

518

8/10/2019 513.full

7/14

d be established. But in a multi-industry context,

While great efforts have gone towards explaining in-

terindustry differences in the rate of return, it can be

easily shown that thedispersion

in the

ch r cteristic

long term rates of return of firms within industries

is five to eight times s l rge sthe v ri ncein return

cross industries(1981, p. 5, emphasis added).

In recent years the study of organizations has

Evans, 1967). In the strategy context, an in-

tion view is particu larly relevant because

ey, 1983). Collective strategy describes th e ac-

ss of the interorgan izat ional environm ent created

the organizat ion al network it is embed ded in

Although the theory of interorganizat ional net-

is built on classical orga niza tion theory con-

& Trist, 1965), org aniz ation nets have not

Stern, 1979). In add ition , while developing th e pro-

the concept of organizat ional networks has

Current themes such as stakeholder management

1982) to ensure a favorable match with other

useful framew ork for und ersta nd ing the use o

political alliances, collusive structures, and pressur

tactics, designed to further the perceived self-intere

of the conce rned parties (Fo m bru n & Astley, 1983

Strategy analysis at this level is not yet common, bu

it appears worthwhile to explore strategy network

( i .e . ,

the concept of fit in this cell) to identify th

transa cting mec hanism s used by different kinds

organizat ions (Herbert , 1981).

Cell 5: Strategic Choice School

Cell 5 focuses on the pattern of coordination o

interactions among internal elements such as struc

ture, s ize, and technology. A fundamental assump

tion is that the pattern of interaction is not de te

m in ed based on given contingen cy forces, but r

flects a consc ious man agerial ch o ic e. Stated di

ferently, adopting Child's (1972) work, decision mak

ing about the organization's structure is not simpl

a matter of accommodating the contingencies. It

a strateg ic ch oice reflecting the value positions o

the management and the political processes throug

which such decisions are made. It also incorporate

Montanari 's (1978) extension of Child 's work tha

the decision areas subject to managerial discretio

extend beyond structure to include other organiza

tion elements.

However, focusing on the patterns of interaction

among internal elements

only

does not recognize th

open system perspective, and it has not been a dom

nant strategic management theme in recent year

Those interested in recent reviews of themes relevan

to this cell are directed to Fry (1982) for patterns o

relationships between technology and structure, an

to Galbrai th and Nathanson (1978) and Randolp

and Dess (1984) for a general discussion of fit amon

organizat ional elements.

Cell 6: Overarching Ge stalt Schoo l

In the sixth cell, strategy is viewed as an overarc

ing pattern of aligning the elementspartly intern

and partly external to the organization. The conce

of fit in this cell is along the lines of the second inte

pretation of fit suggested by Van de Ven (1979).

is a/7

interaction effect

of organizat ional enviro

ment and structure on organizat ional survival . . .n

caus ation is imp lied. . . , and an e xplan ation of fit

found in a concatenated theory on the processes o

covariat ions among the factors that produce org

nizationa l survival or effectivene ss (1979, p. 323

Such a view is shared by Hrebiniak, who noted th

519

8/10/2019 513.full

8/14

fit refers to a broad gestalta particular configu-

ration of organization and environment that is whole

and complete. ..No causality is indicated (1981,p .

340).

The theoretical support for this cell is derived from

the open system perspective of organization theory

(Katz Kahn, 1966; Thompson, 1967) and the eco-

logical view of organizationenvironment transac-

tions (Thorelli, 1977). The underlying view is that

organizations are not autonomous entities. Instead,

the best laid plans of managers have unintended con-

sequences and are conditioned or upset by other so-

cial unitsother complex organizations or publics

on whom the organization is dependent (Thompson,

1967).

Such a perspective has led strategy to be concep-

tualized as the combination (profile) of environmen-

tal, contextual, and structural elements affecting an

organization at any time. This supports the argument

that the probability of organizational survival in-

creases as the congruence of environmental, contex-

tual, and structural complexity increases (Jauch &

Osborn, 1981). Along similar lines, researchers have

arrived at different conceptualizations of integrated

fit of strategy. Adaptation is suggested as a useful

and promising metaphor for conceptualizing the

endeavors of an organization to be fitted better to

its environment (Chakravarthy, 1982), and as the

basis for developing a unified theory regarding or-

ganization-environment interface (Lawrence Dyer,

1980).

Pattern of Intera ctions Perspectives

By way of summarizing the three patterns of inter-

actions views (i.e., cells 4 through 6), it needs to be

noted that the concept covers a broad spectrum

from internal configurations to interorganizational

networks. In contrast to the content of fit cells, these

cells have had more conceptualizations but less em-

pirical work. The themes as explored may be more

relevant to students of organization theory. Conse-

quently, the translation of these concepts into a

strategy framework has not been extensive, with the

exception of the studies on organizational adap tation

(Chakravarthy, 1982; Lawrence Dyer, 1980). How-

ever, network analysis appears to offer promise in

cell 4 for researching interorganizational strategy.

Using the Conceptual Scheme

This paper has suggested that fi t be considered

a central concept in strategic management. To

support such a claim a conceptual scheme wa

veloped based on a typology of fit that diff

tiates the various schools of thought in stra

management. Such an approach is in line with

developed in organization theory (Van de V

Astley, 1981) as the basis for attem pting a recon

tion of opposing views through dialectical de

(Astley Van de Ven, 1983). Although a diale

debate among the six schools of thought was not

sidered pertinent here, the scheme is used to di

key issues in the context of employing fit in stra

management.

The first (i.e., conceptualization of fit) dime

of the proposed scheme raises interestingtheor

issues. The second (i.e., domain of fit) dimensio

be used to address some relevant manageriali

Although it is not possible to discuss all the i

in this paper, some key issues that might int

strategy researchers are raised.

Theoretical Issues

Content-of-fit oriented themes have receive

larger share of researchers' attention, but the pa

of-interactions themes offer promise in the fu

This requires that researchers focus on how

fi

be measured recognizing that different approa

to measurement are needed for the co nte nt

pr oc es s of fit. Empirical research on fit (espe

content-of-fit themes) generally has used the str

of correlation between elements (coefficient of

relations or

beta

values of regressions), alth

some recent studies have proposed altern

measures.

For example, Egelhoff (1982) uses inform

processing as an intermediary (surrogate) to me

the fit between strategy and structure. Accordi

him, The re is good fit between structure and

tegy when the information processing requirem

of a firm's strategies are satisfied by the inform

processing capacities of its struc tur e (1982, p.

In con tras t. Miles and Snow (1978) empl

qualitative measure of fit among strategy, struc

and process to differentiate the st ab le stra

types (defenders, prospectors, and analyzers)

the un sta bl e strategic type (reacto r). How

these studies represent isolated attempts at me

ing the content of fit, with a limited focus on str

and structure. Researchers need to address the

of fit by focusing on the congruence among a l

set of elements.

520

8/10/2019 513.full

9/14

An issue related to measurement is whether fit is

or adyn mic phenomenon, especially when

izing fit along a ge sta lt perspective (i.e .,

shooting at a moving target (Thompson, 1967)

are to be forthcoming, researchers must address the

The adoption of a cross-sectional orientation is dic-

yet

available (Ramanujam

Ven katram an, 1984), researchers had to be con-

Cross-sectional measures provide only a static

ults in some contingency-based studies (Mintz-

82), their roles in different settings have to be

dy may be indispensable to the tracing of the direc-

The domain of fit categories in Figure

1external

er to ensure organizationenvironm ent fit. Two

the long run. For example, although the choice o

environment, that is domain definition (Bourgeois

1980), may be relatively fixed in the short run, con

siderably more fiexibility may be available to alte

domain navigation modes such as marketing o

manufacturing strategies. Similarly, large organi

zations may have power to influence the environmen

(Ald rich, 1979; Pfeffer & Salan cik, 1978) and m a

have market power (Scherer, 1980). But the exten

of ch oi ce is very limited for small organ izations

A descriptive analysis of the con trollab ility of th

various elements to be aligned would provide signifi

cant insights about the managerial use of fit.

The second issue relates to the mode of strategi

maneuvering to approach equilibrium. Although per

fect equilibrium can never be attained (Thorelli

1977), organizations strive towards equilibrium

because of pressures for congruence (Etzioni, 1961

Nightingale & Toulouse , 1977). A key issue here i

whether organizations should effect such changes in

a quantum (revolutionary) or incremental (evolu

tionary) fashion. This issue has been discussed onl

in the context of strategy-structure alignment by

Miller and Friesen (1980, 1982), and Miller (1982)

In a more general context, Ram aprasad (1982) noted

that revolutionary changes are important contri

butors to the process of organizational evolution and

adaptation. More work is needed to understand th

nature of strategic changes to be effected by

management.

Summary

Although the concept of fit underlies the main

streams of strategy literature, many issues still remai

unresolved. The conceptual scheme proposed high

lights the differences in the six schools of though

and is intended to aid researchers in recognizing th

strengths and weaknesses of the various approache

to investigating and employing fi t in strategi

man agem ent. In addition, key issues have been rais

ed that are to be addressed if the usefulness of th

concept of fit from both theoretical and manageria

perspectives is to be enhanced.

5

8/10/2019 513.full

10/14

References

Aldrich, H. E. Organization and environments. Englew ood Cliffs,

N.J . : Prentice-Hall , 1979.

An ders on, C. R., Zei tham l, C. P. Stages of product life cycle,

business strategy, and business performance. Academy of

Management Journat

1984, 27, 5-24.

Andrews, K. R. The concept of corporate strategy. H o m e w o o d ,

III: Irwin, 1971.

nsoff

H . I .

Corporate strategy: A n analyticat approach to busi-

ness poticy for growth ande.xpansion. New York: McG raw-Hill,

1965.

nsoff

H. I. Societal strategy for the business firm. In H. I. An-

soff A. Bosman, P. M. Storm (Eds. ) , tJnderstanding and

managing strategic change.

New York: Nor th-H olland , 1982,

83-109.

Arm our , H. O. , Teece, D. J . Organization s tructure and

economic performance : A tesl of the multidivisional hypothesis.

Bell Journal of Economics.

197 8,9 , 106-122.

Astley, W. G.. Van de Ven, A. H. Cen tral perspectives and

debates in organization theory.

Administrative Science Quarter-

ly . 1983, 28, 245-273.

Bain, J. S.Barriers to new competition. Cam bridge, Mass . : Har-

vard University Press, 1956.

Biggadike, E. R. The contributions of marketing to strategic

man ag emen t . .Academy of Managem ent Review. 1981, 6,

621-632.

Bourgeois, L. . 1 . III. Strategy and environment: A conceptual in-

tegration . Academy of Managem ent Review 1980, 5, 25-39.

Burgelman, R. H. A model of the interaction of strategic behavior,

corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Academy of

Management Review 1983, 8, 61-70.

Camillus, J. C. Strategic management: Reflections on an alter-

native paradigm. Paper presented at the Academy of Manage-

ment meeting. New York, 1982.

Caves, R. E. Industrial organization, corporate strategy, and struc-

ture. Journal of Economic Literature 1980, 18, 64-92.

Cha krava r thy , B. S . Ada ptatio n: A promising metaphor for

s trategic management.

Academy of Managm ent Review

1982,

7, 35-44.

Chandler , A. D. Strategy a nd structure: Chap ters in the history

of American enterprise.

Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1962.

C h an n o n , D . F . The strategy a nd structure of British enterprise.

Unpublished doctoral d isser tat ion . Harvard Univers i ty , 1971.

Ch ann on, D. F. Com me ntary . In D. Schendel C. W. Hofer

(Eds. ) , Strategic m anagement: A new view of husiness policy

and planning Boston: Little, Brown, 1979, 122-133.

Child , .1 .Organiza tion structure, environment and performance

The role of strategic choice.

Sociology

1972, 6, 1-22.

Chr is tensen , H. K. , Montgo mery C. Corp orate economic per-

formance: Divers if icat ion s trategy versus market s tructure.

Strategic Managem ent Journal 1981, 2, 327-343.

Christensen, H. K., Coo per, A. C , De Kluyver, C. A. The

business: A re-examination . Working Paper 769, Kra

Graduate School of Management, Purdue Univers i ty , 1

Egelhoff W. G. Strategy and s tructure in mult inationa l cor

t ions: An information processing approach.

Administ

Science Quarterly 1982, 27, 435-458.

Em ery, F. E , Trist, E. L. The causal texture of organizat

en v i ro n men ts .

Human Relations

1965, 18, 21-32.

Etzioni, A.A comparative analysis of complex organizations.

York: Free Press, 1961.

Evan, W. M. The organization-set: Toward a new theory o

terorganizational relat ions . In J . D. Thompson (Ed.) ,

proaches to organization design.

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Univers

Pittsburgh Press, 1967.

Evered R. So what

is

strategy?

Long Range Planning

1983,

57-72.

Fiedler, F. E. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New

McGraw-Hill , 1967.

Fom brun , C , Astley , W. G. Beyond corpora te s trategy.

nal of Business Strategy 1983, 3(4), 47-54.

Fry, L. W. Technology-structure research: Three critical is

Academy of Managem ent Journal 1982, 25, 532-552.

Galbr ia th , .1. R . , Na than son, D. A. Strategy implementa

The role of structure and process.

New Yo rk: West, 1

Galb ra i th ,

.1 .

R , Na than son, D. A. The ro le of organiza

structure and process in strategy implementation. In D. Sch

C. W. Hofer (Eds. ) ,

Strategic management: A new vi

business policy and planning. Boston:

Little

Brown,

249-283.

Ginsberg , A. , Ven katram an, N. Contingency theory res

of strategy: A framew ork for analy sis. Pape r presented

Academy of Management Meeting , Dallas , 1983.

Glueck, W. F.Business policy: Strategy formulation and man

ment action.

New York: Mcg raw-Hill , 1976.

Grinyer , P . H. , Yasai-A rdekani, M. , Al-Bazzaz, S . Stra

structure, the environm ent, a nd fmancial perform ance in 4

co mp an ies . Academy of Managem ent Journal. 198

193-220.

Grinyer , P . H. , Yasai-A rdekani, M. Strategy, s tructure,

and bureaucracy . Academv of Managem ent Journal. 19

472-486.

Gu pta , A. K., Go vin dar aja n, V. Businss unit stra

managerial characteristics, and business unit effectivene

strategy implementation . Academy of Managem ent Jou

1984,

27,

25-41,

Hall , D.

. 1 .

Saias ,

M .

A. Strategy fo llows s tructure.

Stra

Management Journal 1980, 1, 149-163.

Hambrick, D. C. High profit strategies in mature capital g

industr ies : A contingency app roach .

Academy of M anage

Journal 1983, 26, 687-707.

522

8/10/2019 513.full

11/14

br ick , D. C. Ma son, P . A. Upper echelons: The organiza-

tion as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Manage-

ment Review

1984, 9, 193-206.

br ick , D. C , MacM illan , I . C , Day, D. L. Strategic at-

tr ibutes and performance in the BCG matr ixA PIMS-based

analysis of industrial product businesses.

Academy of Manage-

ment Journal 1982, 25, 510-531.

Strategies for declining businesses. Lexington ,

Mass.: Heath, 1980.

Academy of

Management Journal

1982, 25, 707-732.

proaches to business strategy. Academy of Managem ent Review

1983, 8, 398-405.

K. J , Schendel, D. E. Heterogeneity within an industry:

Firm conduct in the U.S. brewing industry, 1952-1971. Jour-

nal of Industrial Economics

1977, 26, 97-113.

Long Range Plan-

ning

1977, 10(1), 9-15.

Henderson on corporate strategy. Boston: Abt

Books, 1979.

An interorganizational relationships perspective. Academy of

Management Review 1984, 9,

259-271.

M. A. , Ireland , R. D. , Pal ia, K. A. Industrial firms' grand

strategy and functional importance: Moderating effects of

technology and structure. Academy of Managem ent Journal

1982a, 25, 265-298.

M. A., Ireland, R. D., Stadte r, G. Function al impo rtance

and company performance: Moderating effects of grand strategy

and industry type.

Strategic Management Journal

1982b, 3,

315-330.

Academy of Managem ent Journal

1975, 18,784-810.

r, C. W., Schen del, D. E. Strategy formulation: Analyti-

cal concepts. New York: West, 1978.

J . H. , Thie tar t , R . A. Strategy, managem ent design

and f irm performance. Strategic Management Journal 1982,

3,

67-76.

gram : Overview and critique . In A. H. Van de Ven W. F.

Joyce (Eds.) ,

Perspectives on organization design and behavior.

New York : W iley-Interscience , 1981, 338-345.

L. R., Os bor n, R. N. To wa rd an integrated theory of

strategy.

Academy of Managem ent Review

1981, 6, 491-498.

L. R. , Osb orn , R. N. , Glueck, W. F. Shor t- term f inan-

cial success in large business organizations: The environment-

s trategy connection .

Strategic Management Journal

1980, 1,

49-63.

strategic management.

Academy of Managem ent R eview

1981a,

6, 601-608.

Jemison, D. B. The contr ibutions of adminis trat ive behavior

strategic m anagement. Academy of Managem ent Review 1981

6, 633-6421.

Katz, D. , Ka hn, R. The social psychotogy of organizations. N

York: Wiley, 1966.

Kerr, J. L., Snow , C. C. A conce ptual model of the rewa

system design process. Paper presented at the Academy

Man agem ent meeting . New York , 1982.

Khandwalla , P . N. Proper t ies of competing organizations . In

C. Nystrom W. H. Starbuck (Eds.) ,

Handbook of organiz

tional design(Vol. 1). New Yo rk: Oxford University Press, 19

409-432.

Kimberly, J. R. Organi/ation size and structuralist perspectiv

A review, critique and proposal. Administrative Science Quarte

ly 1976, 21, 571-597.

King, W. R. Strategic planning for man agem ent inform atio

systems. M/S Quarterly. 1978, 2(1), 27-37.

Lamb, R. Is the attack on strategy valid? Journal of Busine

Strategy

1983, 3(4), 68-69.

Lawrence , P. , Dyer, D. Tow ard a theory of organizationa l an

industrial adaptation. Working Paper HBS80-57, Harvard Bu

ness School, 1980.

Lenz, R. T. Environment, strategy, organization structure and pe

formance: Patterns in one industry.

Strategic Management Jou

nal 1980, 1, 209-226

Leontiades, M. Choosing the right manager to fit the strateg

Journal of Busmess Strategy.

1982, 3(2), 58-69 .

Lora nge, P. , Vancil, R. F. Strategic planning system

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

MacM illan 1. C , Ha mb rick, D. C. Day, D. L. The produ

ponfolio and profitabilityA PIMS-based analysis of industr

products businesses.

Academy of Managem ent Journal.

19

25 , 733-755.

M i l e s , R . E . , S n o w ,

CC. Org anizational strategy structu

and process.

New York : Mc Graw -Hill, 1978.

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C. Tow ard a synthesis in organi zatio

theory. Unpublished manuscript, February, 1980.

Miller, D. Toward a new contingency approach: The search f

organizational gestal ts . Journal of Managem ent Studies 198

18, 1-26.

Miller, D. Evolution and re\ olu tio n: A qua ntu m view of stru

tural change in organizations. Journal of Managem ent Studi

1982, 19,

131-151.

Miller, D., Friesen, P. H. Archetyp es of strategy form ulatio

Management Science.

1978, 24, 921-933.

Miller, D., Friesen, P. H. Mo me ntum and revolution

organizational adaptat ion . Academy of Managem ent Journ

1980, 23, 591-614.

Miller, D., Friesen, P. H. Structura l change and perform anc

Quantum versus p iecemeal- incremental approaches .

Acade

of Managem ent Journal 1982, 25, 867-892.

523

8/10/2019 513.full

12/14

Miller, D ., Kets de Vries, M., & To ulo use , J. M. To p executive

locus of control and its relationship to strategy making, struc-

ture and environment. Academy of Managem ent Journal, 1982,

25 , 237-253.

Min tzberg, H . Policy as a field of ma nagem ent theo ry. Academy

of Managem ent Review, 1977, 2, 88-10 3.

Mintzberg , H. Patterns in s trategy formation .

Management

Science, 1978, 24, 934-948 .

Mintzberg, H. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs,

N..I. :

Prentice-Hall, 1979.

Montanar i , J . R . Manager ial d iscret ion: An expanded model of

organizational choice. Academy of Managem ent Review, 1978,

3,

231-241.

Nigh tingale, D . V., & To ulou se, J. M . Tow ard a multi-level con-

gruence theory of organization. .Administrative Science Quarter-

ty, \9n,

22, 264-280.

Norburn, D., & Miller, P. Strategy and executive reward: The mis-

match in the strategic process.Journal of General Managem ent,

1981, 6(4), 7-27.

Pennings, .1 . M. Strategically interdependent organizations. In P.

C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (E ds. ) ,

Handbook on organiza-

tional design (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press, 1981,

433-455.

Peters , T. J . , & W aterm an, R. H. . l i . /; ; search of excellence:

lessons from .America s best run companies. New York: Harper

& Row, 1982.

Pfeffer, . 1 . & Salancik , G. R. The external control of organiza-

tions: .A resource dependence perspective.

New York : Harp er

& Row. 1978.

Pooley-Dias , G.

Strategy and structure of French enterprises.

Un-

published doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, 1972.

Porter, M. E. How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard

Business Review,

1979, 57(2), 137-156.

Por ter , M. E. Competitive strategy. New York : Free Press , 1980.

Por ter , M. E. The contr ibutio ns industrial organization to

strategic management.

Academv ul Managem ent Review,

1981,

6, 609-620.

Prescott, J. E. Competitive environments, strategic types, and

business performance: An em pirical analysis.

Unpublished doc-

toral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1983.

Quinn, I . B . Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism.

H o m e w o o d ,

111.:

Irwin, 1980.

Ram anuja m, V. , & Ven katram an, N . An inventory and cr i t ique

of strategy research using the PIVIs database. Academy of

Management Review, 1984, 9 , l . lX-151.

Ramaprasad, A. Revolutionary change and strategic management.

Behavioral Science,

1982, 27, 387-392 .

Randolph, W. A. , . Dess, G. G. The congruence perspective of

organization design: A conceptual m odel and mult ivar iate

research approach. Academy of Managem ent Review, 1984, 9,

114-127.

Re\ e, T., & Stern, L. W. Interorganizational relations in marketing

ch an n e ls . Academy of Managem ent Review, 1979, 4, 405-416.

Rumelt R. P. Strategy structure and economic perfor

Cambridge, Mass . : Harvard Univers i ty Press , 1974.

Rumelt , R . P . Towards a s trategic theory of the f irm.

presented at the Conferenc e on Non-Tra dit ional App

to Policy Research, University of Southern Californi

Angeles, 1981.

Rumelt, R. P. Diversification strategy and profitability.

S

Management Journal 1982 3 359-369.

Schendel , D. E. , & Hofer , C . W. Strategic m anagement:

view of bu siness poticy and planning. Bosto n: Little

1979.

Schendel, D. E., & Patton, G. R. A simultaneous equation

of corporate strategy. Afonagemew? Sc/e/ice, 1978,24, 161

Scherer, F. M. Industrial market structure and economic

mance.

Chicago: Rand McNally , 1980.

Schoonhoven, C. B. Problems with contingency theory: T

assumptions hidden within the language of conti

t h e o r y .

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1981

26, 3

Schwartz, H. , & Davis , S . M. Matching corporate cultu

business strategy. Organizational Dynamics, 1981 , 10(1)

Steiner, G. A. Contingency theories of strategy and st

ma nagem ent. In D. Schendel & C. W. Hofer (E ds ) , St

management: A ne w vievn of business policy and pl

Boston: Little, Brown, 1979, 405-416.

Stonich , P . J . Implementing strategy: Making strategy h

Cambridge, Mass . : Ball inger , 1982.

Thanheiser , H.

Strategy and structure of German

Unpublished doctoral d isser tat ion . Harvard Univers i ty ,

Th o mp so n , J . D . Organ izations in action. New York : M

Hill, 1967.

Thorell i , H. B. Organization theory: An ecological v iew

B. Thorelli (Ed.), Strategy structure =performance. B

ton: Indiana University Press, 1977, 277-301.

Van de Ven, A. H. Review of Aldr ich ' s (1979)

Org an iza t io n s an d en v i ro n men ts . Administrative

Quarterly,

1979, 24, 320-32 6.

Van de Ven, A. H ., & Astley, W . G. Ma ppin g the field to

a dynamic perspective on organization design and behav

A. H. Van de Ven & W. F. Joyce (Eds. ) ,

Perspecti

organization design and behavior. New York:

Interscience , 1981, 427-468.

W aterm an, R. H. , Peters , T. J . , & Phil l ips , J . R . Structur

o rg an iza t io n . Business Horizons, 1980, 23(3), 14-26.

Weick, K. E.

The social psychology of organizing.

Read ing

Addison-Wesley , 1979.

White, R. E., & Hammermesh, R. G. Toward a model of b

unit performance: An in tegrative approach.

Acade

Management Review,

1981 6 213-223.

Williamson, O. E. The modern corporation: Or ig ins , evo

allnbutes. Journal of Economic Literature

1981 19 153

Wissema, J . G. , Va n der Pol, H. W. , & Messer , H. M. St

management archetypes .

Strategic Management Joumat

1 37-47.

524

8/10/2019 513.full

13/14

Industrialorganization: Theoryand practice. Lon- Yip G. S.Barriersto entry: Acorporatestrategy perspec

don: Oxford University Press 1965. bridge. Mass.: Heath 1982.

L.Divisionalautonom y and diversification. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. Harv ard University 1970.

N. Venkatraman is a doctoralcandidatein the G raduate

School of

Business L/niversity

of Pittsburgh.

John

C

Camitlus is ssociate Deanand ssociate Professor

of Business Administration in the G raduate School of

Business University of Pittsburgh.

525

8/10/2019 513.full

14/14

Documents

513.full