Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research http://jht.sagepub.com

The How and Who of Strategy Making: Models and Appropriateness for Firms in Hospitality and Tourism Industries Robert J. Harrington Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 2005; 29; 372 DOI: 10.1177/1096348005274775 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/372

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education

Additional services and information for Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jht.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/3/372

Downloaded from http://jht.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 23, 2008

ARTICLE

JOURNAL OF 10.1177/1096348005274775 Harrington / THE HOSPIT HOW ALITY AND & WHO TOURISM OF STRA RESEARCH TEGY MAKING

THE HOW AND WHO OF STRATEGY MAKING: MODELS AND APPROPRIATENESS FOR FIRMS IN HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM INDUSTRIES Robert J. Harrington University of Guelph A strategy-making process typology of ideal types is proposed describing salient dimensions from previous research. Two main dimensions are described as deliberate-emergent and individualistic-collective approaches. These dimensions address research questions of “how” strategies are formulated or implemented and “who” is involved in the process. It is proposed that, in general, firms adapt these dimensions in the strategy-making process to the level of dynamism and complexity in the environment. Further discussion provides insight into appropriate choices of strategy-making process models for firms in the foodservice industry and expresses the need for researchers and managers to consider the degree and type of dynamism and complexity, firm size, level of analysis, level of strategy or tactic, culture, and institutional factors. It is suggested that service firms have a potential need to utilize multiple models simultaneously to affect conflicting objectives of control and adaptability. KEYWORDS:

strategy-making process; ideal types; deliberate; emergent; individualistic; collective

Strategy making has been studied from several perspectives in both the hospitality and mainstream literature (Okumus & Roper, 1999; Whittington, 2001). Strategy “schools” of thought represent two ends of a strategy-making continuum and everywhere in between. Central areas of interest across the strategy-research stream are questions of “what,” “how,” and “who.” The majority of studies in hospitality and the mainstream literature have focused on the “what” question (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 1998; Okumus, 2002), which have primarily concentrated on strategy content, planning, level of environmental scanning, and strategy-structure relationships (Mintzberg et al., 1998; Okumus & Roper, 1999). Author’s Note: I wish to thank K. W. Kendall, David Lemak, and Richard Reed from Washington State University for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, August 2005, 372-395 DOI: 10.1177/1096348005274775 © 2005 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education

372


Harrington / THE HOW AND WHO OF STRATEGY MAKING

373

The “how” and “who” areas address process issues such as how strategy is formulated, how strategy is implemented, the amount of change in strategy between formulation and realization, and the amount of involvement by a variety of organizational actors in these processes. These areas are related to the process of strategy making and have been neglected in both literature streams. Although less emphasis has been placed on this area of study, the strategy-making process has been proposed as a key process that affects overall firm performance, planning performance, entrepreneurial intensity, and planning flexibility (Harrington, 2004). Although phases of strategic management have generally been divided into five main steps (environmental scanning, formulation of strategic ends and means, strategy implementation, evaluation, and control), recent researchers have advocated a more holistic interpretation of strategy formulation and implementation (Harrington, 2004; Okumus, 2003). This holistic approach provides significant insight into the general factors of the strategic process but, as with many articles outlining the process, lacks precision in describing direct interrelationships and prescriptive uses of process models. To address specific direct relationships inherent in earlier research, this article’s primary focus addresses three main areas: the primary dimensions of the strategy-making process, the impact of external context, and theorized impact on organizational outcomes. Second, (using the foodservice industry as an example), this discussion concentrates on the potential need to utilize a variety of strategy-making process models within and across hospitality and tourism organizations. A simultaneous use of models within an organization may allow firms to concurrently achieve control and provide strategic direction as well as allow for adaptation and innovation. Therefore, a key contribution of this article is to explicitly describe the relationship of primary dimensions of the process of strategy making along with general and specific impacts of the environment on the potential success of the process. This procedure provides researchers and practitioners a clearer understanding of identifiable relationships that describe and define appropriate strategy-making processes in a variety of contexts. First, a dialogue and literature review is presented that synthesizes previous models and empirical studies of the strategy-making process into a typology of coherent and measurable ideal types. This synthesis includes models and studies from both the mainstream and hospitality strategy literatures. Based on this integration, relationships are proposed between the strategy-making process dimensions, dynamism, and complexity. Second, a discussion is presented proposing applications and considerations of these strategy-making process models for firms in the foodservice industry. Issues such as level of analysis, the degree and type of dynamism or complexity, and the importance of internal firm factors are considered. LITERATURE REVIEW

Findings from earlier research indicating differences in the external environment across and within hospitality and tourism industries provide support for the relevance of this strategy-making process typology to industry firms and future hospi-


374

JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

tality and tourism research. Similar to generic strategy types developed by previous researchers to answer the basic question of “what” type of strategies are formulated (Hofer & Schendel, 1978; Porter, 1980), this study defines generic strategy-making process types to answer the question of “how” strategy is formulated and implemented and “who” is involved in this process. A model of the strategy-making process must be parsimonious, yet make use of multiple indicators, which are grounded in theory and represent the most salient aspects of the process. For this discussion, the strategy-making process is defined as an organization-level mode of operation utilized in the phases of strategic management: information processing and interpretation, strategic ends and means formulation, and strategy implementation. Following the earlier reviews of strategy approaches (Mintzberg et al., 1998; Okumus & Roper, 1999; Whittington, 2001), primary strategy-making process elements can be described as the deliberate-emergent and the individualisticcollective nature of the process. In its simplest form, the deliberate-emergent dimension is defined as the level of change that takes place between intended strategy and realized strategy. The individualistic-collective dimension is defined as the level of involvement by a firm’s different hierarchical levels in the phases of strategic management. Although these factors are not the only probable relationships of importance in describing the strategy-making process, the ones included in this discussion represent salient and consistently identifiable elements in the process. Rather than four mutually exclusive strategy-making process types, the two proposed strategy-making process dimensions are conceived of as a twodimensional scheme consisting of two continua. Doty and Glick (1994) define a typology as “conceptually derived interrelated sets of ideal types” (p. 232). Ideal types refer to multiple organization types that represent a unique combination of attributes that are theorized to induce proposed outcomes. The typology follows Doty and Glick’s (1994) criteria for a theory or doctrine of types, and the ideal type construct is conceived of as a contingent-hybrid types fit. The contingent hybrid model of fit defines continua of contexts and a single hybrid type that is most effective for each context (Doty, Glick, & Huber, 1993). Thus, firm strategymaking processes will be identifiable by tendencies toward one type, which indicate a primarily deliberate-emergent or individualistic-collective approach rather than perfect forms of either. Following the definitions by Dess and Beard (1984), the environmental variables of interest for the strategy-making process typology are dynamism and complexity. Although dynamism has been described as instability, volatility, or uncertainty (Harrington & Kendall, 2005), the definition in this discussion follows the work of Dess and Beard (1984) and defines dynamism as unexpected change or change that is hard to predict. In general, complexity is defined as the heterogeneity and concentration of environmental elements, but the concept has been conceptualized as either the variety or range of an organization’s activities or the geographic concentration-dispersion of firms within an industry (Dess & Beard, 1984, p. 56). Because environmental munificence (Dess and Beard’s [1984] third environmental factor) has a significant positive impact on firm per-



375

formance regardless of strategic posture or process, environmental munificence will be held constant for this theoretical discussion of the strategy-making process. Commonality in Strategic-Process Descriptions

Previous classification systems have used a variety of lenses to identify characteristics of the strategy-making process (Farjoun, 2002). The dominant model presented in the hospitality literature follows the “co-alignment principle” (Okumus, 2002). The co-alignment model contains four main elements: environmental events, strategic choice, firm structure, and firm performance (Olsen, West, & Tse, 1998). This model addresses the “what” question of strategy choice but does not explicitly address the “how” and “who” questions of the process. A synthesis of authors emphasizing generic classification systems of the strategic process provides several areas of agreement. Authors have argued that multiple strategy-making process models exist (e.g., Allison, 1971; Ansoff, 1987; Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984; Farjoun, 2002; Grandori, 1984; Hart, 1992; Mintzberg, 1973; Nonaka, 1988; Okumus & Roper, 1999) and have proposed that the multiple models are used in two main ways. A first group of authors suggested either implicitly or explicitly that the strategy-making process models form a continuum with the use of a particular model based on the organization’s context (Ansoff, 1987; Grandori, 1984; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985; Nonaka, 1988; Okumus, 2001; Olsen et al., 1998). A second group of authors suggested that organizations might utilize multiple models simultaneously when the situation requires it (Allison, 1971; Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984; Chaffee, 1985; Hart, 1992; Nutt, 1989). Previous studies synthesizing theoretical perspectives have described the process using a variety of elements (Farjoun, 2002; Okumus & Roper, 1999). Although one dimension has been described using a variety of terminology (i.e. rational vs. incremental, planning vs. learning, etc.), a consistent dimension across authors or perspectives is the idea of “how” the process takes place with a main theme being the deliberate or emergent component (Farjoun, 2002; Whittington, 2001). Although not presented in the individualistic-collective terminology, authors have consistently discussed the importance of the actors involved as an important dimension (Mintzberg et al., 1998; Okumus & Roper, 1999). Finally, all of the authors described the choice of particular strategy-making process models based on the environment. The environment is described and defined as the organizational context, the level of complexity and dynamism, the level of uncertainty, the existence of external influence, the rate of change, the strength of the competition, and time constraints (e.g., Farjoun, 2002; Mintzberg et al., 1998; Olsen et al., 1998). Three main areas of agreement emerge from previous models of the process of strategy making: a deliberate-emergent dimension, an individualistic-collective dimension, and the impact of the environment on the process used by a firm (e.g., Farjoun, 2002; Okumus & Roper, 1999). These three elements are proposed as prominent characteristics that distinguish generic strategy-making process types. This is not to suggest that the entire process can be simplified to only these ele-


376


ments but that these areas are clearly identifiable and distinct elements based on a synthesis of previous theory and empirical findings. For instance, Whittington (2001) described the deliberate-emergent process as one clear dimension separating strategy perspectives along with outcomes as a second dimension differentiating major strategy schools of thought. Although this second factor is a clear line of demarcation of the four schools discussed by Whittington (Classical, Evolutionary, Processual, and Systemic), it stands to reason that factors in the strategymaking process are intended to allow organizations to more successfully achieve desired outcomes regardless of whether the desired outcome is maximizing efficiency (e.g., Williamson, 1979) or creating symbolic legitimacy of organizational goals to a variety of environmental stakeholders (e.g., DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In addition, the objective of this discussion is not to differentiate strategic management schools of thought but to describe and define salient dimensions of the generic process. Therefore, it is proposed that the deliberate-emergent and individualistic-collective dimensions are definable and relevant for researchers and practitioners in hospitality and tourism. Deliberate-Emergent Dimension

A bitter debate has been raging in the strategy literature over the appropriate strategy-formulation behavior and focuses on what are conceived of by many as dichotomous approaches. Empirical studies have done little to resolve this debate and seem to have created more questions than answers (Brews & Hunt, 1999; Okumus & Roper, 1999). The basic assumptions underlying the deliberate or rational approach are the crux of where the main debates between the deliberate and emergent approaches lie. Although proponents of the deliberate approach prescribe its methods for all organizations, the emergent view suggests that strategies are not formed in such a deliberate and specific manner but emerge over time because environments are generally not stable and much less predictable (Mintzberg et al., 1998). The basic emergent model presented in Mintzberg and Waters (1985) has several important components frequently ignored in the literature and provides a clearer definition of a firm’s placement on the deliberate-emergent continuum (e.g., Harrington, Lemak, Reed, & Kendall, 2004). One component can be described as the level of specificity or “intended strategy” in advance. Brews and Hunt (1999) discussed the deliberate versus emergent dimension and defined it as “strategic ends and means specificity.” This seems to be congruent with Mintzberg et al.’s (1998) description of the deliberate-emergent concept as applying to both ends and means. Although Brews and Hunt’s (1999) study provides an improvement over previous measures of the deliberate-emergent construct, the level of specificity in strategic ends and means does not fully capture a third and arguably the most salient dimension that separates a deliberate approach from an emergent one. If a firm has an absence of specificity in ends and means, it seems to imply that the firm is following an emergent approach based on Mintzberg and McHugh’s (1985) definition. But, if a firm has high levels of specificity in ends and means, the firm may be utilizing either a deliberate approach or an emergent



377

approach depending on the level of alteration to intentions or the number of strategies added as circumstances warrant. Therefore, a determination of change or alteration is necessary to assess the deliberate-emergent construct. The level of change in strategies between what was intended and what was realized seems to define the amount of “replacement” that takes place. The amount of replacement is an important element in the deliberateemergent argument. It suggests the amount of intentions that were left intact and the amount of intentions that were replaced or significantly modified. Emergent strategies can also be additive in nature. For example, all intentions may be realized, but additional strategies may emerge during the process. The number of strategies may change as well as the intentions themselves. Therefore, it is argued that a true assessment of the deliberate-emergent nature of a firm’s strategy-making process should include not only the number of strategic ends/means, the types of ends/means, and the level of specificity, but also the number of strategic ends/ means that are realized, the number of changes that take place (from intended to realized), and the magnitude of those changes (i.e. minor changes versus significant modifications). To clearly define the nature of this dimension in an organization, a description of both the deliberate and emergent aspects are required to determine whether a predominately deliberate or predominately emergent approach is used. Individualistic-Collective Dimension

Although individualistic and collective approaches are not part of a “raging” debate, these two approaches are areas of separation between strategy-making process models and are an important dimension in the strategy-making process (e.g., Mintzberg et al., 1998; Okumus & Roper, 1999). A purely individualistic approach is defined to include only the chief executive and/or strategic analyst(s) as solely involved in the process of strategy making. This approach is often called a “top-down” approach and has been purported to have a number of advantages. In an environment of low complexity and either low or high time constraints, the top-down or individualistic approach can be very effective. An individualistic approach should allow decision makers to quickly scan the environment, formulate a strategy, and implement it (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984; Nonaka, 1988). This assumes that in this environment cause-and-effect relationships can generally be understood (Mintzberg, 1973), that the knowledge needed to understand these relationships is not specific to other areas of the organization (Choudhury & Sampler, 1997), and that lower levels of the organization are willing to accept decisions from up above (Bryson & Bromiley, 1993). Thus, a primarily individualistic approach is proposed as useful and effective in an environment of low complexity and either low or high dynamism. A prime consideration in this individualistic-collective dimension is the power and politics distribution throughout the organization. If organizational actors are unwilling to accept decisions that are pushed down upon them from up above and have the power to resist or ignore these decisions, a purely individualistic approach will not be effective (Parsa, 1999). In this case, a blend (which is primarily individualistic but contains collective elements) may be more effective


378


(Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984). This is what Ansoff (1987, p. 510) described as guided consensus with a strong center of power. In addition, firms may use multiple models simultaneously to address power- or politics-distribution issues. The need for greater participation or a collective approach has been suggested and described frequently in strategy-making process models (Okumus & Roper, 1999). The literature seems to imply two basic elements of the collective view: the level of collective involvement across an organization (i.e., breadth) and the amount of depth in collective involvement (Harrington, 2004). The basic concept is that greater diversity in specific knowledge will provide the team with more information, a better understanding of the environment, and more alternatives (Forbes & Milliken, 1999). Overall, results seem to suggest that a dispersion of functional backgrounds across decision-making teams increases the likelihood of not overlooking good ideas and opportunities, but the downside is that teams have a greater amount of dissention and (many times) lack the ability to reach consensus (Dooley & Fryxell, 1999). Researchers who have studied both the depth and breadth elements have generally been involved with research related to strategy implementation (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984; Bryson & Bromiley, 1993; Schmelzer & Olsen, 1994). A synthesis of these models and earlier studies suggest that complexity has a main effect on the individualistic-collective dimension requiring a more collective approach in both breadth and depth with higher complexity. Therefore, for this discussion, the individualistic-collective dimension is viewed as a continuum and defined by the level of breadth and depth of employee involvement in all phases of the strategy-making process. A predominately collective approach will include a broad level of involvement by almost all-hierarchical levels of the firm in the strategy-making process. A predominately individualistic approach will include only a chief executive or the top hierarchical level being involved in the majority of strategy-making processes. As the individualisticcollective dimension is related to structure, decision making and implementation, it follows that complexity will affect whether the strategy-making process becomes more collective or individualistic in nature. Although a more collective strategymaking process seems likely to permit firms to use more information and evaluate more alternatives, it will allow firms to be more successful in an environment of high complexity. Because a collective approach uses valuable resources that could be utilized for other more productive purposes and is generally more timeconsuming, it is proposed that firms in an environment of low complexity will use a more individualistic approach. THE STRATEGY-MAKING PROCESS TYPOLOGY

The following discussion proposes a typology of strategy-making process “ideal types” based on the two main dimensions implied in previous classification systems. Using these two dimensions, a 2 × 2 matrix is proposed that creates four ideal types: entrepreneurial, linear, adaptive, and integrative. The underlying proposition is that a fit between the environment and the strategy-making process dimensions (deliberate-emergent and individualistic-collective) allows a firm to



379

Figure 1 Strategy-Making Process Ideal Types

C

Low

Complexity

High

Emergent

High Entrepreneurial Model

Adaptive Model

Q3 Q4

A

D

Dynamism

Q1 Q2

Linear Model

Integrative Model

Deliberate

Low Individualistic

B

Collective

make more effective and efficient use of firm resources, provides required amounts of information processing, and smoothes or speeds implementation. Ultimately, this results in better strategies, which will provide a firm with higher performance. As shown in the Figure 1, the vertical line along the left-hand side represents the deliberate-emergent continuum (labeled with “A” in Figure 1). Placement at the bottom of this line represents a strategic process that is entirely deliberate with no anticipated change or additions in the near future. Placement at the top of this line represents a strategic process that is entirely emergent in nature with either no intended strategy defined in advance or expectations of complete replacement and additions to strategy emerging over time. The horizontal line along the bottom of the matrix represents the individualistic-collective continuum (labeled “B” in Figure 1). The far left of this line represents a strategic process that is top down in nature and utilizes the input of a sole entrepreneur, CEO, or strategist. The far right of this line represents a strategic process that engages organizational members from across and within the firm (breadth and depth) to maximize involvement by interested stakeholders. The center of these two continua provides a separation of the strategy-making process into four ideal types. These four strategymaking processes represent generic types describing the “how” and “who” of this process. The selection of an ideal type is proposed to occur through management choice with a co-alignment of the external and internal environment. To identify the primary impact of environmental dynamism and complexity, two additional continua are presented in Figure 1. The complexity continuum on top of the matrix (labeled “C”) presents the direct relationship between complexity and the individualistic-


380


collective dimension. As complexity increases, the process becomes more collective and firms will utilize an adaptive or integrative approach. The dynamism continuum to the right of the matrix (labeled “D”) presents the direct relationship between dynamism and the deliberate-emergent dimension. As dynamism increases, the process becomes more emergent and firms will utilize a more entrepreneurial or adaptive approach. These four types and the primary co-alignment relationships are presented below. Linear Model (Q1): Deliberate and Individualistic

This model has been the primary approach prescribed in the strategicmanagement area (Mintzberg et al., 1998) and has been called a variety of names (i.e., design, planning, rational, etc.). The term linear was first used by Chaffee (1985) and seems to be a good descriptor of this approach. From an individualistic perspective, linear describes a top-down hierarchical approach where information and communication are passed down through the ranks in a linear fashion. From a deliberate perspective, strategies are formed in advance in a systematic method, and strategic decisions are integrated with previous decisions or strategies (Chaffee, 1985; Mintzberg et al., 1998; Olsen et al., 1998). Ansoff (1987) described this type as being based on logical reasoning, top management driven, and comprehensive. The top managers go through a rational strategy-making process where they have considerable capacity to change the organization. This approach is proposed to be effective because the organization is well insulated from the environment and the environment is relatively predictable (Mintzberg et al., 1998; Nonaka, 1988). The linear model is both individualistic and deliberate. This approach works best when (a) top managers can handle all relevant information; (b) they have full, detailed, and intimate knowledge of the situation; (c) the situation is stable; and (d) the organization is prepared to accept centrally articulated strategy (Mintzberg, 1990). Therefore, organizations that operate in an environment of low dynamism and low complexity should perform better using this approach. The ability to anticipate environmental change allows a small group of decision makers to create a set of interdependent decisions over time that are directed toward producing one or more future states for the organization. Integrative Model (Q2): Deliberate and Collective

Several earlier descriptions of approaches are similar to the proposed Integrative Model (Ansoff, 1987; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985; Nonaka, 1988). Although the environment in this general process type has been described in a variety of ways, areas of agreement suggest it is characterized as more complex, yet, either predictable or that change is imposed by external forces (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). Furthermore, the environment can be conceived as generally lower in time constraints with incremental challenges and low competitive pressure (Nonaka, 1988).



381

Nonaka (1988) described the environment for an inductive approach as one of high uncertainty and low time compression. Although dynamism and complexity are not explicitly separated in his discussion, the separation and a clearer description are implied. The inductive model utilizes a bottom-up approach that facilities information creation and “champions” ideas from the lower levels of the hierarchy. His description of high uncertainty and a collective approach to problem solving implies that the environment has relatively high complexity. In other words, problems are not clearly understood by top management alone, and solutions need to come from the collective lower levels. Nonaka’s argument of low time pressure or compression suggests that the environment has infrequent change and, hence, low levels of dynamism. Ansoff (1987) described a similar approach as useful in an environment with the following implied assumptions: planning is effective because the environment is predictable, and the environment is complex requiring a collective approach with a strong center. Many times, the pressure that is imposed in this environment comes from external stakeholders who have the power to impose deliberate strategies upon the organization. In addition, power is distributed across organizational members who are generally less willing to blindly accept decisions articulated from up above. Coalitions of organizational members require sufficient input and discussion about decisions that affect their vested interests or areas of expertise (Nutt, 1989). This suggests that firms in this environment should utilize a collective approach to enhance information processing, proper interpretation, and successful implementation. Thus, the environment of firms that follow the integrative model is stable enough for firms to develop integrated decisions that meet the needs of multiple stakeholder groups. Although the environment is stable, the power held by multiple stakeholder groups increases the complexity of decision making. A collective approach must be employed to evaluate specific knowledge and information as well as to prepare divergent groups in accepting and implementing strategic decisions. Integrative is a good description of this approach because firms integrate their strategic decisions over time and also integrate the needs of multiple stakeholder groups into these decisions. Entrepreneurial Model (Q3): Emergent and Individualistic

The strategy-making process in the entrepreneurial model is both individualistic and emergent. The process is described as centralized and individualistic in nature that many times is exemplified by a charismatic leader. Mintzberg et al. (1998) suggested that this model is based on economic theorists such as Schumpeter (1950), and this strategy-making process type is described as intuitive and opportunistic with revolutionary change. The popular business press, romantic individualists, and small-business people everywhere champion this school. Strategic ends and means are mostly emergent with an “umbrella” of deliberate strategies. The environment is viewed as dynamic but less complex. The lower levels of complexity seem to be the result of available niches that a firm can maneuver into and focus on. The entrepreneurial approach seems to be well


382


suited to this situation because the lower complexity permits the leader(s) to comprehend what is going on yet allows the firm to react quickly as the competitive environment changes (Mintzberg et al., 1998). Models by Hart (1992) and Ansoff (1987) fall within the entrepreneurial type. Both describe the strategy-making process as incremental changes guided by a leader or top managers in an environment described as driven by growth but less turbulent. Hence, a fit is created between the firm and the entrepreneurial model when there is unpredictable change but the environment has relatively low complexity. The smaller decisionmaking team in the entrepreneurial model allows a firm to take actions and adapt more quickly in what is generally a dynamic competitive environment. Adaptive Model (Q4): Emergent and Collective

This model is based on a number of theoretical models proposed in the literature. Although each provides a slight variation on the theme, each fits within the emergent and collective ends of the two continua in this typology. The environment of firms in this model is described as high environmental uncertainty, highly complex, and unpredictable (Chaffee, 1985; Hart, 1992; Mintzberg, 1973; Nonaka, 1988). The term adaptive was used previously by both Mintzberg (1973) and Chaffee (1985). It appears to be a good descriptor of this approach because firms in this environment must be highly adaptive to changes in the external environment and to requirements of internal integration. The adaptive model is closely aligned with the learning school, and strategy making is viewed as emergent, informal, and “messy” (Mintzberg et al., 1998). The process can be described as utilizing a web of actors in the decision process, which pursues continual, incremental, or piecemeal changes (Quinn, 1980). Chaffee (1985) described the approach as “monitoring the environment and making changes [that] are simultaneous and continuous functions” (p. 91). In addition, she described this approach as based on an evolutionary biological model, which assumes (a) the organization and environment are open to each other, and (b) the environment is more dynamic and less predictable. Whereas, Mintzberg (1973) described strategy making in this model as having no clear goals and reactive, Chaffee (1985) described it as more of a proactive monitoring and adjustment process with fragmented strategies that develop over time. Both of these conceptions fit within the conceptualization of the adaptive model. Either providing no intentions in advance, nonspecific intentions while allowing strategies to emerge over time, or many specific intentions that are expected and allowed to change over time can accomplish a more emergent approach. The latter approach seems equally as likely in an environment of high complexity and volatility. In this environment, a greater number of conceivable solutions and outcomes are possible. Because of this, firms will have a tendency to “keep their options open.” In other words, firms in an unstable environment are likely to develop and pursue more strategic ends/means with the understanding that many will be dropped, replaced, added, or significantly modified (e.g., Sanchez, 2003). This is likely to provide flexibility and the ability to survive



383

regardless of specific outcomes as well as to reduce the perceived level of ambiguity by defining objectives. The high levels of both complexity and dynamism in this environment require that firms develop collective processes in both breadth and depth. A high level of breadth in this environment ensures greater use of knowledge dispersed across the organization, and greater depth in the process ensures strategies can be quickly and successfully implemented (Nonaka, 1988; Nutt, 1989). DISCUSSION

The typology of ideal types provides basic models of the strategy-making process. The ideal types are based on a synthesis of earlier theoretical and empirical research. This synthesis illustrates that multiple process models exist and their usefulness depends on the context in which the firm operates. Typology elements focus on how strategy is formulated and implemented, who is involved in the process, and the impact of uncertainties in the environment on the most appropriate process. The direct relationships between dynamism and the deliberate-emergent dimension and complexity and the individualistic-collective dimension have been supported in the literature (Harrington, 2004; Harrington et al., 2004; Rhyne, 1985). In addition, the typology discussion points to explicit elements of the deliberate-emergent dimension, generally, absent from the empirical literature. Although these relationships appear to hold true on average across firms in a given environment, other important elements of service industries in general and foodservice firms in particular are missing from this discussion. For example, the unique nature of service organizations and operational-level, unexpected contingencies create a variety of adaptability and communication needs (Ritchie & Riley, 2004). The foodservice industry is made up of a combination of multiunit firms and independent operators. To complicate matters further, foodservice firms operate under a variety of ownership structures, vastly differing organizational sizes, geographically dispersed business units, and operate in significantly different competitive environments (market segments and locations). This disparity in foodservice firm types has important implications on managers’selection of strategy-making process models across the organization and for researchers attempting to undertake studies in this area. Practitioners and researchers of the foodservice industry (and other service industries for that matter) should consider relationships at a variety of levels to appropriately operationalize or analyze the strategy-making process across firms. Due to the aforementioned characteristics in foodservice, it seems likely that foodservice firms will utilize multiple models of the strategy-making process simultaneously based on the context and level of the organization. Ritchie and Riley (2004) found that lower levels of the hierarchy in multiunit-service firms were where organizations coped with uncertainty in the environment—shielding the uncertainty from higher levels of the organization. Bradach (1997) found that quick-service restaurant chains utilized multiple forms of management in the strategic process to simultaneously balance a need for control and adaptability. These findings illustrate the need to utilize an adaptive approach at the unit level to


384


Figure 2 Proposed Relationships in the Strategy-Making Process (SMP)

Environmental Uncertainty: Degree and type of Environmental Dynamism Degree and Type of Environmental Complexity

Internal Context: Organizational structure: size and ownership Organizational culture: shared values and institutional factors

SMP Dimensions

Deliberate-Emergent Continuum: Intended strategies, modifications, replacements, additions, and realized strategies Individualistic-Collective Continuum: Breadth and Depth of participation in the strategic process

Outcomes: Profits, growth, firm success, control, adaptability, and innovations

maintain adaptability and use a linear approach at the corporate level of a firm to maintain control and linear strategic direction. Figure 2 provides a more holistic view based on the strategy-making process typology and hierarchical considerations discussed in the following sections. The figure incorporates the ideas and relationships of the strategy-making process typology along with important considerations present for firms in foodservice, hospitality, and tourism industries. Solid arrows in Figure 2 represent proposed direct relationships between the external environment and internal context on the strategy-making process dimensions and ultimately the direct effects on organizational outcomes. Dotted arrows represent the reciprocal or feedback effects between the proposed elements present in Figure 2. In addition to the basic strategy-making process dimensions suggested in the typology, the following discussion points to the need for researchers and industry managers to consider the level of analysis when designing studies or designing strategic processes for a firm. It is also apparent that the effects of dynamism and complexity are determined by the degree and type of each. In addition to the impact of the external context, the internal context should have significant effects on the strategy-making process dimensions as foodservice firm size and ownership structure have been shown to be important considerations (Bradach, 1997; Parsa, 1999; Schmelzer & Olsen, 1994). Organizational culture is also an important factor in this regard. Organizational members’ willingness to participate in the strategic process and/or accept decisions from above can have a significant impact on an appropriate strategy-making process. Finally, the relationship between the strategy-making process dimensions, the environment, and the internal context should have an impact on organizational outcomes. Although these issues are important for a variety of industries, the foodservice industry is used as an example in the following discussion.



385

Applications and Considerations in Foodservice

Recent research indicates that the foodservice industry is relatively high in environmental complexity and relatively low in environmental dynamism when compared to other manufacturing and service industries (Harrington, 2004). This indicates that on average foodservice firms should utilize an integrative model in the strategy-making process, which is relatively deliberate and relatively collective in nature. But, this basic assessment does not consider several related considerations. For managers, these considerations include level of analysis, degree and type of dynamism, degree and type of complexity, type of ownership, and the size of the organizations (see Figure 2) (Bradach, 1997; Parsa, 1999; Ritchie & Riley, 2004; Schmelzer & Olsen, 1994). Researchers have suggested that hospitality executives have difficulty in accurately evaluating the environment, predicting the future, and determining whether a change is an opportunity or threat (Okumus, 2004). An empirical study by Harrington and Kendall (2005) found that informed managers’ self-reported assessment of dynamism and complexity closely matched archival measures of dynamism and complexity when a similar domain was ensured. Other researchers have indicated that informed managers provide a reliable view of organizational processes and the firm task environment (Powell, 1992). Defining and interpreting the external environment may be an ability that is tacit and provides managers with intuitive insights into the state of the environment (i.e. Stacey, 2003). Although tacit knowledge is hard to formalize, it is derived from a learned-bydoing approach that taps subjective insights, intuitions, and schemas developed through experience. Therefore, knowledgeable managers should have a reasonable ability to evaluate the state of the task environment and design strategymaking processes to maximize firm performance. This ability may lead industry leaders to utilize differing strategy-making process models based on industry segment, degree and type of dynamism or complexity, the level of the hierarchy involved, and the level of strategy or tactic. Level of Analysis

The first question regarding the appropriate strategy-making process for a foodservice firm has to do with the level of analysis. For a practicing industry professional, the distinction of level seems critical when assessing the nature of the external environment. Much of the research in both the generic business literature and the hospitality literature can be described as a “lumping” process at a relatively broad level of analysis. The general literature utilizes a lumping approach to provide results that are generalizable across firms. Hospitality researchers have in many cases lumped together more than one industry into a study and the resulting findings into a hospitality industry umbrella rather than limiting the generalizability to a specific sector of the industry. Although this approach is effective for increasing the external validity of research findings, practitioners need to focus on an appropriate level of analysis for their firm. Differences in the environment within foodservice (or other service industries) can vary as much as it can when compared across industries (Kendall &


386


Harrington, 2004; Lovelock, 1983). Therefore, managers (and researchers) should be careful to explicitly determine the level of environmental analysis to ensure the appropriate selection of strategy-making process model. Harrington and Kendall (2004) found that quick-service restaurants were more likely than full-service restaurants to use individualistic processes when implementing strategies. This finding supports Harrington’s (2001) suggestion that limited-service restaurants operate in an environment of less uncertainty in general and are more likely to successfully use a more classical strategy-making process approach than firms in a more complex and uncertain full-service segment. But, as Bradach (1997) suggested, firms in the quick-service segment may need to utilize multiple management styles to balance the simultaneous need for participation and control. In addition to the consideration of industry-segment membership and the general environment, the decision to select a particular model from the typology should also be determined by the task environment of the individual geographically dispersed unit and the level of strategy. Level, Environment, and the Strategic Process in Foodservice

As defined earlier, dynamism relates to the level of volatility in the environment. Generally, researchers have used the estimation or a measure of the historical volatility in industry-level sales or earnings as a proxy for dynamism and its effects on strategic change (Harrington & Kendall, 2005). In a foodservice firm, managers should consider the level of analysis in terms of volatility and strategy. Volatility can be predictable such as seasonal or day-of-the-week business cycles or can be unpredictable such as a new competitor entering the marketplace, a change in demand due to an unforeseen event, or the introduction of an innovation that changes the ability of a firm to compete. In addition, although the general business literature and its associated textbooks have primarily discussed strategy at the corporate and business-unit levels, process-related theorists (i.e. Quinn, 1980) have long professed that what is considered strategy depends on the individual’s level in the organization. A myopic focus on corporate and business-unit strategies does not fully reflect the unique characteristics of the foodservice industry. Like other service industries, foodservice is made up of a system of geographically dispersed units that compete within a constant process of innovation and entrepreneurial activity. These industry characteristics may pressure individual units to adapt and handle unexpected contingencies in the task environment but may pressure business-unit or corporate-level managers to utilize a linear or entrepreneurial model in the strategic process to ensure consistency and control. Thus, multiple models may be needed and are best applied based on the degree and type of dynamism or complexity. Degree and type of dynamism. Although the degree of dynamism is explicit in its relationship with the deliberate-emergent nature of the strategy-making process, implicit in this discussion is the assumption that the level of volatility in the environment will be incremental in nature. Thus, it is assumed that one driver of the decision to formulate strategy in a deliberate or emergent process is whether



387

this incremental change in the environment is relatively low or relatively high. This follows Schumpeter’s (1950) description of capitalism as a continual process of creative destruction. Incremental changes in the environment create a continuous change in the nature of competition with a constant series of competitor actions and reactions, innovations, and technological or political-driven changes. But, as Schumpeter (1950) points out, this change can be evolutionary (i.e. incremental) or revolutionary (i.e. radical and quantum changes in the competitive landscape). Therefore, the relationship between dynamism and a deliberateemergent process is bounded within an incremental condition. An environmental assessment between an evolutionary or revolutionary process can be articulated at a variety of levels: industry, industry segment, or unit location. The most common proxy for dynamism is the volatility of industry sales over a 5-year period (Harrington & Kendall, 2005). Firm A operates in an environment that has a relatively high and incremental level of dynamism. Based on the proposed strategy-making process typology presented earlier, firms in this environment should utilize a basic model that is predominately emergent in nature to give firms the ability to modify or add strategies to reflect changes in the competitive environment. A second firm (Firm B), while having the same level of average dynamism over a period of time, operates in a completely different environment. In Firm B’s situation, the change is revolutionary in nature, and the use of a predominately deliberate approach would be most effective leading up to and following the revolutionary change in the competitive environment. The concept of degree of dynamism can be conceived at a variety of organizational levels as well. At the individual unit level, incremental competitor changes may involve continuous service or product innovations by current competitors, and revolutionary competitor changes may involve new competitors entering the marketplace, severe changes in traffic patterns, and so on. Dynamic changes (regardless of degree) appear more likely in a competitive environment with a greater likelihood of entrepreneurial entry and innovation. In addition to the degree of dynamism, an assessment of dynamism and its impact on the strategy-making process depends on type. Dynamism in the general environment can be derived from political, economic, sociocultural, or technical factors whereas factors in the task environment include “suppliers, competitors, customers, regulators and other interest groups” (Okumus, 2004, p. 130). When considering the type of dynamism, it is important to assess and match the level of the environment affected by this change with a comparable level of the firm and strategy-making process model likely to achieve the needed level of adaptability and flexibility to successfully address the problem. For example, a drastic change in government regulation or innovation in technology may affect all firms and thus strategies across all levels of the industry. A change in customer demand or competitor actions may affect a firm at the industry level, segment level, or individual unit level. Therefore, to deal with varying degrees and types of dynamism, foodservice firms may use multiple models of the strategy-making process simultaneously (corporate, business-unit, and individual unit) to allow a more emergent or deliberate approach as needed (i.e. Bradach, 1997; Parsa, 1999).


388


Degree and type of complexity. The degree of environmental complexity is central to the proposition defining the strategy-making process model used by firms in foodservice and other industries. As a whole, the foodservice industry is relatively complex, and firms using a more collective or high involvement approach in the industry have been shown to achieve higher average performance (Harrington, 2004). But, the level of individualistic-collective nature of the strategic process varies significantly across segments of the industry. A more collective approach may be achieved utilizing expertise and receiving input from outside the organization, inside the organization, or both. It seems likely that a higher degree of complexity or areas of complexity outside the expertise of organizational members of the firm should require utilizing external consultants or outsourcing of activities. Therefore, the degree of complexity as well as the type has implications on answering the “who” question in foodservice or other firms. These elements of complexity drive who should be involved internally and externally in the strategy-making process to achieve desired outcomes. Foodservice firms may utilize differing levels of depth or breadth of involvement in the process depending on the complexity of the issue. Ritchie and Riley (2004) suggest that the level of communication complexity (who is involved) in the process is driven by the source of the problem, its severity, and the character of the organization. This supports the contention that organizations should match the internal complexity with the complexity or nature of the task environment (Ashmos, Duchon, McDaniel, & Huonker, 2002), hence, supporting the simultaneous use of individualistic and collective approaches within the same firm. Using Multiple Strategy-Making Process Models

To illustrate the use of multiple strategy-making process models, the quickservice restaurant segment is considered for a specific example. In general, it may seem that the quick-service restaurant (QSR) environment lends itself to achieving greater efficiency by utilizing a deliberate and fairly individualistic approach. As suggested in earlier research (Harrington, 2001), this segment of the restaurant industry is more homogenous and, at the segment level, has been less uncertain. The environment is more easily understood and decision makers can utilize a more deliberate approach with success. Theoretically, the nature of the organizational form in this segment indicates that an individualistic approach can be successful. The franchise form should allow a top-down approach from the corporate level to individual units specifying product specifications, service levels, and marketing campaigns. The makeup of the workforce, which is predominately parttime and transient (National Restaurant Association, 2003), allows the franchisee/ entrepreneur to utilize an individualistic approach successfully at the unit level as well. This general proposition is supported by earlier findings suggesting that Bourgeois and Brodwin’s (1984) Change Model, which was described as predominately individualistic, provided increased levels of profits for franchises in the QSR segment (Parsa, 1999). Contrary to these proposed relationships, Bradach (1997) found that QSR firms use a plural form to manage the restaurant chain and strategy making. The



389

literature portrays the corporate-franchise structure as one of bureaucratic managers versus local owner-operators, but he found the arrangement to be generally a “large monolithic hierarchy (a company arrangement)” and “a federation of semi-autonomous small hierarchies (a franchise arrangement)” (Bradach, 1997, p. 285). Therefore, the literature has ignored the importance of the strategy-making process as a mutual learning process between company representatives and franchisees in a chain situation. The use of multiple models enables firms to leverage company strengths of controlling and providing overriding directions for the firm. Franchise units strengths are in understanding the needs of local markets and having a willingness to champion ideas up the chain to top management (Bradach, 1997). This finding supporting the use of multiple strategy-making process models illustrates the impact of ownership structure and organizational culture of a firm with implications for the appropriate strategy-making model(s). Organizational Structure and Culture: Internal Context Implications

Okumus (2003) suggested that organizational structure and culture affects strategy content and influence the process of strategy implementation. The importance of organizational structure, in general, and size or number of units, in particular, is supported by Schmelzer and Olsen (1994). Their study indicated that organizational size and number of restaurant units has an impact on the decisionmaking process and managers’ level of perceived environmental uncertainty. Harrington (2004) found that size had an impact on the equality of involvement across organizational levels in the strategic process across industries. Further research by Harrington and Kendall (2004) indicates that the number of employees and units in a restaurant firm have a direct impact on involvement in the strategic process by managers and other organizational members. Parsa (1999) and Bradach (1997) supported the proposition of the direct importance of ownership structure on strategy-making processes or the number of models utilized. Their findings point to the importance of matching strategy-making process models to whether multiple-unit restaurant firms were corporate owned, franchised, or a combination. Figure 2 indicates a direct relationship between size and ownership structure on the deliberate-emergent and individualistic-collective dimensions. In addition to proposed main effects of the external environment, appropriate models are driven (in part) by characteristics of the firm such as the distribution of power and knowledge throughout the organization, existing communication networks, and potential challenges from other organizational process variables: operational planning and procedures for resource allocation (Okumus, 2003). A significant literature stream exists that indicates an influence between culture and organizational processes (Mintzberg et al., 1998). Firm culture has an impact on communication, its coordination, and the willingness of organizational members to cooperate. Culture is generally defined as an enduring and shared understanding of traditions, values, and beliefs (Okumus, 2003). Therefore, the ability of management to implement new or additional strategy-making process models may be difficult. But, decisions on the appropriate strategy-making model


390


or models are dependent on some consideration of organizational culture. For instance, team members’ willingness to accept directives from above, the ability of ideas to flow up and down the organization, and firm managers’ ability to be effective operating with multiple models simultaneously are important considerations to ponder. Although the strategy-making process typology is based on relationships with the external environment, the impact of organizational culture cannot be ignored or denied. A basic assumption of the organizational culture literature appears to be in alignment with that of the environmental literature (i.e. population ecology, contingency theory). This underlying assumption is that culture reflects learned responses for survival derived from pressures placed on the organization by its external environment. An organizational culture is developed to ensure that responses follow norms to increase the likelihood of success based on external demands for adaptation and internal integration. Although culture can shape processes, organizational processes also can create and modify culture (Saffold, 1988). Thus, culture can serve as a control mechanism to ensure processes follow the demands of the external environment as well as serving as a mechanism to prevent processes from following the demands of the environment. Other researchers have acknowledged the close relationship between strategic management topic areas and culture; Weick (1985) argued that culture research and strategic management research are opposite sides of the same coin. Organizational Outcomes

The final box in Figure 2 is outcomes. Outcomes can take a variety of forms and include profits, growth, control, adaptability, and innovativeness. The importance of each outcome type varies by firm and may vary by organizational level or geographic location. The importance of achieving desired organizational outcomes is not new and is at the heart of strategic management. Although it is apparent that the external context and internal context have direct effects on strategy-making process dimensions and ultimately firm outcomes, the iterative or reciprocal nature of organizational processes and outcomes on both contexts should not be overlooked. Figure 2 includes dotted arrows leading from organizational outcomes and strategy-making process dimensions to environmental uncertainty and the internal context. These reverse directional arrows indicate that the impact of context on process is not a linear one. This process is more likely to be of an iterative nature that includes a cycle of feedback loops in multiple directions (Farjoun, 2002). CONCLUSION

Organizational research has been touting the importance of process on firm performance for several decades (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Hart & Banbury, 1994). The strategy-making process has been described as a key process that requires careful consideration in design to allow a fit with the demands of the external environment and internal structure. The underlying proposition of this discus-



391

sion is that a fit between external and internal firm characteristics with strategymaking process dimensions (deliberate or emergent and individualistic or collective) permits a firm to make more effective and efficient use of firm resources, provides required amounts of information processing, and smoothes or speeds implementation. Ultimately, this results in better strategies, which will allow firms to achieve desired outcomes (Bradach, 1997; Harrington, 2004; Parsa, 1999). A main contribution of this article is a synthesis of primary factors in the strategy-making process proposed implicitly and explicitly in the general business and hospitality literatures. This synthesis provides a typology of ideal types for expressing relationships between the external environment and two primary dimensions inherent in the strategic process. The dimensions in the strategymaking process typology are salient concepts that allow a firm to adapt to external environmental pressures and provide internal integration. Although these ideas are grounded in previous theory and classification systems (Ansoff, 1987; Chaffee, 1985; Mintzberg, 1973; Mintzberg et al., 1998), they are presented here in a more meaningful form. The linear model is described as using a top-down, analytical and rational approach where decisions are integrated with each other over time. The integrative model integrates strategies and decisions as well, but places special emphasis on integrating the needs and knowledge of multiple stakeholders into the process. The entrepreneurial model tries to maximize adaptability and flexibility with an emergent approach but maintains a centralized strategy-making process because of time constraints and lower complexity. The adaptive model attempts to maximize the adaptability of the firm to both the external and internal environments. This process needs to be the most fully developed because both high complexity and volatility are at the forefront of this environment. The hospitality and tourism industry is composed of a variety of industries with significantly different business segments within industries. This diversity in type of firms and industries within the hospitality and tourism umbrella has significant implications for differences between appropriate organizational practices used across firms in a variety of environments. The continuing tradition in hospitality and tourism schools is a rather myopic focus on the planning approach to the strategic process (i.e., Okumus & Wong, 2004). This myopic focus may provide a partial explanation for mimicry by hospitality and tourism leaders in the continuing rational approach to strategy regardless of environment as a signal to key stakeholders of symbolic legitimacy (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). A key contribution of this discussion is insight into the apparent need to utilize multiple models of the strategy-making process simultaneously. The discussion section provides understanding into appropriate choices of strategy-making process models for firms in the foodservice industry. This conversation and Figure 2 express the need for researchers and managers to consider the degree and type of dynamism and complexity, firm size, level of analysis, level of strategy or tactic, culture, and institutional factors. In addition, the discussion conveys a need to evaluate the potential requirement to utilize multiple models simultaneously as a method to achieve conflicting firm objectives of control and adaptability. These prescriptive recommendations are based on earlier research specific to the food-


392


service industry and provide a clearer picture of salient relationships in the “how” and “who” of the strategy-making process. Future research should be done to evaluate, describe, and define strategymaking processes used across firms in the hospitality and tourism industry. The operationalization of the deliberate-emergent dimension measuring both deliberate elements and emergent elements would contribute significantly in this regard. The individualistic-collective dimension should be operationalized considering the concepts of both breadth and depth. This could be accomplished utilizing measures of communication networks or profiles of the individualistic-collective dimension during the strategic process. Researchers need to clearly differentiate between levels of analysis as part of the study design to more accurately determine where and when multiple models of the strategy-making process are or should be used simultaneously. REFERENCES Allison, G. (1971). Essence of decision. New York: Little, Brown & Co. Ansoff, H. I. (1987). The emerging paradigm of strategic behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 8(6), 501-515. Ashmos, D. P., Duchon, D., McDaniel, R. R., Jr., & Huonker, J. W. (2002). What a mess! Participation as a simple managerial rule to complexify organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2), 189-206. Bourgeois, L. J., III, & Brodwin, D. R. (1984). Strategic implementation: Five approaches to an elusive phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 241-264. Bradach, J. L. (1997). Using the plural form in the management of restaurant chains. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 276-303. Brews, P. J., & Hunt, M. R. (1999). Learning to plan and planning to learn: Resolving the planning school/learning school debate. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), 889913. Bryson, J. M., & Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of major products. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 319-337. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock. Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three models of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10, 89-98. Choudhury, V., & Sampler, J. (1997). Information specificity and environmental scanning: An economic perspective. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 21(1), 25-53. Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52-73. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1999). Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: The moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decisionmaking teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 389-402. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230251.



393

Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196-1250. Farjoun, M. (2002). Towards an organic perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7), 561-594. Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489-505. Grandori, A. (1984). A prescriptive contingency view of organizational decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(2), 192-209. Harrington, R. J. (2001). Environmental uncertainty within the hospitality industry: Exploring the measure of dynamism and complexity between restaurant segments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 25(4), 386-398. Harrington, R. J. (2004). The environment, involvement, and performance: Implications for the strategic process of food service firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(4), 317-341. Harrington, R. J., & Kendall, K. W. (2004). Firm performance and strategy implementation success: Direct and moderating effects of size and involvement. Proceedings of AsiaPacific CHRIE, 2, 290-302. Harrington, R. J., & Kendall, K. W. (2005). How certain are you measuring environmental dynamism and complexity? A multitrait-multimethod approach. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29(2), PAGES. Harrington, R. J., Lemak, D., Reed, R., & Kendall, K. W. (2004). A question of fit: The links among environment, strategy formulation and performance. Journal of Business and Management, 10(1), 15-38. Hart, S. (1992). An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 327-351. Hart, S., & Banbury, C. (1994). How strategy-making process can make a difference. Strategic Management Journal, 15(4), 251-269. Hofer, C., & Schendel, D. E. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. Kendall, K. W., & Harrington, R. J. (2004). The competitive environment: Commercial restaurant operations, on-site foodservice and other industries. Manuscript submitted for publication. Lovelock, C. H. (1983). Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 9-20. Mintzberg, H. (1973). Strategy-making in three modes. California Management Review, 16(2), 44-53. Mintzberg, H. (1990). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategic safari. New York: Free Press. Mintzberg, H., & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formulation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(2), 160-197. Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257-272. National Restaurant Association. (2003). Restaurant industry operations report. Washington, DC: Author and Deloitte & Touche LLP.


394


Nonaka, I. (1988). Toward middle-up-down management: Accelerating information creation. Sloan Management Review, 29(3), 9-18. Nutt, P. C. (1989). Selecting tactics to implement strategic plans. Strategic Management Journal, 10(2), 145-161. Okumus, F. (2001). Towards a strategy implementation framework. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(7), 327-338. Okumus, F. (2002). Can hospitality researchers contribute to strategic management literature? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(2), 105-110. Okumus, F. (2003). A framework to implement strategies in organizations. Management Decision, 41(9), 871-882. Okumus, F. (2004). Potential challenges of employing a formal environmental scanning approach in hospitality organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(2), 123-143. Okumus, F., & Roper, A. (1999). A review of disparate approaches to strategy implementation in hospitality firms. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 23(1), 20-38. Okumus, F., & Wong, K. (2004). A critical review and evaluation of teaching methods of strategic management in tourism and hospitality schools. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 16(2), 22-33. Olsen, M. D., West, J., & Tse, E. C. (1998). Strategic management in the hospitality industry (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Parsa, H. G. (1999). Interaction of strategy implementation and power perceptions in franchise systems: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 45(2), 173185. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press. Powell, T. C. (1992). Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), 119-134. Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change logical incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Ritchie, B., & Riley, M. (2004). The role of the multi-unit manager within the strategy and structure relationship; Evidence from the unexpected. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(2), 145-161. Rhyne, L. C. (1985). The relationship of information usage characteristics to planning system sophistication: An empirical examination. Strategic Management Journal, 6(4), 319-337. Saffold, G. S., III. (1988). Cultural traits, strength, and organizational performance: Moving beyond “strong” culture. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 546-558. Sanchez, R. (2003). Integrating transaction costs theory and real options theory. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4), 267-282. Schmelzer, C. D., & Olsen, M. D. (1994). A data based strategy implementation framework for companies in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 13(4), 347-359. Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers. Stacey, R. D. (2003). Strategic management and organisational dynamics (4th ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.



395

Weick, K. (1985). The significance of corporate culture. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 381-389). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Whittington, R. (2001). What is strategy—And does it matter? (2nd ed.). London: Thomson Learning. Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261.

Submitted April 1, 2004 First Revision Submitted August 30, 2004 Final Revision Submitted December 23, 2004 Accepted January 3, 2005 Refereed Anonymously Robert J. Harrington (e-mail: [email protected]), Ph.D., is associate professor in the School of Hospitality and Tourism Management at the University of Guelph (Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada).
