Constructing ‘the history of strategic management’: A critical analysis of the academic discourse

Abstract

The development of the strategic management field has been outlined in many ‘histories’ in recent years. This article analyses a sample of those histories using a Critical Discourse Analysis framework in order to understand how they are constructed, what common textual features they exhibit and what effects they may have on the future development of the field. Our analysis shows a neglect of historiographic method in the construction of the histories and a tendency to present the field as progressing in a teleological, evolutionary fashion. We suggest that the histories are constructed in order to support the continuing development of the field and to secure its demarcation from other fields, and that this may demonstrate a degree of self-interest on the part of strategy scholars.

Keywords::

• strategic management
• history
• discourse
• social construction

Notes

^1.Greenley, “Does Strategic Planning Improve”; Boyd, “Strategic Planning,” Capon, Farley, and Hulbert, “Strategic Planning”; McKiernan and Morris, “Strategic Planning.”

^2.Bowman, Singh, and Thomas, “The Domain”; Nag, Hambrick, and Chen, “What is Strategic Management?.”

^3.Grint, Management.

^4.Brown and Thompson, “A Narrative Approach”; Mueller et al., “Politics and Strategy Practice”; Paroutis, Collinson and Mckeown, “Building castles from sand: Unlocking CEO mythopoetical behavior in Hewlett Packard from 1978 to 2005”

^5.Halliday, “New Ways of Meaning.”

^6.Booth and Rowlinson, “Management and Organizational History”; Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization.”

^7. The term “boilerplate” is used in legal practice and journalism to denote a standard form of words that can be used repeatedly without change. For example, see Stark, “Negotiating and Drafting”, (2003). Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization” (2006) uses the phrases to describe the standardised, formulaic histories of organization theory to be found in textbooks.

^8.Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization.”

^9.Jeremy, “Business History and Strategy.”

^10.Carr, What is History?

^11.Fischer, Historian's Fallacies, xxi.

^12. Ibid.

^13.Hassard and Rowlinson, “Historical Methods in Management.”

^14.Denzin and Lincoln, Handbook of Qualitative Research, 375.

^15.Norman, “Telling it,” 156.

^16.Alvesson and Sköldberg, Reflexive Methodology.

^17.Bryman and Bell, Business Research Methods.

^18.Kieser, “Why Organization Theory”; Burrell, Pandemonium, Booth and Rowlinson, “Management and Organizational History.”

^19.Peci and Vieira, “The Discursive Foundations.”

^20.Booth and Rowlinson, “Management and Organizational History,” Zald, “Spinning Disciplines.”

^21.Toms and Wilson, “Scale, Scope and Accountability”; Higgins and Toms, “Explaining corporate success”; Chandler, Scale and Scope.

^22.Learned et al., Business Policy.

^23.Peters and Waterman, In Search of Excellence.

^24.Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization.”

^25. Ibid.

^26. Ibid.

^27. Ibid, 42.

^28.Kuhn, The Structure; Toulmin, Human Understanding.

^29.Novicevic et al., “Historicism in Narrative Reviews,” 343.

^30. Ibid.; Pollman, “Coherence and Ambiguity.”

^31.Becher and Trowler, Academic Tribes and Territories.

^32.Alvesson and Sköldberg, Reflexive Methodology.

^33.Myers, “The Pragmatics of Politeness”; Ivanič, Writing and Identity; Hyland, “Persuasion and Context.”

^34.Ivanič, Writing and Identity; Harwood, “Nowhere has Anyone Attempted.”

^35.Hyland, “Persuasion and Context.”

^36.Myers, “The Pragmatics of Politeness”; Swales et al. “Consider This.”

^37.Ivanič, Writing and Identity.

^38.Fairclough, Discourse and Social Change.

^39.Fairclough and Wodak, “Critical Discourse Analysis.”

^40.Kress and van Leeuwen, Reading Images.

^41.Van Dijk, Discourse as Structure; Van Dijk, Discourse and Power.

^42.Reisigl and Wodak, “The Discourse Historical Method.”

^43.Grant, Hardy, and Oswick, Sage Handbook; Fairclough, “Discourse Analysis”; Chouliaraki and Fairclough, “Critical Discourse Analysis.”

^44.Clark and Ivanič, The Politics of Writing; Ivanič, Writing and Identity.

^45.Phillips, Sewell, and Jaynes, “Applying Critical Discourse”; Vaara, Sorsa, and Palli, “On the Force.”

^46.Thomas, “The Recontextualization of Management.”

^47.Phillips, Sewell, and Jaynes, “Applying Critical Discourse Analysis”; Fairclough, Analysing Discourse, 220.

^48.Fairclough, Analysing Discourse; Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar.

^49.Chouliaraki and Fairclough, Discourse in Late Modernity; Fairclough, Analysing Discourse.

^50.Chilton, “Missing Links.”

^51.Fairclough, Analysing Discourse.

^52.Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar, 616, our emphasis.

^53.Fairclough, Analysing Discourse.

^54.Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar.

^55.Hodge and Kress, Social Semiotics.

^56.Fairclough, Discourse and Social Change.

^57.Ivanič, Writing and Identity.

^58.Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization.”

^59.Fairclough, Analysing Discourse; Stubbs, Text and Corpus Analysis; McEnery and Wilson, Corpus Linguistics.

^60.Adcroft and Willis, “A Snapshot of Strategy.”

^61.Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro, “Changes.”

^62.Cummings and Daellenbach, “A Guide.”

^63. One can imagine the willingness of editors to welcome review articles that focus on their own journal and the effect this may have on citations and impact factors.

^64. We should also note that citation indices only account for those readers who have subsequently cited material in published work, and generally only measures the influence of material on an extremely narrow set of people, that is, publishing academics.

^65. Novicevic et al., “Historicism in Narrative Reviews.”

^66.Pettigrew and Pye, “Special Issue Introduction”; Jarzabkowski and Spee, “Strategy as Practice.”

^67.Frederickson, Perspectives on Strategic Management; McKiernan, Historical Evolution; Pettigrew, Thomas, and Whittington, Handbook of Strategy; Faulkner and Campbell, The Oxford Handbook.

^68.Volberda and Efring, Rethinking Strategy; Jenkins, Ambrosini, and Collier, Advanced Strategic Management; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel, Strategy Safari.

^69.Bracker, “The Historical Development”; Cummings, “Briefcase: The First Strategists.”

^70.McKiernan, “Introduction.”

^71.Carter, Clegg, and Kornberger, A Very Short, 2.

^72.Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization.”

^73.Carter, Clegg, and Kornberger, “Reframing Strategy.”

^74.Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization.”

^75.Bracker, “The Historical Development”; Cummings, “Briefcase: The First Strategists”; McKiernan, “Introduction.”

^76.Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization”; McKiernan, “Introduction.”

^77.McKiernan, “Introduction”; Bowman, Singh, and Thomas, “The Domain”; Venkatramen and Subramaniam, “Theorizing the Future”; Kay, McKiernan, and Faulkner, “The History of Strategy.”

^78.Hitt, Gimeno, and Hoskisson, “Current and Future Research”; Hoskisson et al., “Theory and Research”; Ketchen, Boyd, and Bergh, “Research Methodology.”

^79.Knights and Morgan, “Corporate Strategy”; Hoskisson et al., “Theory and Research.”

^80.McKiernan, “Introduction”; Hitt, Gimeno, and Hoskisson, “Current and Future Research”; Kay, McKiernan, and Faulkner, “The History of Strategy.”

^81.Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro, “Changes”; Cummings and Daellenbach, “A Guide.”

^82.Bowman, Singh, and Thomas, “The Domain”; Kay, McKiernan, and Faulkner, “The History of Strategy.”

^83.Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro, “Changes”; Cummings and Daellenbach, “A Guide”; Boyd, Finkelstein, and Gove, “How Advanced.”

^84.Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece, “Fundamental Issues in Strategy.”

^85. Ibid; Wernerfelt, “A Resource-Based View”; Barney, “Firms, Resources”; Penrose, The Theory.

^86.Pettigrew, Thomas, and Whittington, Handbook of Strategy; Faulkner and Campbell, The Oxford Handbook; McKiernan, Historical Evolution.

^87. Pollman, “Coherence and Ambiguity.”

^88.Booth and Rowlinson, “Management and Organizational History”; Taylor, Bell, and Cooke, “Business History.”

^89.Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization.”

^90.Kay, McKiernan, and Faulkner, “The History of Strategy.”

^91.Bowman, Singh, and Thomas, “The Domain”; Hoskisson et al., “Theory and Research”; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and LampelStrategy Safari.

^92.Knights and Morgan, “Corporate Strategy.”

^93.Hoskisson et al., “Theory and Research.”

^94.Kay, McKiernan, and Faulkner, “The History of Strategy.”

^95.Cummings and Daellenbach, “A Guide.”

^96.McKiernan, “Introduction.”

^97.McKiernan and Carter, “The Millennium Nexus.”

^98.Ketchen, Boyd, and Bergh, “Research Methodology”; Hambrick, “The Adolescence.”

^99.Bracker, “The Historical Development”; Cummings, “Briefcase: The First Strategists”; Armstrong, “In Search of Seminality.” Armstrong's critique of Knights and Morgan also raises the issue that histories of strategic management tend to conflate management practice and academic thinking; that the histories reflect changing management activity as well as intellectual ideas.

^100.Hitt, Gimeno, and Hoskisson, “Current and Future Research”; Hoskisson et al., “Theory and Research.”

^101.Mahoney and McGahan, “The Field.”

^102.Farjoun, “The End of Strategy?.”

^103.Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization.”

^104.Pettigrew, Thomas, and Whittington, “Strategic Management”; March, “Continuity and Change.”

^105.Bowman, Singh, and Thomas, “The Domain”; Venkatramen and Subramaniam, “Theorizing the Future.”

^106.March, “Continuity and Change, 278.

^107.McKiernan, “Introduction,” xv.

^108.Bowman, Singh, and Thomas, “The Domain,” 31; Hoskisson et al., “Theory and Research,” 418.

^109.Huff, The Continuing Relevance,” 123, our emphasis.

^110.Jarzabkowski and Whittington, “Directions”; Whittingham et al., “Taking Strategy Seriously.”

^111.Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization.”

^112.Chandler, Strategy and Structure; Learned et al., Business Policy; Ansoff, Corporate Strategy; Porter, Competitive Strategy; Porter, Competitive Advantage; Penrose, The Theory; Wernerfelt, “A Resource-based View”; Barney, “Firms, Resources.”

^113.Venkatramen and Subramaniam, “Theorizing the Future.”

^114.Jacques, “History, Historiography and Organization.”

^115.Shrivastava, “Is Strategic Management”; Knights and Morgan, “Corporate Strategy”; Alvesson and Willmott, “Strategic Management as Domination.”

^116.Pettigrew, Thomas, and Whittington, “Strategic Management”; Bowman, Singh, and Thomas, “The Domain”; Venkatramen and Subramaniam, “Theorizing the Future.”

^117.Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital; Burawoy, Manufacturing Consent; Burawoy, The Politics of Production; Thurley and Wood, “Industrial Relations and Management”; Rose and Jones, “Managerial Strategies.”

^118.Armstrong, “In Search of Seminality”; Knights and Morgan, “Corporate Strategy.”

^119.Chandler, Strategy and Structure.

^120.Wildavsky, “If Planning is Everything.”

^121.Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 31.

^122.Carter, Clegg, and Kornberger, “Reframing Strategy.”

^123.Carter, Clegg, and Kornberger, A Very Short.

^124.Thomas, “Strategizing is Organizing.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Pete Thomas

Pete Thomas is a senior lecturer in the Department of Organization, Work and Technology and has research interests in discourse analysis, strategy, postcolonial theory and professionalisation.

John Wilson

John Wilson is Director of Newcastle University Business School, where he is also professor of strategy. As a business historian, he has published extensively in this field, as well as being executive editor of Business History.

Owen Leeds

Owen Leeds is Programme Director for the MSc in Business Management at University of Central Lancashire, where he teaches business strategy and teamwork and leadership.