Central Perspectives and Debates in Strategic Change Research

• Published date: 01 April 2018
• Date: 01 April 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12141
• Author: Johanna Müller,Sven Kunisch

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20, 457–482 (2018)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12141

Central Perspectives and Debates in

Strategic Change Research

Johanna M¨

uller and Sven Kunisch

University of St. Gallen, Dufourstrasse 40a, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland

Corresponding author email: sven.kunisch@unisg.ch

This paper appraises and evaluates more than three decades of empirical research on

strategic change. Strategic change research has traditionally built on either the deter-

ministic view or the voluntaristic view – twoopposing perspectives with fundamentally

different assumptions about the influence of managers on the fortunesof organizations.

In addition, a dialectical view on strategic change, which aims to bridge the two tra-

ditional views, has emerged. Despite the richness and value of research within these

three perspectives, the continued accumulation of isolated and idiosyncratic insights

adds little to the understanding of strategic change. In this paper, therefore, the au-

thors assess, contrast and integrate research across the three perspectives in order to

foster one cumulative body of knowledge about strategic change and to provide guid-

ance for future research. Based on an analysis of 119 studies published in the leading

academic journals in the fields of strategy and management, they consolidate existing

knowledge and identify shortcomings in the cumulative body of research. On the basis

of this assessment concerning prior research foci, study designs and assumptions, the

authors propose four pathways for future research across the three perspectives that

they believe can help foster full understanding of strategicchange: (1) examinations of

different types, processes and outcomes of strategic change; (2) expansion of the scope

of actors considered in relation to strategic change; (3) exploration of the non-linear

nature of strategic change; and (4) investigations of strategic change conundrums.

Introduction

Strategic change is a key concern in the fields of

management and strategy (e.g. Hofer and Schendel

1978; Nag et al. 2007b; Rajagopalan and Spreitzer

1997). It is generally understood as a major orga-

nizational change that is manifest in a shift in the

firm’s mission, or in its scope, priorities and goals

(Fiss and Zajac 2006; Gioia et al. 1994; Mantere

et al. 2012). Although important questions about the

causes and consequences of strategic change remain,

scholars generally agree that such change is neces-

sary and can have significant consequences for firms’

long-term performance and survival (e.g. Carpenter

2000; Haveman 1992; Kelly and Amburgey 1991;

Teplensky et al. 1993).

Scholars have used various theories and methods

to study a variety of phenomena related to strategic

change (Bergh and Fairbank 2002; Ginsberg 1988;

Rajagopalan and Spreitzer 1997; Van de Ven and

Poole 2005). In line with the long tradition in organi-

zational research (Bourgeois 1984; Astley and Van de

Ven1983), the extant research on strategic change has

traditionally built on two opposing views of the roles

of the environment and managers in determining the

fortunes of organizations. Whereas the deterministic

view attributes a rather limited role to managers in

the context of strategic change (e.g. Aldrich 1979;

Hannan and Freeman 1977), the voluntaristic per-

spective assumes that managers haveconsiderable in-

fluence over strategic change (e.g. Astley and Van de

Ven1983; Child 1972; Miles et al. 1978). In addition,

a dialectical perspective, which attempts to bridge the

two traditional, opposing perspectives, has emerged.

This perspective aims to offer a more balanced ap-

proach, viewing strategic change as a result of envi-

ronmental determinism and managerial choice (e.g.

Hrebiniak and Joyce 1985; MacKay and Chia 2013).

C2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

458 J. M ¨

uller and S. Kunisch

The knowledge that has emerged from these per-

spectives is idiosyncratic to some extent. First, the

perspectives explore somewhat different facets of

strategic change. For example, the deterministic per-

spective typicallyfocuses on such questions as: When

does change occur? What are the long-term impli-

cations of change (e.g. survival)? In contrast, the

voluntaristic perspective focuses on such questions

as: Who can be associated with change? How does

change unfold? What are the intermediate and per-

formance outcomes of change? Second, even when

scholars explore similar facets of strategic change,

their perspective affects their explanations of when,

how and why strategic change occurs as well as their

views on the implications of such change. For ex-

ample, the three perspectives differ in their views

on whether the organization’s alignment with its ex-

ternal environment is determined by exogenous fac-

tors (deterministic perspective), induced by strategic

leaders (voluntaristic perspective), or shaped by both

structural constraints and strategic leaders’ actions

(dialectical perspective). Although such differences

can give rise to contradictory findings, they also hold

the potential for complementary insights. Third, the

combined body of research rests on a number of as-

sumptions. For example, all three perspectives seem

to assume that strategic change is difficult and that it

has mostly beneficial consequences. These assump-

tions and others may need to be challenged in order

to expand our thinking.

Despite the value and richness of research within

these three perspectives, the continued accumulation

of idiosyncratic, inconclusive and sometimes even

contradictory findings restricts a comprehensive un-

derstanding of strategic change. Therefore, we need

to consolidate the insights shared across the perspec-

tives, identify contradictory findings and highlight

‘white spots’ that can only be uncovered by looking

at all the perspectives.Thus, the pur poses of this paper

are to shed light on the issues addressed by these per-

spectives; to compare and contrast the extant findings

by identifying similar and divergent themes, thereby

uncovering the most important relationships; and to

highlight promising areas for future research.

It is important to delineate our study from other

scholars’ work. The importance of the topic, which

is reflected in the sheer number and variety of stud-

ies, has led others scholars to review strategic change

research from various angles. Such work includes a

review of the concept and measurement of strategic

change (Ginsberg 1988), a reviewintegrating the con-

tent and process schools (Rajagopalan and Spreitzer

1997), and a review of research focused on the in-

terplay between leadership succession and strategic

change (Hutzschenreuter et al. 2012). While these

studies have helped advance research on strategic

change in important ways, they have had different

aims. Our study complements these works. By con-

trasting and integrating prior research along the three

perspectives, this study exposes common themes,

mixed findings, potentially narrow research foci and

widely held assumptions in strategic change research

that could be addressed in future research.

In accordance with the purposes of this study, we

proceed as follows. First, we briefly revisit the foun-

dations and general assumptions of the three perspec-

tives. We also explain our systematic approach to

identifying and analysing the extant literature. Sec-

ond, we summarize and evaluate the extant knowl-

edge within each of the three perspectives. Third,

after synthesizing this knowledge across the three

perspectives, we appraise and evaluate the accumu-

lated state of this research field. On the basis of these

insights, we then highlight important directions for

future research. Finally, we present our concluding

remarks.

Background

Domain of strategic change

Given the wealth of research on strategic change, it is

no surprise that different definitions exist. These defi-

nitions emphasize various aspects of strategic change,

such as its purpose (e.g. alignment with the external

environment), its boundaries (e.g. a radical organiza-

tional change) or the actors involved (e.g. top man-

agers). Forthe pur pose of our review, we follow others

(Fiss and Zajac 2006; Mantere et al. 2012) in build-

ing on Gioia et al. (1994, p. 364) to define strategic

change as an undertaking that involves ‘either a redef-

inition of organizational mission or a substantial shift

in overall priorities and goals to reflect newemphases

or direction’. This definition focuses on the scope of

the strategic change concept, which makes it useful

for drawing clear boundaries around the scope of our

study.

This definition also enables us to delineate ‘strate-

gic change’ from related concepts, such as ‘organi-

zational change’ and ‘strategic renewal’. Although

‘strategic change’ and ‘organizational change’ have

sometimes been used interchangeably, and although

their delineation has provoked debate (e.g. Mintzberg

and Westley 1992), our definition enables us to

C2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.