PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 1978Management Science1,249 citations

Archetypes of Strategy Formulation

View Full Paper
DMDanny MillerPFPeter H. Friesen

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

There have been few attempts to understand the strategy making process by examining the organizational and environmental context in which it occurs. Rather than adopting the stance of contingency theorists who focus mainly on bivariate relationships, we decided to look for simultaneous associations among a fairly large number of variables. It was hoped that these variables would configure into models or archetypes which describe a series of different, though very frequently occurring modes or organizational failure and success. The methodology used to isolate archetypes is explained. Ten archetypes are described. Successful archetypes are: the adaptive firm under moderate challenge, the adaptive firm in a very challenging environment, the dominant firm, the giant under fire, the entrepreneurial conglomerate, and the innovator. Failure archetypes include: the impulsive firm, the stagnant bureaucracy, the headless giant, and the aftermath.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Miller et al. (1978) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0ffc70d8c5cf602efd75behttps://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.24.9.921
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Designing Complex Organizations1973 · 5,508 citations
  2. 2STRATEGY-MAKING IN CONTEXT: TEN EMPIRICAL ARCHETYPES2007 · 327 citations
  3. 3Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View1970 · 857 citations
  4. 4Organization and environment1967 · 5,244 citations
  5. 5ORGANIZATION THEORY AND PRACTICE1961 · 156 citations