Strategy and Structure: Reconceiving the Relationship

Abstract

Discussions have drawn attention to the relationship between strategy and structure for much of the last quarter century. Yet, no firm basis has emerged to settle the issue of causal direction or to affirm the relationship's effects on organizational performance. By adding a new dimension to the strategy-structure model, this article attempts to conceptually link long-term performance with (a) the presence of subunits having distinctive competence in strategic planning and (b) the coordination of these differentiated subunits into a discernable microstructure embedded within the overall organization. This new dimension is explored and developed by use of a case of the Pacific Coast seaport industry.

The Effects of Strategic and Structural Supply Chain Orientation on Operational and Customer‐Focused Performance

“…Further, this study finds that simultaneous presence of strategic SCO increases positive effects on performance through structural SCO, thus, reinforcing theory that postulates that structural SCO facilitates implementation of strategic decisions at the operational level. This builds on prior work in the strategy and structure literature (Chandler, 1962;Boschken, 1990;Urgal-Gonzalez & Garcıa-Vazque, 2007;Pertusa-Ortega, Molina-Azorın, & Claver-Cortes, 2010) by highlighting the relationship between strategic SCO and structural SCO. Ideally, firms will implement both elements of SCO, because each of the two elements influences firm capabilities in a different way and because one acts to mediate the effects of the other on performance.…”

“…The discussion above highlights the notable differences between how strategic and structural elements of SCO can affect the firm. The relative influence of organizational strategy versus organizational structure on firm performance continues to be of interest in strategic management (Boschken, 1990;Harris & Ruefli, 2000;Galan & Sanchez-Bueno, 2009). At the same time, debate on the duality in effectiveness of a focus on strategy or on structure has been at the heart of the strategic management field (Boschken, 1990;Harris & Ruefli, 2000).…”

“…The relative influence of organizational strategy versus organizational structure on firm performance continues to be of interest in strategic management (Boschken, 1990;Harris & Ruefli, 2000;Galan & Sanchez-Bueno, 2009). At the same time, debate on the duality in effectiveness of a focus on strategy or on structure has been at the heart of the strategic management field (Boschken, 1990;Harris & Ruefli, 2000). More specifically, whereas some suggest that by focusing on strategy, a firm's structure will follow (Chandler, 1962;Amburgey & Dacin, 1994), others suggest that strategy should follow structure (Bower, 1970;Hall, 1980;Frederickson, 1986).…”

Peering at the Past Century's Corporate Strategy Through the Looking Glass of Time‐Series Analysis: Extrapolating from Chandler's Classic Mid‐Century American Firms?

“…The lack of detailed corroboration of our various tests is reassuring in this regard; also with respect to the fact that the TSP, even with inclusion of the GNP as a covariate, might still have borne some relationship to AUTOCAST. [18] In the same vein of inquiry into previously undetected variables, Boschken (1990) squarely raises the issue of the information lost by averaging out over the micro-processes of differentiation and integration, and sends us back to the classic coordination question of Lawrence and Lorsch (1967).…”

“… [18] In the same vein of inquiry into previously undetected variables, Boschken (1990) squarely raises the issue of the information lost by averaging out over the micro‐processes of differentiation and integration, and sends us back to the classic coordination question of Lawrence and Lorsch (1967). …”