Search results

Why and in what direction do organizations change?¹ Early responses to these questions generally fell into two camps. Adaptationist scholars proposed theories based on the assumption that organizations have wide latitude to change their structure, strategy, and scope. In the adaptationist view, organizations are able to change in the direction dictated by their environment or by the choices of organizational decision makers, whether in the pursuit of rational action (e.g., Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Williamson, 1985) or blind action (Weick, 1979). In its extreme form, the adaptationist view implied that firms can and do adapt nearly frictionlessly, suggesting that if there is a performance penalty associated with inappropriate organization, misaligned firms will change so as to reduce or eliminate this misalignment. Alternatively, selection-based theories, notably structural inertia theory within organizational ecology, contended that inertial forces tend to stymie attempts at organizational change (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). In its extreme form, the selectionist view implied that firms can rarely change successfully; instead, if there is a performance penalty associated with misalignment, misaligned firms will be “selected out” of the population.

Purpose – This chapter is intended to help strategy scholars evaluate when, why, and how to employ historical research methods in strategy research.

Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on theory and practice of historical research as well as on key examples from the history and strategy literatures, we develop a typology of research approaches to highlight the areas of potential complementarity between historical methods and “traditional” empirical methods in strategy. We then provide annotated examples of historical strategy research to highlight the benefits of this approach and to demonstrate how to make research-related decisions when employing such methods.

Findings – The chapter provides a step-by-step conceptual roadmap for conducting historical strategy research, primarily using an analytic narratives approach.

Originality/value – The chapter fulfills an explicit need for strategy scholars on the boundary of history. We anticipate that it will be a useful reference for those who are considering the use of history in their strategy research.

To assess the impact of TCE on the field of strategy, we first quantified the distribution of TCE-related research articles across all disciplines and fields. Specifically, we identified every article that appeared in a journal included in the Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI's) Web of Knowledge between 1975 and 2008 and that included among its keywords some variation of “transaction costs.” We then removed those articles for which this term clearly did not refer to transaction costs of the Coasean kind (primarily articles in finance and computing, for which “transaction cost” has a different meaning). Finally, we categorized each journal according to its discipline or field. Granted, this requires some judgment, but we attempted to be objective in our categorizations.¹ As Table 1 shows, articles that are self-described as part of the TCE research stream have appeared more frequently in strategy journals than in the journals of any other discipline or field. We interpret this as evidence of TCE's impact on strategy, and of the importance of the strategy field to TCE.

Purpose – This chapter is intended to identify the actual and potential linkages between history and strategy research.

Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on examples from research at the intersection of history and strategy, we identify research topics that have received attention from a historical-strategy lens, and those that are thus far understudied. We then place the studies that appear in this volume into their relevant context.

Findings – The chapter outlines benefits that the strategy field can gain from a greater emphasis on history, and that the history field can gain from a greater use of strategic insights.

Originality/value – The chapter sets the context for the studies in this volume, and provides a lens for evaluating the benefits of historical-strategy research.