Search results

Based on the conception of total teacher effectiveness, aims to develop strategies for conceptualizing teacher effectiveness research. From the new conception, the units of research on teacher effectiveness are cell, array and layer. The strategies advanced for conceptualizing research include the individual unit description strategies, the within‐layer relationship strategies, the between‐layer relationship strategies, and the whole structure strategy. Based on the conception strategies, teacher effectiveness research can be shifted from traditional simplistic one‐dimensional conception to sophisticated multidimensional conception and can have various research alternatives for different research purposes and contexts. Hopefully, these strategies can provide a new direction for studying and improving teacher effectiveness in particular and school effectiveness in general.

This chapter documents the contributions in the business-to-business (B2B) marketing–buying literature that focus on implemented strategies in specific contexts. Research on implemented strategies often includes thick descriptions of how things actually get done over a period of weeks, months, or years including how decision makers make sense of situations, go about processing information, make choices, interact with other decision makers, participate in specific actions, and interpret events and outcomes. Research on implemented strategies favors “direct research” (Mintzberg, 1979) that includes multiple face-to-face interviews of the same and different participants in B2B processes over the course of days, week, months, or years. Direct research is inherently inductive theory-building and case-based data driven in its theory-empirical approach. Direct research includes applying a number of possible research methods and results in a number of advances in B2B implemented-strategy-in-context theory.

The present paper takes a look at the particularities of German strategy research over the last three decades. In contrast to much of the Anglo-Saxon research, which has focused on competition as a guiding concept in theorizing about strategy, German research has typically been concerned with more fundamental questions about the general relationship between organizations and their environments and, as a result, tended to be more conceptual than empirical. Researchers have been particularly influenced by the German sociological and philosophical traditions, specifically by the critical theory of Jürgen Habermas and by the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann. Also, there are authors who draw on the economic tradition of the Austrian School in order to develop a competence-based theory of the firm. Another branch builds on Anthony Giddens's structuration theory and Jacques Derrida's philosophy of deconstruction. As we will demonstrate, much of the research has been concerned with fundamental theoretical tensions: evolution vs. planning, selection vs. compensation, cognitive–instrumental rationality vs. moral–practical rationality, etc. We note that, as a consequence, much of German strategy research shows a particular interest in paradoxa and oxymora (such as ‘planned evolution’, ‘productive misunderstandings’ or ‘unfocused monitoring’). This paper will identify and explore important strands of German strategy research and discuss its particularities compared to mainstream strategy research in the United States.

Scanning both the academic and popular business literature of the last 40 years puzzles the alert reader. The variety of prescriptions of how to be successful (effective, performing, etc.) 1 Organizational performance, organizational success and organizational effectiveness will be used interchangeably throughout this paper.1 in business is hardly comprehensible: “Being close to the customer,” Total Quality Management, corporate social responsibility, shareholder value maximization, efficient consumer response, management reward systems or employee involvement programs are but a few of the slogans introduced as means to increase organizational effectiveness. Management scholars have made little effort to integrate the various performance-enhancing strategies or to assess them in an orderly manner.

This study classifies organizational strategies by the importance each strategy attaches to different constituencies in the firm’s environment. A number of researchers divide an organization’s environment into various constituency groups and argue that these groups constitute – as providers and recipients of resources – the basis for organizational survival and well-being. Some theoretical schools argue for the foremost importance of responsiveness to certain constituencies while stakeholder theory calls for a – situation-contingent – balance in these responsiveness levels. Given that maximum responsiveness levels to different groups may be limited by an organization’s resource endowment or even counterbalanced, the need exists for a concurrent assessment of these competing claims by jointly evaluating the effect of the respective behaviors towards constituencies on performance. Thus, this study investigates the competing merits of implementing alternative business philosophies (e.g. balanced versus focused responsiveness to constituencies). Such a concurrent assessment provides a “critical test” of multiple, opposing theories rather than testing the merits of one theory (Carlsmith, Ellsworth & Aronson, 1976).

In the high tolerance level applied for this study (be among the top 80% of the industry) only a handful of organizations managed to sustain such a balanced strategy over the whole observation period. Continuously monitoring stakeholder demands and crafting suitable responsiveness strategies must therefore be a focus of successful business strategies. While such behavior may not be a sufficient explanation for organizational success, it certainly is a necessary one.

While qualitative work has a long tradition in the strategy field and has recently regained popularity, we have not paused to take stock of how such work offers contributions. We address this oversight with a review of qualitative studies of strategy published in five top-tier journals over an extended period of 15 years (2003–2017). In an attempt to organize the field, we develop an empirically grounded organizing framework. We identify 12 designs that are evident in the literature, or “designs-in-use” as we call them. Acknowledging important similarities and differences between the various approaches to qualitative strategy research (QSR), we group these designs into three “families” based on their philosophical orientation. We use these designs and families to identify trends in QSR. We then engage those trends to orient the future development of qualitative methods in the strategy field.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the level of strategic management topic representation within the academic field of hospitality. The study addresses the following questions: what is the frequency of articles related to the topic of strategy in recent hospitality journals? How does the content of these articles differ from the more general field of strategic management? And, what are the potential gaps where researchers in the hospitality field can make contributions?

This study looks at the number and percentage of strategy-related articles published in leading hospitality journals for 2005 through 2009. The determination of the percentage of strategy-related articles published and categorizing these articles by key strategy topic area required several steps: defining strategic management as an academic area within hospitality; determining key strategy topic areas and key words or terms; and defining characteristics of the hospitality field that may impact what is and what is not strategic management in hospitality. Hospitality journal articles were then coded as strategy-related or other, and (if determined to be strategy-related) the articles were categorized into one of ten key topic areas.

Overall strategy articles represent about 27 percent of the total journal articles from the five-year period. In comparing hospitality journals to the sole top-tier business journal focusing on strategy, this study indicates differences exist among key topic areas of focus. These differences seem to indicate that researchers in general strategic management tend to focus on less applied and more theoretical notions of strategy where researchers in hospitality strategic management tend to focus on more tactical methods when addressing questions of strategy.

The limitations of this study are: the study focuses on four hospitality journals and the top-rated general strategy journal; and categorizing strategy articles was done using inter-judge reliability by the authors. Future research might identify a socially constructed definition of strategic management in hospitality.

The importance of strategic management and strategic thinking in hospitality and hospitality research has never been greater. With increasing turbulence in the global environment, the field of hospitality (and its related research) must assess and provide strategic approaches to address challenges and opportunities for the future.

The value of this study is in providing an overview of what has been studied in hospitality strategy in the recent past and pointing out future research opportunities for hospitality strategic management issues.

The purpose of this study is to review the hospitality and tourism strategy literature to identify trends related to key topical areas of research. The study objectives include identifying hospitality and tourism strategy challenges; presenting a synthesis of frequent strategy topics; and identifying opportunities for future research.

Earlier studies in the hospitality strategy literature were reviewed and synthesized to identify trends, gaps and opportunities.

Hospitality strategy research continues to improve and extend the boundaries of strategic thought in the hospitality literature. In assessing the literature from 1980 to 2013, it was apparent that the literature was following the mainstream trend of combining theoretical perspectives to some degree as well as applying more process-based concepts to hospitality strategy research. There were several challenges for propelling hospitality strategy research forward; these included the educational infrastructure, theory development and the quantity and quality of researchers in the field.

Given the depth and breadth of the strategy topics and research, it was difficult to ensure sufficient coverage was provided in the limited space of one journal article.

The study provides a good foundational understanding of where the hospitality strategy research had been and the trajectory of where it was headed. Further, it serves as a valuable resource for current researchers and those entering this area of research.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the collaboration strategies employed by collaborating small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) and university researchers for initiating and optimizing the process and outcome of R&D collaboration.

The paper is based upon a qualitative study of the total population of university departments and SMEs involved in collaborative research projects sponsored by a new governmental programme in Denmark, the aim of which was to build new R&D alliances between industry and universities.

The findings show how partners choose to pursue difference short‐ or long‐term strategies to optimize the process and outcome of university‐industry (UI) collaboration. Some collaborations were thus informed by a short‐term strategy aimed at achieving immediate R&D results. However, to a high extent, many SME partners relied upon a long‐term strategy aiming at developing UI relations beyond the immediate project and practical learning. A variety of shifting strategies shape researchers' decisions during UI collaborations, which thus convey different notions of success.

The findings of the present research point to the importance of taking the diverse reasons and micro strategies informing collaborative efforts into account when studying UI collaborations.

Different strategies may prove successful in optimizing the outcome of UI collaborations depending upon, e.g. partners' previous collaborative experiences. Policies should incorporate some openness towards the differential premises and reasons for UI collaboration.

Relatively little research has addressed the development of UI relationships from the micro‐level perspective of the discretionary decisions and strategies of collaborating researchers.

Research into manufacturing strategy is increasing in popularity but there are no well established research methodologies which are specific to the field. Briefly reviews current methodologies, identifies their shortcomings, and notes areas for improvement. Then discusses a research methodology which was developed to address these. This three‐stage methodology has been successfully applied to the process of formulating manufacturing strategy and suggests that similar methodologies might be appropriate for future strategy research.

All knowledge claims are also to some extent legitimacy claims. No theory can receive serious attention, let alone gain credence, unless it is also seen as legitimate. Philosophers of science have spent decades trying to frame criteria that determine the legitimacy of theories, only to agree to disagree on the matter. Sociologists of science, on the other hand, take a broader view, arguing that rather than seeking ex ante criteria of knowledge it is best to examine how researchers legitimate knowledge in practice.