Strategy, Environment and Performance in Two Technological Contexts: Contingency Theory in Korea

This paper examines the range of application of strategic contingency theory. Its thesis is that as technologies and economies become more open to market forces, the tenets of contingency theory become increasingly relevant. The Korean economy seemed an ideal venue for testing this notion as it is very heterogeneous in the effectiveness of its technological regulation. Many Korean companies employing traditional technologies are able to benefit from government intervention, whereas most of those using emergent technolo gies — even in the same industry — are forced to compete internationally and are very much more subject to competitive market forces. We found that Korean companies using emergent technologies were more likely to do well if they heeded contingency prescriptions in making strategy: specifically, if they employed innovative and marketing differentiation strategies in uncertain environments and cost leadership strategies in stable contexts. On the other hand, companies that used traditional technologies were less apt to benefit from matching strategy to environment. In short, strategic contingency literature was found to apply more to businesses employing emergent technologies than to those using traditional technologies. Notions from institutional and contin gency theory and from the literature on cross-cultural management are used to interpret these findings.

[1]  C. J. McGrath,et al.  Effect of exchange rate return on volatility spill-over across trading regions , 2012 .

[2]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  American Anti-Management Theories of Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation , 1996 .

[3]  Jangwoo Lee,et al.  Small firms' innovation in two technological settings☆ , 1995 .

[4]  E. Romanelli,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1992 .

[5]  David J. Miller,et al.  Stale in the Saddle: CEO Tenure and the Match Between Organization and Environment , 1991 .

[6]  D. Otley,et al.  The design of organizations , 1990 .

[7]  R. Zeffane.  Centralization or Formalization? Indifference Curves for Strategies of Control , 1989 .

[8]  L. Kim,et al.  Environment, Generic Strategies, and Performance in a Rapidly Developing Country: A Taxonomic Approach , 1988 .

[9]  V. Govindarajan.  A Contingency Approach to Strategy Implementation at the Business-Unit Level: Integrating Administrative Mechanisms with Strategy , 1988 .

[10]  A. Murray.  A Contingency View of Porter's “Generic Strategies” , 1988 .

[11]  Zong-Tae Bae,et al.  Technology development processes: A model for a developing country with a global perspective , 1988 .

[12]  David J. Miller,et al.  Relating Porter's Business Strategies to Environment and Structure: Analysis and Performance Implications , 1988 .

[13]  J. Pennings.  Structural Contingency Theory: A Multivariate Test , 1987 .

[14]  Zong-Tae Bae,et al.  개발도상국의 기술내재화과정 : 기술선택요인 및 학습성과 분석 = Technology internalization in a developing country : an analysis od the technological choice criteria and the learning performance , 1987 .

[15]  L. Zucker.  Institutional Theories of Organization , 1987 .

[16]  L. Donaldson.  STRATEGY AND STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT TO REGAIN FIT AND PERFORMANCE: IN DEFENCE OF CONTINGENCY THEORY , 1987 .

[17]  Christopher K. Bart,et al.  Product strategy and formal structure , 1986 .

[18]  Vasudevan Ramanujam,et al.  Multi-Objective Assessment of Effectiveness of Strategic Planning: A Discriminant Analysis Approach , 1986 .

[19]  Roderick E. White.  Generic business strategies, organizational context and performance: An empirical investigation , 1986 .

[20]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. , 1985 .

[21]  Gregory G. Dess,et al.  Porter's (1980) Generic Strategies as Determinants of Strategic Group Membership and Organizational Performance , 1984 .

[22]  Anil K. Gupta,et al.  Business Unit Strategy, Managerial Characteristics, and Business Unit Effectiveness at Strategy Implementation , 1984 .

[23]  D. Hambrick.  High Profit Strategies in Mature Capital Goods Industries: A Contingency Approach , 1983 .

[24]  Michael Storm.  Geography and Development Education. , 1983 .

[25]  R. T. Lenz.  Environment, Strategy, Organization Structure and Performance: Patterns in One Industry , 1980 .

[26]  C. C. Snow,et al.  Strategy, Distinctive Competence, and Organizational Performance. , 1980 .

[27]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  The External Control of Organizations. , 1978 .

[28]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[29]  Charles J. McMillan,et al.  The Culture-Free Context of Organization Structure: A Tri-National Comparison , 1974 .

[30]  R. Duncan.  Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty. , 1972 .

[31]  J. Child.  Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice , 1972 .

[32]  D. Granick.  Managerial comparisons of four developed countries : France, Britain, United States, and Russia , 1972 .

[33]  K. Weick.  The social psychology of organizing , 1969 .

[34]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .