Environment--strategy coalignment: an empirical test of its performance implications

The positive performance impact of a coalignment between the environment and strategy of a business is an important theoretical proposition in strategic management. In spite of its importance and intuitive appeal, the extent of empirical support is equivocal and riddled with problems of conceptualizing and testing for coalignment. This paper evaluates alternate approaches to testing such a proposition and argues in favor of specifying coalignment as ‘profile deviation’, which states that coalignment is the degree to which strategic resource deployments adhere to an ‘ideal profile’ for a given environment. Subsequently, this proposition is tested across two time periods, and eight distinct environments in two different samples drawn from the PIMS data base. Results, which were generally robust across the two periods, strongly support the proposition of a positive performance impact of environment‐strategy coalignment. Implications and research directions are developed.

[1]  Christopher Alexander.  Notes on the Synthesis of Form , 1964 .

[2]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[3]  B. Kintz,et al.  Computational Handbook of Statistics , 1968 .

[4]  D. G. Morrison.  On the Interpretation of Discriminant Analysis , 1969 .

[5]  K. Andrews.  The Concept of Corporate Strategy , 1971 .

[6]  Charles W. Hofer.  Toward a Contingency Theory of Business Strategy , 1975 .

[7]  Richard F. Vancil,et al.  Strategic planning systems , 1977 .

[8]  C. R. Anderson,et al.  PIMS: A Reexamination , 1978 .

[9]  Henry Mintzberg.  Patterns in Strategy Formation , 1978, International Studies of Management & Organization.

[10]  D. Schendel,et al.  A Simultaneous Equation Model of Corporate Strategy , 1978 .

[11]  R E Miles,et al.  Organizational strategy, structure, and process. , 1978, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[12]  Howard E. Aldrich.  Organizations and Environments , 1979 .

[13]  Lawrence R. Jauch,et al.  Short term financial success in large business organizations: The environment‐strategy connection , 1980 .

[14]  Donald C. Hambrick,et al.  Operationalizing the Concept of Business-Level Strategy in Research , 1980 .

[15]  Kathryn Rudie Harrigan,et al.  Strategies for Declining Businesses , 1980 .

[16]  L. J. Bourgeois,et al.  Strategy and Environment: A Conceptual Integration , 1980 .

[17]  Hans B. Thorelli,et al.  The Nature of Product Life Cycles for Industrial Goods Businesses , 1981 .

[18]  Danny Miller,et al.  TOWARD A NEW CONTINGENCY APPROACH: THE SEARCH FOR ORGANIZATIONAL GESTALTS , 1981 .

[19]  H. J. Arnold.  Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual, analytic, and psychometric issues , 1982 .

[20]  R. Duane Ireland,et al.  Functional importance and company performance: Moderating effects of grand strategy and industry type , 1982 .

[21]  John W. Slocum,et al.  Person–situation interaction: Competing models of fit. , 1982 .

[22]  Diana L. Day,et al.  The Product Portfolio and Profitability—A PIMS-Based Analysis of Industrial-Product Businesses , 1982 .

[23]  F. M. Scherer,et al.  The lag structure of returns to research and development , 1982 .

[24]  Diana L. Day,et al.  Strategic Attributes and Performance in the BCG Matrix—A PIMS-Based Analysis of Industrial Product Businesses1 , 1982 .

[25]  D. Hambrick.  An Empirical Typology of Mature Industrial-Product Environments , 1983 .

[26]  R. D. Buzzell,et al.  Product Quality, Cost Position and Business Performance: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses , 1983 .

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

[28]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  Exploring the Concept of “Fit” in Strategic Management , 1984 .

[29]  Vasudevan Ramanujam,et al.  An Inventory and Critique of Strategy Research Using the PIMS Database , 1984 .

[30]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  The Concept of Fit in Contingency Theory. , 1984 .

[31]  C. R. Anderson,et al.  Stage of the Product Life Cycle, Business Strategy, and Business Performance , 1984 .

[32]  Donald C. Hambrick,et al.  Taxonomic Approaches to Studying Strategy: Some Conceptual and Methodological Issues , 1984 .

[33]  Ari Ginsberg,et al.  Operationalizing Organizational Strategy: Toward an Integrative Framework , 1984 .

[34]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  Contingency Perspectives of Organizational Strategy: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research , 1985 .

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

[36]  R. Gillett.  The matching paradigm: an exact test procedure. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[37]  R. T. Lenz,et al.  Environmental analysis units and strategic decision‐making: A field study of selected ‘leading‐edge’ corporations , 1986 .

[38]  R. T. Lenz,et al.  Environmental analysis: The applicability of current theory , 1986 .

[39]  L. Vogel,et al.  Strategy and Structure , 1986 .

[40]  J. Prescott.  Environments as Moderators of the Relationship Between Strategy and Performance , 1986 .

[41]  John H. Grant,et al.  Construct Measurement in Organizational Strategy Research: A Critique and Proposal , 1986 .

[42]  Ajay K. Kohli,et al.  The market share‐profitability relationship: An empirical assessment of major assertions and contradictions , 1986 .

[43]  Wayne S. DeSarbo,et al.  Strategy Maps: A Spatial Representation of Intra-Industry Competitive Strategy , 1987 .

[44]  N. Venkatraman.  The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research: Towards Verbal and Statistical Congruence. , 1987 .

[45]  L. Fry,et al.  Congruence, Contingency, and Theory Building , 1987 .

[46]  John H. Grant.  Strategic management frontiers , 1988 .

[47]  J. Dutton,et al.  Advances in strategic management , 1994 .