Abstract
Purpose
– This paper aims to address challenges in strategic management and tries to find ways to make a breakthrough. Strategic management theorists and practitioners need new scientific theories. In the modern turbulent environment, the extant strategic management research (SMR) and strategic management theories can neither satisfy the practical needs nor the theoretical developmental needs of strategic management.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper uses critique viewpoints that are unfolded according to the logic of how theories will satisfy the practical and theoretical needs. Physics and mathematics are regarded as the most beautiful and perfect scientific research fields, which help predict physical phenomena such as solar eclipse precisely. Therefore, the paper uses physics and mathematics as benchmarks to explore how SMR should make efforts to push the research further.
Findings
– The paper provides a different viewpoint that will help strategic theorists and practitioners investigate and understand strategic phenomena more holistically. SMR should contribute to strategic theoretical and practical progress and not just to the game of academic game play. For the goal, the paper summarizes and refines the definition of strategic management in an alternative but practical and innovative perspective, and then delineates the criteria for SMR topic choice; identifies the dilemmas and challenges the SMR faces; and points out the new approaches the strategic management researchers should explore.
Originality/value
– The paper challenges the mainstream of SMR by identifying the shortcomings, dilemmas, and challenges of the current SMR, and then highlights new ways to make breakthrough in SMR. The study will make strategic management scholars rethink their research and do meaningful research from the perspectives of theoretical contribution and practical guidance.
Subject
Strategy and Management,Business and International Management
Reference75 articles.
1. Abov, Y.G.
(2006), “On the history of the institute of theoretical and experimental physics (ITEP, Moscow)”,
Physics of Atomic Nuclei
, Vol. 69 No. 10, pp. 1631-1656.
2. Allison, G.T.
(1971),
Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis
, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA.
3. Archer, M.S.
(2000),
Being Human: The Problem of Agency
, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. Astley, W.G.
and
Van de Ven, A.H.
(1983), “Central perspectives and debates in organization theory”,
Administrative Science Quarterly
, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 245-273.
5. Bacharach, S.B.
(1989), “Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation”,
Academy of Management Review
, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 496-515.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献