The strategy-environment fit has been the topic of many studies, mostly with samples of for-profit organizations. Recently, a more holistic pattern-analytic approach or coalignment has been used to test the performance implications of the relationship between strategy and environment. This statistical approach may be deficient, however, if the ideal profiles from which deviations are measured are data-specific. Therefore, theoretical ideal profiles were used to examine the strategy-environment coalignment for 558 senior pastors in a Southern Baptist state convention. The results indicate that organizations in dynamic or Stade environments can be effective if they pursue appropriate strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarperW.SnizekW. (1980) The nature and type of organizational taxonomies: an overview. Academy of Management Review, 5, 65–75.
2.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settingsChicago, IL: Rand McNally.
3.
DrazinR.Van de VenA. H. (1985) Alternate forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 514–539.
4.
GalbraithC.SchendelD. (1983) An empirical analysis of strategy types. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 153–173.
5.
HambrickD. C. (1983a) High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 687–707.
6.
HambrickD. C. (1983b) Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of Miles and Snow's strategic types. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 5–26.
7.
HerbertT. T.DereskyH. (1987) Generic strategies: an empirical investigation of typology validity and strategy content. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 135–147.
8.
HittM. A.IrelandR. D.PallaK. A. (1982) Industrial firms' grand strategy and functional importance: moderating effects of technology and uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 265–298.
9.
JauchL. R.OsbornR. N.GlueckW. F. (1980) Short term financial success in large business organizations: the environment-strategy connection. Strategic Management Journal, 1, 49–63.
10.
KimL.LimY. (1988) Environment, generic strategies, and performance in a rapidly developing country: a taxonomic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 802–827.
11.
MilesR. E.SnowC. C. (1978) Organizational strategy, structure, and processes. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
MillerD. (1988) Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 280–308.
13.
MillerD.FriesenP. H. (1978) Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science, 24, 921–933.
14.
OdomR. Y.BoxxW. R. (1988) Environment, planning processes, and organizational performance of churches. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 197–205.
15.
PearsonA. E. (1989) Six basics for general managers. Harvard Business Review, 67, 94–101.
16.
PowellT. C. (1992) Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 119–134
17.
RockartJ. F. (1979) Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review, 57, 81–93.
18.
SawyerrO. O. (1993) Environmental uncertainty and environmental scanning activities of Nigerian manufacturing executives: a comparative analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 287–299.
19.
VenkatramanN. (1989) The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14, 423–444.
20.
VenkatramanN.PrescottJ. E. (1990) Environment-strategy coalignment: an empirical test of its performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 1–23.
21.
WhiteR. E. (1986) Generic business strategies, organizational context and performance: an empirical investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 217–231.
22.
ZajacE. J.ShortellS. M. (1989) Changing generic strategies: likelihood, direction, and performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 413–430.
