Middle Management Research in Strategic Management Textbooks - A Clouded Perspective

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH IN STRATEGY 1
Middle Management Research in Strategic Management Textbooks: A Clouded Perspective
Laura Frost
A Thesis
Submitted to the
Graduate Faculty
of
University of Maryland University College
in Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Management
Dennis Winters, Ph.D.

Sharon Hadary, Ph.D.
24 April 2014
UMI Number: 3640963
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3640963
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 7
1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8
Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 11
Study Scope and Significance ................................................................................................... 12
The significance of the university and textbooks. ................................................................ 13
The significance of middle management .............................................................................. 14
The significance of strategy formation ................................................................................. 15
Propositions and Research Question ......................................................................................... 17
Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 19
Contribution .............................................................................................................................. 19
Overview of Chapters ............................................................................................................... 20
2: Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 23
Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................................... 23
Overview of the Theoretical Domain of Business Policy and Strategy.................................... 23
Strategy content. ................................................................................................................... 24
Strategy process. ................................................................................................................... 27
Review Process ......................................................................................................................... 31
Planning. ............................................................................................................................... 31
Execution. ............................................................................................................................. 33
Middle Management in Strategy Formation ............................................................................. 36
Multiple and separate roles. .................................................................................................. 36
As initiators of strategy, in detail. ......................................................................................... 41
As role-ambidextrous. ........................................................................................................... 43
As participants in deliberate strategy process. ...................................................................... 46
Influence on top management decisions. .............................................................................. 49
As developers of strategic context. ....................................................................................... 51
Cooperating with top management in various roles. ............................................................ 54
As strategic resource and capability managers. .................................................................... 58
Influence of and on context................................................................................................... 62
As drivers of strategic renewal. ............................................................................................ 66
Role switching and adaptation. ............................................................................................. 70
As interpreters and translators. ............................................................................................. 71
As participants in deliberate process, twenty years later. ..................................................... 73
Role expectations. ................................................................................................................. 76
As indirect influences via information and attention management. ..................................... 79
In relationship to top managers. ............................................................................................ 82
Performance effects of middle management......................................................................... 84
As biased. .............................................................................................................................. 88
Synthesis and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 90

Roles. .................................................................................................................................... 90
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 91
3: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................ 92
Experiential Knowledge............................................................................................................ 92
Prior Theory and Knowledge: Production and Dissemination of Knowledge ......................... 94
Origins and state of the field. ................................................................................................ 94
Models of knowledge production, dissemination, and utilization. ....................................... 96
The body of knowledge. ....................................................................................................... 98
Production of knowledge: University business schools........................................................ 99
Consumers of knowledge: Current and future management practitioners.......................... 100
Dissemination of knowledge: Formal education. ............................................................... 101
Dissemination mechanism: Textbook. ................................................................................ 102
Pilot and Exploratory Studies ................................................................................................. 103
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 104
Chapter 4: Research Approach ................................................................................................... 105
Research Objectives ................................................................................................................ 105
Data Source and Unit of Analysis ........................................................................................... 106
Research Method .................................................................................................................... 106
Rationale for Research Approach ........................................................................................... 107
Research Process ..................................................................................................................... 108

1: Develop and apply sample strategy. ............................................................................... 109
2: Develop keywords and categories. ................................................................................. 111
3: Search textbooks. ............................................................................................................ 113
4: Review sections for relevance. ....................................................................................... 115
5: Assess sections quantitatively......................................................................................... 115
6: Assess sections qualitatively........................................................................................... 115
7: Aggregate findings. ......................................................................................................... 116
Reliability and Validity Considerations .................................................................................. 116
Chapter 5: Analysis of Findings ................................................................................................. 118
Findings................................................................................................................................... 118
Literature source references. ............................................................................................... 118
Keyword references. ........................................................................................................... 121
Synthesis and Interpretation of Findings ................................................................................ 127
Synthesis. ............................................................................................................................ 127
Interpretation. ...................................................................................................................... 128
Evidence Base ......................................................................................................................... 128
Chapter 6: Conclusions, Implications, Future Research ............................................................. 129
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 130
Implications for Theory .......................................................................................................... 131
Implications for Practice ......................................................................................................... 131

Academic practice. .............................................................................................................. 131
Industry practice.................................................................................................................. 132
Implications for others. ....................................................................................................... 133
Limitations and Areas for Future Research ............................................................................ 133
References ................................................................................................................................... 134
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 180

Abstract
There is evidence that middle management involvement in the formation of strategy leads to
improved strategic decision-making, commitment to strategy, strategy implementation, and
ultimately, organizational performance. The realization of these benefits depends, in part, on the
effective dissemination of this research to current and future management practitioners. Whether
textbooks, long-employed in higher education as a knowledge transfer mechanism, successfully
integrate research offering a new paradigm or perspective, has recently been questioned. This
study investigates the extent to which widely-adopted strategic management texts integrate the
potentially valuable research on middle management involvement in strategy formation, given
the longstanding top management perspective in strategic management research. A systematic
review of the middle management strategy literature, and a content analysis of current strategic
management textbooks, reveals that while the texts broadly suggest the involvement of managers
beyond those in top management in the formation of strategy, there are few references to or
inclusion of the research specific to middle manager involvement. These findings raise questions
about the effectiveness of textbooks in preparing students to engage as middle managers in the
strategic management of the firm, and the subsequent implications for organizational
performance.
Middle Management Research in Strategic Management Textbooks: A Clouded Perspective
1: Introduction
Managers’ effectiveness is significantly influenced by their insight into their own work.
H. Mintzberg, 1975
In his widely-read and respected book on effective college teaching, McKeachie (2010)
urges the professor in the process of designing a course to consider the relevance of the subject
matter for the student. What makes a course relevant for a student may vary, but for many
students of business, and in particular, for the student of business strategy, an applied discipline
(Greiner, Bhambri, & Cummings, 2003; Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2006, p. 348), the course must
be relevant to its practical application in organizations (Augier & March, 2007; Davis, 2013).
The professor of strategy might ask, then: How should these students be prepared to contribute
to the organizations they will serve? What roles will they assume in these organizations? And,
as organization roles require particular sets of knowledge and skills (Garvin, 2007; Katz, 1974;
Mintzberg, 1975/1990), the professor of strategy might further ask: What knowledge do these
students require to fulfill the roles they will assume in organizations? What skills must they
develop to enact these roles?
Questions like these were likely asked in 1912 by the Harvard professor preparing the
first course in business strategy. Some of the answers were apparent: the students were already
serving business organizations, and held top management positions in them (Bower, 2008;
Greiner et al., 2003; Khurana, 2007). These executives required knowledge and skills to solve
the actual strategy problems they confronted in their work (Khurana, 2007). As the first strategy
textbook, authored by Learned, Christensen, Andrews, and Guth, would not be available until
1965, the professor offered the students general management knowledge, drawing from the
works of Barnard, Selznick, and Chandler (Bower, 2008). The students developed skills in
strategic decision making using a “live” case study approach, by analyzing actual situations
presented by guest executives, and arguing through prospective strategic alternatives (Greiner et
al., 2003). In early strategy courses, the relevance question was addressed largely through the
practice of strategic decision making.
Instructors of strategy still ask McKeachie’s (2010) relevance question, though over a
century later, the answers are somewhat different, given that organizations and their
environments have changed, what we know about strategy has expanded, the students of strategy
have changed, and the means of disseminating knowledge have evolved as well. During this
period, organizations in the U. S. have shifted away from mass production (Kotha, 1995),
organizational structures have become flatter (Meyer, 1995), and the numbers of persons
engaged in knowledge work have increased (Davenport, 2005; Stewart, 1999). Organizations
cope with larger and more complex environments (Bettis & Hitt, 1995; Thomas, 1996), created
by expanding organizational boundaries (Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick, & Kerr, 2002), by the need to
satisfy increasing numbers of stakeholders (e.g., NGOs) (Bundy, Shropshire, & Buchholtz, 2013;
David, Bloom, & Hillman, 2007), and by consumer demands for continuous improvement and
innovation in products and services (Ahlstrom, 2010; Bettis & Hitt, 1995).
Over the same period, a significant body of knowledge on business strategy has been
produced. Strategy is now an academic discipline of its own, with dedicated researchers
(Unterman & Hegarty, 1979). These scholars develop strategy theory as patterns in the complex
situations portrayed in case studies and in actual organizations emerge (e.g., Bower, 1970;
Burgelman, 1983b). There is now empirical evidence linking strategy to organizational
performance and other organizational outcomes (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000). Numerous tools
are available to support strategic decision making (Bowman, Singh, & Thomas, 2002). This body
of knowledge has much to offer to students and practitioners of strategy.
The students studying strategy in the university are also different: they are more diverse
in their academic and professional backgrounds than were the first strategy students. Top
managers still study strategy, but often in separate, executive MBA programs (De Déa Roglio &
Light, 2009; Garvin, 2007; GMAC, 2011). The students of mainstream MBA programs have a
variety of academic backgrounds (GMAC, 2011). Both MBA and undergraduate business
programs serve students with a broad range of management experience, including many with no
management experience at all (Dreher & Ryan, 2004; GMAC, 2011). Some of these aspire to
management positions in organizations (GMAC, 2011), and others to advanced degrees in a
business discipline (Schendel, 1975). Though how they apply the knowledge may vary, the
common denominator among these students is their need to acquire strategy knowledge.
Finally, how strategy knowledge is disseminated to students and others has evolved.
Strategy scholars share knowledge though special interest groups in scholarly societies, e.g., the
Business Policy and Strategy Division of the Academy of Management (Academy of
Management, 2010), and via societies and publications dedicated to strategy scholarship, such as
the Strategic Management Society and the Strategic Management Journal (Strategic
Management Society, 2014). Consultants and consulting organizations also disseminate strategy
knowledge among business practitioners (Ghemawat, 2002; Mazza, 1997), as does the popular
press (Mazza, 1997; Mazza & Alvarez, 2000). The business schools in universities continue to
disseminate knowledge to current and future practitioners and others (Abrahamson & Eisenman,
2001), but now with technology-based simulations and comprehensive casebooks to assist in the
development of strategy skills, and with a substantial amount of strategy-specific knowledge,

embodied in scholarly journals and strategic management textbooks, to assist in the development
of student knowledge (Bower, 2008; Easterby-Smith & Davies, 1983).
That strategy is an applied discipline and that students of strategy expect the strategy
course to be relevant to practice remains unchanged. Students require the knowledge and the
skills to fulfill their current and prospective roles in organizations (GMAC, 2011), and the
businesses and broader society they serve expect that the university will provide them with it
(Whittington, Jarzabkowski, Mayer, Mounoud, Nahapiet, & Rouleau, 2003). In contemporary
strategy courses, the relevance question is answered both through student practice of strategic
decision-making and through student acquisition of the accumulated strategy knowledge.
Problem Statement
The focus here will be on the challenge of maintaining the relevance of the strategy
course to students through the dissemination of an ever-growing body of scholarly research on
strategy, and specifically, of the dissemination of knowledge pertaining to students’ preparation
for the roles they have or will have in organizations. Concern for this challenge is shared by
both scholars and practitioners, as evidenced by scholarly debates over the relevance of business
education in general (cf. Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Khurana, 2007; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer &
Fong, 2002 ), by questions about the effectiveness of research dissemination, including,
specifically, via the textbooks used in business education (cf. Miner, 2003; Stambaugh & Quinn
Trank, 2010), and by research into problems concerning the use of strategy knowledge in
practice, including, for example, problems with participation in strategy (Mantere & Vaara,
2008) and problems with role expectations and role conflict among middle managers (Floyd &
Lane, 2000).
Further evidence of an ongoing need for relevance is found in the journals directed
toward practitioners. These address practitioner concerns for how strategy is developed in the
organization and its implications for organizational performance (Bingham, Eisenhardt & Furr,
2011; Hamel, 2009; Watkins, 2009), and over specific problems faced by individuals in the
process of developing strategy, including the cognitive limitations and bias (Kahneman, Lovallo,
& Sibony, 2011), the ability to cope with environmental complexity and rate of change
(Camillus, 2008; Reeves & Deimler, 2011; Sargut & McGrath, 2011; Sull & Eisenhardt, 2012),
the ability to communicate a strategy (Bungay, 2011; Ketokivi & Castañer, 2004; Vancil &
Lorange, 1975), and the ability to implement the strategy that has been defined (Neilson, Martin,
& Powers, 2008). As long as scholars are generating new strategy knowledge, and as long as
past problems in the practice of strategy persist and new problems emerge, the challenge of
bringing new knowledge to bear on the problems of practice, by equipping the practitioners who
will solve them, remains. This work will examine one mechanism used to unite strategy research
and practice, for one particular group of practitioners.
Study Scope and Significance
Though strategy knowledge is generated in many ways, by a variety of individuals and
organizations, and is disseminated through a variety of primary and supporting mechanisms to a
broad audience (Havelock, 1971), this study will focus on the knowledge generated by university
scholars and disseminated through university courses, and specifically, through the textbooks
employed in university courses. It will examine the strategy knowledge relevant to a particular
group of practitioners, middle managers, and specifically, to their role in the formation of
strategy in the organization. This focus is justified by the significant role of the university in the
process of knowledge production and dissemination, the significant role of textbooks therein, by
the significant numbers of current and aspiring middle managers in typical undergraduate and
graduate strategy courses, and by the importance of strategy formation to the organization.
The significance of the university and textbooks. In his comprehensive work on the
dissemination and utilization of knowledge, Havelock (1971) refers to the university as “the
primary source, storage point, and cultural carrier of expert knowledge in all fields, basic and
applied” (p. 3-2, emphasis in original). The business school, like other schools within the
university, engages both in the production of research and in the preparation of future business
practitioners (Duncan, 1972; Havelock, 1971). In their description of the field of strategy,
Whittington et al. (2003) argue that as significant producers and disseminators of strategy
knowledge, and as influential members within the field of strategy, business schools have a
significant responsibility to society in general and to business practitioners specifically, to
consider the implications of their research for practitioners.
Textbooks have a significant role in the transfer of produced knowledge to current and
prospective practitioners in the courses offered in business schools. While instructor lectures,
case studies, articles, and the like are all used to transfer knowledge to students in the university
(Easterby-Smith & Davies, 1983; McKeachie, 2010; Thompson, 2005), both academics and
students recognize textbooks as a primary means of knowledge transfer (Cameron, Ireland,
Lussier, New, & Robbins, 2003; Duncan, 1972, 1974; Lichtenberg, 1992; Rousseau, 2006).
Kuhn (1962/2012) describes textbooks as mechanisms for disseminating to future practitioners
both the “body of accepted theory” and how the theory has been applied in practice (p. 10),
designating them, essentially, as a proxy for the body of knowledge. The significance of
textbooks is further underscored by their appearance as the object of scholarly studies (cf. Miner,
2003; Stambaugh & Quinn Trank, 2010), by their purchase by students in numbers exceeding
one hundred million per annum, and by their attribution, by students, as the source of over fifty-
five percent of their acquired knowledge (Lichtenberg, 1992). The significance of textbooks is
not expected to diminish, particularly in the field of strategy, where increasing numbers of
professors with little or no strategy experience may increasingly rely on their practice-oriented
content (Abraham & Levy, 2007; Bower, 2008). This study, then, focuses on the strategy
textbooks used in university business strategy courses in the United States.
The significance of middle management. The first students of strategy were top
managers of organizations, as were the first professors of strategy (Bower, 2008; Khurana,
2007). As a result, strategy courses have traditionally focused on the knowledge and skill needs
of top managers: they have taken a top management perspective on strategy (Svenson,
Mazzucato, & Starbuck, 1966). While an understanding of top management roles in strategy is
valuable for all organization members (Greiner et al., 2003), the relevance of this knowledge
may be limited for the students of strategy courses today (Quinn 1978/1989). More than one
scholar and teacher of strategy have observed that the majority of students of undergraduate and
graduate business programs are not, and will never be, top level executives (Barney & Hesterly,
2012; Carpenter & Sanders, 2009; Pearce & Robinson, 2013; Svenson et al., 1966). More likely,
students today are already, or are aspiring to be, middle managers.
The predominance in strategy courses of students in middle management, or destined for
middle management, is explained in part by the broad definition of middle management found in
the literature. Floyd and Wooldridge (1996) define middle managers as “any individual who is
regularly involved in, or interfaces with, the organization’s operations and who has some access
to upper management” (p. 111). Dutton and Ashford (1993) rule out only top managers and
“first-line supervisors” (p. 398) from those included in their definition of middle managers. Ren
and Guo (2011), following Mintzberg (1989), include in middle management any manager
“between the strategic apex and the operating core of the organization” (p. 1588). The formal
positions held by middle managers in organizations include “functional department heads,
project or product managers, brand managers, regional managers, and the like” (Floyd &
Wooldridge, 1994, p. 48). Peters (1987) goes as far as suggesting that “everyone is becoming a
middle manager” (in Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994, p. 56). Anecdotal evidence from
undergraduate and graduate strategy courses taught by the author supports the claim that many
students already hold or aspire to middle management positions. Further, these students want to
understand the roles they will play in strategy (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992a; Frost, personal
communication, September 2013). Offering these students another perspective on strategy--in
addition to the top management perspective and relevant to their current or more immediate roles
as middle managers in organizations--may make the strategy course more relevant for a larger
group of individuals, and ultimately, may benefit the organizations they serve. This study, then,
focuses on the particular knowledge needs of middle managers.
The significance of strategy formation. The strategy of an organization defines both
where a firm competes, that is, its market and the products and services it delivers there and how
a firm competes, that is, how it achieves a competitive advantage in that market (Grant, 2010).
Its objective is to create value for the firm (Sanchez & Heene, 2004), and is assessed through a
broad variety of measures of financial and operational performance (Venkatraman &
Ramanujam, 1986). Many elements of the organization work together to deliver this value and
competitive advantage, including the very capability of a firm to determine the strategy it will
pursue (Barney, 1991).

Traditional descriptions of how the strategy of a firm is determined, that is, of its strategy
process, assume it to be an entirely deliberate and rational endeavor, and divide it into two major
subprocesses, strategy formulation, during which the “where” and the “how” (Grant, 2008) is
decided, and strategy implementation, during which the formulated strategy is executed (Ansoff,
1965; Cohen & Cyert, 1973; Learned et al., 1965). Studies of organization strategy reveal that
the strategy of a firm may also be determined in part through emergent processes (Mintzberg,
1978; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985), and even during the implementation of a deliberately
formulated strategy. Following Raes, Heijltjes, Glunk, and Roe (2011), the term formation will
be used here to encompass all means by which the strategy of a firm is determined, whether
through formal, rational, and deliberate processes and decision-making, or through decisions
made outside of these processes. This is consistent with Hitt, Ireland, and Hoskisson (2010),
who define strategic management as “the full set of commitments, decisions, and actions
required for a firm to achieve strategic competitiveness” (p. 6, emphasis added). Regardless of
the particular terminology used to describe the process by which the strategy of a firm is
determined, its outcome, the organizational strategy, has significant consequences for society,
organizations, and individuals.
Organizations are not entities unto themselves, but are parts of larger socio-economic
systems (Ackoff, 1999; Boulding, 1956). Therefore, when organizations prosper, or when they
fail, those who invest in these organizations, those who are employed by them, those who engage
in trade with them, and any other entities interdependent with them, are also impacted
(Whittington et al., 2003). Strategy concerns the management of the organization as a whole
(Chandler, 1962). While many organizations have prospered as a result of their strategies, there
have also been massive organizational failures as the result of poorly conceived or poorly
executed strategies (Whittington et al., 2003). Given the link between strategy process and
organizational performance (cf. Andersen, 2000; Andersen, 2004), it follows that consideration
of how strategy is formed is worthwhile, both for the organization and those in and around it.
Having argued the significance of strategy formation to the organization and society, of
the middle management aspirations of students in university strategy courses, and of the role of
textbooks in transferring the knowledge required by these current and future practitioners for
their roles in strategy, several propositions emerge. These, and the related research question, are
investigated in this work.
Propositions and Research Question
Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010) question whether “areas of research that have gained
traction in the academic literature” (p. 664) are moving into textbooks. Their study of the
coverage of institutional theory in strategic management textbooks reveals “significant variation”
in the integration of this topic (Stambaugh & Quinn Trank, 2010, p. 663). They call for
additional research cases to assess the link between research and textbooks, and suggest that the
cases “represent different paradigms and different levels of consensus with the dominant
paradigm” (Stambaugh & Quinn Trank, 2010, p. 676). This study answers this call by
examining such another case, one that considers what individuals in middle management
positions in the organization may contribute to strategy formation, the “middle management
perspective” on strategy (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000). This stands in contrast to the top
management perspective that has long-dominated in the strategy literature (Levy, Alvesson, &
Willmott, 2003; Knights & Morgan, 1991).

The study first proposes that a body of strategy research relevant to middle managers
actually exists; that the middle management research on strategy has, as Stambaugh and Quinn
Trank (2010) describe, “gained traction in the literature” (p. 664).
P1: There is a body of extant research on middle management involvement in strategy
formation.
While this proposition might be defended by simply citing various reviews of the middle
management strategy literature (cf. Wooldridge, Schmidt, & Floyd, 2008), this study offers a
new review, both to include subsequently published scholarly work and to explicitly provide
support for Kuhn’s (1962/2012) assertion that textbooks include the “accepted” theory (p. 10).
Satisfying this latter condition requires the articulation and defense of a set of criteria for the
selection of research to be included in the set of “accepted” theory.
Having established that a body of accepted strategy theory exists, the study turns to the
dissemination of that body of knowledge via the textbooks used in university strategy courses.
This is set out in the second proposition of this study.
P2: The research on middle management involvement in strategy is represented in
strategic management textbooks.
This claim is warranted given that the function of the textbook is to represent the body of
knowledge on a subject (Kuhn, 1962/2012), and is supported with the fact that textbooks are
widely used in higher education (Lichtenberg, 1994; Thompson, 2005; Coser, Kadushin, &
Powell, 1982). Put another way, this work addresses the specific research question:
To what extent is the body of knowledge on the middle management perspective
represented in strategic management textbooks?

This study, then, attempts to establish the existence of a significant and legitimate body of
research on middle management involvement in strategy formation, and to assess the degree to
which current and future middle managers are offered this knowledge via the textbooks of their
university strategy courses.
Purpose
The purpose of this study, broadly, is to extend the extant research on textbooks, and
specifically, following Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010), to extend the research on the link
between research and textbooks. Further, and more specifically, the purpose in investigating the
extent to which the middle management perspective (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000) has been
integrated into strategic management textbooks, is to expose any opportunity to improve the
relevance of strategic management textbooks for a significant group of current and future
management practitioners, and so enable them to contribute as fully as possible within the
organizations they will serve, to the benefit of those organizations. The purpose of the study is
not to argue whether strategy formation should be the responsibility of one group or another, i.e.,
top management or middle management. There are many types of organizations using a variety
of means to determine their strategies, and in these, top and middle managers assume varying
roles (Andersen, 2004; Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984; Hart, 1992). This work takes the position
that textbooks that offer multiple perspectives, on both top and middle management roles in
strategy formation, provide students awareness of and knowledge about the spectrum of roles
they may be expected to assume, and thus best prepare them for practice.
Contribution
This study makes several modest contributions to the larger body of management
research, and indirectly, to the practice of management. It aggregates the research on middle
management involvement in strategy formation, responding to the call for “a more holistic
typology of middle management strategic roles” (Wooldridge et al., 2008, p. 1211). It examines
the extent to which this accumulated research is represented in strategic management textbooks,
and in so doing, following Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010), contributes to the “range of
cases, which are more or less consistent with a particular textbook pedagogy” and “surfaces
more detailed discursive mechanisms of both conformity and defection” (p. 675). The results of
the study offer the authors and publishers of textbooks insight into the relevance of their
offerings to current and future management practitioners. The results also raise questions as to
why this body of research has not been integrated into textbooks as fully as it might be, offering
opportunities for further research into the discourse of strategy.
Overview of Chapters
Having argued that university strategy courses should be relevant to current and future
practitioners, and that a particular group of practitioners, middle managers, may be underserved
by the knowledge conveyed through the content of the strategy textbooks used in these courses,
the following chapters offer the backing for this argument by elaborating the content of focus
through a review of the literature; by situating the transfer of this content through the
mechanism of focus, the textbook, within the larger system of production and dissemination of
knowledge; and by discussing the approach to and results of an examination of the extent to
which the content of focus has been integrated into these texts.
Chapter 2 reveals the various roles middle managers may assume in strategy formation,
and illustrates how their contributions to strategy formation in these roles are linked to desirable
intermediate and ultimate organizational outcomes. It addresses the first proposition, P1,
concerning the body of “accepted” knowledge on middle management involvement in strategy

formation. It reviews the strategy literature of relevance to middle management roles in strategy
formation and shows that there is a substantive body of research on middle management
involvement in strategy, and in the formation of strategy in particular, and that this involvement
has consequences for the organization. In so doing, Chapter 2 establishes the grounds for the
argument that strategic management textbooks will contain the research on middle management
involvement in strategy, as stated in P2. A signification portion of the literature reviewed in
Chapter 2 also serves as the sample of the “accepted” literature examined in the study of
textbooks described in Chapter 4.
Chapter 3 offers the broader conceptual framework for this study, and locates the unit of
analysis, the strategic management textbook, within the processes of dissemination of produced
knowledge to current and future practitioners. It illustrates the interrelationships among business
schools as producers of the body of knowledge, adopters of textbooks, and preparers of current
and future practitioners, who, in turn, influence organizations. In so doing, it demonstrates the
warrant, and its backing, supporting the claim that textbooks will represent the knowledge on
middle management involvement in strategy formation, as proposed in P2.
Chapter 4 describes the process used to evaluate the second proposition, P2, the extent to
which widely adopted strategic management textbooks represent the “accepted” research
concerning middle management involvement in strategy formulation, as identified in Chapter 2.
The approach is modeled after that used by Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010), and employs a
combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. It details the processes of selection of
strategy textbooks, of middle management research sources, and of the keywords relating to
middle management involvement in strategy formation. It then describes the methods used to
locate the selected sources and keywords in the textbooks and to document the findings.
Chapter 5 describes the findings of the research processes set out in Chapter 4, and offers
an analysis and interpretation of them. Descriptive statistics are provided for the sources found
in each text. Qualitative characterizations of how the middle management research is
represented in each text, and across texts, are then offered.
The study concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings of this study for
management theory and practice, and for the practice of strategy knowledge dissemination, in
Chapter 6. It discusses the problems that may arise when textbooks discount or fail to report
recognized research, and the consequences of this for organizations. It concludes with a
description of how this research will be employed by the author in a broader research agenda
concerning the discourse of strategic management texts.

2: Literature Review
Chapter Overview
This chapter presents the scholarly literature concerning the roles middle managers may
assume in organizational strategy formation and of the knowledge and skills that may be required
in fulfilling those roles. It first situates this specific body of knowledge within the broader
domain of business policy and strategy knowledge. The process by which the literature of focus
is selected from the domain for review, and the process by which it is evaluated, is then
described. The selected literature is then presented. The chapter concludes with a summary of
the findings and an argument that the body of research on middle management involvement in
strategy formation is both substantive and relevant to middle managers and to the organization as
a whole.
This review serves as the basis for the subsequent examination of textbooks, as described
in Chapter 4. The results of this review form the grounds for the proposition that strategic
management textbooks will contain the research on middle management involvement in strategy.
Overview of the Theoretical Domain of Business Policy and Strategy
Compared to its use in warfare, the use of strategy by organizations is a relatively new
field of study (Grant, 2008; Ghemawat, 2002), with roots in a diversity of other fields, including
economics, psychology, anthropology, sociology, and mathematics (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, &
Lampel, 1998). Ghemawat (2002) links its use in business to the emergence of mass markets
following the development of the rail system in the 1850s, and its beginnings as a subject of
scholarly endeavor to Harvard in the 1950s. The field has since grown broad enough that major
divisions have formed within it.

The field is comprised of research into the types of strategies that organizations employ
and into the processes by which those strategies are formulated, implemented, and evaluated.
Reviews of the strategic management literature refer to these respectively as strategy content
research and strategy process research (cf. Furrer, Thomas & Goussevskaia, 2008;
Hutzschenreuter & Kleindienst, 2006; Rumelt, Schendel, & Teece, 1994). Strategy content
research “focuses exclusively on what strategic positions of the firm lead to optimal performance
under varying environmental contexts” (Chakravarthy & Doz, 1992, p. 5). Strategy process
research focuses on how these positions are determined: “how effective strategies are shaped
within the firm and then validated and implemented efficiently” (Chakravarthy & Doz, 1992, p.
5).
This overview briefly addresses each of these major subdivisions of the field, with
attention to the roles of individuals, or groups of individuals, in strategy. Within the strategy
content research, the literature pertaining to the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm
recognizes the strategic importance of people and of processes (of which people are a part). The
strategy process research attends to the specific activities in strategy processes and to those who
engage in them. The strategy-as-practice research, in particular, investigates “what the people
engaged in strategizing actually do and how they influence strategic outcomes” (Johnson,
Langley, Melin, & Whittington, 2007, p. 3).
Strategy content. The content of a strategy—the “where” and the “how” of strategy
(Grant, 2008)—may be determined from two different perspectives with respect to the
organization and its environment. The external industry perspective or industrial organization
(IO) view, looks outward from the organization to consider the environment in which the
organization will operate, and seeks the ideal position for the organization in that environment;
the internal resource perspective, or resource-based view (RBV), looks inward on the
organization and considers the resources it may bring to bear on the environment in which it
exists (Ghemawat, 2002; Hoskisson, Hitt, Wan, & Yiu, 1999; Jeremy, 2002). Organizational
strategies typically attempt to leverage a combination of the strengths and weaknesses of the
organization with the opportunities and threats presented by its environment (Andrews, 1971;
Bowman et al., 2002; Liedtka & Rosenblum, 1996).
Industrial-organizational view. The industrial-organizational view of strategy emerged
from industrial organization economic theory, and argues that competitive advantage is a
function of factors external to the organization. Porter’s (1980, 1985) work is among the most
well-known contributions to this view, and includes models of the forces that determine industry
structures and of the processes by which organizations create value (Khurana, 2007).
Resource-based view. The resource-based view of strategy argues that competitive
advantage is a function of factors internal to the organization. Its origins are in Selznick’s
(1957) concept of “distinctive competence” and Penrose’s (1959/2009) theory of the growth of
firms. Andrews (Learned et al., 1965) recognizes the role of resources as strengths and
weaknesses of the firm, but it is Wernerfelt (1984) who articulates a resource-based view of the
firm, offers tools to assess the resource position, and suggests resource-oriented strategic options.
Barney (1991) develops the perspective further, drawing on Williamson (1975), Becker (1964),
and Tomer (1987), and delineating three categories of organizational resources: physical capital;
human capital, including the “training, experience, judgment, intelligence, relationships, and
insight of individual managers and workers in a firm”; and organizational capital (p. 101). Once
these resources are identified, their potential contributions to the competitive advantage of a firm
may be assessed. Barney’s (1991) value-rarity-imitability-nonsubstitutability (VRIN) framework
is among the means to make this assessment.
The factors internal to the organization and useful for competitive advantage may be
differentiated further, between resources and capabilities. Grant (1991) argues that most
resources are not productive on their own, and that the capabilities of a firm, “the capacity for a
team of resources to perform some task or activity” are sources of competitive advantage (p.
119). He includes among these capabilities the processes and routines of an organization,
including that of strategy formation (Grant, 1991, p. 122). Some scholars, including Teece,
Pisano, and Shuen (1997), and Prahalad and Hamel (1990), refer to these capabilities as
competences, and to the competences central to the business as core competences.
Capabilities themselves may be further differentiated. Teece et al. (1997) describes some
capabilities as dynamic capabilities, those with “the capacity to renew competences so as to
achieve congruence with the changing business environment” (Teece et al., 1997, p. 515,
emphasis added). Complementary to this, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) elaborate dynamic
capabilities as the “processes that use resources—specifically the processes to integrate,
reconfigure, gain and release resources—to match and even create market change” or the
“organizational and strategic routines by which firms achieve new resource configurations” (p.
1107). Strategy processes and strategic decision making are dynamic capabilities, in which
“business, functional and personal expertise” is brought together “to make the choices that shape
the major strategic moves of the organization” (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000, p. 1107).
Human capital is both a resource and central to the capabilities of an organization. In
their study of the effects of human capital on strategy and organizational performance, Hitt,
Bierman, Shimizu, and Kochhar (2001) demonstrate the value of human capital to both
determining the strategy of a firm and to carrying it out. Drawing on Grant (1996), and on Lepak
and Snell (1999), Hitt et al. (2001) describe organizational members as those who hold “the most
critical competitive asset that a firm possesses”—knowledge (p. 14). This knowledge is both
explicit, acquired by organizational members by learning through formal education, and tacit,
acquired by learning through experience (Hitt et al., 2001). Both types of knowledge contribute
to the ability of the firm to determine an appropriate strategy and to facilitate its implementation
(Hitt et al., 2001).
Strategy process. Scholars also study the processes by which strategy is formed in the
organization. Chakravarthy and Doz (1992) date the development and use of strategy process to
as early as Barnard (1938) and Simon (1945). Chandler (1962), Ansoff (1965), Anthony (1965),
and Andrews (1971) also make significant contributions to the research on the processes by
which strategy is formed (Grant, 2008; Huff & Reger, 1987; Sanchez & Heene, 2004).
Following a brief discussion of organizational processes in general and the purpose of strategy
process, the broad activities within the process are then described, with respect to the individuals
or groups of individuals who engage in them.
Organizational processes. Garvin (1988) describes organizational processes as logical,
coherent, predictable, and repeatable “collections of activities, involving many people that unfold
over time” (p. 42). They are the “actions that firms engage in to accomplish some business
purpose or objective” (Ray, Barney, & Muhanna, 2004, p. 24). Garvin (1998) describes three
categorizes of organizational processes: work processes, behavioral processes, and change
processes. While he situates strategic planning within the administrative subcategory of work
processes--those processes which produce the information and plans necessary for running the
business--Garvin (1998) observes that strategic process research may also be located within the
behavioral process subcategory of decision-making. Processes in this category address the
“cognitive and interpersonal aspects of work” (p. 37), “profoundly affect the form, substance,
and character of work processes” (p. 37), and “engage large numbers of people at diverse levels”
(Garvin, 1998, p. 38). Strategy processes, then, are both administrative work processes and
decision-making behavioral processes.
Purpose of strategy process. The organizational processes of strategy are the means by
which the strategic position of the organization is determined, or formulated; and carried out, or
implemented (Andrews, 1971). The processes may specify start-to-finish, sequential and
iterative sequences of activities to fully accomplish the formulation and implementation of a
strategy (cf. Cohen & Cyert, 1973; Ginter, Rucks, and Duncan, 1985), or various activities,
routines, and administrative systems to guide ongoing strategic decisions (cf. Bingham &
Eisenhardt, 2011; Chakravarthy & Doz, 1992; Sull & Eisenhardt, 2012). Strategy processes also
specify how the strategic position of an organization is maintained or adjusted, given ongoing
changes in the organizational environment and the resources of the organization (Schendel &
Hofer, 1979). This ongoing alignment of the organizational strategy to internal and external
changes is referred to as strategic change (Rajagopalan & Spreitzer, 1997), or strategic renewal
(Huff, Huff, & Thomas, 1992).
Individuals in strategy process. The organizational members associated with the
activities in the strategy process are typically assigned along the broad subprocesses of strategy
formulation and strategy implementation. Strategy formulation and its component activities of
determining the mission and vision of the organization, internal and external scanning, and
strategy choice are generally assumed to be the responsibility of top administrators, managers, or
leaders (Fayol, 1949/2005; Mintzberg, 1973; Schendel & Hofer, 1979). Implementation of the
strategy is generally assumed to be the responsibility of other, non-top management members of
the organization (Reid, 1989).
A variety of labels are given to the groups of organizational members involved in the
strategy process: top management (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000; Hart, 1992) or top management
team (TMT) (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Raes et al., 2011), middle management (Shi, Markoczy,
& Dess, 2009; Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990) or middle managers (Mantere & Vaara, 2008; Raes et
al., 2011; Westley, 1990), operating management (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000), organizational
members (Hart, 1992), and the board of directors (Hendry, Kiel, Nicholson, 2010). There are
also references to lower organizational echelons (Mantere & Vaara, 2008; Raes et al., 2011; Van
Cauwenbergh & Cool, 1982), core strategic actors (Miller, Hickson, & Wilson, 2008), and
peripheral strategic actors (Miller et al., 2008).
Top management or top management team. The designation of top management team
(TMT) is commonly associated with the work of Hambrick, upper echelons theory (Hambrick &
Mason, 1984). It proposes that organizational outcomes are due, in part, to the backgrounds of
those at the top of the organization (Hambrick, 2007, p. 334). Raes et al. (2011), drawing on
Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois (1997), argue that “TMT researchers have conceptualized
the TMT as the inner circle of executives who collectively formulate, articulate, and execute the
tactical moves of the organization” (p. 102). The role of strategy formulation is typically
designated the responsibility of top management (Daft & Weick, 1984; Reid, 1989; Schendel &
Hofer, 1979).
In his review of strategy process research, Hart (1992) divides the individuals that
comprise an organization into two groups, top managers and organizational members, i.e.,
everyone else. He proposes three different roles that top managers play relative to organizational
members, across five different modes of strategy. Top managers assume roles ranging from
“total control,” to providing a “sense of strategic direction,” to “strategic abdication” (Hart,
1992, p. 340). In their study explaining the unintended consequences of strategies, Balogun and
Johnson (2005) argue that while senior managers may create strategy, they are limited in their
ability to control how it will be interpreted by other organizational members, including middle
managers.
Middle management or middle managers. Defining middle managers is challenging
(Wooldridge et al., 2008). Drawing on Uyterhoeven (1972) and Wooldridge and Floyd (1990),
Dutton and Ashford (1993) define middle managers broadly as “managers who operate at the
intermediate level of the corporate hierarchy” and “two or three levels below the CEO” (p. 398).
Wooldridge et al. (2008) includes all managers below top management, down to, but not
including, first-level supervisors (p. 1192.)
Defining the roles of middle managers in organizations is also challenging. They have
been described as “linking pins” within the organization (Likert, 1961), mediating among top
and operational level managers. Floyd and Wooldridge (1992b) build on that description,
describing the general role of middle managers as that of “coordination of an organizational
unit’s day to-day activities with the activities of vertically related groups” (p. 154). The
specification of middle management roles in strategy is also difficult (Westley, 1990). Most early
studies portray middle management in a strategy implementation role (Guth & MacMillan, 1986;
Schilit, 1987). Reid (1989) describes the role of middle management in strategy as that of
implementing the intentions of top managers, and his study of middle managers reveals that
middle managers perceive this as their role as well. This study seeks to examine all roles of
middle managers in strategy formation, as described in the literature.

Review Process
This study systematically reviews the literature on middle management involvement in
strategy formation. A systematic review uses a “replicable, scientific, and transparent process”
to identify “key scientific contributions to a field” with the objective of minimizing bias
(Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). Following Tranfield et al. (2003), the review proceeds in
three stages: planning the review, conducting the review, and reporting the review results.
Planning. In the planning stage, the objectives are set out and the review protocol is
established (Tranfield et al., 2003). This review has two objectives: (1) to produce a set of
literature that is broadly accepted by scholars of strategy on middle management involvement in
strategy formation that is, and (2) to identify significant supporting literature. The results of
achieving the first objective will be used in the assessment of the extent to which this literature is
integrated into strategic management textbooks, as described in the fourth and fifth chapters of
this work. Achieving the second objective permits the literature of focus to be presented within
its broader context within this chapter.
Protocol: Literature sources. To meet the criteria set forth by Kuhn (1962/2012) for
textbook literature, that it has been broadly accepted by the community of scholars, the sources
from which the literature is selected is deliberately conservative. Recent studies ranking the
scholarly journals (Gibbert, Ruigrok, & Wicki, 2008; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Bachrach, &
Podsakoff, 2005; Tahai & Meyer, 1999), the journal rankings of the Financial Times (2012), and
Harzig’s (2013) categorization of scholarly journals were used to develop a list of journals to be
used as sources for the literature to be reviewed. For a journal to be included in the list, it must
have appeared within the top ten journals of at least two of these rankings. Table 2.1 lists the
eleven journals from which the review literature is extracted.

Table 2.1
Journals Selected as Sources for Literature
Title
Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Management Executive / Perspectives
Academy of Management Review
Administrative Science Quarterly
California Management Review
Harvard Business Review
Journal of Management
Journal of Management Studies
Long Range Planning
Sloan Management Review
Strategic Management Journal
Protocol: Source evaluation. The literature concerning middle management
involvement in strategy formation selected from these journals is evaluated according to the
protocol shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.2. Research evaluation process. A simple but rigorous process checking the source for
relevance to this study, the credibility of the source, and the internal consistency of the study
described in the source.
Each source is assessed for relevance, credibility, and consistency. The relevance test evaluates
the potential of the source to make a contribution to this study. Where the title and abstract
indicate potential relevance, the source is read in its entirety to verify its relevance. The
credibility test assesses both the credibility of the author and the credibility of the publication in
which the source is published. For the latter, the expectation is for an A or B level-ranked,
scholarly, refereed journal. If the research is published in a book or other medium, the
credibility of the publisher, editors, and author are used to evaluate its quality. Authors are
expected to be recognized in the field, published in the aforementioned journals, and widely
cited. The credibility test leverages the rigorous review processes already conducted by these
top journals and their reviewers and editors. The final test, consistency, looks for alignment
between the research question of the study, the design of the research used to answer the
question, and the findings and conclusions of the research. Conceptual studies are examined for
logical coherence.
At each of the three stages, the research either passes or fails. If the research is deemed
relevant, it passes to the credibility test; if not, it is set aside. If the research is credible, it passes
to the consistency test; if it does not meet the basic credibility criteria, it is given a full, detailed
evaluation. (The instrument for this detailed scrutiny is provided in Appendix A.) If the search
does not pass the detailed quality evaluation, it is set aside. If it passes, it moves to the third and
final assessment, for consistency. If the source is internally consistent, it is included in the
review; if it contains inconsistencies, it is set aside.
Execution. In the execution stage, the selected journals are searched according to
predetermined search criteria. The candidate research is then subjected to the evaluation
protocol. Accepted research is categorized by the objective to which it contributes, ordered, and
presented.
Search criteria. The search strategy is one in which a wide net is cast in the electronic
search and redundant or non-relevant sources are eliminated based on a manual review of the
source. The intention is to make a more significant time investment in the manual review of
sources than to electronically eliminate sources that may be valuable to the review. Consistent
with this strategy, there are three sets of intentionally broad criteria, the results of which are
expected to have some sources in common. These are listed in Table 2.2. The third set of
criteria originally included the qualifier ROLE; this qualifier was removed as number of
resulting sources (n=97) was much smaller than expected.
Table 2.2
Electronic Search Criteria and Resulting Numbers of Sources
Search Qualifiers Candidate Sources Sources Accepted

STRAT* and MIDDLE 221
STRAT* and PARTICIPATION 90
311 45
STRAT* and MANAGEMENT and PROCESS 707 6
Total 51
Categorizing: Primary and supporting. Each source was evaluated according to the
protocol. In addition, each was categorized as directly concerning middle management
involvement in strategy formation, or as simply supporting the involvement of middle
management involvement in strategy formation. Table 2.3 lists the primary sources.
Table 2.3
Primary Sources, by First Authors’ Surname
Author (Year) Author (Year)

Balogun, J. (2006). King, A. W., & Zeithaml, C. P. (2001).
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1995). Mantere, S. (2008).
Bingham & Eisenhardt (2011). Marginson, D. E. W. (2002).
Bower, J. L., & Gilbert, C. G. (2007). McMullen, J. S. et al. (2009).
Boxer, P. J., & Wensley, J. R. C. (1986). Mollick, E. (2012).
Boyett, I., & Currie, G. (2004). Noda, T., & Bower, J. L. (1996).
Burgelman, R. A. (1983b). Nutt, P. C. (1990).
Burgelman, R. A. (1994). Oswald, S. L. et al. (1994).
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1991). Pappas, J. M., & Wooldridge, B. (2007).
Currie, G., & Procter, S. J. (2005). Raes, A. M. L. et al. (2011).
Dutton, J. E. et al. (1997). Reid (1989).
Dutton & Ashford (1993). Reitzig, M., & Sorenson, O. (2013).
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Ren, C. R., & Guo, C. (2011).
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1992b). Rouleau, L. (2005).
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1994). Rouleau, L., & Balogun, J. (2011).
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Schilit, W. K. (1987).
Guth, W. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (1986). Schilit, W. K. (1990).
Hart, S. L. (1992). Shi, W. et al. (2009).
Hodgkinson, G. P. et al. (2006). Sull, D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2012).
Huy, Q. N. (2001). Thakur, M. (1998).
Huy, Q. N. (2002). Tushman, M. L. et al. (2011).
Huy, Q. N. (2011). Vilà, J., & Canales, J. I. (2008).
Jarzabkowski, P., & Balogun, J. (2009). Westley, F. R. (1990).
Kanter, R. M. (2004). Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W. (1990).
Kellermanns, F. W. et al. (2005). Wooldridge, B. et al. (2008).
Ketokivi, M., & Castañer, X. (2004).
Ordering. All accepted sources (primary and supporting) were ordered chronologically,
to see if any temporal patterns emerged. The results follow, after which a synthesis of the
research is offered.
Middle Management in Strategy Formation
The following literature describes the various roles of middle managers in the formation
of strategy. Throughout, the skills and knowledge required to fulfill these roles is also exposed.
The literature is organized in approximate order of its publication, showing the proposed and
actual contributions of middle managers for a period of over forty years. The literature is
clustered by various themes within its temporal arrangement.
Multiple and separate roles. The early literature recognizes a number of roles for
middle managers in the formation of strategy: as interpreters and translators of top management-
formulated strategy, as making decisions that have strategic consequences, as developers of
strategic initiatives, and as contributors to the strategic context of the organization. In all four of
these roles, the involvement of middle managers in strategy is distinctly separate from top
managers’ involvement in strategy. Thompson (1967/2003) makes a broad argument for
expanding strategic decision making discretion to middle managers, who are able to understand
and translate between the long term perspective of top management and the short term
imperatives of those below them in the hierarchy (p. 150). Building on Parsons (1960) and
Gouldner (1959), he characterizes organizations as complex, open systems, but “subject to
rationality” (Thompson, 1967/2003, p. 144). In these organizations, he argues, there are more
variables than can be comprehended by any one individual, let alone controlled or predicted;
there are “contingencies on more fronts than the individual is able to keep under surveillance”;
and uncertainty is the expectation, not the exception (Thompson, 1967/2003, p.133).
Determining the strategy of these complex organizations is one of many problems that “cannot
be settled spontaneously” nor “by prescriptions derived from the rational model” (Thompson,
1967/2003, p. 145). Thompson (1967/2003) refers to the conception of the organization as a

“pyramid headed by the single all-powerful individual” as a “historical and misleading accident”
(p. 132). These complex organizations, he argues, require additional minds to establish the goals
of the organization, and a larger decision making body to address the complexity of problems
like strategy (Thompson, 1967/2003). Thompson (1967/2003) proposes that the “exercise of
discretion” be distributed within the organization” (p. 117).
In his exposition of the characteristics of successful executives, Wrapp (1967/1984) also
argues for the necessity of a larger decision making body within the organization. He, too,
proposes engaging middle managers in strategic decision making, within the confines of broad
objectives set by top managers. In addition, Wrapp (1967/1984) portrays middle managers as
valuable sources of immediate and accurate information for top managers making strategic
decisions, and beyond this, as having the ability to identify various initiatives with strategic
potential, and to bring these initiatives to top managers as proposals for their consideration.
Bower (1970) actually observes middle managers advancing strategic initiatives to top
managers in this two-year study of a large, diversified firm. Middle managers are central to
Bower’s (1970) resource allocation process (RAP) model. Not only do they perceive
opportunities in the operating environment, they define and champion them to the middle
managers above them, who, in turn, assess the initiatives and select ones to advance to top
managers. This selection process is governed by their interpretation of the various individual,
group, and organizational performance measures established by top managers (Bower, 1970).
Bower (1970) observes that as the initiatives are selected for inclusion into the strategy, the
performance measures may be adapted to accommodate the new initiatives. In advancing
strategic initiatives, then, middle managers influence both the overall strategy of the organization
and, indirectly, the strategic context of the firm. As argued by Thompson (1967/2003), Bower
(1970) also observes middle managers translating between the strategic goals of top managers
and lower-level managers’ operational realities.
In deliberate and emergent strategy formation. The next studies describe strategy as the
result of intentional, rational processes of strategy formulation, as the result of other strategic
decisions in the organization, or, as a combination of both. The studies reveal that middle
manager roles in strategy formation may be in either or both modes. Mintzberg’s (1978) study
of strategy formation patterns in organizations describes the strategy that results from strategic
planning processes as deliberate strategy, and that which results from other strategic decisions in
the firm as emergent strategy, the strategy formed by “a pattern in a stream of decisions” (p.
935). Mintzberg (1978) observes that strategy may be intentionally developed by “powerful
leaders” (p. 944). Or, it may be “the ex post facto results of decisional behavior” of anyone in
the organization, with the intention of reformulating intended strategy, or, of driving a
completely new strategy that has been “incubating” somewhere “peripherally in the
organization” (Mintzberg, 1978, p. 947). This is consistent with Mintzberg’s (1978) description
of “two main patterns, one superimposed on the other,” the first as “the life cycle of an overall
strategy” and the second as “the presence of period waves of change and continuity within the
life cycle” (p. 943).
Quinn’s (1978/1989) study of the strategy processes at ten large firms also reveals
formal, “rational-analytical” planning by “key members of the top management team” as only
“one building block in a continuous stream of events that really determines corporate strategy”
(p. 45). Quinn (1978/1989) finds middle managers involved in both the deliberate and emergent
strategy formation. Consistent with the earlier literature, Quinn (1978/1989) asserts that
executives are aware of their “own limitations,” the limitations of the strategy processes to
contend with a multitude of strategic variables, and “the unknowability of the events they face”
(p. 53). In his description of a “logical incrementalism” approach to strategy (p. 46), top
managers “consciously try to tap the minds and psychic drives of others” (Quinn, 1978/1989, p.
53). They involve “lower-level managers” in the formal, deliberate processes of strategy
formation by having them conduct “‘special studies’ on some important aspect of corporate
strategy” (Quinn, 1978/1989, p. 47-52). This not only assists top managers in the evaluation of
strategic alternatives, but is also expected to build “comfort levels” and “commitment to
solutions” among the participants (Quinn, 1978/1989, p. 47-52). Top managers also allow for
strategy to emerge from “strategic subsystems” of lower-level managers, who may build the
business cases and commitment for their own initiatives within a set of “broadly defined
assumptions and goals” established by top managers (Quinn, 1978/1989, p. 52). These
initiatives are considered by top managers for incorporation into the overall strategy (Quinn,
1978/1989). Quinn (1978/1989) argues that involvement in both forms of strategy development
provide valuable experience to middle managers, the most effective of whom will advance into
top management positions.
Using power and politics. Schendel and Hofer (1979) bring together in one source the
work of a number of strategy scholars on strategy process. Their text is organized by the broad
subprocesses of a rational process of strategy: formulation of organization goals, formulation of
strategy, evaluation of strategy, and implementation of strategy. In general, the text assumes top
managers in the traditional roles of goal and strategy formulation and evaluation, and middle
managers in the traditional role of strategy implementation. Power and politics within the
strategy process, however, create additional opportunities for middle managers to assume roles in
which they influence organizational goals or assist top managers in the evaluation of strategic
alternatives.
Bower and Doz (1979) argue that the strategy process is not a completely rational nor
predictable process of resource allocation, but both political and social in nature. Recalling
Barnard (1938), and consistent with the earlier literature, they also acknowledge the finite
capacity of top management in dealing with the complexity of an organization (Bower & Doz,
1979). They argue that this complexity may be alleviated in part if top managers establish a
vision and a “system of beliefs” for the organization, and through them, “shape” the strategic
decision premises of others in the organization and “channel” them toward the achievement of
the vision (p. 157).
Mintzberg (1979) also recognizes the political dimension of an organization and its
consequences for strategy. His model of goal formulation within the organization recognizes
middle managers as one of five main groups in the organization, positioned below the top
management “at the apex” of the firm, and above those “who do the basic work of the
organization” (Mintzberg, 1979, p. 69). Though top managers attempt to establish and impose
formal goals on the organization, the model recognizes that the “internal coalition” of middle
managers has goals of its own, as do the members of the coalition (Mintzberg, 1979, p. 71).
Further, Mintzberg (1979) argues, these various groups and individuals are capable of identifying
ambiguities in the formal goals set by top managers, and will exploit them in order to achieve the
goals of their group, their personal goals, or both.
In the introduction to their chapter on the evaluation of strategic alternatives, Schendel
and Hofer (1979) catalog approaches the firm may employ in this activity, including assessing
whether the organization has the capabilities necessary to execute a strategy (and the ability to
deploy those capabilities), and incorporating feedback data from the current strategy into the
evaluation process. Neither Schendel and Hofer (1979), nor Rumelt (1979) (who provides the
theory and models of strategy evaluation for the chapter), recognizes the potential role of middle
managers in either of these two approaches. Kirchhoff (1979), in his commentary on Rumelt
(1979), suggests that Schendel and Hofer (1979) and Rumelt (1979) adopt a broader perspective.
He argues that it is not possible to separate the formulation of strategy from the implementation
of strategy, given the necessity to assess the capability of the organization to implement a
strategy (Kirchhoff, 1979). This assessment, he asserts, cannot be made by top managers—
middle managers’ evaluation of organizational capability is essential (Kirchhoff, 1979). In this
way, the “implementers are also formulators” (Kirchhoff, 1979, p. 214-215). Kirchhoff (1979)
proposes that the assessment of capabilities should evaluate “whether managers at top, middle,
and lower levels actually connect their day-to-day work to the organization’s goals” (p. 215).
As initiators of strategy, in detail. The next several studies elaborate on the roles of
middle managers as the originators of strategic initiatives and expose the various skills they
employ in identifying, developing, and advancing a strategic initiative in the organization.
Kanter’s (1982/2004) multiyear study of 165 middle managers at five major US corporations
describes their roles in strategy and their management styles. Like Bower (1970), Kanter
(1982/2004) observes middle managers developing significant, innovative, and strategic
initiatives. She documents three phases of initiative development: definition, in which the
opportunity is identified, refined with data gathered from multiple sources, and integrated and
refined; resourcing, in which the middle manager builds a coalition of and consensus among
peers and top managers, and obtains funding for the initiative; and action, in which “key players”
are deployed while the middle manager concurrently protects the initiative from internal and
external interference, makes necessary supporting structural changes, and publicizes the initiative
among team members and supporters (Kanter, 1982/2004, p. 156). Successful initiatives are
attributed to middle management ability to adopt a “participative-collaborative management
style,” characterized by persuasion (versus pressure), team building, information sharing, seeking
and using the input of stakeholders, and recognizing contributions by “sharing rewards and
recognition willingly” (Kanter, 1982/2004, p. 158). In this study, middle managers demonstrate
the ability not only to “envision an accomplishment beyond the scope of the job” but to take
initiative: these managers were “not empowered simply by a boss or their job” (Kanter,
1982/2004, p. 154), they acquired the power.
Middle managers also initiate strategic change in Schilit and Locke’s (1982) study of
subordinate-superior influence methods. Of the various influence techniques documented,
middle managers’ logical presentation of an idea to top managers was the most commonly used
approach (Schilit & Locke, 1982). Top and middle managers have different perspectives on the
reasons for a failed influence attempt. Middle managers attribute the failure to the close-
mindedness of the supervisor, while top managers attribute it to the incompetence of the middle
manager (Schilit & Locke, 1982). In the case of a successful influence attempt, the study shows
benefits accruing to both the subordinate and the organization (Schilit & Locke, 1982).
Burgelman’s (1983b) field study of internal venturing within a large, diversified
corporation also recognizes middle managers as initiators of strategy. Here, middle managers
are observed engaging in an iterative strategy building process, progressively refining and
articulating strategies for new ventures, then following the initiatives through development and
commercialization (Burgelman, 1983b). In this process, the middle manager, through both
conceptual and political means, exposes the strategic opportunity offered by the venture,
convinces corporate managers of the compatibility of the venture with the organization, and
describes how the current strategy should be changed to accommodate the venture (Burgelman,
1983b). In so doing, the middle manager may also influence the strategic context, by driving
changes to the structure of the organization that enable the venture and support the
implementation of the new strategy (Burgelman, 1983b).
Burgelman (1983a) also offers a model of the relationship among strategic behavior, the
strategic and structural context of the organization, and the overall organizational concept of
strategy. Burgelman (1983a) differentiates between strategic behavior that is induced by the
firm’s “current concept” of strategy and that behaviors that falls outside of the “current concept”
(Burgelman, 1983a, p. 61). He argues that Chandler’s (1962) top managers not only modify
organizational structure to accommodate strategy, but that the strategy itself changes as the result
of strategic initiatives (Burgelman, 1983a). He also offers Bower’s (1970) study showing how
structure shapes “the generation and shaping of strategic projects” (p. 64), and his own study of
internal corporate venturing (Burgelman, 1983a), as evidence of the two way relationship
between structure and strategy. Finally, he describes the process of strategic context
determination, in which middle managers formulate strategies that make sense of various
strategic initiatives, and convince top managers to “reconcile them to the greater concept of
corporate strategy” (Burgelman, 1983a, p. 66). As middle managers influence the strategic
context, it, in turn, promotes and guides additional initiatives from lower levels of the
organization (Burgelman, 1983a).
As role-ambidextrous. Several studies suggest that middle managers may assume
different roles in strategy formation in and across organizations. Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984)
describe five types of strategy process, differentiated primarily by the role of top management
and other organizational members in the formulation and implementation of strategy, with the
intent of offering a “range and complexity of tools the CEO might consider when organizing his
firm’s approach to strategy-making” (p. 260). In their “commander” and “change” modes of
strategy, the CEO alone formulates strategy, and strategy implementation is handled by others in
the organization (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984). The implementation may be facilitated by
structural changes put in place by the CEO in the “change” mode (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984).
In the “collaborative” mode, the CEO includes members of top management in the formulation
of strategy (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984). The “cultural” mode attempts to involve the entire
organization in the strategy process, by allowing decision-making consistent with a strategic
vision established by top managers (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984). Bourgeois and Brodwin
(1984) propose a fifth process mode, the crescive (“from the Latin crescere, to grow”) mode, in
which middle and lower-level managers are encouraged to make strategic initiatives that
conform to organizational objectives established by top managers, and from which top managers
may select for inclusion in the overall strategy (p. 254).
Mintzberg and Waters’ (1985) typology of strategy formation processes varies on the
degree to which strategies are deliberately planned or emerge, building on Mintzberg’s (1978)
conception of deliberate versus emergent strategy. They argue that, in reality, few strategies are
fully deliberate or fully emergent, but have both deliberate and emergent characteristics. The
most deliberate strategies in their typology, the planned and entrepreneurial types, originate from
the intentions of one person or a small group, (i.e., the CEO or top managers), and vary on the
extent to which they are articulated and on the degree that they may change. The planned
strategy is typically fully articulated and change-resistant; the entrepreneurial strategy is
articulated but subject to change as the vision of the entrepreneur evolves (Mintzberg & Waters,
1985). The ideological type features a shared vision among organization members that tends to
be resistant to change, given its development around a typically unchanging ideology (Mintzberg
& Waters, 1985). Umbrella and process strategy types recognize the necessity of emergent
strategy in the organization, in which organizational members have the discretion to evolve the
strategy in order to contend with environmental volatility (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). These
evolutionary moves are bounded by top managers in the form of targets and objectives in the
case of the umbrella type, and in the form of process design in the process type (Mintzberg &
Waters, 1985). Mintzberg and Waters’ (1985) unconnected strategy process type is one in which
a “part of the organization with considerable discretion…is able to realize its own pattern in its
stream of actions” which may be deliberate or emergent (p. 265). The final two types of strategy
process are the most emergent in nature. In the consensus type, strategy emerges from the
convergence of “many different actors” through a process of “mutual adjustment;” in the
imposed type, the strategy emerges from some external source (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985, p.
267).
Though Mintzberg and Waters (1985) do not specifically investigate middle managers,
nor define particular roles for them in the various types of strategy processes, the descriptions of
the processes allow for the possibility of and potential variation in middle management roles in
strategy formation. Middle managers are a viable source of emergent strategy; middle managers
are possible contributors in umbrella strategies; the process strategy allows for middle managers’
involvement; and the unconnected strategy type allows middle managers and others to drive
strategy. Mintzberg and Waters (1985) argue that emergent strategies need not indicate a lack of
management control; rather, they may indicate an organization that is “open, flexible, and
responsive” and “willing to learn,” one in which top managers do not assume that they are close
enough to or knowledgeable enough about every situation and activity in the organization, and
are willing to “surrender control” to those who are (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985, p. 271).
As participants in deliberate strategy process. The next studies propose the direct
involvement of middle managers in deliberate planning processes. Easterby-Smith and Davies
(1983) recognize middle managers as a potential source of strategic ideas. In defining and
differentiating strategic thinking from participation in strategy formation, they argue that many
throughout the organization have the ability to think strategically, but may not have the
opportunity to engage it in the formal processes of strategy formation (Easterby-Smith & Davies,
1983). As in the earlier literature, they acknowledge middle management roles as sources of
information to top managers in the strategy formation process, but argue that middle
management strategic thinking abilities also equip them for broader involvement in the processes
of strategy formation (Easterby-Smith & Davies, 1983). Easterby-Smith and Davies (1983)
suggest that such involvement is also essential for the professional development of middle
managers.
Guth and Macmillan (1985) also propose broader involvement of middle managers in
deliberate processes of strategy formation, but with a different rationale. Their investigation of
middle managers frames middle management actions as “interventions” into the strategy
formulated by top managers, and as motivated by the perception that top management strategic
decisions are at odds with middle management needs, values, or goals (Guth & Macmillan,
1986). They find evidence that middle managers do intervene, during both the formulation and
the implementation stages of the strategy process, even when there is a risk of sanction (Guth &
Macmillan, 1986). Interventions in strategy formulation include individual or group argument or
opposition to a strategy; interventions in implementation range from inaction to the introduction

of obstacles to sabotage (Guth & Macmillan, 1986). Further, such interventions are frequently
successful (Guth & Macmillan, 1986). Rather than discouraging these middle management
behaviors, Guth and Macmillan (1986) remind top managers that they are not omnipotent, that
evaluating strategy is an appropriate role for middle managers, and to engage productively with
middle managers to resolve conflicts over strategy.
Boxer and Wensley (1986) argue for involving middle managers in the deliberate strategy
process by shifting the responsibility for functional strategy formulation to them, in order to
more effectively manage the context and customers of the function (p. 189). They assert that
merely diffusing strategic thinking throughout the organization via changes in organizational
structure (e.g., the strategic business unit and matrix organization), is inadequate, as top
management-dominated strategy processes do not tap into the “specific and local knowledge”
held by middle managers and essential to competitive advantage (Boxer & Wensley, 1986, p.
195). Along with this formulation responsibility, Boxer and Wensley (1986) argue, middle
managers require the decision-making authority and control of resources that allow them to
“couple the firm’s activities closely to its customer’s needs” (p. 202).
In his work on strategic scenarios, Millett (1988) observes that while the knowledge of
generic strategies managers have acquired in business courses and textbooks is valuable to the
work of strategy formation, the development of strategy scenarios is necessary to evaluate how
textbook strategies will actually “work” in a specific organization. Supported with examples
from industry, Millett (1988) argues the importance of involving middle managers in the
evaluation activity of the strategy formation process, and particularly in the assessment of the
implications of various strategy scenarios. He argues that ideally, middle management

involvement should begin even earlier, during the conception of the various scenarios (Millett,
1988).
Reid’s (1989) study of senior and middle managers and their roles in strategy at service
and manufacturing firms in the UK reveals that “many managers capable of contributing to the
development of strategy are apparently not encouraged to do so” (p. 557). Two thirds of middle
managers in these organizations had never been involved in strategy formulation, and further, did
not believe contributing to the development of the strategy of the firm was part of their role in
the organization (Reid, 1989). Reid (1989) describes this as “a hidden wealth of underutilized
expertise” in the firm, and that such low involvement in the formulation of strategy compromises
the quality of strategic decisions as well as the commitment of those who will execute the
strategy (p. 557). He urges organizational leaders to encourage strategic thinking throughout the
organization and to design strategy processes and organizational structures to facilitate strategic
thinking and to maximize involvement in strategy formulation (Reid, 1989).
Middle managers are already engaged in strategy formulation in the organizations studied
by Schweiger, Sandberg, and Rechner (1989), though the extent of their involvement is not
specified. In this study, the effectiveness of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus
approaches in selecting among strategic alternatives is examined. Schweiger et al. (1989) find
both dialectical inquiry and devil’s advocacy approaches to be equally effective within groups of
middle managers, and that these approaches outperform the consensus approach of strategic
decision making. Schweiger et al. (1989) also find that experience using the techniques
improves all three approaches equally, and decreases the adverse effects of the conflict
approaches on the group members.

Giles (1991) suggests that a primary reason for the failure of strategy is a lack of
ownership by those who implement it, middle managers. This primarily conceptual work,
supported with case examples, argues that ownership is the result of involvement in strategy
formulation (Giles, 1991). To solve this ownership problem and reduce the risk of strategy
implementation failure, Giles (1991) proposes that top managers determine the long term vision
of the organization, the role of formulating medium term strategy to middle managers, and the
role of strategy implementation to operational managers. In this top-down process model of
strategy formation, middle managers play a central role along with top managers in the
formulation of strategy.
Influence on top management decisions. Several studies portray middle managers in
roles in which they influence the strategic decisions of top managers. In their study of the
influence of middle managers on both the formulation and implementation of strategic decisions,
Schilit (1987) finds that nearly forty percent of the interactions among middle and upper
managers involve a strategy formulation decision. His study also reveals, consistent with Schilit
and Locke (1982), that the most common means used by middle managers to exert an “upward
influence” on strategy formulation is a “logical or rational presentation of ideas” (p. 280).
Middle managers reported successfully influencing their managers in nearly eighty percent of
their attempts, often with benefits to themselves, to the top manager, and to the organization as a
whole (Schilit, 1987). Benefits to middle managers include increased credibility and increased
acceptance of and commitment to decisions; benefits to the organization include increased
innovation (Schilit, 1987). Based on their findings, Schilit (1987) urges top managers to
encourage middle management engagement in strategic decision making, particularly in
industries of high growth and uncertainty.

Dutton and Duncan (1987) examine how characteristics of the strategy process, including
its focus, formality, diversity, and intensity, influence the “array of strategic issues” considered
by top managers (p. 106). Middle managers engage in bottom-up-focused strategy processes, in
which they contribute various strategic issues for consideration and thereby “create a greater
diversity in the set of issues” under consideration (Dutton & Duncan, 1987, p. 106). Further,
middle managers are influential in their directing of the attention of top managers to these issues
(Dutton & Duncan, 1987, p. 106). The model emerging from their research suggests that
tradeoffs must be made in the design of a process, depending on whether the initiation of
strategic changes, or the implementation of strategic changes, is of most interest. Dutton and
Duncan (1987) find that diversity in the process may actually impede both initiation and
implementation, that process formality may impede implementation, and that a top-down-
focused process may actually enhance implementation (p. 114).
Schilit (1990) confirms the findings of his previous study (Schilit, 1987) concerning the
success rate and style of middle manager influence on top management strategic decisions, and
extends it with specific findings on benefits to top managers and to the broader organization.
Schilit (1990) reports the acceptance of strategic decisions, adaptability of organization, strategy
implementation, and reduced tension as the areas of greatest organizational impact. Schilit
(1990) concludes that middle managers should be encouraged to offer their “strategic thoughts,”
given the positive impact they have on the organization (p. 454).
Dutton and Ashford (1993) use “the literatures of social problem theory, impression
management, and upward influence” to create a dynamic, iterative process model, and related
propositions, reflecting how middle managers influence the actions taken by an organization
through the actual selling of issues to top managers (p. 402). The model specifies the
characteristics of the middle and top managers that create the context for the initiation of the
issue selling process, the considerations made in the packaging of the issue, and the features of
the selling process that precede top management giving attention to the issue and credibility to
the issue seller (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). They observe that middle managers may decide to
either provide or conceal information about issues, that they frame issues, that they direct
management attention to certain issues, and that they link actions and ideas between technical
and institutional levels of the organization (Dutton & Ashford, 1993).
As developers of strategic context. Several studies suggest that middle managers may
also influence or drive changes to the broader strategic context in which strategy formation
occurs. In examining the patterns of strategic leadership in the organization, Shrivastava and
Nachman (1989) find that while top managers have a critical role, that “they are not
indispensable to the strategic leadership of the organization” (p. 62). They challenge the
assumption that only top managers are strategic leaders in organizations; that is, that they alone
create the overall strategic context, the purpose, and the vision for the organization (Shrivastava
& Nachman, 1989). They offer “empirical evidence for the variability of managerial discretion
and control over strategy” (Shrivastava & Nachman, 1989, p. 62). Shrivastava and Nachman
(1989) conclude that “cultural, structural, and political forms of strategic leadership are enacted
by personnel at multiple levels of organizations” (p. 64). Their study thus allows for middle
managers to assume roles of strategic leadership in the organization.
Westley (1990) develops the concept of strategic conversation, arguing that middle
managers, though traditionally acting as only “suppliers of information and consumers of
decisions,” in the strategy process, also wish to be engaged in strategic conversations with top
managers concerning “strategic generalities” (p. 338). He finds the middle managers that do
engage in strategic conversations are not only energized in the process, but are also enabled to
make sense of, and possibly contribute to, the rules that frame organizational strategic activity
(Westley, 1990, p. 338). Westley (1990) proposes that the extent and duration of this middle
management energizing is dependent on the degree to which they have the ability to influence
these frames, and on the relative strength of the top managers with whom they enter into
conversation within the organization as a whole. Middle managers who are excluded from
strategic conversations, or are included but unable to influence them, may become de-energized
and apathetic, and may even use temporary levels of energy to engage in counterproductive,
political behaviors, both of which may have longer-term consequences for subsequent strategy
implementation (Westley, 1990).
In their work on the necessity for and components of organizational vision, Collins and
Porras (1991) argue, in contrast to Giles (1991), that establishing the organizational vision
should not be left to top managers, but instead “should take place at all levels of the
organization” (p. 32). They observe that as organizations have flattened, and as decision-making
has become increasingly decentralized, that middle managers have actually initiated the vision
setting in organizations, and further, have demanded that upper management do likewise for the
organization as a whole (Collins & Porras, 1991, p. 32).
Importance of vision to middle management roles. In Nonaka’s (1988) concept of
“compressive management,” middle managers use the vision of top management and the visions
generated by lower levels of the organization to create information that drives the strategic
renewal of the organization. Middle managers are portrayed as synthesizers of vision, and as
“the starting point for action to be taken by upper and lower levels” (Nonaka, 1988, p. 15). In
selecting the middle managers, Nonaka (1988) argues, top managers essentially “decide who will
formulate and implement strategy” (p. 15).
Nonaka (1994) describes a comprehensive theory in which “compressive management”
or “middle-up-down management” is the mechanism for creating organizational knowledge (p.
15). In contrast to traditional, bureaucratic forms of organization, designed to process
information through “division of labor and hierarchy” (p. 29), and in which “only top managers
are able and allowed to create information” (p. 30), knowledge creation is conceptualized here as
a cooperative effort among top, middle, and lower managers and employees (Nonaka, 1994).
The role of top managers is to create a “conceptual umbrella” for the organization by
establishing a vision, objectives, and knowledge evaluation criteria (Nonaka, 1994, p. 31). The
role of middle managers is to work within this vision, objective, and criteria, and be the
“knowledge engineers” of the organization—those who “synthesize the tacit knowledge of both
frontline employees and top management, make it explicit, and incorporate it into new
technologies and products” (Nonaka, 1994, p. 32).
Oswald, Mossholder, and Harris (1994) offer “empirical support for the concept of
compelling strategic vision,” and particularly, for how it enhances the association between
management involvement in strategy formation and commitment to the organization and
between management involvement in strategy formation and job satisfaction (p. 486). “Strategic
involvement alone does not guarantee psychological attachment to the organization or job” and
that “managers participating in strategy formulation and implementation must believe that the
activity has importance in terms of long-term consequences for the organization” (Oswald et al.,
1994, p. 486). Oswald et al. (1994) suggest that “absence of salient vision can nullify the
potential beneficial effects of strategic involvement, perhaps because they perceive their
involvement is without sufficient justification…an exercise in purposelessness or even futility”
(p. 486).
Cooperating with top management in various roles. A number of studies depict the
cooperation of middle and top management in their roles in strategy formation. Hinterhuber and
Popp (1992) offer a series of questions to help top and middle managers evaluate their own
abilities as strategists, and of the ability of their organizations to support them as strategists.
They take the position that versus segregating top management as strategists and middle
management as strategy implementers, the successful organization should see the two groups as
one coalition of entrepreneurs (Hinterhuber & Popp, 1992). In such a coalition, each manager is
autonomous and able to make strategic initiatives, but works within an overall strategic vision
and organizational philosophy (Hinterhuber & Popp, 1992). One of ten questions in their
assessment inquires specifically whether middle managers are also involved in deliberate
processes of strategy formation (Hinterhuber & Popp, 1992). They argue that strategy formation
“is the job of those…managers…who are responsible for implementing the strategy” (p. 109).
The four roles of middle managers identified, defined, and tested by Floyd and
Wooldridge (1992b) also require cooperative interaction with top managers. In addition to the
traditional middle management role of strategy implementation, middle managers may assume
three other roles that contribute to or influence strategy formulation: strategic alternative
championing, strategic information synthesis, and organization adaptability facilitation (Floyd &
Wooldridge, 1992b). In these, respectively, middle managers may select, develop, and propose
various strategic alternatives to top managers; help top managers form the overall strategic
agenda and overcome their adversity to risk through their interpretation and representation of
internal and external environmental information; and enable top management initiatives through
the development of organizational capabilities (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992b). Floyd and
Wooldridge (1992b) find varying levels of each of these roles in various types of organizations,
with implementation still accounting for the highest level of middle management activity across
all of types of organizations.
Floyd and Wooldridge (1992a) argue that problems with consensus on strategy among
top, middle, and other managers may be a source of strategy implementation problems. They
define strategic consensus as agreement among these managers “on the fundamental priorities of
the organization,” and argue that it has two components, a cognitive component, which reflects
the level of understanding about the strategy, and an emotional component, which reflects the
level of commitment to the strategy, based on the ability to meet the needs of the organization
and the needs of the individuals in the organization (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992a, p. 28). Each
of these components may vary from high to low, resulting in four broad organizational states:
strong consensus, in which both understanding and commitment is high; weak consensus, in
which both are low; “blind devotion,” in which understanding is low but commitment is high;
and “informed skepticism,” in which understanding is high and commitment is low (Floyd &
Wooldridge, 1992a, p. 29). Floyd and Wooldridge (1992a) offer scenarios illustrating how any
of the states may be appropriate, depending on the current stage of strategic planning process. At
the stage of strategy implementation, Floyd and Wooldridge (1992a) argue, high consensus
among managers is ideal. This requires ongoing communication among top and middle
management to achieve and maintain a shared understanding of the organizational context, the
objectives to be achieved, the rationale behind the objectives, and the resources required to
implement them (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992a). They assert that strategic consensus requires top
managers to recognize that middle managers are instrumental in the strategy formulation process
in their advancement of selected initiatives, and to align organizational structures such as
incentive systems, to work with, not against, the decided, desired outcomes (Floyd &
Wooldridge, 1992a).
Hart (1992) surveys a sizeable body of research on strategy processes and integrates it
into a framework organized by the roles assumed by top managers and other “organizational
members” (p. 33). He arrives at five modes of strategy formation: command, symbolic, rational,
transactive, and generative (Hart, 1992). These modes represent a spectrum of involvement by
top management, ranging from top managers fully formulating strategy and directing its
implementation in the command mode, to top managers acting only in a strategic initiative
approval and strategy adjustment capacity in the generative mode. Other organizational
members--including middle managers, presumably--make increasing contributions to the
formulation of strategy in the symbolic, rational, transactive, and generative modes, becoming
“active players” along with top managers (Hart, 1992, p. 340). In the symbolic mode, their
decisions are motivated and inspired by top-management-determined mission and vision. In the
rational mode, they engage within the confines of a highly structured strategic planning system,
typically though “upward sharing of data and information” with top managers (Hart, 1992, p.
337). In the transactive mode, they participate, along with upper managers and other
organizational stakeholders in planning and decision making through a dialog driven by learning
and feedback (Hart, 1992). And in the generative mode, they are the originators and impetus of
strategic initiatives (Hart, 1992). Hart (1992) hypothesizes the relationship between each of the
modes and organizational performance, arguing in part on the basis of the extent to which the
skills of organization members are utilized, where lower utilization results in lower performance.
He also presents hypotheses on the relationships between the use of the various modes and
various firm and environment characteristics. Hart (1992) observes that the literature offers
examples of organizations that use multiple modes, including Nonaka’s (1988) middle-up-down
approach, and hypothesizes that proficiency in multiple modes likely contributes to
organizational performance.
Bartlett and Ghoshal (1993) describe their managerial theory of the firm and the roles of
managers therein based on an in-depth study of ABB, and contrast it to the models of Chandler
(1962), Bower (1970), and Cyert and March (1963). The model consists of three major
processes: an entrepreneurial process, an integration process, and a renewal process (Bartlett &
Ghoshal, 1993). Though top, middle, and operating level managers participate in all three
processes, middle managers are described as the “anchors” of the integration process (p. 38),
serving as “horizontal integrators of strategy and capabilities” (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1994, p. 44).
While operating-level managers are considered the “drivers” (p. 38) of the entrepreneurial
process in “creating and pursuing opportunities,” middle managers are also involved, as they
review, develop, and support the initiatives (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1994, p. 38). And, while top
managers are considered the “leaders” of the renewal process, in “shaping and embedding
corporate purpose,” middle managers are instrumental in “creating and maintaining
organizational trust” as lower level managers struggle with the “tension between short-term
performance and long-term ambition” (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1993, p. 38). In fulfilling their roles
as “horizontal integrators of strategy and capability,” middle managers engage in activities
including “internal benchmarking, best practice identification, and technology transfer” (Barlett
& Ghoshal, 1993, p. 33).
Hamel (1996) offers ten principles for discovering what he calls “revolutionary
strategies” (p. 81). The principles include allowing subversiveness in strategy making, freedom
from the “tyranny of experience” of top managers, finding a pro-change constituency within the
organization (often, middle managers), engaging revolutionaries in formal processes of strategy
formation, making strategy a democratic process for all organizational members, and allowing
strategy activists (Hamel, 1996). In the eighth of the principles presented, Hamel (1996) argues
for the value of new and different perspectives in strategy making, and suggests that using a
“deep diagonal slice” of the organization to develop strategy will provide both diversity and
unity in the process (p. 80). In this, he offers strong support for the involvement of middle
managers and others in strategy formation, and suggests that such broad involvement will also
make strategy implementation less problematic (Hamel. 1996).
As strategic resource and capability managers. Floyd and Wooldridge (1994)
integrate their 1990 and 1992 studies, and the results of a forthcoming study (Floyd &
Wooldridge, 1997), to explain and defend the strategic roles of middle managers on the basis of
their contribution to organizational performance. They argue that through participation in
strategy formation, middle managers are able to “understand the strategic rationale behind the
plan” (p. 51) which in turn enables them to “interpret, nurture, develop, and promote capabilities
(p. 54), making them, in essence, the embodiment of dynamic capabilities—“the ability to
develop new capabilities” and a source of sustainable advantage (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994, p.
49). Consistent with Hart and Banbury’s (1994) survey of top managers, they also found a link
between a diversity of strategy-making skills and organizational performance in middle
managers; “the first scientific evidence to support that proposition that middle managers are
potential reservoirs of core capability” (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994, p. 53).
In his longitudinal field study of the Intel Corporation, Burgelman (1994) offers insights
into the strategy processes of the firm, and in particular, into the processes that result in strategic
business exit. He identifies six stages in this process: success, external competition and
responses to it, internal competition for resources, top management concerns about viability,
decision to exit, and revision of strategy (Burgelman, 1994). He also identifies five forces that
drive the process: the official corporate strategy, the distinctive competence of the firm, strategic
actions, the basis of competitive advantage in the industry, and the internal selection
environment of the firm (Burgelman, 1994, p. 29-31). Burgelman (1994) exposes the prominent
role of middle managers in the strategic exit process, particularly in the stage of internal
competition for resources, in middle management strategic actions of competence development
(p. 45), and in their role in the internal selection environment (p. 44) (Burgelman, 1994). He
documents middle managers acting both autonomously in the strategic reallocation of process
development resources (p. 45), and semi-autonomously, in the reallocation of production
capacity to another business (albeit in accordance with decision rules established by top
managers that simultaneously contradicted the official strategy), even in the face of challenges
from other middle managers (Burgelman, 1994). The study also exposes several limitations of
top managers as strategists, including the propensity to adhere to the current strategy, “emotional
attachment” to successful products and related processes, and non-response to the internal
signals for strategic change, the latter of which was immediately detected by middle managers,
suggesting a need for reevaluating top management roles (Burgelman, 1994, p. 42).
Bartlett and Ghoshal (1994, 1995) perceive the need to reconsider the roles of top
management in their series of three articles examining twenty North American, European, and
Asian organization over a five year period. In the first of these works, Bartlett and Ghoshal
(1994) argue that the “the assumption that the CEO should be the corporation’s chief strategist,
assuming full control of setting the company’s objectives and determining its priories,” is
“untenable” in an environment that demands the “knowledge and expertise” found at lower
levels of the organization (p. 81). They suggest that top managers instead develop a “statement
of corporate ambition” and require employees at all levels to interpret and refine the statement,
so that every individual identifies their own sense of purpose and ability to contribute to the
organization (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1994, p. 82). They further argue that top managers must
commit the resources required to achieve the statement of ambition, and give employees the
discretion to use the resources to fulfill it (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1994).
In the second article of their series, Ghoshal and Bartlett (1995) describe the historical
use by top management of structural changes to fix various problems of organization and growth,
characterizing the results as fragmented resources and isolated strengths that limit the ability of
the organization to renew itself. Using examples from the twenty organizations they studied,
Ghoshal and Bartlett (1995) urge top managers to develop the organizations’ ability to renew
itself by encouraging and trusting in those lower in the organization to generate entrepreneurial
initiatives and to develop competencies for pursuing opportunities. They argue that top
managers should become the facilitators and arbiters in these entrepreneurial and capability-
development processes Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1995).
In the final article of their series, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1995) argue for a management
philosophy in which middle managers, among other employees, are considered as “vital strategic
resources” and assume strategic responsibilities in the organization (p. 142). They offer
examples illustrating the limitations of top-down strategy formulation and of highly specified
middle management roles to attain predictability and controllability, and argue for more fully
leveraging individual capabilities by designing participation and autonomy into strategic
decision-making processes in the organization (Barlett & Ghoshal, 1995). Post-industrial,

knowledge age organizations, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1994) argue, require a reallocation of top
management roles to middle managers and other organizational members.
Liedtka and Rosenblum (1996) also argue for engaging the strategy making capabilities
distributed throughout the organization. These capabilities, they assert, rely on individuals’
“strategic thinking abilities and the empowerment to act,” and must be coordinated, through
conversation, to enable the continuous adaptation of the organization (Liedtka & Rosenblum,
1996, p. 141). They propose top managers form, communicate, and support a strategic vision,
and middle managers choose intermediate strategies that conform to the vision (Liedtka &
Rosenblum, 1996). Liedtka and Rosenblum (1996) suggest that Andrews’ (1971) “fitting and
implementing” model of strategy be extended to include “shaping and participating,” through the
organization-wide development of learning, strategic thinking, and strategic conversation “meta-
capabilities,” to achieve a broadly inclusive strategy making process (p. 146).
Finding that less than ten percent of the middle managers engage in strategy formation,
Floyd and Wooldridge (1996) offer to practicing top and middle managers this text summarizing
and explaining their accumulated research on middle managers, and their specific
recommendations to each group for leveraging the middle management resource. They argue
that middle managers are uniquely positioned to accomplish the capability development required
by constant change in the organization environment. Floyd and Wooldridge (1996) describe
middle managers as champions of strategic initiatives, synthesizers of internal and external
information, and facilitators of capability development, in addition to implementers of strategy.
They explain the interrelations among these roles, as well as the potential effects of the roles on
the organizational outcomes including strategic decision quality, strategic implementation
quality, and financial performance. They suggest that middle managers who engage in the
various roles must overcome past perceptions and prepare and undertake an appropriate strategic
skill development plan (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1996). They offer top managers suggestions for
leveraging their middle management resource in developing organizational strategy (Floyd &
Wooldridge, 1996).
Influence of and on context. Again, various sources portray middle managers in the
role of strategic initiative developer, among other roles. These also offer insights into how the
organizational context influences middle management initiatives, and how middle management
initiatives influence context. Extending the work of Bower (1970) and Burgelman (1983b) to
multiple, similar firms, Noda and Bower (1996) examine organizational responses to a similar
particular market opportunity in order to discern why they respond differently, and specifically,
how the decisions and activities of middle managers and others in the organization result in
different strategies in the firms (p. 161). They find that Burgelman’s (1983b) model may be
applied iteratively, and that the structural and strategic context established and evolved by the
top management in each firm explains differences in the definition (and in subsequent iterations,
redefinition) phases of the model and in the product championing efforts occurring within it
(Noda & Bower, 1996). These differences carry forward into the impetus (and continual
impetus) phases, in which middle managers play a significant role, and then into the phases of
strategic and structural context determination (Noda & Bower, 1996). As in Burgelman (1994),
Noda and Bower (1996) find middle management support of product championing initiatives
necessary to the resource allocation to, and hence survival of, an initiative, and that the
established structural (e.g., earnings expectations versus operating results) and strategic (e.g.,
strategic direction) context either supports or impedes the strategy building and organizational
championing activities of middle managers in the impetus phase, in their attempts to “articulate a
master strategy” and influence the context driving resource allocation (p. 177). Noda and Bower
(1996) describe a virtuous cycle in which the degree to which middle managers successfully
advance initiatives within the given context determine the level of confidence top managers have
in those middle managers, which in turn increase the likelihood of top management acceptance
of subsequent middle management strategy building efforts. Where the structural and strategic
contexts are at odds with these efforts, a loss of confidence may occur (Noda & Bower, 1996).
Through successive iterations of the process model, the strategic and structural contexts evolve,
though the structural context to a lesser degree than the strategic context (Noda & Bower, 1996,
p. 180).
Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, Hayes, and Wierba (1997) introduce their two exploratory
studies on strategic issue selling by arguing its importance to the strategic adaptation of the
organization, and by characterizing the middle managers who sell issues to top managers as
those with “their hands ‘on the pulse of the organization’,” with close links to “customers and
other stakeholders,” and with the ability to define those strategic issues (p. 407). Using the
psychology literature on impression management and upward influence as theoretical
foundation, Dutton et al. (1997) describe how middle managers’ perceptions of the
organizational context determine, in part, their willingness to engage in issue selling to influence
the strategic agenda of a firm (p. 409). They find middle managers assessing the context based
on the psychological safety (as evidenced by top management willingness to listen and on the
openness and supportiveness of the larger organization culture) and based on the availability of
“windows of opportunity” for issue selling (created by external or internal economic or
competitive pressures) (Dutton et al., 1997, p. 412). The context is perceived as unfavorable by
middle managers when there is a “fear of negative consequences,” when organizational

downsizing is imminent, when there is uncertainty, and when the culture is perceived as risk-
averse (Dutton et al., 1997). Dutton et al. (1997) observe that middle managers must also
determine how frequently to make this assessment or what conditions should trigger an
assessment. They also find middle managers assessing the cost, to their image, of selling of an
issue (Dutton et al., 1997). In this activity, middle managers consider three factors: political
vulnerability (based on, for example, past successful or failed attempts to sell issues, or whether
it is an individual or group sale), the relationship between the seller and top management (based
on how much exposure the seller has had, how much rapport they have built, and how much
knowledge they have), and whether the issue-selling attempt follows an accepted organization
process (Dutton et al., 1997). Dutton et al. (1997) conclude that “factors that enhance selling
ability, perceived urgency, and psychological safety should promote issue selling, producing the
variation that contributes to organizational learning and evolution. They challenge top managers
to proactively seek out and resolve organizational impediments to middle management issue
selling (Dutton et al., 1997).
In their study of 259 middle managers across various organizations and industries, Floyd
and Wooldridge (1997) assess the degree of influence middle managers have on strategy with
respect to their proximity to organizational boundaries. They find that middle managers are
“critical to the alignment of the internal and external selection environments,” and that those
middle managers closest to the external environment, such as those in boundary-spanning
functions such as sales or R&D, are best able to identify the most valuable ways to evolve
strategy, and are, therefore, most likely to influence strategy (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997). The
highest performance is found in organizations where, as a group, middle managers consistently
engage in managing the implementation of strategy and there is variation in middle management
engagement in autonomous strategic initiatives (Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007). Firms valuing the
strategic contributions of middle managers, or finding them necessary to respond to an
increasingly dynamic external environment, may consider designing more of middle
management positions as boundary-spanning positions (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997). Though
the study is limited by sample size, an inability to reflect causation, and self-reporting of
participants, the results are consistent with other studies linking variety in middle management
upward influence and with theories of dynamic capabilities (cf. Teece et al., 1997).
In the UK firm studied by Marginson (2002), the influence of the various types of
management control systems used by the firm on middle managers’ production of strategic
initiatives and other forms of involvement in the strategy process. In this firm, the “creativity
and innovations” of middle managers is both recognized and sought in the formation of strategy
(Marginson, 2002, p. 1020). Management systems designed to change the strategic values of the
organization offered middle managers increased freedom to put forward more and more diverse
ideas and initiatives (Marginson, 2002). Administrative systems also encouraged middle
management innovation and initiatives (Marginson, 2002). At the same time, the value systems
increased rivalry among middle managers for the resources necessary to support their initiatives,
and tended to distract them from routine operations and performance objectives, while the
administrative systems tended to drive middle managers into one two groups in order to “balance
the tension between innovation and control,” that of strategic entrepreneur or that of enabler of
strategic entrepreneurs (Marginson, 2002, p. 1025). Performance management did not appear to
effect strategic activity among middle managers, but did force them to make tradeoffs among the
“innovation milestones” and the “budgetary targets” of new initiatives. Marginson (2002)
concludes that “managerial perceptions” of the strategic purpose of these control systems “are a
crucial factor in determining the effects” of the systems on the strategy process: value systems
for “‘triggering” initiatives, administrative systems for strategic role focusing, and performance
systems for a focus on outcomes (p. 1027).
As drivers of strategic renewal. Floyd and Wooldridge (2000) assert that the dynamic
nature of the competitive environment demands that organizations are capable of adaptation.
Building on the literatures of logical incrementalism (Quinn, 1978/1989), emergent strategy
(Mintzberg, 1978; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985; Burgelman, 1983b), and supported by the
literatures of social network theory, organizational knowledge and cognition, and trust, Floyd
and Wooldridge (2000) argue that this adaptability may be realized through strategic renewal, a
process in “which organizations develop new capabilities to create or sustain a competitive
advantage” (p. xvii). They conceptualize the strategic renewal process as a “complex system” of
three subprocesses: idea generation, in which individuals with “access to strategically relevant
divergent information” and the willingness and ability to process it generate ideas (p. 112);
initiative development, in which those ideas with the “potential to change core organizational
capabilities…and shift the basis of competitive advantage” (p. 117) are “articulated,”
“elaborated” and “ratified” (p. 118); and strategic reintegration, in which the official strategy is
modified to incorporate the new initiative (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000, p. 110). This process
focuses on the development of organizational capabilities. As a result, middle managers take on a
central role in strategic renewal, as they are critical to the dynamic capabilities of an
organization, in developing the organizational capabilities that drive organizational performance
(Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000).
Floyd and Wooldridge (2000) advocate for strategic renewal to complement top
management strategic decision making processes, not replace them (p. 38). This, they argue,
means abandoning a number of the assumptions: that strategy decisions can be made exclusively
through rational processes of strategic alternative development and ranking, that top managers
are the primary sensors and processors of organizational and environmental information, and that
strategic decisions result in strategic actions (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000, p. 20). Instead, they
propose supplementing rational decision making processes with learning processes (p. 15),
resource allocation processes with resource accumulation processes (and in particular,
capabilities) (p. xxiii), and top management thinking with middle management thinking (Floyd &
Wooldridge, 2000, p. 40). They suggest that top managers focus on mediating the relationship
“between the organization and capital markets” (p. 40) and to allow the “intention within all
parts of the system” drive renewal (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000, p. 41).
Floyd and Lane (2000) examine the strategic renewal process, and specifically, how
middle managers renew organization competences through activities of competence definition,
competence modification, and competence deployment. Of central focus in the study is the
potential consequence of middle management participation in strategic renewal: strategic role
conflict (Floyd & Lane, 2000). Strategic role conflict occurs as the result of middle managers’
having to mediate among “divergent inputs” from lower managers, signals from top managers,
and changes in the larger environment (Floyd & Lane, 2000, p. 159). Floyd and Lane (2000)
argue that middle management location at the hub of strategic information flow require them to
assume a “broad range of strategic roles” each of which draws on unique knowledge and skills
(p. 164). They must be technically proficient in order to interact with lower managers, and
strategically and politically competent in order to interact with upper managers (Floyd & Lane,
2000).
King and Zeithaml (2001) portray middle managers as essential to the ability of the
organization to sustain competitive advantage, through their ability to “recognize, import, share,
and exploit internal knowledge” (p. 90). In their study of top and middle managers in two firms,
one in the healthcare industry, the other in the textile industry, they find support for their
hypotheses that overall, linkage ambiguity is negatively associated with performance, and that
competencies high in tacit and culture-location characteristic ambiguity are each positively
associated with performance (King & Zeithaml, 2001). King and Zeithaml (2001) argue that
their results “contest arguments that linkage ambiguity is necessary to sustain competitive
advantage” and instead, “that low linkage ambiguity provides middle managers with a “platform
for sustaining competitive advantage” (p. 90). Their results suggest that middle managers are
also critical to exposing those competencies that may create a competitive disadvantage for a
firm (King & Zeithaml, 2001, p. 90). King and Zeithaml (2001) question why, despite the
unique perspective that middle managers bring to strategic renewal, and despite the desire of top
managers to leverage this ability of middle managers, “strategic research…continues to
marginalize middle managers as valuable strategic decision-makers” (King & Zeithaml, 2001, p.
90).
King, Fowler, and Zeithaml (2001) argue that “firms that invest the time and effort to
assess their competencies can expect to have better information to support strategic decision
making” (p. 96). Their field study evaluates whether middle managers are capable of assuming
this assessment role, and finds that “organizations in which middle managers described their
competencies as more tacit, more robust, and more embedded tending to outperform those that
did not” (King et al., 2001, p. 98). King et al. (2001) argue the importance of middle
management consensus on competencies, as well as consensus among top and middle managers
on competencies, and suggest an ongoing dialog to accomplish it.
Following a six-year study of over 200 middle and upper managers, Huy (2001, 2002)
characterizes middle managers as critical facilitators of the implementation of significant,
strategic organizational change, and attributes their success to the unique communication and
selling skills they have as a result of their typically longer tenure and influential social networks
within the organization. Huy (2001, 2002) observes the particular ability of middle managers to
manage emotions—both their own and those of their employees--during these periods
organizational adaptation, and that they assume the emotional balancing role even when
discouraged by top managers to do so. Huy (2002) describes middle managers as “key levers of
organizational renewal” (p. 64) in their ability to facilitate both capability development and
continuity in operations during change (p. 43). Huy (2001, 2002) also urges top managers to tap
into the entrepreneurial behaviors of middle management in the formulation of strategic change
initiatives, based on inadequate resource allocation to ideas that, from his field observations,
have a high success rate. He urges top managers to “consult” middle managers “early and often”
on issues of strategy, to increase their understanding of and comfort with the changes, and to
prime their roles as communicators and sellers of the subsequent changes to others in the
organization (Huy, 2001, p. 76).
Middle managers may also drive the renewal of the processes of strategy formation.
Middle management perceptions of the strategy process are central to the work of Collier,
Fishwick, and Floyd (2004) on managerial involvement in the strategy process. Their research
suggests that “managers who are more involved in strategy not only see the process in a more
favorable light but also act in ways that make the process more effective” (Collier et al., 2004, p.
67). Put another way, they argue that the strategy process itself is improved through the broader
involvement of managers in the process (Collier et al., 2004).
Role switching and adaptation. Several studies illustrate the ability of middle managers
to switch between various roles, even during the course of one strategic initiative, and to adapt
the roles in consideration of other influence groups in the organization. Boyett and Currie (2004)
use Floyd and Wooldridge’s (1992b) typology of middle management involvement in strategy to
examine middle management roles in an Ireland-based firm’s international market development
strategic initiatives. In observing both middle managers from the parent Dublin-based company
and in the host country, Jamaica, they find that both groups assuming the roles specified in the
framework, some roles unique to one group or the other, and some roles in the interaction of the
two groups (Boyett & Currie, 2004). Collectively, middle managers influenced each of the
strategic objectives set by parent company executives. The product quality emphasis set by top
managers is transformed into a product development initiative; the original plan for a rapid build-
up and divestiture becomes a long-term investment and parent company management presence in
the region; and the proposed “flat and flexible” organization envisioned by top managers is
rejected for a more traditional, hierarchal arrangement (Boyett and Currie, 2004). These changes
result from championing efforts by the middle managers; middle management synthesis and
communication of national culture-related information to top managers; facilitation of the
adaptations necessary to implement the changed initiatives, e.g., new recruitment strategies, by
middle managers; and, actual implementation of the modified strategic initiatives by middle
managers. The study confirms the premise of Floyd and Wooldridge (1992b): middle managers
influence strategy in a variety of ways, in roles beyond that of strategy implementation.

Currie continues his work on middle management roles in strategy with Procter (Currie &
Procter, 2005) in the examination of a “large professional bureaucracy” in the United Kingdom
(p. 1326). Currie and Procter (2005) extend the typology of Floyd and Wooldridge (1992b),
adding the role of strategic diplomat. They find that middle managers in organizations with a
strong professional core, (e.g., physicians, engineers, attorneys), may have to diplomatically
engage the ideas of these professionals along with their own into strategic initiatives (Currie &
Procter, 2005, p. 1344). The expectations of these professional groups, as well of those as other
powerful stakeholders (government entities, in this study), may also act either as inhibitors or
facilitators of middle management involvement in strategy, as may middle managers’ proximity
to organizational boundaries, middle managers’ perceptions of job security, and organizational
commitment to middle management development (Currie & Procter, 2005). Currie and Procter
(2005) also extend the work of Floyd and Lane (2000) on the problems of middle management
role conflict in their identification of factors that inhibit or facilitate middle management
involvement in strategy and middle manager responses to the factors. When multiple, inhibiting
factors are active, middle managers may experience role ambiguity or role conflict or both, due
to the inability to satisfy conflicting expectations (Floyd & Lane, 2000). The responses of
middle managers to these conditions range from ignoring or offering surface compliance, to
compliance without commitment, to autonomous strategic initiative-selling, to cooperative
strategy design with top management and subsequent implementation (Currie & Procter, 2005).
As interpreters and translators. A number of studies emphasize the less direct means
by which middle managers contribute to strategy formation, particularly in their information-
centric roles in strategy. In her ethnographic study of a Canadian clothing design firm, Rouleau
(2005) also finds middle managers influencing the success or failure of a strategy in assuming
interpretation (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992b) and issue-selling (Dutton & Ashford, 1993) roles.
Specifically, middle managers are observed making and giving sense to the strategy they receive
from top managers in translating, adapting, marketing, and justifying the strategy to external
stakeholders (Rouleau, 2005). The middle managers draw on the tacit knowledge they have
accumulated in a variety of personal and professional social systems to accomplish this
interpretation and selling to multiple and unique stakeholders (Rouleau, 2005). Rouleau (2005)
argues the importance of understanding these middle management “micro-practices,” given that
“strategic change is a continuous process” and that “everyday interactions and conversations
matter as much as formally orchestrated events or strategy documents” (p. 1433)
Balogun (2006) advocates for strategic consensus in calling for shared vision among top
and middle management, the development of “guiding principles and expectations,” and top-
middle management co-interpretation of these principles and expectations prior to and
throughout the implementation of strategy process (p. 45). This conclusion is the result of the
study of a major strategic initiative at a UK utility, in which middle managers are observed in a
strategy-editing role (Balogun, 2006). Middle managers initially edit the strategy, received from
top management, through their existing mental maps (Balogun, 2006). The editing continues
during strategy implementation, as middle managers interpret it, now through their social
interactions with top and other middle managers (Balogun, 2006). Balogun (2006) identifies the
presence of reinforcing processes during editing, some of which are in alignment with top
management intention, and others which are not. Her resulting sensemaking framework
challenges the assumptions of top management control, of the effectiveness of vertical and
formal communication, and of top management ability to manage meaning (Balogun, 2006).
Bower and Gilbert (2007) argue that “strategy is crafted, step by step, as managers at all
levels of a company commit resources to policies, programs, people, and facilities” (p. 74). They
attribute this to organizational structure, which disperses knowledge and power and creates
varying strategic perspectives, and to decision-making processes, which are also distributed
throughout the organization (Bower & Gilbert, 2007). Middle managers take on roles as
strategic objective-to-action translators, capability producers, and strategic proposal initiators,
and may see themselves as the actual formulators of organizational strategy (Bower & Gilbert,
2007). Bower and Gilbert (2007) argue that this requires top managers to reconsider their own
roles, to “align the bottom-up processes with top-down objectives” (p. 79), to reconcile the
various strategic perspectives by knowing which managers are backing which proposals (in order
evaluate the proposals, to some extent, by the location and track record of the proposing
manager), and to insist that the strategic value of each initiative is clearly articulated.
As participants in deliberate process, twenty years later. Hodgkinson, Whittington,
Johnson, and Schwarz (2006) make the “first substantial exploration” of strategy workshops with
the intent of identifying the role of the workshops in the larger strategic planning process, as well
as their content and participants (p. 479). They survey individuals at all levels of the
organization, in a broad range of organizations in the UK, and find that strategy workshops are
used to formulate strategy about one third of the time, and for the purposes of strategy
formulation and implementation about sixty percent of the time (Hodgkinson et al., 2006).
Within the workshops, formal strategy tools, such as SWOT analysis, are used, but more as
frameworks for discussion than for analytical purposes (Hodgkinson et al., 2006). The
participants are generally top managers; middle managers are included “in less than half of the
workshops,” and when they are, it is typically in those workshops pertaining to strategy
implementation (Hodgkinson et al., 2006, p. 487). The evidence, they argue, suggests that top
management may be “resistant to including middle managers” even though their inclusion
“would enrich the discussion by bringing a wider range of strategic issues to the fore and
enabling a greater diversity of views to be fed into the process” (Hodgkinson et al., 2006, p.
490).
Pappas and Wooldridge (2007) recommend that middle managers participate in the
strategy process so that they can learn about the “long-term direction of their firm” and thereby
make more effective contributions to strategic renewal in their idea generation, initiative
development, and strategic reintegration activities (Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007, p. 338). Using
social network analysis, they extend the work of Floyd and Wooldridge (1997) in a case study of
a US hospital, and reveal an association between the social network position of a middle
manager and their renewal activity (Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007). Consistent with Floyd and
Wooldridge (1997), they find middle managers in external environment boundary-spanning
positions exhibiting greater levels of strategic renewal activity than those in non-boundary
spanning positions. In addition, they find that “internal network position is a vital element that
seems associated with strategic activity regardless of a manager’s external network position”
(Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007, p. 337). In addition to their recommendation for middle
managers’ participation in deliberate processes of strategy, for the purpose of understanding long
term direction, they recommend the development and maintenance of both vertical and
horizontal linkages of middle managers to facilitate strategic renewal, and the development of
middle managers via education “about strategic concepts in general “(Pappas & Wooldridge,
2007, p. 338).
Vilá and Canales (2008) examine changes over time in the strategy formulation process
of an automotive services organization in Spain, and in particular, the increased involvement of
middle management in the strategy process. Middle management involvement was driven by top
management beliefs that traditional strategic planning by top managers was inadequate in the
face of industry dynamism, and that managers at all levels needed to engaged in a process that
would build their strategic thinking skills and prepare them to engage in “real-time strategy-
making” (Vilá & Canales, 2008, p. 275). Top managers were also convinced that the
involvement of middle managers in strategy formulation would facilitate commitment to the
resulting strategy and lead to a more effective implementation as the result of more clearly
appreciated “priorities and goals” (Vilá & Canales, 2008, p. 276). Vilá and Canales (2008)
observe four major phases in the evolution of the strategy process: an initial phase in which a
minimal number of middle managers were included in business-level internal and external
analysis, strategic objective-setting, and strategic initiative proposing for their respective areas,
within the boundaries of a corporate strategy established by top management; a second phase in
which middle management developed both corporate strategy and the business strategies
together with top management; a third phase in which middle management continued the
formulation of corporate strategy together with top management, then assumed responsibility for
development the business strategies; and a fourth phase, in which corporate strategy was co-
formulated by top and middle managers, and both groups initiated the formulation of business
strategy, and middle management completed the formulation of business strategy (p. 283). Vilá
and Canales (2008) argue that the case demonstrates the possibility for top and middle managers
to work together and effectively “reconcile the interests of both” groups (p. 285). The case
illustrates that process—structure—may be evolved to meet top management expectations of

middle management involvement and its benefits, that top management may make the structural
changes to support their involvement (e.g., coordinating strategy staff).
Role expectations. In an early study, Thakur (1998) exposes the tension among
expected and desired roles of middle managers in strategy. Thakur (1998) integrates prior
research on middle management involvement in strategy with data gathered from top and middle
managers to create a framework for involving middle management in strategy. Interviews with
top managers and surveys of middle managers reveal that both groups perceive the primary role
of middle management in strategy as that of strategy implementation, which follows a top
management strategy formulation stage, just as “categorized in textbooks” (Thakur, 1998, p.
733). Surveys of middle managers at the same firms, however, suggest that middle managers are
more capable of strategic thinking than expected by top managers, and further, that middle
managers would also like to contribute to strategy formation (Thakur, 1998). Thakur (1998)
suggests a need to change the dominant thinking about strategy formulation roles, to institute a
practice of strategic conversation among top and middle managers.
Mantere (2008) addresses role expectations in the strategy process, here, those that
middle managers have of top managers, as middle managers engage in the roles of strategy
implementation, strategic adaptability facilitation, information synthesis, and strategic alternative
championing (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992b). Drawing from interviews with 262 middle
managers in twelve European professional service organizations, Mantere (2008) identifies eight
such role expectations middle managers have of top managers. The traditional strategy
implementation role requires top managers to reveal the process and rationale behind their
selection of strategy, to illustrate to middle management how the strategy supports their work, to
allocate necessary resources to middle managers to support implementation, and to show respect
for middle managers in recognizing the value they add through their implementation role in
strategy (Mantere, 2008). The middle management facilitation role requires top managers to
express trust in middle managers in their facilitation activities work to develop capability: to
allow for their success and failure as they work with new ideas and initiatives (Mantere, 2008).
Middle managers’ information synthesizing role is enabled by top managers’ responsiveness to
middle management inputs (Mantere, 2008). And, top managers enable the championing role of
middle managers by including them in strategy formation activities and actively responding to
and arguing among the strategic alternatives middle managers offer (Mantere, 2008).
Mantere and Vaara (2008) also examine strategic discourse in these twelve European
professional service organizations. They argue, using Hardy and Philips (2004), that discourses,
among other functions, “construct specific subject positions for social actors,” defining “what
they are expected, can, or can not do,” making them “crucial for comprehending how specific
actors are supposed to or can participate in strategy work” (Mantere & Vaara, 2008, p. 343,
emphasis in original). Mantere and Vaara (2008) find evidence of discursive practices that
enable, or promote, involvement in strategy, and of practices that constrain, or impede,
involvement in strategy, any combination of which may occur in any one organization. Three
discourses impede involvement in strategy: “mystification” discourses occur in organizations
using traditional, top-down, top management-oriented strategy formation processes;
“disciplining” discourses occur in hierarchical organizations characterized by managerial
authority and employee compliance; and “technologization” discourses occur in organizations
in which the strategy is governed by specific tools and processes (Mantere & Vaara, 2008, p.
350). Three discourses promote involvement in strategy: “self-actualization” discourses occur in
organizations in which individuals are able to define their roles in the organization to the benefit
of the organization as a whole, to one another, and to themselves; “dialogization” discourses
occur in organizations in which there is “an integration of top-down and bottom-up approaches”
to strategy and mutual learning; and “concretization” discourses occur in organizations with
broadly inclusive, continuous processes of strategy formation (Mantere & Vaara, 2008, p. 351-
352). Mantere and Vaara (2008) observe that “these discourses tend to legitimize particular
modes of participation while delegitimizing others” (p. 353) and express concern about the
impeding discourses in particular, “which embody traditional views of strategy and strategizing”
(p. 353) that afford little value to the prospective contributions of middle managers.
Jarzabkowski and Balogun (2009) illustrate how role expectations may evolve over time.
Building on the work on the integrative effects of strategic planning (cf. Ketokivi & Castañer,
2004), and on Westley’s (1990) concept of strategic conversation, Jarzabkowski and Balogun
(2009) reveal the political nature and purposefulness of the participants in their longitudinal case
study of the strategic planning process of a multinational European consumer goods firm. The
study reveals that various participants (in this case, a headquarters strategy group and various
country business units) in the strategy process assume strategy formulation and implementation
roles for themselves and for other participants (Jarzabkowski & Balogun, 2009). They find that
though the roles assumed by each of the groups may not be in alignment with one another
initially, that the roles either evolve or become reinforced over time through the influence of the
participants on the strategy process (Jarzabkowski & Balogun, 2009). The model offered by
Jarzabkowski and Balogun (2009) illustrates how the strategy formulation experience of each of
the participants (the business units, in this case), and the relative power of each of participants
(based on their financial contribution to the firm), results in either resistance to or acceptance of
the roles assigned to them (and the level of participation inherent in the role) by the participant
assuming the role of strategy formulator (the headquarters group, in this case). The model
represents how the resistance or acceptance of the participants to the assigned role result in
negotiated changes to the strategy process that, in turn, help resolve the differences in
participants’ perspectives on their appropriate, respective roles (Jarzabkowski & Balogun, 2009).
They conclude that for a strategy process to have integrative effects, it must account for
differences in the strategic capability and other resources of its participants; mere involvement in
the process is inadequate (Jarzabkowski & Balogun, 2009).
As indirect influences via information and attention management. Shi, Markoczy,
and Dess (2009) develop the concept of the middle management role as information broker in the
formulation and implementation strategy. They decompose the role into eight types, based on
the organizational level (top, middle, and lower) of the management groups among whom the
middle manager is brokering, and, the direction of information flow (with respect to the
organizational level of the alters). Shi et al. (2009) illustrate how middle managers exercise
control in the brokerage situation by either uniting the alters or by keeping them disconnected
from one another, adopting either a “union” or “disunion” strategy of brokerage, depending on
the strategic role they are fulfilling (as defined by Floyd and Wooldridge (1992b)). They reveal
the complexity of middle managers’ brokerage roles in strategy through their explication of the
various ways middle managers serve as information brokers in the strategy process (Shi et al.,
2009).
Although the focus of McMullen, Shepherd, and Patzelt (2009) is on top management
attention to external threats to the organization, and why such threats may go unattended, middle
managers, they argue, play a key role in directing top management attention to environmental
threats. McMullen et al. (2009) assert that top managers expect middle managers to engage in
threat detection, particularly those middle managers who have been assigned competitive
intelligence responsibilities. These middle managers are expected to accurately detect threats,
assess threats, develop possible outcome scenarios, and to communicate these to top
management in a manner consistent with the significance of the threat, as it is perceived by the
middle manager (McMullen et al., 2009). In fulfilling this role, middle managers serve as
extensions to the limited attention top managers have to give to the environment, and this role
increases in importance with increased firm size and internal specialization (McMullen et al.,
2009). McMullen et al. (2009) caution that middle managers may influence the regulatory focus
of top management toward either threat prevention or opportunity promotion given their own
regulatory focus, and that top managers may have a tendency to receive middle management
threat or opportunity information that is consistent with their own regulatory focus.
Bingham and Eisenhardt (2011) question what firms learn as they engage in rational
processes of strategic decision making. Data from top and middle managers suggests that firms
develop portfolios of decision making heuristics that support real time, emergent strategic
decision making (Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2011). While middle managers are not the object of
this research, if firm-level learning is the result of feed forward processes of individual and group
learning (Crossan, Lane, and White, 1999), then middle managers as individuals or as a group
engaged in strategy in the firm contribute to the heuristic portfolio, and therefore, to emergent
strategy formulation.
Sull and Eisenhardt (2012) argue that these decision making heuristics, or “simple rules,”
enable all organization members to focus on the same strategy while allowing each the latitude in
decision-making to innovate or meet local or changing circumstances. In their example, cross-
functional teams of middle managers and others develop the rules, which “function as an explicit
agreement across units to guide decision-making” (Sull & Eisenhardt, 2012, p. 70). Sull and
Eisenhardt (2012) warn against assuming that “CEOs are best positioned to dictate rules’ content
and that rules should be used to exercise top-down control” (p. 73); rather, they suggest that
those who use the rules should define and test them. They suggest that top managers select the
members of the rule-making teams, commit themselves to the approach, and trust the team to
develop and use the rules (Sull & Eisenhardt, 2012).
Ren and Guo (2011) characterize middle management’s strategic role as one of managing
attention, and argue that it is vital to “a firm’s ability to explore and extend the boundaries of its
capabilities” and to take new strategic directions (p. 1601). Using the attention based perspective
(cf. Ocasio, 1997) and the concept of policy windows (cf. Kingdon, 1984/2011), Ren and Guo
(2011) describe a model in which middle managers prescreen opportunities within an attention
structure formed by the current strategy, those involved, their location within the organization,
and resource availability; and in which they advance selected opportunities to top managers
during expected and emergent windows of opportunity. The former process requires middle
managers to notice opportunities, to assess their potential for future corporate growth, to make a
decision whether to endorse an opportunity, and to determine the level of ongoing support to
offer (Ren & Guo, 2011). The latter process requires middle managers to draw on their abilities
to anticipate and gauge the receptivity of top managers, to “package” the initiative for them so
that it appears to be a natural fit with the current strategy of the organization (Ren & Guo, 2011,
p. 1598).
Working from empirical data, Rouleau and Balogun (2011) elaborate the existing theory
on middle management sensemaking in strategy. Their resulting framework illustrates the
interrelated activities of conversation performance and scene-setting, through which middle

managers influence peers, superiors, and subordinates (Rouleau & Balogun, 2011). They
describe how middle managers adapt these activities, using language appropriate to the particular
conversation, and drawing on their knowledge of the sociocultural systems of their the target of
influence, to construct an appropriate context for the conversation (Rouleau & Balogun, 2011).
They offer four propositions concerning the degree of influence of middle managers, based on
their ability to “anticipate and improvise around language and social cues,” “identify, assemble,
and mobilize relevant alliances;” “invoke…deep knowledge of organizational rules and
sociocultural codes;” and appropriately “position themselves” with consideration to the “power,
status, and situations of others” (Rouleau & Balogun, 2011, p. 973-974). They suggest that the
“discursive competence” of middle managers predicts their effectiveness in their various
strategic roles (Rouleau & Balogun, 2011, p. 977). They argue that middle management ability
to influence is more than the “skillful use of language” (p. 971); it requires the middle manager
to “conduct the entire conversational event” (p. 973), using both “strategic and relational”
knowledge (Rouleau & Balogun, 2011, p. 976).
In relationship to top managers. Raes, Heijltjes, Glunk, and Roe (2011) integrate the
cumulative research on top and middle management and the strategy process, offering a set of
propositions concerning the interface between top and middle management in strategy
formulation and implementation. The resulting model captures three functions of top-middle
management interaction: to reconcile their varying perceptions of significant changes in the
external environment, to manage the degree to which the organization will pursue its current
strategy or must adapt it, and to resolve their expectations with regard to their respective roles in
the strategy process (Raes et al., 2011). The interface is characterized by periods of contact
among members of top and middle management, during which information exchange and mutual
influence occur; these alternate with periods of independent activity by top and middle managers,
during which they fulfill their respective primary roles in the strategy process: formulation for
top managers and implementation for middle managers (Raes et al., 2011). Raes et al. (2011)
argue that though there are differences in top and middle management power, and in their
sources and interpretation of information, that they are interdependent in accomplishing the
interface functions. Interdependence, they argue, exposes both groups to risk, and therefore,
requires trust among the groups (Raes et al., 2011). This trust, they propose, is generated by the
level of “cognitive flexibility and integrative bargaining” that top and middle managers perceive
in one another, which in turn drive the quality of the strategic decisions made and the quality of
the implementation of those decisions (Raes et al., 2011, p. 116). Raes et al. (2011) conception of
the strategy process falls into the traditional formulation-implementation responsibility split
between top and middle managers, and they do not argue that one group assume the role of the
other; simply that both the strategy formulated and the strategy implemented will be of better
quality if there is a trust relationship between top and middle managers based on sharing of
information and influence. They suggest that the perceived and actual cognitive flexibility and
integrated bargaining skills of top and middle managers are important to this relationship, and
that these perceptions and abilities may, over time, be positively or negatively reinforced, or held
in equilibrium, through the processes of information sharing and mutual influencing (Raes et al.,
2011).
Huy (2011) examines a potential source of middle management resistance to the
implementation of top management-formulated strategy, and its consequences for organizational
performance, in his field study of a large Canadian technology firm. Building on the work of
Huy (2002), this study argues that “strategic change can arouse strong emotions among the
workforce” (p. 1389), and specifically, that top managers insensitive to the emotions and social
identities of middle managers can trigger “negative group-focused emotions” that lead to
information-withholding, or the ignoring or resisting of strategy by middle managers (Huy,
2011). Huy (2011) attributes the implementation failure of two of the three major, top-down
strategic initiatives examined to the failure of top managers to attend to middle management
emotions and social identities (p. 1399). Huy (2011) attributes the one successful strategic
initiative examined in the study to top managers’ attentiveness to the emotions and social
identities of middle managers, though, interestingly, it was also the one case in which external
consultants mediated between the two levels of management, adjusted the formulated strategy to
mitigate its emotional and social impacts, and engendered the trust of middle managers to
represent them in upward communication on subsequent implementation issues by responding to
middle management input (p. 1403). Put another way, in this third case, consultants facilitated
the interface between top and middle managers, allowing essential negotiation and trust-building
to occur, as argued by Raes et al. (2011). Huy (2011) recommends top managers facilitate “open
and safe discussion between executives and middle managers” (p. 1405) and institute ongoing
emotional awareness training and development for both top and middle managers (p. 1407).
That middle managers were observed “feeling anger toward newcomer executives when
employees sensed that their group competencies were repeatedly not valued” also suggests that
top managers ought routinely assess the capabilities of middle managers and leverage them
appropriately (Huy, 2011, p. 1393).
Performance effects of middle management. Various studies have identified the
performance effects of middle managers’ involvement in strategy. Wooldridge and Floyd (1990)
confirm a link between middle manager involvement in strategy formulation and organizational
performance in this empirical study. They argue that middle management involvement impacts
organizational performance through the improved decisions and subsequent strategies produced,
through increased consensus around a strategy and the subsequent implementation of the
strategy, or both (Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990). Their study of a variety of firms in the banking
and manufacturing industries finds that middle managers’ involvement in the formulation of
strategy is positively associated with organizational performance through improved strategy
decisions (Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990). The study also finds a positive association between
middle manager involvement and consensus, through better understanding of the strategy—but
that this involvement-consensus relationship does impact organizational performance
(Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990). These findings from survey data are supported with interview data
from both top and middle managers. The interviews reveal middle managers as valuable
contributors to strategy, as expecting and desiring strategic direction, and as not necessarily
becoming committed to a strategy during the process of involvement (Wooldridge & Floyd,
1990). Wooldridge and Floyd (1990) acknowledge both the limitations of the study (e.g., sample
size, possible reciprocal causation, and self-reporting), as well as reasons why it may not be
productive to involve middle managers (including cost, confidentiality, and speed), but argue
that, at a minimum, they demonstrate middle manager involvement as an important consideration
for the strategy process.
Andersen (2000) also implicitly recognizes the potential value of middle managers to
strategy formation. Andersen’s (2000) study of firms in multiple industries supports the
coexistence of and organizational performance benefits of both deliberate and emergent forms of
strategy formation. He finds that “strategic planning has positive performance effects across
industries” (Andersen, 2000, p. 184). Further, in the dynamic and complex computer products
industry, autonomous actions have positive performance effects, and companies that engage in
both planning and autonomous action achieved even significantly higher performance
(Andersen, 2000).
Broader involvement in the strategy process may also have performance implications,
particularly when the process is accompanied by decentralized strategic decision making.
Andersen’s (2004) study of strategic decision making processes in185 manufacturing
organizations, in fact, confirms “that effective organizations engage in more complex strategy
formation processes” (p. 1271). He defines “decentralized strategy making as a decision
structure that allows important strategic influences to emerge from managers at lower
hierarchical levels of the organization” (p. 1274), and through two different mechanisms: by
participating in strategic decisions, in which managers make proposals through the formal
strategy processes of the organization (i.e., “ask permission” in the Dutton and Ashford (1993)
sense), and by autonomous decision making, or “distributed decision authority,” in which
managers have the authority to undertake initiatives on their own (i.e., “without permission”, in
the Bower (1970) sense) (Andersen, 2004, p. 1275). Andersen (2004) argues, building on
Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984), Hart (1992), and Mintzberg and Waters (1985), that making an
either-or choice among these is a false choice; that both may exist in an organization, and in a
complementary manner. He defines “integrative strategy formulation” as “the simultaneous
emphasis on the decentralized strategy making modes and strategic planning processes”
(Andersen, 2004, p. 1276). In examining these phenomena in organizations, he finds that in
dynamic environments, the distribution of strategic decision making authority is effective, but
that participation in decisions within strategic planning processes has “no economic effect”
(Andersen, 2004, p. 1287). Strategic planning processes, are, however, “effective and more so in
dynamic environments” (Andersen, 2004, p. 1287). “When distributed decision authority and
strategic planning processes are combined they seem to be even more effective, whereas
participation in decisions and strategic planning combined seem to reduce economic
performance. Hence, distributed decision authority appears as the most effective strategy
making mode whereas participatory decision processes seem to have significant limitations”
(Andersen, 2004, p. 1287).
To further work on the hypothesized link between strategic consensus and organizational
performance, Kellermanns, Walter, Lechner, and Floyd (2005) integrate the literature on the
topic, and propose that the definition of strategic consensus expand from a shared understanding
of strategic priorities among top managers (Dess, 1987), to a shared understanding among top,
middle, and operating level managers. They defend the expansion of the definition to middle
and operating managers based on the “substantive” roles they play in the strategy process, as
exposed by studies taking a more evolutionary perspective on the strategy process, such as that
of Burgelman (1983b) (Kellermanns et al., 2005, p. 4). Kellermans et al. (2005) argue that the
variation in the findings on strategic consensus may be explained, in part, by the exclusion of
these other management groups. They suggest that future research on the relationship between
strategic consensus and organizational performance consider the various levels of management,
related antecedents (e.g., degree of middle management involvement in strategy formation), and
various moderators (e.g., the level of environmental complexity, which may require more middle
management involvement) (Kellermanns et al., 2005). They also suggest that the study of “more
proximate outcomes,” such as capability development, may be fruitful (Kellermanns et al., 2005,
p. 16).
To this point in time, middle management research in strategy has primarily examined
middle managers as a group. Mollick (2012) uses a sophisticated statistical model to examine
the contribution of individuals to firm performance in the computer game industry, finding that
middle managers account for slightly more than (22.3 percent) of the variation in revenue than
does the typical measure of the firm-level processes (21.3 percent). Innovative individuals
account for some 7.4 percent of the variation (Mollick, 2012). Further, “the effects of individual
in this case also greatly exceeded those found in Bertrand and Schoar (2003) for top-level
executives” (Mollick, 2012, p. 1012). Mollick (2012) concludes that “individuals uniquely
contribute to the success or failure of a firm” (p. 1012) and middle managers, in particular “are
critical to firm performance, even in highly innovative industries” (p. 1013).
As biased. Middle management involvement in strategy formation is not without
problems: a number of studies address the problem of bias in middle managers. Nutt’s (1990)
assessment of top and middle managers’ strategic decision making styles reveals that the
decision-making styles of managers may influence their assessment of a particular strategy, both
with respect to its potential and with respect to its risk (Nutt, 1990). Interestingly, top managers’
decisions were found to be more dependent on their decision-making style than were the
decisions of middle managers (Nutt, 1990).
Ketokivi and Castañer (2004) identify position bias, the propensity of individuals to
pursue local versus organizational goals, as “a fundamental challenge for both strategy
formulation and implementation” (p. 337). They propose, based on the findings of Coch and
French (1948) and others in studies on participation, that position bias may be alleviated in part
through participation in strategy formulation and through the communication of strategic goals to
all employees (Ketokivi & Castañer, 2004). They hypothesize that “participation in the strategic
planning process should generate informational, affective, and motivational effects that attenuate
position bias, this increasing goal convergence” (Ketokivi & Castañer, 2004, p. 341). Their
study of middle managers in 164 mid-sized and large organizations in the US, UK, Germany,
Italy, and Japan, finds that middle management participation in strategy formation, along with
communication of the “strategic priorities,” does reduce the problem of position bias (Ketokivi &
Castañer, 2004). Further, they describe their findings as offering “positive evidence of the
integrative role of strategic planning” (p. 357) and potential to “increase loyalty and commitment
to organizational goals” (Ketokivi & Castañer, 2004, p. 359).
Despite this evidence, Tushman, Smith, and Binns (2011) advocate that top managers,
not middle managers, make the resource allocation decisions within the organization. They
argue that “the innovation’s only friend is the CEO” and suggest that middle managers are too
short-term focused to properly allocate resources to the innovations within their units (Tushman,
et al. 2011, p. 75). To leave such decisions to middle managers, they argue, is “ceding too
much…power” (Tushman et al., 2011, p. 76). They describe as “a common pathology” allowing
“negotiations for capital and resources take place under the radar of the top team” (Tushman et
al., 2011, p. 77). Tushman et al. (2011) offer several case examples to back their argument.
Most recently, Reitzig and Sorenson (2013) explore and find support for the potential of
middle managers to show bias in their decisions to select and advance strategies based on the
organizational group initiating the strategy, and the degree to which the middle manager
identifies with or affords status to that organization subunit or group. They suggest that strategic
initiative selection processes be certain to include input from those who likely not be biased due
to membership within a particular subgroup within the organization (Reitzig & Sorenson, 2013).
Synthesis and Discussion
This review supports the characterization of the literature of the middle management
perspective by Wooldridge et al. (2008) as “somewhat fragmented” (p. 1192). The exception,
and of particular use to this study, is the emergence of five distinct roles of middle managers in
strategy formation.
Roles. The five roles exposed in this review have direct and indirect effects on the
strategic context of the organization, the strategy of the organization, or both. Figure 2.3
illustrates the roles and their impact on organizational context and strategy.
Figure 2.3. Roles of middle management in strategy formation. Direct roles are depicted with
solid arrows; indirect roles are depicted with dashed arrows. Where arrows pass through the
strategic context to strategy, they may have an impact on the context as well as the strategy.
In the role of context developer, the middle manager directly impacts the strategic
context of the firm through various initiatives. In the role of coformulator, the middle manager
directly impacts the strategic context, the strategy, or both, as they work with top managers in
deliberate processes of strategy formation. In the role of initiative developer, the middle
manager also directly impacts the strategic context, the strategy, or both, but largely
independently from top managers. Two middle management roles have less direct impacts on the
strategic context or strategy of the organization. In the role of strategic decision maker, the
decisions of the middle manager with respect to resource allocation or capability development,
for example, may indirectly result in changes to the strategic context, to the strategy, or both. In
the role of interpreter-translator, the middle manager interpretation of top management
developed strategy, or vision, and the translation of such to others internal and external to the
organization, may indirectly result in changes to the strategic context, to the strategy, or both.
Conclusion
A review of the scholarly literature offers evidence of a number of significant roles
middle managers may have in the formation of organizational strategy. Over fifty studies,
published in top management journals, specifically describe the ways in which middle managers
contribute to strategy formation. Numerous other studies indirectly support the involvement of
middle managers in strategy formation. In these roles, middle managers directly or indirectly
impact the organizational strategy, the strategic context of the firm, or both. Middle managers
may work along with top managers, or autonomously, in these roles. The research indicates that
middle management involvement in strategy formation has benefits for middle managers as
individuals and for the organization. The body of research on middle management involvement
in strategy formation is, on these bases, both substantive and relevant to current and aspiring
middle managers, and to the organization as a whole.

3: Conceptual Framework
Maxwell (2005) describes a conceptual framework as “a conception or model of what is
out there...and of what is going on with these things and why—a tentative theory of the
phenomena” (p. 33). He explains that conceptual frameworks may differ, depending on whether
the research question is a variance question, one with a “focus on difference and correlation” or a
process question, one with a “focus on how things happened, rather than whether there is a
particular relationship or how much is explained by other variables (Maxwell, 2005, p. 74-75).
The objective of this study is to assess the degree to which the theory on middle management
involvement in strategy formation is integrated into strategic management textbooks, a question
of variance. This variance question is situated within a broader process, however, that of the
production and distribution of knowledge. The conceptual framework presented here represents
both the variance-oriented research questions and its processual context, drawing on and
integrating three of Maxwell’s (2005) sources: experiential knowledge, prior theory and
research, and pilot and exploratory research. (The fourth of Maxwell’s (2005) sources, thought
experiments, was also used by the author, but is not documented here.)
Experiential Knowledge
This study is informed by the experience of the author, both as a management practitioner
and as a management scholar. The author has been involved in strategy processes at a variety of
organizations, in roles varying from “critical task specialist” (Ashmos & McDaniel, 1996) to
middle manager. The type and extent of involvement in strategy formation at these
organizations varied, from none, where strategy was received only; to interpreter and
implementer of received strategy; to contributor of strategic alternatives. Throughout these

experiences, a number of observations have been made of strategy processes and of the
involvement and capabilities of top and middle managers and other organizational members.
Various levels of involvement, or willingness to involve or be involved, and various
levels of strategic competence, have been observed by the author. Top and middle managers
encourage or facilitate the involvement of those below them in the organizational hierarchy to
different degrees. Typically, the level of encouragement or facilitation was simply consistent
with that specified by the formal strategy process, as observed by Ashmos, Duchon, and
McDaniel (1998). Some managers did involve subordinates outside of these process
specifications, through ongoing communication of the work of the strategy process, by
solicitation of input for the ongoing process, or both. The typical situation was, however, one in
which top managers determined strategy, communicated it in a broad way to the organization,
and left the implementation of the strategy up to those receiving it. Varying strategic capabilities
of individuals—at all levels of the organization—were also observed. There appears to be
difficulty in differentiating among strategy and tactics. There appears also appears to be a
general deficiency in the ability to think strategically.
The author has also made a number of observations as a management scholar engaged in
the teaching of strategy at the undergraduate and graduate levels of business school. Of most
significance here are students’ perceptions of strategy roles and of their own strategic
capabilities. With respect to roles, students in strategy courses, and particularly undergraduate
students, tend to perceive strategy as something that is done at the very top of the organization,
with little or no involvement of, or even relevance to, those in the rest of the organization.
Students already working in middle management positions understand their roles as suppliers of
information to top managers, to be used by top managers in strategy development. Students tend
to be uncertain about their ability to contribute to strategy, whether or not they perceive
themselves in any strategic role. Many students suppose that the ability to contribute to strategy
is only learned--and earned--through many years of professional experience. The author recalls,
when first developing course materials for an undergraduate course in strategy, her own
perceptions concerning roles and abilities as not unlike those of students. Further, these
perceptions were reinforced by the specifications of the course content, as given in the course
description and learning outcomes, and as covered in the strategy textbook to be used. At the
same time, they were at odds with the author’s objective to make the course relevant to students,
as well as her professional experience of strategy process. This motivated the author to look
beyond the given pedagogical devices to the broader body of literature, with the objective of
reconciling these. Chapter 2 represents the comprehensive findings from that endeavor.
Prior Theory and Knowledge: Production and Dissemination of Knowledge
Of the various sources drawn upon for developing a conceptual framework (Maxwell,
2005), the literature of the production, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge makes the
most significant contribution. It provides a context for the comparison of the body of knowledge
pertaining to middle management involvement in strategy formation and the coverage of this
topic in strategy textbooks. Following a brief overview of the development of the field, and of
its general models, the framework created for this study is elaborated component by component,
drawing from the literature of the field of the production, dissemination, and utilization of
knowledge.
Origins and state of the field. The field of knowledge creation, dissemination, and
utilization of knowledge emerged in the late 1950s in response to an unprecedented and rapid
production of knowledge, and to the needs of scholars and policymakers to leverage this
knowledge in ongoing research and for application to broader society (Havelock, 1971; Likert &
Lippitt, 1959). University research centers, including at the University of Michigan and at the
University of Minnesota, were established to undertake broad studies of knowledge production
and dissemination, with the objective to “understand and improve the process of dissemination
and utilization of new knowledge in all fields of practice” (Havelock, 1971, p. 1-2).
Work in this field draws on and integrates research from a broad base of disciplines,
including the closely related field of the sociology of knowledge (Alvarez, 1997; Mazza, 1998).
In describing the field with respect to business knowledge, Mazza (1998) calls attention to the
work of Polyani, Berger, and Luckmann in the sociology of knowledge, as well as to
“anthropology (Geertz), philosophy (Ricoeur), sociology of culture (Schudson), social history
(Chartier), and economics (McCloskey)” (p. 164). Havelock’s (1971) contribution to the field,
widely recognized as one of its defining works (c.f. Love, 1985; Rich, 1979), builds on Rogers’
(1962/2003) diffusion of innovation, as well as on the literature of social psychology, the change
literature of social science, and some 4,000 studies from the fields of psychology, education, and
sociology.
Thought the potential value of this field is undisputed, it has not received commensurate
attention from the scholarly community. Likert and Lippitt’s (1959) early characterization of the
field is as “neglected” (p. 643). Forty years later, scholars still describe the field as relatively
insignificant—even unimportant—to both academics and practitioners (Rich, 1991; Rynes,
Bartunek, & Daft, 2001). The reasons proposed for this seeming indifference vary, but are often
attributed to the complexity and diversity of the field (Alvarez, 1997; Love, 1985), as well as to
difficulties in measuring and producing empirical evidence of its phenomena, particularly in

establishing direct links between specific knowledge and its actual use (Alvarez, 1997; Rich,
1979, 1991; Rynes et al., 2001).
Models of knowledge production, dissemination, and utilization. Early models of
knowledge production, dissemination, and utilization were drawn from extant process models of
problem solving, research and development, social interaction (Havelock, 1971; Love, 1985).
Havelock (1971) synthesizes these models of dissemination and utilization into a more generic
knowledge flow system comprised of research, practice, and consumer subsystems. In his
institutional representation of the system, the university, and the professional school within it, are
the research and practice subsystems and producers of knowledge (Havelock, 1971). Various
public and private institutions are the consumer subsystem and consumers of knowledge
(Havelock, 1971). These subsystems are linked by various professionals and their organizations,
and interact with other governmental, media, and product organizations (Havelock, 1971).
Figure 3.1 depicts a simplified representation of the Havelock (1971) institutional model.
Figure 3.1. An institutional representation of the knowledge production and distribution system.
Adapted from Planning for Innovation through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge (p.
3-5), by R. Havelock, 1971, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Copyright 1971 by the
University of Michigan.
Duncan (1972) uses the Havelock (1971) model to create a model specific to the flow of
management knowledge in his study of management education as an “intervening process” in the

system. The objective of his study is to show the importance of management education and to
justify improvements to “the teaching of administrative science concepts” (p. 274). A simplified
representation of Duncan’s (1972) model is given in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2. Management knowledge production and distribution system. Adapted from “The
knowledge utilization process in management and organization” by W. J. Duncan, 1972,
Academy of Management Journal, 3, p. 278. Copyright 1972 by the Academy of Management.
Though subsequent models have been developed, including those concerning
interpersonal or interorganizational problem solving (c.f. Rich, 1991), action research,
organizational behavior, and technology transfer (Love, 1985), the conceptual framework for this
study on middle management research in textbooks follows Duncan (1972), given its specific
focus on the production and dissemination of management knowledge. Figure 3.3 depicts the
conceptual framework for this study; an elaboration of each of its components follows.
Figure 3.3. Strategy knowledge production and distribution system. A conceptual framework
for the study of middle management involvement in strategy formulation.
The body of knowledge. Scholars generally agree that the body of knowledge is
comprised of the work published by and for scholars; it is the “corpus of academic thought”
(Barley, Meyer, & Gash, 1988, p. 26). In the social sciences, journals are considered “the
primary knowledge source” (Olk & Griffith, 2004, p. 120). This knowledge may be described in
a number of ways (Alvarez, 1997), but the social science literature, broadly, and the management
and organizational literature, specifically, classify knowledge as either basic or applied (Duncan,
1972; Havelock, 1971). Weigold (2001) differentiates between the former as knowledge that is
sought “for its own sake,” and the latter as “solutions to immediate problems and concerns” (p.
165). Havelock (1971) further describes basic knowledge as theory, data, and methods; and
applied knowledge as theory (either descriptive, or prescriptive, for the purpose of guiding
practitioner behavior), data, methods, designs, and prototypes. Mazza’s (1998) characterization
of business knowledge describes these as “formal research” and “technical solutions” (p. 167).
In discussing strategy knowledge specifically, Jarzabkowski and Wilson (2006) suggest that its
purpose is to “help inform and guide those managers who steer the strategic course of an
organization” (p. 348). Strategy knowledge, they argue, ought to be “actionable knowledge” that
may be applied by practitioners (Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2006, p. 348). Whether basic or
applied, formal or technical, actionable or not, this knowledge is created, in part, by the business
school in the university (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005, p. 98).
Production of knowledge: University business schools. Though knowledge may be
produced in any of the institutions within the system of knowledge production and dissemination
system, the university, and the professional schools within the university, are typically
considered the locus of knowledge production (Riesman, 1998). Havelock (1971) describes the
university as “the primary institutional form in which the resource subsystem is realized” (p. 7-
24) and portrays it as “the primary source, storage point, and cultural carrier of expert
knowledge in all fields, basic and applied” (p. 3-2; emphasis in original).
The distinction between basic and applied knowledge is reflected in the organization of
the university. Havelock (1971) describes the university has having “central” and “peripheral”
components, with the former producing basic knowledge, and the latter producing applied
knowledge (p. 3-13). He locates the production of applied knowledge within the professional
schools within the university, among them, the medical and business schools (Havelock, 1971, p.
3-16). This is consistent with Barber (1963), who in his work on the sociology of professions,
argues that the ideal university professional school creates the knowledge “on which professional
practice can be based” (p. 674). Duncan (1972), as well, describes the “colleges and graduate
schools of business administration” as professional schools and “subsystems of the university”
(p. 279). Duncan (1972) argues, however, asserts that the objective of the professional school of
business is to produce both basic research and applied research: “to contribute to and synthesize
the basic knowledge being developed in relevant areas and apply them to practical problems of
management and organization” (p. 279).
Subsequent literature also describes business schools as producers of basic knowledge, of
applied knowledge, or of both. Abrahamson’s (1991, 1996) “administrative technologies” are
clearly applied knowledge (p. 257). Mazza (1998), and Mazza and Alvarez (2000), describe
business schools as sources of “formal knowledge,” and as places where formal knowledge may
be combined with “practical knowledge,” the results of which are legitimized through delivery in
the graduate business programs, among other means. Whittington (2006) describes business
schools as “producers of dominant types of practices” (p. 629). Whether basic, applied, or both,
that business schools produce knowledge suggests that there are consumers for it.
Consumers of knowledge: Current and future management practitioners. Havelock
(1971) describes the practice subsystem as “the prime utilizer of research knowledge” (p. 3-18).
Management practitioners, those engaged in the management of organizations, comprise the
practice subsystem within the larger system of management knowledge production,
dissemination, and utilization (Duncan, 1972). Whittington (2006) describes strategy
practitioners specifically, as those who actually “make, shape, and execute strategy,” among
them, executives and middle managers (p. 619). Management practitioners “strive to accomplish
well-defined ends” through “the application of all relevant knowledge” (Duncan, 1972, p. 277).
This knowledge may be acquired by these individuals either prior to, or concurrent with, their
practice of management (Abraham & Levy, 2007, p. 42). They may use knowledge others have
created, create their own knowledge (Boland, Singh, Salipante, Aram, Fay, & Kanawattanachai,
2001, p. 410), or some combination of these, as when they “experiment with, modify, and apply
theoretical knowledge artifacts…in ways that theorists might regard as separate and sacrosanct”
(Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2006, p. 362-363). Ultimately, the members of the practice subsystem
use this knowledge to benefit the employees and shareholders of an organization, and indirectly,
the larger society in which the organization exists (Duncan, 1972, p. 277). One means by which
management practitioners acquire this knowledge is through formal education offered by
business schools within the university (Havelock, 1971; Mazza & Alvarez, 2000; Rich, 1991).
Dissemination of knowledge: Formal education. Though knowledge may be
disseminated “through a variety of intermediaries” (Rynes et al., 2001, p. 346), it is the
university that accomplishes “nearly all training and passing on of expert knowledge” (Havelock,
1971, p. 3-2). The formal education offered by the university is a “direct transmission” of
knowledge from the university producer to the student consumer (Havelock, 1971, p. 3-6). This
is also true of the professional schools within the university, a basic function of which is to
transmit to students “the generalized and systematic knowledge that is the basis of professional
performance” (Barber, 1963, p. 674); and of the mission of business schools in particular (Bennis
& O’Toole, 2005; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Simon, 1991); and for the current and future strategy
practitioners specifically (Whittington, 2006, p. 626). Havelock (1971) observes that in fulfilling
its dissemination role, “replenishes the profession, recruiting and socializing successive
generations of new professionals” (p. 3-6, emphasis in original).
University faculty are instrumental to the dissemination of knowledge in formal
education. Havelock (1971) characterizes the teaching professor as a “processor, translator, and
transmitter” of knowledge to students (p. 2-1), “through the courses taught in the academic
curriculum” (p. 7-24). Those professors with professional experience are also able to “pass on or
inculcate an understanding of a profession in the next generation of practitioners” (Havelock,
1971, p. 7-10). With or without professional experience, the classroom professor “works on the
assumption that underlies much of formal education, namely that a body of knowledge can be
conveyed and stored for future use in an extended, intensive learning experience” (Havelock,
1971, p. 7-9). The professor must, then, be “an expert who is capable of conveying large
quantities of knowledge and/or complex skills” (Havelock, 1971, p. 7-9).
The professor is assisted in this transfer process by various devices, among them, the textbook
(Alvarez, 1997; Havelock, 1971; Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2006).
Dissemination mechanism: Textbook. Havelock (1971) describes textbooks as a type
of “inter-system message,” a means of moving information from one subsystem within the
system of knowledge production, dissemination, and utilization to another (p. 2-34, 2-35). These
messages may move directly from knowledge producers to knowledge consumers, as they would
via a course lecture, or indirectly, as they would via textbooks or journals (Beyer & Trice, 1982,
p. 603).
Textbooks are designed to convey knowledge to “wide and diverse audiences” including
“practicing managers, university researchers, and students of management and organization”
(Duncan, 1972, p. 279). Knowledge is “highly screened, processed and packaged” to make it
“useful to people and systems” beyond those engaged in the production of knowledge production
(Havelock, 1971, p. 2-34). Jarzabkowski and Wilson (2006) observe this with strategy
knowledge: it first undergoes a “process of disassociation” in which it is “simplified into
‘knowledge artifacts’ such as tools, techniques, and frameworks” before being “disseminated
into practice through MBA courses and strategy texts” (p. 349).
The textbook is hybrid message, as it combines elements of both basic and applied
research (Havelock, 1971, p. 2-38). Textbooks contain the “theories, laws, and classifications
which underlie the masses of empirical phenomena of our world,” without the empirical data that
would normally be part of messages destined for other basic researchers (Havelock, 1971, p. 2-
38). They also contain elements of applied research, including “working models…which the
practitioner can adopt and adapt to their own special circumstances” (Havelock, 1971, p. 2-38).
The specific content of a textbook is driven by a range of stakeholders with varying
perspectives and criteria (Thompson, 2005). Chief among these are the requirements of faculty
textbook adopters (Elbeck, Williams, Peters, & Frankforter, 2009; Fullerton, 1988; Lowry &
Moser, 1995), who are considered “the ultimate decision makers” by textbook authors and
publishers (Cameron et al., 2003). Faculty make textbook selections for students either
individually or as members of textbook selection committees (Elbeck et al., 2009; Lowry &
Moser, 1995). Textbooks are adopted by faculty based on the degree to which they contain
topics that address student learning outcomes (Lowry & Moser, 1995) and research of
“substantive validity” (Rousseau & McCarthy, 2007).
This examination of the literature of knowledge production and dissemination suggest
that textbooks ought to represent the theory concerning middle management involvement in
strategy. Perhaps they do, and it was missed by the author. This motivated a small pilot study.
Pilot and Exploratory Studies
An informal, exploratory study of the strategic management text adopted by the author’s
institution, and by many universities throughout the United States (MBS, 2013), was conducted
using the methodology used by Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010) in their examination of
institutional theory coverage in strategy texts. The pilot study suggested that the involvement of
organizational members in strategy formation may be addressed in texts, but in more subtle ways
than was institutional theory in Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010). The pilot study raised
concerns about the detailed representation of the theory on middle management involvement in
strategy texts, and motivated and informed the research design provided in Chapter 4.
Conclusion
Experiential knowledge, prior theory, and a pilot study have together formed and
defended the conceptual framework for this study. The question as to whether the “ought to” of
the framework is reflected in the “is” of reality is addressed next.

Chapter 4: Research Approach
This chapter describes the research approach taken on this inquiry into the representation
of the scholarly literature on middle management involvement in strategy formation in strategy
textbooks. It first presents the objectives of the study. It then describes the quantitative and
qualitative methods to be employed, the rationale for their selection, and the role of each in
answering the research question in a comprehensive manner. The instruments used in data
collection and reporting of findings are presented. The chapter concludes with a discussion of
the challenges of this research approach. This study is modeled directly after a similar study by
Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010), in which the coverage of institutional theory in strategy
textbooks is examined.
Research Objectives
The primary objective of this study is to compare what is known about middle
management involvement in strategy formation, as it is represented in the scholarly literature, to
what is represented in strategy textbooks on the topic. It examines the null hypothesis:
There is no relationship between what is known about middle management involvement

in strategy formation and what is covered about middle management involvement in
strategy formation in strategy textbooks.
A secondary objective is to broadly characterize how the literature on middle
management involvement in strategy formation is represented in strategy textbooks, and to
contrast this to how it is represented in the literature as theory and practice. This will permit
some general propositions about the relationship between strategy-as-research, strategy-as-
taught, and strategy-as-practice to be made, for future research.

The overall intent of this study is to improve the practice of strategy by exposing
opportunities to improve the textbooks used in the development of current and future
management practitioners.
Data Source and Unit of Analysis
As the purpose of this study is to evaluate the extent to which middle management
involvement in strategy formation is integrated into textbooks by comparing what is known
about this topic to what strategy textbooks say about the topic, strategy textbooks are the source
of data. This is consistent with Cummings and Bridgman (2011), who refer to management
textbooks as “our data” in their study on historical content in these texts (p. 78). Consistent with
other studies on textbooks (Cummings & Bridgman, 2011; Enz, 1986; Stambaugh and Quinn
Trank, 2010), the unit of analysis is the textbook.
Research Method
Following Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010), the comparison of what is known about
middle management involvement in strategy formation and what is contained in strategy
textbooks on the topic will utilize quantitative and qualitative techniques from the method of
content analysis. Content analysis is “a research technique for making replicable and valid
inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use” (Krippendorff,
2012, p. 24). Its quantitative aspect comes out of the longstanding “respect for numbers” and the
idea that “facts that can be quantified” are “irrefutable” (Krippendorff, 2012, p. 12). Its
qualitative aspect derives from the need to interpret text in the context in which it occurs, in
order to describe its meaning (Krippendorff, 2012; Schreier (2012). Together, the quantitative
techniques (e.g., the number of occurrences of a given word or phrase), and the qualitative
techniques (e.g., the degree to which that word or phrase represents a given concept),
characterize the text (Fairclough, 2010; Stambaugh and Quinn Trank, 2010).
A content analysis consists of a number of activities. Like other methods, research
questions must be established. Material that is appropriate to answer the question must be
selected, a coding frame designed and tested, the main analysis performed, and the findings
interpreted and presented (Schreier, 2012). These activities are conducted in this study, in order
to assess the extent to which the literature on middle management involvement in strategy
formation is found in contemporary strategy textbooks.
Rationale for Research Approach
Content analysis has an over 200-year-old history of use throughout the social sciences,
from political science to psychology to sociology (Krippendorff, 2012). It has been used in
management research to study organizational values (Kabanoff, Waldersee, & Cohen, 1995), the
extent and direction of corporate social responsibility (Abbott & Monsen, 1979; Pérez &
Rodríguez del Bosque, 2012), and innovation (Blau & McKinley, 1979). Content analysis has
been used specifically in strategy research on communication of strategic intent (Yunxia, 2008),
the narratives used during strategic change (Sonenshein, 2010) and top management
communication to shareholders (D’Aveni & MacMillan, 1990; Osborne, Stubbart, &
Ramaprasad, 2001).
Content analysis has also been used specifically with textbook content. Krippendorff
(2012) documents early studies of textbooks in 1930, in which 427 textbooks were examined for
their attitude on civics, and in 1938, in which the descriptions of war in history textbooks were
analyzed. Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010) employed quantitative and qualitative content
analysis in their study of strategic management textbooks, Lemke and Driscoll (2009) in their
assessment of ethics integration into strategic management textbooks, and Parham and Muller
(2008), in their review of organizational behavior textbooks for content on workforce diversity.
Content analysis techniques have also been used to describe trends in research articles, as in
Bartunek and Rynes’ (2010) investigation of implications for practice in management research
articles.
This content analysis is both quantitative and qualitative. Some scholars argue that this
distinction is unnecessary, in that even the quantitative techniques require a process that is
qualitative in nature (Krippendorff, 2012). As Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010) observe,
however, “a quantitative approach…is a somewhat crude tool when dealing with issues of
meaning, which is essential when we view textbooks as cultural artifacts” (p. 670). Therein is
the rationale for using both quantitative and qualitative content analysis techniques for this study.
Research Process
This study broadly follows the research process described by Stambaugh and Quinn
Trank (2010). Figure 4.1 illustrates the overall process used in this study and the seven major
activities that comprise it.
Figure 4.1. Research process. Investigating the extent to which what is known about middle
management involvement in strategy formation is represented in strategy textbooks requires
seven major activities.
A description of each of the activities in this process follows, along with supporting
documentation. The instruments used to record the process were developing during the pilot
study of David (2011), the strategy textbook used at the author’s institution. (The actual study
uses the most recent edition of this text.) The pilot study allowed for an initial test of both the
activities in this research process and the recording mechanisms.
1: Develop and apply sample strategy. This activity produces the sample of textbooks
to be studied. The population of strategy textbooks is determined, and the method to do so
recorded and defended. A sampling strategy is developed and defended, and the sample of
textbooks to be studies is selected based on the strategy and recorded. The textbooks selected for
the sample are acquired from their respective publishers, and a set of basic descriptive statistics
are selected and presented.
Population. Following Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010), the clearinghouse for
information on textbook adoptions, Faculty Center Network (2013), an information service of
MBS Textbook Exchange, an industry leader in wholesale textbook distribution (MBS, 2013),
was used to determine the population of strategy textbooks. A search for all texts published after
2010 in the strategic management subject area, of data available as of August, 2013, yielded 238
results. This number is consistent with the 227 strategy texts identified by Stambaugh and Quinn
Trank (2010) using a similar search strategy.
Sample selection. As this study is concerned with the influence of textbooks on practice,
and particularly the practice of middle managers, it, like Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010)
used the criterion of “most widely adopted” (p. 667) to select among the population of texts.
Using the Faculty Center Network (2013) ranking of texts from zero to five, all books ranked
three (indicating moderate popularity) and above were selected. This resulted in a sample of 30
texts. This sample was carefully examined, and texts that did not pertain to general strategy,
(e.g., on cost management (Blocher, Stout, Jura, & Cokins, 2012), or on human resources
(Belcourt, McBey, Hong, & Yap, 2013)), were eliminated, as were multiple editions of the same
text. Where there were concepts-only and concepts-and-cases versions of the same text, and the
concepts content was identical in both texts, only one of the two versions was retained in the
sample. These activities reduced the sample to a list twelve texts. The resulting list was
compared to a list of the top-selling texts provided by the largest college retailer of texts (Frost,
personal communication, August 2013) and to a list of top-selling texts from a major textbook
publisher (Frost, personal communication, 2013). Texts appearing in at least two of the three
lists comprise the final sample of nine texts, and are given in Table 4.1a.
Table 4.1a
Textbooks Selected for Review
Author(s) Title Year Edition
Barney, J. & Hesterly, W. Strategic Management and Competitive 2012 4

Advantage
David, F. Strategic Management Concepts 2013 14
Gamble, J., Thompson, A., Essentials of Strategic Management 2013 3

& Peteraf, M.
Hill, C. & Jones, G. Essentials of Strategic Management 2012 3
Hill, C. & Jones, G. Strategic Management Theory 2013 10
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Strategic Management: Competitiveness 2013 10

& Hoskisson, R. and Globalization, Concepts
Hunger, J. D. & Wheelen, T. Essentials of Strategic Management 2011 5
Pearce, J. & Robinson, R. Strategic Management 2013 13
Wheelen, T. & Hunger, J. D. Concepts in Strategies Management 2013 13

and Business Policy
The sample textbooks were acquired from their respective publishers and briefly
reviewed. In all cases a physical textbook was available and used in the study. The general
characteristics (e.g., numbers of pages of text, number of chapters) of each text were recorded.
Table 4.1b offers descriptive statistics for each of the texts. Where the text included case
materials or web-only chapters (e.g., Wheelen & Hunger, 2013), these were not included in the
page and chapter counts.
Table 4.1b
Descriptive Statistics for Textbooks in Sample
Text Chapters, Theory Pages, Theory
Barney & Hesterly 11 342
David 11 357
Gamble et al. 10 235
Hill & Jones (Essentials) 9 260
Hill & Jones (Theory) 13 495
Hitt et al. 13 416
Hunger & Wheelen 10 160
Pearce & Robinson 14 425
Wheelen & Hunger 11 362
2: Develop keywords and categories. Two sets of keywords and categories are required
for this study, one set to search for content related to middle management involvement in
strategy formation, and one set in which to classify the types of involvement identified in
textbooks.
Following Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010), the first set of keywords and categories
consists of the authors and sources of the scholarly literature on middle management
involvement in strategy formation. The list of scholarly sources is based on the results of the
systematic literature review documented in Chapter 2 and is given in Table 2.3. These sources
suggest five types of middle management involvement in strategy formation, described in Table
4.2a.
Table 4.2a
Middle Management Involvement Based on Scholarly Literature
Role Impact Description
Context Developer Direct Define strategic context of the firm
Coformulator Direct Define strategic context, strategy, or both; work

with top managers in processes of strategy
formation
Initiative Developer Direct Define strategic context, strategy, or both; work

independently of top managers
Strategic Decision Maker Indirect Define strategic context, strategy, or both
Interpreter-Translator Indirect Define strategic context, strategy, or both
The second set of keywords was identified by scanning the abstracts of the literature
reviewed in Chapter 2. In expectation that the coverage of middle management involvement in
strategy formation may be subtle, as many potentially relevant keywords were selected as
possible. Following an approach used by Lemke and Driscoll (2009), the keywords are grouped
into several broad categories. Table 4.2b records the keywords by category.
Table 4.2b
Keywords, by Category for Middle Management Involvement-Related Content

Category Keywords
Management - manager, middle manager-in-the-middle mid-level
Hierarchy-Related middle lower-level middle-level
middle manager bottom-up middle-out
middle management employee individual
organization member top management top manager
Role – General role involve/involvement emergent

decision/decide responsibility engage
act/action/activity participate/participation contribute
Role – Process formulate evaluate stage

formation execute plan
implement strategy/strategist
intended strategic management
Role – Specific accumulate design leverage

adapt dialog mediate
adopt direct motivate
advocate dismiss network
allocate determine plan
analyze develop propose
approach devise redirect
argue encourage reject
aware establish relate
bridge evaluate renew
broker exploit review
champion explore sabotage
choose / choice facilitate select
commit focus sensegive
communicate influence sensemake
conceptualize initiate shape
contribute interact support
control interface think
converse interpret uncover
create judge understand
delay justify empower
3: Search textbooks. In this activity, the outputs of the previous activities, the sample of
textbooks and the keyword lists, are used. Protocols and instruments were designed for the
reference and keywords searches.

Reference search. For each text, the author index was searched for each of the authors in
the source list. Each note page or text page was recorded. The note and page were examined.
The source to which the reference pertained was recorded. Where an author index was not
available (e.g., Hunger & Wheelen, 2011), an electronic search of the electronic text was
performed, and the search results were confirmed in the physical copy of the text. A sample of
the form used to record the references is shown in Figure 4.3a.
Figure 4.3a. Reference coding form. A portion of the coding form used to record references to
literature sources in each textbook.
Keyword search. For each text, the subject index was searched for each of the terms in
the keyword list. Each of the page numbers was recorded. A sample of the form used to record
the references is shown in Figure 4.3b.

Figure 4.3b. Keyword coding form. A portion of the coding form used to record references to
keywords in each textbook.
4: Review sections for relevance. Following Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010), who
observed that not all references to literature sources and keywords may actually be connected to
the content of interest, each of the pages identified in the preceding activity are read to determine
whether the content pertains to involvement in strategy. Notes concerning the context are made
in the appropriate data collection form. Given the more subtle nature of keyword usage, for each
instance of the keyword found, the major text section, chapter, section, and subsection are
recorded. The passage of text containing the keyword is also recorded.
5: Assess sections quantitatively. Using the data collection forms completed in the
preceding sections, the numbers of source references and keywords are computed for each text,
and across texts. The results are provided in the following chapter.
6: Assess sections qualitatively. Each of the references to literature sources or keywords
determined to be relevant in the preceding sections also undergoes a qualitative assessment in
order to further explore the meaning of the content. Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010) observe
that “strategic management is grounded in microeconomics and behaviorism” and that

institutional theory, the focus of their study, comes from a “less atomistic, more social view” (p.
670). The same may be argued for involvement in the process of strategy formation. Following
Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010), a means for measuring involvement must be constructed
and the sections assessed against it. The types of middle management involvement given in
Table 4.2a are employed to characterize each body of content. A summary of the findings for
each text, and across texts, is developed. The results are provided in the following chapter.
7: Aggregate findings. Using the findings outputs of activities 5 and 6, narrative
summarizing the results of the quantitative portion of the study, the qualitative portion of the
study, and of the two together are produced and presented in Chapter 5 of this work, along with
all of the supporting summary data.
Reliability and Validity Considerations
Krippendorff (2012) argues that “any content analysis should be validatable in principle”
and that a content analysis that does not consider this will contribute little to the literature (p. 44).
He provides a number of examples where ex post facto validation was used to validate the results
of a study—only because “the categories of analysis and the analytical constructs” were able to
be reused (Krippendorff, 2012, p. 44).
Therefore, this study has attempted to make careful definition of these categories and
constructs, as outlined in the research approach. Though they may be validated, for example, by
a survey of students (or other appropriate stakeholders), in which they are asked to interpret
various text passages and match them to categories, conducting such a survey is outside the
scope of this study. A similar approach was available for particularly troublesome cases, but no
such cases were encountered. Krippendorff (2012) argues that this “in principle” approach is an
appropriate means of validation.

Tests of reliability involve repeating the content analysis in some manner in order to give
some level of assurance of the results produced. It is the authors’ intention to perform a human-
based analysis of the textbook content. Due to resource limitations (i.e., the availability or
propriety of another analyst to repeat the searching and counting), as has been done in other
studies (cf. Krippendorff, 2012, p. 20), a simple, computer-based content analysis will also be
performed for portions of the quantitative aspect of the study. Krippendorff (2012) summarizes
Nacos, Shapiro, Young, Fan, Kjellstrand, and McCaa’s (2009) description of computers, not as
“replacements for the highly developed human capabilities of reading, transcribing, and
translating written matter,” but as “good assistants” (p. 20). In this study, they assist with
reliability testing.
Chapter 5: Analysis of Findings
In this chapter, the findings of the research process set out in Chapter 4 are given, as are
an analysis and interpretation of the findings. Quantitative and qualitative summaries are
presented, with the objective of evaluating the extent to which the research on middle
management involvement in strategy formation is represented in contemporary strategy
textbooks.
Findings
The findings of the study are organized by the two bases of comparison of the literature
and the textbook content: the references to literature sources and the references to keywords on
the topic of middle management involvement in strategy formation.
Literature source references. The strategy textbooks in the sample contained few
references to the scholarly literature on middle management involvement in strategy formation.
Though over fifty sources (see Table 2.3) were sought in each of the nine textbooks, there were
only eighteen references in all of the texts combined. Of these eighteen references, only seven
were associated with textbook content specific to middle management involvement in strategy.
Table 5.1 summarizes the findings by scholarly source; Table 5.2 illustrates how the references
were distributed across the textbooks; and Table 5.3 shows the frequency with which middle
management scholars were referenced in the textbooks.
Table 5.1
References to Scholarly Literature on Middle Management Involvement in Strategy Formation
Source Referenced In Middle Management Content
Bartlett & Ghoshal (1995) David -
Burgelman (1983b) Barney -

Hill (Essentials) -
Hill (Theory) -
Floyd & Wooldridge (1992b) Barney CEO must involve middle managers
to get complete information, build
understanding and commitment, and
increase ability to implement.
Guth & MacMillan (1986) David Middle managers may impede or

sabotage implementation.
Hart (1992) Hill (Essentials) There are scholars who are critical
Hill (Theory) of formal planning and its neglect of
the role of lower-level managers;
these scholars offer an alternative
view of strategy formation.
Rational planning attaches too much

importance to the role of top
managers, particularly the CEO.
Hodgkinson et al. (2006) Wheelen -
Ketokivi & Castañer (2004) Wheelen Broader involvement of individuals

at all levels in the organization in the
strategy process results in a more
positive perception of the process
and in making the process more
effective.
King & Zeithaml (2001) Hitt et al. -
Raes et al. (2011) David (Listed as a recommended reading.)

Hitt et al. -
Westley (1990) Barney -
Wooldridge & Floyd (1990) Barney -

Hill (Essentials) -
Totals
13 sources (of 51 evaluated) 18 references 7 references
Table 5.2
References to Scholarly Literature by Textbook

Textbook References (All) References (Middle Management)

Barney & Hesterly 4 1
David 3 1
Gamble et al. 0 0
Hill (Essentials) 4 2
Hill (Theory) 3 2
Hitt et al. 2 0
Hunger & Wheelen 0 0
Pearce & Robinson 0 0
Wheelen & Hunger 2 1
Totals 18 7
Table 5.3
Frequency of References, by Author
Source References (All) References (Middle Management)

Hart 4 4
Burgelman 3 0
Floyd, Wooldridge 3 1
Raes et al. 2 0
Guth, MacMillan 1 1
Ketokivi, Castañer 1 1
King, Zeithaml 1 0
Westley 1 0
Bartlett, Ghoshal 1 0
Hodgkinson et al. 1 0
Totals 18 7
The textbook content associated with the references to the scholarly literature on middle
management in these tables conveys three messages. One message advocates for middle
management involvement in strategy formation, as involvement provides top managers with
access to more complete information, and as it will build understanding and commitment among
middle managers, which in turn is expected to increase the probability of a successful
implementation of the strategy (Barney & Hesterly, 2012). Involvement of middle managers
may also improve the strategy process itself, or, the perception of it (Wheelen & Hunger, 2013).
The second message also advocates for middle management involvement in strategy formation,
to minimize the chance that middle managers may impede or sabotage strategy implementation
(David, 2013). The third message is neutral with respect to middle management involvement:
rational models overstate the importance to top managers in strategy formation and there are
alternative models that involve additional organizational members (Hill & Jones, 2012, 2013).
The first two of these three messages are primarily focused on assuring the successful
implementation of strategy by middle managers. The third message suggests the possibility for
other roles for middle managers in strategy.
Keyword references. Here, keyword findings across texts are offered in narrative form.
A characterization of middle management involvement in strategy as indicted by keywords is
also offered for each textbook.
Characterization by keyword. Each keyword was examined across all textbooks in the
sample. Where four or more of the textbooks indexed a keyword, or used it with some frequency
in the content passages recorded for all keywords; and, the related textbook content clearly
pertained to middle management involvement in strategy, a summary of the content for the
keyword was developed. Where two or more keywords are logically related, these are presented
together. Keywords pertaining to hierarchical levels of management, to strategy formation, and
to strategic decision making met these criteria. Those keywords with no associated references
are also presented.
Top managers and middle managers. In contrast to its frequency of usage in the
scholarly literature (based on the results of keyword searches of journal databases, as described
in Chapter 4), none of the nine textbooks indexed the keyword “middle manager” (or a similar
word or phrase). All texts, with the exception of Barney and Hesterly (2012), used the keyword
or some variation on it, however. In these eight textbooks, it was used most frequently in content
pertaining to the roles of middle managers in the implementation or execution of strategy. Three
texts did refer to middle management in the content pertaining to strategy formation: as potential
resisters to formulated strategy (David, 2013), and as whose involvement in formation may
reduce “resistance and foot dragging” (Hunger & Wheelen, 2011; Wheelen & Hunger, 2013).
In contrast, five of the nine texts (Gamble et al., 2013; Hitt et al., 2013; Hunger & Wheelen,
2011; Pearce & Robinson, 2013; Wheelen & Hunger, 2013) indexed the term “top management”
or some variation of it. Top managers are portrayed as those ultimately responsible for strategy
formation (Gamble et al., 2013; Hitt et al., 2013; Pearce & Robinson, 2013). They are
designated as the vision-setters (Gamble et al., 2013; Hunger & Wheelen, 2011; Wheelen &
Hunger, 2013), given their ideal “strategic perspective” from the top of the organization (Pearce
& Robinson, 2013); and as the overall managers of the strategy process (Hunger & Wheelen,
2011; Wheelen & Hunger, 2013). Top managers are also recognized as being vulnerable to the
pursuit of their own interests when creating organizational strategy (Pearce & Robinson, 2013).
Strategy formation. The term “formation” (Mintzberg, 1978) is neither indexed nor used
in any of the nine textbooks. The term “formulation,” however, is used in seven of the nine
texts. (Hill and Jones (2012) and Hitt et al. (2013) do not use either term). Barney and Hesterly
(2012) assign strategy formulation to top managers, but do acknowledge, citing Floyd and
Wooldridge (1992), that middle managers are useful for providing information in the formulation
activity, and that their understanding and commitment to the formulated strategy (presumably
through involvement), may improve the subsequent implementation of the strategy. Barney and
Hesterly’s (2012) role assignments might be characterized as “traditional.” David (2013)
presents strategy formulation as a rational process and explicitly encourages the involvement of
middle managers and other employees in each of the activities of formulation examined in the
text. He stresses the importance of communication and interaction among managers at all levels
of the organization during strategy formulation, on the basis that it will build commitment,
understanding, and “ownership” (David, 2013, p. 15). David’s (2013) process might be
characterized as “all inclusive.” Gamble et al. (2013) describe “strategy-making” as the result
of strategic initiatives from all levels of the organization, “orchestrated” by top management and
bounded by a top management-established vision (p. 26). Their process might be characterized
as “distributed.” Hill and Jones (2013) describe the formation of strategy as a combination of
deliberate formation by top management and as emerging from “deep within” the organization
(p. 24). Hill and Jones (2012, 2013) elaborate the various activities of strategy formation, but do
not assign them to particular levels or groups within the organization. They use the generic term
“managers” when describing each of the strategy formation activities. Hill and Jones’ (2012,
2013) “strategy-making” (p. 11) process might be characterized as “role neutral.” Hunger and
Wheelen (2011) might also be characterized as “role neutral” in their description of strategy
formation: they describe the various activities in the formation process but do not associate these
with specific roles. An exception is the opening case for the chapter on strategy formulation,
which features the CEO formulating a strategy for an organization in a very competitive industry
(Hunger & Wheelen, 2011).
Strategic decision making. Strategic decision making was addressed where the keyword
“decision” (or some variation thereof) was found in the textbooks, as well as where the keyword
“empower” was found. The majority of references to decision making pertained to top
management decision making. These were typically accompanied by acknowledgements of
problems of bias in decision making (Hill & Jones, 2012, 2013; Hitt et al., 2013), management
hubris (Hill & Jones, 2012, 2013), self-interest (Hill & Jones, 2013; Hitt et al., 2013; Hunger &
Wheelen, 2011), and opportunism (Hill & Jones, 2013; Hitt et al., 2013). Remedies offered for
these problems of decision making include the use of programmed conflict techniques (Hill &
Jones, 2012, 2013; Hunger & Wheelen, 2011; Wheelen & Hunger, 2013), and of having teams of
top managers, rather than individual top managers, making strategic decisions (Hill & Jones,
2013; Hitt et al., 2013). Middle managers are described as involved in decision making during
strategy implementation (Gamble et al., 2013), in strategy formation for the purpose of reducing
potential resistance in implementation (David, 2013), and in strategy formulation for the purpose
of supplying information (Pearce & Robinson, 2013). Empowerment of middle managers to
make decisions is described with respect to strategy implementation, for purposes of efficiency
and motivation (Gamble et al., 2013; Hill & Jones, 2013; Pearce & Robinson, 2013). That this
middle management decision making be constrained by appropriate policies is addressed (Hill &
Jones, 2012, 2013; Gamble et al., 2013; Pearce & Robinson, 2013). Hill and Jones (2012, 2013)
assert that decisions of “critical importance,” including the strategic vision, be reserved for top
managers (p. 21, 32).

Unreferenced keywords. Of the keywords examined, several that recurred in the
scholarly literature were not indexed nor used in any of the texts. Those of most significance to
middle management involvement in strategy formation and not used in the textbooks include:
allocate, champion, initiate, interface, interpret, renew, and sensemake (and similar terms).
Characterization by textbook. Keywords used in each text and the textbook content
associated with them were compared to the five roles of middle management identified in the
scholarly literature. Where some indication of involvement was present, even if it was limited
(e.g., in formation for the purposes of providing information or improving understanding), this
was noted. The results are shown in Table 5.5, and are represented graphically in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 may be compared to Figure 2.3 depicting the roles of middle management as they are
represented in the scholarly literature.
Table 5.5
Keywords and Literature-based Roles

Hill (Essentials)
Hill (Theory)
Wheelen
Gamble
Hunger
Barney
Pearce
David
Hitt
Role
Context
• •
Developer
Coformulator • • • • • • • •
Initiative
• • • •
Developer
Strategic
• • •
Decision Maker
Interpreter-
• • • • • •
Translator
Figure 5.1. Roles of middle management in strategy formation as represented in strategy

textbooks. Direct roles are depicted with solid arrows; indirect roles are depicted with dashed
arrows. Gray text is used to signal a role less than that suggested by the scholarly literature.
Other keywords of interest. Several keywords or groups of keywords suggested an
important contribution to middle management involvement, but were too low in clarity to
summarize in a meaningful way. These may be the subject of separate, detailed investigations.
These are given in Table 5.6 along with some general observations.
Table 5.6
Keywords Meriting Future Investigation
Keyword(s) Observations
Participation Not indexed but used extensively across texts. Suggests

Involvement opportunity for middle management involvement.
Emergent strategy Indexed in four of nine texts. Descriptions of emergent varied

considerably, with only the Hill and Jones (2012, 2013) texts
appearing to describe the concept consistently with Mintzberg
(1978).
Strategist Indexed in six of nine texts. Definitions varied widely and were
Strategize generally broad. Some appeared to be applicable to middle
Strategic leader managers, others not, with implications for middle management
involvement.
Other observations made in keyword examination. Two other general observations
were made of the keyword data.
Lack of references. In reviewing and compiling the findings of the keyword search of the
textbooks, it was observed that though many assertions are made, that few have supporting
references to the scholarly literature. This is consistent with the findings concerning source
references, above.
Contradictions. The keywords investigation surfaced several within-textbook
contradictions. For example, David (2013) suggests the involvement of middle managers and
other employees in many of the various activities of strategy formulation, yet notes in the chapter
on strategy implementation that strategy “formulation requires the coordination among a few
individuals” (p. 213). Pearce and Robinson (2013) repeatedly call for decision making to be
pushed down in the organization while arguing that only “top management has the perspective
needed to understand the broad implications of such decisions” (p. 4-5).
Synthesis and Interpretation of Findings
Synthesis. Synthesizing the findings, the textbook representation of middle management
and strategy formation may be characterized as “involved with limitations,” as offering
“openings for involvement,” and as “exclusion from involvement.” Middle manager
involvement in strategy formation, whether by coformulation in deliberate processes or inclusion
in strategic decisions, is suggested, but only for the purpose of middle managers’ providing
information to the process and for enabling implementation. With respect to the latter, the
textbooks suggest that middle management involvement in formation may reduce the risks of
misinterpreted strategy and resistance, or, conversely, improve understanding of strategy and
promote acceptance or ownership of it. They also suggest that the efficiency of strategy
implementation may be improved by allowing localized decision making, (which is also
expected to have motivational benefits).
The textbooks offer openings for middle management involvement in their discussions of
top management limitations, including bounded rationality, hegemony, and self-interest. Middle
management involvement is not a suggested remedy to these, however. The textbooks also offer
an opening for middle manager involvement via the reality of emergent strategy—this strategy
must emerge from somewhere.
The textbooks suggest that establishing the strategic vision of an organization is a top
management role. Middle managers are only to receive, and work within, the strategic vision.
Interpretation. These findings, collectively, suggest that the middle management
perspective on strategy—middle management research on involvement in strategy formation--is
only partially integrated into contemporary strategy textbooks. The original, top management
perspective, in which top managers formulate, and middle managers implement, strategy is still
the dominant perspective. Further, where the middle management perspective has been
integrated, it is not with much clarity. The textbooks make sweeping statements about involving
employees at all levels in strategy formation, and rarely, on the basis of the organizational and
individual outcomes that may result, or on the contributions individuals may make; rather, on the
basis of minimizing negative outcomes.
Evidence Base
The completed data collection forms for all texts are available from the author.
Chapter 6: Conclusions, Implications, Future Research
This study argues the significance of strategy formation to the organization and society,
the middle management aspirations of students in university strategy courses, and the role of
textbooks in transferring the knowledge required by these current and future practitioners for
their roles in strategy. It has answered the call of Stambaugh and Quinn Trank (2010) for
additional cases examining the integration of new paradigms and perspectives into textbooks, by
specifically assessing the extent to which the “middle management perspective” on strategy
(Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000) has been integrated into strategic management texts, in the face of
the longstanding top management perspective of strategy (Levy et al., 2003; Knights & Morgan,
1991).
To this end, the study proposes and demonstrates that a body of strategy research relevant
to middle managers actually exists. A review of the strategy literature shows over fifty specific
studies, and numerous supporting studies, concerning middle management involvement in
strategy formation. These studies were selected in a systematic manner, using a set of stringent
criteria, to satisfy Kuhn’s (1962/2012) assertion that textbooks include the “accepted” theory (p.
10).
Having established the existence of a body of theory on middle management involvement
in strategy, the study proposes, based on the literature of the production and dissemination of
knowledge, that the textbooks used in university strategy courses will contain this research. It
answers the research question: To what extent is the body of knowledge on the middle
management perspective represented in strategic management textbooks?

Conclusions
The study finds that the literature on the middle management perspective (Floyd &
Wooldridge, 2000) is only partially represented in contemporary strategy textbooks, and that
which is represented is not clear. While the textbooks broadly acknowledge and sometimes even
promote middle management involvement in strategy formation, the roles described for middle
managers in formation are generally limited to information-providing and implementation-
supporting activities. Though the textbooks discuss emergent strategy and top management
limitations, and propose considerations and remedies for these, they stop short of including
literature pertaining to potential middle managers contributions in these areas. And, in the face
of compelling arguments in the literature for broader involvement in the development of the
strategic vision of the organization (Collins & Porras, 1991), the textbooks suggest that this be
reserved for top managers (Hill & Jones, 2012, 2013).
Then, there is the research on which the textbooks are silent (Eagleton, 1976). That
different organizations may engage in different processes of strategy formation, and, in
particular, that middle managers may engage in different roles and to different degrees in these
processes are nearly inaudible. The textbooks do not make explicit the ways and means by
which middle managers may be expected to work alongside top managers and to contribute to
the formal processes of strategy formation. They do not make readers aware that some
organizations may expect middle managers to formulate strategy and champion strategic
initiatives for or from within their own areas of responsibility in the organization, and that there
are others that will not. The current or prospective middle manager is not made aware of how
their own, autonomous decisions concerning the allocation of resources and development of
capabilities may facilitate or impede current and future strategies. And, they are not made aware
that how they make sense of received strategy, for their own use or for representation to other
stakeholders, may, over time, alter the strategy, the broader strategic context of the organization,
or both. Current and future middle managers receive an incomplete, and clouded, perspective on
their prospective roles in strategy formation from the textbooks used in their university strategy
courses. That strategy textbooks do not fully represent what is known about middle management
involvement in strategy formation has implications for theory, and for both the teaching and
practice of strategy.
Implications for Theory
This study has implications for both the theory on middle management in strategy
formation, and for that on the broader context of the study, the production and dissemination of
knowledge. As observed by Wooldridge et al. (2008), middle management research is
fragmented, making the cumulative impact difficult to appreciate. There is a need for both
theory development and continued empirical research in the area. Understanding how middle
managers are actually engaged in the practice of strategy in organizations may be of particular
value. A recent example is the use of crowdsourcing technology within IBM to involve all
organizational members “in a strategy dialog, to tap into their knowledge, and to create
identification and understanding” (Stieger, Matzler, Chatterjee, & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger,
2012, p. 46). The study also suggests a need for additional theoretical and empirical work on the
enablers and barriers to dissemination, particularly those concerning formal education and the
textbook mechanism.
Implications for Practice
Academic practice. This study suggests that there is a need for teaching professors to
better understand the professional aspirations, and related knowledge and skill needs, of their
students. Mintzberg (1975/1990) asks how it is possible to teach management without knowing
what managers actually do. Duncan (1972) describes this as the need for resolving the
“interpersonal dissemination barriers” that separate academics and practitioners, those barriers
pertaining to differences among those involved in the knowledge transfer process, and
particularly with respect to “roles and role perceptions” (p. 281). Havelock (1971) suggests that
“knowledge resource persons,” such as university professors, must be willing, and able, to
perceive themselves in the roles of the persons using the knowledge in order to overcome this
barrier (p. 2-17).
Given the elimination of the role barrier, compensation must be made for it. While there
are various means available by which the literature-textbook gap may be closed, changes to the
textbooks should be among these. Faculty, as the primary consumers of textbooks (on behalf of
students), have the power, and the obligation, to influence textbook content (Barley et al., 1988;
Coser et al., 1982; Lowry & Moser, 1995). At a minimum, the professor may augment textbooks
with appropriate content from the body of literature, though this may result in other
dissemination barriers, given the intended audience of most scholarly literature (Duncan, 1974;
Havelock, 1971; Love, 1985).
Industry practice. The limitations of contemporary strategy textbooks may limit the
ability of current and future management practitioners to contribute as fully as they might within
the organizations they will serve. As middle management involvement in strategy has been
linked to organizational performance (Andersen, 2004; Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000), there are
also broader, organizational implications for inadequate preparation of these management
practitioners. Individual middle managers who are not aware of prospective roles may not be
able to meet the expectations of their organizations for involvement in strategy (Floyd & Lane,
2000). From another perspective, the top manager unaware of the potential contributions of
middle managers may not leverage this resource fully. The top management perspective
becomes “a taken-for-granted assumption” and becomes “legitimized and naturalized in
organizations to the extent that it becomes very difficult to think or act otherwise” (Mantere &
Vaara, 2008, p. 353).
Implications for others. This study also has implications for textbook authors and
publishers. It has identified an opportunity to improve the relevance of strategy textbooks for a
significant group of current and future management practitioners. Current textbooks may be
extended, or new texts, directly designed for this constituent, may be developed. These might be
accompanied by case studies designed to utilize a middle management perspective.
Limitations and Areas for Future Research
Having established the deficit in contemporary strategy textbooks of the research on
middle management involvement in strategy, new questions emerge. Some of these have been
alluded to in the discussion of implications. Are those who make decisions on textbook content
unable to see their own presuppositions concerning broader involvement in strategy? Are vested
research interests, agendas, and power positions being protected? Does the inclusion of research
on broader participation in strategy formation appear to decrease the influence of strategy
“elites” –including strategy professors and consultants? These questions argue for an
investigation as to why established research is excluded from strategy textbooks, as well as an
investigation into the criteria and means by which strategy textbooks ought to be selected.
References
Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility:
Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement.
Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501-515. doi:10.2307/255740
Abraham, S. & Levy, B. (2007). After 15 editions, the authors of a strategic management
textbook reflect. Strategy & Leadership, 35(4), 38-42. doi: 10.1108/10878570710761372
Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of
innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586-612. doi:
10.5465/AMR.1991.4279484
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254-
285. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1996.9602161572
Abrahamson, E. & Eisenman, M. (2001). Why management scholars must intervene strategically
in the management knowledge market. Human Relations, 54(1), 67-75.
doi:10.1177/0018726701541009
Academy of Management. (2010, December 1). Divisions and interest groups. Retrieved from
http://aomonline.org
Ackoff, R. (1999). Re-creating the corporation: A design of organizations for the 21st century.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Ahlstrom, D. (2010). Innovation and growth: How business contributes to society. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 24(3), 11-24. doi: 10.5465/AMP.2010.52842948
Allee, V. (2003). The future of knowledge: Increasing prosperity through value networks.
Boston: Butterworth Heinemann.

Alvarez, J. L. (1997). The sociological tradition and the spread and institutionalization of
knowledge for action. In J. L. Alvarez (Ed.), The production and consumption of
business knowledge in Europe (pp. 13-57). London, UK: MacMillan.
Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations
through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125-1149. doi: 84022804
Amabile, T., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S.
(2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-
professional collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418-431. doi:
10.2307/3069464
Andersen, T. (2000). Strategic planning, autonomous actions and corporate performance. Long
Range Planning, 33(2), 184-200. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(00)00028-5
Andersen, T. (2004). Integrating decentralized strategy making and strategic planning processes
in dynamic environments. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1271-1299.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00475.x
Andrews, K. R. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Ansoff, I. (1965). Corporate strategy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Anthony, R. N. (1965). Planning and control systems: A framework for analysis. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School.
Apple, M. & Christian-Smith, L. (Eds.). (1991). The politics of the textbook. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99-
109. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (2002). The boundaryless organization: Breaking
the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Ashmos, D. P., & McDaniel Jr., R. R. (1996). Understanding the participation of critical task
specialists in strategic decision making. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 103-121. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00845.x
Ashmos, D., Duchon, D., & McDaniel, Jr., R. (1998). Participation in strategic decision making:
The role of organizational predisposition and issue interpretation. Decision Sciences,
29(1), 25-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01343.x
Audebrand, L. K. (2010). Sustainability in strategic management education: The quest for new
root metaphors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 413-428.
doi:10.5465/AMLE.2010.53791824
Augier, M. & March, J. (2007). The pursuit of relevance in management education. California
Management Review, 49(3), 129-146. doi: 10.2307/41166398
Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Sohnnenstuhl, W. (1996). The organizational transformation
process: The micropolitics of dissonance reduction and the alignment of logics of action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 477-506. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393939
Balogun, J. (2006). Managing change: Steering a course between intended strategies and
unanticipated outcomes. Long Range Planning, 39(1), 29-49. doi:
10.1016/j.lrp.2005.02.010
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact
of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573-1601.
doi:10.1177/0170840605054624
Barber, B. (1963). Some problems in the sociology of the professions. Daedalus, 92(4), 669-
688. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20026806
Barley, S. R., Meyer, G. W., & Gash, D. C. (1988). Cultures of culture: Academics, practitioners
and the pragmatics of normative control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 24-60.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392854
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
17(1), 99. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108
Barney, J. (1997). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Barney, J., & Hesterly, W. (2012). Strategic management and competitive advantage. New York,
NY: Prentice-Hall.
Bartlett, C. & Ghoshal, S. (1993). Beyond the M-form: Toward a managerial theory of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 14, 23-46. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250141005
Bartlett, C. & Ghoshal, S. (1994). Changing the role of top management: Beyond strategy to
purpose. Harvard Business Review, 72(6), 79-88. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Bartlett, C. & Ghoshal, S. (1995). Changing the role of top management: Beyond systems to
people. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 132-142. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Bartunek, J. & Rynes, S. (2010). The construction and contributions of "Implications for
Practice": What's in them and what might they offer? Academy of Management Learning
& Education, 9(1), 100-117. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2010.48661194
Baum, J., & Wally, S. (2003). Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 24(11), 1107-1129. doi: 10.1002/smj.343

Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. New York, NY: Columbia.
Belcourt, M., McBey, K., Hong, Y., & Yap, M. (2013). Strategic human resource planning.
Toronto, ON: Nelson.
Bennis, W., & O'Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business
Review, 83(9), 96-104. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New
York, NY: Brazilier.
Bertrand, M. & Schoar, A. (2003). Managing with style: The effect of managers on ﬁrm policies.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1169–1208. doi:10.1162/003355303322552775
Bettis, R., & Hitt, M. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal,
16, 7-19. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250160915
Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1982). The utilization process: A conceptual framework and
synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 591-622. doi:
10.2307/2392533
Bingham, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Furr, N. R. (2011). Which strategy when?. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 53(1), 71-78. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/
Blau, J. R., & McKinley, W. (1979). Ideas, complexity, and innovation. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24(2), 200-219. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392494
Blocher, E., Stout, D., Juras, P., & Cokins, G. (2012). Cost management: A strategic emphasis.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Boland, R., Singh, J., Salipante, P., Aram, J., Fay, S., & Kanawattanachai, P. (2001).
Knowledge representations and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Journal,
44(2), 393-417. doi: 10.2307/3069463

Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science,
2(3) 197-208. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197
Bourgeois III, L., Brodwin, D. (1984). Strategic implementation: Five approaches to an elusive
phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 241-264.
doi: 10.1002/smj.4250050305
Bower, J. (1970). Managing the resource allocation process. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Bower, J. (2008). The teaching of strategy: From general manager to analyst and back again?.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 269-275. doi: 10.1177/1056492608318149
Bower, J. & Doz, Y. (1979). Strategy formulation: A social and political process. In D. Schendel
& C. Hofer (Eds.), Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning
(pp. 152-165). Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
Bower, J. & Gilbert, C. (2007). How managers' everyday decisions create or destroy your
company's strategy. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 72-79. Retrieved from
http://hbr.org/
Bowman, E., Singh, H., & Thomas, H. (2002). The domain of strategic management: History
and evolution. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of
strategy and management (pp. 31-54). London, UK: Sage.
Boxer, P. & Wensley, J. (1986). The need for middle-out development of marketing strategy.
Journal of Management Studies, 23(2), 189-204. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6486.1986.tb00419.x
Boyett, I. & Currie, G. (2004). Middle managers moulding international strategy: An Irish start-
up in Jamaican telecoms. Long Range Planning, 37(1), 51-66. doi:
10.1016/j.lrp.2003.11.009
Bracker, J. (1980). The historical development of the strategic management concept. Academy of
Management Review, 5(2), 219-224. doi:10.5465/AMR.1980.4288731
Bridoux, F., Coeurderoy, R., & Durand, R. (2011). Heterogeneous motives and the collective
creation of value. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 711-730.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.65554704
Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience:
Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of
Management Review, 38(3), 352-376. doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0179
Bungay, S. (2011). How to make the most of your company's strategy. Harvard Business
Review, 89(1/2), 132-140. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Burgelman, R. A. (1983a). A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context,
and the concept of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8(1), 61-70. doi:
10.5465/AMR.1983.4287661
Burgelman, R. A. (1983b). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified
major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223-244. Retrieved from
Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational
adaptation: Theory and field research. Organizational Science, 2(3), 239-262. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.3.239
Burgelman, R. A. (1994). Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in
dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 24-56. Retrieved from
Cameron, K. S., Ireland, R. D., Lussier, R. N., New, J. R., & Robbins, S. P. (2003). Management
textbooks as propaganda. Journal of Management Education, 27(6), 711–743.
doi:10.1177/1052562903257942
Camillus, J. C. (2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 98-106.
Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Cannella Jr., A. A. (2001). Upper echelons: Donald Hambrick on executives and strategy.
Academy of Management Executive, 15(3), 36-42. doi: 10.5465/AME.2001.5229499
Carpenter, M. & Sanders, W. (2009). Strategic management: A dynamic perspective. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Carter, E. (1971). The behavioral theory of the firm and top-level corporate decisions.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(4), 413-429. Retrieved from
Chakravarthy, B. S., & Doz, Y. (1992). Strategy process research: Focusing on corporate self-
renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 135-14. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250131003
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American
industrial enterprise. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (Eds.). (2002). The strategic management of intellectual capital and
organizational knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Coch, L. & French, J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512-532.
doi: 10.1177/001872674800100408
Cohen, K. & Cyert, R. (1973). Strategy: Formulation, implementation, and monitoring. Journal
of Business, 46(3), 349-367. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2351385
Cohen, M. D., & Sproull, L. S. (1991). Editor's introduction. Organization Science, 2(1), 1.
Retrieved from http://pubsonline.informs.org/journal/orsc
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning
and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. Retrieved from
Collier, N., Fishwick, F., & Floyd, S. (2004). Managerial involvement and perceptions of
strategy process. Long Range Planning, 37(1), 67-83. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2003.11.012
Collins, D. (1997). The ethical superiority and inevitability of participatory management as an
organizational system. Organization Science, 8(5), 489-507. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.5.489
Collins, J. & Porras, J. (1991). Organizational vision and visionary organizations. California
Management Review, 34(1), 30-52. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41166682
Coopey, J. & Burgoyne, J. (2000). Politics and organizational learning. Journal of Management
Studies, 37(6), 869-885. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00208
Coser, L., Kadushin, C., & Powell, W. (1982). Books: The culture and commerce of publishing.
New York, NY: Basic.
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988).
Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management
Review, 13(1), 8-22. doi:10.5465/AMR.1988.4306768

Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Lengnick-Hall, M., & Froggatt, K. L. (1990). Fact: The form of
participation does matter--A rebuttal to Leana, Locke, and Schweiger. Academy of
Coulter, M. (2013). Strategic management in action. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Crossan, M., Lane, H, & White, R. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From
intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537. doi:
10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135.
Cummings, S., & Bridgman T. (2011). The relevant past: Why the history of management
should be critical for our future. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1),
77-93. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2011.59513274
Currie, G. & Procter, S. (2005). The antecedents of middle managers' strategic contribution: The
case of a professional bureaucracy. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1325-1356.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00546.x
Cyert, R. & March, J. (1963/1992). A behavioral theory of the firm. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Daft, R., & Weick, K. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems.
Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1984.4277657
Daum, J. (2003). Intangible assets and value creation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
D'Aveni, R. A. (1989). The aftermath of organizational decline: A longitudinal study of the
strategic and managerial characteristics of declining firms. Academy of Management
Journal, 32(3), 577-605. doi: 10.2307/256435
D’Aveni, R. A. (1996). A multiple-constituency, status-based approach to interorganizational
mobility of faculty and input-output competition among top business schools.

Organization Science, 7(2), 166-189. Retrieved from
D'Aveni, R. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Crisis and the content of managerial
communications: A study of the focus of attention of top managers in surviving and
failing firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 634-657. Retrieved from
D’Aveni, R. A., Battista Dagnino, G., & Smith, K. (2010). The age of temporary advantage.
Davenport, T. (1999). Human capital: What it is and why people invest in it. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
David, F. (2011). Strategic management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
David, F. (2013). Strategic management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and
corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1), 91-100. doi:
10.1002/smj.571
Davis, M. (2013). Challenges facing today’s business schools. In G. Hardy & D. Everett (Eds.),
Shaping the future of business education: Relevance, rigor, and life preparation (pp. 26-
39). New York: NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Déa Roglio, K. & Light, G. (2009). Executive MBA programs: The development of the
reflective executive. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(2), 156-173. doi:
10.5465/AMLE.2009.41788840
Denis, J-L., Langley, A., & Cazale, L. (1996). Leadership and strategic change under ambiguity.
Organization Studies, 17(4), 673-699. doi:10.1177/017084069601700406

DeNisi, A.S., Hitt, M.A., & Jackson, S.E. (2003). Knowledge, human capital, and competitive
advantage. In S. E. Jackson, M. A. Hitt, & A. S. DeNisi (Eds.), Managing knowledge for
sustained competitive advantage: designing strategies for effective human resource
management (pp. 3-36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Dess, G. (1987). Consensus on strategy formulation and organizational performance:
Competitors in a fragmented industry. Strategic Management Journal, 8(3), 259-277.
doi: 10.1002/smj.4250080305
Dess, G., Lumpkin, G., & Eisner, A. (2010). Strategic management: Creating competitive
advantages. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Dreher, G. & Ryan, K. (2004). A suspect MBA selection model: The case against the standard
work experience requirement. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 87-
91. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2004.12436822
Duncan, W. (1972). The knowledge utilization process in management and organization.
Academy of Management Journal, 15(3), 273-287. doi:10.2307/254853
Duncan, W. (1974). Transferring management theory to practice. Academy of Management
Journal, 17(4), 724-738. doi:10.2307/255649
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O'Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. (1997). Reading the
wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 407-423. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199705)18:5<407::AID-SMJ881>3.0.CO;2-J
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O'Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue
selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 716-736.
doi:10.2307/3069412
Dutton, J. E. & Duncan, R. (1987). The influence of the strategic planning process on strategic
change. Strategic Management Journal, 8(2), 103-116. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250080202
Dyson, R., & Foster, M. (1982). The relationship of participation and effectiveness in strategic
planning. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 77-88. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250030107
Eagleton, T. (1976). Marxism and literary criticism. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Easterby-Smith, M., & Davies, J. (1983). Developing strategic thinking. Long Range Planning,
16(4), 39-48. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/long-range-planning/
Educational Marketer. (November, 2010). Print still reigns in college textbooks. Stanford, CT:
Simba Information.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois III, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-
velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal,
31(4), 737-770. doi:10.2307/256337
Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeois III, L. J. (1997). How management teams can
have a good fight. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 77-85. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they?. Strategic
Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105. doi: 10.1002/1097-
0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
Elbeck, M., Williams, R., Peters, C., & Frankforter, S. (2009). What marketing educators look
for when adopting a principles of marketing textbook. Marketing Education Review,
19(2), 49-62. Retrieved from http://www.marketingeducationreview.com/
Enz, C. (1986). Strategy textbooks: A case of consistently inconsistent evaluations. Academy of
Management Review, 11 (1), 226-237. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1986.4282696
Faculty Center Network. (2013). Faculty Center Network [Database]. Retrieved from
http://www.facultycenter.net
Fairclough, N. (2005). Discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism.
Organization Studies, 26(6), 915-939. doi: 10.1177/0170840605054610
Fairclough, N. (2010). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Fayol, H. (1949/2005). General principles of management. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott, & Y.
S. Jang (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (pp. 48-60). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
(Reprinted from General and industrial management (C. Storrs, Trans.) pp. 48-78), by H.
Fayol, 1949, London, England: Pitman.)
Financial Times research journal ranking. (2012, February 22). Financial Times. Retrieved
from http://ft.com
Fleck, L. (1935/1981). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Floyd, S., & Lane, P. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict
in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154-177. doi:
10.5465/AMR.2000.2791608
Floyd, S., & Wooldridge, B. (1992a). Managing strategic consensus: The foundation of effective
implementation. Academy of Management Executive, 6(4), 27-39.
doi:10.5465/AME.1992.4274459
Floyd, S. & Wooldridge, B. (1992b). Middle management involvement in strategy and its
association with strategic type: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 153-
167. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250131012
Floyd, S. & Wooldridge, B. (1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle management's
strategic role. Academy of Management Executive, 8(4), 47-57. doi:
10.5465/AME.1994.9412071702
Floyd, S. & Wooldridge, B. (1996). The strategic middle manager: How to create and sustain
competitive advantage. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Floyd, S. & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle management's strategic influence and organizational
performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(3), 465-485. doi: 10.1111/1467-
6486.00059
Floyd, S. & Wooldridge, B. (2000). Building strategy from the middle: Reconceptualizing the
strategy process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Freeman, R. E., Fairchild, G., Venkataraman, S., Mead, J. & Chen, M. (2008). Competing for
advantages: From industry analysis to competitive dynamics. Darden Case No. UVA-S-
0168. doi: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1585672
Frost, L. (2010). The genetic development of systems thinking. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Maryland University College, Adelphi, MD.
Fullerton, S. (1988). Textbook publishers and academics: Reviewing the relationship. Teaching
Sociology, 16, 353-355. Retrieved from http://tso.sagepub.com/

Furrer, O., Thomas, H., Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the strategic
management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 1-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2370.2007.00217.x
Gamble, J., Thompson, A., & Peteraf, M. (2013). Essentials of strategic management: The quest
for competitive advantage. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Garvin, D. (1998). The processes of organization and management. Sloan Management Review,
39(4), 33-50. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/
Garvin, D. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Garvin, D. (2007). Teaching executives and teaching MBAs: Reflections on the case method.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(3), 364-374. doi:
10.5465/AMLE.2007.26361626
Ghemawat, P. (2002). Competition and business strategy in historical perspective. Business
History Review, 76(1), 37-74. doi: 120659677
Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. New York,
NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75-91.
doi:10.5465/AMLE.2005.16132558
Ghoshal, S. & Bartlett, C. (1995). Changing the role of top management: Beyond structure to
processes. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 86-96. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W.; Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic
Giles, W. (1991). Making strategy work. Long Range Planning, 24(5), 75-91. Retrieved from
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/long-range-planning/
Ginter, P., Rucks, A., & Duncan, W. J. (1985). Planners’ perceptions of the strategic
management process. Journal of Management Studies, 22(6), 581-585. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6486.1985.tb00013.x
Glew, D., O’Leary-Kelly, A., Griffin, R., & van Fleet, D. (1995). Participation in organizations:
A preview of the issues and proposed framework for future analysis. Journal of
Management, 21(3), 395-421. doi:10.1177/014920639502100302
Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and
relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213-228.
doi:10.1080/02671520701296189
Gouldner, A. (1959). Organizational analysis. In R. Merton, L. Broom, & L. Cottrell (Eds.),
Sociology today (pp. 400-428). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC). (2011). 2011 Application trends survey
report. Retrieved from http://www.gmac.com/market-intelligence-and-research/research-
library/admissions-and-application-trends.aspx
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for
strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135. Retrieved from
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17(special issue), 109-122. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
Grant, R. M. (2008). Contemporary strategy analysis. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Grant, R. M. (2010). Corporate strategy: Managing scope and strategy content. In A. Pettigrew,
H. Thomas, and R. Whittington, (Eds.) Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 72-
97). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Green, B. & Hurwitz, L. (1980). Bias in college textbooks: The impact of critical events on
interpretations. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(2), 184-193. doi:
Greiner, L. E., Bhambri, A., & Cummings, T. G. (2003). Searching for a strategy to teach
strategy. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(4), 402-420.
doi:10.5465/AMLE.2003.11902092
Guth, W. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (1986). Strategy implementation versus middle management
self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7(4), 313-327.
doi: 10.1002/smj.4250070403
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., Ricceri, F. (2004). Using content analysis as a research
method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2),
282-293. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930410533704
Hambrick, D. C. (1981). Strategic awareness within top management teams. Strategic
Hambrick, D. (2007). Upper echelon’s theory: An update. Academy of Management Review,
2(32), 334-343. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.24345254.

Hambrick, D. C. (1994). What if the academy actually mattered? Academy of Management
Review, 19(1), 11-16. doi:10.5465/AMR.1994.9410122006
Hambrick, D., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top
managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4277628
Hamel, G. (1996). Strategy as revolution. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 69-82. Retrieved
from http://hbr.org/
Hamel, G. (2009). Moon shots for management. Harvard Business Review, 87(2), 91-98.
Hamel, G., Prahalad, C. K., Thomas, H., and O’Neal, D. (Eds.). (1998). Strategic flexibility:
Managing in a turbulent environment. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Hardy, C. & Phillips, N. (2004). Discourse and power. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L.
Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 299–316). London,
UK: Sage.
Hart, C. (2008). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination.
London, UK: Sage Publications.
Hart, S. (1992). An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. Academy of
Management Review, 17(2), 327-351. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1992.4279547
Hart, S. & Banbury, C. (1994). How strategy-making processes can make a difference. Strategic
Hartzig, A-W. (2013). Journal quality list (5th edition). Retrieved from http://www.harzig.com
Hatch, N. W., & Dyer, J. H. (2004). Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable
competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 25(12), 1155-1178.
doi:10.1002/smj.421
Havelock, R. (1971). Planning for intervention through dissemination and utilization of
knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan.
Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational design (pp. 8-27). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Heller, F., Pusić, E., Strauss, G., & Wilpert, B. (1998). Organizational participation: Myth and
reality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Henderson, B. (1989). The origin of strategy. Harvard Business Review, 67(6), 139-143.
Hendry, K. P., Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. (2010). How boards strategise: A strategy as practice
view. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 33-56. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.09.005
Herrmann, P. (2005). Evolution of strategic management: The need for new dominant designs.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 111-130. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2370.2005.00108.x
Hill, C., & Jones, G. (2012). Essentials of strategic management. Mason, OH: South-Western
Cengage Learning.
Hill, C., & Jones, G. (2013). Strategic management theory. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage
Learning.
Hinterhuber, H. & Popp, W. (1992). Are you a strategist or just a manager? Harvard Business

Hitt, M., Beamish, P., Jackson, S., & Mathieu, J. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical
bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management
Journal, 50(6), 1385-1399. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.28166219.
Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and moderating effects of
human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-
based perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 13-28. doi: 10.2307/3069334
Hitt, M., Ireland, R., & Hoskisson, R. (2010). Strategic management: Competitiveness and
globalization. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Hitt, M., Ireland, R., & Hoskisson, R. (2013). Strategic management: Competitiveness and
globalization concepts. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R., Sirmon, D. G., & Trahms, C. A. (2011). Strategic entrepreneurship:
creating value for individuals, organizations, and society. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 25(2), 57-75. doi:10.5465/AMP.2011.61020802
Hitt, M. A., & Tyler, B. B. (1991). Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives.
Strategic Management Journal, 12(5), 327-351. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250120502
Hodgkinson, G., Whittington, R., Johnson, G., & Schwarz, M. (2006). The role of strategy
workshops in strategy development processes: Formality, communication, co-ordination
and inclusion. Long Range Planning, 39(5), 479-496. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2006.07.003
Hoon, C. (2007). Committees as strategic practice: The role of strategic conversation in a public
administration. Human Relations, 60(6), 921-952. doi: 10.1177/0018726707080081
Hoskisson, R., Hitt, M., Wan, W., & Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic
management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25(3), 417-456.
doi:10.1177/014920639902500307
How we do it: Three executives reflect on strategic decision making. (2010). McKinsey
Quarterly, (2), 46-57. Retrieved from
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mckinsey_quarterly
Hrebiniak, L. (2005). Making strategy work: Leading effective execution and change.
Philadelphia, PA: Wharton School Publishing.
Hrebiniak, L. (2006). Obstacles to effective strategy implementation. Organizational Dynamics,
35(1), 12-31. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.12.001.
Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures.
Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88
Huff, J., Huff, A. S., & Thomas, H. (1992). Strategic renewal and the interaction of cumulative
stress and inertia. Strategic Management Journal, 13(), 55-75.
doi: 10.1002/smj.4250131006
Huff, A. S., & Reger, R. (1987). A review of strategic process research. Journal of Management,
13(2), 211-228. doi:10.1177/014920638701300203
Hunger, J. D., & Wheelen, T. (2011). Essentials of strategic management. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Kleindienst, I. (2006). Strategy-process research: What have we learned
and what is still to be explored. Journal of Management, 32(5), 673-720.
doi:10.1177/0149206306291485
Huy, Q. N. (2001). In praise of middle managers. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 72-79.

Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The
contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31-69. doi:
10.2307/3094890
Huy, Q. N. (2011). How middle managers' group-focus emotions and social identities influence
strategy implementation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1387-1410. doi:
10.1002/smj.961
Ireland, R. D. & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the
21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Review, 19(4),
63-77. doi: 10.5465/AME.2005.19417908
Jarzabkowski, P. & Balogun, J. (2009). The practice and process of delivering integration
through strategic planning. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1255-1288. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00853.x
Jarzabkowski, P., & Paul Spee, A. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: A review and future directions
for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 69-95.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00250.x
Jarzabkowski, P., & Whittington, R. (2008a). Directions for a troubled discipline: Strategy
research, teaching, and practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 266-268.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Whittington, R. (2008b). A strategy-as-practice approach to strategy
research and education. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 282-286.
doi:10.1177/1056492608318148
Jarzabkowski, P., & Wilson, D. (2006). Actionable strategy knowledge: A practice perspective.
European Management Journal, 24(5), 348-367. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2006.05.009
Jeremy, D. (2002). Business history and strategy. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R.
Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 436-460). London, UK:
Sage.
Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy as practice: Research
directions and resources. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003). Micro strategy and strategizing: Towards an
activity-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 3-22. doi: 10.1111/1467-
6486.t01-2-00002
Kabanoff, B., Waldersee, R., & Cohen, M. (1995). Espoused values and organizational change
themes. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1075-1104. doi: 10.2307/256621.
Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision. Harvard
Business Review, 89(6), 50-60. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Kanter, R. M. (1982/2004). The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Business Review,
82(7/8), 150-161. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75-85. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Katz, R. (1974). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 52(5), 90-102.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.

Kellermanns, F., Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Floyd, S. (2005). The lack of consensus about
strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. Journal of Management, 31(5), 719-
737. doi:10.1177/0149206305279114
Ketokivi, M., & Castañer, X. (2004). Strategic planning as an integrative device. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 49(3), 337-365. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131439
Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American
business schools and unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the
knowledge economy. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 323-338. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
King, A. & Zeithaml, C. (2001). Competencies and firm performance: Examining the causal
ambiguity paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1), 75-99. doi: 10.1002/1097-
0266(200101)22:1<75::AID-SMJ145>3.0.CO;2-I
King, A., Fowler, S., & Zeithaml, C. (2001). Managing organizational competencies for
competitive advantage: The middle-management edge. Academy of Management
Executive, 15(2), 95-106. doi: 10.5465/AME.2001.4614966
Kingdon, J. (1984/2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Longman.
Kirchhoff, B. (1979). Commentary on evaluation of strategy: Theory and models. In D.
Schendel & C. Hofer (Eds.), Strategic management: A new view of business policy and
planning (pp. 212-215). Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A
critique. Organization Studies 12(2), 251-273. doi:10.1177/017084069101200205

Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1990). The concept of strategy in sociology: A note of dissent.
Sociology, 24(3), 475-483. doi: 10.1177/0038038590024003008
Korsgaard, M., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment,
and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(1), 60-84. doi: 10.2307/256728
Kotha, S. (1995). Mass customization: Implementing the emerging paradigm for competitive
advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 21-42. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250160916
Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kuwada, K. (1998). Strategic learning: The continuous side of discontinuous strategic change.
Organization Science, 9(6), 719-736. Retrieved from
Leana, C. R., Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1990). Fact and fiction in analyzing research on
participative decision making: A critique of Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall,
and Jennings. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 137-146. doi:
10.5465/AMR.1990.4308286
Learned, E., Christensen, C., & Andrews, K. (1961). Business policy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Learned, E., Christensen, C., Andrews, K., & Guth, W. (1965). Business policy: Text and cases.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human
capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31-48.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.1580439
Lemke, R., & Driscoll, C. (2009). Assessing the integration of ethics content in strategic
management textbooks: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Strategic Management
Education, 5(1), 5-31. doi: 2013067231
Levy, D., Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (2003). Critical approaches to strategic management. In
M. Alvesson, H. Willmott (Eds.), Studying management critically (pp. 92-110). London,
UK: Sage.
Lichtenberg, J. (1992). The new paradox of the college textbook. Change, 24(5), 10.
doi:10.1080/00091383.1992.9937124
Lichtenberg, J. (1994). Textbooks still count!. Education Digest, 60(1), 29. Retrieved from
http://www.eddigest.com
Lichtenstein, B. (2000). Self-organized transitions: A pattern amid the chaos of transformative
change. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 128-141. doi:
10.5465/AME.2000.3979821.
Liedtka , J. & Rosenblum, J. (1996). Shaping conversations: Making strategy, managing change.
California Management Review, 39(1), 141-157. Retrieved from
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. & Lippitt, R. (1953). The utilization of social science. In L. Festinger and D. Katz
(Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences (pp. 581-646). New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart, Winston.
Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 265-340. Retrieved from
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-organizational-behavior/
Love, J. (1985). Knowledge transfer and utilization in education. Review of Research in
Education, 12, 337-386. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167153
Lowin, A. (1968). Participative decision making: A model, literature critique, and prescriptions
for research. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 3(1), 68-106. Retrieved
from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/organizational-behavior-and-human-decision-
processes/
Lowry, J. & Moser, W. (1995). Textbook selection: A multistep approach. Marketing Education
Review, 5(3), 21-28. Retrieved from http://www.marketingeducationreview.com/
Lynch, M., & Bogen, D. (1997). Sociology's asociological "core": An examination of the
textbook sociology in light of the sociology of scientific knowledge. American
Sociological Review, 62(3), 481-493. Retrieved from http://asr.sagepub.com/
Mantere, S. (2008). Role expectations and middle manager strategic agency. Journal of
Management Studies, 45(2), 294-316. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00744.x
Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical
discursive perspective. Organization Science, 19(2), 341-358.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0296
Mantere, S., Schildt, H. A., & A. Sillince, J. A. (2012). Reversal of strategic change. Academy of
Management Journal, 55(1), 173-196. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.0045
Marcella, G. (Ed). (2010). Teaching strategy: Challenge and response. Carlisle, PA: Strategic
Studies Institute.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2(1), 71-87. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1975). The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under
ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3(2), 147-171. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-
6765.1975.tb00521.x
March, J. G. & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Marginson, D. (2002). Management control systems and their effects on strategy formation at
middle-management levels: Evidence from a U.K. organization. Strategic Management
Journal, 23(11), 1019-1031. doi: 10.1002/srnj.271
Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Mazza, C. (1998). The popularization of business knowledge diffusion: From academic
knowledge to popular culture. In J. L. Alvarez (Ed.), The diffusion and consumption of
business knowledge (pp. 164-181). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Mazza, C. & Alvarez, J. L. (2000). Haute couture and prȇt-á-porter: The popular press and the
diffusion of management practices. Organization Studies, 21(3), 567-588.
doi:10.1177/0170840600213004
MBS. (2013). About MBS. Retrieved from http://www.mbsbooks.com/about.php
McGee, J. (2003). Commentary on ‘Taking strategy seriously’: The rules of evidence and
bandwagon effects. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 414-417. doi: 486410891.
McKeachie, W. (2010). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and
university teachers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

McKeachie, W. & Kulik, J. (1975). Effective college teaching. Review of Research in
Education, 3, 165-209. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167258
McMullen, J., Shepherd, D., & Patzelt, H. (2009). Managerial (in)attention to competitive
threats. Journal of Management Studies, 46(2), 157-181. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2008.00799.x
Metcalfe, M. (2007). Why good argument is critical to useful research: A research strategy.
Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Meyer, A., Gaba, V., & Colwell, K. (2005). Organizing far from equilibrium: Nonlinear change
in organizational fields. Organization Science, 16(5), 456-473.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0135.
Meyer, H-D. (1995). Organizational environments and organizational discourse: Bureaucracy
between two worlds. Organization Science, 6(1), 32-43. Retrieved from
Miles, M, & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-
analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 727-753. doi:10.2307/255942
Miller, S., Hickson, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). From strategy to action: Involvement and influence
in top level decisions. Long Range Planning, 41(6), 606-628.
doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2008.09.005
Millett, S. (1988). How scenarios trigger strategic thinking. Long Range Planning, 21(5), 61-68.
Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/long-range-planning/

Miner, J. B. (2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of
organizational behavior theories: A quantitative review. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 2(3), 250-268. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2003.10932132
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H. (1974/1990). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review,
68(2), 163-176. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934-948.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.24.9.934
Mintzberg, H. (1979). Organizational power and goals: A skeletal theory. In D. Schendel & C.
Hofer (Eds.), Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning (pp. 64-
79). Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1987). The strategy concept I: Five Ps for strategy. California Management
Review, 30(1), 11-24. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41165263
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management. New York, NY: Free Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and
management development. London, UK: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: A guided tour through the
wilds of strategic management. New York, NY: Free Press.
Mintzberg, H., & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 30(2), 160-197. doi: 10.2307/2393104

Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic
Management Journal, 6(3), 257-272. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486186
Mintzberg, H. & Westley, F. (1992). Cycles of organizational change. Strategic Management
Journal, 13, 39-59. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250130905
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification
and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of
Mollick, E. (2012). People and process, suits and innovators: The role of individuals in firm
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1001-1015. doi: 10.1002/smj.1958
Nacos, B. L., Shapiro, R. Y., Young, J. T., Fan, D. P., Kjellstrand, T, & McCaa, C. (2009).
Content analysis of news reports: Comparing human coding and a computer assisted
method. In K. Krippendorff & M. Bock, The content analysis reader (pp. 243-252).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Narayanan, V. K., Zane, L. J., & Kemmerer, B. (2011). The cognitive perspective in strategy: an
integrative review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 305-351.
doi:10.1177/0149206310383986
Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business schools: A study in
failure?. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 108-123.
doi:10.5465/AMLE.2008.31413868
Neilson, G. L., Martin, K. L., & Powers, E. (2008). The secrets to successful strategy execution.
Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 60-70. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Nelson, R. & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.

Noda, T. & Bower, J. (1996). Strategy making as iterated processes of resource allocation.
Nonaka, I. (1988). Toward middle-up-down management: Accelerating information creation.
Sloan Management Review, 29(3), 9-18. doi: 812491
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 5(1), 14-37. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Nutt, P. C. (1984). Planning process archetypes and their effectiveness. Decision Sciences, 15(2),
221-238. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1984.tb01210.x
Nutt, P. C. (1987). Identifying and appraising how managers install strategy. Strategic
Nutt, P. C. (1989). Selecting tactics to implement strategic plans. Strategic Management Journal,
10(2), 145-161. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250100205
Nutt, P. C. (1990). Strategic decisions made by top executives and middle managers with data
and process dominant styles. Journal of Management Studies, 27(2), 173-194. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6486.1990.tb00759.x
Nutt, P. C. (2001). Strategic decision-making. In M. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, & J. Harrison (Eds.),
The Blackwell handbook of strategic management (pp. 35-69). New York, NY: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
18, 187-206. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<187::AID-
SMJ936>3.0.CO;2-K
Olk, P. & Griffith, T. (2004). Creating and disseminating knowledge among organizational
scholars: The role of special issues. Organizational Science, 15(1), 120-129. doi:
10.1287/orsc.1030.0055
Osborne, J., Stubbart, C. I., & Ramaprasad, A. (2001). Strategic groups and competitive
enactment: A study of dynamic relationships between mental models and performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 435-454. doi:10.1002/smj.166
Oswald, S., Mossholder, K. & Harris, S. (1994). Vision salience and strategic involvement:
implications for psychological attachment to organization and job. Strategic Management
Journal, 15(6), 477-489. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250150605
Overmeer, W. (1996). Strategy and learning: Making prescriptions. In Organizational learning
II: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 251-280). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pappas, J. M., & Wooldridge, B. (2007). Middle managers' divergent strategic activity: An
investigation of multiple measures of network centrality. Journal of Management Studies,
44(3), 323-341. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00681.x
Parham, P. & Muller, H. (2008). Review of workforce diversity content in organizational
behavior texts. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 424-428. doi:
10.5465/AMLE.2008.37029208
Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. New York, NY: Free Press.
Pearce, J. & Robinson, R. (2013). Strategic management: Planning for domestic and global
competition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Penrose, E. (1959/2009). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Pérez, A., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2012). The role of CSR in the corporate identity of
banking service providers. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2), 145-166.
doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1067-7
Petticrew, M. & Roberts, H. (2007). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical
guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Pettigrew, A. (1992). The character and significance of strategy process research. Strategic
Management Journal, 13(S2), 5-16. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250130903
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston, MA:
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business school 'business': Some lessons from the US
experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1501-1520. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2004.00484.x
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 78-95. doi:
10.5465/AMLE.2002.7373679
Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge
into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Management half-truths and nonsense: How to practice
evidence-based management. California Management Review, 48(3), 77-100. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41166351
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of

Phillips, N., Sewell, G., & Jaynes, S. (2008). Applying critical discourse analysis in strategic
management research. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 770-789. doi:
10.1177/1094428107310837
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Bachrach, D., Podsakoff, N. (2005). The influence of management
journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26(5), 473-488. doi:
10.1002/smj.454
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1980). How competitive forces shape strategy. McKinsey Quarterly, (2), 34-50.
Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mckinsey_quarterly
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.
New York, NY: The Free Press.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business
Prestwich, R., & Thu-Mai, H. (2007). Knowledge, skills and abilities of international business
majors: What we teach them versus what companies need them to know. Journal of
Teaching in International Business, 19(1), 29-55. doi:10.1300/J066v19n01-03
Prewitt, K. (1981). Usefulness of the social sciences. Science, 211(4483), 659.
doi:10.1126/science.211.4483.659
Quinn , J. B. (1978/1980). Strategic change: Logical incrementalism. Sloan Management
Review, 30(4), 45-60. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/
Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Homewood, IL: R. D.
Irwin.
Raes, A. L., Heijltjes, M. G., Glunk, U., & Roe, R. A. (2011). The interface of the top
management team and middle managers: A process model. Academy of Management
Review, 36(1), 102-126. doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.55662566
Rajagopalan, N., Rasheed, A. A., & Datta, D. K. (1993). Strategic decision processes: Critical
review and future directions. Journal of Management, 19(2), 349-384.
doi:10.1177/014920639301900207
Rajagopalan, N., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens
perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 48-79.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1997.9707180259
Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes, and
competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the
resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23-37. doi: 10.1002/smj.366
Reeves, M., & Deimler, M. (2011). Adaptability: The new competitive advantage. Harvard
Business Review, 89(7/8), 134-141. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Reid, D. M. (1989). Operationalizing strategic planning. Strategic Management Journal, 10(6),
553-567. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250100604
Reitzig, M. & Sorenson, O. (2013). Biases in the selection stage of bottom-up strategy
formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(7), 782-799. doi: 10.1002/smj.2047
Ren , C. & Guo, C. (2011). Middle managers’ strategic role in the corporate entrepreneurial
process: attention-based effects. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1586-1610. doi:
10.1177/0149206310397769
Rich, R. F. (1979). The pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1,
6-30. doi: 10.1177/107554707900100102

Rich, R. F. (1991). Knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilization: Perspectives of the founding
editor of Knowledge. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 12(3), 319-337. doi:
10.1177/107554709101200308
Riesman, D. (1998). On higher education: The academic enterprise in an era of student
consumerism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Ritchie-Dunham, J. & Puente, L. (2008). Strategic clarity: Actions for identifying and correcting
gaps in mental models. Long Range Planning, 41(5), 509-529.
doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2008.06.006
Rogers, E. (1962/2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle
managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7),
1413-1441. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00549.x
Rouleau, L. & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive
competence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 953-983. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2010.00941.x
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as "evidence-based management"?. Academy of
Rousseau, D. M., & McCarthy, S. (2007). Educating managers from an evidence-based
perspective. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 84-101.
doi:10.5465/AMLE.2007.24401705
Rowe, W. G. (2001). Creating wealth in organizations: The role of strategic leadership. Academy
of Management Executive, 15(1), 81-94. doi: 10.5465/AME.2001.4251395

Rumelt, R. (1979). Evaluation of strategy: Theory and models. In D. Schendel & C. Hofer
(Eds.), Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning (pp. 196-211).
Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
Rumelt, R., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. (1994). Fundamental issues in strategy. Boston, MA:
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J., & Daft, R. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and
transfer between academics and practitioners. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2),
340-355. doi: 10.2307/3069460
Rynes, S. L., & Quinn Trank, C. (1999). Behavioral science in the business school curriculum:
teaching in a changing institutional environment. Academy of Management Review,
24(4), 808-824. doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.2553255
Rynes, S. L., Quinn Trank, C., Lawson, A. M., & Ilies, R. (2003). Behavioral coursework in
business education: Growing evidence of a legitimacy crisis. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 2(3), 269-283. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2003.10932135
Sagie, A. & Koslowlsky, M. (2000). Participation and empowerment in organizations:
Modeling, effectiveness, and applications. London, UK: Sage.
Sanchez, R. & Heene, A. (2004). The new strategic management: Organization, competition,
and competence. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Sargut, G., & McGrath, R. (2011). Learning to live with complexity. Harvard Business Review,
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Essex,
UK: Pearson Education.

Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current
practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal,
43(6), 1248-1264. doi:10.2307/1556348
Schendel, D. (1975). Needs and developments in policy curricula at the Ph.D. level. West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Schendel, D. & Hofer, C. (Eds.). (1979). Strategic management: A new view of business policy
and planning. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
Schilit, W. (1987). An examination of the influence of middle-level managers in formulating and
implementing strategic decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 24(3), 271-293. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6486.1987.tb00703.x
Schilit, W. (1990). A comparative analysis of strategic decisions. Journal of Management
Studies, 27(5), 435-461. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1990.tb00256.x
Schilit, W., & Locke, E. (1982). A study of upward influence in organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 27(2), 304-316. doi: 10.2307/2392305
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P.L. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical
inquiry, devil's advocacy and consensus approaches to strategic decision making.
Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 745-772. doi: 10.2307/256567
Scott, W. R. & Davis, G. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open
system perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Simon, H. A. (1945). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Free Press.

Shi, W., Markoczy, L. & Dess, G. (2009). The role of middle management in the strategy
process: Group affiliation, structural holes, and tertius iungens. Journal of Management,
35(6), 1453-1480. doi: 10.1177/0149206309346338
Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management
Studies, 20(1), 7-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1983.tb00195.x
Shrivastava, P. & Nachman, S. (1989). Strategic leadership patterns. Strategic Management
Journal, 10(1), 51-66. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250100706
Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1),
25–134. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.125
Snow, C. C., & Hrebiniak, L. G. (1980). Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 317-336. doi: 10.2307/2392457
Sonenshein, S. (2010). We're changing--or are we? Untangling the role of progressive,
regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(3), 477-512. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51467638
Souitaris, V., & Maestro, B. (2010). Polychronicity in top management teams: The impact on
strategic decision processes and performance of new technology ventures. Strategic
Stacey, R. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change
processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477-495.
doi: 10.1002/smj.4250160606
Stambaugh, J. E., & Quinn Trank, C. (2010). Not so simple: Integrating new research into
textbooks. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 663-681.
doi:10.5465/AMLE.2010.56659883
Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing
strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management
Review, 54(4), 44-68. doi:10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.44
Stewart, T. A. (1999). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of nations. New York, NY:
Currency Doubleday.
Strategic Management Society. (2014). Publications. Retrieved from
http://strategicmanagement.net/pub/
Sull, D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2012). Simple rules for a complex world. Harvard Business
Svenson, A., Mazzucato, U., & Starbuck, W. (1966). Forum: exchanges on cases and policy
courses. Academy of Management Journal, 9(4), 344-361. doi: 10.2307/254953
Tahai, A., & Meyer, M. (1999). A revealed preference study of management journals' direct
influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 279-296. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199903)20:3<279::AID-SMJ33>3.0.CO;2-2
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Thakur, M. (1998). Involving middle managers in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 31(5),
732-741. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/long-range-planning/
Thomas III, L. G. (1996). The two faces of competition: Dynamic resourcefulness and the
hypercompetitive shift. Organization Science, 7(3), 221-242. Retrieved from
Thompson, J. B. (2005). Books in the digital age: The transformation of academic and higher
education publishing in Britain and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Thompson, J. D. (1967/2003). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative
theory. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
Tomer, J. F. (1987). Organizational capital: The path to higher productivity and well-being.
New York, NY: Praeger.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
Management, 14(3), 207-222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Trank, C., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming professionalism in
business education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(2), 189-205.
doi:10.5465/AMLE.2003.9901678
Tsang, E. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy between
descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1), 73-89. doi: 10965003
Tushman, M., Smith, W, & Binns, A. (2011). The ambidextrous CEO. Harvard Business
Unterman, I. & Hegarty, W. (1979). Teaching implications of policy and planning research. In
D. Schendel & C. Hofer (Eds.), Strategic management: A new view of business policy
and planning (pp. 479-514). Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
Uyterhoeven, H. E. (1972). General managers in the middle. Harvard Business Review, 50(2),
75-85. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/

Vaara, E. (2011). Critical discourse analysis as methodology in strategy as practice. In D.
Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as
practice (pp. 217-229). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Van Cauwenbergh, A. & Cool, K. (1982). Strategic management in a new framework. Strategic
Vancil, R. F., & Lorange, P. (1975). Strategic planning in diversified companies. Harvard
Business Review, 53(1), 81-90. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Van De Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: a research note. Strategic
Management Journal, 13(S1), 169-188. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250131013
Van De Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of
Venkatraman, N. N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in
strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4),
801-814. doi:10.5465/AMR.1986.4283976
Vera, D. & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of
Management Review, 29(2), 222-240. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2004.12736080
Vilà, J. & Canales, J. (2008). Can strategic planning make strategy more relevant and build
commitment over time? The case of RACC. Long Range Planning, 41(3), 273-290. doi:
10.1016/j.lrp.2008.02.009
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in
organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.

Wally, S., & Baum, J. (1994). Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic
decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 932-956. doi:10.2307/256605
Watkins, M. D. (2009). Picking the right transition strategy. Harvard Business Review, 87(1),
46-53. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Weber, M. (1922/1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Weigold, M. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science
Communications, 23(2), 164-193. doi: 10.1177/1075547001023002005
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2),
171-180. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250050207
Westley, F. R. (1990). Middle managers and strategy: Microdynamics of inclusion. Strategic
Wheelen, T., & Hunger, J. (2013). Strategic management and business policy: Toward global
sustainability. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies,
27(5), 613-634. doi: 10.1177/0170840606064101
Whittington, R., Jarzabkowski, P., Mayer, M., Mounoud, E., Nahapiet, J., & Rouleau, L. (2003).
Taking strategy seriously: Responsibility and reform for an important social
practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 396-409. doi: 486410891
Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York, NY: Free Press.
Wong, E., Ormiston, M., and Tetlock, P. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative
complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1207-1228. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.0762
Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. (1989). Research notes and communications strategic process
effects on consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3), 295-302.
doi: 10.1002/smj.4250100308
Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. (1990). The strategy process, middle management involvement, and
organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 231-241.
doi: 10.1002/smj.4250110305
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. (2008). The middle management perspective on
strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management,
34(6), 1190-1221. doi: 10.1177/0149206308324326
Wrapp, H. (1967/1984). Good managers don't make policy decisions. Harvard Business Review,
Yan, L., Floyd, S. W., & Baldridge, D. C. (2005). Toward a model of issue-selling by subsidiary
managers in multinational organizations. Journal of International Business Studies,
36(6), 637-654. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400166
Yunxia, Z. (2008). Effective signals: How can firms communicate their strategic intent in IPO
communications?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(2), 106-108.
doi:10.5465/AMP.2008.32739766
Appendix
Detailed research assessment instrument.
Citation:
Underlying Assumptions - Philosophy of Science - Theory of Society – Bias Considerations

Sociology of Radical Change
SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
Sociology of Regulation Burrell and Morgan (1979)
Constructs
Sources - Author and Publication Credibility
Argument History – Object – Stakeholders and Concerns
PURPOSE AND RATIONALE What case is made for the value of this study?
PARTICIPANTS Who or what was studied? Why were they selected? How were they selected?
CONTEXT What is the physical, social, historical, and economic setting of this study?
DATA What was the data? Why was it chosen? How was it collected? Who collected it?
ANALYSIS What types of analysis were used? Rationale?
RESULTS/FINDINGS What information was produced by the analysis of the data?
CONCLUSIONS How are the results connected to the purpose?
CAUTIONS What are the concerns around the overall study and interpretation of the results?
DISCUSSION What value emerged from this study?
References
Metcalfe, M. (2007). Why good argument is critical to useful research: A research strategy. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Locke, L., Silverman, S., & Spirduso, W. (2010). Reading and understanding research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Middle Management Research in Strategic Management Textbooks - A Clouded Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Middle Management Research in Strategic Management Textbooks - A Clouded Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH IN STRATEGY 1

Middle Management Research in Strategic Management Textbooks: A Clouded Perspective

Dennis Winters, Ph.D.

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 11

Study Scope and Significance ................................................................................................... 12

The significance of the university and textbooks. ................................................................ 13

The significance of middle management .............................................................................. 14

The significance of strategy formation ................................................................................. 15

Propositions and Research Question ......................................................................................... 17

Overview of Chapters ............................................................................................................... 20

2: Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................................... 23

Overview of the Theoretical Domain of Business Policy and Strategy.................................... 23

Strategy content. ................................................................................................................... 24

Strategy process. ................................................................................................................... 27

Review Process ......................................................................................................................... 31

Middle Management in Strategy Formation ............................................................................. 36

Multiple and separate roles. .................................................................................................. 36

As initiators of strategy, in detail. ......................................................................................... 41

As participants in deliberate strategy process. ...................................................................... 46

Influence on top management decisions. .............................................................................. 49

As developers of strategic context. ....................................................................................... 51

Cooperating with top management in various roles. ............................................................ 54

As strategic resource and capability managers. .................................................................... 58

Influence of and on context................................................................................................... 62

As drivers of strategic renewal. ............................................................................................ 66

Role switching and adaptation. ............................................................................................. 70

As interpreters and translators. ............................................................................................. 71

As participants in deliberate process, twenty years later. ..................................................... 73

Role expectations. ................................................................................................................. 76

As indirect influences via information and attention management. ..................................... 79

In relationship to top managers. ............................................................................................ 82

Performance effects of middle management......................................................................... 84

Synthesis and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 90

3: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................ 92

Prior Theory and Knowledge: Production and Dissemination of Knowledge ......................... 94

Origins and state of the field. ................................................................................................ 94

Models of knowledge production, dissemination, and utilization. ....................................... 96

The body of knowledge. ....................................................................................................... 98

Production of knowledge: University business schools........................................................ 99

Consumers of knowledge: Current and future management practitioners.......................... 100

Dissemination of knowledge: Formal education. ............................................................... 101

Dissemination mechanism: Textbook. ................................................................................ 102

Pilot and Exploratory Studies ................................................................................................. 103

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 104

Chapter 4: Research Approach ................................................................................................... 105

Research Objectives ................................................................................................................ 105

Data Source and Unit of Analysis ........................................................................................... 106

Research Method .................................................................................................................... 106

Rationale for Research Approach ........................................................................................... 107

Research Process ..................................................................................................................... 108

1: Develop and apply sample strategy. ............................................................................... 109

2: Develop keywords and categories. ................................................................................. 111

3: Search textbooks. ............................................................................................................ 113

4: Review sections for relevance. ....................................................................................... 115

5: Assess sections quantitatively......................................................................................... 115

6: Assess sections qualitatively........................................................................................... 115

7: Aggregate findings. ......................................................................................................... 116

Reliability and Validity Considerations .................................................................................. 116

Chapter 5: Analysis of Findings ................................................................................................. 118

Literature source references. ............................................................................................... 118