Miles and Snow’s strategic typology redux through the lens of ambidexterity
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to link firms’ strategic archetypes as formulated by Miles and Snow (1978) to the more recent literature on organizational ambidexterity. Examining these obvious linkages, the paper also addresses how these firms address their entrepreneurial, engineering and adm...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of organizational analysis (2005) 2019-09, Vol.27 (4), p.925-946 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 946 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 925 |
container_title | International journal of organizational analysis (2005) |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | Sollosy, Marc Guidice, Rebecca M Parboteeah, K. Praveen |
description | Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to link firms’ strategic archetypes as formulated by Miles and Snow (1978) to the more recent literature on organizational ambidexterity. Examining these obvious linkages, the paper also addresses how these firms address their entrepreneurial, engineering and administrative problem domains in relationship with the firm’s strategic archetype.
Design/methodology/approach
Data were collected from 503 firms across the US. Measures previously validated were used to collect information related to the strategic archetype as well as the three problem domains. Multiple discriminant and regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses.
Findings
Most of the hypotheses relating the entrepreneurial (exploration and exploitation), engineering (radical and incremental innovation) and administrative problem (adaptation and alignment) to the four strategic archetypes (defender, prospector, analyzer and reactor) were supported. Additionally, the authors found that the firms that had the closest alignment along the three problem domains outperformed the other firms.
Originality/value
Although the Miles and Snow typology has received considerable research attention, the obvious links with more contemporary research on organizational ambidexterity has been neglected. Through this integration, with more recent key strategic management concepts, this paper shows the utility and current relevance of the Miles and Snow archetypes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1108/IJOA-05-2018-1433 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_emera</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2287028992</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2287028992</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-ae7b4651d35fb943d3d197ece7e38febc6e93c4ee22f7bda63d0896b479ebc03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkE1OwzAQRi0EEqVwAHaWWAfsOI7tZVXxU9SqC7q3nHjSpkrjYjui3XENrsdJSFQ2SKy-keZ7M9JD6JaSe0qJfJi9LicJ4UlKqExoxtgZGlHBZSJ5Ts_7WbEskZLxS3QVwpYQLoQUI7RY1A0EbFqL31r38f35FXCI3kRY1yWOx71r3PqIPdjugOPGu2696RNwA23ArsJmV9QWDhF8HY_X6KIyTYCb3xyj1dPjavqSzJfPs-lknpSMZjExIIos59QyXhUqY5ZZqgSUIIDJCooyB8XKDCBNK1FYkzNLpMqLTKh-SdgY3Z3O7r177yBEvXWdb_uPOk2lIKlUKu1b9NQqvQvBQ6X3vt4Zf9SU6EGaHqRpwvUgTQ_SeoacGNiBN439F_njmf0Ahe1wJw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2287028992</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Miles and Snow’s strategic typology redux through the lens of ambidexterity</title><source>Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection</source><creator>Sollosy, Marc ; Guidice, Rebecca M ; Parboteeah, K. Praveen</creator><creatorcontrib>Sollosy, Marc ; Guidice, Rebecca M ; Parboteeah, K. Praveen</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to link firms’ strategic archetypes as formulated by Miles and Snow (1978) to the more recent literature on organizational ambidexterity. Examining these obvious linkages, the paper also addresses how these firms address their entrepreneurial, engineering and administrative problem domains in relationship with the firm’s strategic archetype.
Design/methodology/approach
Data were collected from 503 firms across the US. Measures previously validated were used to collect information related to the strategic archetype as well as the three problem domains. Multiple discriminant and regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses.
Findings
Most of the hypotheses relating the entrepreneurial (exploration and exploitation), engineering (radical and incremental innovation) and administrative problem (adaptation and alignment) to the four strategic archetypes (defender, prospector, analyzer and reactor) were supported. Additionally, the authors found that the firms that had the closest alignment along the three problem domains outperformed the other firms.
Originality/value
Although the Miles and Snow typology has received considerable research attention, the obvious links with more contemporary research on organizational ambidexterity has been neglected. Through this integration, with more recent key strategic management concepts, this paper shows the utility and current relevance of the Miles and Snow archetypes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1934-8835</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-8561</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/IJOA-05-2018-1433</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Adaptation ; Archetypes (Psychology) ; Competition ; Competitive advantage ; Exploitation ; Innovations ; Product development ; Theory</subject><ispartof>International journal of organizational analysis (2005), 2019-09, Vol.27 (4), p.925-946</ispartof><rights>Emerald Publishing Limited</rights><rights>Emerald Publishing Limited 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-ae7b4651d35fb943d3d197ece7e38febc6e93c4ee22f7bda63d0896b479ebc03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-ae7b4651d35fb943d3d197ece7e38febc6e93c4ee22f7bda63d0896b479ebc03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJOA-05-2018-1433/full/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21675,27903,27904,53222</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sollosy, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guidice, Rebecca M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parboteeah, K. Praveen</creatorcontrib><title>Miles and Snow’s strategic typology redux through the lens of ambidexterity</title><title>International journal of organizational analysis (2005)</title><description>Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to link firms’ strategic archetypes as formulated by Miles and Snow (1978) to the more recent literature on organizational ambidexterity. Examining these obvious linkages, the paper also addresses how these firms address their entrepreneurial, engineering and administrative problem domains in relationship with the firm’s strategic archetype.
Design/methodology/approach
Data were collected from 503 firms across the US. Measures previously validated were used to collect information related to the strategic archetype as well as the three problem domains. Multiple discriminant and regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses.
Findings
Most of the hypotheses relating the entrepreneurial (exploration and exploitation), engineering (radical and incremental innovation) and administrative problem (adaptation and alignment) to the four strategic archetypes (defender, prospector, analyzer and reactor) were supported. Additionally, the authors found that the firms that had the closest alignment along the three problem domains outperformed the other firms.
Originality/value
Although the Miles and Snow typology has received considerable research attention, the obvious links with more contemporary research on organizational ambidexterity has been neglected. Through this integration, with more recent key strategic management concepts, this paper shows the utility and current relevance of the Miles and Snow archetypes.</description><subject>Adaptation</subject><subject>Archetypes (Psychology)</subject><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Competitive advantage</subject><subject>Exploitation</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Product development</subject><subject>Theory</subject><issn>1934-8835</issn><issn>1758-8561</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNptkE1OwzAQRi0EEqVwAHaWWAfsOI7tZVXxU9SqC7q3nHjSpkrjYjui3XENrsdJSFQ2SKy-keZ7M9JD6JaSe0qJfJi9LicJ4UlKqExoxtgZGlHBZSJ5Ts_7WbEskZLxS3QVwpYQLoQUI7RY1A0EbFqL31r38f35FXCI3kRY1yWOx71r3PqIPdjugOPGu2696RNwA23ArsJmV9QWDhF8HY_X6KIyTYCb3xyj1dPjavqSzJfPs-lknpSMZjExIIos59QyXhUqY5ZZqgSUIIDJCooyB8XKDCBNK1FYkzNLpMqLTKh-SdgY3Z3O7r177yBEvXWdb_uPOk2lIKlUKu1b9NQqvQvBQ6X3vt4Zf9SU6EGaHqRpwvUgTQ_SeoacGNiBN439F_njmf0Ahe1wJw</recordid><startdate>20190909</startdate><enddate>20190909</enddate><creator>Sollosy, Marc</creator><creator>Guidice, Rebecca M</creator><creator>Parboteeah, K. Praveen</creator><general>Emerald Publishing Limited</general><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K8~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190909</creationdate><title>Miles and Snow’s strategic typology redux through the lens of ambidexterity</title><author>Sollosy, Marc ; Guidice, Rebecca M ; Parboteeah, K. Praveen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-ae7b4651d35fb943d3d197ece7e38febc6e93c4ee22f7bda63d0896b479ebc03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adaptation</topic><topic>Archetypes (Psychology)</topic><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Competitive advantage</topic><topic>Exploitation</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Product development</topic><topic>Theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sollosy, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guidice, Rebecca M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parboteeah, K. Praveen</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>DELNET Management Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>International journal of organizational analysis (2005)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sollosy, Marc</au><au>Guidice, Rebecca M</au><au>Parboteeah, K. Praveen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Miles and Snow’s strategic typology redux through the lens of ambidexterity</atitle><jtitle>International journal of organizational analysis (2005)</jtitle><date>2019-09-09</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>925</spage><epage>946</epage><pages>925-946</pages><issn>1934-8835</issn><eissn>1758-8561</eissn><abstract>Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to link firms’ strategic archetypes as formulated by Miles and Snow (1978) to the more recent literature on organizational ambidexterity. Examining these obvious linkages, the paper also addresses how these firms address their entrepreneurial, engineering and administrative problem domains in relationship with the firm’s strategic archetype.
Design/methodology/approach
Data were collected from 503 firms across the US. Measures previously validated were used to collect information related to the strategic archetype as well as the three problem domains. Multiple discriminant and regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses.
Findings
Most of the hypotheses relating the entrepreneurial (exploration and exploitation), engineering (radical and incremental innovation) and administrative problem (adaptation and alignment) to the four strategic archetypes (defender, prospector, analyzer and reactor) were supported. Additionally, the authors found that the firms that had the closest alignment along the three problem domains outperformed the other firms.
Originality/value
Although the Miles and Snow typology has received considerable research attention, the obvious links with more contemporary research on organizational ambidexterity has been neglected. Through this integration, with more recent key strategic management concepts, this paper shows the utility and current relevance of the Miles and Snow archetypes.</abstract><cop>Bingley</cop><pub>Emerald Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/IJOA-05-2018-1433</doi><tpages>22</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1934-8835 |
ispartof | International journal of organizational analysis (2005), 2019-09, Vol.27 (4), p.925-946 |
issn | 1934-8835 1758-8561 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2287028992 |
source | Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection |
subjects | Adaptation Archetypes (Psychology) Competition Competitive advantage Exploitation Innovations Product development Theory |
title | Miles and Snow’s strategic typology redux through the lens of ambidexterity |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T06%3A27%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_emera&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Miles%20and%20Snow%E2%80%99s%20strategic%20typology%20redux%20through%20the%20lens%20of%20ambidexterity&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20organizational%20analysis%20(2005)&rft.au=Sollosy,%20Marc&rft.date=2019-09-09&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=925&rft.epage=946&rft.pages=925-946&rft.issn=1934-8835&rft.eissn=1758-8561&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/IJOA-05-2018-1433&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_emera%3E2287028992%3C/proquest_emera%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2287028992&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |