Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Academy of Management Review
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
DAVID M. SCHWEIGER
University of Houston
Researchers and practicing managers interested in the field of strategic
management recently have given attention to the types of managers given
responsibility for implementing chosen strategies. This interest in matching
managers with strategies has resulted in the development of a number of
This interest in strategic management has seen attention given to the strategy formulation process and
to the ensuing implementation of chosen strategies
(Galbraith & Nathanson, 1978; Kiechel, 1982; Lyles
& Watson, 1982). Concern for implementation has
generated interest in linking business and corporate
strategy concepts with those associated with human
resource planning-specifically, matching managers
to strategies. Proponents of this linkage appear to
reject, partially, conventional wisdom, which suggests that competent managers can successfully run
any organization, regardless of the chosen strategies.
Instead, they suggest that emphasis be placed on selecting managers whose skills, management styles,
and behaviors are congruent with the requirements
of particular strategies.
The nature and necessary actions for implementation of strategies at the corporate level of multidivisional firms, the strategic business unit (SBU) level
of multidimensional firms, and corporate level of major product line firms may differ (Hofer & Schendel,
1978). As such, the types of managers needed and
their level within the firm also may differ. For example, at the multidivisional corporate level the
A Review of Strategy-Manager
Matching Models
Extensive analysis of an organization's external
and internal environments and the suggestions derived from strategic choice models frequently are
used as guides to the selection of strategies. Among
the most popular in the growing list of choice models
include the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) matrix
(Hedley, 1977; Henderson, 1979); the product life cy-
626
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
a divestment strategy, the required managerial behaviors should change-change in a manner that is
ing four factors: (a) an evaluation of the job, including needed requirements, activities, and behaviors for effective performance; (b) an assessment of
managerial skills, abilities, and other individual
sification. The stages of growth include singleproduct, dominant product, related diversification,
627
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 1
Wissema, Van Der Pol, Messer (1980) 1. Explosive 1. Improve competitive 1. Pioneer
(Archetypes) position in short period
2. Expansion 2. Improve competitive 2. Conqueror
position over long term
3. Continuous growth 3. Maintenance activities 3. Level-headed ruler
4. Slip 4. Cost reduction 4. Administrator
5. Consolidation 5. Dexterity, flexibility, 5. Economizer
and artistry
6. Contraction 6. Various 6. Insistent diplomat
(Some combination of
the following
characteristics: conformity, sociability, activity, pressure to achieve,
style of thinking.)
Leontiades (1982) 1. Steady-state 1. Efficiency based on 1. Activist, growth en(Stages of growth) SBU trepreneur, product
manager, R & D
planner
Miles & Snow (1978) 1. Defender 1. Domain protection, effi- 1. Finance and/or produccient production, tion expertise in dostrong control emphasis miant coalition
coordination needs
Porter (1980) 1. Overall cost leadership 1. Tight cost control, fre- 1. Process engineering
(Generic strategies) quent reports, strict skills, task orientation
rules incentives based (inferred)
on quantitative targets,
access to capital
2. Differentiation 2. Coordination focus, in- 2. Coordination skills, prodcentives based on uct engineering skills,
quantitative targets marketing knowledge,
creative abilities
(inferred)
el, divisional level, and departmental level. He suggests that different strategies may require the involvement of different level managers for effective imple-
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
whether managerial personality traits can be accurately identified and measured, or if they are indeed
important to strategy implementation; and (3) consideration must be given to the type of organization
and its structure, which he defines as autonomous
(acquisition of unrelated businesses) and homogeneous (internal growth). Though he criticized the use
of the product-life cycle in selection decisions, it
serves in modified form as the basis for his reward
system model.
Encouraging managers to achieve stated organizational goals and to perform specific acitivties at the
SBU level associated with chosen strategies is directly
linked to specified performance criteria. The criteria
are developed from an analysis of the requirements
associated with each stage of the product-life cycle
and with the administration of rewards. The productlife cycle stages emphasize short run versus long run
performance, end result versus intermediate performance, quantitative versus qualitative measures, and
corporate versus divisional performance; the reward
system deals with types of rewards, the frequencies
and sizes of rewards, the uniformity of the reward,
The Miles and Snow (1978) model does not specifically concern itself with matching managers to stra-
tegies. It is discussed here, however, because it addresses important issues of management coalitions
in strategy implementation, the criteria for coalition
The final model is Porter's (1980) generic strategies. Similar to the Miles and Snow (1978) model,
Porter's presentation does not deal directly with
matching managers to strategies. It offers, however,
topic.
strategies).
In his discussion of the skills, resources, and organizational requirements needed for each strategy,
Porter alludes to the strategy-manager match. For
example, an overall cost leadership strategy suggests
that job requirements such as establishing tight cost
control, frequent reports, strict rule enforcement, and
sures are critical for effective performance. Similarly, a differentiation strategy requires an emphasis on
coordination, incentives based on qualitative methods, and maintenance of quality and technological
leadership.
629
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
effectively applied, research must establish the validity of the prescriptions offered by these models.
On a related but equally important point, it is
unclear which strategic choice models and sets of
recommendations are most critical to organizational
performance. Without sound theory development
and research support, attempts to select managers to
match elements.
strategy" or a "turnaround strategy" may be different from strategist to strategist (Galbraith &
Schendel, 1983). This difference, in turn, may directly
affect the nature of the job requirements recommended for effective implementation. Snow and Hambrick, with respect to the Miles and Snow (1978)
model, comment: "Labels like Prospector and
Defender aid in conceptualization, but they do not
necessarily capture the nature of the strategy as seen
by those who formulate and implement it" (1980, p.
530).
are not always readily identifiable; (b) the relationships between strategies and product-life cycle stages
are not clearly established; (c) the duration of the cycle can vary across and within industries; (d) not all
identified.
630
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Final concern is the consideration given to variables not directly related to the job or the manager.
Rarely is the selection decision as simple as matching
missions, we also realized we had to have quite different people running them. That was where we began
to see the need to meld our human resources planning and management with the strategic planning we
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Mintzberg's (1980) seminal work concerns the various roles, or the organized set of behaviors, that
managers engage in to perform their jobs. Identified
are 10 roles within 3 major role categories: interpersonal roles, which involve relationships with people
internal and external to the organization; informational roles, which concern the manner in which information is acquired and transmitted within the organization and to external constituencies; and decisional roles, which relate to the choices that managers
must make.
organizational factors important to the selection decision. The framework is essentially normative in nature. It is intended to stimulate interest and to suggest how research might investigate this topic. Concrete prescriptions are not offered because of the early state of research and the limitations discussed
earlier. Those that are presented are hypothetical in
nature and are used for illustrative purposes only.
The framework considers the existence and importance of actual strategies (e.g., growth, harvest,
divest) and selected personal attributes (e.g., personality). These elements, however, do not play a
central role in the framework. It is more important
that the focus be placed directly on job requirements
and managerial skills and behaviors than it is to attempt to relate strategies to personality prototypes,
as some previous models have done. As the earlier
sufficient attention.
Matching criteria are categories that link job requirements to managerial skills and behaviors. These
criteria are termed knowledge, integrative, and administrative. The knowledge criterion is based on
Katz's (1974) skills framework, Kotter's (1982a) complex job responsibilities, and Stewart's (1982) job
have above average intelligence, analytical and intuitive skills, and a high achievement orientation. On
the other hand, performance in jobs that require getting things done through large and diverse sets of people, internal and external to the organization, is
enhanced when selected managers have developed extensive relationships (i.e., networks) throughout their
organizations and industries. These managers also
have personable and emotionally steady dispositions
and the ability to relate to diverse groups of managers
and specialists.
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Figure 1
M,anagerial
Strategy Job Requirements M4atching Criteria Skills and Behaviors Person Attributes
Growth 1. Environmental Scanning Knowledge 1. Specific Industry Knowledge Education
2. Functional Focus-Source of 2. Knowledge of Organizational
Defend
Job
Demands
Functions
Family
Job
Related
Demands
Company
4. Past Performance Personality
Contingencies Incentives
Power
Structure
Culture
nal networks
2. Number and quality of relationships with internal
networks
3. Quality of communication, supervisory, and interpersonal skills
4. Ability to select and motivate colleagues and
subordinates.
ments.
ger could have developed a valuable network of relationships outside the company, an internal network
within the key function or functions, and have ex-
that highlight a minimum need for external relationships, but a strong demand for enhancing interdepartmental cooperation and collaboration. The
contacts
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
A market growth strategy could involve job requirements that establish and reward innovative
behavior and market share improvement, new product introduction, and so on. A manager matching
these job requirements could prefer incentives based
on growth criteria and could have shown a knack for
creative and innovative behavior, while maintaining
a view of the total organization (i.e., conceptual
skills). A harvest strategy could entail job requirements and managerial skills and behaviors oriented
toward the control of costs and operations, with
rewards coming from the achievement of these control-oriented goals.
The final matching criteria concerns a factor frequently overlooked in previous models-namely,
matching priorities. Although the list of job requirements and managerial skills and behaviors may
indicate a desired match, frequently one or two elements may be so salient as to overshadow the other
elements (Dawis & Corrigon, 1974; Wallace &
Schwab, 1976). For example, top management may
feel that the success of a market growth strategy is
so dependent on accurate environmental scanning
that they might select a manager solely on the basis
of extensive external networks and proven industry
knowledge. A manager exhibiting these behaviors
might be selected over another manager who is evaluated as having stronger credentials in other dimensions.
Beyond the basic matching criteria, there are additional organizational factors that can influence the
selection decision. These are called matching contingencies because their impact will vary with conditions in an organization. These matching contingencies have been suggested by Stewart's (1982) job constraints and Tichy's (1982) strategic change theory.
Tichy's approach suggests that "the key to managing strategic change and making an organization effective is to align an organization's componentsits mission and strategy, its structure, and its human
resources-within the three technical, political, and
cultural systems and to align each of these systems
with the others" (1982, p. 66). Technical system considerations involve defining missions and selecting
strategies, aligning structure with strategies, and fitting people to roles. Political system considerations
involve: establishing influence relationships and managing coalitions (i.e., mission and strategy); distributing and balancing power across units and groups
(i.e., structure); and managing succession politics and
designing proper reward systems (i.e., human resources). Cultural system considerations entail: aligning strategies with the values and philosophies of the
organization (i.e., mission and strategy); developing
and integrating subcultures (i.e., structure); socializing people to cultures; and managing rewards to reinforce cultural requirements (i.e., human resources).
The influence of organizational power on matching
decisions has been studied by Hambrick (1981), Pfeffer
and Salancik (1978), and Snow and Hambrick (1980).
Power is viewed as potentially having at least a threefold impact. First, when selecting managers it is suggested that managers might consider the probable effects of an alignment between the organization and its
environment. In a hospital study, Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) found that the major source of funds was
considered a key criterion in selecting administrators.
They reported that some administrators were selected
with backgrounds in accounting when the major portion of the hospital's budget derived from private insurance companies. On the other hand, some hospital
administrators with business or professional backgrounds were selected over those with accounting
backgrounds when the largest portion of the hospital's budget was obtained from private donations.
Essentially, power associated with the knowledge
base and quality of established external networks of
the studied hospital administrators were key selection factors. It was not inferred that these were the
only selection factors considered, or that all hospitals
or other organizations behave in the same way.
Second, it is suggested that those in power may not
always give up their positions easily-instead, they
634
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Conclusions
One of the most important functions of management should be to provide direction to the organiza-
a lack of thorough analysis of how strategy implementation and managerial selection should work to-
gether. Previous models either lack cogent descriptions of strategies and their ensuing job requirements,
or they attempt the endless task of matching strategic
requirements to laundry lists of managerial personality types.
behaviors: and (2) to identify key matching contingencies that might significantly influence the selection process. This framework is not without its limitations. From a research perspective, defining and measuring the key variables presented may be problematic. Because of company and industry differences, the
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
A potentially important application of this framework (pending supporting research) could be in managerial succession, training, and development and the
application of managerial assessment centers (Finkle,
1976). Through careful job requirement analyses, the
framework may help in the design of programs that
stress the importance of developing key skills and
behaviors (e.g., developing expertise in various func-
References
Aguilar, F. J. The Mead corporation. Boston: HBS Case Services,
Gerstein, M., & Reisman, H. Strategic selection: Matching executives to business conditions. Sloan Management Review, 1983,
1978.
24(2), 33-49.
Dawis, R. M., & Corrigon, B. Linear models of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 76, 95-106.
253-275.
Hambrick, D. C., MacMillan, I.C., & Day, D. L. Strategic attributes and performance in the BCG matrix: A PIMS-based
analysis of industrial product businesses. Academy of Management Journal, 1982, 25, 510-531.
Irwin, 1980.
636
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. Who gets the power-And how they
hold on to it. Organizational Dynamics, 1977, 5(3), 3-21.
Klein, H., & Cox, M. Harvester's top team gains trust but doubts
Foresman, 1976.
Lyles, M. A., & Watson, K. M. Strategy implementation: The interface with human resources. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Management Meeting, 1982, New York, 56-58.
11(2), 59-80.
25, 733-755.
Wind, Y., & Mahajan V. Designing product and business portfolios. Harvard Business Review, 1981, 59(1), 155-165.
1(1), 37-47.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
637
This content downloaded from 130.225.157.199 on Mon, 07 Nov 2016 07:40:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms