The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htmBIJ18,4 A comparative study of organizational strategy and culture across industry510 Bindu Gupta Institute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad, India Abstract Purpose – The present study examines the strategy and culture of 32 Indian organizations belonging to seven industry segments namely construction, banking, information technology (IT), pharmaceuticals, power, steel, and telecom. Further it also examines the linkage between the organization’s strategy and the culture of the organization. Design/methodology/approach – It has used the typology suggested by Miles and Snow and organizational culture assessment instrument developed by Cameron and Quinn which is based on the competing values framework of Quinn and Rohrbaugh. The Miles and Snow framework suggests four organizational strategies namely, prospector, defender, analyzer and reactor. Organizational culture is categorized into four types: adhocracy, clan, market, and hierarchy. Findings – The ﬁndings indicated that there are signiﬁcant differences in the strategy and culture of organizations belonging to different industry segments. Prospector strategy is most widely used by the telecom industry and least in construction. The analyzer strategy was reported to be most frequently used by the IT sector and defender and reactor strategy were used by the construction sector. Adhocracy culture was most prevalent in the pharmaceutical sector. Clan, market, and hierarchy culture were most prevalent in the construction industry. Further organizations using prospector strategy were high on adhocracy culture. Both clan and adhocracy cultures were found more in organizations with analyzer strategy. Organizations with defender and reactor strategy were high on hierarchy and clan culture, respectively. Practical implications – This study asserts that different culture and strategy is used in Indian organizations. Originality/value – The contribution of the study lies in examining the differences in culture and strategy of organizations belonging to different industry segments. Keywords Culture, India, Industry type, Strategy, Organizational culture, Corporate strategy Paper type Research paper In the global environment, organizations all around the world are constantly facing challenges to have competitive advantage. The global world is characterized by more competition, diverse work force, continuously changing customers’ needs, and new technological changes, etc. Till the nineties the process of globalisation of the Indian economy was constrained by the barriers to trade and investment. The organizations were working in protected environment with few competitors. After the liberalisation of trade, investment and ﬁnancial ﬂows initiated in the nineties has progressively lowered the barriers to competition and hastened the pace of globalisation. In this uncertainBenchmarking: An International environment only those organizations can survive and grow which are able to deﬁneJournalVol. 18 No. 4, 2011pp. 510-528 The author sincerely acknowledges the reviewer for giving constructive criticisms which haveq Emerald Group Publishing Limited1463-5771 helped to improve the paper. The author also acknowledges the contribution of colleagues andDOI 10.1108/14635771111147614 students who have helped directly and indirectly in developing this paper.
the strategy which is aligned with the industry environment. Numerous researches Strategyacross the world indicate that ﬁrms with a strategy have got much more chances of and culturesuccess compared to those without a strategy. Within India, strategy has becomepopular particularly after the reforms on 1991 brought and inﬂux of multinational andincreasing competition. The companies operating in India need to understand theinherent issues in strategy on one hand and focus on strategy implementation on theother hand to get the intended results. (Pillania, 2009). 511 Organizational strategy can be deﬁned as a plan for interacting with the competitiveenvironments to achieve organizational goals (Daft, 1995, p. 49). The study oforganizational strategy started with Andre (Collis and Montgomery, 1995) who deﬁnedstrategy as the match between what an organization can do within the universe of whatit might do. Later researchers, as represented by Porter (1980), focused on the industryenvironment of an organization and concluded that the structural characteristics of anindustry determine the strategy of organizations in it. There have been different typologies for strategy and among all the typologies, the mostfrequently used in empirical research into a wide variety of organizations and industries, isthat proposed by Miles and Snow. The various studies that have applied Miles and Snow’smodel have lent it strong support in different environments (Zahra and Pearce, 1990). Dent(1990) concludes that the Miles and Snow typology provides the richest portrayal oforganizational arrangements associated with particular business strategies. Variousstudies have provided support for the reliability and validity of this approach and it hasrecognized as one having good codiﬁcation and prediction strengths (Snow and Hambrick,1980; Hambrick, 1983a, b; Shortell and Zajac, 1990; Abernethy and Guthrie, 1994). The purpose of this study is to address three questions in the context of Indianenterprises. First, what is the dominant strategy across the industries in India and arethere signiﬁcant differences in the strategy of organizations belonging to differentindustry segment? Second, which is the most prevalent culture across the industries inIndia and are there signiﬁcant differences in the culture of organizations belonging todifferent industry segment? Further, there have been rich theoretical descriptions todemonstrate the importance of aligning culture and strategy for organizationalperformance and effectiveness (Schein, 2004; Sackmann, 1991). However, researchershave pointed out (Bitici et al., 2004; Lee and Yu, 2004) that there are few studies that haveexamined empirically, and across multiple organizations, the link between speciﬁccomponents of culture and strategy. So, this study intends to examine the relationshipbetween different components of organizational culture and strategy of the organization.It has used the strategy typology suggested by Miles and Snow (1978) and the competingvalues framework (CVF) of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1981; Quinn,1988; Rohrbaugh, 1983) for measuring organisational culture.Miles and Snow’s strategy frameworkMiles and Snow’s (1978) framework is rooted in Child’s (1972) conceptualization ofstrategic choice and considers the rate at which organizations change their products ormarkets. According to Miles and Snow (1978) organizations act to create their ownenvironments through a series of choices regarding markets, products, technologies,desired scale of operations, and so on. Miles and Snow (1978) classiﬁed strategy types as defender, analyzer, prospector,and reactor. Research over the years has investigated differences among these four
BIJ strategic types with respect to variety of internal factors, including innovation,18,4 management characteristics, organizational performance, and organizational design. According to Miles and Snow (1978), organizations in each category show a consistent pattern of strategic behavior in their decisions when dealing with various environmental forces (Conant et al., 1990). More than one strategy can be successful in a given environment, but it is imperative for a ﬁrm to be organized appropriately and to plan and512 implement strategies relevant to a particular strategic type (Gupta et al., 1997, p. 400). Defenders are internally oriented organizations. They stress efﬁciency, and are tightly organized ﬁrms focused on maintaining a niche with a limited range of products or services (Miles and Snow, 1978). They try to protect their markets through lower prices, high-quality, well-target products, and superior delivery while not often being at the forefront of industry developments. Because of their narrow focus, these ﬁrms hardly ever need to make major adjustments in their technology, structure, or methods of operation. These ﬁrms devote primary attention to improving the efﬁciency of existing operations. They develop a core technology that is highly efﬁcient and uses an organization structure with centralized control. The prospectors are the exact opposite of a defender. The prospectors have an external focus and assumes more business risk than the defender by attempting to be “ﬁrst to market” with new products and services, even when these efforts are not highly proﬁtable initially. These ﬁrms more emphasizes in maintaining the image of an innovator in product terms than securing high proﬁtability (McDaniel and Kolari, 1987). They are continuously involved in monitoring the external environment as these intend to respond quickly to early signs of opportunities and exploiting the beneﬁts of being a pioneer in a new product/market area (Mitchell, 1991; Robinson et al., 1992). They are aggressive, rather than passive, in their efforts. The prospector avoids long-term commitments to any type of technological process. These ﬁrms usually create change and uncertainty in the marketplace to which competitors are forced to react (Stathakopoulos, 1998, p. 539) The structure of these ﬁrms is characterized by a low degree of formalization and routine, decentralization and lateral as well as vertical communication, emphasizing aspects such as innovation and ﬂexibility. Analyzers blend the characteristics of both the prospector and defender orientations (Miles and Snow, 1978). The analyzer maintains a moderate level of business risk by waiting to see the experience of others before entering a market. They are rarely ﬁrst-in with new services or into new markets, but are often second-in with better offerings. Analyzer ﬁrms show frequent dialogue with customers and commonly weigh up their competitors’ activities (Slater and Narver, 1993). They put emphasis on longer-term planning and much thought about decisions prior to action in most instances. The analyzer partitions its technology so that it can serve its stable domains with efﬁcient technologies and its dynamic domains with ﬂexible and effective technologies. They include ﬂexibility as well as stability, adopting structures that can accommodate both stable and changing domains. Reactor organizations do not present any consistent pattern of response behavior to environmental conditions (Matsuno and Metzer, 2000, p. 4). These ﬁrms do not attempt to maintain an already acquired deﬁned product/market domain, nor do they try to capitalize on viable environmental opportunities or take true risks (Croteau et al., 1999, p. 2). Their actions are mostly reaction to outside forces, such as the economy, competitors, or market pressures. They lack a consistent strategy-structure relationship
(Parnell and Wright, 1993, p. 30).They are not planners, but reactive and thinkers by Strategynecessity. Miles and Snow consider this strategy type to be a nonstrategy, but Hrebiniak and cultureand Joyce (1985) consider the reactor to be an appropriate strategy in an extremely placidenvironment.Organizational cultureOrganizational culture can be deﬁned a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the 513group has learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internalintegration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to betaught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to theseproblems (Schein, 1985, p. 12). Organizational culture can serve as a tool to improveproductivity and has a signiﬁcant effect on an organization’s long term sustainability,economic performance and outcomes such as proﬁtability, turnover, and commitment(Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Tidball, 1988; Cremer, 1993) and if properly communicated,culture can be used to encourage all employees to subscribe to organizational goals (Dealand Kennedy, 1982; Wilkins and Ouchi, 1983). According to Schein (1992) understandingof organizational culture is fundamental to examine what goes on in organizations, howto run them and how to improve them. Studies have emphasized the importance ofculture in implementing organizational initiatives such as supply chain management(Mello and Stank, 2005) and reported that the organizational culture supports thelinkages between the adoption of technology and organizational growth and as criticalfactor in determining the success or failure of mergers and acquisitions (Balthazard et al.,2006). It has also been considered a form of organizational capital (Barney, 1985;Camerer and Vepsalainen, 1988). A range of tools to measure organizational culture have been developed and appliedin industrial, educational, and health care settings over the last two decades. For thepresent study, the CVF of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1981; Quinn,1988; Rohrbaugh, 1983) has been adopted. Quinn and Cameron (1983) assert thatorganizational culture is a complex, interrelated, comprehensive and ambiguous set offactors and it is impossible to include all relevant factors in diagnosing and assessingorganizational culture. Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), hasbeen developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999) which is based on the competing valueframework. Cameron and Quinn (1999) categorized organizational culture into fourtypes: hierarchy, clan, market, and adhocracy. Their two cultural variables are stabilityand control versus ﬂexibility and direction, and internal focus versus external focus.While stressing the importance of establishing a ﬁt between organizational culture andthe organization, Cameron and Quinn (1999) concluded that there is a progressiontoward higher ﬂexibility and external focus in order for an organization to thrive. These four patterns of organizational culture show differences in terms of focus,leadership styles, criteria for effectiveness, management of employees, organizationalglue and criteria of success (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Hierarchy culture emphasizesstability or control with high level of internal focus. This culture is characterized byuniformity, coordination, internal efﬁciency, and a close adherence to rules andregulations. The leaders are coordinators and organisers. Formal rules and policies holdthe organisation together. Success is deﬁned in terms of dependable delivery, smoothscheduling, and low cost. Adhocracy culture would be its opposing contrast in thatit underlines ﬂexibility and external orientation toward changes. Creativity, innovation,
BIJ and external growth are emphasized in response to the changing demands of the external18,4 environments (e.g. competitors and customers). Clan culture is similar to hierarchy culture in that it stresses the internal aspects of an organization, but different in that an emphasis is given more on the ﬂexibility dimension. In this culture, employees are empowered and encouraged to participate in enhancing and optimizing internal resources and business processes. Market culture is externally oriented with a stress on514 control and stability. Organizations with market culture accentuate productivity and achievement with well-deﬁned objectives against external competitions (Stock et al., 2007). People are competitive and goal-oriented. The leaders are hard drivers, producers, and competitors. Success is deﬁned in terms of market share and penetration. Competitive pricing and market leadership are important in this culture (Cameron and Quinn, 1999, p. 87). The market, adhocracy, clan, and hierarchy culture types are dominant ones rather than mutually exclusive classiﬁcations. Hence although the majority of organizations may be characterized by more than one form of culture, one culture type assumes a predominant position over a period of time (Deshpande and Webster, 1989). Cameron and Quinn (1999) explained some examples of different types of organisations and pointed out that government organisations ﬁt in the hierarchy quadrant. Government organizations share some characteristics such as being well-organised, secure, stable, controlled systems. Financial organisations belonged to the hierarchical and market quadrant. Strategy and culture Organizational culture and strategy are highly interrelated. It is generally accepted that once the organization change strategy, it must align organizational culture with strategy, or face almost certain strategic failure. Behaviors that are intended to achieve strategic goals may be supported or impeded by the culture (Semler, 1997; Tosti and Jackson, 1994). Vestal et al. (1997) explained the relationship between organizational culture and strategy and it was supported by other researchers (Semler, 1997; Tushman and O’ Reilly, 1996). Schwartz and Davis (1981, p. 47) pointed out, ‘for better or worse, a corporate culture has a major impact on a company’s ability to carry out objectives and plans, especially when a company is shifting its strategic direction’. Studies also have indicated the signiﬁcance of organizational culture in strategy implementation among the other factors such as organization structure, work and information system, and essential business process (Wu et al., 2004). Bates et al. (1995) found that in manufacturing environment, strategy that include formal planning, communication of strategy, contribution to competitive position, and a long range orientation co-exist with a clan oriented culture that is characterized by the use of groups and teams (Bates et al., 1995). Weber and Pliskin (1996) explained culture as a determinant of quality in public sector organizations. Organizations, such as Hewlett-Packard, which pursued a prospector/differentiation strategy developed a culture that fostered risk-taking, individuality, and innovation. In contrast, Emerson Electric pursued a defender/low cost strategy and, also appropriately, shaped a culture that emphasized frugality, attention to detail, and discipline (Miles et al., 1993). The above discussions re-emphasize that component of organizational culture need to be aligned with speciﬁc organizational strategy. Following section discusses some more ﬁndings related to speciﬁc strategy and culture of the organization and hypotheses for investigation.
Prospectors are highly proactive and innovative and need ﬂexibility and Strategyeffectiveness while defenders are much less proactive and need stability and efﬁciency(Reeve, 1994, p. 19). Studies indicate that the prospector strategy is associated with more and culturewith R&D, new product introduction, and marketing efforts compared to analyzer anddefender strategy (Thomas et al., 1991; Hambrick, 1983a, b, Snow and Hrebiniak, 1980; andConnant et al., 1990). Organization with prospector strategies are more likely to encourageexperimentation and innovation (Brown, 2005), are likely to emphasize creativity to a great 515extent (O’ Regan and Ghobadian, 2006), and characterized by organizational cultureshigher on innovation and outcome orientation than defenders (Baird et al., 2007). Defender’s emphasis on low cost requires close attention to operational details,including the relentless pursuit of cost economies and productivity improvementsthrough standardization of components and processes, routinization of procedures andthe integration of functional activities across business units (Walker and Ruekert,1987). According to Day and Nedungadi (1994), preoccupation with the internalbusiness environment is common with defenders, causing executives to emphasizeefﬁciency rather than effectiveness. The ﬁndings of the study by Baird et al. (2007)indicated that defenders were characterized by culture higher on stability. Analyzer strategy is a hybrid strategy which greatly focuses both on aspects ofinnovation and efﬁciency. Analyzers are an intermediate type both as regardsproactiveness and innovativeness, needing greater stability and efﬁciency thanprospectors but greater ﬂexibility and effectiveness than defenders (Reeve, 1994, p. 19).Information needs of analyzers will be the combination of the needs identiﬁed forprospectors and defenders (Miles and Snow, 1978). Alike to ﬁrms emphasizingprospector strategy, ﬁrms emphasizing analyzer strategy also are expected to viewcustomer and learning and growth measures as being very important. Shortell and Zajac(1990) found no signiﬁcant differences in the actual number of new services offered byhealth care organizations adopting prospector and analyzer strategy. The above discussions lead to the development of the following hypotheses: H1. Organizations following defender strategy will be high on hierarchy and market culture. H2. Organizations following prospector strategy will be high on adhocracy and clan culture. H3. Organization with analyzer strategy will be high on market and adhocracy culture.MethodologyIndustry/sample descriptionData were collected by means of questionnaires that were sent through electronic mail.Overall 1,600 questionnaires were mailed, and 1,030 usable questionnaires werereceived, with response rate 64.37 per cent of respondents. Thus, sample was notrandom; only participants who volunteered to take part in the study were surveyed. The respondents came from 32 organizations from seven industries namelyconstruction, Banking, Information technology (IT), pharmaceutical, power, steel, andtelecom. These industries have been considered to make signiﬁcant contribution toIndian economy for some decades. The breakdown of the respondents by industrialgroups is as follows:
BIJ . IT – 31.9 per cent.18,4 . Steel industry – 17.5 per cent. . Banking – 15.1 per cent. . Pharmaceutical – 9.3 per cent. . Telecom – 8.7 per cent.516 . Construction – 8.7 per cent. . Power – 8.6 per cent. There have been variations in the number of organizations and participants from each industry; this can be attributed to some of the factors like presence of organizations across India and percentage of returned responses from participants. The organizations selected for the study are high performance organizations within their industry segment and are among the top ten organizations in India and represent right mix of public, private, and multinationals. The average age of participants was 35.09 years, average experience in current organisation 5.61 years. The only those employees were requested to respond to questionnaire who have minimum three years of experience with the present organization, as employees need to spend some time with the organization to understand the strategy of organization. With respect to the level of qualiﬁcations, 60.8 percent were graduates from various streams (i.e. commerce, science, computers, arts, management, electrical, textile etc); and 39.2 per cent were post-graduates from management, science, etc. Male respondents accounted for 64.5 percent of the population and 35.5 percent were the females. Earlier studies examining the strategy of organizations relied on CEO of company, which was challenged by later studies (Bowen, 1987; Chaganti and Sambharya, 1987). Golden (1992) reported that 58 per cent of CEOs surveyed did not agree with the previously validated accounts of their organization’s past strategies (see also Hiam, 1993; Sayles, 1993). In respond to these observations later studies have surveyed the individuals from lower-top, middle and lower level to analyze the strategy of the company (Parnell, 1997). The present study also took the responses from the lower, middle and top level employees from of the organizations surveyed. Description about industries The economy of India is as diverse as it is large, with a number of major sectors including manufacturing industries, agriculture, textiles and handicrafts, and services. Thirty-two organizations from seven industries were selected to investigate their dominant strategy and culture. This section discusses brieﬂy the industries represented in the study. Banking. Banking in India has a long and detailed history of more than 200 years. This industry started in 1786, when the country’s ﬁrst bank, Bank of Bengal, was established. The industry has changed rapidly and drastically, after the nationalization of banks in 1969.Liberalization and economic provided the Indian banking scenario a remarkable facelift that only continues to get better with time. The Indian banking system includes nationalized banks, private banks and specialized banking institutions. Nationalized banks are the biggest lenders in the country because of the size of the banks and the penetration of the networks. The Reserve Bank of India is a centralized body in the Indian ﬁnancial sector that monitors discrepancies and shortcomings in the system (http://info.shine.com/Industry-Information/Finance-and-Banking/117.aspx).
The study sampled 156 managers from the six organizations. The participants belonged Strategyto both from the public and private banks. and culture Information technology. IT industry in India is among the rapidly growingindustries. It has created brand equity for itself in the global markets. IT industry inIndia involves software industry and information technology enabled services (ITES),which also includes business process outsourcing (BPO) industry. India is pioneer insoftware development and a favorite destination for IT-enabled services. Today, 517Indian IT companies such as Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, Infosys, HCL, etc. arerenowned in the global market for their IT proﬁciency. The organizations surveyedproduced 329 responses from 10 major IT organizations including Indian andmultinational organizations. Telecom. Telecom industry in India has a high market potentiality and is a fastgrowing sector. India has nearly 200 million telephone lines which make it the thirdlargest network in the world after China and USA. With a growth rate of 45 per cent,Indian telecom industry has the highest growth rate in the world. Bharat SancharNigam Limited, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Bharti Airtel, TataTeleservices, Reliance communications and IDEA are the major telecommunicationsservice providers in India. In this study, 90 respondents from three major privatetelecom players participated in the survey. Construction. The Indian construction industry is a one of the key growth driver forthe national economy and it contributes on average 6.3 per cent of the GDP. It is thesecond largest contributor to the national economy and second largest employmentgeneration avenue in the country. This industry is highly fragmented. It includessmaller builders and major players those involved in infrastructure development. Forthis study, 90 responses were received from the employees of three organizationsrepresenting the major players in construction industry. Pharmaceutical. The Indian Pharmaceutical Industry is among the top rank ofIndia’s science-based industries with extensive ranging capabilities in the ﬁeld of drugmanufacture and technology. It is estimated to be worth $ 4.5 billion, growing at about8 to 9 percent annually. It ranks very high in the third world for technology, qualityand range of medicines manufactured. This sector is highly fragmented and has morethan 20,000 registered units (http://pharmaceutical-drug-manufacturers.com/pharmaceutical-industry/). It has expanded signiﬁcantly in the last two decades.Ninety-six respondents from three Indian private players participated in the survey. Power. India is the 5th largest power producer in the world with the total powercapacity of more than 145,000MW (http://researchandmarkets.com/reportinfo.asp?report_id¼694706). Key players in the Indian power sector are NationalThermal Power Corporation Limited, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited,North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited, Power Grid Corporation of India,Tata Power, etc. The study sampled 89 managers from the three organizations. Theparticipants belonged to both from the public and private organizations. Steel. India’s rapid economic growth and increasing demand by sectors likeinfrastructure, real estate and automobiles, at home and abroad, has put Indian steelindustry on the global map. The report by International Iron and Steel Institute indicatethat India is the seventh largest steel producer in the world. This industry is organizedin three categories, i.e. main producers, other major producers and the secondaryproducers. The main producers and other major producers have integrated steel making
BIJ facility with plant capacities over 0.5 mT and utilize iron ore and coal/gas for production18,4 of steel. The major players are Tata Steel, SAIL, and RINL, and the other major producers are ESSAR, ISPAT and JVSL (http://iloveindia.com/economy-of-india/steel- industry.html). The organizations surveyed produced 180 responses from main producers and major producers in steel industry.518 Measures Business strategy. A multi-item scale developed by Parnell (1997), based on the work of Conant et al. (1990) was used for operationalizing the Miles and Snow strategic typology. This multi-item scale can be referred to as multivariate measurement of strategy which contains a broad set of strategic variables (Hambrick, 1980). There were a total of 12 questions with each consisting of four statements, one for each possible strategy. Each respondent was required to indicate which statement is true for his/her organization. The terms Prospector, Analyzer, Defender, and Reactor were omitted from the questions in order not to indicate that the types necessarily represent good or poor strategy. To measure the strategy, an overall evaluation of the degree to which the ﬁrm emphasizes a given strategy was derived by taking the no of agreements across the twelve items. The study assigned strategies to organizations based on the degree of agreement among the respondents of speciﬁc organization. The twelve responses for each participant in each organization was used to classify the business into one of the four strategy categories, depending on which strategy received the more than and equal to 50 per cent responses. Organizational culture was measured with OCAI developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999). There were 20 items in all, ﬁve for each of the culture classiﬁcations. Within this classiﬁcation, a question for each type of culture was considered in the context of ﬁve different organizational variables, namely organizational leadership, management of employees, organizational glue, strategic emphasis, and criteria of success. Each respondent was required to indicate whether he or she agrees or disagrees with each statement concerning their organization by using a ﬁve-point Likert scale ranging from “1 ¼ Strongly disagree” to “5 ¼ Strongly agree”. To measure the culture, an overall evaluation of the degree to which the ﬁrm emphasizes a given culture was derived by taking the mean score across the ﬁve items for each culture dimension. A reliability check using Cronbach alpha was done to test the internal consistency of the culture constructs. This test produced the alpha coefﬁcients of 0.65 (clan), 0.60 (adhocracy) and 0.62 (Market), and 0.70 (Hierarchy). According to Nunnally (1978), alpha coefﬁcients of 0.50 to 0.60 are acceptable for exploratory research. Data analysis – data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results Results for business strategy Table I shows the mean scores for all the strategy across the industries and for each industry. The mean score indicates that most used strategy is analyzer (M ¼ 4.36) followed by prospector (M ¼ 3.53). The least used strategy is defender (M ¼ 1.97). The results of ANOVA with repeated measure on strategy indicated the signiﬁcant difference in the use of these four strategy F (3, 3069) ¼ 217.48, p , 0.00.
StrategyIndustry Mean SD n and cultureProspectorConstruction 2.18 1.58 90Banking 3.36 2.05 156IT 3.63 2.28 329Pharmaceutical 3.86 2.23 96 519Power 2.52 1.52 89Steel 3.96 1.82 180Telecom 4.64 2.31 90Total 3.53 2.15 1,030AnalyzerConstruction 3.39 2.03 90Banking 4.45 2.03 156IT 4.69 1.98 329Pharmaceutical 4.60 1.96 96Power 4.57 2.16 89Steel 4.31 2.04 180Telecom 3.60 1.99 90Total 4.36 2.06 1,030DefenderConstruction 3.46 1.52 90Banking 2.50 1.93 156IT 1.38 1.27 329Pharmaceutical 1.50 1.09 96Power 3.24 1.57 89Steel 1.49 1.29 180Telecom 1.88 1.73 90Total 1.97 1.64 1,030ReactorConstruction 2.96 1.75 90Banking 1.50 1.28 156IT 2.22 1.58 329Pharmaceutical 1.54 1.39 96Power 1.67 1.18 89Steel 2.24 1.78 180 Table I.Telecom 1.87 1.42 90 Mean scoresTotal 2.04 1.58 1,030 for business strategiesThe mean scores for different industries indicate that prospector strategy is most usedin telecom sector and least in construction industry. The result of ANOVA indicatedthe signiﬁcant differences in different industries for the use of prospector strategy(F (6, 1023) ¼ 16.47, p , 0.00. There is also signiﬁcant difference in the use of analyzer,defender, and reactor strategy in different industries (F (6, 1023) ¼ 7.51, p , 0.00.;F (6, 1023) ¼ 43.50, p , 0.00; and F (6, 1023) ¼ 12.59, p , 0.00, respectively). Analyserstrategy is most used in IT sector and least in construction sector. Defender and reactorare most used in construction industry (Table I).Results for organizational cultureTable II shows the mean scores for different organizational culture across the industrieswhich indicates that most prevalent culture is adhocracy culture (M ¼ 4.36) followed
BIJ Industry Mean SD n18,4 Clan culture Construction 3.69 0.48 90 Banking 3.43 0.68 156 IT 3.62 0.46 329520 Pharmaceutical 3.53 0.41 96 Power 3.03 0.49 89 Steel 3.43 0.47 180 Telecom 3.06 0.56 90 Total 3.46 0.55 1,030 Adhocracy culture Construction 3.51 0.50 90 Banking 3.49 0.55 156 IT 3.54 0.52 329 Pharmaceutical 3.59 0.37 96 Power 3.31 0.73 89 Steel 3.39 0.54 180 Telecom 3.34 0.46 90 Total 3.47 0.54 1,030 Market culture Construction 3.50 0.52 90 Banking 3.27 0.58 156 It 3.47 0.55 329 Pharmaceutical 3.48 0.49 96 Power 3.44 0.64 89 Steel 3.20 0.39 180 Telecom 2.93 0.52 90 Total 3.35 0.55 1,030 Hierarchy culture Construction 3.63 0.54 90 Banking 3.49 0.65 156 IT 3.49 0.62 329 Pharmaceutical 3.38 0.53 96 Power 3.27 0.83 89Table II. Steel 3.42 0.55 180Mean scores for Telecom 3.07 0.56 90organizational culture Total 3.42 0.63 1,030 by clan culture (M ¼ 3.45). The least prevalent culture is market culture (M ¼ 3.35). The results of ANOVA with repeated measure on culture indicated the signiﬁcant difference in industries in terms of these four culture F (3, 3069) ¼ 13.26, p , 0.00. The mean scores of organizational culture for different industries indicate that clan culture is most prevalent in construction sector and least in power sector. The result of ANOVA indicated the signiﬁcant differences in different industries for the clan culture (F (6, 1023) ¼ 29.32, p , 0.00). There is also signiﬁcant difference for adhocracy, market, and hierarchy culture in different industries (F (6, 1023) ¼ 4.51, p , 0.00.; F (6, 1023) ¼ 17.58, p , 0.00; and F (6, 1023) ¼ 8.74, p , 0.00, respectively). Adhocracy culture is most prevalent in pharmaceutical sector and least in power sector. Market and hierarchy culture is most prevalent in construction industry (Table II).
Table III shows the mean scores of organizational culture for different strategy. StrategyThese results indicated that when organizations use defender strategy the most and cultureprevalent cultures is hierarchy culture (M ¼ 3.41) followed by market culture (3.34)which support the stated hypotheses hypothesized that the organizations followingdefender strategy more likely to have market culture and hierarchy culture (H1). Theresults of ANOVA with repeated measure on culture indicated the signiﬁcant differencein prevalent cultures when organization use defender strategy F (3, 87) ¼ 6.77, p , 0.00. 521 In the case when organizations use prospector strategy the most prevalent culture isadhocracy (M ¼ 3.60) followed by clan culture (M ¼ 3.53) and these results support thestated hypothesis organizations following prospector strategy will be high onadhocracy culture and clan culture. (H2). The results of ANOVA with repeatedmeasure on culture also indicated the signiﬁcant difference in prevalent cultures whenorganization use prospector strategy F (3, 237) ¼ 38.83, p , 0.00. When organizations use analyzer strategy the most prevalent cultures are clan culture(M ¼ 3.43) and adhocracy culture (M ¼ 3.43). The results of ANOVA with repeatedmeasure on culture indicated the signiﬁcant difference in prevalent cultures whenorganization use analyzer strategy F (3, 667) ¼ 3.02, p , 0.029. The most prevalentculture was clan culture (M ¼ 3.97) when organization use reactor strategy and results ofANOVA with repeated measure on culture indicated the signiﬁcant difference inprevalent cultures when organization use reactor strategy F (3, 27) ¼ 7.43, p , 0.001.DiscussionStrategy type, viewed as the particular approach chosen by the ﬁrm to achieve success inits competitive environment, may require a tailored culture for effective implementation.This research focused on organizational culture and type of strategy adopted by Indianorganization. Three basic questions regarding organizational strategy and culture were examined.First, what is the dominant strategy across the industries in India and are there signiﬁcantdifferences in the strategy of organizations belonging to different industry segment?Second, which is the most prevalent culture across the industries in India and are theresigniﬁcant differences in the culture of organizations belonging to different industrysegment? Third, it examined the linkage between types of business strategies and cultureof organization. The contribution of the study lies in examining the differences in cultureStrategy Clan culture Adhocracy culture Market culture Hierarchy cultureAnalyzer Mean 3.43 3.43 3.37 3.42 SD 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.65 n 670 670 670Prospector Mean 3.53 3.60 3.28 3.38 SD 0.45 0.42 0.48 0.58 n 240 240 240 240Defender Mean 3.28 3.16 3.34 3.41 SD 0.55 0.50 0.56 0.54 n 90 90 90 90Reactor Mean 3.97 3.70 3.74 3.83 Table III. SD 0.26 0.36 0.35 0.44 Means scores for culture n 30 30 30 30 for different strategy
BIJ and strategy of organizations belonging to different industry segment. Further it also18,4 examines the culture and strategy of the organizations in the Indian context which is considered to be one of the stars of global economics The ﬁndings indicated that most dominant strategy is analyzer strategy and most prevalent culture is adhocracy culture followed by clan culture across the industries in India. These ﬁndings may be interpreted in the light of the national culture dimension of Hofstede (1991). Hofstede (1991) deﬁned the522 national value as the collective mental programming of the people of a nation, which shapes the values, attitudes, competencies, behaviors and perceptions of individuals of speciﬁc nations in a particular manner. It is known to have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on managerial styles and functions of an organization (e.g. Hofstede, 1993; Budhwar and Sparrow, 2002). Indian work culture exhibits a high power-distance, collectivism and affective reciprocity among the cultural values of Indian managers (Chhokar, 2000; Sinha, 1997). With respect to uncertainty avoidance, while Hofstede (1997) suggests that India is high on uncertainty avoidance, a later study by Chhokar (2000) found India to be moderate on this dimension, which may be the reason that Indian organizations use more analyzer strategy which maintains a moderate level of business risk by waiting to see the experience of others before entering a market. Further, in the line of contingency perspective, these ﬁndings may be attributed to the journey of Indian organizations from protected environment to more global competitive environment. According to Kumar (2009), India organizations transformed from domestic players, scared of global competitors and constantly seeking government protection in domestic markets, into conﬁdent players capable of building Indian multinational. The study also points out there are signiﬁcant differences in the strategy and culture of organizations belonging to different industry segment. The ﬁndings indicated that prospector strategy is most widely used by telecom industry and most prevalent culture is adhocracy culture in organizations belonging to telecom industry. Miles and Snow (1978) proposed that organizations develop relatively enduring patterns of strategic behavior to co-align the organization with the environment. Prospectors perceive a dynamic, uncertain environment and maintain ﬂexibility to combat environmental change. The prospector seeks to identify and exploit new product and market opportunities. Telecom industry in India has a big market potentiality and is a fast growing sector. With a growth rate of 45 per cent, Indian telecom industry has the highest growth rate in the world. These facts may justify why prospector strategy is dominant in telecom sector in India. Defender strategy was found most dominant in organizations belonging to construction industry and most dominant culture was clan culture followed by hierarchy culture. The current size of the construction industry in India is estimated at $70.8bn, of which the 87 key players account for nearly one third, while the rest is distributed amongst the 25,000 plus smaller players. The present study includes the organizations from the key players segment that may be the reason these organizations perceive the environment to be stable and certain, and thus seek stability and control in their operations to achieve maximum efﬁciency. The analyzer strategy was reported to be most frequently used by IT sector and most prevalent culture is clan culture. IT industry in India comprises of software industry and ITES, which also includes BPO industry. Further, the organizations belonging to IT provides products, solutions, and services to client organizations, these factors may be some of the reasons of using analyzer strategy by IT industry.
Regarding the relationship between strategy and culture, the direction is viewed Strategydifferently by different authors. Some studies views strategy as a outcome of and cultureorganizational culture (Saffold, 1988) and maintains that “strategic options are limitedby the culture of the organization” (Schein, 2004, p. 91). Others maintain that anorganization’s strategic position may subsequently inﬂuence culture (Joyce and Slocum,1990). While, the direction of causality between culture and strategy is beyond the scopeof this study, the ﬁndings of the study indicate that the two concepts are interrelated and 523need to be aligned to ensure organizational success and support the ﬁndings of earlierstudies (Bate, 1994; Lado and Wilson, 1994). As expected, organizations with prospector strategy were characterized byorganizational cultures higher on adhocracy (combination of ﬂexibility and externalfocus) than defenders. These ﬁndings are aligned with ﬁndings of other studies whichstated that organization with prospector strategies are more likely to encourageexperimentation and innovation (Brown, 2005), are likely to emphasize creativity to agreat extent (O’ Regan and Ghobadian, 2006), and characterized by organizationalcultures higher on innovation and outcome orientation than defenders (Baird et al., 2007).Defenders were characterized by cultures higher on hierarchy (combination of stabilityand internal focus) and are congruent with the the ﬁndings of the study conducted inAustralian organizations (Baird et al., 2007) which indicated that defenders arecharacterized by culture higher on stability. Organizations with analyzer strategy washigh on both clan and adhocracy culture. For reactor strategy no hypothesis wasproposed, however the ﬁndings indicated that in the organizations using the reactorstrategy the most prevalent culture is clan culture.Implications of the studyThis study suggests that the organizations that operate in different competitiveenvironments and rely on the different types of strategies should have different cultures,with the characteristics of the culture aligned to the unique demands of the competitiveenvironment and strategy type. The results obtained in the study study haveimplications for Indian organizations. There have been few studies in Indian contextexamining the strategy and culture of organizations of different industry segment. Thespeciﬁc implications are discussed below: (1) Organizations in the telecom sector need to use more prospector strategy as lot of untapped market in this sector and scope for innovation. (2) Organizations in the IT industry need to have blend of defender and prospector industry, as this industry is not very old in India. It started with imitation and to provide services to global clients. Now it needs to bring more innovation along with leveraging on existing products and services. (3) Organizations which are high capital intensive such as construction and power, the better strategy will be defender. (4) Organizations with prospector strategy should support its strategy with adhocracy culture, which reinforce the creativity among employees. (5) Organizations with defender strategy should be high on hierarchy which is more efﬁciency focused. (6) Organizations with analyzer strategy need to blend clan and adhocracy culture.
BIJ Conclusions18,4 It is concluded that this study reafﬁrms the theoretical contention that culture needs to be aligned with strategic intent. Organizations seeking particular strategies need to consider whether their culture is favorable to, or can be changed to be favorable to, the desired strategy. As the organization’s strategy evolves, managers need to create or modify systems and structures to install and reinforce the kind of culture needed524 to effectively implement the type of strategy selected. The ﬁndings of study can be used as benchmarking tool to select the right strategy and culture for the organizations to suit their environment and to develop right culture and cultural artifacts for dominant organizational strategy. The present study has also some limitations that need to be addressed in future research. The study would have included ﬁnancial performance of the organizations which can be strong indicator of how the congruence between strategy and culture inﬂuence organization’s effectiveness. Yet, some inferences can be made as the organizations surveyed were among the top ten organizations of country. Further the study did not examined the differences among organizations belonging to same industry segment as Indian organizations varies in terms of ownership, i.e. public, private and multinational organizations. Future study can examine the differences in organizational strategy and culture with respect to size, ownership and cross cultural variables. References Abernethy, M.A. and Guthrie, C.H. (1994), “An empirical assessment of the ’ﬁt’ between strategy and management information system design”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 49-66. Baird, K., Harrison, G. and Reeve, R. (2007), “The culture of Australian organizations and its relation with strategy”, International Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 15-41. Balthazard, P.A., Cooke, R.A. and Potter, R.E. (2006), “Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional organization: capturing the behavioural norms that from organizational culture and drive performance”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 709-32. Barney, J.B. (1985), “Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 656-65. Bate, P. (1984), “The impact of organization culture on approaches to organizational problem-solving”, Organizational Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 43-66. Bates, K.A., Amundson, S.D., Schroeder, R.G. and Morris, W.T. (1995), “The crucial interrelationship between manufacturing strategy and organizational culture”, Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 1565-81. Bitici, U.S., Mendibil, K., Nudurupati, S., Turner, T. and Garengo, P. (2004), “The interplay between performance management, organizational culture and management style”, Managing Business Excellence, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 28-41. Bowen, M.G. (1987), “The escalation phenomenon reconsidered: decision dilemmas or decision errors”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 52-66. Brown, P. (2005), “The evolving role of strategic management development”, Managing Business Excellence, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 28-41. Budhwar, P. and Sparrow, P. (2002), “Strategic HRM through the cultural looking glass: mapping cognitions of British and Indian HRM Managers”, Organization Studies., Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 599-638.
Camerer, C. and Vepsalainen, A. (1988), “The Economic efﬁciency of organizational culture”, Strategy Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 115-26. and cultureCameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Chaganti, R. and Sambharya, R. (1987), “Strategic orientation and characteristics of upper management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 393-401.Chhokar, J. (2000), “Effective leadership in India: a multi method study”, International Journal of 525 Psychology, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, p. 305.Child, J. (1972), “Organizational structure, environment, and performance: the role of strategic choice”, Sociology, Vol. 6, pp. 1-22.Collis, D.J. and Montgomery, C.A. (1995), “Competing on resources: strategy in the 1990s”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 118-28.Conant, J.S., Mokwa, M.P. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1990), “Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance: a multiple measures-based study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 365-83.Cremer, J. (1993), “Corporate culture and shared knowledge”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 101, pp. 351-86.Croteau, A.A., Raymond, L. and Bergeron, F. (1999), “Testing the validity of Miles and Snow’s typology”, Academy of Information & Management Sciences Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-7.Daft, R.L. (1995), Organizational Theory and Design, West Publishing, St Paul, MN.Day, G.S. and Nedungadi, P. (1994), “Managerial representation of competitive advantage”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 31-44.Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1982), Corporate Culture, Addison Wesley, Readings, MA.Dent, J.F. (1990), “Strategy, organisation and control: some possibilities for accounting research”, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, pp. 3-5.Deshpande, R. and Webster, F. (1989), “Organizational culture and marketing: deﬁning the research agenda”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, pp. 3-15.Golden, B.R. (1992), “The past is the past – or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 848-60.Gupta, Y.P., Karimi, J. and Somers, T.M. (1997), “Alignment of a ﬁrm’s competitive strategy and information technology management sophistication: the missing link”, ZEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 399-413.Hambrick, D.C. (1980), “Operationalizing the concept of business-level strategy in research”, The Academy of Management Review, pp. 567-75.Hambrick, D.C. (1983a), “High proﬁt strategies in mature capital goods industries: a contingency approach”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 687-707.Hambrick, D.C. (1983b), “Some test of the effectiveness of functional attributes of Miles and Snow’s strategic types”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-26.Hiam, A. (1993), “Strategic planning unbound”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 46-52.Hofstede, G. (1991), Culture and Organizations, McGraw-Hill, London.Hofstede, G. (1993), “Cultural constraints in management theories”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 81-94.Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
BIJ Hrebiniak, L.G. and Joyce, W.F. (1985), “Organizational adaptation: strategic choice and environmental determinism”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 336-49.18,4 Joyce, W.F. and Slocum, J.W. (1990), “Strategic context and organizational climate”, in Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 130-50. Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance, The Free Press,526 New York, NY. Kumar, N. (2009), “India unleashed”, Business Strategy Review, Spring, pp. 4-15. Lado, A.A. and Wilson, M.C. (1994), “Human resource systems and sustained competitive advantage: a competency-based perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 699-727. Lee, S.K.J. and Yu, K. (2004), “Corporate culture and organizational performance”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 340-59. McDaniel, S.W. and Kolari, J.W. (1987), “Marketing strategy implications of the Miles and Snow strategic typology”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 19-30. Matsuno, K. and Metzer, J.T. (2000), “The effects of strategy type on the market orientation-performance relationship”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp. 1-16. Mello, J.E. and Stank, T.P. (2005), “Linking ﬁrm culture and orientation to supply chain management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 542-54. Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C. and Sharfman, M.P. (1993), “Industry synergy, variety, and performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 163-77. Mitchell, W. (1991), “Dual clocks: entry order inﬂuences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 85-100. Nunnally, J.L. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. O’ Regan, N. and Ghobadian, A. (2006), “Perceptions of generic strategies of small and medium sized engineering and electronics manufacturers in the UK: the applicability of the Miles and Snow typology”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 603-20. Parnell, J.A. (1997), “New evidence in the generic strategy and business performance debate: a research note”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, pp. 175-81. Parnell, J.A. and Wright, P. (1993), “Generic strategy and performance: an empirical test of the Miles and Snow typology”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 29-36. Pillania, R.K. (2009), “Strategy in India: why doesn’t it deliver?”, Strategic Direction, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 3-4. Porter, M.E. (1980), “How competitive forces shape strategy”, Mckinsey Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 34-50. Quinn, R.E. (1988), The Competing Values Model: Redeﬁning Organizational Effectiveness and Change: Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Quinn, R.E. and Cameron, K. (1983), “Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: some preliminary evidence”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-51.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1981), “A competing values approach to organizational Strategy effectiveness”, Public Productivity Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-40. and cultureReeve, R.C. (1994), “Business strategy and management accounting”, PhD thesis, University of New England, Armidale.Robinson, W.T., Fornell, C. and Sullivan, M. (1992), “Are market pioneers intrinsically stronger than late entrants?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 609-24.Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), “The competing values approach: innovation and effectiveness in the 527 job service”, in Hall, R. and Quinn, R. (Eds), Organizational Theory and Public Policy, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 265-80.Sackmann, S. (1997), Culture Complexity in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Saffold, G.S. (1988), “Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: moving beyond ‘strong’ culture”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 546-58.Sayles, L.R. (1993), “Doing things right: a new imperative for middle managers”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 5-14.Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Schwartz, H. and Davis, S.M. (1981), “Matching corporate and business Strategy”, Organizational Dynamics, Summer, pp. 30-48.Semler, S.W. (1997), “Systematic agreement: a theory of organizational alignment”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-40.Shortell, S.M. and Zajac, E.J. (1990), “Perceptual and archival measures of Miles and Snow’s strategic types”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 817-32.Sinha, J. (1997), “A cultural perspective in organizational behavior in India”, in Erley, C. and Erez, M. (Eds), New Perspective on Industrial/Organizational Psychology, New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA.Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1993), “Product-market strategy and performance: an analysis of the Miles and Snow strategy types”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 33-51.Snow, C.C. and Hrebiniak, L.G. (1980), “Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 307-35.Stathakopoulos, V. (1998), “Enhancing the performance of marketing managers: aligning strategy, structure and evaluation systems”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 536-58.Stock, G.N., McFadden, K.L. and Gowen, C.R. (2007), “Organizational culture, critical success factors, and the reduction of hospital errors”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 368-92.Thomas, A.S., Litschert, R.J. and Ramaswamy, K. (1991), “The performance impact of strategy-manager coalignment: an empirical examination”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 509-22.Tidball, K.H. (1988), “Creating a culture that builds your bottom line”, The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 63-9.Tosti, D. and Jackson, S. (1994), “Alignment: how it works and why it matters”, Training, Vol. 31, pp. 58-64.
BIJ Tushman, M.L. and O Reilly, C.A. III (1996), “Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolution and revolutionary change”, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 8-30.18,4 Vestal, K.W., Fraliex, R.D. and Spreier, S.W. (1997), “Organizational culture: the critical link between strategy and results”, Hospital and Health Services Administration, Vol. 42 No. 13, pp. 339-65. Walker, O.C. and Ruekert, R.W. (1987), “Marketing’s role in the implementation of business528 strategies: a critical review and conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 15-33. Weber, Y. and Pliskin, N. (1996), “The effects of information systems integration and organizational culture on a ﬁrm’s effectiveness”, Information & Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 81-90. Wilkins, A. and Ouchi, W. (1983), “Efﬁcient cultures: exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 468-81. Wu, W., Chou, C.H. and Wu, Y. (2004), “A study of strategy implementation as expressed through Sun Tzu’s principles of war”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 5, pp. 396-408. Zahra, S. and Pearce, J. (1990), “Research Evidence on the Miles-Snow typology”, Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 751-68. Further reading Budhwar, P. (2001), “Doing business in India”, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 549-68. About the author Bindu Gupta has a PhD in Psychology from the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India. She has nearly 15 years experience in the areas of teaching and research. At present, Dr Bindu Gupta is Associate Professor in the area of organizational behavior at IMT, Ghaziabad, India. She has authored various papers that have appeared in reputed national and international journals. She has also been the editor of three books. She has organized an international conference and presented papers in national and international conferences. She has been actively involved in training and consultancy and is a qualiﬁed trainer of MBTI. Bindu Gupta can be contacted at: email@example.com To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints