Why Are There Over 90 Definitions of the Strategy Concept?

Abstract

Outline: Based on the Three-multiple problem of literature on strategy definition, this chapter analyses literature on strategy definition based on a special research approach developed by the author. The reasons for the aforesaid Three-multiple problem are examined with a sample over 30 definitions. It is found that there are mainly four reasons contributing to the Three-multiple problem. (1) different wordings are used to express the same meaning; (2) a variety of wordings are used to illustrate the content of different sub-classes that are under the same category; (3) different understandings of the strategy concept cause the use of various wordings; (4) extensions of concept are included in literature on strategy definition.

The strategic concept suffers from the pain of semantic problems.

(Hambrick 2001; Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martin 2011)

2.1 Overview

For long, people have been looking for answer to the question “what is a strategy?” Although the strategy concept has experienced about half century of development, not much consensus has been reached on the content, especially on the fundamental elements that make up the strategic concept. There is also a lack of internal links between the elements. The complexity of strategy in real business world probably results in the lack of success of development of the strategy concept.¹

As illustrated in the preview of this book, the “Three-multiple problem” in the literature of strategic definition causes confusion in our understanding of strategic concepts. We cannot help but ask:

Why are there over 90 definitions of “strategy”?

Why do people use so many different wordings to define strategy?

How could the Three-multiple problem in literature on strategy definition be understood?

If we can find out the answers of the above questions, we will then be able to address the issue of the Three-multiple problem of literature on strategy definitions.

For the readers’ convenience, I would like to make it clear that the word “literature” in this chapter refers to two kinds of literature. One is literature which defines strategy (called “definition literature” for short), and the other is literature which studies strategy definition (called “definition research literature” for short).

In this chapter, I conducted analysis on definition literature and definition research literature. The Three-multiple problem of definition literature and the reasons behind it are untangled with my attempt to clarify the confusion related with having so many definitions of the strategy concept.²

The structure of this chapter goes as follows: the second part analyzes five research papers on strategy definition. The intention of this part is to know some questions. (1) Which scholars have studied the definition of strategic concept? (2) What research issues they have considered? (3) What methodology they adopted? (4) What are the conclusions they reached? (5) What are the remaining issues of their studies?

The third part is the designing of research methodology. Definition literature is analyzed and the issue of the Three-multiple problem is addressed in this part. It is a great challenge to choosing the appropriate logical approach to analyze definition literature, and to solve the confusion and figure out the reasons for the Three-multiple problem. After being troubled for more than one year, I finally established my analytical approach by reading the definitions in literature repeatedly. Research method is explained for analyzing the confusions caused by definition literature.

The fourth part of this chapter elaborates on the analysis and comments on strategy definition literature. According to the logical approach put forward, a few typical definitions of strategy by four gurus are first analyzed and reviewed, which is similar to a pilot study. The main emphasis of this chapter is on examining the following questions. (1) Is there a difference in essence between the definitions of the four gurus? (2) Are there situations that different wordings are used in definitions of the four gurus, which actually refer to same meanings? (3) Are there any elements that they agree on in their definitions? (4) Are there situations that some terms in definitions by the gurus are actually the contents that belong to subclasses under the same category and etc.? These questions are based on the logic of the analytical methods in Part III. The pilot study lays a foundation for the large-scale analysis of literature definitions in the fifth part.

The fifth part presents analysis on 32 definitions based on the study of the fourth part. The analysis focus of this part is similar to the previous part.

The last part summarizes and answers the aforesaid questions about the confusions related with the strategy definition literature.

2.2 Review of Definition Research Literature

Previously we mentioned that there are many flaws of literature on strategy definition, i.e. the confusion raised by having too many definitions. Some scholars had paid attention to that phenomenon (Chaharbaghi 2007; Ketchen et al. 2008; Koontz 1961; Koontz 1980) and done research on literature on strategy definition. Most of these scholars expect to find answer to the question “what really strategy is” through review of strategy definitions rather than to the question of why we having so many definitions. Anyway, they are the scholars who did studies on strategy definitions.

In 1978, Hofer and Schendel analyzed 13 definitions of strategy and suggested to find their general characters. For example, they found that 13 writers had used five different wordings to describe functional strategy, including “policy”, “action strategy”, “functional strategy”, “operating strategy and policy” and “functional strategy and policy”. After that, they put forward the following four questions requiring further study³:

Should strategy include “approaches” and “general and specific goals”?

Are there “elements” in the narrow sense of the strategic concept?

Should the strategy concept include “goal setting”?

What is the logical relationship between the elements? How do they form the essence of the strategy concept?

It can be drawn that those four questions are of great importance to understanding the strategy concept, its definition, and fundamental questions on what is strategy. Moreover, we will find that indeed, the third question can be included in the first question.

In 1980, Bracker explored whether there was any consensus as to 17 strategy definitions, based on which he made a conclusion about different strategy definitions. In his opinion, the strategy is to “analyze the environment and situation for the purpose of determining the position of companies in competition and allocating resources to realize companies’ primary target".

Professor Barney, the originator of strategic resource-based view doctrine, reviewed nine strategy definitions in 1997. Although he did not find out any common element, he considered strategy as a theory test. From where Barney stands, “As a scientist verifies research hypothesis according to available information of literature, the strategy is a process during which an enterprise seeks its competitive advantage based on the understanding of the industry it operates and the key market economic process under the circumstance of incomplete information”.

Based on five strategy definitions, Grant (2008) analyzed the strategy definitions and pointed out that companies should shift from planning to strategy. He holds that the strategy includes the following aspects: (1) Set a consistent “long-term objective”; (2) Know your competitor; (3) Evaluate your resources objectively; (4) Execute your action effectively.

Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martin (2011) analyzed the strategy concept in which they studied 91 different definitions of strategy by using the content analysis approach. They were of the opinion that the development of the core elements of strategy concept included three stages. They found that, from 1962 to 1977, the three core elements of strategy concept were “company”, “environment” and “action”, which was the first stage. During the second stage (1987–1992) and the third stage (1993–2008), the elements of strategy concept included “company”, “environment”, “characteristic”, “resource” and “action”. Based on the before-mentioned discovery, they also gave a new definition. Table 2.1 is the outline of the five studies.

Table 2.1 Summary of Research Literature on Strategy Definition

The aforementioned five papers (7 authors) have studied different definitions of strategy, and among them three papers (4 authors) gave new definitions based on their research. However, the conclusions about “what is strategy” varied considerably, regardless of the research method authors applied, such as listing different definitions, or content analysis.

When studying the same question, different conclusions that reveal the essence of the question ought to be convergent, meaning that even the conclusions are reached under different samples and periods, the conclusions should be consistent to some extent. Since the conclusions in the research literature on strategy definition listed in Table 2.1 differ greatly, in some way, we can say that the question of “what is strategy” remains unsolved.

Do the aforesaid authors conduct research on the terminology confusion about strategy concept we mentioned?

The research by Hofer and Schendel as well as Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martin discussed the terminology confusion issue. Hofer and Schendel analyzed the terminology about functional strategy and policy and found that 13 authors used five different wordings. However, Hofer and Schendel did not do further study on the reasons for that phenomenon (or the cause of that). Therefore, we are still puzzled about the roles of the five wordings in the strategy definitions.

Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martin, the only group that applied the text analysis method rather than manual listing, studied the terminology used in different literature on strategy definition. They expect to find the common elements of the strategy concept. Taking 90 definitions as research sample, they concluded that the core elements of strategy concept varied in different time stages. Their study seems not very convincing. Firstly, the core elements should be basically consistent regardless different time stages. The essence of the core elements of strategy will not change greatly, although the core elements may take various different forms in real business world due to different situations and environments. Secondly, compared with the strategy definitions proposed by several masters, the core elements such as “company”, “environment”, “action”, and “characteristic”, “resource” and so on, put forward by Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martin were so different. Moreover, as mentioned before, there exist many problems in the 90 definitions of literature. Therefore, using them as research samples would be inaccurate to form a new definition. The logical approach applied by researchers is the root of a study. Nevertheless, above-mentioned issue was not well considered by Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martin when employing the collection of 90 definitions as their research sample.

Although the conclusions of the above studies are not sufficient, their research sets a precedent for the analysis on the confusion about the strategy concept. The five pieces of research show that the study of strategy concept is complicated because we are not sure about where to begin and how to begin in analyzing the Three-multiple problem of the definition literature of the strategy concept.

2.3 The Methodology Applied in This Chapter

Analytical method of literature on strategy definitions. My ideas go as follows. How to analyze the literature definitions of strategy involves methodological issues. Develop an appropriate method is a great challenge. The above-mentioned five papers on definition studies shows that traditional research method (listing the definitions) and text analysis failed to well explain the Three-multiple problem issue. Hillman (2011) once said that sometimes we should not examine a theory by taking traditional empirical approaches. In the earlier stage of my research, I could not make it out at all on the research method I should apply. After several tries, I decided to read and reread different definitions in literature. As the old Chinese saying goes, a book’s meanings will naturally come clear if it is read over a hundred times. Moreover, I am inspired by the repeated readings.

The main problem is that there are a great number of strategy definitions. Specifically, plenty of different definitions, different wordings that are used to describe strategy and diverse interpretations of strategy concept appeared. It is obvious that there must be a reason or some reasons for this phenomenon. In order to figure out why are there so many different definitions, we need to identify the cause of the diversity firstly. How should we understand the diversity and the difference it brings?

It is of great importance to have the answers to the question in the above for the analysis of literature definition. As only upon logically figuring out the problem, we then can better understand the reasons of having the Three-multiple problem issue of strategy definition literature mentioned earlier. Then, we will be able to analyze and study the definitions in literature appropriately according to the logical approach shown by the reasons.

While reading different literature definitions of strategy over and over again, I also reflect on what is a good definition and find some clues, based on which I establish my train of thought about the analysis.

• (1) Studying the question of “what is definition?”

In the process of studying strategy definition literature, I am enlightened by searching for the answer for “what is definition”. Knowing what is definition is the first step of defining strategy. The exploration of definition is beneficial to knowing the content of a definition (or the connotation parts that a definition includes) and what shouldn’t appear in a definition.

The Wikitionary describes definition as “a statement expressing the essential nature of something or a statement of the meaning of a word or a concept” and “a definition should include the only element and only elements of a word”. For example, when defining the word “bachelor”, the difference between single men and non-single ones is the major concern. By its extension, the concept of “bachelor” should include thousands of millions of singles. However, the definition of “bachelor” refers to a man who has not been married yet. Therefore, a bachelor must be an unmarried man and only bachelors are men who are not married yet (Wikitionary).

The Oxford Dictionary defines “car” as follows: “a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal-combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people”. It does not indicate the type, color or size of a car, or its technology and manufacturing process, which should belong to its extension definition (or denotation part).

The before-mentioned explanation from Wikitionary is enlightenment for me to analyze the problems of literature on strategy definitions. Similar to cars, there are also various types of strategies. From the perspective of purpose, some strategies are for improving competence, some for positioning, some for entering a new field and some for contending against competitors. The methods and process of developing strategy also vary a lot. Some strategies are made by executives. Some are made with the help of consulting companies while others may be made by the company’s strategy group. Moreover, from the perspective of implementation, some strategies are implemented successfully, some failed, some are partly operated and some are possibly not applied completely. Furthermore, there are also successful strategies as well as unsuccessful ones. The definition of strategy cannot list all the above aspects. Therefore, we should explain only the essential nature of strategy rather than other extension content in its definition.

The analysis of the question “what is definition” has given me great inspiration. Nothing belonging to the denotation of a concept should be included in its definition. The same is true of the definition of strategy.

• (2) Possible cause of the confusion about strategy definition in literature

Based on understanding the definition of strategy in Wikitionary and Baidu, I also read different definitions of strategy in literature. After repeat reading, I concluded that the following four reasons were responsible for the existence of so many understandings and so many wordings describing the strategy concept.

First, different vocabulary is used to explain the same meaning. In other words, the writers apply different words that have the same meaning when defining strategy. For example, the words “warm”, “hot” and “high-temperature” mean the same when describing the weather. In another example, “tangerine” and “orange” refer to the same fruit in China. Plenty of authors did not follow an agreed standard of terminology when giving definitions of strategy, resulting in this phenomenon.

Second, different terms used by the authors belong to the same category of vocabulary. For instance, the authors use “apple”, “orange”, “banana” and “longan” to describe fruit. However, these various words fall under the broad heading of “fruit”. The same situation may exist in the literature on strategy definition, namely different words used by writers belong to the subsets of a same category.

Furthermore, the scholars have diverse understandings of the strategy concept, leading to the use of various words. The analysis of this situation is more significant than the above two conditions because this issue involves the validity of research, i.e. whether the definition of strategy can really illustrate the core content that strategy concept includes.

Last but not least, the definitions of strategy in literature may incorporate expressions that don’t belong to the strategy concept. It can be drawn from the definition in Baidu and Wikitionary that a definition should explain the core content of a concept. It is possible for authors to highlight an aspect of strategy that is crucial from their points of view, while it is not part of the strategy concept. For example, the manufacturing of good quality cars is crucial for the company and users, while the definition of car does not indicate the process of making good cars.

The following chart (Fig. 2.1) concludes the four possible causes of problems of strategy definition literature.

Fig. 2.1

The possible reasons for confusion of literature on strategy definitions

The aforesaid ideas are of great help for settling issues like “different vocabulary, the confusion about the use of terminology and the great difference of understanding of the content and element of strategy”. In fact, the diverse strategy definitions in literature that seem to be disorganized may present in a certain form.

• (3) Analytical methodology

Based on the above-mentioned four situations, I develop the following methodology for analyzing strategy definitions in literature.

First, I check whether the following cases appear in the literature. Writers may apply a variety of words to explain the same meaning. In this case, I establish a general term (a term that is commonly used in strategy definition) to summarize various words with the same meaning. This solution not only reduces the number of vocabulary used in strategy definition, but also is beneficial for us to figure out the basic parts or essential elements of the strategy definition. Moreover, I also find out the cause of the case in the above. In my opinion, there are two possible causes; one is that the writer just uses different words (that is to say, the diversity of expression leads to the use of various words). Another cause is that the writer, who has a different understanding of a word, which has the same function in strategy definition, uses vocabulary different from another scholar. Almost no author explains the reason why he or she applies different vocabulary because the writers do not communicate with each other directly. In a word, the two reasons are both of help for us to understand the definitions of strategy in literature.

Then, I check whether some specific words under the general category of “fruit” appear as “apple”, “banana” and other fruit names. If so, I will find out the cause of this situation and list the words having the same function in strategy definitions. After the analysis of these words, I collect different types of names and then propose a general category term like the word fruit to include apple, banana, etc. Therefore, the number of vocabulary in definition can be decreased. The exploration of general category term is also helpful for us to find the basic elements of the definition of strategy.

Then I check whether diverse definitions contain different comprehension of the essence of strategy concept. If this kind of situation does exist (it will certainly happen in general), various understandings and the causes are analyzed. Suppose that different understandings are similar to various types of fruit under the same general category. Then we can sum up or subdivide different understandings. However, if the situation differs from the above, it may belong to the fourth (following) situation, that is the content other than the strategy concept is included in the definition.

Finally, whether content other than the strategy concept (or extension content) is included in various literature definitions is examined. There are three guidelines to determine if the extension content is included in the definitions. I am of the opinion that any expression making strategy decision better is an extensive one.

We see that among the five pieces of literature on studying strategy definition, four adopt the research method of listing a limited number of strategy definitions to analyze the vocabulary and term related to definition. In this chapter, I will also analyze diverse definitions one by one. From where I stand, a researcher will be puzzled when studying a great number of definitions by using manual listing. Thus, I choose a few literature first to study strategy definitions. Figure 2.2 shows the analysis method.

Fig. 2.2

Ideas of literature analysis on strategy definition

Owing to the existence of plenty of strategy definitions, choosing the appropriate definitions influences the reliability of samples directly, and thus, is of great importance. Here I select some definitions of representative scholars and analyzes the key words and their functions. The four scholars are Chandler (1962), Andrews (1965, 1971), Mintzberg (1987a, b), and Porter (1996).⁴ The academic reputation and the citations of the scholars indicate the representation of their definitions.

Based on the representative study on definition by several masters, this chapter studies the rest definitions of strategy, which will promote the analysis and comprehension of puzzles about strategy definitions.

2.4 Review of Literature Definitions by Four Gurus

In 1962, Chandler defined strategy as “the basic long term goal of an enterprise and the adjustments of route made to reach the goal and the necessary allocation of resource.” The phrase “long term goal” is clearly a part of Chandler’s definition. Moreover, it can be drawn that the core of the above-mentioned definition is setting and realizing goal with “course of action and resource allocation”.

As far as Andrews (1965, 1971) is concerned, strategy is “the pattern of decisions in a company that determines and reveals its objectives, purposes, or goals, produces the principal policies and plans for achieving those goals, and defines the range of business the company is to pursue, the kind of economic and human organization it is or intends to be.” It shows that the first part of the definition by Andrews is similar to the one by Chandler, stressing the target and approach. While the second part of the definition by Andrews can be deemed as the further explanations of target or a more detailed illustration of target model.

The explanation of strategy by Mintzberg (1987a) is “the plan of future and the summary of past models”. This definition resembles the definitions by Chandler and Andrews in core idea. Mintzberg (1987b) also gave another definition of strategy in his article Five Ps for Strategy. At the beginning, he writes: “…… strategy is a plan - some sort of consciously intended course of action, a guideline (or set of guidelines) to deal with a situation.” “… consciously intended course of action, a guideline (or set of guidelines)” mentioned here is not identical to the “approach” put forward by Chandler and Andrews. It means the basic guideline and principle of handling “a situation”, guiding method and approach. As for the term “a situation”, he uses two examples to illustrate its meaning, such as “a child needs a strategy to deal with how to cross a fence, and how an enterprise can acquire a market also needs a strategy.” Here, for a child, how to cross a fence is a situation (a situation) he faces, so he needs to have a plan to deal with the problem. In this definition, we can see that, in Mintzberg’s view, strategy is more like a solution or idea that a company needs when it comes to a particular situation.

From where Porter (1996) stands, the essence of strategy is “choosing to perform activities differently than rivals”, “find competitive advantages” or “the creation of a unique and valuable position”. Thus, insight and creativity are required. He also (1996) holds that “operational effectiveness is not strategy”. It is emphasized that “owing to the company’s inability to serve all customers, a choice must be made and the company needs to find the unique position in the market, requiring trade-offs in operating different activities from rivals”. However, Porter did not give a definition of strategy in the article What is Strategy.

In fact, other writers define strategy on the basis of the four definitions by the above-mentioned masters. Therefore, the four definitions are critical for us to understand the strategy concept.

After careful reading the four definitions in detail (although Porter did not tell what strategy is, he offered some insight into strategy concept), it can be drawn that there are some common elements as illustrated in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 The summary of terms applied by the four masters in strategy definitions

The first element is a long-term goal. Terms like “long-term goal” and “specific goal” (or narrow sense goals) are clearly expressed in the definitions by Chandler and Andrews. Mintzberg applied the word “future”. He implicated “goal” in the two examples of Five Ps for Strategy, notwithstanding the word “goal” was not clearly expressed. The “goal”, which can be understood as a specific goal or branch goal and implied in the two examples, can be deemed as the extension of the “goal” put forward by Chandler and Andrews. Porter (1996) pointed out that strategy is “choosing to perform different activities than rivals”, “create competitive advantage” or “the creation of a unique and valuable position”. How to understand the “competitive advantage” and “the creation of a unique and valuable position” put forward by Porter? Most companies aim to be dominant in the target marketplace and able to defense the rivals depending on their unique values. If we regard the “long-term goal” proposed by Chandler and Andrews as fruit, then “to find competitive advantage” and “to create a unique and valuable position” in the definition by Porter belong to the subset under the general category of fruit or are specific targets. Therefore, we can consider “create competitive advantage” and “the creation of a unique and valuable position” as the specific goals of company. According to the Internet search data, the “competitive advantage” raised by Porter is widely accepted with over 6000 times of citation. Achieving competitive advantages may be the paramount strategy goal for companies and it holds a special place in corporate strategy.

The second element appeared in the four definitions by the gurus is “something” to achieving long-term goal. In the definition by Andrews, “the principal policies and plans for achieving those goals” are for reaching the long-term goal. In the definition by Chandler, “the adjustment of course of action and resource allocation” is for realizing the long-term goal in effect. Mintzberg offered a different understanding of the function of this element. He thought, “A strategy is a plan - some sort of consciously intended course of action, a guideline (or set of guidelines) to deal with a situation”. We can see that “course of action”, “a guideline”, or “a set of guidelines” here is used to cope with a situation or to solve the key difficulties in the company’s development path.

I have been thinking a lot about which word to use for the term of “something” in Table 2.2. Terms of “course of action”, “principal policies and plans” and “a guideline, a set of guidelines” are adopted in above literature. Whether these expressions differ essentially or they just serve the same roles in different forms in the strategy definition? If they are not differ essentially, we then should be able to express this element in a general term to replace the word of “something”. Let us have a look at the 16-Word Principle,⁵ a military strategy developed by Mao Zedong and other Chinese revolutionaries. The content of this strategy goes as follows: “Retreat when the enemy attacks, disturb when the enemy stations, fight when the enemy is exhausted, chase when the enemy retreats”. As we all know, we usually take the 16-Word Principle (in Chinese) as a guideline. Now, think about whether we can understand this principle with the vocabulary adopted by Chandler, Andrews and Mintzberg. The answer is sure. The 16-Word Principle can be deemed as “principal policies” (Andrews) or “a set of guidelines” (Mintzberg) for realizing the long term goal of “active defense”. Moreover, it can also be understood as the “course of action” (Chandler). In a word, although the three masters employ various words, the functions and meanings of the vocabulary are basically the same. In this case, we can deem the situation as the application of diverse expressions, which have the same role in their definitions. The purpose of “choosing to perform activities different than rivals do” is to create competitive advantage, which is organizational goal. “Choosing to perform activities different than rivals do”, in effect, is like a guideline to gain “competitive advantage”. We can interpret it as a specific manifestation of the word of guideline. Thus, though Porter did not point out the the second element, the element of “guideline” is implied in Porter’s comprehension of strategy concept.

The third element is “a situation”, from where Mintzberg stood, “a situation” indicated that a company was confronted with obstacles in development and strategy was more like a plan for settling the difficulties. Ansoff (1980) once discussed the definition of “strategic problem in his papers. He pointed out that the strategic problem is a question which has a great influence on a company’s ability to realize its goal, whether inside or outside an organization, in the future development. It can be drawn that the “strategic problem” by Ansoff has the almost the same meaning with “a situation” in the definition by Mintzberg. In the two examples listed by Mintzberg, a child is faced “a situation” of how to step over a fence, which is the problem he is faced with in fact. Therefore, “a situation” in the definition by Mintzberg, in effect, is the development problem of a company. It may be difficult to understand the meaning of “a situation” as it is a little bit abstract. Thus, here, we will replace “a situation” with “key development problem or strategic problem” for easier communication and understanding. This element does not appear in the definitions by Chandler, Andrews and Porter. The following table gives a summary of my analysis about the four definitions by masters.

Can we summarize the vocabulary for the second term in Table 2.2? I hope to develop a generally accepted term to cover all these words, which play the same role in strategy definitions for decreasing the number of words. In this case, readers will face less ambiguity caused by the application of diverse vocabulary. From the perspective of the vocabulary function, “course of action” (Chandler), “principal policies and plans” (Andrews), “course of action” or “a guideline, a set of guidelines” (Mintzberg) all belong to a kind of strategic mean or strategic approach for achieving the company’s long term goal. Therefore, it is possible that we can summarize the words adopted by the three masters in a general word. The analysis of the vocabulary employed by the three masters lays a solid foundation for understanding strategy concept. For describing the essence of the strategy definition more accurately and the implications from the “16-word Priciple” of Chairman Mao, I use “guideline” (or strategic mean) with the characteristic of “approach or mean” so that the ideological and leading feature of strategy can be presented. From this, the second element mentioned earlier, “something”, can be understood as guideline, which can be used to express the role and meaning of the second element “something” in Table 2.2.

Table 2.3 Questions concerning the strategy concept in literature and answers

Do the four gurus have different understandings of the strategy concept? It can be seen from the figure that there are basically two understandings. Simply, (1) strategy is a guideline, or set of guidelines (for guiding plans or actions of) achieving long-term goal. This seems the most tendentious understanding. (2) Strategy is a guideline or set of guidelines (for guiding plans or actions of) to resolve company development problem as suggested by Minzberg.

Next, the summary of definitions by the four masters will be made.

Let us look back on the Three-multiple problems in literature on strategy concept at the beginning of this chapter and the probable reasons (or probable four situations). The first case is that a variety of vocabulary is used to express the same meaning. The second situation is that different words that applied by the writers belong to a general category. The third case is that the writers understand strategy concept differently, resulting in the application of diverse word. The fourth situation is that the content other than strategy concept may be included in definitions.

First, the masters do “use a variety of vocabulary to express the same meaning”. Specifically speaking, it is similar to the case of using “warm” and “sultry” describe the same weather. For instance, “long-term goal”, “goal” and “future” are employed. We can use “long-term goal” (or development goal) as the general term to substitute these words. Vocabulary like “principal policies and plans (Andrews) “, “A guideline, a set of guidelines (Mintzberg) can be replaced by the term of “guideline”.

Then, different words belonging to a general category are also used. In other words, words like “apple”, “orange”, “banana” and “longan” that all belong to the general category of fruit, are employed. The “competitive advantage” expressed by Porter can be deemed as the specific development goal of a company.

Next, let us check whether the masters have different comprehension of strategy concept (the third situation). The understandings of Chandler, Andrews and Mintzberg are similar to each other in goal, the guideline of reaching goal, and so on. However, they all omitted the specific content of goal and guideline. Although Porter pointed out the specific goals like “competitive advantage” and specific guideline like “choosing to perform activities different than rivals do”, this difference just involves the discrepancy between general goal or specific goal, and general guideline or specific guideline rather than essential difference.

Last but not least, do the four masters include content other than the connotation part of the strategy concept in their definitions? In the definition by Chandler, “resource allocation” that is not expressed in the definitions by the other three masters appeared. “Resource allocation”, can be viewed as a part of denotation of the strategy concept, i.e. we are supposed to distribute resource reasonably to implement strategy more efficiently.

It is concluded that if the definitions of the four masters are taken as a small sample, the four situations (or reasons) mentioned above that lead to the Three-multiple problems of strategy definition more or less exist in the case sample. However, generally speaking, the comprehension of the four masters differ slightly and the four masters rarely include the content which isn’t a part of strategy content, while the problem of applying different words does exist.

Going back to the questions raised in this chapter overview, we now have some answers.

The definitions in other literature is analyzed in the following part.

2.5 Review of Literature Definitions by Some Other Authors

Can we summarize and explain the problem of the divergence of strategy definitions by other writers with the three elements of “long-term goal”, “guideline” and “development issue” summarized from definitions of Chandler, Andrews, Mintzberg as standards? In addition, can we summarize the subsets of a class, which are represented by different wordings, like the one by Porter?

To answer these questions, I collect 32 definitions in different academic papers; Most of them are the earlier researches in this field. Eight of them are from academic journals including Strategic Management Journal, Academy of Management of Executive, Organization Studies, Harvard Business Review and California Management Review while the rest are selected from all kinds of books whose publishers are Sage, MIT Press, Prentice Hall, McGraw-Hill, and Little Brown. John Wiley & Sons and West Publishing. The released date ranged from 1960 and 2011.

Reading these definitions carefully, you will find that most scholars gave definitions for strategy based on the definitions by Chandler and Andrews and terms describing the element of “long-term goal” are frequently used. The phrase “long-term goal” is used in the literature by the following writers: Ackoff (1974), David (2003), Eisenhardt, (1999), Glueck (1976: p. 4), Hambrick and Fredrickson (2001), Hatten and Hatten (1988), Higgins and Vineze (1989: p. 166), Hill and Jones (2007: p. 87), Hofer and Schendel (1978), Knights and Morgan (1991: p. 251), Learned et al. (1965: p. 17), Schendel and Hatten (1972: p. 100), Steiner and Miner (1977: p. 7), Summer (1980).

• (1) Terms in literature concerning the element of long-term goal.

Plenty of strategy definitions contain the two elements of “goal” and “mean” and general terms can be found in the literature by authors (Table 2.4) like Ackoff (1974).

Table 2.4 Literature that includes general terms of “goal” and “guideline” in definitions

Some scholars employed specific goals, such as “find competitive advantage” and “maintain and promote productivity” instead of general terms of goal. My study on literature shows that there are 8 subsets (i.e. as the eight fruit names under the general category of fruit) of the comprehension of “long-term goal”, including “maintain and promote productivity” put forward by Barney (Barney 1991) and “find competitive advantage” by Porter.

Table 2.5 shows the literature in which the definitions present specific goals. The narrow goals in the following table are the different targets of companies in various cases.

Table 2.5 The literature in which the definitions present specific goals

Let’s review the question put forward by Hofer and Schendel in their analysis of 13 strategy definitions in 1978. Should target setting be contained in strategy concept? The answer is surely yes on the basis of the literature on strategy definition by the several scholars. The goal should be an essential part of strategy definition.

With regard to strategy definition, Hofer and Schendel (1978) also proposed a question: should strategy definition include general or narrow goal? How should the general and narrow goal in this question be understood?

We can consider the eight subsets of the long-term goal (or goals that are more specific than the general goal) as the narrow goals in the question asked by Hofer and Schendel. Then, the narrow goals should belong to the general category of “long-term goal”. Therefore, strategy definition should contain the general goal, while it is doubted that whether the narrow or specific goals, which are of great significance for corporate strategy, should be included in strategy definition. It is obvious that the definition will be too long if all the eight subsets are covered. Moreover, the definition must present the basic feature of an object, describe the meaning of a word or a concept and list all the characteristics of elements or the only element. If we deem the narrow goals as a part of strategy definition, we are just unable to include all of them. Therefore, “long-term goal”, one element of strategy concept, should be presented in the form of general feature and there is no necessity of including other narrow goals. Nevertheless, the company should set the specific goals according to different situations. Moreover, the question that “whether strategy definition should include general or narrow goals” by Hofer and Schendel can also be settled. The strategy concept should contain general goals rather than narrow goals.

We can conclude that a great number of scholars gave strategy definitions that contain narrow goals (or the specific goals of corporation under different situations). I want to stress that the omission of narrow goals does not mean the insignificance of specific goals. Actually, the concrete aims in the above chart play an important role in our understanding of the general long-term goal. The narrow targets enable us to clearly comprehend all kinds of cases under which the strategy is made, offering us a great help in comprehending strategy goal.

• (2) Terms in literature describing the element of guideline

Next, let us look at the element of “guideline” and check whether this element is presented in strategy definitions. If so, what kinds of words are employed to illustrate this element?

I find that this element is contained in a large number of literature on strategy definition. They include as Barney (1991); David (2003); Drucker (1994); Eisenhardt (1999); Glueck (1976: p. 4); Hambrick and Fredrickson (2001); Hatten and Hatten (1988); Higgins and Vineze (1989: p. 166); Hill and Jones (2007: p. 87); Hofer and Schendel (1978); Knights and Morgan (1991: p. 251); Learned et al (1965: p. 17); Schendel and Hatten (1972: p. 100); Steiner and Miner (1977: p. 7); Summer (1980); Thompson et al. (2011: p. 4).

The aforesaid analysis of the definitions by the four gurus shows that three of them applied rich vocabulary playing the same function of “guideline”. This phenomenon also appeared in other papers by the rest writers. According to my research, nearly ten kinds of words exist, including “choosing plan”, “plan”, “action”, “how to”, “the principal policies and plans” and “method”, see Table 2.6.

Table 2.6 The summary of vocabulary in literature on strategy definition

Some scholars (Hambrick 2001; Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martin 2011) believe that the strategy concept suffers from semantic problems. Based on the analysis and classification, I found that the diversity of strategic semantics reflects the diversity and complexity of strategy functions.

As previously mentioned in our analysis of the different wordings that appear in the definitions of four masters, in the real business world, there are a variety of practical problems in the corporate development and different solutions are required. Many authors applied various wordings to explain these solutions, resulting in the divergence of “guideline” in strategy definitions.

• (3) Terms about major development problem in literature

Then, let us have a look at the third element of “a situation” in literature on strategy definitions. This element is only presented in the two literature by different authors, Mintzberg and Von Neumann and Morgenstern (Von Neumann and Morgenstern 1947). Von Neumann and Morgenstern held that “strategy is a course of action decided by the particular situation). Since few papers present the element of “a situation”, any branch of this element is not found.

• (4) Terms in literature that are not part of the connotation of the strategy concept

In analyzing and filing the literature concerned with strategy definitions, I have noticed that quite a few scholars categorized “matching up organizational resources and capabilities with the external environment” in the definition of strategy (Hofer and Schedel 1978; Jemison 1981; Katz 1970; Miles and Snow 1978; Mintzberg 1979: p. 25).

From the perspective of strategic decision, if a company has realized the mismatching of organizational resources and capabilities with the external environment, it needs to make decisions to change the situation and keep the company foundation everlasting. Therefore, we can see that when making a strategic decision, considerations in “matching up organizational resources and capabilities with the external environment” will lead to the making of a better strategic decision.

Back to our introduction about the definition of an automotive in Wikipedia and Baidu we have mentioned before. When we talk about definitions, the topic only needs a concept with core meanings and content, so the definition of a car does not include how to make a good car no matter how important it is, for it is an extension of the definition. “Matching up organizational resources and capabilities with the external environment” is a principle to be followed to when making strategic decisions. Therefore, it is the extension of the strategic concept, rather than the connotation.

2.6 Conclusions and Implications

Literature review shows that the words used to describe “long-term goal”, such as goal, object and end, are similar to each other in literature definitions.

While the expressions of “guideline” or “strategic mean” differ greatly, diverse vocabulary like “choice of programs or plans”, “actions”, “means”, “how”, “major policies and plans”, “approach”, “moves” is presented. The diversity of strategic problems may cause the divergence of “strategic mean”, and thus, a variety of expressions about “guideline” arises. However, these terms, though different, play the same function in strategy concept.

Here, I’d like to divide the vocabulary describing the elements of “guideline” into three kinds. The first kind is about guideline, such as the application of guidelines, major policies and so on. The second is related to mean, such as “solution”, “how”, “course of action”, “plan” and “actions”. It is known that the element of “guideline” in strategy concept, with programmatic and leading feature, differs from common approaches and influences the development and survival of a company. Therefore, among the words with respect to strategic mean in the aforesaid part, “guideline” and “policy” which possess programmatic and leading feature conform the characteristics of strategy better than “plan”, “action” and so on, which show the specific content of a plan and thus are more like tactics. In sum, some authors hold that strategy should be a guiding, instructional and high-level overview of idea and policy. However, the other writers may define strategy concept with words belonging to tactics, which are closely linked to strategy, but differ in its nature.

Mintzberg (2002) said, “Our understanding of strategy is similar to the situation of the blind feeling an elephant to some extent”. Through my research process, I realize that our comprehension and study of strategy concept and definition, just as what Mintzberg said, resemble the metaphor closely. Scholars who touch the legs of the elephant define strategy as “a pillar”, writers who touch the nose explain strategy as “a pipe”, authors who touch the body deem strategy as a piece of “board”, while those who touch both the body and legs may present strategy as “a thick plate on a pillar”. For those who include terms other than the denotation of the strategy concept, they can be viewed as those who may touch the leg of the elephant and a tree beside the elephant's leg. Pupo and Martin (2011) are of the opinion that “the present literature on strategy definition is mostly based on our partial cognition”. The “pillar”, “pipe” or “board” we touch is a one-sided view.

From the above, we find that the explanations of an elephant as “pillar”, “pipe” “board” or “a thick plate on a pillar” are the comprehensions of the elephant by the blind. Our study process is very much alike. Therefore, all kinds of definitions arise in the process of understanding the “elephant”. In the process of touching the elephant of strategy concept, different scholars find different aspects and thus diverse understandings, terms or vocabulary come into being, resulting in the Three-multiple problems of literature on strategy definition.

In fact, I am also one of the blind who is trying to touch the elephant. The only difference may be that I have been making efforts, though off and on, for more than ten years without giving up.

In the discipline of strategy, the concept and definition is only one elephant. As a large discipline, strategy is similar to a herd of elephants in the deep forest. We still need to make further study on the number, gender, age, relationship and immigration of them.

Perhaps, it is the real process of scientific research, or the process of knowing the law of nature.