1. The field of strategic management has evolved over the past two decades, becoming more theory-based and eclectic in nature.
2. Early developments in the field focused on contingency perspectives, resource-based frameworks, and industrial organization economics.
3. The pendulum of research in strategic management has swung between internal firm characteristics and external industry structure, with a recent emphasis on the resource-based view of the firm.
The article titled "Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum" provides an overview of the development and current state of the field of strategic management. While it offers valuable insights into the historical progression of theories and methodologies in the field, there are several potential biases and limitations to consider.
One potential bias is the limited focus on Western perspectives and theories. The article primarily discusses works by Western scholars, such as Chandler, Ansoff, and Porter, without acknowledging contributions from other regions or cultures. This narrow perspective may limit the understanding of strategic management as a global phenomenon.
Additionally, the article lacks a critical analysis of the theories and methodologies discussed. It presents these approaches as if they are universally accepted and effective without questioning their limitations or potential biases. For example, while the resource-based view (RBV) is mentioned as a dominant framework in the 1990s, there is no discussion of its criticisms or alternative perspectives.
Furthermore, the article does not provide sufficient evidence or examples to support its claims. It mentions various theories and frameworks but fails to provide concrete examples or empirical studies that demonstrate their effectiveness. This lack of evidence weakens the credibility of the arguments presented.
The article also neglects to explore counterarguments or alternative viewpoints. It presents a linear progression from early theories to current ones without acknowledging competing theories or ongoing debates within the field. This one-sided reporting limits the reader's understanding of different perspectives on strategic management.
Moreover, there is a lack of consideration for potential risks or drawbacks associated with certain approaches. For example, while agency theory and transaction costs economics are mentioned as important contributions to strategic management, their limitations in explaining complex organizational behavior are not discussed.
In terms of promotional content, it is worth noting that some references provided in the article lead to external websites that require payment or subscription for access to full texts. This may suggest a commercial interest in promoting certain publications rather than providing unbiased information.
Overall, the article provides a useful overview of the development of strategic management but falls short in critically analyzing theories and methodologies, considering alternative perspectives, providing evidence for claims, and acknowledging potential biases. A more balanced and comprehensive analysis would enhance the credibility and value of the article.