6b. Ferreira

Scientometrics (2016) 109:1–32
DOI 10.1007/s11192-016-2008-0
A co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic

management research
João José M. Ferreira1 • Cristina I. Fernandes2 •
Vanessa Ratten3
Received: 6 August 2015 / Published online: 25 June 2016

Ó Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016
Abstract Strategic management remains a recent field of research that is dynamic and
changing with the global business economy. Given the sheer importance of research on this
field of business management, this paper aims to conduct a co-citation bibliometric
analysis of strategic management research. We map the authors and the most relevant
approaches as well as detailing the new theoretical perspectives to strategic management
theory. The analysis conducted uses three multivariate statistical analysis techniques in
addition to the co-citation matrix to shed light on these issues. By incorporating all the
citations that are included in the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation
Index, we analyze co-citation patterns of the strategic management field during the period
1971–2014 and identify six subfields (clusters) that constitute the intellectual structure and
investigate their mutual relationships. The main findings of the factor analysis suggest that
there is a clear division between strategic entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship.
In addition, the concept of strategic behavior affects most strategic management research
as evidenced by the co-citation analysis. A debate of future directions on the strategic
management literature is discussed, which highlights the importance of combining more of
a strategic entrepreneurship perspective based on behavioral intentions to the emerging
research.
& Vanessa Ratten

v.ratten@latrobe.edu.au
João José M. Ferreira
jjmf@ubi.pt
Cristina I. Fernandes
cristina.fernandes@ipcb.pt
1
NECE-Research Unit, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
2
Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco, Portugal and NECE Research Centre, UBI,
Castelo Branco, Portugal
3
La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
123
2 Scientometrics (2016) 109:1–32
Keywords Strategic management Strategic entrepreneurship Bibliometric analysis

Intellectual structure Co-citations Multivariate scaling Strategic behavior Strategic
knowledge management
Introduction
Bibliometric analysis provides an invaluable contribution to the existing research of a field

(Gomes et al. 2015). The diverse and complex nature of strategic management means that
it is important to review the existing literature by conducting a bibliometric analysis. The
analysis reported in this paper places attention on how strategic management research has
evolved over time. This paper extends previous bibliometric papers by focusing on a
longitudinal analysis that addresses the characteristics and main themes of strategic
management research. Our decision to focus on the 1971–2014 timeframe is justified due
to the increase in research articles being published about strategic management. In addi-
tion, the rise of the strategic management field has had an impact on other fields most
notably the organizational behavior and entrepreneurship fields. The sustained importance
of strategic management over a period of time supports the bibliometric analysis and
enables a systematic view of the strategic management literature in assessing the contri-
bution of the field from various perspectives.
Strategic management (SM) as an academic field of study remains relatively recent
(Nerur et al. 2008). As a subject, SM has attained a certain level of maturity leading to ever
greater academic and researcher interested in its key themes through both empirical studies
and literature reviews (Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruı́z-Navarro 2004). However, it is com-
monly asserted that the field of SM is fragmented and lacks a coherent identity (Nag et al.
2007).
The SM field of study has advanced substantially in the last half century. The field
started out taught primarily by retired executives discussing the practical rules arising out
of their own personal experiences (Venkatraman and Subramaniam 2002). However, there
has subsequently been substantial progress with the field having advanced significantly.
The theories and concepts developed have sought to explain and fundamentally to
understand the differences between company performance levels.
From its beginnings, SM has proven an interdisciplinary field of research (Jemison
1981; Porter 1981). Following the landmark publications of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and
1980s, we would stress the importance of identifying just which research findings and
trends in SM have had the greatest impact on the scientific community. In recent years,
there have been various attempts to systematically analyze the scope of the SM field,
tracing its historical evolution, charting its intellectual structure and evaluating its strengths
and weaknesses (Furrer et al. 2008; Nerur et al. 2008).
Following the bibliometric analysis by Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruı́z-Navarro (2004) and
Nerur et al. (2008), this research aims to provide a perspective of continuity alongside a
more updated view and integrative perspective on the SM research field.
The present study hence: (1) delineates the intellectual structure and past efforts to
define the field of the SM and its different subfields; (2) determines the lines of research
making up its intellectual structure and identifying possible relationships between its
different areas, and (3) identifies some conjectures about further developments in this
literature.
This research serves not only to assess the intellectual structure through the visual-
ization of the spatial distances between the interrelated issues to this theme, but also
123
Scientometrics (2016) 109:1–32 3
identify what is the content and the evolution of SM research and what is their contribution
to the evolution of the field.
The paper is intended to contribute as a guideline for SM scholars in positioning their
future research efforts. To this end, we deployed a bibliometric co-citation analysis.
Bibliometric analysis applies a set of quantitative methodologies based on statistical
analytical techniques, taking into account analysis of the citations made in scientific
articles and thus evaluating the impact of the articles published in addition to their ref-
erencing and dissemination (Reuters 2008). The analysis of co-citations represents a
methodology effective for charting in detail the relationships between the core ideas of a
particular scientific domain (Small 1973) and also serves to identify the fundamental
scientific articles to the respective scientific field (Zitt and Bassecoulard 1994). White and
Grifith (1981) pioneered the co-citation analysis of authors in the first study to adopt this
approach to the research existing on decision making and judgment. Two documents
become co-cited whenever cited in conjunction in one or more published articles (Smith
1981), with the number of shared citations proving a means of visualizing a representative
cross-section of the literature on any particular field of knowledge, thereby identifying the
most influential authors and displaying their respective interrelationships (White and
McCain 1998). Various studies have demonstrated the validity of co-citation analysis for
grasping the intellectual structure of a particular field of research (Di Guardo and Harrigan
2012).
In summary, this paper contributes to the strategic management and entrepreneurship
literature in a number of ways. First, it highlights the most cited papers about strategic
management, which are important for scholars in this field of study. Second, it identifies
the main clusters of strategic entrepreneurship, strategic decision, strategic behavior,
strategic resources, strategic knowledge and strategic management technology. This can
help strategic management scholars become more aware of the sub-fields of research and
encourage more collaboration between researchers. Third, the study aims to establish the
trend towards entrepreneurship by strategic management researchers thereby generating
additional sources of knowledge for future research. This should provide some fresh
insight and provide further understanding about strategic management research.
This article is structured as follows. First, we discuss the conceptual beginnings of
strategic management as a field of research and how it has evolved into one of the most
important disciplines of business management. This includes a historical analysis of the
progression of SM including how it has changed and progressed over time. Second, we
discuss the methodology of the bibliometric analysis, which was conducted over a long
time frame in order to analyse the existing citations and co-citations of the main academics
in this research field. Third, the results of the bibliometric analysis are stated, which
include a analysis of the clusters and factors occurring within SM research. Lastly, we
discuss the findings of the analysis and relate it to future research work occurring in the
area of SM studies.
Strategic management: conceptual background
Before attempting to sound out the future of SM, we certainly need to identify the roots of
this field of study. According to the perspective of Rumelt (1974), we may define three
phases to the evolution of SM: (1) the precursors, through to 1960; (2) the field’s emer-
gence in the 1960s and (3) the orientation towards research as from 1970. The pre-history
(phase one through to 1960) of SM as an academic field began in the theories of
bureaucracy and economic organization. In this phase, the greatest contributions brought
123
by researchers to the management field stemmed from this interlinking of economic theory
and organizations.
Among the numerous authors structuring their works around researching the role of
management and the opportunities for strategic choices, the most commonly referenced are
Barnard (1938), who studied the role of managers, Taylor (1947), dedicated to the ‘‘science
of work’’, Simon and his model of administrative analysis and Selznick (1957), who
introduced the idea of distinctive competences.
In the 1960s, the second phase advanced with the emergence of the SM field itself. With
this new phase or way of thinking, the research took on a more contingent deterministic
perspective according to which organizations needed to look to their surroundings and
everything happening around them. This decade saw the publication of three landmark
works to this academic field, Chandler (1962) with his book Strategy and Structure, Ansoff
(1965) with Corporate Strategy and alongside Learned et al. (1965) with Business Policy:
Text and Cases, with its text attributed to Kenneth Andrews and later rewritten as a
separate book The Concept of Corporate Strategy in 1971. In fact, Chandler (1962) and
others (Mintzberg 1978; Quinn 1980; Pettigrew 1987) set out a research tradition—what
has been termed the processual approach to strategy—which still continues and represents
a stable and lasting current to teachings on strategic processes. However, we would
highlight how these studies focused more on a framework of perception than on an ana-
lytical perspective. Based fundamentally on case studies whether of companies or indi-
vidual industries, the results of these works involve broad scale generalization (Furrer et al.
2008).
Following on from this generalization, during the 1970s (phase three), a transition began
in favor of research based orientations. This phase features the development of a dichot-
omy between two branches of research based upon distinct and different ontological and
epistemological approaches. One of the branches followed ‘‘a process based approach’’,
which essentially consisted of descriptive studies about how strategies get defined and
implemented. This observation based research on real organizational decision making and
led to more realistic conceptions of processes in which strategies developed not only
indirectly but also to a certain extent non-intentionally (Learned et al. 1965). Examples of
such studies include Quinn (1980) with his ‘‘logical incrementalism’’ and Mintzberg (1978
and 1985) and their ‘‘emerging strategy’’ concept. Simultaneously, another branch of
research began to bear fruit in terms of grasping the relationship between strategy and
performance. Based upon the analysis of case studies at the individual company or industry
level, deductive statistical research methods developed and tested hypotheses based on
abstract models from the structure-conduct-performance paradigm (Bain 1956, 1964;
Mason 1939, 1949) dominant in the industrial economic literature (Porter 1981). Porter
(1980, 1985) made some of the greatest contributions to this field. Porter (1980) put
forward a tool enabling the identification of a structure to a specific industry as well as its
respective attractiveness simultaneous to analyzing its competition.
Hence, the primary focus of SM in this phase was on the environment and its rela-
tionship with companies. The economics of an industrial organization represented the
analytical basis for studying the problems that companies faced within the context of their
own respective industrial sectors. Economists fundamentally sought to ascertain how the
structural characteristics of the industry constrained the strategic choices taken by com-
panies. The level of industrial concentration, the barriers to entrance, the cost and pricing
structure, the economies of scale and dimension, the investment choices, vertical inte-
gration, profitability ratios and the patterns of growth feature among the dimensions
studied.
123
A subsequent generation of economists, interested in this research field, proposed game

theory to examine facets related to the competitive surrounding environment and inter-
linked competition and industrial rivalries. Economists including Saloner (1991), Dixit and
Nalebuff (1991) and Camerer (1985, 1991) generated findings deriving from the new
industrial economy applying modes of thinking structured around competitive interactions.
As from the beginning of the 1980s, studies on strategy as a unit of analysis came into
fashion, especially on the internal structure, the resources and the capacities. Due to this
change in the focus of the unit of analysis, there correspondingly emerged two trends of
organizational economic research: transactional cost economics (Williamson 1975, 1985)
and agency theory (Fama 1980; Jensen and Meckling 1976). In parallel, resource and
capacity theory took shape. The main focus of this latter theory stems from the relationship
between company resources and their performance levels. Wernerfelt (1984) understands
that a resource may be perceived as a strength or a weakness of a company. Penrose (1959)
proposes a resource based vision conceiving the company as a set of productive resources
with different companies retaining exclusive and unique sets of such resources. Resource
and capacity theory includes company resource and capacity theory (Wernerfelt 1984),
dynamic capacity theory (Barney 1991; Stuart and Podolny 1996; Teece et al. 1997) and
knowledge theory (Grant 1996; Powell and Dent-Micallef 1997; Spender 1996; Szulanski
1996).
This third phase (or era) of influence effectively drew upon behavioral influences and
came particularly to prominence in the late 1980s and 1990s following the first studies by
March and Simon (1958), Simon (1958, 1991) and Pettigrew (1987). The field corre-
spondingly expanded to include researchers with backgrounds in organizational psychol-
ogy, political science, sociology (Burt 1997; Granovetter 1985; Scott 1995), organizational
ecology (Hannan and Freeman 1989) and the cognitive school (Tversky and Kahneman
1986; Porac et al. 1989). They focused not only on optimization and economic balances but
also on the functioning and survival of an organization and the behaviors of its members
and their intra and inter-organizational networks.
The most classical research question considering the field of SM encapsulates the
presumed relationship between diversification and performance. In the search for a plau-
sible explanation of the factors capable of explaining higher performance levels among
companies in the 1980s and 1990s, the strategic theory hosted a central debate between two
theories that were both high profile even while presenting divergent points of view. On the
one side stood the defenders of structural analysis based upon the industrial economy
(Porter 1980, 1981, 1985, 1996; Ghemawat 1999) whilst, on the other hand, proponents
advocated approaches to resources and capacities (Rumelt 1974; Wernerfelt 1984, 1989;
aBarney 1986, 1991). This discussion, even while representing a classical question, has
continued to receive constant attention in the literature.
The interdisciplinary emphasis characterizing much of the work in the field of SM
reflects the fact that there is no single discipline covering all aspects of strategy. Therefore,
in order to obtain a broader reaching perspective, there has been recourse to combinations
of diverse fields to generate integrative approaches to the various domains of SM.
We focus our research on this conceptual and methodological framework, summarized
in this present section and hereby contribute by intellectually mapping these inputs in order
to provide an updated overview of the field and provide the scientific community with this
same integrative position.
123
Methods
Research setting
Taking into consideration the study objectives, we firstly undertook descriptive analysis of
the articles resulting from the research. We then proceeded to apply the bibliometric
methodology of co-citation analysis in keeping with the White and McCain study (White
and McCain 1998) in order to analyze articles published on SM. The number of times that
the two SM articles or authors were jointly cited within the universe of publications
resulting undergoes analysis with the objective of obtaining the relationships between the
citations and mapping the dominant approaches in the field on the theme of this article—
SM.
To graphically map and display the articles, we made recourse to the multidimensional
scaling analytical procedure in order to obtain a bi-dimensional chart displaying the
interconnections between the co-citations and the articles in accordance with the
methodology also followed by McCain (1990) and Nerur et al. (2008). In this chart, the
points alongside the origins of the references represent articles with connections to articles
that display different approaches and with a set of fairly heterogeneous citations. Following
multi-dimensional scaling, we applied hierarchical clusters analysis taking into account the
grouping of the interrelated articles into distinct sets and thereby applying the chart drafted
by multidimensional scaling to the layout of its clustered groups. Finally, we turned to
factorial analysis, the main component method and with Varimax rotation in order to
extract additional information from the research existing on SM, in particular, to determine
just which articles share common components and which articles hold the greatest
weighting for each one of the aforementioned factors. In this methodology, the results
returned by the analysis also indicate the relative importance of each one of the factors
resulting.
Data
We gathered the citation and co-citation data from the Science Citation Index Expanded
(SCI-Expanded), the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and the Arts & Humanities
Citation Index (A&H CI), compiled by the online database run by Thomson/Reuters-ISI,
which contains thousands of academic publications and bibliographic information about
their authors, affiliations and citations.
This research incorporated the Web of ScienceTM Core Collection database and all
articles in management and business category journals, without any chronological filter and
searching by the key terms ‘‘strategic management’’ or ‘‘strategic decision’’ in either the
title, key words or in the article abstract. This research process returned a total of 4829
articles with the date of publication ranging from 1971 (1 article) and 2014 (122 articles),
with 125,595 citations and an average of 25.8 per article citing 53.780 references. Figure 1
portrays the evolution in the number of articles published annually and demonstrating how
articles on these themes remained rare throughout the 1970s with the rise in publications
taking place in the 1990s before undergoing exponential growth between 2001 and 2011,
the year in which the number of publications peaked (509), and having decreased over the
subsequent years, 2012 (454) and 2013 (308).
As regards the articles themselves, the five articles receiving the largest number of
citations are respectively:
123
500
400
Nº of articles
300
200
100
0
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1 98 6
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2099
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
14
19
Year
Fig. 1 Number of articles by year (1970–2014)
1. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17(1), 99–120 (7569 citations).
2. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533 (4414 citations).
3. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they?
Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121 (2099 citations).
4. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(SI), 95–112 (1473 citations).
5. Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of
Marketing, 58(4), 37–52 (1310 citations).
Table 5 in Appendix sets out the 20 journals receiving the greatest number of refer-
ences. The Strategic Management Journal attains a clearly dominant position with its total
of 323 references, trailed by Long Range Planning (155), Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal (144), Journal of Management (138) and Journal of Management Studies (132).
The 20 journals listed in the table contain a total of 1389 articles, corresponding to 38.1 %
of the total number of references encountered.
Following the research spanning the 4829 references, the next step involved defining the
reference criteria serving as the basis for analysis within the scope of meeting the objec-
tives of the study. According to the criteria of relevance, which should define the set of
articles while taking into account that the inclusion of a large number of references
contributes towards enriching the analytical findings, we selected the 100 most cited
articles for the subsequent analytical phase. The Appendix contains a Table 5 detailing
these 100 articles.
The distribution of these 100 paper sources once again reports the Strategic Manage-
ment Journal as the source of the greatest number of references among the 100 most cited
123
articles (with 34), with the Academy of Management Journal and the Academy of Man-
agement Review respectively in second and third places (Table 1) with these three pub-
lications accounting for over a half of the sources under analysis.
Results
In terms of methodologies, as explained above, we applied three multivariate statistical

analysis techniques to the co-citation matrix. We first deployed multi-dimensional scaling,
which enabled us to generate a map within the objective of analyzing the relationship
between the articles, identifying the dimensions that best explain their similarities and
differences. Secondly, we made recourse to cluster analysis that retuned homogenous
groups of articles. Finally, we deployed factorial analysis in order to identify the articles
composing each factor and their respective levels of contribution, through factorial
weighting within each paradigm.
Multi-dimensional scaling
Figure 2 displays the bi-dimensional charting of the articles obtained by multi-dimensional

analysis of the matrix co-citation data and ALSCAL routines of the IBM SPSS 22.0 for the
Windows statistical program.
Table 1 Distribution of source documents by journal (top 20 journals)

Journal No. of articles
Strategic Management Journal 323

Long Range Planning 155
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 144
Journal of Management 138
Journal of Management Studies 132
Journal of Business Research 98
Organization Science 80
Management Decision 77
Academy of Management Journal 73
Academy of Management Review 73
International Journal of Technology Management 72
Journal of Business Ethics 71
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 61
Journal of Business Venturing 55
Organization Studies 53
Technovation 51
Industrial Marketing Management 48
Journal of International Business Studies 45
Journal of the Operational Research Society 45
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 45
123
2 79
27
315
RESOURCES & CAPACITIES
29 37 38 57 54
33
9836
70 21 2
91
22 85
89 13 26
1
1
83 67 81 4
92
41 2350 72
46 96 56
76 88 8 61 63 45 80
90
9543 48 34 84 74
75 62 55 6 16 24
86
53
0
58 32 73
51 78
17 35 66
4269 31 60
30 71 40
10 52 7 87
12 82
-1
959 5 1468
47
28 100
11 20
18 1944 65 93
2549
97 39
94 77 64
99
-2
-1 0 1 2
STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6
Fig. 2 Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis
Table 2 Distribution of source

Journal No. of articles
documents analyzed by journal
Strategic Management Journal 34
Academy of Management Journal 14
Academy of Management Review 10
Journal of Management 9
Administrative Science Quarterly 6
Journal of Marketing 5
Journal of Applied Psychology 3
Journal of Business Venturing 3
Management Science 3
Mis Quarterly 3
Organization Science 3
Journal of International Business Studies 2
Harvard Business Review 1
Journal of Business Ethics 1
Journal of Management Studies 1
Journal of Operations Management 1
Research Policy 1
Cluster analysis
The adjustment indices (Kruskall’s Stress = 0.01 and RSQ = 0.99) return very robust
values indicating that the mapping reflects a very good approximation to reality. The
grouping of articles emerging out of the multi-dimensional scale chart proved crucial to the
cluster analysis and provides the foundation to the hierarchical methodology proposed by
Ward. The articles included in each one of the groups hereby resulting feature in Table 2.
Despite their interrelationship with the dimensional scaling, the construction of the axes
proves arbitrary with the positioning of the articles in the maps suggesting the axes attain
123
significance. The table details the articles with the number referring to their ranking
defined according to their number of citations (Table 3).
Each one of the clusters gets characterized in function of the references contained.
Hence, Cluster 1—‘‘Strategic Entrepreneurship’’ (SE) reflects the relationship between
resources, capacities and entrepreneurship. Another characteristic of this cluster incorpo-
rates how in hostile environments, organizational structure and corporate entrepreneurship
represent fundamental factors to the good performance of companies. Strategic
entrepreneurship proves distinct between small scale companies and their large counter-
parts. Nevertheless, in each case, the creation of wealth, alongside internationalization
processes, proves fundamental. The success of company internationalization strategies and
the multinationals are themselves subject to the influence of SM decisions.
Cluster 2—‘‘Strategic Decision’’ (SD) the strategic decisions are fundamental to each
management theme as well as to the success of each company. The strategic decisions aid
in managing conflicts and bolstering organizational performance levels.
Cluster 3—‘‘Strategic Behavior’’ (SB) the entire extent of organizational behaviors falls
under the influence of SM to such an extent that the organizational behavior and the SM theories
interrelate and require simultaneously application to the new realities faced by companies.
Cluster 4—‘‘Strategic Resources’’ (SR) maintains that resource and capacity theo-
ryproves of extreme utility to SM with resources essential to the construction of com-
petitive advantage. This also advocates how in environments characterized by
uncertainty,the SM of resources proves fundamental to the survival of companies.
Cluster 5—‘‘Strategic Knowledge’’ (SK) argues that SM should foster the adaptation of
the company to new challenges within the fundamental objective of attaining competitive
advantage. This raises the concept of strategic knowledge as resulting from the capacity
displayed by SM in adapting to new challenges and new knowledge. With the application
of this new concept, companies prove able to foster the innovation that proves critical to
competitive advantage.
Cluster 6—‘‘Strategic Management Technology’’ (SMT) the authors in this cluster
defend how SM represents a fundamental factor in environments undergoing rapid evo-
lution in technological terms. Hence, SM needs to take into account the fast moving
volatility in such environments.
Hence, in simple terms, we may from the outset state that SM research aggregates these
six approaches. This correspondingly reflects how the more complex a particular field of
research turns out, the greater the number of approaches that emerge to tackle it and also
triggering the interest of researchers from different backgrounds and currents of thought.
Factorial analysis
The objective of factorial analysis includes identifying just which articles constitute each
one of the factors and discovering the influence of each input into the respective conceptual
approaches through factorial weighting. This analysis was carried out through recourse to
Varimax rotation following the example of earlier studies. The data applied in this analysis
resulted from that obtained based upon the co-citation matrix.
According to factorial analysis, we adjudged that an article deserves consideration as
part of a trend whenever its factorial weighting is equal to or greater than 0.4, with the
respective article deemed of great relevance to its corresponding paradigm whenever
returning a factorial weighting equal to or [0.7.
Table 4 sets out the results of this factorial analysis and featuring the references with the
greatest significance. Based upon the Scree Plot, we may conclude that six factors explain
123
Table 3 Groupings resulting out of cluster analysis

Strategic entrepreneurship (SE) Strategic management technology (SMT)
62 Alvarez and Busenitz (2001) 40 Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988)
10 Covin and Slevin (1989) 27 De Dreu and Weingart (2003)
68 Hitt and Tyler (1991) 26 Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988)
100 Ireland et al. (2003) 54 Eisenhardt and Zbaracki (1992)
52 Knight and Cavusgil (2004) 79 Fredrickson (1984)
65 Lumpkin and Dess (2001) 57 Fredrickson and Mitchell (1984)
14 Oviatt and Mcdougall (1994) 40 Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988)
58 Zahra and Covin (1995) 27 De Dreu and Weingart (2003)
19 Zahra et al. (2000) 26 Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988)
16 Amason (1996) 54 Eisenhardt and Zbaracki (1992)
96 Dickson (1992) 79 Fredrickson (1984)
6 Jehn (1995) 57 Fredrickson and Mitchell (1984)
32 Jehn (1997) Strategic behavior (SB)
34 Jehn and Mannix (2001) 18 Amit and Zott (2001)
8 Jehn et al. (1999) 51 Anderson (1999)
46 Simons and Peterson (2000) 47 Barney et al. (2001)
Strategic resources (SR) 61 Barry and Elmes (1997)
1 Barney (1991) 87 Baum et al. (2001)
29 Barney (2001a) 69 Bettis and Hitt (1995)
70 Barney (2001b) 75 Bettis and Prahalad (1995)
22 Barney and Hansen (1994) 49 Birkinshaw and Hood (1998)
72 Coff (1999) 48 Bowman and Hurry (1993)
3 Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) 71 Burgelman (1983)
21 Helfat and Peteraf (2003) 31 Busenitz and Barney (1997)
15 Mahoney and Pandian (1992) 78 Carpenter et al. (2004)
38 Makadok (2001) 35 Cronin and Taylor (1994)
37 Miller and Shamsie (1996) 90 Dean and Bowen (1994)
85 Newbert (2007) 9 Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995)
13 Teece (2007) 45 Finkelstein (1992)
2 Teece et al. (1997) 80 Forbes and Milliken (1999)
81 Zahra et al. (2006) 53 Garriga and Mele (2004)
Strategic decision (SD) 88 Gully et al. (2002)
16 Amason (1996) 82 Hagedoorn et al. (2000)
96 Dickson (1992) 63 Hayward and Hambrick (1997)
6 Jehn (1995) 30 Hedlund (1994)
32 Jehn (1997) 66 Hitt et al. (2001)
34 Jehn and Mannix (2001) 11 Hulland (1999)
8 Jehn et al. (1999) 24 Kaplan and Norton (1996)
46 Simons and Peterson (2000) 44 Ketchen and Shook (1996)
Strategic knowledge (SK) 55 Korsgaard et al. (1995)
97 Bharadwaj et al. (1999) 64 Lant et al. (1992)
83 Bharadwaj et al. (1993) 92 Mathieu et al. (2008)
76 Bierly and Chakrabarti (1996) 93 Miller et al. (1997)
50 Danneels (2002) 77 Mintzberg (1990)
123
Table 3 continued
5 Day (1994) 17 Powell (1992)

89 Day and Nedungadi (1994) 99 Powell (1995)
95 Dean and Sharfman (1996) 7 Ring and Vandeven (1992)
67 Galunic and Rodan (1998) 59 Roberts and Dowling (2002)
33 Hall (1992) 94 Rugman and Verbeke (2001)
98 Hoskisson et al. (1999) 84 Scherer and Palazzo (2007)
36 Lado and Wilson (1994) 73 Schweiger et al. (1986)
91 Lavie (2006) 74 Schwenk (1984)
4 Levinthal and March (1993) 60 Shah and Ward (2003)
23 Mata et al. (1995) 56 Smircich and Stubbart (1985)
28 Melville et al. (2004) 25 Tsoukas (1996)
42 Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) 12 Waddock and Graves (1997)
43 Wade and Hulland (2004) 20 Walsh (1995)
41 Wright et al. (2001) 39 Zaheer and Venkatraman (1995)
86 Zbaracki (1998)
46 % of the variance. A significant number of the references report a factorial weighting in

excess of 0.7 and thus corroborating the importance of these works within their respective
associated paradigms. We would also observe that some of the articles return a factorial
weighting of over 0.4 in more than one factor and hence identifiable as mediators between
paradigms and potential linkages between the different paradigms.
Following factorial analysis, we verify that we retain the same six groups resulting from
the cluster analysis process. We would highlight that in all of these groups, there is always one
author belonging to cluster 3 ‘‘Strategic Behavior’’, which leads us to state that whatever the
strategic decision taken, organizational behavior represents a factor inherent to strategy
across all of its different facets. We also verify that in the first group we have a conjugation of
clusters 4 and 5, ‘‘Strategic Resources’’ and ‘‘Strategic Knowledge’’ respectively, that we
may term resources and capacities as organizations only attain efficiency whenever appro-
priately deploying them. Furthermore, the second group retains the same authors grouped into
cluster 2 ‘‘Strategic Decision’’. The third group also resembles cluster 6, hence ‘‘Strategic
management technology’’ whilst groups four and five clearly divide cluster 1 and thereby
establishing a division between ‘‘Strategic Entrepreneurship’’ and ‘‘Corporate
Entrepreneurship’’. This would lead us to conclude following deeper analysis that cluster 1
contains corporate entrepreneurship as a field of research within the scope of strategic
entrepreneurship. Finally, group 6 incorporates a reference to cluster 5 and two references to
cluster 3 and for such reason we opted to classify this as ‘‘Strategic Behavior’’. In Fig. 2, we
detail the transformations proposed to Fig. 1 following the application of factorial analysis.
Research findings and discussion
There is a general consensus that the growth in the field of SM study has reflected a
tradition of theoretical pluralism (Bowman 1990) through the influence and learnings abut
concepts and theories from other scientific fields (economics, psychology, political science,
123
Table 4 Factor analysis (rotated factor loadings)
Authors Corresponding Component
cluster
Resources and Strategic Strategic management Strategic Corporate Strategic
capacities decision technology entrepreneurship entrepreneurship behavior
38 Makadok (2001) 4 0.963 0.131 0.313 0.154 0.341 0.301

1 Barney (1991) 4 0.963 0.262 0.319 0.203 0.319 0.159
85 Newbert (2007) 4 0.956 0.126 0.298 0.199 0.360 0.269
2 Teece et al. (1997) 4 0.954 0.213 0.332 0.175 0.390 0.397

29 Barney (2001a, b) 4 0.936 0.161 0.297 0.177 0.320 0.186
15 Mahoney and Pandian (1992) 4 0.931 0.155 0.307 0.172 0.281 0.204
3 Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) 4 0.928 0.184 0.322 0.159 0.398 0.446
21 Helfat and Peteraf (2003) 4 0.914 0.145 0.311 0.155 0.408 0.426
37 Miller and Shamsie (1996) 4 0.913 0.139 0.304 0.191 0.302 0.215
22 Barney and Hansen (1994) 4 0.911 0.118 0.284 0.145 0.300 0.204
70 Barney (2001b) 4 0.898 0.125 0.281 0.178 0.326 0.162
13 Teece (2007) 4 0.859 0.126 0.295 0.152 0.384 0.446
72 Coff (1999) 4 0.859 0.099 0.264 0.158 0.283 0.152
98 Hoskisson et al. (1999) 5 0.846 0.109 0.266 0.172 0.281 0.157
4
81 Zahra et al. (2006) 4 0.841 0.107 0.280 0.248 0.460 0.458
91 Lavie (2006) 5 0.807 0.110 0.266 0.120 0.321 0.179
5
36 Lado and Wilson (1994) 5 0.805 0.128 0.254 0.143 0.210 0.073
33 Hall (1992) 5 0.792 0.123 0.263 0.137 0.227 0.050
41 Wright et al. (2001) 5 0.790 0.113 0.239 0.155 0.255 0.105
67 Galunic and Rodan (1998) 5 0.788 0.111 0.288 0.081 0.312 0.434
50 Danneels (2002) 5 0.773 0.106 0.280 0.121 0.328 0.566
43 Wade and Hulland (2004) 5 0.769 0.083 0.203 0.007 0.159 0.087
13
123
Table 4 continued
14

cluster
123
23 Mata et al. (1995) 5 0.769 0.097 0.215 0.005 0.137 0.118

89 Day and Nedungadi (1994) 5 0.739 0.122 0.306 0.101 0.189 0.368
83 Bharadwaj et al. (1993) 5 0.717 0.088 0.256 0.074 0.144 0.204
62 Alvarez and Busenitz (2001) 1 0.689 0.086 0.237 0.451 0.346 0.116
76 Bierly and Chakrabarti (1996) 5 0.662 0.095 0.244 0.052 0.234 0.379
42 Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) 5 0.615 0.118 0.200 0.119 0.246 0.309
28 Melville et al. (2004) 5 0.610 0.045 0.138 0.065 0.077 0.195
75 Bettis and Prahalad (1995) 3 0.564 0.074 0.194 0.221 0.169 0.157
95 Dean and Sharfman (1996) 5 0.552 0.052 0.224 0.025 0.051 0.329
48 Bowman and Hurry (1993) 3 0.547 0.062 0.204 0.059 0.099 0.171
97 Bharadwaj et al. (1999) 5 0.487 0.013 0.108 0.095 0.030 0.198
59 Roberts and Dowling (2002) 3 0.461 0.041 0.122 0.005 0.088 0.119
17 Powell (1997) 3 0.418 0.057 0.100 0.042 0.018 0.015
6 Jehn (1995) 2 0.119 0.989 0.052 0.035 0.030 0.077
34 Jehn and Mannix (2001) 2 0.107 0.982 0.031 0.031 0.027 0.074
46 Simons and Peterson (2000) 2 0.098 0.980 0.015 0.026 0.021 0.068
96 Dickson (1992) 2 0.089 0.979 0.006 0.017 0.02 0.064
8 Jehn et al. (1999) 2 0.098 0.977 0.013 0.022 0.019 0.067
16 Amason (1996) 2 0.141 0.976 0.179 0.049 0.033 0.103
32 Jehn (1997) 2 0.117 0.932 0.006 0.027 0.031 0.080
73 Schweiger et al. (1986) 3 0.129 0.686 0.381 0.060 0.014 0.123
57 Fredrickson and Mitchell (1984) 6 0.230 0.049 0.890 0.116 0.086 0.127
79 Fredrickson (1984) 6 0.231 0.064 0.883 0.105 0.079 0.113
27 De Dreu and Weingart (2003) 6 0.274 0.045 0.880 0.103 0.090 0.102
Table 4 continued

cluster
54 Eisenhardt and Zbaracki (1992) 6 0.269 0.128 0.804 0.103 0.084 0.085
40 Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) 6 0.141 0.061 0.779 0.099 0.103 0.030
26 Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988) 6 0.270 0.347 0.692 0.145 0.109 0.111
66 Hitt et al. (2001) 3 0.177 0.097 0.553 0.118 0.096 0.014

19 Zahra et al. (2000) 1 0.075 0.020 0.094 0.891 0.107 0.056
10 Zahra et al. (2000) 1 0.101 0.057 0.132 0.869 0.189 0.062
65 Lumpkin and Dess (2001) 1 0.124 0.068 0.113 0.868 0.185 0.081
100 Ireland et al. (2003) 1 0.406 0.029 0.148 0.772 0.214 0.109
68 Hitt and Tyler (1991) 1 0.438 0.034 0.150 0.666 0.242 0.117
71 Burgelman (1983) 3 0.041 0.018 0.101 0.457 0.036 0.056
52 Knight and Cavusgil (2004) 1 0.323 0.027 0.111 0.232 0.921 0.108
14 Oviatt and Mcdougall (1994) 1 0.180 0.018 0.077 0.206 0.912 0.059
58 Zahra and Covin (1995) 1 0.325 0.059 0.152 0.249 0.907 0.167
4 Levinthal and March (1993) 5 0.567 0.134 0.294 0.089 0.232 0.646
69 Bettis and Hitt (1995) 3 0.334 0.002 0.19 0.037 0.125 0.466
20 Walsh (1995) 3 0.050 0.105 0.031 0.076 0.068 0.413
15
123
sociology and among others) and evolved in its concepts and approaches in accordance
with changes in management styles and practices. Strategic field researchers provide a
broad variety of alternative strategic models (Gluck et al. 1980; Chaffee 1985; Bowman
1990; Porter 1996; McKinsey 2000). However, the sustained and ongoing discussion
between strategic academics has enabled progression in the empirical, the theoretical and
the methodological facets to SM (Thomas and Pruett 1993). Each one of the different
approaches to strategy has influenced the development of the alternative research trends in
this field.
The objectives of this study included mapping out the scientific publications, the
intellectual structure and the research trends interrelated with SM field. We attempted to
accomplish this objective by performing a co-citation analysis. One study objective
involved deploying individual authors as the unit of analysis to verify their respective
contributions towards advancing the research agenda in a specific field of study, whether
through a series of articles and books or through a single research work. As Nerur et al.
(2008) highlight, one limitation to this type of approach stems from how authors may make
contributions to diverse areas and thus making it difficult to define the actual specific
influence. Nevertheless, the study of the most important references to the field of SM does
provide a means of exploring and understanding the origins of the scientific content
accepted and applied by diverse specialists in the respective field of knowledge.
Hence, in the attempt to obtain homogenous groups of articles, our study returns six
approaches within the field of SM. This finding demonstrates the vast and complex nature
of the field of study. Encountering different approaches based around a shared body of
knowledge signals the need for the application of SM to diverse contexts and, in turn,
resulting in researchers and scholars considering different approaches to explaining and
studying a determined specific facet of this research field. In the factorial analysis results,
we find that all six factors identified also contained one or more researchers from cluster 3
‘‘Strategic Behavior’’. This evidence enables us to deduce that the organizational behavior
associated with strategy represents an extremely relevant facet to any approach taking
place within the framework of SM. We furthermore verify that whenever analyzing the
homogenous groups in greater detail, there may emerge a division into a more specific
determined group specializing to a greater extent on a particular theme as is the case with
cluster 1.
In terms of conjecture about the future of SM research, we need to reflect on its origins
and study the changes observed alongside the evolution of this research field. A series of
factors has influenced this development with some endogenous and others exogenous to the
academic community (Bowman et al. 2002; Rumelt 1974). In this study, we not only
discuss two endogenous factors but also analyze the contributions made by the lead authors
and identify their most influential articles. This process led from identifying the most
important contributors to the SM field to gauging the impact of their work. Furthermore,
exogenous factors may also have influenced the development in the field of SM. According
to Bowman et al. (2002), there has been evolution in parallel between strategic thinking
and the way in which the challenges posed by the surrounding environment have changed
over the course of time.
The findings of this paper have important implications for strategic management
researchers wanting to focus on the most relevant areas of this area of study. Based on our
analysis it is suggested that strategic behavior is important in all segments of strategic
management research, which demonstrates how strategy and action are interrelated con-
cepts. Whilst current research focuses on strategic management as a distinct discipline it
might be helpful for researchers to emphasis behavioral intentions. This means placing
123
more emphasis on how behavior whether at individual, firm or institutional level has an
important role in influencing strategy decisions. The disciplines of organizational behavior
and strategic management are often thought of as separate subject areas so to combine both
topics to bridge the gap between these areas of research is important. Some United States
business schools are doing this by changing their capstone final year subject of their
undergraduate degrees from Strategic Management to Strategic Entrepreneurship in order
to take into account a more dynamic and evolutionary perspective. Placing more emphasis
on strategic behavior will also enable scholars of strategic management to discuss how the
actions of companies are driven by the people around them. This means that individuals do
have a responsibility as managers of companies both from a profit and non-profit per-
spective to behave in a respectful manner. Given the increasing role of social responsibility
and sustainability in the business world the findings of our co-citation and factor analysis
supports this view.
It was interesting to find a clear distinction between strategic entrepreneurship and
corporate entrepreneurship. With the recent addition of journals focusing more on
entrepreneurship to the strategic management field this supports the view that strategy and
corporate entrepreneurship are indeed seen by researchers as distinct concepts. The growth
of strategic entrepreneurship research has also increased significantly as more researchers
realize that strategy in combination with entrepreneurship are both equally important in
developing globally relevant businesses.
Our analysis found that strategic resources and strategic knowledge are related, which
means that the appropriate resources are needed to influence knowledge acquisition and
dissemination. As knowledge management is related to strategic knowledge it is appro-
priate to emphasise that some strategic resources may include tacit knowledge that is often
hard for companies to evaluate given the amount of money spent on research and devel-
opment. It was interesting that our analysis found more of a relationship between strategic
resources and strategic knowledge rather than strategic management technology. This may
suggest that as technology is considered by researchers as a separate area of enquiry,
knowledge and resources need to be researched in conjunction with each other.
The results of the factor analysis also show the changing nature of the field. Table 4
stated the corresponding authors and their rotated factor loading of each of the strategic
management components. The high number of authors with a high factor loading on the
resources and capacities component seems to suggest that more researchers utilize
resources and capacities as their theoretical framework in their studies. Or alternatively it
may suggest that resources and capacities are emphasized more by the most cited
researchers in the strategic management field.
The citation analysis found that Barney (1991) has the highest number of citations,
which was expected given the emphasis in strategic management research on the work of
Jay Barney. This also supports Barney’s (2001a, b) research, which focused on the
resource-based view of the firm. The second and third most highly cited papers focused on
dynamic capabilities instead of resources. This suggests that researchers see the resource-
based view of the firm and dynamic capabilities as separate theoretical frameworks in
which to base their research. The fifth most cited paper by Day (1994) also focused on
capabilities but limited it to market driven organizations. This may suggest that some
researchers see the link between capabilities and market perspectives as separate areas of
inquiry. The fourth most cited paper by Levinthal and March (1993) unlike the other most
cited papers did not focus on capabilities or resources but instead on learning. Whilst the
March and Simon (1958) paper was published in Strategic Management Journal the topic
of learning was quite different to the other most cited papers. This focus on learning also
123
links to the factor analysis conducted that highlighted knowledge management and
strategic resources as being related.
Conclusion and future research suggestions
In considering the influences of the surrounding environment, we may forecast that any
long period of stability in which companies may grow their sustainable competitive
advantages proves highly unlikely and instead pointing to a context of hyper-competi-
tiveness (D’Aveni 1994) ensuring only short periods of competitive advantage driving the
to a greater or lesser extent continuous rethinking of strategy. These conditions require new
approaches capable of capturing new dynamics in the field of SM. In this research, we
identified an evolution that points towards an ongoing integration of the corporative and
competitive dimensions to strategy and that should hence transcend the notion of strategic
hierarchies.
Therefore, future research questions should focus on the integration of the diverse
corporative and competitive strategic approaches alongside studying the implications for
attaining particular levels of performance and competitive company positioning. Barney
(2001a, b) proposes that the application of the firm resource based theory generates new
opportunities within the strategic domain as this approach unfurls the origins and the
development of socially complex competitive resources, such as trust and change along
with choice, ability and creativity. Therefore, we may observe a shrinking in the dichotomy
between the economic (at the corporative level) and the behavioral (at the competitive
level) sciences with strategy correspondingly approximating thinking in economic terms
whilst enriched by the identification of behavioral related issues.
Over these four decades of publications in benchmark SM journals, we find that the
theory of resources and capacities reduced SM to its mere components. We are therefore
able to identify a more balanced vision which extends to the integration of different strands
of academic thought and their respective influences on SM. It is our conviction that we
shall in all likelihood witness a strengthening of this trend towards integration over the
course of forthcoming years.
This paper has provided a systematic and updated review of the strategic management
research published over a 43 year period. This means that the paper is helpful in dis-
covering the advancement of strategic management research. This provides insights into
how the field might change in the future. Previous reviews on strategic management only
concentrated on a short time period whilst our paper has covered a long time frame that
helps to analyse authorship characteristics and main themes of research. This paper helps to
fill the gap in the strategic management field by analyzing research over a long time frame.
Our findings demonstrate that the leading strategic management journals have been
instrumental in disseminating knowledge in the field.
The most cited papers have introduced new theories and ideas, which have changed the
direction of strategic management research. An important conclusion is that the devel-
opment of new theories from the resource-based view to dynamic capabilities has played
an important role in the development of strategic management as a business discipline.
Conceptual theory building papers are amongst the most cited papers in strategic man-
agement research and have added more value to this important area of research.
123
Appendix
See Table 5.
Table 5 Documents usedin results

No. Author Year Name Journal Volume Citations
1 Barney, J 1991 Firm resources and sustained Journal of 17 7569

competitive advantage Management
2 Teece, DJ; 1997 Dynamic capabilities and Strategic 18 4414
Pisano, G; strategic management Management
Shuen, A Journal
3 Eisenhardt, KM; 2000 Dynamic capabilities: What are Strategic 21 2099
Martin, JA they? Management
Journal
4 Levinthal, DA; 1993 The myopia of learning Strategic 14 1473
March, JG Management
Journal
5 Day, GS 1994 The capabilities of market-driven Journal Of 58 1310
organizations Marketing
6 Jehn, KA 1995 A multimethod examination of Administrative 40 844
the benefits and detriments of Science
intragroup conflict Quarterly
7 Ring, PS; 1992 Structuring cooperative Strategic 13 803
Vandeven, AH relationships between Management
organizations Journal
8 Jehn, KA; 1999 Why differences make a Administrative 44 747
Northcraft, difference: A field study of Science
GB; Neale, diversity, conflict, and Quarterly
MA performance in workgroups
9 Eisenhardt, KM; 1995 Accelerating adaptive Administrative 40 743
Tabrizi, BN processes—product innovation Science
in the global computer industry Quarterly
10 Covin, JG; 1989 strategic management of small Strategic 10 700
Slevin, DP firms in hostile and benign Management
environments Journal
11 Hulland, J 1999 Use of partial least squares (PLS) Strategic 20 694
in strategic management Management
research: A review of four Journal
recent studies
12 Waddock, SA; 1997 The corporate social Strategic 18 681
Graves, SB performance—Financial Management
performance link Journal
13 Teece, DJ 2007 Explicating dynamic capabilities: Strategic 28 668
The nature and Management
microfoundations of Journal
(sustainable) enterprise
performance
14 Oviatt, BM; 1994 Toward a theory of international Journal of 25 661
Mcdougall, PP new ventures International
Business
Studies
123
Table 5 continued
15 Mahoney, JT; 1992 The resource-based view within Strategic 13 648

Pandian, JR the conversation of strategic Management
management Journal
16 Amason, AC 1996 Distinguishing the effects of Academy Of 39 607
functional and dysfunctional Management
conflict on strategic decision Journal
making: Resolving a paradox
for top management teams
17 Powell, TC 1995 Total quality management as Strategic 16 585
competitive advantage—a Management
review and empirical-study Journal
18 Amit, R; Zott, C 2001 Value creation in e-business Strategic 22 580
Management
Journal
19 Zahra, SA; 2000 International expansion by new Academy Of 43 573
Ireland, RD; venture firms: International Management
Hitt, MA diversity, mode of market Journal
entry, technological learning,
and performance
20 Walsh, JP 1995 managerial and organizational Organization 6 546
cognition—notes from a trip Science
down memory lane
21 Helfat, CE; 2003 The dynamic resource-based Strategic 24 544
Peteraf, MA view: Capability lifecycles Management
Journal
22 Barney, JB; 1994 Trustworthiness as a source of Strategic 15 526
Hansen, MH competitive advantage Management
Journal
23 Mata, FJ; Fuerst, 1995 Information technology and Mis Quarterly 19 517
WL; Barney, sustained competitive
JB advantage: A resource-based
analysis
24 Kaplan, RS; 1996 Using the balanced scorecard as a Harvard 74 509
Norton, DP strategic management system Business
Review
25 Tsoukas, H 1996 The firm as a distributed Strategic 17 505
knowledge system: A Management
constructionist approach Journal
26 Eisenhardt, KM; 1988 Politics of strategic decision- Academy of 31 491
Bourgeois, LJ making in high-velocity Management
environments—toward a Journal
midrange theory
27 De Dreu, CKW; 2003 Task versus relationship conflict, Journal of 88 482
Weingart, LR team performance, and team Applied
member satisfaction: A meta- Psychology
analysis
28 Melville, N; 2004 Review: Information technology Mis Quarterly 28 465
Kraemer, K; and organizational
Gurbaxani, V performance: An integrative
model of IT business value
123
Table 5 continued
29 Barney, JB 2001 Is the resource-based ‘‘view’’ a Academy Of 26 464

useful perspective for strategic Management
management research? Yes Review
30 Hedlund, G 1994 A model of knowledge Strategic 15 450
management and the n-form Management
corporation Journal
31 Busenitz, LW; 1997 Differences between Journal of 12 449
Barney, JB entrepreneurs and managers in Business
large organizations: Biases and Venturing
heuristics in strategic decision-
making
32 Jehn, KA 1997 Qualitative analysis of conflict Administrative 42 441
types and dimensions in Science
organizational groups Quarterly
33 Hall, R 1992 The strategic analysis of Strategic 13 440
intangible resources Management
Journal
34 Jehn, KA; 2001 The dynamic nature of conflict: A Academy Of 44 436
Mannix, EA longitudinal study of intragroup Management
conflict and group performance Journal
35 Cronin, JJ; 1994 Servperf versus servqual— Journal of 58 433
Taylor, SA reconciling performance-based Marketing
and perceptions-minus-
expectations measurement of
service quality
36 Lado, AA; 1994 Human-resource systems and Academy of 19 429
Wilson, MC sustained competitive Management
advantage—a competence- Review
based perspective
37 Miller, D; 1996 The resource-based view of the Academy of 39 423
Shamsie, J firm in two environments: The Management
Hollywood film studios from Journal
1936 to 1965
38 Makadok, R 2001 Toward a synthesis of the Strategic 22 403
resource-based and dynamic- Management
capability views of rent Journal
creation
39 Zaheer, A; 1995 Relational governance as an Strategic 16 399
Venkatraman, interorganizational strategy— Management
N an empirical-test of the role of Journal
trust in economic exchange
40 Bourgeois, LJ; 1988 Strategic decision-processes in Management 34 395
Eisenhardt, high-velocity environments—4 Science
KM cases in the microcomputer
industry
41 Wright, PM; 2001 Human resources and the Journal of 27 378
Dunford, BB; resource based view of the firm Management
Snell, SA
42 Subramaniam, 2005 The influence of intellectual Academy of 48 370
M; Youndt, capital on the types of Management
MA innovative capabilities Journal
123
Table 5 continued
43 Wade, M; 2004 Review: The resource-based Mis Quarterly 28 360

Hulland, J view and information systems
research: Review, extension,
and suggestions for future
research
44 Ketchen, DJ; 1996 The application of cluster Strategic 17 356
Shook, CL analysis in strategic Management
management research: An Journal
analysis and critique
45 Finkelstein, S 1992 Power in top management Academy Of 35 345
teams—dimensions, Management
measurement, and validation Journal
46 Simons, TL; 2000 Task conflict and relationship Journal of 85 344
Peterson, RS conflict in top management Applied
teams: The pivotal role of Psychology
intragroup trust
47 Barney, J; 2001 The resource-based view of the Journal of 27 341
Wright, M; firm: Ten years after 1991 Management
Ketchen, DJ
48 Boeman, EH.; 1993 Strategy through the option Academy Of 18 339
Hurry, D lens—an integrated view of Management
resource investments and the Review
incremental-choice process
49 Birkinshaw, J; 1998 Multinational subsidiary Academy Of 23 337
Hood, N evolution: Capability and Management
charter change in foreign- Review
owned subsidiary companies
50 Danneels, E 2002 The dynamics of product Strategic 23 332
innovation and firm Management
competences Journal
51 Anderson, P 1999 Complexity theory and organization 10 328
organization science science
52 Knight, GA; 2004 Innovation, organizational Journal of 35 313
Cavusgil, ST capabilities, and the born- International
global firm Business
Studies
53 Garriga, E; 2004 Corporate Social Responsibility Journal of 53 310
Mele, DN theories: Mapping the territory Business
Ethics
54 Eisenhardt, KM; 1992 Strategic decision-making Strategic 13 305
Zbaracki, MJ Management
Journal
55 Korsgaard, MA; 1995 Building commitment, Academy of 38 296
Schweiger, attachment, and trust in Management
DM; Sapienza, strategic decision-making Journal
HJ teams—the role of procedural
justice
56 Smircich, L; 1985 Strategic management in an Academy of 10 294
Stubbart, C enacted world Management
Review
123
Table 5 continued
57 Fredrickson, 1984 Strategic decision-processes— Academy of 27 289

JW; Mitchell, comprehensiveness and Management
TR performance in an industry Journal
with an unstable environment
58 Zahra, SA; 1995 Contextual influences on the Journal of 10 289
Covin, JG corporate entrepreneurship Business
performance relationship—a Venturing
longitudinal analysis
59 Roberts, PW; 2002 Corporate reputation and Strategic 23 284
Dowling, GR sustained superior financial Management
performance Journal
60 Shah, R; Ward, 2003 Lean manufacturing: context, Journal of 21 283
PT practice bundles, and Operations
performance Management
61 Barry, D; Elmes, 1997 Strategy retold: Toward a Academy of 22 282
M narrative view of strategic Management
discourse Review
62 Alvarez, SA; 2001 The entrepreneurship of journal of 27 281
Busenitz, LW resource-based theory management
63 Hayward, MLA; 1997 Explaining the premiums paid for Administrative 42 276
Hambrick, DC large acquisitions: Evidence of Science
CEO hubris Quarterly
64 Lant, TK; 1992 The role of managerial learning Strategic 13 275
Milliken, FJ; and interpretation in strategic Management
Batra, B persistence and reorientation— Journal
an empirical exploration
65 Lumpkin, GT; 2001 Linking two dimensions of Journal of 16 274
Dess, GG entrepreneurial orientation to Business
firm performance: The Venturing
moderating role of environment
and industry life cycle
66 Hitt, MA; 2001 Guest editors’ introduction to the Strategic 22 268
Ireland, RD; special issue—Strategic Management
Camp, SM; entrepreneurship: Journal
Sexton, DL Entrepreneurial strategies for
wealth creation
67 Galunic, DC; 1998 Resource recombinations in the Strategic 19 267
Rodan, S firm: Knowledge structures and Management
the potential for Schumpeterian Journal
innovation
68 Hitt, MA; Tyler, 1991 Strategic decision-models— Strategic 12 267
BB integrating different Management
perspectives Journal
69 Bettis, RA; Hitt, 1995 The new competitive landscape Strategic 16 266
MA Management
Journal
70 Barney, JB 2001 Resource-based theories of Journal of 27 265
competitive advantage: A ten- Management
year retrospective on the
resource-based view
123
Table 5 continued
71 Burgelman, RA 1983 Corporate entrepreneurship and Management 29 255

strategic management— Science
insights from a process study
72 Coff, RW 1999 When competitive advantage Organization 10 252
doesn’t lead to performance: Science
The resource-based view and
stakeholder bargaining power
73 Schweiger, DM; 1986 Group approaches for improving Academy of 29 251
Sandberg, strategic decision-making—a Management
WR; Ragan, comparative-analysis of Journal
JW dialectical inquiry, devils
advocacy, and consensus
74 Schwenk, CR 1984 Cognitive simplification Strategic 5 251
processes in strategic decision- Management
making Journal
75 Bettis, RA; 1995 The dominant logic— Strategic 16 249
Prahalad, CK retrospective and extension Management
Journal
76 Bierly, P; 1996 Generic knowledge strategies in Strategic 17 248
Chakrabarti, A the US pharmaceutical industry Management
Journal
77 Mintzberg, H 1990 The design school— Strategic 11 246
reconsidering the basic Management
premises of strategic Journal
management
78 Carpenter, MA; 2004 Upper echelons research Journal of 30 244
Geletkanycz, revisited: Antecedents, Management
MA; Sanders, elements, and consequences of
WG top management team
composition
79 Fredrickson, JW 1984 The comprehensiveness of Academy of 27 244
strategic decision-processes— Management
extension, observations, future- Journal
directions
80 Forbes, DP; 1999 Cognition and corporate Academy of 24 243
Milliken, FJ governance: Understanding Management
boards of directors as strategic Review
decision-making groups
81 Zahra, SA; 2006 Entrepreneurship and dynamic Journal of 43 243
Sapienza, HJ; capabilities: A review, model Management
Davidsson, P and research agenda Studies
82 Hagedoorn, J; 2000 Research partnerships Research 29 241
Link, AN; Policy
Vonortas, NS
83 Bharadwaj, SG; 1993 Sustainable competitive Journal of 57 238
Varadarajan, advantage in-service Marketing
PR; Fahy, J industries—a conceptual-model
and research propositions
123
Table 5 continued
84 Scherer, AG; 2007 Toward a political conception of Academy of 32 238

Palazzo, G corporate responsibility: Management
Business and society seen from Review
a Habermasian perspective
85 Newbert, SL 2007 Empirical research on the Strategic 28 236
resource-based view of the Management
firm: An assessment and Journal
suggestions for future research
86 Zbaracki, MJ 1998 The rhetoric and reality of total Administrative 43 234
quality management Science
Quarterly
87 Baum, JR; 2001 A multidimensional model of Academy of 44 224
Locke, EA; venture growth Management
Smith, KG Journal
88 Gully, SM; 2002 A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, Journal of 87 223
Incalcaterra, potency, and performance: Applied
KA; Joshi, A; Interdependence and level of Psychology
Beaubien, JM analysis as moderators of
observed relationships
89 Day, Gs; 1994 Managerial representations of Journal of 58 222
Nedungadi, P competitive advantage Marketing
90 Dean, Jw; 1994 Management theory and total Academy of 19 221
Bowen, De quality—improving research Management
and practice through theory Review
development
91 Lavie, D 2006 The competitive advantage of Academy of 31 221
interconnected firms: An Management
extension of the resource-based Review
view
92 Mathieu, J; 2008 Team effectiveness 1997–2007: Journal of 34 220
Maynard, MT; A review of recent Management
Rapp, T; advancements and a glimpse
Gilson, L into the future
93 Miller, CC; 1997 Retrospective reports in Academy of 40 218
Cardinal, LB; organizational research: A Management
Glick, WH reexamination of recent Journal
evidence
94 Rugman, AM; 2001 Subsidiary-specific advantages in Strategic 22 217
Verbeke, A multinational enterprises Management
Journal
95 Dean, JW; 1996 Does decision process matter? A Academy of 39 216
Sharfman, MP study of strategic Management
decisionmaking effectiveness Journal
96 Dickson, PR 1992 Toward a general-theory of Journal of 56 216
competitive rationality Marketing
97 Bharadwaj, AS; 1999 Information technology effects Management 45 214
Bharadwaj, on firm performance as Science
SG; measured by Tobin’s q
Konsynski,
BR
123
Table 5 continued
98 Hoskisson, RE; 1999 Theory and research in strategic Journal of 25 214

Hitt, MA; management: Swings of a Management
Wan, WP; pendulum
Yiu, D
99 Powell, TC 1992 Organizational alignment as Strategic 13 212
competitive advantage Management
Journal
100 Ireland, RD; 2003 A model of strategic Journal of 29 210
Hitt, MA; entrepreneurship: The construct Management
Sirmon, DG and its dimensions
References
Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of
Management, 27(6), 755–775. doi:10.1177/014920630102700609.
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic
decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal,
39(1), 123–148. doi:10.2307/256633.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520.
doi:10.1002/smj.187.
Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.
doi:10.1287/orsc.10.3.216.
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bain, J. S. (1956). Barriers to new competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Bain, J. S. (1964). Industrial Organization. New York: Wiley.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Barney, J. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science,
32(10), 1231–1241.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),
99–120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108.
Barney, J. (2001a). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes.
Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56. doi:10.2307/259393.
Barney, J. (2001b). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the
resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650. doi:10.1177/014920630102700602.
Barney, J., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic
Management Journal, 15(SI), 175–190. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150912.
Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991.
Journal of Management, 27(6), 625–641. doi:10.1177/014920630102700601.
Barry, D., & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of
Management Review, 22(2), 429–452. doi:10.2307/259329.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(2), 292–303. doi:10.2307/3069456.
Bettis, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16(SI),
7–19. doi:10.1002/smj.4250160915.
Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic—Retrospective and extension. Strategic
Management Journal, 16(1), 5–14. doi:10.1002/smj.4250160104.
Bharadwaj, A. S., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Konsynski, B. R. (1999). Information technology effects on firm
performance as measured by Tobin’s q. Management Science, 45(7), 1008–1024. doi:10.1287/mnsc.
45.7.1008.
Bharadwaj, S. G., Varadarajan, P. R., & Fahy, J. (1993). Sustainable competitive advantage in-service
industries—A conceptual-model and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 83–99.
doi:10.2307/1252221.
123
Bierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical industry.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(SI), 123–135.
Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. (1998). Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in
foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 773–795. doi:10.2307/
259062.
Bourgeois, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Strategic decision-processes in high-velocity environments—4
cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34(7), 816–835. doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.7.
816.
Bowman, E. H. (1990). Strategy changes: Possible worlds and actual minds. In J. W. Frederickson (Ed.),
Perspectives on strategic management (pp. 9–37). New York: Harper and Row.
Bowman, E. H., & Hurry, D. (1993). Strategy through the option lens—An integrated view of resource
investments and the incremental-choice process. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 760–782.
doi:10.2307/258597.
Bowman, E. H., Singh, H., & Thomas, H. (2002). The domain of strategic management: History and
evolution. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of Strategy and Man-
agement. London: Sage.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management—Insights from a process
study. Management Science, 29(12), 1349–1364. doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1349.
Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.
Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large orga-
nizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1),
9–30. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(96)00003-1.
Camerer, C. (1985). Redirecting Research in Business Policy and Strategy. Strategic Management Journal,
6(1), 1–15.
Camerer, C. (1991). Does strategy research need game theory? Strategic Management Journal, 12(winter),
137–152.
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited:
Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Man-
agement, 30(6), 749–778. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.001.
Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three models of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10, 89–98.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and strcuture: Chapters in the history of the Industrial Enterprise.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Coff, R. W. (1999). When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: The resource-based view and
stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10(2), 119–133. doi:10.1287/orsc.10.2.119.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environ-
ments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100107.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). Servperf versus servqual—Reconciling performance-based and per-
ceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125–131.
doi:10.2307/1252256.
Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management
Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121. doi:10.1002/smj.275.
Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.
doi:10.2307/1251915.
Day, G. S., & Nedungadi, P. (1994). Managerial representations of competitive advantage. Journal of
Marketing, 58(2), 31–44. doi:10.2307/1252267.
D’Aveni, R. (1994). Hypercompetition. New York: Free Press.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team
member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.88.4.741.
Dean, J. W., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality—Improving research and
practice through theory development. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 392–418.
Dean, J. W., & Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision making
effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 368–396. doi:10.2307/256784.
Di Guardo, M. C., & Harrigan, K. R. (2012). Mapping research on strategic alliances and innovation: a co-
citation analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 789–811.
Dickson, P. R. (1992). Toward a general-theory of competitive rationality. Journal of Marketing, 56(1),
69–83. doi:10.2307/1252133.
Dixit, A. K., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1991). Thinking strategically: The Competitive edge in business, politics,
and everyday life. New York and London: Norton.
123
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision-making in high-velocity envi-
ronments—Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737–770. doi:10.
2307/256337.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management
Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes—Product innovation in the
global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 84–110. doi:10.2307/2393701.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal,
13(SI), 17–37. doi:10.1002/smj.4250130904.
Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88, 288–307.
Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams—Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 505–538. doi:10.2307/256485.
Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of
directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489–505.
doi:10.2307/259138.
Fredrickson, J. W. (1984). The comprehensiveness of strategic decision-processes—Extension, observa-
tions, future-directions. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 445–466. doi:10.2307/256039.
Fredrickson, J. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1984). Strategic decision-processes—Comprehensiveness and per-
formance in an industry with an unstable environment. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2),
399–423. doi:10.2307/255932.
Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the strategic management
field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 10(1), 1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00217.x.
Galunic, D. C., & Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the
potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12), 1193–1201.
Garriga, E., & Mele, D. N. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal
of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71. doi:10.1023/b:busi.0000039399.90587.34.
Ghemawat, P. (1999). Strategy and the business lanscape. Reading MA: Addison Wesley.
Gluck, F. W., Kaufman, S. P., & Walleck, A. S. (1980). Strategic management for competitive advantage.
Harvard Business Review, 58(4), 154–160.
Gomes, E., Barnes, B. R., & Mahmood, T. (2015). A 22 year review of strategic alliance research in the
leading management journals. International business review, 25(1), 15–27.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: the Problem of Embeddedness. American
Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17,
109–122.
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy,
potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed rela-
tionships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.5.819.
Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29(4–5),
567–586. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00090-6.
Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2),
135–144. doi:10.1002/smj.4250130205.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions:
Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 103–127. doi:10.2307/2393810.
Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 15(S2), 73–90. doi:10.1002/smj.4250151006.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Guest editors’ introduction to the special
issue—Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 22(6–7), 479–491. doi:10.1002/smj.196.
Hitt, M. A., & Tyler, B. B. (1991). Strategic decision-models—Integrating different perspectives. Strategic
Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management:
Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25(3), 417–456. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)00008-2.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four
recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.
123
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct
and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963–989. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00086-2.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. doi:10.2307/2393638.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). Qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557. doi:10.2307/2393737.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup
conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251. doi:10.2307/
3069453.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of
diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.
doi:10.2307/2667054.
Jemison, D. B. (1981). The importance of an integrative approach to strategic management. Academy of
Management Review, 6(4), 601–608.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and own-
ership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system.
Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75–90.
Ketchen, D. J., & Shook, C. L. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research:
An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17(6), 441–458.
Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm.
Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124–141. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400071.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust
in strategic decision-making teams—The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal,
38(1), 60–84. doi:10.2307/256728.
Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human-resource systems and sustained competitive advantage—A
competence-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 699–727. doi:10.2307/
258742.
Lant, T. K., Milliken, F. J., & Batra, B. (1992). The role of managerial learning and interpretation in
strategic persistence and reorientation—An empirical exploration. Strategic Management Journal,
13(8), 585–608. doi:10.1002/smj.4250130803.
Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based
view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638–658.
Learned, E. P., Christensen, C. R., Andrews, K. E., & Guth, W. D. (1965). Business policy: Text and cases.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(SI),
95–112. doi:10.1002/smj.4250141009.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm
performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Ven-
turing, 16(5), 429–451. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(00)00048-3.
Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363–380. doi:10.1002/smj.4250130505.
Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent
creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387–401. doi:10.1002/smj.158.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Mason, E. C. (1939). Price and production policies of large-scale enterprise. American Economic Review,
29, 61–74.
Mason, E. C. (1949). The current status of the monopoly problem in the United States. Harvard Law Review,
62, 1265–1285.
Mata, F. J., Fuerst, W. L., & Barney, J. B. (1995). Information technology and sustained competitive
advantage: A resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 487–505. doi:10.2307/249630.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of
recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476. doi:10.
1177/0149206308316061.
McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the
American Societey for Information Science, 41(6), 351–359.
McKinsey Quarterly Anthologies. (2000). On Strategy, Business Journal of McKinsey & Company. June.
Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Review: Information technology and organizational
performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 283–322.
123
Miller, C. C., Cardinal, L. B., & Glick, W. H. (1997). Retrospective reports in organizational research: A
reexamination of recent evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 189–204. doi:10.2307/
257026.
Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood
film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 519–543. doi:10.2307/
256654.
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934–948.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school—Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 171–195. doi:10.1002/smj.4250110302.
Nag, R., Hambrick, D., & Chen, M.-J. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of
a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 935–955. doi:10.1002/smj.615.
Nerur, S. P., Rasheed, A. A., & Natarajan, V. (2008). The intellectual structure of the strategic management
field: An author co-citation analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 319–336.
Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and
suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121–146. doi:10.1002/smj.573.
Oviatt, B. M., & Mcdougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of
International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490193.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1987). Researching Strategic Change. In A. M. Pettigrew (Ed.), The management of
strategic change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The
case of Scottish Knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 397–416.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M. (1981). The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy of
Management Review, 6(4), 609–620.
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M. (1996). What is strategy. Harverd Business Review (November–December), 74(6), 61–78.
Powell, T. C. (1992). Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal,
13(2), 119–134. doi:10.1002/smj.4250130204.
Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage—A review and empirical-study.
Powell, T. C., & Dent-Micallef, A. (1997). Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of
human, business, and technology resources. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 375–405.
Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Ramos-Rodriguez, A., & Ruı́z-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic man-
agement research: A bibliometric study of the ‘‘Strategic Mangement Journal’’, 1980–2000. Strategic
Management Journal, 25, 981–1004.
Reuters, T. (2008). Using bibliometrics: A guide to evaluating research performance with citation data
(Retrieved). Retrieved from http://ipscience.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/325133_thomson.pdf.
Ring, P. S., & Vandeven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations.
Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial perfor-
mance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077–1093. doi:10.1002/smj.274.
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises.
Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Boston: Harvard Business School,
Division of Research.
Saloner, G. (1991). Modeling, game theory, and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,
12(winter), 119–136.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business
and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4),
1096–1120.
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic
decision-making—A comparative-analysis of dialectical inquiry, devils advocacy, and consensus.
Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 51–71. doi:10.2307/255859.
Schwenk, C. R. (1984). Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision-making. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 5(2), 111–128. doi:10.1002/smj.4250050203.
Scott, R. W. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Selznick, H. A. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New York: Hapter &
Row.
123
Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal
of Operations Management, 21(2), 129–149. doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00108-0.
Simon, H. A. (1958). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 25–43.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams:
The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102–111. doi:10.1037//
0021-9010.85.1.102.
Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two
documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 265–269.
Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. (1985). Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of Management
Review, 10(4), 724–736. doi:10.2307/258041.
Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Bibliometrics, Library Trends, 30(1), 83–106. (summer).
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17, 45–62.
Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. (1996). Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic
Management Journal, 17, 21–38.
Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative
capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the
firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.
Taylor, F. W. (1947). Scientific Management. New York: Harper.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. doi:10.1002/smj.640.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Thomas, H., & Pruett, M. (1993). Perspectives on Theory Building in Strategic Management. Journal of
Management Studies, 30(1), 3–11.
Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic
Management Journal, 17(SI), 11–25.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business,
59(4), 251–278.
Venkatraman, N., & Subramaniam, M. (2002). Theorizing the future of strategy: Questions for shaping
strategy research in the knowledge economy. In A. Pettigrew, R. Whittington, & H. Thomas (Eds.),
Handbook of Strategy and Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance—Financial performance link.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.
Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). Review: The resource-based view and information systems research:
Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 107–142.
Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition—Notes from a trip down memory lane.
Organization Science, 6(3), 280–321. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.3.280.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.
Wernerfelt, B. (1989). From critical resources to corporate strategy. Journal of General Management, 14(3),
4–12.
White, H. D., & Grifith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163–171.
White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of infor-
mation science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the
firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701–721.
Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy—An
empirical-test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strategic Management Journal, 16(5),
373–392. doi:10.1002/smj.4250160504.
Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship performance
relationship—a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43–58. doi:10.1016/0883-
9026(94)00004-E.
Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: Inter-
national diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(5), 925–950. doi:10.2307/1556420.
123
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review,
model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2006.00616.x.
Zbaracki, M. J. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 43(3), 602–636. doi:10.2307/2393677.
Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1994). Development of a method for detection and trend analysis of research
fronts built by lexical or cocitation analysis. Scientometrics, 30, 333–351.
123

6b. Ferreira

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

6b. Ferreira

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6b. Ferreira

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scientometrics (2016) 109:1–32

A co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic

João José M. Ferreira1 • Cristina I. Fernandes2 •

Received: 6 August 2015 / Published online: 25 June 2016

& Vanessa Ratten

Keywords Strategic management Strategic entrepreneurship Bibliometric analysis

Bibliometric analysis provides an invaluable contribution to the existing research of a field

Strategic management: conceptual background

A subsequent generation of economists, interested in this research field, proposed game

Fig. 1 Number of articles by year (1970–2014)

1. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

In terms of methodologies, as explained above, we applied three multivariate statistical

Figure 2 displays the bi-dimensional charting of the articles obtained by multi-dimensional

Table 1 Distribution of source documents by journal (top 20 journals)

Strategic Management Journal 323

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

Fig. 2 Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis

Table 2 Distribution of source

Table 3 Groupings resulting out of cluster analysis

5 Day (1994) 17 Powell (1992)

46 % of the variance. A significant number of the references report a factorial weighting in

Research findings and discussion

38 Makadok (2001) 4 0.963 0.131 0.313 0.154 0.341 0.301

2 Teece et al. (1997) 4 0.954 0.213 0.332 0.175 0.390 0.397

Authors Corresponding Component

23 Mata et al. (1995) 5 0.769 0.097 0.215 0.005 0.137 0.118

Authors Corresponding Component

66 Hitt et al. (2001) 3 0.177 0.097 0.553 0.118 0.096 0.014

Conclusion and future research suggestions

Table 5 Documents usedin results

1 Barney, J 1991 Firm resources and sustained Journal of 17 7569

No. Author Year Name Journal Volume Citations

15 Mahoney, JT; 1992 The resource-based view within Strategic 13 648

No. Author Year Name Journal Volume Citations

29 Barney, JB 2001 Is the resource-based ‘‘view’’ a Academy Of 26 464

No. Author Year Name Journal Volume Citations

43 Wade, M; 2004 Review: The resource-based Mis Quarterly 28 360

No. Author Year Name Journal Volume Citations

57 Fredrickson, 1984 Strategic decision-processes— Academy of 27 289

No. Author Year Name Journal Volume Citations

71 Burgelman, RA 1983 Corporate entrepreneurship and Management 29 255

No. Author Year Name Journal Volume Citations

84 Scherer, AG; 2007 Toward a political conception of Academy of 32 238

No. Author Year Name Journal Volume Citations

98 Hoskisson, RE; 1999 Theory and research in strategic Journal of 25 214

You might also like