The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic comparative analysis and synthesis of two business‐level strategic typologies
Abstract
Two important business‐level strategic typologies were systematically evaluated, analyzed and compared in this study: Porter'S Overall Cost Leadership, Differentiation, Focus, and ‘Stuck in the Middle’ generic competitive strategies, and Miles and Snow'S Defender, Prospector, Analyzer, and Reactor types of organizational adaptation. On the basis of strategic theory, and following a pilot study, 31 strategic variables were evaluated by judges on a seven‐point maximum‐minimum scale, for each strategy, within its typology. Analysis of variances and concordance among judges regarding the ranking of the strategies on each variable were examined, and a strategic profile was built for each strategy. Proximities between strategies of the two typologies were analyzed using monotonic multidimensional scaling. The analysis indicated similarities and differences between the two typologies. A synthesis of the two typologies is suggested along two dimensions: internal consistency of the strategy, and level of proactiveness.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors
(1980) · Journal of Sustainable Competitive Intelligence · doi:10.24883/iberoamericanic.v2i2.38 · Cited by 16,592
Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1978.4305755 · Cited by 4,527
Strategy-Making in Three Modes
Mintzberg, H. (1973) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41164491 · Cited by 1,655
Dess, G. G., & Davis, P. S. (1984) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256040 · Cited by 1,497
Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from a Process Study
Burgelman, R. A. (1983) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1349 · Cited by 1,360
Strategy, Distinctive Competence, and Organizational Performance
Snow, C. C., & Hrebiniak, L. G. (1980) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392457 · Cited by 1,346
Guttman, L. (1968) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02290164 · Cited by 1,343
Archetypes of Strategy Formulation
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1978) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.24.9.921 · Cited by 1,243
Some Tests of the Effectiveness and Functional Attributes of Miles and Snow's Strategic Types.
Hambrick, D. C. (1983) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256132 · Cited by 1,210
Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis
Miller, D. (1986) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250070305 · Cited by 1,157
Cited by
Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research
Fiss, P. C. (2011) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.60263120 · Cited by 5,930
Typologies as a Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improved Understanding and Modeling
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1994.9410210748 · Cited by 1,716
FIT, EQUIFINALITY, AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: A TEST OF TWO CONFIGURATIONAL THEORIES.
DOTY, D. H., GLICK, W. H., & HUBER, G. P. (1993) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256810 · Cited by 1,198
Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type: A research note
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1992) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250131012 · Cited by 747
ManyEyes: a Site for Visualization at Internet Scale
Viegas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., van Ham, F., Kriss, J., & McKeon, M. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2007.70577 · Cited by 720
Metadata
- Authors
- Segev, E.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1989-09
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 487-505
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2151809371
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 18.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic comparative analysis and synthesis of two business‐level strategic typologies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smj.4250100507
- The paper
- Segev, E. (1989). A systematic comparative analysis and synthesis of two business‐level strategic typologies. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100507
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
