¹ Rumelt, Richard P., Schendel, Dan E., and Teece, David J., “Fundamental Issues in Strategy,” in Fundamental Issues in Strategy: A Research Agenda, ed. Rumelt, Richard P., Schendel, Dan E., and Teece, David J. (Boston, 1994), 17.Google Scholar

² Ramos-Rodríguez, Antonio-Rafael and Ruíz-Navarro, José, “Changes in the Intellectual Structure of Strategic Management Research: A Bibliometric Study of the Strategic Management Journal,” Strategic Management Journal 25 (Oct. 2004): 981–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ These works were by Andrews, Kenneth, The Concept of Corporate Strategy (Home-wood, Ill., 1971)Google Scholar and Ansoff, Igor, Corporate Strategy (New York, 1965).Google Scholar

⁴ Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 13.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid., 14.

⁶ Ibid., 11.

⁷ For example, Chandler's definitions are quoted early in Besanko, David, Dranove, David, Shanley, Mark, and Schaefer, Scott, Economics of Strategy, 3rd ed. (Hoboken, N.J., 2003)Google Scholar; Grant, Robert, Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 6th ed. (Malden, Mass., 2008)Google Scholar; and Whittington, Richard, What is Strategy-and Does it Matter? 2nd ed. (Boston, 2000).Google Scholar

⁸ For his account, see Chandler, Strategy and Structure, 11 and 16.

⁹ Mintzberg, Henry and Waters, James A., “Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent,” Strategic Management Journal 6 (June 1985): 257–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Nonaka, Ikujiro and Takeuchi, Hirataka, The Knowledge-Creating Company (Oxford, 1995).Google Scholar

¹¹ Chandler, Strategy and Structure, 314.

¹² Williamson, Oliver E., Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (New York, 1975).Google Scholar Chandler's own account of the multidivisional firm in terms of coordination costs is in Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977).Google Scholar

¹³ Donaldson, Lex, The Contingency Theory of Organizations (Thousand Oaks, Calif., 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ For an account, see Whittington, Richard and Mayer, Michael, The European Corporation: Strategy, Structure, and Social Science (New York, 2000).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Rumelt, Richard, Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance (Cambridge, Mass., 1974).Google Scholar See also the evaluation by Spender, Jason, “Business Policy and Strategy: An Occasion for Despair, a Retreat to Disciplinary Specialisation or for New Excitement?” Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings (1992): 42–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Fligstein, Neil, The Transformation of Corporate Control (Cambridge, Mass., 1990).Google Scholar See also Fligstein's essay, “Alfred Chandler and the Sociology of Organizations,” in this issue.

¹⁷ Hall, David J. and Siais, Maurice, “Strategy Follows Structure!” Strategic Management Journal 1 (Apr. 1980): 149–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ To a certain extent, Chandler anticipated the argument for reverse causality, and he certainly conceded it in his introduction to the 1989 edition. See Chandler, Strategy and Structure, 394.

¹⁹z Mintzberg, Henry, “The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management,” Strategic Management Journal 11 (Mar. 1990): 171–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Rumelt, Richard, “Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm,” in Competitive Strategic Management, ed. Lamb, Robert (Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1984), 560–70.Google Scholar

²¹ Chandler, Scale and Scope, 8.

²² Teece, David, Pisano, Gary, and Shuen, Amy, “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,” Strategic Management Journal 18 (July 1997): 509–33.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Critics of Chandler's account of relative economic performance include Hannah, Leslie, “Scale and Scope: Towards a European Visible Hand,” Business History 33 (Apr. 1991): 297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Broadberry, Stephen, The Productivity Race: British Manufacturing in International Perspective, 1850–1990 (New York, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece, “Fundamental Issues in Strategy,” 16.

²⁵ Kipping, Matthias and Üsdiken, Behlül, “Business History and Management Studies,” in Jones, Geoffrey and Zeitlin, Jonathan, The Oxford Handbook of Business History (New York, 2008)Google Scholar; and Whittington, Richard, “Strategy after Modernism: Recovering Practice,” European Management Review 1 (Spring 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Calculated from Phelan, Steven E., Ferreira, Manuel, and Salvador, Rommel, “The First Twenty Years of the Strategic Management Journal,” Strategic Management Journal 23 (Dec. 2002): 1161–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Whittington, Richard, “The Work of Strategizing and Organizing: For a Practice Perspective,” Strategic Organization 1 (Feb. 2003): 117–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ Outstanding examples include, respectively, Carroll, Glenn R. and Hannán, Michael T., The Demography of Corporations and Industries (Princeton, 2000)Google Scholar; Christensen, Clayton M., The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Boston, 1996)Google Scholar; and Fligstein, The Transformation of Corporate Control.

²⁹ Zucker, Lynne G., “Combining Institutional Theory and Population Ecology: No Legitimacy, No History,” American Sociological Review 54 (Aug. 1989): 542–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Chandler himself did not wholly accept Williamson's transaction-cost economics. See Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, “Organizational Capabilities and the Economic History of the Industrial Enterprise,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 6 (Summer 1992): 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ Van de Ven, Andrew H., Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research (New York, 2007).Google Scholar

³² For example, see “Comparative Perspectives on the Managerial Revolution,” Business History 49 (special issue, Aug. 2007).