英语原文共 17 页，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
N. Venkatraman, John Prescott
Environment Strategy Co-alignment: An Empirical Test of Its Performance Implication
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, 1-23 (1990)环境战略匹配机制：绩效含义的实证检验译者：工商1301班 韩林昊
The positive performance impact of a coalignment between the environment and strategy of a business is an important theoretical proposition in strategic management. In spite of its importance and intuitive appeal, the extent of empirical support is equivocal and riddled with problems of conceptualizing and testing for coalignment. This paper evaluates alternate approaches to testing such a proposition and argues in favor of specifying coalignnent as #39;profile deviation#39;, which states that coalignment is the degree to which strategic resource deployments adhere to an #39;ideal profilersquo; for a given environment. Subsequently, this proposition is tested across two time periods, and eight distinct environments in two different samples drawn from the PIMS database. Results, which were generally robust across the two periods, strongly support the proposition of a positive performance impact of environment-strategy coalignment. Implications and research directions are developed.
业务战略与其环境的匹配会带来积极的绩效影响，这是战略管理领域的一项重要理论命题。尽管它具有重要性和直观吸引力，但概念化和检验问题造成匹配问题的实证支持存疑。本文评估了检验这一命题的不同方法，并支持以“模式偏差”（profile deviation）来界定特定的匹配：在给定环境下存在一个战略资源配置的理想模式（ideal profile），而模式偏差则指实际业务的战略资源配置与该理想模式的接近程度。随后基于从PIMS数据库中抽取的两个不同样本，通过对八种不同环境以及两阶段进行了命题检验。检验结果具有跨时段的坚实性，且强烈支持了环境战略匹配对绩效有积极影响的命题。同时也对理论含义和研究方向进行了拓展。
INTRODUCTION / 引言
Coalignment (also termed consistency, contingency, or fit) is emerging as an important organizing concept in organizational research (Aldrich, 1979; Fry and Smith, 1987; Van de Ven and Drazin, 1985), including strategic management (e.g. Miles and Snow, 1978; Venkatraman and Camillus, 1984). In simple terms the proposition is that the #39;fit#39; between strategy and its context whether it is the external environment (Anderson and Zenithal, 1984; Bourgeois, 1980; Ham brick, 1988; Hofer, 1975;Hitt, Ireland and Stadter, 1982; Jauch, Osbornand Glueck, 1980; Prescott, 1986a) or organizational characteristics, such as structure (Chandler, 1962; Rumelt, 1974), administrative systems (Lorange and Vancil, 1977; Galbraith and Nathanson, 1978), and managerial characteristics (Gupta and Govindarajan, 1984) has significant positive implications for performance.
匹配(也被称为consistency, contingency, or fit)在战略管理(e.g. Miles and Snow, 1978; Venkatraman and Camillus, 1984)和组织研究(Aldrich, 1979; Fry and Smith, 1987; Van de Ven and Drazin, 1985)中越来越被视为重要的组织性概念。简言之，该命题关乎战略与其所处情境之间的匹配，无论是外部环境还是组织特性，比如结构(Chandler, 1962; Rumelt, 1974)、行政系统(Lorange and Vancil, 1977; Galbraith and Nathanson, 1978)、管理特征(Gupta and Govindarajan, 1984)，对绩效均有显著的正向影响。
Within this general perspective, this paper is concerned with the performance impacts of environment-strategy coalignment. Specifically, it addresses a theoretical question: #39;Does a business that aligns its strategic resource deployments to the specific requirements of its environmental context (i.e. achieve an acceptable level of environment-strategy coalignment) perform significantly better than a business unit that does not achieve the requisite match?#39; While framing this question may appear to be relatively simple, the empirical testing is complex given serious theoretical (i.e. conceptualization of the specific form of coalignment) and methodological (i.e. statistical tests of coalignment) problems.
从这个理论视角出发：本文关注环境-战略匹配的绩效影响。特别地提出了一个理论问题：一个针对所处环境的特定要求而进行战略资源部署，从而达到一个可接受的环境-战略匹配程度的业务（单位），是否比没有达到这种匹配程度的业务单位绩效更好呢？建立问题框架看似简单，但由于一系列理论（如匹配模式的概念化）和方法论（如匹配的统计检验）问题的存在，使得实证检验具有复杂性。
This study seeks to overcome some of the conceptual and methodological limitations of extant research on this topic, and conducts a strong, rigorous test of the performance impacts of environment-strategy coalignment through:(a) an explicit statement of the theoretical conceptualization of the coalignment between environment and strategy; (b) the operationalization of coalignment such that there is adequate correspondence between the conceptualization and its statistical tests; and (c) empirical tests conducted in two different samples to test the proposition as well as assess its robustness. Specifically, the use of the second sample serves as a replication of the initial results. Toward this end, we begin by discussing the relative benefits and limitations of the two dominant approaches (reductionistic and holistic) to the conceptualizations of coalignment, and adopt the holistic perspective, which reflects its multivariate manifestation. Subsequently, we test the performance impact of environment-strategy coalignment in two samples of business units, across two time periods, drawn from the PIMS database.
这个研究旨在克服一些有关此主题的当前研究在概念化和方法上的局限性，并对环境-战略匹配的绩效影响进行了更为扎实、严谨的测试：（a）环境-战略匹配这个理论概念的明确表述；（b）通过匹配机制是可操作的使得概念化和统计检验间更具一致性；（c）两个样本相互对照进行实证检验，对命题及其稳健性进行评估。尤其是通过第二样本对首次的结果进行重复。为此目的，我们首先讨论了对匹配机制概念化的两个主要方法（简化论和整体论）的相对优缺点，随后选取了能反映多元表现的整体论观点，进而从PIMS中抽取了不同时点的两组业务单元样本，检验了环境-战略匹配的绩效影响。
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
理论性观点
The general requirement of coalignment between Environment and strategy is understood implicitly (Andrews, 1980; Bourgeois, 1980; Porter, 1980; Scherer, 1980; Miles and Snow, 1978; Snow and Miles, 1983) rather than in explicit functional forms. Thus, theoreticians postulate environment-strategy relationships using phrases such as: matched with#39;, #39;contingent upon#39;, and #39;congruent with#39; or more simply, #39;aligned#39;, #39;fit#39; and #39;congruence#39;, without necessarily providing precise guidelines for translating such statements into the operational domain of empirical research and statistical tests. Consequently, strategy researchers performing
全文共77333字，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[145339]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
