Stratejik yönetimin babasının unutulmuş özü: Ansoff–Mintzberg tartışması ve stratejik başarı hipotezinin yeniden gözden geçirilmesi

Özet (abstract)

Purpose This study aims to revisit the Ansoff and Mintzberg exchange as a contingency-based debate about the conditions under which planning and emergent strategy are valid. It argues that the debate’s lasting significance lies in the question of strategic correctness and repositions Ansoff’s Strategic Success Hypothesis (SSH) as a central but unevenly consolidated contribution to strategy theory. Design/methodology/approach The study develops a historiographic and conceptual analysis anchored in Ansoff’s (1991) critique of the design school debate and his contextualization of emergent strategy within bounded environmental conditions. It traces how SSH, defined as the alignment among environmental turbulence, strategic aggressiveness and capability responsiveness, was unevenly operationalized and tested and connects this lineage to contemporary research on industry norms, benchmarking and strategic posture. Findings The study finds that Ansoff’s response to Mintzberg reframes emergent strategy as context dependent by distinguishing incremental from discontinuous turbulence, while also showing that SSH remained influential but empirically fragmented because validation efforts did not consolidate into a visible research program. It further suggests that contemporary benchmarking and strategic posture research reopen this unresolved issue by explaining movement relative to norms without fully specifying when such movement is strategically appropriate. Research limitations/implications The study is a historical and theoretical reconstruction with selective contemporary illustration. It invites further archival, methodological and longitudinal research on how validation infrastructures shape the adoption and diffusion of strategic management theories. Practical implications Managers should use industry norms as reference points and combine benchmarking with alignment diagnostics that assess whether strategy and capabilities are appropriate to turbulence conditions. Originality/value The study offers a historically grounded reinterpretation of the planning and learning debate as a contingency-based exchange and recovers SSH as a neglected alignment logic within Ansoff’s mature framework. It also shows how contemporary measurement and data practices make the strategic success logic more visible and more testable than in earlier periods.

Yazarların özeti; kaynağından alınmıştır. Journal of Management History, 2026 · DOI ↗