Similarities and contradictions in the core logic of three strategy research streams

The logical foundations shaping three prominent streams of strategic manage ment thought are summarized and then compared and contrasted. The intent is to determine whether these research streams are restatements of a single c ore logic using different terms to describe the same phenomena and relation ships, or whether they provide alternate, and potentially competing, explan ations for effective strategic action. Analysis reveals some concordant ass ertions, some similarities across pairs of frameworks, and some fundamental contradictions among the various logic sets. Since key elements in the fun damental premises of each research stream present logical contradictions wi th each of the other two, a strategy derived from an integration of these p erspectives creates inconsistencies in a firm's enacted context, its assump tions about strategy making, and its administrative arrangements. As circum stances change, a firm may be required to undergo a 'core logic shift' to m aintain consistency between its strategy and its strategic context. When a shift becomes necessary, a firm needs to overcome structural inertia, compe titive inertia organizational momentum, and its current management logic to maintain internal consistency. Additional implications of the comparison o f these three logics for both theory and practice are discussed. Copyright (C) 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.