EMERGING CONCLUSIONS This paper has

EMERGING CONCLUSIONS
This paper has been written to open up thinking about strategy formation, to broaden perspectives that may remain framed in the image of it as an a pr-iori, analytic process or even as a sharp dichotomy between str-ategies as either deliberate or emnergent. We believe that more research is required on the process of strategy formation t-o complement the extensive work currently taking place on the content of strategies; indeed, we believe that research on the former can significantly influence the direction taken by research on the latter (and vice versa). One promising line of resear-ch is investigation of the strategy formation process and of the types of strategies realized as a function of the structuirea nd context of organiizations. Do the various propositions suggested in this paper, based on our own limited research, in fact hold up in broader samples, for example, that strategies will tend to be more deliberate in tightly coupled, centrally controlled organizations and more emergent in decentralized, loosely coupled ones? It would also be interestinig to know how different types of strategies perform in various contexts and also how these strategies relate to those defined in termis of specific content. Using Porter's (1980) categories, for example, will cost leadership strategies prove more deliberate (speci-fically, more often planned), differentiationi strategies more emergent (perhaps umbrella in natuire), or perhaps entrepreneurial? Or using Miles and Snow's (1978) typology, will defenders prove more deliberate in orientation and inclinied to use plannied strategies, whereas prospectors tend to be more emergent and more prone to rely on umbrella or process, or even unconnected, strategies? It may even be possible that hiighly deliberate strategy making processes will be found to drive organizations away from

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

MUNCUL KESIMPULAN This paper has been written to open up thinking about strategy formation, to broaden perspectives that may remain framed in the image of it as an a pr-iori, analytic process or even as a sharp dichotomy between str-ategies as either deliberate or emnergent. We believe that more research is required on the process of strategy formation t-o complement the extensive work currently taking place on the content of strategies; indeed, we believe that research on the former can significantly influence the direction taken by research on the latter (and vice versa). One promising line of resear-ch is investigation of the strategy formation process and of the types of strategies realized as a function of the structuirea nd context of organiizations. Do the various propositions suggested in this paper, based on our own limited research, in fact hold up in broader samples, for example, that strategies will tend to be more deliberate in tightly coupled, centrally controlled organizations and more emergent in decentralized, loosely coupled ones? It would also be interestinig to know how different types of strategies perform in various contexts and also how these strategies relate to those defined in termis of specific content. Using Porter's (1980) categories, for example, will cost leadership strategies prove more deliberate (speci-fically, more often planned), differentiationi strategies more emergent (perhaps umbrella in natuire), or perhaps entrepreneurial? Or using Miles and Snow's (1978) typology, will defenders prove more deliberate in orientation and inclinied to use plannied strategies, whereas prospectors tend to be more emergent and more prone to rely on umbrella or process, or even unconnected, strategies? It may even be possible that hiighly deliberate strategy making processes will be found to drive organizations away from

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

TERUNGKAP KESIMPULAN
Makalah ini telah ditulis untuk membuka berpikir tentang pembentukan strategi, untuk memperluas perspektif yang mungkin tetap dibingkai dalam gambar itu sebagai sebuah pr-Iori, proses analitik atau bahkan sebagai dikotomi yang tajam antara str-ategies baik sebagai disengaja atau emnergent. Kami percaya bahwa penelitian lebih lanjut diperlukan pada proses pembentukan strategi untuk pekerjaan yang luas saat ini sedang berlangsung pada isi strategi; memang, kami percaya bahwa penelitian tentang mantan signifikan dapat mempengaruhi arah yang diambil oleh penelitian pada yang terakhir (dan sebaliknya). Satu baris menjanjikan resear-ch adalah penyelidikan dari proses pembentukan strategi dan jenis-jenis strategi menyadari sebagai fungsi dari konteks structuirea nd organiizations. Apakah berbagai proposisi yang disarankan dalam makalah ini, berdasarkan penelitian yang terbatas kita sendiri, sebenarnya tahan dalam sampel yang lebih luas, misalnya, bahwa strategi akan cenderung lebih disengaja erat digabungkan, organisasi terpusat dikontrol dan lebih muncul di terdesentralisasi, longgar digabungkan yang? Hal ini juga akan interestinig tahu bagaimana berbagai jenis strategi tampil di berbagai konteks dan juga bagaimana strategi ini berhubungan dengan yang didefinisikan di termis konten tertentu. Menggunakan (1980) kategori Porter, misalnya, akan dikenakan biaya strategi kepemimpinan membuktikan lebih disengaja (spesifik-fically, lebih sering direncanakan), strategi differentiationi lebih muncul (mungkin payung di natuire), atau mungkin kewirausahaan? Atau menggunakan Miles dan (1978) tipologi Snow, akan pembela terbukti lebih disengaja dalam orientasi dan inclinied menggunakan strategi plannied, sedangkan prospectors cenderung lebih muncul dan lebih rentan mengandalkan payung atau proses, atau bahkan tidak berhubungan, strategi? Ini bahkan mungkin bahwa strategi membuat hiighly disengaja proses akan ditemukan untuk mengusir organisasi dari