Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:J-a:Journal Of Business Research:Vol50.Issue3.2000:

Regulation, Deregulation, and Free Market:
The Food Manufacturing Industry in Zimbabwe
Felix T. Mavondo
MONASH UNIVERSITY

This article investigates the relationship among environment, strategy, and
organizational characteristics and performance in an industry at various
stages of deregulation in a developing economy. The focus of the study is
organizational adaptation under different market conditions. The article
seeks to establish the contingency perspective of adaptation. The research
findings suggest that once an organization has chosen its strategy, organizational characteristics must be consistent with that strategy irrespective
of the environment in which the organization operates. The results, with
respect to organizational variables, indicate that the environment is neither
a quasi-moderator nor a homologizer. However, with respect to organizational performance, the environment influences the form of the strategy–
performance relationship hence it is a quasi-moderator. The article then
discusses the implications of these findings for managers and policy makers
within the context of a developing economy and for academic research
in general. J BUSN RES 2000. 50.305–319.  2000 Elsevier Science
Inc. All rights reserved.

and k-selection. When environmental pressure favors those

organisms able to reproduce quickly (such as opening new
markets or introducing new products) they called this r-selection, while k-selection means that environmental pressure
favors organizations that compete on efficiency of using existing resources. On the basis of this, Brittain and Freeman
(1980) developed r-strategies and k-strategies that correspond
to the theoretical framework we used for this article.
Miles and Snow (1978) developed the typology that is used
to organize the ideas in this article. Related work has been done
by McDaniel and Kolari (1987), McKee, Varadarajan, and Pride
(1989), and Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990).
The article is organized as follows. We begin with an outline
of the Miles and Snow typology, followed by discussion of
environmental changes in the food manufacturing industry
in Zimbabwe. We develop hypotheses and empirically test
them and finally discuss the results and their implications.

O

Overview of the Miles and
Snow (1978) Typology

rganizational adaptation has been an important subject of research in strategic management (Ginsberg
and Buchholtz, 1990; Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1985;
Boeker and Goodstein, 1991; Zajac and Shortell, 1989; Chakravarthy, 1982). Adaptation is conceptualized as gradual, longterm, and incremental change in response to environmental
conditions (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985). Adaptation means
adjustment toward a closer fit between strategy and environment (Lawrence and Lorch, 1969). While some theorists (Andrews, 1971; Schendel and Hofer, 1979) have suggested that
managers change their strategies to reflect environmental
changes, others (Quinn, 1980; Hannan and Freeman, 1984;
Boeker, 1989) observe that organizations are constrained in
the ability to respond. Using an ecological perspective of the
adaptive process, MacArthur and Wilson (1967) identified
two types of selection pressures which they called r-selection
Address correspondence to Felix T. Mavondo, Monash University, Faculty of
Business and Economics, Peninsula Campus, P.O. Box 527, Frankston, Vic
3199, Australia. Tel: (61-3) 99044621; Fax: (61-3) 99044145.
Journal of Business Research 50, 305–319 (2000)
 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

Prospectors
“A true prospector is almost immune from the pressures of

a changing environment since this type of organisation is
continually keeping pace with change, and . . . frequently
creating change itself” (Miles and Snow, 1978, p. 57). The
primary capability of prospectors is that of finding and exploiting new products and markets opportunities. The prospector’s domain is usually broad and in a state of continuous
development. The systematic addition of new products and
markets gives the prospectors’ products and markets an aura
of fluidity. The prospector seeks to be “first in” with new
products, however, this extensive adaptive capacity may come
at a cost (Miles and Snow, 1978; Zammuto, 1982; Frazier,
Spekman, and O’Neal, 1988; McKee et al., 1989). Flexibility
may be traded for efficiency. Prospectors can be viewed as
following r-strategies (Zammuto, 1988) where successful performance relates to “first mover” advantages that may include
ISSN 0148-2963/00/$–see front matter
PII S0148-2963(99)00022-3

306

J Busn Res
2000:50:305–319

providing an industry standard. Thus, prospectors place a
premium on product and market development. They scan the
environment extensively in order to react timely and possibly,
take proactive steps to precipitate change in their product
market. This is what is called “creative destruction” (Baldwin,
1987; Oakely, 1990; Plater and Rahtz, 1989), or “thriving on
chaos” (Peters, 1987).

Defenders
“While perfectly capable of responding to today’s world, a
defender, is ideally suited for its environment only to the
extent that the world of tomorrow is similar to that of today”
(Miles and Snow, 1978, p. 47). The most notable features of
the defender’s product-market domain is its narrowness and
stability. Defenders typically direct their products or services
to a limited number of segments and engage in continuous
and intense efforts to become the most efficient operators
thus they are conceived as following k-strategies. Success for
defenders depends on aggressively maintaining prominence in
these segments. With stable markets, management can direct

attention toward reducing manufacturing and distribution
cost while simultaneously maintaining or improving quality.
The result is seen in the defender’s ability to be competitive
on either a price or quality basis (Miles and Snow, 1978, p. 37).
However, defenders may be poorly placed to respond when
customers’ needs change (Abernathy and Wayne, 1974; Henderson, 1984). This arises from some resources such as plant
and equipment having little flexibility (Pilling et al., 1994; Zaheer and Venkatraman, 1995), historical precedents and norms
(Aldrich, 1979), career politics, culture (Barney, 1986), and
adherence to yesterday’s distinctive competencies (Daft, Sormunen, and Parks, 1988; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). Thus defender organizations deliberately reduce both adaptive capability and the costs associated with such adaptability.

Analyzers
The analyzer’s domain is a mixture of stable and changing
product/markets (Nicholson, Rees, and Brooks-Rooney, 1991).
The ideal analyzer is always ready to move quickly into new
products or markets that recently gained some degree of acceptance. Much of the growth of the analyzer occurs through
market penetration as the organization’s basic strength comes
from its traditional product-market base and moderate technological efficiency (Miles and Snow, 1978, pp. 72–74). In many
respects analyzer organizations are a hybrid between prospectors and defenders. They seek to be “second” in new markets
or products through a process of imitation. To succeed, they
must enter new products or markets more cost-efficiently

than prospectors. Operating in a stable environment enables
relatively high levels of efficiency (operating like a defender),
while in more fluid environments their success is associated
with entrepreneurship and depends on speed and efficiency.
This is similar to Bhide’s (1986) “hustle as strategy” or the
“fast cycle capability” of Bower and Hout (1988).

F. T. Mavondo

Reactors
Organizations categorized as reactors lack consistent strategies. They respond to environmental pressures on an ad hoc
basis. They may have inconsistent structures, and are not
aggressive in what they do. They react slowly to environmental
change and perform poorly as a result (Chakravarthy, 1982;
Hambrick, 1983). This experience of slow response and poor
performance forces them to be even less proactive in future
endeavors (Miles and Snow, 1978). Reduced slack or scarcity
of resources may induce managerial paralysis causing rigidity
and propelling the organization to decreased performance
(Smart and Vertinsky, 1977). Miles and Snow developed this

class as a repository for organizations that did not fit into
the other three groups, however, other researchers (Conant,
Mokwa, and Varadarajan, 1990) identify them as a distinct
and stable group.

Organizational Strategy and
Environmental Adaptability
The Miles and Snow (1978) typology suggests that an organization’s strategic posture may lead to better performance if it
is closely aligned to the demands of the task environment.
There are two extremes to the adaptability of the organization.
At one extreme, an organization can maintain an internal focus
by concentrating on efficient operation in a narrowly defined
product market. At the other extreme, an organization can
maintain an external focus which permits adapting to market
changes but at potentially significant loss of operating efficiency. The problem of balancing the benefits and costs of
adaptability is fundamental to business strategy (Abernathy
and Wayne, 1974; Miles and Snow, 1978). Weick (1979)
summarized the trade-off between an internal and external
focus by noting that “adaptation precludes adaptability” (p.
135). The implication is that organizations fitted to a specific

environment may have difficulty in adapting to change,
whereas organizations designed for change may not fit any
particular environment. The managerial challenge is to design
organizations that are both adaptable and efficient.
Operating efficiency is associated with a narrow scope of
activities and a strong emphasis on standard procedures. Adaptive capability, on the other hand, has been associated with the
“wandering organization” (Zammuto, 1988) or involvement of
the “non-right type” individual (Cameron and Whetten, 1983,
p. 257) to arrive at variations of standard practice. From these
observations we note that adaptive organizations have been
characterized as deliberately inefficient. From an ecological
perspective, we define prospectors as r-generalists, defenders
as k-specialists, and analyzers as k-generalists. We note that
generalism and specialism coexist and are fundamentally interrelated (Carroll, 1985). The success of generalism (prospectors) creates the conditions favorable for specialism. Generalists appeal to broad market segments leaving niche markets

Food Manufacturing in Zimbabwe

and special needs unattended. Thus prospectors will open
new markets, as these show promise they become attractive
to analyzers who enter more cost-effectively and build large

market share. The efficiency of defenders allows them to take
market share from analyzers as the industry output becomes
commoditized hence industry dynamics are generated through
innovation, mass production, and commoditization.
The Miles and Snow (1978) typology captures the businesslevel strategic trade-off between external and internal orientation. In the Miles and Snow (1978) typology the organizations
that most actively seek new markets and products (the prospectors) are hypothesized to have the greatest adaptive capability. Strategy types can be ordered by degree of increasing
adaptability as: reactor-defender-analyzer-prospector (McKee
et al., 1989).
This article is based on an investigation of the food processing sector in Zimbabwe (Mavondo, 1993). At the time of
the study (1992/1993), the food sector was in the process of
deregulation, some firms were operating under a regulatory
regime, others in an open market, while the third category
was in transition following deregulation which had started in
1987. These three regulatory regimes represent the environment under investigation. The research tests the hypotheses
that: (1) the level of adaptive effort is systematically related
to strategy type; (2) there are significant differences in the
characteristics of the strategy types; (3) for each strategy type
there are no significant differences in the characteristics across
the environments; and (4) the performance of a given strategy
type is contingent upon the match between the adaptive content of the strategy and the environment.

Hypothesized Relationships
Strategy Type/Organizational
Variables Congruence
Contingency theory postulates that the effectiveness of an organization depends on the congruence between the elements of the
organizational sub-system and the demands of the environment
(macrocongruence), as well as the congruence of these subsystem elements among each other (microcongruence). The
contingency approach that has gained general acceptance is
that the environment operates as a homologizer, that is, environments influence the strength of the relationship between
strategy and organizational variables but not the form (there is
no significant interaction between strategy and environment)
(Prescott, 1986; McKee et al., 1989; Schroder and Mavondo,
1994; Venkatraman, 1989).
Development of a contingency perspective or organizational variables requires the demonstration of (1) congruence
between strategy type and organizational variables (microcongruency), and (2) maintenance of this relationship in different
environmental states (macrocongruency) (Fry and Smith,
1987). “This [establishing a contingency perspective] means
that it must be demonstrated that various strategy types have

J Busn Res

2000:50:305–319

307

distinctly different characteristics and that this distinctiveness
is maintained in different environments” (McKee, Varadarajan,
and Pride, 1989, p. 23).
Congruence between organizational strategy and organizational variables can be examined by comparing means of organizational variables across the strategy types. In this article
the Miles and Snow typology is the theoretical anchor for
ordinally arraying the strategy types according to level of
adaptability (McKee et al., 1989; Jennings and Seaman, 1994;
Oktemgil and Greenley, 1997).
The organizational variables investigated in this article are:
market orientation, operating efficiency, planning capability,
management style, technological innovation, and human resources management. For each of these variables three hypotheses are developed. The first two are related to microcongruency, the third is related to macrocongruency.

Market Orientation
A market orientation is considered an organizational adaptation to consumer needs and tastes (Narver and Slater, 1990;
Ruekert, 1992; McKee et al., 1989; Walker and Ruekert, 1987;
Walker, Boyd, and Larreche, 1992). Collis (1991) argues that
adaptive capability is the ability to identify and respond
quickly to change before it happens or once change has happened. Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) and Powell (1992)
demonstrate empirically the link between adaptive capability
and organizational success. The level of market orientation
should be highest in the prospector organizations (Miles and
Snow, 1978; McDaniel and Kolari, 1987; Conant, Mokwa,
and Varadarajan, 1990). Hence:
H1a: The level of market orientation is positively related
to the level of adaptive capability inherent in the
organizational strategy.
H1b: There are significant differences in the mean level of
market orientation among the strategy types.
H1c: The strategy type–market orientation relationship is
maintained in all environments.

Operating Efficiency
The distinctive competence of the defenders is in controlling
costs through routinization of operations, investing in efficient
manufacturing technology, and focusing on a narrow range
of activities (Miles and Snow, 1978; Hambrick, 1980; Snow
and Hrebiniak, 1980). Lowering average and marginal costs
enables a firm to reduce prices or increase profits or both,
and allows more options in competitive decision making.
Cost-cutting innovations are particularly attractive because
their effects are more predictable, the firm has more control
over costs than it does over other aspects of production and
marketing, and cost-cutting innovation is less likely to be
detected and imitated immediately by competitors. Hence:
H2a: The level of operating efficiency is negatively related
to the level of adaptive capability.

308

J Busn Res
2000:50:305–319

H2b: There are significant differences in the mean level of
operating efficiency across the strategy types.
H2c: The strategy type–operating efficiency relationship is
maintained in all environments.

Planning System’s Capability
A firm’s ability to adapt to changing markets depends on
market scanning (McKee et al., 1989; Walker and Ruekert,
1987; Lant, Milliken, and Batra, 1992). Environmental scanning is the domain of strategy types with an external orientation (Snow and Hrebiniak, 1980; Hambrick, 1983; McDaniel
and Kolari, 1987). Strategic planning is the search for more
effective and efficient routines, the genes that determine how
the firm evolves. The creative planner takes present routines
and production rules and by “gene splicing” creates new routines, tactics, and functions. Firms which are open-minded
and good at such creative gene splicing are more competitive
(Nelson and Winter, 1982). Thus, prospectors and analyzers
are expected to score better than defenders and reactors. However because the strength of analyzers lies in imitation (wait
and see) and then entering the market with a more costeffective product, they are presumed to require less environmental scanning (planning capability) than prospectors whose
success depends on first-mover advantages. It is hypothesized
that planning capability will be highest in prospectors, followed by analyzers, then the defenders, with the reactors
having the lowest score. Hence:
H3a: Planning capability is positively related to the level
of adaptive capability inherent in the organization
strategy.
H3b: There are significant differences in planning capability across the strategy types.
H3c: The strategy type-planning capability relationship is
maintained in all environments.

Management Style
Burns and Stalker (1961) were the first to suggest that high
performing firms that compete in complex and dynamic environments adapt an “organic” form (i.e., organizational architecture that is decentralized with fluid and ambiguous job
responsibilities and extensive lateral communication). Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993) came to the same conclusion
in their empirical study. Dickson (1992) argues that when
the environment is turbulent, a non-bureaucratic and flexible
(organic) management style permits more alertness and greater
creativity. Lawrence and Dyer (1983) argue that an organic
structure is best suited to coping with or adapting to a turbulent environment while Mintzberg (1979) indicates that an
organic structure, with low degree of formality and high degree
of information sharing and decentralization, improves an organization’s flexibility and ability to adapt to continual environmental change. As observed by Gupta and Govindarajan

F. T. Mavondo

(1991) and Jaworski (1988), the more uncertain the problem
or opportunity the more desirable it is to have higher frequency and informality in communication patterns. Prospector organizations need to have more organic management
styles than other strategy types because they tend to operate
in fast changing environments or seek to proactively change
their environment. It is hypothesized that prospectors will be
the most organic and the defenders the most mechanistic.
Hence:
H4a: Organic managerial style is positively related to the
level of adaptive capability inherent in the organization strategy.
H4b: There are significant differences in managerial style
across the strategy types.
H4c: The strategy type-managerial style relationship is
maintained in all environments.

Innovation
Innovation is reflected in new products, manufacturing processes, and management techniques. A search of the literature
reveals that there are three organizational activities that characterize adaptability: response to product-market opportunities,
marketing activities for responding to these activities, and
speed of response in pursuing these opportunities (Oktemgil
and Greenley, 1997). All these activities are closely associated
with innovation. We expect, in line with the Miles and Snow
typology, prospectors would have a higher proclivity toward
product innovation (new products) while defenders would
focus on process innovation (efficiency yielding). The notion
of innovation operationalized in this research emphasizes the
critical role of product innovation in organizational adaptive
capability. By this measure, prospectors should score best,
then the analyzers, followed by the defenders and finally the
reactors. Hence:
H5a: The level of innovativeness is positively related to
adaptive capability inherent in the organization
strategy.
H5b: There are significant differences in the mean level of
innovation among the strategy types.
H5c: The strategy type–innovation relationship is maintained in all environments.

Human Resources Management
The Miles and Snow prescriptions for the various strategy
types with respect to their markets, their environments, their
work organization, and their values are likely to lead to different human resources management practices. Human resource
practices have significant implications for strategy implementation and for adaptive capability. The skills of the employees
are possibly the most important strategic asset of any organization. Some human resource practices encourage learning (Fiol
and Lyles, 1985; Huber, 1991; Sinkula, 1994). Presumably

Food Manufacturing in Zimbabwe

learning facilitates behavior change and leads to improved
performance (Garvin, 1993; Senge, 1990; Sinkula, 1994). For
effective adaptability, human resource practices must also facilitate unlearning (Schein, 1990; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994)
especially if previous behavior is in conflict with the new
demands of the environment. Dess and Origer (1987) find
that high performing firms in dynamic and complex markets
strive for consensus to ensure effective strategy implementation. The prospectors would be expected to have supportive
people management skills to stimulate creativity; defenders
would prefer a degree of bureaucratization that is consistent
with efficient operation of routine functions. Hence:
H6a: The level of human resources management is positively related to the level of adaptive capability inherent in the organization strategy.
H6b: There are significant differences in human resources
management practices among the strategy types.
H6c: The strategy type–human resources practices relationship is maintained in all environments.

Strategy Type and Performance
Miles and Snow (1978) suggested that their three stable strategy types would be equifinal, that is, there are no differences
in performance among the stable types (prospectors, analyzers, and defenders). However, reactors would be expected
to perform poorly in relation to the stable types. Bourgeois
(1980) hypothesized a curvilinear relationship between adaptive capability and performance. Snow and Hrebiniak (1980)
showed that prospectors and defenders performed equally
and at lower levels compared to analyzers. The underlying
logic is that reactors and defenders will not adapt to market
changes, while prospectors will incur higher costs for their
greater adaptive capability (McKee et al., 1989; Zammuto,
1988). However, Jennings and Seaman (1994) and Hooley,
Lynch, and Jobber (1992) found that prospectors seem to
perform better than other strategy types. We hypothesize that
H7: The relationship between organization strategy and
performance is curvilinear, with optimal performance
in organizations that balance efficiency and adaptive
requirements (i.e., analyzers).

Environment, Strategy Type, and Performance:
A Contingency Perspective
The Miles and Snow typology is especially suitable for examining equifinality. Equifinality has come to mean that performance can be achieved through multiple different organizational
configurations even if the contingencies the organizations face
are the same (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1985; Nadler and Tushman, 1988; Pennings, 1992; Scott, 1981; Tushman and Nadler,
1978; Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985; Gresov and Drazin, 1997;
Doty, Glick, and Huber, 1993). Equifinality implies that strategic choice or flexibility is available to organization designers
when creating organizations to achieve high performance.

J Busn Res
2000:50:305–319

309

Where the environment is highly constraining (such as
government regulation) but the degree of conflict in functional
demands is low, it is possible to postulate the existence of an
“ideal type.” Under a regulated environment it would appear
the ideal type is a defender with its emphasis on operating
efficiency. Following deregulation the situation changes to
trade-off (Gresov and Drazin, 1997) configuration where a
careful balance of competing functional demands may be critical for organizational success. Configurational equifinality has
been investigated by Meyer, Tsui, and Hinings (1993) and
Ketchen, Thomas, and Snow (1993), Venkatraman (1989),
and Venkatraman and Prescott, (1990). Configurational equifinality is possible under situations of multiple, conflicting
functions combined with structural latitude (e.g., open market
conditions in this study). Managers will choose between alternatives based on organizational goals and personal preferences. Configurations that fit the chosen functions will be
equifinal relative to each other and will outperform those
that do not. This implies that under open market conditions
prospectors, analyzers, and defenders would perform equally
successfully but reactors will perform poorly.
The choice of performance measures, in this research, took
into account the sentiments expressed by Venkatraman and
Ramanujam (1986) who argue that financial measures reflect
“fulfillment of the economic goals of the firm” (p. 803) and
operational measures reflect “key operational success factors
that might lead to financial performance” (p. 804). A number
of measures were used as each reflect a different dimension
of organizational effectiveness. Hypothesized relationships
among environment, strategy type, and organizational performance are discussed later.
REGULATED ENVIRONMENT. In this environment the prices
of inputs and output were controlled by the government. The
quality of products had to meet gazetted specifications. Thus
product innovation was neither rewarded nor encouraged.
The most effective means of competing was to be a low-cost
producer. This environment is unlikely to be an appropriate
domain for prospectors while reactors, following inconsistent
strategies would be expected to perform poorly. To the extent
that both defenders and analyzers have core competencies
emphasizing efficiency, they would both be expected to perform relatively well, however, defenders (following k-strategies) could be conceived as the “ideal type” for this environment and would be expected to outperform other strategy
types. Hence:

H8a: In regulated markets, organizational performance is
negatively related to adaptive capability. Defenders
will outperform other strategy types.
TRANSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT. The term transitional is used
here to describe firms whose principal business activities had
been deregulated between 1987 and 1992. Following deregulation, successful strategy types change. Competition becomes
fiercer necessitating organizations to monitor and scan their

310

J Busn Res
2000:50:305–319

F. T. Mavondo

environment. To succeed under these conditions requires that
an organization insulates its core competencies, while simultaneously increasing its capacity to respond (or proactively precipitate change in) the new environment. This suggests the
need for efficiency and adaptability. This suggests that analyzers should outperform other strategy types. Hence:

dix A). The scalar measures were computed as the average
score on the items. Performance measures were averages over
a three-year period (1990/91–1992/93). The scales were developed from existing measures as indicated in Appendix A.

H8b: Under transitional conditions, performance should
be related to the ability to balance efficiency and
adaptive requirements. Analyzers should outperform
other strategy types.

To allocate businesses to the Miles and Snow (1978) strategy
types, a subset of 7 of the 11 questions developed by Conant,
Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990) was used together with the
“paragraph” approach (Snow and Hrebiniak, 1980). For each
of the seven questions there were four alternative answers,
each corresponding to a specific strategy type. The decision
rule was that a business had to score at least 5 out of 7
“correct” responses to be classified as one of the four strategy
types (prospector, analyzer, defender, or reactor). If there was
any doubt as to the appropriate strategy group, the organization was classified as a reactor. Once the firm was allocated
to a strategy type, this was compared to how the companies
classified themselves on the “paragraph approach.” The two
approaches resulted in nearly identical classifications. The
resulting distribution is shown in Table 1.
To test the proposition that the mean level of marketing effort
increases from reactor to defender to analyzer to prospector
strategy types, 15 single items (used to measure market orientation by Narver and Slater, 1990) were compared across the
strategy types using a one-way ANOVA. In 14 of these, the
means for prospectors were greater than those for analyzers;
analyzers were greater than defenders in 13; defenders were
greater than reactors in 14. These results provide a justification for ordinally ranking the strategy types by adaptive capability. These results are very similar to those of McDaniel and
Kolari (1987), Conant et al. (1990), Segev (1987), and McKee
et al. (1989).

A number of sub-sectors in the food
industry in Zimbabwe were never subject to regulation. Companies in these food sectors were classified as operating in an
open market environment. The open market environment
permits the conceptualization of equifinality (i.e., multiple
configurations that are potentially equally effective). However,
the conditions in a developing economy like Zimbabwe are
such that demand generally exceeds supply enabling innovative producers to charge higher prices and obtain a premium
on their innovation. The higher margins may adequately offset the costs of adaptability and lead to superior performance.
Hence:

OPEN MARKET (FREE).

H8c: Under open market conditions organizational performance is directly and positively related to adaptive
capability.

Sampling and Data Collection
The sample for this study was drawn from a population of
food manufacturing businesses in Zimbabwe. Of the 220 food
manufacturing businesses in the principal industrial areas of
Harare, Bulawayo, Gweru, and Mutare, 25 could not be
reached and 19 refused to participate resulting in an effective
sample size of 176. This is effectively an 80% response rate.
The researcher personally visited the food companies to secure
their participation. This effectively meant most companies
were visited at least twice, first to get them to participate,
then to give the questionnaire, and finally to pick up the
completed questionnaire. In each participating company the
CEO or his immediate junior was briefed about the aims of
the research and how the questionnaire was to be completed.
The questionnaire was then left for completion with a date
(generally 10 days later) fixed for collection by the researcher.
At the time of collecting the completed questionnaire, a general
discussion was held to explore any relevant issues not covered
in the questionnaire and any industry insights the respondent
felt important. This was because this study was a part of a
major study of the food industry in Zimbabwe.

Development of Scales
All the variables of interest were measured through multiple
items so that scalar measures could be developed (see Appen-

Assigning Companies to Strategy Types

Results
Relationship between Strategy Type and
Organizational Variables
The results in Table 2 summarize the findings for hypotheses
that posit a positive relationship between organizational variables and organizational strategy. These relationships were
tested using Spearman correlation between organization strategy (ordinally arrayed by adaptive capability) and organizaTable 1. Distribution of Strategy Types
Environment
Strategic Type Regulated Transitional Open Market Total
Reactor
Defender
Analyzer
Prospector
Total

7
20
22
11
60

6
11
21
13
51

6
19
12
28
65

19
50
55
52
176

Food Manufacturing in Zimbabwe

J Busn Res
2000:50:305–319

311

Table 2. Organizational Differences by Strategic Type

Strategy Variables

Spearman
Correlation with
Strategic Type

Market orientation
Planning capability
Human resource
management
Management style
Innovation
Operating efficiency

Mean Value of
Organization Strategy Type
Prospector Analyzer Defender Reactor
n 5 52
n 5 55
n 5 50
n 5 19

0.358a
0.361a
0.232b

4.43
4.73
5.00

3.74
4.84
4.494

3.58
4.26
4.65

2.94
3.14
3.96

0.245b
0.377a
20.213c

4.18
4.02
3.83

3.88
3.74
4.04

3.67
3.33
4.43

3.00
3.18
4.65

ANOVA
F-Stat

F-Stat
Control
for Size

Different Setse

7.143a
8.68a
3.76b

5.75a
7.25a
2.99d

P . R, P . D, A . R
A & P & D . R, A . D
P . R, P . A

2.57d
9.92a
1.85

P.R
P . D & R, A . D & R
R&D.P

2.43d
10.25a
2.50d

a

p , 0.001.
p , 0.01.
p , 0.05.
d
p , 0.010.
e
Abbreviations: P 5 Prospector; A 5 Analyzer; D 5 Defender; R 5 Reactor.
b
c

tional variables. Support is provided for H1a, H3a, H4a, H5a,
and H6a representing respectively, market orientation, planning capability, management style, innovation, and human
resource management. Support for H2a, which posits a negative relationship between adaptive capability and operating
efficiency, is also provided. These hypotheses were tested
using Spearman’s correlation in recognition of the categorical
nature of organization strategy. Hypotheses 1b, 2b, 3a, 4b,
5b, and 6b that posit the existence of significant differences
among the strategy types for market orientation, operating
efficiency, planning capability, management style, innovation,
and human resource management, respectively, were supported. These hypotheses were tested using a one-way ANOVA. Support for the hypotheses is provided by examining
the F-ratios. All the F-ratios are significant at at least (p ,
0.01). Strategy types that are significantly different from each
other are indicated. The direction of differences among the
strategy types across the variables is consistent with literature.
An additional check on the results was tested, namely, the
extent to which these results are influenced by organizational

size. This is in response to Lindsay and Rue (1980), Robinson
(1982), and Hannan and Freeman (1984) who have argued
that small-sized firms may exhibit different organizational characteristics and hence performance. This check was achieved
by running an ANOVA model controlling for organizational
size. The results seem to suggest that organizational size has
some effect on human resource management and operating
efficiency. Larger organizations appear to have better human
resource management practices but lower operational efficiency. However, controlling for organizational size does not
change the interpretation of the results.

Relationship between Strategy Types
and Organizational Performance
Results in Table 3 relate to performance measures. The results
in Table 3 show that there is a positive relationship between
strategy type and each performance measure because all the
Spearman correlations are significant to at least (p , 0.01).
These results are not consistent with theory because high adap-

Table 3. Performance Differences by Strategic Type

Performance Variables
Return on assets
Sales growth
New product success
Market share changes
Exports
a

Spearman
Correlation with
Strategic Type
0.239b
0.189c
0.301a
0.356a
0.284

Mean Value of
Organization Strategy Type
Prospector Analyzer Defender Reactor
n 5 52
n 5 55
n 5 50
n 5 19
2.36
3.14
3.11
2.36
1.50

p , 0.001.
p , 0.01.
p , 0.05.
d
p , 0.010.
e
Abbreviations: P 5 Prospector; A 5 Analyzer; D 5 Defender; R 5 Reactor.
b
c

1.83
2.91
2.57
1.54
1.89

1.87
2.80
2.33
1.37
1.40

1.64
2.55
1.91
1.09
1.73

ANOVA
F-Stat

F-Stat
Control
for Size

3.41c
1.58
3.93b
2.50d
3.56b

5.00b
1.60
4.32b
3.68c
3.97b

Different Setse
P.D&A&R
P.D&R
P.D&R
A.D

312

J Busn Res
2000:50:305–319

F. T. Mavondo

Table 4. ANOVA Model: Environment–Strategic Type Interaction
Variables
Market orientation
Planning capability
Human resource
management
Management style
Innovation
Operating efficiency

Full Model

Strategy Type

Environment

Strategy–Environment
Interaction

3.902a
2.518b
1.948c

4.683a
6.165a
3.968b

5.477b
1.742
1.797

2.022
0.631
1.059

2.278c
3.364a

1.882
8.165a

3.856c
1.947

1.575
0.495

Figures in the table are F-ratios.
a
p , 0.001.
b
p , 0.01.
c
p , 0.05.

tive capability is supposed to impose costs and lead to poorer
financial performance (Bourgeois, 1980; Zammuto, 1988;
McKee et al., 1989). The results are, however, consistent with
Hooley et al. (1992). These results will be analyzed further
to gain additional insight (Table 7) later in this article. Comparing the performance differences across the strategy types
indicates there are significant differences as revealed by the
F-ratios. Controlling for organization size does not alter the
interpretation of the results. Hypothesis 7, which states that
analyzers would have the highest performance, is generally
not supported except for contribution of exports to total sales.

Environment, Strategy, and
Organizational Variables
To test whether there is congruence in the relationship between strategy type and organizational variables, it is necessary
to find whether and how the environment affects the relationship (Fry and Smith, 1987). If the environment influences the
strategy type–organization variable relationship, this would
be indicated by the significance of the environment–strategy
interaction (Sharma, Durand, and Gur-Arie, 1981; Prescott,
1986; Venkatraman, 1989). Thus, the significance of the interaction term (environment 3 strategy) indicates the environment influences the form of the strategy type–organizational
variable relationship. The organizational variables were treated
as dependent variables with environment and strategy as factors
(independent variables). The results of the ANOVA, presented
in Table 4, show that there are no significant interactions between strategy and environment. The general conclusion is that
the environment moderates the relationship between strategy
and organizational variables, that is, the environment is a homologizer (Sharma et al., 1981; Prescott, 1986). This means the
environment may moderate the strategy type–organizational
variable relationship. This may be established by demonstrating
that the level of the organizational variable varies with the
environment in which the organization operates (see Table 5).
Table 5 has two sets of F-ratios, the ratios in column 5
test hypotheses that strategy types have significantly different
mean values for organizational variables irrespective of the

environment. The F-ratios in the fourth row for each organizational variable test the hypothesis that, for a given strategy
type, there are no significant differences in the means of the
organizational variable across the environments (i.e., the environment is not a homologizer).
Results in Table 5 provide further support to the hypothesis
that organizations following the same strategy do not have
significant differences in their organizational variables. The level
of each organizational variable across the environments was
tested for significance of difference using a one-way ANOVA.
The F-ratios (in the fourth row for each variable in Table 5) are
used as the test statistic. There are 24 F-ratios from comparing
organizational variables across environments, 20 of these results are not significant. This supports the hypothesis that the
environment in which a specific strategy type operates does
not influence the level of the organizational variables. However, four F-ratios were significant indicating that for some
variables the level is significantly influenced by the environment. For analyzers, the F-ratios for market orientation and
human resource practices are significant. This arises from
high mean values in the transitional environment. This could
potentially arise from over-reacting to environmental change
resulting in temporary misalignment which could be corrected
in the short term. For reactors, the significant F-ratio is for
managerial style where the highest mean occurs in the transitional environment suggesting that following deregulation reactor organizations perceived change in managerial style a
potential source of competitive advantage. For prospectors,
the F-ratio for managerial style is significant with highest mean
value in the open environment. This is consistent with the
need to attract and retain highly innovative people who resent
close supervision and mechanistic managerial styles (Porter,
1980). Taking the overall results in Table 5 it can be concluded
that there is support for H1c, H2c, H3c, H4c, H5c, and H6c.
It can also be concluded that the necessary and sufficient
conditions for a contingency perspective have been established
by showing that: (1) each strategy type is associated with
distinctively different levels of organizational variables (microcongruency), and (2) that this distinctiveness is maintained

Food Manufacturing in Zimbabwe

J Busn Res
2000:50:305–319

313

Table 5. Difference Among Strategic Types in Organizational Variables
P

Strategy Types (Means)
A
D

R

F-ratio

Different Setsd

Market orientation
Regulated
Transitional
Open market
F-ratio

4.02
4.39
4.43
0.72

3.33
4.55
3.08
6.23b

3.51
2.92
3.90
2.11

2.49
4.01
3.03
1.91

3.90b
2.64
4.83b

P, D & A . R
A&P.D
P.R&A

Planning capability
Regulated
Transitional
Open market
F-ratio

3.95
4.54
4.21
0.26

3.52
3.78
2.00
1.90

3.95
2.29
3.72
1.90

2.24
2.80
2.71
0.15

1.69
1.55
3.94c

P&D.A

Human resource management
Regulated
Transitional
Open market
F-ratio

4.90
5.16
4.96
0.38

4.21
5.07
3.78
6.70b

4.77
4.55
4.51
0.40

4.03
4.24
3.45
0.97

3.91c
1.08
6.78a

Managerial style
Regulated
Transitional
Open market
F-ratio

3.16
4.40
4.70
7.20a

3.75
4.26
3.06
1.78

3.41
4.46
3.76
2.35

2.89
4.33
2.32
6.63b

0.87
0.08
10.71a

Innovation
Regulated
Transitional
Open market
F-ratio

5.85
6.54
6.66
1.60

5.25
5.91
4.90
2.88

4.61
5.43
5.33
2.59

5.44
4.43
6.03
1.73

3.69b
2.25
7.31a

Operating efficiency
Regulated
Transitional
Open market
F-ratio

4.91
4.87
4.62
0.68

4.63
4.68
4.74
0.06

4.33
4.38
4.38
0.02

4.00
4.11
4.00
0.01

1.89
1.15
1.44

P&D.A&R
P . R & A; D . R

P . D, A & R; D

P, R & A . D
P.R
P.A&D

a

p , 0.001.
p , 0.01.
p , 0.05.
d
Abbreviations: P 5 Prospector; A 5 Analyzer; D 5 Defender; R 5 Reactor.
b
c

in different environmental states (macrocongruency) as argued
by Fry and Smith (1987).
Is the Miles and Snow (1978) typology equally applicable
to the three environments? To answer this question each organizational variable was compared across the environments.
The size of the F-ratio was used as the test statistic (Table 5,
column 6). The results in Table 5 suggest that the general
pattern of differences across the strategy types holds in all
environments. However, the largest differences occur in the
open market environment followed by the regulated environment with smallest differences observed in the transitional
environment. This suggests that the Miles and Snow typology
is especially applicable for stable environments but less so
for environments resulting from discontinuities. One possible
explanation is that the Miles and Snow (1978) strategy types
are enduring and may resist change. As noted by Snow and
Hrebiniak (1980), “The investment in time, people, money

and other resources required to develop the distinctive competencies, technologies, structures and management processes
needed to pursue a particular strategy is large. . . . Perhaps
the greatest obstacle to strategic change stems from the fact
that over time a given strategy attracts and fosters a set of
managerial values and philosophies that are wedded to the
strategy” (p. 529).

Environment, Strategy Type, and
Organizational Performance
To examine the relationships among environment, strategy,
and performance, the initial step is to establish the role of the
environment (i.e., whether it is a predictor or a moderator).
An ANOVA model was run with performance measures as
the dependent variables, the environment and organization
strategy as factors (predictors). The results in Table 6 suggest
that both the environment and organization strategy are pre-

314

J Busn Res
2000:50:305–319

F. T. Mavondo

Table 6. ANOVA Model: Environment–Strategy Type Interaction
Variables
Return on assets
Growth in sales
New product success
Market share change
Exports

Full Model

Strategy Type

Environment

Strategy–Environment
Interaction

5.584a
1.009
3.432a
2.227c
2.298c

2.187
1.293
3.422c
0.299
2.193

1.4120a
1.095
4.530c
7.619a
4.079c

3.203b
0.708
2.523c
0.953
2.256c

Figures in the table are F-ratios.
a
p , 0.001.
b
p , 0.01.
c
p , 0.05.

dictors of organizational performance. This is in line with our
conceptualization of the environment as degree of regulation
which should have performance implications. Further, the
results suggest that the interaction terms for environment
and strategy are generally significant across the performance
measures. These results suggest that the environment as defined in this article is a quasi-moderator (Sharma, Durand,
and Gur-Arie, 1981).

To test Hypotheses 8a, 8b, and 8c in view of the above,
ANOVA model and one-way ANOVA (using Duncan’s multiple range test of means) were used (Table 7).
Hypothesis 8a, which states that performance under regulation should favor defenders is supported for return on asset,
sales growth, and successful new product development. The
Duncan’s test of means across the strategy types, indicates
that defenders significantly outperform the other strategy

Table 7. Performance Differences Among Strategic Types
P

Strategy Types (Means)
A
D

R

F-ratio

Different Setse
D . A, R & P
P.R&D
A&P.D&R

Return on assets
Regulated
Transitional
Open market
F-ratio

1.45
2.23
2.93
14.22a

1.32
2.00
3.22
23.45a

1.95
1.43
1.95
2.21

1.44
1.33
1.86
0.73

4.23b
2.22
10.93a

Growth of sales
Regulated
Transitional
Open market
F-ratio

2.63
2.92
3.50
6.45b

2.96
3.00
3.00
0.02

2.81
2.71
2.90
0.12

2.00
2.67
2.57
0.68

3.14c
0.20
3.63b

New product success
Regulated
Transitional
Open market
F-ratio

2.27
2.69
3.79
15.40a

2.08
2.81
3.44
5.28b

2.50
2.43
2.19
0.29

1.11
2.67
2.43
22.65a

3.12c
0.17
13.10a

Market share change
Regulated
Transitional
Open market
F-ratio

1.36
2.54
2.93
9.56a

0.6
2.24
2.22
5.33b

1.23
1.00
2.09
1.39

0.33
1.67
2.00
1.24

0.69
2.50d
1.78

P&A.D

Exports
Regulated
Transitional
Open market
F-ratio

1.09
1.46
1.76
2.76

1.80
1.71
2.78
3.54c

1.09
1.71
1.57
3.91c

1.00
3.33
2.00
15.62a

5.73a
2.91d
4.34b

A . P, D & R
R . P, A & D
A.D&P

a

P , 0.001.
P , 0.01.
P , 0.05.
d
P , 0.10.
e
Abbreviations: P 5 Prospector; A 5 Analyzer; D 5 Defender; R 5 Reactor.
b
c

A&D.R
P.R&D

P&A.D&R
P&A.D&R

Food Manufacturing in Zimbabwe

types. For other performance measures the hypothesis is not
supported. Hence H8a receives partial support.
Hypothesis 8b, which posits that under transitional conditions the successful strategy type will be the analyzer, was
generally supported for most performance measures although
only statistically significant for market share changes. Thus
H8b receives partial support. Hypothesis 8c, which posits that
prospectors would perform optimally in a free environment,
is supported. The results are statistically significant for all
measures of performance except market share changes. These
findings do not support equifinality (Miles and Snow, 1978)
but lend support to Hooley et al. (1992).
Does performance differ by environment for each strategy
type? The results of comparing each strategy type across different environments, as would be expected, indicate significant
differences (row 4 for each performance measures in Table
7). The conclusion to be drawn from these results is that
organizational performance is enhanced by a more open and
competitive business environment.

Discussion and Implications
These results suggest that the Miles and Snow typology is an
effective framework for investigating the strategies followed
by firms in the food manufacturing industry in Zimbabwe.
The prospectors show distinct competence in marketing and
have more organic management styles. This agrees with organization theory which suggest that when tasks are not routine,
an organic management style should be followed (Walker and
Ruekert, 1987; Miles and Snow, 1978). The prospectors show
distinct competence in planning. Scanning the environment
is a critical requirement for a market-oriented organization
that seeks to understand and proactively position itself for
market changes.
Defender organizations show a superior score on operating
efficiency. This is the general findings of other researchers.
In line with search for operational efficiency, the management
style in defender organizations is mechanistic. The defenders
score high on planning capability. In this case, the purpose
of planning is to enable organizational integration