Cyert And March

475 Words2 Pages
While The Behavioral Theory provided a revolutionary view of the internal characteristics of the firm, strategic and managerial considerations were not the focus of attention. The goal was not to explain market behavior, but rather to understand decisions and actions inside the firm. Cyert and March believed organizations were incapable of following specific, unified objectives. Such specific objectives are critical to the establishment of corporate strategy, and without this ability, managers could only marginally influence the direction of the firm. Any objectives agreed upon by a management coalition would inevitably be highly ambiguous goals, enfeebling the ability of a top manager or entrepreneur to truly control the direction of the firm. Cyert and March argued that while ‘individuals have goals; collectivities of people do not’ (1992, p.30), and thus the firm could not have well-defined objectives. Premised on this weak (or the absence of) leadership, The Behavioral Theory posits that the firm’s strategies and learning processes are short-term in focus with adaptations induced by crises. Management is unable to reconfigure internal resources because of the immutability of standard operating procedures and the ambiguity of coalition goals. In his discussion of firm strategy, Oliver Williamson notes that in Cyert and March ‘the firm resembles a fire department more than a strategic actor’ (1999, p. 14). The firm is focused on finding solutions to immediate problems, not on longer-term strategic options. Although The Behavioral Theory ‘can not articulate a serious policy proposal for changing the behavior pattern’ (Cyert and March, 1963. p. 297), it nevertheless provides a greater understanding of the limitations to strategic action. The understanding of how routines and path dependency limit and enable the firm to solve problems was an important step
Open Document