Strategic Choice vs. Determinism: Organizational Adaptation Essay

This essay critically analyzes the theories of strategic choice and environmental determinism in the context of organizational adaptation. It explores the core arguments and distinctions between these two perspectives, examining how organizations adapt to their environments. The essay delves into the deterministic view, which posits that market forces and the environment dictate organizational structure and strategy, contrasting it with the strategic choice theory, which emphasizes managerial control and the ability to influence the market. It discusses the implications of each theory on organizational structure, performance, and decision-making processes, highlighting the role of managers and the impact of internal and external factors. The essay also evaluates the limitations of determinism and the strengths of strategic choice, arguing for the importance of managerial discretion and the ability of organizations to shape their own futures. Through a review of relevant literature and research, the essay provides a comprehensive overview of the debate between strategic choice and determinism, offering insights into how organizations navigate and respond to their environments.

STRATEGIC CHOICE VERSUS DETERMINISM 1
Strategic choice vs Determinism theories
Name
Course
Tutor
University
City/State
Date

STRATEGIC CHOICE VERSUS DETERMINISM 2
The underlying literature is that strategic choice and environmental determinism bring
out mutually exclusive yet competing revelations of organizational adaptation (Hrebinak &
Joyce, 1985). This essay will analyze both the choice and determinism as independent variables
that can be explained to establish the context of organizational adaptation. The most pervasive
and core arguments in understanding organizational adaptation entail distinguishing if it is
derived managerially or environmentally. Adaptation is viewed as a process that displays choice
and selection visa vis environmental forces that are peremptory. In a nutshell, the matter is
considered as one that commands voluntarism or determinism in change processes that are
strategic.
Choice vs determinism
Based on exhaustive reviews by scholars, there seems to be distinct differences between
strategic choice and determinism theories of organizational adaptation. One of the arguments is
the typology that they are a continuum that spans from determinism to strategic choice that
classifies primary schools of organizational analysis into mutually exclusive classifications.
Though the placement of analytical schools in different classes implies the kind of debate on
choice or determinism. Most approaches regarding the matter of strategic choice or adaptation
focus on mutually exclusive ends that end up becoming a sole continuum. A similar implication
is that prevailing literature is a mere assumption that binary differences between choice and
determinism consider the reality of organization behavior and transformation.
The determinism theory postulates that a marketplace has less control of itself. Firms are
thus compelled to adapt to changes in the market and have to constantly seek unexpected
changes and variations in consumer patterns. The general industry, marketplace, and the
environment dictate how organizations are to be structured. A company’s mission here should

STRATEGIC CHOICE VERSUS DETERMINISM 3
entail setting goals focused on enabling such a company survive while generating revenues and
profits.
Strategic choice structure
This theory has received a credential in its applicability and is embedded in the strategic
structure where it is believed that a business exercises some degree of control and leverage in
both the market and also in influencing the behavior of the consumer (Thiétart & de Rond,
2004). The business, in this case, has leverage on some aspects such as advertisements, varying
its pricing strategies and developing networks with other enterprises. Through focusing on its
goals and objectives, the strategic choice is of the view that managers can manipulate the market
to attain its goals and objectives.
The distinctive difference that exists between deterministic and strategic theories with
regards to the organizational structure is the extent of adaptability that each theory carries. The
deterministic organizational framework asserts that the business is compelled to be dynamic with
regards to changing environmental conditions even when it is not desirable. The strategic choice,
on the other hand, adopts changes and flexibility in the hope that adapting to anticipate consumer
demands would increase brand awareness of the organization while establishing its position in
the market.
Determinism versus strategic choice
The works in debates involving determinism and voluntarism contrast with endeavors
devoted to the premise that strategic choices are greatly determined by pressures that are both
environmental and institutional in nature (Bradley, 2018). Porter’s implication that profitability
is a function of the five generic forces remains to be part of the strategic choice. The resource-
based view analogy remains focused on primary resources and capabilities as prerequisites for

STRATEGIC CHOICE VERSUS DETERMINISM 4
the success of the firm. They, however, contrast other works that demonstrate how organizations
can define their future and take active control of their environment. There are two assumptions
that explain such conflicting approaches. One is the resistance and rigidity that accustom
organizations that prevents such institutions from adapting to changing situations allowing the
environment to choose the fittest from a particular population. Similarly, internal abilities
catalyze the particular paths that firms can follow. Second, it involves a belief advanced by
organizations regarding controlling the means to direct their environment to facilitate the
provision of the necessary inputs responsible for ushering in success. Thus, organizations are
able to control their destinies by developing a set of conditions that assist them to achieve their
objectives.
The role that strategic choice plays in organizational structure, environment and
improving a company’s performance is of great importance. The contemporary way of viewing
the structural contingency theory is incomplete and irrelevant. Analyzing only the
environmental, technological and size of the firm aspects ignore other internal components of
individuals in the organization and the very choices that they make. However, there are other
important components, for instance, the domain and entails the markets that a firm decides to
operate in, boundaries, on the other hand, define the limits that the organization is willing to go
as defined by the management. Others Include the goals and actions advanced by decision
makers.
However, the most vital element is the decision makers’ analysis of the position of the
organization in environmental regions prioritized as critical and the action taken internally.
Strategic choice contrasts the population Ecology in the sense that both pose different questions
and analyze organizations on different scales of analysis. The dominant coalition in this context

STRATEGIC CHOICE VERSUS DETERMINISM 5
refers to individuals who hold the most power as a group over a particular period of time.
However, this does not imply that other people within the organization cannot impact in the
decision-making process. However, the dominant coalition has to seek support and cooperation
thus somehow there is a political process at play.
Defining strategy as the determination of long-term goals, the evolution of course of
action and the allocation of important resources crucial to meet such goals, then the vital element
in organizational theory would be the strategic choice. It also essential to fathom how adaptation
with the environment takes place through the strategic choice theory. The strategic choice
explains how the effectiveness of organizational evolution impedes on the dominant coalition
notions of environmental scenarios and the decision it advances regarding how organizations
tolerate and endure such conditions. The adaptive cycle entails three phases. The entrepreneurial
challenge deals with the type of product. The engineering problem handles the relevant choice of
technology appropriate for production and the administrative problem identifies the rationale of
structure and the priority areas for innovations in the future.
However, some theorists have proposed a blended approach that combines mixed
methods to be adopted by the organization. The model integrates components from deterministic
and strategic choice theories. This translates to having some ideas in both the environment and
industry that are out of range for the business to control through the extent to which they can be
controlled in their environment and share of the market can be done by the business.
Why Strategic choice is superior to determinist theory
The failure by determinists to give a logical explanation of the way organizations
restructure despite the presence of many competitors and how such institutions manage to adapt
their operations amidst stiff competition makes a strategic choice the working theory. There are

STRATEGIC CHOICE VERSUS DETERMINISM 6
many arguments that portray how managers participate in fundamental large as well as mutual
activities at the start of the reorientation stage. Based on a research that was conducted that
entailed 25 producers of minicomputers, it came out clear that it is through the appointment of a
new leader that led to the increase of chances of having impactful changes in the organization,
strategy, and power-sharing in such institutions. The presence of a new manager is instrumental
in ensuring that there is a unique experience for the enterprise and a different approach of
effective action to be taken by the organization together with the anticipation of positive
changes.
The population theories on the other hand postulate that the environment holds an
optimal amount of slack. Such theories assume the level of coupling that may either be tight or
loose depending on the environmental functionalities. Therefore, organizations find themselves
possessing less power of how they can utilize slack to assist them to adapt and vary with regards
to environmental uncertainties is evident that lack of slack resources by organizations make them
be loosely entangled to the environment. It is also apparent that organizational slack has been
classified as the shock of potential resources that facilitate the development of creative strategic
behavior and shield the organization from unforeseen environmental uncertainties. However,
strategic choice theorists develop their argument that the availability of slack at one particular
time frame has the effect of strengthening powerholders to effectuate the required structural
changes which enable such firms to perform better in the near future. It is through slack that
organizations are better placed to implement innovations in the field of technology that can
impact positively the position of the company in the environment. It is the level of coordination
by the managerial activities that are responsible for providing the desired level of slack which is
also an outcome of effective teamwork by the top management.

STRATEGIC CHOICE VERSUS DETERMINISM 7
The idea that the environment controls the market thus limiting the activities of
organizations by determinists is vague and lacks logical explanation. Strategic choice proponents
demonstrate that managers have the power and discretion to dictate the environments that they
wish to operate. This makes managers have an impact on the decision-making process in
attempting to suit their perception of the world. Based on some research conducted that analyzed
the association between the environment and performance it was apparent that irrespective of the
conflicting managers’ views regarding the environment from the objective examination, this had
little effect on the organization’s performance. It was concluded that managers had the power to
drive in organizational performance through them having varying subjective ideas that fail to
match the features of the objective environment.
The theory of strategic choice expounds how managers play a vital role in influencing an
organization through decision making in a dynamic political environment. Based on other
theories, there was a perception that organizations were to be designed as guided by the
operational requirements as per the external environment (Zimmermann, 2014). However,
strategic choice gave an alternative that focused on the agency provided by people and groups
within the organization to take part in making choices strategic to help in their departments. Such
choices would in return influence the growth and development of those organizations. It is the
strategic choices that became part of the learning process adopted by the organization to help it
adapt to the external environment and the internal political environment as well.
Apart from the organizational settings, the strategic choice theory was advanced to help
deal with people’s responses in their daily disputes. The results revealed that complainants, as
well as respondents, utilized a number of strategies that have evolved over time to assist them to
resolve a particular dispute.

STRATEGIC CHOICE VERSUS DETERMINISM 8
It is apparent that works developed by determinism and strategic choice theories strive to
distinguish the applicability of such theories. Despite insightful endeavors at integrating
determinism and choice, no understanding theory has managed to expound on the concept of
causation strategy (Moulin, 2014). Particularly, the strategy has been found to lack a theory of
choice. Such an observation seems ironic as choice and causation are the very heart of the
discipline. It is clear that determinism and strategic choice theories provide analysis at both the
organizational and industrial levels. Also, resource-based theorists evaluate the applicability of
strategic choice at the organizational level. It is the resource-based theorists that argue that
managers acquire advanced knowledge and unique abilities that facilitate the development of
high-performance levels in an organization.
Conclusion
The determinists postulate that the performance of an organization is constrained by legal
and competitive components that prevail in the environment. They also go further asserting that
the environment singles out the organizations that it believes will survive in the long-run. The
determinists are of the view that at the industry level, environmental resources are limited and it
is, therefore, the role of organizations to adapt their activities so that they can benefit from the
many advantages of an evolving ground. The existence of inertial structures enables
organizations to sail through difficulties with a lot of easiness. However, compared to the
determinist theory, strategic choice is more practical in the real world and applicable in
contemporary business units. Managers as per the strategic choice are change agents responsible
for propelling the organization in the direction and in an environment that is deemed safe
References

STRATEGIC CHOICE VERSUS DETERMINISM 9
Bradley, J., 2018. Deterministic Vs. Strategic Organizational Structure. [Online]
Available at: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/deterministic-vs-strategic-organizational-structure-
65533.html
[Accessed 21 October 2018].
Hrebinak, L. G. & Joyce, W. F., 1985. Organizational Adaptation: Strategic Choice and
Environmental Determinism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(3), pp. 336-349.
Moulin, H., 2014. The strategy of social choice. Elsevier, 1(1), pp. 6-14.
Thiétart, R.-A. & de Rond, M., 2004. Chance,Choice and Determinism in Strategy. [Online]
Available at: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/
wp0405.pdf
[Accessed 21 October 2018].
Zimmermann, N., 2014. Deterministic and Voluntaristic Theories of Organizational Change.
Dynamics of Drivers of Organizational Change, 1(1), pp. 9-63.