WORKING PAPER 2010-02

Anders McIlquham-Schmidt

Strategic planning and corporate

performance. What is the relationship?

Department of Management

Strategic planning and corporate performance. What is the relationship?

Anders McIlquham-Schmidt Aarhus School of Business at Aarhus University

Department of Management

Fuglesangs Alle’ 4 8210 Aarhus

Denmark

Tel: (+45) 89 48 66 88 Fax: (+45) 86 15 76 29

E-Mail: amc@asb.dk

2

Abstract

The majority of management literature describes strategic planning (SP) as being effective in

relation to improving corporate performance (CP), but is that assumption correct? Several

studies have shown that the relationship is dubious if not non-existent. To clarify the

relationship a comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted on 88 individual studies

representing a total sample size of 32,472 observations. The findings of the meta-analysis

suggest that strategic planning does in fact have a positive effect on corporate performance,

although it is smaller than the strategic management literature existing to date has proclaimed

it to be. Explanations of the unexpected result and directions for future research will be

provided.

Key words: Strategy, strategic planning, performance, vote-counting method, voting method,

meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION Strategic planning (SP) is an effective way of improving corporate performance (CP); this, at

least, has been the general perception in the strategic management literature to date. A closer

look at the empirical literature on the subject reveals a more diverse picture. The results are

not equivocal; some studies show that there is a positive relationship between SP and CP

(e.g., Bracker & Pearson 1986; Pearce et al. 1987a; Hopkins & Hopkins 1997), while others

show that the relationship is inconclusive (e.g., Fulmer & Rue 1974; Kallman & Shapiro

1978; Gable & Topol 1987; McKiernan & Morris 1994). Others again even show that the

relationship is negative (e.g., Sheehan 1975; Fredrikson & Mitchell 1984; Whitehead & Gup

1985).

A situation like this is undesirable for academia and for practice: when research results differ

for no apparent reason, it hinders the fruitful development of the research field to the

disadvantage of both researchers and practitioners.

Rectifying the situation requires a thorough re-examination of the previous research, an all-

encompassing review that will clarify the actual state of the relationship.

The purpose of this article is to report on the results of a meta-analysis that was conducted to

appraise the state of the art within the strategic planning and corporate performance research

field. An extensive literature search (McIlquham-Schmidt 2005) has shown that a

considerable proportion of the studies on the SP-CP relationship made between 1956 and

1994 are missing from previous reviews of the topic (meta-analyses made by Miller &

Cardinal 1994; Greenley 1994).

Furthermore, several studies that have tried to illuminate the SP-CP relationship have been

published since the last integrative reviews were published in 1994. These studies are, for

obvious reasons, also not included in the aforementioned integrative reviews. This article

presents the results of a meta-analytical review of 88 studies of the SP-CP relationship from

the period 1956 to 2003.

Meta-analysis (Hunter et al. 1982; Rosenthal 1991) has proven to be a useful technique in

many research areas where individual studies have come up with inconclusive or conflicting

results (e.g., Boyd 1991; Miller & Cardinal 1994; Schwenk & Shrader 1993). By statistically

aggregating results across individual studies, meta-analysis allows for much greater precision

3

than other forms of research reviews. The specific objectives of this meta-analysis are to:

provide a statistical integration of the accumulated research on the relationship between SP

and CP, and to examine the influence from moderators (such as time period, journal quality

and Terpstra methodology1) on the relationship.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES The overall strategic planning and corporate performance relationship

A quick look through the management literature provides a description of strategic planning

as an effective way of improving corporate performance. Strategic planning is said to result in

a better match between external environment variables and the changing internal

organizational conditions of the firm. The purpose of this match is to ensure that the plans

continuously realign the firm’s objectives and strategies with changing conditions to improve

the long-run performance of the company. This interpretation of strategic planning’s

fundamental objective can be found in, for example, Ansoff (1979), Andrews (1971),

McNichols (1977), Hofer & Schendel (1978), Camillus (1984), and Prescott (1984).

In addition to the general advantages of strategic plans, several specific advantages are

presented in the literature. These can be classified into those being concerned with the

planning process and those being concerned with the personnel involved in the planning.

Writers such as Stern (1966), Loasby (1967), Hausler (1968), Walker (1976) and Wilson

(1979) have suggested the following advantages for each of the two types:

Process advantages:

• The identification and exploitation of future marketing opportunities

• An objective view of management problems

• The provision of a framework for the review of plan execution and control of activities

• Minimization of effects from adverse conditions and changes

• Major decisions can be related more effectively to established objectives

• More effective allocation of time and resources to identified opportunities

• Provision of co-ordination of the execution of the tactics of the plan

• Allowing for the combination of all functions into a combined effort

• Lessening of resources and time needed to correct erroneous ad hoc decisions

• Creation of a framework for internal communication between personnel

• The identification of priorities within the timing of the plan

• The utilization of planning provides an advantage over competitors

Personal advantages:

• Helps to integrate the behavior of individuals in the organization into a team effort

• Provides a basis for the clarification of individual responsibilities, contributing to

motivation

• Encourages forward thinking on the part of personnel

• Stimulates a cooperative, integrated and enthusiastic approach to tackling problems and

opportunities

1 Terpstra is a methodology for evaluating the methodological rigor of studies. For original, see Terpstra (1981);

for adaption to strategic planning research see Armstrong (1982) and Greenley (1986).

4

• Encourages a favorable attitude to change

• Gives a degree of discipline and formality to the management of a business function that

would not exist without planning

Further, Armstrong (1982) argued that an explicit planning process, rather than haphazard

guesswork, results in the collection and interpretation of data critical to creating and

maintaining organization-environment alignment. Similarly, Ansoff (1991) argued that

planning generally produces better alignment and financial results than a process of trial-and-

error learning.

The benefits of strategic planning were also investigated in two separate surveys by Al-

Bazzaz & Grinyer (1980) and Ang & Chua (1979). Although these empirical studies had a

different emphasis, they were more concerned with what the respondents perceived the

advantages of strategic planning to be.

Al-Bazzaz & Grinyer (1980) found that the areas the respondents perceived as benefiting

most from strategic planning were:

• Awareness of problems, strengths and weaknesses 85%

• Profit and growth 48%

• Information and communication 40%

• Systematic resource allocation 35%

• Coordination and control 29%

• Moral and industrial relations 17%

In a similar study Ang & Chua (1979) found the advantages to be:

• The ability to explore more alternatives 66%

• Faster and better quality decision-making 58%

• More timely information 49%

• Better understanding of the business process 45%

• More accurate forecasts 43%

• Cost savings 27%

According to the above-mentioned arguments, there seems to be sound theoretical support for

the assumption that strategic planning can and should improve performance.

Despite the intuitive appeal of these arguments, other researchers have countered that explicit

strategic planning is dysfunctional, or at best irrelevant. One of the most widely circulated

criticisms is that planning yields too much rigidity. Proponents of the “rigidity hypothesis”

maintain that a plan channels attention and behavior to an unacceptable degree, driving out

important innovations that are not a part of the plan.

Mintzberg (1987) argued “that strategies are to organizations what blinders are to horses: they

keep them going in a straight line, but impede the use of peripheral vision.” He offers a

succinct summary of this position: “setting oneself on a predetermined course in unknown

waters is the perfect way to sail straight into an iceberg.”

5

Hofer (1976) pointed out that in the early days of strategic planning, planners had to take the

positive assumption on faith. “For a substantial time, those involved in the strategic planning

area have had to accept as a tenet of faith the belief that strategic planning was indeed

worthwhile. This belief was justified with the theoretical arguments of Ansoff and others, but

there was no research evidence to provide support for those beliefs.”

It seems that there are justifiable theoretical explanations as to the standpoints of whether

strategic planning does or does not have an effect on corporate performance.

To clarify the actual state of the relationship, the first hypothesis to be tested in this article

proclaims that:

H1: The relationship between strategic planning and corporate performance

is positive across different industries, sizes and study contexts.

Measurement strategy

Because performance is such a broad meta-construct, any given study’s operationalization of

it may act as an important moderator of the outcome of the meta-analysis.

To test this hypothesis, the entire meta-analytic dataset is broken down into different subsets

employing different measurement strategies.

The first subset of measures is to distinguish between two broad subdivisions of CP: the

quantitative measures consisting of market- and accounting-based measures, and the

qualitative measures consisting of perception-based measures.

The quantitative measure consists of both the market-based and the accounting-based

measures. Market-based measures of CP, such as price per share, reflect the notion that the

shareholders of the company are a primary stakeholder group that greatly influences the

company’s fate and therefore should be of primary concern to the management.

The accounting-based performance measures, such as return on assets (ROA) and return on

equity (ROE), reflect a firm’s internal efficiency in some way (Cochran & Wood 1984).

Accounting returns are subject to managers’ discretionary allocations of funds to different

projects and policy choices, and as a result capture internal decision-making capabilities and

managerial performance rather than external market responses to organizational (non-market)

actions.

The qualitative measures of CP ask survey respondents to provide subjective estimates of, for

instance, “overall firm performance/success relative to competitors” or “the profitability of

the company”.

On the basis of these arguments a second hypothesis will also be tested in this article.

H2: There is a greater relationship between strategic planning and

corporate performance when the relationship is measured in quantitative terms

ratherthan in qualitative terms.

The second subset of measures that will be reported are individual performance measures

such as price per share, ROA, or the profitability of the company. Since the meta-analysis

6

(McIlquham-Schmidt 2005) included a total of 155 different individual performance

measures, only the most interesting SP-CP relationships will be reported.

METHODS Prior summaries of the relationship between SP and CP have primarily relied on narrative

reviews (e.g., Armstrong 1982; Robinson & Pearce 1984; Shrader et al. 1984; Greenley 1986;

Pearce et al. 1987a; Greenley 1994), although some researchers (e.g., Boyd 1991; Miller &

Cardinal 1994; Schwenk & Shrader 1993) have approached the question of relationship from

a meta-analytical perspective. A common factor for all of the integrative reviews, narrative

and meta-analyses is that the samples of studies covered in them were less than complete.

Narrative reviews are literature reviews that attempt to make sense of past findings verbally.

The reviews typically use a vote counting methodology as a way of reporting the outcome of

the studies. Vote counting method (Light & Smith 1971) refers, in the simplest sense, to the

tabulation of significant and non-significant findings.

Unfortunately, the vote-counting method as an integration technique tends to draw false

inferences because it does not take into account two important study artefacts: sampling error

and measurement error (Hedges & Olkin 1980; Hunter & Schmidt 1990).

The statistical errors in the typical “vote-counting” literature review tend to be more serious

than in the average narrative review because the statistical power of the vote-counting

procedure decreases as the number of studies reviewed increases (Hedges & Olkin 1980;

Hunter & Schmidt 1990).

On the other hand, a meta-analysis enables the researcher to arrive at conclusions that are both

accurate and credible.

Search for relevant studies

A comprehensive review should include both an automated and a manual search (Cooper

1984). A search that solely focuses on an automated search eliminates “browsing” or

following up on promising leads that arise during a manual search.

The automated search for this research was conducted by using Business Source Premier—a

database designed specifically for business schools and libraries—and provides nearly 3,300

full-text scholarly publications in more than 1,000 peer-reviewed journals. In addition to its

full-text availability, the database provides indexing and abstracts for more than 4,100

journals. A number of precise search strings were used in the automated free text search.2

2 The precise search strings that were used in the automated free text search were as follows: 1) “strategic planning” NOT

(DE “strategic planning” NOT AB/TI “strategic planning”) AND performance and 2) “long range planning” NOT AB/TI

“long range planning”) AND performance. Other synonyms for SP, such as “planning” or “plan” were also used in separate

searches.

The reason for disregarding articles with “strategic planning” or “long range planning” in search words (DE) and in the

abstract/title (AB/TI) is that articles that actually have nothing to do with the subject (as perceived in this study) can be

classified under these search terms.

If “strategic planning” or “long range planning” are actually mentioned in the text, then the studies might be relevant for the

later analysis and worth a second look.

7

The manual search started with outlining the journals that might include SP-CP articles.

Researchers (MacMillan & Stern 1987; MacMillan 1989, 1991, 1994) have conducted a series

of surveys that depict what the academic community considers to be the most influential

journals within the field of strategic management research. These surveys suggested a total of

22 journals that were considered likely to publish studies regarding strategic management.

The first step in the manual search was to look through these journals and find the relevant

SP-CP studies. The second step in the search process was to read through the list of references

in the procured studies to see if there were any references to other relevant studies and

journals. The third step was to read through the list of references in newly procured studies to

see if there were any references to other (not yet found) relevant studies and journals. This

process continued until no new studies were found.

The second and third steps produced some references to studies in journals that were not on

the original MacMillan list of journals. Therefore, the manual search process ended up with a

search of 47 journals. The time period covered in both the automated and manual search was

from 1950 to 2003.

Criteria for relevance

The studies that were found relevant for the meta-analysis had to somehow examine the

relationship between SP and CP.

Although any definition is arbitrary, the studies that were considered relevant for inclusion in

the basic sample for the meta-analysis were those that used a definition of strategic planning

that partly or fully encompassed one of the following elements of the strategic planning

process.

1) determine vision, mission and objectives, 2) analyze the environment, 3) analyze the

internal resources 4) analyze and select strategic alternatives, 5) implement the strategies and

6) evaluate and control performance.

If a study investigates the relationship between one or more of the above-mentioned elements

as well as the performance of a company, it was included in the sample that was subject to the

meta-analysis.

Furthermore, the studies had to report two of the following three measures: the sample size

used in the study, the level of significance, or the effect size. If two of the three measures are

mentioned, the remaining one can be calculated (Rosenthal 1991).

The value of the effect size reported should be either a Pearson-moment correlation r, t-test

statistic, Chi2-value, F-value or values for mean and standard deviation, all of which can be

transformed into a relevant meta-analytical measure for effect size (Z-Fisher) (see Bullock &

Svyantek 1985).

Characteristics of primary studies

The result of the combined automated and manual search process was a total of 107 studies

that in some way investigate the relationship between strategic planning and corporate

performance.

8

Some of the references that were found in the search process could not be procured for

different reasons: they were either too old, unpublished (several doctoral dissertations were

unpublished, although some unpublished doctoral dissertations could be procured), or were

duplicates of an earlier study published in a different journal, book, or other publication.

The following studies could not be procured: Meyers (1966), Thune (1967), Guynes (1969),

Malik, Z. A. (1974), Kudla (1978), Robinson, R. B. (1980) and Sineath, P. (1982); all were

unpublished doctoral dissertations. Lindsey et al. (1981) and Rhyne (1983) were both

conference papers.

As a result of the elimination of the 19 non-procurable or duplicate studies, the accessible

population for the article consisted of the following 88 studies. The studies are listed below in

chronological order.

Baker & Thompson (1956) Stanford Research Ins. (1957) Woodruff & Alexander (1957)

Mayer & Goldstein (1961) Trow (1961) Chambers & Golde (1963)

University of Iowa (1963) Najjar (1966) Warren (1966)

Henry (1967) Guynes (1969) Stagner (1969)

Steiner (1969) Ansoff et al. (1970) Eastlack & McDonald (1970)

Gershefski (1970) Thune & House (1970) Perkins & Sugden (1971)

Denning & Lehr (1972) Guth (1972) Herold (1972)

Rhenman (1973) Fulmer & Rue (1974) Grinyer & Norburn (1974)

Krager & Malik (1975) Sheehan (1975) Hegarty (1976)

Potts (1977) Wyant (1977) Burt (1978)

Kallman & Shapiro (1978) Chicha & Julien (1979) Robinson (1979)

Wood & LaForge (1979) Kudla (1980) Leontiades & Tezel (1980)

Smith (1980) Van de Ven (1980a) Harju (1981)

Klein (1981) Kudla (1981) Robinson & Littlejohn (1981)

Sapp & Seiler (1981) Bracker (1982) Jones (1982)

Kudla & Cesta (1982) Robinson (1982) Robinson & Pearce (1983)

Stoner (1983) Frederickson (1984) Frederickson & Mitchell (1984)

Prasad (1984) Robinson et al. (1984), Welch (1984)

Woodburn (1984) Ackelsberg & Arlow (1985) Orpen (1985)

Sexton & Van Auken (1985) Whitehead & Gup (1985) Bracker & Pearson (1986)

Miller & Toulouse (1986) Robinson et al. (1986) Ryhne (1986)

Capon et al. (1987) Gable & Topol (1987) O’Neill et al. (1987)

Pearce et al. (1987b) Bracker et al. (1988) Craig & King (1988)

Odom & Boxx (1988) Robinson & Pearce (1988) Wood et al. (1988)

Shrader et al. (1989) Hegarty & Hoffman (1990) Jenster & Overstreet (1990)

Watt & Ormsby (1990) Kukalis (1991) Powell (1992b)

Lyles et al. (1993) Hopkins & Hopkins (1994) McKiernan & Morris (1994)

Pekar & Abrahams (1995) Berman et al. (1997) Hopkins & Hopkins (1997)

Berry (1998) Hahn & Powers (1999) Andersen (2000)

Desai (2000)

RESULTS The overall strategic planning and corporate performance relationship

The general results of the meta-analysis are shown in Table 1. As shown in the table, the

calculated correlation coefficient r for the total dataset (All performance measures) of 278

correlations and the total sample size (N) of 32.372 observations was r = +0.0830 (ZFisher =

+0.0832). A correlation coefficient of +0.0830 is not a very satisfactory result even for a

9

social science study, and the relationship between SP and CP can therefore be characterized as

almost non-existent.

Table 1: Overall performance measures and first sub-set results

N Z p Z-Fisher r r2 d

All performance measures 32.372 9.59 NA 0.0832 0.0830 0.0069 0.166

Quantitative performance measures 20.751 10.49 NA 0.1033 0.1029 0.0106 0.207

Qualitative performance measures 11.721 0.934 0.18 0.0396 0.0395 0.0016 0.079

NA: 0,001 E –100

The seemingly poor relationship between strategic planning and corporate performance is not

the whole truth, however, and deserves some further scrutiny. If we look deeper and

disaggregate the total dataset “All performance measures” into more specific performance

measures, the supposedly poor relationship becomes more diverse.

The first subset of performance measures is the distinction between quantitative and

qualitative measures, and the second subset is the individual measures, such as ROE, sales,

and others.

Subsets of the strategic planning and corporate performance relationship

Quantitative:

As illustrated in Table 1, the sample size for the qualitative performance measures was 20,751

observations and the effect size was r = +0.1029 (ZFisher = +0.1033).

The correlation coefficient for the quantitative performance measures is +0.1033, a result that

is somewhat better than for “All performance measures”, but still unsatisfactory. The

relationship between SP and CP is still almost non-existent.

Qualitative:

As illustrated in Table 1, the sample size for the qualitative performance measures was 11,721

observations and the effect size was r = +0.0395 (ZFisher = +0.0396).

The correlation coefficient for the qualitative performance measures is +0.0395, a result that

is worse than the values for the total dataset “All performance measures” and “Quantitative

performance measures”.

So far, none of the results of the three groupings of performance measures support the

hypothesis that strategic planning is beneficial to corporate performance.

The second subset of performance measures is the distinction between the performance

measures at the individual level.

Individual performance measures

The individual performance measures in the meta-analysis consist only of the grouping of

exactly the same performance measures from the various studies, such as return on

investments (ROI), sales, profit after tax, and others.

10

The individual performance measures show a much more diverse picture of the relationship

between SP and CP. Not all of the performance measures at the individual level support the

perception that the relationship is poor.

Even though the effect size is the most interesting value in determining the relationship

between SP and CP, it might also be beneficial to take the level of significance into account

when evaluating the results.

The significance level determines the likelihood of the result of the performance measure

occurring. A performance measure that has a large effect size is less relevant if it is unlikely

to occur, or is insignificant. On the other hand, while the magnitude of the effect size

determines the strength of the relationship, a performance measure that is highly significant is

also less relevant if it has a very small effect size. The ideal combination is, therefore, a

performance measure that is simultaneously highly significant and has a large effect size.

The results of the top ten individual performance measures are listed in Table 2; the bottom

ten are listed in Table 3. Table 2: Top 10 effect sizes.

N Z p

Z-Fisher r r

2 d

Earnings/Common share 148 1.75 0.0399 1.07 0.79 0.62 2.58

Return on invested capital 14 2.46 0.0069 0.76 0.64 0.41 1.67

Return on owner’s investment 41 3.98 0.0001 0.66 0.58 0.34 1.43

Return on invested capital, Changes in 28 2.92 0.0017 0.63 0.56 0.31 1.34

Attainment of profit objectives 257 8.72 0.0001 0.56 0.51 0.26 1.18

Community acceptance 14 1.73 0.0416 0.52 0.48 0.23 1.09

Service efficiency 14 1.69 0.0454 0.51 0.47 0.22 1.06

Attainment of corporate objectives 25 7.40 0.0001 0.47 0.44 0.19 0.98

CEO cash compensation growth 46 3.57 0.0002 0.46 0.43 0.18 0.94

Rate earned on net worth 38 2.58 0.0050 0.46 0.42 0.17 0.92

The individual data show that there are some interesting candidates that support a more

positive perception of the SP-CP relationship.

The quantitative performance measures Earnings per /Common share and Return on invested

capital both showed a very high correlation coefficient r of, respectively, +0.79 and +0.64.

Return on owner’s investment (+0.58), Return on invested capital, Changes in (+0.56), CEO

cash compensation growth (+0.43), and Rate earned on net worth (+0.42) are also supportive

of a positive relationship.

Some of the qualitative individual performance measures also showed correlation coefficients

that are supportive of a positive relationship. Attainment of profit objectives (+0.51),

Community acceptance (+0.48), Service efficiency (+0.47) and Attainment of corporate

objectives (0.44).

As can be seen from Table 2, all of the top ten performance measures are significant at the

0.05 level.

11

On the other hand, some of the individual performance measures showed had a negative

correlation coefficient, such as Assets (r = -0.28); Profit as a percentage of sales revenue (r = -

0.16); Profit (Net) before tax, Change in (-0.12); Profit after taxes (r = -0.06); Common stock

market value (r = -0.06); Profit growth (r = -0.03); and Employment productivity (r = 0.001). Table 3: Bottom 10 effect sizes.

N Z p Z-Fisher r r2 d

Assets 93 2.72 0.01 -0.287 -0.28 0.080 0,.8

Profit as a percentage of sales revenue 138 1.87 0.03 -0.161 -0.16 0.030 0.32

Profit (Net) before tax, Change in 138 1.40 0.08 -0.120 -0.12 0.010 0.24

Profit after taxes 97 1.38 0.08 -0.060 -0.06 0.0001 0.12

Common stock market value 63 0.47 0.32 -0.060 -0.06 0.0001 0.12

Profit growth 94 0.44 0.33 -0.032 -0.03 0.0001 0.06

Employment productivity 53 0.01 0.53 0.001 0.001 0.0001 0.01

Variability of gross profit 98 0.04 0.48 0.005 0.005 0.0001 0.01

Profitability 788 0.03 0.49 0.005 0.005 0.0001 0.01

Profit margin 109 0.06 0.48 0.005 0.006 0.0001 0.01

An interesting observation in the range of individual performance measures is that none of the

negative performance measures are qualitative (perception-based) measures.

As can be seen in Table 3, only two of the bottom ten performance measures (Assets and

Profit as a percentage of sales revenue) are significant at the 0.05 level.

The lack of statistical significance on some of the the negative outcome of performance

measures might raise questions about the validity of the results; even though the 0.05 level is

only a conventional agreement, six of the bottom ten are far from being statistically

significant at any conventional agreed level.

File drawer analysis

A common point of criticism raised against the meta-analytical technique is the availability

issue, which states that not all the relevant studies are procured, rendering the result biased

and less reliable. This kind of criticism is not specific to the meta-analysis but can be aimed at

all types of review analyses, including the commonly-used voting method analysis.

To address the possibility of a sample bias due to problems associated with the procurement

of studies to the sample, the “file drawer” analysis (Rosenthal 1979) is usually performed.

A file drawer analysis is not performed in this case, as the essence of the analysis is to

calculate the number of studies that are required to be missed in the procurement process or

hidden away somewhere in file-drawers at research institutions etc., in order to reduce a

significant result to a non-significant one.

Since the outcome of this meta-analysis is already non-insignificant, calculating the file

drawer analysis does not seem appropriate. Of course a reversed file drawer analysis could be

done, calculating the number of significant studies that were “missed” in order to turn the

non-significant result into a significant one. First, however, it is difficult to argue why the

12

unidentified number of significant studies was not procured. Second, there should be more

significant studies in the file drawers than non-significant ones. One would normally expect

that the significant results would be more interesting in research settings, and therefore also

more commonly available than non-significant results.

DISCUSSION Theoretical implications

Based on this meta-analysis integrating 45 years of research, the answer to the hypothesis on

the relationship between strategic planning and corporate performance is affirmative. The

results of this meta-analysis show that there is a very small but positive relationship (r =

0.0830); therefore, strategic planning does improve corporate performance. In that sense, this

meta-analysis supports the findings of other meta-analyses (e.g., Boyd 1991; Miller &

Cardinal 1994; Schwenk & Shrader 1993), although the correlation coefficient is smaller.

In research settings, an outcome such as this one is less satisfying than one could have hoped

for, and it does force the strategic planning research community to re-examine the

fundamental assumptions of the research field when conducting research like this. Either the

relationship between strategic planning and corporate performance is non-existent (and it is

therefore fruitless to try to establish such a relationship), or it does exist but the manner in

which previous research has approached the issue may not have been the most appropriate

one.

Implications for future research

The lack of a clearer relationship between SP and CP can be ascribed to several problematic

issues found within different areas of the strategic planning research field. Some of the issues

are fundamental in nature, while others are a question of a less-than-optimal application of

appropriate techniques.

At the methodological level, the problematic issue within the research field is associated with

the model by which the research is conducted. It is, according to Elster (1989), too “coarse-

grained” and allows too wide a gap between cause and effect.

The gap between cause and effect may exist partly because of the lag between cause and

effect (for a strategic planning process the time from initiation to completion can be measured

in years), and partly because of the dynamics of the environment in which the company

operates. The total gap is a combination of the length of lag and the environmental dynamics.

Since the 1950s there has been a steady increase in environmental complexity, and the sole

purpose of strategic planning is to plan for the future (i.e., a minimum of three to five years

ahead). It is very difficult, if not impossible, to point out cause and effect due to the fact that

circumstances will have changed many times during the period.

To close such gaps, the goal for the researcher is to “open up the black box and show the nuts

and bolts, the cogs and wheels of the internal machinery” (Elster 1983). In this case, the goal

is to empirically verify that strategic planning has a positive impact on the theoretical process

and personal advantage elements mentioned by Stern (1966), Loasby (1967), Hausler (1968),

Walker (1976) and Wilson (1979), as well as the (managers’) perceived benefits, as

mentioned by Al-Bazzaz & Grinyer (1980) and Ang & Chua (1979).

13

At the more theoretical level, the problematic issues are partly related to the clarity of the

definition of the main concepts of strategic planning and performance. Future researchers

should be more specific regarding the precise content of the concept of strategic planning they

are using, what dimensions they want to emphasize, and so on. This would make it easier for

future researchers to evaluate and compare studies.

Furthermore, in relation to the performance concept, the researchers should incorporate at

least one generally accepted performance measure (ROA, ROI, sales, etc.) in their studies. As

illustrated in Tables 2 and 3, the outcome of the relationship between SP and CP depends on

the chosen performance measure. A common performance measure would be helpful when

comparing the results across different studies.

Lastly, the lack of relationship could also be ascribed to the fact that the value of strategic

planning is diminishing. If all companies in an industry plan ahead, strategic planning would

no longer be a “competitive advantage” but rather a “competitive necessity” (Powell 1992b).

Implications for Managers

It is more difficult to specify what the implications of these results are for practioners and

managers, since the academic community is apparently still having trouble pinpointing the

precise value of strategic planning.

However, some preliminary implications have surfaced. For the majority of performance

measures, strategic planning does not have a negative influence on corporate performance.

The perception that a strategic plan is followed so uncritically as to endanger the survival of a

company appears to be greatly exaggerated. Therefore, the proponents of the rigidity

hypothesis (e.g., Mintzberg 1987) lack the empirical support for their hypothesis among the

procured studies in this meta-analysis.

Furthermore, as regards future research, practitioners and managers should be careful in the

selection of which performance measure they intend to use when they seek to measure the

effects of strategic planning. The purpose of the strategic planning process should be reflected

in the choice of performance measure.

CONCLUSION The answer to hypothesis H1 as to whether there is a relationship between strategic planning

and corporate performance would be affirmative. The meta-analysis showed that there is a

positive relationship between strategic planning and corporate performance. However, it also

showed that the relationship is very weak.

If the “All performance measures” can be assumed to represent the whole meta-analysis, then

the result of the meta-analysis is an effect size in terms of the correlation coefficient r =

+0.0830 and on ZFisher = +0.0832.

Even though the relationship exists and is positive, it is definitely not as strong as the strategic

management literature would suggest.

An answer to hypothesis H2 as to whether there is a greater relationship between strategic

planning and corporate performance when the relationship was measured in qualitative terms

rather than in qualitative terms would also be affirmative.

14

The result of the meta-analysis showed that the effect size for the quantitative measures was r

= +0.1074 (ZFisher = +0.1078); for the qualitative measures it was only r = +0.0395 (ZFisher =

+0.0396).

To complete the picture, some individual performance measures did show a very positive

relationship between SP and CP. For example, Earnings/Common share showed a correlations

coefficient (r) of +0.79, Return on invested capital (+0.64), Return on owner’s investment

(+0.58), and Return on invested capital, Changes to (+0.56).

The determination of whether there is a relationship between SP and CP will therefore depend

on the performance measure selected.

15

References

Ackelsberg, R. and Arlow, P. (1985): Small businesses do plan and it pays off. Long Range

Planning, 18, 5, p. 61–67.

Al-Bazzaz, S.J. and P.H. Grinyer (1980): How planning works in practice: A survey of 48 UK

companies, Long Range Planning, 13, p. 30–42.

Andrews, Kenneth R. (1971): The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Dow Jones-Irwin,

Homewood, IL.

Andersen, Torben Juul (2000): Strategic Planning, Autonomous Actions and Corporate

Performance. Long Range Planning, Vol. 33, (2), p. 184–200

Ang, J.S. and J.H. Chua (1979): Long-range planning in Large United States Corporations.

Long Range Planning, Vol. 12, p. 99–102

Ansoff, H.I., Jay Avner, Richard G. Brandenburg, Fred E. Portner and Raymond Radosevich

(1970): Does Planning Pay? The Effect of Planning on Success of Acquisitions in American

Firms, Long Range Planning, December. p. 2–7.

Ansoff, H.I. (1979): Strategic Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Ansoff, H.I. (1991): Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s “The design school”: Reconsidering the

basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 12, p. 449–461

Armstrong, J.S. (1982): The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Review of

empirical research. Strategic Management Journal, 3, p. 197–211.

Armstrong, J.S. (1986): The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Reply, Strategic

Management Journal, 7, 2, p. 183–185.

Baker, A.D. & C.G. Thompson (1956): Long-Range Planning Pays Off. Conference Board

Business Record, Vol. 8. October, p. 435–443

Berman, Jeffrey A. and Gordon, Daniel D.; Sussman, Gerald (1997): A study to determine the

benefits small business firms derive from sophisticated planning versus less sophisticated

planning. Journal of Business & Economic Studies, Vol. 3, Issue 3, p. 1–10

Berry, M. (1998): Strategic planning in small high-tech companies, Long Range Planning,

Vol. 31. no 3, p. 455–466.

Boyd, Brian K. (1991): Strategic planning and financial performance: A meta-analytic review,

Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 28, No.4, p. 353–374.

Bracker, J. S. (1982): Planning and Financial Performance Among Small Entrepreneurial

Firms: An industry study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. San Diego, Georgia State

University.

16

Bracker, J. S. and Pearson, J.N. (1986): Planning and financial performance of small mature

firms, Strategic Management Journal, 7, p. 503–522.

Bracker, J. S., Keats, B.W and Pearson, J.N. (1988): Planning and financial performance

among small firms in a growth industry, Strategic Management Journal, 9, p. 591–603.

Burt, D.N. (1978): Planning and performance in Australian retailing. Long Range Planning,

11, 3, p. 62–66.

Bullock, R.J. & Svyantek, D.J. (1985): Analyzing meta-analysis: Potential problems, an

unsuccessful replication, and evaluation criteria, Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, (1), p.

108–115.

Camillus, J.C. (1975): Evaluating the benefits of formal planning. Long Range Planning, 8, 3,

p. 33–40.

Capon, N., Farley, J.U. and Hubert, J. (1987): Corporate Strategic Planning. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Chambers, E.J. & Golde, R.L. (1963): A Pilot Study of Successful and Unsuccessful Small

Business Enterprises Within Montana. Missoula, Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic

Research, Montana State University.

Chicha, J. & Julien, P.A. (1979): The Strategy of SMBs and Their Adaptation to Change.

Trois-Riviere, Quebec: University of Quebec at Trois-Riviere.

Cooper, H.M. (1984): The integrative research interview, Beverly Hills, Cal. Sage

Cochran, Philip L. and Robert A. Wood: Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial

Performance. Academy of Management Journal, March, Vol. 27 Issue 1, p. 42–56.

Cragg, P.B. and M. King (1988): Organizational characteristics and small firms performance

revisited, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13, p. 49–64.

Denning, B.W. and Lehr, M.E. (1971): The extent and nature of corporate long range

planning in the UK- I. Journal of Management Studies, 8, (2) p. 145–161.

Denning, B.W. and Lehr, M.E. (1972): The extent and nature of corporate long range

planning in the United Kingdom - II. Journal of Management Studies, 9, p. 1–18.

Desai, Ashay, B. (2000): Does strategic planning create value? The stock market’s belief,

Management Decision, Vol. 38, Issue 10, p. 685–683.

Eastlack, J. & McDonald, P. (1970): CEO’s role in corporate growth, Harvard Business

Review, 48, (3), p. 153–160.

Elster, Jon (1989): Nuts and bolts for the social sciences, Cambridge University Press,

London

17

Fredrickson, J.W. (1984): The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: Extensions,

observations, future directions, Academy of Management Journal, 27, (3), p. 445–466

Fredrickson, J.W. and T.R. Mitchell (1984): Strategic decision processes: Comprehensiveness

and performance in an industry with an unstable environment, Academy of Management

Journal, 27, p. 299–332.

Fulmer, R.M. and Rue, L.W. (1974): The practice and profitability of long range planning,

Managerial Planning, 22, 6, May/June p. 1–7.

Gable, M. and Topol, M.T. (1987): Planning practices of small-scale retailers. American

Journal of Small Business, 12 (2), p. 19–32.

Gershefski, G.W. (1969): Corporate Planning Models: State of the Art. Managerial Planning,

p. 31–35.

Gershefski, G.W. (1970): Corporate Models: The state of the art. Management Science, 16, p.

303–312.

Greenly, G. (1986): Does strategic planning improve company performance? Long Range

Planning, 19, 2, p. 101–109.

Greenly, G.E. (1994): Strategic planning and Company Performance: An appraisal of the

empirical evidence, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 10, (4), p. 383–396.

Grinyer, P.H. and Norburn, D. (1974): Strategic Planning in 21 UK companies, Long Range

Planning, August, p. 80–88.

Grinyer, P.H. and Norburn, D. (1975): Planning for existing markets: Perceptions of

executives and financial performance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, (A) 138. p. 70–

97.

Grinyer, P.H. and Norburn, D. (1975): An empirical investigation of some aspects of strategic

planning. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, (A) 138. p. 70–97.

Guth, W.D. (1972): The growth and profitability of the firm: A managerial explanation.

Journal of Business Policy, 2, Spring.

Guynes, Carl S. (1969): An Analysis of Planning in Large Texas Manufacturing Firms.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University.

Harju, P. (1981): Attitude of Strategic Managers Towards Formalized Corporate Planning.

Turku, Finland: School of Economics.

Hausler, J. (1968): Planning: A way of shaping the future, Management International Review,

2, (3), p. 12–21.

Hahn, William and Powers, Thomas (1999): The Impact of Strategic Planning Sophistication

and Implementation on Firm Performance, Journal of Business & Economic Studies, Vol. 5

Issue 2, p. 19–35.

18

Hedges, Larry V. and Ingram Olkin (1980): Vote-Counting Methods in Research Synthesis,

Psychological Bulletin, Vol 88, No. 2, p. 359–369

Hegarty, W.H. (1976): The role of strategy formulation on corporate performance,

Proceedings of the Midwest American Institute of Decisions Sciences, p. 478–481.

Hegarty, W. Harvey and Hoffman, Richard C. (1990): The relationship between strategic

planning and performance among three cultures. Academy of Management Proceedings,

1990, p. 106–110

Henry, Harold W. (1965): Long-range Planning in Industrial Corporations: An analysis of

formalized practice. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan.

Henry, Harold W. (1967): Long-range planning practices in 45 industrial companies,

Engelwoods Cliffs, N.J. Prentice Hall, Inc.

Herold, D.M. (1972): Long-range planning and organizational performance: A cross-

valuation study, Academy of Management Journal, 15, p. 91–102.

Hofer, Charles E. (1976): Research on strategic planning: A survey of past studies and

suggestions for future efforts. Journal of Economics and Business, 28, p. 261–286.

Hofer, Charles E. & Dan Schendel (1978): Strategy Formulation. The West Series in

Business Policy and Planning, St. Poul.

Hopkins, W.E and S. Hopkins (1994): Want to succeed: Get with the plan. Journal of Retail

Banking, 16 (3), p. 26–31.

Hopkins, W.E. and S. Hopkins (1997): Strategic planning-financial performance relationships

in banks: A causal examination, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18:8, p. 635–652.

Hunter John E. and Frank L. Schmidt (1990): Methods of Meta-Analysis. Sage Publications.

London.

Jenster, P.V. and Overstreet, G.A. (1990): Planning for a non-profit service: A study of the

US credit unions, Long Range Planning, 23 (2), p. 103–111.

Jones, W.D. (1982): Characteristics of planning in small firms. Journal of Small Business

Management, 20, (3) p. 15–19.

Kallman, E.A. and Shapiro H.J. (1978): The motor freight industry: A case against planning.

Long Range Planning,11, p. 81–86.

Karger, D.W. (1973): Integrated formal long-range planning and how to do it. Long Range

Planning, 6, 4, p. 31–33.

Karger, D.W. and Malik, Z.A. (1975): Long-range planning and organizational performance.

Long Range Planning, 8, 6, p. 60–64.

19

Klein, H.E. (1981): The impact of planning on growth and profit. Journal of Bank Research,

12, 2, p. 105–109.

Kudla, R.J. (1978): The Effect of Strategic Planning on Common Stock Returns, Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Kudla, R.J. (1980): The effect of strategic planning on common stock returns, Academy of

Management Journal, 23, 1, p. 5–20.

Kudla, R.J. (1981): Strategic planning and risk. Review of Business and Economic Research,

17, p. 1–14.

Kudla, R.J. and Cesta, J.R. (1982): Planning and financial performance: A discriminant

analysis. Akron Business and Economic Review. 13 (1), p. 30–36.

Kukalis, S. (1991): Determinants of strategic planning systems in large organizations: A

contingency approach. Journal of Management Studies. 28, p. 143–160.

Leontiades, M. and Tezel, A. (1980): Planning perceptions and planning results, Strategic

Management Journal, 1, p. 65–76.

Loasby, B.J. (1967) Long Range Formal Planning in Perspective. The Journal of Management

Studies ,IV, p. 300–308.

Lyles, M.A., Baird, I.S., Orris, J.B., and Kuratko, D.F. (1993): Formalized Planning in Small

Business: Increasing strategic choice, Journal of Small Business Management, April, p. 38–

50.

Malik, Z.A. (1974): Formal Long Range Planning and Organizational Performance. Doctoral

dissertation, Rensslear Polytechnic Institute.

Mayer, K. and S. Goldstein (1961): The First Two Years: Problems of small growth and

survival, Washington DC, Small Business Administration.

McIlquham-Schmidt, A. (2005): Strategic planning and corporate performance: An

integrative research review and a meta-analysis of the strategic planning and corporate

performance literature from 1956–2003. Doctoral dissertation, Copenhagen Business School,

Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen.

McNichols, T.J. (1977): Executive Policy and Strategic Planning, McGraw-Hill, New York.

McKiernan, Peter and Morris, Clare (1994): Strategic Planning and Financial Performance in

UK SMEs: Does formality matter? British Journal of Management, Special Issue, Vol. 5

Issue 2, p. 31–41

MacMillan, Ian C. & Ilene Stern (1987): Delineating a Forum for Business Policy Scholars,

Strategic Management Journal, Mar/Apr, Vol. 8 Issue 2, p.183–186

MacMillan, Ian C. (1989): Delineating a Forum for Business Policy Scholars, Strategic

Management Journal, Jul/Aug, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p. 391–395

20

MacMillan, Ian C. (1991): The Emerging Forum for Business Policy Scholars, Strategic

Management Journal, Feb, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p. 161–165

MacMillan, Ian C. (1994): The Emerging Forum for Business Policy Scholars. Journal of

Business Venturing; March, Vol. 9 Issue 2, p. 85–90

Meyers, P.F. (1966): A Comparison Study of Long Range Planning and Its Influence on The

Management Practice of Several Large Electronics Companies, Harvard Graduate School of

Business Administration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Miller, D. and Toulouse, J.M. (1986): Strategy, structure and performance in small firms,

American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 10 p. 47–82.

Miller, D. and Toulouse, J.M. (1986): Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and

structure in small firms, Management Science, 32, p. 1389–1409.

Miller, C.C. and Cardinal, L. (1994): Strategic planning and firm performance. A synthesis of

more than two decades of research. Academy of management Journal, Vol. 37 (6), p. 1649–

1665.

Mintzbertg, H. (1987): The Strategy Concept II. Another look at why organizations need

strategies, California Management Review, fall, p. 25–31

Najjar, Mohamed A. (1966): Planning in Small Manufacturing Companies: An Empirical

Study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.

Odom, R.Y. and Boxx, W.R. (1988): Environment, planning processes, and organizational

performance of churches, Strategic Management Journal, 9, p. 197–205.

O’Neill, H.M., Saunders, C.B. and Hoffman, A.N. (1987): Beyond the Entrepreneur: Planning

as the organization grows, Business Forum, 12, 1987, p. 38–40.

Orpen, C. (1985): The effects of long range planning on small Business performance: A

further examination. Journal of Small Business Management, 23 (1). p. 16–23.

Prasad, S. Benjamin (1984): The paradox of planning in banks, The Bankers Magazine, Vol.

164 (May/June), p. 78–81.

Pearce II, J.A., Freeman, E.B. and Robinson, R.B. (1987a): The tenuous link between formal

strategic planning and performance, Academy of Management Review, 12, p. 658–675.

Pearce, J.A., Robbins, D.K. and Robinson, R.B. (1987b): The impact of grand strategy and

planning formality on financial performance, Strategic Management Journal, 8, p. 125–134.

Pekar, P. and Abrahams, S. (1995): Is strategic management living up to its promise? Long

Range Planning, Vol. 28, No. 5, p. 32–44.

21

Perkins, A. and Sugden, B. (1971): Purposes and effectiveness of formal planning systems. In

Vancil, R.F. (Ed.) Formal Planning Systems, 1971. Cambridge. Mass, Harvard Business

School, p. 234–250.

Potts, A.J. (1977): A Study of The Success and Failure Rates of Small Businesses and the Use

and Non-use of Accounting Information, Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University.

Powell, T.C. (1992a): Organizational alignment as competitive advantage, Strategic

Management Journal, 13, 1992, p. 119–134.

Powell, T.C. (1992b): Strategic planning as a competitive advantage. Strategic Management

Journal, 13, p. 551–558.

Prescott, J.E. (1984): Environmental fit and performance. Paper presented to the National

Academy of Management Meeting, Boston.

Rhenman, E. (1973): Organization Theory For Long Range Planning. New York, Wiley

Rhyne, L.C. (1983): The impact of strategic planning to financial performance, Paper

presented at the 43rd

Annual Academy of Management Meeting, Dallas.

Rhyne, L.C. (1986): The relationship of strategic planning to financial performance, Strategic

Management Journal, 7, p. 423–436.

Rhyne, L.C. (1987): Contrasting planning systems in high, medium and low performance

companies, Journal of Management Studies, 24, p. 363–385.

Robinson (1979): Forecasting and small business: A study of the strategic planning process.

Journal of Small Business Management, 17, 3, p. 19–27.

Robinson, R.B. (1980): An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of SBDC strategic planning

Consultation Upon Short-term Effectiveness of Small Business in Georgia. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation University of Georgia.

Robinson, R.B. (1982): The importance of outsiders in small firm strategic planning,

Academy of Management Journal, 25, p. 80–93.

Robinson, R.B. and Littlejohn, W.F. (1981): Important contingencies in small firm planning,

Journal of Small Business Management, 19 (3), p. 45–48.

Robinson, R.B. and Pearce II, J.A. (1983): The impact of formalized strategic planning on

financial performance in small organizations, Strategic Management Journal, 4, p. 197–207.

Robinson, R.B. and Pearce II, J.A. (1984): Research thrusts in small firm strategic planning,

Academy of Management Review, 9 (1), p. 128–137.

Robinson, R.B. and Pearce II, J.A. (1988): Planned patterns of strategic behavior and their

relationship to business unit performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9 p. 43–66.

22

Robinson, R.B., Pearce II, J.A. Vozikis, G.S. and Mescon, T.S. (1984): The relationship

between stage of development and small firm planning and performance. Journal of Small

Business Management, 22, (2), p. 45–52.

Robinson, R.B., Logan, J.E. & Salem, M.Y. (1986): Strategic versus operational planning in

small retail firms. American Journal of Small Business, 10, 3, p. 7–16.

Robinson, R.B., Logan, J.E. , Salem, M.Y. & Pearce II, J.A. (1986): Planning activities

related to independent retail firm performance, American Journal of Small Business, 11, p.

19–26.

Rosenthal, Robert (1979): The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results,

Psychological Bulletin, 86, p. 638–641

Rosenthal, Robert (1991): Meta-Analytical Procedures for Social Research, Sage

Publications, London

Sapp, R.W. and Seiler, R.E. (1981): The relationship between long range planning and

financial performance of US commercial banks. Managerial Planning. 30, p. 32–36.

Schwenk, C.R. and C.B. Shrader (1993): Effects of formal strategic planning on financial

performance in small firms: A meta-analysis, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, spring,

p. 53–64.

Sexton D.L. and Van Auken, P. (1985): A longitudinal study of small business strategic

planning, Journal of Small Business Management, 23 (1). p. 7–15.

Sheehan, G. (1975): Long-range Planning and its Relationship to Firm growth and

Variability: An Explorative, Empirical Investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Western Ontario, Canada.

Shrader, C.B, C.L. Mulford and V.L. Blackburn (1989): Strategic and operational planning

uncertainty and performance in small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 27, p.

45–60.

Shrader, C.B., Taylor, L. and Dalton D.R. (1984): Strategic planning and organizational

performance: A critical appraisal. Journal of Management, 10, (2), p. 149–171.

Sineath, P. (1982): An empirical investigation into the relationship between strategic

planning and the retail sector, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South

Carolina.

Smith, G. (1980): Planning for productivity, Long Range Planning, 13, p. 52–63

Stagner, R. (1969): Corporate decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, p. 1–13.

Stanford Research Ins. (1957) in Shrader C.B., Taylor, L. and Dalton, D.R. (1984): Strategic

Planning and Organizational Performance. Journal of Management, 10, (2), p. 149–171

23

Steers, R.M. (1975): Problems in the measuring of organizational effectiveness.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, pp. 546–558.

Steiner, G.A. (1969): Strategic factors in business success, New York: Financial Executives

Research Foundation.

Stern, M.E. (1966): Marketing Planning: A Systems Approach. McGraw-Hill, USA.

Stoner, C.R. (1983): Planning in small manufacturing firms: A survey. Journal of Small

Business Management, January, p. 34–41.

Thune, Stanley S. (1967): An investigation into the effects of long range planning in selected

industries. Unpublished MBA thesis, Baruch School of Business, City University of New

York.

Thune, S.S. and House, R.J. (1970): Where long-range planning pays off: Findings of a

survey of formal, informal planners. Business Horizon, Vol. 13, No.4, p. 81–87.

Trow, D.B. (1961): Executive succession in small companies, Administrative Science

Quarterly, 25, p. 12–15.

University of Iowa (1963): An analysis of environmental and managerial factors in the

success and failure of small manufacturing enterprises. Iowa City, Iowa: Bureau of Business

and Economic Research,

Van de Ven, A.H. (1980a): Problem solving, planning and innovation, Part 1: Test of the

program planning model. Human Relations, 33, p. 711–740.

Van de Ven, A.H. (1980b): Problem solving, planning and innovation, Part 2: Speculations

for theory and practice, Human Relations, 33, 11, p. 757–779

Venkatraman, N & Ramanujam, V. (1986) Measurement of business performance in strategy

research: A comparison of approaches, Academy of Management Review, 11, 4, pp. 801–814.

Walker, K.R. (1976): How to draw up a marketing plan that will keep you on track, Industrial

Marketing, September, p. 126–128.

Warren, E.K. (1966): Long Range Planning: The Executive Viewpoint. Engelwoods Cliffs,

NJ, Prentice Hall.

Watts, L.R. and J.G. Ormsby (1990a): The Contribution of Operational and Strategic

Planning to Small Firm Performance, paper presented at the 19th

annual meeting of the

western Decision Sciences Institute.

Watts, L.R. and J.G. Ormsby (1990b): Small business performance as a function of planning

formality: A laboratory study, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 2, p. 1–8.

Welch, J.B. (1984): Strategic planning could improve your share price. Long Range Planning,

17, 2, p. 144–147.

24

Wilson, R.M.S. (1979): Management Controls and Marketing Planning, Heinemann, London.

Whitehead, D.D. and Gup, B.E. (1985): Bank and Thrift probability: does strategic planning

really pay off? Economic Review Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 70, October, p. 14–25.

Wood, D.R. and Laforge, R.L. (1979): The impact of comprehensive planning on financial

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 22, p. 516–526.

Wood, D.R., Johnston, R.A. and DeGenaro, G.J. (1988): The impact of formal planning on

the financial performance of real estate firms. Journal of Business, 5, (1), p. 44–51.

Woodburn, T.L. (1979): Corporate Strategic Planning in South African Organizations.

Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Woodburn, T.L. (1984): Corporate planning in South African companies. Long Range

Planning, 17 (1), p. 84–89.

Woodruff, A.M. & Alexander, T.G. (1958): Success and Failure in Small Manufacturing: A

Study of 20 Small Manufacturing Concerns, Pittsburg, University of Pittsburgh Press.

Wyant, R. (1977): The Business Failure Record. New York, Dun and Bradstreet.

ISBN 9788778824684

Department of Management

Aarhus School of Business Fuglesangs Allé 4 DK-8210 Aarhus V - Denmark Tel. +45 89 48 66 88 Fax +45 86 15 01 88 www.asb.dk