THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF REEVES MODEL

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH This research intent to analyse the importance of Reeves, Haanaes and Sinha (2015) model, and the coherence of theoretical support. This exploratory study is an insight through literature-based investigation to develop a general review about the main contributions to this new model to choose the right approach to strategy. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Reeves et al. (2015: 5) propose a new model in order to help "leaders match their approach to strategy to the circumstances at hand and execute it effectively, to combine different approaches to cope with multiple or changing environments". In this sequence, this methodological proposal understands that the environment conditions the choice of the appropriate strategic posture. For Reeves et al. (2015) the competitive environment is conditioned by its unpredictability, malleability and severity (harshness). It is as a result of these dimensions that different approaches to strategy are proposed. Thus, for predictable and difficult to model environments, a classic positioning approach is proposed, by obtaining dimension, differentiation or the development of distinctive resources and capabilities (classic) (Wernerfeldt, 1984; Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993; Porter, 1980). In unpredictable and difficult-tomodel environments, an adaptive posture is desirable through continuous experimentation (adaptive) (Schumpeter, 1934; Jacobson, 1992; Levinthal, 1992; Kirzner, 1997; Sull, 2009; McGrath, 2013). On the other hand, when there is the possibility of modeling the environment, and the environment is predictable, a visionary approach, based on the creation of new markets, or on their disruption (visionary) is advisable (Hamel, 1996; Kim and Mauborgne, 2005). As a penultimate possibility, when there is great unpredictability and the environment is malleable, a modeling approach through collaborative relationships (shaping) is suggested (Palmar et al. 2010; Bradenburger and Nalebuff, 2002; Hagel III et al., 2008). CONCLUSIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS Some of the main conclusions and contributions can be summed up in the importance of defining different approach models to strategy depending on the competitive environment and the business life cycle (Beinhocker, 1997; Harrington, 2005; Bingham et al., 2011). Second, the finding that the competitive advantage will become predominantly temporary, distancing the author from classical conceptions and theories (IO / RBV). Finally, the need for "internal fit" for each different approach to strategy is confirmed (Miller, 1992; Porter, 1996; Siggelkow, 2002). The limitations of the model focus on the choice of the two central concepts that condition the correct approach to strategy unpredictability and malleability. This model departing theoretically and conceptually from previous developments, such as those proposed by Harrington (2005), Bingham et al. (2011) or Bryant (2011), faces gaps that require further complements.