A Ground for Seeking the Truth of Strategy Beyond Definitions

Document Type : Original Article


1 PhD. Student, Department of Technological Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Technological Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Institutional and Social Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of Tehran, Tehran

4 Associate Professor, Department of Leadership and Human Resources, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


Purpose: Since it is impossible to provide a comprehensive definition, this hinders the strategy as each interpretation suggests a specific type of knowledge that only pertains to one facet of the multifaceted prism of knowledge of this phenomenon with a subjective nature. This research aims to delve beyond surface-level appearances and uncover the essence, which represents the true nature of the strategy.
Method: This research is based on an analytic-synthetic method within the framework of a holistic view. Although the simultaneous application of inductive realism in analytics and deductive apriorism in synthesis is considered an inevitable necessity in social science research, it has often been neglected. By using the method of analysis, we challenge the internal logic of the most significant definitions chosen by thinkers. In this field, specifically between 1938 and 2021, critiques and challenges have been addressed in a casual manner. These issues have been approached from an external perspective to establish connections between components using foundational principles. A synthetic method (foundation-oriented) has been employed to reconcile apparent contradictions. This method will make it possible to go beyond the truth in its apparent meaning and reach the truth itself.
Finding: The achievement in this scientific process shows that it is not possible to present an original and complete concept of a phenomenon such as strategy within the framework of the concepts that form it. This is because knowledge based on experience (a posteriori knowledge), which results from observing external realities, relies not only on components and elements but also on custom, association, contingency, and the least certainty. It is inconceivable to achieve a totality with the characteristics of completeness and originality solely through abstraction from experience. Therefore, in addition to the three considerations raised to uncover the truth of strategy itself, which include paying attention to the scope of definitions, the extra-sensory dimension of phenomena, and the certain principles presented by Kant to find truth through the path of... Scientific understanding relies solely on principles and foundations that are absolutely necessary. These principles, due to their a priori nature, enable us to resolve the contradictions present in the real world.
Conclusion: From an empirical standpoint, every practical phenomenon must necessarily rely on universality, which can serve as a beacon and guide for all experimental matters, both in the past and in the future. In this way, it is evident that being content with superficial appearances and subjective perspectives hinders the pursuit of truth regarding any phenomenon, impeding deep reflection in the field of study. Hence, in the study of humanities, particularly in the field of strategy, focusing on the origin of phenomena and their inherent truth by establishing A priori principles as a guide, will not only facilitate the realization of the essence of each phenomenon but also enable the generation of original ideas and the actualization of the potential capabilities of human thought, thereby advancing the scientific domain.


Andrews, K.R. (1971). Concept of corporate strategy. In: The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin: 18-46.
Ansoff, H.I. & Strategy, C. (1965). An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion. Corporate Strategy.
Berg, H.V.D. (2024). Kant’s conception of proper science. In: Kant on Proper Science (pp. 15-51). Springer. Dordrecht. https://doi.org/6-7140-007-94-978/10.1007_2
Boland, L.A. (1986). Economic methodology: Theory and practice. Laval University Press.
Bruno, P.W. (2010). Kant's concept of genius: its origin and function in the third Critique. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Caygill, H. (1995). The Blackwell Philosopher Dictionaries. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Chandler, A.D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise (vol. 120). MIT press.
Eisenhardt, K.M. & Sull, D.N. (2001). Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Bus Pub.
Hasanzadeh, M. (2022). Completion of the Human Genome Project and a Great Opening for Knowledge Management. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management, 8(3): 24-27. https://doi.org/10.22091/stim.2023.2372[in persian]        
Henderson, B.D. (1989). The origin of strategy. Harvard business review,67(6): 139-143.
Kant, I. & Paton, H.J. (2005). The Moral Law: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Routledge.
Kant, I. & Schneewind, J.B. (2002). The groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Yale University Press.
Lachmann, L.M. (1991). Austrian economics: a hermeneutic approach. London: Routledge.
Lafley, A.G. & Martin, R.L. (2013). Playing to win: How strategy really works. Harvard Business Press.
Madison, G.B. (1989). Hayek and the interpretive turn. Critical Review, 3(2): 169-185
Mill, J.S. (1836). On the definition of political economy; and the method of investigation Proper to it. London and Westminster Review, University of Toronto Press: 120-164.
Mill, J.S. (2022). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. vol. 2. BoD–Books on Demand.
Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J.A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3): 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250060306
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. In: Readings in strategic management
(pp. 1-509). Springer.
Motavaseli, M. & Vahabi Abyaneh, M. (2022). Institutionalism: The Economics of Collective Action; Economic realism based on legal foundations. Tehran: Imam Sadegh University Press. [in persian]
Motavasseli, M. (2015). The process of creation of novelty in economic development and entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 8(3): 413-431.  
https://doi.org/10.22059/jed.2015.53200 [in persian]
Newman, W.H. & Logan, J.P. (1971). Strategy, policy, and central management. South-Western Publishing Company.
North, D.C. (2021). Understanding the process of economic change. In: Worlds of Capitalism
(pp. 107-120). Routledge.
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
Ronda‐Pupo, G.A. & Guerras‐Martin, L.Á. (2012). Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept 1962-2008: a co‐word analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 33(2): 162-188.   
Rumelt, R.P. (2012). Good strategy/bad strategy: The difference and why it matters. Strategic Direction, 28(8). https://doi.org/10.1108/sd.2012.05628haa.002
Sen, A. (1998). Human development and financial conservatism. World Development, 26(4): 733-742. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00002-3
Watkins, E.A.S. & Stan, M. (2014). Kant's Philosophy of Science.            
URL= https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/kant-science
Weber, M. (2007). Objectivity and Understanding in Economics. In: D.M. Hausman (Ed.), The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology (3ed., pp. 59-72). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819025.004
Whittington, R., Regnér, P., Angwin, D., Johnson, G. & Scholes, K. (2020). Exploring Strategy Text and Cases. Pearson UK.