111 | P age Re-reading the Term “Strategy” Onur Dirlik 1 , Duygu Aydin-Unal 2 ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Available Online April 2014 The aim of this paper is to understand the denotations and connotations ascribed to the term “strategy”, which is critical to the strategic management field. On the basis of the term, it has been appeared that the field takes mostly a normative position and could not escape from producing analytical tools for managers because of having a managerialistic focus since the 1960s, beginning of the field. This article provides a reader re-reading the term “strategy” from a different point of view. The methodology of this study is based on qualitative content analysis of the selected articles. The results show that the strategic management field is still dominated by a managerialistic view. Therefore, the knowledge and analytical tools are produced by the orders of managers which create asymmetric power relations in the field. This study analyzes the basic articles published in SSCI. It would be more comprehensive view to broaden the article pool. Although analyzing articles published on SSCI is widely accepted criterion, it also causes limitations. Besides, the books written on strategy are not included in this study. The major claim of this study is suggesting a need of new view towards the strategy. It aims to create an argument on the main terminology of the field. These kinds of studies contribute to the evolvement of the field. Key words: Strategic Management; Strategy; Management Studies. 1. Introduction There has been a rapid, growing, and diverse increase in the knowledge produced by the strategic management area since 1960s. Contributions of the researchers coming from various disciplines (economics, sociology, psychology, political sciences, organization theories, behavioral sciences, military sciences, engineering, biology, history, etc.) broaden this field since its beginning. As contributions from various disciplines make this field richer and deeper, and strategic phenomenon itself has multifaceted nature, the field has been dominated by a multidisciplinary fragmentation instead of a disciplinary homogeneity. Unlike mature sciences such as economics, sociology, and psychology, strategic management, which is accepted as a developing research program even in management sciences, could barely become an independent field in recent years. So this field has started to progress to reach scientific maturity (Barca, 2009). Although there is a consensus that the term-strategy started to be used in business in the 1960s, it had been using in military before this date. Alfred Chandler’s Strategy and Structure (first published in 1962, then reprinted in 2003) has been accepted as the first scientific work written on strategic thought. In his work, Chandler implies enhancing the micro economic intellectual basis of strategic thought thereby leads to a new academic area to the following academicians. The way Chandler lead fostered the formation of traditional strategy understanding. Andrews, Cave, and Porter are respected as subsequent examples of the aforementioned Harvard University focused traditional understanding (also called as the Harvard school). Till the mid 1970s, positive/descriptive studies have started to unfold instead of the normative/prescriptive approaches which were the main focus of interest. Chandler’s researches, which were based on historical analysis, were taken into account as a less normative works. Thus, it has an inductive characteristic in itself. In epitome, systematic observation, deductive analysis, modeling, and empirical testing have brought a new dimension to strategic management thought in 1970s. 1 Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Akdeniz University, Turkey, Email: onurdirlik@akdeniz.edu.tr 2 Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Akdeniz University, Turkey, Email: duyguaydin@akdeniz.edu.tr