Determinants of Strategic Choice among Universities in Kenya

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

DEDICATION

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
1.1.1 Strategic Choice
1.1.2 Universities in Kenya
1.2 Research Problem
1.3 Research Objective
1.4 Value of the Study

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Theoretical foundation of the study
2.2.1 Contingency Theory
2.2.2 Resource Dependency Theory
2.3 Determinants of Strategic Choice
2.3.1 Resources Allocation
2.3.2 Organization Culture
2.3.3 Competitive Environment
2.3.4 Vision and Mission
2.4 Empirical Literature Review
2.5 Summary of Literature and Knowledge gap

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Design
3.3 Population of the Study
3.4 Data Collection
3.5 Data Analysis

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Response Rate
4.3 Demographic Details
4.3.1 Description of the University
4.3.2 Number of Years the University has been in Existence
4.3.3 Level of Education
4.3.4 Length of service
4.4 Reliability Results
4.5 Responses to the Variables of the Study
4.5.1 Strategic Choice
4.5.2 Resources Allocation
4.5.3 Organization Culture
4.5.4 Competitive Environment
4.5.5 Vision and Mission
4.6 Factor Analysis of the Variables of the Study
4.6.1 Factor Analysis for Strategic Choice
4.6.2 Factor Analysis for Resources Allocation
4.6.3 Factor Analysis for Organization Culture
4.6.4 Factor Analysis for Competitive Environment
4.6.5 Factor Analysis for Vision and Mission
4.7 Correlation between the Study Variables
4.8 Regression Analysis
4.9 Discussion of Findings

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Summary of findings
5.3 Conclusion
5.4 Recommendations of the study
5.5 Limitations of the study
5.6 Suggestions For further Research

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: Questionnaire

APPENDIX II: Accredited Universities in Kenya - March 2017

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Above all I would like to thank the God Almighty for the grace and opportunity to undertake this research study and complete it. Without His grace, this achievement would not have been possible.

A special thanks to Dr. Joseph Aranga and Dr. Seth Odongo for their time and insightful guidance. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the lecturers at the University of Nairobi, Mombasa Campus for the foundation necessary to help me achieve my goal. I also thank Dr. Aggrey Adem whose invaluable suggestions and contribution helped me to improve this research report.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the respondents for taking the time to complete the questionnaires.

Finally, I thank my siblings and friends, particularly the MBA class of 2015, for the support and encouragement throughout this journey.

DEDICATION

This project is dedicated to my son Rashaad, my mother Mrs. Otieno and my best friend Sammy. To my son, you are my inspiration to stay committed in everything I do. To my mother, I appreciate your love and support throughout my life. To my best friend, thank you for always being there for me through everything. God bless you all.

ABSTRACT

Universities are considered fundamental segment of the education sector that has been sensitive to external and internal environmental changes. It is evident that the universities in Kenya are operating in a different environment than they did since their inception and face the challenge of choosing which strategy to adopt to cope with this fast paced scenario. The choices made therefore will determine their success or failure. The objective of this study was to identify the determinants of strategic choice among universities in Kenya. This study was guided by contingency and resource dependency theories and reviewed past studies on the topic to identify a knowledge gap. The study employed a cross-sectional survey research design. The target population was the 71 universities in Kenya according to the Commission for University Education. To avoid one person bias, the university registrars and heads of department were identified as the key respondents. The study used primary data which was collected using a structured questionnaire that was either hand delivered or sent online to respondents. A pilot study to pretest and validate the questionnaire was done using 7 universities which represented 10% of the 71 universities in Kenya. The Cronbach’s Alpha Co-efficient was computed for the Likert questions which were deemed reliable because they scored reliability coefficient above 0.7. The content validity was tested through expert opinion. The quantitative data collected was cleaned, coded and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) Software Version 20. The results were summarized into percentages and tables. The findings of the study indicate that only organization culture and vision and mission are statistically significant to strategic choice. It also pointed out that resource allocation, organization culture, competitive environment and vision and mission have an explanatory power in explaining strategic choice. The findings also revealed that universities in Kenya adopt a clan culture. In light of the findings the study recommends that universities in Kenya should have and follow defined procedures for strategic choice process and employees within these institutions should be involved in the process to create a sense of purpose.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Description of the University 19

Table 4.2: Number of Years in Existence 19

Table 4.3: Level of Education 20

Table 4.4 Length of Service 20

Table 4.5: Reliability Statistics of the Variables of the Study 21

Table 4.6: Respondents Score on Strategic Choice 22

Table 4.7: Respondents Score on Resources Allocation 23

Table 4.8: Respondents Score on Organization Culture 24

Table 4.9: Respondents Score on Competitive Environment 25

Table 4.10: Respondents Score on Vision and Mission 26

Table 4.11: KMO and Bartlett's Test of Strategic Choice 27

Table 4.12: Factor Analysis Results of Strategic Choice 28

Table 4.13: Rotated Component Matrixa of Strategic Choice 28

Table 4.14: KMO and Bartlett's Test of Resources Allocation 29

Table 4.15: Factor Analysis Results of Resources Allocation 29

Table 4.16: KMO and Bartlett's Test of Organization Culture 30

Table 4.17: Factor Analysis Results of Organization Culture 30

Table 4.18: Rotated Component Matrixa of Organization Culture 30

Table 4.19: KMO and Bartlett's Test of Competitive Environment 31

Table 4.20: Factor Analysis Results of Competitive Environment 31

Table 4.21: Rotated Component Matrixa of Competitive Environment 32

Table 4.22: KMO and Bartlett's Test of Vision and Mission 32

Table 4.23: Factor Analysis Results of Vision and Mission 33

viii

Table 4.24: Correlation between the Study Variables 33

Table 4.25: Model Summary for Linear Regression 35

Table 4.26: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 35

Table 4.27: Regression Coefficients 36

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Strategic choice is a fundamental element in any decision-making process of an organization. Organizations operate in a complex, dynamic and unpredictable environment and face the challenge of choosing which strategy to adopt to cope with this fast paced scenario. Therefore, organizations need to evaluate the existing options available to them before making a choice on the best strategy to implement. Strategic choice concerns the decisions regarding organizations future and their response to the dynamic environment (Macmillan & Tampoe, 2000). Selection of the best strategy that enables an organization to achieve its objectives is however not as easy as it sounds. Some strategies are often more appropriate than others since no single strategy can relate to all conditions all the times. Nutt (2010) observes that nearly six of ten choices are unsuccessful apparently because managers fail to acknowledge the demands posed. The choices made therefore will determine the success or failure of an organization. Successful organizations are therefore, those that consider their strategic positions and carefully select relevant strategies (Johnson, Whittington & Scholes, 2008).

The study adopted the contingency theory and resource dependency theory. These theories present the argument that organizations can interpret their environment, make suitable choices and strategically respond. The contingency theory explains how contingent factors like tasks, environment and culture affect the organizations function and design (Islam & Hu, 2012). This theory allows analysis of a situation and determination of what variables influence the decision with which organizations are concerned. It predicts that the degree of an organization’s efficiency will depend on the degree to which its strategies match the contingencies it faces (Islam & Hu, 2012). On the other hand, the resource dependency theory asserts that organizations depend on other stakeholders within its environment to acquire limited resources for survival. It provides powerful explanation of organizational actions and outcomes by conceptualizing strategic choice as an organizational action to align it with the environment (Casciaro & Piskorski,

2005). These two theories emphasize the role of the external and internal environment in determining the strategic choices made by organizations hence will resonate well with the study.

Universities are considered fundamental segment of the education sector that has been sensitive to external and internal environmental changes. It is evident that the universities in Kenya are operating in a different environment than they did since their inception. The status of these universities have been affected by increased influence of policies relating to quality and competence, demographic changes, local and international competition, inadequate and dilapidated infrastructure, increasing mobility of lecturers and students, unbalanced student to staff ratios, conversions of many middle level colleges to universities, acute shortage of professors and expectations by stakeholders to address contemporary issues. Due to these factors, making strategic choices has become more challenging because of the complexity they present. Several campuses have been closed down because of poor strategic choices that do not create long term value. The survival of these universities is therefore determined by how well they can make deliberate strategic choices that will steer them in a particular direction.

1.1.1 Strategic Choice

Johnson et al. (2008) state that the strategy formulation process involves analyzing external and internal environmental factors of an organization, generating and evaluating strategic options and finally selecting the best strategy. Strategic choice is, therefore, the core of the strategic management process which involves the element of analysis and evaluation of alternatives leading to the selection of the best strategy. Its process entails generating strategic options, assessing these options by analyzing the environment, evaluating alternatives to assess their achievability and suitability (Djordjević, 2014) and finally choosing a strategy that will allow the organizations to capture the sustainable value. Choices about what to do, why it should be done, which approaches to take and whom to involve, have to be looked into critically before strategic decisions are made and applied to a practical situation.

The business environment has been characterized by various changes that have compelled managers to develop and implement strategies that respond to these changes to remain relevant (Peng, 2003). The strategy the organizations choose should answer the questions what, why, how, who and when by taking into consideration organizations’ resources, competencies and capabilities as well as the external environment. Child (1997) stated that strategic choice encompasses the environment the organization is operating in, organization’s structure and the performance criteria against which the financial constraints is evaluated. The aim of choosing the right strategy is, therefore, to offer direction to the organization so that it can realize its goals and objectives while reacting to the threats and opportunities (Pearce & Robinson, 2011).

For organizations to make optimal strategic choices with their limited resources, it is prudent that they generate well thought out strategic options, weigh them against set criteria, and after that make decisions for implementation. According to Johnson et al. (2008), these choices are supposed to reflect the comprehensive organizational strategy to maximize competitive advantages and hence add significant value to the firm some level of competitive advantage and provide a channel for different directions in the future. Having a sound knowledge of the options available to an organization increases the chances of selecting the best choice.

1.1.2 Universities in Kenya

The higher education system in Kenya has expanded significantly since 1970 when the University of Nairobi was established as its first national university. So far, there are 30 public chartered universities, 5 public university constituent colleges, 18 private chartered universities, 5 private university constituent colleges, and 13 institutions with a letter of interim authority (Commission for University Education, 2017). The University of Nairobi, Kenyatta University, Moi University, Egerton University and Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology are considered as the older and more established universities in Kenya which have mentored the other public universities. The increasing demand for university education in Kenya drove the government to resort to converting some of the polytechnics and constituent colleges to constituent college and

university status respectively. During this period, private investors established universities across the country to bridge the demand gap driven by limited opportunities available in public universities, determination by some religious and non-governmental organizations and constant closures of public universities due to lecturers and student strikes.

The higher education industry in Kenya is very dynamic and characterized by intense competition for students, faculty, and resources. Competition among universities is increasingly becoming aggressive and global as they compete for students, location and facilities faculty members, research funding and financial contributions. Kenyan universities constantly face the pressure of increasing student enrollments, fickle capitation from the government especially for the public universities, emergence of more public and private universities, appointment and development staff, research and scientific advances and maintaining quality academic standards in line with the changing era (Chacha, 2005; Ahemba 2006). Further, the accelerated expansion and official recognition of the private universities led to the establishment of Module II (parallel) degree programmes by the public universities that fueled the competition intensity among these universities.

With these challenges, the fate of campuses belonging to Inorero, Kisii, Laikipia and Kabarak universities are possible consequences of poor strategic choices. Ultimately, universities ability to differentiate themselves in the competitive academic environment, attract and retain staff of who meet international standards, admit a diverse student body and secure resourceful partnerships in research will critically depend on the choices they make. According to Verma and Agarwal (2003), these institutions adopt barely any logical approach in making strategic choices. Since there is substantial diversity among the public and private universities in Kenya, understanding what determines their strategic choices will be the focus of this study.

1.2 Research Problem

Strategic choice is considered core to strategic management anchored on the principle that organizations match their strategies to the environment. Successful organizations have been those that considered their strategic positions and carefully selected strategies (Johnson et al., 2008). Competition is often seen as the primary factor that influences strategic choices. However, other factors like organizational culture, organization structure, leadership, resources allocation, pressure from stakeholders, technological advances, vision and mission affect or complicate an organization’s strategic choices. Oliver (1991) noted that the strategic response of organizations to these factors is not always the same and failure to put them to consideration can lead to challenges such as misallocation of resources, poor coordination of activities and low motivation of the staff. Thus, it is imperative to assess and evaluate the determinants of strategic choice since it determines the success of organizational strategic objectives.

The university system has grown and as a result become prevalent with complex issues such as increasing student enrollments, faculty workload and development, budgeting, assessment of academic standards and governance (Dooris, Kelly & Trainer, 2002) which require strategic considerations. An audit conducted by the Commission for University Education affirmed that most universities in Kenya were in a crisis and were dysfunctional (“Commission to get varsity education back on track,” 2017) by undertaking overly ambitious expansions, deviating from their core missions, and developing of unnecessary curricula that do not match the industry needs. Going by the frequent university staff industrial action and students unrest, the stiff competition by other universities, insufficient resources and employee mobility in the Kenyan university sector, it can be concluded that there truly is a crisis. Faced with the dynamic nature of the environment in which universities operate, they need different strategic choices to enable them to streamline their operations that will enable them gain competitive advantage.

Jiang and Carpenter (2013) in their case study of the University of Derby affirmed that issues and challenges arising from higher education has been given little attention therefore this study intends to fill this gap besides developing interest for further studies in this sector. Studies on non-governmental organizations (Ndiao 2001; Karanja & Wario 2014) report that strategic choice is influenced by need and desire of key administrators, timing, past strategies, management attitude towards risk, vision and mission, leadership, corporate culture, finance, sustainability of the project and pressure from stakeholders. These researchers did not address the determinants of the strategic choices among Kenyan universities. A study of Kenyan public universities by Mathooko and Ogutu (2015) found that reforms in higher education, stakeholders’ pressure, government policies and regulations, unethical response strategies, and location determined the choice of strategies. This study focused on public universities and thereby giving a limited generalization for universities in Kenya and further did not look at culture, resources, competition, vision and mission as determinants of strategic choice in these institutions. Despite the studies carried out, there are limited studies done in the context of universities in Kenya. Questions still remain unanswered on the decisive factors in Kenyan universities’ strategic choices. This study therefore will seek to answer the question; what determines the strategic choices made by universities in Kenya?

1.3 Research Objective

To identify the determinants of strategic choice among universities in Kenya.

1.4 Value of the Study

The results of this study will be significant in various aspects. First, the findings of the study may help universities to align their strategies and make appropriate strategic choices because they will understand how various elements in their institutions influence their choices and the magnitude of the effect of each element such as resources, competition, culture, vision and mission. This will be necessary for improving efficiency, effectiveness and quality as well as formulating strategies within these universities.

Second, the findings of this study seeks to contribute towards industry policy formulation by giving input that will enable the Commission for University Education and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology examine and design more unprejudiced and effective policies that will improve the higher education sector service delivery with the aim of achieving the vision 2030 to the benefit of the major stakeholders; students and university staff.

Finally, the research findings will serve as reference for academia and researchers by providing a foundation for which further research can be based on. The findings will also add to the existing strategic management body of knowledge by providing empirical data that can also be used as a reference for further studies.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the important issues that form the background of the study and is systematically organized starting from theoretical foundation of the study, determinants of strategic choice, empirical literature and finally a summary of the literature and knowledge gap.

2.2 Theoretical foundation of the study

This study was guided by the following theories; contingency theory and the resource dependency theory. These theories present the argument that organizations can interpret their environment and make suitable choices.

2.2.1 Contingency Theory

The contingency theory asserts that the selection of suitable strategies is dependent on the competitive environment of organizations. According to this theory, an organization’s boundary is a statement of what is within and without the organization (Qiu, Luo, Jackson & Sanders, 2017). It explains how contingent elements such as tasks, culture or environment affect organizations function and design and asserts that the suitability of different strategies is dependent on the competitive environment of organizations. This theory predicts that the degree of an organization’s effectiveness will depend on the degree to which its strategies match the contingencies it faces (Islam & Hu, 2012).

In applying the contingency theory in strategic choice, decisions should consider the relationship between the environment characteristics, organization factors and the organization's strategic response. Researchers affirm that this theory represents a balance between organizational decision-making and its organizational structure (Donaldson, 2001). The basic paradigm of contingency theory is that organizations seek effectiveness by aligning their structures and actions with their strategy (internal factors) and environment (external factors) to ensure stability and control. When organizations make decisions, they must take into account details of the current situational variables and choose options that are essential to the situation because what may work in one situation may not work in another. This implies that organizations should develop strategies based on their situations and make a choice that will enable it to achieve its objectives.

2.2.2 Resource Dependency Theory

Goll, Johnson, and Rasheed (2007) describe the environment as an important factor that helps explain the strategy and actions of an organization's but has been overlooked in studies exploring the connections between strategy, management and organizational response. The organization’s environment as described by Pfeffer and Salancik (2003) includes any element that may have a potential effect on its activities. The resource dependency theory is grounded on the view that the environment largely determines organizations’ strategic choices. It emphases on the organizations capability to establish relationships to acquire resources from stakeholders in the environment and defines how organizations are forced to pursue new or alternative innovations due to scarce resource (Hessels & Terjesen, 2010). The resource dependency theory perspective is that organizations may choose to comply with the environment demands or to exercise choices that change the environment itself. When these organizations chose to comply, the pressure for isomorphism increases.

This theory underscores strategic choice in the sense that it tasks the organization managers with identifying, developing and deploying critical resources to accomplish set objectives. According to resource dependency theory, organizations carefully scan the environment, deliberate carefully and select strategies that enable them manage the acquisition of resources better. Knowledge of the relationships existing between the organization and other stakeholders in the environment allows organizations to foresee likely factors of influence from the environment and proposes how the organization can counter this influence. A vital hypothesis of this theory is that dependence on the scarce resources influences an organization’s actions and decisions subject to the specific situation (Nienhüser, 2008). This implies that an organization is not passive to its environment, instead it makes and chooses decisions that enables it to achieve their objectives.

2.3 Determinants of Strategic Choice

The choice and implementation of any strategy is determined by factors that can hinder or enhance the choice and implementation of a strategy and influence organizations actions as they strive to achieve competitive advantage (Johnson et al., 2008). These determinants drawn from the literature are resources allocation, organization culture, competition, vision and mission.

2.3.1 Resources Allocation

Barney and Arikan (2001) define resources as the intangible and tangible assets that an organization uses to develop and implement their strategies. These assets are categorized as financial, physical and human. External and internal resources are necessary for strategic decision-making and through analysis of the threats and opportunities and taking appropriate decisions, the best strategies can be evolved (Nemati et. al, 2010). The availability of resources especially financial and human resources facilitates organizations strategic choices and lack of these resources may impede implementation of choices made. Before building their resource allocation for a strategy initiative, organizations have to establish what actions to be taken to execute the strategy, how long that choice will take and what resources will be necessary.

The resource allocation process is a complex and diffused process that defines which emergent or intended strategy initiatives get funding and those that do not (Krupat 2014). Understanding and monitoring the criteria by which resource allocation decisions are made is a key challenge in the formulation and implementation process of strategy.

Kazmi (2008) asserts that the͓ resource allocation process aligns available resources with the organizations priorities and strategy to reduce uncertainties. It involves mission definition, resources inventory, project inventory and resources reallocation. To accomplish this, managers need to scan the environment carefully to determine what resources they will need and adopt strategic responses that will manage the acquisition of these resources better before considering budget reallocations and resource shifting (Thompson, Strikland & Gamble, 2010). The organization’s past and present resources deployment has an ultimate effect on how it achieves its strategic goals and therefore should be approached tactfully.

2.3.2 Organization Culture

Organization culture has been considered as a powerful factor in an organization’s longterm success because it affects practically every aspect in the organization (Desson & Clouthier, 2010). For this reason, the strategy management process ought to acknowledge organization culture as a significant aspect of status quo. Even though the meaning of organization culture has never been agreed on (Zarnegar, 2005), it has been defined as the shared norms, principles, core values, rooted behaviors, beliefs, policies and attitudes developed and adopted through mutual experience that shape an organizations personality, administrative procedures and work climate (Thompson et al., 2010). Culture may affect what is acceptable or not in the organization depending on its environment meaning that when formulating and implementing strategy, it is prudent to involve all the relevant persons so that they can own the process.

Cameron and Quinn (2011) identified four categories of culture: clan, hierarchy, market and adhocracy culture. The clan culture as the name suggest resembles a family with a very friendly work environment while the hierarchy culture is a highly formal work environment characterized by formal rules and procedures. On the other hand, an adhocracy culture is a dynamic and creative work environment with emphasis being placed on trend setting while market culture entails a result oriented work environment with emphasis placed on reputation and success. Thompson et al., (2010) argue that an organizations culture can influence the organization’s actions because it can promote or impede its strategy formulation and execution process. Managers therefore are tasked with fostering an organizational culture that allows for the effective formulation and execution of new strategies. The culture should develop strategically aware personnel who are open to necessary strategic changes by encouraging strategic thinking and dialogue (Beaudan, 2007).

2.3.3 Competitive Environment

In the current turbulent environment, organizations are involved in some form of competition whether it is for customers or on their ability to gain and exploit scarce resources. The competitive environment consists of elements such as existing competitors, new entrants, suppliers, substitute goods or services and buyers that are specifically relevant to an organization’s strategy (Dess, Lumpkin, & Eisner, 2008). It is therefore essential that the organization studies its environment because; the organization will acquire information on the nature of the competition within that environment as a step towards developing sustainable competitive advantage; the organization will recognize opportunities that can be sought and threats that should be suppressed; the organization will be able to intimate its position in the industry and create opportunities for networking and linkages that eventually leads to sustainable cooperation (Lynch, 2009) instead of engaging in unnecessary competition.

Organizations often feel external pressure from the environment given the competitive situation in their industries. To overcome these pressures and ensure long-term success organizations have to make strategic choices that ensure competitive advantage which is having an advantage that is not easily duplicated. As the competitive conditions intensify, an organization must respond with strategic actions to protect its position. Magretta (2011) states that there is an underlying conviction about the nature of competition where organizations compete to be the best by doing everything their rivals are doing instead of competing to be unique. An organization has a competitive advantage when it formulates and implements strategy that competitors will be unable to duplicate or imitate and which superior value for customers (Ireland, Hoskisson, & Hitt, 2013). Understanding the competitive environment therefore stimulates strategic thinking by guiding managers towards profitable opportunities such as positioning the organization to cope better with the existing competitive forces; anticipating and taking advantage of the forces shifts; and influencing these forces to create new and more favorable industry structure.

2.3.4 Vision and Mission

Vision and mission of an organization have been considered as essential aspects of the strategic management process for various types of organizations. Kaplan, Norton and Barrows (2008) distinguish the mission and vision as being the major purpose of the organization and being the aspirational goal of the organization respectively. The mission and vision varies among organizations to portray their uniqueness and their current and envisaged state. Without a clear and focused vision, an organization will lack the perspective to guide its decisions and insight into who should make these decisions. This lack of perspective may lead to competing or redundant initiatives or opportunities. The vision and mission of an organization are critical to the strategic efforts required to engage in strategic actions that enable achievement of competitiveness. It is imperative for managers to formulate and implement strategies that are consistent with their vision and mission.

Morphew and Hartley (2006) state that articulating an organization's mission and vision helps differentiate between the conventional and unconventional organizational activities such that the organization does not waste resources on unnecessities and provides a sense of purpose to employees. First, an organization needs to develop principles that that are connected to its strategy and differentiate it from other organizations. Second, the organization has to regularly and consistently communicate these principles and values to its employees so that they can internalize them and understand why important decisions are made. Third, the organization should monitor and ensure employees duly apply and operationalize the set principles and values in decision making. Finally, the organization should frequently review its principles to ensure they stay aligned with the organization’s strategic goals (Sheehan & Grant 2014).

2.4 Empirical Literature Review

A study by Karanja and Wario (2014) sought the factors that influence the strategic choices adopted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Nairobi and established that community involvement in the projects was the major factor that affected the choice. They also found that other factors such as finance and the sustainability of the project, networking, and staff competence influenced the strategic choices to a moderate extent. In the same line of research, Ndiao (2001) found that strategic choice by NGOs was influenced by need and desire of key administrators, timing, past strategies, management attitude towards risk, vision and mission, leadership, corporate culture and pressure from stakeholders. The studies only focused on strategic choice among non- governmental organizations.

Bretherton and Chaston (2005) empirical research on the influence resources and capabilities has on strategy established that over performers in the winery industry had adequate resources. The study however was limited to the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) particularly in New Zealand and therefore has limited generalizations. Pfeffer and Salancik (2003) hypothesized that resource allocation decisions are shaped by political strength and bureaucracy. They found that the more powerful a department was, the less its budget allocation depended on conventional scope of departmental workload. The study intimated that political strength formed the basis for decision making but did not look at the competitive environment, culture, vision and mission.

Gupta (2011) examined the linkage between strategy and culture of the construction, information technology, banking, power, telecom, pharmaceuticals and steel industry in India and found that there is significant difference in the strategy and culture among these industries. The study found that organizations with adhocracy culture adopted prospector strategy, organizations with adhocracy and clan cultures adopted analyzer strategy and finally organizations with hierarchy and clan culture adopted defender and reactor strategies. In contrast, a study by Nikčević (2014) tested the hypothesis about the effect of organization culture in strategy determination by Montenegrin companies and established that there is no statistically significant relationship between the culture and the strategy chosen which contradicts the theoretical elaboration that organization culture can legitimize or illegitimate the strategy chosen.

Studies by Amoako-Gyampah and Acquaah (2008), found that there is a positive correlation between competition forces in the manufacturing and service industries in Ghana and the strategies employed by these organizations.

[...]