This article seeks to demonstrate the use of superfactuals combining structural repertoires and product units for analyzing the elective affinities between corporate strategic choices and their contexts, typically national domestic contexts. By focusing on Rover, the producer of quality saloon cars within the British Leyland galaxy, this article develops the following superfactual proposition: ‘Even if British Leyland focused on quality saloon and sports vehicles, the British-owned car industry would have suffered terminal failure.’ On this basis, the article develops a new counterfactual proposition: ‘Had Rover sold its saloon operations to British Leyland while focusing on the production and development of its 4WD products, the company would have probably survived as a British-owned concern.’ The perspective of structural repertoires in a morphological perspective provides a sound basis for actionable strategic knowledge, especially when combined with superfactuals and counterfactuals.
AbernathyW.J. (1978) The Productivity Dilemma (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).
2.
AbernathyW.J.ClarkK.B. (1985) Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction, Research Policy, 14: 3–22.
3.
AbrahamsonE. (2000) Change without pain. Harvard Business Review, July–Aug, pp. 75–79.
4.
ArcherM. (1995) Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
5.
ArcherM. (2000) Being Human: The Problem of Agency (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
6.
ChandlerA.D. (1977). The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, MA: M.T Press).
7.
ChandlerA.D. (1990) Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
8.
ChurchR. (1994) The Rise and Decline of the British Auto Industry (Basingstoke: Macmillan).
9.
ClarkP.A. (1972) Organizational Design: Theory and Practice (London: Tavistock).
10.
ClarkP.A. (1975) Key problems in organizational design. Administration and Society, 7: 213–256.
11.
ClarkP.A. (1978) Time reckoning in large organizations, Study of Time, Volume III. Springer-Verlag.
12.
ClarkP.A.WhippR. (1984) Industrial change in Britain: A comparative historical inquiry into innovation-design, Birmingham: ESRC, Work Organization Research Centre Working Paper No. 1.
13.
ClarkP.A. (1985) A review of time and structure for organization studies, in BacharacS.MitchellS. (eds) Organizational Sociology, Vol. 4 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press).
14.
ClarkP.A. (1987) Anglo-American Innovation (Berlin: de Gruyter).
15.
ClarkP.A.BoothC.RowlinsonM.ProcterM.DelaHayeA. (2006) Project Hindsight: Exploring Necessity and Possibility in Cycle of Structuration and Co-evolution (London, Queen Mary: Working Paper).
16.
ClarkP.A., (2000) Organisations in Action: Competition between Contexts (London: Routledge).
17.
ClarkP.A., (2003) Organizational Innovations: Process and Technology (London: Sage).
18.
ClarkP.A.StauntonN. (1989) Innovation in Technology and Organization (London: Routledge).
19.
CleggS.R. (1989) Frameworks of Power (London: Sage).
20.
CohenM.BurkhartR.DosiG.EgidiM.MarengoL.WarglienM.WinterS.G. (1996) Routine and other recurring action patterns for organizations: Contemporary research issues, Journal of Industrial and Corpotate Change, Vol 5, 653–686.
21.
De MeyT.WeberE. (2003) Explanation and thought experiments in history, History and Theory, 42: 28–38.
22.
FergusonN. (1997) Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (London: Picador).
23.
GibsonJ.J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).
24.
GiddensA. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis (London: Macmillan).
HounshellD.A. (1984) From the American System to Mass Production, 1830–1932 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).
27.
LorenzA.BradyC. (2001) End of the Road: BMW and Rover – a Brand Too Far (London: Prentice Hall).
28.
MaielliG. (2006) History under cover: The problematic relationship between business management and the past. Competition and Change, vol. 10(4): 345–60.
29.
NelsonR.R.WinterS.G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press).
30.
OwenG.Sir (2005) Mistakes that led to a tragedy for British manufacturing industry, Financial Times, 9 April, p. 3.
31.
RosenbergN. (1969) The American System of Manufacturing (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
32.
RosenbergN. (1976) Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
33.
RosenbergN. (1982) Inside the Black Box (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
34.
ScottW.R. (2001) Institutions and Organizations (London: Sage).
35.
ScrantonP. (2000) Endless Novelty: Speciality Production and American Industrialization, 1865–1920 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
36.
StinchcombeA. (1965) Social structure and organization, in MarchJ.G. (ed.) The Handbook of Organization. Illinois: Rand McNally, pp. 142–193.
37.
StorperM.SalaisR. (1997) The World of Production: The Action Frameworks of the Economy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
38.
TeeceD.J. (2000) Managing Intellectual Capital (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
39.
ToulminS. (1990) Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (Chicago: Chicago University Press).
40.
TouraineA. (1965) Workers Attitudes to Technical Change (Paris: OECD).
41.
TurnerH.A.ClackG.RobertsG. (1967) Labour Relations in the Motor Industry (London: Allen & Unwin).
42.
WhippR.ClarkP.A. (1986) Innovation and the Auto Industry. Product, Process and Work Organization (London: Pinter).
