Search results

The purpose of this study is to revisit the conventional wisdom about a key contribution [i.e. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis] in the field of strategic management. The societal context and the role of academics, consultants and executives is taken into account in the emergence of SWOT analysis during the 1960–1980 period as a pivotal development within the broader context of the satisfactory, opportunities, faults, threats (SOFT) approach. The authors report on both the content and the approach, so that other scholars seeking to invigorate indigenous theories and/or underreported strategy practices will thrive.

Applying a historiographic approach, the authors introduce an evidence-based methodology for interpreting historical sources. This methodology incorporates source criticism, triangulation and hermeneutical interpretation, drawing upon insights from robust evidence through three iterative stages.

The underreporting of the SOFT approach/SWOT analysis can be attributed to several factors, including strategy tools being integrated into planning frameworks rather than being published as standalone materials; restricted circulation of crucial long-range planning service/theory and practice of planning reports due to copyright limitations; restricted access to the Stanford Research Institute Planning Library in California; and the enduring popularity of SOFT and SWOT variations, driven in part by their memorable acronyms.

In the spirit of a renaissance in strategic planning research, the authors unveil novel theoretical and social connections in the emergence of SWOT analysis by combining evidence from both theory and practice and delving into previously unexplored areas.

Caution is advised for scholars who examine the discrete time frame of 1960–1980 through mere bibliometric techniques. This study underscores the risks associated with gathering incomplete and/or inaccurate data, emphasizing the importance of triangulating evidence beyond scholarly databases. The paradigm shift of strategic management research due to the advent of large language models poses new challenges and the risk of conserving and perpetuating academic urban legends, myths and lies if training data is not adequately curated.

Incoming first-year college students completed a leadership survey prior to any formal leadership education. These students were reassessed during the spring of their senior year; 386 students completed both surveys. The differential effect of 33 leadership and demographic variables on change in hierarchical and systemic leadership beliefs were examined with stepwise regression analyses. Completion of a leadership certificate intended for students in supervisory student employment positions and racial/ethnic background were the only variables predicting changes in leadership beliefs. Results are discussed relative to Leadership Identity Development theory (Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen, 2005) and ecological leadership theory (Wielkiewicz & Stelzner, 2005).

Incoming first-year college students (N = 4,292) were surveyed regarding attitudes and beliefs about leadership. Students’ opinions about their leadership ability were high and were related to having an outgoing personality, as well as the number of high school activities in which they had been involved. In addition, students’ understanding of leadership was largely hierarchical and unsophisticated. Gender was strongly related to beliefs about leadership, with males indicating a stronger belief in hierarchical leadership, and females indicating a stronger belief in systemic leadership. The results indicated men and women are most likely to be anchored in Komives et al.’s (2009) Stages 2 and 3 whereas women also show some characteristics of Stage 4. It was argued these results support a modular approach to leadership development in which students acquire credits toward a certificate in leadership and where some components of the training activities involve separating the genders.