The focus of the ecological paradigm is on the dynamic and interactive nature of competition for external resources. Much of the empirical research utilizing this paradigm in an organizational context, focuses its activity at the population or industrial level (e.g. Carroll, 1985; Boeker, 1991; Ingram, 1996). This approach has been useful for its longitudinal evolutionary perspective to indicate variables influencing founding and failure of organizations. Further work developing the implications of the concepts of competitive exclusion and niche width at the organizational level to aid strategic management could be a suggested way forward (see Baum, 1996; for thorough review).

Management within the ecological paradigm suggests that organizations should pursue a differentiation strategy from competitors. To exploit a niche before a competitor fills it. To achieve this companies may use the concept of positioning to identify a niche and to differentiate from competitors. Due to the contingent nature of strategy, the timing of entry of new products and services is also important from the ecological perspective.

March and Simon (1958) and Lindblom (1959) were amongst the first to critique the purely rational approach to policy formulation by suggesting that it assumes "perfect" intellectual capacities, sources of information, time and money. These factors are always limited to a greater and lesser degree. The complexity of the problem was for Lindblom (1959) the key factor in determining the limited usefulness of the rational approach. Lindblom’s (1959) suggested response was an incremental view in which decision making is remedial, proceeding in small steps not to far from the status quo. This does not necessarily imply that decision making should be merely tactical, as this approach can be led by a rational strategy that is adaptive (Mintzberg, 1973) and incremental (Quinn, 1980). This perspective is also associated with the manager addressing multiple conflicting goals, and a political dimension to decision making (Mintzberg, 1973) which can form barriers to change. (See Wilson, 1992; for an overview of planned versus emergent change)

From the process (emergent) perspective management needs to consider two main issues concerning the implementation of strategies. The first is the political implications of hoarding knowledge, because this issue can be controversial and can lead to an alienation of staff. The process emergent paradigm considers that hierarchically imposed plans are likely to be modified by interaction with political forces within organizations. Consequently, strategies emerge by this interaction. This emergent strategy may not necessarily be a problem for management because a strategy may emerge and be implemented that takes account of contextual factors within organizations. This may result in more effective strategies within the context of organizational reality. This paradigm implies that strategy need not be developed but will emerge as managers identify and react to circumstances. It creates the problem however that this concentration upon emergence will obfuscate the forward planning nature of strategy formulation and may occlude the development of radical strategy.

According to Camerer (1991), Game Theory is the analysis of rational behaviour in situations involving interdependence of outcomes. Implicit in Game Theory is the presence of some degree of rationality, adherence to rules of the game, some knowledge of the other players and convergence to equilibrium. Whilst some might question some of these implicit assumptions, Game Theory holds up the hope of behavioural prediction by modelling how others are likely to play the game. Probabilistic prediction of competitors' responses within a dynamic changing environment would inevitably be very welcomed by many strategic decision-makers. From this perspective, managers should advance 'follow the leader' strategies to ensure equilibrium with their main competitors, and build a reputation for retaliation and holding grudges to ensure 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) (Whittington, 1993).

In achieving rational cognitive explanations for behaviour, research has tended to minimize the effects of the settings in which the behaviour occurs (Foxall, 1992). Thus the behavioural perspective has received less attention. This paradigm, also associated with the behaviourist writings of B.F. Skinner, attributes action to external factors to the individual such as reward and punishment stimuli in a probabilistic fashion. Thus the behavioural perspective is the antithesis of cognitivism (Foxall, 1992). Strategic management within the behavioural paradigm suggests an interactive trial and error strategy based on positive and negative feedback from consumers.

As open systems theory considers the importance of the external environment to organizations, so other writers consider that organizations are socially embedded (See Whittington, 1993; for a review). Thus strategies have to be studied in their social, economic and political context, and therefore Whittington (1993) argues strongly against considering strategy out of context. This paradigm considers that universal prescriptions to strategic management are unlikely to be effective.