Strategic management (SM) as a pragmatic perspective initially focused more on why there are differences in industries or organizations’ profits since the 1960s. To explain these differences, several theories were proposed based on North American organizations by Chandler (1962), Andrews (1965), Ansoff (1965), Hatten, Schendel, and Cooper (1978), Mintzberg (1978), Quinn (1980), Porter (1980, 1981, 1985, 1991) and Barney (1991). Initial developments during the 1960s started shifting SM from an earlier deterministic approach to a contingency approach. However, this period was mainly normative and prescriptive with researchers employing case studies to focus on managers and best practices (Furrer et al., 2008; Hoskisson et al., 1999). On the other hand, research studies in the 1970s moved toward Industrial Organization (IO) economics where a firm’s performance was considered a function of its environment (Porter 1980, 1981), employing a structural approach and the structure conduct performance (S-C-P) paradigm. Studies in the 1980s started shifting the focus from external to internal aspects of firms (resources and capabilities), employing mainly transaction cost economics (TCE) and agency theory (Hoskisson et al. 1999; Ramos-Rodriguez & Ruiz-Navarro, 2004). This was especially the case for development and advancement on resources based theory (Barney 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). Research in the last decades has particularly emphasized the role of new technologies and knowledge creation and diffusion in SM (Durand et al., 2017). Research studies have been dedicated especially to a knowledge-based view as well as knowledge transfer as source of competitive advantage (Grant, 1996; Krylova et al. 2016; Shaw and Williams, 2009; Szulanski et al. 2016). As for empirical research, questions and hypotheses have been developed to test, support, or further develop the above theories in order to shift the legitimacy of SM’s theories from a pragmatic status to a full scientific discipline. This goal has also helped managers and practitioners (re)solve problems or maximize organizational outputs. By nature, SM shows multidisciplinary characteristics of research and practices since it has borrowed theories from other disciplines and fields (Kenworthy & Verbeke, 2015; Durand et al., 2017).