<span>This study combines an inductive and deductive approach to studying strategy formulation and reformulation at AT&T utilizing a cognitive based model. The research question is: Do stress and inertia, in relationship to each other and in relationship to second order change, conforms to the Huff & Huff’s model? The study utilized two methodologies to address the research question: strategic argument mapping was used to identify the key strategic arguments and concepts of AT&T strategy; and thematic analysis was used to obtain a quantitative measure for stress and inertia. Both sets of results were mapped against predicted patterns of strategy reformulation when second order change took place, and against Huff and Huff’s model. The study would be of utility to scholars and practitioners interested in gaining a better understanding of the </span><span>applicability of strategy reformulation models and of how stress and inertia interact in a practical environment such as that of AT&T. The study finds the framework for the study of stress and inertia interactions to be valid but questions notions of cumulative stress and inertia in Huff & Huff’s model. The results show that relative rather than absolute levels are more meaningful to identifying and understanding second order changes. The study also questions Mintzberg’s notion of strategy as a pattern of activities and the results show a dynamic and mutating process which has led AT&T to return to its original core business, while its arguments and key concepts communicated a different future. It suggests that a new way of thinking about strategy as a dynamic, unstable, and mutating processes is needed.Doctorate of Management Programs</span>
