Strateji oluşum sürecinde örgüt-çevre ilişkilerini inceleyen çalışmalar çeşitli strateji okullarının gelişimine neden olmuştur. Bu konuda en büyük katkıyı 1960’lı yıllardan beri Mintzberg tarafından geliştirilen on strateji okulu sağlamıştır. Bu okullar örgütlerin varlıklarını nasıl sürdürdükleri ile ilgili görüşler öne sürmektedir. Ancak, örgütlerin çevreye uyum sağladığı için mi ayakta kaldıkları yoksa çevre tarafından seçildikleri için mi ayakta kaldıkları bir paradoks oluşturmaktadır. Çevreye uyum yaklaşımına göre örgütlerin yöneticileri ve alt birimleri çevredeki fırsat ve tehditleri zamanında algılayarak proaktif davranışlar sergilerler ve buna göre stratejik kararlar alırlar. Ancak çevre okulu tarafından öne sürülen popülasyon ekolojisi yaklaşımınına göre çevre, örgütleri seçmektedir. Çevre okulu her ne kadar strateji geliştirme sürecini dışarıdan içeriye olarak tanımlasa ve çevrenin istediği örgütü seçeceğini vurgulasa da örgütler çevre tarafından seçilmek için kendilerini çevresel şartlara uyumlandırmak dolayısıyla değişim göstermek zorundadırlar. Bu da endüstride yaratıcılık perspektifini ön plana çıkarmakta ve böylece uyum/seçim paradoksu sonucunda çevreye uyum gösterebilen örgütler çevre tarafından seçilir bileşkesi elde edilmektedir.

Studies examining the organization-environment relations in the process of strategy formation led to the development of various strategy schools. Studies in the field of strategy since the 1960s Mintzberg et al. gathered under the name of ten strategy schools. These schools propose opinions about how organizations continue their existence. However, according to these approaches, it is a paradox that organizations survive because they adapt to the environment or because they are chosen by the environment.The Environment School tries to explain the strategy beyond the individual through other powers and actors. According to environmental school theorists, strategy formulation is a reactive process and therefore emphasis is placed on its external context rather than within the organization (Mitzberg vd.,1998:6-7). The basic assumptions of the environmental school;The environment appears in the organization as a number of general forces and is the main actor in the strategy-making process. The organization has to respond to these forces, otherwise it will be eliminated. In this case, leadership becomes a passive element in understanding and adapting to the environment. Organizations survive until Resources are very low and conditions are very negative, then they die (Sarvan vd., 2003:102).According to the environmental school assumption, "whatever you do while you want to live" you can survive if the environment chooses you. Why is this giraffe's neck longer? It brought the paradox of adaptation or election to the agenda.The aim of this study is to reveal the basic assumptions of the environmental school, which is one of the ten strategic management schools, which has an important place in the strategic management literature and to discuss the issue that organizations are able to change the environment by changing the way they do business with creative and innovative activities that the environmental school ignores, and that they can stretch the obligation to comply with leading moves.Theories that make up the environmental school are Resource Dependence Theory, Institutionalization Theory and Population Ecology Theory. Resource dependence theory is based on the need for funding to make organizations dependent on their environment. Institutionalization Theory is based on the similarity of organizations in the same branch in terms of structure and functioning. Population Ecology Theory is based on the assumption that organizations are dependent on the environment that holds the resources to carry out their activities.Creativity and innovation are the most important topics of environmental compliance activities for the survival of modern organizations in a rapidly changing and turbulent environment (Ekvall, 1999:403).Although the environmental school emphasizes that the environment will choose the organization it wants, organizations must adapt themselves to environmental conditions in order to be selected by the environment. So they have to change. According to the approach of environmental compliance, the managers and sub-units of organizations display proactive behaviors by perceiving the opportunities and threats in the environment in a timely manner and make strategic decisions accordingly. This highlights the creativity perspective in the industry.Innovation is defined as the introduction and implementation of a role, group, idea, process, product or procedure designed to provide significant benefits to performance, the team, the organization, or the roles of the organization (West ve Far, 1989:16).Creativity is closely related to innovation; it can be expressed as the production of new and useful ideas in any field(Amabile, 1996: 44). It can be said that the common denominator demonstrated by the adaptation or election paradox explains the process of forming the strategy, as well as accepting internal and external environmental phenomena not as disconnected processes but as an interactive process.Strategy processes, content and industry-wide adaptation / selection paradox were examined and evaluated according to the environmental school approach in terms of forming a modern strategic management thought. The conclusion is that although the environmental school, which is one of the descriptive schools, defines the strategy development process from the outside, and the organizations will choose the organization they want, the organizations have to change in order to adapt to the environmental conditions to be chosen by the environment. This brings forward the creativity perspective in the industry. Thus, organizations that can adapt to the environment are selected by the environment, and a resultant component is obtained.In the study, the adaptation or choice paradox has been evaluated in terms of environmental school. It has been concluded that the " Adapting to the environment organizations are chosen by the environment" can form a strategy. It is possible for organizations that see that both approaches are complementary to each other, not alternatives, and provide competitive advantage. In this case, it will be the most important factor for organizations to see their environment and the resources they can use, as well as discover their own talents and see how they can affect their environment with their strategic analysis.In future researches, the theory can be supported by focusing on the choice of the environment, the reasons of the organizations that do not use their creativity and innovation, and the reasons for the closure of organizations that focus only on their own abilities and ignore environmental changes.