In today's fast-moving world, is a 1 or 3-year plan even relevant? Does it make a difference in
the "industry"?
Organizational Strategy
& Performance
2
Chapter Outline:
2-1
The Strategic
Managment Process
W
I
L
L
I
S
,
2-2
Theories of Strategy
2-3
Strategy at the
Corporate Level
K
A
S
S
A
N
D
R
A
2-4
Strategy at the
Business Level
2-5
Strategy at the
Functional Level
Summary
Review Questions
Glossary
Endnotes
2
1
6
1
T
S
Key Terms
business-level strategy
business unit
competitive advantage
contingency theory
core competencies
corporate profile
corporate restructuring
corporate-level strategy
differentiation strategy
distinctive competence
divestment
downsizing
external growth
first-mover advantages
focus
functional strategies
generic strategies
growth strategy
industrial organization (IO)
industry
intended strategy
internal growth
liquidation
low-cost strategy
low-cost–differentiation
realized strategy
related diversification
retrenchment strategy
stability strategy
strategic alliances
strategic group
strategic mgmt. process
strategy
synergy
turnaround
Organizations are most likely to succeed when their activities are integrated
toward a common purpose. But this does not occur automatically; it requires
substantial forethought and planning. In other words, it requires a strategy. This
chapter discusses the strategic planning process, as well as strategic alternatives
available for each organization. Although the concepts presented herein have been
developed with profit-seeking firms in mind, they can be equally applicable to
public and private not-for-profit organizations that must compete in some way with
other organizations or agencies.
The concept of an organizational strategy encapsulates the notion of planning for
success. Specifically, a strategy refers to top management’s
W plans to develop and
sustain competitive advantage so that the organization’s mission is fulfilled. A
I
strategy provides direction for the organization and can be identified by examining
L
a pattern of decisions made by an organization’s top managers. It is most likely to
L structure and culture,
be effective when it is compatible with the organization’s
I strategy is discussed
concepts that will be developed later in the text. Although
before structure and culture, all three dimensions are tightly
S intertwined.
strategy
top management’s plans to
attain outcomes consistent
with the organization’s
mission and goals
A successful strategy is marked by four key distinctions. ,First, it does not simply
emerge, but rather is developed after top managers systematically evaluate both
the organization’s resources and external factors that can
K affect performance.
Second, it is long-term and future-oriented—usually several
A years to a decade or
longer—but built on knowledge about the past and present.SThird, it is distinctively
opportunistic, always seeking to take advantage of favorable situations that occur
S
outside the organization. Finally, strategic thinking involves choices. “Win-win”
A degree of trade-off
strategic decisions are often possible, but most involve some
N
between alternatives, at least in the short run.
D
R
2-1 The Strategic Management Process A
Ideally, a strategy is developed as part of a conscious activity led by an
2 process also includes
organization’s top managers. The strategic management
top management’s analysis of the environment in which the
1 organization operates
prior to formulating a strategy, as well as the plan for implementation
and control
6
1
of the strategy. This process can be summarized in six steps:
1.
1
T or constraints that
External Analysis: Analyze the opportunities and threats
exist in the organization’s external environment. S
2. Internal Analysis: Analyze the organization’s strengths and weaknesses in
its internal environment.
3. Mission and Direction: Reassess the organization’s mission and its goals in
light of the external and internal analyses.
strategic management
process
the continuous process
of determining the
mission and goals of an
organization within the
context of its external
environment and its
internal strengths and
weaknesses; formulating
and implementing
strategies; and exerting
strategic control to ensure
that the organization’s
strategies are successful in
attaining its goals
Organizational Theory
2-2
4. Strategy Formulation: Formulate strategies that build and sustain
competitive advantage by matching the organization’s strengths and
weaknesses with the environment’s opportunities and threats. Consider the
fit between the strategy and other organizational dimensions, such as the
structure and the prevailing culture.
5. Strategy Implementation: Implement the strategies that have been
developed. Make adjustments to the organizational structure, if feasible
and relevant.
6. Strategic Control: Evaluate organizational effectiveness and engage in
Wproducing the desired
strategic control activities when the strategies are not
I
outcomes.
L
Although this process is simple and straightforward, complexities in the
L
environment complicate the process, especially between the time a strategy is
I Mintzberg introduced
formulated and the time it is actually implemented. Henry
two terms to help clarify the shift that often occurs during S
this period. An intended
strategy reflects what management originally planned and
, may be realized just
as it was proposed , but the intended strategy and the realized strategy, what
management actually implements usually differ.2 Hence, the original strategy may
K
be realized with desirable or undesirable results, or it may be modified as changes
A
in the firm or the environment become known.
intended strategy
the original strategy top
management plans and
intends to implement
realized strategy
the strategy top
management actually
implements
S
The gap between the intended and realized strategies usuallySresults from unforeseen
environmental or organizational events, better information that was not available
A
when the strategy was formulated, an improvement in top management’s ability to
N
assess its environment, or strategic responses from competitors.
As such, this gap
D information about the
can be minimized if top managers assimilate and process
R
organization’s environment more effectively. It is not uncommon
for such a gap to
exist, creating the need for constant strategic action if a firm
A is to stay on course.
Instead of resisting modest strategic changes when new information is discovered,
managers should search for new information and be willing to make such changes
2
when necessary.
A thorough discussion of each step of the
strategic management process is beyond
the scope of this text. However, many of
the concepts presented in the text relate
to one or more of these phases. The
remainder of this chapter is concerned
primarily with the theories that influence
the process and the content of corporate
and competitive strategies available to
organizations.
1
6
1
T
S
Organizational Theory
2-3
2-2 Theories of Strategy
The strategic management process has been influenced by a number of theories
and perspectives, three of which are summarized in the table 2-1 and discussed
below.
W
I
L
L
Industrial organization (IO) economics, a branch of microeconomics,
emphasizes
I
the influence of the industry environment upon the organization.
IO
emphasizes
S
that an organization must adapt to influences exerted by its industry— the
,
collection of competitors that offer similar products or services—to survive and
prosper. Following this logic, organizational performance is primarily determined
K
by the structure of the industry in which it competes. Industries
with “favorable
A
structures” offer the greatest opportunity for high organizational
performance.
S
IO logic can be seen in Michael Porter’s frequently cited “five forces” model,
S model identifies five
discussed in greater detail in the following chapter. Porter’s
A
structural elements that influence industry profitability: Existing
rivalry, threat of
substitutes, threat of new entrants, bargaining power ofNbuyers, and bargaining
power of suppliers.3 These factors collectively determine the
D potential for profits in
a particular industry. It assumes that organizations are likely
R to perform well when
they operate in industries with attractive structures.
A
The concept of adaptation is central to the IO perspective. In essence, an
organization’s performance and ultimate survival depend2 on its ability to adapt
to external forces rather than attempt to influence or control them. Strategies,
1
resources, and competencies are assumed to be fairly similar among competitors
6
within a given industry. If one organization deviates from the industry norm and
1 mimic the higherimplements a new, successful strategy, others will rapidly
T
performing organization by purchasing the resources, competencies,
or management
talent that have made the leading firm so profitable. Hence,
S strategic managers
should seek to understand the nature of the industry and formulate strategies that
feed off the industry’s characteristics.4
In contrast to the IO perspective, resource-based theory views performance
primarily as a function of an organization’s ability to acquire and utilize its
resources.5 Although environmental opportunities and threats are important, an
industrial organization
(IO)
a view based in
microecomonic theory
that states that a firm’s
profitability is most
closely associated with
industry structure
industry
a group of competitors
that produces similar
products or services
resource-based theory
a view that states that a
firm’s performance is tied
to the resources it acquires
and utilizes.
Organizational Theory
2-4
organization’s unique resources comprise the key variables that allow it to develop
a distinctive competence, distinguishing itself from its rivals, and creating
competitive advantage. “Resources” include all of a firm’s tangible and intangible
assets, such as capital, equipment, employees, knowledge, and information.6 In
many respects, an organization’s resources define its capabilities, as an organization
with strong research and development may also possess the capability to develop
successful new products. Ultimately, this can create value and lead to greater
performance.
distinctive competence
unique resources, skills,
and capabilities that
enable an organization to
distinguish itself from its
competitors and create a
competitive advantage
All resources are not equally valuable. If resources are to be used for sustainable
competitive advantage—a organization’s ability to enjoy
Wstrategic benefits and
outperform the industry norm over an extended period of time—those resources
I
must be valuable, rare (i.e., not easily obtained by rivals), not easily imitated,
L
and without strategically relevant substitutes.7 In other words, the most desirable
resources on ones that utilized by an organization in a wayLthat competitors cannot
I to the organization’s
easily match. Valuable resources contribute significantly
effectiveness and efficiency, rare resources are possessed bySonly a few competitors,
and imperfectly imitable resources cannot be fully duplicated
, by rivals.
Contingency theory emphasizes the interaction between the organization
and its environment. Within this perspective, the fit between
organization and
K
environment is the central concern. In other words, a strategy
A is most likely to be
successful when it is consistent with the organization’s S
mission, its competitive
environment, and its resources. In effect, contingency theory represents a middle
S
ground perspective that views organizational performance as the joint outcome
of environmental forces and the firm’s strategic actions.A
On the one hand, firms
N
can become proactive by choosing to operate in environments where opportunities
and threats match the firms’ strengths and weaknesses.8 On
Dthe other hand, should
the industry environment change in a way that is unfavorable
R to the firm, its top
managers should consider leaving that industry and reallocating
its resources to
A
other, more favorable industries.
contingency theory
a perspective that suggests
that the most profitable
firms are likely to be the
ones that develop the best
fit with their environments
Contingency theory is applied when a strategy is formulated.
2 Strategic managers
consider internal resources in light of external opportunities
and threats and
1
develop strategies that reflect a fit between the two. Hence, an effective strategy
6
is not merely a “good idea,” but one that capitalizes on the particular resources
1
controlled by an organization and the environment in which it operates. In other
T
words, an effective strategy “fits” the organization.
S
As has been demonstrated, each of these three perspectives has merit and has been
incorporated into the strategic management process. The industrial organization
view is prominent within the industry analysis phase, resource-based theory
applies directly to the internal analysis phase, and contingency theory is seen in the
strategy formulation phase. Hence, multiple perspectives are critical to a holistic
understanding of an organization’s strategy and its relationship with performance.9
Organizational Theory
2-5
2-3 Strategy at the Corporate Level
The complex notion of organizational strategy can be examined from three
perspectives: firm (also called corporate), business (also called competitive),
and functional. The corporate strategy reflects the broad strategic approach top
management formulates for the organization. The business-level strategy outlines
the competitive pattern for a business unit, an organizational entity with its own
mission, set of competitors, and industry. Top managers craft competitive strategies
for each business (unit) to attain and sustain competitive advantage, a state
whereby its successful strategies cannot be easily duplicated by its competitors.10
Functional strategies are created at each functional level W
(i.e., marketing, finance,
production, etc.) to support the business and corporate strategies.
I
There are two steps involved in developing the corporateLstrategy. The first step
L
is to assess the markets or industries in which the firm operates.
At the corporate
level, top management defines the corporate profile byI identifying the specific
industry(s) in which the organization will operate. Three basic
S profiles are possible:
operate in a single industry, operate in multiple related industries, or operate in
,
multiple, unrelated industries.
An organization that operates in a single industry can benefit
K from the specialized
knowledge that it develops from concentrating its efforts
A on one business
area. This knowledge can help the firm improve product or service quality and
S
become more efficient in its operations. McDonald’s, for instance, constantly
S cost of operations by
changes its product line, while maintaining a low per-unit
concentrating exclusively on fast food. Wal-Mart benefitsAfrom expertise derived
N in other businesses
from concentration in the retailing industry. Although involved
as well, Anheuser Busch limits its scope of operations primarily
to brewing, from
D
11
which it derives more than 80 percent of its revenues and profits.
Firms operating
R
in a single industry are more susceptible to sharp downturns in business cycles,
A
however.
An organization may operate in multiple related industries 2
to reduce the uncertainty
and risk associated with operating in a single industry. An organization may
1
diversify by developing a new line of business, or an organization with large,
6
successful businesses may acquire smaller competitors with complementary
1
product or service lines, a process known as related diversification.
In some
T as was the case when
instances, however, a smaller firm may acquire a larger one,
Kmart acquired Sears in 2004. Size, of course, can be defined
S in a number of ways,
including total revenues, number of employees or locations, or the physical size
of facilities.
The key to successful related diversification is the development of synergy among
the related business units. Synergy occurs when the two previously separate
organizations join to generate higher effectiveness and efficiency than would have
corporate-level
strategy
the broad strategy that top
managment formulates for
the overall organization
business-level
stragegy
a strategy formulated
for a business unit that
identifies how it will
compete with other
businesses within its
industry
business unit
an organizational
entity with its own
unique mission, set of
competitors, and industry
competitive advantage
a state whereby a
business unit’s successful
strategies cannot be
easily duplicated by its
competitors
functional strategies
strategies created at
functional levels (e.g.,
marketing, finance,
production, etc.) to
support the business and
corporate strategies
corporate profile
identification of the
industry(ies) in which a
firm operates
related diversification
a process whereby an
organization acquires one
or more businesses not
related to its core domain
synergy
when the combination of
two organizations results
in higher efficiency and
effectiveness that would
otherwise be achieved
by the two organizations
separately
Organizational Theory
2-6
been generated by them separately. When there are similarities in product or service
lines, relationships in the distribution channels, or complementary managerial or
technical expertise across business units, synergy is most likely to result.
An organization may choose to operate in unrelated industries because its
managers wish to reduce risk by spreading resources across several markets,
thereby pursuing unrelated diversification by acquiring businesses not related
to its core domain. Unlike related diversification, unrelated diversification is not
about synergy. Unrelated diversification is pursued primarily to reduce risks that
are associated with the organization that operates in only one area of business.
Unrelated diversification, however, can make it more difficult
W for managers to stay
abreast of market and technological changes in the various industries. In addition,
I
they may unknowingly shift attention away from the organization’s primary
L
business in favor of less critical ones.
unrelated
diversification
process whereby an
organization acquires
businesses unrelated to
its core domain
L
The second step involved in developing the corporate strategy
is associated with
I
the extent to which an organization seeks to increase its size. Simply stated, an
S
organization may attempt to increase its size significantly, remain about the same
size, or become smaller. These three possibilities are ,seen in three corporate
strategies—growth, stability, and retrenchment (i.e., become smaller)—each of
which is discussed in greater detail.
K
A
S
2-3a Growth Strategies
S
The growth strategy seeks to significantly increase a organization’s revenues
or market share. Growth may be attained in a variety ofA
ways. Internal growth
N
is accomplished when a firm increases revenues, production capacity, and its
workforce, and can occur by growing a business or creating
D new ones. External
growth is accomplished when an organization merges with
R or acquires another
firm. Mergers are generally undertaken to share or transfer
resources and/or
A
improve competitiveness by combining resources.
The attractiveness of merging with or acquiring another2organization may seem
intuitively obvious: Two organizations join forces into a single
1 one that possesses
all the strengths of the individual firms. The key to successful mergers and
6
acquisitions is often found in the ability to develop synergy. Some companies like
1
G.E. are well known for their ability to acquire other companies and integrate them
effectively. Opportunities for synergy are not always easy T
to identify, however. It is
S later discard it when
not uncommon for an organization to acquire a business and
the anticipated synergy is not attained.
growth strategy
corporate-level strategy
designed to increase
profits, sales, and/or
market share
internal growth
growth strategy in which a
firm expands by internally
increasing its size and
sales rather than by
acquiring other companies
external growth
growth strategy whereby
a firm acquires other
companies
When two organizations combine through a merger or acquisition to form a “new”
organization, blending two distinct cultures can be difficult amidst the rumors of
layoffs and restructuring that often accompany the transaction.12 This is especially
true when organizations across borders are involved. Although carmakers Chrysler
Organizational Theory
2-7
and Daimler Benz merged to form DaimlerChrysler in 1998, complete cooperation
between members from the two original organizations has been slow to develop.
During the first few years of the merger, Mercedes executives closely guarded their
technology from Chrysler for fear of eroding the Mercedes mystique. In 2003,
the two divisions began to cooperate more closely when it began building the
Crossfire, a Chrysler design with Mercedes components.13
One alternative to pursuing a merger or acquisition is to form a close relationship
with another organization without becoming part of the same firm. Strategic
alliances—often called partnerships—occur when two or more firms agree
to share the costs, risks, and benefits associated with pursuing
existing or new
W
business opportunities. Strategic alliances can be temporary, disbanding after the
I
project is finished, or they can involve multiple projects over an extended period
L
of time.14 A strategic alliance can be particularly attractive when a project may
L or require complex
be so large that it would strain a single company’s resources
I with complementary
technology that no single firm possesses. Hence, firms
technologies may combine forces, or one firm may contribute
its technological
S
15
expertise while another contributes its managerial or other
, abilities. American
carmakers General Motors and Ford have established strategic alliances with small
manufacturers in emerging economies such as China and Russia. GM and Ford
K
provide technological expertise to the alliance, whereas the producer in the host
A
country provides access and distribution to the local market.
strategic alliances
corporate-level growth
strategy in which two
or more firms agree to
share the costs, risks, and
benefits associated with
pursuing existing or new
business opportunities.
Strategic alliances are
often referred to as
partnerships
S
Strategic alliances have two major advantages over mergers and acquisitions. First,
S
they minimize increases in bureaucratic, developmental, and coordination costs.
A without bearing all
Second, each company can share in the benefits of the alliance
the costs and risks itself. A key disadvantage of a strategic N
alliance, however, is that
one partner in the alliance may offer less value to the project
D than other partners
but may gain a disproportionate amount of critical know-how
R from the cooperation
with its more progressive partners. In addition, the participating
A organizations may
hesitate to share complete information and expertise with each other.
2
1
Although growth is intuitively appealing, it is not always
6 the most effective
strategy. The stability strategy seeks to keep the organization
1 at roughly the same
size. Growth may occur naturally but is typically limitedTto the level of industry
growth. Stability enables the organization to focus its efforts on enhancing current
S
2-3b Stability Strategy
activities, while avoiding costs associated with internal or external growth. An
organization may adopt a stability strategy in leaner times and shift to a growth
strategy when economic conditions improve. Stability can also be an effective
strategy for a high performing organization, but it is not necessarily a risk-averse
strategy.
stability strategy
corporate-level strategy
intended to maintain a
firm’s present size and
current lines of business
Organizational Theory
2-8
Stability may be pursued instead of growth under at least four sets of circumstances:
1. Industry growth is slow or non-existent. In this situation, one firm’s growth
must come at the expense of a rival. This can be particularly costly, especially
when attacking an industry leader.16
2. Costs associated with growth do not exceed its benefits. During the “cola
wars” of the 1980s, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola spent millions to lure consumers
to their cola brands, only to realize that the costs associated with securing
this market share severely reduce profits.
W
3. Growth may place great constraints on quality I and customer service,
especially in small organizations known for their
L personal service and
attention to detail.
4.
L
Large, dominant organizations may not wish to
I risk prosecution for
monopolistic practices associated with growth. American
S firms, for example,
may be prohibited from acquiring competitors if regulators believe their
,
combined market shares will threaten competitiveness. Even internal growth
can be problematic at times, as was the case in the late 1990s through 2001
K that the company
with Microsoft’s costly defense against federal charges
unfairly dictated terms in the software industry. A
S
S
2-3c Retrenchment Strategies
A
Growth strategies and the stability strategy are generally adopted by healthy
N
organizations. But when performance is disappointing, a retrenchment
strategy may be appropriate. Retrenchment takes one orDa combination of three
R
forms: turnaround, divestment, or liquidation. A retrenchment
strategy is often
accompanied by a reorganization process known as A
corporate restructuring.
Corporate restructuring includes such actions as realigning divisions in the
firm, reducing the amount of cash under the discretion of senior executives, and
2
acquiring or divesting business units.17 Restructuring is not limited to organizations
1
that perform poorly over an extended period of time. Even well-known, leading
6 that require them to
companies progress through product and economic cycles
1
restructure on occasion. Fast-food giant McDonald’s, for example,
posted a fourth
quarter 2002 loss of $344 million, its first in 37 years. The
firm
responded
with
T
a restructuring plan that included opening fewer new stores,
S greater product and
marketing emphasis on existing outlets, and a number of store closings in 2003 in
the United States and Japan, its two largest markets.18
A turnaround seeks to transform the organization into a leaner, more effective
firm and can include such actions as eliminating unprofitable outputs, reducing the
size of the workforce, cutting costs of distribution, and reassessing product lines
retrenchment strategy
corporate-level strategy
designed to reduce the size
of the firm
corporate restructuring
corporate strategic
approach that includes
such actions as realigning
divisions in the firm,
reducing the amount of
cash under the discretion
of senior executives, and
acquiring or divesting
business units
turnaround
corporate-level
retrenchment strategy
intended to transform
the firm into a leaner and
more effective business
by reducing costs and
rethinking the firm’s
product lines and target
markets
Organizational Theory
2-9
and customer groups.19 Turnarounds are often accompanied by downsizing, the
elimination of one or more hierarchical levels in an organization. Turnarounds are
often preceded by changes in the external environment. In general, a turnaround is
usually not as drastic a move as corporate restructuring, but the two terms are often
used interchangeably in the business press.
Turnarounds involving layoffs are generally more difficult to implement than one
might think. When layoffs are required, organizations must address their effects
on both departing employees and those who remain with the organization, the
“survivors.” Employees may be given opportunities to voluntarily leave—generally
with an incentive—to make the process as congenial as possible.
W The problem with
this approach, however, is that those departing are often the top performers who
I
are most marketable, leaving the organization with a less competitive workforce.
L
When layoffs are simply announced, less competitive workers can be eliminated
L
more easily, but morale is likely to suffer more.20
downsizing
a means of organizational
restructuring that
eliminates one or more
hierarchical levels
from the organization
and pushes decision
making downward in the
organization
I
S
,
Effective strategic planning at the
corporate level requires strong
teamowork and communication.
K
A
S
S
A
N
D
R
A
When layoffs are necessary, however, several actions may palliate some of the
2 and effectively with
negative effects. Top managers should communicate honestly
all employees, explain why the layoff is necessary and1clarify how terminated
employees were selected. Everyone, including the survivors,
should be made
6
aware of how departing employees will be supported. Employees
should also be
1
encouraged to take advantage of outplacement or other services
available
to them,
T
and special efforts should be made to ensure that such programs are administered
S
in a clear and consistent manner.21 Although these measures will not eliminate all
the harsh feelings associated with layoffs, they can help keep the process under
control and minimize any negative repercussions.
Divestment—selling one or more business units—may be necessary when an
industry in which an organization competes is in decline, or when a business
divestment
a corporate-level
retrenchment strategy in
which a firm sells one or
more of its business units
Organizational Theory
2-10
unit drains resources from more profitable units, is not performing well, or is not
producing the desired synergy. In a well-publicized spin-off, PepsiCo divested its
KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut business units into a new company, Tricon Global
Restaurants, Inc., in 1997 in order to refocus PepsiCo’s efforts on its beverage and
snack food divisions. Tricon’s name was officially changed to Yum Brands in 2002
and has since acquired several other restaurant chains.
Liquidation involves the sale of all the organization’s assets and is the strategy
of last resort. Liquidation results in a termination of the business and involves a
divestment of all the firm’s business units and should be adopted only under extreme
conditions. Shareholders and creditors experience financial
W losses, employees
eventually lose their jobs, suppliers lose a customer, and the community suffers
I
an increase in unemployment and a decrease in tax revenues. Hence, liquidation
L
should be pursued only when other forms of retrenchment are not viable.
2-4 Strategy at the Business Level
liquidation
a retrenchment strategy of
last resort whereby a firm
terminates one or more
of its business units by
selling their assets
L
I
S
,
The corporate strategy does not address all of the strategic questions that an
organization must face. Whereas the corporate strategy concerns the basic thrust of
K
the firm—where top managers would like to lead the firm—the
business strategy
A serve, what needs
addresses the competitive aspect— who the business should
should be satisfied, and how a business should develop core
S competencies and be
positioned to satisfy customer needs.
S
Although each business strategy is unique, the concepts ofA
business strategy can be
more easily presented by considering a limited number of generic
strategies based
N
on their similarities. Businesses adopting the same genericDstrategy comprise what
is commonly referred to as a strategic group.22 BecauseR
industry definitions and
strategy assessments are not always clear, identifying strategic groups within an
A
industry can be difficult. Hence, the
concept of strategic groups can be
2
used as a means
of understanding
and illustrating
1 competition within
an industry, 6but the limitations of
the approach
1 should always be
considered.
generic strategies
strategies that can be
adopted by business
units to guide their
organizations
strategic group
a select group of direct
competitors who have
similar strategic profiles
T
S
Effective business strategies take
into account likely responses from
competitors - just like a game of chess.
Organizational Theory
2-11
The challenging task of formulating and implementing a generic strategy for each
business unit is based on a number of factors. Selecting the generic approach is only
the first step in formulating a business strategy.23 It is also necessary to fine-tune
the strategy and accentuate the organization’s unique set of resource strengths.24
Two generic strategy frameworks—one by Porter and one by Miles and Snow—
serve as good starting points for developing business strategies.
2-4a Porter’s Generic Strategies
Michael Porter developed the most commonly cited generic strategy framework.25
Wtwo basic competitive
According to Porter’s typology, a business unit must address
concerns. First, managers must determine whether the business
unit should focus
I
its efforts on an identifiable subset of the industry in which
it
operates
or seek to
L
serve the entire market as a whole. For example, many specialty clothing stores
L
in shopping malls adopt the focus concept and concentrate their efforts on limited
I
product lines primarily intended for a small market niche. In contrast, most chain
grocery stores seek to serve the “mass market”—or at leastS
most of it—by selecting
, public as a whole.
an array of products and services that appeal to the general
Second, managers must determine whether the business unit should compete
primarily by minimizing its costs relative to those of its competitors
or by seeking
K
to differentiate itself by offering unique and/or unusual products and services.
focus
the concentration of
strategic efforts on an
identifiable subset of
the industry in which it
operates, as opposed to the
entire market as a whole
A
S exclusive because
According to Porter, these two alternatives are mutually
differentiation efforts tend to erode a low-cost structureSby raising production,
promotional, and other expenses. Depending on the way
A strategic managers
in a business unit address the first (i.e., focus or not) and second (low-cost,
N
differentiation, or low-cost–differentiation) questions, six configurations are
D
possible, as summarized below:
R
A
2
1
6
1
T
S
Businesses that compete with a low-cost strategy minimize costs by producing
basic, no-frills products and services. Low-cost businesses often succeed by
building market share through low prices, although some may charge prices
comparable to rivals and enjoy a greater margin. Because customers are usually
not willing to pay high or even average prices for basic products or services, it
is essential that businesses using this strategy keep their overall costs as low as
low cost strategy
a generic business unit
strategy in which a larger
business produces, at the
lowest cost possible, nofrills products and services
industry-wide for a large
market with a relatively
elastic demand
Organizational Theory
2-12
possible. Efficiency is a key to such businesses, as has been demonstrated by
mega-retailer Wal-Mart in recent years.
Low-cost businesses typically emphasize a low initial investment and low operating
costs. They tend to purchase from suppliers who offer the lowest prices within a
basic quality standard to minimize production expenditures. Most research and
development efforts are directed at improving operational efficiency, and attempts
are made to enhance logistical and distribution efficiencies. Such businesses tend
to de-emphasize the development of new and improved products or services that
might raise costs.
A cost leader may be more likely than other businesses toWoutsource a number of
its production activities if costs are reduced as a result, Ieven if modest amounts
of control over quality are lost as a result. In addition, theLmost efficient means of
distribution is sought, even if it is not the fastest or easiest
L to manage. Successful
low-cost businesses do not emphasize cost minimization to
I the degree that quality
and service decline excessively, an approach that can result in the production of
S
“cheap” goods and services that nobody is willing to purchase.
,
Businesses that employ the differentiation strategy emphasize uniqueness,
producing and marketing products or services that can be readily distinguished from
K
those of their competitors. Differentiated businesses seek new product and market
A
opportunities by leveraging advances in technology. Successful differentiation is
typically linked to an organization’s core competencies,Sits key capabilities and
S performance, and
collective learning skills that are fundamental to its strategy,
long-term performance. Ideally, core competencies shouldA
provide access to a wide
array of markets, contribute directly to the goods and services
N being produced, and
be difficult to imitate.
D
Rof a product’s physical
The potential for differentiation is to some extent a function
characteristics. Tangibly speaking, it is easier to differentiate
A an automobile than
bottled water. However, intangible differentiation can extend beyond the physical
characteristics of a product or service to encompass everything associated with
2
the value perceived by customers. As such, there are a number of prospective
bases for differentiation, most notably product features 1
(or the mix of products
6
offered), including the objective and subjective differences in product attributes.
Lexus automobiles, for example, have been differentiated1on product features and
are well known for their attention to detail, quality, and Tluxury feel. United and
other airlines have attempted to differentiate their businesses
S by offering in-flight
26
satellite telephone and e-mail services.
Caution should be exercised when considering the combination of low cost
and differentiation strategies. As aforementioned, Porter contends a low-cost–
differentiation strategy is not advisable and leaves a business “stuck in the
middle” because differentiating a product generally drives up costs, eroding a
differentiation strategy
a generic business unit
strategy in which a
business produces and
markets to the entire
industry products or
services that can be readily
distinguished from those
of its competitors.
core competencies
an organization’s key
capabilities and collective
learning skills that are
fundamental to its strategy,
performance, and longterm profitability
low-cost differentiation
strategy
a generic business unit
strategy in which a
business unit maintains
low costs while producing
distinct products or
services industry-wide
Organizational Theory
2-13
Best Practices
Delivering Value at Aldi
Aldi is an international retailer that offers a limited assortment of groceries and related items at the lowest
possible prices. Aldi provides an excellent example of an organization whose functional operations are
tightly coordinated around a single strategic objective, low costs.
Aldi minimizes costs a number of ways. Most products are private label, allowing Aldi to negotiate
rock-bottom prices from its suppliers. Stores are modest in size, much smaller than that of a typical
chain grocer. Aldi only stocks common food and related products, maximizing inventory turnover.
The retailer does not accept credit cards, eliminating the 2-4 percent fee typically charged by banks
to process the transaction. Customers bag their own groceries and must either bring their own bags or
W
purchase them from Aldi at a nominal charge.
I
Aldi also takes an innovate approach to the useL of its shopping carts. Customers insert a quarter to
unlock a cart from the interlocked row of carts located outside the store entrance. The quarter is returned
L
with the cart is locked back into the group. As a result, no employee time is required to collect stray carts
unless a customer is willing to forego the quarterI by not returning the cart!
S
Aldi has grown to more than 5,000 stores in Europe, the United States, and Australia. Peruse the company
,
web site at www.aldi.com for more information on the retailer and its strategic approach. Which competitive
strategy is Aldi implementing? How do Aldi’s activities work together to support the strategy?
K
A
firm’s cost leadership basis.”27 In addition, a number
S of cost-cutting measures may be directly related
to quality and/or other bases of differentiation. Following this logic, a business should choose either
S
low-cost or differentiation, but not both.28
A
However, this is not necessarily the case, and
N the low-cost–differentiation strategy is a viable
alternative for some businesses, although combining
the two strategies can be difficult.29 For
D
example, some businesses begin with a differentiation strategy and integrate low costs as they grow,
R
developing economies of scale along the way. Others seek forms of differentiation that also provide
A
cost advantages, such as enhancing and enlarging the filter on a cigarette, which reduces the amount
of costly tobacco required to manufacture the product, while also differentiating it from those of its
2
competitors.
1
Fast-food giant McDonald’s has combined low costs and differentiation effectively. The company
6 to store, friendly service, and cleanliness. These
was originally known for consistency from store
bases for differentiation catapulted McDonald’s1to market share leader, allowing the firm to negotiate
for beef, potatoes, and other key materials atTthe lowest possible cost. This unique combination
of resources and strategic attributes has placedSMcDonald’s in an enviable position as undisputed
industry leader, although competition in this industry is intense.30
Changes in the mobile home industry in the United States also illustrates a link between low cost and
differentiation. Traditionally, mobile homes have been positioned as a low-cost, affordable housing
option to low income consumers. Indeed, about 22 million Americans, or 8 percent of the U.S.
population, lived in manufactured housing in 2004. Sales approached almost 400,000 units per year
Organizational Theory
2-14
in the late 1990s. However, they declined to about 131,000 units by 2003, a year
in which about 100,000 units were repossessed from previous customers. Today,
manufactured housing does not always represent a low-cost housing option.
Manufacturers such as Clayton Homes responded to the hike in repossessions
by targeting potential customers with higher incomes and offering homes with
upscale features, such as Mohn faucets, porcelain sinks, a wood-burning fireplace,
and even a high-definition television set.31
2-4b Miles and Snow’s Generic Strategies
W
A second commonly used framework for categorizing business-level
strategies
was developed by Miles and Snow and considers four strategic
types: prospectors,
I
defenders, analyzers, and reactors.32 Prospectors perceive
a
dynamic,
uncertain
L
environment and maintain flexibility to combat environmental change.
L
Prospectors introduce new products and new services, and design the industry.
I
As such, prospectors tend to possess a loose structure, a low division of labor,
S
and low formalization and centralization. Prospectors typically
seek first-mover
, advantages can be
advantages derived from being first to market. First-mover
strong, as demonstrated by products widely known by their original brand names,
such as Kleenex and Chap Stick. Being first, however, is
Knot always beneficial,
and research has shown that competitors may be able to catch up quickly and
A
effectively.33 As a result, prospectors must develop expertise in innovation and
S
evaluate risk scenarios effectively.
first-mover advantages
benefits derived from
being the first organization
to offer a new or modified
product or service.
S
Defenders are almost the opposite of prospectors. They perceive
the environment
A
to be stable and certain, seeking stability and control in their operations to achieve
N
maximum efficiency. Defenders incorporate an extensive division of labor, high
D
formalization, and high centralization. The defender usually concentrates on only
R the organization.
one segment of the market and stresses efficiency throughout
A
Analyzers stress stability and flexibility, attempting to capitalize on the best of
the prospector and defender strategy types. Tight control is exerted over existing
operations with loose control for new undertakings. The 2strength of the analyzer
1 maintaining greater
is the ability to respond to prospectors (or imitate them) while
efficiencies in operations. An analyzer may follow a 6prospector’s successful
lead, modify the product or service offered by the prospector,
1 and market it more
effectively. In effect, an analyzer is seeking a “second mover”
T advantage, waiting
to see which prospector moves are successful and then following suit as needed.34
S
Copying successful competitors can be a successful strategy when both
organizations share the resources needed to effectively implement similar programs.
After sales slumped in 2000 at Taco Bell, president Emil Brolick acknowledged
its plans to model the restaurant after Wendy’s, noting the rival’s ability to gain
market share without slashing prices. In 2001, Taco Bell began appealing to a more
Organizational Theory
2-15
Career Point
Personality & Strategy
Does your personality fit better with one competitive strategy than with another? Perhaps it does.
Consider Miles & Snow’s generic strategy typology as an example. What kind of managers would be
best suited for a prospector organization? Recall that the prospector seeks competitive advantage by
being first with new products, services, or markets. By their nature, prospectors embrace the notion
of risk. If you enjoy the fast pace of change, like new opportunities, are creative, and are not stressed
by uncertainties associated with change, then a prospector organization might be an excellent fit.
Perhaps you are more analytical, less outgoing, and work well with numbers. Defender organizations
seek competitive advantage by serving an established segment of the market very well. Defenders
W
often do so by emphasizing efficiency of operations and cost controls.
I
Analyzers seek competitive advantage by balancing
L desires for innovation and cost controls. Analytical skills may also be highly important to professionals working in analyzer organizations. Flexibility
L
is also a key attribute of analyzers.
I
In most instances, reactor organizations wouldSnot be attractive to any individuals. Regardless of
strategy, most healthy organizations seek a balance of personality types, at least to some extent.
,
However, people make an organization function and can contribute more when they can relate to or
identify with the strategy it is pursuing. Perhaps you should consider how your personality type fits
K your next career move.
with the organization’s strategy when you consider
A
S
S
mature market with additional pricey items and
A fewer promotions. Although the product lines are
35
substantially different, this approach has proven
Nbeneficial for Taco Bell.
D consistency in strategic choice and performing
Reactors represent the fourth strategic type, lacking
poorly. The reactor organization lacks an appropriate
R set of response mechanisms with which to confront
environmental change. There is no strength inA
the reactor strategic type, and reactor organizations
are generally encouraged to restructure and select one of the other three strategic approaches.Porter’s
typology and Miles and Snow’s typology represent different approaches to business strategies in
2
organization, but share some similarities. For example, Miles and Snow’s prospector business is
1 defender business typically emphasizes low costs.
likely to emphasize differentiation, whereas the
6 resemble the low-cost-differentiation combination
Miles and Snow’s analyzer type also appears to
within Porter’s framework. These tendencies
1 notwithstanding, fundamental differences exist
between the typologies. Porter’s approach isTbased on economic principles associated with the
cost-differentiation dichotomy, whereas the Miles and Snow approach describes the philosophical
S
approach of the business to its environment.
Organizational Theory
2-16
2-5 Strategy at the Functional Level
Strategic consistency throughout the organization can enhance prospects for success. After corporate- and
business-level strategies have been developed, strategies should be formulated at the business unit’s functional
levels, such as those of marketing, finance, production, purchasing, human resources, and information systems.
Functional strategies should support the implementation of the corporate- and business-level strategies. In doing
so, each functional area should integrate its activities with those of the other functional departments because
a change in one department can affect both the manner in which other departments operate and the overall
performance of the business unit.
Unfortunately, managers in each functional area often do not understand the interrelationships among the
W
functions. For example, marketers who do not understand production may promise customers product features
I
that the production department cannot readily or economically integrate into the product’s design. In contrast,
production managers who do not understand marketingLmay insist on production changes that result in relatively
L In a similar vein, it is not worthwhile to launch a new
minor cost changes but fail to satisfy customer needs.
advertising campaign emphasizing product quality while
I the production department is undergoing a massive
effort to cut costs. For this reason, managers in all functional
areas need to understand how the areas should
S
integrate, and they should work together to formulate functional strategies that “fit” and support the business,
and corporate-level strategies.
Functional strategies are formulated after the corporate
K and business strategies have already been established.
However, examining the capabilities of the functional
A areas is still necessary when various corporate and
business strategic options are being considered. For example, an airline considering expansion through additional
S
international routes should consider factors such as the need for additional personnel and the organization’s
S the expansion plan as the preferred strategic option.
ability to finance additional airplanes before settling on
A
N
D
Summary
R
Strategies are developed to integrate an organization’s
activities behind a common purpose. The
A
process of strategic management is influenced by a number of perspectives, including industrial
organization economics, resource based theory, and contingency theory. The strategic management
2
process includes external and internal analysis and the examination of mission and goals, as well
1
as the formulation, and implementation of strategies at three levels within the organization. Each
of the three perspectives plays a distinct role 6
in the strategic management process.
1
At the broad firm level, managers must identify the markets in which the organization will
T
compete. In addition, they can attempt to increase the size of the organization through internal or
S
external growth, seek to maintain stability, or pursue a reduction in size through retrenchment.
At the business level, top managers formulate strategies to enable the business unit to compete
effectively. Generic strategy frameworks can be used to illustrate the strategic approaches
available. Porter’s framework of business strategies includes low costs, differentiation, and
focus. Miles and Snow’s framework includes prospectors, defenders, analyzers, and reactors.
Functional strategies are also developed for each business unit to support the business and firm
level strategies.
Organizational Theory
2-17
Review Questions & Exercises
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of internal growth as opposed to growth through
mergers and acquisitions?
2. Why would an organization adopt a stability strategy? Is a stability strategy a suboptimal approach
for organizations over the long term?
3. Can low-cost and differentiation strategies be combined effectively? Why or why not?
W
4. How do strategies at the functional level Iintegrate with those at the firm and business levels?
L
L
I
S
Glossary
,
•
•
•
•
Business-Level Strategy: A strategy formulated for a business unit that identifies how it will
compete with other businesses within its K
industry.
A
Business Unit: An organizational entitySwith its own unique mission, set of competitors, and
industry.
S
A a business unit’s successful strategies cannot be easily
Competitive Advantage: A state whereby
N
duplicated by its competitors.
D
Contingency Theory: A perspective that suggests that the most profitable firms are likely to be the
R
ones that develop the best fit with their environment.
A
•
Core Competencies: An organization’s key capabilities and collective learning skills that are
fundamental to its strategy, performance,2and long-term profitability.
•
Corporate Profile: Identification of the industry(ies) in which a firm operates.
•
1
6
Corporate Restructuring: A corporate strategic
approach that includes such actions as realigning
1
divisions in the firm, reducing the amount
T of cash under the discretion of senior executives, and
acquiring or divesting business units.
S
•
Corporate-Level Strategy: The broad strategy that top management formulates for the overall
organization.
•
Differentiation Strategy: A generic business unit strategy in which a business produces and
markets to the entire industry products or services that can be readily distinguished from those of
its competitors.
Organizational Theory
2-18
•
Distinctive Competence: Unique resources, skills, and capabilities that enable an organization to
distinguish itself from its competitors and create competitive advantage.
•
Divestment: A corporate-level retrenchment strategy in which a firm sells one or more of its
business units.
•
Downsizing: A means of organizational restructuring that eliminates one or more hierarchical
levels from the organization and pushes decision-making downward in the organization.
•
External Growth: A growth strategy whereby a firm acquires other companies.
•
W from being the first organization to offer a new or
First-Mover Advantages: Benefits derived
I
modified product or service.
•
Focus: The concentration of strategic efforts on an identifiable subset of the industry in which it
L
operates, as opposed to the entire market as a whole.
L
•
I
Functional Strategies: Strategies createdSat functional levels (e.g., marketing, finance, production,
etc.) to support the business and corporate, strategies.
•
Generic Strategies: Strategies that can be adopted by business units to guide their organizations.
•
•
•
•
K
A designed to increase profits, sales, and/or market
Growth Strategy: A corporate-level strategy
share.
S
S
Industrial Organization (IO): A view based in microeconomic theory which states that firm
A industry structure.
profitability is most closely associated with
N
Industry: A group of competitors that produces
similar products or services.
D
R
Intended strategy: The original strategy top management plans and intends to implement.
A
•
Internal Growth: A growth strategy in which a firm expands by internally increasing its size and
sales rather than by acquiring other companies.
2
•
1
Liquidation: A retrenchment strategy whereby
a firm terminates one or more of its business units
6
by selling their assets.
•
Low-Cost Strategy: A generic businessT unit strategy in which a larger business produces, at
the lowest cost possible, no-frills products and services industry-wide for a large market with a
S
relatively elastic demand.
•
Low-Cost–Differentiation Strategy A generic business unit strategy in which a business unit
maintains low costs while producing distinct products or services industry-wide.
•
Related Diversification: A process whereby an organization acquires one or more businesses not
1
Organizational Theory
2-19
related to its core domain.
•
Realized Strategy: The strategy top management actually implements.
•
Retrenchment Strategy: A corporate-level strategy designed to reduce the size of the firm.
•
Stability Strategy: A corporate-level strategy intended to maintain a firm’s present size and current
lines of business.
•
Strategic Alliances: A corporate-level growth strategy in which two or more firms agree to share
the costs, risks, and benefits associated with pursuing existing or new business opportunities.
Strategic alliances are often referred to asW
partnerships.
•
Strategic Group: A select group of directLcompetitors who have similar strategic profiles.
•
Strategic Management Process: The continuous process of determining the mission and goals
of an organization within the context ofI its external environment and its internal strengths and
S strategies, and exerting strategic control to ensure that
weaknesses, formulating and implementing
the organization’s strategies are successful
, in attaining its goals.
•
Strategy: Top management’s plans to attain outcomes consistent with the organization’s mission
K
and goals.
•
•
•
I
L
A
Synergy: When the combination of two organizations
results in higher efficiency and effectiveness
S
that would otherwise be achieved by the two
organizations
separately.
S
A strategy intended to transform the firm into a leaner
Turnaround: A corporate-level retrenchment
and more effective business by reducingNcosts and rethinking the firm’s product lines and target
markets.
D
R
Unrelated Diversification: A process whereby an organization acquires businesses unrelated to its
A
core domain.
2
1
6
1
T
S
Organizational Theory
2-20
(Endnotes)
1. Based on P. Wright, M. Kroll, and J. A. Parnell, Strategic Management:Concepts (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998).
2.
H. Mintzberg, “Opening Up the Definition of Strategy,” in J. B. Quinn, H. Mintzberg, and R. M. James, eds., The Strategy Process
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988), pp. 14–15.
3.
M. E. Porter, “The Contributions of Industrial Organization to Strategic Management,” Academy of Management Review 6 (1981):
609–620.
4.
J. S. Bain, Industrial Organization (New York: Wiley, 1968); F. M. Scherer and D. Ross, Industrial Market Structure and Economic
Performance (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1990).
5.
It has been argued that the resource-based perspective does not qualify as an academic theory. For details on this exchange, see
W
R.L. Priem and J.E. Butler, “Is the Resource-Based ‘View’ a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research,” Academy of
I
Management Review 26 (2001): 22-40; J.B. Barney, “Is the Resource-Based
‘View’ a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management
L 41-56.
Research? Yes,” Academy of Management Review 26 (2001):
6.
J. B. Barney, “Looking Inside for Competitive Advantage,” Academy
of Management Executive 19 (1995): 49–61.
L
7.
S. L. Berman, J. Down, and C. W. L. Hill, “Tacit Knowledge
I as a Source of Competitive Advantage in the National Basketball
Association,” Academy of Management Journal 45 (2002): 13–32.
S
8.
9.
E. J. Zajac, M. S. Kraatz, R. K. F. Bresser, “Modeling the Dynamics of Strategic Fit: A Normative Approach to Strategic Change,”
,
Strategic Management Journal 21 (2000): 429–453.
C. A. Lengnick-Hall and J. A. Wolff, “Similarities and Contradictions in the Core Logic of Three Strategy Research Streams,”
K
Strategic Management Journal 20 (1999): 1109–1132; O. E. Williamson, “Strategy Research: Governance and Competence
A
Perspectives,” Strategic Management Journal 20 (1999): 1109-1132;
O. E. Williamson, “Strategy Research: Governance and
S
Competence Perspectives,” Strategic Management Journal 20 (1999): 1087–1108.
10. I. M. Cockburn, R. M. Henderson, S. Stern, “Untangling the S
Origins of Competitive Advantage,” Strategic Management Journal 21
(2000): 1123–1145.
A
11. P. Wright, M. Kroll, and J. A. Parnell, Strategic Management:Concepts
(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998).
N
12. M. A. Hitt, J. S. Harrison, and R. D. Ireland, Mergers and Acquisitions:
A Guide to Creating Value for Stakeholders (New York:
D
Oxford University Press, 2001).
R
A
13. N.E. Boudette, “At DaimlerChrysler, a New Push To Make Its Units Work Together,” Wall Street Journal, 12 March 2003, pp. A1,A15.
14. J. J. Reuer, M. Zollo, and H. Singh, “Post-Formation Dynamics in Strategic Alliances,” Strategic Management Journal 23 (2002):
135–152.
2 of Firms: A Study of Growth and Innovation Rates in a High15. T. E. Stuart, “Interorganizational Alliances and the Performance
1 791–811.
Technology Industry,” Strategic Management Journal 21 (2000):
6
16. K. G. Smith, W. J. Ferrier, C. M. Grimm, “King of the Hill: Dethroning
the Industry Leader,” Academy of Management Executive 15,
no. 2 (2001): 59–70.
1
17. J. F. Weston, “Restructuring and Its Implications for BusinessTEconomics,” Business Economics, January 1998, pp. 41-46..
18. R. Gibson, “McDonald’s Posts a Super-Size Loss, Lowers Growth
S Goals,” Dow Jones Newswires, 23 January 2003.
19. See M. Garry, “A&P Strikes Back,” Progressive Grocer, February 1994, pp. 32–38.
20. M. Murray, “Waiting for the Ax to Fall,” Wall Street Journal, 13 March 2001, pp. B1, B10.
21. Purchasing, “Some Specifics on How to Handle Layoffs,” 16 December 1999, http://www.manufacturing.net/pur/index.asp?layout
=article&articleId=CA148401&stt=001&text=some+specifics+on+how+to+handle+layoffs.
22. T. D. Ferguson, D. L. Deephouse, and W. L. Ferguson, “Do Strategic Groups Differ in Reputation?” Strategic Management Journal
Organizational Theory
2-21
21 (2000): 1195–1214.
23. R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, “Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map It,” Harvard Business Review 78, no. 5 (2000):
167–176.
24. C. Campbell-Hunt, “What Have We Learned about Generic Competitive Strategy? A Meta-Analysis,” Strategic Management
Journal 21 (2000): 127–154.
25. M. E. Porter, Competitive Strategy (New York: Free Press, 1980).
26. S. Carey, “United to Install In-Flight E-Mail By End of Year,” Wall Street Journal, 17 June 2003, pp. D1,D2; S. McCartney, “New
In-Flight E-Mail Falls Short,” Wall Street Journal, 31 March 2004, pp. D1,D3.
27. M. E. Porter, Competitive Strategy (New York: Free Press, 1980), p. 41.
28. M. E. Porter, Competitive Strategy (Boston: Free Press, 1980).
W
29. J. A. Parnell, “New Evidence in the Generic Strategy and Business Performance Debate: A Research Note,” British Journal
I
of Management 8 (1997):175–181; J. A. Parnell, “Reframing the Combination Strategy Debate: Defining Different Forms of
L
Combination,” Journal of Applied Management Studies 9, no. 1 (2000): 33–54; C. W. L. Hill, “Differentiation Versus Low Cost or
L
Differentiation and Low Cost: A Contingency Framework,” Academy
of Management Review 13 (1988): 401–412.
I
30. R. Papiernik, “McDonald’s Shows It Can Market Well with Numbers,
Knack for Good Timing,” Nation’s Restaurant News, 1 May
S York: Bantam Press, 1995).
2000, p. 15-16; J. F. Love, McDonald’s: Behind the Arches (New
31. J.R. Hagerty, “Mobile-Home Industry Tries to Haul Itself out ,of Big Slump,” Wall Street Journal, 30 March 2004, pp. A1,A12.
32. R. E. Miles and C. C. Snow, Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process (New York: West, 1978); M. Forte, J. J. Hoffman, B. T.
Lamont, and E. N. Brockmann, “Organizational Form and Environment:
An Analysis of Between-Form and Within-Form Responses
K
to Environmental Change,” Strategic Management Journal 21 (2000): 753–773.
A
33. J. A. Matthews, “Competitive Advantages of the Latecomer Firm: A Resource-Based Account of Industrial Catch-Up Strategies,”
S
Asia Pacific Journal of Management 19 (2002): 467–488.
S
34. H. C. Hoppe and U. Lehmann-Grube, “Second-Mover Advantages in Dynamic Quality Competition,” Journal of Economics &
A
Management Strategy 10 (2001): 419–434.
N Wall Street Journal, 23 February 2001, pp. B1, B4.
35. J. Ordonez, “Taco Bell Chief Has New Tactic: Be Like Wendy’s,”
D
R
A
2
1
6
1
T
S
Organizational Theory
2-22
Purchase answer to see full
attachment