Changing Generic Strategies

Andrews, K., 2010. The Concept of Corporate Strategy, 3rd Edition. Financial Times Prentice Hall. [Accessed 13 April 2014]

Porter's generic strategies framework constitutes a major contribution to the development of the strategic management literature. Generic strategies were first presented in two books by Professor Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School (Porter, 1980, 1985). Porter (1980, 1985) suggested that some of the most basic choices faced by companies are essentially the scope of the markets that the company would serve and how the company would compete in the selected markets. Competitive strategies focus on ways in which a company can achieve the most advantageous position that it possibly can in its industry (Pearson, 1999). The profit of a company is essentially the difference between its revenues and costs. Therefore high

“Generic strategies” was first set out by Michael Porter in 1985 in his book “Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance.” Academic work in the field of strategic management, Porter (1980, 1985) typology of general competitive strategies: cost leadership, differentiation and focus. The three virtually divided into two basic categories. Focus strategy requires a niche or narrow segment concentration. But Porter said, can cost leadership in the success of this strategy or differentiation to achieve. Therefore, cost leadership and differentiation are two basic strategies Porter 's typology. These two topics are discussed in this article.

Chapter 6 – Strategy Formulation: Situation Analysis and Business StrategyChapter 7 – Strategy Formulation: Corporate StrategyChapter 8 – Strategy Formulation: Functional strategy and Strategic Choice

The generic strategy approach may be applied to organizations of all sizes and is a one size fits all approach. It can be divided into three types of approaches may be applied as alternatives for a given organization or industry as an improvement for future growth.

Strategy formulation has been acknowledged as one of the most crucial factors of ensuring the long-term growth of the business. However, the manner in which strategy is formulated, and most importantly, the nature of the strategy chosen for the company determines its future position in the marketplace (Grant, 2005).

The author talks about the difference between good and bad strategies which greatly influence how a company runs. Rumlet gives examples throughout the book to help readers understand how to utilize and implement a good strategy and also to learn from the bad strategy for strategists to works around it in order to create a better strategy. Many corporations have a misconception that the mission statement, goals, and resource plans are the strategy but they are not. Rumlet calls a good strategy “the kernel” which “contains three elements: a diagnosis, a guiding policy, and coherent action” (7). A company has to understand the obstacles that are restricting them from being better and create a challenge or goal. Strategies are similar in that they

Firstly, change can cause employees to panic. It is natural for employees not to want change or find it is a way out of the organization. This is why when a change is in forced, a strategy needs to be in place. Much like having goals and back up goals. A business needs strategies and backup strategies in order to succeed in the transformation in which the organization is planning on taking. Strategies are also need when dealing with competitors. As the article explained, "Competition is nothing more than a group of people in another company who believe that they can offer something to customers that is superior to what you presently offer." This said, having a strategies in which allows you to give your customers what they want can be a great benefit. The article goes on to list many different types of strategies that can be put into place to help a business succeed and compete against their competitors. To help ensure a organization is approaching the changes correctly the article gives us five questions to ask:

In other words, which strategies deliver the best performance hinges on the strength and interplay of the strategies employed by rival companies—not on some mystery "silver bullet" decision combination that players are challenged to discover.

Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1),

Strategy can be defined as being different from one’s competitors, finding the race to operate and accomplished it. According to Michael Porter (1996), while becoming better at what you do is desirable, it will not benefit you in the long run because it is something other competitors can also do. Strategies for organizations are originally developed by Michael E. Porter in 1979 by introducing the five forces model. A company can identify the industry profitability and attractiveness by analyzing the five forces of Porter (Johnson et al., 2008). And then a reasonable strategy can be set up in line with the strengths and the weakness of an organization is able to create a plan for a stronger position for the organization within its

Today in the global business world we know that strategic changes are fundamental in order to

Kuzmicki, Jana F. “The Five Generic Competitive Strategies.” (2009) The McGraw-Hill Companies. Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation.

Porter’s generic strategies describe how a company attains competitive advantage across its chosen market scope. There are three generic strategies-cost leadership, differentiation and

The generic strategy allows the firm to react to the five forces better than their competitors (Worthington & Britton, 2006). According to Porter (1985), an organization can enjoy competitive advantage by focusing on the generic competitive strategies. The organization could enjoy competitive edge by either offering the product at low cost or differentiating the product from the competitors or by focusing on a specific market. Porter (1985) emphasized that the generic strategies should be at the centre of the strategic plans.