Critically discuss, using examples, the proposition that a firm’s choice of strategy depends on its analysis of, and response to, the competitive environment rather than the exploitation of the resources under its control. Nowadays “strategy” has become one of the most commonly heard words in the business environment. This shows a need to be explicit about exactly what is meant by the word strategy. According to a definition provided by A.Chandler strategy is “ the determination of the basic long-term goals of the enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action, and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out goals” (Chandler 1962). Over the previous decades, a couple of new ideas regarding business strategy have evolved mainly “due to the increasingly urgent need for responsiveness to market changes” (Wall 1997). However the dynamic nature of the market is also the main limitation for strategy as it condemns it from being considered “a settled product” (Freedman 2013) but rather “a general policy that needs constant revision for dealing with changing circumstances” (Neumann and Morgestern, 1944). Over the past few decades, a major question in the field of business strategy is the means by which firms gain and sustain a competitive advantage. Surprisingly, the experts do not seem to agree. The debate lays over whether organizational resources or the competitive environment are most important in shaping firm’s strategy that could lead to the attainment of a
‘Strategy is the direction and scope of an organisation over the long term, which achieves advantage in a changing environment through it’
There has been a large amount of research into what strategy is, since Michael Porter’s perennial work in the 1980s. Studies done on the execution of strategy have been far less numerous. However, there is one major understanding about the execution of strategy. The execution of strategy is a vital part of success in business. A summary of many myths surrounding various strategic executions will be outlined, along with their subsequent analyses.
To better understand a firm and its placement of its strategies, we must conduct an analysis of factors that might affect its selection of strategies.
Barney, J. (2004). Firm resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Strategy: Process Content Context: an international perspective, de Wit & Meyer , 285-292.
According to Slack et al. The corporate strategy or business strategy is the guide lines for the whole corporation’s businesses in relation to its markets, customers, and the competitors (2007). In the same context, the same authors discussed the link between the corporate strategy and
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).
Compare and contrast the market-based approach and the resource-based view as approaches to competitive strategy. To what extent are they rival or complementary views?
OE is not sufficient to explain and define strategy. Company and managers confuse OE for competition and run into trouble by only trying to focus and maximize OE. Firm’s loose their competitive advantage by focusing on growth and forget to focus on core competencies that gave them their competitive advantage in the first place. Companies should focus on strategy and the important contents of strategy. This starts at core
This strategy emphasizes the use of an organization’s resources and capabilities to achieve a core competence that cannot be imitated by competitors. Furthermore, the resource based school argues that if an organization distinctively improves its internal capability; that is being able to have effective inside machinery to deliver products and services to customers, the organization will enjoy a massive advantage in the market. This school also argues that in order to have a competitive advantage, an organization must have resource and capabilities that are sophisticated to those of competitors (QuickMBA,
An organisation’s strategy plays an important role of providing direction of where company wants to be and how best to allocate the company’s resources to meet its objectives. The formulation of business strategies has evolved over the years and has been made more difficult in recent by the uncertain operating environments and global financial crises.
In general, manager’s look at competition has been too narrow. There is a broad set of competitors that need to be looked at, which are described in “The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy” by Michael E. Porter. The model explains that there are several other forces in the competition for profits that the strategist should be aware of when forming a stagey. Those forces determine the profitability of the industry and are the most important to look at when you are forming a strategy. These five forces are are the “industry structure” model which contain: New Entrants, Suppliers, Buyers, Substitutes, and Existing Competitors.
Alfred Chandler(1963) defines strategy as ‘ the determination of the long-run goals and objectives of an enterprise and the adoption of courses of action of an enterprise and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals’. And Michael porter(1996) sees it as ‘Competitive strategy is about being different. It means deliberately choosing different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value’.
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
In the book “Good Strategy and Bad Strategy”, Richard Rumelt illustrates examples of success and failure of business management to explain the true meaning of the strategy, and tells companies how to develop a correct strategy and adhere to core of management strategy. He also emphasizes the central role of strategic management as to remind the readers to understand the huge difference between a good strategy and bad strategy. This book has three sections: good and bad strategy, sources of power, and thinking like a strategist. I will be evaluating strengths and weaknesses under these topics. After finish reading the book, I had gained a better understanding of what a good strategy means to the success of a company. According to Rumelt, a good strategy is coherent, where companies pursue multiple objectives that are connected with each other. Rumelt points out that a good strategy consists of three elements: diagnosis, guiding policy, and coherent action. (71) First, diagnosis means to define the obstacles and challenges that the companies are facing, and guidelines help the people to overcome the obstacles. Lastly, coherent action is the activities or actions that company did to be consistent with its guiding policy. Today, many of us lost the focus of the strategy, which results in the downward of businesses and organizations. Rumelt has defined the strategy as acknowledging the main problems and take coherent action to overcome the problems. Moreover, he illustrates
Johnson, Wittington, Scholes, Angwin and Regnér (2014, p. 3) defines strategy as ‘the long-term direction of an organisation’.