Pre-Master Business Administration
Strategy & Organization
University of Amsterdam
November/ December 2016
,Articles (Index)
Discussion session 1: Competitive strategy
Literature
1. Stoelhorst, J.W. (2008), Thinking about Strategy, Teaching note, 3rd edition, 21 105
Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam.
2. Buzzell, R.D. and B.T. Gale (1987), Are there any general strategy 16 60
principles?, Chapter 1 from The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to
Performance, New York: The Free Press, pp. 1-16.
3. Porter, M. (1979), How competitive forces shape strategy, Harvard 9 60
Business Review, (March-April), pp. 137-145.
4. Baden-Fuller, C. and J. Stopford (1992), The firm matters, not the industry, 7 45
Section 8.2 from B. de Wit and R. Meyer, Strategy: Process, Content, Context,
pp. 610-617.
5. Barney, J. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, 22 120
Journal of Management, 17(1), pp. 99-120.
6. Grant, R.M. and C. Baden-Fuller (2004), A knowledge accessing theory of 19 120
strategic alliances, Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), pp. 61-84.
94
Total number of pages
510
Approximate reading time in minutes
Discussion session 2: Corporate strategy
Literature
1. Hedley, B. (1977), Strategy and the “business portfolio”, Long Range 7 60
Planning, 10(1), pp. 9-15.
2. Porter, M. (1987), From competitive advantage to corporate strategy, 17 90
Harvard Business Review, (May-June), pp. 43-59.
3. Prahalad, C.K. and G. Hamel (1990), The core competence of the 13 75
corporation, Harvard Business Review, (May-June), pp. 79-91.
4. Lorenzoni, G. and C. Baden-Fuller (1995), Creating a strategic center to 15 75
manage a web of partners, California Management Review, 37(3), pp. 146-
163.
5. Campbell, A., M. Goold and M. Alexander (1995), Corporate strategy: The 13 75
quest for parenting advantage, Harvard Business Review, (March-April), pp.
120-132.
6. Strikwerda, H. and J.W. Stoelhorst (2009), The emergence and evolution of 21 105
the multidimensional organization, California Management Review, 51(4),
pp. 11-31.
86
Total number of pages
480
Approximate reading time in minutes
,Discussion session 3: Strategic planning and possible alternatives to it
Literature
1. Hax and Majluf (1991), A formal strategic planning process, Chapter 2 from 11 60
The Strategy Concept and Process, pp. 15-25.
2. Mintzberg, H. (1994), The fall and rise of strategic planning, Harvard 8 60
Business Review, (January-February), pp. 107-114.
3. Goold, M. and A. Campbell (1987), Many best ways to make strategy, 8 60
Harvard Business Review, (March-April), pp. 70-76.
4. Cornelius, P., A. van de Putte and M. Romani (2005), Three decades of 18 105
scenario planning in Shell, California Management Review, 48(1), pp. 92-
109.
5. Hamel, G. and C.K. Prahalad (1989), Strategic intent, Harvard Business 14 90
Review, (May-June), pp. 63-76.
6. Eisenhardt, K.M. and D.N. Sull (2001), Strategy as simple rules, Harvard 10 60
Business Review, (January-February), pp. 107-116.
69
Total number of pages
445
Approximate reading time in minutes
Discussion session 4: Strategic decision making: The role of bounded rationality, learning,
politics, cognition, and culture
Literature
1. Quinn, J.B. (1989), Strategic Change: Logical incrementalism, Sloan Management 16 105
Review, 30(Summer), pp. 45-60.
2. Eisenhardt, K.M. and M.J. Zbaracki (1992), Strategic decision making, Strategic 21 150
Management Journal, 13(Winter Special Issue), pp. 17-37.
3. Mintzberg, H., B. Ahlstrand and J. Lampel (1998), Strategy as cognition, Reading 4 30
7.2 from The Strategy Process, pp. 203-206.
4. Hambrick, D.C. and P.A. Mason (1984), The organization as a reflection of its top 14 90
managers, Academy of Management Review, 9(2), pp. 193-206.
5. Hatch, M.J. (1997), What is organizational culture?, Chapter 7 from Organization 23 90
Theory: Modern Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives, pp. 202-220 and 225-
229.
78
Total number of pages
465
Approximate reading time in minutes
,Discussion session 5: Organization and context
Literature
1. Mintzberg, H. (1979, 1983), The structuring of organizations, Reading 8.1 18 90
from The Strategy Process, pp. 209-226
2. Miles, R.E., C.C. Snow, A.D. Meyer and H.J. Coleman Jr. (1978), 16 90
Organizational strategy, structure, and process, Academy of Management
Review, 3(July), pp. 546-562.
3. Prahalad, C.K. and Y. Doz (1987), Mapping the characteristics of a 18 75
business, Chapter 2 from The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local
Demands and Global Vision, pp. 13-30.
4. Slangen, A.H.L. and S. Beugelsdijk (2010), The impact of institutional 16 90
hazards on foreign multinational activity: A contingency perspective,
Journal of International Business Studies, 41, pp. 980-995.
5. Bartlett, C.A. and S. Ghoshal (1993), Beyond the M-form: Toward a 24 150
managerial theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 14 (Winter
Special Issue), pp. 23-46.
92
Total number of pages
495
Approximate reading time in minutes
Discussion session 6: Strategy implementation, organizational change, and strategy
schools
Literature
1. Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton (2000), Having trouble with your strategy? Then 10 60
map it, Harvard Business Review, (September-October), pp. 167-176.
2. Bourgeois, L.J. and D.R. Brodwin (1984), Strategic implementation: Five 24 120
approaches to an elusive phenomenon, Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), pp.
241-264.
3. Burgelman, R.A. (1983), Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: 15 105
Insights from a process study, Management Science, 29(12), pp. 1349-1364.
4. Romanelli, E. and M.L. Tushman (1994), Organizational transformation as 26 120
punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test, Academy of Management Journal,
37(5), pp. 1141-1166.
5. Mintzberg, H. and J. Lampel (1999), Reflecting on the strategy process, Sloan 10 60
Management Review, 40(3), pp. 21-30.
85
Total number of pages
465
Approximate reading time in minutes
,Week 1
Introduction
Texts 2-6 deal with the content of competitive strategy. All authors attempt to explain
performance differences between firms operating in a single business (or between individual
business units of diversified firms), but they do so from different angles and have different views
on the strategic analysis necessary to develop successful competitive strategies.
Two paradoxes emerge from the literature on competitive strategy. The first paradox concerns
the ‘inside-out’ versus ‘outside-in’ perspective on strategy. Some authors maintain that strategy
analyses should be undertaken ‘outside-in’ and should focus on the characteristics of the
industry, while other authors maintain that strategy analyses should be undertaken ‘inside-out’
and should focus on the characteristics of the firm itself.
The second paradox concerns the deterministic vs. voluntaristic view on strategy. Some authors
argue that the environment determines the optimal strategy for a firm (a deterministic view on
strategy), while others argue that firms can actively influence the environment through their
strategy (a more voluntaristic view).
All authors attempt to explain performance differences between firms operating in a single
business (or between individual business units of diversified firms) but they do so from different
angles and have different views on the strategic analyses necessary to develop successful
competitive strategies.
Strategy = a plan of action for a corporation to create competitive advantage.
Text 1: Thinking about strategy (Stoelhorst)
There are many theories, but there is not one best strategy. Strategic management distinguished
three aspects:
1. Process – The role of management in strategy: where do strategies come from? How do
firms develop strategies and how could they do so more effectively? (week 3, 4, 6)
2. Content – The relationship between the firm and its environment: what are good
strategies? Which types of strategies are there (week 1, 2)
3. Context – The dynamics of competition: how specific do organizational/ environmental
contexts affect process or content? Do different organizations and industries require
different strategies? (week 5)
The standard model gives a three-step process in which strategic management is done:
1. Strategic analysis = the objectives then direct the analytical phase, which consist of
internal and external analysis.
(internal = strengths and weaknesses = resource-based, external = opportunities and
threats = positioning based).
2. Strategic choice = generate strategic options. Possible strategies to deal with the
strategic issues. When choosing the firm should consider suitability, acceptability, and
feasibility.
3. Strategic implementation = a chosen strategy is broken down into detailed plans. Here
responsibilities and budgets are assigned.
Strategy
Aspect Content Process Context
Model Analysis Choice Implementation
Theory Positioning School Design School Process School
Resource-based Planning School
School
Prescriptive Descriptive
(What strategy should be) (What strategy is)
, Design School = strategy as conceptual process (process, choice)
Simple and informal CEO engages in conscious thought and writes down an explicit, unique
strategy based on the firms distinctive competence.
- Bring the internal situation in line with external expectations (SWOT)
- Select strategies that are unique
- Strategy is a controlled and conscious process of thought
Critique:
- One brain (CEO) designs the strategy and is not able to have full detailed knowledge
(should have)
- Information overload
- Assumes strengths and weaknesses are generally known
- Separation of strategy formulation and implementation (so they are the same, stable
environment).
Planning School = strategy as a formal and elaborate process (process, choice)
How strategies are realized.
- Flowcharts, checklists and other analytical tools as support for a rationale
- Stepwise approach to strategic management
- Advocated breaking down strategy into more specific strategic plans
- CEO and its planning staff make the strategy
Critique:
- Information overload
- Detachment of CEO/ planners make process less responsive
- Separates formulation from implementation
o World can’t be predicted
o Implementation and formulation can not be separated
o It’s about synthesizing info not checklists
- Time consuming & inflexible (Goold & Campbell, text 3.3)
- Difficult to predict the future (Cornelius, text 3.4)
Essential differences between design school and planning school:
- The big difference is that whereas the planning school has a formal model to
strategy formation, the design school has a simple and informal model.
- The subtle difference is that whereas the planning school argues that the CEO and
his/her planning staff are jointly responsible for strategy formation, the design
school argues that only the CEO is responsible.
Positioning School = strategy as fit (content, analysis)
Competitive strategy, outside-in
- Industry conditions determine performance
- Necessary or required resources follow form position within
- Firms will realize superiors performance if they enter profit potential industries and
position well by choosing a generic strategy (differentiation/ focus/ cost leadership).
- Resources required follow from positioning choices
- Strategy as fit: firms should adjust themselves to industry conditions
Critique:
- Industry only does not determine profitability (Baden-Fuller & Stopford, text 1.4)
- Quality of product is single most important driver of profitability (Buzzel Gale, text 1.2)
- Market share and profitability are strongly related
Differences between Design, Planning and Positioning School:
- Porter (Positioning School) develops the thinking about the content of strategy in
much more detail. It specifies where to look for opportunities an threats and
explicitly considers what are successful strategies that could be given different
types of industry structure.
- Design School: design strategies that are unique
Planning School: select strategies that are generic
Positioning School: the essence lies in the analysis that precedes the strategic
choice
