Post on 14-Mar-2023
Paper: Strategic Management
| 1
Arranged by: Ali Aman, Dwi Purwnto, Suhadi
Lecturer: Dr. Betti Nuraini, M.M
Paper: Strategic Management
| 2
Strategies exist at a number of levels in an organization. The top level is corporate-level
strategy, concerned with the overall scope of an organization and how value will be
added to the different parts (business units) of the organization. This could include issues
of geographical coverage, diversity of products/services or business units, and how
resources are to be allocated between the different parts of the organization. In general,
corporate-level strategy is also likely to be concerned with the expectations of owners –
the shareholders and the stock market (Jhonson et.al, 2008:7).
The second level is business-level strategy, which is about how the various businesses
included in the corporate strategy should compete in their particular markets (for this
reason, business-level strategy is sometimes called ‗competitive strategy‘). In the public
sector, the equivalent of business-level strategy is decisions about how units should
provide best value services. This typically concerns issues such as pricing strategy,
innovation or differentiation, for instance by better quality or a distinctive distribution
channel. So, whereas corporate-level strategy involves decisions about the organization
as a whole, strategic decisions relate to particular strategic business units (SBUs) within
the overall organization (Jhonson et.al, 2008:7).
The third level of strategy is at the operating end of an organization. Here there are
operational strategies, which are concerned with how the component parts of an
organization deliver effectively the corporate- and business-level strategies in terms of
resources, processes and people (Jhonson et.al, 2008:7). These three level strategies
are also agreed by Wheelan and Hunger (2012:19) that the typical business firm usually
considers three types of strategy: corporate, business, and functional. Basically the two
division of level strategy are precisely the same, only in the use of the terms of the third
level they have different speech. To make clear the three level strategies, follow is the
figure of the three level strategies:
INTRODUCTION
A corporate-level strategy specifies actions a firm takes to gain a competitive advantage by selecting and
managing a group of different businesses competing in different product markets.
Paper: Strategic Management
| 3
Exhibit 1: Level of Strategy
Historical studies of organizations have shown a pattern that is represented in Exhibit
bellows:
Exhibit 2: Strategic Drift
(Jhonson et.all, 2008:178) Strategic drift is the tendency for strategies to develop incrementally on the basis of
historical and cultural influences, but fail to keep pace with a changing environment. An
example of strategic drift is given in Illustration bellows:
DISCUSSION
Dynamics and Transformation: Strategic Drift
Paper: Strategic Management
| 4
Exhibit 3: Example of Strategy Drift
(Jhonson et.all, 2008:180)
The reasons and consequences of strategic drift are important to understand, not only
because it is common, but because it helps explain why organizations often ―run out of
steam‖. It also highlights some significant challenges for managers which, in turn, point to
some important lessons.
Strategies of organizations tend to change gradually. There is a tendency for strategies to
develop on the basis of what the organization has done in the past – especially if that has
been successful1. There are three main reasons for this:
Alignment with environmental change. It could well be that the environment,
particularly the market, is changing gradually and the organization is keeping in line
with those changes by such incremental change. It would make no sense for the
strategy to change dramatically when the market is not doing so.
1 Sainsbury‘s was one of the most successful retailers in the world for decades till the early 1990s, with its
formula of selling food of a higher quality than competitors at reasonable prices. Always under the patriarchal guidance of a Sainsbury family chief executive, it gradually extended its product lines, enlarged its stores and its geographical coverage, but it did not deviate from its tried and tested ways of doing business. This is shown in phase 1 of the exhibit. In most successful businesses there are usually long periods of relative continuity during which established strategy remains largely unchanged or changes very incrementally. (Jhonson, 2008: 179-180).
Strategies change incrementally
Paper: Strategic Management
| 5
The success of the past. There may be a natural unwillingness by managers to
change a strategy significantly if it has been successful in the past, especially if it is
built on capabilities that have been shown to be the basis of competitive advantage or
of innovation.
Experimentation around a theme. Indeed managers may have learned how to build
variations around their successful formula, in effect experimenting without moving too
far from their capability base.
This poses challenges for managers, however. For how long and to what extent can they rely on
incremental change building on the past being sufficient? When should they make more
fundamental strategic changes? How are they to detect when this is necessary?
Whilst an organization’s strategy may continue to change incrementally, it may not
change in line with the environment. This does not necessarily mean that there has to
be dramatic environmental changes; phase 2 of 1 shows environmental change
accelerating, but it is not sudden2. From Sainsbury‘s case, there are at least five reasons
for this:
The problem of hindsight. Managers may be understandably wary of changing what
they are likely to see as a winning strategy on the basis of what might only be a fad in the
market, or a temporary downturn in demand. It may be easy to see major changes
with hindsight, but it may not be so easy to see their significance as they are
happening.
Building on the familiar. Managers may see changes in the environment about which they
are uncertain or which they do not entirely understand. In these circumstances they
may try to minimize the extent to which they are faced with such uncertainty by
looking for answers that are familiar, which they understand and which have served
them well in the past. For example, Sainsbury‘s managers clung to the belief that 2 For Sainsbury‘s there was the growing share of its rival, Tesco, accompanied by the growth of larger size
stores, with wider ranges of goods (for example, non-food) and changes in distribution logistics of competitors. These changes, however, had been taking place for many years. The problem that gives rise to strategic drift is that, as with many organizations, Sainsbury‘s strategy was not keeping pace with these changes (Jhonson, 2008: 181-182).
The tendency towards strategic drift
Paper: Strategic Management
| 6
they had loyal customers who valued the superior quality of Sainsbury‘s goods.
Tesco had been a cheaper retailer with what they saw as inferior goods. Surely the
superior quality of Sainsbury‘s would continue to be recognized.
Core rigidities. Success in the past may well have been based on capabilities that are
unique to an organization and difficult for others to copy. However, the capabilities that
have been bases of advantage can become difficult to change, in effect core
rigidities. There are two reasons. First, over time, the ways of doing things that have
delivered past success may become taken for granted. Second, ways of doing
things develop over time and become more and more embedded in organizational
routines that reinforce and rely on each other and are difficult to unravel.
Relationships become shackles. Success has probably been built on the basis of
excellent relationships with customers, suppliers and employees. Maintaining these may
very likely be seen as fundamental to the long-term health of the organization. Yet
these relationships may make it difficult to make fundamental changes to strategy
that could entail changing routes to market or the customer base, developing
products requiring different suppliers or changing the skill base of the organization
with the risk of disrupting relationships with the workforce.
Lagged performance effects. The effects of such drift may not be easy to see in
terms of the performance of the organization. Financial performance may continue
to hold up in the early stages of strategic drift. Customers may be loyal and the
organization, by becoming more efficient, cutting costs or simply trying harder, may
continue to hold up its performance. So there may not be internal signals of the need
for change or pressures from managers, or indeed external observers to make major
changes. However, over time, if strategic drift continues, there will be symptoms that
become evident: a downturn in financial performance; a loss in market share to
competitors perhaps; a decline in the share price. Indeed such a downturn may happen
quite rapidly once external observers, not least competitors and financial analysts,
have identified that such drift has occurred. Even the most successful companies
may drift in this way. Indeed, there is a tendency for businesses to become victims
of the very success of their past. They become captured by the formula that has
delivered that success.
Paper: Strategic Management
| 7
The next phase (phase 3) may be a period of flux triggered by the downturn in
performance. Strategies may change but in no very clear direction. There may also be
management changes, often at the very top as the organization comes under pressure to
make changes from its stakeholders, not least shareholders in the case of a public
company. There may be internal rivalry as to which strategy to follow, quite likely based
on differences of opinion as to whether future strategy should be based on historic
capabilities or whether those capabilities are becoming redundant. Indeed, there have
been highly publicized boardroom rows when this has happened. All this may result in a
further deterioration of confidence in the organization: perhaps a further drop in
performance or share price, a difficulty in recruiting high-quality management, or a further
loss of customers‘ loyalty.
As things get worse it is likely that the outcome (phase 4) will be one of three possibilities:
(i) the organization may die (in the case of a commercial organization it may go into
receivership, for example); (ii) it may get taken over by another organization; or (iii) it may
go through a period of transformational change. Such change could take form in multiple
changes related to the organization’s strategy: for example, a change in products, markets or
market focus, changes of capabilities on which the strategy is based, changes in the top
management of the organization and perhaps the way the organization is structured.
Transformational change does not take place frequently in organizations and is usually
the result of a major downturn in performance. Often it is transformational changes that
are heralded as the success stories of top executives; this is where they most visibly
make a difference. The problem is that, from the point of view of market position,
shareholder wealth and jobs, it may be rather too late. Competitive position may have
been lost, shareholder value has probably already been destroyed and, very likely, many
A period of flux
Transformational change or death
Paper: Strategic Management
| 8
jobs will have been lost too. The time when ‗making a difference‘ really matters most is in
phase 2 in Exhibit 2, when the organization is beginning to drift3.
The fundamental nature of competition in many of the world‘s industries is changing. The
pace of this change is relentless and is increasing. Even determining the boundaries of
an industry has become challenging. Consider, for example, how advances in interactive
computer networks and telecommunications have blurred the boundaries of the
entertainment industry (Hitt et.al, 2007:5)4. This statement implies that world of industries
deals with the difficulties of determining industry boundaries.
Not only industry boundaries, but it is also about some others‘. Not too long ago, a
business corporation could be successful by focusing only on making and selling goods and
services within its national boundaries. International considerations were minimal. Profits
earned from exporting products to foreign lands were considered frosting on the cake,
but not really essential to corporate success5.
3 However, a study of 215 major UK firms identified just 8 that had effected major transformational change
without performance decline. The problem is that, very likely, such drift is not easy to see before performance suffers. So in understanding the strategic position of an organization so as to avoid the damaging effects of strategic drift, it is vital to take seriously the extent to which historical tendencies in strategy development tend to persist in the cultural fabric of organizations. The rest of this chapter focuses on this. The challenge is, then, how to manage change in such circumstances and this challenge is taken up in Chapter 11 on managing strategic change (Jhonson, 2008:184). 4 Today, networks such as ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, and HBO compete not only among themselves, but also with AT&T, Microsoft, Sony, and others. Partnerships among firms in different segments of the entertainment industry further blur industry boundaries. For example, MSNBC is co-owned by NBC (which itself is owned by General Electric) and Microsoft. Entertainment giant Walt Disney Company is selling wireless-phone plans to children. That Disney videos can be streamed through phones is yet another example of the difficulty of determining industry boundaries (Hitt et.al, 2007:5-6). 5 During the 1960s, for example, most U.S. companies organized themselves around a number of product
divisions that made and sold goods only in the United States. All manufacturing and sales outside the United States were typically managed through one international division. An international assignment was usually considered a message that the person was no longer promotable and should be looking for another job. Similarly, until the later part of the 20th century, a business firm could be very successful without being environmentally sensitive. Companies dumped their waste products in nearby streams or lakes and freely polluted the air with smoke containing noxious gases. Responding to complaints, governments eventually passed laws restricting the freedom to pollute the environment. Lawsuits forced companies to stop old practices. Nevertheless, until the dawn of the 21st century, most executives considered pollution abatement measures to be a cost of business that should be either minimized or avoided. Rather than clean up a polluting manufacturing site, they often closed the plant and moved manufacturing offshore to a developing nation with fewer environmental restrictions. Sustainability, as a term, was used to describe competitive advantage, not the environment (Wheelen and Hunger, 2012: 7).
External Changes
Paper: Strategic Management
| 9
Other characteristics of the 21st-century competitive landscape are noteworthy as well.
Conventional sources of competitive advantage such as economies of scale and huge
advertising budgets are not as effective as they once were. Moreover, the traditional
managerial mind-set is unlikely to lead a firm to strategic competitiveness. Managers
must adopt a new mind-set that values flexibility, speed, innovation, integration, and the
challenges that evolve from constantly changing conditions. The conditions of the
competitive landscape result in a perilous business world, one where the investments
required to compete on a global scale are enormous and the consequences of failure
are severe (Hitt et.al, 2007:6).
Hyper competition is a term often used to capture the realities of the 21st-century
competitive landscape. Under conditions of hyper competition, ―assumptions of market
stability are replaced by notions of inherent instability and change. Hyper competition results
from the dynamics of strategic maneuvering among global and innovative combatants. It is a
condition of rapidly escalating competition based on price-quality positioning,
competition to create new know-how and establish first-mover advantage, and
competition to protect or invade established product or geographic markets. In a
hypercompetitive market, firms often aggressively challenge their competitors in the
hopes of improving their competitive position and ultimately their performance. Several
factors create hypercompetitive environments and influence the nature of the 21st-
century competitive landscape. The two primary drivers are the emergence of a global
economy and technology, specifically rapid technological change (Hitt et.al, 2007:5-6).
Pearce II and Robinson (2009:94) state a host of external factors influence a firm‘s
choice of direction and action and, ultimately, its organizational structure and internal
process. These factors, which constitute the external environment, can be divided into
three interrelated subcategories: factors in the remote environment, factors in industry
environment and factors in operating environment. Exhibit 4 describes the firm‘s
external environment:
Paper: Strategic Management
| 10
Exhibit 4: The firm’s External Environment
(Pearce II and Robinson, 2009:94)
Remote Environment, economic, social, political, technological and ecological factors that originate beyond, and usually irrespective of, any single firm‘s operating situation. Industry Environment is the general conditions for competition that influence all business that provide similar product and services. Operating environment is factors in the intermediate competitive situation that affect a firm‘s success in acquiring needed resources.
In terms of the Ansoff matrix, diversification is the most radical strategic direction.
Diversification might be chosen for a variety of reasons, some more value creating than
others. Three potentially value-creating reasons for diversification are as follows
(Jhonson, 2008:262-265).
Efficiency gains can be made by applying the organization‘s existing resources or
capabilities to new markets and products or services. These are often described as
economies of scope, by contrast to economies of scale. If an organization has
underutilized resources or competences that it cannot effectively close or sell to other
potential users, it can make sense to use these resources or competences by
Motivation to Change
Remote Environment: Economic Social Political Technology
Ecology
Industry Environment: Entry barriers Supplier power Buyer power Substitute availability
Competitive rivalry
Operating Environment: Competitor Creditor Customer Labor suppliers
THE FIRM
External environment is the factors beyond the control of the firm that influence its choice of
direction and action and, ultimately, its organizational structure and internal process
Paper: Strategic Management
| 11
diversification into a new activity. In other words, there are economies to be gained by
extending the scope of the organization‘s activities6.
Stretching corporate parenting capabilities into new markets and products or
services can be another source of gain. In a sense, this extends the point above about
applying existing competences in new areas. However, this point highlights corporate
parenting skills that can otherwise easily be neglected. At the corporate parent level,
managers may develop a competence at managing a range of different products and
services which can be applied even to businesses which do not share resources at
the operational unit level7.
Increasing market power can result from having a diverse range of businesses. With
many businesses, an organization can afford to cross-subsidize one business from
the surpluses earned by another, in a way that competitors may not be able to. This
can give an organization a competitive advantage for the subsidized business, and
the long-run effect may be to drive out other competitors, leaving the organization with
a monopoly from which good profits can then be earned8.
Responding to market decline is one common but doubtful reason for
diversification. It is arguable that Microsoft‘s diversification into electronic games such
as the Xbox – whose launch cost $500m (£280m; a415m) in marketing alone – is a
response to slowing growth in its core software businesses. Shareholders might have
preferred the Xbox money to have been handed back to shareholders, leaving Sony
6 For example, many universities have large resources in terms of halls of residence, which they must have
for their students but which are underutilized out of term-time. These halls of residence are more efficiently used if the universities expand the scope of their activities into conferencing and tourism during vacation periods. Economies of scope may apply to both tangible resources, such as halls of residence, and intangible resources and competences, such as brands or staff skills. 7 C.K. Prahalad and R. Bettis have described this set of corporate parenting skills as the ‗dominant general
management logic‘, or ‗dominant logic‘ for short.7 Thus the French conglomerate LVMH includes a wide range of businesses – from champagne, through fashion and perfumes, to financial media – that share very few operational resources or competences. LVMH creates value for these specialized companies by adding parenting skills – for instance, the support of classic brands and the nurturing of highly creative people – that are relevant to all these individual businesses 8 This was the fear behind the European Commission‘s refusal to allow General Electric‘s $43bn (£24bn;
a37bn) bid for electronic controls company Honeywell in 2001. General Electric might have bundled its jet engines with Honeywell‘s aviation electronics in a cheaper package than rival jet engine manufacturers could possibly match. As aircraft manufacturers and airlines increasingly chose the cheaper overall package, rivals could have been driven out of business. General Electric would then have the market power to put up its prices without threat from competition. There are several other reasons that are often given for diversification, but which are less obviously value creating and sometimes serve managerial interests more than shareholders‘ interests:
Paper: Strategic Management
| 12
and Nintendo to make games, while Microsoft gracefully declined. Microsoft itself
defends its various diversifications as a necessary response to convergence in
electronic and computer media.
Spreading risk across a range of businesses is another common justification for
diversification. However, conventional finance theory is very skeptical about risk
spreading by business diversification. It argues that investors can diversify more
effectively themselves by investing in a diverse portfolio of quite different companies.
Whilst managers might like the security of a diverse range of businesses, investors do
not need each of the companies they invest in to be diversified as well – they would
prefer managers to concentrate on managing their core business as well as they can.
On the other hand, for private businesses, where the owners have a large proportion
of their assets tied up in the business, it can make sense to diversify risk across a
number of distinct activities, so that if one part is in trouble, the whole business is not
pulled down.
The expectations of powerful stakeholders, including top managers, can
sometimes drive inappropriate diversification9.
Should the organization be very focused on just a few products and markets? Or should it
be much broader in scope, perhaps very diversified in terms of both products (or
services) and markets? Many organizations do choose to enter many new product and
market areas10.
9 Under pressure from Wall Street analysts to deliver continued revenue growth, in the late 1990s the US
energy company Enron diversified beyond its original interest in energy trading into trading commodities such as petrochemicals, aluminium and even bandwidth. By satisfying the analysts in the short term, this strategy boosted the share price and allowed top management to stay in place. However, it soon transpired that very little of this diversification had been profitable, and in 2001 Enron collapsed in the largest bankruptcy in history. In order to decide whether or not such reasons make sense and help organizational performance, it is important to be clear about different forms of diversification, in particular the degree of relatedness (or unrelatedness) of business units in a portfolio. 10 For example, the Virgin Group started out in the music business, but is now highly diverse, operating in the
holiday, cinema, retail, air travel and rail markets. Sony began by making small radios, but now produces games, music and movies, as well as a host of electronic products. As organizations add new units, their strategies are no longer concerned just with the business-level but with the corporate-level choices involved in having many different businesses or markets (Jhonson, 2008:256).
Directions to Change
Paper: Strategic Management
| 13
This part begins by introducing Ansoff‘s matrix, which generates an initial set of
alternative strategic directions. The four basic directions are increased penetration of
existing markets; market development, which includes building new markets, perhaps
overseas or in new customer segments; product development, referring to product
improvement and innovation; and diversification, involving a significant broadening of an
organization‘s scope in terms of both markets and products.
Exhibit 5: Strategic Direction
Market penetration is where an organization gains market share. Consolidation is where organizations focus defensively on their current markets with current products. Product development is where organizations deliver modified or new products to existing markets. Market development is where existing products are offered in new markets. Diversification is defined as a strategy that takes an organization away from both its existing markets and its existing products. The Ansoff product/market growth matrix provides a simple way of generating four basic
alternative directions for strategic development (see Exhibit 5). An organization typically
starts in box A, the top left-hand one, with its existing products and existing markets.
According to the matrix, the organization basically has a choice between penetrating still
further within its existing sphere (staying in box A); moving rightwards by developing new
products for its existing markets (box B); moving downwards by bringing its existing
products into new markets (box C); or taking the most radical step of full diversification,
with altogether new markets and new products (box D) (Jhonson, 2008: 256-257).
Paper: Strategic Management
| 14
The strategic-management process is based on the belief that organizations should
continually monitor internal and external events and trends so that timely changes can be
made as needed. The rate and magnitude of changes that affect organizations are
increasing dramatically as evidenced how the global economic recession has caught so
many firms by surprise. Firms, like organisms, must be ―adept at adapting‖ or they will not
survive (Hitt, 2007)11.
To survive, all organizations must astutely identify and adapt to change. The strategic
management process is aimed at allowing organizations to adapt effectively to change
over the long run. As Waterman has noted:
In today‘s business environment, more than in any preceding era, the only constant is change. Successful organizations effectively manage change, continuously adapting their bureaucracies, strategies, systems, products, and cultures to survive the shocks and prosper from the forces that decimate the competition. E-commerce and globalization are external changes that are transforming business and
society today. On a political map, the boundaries between countries may be clear, but on
a competitive map showing the real flow of financial and industrial activity, the boundaries
have largely disappeared. The speedy flow of information has eaten away at national
boundaries so that people worldwide readily see for themselves how other people live
11
Corporate bankruptcies and defaults more than doubled in 2009 from an already bad 2008 year. All
industries were hit hard, especially retail, chemicals, autos, and financial. As lenders tightened restrictions on borrowers, thousands of firms could not avoid bankruptcy. Even the economies of China, Japan, and South Korea stalled as demand for their goods from the United States and Europe dried up. China‘s annual growth slowed from 13 percent in 2007 to 9 percent in 2008 and then 5 percent for 2009. Consumer confidence indexes were falling all over the world as were housing prices. Nine of 10 stocks in the S&P 1500 lost value in 2008. The Nasdaq composite index fell 40.5 percent in 2008, its worst year ever. S&P 500 stocks lost 38.5 percent of their value in 2008, the worst year since 1937. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 33.8 percent of its value in 2008, the worst loss since 1931 as shareholders lost $6.8 trillion in wealth. Only three S&P 500 stocks rose in 2008: Family Dollar up 38 percent, making it the best performer in the S&P 500; Wal-Mart Stores up 18 percent; and McDonald‘s up nearly 6 percent. The biggest decliner on the Dow in 2008 was GM, whose stock fell 87 percent. Citigroup lost 77 percent of its stock value in 2008. Even General Electric lost 56 percent of its value. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each slid 98 percent as did Fleetwood Enterprises, which makes recreational vehicles. And losses were also extensive worldwide. For example, Vanguard‘s Europe/Pacific Index, composed of stocks firms based on those continents, fell 43 percent in 2008 (David, 2011:8).
Organizational Change
Paper: Strategic Management
| 15
and work. We have become a borderless world with global citizens, global competitors,
global customers, global suppliers, and global distributors! U.S. firms are challenged by
large rival companies in many industries. To say U.S. firms are being challenged in the
automobile industry is an understatement. But this situation is true in many industries.
The particular feature of OD is the notion of process and of organizational learning. OD is
‗An effort planned organization wide and managed from the top to increase organization
effectives and health through planned interventions in the organization process using
behavioral science knowledge‘, suggesting a long-range focus. Change involves not just
alteration to the formal aspects of the organization but also to informal human aspects.
Brunsson and Olsen suggest that reforms are easier to initiate than to decide on and
easier to decide on than to implement, but employees on the receiving end of the reforms
do not support them because they recognize that they are based on faulty premises, are
self-contradictory or destructive. Consequently, one underlying assumption is that people
are most productive when they have a high-quality working life.
The OD approach believes that people at all levels must be individually and collectively
supportive in the engineering of change. Its success is to engender a means of improving
organizational capacity to change, to permanently improve an organization‘s problem-
solving and renewal processes, and so it has special emphasis in work teams and
intergroup culture. It involves the organization as a system as well as its parts. It is
participative, drawing on the theory and practices of the behavioral sciences. It has top
management support and involvement, and involves a facilitator who takes on the role of
change agent. It follows that if one wishes to create change there is no point in
concentrating upon individuals in isolation as they will be experiencing group pressure to
conform, therefore the focus should be on influencing and trying to change group norms,
roles and values. Pettigrew (1985), Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) do not reject the
participative approach of OD but rather they argue that it provides only a partial analysis
of the circumstances and contexts of organizational change. The principal question is:
Organizations Development
Paper: Strategic Management
| 16
which of the three methodologies would be most successful in achieving successful
change? (Ritson, 2013:80).
Exhibit 7: Organizational Development
Strategists should strive to preserve, emphasize, and build upon aspects of an existing
culture that support proposed new strategies. Aspects of an existing culture that are
antagonistic to a proposed strategy should be identified and changed. Substantial
research indicates that new strategies are often market-driven and dictated by
competitive forces. For this reason, changing a firm’s culture to fit a new strategy is
usually more effective than changing a strategy to fit an existing culture. Numerous
techniques are available to alter an organization‘s culture, including recruitment, training,
transfer, promotion, restructure of an organization‘s design, role modeling, positive
reinforcement, and mentoring.
Schein indicated that the following elements are most useful in linking culture to strategy:
1. Formal statements of organizational philosophy, charters, creeds, materials used for
recruitment and selection, and socialization
Change in Work Culture
Paper: Strategic Management
| 17
2. Designing of physical spaces, facades, buildings
3. Deliberate role modeling, teaching, and coaching by leaders
4. Explicit reward and status system, promotion criteria
5. Stories, legends, myths, and parables about key people and events
6. What leaders pay attention to, measure, and control
7. Leader reactions to critical incidents and organizational crises
8. How the organization is designed and structured
9. Organizational systems and procedures
10. Criteria used for recruitment, selection, promotion, leveling off, retirement, and
―excommunication‖ of people
What Is the Best Way to Manage Product Diversification at GE? General Electric (GE) is a diversified technology, media, manufacturing, and financial
services company. The firm feels that by providing ―Imagination at Work,‖ it is able to
produce goods and provide services that help its customers solve some of the world‘s
most difficult problems. In 2004, GE‘s revenue reached $154 billion while its earnings
exceeded $16.5 billion. An indicator of the firm‘s stature is that it topped Fortune
magazine‘s ―Global Most Admired Corporation‖ list in 2005. Jeffrey Immelt, the firm‘s
CEO, believes that becoming more of a high-technology company and strengthening
GE‘s positions in emerging markets such as China, India, and some Middle East
countries are key to his firm‘s efforts to increase revenue and profitability.
Using the related linked corporate-level strategy, GE was organized into 11 core
businesses in 2004.As called for by the related linked strategy, very few resources and
activities were shared between or among these 11 businesses. While there was little
sharing between what were rather independent businesses, activities were shared
between divisions housed within each business while corporate headquarters personnel
worked to transfer corporate-level core competencies between or among the businesses.
Case Analysis: GENERAL ELECTRICS
Paper: Strategic Management
| 18
In 2005, things changed in terms of the businesses in GE‘s portfolio as well as how those
businesses were managed. In mid-2005, Immelt announced that he was reorganizing GE
into six, rather than 11, core businesses: Infrastructure, Industrial,Commercial Financial
Services, NBC Universal, Healthcare,and Consumer Finance.According to Immelt,
―These changes will accelerate GE‘s growth in key industries.‖ In addition, the
reorganization is expected to help GE become a more ―customer-focused‖organization—
one capable of delivering increasingly effective solutions to problems that customers
want to solve.
Changes in how GE would manage its portfolio of businesses followed decisions about
what businesses would be in the portfolio. The changes in GE‘s portfolio that have taken
place under Immelt‘s leadership demonstrate his intention of making GE even more of a
high-technology company rather than an industrial firm. In only four years under Immelt‘s
leadership, GE spent over $60 billion to acquire technology-based assets and divested
approximately $15 billion of non-technology assets. The newly acquired assets were
coupled with GE‘s remaining assets to batch the firm‘s operations into six major,
technology-oriented businesses. Immelt and his top management team will help to
manage these six businesses from the corporate headquarters office.The focus of these
managerial efforts will be on transferring core competencies in different types of
technologies from one business to one or more of the remaining five businesses. As in all
firms, at GE the skills of top-level managers influence the degree to which the transfers of
corporate-level core competencies create value.
In general, analysts responded positively to GE‘s new mix of businesses and its
reorganization, agreeing that it was occurring at a time when the firm was strong and had
opportunities to strengthen its standing in international markets. In addition, analysts
responded positively to the announcement that GE would report key financial data for
significant units in each of the six businesses, increasing the overall transparency of the
firm‘s operations (Hitt, 2007:172).
Paper: Strategic Management
| 19
Conclusion:
1. A corporate-level strategy specifies actions a firm takes to gain a competitive
advantage by selecting and managing a group of different businesses competing in
different product markets.
2. Strategic drift is the tendency for strategies to develop incrementally on the basis of
historical and cultural influences, but fail to keep pace with a changing environment.
One of the best ways to keep with the rapid change is to do transformation. One of the
most widely strategy in order not running out of the change is diversification as GE
passes.
3. The fundamental nature of competition in many of the world‘s industries is changing.
The two primary drivers are the emergence of a global economy and technology,
specifically rapid technological change.
4. Diversification is the most radical strategic direction. Diversification might be chosen
for a variety of reasons, some more value creating than others. Three potentially
value-creating reasons for diversification are efficiency gains, stretching corporate
parenting capabilities, increasing market power, responding to market decline,
spreading risk and the expectations of powerful stakeholders.
5. The change directions of strategy are market penetration, consolidation, product
development, market development and diversification.
6. To survive, all organizations must astutely identify and adapt to change. E-commerce
and globalization are external changes that are transforming business and society
today. The particular feature of organizational change is the notion of process and of
organizational learning.
7. Changing a firm‘s culture to fit a new strategy is usually more effective than changing
a strategy to fit an existing culture.
8. General Electric (GE) is one of the examples that run technology, media,
manufacturing, and financial services company desertification.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION
Paper: Strategic Management
| 20
Recommendations:
There are no permanently excellent companies, just as there are no permanently
excellent industries. This makes sense that competing in overcrowded industries is no
way to sustain high performance. The real opportunity is to create blue oceans of
uncontested market space. In blue oceans, demand is created rather than fought over.
There is ample opportunity for growth that is both profitable and rapid. Blue ocean
strategy challenges companies to break out of the red ocean of bloody competition by
creating uncontested market space that makes the competition irrelevant (Kim and
Mauborgne, 2005).
Paper: Strategic Management
| 21
REFFERENCES
David, Fred R, 2011. Strategic Management: Concept and Cases. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Hitt, Michael A et.al. 2007. Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization.
Texas: Thomson Learning Inc. Johnson, Gerry et.al. 2008. Exploring Corporate Strategy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Pearce II, John A and Robinson Richard B, 2009. Strategic Management: Formulation,
Implementation and Control. New York: McGraw Hill. Wheelen, Thomas L and Hunger, David J. 2012. Strategic Management and Business
Policy. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.