Unit Guide

Undergraduate

Department of Management

Study Guide Semester 1 2011

MGC2110 Principles of Strategic Management

Dr Linda McGuireUnit CoordinatorClayton Campus

MGC2110 Strategic Management Study Guide 2011 2

Contents PAGE Unit Coordinator and Lecturer 3 Class Times 3 Unit Synopsis 3 Assessment Summary 4 Assignment 1 Essay 4 Assignment 2 Debates 6 Examination 8 Lecture Schedule 9 Tutorial Schedule 10 Reading 11 Week 1 12 Week 2 13 Week 3 15 Week 4 16 Week 5 17 Week 6 18 Week 7 19 Week 8 20 Week 9 21 Week 10 22 Week 11 23 Week 12 24


Unit Coordinator and Lecturer Dr Linda McGuire Room: 479 Menzies Building Phone: 9905 5177 Email: [email protected] Class Times Students are required to attend the lecture (two hours) and a tutorial (one hour) each week. In addition to classes, students are expected to spend 8 hours each week in private study, preparing for tutorials and completing assignments. Lecture: Wednesday 9-11 AM Rotunda Building Theatre R4 Tutorials: Wednesday 11 AM Menzies Building E453 Wednesday 2 PM Menzies Building W210 Allocate+ is a reservation system.

Students must attend the first tutorial to confirm their place, or contact the Linda McGuire before the tutorial.

Unit synopsis This unit examines the management of enterprises from a strategic rather than an organisational or functional perspective. Strategy links activities to performance. The focus of study is the content, processes, context and purpose of strategic decisions and actions. In contrast to organisation theory, which studies the problem of how firms organise, strategic management studies why firms organise. The central question, of interest to academics and practitioners, is why some enterprises are more successful than others. Strategic management is a social science. Our knowledge and understanding of strategic management is derived from theory and practice. Theories about strategy are a mixture of description and prescription. Descriptive theories explain the relationship between strategy and performance based on observation of particular events. Prescriptive or normative theories set out how strategic decisions should be made and what factors should be considered. Practice is observed through survey research, systematic case studies and reports in the business press. However, strategy concepts are ambiguous. Academics, consultants and practitioners disagree about how strategic management works in theory and in practice. These disagreements are reflected in debates about research findings reported in academic journals, and in debates about what works in practice in practitioner oriented journals and the business press. These debates reflect different perspectives on management that lead to different analytical frameworks and prescriptions about what organisations should do to sustain and improve performance. This unit examines these arguments by looking at ten key strategic issues identified by De Wit & Meyer (2010). The debates introduce students to the practical implications of different perspectives on strategy. The objective is to develop students’ skills in critical thinking about the application of strategic management principles. MGC3110 requires students to apply these skills to strategic problem solving in cases.


Assessment Summary

Assessment Task Due Date Value Essay 1500 words

9 AM Wednesday 23 March 2011 (Week 4)

20%

Debate 1 Group Assessment

Week 7/8/9 10%

Debate 2 Group Assessment

Week 10/11/12 10%

Final Examination 180 minutes closed book

Official Examination Period 60%

Total 100%

Assignment 1 Essay Topic: Explain the concept of a social paradox and discuss the practical relevance for strategic management. The recommended reading for Topics 1 and 2 and the tutorial questions in Week 2 are relevant for this assignment. Students are required to retain a copy of all assignments until results are finalised. Further instructions on this assignment will be provided in the lectures and tutorials. Criteria for assessment:

Essays will be assessed on the following criteria: 1. Definition of concepts and issues 2. Clear structure based on logical arguments and evidence 3. Ability to evaluate and draw a conclusion 4. Credibility and relevance of references to the topic 5. Readability

Submission details: A hard copy of the essay should be submitted to Dr McGuire at the beginning of the lecture. Electronic lodgement will require written permission from Dr McGuire. Late assignments should be posted in the mail box of Dr McGuire will be recorded as received on the date the box is cleared. Return of marks: Assignments will be returned to students in the lecture or tutorial. Penalties for late lodgment: A maximum penalty of 10% of the mark allocated to this assessment task will be deducted for each day that the assessment is late. Assessment coversheet: Work submitted for assessment must be accompanied by a completed copy of the Assessment Cover sheet.


MGC2110 Essay Evaluation 2011 Name___________________________________________________ Grade __________________________________________________ Topic: Strategy Paradoxes Explain the concept of a social paradox and discuss the practical relevance for strategic management. . Grade N

Less than 50% P 50-59%

C 60-69%

D 70-79%

HD 80%+

Criteria Fails to satisfy minimum requirements

Largely descriptive

More description than critical evaluation

Good critical evaluation skills

Excellent critical evaluation skills

Definition of concepts and issues

Little evidence of understanding of the topic

Issues not clearly identified

Issues identified but not clearly linked to topic

Good survey of relevant issues

Comprehensive survey of relevant issues

Clear structure Narrow in conception

Summary rather than analysis of arguments and evidence in the readings

Some analysis of arguments and evidence but not clearly linked to issues identified

Good use of arguments and evidence to evaluate issues identified

Excellent use of arguments and evidence to evaluate issues identified

Conclusions

No evidence of evaluation skills

Conclusion not supported by evaluation of topic

Some evidence evaluation skills

Demonstrates good evaluation skills

Demonstrates excellent evaluation skills

References

No evidence of relevant reading on the topic

Limited selection that does not include some relevant reading on the topic

Satisfactory selection of relevant reading but not always used to support arguments

Good selection of relevant reading effectively used to support analysis

Comprehensive selection of relevant reading very effectively used to support analysis

Readability

Inadequate Adequate Good Very Good Excellent

Presentation

Inadequate Adequate Good Very Good Excellent


Assignment 2 Debates Group task Teams will be marked with a grade only. Students are required to participate in two debates and will be assessed on group performance. Debating teams and allocation of topics will be decided in the tutorials. According to the Oxford Dictionary a debate is “a contention in words”. A debate is also an exercise in public speaking. The essence of debating is active argument, not just the statement of two different points of view. In addition to presenting an argument, each team must refute the argument of the opposition team. The objective of the debates is to develop skills in: – public speaking - communication by clear and effective expression – ability to argue logically and persuasively – using evidence to support an argument – critique – team work Assessment Criteria The format for the debates and the size of the teams will depend on number of students in each tutorial. The tutor will chair the debates and assess the teams based on three criteria: – matter 60% – method 20% – manner 20% The debates will be assessed by the Tutor and students will receive feedback in class. Each member of a team will receive the same grade. Teams will be notified of the grade in the Lectures at the conclusion of each round of debates. MGC2110 Debate Evaluating Rubric (Source: http://www.etni.org.il/teachers/jennifer/debating.htm) SCORE: 0 = not demonstrated 1 = poor 2 = satisfactory 3 = good 4 = excellent The team was well organised and each speaker performed their role effectively

Score

The speeches were clearly organised The case line was clear The case line well supported by clear arguments The arguments were well supported by clear evidence/examples The opposing argument’s main point was anticipated by the first speaker Rebuttal speeches clearly responded to each point made by the opposing team

Clearly stated summaries were given by the team Speakers used clear voices and had eye contact with the audience

Total Score

Debates MGC2110 Semester 1 2011 Teams & Topics


Week & Topic Team Thesis Perspective Round 1 7. Business Level Strategy Should business strategy be driven by the market adaptation or resource leveraging?

Team 1 Team 2

Markets Resources

Outside-in Inside-out

8. Corporate Level Strategy Should strategy in diversified firms be driven by business responsiveness or multi-business synergy?

Team 3 Team 4

Responsiveness Synergy

Portfolio Organisation Integrated Organisation

9. Network Level Strategy Should collaboration between firms be tactical or strategic?

Team 5 Team 6

Cooperation Competition

Embedded Organisation Discrete Organisation

Round 2 10. Industry Context Do successful firms shape industry structure or adapt to industry dynamics?

Team 2 Team 3

Compliance Choice

Industry Dynamics Industry Leadership

11. Organisational Context Do successful leaders control strategic development or facilitate self organisation?

Team 6 Team 1

Control Chaos

Organisational Leadership Organisational Dynamics

12. International Context Is international competitive advantage driven by global integration or local market responsiveness?

Team 4 Team 5

Global synergy Local responsiveness

Global Convergence International Diversity

Recommended Reading Monash Association of Debaters (MAD), Online Debating Tutorial - Three on Three Debating: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~madhome/website.htm ACR Debating Union (ACTDU)About debating and how to get started, http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/aboutd.html World Debating Website, Debating Tutorial, http://flynn.debating.net/colmmain_tut.htm


Assessment 3 Exam The examination is designed to test your understanding of the practical relevance or application of the ten strategy paradoxes considered in the unit. For each topic you should be able to identify the strategic issue, explain the social paradox and discuss the practical implications. This requires synthesis of both sides of the tutorial debates. Describing the issue and each perspective is not sufficient. You should be able to explain the tension by comparing and contrasting the assumptions of each perspective on the particular issue. You are expected to use the readings for each topic. You should be able to explain how the readings relate to the particular strategy paradox by comparing and contrasting the arguments, evidence and prescriptions for managing strategy process, content, context and performance. The examination will be divided into four sections and you must answer one question from each section. Each question is worth 15 marks. Your answers must be in a short essay style and not point form. Section A Strategy processes (choice of three answer one question) Topic 3 Strategic thinking Topic 4 Strategy formation Topic 5 Strategic change Section B Strategy content Debates Round 1 (choice of three answer one question) Topic 6 Business Level strategic Topic 7 Corporate level strategy Topic 8 Network level strategy Section C Strategy context Debates Round 2 (choice of three answer one question) Topic 10 Industry context Topic 11 Organisational context Topic 12 International context Section D Purpose (no choice compulsory question)


Lecture Schedule 2011

Week & Date Topic Required Reading Part I Strategy Concept Week 1 2 March

Studying Strategic Management

Week 2 9 March

Theory and Practice de Wit & Meyer Chapter 1

Part II Strategy Process Week 3 16 March

Strategic Thinking de Wit & Meyer Chapter 2

Week 4 23 March

Strategy Formation de Wit & Meyer Chapter 3

Week 5 30 March

Strategic Change

de Wit & Meyer Chapter 4

Part III Strategy Content

Week 6 16 April

Business Level Strategy de Wit & Meyer Chapter 5

Week 7 13 April

Corporate Level Strategy de Wit & Meyer Chapter 6

Week 8 20 April

Network Level Strategy de Wit & Meyer Chapter 7

Part IV Strategy Context

Week 9 4 May

Industry Context de Wit & Meyer Chapter 8

Week 10 11 May

Organisational Context de Wit & Meyer Chapter 9

Week 11 18 May

International Context


Part V Purpose

Week 12 25 May

Organisational Purpose



Tutorial Schedule 2011

Week & Date Topic Activity Week 1 2 March

Strategy Strategic Management Debating teams

Week 2 9 March

Strategy paradoxes Class discussion Topic Assignment

Week 3 16 March

Theory and Practice Class discussion Using classifications

Week 4 23 March

Strategic Thinking Class discussion A-R-E: arguments, reasons & evidence

Week 5 30 March

Strategy Formation Class discussion Rebuttal

Week 6 7 April

Strategic Change

Class discussion Speakers notes

Week 7 13 April

Business Level Strategy Round 1 Team Debate

Week 8 20 April

Corporate Level Strategy Round 1 Team Debate

Week 9 4 May

Network Level Strategy Round 1 Team Debate

Week 10 11 May

Industry Context Round 2 Team Debate

Week 11 18 May

Organisational Context Round 2 Team Debate

Week 12 25 May

International Context

Round 2 Team Debate


Reading The text and recommended reading listed below are available in the reserve collection and on short loan from the Matheson Library.

Text Book de Wit, B and Meyer, R (2010) Strategy Synthesis: Resolving Strategy Paradoxes to Create Competitive Advantage (Text and Readings) Third Edition, Cengage Learning EMEA.

Recommended Reading Faulkner DO and Campbell A (eds) (2003) Oxford Handbook of Strategy, Oxford, Oxford

University Press. Kay J (1996) The Business of Economics, Oxford, Oxford University Press. A collection of

essays, newspaper articles and lectures on the application of economics to business. Micklethwait J and Wooldridge A (1996) The Witch Doctors: what management gurus are

saying, why it matters and how to make sense of it, London, William Heinemann. The authors are journalist with The Economist, and the book provides a lively critique of the contradictions in management theory.

Mintzberg H, Ahlstrand B and and Lamprel J (1998) Strategy Safari. A Guided Tour Through

the Wilds of Strategic Management, New York, Free Press. A comprehensive guide to different perspectives on strategic management based on a classification of ten schools of thought developed by Mintzberg.

Pettigrew A, Thomas H and Whittington R (eds) (2002) Handbook of Strategy and Management,

London, Sage. An overview of research and writing on strategy and management. Chapter 1 provides a general overview of the field and Chapters 2 provides an overview of the history and evolution strategic management.

Raynor ME (2007) The Strategy Paraox Why committing to success leads to failure...and what to

do about it, New York, Doubleday Books. Whittington R (2001) What is Strategy and does it matter? London, International Thompson

Business Press. Chapters 1 and 3 explore the theoretical and practical implications of four fundamentally different ways of thinking about strategy.

Electronic Reading List Reading for the lectures and tutorials and resources for the debates that can be accessed electronically are available at: http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/resourcelists/m/mgc2110.html


Week 1 Lecture - Studying Strategic Management

• Strategy concepts • Strategy processes, content, context and purpose • Strategy debates

Required Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Preface & Chapter 1 Introduction Recommended Reading Grant RM (2005) Chapter 1 The Concept of Strategy in Contemporary Strategic

Analysis, Fifth Edition, http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/pdfs/CSA5eC01.pdf

Serwer A (2002) Inside the Rolling Stones Inc., Fortune, 30 September, page 58. Tutorial - Debates Debating teams will be formed in the first tutorial. Recommended Reading Monash Association of Debaters (MAD), Online Debating Tutorial - Three on Three Debating: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~madhome/website.htm ACR Debating Union (ACTDU) About debating and how to get started, http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/aboutd.html World Debating Website, Debating Tutorial, http://flynn.debating.net/colmmain_tut.htm


Week 2 Tutorial – Strategy Paradoxes Compare the four approaches to dealing with strategy tensions identified by de Wit & Meyer (Figure 1.7). Discuss the practical implications of the different ways of dealing with strategy tensions. Explain the difference between a logical and a social paradox and the four methods of working with paradox discussed by Poole & van de Ven. Explain the strategy paradox identified by Raynor and discuss the practical implications of the principles of requisite uncertainty and strategic flexibility. Required Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 1: Introduction to the nature of strategy Raynor ME (2007) The Strategy Paradox Why committing to success leads to failure...and what to do about it, Chapter 1, available at: http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom‐Shared%20Assets/Documents/us_consulting_so_StrategyParadoxChapter1.pdf Donlon JP (1995) The paradox paradigm - interview with author-philosopher Charles Handy, Chief Executive, January- February, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4070/is_/ai_16636992 Poole MS. and van de Ven AH (1989) Using Paradox to Build Management and Organizational

Theory, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, 562-578. (This is a long and complex paper. The section that is useful for this unit is pages 562-569 which provides a definition of social paradox and discusses four ways of working with paradox.)

Lecture – Theory and Practice

• History of strategic management • Classifying the strategy literature • Ten strategy paradoxes • Great Debate: Management fashions – fad or new practice?

Recommended Reading History of strategic management Bowan, E, Singh, H and Thomas, H (2002) Chapter 2 The Domain of Strategic Management:

History and Evolution, in Pettigrew, A Thomas, H and Whittington, R (eds) Handbook of Strategy and Management.

Perspectives on strategy Mintzberg H, Ahlstrand & Lampel J (1998) Chapter 1 The Strategic Management Beast and

Chapter 12 The Whole Beast in Strategy Safari. A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management.

Mintzberg H and Lampel J (1999) Reflecting on the Strategy Process, Sloan Management

Review Spring, 21- 30. Whittington R (2001) Chapter 2 Theories of strategy in What is Strategy – and does it

matter?


Great Debate: Management fashions – fad or new practice? Kay J (1996) Can There be a Science of Business? Chapter 5 in The Business of Economics, 26-

31. James D (2002) All hail the gurus, Business Review Weekly, 11-17 July, 66-69. Micklethwait J & Wooldridge A (1996) Introduction The World of the Witch Doctors in The

Witch Doctors: what management gurus are saying, why it matters and how to make sense of it.


Week 3 Tutorial – Using classification to understand diversity in the strategy literature Compare the four theoretical perspectives on strategy in Whittington (2001). What are the similarities and differences? (Explain Table 2.1) What are the implications for strategic management practitioners? (Compare the way each perspective frames strategic issues and decisions.) Required Reading Whittington R (2001) Chapter 2 Theories of strategy in What is Strategy – and does it

matter? Lecture - Strategic Thinking

• Great Debates: What is the real Honda story? • Issue of strategic reasoning • Paradox of logic and creativity • Rational thinking perspective • Generative thinking perspective

Recommended Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 2 Strategic Thinking. Mintzberg H. (1987) Crafting Strategy, Harvard Business Review, July-August, 66-76. Mintzberg H (1994) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Harvard Business Review 1994

January-February, 107-114. Rigby D and Bilodeau B (2007) Selecting Management Tools Wisely, Harvard Business Review,

December, 20-23. Bain & Company Management Tools, http://www.bain.com/management_tools/home.asp Great Debates: What is the real Honda story – strategy or experience? Pascale R (1984) Perspectives on Strategy: The Real Story Behind Honda’s Success, California

Management Review, Vol.26, No. 47-72. California Management Review (1996) Special Issue ‘The Honda Effect Revisited’, Vol. 38, No.

4, 80-91. Mair A (1999) Learning from Honda, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, 8-30.


Week 4 Tutorial – Strategic Thinking Explain the paradox of logic and creativity. Compare the assumptions about strategic reasoning in the rational and generative perspectives. Compare the arguments and the supporting evidence of Andrews (1987) and Ohmae (1982). Compare the three approaches to decision-making in Mintzberg & Westley (2001). What are the practical insights and limitations of each approach? Required Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 2 Strategic Thinking

Reading 2.1 Andrews (1987) The Concept of Corporate Strategy Reading 2.2 Ohmae (1982) The Mind of the Strategist.

Mintzberg H and Westley F (2001) Decision-making: Its not what you think, Sloan Management

Review, Vol. 42, No. 3, Spring, 89-93. Lecture: Strategy Formation

• Great Debates: Igor Ansoff and Henry Mintzberg - Planning or Learning? • Issue of realized strategy • Paradox of deliberate and emergent strategy • Planning perspective • Incrementalism perspective

Recommended Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 3 Strategy Formation. Mintzberg H and Waters J (1985) Of Strategies Deliberate and Emergent, Strategic Management

Journal, Vol. 6, 257-72. Ocasio W and Joseph J (2008) Rise and Fall - or Transformation? The Evolution of Business Planning at the General Electric Company 1940-2006, Long Range Planning, Volume 41, Issue 3, 248-72. Great Debates: Henry Mintzberg and Igor Ansoff –Planning or learning? Mintzberg H (1994) Rethinking Strategic Planning Part I: Pitfalls and Fallacies, Long Range

Planning, Vol. 27, No. 3, 12-21. Mintzberg H (1994) Rethinking Strategic Planning Part II: New Roles for Planners, Long Range

Planning, Vol. 27, No. 3, 22-30. Ansoff I (1994) Comment on Henry Mintzberg’s Rethinking Strategic Planning, Long Range

Planning, Vol. 27, No. 3, 31-32.


Week 5 Tutorial - Strategy Formation Explain the paradox of deliberate and emergent strategy. Compare the assumptions about strategy formation activities and roles in the strategic planning and strategic incrementalism perspectives. Compare the arguments and the supporting evidence of Chakravarthy& Lorange (1991) and Quinn (1978). Compare the three models of decision-making in Allison’s study of the Cuban Missile Crisis. What are the insights and limitations of each model for practitioners? Required Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 3 Strategic Thinking

• Reading 3.1 Chakravarthy & Lorange (1991) Managing the strategy process • Reading 3.2 Quinn (1978) Logical Incrementalism

Allison G and Zelikow P (1999) Chapter 7 Conclusion in Essence of Decision: explaining the

Cuban Missile Crisis, Second Edition, New York, Longman. Lecture - Strategic Change

• Great Debates: Re-engineering – revolution or fad? • Issue of strategic renewal • Paradox of revolution and evolution • Continuous change perspective • Discontinuous change perspective

Recommended Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 4. Beer M and Nohria N (2000) Cracking the Code of Change, Harvard Business Review, May-

June, 133-141. Garvin D, Levesque L and Gillan C (2007) Meeting the challenge of corporate entrepreneurship, Australian Financial Review Boss, 6-7 January, 60-61. Great Debates – Re-engineering: failure of logic or execution? Micklethwait J and Wooldridge A (1996) Chapter 1 The Fad in Progress: Re-engineering in The

Witch Doctors. Valentine R and Knoghts D (1998) TQM and BPR – can you spot the difference? Personnel Review, Vol 27, No 1, 78-85.


Week 6 Tutorial - Strategic Change Explain the paradox of evolutionary and revolutionary change. Explain the insights and limitations of the discontinuous renewal and continuous renewal perspectives. Compare the arguments and the supporting evidence of Hammer (1990) and Imai (1986). Explain the pattern of organisational evolution identified by Tushman & O’Reilly (1996). Why is strategic renewal successful for some firms while others fail? Required Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 4 Strategic Change

• Reading 4.1 Hammer (1990) Re-engineering Work • Reading 4.2 Imai (1986) Kaizen

Hammer M (1990) Reengineering Work: Don’t Automote, Obliterate, Harvard Business Review,

vol. 68, no. 4, 1990. p104-112. Tushman M. and O’Reilly C. (1996) Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change, California Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, 8-30. Lecture - Business Level Strategy

• Great debates: Generic strategies • Issue of competitive advantage • Paradox of markets and resources • Outside-in perspective • Inside-out perspective

Recommended Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 5 Business Level Strategy Day GS (1994) The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58

(October), 37-52. Barney J (1995) Looking Inside for Competitive Advantage, Academy of Management Executive

Vol. 9, No. 4, 49-62. Porter M (1996) What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, November-December,

61-78. Great Debates: Generic Strategies James D (2004) To ape, or not to ape, Business Review Weekly, July 1-7, pages 66-67. Trinca, H (2002) Michael Porter Holding the Line on Strategy, Australian Financial Review

Boss, September, 58-63. Argyres N and McGahan A (2002) An Interview with Michael Porter, Academy of Management

Executive, Vol. 16 No. 2, pages 43-52.


Week 7 Tutorial – Business Level Strategy Debate Round 1 Should business strategy be driven by the market adaptation or resource leveraging? Required Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 5 Business Level Strategy • Reading 5.1 Porter (1985) Competitive Strategy • Reading 5.2 Miller, Eisenhardt & Foote (2002) Strategy from the Inside out

Miller E (2002) Strategy from the inside outbuilding capability-creating organizations,

California Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, 37-54. Lecture - Corporate Level Strategy

• Issue of corporate configuration • Paradox of responsiveness and synergy • Portfolio organisation perspective • Integrated organisation perspective • Great Debates: Diversification –value adding or value destruction?

Recommended Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 6 Corporate level strategy Porter M (1987) From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy, Harvard Business Review,

May-June, 43-59. Collis DJ and Montgomery CA (1998) Creating Corporate Advantage, Harvard Business

Review, May-June, 71-179. Great Debates: Diversification or focus? James D. (2004) Spread to thin, Business Review Weekly, May 6-12, pages 64-67. Campbell A and Goold M and Luchs K (1993) Why Diversify? Four Decades of Management

Thinking, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 7-25.


Week 8 Tutorial – Corporate Level Strategy Debate Round 1 Should strategy in diversified firms be driven by business responsiveness or multi-business synergy? Required Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 6 Corporate Level Strategy

• Reading 6.1 Hedley (1977) Strategy and the Business Portfolio • Reading 6.2 Prahald & Hamel (1990) The Core Competencies of the Corporation

Hedley B (1977) Strategy and the Business Portfolio, Long Range Planning, Vol. 10 No. 1, 9-15. Hamel G (1990) The Core Competencies of the Corporation, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, May-June, p. 79-91. Lecture – Network Level Strategy

• Great Debates: Outsourcing • Issue of inter-organisational relationships • Paradox of competition and cooperation • Discrete organisation perspective (atomistic) • Embedded organisation perspective (interdependent)

Recommended Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 7 Network Level Strategy, pages 359-378. Hughes J and Weiss J (2008) New approach needed for corporate alliance success, Australian

Financial Review Boss, 25-28 January, 88-89. Hacki R and Leighton J (2001) The future of the networked company, Business Review Weekly,

30 August – 5 September, 58-62. Great Debates: Outsourcing Doig S, Ritter R, Spuckhals K and Woolson, D (2001) Has outsourcing gone too far? McKinsey

Quarterly, Number 4, 25-37. Quinn, B (1999) Strategic Outsourcing: Leveraging Knowledge Capabilities, Sloan Management

Review, Summer, 9-21. Quinn, B and Hilmer, F (1994) Strategic Outsourcing, Sloan Management Review, Summer, 43-

55.


Week 9 Tutorial – Network Level Strategy Debate Round 1 Should collaboration between firms be tactical or strategic? Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 7 • Reading 7.1 Hamel, Doz & Prahalad (1989) Collaborate with Your Competitors - and Win • Reading 7.2 Lorenzi & Baden-Fuller (1995) Creating a Strategic Centre to Manage a Web

of Partners Hamel G, Doz YL and Prahald CK (1989) Collaborate with Your Competitors - and Win,

Harvard Business Review, January-February, Lorenzi G and Baden-Fuller C (1995) Creating a Strategic Centre to Manage a Web of Partners,

California Management Review, Vol 37, No 3, Lecture – The Industry Context

• Great Debate: Firms and industries – the evidence? • Issue of industry development • Paradox of compliance and choice • Industry dynamics perspective • Industry leadership perspective

Recommended Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 8 The Industry Context Lovallo DP and Mendonca LT (2007) Strategy's strategist: An interview with Richard Rumelt, McQuinsey Quarterly, Issue 4. Great Debate: Firms and industries – the evidence? These are more challenging articles based on quantitative research. You should look in particular at the abstract, introduction, discussion of the results and conclusions. Schmalensee R (1985) Do Markets Matter Much? American Economic Review, June, 341-351. Rumelt, R (1991) How Much Does Industry Matter? Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12,

No. 2, 167-85. McGahon A and Porter M (1997) How Much Does Industry Matter, Really? Strategic

Management Journal, Vol. 18, Summer Special Issue, 15-30. Hawawini G, Subramanian V and Verdin P (2003) Is Performance Driven by Industry- or Firm-

Specific Factors? A New Look at the Evidence, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, 1-16.


Week 10 Tutorial – The Industry Context Debate Round 2 Do successful firms shape industry structure or adapt to industry dynamics? Required Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 8 Industry Context

• Reading 8.1 Michael Porter (1980) Industry Evolution • Reading 8.2 Baden-Fuller & Stopford (1992) The Firm Matters, Not the Industry

Teams debating should also use the reading listed for “Great Debate: Firms and industries – the

evidence”. Lecture – The Organisational Context

• Great Debates: Hard and Soft Ss • Issue of organisational development • Paradox of control and chaos • Organisational leadership perspective • Organisational dynamics perspective

Recommended Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 9 The organizational context Snowden D and Boone M (2008) The best leaders are masters of their domain, Australian

Financial Review, Summer Boss, 12-13 January, 60-61. Senge P (1990) The Leaders New Work: Building Learning Organisations, Sloan Management

Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, 7-23. Great Debates: In Search of Excellence – science or advocacy? Peters TJ (1980) Strategy Follows Structure: Developing Distinctive Skills, California Management Review, Vol. XXVI No 3 Spring, 112-125. Hitt MA and Ireland RD (1987) Peters and Waterman revisited: The Unended Quest for

Excellence, Academy of Management Executive, Vol 1, No 2, 91-98. Bogner WC (2002) Tom Peters on the real world of business, Academy of Management

Executive, Vol 16 No 1, 40 44. Bogner WC (2002) Robert H. Waterman, Jr on being smart and lucky, Academy of Management

Executive, Vol 16 No 1, 45 50.


Week 11 Tutorial – The Organisational Context Debate Round 2 Do successful leaders control strategic development or facilitate self organisation? Required Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 9 The international context

• Reading 9.1 Cyert (1990) Defining Leadership and Explicating the Process • Reading 9.2 Stacey (1993) Strategy as Order Emerging from Chaos

Stacey (1993) Strategy as Order Emerging from Chaos, Long Range Planning, vol. 26, no.1, p. 10-17. Lecture – The International Context

• Issue of international configuration • The paradox of globalisation (integration) and localisation (fragmentation) • Global convergence perspective • International diversity perspective • Great Debates: Michael Porter and Keniche Ohmae - location or companies?

Recommended Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 10 The international context James D (2003) Secrets and traps of overseas expansion, Business Review Weekly, 5-11 June,

40-45. James D (2003) Why togetherness works, Business Review Weekly, July 31 – August 6, 42-47. Rugman A (2001) The Myth of Global Strategy, International Marketing Review, Volume 18

Number 6,583-588. Great Debates: Michael Porter and Keniche Ohmae - location or companies? Ohmae K (1989) Managing in a Borderless World, Harvard Business Review, May-June, 152-

161. Porter M (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Harvard Business Review, March-

April, 73-93. Porter, M (1998) Clusters and the New Economics of Competition, Harvard Business Review,

November-December, 77- 90.


Week 12 Tutorial – The International Context Debate Round 2 Is international competitive advantage driven by global integration or local market responsiveness? Required Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 10 The International Context

• Reading 10.1 Theodore Levitt (1983) The Globalization of Markets • Reading 10.2 Douglas & Wind (1987) The Myth of Globalization

Levitt T (1983) The Globalization of Markets, Harvard Business Review, May-June, 92-102. Douglas S and Wind Y (1987) The Myth of Globalization, Columbia Journal of World Business,

Winter, 19-29. Rugman A (2001) The Myth of Global Strategy, International Marketing Review, Volume 18

Number 6,583-588. Lecture – Organisational Purpose

• Great Debates: Corporate Governance • Issue of corporate mission • Paradox of profitability and responsibility • Shareholder value perspective • Stakeholder values perspective

Recommended Reading de Wit & Meyer (2010) Chapter 11 Organizational purpose

• Reading 11.1 Rappaport (1986) Shareholder Value and Corporate Purpose • Reading 11.2 Freemen & Reed (1993) Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New

Perspective on Corporate Governance Rappaport A (2006) 10 Ways to create shareholder Value, Harvard Business Review, September, pp 66-77. Freemen E. (1983) Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate

Governance, California Management Review, vol. 25, no. 3, p. 68-87. Great Debates: Corporate social responsibility – economic or social? Porter ME and Kramer MR (2007) Corporate social responsibility: the competitive advantage,

Australian Financial Review, SummerBoss , January 20-21, pp 60-61. Smith CN (2003) Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How? California Management

Review, Vol 45 No 4, pp52-76. A handout on a particular case for the examination will be provided in the lecture in Week 12.

Date post:	28-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nare
View:	148 times
Download:	1 times