Reading: Introduction: What is Strategic Management?

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT?

What is Strategy?

The term ‘strategy’ proliferates in discussions of business. Scholars and consultants

have provided myriad models and frameworks for analysing strategic choice

(Hambrick and Fredrickson, 2001). For us, the key issue that should unite all discussion

of strategy is a clear sense of an organization’s objectives and a sense of

how it will achieve these objectives. It is also important that the organization has

a clear sense of its distinctiveness. For the leading strategy guru, Michael Porter

(1996), strategy is about achieving competitive advantage through being different

– delivering a unique value added to the customer, having a clear and enactable

view of how to position yourself uniquely in your industry, for example, in the

ways in which Southwest Airlines positions itself in the airline industry and IKEA

in furniture retailing, in the way that Marks & Spencer used to. To enact a

successful strategy requires that there is fit among a company’s activities, that they

complement each other, and that they deliver value to the firm and its customers.

The three companies we have just mentioned illustrate that industries are fluid

and that success is not guaranteed. Two of the firms came to prominence by

taking on industry incumbents and developing new value propositions. The third

was extremely successful and lost this position. While there is much debate on

substance, there is agreement that strategy is concerned with the match between

a company’s capabilities and its external environment. Analysts disagree on how

this may be done. John Kay (2000) argues that strategy is no longer about planning

or ‘visioning’ – because we are deluded if we think we can predict or,

worse, control the future – it is about using careful analysis to understand and

influence a company’s position in the market place. Another leading strategy

guru, Gary Hamel (2000), argues that the best strategy is geared towards radical

change and creating a new vision of the future in which you are a leader rather

than a follower of trends set by others. According to Hamel, winning strategy =

foresight + vision.

2 INTRODUCTION

Two Approaches to Strategy

The idea of strategy has received increasing attention in the management literature.

The literature on strategy is now voluminous and strategic management texts

grow ever larger to include all the relevant material. In this book our aim is not

to cover the whole area of strategy – that would require yet another mammoth tome

– but to present a clear, logical and succinct approach to the subject that will be

of use to the practising manager. We do not attempt a summary of the field, rather

we present what we see as a useful framework for analysing strategic problems based

on our own experience of teaching the subject on a variety of courses and to a

variety of audiences over the years. Our premise is that a firm needs a well defined

sense of its mission, its unique place in its environment and scope and direction

of growth. Such a sense of mission defines the firm’s strategy. A firm also needs

an approach to management itself that will harness the internal energies of the

organization to the realization of its mission.

Historically, views of strategy fall into two camps. There are those who equate

strategy with planning. According to this perspective, information is gathered, sifted

and analysed, forecasts are made, senior managers reflect upon the work of the

planning department and decide what is the best course for the organization. This

is a top-down approach to strategy. Others have a less structured view of strategy

as being more about the process of management. According to this second perspective,

the key strategic issue is to put in place a system of management that will

facilitate the capability of the organization to respond to an environment that is

essentially unknowable, unpredictable and, therefore, not amenable to a planning

approach. We will consider both these views in this text. Our own view is that good

strategic management actually encompasses elements of each perspective.

There is no one best way of strategy. The planning approach can work in a

stable, predictable environment. Its critics argue that such environments are

becoming increasingly scarce, events make the plan redundant, creativity is

buried beneath the weight and protocols of planning and communication rules.

Furthermore, those not involved in devising the plan are never committed to

its implementation. The second approach emphasizes speed of reaction and

flexibility to enable the organization to function best in an environment that is

fast-changing and essentially unpredictable. The essence of strategy, according to

this view, is adaptability and incrementalism. This approach has been criticized for

failing to give an adequate sense of where the organization is going and what its

mission is. Critics speak disparagingly of the ‘mushroom’ approach to management.

(Place in a dark room, shovel manure/money on the seeds, close the door, wait

for it to grow!)

Elements of Strategy

Definitions of strategy have their roots in military strategy, which defines itself in

terms of drafting the plan of war, shaping individual campaigns and, within these,

INTRODUCTION 3

deciding on individual engagements (battles/skirmishes) with the enemy. Strategy

in this military sense is the art of war, or, more precisely, the art of the general –

the key decision maker. The analogy with business is that business too is on a war

footing as competition becomes more and more fierce and survival more problematic.

Companies and armies have much in common. They both, for example, pursue

strategies of deterrence, offence, defence and alliance. One can think of a well

developed business strategy in terms of probing opponents’ weaknesses; withdrawing

to consider how to act, given the knowledge of the opposition generated

by such probing; forcing opponents to stretch their resources; concentrating

one’s own resources to attack an opponent’s exposed position; overwhelming

selected markets or market segments; establishing a leadership position of dominance

in certain markets; then regrouping one’s resources, deciding where to

make the next thrust; then expanding from the base thus created to dominate a

broader area.

Strategic thinking has been much influenced by military thinking about

‘the strategy hierarchy’ of goals, policies and programmes. Strategy itself sets the

agenda for future action, strategic goals state what is to be achieved and when (but

not how), policies set the guidelines and limits for permissible action in pursuit of

the strategic goals, and programmes specify the step-by-step sequence of actions

necessary to achieve major objectives and the timetable against which progress

can be measured. A well defined strategy integrates an organization’s major plans,

objectives, policies and programmes and commitments into a cohesive whole. It

marshals and allocates limited resources in the best way, which is defined by an

analysis of a firm’s unique strengths and weaknesses and of opportunities and threats

in the environment. It considers how to deal with the potential actions of intelligent

opponents.

Management is defined both in terms of its function as those activities that serve

to ensure that the basic objectives of the enterprise, as set by the strategy, are achieved,

and as a group of senior employees responsible for performing this function.

Our working definition of strategic management is as follows: all that is necessary

to position the firm a way that will assure its long-term survival in a competitive

environment. A strategy is an organization’s way of saying how it creates unique

value and thus attracts the custom that is its lifeblood.

To understand the strategy of a particular firm we have to understand, unless

we are in a start-up situation, what factors have made the firm what it is today. This

involves answering questions such as: How did the organization reach its present

state? Why is it producing its particular range of products and services? What kind

of products or services does it intend to produce in the future – the same or different,

and, if different, how different? If it is thinking of altering its current

range, what are the reasons? Strategy usually reflects the thinking of a small group

of senior individuals, or even one strong leader, the strategic apex of a company.

Why are the people who make up the strategic apex in this position? How do they

think? Are there other (more) fertile sources of strategic thinking elsewhere in the

organization that could be usefully tapped? If necessary how can one go about

learning from the ‘collective wit’ of the organization, the creative voice that so

often remains silent? How are decisions made in the organization? What is its

4 INTRODUCTION

management style – top-down or bottom-up, autocratic or democratic? Why is the

organization structured in a particular way? What is the link between strategy and

structure?

TASK

Apply these questions to your own organization or to an organization that

you know. (We will return to them later!)

Our Model of Strategy

Our working model of the strategic management process is set out in figure 1.1.

This is a model that works for us in terms of organizing our thinking about strategy

and our attempts to understand the strategic issues facing particular firms. We

do not suggest that it is the only model that is useful or that this is the best. (We

just think it is!) Hopefully, in the course of your reading of this book, and other

work on the subject, you will be critically analysing the various models suggested

Environmental

analysis

General environment

Operating environment

Competitive positioning

Directions for development

Strategic

history

Current

strategy

Stakeholder analysis

Strategic vision

Chosen

strategy

Realized

strategy

Organizational

analysis

Structure

Values

Culture

Resources

Strengths

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Threats

Figure 1.1 The strategic management process

INTRODUCTION 5

and the concepts upon which they rest. You may come to this text with your own

model, developed out of your own experience. We suggest that you try working

with our model and examine the extent to which it complements or contradicts

your own and others. The result of such a critical appraisal will be a model with

which you are comfortable and find useful in practice. If you feel that the model

you develop is far superior to our own, please tell us about it! Remember, there

is no one best answer in strategic management. If a firm chooses a particular

strategic direction and it works in the way that very successful firms like IBM or,

on a smaller scale, Body Shop have, the fact that it is successful does not mean

that the choice of strategy was optimal, that it was the best. Another strategic

decision might have led to even greater success. Conversely, if a firm makes a

choice that leads to disaster, this does not necessarily mean that it could have made

a better choice (though, with better decision making, it hopefully could have

done). The environmental conditions in its industry might have been such that

this was the best choice, but that no choice, given its size or history, or the power

of its competitors, could have changed its fate.

We will now explain our model, which provides the basis of subsequent

chapters. Current strategy (italics indicate terms in the model) has its roots in the

strategic history of a firm and its management and employees. We mention both management

and employees here because, though in many cases senior management

is the source of strategic decisions, it is the employees at the point of production

or delivery of a product or service who are responsible for the actual implementation

of a strategy. (Of course, in the final analysis it is management who are

ultimately responsible for the performance of employees.) Current strategy is the result

of the interaction of intended strategy and emergent strategy. The organization’s actual

strategy (its realized strategy) can be the direct result of strategic planning, the deliberate

formulation and implementation of a plan. More often it is the outcome of

the adaptation of such a plan to emergent issues in the environment. In some cases

actual strategy can be very different from the strategy as planned or the firm may

not have a very clear plan in the first place. In such cases the strategy can be described

as emergent in the sense that strategy emerges from an ongoing series (sometimes

described as a pattern or stream) of decisions.

Managers can decide that they are happy with their current strategy. They can

take this decision in two ways. In a proactive sense they can scan their environment

and the potential for change within their own organization and decide that

to carry on doing what they are doing and what they are good at is the best way

to face the future. In a less active, and far less satisfactory, way they can proceed

on the basis of tradition – ‘This is the way we have always done it. It has worked

so far. That’s good enough for us’ – or inertia. Or management may decide that

change is necessary. Again this can come about in a variety of ways. They may scan

their environment and decide that there are major changes occurring in their business

world to which they have to adapt. Or they might decide, through internal

analysis, that they have the ability to develop a new way of doing business that will

redefine the nature of the business they are in. Another stimulus to change can

be the new manager appointed to a senior position who wants to leave his or her

mark on the company and changes strategy primarily for this self-centred reason.

6 INTRODUCTION

If change is the order of the day, then two issues need to be addressed: environmental

(external) analysis and organizational (internal) analysis. (Remember, this

is the ideal way of proceeding. In practice, managers may adopt only a partial

solution and analyse only external or internal factors.) For a change of strategy to

work there must be alignment between internal capability and external opportunity.

This is described as ‘strategic fit’. The ideal situation is where there is a fit

between the environment, a business need arising out of that environment that is

strongly felt by a firm that has the sense of purpose (mission) and a management

system that enables it to respond to this need with a coherent and practicable

strategy. The potential to act in this way depends upon managerial judgement,

managerial skill to exploit windows of opportunity and management ability to

motivate other employees to support and commit themselves to the firm’s new

strategic objectives.

The analysis of the environment can be segmented into four interactive elements.

There is the issue of the firm’s general environment, the broad environment comprising

a mix of general factors such as social and political issues. Then there is

the firm’s operating environment, its more specific industry/business environment.

What kind of industry is the firm competing in? What ‘forces’ make up its ‘industry

structure’? Having examined its business environment, the issue then arises:

how is the firm to compete in its industry? What is to be the unique source of its

competitive positioning that will give it an edge over its competitors? Will it go for a

broad market position, competing on a variety of fronts, or will it look for niches?

Will it compete on the basis of cost or on the basis of added value, differentiating

its products and charging a premium? What is the range of options that managers

have to choose from? How are they to prioritize between these options? Does the

company have strategic vision, a strong sense of mission, a ‘reason for being’ that

distinguishes it from others? If change is necessary, what is to be the firm’s direction

for development? Having identified the major forces affecting its environment,

how is the firm to approach the future?

Organizational analysis can also be thought of as fourfold. How is the firm organized?

What is the structure of the organization, who reports to whom, how are the

tasks defined, divided and integrated? How do the management systems work,

the processes that determine how the organization gets things done from day to day

– for example, information systems, capital budgeting systems, performance measurement

systems, quality systems? What do organizational members believe in, what

are they trying to achieve, what motivates them, what do they value? What is the

culture of the organization? What are the basic beliefs of organizational members?

Do they have a shared set of beliefs about how to proceed, about where they are

going, about how they should behave? We know, thanks to Peters and Waterman’s

In Search of Excellence, that the basic values, assumptions and ideologies (systems

of belief) which guide and fashion behaviour in organizations have a crucial role

to play in business success (or failure). What resources does the organization have

at its disposal – for example, capital, technology, people?

Management’s role is to try to ‘fit’ the analysis of externalities and internalities,

to balance the organization’s strengths and weaknesses in the light of environmental

INTRODUCTION 7

opportunities and threats. A concept that bridges internal and external analyses is that

of stakeholders, the key groups whose legitimate interests have to be borne in mind

when taking strategic decisions. These can be internal groups, such as managers

themselves and employees, or the owners of the firm, shareholders. They can also

be external groups: the stock market if it is a quoted company, banks, consumers,

the government.

Senior management’s task is to try and align the various interest groups in arriving

at its chosen strategy in the light of the creation of an appropriate strategic vision

for the organization. Increasingly important here is the issue of corporate responsibility,

how the organization defines and acts upon its sense of responsibility to its

stakeholders. The broad responsibility to society at large is important here in, for

example, such areas as ‘green’ (ecological) issues. Sometimes the various interest

groups may be at odds with each other and management will have to perform a

delicate political balancing act between them.

Having chosen a strategy, there is the issue of implementation. Very few

schemes go totally (or even approximately) according to plan. The business environment

changes, new issues emerge – green ones, for example. Some demand

to be taken on board so that in many, perhaps the majority, of cases emergent

strategy asserts itself to the extent that the realized strategy differs markedly from

the chosen/planned strategy. In time, the realized strategy becomes a part of the

firm’s strategic history . . . and the strategy process continues.

Strategic management in the public sector and the not-for-profit

company

Most of what we will say in this book concerns the business firm looking to profit

as the source of its survival. We would, however, contend that much of what we

say can be applied to the public-sector organization or the not-for-profit firm. Similar

principles of internal and external analysis apply.

The Growth Vector

Strategic management involves decisions concerning what a company might do,

given the opportunities in its environment; what it can do, given the resources at

its disposal; what it wants to do, given the personal values and aspirations of key

decision makers; and what it should do, given the ethical and legal context in which

it is operating. A firm needs a well defined sense of where it is going in the future

and a firm concept of the business it is in. We can think of these in terms of the

firm’s ‘product–market scope’ and ‘growth vector’. This specifies the particular

products or services of the firm and the market(s) it is seeking to serve. A firm’s

‘growth vector’ defines the direction in which the firm is moving with respect to

its current product–market scope. The key components of the ‘growth vector’ are

set out in figure 1.2. One qualification is necessary here. The use of the growth

8 INTRODUCTION

vector assumes that the firm is indeed growing. This is obviously not always the

case, and strategic decision making may therefore involve ‘downsizing’ and withdrawal

from some areas of business.

The growth vector illustrates the key decisions concerning the directions in

which a firm may choose to develop. Market penetration comes about when the firm

chooses as its strategy to increase its market share for its present product markets.

If the firm pursues product development it sets out to develop new products to

complement or replace its current offerings while staying in the same markets.

It retains its current mission in the sense of continuing to attempt to satisfy the same

or related consumer needs In market development the firm searches for new markets

with its existing products. If a strategy of diversification is chosen, the firm has decided

that its product range and market scope are no longer adequate, and it actively

seeks to develop new kinds of products for new kinds of markets.

Let us illustrate the growth vector with an example concerning product–market

strategy options in retailing. A retailing firm might decide to consolidate its position

in its current markets by going for increased market share, perhaps through

increased advertising. It might choose to develop new markets, perhaps expanding

geographically into other areas, or even overseas, but retaining its current

product range. It might choose to develop new retail products but stay in the

same line of business – for example, increase its product range in clothing. It might

choose to redefine the nature of these products. For example, the running shoe

market was radically altered and expanded by redefining running shoes as leisure

items, not merely as sports equipment. Finally, the firm might choose to move into

Figure 1.2 Product, mission and market choices. Source: adapted from Ansoff (1965)

INTRODUCTION 9

totally different areas of business, for example, into financial services, as Marks &

Spencer has done. The range of product–market strategy options in retailing is

illustrated in figure 1.3.

Governing the choice between strategic options should be the notion of competitive

advantage. The firm has to identify unique opportunities for itself in its

chosen area(s). It has to identify particular characteristics within its approach

to individual product–markets which will give it a strong competitive position.

It might go for a large market share that would enable it to dominate particular

markets and define the conditions of competition in them, for instance, as regards

pricing policy. It might pursue technological dominance, looking for breakthrough

products or a new manufacturing technology that would give it a technological

edge over the competition, as Pilkington did, for example, with its development

of the process for manufacturing float glass, which formed the foundation of the

company’s subsequent success. It might go for a better quality of product and service.

In the automobile industry, Japanese manufacturers have rewritten the rules

of the game regarding the quality of products and thus revolutionized consumer

expectations. In the process they have made major inroads into Western markets

historically dominated by Western firms. Or the firm might choose to combine

some of these, as Sainsbury’s has done with its ‘good food’ that ‘costs less’, an

approach combining a low-cost advantage with a quality position in the world of

supermarkets.

Figure 1.3 Retailing product–market strategy options. Source: Knee and Walters (1985)

10 INTRODUCTION

Mission Statements

The concept of mission has become increasingly fashionable in discussions of

strategy. Indeed, some analysts go as far as asserting that a good ‘mission statement’

can provide an actual worthwhile alternative to the whole task of corporate planning.

The definition of a firm’s strategic mission encapsulated in the mission

statement can be thought of as the first stage of the strategy process. Management

guru Peter Drucker, the source of much contemporary thinking about the business

mission, argues that asking the question ‘What is our business?’ is the same

as asking the question ‘What is our mission?’ A business is defined by its mission.

Only a clear definition of the mission of the organization makes possible clear and

realistic business objectives, because the mission defines the purpose of the firm

in terms of its enduring sense of its reason for being.

The mission defines the long-term vision of the organization in terms of what it

wants to be and whom it wants to serve. A firm’s mission should be clear and concise

and distinguish it from any other firm. The mission statement has to be backed

up with specific objectives and strategies, but these objectives and strategies are far

more likely to be acted upon when there is a clear sense of mission informing action.

A good mission statement will contain the following:

• the purpose of the organization – a statement of the principal activities of a

business or organization;

• its principal business aims – its mission as regards the position it aims to achieve

in its chosen business;

• the key beliefs and values of the company;

• definitions of who are the major stakeholders in the business;

• the guiding principles that define the code of conduct that tells employees how

to behave.

Drucker illustrates the importance of a sense of mission with his story of three

people working on a building site. All three were doing the same job but when

asked what their job was gave very different answers. One answered, ‘Breaking rocks,’

another answered, ‘Earning a living,’ the third answered. ‘Helping to build a cathedral.’

There is a similar story told about three climbers. When asked what they were

doing, one answered, ‘Pitching camp,’ the second answered, ‘Collecting material

for a film,’ the third answered, ‘Climbing Everest.’ There are no prizes for deciding

who was most committed to his/her task and who would be most motivated to

perform to the best of his/her ability.

Drucker himself highlights the need to link a sense of mission with clear,

achievable objectives. He makes the point when analysing the early success of Marks

& Spencer:

Marks & Spencer redefined its business as the subversion of the class structure of

nineteenth-century England by making available to the working and lower middle classes

upper-class goods of better than upper-class quality, and yet at prices the working

INTRODUCTION 11

EXHIBIT 1.1 MISSION STATEMENTS

A study of mission statements in the United States argued that every

organization should have one to motivate its employees. It claimed that

firms with clear motivating mission statements were likely to perform

better than those without. Classic mission statements cited include

the Peter Drucker example of the men on the cathedral building site,

President Kennedy’s ‘Put a man on the moon,’ Canon’s ‘Beat Xerox’

and Komatsu’s ‘Encircle Caterpillar.’ The trouble is that most mission

statements tend to provoke cynicism and confusion rather than clarity

and commitment by trying to combine statements of objectives with

statements of values.

Source: adapted from Financial Times, 3 April 1989.

and lower middle-class customer could well afford. . . . What made Marks & Spencer

unique and successful . . . was its conversion of the definition of ‘what our business is,

and should be’ into clear, specific, operationally effective and multiple objectives.

(Drucker, 1974: 96)

In the twentieth-century computer industry Apple set as its mission ‘To make a

contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advance humankind’.

Thornton’s, a UK premium chocolate manufacturer and retailer, talks about

itself in this way: ‘Our aim is to delight our customers with exceptional products and

caring service. Our goal is to be widely recognized as the best specialist retailer

and manufacturer of quality confectionery.’ Tesco, a major UK supermarket chain,

has talked about its mission with a similar stress on service and the customer: ‘The

strategy is to make our stores, our products and our people the very best in the

business in the opinion of our customers.’ Other companies have a different

emphasis. Levi Strauss, for example, talks about its aspirations in terms of the

kind of company it wants to create for its employees: ‘we want satisfaction from

accomplishments and friendships, balanced personal and professional lives, and

to have fun with our endeavors’.

Missions can be extremely visionary and challenging. For example, during its

heyday Body Shop proclaimed the following in its annual report: ‘Make compassion,

care, harmony and trust the foundation stones of business. Fall in love

with new ideas.’

QUESTION

1 Do you agree with the view expressed in exhibit 1.1?

12 INTRODUCTION

CASE STUDY

Ford Motor Company

Figure 1.4 contains the mission statement of a leading multinational

company, the Ford Motor Company. Examine this statement and ask

yourself the following questions:

1 Do you find it a satisfying statement of the company’s mission?

2 Is there anything in the statement that you would wish to criticize?

3 Would you alter the statement in any way, either taking something

out or adding more information to it?

4 What is the purpose of the mission statement for Ford?

5 Is it likely to fulfil this purpose?

6 The mission statement was devised by Ford in America. Is the very

idea of a mission statement somehow inappropriate for the British

context? Do the more reticent British, for example, feel uncomfortable

with this kind of ‘up-front’ approach? Or is it equally useful in the

United Kingdom and Europe? If you think it inappropriate, is there

an alternative?

7 What would be an appropriate mission statement for your own firm

or organization?

8 How are mission statements likely to differ in small and large firms?

There are four approaches to setting a mission (Collins and Porras, 1991):

• Targeting. Setting a clear, definable target for the organization to aim at, such

as the moon (the NASA moon mission statement!), financial/growth targets or

standards of excellence in product markets.

• Focusing on a common enemy. Defeat of the common enemy guides strategic choice,

e.g. Pepsi’s ‘Beat Coke’, Honda’s ‘Crush, squash, slaughter’ Yamaha, Nike’s attack

on Adidas. Honda was so successful in its mission that Yamaha actually made a

public apology for its claim that it would defeat Honda.

• Role modelling. Sometimes used by smaller companies that model themselves on

dominant players in their industry. In the computer industry IBM and Apple

have provided – at least, until recently – very different kinds of models.

• Internal transformation. Used by older organizations faced with the need for radical

change. This kind of mission has as its starting point the admission that its

current mission is out of tune with the new realities it is facing.

QUESTION

1 Which kind of mission do you think is best? Why?

INTRODUCTION 13

The recent emphasis in strategy upon a sense of mission demonstrates the need

companies feel to clarify their purpose and their values. In the large complex

organization a sense of mission can serve as unifying factor. The mission tells

employees what the company is about. It can also serve to give other stakeholders

a sense that the company is clear about what it is doing and where it is going. The

danger with missions is that they can come to be seen as empty rhetoric if senior

management does not live according to their principles.

As the Ford case illustrates, strategy links with values when we consider mission.

Public and private-sector organizations are likely to think of these differently.

Figure 1.4 Ford Motor Company’s statement of mission, values and guiding principles

14 INTRODUCTION

Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, one of the United Kingdom’s biggest

providers of hospital-based medical services, defines its strategic aims in the following

way:

• Provide quality services designed around the patient.

• Provide an environment in which the health care professional of tomorrow can be

trained.

• Be knowledge organizations by promoting and investing in research and

information.

• Be effective and supportive organizations for those working in both hospitals.

• Use our resources wisely.

Values support the achievement of these aims because ‘values . . . drive the way we

work and deliver care’. Queen’s Medical Centre values include: care and service,

striving for continuous improvement and supporting staff in delivering highquality

services and achieving a balance between their work and home lives.

CRITICAL VOICES

1 Some critics argue that the emphasis upon mission is misplaced,

that mission statements are often more rhetoric than substance.

Do you agree?

2 If a sense of mission is not the best way to give an organization a

sense of direction, what is?

Identity

Mission and values are increasingly recognized as reflecting the identity of an organization

– its central, enduring and distinctive character, and that which makes it

unique. There is evidence that those organizations that do survive and prosper over

the longer term do have a clear sense of identity, although they are also skilful

enough to know when an existing identity needs to change as a result of major

changes in the environment. For example, US railroads needed to recognize that

the future was perilous if they clung to the identity of a railroad company.

They could perhaps have coped better with a changing environment if they had

refashioned themselves as a transport businesses, competing with the roads and

the airlines. Such a change might have required major change, for new transport

technologies might well have rendered their railroad identity obsolete. Firms can

change too slowly and become increasingly vulnerable to change or lose out on

major opportunities. Xerox is a case in point. It had all the knowledge and technical

skills to become a major player in the computer industry but failed miserably

(see chapter 8) because it could not see a way beyond its identity as a copier company.

Other firms struggle to create a new identity at times of change. The Boots

INTRODUCTION 15

Company, a major UK retailer, has struggled for a number of years to rethink its

identity (see chapter 8).

Theory of the Business

In an influential Harvard Business Review article Peter Drucker argues that every

organization has a ‘theory of the business’ (Drucker, 1994). When this theory fits

the external reality, is internally coherent, and known and understood by everyone

in the organization, then success follows – for example, in IBM in the 1950s,

1960s and 1970s; General Motors until the 1970s; Marks & Spencer until the mid-

1990s. When external reality changes and the business model is taken for granted,

then crisis and possibly failure ensue. Personal computers changed the driving

force from hardware to software; lean manufacturing changed the economics of

long runs, and the market for clothes became more of a lifestyle issue. In these

situations adopting management recipes such as Total Quality Management,

benchmarking, re-engineering and other management fads are not enough: the

organization has to go back to re-examine its theory of the business.

Drucker argues that the theory of the business has three parts. While

assumptions about the environment define what an organization is paid for,

and assumptions about core competences define where an organization must

excel, the assumptions about the specific mission ‘define what an organization considers

to be meaningful results; in other words they point to how it envisions itself

making a difference in the economy and society at large’. This fits well with our

model of strategy and with the resource-based view of the firm (see chapter 7).

This argument is taken up by Campbell and Goold (1994), who argue that

‘people are more motivated and work more intelligently if they believe in what

they are doing and trust the organization they are working with’. They acknowledge

that motivation and commitment can also come from ‘clear strategy, from

the excitement of achievement, from the honour of being the best and the thrill

of winning’. But strategy alone is not enough. It needs to be nested in a clear sense

of mission and, in Drucker’s terms, a viable and compelling theory of the firm.

Goold and Campbell define mission broadly as comprising:

• a purpose: some explanation of why the organization exists;

• a strategy: defining relevant product markets and the firm’s positioning in them;

• a set of values: the beliefs that underpin the organization’s management style,

its relation to employees and other stakeholders and its ethics;

• standards and behaviours: a summary of some of the most important standards

and behaviours in the organization.

This leaves top management with two main tasks in relation to mission:

• the intellectual task of defining purpose, developing strategies and values that

reinforce each other and identifying the standards and behaviour that are the

expression of the mission;

16 INTRODUCTION

• a communication and management task of making the sense of mission come

alive in the organization.

This is a theme we return to in chapter 6 when we consider Collins and Porras’s

work on organizations that were built to last. An enduring company’s centre

consists of core values (‘the organization’s essential and enduring tenets’) and purpose

(‘the organization’s fundamental reasons for existence beyond just making

money’).

Strategy Evaluation

Strategy can be neither formulated nor adjusted to changing circumstances

without a process of strategy evaluation. Whether performed by an individual

or as part of an organizational review procedure, strategy evaluation forms an

essential step in the process of guiding an enterprise.

For many executives strategy evaluation is simply an appraisal of how well a

business performs. Has it grown? Is the profit rate normal? If the answers to these

questions are affirmative, it is argued that the firm’s strategy must be sound. Despite

its unassailable simplicity, this line of reasoning misses the whole point of strategy

– that the critical factors determining the quality of current results are often not

directly observable or simply measured, and that by the time strategic opportunities

or threats do directly affect operating results it may well be too late for an

effective response. Thus strategy evaluation is an attempt to look beyond the

obvious facts regarding the short-term health of a business and appraise instead

those more fundamental factors and trends that govern success in the chosen field

of endeavour.

A strategy is a set of objectives, policies and plans that, taken together, define

the scope of the enterprise and its approach to business. Rumelt suggests that three

questions are central to the challenge of strategy evaluation:

1 Are the objectives of the business appropriate?

2 Are the major policies and plans appropriate?

3 Do the results obtained to date confirm or refute critical assumptions on which

the strategy rests?

He further suggests that strategy must satisfy four broad criteria:

• Consistency. The strategy must not present mutually inconsistent goals and

policies.

• Consonance. The strategy must represent an adaptive response to the external

environment and to the critical changes occurring within it.

• Advantage. Strategy must provide for the creation and/or maintenance of a

competitive advantage in the selected area of activity.

• Feasibility. The strategy must neither overtax available resources nor create

insoluble problems.

INTRODUCTION 17

A strategy must be evaluated against each of these criteria; if it fails to meet one

or more of them, the strategy is flawed. We will have more to say about strategy

evaluation in the chapters that follow.

The Book in Brief

Overall, the chapters that follow provide a brief history of the evolution of thinking

about strategy. In chapters 2–4 we address the microeconomic aspects of strategic

analysis, focusing on the structure of the firm’s business environment, its internal

resources and the range of strategic options open to it. In chapters 4–5 we turn

to the management process aspects of strategy, looking first of all at organizational

issues such as structure and culture, then the management of strategic change. In

chapter 7 we focus on current major debates in strategy – core competence and

management; chapter 8 consists of ten case studies which you may like to read first.

As in chapter 1, the following chapters are interspersed with examples, cases

(historical and current) and questions. There is no ‘one best way’ of strategy. There

is, therefore, no one right answer to the questions posed. Strategic management

means coping with complexity and ambiguity. The examples, illustrations and questions

are meant to foster critical thought on the issues under discussion and to

help you reflect critically on your own experience of strategy in action. Hopefully,

you will finish the book a little closer to a ‘model’ of strategic management, a way

of thinking about strategy with which you personally feel comfortable, and able to

discuss with others engaged in the same difficult but crucially important task of

improving their understanding of strategic issues facing their businesses.

EXHIBIT 1.2 STRATEGY

Inconsistency in strategy is not simply a flaw in logic. A key function of

strategy is to provide coherence to organizational action. A clear and

explicit concept of strategy can foster a climate of tacit co-ordination

that is more efficient than most administrative mechanisms. Many hightechnology

firms, for example, face a basic strategic choice between

offering high-cost products with high custom-engineering content and

lower-cost products that are more standardized and sold at higher

volume. If senior management does not enunciate a clear, consistent

sense of where the corporation stands on these issues, there will be

continuing conflict between sales, design, engineering and manufacturing

people. A clear, consistent strategy, by contrast, allows a sales

engineer to negotiate a contract with a minimum of co-ordination –

the trade-offs are an explicit part of the firm’s posture.

Source: Rumelt (1988).