Search results
1 – 10 of 23In his new book Better, Simpler Strategy: A Value-Based Guide to Exceptional Performance, Felix Oberholzer-Gee offers business leaders and strategists guidance on a basic idea…
Abstract
Purpose
In his new book Better, Simpler Strategy: A Value-Based Guide to Exceptional Performance, Felix Oberholzer-Gee offers business leaders and strategists guidance on a basic idea: unless an initiative creates value for customers, employees or suppliers, it is a waste of time and resources.
Design/methodology/approach
In this interview with S&L contributing editor Brian Leavy, Prof. Felix Oberholzer-Gee explains: “All you need to ask is, ‘Can my organization create differentiated value, can we raise customer willingness-to-pay (WTP) or lower employee and supplier willingness-to-sell (WTS)?’”.
Findings
Value-based strategy is “back-to-basics” in the sense that the approach insists on value creation as the foundation for every activity in the business.
Practical/implications
A comprehensive understanding of employees’ work lives is likely to reveal many chances to create value.
Originality/value
The interview explains why and how firms should seek to exceed expectations where it counts, and sustain excellence by diverting resources from lower-ranked value drivers.
Joseph P.H. Fan, Jun Huang, Felix Oberholzer‐Gee, Troy D. Smith and Mengxin Zhao
The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic comparison of the level of business diversification in China and eight other large economies for the 2001‐2005 period. The…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic comparison of the level of business diversification in China and eight other large economies for the 2001‐2005 period. The reasons why publicly listed Chinese firms are more diversified than companies elsewhere are investigated.
Design/methodology/approach
Data were collected on the number of business segments in which publicly traded companies operate from the Thomson One Banker database and analyzed using non‐parametric tests and regression analysis.
Findings
The mean number of business segments per firm varies significantly by country. Notably, there is no evidence in the authors' sample that emerging‐market companies are systematically more diversified than their developed‐market counterparts. In most countries, firms have become less diversified over time. However, there is no such trend in China. The level of diversification of Chinese enterprises does not vary over the authors' study period (2001‐2005), making Chinese firms the most diversified in the sample by 2005. China's growth rate does not seem to explain the higher level of firm diversification. However, the authors find that Chinese state‐owned enterprises (SOEs) diversify their operations more aggressively than other Chinese firms.
Research limitations/implications
Ownership data and business group affiliations were not available for all firms in the sample, making it difficult to control for these effects across economies. The study's findings are limited to publicly traded firms.
Practical implications
Government involvement in SOEs may be contributing to a divergence in the pattern of business diversification between China and other economies.
Originality/value
This paper quantifies anecdotal evidence that Chinese firms are more diversified than similar firms in other countries.
Details
Keywords
There are few concepts in the modern business lexicon where people feel as strongly confident in their understanding of its meaning – while there is simultaneously such profound…
Abstract
Purpose
There are few concepts in the modern business lexicon where people feel as strongly confident in their understanding of its meaning – while there is simultaneously such profound disagreement in how people actually define the term – than the concept of “strategy.” After decades of research and publications trying to correct this situation, the problem remains. It is difficult to advance the field, teach the field, or even effectively put it into practice if you cannot define what “it” is in a clear, concise, and meaningful way. This paper offers updated definitions of key strategic management concepts.
Design/methodology/approach
A large academic and practitioner literature review was added to the author’s personal experience as a Fortune 500 chief strategy officer and university professor to identify five separate concepts at the heart of current colloquial uses of the term “strategy.” These concepts were then clarified and defined with implications summarized.
Findings
The generic term “strategy” is frequently used in place of multiple other very distinct concepts. This problem of concept ambiguity can be greatly reduced by understanding and emphasizing the definitions and usage of five other, already existing, business terms – “Strategic Management,” “Strategic Planning Process,” “Strategic Plan,” “Realized Strategy,” and “Business Model.”
Originality/value
This paper identifies the negative effects of the misuse of the term strategy and offers clear, concise remedies. Resolving the definition problems is a necessary precursor to the advancement, education, and practice of the field.
Details