Search results

This paper explains how a variety of business units within a listed corporation have tried to define their strategic capabilities, as part of a process of developing independent business strategies within the corporation's corporate strategy. This paper describes the processes by which strategic capabilities were identified in each unit, the differences and similarities between the capabilities identified at the business unit level, and their consistency (or otherwise) with an overall corporate strategic positioning.

This paper is based on the author's consulting experience with both the parent corporation and its individual business units over a period of 15 years, and most recently on an intensive relationship with one division of the corporation and its 13 business units began three years ago. An objective of these relationships has been clarifying each business unit's strategy and any basis for sustainable competitive advantage of its strategic capabilities. What emerged from this process is a set of definitions of business unit strategic capabilities which are both similar to, but in some cases different from, the corporate parent's perceptions of the strategic capabilities of its business units.

This paper describes the process by which a first representation of “strategic capabilities” emerged in each business unit. For each unit, the agreed descriptions of strategic capabilities helped guide strategic decision making and implementation and assisted each unit in clarifying its strategic positioning in its markets. However, considerable differences remain in the articulation of each unit's capabilities and in what capabilities are considered to exist in the business units.

This paper is designed to give practitioners and academics a case study through which to consider practicalities involved in articulating and operationalizing strategic capabilities in general and in defining corporate strategies in particular.

Introduces a decision framework for making strategic competitive choices beyond the product‐brand, business unit, or corporate levels of analysis. It adds a fourth dimension: the multi‐organizational strategic competitive unit which is responsible for planning and implementing competitive strategy in the global marketplace. Long‐range competitive success can no longer be achieved by a single company, and in recent years, the relevant competitive unit has shifted from the company to the larger competitive system of companies aligned in strategic collaborations for competitive advantage. For example, no longer is competition between one auto assembler and another, but between Toyota and its Keiretsu programme of global networking and strategic alliances with suppliers and other competitors against Ford and General Motors and their relative commitment to the more narrowly focused corporate competitive unit.

If strategic planning systems have failed it is because managers have failed to adapt them to the changed contexts of their businesses. Four distinct contexts are identified: Pioneer, Expand, Reorient, and Dominate. These labels are chosen to indicate the primary challenge for the business unit in each of these contexts. The contexts vary in their risk and in the adaptation and/or integration orientation that they demand of the strategic planning system. Four key elements of the strategic planning system: direction of goal setting, time‐spending patterns in planning, the relative importance of the strategic budget, and the linkage between the financial plan and the budgets, are identified. Each can be manipulated to adapt the system to suit the firm′s business context.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overarching framework to guide the understanding of the allocation and deployment of strategic human capital assets within an organization. Using the concept of medical triage with business units analogous to “patients” and their performance to “symptoms or injuries,” the framework suggests a “steal from the poor” perspective that is counter to conventional organizational decline literature.

This is a conceptual paper proposing that there are five different categories of business unit need for human capital assets: expectant, deceased, immediate, delayed or minimal; all based on the type of environment and holistic performance of the business unit. Based on a business unit’s specific situation, the authors suggest a process model guiding how to conduct a triage analysis to optimize the allocation of strategic human capital assets within an organization.

The authors argue that current trends in assessing strategic human capital assets which make comparisons across organizations are necessary but insufficient (e.g. comparing a store to other stores in its district or region). Each business unit has its own unique internal capabilities and external constraints that also must be accurately assessed to make an informed organizational-level decision about where and how to deploy strategic human capital assets.

Borrowing from medical science, this paper demonstrates a new conceptual framework with propositions for researchers and guidance for practitioners.

Corporate controls are mechanisms that corporations use to ensure that the processes and/or outcomes of their business units meet corporate expectations. Challenges in measurement of corporate controls have led many researchers to operationalize them as part of the more ambiguous corporate effects construct, instead of addressing them separately. The purpose of this paper is to examine the significance of “fit” between corporate control mechanisms and business unit strategy in performance of business units.

The authors use ordinary least squares regression analysis on data collected between 2010 and 2012 from surveys from managers of 142 Iranian corporations and 1,822 of their subsidiaries. The authors also use financial and market data collected by an IDRO division and accessed through partnership in a joint project.

The authors found that while the fit between business unit strategy and corporate controls has a significant effect on business unit financial performance, it does not have a similar effect on market performance. The findings demonstrate that when business unit managers perceive that they are subject to a balance of strategic and financial controls with a slightly greater emphasis on strategic controls, then business units have higher financial and market performance, although the difference in financial performance is not significant.

The authors find that the misfit between corporate controls and business strategies in such cases could negatively affect the performance of the business unit. However, this research also contributes to a better understanding of the importance of strategic controls to the successful performance of business units. The findings show that while the fit between controls and strategy is most critical for achieving financial performance in business units that pursue product leadership, strategic controls play a more prominent role than financial controls in achieving higher financial or market share performance for all business units.

The findings of the propositions in this research would discourage corporations with tight financial control from engaging in acquisition of businesses considered to be product leaders in their relative product markets.

Past research focusing on the fit between corporate-level factors and business-level factors and their role on business performance are largely limited to conceptual work. The limited empirical studies completed in the past generally reduce control mechanisms to lack or absence of autonomy. This shortcoming has been mainly due to difficulties in measurement of control mechanisms. The empirical study overcomes these barriers and in doing so, reveals surprising findings related to the effectiveness of different control mechanisms.

The purpose of this paper is to explore: student perceptions of threshold concepts and capabilities in postgraduate business education, and the potential impacts of intensive modes of teaching on student understanding of threshold concepts and development of threshold capabilities.

The student experience of learning was studied in two business units: strategic management, and accounting. The method involved two phases. In the first, students and unit coordinators identified and justified potential threshold concepts and capabilities. In the second, themes were rationalized.

Significantly more so in intensive mode, the opportunity to ask questions was reported by student participants to support their development of the nominated threshold capabilities. This and other factors reported by students to support their learning in intensive mode are consistent with supporting students to traverse the liminal space within the limited time available in intensive mode.

Respondents from future cohorts will address the small participant numbers. Studies in only two units are reported. Studies in other disciplines are presented elsewhere.

The findings will be important to educators using intensive mode teaching in business, and researchers working within the framework.

This is the first study to explore the potential impacts of intensive modes of teaching on student understanding of threshold concepts and development of threshold capabilities.

The major purpose of this paper is the development of a theoretical framework that can be used by corporate practitioners to understand the implicit parenting strategy of their company, assess its performance, and adjust it for improving the net corporate value creation.

In this paper, a three‐dimensional framework is developed that accounts for corporate‐to‐business and business‐to‐business interactions, value‐adding and value‐destroying activities, and strategic and operational levers. The framework is operationalized by assigning a broad set of individual activities to these levers.

The paper delivers a robust, systematic, and operational framework to assess the net benefits to a given business of being part of a corporate portfolio, and to identify and evaluate implicit parenting strategies in corporate practice. While previous studies mainly focused on broad parenting approaches with low granularity this framework now allows earlier observations to be substantiated, finer distinctions between the applied strategies to be drawn, and the core of superior value added approaches to be investigated.

The introduced framework can be used to analyze the origin and underlying drivers of conglomerate discounts and premia and thus enhance understanding of capital market valuation of multi‐business companies. The developed framework can also be the basis for the derivation of a typology of corporate parenting strategies. In this way, it can support practitioners in portfolio management – which was also the explicit motivation for the development of the original parenting advantage concept.

The outlined framework will facilitate the investigation of structural, strategic, and organizational roots of superior parenting strategies in corporate practice. It may be used to analyze performance differences of multi‐business companies that go beyond the degree of diversification and may finally contribute to solving the puzzle of the conglomerate discount.

The purpose of this study is as follows: update the 1983 survey to determine the strategic practices being used in 2020, draw conclusions on major organizational changes since the original 1984 study and recommend how leaders could use these findings to plan for strategic change.

This research updates an earlier study to learn how strategic planning and foresight are changing to cope with today’s high-tech world. The first author’s 1983 General Motors survey of “Strategic Planning in the Fortune 500” was updated by surveying 68 managers from 40 organizations to assess the current state-of-the-art. Results outline the leading edge of strategic practices today, illustrated by comments – from the respondents. Findings show a striking change from the earlier survey. Where strategic planning was formerly restricted to a top management function, respondents strongly think it should now include all units across the organization to form a bottom-up system. They also think it should extend to active participation from employees, customers, suppliers and other outside stakeholders. The main conclusion is that leaders should be developing the sophisticated systems that have been anticipated for many years but have rarely been practiced – strategic change from “the bottom up and the outside in.”

These results provide a rough assessment of the current state-of-the-art in strategic foresight.

This study is limited because the sample was not randomly selected to provide a rigorous study that permits accurate statements for a well-defined population and the sample size is modest.

The first conclusion affirms that the strategic planning cycle remains the primary theoretical framework guiding strategy. However, the planning cycle is increasingly elaborated by new practices summarized in the second two conclusions described above. As noted, the need for strategic change now cuts across all organizational functions and levels. With massive change a constant, there is a move to decentralize strategy to agile units able to move quickly and hierarchical structures are being replaced with adaptive systems and innovative cultures. Managers are also broadening their methods to facilitate planning with stakeholders. Sound sources of information are considered a must and include direct communication with diverse and dissenting voices.

While bottom-up systems and stakeholder management have been discussed endlessly, the time seems right to move these powerful concepts from the leading edge that remains marginalized and into the mainstream of strategic foresight and management practice. Scholars and researchers should evaluate the level of participation in these models, their effectiveness and possible improvements. Strategic managers should start implementing these changes carefully, rather than introducing emerging technologies, advanced products and other organizational changes.

This study replicates a landmark survey of Strategic Planning in the Fortune 500. Results show that organizations should now implement crucial changes to operate from the bottom up and the outside in.

Once a build, hold, or harvest strategy has been adopted for a business, how does the corporation ensure its implementation? The answers range from decentralizing strategic planning to tying the compensation system to successful plan implementation.