stratman HB p. 68 wicked shittles .. Mason & Mitroff ( & Rittel) 2.

1 what executives want to do Finally-ethical ~could do~should do(4th element, what are 1st~3rd?) components of strategy: a~d a)market opportunity b)corporate competence & resources c)personal values and aspirations d) acknowledged obligations to segments of society,, other than stockholders... !Importance of trade-offs (see 1.2) again THE IMPLENtation of strategy 2 tendencies: strategy->structure((logical)) structure->strategy(reality) keyword: Interdependence (of formulation and implementation) CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION judging strategy? CLEAR, (words or in practice) (silence is better than empty commitment (saying something you wont really do) keywords: must be EXPLICIT and SPECIFIC EXPLOIT OPPORTUNITIES, market opportunityorganizational development So companies should optimize market opportunity exploitation, or face death by competition. To accomplish this the company should continue developing itself?? Seems too straight forward but ok STRATEGY NEEDS TO FIT (core) COMPETENCES AND RESOURCES, PRESENT AND (near) FUTURE STRATEGY NEEDS TO FIT with all parts of the company (compatibility) RISK level of strategy should FIT resources AND temperament of the managers strategy should fit BETWEEN ALL KEY MANAGERS of the company strategy should fit CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (NL: MVO) profile of the company strategy should be BOLD in order to FIRE UP employees TIME will tell if strategy is good enough, even if all above 'test' are taken into account, the market may not respond. Resources/planning will dictate when the strategy should be aborted.

483-500 (THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT -- THE ISSUE OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEADERSHIP=getting your people to follow you manager =! leader leader=! manager manager simply has formal position&power Sources of leadership influence 2 main sources of power: position power=formalized(position in hierarchy) personal power=character,knowledge,skills,relationships Further categories of power: positional: Legitimate: assign work,spend money, demand info Coercive:punish/withhold rewards reward: praise, wage raises, promotion personal(+subjective): expert: knowledge/skills referent: charisma,(likeableness, forcefulness,persuasiveness,visionary qualities,image of success levers of leadership influence Throughput control: direct influence (hands-on, by suggesting,engaging discussion, set example, telling what to do)[requires: knowledge][High impact,low leverage] Output control: set target objectives/deadlines Input control: set/shape general conditions: who,teams,where,resources,relationships,support,inspire[Low impact,high leverage] arenas of leadership influence political:(power dispersed throughout organization)Top needs to form coalition of managers in order to move organization in desired direction... if not: danger of all facing different direction=no direction at all. "Political arena is where the game is at" Cultural:Culture~belief~behaviour, Danger of being rusted into old culture/habits must be avoided and the leader-who is usually infused in the current corporate culture must always look beyond for an alternative (and better) culture... when found, he must also implement the new culture which requires guiding his flock. Keywords when guiding: rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, symbolic actions, motivational incentives, subtle pressure. Psychological: ~individuals, leader must win hearts and minds of his flock...trust, respect..give flock certainty, clarity, continuity..take away uncertainty ambiguity discontinuity.. THE PARADOX OF CONTROL AND CHAOS Cannot control everything-worker autonomy is vital for creativity~experimentation~development balance between: top-down imposition & bottom-up initiative (Control vs/& chaos)

The demand for top management control Control is required to steer organization in the direction of the demands of the environment STRATEGIC control vs OPERATIONAL control OPERATIONAL: control over activities in the system STRAT: control over the system itself the demand for organizational chaos chaos~disorganized/Unfreezed state (greiner?) hope that it leads to: innovations, and > self-organization Soviet command economy (control, visible hand) vs. market economy(chaos,invisible hand) comparisson SKIPPED SHORT CASE PERSPECTIVES ON THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT (at least)Two perspectives: organizational leadership & organizational dynamics (Not sure which is meant with "modern" , "new" "21st cent.." , but im guessing dynamics.. or a mix) The organizational leadership perspective Comparisson of organization to human body... illness must be cured, or even better, prevented by healthy (and strong) leadership. "Leadership is required, without it, organization will decay" nature/nurture HOWEVER, not just simply top-down.. indirect control, bottom-up proposals allowed, top has final say. delegation possible, but set clear goals. YET, control must be maintained, will must be imposed.. structure/organization follows strategy SKIPPED EXHIBIT The organizational dynamics perspective The strong leader that moulds an organization at will is but fiction. Due to~everybody likes the IDEA that someone is in CONTROL (both manager as the managed) "manager=cowboy who herds stubborn mules" importance of politics&culture leaders power=limited options: squeeze tighter // let go (outcomes are obvious, right?)[let go in positive light] So the remaining task for the manager: encourage empowerment, stimulate learning and innovation, bring people together, take away bureacucreatic hurdles. ~Government market economy (vs Soviet comparisson above) In other words: the manager should get to know people, have them exploit their strenghts to the max and create relationships to overcome weaknesses. SKIPPED EXHIBIT

INTRO to DEBATE Skimmed.. some different viewsbut more of the same really

WEEK TWEE P 236 BUSINESS LEVEL STRATEGY Introduction Strategic management=> firm~environment=>long term objectives (SWOT) SUSTAIN COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE The issue of competitive advantage Resources=input, activities=throughput, product/service=output for competitive advantage, output must have: PRODUCT OFFERING: 1)target specific market segment 2)superior mix of attributes 3)not just offer, also actually supply the offered product VALUE CHAIN (adds value) RESOURCE BASE: skills, resources, etc. Having a unique element helps, but all 3 must be aligned for efficiency Product offering Market rule, specialization.. If fail to specialize, problems: Low economies of scale low efficiency Slow organizational learning Slow acquirement of knowledge and capabilities Unclear brand image you dont stand out if you supply everything.. (P&G as a brand less known than its sub-brands?) Unclear corporate image Unclear internal picture.. cant explain why its people are together in the same company.. High organizational complexity Many products, many divisions etc, complex, high overhead specialization=more simple

Limits to flexibility Forced into certain choices due to operational necessity -Market segments/environments are vague/messy Delineating industries Similarities: Product (simplest) Activities Resources Economic statisticians use product similarity// Strategists use multiple Rethinking the definition of an industry can be a powerful way to develop a unique product offering value system/chain (more complex in reality than depicted) Focus on tangible, neglecting intangible Segmenting markets Demand side similarity (all want same product, not specified yet) market segment (multiple products serving toward the same end (->alternatives, competition, choices, preferences) BUYER ATTRIBUTES, objective and easily available, but cannot tell what the person really needs/wants What people really want: this information is hard to get by Defining and selecting businesses Business usually fits within only a small part of an industry Specialize in two ways: Selecting a limited number of businesses with use of structure of a business (See Porters 5 forces model) Focusing within each selected business =specialization/focus Positioning within a business Where&how to compete Focus types: Broad, segment, product, niche (large to small)

Competitive advantage arena: Price Straight forward

Features requires something unique Bundling computer packages from same company: compatibility, also: combine various services.. but this is getting rarer and rarer in reality Quality Stronger, Faster, Lighter, More Durablebut probably more expensive Availability At the right place, at the right time. Image When information is lacking, people tend to blindly trust the image they have of a business Relations Play with peoples feelings and build unfounded trust.. does sometimes require spending more on customer relations. Porter: -Cannot usually do both PRICE/COST focus and QUALITY at the same time Three generic competitive advantages by Treacy & Wiersema: Operational excellence lean&mean, low cost, simple service Product leadership special features, special performance, Customer intimacy tailored to buyer, flexibility, close to the customer -Others: No generic competitive advantages.. endless variety.Keep looking Activity system =The value chain Again, competitive advantage can be gained here: silly people think Dell gives them an advantage because they think they can choose/customize more etc PRIMARY ACTIVITIES: creation production/service+aftersales: Inbound logistics (nearly) Everything having to do with supplies to create the product (including warehouse stuff etc)

Operations transformation of supplies to product (including testing etc.) Outbound logistics Marketing and sales Service SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: supply the system: Procurement Softer stuff : Vendor selection, negotiations etc.. to do with purchasing inputs Technology development Human resource management Firm infrastructure general management, planning, finance, accounting, legal, gov affairs, quality management -Unique and strong configuration of activity system = strong competitive advantage, which is difficult to imitate. p.255 The outside-in perspective Look at environment first = positioning approach.. Reading 5.1 COMPETITIVE STRATEGY PORTER(p273) -attractiveness of industries Long term Profit (environment) -relative competitive position (stay ahead of others/competition) ->require balance between the two, stays dynamic THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIES Five competitive forces: new entrants, substitutes, buyer power, supplier power, rivalry New strategies can be a double-edged sword Long-term effects of strategy is often overlooked Better to improve/protect (entire) industry structure than just look for own competitive advantage..

Industry structure and buyer needs blablah balance Industry structure and the supply/demand balance more of the same GENERIC COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES low cost or differentiation.. again SO MUCH REPETITION IN THIS BOOK WTF COST LEADERSHIP skiperdepip DIFFERENTIATION skippy is dead FOCUS suboptimusprime can be taken advantage of. so can no shit Sherlock STUCK IN THE MIDDLE inconsistency killed your puppy PURSUIT OF MORE THAN ONE GENERIC STRATEGY skim off the top, but dont get stuck in the middle, not even like a boss.. SUSTAINABILITY =barriers that make imitation of the strategy difficult

WEEK DRIE 257-263 THE INSIDE-OUT PERSPECTIVE Companys strengths>external opportunities Competences>physical assets (more difficult to copy than physical assets) Should focus competences, instead of acchi-kocchi market shift-based competence building -competences double edged sword: difficult to unlearn

EXHIBIT 5.3 SKIPPED INTRO TO THE DEBATE AND READINGS Strategy, DIY Porter=generic strategies is a must (diff,cost,focus) note:reading 5.2, asymmetries=resources keypoints: discover potential of resources/skills, glue skills together, hone skills in practice George Day: nooo outside-in dudes, dont forgets about le market research beink inside-out yo This is all so obvious idiosyncracy=~uniqueness//trait Reading 5.4 FIRM RESOURCES AND SUSTAINED COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, JAY BARNEY (p290) Keyword: sustained competitive advantage; resources ->Porter 5 forces (NOTE THAT BARNEY ALSO SIMPLIFIES: see Priem&Butler 2001) simplifies: 1) assumes firms are identical(resources,strategies) 2)if firms get different (heterogeneity) resources (to compete) other firms will quickly catch on and use those too (short lived) On the other hand -> Resource-based view 1)heterogeneity is seen as POSSIBLE 2)and NOT (perfectly) MOBLE ACROSS FIRMS and thus DURABLE DEFINING KEY CONCEPTS Firm resources =Assets, capabilities, org. processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge. Etc -> physical capital resources; human cap res; organizational cap res how the above->comp advantage?=topic Competitive advantage and sustained competitive advantage ok

COMPETITION WITH HOMOGENEOUS AND PERFECTLY MOBILE RESOURCES Resource homogeneity and mobility and sustained competitive advantage Not possible to enjoy sustained competitive advantage. (cannot develop strat that other firm cannot also develop) HOWEVER, see below Resource homogeneity and mobility and first-mover advantages First-moving firm can make standing relations with distribution channels, customers, &good reputation. (however, first-mover already has advantage, and is therefore not equal from the onset: they were NOT homogeneous but heterogeneous) Resource homogeneity and mobility and entry/mobility barriers Argument is not valid according to Barney: these barriers are only sources of sustained competitive advantage if firms were HETEROGENEOS to begin with concerning resources. FIRM RESOURCES AND SUSTAINED COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE For resources to have the potential to provide sustained competitive advantage: valuable: exploits &/or neutralizes threats rare among current&potential competition imperfectly imitable NO substitutes Valuable resources ok Rare resources ok Imperfectly imitable resources ok Unique historical conditions and imperfectly imitable resources Historical/temporal factor of a firm is important unique historical events as determinants of firms long-term performance Casual ambiguity and imperfectly imitable resources Link between resources & sut.comp.adv not understood ~managers often dont know the source of their advantage~

Social complexity Ok note:complex physical technology is usually imitable..(but the knowledge/relations about usage makes the difference) Substitutability Rare/imperfectly imitable stuff may not lead to a sustained competitive advantage THE FRAMEWORK Ok lol

READING 6.2 331-339 THE CORE COMPETENCE OF THE CORPORATION Prahalad & Hamel ok RETHINKING THE CORPORATION Principles of management need reform THE ROOTS OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE Core competencies are held back because of concept corporation in the West. Strength comes from core competences, NOT end-products harmonize.. let all actors know what the customer needs.. core competences enhance over time.. but need to be nurtured and protected.. fades if not used. need to connect SBUs products, think of what core competence forms those products, and continue to build on those HOW NOT TO THINK OF COMPETENCE Hard to imagine the diverse range of end-products as outcome of core competencies Shouldnt analyze end-products, but should look at how core competencies are created/maintained etc Building core competencies is not the same as investing a lot in R&D.. IDENTIFYING CORE COMPETENCIES AND LOSING THEM How? 1) enables potential access to diverse markets 2) contributes to the customers benefits of the end product (quality\cost) 3) difficult to imitate Need to build core competencies by letting people build skills, outsourcing production line will counteract this Do not throw away a line of products which holds a core compentency~

Cannot skip technological advancement steps.. must keep up with the competition and keep building competencies. FROM CORE COMPETENCIES TO CORE PRODUCTS ok THE TYRANNY OF THE SBU ok Underinvestment in developing core competencies and core products ok Imprisoned resources SBUs hoard core companies (in the form of people with skills) Not enough is invested in managing people, compared to simple (financial) resources Bounded innovation ok DEVELOPING STRATEGIC ARCHITECTURE =tool for communicating with customers&other external constituents. Revels broad direction w/o giving away every step. -long term -difficult to imitate REDEPLOYING TO EXPLOIT COMPETENCIES Redeploying should be done by corporate management not SBUs management as long as it profits all

WEEK 4 strategische marketing Reading 5.4 p 283-290 THE CAPABILITIES OF MARKET-DRIVEN ORGANIZATIONS GEORGE DAY Customer first know the customer & environment use skills to create value for customer CLASSIFYING CAPABILITIES Need a match between customer desires and firm capabilities THE ROLE OF SPANNING CAPABILITIES Ok.. both outside-in as well as inside-out, working together MARKET SENSING AS A DISTINCIVE CAPABILITY Anticipate.. OPEN-MINDED ENQUIRY Market-driven use the following to better sense the (market) environment:
Active scanning Front line people Self-critical benchmarking Market-driven study only the best not just (direct) competitors Continuous experimentation and improvement Bruce Lee Informed imitation

Study direct competitors successes in terms of performance, features.. less on outcome

SYNERGISTIC INFORMATION DISTRUBUTION

Low cross-flow inside firm.. similar to SBUs shield/barriering knowledge/skills in the form of people.. and they dont want to share On the other hand, market-driven does not have this issue (as much?)
MUTUALLY INFORMED INTERPRETATIONS

If people think incorrect things, incorrect things will happen if not, such as in market driven blablabla
ACCESSIBLE MEMORY

CUSTOMER LINKING AS A DISTINCTIVE CAPABILITY Supplier->firm is much like firm->consumer.. work together, know eachother..
CLOSE COMMUNICATION AND JOINT PROBLEM SOLVING

ok
COORDINATING ACTIVITIES

Good connection with customer.. sometimes not depends on customer DEVELOPING THE CAPABILITIES OF MARKET-DRIVEN ORGANIZATIONS Change from internal to market driven is difficult.. requires cultural shift.. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS What

READING 6.1 p. 325-331 STRATEGY AND THE BUSINESS PORTFOLIO BARRY HEDLEY OK THINK about table p326 THE BUSINESS PORTFOLIO CONCEPT Economy of scale advantage? experience curve insert money, get more money back? THE GROWTH SHARE MATRIX Stars Keep high share, even if it means getting low margins, or having to invest at lot Cash cows Ok they are the foundation bro Dogs kill Question marks

Either invest a lot, gain share, thus making it into a star (and then cash cow) .. or kill it before it becomes a dog PORTFOLIO STRATEGY Do not invest in cash cows but use that money to invest in stars (make sure cash cow managers do not cry) question marks take priority after stars THE MATRIX QUANTIFIED Picture circles size.. position blah PORTFOLIO APPROACHES IN PRACTICE Example analyzed for filling space=bla THE SOUND PORTFOLIO, UNSOUNDLY MANAGED Businesses do not apply strategies suggested in this text to identified firms (dogs, cash cows etc) but apply a common/same goal to all their firms.. which sucks THE UNBALANCED PORTFOLIO Mistake illustrated

WEEK 5 college 1 Reading 8.1 445-450 INDUSTRY EVOLUTION M. PORTER Have to keep in mind that industries change over time.. basically BASIC CONCEPTS IN INDUSTRY EVOLUTION Difficult to predict what will happen, but you must THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE You can use the product life cycle yes but.. criticisms: durations of cycles for different products varies DUH sometimes it skips maturity.. and sometimes it revitalizes and sometimes w/e companies can exhibit control over the cycle different across industries mmhk so product life cycle cannot safely be used as a guide A FRAMEWORK FOR FORECASTING EVOLUTION Initial structure.. (usually slow) -> potential structure EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES Ok.. different in diff industries KEY RELATIONSHIPS IN INDUSTRY EVOLUTION Changes usually mean more changes..

WILL THE INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATE? Consolidation does not always occur? Sometimes firms dont get stronger INDUSTRY CONCENTRATION AND MOBILITY BARRIERS MOVE TOGETHER Larger get larger, more difficult to enter, smaller die off sooner or later NO CONCENTRATION TAKES PLACE IF MOBILITY BARRIERS ARE LOW OR FALLING When times are bad, firms exit, when it gets better, firms enter (even if product maturity is reached..) EXIT BARRIERS DETER CONSOLIDATION Airlines.. need to stay in due to investments.. but make little if anything

LONG-RUN PROFIT POTENTIAL DEPENDS ON FUTURE STRUCTURE Invested in this star, .. if high barriers, cash cow, if low barriers, question mark or even dog.. CHANGES IN INDUSTRY BOUNDARIES Things change FIRMS CAN INFLUENCE INDUSTRY STRUCTURE As title says and firms should use that to their advantage

READING 8.4 P.468 BLUE OCEAN STRATEGY KIM & MAUBORGNE Look at what customers want create new target market with the same kind of product, but innovated red oceans: industries today (mature/commodities) .. bloody water blue oceans: new fresh- demand is created (usually created from WITHIN a red ocean) BLUE AND RED OCEANS Blue oceans = engine of growth (get thought up all the time btw) red oceans = shrinking (mature & declining/EOL) differentiation becomes harder? THE PARADOX OF STRATEGY Industries stay in red oceans because they like competing ..? like military blue is about there not being competition focus on competition in literature ignores: finding NEW markets & exploiting&protecting those TOWARD BLUE OCEAN STRATEGY

Blue oceans are not about technology innovation Tech only sometimes used to create blue oceans, Incumbents often create blue oceans and usually within their core business Create blue oceans Within red oceans Company and industry are the wrong units of analysis Industries rise and fall, make sure to create(strategic move) blue ocean before it falls

Creating blue oceans builds brands Blue ocean move makes a brands name be remembered(.. in a good way) key is NOT R&D, but strategic moves THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS Blue ocean creators DO NOT BENCHMARK THEMSELVES TO COMPETITORS (they do not directly compete anyway) Cirque: times change, look at what customers want, but go BEYOND (innovate) and create something new, in this case by adding theatre added effect: every experience stays unique? BARRIERS TO IMITATION Blue ocean has unique start.. and already economy of scale.. and eBay: the larger the network, the better the business.. =higher barrier.. cognitive barrier: Brand name&loyal followers A CONSISTENT PATTERN Example Ford model T+Cirque not direct competitor differentiation AND cost leader at the same time (only possible when there is no direct~ competition eh?)

WEEK 5 COLLEGE 2 NETWORK LEVEL STRATEGY P. 365-376 INTRODUCTION Also network to environment THE ISSUE OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS Relation with who.. and why..and what..and how..(discussed below) RELATIONAL ACTORS (who) ok Upstream vertical (supplier) relations ok Downstream vertical (buyer) relations ok Direct horizontal (industry insider) relations Ok (competitors) Indirect horizontal (industry outsider) relations Software~hardware rel. or if a firm wants to diversify.. -indirect and direct horizontal is often blurry Socio-cultural actors Media, community groups, charities etc Economic actors Banks, tax, stock Political/legal actors Governments, political parties.. Technological actors Universities.. research institutes, patent offices.. THE ABOVE ARE REFERRED TO AS EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS

RELATIONAL OBJECTIVES (why) Ok ppl have different objectives RELATIONS ORIENTED TOWARDS LEVERAGING RESOURCES Work together to improve quantity/quality of RESOURCES Learning Get know-how Lending This is just trading wtf RELATIONS ORIENTATED TOWARDS INTEGRATING ACTIVITIES integrate Linking Buyer~seller link Lumping Create Economy of scale together RELATIONS ORIENTED TOWARDS ALIGNING POSITIONS

Learning Two (or more) firms come together to improve position (relative to 3rd) Lobbying Two (or more) come together to influence/pressure political/government/public RELATIONAL FACTORS (what)

Legitimacy Codes of conduct.. fairness.. trust Urgency

Timing.. urgent or relaxed cooperation Frequency One night stand or get to know each other well Power He Who has more power.. sets the rules Closeness of relationship (loose / tight) vs Power (balanced / unbalanced): a)mutual independence low influence.. both can do what you want b)unbalanced independence one more power both independent, but the more powerful one more independent..lol c)mutual dependence tight relationship = interdependence d)unbalanced dependence domination RELATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS (how) Market system intermediate forms between markets & hierarchies=networks, partnerships, alliances.continuous handshake networks/work togethers have advantages (and combine market with hierarchy) win=co-specialization (synergy, avoids dependency) virtual corporations, trust & mutual interest, while retain individuality.. relationships gets better and moves beyond contract.. Also possible that weakness of both are combined! (hierarchy=bureaucracy & balance of power may shift to one side, and alas, dependency Be careful, be clear, communicate. Make contract THE PARADOX OF COMPETITION AND COOPERATION KLM& Northwest example.. alliances both cooperative & competitive THE DEMAND FOR INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL COMPETITION

One wins, one loses..(wow this is so in contrast to the Cirque reading) gotta get the power and be independent to win THE DEMAND FOR INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL COOPERATION Both sides need each other to succeed.. interdependence.. long-term cooperation wins.. but trust is required & coordination & conflict-resolution mechanisms (see Toyota)

READING 7.2 P.394-402 CREATING A STRATEGIC CENTRE TO MANAGE A WEB OF PARTNERS LORENZONI & BADEN-FULLER STRATEGIC CENTRE of a web of alliances creates value for partners is leader, rule setter, capability builder structures and strategizes THE ROLE OF THE STRATEGIC CENTRE

Strategic outsourcing Create huge web, more than normal, by outsourcing Capability Make them all share Technology Borrow and share Competition Encourage rivalry, so everyone learns faster faster fasterrrr FROM SUBCONTRACTING TO STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING Not just we ask them to do this.. demand more.. quality.. DEVELOPING THE COMPETENCIES OF THE PARTNERS Usually unbalanced alliances.. Benetton and apple share skills BORROWING-DEVELOPING-LENDING NEW IDEAS

Borrow=buy, develop=integrate, lend=exploit -> grow by getting from another other than that much like Toyota article PERCEPTIONS OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS Common purpose..ok BEYOND THE HOLLOW ORGANIZATION Strategic centre: Even though outsources, it is not hollow. they have critical core competencies (see Toyota) The idea vision The investment Brand image, systems, support The climate trust The partners Attracting and selecting the best SHARING A BUSINESS IDEA Clear strategic intent/vision(dynamic, according to environment) spread out across suppliers. learning culture.. success->clarity->success BRAND POWER AND OTHER SUPPORT Brand=shared resource open & free communication TRUST AND RECIPROCITY Tight relationship each part must perform.. and go beyond PARTNER SELECTION Careful selection..good match in terms of: management system, decision processes, perspectives.. :CULTURAL FIT SIMULTANEOUS STRUCTURING AND STRATEGIZING

Win= novel combinations (innovation?) networks can be thought of as a higher stage of alliances.. tighterly working together bla usually.. non network joint ventures n stuff do not see the cooperations as in-group, but outgroup.. in network//strategic center it is in-group MARKETING AND INFORMATION SHARING Explicit and tacit knowledge is shared.. network=open sharing others: guard (propriety) information/knowledge LEARNING RACES Partners, common goal, who reaches it first, gets a cookie need guidance though.. CONCLUSIONS =summary

READING 1.4 P. 40-48 CULTURAL CONSTRAINTS IN MANAGEMENT THEORIES- HOFSTEDE

FROM DON ARMADOS LOVE TO TAYLORS SCIENCE

GERMANY

JAPAN

FRANCE

HOLLAND

THE OVERSEAS CHINESE

MANAGEMENT TRANSFER TO POOR COUNTRIES

RUSSIA AND CHINA

A THEORY OF CULTURE IN MANAGEMENT

IDIOSYNCRASIES OF AMERICAN MANAGEMENT THEORIES

THE STRESS ON MARKET PROCESSES

THE STRESS ON THE INDIVIDUAL

THE STRESS ON MANAGERS RATHER THAN WORKERS

CONCLUSION

Week 6 stakeholderbenadering CSR(MVO).. etc READING 11.2 623-628 - STOCKHOLDERS AND STAKEHOLDERS: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FREEMAN & REED CHANCE! Stockholder->stakeholder THE STAKEHOLDER CONCEPT Different concepts of what to do with stakeholders.. and what they encompass.. background.. own definition: The wide sense of stakeholder Any all influence The narrow sense of stakeholder Org is dependent on Generalize the marketing approach- to stakeholders establish negotiation processes: get info, use it, about stakeholders establish a decision philosophy: pre-emptive strike opposition groups allocate organizational resources: more for what top stakeholders find important Different actors have different, new, locations in the stakeholder grid STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS AND CORPORATE DEMOCRACY Corporate democracy

READING 11.4 640-649 WHOSE COMPANY IS IT? THE CONCEPT OF THE CORPORATION IN JAPAN AND THE WEST YOSHIMORI Monistic=corporations belongs to shareholders (US, UK) dualistic= shareholder & employees (germany ..(..france)) pluralistic=all stakeholders (Japan) KEY IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIFFERENT APPROACHES Everyone in the network works toward common goal Drucker: weahtlh maximizing capacity Porter: a greater community of interest , quasi integration president of company role= defender of job security & mediator(arbitrator)

anglo-american use a zero-sum game (all parties fight each other to maximize their own objectives)

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FIRM AND ITS MAIN BANK What do you think a bank does, add information center and safety net in case of takeovers main banks (in japan) can also help reform a company (even send its own executives) A JAPAN-US COMPARISON OF STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS

TOYO KOGYO (Mazda) Sumitomo bank acted as guardian angel, (but also replaced the mazda president) but still very nice nice CHRYSLER Distrust and hatred.. government intervention (help) was required LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON BANKS IN THE UNITED STATES Transparent and fair etc but lots of distrust and competition THE ROLES OF THE GERMAN HAUSBANK Hausbank more like Japanese main bank(s).. more like insurance .. does not get involved in reorganizations/management THE FLAWS IN THE JAPANESE CONCEPT OF THE CORPORATION No control over top management (other than through product market) -> risky (yet, Japanese managers earn less and desire less?) RITUALIZED GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS Least effective.. mere formality.. decisions take place beforehand.. LIMITED MONITORING POWER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD Board chairman = Symbolic position (half-retired position (old ex-presidents)) BOARD MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT & Pledge allegiance to him.. so much for supervision of him! BOARDS ARE TOO LARGE

Because board membership is often a reward for faithful service title is useful to obtain business from other major customers (so its a motivation & marketing tool) INEFFECTIVE STATUTORY AUDITORS Statutory auditors make sure management decisions are not in conflict with the law and companys interests (so protect company and stakeholders) etc they have power, but only on paper, never use it. again: SELECTED BY THE PRESIDENT (57%; 33% by directors/committee) FLAWED CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN THE WEST Even worse CEO is board chairman + dependence of outside directors on CEO CEO/CHAIRMAN DUALITY USA, UK, AND FRANCE chairman marks his own papers even in Germany, where legislation forbids members of one board to be a member of anotherthe management board often influences the supervisory board LACK OF NEUTRALITY OF OUTSIDE DIRECTORS USA AND EUROPE

MULTIPLE DIRECTORSHIPS USA AND EUROPE Have a position on multiple boards in multiple firms they dont have enough time.. to monitor all those areas.. and lack in-depth knowledge as outside directors (in other firms/companies) WHICH SYSTEM WILL WIN OUT? Pluralistic: Those that value stakeholders (plurastic, japan) also fairer sharing of risk!! monistic concept: employees more risk! APPLICABILITY OF THE PLURALISTIC CONCEPT Not unique to Japan.. AEG (german) and GE (US) 1950s +EMERGING CONVERGENCE All concepts (monoistic , dualistic and pluralistic) have pros and cons .. but they are influencing each other, removing cons.. JAPAN (+germany) Moving toward more openness&transparency (as in US/UK concept) + shareholder + short term.. long term employment is being removed merit>seniority etc etc

USA Stakeholders are taken into account more.. long term relations are being introduced GERMANY Law against insider trading top less powerful? CONCLUSION Moving toward democratization of corporations