BA 388T - Strategic Management - Jemison - 02320

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENTTEXAS EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM

FALL 2011

Professor David B. JemisonCBA 3.232 Telephone [email protected]

Texts: Porter, Michael E. Competitive Strategy. (New York: Free Press, l998).

Course Description

Perspective and ThemesThis course is about the creation and maintenance of a long-term vision for the organization.

This means that it is concerned with both the determination of strategic direction and the management of the strategic process. As such, it deals with the analytical, behavioral, and creative aspects of business simultaneously.

The course is organized around six themes in strategic management: the role of the general manager, the components of business strategy, corporate strategy development, divisional-level strategy development, managing strategic change, and the development of general managers.

Our perspective in this course is that of the leader whose responsibility is the long-term health of the entire firm or a major division. The key tasks involved in general management include the detection of and adaptation to environmental change; the procurement and allocation of resources; the integration of activities across subparts of the organizations; and, at the most senior levels, the determination of purpose and the setting of corporate direction.

General managers, from our perspective, are managers who are in the position to make strategic decisions for the firm. Note that such managers are not “generalists” in the sense that they need to know a little bit of everything, but not very much of anything. To be effective, general managers need to have in-depth understanding of the generic problems in all the relevant functional areas. Furthermore, they must be able to deal with problems and issues at the level of the total enterprise and its relationships with relevant external environments.

Functional specialists can benefit from the general management perspective even though they may not be general managers. Every function’s actions should be coordinated with the overall needs of the business. In fact, functional specialists are the people on whom general managers must rely to implement their strategies. Since such functional managers can be subject to suboptimizing pressure, they too need to understand the general manager’s perspective.

Components of the Course

The pervasive concept in this course is that of strategy. We will start our study of strategy at the business level and examine the challenges of managing a firm competing in a single industry. An integral part of this study will be an exploration of the components of strategy and how they vary among various settings and situations. In most large and medium-sized firms, corporate strategy is different from business strategy because of the multiplicity of businesses in which the firm is involved. We will explore the differences in corporate and business-level (or divisional-level) strategies and the requirements each places on managers at different levels in the firm. At each level of strategy, competitive strategy considerations will be considered.

Successful general managers are highly competent in problem identification and analysis and have a strong action orientation. One purpose of this course is to provide an environment that will allow you to hone these skills, while at the same time gain a conceptual understanding of the strategic manager’s task.

Strategic management is more than analysis. To be sure, strategic analysis is a major part of this course, and we will explore and apply several analytical techniques for positioning a firm or a business unit within a competitive environment. But strategic analyses are complicated by the trade-offs inherent in any situation. These trade-offs reflect the fact that organizations consist of many players with multiple, competing objectives. When dealing with these trade-offs, general managers must confront the judgmental issues involved in establishing organizational purpose and balancing economic and noneconomic objectives. To the extent possible in each class, we will attempt to balance these trade-offs and to test our ideas about the appropriate relationships among them.

Finally, strategic management requires moving beyond analysis and trade-offs into the realm of strategic action. Once the analytical problem of selecting a business or corporate strategy has been dealt with, we should know what to do. Knowing how to execute the selected strategy is essential to success. To the extent possible in each case, we will concern ourselves with the various combinations of systems (for example, information, control, reward, etc.), organization structures, and people necessary to execute a given strategy. We will test our ideas about the relationships between strategy and these other elements as we proceed through the course.

General Flow of the Course

The assignments are detailed in a later section. Please read through them to get an idea of the specific content of the course and each class meeting.

In general, we will start with single-business or dominant-business companies and proceed to multiple-business companies. Similarly, we will begin with basic techniques of analysis and then expand and modify them to fit a range of situations. We will examine many sectors of the economy (for example basic industries, consumer products, service businesses, hybrids). As we proceed through the course, the classes and cases used in them will “build” on each other in such a way that the knowledge and skills gained in analyzing one session can be used in subsequent cases. Throughout the course we will maintain our concern with both analysis and implementation.

Required Readings

One book is required for the course and most of its chapters will be assigned. Porter’s Competitive Strategy provides a framework for examining the ways in which industry choice and structure affect strategic decisions. Our readings and discussions will help us understand how firms evolve under the impetus of competition, technology, government action, and other major contextual forces. This in turn requires a deep understanding of the functional strategies associated with marketing, operations, finance, and human resources. Thus, you will need to bring what you have learned in other courses and your career to bear in Strategic Management. Part of our challenge in this course will be to integrate these functional strategies into overall business-level and corporate-level strategies and to concern ourselves deeply with the implementation of the chosen strategies.

Course Objectives

Our course objectives include:

1. Development and reinforcement of a general management point of view—the capacity to view the firm from an overall perspective in the context of its environment.

2. Development of an understanding of fundamental concepts in strategic management: the role of the general manager, the levels and components of strategy, competitive analysis, and organizational evolution.

3. Integration of the knowledge gained in previous courses and understanding what part of that knowledge is useful to general managers.

4. Development of those skills and knowledge peculiar to general management and the general manager’s job that have not been covered in previous functional courses.

5. Development of an awareness of the various impacts of external environmental forces on business and corporate strategy.

6. Practice in distinguishing between basic causes of business problems and attendant symptoms.

7. Practice in working out business strategies and implementation plans.

8. Development of habits of orderly, analytical thinking and skill in reporting conclusions effectively in both written and oral form.

9. Familiarity with some of the practical realities of running different types of businesses.

Leadership and this Course

The Texas Executive MBA program is designed to develop influential business leaders. Moreover, the MBA Program has identified four admittedly broad, yet fundamental pillars of leadership: knowledge and understanding, communication and collaboration, responsibility and integrity, and a

worldview of business and society. It should be apparent from the above course description and objectives that this course plays a critical role in helping you develop as an influential business leader. No business leader in contemporary society can be effective without an appreciation for the perspective and topics that compose strategic management – business and corporate strategy, the environment, competition, organizational change and implementation, the symbolic effect of top executives, and so on. The Strategic Management course plays a central role in preparing you to become an influential business leader.

COURSE PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND FEEDBACK

Performance evaluation and feedback will be based on your performance in two different settings—class contribution and written work.

In-Class Contribution

In a typical class, one or more students will be asked to start the class by answering a specific question or discussing a specific issue. Preparation of the case (including the assignment questions) and associated readings should be sufficient to handle such a lead-off assignment. After a few minutes of initial analysis, we will open the discussion to the rest of the class. As a group, we will then try to complete the analysis of the situation and address the problems and issues presented in the case. We will also spend time talking about the implementation of those recommendations and some of the complexities of effecting change in strategic management situations.

Most general managers spend very little time reading and even less time writing reports. The vast majority of their interactions with others are verbal. For this reason, the development of verbal skills is given a high priority in this course. The classroom should be considered a laboratory in which you can test your ability to convince your peers of the correctness of your approach to complex problems, and of your ability to achieve the desired results through the use of that approach. Some of the factors that have an impact on effective class contribution are the following:

1. Is the participant a good listener?

2. Are the points that are made relevant to the discussion? Are they linked to the comments of others?

3. Do the comments add to our understanding of the situation?

4. Do the comments show evidence of analysis of the case?

5. Does the participant distinguish among different kinds of data (that is, facts, opinions, beliefs, concepts, etc.)?

6. Is there a willingness to share?

7. Is there a willingness to test new ideas, or are all comments “safe”? (For example, repetition of case facts without analysis and conclusions or a comment already made by a colleague.)

8. Is the participant willing to interact with other class members?

9. Do comments clarify and highlight the important aspects of earlier comments and lead to a clearer statement of the concepts being covered?

10. Does the student ask questions rather than limit participation to others’ questions.

The questions above deal with both the process of class contribution and (of equal or greater concern) the content of what you say. As will be noted subsequently, class contribution will be a major portion of your grade in this course. Because quality class contribution figures prominently in this course, the GSB Honor Code mandates that you not rely on notes, handouts, or cases from students who have taken this course previously.

Written Assignments for Strategic Management

There will be three pieces of written work required for this course, one with your study group and two individual assignments. Each is described in detail below. The study group assignment will be distributed at our August Seminar. The first individual assignment is an analysis of a case we’ll be studying in the course. The second is a major paper about a strategic issue facing your organization.

Study Group Paper

This assignment will be distributed at the August Seminar and is due at the beginning of class Friday, September 2.

First Individual Paper

The first individually written assignment is a paper consisting of three parts. The executive summary is a memorandum that should indicate your overall evaluation and that should be developed with the tenets of logic, precision, parsimony, specificity, and good grammar. “Bullet sentences” are only acceptable if their meaning is unequivocal and specific. (For instance, a bullet stating “increase sales” is unacceptable. In such an instance, you should state which products you want to increase the sales of, how much the increase should be, and how you will achieve the specific increase.) The executive summary should be constructed after you have completed your full analysis.

The second part of the paper concerns the full analysis forming the basis for your evaluation. It should be no longer than 1000 words. It should be carefully constructed to show a logical flow and integrated set of thoughts about the case. Guard carefully against undocumented assertions, failing to examine the monetary (and other resource) implications, neglecting to consider trade-offs and priorities, and against a lack of consideration for the implementation issues. You will need more than one draft in order to achieve the clarity, consistency, and structure necessary for your paper.

The third part of the paper concerns a number of exhibits in which you show the application of specific tools (e.g., break-even analysis, cash flow analysis, competitor and/or industry analysis, etc.) Make sure that the exhibits are immediately understandable for a busy executive and that they summarize the key conclusions which you will then use in the second part of the paper to build you complete analysis. You may use as many exhibits as you deem necessary. Make sure you refer to these exhibits in the appropriate places in the analysis part of the paper.

NB: Your first individual written assignment is due at the beginning of class on Friday, October 14; it will be distributed on Saturday October 1. For matters of style, please refer to the checklist distributed with the case which I will use as a general framework for providing feedback on all your written work. Please note for case write-ups: your random student number (to be distributed with the case), the assignment title, the date, and the course name should be on the top right corner of the first page only . Do not put your name on the paper, or put case write-ups in folders, or use a cover sheet.

Second Individual Paper

The second written assignment offers you the opportunity to identify, consider in depth, and address a fundamental strategic issue that you believe that your organization will face in the next five to ten years. The issue you choose to write about is up to you. The primary criterion for selecting it is that you believe the issue is genuinely strategic and it has the potential to materially affect the success and destiny of your organization. This definition is purposely open-ended to allow each person to consider a strategic issue most salient for their firm and in which they are vitally interested. Although the definition of the strategic issue is up to you, examples for any particular organization might include business strategy content, corporate portfolio mix, executive succession, strategic management processes, responding to technological change, major shift in customer needs or capabilities, globalization of the industry, or changing workforce capabilities.

In this assignment I expect you to be a problem finder as well as a problem solver. I am interested in how you identify and define the issue. But, in addition, I expect you to make a reasoned, well-argued prediction of the potential impact of the issue, address ways in which it can be dealt with, identify the impact of those actions on the organization as well as the issue, and address the implications for managers who choose to ignore it. Beyond considering the strategic (and operating) implications of any issue you choose, your paper should address extant theories that may prove useful to your organization in understanding the issue, addressing the issue, or coping with the consequences of their actions.

Sources of data for this paper are at your discretion. Clearly, field data from interviews and public and corporate documents will be important sources of information. Beyond this, I expect you to link your observations, findings, and recommendations to the theories and concepts you find appropriate from those we discuss in this class or in other classes. “Armchaired” analyses and recommendations without conceptual backup aren’t very powerful. They are neither analytically complete nor do they reflect an understanding of the subtleties that would increase the likelihood that your recommendations will address the issue you’ve identified. Beyond that, they do not reflect well on your capabilities as an effective executive. I expect your sources to be appropriately referenced in the paper. Interviews where anonymity was promised can be referenced accordingly. In the event that proprietary information is necessary for your paper, I will gladly sign a nondisclosure agreement.

To make sure that we stay on track, I would like you to submit to me a printed, one- to two-page prospectus of your study no later than Saturday, September 17. (It’s OK to submit it anytime before then.) The prospectus must present a clear statement of the strategic issue you chose, why you chose it, and the plan of study you propose. I will return the prospectus with my comments by mail during the following week. The final paper is due no later than the beginning of our final class session on Friday, December 2, 2011. Late papers will be accepted only in the event of personal emergency.

I’m anxious for you to use this assignment to creatively explore an aspect of your organization that you find particularly important and interesting. My belief is that you should choose an issue that is strategically salient and for which your analysis and study will make a material difference in the future of the firm.

The actual paper is limited to twenty-five pages of text, double-spaced with normal margins. Note that it is not necessary to write twenty-five pages. Any exhibits you find appropriate to include are in addition to this. Don’t forget to reference your sources properly. The paper should include a one-

page executive summary of the observations, recommendations, and conclusions in your paper. Also, be sure to put your name, not your student number, on this paper.

Grading Policies

The purpose of grading in Strategic Management, as in all courses, is twofold. One is to evaluate your performance for purposes of the academic system. The other (and more important) is to provide you with feedback on your ability to develop, utilize, and share your ideas and conclusions concerning the topics and situations covered in the course.

Your grade for the course will be based on the following components:

Study Group paper 10%First Individual paper 30%Second Individual paper 30%Class Contribution 30 %

100%

Other Administrative Details

Since faculty members tend to have somewhat different expectations as to class behavior and course norms, I’d like to outline a few of my expectations concerning such matters.

1. I plan to be prepared for every class and I expect you will do the same. Since I frequently call on individuals whose hands are not raised, you should let me know before the start of the class if some emergency has made it impossible for you to be prepared adequately for that class.

2. Please use your name card. I will distribute a seating chart during our second class session on September 2.

3. I will be happy to discuss the course, your progress, or any other issues of interest to you on an individual basis. Please see me in class or call to set up an appointment. My office number is on the front of the course description. Feel free to call me at home, 329-0340.

4. Group work is acceptable and encouraged for purposes of general case preparation. However, the individual written assignments must be solely your own work. For the individual written assignment, use of study groups or discussing the assignment with anyone else is a violation of the Honor Code.

5. NB: Written work is due no later than the beginning of the class session during which it is due. Please submit only paper, not electronic, copies of your work. Late papers will be accepted only in the event of personal emergency.

6. If you wear a hat, please remove it during our session.

7. Laptop computers should remain closed during our class sessions.

8. The appendix to this course description provides additional information on my views of the case method and why it is used so extensively in Strategic Management. [nb: A reading for our first class session offers guidance on how to prepare a case analysis.]

I. The Role of the General Manager

Session 1. Wednesday August 17, 2011 8:00-12:00

Readings:Montgomery, “Putting Leadership Back Into Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, January 2008.Porter, Chapter 1, “The Structural Analysis of Industries Collins & Porras “Building Your Company’s Vision,” Harvard Business Review. September-

October 1996.

Gosling and Mintzberg, “The Five Minds of a Manager”, Harvard Busines Review, November 2003, 54-63.

“How to Analyze a Case,” HBS Publication 2449BC [Read this before you begin your case analysis of DAAG.]

Case: Introductory Note to DAAG Europe (9-374-036) DAAG Europe (A) (9-374-037)

Robert Pelz has spent several years translating the strategic vision he has for his firm into reality. But as this evolves, he encounters several problems at the corporate, divisional, and subsidiary levels. We’ll focus on how general managers balance their situations as they simultaneously try to manage their strategy, their part of the organization, and their careers.

Preparation Questions:

1. How did DAAG Europe arrive at its present difficulties?

2. What actions should corporate management take?

3. What should Dr. Pelz do?

4. Appraise Dr. Pelz as a Manager.

…………………………….

II. The Concept of Business Strategy

Session 2. Friday, September 2, 2011 8:00-12:00

Readings: Porter, Chapter 2, "Generic Competitive Strategies"Porter, Chapter 3, "A Framework for Competitor Analysis"Porter, Chapter 4, "Market Signals"

Case: Crown Cork & Seal in 1989 (9-793-035, rev. April 4, 2002)

This session will provide an overview of the processes of strategy identification, evaluation, and formulation in single business firms. A critical task for any top executive is to develop a strategy for his or her organization to assure its survival in the face of a changing environment. Critical steps in that process include identifying the firm's current strategy and its key components, evaluating that strategy in light of the need for change, and then making the necessary changes. In addition, formulating a competitive strategy requires an analysis of industry structure, as well as actions that attempt to create a competitive advantage. These and other issues will be addressed in our discussion of Crown, Cork & Seal by applying the concepts presented in the assigned readings.

This is the third update of the classic CC&S case. The first covered the company up to 1964. At that time, Connelly had turned a very sick company around. A major issue for discussion was whether success would continue. This case describes CC&S up through 1989, and the issue of continued success is still important. One of the things that makes a general manager's job interesting is that the issue never goes away. We will be concerned with both business strategy and industry dynamics in this case. Continuing consolidation in the industry raises the question of whether CC&S should become a bidder in the apparent sale of Continental Can. Management style also becomes an issue in this case. Connelly's style is evident from the case. You may want to compare Connelly with other general managers you will meet in the cases. Why are some more successful than others? How can managers with such different styles be successful?


1. What are the industry structure and dynamics of the metal container industry? What are the industry trends? Implications of these trends?

2. What strategy does CC&S have for competing in this industry? What advantages does a firm the size of CC&S have for competing with American Can and Continental Can? How do you explain the comparison shown in Exhibit 5 of the case?

3. In some sense, a competitive strategy describes the amount and types of risk that a company is willing to take. What is CC&S's "risk profile"?

4. What are the major issues that William Avery faces in 1989? What advice would you offer him about these issues?

GROUP PAPER DUE


Readings: Gavetti and Rivkin, “How Strategists Really Think, Harvard Business Review, April, 2005, pp. 54-63.

Mayo and Norhia “Zeitgeist Leadership, “ Harvard Business Review, October 2005, pp 45-60.

Case: Southwest Airlines 2002: An Industry Under Siege

Few companies have gained as much notoriety in recent years as has Southwest Airlines. Some of that notoriety has been due to the often unconventional behavior of their CEO Herb Kelleher, while other stems from their unbroken stream of profitability. Many observers of organizations have studied Southwest in an attempt to learn what has made them so successful. We will be no exception.

However, not only will we try to determine the source of their historical success, we will grapple with the unique set of challenges that they face due to the events of September 11th , the rise of low cost competitors, and the subsequent restructuring of the airline industry.


1. Why has Southwest Airlines been so successful?

2. To what extent have the post 911 changes in the industry disproportionately helped or hurt Southwest?

3. What recommendations would you make about the issues raised on pages 13 – 15 of the case?

4. What is your prognosis for the continued success of Southwest Airlines? What are the factors most critical to determining that success?

Session 3. Friday, September 16, 2011 8:00-12:00 (continued)

Readings: Rivkin and Ghemawat “Creating Competitive Advantage” , HBS Note 9-798-062Porter, Chapter 5, "Competitive Moves"

Case: Airborne Express

Being profitable in an industry characterized by a high level of competition is always a challenge. However, that is particularly the case when you are one-ninth the size of your largest rival and the industry offers significant economies of scale. That is precisely the situation in which Airborne Express finds itself.

In spite of its apparent disadvantage, Airborne has not only survived, in the most recent quarter its performance has been particularly strong. Revenues for the quarter are up by 29% over the prior year, and earnings have increased by more than 500%. What we want to do in this session is come to understand how Airborne has managed survive in its competition against its much larger and more resource rich rivals, Federal Express and UPS. We also want to consider what management must do if its most recent success is to continue.


1. How and why has the structure of the express mail industry evolved in recent years? How have the changes affected small competitors?

2. How has Airborne survived, and recently prospered, in its industry?

3. Quantify Airborne’s sources of advantage.

4. What must Robert Brazier, Airborne’s President and COO, do in order to strengthen the company’s position?

Session 4. Saturday, September 17, 2011 1:00-5:00

Reading: Porter, “What is Strategy?” Harvard Business Review, November-December 1996.Ghemewat, P. “Sustainable Advantage,” Harvard Business Review. September-October

1986, 53-58. Ghemewat, P. “The Cosmopolitan Corporation,” Harvard Business Review, May 2011Hambrick and Fredrickson, “Are You Sure You Have a Strategy?” Academy of

Management Executive, November 2001.Porter, Ch. 7, “Structural Analysis Within Industries” Porter, Chapter 11, “The Transition to Industry Maturity”

Case: Dell: Selling Directly, Globally HKU 069

Through the late 1990s, Dell Computer Corporation has had 15 years of remarkable performance. Starting from his dormitory room at the University of Texas at Austin in 1993, Michael Dell built an industry powerhouse that was soon to become the leading PC maker in the US. With over 26,000 employees and a growing worldwide presence, it was the #2 provider of PCs worldwide, with a 9.1% market share, and $21.7 billion in sales.

Much has been said about the source of Dell’s success, in particular it’s business model, in which it sells to customers “direct”. However, the key to Dell’s success may not be as obvious as it first seems. Therefore, we will discuss the Dell case with the intention of determining the source of this remarkable success.

1. What is Dell’s strategy as of 1999?

2. Why has it worked so well?

3 What is the likelihood that Dell’s historical strategy will work in China?

4. How, if at all, will it have to be modified?

Session 4. Saturday, September 17, 2011 1:00-5:00 (continued)

Reading: Courtney, H., Kirkland, J. and Viguerie, P., “Strategy UnderUncertainty,” Harvard Business Review, November-December, 1997.

Christensen and Raynor, “Why Hard Nosed Executives Should Care About Management Theory,” Harvard Business Review. September, 2003.

Drucker, “The Theory of the Business,” Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct 1994.

Case: Edward Jones 9-700-009Retail Financial Services in 1998 (review for context) 9-799-051

Edward Jones is one of the largest and most profitable brokers in the financial services industry. For example, with 3,900 offices it is five times the size of Merrill Lynch, and its 36% ROE during the 1990s was twice that of the average national full-service broker. Therefore, it is particularly surprising that relatively few people are aware of this firm. To understand the success of Edward Jones, we need to understand the strategy it pursues. And to do that, we must get beyond superficial, vague characterizations of strategy, and deal instead with the critical decisions that its executives have made over the years, and which combine to form Edward Jones’ strategy.

As noted in earlier sessions, even firms that achieve great success typically have a difficult time maintaining that success over the long-run. A major source of that difficulty is the environment. The environments in which most firms operate change over time, bringing a variety of threats (and opportunities). Those threats, in turn, may appear in an endless number of forms -- new competitors, technological changes that obsolesce one’s produces and services, changes in consumer tastes -- to mention just a few. In general, most executives agree that the environments in which they operate have become increasingly difficult and uncertain. Therefore, their ability to develop a strategy in the face of uncertainty is more important than ever. And so it is for the top management of Edward Jones.


1. Using Hambrick and Fredrickson’s Strategy Diamond framework, characterize Edward Jones’ strategy as of 1998. Which elements of the strategy represent recent changes?

2. Pay particular attention to the “Economic Logic” of the strategy. Why does the company have such a high return on equity (ROE)? Can you think of other instances in which a relatively low-share player in an industry is significantly more profitable than some (or all) of the higher-share players?

3. Using the framework set forth in the Courtney et. al. article, what “uncertainty level” does Jones face?

4. What recommendations would you make to Mr. Bachmann?

PROSPECTUS FOR STRATEGIC ISSUE PAPER DUE TODAY


Readings: Porter, Ch. 8, “Industry Evolution” DeGeus, “The Living Company,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1997,

pp. 51-59. Schaeffer, “The Leadership Journey,” Harvard Business Review, October 2002, pp. 43-47.

Case: Asahi Breweries, Ltd.

The importance of general manager involvement in corporate renewal and strategic repositioning is an important issue for firms. The Asahi case lets us focus on the role of a newly arrived general manager in revitalizing and repositioning a firm. While the case depicts a Japanese company in transition, the issues that the company and its managers encounter are universal in nature.


1. Define the corporate strategy of Asahi Breweries, Ltd. as of 1989. What competitive concepts, economic and noneconomic objectives, key operating policies, and timed sequence of moves characterize the strategic logic of this enterprise?

2. What were the key success factors in the Japanese beer industry?

3. What, specifically, did Messrs. Murai and Higuchi bring to Asahi? How would you characterize their policies, behavior, and contributions?

4. What was the role of the Corporate Identity and Total Quality Control programs in Asahi’s turnaround?

5. What unresolved strategic choices and issues face Asahi and Mr. Higuchi.

III. Corporate Strategic Management

At this point in the course we will make a transition to corporate-level strategy and focus on multi-business organizations, their sources of competitive advantage, and the “scope of the firm.”

Session 6. Saturday, October 1, 2011 1:00-5:00

Readings: Burgelman, R.A. “Managing the Internal Corporate Venturing Process” Sloan Management Review, Winter 1984, pp. 33-48.

Govindarajan and Trimble, “Building Breakthrough Businesses Within Established Organizations,” Harvard Business Review, May 2005, 58-68.

Greiner, “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow,” Harvard Business Review, May 1998.

Luehrman, T. A. “Strategy as a Portfolio of Real Options,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1998, pp. 89-99.

Case: M-Tronics (9-396-178)

This session is the first of four in which we will consider the unique issues of strategy in a firm that operates in multiple businesses. While managing any business can present a complex set of challenges, the level of complexity increases markedly as a firm expands its presence beyond a single industry. Therefore, considerable time has to be spent trying to develop approaches that help executives manage in such situations.

Many firms operate in a variety of different businesses, each of which contributes in different ways to the overall corporate strategy. This case introduces us to questions of managing this dynamic balance and how that relates to new ideas and internally developed diversification opportunities.


1. What is troubling George McElroy?

2. Should Mr. Martell be concerned about same issues?

3. What actions should Mr. Martell take at this time? Please be as specific as possible.

Session 6. Saturday, October 1, 2011 1:00-5:00 (continued)

Reading: Goold and Campbell, “Desperately Seeking Synergy,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1998.

O’Reilly and Tushman, “The Ambidextrous Organization,” Harvard Business Review, April 2004., pp.74-81.

Cases: Hanson PlcNote on Leveraged Buyouts (9-389-218, rev. 3/11/92) Berkshire Partners (9-391-091)


There are a variety of approaches to developing and implementing a “corporate strategy.” To gain some more insights into this issue we will begin to look at intangible skills as key resources by examining Hanson, a celebrated conglomerate, and Berkshire Partners, an LBO partnership in the eighties. Hanson is examined in light of its evolution and the possibility of further growth. Berkshire Partners is examined in 1990 at the height of the LBO boom having invested about $1.5 billion in 26 companies since its founding in 1984. As you read the cases pay close attention to the corporate systems, structures, and procedures each firm uses.

1. What value do conglomerates and LBO partnerships contribute to their business units?

2. How do they organize to realize that value?

3. What are the important differences between these two forms of corporate organizations?

4. Are these valid corporate strategies?

........................

Session 7. Friday, October 14, 2011 1:30-5:30

Readings: Bower, “Not all M&As are Alike – and That Matters,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 2001.

Haspeslagh and Jemison, “Acquisitions: Myths and Reality,” Sloan Management Review, Spring 1987.

Case: Grand Junction

The entrepreneur’s dream is often to develop a company to a point where one either takes it public or sells the firm to another company. This case gives us the opportunity to explore these questions in a high tech start-up.


1. Given the representations that Charney and other senior managers had made to several newly hired key employees, should they meet with these people to explain their consideration of the Cisco offer before making a decision? If Grand Junction decides to be acquired, how should Charney and his management team inform their employees?

2. What do you think of Charney’s final offer? Is it a fair valuation for Grand Junction? Explain your reasoning.

3. From the perspective of the senior management and Board of Cisco Systems, evaluate the final offer. Should Cisco accept this offer? Why?

4. Should Grand Junction go public or be acquired? Why? Evaluate the issue from the perspective of each of the stakeholders in Grand Junction.

FIRST INDIVIDUAL WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT DUE

The case and associated assignment will be distributed on Saturday, October 1

Session 8. Friday October 28, 2011 8:00-12:00

Case: ENRON, 1986 - 2001 (MEDIA) UVA-G-0563M

Reading: Lovallo and Kahneman, “Delusions of Success,” Harvard Business Review, July 2003.Handy, “What’s a Business For?” Harvard Business Review, December 2002.Bazerman and Teubrunsel, “Ethical Breakdowns,” Harvard Business Review, April 2011.

Our class today will be devoted to an in-depth study of the history, evolution, ascension, and fall of Enron. Each of us has followed the Enron saga as it has unfolded. But careful, critical thinking about the range of issues associated with strategy, leadership, competitive advantage, and corporate transformation may not be the mainstay of most journalistic sources we find time to use.

To facilitate our study of Enron we’ll use a recent case, written by two professors at the Darden School. The case, in CD/ROM format, offers myriad opportunities to explore Enron’s situation. The case writers had unparalleled access to Enron before their fall. They have developed case material that will allow us to start at the beginning and explore the evolution of the firm from its transformation from zenith to bankruptcy.

In preparing for our class, please explore these questions:

1. How and why did Enron transform itself between 1986 and 2000? Was Enron really an innovative company? Why or why not?

2. Evaluate Enron’s two strategies in the 1990’s to develop “asset-light” businesses in the US and “asset-intensive” businesses internationally. What resources and capabilities are essential for each of these strategies to be successful?

3. What are the lessons for other corporations from the rise and fall of Enron – especially regarding corporate transformation and a strategy based on innovation?

4. What elements of Enron’s strategy led to its downfall?

5. Firm strategy stems from leadership, values, vision, competitive positioning, and development of capabilities? Why was there a dramatic breakdown for Enron in 2001? Be sure to read and reflect on the document “Critical Thinking About the Enron Story” that is found in the Analysis Guide Tab.

To view the case, please insert the CD/ROM in the CD drive of your computer. Then right click on the CD icon on your desktop (or “My Computer”) and click on “Open.” Alternatively you can double click on your CD icon. Another option in Windows is to click on the “Start” button at the lower left-hand corner of your screen. Then click on “Run.” At the request for program location enter the letter of your CD drive, followed by “:\setup.exe.” This will take a moment to install the viewing program on your computer. You may then open the case.

Session 9 Saturday, October 29, 2011 1:00-5:00

Readings: Jemison, “Acquisitions as a Vehicle for Corporate Renewal,” in Trick (ed.) Growing the International Firm: Success in Mergers, Acquisitions, Networks, and Alliances, Carnegie Mellon University Press, 2002.

Jemison and Sitkin, “Acquisitions: The Process Can Be a Problem,” Harvard Business Review, March-April, 1986.

Haspeslagh & Jemison: “A Framework for Assessing an Acquisition’s Attractiveness.” (Choose relevant parts of the Appendix as you consider Nestlé and Rowntree.)

Case: Nestlé Rowntree (A)

Nestlé is the world’s largest food company and in 1988 it was considering acquiring Rowntree which, if consummated, would be the largest-ever takeover of a British company. Our case today is set in April 1988, immediately after Jacob Suchard has acquired 15% of Rowntree’s stores in a “dawn raid.” Our primary focus in class will be to think through how Nestlé should respond to this move by Suchard. To do that adequately, we must first focus on the industry and Nestlé’s strategy.


1. How attractive is the chocolate industry for further investment? Are the reasons which led Helmut Maucher in the early 1980s to define confectionery as a strategic priority still valid?

2. Why has Rowntree emerged as a takeover target?

3. What are the potential strategic benefits of Rowntree for Nestlé? What are the potential strategic benefits of Rowntree for Suchard?

4. As Nestlé, do you want to purchase Rowntree shares? What price are you willing to pay?

Our class format today will be different from earlier in the semester. You'll be a member of a team that will assume the roles of a Nestlé Acquisition Task Force (headed by Helmut Maucher, the CEO) and make a presentation to the Nestlé Comité du Conseil (Board of Directors) to recommend a decision on Rowntree plc. Team assignments and instructions will be distributed at the beginning of class. Note that during our class today you will be asked to be a member of both the Nestlé Comité du Conseil as well as a member of a Nestlé Acquisition Task Force headed by Helmut Maucher, the CEO. The preparation questions above should help you prepare for both roles.

IV. Managing Strategy Implementation and Strategic Change

Session 10 Saturday, November 12, 2011 1:00-5:00

Readings: Cross and Prusak, “The People Who Make Organizations Go – or Stop,” Harvard Business Review June 2002, 105-112.

Gabarro, John, “When a New Manager Takes Charge,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1989.

Porter, Lorsch, and Nohria “Seven Surprises for the New CEO,” Harvard Business Review, October 2004, pp. 62-72.

Case Meg Whitman at eBay Inc. (A) 9-401-024During the past ten years we all watched as the internet was hyped and rehyped—then alas, the

bubble burst. But for a few firms the fun continues. eBay is arguably one of the successful firms of the last ten years and may be the most successful internet-based firm to date. It grew from an idea of online collaboration to the world's largest and most successful online auction house. This case will give us some insights on how this happened, what may lay in store for eBay, and more importantly how some of these ideas may apply to your firms.


1. Why is eBay successful?2. What are the growth pressures that Meg Whitman is facing?3. How do you assess Meg Whitman as a CEO?4. What should eBay do about Kruse?

Case : Nissan’s U-Turn: 1991-2001 (303-046-1)

Readings : Kotter, “Leading Change, Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” Harvard Business Review, Mar-Apr 1995, pp. 59-67.Grosysberg, McLean, and Nohria, “Are Leaders Portable?” Harvard Business Review,

May 2006.

When Renault acquired a significant stake in Nissan, the Japanese carmaker was in desperate financial straits. Informed observers widely predicted that a foreign CEO would not be able to reform this proud pillar of the Japanese establishment. Carlos Ghosn, a quintessential global leader, was dispatched by Renault to try to turn Nissan’s situation around. After soliciting recommendations from the employees themselves, he unveiled a three-year plan involving plant closures, job cuts, and a refocus on design. In the space of two years, he took the company from record losses to record profits – hitting all the targets itemized in the plan. This case looks at how he achieved this dramatic recovery and factors that might sustain or endanger Nissan’s continued progress.


1. Summarize the initiatives undertaken by Ghosn to change Nissan.2. What lessons can we draw from Ghosn’s approach?

3. Why did Nissan’s employees implement Ghosn’s plan when they had failed to follow through on previous turnaround efforts?

Session 11 Friday, December 2, 2011 1:30-5:30

Reading: Bennis and O’Toole, “Don’t Hire the Wrong CEO,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 2000, pp 171-176.

Case: Note on the Building Society Industry in Great Britain (S-BP-247)Broadlands Building Society (S-BP-248)

It has been suggested that managerial selection decisions are the most crucial a firm makes. We'll explore this issue and its impact on the strategic management of firms by looking at a UK firm that must select a new chief executive. The firm and the industry are in the throes of substantial change, and the individual selected will play a key role in the firm's strategic renewal, redirection, and success.


1. What are the criteria by which you as a board member will choose a new chief executive?

2. As the retiring chief executive, what advice would you give to the board about your successor?

3. Which individual should be chosen? Why?

Readings: Hagel and Singer, “Unbundling the Corporation,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1999.

Bartlett and Ghoshal, “Changing the Role of Top Management: Beyond Strategy to Purpose,” Harvard Business Review, November-December 1994, pp. 79-88.

Recommended Readings:

Porter, Chapter 16, “Entry into New Businesses”Uyterhoeven, H. “General Managers in the Middle,” Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct 1989.

Cases: Johnson & Johnson (A) 9-384-053Johnson & Johnson (B) 9-384-054

Johnson & Johnson is a very successful company that seems to have instilled a strong belief in decentralization and to have created a strong management culture. These two factors in the firm’s past success play an important role in the options Pete Ventrella has as he is charged with creating a new unit in the firm more responsive to the changing competitive environment.

We’ll also see a short video of James Burke, J&J’s Chairman, as he discusses the company’s philosophy and culture with a Harvard AMP class.

Preparation Questions

1. James Burke is quoted, “Our culture is really it.” Just what is the J&J culture and what difference does it really make for the company?

2. What do you think about the way in which Burke and Clare have brought about the creation of the Hospital Services Group?

3. What problems does Pete Ventrella face?

4. What should Ventrella do about hospital services as a cost or profit center? About the differences with Ethicon over inventory placements?

APPENDIX: THE USE OF CASES IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

WHY WE USE THE CASE METHOD1

The case method is one of the most effective means of management education. It is widely used in schools of business throughout the world, and this use is predicated upon the belief that tackling real business problems is the best way to develop practitioners. Real problems are messy, complex, and very interesting.

Unlike other pedagogical techniques, many of which make you the recipient of large amounts of information but do not require its use, the case method requires you to be an active participant in the closest thing to the real situation. It is a way of gaining a great deal of experience without spending a lot of time. It is also a way to learn a great deal about how certain businesses operate, and how managers manage. There are few programmable, textbook solutions to the kinds of problems faced by real general managers. When a problem becomes programmable, the general manager gives it to someone else to solve on a repeated basis using the guidelines he or she has set down. Thus the case situations that you will face will require the use of analytical tools and the application of your personal judgment.

Sources of Cases

All the cases in this course are about real companies. You will recognize many of the names of the companies although some of them may be new to you. These cases were developed in several different ways. Occasionally, a company will come to a business school professor and request that a case be written on that company. In other situations, a professor will seek out a company because he or she knows that the company is in an interesting or difficult situation. Often, the company will agree to allow a case to be written.

Occasionally, cases will be written solely from public sources. This is perhaps the most difficult type of case writing because of the lack of primary data sources.

In those situations where a company has agreed to have a case written, the company must “release” the case. This means that they have final approval of the content of a given case. The company and the case writer are thus protected from any possibility of releasing data that might be competitively or personally sensitive. Public source cases, obviously, do not need a release. Given the requirement for release, however, it is amazing the amount of information that companies will allow to be placed in a case. Many companies do this because of their belief in the effectiveness of the case method.

Preparing for Class

When you prepare for class, it is recommended that you plan on reading the case at least three times. The first reading should be a quick run-through of the text in the case. It should give you a feeling for what the case is about and the types of data that are contained in the case. For example, you will want to differentiate between facts and opinions that may be expressed. In every industry, there is a certain amount of “conventional wisdom” that may or may not reflect the truth. On your second reading you should read in more depth. Many people like to underline or otherwise mark up their cases to pick out important points that they know will be needed later. Your major effort on a second reading should be to understand the business and the situation. You should ask yourself questions like: (1) Why has this company survived? (2) How does this business work? (3) What are the economics of this business?

On your second reading, you should carefully examine the exhibits in the case. It is generally true that the case writer has put the exhibit there for a purpose. It contains some information that will be

1 This note was prepared by Associate Professor Dan R.E. Thomas. It is intended solely as an aid to class preparation.

useful to you in analyzing the situation. Ask yourself what the information is when you study each exhibit. You will often find that you will need to apply some analytical technique (for example, ratio analysis, growth rate analysis, etc.) to the exhibit in order to benefit from the information in the raw data.

On your third reading, you should have a good idea of the fundamentals of the case. Now you will be searching to understand the specific situation. You will want to get at the root causes of problems and gather data from the case that will allow you to make specific action recommendations. Before the third reading, you may want to review the assignment questions in the course description. It is during and after the third reading that you should be able to prepare your outlined answers to the assignment questions.

There is only one secret to good case teaching and that is good preparation on the part of the participants. Since the course has been designed to “build” as it progresses, class attendance is also very important.

Class Discussions

In each class, I will ask one or several people to lead off the discussion. If you have prepared the case, and are capable of answering the assignment question, you should have no difficulty with this lead-off assignment. An effective lead-off can do a great deal to enhance a class discussion. It sets a tone for the class that allows that class to probe more deeply into the issues of the case.

The instructor’s role in the class discussion is to help, through intensive questioning, to develop your ideas. This use of the Socratic method has proved to be an effective way to develop thinking capability in individuals. The instructor’s primary role is to manage the class process and to insure that the class achieves an understanding of the case situation. There is no single correct solution to any of these problems. There are, however, a lot of wrong solutions. Therefore, I will try to come up with a solution that will enable us to deal effectively with the problems presented in the case.

After the individual lead-off presentation, the discussion will be opened to the remainder of the group. It is during this time that you will have an opportunity to present and develop your ideas about the way the situation should be handled. It will be important for you to relate your ideas to the case situation and to the ideas of others as they are presented in the class. The instructor’s role is to help you do this.

The Use of Extra- or Post-Case Data

You are encouraged to deal with the case as it is presented. You should put yourself in the position of the general manager involved in the situation and look at the situation through his or her eyes. Part of the unique job of being a general manager is that many of your problems are dilemmas. There is no way to come out a winner on all counts. Although additional data might be interesting or useful, the “Monday morning quarterback” syndrome is not an effective way to learn about strategic management. Therefore, you are strongly discouraged from acquiring or using extra- or post-case data.

Some case method purists argue that a class should never be told what actually happened in a situation. Each person should leave the classroom situation with his or her plan for solving the problem, and none should be falsely legitimized. The outcome of a situation may not reflect what is, or is not, a good solution. You must remember that because a company did something different from your recommendations and was successful or unsuccessful, this is not an indication of the value of your approach. It is, however, interesting and occasionally useful to know what actually occurred. Therefore, whenever possible, I will tell you what happened to a company since the time of the case, but you should draw your own conclusions from that.

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

References

In addition to the course readings, the following books and articles are listed here to supplement your readings on the concepts and problems that we explore in the course.

Books:

Allison, Graham T. Essence of Decision. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971.)

Amram, Martha and Nalin Kulatilaka. 1998. Real Options: Managing Strategic Investment in an Uncertain World. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Andrews, Kenneth R. The Concept of Corporate Strategy. (Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1971.)

Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.)

Barney, Jay B. Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 2nd Edition. (Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.)

Bartlett, Christopher A. and Sumantra Ghoshal. 1998, 2nd edition. Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

Beamish, Paul W. 1998. Strategic Alliances. Cheltenham: Elgar Publishing.

Bennis, W. and B. Nanus. Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row: New York, l985.

Besanko, David, David Dranove, and Mark Shanley. The Economics of Strategy. New York: John Wiley, 1995

Block, Zanas and Ian C. MacMillan. 1993. Corporate Venturing. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

Brandenburger, Adam and Barry Nalebuff. Co-opetition. New York; Doubleday, 1996

Brown, John Seely and Paul Duguid. 2000. The Social Life of Information. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Brown, Shona L. and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. Competing on the Edge. (Boston: HBS Press, 1998).

Bruner, Robert Applied Mergers and Acquisitions, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2004)

Burgelman, R. and L. Sayles. Inside Corporate Innovation, Free Press: New York, 1986.

Caves, Richard. American Industry: Structure, Conduct, Performance. Third Edition. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972.)

Chandler, Alfred D., Jr. Strategy and Structure. (New York: Doubleday, 1966.)

Chandler, Alfred D., Jr. Scale and Scope. Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

Christensen, Clayton M. 1997. Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, Clayton and Michael Raynor, The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth (Boston: HBS Press, 2003).

Cyert, Richard M. and James G. March. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963).

D’Aveni, Richard A. Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. (New York: Free Press, 1994).

De Geus, Arie P. 1997. Living Company. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Doz, Yves and Gary Hamel. Alliance Advantage: The Art of Creating Value Through Partnering. Boston: HBS Press, 1998).

Drucker, Peter F. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Practices. (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).

Evans, Philip and Thomas S. Wurster. 1999. Blown to Bits: How the New Economics of Information Transforms Strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Gouillart F.J. and J.N. Kelly. 1995. Transforming the Organization. New York: McGraw Hill.

Hamel, Gary. 2000. Leading the Revolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Handy, Charles. 1991. Age of Unreason. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Haspeslagh. Philippe C. and David B. Jemison. Managing Acquisitions: Creating Value Through Corporate Renewal. (New York: Free Press, 1991).

Hayes, Robert H. and Steven C. Wheelwright. Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing Through Manufacturing. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984).

Henderson, Bruce D. Henderson on Corporate Strategy. (Cambridge: Abt Books, 1979).

Komisar, Randy and Kent L. Lineback. 2000. The Monk and the Riddle: The Education of a Silicon Valley Entrepreneur. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Kotter, J. The General Managers, Free Press: New York, 1982.

Leavitt, Harold J. Corporate Pathfinders. (Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1986).

Leonard, Dorothy. 1997. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Markides, Constantinos. 1999. All the Right Moves: A Guide to Crafting Breakthrough Strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Miles, Raymond E. and Charles C. Snow. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978).

Nelson, Richard and Sidney Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Nohria, N. and R. Eccles. 1993. Networks and Organizations. (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press).

Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Robert I. Sutton. 1999. The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Porter, Michael. Competitive Strategy. (New York: Free Press, 1981).

, Competitive Advantage. (New York: Free Press, l985).

Prigogine, Ilya. 1997. The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature. New York: The Free Press.

Quinn, James Brian. Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. (Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1980).

Rappaport, Alfred. 1998, 2nd edition. Creating Shareholder Value: A Guide for Managers and Investors. New York: Free Press.

Rogers, Everett M. 1995, 4th edition. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rothschild, William E. Strategic Alternatives: Selection, Development, and Implementation. (New York: Amacom, 1979).

Rumelt, Richard P. Strategy Structure and Economic Performance. (Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1974).

Salter, Malcolm S. and Weinhold, Wolf A. Diversification Through Acquisition. (New York: Free Press, 1979).

Sayles, L. Leadership: What Effective Managers Really Do and How They Do It, McGraw-Hill: New York, 1979.

Schelling, Thomas C. The Strategy of Conflict. (London: Oxford University Press, 1960.)

Selznick, P. Leadership in Administration, Row, Peterson and Company: Evanston, IL, 1957.

Summer, Charles E. Strategic Behavior in Business and Government. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980).

Tichy, N. and DeVanna, M. The Transformational Leader, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1986.

Tushman, Michael L. and Charles A. O’Reilly III. 1996. Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Yergin, Daniel and Joseph Stanislaw. 1999. The Commanding Heights: The Battle Between Government and the Marketplace That Is Remaking the Modern World. Touchstone.

Articles:

Amram, Martha and Nalin Kulatilaka. 1999. “Disciplined Decisions: Aligning Strategy With the Financial Markets,” Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 77(1): 95-104.

Banks, Robert L. and Steven C. Wheelwright, “Operations vs. Strategy: Trading Tomorrow for Today,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1979.

Bartlett, Christopher A. and Sumantra Ghoshal. 2000. “Going Global: Lessons from Late Movers,” Harvard Business Review, March-April, 132-142.

Berg, N., “Strategic Planning in Conglomerate Companies,” Harvard Business Review, May 1975.

Berry, Charles, “Corporate Growth and Diversification,” The Journal of Law and Economics, October 1971.

Bettauer, A., “Strategy for Divestments: How to Dispose of Part of the Organization,” Harvard Business Review, March 1967.

Bettis, Richard A. and William K. Hall, “Strategic Portfolio Management in the Multibusiness Firm,” California Management Review, Fall 1981.

Biggadike, Ralph, “The Risky Business of Diversification,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1979.

Bloom, P. and P. Kotler, “Strategies for High Market Share Companies,” Harvard Business Review, November-December 1975.

Bourgeois, L. J. and David R. Brodwin, “Strategy Implementation: Five Approaches to an Elusive Phenomenon,” Strategic Management Journal, July-Sept. 1984.

Bowman, Edward H., “A Risk/Return Paradox for Strategic Management,” Sloan Management Review, Spring 1980.

Brown, John Seely and Paul Duguid. 2000. “Balancing Act: How to Capture Knowledge Without Killing It,” Harvard Business Review, May-June, 73-80.

Burgelman, Robert A., “A Model of the Interaction of Strategic Behavior, Corporate Context, and the Concept of Strategy,” Academy of Management Review, January 1983.

, “Designs for Corporate Entrepreneurship in Established Firms,” California Management Review, XXXVI (Spring l984). Buzzell, R. D., B. T. Gale, and R. G. M. Sultan, “Market Share - A Key to Profitability,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1975.

Carey, Dennis, moderator. 2000. “Lessons from Master Acquirers: A CEO Roundtable on Making Mergers Succeed,” Harvard Business Review, May-June, 145-154.

Chaudhuri, Saikat and Benham Tabrizi. 1999. “Capturing the Real Value in High-Tech Acquisitions, Harvard Business Review, September-October, 123-130.

Christensen, Clayton M. and Michael Overdorf. 2000. “Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change,” Harvard Business Review, March-April, 66-76.

Collins, Jim. 1999. “Turning Goals Into Results: The Power of Catalytic Mechanisms,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 77(4): 71-82.

Clifford, Donald, “Growth Pains of the Threshold Company,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1973.

Day, George S., “Diagnosing the Product Portfolio,” Journal of Marketing, April 1977.

Eccles, Robert G., Kersten L. Lanes, and Thomas C. Wilson. 1999. “Are You Paying Too Much for That Acquisition?,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 77(4): 136-146.

Emshoff, James R. and Ian I. Mitroff, “Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Planning,” Business Horizons, October 1978.

Foreman, Leonard and William Lawrence, “The Case Against Corporate Planning,” Business Horizons, October 1978.

Fredrickson, James and Anthony Iaquinto, “Inertia and Creeping Rationality in Strategic Decision Processes,” Academy of Management Journal, September 1989, 516-542.

Fruhan, William E., “Pyrrhic Victories in Fights for Market Share,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1972.

Ghemawat, Pankaj and Fariborz Ghadar. 2000. “The Dubious Logic of Global Megamergers,” Harvard Business Review, July-August, 64-72.

Gluck, F.W., S.P. Kaufman, and A.S. Walleck, “Strategic Management for Competitive Advantage,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1980.

Greiner, Larry E., “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1972.

Gulati, Ranjay, Tarun Khanna and Nitin Nohria. 1994. “Unilateral Commitments and the Importance of Process in Alliances,” Sloan Management Review, Spring. 61-69.

Guth, W. D. and R. Taguiri, “Personal Executive Values and Corporate Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, September 1975.

Hall, William K., “SBUs: Hot, New Topic in the Management of Diversification,” Business Horizons, February 1978.

, “Survival Strategies in a Hostile Environment,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1980.

Hambrick, D.C., and J.W. Fredrickson “Are You Sure You Have a Strategy?” Academy of Management Executive, November 2001..

Hamermesh, Richard G. and Steven Silk, “How to Compete in Stagnant Industries,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1980.

Haspeslagh, Philippe, “Portfolio Planning: Uses and Limits,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1982.

_____ and David B. Jemison, “Acquisitions: Myths and Reality,” Sloan Management Review, Spring 1987.

Hayes, Robert H. and William J. Abernathy, “Managing Our Way to Economic Decline,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1980.

Hirsh, R. “How Success Short-Circuits the Future,” Harvard Business Review, 1986, 64 (2), pp. 72-77.

Jemison, David B., “The Importance of an Integrative Approach to Strategic Management Research,” Academy of Management Review, April 1981.

Jemison, David B. and Sim B. Sitkin, “Corporate Acquisitions: A Process Perspective,” Academy of Management Review, January 1987.

______ “Acquisitions: The Process Can Be a Problem,” Harvard Business Review, March-April, 1986.

Khanna, Tarun and Krishna Palepu. 1999. “The Right Way to Restructure Conglomerates in Emerging Markets,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 77(4): 125-134.

Lindblom, Charles E., “Still Muddling, Not Yet Through,” Public Administration Review, November-December 1979.

Lindblom, Charles E., , “The Science of ‘Muddling Through,’” Public Administration Review, Spring 1959.Lorenzoni G. and C. Baden-Fuller. 1995. “Creating a Strategic Center to Manage a Web of Partners,” California Management Review, Vol. 37, no.3, 146-163.

Melichor and Rush, “Evidence on the Acquisition-Related Performance of Conglomerate Firms,” Journal of Finance, March 1974.

Mintzberg, Henry, “The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact,” Harvard Business Review, June - August 1975.

Mintzberg, Henry and James A. Waters, “Tracking Strategy in an Entrepreneurial Firm,” Academy of Management Journal, September 1982.

, “Planning on the Left Side and Managing on the Right,” California Management Review, July-August 1976.

, “Strategy-Making in Three Modes,” California Management Review, Winter 1973.

Perspective…1995. “How Can Big Companies Keep the Entrepreneurial Spirit Alive?” Harvard Business Review, November-December, 183-192.

Porter, Michael E., “Please Note Location of Nearest Exit: Exit Barriers and Planning,” California Management Review, Vol. XIX.

, and R. Caves “From Entry Barriers to Mobility Barriers...,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1977.

Quinn, James Brian, “Strategic Change: ‘Logical Incrementalism,’” Sloan Management Review, Fall 1978.

, “Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Strategy,” Sloan Management Review, Spring 1979.

Rappaport, Alfred and Mark L. Sirower. 1999. “Stock or Cash? The Trade-Offs for Buyers and Sellers in Mergers and Acquisitions,” Harvard Business Review, March-April, 147-158.

Rappaport “Strategic Analysis for More Profitable Acquisitions,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1979.

Scott, Bruce R., “Stages of Corporate Development--Part I,” Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Case No. 9-371-294.

Spence, A. Michael, “Entry, Capacity, Investment and Oligopolistic Pricing,” Bell Journal of Economics.

Stevenson, Howard H., “Defining Corporate Strengths and Weaknesses,” Sloan Management Review, Spring 1976.

Tilles, S., “How to Evaluate Corporate Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, July 1973.

Uyterhoeven, Hugo, “General Managers in the Middle,” Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct 1989.

Vancil, Richard F. and Peter Lorange, “Strategic Planning in Diversified Companies,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1975.

Wheelwright, Steven C. and Robert L. Banks, “Involving Operating Managers in Planning Process Evolution,” Sloan Management Review, Summer 1979.

Wrapp, H.E., “Good Managers Don’t Make Policy Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1967.

Zaleznik, Abraham, “The Human Dilemmas of Leadership,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1963.

Documents

BA 388T - Strategic Management - Jemison - 02320