K10 Strategic MGMT II

Str ategic Management ii
Kent Springdal With Contributions by: Patrick Thurbin Sid Lowe Martha Mador
610
Strategic Management II
First Edition January 2003 Second Edition June 2009 Kingston University 2010
Published by Kingston Business School Kingston University Kingston Hill Kingston upon Thames Surrey KT2 7LB
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, without permission from the publisher.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT II CONTENTS
Unit 1: Strategic Decision Making

1. Objectives 2. Constraints for managers 3. Influences on decision making 4. Decision making models 5. Exploring key themes References and further reading 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.5
Essential Reading:
Mintzberg, H., and Waters, J., (1998) Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent in Segal-Horn, (ed.) The Strategy Reader, OU/Blackwell Eisenhardt, K.M. (1999) Strategy as Strategic Decision Making, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40, Issue 3 Hendry, J. (2000) Strategic Decision Making, Discourse, and Strategy as SocialPractice, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37, No. 7. Jarzabkowski, P. & Wilson, D.C. (2006) Actionable Strategy Knowledge: A Practice Perspective, European Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 5.
Unit 2: Organisational Learning and Entrepreneurship

1. Objectives 2. Introduction 3. Learning organisations 4. Competitiveness and innovation 5. Corporate entrepreneurship 6. Exploring key themes References and further reading 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.10
Essential Reading:
March, J.G. (1989) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning,Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1. Crossman & Berdrow (2003), Orgnizational Learning and Strategic Renewal, 2Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 11. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A., 1997, Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.18, No. 7.
strategic management II contents
Stopford, J M and Baden-Fuller, C (1994) Creating Corporate Entrepreneurship, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 7.
Unit 3: Alliances
1. Objectives 2. The impetus for alliances 3. Development of strategic alliances 4. Purposes and types of alliances 5. Managing alliances 6. Relational quality and trust 7. Alliances and networks 8. Conclusions 9. Exploring key themes References and further reading 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.7
Essential Reading:
Grant, R.M. and Baden-Fuller, C. (2004) A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1. Arino, A., de Ia Torre, J., Ring, P. (2001) Relational Quality: Managing Trust in corporate Alliances, California Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 1. Ferlie, E. and Pettigrew, A., (1996) Managing Through Networks: Some issues and Implications for the NHS, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7.
Unit 4: Organisational Culture and Image

1. Objectives 2. Organisational culture themes within management literature 3. Culture as something an organisation has 4. Culture as something an organisation is 5. Culture as socially constructed reality 6. Artefacts and characteristics of culture 7. The cultural dynamics of organisations 8. The case for organisational identity 9. Cultures consequences for management 10. Exploring key themes References and further reading 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.9
Essential Reading:
Hatch, M. J. (1993) The Dynamics of Organisational Culture, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 4. Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. (2002), The dynamics of organizational identity, Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 8. Dunford, R. & Jones, D. (2000), Narrative in strategic change, Human Relations, Vol 53, No. 9.
Unit 5: Corporations and Social Responsibility

1. Objectives 2. Arguments for-and-against Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 3. Operationalising the concept of social responsibility 4. How firms could manage their interactions with the society 5. Exploring key themes References and further reading 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.6
Essential Reading:
Schwartz, M.S. and Caroll, A.B. (2003) Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 4. Matten, D. and Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: towards an extended 5.theoretical conceptualization, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 1. Kaufman, A. and Englander, E. (2005). A team production model of corporate governance, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19, No. 3.
UNIT 1 STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING
1. Objectives
q to develop understanding of how decisions are made in organisations q to develop an understanding of some of the constraints upon decision makers q to consider some approaches to facilitating and improving decision making processes
2. Constraints for managers

Managers make decisions, and these are influential in determining the futures of organisations. They do this despite the constraints placed upon them by, inter alia, factors in the external business environment, like government policies and trade cycles, and specific local factors like the culture of their organisations. For example: q decisions made by many UK and US bank executives in the years preceding the current financial meltdown led to the collapse of their banks, while other financial organisations operating more prudently and using more conventional strategies in the same industry achieved more sustained success. q decisions made by executives at Easyjet and Ryanair, two short-haul budget airlines based in the UK, led to differential competitive postures from more traditional airlines offering a comprehensive range of services, like British Airways. These smaller airlines have shown greater resilience in weathering oil price fluctuations and have managed to sustain their level of profitability in comparison to the larger airlines. q the decision made by Glaxo Wellcome and Smith Kline Beecham to merge was initially taken in 1998. This decision was changed in the same year, apparently because the two chief executives could not agree on who would run the newly merged giant. The merger finally went ahead two years later, creating GSK. These examples suggest that managers can, and do, make decisions. Who the people are making the decisions - and how they make them - has been the subject of considerable debate over many years. Some researchers see managers as fundamentally constrained - by, for instance, their mental processes and biases, the limitations of the information to which they have access, or the political and social contexts in which they work. Some have seen decisions as emerging from organisational processes and routines. However, it remains the case that decisions are made one way or another, so the study of decisions and decision makers has been an important strand in strategic research.
strategic management II
1.1
3. Influences on decision making

There is now a growing and bulky literature on strategic decision making. The view that decision making processes are guided by rationality has for long been central in strategic decision making theory and practice (Papadakis and Barwise, 1997). It has also for long been recognised that strategic decision making is very much influenced by the political behaviour of decision-makers (e.g. Child and Tsai, 2005; Wilson, 2003) and has consequently been conceptually treated by many researchers (Schwenk, 1995). More recently, the notion that intuition is also a viable source of decision making has received attention in the strategic decision making literature, though little empirical evidence has been furnished to support the extent that decision making is indeed influenced by it (Miller and Ireland, 2005; Sadler- Smith and Shefy, 2004). In an empirically rich piece of work, Eisenhardt & Zbaracki (1992) noted three paradigms, explored over the preceding 15 years, which attempted to describe the nature of strategic decision making: q rationality or bounded rationality - rational actors gather information, analyse it without bias, and make decisions aimed at known goals - like profitability q politics & power - managers pursue their own interests, or the interests of coalitions, in order to make decisions; rationality is subjugated to the individual needs of powerful people q garbage can - chance - for instance, who showed up at any given meeting - has a significant impact on decisions. These authors conclude that, while each of these was presented as a definitive model for describing the nature of strategic decision making processes, the empirical evidence suggests that all of these paradigms co-exist - often in the same organisation. There are lessons to be learned about each one. Indeed, later developments in the literature do show that some convergence has occurred and it has now been recognised that the complexity of realistic strategic decision making processes could be best unravelled if they are understood as the product of intuitive and political processes, combined with rational methods of decision making (Butler, 2002).
4. Decision making models

Elsewhere in the literature, researchers have attempted to develop models of decision making. Importantly, McGrath (1964) identified that decision making is a process with input and outcomes. His process model is shown in Figure 1.
1.2
Figure 1: Interaction process model Input Individual level Performance outcomes Group level Interaction process Other outcomes Environmental level Process Outcome
Source: McGrath (1964)
Inputs have been studied at all levels, for instance, at the: q individual level - demographics and psychographics of the decision makers (e.g. Hambrick and Mason, 1984) q group level - the routines, relationships and heuristics employed by the group (e.g. Eisenhardt, 1989) q environmental level - the economic and social context of the organisation (e.g. Mintzberg, 1979). Researchers have examined the process itself, trying to understand whether and how the nature of process is linked to performance (Elbana, 2006). Dean and Sharfman (1996) collected data on 61 decisions, using interviews with senior managers to investigate the effectiveness of strategic decision making processes. Their conclusion was that: decision processes influence the strategic choices managers make, which in turn influence the outcomes affecting a firm. Dean and Sharfman, 1996, p389 They also note that: managers who collected information and used analytical techniques made decisions that were more effective than those who did not. Those who engaged in the use of power or pushed hidden agendas were less effective than those who did not Dean and Sharfman, 1996, p389 Using a different methodology, Eisenhardt (1989) also examined decision cases, in what she termed High Velocity Environments, where changes in the business context were rapid, frequent and discontinuous. Her findings also highlighted performance
1.3
problems associated with the use of power and political behaviour in decision making. In addition, she identified how managers speed their cognition in these difficult contexts and still maintain decision quality. If decision process is linked to outcomes, then how to improve processes in order to improve performance becomes a critical issue. The literature is full of suggestions, ranging from team building interventions, through to the use of complex software to enable the modelling of decision problems (Eden, 1992). Scenario planning is a further approach to strategy development which is widely used. It aims to improve performance by facilitating the development of a wider view of possible strategic outcomes on the one hand, and an expanded and shared model of strategy within teams on the other.
5. Exploring key themes

The four articles in this section have been chosen to explore certain recurring themes in the literature. q Mintzberg & Waters (1998) is a seminal article. It proposes a typology of strategy making contexts, identifying the constraints and opportunities for strategy making present in each one. These contexts articulate many of the environmental and organisational level inputs to strategic decision making processes. q Eisenhardt (1999) represents many earlier findings on strategic decision making processes. Her focus is the Top Management Team which actually makes the decisions, how they operate and how they maintain decision quality. q Hendry (2000) makes a case for seeing strategic decision making as social practice, in which strategic discourse (including the discourse of strategic decisions) provides the loose coupling that mediates between cognition and action in the structuring of change process. q Jarzabkowski & Wilson (2006) offer a pragmatic approach to how various strategic management concepts and models should be used by practitioners of strategy. In their view, it is an examination of practice rather than theorizing about practice that might yield insight into how strategic theory and practice are inter-related.
1.4
References and further reading

Butler, R. (2002) Decision making. In Sorge, A.(ed.), Organisation. London, Thomson Learning, pp. 224-251. Child, J. and Tsai, T. (2005) The dynamic between firms environmental strategies and institutional constraints in emerging economies: evidence from China and Taiwan, Journal of Management Studies, Vol 42, 95-125. Dean, J. & Sharfman, M. (1996) Does Decision Process Matter? A Study of Strategic Decision-Making Effectiveness, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No 2, pp. 368-396. Eden, C. (1992) Strategy Development as a Social Process, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29, Issue 6, pp. 799-812. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (2002) A Mapping Framework for Strategy Making. In Huff, A.S. and Jenkins, M. (2002) Mapping Strategic Knowledge, London, Sage, pp.173195. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High Velocity Environments, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp 543-576. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1999) Strategy as Strategic Decision Making, Sloan Management Review, Spring 99, Vol. 40, Issue 3. Eisenhardt, K. & Zharacki, M. (1992) Strategic Decision Making, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 pp.17-37. Elbana, S. (2006) Strategic Decision Making - Process Perspectives, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol 8, No.1 pp. 1-20. Hambrick, D.C. & Mason, P. (1984) Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of its Top Managers, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, pp.193-206. Hendry, J. (2000) Strategic Decision Making, Discourse, and Strategy as Social Practice, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37, No. 7, pp.955-977. Jarzabkowski, P. & Wilson, D.C. (2006) Actionable Strategy Knowledge: A Practice Perspective, European Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 348-367. Miller, C.C. and Ireland, R.D. (2005) Intuition in strategic decision making: friend or foe in the fast-paced 21st century, Academy of Management Executive, Vol 19, pp.1930. Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J., (1998) Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. In SegalHorn, S. (ed.), The Strategy Reader. Milton Keynes/Oxford, OU/Blackwell. Mintzberg, H. (1979) The Structuring of Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, PrenticeHall. McGrath (1964) Social Psychology - A Brief Introduction. New York, Holt.
1.5
Papadakis, V.M. and Barwise, P. (1997) What can we tell managers about making strategic decisions? In Papadakis, V.M. and Barwise, P. (eds), Strategic Decisions. London, Kluwer: pp. 267-287. Sadler-Smith, E. and Shefy, E. (2004) The intuitive executive: understanding and applying gut feel in decision-making. Academy of Management Executive, Vol 18, 7691. Schwenk, C.R. (1988) The Essence of Strategic Decision Making. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books. van der Heijden, K. and Eden, C. The Theory and Praxis of Reflective Learning in Strategy Making in Eden, C. and Spender, J.C., Managerial Cognition & Organizational Cognition, Sage, London, pp 58-75. Wilson, D. (2003) Strategy as decision making. In Cummings, S. and Wilson, D. (eds), Images of Strategy. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 383-410.
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent

HENRY MINTZBERG; JAMES A WATERS Strategic Management Journal (pre-1986); Jul-Sep 1985; 6, 3; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 257
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
1.28
1.29
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.33
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.37
1.38
1.39
1.40
1.41
1.42
1.43
1.44
1.45
1.46
1.47
1.48
1.49
1.50
1.51
1.52
1.53
1.54
1.55
1.56
1.57
1.58
1.59
1.60
1.61
1.62
1.63
1.64
1.65
1.66
1.67
1.68
1.69
1.70
1.71
1.72
1.73
UNIT 2 ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
1. Objectives
q to understand how organisational learning is taking place and having an impact on strategic management performance at all levels q to develop an understanding of how organisations and individuals leverage their learning in the pursuit of competitive advantage q to grasp the notion of corporate entrepreneurship as a strategic management approach to creating an enhanced competitive position in the marketplace.
2. Introduction
Many authors and academics have written about how organisations learn and how small to medium-sized companies are the places where entrepreneurs can be found at work. It all seems familiar enough, but once you start to think a little more about these terms then they appear rather broad and vague. They mean different things to different people. In conventional strategic management thinking and theorising (e.g. Porters five forces analysis, the product portfolio matrix and investment appraisal techniques), factors such as the individuals values, meanings and experiences are essentially excluded from analytical and decision making processes. Furthermore, even in-depth studies of organisational culture tend to minimise the importance of the individual and groups of individuals as sources of knowledge creation and the ability of organisations to use new knowledge to shape and influence markets, products and service provision. Hence, the notion of an organisation having the ability to learn does require a leap of the mind. But it becomes more manageable if we ask ourselves what it is that the organisation needs to be able to do well. Some initial suggestions as to these abilities might include: q interfacing to the external environment in a way that satisfies the stakeholders q being efficient and effective in conducting its internal operations using structures and processes that deliver outputs which meet performance requirements q creating a work environment in which people can be effective in pursuing the purpose of the organisation. These abilities are an outcome of the combined effort of all those within the organisation and can be seen to manifest organisational learning. Some manage this learning very well, others less so.
2.1
There is a second level of learning - that of groups and teams. What does the group have to learn to do well? Here are some suggestions: q managing its interface to other internal groups while discharging its responsibility to the organisation q contributing to the satisfaction of customers and stakeholders q turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge and making this available to other groups. Up to this point, it is likely that you would agree that these are abilities that are recognised and, although perhaps not often spelt out in this way, are the very nature of organisational life. The final level of organisational learning is the individual. Everyone is quite happy with this, but many find it easier to provide descriptions rather than definitions. For example: q learning to understand oneself and set about mastering the local environment (politics, decision making, communicating and networking etc.) q being able to contribute to the team, either from a knowledge base or using a personal style approach q being able to recognise and create opportunities for personal development and growth. The drivers that stimulate individual behaviour and the determination to seek new knowledge - and hence learning - stem from a variety of sources. These would typically include: q directives from senior management q the individuals perception of where the pressure for performance is coming from and what is expected in terms of behaviour q experiences gained from tackling work problems q formal training events provided by the organisation. This mixture of drivers and the resulting learning that is manifested in behaviour at these three levels all contribute to what some call the organisations climate. This climate is recognisable by the competences and the behaviour norms displayed, creating in effect an ever-changing culture or set of subcultures. Figure 1 provides a model for interpreting these sources of organisational learning.
2.2
Figure 1: Model for interpreting sources of organisational learning

Drivers of Individual Learning
Directives from Corporate and senior levels
Perceptions of sources of pressure and performance requirements
Actions surrounding work itself
Ambitions and personality
Explicit and Tacit Learning
Organisational Climate and Culture
Explicit and Tacit Learning
Change Programmes
Training and Development Activities
Appraisal and Reward Systems
Control Systems
Management and Leadership Styles
Planned Organisational Drivers of Learning
Source: Adapted from P.J. Thurbin (1994) Leveraging Knowledge, London, Pitman/Financial Times
To be of value to the organisation, this learning needs to be leveraged for competitive advantage. Organisational processes that demonstrate this leverage rely heavily on what is known as entrepreneurial behaviour. In the early stages of forming an organisation, the founder or partners strive to create an enterprise which, if successful, becomes labelled as a dynamic entrepreneurial company. These are value-laden descriptors, but most of us would envisage such a company growing at a rate that was far above the average and demonstrating a high level of creativity and follow-through innovations by the partners. The standards of behaviour and performance are clearly set by the founders but, as the enterprise matures, its environment changes and the founders often become remote from the daily action. The organisational culture then becomes separated out from the organisational forms and personal systems that the founders created. The original culture will continue until it clashes with the demands of the way in which
2.3
the new structures have to operate. At this point, the founders either break the enterprise up into smaller parts and start again, or seek new managers who can drive the growing enterprise while they take a back seat. Promoting entrepreneurship in large companies is a much more complex issue. Large organisations often implement flat organisational structures to encourage the freedom of local decision making that the entrepreneurial approach is assumed to require. By adopting this approach new businesses are created within the existing corporation. This is sometimes described as corporate venturing or intrapreneurship. An alternative and much loved approach is to attempt to transform the climate of the whole organisation into one that supports creativity and idea generation, rewarding those who are able to drive the process of innovation. Companies such as 3M, Kodak, Canon and Matsushita are promoted as exemplars of this quest to encourage entrepreneurial activity that results in a form of continuous innovation and competitive performance. In trying to understand past and present organisational strategies and outcomes, as a step in being able to suggest future actions, we need to grasp the mental models used by those who have tried to shape the present organisational capabilities and performance. An obvious mental model to explore is that used by the founder or entrepreneur in setting up the business enterprise. Kees van der Heijden (1996) has described this mental model as representing the business idea - an idea that aimed to discover a new way of creating value for customers by bringing together a combination of competences that creates this value. The business idea can be captured in the form of a statement or business proposition. Such a statement describes the value of the offering to the customer or market, how it is supported by the sellers distinctive competencies and can be integrated into the buyers value system. In developing understanding of the mental models or learning that enabled the business idea to he implemented, the elements of a business model then evolve. (Osterwalder et al, 2005) Over time, the business model used by an organisation and interpretations of the daily operations and changes in the external environment create what Spender (1989) describes as the industry recipe. This recipe or business logic is then used by decision makers and managers as the lingua franca that drives all actions and evaluations of investment, operational and strategic decisions. It also determines the language and framework within which evaluations of past and predictions of future performance are made.
3. Learning organisations
Previous studies will have made you familiar with the classical divisions of management literature - the scientific line from Taylor (1911) to Simon (1945), with a focus on the objectivity or science approach to management, and the humanistic line from Weick (1979) to Mayo (1993), with the growing focus on culture and the use of metaphors and language as a way of interpreting how organisations really work.
2.4
Most pragmatists are happy to take both of these lines of thought on board when attempting to make sense of a complex set of realities. But the problem with that approach is that neither of these schools of thought faces the problem of how to convert organisational members knowledge into organisational knowledge - and then how to leverage this knowledge to achieve superior performance. March (1989) points out that there is a difference between the processes involved in acquiring and utilising existing knowledge (exploitation of old certainties) and those involved in creating new knowledge (exploration of new possibilities). It is the continuous development of this new knowledge that creates the organisational dynamism necessary for organisations to compete in environments that are becoming increasingly chaotic and unpredictable. Creating a balance between exploitation and exploration of knowledge is essential to the success of an organisation. The context in which this learning is taking place is never static - it is in a constant state of change as competitors, pressure groups, society, national and global economies alter and interact. In a similar way, organisations are not static - as strategies aimed at matching the organisation to that environment and positioning it relative to the competitors and building competences that will drive capabilities are pursued. Like a sports player, the moves may be preplanned but when the game is in progress the reactions to an opponents moves are spontaneous and represent the dynamic of the players. Organisations attempt to manage the dynamic that has been created by setting up corporate, business and operational management processes within which decisions can be made and the resulting problems and outcomes evaluated. The first observation to make is that organisational learning is taking place and having an impact on strategic management performance at all levels. Organisations use a range of measures and metrics to measure performance. Both formal and informal measures of organisational performance can trigger opportunities for organisational learning. By formal, we mean those measures that are made explicit and used for control purposes - whereas informal suggests more tacit or culture-based measures. Some of this learning may be restricting management performance. For example, where managers have learned that risk taking followed by lack of success leads to punishment, then there will be a tendency to regress to a more bureaucratic set of responses. Also, where managers are primarily rewarded if short-term business performance targets are met, then the tendency will be to hedge against making decisions that may be vital for the longer term. Many writers on organisational learning have attempted to define the progressive stages through which organisations may be moving in order to reach the final accolade of being a learning organisation. Swieringa and Wierdsma (1992) suggest that organisations can be identified as either demonstrating early entrepreneurial characteristics of learning, those reflecting prescriptions and those that are truly learning organisations. They use the criteria of strategy, structure, culture and systems to illustrate the differences. You may see some
2.5
parallels here to the McKinsey 7S approach to strategy implementation covered in Strategic Management I, i.e. the so-called hard aspects, such as strategy and structure and the softer aspects of skills, staff, systems, style and shared values. Remember that the McKinsey model states that all these aspects are important for successful implementation, but that in some contexts the weightings and emphasis between them may need to be varied. There is plenty of formal learning going on, but one wonders how responsive these organisations can be to changes in their environment. They are usually plagued with constant change programmes as managers attempt to influence both the knowledge being used and the explicit behaviours. The learning organisation is obviously problem focused. Learning takes place as problems are tackled and explicit knowledge captured and tested. Once again, we are faced with the problem that no one organisation exhibits these characteristics in a clear way, but at least now we have some guides as to the extremes.
4. Competitiveness and innovation

Creativity and innovation are not the same thing. Creativity is about generating novel ideas and innovation is the total process that converts these ideas into tangible benefits for customers and users. Moving an idea through the innovation process requires coordination and cooperation from a host of players who have access to the resources and support essential to success. At one level, it would seem obvious that all organisations are in some way or other permanently engaged in innovating as a fundamental strategic activity. What we are looking at here is the extent to which continuous innovation needs to be made into a formal and, thus explicit, organisational activity. One of the questions that large - and, increasingly, medium-sized - organisations have to address concerns their ability to continue to produce domestically in an environment where capital, labour, safety and environmental costs are many times higher than the costs of major foreign competitors. Such concerns point to the need to focus on innovation as a source of competitiveness. For many organisations, the notion of competing through innovation is often seen as something to do with capitalising on breakthroughs - whereas for others, it is about improving on what is already working, but finding cheaper or more efficient ways of obtaining the outcomes. The notion of breakpoints existing in the competitive cycle that then stimulate a rush for innovation has gained popularity in the literature. First there are divergent points where organisations attempt to compete by innovating to give customers variety and value and exploring the boundaries of the opportunity. The other breakpoint is labelled convergent and occurs when the divergence is spent - here processes are utilised that focus on cost reduction and delivery. Anticipating these breakpoints obviously requires a deep understanding of the industry and an organisation that pursues and leverages knowledge as a strategic activity. For
2.6
some organisations the sources of innovation are seen as being internal, and hence a great deal of emphasis is given to the capture and development of local knowledge as a way of competing. For large, particularly multinational, corporations the innovation process becomes both crucial and complex. The need emerges for an organisation that values diverse perspectives and capabilities, while being able to link and leverage the learning that takes place. For most organisations this creates a paradox, where legitimising local diversity may well clash with the need for control and the reward of performance. An organisation that has achieved a position of competitive advantage is under constant threat. Having the largest market share is no longer a guarantee of continuing success for the firm. Existing competitors will be seeking ways of either copying or finding alternatives to the way you do business. Imitation is not always a case of the small copying the large. British Airways attempt to imitate the start-ups, Easyjet and Ryanair, was a clear example of imitation - and in BAs case, it was one that failed. Maintaining secrecy about a new product, service, capability or technological breakthrough is becoming increasingly difficult. Relying on patents to deter imitation has always been a high-risk approach, as imitation is less expensive than a research and development based strategy and usually a lot quicker. Dysons investment in the bag-less vacuum cleaner shows how patents can be attacked and, although high prices were charged for the initial models, competitors have now closed the gap with equivalent devices. Gillette provides another example of how the process used to manufacture their Mach 3 blade has been kept a secret. Coca Cola have never patented their formula and can therefore argue that it has never been replicated.
5. Corporate entrepreneurship
The individual entrepreneur is often portrayed as the champion and leader, engaging in what might be seen as self-centred or isolated behaviour. Alternatively, the entrepreneur is seen as promoting the entrepreneurial team or an entrepreneurial network. Entrepreneurial firms, on the other hand, are those in which the top managers have entrepreneurial management styles, as evidenced by strategic decisions and operating philosophies. Companies in the early stages of growth have been categorised as entrepreneurial, then growing into vertically integrated and diversified organisations. As the organisation grows, the role of the entrepreneur needs to change - as the requirement is now for a product champion or change manager. A growing focus in both research and the literature has been on the need for organisations to build entrepreneurial networks that lead to radical change being identified, then authorised and supported by the chief executive. Corporate entrepreneurship, by its very name, implies an organisation-wide set of
2.7
behaviours that are normally attributed to individuals who exhibit an entrepreneurial style as described above. The argument being promoted here is that an organisation is able to make a conscious decision to behave in an entrepreneurial manner. Corporate entrepreneurship is a strategic management approach to creating an enhanced competitive position in the marketplace. The three forms of this approach are: q where organisations create a new business within the existing organisation (Burgelman, 1983; Block and MacMillan, 1993) q where organisations attempt to transform or renew their very nature (Moss Kanter, 1983) q where organisations attempt to change the rules of the industry in which they compete (Stevenson and Gumpert, 1985). Competition between firms in dynamic industries is based on capabilities. These are sets of business processes that are used strategically to deliver customer value and grow the business. Transforming a set of business processes into a capability depends on being able to work back from an identified set of customer needs. This can involve new product development and how to get that product to the customer consistently and at the required quality and price. Having an effective set of processes that result in a capability creates a situation that competitors find difficult to imitate. Competing on capabilities relies on understanding the industry value chain and making certain that the firms business processes take every advantage of the links in that chain. For example, although Ford Motor Company now outsource much of their manufacture and assembly, they have business processes that ensure that design is controlled by Ford and suppliers work to tight specifications and delivery requirements. The penalties attached to failing to capture and defend a capability are enormous.

The five articles in this section have been chosen to explore some recurring themes in the literature. q March (1989) is a seminal paper. It examines the explicit and implicit choices that organisations face in refining forms, routines, or practices that are essential to their survival (exploitation) and in generating new alternative practices (exploration) particularly in a changing environment. How organisations learn to find an appropriate balance between the two is key to their survival and competitive advantage. q Crossan & Berdrow (2003) offer a way to link organisational learning and strategic renewal. They have developed a framework to address the tension between exploration and exploitation. In this framework, four associated micro processes intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalising - serve to link individual,
2.8
group and organisational levels of learning within organisations. They argue that management needs to be cognisant that strategic renewal encompasses a multilevel process that spans from individual intuitive insights through to major resource allocation that institutionalise learning. q The article by Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) provides an appropriate link between all four topics that have been covered in this Unit. It highlights the ways in which strategic thinking has been pursued and researched over the past 40 years - a pursuit focused on providing explanations for outcomes of the actions of actors in organisations aimed at adding shareholder value and wealth generation. The reading focuses on the issue of developing and using organisational capabilities in a dynamic business environment as a means of creating added value and sustainable competitive advantage. q The material presented by Stopford and Baden-Fuller (1994) presents detailed arguments suggesting that the three stages of corporate entrepreneurship individual sensing, organisational renewal and industry rule or frame breaking are sequential and dependent on five organisational attributes. These attributes are identified as team orientation, aspirations beyond current resources, proactiveness, learning capability and capability to resolve dilemmas. The extent to which these are fully developed in an organisation appears to have a significant influence on the implementation of these strategies. Two interesting findings from these authors work are that the changes in organisational behaviour required to move between the stages took many years to acquire - and that the five attributes were noticeable in each of the stages. q Finally, the article by Koch (2008) is an interesting and detailed case study that illustrates the concept of strategic path and how the interplay of different components of strategic processes condition the dynamic capabilities of a firm to act and to react to changing environment. The evolution of media organisations in the market of national daily produced high quality newspapers in Germany is examined in this regard. There is also a wealth of interesting case studies on The UK Work Organisation Network (UKWON) website - http://www.ukwon.net/. UKWON is a network of institutions, practitioners and individuals researching and developing new ways of organising work that meet the competitive challenges of contemporary economic, technological and cultural change. You are encouraged to read through some of the materials on its website.

Block, Z. and MacMillan, J.C. (1993) Corporate Venturing, Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Burgelman, R.A. (1983) Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management, Management Science, Vol. 29, No. 12, pp. 1349-64. Crossman & Berdrow (2003), Organizational Learning and Strategic Renewal, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 11, pp. 1087-1105.
2.9
van der Weijden, K. (1996), Scenarios, The Art of Strategic Conversation, John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Koch, J. (2008), Strategic Paths and Media Management - A Path Dependency Analysis of German Newspaper Branch of Quality Journalism, Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), Vol. 60, pp. 50-73. March, J.G. (1989) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 71-87. Mayo, E. (1933) The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, New York, Simon and Schuster. Moss Kanter, R. (1983) The Change Masters, New York, Simon and Schuster. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. and Tucci, C. (2005) Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept, Communications of the Associations for Information Systems, 16: 1-25. Simon, H.A. (1945) Administrative Behaviour, New York, Macmillan. Stevenson, H.H. and Gumpert, D.D. (1985) The Heart of Entrepreneurship, Harvard Business Review, March-April. Stopford, J. M. and Baden-Fuller, C. (1994) Creating Corporate Entrepreneurship, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 521-36. Sweiringa, J. and Wierdsma, A. (1992) Becoming a Learning Organisation, Reading, Addison Wesley. Taylor, F.W. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management, New York, Harper. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.18 No. 7, pp.509-533. Thurbin, P.J. (1994) Leveraging Knowledge, London, Pitman/Financial Times. Weick, K.E. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd Edition, New York, Random House.
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.30
2.31
2.32
2.33
2.34
2.35
2.36
2.37
2.38
2.39
2.40
2.41
2.42
2.43
2.44
2.45
2.46
2.47
2.48
2.49
2.50
2.51
2.52
2.53
2.54
2.55
2.56
2.57
2.58
2.59
2.60
2.61
2.62
2.63
2.64
2.65
2.66
2.67
2.68
2.69
2.70
2.71
2.72
2.73
2.74
2.75
2.76
2.77
2.78
2.79
2.80
2.81
2.82
2.83
2.84
2.85
2.86
2.87
UNIT 3 STRATEGIC ALLIANCES
1. Objectives
q to introduce some of the main concepts and concerns in the field of strategic alliances q to enable students to conceptualise better the nature of the inter-firm relationships with which they may engage. While the study of Mergers & Acquisitions has a long history - and is well articulated in economic, finance and organisational theory - that of Alliances is less so. However, alliances are an extremely common strategic choice made by organisations across sectors. This section explores some of the issues of importance to managers engaged in strategic alliances.
2.The impetus for alliances

The business environment provides numerous reasons for increasing frequency of alliance behaviour. Industry regulation and deregulation, the internationalisation of business, and the speed at which change may occur internationally are all major factors with significant impact. In order to move into different sectors and industries, or into new markets, organisations need to be able to act quickly and manage risk. This may mean, for instance: q testing the water - rather than committing to major production or distribution investments q working with local knowledge - rather than trying to purchase it outright or develop it from scratch q developing relationships - which are flexible and can respond to change. Alliances seem to offer managers the means of working in this way. In addition, mergers and acquisitions are expensive, require extensive regulatory approval, due diligence and expose the organisation to intensive scrutiny from shareholders and markets. Not all of these factors are likely to be present in the case of alliances. Finally, alliances and other business relationships are often imposed by government or other key stakeholders. For instance in the UK, the relationships between medical providers (hospitals, general practitioners and social service organisations) are to a great extent determined and controlled by government or governmental agencies. Similarly, the requirement to outsource production capacity in some industries (for instance, in the tax-funded UK state broadcaster, the BBC) is a statutory one.
strategic maangement II
3.1
3. Development of strategic alliances

There have been a number of detailed and interesting researches on the development of strategic alliances. Of more recent works, one could mention the paper by Butler, Kenny and Anchor (2000) who provide an overview of the strategic reasons for alliances and contextualise these into the European defence industry. This industry is of course dominated by national governments, the key customers. Internationally, competition between defence contractors is intense. The European industry is moving toward closer cooperation, to reduce costs, increase competitiveness and mirror increasing cooperation between nations on defence. In a rather extensive work, Oum, Park and Zhang (2000) have comprehensively treated strategic alliances in the airline industry. They examine how globalisation has contributed to the development of strategic alliances in this industry and what the effects of these alliances have been on productivity, pricing, branding and profitability of airlines. In the past decades, the global airline industry has clearly moved in the direction of capacity rationalisation, improved productivity and the maintenance of existing service levels.
4. Purposes and types of alliances

Within the wider context of increasing interfirm cooperation, individual organisations cite a wide range of specific strategic objectives for alliances. For instance: q Sharing - costs, knowledge, expertise, or risk in parts of the value chain q Cost Savings - through economies of scale or scope; improved stock positions; moving parts of the value chain to lower cost locations q Time - shorter investment returns time horizons; speed for new market entry or new product development. These can also be linked to the depth of alliance chosen, for instance Kaplan and Hurd (2002) provide this broad typology of alliances: q Promotional - joining brands or products for joint promotion on a campaign basis, for convenience q Operational - in supply chain management, production, distribution or sales, often for reasons of efficiency q Relationship - sharing knowledge, infrastructure, or some other asset, perhaps through licensing or joint ventures, in order to leverage value from existing assets q Strategic - joint ventures and more large scale objectives, similar to mergers and acquisitions, creating new organisations and new value as a result.
3.2
5. Managing alliances
There are at least three different approaches to understanding the process dynamics and evolution of alliances based on numerous empirical researches that have been carried out in the past decade or so. Here is a brief summary of each of these approaches:
5.1 Life-cycle approach

Attempts to rationalise the dynamics of alliances have tended to conceptualise them as a predictable, linear sequence of life-cycle stages. The underlying assumption in such understanding is that effective strategic alliances move smoothly from one phase to the next, as a function of rational planning and execution by those in charge. The key premise of the life-cycle model is the attribution of the central role in the development of alliances to management, a factor that certainly explains why this approach is so popular in consulting and managerial circles. DAunno and Zuckerman (1987) proposed four developmental stages in such collaborations - emergence, transition, maturity and critical crossroads. Likewise, Achrol et al (1990) also presented four stages - entrepreneurship, collectivity, formalization and domain elaboration. Forrest and Martin (1992) too named four courtship, negotiation, implementation, and operation. However, Murray and Mahon (1993) prescribed that all alliances proceed through FIVE stages - courtship, negotiation, start-up, maintenance and ending. Finally, Kanter (1994) compared an alliance to a marriage, identifying different stages of development: 1. Courtship - discovering compatibility 2. Engagement - closing the deal, going public, meeting the family of stakeholders 3. Setting up house together - discovering differences 4. Devising mechanisms for bridging those differences - getting along 5. As old-marrieds - discovering internal changes as a result of accommodation & collaboration While this romantic metaphor is helpful for conceptualising stages of development, it should of course be challenged and explored. For instance, many alliances are polygamous - as in the complex network arrangements that exist in many industries. Similarly, the notion of choice may need to be challenged, as many alliances are the result of imposed strategies - as in public sector risk management meetings in the UK.
5.2 Process approach

The works of Ring and Van de Ven (1994) and Doz (1996) are good examples of this process approach to alliance building - the core idea is to view alliance building as a process of collaborations which can neither be fully specified in advance nor
3.3
controlled by the partners prior to their execution. Thus in this model, the formation of an alliance is viewed as a recurring sequence of negotiation, commitment and execution (Rond & Bouchikhi, 2004). Each phase is in turn governed by a series of formal, legal and informal social and psychological processes which aim to arrive at efficient and equitable outcomes. So, alliances are perceived to develop as a consequence of a repetitive series of three identifiable stages - negotiation, commitment and execution which are also mediated by a fourth stage - namely, achievement of fairness and efficiency. In contrast to lifecycle approach then, the process model does not consider alliance building as a series of uniform and predictable sequences of events or stages. However, like the life-cycle approach, it retains a sense of purpose for alliance building - namely, fairness and efficiency which would allow for the progress of the alliance to be assessed and reevaluated. The process view of alliances thus recognises that they are prone to unplanned events, unexpected results and conflicting interpretations and interests can and do happen. Consequently, the management can neither plan nor control the sequence of events, but it is supposed to develop the ability to learn and adapt as the process of alliance building progresses. This requires that the managers involved in alliance building should constantly monitor events, use their leverage to adapt their design and governance, ensure that they are constantly moving towards greater fairness and efficiency for partners and eventually terminate them should it fail to meet its objectives.
5.3 Evolutionary Approach

This perspective on alliance building is Darwinian in the sense that it views organisations as entities which must continuously compete for survival due to the availability of scarce resources and the occurrence of a series of chance variations. So, in contrast to the life-cycle or process models, the evolutionary approach lays emphasis on the environments as the principal motor of change which would only allow those entities to remain that are best fit to survive (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995; Koza & Lewin, 1998; Reuer et al., 2002). Implicit in this approach is the notion that alliance evolution - even at the level of individual alliances - is driven predominantly by the forces that operate at the population level of an industry or sector. Consequently, the evolutionary approach of alliances does not seek to offer managerial prescriptions - for it assumes that the diffusion of alliances across sectors, driven by the quest of organisations to compete for scarce resources, would ultimately lead to collective learning by organisations from their own and others experiences and this would bring about ever more sophisticated and fitter alliances over time. So, whilst individual managers cannot shape evolutionary processes at the population level, they should try to align their alliances with the prevailing trend and not attempt to swim against the evolutionary current in their sectors.
3.4
6. Relational quality and trust

The notion that organisations change over time - and are changed by the relationships into which they enter - is nevertheless important. It implies that management needs to be aware of change as a continuing factor in alliances. How to develop an alliance, what skills and competences are needed, what systems and protocols and what particular issues are important at any given point in time, all become significant. As the relationship develops, the development of trust is a significant issue. Trust is a multi-faceted concept and its development depends on - and is a result of - effective management. Alliances are often specifically entered into to gain new knowledge - for instance, of technology or markets - and an area in which trust becomes significant is that of sharing and preserving assets and knowledge. Arino, de la Torre and Ring (2001) offer some suggestions about how to develop what they call relational quality and provide a list of normative suggestions for how best to manage inter-firm relationships. They contend that trust is like a reservoir that the partners must manage. Their proposals address the various stages of relationship building.
7. Alliances and networks

While strategic alliances are often perceived as being single relationships with external organisations - as in the marriage metaphor - in practice, organisations frequently are part of industry networks. Ferlie and Pettigrew (1996) investigate the case of a large organisation with around a million employees - the UK NHS (National Health Service) which is really a dense network of organisations rather than a single large one. At the time of the study, managers within the NHS were engaged in intensive development of relationships between organisations. The study highlights several key managerial problems associated with managing such a network: q performance assessment and management q sustaining the network q dealing with change q dealing with uncertainty q developing staff competence in managing alliances.
3.5
8. Conclusions
As a major strategic choice being pursued by firms and as an imposed strategy in many contexts, strategic alliances and networks deserve extensive study. The motivations for alliances, the processes through which they are managed and developed and the managerial competences required to ensure their success are all critical issues.

The three articles in this section have been chosen as they explore most of the key themes in the literature. q Grant and Baden-Fuller (2004) is a knowledge-based view of the firm which offers new insight into the causes and management of interfirm alliances. They argue that the primary advantage of alliances over both firms and markets is in accessing rather than acquiring knowledge. Building upon the distinction that March (1991) has made between the knowledge generation (exploration) and knowledge application (exploitation) - see Unit 2 - they show that alliances contribute to the efficiency in the application of knowledge. They do this, firstly, by improving the efficiency with which knowledge is integrated into the production of complex goods and services, and secondly, by increasing the efficiency with which knowledge is utilised. q Arino, de la Torre and Ring (2001) fill a gap in the alliance literature. Whilst the bulk of the research on this subject appears to have converged on alliance design, regulation and performance, they have examined the process dynamics and evolution of alliance building. For them, an important factor that accounts for the differences in the success of alliances is trust. This article explains that reliance on trust is a complex probabilistic decision, and management must focus on a broader concept - the quality of inter-partner relationship - as a critical determinant of alliance success. q Ferlie & Pettigrew (1996) deal with the important issue of forging alliances through networks and they highlight some of the key managerial issues for dealing with these complex organisational settings.
3.6

Achrol, R.S., Scheer, L.K. and Stern, L.W. (1990) Designing Successful Transorganizational Marketing Alliances. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. Arino, A., de la Torre, J., Ring, P. (2001) Relational Quality: Managing Trust in Corporate Alliances, California Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 1 pp 109-131. Butler, C., Kenny, B., Anchor, J. (2000) Strategic Alliances in the European Defence Industry, European Business Review, Vol 12, No. 6 pp. 308-321. DAunno, T.A. and Zuckerman, H.S. (1987). A life cycle model of organizational federations: The case of hospitals. Academy Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 534-545. Das, T.K., & Teng, B-S. (2000) A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances Journal of Management Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 31-61. de Rond, M. and Bouchikhi, H. (2004). On the Dialectics of Strategic Alliances, Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 56-69. Doz, Y.L. (1996) The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial Conditions or Learning Processes? Strategic Management Journal Vol. 17 Supplement pp. 55-79. Ferlie, E. and Pettigrew, A., (1996) Managing Through Networks: Some issues and Implications for the NHS, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7, March, pp. S81-S99. Forrest, J.E. and Martin, M.J.C. (1992) Strategic alliances between large and small research intensive organizations: Experiences in the biotechnology industry. R&D Management, Vol. 22, No.1, pp. 41-54. Grant, R.M. and Baden-Fuller, C. (2004) A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances, Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 61-84. Kaplan, N.J. and Hurd, J. (2002) Realizing the Promise of Partnerships, Journal of Business Strategy, May/June. Koza, M.P. and Lewin, A.Y. (1998). The co-evolution of strategic alliances, Organization Science, Vol. 9, pp. 255-264. Lorange, P. and Roos, J. (1993) Strategic Alliances: Formation, Implementation and Evolution. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Moss Kanter, R. (1994) Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliances, Harvard Business Review, July/August, pp. 96-108. Murray, E.A., Jr. and Mahon, J.F. (1993). Strategic alliances: Gateway to the new Europe? Long Range Planning. Vol 26, pp. 102-111. Oum, T., Park, J-H., Zhang, A. (2000) Globalization and Strategic Alliances: The Case of the Airline Industry. New York, Elsevier-Science.
3.7
Reuer, J.J., Zollo, M. and Singh, H. (2002) Post-formation dynamics in strategic alliances, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 135-152. Ring, P.S. and Van de Ven, A.H.(1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganisational relationships, Academy Management Review, Vol. 19, pp. 90-118. Saxton, T. (1997) The Effects of Partner and Relationship Characteristics on Alliance Outcomes Academy of Management Journal Vol. 40, No. 2 pp. 443-461. Spekman, R.E., Isabella L.A., MacAvoy T.C. & Forbes III, T. (1996) Creating Strategic Alliances which Endure Long Range Planning Vol. 20, No. 3 pp. 346-357. Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations, Academy Management Review, Vol. 19, pp.510-540. Varadarajan, P.R. and Cunningham M.H. (1995) Strategic Alliances: A Synthesis of Conceptual Foundations Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 282-297.
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.24
3.25
3.26
3.27
3.28
3.29
3.30
3.31
3.32
3.33
3.34
3.35
3.36
3.37
3.38
3.39
3.40
3.41
3.42
3.43
3.44
3.45
3.46
3.47
3.48
3.49
3.50
3.51
3.52
3.53
3.54
3.55
UNIT 4 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE & IMAGE
1. Objectives
q to understand the variety of conceptualisations of culture and image q to understand the different applications and operationalisational consequences of these different approaches q to understand the basic implications of different approaches for strategy q to use different approaches in the context of your own and other organisations.
2. Organisational culture themes within management literature

Management theorists approach the problem of organisational culture in numerous ways, the underlying reason is that culture - whether in an organisational context or not - is an ill-defined term and so many interpretations of it exist. The assumptions about culture and reality that any management theorist adopts dominate and transcend through their whole theory (Smircich, 1983). One core problem related to organisational culture is ascertaining whether culture is something an organisation has or something it is (Hofstede, 1991; Smircich, 1983). Each of these two assumptions produces different ways to approach the problem of organisational culture. This Unit presents the main arguments and problems relating to each of these views. The accompanying articles explore these arguments in greater depth.
3. Culture as something an organisation has

The primary assumption, surrounding culture as something an organisation has, is the notion that culture is a critical variable that can be manipulated and measured (Smircich, 1983). Smircichs (1983) review of management approaches to organisational culture details two frequently used approaches that treat culture as something an organisation has.
3.1 Mechanistic approach

The first approach views culture under a machine metaphor - therefore the organisation is a vehicle for accomplishing a task. It has multiple parts that are designed, coordinated and fine tuned with each other with the quest of becoming an efficient organisation (Smircich, 1983). This type of metaphor can be seen in classical
4.1
management literature such as Crozier (1964) who describes bureaucracies under the machine metaphor, it is also a foundation for Taylors (1911) task-centred approach of Scientific Management. This mechanistic approach has the underlying assumption that culture is a real and functional instrument that serves the biological and psychological needs of humans (Smircich, 1983), therefore it highlights the rational and technical processes that an organisation undergoes. This metaphor is far too simplistic because it fails to appreciate any of the sociological and cultural aspects of the organisation (Morgan, 1997).
3.2 Organismic approach

The second approach uses an organism metaphor to conceptualise culture. Here the organisation is like an organism that interacts with, adapts to and is in a constant process of exchange with the environment (Smircich, 1983). This spans from the notion that the organism, hence also the organisation, struggles for survival within an ever-changing environment (Smircich, 1983). The assumption made about culture here is that: Culture functions as an adaptive regulatory mechanism. (Smircich, 1983, pp.342) The organism metaphor places great importance on the relationship between the organisation and its environment, with particular focus on what is required to survive within it. These types of investigations focus on internal variables within the organisation, such as structure, size and technology (Smircich, 1983). By externalising the future of the organisation, this metaphor neglects the idea that the organisation and its members can make their own future (Morgan, 1997). A good example of an organism organisational culture model was proposed by Deal and Kennedy (1982) which categorizes four different types of organisation based on two external factors - the amount of risk associated with the company activities and the speed of feedback information regarding whether the chosen strategies have been successful or not.
3.3 Critique of the assumption that culture is something an organisation has

Deal and Kennedy (1982) offers an easily memorable handle with which to approach the complexities of organisational culture. This is one way to categorise cultures which make it easy to provide convincing, discrete categorisations or taxonomies. This suggests the need to use caution and judgement in the study of any organisational culture - any one model alone cannot represent the whole phenomenon.
4.2
One problem with Deal and Kennedys model is that it is too prescriptive. The model is too heavily grounded in westernised stereotypes, therefore they provide bland explanations that describe nothing more than the surface of organisational cultures and they barely expand on what is obvious to any outsider. The way that they have portrayed organisational culture points to the assumption that they have treated culture as something an organisation has. They spend considerable time explaining cultural artefacts and archetypes, such as heroes, rituals and routines etc., which they then use as building blocks for culture. Their description of culture is multi-faceted because each cultural artefact or archetype is a piece of the cultural puzzle. However, although their organismic models and their descriptions of heroes (i.e. a star or the super salesperson) have some references to symbolism, they fail to provide a very deep explanation of culture. The inherent problem with these kinds of approaches that treat culture as something an organisation has is that they both fail to fully appreciate the human and cultural aspects which are so fundamental to organisations. Instead, they try to pin organisational culture onto the back of a metaphor that is too concrete and stagnant to be able to explain the fluctuant nature of social groups and the realities they forge for themselves. Although certain management authors may use these approaches to describe organisational culture, the descriptions that arise are often an oversimplification of a difficult concept - as demonstrated above - because the assumptions made end up restricting the breadth of the investigation.
4. Culture as something an organisation is

The core assumption that prevails when culture is considered as something an organisation is, is that culture is the root metaphor used to describe culture. This means a shift away from the use of metaphor used from those comparing organisations with physical phenomena (machines, organisms) towards metaphors that compare organisations with non-concrete, ambiguous and expressive forms of subjective experience (Smircich, 1983: 348). In other words, the assumption is that organisations are not unquestionably real, but a reification of the history of a collective human imagination. The focus of this culture as a product of human imagination approach is symbolic, psychological and cultural aspects of organisation. The organisation, as one social phenomenon, is compared to another, non-concrete, social phenomenon (Smircich, 1983). Smircich (1983) describes three approaches to organisational culture that use culture as a root metaphor - these are organisational cognition, organisational symbolism and unconscious (psychodynamic) processes with the organisation.
4.1 Cognitive approach

The cognitive approach uses the assumption that culture is a system of shared cognitions with a set of rules that are generated by those within that culture. This means that organisations also become a system of shared cognition or knowledge. Organisation is maintained through the subjective meanings and rules shared by the
4.3
organisation members (Smircich, 1983). The focus of investigations using the cognitive approach is finding out what the rule system is and how the organisation members view and describe the world.
4.2 Psychodynamic approach

The psychodynamic approach is centred on the notion that culture is a manifestation of unconscious psychological processes, so that organisational forms and practices are also expressions of the unconscious processes (Smircich, 1983). The main assumption here is that the human psyche imposes constraints upon the organisation by structuring the psychic and physical content of the organisation - by these, one means the thought processes and actions that are accomplished (Smircich, 1983). The focus here is the practices within the organisation, in hope that the patterns of organisation will reveal facts about of the unconscious processes of the mind (Smircich, 1983).
4.3 Organisational symbolism approach

The organisational symbolism approach is based on culture being created through sharing of symbols and meanings between individuals within the group (Smircich, 1983). To gain an understanding of the culture, the symbolic action within it must be interpreted (Manning, 1979). Within this context, organisations are patterns of symbolic discourse. Organisation is maintained through symbolic action modes, such as language that facilitates shared meanings and shared realities. (Smircich, 1983: 342) The focus with these types of investigations is ascertaining the understanding that individuals gain from interpreting their experiences and how this understanding guides human action. At a group level, it may lead to seeing how these understandings and interpretations can become a group phenomenon to guide organised social action (Smircich, 1983).
5. Culture as socially constructed reality

Culture enables people to find particular solutions to the challenges they face in the world. A means of finding this solution is by creating their reality of the world. Reality is constructed by obtaining meaning and symbolic relationships that allow one to understand the world (Geertz, 1973; Smircich, 1983). As a consequence, culture is a process of reality construction that is continuously sustained and altered by social interaction (Smircich, 1983: Morgan, 1997). Human groups can therefore create and recreate their social reality through the continuous process of social action. Culture, consequently is living and evolving (Morgan, 1997) and cannot be a stationary phenomenon. Within the context of organisational symbolism, derived from Geertzs symbolic anthropology, this means that the symbols which form the understanding within groups are constantly negotiated and renegotiated. This means that both the understanding gained from symbols - and the symbols themselves - can change.
4.4
Formation of culture has been discussed, but how can culture be analysed or understood?. Strauss and Quinn (1997) propose a model of culture that describes culture as having two sets of opposing forces acting upon it, centrifugal and centripetal forces. These two forces serve to tear apart and bring together. The centrifugal forces elicit certain tendencies within cultures, these are that cultural understandings can be changeable, they can only be shared by a few people in the culture and that they can only have meaning in a limited number of contexts (Strauss and Quinn, 1997). Therefore, centrifugal forces can make the cultural understandings fall apart. Centripetal forces have the opposite actions to centrifugal actions, so they make cultural understandings durable, widely shared and thematic, in the sense that they can apply to a numerous contexts (Strauss and Quinn, 1997). If this theory is hybridised with the concept of subcultures, one can see that cultures with subcultures must be those where the centrifugal forces are stronger than the centripetal forces. It has been ascertained that meanings and symbols can be shared to different extents, and that the degree to which they are shared within organisations will influence whether or not subcultures are present. Now that the possible effects of shared meanings and symbols have been explained, the next step is to explore what types of symbols and other cultural artefacts are present within organisations that can give rise to shared meanings.
6. Artefacts and characteristics of culture

Many aspects of any organisation or group will reflect its core beliefs and shared meanings - hence, also its culture. These artefacts of culture or symbols are present throughout the organisation. One of the most comprehensive models to illustrate these artefacts is the cultural web and the notion of organisational paradigms (Johnson, 1992, 2000) - first introduced in Strategic Management I.
6.1 The cultural web

The cultural web depicts the cultures paradigm being protected and encased by various types of artefacts - these are symbols, rituals and routines, organisational structures, stories and myths, control systems and power structures. These cultural artefacts are expressions and representations of the core paradigm. For the core paradigm to be understood, these cultural artefacts need to be analysed and interpreted so that one can ascertain what their true meaning is. The cultural web model fits in well with the ideologies of organisational symbolism because it respects the notion that symbols must be interpreted to get at their core meaning or the paradigm. All the artefacts can be treated as symbolic modes that make possible the meaning and reality sharing within the organisation. One can assume that for subcultures to be able to emerge different groups must interpret and receive the symbols/artefacts in different manners, so that they hold different meanings.
4.5
Therefore, the more unique and divergent the subculture the greater its inclination will be to deviate from the mainstream culture (Trice and Beyer, 1993) and perceive these artefacts in a different manner.
7.The cultural dynamics of organisations

So, how is culture constituted by assumptions, values, artefacts, symbols and the processes that link them? In answering this question, Hatch (1993) develops a cultural dynamics model that considers how different cultural elements are related. According to this model, culture is constituted by manifestation, realisation, symbolisation and interpretation processes (see Figure 1). All of these processes, Hatch argues, can co-occur in a continuous production and reproduction of culture and there is no linear order in which they happen. In other words, none of these processes can stand on its own and relies on other processes to contribute to the production and reproduction of culture in both its stable and changing forms and conditions.
Figure 1: The Cultural Dynamics Model
Values
Ma nife sta ti
on
ea
n tio lisa
Assumptions
Artifacts
Sy
Symbols
Source: Hatch (1993)
One could begin anywhere on this circular model and move in either clockwise or a counter-clockwise direction to explain the dynamics of culture.
4.6
bo
lisa
ti o
io
Inte
n
tat
pre
q Manifestation process - permits cultural assumptions to reveal themselves in the perceptions, cognitions and emotions of organisational members. q Realisation process - transforms, or brings to life, values into artefacts (e.g. rites, rituals, organisational stories, humour and various physical objects). q Symbolisation process - combines an artefact with meaning that reaches beyond or surrounds it. q Interp retation process - is the mechanism by which the meaning of organisational symbols are established, thus either reinforcing current assumptions or undermining them and, in turn, setting in motion a continuous renewal of organisational culture.
8.The case for organisational identity

Often, sets of views held about an organisation by those outside that organisation are different to those held by the members of the organisation. Organisations are being criticised for having a corporate image which is different from their actions. To counter such criticism, organisations are allowing their stakeholder groups to have more intimate access to their private lives than they have ever experienced before. One implication of such scrutiny is that organisational culture - which was once hidden from view - is now exposed to anyone interested in a company. This, in turn, exposes organisational members to more opinions and judgments about their organisations from stakeholders. Consequently, there arises a tension between organisational culture, which is the context for internal definitions of organisational identity, and organisational image, which is the site for external definitions of organisational identity (Albert and Whetten, 1985; Fiol et al. 1995; Hatch & Schultz, 2000). It is therefore necessary to understand the processes by which these two set of definitions influence one another. In other words, the way that an organisation is perceived by outsiders reflects on the way that organisation perceives itself and vice versa. The link between these two sets of definitions is the organisational identity which consists of the organisations purpose, the rationale for why it is important for the organisation to exist, and the source for how members do their work in a distinctive way. Culture and image of an organisation could become dissociated. Organisations could become self-absorbed and disconcerted about how they are perceived by outsiders or they could ignore or abandon their cultural heritage because they have given too much power over how they are perceived by stakeholders.
4.7
Such discrepancies between culture and image could make an organisation dysfunctional either because they either leave the organisation with culturally selfobsessive identity or overwhelmed by concern for their image.
9. Cultures consequences for management

The practical consequences of organisational culture for managers depend largely upon which approach you subscribe to. The culture as has approach is inclined to produce prescriptions for cultural interventions to manage the culture. The dispute here is how to determine where are we now? and how to get there. The culture as is approach is less likely to see culture as manageable and controllable. Systematic prescriptions for management are usually regarded with some scepticism. Culture may be capable of being influenced, according to this approach, but the influence is quite unpredictable and heavily relies upon tacit, rather than explicit communication, knowledge and information.

The three articles in this section have been chosen to explore some of the key themes in the literature. q Hatch (1993) is an extensive article which explores the dynamics of organisational culture and the way that different elements of culture and their accompanying processes help produce and reproduce organisational culture. It is a very informative and rich article and brings together a host of scholarly work by other researchers in the field of organisational culture. q The article by Hatch & Schultz (2002) fills a gap that exists in the literature which deals with organisational image and culture. The notion of identity, as developed in this article, bridges this gap and explores the dynamic nature of organisational identity. q Finally, in Narrative in strategic change, Dunford and Jones (2000) offer a rich study of strategic change in three different organisations in which senior managers were seeking to respond to the deregulation of the economy in which they were operating. This article illustrates the power of a cultural approach in examining the problems of organisational change.
4.8

Albert, S. & Whetten, D.A. (1985) Organizational identity in Cummings, L.L. and Straw, M.M. (Eds), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, Vol. 7, pp. 263-95. Crozier, M. (1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, Chicago, Chicago University Press. Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1982) Corporate Cultures; The rites and rituals of corporate life. London, Penguin Business. Dunford, R. and Jones, D. (2000) Narrative in strategic change, Human Relations, Vol 53, No. 9, pp.1207-1226. Fio, C.M., Hatch, M.J. and Golden-Biddle, K. (1998) Organizational culture and identity: Whats the difference anyway? in Whetten, D. and Godfrey, P. (Eds), Identity in organizations. Building theory through conversations. Thousands Oak, CA, Sage. Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, Basic Books, cited in Hawkins, P. (1997) Organizational Culture: Sailing between Evangelism and Complexity, Human Relations. Vol. 50, No.4, p. 417. Hatch, M. J. (1993) The Dynamics of Organisational Culture, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 657-693. Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. (2000) Scaling the Tower of Babel: Relational differences between identity, image and culture in organisations in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Holten Larsen, M. (Eds), The expressive organizations: Linking identity, reputation and the corporate brand. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. (2002), The dynamics of organizational identity, Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 8, pp. 989-1017. Hofstede, G. (1991) Culture and Organizations; Software of the mind. London, HarperCollins Business. Johnson, G. (1992) Managing Strategic Change - Strategy, Culture and Action. Long Range Planning. Vol. 25, No.1, pp 28-36. Manning, P. K. (1979) Language and Social Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 660-671. Morgan, G. (1997) Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Morgan, M. J. (1993) How Corporate Culture Drives Long Range Planning. Vol. 26, No.2. pp. 110-118. Smircich, L. (1983) Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 28, p. 339. Strauss, C. & Quinn, N. (1997) A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
4.9
Taylor, W.F. (1911) Principles of Scientific Management. Trice, H. & Beyer, J. (1993) The Cultures of Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, cited in Hocking, J. & Carr, A. (1996) Culture: The Search for a Better Organisational Metaphor in Oswick, C. & Grant, D. (eds) Organisation Development. London, Pitman.
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.30
4.31
4.32
4.33
4.34
4.35
4.36
4.37
4.38
4.39
4.40
4.41
4.42
4.43
4.44
4.45
4.46
4.47
4.48
4.49
4.50
4.51
4.52
4.53
4.54
4.55
4.56
4.57
4.58
4.59
4.60
4.61
4.62
4.63
4.64
4.65
4.66
4.67
4.68
4.69
4.70
4.71
4.72
4.73
4.74
4.75
4.76
4.77
4.78
4.79
4.80
4.81
4.82
4.83
4.84
4.85
4.86
4.87
4.88
4.89
4.90
4.91
4.92
4.93
4.94
4.95
4.96
4.97
UNIT 5 CORPORATIONS AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
1. Objectives
q to understand the concept of corporate social responsibility q to understand the role of different stakeholders in the formulation of strategy q to apply these themes to evaluate the strategy of a given corporation from a social responsibility perspective.
2. Arguments for-and-against Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

What are the responsibilities of business to society? In the words of Milton Friedman, the Nobel Laureate and the special adviser to the former British prime minister, Baroness Thatcher: the social responsibility of business is to make profits (1970). The proponents of this view argue that the ultimate decision criteria in business are the welfare of the shareholders which is gauged by the level of profitability of the corporation. Managers have one prime responsibility and that is to maximise profits for the sake of one particular stakeholder, i.e. the shareholders. Thus, in the Friedmanesque view of business and society, the responsibility of business is to make money and the management should focus on attaining this goal alone. Any act of philanthropy belongs to the discretion of individual shareholders or employees. Of course, this view has been questioned and challenged as early as the late 1940s when Harvard Business Review published a series of articles to highlight the importance of social concerns in management education. However, since the 1960s, systematic attempts have been made to understand and appreciate the role of business in society. It is now argued that socially responsible corporations are no less profitable than those who pay less or no attention to this issue. Indeed, in a customer-oriented society where pressure groups and governments do exert immense pressures on business to play by the rules and maintain values - being socially responsible could enhance the sustainability of a business and the loyalty of its customers.
3. Operationalising the concept of social responsibility

However, in order that the concept of social responsibility is brought down from some abstract notion to a means of guiding businesses through a number of concrete practical steps, a set of questions needs to be answered.
5.1
Why should firms be good corporate citizens? Many academic disciplines have contributed to answering this question. However, the principles to guide business in its relationship with society were primarily based in sociology and management. The concept of CSR is the result of this search. As suggested by Swanson (1995), three main motivations stand out. First, CSR can be viewed as an instrument to help achieve performance objectives in terms of profitability, return on investment, or sales volume. Second, business is compelled to adopt social responsibility initiatives in order to conform to stakeholder norms and defining appropriate behaviour. Third, business may be self-motivated to have a positive impact, regardless of social pressures. The growing acceptance of CSR in the 1950s and the 1960s resulted in a vigorous attack on it and its rather abstract and general premises were found to be inadequate to guide managers in differentiating between what is pure philanthropy and what defines business responsibilities. In his ground-breaking article, A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance, Carroll (1979) tried to defuse the economic responsibility vs. social responsibility argument by acknowledging that economic profitability is a fundamental social responsibility of business. However, based on earlier conceptual work, he also offered a model which includes the legal, ethical and discretionary responsibilities of the business. In a later article, Schwartz and Carroll (2003) go beyond the earlier conceptualisation of CSR to capture the overlapping nature of CSR domains and to account for the activities of corporations that may engage in multiple domains. In tandem with the developments in the theoretical conceptualisation of CSR, a more practitioner-based movement has emerged under the term Corporate Citizenship (Windsor, 2001). The key argument holds that a corporations engagement in citizenship activities enhances corporate reputation and will improve long-term financial performance. This rhetoric appeals to managers pursuing shareholder wealth or economic value creation goals.
5.2
Figure 1: Corporate involvement in society : a strategic approach Generic social impacts Value chain social impacts Social dimensions of competitive context Strategic philanthropy that leverages capabilities to improve salient areas of competitive context
Good citizenship
Mitigate harm from value chain
Responsive CSR
Transform valueStrategic chain activities to benefit CSR society while reinforcing strategy
Source: Porter & Kramer (2006)
Such a tendency seems to underpin recent theoretical contribution by Porter and Kramer. In a couple of recent articles, they (Porter & Kramer 2002, 2006) propose a fundamentally new way to look at the relationship between business and society that does not treat corporate growth and social welfare as a zero-sum game. They introduce a framework that individual companies can use to identify the social consequences of their actions; to discover opportunities to benefit society and themselves by strengthening the competitive context in which they operate; to determine which corporate social responsibility initiatives they should address; and to find the most effective ways of doing so. They propose that companies could move beyond adopting a responsive CSR which implies that they act as good corporate citizens, attuned to the evolving social concerns of their stakeholders and mitigating existing or anticipated adverse effects from business activities. Instead, they argue that companies could adopt strategic CSR which involves pioneering innovations to benefit both society and a companys own competitiveness in the product offering and the value chain. For instance, Toyotas response to concerns over car CO2 emissions is given as an example. Toyotas Prius - a hybrid electric/petrol vehicle - is an innovative car model that has produced competitive advantage as well as environmental benefit. It has already given Toyota a substantial lead over its global rivals such as Ford and GM. The strategic CSR, Porter and Kramer argue, develops a symbiotic relationship between the company and its customers, in the sense that the success of the company and the
5.3
success of the community become mutually reinforced and hence, the more closely a social issue is tied to a companys own business model, the greater there are opportunities for it to leverage its own resources and capabilities and benefit society. So, the proponents of this view of corporate citizenship argue that instead of simply engaging in charity, corporations could pursue strategic philanthropy since a firms self-interest is best served when a stable social, environmental, and political environment can ensure profitable business. This notion of corporate citizenship has been criticised as been too narrow and limited (Matten and Crane, 2005). They argue that in modern societies corporations and citizenship come together at the point where the state ceases to be the only guarantor of citizenship. This situation is either due to governments ceasing to administer citizenship rights, or where governments have not as yet administered citizenship rights, or the administration of citizenship rights may be beyond the reach of the nation-state government as globalisation takes precedence over national jurisdictions. Hence, they propose that there has to be a broader definition of corporate citizenship in the sense that the corporation should not be seen as a citizen in itself (as individuals are), but rather as an institution that administers certain aspects of citizenships of other constituencies. These are not just limited to a corporations traditional stakeholders such as employees, customers, or shareholders - but should also include those with whom the corporation may not have any direct transactional relationships. So, corporations could themselves become agents of social change. whether the issues are about gender, minorities, community, human rights, employees or consumers rights, environmental concerns, they could focus on the specific impacts of each issue and the harm it could inflict on the society and hence, contribute to the mechanism by which it could be impeded. As such, they should tend to move beyond issues that are purely relational or functional and deal with those that are more societal or global.
4. How firms could manage their interactions with the society

Managers need to reflect on the issues that their companies face, identify types of social responsibilities these issues invite and select the mode of response (reactive, defensive, proactive, and accommodating). Carroll (1999) brought these facets together in a model of Corporate Social Performance (CSP). But this model and other CSP models developed by management scholars have a couple of inherent shortcomings. First, they fail to adequately identify relationships between key constructs. Second, they fail to effectively integrate normative (ethical) perspectives with prescriptive steps which are more easily comprehensible to practicing managers. Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) emerged in the 1980s not as a theory but as a useful concept to guide managers as to how they could actively manage relationships with persons and organisations concerned with social issues - not just those concerned with economic issues identified by strategy scholars such as Porter (1980). This
5.4
approach was, in a sense, a counterpoint to traditional shareholder-based theory, whereby the fiduciary duty of management is to protect the interests of the shareholder. For instance, Williamson (1984) used a transaction cost framework to show that shareholders deserved special consideration over other stakeholders because of asset specificity. In his view, the stakes for a shareholder were too high and, unlike the labour of a worker, he would have no residual value should the firm fail. Building on concepts developed by Freeman (1984, 1995), Freeman and Evan (1990) have argued in their joint article, Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Interpretation, to the contrary, that Williamsons approach to corporate governance can indeed be applied to explain all stakeholders relationships, since many other stakeholders too have stakes which are, to a degree, firm-specific. Furthermore, they argue that shareholders have a more liquid market (the stock market) for exit than most other stakeholders.

The three articles in this section have been chosen to explore some of the key themes in the CSR literature: Schwartz and Carroll (2003) in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach revisits Carrolls original four domains of CSR to address some of its shortcomings and develop a more integrated version of his original ideas. Matten and Crane (2005) in their Corporate citizenship: towards an extended theoretical conceptualisation grapple with the notion of corporate citizenship as it has been adopted by practitioner managers, in order to broaden and deepen its relevance and application to the social responsibilities of corporations in more global circumstances. Kaufman and Englander (2005) present an alternative version for corporate governance in the post-Enron era, in order to ensure that the corporate board remains independent from management and hence, becomes more socially responsible.
5.5

Carroll, A. (1991) A three-dimensional model of corporate performance, Academy of Management Review, 4 (4): pp. 497-505. Carroll, A. (1999) Corporate social responsibility, Business and Society, 38 (3), pp. 268-95. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications, Academy of Management Review, 20, pp. 65-91. Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T. (1994) Towards unified conception of business ethics: integrative social contract theory, Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), pp. 252-84. Freeman, J. (1995) Stakeholder influence strategies, Academy of Management Review 24 (2), pp. 191-205. Freeman, R. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Marshfield, MA Pitman. Freeman, R. and Evan, W. (1990) Corporate governance: a stakeholder interpretation, Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19 (4)m pp. 337-59. Friedman, M. (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase profit, New York Times Magazine, September 13, p. 33. Matten, D. and Crane, A. (2005) Corporate citizenship: towards an extended theoretical conceptualization, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 166-179. Kaufman, A. and Englander, E. (2005) A team production model of corporate governance, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 9-22. Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy. New York, Free Press. Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2002) The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80, No. 12, pp.56-68. Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy & Society, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, No. 12, pp.78-92. Schwartz, M.S. and Carroll, A.B. (2003) Corporate Social Responsibility: A ThreeDomain Approach, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 503-530. Swanson, D. (1995) Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance mode, Academy of Management Review, 20 (1): 43-64. Williamson, 0. (1984) The Economic Institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press. Windsor, D. (2001). The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 225-256.
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
5.29
5.30
5.31
5.32
5.33
5.34
5.35
5.36
5.37
5.38
5.39
5.40
5.41
5.42
5.43
5.44
5.45
5.46
5.47
5.48
5.49
5.50
5.51
5.52
5.53
5.54
5.55
5.56
5.57
5.58
5.59
5.60
5.61
5.62

K10 Strategic MGMT II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

K10 Strategic MGMT II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Str ategic Management ii

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT II CONTENTS

Unit 1: Strategic Decision Making

Unit 2: Organisational Learning and Entrepreneurship

strategic management II contents

Unit 4: Organisational Culture and Image

strategic management II contents

Unit 5: Corporations and Social Responsibility

strategic management II contents

UNIT 1 STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING

2. Constraints for managers

3. Influences on decision making

4. Decision making models

Source: McGrath (1964)

5. Exploring key themes

References and further reading

Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent

UNIT 2 ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Figure 1: Model for interpreting sources of organisational learning

Directives from Corporate and senior levels

Perceptions of sources of pressure and performance requirements

Actions surrounding work itself

Ambitions and personality

Explicit and Tacit Learning

Organisational Climate and Culture

Explicit and Tacit Learning

Training and Development Activities

Appraisal and Reward Systems

Management and Leadership Styles

Planned Organisational Drivers of Learning

4. Competitiveness and innovation

6. Exploring key themes

References and further reading

UNIT 3 STRATEGIC ALLIANCES

2.The impetus for alliances

3. Development of strategic alliances

4. Purposes and types of alliances

5.1 Life-cycle approach

5.2 Process approach

5.3 Evolutionary Approach

6. Relational quality and trust

7. Alliances and networks

9. Exploring key themes

References and further reading

UNIT 4 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE & IMAGE

2. Organisational culture themes within management literature

3. Culture as something an organisation has

3.1 Mechanistic approach

3.2 Organismic approach

3.3 Critique of the assumption that culture is something an organisation has

4. Culture as something an organisation is

4.1 Cognitive approach

4.2 Psychodynamic approach

4.3 Organisational symbolism approach

5. Culture as socially constructed reality

6. Artefacts and characteristics of culture

6.1 The cultural web

7.The cultural dynamics of organisations

Figure 1: The Cultural Dynamics Model

Source: Hatch (1993)

8.The case for organisational identity

9. Cultures consequences for management