迈阿密大学-国际企业与战略管理理论-陆亚东（英文）

PART IVSTRATEGIC MANAGEMENT THEORIES战略战略管管理理理理论论1Overview of Strategic Management TheoriesFrom outsideFrom InsideIntegrated ViewEconomic TheoriesSociology TheoriesStrategic Management TheoriesManagement & OrganizationTheoriesOthers (e.g., political science, law, anthropology, psychologyIO theoryAgency theoryTCEGame theoryContract theoryInstitutional economicsInformation economicsProspect theory, etc.Institutional theorySocial exchange theorySocial capital theoryEconomic sociology theory, etc.RBVDynamic capabilityKBVAlliance/network theoryUpper echelon theoryInstitution-based strategyStrategic choice theory Real option theoryCo-evolution theoryCo-opetition theoryAmbidexterity theoryEtc.Resource dependenceOrganizational learningOrganizational ecologyLoose couplingOrganizational identityBoundary spanningetc.2Economic Theories for Strategy3Industry Organization TheoryIndustrial organization is a field of economics that studies the strategic behavior of firms, the structure of market and their interactions (Economics of Imperfect Competition). It builds on the theory of the firm by examining the structure of (and, therefore, the boundaries between) firms and markets. The structure of a market is the concept behind Industrial Organization theory, rather than the firm itself. The theory indicates the influence of competitive forces on the industry, as well as, how the profitability is determined by themIndustrial organization adds real-world complications to the perfectly competitive model, complications such as transaction costs, limited information, and barriers to entry of new firms that may be associated with imperfect competition. It analyzes determinants of firm and market organization and behavior as between competition and monopoly, including from government actionsA firms performance in the marketplace depends critically on the characteristics of the industry environment (e.g., entry barriers, monopoly) in which it competesIndustry structure determines the behavior or conduct of firms, whose joint conduct then determines the collective performance of the firms in the marketplaceAn important branch of IO research is Oligopoly Theory seeking to specify the link between industry structure and firm-to-firm rivalry4Industry Organization TheoryOne stream of IO research is descriptive, providing an overview of industrial organization, such as measures of competition and the size-concentration of firms in an industryA second stream or approach uses microeconomic models to explain internal firm organization and market strategy, which includes internal R&D along with issues of internal reorganization and renewalA third stream is oriented to public policy as to economic regulation, antitrust law, and, more generally, the economic governance of law in defining property rights, enforcing contracts, and providing organizational infrastructureIndustrial organization investigates the outcomes of these market structures in environments with Price discrimination, Product differentiation, Secondary markets, Collusion, Signaling, Mergers and acquisitions, Entry and ExitJ.S. Bain argued that structure, conduct and performance have a causal and linear “one-way relationship”5Industrial Organization (IO) TheoryIO has several limitationsIO maintains a static perspectiveIO views the firm as a passive entityStructure-conduct-performance is not one way but two ways6Transaction Cost Economics (TCE)Ronald Coase set out his TCE theory of the firm in 1937, making it one of the first (neo-classical) attempts to define the firm theoretically in relation to the market; but Oliver Williamsons work is much more distinctiveTCE is understood as alternative modes of organizing transactions (governance structures such as markets, hybrids, firms, and bureaus) that minimize transaction costs. It posits that the optimum organizational structure is one that achieves economic efficiency by minimizing the costs of exchangeThe theory suggests that each type of transaction produces coordination costs of monitoring, controlling, and managing transactions. Williamson has defined transaction costs broadly as the costs of running the economic system of firmsA transaction cost is a cost incurred in making an economic exchange. It includes (a) search and information costs (b) bargaining and decision costs and (c) policing and enforcement costs. It was later extended to coordination cost, governance cost, and opportunism between exchange members (intra and inter-organizational)TCEs two assumptions: Bounded rationality and opportunism which can be curbed by reputation (rather than the law, because of the difficulty of negotiating, writing and enforcement of contracts)7Transaction Cost Economics (TCE)Three dimensions to characterize any transactions: Frequency, uncertainty, and asset specificity, which jointly determine the structure or choice of efficient governanceTCE suggests that the costs and difficulties associated with market transactions sometimes favor hierarchies (or in-house production) and sometimes markets as an economic governance structure. An intermediate mechanism is called hybrid or relational8Transaction Cost Economics (TCE):Governance ChoiceMarketGovernanceBilateralGovernanceTrilateralGovernanceUnifiedGovernanceInvestment Characteristics (Asset Specificity)NonspecificMixedIdiosyncraticOccasionalRecurrentFrequencyEfficient Governance9Agency theory were advanced with the publication of “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure” (1976), published in JFE by financial economist Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling, designed to capture the essence of the principal-agent relationshipA theory concerns the relationship between a principal (e.g., shareholder) and an agent of the principal (e.g., managers). It involves the costs of resolving conflicts between the principals and agents and aligning interests of the two groupsThe principal-agent problem arises when a principal compensates an agent for performing certain acts that are useful to the principal and costly to the agent, and where there are elements of the performance that are costly to observePrincipals do not know enough about whether (or to what extent) a contract has been satisfied. The solution to this information problem closely related to the moral hazard problem is to ensure the provision of appropriate incentives so agents act in the way principals wishLevinthal (1988) maintains that the risk imposed on an agent can be reduced by basing individual performance relative to that of other agents, who face similar states of nature.Agency Theory10Agency TheoryAgency theory tries to resolve two problems that can occur in agency relationships. The first is the agency problem that arises when (a) the desires or goals of the principal and agent conflict and (b) it is difficult or expensive for the principle to verify what the agent is actually doing. The principal cannot verify that the agent has behaved appropriatelyThe second is the problem of risk sharing that arises when the principal and agent have different attitudes towards risk. The problem here is that the principle and the agent may prefer different actions because of the different risk preferencesPrincipals can do two things: compensation mechanisms (the carrot) and supervisory schemes (the stick)Agency theory today is used in broader contexts (e.g., parent-subsidiary relations; headquarters-offshore units; franchising; outsourcing; client-professional service provider, etc)11Agency TheoryIn economic language, since the first-best outcome could only be achieved in the unrealistic world of costless information flow, our goal must be to do the best we can, to achieve what is sometimes called the second-best solutionThe building blocks of agency theory are information and economic incentivesAgency loss is more severe when the economic interests or economic values of the principal and agent diverge substantially, and information monitoring is costly;The economic benefits of any reduction in agency loss will be shared by principal and agent in most market situations.It is useful to distinguish two types of agency problems: (1) Hidden action model (moral hazard) and (2) Hidden information model (adverse selection)Moral hazard: a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. Adverse selection: "bad" results occur when buyers and sellers have asymmetric information12Game TheoryGame theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of othersTraditional applications of game theory attempt to find equilibria in these games. In an equilibrium, each player of the game has adopted a strategy that they are unlikely to changeA set of strategies is a Nash equilibrium if each represents a best response to the other strategies. So, if all the players are playing the strategies in a Nash equilibrium, they have no unilateral incentive to deviate, since their strategy is the best they can do given what others are doing13Game TheoryPrisoner's dilemma forms a non-zero-sum game in which two players may each cooperate with or defect from (betray) the other player. Under a Pareto-suboptimal solution, rational choice leads the two players to both play defect, even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperativelyDeriving the optimal strategy is generally done in two ways: (1) Bayesian Nash equilibrium and (2) Monte Carlo simulations (individuals with low scores die off, and those with high scores reproduce)A game is cooperative (vs. non-cooperative) if the players are able to form binding commitmentsA symmetric (vs. asymmetric) game is a game where the payoffs for playing a particular strategy depend only on the other strategies employed, not on who is playing them (e.g., prisoner's dilemma)14Game TheoryZero-sum games (vs. non-zero-sum game) are a special case of constant-sum games, in which choices by players can neither increase nor decrease the available resourcesSequential (vs. simultaneous) games (or dynamic games) are games where later players have some knowledge about earlier actionsA game is one of perfect information (vs. imperfect information game) if all players know the moves previously made by all other playersContinuous games (vs. discrete games) allow players to choose a strategy from a continuous strategy setEight game theorists have won Nobel prizes in economics!15Contract TheoryIn economics, contract theory (Oliver Hart, Bengt Holmstrom, etc.) studies how economic actors can and do construct contractual arrangements, generally in the presence of asymmetric informationContract theory also utilizes the notion of a complete contract, which is thought of as a contract that specifies the legal consequences of every possible state of the worldMore recent developments known as the theory of incomplete contracts, pioneered by Oliver Hart, study the incentive effects of parties' inability to write complete contingent contracts, e.g. concerning relationship-specific investmentsBecause it would be impossibly complex and costly for the parties to an agreement to make their contract complete, the law provides default rules which fill in the gaps in the actual agreement of the parties16Social contract theory is quite different from economics/law based contract theorySocial contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states and/or maintain social orderThe notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social orderSocial contract theory formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governedVarious proponents of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individuals rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom one has in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political orderContract Theory17Information economics is a branch of microeconomic theory that studies how information and information systems affect an economy and economic decisions. Information has special characteristics: It is easy to create but hard to trust. It is easy to spread but hard to control. It influences many decisions including strategic decisions of the firm. These special characteristics, such as information asymmetry and signaling, complicate decisionsInformation as signal has been described as a kind of negative measure of uncertainty. A growing attention has been paid to the study of information asymmetries and their implications for contract theory, policy failure, market failure, inter-party conflicts, and even mergers and acquisitions failureInformation has economic value because it allows individuals to make choices that yield higher expected payoffs or expected utility than they would obtain from choices made in the absence of information. But this value is very fragile due to information asymmetry, distortion, arbitrary, and manipulativeInformation asymmetry means that the parties in the interaction have different information, e.g. one party has more or better information than the other. Expecting the other side to have better information can lead to a change in behavior. The less informed party may try to prevent the other from taking advantage of him. This change in behavior may cause inefficiencyMichael Spence originally proposed the idea of signaling. He proposed that in a situation with information asymmetry, it is possible for people to signal their type, thus credibly transferring information to the other party and resolving the asymmetryInformation Economics Theory18Joseph E. Stiglitz pioneered the theory of screening. In this way the underinformed party can induce the other party to reveal their information. They can provide a menu of choices or incentives in such a way that the optimal choice of the other party depends on their private informationPer IE, the information market does not exhibit high degrees of transparency. That is, you have to invest in learning it to evaluate informationIE theory has been keenly applied to strategic management research, particularly in areas of governance, mergers and acquisitions, alliances and networks, factor market, competitive advantage, co-development and co-specialization, real option decisions, among othersFor example, IE can explain why one party sometimes gains more than the other party within a particular M&A deal, and which factors determine how much of the total amount of value created in the deal each party obtainsInformation Economics Theory19The prospect theory (first published by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1979) is the founding theory of behavioral economics and of behavioral finance, and constitutes one of the first economic theories built using experimental methodsIt describes how individuals or parties assess in an asymmetric manner their loss and gain perspectives. For example, for some individuals, the pain from losing $1,000 could only be compensated by the pleasure of earning $2,000. Thus, contrary to the expected utility theory, which models the decision that perfectly rational agents would make, the prospect theory aims to describe the actual behavior of playersThe prospect theory starts with the concept of loss aversion, an asymmetric form of risk aversion, from the observation that people react differently between potential losses and potential gains. Thus, people make decisions based on the potential gain or losses relative to their specific situation (the reference point) rather than in absolute terms; this is referred to as reference dependenceFaced with a risky choice leading to gains, individuals are risk-averse, preferring solutions that lead to a lower expected utility but with a higher certainty (concave value function). But faced with a risky choice leading to losses, individuals are risk-seeking, preferring solutions that lead to a lower expected utility as long as it has the potential to avoid losses (convex value function)Per this theory, people attribute excessive weight to events with low probabilities and insufficient weight to events with high probability. For example, individuals may unconsciously treat an outcome with a probability of 99% as if its probability was 95%, and an outcome with probability of 1% as if it had a probability of 5%Prospect Theory20Prospect theory's predictions differ from what strategy scholars have inferred. PT's value function predicts negative riskreturn associations for high performers and positive for low performers, contrary to the strategy literature. PT does not make the general predictions most strategy researchers have assumed, but rather PT's predictions depend on a full range of parametric and choice characteristics that strategy scholars have ignored (see Philip Bromileys SMJ in 2010)An early-on article using PT in strategy is one titled “Strategic Reference Point Theory” (Fiegenbaum, Hart and Schendel, 1996). They used PT to answer how can executives achieve a match between expected external environmental conditions and internal organizational capabilities that facilitates improved performance? They argue that a firm's choice of reference points can help achieve strategic alignment capable of yielding improved performance and potentially even a sustainable competitive advantage. They further developed the strategic reference point (SRP) matrix, consisting of three dimensions: internal capability, external conditions, and timeThus far, PT has been used in strategic management as a guiding theory in studying heuristics and biases in strategic decisions, risk-return tradeoffs, effect of CEOs and TMTs on firm performance, capacity rationalization and exit strategies, organizational recovery, and diversification strategies, among others Prospect Theory21Sociology Theoriesfor Strategy22Social Exchange TheoryGeorge Homanss article entitled “Social Behavior as Exchange” is viewed as the seminal work on this theory. Works by Richard Emerson, Peter Blau, Peter Ekeh, and Karen Cook are also breakthrough and foundationalSocial behavior is an exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material ones, such as the symbols of approval or prestige. Persons that give much to others try to get much from them (reciprocity), and persons that get much from others are under pressure to give much to them. This process of influence tends to work out at equilibrium to a balance in the exchangesIn deciding what is fair, we develop a comparison level against which we compare the give/take ratio. This level will vary between relationships, with some being more giving and others where we get more from the relationshipToday, social exchange theory exists in many forms, but all of them are driven by the same central concept of actors exchanging resources via a social exchange relationship featured by voluntary transfer of resources between multiple actors23Social Exchange TheorySocial exchange interaction between two actors (people, firms etc.) results in various contingencies, where the actors modify their resources to each others expectationsPower is the mechanics that can explain the relation of the actors. Power results from resource dependency in a dyadic relation but in a network exchange model, it is also derived from the structure -structural powerStaying in or leaving a relationship is not merely a matter of how rewarding that relationship is. Unsatisfactory relationships may remain stable for the lack of a better alternative. These relationships have been conceived of as nonvoluntary relationshipsExchange relationships are governed by both normative and cognitive exchange orientations that delineate acceptable and appropriate behaviorNormative orientations refer to the societal views on acceptable and appropriate behavior in relationships. These norms refer to the broader consensus that exists within a culture about how exchange relationships should be structured. Cognitive orientations represent the beliefs, values, and relationship orientations that an individual associates with various types of exchange relationships 24Social Capital TheorySocial capital (Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman) is a sociological concept, referring to connections within and between social networks. This capital possessed by individuals can be transformed to an attribute of collectives. Norms, trust and consensus building (shared interest) help produce social capital. Social capital is not equally available to allInstrumental view: Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognitionNeutral resource view: Social capital is functionally a variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structure, and they facilitate individual or collective action, generated by networks of relationships, reciprocity, trust, and social norms25Social Capital TheorySocial capital requires investment in social relations with expected returns in the marketplace. Social capital encompasses three clusters/dimensions: Structural, Relational, and Cognitive. Structural dimension relates to an individuals ability to make weak and strong ties to others within a systemRelational dimension focuses on the character of the connection between individuals (trust, cooperation, communication are key elements)Cognitive dimension focuses on the shared meaning and understanding that individuals or groups have with one anotherSociologists view social capital as neither an individual-level nor a group-level phenomenon in separation, but one that emerges across levels of analysis as individuals participate in groups26Social Capital TheoryThis theory shares the core idea that social networks have value. But most view social capital as a neutral resource, implying it entails positive and negative side effects. Four negative consequences: Exclusion of outsidersExcess claims on group membersRestrictions on individual freedomDownward leveling normsContingent value of social capital:Social capital brings about information benefits and control benefitsThese benefits are more valuable to managers with fewer peers27Economic Sociology TheoryClassical and neoclassical economics assumes rational, self-interested behavior affected minimally by social relationsSocial exchange theorists argue instead the role of concrete personal relations and structures of such relations in generating trust and discouraging malfeasanceFalling between the above two ends, economic sociologists hold that most economic behaviors and economic exchanges are embedded in social relations. Such relations can mediate complex transactions and generate standards of behavior. A sophisticated account of economic action must consider its embeddedness in social structureLong-term relationships between organizations can allow them to benefit from idiosyncratic investment of learning to work together, mutual familiarity, and knowledge sharing. This social or relational investment will lose its value when the interfirm relationship discontinuesResearch on opportunism, trust, and cooperation is underpinned by economic sociology theoryIn social network theory, social relationships are viewed in terms of nodes and ties. Nodes are individual actors within the network, and ties are the connections linking these actors28Economic Sociology TheoryRon Burts Structural Hole (1992): Social networks that bridges “holes” in social structure accrue information advantages by generating fresh perspectives and informationBrokers who bridge holes will have vision advantages and will consequently be more creative and effectiveTo maximize the flow of information, Burt advised managers to minimize the redundancy of their information networks by increasing the number of structural holes they bridgedLater Burt (2005) advocates the combination of two opposing network mechanisms: Brokerage and Closure arguing the two being complementary for producing social capital: Brokerage is about coordinating people but risky to trust; Closure is about making it safe to trust. Or, bridging a structural hole can create value, but delivering value requires the closed network of a cohesive team around the bridge a process labeled structural autonomy Burt: Social capital generates advantage for specific individuals within a social networkPutnam: Communities, not individuals, are advantaged by social capital29Economic Sociology TheoryStructural holes capture, like other related concepts such as weak ties (Granovetter, 1973), range (Reagans and McEvily, 2003), and brokerage (Xian and Tsui, 2007, Fleming and Waguespack, 2007), a key network structural property, the efficient and non-redundant access to resources and information Zaheer and Soda (2009) recently examined the network evolution or the origin of structural holes, arguing that network structures emerge from the interplay of two complementary forces: structural constraints imposed by, and network opportunities provided by, past network structures and positionsInterpersonal ties come in three varieties: strong, weak or absent. Weak social ties are responsible for the majority of the embeddedness, structural holes, as well as the transmission of information through these networks. Granovetters article in 1973, The Strength of Weak Ties, has been recognized as one of the most influential sociology papers ever written. In his view, a combination of strong and weak ties holds the members of society together. 30Economic Sociology TheoryThe weak ties hypothesis argues that if A is linked to both B and C, then there is a good probability that B and C are linked to each other (in this case A - B and A - C have strong ties while B C maintain weak ties). Weak ties will function as the crucial bridge between any two densely knit clumps of close friends.Granovetters argument (1973) asserts that weak ties (acquaintances) are less likely to be involved within the social network than strong ties (close friends and family), and that the only thing that can connect two social networks with strong ties is a weak tie. It follows that individuals are disadvantageous with a few weak ties compared to those with many weak ties, as the former are disconnected with other parts of the network. The weak/strong ties paradox is elaborated by myriad authors. Centrality is well studies to address this issue. Power is introduced as well. 31Institutional TheoryInstitutional theorists (e.g., Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell) assert that the institutional environment can strongly influence the development of formal structures in an organization, often more profoundly than market pressures.Institutional theory is a widely accepted theoretical posture that emphasizes rational myths, isomorphism, and legitimacy. Institutional theory is a theory on the deeper and more resilient aspects of social structure. It considers the processes by which structures, including schemes, rules, norms, and routines, become established as authoritative guidelines for social behaviorIt seeks to explain homogeneity not variation in early stage of life cycle, org. fields display diversity in form and approach, but a push toward homogenization once a field is well establishedAn org. field refers to the totality of relevant factors, not simply competing firmsInstitutional theory focuses on the deeper and more resilient aspects of social structure. It considers the processes by which structures, including schemas, rules, norms, and routines, become established as authoritative guidelines for social behaviorDiMaggio and Powell conclude that the net effect of institutional pressures is to increase the homogeneity of organizational structures in an institutional environment. Firms will adopt similar structures as a result of three types of pressures:Coercive pressures come from legal mandates or influence from organizations they are dependent uponMimetic pressures to copy successful forms arise during high uncertaintyNormative pressures to homogeneity come from the similar attitudes and approaches of professional groups and associations brought into the firm through hiring practices32Institutional TheoryInstitutions are governance structures based on rules, norms, values, and systems of cultural meaningBehavior is deeply rooted in and reflective of multiple contexts (culture, legal system, agency interest, etc). Behavior must be explained on a situational basis, with each context differentDifferent components of institutional theory explain how these elements are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time; and how they fall into decline and disuseMeyer and Rowen (1977) was path-breaking (neo-institutional theory), suggesting that diffusion and institutionalization were theorized to be reinforcing: as more organizations adopted a particular structural element, it gained greater social acceptance (became progressively institutionalized). This, in turn, led to increasing conformity pressures on organizations that had not yet adopted it to do so, accelerating its diffusion 33Institutional TheoryPowell and DiMaggio (1991) further defined the 'new institutionalism', as rejecting the rational-actor models of classical economics. Instead, it seeks cognitive and cultural explanations of social and organizational phenomena by considering the properties of supra-individual units of analysis that cannot be reduced to aggregations or direct consequences of individuals attributes or motivesScott (1995) indicates that, in order to survive, organizations must conform to the rules and belief systems prevailing in the environment, because institutional isomorphism, both structural and procedural, will earn the organization legitimacyThe drive for resource stability leads organizations to seek legitimation. When forced to choose, organizations will select options which preserve and enhance organizational legitimation over organizational efficiency. This way organizations reduce turbulence and maintain stability34Institutional TheoryDiMaggio and Powell focused on institutional isomorphism, identifying its three major mechanisms:Coercive: Political influence - Pressures to make organizational procedures and/or structure conform to best practices, arising from the demands of actors on whom the organization is dependent for resourcesMimetic: Standard responses to uncertainty - Pressures arising from the drive to reduce uncertainty. Under uncertainty, imitating successful peers is seen as a safe strategyNormative Professionalization - Pressures arising from professionalization, which socializes personnel within the organization to view certain types of structure and process as legitimate. Socialization occurs not only through formal education but also through professional associations, trade associations, and professional media. Two types of isomorphism Competitive and institutional35Institutional TheoryPredictors of Isomorphic change:Field-Level Predictors of IsomorphismA fields dependence on a single source of support for vital resources (+)A fields transactions with political agencies (+)Number of visible alternative organizational models (-)A fields technological uncertainty or goal ambiguity (+)A fields professionalism (+) Organizational-Level Predictors of Isomorphism (follow those perceived to be successful)An organizations dependence on other organizations in a field (+)Means-ends uncertainty (+)An organizations goal ambiguity (+)Reliance on academic credentials in choosing professional personnel (+)Participation of professional personnel in trade and professional associations (+)36New Institutional Economics (NIE)Institutions are the rules of the game in a society or, more formally, are the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction. Institutions provide the structure for exchange that determines the cost of transacting and the cost of transformation. North distinguishes between institutions (rules of the game) and organizations (players in that game). Institutional change is path dependent. The major role of institutions in a society is to reduce uncertainty by establishing a stable structure to human interaction. When the evolution of institutions creates a hospitable environment for cooperative solutions to complex exchange, it spurs economic growthHow well institutions solve the problem of coordination and production is determined by the motivation of the players, complexity of environment, and the ability of the players to decipher and order the environment. Informal and formal institutions: Informal institutions, which are often culturally derived, will not change immediately in reaction to changes in the formal rules. Informal institutional changes are incrementalFormal institutions (political rules, economic rules and contact law) can complement, revise or supersede informal constraintsOrganizations and entrepreneurs are the agents of, and shape the direction of, institutional change. The interaction of purposive organizations and institutions leads to a dynamic evolution of the economy. Thus, adaptive efficiency, along with allocative efficiency, is required to facilitate the way an economy evolve through time37Institution-based view of strategyTreating institutions as independent variables, the institution-based view of strategy focuses on the dynamic interaction between institutions and organizations and considers strategic choices as the outcome of such an interaction. Strategic choices are not only driven by industry conditions and firm capabilities, but are also a reflection of the formal and informal constraints of a particular institutional framework that managers confrontInstitutions are much more than background conditions. Instead, “institutions directly determine what arrows a firm has in its quiver as it struggles to formulate and implement strategy and to create competitive advantageInstitutions reduce uncertainty for different actors by conditioning the ruling norms of behaviors and defining the boundaries of what is legitimate. Actors, in turn, rationally pursue their interests and make choices within a given institutional frameworkIt is research on emerging economies that has pushed the institution-based view to the cutting edge of strategy research, which is becoming the third leg in the strategy “tripod” (see Peng, 2003), the other two legs being industry- and resource-based views) This is because the profound differences in institutional frameworks between emerging economies and developed economies force scholars to pay more attention to these differences in addition to considering industry- and resource-based factorsWhile formal and informal institutions combine to govern firm behavior, in situations where formal constraints are unclear or fail, informal constraints will play a larger role in reducing uncertainty, providing guidance, and conferring legitimacy and rewards to managers and firms38Institution-based view of strategyA hallmark of emerging economies is that they tend to have more “fundamental and comprehensive changes introduced to the formal and informal rules of the game that affect firms as players”, which are labeled “institutional transitions”While formal and informal institutions combine to govern firm behavior, in situations where formal constraints are unclear or fail, informal constraints will play a larger role in reducing uncertainty, providing guidance, and conferring legitimacy and rewards to managers and firmsA growing attention has been devoted to institutional complexity and its strategic management implications. Institutional Complexity depicts the extent to which an organization encounters not only multiplicity and incompatibility but also heterogeneity, instability and ambiguity of different requirements from a plurality of institutional forces in an institutionally diversified economyLeading articles:North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (9): 679713.Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 275296.Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. 2000. Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 486501.39Management & OrganizationTheories for Strategy40Organizational Learning TheoryOne can also distinguish between (1) adaptive learning (changes are made in reaction to changed environmental conditions and (2) proactive learning (changes are made on a more willful basis - goes beyond the simple reacting to environmental changes)In his seminal article, March (1991) argues that firms need to balance between activities that contribute to exploration of new knowledge, technology, and capabilities and activities that contribute to exploitation of the existing knowledge or capability base of the firmExploitation deals with a process of routinization, which adds to the existing knowledge base and competence set of firms without changing the nature of activities. Exploration is characterized by breaking with an existing dominant design and a shift away from existing rules, norms, routines, activities, etc. in view of novel combinationsSince individuals form the bulk of the organization, they must establish the necessary forms and processes to enable organizational learning in order to facilitate change. Organizational learning is more than the sum of the parts of individual learning. An organization does not lose out on its learning abilities when members leave the organizationOrganizational learning contributes to organizational memory. Thus, learning systems not only influence immediate members but also future members due to the accumulation of histories, experiences, norms, and stories41Organizational Learning TheoryProcesses of organizational learningLearning by doingLearning from past and experience (by encoding inferences from history and experience into routines that guide behavior). Lessons of experience are maintained with routines despite employee turnoverLearning from experience of others (coercive, normative, and mimetic)Learning to learnOrganizational memory/experience and learningStep 1: Recording experience (in documents, accounts, files) experiential knowledge is recorded in an organizational memory, and that memory is orderly yet often ambiguouslyStep 2: Conservation of experience routinization instructs new employeesStep 3: Retrieval and utilization of experience42Organizational Learning TheoryAbsorptive Capacity The ability to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it and apply it to commercial ends which is critical to its innovative capabilitiesSeveral ways to generate absorptive capacityByproduct of a firms R&D investmentByproduct of a firms manufacturing operationsInvest in absorptive capacity directlyA diverse background provides a more robust basis for learningA firms absorptive capacity is not simply the sum of the absorptive capabilities of its employeesAbsorptive capacity depends on transfer of knowledge across internal and external boundariesCross functional job rotation helps absorptive capacityPrior knowledge permits the assimilation and exploitation of new knowledge (path dependence)43Organizational Learning TheorySuperstitious learning it occurs when the subjective experience of learning is compelling, but the connections between actions and outcomes are mis-specifiedCompetence traps it occurs when favorable performance with an inferior procedure leads an organization to accumulate more experience with it, thus keeping experience with a superior procedure inadequate to make it rewarding to use 44Contingency TheoryContingency theory is a class of behavioral theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. The optimal organization/ leadership/decision-making depends upon various internal and external constraints or factorsRichard Scott describes contingency theory in the following manner: "The best way to organize depends on the nature of the environment to which the organization must relate”Other researchers including Paul Lawrence, Jay Lorsch and James Thompson were complementing to this statement and were more interested in the impact of contingency factors on organizational structure. Their structural contingency theory was the dominant paradigm of organizational structural theories for most of the 1970sEffective organizations not only have a proper “fit” with the environment but also between its sub-systems (e.g., subunits)The needs of an organization are better satisfied when it is properly designed and the management style is appropriate both to the tasks undertaken and the nature of the work group45Contingency TheoryBurns and Stalker identified two organization types: mechanistic, for a task that is routine and unchanging, and organic, for a task that is nonroutine and changing. They discovered that the most successful firms were those that used whichever type was appropriate for a given task (routine task focuses on efficiency; non-routine task emphasizes creativity)While the contingency approach is useful in recognizing that the complexity involved in understanding human and organizational systems makes it difficult to develop universal principles of management, there have been several criticisms of the approachFor one, it has been pointed out that the logical extension of the contingency approach is that all situations are unique. If this is true, then management can be practiced only by intuition and judgment, thereby negating the value of prior knowledge and wisdom46Resource Dependence TheoryRDT is the study of how external resources of organization affect its behavior. It assumes that organizations are always constrained by a network of interdependencies with other organizationsRDT proposes that actors lacking in essential resources will seek to establish relationships with (i.e., be dependent upon) others in order to obtain needed resourcesAlso, organizations attempt to alter their dependence relationships by minimizing their own dependence or by increasing the dependence of other organizations on themWithin this perspective, organizations are viewed as coalitions alerting their structure and patterns of behavior to acquire and maintain needed external resources - modifying an organizations power with other organizationsAlthough RDT was originally formulated to discuss relationships between organizations, the theory is applicable to relationships among units within organizations47Resource Dependence TheoryOrganizations take actions to manage external interdependencies. These patterns of dependence produce interorganizational and intraorganizational power, where such power has some effect on organizational behaviorThis dependence leads to power imbalance and control attemptsFive options to minimize environmental dependences: Mergers/vertical integrationJoint ventures or other interorganizational partnershipsBoards of directorsPolitical actionExecutive succession48Resource Dependence TheoryRDT also holds: Organizations are assumed to be comprised of internal and external coalitions which emerge from social exchanges that are formed to influence and control behaviorThe environment is assumed to contain scarce and valued resources essential to organizational survival. As such, the environment poses the problem of organizations facing uncertainty in resource acquisitionOrganizations are assumed to work toward two related objectives: acquiring control over resources that minimize their dependence on other organizations and control over resources that maximize the dependence of other organizations on themselves. Attaining either objective is thought to affect the exchange between organizations, thereby affecting an organizations power49Boundary-Spanning TheoryOrganizations are open systems that have a transference across their boundaries and this process is facilitated by the boundary spanner (e.g., Michael Tushman, James Thompson)Internal boundary spanners - Boundary spanners are needed to move tacit knowledge around and within the organization External boundary spanners Brokers and bridges linking the focal organization with external organizationsTwo boundary-spanning roles: Information processing and external representationInformation processing An organizations ability to adapt to environmental contingencies depends in part on the expertise of boundary role incumbents in selecting, transmitting and interpreting information originating in the environmentExternal representation (a) enhancing the legitimacy (b) maintaining organizational image and (c) making the organization visibleThe theory views boundary spanning roles as the critical link between environmental characteristics and organizational structure, arguing that organizations face multiple environments and thus can have a variety of boundary roles of units with different structural characteristics50Boundary-Spanning TheoryCreation of boundary-spanning rolesTechnology: Organizations using long-linked and intensive technologies will have a smaller proportion of boundary roles Environment: (a) Organizations in rapidly changing environments will have a higher proportion of boundary roles than organizations in stable environments and (b) Boundary roles are most likely to be formalized when crucial environmental contingencies have been explicitly recognized by decision makers, or when the organization is structured in a way that facilitates the adoption of innovation through imitation and learning from other organizationsBoundary role routinization varies directly with the volume of repetitive work, outcome predictability, and the need to control the behavior of members51LOOSECOUPLINGTHEORYLoose coupling is present when systems have either few variables in common or the variables they have in common are weak, thus refraining harmful contagion within the organization systemKarl Weick (1976): Loose coupling as a situation in which elements are linked and interdependent (determinacy), but retain evidence of separateness, identity and distinctiveness (indeterminacy) actors are inter-attached but not interlocked, thus stimulating flexibility, adaptability and resilienceThe resulting image is a system that is simultaneously open and closed, linked and autonomous, spontaneous and deliberate (Orton & Weick, 1990)Loose coupling occurs at levels of: individuals, subunits, hierarchical levels, between organizations, and between organization and environmentThe theory combines the contradictory concepts of connection and autonomy, viewing an organization as a complex system composing interlinked yet autonomous subsystemsCoupled: elements are linked and preserve some degree of determinacyLoosely: elements are subject to spontaneous changes and preserve some degree of independence and indeterminacyLoose coupling logic varies across organizational type, industry type, and also changes over time45Tightly coupled: Having interconnected components that do not act independentlyLoosely coupled: Having interconnected components that act autonomously Decoupled: Ending interdependenceNoncoupled: No interconnectivityLoose coupling exists because of causal indeterminacy caused by unclear means-ends connections, bounded rationality, selective perception, uncertainty and ambiguity, as well as fragmented external and internal environments Modularity, discretion, shared values, focused strategies are important to design loose coupling as a management strategy Loose coupling could have outcome repercussions concerning persistence, buffering, adaptability, satisfaction, and effectiveness Digital connectivity, including technology, plays an important role in information processing, boundary spanning, and managing loose coupling The nature and adversity of environmental conditions determine the design of loose coupling Tightly coupling hampers business continuity with a greater contagious effect if these conditions are highly unpredictable, uncontrollable, and unmanageable. But decoupling or no-coupling alienates the firm from external resources LOOSECOUPLINGTHEORYLOOSECOUPLINGTHEORY Understanding an organization as a loose coupling of actors or elements helps better explain how organizations adapt to their environments and survive amidst uncertainties. Within the organization, you can build autonomous subsystems, and loose coupling is really the "glue" that holds them together. Between organizations (or interacting with the environment), one can consider loosely constructed, multi-tier and diversified partnerships that vary in flexibility and control Loose coupling: Allows the organization to persist through rapid environmental fluctuations (e.g., Zoom) Improves the organization's sensitivity to the environment (e.g., 3M) Enables local adaptations and creative solutions to develop (e.g., Costco) Allow sub-system breakdown without damaging the entire organization (e.g., J&Js opioids lawsuits) Permits more self-determination by actors (e.g., Haier) Two coupling elements: Technical (or task) couplings (between technology, task, supply chain) that are task-induced Managerial (or authority) couplings (positions, departments, rewards, sanctions) that somehow hold the organization together. Relationships, similar behaviors, value sharedness, and trust are important More loosely coupled organizations offer advantages when (1) external environments become complex and (2) organization itself becomes more complex. LCT focuses on creating or fostering new behaviors rather than controlling task activities54A Framework of Loose Coupling Theory55Strategic ResilienceMore external & internal environmental complexityModerating conditionsAdd: economic attachmentKey Macro-Interconnections Global supply chain diversity Power in global eco-systems Controlling critical resources Prioritizing digital channels More: Corporate culture Trust Experience Boundary-spanning abilityLOOSECOUPLINGTHEORYSubsequent developments of LCT Pfeffer and Salancik (1978)s resource dependence argument (including economic attachment) Birnbaum (1988)s points addressing the importance of consensus building and rationality augmentation through: Leadership Communication Interaction and sharing Data and information sharing LCT has also been used in studying business-government ties, headquarters-subsidiary relationships, buyer-supplier links, co-opetition, etc. Challenges/limitations of LCT: Slow diffusion of central initiatives Difficulty in systematic change for the whole organization Not clear for real business community when/where requiring more looseness vs. coupling Short in explaining mechanisms and solutions 56LOOSECOUPLINGTHEORY Loose coupling aims to achieve persistence, buffering, and adaptability all essential to strategic resilience The notion of discretion (latitude of individual choice or decision) from the loose coupling theory underlies flexibility needed for strategic resilience The notion of complementarity of internal and external resources and activities is central to a firms ability (resource slack) in responding to hardships and adversity The recognition of information technologies and modularity in information processing and boundary spanning activities within an organization, between organizations, and between the organization and environments helps business intelligence and decision-making in building and executing strategic resilience Loose coupling theorys chief premise lies in paradox embracement, maintaining interdependent relationships flexibly both as open and closed system. Embracing paradox is essential to resilience Loose coupling theory underscores the importance of focused strategy in organizing interdependence and building a loosely coupled network. Focused attention and focused strategy is pivotal to improving responding and resilient capabilities7Information Processing TheoryThree assumptions(1) organizations are open social systems which must deal with work-related uncertainty.(2) organizations can fruitfully be seen as information processing systems.(3) organizations can be viewed as composed of sets of groups or departments (subunits).58An Information Processing ModelSubunit Task Characteristics Task complexity Task interdependenceSubunit Task EnvironmentInter-Unit TaskInterdependenceUncertaintyfacing the set of subunitsInformationProcessingrequirementsfacing organizationsInformationProcessingCapacitiesof structureOrganismic orMechanisticDesign of subunitsFeasible set of Coordination And controlmechanisms“Fit”EffectivenessThe difference between information possessed and information required to complete a task59Theories from Strategic Management60Resource-Based View (RBV)Two key assumptions differing from IO:Firms within an industry may be heterogeneous with respect to strategic resources they controlResources may not be perfectly mobile across firms, and thus heterogeneity can be long-lastingThe fundamental principle of the RBV is that the basis for a competitive advantage of a firm lies primarily in the application of the bundle of valuable resources at the firms disposal. RBVis a managerial framework used to determine the strategic resources a firm can exploit to achieve sustainable competitive advantageRBV conceptualizes the firm as a unique bundle of idiosyncratic resources and capabilitiesTo transform a short-run competitive advantage into a sustained competitive advantage requires that these resources are heterogeneous in nature and not perfectly mobileBarney's 1991 article is widely cited as a pivotal work in the emergence of RBV, though other scholars (e.g., Birger Wernerfelt) had explained (less systematically) this before then61Resource-Based StrategyEffectively, this translates into valuable resources that are neither perfectly imitable nor substitutable without great effort. If these conditions hold, the firms bundle of resources can assist the firm sustaining above average returnsResources are: all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc; controlled by a firm that enable the firm to conceive of and implement strategies that improve its efficiency and effectivenessThree categories of resources: Physical capital resources; Human capital resources; and Organizational capital resourcesVRIN criteria: Valuable, Rare, Inimitable, and Non-substitutableStrategic resources that meet the four criteria determine a firms sustained competitive advantageIn RBV, strategists select the strategy or competitive position that best exploits the internal resources and capabilities relative to external opportunities. Given that strategic resources represent a complex network of inter-related assets and capabilities, organizations can adopt many possible competitive positions62Knowledge-Based ViewKBV (e.g., Robert Grant) considers knowledge as the most strategically significant resource of a firm. Its proponents argue that because knowledge-based resources are usually difficult to imitate and socially complex, heterogeneous knowledge bases and capabilities among firms are the major determinants of sustained competitive advantages and superior corporate performanceOrganizations exist to create, transfer, and transform knowledge into competitive advantageThis knowledge is embedded and carried through multiple entities including organizational culture and identity, policies, routines, documents, systems, and employeesAlthough RBV recognizes the important role of knowledge, but it doesnt go far enough. Specifically, RBV treats knowledge as a generic resource, rather than having special characteristics. It therefore does not distinguish between different types of knowledge-based capabilities63Knowledge-Based View64KBV is an important approach towards organizational learning that forms the basis for establishing human capital involvement in the structural and routine activities of the firmKBV proposes the establishment of heterogeneous knowledge structures across the management hierarchies of a firm as a prerequisite condition for achieving sustainable knowledge-based competitive advantage. This is because knowledge-based resources are always characterized by difficulties of transmission, imitation, and social complexitiesInformation technologies can play an important role in the knowledge-based view of the firm in that information systems can be used to synthesize, enhance, and expedite large-scale intra- and inter-firm knowledge managementKnowledge is a fundamentally human issue: it is a product and vehicle of human activity, bounded by the limitations of human cognitive and other psychological capacities, and by the social and cultural environment of activityKnowledge-based competence can stay with the firm, and accordingly, a firm can create a competitive advantage by coordinating, aggregating, and integrating the specialized knowledge that its individual employees develop. This coordination of specialized knowledge can take place via routines, directives, group problem solving and decision makingInformation technology systems and other related mediating tools can act as vehicles for transferring knowledge, or as repositories for storing knowledge, but in knowledge management the role of these is secondary compared with knowledgeable human actorsKnowledge-Based ViewA firm should be understood as a social community specializing in speed and efficiency in the creation and transfer of knowledge Explicit knowledge can be expressed and codified relatively unproblematically, but tacit knowledge is personal, context-dependent and based on practice and experience. This knowledge is very hard to formalize and communicateExplicit and tacit knowledge differ in terms of their transferability, appropriability, and potential for aggregation and storage. Tacit knowledge is “sticky,” i.e., hard to share and transfer. It is embedded in particular practices and experiences. Explicit knowledge, in contrast, is leakyTacit knowledge encompasses two facets: cognitive and technical (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The cognitive facet of tacit knowledge consists of mental models, schemas, perspectives, and conceptions that underlie and define an individuals understanding and perception of the world. The technical facet includes all the concrete operational propensities and skills65Dynamic Capability TheoryDCT extends RBV and KBV by incorporating the process, deployment, and upgrading a firms distinctive capabilities and competitive advantages in a constantly changing marketplace. It is often referred to the “capability” of capabilitiesTeece, Pisano and Shuen (1997): Dynamic capabilities refer to:Ability to achieve new forms of competitive advantageAbility to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environmentsAbility to renew competences so as to achieve congruence with the changing business environmentsProcesses refer to the unique ways in which things are done in the firm, or what might be referred to as its routines or patters of current practices and learningOrganizational processes have three roles: (1) coordination and integration (a static concept); (2) learning (a dynamic concept); and (3) reconfiguration (a transformational concept)Learning involves organizational and individual skills. Organizational knowledge resides in new patters of activity or in routines 66Dynamic Capability TheorySequentially, dynamic capability involves capability possession, capability deployment and capability upgradingCombinative capability is key to dynamic capability. It is a firms ability to integrate and synthesize internal resources and external learning and apply both to the competitive environmentDynamic capability requires a strong base of established capabilities as well as the ability to efficiently deploy these resources and to continuously create bundles of new resources and knowledgeLeaning ability centers at the core of dynamic capability. It is the capacity to generate and generalize (often through routines) ideas and to acquire new knowledgeExplorative learning seeks out variation, taking risks, experimentation, flexibility, discovery, and innovation; Exploitative learning focuses more on making and refining choices, increasing production efficiency, and execution of strategies67An Integrated Model of Dynamic CapabilitiesUpgradingDeploymentDistinctive ResourcesPossessionComparison of RBV, KBV and DCTResource-Based ViewKnowledge-Based ViewDynamic CapabilitiesSeminal Pieces/ContributorsPenrose, 1959 resources are a source of successWenerfelt, 1984 tools for analyzing a firms resource position and strategic options.Rumelt, 1984 and 1991 internal business characteristics determine performance.Barney, 1986 (2) and 1991Demsetz, 1991 knowledge specialistsBrown and Duguid, 1991Kogut and Zander, 1992 and 2000 social identity as the basis for knowledge coordination in the firm.Nonanka, 1994 knowledge creationFoss, 1996, Conner/Prahalad 1996 TCE more merit.Grant, 1996 and 2000 knowledge deployment and integration (rules, sequencing, routines, decisions)All that came before.Prahalad and Hamel, 1990 firms core competenciesPeteraf, 1993 RB competitive advantage from 4 conditions.Teece, Pisano, Shuen, 1997Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000 identification of dynamic capabilitiesLuo, 2000 IB applicationMain PointsThe firm is a bundle of resources and capabilities. Resources are heterogeneous and not mobile. If they are valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable, they provide a source of SCA.The firm is a bundle of knowledge. Different types of knowledge vary in transferability. Knowledge is subject to economies of scale and scope.Knowledge is created by individual specialists.Production requires the application of many types of knowledge.Sustainable competitive advantage comes from the firms competencies and its dynamic ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure them to address rapidly changing environments. Requires timely responsiveness and managerial capability. Theoretical ContributionSustainable competitive advantage lies not in a firms generic assets, but in those assets that are VRIN, because they permit the firm to provide value.Extends RBVKnowledge is the most strategically significant resource a firm can have. TCE about market transactions, KBV tells us how administrative processes are organized within a firm.“Provides a bridge between the economics-based strategy literature and evolutionary approaches to organizations.”= need resources + market strategySimilaritiesFocus on internal characteristics. Firm is the level of analysis, not the industry or market.Strategic success is tied to the possession of rent-generating intangible assets.Not clear that any of them are really a theory of the firm, so much as they are ideas about how the firm is organized to create value.DifferencesFocuses on SCAFocuses on efficiency-based differences (TCE)Knowledge is not a generic resource (RBV). It is a special capability. Different types of knowledge-based capabilities. Information technology is key.Influences thinking about organizational structure and design (hierarchy and decision-making), even within alliances.Focuses on capabilities and their evolution in response to demand and variation in internal processes = focus on competitive survival.“Core competencies should be used to modify short-term competitive positions that can be used to build longer-term competitive advantage.”69Alliance and Network TheoryAlliance (joint ventures and contractual arrangements) becomes a key approach to build a firms competitive advantages that is, collaborative competitive advantagesThere are a growing number of new forms of forging alliances, such as co-production, co-marketing, R&D cooperation, cross-licensing, co-branding, due to new competitive landscapes and information technologyThere are horizontal cooperation/alliances (between competitors), vertical cooperation/alliances (between upstream or downstream players), diagonal cooperation/alliances (with banks, consulting, professional service providers, etc.)The opportunity to generate positive-sum and synergistic gains drives up allianceCompatibility and complementarity are key to alliance success. Both control and cooperation are necessary in managing alliancesAlliances are transitionary in nature, propelling organizations to prepare alliance evolutions and think ahead of exitRace for learning and knowledge acquisition from alliance partners becomes increasingly important for most firms. Mechanisms, practices and processes that stimulate knowledge acquisition determine who benefit more from alliances70Alliance and Network TheoryAlliance research has been strongly underpinned by TCE and social exchange theories; Granovetters economic sociology fits well in predicting motives, processes and outcomes of alliancesAlliance is also studied in conjunction with organizational learning, knowledge transfer, knowledge building, resources composition, knowledge internalization, trust building, bargaining power, and co-evolution with business eco-systemsAlliance research has tackled both inter-organizational and inter-personal level issues. This is because inter-firm partnership is made through exchanges between key boundary spanners who represent each partyFit is pivotal to alliance performance. Hence, goal compatibility, capability complementary, cultural fitness, and organizational congruence have been viewed as key forces that affect fitness, and eventually the performance and evolution of allianceCross-cultural management theory such as adaptation, acculturation, communication and socialization have been linked with alliance research as well71Alliance and Network TheoryMost companies operate in a network environment, both externally and internallyExternally, networks allow their member organizations to benefit from information sharing, resource sharing, operation rationalization, and collective power enhancementInternally, subunits within an organization, such as MNC, are coordinated, structured, and organized in a network fashion. Intraorganizational networking is a source of competitive advantageThe fundamental logic of network theory is to allow members to achieve cooperative advantages under uncertainty. Network redresses the deficiency of both economic structure and social exchangeEmbeddedness shifts actors motivations away from narrow pursuit of immediate economic gains toward enrichment of relationships through trust and reciprocityEmbedded ties perform three functions: Trust, fine-grained information transfer, and joint problem solving arrangementsEmbeddedness only yields positive returns up to a threshold point. Once this point is crossed, returns from embeddedness become negative72Alliance and Network TheoryNetwork governance involves a select, persistent, and structured set of autonomous firms engaged in creating products or services based on implicit and open-ended contracts to adapt to environmental contingencies and to coordinate and safeguard exchangesSocial network view: Network is governed by informal social systems Contract is socially not legally binding.Inter-organizational network view: Networks are governed by both formal (including contract) and informal (including social) systemsExchange conditions (combinatively and interactively) necessary for network governance to emerge and thrive:Demand uncertaintyTask complexityHuman asset specificityFrequency73Alliance and Network TheoryStructural embeddedness as a foundation of social mechanismsStructural embeddedness The extent to which a dyads mutual contacts are connected to one another organizations not only have relationship with each other, but also with the same third parties as wellThe higher structural embeddness, the more information each player knows about all other players and more constraints there are on each players behaviorSocial mechanism as solutions to exchange problemsCoordination Restricted access and macro-cultureSafeguarding Restricted access, Collective sanctions and reputationInteraction effect of social mechanismsMultiple social mechanisms interact to decrease coordination costs and enhance safeguarding of customized exchangesCongruency of social mechanisms reduces coordination costs and enhance safeguarding 74Strategic Choice TheoryStrategic choice theory is a theory in which forces and variables in the external environment are dynamic, and that business strategies are affected by the interactions between these factorsThe ability of decision-makers (agents) to make a choice between policies depends ultimately upon how far they could preserve autonomy within the environment, through achieving the levels of performance expected to themThe three key issues arising from the theory concern (1) the nature of agency and choice (2) the nature of environment and (3) the nature of the relationship between agents and the environment and between strategy and environmentChanging external environment induce decision-makers to make adjustment in their competitive business strategies. In making these adjustments, the range of options considered are filtered and constrained so as to be consistent with the values, beliefs, and philosophies engrained in the mind of key decision-makers75Strategic Choice Theory“Strategic choice” is defined as the process whereby power-holders within organization decide upon courses of strategic actionThis theory conceives of action being informed by the prior cognitive framing of actors and of organizations in the form of embedded routines and cultures. Actors prior value, experience and training will color his evaluation in some degreePer Mintzberg, strategy formation walks on two feet, one deliberate and the other is emergent. Between these two extremes, there are different type of strategies:Planned strategy (leader is the center of authority with clear intension and formal control)Entrepreneurial strategy (owner tightly controls the firm, common in young firms)Ideological strategy (collective vision sharing)Umbrella strategy (leaders have only partial control)Process strategy (leaders design the system from which patterns of action evolve from)Unconnected strategy (subunits or individuals are able to realize their own stream of action)Consensus strategy (mutual adjustment among different actors and actions)Imposed strategy (strategy or action comes out of the firm)76Option TheoryA real option theory is the theory about exploring future opportunities. Options reasoning can be used as a heuristic for strategyReal options theory is a modern theory on how to make decisions regarding investments when the future is uncertain. Real options theory draws parallels between the valuation of the financial options available and the real economyFirms are adaptive systems that need to balance between refinements of existing processes and explorations of variations on new techniques and new markets. In this process, coupling of people and technology is a source of option valueA real option is the investment in physical and human assets that provides the opportunity to respond to future contingent events. Environment changes more rapidly than organizations, so there is value in investing assets to respond to future opportunitiesIf firms and their environment are engaged in a coevolutionary dynamic, then it is useful for a firm to match between its future capabilities and future environments. A real option heuristic is a way to discern the value of particular paths of exploration in evolving environmentsSeminal articles:Bowman, E. H. and D. Hurry, 1993, “ Strategy through the option lens: An integrated view of resource investments and the incrementalchoice process”. Academy of Management Review, 18: 760 782Kogut, B., 1991, “ Joint ventures and the option to expand and acquire”. Management Science, 37: 19 33. McGrath, R. G., 1997, “ A real options logic for initiating technology positioning investment”. Academy of Management Review, 22: 974 996. 77Option TheoryEssence of options is about investment decision (e.g., staging R&D) characterized by uncertainty and irreversibility, providing future managerial discretion to exercise at appropriate time. An option has value only if there is uncertaintyIrreversibility signifies the inability to costlessly revisit an investment or decision. The “stickiness” of organizational and technological combinations requires a notion of time or irreversibilityThis theory identifies the coupling of organization and technology as the leading explanation for irreversibility of investments in capabilities Real options heuristic provides evaluation of correspondence between exploration of new capabilities and evolution of market environmentIt strengthens an idea that a firms most enduring advantage lies in its human resources. A firm is a dynamic system consisting of complex coupling of technology and people through organizational design78Option TheoryA real option entails (1) option to defer; (2) option to change scale; (3) option to condense; (4) option to abandon; (5) option to switch; and (6) option to growthThe theory assumes that environmental change is marked by sharp nonlinearity. The inertial quality of a firm is central to understanding the value of its assets for future deployment given the uncertaintyFirm growth depends on its distinctive capabilities that seize and profit from future opportunitiesTo speed its transition to new techniques, a firm must allocate funding to exploration by experimenting with new techniques. Mathematical description is also used to model when, where and how to adopt radical change79Comparison of Strategic Choice, Option and Contingency TheoriesA: STRATEGIC CHOICE THEORYB: OPTION THEORYC: CONTINGENCY THEORYSeminal worksChild, 1972;Mintzberg & Waters, 1985Kogut & Kulatilaka, 2001;McGrath, Ferrier, & Mendelow, 2004Chandler, 1962;Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967;Donaldson, 1987, 2001Main pointsDescribes the role that leaders or leading groups play in influencing an organization through making choices in a dynamic political process. Argues that organizational structure is a choice designed to fit with the environmental conditions.Strategies can be located on a continuum with purely deliberate (realized as planned/intended) on one side and purely emergent (realized in the absence of plans/intentions) on the other.A real option is the investment in physical and human assets, which are tangible assets rather than financial instruments, that provide the opportunity to respond to future contingent events.Real option generates value from opportunities that arise tomorrow. Real option theory provides a new valuation method of potential investment that captures both value side and risk side.Holds that the most effective organizational structural design is where the structure fits the contingencies in either internal or external contexts.There is no one best way of organizing. The appropriate form depends on the kind of task or environment one is dealing with.Management must be concerned, above all else, with achieving alignments and good fits, which will lead to better performance.Theoretical contributionsPrevious to this theory, a common view was that organizations were thought to be designed along operational requirements based on the external environment. Strategic choice theory provided an alternative that emphasized the agency of individuals and groups within organizations to make choices, sometimes serving their own ends, that dynamically influenced the development of those organizations. Real option theory modifies the Expect Net Present Value (NPV) theory of investment decision. NPV theory only captures the risk side and therefore may undervalues the benefits of investment.Real option theory links the theory of financial options to foundational ideas in strategic management. It stresses that most strategic decisions are forward-looking meaning managers make decision today to seek opportunities tomorrow.Contingency theory provides a major framework for organizational design.The structural adjustment to regain fit (SARFIT) formulation of structural adaptation provides a theory or organizational change.The notions of “internal fit” and “external fit” serve as new sources to explain superior firm performance.CommonalitiesAll center on the alignment between environment and organizational elements such as internal structure, investment, etc.All involve a proactive approach to adapt to external environment and internal situation.All stress the uncertainty nature of environment, for which good alignment/fit is necessary to achieve higher performance.DifferencesOriginated from sociology. Emphasize agency of individuals and groups in decision-making process. Originated from finance. Focused on future benefits generated by current real option.Originated from “fit” logic in strategy.Focused on organizational design to gain fit to improve performance.Subsequent advancementRecent research on strategy-environment alignment theory/paradigm which broadly is part of strategic choice, eg., Luo and Park (2001) studied the antecedents and outcomes of strategic choices of MNC in China.Scholars utilize option theory to study how investments (e.g., diversification, FDI) contribute to strategic flexibility, particularly in dynamic and uncertain environment (e.g., Lee & Makhija, 2009; Oriani & Sobrero, 2008). Scholars developed a dynamic perspective on strategic fit (Zajac, Kraatz, & Bresser, 2000). Fit is not static, but rather requires changes over time depending on environmental and organizational contingencies. 80Co-evolution TheoryIn biology, coevolution occurs when two or more species reciprocally affect each other's evolution through the process of natural selectionAs refined by Lewin et al (1999), coevolution theory considers organizations, their populations (industries), and their environments as the interdependent outcome of deliberate actions, institutional influences, and extra-institutional changesCoevolution is the joint and interactive outcome of managerial intentionality, organizational efforts, and environmental change. Coevolution assumes that organizational and environmental changes occur in a simultaneous and interactive mannerThus, strategy is not merely a passive response to, but rather a proactive intention to change, task and institutional environments facing the firmStrategic and environmental changes are bi-directional, interactional, and mutually reinforcingOrganizations and their parts, both internal (subunits) and external (e.g., suppliers or competitors) coevolve with each other and with a changing environmentCo-evolution incorporates the premise that adaptation and selection are not orthogonal forces but are fundamentally interrelated81Co-evolution TheoryFor co-evolution to occur, the population must consist of heterogeneous firms that have adaptive/learning capability and are able to interact and mutually influence each otherForms of coevolution:Naï ve selection blind variationManaged selection deliberate variationHierarchical renewal - administrativeHolistic renewal collective sense-makingPrinciples of coevolution:Managing internal rates of change to match external rates of changeNurturing self-organizationSustaining concurrent exploration and exploitation82Co-evolution TheoryProperty 1 Multidirectional causality: one or more populations evolve in response to several other populations in a broader ecological systemProperty 2 Positive feedback: the recursive interactions between environment and organization result in interdependencies and circular causality with continuous feedbackProperty 3 Path dependence: Firms vary among themselves in the coevolution process because they differ in their history, experience, path, and capabilityProperty 4 Nonlinearity: Environment uncertainty, indeterminate feedback paths, and heterogeneity across units in population propel this nonlinearityFor leading articles, see:Lewin, A.Y. & Volberda, H.W. (1999), "Prolegomena on Coevolution: A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms", Organization Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 519-534. Lewin, A.Y., Long, C.P. & Carroll, T.N. (1999), "The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms", Organization Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 535-550. 12Elizabeth Pontikes, William P. Barnett. 2007. The Coevolution of Organizational Knowledge and Market Technology. Strategy Science, 2(1): 64-8283Stakeholder TheoryThe stakeholder theory is a theory of organizational management and business ethics that accounts for multiple constituencies impacted by business entities like employees, suppliers, local communities, creditors, and others. It addresses morals and values in managing an organization, such as those related to corporate social responsibility, market economy, and social contract theoryIt was originally detailed by R. Edward Freeman in the book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, underscoring the need and methods by which management gives due regard to the interests of those groupsStakeholder theory begins with the assumption that values are necessarily and explicitly a part of doing business. It asks managers to articulate the shared sense of the value they create, and what brings its core stakeholders togetherIt also pushes managers to be clear about how they want to do business, specifically what kinds of relationships they want and need to create with their stakeholders to deliver on their purposeThe stakeholder view of strategy integrates both a resource-based view and a market-based view, and adds a socio-political level. One common version of stakeholder theory seeks to define the specific stakeholders of a company (the normative theory of stakeholder identification) and then examine the conditions under which managers treat these parties as stakeholders (the descriptive theory of stakeholder salience)Stakeholder theory suggests that the purpose of a business is to create as much value as possible for stakeholders. In order to succeed and be sustainable over time, executives must keep the interests of customers, suppliers, employees, communities and shareholders aligned and going in the same direction84Stakeholder TheoryInnovation to keep these interests aligned is more important than the easy strategy of trading off the interests of stakeholders against each other. Hence, by managing for stakeholders, executives will also create as much value as possible for shareholders and other financiersThe theory holds that normatively legitimate stakeholders (those stakeholders to whom the organization has an obligation) take moral precedence over derivatively legitimate stakeholders85Classification Of StakeholdersTHE THREE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS86Upper Echelons Theory87The upper echelons theory (first published by Donald C. Hambrick and P. Mason in 1984, followed by his AMR update article in 2007) states that organizational outcomes are partially predicted by managerial background characteristics of the top level management team. TMT members' characteristics, including past experiences, values, and personalities, affect how they make strategic and organizational decisionsExecutives act on the basis of their personalized interpretations of the strategic situations they face, and these personalized constructs are a function of the executives' experiences, values, and personalities. As such, the theory is built on the premise of bounded rationality (Cyert & March, 1963; March & Simon, 1958), the idea that informationally complex, uncertain situations are not objectively "knowable" but, rather, are merely interpretable. If we want to understand why organizations do the things they do, or why they perform the way they do, we must consider the biases and dispositions of their most powerful actors - their top executivesThis theory focuses on TMT groups instead of individual CEO alone. The characteristics of TMT can yield stronger explanations of organizational outcomes than will the customary focus on the individual top executive (e.g., CEO) alone. Leadership of a complex organization is a shared activity, and the collective cognitions, capabilities, and interactions of the entire TMT enter into strategic behaviorUpper Echelons Theory88Per this theory, the demographic characteristics of executives can be used as valid, albeit incomplete and imprecise, proxies of executives' cognitive frames. Given the great difficulty obtaining conventional psychometric data on top executives, researchers can reliably use information on executives' functional backgrounds, industry and firm tenures, educational credentials, and affiliations to develop predictions of strategic actionsManagerial discretion and executive job demands are two important moderators that affect the theory's predictive strength. If a great deal of discretion is present, then managerial characteristics will become reflected in strategy and performance. If, however, discretion is lacking, executive characteristics do not much matterExecutive job demands stem from three sets of factors: task challenges (e.g., difficult strategic conditions), performance challenges (e.g., demanding owners or board), and executive aspirations (e.g., strong personal de sire to deliver maximum performance)Executives who are under heavy job demands will be forced to take mental shortcuts and fall back on what they have tried or seen work in the past. Conversely, executives who face minimal job demands can afford to be more comprehensive in their analyses and decision making; thus, their choices will more greatly match the objective conditions they confrontUpper Echelons Theory89Intra-TMT power distributions and TMT behavioral integration also stand out. TMT characteristics may yield stronger predictions of strategic behavior when the differing amounts of power of TMT members are accounted for. Some executives have much more say than others, and their biases should accordingly be given more weight when trying to predict TMT actionsIt is often that TMT members each engage in bilateral relations with the CEO but having little to do with each other and hardly constituting a team. Behavioral integration, then, is the degree to which a TMT engages in mutual and collective interaction. A behaviorally integrated TMT shares information, resources, and decisions not just with CEO but with one anotherIt would be equally important to identify the subgroups who are primarily responsible for certain types of decisions (or specific domains of action) and then to use just their characteristics to predict actionsAttention to the varying involvement of different executives in different decision domains could be one of the next research frontiers for upper echelons scholars. Not only might the focus on "subteams” but how a subteam is composed and worksDon Hambrick himself has long thought that there needs to be much more attention paid to the "structure" and processes of TMTsManagerial Cognition Theory90This theory suggest that managerial cognition drives strategic action. In a general sense, managers think, and firms make decisions and take actions through managers. The rationality of managers, however, is often limited, their knowledge often incomplete, and their attention often overloadedThis theory suggests that bounded rationality prevents top managers from developing a complete understanding of their environments (Bogner and Barr, 2000; Daft and Weick, 1984; Fiol and OConnor, 2003). Instead, top managers develop subjective representations of the environment that, in turn, drive their strategic decisions and subsequent firm action. Cognitive scientists subscribe to three central axioms about minds, viewing cognition as intentional, representational, and computational: Intentions. Cognitive science holds strongly to doctrines that purposeful minds guide higher-level human activities such as interpreting events, contemplating goals, and making plans. Managers take strategic actions mainly for reasons, neither as a habit nor as a mindless repertoire, but as a programmed response to environmental fiat. One of the essential foundations of strategic management is the idea that managers can (or should) act intentionally to reach planned goalsRepresentations. Mental representation or imprint is central to cognitive science. As representations, minds are symbol-processing systems. The idea behind studying cognitive maps is that managers mental representations guide cognition and actions relative to strategic choicesComputation. This is against gut feeling or intuition (which causes debate) and predisposed to rational, calculative, programming-like mindsetFor leading articles, see:1.Daft RL, Weick KE. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretive systems. Academy of Management Review 9(2): 284295.2.Stubbart, C. 1989. Managerial cognition: A missing link in strategic management research. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4): 325-347.3.Bogner W, Barr P. 2000. Making sense in hypercompetitive environments: a cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organization Science 11(2): 212226.4.Fiol CM, OConnor EJ. 2003. Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. Academy of Management Review 28(1): 5470.Managerial Cognition Theory91These are two salient forms of subjective representations that top managers develop about environments attention focus (the aspects of the environment that are central to top managers subjective representations of their environments) and environment-strategy causal logics (the order of the perceived causal relationship between the external environment and firm strategy)Attention focus is important because it influences the degree of mindful attention that will be directed to a given environmental event. One way to deal with this cognitive overload is through the process of selective attention. Top managers focus their attention on those domains that they deem to be most relevant while selectively ignoring others. Attention focus thus provides a filter through which top managers identify issues. Causal logics are the primary basis for decision making. Causal reasoning is the primary basis for decision making in general and can influence the way in which strategic decisions are made, understood, and communicated. Top managers generate beliefs that relate various environmental and strategy concepts together in a causal manner. These cause-effect beliefs about the environment-strategy relationship frame specific strategic issues and affect how they are interpreted and what strategic actions are initiated Cognitive complexity and the cognitive capabilities associated with it serve as an underlying theme of the strategic perspective. For managers to be effective, they need to develop the capability to see events from multiple perspectives and to generate several competing interpretations of events and their interactive effectsCognitive complexity represents the degree of differentiation, articulation, and integration within a cognitive structure. Cognitive complexity encompasses both the structural and knowledge dimensions necessary to form complex representation and understandingGlobal mindset is an example of managerial cognition. It is a highly complex cognitive structure characterized by an openness to and articulation of multiple cultural and strategic realities on both global and local levels, and the cognitive ability to mediate and integrate across this multiplicity92Co-opetition TheoryCoopetition is the simultaneous competition and cooperation between two or more rivals competing in global markets. It captures the duality of cooperation and competition between a given pair or among a group of rivalsCompetition may occur at multi-points and via multi-units, while cooperation represents a joint effort for mutual gainsUnder coopetition, the relationship between rivals is a simultaneous, inclusive interdependenceThe interdependence entails competitive and collaborative activities undertaken in the pursuit of global reach, expansion, and profitThree properties of coopetition include:Cooperation and competition coexist between the same global rivalsCooperation and competition exist during one periodCoopetition may occur at corporate-, division-, or subsidiary-levels, depending on a firms strategic intent and organizational needs93Co-opetition TheoryGrowing interdependence between multinationals has triggered coopetition. Competitive pressure and collaborative desires are simultaneously in play, provoking a situation in which two global rivals exhibit syncretic rent-seeking behaviorCollaboration between rivals is an important means by which to better compete globally. Cooperative arrangements with competitors enable participating firms to share knowledge. It also reduces the costs, risks, and uncertainties associated with innovation and new product developmentCoopetition arises to meet the need to solidify global players collective power in dealing with outside stakeholders and in strengthening market position for members within a coopetition groupCompetition is bolstered by the need for strategic flexibility, which is made possible due to the wider variety of strategic options than those available through pure competition or cooperation in isolationCoopetition is the nature result of battles over technical standards. Coopetition also results from the battles for constellations between groupsWithin each group, the leading company designed the technology, licensed the semiconductor companies to produce chips, and supplied systems on an OEM basis o the resellers. Members within the group complete along downstream activities94Co-opetition TheoryThe cooperative and competitive mix does not necessarily remain constant over timeWhenever market conditions and internal needs change, the desired level of cooperation or competition will changeCoopetition is a loosely coupled relationship in which players maintain certain interdependence without losing organizational separatenessCoopetition is affected by dynamic conditions happening outside of the relationship: there are many other competitors in the global marketWhen does cooperation increase?When coopetiting players face increasingly competitive threats from other players who challenge their joint positionsWhen global consumers become increasingly sophisticated by demanding new technology, better functionality, and additional servicesWhen coopetiting players encounter increasing pressure for global value chain integration. This pressure may stem from the increasing importance of economies of scale, cost-cutting pressure, and new capability development95Co-opetition TheoryCoopetition goes beyond the old rules of competition and cooperation to combine the advantagesIts rise is attributable to increasing interdependence between global players and the heightened need for collective action, risk sharing, and strategic flexibilityEach player has a unique position in the game of coopetition, requiring peculiar tactics to respond to forces of cooperation and competitionNot every player should establish and maintain coopetition at the same level or in the same wayTo play the coopetition game effectively, a firms experience, culture, strategic orientation, and network position mattersIn order to practice coopetition effectively, firms must enhance organizational learning and global experience associated with coopetitionReaping benefits from coopetition necessitates the important savvy that supports a viable, profitable and healthy relationship with coopetiting partiesGlobal coopetition is complex, requiring careful designs and regular inputs from functional directors, subunit executives and country managersFor leading articles, see:Brandenburger, Adam; Nalebuff, Barry (1996). Co-Opetition: A Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation. HBR PressLuo, Yadong (2004). Co-opetition in international business. Copenhagen Business School PressOrganizational Ambidexterity TheorySuccessful organizations in a dynamic environment are increasingly ambidextrous in multiple fashionsGiven the complexity of global business environments, it becomes more important to simultaneously balancing seemingly contradictory forces and needs - shifting from trade-off (either/or) to paradoxical (both/and) thinkingAmbidexterity refers broadly to an organizations ability to pursue two disparate things at the same time, such asEfficiency vs. flexibilityLow cost vs. customer responsivenessGlobal integration vs. local responsiveness Exploitation vs. explorationStability vs. adaptabilityShort-term profit vs. long-term growth96ORGANIATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY THEORY97Organizational ambidexterity1.Growth ambidexterity1.Short-tem and long-term *2.Stability and adaptability3.Organic growth and acquisitions4.Low cost & customer satisfaction 2.Capability ambidexterity1.Exploration and exploitation 2.In-house resources and open resources3.Development and outsourcing4.Transactional and relational competence *3.Contextual ambidexterity1.Domestic market and foreign market 2.Compliance and influence (co-evolution) *3.Contracting and trust building *4.Localization and globalization5.Competition & collaboration with business stakeholders *4.Structural ambidexterity 1.Structuration and flexibility2.Authorization and authoritarianism3.Secrecy and transparency 4.Family governance and corporate governance5.Liability of newness and advantage of newnessOrganizational Ambidexterity TheoryOrganizations face both trade-off (either/or) and ambidextrous (both/and) decisions. Ambidexterity differs from trade-off; it emphasizes the simultaneous fulfillment of two disparate (and sometimes competing) ends at the same timeSuperior performance today is achieved not only through charismatic leadership, strong culture, or innovative products but also by building a carefully designed set of systems and processes that collectively define a context that fosters ambidextrous evolution and growthOrganizational ambidexterity requires an effective reconciliation to simultaneously benefit and gain from distinctive forces or strategies 98Organizational Ambidexterity TheoryAmbidexterity is a new theoretical perspective exploring a new way of looking at firm growth. It leverages and combines the advantages of two desperate forces or strategies. If managing properly, there are synergistic or complementary gains from the simultaneous pursuitAmbidexterity creates following gains and benefits for the firmIt offers more growth-opportunities while allowing the firm to maintain stabilityIt provides more strategic options while allowing the firm to gain from experienceIt improves the task and institutional environments where business stakeholders are more cooperativeIt enhances the sustainability and durability of firm growth and evolution99100Organizational Ambidexterity TheoryAmbidexterity is about combinative capability as well. This capability is a firms ability to integrate and synthesize internal resources and external learning and apply both to the competitive environmentAmbidexterity is not easy to build and achieve. It necessitates sharpened learning ability. Leaning ability centers at the core of dynamic capability. It is the capacity to generate and generalize (often through routines) ideas and to acquire new knowledgeExplorative learning seeks out variation, taking risks, experimentation, flexibility, discovery, and innovation; Exploitative learning focuses more on making and refining choices, increasing production efficiency, and execution of strategiesAmbidextrous organizations are superior in leadership visions, industrial experience, corporate culture, and strategic flexibility that accommodate the fulfillment of ambidextrous endsFor leading articles, see:Tushman, M. L., & OReilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8-30.Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. L. (1997). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. New York:Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209-226.Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760-776.Luo, Y. & Rui, H. 2009. An ambidexterity perspective toward multinational enterprises from emerging economies. Academy of Management Perspective, 23(4): 49-70.Compositionbased view (CBV)The composition-based view (CBV) was recently developed by Luo and Child (2015). It is a new theory that explicates the growth of firms without the benefit of resource advantages, proprietary technology, or market power. The CBV complements some existing theories such as resource-based view (RBV), resource management view, and dynamic capability to create novel insights into the survival of firms that do not possess such strategic assets as original technologies and brandsIt emphasizes how ordinary firms with ordinary resources may generate extraordinary results through their creative use of open resources and unique integrating capabilities, resulting in an enhanced speed and a high price-value ratio that are well suited to large numbers of low- to mid-end mass market consumersThe CBV has been commented as “a new view with significant application” for emerging market firms and for small and medium sized enterprises in many countries. The view cautions though that composition-generated advantages are temporary in nature and that composition itself mandates special skills in distinctively identifying, leveraging, and combining open or existing resources inside and outside the firmConsidered individually, technology, brand, products, capital, services, channel, and brainpower are not advantageous to resource-handicaped firms. The firms achieve a compositional advantage, however, by creatively combining these elements to generate impressive speed and superior price-value ratios that suit markets extremely wellCBV moves the independence of numerous sources of a competitive edge to a state of interdependence and wholeness of resources that are combined and integrated. AEEEs are particularly proficient in composing low-cost designs, extended product features, scale manufacturing, prompt market responses that tailor to mass consumersUnderlying this are the market intelligence, organizational resilience, creative use of imitation, and entrepreneurial ability of these firms, which enable them to effectively exploit open resources. Meanwhile, improved factor markets, availability of intermediary technologies, key components and services, along with IT-enabled communications technology, industrialized specialization, and improved outsourcing conditions also foster CBV101Comparing CBV with other viewsCBVRBVKBVLLL CBV delineates the importance and process of creatively composing and integrating numerous capabilities or resources that have been perceived as ordinary, open, or generic These firms are astute in distinctively identifying, leveraging, and combining ordinary resources, external and internal, to create a unique path for growth Often characterized by higher price-value ratio & stronger responsivenessto mass marketsCBV contrasts with RBV in that it does not emphasize possession of core competencies or superior resources as the prerequisite for building a competitive advantage“Ordinary” resourcesstated in CBV are neither idiosyncratic nor costly to copy, and can instead be purchased in an open marketKBV introduces as a potential competitive advantage a firms combinative capability to synthesize and apply current and acquired knowledgeKBV is focused on the synthesis of knowledge so as to create new possibilities to take advantage of market opportunitiesBy contrast, CBV is more comprehensive by addressing the ways in which a wide range of ordinary resources can be integrated into providing a superior competitive offeringCVB does not emphasize much on newly internationalized large Asian firms as LLL didAlso for CBV, the channel of acquiring and using external resources is often not through formal joint ventures or alliance partnerships but largely through simply purchasing such as through vendor, outsourcing, and licensing agreements102DifferencesThe market landscape for acquiring resources is now quite different from before in that there is the presence and availability of various intermediary resources or inputs (professional industrial design, standardized technologies, assembled key components, distribution specialists, total logistics solution providers, advertising and promotion specialists, etc.). Undersuch new conditions, what high-performing AEEEs need has changed. Vision, intelligence, speed, networking, and most importantly 3 compositions become extremely critical. CBV is better adjusted to the contemporary situation in which many resources are now available on the marketComposition-based view (CBV)103Composition-Based View (CBV)104Compositional offering occurs when the firm amalgamates an extended array of its products performance features and functions, as well as services for existing customers whose satisfaction increases as a result of this extension and amalgamation (e.g., one-stop-shop or total business solution model)Compositional offering differs from normal product or service extension in that it provides a unique consolidation and integration of the products functions or services within one product or for a one-stop-service, creating better responsiveness to customers and greater customer satisfaction Compositional offering adds greater value for customers in a more cost-efficient way. Availability of open technical platform has spurred compositional offeringChinas IGOOSamsungs LED touch displayComposition-Based View (CBV)105Pure differentiation strategy often wouldnt work for resource-limited firms. Compositional competition exists when a firm uses a set of combined and consolidated measures to compete. It combines and integrates low cost with quality, speed, services, design, convenience, and solutions, providing customers with higher price-value ratioCompositional competition seeks to exploit opportunities associated with mass markets based on a composition of combined price, design, functionality, quality, features, volume, and services Mindray迈瑞Composition-Based View (CBV)106Compositional capability concerns the extent to which a firm is able to synthesize and integrate available resources to create compositional advantage. Imitation may be used in the beginning to pursuit optimal adaptation as input rather than as solution A composition of imitation, creation, and innovation is used to develop a composition-based competitive edge or to support future innovations as the firms evolve. Samsungs technological capability building (e.g., DRAM) often began with reverse engineering of imported or licensed foreign technology, together with adaptive technological innovation, and later progressed toward building its own design centersAnother form of compositional capability is the mixture of product innovation, process innovation, and managerial innovation (especially business model innovation). Taiwans ArgoxTaiwans PolytronSingapores Clean Tech ParkAbsorptive CapabilityComposition-based AdvantagesCost AdvantageCatchup AdvantageSpeed Advantage Combinative CapabilityHasteningCapabilityIntelligenceCapabilityNetworking CapabilityCBV explains success of emerging market firms 107Ambidexterity-Bricolage-ConnectivityWhy CBV suits emerging market firms108Composition as a distinctive processComposition is distinctive knowledge and process capability, often involving business model innovationComposition depicts a different growth path, changing the view from developing distinctive resources to distinctively using generic resources, internal and external, available to the firmIt is related but goes beyond “combinative capability” and “resource bundling” or resource management views109