« Home

Home » Business & Economics » Business » Henry: Understanding Strategic Management » Student resources » Abstracts of journal articles » Chapter 07

Henry: Understanding Strategic Management

Chapter 07

Whereas companies once focused primarily on outplaying competitors at a fixed game, now their central focus is on understanding the relationship between an environment's turbulence and their choice of strategy. By doing so, managers can develop better strategies that lead to and maintain strategic supremacy.

This process begins with analysis of a firm's current competitive environment, followed by an understanding of the rules of the game in that industry. If a firm lacks the capabilities to succeed in the environment or wishes to challenge the status quo to improve its position, it might consider changing the rules. The ability to establish the rules of the game to control evolution is one facet of strategic supremacy. The player with strategic supremacy shapes the field and basis of competition for its rivals.

Studies of hypercompetitive environments provide insight into the inextricably intertwined relationships among disruption, patterns of turbulence, the rules of competition, and definition of the playing field. Why is changing the environment important? Some strategies may work well in one environment but not in another. For example, strategies that are successful in fairly stable environments may be a liability in unstable ones. Whereas profits previously depended on stability and lack of rivalry, profits in hypercompetitive environments like those of the 1990s result from increased rivalry that focuses on defining a new basis of competition for customers.

Extending the insights gained from hypercompetitive markets, D'Aveni suggests that turbulence creates competitive environments characterized by distinct patterns of disruption determined by frequency and their competence-destroying or competence-enhancing nature. The four competitive environments (equilibrium, fluctuating equilibrium, punctuated equilibrium, and disequilibrium) require different strategies. The goal of incumbent leaders and challengers in each environment is to achieve strategic supremacy by controlling the degree and pattern of turbulence. But, because rivals and customers are never content with the status quo, the battle for strategic supremacy is continuous.

Link to purchase full article:
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/1999/spring/12/


The quest for competitive advantage often inspires executives to imitate the strategies of the most successful companies. Interestingly, however, precisely opposite factors are considered sources of competitive advantage at different points in time. Henry Ford's emphasis on focus has been touted as the key to success right alongside General Motors' product-line breadth. IBM's vertical integration was considered an unassailable source of competitive advantage a generation ago; today, everyone admires the outsourcing flexibility inherent in the nonintegrated business models of Cisco Systems and Dell Computer.

But strategists whose anecdotal understanding of competitive advantage runs only as deep as "If it's good for Cisco, it must be good for everybody" are likely to succeed only in building yesterday's competitive advantages. If history is any guide, the practices and business models that constitute advantages for today's most successful companies confer those advantages only because of particular factors at work under particular conditions at the particular time. Harvard Business School's Clayton Christensen, a leading thinker on disruptive technologies, alerts managers to the imperative of understanding the context that supports a particular competitive advantage. He explains why, for example, pharmaceutical companies' current focus on ever larger mergers is moving them in exactly the wrong direction at exactly the wrong time. He blames their strategists (and investment bankers) for not thinking deeply about cause and effect in competitive advantage.

He also notes that the very existence of competitive advantage sets in motion creative innovations that, as competitors strive to level the playing field, cause the advantage to dissipate. That does not mean the search for competitive advantage is futile. Rather, it suggests that successful strategists need to cultivate a deep understanding of the processes of competition and progress and of the factors that undergird each advantage. Only then will they be able to see when old advantages are poised to disappear and how new advantages can be built in their stead.

Link to purchase full article:
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2001/winter/9/