PLEASE READ THE BELOW ESSAY AND WRITE A SUBSTANTIVE 400 WORD REPLY Make Sure That You Are Adding New And Relevant Information With Each This Reply.

 

Minimum of 400 words in the body Minimum of 2 sources from the literature in addition to course texts 

Gamble, J., Peteraf, M., & Thompson, A. (2019). Essentials of strategic management: The Quest

           for Competitive Advantage. (6th ed.), New York, NY: McGraw Hill Higher Education

Keller, T., & Alsdorf, K. L. (2012). Every good endeavor: Connecting your work to God's work.

           New York, N.Y: Dutton, Penguin Random House.

Krogerus, M., & Tschäppeler, R. (2018). The decision book: 50 models for strategic thinking.,

            (Revised ed.), New York, NY: W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Rumelt, R. (2011)., Good strategy/bad strategy: The difference and why it matters., New York,

           NY: Crown Busines

Content must include: 

Summary of the author’s Main Thread – no less than 125 words · What you agreed with, did not agree with and why – no less than 125 word

APA FORMAT A MUST FOR THE REPLY PLEASE

 

Gaining and maintaining competitiveness is critical for the longevity and vitality of organizations, whether they operate domestically or globally.  All firms need competitive approaches, whether aggressive or not, to position themselves and to ward off challenges from competitors, and because globalization is occurring at an accelerating pace.  According to Gamble, Peteraf, and Thompson (2019), today, a firm can be competitive and lead an industry when it is a global market leader.  This writing begins by combining the Christian worldview with the significance of competitive strategy for businesses in the ever-changing global business world.  The author of this paper offers explanations for decision-making regarding competitive approaches and scope and then proposes that the feedback analysis and SWOT analysis are decision tools that are appropriate to aid decision-making. 

Process: Deciding on a Competitive Approach

            God left His world for people to cultivate through work (Keller and Alsdorf, 2012); however, there was never an assurance that the task of cultivation would be easy.  Today, businesses operate in “rapidly changing environments that are hypercompetitive and turbulent, where customer preferences are volatile, and technology is transforming scenarios” (Pertusa-Ortega, Molina-Azorin, & Claver-Cortes, 2010, p. 1283).  Thus, firms need to understand their unique situation as they make decisions regarding competitive approaches.  Firms also need to know when to make strategic moves (Gamble et al., 2019).

Strategy is what “makes or breaks a firm” (Gamble et al., 2019, p. 2).  A business strategy that will serve a firm well is one that a firm develops based on its recognition and subsequent acknowledgment of its current situation and calculated risk.  Rumelt (2011) stated that for strategy development, a firm must advance from its comfortable pattern of using deduction and instead employ “induction, analogy, judgment, and insight” (p. 245) and that scientific induction is necessary for organizational success.  Hence, firms must investigate the myriad of internal and external environmental factors that affect them.  Every firm is uniquely positioned to know and capitalize on the collective knowledge it has about itself, especially that which competitors do not know.  Using the knowledge about itself, and understanding what it is that works for the firm and also what does not work, a firm can develop a dynamic strategy that will help position its competitive approach (Rumelt, 2011).  A firm will decide on a competitive approach based on factors such as its internal resources and capacities and its current position in the marketplace.  A firm will also make decisions on its competitive approach based on whether it operates domestically or globally, if and how it intends to expand globally, the competitiveness of the market and the viable competitive threats, the current state of the economy across the globe, and current and emerging technologies.  Rumelt (2011) terms firms as using “the scent of opportunity” (p. 243) when they use proprietary and other information and their unique value propositions to make decisions and to be innovative.  It is crucial for firms to use judgment combined with cautious insight, to capitalize on competencies and resources, to resist biases, and to perceive what the competition does not (Rumelt, 2011).  To form a strategy, firms must diagnose the situation, choose an overall guiding policy, and design coherent action (Rumelt, 2011).  According to Pertusa-Ortega et al. (2010), a sustainable competitive advantage is achieved by firms that possess and exploit “scarce, imperfectly imitable, and imperfectly tradable” (p. 1285) resources that produce economic value.   

Strategic Thinking: Deciding on a Competitive Scope

Keller and Alsdorf (2012) emphasized that God created humans and directed them to work; consequently, innovative efforts are pleasing to God as innovation furthers His creation.  For businesses, God’s directive must persist; however, firms do need to make wise decisions when deciding on a competitive scope.  Similar to how a firm chooses a competitive approach, it decides on a competitive scope based on its unique internal strengths and weakness, and the threats and opportunities that exist.  For example, an industry leader will likely have an easier time forming aggressive strategies.  Aggressive strategies can be disruptive product innovation, guerrilla warfare tactics, merging with or acquiring other firms, engaging in vertical or backward integration, and global footprint expansion (Gamble et al., 2019).  Industry leaders will also be in a strong position to block competitors who attempt to challenge them.  Integration, however, “is not always a good idea” (Rumelt, 2011, p. 256), so firms need to establish their geographic and production and distribution scopes wisely.

Geographic Scope

            Firms make decisions on the markets to remain in or expand into based on many combined factors.  Firms need to evaluate the wants and needs of the consumers in individual markets, whether the firm’s products or services have a high enough value proposition for consumers in various markets, and the level of competition in different markets.  Firms also have to consider the cost of doing business in individual markets, such as resource acquisition and other supply chain costs, taxes, and tariffs.  According to Oh, Kim, and Shin (2019), the internal capacities of a firm play a role in geographic scope decisions.  In their study of Fortune 500 firms, Oh et al., (2019) found that a firm expands its scope internationally, upstream or downstream, based on its proprietary assets, its innovative technologies, the industry within which it operates, and the life cycle stage of that industry.  A firm can expand geographically via licensing, franchising, creating a wholly-owned subsidiary, or engaging in a joint venture (Gamble et al., 2019).

Production / Distribution Scope

            Firms also make decisions on what will be the scope of their production and distribution.  Firms can house their production in one or multiple manufacturing facilities in a single country, or they can disburse their production across the globe.  Further, firms decide if they will keep all aspects of production in-house or use strategies such as outsourcing or strategic alliances and partnerships.  In a growing industry, firms that have internal knowledge and unique internal capacities such as advanced technologies have an easier time expanding their operations domestically and internationally (Oh et al., 2014).  Firms can increase their horizontal scope through a merger or acquisition, but firms must be cautious about those business deals because they may not result in cost savings (Gamble et al., 2019).  Firms can also become more competitive via vertical expansion of their production or distribution scope by engaging in forward or backward integration if they can support the necessary capital investment and can be responsive to market changes (Gamble et al., 2019). 

Decision Model

Since setting strategy is not a one-time event, firms should be using the feedback analysis decision model on an ongoing basis to confirm if they are good at what they think they are good at doing.  With the feedback analysis model, a firm should identify expected outcomes from a current decision, wait one year, and evaluate if expectations did occur (Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2018).  Peter Drucker said that it is pertinent for individuals to know their strengths (Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2018).  Similarly, businesses should know their strengths.  Therefore, firms should use the SWOT analysis to identify those strengths.  When a firm scans its environment to fill in the SWOT quadrants, a firm identifies its strengths, and it also identifies its weaknesses, threats, and opportunities.  Krogerus and Tschäppeler (2018) indicated it is not enough to fill out the SWOT diagram; a firm must analyze how it can strategically use each category.  Scripture endorses that firms’ actions of employing decision models to aid in strategy setting are worthy tasks in the Lord’s eyes; Paul states, “in the Lord, your labor is not in vain” (Corinthians 15:58, English Standard Version).  Moreover, Keller and Alsdorf (2012) suggested that every good endeavor has importance for the present and the future. 

Conclusion

  This writing combined Christian worldview thinking with the significance of competitive approach and scope decisions of businesses as they operate in the ever-changing global business world.  “The forces of globalization are changing the competitive landscape” (Gamble et al., 2019, p. 133).  The author of this paper explained that firms make competitive approach and scope decisions based on the state of the business world and the related challenges and opportunities, and a firm’s internal capacities.  The author of this paper recommended using the feedback analysis and SWOT analysis decision tools to make competitive approach and scope decisions.

References

Gamble, J., Peteraf, M., & Thompson, A. (2019). Essentials of strategic management. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. ISBN: 978-1-260-13956-3

Keller, T., & Alsdorf, K. L. (2012). Every good endeavor: Connecting your work to God’s work. New York, NY: Penguin Books. ISBN: 978159463282

Krogerus, M., & Tschäppeler, R. (2018). The decision book: Fifty models for strategic thinking (Revised ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN: 978-0-393-65237-6

Oh, C. H., Kim, M., & Shin, J. (2019). Paths and geographic scope of international expansion across industries. International Business Review, 28(3), 560-574. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.12.002

Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorin, J. F., & Claver-Cortes, E. (2010). Competitive strategy, structure and firm performance: A comparison of the resource‐based view and the contingency approach. Management Decision, 48(8), 1282-1303. doi:10.1108/00251741011076799

Rumelt, R. (2011). Good strategy/bad strategy: The difference and why it matters. New York, NY: Crown Business. ISBN: 978-0-3-0-88623-1

Annotated Bibliography

Oh, C. H., Kim, M., & Shin, J. (2019). Paths and geographic scope of international expansion across industries. International Business Review, 28(3), 560-574. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.12.002

                        In 2019, a global team of university professors published Paths and Geographic Scope of International Expansion Across Industries in the peer-reviewed International Business Review journal.  The authors, Chang Hoon Oha from the Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Minyoung Kimb from the School of Business, University of Kansas, United States; and Jiyoung Shinc from Business and Economics, University of Groningen, Netherlands, intended their article to benefit business strategists who are making decisions on the scope of international expansion.  These authors studied the world’s 500 largest firms over 10 years in the early 2000s from distinct industry categories to reveal appropriate global expansion strategies.  The authors based their study on theories that a firm’s resources, location factors, industry life cycles, industry characteristics, and competition significantly impact geographic scope and internal operational decisions.  The categories were institution-driven, capability-driven, and linkage-driven industries based on the industry characteristics.  One finding was that firm-specific resources have varying advantages in countries across the globe.  The generic paths of international expansion differ by industry type.  Institution-driven industries expanded upstream with a limited geographic scope.  Capability-driven industries expanded downstream, and also expanded downstream activities beyond their home region if they possessed strong proprietary assets.  Linkage-driven industries expanded in both directions and expanded downstream beyond their home region if they had strong proprietary assets.  Additionally, the authors discussed that entry barriers such as laws, industry-specific knowledge, and a firm’s innovative products and technology are critical factors for geographic scope expansions, especially for oligopoly industries.  Another finding was that geographic scope was more extensive over time for downstream activities.  This study is useful to explain the reasons and the directions firms expand their scope.

Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorin, J. F., & Claver-Cortes, E. (2010). Competitive strategy, structure and firm performance: A comparison of the resource‐based view and the contingency approach. Management Decision, 48(8), 1282-1303. doi:10.1108/00251741011076799

                        A trio of Department of Business Management faculty from the University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain, published a 2010 article in the peer-reviewed journal Management Decision.  The article, titled Competitive Strategy, Structure and Firm Performance: A Comparison of the Resource‐based View and the Contingency Approach, by Eva M. Pertusa-Ortega, Jose´ F. Molina-Azorı´n, and Enrique Claver-Cortes informed the intended audience of business management strategists about organizational design decisions related to competitive strategy and competitive advantages.  The authors described their competitive strategy study of large Spanish firms in which they looked at the resource-based view and contingency theory.  Study results indicated that together, a firm’s organizational structure and competitive strategy influence a firm’s performance, and that the resource-based view, which emphasizes internal corporate attributes, more accurately explained the sources of sustainable competitive advantage.  However, the study did also support that the resource-based view might be viable in tandem with the contingency approach.  One critical point was that strategy is the prime influencer of organizational performance.  The authors set the stage for the importance of analyzing various ways to study competitive decision-making by emphasizing the fast-changing global business world that is mandating businesses continuously manage their strategic approaches to retain their vitality.  The comments about the global business environment apply to the current discussion forum post.  While the focus of the article was organizational design, there was significant content dedicated to competitive strategy that complements the information from Gamble, Peteraf, and Thompson (2019) and Rumelt (2011) regarding firms’ decisions on competitive approaches.  For example, Gamble et al. (2019) stated that a firm’s internal strengths should be the basis of its strategy, and that globalization is highly impactful on 21st-century businesses.