Introduction

Strategic management involves the construction and implementation of major aims and objectives taken by an organisation’s managers to represent the views of the owners. It is a dynamic process that requires continuous adaptation to changing market conditions. It is usually based on the consideration of resources, and on an assessment of the internal and external factors affecting the organisation (Nag, et al., 2007). This makes it a critical component for long-term organisational success. It is an incredibly important factor for company owners to take into consideration as it is directly related to the success of an organisation.

This report will explore the three theoretical approaches to strategic management: resource-based view, market-based view, and I/O view. Additionally, it will highlight the practical implications of these theories in real-world scenarios. Furthermore, it will also investigate three types of strategy, which are corporate strategy, business strategy, and operational strategy.

Resource-Based View

The resource-based view to strategic management “provides an explanation of competitive heterogeneity based on the premise that close competitors differ in their resources and capabilities in important and durable ways” (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003, p. 997). This perspective emphasizes the importance of unique resources that competitors cannot easily replicate. Furthermore, the resource-based view has become one of the most prominent and influential theories in management. This is because it aspires to explain the internal resources that an organisation can utilise to gain a competitive advantage (Kraaijenbrink, et al., 2009). The central theme of a resource-based view to strategic management is that for a firm to achieve sustained competitive advantage, it must acquire and control a wide range of resources and capabilities (Barney, 2002). Although the resource-based view appears to be an incredibly appealing technique to use, it has been extensively criticised.

The various criticisms of the resource-based view can broadly fall under six main categories. These are (Kraaijenbrink, et al., 2009):

1. No managerial implications: The resource-based view tells managers that certain resources, valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-sustainable (VRIN), should be obtained. However, it doesn’t give feedback on how managers should go about obtaining these resources (Conner, 2002). This lack of practical guidance can leave managers uncertain about how to implement the theory effectively.

2. Implies infinite regress: Many theorists critique the resource-based view because it will lead firms into an infinite loop of endlessly searching for the best resources. Collis (1994, p. 148) states, “a firm that has the superior capability to develop structures that better innovate products will, in due course, surpass the firm that has the best product innovation capability today…”. This creates a paradox where firms are constantly chasing an unattainable ideal.

3. Applicability is too limited: Conner (2002) believes that the resource-based view can only be adopted by large firms who have a lot of market power. This alienates many smaller firms from being able to benefit from the success that a resource-based view can hold. Smaller firms may lack the resources to compete on the same level as larger corporations.

4. Sustained competitive advantage is not achievable: The resource-based view is focused on sustaining competitive advantage. However, competitive advantage cannot really be sustained because “Both the skills/resources, and the way organizations use them, must constantly change, leading to the creation of continuously changing temporary advantages” (Fiol, 2002, p. 692). This suggests that firms must continuously innovate to maintain their edge.

5. Not a theory of the firm: Most academics agree that the resource-based view is not a theory of the firm, but with some turning it into a critique. As the resource-based view does not take into account operational boundaries, values, internal structure, or asset ownerships, it cannot be a theory of the firm (Dosi, et al., 2008). This limits its applicability in explaining broader organisational behaviour.

6. Definition of resource is unworkable: Many definitions of resources are extremely broad, and if all were taken into account, then anything of substance to a company would be considered a resource. As the resource-based view does not take into account the different definitions and types of resources, it is hard to apply to specific situations (Kraaijenbrink, et al., 2009). This ambiguity can lead to confusion in practical applications.

Market-Based View

This perspective focuses on factors “outside the firm on the markets in which it competes”. Additionally, it considers how external market conditions can influence a firm’s strategic decisions. Furthermore, the market-based view states that “the sources of value for the firm are embedded in the competitive situation characterizing its external product markets” (Makhija, 2003, p. 437). This basically means that a firm’s sources of market power are a contributing factor to the organisation’s performance. Most academics highlight three main sources of market power, these are (Grant, 1991):

1. Monopoly: If a firm has market power in the form of a monopoly, then they should expect exceptional business performance. This is because they will be the only company operating within a market and can dictate the pricing of their products at free will. However, they will also be susceptible to new companies penetrating the market. This vulnerability necessitates constant vigilance and strategic adjustments.

2. Barriers to entry: For a company operating as a monopoly, they will want to impose strict barriers to entry to try and maintain control of the market for as long as possible. Furthermore, this approach should be taken by most companies in a dominant market position, as they do not want other companies to penetrate the market and steal market share. Effective barriers can include high capital requirements or strong brand loyalty.

3. Bargaining Power: The more bargaining power a company has, in regards to both consumers and suppliers, the higher the expected performance would be. This is because if the firm has a lot of power over their suppliers and consumers, then the chances are that there are not many substitutes for the suppliers or consumers to choose between. Once again, this allows the company to have a dominant impact on the pricing within the market. Strong bargaining power can lead to better terms and higher profitability.

Furthermore, because many academics suggest that business markets evolve very slowly (Geroski & Masson, 1987; Mueller, 1986), it means that market power does not erode rapidly, and a company can maintain it for a reasonably long time. However, even if the market were to dramatically change, a company can utilise their current market power to cushion the effects of any detrimental actions that may occur. This resilience is a key advantage of the market-based view.

Industrial/Organisation View

The organisation view on strategic management focuses on how an organisation chooses which industries to operate. It suggests that if an industry is performing exceptionally well, then a business can enter that market and reap substantial financial benefits (Chin, et al., 2003). This approach is particularly useful for firms looking to diversify their operations. It is centred on Porter’s Five Forces (1980), as it analyses the different modes and restrictions of entry into a market.

Makhija (2003) takes the view that the I/O view is about manipulating power asymmetries and trying to develop market power. It does this by attempting to minimise the impact of Porter’s Five Forces, such as industry rivals and the threat of new entrants. Furthermore, an I/O view would view market power as a substantial defence against new entrants, and that the industry can have significant impacts on competitive advantage, not so much the market or the organisation. It is a relatively outdated view of competitive advantage, with the resource-based view and market-based view being preferred by most academics and corporations. However, it still offers valuable insights into industry dynamics.

Corporate Strategy

Michael E. Porter (1987, p. 1) defines corporate strategy as the concern of business as on “how to create competitive advantage in each of the businesses in which a company competes”. In essence, corporate strategy concerns every facet of the business, to add up to more than the sum of its business unit parts. This holistic approach ensures that all parts of the organisation are aligned towards common goals. Furthermore, Porter (1987) outlines four generic strategies that exist at a corporate level. These are:

1. Portfolio Management: This is a corporate strategy that is in use by most organisations. It is primarily based on a diversification strategy through acquisition. Although acquisitions can be in a completely new market, corporate managers will often limit the differences to focus on their own personal expertise. Furthermore, the acquired firms should run autonomously, with teams focusing on their own work and being rewarded based on unit results. This approach allows for flexibility and specialization within the organisation.

2. Restructuring: This is quite dissimilar to portfolio management, as it involves the complete restructuring of businesses. A corporate manager will usually acquire a company with “unrealised potential” and then seek to actively review and restructure the business operations. This strategy benefits from underperforming companies that are at threat of going into liquidation. When well implemented, the restructuring strategy offers many benefits; it is a cheap mode of acquisition and still leaves a lot of freedom for development. However, it requires significant managerial expertise to execute successfully.

3. Transferring Skills: The previous two strategies both rely on the acquisition or restructuring of companies and leaving them to operate autonomously. However, a transferring skills strategy seeks to build interconnected relationships between each business unit of the corporation. However, sometimes business units will not synergise well together, and no matter how hard a corporation tries, the skills cannot be transferred. This can prove costly and timely for an organisation. Despite these challenges, successful skill transfers can lead to significant competitive advantages.

4. Sharing Activities: The final strategy developed by Porter (1987) is via a sharing activities strategy. This strategy is a blend of the three previous strategies, as it leaves business units to act autonomously but will seek to share a portion of activities between them. This could be in the form of production, supply chain, or distribution. Furthermore, this strategy is becoming more and more prominent as sharing often enhances competitive advantage for a business by lowering costs. It also fosters collaboration and innovation across business units.

As all four strategies have a variety of benefits, a corporation must decide on what strategy is most beneficial to follow. In general, the sharing activities strategy will be very suitable, as it is a cheap strategic choice, potentially lowering costs, and maintains the autonomy between business units. However, if a company is looking for rapid strategic growth, then they may just build up a large portfolio of acquisitions. Unfortunately, this does come with a substantial amount of risk and resource usage. Careful consideration of the organisation’s goals and resources is essential in making the right strategic choice.

Business Strategy

A business strategy is fundamentally the way in which an organisation will set out to achieve any designated aims or objectives. It serves as a roadmap for the organisation’s future direction. Furthermore, a business strategy will typically cover a period of around 3-5 years and encompasses three generic strategies. These are; growth, globalisation, and retrenchment. Growth and globalisation both look at how an organisation can expand their operations, either domestically or internationally. On the other hand, retrenchment is a defensive strategy and looks into ways in which an organisation can reduce their operations to focus on what they do best (BCS, 2015).

As with the other strategies, business strategy is still meant to give an organisation a competitive advantage. There are a variety of ways in which a business strategy can achieve this, including lowering prices or product differentiation. Business strategy is significantly different from corporate strategy in this regard, as it relates to the finer details of operation and gives individual employees a say in decision-making. This bottom-up approach ensures that strategies are grounded in practical realities.

Functional/Operational Strategy

Strategy in an operational context is “essentially about how the organization seeks to survive and prosper within its environment over the long-term” (Barnes, 2007, p. 24). It focuses on the day-to-day activities that drive organisational success. Furthermore, Slack, et al., (2004) outline five key attributes that an operational strategy will try and achieve. These are:

1. Cost: The ability for an organisation to produce at a low cost.

2. Quality: The ability for an organisation to produce within specification and with minimal errors.

3. Speed: The ability for an organisation to produce quickly and meet consumer needs and demands, such as offering a short lead time between when a customer orders a product and when it gets delivered.

   Struggling to structure your research paper?

   From thesis statement to conclusion, our research paper writers build strong, evidence-driven arguments using peer-reviewed sources. We cover APA, MLA, Harvard, and Chicago — undergraduate through doctoral level, across all disciplines.

   ✓ Plagiarism-free · ✓ 100% human · ✓ Free revisions · ✓ Confidential

   Get My Research Paper Written

   🔒 No payment to start · From 3 hrs

4. Dependability: The ability for an organisation to deliver their products in accordance with any promises made to the consumer.

5. Flexibility: The ability for an organisation to be able to change their operations at any given time. This can include changing the volume of production or the time taken to produce.

If a company can perform exceptionally well in one or more of these factors, then it allows them to pursue a strategy that uses the factor as a competitive advantage. Barnes (2007) provides a table highlighting the different competitive strategies that a company can pursue dependent on where they are exercising efficient operations.

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that an organisation will be able to act proficiently at every one of the five factors mentioned above, so choosing one to excel in is a preferred method. If a company were to try and focus on all five factors, they will likely cause confusion and actually lose their competitive edge. This concept was proposed by Skinner (1969) and is referred to as the ‘trade-off’ strategy. It basically means that a company can ‘trade-off’ performance in one facet of their operations to perform exceptionally well in another. Operations can play a fundamental role in strategic decision-making, and a company must be clear on where they are performing well in order to market this as a competitive advantage.

Conclusion

There is not really an optimum strategy to pursue for an organisation, as it is dependent on a variety of external factors that could be specific to the organisation. Careful planning and preparation must be conducted before any organisation commits to following a certain strategy, otherwise, they may risk losing substantial resources.

Furthermore, the resource-based view and market-based view both have their merits, with a combination of the two probably being the most optimum method. An organisation should order their resources to establish strong market power within an industry. Once this market power has been attained, corporate-level members can begin filtering down aims and objectives that can be accomplished by business and operational strategies. Strategic choice involves heavy integration throughout all levels of the business, as strategies can be implemented by a number of different departments, all of which offer their own benefits to the overall aims and objectives of the organisation.

Exploring Strategic Management: A Comprehensive Analysis of Resource-Based, Market-Based, and I/O Views

Bibliography

Barnes, D., 2007. Operations Management. London: Cengage Learning.

Barney, J. B., 2002. Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. s.l.:Prentice Hall.

BCS, 2015. Business strategy. [Online] Available at: http://businesscasestudies.co.uk/business-theory/strategy/business-strategy.html#axzz3bWvHhfHY

Chin, J. W., Widing, R. E. & Paladino, A., 2003. Comparing the industrial organization view and market orientation, s.l.: Market Orientation and Relationship Marketing.

Collis, D. J., 1994. How Valuable Are Organizational Capabilities?. Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), pp. 143-152.

Conner, T., 2002. The Resource-Based View of Strategy and Its Value to Practising Managers. Strategic Change, 11(6), pp. 307-316.

Dosi, G., Faillo, M. & Marengo, L., 2008. Organizational Capabilities, Patterns of Knowledge Accumulation and Governance Structures in Business Firms: An Introduction. Organization Studies, 29(8), pp. 1165-1185.

Ferlie, E. and Ongaro, E., 2022. Strategic management in public services organizations: Concepts, schools and contemporary issues. Routledge.

Fiol, C. M., 2002. Revisiting an Identity-Based View of Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6), pp. 691-699.

Filatotchev, I., Ireland, R.D. and Stahl, G.K., 2022. Contextualizing management research: An open systems perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 59(4), pp.1036-1056.

Geroski, P. A. & Masson, R. T., 1987. Dynamic market models in industrial organization. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 5(1), pp. 1-13.

Grant, R. M., 1991. A resource-based perspective of competitive advantage. California Management Review, Volume 33, pp. 114-135.

Helfat, C. E. & Peteraf, M. A., 2003. The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), pp. 997-1010.

Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J. C. & Groen, A., 2009. The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques, Munich: Munich Personal RePEc Archive.

Makhija, M., 2003. Comparing resource-based and market-based views of the firm: Empirical evidence from Czech Privitisation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), pp. 433-451.

Mahajan, R., Lim, W.M., Sareen, M., Kumar, S. and Panwar, R., 2023. Stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Research, 166, p.114104.

Mueller, D. C., 1986. Profits in the Long Run. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C. & Chen, M.-J., 2007. What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), pp. 935-955.

Porter, M. E., 1987. From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy, s.l.: Harvard Business Review.

Skinner, W., 1969. Manufacturing: The missing link in corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), pp. 136-145.

Schneller, E., Abdulsalam, Y., Conway, K. and Eckler, J., 2023. Strategic management of the healthcare supply chain. John Wiley & Sons.

Slack, N., Chambers, S. & Johnston, R., 2004. Operations Management. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Grant, R. M. (2016). Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Text and Cases Edition. 9th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.