No abstract

In this article, the author first surveys the explanations given by leading writers for corporate success and then goes on to sketch a definition of what he calls "metacompetence": the corporate capacity for building and sustaining core competence. Delving below the popular explanations for Wal-Mart's success, he then uses WalMart to illustrate his argument. "Fix the language" Confucius' advice to a new leader Why do some firms consistently outperform others in the same line of business? Or, to borrow the title of John Kay's recent book, what are "the foundations of corporate success"? Is there a secret recipe? If so, what is it? These are the ultimate questions addressed by management theory. They lie at the heart of the research project on which all the leading business schools are engaged. If we could answer these questions, we would have the makings of a general theory of competitive strategy. Elements of a Theory of StrategyMany answers have been given to these fundamental questions. Micro-economists offer us a mix of scale and scope. The Strategic Planning Institute in Boston, based on the PIMS research project, argues for relative market share and relative perceived product quality. Boston Consulting Group made its name on the premise that experience is the answer. More recently, BCG has added speed as a critical factor. Tom Peters prefers simplicity (allied with a lot of luck); and, in the same vein, Percy Barnevik recommends manageability of an enterprise (aided and abetted by the smallness of its operating units). Michael Porter argues for the disciplined pursuit of one of three "generic strategies"; and in a reworking of the same idea, Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema have advocated focus on one of three "value disciplines". James Collins and Jerry Porras are advocates of enduring values; Arie de Geus, of organisational learningfulness; and John Kay, of relational contracts. Gary Hamel and CK Prahalad argue for core competence. This is no more than a small sample of the more popular explanations of corporate success. Indeed, it sometimes seems as though there are as many theories of strategy as there are theorists of strategy, perhaps because the theorising is too young to have developed into what Imre Lakatos called a "progressive research programme", for him the distinctive hallmark of the growth of scientific knowledge. Strategy ideas have simply accumulated, rather than coalesced into a generally-accepted theoretical substratum upon which subsequent research could build.In fact, the longer we make the list, the less satisfied we feel with the results of all this theorising. Is this because the quality of the theorising is deficient? Or is it because all theory is irrelevant in this matter? Critiques of Strategic TheoryTwo arguments in particular have been mounted against the current state of strategic theory. One of them, a close relation of the modern theory of

No abstract

No abstract