The corporate strategy function: improving its value and effectiveness

Abstract

V ery few functions seem as well-positioned to create value as the corporate strategy function. Even the name, corporate strategy, suggests access to critical information and decision-makers, as well as distinctive contributions to the organization's most important decisions. Yet many corporate strategy managers find that their contributions are limited and they are unable to have significant, tangible impact. The value of the corporate strategy function is questioned as a result, and senior executives are faced with the question ''How can I increase the impact of my corporate strategy function?'' Our research shows that companies can improve the impact of their corporate strategy function, but choosing to do so requires a significant commitment to address the organization structure, processes and people competencies that limit the function's ability to have impact. Approach The authors conducted qualitative interviews of corporate or business unit strategy executives and senior managers from 11 different companies representing the manufacturing, electric/gas utility, petroleum and retail industries in the United States and Canada. The interviews focused on understanding the scope of the function, the nature of its work, and the process, organization, and people characteristics of the function. The interviews were synthesized into a simple, 2 £ 2 matrix that characterizes corporate strategy functions and sheds light on how their impact can be increased. Corporate strategy contributions Contributions are the work that the strategy function performs. Examples include managing the annual planning process, developing/maintaining relevant methodologies (e.g. business

Online privacy as an integral component of strategy: allaying customer fears and building loyalty

“…Therefore, it is evident that the availability of strategic information provides a platform for creating a competitive advantage in the market. Similarly, Brunsman et al (2011) find that an information strategy directly influences the corporate strategy of an organization and facilitates higher productivity, human resource development and building a long-term relationship with customers. The respondents indicated a desire to engage with organizations that operate with trustworthy and transparent information strategies capable of protecting the digital identity and privacy of customers.…”

Headquarters’ roles and interventions in subsidiaries: a systematic review

“…transferring information and skills in marketing (Goold and Campbell, 1991), research and development (R&D) knowledge and the best practices (Asakawa, 2001;Gulev, 2006) in functional issues; sharing knowledge in marketing, technology (Moore and Birtwistle, 2005) and special projects (Brunsman et al, 2011); and increasing business units' knowledge in the industry and competitive environment (Ambos and Mahnke, 2010).…”

“…Strategic leading: HQs can define strategic directions (Ciabuschi et al, 2017) for the strategic units and outline a broader vision (Brunsman et al, 2011), consequently provide helpful recommendations and guidance to them (Ambos and Mahnke, 2010). Furthermore, with their expertise in the market analysis (Brunsman et al, 2011), HQs can suggest a strategy to the business units.…”

“…Defining business portfolio: The HQ determines the scope of its business portfolio (Desai, 2008). Additionally, it makes diversification (Hungenberg, 1993) through merger and acquisition (M&A) activities (Brunsman et al, 2011) or internal growth. Sometimes, after analyzing the position of the business unit in the portfolio and specifying the core business and weak business unites, the HQ refocuses the portfolio (Goold and Campbell, 1991).…”

“…Planning: By this intervention, the HQ helps subsidiaries prepare and develop operational budgeting (Desai, 2008) and annual planning (Brunsman et al, 2011).…”