English   Danish

2017/2018  BA-BASPV1235U  Strategy: An integrative and Paradoxical Approach

English Title
Strategy: An integrative and Paradoxical Approach

Course information
Language English
Course ECTS 7.5 ECTS
Type Elective
Level Bachelor
Duration One Semester
Start time of the course Autumn
Timetable Course schedule will be posted at calendar.cbs.dk
Study board
Study Board for BSc International Business in Asia
Course coordinator
  • Xin Li - EGB
Xin Li is Assistant Professor in International Business. He has been teaching undergraduate ASP course at CBS since 2009, postgraduate BLC course at CBS since 2016, and postgraduate course at Sino-Danish Center (SDC) in Beijing, China since 2012.

Xin Li's research focuses on how Chinese firms internationalize, strategic management, and Chinese indigenous management research.
Main academic disciplines
  • Management
  • Strategy
Last updated on 17-02-2017

Relevant links
Learning objectives
To achieve the grade 12, students should meet the following learning objectives with no or only minor mistakes or errors: The overall learning objective is for the students to understand and be able to apply the East Asian integrative and paradoxical perspective to strategic management issues.
  • clearly explain the existing three major views on strategy, i.e., the competition-based view, resource-based view, and the institution-based view;
  • clearly explain the interrelationships among these three major views from an integrative perspective;
  • clearly explain what the paradoxical approach to strategic management is;
  • and, make an academic analysis of a self-identified issue of strategic importance by applying the paradoxical approach.
Examination
Strategy: An integrative and Paradoxical Approach:
Exam ECTS 7,5
Examination form Home assignment - written product
Individual or group exam Individual exam
Size of written product Max. 10 pages
Assignment type Essay
Duration Written product to be submitted on specified date and time.
Grading scale 7-step scale
Examiner(s) One internal examiner
Exam period Winter
Make-up exam/re-exam
Same examination form as the ordinary exam
Description of the exam procedure

The exam is an individual essay of maximum 10 pages in length. The students are expected to self-identify an issue of strategic importance, such as how to balance centralization and decentralization in an organization, and make an academic analysis of a self-identified issue of strategic importance by applying the paradoxical approach.

 

The exam will be graded on the basis of the written essay solely. There is no oral exam.
Course content and structure

This course is made of twelve 3-hour teaching sessions. In total, there are 36 class hours.

 

The course is grouped into 2 parts. The first part focuses on the integrative approach while the second on paradoxical approach.

 

Part One: Toward an integrative perspective on strategy

Session 1: Introduction: Strategy: An integrative and paradoxical perspective

Session 2: The competition-based view of strategy (CBV)

Session 3: The resource-based view of strategy (RBV)

Session 4: The institution-based view of strategy (IBV)

Session 5: Strategy: An integrative view: beyond the ‘strategy tripod’ view

Session 6: A case study session, student group presentations, focusing on integration

 

Part Two: Toward an paradoxical perspective on strategy

Session 7: Competitive dynamics: competition vs. cooperation

Session 8: Resource and capability learning: exploitation vs. exploration

Session 9: Institution matters: institutional isomorphism vs. institutional entrepreneurship

Session 10: Strategy-making process: top-down vs. bottom-up

Session 11: Strategic management of multinational corporation: global integration vs. local responsiveness

Session 12: A case study session, student group presentations, focusing on paradox
Teaching methods
Design philosophy:

The traditional way of teaching strategic management is separationist, namely, single issues or topics are taught separately and within each issue or topic, different schools of thought are taught separately without attempt to integrating all these separate ideas.

However, since its inception, strategic management as a field of study has been treated as a capstone course that brings together separate branches of functional knowledge such as economics, marketing, organizational behavior, etc. In practice, strategic managers make decisions by integrating separate sources of information. So, there is a need to adopt a holistic or integrative approach to teaching strategy.

In addition, the management field has started to appreciate the importance of management paradoxes. In practice, strategic managers face paradoxical situations all the time, such as whether their companies should pay more attention to the interests of shareholders or stakeholders, whether they should exploit the existing technologies or explore new technologies, whether they should compete or cooperate with rivals, and so on. So, there is also a need to adopt a dialectical or paradoxical lens to understand strategy.

The East Asian (e.g., Chinese and Japanese) culture is known for its holistic or integrative as well as dialectical or paradoxical thinking. This elective course approaches and teaches strategy or strategic management from an East Asian, i.e., integrative and paradoxical, perspective.

Teaching methods:

The teaching method is a combination of lecture, in-class discussion and debate, home assignment, case study, and group presentation.
Due to the nature of the design philosophy of this course, the students will be challenged to think in a critical way. They are expected to engage in-class discussion and debate, sometimes in a thesis-antithesis way in search for a synthetic understanding of the issue under debate.
Feedback during the teaching period
From teacher to student
1. Office hours for feedback
2.Feedback giving during teaching sessions

Student to student
1.Peer feedback
2.Pre-test

Reflections on learning
1. Activating teaching and reflections on learning
2. Tutorials as a guide
Student workload
lectures 36 hours
preparation and exam 170 hours
Expected literature

Optional text book:

De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2010). Strategy synthesis: Resolving strategy paradoxes to create competitive advantage: Text and readings. Cengage Learning EMEA.

 

Required readings:

Session 1: Introduction: Strategy: An integrative and paradoxical perspective

  • Mintzberg, H. (1977). Policy as a field of management theory. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 88-103.

  • Bracker, J. (1980). The historical development of the strategic management concept. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 219-224.

  • Mintzberg, H. & Lampel, J. (1999). Reflections on a Strategy Safari. Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 21-30.

  • 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), 935-955.

  • De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2010). Strategy synthesis: Resolving strategy paradoxes to create competitive advantage: Text and readings. Cengage Learning EMEA. Chapter 1: pp. 3-24, available online at http:/​/​www.cengagebrain.com/​content/​dewit32236_1408032236_02.01_chapter01.pdf

     

Session 2: The competition-based view of strategy (CBV)

  • Porter, M. E. (1979) How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 57(2): 137-145

  • Porter, M. E. (1981). The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 609-620.

  • O'Regan, N., Kluth, C., & Parnell, J. (2011). The demise of strategic groups as an influence on firm performance: lessons from the UK plastics industry. Strategic Change, 20(3-4), 111-126.

  • Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (2012). Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 135-210.

Session 3: The resource-based view of strategy (RBV)

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of management review, 32(1), 273-292.

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.

  • Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J. C., & Groen, A. J. (2010). The resource-based view: a review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of management, 36(1), 349-372.

  • Barney, J. B., Ketchen, D. J., & Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource-based theory revitalization or decline?. Journal of management, 37(5), 1299-1315.

Session 4: The institution-based view of strategy (IBV)

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management Review, 16(1), 145-179.

  • Peng, M. W. (2002). Towards an institution-based view of business strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2-3), 251-267.

  • Peng, M. W. (2003). Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 275-296.

  • Khanna, T., Palepu, K. G., & Sinha, J. (2005). Strategies that fit emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 63-74

Session 5: Strategy: An integrative view: beyond the ‘strategy tripod’ view

  • Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The Institution-Based View as a Third Leg for a Strategy Tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63-81.

  • Farjoun, M. (2002). Towards an organic perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7), 561-594.

  • Herrmann, P. (2005). Evolution of strategic management: the need for new dominant designs. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 111-130.

Session 6: A case study session, student group presentations, focusing on integration

  • The readings for this session will be provided later

 

Session 7: Competitive dynamics: competition vs. cooperation

  • Chen, M. J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry. 17(4): 288-304

  • Chen, M. J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese “middle way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2-3), 179-199.

  • Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: a syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110-141.

  • Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). ” Coopetition” in business Networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial marketing management, 29(5), 411-426.

Session 8: Resource and capability learning: exploitation vs. exploration

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.

  • O Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74-83.

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.

  • Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach us?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 313-323.

Session 9: Institution matters: institutional isomorphism vs. institutional entrepreneurship

  • Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’sa question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147-166.

  • Tan, J., Shao, Y., & Li, W. (2013). To be different, or to be the same? An exploratory study of isomorphism in the cluster. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 83-97.

  • Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). 2 how actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65-107.

  • Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222-247.

  • Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 479-499.

Session 10: Strategy-making process: top-down vs. bottom-up

  • Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257-272.

  • Ansoff, H. I. (1987). The emerging paradigm of strategic behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 8(6), 501-515.

  • Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 171-195.

  • Ansoff, H. I. (1991). Critique of Henry Mintzberg's ‘The design school: reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management’. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 449-461.

  • Mintzberg, H. (1991). Research notes and communications learning 1, planning 0 reply to Igor Ansoff. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 463.

Session 11: Strategic management of multinational corporation: global integration vs. local responsiveness

  • Roth, K., & Morrison, A. J. (1990). An empirical analysis of the integration-responsiveness framework in global industries. Journal of International Business Studies, 541-564.

  • Rosenzweig, P. M. (2006). The dual logics behind international human resource management: pressures for global integration and local responsiveness. Stahl, G. K. & Ingmar Björkman (Eds.). Handbook of research in international human resource management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing: 36-48. (PDF downloadable via Google Scholar)

  • Ma, L., Chen, A., & Zhang, Z. X. (2015). Task success based on contingency fit of managerial culture and embeddedness. Journal of International Business Studies. (downloadable via Google Scholar)

Session 12: A case study session, student group presentations, focusing on paradox

  • The readings for this session will be provided later

 
Last updated on 17-02-2017