Strategic Management
PEP STORES: AN EVALUATION OF THE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORGANISATION
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Like most organisations, Pep stores was concerned with the long-term sustainability of the organisation, profits/financial performance, market performance and the satisfying its stakeholders, including the shareholders. With these factors often contradicting each other it is clear Pep stores struggled through the 1990’s balance these competing forces in other to achieve their organisational objectives.
The case study of Pep Stores therefore presents a number of paradoxes. As a company seeking competitive advantage, it is evident that the organisation is constantly battling to expand certain factors that are apparently in conflict with one another. The company itself is apparently successful in managing emergent change, having found itself in a situation of declining financial performance and eventually succeeding in bringing the organisation back to into profit. Various paradoxical issues and a series of inter-dependent choices are at play as the management of Pep Stores search for the winning strategic position (De Wit and Meyer, 2004). Pep Stores struggle along the way to balance the competitive nature of strategy and it is apparent that they emerge from very uncertain conditions a changed organisation in many ways. The case study appears to suggest that Pep Stores was originally unaware of the competing nature of strategy and focussed heavily on growth, ignoring other factors. However it is possible that for Pep Stores to emerge with a distinct strategy as a result of changes in both the internal and external environment, then it must have been aware of these factors, balanced it and deliberately took its strategic position. The organisation was however did not anticipate the change that was to come, perhaps because strategy generates fear and paradoxes (de Wit and Meyer, 2004), which can be difficult to reconcile, causing Pep Stores to loose its strategic focus
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Like most organisations, Pep stores was concerned with the long-term sustainability of the organisation, profits/financial performance, market performance and the satisfying its stakeholders, including the shareholders. With these factors often contradicting each other it is clear Pep stores struggled through the 1990’s balance these competing forces in other to achieve their organisational objectives.
The case study of Pep Stores therefore presents a number of paradoxes. As a company seeking competitive advantage, it is evident that the organisation is constantly battling to expand certain factors that are apparently in conflict with one another. The company itself is apparently successful in managing emergent change, having found itself in a situation of declining financial performance and eventually succeeding in bringing the organisation back to into profit. Various paradoxical issues and a series of inter-dependent choices are at play as the management of Pep Stores search for the winning strategic position (De Wit and Meyer, 2004). Pep Stores struggle along the way to balance the competitive nature of strategy and it is apparent that they emerge from very uncertain conditions a changed organisation in many ways. The case study appears to suggest that Pep Stores was originally unaware of the competing nature of strategy and focussed heavily on growth, ignoring other factors. However it is possible that for Pep Stores to emerge with a distinct strategy as a result of changes in both the internal and external environment, then it must have been aware of these factors, balanced it and deliberately took its strategic position. The organisation was however did not anticipate the change that was to come, perhaps because strategy generates fear and paradoxes (de Wit and Meyer, 2004), which can be difficult to reconcile, causing Pep Stores to loose its strategic focus
References: Chandler, Gaylen N. and Steven H. Hanks (1994), "Market Attractiveness, Resource-Based Capabilities, Venture Strategies, and Venture Performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 331-349. De Wit, B, and Meyer, R. (2004) Strategy: Process, Context, Content. 3 Ed, Thomson Learning: London. Gatignon, Hubert and Jean-Marc Xuereb ( 1997), "Strategic Orientation of the Firm New Product Performance," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 77-90. Hitt, M., Hoskisson, R., and Ireland, D. R., (2008), Understanding Business Strategy: Concepts and Cases, Cengage Learning. Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R., (2008) Exploring Corporate Strategy, 8th edn. FT Prentice Hall, Harlow. Mintzberg, Henry (1983), Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, Henry (1994), "Rethinking Strategic Planning Part I: Pitfalls and Fallacies," Long Range Planning, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 12-21. Narver, John C. and Stanley F. Slater (1990), "The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 20-35. Porter, Michael E. (1979), "The Structure within Industries and Companies Performance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 214-229. Porter, Michael E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, New York: Free Press. Porter, Michael E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York: Free Press. Ohmae, K. (1990) The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy. Collins: London. Slater, Stanley F. and John C. Narver (2000), "The Positive Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability: A Balanced Replication," Journal of Business Research, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 69-73. Trompenaars and Hamden-Turner (2002), Riding the Waves of Culture [2nd edition]. Nicholas Brealey.