THEORIES OF STRATEGY
SUMMARY
ARTICLES
Theories of Strategy
MSc Business Administration
University of Amsterdam
2019/2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Block 1. Introduction PAGE 3
1. Stoelhorst J.W. ([1997] 2008), Thinking about Strategy.
2. Rumelt, Richard P. (2003), What In the World is Competitive Advantage?
3. Besanko, David, Dranove, David and Shanley, Mark (2000), Economics of Strategy
4. Conner, Kathleen R. (1991), A Historical Comparison of Resource-based Theory and Five
Schools of Thought within Industrial Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm?
1
, THEORIES OF STRATEGY
Block 2. Positional views PAGE 10
1. Ghemawat, Pankaj (1999). Strategy and the Business Landscape: Text and Cases.
2. Porter, Michael E. (1979), The Structure within Industries and Companies’ Performance.
3. Porter, Michael E. (1981), The Contributions of Industrial Organization to Strategic
Management.
4. Barney, Jay B. (1986). Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy.
5. Barney, Jay B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.
6. Peteraf, Margaret A. (1993). The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-
based View.
7. Brandenburger, Adam M. and Stuart, Harborne W. (1996). Value-based Business Strategy.
8. Brandenburger, Adam M. (2002). Porter’s Added Value: High Indeed.
9. Gans, Joshua and Ryall, Michael D. (2017). Value Capture Theory: A Strategic Management
Review.
Block 3. Dynamic views PAGE 21
1. Dierickx, Ingemar and Cool, Karel (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of
Competitive Advantage.
2. Grant, Robert M. (1996). Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments:
Organizational Capabilities as Knowledge Integration.
3. Teece, David J., Pisano, Gary and Shuen, Amy (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management.
4. Jacobson, Robert (1992). The “Austrian” School of Strategy.
5. Porter, Michael E. (1991). Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy.
6. Stoelhorst, J.W. and Bridoux, Flore (2015), An Evolutionary Resource-based Theory of
Competitive Advantage.
7. Stoelhorst, J.W. (2001). A Note on Business Models.
8. Zott, Christoph, Amit, Raphael and Massa, Lorenzo (2011). The Business Model: Recent
Developments and Future Research.
9. Teece, David J. (1986). Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration,
Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy.
10. Stoelhorst, J.W. (2005). Competitive Dynamics and the Paradox of Increasing Returns: Why
Winning Markets May Not Lead to Fat Profits.
11. Christensen, Clayton M. and Rosenbloom, Richard S. (1995), Explaining the Attacker's
Advantage: Technological Paradigms, Organizational Dynamics, and the Value Network.
12. Tripsas, Mary and Gavetti, Giovanni (2000). Capabilities, Cognition and Inertia: Evidence
from Digital Imaging.
13. Stoelhorst, J.W. (2004), Balancing Resource-Based Competitive Advantage Over a
Technology Lifecycle.
Block 4. Stakeholder view PAGE 40
1. Coff, Russel W. (1999), When Competitive Advantage Doesn’t Lead to Performance: The
Resource-based View and Stakeholder Bargaining Power.
2. Stoelhorst, J.W. (2015). A Stakeholder Theory of Resource-based Competitive Advantage.
3. Lieberman, Marvin B., Garcia-Castro, Roberto and Balasubramanian, Natarajan (2017),
Measuring Value Creation and Appropriation in Firms: The VCA Model.
2
, THEORIES OF STRATEGY
Block 1 Introduction
1.1 Economic foundations of strategy
Stoelhorst J.W. ([1997] 2008), Thinking about Strategy.
The prescriptive schools of thought:
1960s – The design school, Strategy as a Conceptual Process
1970s – The planning school, Strategy As A Formal Process
1980s – The positioning school, Strategy as Fit
1990s – The resource-based school, Strategy as Stretch
The descriptive school of thought:
1980s and onwards – The process school, Strategy as Collective Learning
1. The design school
- The concept of a firm’s ‘distinctive competence’ and he also discussed the need to bring the internal
situation of the organization in line with external expectations.
- SWOT analysis: specific characteristics of the firm should be confronted with the external situation it
faces.
Assumptions from the design school (Mintzberg)
1. Strategy formation should be a deliberate process of conscious thought
2. Responsibility for that control and consciousness must rest with the chief executive officer
3. The model of strategy formation must be kept simple and informal
4. Strategies should be one of a kind
5. The design process is complete when strategies appear fully formulated as perspective
6. These strategies should be explicit and simple
7. Only after strategies have been formulated can they be implemented
Criticism / conslusion: With its emphasis on confronting the internal and external situation of a firm, the
design school has laid the foundations for the standard model of strategic management. It has also
introduced important concepts such as environmental fit and distinctive competence to the literature. But
at the same time, it makes a number of assumptions that may limit its effectiveness in guiding complex
organizations that operate in dynamic environments.
2. The planning school
The main difference is that the planning school advocates a formal and very elaborate system for the
development of strategy. This is in contrast to the informal and simple system advocated by the design
school.
- support a rational and stepwise approach to strategic management
- breaking down the overall strategy into more specific strategic plans
Assumptions of the planning school (Mintzberg)
1. Strategies result from a controlled, conscious process of formal planning, decomposed into distinct
steps, each delineated by checklists and supported by techniques.
2. Responsibility for that overall process rests with the chief executive in principle; responsibility for its
execution rests with staff planners in practice.
3. Strategies appear from this process full blown, to be made explicit so that they can be implemented
through detailed attention to objectives, budgets, programs, and operating plans of various kinds.
3
SUMMARY
ARTICLES
Theories of Strategy
MSc Business Administration
University of Amsterdam
2019/2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Block 1. Introduction PAGE 3
1. Stoelhorst J.W. ([1997] 2008), Thinking about Strategy.
2. Rumelt, Richard P. (2003), What In the World is Competitive Advantage?
3. Besanko, David, Dranove, David and Shanley, Mark (2000), Economics of Strategy
4. Conner, Kathleen R. (1991), A Historical Comparison of Resource-based Theory and Five
Schools of Thought within Industrial Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm?
1
, THEORIES OF STRATEGY
Block 2. Positional views PAGE 10
1. Ghemawat, Pankaj (1999). Strategy and the Business Landscape: Text and Cases.
2. Porter, Michael E. (1979), The Structure within Industries and Companies’ Performance.
3. Porter, Michael E. (1981), The Contributions of Industrial Organization to Strategic
Management.
4. Barney, Jay B. (1986). Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy.
5. Barney, Jay B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.
6. Peteraf, Margaret A. (1993). The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-
based View.
7. Brandenburger, Adam M. and Stuart, Harborne W. (1996). Value-based Business Strategy.
8. Brandenburger, Adam M. (2002). Porter’s Added Value: High Indeed.
9. Gans, Joshua and Ryall, Michael D. (2017). Value Capture Theory: A Strategic Management
Review.
Block 3. Dynamic views PAGE 21
1. Dierickx, Ingemar and Cool, Karel (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of
Competitive Advantage.
2. Grant, Robert M. (1996). Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments:
Organizational Capabilities as Knowledge Integration.
3. Teece, David J., Pisano, Gary and Shuen, Amy (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management.
4. Jacobson, Robert (1992). The “Austrian” School of Strategy.
5. Porter, Michael E. (1991). Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy.
6. Stoelhorst, J.W. and Bridoux, Flore (2015), An Evolutionary Resource-based Theory of
Competitive Advantage.
7. Stoelhorst, J.W. (2001). A Note on Business Models.
8. Zott, Christoph, Amit, Raphael and Massa, Lorenzo (2011). The Business Model: Recent
Developments and Future Research.
9. Teece, David J. (1986). Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration,
Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy.
10. Stoelhorst, J.W. (2005). Competitive Dynamics and the Paradox of Increasing Returns: Why
Winning Markets May Not Lead to Fat Profits.
11. Christensen, Clayton M. and Rosenbloom, Richard S. (1995), Explaining the Attacker's
Advantage: Technological Paradigms, Organizational Dynamics, and the Value Network.
12. Tripsas, Mary and Gavetti, Giovanni (2000). Capabilities, Cognition and Inertia: Evidence
from Digital Imaging.
13. Stoelhorst, J.W. (2004), Balancing Resource-Based Competitive Advantage Over a
Technology Lifecycle.
Block 4. Stakeholder view PAGE 40
1. Coff, Russel W. (1999), When Competitive Advantage Doesn’t Lead to Performance: The
Resource-based View and Stakeholder Bargaining Power.
2. Stoelhorst, J.W. (2015). A Stakeholder Theory of Resource-based Competitive Advantage.
3. Lieberman, Marvin B., Garcia-Castro, Roberto and Balasubramanian, Natarajan (2017),
Measuring Value Creation and Appropriation in Firms: The VCA Model.
2
, THEORIES OF STRATEGY
Block 1 Introduction
1.1 Economic foundations of strategy
Stoelhorst J.W. ([1997] 2008), Thinking about Strategy.
The prescriptive schools of thought:
1960s – The design school, Strategy as a Conceptual Process
1970s – The planning school, Strategy As A Formal Process
1980s – The positioning school, Strategy as Fit
1990s – The resource-based school, Strategy as Stretch
The descriptive school of thought:
1980s and onwards – The process school, Strategy as Collective Learning
1. The design school
- The concept of a firm’s ‘distinctive competence’ and he also discussed the need to bring the internal
situation of the organization in line with external expectations.
- SWOT analysis: specific characteristics of the firm should be confronted with the external situation it
faces.
Assumptions from the design school (Mintzberg)
1. Strategy formation should be a deliberate process of conscious thought
2. Responsibility for that control and consciousness must rest with the chief executive officer
3. The model of strategy formation must be kept simple and informal
4. Strategies should be one of a kind
5. The design process is complete when strategies appear fully formulated as perspective
6. These strategies should be explicit and simple
7. Only after strategies have been formulated can they be implemented
Criticism / conslusion: With its emphasis on confronting the internal and external situation of a firm, the
design school has laid the foundations for the standard model of strategic management. It has also
introduced important concepts such as environmental fit and distinctive competence to the literature. But
at the same time, it makes a number of assumptions that may limit its effectiveness in guiding complex
organizations that operate in dynamic environments.
2. The planning school
The main difference is that the planning school advocates a formal and very elaborate system for the
development of strategy. This is in contrast to the informal and simple system advocated by the design
school.
- support a rational and stepwise approach to strategic management
- breaking down the overall strategy into more specific strategic plans
Assumptions of the planning school (Mintzberg)
1. Strategies result from a controlled, conscious process of formal planning, decomposed into distinct
steps, each delineated by checklists and supported by techniques.
2. Responsibility for that overall process rests with the chief executive in principle; responsibility for its
execution rests with staff planners in practice.
3. Strategies appear from this process full blown, to be made explicit so that they can be implemented
through detailed attention to objectives, budgets, programs, and operating plans of various kinds.
3
