HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CORPORATE STRATEGY

Historical Development of Corporate Strategy

Historical Development of Corporate Strategy

This paper reviews the recent development of corporate strategy as a paradigm of concern to scholars of management. In considering the recent history of this fast developing management area it explores exactly what is understood by corporate strategy, how it is variously defined, and notes how problematical that definition proves to be. It reports the results of an empirical study into the extent to which strategy management has been adopted by the dominant coalition in large UK national and international organizations as a focus of planned communications strategies.

The significance of this study is that it is one of few investigations into the strategic use of corporate strategy in UK organizations. It will be of interest to all those concerned with corporate governance and organizational communication, and to scholars of strategy management in particular.

Over the last decade communication with audiences considered important to an organization has developed into a central focus of corporate strategy. Any communication that makes an organization more transparent enables shareholders to appreciate its operations more clearly, facilitating a better strategy (Bickerton, 2000). So, the extent to which possession of a good corporate strategy wins the organization a competitive advantage in an increasingly crowded market place is considered here. The UK experience suggests that a good strategy brings increased sales, but certainly does not always enable the organization to charge premium prices: in one case very much the opposite.

The role of the CEO as corporate brand manager is reviewed. We discover that large UK companies increasingly consider strategyal importance. In several cases their communication executives - as Wright (1995) styled them - see the role as that of a guardian of legitimacy. Surprisingly, a minority of companies are completely disinterested in the concept; in spite of the fact that we note that possession of a sound strategy is recognized by the majority as an asset of immense value. However, it is intangible, and, therefore, it is both difficult to measure and to replicate (which in itself may create a competitive advantage). Evidence from this investigation is that multiple audiences may see the organization in different ways, but that it is still one single strategy that results: and we note particular challenges both at group level and internationally.

Confusion has raged over the last 40 years as to whether image, identity and strategy are synonymous, or whether they differ starkly. This paper considers the literature and tries to resolve that debate, but it discovers that it is a problem that baffles practitioners in the same way that it concerns academics.

Finally, this study notes that strategy may help to attract good employees, who are themselves likely to be leading proponents of the good strategy that attracted them to the organization in the first place, whether they are well paid or otherwise as a result!

Today, corporate strategy is clearly a growing area of research interest although little research has been conducted into the non market arena (Mahon and Wartick, ...