Its essential for organization and its employees to be acknowledged clearly about their purposes,

targets and responsibilities.

A well-defined business strategy that can set up the track of a business activity and determine
what position it wants to be looked like in the near future by differentiating itself from other
competitors in the market. Through providing with a common objective, targets and a group of
actions which will help to reach the goals, business strategy ensures that all the personnel of an
organization are working according to the right direction and the same outcome/expected results;
resources & time are being distributed for the same goals. (). Simply it makes sure that an
organizations every buck and minute they spend for their business is in a right track of creating
sustained competitive advantage in the market that will enable them to boost growth, enhance
productivity and increase revenues at present and also in the future. Therefore, it is so clear that
ifa company doesnt have a strategy, its employees will wander without purpose from one action
to another never realizing what to concentrateon or how to emphasize (Root III, 2016).
A business that becomes successful with proper growth in the competitive industry mostly
because of its history of precise and countless endeavors in setting excellent and functional
business strategies that have been adhered to rigorously
As there is no guarantee that a strategy that makes one company successful will make another, it
is much better when a manager develops own unique business strategy based on his/her
companys circumstances because they will know how to maintain it properly in changing
situation and moreover, when they create it by themselves, they obviously gain a clear and exact
idea on what actually this strategy mean for their business and also they can create such strategy
that will be adapted to real life connections or relationships among workers, buyers, suppliers
ect. It was found that strategies which are developed by managers are more likely to gain success
than others developed by consultants or outsiders (Nieuwenhuizen and Koch, 2007).

As globalization and modernization are growing faster every year, changes in business trends
also increasing. It is necessary for a company to understand the impact of this changes that are
taking place in their industry and needs to prepare right strategy in order to respond as well
because if they fail to adapt with the changing trends, it will be hard to survive

Porters (1980) generic strategy typology is built on the economic concept of

tradeoffs, the idea that successful businesses should avoid pursuing multiple
strategic orientations that tend to be incompatible. As such, a business attempting
to combine emphases on low costs and differentiation invariably finds itself stuck
in the middle (Porter, 1980, p. 41), a notion that received considerable support in
early studies (Dess and Davis, 1984; Hambrick, 1981, 1982; Hawes and
Crittendon, 1984) but was later challenged extensively (Buzzell and Gale, 1987;
Buzzell and Wiersema, 1981; Hill, 1988; Parnell, 1997; Phillips et al., 1983;
Wright, 1987). The combination strategy debate extended beyond Porters
typology to Miles and Snows framework (Miller and Dess, 1993; Parnell and
Wright, 1993). The fundamental premise of the argument is not about cost
leadership and differentiation per se, but rather about the need for business units to
make conscious choices that enable them to serve some markets more effectively,
but at the expense of other markets. Most published work has supported the idea
that businesses lacking a coherent and Strategic clarity, strategy and performance
309 Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 03:20 13 September 2016
(PT) consistent strategic orientation (i.e. reactors within the Miles and Snow
framework or those stuck in the middle within Porters conceptualization) are
generally outperformed by others in their respective industries, but conclusions
concerning the adoption of more than one strategic orientation simultaneously have
been elusive (Jusoh and Parnell, 2008; Parnell and Wright, 1993). Framed another
way, a key concern is the relationship between strategic clarity and organizational
performance. Along these lines, the present study tests three hypotheses:

H1. Reactor businesses will be outperformed by prospector, defender, and analyzer

businesses.
H2. Stuck in the middle businesses will be outperformed by differentiation, low
cost, and focus businesses.
H3. Businesses with high strategic clarity (i.e. a single, clear, preferred strategic
orientation) will outperform those with moderate or low strategic clarity (i.e. no
single, clear, preferred orientation).

Findings
The first hypothesis was supported. Prospectors modestly outperformed defenders
and analyzers. Reactors represented the poorest performing group, slightly more
than one-half of one standard deviation below the mean Strategic clarity, strategy
and performance. The second hypothesis was supported. Businesses were cluster
analyzed along factor scores for cost leadership, differentiation, and focus. The
five-cluster solution produced clear and definable strategic groups ranging in size
from 30 to 99 (see Table IV). The fourth cluster stuck in the middle businesses
reported levels of cost leadership, differentiation, and focus of approximately one
standard deviation below the mean. Performance was also about one-standard
deviation below the mean. Wards cluster algorithm produced a second group that
also includes businesses of relatively similar levels of cost leadership,
differentiation, and focus emphasis. This cluster consisted of 57 businesses and
produced high scores along the three strategic dimensions. Performance of this
combination strategy cluster was the highest of the five. The third hypothesis was
supported. Respondents reporting high strategic clarity along the Miles and Snow
typology (i.e. only one good fit) outperformed those whereby a second choice also

represented a good or partial fit (see Table V). Interestingly, 37 businesses reported
that three or more strategies represented good fits also performed well, although
not as high as the first group. Graphically, the link between strategic clarity and
performance can be viewed as a U-shaped curve with above average performance
achieved by businesses with high or low strategic clarity (see Figure 1). The link
between strategic clarity and performance was assessed in greater detail by
examining differences within strategic groups (see Table V). ANOVA results
indicate significant differences in performance for defenders, prospectors, and
reactors, but not analyzers. Defenders reporting only one strong fit (i.e. only the
defender strategy) significantly outperformed all other defender groups.
Prospectors reporting only one good fit or three good fits outperformed the other
prospector groups. Small cell sizes rendered analysis of the analyzer strategic
group unproductive. Although differences were significant across reactor groups,
small cell sizes restrict interpretation as well.
Discussion
Extant tests of both the Porter typology and the Miles and Snow typology have
generated mixed results. While support for the viability of clear and coherent
strategic approaches has been widespread, the combination strategy-performance
link has remained tenuous. There appears to be a general agreement that a
combination approach can be successful at least in some instances, but whether
such an approach leads to superior performance or can be effective in all industry
environments remains uncertain. The present study does not resolve this
conundrum, but it provides some critical insight. Supporting Porters perspective
on pure strategies, respondents reporting the highest degree of strategic clarity
outperformed all other groups representing lower levels of clarity. This was true
overall and also when the two viable strategic groups where significance was

found defenders and prospectors were assessed individually. This does not tell
the entire story, however. Moderate strategic clarity was negatively associated with
performance across the board, with one possible exception. The lowest performing
groups overall were those who reported that the there was one good fit along the
Miles and Snow typology and one partial fit, and that there were two good fits.
Defenders reporting an additional partial fit were outperformed by those reporting
a single fit, but the former group performed slightly above the norm for defenders
as a group. Hence, for defenders, incorporating a part of another strategy might be
appropriate, depending on the situation. Attempting to blend a second or third
strategy, however, appears to be suboptimal. For prospectors, the one good fit and
one partial fit group represented the lowest performers. Those with high strategic
clarity performed the best, but those reporting three good fits also did well,
Significant findings notwithstanding, it is always possible that the strategy
assessments were influenced by the level of performance in the respondents
organization. For example, those in high performing businesses could
retrospectively assign high levels of attention to lost leadership, differentiation, or
other strategic orientations. Likewise, respondents in poor performing businesses
might have a tendency to perceive greater strategic confusion because of the
performance level. It is difficult to account for such a possibility, but it should be
recognized nonetheless.

Conclusion and future research directions

The present study supported the integrity of the original typologies proposed by
Porter, and Miles and Snow in the US retail industry. Businesses with incoherent
strategies (i.e. reactors, or those stuck in the middle) performed poorly as a

group. The nature of the combination strategy-performance link varied across

strategic groups. Specifically, both the predominant generic strategy and the
number and intensity of other strategies included in the combination influence
performance. This study also supported strategic claritys influence on the strategyperformance nexus. The graphical representation of the strategic clarityperformance linkage was that of a U-shaped curve, suggesting that businesses with
either low or high strategic clarity outperformed those with moderate levels. This
relationship was fairly consistent across all of the strategic groups, although some
minor differences existed.
. Moreover, it is also important to examine different industries and firms outside of
the USA. The use of different measures of strategy and performance are also
germane. Likewise, more work is needed to explain more fully the processes that
underpin the notion of strategic clarity and the U-shaped curve, with special
attention to differences across industries and strategic groups. For example, is high
strategic clarity more important for prospectors than for defenders? Would an
assessment of business strategy invoking Porters typology also generate a Ushaped curve? Is low strategic clarity appropriate for retailers but not for
manufacturers? Questions such as these remain largely unanswered. Second, most
competitive strategy studies have assessed the link between strategy and
performance over the fixed, relatively short time frame. High performing
businesses generate profits.

Article 2- A good business strategy need not be difficult: How Simply Strategy can
improve your business.

1. Introduction: Definition of Strategy.

2. Why is it important for a company to have a strategy? 2 reasons
3. Why is it important to maintain it? (Competition is high, others will copy your
Work Company that doesnt maintain) Company that doesnt has strategy. Google
said dont have a strategy still can successful! Does Google has strategy?
Arguments, why its not important?
4. A company that doesnt have strategy, still successful, and have strategy can
successful and even fail also. Example.. so best is to have a good marketing
strategy e.g. Apple doesnt have a very good strategy but has good marketing
strategy.
5. Conclusion: Every company has a basic strategy and every company is different
so need for multi structure.

Provide two definitions from sources, e.g. the recommended textbook for one
probably, then draw your own interpretation from these two definitions 100

Explain why it is important to have a business strategy and the consequences of not
having one use sources to support your argument (development part of the
question) 200

Explain why it is important to maintain a business strategy, use sources to support

200

Remember we discussed about strategy as a concept and the different strategies

used by companiesyou may wish to discuss the importance of strategy as a
concept and the difference to business strategy

Conclusion which answers the question 100

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/happens-organization-coherent-strategy20289.html
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/consequences-not-having-marketing-plan50097.html
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/strategic-importance-organizations-corporatestrategy-12246.html

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/strategic-planning-important-business-2671.html
http://www.simply-strategic-planning.com/importance-of-strategic-planning.html
http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/130/business-strategy-operations
http://bergconsulting.com.au/Berg_Consulting_Blog/three_reasons_why_strategy_
is_important
http://www.ceoadvisor.com/blog/?p=102

Article 1: All about need to understand companys strategy, one good

strategy, combination of strategies high performance..
Article 3: The role of business strategy into the area of strategic management
accounting (SMA) by exploring its linkages with the implementation and usage of
SMA techniques in companies.

Introduction
the role of business strategy into the area of strategic management accounting
(SMA) by exploring its linkages with the implementation and usage of SMA
techniques in companies. Understanding the relationships between strategy and
accounting is one of the focal points in the reflections based on a contingent view
of accounting (Chapman, 1997). Within this issue, the fundamental relationship
between strategy and management control systems (MCS) has been widely

explored (Dent, 1990; Chenhall, 2003; Langfield-Smith, 2007). Since the 1980s
surveys and case studies have investigated the connection between particular
elements of the MCS and the specific strategy adopted by the firms under a
contingency theory approach (Miller and Friesen, 1982; Govindarajan and Gupta,
1985; Simons, 1987, 1990; Govindarajan, 1988; Shank and Govindarajan, 1992a;
Bruggeman and Van Der Stede, 1993; Chenhall and Langfield-Smith, 1998). Other
contingent studies have tested the relationship between strategy, MCS and
performance (Simons, 1987; Govindarajan and Fisher, 1990; Chenhall and
Langfield-Smith, 1998). Other authors have researched the role strategy might play
in accounting system design (Dent, 1990; Chapman, 1997; Langfield-Smith, 1997,
2005; Chenhall, 2005a). In the management accounting literature, the term SMA
was introduced for the first time by Simmonds (1981), and this theme was
subsequently positioned by Bromwich (1990) in an influential paper; in the USA,
Kaplan, Cooper and Shank developed innovative approaches to costing and
strategic use of cost information, thus opening the path to Shanks proposal of
strategic cost management (SCM), addressed as the innovative approach that could
overcome the crisis condition in traditional management accounting (Shank, 1989;
Shank and Govindarajan, 1989, 1993). The external orientation of SMA was well
established by the scholars who dealt with it, however, it can be interpreted in
different ways, and there is no consensus on a clear definition in literature
(Langfield-Smith, 2008). Only in recent years have management accounting
techniques, considered to belong to SMA techniques, been object of surveys and
contingent research (Guilding et al., 2000; Cravens and Guilding, 2001; Cadez and
Guilding, 2007, 2008).
In this paper, this fundamental research question has been addressed: RQ1. Does
SMA techniques usage differ with regard to the particular business strategy

adopted? Undertaking such research can be relevant in two ways. First, due to the
wide range of approaches available to SMA, the findings could help managers in
their choice of SMA technique to adopt in a company-specific strategic setting.
Second, the issue of the linkage between strategy and SMA is explored in a new
perspective: while SMA has always been considered as the informative support for
strategic decision making by managers, only a few studies have considered
strategy, to some extent, as one of the variables affecting the introduction of SMA
in organizations (Cravens and Guilding, 2001; Cadez and Guilding, 2008). Here,
the focus is placed on business strategy by considering it the main variable of a
contingent model of SMA orientation in organizations.

The findings of Abdel-Kader and Luther (2008) appear in contrast with these. They
hypothesized that companies following a differentiation strategy need more
sophisticated management accounting practices than those following a cost
leadership strategy. They did not find support to the latter whereas we find
significant results for the association between cost leadership strategy followers
and the use of SMA-costing techniques (which belong to the class of tools with a
certain level of MA sophistication).