Growth Strategies & Organizational Challenges Past Paper PDF (E_BA_GSOC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Oct 23rd, 2020)

School of Business and Economics Exam: Growth Strategies & Organizational Challenges Code: E_BA_GSOC Examinator: dr. M.J. Flikkema Co-reader: dr. F.B. Zapkau Date: October 23th, 2020 Time: 6.45-9.30 pm Duration: 2 hour...

School of Business and Economics Exam: Growth Strategies & Organizational Challenges Code: E_BA_GSOC Examinator: dr. M.J. Flikkema Co-reader: dr. F.B. Zapkau Date: October 23th, 2020 Time: 6.45-9.30 pm Duration: 2 hours and 45 minutes Calculator allowed: No Graphical calculator allowed: No Number of questions: 8 Type of questions: Open Answer in: English Remarks: Credit score: 90 credits counts for a 10 Grades: The grades will be made public on November 6 th, 2020 at the latest. Inspection: t.b.a. Number of pages: (8 (including front page)) Good luck! 1 1. Business planning (Total: 15 credits) In the first plenary lecture we discussed the impact of business planning on the performance of small firms. Brinckmann et al. (2010), the authors of “Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle?”, proposed a meta-analysis to test the business planning-performance relationship in small firms. a. Why did they propose to apply a meta-analysis method? (5 credits) b. The Brinkckmann paper analyzes specific planning- contexts where a planning-based approach creates better performance. To this end, the paper draws on three moderating factors. Which ones? (5 credits) c. Brinkckmann et al. (2010) conclude: “Overall, business planning is a [………..] activity despite the required resources and small firms’ resource constraints.” What has to be filled out between the brackets? (5 credits) A. value creating B. flexibility creating C. flexibility reducing Reference for question 1: Brinckmann, J., Grichnik, D., & Kapsa, D. (2010). Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning–performance relationship in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 24-40. 2. Growth versus survival in international markets (Total: 15 credits) Uber Technologies, Inc., commonly known as Uber, offers vehicles for hire, food delivery, package delivery, couriers, freight transportation, and, through a partnership with Lime, electric bicycle and motorized scooter rental. The company is based in San Francisco and has operations in over 900 metropolitan areas worldwide. It is one of the largest providers in the gig economy and is also a pioneer in the development of self-driving cars. 2  a. Explain whether Uber’s internationalization strategy confirms or invalidates the Process Theory of Internationalization discussed in the second plenary lecture (5 credits). b. Describe an alternative Theory for the Internationalization of firms that covers the internationalization behavior of various high-tech firms (such as Logitech and Skype) in the 21 st century (5 credits). c. Which of the following factors is a moderator of firm survival when the decision to enter foreign markets has been made (5 credits): a. resource dependency b. resource fungibility c. resource specificity 3.Innovation versus imitation (Total: 10 credits) How to capture value from innovation, was the key question in the fourth plenary lecture in the GS&OC course. Basically, the challenge for innovators is to make sure that they capture the business potential of an innovation. a. Give an example of an Intellectual Property Right with which innovators try to capture this business potential. (1 credits) b. Give three different factors that according to James et al. (2013) in their paper “How firms capture value from their innovations” may determine decision makers’ preference for Intellectual Property Rights over other appropriation measures, or vice versa. (9 credits) Reference for question 3: James, S. D., Leiblein, M. J., & Lu, S. (2013). How firms capture value from their innovations. Journal of management, 39(5), 1123-1155. 4. Stakeholder- versus shareholder-oriented growth (Total: 10 credits) 3  Stakeholder approaches to growing a business are very topical. However, still many economists tend to believe in the shareholder model. They emphasize that although social misery loves companies, as discussed in the paper “Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business” by Margolis and Walsh (2003), firms should only allocate resources to resolving social misery if it is in the best interest of shareholders. a. They blame the stakeholder proponents for (2 credits): a. misappropriation and misallocation b. misappropriation and misunderstanding c. misallocation and misinterpretation b. In the neo-classical view organizations are considered (2 credits): a. a nexus of stakeholders b. a nexus of contracts c. a lexis nexus c. The authors propose to develop a normative stakeholder theory. What do they consider as the two alternatives for developing a normative stakeholder theory. Describe both alternatives briefly. (6 credits) Reference for question 4: Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268-305. 5. Stakeholder- versus shareholder-oriented growth (Total: 15 credits) To show that a stakeholder approach to growing a business can be instrumental for creating sustainable competitive advantage Jones et al. (2018) develop a framework in which they introduce a relational view on competition. a. They basically consider two opposite relationship types firms may have with their stakeholders. Describe them and explain the differences. (5 credits) 4  b. Reciprocity is considered one of the outputs of the stakeholder approach proposed by Jones et al. (2018). In the research note by Bosse et al. (2009) three different types of reciprocity are distinguished. Which types? (5 credits) c. Why are close relations with stakeholders rare and inimitable according to Jones et al. (2018)? (5 credits) References for question 5: Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447-456. Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371-391. 6. Related versus unrelated diversification (Total: 10 credits) In the plenary lecture about diversification we have seen that Microsoft’s diversification helps it stand out from other mega- tech stocks. a. Consider two mega-tech competitors of Microsoft: firm X and firm Y. Plot firm X, Y and Microsoft on the curve that reflects the relationship between diversification and performance at the firm-level best. (5 credits) b. What are legitimate reasons to engage in unrelated diversification, although stock markets in general don’t like it? (3 credits) c. Which diversification mode is most profitable for firms? (2 credits) A. Growth through acquisitions B. Organic growth C. Growth through alliances 7. Growing with products or services (Total: 10 credits) 5  In the plenary lecture on growth strategies with either novel products or services, we discussed the Service Opportunity Matrix introduced by Sawhney et al. (2004). Consider the recent introduction of Alexa for Residential by Amazon. Alexa is Amazon’s cloud-based voice service available on hundreds of millions of devices from Amazon and third-party device manufacturers. With Alexa, you can build natural voice experiences that offer customers a more intuitive way to interact with the technology they use every day. Alexa for Residential allows residential buildings and communities to deploy and manage Alexa-enabled devices and experiences with the help of solution providers. With Alexa, residents can have voice-enabled smart home experiences from the moment they move in, with zero setup. a. How would Sawhney et al. (2004) name the exploitation of this growth opportunity and why? (5 credits) b. How would you have tried to mitigate the capability risks in the design stage of the ‘Alexa for Residential’ service? (5 credits) Reference for question 7: Sawhney, M., Balasubramanian, S., & Krishnan, V. V. (2004). Creating growth with services. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(2), 34. 8. Growing with products or services (5 credits) The meta-model of servitization proposed by Brax and Visintin is: A. A step-wise model B. A continuous model C. An end-state model D.None of the previous models of servitization 6 Reference for question 8: Brax, S. A., & Visintin, F. (2017). Meta-model of servitization: The integrative profiling approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 17-32. 7 Literature Week 1: Required readings related to content of lecture 1: Business planning versus effectuation Brinckmann, J., Grichnik, D., & Kapsa, D. (2010). Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning– performance relationship in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 24-40. Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243-263. Required readings for lecture 2: Growth versus. survival in international markets  Lu, J.W., & Beamish, P.W. (2004). International diversification and firm performance: The S-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 598-609.  Sapienza, H.J., Autio, E., George, G., & Zahra, S.A. (2006). A capabilities perspective on the effects of early internationalization on firm survival and growth. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 914-933. Week 2: Required readings for lecture 3: Organic versus. non-organic growth  Klier, H., Schwens, C., Zapkau, F.B., & Dikova, D. (2017). Which Resources Matter How and Where? A Meta‐Analysis on Firms’ Foreign Establishment Mode Choice. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 304–339.  Puranam, P., Singh, H., & Chaudhuri, S. (2009). Integrating acquired capabilities: When structural integration is (un) necessary. Organization Science, 20(2), 313-328.  Chakrabarti, R., Gupta-Mukherjee, S., & Jayaraman, N. (2009). Mars–Venus marriages: Culture and cross-border M&A. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(2), 216-236. Required readings for lecture 4: Innovation vs imitation  Pisano, G., & Teece, D. (2007). How to capture value from innovation: Shaping intellectual property and industry architecture. California Management Review, 50(1), 278-296.  James, S. D., Leiblein, M. J., & Lu, S. (2013). How firms capture value from their innovations. Journal of management, 39(5), 1123-1155.  Zobel, A., Lokshin, B., & Hagedoorn, J. (2017). Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness. Technovation, 59(1), 44-54. Week 3: Required readings for lecture 5: Stakeholder- vs. shareholder-oriented growth  Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268-305. 8  Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447-456.  Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371-391. Week 4: Required readings for lecture 6: Related vs. unrelated diversification Chatterjee, S., & Wernerfelt, B. (1991). The link between resources and type of diversification: Theory and evidence. Strategic management journal, 12(1), 33-48. Palich, L. E., Cardinal, L. B., & Miller, C. C. (2000). Curvilinearity in the diversification– performance linkage: an examination of over three decades of research. Strategic management journal, 21(2), 155-174. Andreou, P. C., Louca, C., & Petrou, A. P. (2016). Organizational learning and corporate diversification performance. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3270-3284. Week 5: Required readings for lecture 7: Growing with products vs. services  Sawhney, M., Balasubramanian, S., & Krishnan, V. V. (2004). Creating growth with services. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(2), 34.  Huikkola, T., & Kohtamäki, M. (2017). Solution providers’ strategic capabilities. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(5).  Brax, S. A., & Visintin, F. (2017). Meta-model of servitization: The integrative profiling approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 17-32. Week 6: Required readings for lecture 8: the pyramid principle Minto, B. (1998). Think your way to clear writing. Consulting to Management, 10 (1), 33. 9