Global Business and Strategic Concepts - Essay Example

The Case of Nokia-Microsoft Merger: A Report Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 3 0 Introduction 4 2.0 Nokia-Microsoft entry strategy: Doorway to competitive advantage 4 2.1 The case of Nokia 4 2.2 The case of Microsoft 6 2.3 Nokia-Microsoft entry strategy: A deviation from Porter’s Five forces model 7 2.4 Political challenge 11 3.0 Nokia-Microsoft production and outsourcing 11 4.0 Nokia-Microsoft value chain 11 4.1 The issue of logistics: Export and import activities 14 5.0 Marketing strategy and organisational structure 15 6.0 Conclusion 17 7.0 Recommendation 17 References 19 Executive Summary The work at hand contains the report emphasising the Nokia-Microsoft merger, and the important information that will provide opportunity for the new CEO to consider the appropriate or relevant moves prior to the success of the said merger. The work at hand also employs the various models in global business and strategic concepts. The idea of Porter seems a special focus in the work at hand, but there are also various criticisms from other theories that are included in order to sufficiently address the actual point. It was found that it is vital to employ remarkable models, theories and concepts that are in line with the issues in global business and strategic concepts, particularly in understanding the future of Nokia-Microsoft merger. The said merger is generally to obtain a competitive advantage especially in mobile computing. However, specifically, the ultimate goal is to increase potential market share or global expansion for Nokia and Microsoft in areas where the two firms have vital common things to offer leading them to their competitive advantage. It is recommended that the new CEO must consider that it is essential to employ various models in business primarily in line with the issues in global business and strategic concepts. Prior to the actual implementation of the Nokia-Microsoft strategy, it is necessary that the consideration of other relevant factors such as the entry strategy, production and outsourcing, value chain, marketing strategy and the organisational structure should be required. Furthermore, the primary activities in the actual operation should be considered with particular involvement of appropriate process implemented among the following factors: structure, processes, people, culture, and incentives and control. 1.0 Introduction In the age of tough competition and globalisation, firms are conditioned that they should be able to compete, and the one which will be most likely to win in the battle should be able to understand the importance of achieving a remarkable competitive strategy prior to generating a competitive advantage (Siciliani, Straume and Cellini, 2012, p.2041). The merge between Nokia and Microsoft is an essential move prior to competitive advantage. To justify this, appropriate models and theories are necessary to be considered. Microsoft and Nokia, in the midst of tough competition in their industry, are trying to improve their market share, especially in the area of mobile computing (Egan, 2014). Thus, the work at hand tries to establish the idea that seeks to understand the competitive advantage of Microsoft-Nokia merger and the things involved in this strategy. Specifically, this report examines the areas to gain competitive advantage in the Nokia-Microsoft merger. To elaborate this further, it is important to find the current status of Nokia and Microsoft in terms of the merger and acquisition. Thus, this leads to the discussion of the following areas of Nokia-Microsoft merger, which include: entry strategy, production and outsourcing, value chain specifically in the area of logistics, and marketing strategy and organisational structure. 2.0 Nokia-Microsoft entry strategy: Doorway to competitive advantage The merge between Nokia and Microsoft is an entry strategy, specifically in the area of mobile computing. Thus, understanding these individual firms’ competitive advantage, ethics and culture is relevant to finding whether their actual entry strategy will work out in the future. 2.1 The case of Nokia, its ethics and culture In reality, Nokia has a competitive advantage in its industry. As stated on its webpage, it aims to make it great for the customer and do its part with empathy and integrity as it also seeks to employ innovation and go through challenges while taking into account of their achievement together as a team (Nokia, 2014). Considering all of these, Nokia sounds like having a highly adaptive culture. According to Hill (2013), companies with adaptive cultures have the highest performance. This idea is supported by research studies revealing that the culture and the firm’s dynamic moves eventually affect its actual performance (Ellis, 2001; Bingol, Sener and Cevik, 2013). In addition, Nokia, among any other brands, is recognised as a courageous brand because of its ability to focus on one market after years of diversity (Haig, 2011, p.63). This is an intrinsic characteristic of the firm that in the long run has produced its remarkable competitive edge in its industry. Based on Porter’s idea of generic competitive advantage, a focus strategy allows the firm to serve a particular target very well, leading to its capacity to serve a target market more effectively or efficiently compared to those firms that try to serve a broader market and compete broadly (Porter, 1980, p.38). There seems to be a remarkable truth to this point of view, which primarily has been obviously observed in the case of Nokia right from the inception of its greatness up to its prevailing status quo in its industry at present. Another advantage of Nokia, which brings it a remarkable success, is its size, because its vast production volume allows it to strongly compete on price (Haig, 2011, p.62). According to Porter (1980, p.15), scale is an entry barrier because it leads to cost advantage primarily on the part of the large scale firm. For instance, Nokia will always have the opportunity to optimise its fixed costs over a large number of units. As a result, Nokia, as a buyer of raw materials and because it is on a large scale will then have the bargaining power, which will enable it to save on cost. Nokia will have the opportunity to ask for discounts from its suppliers, because the latter will also look forward to having sales, especially directly coming from a large scale firm like Nokia to ensure its continuous operation, which allows the firm to shield it from the prevailing threats or related forces in its industry. 2.2 The case of Microsoft, its ethics and culture Microsoft is known for its ability to implement honesty and integrity; passion for its customers, partners and technology; respect; willingness to take the challenge; excellence and self-improvement; and commitment to quality to serve customers, shareholders partners and employees better (Microsoft, 2010). Just like Nokia, Microsoft also has a highly adaptive culture. As stated, this kind of culture according to Hill (2013) leads companies employing it to achieve the highest performance, which is the very thought of the research studies revealing that the culture and the firm’s dynamic moves can affect performance (Ellis, 2001; Bingol, Sener and Cevik, 2013). On the other hand, one vital component of Microsoft’s success is its evolution. The firm’s humble inception was on personal computing, but today, it already covers the ability of a software company that promotes products from operating systems to web applications (Haig, 2011, p.92). This is a remarkable advantage of the firm, because this can enable it to promote products that will eventually address the prevailing needs of the target markets. It is about diversifying its product portfolio in order to cater the demands or needs in the market, allowing it to become the firm or brand of choice among customers. At some point, the prevailing strategy of Microsoft is about the creation of a significant brand, which tries to enhance the communication of attributes and meaning of the firm’s diversified product offerings. It seems that the firm is trying to establish the opportunity to be considered by the market as a one-stop-shopping for operating systems and web applications. For this reason, it is clear that there is an ongoing strategy for positioning the brand in customers’ mind, known as branding (Belch and Belch, 2009, p.62). This is clearly another remarkable way in order to provide protection on the part of Microsoft from potential threats of the market entrants or substitutes in its industry. In addition, Microsoft is also well-known about its licensing. This allows the firm to widen its base and even establish its operating system as the standard in its industry (Haig, 2011, p.92). For this reason, on the legal ground, there will be a remarkable regulation of potential emulation of product offerings that Microsoft is currently creating, allowing it to optimise its chance in the market, knowing that it has all the opportunity to distribute a really distinct or highly differentiated offerings. According to Porter (1980, p.37), differentiation is another remarkable competitive strategy, because it allows consideration of the product offerings as unique. In the case of Microsoft, differentiation can be made possible by implementing licensing procedure, allowing the entire market to understand the actual quality of Microsoft’s offerings and to differentiate them from the other prevailing substitutes in the market. Fortunately, since Microsoft has already created a remarkable reputation for its brand, its combined effort for differentiation and branding strategies had therefore ignited its competitive advantage in the industry, as clearly evident in its current market share at present and even in its being one of the leading firms in its industry today. 2.3 Nokia-Microsoft entry strategy: A deviation from Porter’s five forces model Based on the idea of Porter of the five forces, for entry strategy and as shown in Figure 1, ‘rivalry’ will be the ultimate impact of the potential threats or power that suppliers, substitutes, buyers and potential entrants can create in an industry where in reality there is rivalry among existing firms. Figure 1. Forces Driving Industry Competition (Porter, 1980, p.4) If one will base it on the above model, the information in Table 1 will most likely be generated in order to understand further the actual level of existing pressures and competition included in the industry where Nokia and Microsoft are both currently involved. Table 1. The five forces in Nokia-Microsoft industry Five forces Level of competitive force Issues affecting competitive force Suppliers High Prevailing tough competition among industry competitors looking for supplies Potential Entrants (China Market, developing economies) Moderate Established brand strength of the prevailing brands Substitutes Moderate Established brand strength of the prevailing brands Buyers High Prevailing tough competition, and highly differentiated offerings Industry Competitors (Samsung, Apple, IBM, etc.) High Prevailing tough competition, and highly differentiated offerings Based on Porter’s five forces model, suppliers will have high level of competitive force because they might be in demand due to industry competitors looking forward to available supplies. Potential entrants on the other hand will only have moderate level of competitive force because existing firms in the industry have established brands like Nokia and Microsoft for instance. Added to the list, Apple and Samsung have also established their brands and even the specialised target market segment for their products. The same level of fate goes to the substitutes. However, buyers will have high level of competitive force, high bargaining power, because of the availability of highly differentiated offerings in the industry. Added to this, the new entrants especially those products coming from China are trying to intervene the competitive prices that renowned brands like Apple, Microsoft and other related firms have set. The same high level of competitive force applies to the industry competitors, because of the tough competition and differentiated offerings. From time to time, each of these competing brands or firms may have the opportunity to gather potential buyers who are looking for their ultimate satisfaction. Thus, economically speaking, a tough competition is going in the industry of Nokia and Microsoft. However, as noticed, even as based on the previous subsections, Nokia and Microsoft both have essential advantages that if they could optimise each of them will be a significant threat to each other, as they have produced common products in the industry. Although Microsoft is protected by its licensing strategy, this cannot totally stop Nokia from creating potential alternative products or other innovative substitutes that might be able to satisfy the target market. On the other hand, Nokia might be overpowered by the prevailing brand strength of Microsoft and the said firm’s ability to diversify its product offerings to address the prevailing needs of its target market. Upon realising that the advantages of a firm might lead to potential threats, Microsoft and Nokia decided to go for merger at last, combining their competitive advantage together for their own good. In other words, the prevailing example as depicted in the case of Microsoft-Nokia merger could somehow stand as a point against the basic assumption of Porter’s five forces model that the environment is a threat to a firm. In the case of Microsoft and from the point of view of Nokia, both firms as of the moment do not find each other a threat, but a remarkable team that could substantially enhance their competitive advantage in their industry without becoming a threat to each other. Hence, the case of Microsoft and Nokia can actually establish a critical suggestion and enhance further Porter’s prevailing model of five forces model and entry strategy. It is for this reason that Porter’s five forces model faces relevant criticisms including the point that it substantially presents a static view of competition rather than a more dynamic interaction of competitive forces, a point that is highly argued by Schumpeterian analysis and Game theory (Gupta, Gollakota and Srinivasan, 2007, p.151). Furthermore, Porter’s five forces model for entry strategy, an essential tool for the analysis of business environment, assumes that firms will have to compete for life, because potential entrants and substitutes and together with suppliers and buyers will at some point create a substantial impact on a firm’s market share. In this case, the model is trying to say that the environment can be a fundamental threat to the organisation (Winfield et al., 2013, p.346). Obviously, this has become one of the common criticisms on Porter’s five forces model. In reality, Nokia’s product offerings may complement those that Microsoft offers and vice versa. This is a relevant contradiction to Porter’s five forces model. In the first place, other theorists believe that there must be other fundamental force in the industry, the complementors, those responsible for creating offerings or products that will truly optimise customers’ experience and realisation of their needs and demands (Hill and Jones, 2012, p.60). In the case of Nokia and Microsoft, the two firms are found to be complementary, thus allowing them to merge and create their competitive advantage. Studies show that complementary products and the issue of complementarity will result to competitive advantage in the actual business (Boso, Cadogan and Story, 2012; Sengupta, 1998). 2.4 Political challenge Last month, it was headlined that Nokia-Microsoft merger was delayed due to regulatory and legal hurdles in Asia (Kharpal, 2014). This alone will be a significant indicator that the merger will eventually face significant problems in line with its future operation, an indicator of future problem with the entire entry strategy. This eventually agrees with the idea that trade and restrictions as essential political factors that could probably hinder or slow down international expansion. Trade and restrictions or simply trade agreements are among the things that Hill (2013) argued to be as essential components of the political barriers in business. 3.0 Nokia-Microsoft production and outsourcing Production may not be a problem because Nokia and Microsoft are both experts in their industry when it comes to the assembly line. Outsourcing will not be even a significant problem because based on the two firms’ capacity they already have established relevant connections particularly in their previous sources. Their actual merger means enlargement of their scale. According to Porter (1980), scale is such an important source of competitive advantage. This means that if Nokia-Microsoft for instance will set an order for Carlisle lens, they could take the advantage of cost savings due to their wider scale. This idea is absolutely supported by Jap (2001) regarding the importance of joint competitive advantages, and managerial ties (Li and Zhou, 2010). 4.0 Nokia-Microsoft value chain It is believed that a firm will have its competitive advantage if other firms in its industry can hardly emulate its prevailing competitive strategies (Porter, 1980; Rapp, 2002, p.23; Sanchez, 2008, p.26). Therefore, this only suggests that a competitive advantage of a firm may not eventually last until eternity for as long as the other firms will have the opportunity to create remarkable competitive strategies and eventually a competitive advantage in the long run. In fact, today, many firms have realised that it is not just enough to consider a simple action for adding value and increasing profitability, there must be an optimum level of cooperation that should be involved in the supply chain. For this reason, competitive advantage can be realised via effective supply chain management (Fleisher and Bensoussan, 2007). Management of the supply chain is an effective strategy for this. In fact, one important reason associated with merger and acquisition is to increase the level of control and access to resources (Dash, 2010, p.51; Pablo and Javidan, 2009, p.48; Jarillo and Straub, 2007, p.54). This idea is an inclusion to the prevailing point of view in the value-chain, which justifies that Nokia-Microsoft merger must be an appropriate strategic move, as far establishing cost, control and access to resources are concerned. In Porter’s value-chain model as shown in Figure 2, the primary activities must be supported by support activities in order to create more efficient and effective operation. Porter’s essential argument on this reveals that firms that are willing to challenge the first mover through innovating possibilities via product and service offerings are faced with price wars which devalue an industry or a particular sector (Loosemore, 2013, p.133). Porter argued that in order to generate advantage, primarily when there will be price wars, optimising the value-chain is necessary in order to ensure advantage on cost. Therefore, this only suggests that there is a relevant pressure for cost reduction, which is an idea that Hill (2013) agreed. Figure 2. Porter’s value-chain model (Porter, 1980) For Hill, in the global marketplace, two important competitive pressures exist: pressures for cost reduction and pressures to be locally responsive. This led to the idea of optimising strategies and prior to that, a well-organised value chain must be initiated first, one that is shown in Figure 3. The ultimate similarity of Porter’s value-chain model and the one Hill presented is the thought of having support activities and primary activities to employ the actual firm’s operation. The only difference is the point that logistics is a primary activity based on Porter’s model, which is contrary to Hill’s model as depicted in Figure 3. Figure 3. The value chain (Hill, 2013) 4.1 The issue of logistics: Export and import activities On the other hand, the idea of Porter on competitive advantage is usually criticised in the academic literature as one that is oversimplified and lacks empirical evidence (US International Trade Commission, 2011). In addition, John Dunning argued that Porter’s diamond model in relation to competitive advantage cannot be applied in the context of international business because of its failure to address multinational enterprises’ role in the determination of national competitive advantage (Reinert et al., 2009, p.211). Although it is necessary to employ import and export activities to increase market share or go for market expansion, based on Porter’s diamond model as shown in Figure 4, it is also clear that the government for instance has relevant contribution to the actual competitive advantage of a firm expanding in the international context, prior to its actual import and export activities. Figure 4. Porter’s diamond model (Reinert, 2009, p.210) While Dunning might have a crucial point in his argument, Porter on the other hand has become more specific in dealing or understanding the potential impact of an entry strategy of an international firm prior to its competitive advantage. It is purely under the local context, and in this case, the Nokia-Microsoft merger together with its competitive advantage seems to be safer to be understood under Porter’s diamond model. In fact, there are various studies trying to understand a firm’s, nation’s and industry’s international competitiveness by using Porter’s diamond model (Herciu, 2013, p.273; Esen and Uyar, 2012, p.620; Ozer et al., 2012, p.1064; Zhao et al., 2012, p.362). These studies have specifically included the issue of import and export and even the actual function or performance of logistics at the bottom line, which have essential contribution to the success of a firm’s operation. However, Hill argued that a firm trying to expand its territory should be locally responsive and even increase demand conditions by establishing competitive cost advantage. These as intuitively understood will lead to smooth-flowing export and import activities, as far as production and economic growth are concerned (Truett and Truett, 2003). To figure this out, it is clear that Porter’s diamond model could be of great help, knowing that as stated earlier, this model is widely used in various academic studies. 5.0 Marketing strategy and organisational structure As based on the previous sections, therefore, the places where Nokia-Microsoft merger might have significant market opportunity can be somewhere where there are positive demand conditions, factor conditions, and advantageous-supporting industries and minimum rivalry. Added to these, Microsoft is well-known for its ability to employ relevant marketing strategies as depicted in its market share and market brand value, and the same opportunity is also found in Nokia. Speaking of Nokia-Microsoft merger, the new established firm might be able to face some challenges particularly in their new organisational structure. According to Hill (2013), and as shown in Figure 5, the organisational structure is interrelated with people, processes, culture, people, and incentives and control. In this case, the Nokia-Microsoft merger and its prevailing organisational structure will reach to its competitive advantage when processes, people, culture and control will be optimised. For instance, organisational effectiveness is linked to organisational culture, structure and strategy especially in the case of knowledge management (Zheng, Yang and McLean, 2010, p.763; Shakibaei, Khalkhali and Nezgad, 2012, p.2886; Wiewiora et al., 2013, p.1163; Rajala Ruokonen and Ruismaki, 2012, p.540; Yang, 2012, p.428). These studies reveal that when an organisation does not employ moves that will link culture, people and the entire organisation, failure is expected to take place. Thus, these studies eventually support Hill’s argument in the first place. Figure 5. Organisational structure (Hill, 2013) 6.0 Conclusion The work at hand just presented remarkable ideas that could lead to the meaningful understanding of the competitive advantage of Nokia-Microsoft merger. It was found that it is vital to employ remarkable models, theories and concepts that are in line with the issues in global business and strategic concepts, particularly in understanding the remarkable future of Nokia-Microsoft merger. The said merger is generally to obtain a remarkable competitive advantage especially in mobile computing. However, specifically, the ultimate goal is to increase potential market share or global expansion for Nokia and Microsoft in areas where the two firms have vital common things to offer and to improve further, leading them to their competitive advantage. 7.0 Recommendation It is essential to employ various models in business primarily in line with the issues in global business and strategic concepts. The various models employed in the work at hand reveal that there are varying considerations to be taken into account when it comes to deciding whether the Nokia-Microsoft merger will be a success in the future or not. It has been critically considered in the work at hand that the market entry is quite complementary in its essence, because in reality Nokia and Microsoft have both common, products and intrinsic advantages, characteristics, ethics and culture that will evidently increase customer value or satisfaction leading to a remarkable competitive advantage. The only thing that is necessary prior to the actual implementation of this market entry is the consideration of other general relevant factors such as the value chain and the organisational structure. The idea of value chain, which primarily involves logistics, export and import strategies are clearly important considerations in the Nokia-Microsoft merger. Other than this, the issue of organisational structure will also be a remarkable consideration. For this reason, it is important to take into account that the management should not only think of profit as the ultimate consideration of competitive advantage, but above anything else, the primary activities in the actual operation should be considered with particular involvement of appropriate process implemented among the following factors: structure, processes, people, culture, and incentives and control. It is recommended that the new CEO must consider that it is essential to employ various models in business primarily in line with the issues in global business and strategic concepts. Prior to the actual implementation of the Nokia-Microsoft strategy, it is necessary that the consideration of other relevant factors such as the entry strategy, production and outsourcing, value chain, marketing strategy and the organisational structure should be required. Furthermore, the primary activities in the actual operation should be considered with particular involvement of appropriate process implemented among the following factors: structure, processes, people, culture, and incentives and control. References Belch, G. E., and Belch, M. A. (2009) Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective. 8th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Bingol, D., Sener, I., Cevik, E. (2013) ‘The Effect of Organizational Culture on Organizational Image and Identity: Evidence from a Pharmaceutical Company.’ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 99, 222-229. Boso, N., Cadogan, J. W., and Story, V. M. (2012) ‘Complementary effect of entrepreneurial and market orientations on export new product success under differing levels of competitive intensity and financial capital.’ International Business Review 21(4), 667-681. Dash, A. P. (2010) Mergers and Acquisitions. New Delhi: I. K. International Pvt Ltd. Egan, B. (2014) Nokia and Microsoft are biting at Apple’s core [online] available from . [6 April 2014]. Ellis, P. (2001) ‘Adaptive strategies of trading companies.’ International Business Review 10(2), 235-259. Esen, S., and Uyar, H. (2012) ‘Examining the Competitive Structure of Turkish Tourism Industry in Comparison with Diamond Model.’ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 62, 620-627. Fleisher, C. S., and Bensoussan, B. E. (2007) Business and Competitive Analysis: Effective Application of New and Classic Methods. London: FT Press. Gupta, V., Gollakota, K., and Srinivasan, R. (2007) Business policy and strategic management: Concepts and applications. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Haig, M. (2011) Brand Success: How the World’s Top 100 Brands Thrive and Survive. 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page. Herciu, M. (2013) ‘Measuring International Competitiveness of Romania by Using Porter’s Diamond and Revealed Comparative Advantage.’ Procedia Economics and Finance 6, 273-279. Hill, C. W. L. (2013) International Business: Competing in Global Marketplace. 10th ed. Hoboken: McGraw-Hill Education. Hill, C., and Jones, G. (2012) Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach. 10th ed. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Jap, S. D. (2001) ‘Perspectives on joint competitive advantages in buyer – supplier relationships’. International Journal of Research in Marketing 18(1-2), 19-35. Jarillo, J. C., and Straub, T. (2007) Reasons for Frequent Failure in Mergers and Acquisitions: A Comprehensive Analysis. Wiesbaden: Springer. Kharpal, A. (2014) Nokia-Microsoft merger delayed due to Asia hurdles [online] available from . [8 April 2014]. Li, J. J., and Zhou, K. Z. (2010) ‘How foreign firms achieve competitive advantage in the Chinese emerging economy: Managerial ties and market orientation’. Journal of Business Research 63(8), 856-862. Loosemore, M. (2013) Innovation, Strategy and Risk in Construction: Turning Serendipity Into Capability. New York, NY: Routledge. Microsoft (2010) Microsoft Standards of Business Conducts. [online] available from . [13 April 2014]. Nokia (2014) Our people and culture. [online] available from . [13 April 2014]. Ozer, K. O., Latif, H., Sariisik, M., and Ergun, O. (2012) ‘International Competitive Advantage of Turkish Tourism Industry: A Comperative Analyse of Turkey and Spain by using the Diamond Model of M. Porter.’ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 58, 1064-1076. Pablo, A. L., and Javidan, M. (2009) Mergers and Acquisitions: Creating Integrative Knowledge. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Porter, M. E. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York, NY: Free Press. Rajala, I., Ruokonen, I., and Ruismaki, H. (2012) Organizational Culture and Organizational Change at Arts Universities 45, 540-547. Rapp, W. V. (2002) Information Technology Strategies: How Leading Firms Use IT to Gain an Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reinert, K. A., Rajan, R. S., Glass, A. J., and Davis, L. S. (2009) The Princeton Encyclopedia of the World Economy. Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press. Sanchez, R. (2008) A Focused Issue on Fundamental Issues in Competence Theory Development. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Sengupta, S. (1998) ‘Some approaches to complementary product strategy.’ Journal of Product Innovation Management 15(4), 352-367. Shakibaei, Z., Khalkhali, A., and Nezgad, S. S. (2012) ‘Relationship Between Organizational Culture Type and Empowering Staff in Manufacturing Companies of Iran.’ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 2886-2889. Siciliani, L., Straume, O. R., and Cellini, R. (2013) ‘Quality competition with motivated providers and sluggish demand.’ Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 37(10), 2041-2061. US International Trade Commission (2011) China Agricultural Trade: Competitive Conditions and Effects on US Exports. Washington, DC: DIANE Publishing. Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G., and Coffey, V. (2013) ‘Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context.’ International Journal of Project Management 31(8), 1163-1174. Winfield, P., Bishop, R., and Porter, K. (2013) Core Management for HR Students and Practitioners. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Routledge. Yang, J. T. (2012) ‘Effects of ownership change on organizational and strategies in a Taiwanese hotel chain.’ International Journal of Hospitality Management 31(2), 428-441. Zhao, Z. Y., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., and Zhao, X. J. (2012) ‘Foreign architectural and engineering firms’ competitiveness and strategies in China: A diamond model study’. Habitat International 36(3), 362-370. Zheng, W., Yang, B., and McLean, G. N. (2010) ‘Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management.’ Journal of Business Research 63(7), 763-771. Read More