CROSSING MOTHER: IDEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ON ORGANIZATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

This paper uses a case study to explore a basic dilemma: can the people who control organizations develop ideologies which simultaneously facilitate stability and change? This dilemma is likely to become most apparent when people set out to improve an organization within its current ideological context but the consequences implicit in the improvements are poorly understood. The meaning and value of the improvements are then likely to be assessed differently by superiors and subordinates, and by loyal members and heretics. The case study illustrates how resources are mobilized to constrain improvement attempts in such a way that the consequences reconfirm the preexisting organizational ideologies and halt the improvement attempts [I].     

Strategic action generation: A comparison of emphasis placed on generic competitive methods by U.S. And Japanese managers

The paper identifies similarities and differences in the emphases and patterns that U.S. and Japanese managers attribute to a set of 22 generic competitive methods. It highlights the different ways that Japanese and American managers combine these methods to form general business strategies. Using factor analyses and smallest space analyses, the study shows differences in business strategy patterns between managers in Japan and the U.S. Such differences reflect the organizing principles underlying the strategy approaches in U.S. and Japanese firms. The organizing principle underlying U.S. responses is the desire to find way to differentiate a firm from its competitors. In contrast, the organizing principle underlying Japanese responses is a desire to establish a comprehensive, stable and defensible position. The paper discusses the implications of these results for strategic management and suggests directions for future U.S. and Japanese comparative strategy research.