When do market versus non-market strategies help firms?
Please join us in an exciting Ox-Bridge style debate on whether non-market (versus market) strategies are critical for firms' competitive advantages. The initial charge is set as: "Non-market strategies are critical to overall competitive strategy."
Moderated by Ilgaz Arikan (Kent State University) the two teams will be discussing and at times debating "for" and "against" the initial charge.
The For team, Helena Barnard (University of Pretoria) and Jonathan Doh (Villanova University) will argue that non-market strategies are necessary and sufficient conditions for competitive advantage.
The Against team, Elizabeth Maitland (University of Liverpool) and Christos Pitelis (The University of Leeds) will argue that any firm can outperform their rivals in any location if they strictly apply market mechanisms.
There is much to debate. Some of the interesting tensions around this broad charge are listed as a non-exhaustive list below, to spark audience participation following the debate. For instance:
Do the firms' nationality drive firms to take market versus non-market action to dampen the negative sentiments in some countries?
Does the degree of a firm's nationalistic inclination impact the use of market versus non-market strategies?
Do all markets require some sort of non-market adjustments?
Wouldn't value creation and capture motives override the negative national sentiments and steer firms to adhere to strict market-based strategies?
Do non-market strategies work the same way in factor and product markets?
When would market versus non-market strategies influence firms' competitive actions?
Would history impact non-market versus market strategies differently, and at times in conflicting ways?
How do these strategies impact firm performance, given historical tensions?
(c) STR - Strategic Management Division - AOM
To leave or reply to comments, please download free Podbean or
To leave or reply to comments, please download free Podbean App.