Try to describe the social and historical background of the proposed strategic management of enterprises

I. The background of strategic management theory:

Strategic management theory originated in the 20th century in the United States, it sprouted in the 20's, formed in the 60's, in the 70's to get a big development, the 80's by the cold, the 90's and then regained importance.

From the perspective of this process of hot and cold changes in the development of strategic management theory, people's understanding of strategic management has gone through a relatively tortuous process. Its background is mainly due to the 50's and 60's, the United States after the Second World War, there is an unprecedented economic prosperity, and with it is the intensification of competition. In the 1970s, there was international political and economic turmoil, and it became increasingly difficult for businesses to survive and develop. In this new competitive environment, enterprises y feel that the previous principle of low prices must be changed, has not adapted to the development of the new situation. To obtain sustainable survival and development, enterprises must think strategically. With the success of some enterprises in diversification (product diversification, market diversification, investment in regional diversification, etc.), some entrepreneurs believe that they should go to the "strategic path" of diversification to protect themselves. However, in the 1980s, the "softening fever" and "advantage fever" led to the cooling down of the "strategy fever", coupled with the analytical strategy approach, which led some enterprises to fall into the financial type of operation, and some of them failed due to inappropriate application of strategy. In addition, the analytical strategy approach has plunged some enterprises into financial management, and some enterprises have failed due to improper application of strategy, etc. Strategic management theory was once in the cold. However, in the 1990s, people began to reflect on strategic management theory, because they found that many enterprises 7 to 8 years after the closure of many industries have become short-lived industry. To trace its cause, the root cause of short-lived is the lack of strategic management, the lack of long-term development of [[strategic planning]].

Two, the evolution of the theory of strategic management

The theory of strategic management of the emergence and development of only forty years of time, to the theory of the evolution of the precise staging or stage division may be difficult, because of the theory of the exploration of the continuity and recurrence of the exploration of the same issue at different stages, different levels of the connection, cross and overlap. However, the development of theory always follows the development of practice and interacts with it. If the regularity of historical practice development is recognized, the development of strategic management theory has its own internal logic. In this paper, the evolution of strategic management theory is sorted out and summarized as follows: the early stage of comprehensive paradigm analysis of the business environment, the stage of analysis centered on the environmental adaptation paradigm, and the stage of coexistence of multiple paradigms.

1. Early enterprise-environmental comprehensive analysis paradigm of enterprise strategic management

Entering the 1960s, the biggest change in European and American enterprises was the gradual change from a seller's market to a buyer's market, the gradual opening of the international market, the gradual breaking down of tariff barriers, and the majority of large enterprises to adopt diversification by means of mergers and acquisitions (although the failure rate of mergers and acquisitions is nearly 50 percent). In this situation, companies were not satisfied with annual budgets and began to use operations research and improved forecasting techniques for planning, which was the rise of the strategic planning school. The strategic planning theory is based on the premise or assumption that the future can be predicted, and considers strategy to be about adapting the firm's own conditions to the opportunities it encounters. The steps in developing strategic planning include information gathering and analysis, strategy formulation, strategy evaluation, strategy selection and strategy implementation. The essence of this approach is the belief that strategy is how to match the firm's capabilities with the business opportunities of its competitive environment. Early strategic management thinking can be seen to be characterized by integration and synthesis.

2. Strategic Management Theory of Enterprises Centered on Environmental Adaptation Paradigm

In the 1970s and 1980s, in the United States, represented by the 1973 oil crisis, the changes in the corporate economic environment manifested themselves in suddenness, increasing technological and scientific competition, unabated mergers and acquisitions, and intensified global competition in the face of the challenges of Japan and Europe. As the pace of environmental change accelerates, people increasingly recognize that the future is unpredictable, the environment is uncertain and discontinuous, which fundamentally shakes the idea of strategic planning about the future can be planned and predicted. At this time, the strategic theory centered on the analysis of environmental change (including Porter's theory of industrial organization) becomes dominant. At the same time, due to the complexity of the environment, there are limitations to formulating strategy only from analyzing changes in the external environment. Therefore, strategy theories based on internal analysis (such as value chain theory) and strategy theories based on analysis of corporate social relations, such as network advantage theory, began to appear.

The environmental adaptation paradigm views strategic decision-making as an adaptive process, emphasizes dynamic changes in strategy, and argues that the most appropriate strategy formulation and decision-making process depends on the degree of environmental fluctuations. This school of thought includes: Ansoff's idea that a firm's strategic behavior is a process of adaptation to its environment and the resulting process of internal structuring of the firm, Keiyuki Itami's adaptive view of strategy (which holds that the essence of strategic success lies in the adaptability of the strategy, including environmental adaptation, resource adaptation, and organizational adaptation), and Quinn's logical reformism (which holds that strategy is a logical response to environmental change, among other theories).

Industrial organization analysis can also be regarded as a kind of environmental adaptation, only pay more attention to the analysis of industrial structure in the environment. Industrial organization analysis focuses on the structure-conduct-performance (S-C-P) paradigm, mainly doing empirical research on market structure, competitive behavior, business performance and the relationship between the three, exploring the empirical and normative implications of various models of imperfect competition, the organization of the government's antitrust activities and their consequences, and aiming to formulate a variety of policies to improve market performance. The theory of industrial organization matured as early as 1959 with the publication of Bain's book Industrial Organization, and it can be seen from the time that the theory of industrial organization was formed under seller's market conditions. The idea that under seller's market conditions, market structure determines the behavior of manufacturers, which in turn determines the performance of firms, is clearly valid.

The idea of competitive strategy based on industrial analysis, which began with Michael Porter in 1980, can be regarded as both a development of the early industrial organization theory and a deepening of the environmental adaptation theory, with the assumption that the industrial structure is the determinant of corporate profitability.

Since Porter's theory of competitive strategy can not explain why some in unattractive industries can get high profits? And the existence of poorly performing firms in industries with high average profitability? Why many companies use diversification into unrelated industries with high average profitability will fail? To this end, in 1985 Porter proposed the value chain theory, which attempts to seek the source of competitive advantage from the internal value creation process of the enterprise, and to make up for the lack of attention to the internal factors of the enterprise. What is clear is that the internal part of the firm is a complex system, and it seems too simple to view the firm only as a set of activities. Moreover, Porter's strategy only tells what strategy to use in what market structure, and provides no tactical guidance as to how to change the market structure. Also based on the analysis of the environment, Network Advantage Theory is similar to Porter's theory of industrial environment analysis, but Porter is from the perspective of industrial structure to analyze the positioning of enterprises in it. Network Advantage Theory is from the dimension of relationship, emphasizing the positioning of the enterprise in a network composed of different organizations. These organizations include public *** departments, governments, universities, public *** laboratories, libraries and other information intermediaries, and the private sector, independent research institutes, suppliers, customers, competitors, etc., which have direct or indirect relationships with the firm. Any business is always located in a network of these organizations. Successful firms tend to be located in, own, and dominate an effective and good network.

3. Stage of Coexistence of Various Paradigms of Enterprise Strategic Management Theory

After entering the 1990s, due to the rapid development of science and technology (especially information technology), the accelerated pace of globalization, the diversification of customer needs and the shortening of product design cycle and product life cycle, enterprises are objectively required to adapt to changing circumstances by improving their own capabilities, taking into account the internal elements of the enterprise and the factors of the external environment, in order to adapt to the changing environment. The objective requirement is for enterprises to adapt to the changing environment by improving their capabilities and taking into account both internal and external factors of the enterprise. Against this background, strategy theories based on internal analysis and comprehensive internal and external analysis have been further developed. Strategy theories including resource theory, diamond model, balanced scorecard, competitiveness theory, hypercompetitiveness theory, etc. can be said to coexist with multiple paradigms.

Resource Theory: The publication of Werner Feldt's "The Resource Base of the Enterprise" in 1984 signaled the birth of Resource Theory. The assumptions of resource-based theory are: firms have different tangible and intangible resources, which can be transformed into unique capabilities; resources are immobile and difficult to replicate among firms; and these unique resources and capabilities are the source of a firm's lasting competitive advantage. The basic idea of resource-based theory is to view the firm as a collection of resources, focusing on the characteristics of the resources and the strategic factor markets as a means of explaining the sustainable strengths and differences between firms. Despite its continuous development and flourishing in the 1990s, the resource-based theory is fatally flawed, not to mention that it does not analyze the external environment of the enterprise and its external relationships, and that it is inevitably biased to explain the complex internal structure of the enterprise only in terms of its resources, competencies, or core competencies, or to encompass the entire enterprise in terms of its resources.

Diamond model: In 1990, Porter proposed the diamond model, which can be said to be a comprehensive analysis of the theory of corporate strategy. Porter believes that factors of production, demand conditions, support industries and related industries, corporate strategy, structure and competitive state of the four elements to create a national environment in which companies are born and learn how to compete. Porter also analyzes the impact of government, opportunity, the socio-political historical background of each country, and the values of the whole society (national culture) on the competitive advantage of enterprises, and further points out that in the national economy, the diamond system forms industrial clusters, and the industries within them form mutual support relationships.

In the historical analysis, Porter argues that from the international competition point of view, each country can be divided into several different stages of competitive advantage based on the performance of their industries, and these stages are the detailed process of the country's economic development. Each stage emphasizes different industries, industrial segments and corporate strategies, and even the government's industrial policy varies from stage to stage. Generally, the economic development of the country goes through four stages, namely, factor of production oriented stage, investment oriented stage, innovation oriented stage and affluence oriented stage. In his historical analysis, Porter argues that from an international competitive point of view, each country can be divided into several different stages of competitive advantage based on their industrial performance, with each stage emphasizing different industries, industrial segments, corporate strategies, and government industrial policies. Porter analyzes in detail the different performances of each element in each stage.

It can be seen that Porter's diamond theory is a refinement of the early internal and external analysis of enterprise strategy theory, so that this theory not only provides the basic framework for analysis, but also has a rich theoretical content. Porter's strategy theory really rises to the level of science. Because the scientific theory is not only to explain the phenomenon, but also to guide people to correct action. Of course, Porter's theory is not perfect. First, the analysis of the internal structure of the enterprise is too crude. Second, there is no analysis of the social relations of the enterprise.

Balanced Scorecard. At this stage, the theory of strategic management based on the analysis of the internal system of the enterprise also began to appear, manifested in the balanced scorecard theory. The balanced scorecard is a strategic theory based on enterprise performance evaluation, and thus this theory can be regarded as a strategic theory based on the internal management system of the enterprise. Since the traditional evaluation of purely financial indicators cannot fully reflect the state of corporate performance, the theory proposes to supplement the financial indicators with three sets of performance measures: customer satisfaction, internal procedures (processes), and organizational learning and capability improvement. Managers can establish balanced score measurements by translating the company's strategy and mission into specific goals and measures (Robert S. Kaplan, David P. Norton, 1992).

Theories on corporate social relations. Corporate social relations is a concept linked to the concept of corporate social capital. Although corporate social relations derive more from the external environment of the firm, it does differ from the general analysis of the business environment. The difference between the two is that firms can, or are able to, coordinate and integrate and even manage and control their social relations to a certain extent; however, for the environment, firms are unable to, or have difficulty in, coordinating and integrating, let alone managing. From the perspective of corporate social relations, an enterprise has to deal with the relationships between organizations and organizations, people and people, and organizations and people within the enterprise, as well as with competitors, suppliers, customers complementary producers, potential producers, governments, business associations, universities, research institutes, communities and other organizations, so as to maximize the social capital of the enterprise.Considering from the dimension of corporate social relations in the 1990s The main theories of corporate strategy are the following:

Game theory. Game theory is the study of decision-making and the equilibrium problem of such decisions when the behavior of decision-making subjects occurs in direct interaction, that is to say, the decision-making problem and the equilibrium problem when the choices of a subject, such as a person or a firm, are affected by other people, other firms and, in turn, affect the choices of other people, other firms. The basic concepts of game theory include: participants, actions, information, strategies, outcomes, equilibrium, etc. Game theory is directly related to strategic decision-making problems.

The study of strategic issues based on game theory, with special emphasis on the study of competitors' actions, emphasizes that the enterprise's strategy formulation should take into account the possible reflections of the opponents, and should constantly adjust its own strategy and actions according to the reflection or possible reflection of the opponents, in order to achieve the goal of defeating the opponents or at least ahead of the opponents. The use of game-theoretic ideas in strategy formulation has become widespread in what traditional economics calls oligopolistic industries.

Hypercompetitive Theory. In terms of competition theory, Richard Davini proposed the theory of hypercompetition. It is believed that in the new historical period, enterprises can not establish undefeated competitive advantages, and every advantage will disappear one day. Therefore, enterprises should conform to the dynamic development of market competition, actively dismantle their own advantages as well as those of their competitors, continuously create new temporary advantages, and accumulate them into lasting advantages with a series of short-lived actions.

The new institutionalist perspective in organizational theory. The resource-based view does not go beyond the properties of resources and resource markets to explain differences between firms. In particular, it fails to consider the social contextual factors (e.g., business traditions, network relationships, regulatory pressures, etc.) that encompass resource choice decisions and how such contextual factors affect differences between firms over time. The resource-based view also fails to present the resource choice process, that is, how firms make or fail to make rational resource choices in pursuit of economic returns. The institutional context of decision-making profoundly influences resource choices and sustainable competitive advantage at the level of the individual, the firm, and outside the firm. The institutional context here means the rules, norms, and beliefs that surround economic activity. The institutional factors surrounding resource decisions influence the potential for firms to obtain economic rents. At the level of the individual, managers' norms, habits, and identification with traditional prudence influence managers' decisions. At the level of the firm, corporate culture, the value system of *** enjoyment, and the political process, as well as, outside the firm, governmental pressures, industrial alliances, and social constraints (rules, norms, product quality standards, occupational safety, and environmental stewardship) influence the choice of resources as well as strategic decisions.

Organic view of strategy. Into the new century, a few scholars realize the mechanical and one-sided nature of the vast majority of theoretical views in the jungle of strategic management theory, Moshe as a representative of the scholars put forward the organic view of strategy. Organic strategy view of strategy as an adaptive coordination process, the introduction of the "organization-environment-strategy-performance" (OESP) integrated theoretical model, showing an organic model of strategic management. There are three core issues in the field of strategy in the organic strategic view: the concept of strategy, the causal model linking strategy to other structures, and the strategic management and choice model. In the concept of strategy, it is emphasized that strategy is the mutual alignment in time and space of the firm's goals and actions as well as the firm's internal attributes with the external environment. In the organization + environment + strategy + performance model, it is emphasized that the internal elements of the company and the elements in the external environment of the company are integrated and examined together at the same time, unlike most of the traditional theories that consider only one dimension of the internal structure of the company and separate the internal from the external. In the organic model of strategic management, it is emphasized that strategic management is not a given process, but one that needs to be initiated, nurtured, and occasionally modified, and is ongoing, and that the process of strategic management is not limited to a single cycle or a particular strategy.

Also, in the new century, strategic management theory has strengthened its focus on people, expressed as entrepreneurial strategy. This view refers to a company's efforts to develop employees at all levels of the organization into people (strategists) who are generally entrepreneurial in spirit, thinking, and action, and to strive to bring out the entrepreneurial spirit of employees throughout the company. A company characterized by entrepreneurship is one that continues to innovate with heterogeneous entrepreneurial human capital and entrepreneurial intellectual assets, disrupting equilibrium and generating competitive advantage and significant performance. Entrepreneurial strategy can be seen as a theory of strategy based on human element considerations within the firm.