Stability Strategy General Discussion Board Posting

GENERAL DISCUSSION BOARD POSTING

General Discussion Board Posting: Stability Strategy

Wheelen, Hunger, Hoffman & Bamford (2018) indicate that stability strategies are in some instances considered synonymous with lack of strategy. A stability strategy does not have an assigned definition. This essentially means that various definitions have in the past been formulated in efforts to assign meaning to this particular kind of strategy. However, according to Amason (2011), stability strategy could be conceptualized as a course of action taken by an enterprise to ensure that the profitability, growth, market position, market share, etc. are maintained in the current market environment. As the author further indicates, this is often a strategy often embraced in established markets by mature enterprises in an attempt to ensure that they minimize the risk of disruption. However, Wheelen, Hunger, Hoffman & Bamford (2018) also indicate that they are popular with small enterprises that are satisfied with the progress they have made so far as well as their predictable and easy-to-manage business formats. Thus, from this context, it could be considered a strategy as it is representative of a conscious decision by top executives of a business enterprise and is linked to clear goals and objectives. Wheelen, Hunger, Hoffman & Bamford (2018) point out that some of the best-known stability strategies are: profit strategy, no-change strategy, and pause/proceed with caution strategy.

It would be prudent to note that the primary goal of strategic management happens to be the promotion of superior performance and achievement of a competitive advantage. This is in relation to the performance of other competing firms in the industry or sector. As has been indicated elsewhere in this text, a stability strategy could be very effective in certain scenarios. A good example is in efforts to assess progress after a phase of rapid growth (i.e. via the application of the pause approach). In the words of Wheelen, Hunger, Hoffman & Bamford (2018), a pause approach “is, in effect, a timeout – an opportunity to rest before continuing a growth or retrenchment strategy” (203). This could be instrumental in efforts to assess progress, evaluate market response, analyze competitor response, etc. and thus better prepare for the next phase. This way, the company is likely to achieve better performance in the long-term as it is more deliberate and measured in its approach. This is more so the case given that shortcomings can be fixed and opportunities better exploited. This is representative of a plan of action (or strategy) to ensure that the business enterprise remains relevant in the market.

It should, however, be noted that this particular strategy would be ineffective in certain settings. As a matter of fact, as Wilkinson and Kannan (2013) indicate, is appears to be most ideal for enterprises that are ‘at peace’ with their market position. It therefore follows that a stability strategy would be ineffective for a new entrant attempting to aggressively grow its market share. Thus, again, with this consideration in mind, a stability strategy could be considered a true/actual strategy in the sense that it could be ineffective in some scenarios.