solved BUSINESS-LEVEL STRATEGY (A.K.A. CORE STRATEGY) Chapter 4 explores Porter’s (1980)

BUSINESS-LEVEL STRATEGY
(A.K.A. CORE STRATEGY)
Chapter 4 explores Porter’s (1980) generic strategies—the paragon of business-level strategy. Porter’s model represents the economic school of business strategy; that is, it uses economic logic as its foundation. Some other models of business-level strategy exist as well, including most prominently Miles and Snow (1978), representing the structural school of strategy (i.e., the idea that some generic kinds of business structures work better than others), and Mintzberg (1988), representing the emergent school of strategy (i.e., the idea that strategy mostly arises by itself, so the main job of strategists is to experiment, observe, and capitalize on the most successful patterns).
Understood correctly, Porter’s (1980) generic strategies offer a powerful approach to strengthening a company’s competitiveness, but many people suffer serious confusion over the model, so they fail to exploit it. First, the model presents only three generic strategies: (a) cost leadership; (b) differentiation; and (c) focus. These categories are not arbitrary; rather, each generic strategy reflects a distinct economic model, which we can summarize, respectively, as: (a) quasi-monopsonistic competition; (b) quasi-monopolistic competition; and (c) narrow monopoly. By “quasi” in this context, we are referring to economic power that happens to resemble the noted positions.
Thus, to understand Porter’s (1980) generic strategies correctly, we must appreciate the generic economic models that underlie them. In its purest form, the cost leader has a flat marginal-revenue (MR) curve, so its leaders spend all their time working on their marginal-cost (MC) curve, which they can keep pushing further rightward if they are clever enough. The differentiator has a tilted MR curve, so its leaders constantly look for ways to tilt it even more. Operating outside the broad market, the focused firm raises the price point to move the intersection of the MR and MC curves further to the right than in the broad market, creating a niche in the resulting margin.
In working through Porter’s generic strategies, be sure to pay attention to these common sources of confusion:
Caveat 1. Low cost does not mean “low price.” Economists are usually strict about saying “price” only when referring to customers and “cost” when referring to the business. As a cost leader, we anticipate selling at the market equilibrium point, so we constantly look for ways to reduce costs. If our revenue per item sold stays the same while our costs keep falling, then we become increasingly profitable.
Caveat 2. Differentiation means more than “being different.” It really means “being superior” in some way. It refers to superior quality, support, image, or design. It refers to those qualities of a product or service that create brand loyalty. In economic terms, a core subset of our customers treat us as though we were the only brand that mattered—as though we were a monopoly, even though we are not.
Caveat 3. Focus means more than “niche market.” It really means “narrow monopoly.” We usually try to create a narrow monopoly via overlapping markets, such as a convenience store linked to a gas station (people stop for gas, and for that moment they are a captive audience for the convenience store), or by locating out of reach of the general market (e.g., the retail store in a little mountain village).
Caveat 4. The distinction between focused cost leadership and focused differentiation is artificial, even though it is often convenient to communicate in those terms. The economics of a narrow monopoly are sufficient without having to decide between the subsidiary strategies of cost leadership and differentiation. Still, focused advantages may erode, so a subsidiary strategy is a wise choice to make.
Caveat 5. The “stuck in the middle” condition makes sense fully only if you consider the economic models. Try combining the flat and tilted MR curves into the same economic model, and you will immediately understand Porter’s logic. Only a focused firm can be in the middle—between cost leadership and differentiation—without losing traction. Therefore, the so-called integrative strategy is fallacious.
For this week’s commentary, please select just one of the following questions to answer. As before, to respond, cite the question by its number, and then immediately start answering, without restating the question in any way.

[Chapter 4 Mini-Case, Item 1.] What generic strategy was the new CEO at JCPenney apparently seeking to implement? Try to find some other retailer that might have attempted a similar transformation.
[Chapter 4 Mini-Case, Item 2.] What was the result of change in strategy implemented? Compare this result to that of some other retailer, and note the similarities or differences.
[Chapter 4 Mini-Case, Item 3.] Why was this strategy a disaster for JCPenney? To answer this question, carefully work through the economic logic presented above.
[Chapter 4 Mini-Case, Item 4.] What does it mean to be “stuck in the middle” between two strategies (i.e., between low cost and differentiation strategies)? Interesting note to consider: The “stuck in the middle” situation is the same as Miles and Snow’s (1978) “reactor” strategy.
[JCPenney Video, in this week’s To Do feature.] Could the CEO’s failure to turn the company around be due to resistance from the board of directors, as suggested in the video? Consider the broader implications of your conclusion on the challenge of strategizing as a whole.

General Instructions (same Week 2)
In all discussion tasks, endeavor to respond to the question astutely, logically, and piercingly, while adhering to the correct conventions of formal US English. Cite the textbook (no more than three times) and two outside sources. The optimal sources will be peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals. If you can grow comfortable reading theoretical material, you can be a superb asset for your organization, a rarity, able to apply the most advanced ideas from the theoretical literature to your organization’s strategic discussions. Nevertheless, you must scrutinize each source carefully to make this determination on your own rather than relying on a library database to tell you.
When citing sources, strictly use APA style, 7th edition. This style guidance also applies to your treatment of other aspects of grammar and construction, although those features are subtler than in-text citation and reference formatting, which account for most points lost in the formal commentaries. Ultimately, you will manage your business with the same mentality as your writing. If you feel that the task of reading your commentary anew in search of opportunities to correct, formalize, and clarify (i.e., proofreading) is too tedious, you will later treat your business with the same nonchalance. Now is the time to exercise that critical business mind.
Once you feel satisfied that you have answered the question, continue to elaborate, such as by adding causal logic (“this effect occurs because of that cause”), hypothetical cases (“what if?”), and anecdotes of personal experience (“in my previous company…”) until you have exceeded the minimum specification of 250 words by a comfortable margin.
Note: The length assessment will exclude section headers, quoted passages, parenthetical expressions, bulleted or numbered lists in fragmentary form (i.e., incomplete sentences), tables, images, and extraneous verbiage. Extraneous verbiage includes any dispensable wording, such as sentences that merely tell the reader what question you are about to answer.
In addition to posting your formal commentary in the manner just described, be sure also to reply to at least two other students. Unlike the main commentary, formality is optional here, and no in-text citations or reference section is necessary. Each reply requires at least two complete, meaningful sentences, which directly address at least one aspect of the other student’s commentary and add genuine value by advancing new observations, facts, or ideas rather than merely agreeing with the commentator. In replying, it is always good policy to start by lauding the commentator’s astuteness and then offer your value-adding observation.
Your main commentary is due Sunday night. Your replies to the other students are due the following Tuesday night (i.e., two additional days, to allow time for people to post their main commentaries). This deadline pattern will remain the same throughout the course.
To amend your main commentary (before the deadline), type “AMENDED SUBMISSION” at the top of the new version.
References
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. McGraw-Hill.
Mintzberg, H. (1988). Generic strategies: Toward a comprehensive framework. In R. B. Lamb & P. Shivastava (Eds.), Advances in strategic management (vol. 5, pp. 1–67). JAI Press.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press

POST 1
4. What does it mean to be “stuck in the middle” between two strategies (i.e., between low cost and differentiation strategies)? Interesting note to consider: The “stuck in the middle” situation is the same as Miles and Snow’s (1978) “reactor” strategy.
Being “stuck in the middle” means advertising a product that is neither unique or cheap in price. “Arby’s appears to be a good example. Arby’s signature roast beef sandwiches are neither cheaper than other fast-food sandwiches nor standouts in taste.” Even though Arby’s advertise their roast beef sandwiches more than their other products; pricing for the roast beef sandwiches are not attractive to the market segment they are trying to reach. In the restaurant industry differentiation, and low prices is a good strategy to adhere to. Businesses that are “stuck in the middle” generally, do not produce products that are appealing to the market segment they are aiming to attract. In order for a product to be advertised effectively to customers; a business should understand the product advertised, and monitor its effectiveness.
On scholar wrote, “The challenge for business leadership is not to avoid the middle, but rather, to develop flexibility—such as a sensible “Plan B”—if the dice turn against you. The middle is bad if you are stuck in some important way. The inability to respond flexibly and appropriately to new competitive conditions is the grave threat.” The middle is not so much a bad thing if the business can maneuver away from it in a sensible manner. Having a flexible agenda can help gain a competitive advantage over many other companies with similar products. If a firm has little to no advantage over products in the same industry; then having that flexible power can help them produce another appealing product.
Ketchen, D., Short, J., Try, D., & Edwards, J. (n.d.). Stuck in the Middle. Mastering Strategic Management 1st Canadian Edition. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/strategicmanagement/chapter/stuck-in-the-middle/ (Links to an external site.).
Symonds, M. (2012, February 24). Stuck In The Middle? Take The Flexible Approach. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattsymonds/2012/02/24/stuck-in-the-middle-take-the-flexible-approach/?sh=6f560a2ebd5f (Links to an external site.).

POST 2
[Chapter 4 Mini-Case, Item 4.]
If a company’s features are not innovative enough to attract consumers to purchase its goods, and its prices are too high to effectively compete on price, it is considered to be stuck in the middle. Since they lack a clear market or favorable pricing, business that are caught in the middle perform poorly. Miles and Snow’s typology divides businesses into four categories: defenders, prospectors, analyzers, and reactors, based on how they handle three main issues: entrepreneurial, engineering, and administrative. The entrepreneurial problem is concerned with the definition of an organization’s product-market domain; the engineering problem is concerned with the selection of technologies and processes for development and distribution; and the administrative problem is concerned with the formulating, rationalizing, and the shift of an organization’s structure and policy processes (Miles et al.,1978, .20-23). Snow discovered that analyzer organizations were the most efficient in most settings, and that reactors were more effective than prospectors or defenders in highly controlled environments. A reactor pattern of adapting to its surroundings is both contradictory and unpredictable. This form is missing a collection of response mechanisms that can implement in changing environment. Typically, the organization does not have a clear strategy in place. As a result, their adaptive cycle reacts negatively to changes and perform unsuccessfully. IBM’s personal computer is an example. IBM used a differentiation strategy to position its personal computers selling them at a premium price promising outstanding customer support in exchange. Unfortunately for IBM, competitors like Dell were able to offer similar service while selling computers for less money. IBM’s computers struggled to stand out among its competitors and the company ultimately left the market.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2016). IS JCPenney Killing Itself with Failed Strategy? In Strategic Management. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Mastering strategic management. Stuck in the middle