Leadership and Strategy

Effective strategic management practices aid companies in improving production while engaging in unpredictable and turbulent environments (Ireland & Hitt, 2005). This includes firms figuring out how to allocate their resources. One way to do this is to use a BCG growth-share matrix, which looks at different areas, namely market share and market growth. BCG Matrix assumes that when a firm has a pronounced market share, it is highly successful from a monetary standpoint. To generate pronounced market share, a company must exist for an extended period, gain from economies of scale, and have clients buy its products and are somewhat satisfied (Alanis Business Academy (ABA), 2013). Sony has been dominant in its target market but should still consider changing strategies to increase its competitive advantage. 

Grand Strategies
Grand strategies offer basic direction for deliberate actions. There are various grand strategies for firms to choose from to match their weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and threats. This includes robust growth, where a firm directs its resources to the beneficial growth of a dominant product within a leading market using a predominant technology. Market development consists of marketing present goods through adding distribution channels or adjusting promotion or advertising content. There is also product development, innovation, and horizontal integration (acquisition), eliminating adversaries, and offering the acquiring companies access to new markets (CalMiramarUniversity, 2012; ABA, 2013).
Other grand approaches include vertical integration, which is acquiring organizations supplying inputs (like raw materials), and concentric diversification, the acquisition of enterprises related to the acquiring firm concerning products, markets, or technology. Conglomerate diversification, turnaround (asset and cost reduction), divestiture (sale of a company or key firm components), liquidation (selling off a firm in parts), bankruptcy (liquidation bankruptcy or reorganization bankruptcy), joint ventures, and strategic alliances are also important approaches to consider. The last grand strategy is consortia (massive interlocking relations between enterprises) (CalMiramarUniversity, 2012).
Sony Group
Current Strategies and Their Effects
Sony’s key factors and core competencies that enable it to possess a competitive advantage over competitors and ascertain the prolonged sustainability of the firm may be analyzed using various models. Among them is Bowman’s Strategy Clock, a mechanism that can be employed to analyze the corporate’s competitive position. Sony’s current state falls on plot number five in Figure 1; focused differentiation. The differentiation approach enables the firm to offer clients new or better products in the market. This strategy by Sony leads the company to a position whereby consumers widely value the line, including Blue Ray Technology and Play Station. Also, this enabled firms to demand increased prices (pronounced profit margins). Overall, this approach is endorsed by luxury brands such as Louis Vuitton. Nonetheless, this position is challenging to maintain because markets are saturated daily. Ultimately, a competitor will provide a good in the market with similar advantages at a comparatively lower price. Play Station versus Microsoft or Nintendo is a good example. Once clients find a different choice, they will switch sides, renouncing the present brand. This is among the multiple aspects that result in Sony’s failure. This is because the firm is unable to realize the adversary in the market and usually positions itself at an increased price high level that translates into an uncompetitive strategy (Arshad & Yazdanifard, 2017).
Figure 1
Bowman’s Strategy Clock

Another approach that can be used to determine whether Sony’s strategic approaches are effective, is analyzing the firm using Porter’s Five Forces (Figure 2). Sony has an expansive scope of suppliers. Its business portfolio is highly diverse, meaning the procurement procedure is extremely extensive. This places the firm at an upper hand in negotiating procedures with suppliers because there are more many suppliers for the needed raw materials they require. The suppliers’ bargaining power is broadly low because of their increased saturation. Another issue to analyze is the threat of new competitors, which has always been great for Sony’s target market. Sony’s market is desirable, pulling many firms to join it, including Toshiba, HP, and Samsung. There are also no legal or technological barriers to entering the market, making other brands sell similar LCDs as Sony’s for a lower price (Arshad & Yazdanifard, 2017).
More than one brand in the market offers additional value-added or similar goods with the same benefits and is even offered to the same geographic target markets. Hence, customers’ bargaining power is pronounced as they possess various alternatives for related needs. Also, with technology advancing at an awe-inspiring rate, products like smartphones and Apple iPod negatively impact Sony because all technologies they introduce currently have multiple substitutes. Lastly, the consumer electronic market is highly harsh; clients have low brand loyalty as they will move from a brand to a different one if they discern that the brand is providing additional value-added goods at a lower cost. The threat from established competitors is significantly heightened for Sony as the market is highly saturated, and powerful bonds exist in the market (Arshad & Yazdanifard, 2017).
Figure 2
Porter 5 Forces

Sony can also be analyzed using SWOT analysis, assessing its internal and external aspects; strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The company’s identified strengths include significant brand recognition due to its innovations. However, its name recognition dropped from 25 to 29. As one of the biggest international firms, Sony has the resources and capacity to tap into the booming client electronics market, capturing a healthy market share. Being tech-savvy and familiar with universal problems, it can effortlessly position itself to a position that can translate into maximizing shareholder equity. It has global reachability, thus wide accessibility choices worldwide. Some weaknesses include declining revenues due to substantial monetary losses and production proximity worldwide. Unlike its adversaries, Sony's majority of production (approximately 60%) happens in Japan (Arshad & Yazdanifard, 2017). This places it in an inferior position because the production facilities are not close to the target markets, which means pronounced logistics expenses and a disadvantage of not using cheap labor because of globalization. An opportunity for Sony is joint ventures and strategic alliances (Arshad & Yazdanifard, 2017). 

Sony faces various threats, including economic slump and foreign exchange risk. The 2007 American economic recession drastically affected the global market, directly impacting Sony (Arshad & Yazdanifard, 2017). Initially, Sony obtained 74% of all its revenue from European and American markets (Arshad & Yazdanifard, 2017). The recession greatly reduced people’s buying power, and the confidence of clients remained minimal. This was a big impediment for the firm because customers shifted to low priced-goods (Chinese) and have remained intact with these brands even following the recession because of increased variability in economic situations. Producing more than half of its final goods in Japan increases foreign exchange threat exposure. Yen significantly appreciated against Euro and the American dollar, making Sony’s products seem costly compared to different brands. Also, minor changes in currency exchange rates affect Sony’s revenues directly. Another risk is strong adversaries and Chinese brands. Most Chinese firms engineered the reverse engineering art. Big company brands, including Sony, invest time and millions of dollars in inventing enhanced or new technology, which is copied and sold for very low prices. Big corporate giants, such as HP and Samsung, have highly aggressive approaches and would place every effort to keep the market share, creating tough competition for Sony (Arshad & Yazdanifard, 2017).
Conclusion
Sony Group should consider using a grand strategy matrix to improve its competitive advantage. Some of Sony’s approaches provide it with a strong competitive advantage. However, it currently has a low growth rate, despite being dominant in the market. Hence, it should choose whether to create a market share, execute a hold approach, use a harvest strategy, or divest. The best recommendation for Sony is to increase its market share by increasing product investments. It can choose to eliminate the dogs (products generating small revenue), which use considerable finances. It can consider eliminating the question marks (potential products) or figure out how to turn them into stars (products generating large revenue) by building or maintaining the market share. For the stars, Sony should undertake a hold approach and use a build market share technique (maintain status quo). Because it has reduced its brand name in the last few years, it will have to promote and advertise its products to turn the stars into cash cows (dominant products) (ABA, 2013; Holzer, 2013). Sony has remained a dominant player in its target market. Nonetheless, there are identified opportunities and strategies to adopt for an increased competitive advantage.

References
Alanis Business Academy. (2013, March 08). How the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Growth-Share Matrix Works [Video File]. YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc36fK38pLA
Arshad, A., & Yazdanifard, R. (2017). Investigative Synopsis of Sony Inc.’s Strategic Management Issues / Failures and How to Overcome Them. International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 4(9). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321242261
CalMiramarUniversity. (2012, March 01). Strategic Management: 15 Grand Strategies [Video File]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llKFeqZvZis
Holzer, J. (2013, January 01). Encyclopedia of management theory: BCG growth-share matrix. Sage Publications. pgs. 64-66.
Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy Of Management
Executive, 19(4), 63-77. https://web-p-ebscohost-com.ezproxy2016.trident.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=537b9ef4-7cda-4fe4-95ff-f4b48e3cfd70%40redis